Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-19 City Council Summary Minutes1 QTY COUNCIL MINUTES Re! u1 ar Meeting November 19, 1984 CITY OF ALTO ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 5 2 4 8 Minutes of September 11, 1984 5 2 4 8 Minutes of September 17, 1984 5 2 4 8 Consent Calendar 5 2 4 8 Referral 5 2 4 8 Action 5 2 4 3 Item 02, Downtown Park North House Removal 5 2 4 8 Item #3, East Meadow Substation Swi tchge er Storage 5 2 4 9 Facility Item 14, Utility Operation Center Building Design 5 2 4 9 and Construction Consultant, Design Phase Contract Item 05, 8ay1 ands Bicycle Trail - Bridge 5 2 4 9 Item 116., ordinance Extending Moratorium on Office 5 2 4 9 Development in GM Zone Item #7, Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of Maurice Camargo for Site and Design Approval of a Single Family Home at 820 Los Trancos Road 5 2 4 9 Item 18, ordinance Mending Budget Reprogramming 5 2 4 9 CDU6 Funds to. -Housing Improvement Program Item f9, ordinance Amending Downtown Moratorium 5 2 5 0 Ordinance (2nd Reading) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 5 2. 5 0 Item #10, Planningi Commission Recommendation . re 5 2 5 0 Exception from the Downtown Moratorium Provisions to Permit Additional Floor Area for Property Located at 466 University Avenue Item 111, Planning Commission Recommendation re 5 2.5 0 Appeal of Main Bailey from the Decision of the Zoning Administrator to Grant a Use Permit with conditions for a Church at 3070 Louis Road Item #1i.. (Old Item 1) , Resolution of Appreciation for 0e r k Vyn 5 2. 5.6 ITEM PAGE Item #12, Rezoning of Properties in the Downtown 5 2 5 6 Area . from RM-4 to RM-D : Effects of the Adopted Ordinance on Properties Located at 418 Everett and 332 Ki p1 ing Item #13, Policy Issues Di scussion 5 2 6 1 Item #14, Participation in Joint Powers 5 2 6 4 Transmission Agency Item #15, Cancellation of November 26, 1984 City 5 2 6 5 Council Meeting Adjournment to Closed Session re Litigation 5 2 6 5 Adjournment: 9:35 p.m. 5 2 6� 5 1 Reg ul ar Meeting Monday, November 19, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Al to met on this date in the. Counc i) Chambers, 250 Hamil ton Avenue, Pal o Al to , Cali fornia at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:Z6 p.m.), Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel , Sutorlus, Witherspoon, Woolley ABSENT: Cobb ORA COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11 1984 Councilmember Bechtel submitted the following correction: Pee 5039, last paragraph, second to last sentence, should read: uch�o the creek area was previously the site of a proposed four -lane expressway right through many of the trees. Four lanes were now deleted and two lanes moved over, so. fewer of the trees would be affected." MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the minutes of September 11, 1984, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17 , 1984 Mayor Klein submitted the following correction: Page 1571, last line of page, add the word "use" after "allowed." MOTIOM: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the minutes eef Septeuber 17, 1984, as corrected. MOT'l4M PASSE© usanincnsly, Cobb absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmeuber Sutorius asked that Item #1, Resol ution of tion for Berk Vyn be removed from the Consent Cal endar. . Counc 11 member Renzel asked, to be recorded as voting 9, Ordinance Arm ending Downtown Moratorium Ordinance. MOTION: Coseec#Tsomber Fletcher Moved, :seconded by Becbtel, approve. Consent-Csleeedar Items 2 - A. Apprec la - Referral None on Item Action ITEM #2, DOWNTOWN PARK NORTH HOUSE .REMOVAL (PAR 2-5) (CMR:563:4) Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Charles 5. Campanella* Inc . I. - the amount, of ;33,700. _. 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract of up to $5,000. • 5 2 4 8 11/19/84 AWARD OF CONTRACT Chart es S. Campine] I a, Inc. ITEM #3, EAST MEADOW SUBSTATION SWITCIiGEAR STORAGE FACILITY TU �3j TCMR:'548:4f Staff recommends that Council : 1. Authorize the . Mayor to sign the contract with Michael E. King, Architects, for an amount not to exceed $1.4,300. 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement for additional services of up to $2,000. AGREEMENT PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL 5.: ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR EAST NEADDN SUBSTATION SW1TCNGEAR STORAGE FACILITY Nichael E. King, Architects ITEM #4 UTILITY OPERATION CENTER BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ,. , , oES1GN PIA T CONTRACT (DTI T-8 f 566:-A ) Staff recommends that Council 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract amendment with Wal ker Associates, Inc . for professional services in the amount of $178,595; and 2. Approve the execution ofchange orders to the agreement up to $20,000. AMENDMENT 1e. 1 TO CONTRACT Me. 4437 Walker Associates, Inc. ITEM #5, BAYLANDS BICYCLE TRAIL - BRIDGE (PWK 2-2-2) (CMR:571:4) Staff recommends that Council approve the change to the construc- tion contract No. 4415, Bayl ands Bicycle Trail , CIP 82-31, which will per+1.t Fred Spiess. Company,_ Inc . to be added as a .sub- contractor, as a result,of public necessity. AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT . Is.. 4415 - RAYLAMDS. BICYCLE TRAIL -BRIDGE , PROJECT No. CIP $2-31 O'Grady Paving Co. ITEM #b, ORDINANCE EXTENDING MORATORIUM ON OFFICE DEVELOPMENT IN ICRR:572:4j ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE. OF T$E COMM Pb. THrtrITMELY ALTO EXTENDING THE EXISTING MORATORIUM ON TOE PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEN OFFICE USES 4F 5,:00$ SQUARE FEET OR MORE IN THE ON 100E6 ITEM #7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF URICE CAMARGO rOR SITE AO (Its Ili 71$ ROYA1. OF A SI1GLE yofror ROE AT 820 LOS TRAYCOS ROAD (PLA 3-1) The Planning Comeissiofit recommends approval bf the application, with conditions. ITEM 08, ORDINANCE AMENDING BUDGET REPROGRAMMING COBG FUNDS TO HODSIka Ii+PROVEMNT PROGRX` � ORDINANCE 3515► entitled *ORDINANCE F THE .ORIICIL OF TirTrtririrno ALTO AMiEUZUG TNE_ DUBET FOR YAE F IS- NCAL TEAR 1914.05 TO P1 PIS AN AVANTI•NAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE HOUSING I1► PRDVENERT POGRAS AND PROVIDE FOR RECEIPT REVENUE FROM .MODa 5 2 4 9 11/19/84 ITFM #9, ORDINANCE AMENDING DOWNTOWN MORATORIUM 0R©INANCE (SECOND READING) (FLA 3 -16 -if ORDINANCE 3586 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TfE CITY aF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ORDINANCE IMPOSING MORATORIA IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA* (1st Reading 11/5/84, PASSED 7-1, Reezel *no,* Witherspoon absent. NOTION PASSED unanimously for Items 2 - 6, Renzel Teti*, "no'" An Item 9, Ordinance amending Ddrvatown Moratorium Ordinance. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager 8i11 Zaner said that Item No. 1, Resolution re Dark Vyn, would become Item 11-A.. ITEM #10, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE EXCEPTION FROM THE ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA T COVERING DE ARCJ DL ARIA TOR- PROPEIfrr Arm 4'56 (UNIVERSITY AVENUE (PLA Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said 43 residents from the present apartments submitted a petition in support of the application to cover the roof over the New Varsity. Councilmember Renzel asked if the new roof would be opaque. Mr. Brown said it would be a clear glass roof. The project received Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval , subject to an exception from the moratori um provisions. MOTION: 'Mice Mayor Levy mbyed, seconded by Bechtel , approval of the Planning Commission recommendation to eXcept the property at 456 University Avenue from the Downtown moratorium. