Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-05 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUMCIL MINUTEs Reg ul ar Meeting November 5, 1984 CITY OF PALO ALTO ITEM PAGE Orel Communications Item #1, Recognition of the Planned Trip to the Soviet Union by Pal o Al to Hi gh School Students who will oe performing "Romeo and Juliet* Item #2.",, Ecumenical Hunger Project 2 2 2 C o n ae,i t Cal end ar 5 2 2 3 Referral Action Item #3, Appointments of Sandy Sloan and Marlene Prendergast as Senior Assi start City Attorneys Item #4, Poi ice Uniform Cl eaning Sery ices Contract 5 2 2 3 Item #5, Firefighter Physical Fitness Examination/ Evaluation - YMCA Contract Item #6, Water Qual sty Control P1 ant Maintenance Facility - Termination of Contract Item #7, Quitclaim of Drainage Easements to Santa.:. Clara Valley Water District Item #8, Conveyance of Former Crescent Park Site Bel ow Market Rate Duplex Lot to the Palo Al to Housing Corporation Item #9, Embarcadero Road- at St. Francis Drive - Left Turn Pockets and No Parking Zone Item #10, Resolution of Intent re Disestabl fishing Downtown Business Improvement District Item #11, Mitchell r r City of Palo Al to Se ttl Bent Item #12, Ordinance re Change of: District 324-390 Everett Street (2n4 Reading) Item #13, ©rdinence re Change of District 704, 712, and 720-Waverl ey Street (2nd Reading) Ron #15, Ordinance re Convenience Grocery Stores ors Autorobile Service Station Premises (2nd Reading) Agenda Changes, Additions acrd .Deletions Ites #16. Cable Television„ Report_ on Payments to the Arnold end Porter Contrac t 5 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 5 2 2 3 5 2 2 3 5 2 2 3 5 2 2 3 5 2 2 3 5 2 2 3 5..2 2 •.4 5 2 2 4 5 2 2 4 5 2 2 4 5 2 2 4 5 2 2 4 5.2 2 5 5 2 2 5 5 2 2 5 2 2 0 11/5/84 ITEM PAGE Recess 5 2 3 6 Item #17, Armenciment to the Downtown Moratorium Ordinance Item #17A, (Old Item; 14) , Ordinance re Amending Zoning Code and Vehicl es and Traffic Code (2nd Reading) Item #18, The Zoning of Properties from RM-3 to RMD: Irap1 ications of Second Reading of Thi s Ordinance on Parcel Map Appeal in Downtown Residential Area 5 2 3 6 5 2 3 7 5 2 3 9 Item #19, Processes and Improvements to open the 5 2 4 0 Arastra Property for Park Use Item #20, Request of Caunc ilmember Fletcher re 5 2 4 4 Urban Mass Transportation Administration Capital Investment Poi icy Item #21., Cancellation of the November 13, 1984 5 2 4 4 City Council Meeting Adjournment: 11:00 p.m. 5 2 4 5 2 2 1 11 /5/84 Regular Meeting Monday, November 5, 1984 The City Council of the City of Pilo Al to met on • this 'date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, at 7:35 p .m. PRESENT: Bechtel , Cobb, Fl etcher, K1 ein , Levy, Renzel., Sutorius (arrived 7:40 p.m.) , Woolley ABSENT: Witherspoon Mayor Klein announced that a closed session re Personnel was held at 7:15 p.m. in the Personnel Conference Room. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM #1, RECOGNITION OF THE PLANNED TRIP TO THE SOVIET UNION BY IFAL1O IIIGHi SCHOOL S'1UDENI S WHO- Win BE PERFORMING "ROMEO AND JULY'" ('P E :FT-- Mayor Klein introduced Mic hael Kass, Chairman of the Department of Fine and Performing Arts at Palo Alto High School , and referred to his letter of October 30, 1984. Michael Kass introduced the President .and the Secretary/Treasurer of the `Thespian Club, and said it was hoped that the tour would lead to increased U.S./U. S. S. R. cultural exchanges. It was hoped the trip would inspire people to understand the probl cot and real - ities of Russian culture. Many of the players were of Russian ancestry. The Thespian Club pl anned to tour several Russian cities in June, 1985 in a gesture of goodwill, peace, and friend- shi p after the pl ay was pron'bced in' Palo Al tcf in May. A positive response from a variety of people in the Soviet Union was received. Councilmember Fl etcher commended the students and adul is who planned the project. Older people could al so learn from their experience. Contact from' people -to -people was necessary, and the only hope for race in the future- was for young people to contact each- other, and to work up from them to the leaders. Mayor Klein said the City would do what it could to support the'. trip, and individually the. 4oUncileelbers . would help. He wished them the best of luck oh' an -exciting adventure. ITEM #2, ECUMENICAL HUNGER PROJECT (PRE 1.3) Dyanne Ledine, :representing the Ecumenical Hunger Program and Oxfam America, asked the City Council to recognize November 15, 1984 as a day recognizing world hunger, .and said communities throughout the country were al so recognizing that day. It was a Myth that there was no hunger' in the' U.S. There was al so hunger in Palo Alto. It was al so a myth that nothing could be done about world hunger . She " invited the:City` Cottnc'il and Palo Al to c l ti zen s to join in a fast of one Neail' -of ilovelOber 15, 1985 and donate the saved money to an organization of their choice to fight world hunger. NOTION: Mayer Elwin solteds Pecilii404 bY =ebb, that staff be directed to prepare a Pr•c ionatf ee ray'Arid Nasser hay •* November l6, 19114. NOTION PAULO ssaaii l#, Vith i spese absent. 5 2 2 2 11/5 /84 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cobb requested that Item #14, Aniendraents to Zoning Code and Vehicles and Traffic Code (2nd Reading) , be removed from the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Cennc11member Cobb ar•ied, seconded by Bechtel. t• adept Consent Calendar Items 3-13 and 15. Vice Mayor Levy asked to be recorded as voting "no" on Item 15, Ordinance re Convenience Grocery Stores on Automobile Service Station Premises (2nd Reading) Referral None Action ITEM #3, APPOINTMENTS OF SANDY SLOAN AND MARLENE PRENDERGAST AS EN O S N The City Attorney recommends that Council approve the appointment of Sandy Sloan and Marlene Prendergast as Senior Assistant City Attorneys ITEM #4 POLICE UNIFORM CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR 1984-85 (PER 2_7-1 (c1411:551:41 — Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements with Tidi "TOwn Cleaners for the period of November 1, 1984 to October 31, 1985 to provide dry cleaning ser- vices for sworn pol ice personnel as outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and the Palo Alto Police Officers' Association. Funds will be transferred from the City's Contingent Account to the Poi ice Department to cover the contract. AGREEMENT Tidi Tom Cleaners ITEM! #5, FIREFIGHTER PHYSICAL FITNESS EXAMINATION/EVALUATION YEA C1J TRACT P ER 2-2 ) (CP4R:559:4 } Staff believes the program deelonstrated its worthiness and would reduce the incidents of early, job -related retirement for fire- fighters aS' well as produce overall heel thier and physically fit firefighters and recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the contract. OREEMENT pal • Al to *ea V.M.C.A. ITEM 16, WATER QUALITY. CONTROL PLANT MAINTENANCE FACILITY - T ERA The City Attorney' s office' *recorasaends termination of the contract for contractor' s- failure to provide performance, labor and mater- ial bowies and to 'authorize" staff to rebid the project and autho- rize the City Attorney to pursue the legal remedies of the City. TERMINATION ` OP CONTRACT iii! uiociafort` ITEM 17, QUITCLAIM OF DRAINAGE.' EASEMENTS TO SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER D I ST ICI' (VT 17-1 Stiff recoo eN'ds that Colnciil"adopt 'Reso di:ion authorizing `qu i tc ) aiming of drainage- ea se.'een t s'. RESOLUTION 6324 entitled `RESOLUTION OF 'TME. COUNCIL OF THE CIT7 tF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING QUITCLAIMING OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS' ITEM #8, CONVEYANCE .OF FORMER CRESCENT :PARK SITE BELOW MARKET RATE Max EDT 'T . THE PAL , (0411:553:44 Staff recommends that Council adapt the resolution authorizing conveyance of real ' proOerty to the -Palo Al to ..Housing . Corporation (PAHC). RESOLUTION 6325 entitled "RESOLUTION OF TUE COONCIL OF Tiff "CITI SF - PALO ALTO AMTNORIZING CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY TO THE PALO ALTO MOUSING CORPORATION ITEM *9, EMBARCADERO ROAD AT ST. FRANCIS DRIVE - LEFT TURN, POCKETS AND A -PARKIN-GI-ME ME (-PLA 4-6) (CMR:556:4) Staff recommends that Council adopt the ,,esol ution approving a new NO PARKING zone along Embarcadero Road. RESOLUTION 6326 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COMNC IL OF Tit CI T 6T PILO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A NEV NO PARKING ZONE ON ENSARCAOERO ROAD" ITEM #10, RESOLUTION OF INTENT RE DISESTABLISHING DOWNTOWN BUSI- The City Attorney's office recommends that Council adopt the Resolution Giving Notice of Intention to Dissolve. RESOLUTION 6327 entitled `RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TICE- CITY Of PALO ALTO GIVING NOT/CE OF INTENTION TO DISSOLVE A PARKING AND SVSIMESS INPROTCNENT AREA IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF PALO DLO, DESCRIBING TOE OOONOARIES TKERERF, AND FIXING A DATE FOR A PMSLIC NEARING` ITEM f11, MITCHELL V. CITY OF PALO ALTO SETTLEMENT (COU 1-7) Staff recommends adoption of the attached budget ordinance. ORDINANCE 3510 entitled °ORDINANCE- OF THE COUNCIL- OF FHE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TOE S0UFT FOR TOE FISCAL !EAR 1904»S5 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL ar.PROPRIA» TON TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT FOR GENERAL ERiICES ITEM #12, ORDINANCE RE CHANGE .OF DISTRICT .- 324-390 EVERETT STREET Ind Reading) (PtA 3-6)- . ORDINANCE ,36S1 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COONCIL OF THE -C-111 SF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 10.G0.04e OF TU PALO ALTO * 1ICIPAL CODE (Till ZONING MAP) TO CAME TUE ZONE CLASSIFICAT I01 ' OF TIRE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS - 3*4-400 EVERETT STREET FRON -4 TO RM-41' (1st .SomilOO: iO/66/14, PASSED 0-0, Witherspoon .seot) ITEM #13 , ORDINANCE RE. CHANGE OF DISTRICT 704 , 712, AND 720 ORDINANCE 30*ti: entitled ,e4MIOINANCI OF.: TAE CO.00CIL OF LLTi c_ AWE$*I OG, SECTION .18.04.64....# ,T$i PALO ALTO ICIPAL CON:. I TOE . ZONING NA.) TO, Niii0t Tit ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF TAE PROPEi TIE$ RI100D - 4.) 712 Aso 720 110EOLET STREET FOND -O `TO RN -3" ' (Tit Ze.41eg 10/15/14, PASSED 0-0, lathers/moat ahsopt) . 