The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-08-20 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL Manures ITEM Oral Communications Approval of Minutes of July 9, 1984 Consent Calendar Referral CITY of PAi o ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, August 20, 1984 Action Item 01, Naming of City Facilities at Former Terman Middle School Site Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #2, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Baylands Master Plan re "Airports"; Revised staff recommendation that Council determine the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Baylands Master Plan are consistent with the Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Land Use Plan an.d purposes of ALUC Law Item #3, PUBLIC NEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Text Changes Item 04, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recoa:;lendat i on re Modified Variance for the appeal of Melinda Kay Lescher and Stanley G. Parry for property located at 1157 Hamilton Avenue Item #5, PUBLIC HEARING: Plan Resolution PAGE 4 9 3 3 4 9 3 3 49 33 4 9 3 3 4 9 3 3 4 9 3.3 4 9.3 4 4 9 3 4 4 9 3 5 4 9 3 6 Maximart Comprehensive 4 9 4 0 Item #6, PUBLIC HEARING: 216 Page Mill Road Zoning Ordinance Change Item 07, PUBLIC HEARING:. Referral .of the Architectural Design Review of a 29,000 square foot office building at 216 Page Mill Road from the Director of Planning and Community Environment to the City Council under Chapter, 16.48.080 (a)(2)(B) of the Municipal Code Recess Return to Item f ), 216 Page Mill Road Item 08, Planning: Cossissidn Reco g ndation re City negotiations- with ,the County, Stanford ilni versa ty and LAFC0 to provide, frase_rwort.. for -consideration of Stanford's request to exclude territory, -from Palo Alto's Sphere _of 1 flgen�ce 4 4 0 4 9 4 I 4 9 4 6 4 9 5:0 4 9 5 5: ITEM PAGE Item #9, Request for Nonbuilding Easement - Walkw3y 4 9 5 7 from Hamilton Avenue to Lot J Construction Systems, Inc. Item #10, Cable Franchising: Consultant Services in Negotiating Franchises Item #11, Request of Counci1member Woolley re Yacht Club's request for permission to build a sailing station Continuance of Item #12, Proposed County Sales Tax Increase; and Item #18, Recognition of Syntex's Child Care Program Item #14, Request of Counci lmember Renzel re Willow Road Corridor Adjournment: 12:45 a.m.. 4 9 5 4 9 6 2 4 9 6 8 4.9 6 8 4 9 6 9 4 9 3 2 8/20/84.. Regular Meetinc Monday, August 20, 1984 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, at. 7:40 p.m. i PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 8:00 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Don Wilkins, 2142 Bellview Drive, urged the Council to recon- sider the new parking regulations which went into effect in Lot F in Palo Alto, entered by Florence, bordered by university and Lytton. Last week the new parking regulations went into effect and it was the Planning Department's intent to take over 100 percent of that lot, but after requests, six places were left for the general public. The six remaining spaces were for downtown shoppers and visitors tc;the building at 424 Waverley that provided services in various businesses, but there were too many that needed parking. He received about 350 petitions, which were on file in the City Clerk's office, and the aggravation grew when people who lived in the community were told they could no longer park and do their shopping. Six spaces in Parking Lot F was unacceptable. MINUTES OF JULY 9 1984 MOTION: Coun :ilmeaiber Sutorius moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the minutes of July 9, 1984 as submitted. POTION PASSED 7-1,, Woolley 'abstaining,* Bechtel absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Referral None Action ITEM #1, NAMING OF CITY FACILITIES AT FORMER TERMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL Vice Mayor Levy said subsequent to the packet there was a brief biography of Frederick Emmons Terman, and a letter from John Bracken of the Palo Alto Historical Association, In addition to Louis Madison Terman, after whom the original Terman School was named in the mid -1950s, his son Frederick Erimons Terman, a well known professor of Engineering. at Stanford generally considered to be the father of the electronics industry in the Palo Alto and Santa Clara County areas, also made .outstanding contributions to the community. While the name Terman was appropriate, it should be to jointly honor both father and son for their individual contributions MOTION: Vice • Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius, that the name of the City facilities at forayer Thrums Puddle School site be Taman Park and the name be to 3oletly honor Louis M. and Fred Tema. MOTION PASSER eaanimoukiy, Bechtel absent. MOTION =ice Mayor= Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff be authorized to associate the two names with the various components of the Terman Park complex, individually or jointly, in signage or otherwise. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. AGENDA CHANGES ADDITIONS AND -DELETIONS Councilmember Renzel added Item #14, re Willow Road Corridor. ITEM #2, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE A • Firfforrroy—rintr-rminTrrr=rrwrRr •s. r :. a• ..aaas cad 1 H E 11151937rTA "" CITI 'ITIT 3-s' laRitorrtrto u s t L. N D U 5 t LU L` : :' '. Mayor Klein noted the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) law required a two-thirds vote of the City Council. Councilmeniber Woolley said she inquired of Associate- Planner Sarah Chaney about whether the item had anything to do with Item #11, Sailing Facility. She deferred to Ms. Chaney for response. Ms. Chaney ,aid the question concerned the possibility of locating a sailing station in the Baylands for the smaller boats, and whether the intersafety" area shown on the map attached to the staff report (CMR:454:4) would affect the location of the struc- ture. The answer was yes. Any new structures within the inter - safety area would be prohibited. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the Planning Commis- sion recommendation was reviewed by the ALUC staff and found to be unacceptable, and City staff made an alternate recommendation to override the ALUC requirement. If Council preferred a Comprehen- sive Plan amendment along the lines of the Planning Commission's recommendations, a slight amendment would be required in order to be acceptable to the ALUC. Ms. Chaney said the concern was avigation easements, and whether the City should require them. Staff believed avigation easements should not be required, but the ;ALUC wanted to be able to require them. The original staff recommendation, which was acceptable to the A.LIJC,e i nc i uded amendments to the Baylands Master Plan under the "Airports' section except for the dedication of avigation easements over City -owned property. After some discussion with the Assistant City Attorney, staff believed the City should also protect the rights of private property owners, and avigation ease- ments should not be required over any City -owned property or any privatelya,owned property, which change .was made orally at the Planning Commission meeting. After the meeting, John Hau, Staff Coordinator for the ALUC,_,; was informed of the change, and he. informed staff that it was no linger acceptable to the ALUC. Council's action depended on whether it was willing to require the granting-- of avigation easements. Once that decision was made, staff could provide direction about whether to make an amendment to the Baylands Master Plan or whether to overrule the ALUC's rulings that the Baylands Master Plan was inconsistent with the ALUC Land Use Plan, which would require a two-thirds vote. Mayor Klein understood the resolution did, not contain the aviga- tion easements Mr. Freeland said the two-thirds vote would override the ALUC requirement. It was 'not the Planning Commission's recommenda- tion, but rather, staff's response to the additional information received by the ALUC that the Planning Commission's recommendation was unacceptable 4 9 3 4 8/20/84 Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. POTION: Counci 1member Sutorius moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt staff recommendations that the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Baylands Master Plan are consistent with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Land Use Plan and purposes of ALUC law to: 1. ...provide for orderly development of public use airports and area surrounding airports, and to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California Airport noise Standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 (PUC) and prevent the crea- tion of new noise and safety problems; and 2. ...to protect public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that such areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses, (Section 12670 PUC); beset; on the following findings: a) Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan and Baylands Master Plan and policies are directed in part at protecting the public health, safety and welfare and are implemented through application of the requirements and restrictions of the City's zoning and other ordinances; b) Compatible height restrictions currently • exist. Height limits within both the City and ALUC jurisdiction boundary are limited to 35' or 50', with a possible addition of 15' for mechanical equipment or architectural ornamentation; c) Compatible development restrictions currently exist. The majority of the area within the ALUC jurisdictional boundaries Is zoned PF(D) Public Facilities (Site and Review) The remaining area is either General Manufactur- ing, Planned Community, or Limited Industrial/Research Park Combining District. Residential uses are not .permitted; d) All major development or additions with the ALUC's juris- dictional boundaries are subject to Site and Design Review, wherein special coadi ti ons addressing site and ai r:raft safety could be applied; and e) No major construction is proposed or is likely to occur with the "inner" and °outer° safety areas surrounding the Airport which have been adopted by the ALUC as the Baylands Master Plan calls for limiting any future expansion of the airport. RESOLUTION 6300 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF 'RE -CITY Of PALO ALTO DETERMINING THAT PALO ALTO'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-BAYLANDS MASTER PLAN IS IN ` COMPLIANCE WITH. POLICIES OF . PUBLIC' UTILITIES CODE SECTION .21670 REGARDING THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY AIRPORT. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. ITEM #3, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE Counciimemb er Sutorius asked for clarification about lot line removal because_., the narrative contained no reference to the _limi- tation to minor'subdivisions,.. whereas in the proposed ordinance, it was limited to minor subdivisions. 4 9 3 5 8/24/84 Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said it was limited to minor sub- divisions. Councilmember Sutorius pointed out a typographical error in sec- tion 21.08.070, second paragraph, third line, "may" should be "map. Councilmember Witherspoon said it was pointed out that a use per- mit was one way someone could apply for an exception from the limitation of two plumbing fixtures in an accessory building, but it was not included in the ordinance. Mr. Brown said accessory buildings were listed as a conditional use in section two of the ordinance. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Counci lmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations re text changes in the Zoning and subdivision Ordinances as follows: 1. Limltations on Plumbin Fixtures in Accessory Bui l dl nqs Accessory iii fngs e ress- o a ow anTy wo p tasa i ng fixtures; 2. Bic cle Parkin in Sho in Centers - The parking deferral prow s on con a ale n ec on 181 S3.O70 (a) (4) for automobile parking be extended to bicycle parking. Modification to apply to any use, not just shopping centers. 3. Removal of �a Lot Linej Difference Between Minor and Ma or 3VR DTs o - Iief�inition T a major su+ v s on o reap, "lEa3or Subdivision' means any subdivision creating, or remov- ing the lot lines between five or more parcels..." 4. Waiver of Parcel Ma Re u i revrent for Lot Line Removal - Sub - v s on or Hance o exp c y state thine p cel map requirement is waived for a lot line removal. Instead, the City Engineer shall record a certification of compliance in the case of lot line removals. 5„ Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance to Re uire > Recordin of Information re Solar Access -Tr sec on n err v s ons - Al 1 subdi vi lion slaps approved'by t e ty are _requ re o st those parcels which have good .passive solar designopportuni- ties. ORDINANCE-FORFIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE. OF THE "`o + COUNC1C 14n: tin Ike PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING CODE) AND TITLE 21 (SUBDIVISION CODE) REGARDING PLUMBING FIXTURES IN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, BICYCLE PARKING_ DEFERRAL, LOT LINE REMOVALS, AND SOLAR ACCESS PROTECTION* (Coatiaued° from 7/23/84) (PLA 7-9) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. ITEM 14 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE rFY . Zoni ng : Administrator Bob Brown said the staff report's statement of the Planning Commission`s. findings re hardships lacked the ben- efit of the draft Planning Commission minutes He clarified that Commissioner Cullen made a finding 'due to the ambiguity in the interpretation'of the ardinanc'e,'t: and Commissioner Hirsch believed there was hardship "in that they (the appellants) cannot develop in the most logical way that they wish and may do some harm 4 9 3 6 8/20/84 to the integrity of their residence." He said the Commission's transmittal and the wording of the item on the agenda spoke to a Planning Commission recommendation for a rear yard setback of 10.5 feet, and the Commission recommendation was actually for a com- promise of a 14 -foot setback. Page 2 of.CMR:446:8, second finding at the top of page, second to last line, referred to a rear yard setback of thirteen (13) feet, which should be seven (7) feet. The garage structure was 33 feet wide, and the zoning ordinance otherwise allowed a 26 -foot extension into that area, but require a jog back to the 20 -foot setback which would only be seven feet rather than 13 feet as noted in the staff report. He asked the record to reflect the following two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission in its approval: Conditions I. Any windows facing the rear yard shall be designed to retain the privacy of the neighbors over the back fence of the prop- erty. 2. Trees of a fast growing nature shall be planted along the back fence to provide additional protection. Planning Commissioner.. John Northway added that Commissioner Chandler's findings of hardship were based on the unique location of the structures on the property, and an addition without a vari- ance would result in the loss of valuable garden space. The Plan- ning Commission vote was divided 3-2. Coe'. c i lmemb er Sutorius asked if the limit was placed on the length of the intrusion and not its placement so that the lineal intru- sion could be at any part of the 33 feet length of the garage so long as it met design criteria. Mr. Brown said that was his reading of the ordinance, but it was without the benefit of the Chief Building Official's interpreta- tion of the ordinance section. He did not believe it prohibited any exact placement of the 26 feet of encroachment in that situa- tion. It could be configured in many ways. Councilmeaber Witherspoon asked about the required findings. The Planning Commissioners made individual findings, and she asked what the Council should legally determine in order to grant the variance. City Attorney Diane Lee said the three findings were set forth on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:446:8). The first was exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property, including improvements;` second, the property owner was subjected to a. substantially different degree of treat- ment than other property owners and so bore an unreasonable prop- erty loss or hardship; and, third, the variance would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in that vicinity. Counc i lmernb er Renze l obtained confirmation from the City Attorney that a recent amendment stated that the property should include the improvements. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Stanley Parry, appellant, 1157 Hamilton Avenue, spoke on behalf of him and Melinda Cher, _and requested that Council adopt the Plan- ning Commission recommendation and that a letter to Mr. Brown from his attorney be entered into the record. He shored slides of the house, built in 1941, and said the variance request referred to a recreational inside garden, 40 feet square. They originally hoped to build over the existing walls of the rear jare e, and a: alter- native plan discussed a deck which would impose a 40 -foot building that dominated the garden. The plans showed a ground floor family 4 9 3-7, 8/20184 floor family room using half the storage but not the parking space i.n the garage, which intruded three or four feet into the garden. He lived in Palo Alto since 1972, worked at the Cancer Center since 1978, and his children went to school in Palo Alto. They believed their original request was reasonable on its merits, and harmonized the neighbors' interests, The percentage of the garden area was not the problem, but the overwhelming visual impact was the hardship. The case called for a reasonable, rather than rigid, interpretation of the zoning ordinance. The uniqueness of the property and its placement made other alternatives difficult, and after looking at many, they believed their original plan was the best. The Pl ann i ng Cormi ss i on recommendation was good because a strict interpretation would create unnecessary hardship and mean small, odd -shaped rooms. The concept of moving the notch and building across the length of the'garage was not unreasonable and the Planning Commission agreed that no detriment to any neighbor would be caused. Also, the staff recommendation found no detri- ment so long as Section 18.88.090(e) was applied. Donald Davis, 1410 University, said he was the immediate property owner adversely affected. The preferred choice involved a var- iance of the 20 -foot setback requirements. Alternative plans were proposed, but denied by the Zoning Administrator with three requisite findings to grant a variance. The plan was for a mas- sive structure, 33 feet long and 21 to 25 feet high, with a usable space increase of 1,000 sgaure feet. He saw no hardship. and believed the variance was unreasonable. Commissioner Northway agreed that alternative plans were. not explored, and asked to have his exception to the Planning Commission's circuitous interprets- Lion of the rear yard setback requirements placed on record because by virtue of the attached garage, one-half the amount of the width of the main building into the rear yard setback would be allowed. There was a misunderstanding at the Planning Commission about the legal requirements of a variance, and the considerations specifically stated by the Council to not he legally relevant influenced the 3-2 decision. It was a nice horde, with three bedrooms, two baths, ae nice kitchen, garden and sunroom. The zoning laws should not be interpreted to allow a massive structure in the back of the yard to the detriment of his property. He preferred a cottage or unit on his back parcel, but if the proposed unit was allowed to encroach on the 20 -foot setback requirement, it would adverseley affect the use of his property and its value. There were no exceptional circumstances or hardship, end the fact that the applicants were not allowed to erect the structure initially proposed was not the kind of hardship the zoning laws spoke to. There was no case for granting a variance. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. Counci lrrember Fletcher said it was difficult -to rake the hardship findings and necessity for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right to the applicant. The size of the children's bedrooms, 19.5 x 13 feet and 16.5 x 11 feet, was more than adequate. Her own bedroom of just over 10.5 feet square was roomy -enough, and her children had entneefoottesquare rpoihs built into an addition, and were happy., NOTION: Councl invoker Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to: uphold the Zoa1eg Adwinistratores, declxien and deny the requested variance. Councilmember Woolley said it was difficult to find hardship for the rear property owner. The , amount of space i nvol ved was small, and' the design of the addition would have more effect on its sac cess than the granting of a variance. The Council chose t.o not have design review over R-1 properties; ther'efore,--the Planning Commission's: Solution:.:was reasonable. The process was long and - involved ambiguities, but granting the varianct .would not be a hardship and sought allow the architect Aore flexibility...__to design 'something; more acceptable to the rear- property owner . - The bulk and hetght of - the addition would not be. Affected -by whether - the variance was_ allowed, and she_oppose:d the motion! 1 Councilmember Witherspoon sympathized with: the applicant and the Planning Commission, who tried to find a reasonable solution. The Council was not precluded from rising above the matter and staying on a legal level, and comparing the application with vari- ances granted to people with small lots and physical conditions which required conformance, she found no hardship. The lot was over 11,000 square feet with a standard size building. Architects could accommodate the family with the space they needed without an. overwhelming visual impact. She could not make the findings nec- essary to grant the variance. Vice Mayor Levy said the location of the house on the lot, built in 1941, convinced hire there was a satisfactory hardship to consider. The house varied substantially from the standard Palo Alto construction of a square house with a far e backyard and a setback from the front yard, with small distances from the side neighbors. The subject house was shaped around an interior courtyard, and setbacks from the neighbors on either side were substantial, but the setback at the back was small to allow for the substantial inner courtyard. The design of the house should be specifically reviewed, and the Planning Commission's compromise was sensible. The question was whether 26 feet or 33 feet could be allowed along the back, and the extra seven feet was permissible given the unique structure of the house. He favored the Planning Commission recommendation and opposed the motion. Councilmember Renzel supported the motion, and said the modifica- tion to the zoning ordinance, which included improvements to the property, thrust the Council into the question of design review for single family units. The property was sizable, and many architectural options were available. The encroachment was the same on all the rights of the neighbors regardless of whether the neighbors built there. She did not favor building on all open spaces in rear yards, but it was inappropriate for the Council to factor in the setbacks of the adjoining neighbors when determining whether encroachments into the setback should be allowed. She supported the motion, and believed the Planning Commission condition of planting fast growing trees raised the specter of a grove of Monterey pines that would cut off all sunlight should not be encouraged. Councilmember Sutorius was sympathetic to the applicant., but sup- ported the staff recommendation and associated himself with the comments of Commissioner Northway. The 26 feet of lineal con- struction was flexible and could be organized in ways other than shown in the sketch, which increased the design opportunities. He supported the motion. Councilmember Cobb asked if the parties made an effort to work out a compromise,, He assumed the su;gestivn was made before it was clear that the piece in question could be moved anywhere along the line. Mr, Parry said he and Mr. Davis met several times and discussed several plans. The original Idea focused on privacy rather than design and was probably not the most appealing to Mr. Davis. Approximately two weeks earlier Mr. Davis made an alternative proposal. Mr. Davis said although he and Mr. Parry talked, he believed there could he alternative plans, and an architect on the Planning Commission said as much at the last Commission hearings. After. the Planning .Commission decision and recommendation, he was forced to discuss alternatives: which would involve minimizing damage and lack ` of privacy. If' -the decision was forced on him,: he would, have to agree, but he believed" the alternatives were not explored. 1 Mayor Klein agreed with Councilmember Sutorius that such problems were difficult. He liked to accommodate people, as the design of a house was personal, but there were rules, and the system was set up to make variances difficult to achieve. The Council and Plan- ning Commission should not get involved in the design of single- family houses for many reasons. He could not find either hardship or exceptional circumstances, and with the amount of square foot- age on the lot and the existing size of the house, many options must be available for the applicants to achieve their desires without adversely impacting the rear of the neighbor house and requiring a sizeable variance to achieve the design before; the Council. He could not support the request. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Woolley, Levy voting "no.* ITEM •5: PUBLIC HEARING: MAXIMART COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESOLUTION LA 3-161PL Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. As no member of the public wished to speak, he declared the public -Paring Anse• v v MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the resolution attached to the staff report. RESOLUTION 6301 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF nr-lrmirlyr-rnt ALTO AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 3200 PARK BOULf`'ARD ('MAXIMART SITE') FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO Mbt _'--FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" Councilmember Cobb believed the mixed use concept gave the Council an opportunity to move ahead and provide affordable housing in large quantities; and to not take advantage of the opportunity would condemn the area to 15 more years of blight. He would again oppose the motion... Councilmember Sutorius associated himself with Councilmember Cobb's remarks. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Woolley, Cobbs With,r!pnoa Sutorius voting "no." ITEM #6 PUBLIC HEARING: ?16 PAGE MILL. ROAD ZONING ORDINANCE CHNITUT—TCR:' — PLA 3'.l) Mayor Klein said although Item 6, ordinance change, and Item 7, design review of the proposed office building at that site would be considered separately, their effect on each other should be somewhat kept in mind. Vice Mayor Levy asked about the size of the sot and its configura- cion in terms of its appropriateness for GM uses other than office-. - Chief Planning Official Bruce Freelandsaid the lot was about 20,300 square feet and a difficult site for many uses because of its configuration and many easements along the expressway side. Staff believed it was suitable for many allowable uses in the GM or GM(B) district. Vice Mayor Levy .asked for suggestions of the types of GM uses to which it could be put. Mr. Freeland said many of the uses in the area --print shops and various repair shops —would be accepta le,GM(B) uses, and most GM(a) district usescould fiton the, site. It was mostly aques- tion of access. A use involvinglarge trucks would present a problem. so some manufacturing type uses necessitating loading and unloading .large vehicles would be difficult. 1 Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash, said the property was exempted from the moratorium by an amendment. Councilmember Woolley supported the amendment because she believed the Planning Commission would review the property if exempted, and supported continued study because the area was unique and a better solution might be found. She cautioned the owner not to spend more money before the Planning Commission made its recommendation regarding land use. Counc i limemb er Bechtel was also concerned the amendment might send a false message that the proposed project was alright. The Architectural Review Board (ARS) rescinded the Planning Commission referral for those reasons, and the property should be GM(B) like all others in the area. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, suggested Council adopt the ordinance rezoning the property to GM(B). The property had a strange his- tory, and the ARB minutes showed the property was rezoned several times with the final confusion occurring when all other Park Boulevard properties were rezoned and it could not be included due to a defect in noticing. It was a procedural glitch, not an indi- cation of Council policy nor an indication that zoning changes would be precluded when a building was proposed. -The appropriate zoning was GM(B), in accordance with the strong statements made by the Council and the Planning Commission about the excess office development in the area. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. He reiterated that the property had been grandfathered, and was no longer an issue. Courcilmemb er Bechtel asked if rezoning the property to GM(B) meant the building could never be expanded beyond its present con- figuration nor torn down and replaced if Item 7 passed and an office building was apprOved. Mr. Freeland believed the building could be replaced, and that if the project received an affirmative recommendation from the ARB, it would be grandfathered in. He understood that if the building were burned down, it could be replaced. The building could not be expanded in size, but it was at the maximum size allowed by the GM or the LM(B) district. MOTION: Counci lmesber Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt the ordinance changing the zone classification of the property known as 216 Page Mill Road. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE TIMM -OF— THE iCtiT OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING KAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 216 PAGE MILL ROAD FR0N GM TO GM(B)' MOTION PASSED:, unanimously. Imo. 41 PU, LIC HEARING: REFERRAL OF THE `ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN tommA Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland distributed a corrected version of an exhibit to :,the staff report. He corrected the. environmental assessment report attached to the staff report( CMR:445 4), which in some copies was not in numerical. sequences He corrected line a,, page 8 to read 412(a, b, Ow, and, in order to address all the items checked in the Environmental Check list, he added the following paragraph to the bottom of the page, The project creates a need for, and ;, provides, 80 parking spaces," Counci lieeleber Cobb asked which scenario and levels of service for traffic related to the proposed project. Assistant Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel said: Case 2 in Attachment B of the staff report showed current conditions with all of the approved project plus the proposed project. It included the various California Avenue projects in process, plus 3101 Park Boulevard which was already approved. Councilmember Cobb said it referred to only one particular ramp,, whereas on a previous item, a whole series of maps showed the levels of service in the entire area, Mr. Stoffel said information was not contained in the current report, but was shown in an earlier report on 3101 Park Boulevard dealing with the level of service at the intersection itself, not just the ramp. Councilmember Cobb. asked how close into marginal levels of service did the proposed projects push other intersections. He wanted to determine the extent to which the proposed project might be worse than another less intense project. Mr. Stoffel . said the project's only impact was on the ramp. It would not change the level of service, but .would add trips.. A few trips would also be added to all other approaches to the Park/Page Mill intersection, but it would not substantially change the intersections operation. Councilmember Cobb understood there would be 66 tenants in the building, with 81 parking spaces provided. He asked if the dif- ferential could handle the peak visitor parking load without spilling over onto the street. Mr. Freeland believed the 80 parking spaces would cover the needs of the tenants of the building. Coun,c i lremb ers Cobb said there was a 14 -space differential between the tenants' needs and the number of spaces. Given the nature of the proposed use, he asked if the parking would handle all the needs of the building at any given time. Mr. Freeland said staff. believed 80 spaces were needed to cover all of the needs of an office building of that type for employees or guests with no overflow onto the street. Mr. •Stoffel said there was virtually no street parking available near the site. Both frontages immediately .surrounding the -,site and across the street on Page Mill were "no'' parking" areas. If the bicycle lanes were changed. Park Boulevarr.' would also be made no parking. Councilmember Suto►•ius clarified with staff the scale of the maps was , one -eighth ..of an inch to two feet --not ohe foot but if the plans . were reduced the corresponding scale number was .not. Councilmember Sutorius`;asked for confirmation that the distance from the nearest point on the site to the nearest residential zone--_RM-5 at 204 Sheridan --was more than 150 feet, so none of the previsions regarding restrictions on site and height would apply. Mr, Freeland .;said he measured it as 175 feet to the nearest family. district. CouncilmeMber_ 'Sutorius asked if the bicycle. parking would be class 1 or its equivalent and therefore Covered even though it was not shown _ on `age, 1 of the schematic. r i Mr. Freeland said bike parking would need to be covered and was a detail that eight be added to the conditions of approval. It was noted by staff, and the intent was to deck over the portion be- tween the outer wail and the garage level of the building. Councilmember Sutorius clarified in the GM zone and at 20,000 square feet, there needed to be a provision for two showers, which was not indicated. The Council did not have all the detailed plans, but he saw no reference to showers in the requirements. Mr. Freeland said showers were required under the ordinance, although not seen in the drawings. Councilmember Sutorius confirmed the separately accessed area to the right of the two rest rooms would be unisex showers. He was informed that a urinal would be installed on the far side and that the Code requirements would be met. He referred to page 11, item 0 --the alpha series of recommendations regarding what needed to be looked at in the end analysis. It referred to some existing vari- ances that were granted, but which expired on August 1, 1934, and asked for a description of the variances and required Council action. Mr. Freeland said Council need not take action on the variance, but the applicant should. There was a provision to extend the period of a variance, and three variances were granted for the property. There was an allowance for 50 percent compact parking instead of the 40 percent maximum normally allowed for a building that size; another to allow a nine -foot setback from Park Boulevard rather than the 24 -foot special setback established along Park Boulevard; and a third to allow a nine -foot rather than ten -foot setback along Page Neill Road. The variances were granted because the site was highly constrained by various easements running through the site such as a major sewer line parallel to the expressway, which affected where a building could be located, forcing it away from the expressway towards Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard. The 24 -foot special setback along Park Boulevard was an unusual orphan piece of setback, an.d applied only to the one block face on the one side of Park Boulevard, but similar to the case at 1581 El Camino Real. There was a 10 -foot setback along the entire portion of Page Mill, aed while the variance was granted, it was not used, and the 10 -foot setback was respected on the plan before the Council. Councilmember Sutorius referred to the parking configuration, and asked about the location of the two handicapped spots, their rela- tionship to the overall design objectives and the decorative fea- tures included . in the design. He asked how the single compact spot located as parallel parking between other compact parking spots could'be safely accessed. Mr. Freeland agreed it was an aw#\dard parking spot, but it met with tine approval of the Building Department and Transportation Departnse`nt when the plans were reviewed. It was a usable site although unusually configured. If it ::turned out that the spot did net work well, it could be reoriented in the same location by changing its access by 90 degrees to give:_ a more conventional space. Councilmember Sutorius said the common word far the botanical name of the tree shown` was a 4 tulip" tree, not a "London plane." It would make a difference on what was planted. Mrs Freeland said the ordinance indicated the. Zoning Administrator might ,grant an extension to a variance if it was applied for 'prior to expiration. He suggested the applicant be asked whether_ he appliedfor an extension prior to, August 1, 1984 Councilmember Woolley said bicycle safety was discussed in the staff report and some reasonable suggestions were made. She asked if Council action was necessary for implementation if the project was approved. Mr. Stoffel clarified that Councilmember Woolley referred to the striping changes shown on the exhibit which did not require Council action. Removal of parking on the far side of Park would ultimately require Council approval, but could be done for an interim period on an administrative basis when other parking changes were made. Councilmember Woolley said the ARB emphasized the value of the polished materials and the green color being used for the build- ing. She asked if that was firm or subject to change. Mr. Freeland said it was firm in that as a condition of approval, it was suggested that the polished stone be required. Councilmember Woolley asked if the ARB might allow the developer to change it because it was not available or too expensive. Mr. Freeland said an applicant was always entitled to come back and request a design modification. Councilmember Woolley asked if its use could be a condition of Council approval. Mr. Freeland believed Council could indicate a strong preference, but mould not bind a future decision. Councilmember Renzel referred to the traffic projections in Exhibit B that included 3101 Park Boulevard, and asked how close the estimates were to actual figures when buildings. were occupied, and whether they tended to underestimate traffic. Mr. Stoffel said staff never actually went to a completed building and counted its trip generation. Many buildings for which projec- .ions were made were not yet built, and it would be desirable to Make a building count at some time. Councilmember Fletcher asked whether the projected traffic counts included the primarily vacant Palo Alto Central and the Maximart site's eventual housing. Mr. Stoffel said the entire Palo Alto -Central was included in the basis, including the parts that might never be built. Case 3 included a build out for the Maximart and Park Boulevard approvals made a few weeks earlier. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the arcade would open during the evenings and weekends as discussed so that residents in the nearby area could walk through to see the fountain, etc. Mr. Freeland understood the glass curtain wall and doors would be closed some of the time. Vice Mayor Levy said from comments made before the ARB, it was his impression that it would remain open: quite a bit for residents, and he asked how. many Ca1Trans trains stopped at the California Avenue station during the rush hour. Mr. Freeland said trains from San Francisco stopped at 4:00,'5:01, 5:23, 5:30, 5:51, 6:61, 6:07 and 6:20 p.n. Vice Mayor Levy urged the occupants of_ the building to schedule themselves around the trains in order not to hit the intersections at peak commute traffic. 11,e asked if there were _ enough gapsto do that, Mr. SLoI 1 el said the only trains with noticeable impacts on the intersection arrived from San Francisco at 5:30, 5:51 and 6:01 p.m., with the largest at 5:51 p.m, Those coming from San Jose did not discharge enough people to impact the intersection. There was a 20 minute gap between the two major trains. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Harold Hohbach, 260 Sheridan Avenue, the applicant, said he al- ready applied for a variance extension, and now had until August, 1985 to start the project. They appeared before the Council twice, wrote letters, and showed slides about how the site was used for towing with heavy trucks moving in and out, and was filled with wrecked cars. The building was built before Park Avenue was widened and was adjacent to Park Avenue. The land behind the building was almost unusable, and was once a parking site, then it stored junk cars. He was a tenant across the street, and it was an eyesore for many years. He had full-sized blueprints, and two architectural renderings --one with the foun- tain and the other showed the scale of the buildings. They had a model which helped understand what the architect did with the site. Regarding traffic concerns, they were not building to the site's maximum, and were building to 20,000 square feet rather than the allowable 20,300. In addition, the Building Department required that the open arcade on the outside be included in the square footage. Without that, there were 18,000 square feet of building space with 9,000 square feet on the floor. In effect, their project was smaller than the 1:1 ratio permitted in the GM zone. Regarding tenants, he hoped the law firm for which he worked would take the top suite, and that another law firm would rent the second floor. The occupany count would be below the levels projected by staff because by having lawyers in the build- ing, hours would be staggered, and the building would not have the usage some commercial buildings might. He resided in the area since 19.57 and used the ramps at different times. The underpass was not well designed, and although there were property con- straints at the time, there were tight corners on the ramp towards the west. There were two on -ramps and one off -ramp going west, with one on -ramp and two off -ramps going east. The on -ramp going east was the best on -ramp in the -whole underpass because one could see to the left and get a clear view of oncoming traffic. When the Page Mill traffic light changed, it was sometimes necessary to let the cars go by, but at most he waited one minute. The build- ing would not impact the on -ramp because the tenants would not leave if they saw a queue waiting to go on it. The building would not impact the neighborhood as the emp1 nyeest woul d enter and leave by the intersection and bring their lunches Or walk to California Avenue. Queuing on the on -ramp was due to trains; there was queu- ing on the other on -ramps, but the project would barely affect them. The building would he a fine addition for Palo Alto, and he urged Council approval of the staff and ARB recommendations. Michael Lyzwa, architect for Hoover Associates, 87 Encina Avenue, said the site was difficult to build on as it was triangular, noisy and polluting due. to Oregon " Expressway and the cement p ant.' , The views were limited by the Hewlett Packard parking lot, the cement plant and. the Expressway, 'and the site was constrained by the,sewer easement. !Many of the green trees were unhealthy, there were cascading vines, a retaining wall, and conifers close to the overpass which they wanted to retain. To .enhance the greenness, natural green stone would be used for the building; to reduce noise and screen vehicles, they would enhance the natural pedestal retaining wall to highlight, the building and open it up where most appropriate.. The building was pulled back so `as not to make it dominating, and to make a transitionbetween thebuilding and the landscaping, the arcade was created for tenant circulation. 'The depth of the building was shallow to give, almost all ` offices natural light. He assured the Council that the green granite initially proposed would be used as well as -the travertine -for the arcade. . COUNCIL RFCESSED FROM 9:35 p.m. TO 9:50 p.m. Sam Sparck, 4099 Laguna, said the parcel was small with con- straints and an unusual history, and the proposed development was close to maximum. He criticized the bypassing of Planning Commis- sion review, although he had no quaffs with the architecture and landscaping. Seven ARB meetings reduced the initial 20,250 square feet to 20,000 square feet, with no effective change in scale. The City was concerned about the large number of office buildings, height limits, traffic and parking problems, rezoning the Maximart site for housing, and the jobs/housing imbalance. All would be aggravated b,y the proposed development. The project yielded the maximum profits to the developer, but was an overdevelopment for the City. The developer claimed economic hardships by a reduced scale, but when Council denied a project, the parcel was developed at a lower level. There were too many offices, and the City's problems occurred from small projects being approved one by one. It was a case of private over public interest, and the Council should limit the office space to 5,000 square feet or reject the present development and require future development to conform to GM(B) zoning. Arne Ercolani, 2040 Ash Street, said the City was more than fair to the developer, who used every opportunity to take the project through the City processes without Planning Commission or Council review until that evening. The parcel was in an awkward, but key location, and the building did not sit in "a vacuum. It was time to address the cumulative effects of each building --the traffic would not be horrenduus, but would be a hazard for bicyclists. Most people ignored the bicycle lane, and three additional turning directions would impact it. It was a significant parcel in the area because it was the most awkward. ,. She urged Council to deny the project or limit it to 5,000 square.feet. A full explanation of the possibilities at the April 30, 1984 meeting would have made the parcel part of the moratorium. The developer knew of the problems and was not misled by any outcomes from Council review. Bob Moss, 4010 0rme, said the project raised the issues of land use, planning, and policy. The site was difficult and congested, and traffic in the. area was a problem. The staff report stated that queues on the ramp reached the corner of Park and Page Mill 15 separate times, mostly between .4:45 and 6:00 p.m., for a total of 17 minutes, so that without the existing approved projects built or occupied, the ramp was filled for 20 percent of an 85 minute period. Staff expected exits from the building during peak hours to be difficult, and the ARB minutes of March 9 and April 5, 1984 said traffic would be an issue no matter what the size of the building, that available capacity of the ramp was being rapidly depleted, and