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. ITEM #11, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPEAL OF MAUS b . IIII STRA°iIIR TO GRANT -7 E PE IIMIT AT 3070 LOUIS WO PLA Planning Commission Chairperson Patricia Cullen said the Commis- sion hearing was long and much testimony was given. The Commis- sion bel ieved the synagogue was a legitimate conditional use in an R-1 neighborhood. The conditions imposed on that use, and especially in terms of the number of hours and attendees, ade. quately protected those neighbors who feared an impact. The Planning •Commission recommended the granting of a use permit, with the' conditions listed. Councilierber Wooll ey said as the: process continued, the Chabad defined their needs more and more precisely. She asked how pre- cisely use permits were enforced; if the Permit allowed 70 people, and 73 persons appeared, wail d they be in violetion and in trouble. Mr. Brown said use permits were primarily enforced through com- plaint. If neighbors of the Crabed noticed :excessive use of the site and could sub stentlate it, they could complain and it would be noted as a violation of the permit. Repeated violations would trigger a rehearing of the permit to consider modification or revocation. Counc i le ember • Woolley asked whether it would be . W1:se tomake the requested changes, in the Use Parfait so the Congregation would be within the :Dumber the lite Permit allowed at all times. 5 x.50 11/19/84 Mr. ►crown believed the use permit conditions should realistically reflect an upper average use. If it was likely that during one or two days during High Hol 'days the number would be exceeded, appro- priate exceptions could be placed in the permit. He did not rec- ommend amending the use permit conditions uniformly to a high num- ber to prevent it ever being exceeded. The neighbors should have some clear understa iding of the average amount of use they could expect. Establishing an artificially .high number might not do service to the neighbors. Counc i lmember Woolley asked for confirmation that one exception to the use permit would not trigger a rehearing of the use permit. Mr. Brown > confirmed it would not. If it could be expected that the numbers would be exceeded on certain days, exceptions for those occurrences should be placed in the permit. Councilaember Sutorius believed some of the modification requests made to Council were judgmental , and others were wi thin fire restrictions concerning the size and amount of habitation. He asked staff if any of the the revised requests were improper because they were unsafe. Mr. Brown said Rabbi Levin asked that on four days in the year the number of attendees be all owed to reach 160, hut the number exceeded Fire Code limitations on the size and structure, which was 114 people at any one time. Rabbi Levin requested the allow- ance to be for 160, which would allow parishioners to overflow the building into the outdoor area for those holidays . Rabbi Yosef Levin, 3671 Evergreen Drive, believed he amply demon- strated to the Planning Commission that they would be a positive influence on the neighborhood. Approximately 75 families were served through hospital visitation or personal counselling, and could De called upon for support. They had the support of the neighborhood. There was considerable emotion in the community regarding the use permit because none of the 52 churches in Palo Alto had anything near the restrictions. He explained during the past three years Palo Alto placed strict regulations on churches and synagogues, but that they could live more or less within the restrictions. The community was concerned about violations They went through the use permit and carefully considered what excep- tions would be needed. They wanted to be good neighbors, and use the property as a small community with the requested exceptions. He asked that 160 people be allowed for special events because even though 160 people could not fit into the building, more might come as everyone was wel come. In the past, when too many came on the eve of Yom Kippur people waited outside, and entered as others left. People liked to be in the environment even if they could not enter. It would not be noisy. They asked for use on Sunday until 10:00 p.m. He asked that the third paragraph of his November 15, 1984 letter be Omitted. It would still restrict them to regular times on the other hot ;days. Bradford Light, 3170 Stel i ing Drive, said his family resided in the neighborhood for almost 30. years. They were disappointed about the small opposi ti on to the Chabad moving to the dairy offices on Louis Road. He discussed the issue with all neighbors l iving close- to the situation, and; there was overwhelming support. All homes bordering the property supported the move and it was the neighborhood consensus to support the Chabad. He welcomed Rabbi Levin and the Chabad to the community's hospitality. He urged that Council remove some of the restrictions pl ated on the Chabad. Ira 1 achefsky, 939 Colorado, said he moved to his home eight. months earlier to be within walking -distance of the Chabad , as had most people who moved to the neighborhood. He requested use per- mit approval with the woaiificatia is requested by Rabbi Levin.. 5 2 5 1 11/19/84 Mel Kelm, )391 L1 bridge Way, was the closest neighbor to the Chabad, He referred to his letter of October 19, 1934, to the Planning Commission detailing his investigation into the question. He supported the application for the synagogue and his next-door neighbors joined him in welcoming the Chabad. Robert Grodsky, 485 Matadero Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Jewish Relations Council which endorsed the request. He spoke of the support given by the Jewish community in Palo Alto. Councilmember Bechtel was sympathetic to Rabbi Levin's desire to meet the letter of the law An terms of the use permit. She agreed to most of his requerts, but believed the recommended condition 9 --no amplified music or activities shall be permitted --should remain for at least one year. MOTION, Councilxeember Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, to adept. the Planning Ceaaissiea recommendation to uphold the decision of the levies Administrator le greet the proposed cherch use permit at 3070 Louis Road with the following fleeting* and conditions: Finding: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detri- mental or inferiors to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will mot be detrimental to public health, safety, • general wel fire, or convenience in that the proposed church es*, as limited by coeditieas of this permit, is for a small church congregation with reduced traffic generation and utilizing existing buildings. The subject property is located on Louis Road, a major >collector street, which