5 2 2 4 11/5/84 ITEM #15, ORDINANCE RE CONVENIENCE GROCERY STORES ON. AUTOMOBILE SERVICE4' I N I5 EMISES (2nd ea ng L, ORDINANCE 3584 entitled "OROIMAMCE OF TIE CU NCIL OF IDE CITT OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING CODE) TO PtONIBIT CONVENIENCE GROCERY STORES ON AYTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION PREMISES" (1st Reading 10/22/14, PASSES 1-1, Levy "no", $i tberspeon absent) MOTION PASSED ._unanimously, Levy voting "Ms," on Item #15, Ordi- nance re convenience steres ea automobile service station prem. i ses, Witherspoon aiasaeta AGENDA CHANGES., ;ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill Zaner announced that Item #14, second reading for Zoning Code and Vehicles and Traffic Code amendments would become Item 17-A. ITEM #16, CABLE TELEVISION REPORT ON PAYMENNTS. TO THE ARNOLD AND POATEk CONTRXCI' (Continua oar 10722184) CPI�E 1.3) ICMR: 532:4) city Manager Bill Zaner said, the; 'item, was continued .on October 22, 1984 because he ;had just rece-i.ved additional substantial .detailed information regarding ail i ing from Arnold, R Porter thathe needed to scrutinize before making a recommendation. None of the infor- mation received .related to the two subjects of CMR:532:4, dated October 11, 1934, concerning the original contract with Arnold & Porter resulting in a cost overrun which staff and the contractors arranged to reduce by hal f, nor with the recommendation that the City move ahead with the rest of the contract by lifting. the $25,000 limitation. Vice Mayor Levy asked to have the three elements of -the first con- tract clarified, the first amendment to the contract, and the present, position regarding the cost overrun. Mr. Zaner said the costs were shown in CMR:532:4. The total amount of the contract then stood at $297,969. The original bud- get was $108,144, which was raised to $185,000. Vice Mayor Levy asked when the increase of $85,000 was approved by the Council, and for confirmation that it was done within the terns of_ the original contract, while the - subsequent overrun was outside the; tends of the original contract. Mr. Zaner _ said the subsequent: cost .overrun was outside ..the Coun- cil' s authorization, but was for work done within the scope of the contract. .That amount, $112,000, was not paid.: Mayor Klein asked what would have happened , if Arnold 3 Porter was able to .complete the work for less: billable hours ..than the con- tract 1price,.:- , . Mr. Zaner said Arnold. is Porter would , then : have billed less.. The City. was :billed ..for the% hours the contractor _put in. For any given phase of the contract, i:f.:the -went,-. less than the amount estimated in the contract, the City paid the lesser amount. Mayor Klein was concerned about the meaning of the negotiated cap i f Arnold A Porter submitted two' 'additional. statements that almost tripled the orig meal -.sum. Ne was concerned about;- any contract, and . aaied _if- the City 'could beJconfident'--in .the meaning of any _ negatiyated 'contract‘ Nr. Zane!' said yes.. he spoke directly with -Arnold 1', Porter's principals, and staff was monitoring the agreement -carefully and Was careful- about the interim $25,000 cap placed by the Council on the contract. Arnold 4. Porter's latest billings had not yet exceeded $10,000, al though the October bill ing was riot yet received. Arnold & Porter . was told repeatedly that, their costs were not to exceed $25,000. Concerning the final sum of .$102,000 for the• contract, should, Council lift the cap, Arnold & Porter was told it was a maximum amount. The City expected to pay only the cost of their work. Staff did not anticipate returning to the Council -for any additional •funds beyond $102,000. Councilmember Woolley referred to the May 17, 1984 staff report recommending a new cost cell ing of $185,000, to which. the Council agreed. She asked if Mr. Zaner: bel iev•e.d.. at the time that the figure would carry through to the •publ.ic hearing in June. Mr. Zaner said to the best of his knowledge, staff believed the $185,000 would carry the staff forward. It subsequently did not, but he did not bel ieve staff knew at that time, or had information that the $185,000 would not cover the Gi ty . Councilmember. Woolley referred : to. the April .27 to July 6, 1984 bill ing from Arnold & Porter —the only billing the City received. It appeared that Arnold & Porter already used $44,000 of that additional .money by April 27, 1984. She - asked if Mr. Zaner received any..: billing : that let : -him know the consultants were al ready . past the $185,000 . cell i ng . Mr. Zaner said no. The City Attorney reminded him .that the City first :received notice of the. overrun .in July, 1984. Councilmember Woolley was. surprised the billings . were. so infre- quent and allowed. so much slippage before the. City .knew: about it. 1 1 Mr. Zaner did not want to haply that Arnold .& Porter was doing work and bill ing sl owl y to run up a bill the City was not aware of Al tho ugi the City was not spec i fl coal l y. . no VI fled until early July about the -overrun, with hindsight he bel leved the staff could have real ,zed that ehe nature and amount -of work being done would push them over. The blame did not lie totally with Arnold & Porter. The staff had some responsibility and should have moni- tored the situation more cl osel y.. Given the ;pace of work and the amount left to be done , it should have been real i zed that Arnold & Porter could not manage with the. $185.,O00._ Co unc i l m esrber Woolley asked if the latest package : from Arnold & Porter gave any breakdown: for the- people involved.. She had par- ticul air difflcul ty wi th the hours spent by Ms. Phillips during the l atest bill ing period. Mr. Zaner said Arnold & Porter contin-uously asked for additional information, .and in all fairness the City was forthright in pro- viding it. With regard to Ms. Phill.i.ps° time, it wasi broken down to one, hour periods and the subjects on which she worked._ Looking through the material provided, it was reasonable to assume she spent the hours claimed on the tasks Arnold & Porter said she did. During the previous- weekend he careful 1 y .reviewed the Request for Proposal (RFP) and the draft franchi se agreement to, find what charges were made requiring such effort. Al though the occasional hour height be quibbl ed with, he. did not doubt that byand large. 99 percent of what was there was quite accurate. Councilmember Woolley referred to the period from April to July, 1984. Mr. Zaner said he referred to . a much later period. Staff had detailed information on the number of: hours spent by each eeapleyee; including Ms. Phillips., for: -tote, period -April to July, butt: it was hate broken down .id further -detail regarding the. -precise- , task each person worked _on Staff had only broad definitions, such as three hours on a certain document. but the kind of detail that. was now given was not provided at that time. Councilntember Woolley believed Ms. Phillips` primary efforts would have been between April 27 and May 23 when the report was mailed -- an impossible 20 hours plus per day for 18 days. Carried on to the time of the hearings, it represented a rsore eareasonabl a 10 hours per day, and became totally reasonable if carried through to July 5, the end of the billing period. She wondered why Ms. Phillips would work full time after the report was mailed in May. Mr. Zaner said he argued thusly with the principals of the firm when discussing the overrun. An edmlttedly arbitrarily negotiated settlement was reached... He argued the difficulty of justifying that someone would spend 18 to 20 hours per day four days in a row. A reasonable compromise was to cut the overrun in hal f, which they agreed to do. Councilmember Woolley referred to the number two update :on current progress. Mention was made of new .legislation that required a revision of the Franchise Agreement. She asked if the extra cost of that revision was i.:overed by the original estimate. Mr. Zaner said Mr. Moore neminded him that it would be part of the $25,000. Answering the question differently, he said that no one had anticipated, at the time Arnold .& Porter presented the pro- posal for the current contract, that theywould have to make revi- sions for Bill 4103. Staff told them that as far as they were concerned, the revisions had to be included in the $25,000 pack- age. Such revisions, together with any others that might come along --and he did not expect future progress to be any smoother than in the past —might well require Arnold & Porter to spend more time than anticipated in the contract under which they were cur- rently operating. It might result in their not finishing the work, because they would be stopped when they reached $102,000; they might finish the work and absorb the cost; or staff would end up spending a substantial amount of time they had not anticipated on work Arnold' & Porter was not able to :complete. As a direct answer . to the question, he confirmed that the Bill 4103 revisions were currently being made within the $25,000. Councilmember Woolley said `given the background, . she was hesitant to give a green light to the contract. One of the main problems was they did not know enough often enough. She asked if there could be a different reporting system between Arnold & Porter, staff, and the Council on the;:current contract., with more . frequent billings or .reports to : Council O to allow a closer tab on the process. Mr. Zaner said there would be no problem in meeting that request. He indicated in his October 11, 1984 report staff .had instituted a tighter internal monitoring system on Arnold & . Porter. There would be no .problem from staff's .point of view . in updating their reports -specifically about the ,Arnold. & . Porter poortion. of the program. Councilmember Cobb asked how soon and how often staff was warned about the overrun situation.. He also wanted .to see a system of tracking built in to keep the warning system on a short fuse so the City was not again embarrassed. Mr. Zaner assured him that they now had such a system. Councilmember Bechtel said that a green light in the staff report was seeing 374 hours attributed to one attorney in a nine -week period. Most of that work had to have been done prior to the com- pletion of . the first report. :, She commended_ Mr.. Zarrer for his work in negotiating a settlement and reducing by. half the. original bil l ingE: , She el so wanted to. be sure the controls -remained in place and were upgraded to prevent a recurrence. 