the area was built out . to the maximum. He suggested the building be reduced to 8,000 or 10,000 square feet or that the third floor be removed, but the ARB cited the developer's economic requirements, It was a difficult site, with an oversized building and a traffic problem. The California Environmental .Quality Act (t:tQA) required cdnsideration of projects' cumulative impacts, and the courts said it had to be the worst case projections. He sug- gested the GM(B) zone be applied to the site. Mayor. Klein said the appl Lant went forward with the project at his own risk as the Council would not necessarily allow the proposed development. °By applying the GM(B) zone, 5,000 square feet of office use would be allowed with the remainder used for any 01(B) purpose, including accessory office use inferior to the GM use, or . a maximum of 8,000 or 9,000 square feet 'oil office use for a 20,000 square:. foot build- ing. which would cut traffic in half. If approved, the applicant should bear the cost of improvements to the bike anes, encourage car pooling by prodding transit passes and bus fares for em- ployees, and provide a Shuttle buS . or van pool to CalTrans and other points along El Camino A. requirement to impose high park- ing fees for parking on site might drive tenants to park in the CalTrans lot. If action was taken to limit parking on -site` to car pools, the applicant should post a _ ;bond to eguarantee its 11/20,81 continuance with the cost of eillurl.emerli. being part of the cost of operating the building. The Council was ejected to pursue the public interest, and must consider the impact such a large build- ing in that location would have on the community. Tony Carrasco, Chairman, Architectural Review Board (ARB), said the ARB was enthusiastic about the building throughout seven dif- ferent meetings. Palo Alto could be proud of a building created through citizen input. Councilmember Bechtel referred to critical comments as quoted by the ARB, and asked if they occurred at the earlier meetings, and if Mr. Carrasco believed those concerns werea resolved when the ultimate decision was reached. Mr. Carrasco said the earlier proposal was for a massive building, and the ARB went through four meetings to describe why it was mas- sive. That proposal was for a building that would reach the street at both Park Avenue and the on -ramp which did not sit gracefully on the difficult site. A new design team mitigated the problems by setting the building back, lowering the profile and producing a less obtrusive shape. The EIR did not show any major significant impact so the project was not sent on to the Planning Commission after it was redesigned. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Cobb asked for confirmation that the actual office square footage was 18,000 square feet due to the way the court area was to be handled. 1 Mr. Freeland said the zoning ordinance did not distinguish between 1 gross and net square footage. The gross square footage was always counted. A typical building had offices radiating from a corridor and he considered the outside circulation space similar to such a corridor in that it added to the gross square footage and not to the net leasable. The building might be generous in that regard, but staff considered it space. Councilmember Fletcher did not believe Council should approve the project, The building was attractive, but did not speak to the traffic );mpacts. She did not agree with the EIR that there would not be significant impacts. The ARB minutes showed grave concern about 'the traffic impact, and -the intent to refer the project to the Planning Commission before the staff recommendation that traf- fic impacts would not be significant. The density was barely reduced, and the EIR did not consider the cumulative impact of the projects. The bicycle route was heavily used, and -at one time, the Comprehensive Plan considered it a bicycle boulevard. If the traffic in Evergreen . Park and other neighborhoods was to be cut back, Council would have to hake it as feasible for cyclists as possible. Residents in Evergreen Park said they did not like to ride in traffic,, and the barriers encouraged them to use their bikes. The staff report said it would generate an additional 300 car Jnovements daily across or adjacent- to the southbound Park Boulevard bike lane while not necessarily increasing:the accident rate. A letter dated August 20, 1984. from Diana Lewiston showed that 75 percent of all bike accidents occurred at.intersections as. a result of conflict between turning and crossing motorists and cyclists The on -ramp was on the right of the bicycle lane and confused motorists). and additional trips would considerably increase the hazard. 'The building would be sunk into the ground, and: she feared it might.add to the flooding problem at the under- pass. The area was downzoned to cut down on traffic -generating types of projects Cars were already b -ticked up on Park Boulevard although the Palo -Alto Central project was not. yet Occupied and other ,approved projects not:b of i t.. To add to that situation would be irresponsible. a_• u_ Z mb Fletcher w e r v c seconded e i�, V R m z O Pi�T�Qii: Councilmember i li`tchzi �'oszd, .ai.:��'Nrida:ii by ri�.n..� to. deny the project, and find the Environmental Impact Assessment inadequate. Councilmember Witherspoon said the project was a difficult site on which to design, and was a landmark site in that it anchored the neighborhood, and badly needed redevelopment. She was convinced the newly rezoned residential Maximart site would not be developed for some time, making the proposed project, if approved, the only significant building the neighborhood would have for some time. She agreed with the ARB that the building design wa,3 the best the site could accommodate, and regarding the environmental impact, she understood the public concern for traffic and future develop- ment. The EIR concentrated almost entirely on traffic in a poorly designed underpass, and when the Comprehensive Plan was before the Council, it discussed the encouragement by the County Master Plan to increase density and concentrate -development in the railroad corridor where public transportation was readily accessible. There was close bus transportation on El Camino Real and the SP depot was within walking distance. Such readily accessible public transportation was adequate mitigation for.any problems caused by traffic. She would vote against the motion as she believed it was the best project possible for the site. It would not have a major impact on an area close to public transportation in two directions and in two modes. Her only concern was that bicycle traffic be unsnarled from the underpass traffic, irrespective of what went on at the site. Vice Mayor Levy said zoning and design were the issues as a refer- ral from the ARB was being considered. The zoning issue was dif- ficult since Council voted to zone the area GM(B), exempting the parcel in question. The exemption was because development activ- ity by the owner of the parcel began before the zoning issue was dealt with, and Council should now look at the design and density to see if the project, despite the exemption, should be turned 'down. He agreed with Councilmember Witherspoon and was influenced because he worked in the California Avenue area for several years, biked and drove a car through the intersection many times. While the intersection was difficult for cyclists because o= the pave- ment as well as the striping, he never found it dangerous. It was well -marked and comfortable for cyclists although cars had to queue from time to time. He was influenced by the EIR which con- cluded that "...the traffic impact from this. project is not expected to be significant.'` It was close to important arterials of transportation to 'ring traffic right to the project, and was within walking distance from the railroad tracks and bus transpor- tation. The design of the building was not an issue given the ARB's laudatory comments, and he was impressed by its outstanding diligence and conscienciousness. The Board concluded it was a landmark building and the finest they had seen fur several years. He was impressed. The idea of a fountain visible to both motor- ists and pedestrians was delightful, and he hoped it would be lit in the evenings, and open to the public for lunches, etc. The ARB cleanly expected the finishes and trims of the building to be the highest quality, and it should be unflagging in holding the developer to that. The project would be a fine addition to the community, and he would vote to uphold the ARB findings. Councilmember Cobb had mixed feelings about the project, and was reluctant to vote_ against i.t as he agreed it could be a landmark project and do much to bring the area along. .The area needed to be cleaned up, but he was concerned it might prove too dense for the corner, and traffic impacts would cause problems. He asked how the traffic would exit from the parking lot during rush hour without mitigations N Since -mitigations were specific to the building, they should be paid for by the developer. He preferred to see the project scaled back somewhat with traffic mitigations to deal with the unique problems. One problem was the number of cars added and their. exiting during the evening rush hour, and Council should not proceed until that problem was solved. 4 9 4 8 8/20/84 Mr. Stoffel said the project tried to allow good site distaece. As cars went up the ramp, they could stop behind the sidewalk to see up and down the road without pushing their way into the right turn lane which might push other cars further into the bike lane. The possibility of placing a stop sign at the exit of the ramp to further emphasize the need to stop was discussed, but not -much could be done to make entering the street any easier. If a line of cars was stopped in the right lane, the existing driver would have to force his or her way across, unless a "keep clear" sign was used. Queuing sometimes occurred and it was not expected to be easy to exit from the site, and good visibility was about all that could be done, Councilmember Cobb said signals at the turnoff would have to be coordinated with entry and egress from the lot. Mr. Stoffel said #;.he first step was a four-way stop, which might create problems by increased queuing, but if people going north on Park stopped, exiting from the garage would be easier. If a sig- nal was there, traffic would build up, but in such intersections, usually "keep clear" was painted on the pavement to allow drivers to pull out. The standard and State accepted practice of a bike lane next to the right turn lane meant cars might nudge out into the. right turn lane queue and find a cyclist coming down the bike lane who might_ not be visible because of .the queued automobiles. That problem was pointed out in a number of letters received, but staff did not believe the traffic generated by the building would have a significant impact, although there would be increased move- ment and problems. Councilmember Cobb understood Mr. Stoffel was less than enthusias- tic about the problems created by the project, and that they might be able to live with the problems now, but not in the future. Mr. Stoffel said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel said the map showed the 11 turning movements at the particular site, and, therefore, whatever was built there should be less than the maximum allowed tp provide extra space for the types of visibility issues referred to by Mr. Stoffel and to generally lessen the amount of activity the site would add to all the turning movements. The building was probably better than most with regard to its looks, but the issue was its conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and its overall interaction with the neigh- borhood. The site dictated considerably less than a maximum building, and although a scaled down version of the building would probably be fine, to have the maximum on such a tight site with wide-ranging ramifications --impacts on the Southern Pacific and access to one of the major thoroughfares- in town --did not make sense. She supported the motion.. Councilmember Woolley said Denny Petrosian asked if 19(c) of the EIR on page b was answered correctly, and Mr. Moss and perhaps Councilmember Fletcher also -referred to .that point. She asked what "cumulative." meant. Ms. Petrosian believed it meant the cum- ulative impact of many buildings on the area, but she understood "cumulative" in the report meant the iinpact the project might have on separate resources. Mr. Freeland said "cumulative" had many .meanings under CEQA. It could mean the combined effect of many different problems in terms of The resource angle. He believed the most pertinent in the sub- ject case was the other definition of "seeing the project's impacts in the context of all other building activities that were probable within the area that would share impacts." He, believed that was covered by the traffic analysis as illustrated in Table B. They considered the probable traffic from 3101 Park Boulevard,. the possible future development of the Maximart site, the poten- tial development under the GM(B) zone along Park Boulevard, the projected development on California Avenue until 1993 given in Mr. mom McDonald's forecasts, plus all of the approved projects in the California Avenue area. The CEQA requirement to look at the project in the context of other probable growth in its vicinity was satisfied. The only area approaching a serious problem in terms of traffic was the on -ramp, which would be brought close to service level "E" by all the future traffic. A problem was build- ing up, and the project's share towards that problem was small. The key word in CEQA was "significant," and staff believed that given the standards normally applied to projects in town, the impacts were insignificant. Councilmember Woolley was influenced by that explanation and the fact that as the tenants would be poised above the ramp, they would learn when the queue formed and b'e unlikely to contribute to the peak hour problem. In addition, the area was rezoned so that the cumulative impact on the area was reduced by Council action. Finally, she was influenced by the unanimous ARB vote after seven hearings, and supported the staff recommendation. She would vote against the motion. MAYOR KLEIN RE NEW ITEMS AFTER 11:00 p.m. Mayor Klein suggested that Council complete the entire agenda. RETURN TO ITEM #7, 216 PAGE MILL ROAD Councilmember Sutorius agreed with many of Vice Mayor Levy's observations on the traffic at the intersection, which were sup- ported by the data about the peak hour weekday situation in the late afternoon. The staff report noted the left-hand turns from Park into Page Mill Road were not seriously affected, with delays of about 20 Seconds. Many concerns were compressed into a small period of time, and during his observations that day from 4:25 to 5:25 p.m. he saw seven queuing situations that precluded a car turning right on Park Boulevard from satisfactorily completing the turn. On some of those occasions no cers-were behind the one that could not fully. complete its turn, while on others queuing occurred along Park, sometimes as far as the driveway of the existing facility, and at other times beyond the proposed new driveway. He observed four to ten cars parked on Park Boulevard, but no car was stopped on Park Boulevard for longer than 20 seconds. 