currently bears approximately 2,600 daily vehicular trips. The addition of ciseerch traffic Meeday •tieroragh Thursday and Sunday, spread throughout the day, will net be detrimental to the surrounding se i ghberbsed . Weise ,from the use will also be limited by the cendect of service witieia the existing buildings, construction of nerw fearing* restriction of outdoor activities, and the location of parking away from existing residences; and 2. The proposed ease will be located aad conducted fa a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive plan and the peerposrs of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Neoici pal Code le that cherches are provided for by the Caaprekeasi aye Plan and Zeni »g Ordinance within single family residential ,.eighberhsods. The Cvapr a hees.i ve Plea Land Use E eaest di scesses the ability to locatechurches 'Wales,* family areas seebjecta to use permit isseaace since churches *generally locate in residential ems and serve them.' One to the llaitatioss en the parishioners of the proposed church bevies to walk to the site for Sabbath services sad eh ref iglus holidays, the attendees will Indeed have to live within the v1cisitg of the site _. Ceedi to ono: t t t - 1. The following liaitatioees. on .heirs of ereratioee end attendance for warless faattioss shall be required:, 4. Rol igloos Services: NUssay - T-hsrsday .0 46 a.m. to 10:00.p... Raatmem-Atto*4 ss - 26 maple prior to s:0a ... 40 people after -SAO a.m. Fri 0:46 a.a. to 10:00 p .R. ) , Mlailmem *tteadees r -2g people prier to 0:00 a.m., 70 p•eple after $:00 a.m. 5 2 5 2 11/19/84 MOTION CONTINUED Saturday Maximum Attendees Sunday Maximum Attendees 8:00 a.n. to 10:00 p.m. - 70 people 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. • 40 people Special Holiday Re1 igio es Strviles: One hour following siesta the day prier to the holiday, 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and -one hour following s..aset the day of the Mot idey. Four holiday services per year may eztead oeeti l 11:00 p.m. Three :services per .year, may: be keld whick involve quiet study .or ,reflection which may extend beyond 11:00 p.m. Msexisua Attendees - 90 people c. Life Cycle Events (Weddings, bar Mitzvahs, Funerals, etc.): To end no :later. than 9:00 p.m. . Wedding receptions for more than 50 people shall not be held on -site. d. Classes: Monde, - Friday Saturday Sunday 6:45 a.m.. to 10:00 p.m. 0:40 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 0:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Maxlmrrae Attendees - 44 people, except . prier to 8:00 e.m. when attendance is .limited te a maxims* of 25 .persons. e. Church Office: Moeday Friday 9;00 a.m. to 5.:04 p.m. Mailmen Staff - .4 Fpeepls , f. Ritual Oath: Mende, - . Sunday O: 30 . a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Maximum 0seers - 3 : people at any one time.. .; no •etdeer ceremonies shell be permitted ,except one service per month mid -for weddings. 2. Privets coss*l tetions •r individual rel igioes study •r canto,*pA stiou shall be permitted at any time. 3.r.. The fe1 i ewi eg. 1 iii tati mss . ea areas for each mse shall be effect: Congregational and. Instruction 1astrecti•aa1 .Only Office Litcheae and Oat1trsies Ritual Oaths 000 Severe Feet 100 Wier* Feet • 699 Sgriere Feet - 200 . Swear, Feat !. $80 Stpere Feet 4. Attendees for religions services held me Friday esssieegs end on .Saterdeys shall , mit be permitted to drive es the site with the exception of disabled . parishioners Pars sbissers wax, however, dr_ ive : to tie .site . prier to Friday .services and park 5 2 5 3 11/19/84 MOTION _CONTINUED their• vohicles on -site until after Saturday services. Driving shall be permitted _for weekday services and for op to twe holiday services per year. 5. Parking shall not be permitted in the front yard:.e:aatback, as set forth in the toning Ordinance, and shall mot be permitted. within ten feet of the rear.property line. These- setback areas shall be planted as a 1 aedscape buffer, 6, Clnl ldros atteedin+I:: c1 as&es •a si tar shall ket. be, permitted to use the existing patio area,, ,fer rec.reetieaa. -A_ sepet,Ate play area shall be created and fenced for this purpose and shall be subject to review by the Architectural Review hoard. 1. Dee of the patio area ter. soc;td.; erearts eve religious services shell. he prohibited except for the one vet.doer service per witted per month and weddings.: 4. All activities shall .comply with :thee requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordi dance, Chapter 9.10 IANC. 9. No empl /fled music or activities shall be permitted. 10. Solid wood fencing (with gaps filled) siaa1.1 be created along the stvtbtastere property line and for a distance .of at least sixty feet along the southwest property line adjacent to the patio wad. office; . subject • to the consent •f adjoiiieg property owners.! - 11. All improvements, including the parking lot aced landscaping-, shall be subject to the approve] •f the Architectural Review Board. 12. The exterior improvements pleas shall be submitted to the Santa Clara Valley meter District for review aee shall be subject their approval .and away coedit -lees applied.. 13. The improvement plans .dwell be subject to aaa• of -site iespectlon and. any comdi1tio*s imposed by the Pale Alto Fire Department to insure the safety of eccmpeets. 14. The caapl i aoce with the Mse permit coeds ti ens shell be reviewed by .the Zoeiig=.Adoinistrator at a pehlic. 6ne*Flne to be held apprsxlaately one yaear_ ;from the date .e# •ccepa;ty by the church. This review shall be held only if prier complaints eve been received An- writing. by ae.i giasberheood* residents relating to ca_editioas of the use wait darlie9 •the est year period. This ceeditione shall in as ray modify -or -replace the, romoirement. of Losing hr:.dinaece` Section. 1S.S1..OAO regarding revocation ef use permits. 15. Required :parking shall rb,. provided oa•site. Parcel Nap 44-Fht-1 shall mot be filed with theSCoauaty Recorder to divide the property 416110 the church use is la effects In addition, sake the folloee9.ng changes listed is Rabbi Lsvin's letter ef Ilevenber 15, 1*$4, except .the maxiaar _*amber. _of -Wor- shippers skeeld be 140 instead e1` 110 es task $asbaasha aad Tem Kipper and tkat Item t0 (M•: omplified ses.t_+c..ir activit.le.s ,shall he permitted) :►in retained: * Allow Cana►ad to raise the nazism attendees ran Friday and L Saterday. (aftaer $:00 a.