5 2 2 1 11/6/84 1 1 1 Councilmen.ber Sutorius was reassured by the fact that the amended contract wfth a cell ing of $102,000.would either be sufficient to complete the project; and, if not, Council might be asked for more money, or that job would be completed in some other fashion. He asked why the Congressional legislation was a significant impact. During a period of time he believed nothing in elements of the contract drafting would relate to the work of the Congressional committees. on both sides of the legislature, Arnold & Porter was experienced and highly professional in the field and did similar work for other clients, which was one reason they were selected. He wondered if the City was paying for an educational process the firm needed to continue to be a consultant in the :field as they would have to apply the knowledge to all contracts in process. Even if they had no contract in process, the . money would have to be spent to educate themselves on the current status of the .law. Mr. Zaner said since Bill :4103 coved. into its final -stages and it becaaae obvious .it would be adopted_ by Congress and signed by the President, the City worked with Arnold & porter to ensure they were not doing things in the franchise agreement that later -would have to .be changed at great expense. In . some instances Arnold & Porter had to go back tomake sure the . franchise agreement was consistent.- with the Bill ,: .but they were--not overwhelming, and could be included in the $25,000 fee. Also, he • knew Arnold & Porter spent a considerable amount of firm time in Washington deal ing with Congress and the tel ecommunications issue and the Congressional committees. The City was not billed for that time, although they enjoyed the benefits..: Mr. Sinel and other members of Arnold & Porter were called to . Capitol- Hill : to - testify for Bills 4103, SB 66, and their predecessors. To the degree that such expertise and know] edge resided in the firm, the City came out ahead. The .consul tants ,had .to do such, work. to • stay current in the field and remain experts in the field of cab..l e tel evision, Councilmember Sutorius suggested the tracking and monitoring pro- cess be shown for both time and dollars on a PERT chart in the Council package as part of ,public information. The schedule for various .tasks . would be given, and at. each bench ark. reporting date, what percentage was completed, at what time, and the remain- ing timefor the: tasks with: dollar. equation. The :Council would not then be lulled .into feel ing that certain tasks were progress- ing well, not knowing they would involve large sums : at the end. It was not possibl e to :know how .much., was being_ spent unl ess time and money were tracked- concurrently. Mr.:2aner. said . the point was well taken. It was not done in such a form, but was broken down into phases and sub phases. The inter- nal dollar amount Arnold & Porter should be -spending on each was estimated, and as .the +nil estones were passed, they: were checked off. It would be no problem to reduce it to a PERT chart, which would be a convenient graphic form. Councilmember Cobb agreed .with that approach. He asked if the City had any legal recourse to recover more than was negotiated, given the late :date the City .learned, of the si ze and timing of .the olter.ruEn Mr. 2aer said he clarifled weeks earlier that the City did. not have to pay any of. the: $112,000 as : i t. exceeded the budget and the contract. There was no question : in his, mind that the .work was done and the City had received value for what Arnold $ Porter con- sidered to be $112,000 of work.. Because the City disagreed, he referred to the discussion on the .number of hours expended. The sus wasnegotiated and the, arbitrary sum of: $56,000, was reached. The City,Councit ;was not .under a 'egal obligation to pay anything, but the work, was done and done: quite well. 6e:. recommended, the City •Council pay..for -the ,work. . 5 2 2 .8 11/5/84 Mayor Klein referred to the time spent by Ms. Phillips since it pertained to his faith in the credibility of the amcunts being charged. He asked if he understood that some days she billed from 18 to 20 hours to the City account, Mr. Zaner said those were Councilmember Woolley's calculations. He recalled a number of weeks when Is. Phillips' time was in the high fi fties, which was high for one work week. He could not say how many hours per day were used. Mayor Klein asked if there was a record of the total amount of time on work for all cl lents spent by her during, that period. Mr. Zaner said he had not asked for that information. Staff only asked for the City's billing, not for other clients. Vice Mayor Levy could not analyze Arnold. & Porter's time sheets and had to, go . on the premise that they expended the time. . The consul tants should have known what the costs would be at the beginning, and certainly by the time they returned with their first cost overrun that lifted the .total cost to $185,000. He asked why Arnold & Porter had not foreseen the overrun; and if Arnold & Porter billed the City for any time related to the incip- ient lawsuits. City Attorney Diane Lee said yes. Vice Mayor Levy asked if Arnold & Porter was authorized to parti- cipate in the law suit and had the right to bill. Ms. Lee said they were authorized in one instance since they had information the City needed to defend its position. She did not believe it was part of the amount before the Council for consi- deration. Mr. Zaner said that was correct. It was al so true that Arnold & Porter billed for a given figure when they should . have known, theoretically, that it would cost more. For the original contract with the overage and the current contract, Arnold & Porter sub - gritted a bid substantially higher than the one the Council autho- rized. In both cases, staff returned to Arnold . & Porter, saying the bid was too high. The contracts were thennegotiated down and Arnold & Porter agreed to perform the work for the new negotiated figure. Arnold & Porter originally came in at much higher figures for both contracts. The first contract was negotiated many years earlier by Mr. McNeely. The most recent one was negotiated by Larry Moore from between $140,000 and $150,000 down to $102,000. In both cases Arnold & Porter said it would require more money, but agreed to perform the work for the 1 over cost. Vice Mayor Levy referred to the first contract where Arnold & Porter ran up $297,000 in billings by their figures. He asked what reasons were given for cost overruns in terms of work they had not foreseen. An earlier memo from staff said the consul tent did not foresee the complications that came about because of the Joint Pewers Agreement (JPA) nor the amount of public participa- tion and the time it would take. The argument did not carry much weight with him as the City made them aware that part of dealing with Palo Al to was deal ing with public input. If they were pro- fessional s, they should have foreseen those costs. Mr. Zaner said there were other elements that were valid since they were not expected by Arnold & Porter. One was the °fact that whatever they did had to be cl eared through five, not one, juris- dictions. - ' Although Palo Alto staff understood . the process and knew the people 'involved, it meant theconsultants. were also work- ing for Menlo Park, Stanford, Los Altos, Atherton, and East Palo Ai to. Additionally, Arnold & Porter were genuinely surprised when the responses to the RFP came back in such disparate condition. The four responses were totally different. Anyone reading the 5 2 2 9 11/5/84 cartonful of proposals would realize that they were so different it was liapossible to compare hems. Much time and effort was spent to decode the proposals to arrive at a common denominator. None of the bidders followed the. format laid out in the RFP, which would have made the work simpler, The consultant had to compare apples, bananas, oranges and grapes. It was a tough job taking much time. He read all the proposals, and found is difficult to compare them across the board. Both he and Arnold & Porter were genuinely surprised to find themselves doing that and then attempting to link them to a municipal operation. Vice Mayor Levy asked if there was any information on what other jurisdictions paid for a similar project. Mr. Zaner said he checked with Wheaton, Illinois, for whore Arnold & Porter worked just before they started work for Pal o Al to. The process there was much easier since it was only Wheaton and there was no JPA or any other entity was involved. The City Manager of Wheaton informed him that 'several budget amendments were needed because the .price was higher tha'rt anticipated, and the total cost was close to $200,000. He did not know how much public input they had nor did he know how extensive their analysis was. lice Mayor Levy asked what would happen if the City suggested a contract with Arnold & Porter for a fixed cost rather than the hourly contract for phase II. Mr. Zaner said Council approved a contract for $102,000, and attached a scope of services. Vice Mayor Levy understood that the contract for phase- II was stated the sane way as phase ;1, and the $102,000 represented Arnold & Porter's estimate. It could be that Arnold & Porter could spend $102,000 worth of time and not finish the job. He. asked if Arnold & Porter would be amenable to restating the con- trac t -so it said that for $102,0O0, they would finish the job regardless of the time involved. Mr. Zaner did not know nice Mayor Levy asked what would happen if Councii decided not to pay the cost overrun, and embarked on a new consultant selection process to involve Arnold & Porter if they wi shed. Mr. Zaner bel ieved the -process would probably be set back four to six months, and the bidders other than Arnold & Porter who prey i- ously gave bids could conceivably allege that those bids were no l onger val id . (ice• Mayor Levy recalled that the consul tent the City considered as the number- two choice had an. estimate in the'range of $45,000. Mr. Zaner bel ieved that proposal was to write the RFP. Vice Mayor Levy believed the $4-5,000 was to perform services com- parable to the Arnold & Porter quote , City Attorney Diane Lee bet ieved the $45,000 was specifically for the RFP process because when she discussed writing the french,' se agreements and _other kinds of things `with that -bidder, she under- stoodm that when he did the project in -Devise he relied on certain 'sta f and . ether ten sdl tan ts that the -Ci ty 'retained,- = Vice Ma,►or clarified that Phase I -for $1.08,000 was the origi- nal contract with Arnold & Porter, and that was not to write the franc hi se agreement, but to write the RFP and go through evalua- tion process, which turned' out to be a $298,000 bill , that was renegotiated down to $240,000. He understood that the estimate given by the City's second choice was for $45,000 Ito do the work Arnold & Porter 'estimated -at $108,000. 