4s a car made its turn, it went completely out of his line of sigh , so he presumed it made it around the curve and went straight onto the underpass. Queuing occurred, but only during a selected peak period. The length and inconvenience of the delay was net extensive. He noticed that pedestrians found it safe enough to jaywalk from Hewlett Packard across Page Mill and from Park Boulevard at the gas station to the cement plant without using the legal crosswalk. Five buses in both directions during that hour made the turn without any difficulty, but they were virtually empty of passengers. He noticed that impatient left turns from Park Boulevard onto Page Mill occasionally caused queu- ing of the soutWeend traffic making the right turn by intruding and impeding, then making a left turn from Page Mill into the Hewlett Packard parking lot. All drivers were not as .safe as might be preferred, but there was no delay that could be described as a serlous frustration to car drivers. He had no ,difficulty leaving the site twice within the hour to use the expressway. He considered the least impeded users of Park Boulevard were the many cyclists, particularly southbound. They were not delayed and --did not deviate from the bicycle lane. He would be nervous with cars on both sides, but the cyclists showed no signs of misunder- standing the; traffic situation. The site plan included a 10 -foot setback on Park Boulevard that was not required by the GM or the GM(B) zone except in the East- Bayshore/Embarcadero area. The GM(B}- tone of a maximum of 5,00.0 square . feet was an interim 'deci- sion_ as the area would be looked at. for its ultimate use. -The developer was far enough along in planning to apply in August, 1983 for variances -that were granted for -the developmentt, on that site, so the plan was not developed roughly at the last moment in 4 9 5 0 8/20/84 at.ticipdLion of Council action. He would vote against the motion. but would approve the proposed development as recommended by the ARB and staff. As Mayor Klein ruled a substitute motion running counter to the motion on the floor out of order, if the motion on the floor was defeated, he would propose the staff recommendation be accepted, with a slight reduction in the size to accomplish a particular purpose. Councilmember Bechtel said she originally voted to include the parcel in the moratorium for the area so it would be reviewed at the same time as the others. The motion .failed, and the project went before the Council after going through seven ARB meetings. The ARB received a distinct message to proceed on the parc6 as the Council was not concerned about the traffic, but she was con- cerned. She was familiar with the area, and admired Councilmember Sutorius for having stood and .counted seconds between the cars. She knew cars went along Page Mill and Park Boulevard and across Sherman at times. The area was not suitable for housing or a gas station, but it should not have so many square feet. Sne would not support the motion on the floor, but if it failed, would sup- port a motion with reduced square footage and a redesign of the building, Mayor Klein agreed with the last two speakers and would vote against the motion, but would support a motion to approve the project with an appropriate reduction in size, He did not agree it should be referred to the Planning Commission nor that the pro- cedure was improper. It was not part of the Municipal Code or planning procedures for everything to go to the Planning Commis- sion, and it was not, and should not be, a part: of the procedures that every item for development in the City go to the City Council, nor should the Council reconsider every zoning decision made in the community. It was not good planning for a City Council to turn into an ad hoc Planning Commission on every item before it. Developers and citizens had the right to believe that zoning had meaning, and it was appropriate for an item to go to the ARB and, if appealed or referred, to go to the City Council. He found the EIR correct, and that some criticisms were over- stated. There was a parking and traffic problem in the area, and it would be good if the Council reduced the mount added to the area by the proposed building by reducing its size. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Fletcher and Renzel voting "aye." MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius mowed, seconded by Witherspoon, to approve the project with the following conditions: A. Final landscape/irrigation plans including site lighting return to the ARB for review and approval; B� Building and site sigeage return to the ARB for review and approval; C� Design details for the water fountain be returned to the ARa for review aad approval; O. Parking lot areas should be illuminated with one-half to one - foot caedles Exterior entrance ways should have 60 watts of photocell lighting; -Glass entrance doors should have burglary resistant glazing and be fitted with h deadb o l t, Underground parking area should be well lit and it is advis- ableto consider a gate that would close off the parking area to dub l is access after office hours; ?40Tiuii : RTi$DLU e H. Drainage - Disposal shall be to the nearest adequate system. Drainage shall be designed as a gravity system where possible. The Architect/Engineer shall submit plans and calculations to the Public Works Engineering (PWE) office for approval at least 30 days prior to building and/or grading permit eub- mittal; Grading - Applicant shall submit a revised soils report, pre- pared by a soils engineer, which shall contain recommendations for allowable maximum cut/fill slopes for temporary and per- manent grading; Shoring - Architect/ Engineer shall schedule a predesign meet- ing prior to proceeding with detailed plans to discuss the method of shoring and impact or vehicular and pedestrian traffic. A soils report shall be presented at that meeting which addresses shoring; -=---------- K. Landscaping Protection and preservation of existing street trees will be necessary. The recommendations of a qualified arb orist will be required when the intrusion of excavation near existing trees is absolutely unevoidab1e. The grading plans shall indicate the method of street tree protection and preservation. No grading permit shall be issued until approval of street tree protection is granted; L. Streets - The Architect/Engineer shall schedule a predesign meeting with the Public Works Department to discuss the design of street improvements prior to proceeding with detail plans. Any construction work in the public right-of-way will require a street opening permit from the Public Works Department. Owner shall dedicate necessary right-of-way (ROW) to accommo- date a 25 -foot radius at the curb line, located at the corner of Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road, The design shall incorporate public space for a 5 -foot wide sidewalk; M. To reduce air-conditioning peak loads and provide occupant comfort, use any combination of glazing, overhangs, vegetation shading and internal window treatments to a shading coeffi- cient of .36 or less on the southwest facing glazing; N. To provide at least 50 percent refrigerant vapor heat recovery water heating;, 0. The variance for setbacks and nurber of compact parking spaces expires on August 1, 1984. The project must obtain a variance extension or be redesigned to comply with City ordinance requirements; P. The entire building shall be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system; Q. Applicant is required to install "Ro Parking Anytime" sign and pole on the Park Boulevard frontage; R. Details of the bike enclosures shall be submitted to the Transportation Division and the ARB for approval prior to buildingpermit application; S. Require a wider turning radius so that drivers can make a free right turn without having to move to the left into the bike lane; and T. Five-foot open clearance required on both sides of existing sanitary sewer; 4 9 5 2 . 8/20/84 MOTION CONTINUED U. Include condition re covered bike storage equivalent to Class 1 to be provided; V Reduce the gross square footage by 1,000 gross square feet while retaining the design elements the ARB and the applicant had worked out. Councilmember Sutori ul said he added Condition U because the pro- posal before the Council did not indicate that the bike storage would be covered, although it was restricted access storage. He did not include shower requirements in the motion, as he was assured they would be provided. Condition V was designed to reduce the square footage so as to retain the positive design ele- ments -worked out by the ARB and the applicant. The 1,000 square foot reduction was to reduce the occupiable square feet and the number of tenancies and parking spaces required. A design element fundamental to what the ARB reviewed and the architect proposed was compromised by having two handicapped parking spaces utilizing a portion of the area that was intended as a principle observation` point and pedestrian area irnmediately.behind the fountain. The reduction in square footage would reduce the number of trips gene- rated, the number of employees, the parking requirements, and would restore the fundamental design feature. Mayor Klein said staff stated that condition "0" was no longer necessary. Mr. Freeland said if the extension of the variance was granted, condition "0" was not necessary. Councilmember Sutorius was prepared to delete "0," but since Mr. Freeland had no problem, it was left in. Councilmember Bechtel did not feel 1,000 square feet was a sig- nificant nunt er as it represented a five percent reduction, or three employees, and would not help the traffic problem. She asked staff if conditions A through T were standard conditions or whether it was appropriate to refer them to the ARB.- -- Mr. Freeland said if there was to be a major redesign of the pro- gram, it was possible that some of the conditions would need to be changed. In that case it might be preferable to refer it back to the ARB with some guidelines. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilaaeaaber Bechtel moved, seconded by Reaazel, to approve the project with _ conditions A through T as stated in -the again motion, subject to referral to the ARB with direction to reduce the gross square footage of the building approximately 20 percent to 25 percent (and project not to return to Council) and include condition re bike lockers class 1. Vice Player Levy was uncomfortable about the desigh of the building and asked Mr. Carrasco if a reduction of approximately 20 percent would significantly alter the design. features of the building. Mr Carrasco said he did not know hew the reduction would- affect the shape of the building. He would ask the applicant's archi- tect, but believed the change would be significant. Vice Mayor Levy said Mr. Carrasco was most laudatory about the building. He asked if it would not be as significant architec- turally or design -wise. Mr. Carrasco did not believe the building would retain the quality it presently had if there was a 20 or 25 percent reduction in size. 4 9 5 3 8/20/84 Count i iu ember- Renze1 remained concerned about the site, but saw by the nature of the Council discussion that the motion was the best they would see in terms of the public. She supported the substi- tute'motion for that reason, but hoped the reduction in size would result in safer visibility for people both entering and exiting the building. To see and be seen was important in such a tight situation, and she hoped it would be one result of the reduction in scale of the building. Councilmember Cobb agreed that a 1,000 square foot reduction would not deal with the problems discussed.. It would lower the employee number by two or three, which might eliminate the one questionable parking -space, but no more. He believed the substitute motion was the right idea --to cut the scale --which would help with the traf- fic issue. The gross present size was -20,000 square feet with 18,000 square feet usable due to the nature of the design. If they were not careful, they might end up with a -design that jumped -from the gross to the net by elimination of some of the nice open- ness to recover, some of the square feet taken away. Staff seemed to agree_ it was a concern. He suggested that a net', rather than a gross, square foot reduction be made to -reduce office space rather than the openness of the project. He preferred more flexibility in order to preserve a good design, while reducing its potential to some degree. Mayor Klein understood that was the ARB's function. By consider- ing the net versus gross square footage issue, the Council would involve itself in the ARB's work, which he wanted to avoid. Counc i memb er Cobb hoped his comments were sufficient as direc- tion. He hated to see the thrust of the motion partially destroyed by converting some open space into office space so that although they would have won the battle the Council would have lost the war, Mr. Carrasco agreed with Couricilmember Cobb's remarks, but if the land costs were amortized over a significantly reduced square footage, it might be necessary to use a less expensive outside finish to keep the building competitive with other office build- ings in the area. Y`ice .Mayor Levy said he found himself in a difficult position because he liked the idea of ',an outstanding building on the site, and by reducing the square footage by 3,000 or 4,000 square feet, Council was running the risk of compromising what was agreed to be an outstand iriy design.-, He liked the fountain which was visible to both Otomobiles and pedestrians and which would be accessible to tenants and the neighborhood. He liked. the outstanding trim, and preferred a reduction in the size of the building, but wanted to give the ARB as much leeway as possible to make sure the final building was a _ landmaek visible to the many people entering Palo Alto. He saw no_other way to go other than to favor Councilmember Bechtel's motion, but he wanted to give the ARB maximum flexibil- ity to ensure the building continued to be of the highest qual- ity6 Counci-lmember Renzel believed the thrust of the discussion was the general design of the building was attractive. The question was its function and how it related to the' neighborhood. The mes- sage in the record would go strongly through to the ARB. There needed to be an overall reduction in the scale of the building with improved overall safety for the motorists. She could not believe the ARB would drastically change the plan as _the whole Council discussion was predicated -on the design shown. iThe ARB's emphasis would be on thy_. prob lerri areas expressed by. the Council within the context of the -,design shown, and she added,, that Vice Mayor Levy was -using a 20. -percent figure whereas the Motion -'sug- gested 20 to 25 percent as a guideline--. - 4 9 5 4 8/20/84. Cnuncilmermhpr Fletcher said Mr. Moss gave her the !.RB minutes which said economic value was the reason for the three -stories although the building could be as architecturally successful if it were two stories. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Fletcher, Woolley, Witherspoon,. Sutorius voting "no." ITEM #8 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE CITY NEGOTIATIONS Si tiNFORD-q irr L L nrcir (PLA 8,1 (CMR:457:4 Councilmember Renzel said Council was asking for a continuance to create a framework. She asked if staff was envisioned in such a framework. Mr. Freeland said Palo Alto had a legitimate interest in all of the land previously in the boundary agreement area, and so long as the Stanford lands -and particularly the open space areas were maintained as open space and. as an academic preserve and not pro- posed for urban uses, Palo Alto had no need to annex them or have them within the sphere of influence. All of the agreements between the City and the University, and all of the understandings between the City and the County gave safeguards that the land would not be proposed for uses that would require annexation. So long as such conditions were met, staff was satisfied. The frame- work was well spelled out, but the question was whether everyone agreed, Councilme;rrber Fletcher asked if Palo Alto had final say on proj- ects referred to it if there was no sphere of influence designa- tion and projects went through the County and agreements called for referral to the City of Palo Alto for review. Mr. Freeland said the sphere of influence strictly affected only annexation or the creation or elimination of governmental enti- ties. It was a LAFCO boundary and was meaningful only at the LAFCO level. The questions of City versus County control were unaffected, only the prospect of future annexation was directly affected. For that reason, the key issue was whether there was a future reason for the City to annex the land. That a+as the reason he arrived at the conditions mentioned --there was no need to annex it it the other safeguards were in place. Counci lmember Fletcher asked about the concern on Stanford's part to change the designations when the present one did not give Palo Alto any more control. Mr. Freeland said Stanford officials would address that question. Vice Mayor Levy understood Stanford owned the property around University Avenue and down to Embarcadero up to the railroad tracks, including the Holiday Inn, Town & Country, and Palo Alto High School. Mr. Freeland said Stanford also had properties such as the Stanford Industrial Park. Vice Maya -r Levy understood that, but was specifically interested in what Stanford owned between El Camino Real and the railroad tracks. Mr. Freeland Relieved .Stanfordowned the land from Paly High north to El Camino Park. It did not own Town & Country Village, but might own the land under the Holiday Inn but no other property in the urban lane area. 4 9 5 5 8/20/84 Phil Williams, Planning. Director, Stanford University, said Stanford wanted to change the sphere of interest designation because the provisions implied by such designation did rot apply to Stanford's academic lands. The CS and other agreements and policies adopted jointly by the City and Stanford and used over the past 10 years were essentially exceptions to the sphere of influence as far as the intent of the sphere of influence designa- tion in terms of the obligations of the City to annex and service. It was a confusing situation. The State requirements that the spheres be confirmed were foetuitous and allowed everyone to get together to clarify the question and eliminate the confusion. Councilmember Renzel said aside from Stanford's assertion that the sphere of influence related only to potential annexation, she asked about Stanford's practical .problems from being within Palo Alto's sphere of influence. Mr. Williams said a practical problem occurred periodically when the City revised its Comprehensive Plan and felt obligated to dedicate Several hundred hours of the City and Stanford staff time to creating designations on the faculty residences and other prop- erties within the academic campus which were not germane. Another problem was the confusion created among the public that Palo Alto had the responsibility to plan for Stanford's lands to the extent that would be implied if the City was to annex and service them, when in fact that was not the case. -The agreements between Stanford and the City provided for the City's review and comment, but not for the kind of control that pertained to annexation. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that the public view of the matter did not impact Stanford. The City could only do what was allowed by law. Mr. Williams did not believe the matter was serious, but it was confusing and should be clarified. The fact that the State wanted the designations clarified was,. opportune ..o Stanford suggested such a clarification would make all the policies clear. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt the following staff recommendations: 1, Initiate negotiations with the County of Santa Clara, Stanford University and UFO to develop a framework for consideration of Stanford's request to exclude territory from Palo Alto's Sphere of Influence provided that the following safeguard are secured: a) The Stanford Plan, County Plan and County Use Permit retain designations that limit these lends to open space/ academic reserve with low intensity academic .uses hot requiring urban levels of service; b) The County Plan continues to recognize the legitimacy of, Palo Alto's land use policies for this area and continues to have a density consistent with the City Plan; c) The limitations on uses contained in the CS zone agreement are maintained; d� The referral of planning matters between the City, County, and Uni ersity continues;, e0 Recognition by the County, Stanford and LAFCQ that the agreement to exclude the territory from the Palo Alto Sphere of Influence, is made based upon the maintenance of points (a) through (d) and in the cause of the furtherance of cooperation in the long-term planaeiing of the area; and 4 9 5 6 8/20/84 MOTION CONTINUED f) Agreement by LAFCO that the exclusion of the territory from the Sphere of Influence shall not be taken as a basis for approving any futtr.e request for governmental forma- tion within the territory; and 2. Request that LAFCO continue Palo Alto's Sphere of Influence to allow time for these negotiations. Councilmember Renzel supported the motion, but strongly believed Palo Alto was severely impacted by Stanford's activities and it provided sewage and garbage service, albeit by contract, to Stanford. The toilets flushed on acadeeni c land affected the City's sewage treatment plant, and it was important for the City. to maintain some level of influence over what went on at Stanford, and to be plugged into the comment process with respect to Stanford's plans. On page 3 of the staff draft report co LAFCO, the LAFCO staff clearly stated the sphere of influence should include those lands over which the City had jurisdiction as well as those which impacted the City through their use. No one could assert that the use of Stanford lands did not impact Palo Alto, The report continued that the issue of annexation was extraneous to inclusion of territory within the sphere of influence. It was more logical to look at relationships between land uses, which was the case, and it was most important during the course of the nego- tiations that Palo Alto not lose any of the existing safeguards. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM 09 RE UEST FOR NONBUILDING EASEMENT -� WALKWAY FROM HAMILTON � tSTAUCTrD - SYS EMS, IN.. 'WK 6:2-) (tFM:453:4 ) MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to authorize the Mayor to execute the Grant of Easement permitting windows along the property boundary between the walkway and 577 Hamilton Avenue, upon payment of $5,000 from CHR Associates, Inc. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #1O CABLE FRANCHISING: CONSULTANT SERVICES IN NEGOTIATi LNG City Manager Sill 7aner said Council was presented with an addendum to the agreement now existing with Arnold & Porter for additional services in negotiating the franchise. Attached to the addendum was a copy of the scope of services negotiated with Arnold & Porter with a breakdown of the costs and a time schedule. Staff recommended adoption of the resolution in order to make the addendum effective. Councilmember Woolley asked for confirmation that the see for the additional budget amendment would be paid by the company that secured the franchise. Mr. Zaner said the intent that the successful awardee would become responsible for.. the fees incurred by the City during the process was indicated in the Request for Proposal (RFP). Councilmember Woolley assumed the fee would cover, the negotiating period which would probably go to February 1, and asked if there would be an additional sum for the February 1 to ;:March 1 -period. Mr. Zaner said there would be no additional work by the consul- tant. The fee would cover'" all his work through March 1, including the closing documents for final Council approval. MOTION: Counci iuember Woolley moved, iecvnded by vii U er'sNoon, to authorize an amendment to the existing agreement with Arnold A Porter for an additional time period of approximately seven months and an additional budget of $102,300 to cover specific tasks involved in negotiating franchise agreements with the two targeted cable companies. ADDENDUM No. 3 TO AGREEMENT 4292 Arnold & Porter Mayor Klein said he discussed some questions earlier that day with Mr. Zaner which he wanted the record to reflect. He was concerned about the Arnold & Porter budget set forth in the staff report (CMR:450:4), and in particular the $112,969 that Arnold & Porter claimed to have incurred over and above the previous $185,000, which they intended to bill to the successful applicant. He asked the City Manager what steps were taken to audit Arnold & Porter to ensure the sum in question was appropriate. He was aghast at the sum, and did not understand how such an expense could have been incurred in so short a period. At their normal billing rate of $140 per hoer, it represented over 800 hours of professional time --four full professional months of people working at a tremendous rate. He did not think it possible. Mr. Zaner said the City had an audit process with access to Arnold & Porter's billings. Staff knew how much time their principals and associates spent on the project. The City also had access to the billings Arnold & Porter made to their consultants, Price Waterhouse and Atlantic Research, who worked on behalf of the City for t.hem.. Those costs were passed through the City and appeared on the Arnold & Porter bill. The City checked the billings and reviewed the cost with Arnold & Porter and considered the costs legitimate. The project was more expensive than anticipated, the reasons for which were covered in previous memos. The work was audited to ensure that Arnold & Porter was in fact charging for legitimate time spent on the project. Mayor Klein asked if staff ascertained how the $I13,000 broke down over the period of time and who incurred it. Mr. Zaner said it could be done since staff had that kind of detail. Mayor Klein wanted to see the detail before approving the sum. Mr. Zaner said staff could provide the detail, but staff was not requesting approval at that time, Mayor .Klein understood that, but was troubled by approving a contract wit'?: an organization that ran so far over budget. He considered the two things tied together. Mr. Zaner said staff would provide such detail to the Council. Mayor Klein was comfortable with many of the items in the new Scope of Services, with the exception of IY.B, "Consultation with City to assist in negotiating process and to revise draft agreement and appendices --$34,500." It was nearly twice the cost of drafting the agreements\. He asked if staff discussed- the matter with Arnold & Porter.' Mr.-Zaner said yes. Staff asked Arnold & Porter to indicate how many meetings might be necessary to assist in negotiation of the agreement. Arnold = & Porter expected to spend approximately 150 hours of their time, with Price Waterhouse and Atlantic Research expending 50 hours each. _ The rates were broken down, and came out to $34,500. Arnold & Porter's initial proposal to the City was substantially higher than the $102,300 now shown. The City worked with them to .bring- the price down, with a number of the tasks to be done by city staff instead of Arnold & Porter. 49 5'8 8/20/84: Mayor Klein was confuscid as he previously understood that item IV.F, "Disbursements, (20 percent) - 17,050" would include work done by Price Waterhouse and Atlantic Research. Mr. Zaner said the direct out-of-pocket costs that Arnold & Porter expected to be incurred by its subcontractors, Price Waterhouse and Atlantic Research, were included in IV.F, whereas the billing time for those agencies was included in IV.B. Mayor Klein asked what costs were represented by IV.F. Mr. Zaner said the IV.F costs were copying, travel, supplies, materials, outside work the companies might require, computer time, and whatever else was required. Mayor Klein was uncomfortable with both IV.B or IV.F. AMENDMENT: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to hire Arnold & Porter, but only $25,000 to be paid on contract until overrun . is clarified. Also, of the project budget . 6) --Consult- ation with City to assist in negotiating process and to revise draft agreement and appendices $34,500; and F) --Disbursements (20%)—$17,050. Vice Mayor Levy was also aghast at the cost. He asked for details of Arnold & Porter's costs to date that they billed the City for, or intended 10 bill the City or the ultimate franchisee for, as opposed to the estimates. He was considering an alternative amendment. Cable Television Coordinator Jeanne Moulton said Arnold & Porter billed the City for approximately $130,000, and a bill for the remainder of the $185,000 was approved and in the mail, Essen- tially, the City was billed for $185,000. Arnold & Porter had an overrun of $113,000 for which the City would not be billed. The City had an estimate for a further $102,300 to carry out the next phase. Vice Mayor Levy calculated that up to that time Arnold & Porter spent $293,000. Their estimate for the next phase was $102,000, making a total ofe$395,000.e. He asked what the crigi.nal estimate from Arnold & Porter showed up to the same point. Ms. Moulton said the original contract received from Arnold & Porter up to that point was for $10;,000, with an additional $5,000 because there were fours -not. three --responses. Vice Mayor Levy said the original estimate was for $112,000, but Arnold & Porter spent $293,000, or an overrun of almost triple. Arnold & Porter's next estimate was for $102,000, which was not too different from the original estimate of $112,000. He asked if cities of a similar size or complexity to Palo Alto were checked to find what they spent on similar services. Mr. Zaner said yes. Depending on the process required, the range of costs was wide. When bids came to the Council, . ncluding'.the one from Arnold & Porter, the costs ranged from $30,000 and $50,000 to $200,000. Palo Alto required demanding services -- municipal ownership was to be investigated and the Council asked for Special features to be checked out. There was also a major flaw in the process as they were stopped for four months. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the highest cost Mr. Zaner was aware of was approximately $200,000. Mr. Zaner said he did not check out what the maximum amount cities of comparable size to Palo Alto had paid'. Vice Mayor Levy asked whatconfidence Mr. Zaner had that the final cost would be the sage as the $102,000 estimated. cost. 4 9 5 9 8/20/84 Mr. 7aner said the work wo ld coma in at a cost of $102,000, but his concern was that not all of the work would be done, and the City staff would have to do the balance. The work for such a project depended directly on the amount of effort the consultant had to put forth, especially on behalf of the public, which was where the work came from. If. the consultant was dealing only with the staff, it would be easy, but they had to deal with the public and a number of firms that made demands, and the consultant had to continually respond to them, in accordance with the City's wishes. That entailed costs. The contract would go to $102,000, but his concern was that if the City staff had to do the balance of the work it would slow the process up. Vice Mayor Levy received confirmation from Mr. Zaner that the estimates stated that the two attorneys working on the .project would be working at $150 and $130 per hour, respectively, with the City receiving a 10 percent reduction, He pointed out that page 3 of .the staff report (CMR:451:4), made no mention of the 10 percent reduction, and the City assumed $150 and $130 per hour. Mr. Zaner agreed the discount clearly stated on page 2 did riot appear to have been applied. Vice Mayor Levy assumed staff had not talked with other possible candidates for the consulting work. Mr. Zaner said they had talked with other candidates. Vice Mayor Levy asked what possible alternatives there were to Arnold & Porter. Ms. Moulton said she talked with Les Page, the alternative candi- date who lost to Arnold & Porter in 198':_. She sp ,ke to him in general terms, and he would be available . should the City need a contingency plan. Vice Mayor Levy asked if Mr. Page was investigated as a viable alternative to Arnold & Porter, what he would charge, and his deficiencies versus Arnold & Porter, Ms. Moulton said she -had not gone into that detail. She knew the situation in 1983, and supposed it was about the same. His hourly rate was lower, and his general estimate was approximately $30,000 to $40,000 to do the work. Arnold & Porter estimated $107,000 for the same work. Mr. Page was not an attorney, but a general cable consultant who could handle the technical and financial aspects of the work, although it would probably be necessary to pay for more legal assistance. Vice Mayor Levy was not prepared to spend any more money with Arnold & Porter, who were unduly expensive. It was unnecessary for the City to return to Washington, D.C. at that point and he did not consider Arnold & Porter's background so critical at pre- sent in the City's discussions. He was willing to be convinced they were the best choice, but it would necessitate reopening the consultant selection process. He was concerned by the tremendous amount of money spent and the further ,estimate for $100,000 when the estimates were of indeterminate reliability. SUBSTITUTE NOTION_: Vice Mayor Levy moved to ask staff to inter- view for .consultant services for the franchise negotiation process and report to the Council with its recommendation. SUBSTITUTE NOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND. Counci lmemb`tr Cobb said he was more outraged at the money flowing into the work. Although there were unusual situations compared to other cities, his instinct told him they were spending too much money. As an Engineering Consultant, he saw similar projects, and did not support the substitute motion because of the time element 4 9 6 0 8/20/84 in a project the publie perceived took too long. He wanted to understand what the project should have cost, making allowance for the extraordinary measures, but if the City continued with Arnold & Porter, it had to have a strict and rigid handle.on controlling the costs. The matter was not working out as planned and the City was not getting good value for its money. The necessary cost. controls were not in place, and steps should be taken to make it feel right. Mr. laver disagreed. The City was getting the Cadillac of the process. The Council might be dissatisfied with getting first- class quality. The Council unanimously and publicly complimented the consultant on the outstanding caliber of the analysis. Each CouncFlmember received a cartonload of material that the consul- tant went through twice because of the four month shutdown and because it was _-impossible after such a delay to pick up where things left off. Everything had to be reread, reanalyzed and understood again The RFP process was outstanding. He arid other members of the staff spent two full days giving -depositions, and the RFP was tight, clean, and good and would stand the City in good stead during the coming lawsuit. The City received outstand- ing service from Arnold & Porter. There were good cost controls, and staff knew what the consultant was doingt More money than anticipated was spent because the demand was greater. The results from the bidders did not return the way they were told, making it impossible to compare the responses one to one. All bids could have been thrown out and a new start made; but Arnold & Porter was told to translate the bids into something comparable so they could be analyzed. The Council saw and recognized .the good analysis and the City got its money's worth. The process was expensive, time consuming, and cost much energy and effort ley top flight people. He did not expect the quality of Arnold & Porter's work to dimin- i sht He was concerned About keeping the process :novi ng and whether there would be enough money to finish it. He reiterated his fear of reaching the end of the process without having the work completed so that it became staff's responsibility to finish it. He was not sure the staff had the necessary expertise, and was concerned they would be unable to meet the deadline. Mayor Klein agreed that Arnold & Porter did an excellent job.- The firm was highly regarded in legal circles, and its analysis was excellent. The could have incurred expenses out of line with what the project called for, and there was a growing trend to scrutinize legal fees. They might have underestimated the cost or have used too many people, but the dramatic increase in cost over what was anticipated must be looked at carefully. He believed the City could work with Arnold & Porter, but the time element was a further consideration. To bring another consultant up to speed would take awhile, and -Arnold & Porter could probably complete item IV.A efficiently as they had experience in franchise agree- ments. Another consultant, particularly one who was not a lawyer or connected with a law firm,. would have much difficulty in doing it at that level and within the City's time frame. He was un- happy but not ready to throw .the baby out with the bathwater. Counci lmerab er Woolley Supported the amendment. The Finance and Public Works (F&P'W) Committee recently said it, wanted to be more involved in the Cable TV project. Staff told --her the project was not _going to F&PW Committee because it was a continuance of a con- tract and not a new one. She supported the further review indi- cated in the amendment. Vice Mayor Levy said when Arnold & Porter was hired, it was by far the highest bidder, being 2.5 times higher than the alternative consultant. Arnold & Porter ended up spending over 2.5 times what. they originally bid, and while the City might have the Cadillac of consulting, he had not seen the alternative. The City spent a great deal of money for it. There was no excuse, because Arnold & Porter laid down the ground rules. They could not now return and 8/20%84 say they did rKt realize the groundrules would be followed dif- ferently than the way' they were set forth. They were hired because of their high reputation, and Council believed it had con- trols on Arnold & Porter's spending, as a limit was set beyond which no money could be spent without the City's approval. The controls were doubly ignored. They spent far more than authorized, and the Council knew nothing about it until it was too late. It appeared the consultants had now spent more, which they planned to put into a sinkhole for the franchisee to pay for later. The only way he knew of to control costs was by competi- tive bids. He urged his colleagues to once again go out to c.om- petitive bid to see what the marketplace offered. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1., Levy voting "no." MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Levy voting "no." MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to ask staff to present to Arnold & Porter as soon as possible a transcript of that evening's discussion as it pertained to them. Councilmember Cobb said despite his concern, it might he more appropriate for staff to relay the Council's concerns. A direct reading of the transcript might not serve the purpose of getting a better performance but build a wall between the Council and Arnold & Porter. There was enough of a problem already. Mayor Klein said he also preferred that Mr. Zaner handle the matter in ways he deemed most appropriate rather than enter into a punitive discussion with Arnold & Porter. MOTION FAILED on a vote of 2-7, Levy, Renzel voting "aye." ITEM #11 REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER WOOLLEY RE YACHT CLUB'S RE BEST rOr PEis.Mf SSiou ro— Counc i lmember Woolley referred to the Palo Alto Yacht Club letter and her memo dated August 10, 1984. She spoke of the excellence of the Palo Alto harbor; the commitment to small boat sailing, and the complex situation. The harbor was a gem and offered advan- tages for small boats not found elsewhere in the Bay Area. The waves were manageable and the wind reliable. Palo Alto offered rare direct access to the Bay. Alviso had a long slough and was now used only by power boats. The Club was moving to Redwood City where the harbor was acceptable for large boats although it took small boats an hour's heavy boat traffic to reach open water. Further north, Coyote Point and the Olympic Circle off Berkeley had a large "chop." Only in Richmond were conditions duplicating Palo Alto's found.- Not all of her colleagues were sailors so she em=phasized that Palo Alto had a treasure. The Baylands Master Plan 1978 draft and 1979 summary helped establish a land. use com- mitment to small boat sailing. The Master Plan spoke of a public hoist and ancillary facilities, and complex considerations made it important for the City to be involved and for any directions given tostaff to provide latitude. It was a .cooperative venture, not a private project by one entity, and the earlier item that evening regarding the airport showed the overlapping of various jurisdic- tions in the area which complicated the matter. It was possible for a launch or a ramp for a launching facility to be built by the, Club and operated and maintained by the City or built by the City` and operated and .maintained by the Club under a contract with the City. The City would, need to become involved in the consideration of user fees. As a quasi -public endeavor, it was important that. the club and the City work together from the beginning. Her motion would provide thy' necessary information for a policy deci- sion to allow Council to refer the matte r to the Planning Cominis- sion_for° a closer look at the details. 4 9 6.2 8/20/84 MOTION: Counciimember Woolley moved, seconded by Witherspoon,. as follows: 1) Staff be directed to hold preliminary discussions with the Palo Alto Yacht Club to more fully precise the Club's request to build a sailing station; 2) Staff report back to Council on the advantages and disadvan- tages of the Club's proposal with regard to impact on the environment. costs. legal issues. pubViic benefit, and other pertinent factors; and 3) That staff is free to suggest public ownership maintenance and operation of all or part of facilities as deemed appropriate. Councilroember Woolley added p01rt 3 because of the concern about it being a public or a private 'facility and to ensure that staff understood that public options should also be considered. Councilmernb er Renzel asked the City Attorney whether there were legal constraints on the kinds of facilities that could be bui l t on parklands. City Attorney Diane Lee said there were constraints applying to public lands in general. Parklands were more constrained because of the Code requirements that they be open for park and recrea- tional use. She understood the motion was to look into the matter carefully and analyze the proposals. Mayor Klein would hold the discussion strictly to the motion for Council direction to staff .to hold preliminary discussions and report back on the advantages and disadvantages. He would dis- courage and rule out of order generalized discussions about the advantages of boating or of one kind of proposal over others. He did not want to rehash the various earlier disputes on the Yacht. Harbor. The motion was simple and narrowly drawn to direct staff to hold discussions, make studies, and report back to the Council, Councilriember Woolley agreed the discussion should be limited, but believed the value of the harbor to small boat sailing was rele- vant to the motion that evening because it had to do with the con- tinuance of small boat sailing. Mayor Klein said the motion only addressed the question of whether staff time should be spent analyzing the issue. Councilrember Woolley said a small boat sailing station was at issue. Mayor Klein said it was possible to favor small boat sailing and stilt not favor directing staff to spend its time on the ques- tion. Counc i l memo er Witherspoon said some Counci 1 me€r ers wanted to know what area of the marshland in the harbor area was involved. Mayor Klein understood that staff was supposed to look into that question. Councilmerrber Witherspoon pointed out the area did not have to be within the existing yacht basin. Mayor Klein.agreed. Or. Calvert Rothenberg, 220 R.i nconada, a 28 -year Palo Alto resi- deht3: and current Commodore of the Palo Alto Yacht Club, referred to his last two letters to the Council, and said there was no better smal�l boat racing area south of San Francisco on the same side of the Say. The ramp. required dredging b ecouse silt and 8/20/84 hoisc were zneeded, and only one ramp was presently usable, Club members came from various income levels and ayes. The North American Day Sailor Championships were held in Palo Alto two weeks earlier with participants from Massachusetts and Connecticut. Councilmember Renzel referred to his second letter, which was on file in the City Clerk's office, which was described as an amend- ment to his first letter but which she considered a substitute. It was somewhat ambiguous, and she asked if they were now request- ing only a sailing station and not both facilities, or a sailing station that might be accommodated in the same location. Dr. Rothenberg said they preferred a sailing station, a small facility, with no clubhouse in the general area. It might contain a small meeting room which was necessary before a race, but it would be low scale, Douglas. McConnell, 4174 Oakhill Avenue, the current Commodore of the Stanford Area Sea Scout Program, Urged the Council to approve the motion to allow staff to enter into meaningful discussions with the sailing community in Palo Alto. A major need for recreae tional sailing facilities spanned the whole community as only Palo Alto south of Redwood City on that side of the Bay was suitable for sailing activities. A sailing station would help the Sea Scout Program, which could establish two more sailing -oriented, rather than power boat -oriented units. Sponsors were reluctant to supply the necessary equipment if the City of Palo Alto .and the local community did not want to keep the harbor open for small boats. Any move towards meaningful discussions leading to com- munity interest in recreational sailing in navigable waters would be a real help. He supported the motion. Philip LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, said the motion would direct staff to assist the Yacht Club to work out precise details for a proposal to build a sailing station at the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, making it appear that such action eras desirable and in the best inteeests of the City. It was an issue of profound importance to the public --should an exclusive organization occupy publicly owned park -dedicated land? The only amenity provided at the public ramp was a garbage can and, recently, two portaale toilets. If it waS advisable to add to the existing facility, public moneys should be used for the benefit of the whole boating pub tic. He questioned the appropriateness of asking staff to spend time developing a project presented in such- vague terms and which did not address major items such as the land -area required and its location; the size of the building; the amount of paved area necessary for cars and trailers; the size and layout of the hoist dock and floating docks; security provisions, and the calls on the City for power, water, gas and sewage. A developer was required to provide a suf- ficiently detailed proposal for the planners to evaluate a proj- ect, and it was not staff's responsibility to develop the sailing station plan. Permits froin agenci& protecting the public inter- est around the Bay had to be acquired, and if approved, staff and club members might devote hours to perfec',ing a plan with little chance of final approval. Most important to those interested in South Bay sailing was the necessity t'o obtain expert advice on siltation to determine the fate of the outer channel. Actions since 19/5 