*sae..:) frog im to ;001pe4#a1e. ! Allow eance per meek, admit classes to e&tend I1:09 p.m. 5 2 5 4 11/14/44 NOTION cUsTIMUtd * for specisl holiday religious services, the paragraph that begins, *Ono hour following sunset" be omitted. * Tha.t a maximum member of 160 be el l owed on Rosh Nashanah and To■ Kipper. * Allow the Sfsage iie office to be •eeA whenever the Synagogue is in use. Allow the use of the r1 tcal bath et any tine (along with other uses .1. Restriction Item #2.) • Remove Restriction 'Item #1(g) which is duplicated in Item #7. * In Item #i, limit the prohibition .ow the sse of the patio to allow .gatherings of parishioners until 9:00 p.m. consonant with the City's noise srdinawces, • Allow Chabad fear coasaenity events each year with a maximum number 160 people. Courcilraember. Fletcher supported the application. -It was a unique situation because the highest crowds could be expected when the traffic was lowest. She used Louis Road extensively, and found the traffic far from excessive. The trips generated• by the use would not make a discernable difference. For many years she lived within half ° a block of the _ Swim & Tennis Club on Louis Road, whi c h was a much more intensive use, particularly on weekends, but did not cause significant problems. Some old-time residents remem- bered when it was a through route to Middlefield Road with no stop signs. • The traffic was so heavy she had to accompany her children across the road. That changed, and it was a livable area. She was sure the Chabad use would add to the neighborhood ambiance. Vice Mayor Levy supported themotion and commended both proponents and opponents of the use permit for the excellent manner in which they communicated with the Council and informed it of their views. As the Planning Commission stated, the inclusion of churches and synagogues within residential areas had ample precedence in Palo Alto. It was well meant, particularly for such .small congrega- tions serving neighborhood residents. There was a well -formulated noise ordinance in Palo Al to, and he believed that: if the amplifi- cation of music were held within the noise ordinance, it should be acceptable. He askedWhy the distinction was made. Mr. Brown said the condition was .added by the Planning Commission to the original Huse permit. Ms. Cullen said it wes added to reduce the possibility of com- plaints by neighbors and to tailor the permit more strictly to the use of that particular synagogue that neither needed nor wanted amplified music. The use permit was transferable to another church should the Chabad decide to vacate the' premises at some time in the future, Vice Mayor Levy ascertained that a phonograph record was con- sidered to be amplified music Ms. Cullen =said- .the Commission referred to sound amplification over speakers, but did not ask whether -a record was considered .amplified usi AIIEM1NEMTe �V1c0 Aayr LorY v*d sec* 4 d : by glalt n, to delete coaditiss 9 `re ompll°fisd music. 5 .2 5 5 11/19184 Vice Mayor Levy wanted to delete the item so that phonograph records, tapes, etc. could be used. He regretted much contempor- ary music was amplified when recorded but Palo Alto's noise ordi- nanoe was more than compelling to control a low level of use. Council member Bechtel said after listening to the discussion, she found the arguments convincing to allow amplified music but she was not convinced there was al ways sufficient -staff to .enforce the City's noise ordinance. None of the neighbors • had restrictions placed. on the use of ampl ifi,ed music within their own homes, and the argument was val id. MAKER AND.SECOND OF MOTION AGREE,TO WITHDRAW AMENDMENT TO STRIDE CONDITION ! RE AMPLIFIED MUSIC AMEN-DMENT WITHDRAWN ARIL CONDITION ! TO REMAIN Councilmember Wool] ey supported the motion, and believed the neighbors :who were against issuance of the permit were priMarily concerned -about traffic, al though they would probably not notice the. effect, If two houses were bail t instead, accompanied by cot- tages, the .number. of car , trips per , day especial.i y if, there were teenagers with cars, could well exceed or be simil ar to the number of tr i ps generated by the Chabad. She ag reed that one rarel y had the opportunity of chosing one's neighbors. Their immediate neighbors concurred they would, be fine neighbors. NOTION PASSED anaainoesly, Cobb absent. ITEM #11A (OLD ITEM NO. I), RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION. FOR DERK Councilmember Sutori.us said he removed the item from the Consent Calendar to ensure separate action. The volunteer activity of citizens was valued and should receive appropriate : individual com- mendation. In particular, Derk Vyn gaveextraordinary service, as he was one of the original members of the ARB and the only one who served as 1 ong. He was Mr. Vyn' s his colleague and learned from him. . He was glad Derk. Vyn would continue to offer his service to the community and was proud of Derk :Yyn' si contribution: MOTION: Council ■saber Srtorii es moved, seconded by Levy, adept tke res.1 wti sn to express appreciation to - hark Vyn. RESOLUTION - 6330 entitled `RESOLUTION OF TUE COUNCIL OF tiTY-WWE4 ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION. TO -DERR .1 11 FOR OUTSTANDING PNILIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER Of TM( ARCt11- TECTMRAL RE?ZLW OOAU - Mayor Klein said Derk Vyn served on the ARB. from its first meeting on dune 28, 1973 to ,September 30, 1984 and gave 'unselfishly of his time, talents, and professional abilities in guiding the growth and development of the City .in the best interests of the total community. He made a significant personal contribution `through diligent and conscientious- efforts on the ARB, and 2 the City of Palo Alto recorded . its appreciation, and that of the citizens of Palo Alto, for his outstanding public service. NOTIa111 PASSED nnaniaoasly, Cobb absent. - c Mayor Klein regretted that Mr. Vyn was unable to be present that evenings and , said .a copy. of , the framed resolution Awoul d be nailed to him I'EN #I2 REZONING. QF. PROPERTIES 1 N THE DOWNTOWN AREA FROM R14-4 TO 114-41- ► r E i PLA_ 1'346 i ! GMg:577:: 1. Mir. Brown said the or lnances before the ;Council were correct. 5 2 5 6 11/19/84 Executive Assistant Lynnie Mel ena told the Council the parcel map appeal for 418-420 Everett went before the Planning Commission the previous Wednesday. Approval was recommended with the condition that the two units go to the ARB for review, to which applicant agreed. The Council would hear the appeal on December 10, 1984. Counc l lmember Woolley said one page 4 of the staff report CMR:577:4) regarding 332 Ki pl ing, it was concluded it would be difficult for the owner to establish vested rights. However, the conclusion on page 5 said the owners of 332 Ki pl ing could gain vested rights prior to the ordinance effective date consistent with the current zoning and start substantial construction as soon as the building permit was approved. She asked which was cor- rect. Mr. Brown said it would be a race against the clock. The Chief uuilding Official indicated the building permit application was under review at that time. It was likely a permit would be issued the week of November 26, 1984. It would be up to the applicants to initiate substantial construction within a period of approxi- mately three weeks, which meant some degree of grade and founds• ti on work. It. would depend upon how . soon they began construc- tion. John Lonc3, 332 Ki pl ing . said he and his wife 1 ived at 332 Ki pl ing He previously spoke about his concerns over the rezoning ordinance and how it related to their project. The staff report did not appear favorable and was . inaccurate with regard to the site pl ans being submitted and the need for a daylight plane variance. He asked the Council to grandfather their project so they could com- plete it under the proper circumstances, Regardless of action taken that evening, their project would proceed. The Council's action would determine to what degree the project agreed with the neighborhood preservation zoning. By approving the ordinance, the