5 2 3 0 11/5/84 Ms. Lee said that was correct. Bob Moss, 4010 0rme, agreed that costs and performances should be tracked. There was a regularized procedure for doing so on gov- ernment contracts called C -spec. It was not 100 percent accurate, but yave, a f�rirly good trac.king 'when significantly more money was spent than was .per formed on. a job For almost 30 years, he worked for various yeeernraent contractors, many in the aerospace indus- try, but wars never associated with a program that had almost a 400 percent overrun in such 'a short period of time. 'The original bid of $1034000. for ,the franchising was almost matched with $102,000 to write an agreement and negotiate a final contract. On the sur- face, it appeared to be a much less difficult and time consuming task. The amount of money being spent was of great concern. As pointed out by Mr. Zaner, Arnold b Porter did not. indicate they would be 01 1 ing for that money,. He quoted from the August 20, 1984 City Council meetings, page 4959. Cable Coordinator Jeanne Moul ton said "Arnold & Porter bi-ll,ed the City approximately $13'0,000 and a bill for the balence, o,f $185,000 was approved and was in the mail." Essentially the. City was billed for $185,000, and Arnold & Porter had an.everrun of $113,000 for which the City would not be billed. She went on to say that the City had an estimate for a further $1.02,.300 to carry out the next phase , which was the money under discussion that evening. The $400,000 total bill would have to be paid either from the general taxpayers or from the peopl e who used the cabl e tel evision via the fi^anchi see, which would raise the monthly rate_ to a point where people would not subscribe.. In the case of the Cable Co-op, the people who owned the system would pay for i t . It was essential to cut costs as much as possible. Rebidding would only increase the costs for all and delay the wiring of the City for cable. He was uneasy about the cost, but it was not better to start again, Withdrawal of franchisee bids was not discussed as it was not -a live issue. As a bidder and an eval uator of bids, he knew bids had a shel f 1 ife after ,which the bidder was free, to reeval uate . Mr. Zaner' s comment was valid, and if the matter were extended too long, there might be compl ications. Jim Oinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, Vice President of the Cable Co-op, said the Cable Co-op would be caused financial problems if its activity extended from March to May, and he bel ieved it was unj us - ti fled. Council leas in the, position to tell Arnold & Porter to return to the original schedule, and there was never significant discussion about changing the proposal . They were satisfied with what they offered as they did their homework and made sure it was correct, and it was presented only once. Al though changes might be made to reflect a changing situation, he was sure the Board would back_ him up in saying they would not change the proposal retic h. The Cable Co-op did not .want to change their bid. He asked the Council, to return to the original timetable to al i ow them to put cable communications into Palo Alto and the surrounding juris- dictions. Council:e mber. Bechtel was, not wild about approving the amount, but saw no al ternatiee. A del ay of four to six months 'to receive al ternative bids, at perhaps increased cost, could not be justi- fied, " They had voted on the matter a month earlier. MOTIiiMt Comecilaeaber Wecbtel asleep. atito*ded'' by, Fl*tchar, to adopt . o staff rotemntedati oa to acc..t the se eti atatd settl eaeot of MAO. for cegp etod 'Pork by 1r o1d a .Partor asd direct staff to arepar* the apfrepriate tretet aaeeadaeat Ordiaaaee. Firtker, �Mst tho soopos cap is to ba reaor*4 so staff may costiaoo .e'ie, Otitis** sas - a sow aantrat t. :Counc 11 member Bechtel said epunc it was ubh lged to ensure the money was spent -'wi sell and to move on` with the "process. Mr. Dinkey talked to her about the issue three years ago on election night, and the control s Mr. Zaner mentioned. were al ready in place. 5 2 3 1 11/5/84 Vice Mayor Levy did not believe Council should pay any of the $112,000 overage. Arnold & Porter was hired as experts and should have foreseen the costs within a reasonable level of the process. They knew they would deal with five jurisdictions, and nothing unexpected wa-s encountered. Arnold & Porter originated the REP based on their professional experience, and should have been able to foresee the responses. Bills from Arnold & Porter for $185,000 were approved and paid --80 percent over the original estimate. If a further $56',000 was authorized, it would more than double the original forecast. Professionals should not charge over double the amount forecast. The stopping point should be $185,000, in line with the contract. The further $113,000 was incurred by the consultant without any notification to the City as called for by the terms of the contract. The' $113,000 was taken, and the City should not pay Any of i t . The problem with the process was that, once the City agreed to the original bid of Arnold & Porter, it was locked into all the steps with them. Going to another con- tractor 'would take too much time. He asked Mr. Zaner if it would end the City's relationship with Arnold & Porter if the City decided not to pay any of the $113.000 overage, or if they would continue with Phase 2 on the basis of the agreement as made. Mr. Zaner believed that Arnold & Porter would continue to work with the City. It was a professional organization that would honor its commitment to see the job through to its completion. He underlined that Arnold & Porter should not be accused of failing to notify staff they were going over the budget or doing work out- side the scope of the contract. No work was done outside the scope of the contract. Any responsibility for not picking up on the fact that there was overage rested only slightly with Arnold & Porter and more with the City. Staff should have tracked more closely. Arnold & Porter had some obligations, but the City had the responsibility of administering the contract. Vice Mayor Levy did not understand why the City was responsible. Arnold & Porter were the experts in cable TV, which was why they were hired. Mr. Zaner said his basic responsibility was to administer all con- tracts the Council allowed. If the contract overran the amount to which the contractor was entitled, it was the City's responsibili- ty. The contract had to be• watched, and when the final Mount of money was approached, the contractor should be negotiated with, or an adjustment made to bring the work in line with the funds avail- able. He did not absolve Arnold & Porter from responsibility, but said the total responsibility should not be laid at their door. Vice Mayer Levy asked foe confirmation that when .Arnold & Porter came with the first overrun they said $185,000 would take them to the end of the contract.' Al though Mr. Zaner believed he should have known _ that would not happen, Arnold & Porter said it would. Then Arnold & Porter said they spent $298,000. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vic* Slagle .Levy moved, seconding by Miley. that the City mat pay any costs to Arnold h Porter fir' the first 'phase •f the contract beyond $1$5,*A• *1 ready approved,' and that the comtrac t with Arnold & ; Porter ` for Phase Two he renegotiated into a fined -cost contract and returned to Ceemct` o Vice Mayor Levy was satisfied with the $102,000 estimate' for Phase Two, but recognized that Arnold & Porter might be forced to ask for a' solewhat higher figure to complete it at a fixed cost. Staff did a reasonable job overseeing the contract,=but were vic- tims of l fte infbrration from the vendor, which was the reason for the cd st overruns. Counciimeraber T olley spoke` to 'the first part of the .'substitute motion. Al though not on, the Council -wen the first contfaot was passed, she was the only coo n sta f f ee*ber on the coma i ttee that 5 2 3 2 II/5/84 found Arnold & Porter. to be the most experienced applicant to write the RFe. Their price was high, but it was considered justi- fied. The Council was justi fled in expecting Arnold & Porter to have more closely estimated the final costs. She agreed it was an educational process for the firm. Al ternatively, the level of refinement of the eval uation report to the Council was excessive. Most other applicants were not lawyers, and the resulting agree- ment might have been more thorough than necessary. The. City was justified in not paying any further money for the first phase of the contract. Councilmember Suter.' us dismissed the concept of changing consul- tants, which would be expensive. The second phase was an addendum to the original contract, and ha suggested that payment of the $56,000 oe withheld during Phase Twos and timely payment be made of the $102,000. When the fine) franchise agreement was delivered, the. Council could decide what portion, if any, of the $56,000 should rightfully be paid, which meant staying with the contract and setting a certain expectation. The contract would be closely monitored, and the total end product would affect the final amount paid. Counc ilmember Fletcher was unhappy with the enormous cost over- runs, but believed totally unpredictable factors were involved. One bid was so unusual it made history in the cable TV industry and was the subject of extended discussions at the League of California" Cities conferences.' The lawsuit then brought the pro- cess