by the Leslie. Salt Company in Mountain View caused a change in the water circulation in Charleston ,slough, and greatly reduced the tidal prism that once swept over the 110 -acre tract. Also, the new channel between the Bay and the slough , further reduced the amount of water scouring the : mouth of- the slough at the :launching -ramp, and siltation Irk the inner harbor might have a long range effect .on the Palo Alto channel-. The-seem,1ngiy simple proposal ,was complex -.and sl gni is i +cant policy issues needed resol-u- tian. More information was necessary .before meaningful decisions could be made. ;0982 Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, spoke against the proposal since it presup- posed a policy decision by the, Council on a significant issue. The Council's decision was to not continue such operations in the Baylands, and the motion asked the staff to do Council and Plan- ning Commission tasks of reviewing land use and the Baylands Master Plan to see how the proposal fit in and was consistent. It asked the staff to make policy which responsibility was also that of the Council and the Planning Commission. It committed public time and funds to pursue an issue that might be against public policy and the benefit of the overall community. Council should first consider whether that or any similar proposal was in keeping with the Baylands Master Plan for the best use of the area, which would not require inappropriate, detailed negotiation between staff and a nonpublic entity. He urged the Council to vote against the motion. Joanne Covec, 1595 Castille,Ja Avenue, said she and her husband taught the Junior Division Program in Palo Alto, donating over 500 hours over the past two years. The Junior Division was sponsored by, but not a part of, the Palo Alto Yacht Club and was open to all 8 to 16 year olds in the City and surrounding area, with 60 to 70 percent non -Club. members.. Elementary schools were informed the program was open to all children, and that year 15 enrollees were turned down, as 30 was the maximum. They needed .water, a little wind, and children. The program ran from April to June and was taught by volunteers on weekends only, one hour before and after high tide Lessons were given in the morning because of the afternoon wind, and after June 15 the program was cancelled, as high tide was in the afternoon. She wanted to continue the pro- gram. Her two young children were interested and she enjoyed teaching children to sail. A moderately protected, easily ob- served area was needed, and she asked the Council to consider the sailing station from which the 10 year olds could sail. An area was needed for in -class and on -water teaching and a barbecue lunch. A bathroom and changing area was necessary when boats cap- sized, and an ability to launch and recover with a safety boat. A silver medalist and a contender in the World Championships both learned to sail in the Palo Alto Yacht Club Junior Division. She invited Councilmembers to their sail and banquet in September and October. Councilmember Cobb supported the motion. When flying into the Palo Alto Airport, he noticed the large area devoted to the Bay - lands and the small part devoted to sailing. The perspective was different when seen from above. A11 City actions during the past years underscored its commitment to the environmental protection of the Baylands, and if Palo Alto was to stay the kind of .commu- nity it had been for a long time. there had to be room for differ- ent Interests, and sailing was one. He was on a sail boat only twice, it was a nice sport, and his noninvolvement should not pre- clude others from pursuing it as it had much potential for the town. He loved to play tennis. and the Palo Alto Tennis Club helped pay to resurface town courts and worked with the City in tennis tournaments. The partnership between the City and groups devoted to a particular interest was not unusual. He hoped the tennis courts would not be voted out of existence because i t was a minority sport, and felt the same way about sailing. He was happy to support a motion to at least look into the question to see what could be done to preserve that aspect of sailing in Palo Alto Vice Mayor Levy said the City was dedicated to preserve the integ- rity of the Baylands and the marsh areas as part of the Comprehen- sive Plan. Also enunciated was a policy of leaving open a launch- ing rasp and whatever ancillary facilities were necessary to pro- vide for the full -vise functioning of small sailing out of the Baylands area. The motion was consistent with that policy. Phil LaRiviere, Councilmember Renzel and others pointed out the need to ensure that what they did was in the public interest and not in those of any non-public concern. With such caveats. ire could sup- port the motion. Councilmember Sutorius agreed. He asked if staff had any ques- tions regarding the direction, or wanted anything clarified in the communication. City Manager Bill zaner understood there would be preliminary dis- cussions only. They would not be going into great detail, but would come back to the Council with what they put together, and would await Council direction at that time. Councilmember Sutorius did not believe it subverted an appropriate process to expend a reasonable amount of effort on a good purpose to see what developed. He supported the motion. Councilmember Renzel also supported having limited facilities for small boat sailing. Anything consistent with a nondredging con- cept was reasonable in the Baylands. She believed the proper way to pursue the kinds of facilities that should be provided was to have the Planning Commission evaluate the needs and resources and to make recommendations for additional resources that might be needed. SUBSTITUTE ANEMhNEMT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the study of the proposal pet forth - by the Yacht Club be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration of the question of facilities for small boat sal1Sag, to determine the needs of small boat sailors, the resources to meet those needs, and to recommend any additional facilities that night be needed and could be implemented within the framework of the Bay - lands Master Plea. Councilmember Renzel expected that under the substitute motion the Planning Commission would consider, among other things, in its review --the needs of organized races, public access to the Bay, parking and circulation, relationships with other agencies and jurisdictions, safety, and environmental considerations. The list was not meant to limit the Planning Commission but to suggest some areas she felt needed to be addressed in determining the kinds of facilities and where they should be located, and it would provide a framework for specific discussions. For that reason, she believed the Planning Commission should look at it. The Baylands Master Plan was within the purview of the Planning Commission and it was important that the interrelationships of any new facilities be well established in the Baylands Master Plan before and• individual negotiations took place. Councilmember Witherspoon said Councilmember Renzel's point was well taken, but she did not believe the time was right. First, some policy at the Council level should be set as to whether they liked what was proposed, and then decide to what extent the Coun- cil wanted to support it. It might prove too grandiose for the Council, at which time it should be sent to the Planning Commis- sion for recommendations concerning facilities, •parking. circula- tion, and so forth. The Council did not yet know the exact ques- tion, and the Planning Commission was not expert in the area either. She preferred to hear the staff recommendation with the pros and cons, maid a decision at the Council level, then send it to the Commission for their input. Councilmember Bechtel Said when she first heard about the proposed plan to refer the matter to the Planning Commission, she con- sidered it a reasonable way to go, but from her reading and the discussion that evening, she understood the motion was preliminar- ily to obtain a little information, then for staff to report back to the Council .on the advantages and disadvantages. She agreed that some preliminary information should first be obtained. after which the Council might return and say it was inappropriate, or too grandiose for the need. They were trying to do something for small boats, and needed additional information before referring it to the Planning Commission. 4 4 b 6 8/20/84 At Corrected 10/1S/84 i Councilmember Woolley addressed the substitute amendment, and said the Baylands Master Plan gave a general policy. The needs were spelled out clearly enough at that point in the letter from the Yacht Club. The resources could be figured out quickly, but not what they could afford. Both the environmental and the dollar costs needed to be assessed, and the money Council was willing to spend on the Byxbee landfill area was already reduced, and Jarvis tY would face the City shortly. The problem of what they could afford was major, and preliminary discussion would help bring that information out and also assess the public benefits. It was a chicken and egg siteetion, but the costs should be known before it was sent to the Commission. Councilmember Fletcher believed they might save a step by refer- ring the question to the Planning Commission. The staff would develop the same information as for the Council, and could work it through with the Planning Commission. Broader policy issues were involved than were presently spelled out in the Baylands Master Plan and were similar to land use issues as was mentioned by a member of the public. Councilmember Renzel said when she was on the Planning Commission, a committee met at informal sessions with various members of the Yacht Club, hydrologists, marine biologists, engineers, and a variety of people with expertise and an interest in the Baylands. She expected the Planning Commission could establish a subcommittee to meet informally and do more or less what the main motion asked the City staff to do. It would be more appropriate in the context of a public meeting with give and take and i n which all parties were able to discuss the various needs and issues. It was within tie purview of the Planning Commission to make recommendations, and it was inappropriate for the Council to set a policy and ask the Planning Commission to rubber stamp it. The policy should come through the Planning Commission as a recommendation to the Council, which would then have wisdom from the various Planning Commission public meetings., It was a far better way to go as it would incorporate a greater segment of the public. Councilmember Sutorius believed there was good logic and explana- tion for both the main and the substitute € otion. The Council sought information to guide it in establishing parameters on which it would be referred --perhaps to the Planning Commission as a first step after the Council had the input. It had the potential to be something like the Arastra Committee, with representatives, to bring information back to the Planning Commission and the Coun- cil. He'was comfortable with the main motion, and understood the logic behind the substitute motion. He was not disturbed by the steps that would be taken under the main motion as it in no way precluded the other things that were suggested as important, but would establish parameters for when it went to the other process. SUBSTITUTE NOTION FAILED on a veto of 2-7. Renzel and Fl etchor voting "aye.' Councilmember Renzel said inasmuch as there was an inclination to go with the main motion,. she preferred to see parts of it more generically worded. In particular, part (2) should ask staff to report back to the Council on the advantages and disadvantages of various small boat ;ailing facilities with regard to impact on the environment; costs, legal issues, public benefit, and other perti- nent factors. In other words, she believed it should cover more than just the Yacht Club request. Ik11E i1lI�MT: Ceaacilmomber Bonsai moved to sabstitute is (2) too words *various small heat sailing facilities" fen "the Clues $ pro- posal." A*(UUNE$T FAILED for lack of a second. 4 9 6 7 8/20/84 As Corrected 10/15/84 MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renae': voting "no." MOTION: Councilmember ;teazel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to direct the City Attorney to report back on the following: 1. On issues of private use of public park land; and 2. The City's leave policy. Vice Mayor Levy asked Councilmember Renzel if she intended to limit her motion to the item in question or whether she required a broad discussion of the use of parkland throughout town. Councilmember Renzel said her request was in the context of the motion, but it would be useful information for the Council to have with respect to all the parks. Vice Mayor Levy agreed with regard to that particular use, but saw no need to make it a generalization at that point. Councilmember Renzel assumed that whatever rules applied would cover all parklands, It was not really important to her how broad or how narrow the question was. Councilmember Cobb said he saw no problem in investigating the issue, but using tennis as an example, the Palo Alto Tennis Club ran tournaments on courts in public parks for a long time, and would soon pay for resurfacing the Cubberley courts, which were soon to become public lands. The issue was broader than Just the sailing question. Mayor Klein said they received reports on it before --it was not exactly a novel issue. Mr. Zaner said the Council's discussion was longer than he intended his report back to the Council to be. It was a prelimi- nary-- discussion, and staff would include legal and environmental issues. The staff's interest was exactly the same as when a group of people came before the Council to talk about an ice skating rink. The Council had no information so staff went-: to get some. They would do the same on that issue, and Council should not expect a long report, only a statement of what the staff had in mind. MOTION PASSED by a vete of 8 1, Witberspeea voting "n•.' CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 1121 PROPOSED COUNTY SALES TAX INCREASE (PRE i . -41, . AND ITEM 113, RECOGNMIN OV STRTEX' s CRUD Ci4ffC ISMITAT NOTION To COSTUME: Couacilaeabor Bechtel moved, secoeded by 1le*llty, to continue Items 012, Proposed Coenty Sales Tax Increase, and Item #13, Recognition of Syntax's Child Care forewarn to the felltrinO week. NOTION PASSE.. by a vete elf .$41, Levy yeti's *no.. ITEM #14 REQUEST OF COUNCILMEi BER . RENZEL RE WILLOW ROAD CORRIDOR Councilmember Rezel said during the past several weeks, Stanford University c10 ed off the current access along Stanford Shopping Center to build a parking lot. As the Willow Road extension was to be considered, it would be useful to understand what was hap- pening to traffic during the time the area was closed. Traffic counts in the vicinity would be helpful to determine where the traffic went. Information germane to the Council's decision eight ensue. 4968' 8/20/84 NOTION: Counci l aember- Refdel waved, seconded by Fletcher, for staff to do some traffic counts in the vicinity of Willow Road Corridor to determine what is happening while traffic access is closed off. e Councilmember Witherspoon asked staff what the cost might b e, Mr, Freeland said the cost would be mainly in staff tine. Hose counters would have to be installed at strategic occasions; and, if, they were not already spoken for at different locations, there would be no difficulty. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if it would imnpact. the Evergreen Park and Barron Park studies. Mr. Freeland said it would mean some hours of one person's time, but it was nota major undertaking. NOTION PASSED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 12:45 a.m. ATTEST: 1 Assistant City Cl 4k APPROVED; 4 9 6 9 8/20/84