Council forced him to begin work and gain vested rights by moving the house to meet the RM-4 setbacks to a poor position on the lot and inconsistent with neighboring houses. The option of excava- ting to the necessary depth would leave two-thirds of the, lower floor under grade level --ai so not desirable. Neither option nor his preferred plan would requi re a daylight plane variance under RM-4 or RM(D). Grandfather ing the project would give him time to obtain setback variances to allow the project to be. completed con- sistent with the intentions of the RM({i) 4P .zoning, while main- taining consistency with the neighborhood. If required, he would submit his pl ans to the ARB or any official body as long as he was protected by- a grandfather clause. they went to much effort to ensure their project met with the intent of the Rt4(D) NP zoning as well as being legally correct and visually appealing. If anyone could show an adverse impact through raising their house in its present location, converting the basement into a rental unit and finishing the project in a style in which the house was originally designed, he would be happy to try to eliminate any such problems. He asked for the necessary time to complete the project properly. Carolyn Lorch, 328 Ki pl ing, a neighbor of the Longs, said she and hay - husband bought their house 18 months earlier when the Longs' house was up for sale. She was relieved the Longs would not tear the house down to put up condominiums. The plans were acceptable, and she would hjel p with . the. work If .they were pressed for time. She asked the Council to consider the Longs' request. George Dal., 535 Arastradero Road, repeated ,his request of. November 5, 1985 to retain the zoning on his small property at 418-420 Everett. The opponents and neighbors dropped their appeal . If Council was willing to add a grandfather clause, he asked that it be• added that evening and:not On, Dace ber 10 : 1984 to allow him to go ahead on modifying the drawingt; eta. 5'2 5 7 11/19184 Mayor Klein asked if the opponents to Mr. Dal' s protect dropped their appeal . Ms. Selena said the appellant made references to dropping the appeal, but had not officially done so. Staff advised the Pl an - nine :Commission that the only way to, ensure the ARB approval con- dition went forward and the applicant was committed to, it was through the parcel slap appeal process. To her knowledge, the appeal was still active. Director of Manning and Community Environment Kee Schreiber said the public hearing for December 10, 1984, was advertised. The Council would receive the parcel mep with all the, usual ,preroga- tives to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. Commissioner Cullen said the appellant indicated at, the public hearing , before .the Commission that she was satisfied with the agreement by Mr. .Dai to go ,to , the ARB. On . thet. basis, a mutual consent was reached on the .project although the appellant had not officially withdrawn. MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, _seconded, by. Setori aes, to adept Exhibit °9' ordinance and Grandfather Clause is 418 Everett and 332 Ki pl lag„ ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORQIiiANCE OF THE .Uitil OP THE`CI-TY OF —PALO ALTO MIMING SECTION 18.04.040 r OF THE PALO •ALTO SONICIPAL CODE_ (THE ZONING MAP) TO CNAM iE ,THE , ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES bETW£EM HAWTHHORNE AVENUE AND LITTON AVENUE FROM itM-4 TO IN-O(NP)1 • Vice Mayor levy desired. that both ,projects be :all owed to be pur- sued. Both were generally _consistent with en. R14(D)_ zoning, even though for various reasons they. fell outside it. The grandfather- ing was appropriate and compatible with the Council's intent for the area. Councilmember Renzel asked if the ARB review was dependent upon the appeal, and if that was the basis on which the neighborhood accepted the project. Ms. Melene _said the neighborhood accepted the pro,ect because of the agreement for ARB review. , The. ARB review could be ensured either by making it a condition of approval and having the Council approve the subdivision.,or by .not: grandfathering. the project, as under the RM-D zone it would have to go to the ARB. Co ncilrae•ber Reinze.l_ asked if she meant the. Council should either not adopt the g>>randfatier clause-, or adopt it with a condition requiring ARO review, Senior Assistant City Attorney , Anthony Bennetti clarified the Council could decide what conditions should be added, but if the Council denied .the grandfather clause, the project would go to the ARB. If the Council wanted taegrandfather. •t,he project,, the appeal would have: to be kept alive .because by modifying the, approval of the appeel , it eou1 d::: be conditioned on ARB: approval. There was no vehicle to do so unless the appeal was brought forward and the condition put upon it. Counc il.member Renzel said there was no disagreement about what the Longs proposed it it was consistentwith the neighborhood and even largely coesi.stent w1 th, the: r,est_,Zie a in terPA a:f its intent. She was concerned they were dealing with'' specific individuals and specific intent. She asked if there was anymechantso such as ;a tire' l irit. or-grandfathering to;:*wsur. the Longs had adequate`: tine to pursue; thei_r.: propQsala,: 4Rd if after one: year :the;y were unable to doso and instead put the = property up for sale, it could be prevented froii being redeveloped as RM-4 • ,t: 5 2 5 8 1,1/19/84 Hr. Schreiber said there would be a time limit on the Longs' project. The grandfather clause was based on a building permit application that allowed 180 days before the first inspection, which could be extended for a further 180 days. That put a time limit of approximately one year, after which the building permit would lapse and the grandfather clause would no longer apply to the property. Counc ilmernber Woolley referred to 332 Ki pl ing . If Council grand - fathered in -the project, and the Longs decided to go for . the se t- bac a variances so they would not have to reposition the house since the RM(D) zoning had passed, she asked if the Zoning Administrator could grant the variance since the lot was sub- standard by 800 square feet. Mr. Brown said he had not considered how easy or difficult it' would be to make the findings under either RM(0) or RM-4. The appl station would be considered on its merits. Councilmember Woolley said she deeply considered the matter and bel ieved it was a question of voting for either the staff recom- mendation or the motion. They were balancing_ nothing in terms of the property on Everett since the same result -would come from either action as the appeal could be used to ensure it underwent the AR8 process. The Longs' property was affected. If the Council voted the -staff recomntendati.one _the Longs__would have to try to establ ish Vested interests in Oecember� t could be done, but it would be a tight fit.' ®y' grandfathering it in, they could apply for the variances. The Council was being inconsistent in grandfathering projects that had not gained some official approval prior to the Council's initial action on the ordinance. Although it was not a moratorium, it was a cut off date, and the Council recently drew lines about moratoria. She preferred to be consis- tent and not allow a project without some form of approval to be grandfathered. The Longs would be able to do what they wanted except they would have to reposition the house. Vice Mayor Levy understood that if the Everett project was not grandfathered in, it could not be built as condominiums, but as a unit with a cottage. Ms. Selena said it could be built as condominiums if on December 10, 1984 the Council approved the subdivision. The new zoning would not go into effect immediately. Vice Mayor Levy said the Everett project would then go through or return to the Council for .final approval. Pis. Melena said the only difference with the Everett project was if there was no grandfather clause. 