to a grinding hal t. Arnold a Porter had to stop everything, and start all over again six months later. She could not estimate the dollar worth, but there was tone justification for asking for more than originally contracted for. If they stayed within the hours contracted, the City would not have received a complete job. It called into question how profitable the whole cable issue was when the franchise process cost so much. However, staff analyzed the costs submitted, and were sati sfi ed the City had a product valued at the cost charged . She could not support the substitute motion. The work was accepted a It was difficult to bring into parity the variety of proposal s., eval uate them and provide a pro- cess fair to all. One reason Arnold & Porter was chosen was to avoid costly additional litigation. She opposed the first part of the substitute motion. The second part was more appealing as the Council had experience that the- estimates were not sufficiently realistic. It was hoped the estimate for Phase Two was more or loss on target. She invited her colleagues' comments. Council ember . Cobb was ready to support an amendment. along the lines suggested `by Counc ilsaember Sutori us . A monthly cost control should be specified so Council would be aware of impending trouble and could place_, a cap. The incentives for peyment of the $56,000 should be timely performance, qual ity of performance, and abil ity to hold the budget. Ceuncilmember Bechtel al so favored Counci.imember Sutorius' recorsa- bondations to Motivate the cototrattor to' do ail 'excel1 en jets. perk for bootie whereat': the 'substitute "aarendsa'en't 410 ht "wake 'the tontrac tor` feel chi sti sa'd . and' less Mottted'e 'She agreed. Arnold & Porter did the work", and compl nations ar a after the contract was initially negotiated." . 'Sh'e -c'pposed the stibstltute Bastion',` but would support the impending amendment. Mayer Klein agreed it was better to' hoid the $56,000 out as a car- rot rather than use it as a stick. With the $56,000, the overrun would be 124 percent, which was too high and should not have hap- pened. Arnold & Porter would not do as good a job if agreement over the amount was not reached. 'le expected see the contract more closely supervised than any .other in the .City. He was. not pursuaded that all the hours listed were incurred, and found the tise listed for Ms. Phillips difficult to believe. Since the $56,000 cut would take that into` account if it wereallocated pro- portionately across all the hours reported by Arnold & Porter 5 2 3 3 11/5/84 it would briny her hours into a more explicable range. For all those reasons, he would not support the substitute motion. The overriding concern was to move forward and complete the pr3Cess as expeditiously as possible. The time factor was significant, and further delays would be the biggest cost factor. The project was in excess of $10 mill ion, and every month's del ay incurred further costs to the City and the eventual successful franchisee which would be passed on. The highest priority for both staff and. Arnold & Porter was to get' the 'pr'oject moving. Yice Mayor Levy endorsed Mayor Kl ein''s remarks regarding the pro- fessional'ism of Arnold & Porter. He believed the $56,OJ0 should remain on the table to ensure the quality .of the work 'and was wi 1 1 i ng to vote against hi s own amendment and support leaving the $56,000 in limbo until the end of the contract and discussing it again at that time. He referred to the $102,000 estii4ate for Phase Two that was approved, and understood Mr. Zaner was satis- fied the sum was a fires number unless further changes in the federal law affected the franchising process. Mr'. Zaner agreed, but pointed out that any further federal changes might return them to square one in any event. Yice Mayor Levy asked Mr. Zaner if he was satisfied that if the Council authorized him to 'agree to $102,000 as a fixed cost item with Arnold & Porter, that they would de the work to completion as stipulated in the agreement. Mr. Zaner asked if he wanted confirmation that Arnol d & Porter would complete all the work for $102,000 or whether the City would be committed to spending no more than $102,000. Vice Mayor Levy said he wanted an agreeaaent to complete the work for $102,000. Mr. Zaner said the agreement did not say so. Yice Mayor Levy understood that, but wanted to know if Arnold & Porter would agree to do so if staff said it was Council's desire. Mr. Zaner did not know, but said the work would be cumpl eted and that no RI ore than $102,000 would be expended. If Arnold. & Porter would not cOmpl`ete a'1 the work for $102,000,- it would `be com- pleted in house Mayor Klein asked if Yice Mayer levy wanted to withdraw his sub- sti cute motion. Yice Mayor Levy agreed to withdraw his substitute motion if his second agreed. Otherwise, he would vote against it. SECOND DECLINES TO WITHDRAW SWDSTITYTE NOTION. Counc ilmeasber Woolley agreed that because of the unforeseen si tua- tion, the overruns were to some extent justified but should have been covered by the- first- cost overrun.- The second cost overrun was excessive. The difficul ty of comparing appl es and oranges 'was discussed with Arnold & Porter who, because of their expertise, would have less difficul ty in working through that kind of compar- ison. The Council was concerned because it discussed the possi- bil ities of municipal,. joint, or' private ownership, and how those_ three types of ownership `could be compared. The costs= of any of the $56-,000' expended at the end of the" second phase of the con- tract would be passed on to the viewers in the form of higher fees or fewer services such as fewer camerasfor the publ is access por- tion of the -corntrac t,. or' a delay in •some portion -of the' services until a later period. She asked Council*eeiber Sutorius to confirm that the $56,000 would not necessarily be paid in total but that discussion of whether a portion, the entire amount, or none of it would ensue after the completion of Phase Two'. 5 2 3 4 11/5/84 Council►"ea!ber SutorIus confirmed that was his intent. SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIVIDED 1e TWO. FIRST PART OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO NOT PAY AMY OF THE $113,000 COST OVERRUN failed by a vet* of 1-7, Woolly voting "aye," Witherspoon absent. SECOND PART OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT STAFF RENEGOTIATE THE ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT WITH ARNOLD i PORTER INTO A FIRED FEE CONTRACT WITH THE RECOGNITION THAT THEY HIGMT VARY FROM THE ESTIMATE OF $102,000 FOR THE SERVICES failed era a vote of 1-7, kennel voting "aye," Witherspoon absent. AMENDMENT: Coaectbumbler Uteri's moved, seconded by Levy, that the following actions be taken: 1. That staff develop a monitoring tool for performance evalua- tion review that measures project progress by major tasks in both time and cost dimensions, acteeall s versus estimates, such report to be provided ti the Council on a monthly basis; and 2. Staff notify Arnold i Porter that the approval of any or all of the $56,000 ae[dttioaal payment on Addends. No. 2 to the contract wail d be withheld by Council until completion •f Addendum No. 3 to Agreement 4292. Councilmember Bechtel referred to the incentives of which Counciimember Sutorivs spoke. In order to support the amendment, she needed to see speed and qual Ity of work mentioned. Instead of providing a carrot, the amendment merely withheld payment until the work was completed. Councl1member Sutorius observed Arnold & Porter in action, and believed it was a professional organization that would obtain a copy of the minutes. He asked if the second to his amendment would agree to add "a negotiated payment of overrun" on Addendum No. 2 i n order that it may ev al uate the satisfactory, timely, and complete del ivery under the full terms 'of the entire contract." SECOND DECLINED THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO TIDE AMENDMENT AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: C•mec i l m•aber Bechtel moved, wooded by C•bh , that the payment of the $56,000 be c•ut1 i eedt upon Arm•i d A Porter's completion of the _last phase of the contract in a timely manner with their missal high goal it,y and in a meaner that is responsive to the Ci ty' s budget constraints. Counc ileeaber Woolley said the amendment to the amendment promised that i f Arnold & Porter did well on Phase Two only, there would be no real discussion from the Council about payment of the $56,000, but the amendment was based on poth Phases One and Two and allowed several possibil sties to occur' at' the end of the contract. . Coun-ci1member Renzei said the amendment to the amendment was con- tingent upon the satisfactory and timely completion of the Adden- dum No. 3 and was budget responsive. It was :? clear criterion from which the Council could determine whether to pay .the nego- tiated amount the City Manager worked out. She was not com fort- abl a suggesting that a payment between zero . and $56,OOO would depend on criteria where Council was the ultimate arbiter. Satis- factory, timely, and complete work based on the RFP and the con- tract negotiated was a clear criterion that could be measured by objective parties. It appeared to be a fair way to handle the contingency while providing some incentive for Arnold 1 Porter to complete Addendum No. 3. She was will ing to support the amendment to the amendment with that under Stead ing . The amendment to the amendment suggested something quantl fiabl a and not subject to much interpretation. She bel ieved Arnold a < Porter needed fairly concrete criteria in order to respond to the Council action. 5 2 3 5 11/5/84 14 yor Klein supported the amendment to the amendment: It was not fair to tell Arnold & Porter that Council could still haggle about whether $56,000 was the correct number. Their work on Phases One and Two was over and a judgment as to whether that was good, bad, or indifferent could be made then. It was neither fair nor appro- priate to withhold such judgment until afterwards. The amendment to the amendment showed that the Council was unhappy, and al though it was willing to pay, it would hold the sum to ensure the problem did not crop up again. It showed that the Council wanted the final phase carried out in a timely, high qual ity manner and responsive to the budgetary constraints, If the final work came in on that basis, which were the most objective measurements pos- sible, the City would pay the $56,000. _ He . bel ieved it was a fair and workable idea. Vice Mayor Levy bel ieved priorities were incorrectly placed. The second phase of the budget was for $102,000, and the aleendraent to the amendment said the Council would pay art additional $56.000 based on Arnold & Porter' s performance on the $102,000 contract, The $56,000 related to Phase One. It reserved judgment on the $56,000 with no strings attached. Obviously, Council's decision at the end of the total contract process would be based on a review of what . went on and a total evaluation of the job that Arnold & Porter did. He did not consider any additional carrot necessary as the contract represented a third of a mill ion dollars. It was a sub star ti al amount of money to any law firm or consul tent of that type. He was concerned the Council was venting its frustration by tai king of its outrage at the cost of the total contract; but, when it carne to action, it said "What the heck -- it' s only money." However, by its actions, the Council was laying the cost onto the subscrib,ers to , the cable TY system, which was unfair to do at that point. A more responsible action would be to del ay consideration of the $56,000 until the .contract was totally completed, .then look back upon the total job and make a. decision in a comprehensive way. Vice Mtayor Levy. obtained .Councilmember Bechtel' s confirmation that the amendment to the amendment impl led that the C; ty might pay all or part of the $56,000, depending upon the degree to which the contract was compl eted, based on the criteria mentioned. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT PASSED by a vets of 5-3. Woolley, Setter's*, Levy voting "a• Witberspoen absent. AJIEND$ENT AS AMENDED PASSED aeaaaieossl y, ii1 tAers rean absent. NAIR MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED seaa..lasesly. Vitki rspoew 'absent. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:35 p.m. TO 9:50 p.m. ITEM #17, AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN MORATORIUM ORDINANCE (PLA 3-16) MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Uteri's, the ameadaeat to the Oeiontsws .Nsrateri ea. Ordinance. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF TNC COUNCIL or'TRf.CITY'OF PALO_ ALTO AMENDING THE OROI$ANCE IMPOSING MORATORIA IN TWE HONOTOW* AREA. Councilrember .Cobb asked if the wording. of the ordinance .made it impossible for -the City to deny the project when it returned. The ordinance read "The moratorium .shall not apply.." He believed the substitution of "may" for -"shall" would give the Council more discretion. City Attorney Diane Lee said the Council would continue to have the powers it normally had under the Architectural Review ordi- nance --to vote it up or down.;, 5 2 3 6 11.15184 Counc ilmemher Cobh confirmed from M:. Lcc that the required findings were the same. Mayor Klein said that if Council denied the application at some particular point, the moratorium would apply. Ms. Lee said that if the application were finally denied, ulti- mately the project would die. Should someone make application for anther project on the same property, the moratorium would apply. Councilmember Menzel opposed the motion because she believed Council should have stayed with a pure definition of a moratorium. Constructing definitions to accommodate specific projects was not good planning. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7. 1, Lenzel voting in wltbers;:oon absent. ITEM 11-A (OLD ITEM 14), ORDINANCE RE AMENDING ZONING CODE AND VEHICLES AND TRAFYIC _ CODE and !leading) (PLA 3.8) (00:S58:4) Councilmember Cobb said he removed the item from the Consent Calendar .because of a call he received from Mr. Harrington about his project. He understood that because of timing, Mr. Harrington' s whole project might be killed for the sake of one parking space. Mr. Herrington' s was the only project affected, and while he was something of a fanatic about obtaining adequate parking, he knew the project was around for many years. He did not know whose fault it was, but if it was the only project affected and only one parking space was concerned, it might be worthwhile to consider grandfathering. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown confirmed that the guest parking requirement was one space. The ARB denied the project, and Mr. Harrington had a new architect corupletely redesign the project. Mr. Harrington was told by his architect that the additional parkiey space was not difficult and could be achieved by exca- vating the below grade garage somewhat larger than originally pro- posed. He heard nothing from Mr. Harrington that it would be a great inconvenience or impossibility to add the one additional space. Counc11mersber Cobb understood .the; extra parking space could_ kill the project after some $50,000 was spent on it, which was why he rem ov ed the item from the cal end ar. . Mr. Brown said he only spoke .with . Mr.. Harrington' s architect, . who stated it was feasible to add a space. Mayor Klein asked staff if the item could be continued for two weeks to hear Mr. Harrington and his architect. If Council desired to satlysfy Mr. Harrington, he asked what mechanism should be used. Mr. Brown said the item could be continued for two weeks. Diret,tor. of Plalining and Community. Env1ronment Ken Schreiber said some_ types of grandfatherclause would 'be- necessary, b:t the proj- ect was not approved.... For months earl ier, the devel oiler, -was faced with an' ARB recommendation to deny the project or return with a complete redesign. Mr. Harrington chose the latter, and it was still in the redesign process. Therefore, a grandfather clause based on the .submission of an ARS- application in process would be needed. Mayor Klein said that since it -was still in the redesign phase, nothing would prevent inclusion of .anextra space... Kr. Schreiber said according to staff' s information from the architect, the additional parking space appeared feasible as it was still in the redesign process. 5 2 3 7 11/5/84 Mr. Brown said that during the process, the neighborhood and sur- rounding business properties were concerned about the need for parking and the lack of on -street parking surrounding the project. If it was possible to get an additional space, it was a situation where the guest parking requirement should apply. Councilmesaber Sutorius was al so acquainted with the project. A significant oak tree to enhance the whole environment was an important part of the design conceppt,, and he asked if the enlarge-- lent' of the underground' garage wbuld -damage •its' Groot system. • Mr. Brown said it made no difference as the new design eliminated the oak tree. Councileember 'Sutor'ius said `he vo'ted, against the itee" earl ier• and would continue to do so `The agenda 'shoved a un'aninious cote, al though he and two others voted against the ordinance change. Mayor Klein suggested the final vote incorporates many things, whereas he voted on the item in question separately. Councilmember Sutorius believed it was reasonable to allow time for the situation to be clarified. Councilmember Fletcher com- mented on how the increased requirements would impact housing af- fordability, and given the future plans for housing and on -site parking, the situation in the neighborhood would improve. It was a situation where it €ni.ght be worthwhile to give additional con- sideration to the appl icant' s plight. Councilmember Renzel asked if the project was the one on both sides of the street in the PC zone, or the one on the corner of Homer and Ramona. Mr. Brown said the project incorporated the latter and one-hal f of the PC zone. Councilmeuber Renzel received confirmation from M. Brown that the area was rezoned fro, RM-2 to RM-3 in the last six months, and the property owner received a bonus. It was not unreasonable, in view of that and the tight parking in the downtown and its periphery, to request an extra parking, space. There was a severe shortage of on -street parking in the area, and it was the type of project for which the ordinance was designed. To make exceptions to deal with individual prej ects, especially one that did not even receive ARB approval , made no sense. MOTION: C4encilmember Kenna moved, seconded by il.N'i l ey , to adopt the ordinance amendias the Zoning Code and Vehicles and Trafe'c` Cade. ORMIMA$CE 3S$3 entitled 'ORDINANCE IF THE COl E IL OF THE ALTO A*ENbING TITLE 111 (ZONING CONE) AND TITLE 30 (VESICLES Ali! .TRAFFIC CODE) REGARDING EXPANSION OF UAMOFATHEREO OFFICL ISIS UPON REDEVELOPMENT, PARE USES, OUTDOOR RECREATION, WEST TARRING IN MOLTIILE. FAM- ILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, FENCING IN THE OPEN SINCE DISTRICT, OFFSTREET PARKING, VARIANCES FROM SPECIAL RE- QU1N NESTS, DEFINITION Irf ALLEY .AMU Tit DENSITY OF NET- ELOP*ENTS WITS R,ELOY-NAI[ET-*ATE ` OMITS'°. (1st Reading 1O/22/N4, PASSED N -O, Witherspoon absent) . gayer .. Klein said the only controversial part of the amendment appeared to be guest parking in multiple family residential devel- opments. He suggested it be voted on separately. ' Councilmembe►y Woolley- said the project had problems which were not the fault of the City .process or °sta'f , f, and she regretted that Mr. Harrington did not appear to specifically explain the problem. She suggested the Council nova ahead. Planning Director approval was adopted as the cutoff pOlnt for'aoratori'a, the project was at 'least two steps behind that, and She did` not believe there should be an exception. 