8y `the time they were ready for a building permit, the RHO) regulations would be in effect, and the setback would change from 15 feet to 20 feet, .which meant some redesigning of the building. Vice Mayor Levy referred to the 332 Kipl ing project Although there was some inconsistency in the Council s action, he believed that given the- project as described, end since all were in agree- ment that it would be an acceptable project if it went to frui- tion, he was willing to make an exception to grandfather it in. If finished as described, it would be a plus for the 'neighbors hood. Councilmewber Fletcher referred to Exhibit-- .8," Section 2, and asked if the iii pi las property received prel irainary parcel' map approval . Mr. drown said there ways no need as the Long intended to build it as a rental unit. The pertinent section was Section 3. 5 2 5 9 11/19/84 COUFIC ilifietither Fletcher had misgivings on going back on the Coun- cil' s resolve to not have proj ects slip by when first filing for approval . She was concerned that developers in future situations would point to it as a precedent to justify their projects going through.. The- question was difficult as she wanted the development to proceed. She would probably go against her better judgment and approve the grandfather clause. She was concerned, as prior to passing the firm cut-off point at ARB approval , = developers always pointed to some other precedent. Her colleagues would have to agree that was so, and should keep in mind the exceptional circum- stances so -that other developers could not demand it be allowed for all Counc i1 member Sutori us seconded the motion for purposes of discus- sion. He shared the reservations expressed, and regretted his schedule would not permit him to help the Longs advance work or. the house to give the vested rights. He supported the motion. Counciimember Bechtel ,asked if the Longs needed variances if the grandfathering were approved, and to what extent. Mr. Brown said they would not necessarily need variances. They had the ,option of relocating the house on the property and doing as they pleased. They could then put the second unit in the lower section of the home without variances. If they wanted to leave the house_ .in ;its current 'location and raise it, they would need variances for the side and front setbacks. Based on his reading of the plans, they would need a variance for the daylight plane, which was:lower under RM(D) than the current (N-4. Mayor Klein said if they were grandfathered, they would be back under RM-4 and not R)4(D) Mr. Brown agreed no daylight pane variance would be required, although setbar; k variances for the front and side yards would be. needed as the existing building did not comply even under RM-4. The required setbacks were sixteen and six feet. Mr. Long r said the current setback on the narrow side- was three feet, with approximately 12 feet in front. It meant moving the house over by three feet and back by four feet. Councilmesber Bechtel pointed out there was no guarantee the vari- ances would be approved, but if, the project was grand fathered, it would give the Longs more of a chance to get something- done. She shared Councilmember Fletcher's concerns about setting a precedent, but the map showed the property was one lot over from a commercial area on Lytton.- It was a unique location and_ a unique area. To encourage people to be able to do the- kind of t:hl ng the zoning all owed was worthy of support. and she supported the motion. - Councilmember ' itherspoon said the goal of the zoning was to allow people to :halve -rental wits. What the Longs were really looking for when asking for the grandfather clause was- 'to keep their options open. Of the number of ways they could build the rental unit, they had not decided which was the most appropriate She hesitated 9randfathering a property with little vested interest which ,had not gone trorgh - any approval process nor • f1reed up 'any definite plans in the area. She would vote against the part of the motion that =included the grandfather cl ause . Mayor Klein asked if she wanted the grandfethering to apply to 418-420 Everett and ,not 332 Kipling, which' seant-voting against the whole motion. j —If veted down,' _ Council. would have is' -second reading .of the 'ordinance,. which teAntc'ally. Was before its 6 2 6 0 11/19/84 Counc ilmernber Renzel found herself in a quandary with respect to at least one of the projects, as she had spoken out against struc- turing, for specific projects. She was persuaded by staff s argument_ s that Section 2 should not be included in Exhibit "8," as Council .would have an opportunity to deal with that issue when the appeal came before the Council. She asked for confirma- tion that by incl uding Section 2, it removed the Council's handle on getting ARB review. Ms. Mel ena said the appeal would _go to the Council when it could still impose ARB review. The other difference was the setback. Counc it member Renzel found the Ki pl ing Street property a difficult problem as there was no approval at that time. However, the longs' project was probably more in keeping with the overall goal s of. the neighborhood than what otherwise .might have resulted. To put the Longs through an arduous December, digging a basement to race the clock was a harsh action when _their proposal was in keep- ing with the neighbcrhood and the intent of the RM(D). zoning to provide scale and small units. It was, therefore, consistent to provide an exception as it was justifiable and different from a comm arc ial developer who was speculatively deal ing with a piece of property in a: similar situation.:: The situation was distinguish- able from ,other .circumstances before the Council . She preferred to have Section 2 separated for purposes of voting as she pre- ferred to not grandfather. it at that time. Councilmember Bechtel pointed, out if Exhibit "B" was approved as written, the property on Everett would in any case return to the Council on December 10, 1984. It was not necessary to add any- thing to the ordinance, as ARO approval could be conditioned then. She supported the motion. Mayor Klein ruled against dividing the motion. If Councilreeinber Renzel wanted to delete Section 2, she would have to move an amendment. AMENDMENT: Corac 1lme.ber Renzel moved to delete Sectiom 2 fruit Exhibit "f.' AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LAC[ OF SECOND Mayor Klein said he was also troubled about making ,an exception as he desired a consistent pol i.cyon what could be excepted = from mor- atoria and changes. However, a special action by the 'Council with regard to the Ki pl ing property would al l ow something to be developed there more in keeping. with the Comprehensive Plan then if it was not grandfathered. As it was the reverse of the usual situation, it was particularly justified. The Council did not have to worry about the precedentual effect of that evening's action. MOTION PASSES by a vete of i-2, Nsei 1 pry, MI therspeen voting *ae,.* Cobb absent. ITEM #13, POLICY ISSUES DISCUSSION (FIN 1,15-1) (CMR:579:4) Counc i 1 Member Bechtel commended Mr. Zaner for coming up: , el th the list of worthy subjects for future discussion by all . She was particularly interested in such issues as hazardous materials, school closures, CATV (Cable Television), etc. MOTION: ,C..acilm.,ter . Sechteel moved, seconded by _ VI therspevw, t• refer te, appropriate items as per staff recommendatioo in CN E.t)N:4 to t • .Policy►. aid Proved -ores and. Finance and : Public Mews Comm ttee . Comaeilme*ber Bechtel said much .of the effort and reason. for doing the work was t the suggestion of. Councilla ember Cobb, the Chair of the finance and Public Works (F&Pa) Committee He was absent due to illness, but if he was Iistening, she congratulated him for prodding staff and the Council to do the work. 5 2 6 1 11/19/84 Counciimember Renzel said staff brought up important issues need- ing Committee review, but two issues were being referred to the F&PW Committee as though they were principally financial issues and not pol icy i ssues. She wanted to see the policy aspects of the street lighting and yand fil1 •issues referred to the Policy. & Procedures (P&P) Committee. The street lighting issue was of great interest to the community for a long time.. It had much to do with not just savings in energy costs but al so with the appear- ance of the community. There were also some health aspects to some forms of street lighting.. „Although the landfill item had financial ramificet#ors, it was more of a poi icy than a financial issue and should definitely be in the P&P committee referral rather than in. that of the F&PW Committee, although its financial ramifications would be reviewed by the latter. Current landfill issues were definitely policy issues. AMENDMENT: Cesacilmes)er Kennel raved, seconded by Klein, to refer the -landfill issue to the Policy & Procedures Committee, Councilmember 'Witherspoon said as in all issues, there were both financial and pol icy aspects. An argument could be made in a num- ber of categories about the financial ramifications in some items referred to the P&P committee . All were ul timatel y pol icy decisions. She believed the preponderance of the consideration would be financial , al though there was al ways a poi icy decision on how money was spent and resources allocated . In the two items cited by Councilmember Renzel , 'she concurred with the City Manager's analysis that they were primarily financial considera- tions. She would vote against the amendment. Vice Mayor Levy concurred with Counc11member Witherspoon. Councilmember Renzel said any solution to landfill would be cost- ly. The various proposals she saw in earlier staff reports about expanding into additional land, going higher or changing config- urations, etc., had much more significant and wide-ranging policy modifications than those of cost. Everything the City did cost money, but a change in a 1 ong establ i shed policy was to be con- sidered, and should be done first. It might not be inappropriate for the F&PW Committee to review the financial aspects, but the poi icy issues should go to the P&P committee. AMENDMENT - FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Fletcher, neaxal , Klein, Bechtel voting "ay:," Cobb absent. Councilemee+ber Renzel said while there were definitely cost aspects to street lighting, it was also an issue of great concern to the community from a policy point of view. The City had an adopted policy to replace street lights in kind . Some people were con- cerned about the types of street lighting used, and Palo Alto was a community with quality neighborhoods and couch concern in main- taining thew. Some forms of street lighting deteriorated the quality of life. AMENDMENT: Connc i l rsehber Renzel moved to refer the . street lighting assn to the Policy and Precedents Committee.. AMENDMENT FAILED FDA LACK Of A SECOND Councilmember Sutorius asked if it was wasteful for an issue such as 1andfill to be placed' early en the PAP agenda so its determina- tions could be coathtinicated to' the F&PW Cbhcatttee in time for it to be included in the regular F&PW -Committee infrastructure and budget process. As a member of the F&PW Committee, he had no dif- ficulty is 'receiv lag input from the PIP Comaitte on both sub- ,sects. Mr. loner said that if that was the Lei sh of the Council , more time could oe saved by educating the Council throbgh a work session to ge over the whole subject t. rather than splitting the . Council ` into two groups and dividing the information between them. 5- 2 6 2 11/19/84 Vice Mayor Levy wasconfused about the inel usion of telecommunica- tions as an area for pol icy discussion. He asked what pol icy is- sues would be addressed. Mr. Zaner said telecommunications were incl tided because they involved substantial financial commitments over the next couple of years, and it was •important for the F&PW Committee and the Council to fully understand Where the City was going Al so, the F&PW Com- mittee specifically requested that they address the issue and scheduled it on its own calendar, so staff included it in the report. Vice` Mayor Levy bel ieved tel ecommunic,ations, in all of its ramifi- cations, was a means of implementing other policies. To get too much into telecommunications might bring Councilmembers into the wrong areas. He asked what other items staff might have added to the 1 i st cull ed from' a 'larger number of item's'. Mr. Zaner said he would refer to his notes and give the Committees any additional items. He did not recall the others identified by Department heads, but tried to pull out those with City-wide sig- nificance which cut across more than one department. Some depart- ments gave items that related strictly to one issue. AMENDMENT: C•asc.ilmebber ` !teazel moved, seconded by Sut•rius, that the landfill i sswe be addressed by the Council as a Committee •f the whole. Councilmember Sutorius said workshops or study sessions were es- sential in many subjects to good comiaunication, understanding and expedited processes. If considered in advance, they lent them- selves to' a calendar planning process that could either be sched- uled in firmly for otherwi se open dates in the Council `s calendar or put on a shelf awaiting a blank spot as they occurred. He seconded the landfill amendment to designate it as a candidate for the kind of treatment he bel ieved they should explore. Mayor Klein said such an amendment 'would be appropriate later. He asked the Council 'to 'not expand lted 13 into a full-blown discus- sion just because there was time that evening. The issues in the City Manager` s memorandum were, not excl usive--both the F&PW and the P&P' Coeeittee's controlled their *Wn agendas :and'their members were free to bring items in. The Council was not the only vehicle for bringing issues before Committees. It was not the goal of the Council- td come' up with an eehaustive 1 ist for each Committee. Vice Mayor Levy agreed with many of Counciimember Sutorius' re- marks, but would vote against the amendment. Council work ses- sions should play a different role from Committee meetings, where a smaller group of Councilmembers studied an item more intensively with more informal publ is input and where the five minute rule and the formal setting did not operate. Work sessions should be held more often, primarily for staff to educate the Council to a better 1 understanding' of i''lsues. AMEM®MEAT FAILED by a vote of 3-b,s Fletcher, 'teazel , Sateries voting $. e," Cobb absent. ASENDILIIT: Co ac:ileeaber Sstories a !yed,3 tec`oaded by Renzel to add its. 11 of tie staff ' repfrt, ateuscil Caleadur Piawaleg,* to lei icy amid Proesdaras Coursc ilmeaiber Suto�rius believed in the' need for a business plan- ning process to look at significant subject matter the Council should del"iberate on and to draw up a calendar for staff to bring. the subject ratter before the Council, including work study ses- sions with field trips to other parts of the' City Or seminars for the Council,;, as such or in ,its Coeeittee functions Counc ilreiuiber Ren zel believed Council' s time would be better used if there were guidelines for its calendar planning to allow the Ccunci1 to be more efficient in the use of its and the public's time transacting City business. Referring to a remark made by Mayor Klein with respect to Committees _devel oping its 'own agendas, she did not believe they were ae liberty to do so because staff time' was needed to level 4p the background material . Uni ess Coun- cil was will ing to have a majority send something to the Commit- tee, it was fruitless to . spend staff time for the whims of less than a majority of the 'Council . Aside• from the outgrowth of nat- ural referral s that happened by the Council , the did' not believe a Committee had authority to bring up new items within itsei f. Mayor Klein said it was true and not true. Committee items had to go through Council , but Courlc#1 had control over its own agendas, and when a Councilmember 'put an item on the Council agenda, it was referred to the appropriate' -tomm'ittee', "unless a Council majority opposed it. Councilmember Kenzol said she meant the Committee did not have a 1 ife of its own and so could not take up a subject unless referred by Council. Mayor Klein said that realistically was not so since concerned Councilmembers could put an item on the agenda when it would be studied, He clarified the Council was not the only vehicle with which to bring an item before a Committee. Vice Mayor Levy agreed study sessions and trips should be used more often. He suggested a substitute motion that staff more ful ly utilize study sessions and trips to save about 90 minutes of P&P Committee meeting time, which he considered to be the essence of Councilmember . Sutorius' suggestion. Councilmember Sutorius believed that might cause certain study sessions to be recommended and scheduled. The Council would not, through the P&P Committee process, look to the standpoint of role, responsibil ity, and effectiveness of the Council , col lectively and individually. It "was an important part of his motion that Council look at itsel t and its actions as 'far as continuances and main- taining a Council meeting schedule were concerned. The Council should not rely exci usively -on staff. There should be sel f- searchi.ng about how the Council could .improve its effectiveness. Councilmember Bechtel said there was no question that sometimes the functioning of Council meetings could be improved,. A few weeks earl ier the Council hit an alt -time high in inefficiency in accomplishing a goal. She was not sure a referral to the P&P Com- mittee was the way to get at the problem. It might be necessary to learn to communicate effectively. She did not feel the struc- ture per se was the prubl'e*. and much as 'tile was sykspathe tic to Councilmember Sutorius` s thrust, she believed other types of is- sues were more involved. She was al so not,. enthusiastic about Vice Mayor Levy's suggestion to simply encourage staff to hold more workshops. She only wanted to attend a workshop if there was a valid reason 'for so doings!' AMENDMENT PASSES by a vet of 5-3, [lei*, Monte', , Levy voting P,�,'" Cobb ebsest. ► . , MOTION AS AMUSES PASSES Ono* 1messi , Cobb ag►seat. ITEM 414, PARTICIPATION I%JOINT POWERS TRANSMISSION .AGENCY WTI 17.41711:1112711 -- Mr. Zaner said 4: new agency was being; formed. Corncilseerrrbers Cobb and Sutorius acted as delegate. and alternate to- the Northern California Power Agency: ($CPA). Staff recommended adoption of agreement, and that the two delegates be appointed to serve on the new agency. 5 2 6 4 11/19/84 Mayor Klein said the appointments were made by the Mayor and not the Council. Consistent with previous policies, he assumed the Mayor would then al so appoint the delegates. MOTION Mayer Klein moved, seconded by 'Bechtel, to adopt the resolution re participation in the Joint Powers Transmission Agency and to :appoint Councilmembers Cobb and Setorlus as repre- sentatives. RESOLUTION . 6329 entitled "RESOLUTION OF' THE COUNCIL OF TIE' CIS IT PALO ALTO APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE JOIIT POWERS AGREEMENT TRANSNISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA" AGREEMENT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Coun, i1member Witherspoon asked if staff was sati sfied with the level of staffing provided by NCPA. Director of Util sties Richard Young said the Joint Powers Transmission Agency was separate from NCPA. NCPA being a joint action agency could not be a member of another joint action agency. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that no NcPA staff would par- ticipate with the Joint Powers Transmission Agency. Mr. Young said not unless the City directed. The City would be conducting its own business as much as possible. They were talking about a transmission line which was a single project. There were large engineering organizations involved who could do more technical aspects of the project than what NCPA was doing in that area. Councilmember Witherspoon asked who would hire and supervise the staff. Mr. Young said the organization itself would hire a major corpor- ate company such as SMUD, or Los Angeles might be involved, and PaE might do_ some of the construction. There was such a conglom- erated group of larger organizations that there was no difficulty with how it would be designed, engineered, and built. Councilmember Witherspoon understood but Wondered who would oversee it all from Palo Al to' s point of view. Mr. Young said he Would oversee the project. NOTION PASSEL' •aaalr.sly, Cobb abstnt. ITEM #15, CANCELLATION OF NOVEMBER 26, 1984 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ( OU 3i MOTION: Comecilme*ber $echtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to vocal the Nevesber 26, 1904 City Ceaac 1l meeting. MOTION' PASSEL' eea lsousl7,l. Cobs absent. ADJOURNMENT .TO WISED SESSJ1,1i, E, : .. . : .... . Council adjourned to a closed session re litigation at 9:28 FINAL ADJOURNMENT Final adjournment wits p 5 2 6 5 11/19/84 ATTEST: APPROVED: 5 2 6 6 11/19/84