5 2.3 8 1.1/5/84 Council member Bechtel agreed . What was eventually adopted for - multiple family residential parking was a compromise between a greater parking requirement -recommended by staff -and something less. The Council should be sure to get the compromise. Counciimember Sutorius requested that the ordinance be divided. ORDINANCE DIVIDE© FIRST PART OF ORDINANCE COMPRISING ALL ELEMENTS'EXCEPT GUEST PARK- ING IM MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ?EYELOPMENTS PASSED unanimous- ly, Witherspoon absent. SECOND PART OF ORDINANCE REGARDING GUEST PARKING IN MULTIPLE FAM- ILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Fletcher, Sutorlas voting "Die," Witherspoon absent. ITEM #18, THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES FROM RM-3 TO RMD: IMPLICATIONS or SECOND READING Oi:' N I S Okin tiA'CE 0H PARCEL.. Mk APPAL fir bO WN- TOWI RESIbtUITIAL A EA (PLA 3-6) tCM a8:4) John Long said he and his wife owned and lived at 332 Ki pl ing Street, in the area considered for rezoning. He asked that Coun- cil delay approval of the ordinance to allow their project to con- tinue as planned. They were remodeling their 75 -year old home, raising it by three feet to convert the partial basement to fin- ished, partly rented, living space. They would live in one unit and later return the house to a one -family unit. It would retain its style-- no horizontal square' footage would be added and the lot coverage would not al ter. All neighbors and friends supported the project, which met the purpose for which RMD(NP) was designed. Time was a crucial factor. Under current zoning, the plans would be approved as is, with a variance for the front and side yard setbacks. The plans were verbally denied because of the rezoning. The official route would take too long. By physically moving the house, the plans would be approved under RM-4 without a variance, but it would make the house seem out of place. The permit would be revoked if a substantial amount of work was not coMpl eted when rezoning took effect. Much of the time problem was due to fal se and incomplete information from City staff. He asked the Council to give them the necessary. time and means to complete their proj- ect, which belonged in that part of Palo Alto. Pam Marsh, 327 Waverl ey, agreed with the Council , staff and down- town residents that the new zoning was appropriate. However, two different pruj ec is were affected by the timing . The one on Everett Street was a condominium conversion to el ireinate two rent- al ur fts and replace .the* with two condominiums. Many residents supported Patric is Ward's 'appeal of 'the project, t, but John Long' s project was completely different. The Longs were renovating an old house others would have torn down. They worked every weekend and en in 's to ,preserve the old house and would add .a rental unit but` `live inn' the' horfse` -themselves. Their plant' Were entirely in character 'with, and Would .enhance, the neighborhood. . ' George, Dal , 535 Arastradaro Road, owned the small project at 418- 420 Everett and was a IiCensed architect. His project was within the_ proper coLrse of.` the appyrov al prod ess , and he 3 requested Coun- cil lapproval. He went through the project with MS. Ward and the immed#ate neighbors, who raised no obj eCtioras but 'lade sore recom- mendations, to which pee agreed. lie` spent ninny' hours With the staff to ensure it fit into the neighborhood. Ms.. Ward told him she wo ul d _appeal his project unless he helped her get her house into the approval process Councilmember Woolley ascertained from Mr. Long that his lot was approximately 4,200 square feet. Mayor Klein said although' he was personally sympathetic to the Longs' situation, it was highly- irregular for Council to plan a particular parcel , particularly since there was no staff report. 5 2 3 9 11/5/84 MOTION: Mayor kl ei n moved, seconded .by Bechtel, to continuo tho item for ewe weeksfor additional .staff information ea the Longs' situation, with appropriate recommendatiaas. Counc l lmember Fl etc her supported the motion . Counc ilmebber Renzel asked staff if during the two week period, there was a I ikel ihood of receiving other applications to compli- cate the rezoning process. Executive Assistant Lynnie Mel en;; said that if the zoning were delayed for two weeks, Council would come close to a timing con - fl ict. The ordinance would probably go into effect on January 17, 1985. Should a condominium application come in on November 6, 1914, staff would have to take action by January 25, 1985. Al- tt ,ugh it was an unlikely combination of events, it did make things tighter. Mr. Schreiber said the other element was someone . coming. in . for a building permit. The size of the Long's property would not allow two units under the R$(D) zone, although it did allow them under the current. RM-4 zone., It was not known if other persons would come in for a building permit .within the next few weeks for a second unit under RM-4 . Mayor. Klein referred to the recommendation_ in CMR:558: 4 that the Council not approve the ordinance for second reading but direct staff to prepare the amended •grandfathering ordinance. . •If . that were done, =the: Council could take appropriate action in two weeks. MAKER AND SECOND NITNU EW THE NOTION TO CONTINUE. NOTION: Mayor Klein mewed, seconded by Woolley, to adopt the staff recommendation that Couacll not approve the erdlnaace rezon- ing certain, properties between Hawthorne Avenue a ed Lytton Avenue from aM-4 to aM (NT) at this time, and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare a new ordinance ckenai*g the ;cooing for this area and iacorperstisg a grandfather clause for subdivisions approved by the Director of. T1 anniag and Csmannity 8avircament prier to the -effective date of 'the .zeme change. . The.. amended ordi- nance would be returned to Coaacil far 1st reading as November 19, 1984. Ms. Lee said Council would then contemplate two .different grand- father clauses. The one staff recommended would not apply to the other project mentioned that evening because it was at a different stage in the process. Mayor Klein , said his motion _was .intended to be neutral . It was left to the discretion .of staff what they would prepare, and Coun- cil would then say whether they. approved it. Staff. had the dis- cretion to prepare for another situation the. Council only heard about in an informal and offhand way. Councilae.ber. Renzel obtained, staff confirmation that they did not feel the two-week continuance would present additional' problems in terms of other things coming through the pi pel ine. Mayor Klein obtained confirmation that the other two ordinances related to the downtown;:zoning were approved. MOTIONPASSE!_ moaeiaeesly. iii thorspooe absents.. 4. ITEM 119, PROCESSES AOIP IMPROYE'MENTS:TO OPEN THE ARASYRA PROPERTY l`OR PARR USE (PLA 9 - Mr. Brown referred .tu the :f evised resol ution before ; the : Counc , to. amend Sections - I and .1i ;te , set the date for extension 49f„ npnpark use from February 13, 1985 to.: the• same date in 1986. 5 2 4 O 11/5/84 Count ilrnesnher Bee htel found the number of rangers recommended ex- cessive. She asked if comparisons with other agencies operating that type of park: were made. The Open Space District had only about 12 rangers for 18,000 acres,- al though she agreed it was a different type of land and not so accessible. Mr. Brown said the Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District had a different management scheme of sporadic enforcement and patrol s with minimal maintenance of the facilities. Counc llmember Bechtel asked if a comparison was made with othr:r parks. Mr. Brown bel ieved the Parks Department assumed that in the previ- ous approval s, Council directed them to consider full-time rangers on the property with at least one ranger at any given time. Given the hours the park would be open, it equated to two rangers. Councileiember Bechtel said there were the Baylands and athletic facil sties and lots of parks in •the City. She real ized that City pol ice were near then, but there were no full- time rangers at any other facil ity except for Foothill s Park. The current person who went from Foothill s Park to the Arastra property for about ten hours per week was handling the situation well , al though there would be more visitors when Arastra was opened. Mr. Brown could not speak to the park maintenance policies. Mr. Zaner said the numoer• of rangers was picked up in the process of the Citizens' committee meetings. He al so questioned whether peopl e needed to be on si to 24 hours a day, al though the structure they would occupy would be ' safer •with people in it: It was al ready subjected to some vandalism. The number could stand more scrutiny, and staff would be happy to look into it. Councilaieraber Cobb asked what. the consequences would, be if Proposition 36 passed, Mr. Zaner said staff would then recommend. that the item, together with most of• the rest of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) , return to the Council to identify priorities. Presently, Council was requested to look at the process and the program presented, and adopt it if approved. Mayor Ki ein referred to the question of putting the parking lot on the 77 acres, He asked how it would affect any other potential use of the 77 acres should the City at some point sell the proper- ty or allow it to be developed . Mr. Brown said that more intensive uses such as the sale of the property for development would mean relocation of the parking lot from a prime access to the property with the best visibility on Arastradero Road to the originally preferred location on the op- posite side of the road. Mayor Klein asked about the difference in time and cost between the two locations. Mr, drown said the difference in cost was substantial. The origi- nal parking lot would have cost $230,000, The alternative loca- tion would cost between $50,000 to $60,000. Mayor Klein said the aesumedesav1ng was $180•,04A =°but, if something else were done with the 77 acres, the $50,000 being put into the current parking lot would be lost. Mr. Brown agreed since little of the materials could be reused. Part of the. revenue fr.oai the sale of the property would have to . go to construction of the more expensive lot. A four -to • five month process for approval and construction of the alternate parking lot would be required, 5 2 4 1 11/5/84 14ayel Kiehl asked about the time fac tors for putting a small park- ing lot on the 7 / acre_ parcel and the original proposal . Mr. Brown said it was bet leveed >.the funding for the smaller tempo- rary •parking would be more readily available. The substantial sun for the permanent parking lot would have to work •its Way 'through the CIP process, which might take a number of years. In Jul y, it was estimated that only in the late, 196051 or earl y+=199Os would that sum be found. He estimated a four or five year difference. Mr. Schreiber separated the funding! from the process, and said if the money were available, the process of developing the larger , permanent parking lot would; not take .•substan»tially.longer. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue j worked .at the . 1 aboratories direc t1 y operosite the Arastra property. He warned the Council that the eastbound .i sib 1 ity' from ,the. ne'w. parking lot was ,approximatel y 20 to 25 feet below the crest at the bend, land —there etas -already a sign warning of driveways. The crosswalk was close -.to. the Los Al tos Hills boundary line, and people would park along Arastradero Road in: Los -Al to s rather than- .wfal k the- longer distance from the parking lot. . During. the first year . it would be wise toe have a ranger resident on the property. There +was -a fair= oaountE of van- dal ism and !Once the dump on Marsh tRoad wa►s . c.i osed : tke,re..was much illegal dumping. A month earlier there was a small grass fire on one of the hill s. The Fire Department responded in good time, but had to be called back four hours later when the hot spot tiered up again. Until the status of the property settl ed, he recommended a ranger on site. Lois Yanderbeek, 736 Barron Avenue, spent much time near the Arastra .property and was concerned about. the parking lot location. If it were located 450 feet away. -across the road less - physically male people or older citizens could use it. She would find -the extra walk .sirgni.7f.icant. A closer parking lot would be.. safer for. children. - The parking lot should be near the trail heads. . .There was much. vandal ism in the area, and a parking lot near the horses would -tempt hooligans to bother them. The cost difference was significant, . but. the decision should not be based .. on that and opening the park sooner. In the long-term, the park should be more accessible to more people. Priority should be given to the taxpayers who : pear for..the ,park. The nwner.s,. of the ranch should be asked about.. locating the parking lot:directl=y ac=ross the, street. Councilmesbee' Bechtel ;said 1t , was,-, not- the- -kind.- of• :park. where : the picnic tables were :five, feet away from the parking., People could go.- to RIeconada, Mitche.lT Raaeke: or .eswese, Foo•thiI s_ Park, where there were playing _fields. and ber°bec.ee . phts for those] amenities. • Even with the permanent parking lot, visitors, would! wa1 k, along to trail . There were deep woods. grasslands, and pretty vistas, It was a good mile to the top of the'hil1 'The -450. foot trail from the temliorary .parking lot, al though al ong `a ,road, was pretty and was all a part of the experience. It made .a lot- of sense to open a temporary graveled- parking facility, then to walk a trail to reach other trails. She preferred tey see ,the park opened as the City had owned it for many years. Only those who $tabled • .a ,horse. on the- property cbul-t: use it. j•, It was not fair- to the taxpayer. kkTilia: Cassil®ember: Bechtel booed, seconded by Setsr.ies, to adept the staff recoaseadatfess as rfol I ems: 1. Park = 'spree ones ts Direct staff: ,to : pros v1 th tee, prepare; tiers et a 1te applicatio*s Pert iapr•veseart..*rdi-. saes* gad : **dot Aseaaihnoats ter e: fork l a,i eg #tows! a) Partipl )et es the .1y. arras. for - -3S -tars-= = i 20 core over - 'N. :: flaw gad peeleatr i ad alre#rapt ter .. perk :Ostrsac e, . - • h) MnsisaJ . 1wp *testae the rablsr: residence :for eccapancp b11 a pa k roger; 5 2 4.2 11/5/84 TIOM MIMEO. c) Park perimeter feaciag gates; d) Park si.gnage; •) Park rstger vehicle; and f) One full-time park ranger position and staff to come bock with recommendation re .e second park ranger position. 2p Continued Rental of Large Residence Pending hostel - Nse - Approve the resolution permitting continued residential ose •f the .large residence through February 13, 1986; 3. Park Naming - App:rove. the recosmoadatioa •f3 the Palo Alto Historical Association to name the new park. Arastradero Preserve. RESOLUTION 6328 enti t1 ed _"RESOLUTION 8F THE . CONIC IL 8F TAB 'tom .PALO ALTO EXTENDING THE TERPORARY NU -PARK 413E Of THE DEDICATED. 0;966 ACRE PARCEL .GR .. TIlE ARASTRA PROPERTT FOR VP TO OME .TEAR" CIunci1Iaember Bechtel noted that she added to 1(f) a direction to staff to come back with a recommendation re a second park ranger position, Vice Mayor Levy essentially agreed with Items 1 and 2, but lees concerned about .the. name 'Arastradero =Preserve." It was good to call it a "Preserve," b'at suggested the the name Arastradero be reviewed. The large site offered an opportunity to honor a sig- nificant event, person, or persons in, the City' s hi story, or to add another name into the Palo Rl to lexicon that spoke to the spe- cific location or environment. While Arastradero was acceptable, it was widely used, both as Arastradero Road , and Arastradero Creek. He had no specific al ternative name in mind, but suggested it be reviewed by staff and the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA). AMENDMENT: - • •Tice Layer -Levy moved, seconded- by- Woolley,. to return time selection of a name ter the Arastre 'report, to staff is coOpePetiea with the historical Assocl is%i*a to develop an altermate.reeemmeedation or receeaendatises te 'provide secs aitlon te.. ale sdgeificut: event,.: person, Or �persens le Palo Alto history, or iti is, cpprepriate to the area's "'tattoo aid/er environment bad*Mich name is net cNerrentiy used in a protineet public fact'''. t�►. ;trot, :•r 1 eodaark. Counc ildeaber- Game! understood. the desire to .depart from the Arastradero name because of 1,he , road ,and creek s' named in the Viclaity of the .property, but '.the nose told people where it was ansi dl early identi fled it., It had a hi storital contest rel ated to the area She would dearly love. to see the area named_ after Frances., Hrender, but could under stand --the PAHA `.s reluctance to name it after one person when aenyL. weree involved :in preserving the Arastra site. Having a name related to the area, the creek, and the road vas _ useful-. to the pdbl lc; °1e identifying ` where ;' was, and it had moaning 1n the. historical context,% which-;was::tae purpose of the PAHA's reeVieew.. They had considered several Indian peas and those of lnd iv idual.s, but neverth.l.es , eel ected-:-:Araotr-edero The process was ,ova.. -fir a <+r�arieet�► df: op1 a!_ to sagest: ,names. She was not 4issatl Stied with the ,r sa a oppese rereferring. it. It was appropriate and. met the criteria held up in the past for _naming.: public, •f •. =ac tl:_ftle;s ,;_7' Cauncila,eebe o11ey alas' dial -.riot opposed -to. the- name, but it did present an _ opportw ei tf . dosery 1prg usQ i is cons1 dera.tioft; .1t was. a si xabl_a property and teuerefore a sl table hailer- for its netetake, 6 2 43 11/6184 Many years ear ler= , the PAHA had a long list of names which were used up. It would be an opportunity for the PAHA to thoroughly review Palo Al to' s hi story alnd come .up with a r substantial _11st of names. There was no urgency to determine a name, and she wanted to give the matter full consideration. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote •f 5-30 Sutor'ius, Menzel "so," Withersp•oa abseat. 1 Council ember Sutorius supported the motion. He bel ieved Mr. Mock was correct in cal l ing attention to the proximity of the crosswal k to Tracy Court. He asked where the exact 16t and crosswalk would end up recognizing the sketch only represented approximations He supported the motion, but said Mr. Mock wascorrect in calling attention to the proximity of the crosswalk to Tracy Court. Council should be sensitive because it would be natural to park on Tracy, and the Arestra property process showed that the Los Altos Hills people were concerned about the impacts. He understood Mayor Klein' s inquiry relative to the puts and takes of having a lot on the 77 acre parcel and he was persuaded that the costs elements favored going ahead with a so-called permanent lot even though there might be the need to locate to the future. Council actions were cl ear in matters involving the Mid-Peninsul a Open Space District, and it was not anticipated that the lots would be asphalt. Vice Mayor Levy supported the motion. His objective was to get the area opened and in use as soon as possible and to keep the costs reasonable. With that in mind, he wanted staff to look closely at the costs because even at the reduced level , he believed they could be reduced further. He was not dismayed by having a slope somewhat greater than the five percent slope and if that would save some money, he believed it should be considered. He was surprised that trash receptacles were $250 each and that signs were $1,000 each. With regard to the ranger, he believed Counc ilmember Bechtel' s suggestion was along the right lines. He was surprised that Council was considering recruitment for a ranger rather than promoting from within. He was delighted that Council was finally getting the significant piece of property opened for everyone's enjoyment. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSES uaaaimsusly, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #2U, REQUEST OF COUNC IL ME MBER FLETCHE.R RE URBAN MASS TRAM PORTAT ION AO III N Councilmember Fletcher wanted to introduce a resolution at the National League of Cities Conference in order for the National. League to lobby the Urban Mass Transportation Administration to delay implementing their new pol is ies for new rail starts to allow for added public input and review. The proposed policies were illogical and seemed to be aimed primarily at not qualifying projects and could use some revision. MOTION: Come i l.embsr Fletcher sewed, **tended by Itea zel , to soiesit. the popes -id moieties to the National Eeagee of Cities, PROPOSED RESOLUTION RE URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMIN- ISTRATION (UWTh) MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT POLICY MOTION PASSED unanimously, U1therspsa abseat. ITEM *21 CANCELLAT1Uii OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 3984, CITY COUNCIL i i 1DN;. Coss i 1 mosber Bechtel moved, seconded by Centel the $ewember 13, 1UD4 , City Cars i 1 meeting. NOTION PASSED Dwaa issssl y, Witherspoon *wt. Nveis, to 5 2 4 4 11/S/84 AtJ 0URA 1 1-F\ Council adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ATTEST: s APPROVED: