HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-21 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUNCIL
MINUTES
ITEM
Minutes of December 20, 1983
CITY
of
ALTO
Regular Meeting
Monday, March 21. 1983
item #1, Appointment of Two Human Relations
Commissioners to Fill Three Year Terms Commencing
April 1, 1983
Consent Calendar
Referrel
Item #2, Extending Residential Conservation
Financing Program - Referral to Finance and Public
Works Committee
PAGE
3 0 7 6
3 0 7 6
3 0 7 7
3 0 7 7
3 0 7 7
Item #3, Report on the Transient Occupancy Fax - 3 0 7 7
Referral to ri ce and Public Works Committee
Action
Item #4, Request from Ross, Wilson, Remsburg, Inc,
for the Rescission of an Easement at 4250 E1 Camino
Real
3 0 7 7
3 0 7 7
.Item #b, Conf_l a:3::,t of Interest Code Revisions 3 0 7-8
Item #6, Schematic Design Services for Renovation of
Heating and Ventilating Systems at the. Lucie Stern
Center
item #7, San Francisco Water Department (Letter of
Extension)
Item #8,. Energy Conservation Measures in. the Civic
Center
Item 19, Contract for Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Transformer
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Item #10, Public Hearing: Planning °' Commission
Recommendation re Application of Richard M, Jacobson
for a Tentative Subdivision Map for Property Located
at b00 Hansen.. Way
teem #11, Piblis Hearing: Planning Commission
Recommendation re Application of John Chambers -for„a
Preliminary Parcel Map for Property Located at 5065
SkYl ino Boulevard
Item #10, Planning Commission Recommendation `re,
Downtown Retail Study.
0 7 8
ITEM
Item 13, Planning 'Commission Recommendation re
Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Clarifying
Conditions Under which Existing Housing may be
Replaced by new (esidential Condominiums
Item #14', Stanford Hospital Certificate of Need 7
Physician Access (Reconsideration of Resolution No,
6062 }.
Item #15,. Cable -TV Joint Cable Participation -
Letters of Intent
Item #16, Request :of Councilmember Fletcher re
Conservation Tax Credit (SB 298)
Adjournment to Executive Session
PAGE
3 0 8 4
3 0 9 5
3 0 9 8
3 1 0 2
3 1 0 2
Final Adjournment 3 1 0 3
Regular Meeting
Monday, March 21, 1983
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 25U Hamilton Avenue, at 7:33 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel. Cobb, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Levy
(arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Renzel, Witherspoon (arrived
at 8:50 p.m.)
ABSEPIT: Eyerly
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20, 192
Councilmember Fletcher submitted the following correction:
Pa a 28U5, paragraph 1, third line from the bottom, the word
• curt iauld follow .the: word "Layne."
Vice Mayor Fazzino had the following correction:
PPaa a 2792, line 12, first paragraph, word "ihtrical" should be
inIegra ."
Pa a 2804, line 13, fifth paragraph, should read, -"Oregon Avenue
scut omes had recently been removed, and people in the.."
Councilmertber Renzel had the following correction:
Page 2798, seventh paragraph, last line should read, "Catering
were to occupy the whole space."
Counci lme€giber Cobb had the following correction
Pale 2805,` fourth paragraph, word "crossed" should be deleted, and
insert '-fived across."
MOTION: Councilaewber Cobb moved, seconded by Fazzino, approval.
of the Minutes of December 20, 1982, as corrected.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly, Levi, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #1 APPOINTMENT OF TWO HUMAN_ RELATIONS COMMISSIONERS TO FILL
THREE YEAR M f
City Cleric Ann Tanner announced the names of the applicants for
the Human, Relations Commissidii as follows:
MURIEL A. ALLEN
HARRY AN1SGARD
PTAH K - SI KI R. ;F. BENNETT
RONALD D. LEE
JAMES A. NiICHOLS
HERMAN OHME
WILLIAM J. PARKINSON
JOSEPH L. PODOLSKY
THOMAS RONDELL
STEPHEN M. VERNON
,EDWARD 5 WHITE
C ufc i lmember --Klein announced that he intended to vote -for Joseph
Podol sky= 00 the first bel l of because_ Mr dd . P ol sk i had'' done a super -
jtats in :his judgment, and . deserved to be reappointed.
1
Ms. Tanner advised that the first candidate to receive five votes
would be appointed.
FIRST
ROUND OF VOTING FOR FIRST POSITION
Ms. Tanner announced the results of the first round of voti ng:
VOTING FOR PODOLSKY: Cobb, Fletcher, Renzel , Fazzino, Bechtel ,
Klein
She said that Joseph .Podol sky received six votes and was
appointed.
Mayor Bechtel congratulated Mr. Podol sky on his appointment.
Counci l member' Levy arrived at 7:40 p.m.
FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR SECOND POSITION
Ms. Tanner announced the results of the first round of voting for
the second position.
VOTING FOR LEE: Klein, Fazzino, Renzel, Bechtel
VOTING FUR NICHOLS: Cobb, Levy, Fletcher
SECOND ROUND OF VOTING FOR SECOND POSITION
Ms. Tanner announced the results of the second round of voting for
the second position:
VOTING FOR LEE: Fletcher, Fazzino, Renzel, Bechtel, Klein
VOTING FOR NICHOL•S: Cobb, Levy
Ms. Tanner announced that Ronald D. Lee received five votes and
was appointed.
_Mayor Bechtel congratulated Mr. Lee on his appointment. She com-
mented that the pool of applicants for -the Human Relations Commis-
sion was outstanding, and said the Council appreciated those in
d i v idua l s who were interested in volunteering their time to serve
on such a comMAssion. Another position was also available on the
HRC and there was still time to apply.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Vice Mayor .Fazzino moved, seconded by Renzel', approval
of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
Fibi #2 EXTENDING RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION FINANCING PROGRAM --
•
ITEM #3_ REPORT ON THE. TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX - REFERRAL TO
Action
ITEN #4. RE UEST FROM ROSS WILSON REMSBURG INC. ;FOR. THE
Staff recommends that Council adopt the ' resolution consenting
the 'rescission of the declaration of an easement.
RESOLUTION- 6100 entitled °RESOLUTION OF`: TIIE COUNCIL OF
bit .0 IIT OF b ALO ALTO CONSENTING TO THE =PESC 1 SS ION Of' . A
DECLARATION Of EASEMENT AT 4250. EL-CAMINO-,REAL"
ITEM #5) CONFLICT OF INTEREST - CODE REVISIONS
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
RESOLUTION 6101 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
1HE CITY_OF PAID ALTO ADOPTING DESIGNATED POSITIONS FOR
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED POSITIONS
AS REQUIRED, BY SECTION 2.09.010 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 6012"
ITEM #6, SCHEMATIC DESIGN SERVICES FOR RENOVATION OF HEATING AND
•
•
Staff recommends that Council:
•
Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Keller &
Gannon for $16,000;
L. Authorize staff to execute changes to the agreement of up to
$4,000.
AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT
Keller & Gannon Engineers Architects
ITEM #7, SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPARTMENT Letter of Extension
1-C14772 1-3--FaT
Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to execute the let-
ter extending the City's contract for Hetch Hetchy water through
June 1983 or until superseded by another agreement or contract.
ITEM #8 ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE CIVIC CENTER
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with ESC Energy
Corporation for $28,949; and
. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement of
up to $1,000.
AGREEMENT PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN ESC ENERGY CORPORATION
AND CITY OF PALO ALTO
ESC Energy Corporation
ITEM . 09, CONTRACT FOR POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL TRANSFORMER
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to exe-
cute the contract with Rollins Environmental Services (TX), Inc.
in the amount- of $38,355 to provide a complete service to dispose
of twenty-one PCB filled transformers,
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Rollins Environmental Services (TX Inc.)
MOTION PASSED unanimously s E rerly,- Witherspoon absent.
AizENDA, CH N(ES _ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
None
TIM 110 PUBLIC :NEARING: ` PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: RE
1
Planning Commissioner John Northeay said the only dissenting vote
on the Planning Commission: was concerned about the ,:creation : of a
3 O 7 8
3/21/83
nonconforming parcel , which was why condition No. 1 was added to
merge that parcel, with parcel B at the time of development.
Councilmember Renzel asked if the right-of-way was only being
abandoned to the west or south of El Camino or whether it was the
entire right -of -.way from the main tract.
Chief Manning Official Bruce Freeland said staff was only aware
of the portion from El Camino over. He understood there might .be
talk of abandoning the entire strip, but that question should be
addressed to Rosemary McAndrews from Stanford.
Gouncilmember Renzel said she noticed that at least for one of the
parcels, the additional site area was allowed only for the portion
directly attached to the parcel and not the panhandle. She asked
if the City was required to create an area that could be built on
out of the railroad right-of-way or could it simply be part of the
setbacks without creating ne.w industrial property that could be
built on.
Mr. Freeland said that with -respect to Parcel A which had the pan-
handle, staff believed it was possible -to limit the application of
the area within the panhandle so that. the portion in the panhandle
would ,not count toward floor area for a future building. That was
in line with what was done at 335,) West Bayshore, and in that
case, the area of the panhandle was restricted from development
although not entirely precluded. There was some slight credit
given for a small portion of the area in the panhandle. There was
a typographical .error on page 6 of the staff report, exception No.
1, second to last line, "83,723" should be "88,723."
Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open.
Richard M. Jacobsen, the applicant, 755 Page Mill Road, said he
took exception to the Planning Commission and staff recommendation
because they were concerned about limiting the allowable density
from the lot area which was added to the property as the basis of
the subdivision. He saw p'o reason that the property Owner should
not be able to make use of the property as was allowed under the
LM zone. He did not agree With the staff report which cited the
Bayshore Frontage Road as a precedent. Differences involved the
so-called panhandle addition =to the.Bayshore Frontage Road sub-
clivision .and a major increase of 45 percent to the size of the
property, which was basically 50. feet wide and _1,100 feet long.
His application was for a -modest .16 percent increase in the area
of the site. The City Councils action. with regard to the
Bayshore Frontage Road property was to allow a 20 -percent increase
in the density which could be added to that property, and he
requested only a 16 percent increase in the' .density Which attached
to the property. Another difference in the Bayshore Frontage Road
property was that it.was a 700 foot dead end panhandle adjacent to
a residential property, and his was 200 feet, not dead end and
fully usabl e.. In fact, it was an attractive and usable.: connect
part -of_ the property. He was not trying to extend --the panhandle
all the way from his property down to Hansen Way, but only the 200
usable feet, which .made a seflsible addition to the .property,
Since he would not have another. opportunity to' speak to the Colin,
c7-1.,. i'e wanted to speak to the possibility that the Planning Com-
mission recoamendatjon would. be upheld.- If that recommendation
was„upheld., he ,bel ieved :that reduction in allowable density was- a
mjtigating measure _with regard to the :housing impact -which could
possibly be generated by .the site. There- was: shit of . a standard
houOng- mitigation , measure which was applied to "other pro;^' eties
in._,the City and involved a fee.. �n a, pe.r. square foot basis. If the
density was reduced, then he__ .suggested that At -would not be fair
to ask :him to take 4n ;additiona mitigating measure.
Count 1lniember Cobb ; sa l d that regard i n_g- the property on Bayshore
Frontage -a. he recollected that -one. -of the. ii:"ens `which received some
r
1
can si derat i on for the property owner to have some additional den-
sity, was because —there was some significant landscaping, etc.,
which was to be done to tne panhandle strip to ease_ some of the
concerns of tne homeowners who lived in the area behind it. If
the Planning Commission recommendation was passed, he asked what
the fate would be of those panhandled not being developed. He
asked if they would be left as open field or would they be land-
scaped in any way.
Mr. Jacobsen said he was only involved with Parcel A. Parcel 8
and Parcel C would stay under the control of Stanford University.
The portion of the property which would be attached to his Parcel
A would be treated as an integral part of his development and
would be landscaped. He believed it was an important aspect of
the development in that area to unify the access, feeling and
theme of the area. That was brought up in the ARB approval of his
bui iding plans, and they strongly recommended that it be done. He
agreed, if the City Council approved, to go ahead in that direc-
tion to incorporate and landscape it and make the access possible.
Another que4 Lion which came ,up at the ARB was the use of the YMCA
facility which existed at Page Mill Place His current office
development was heavily subsidized and made available to service
the needs of the industrial park. It was felt that the addition
of the so-called panhandle property properly landscaped and pro-
vided with access both vehicular and pedestrian would benefit the
area.
Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Renzel askec why the panhandle was not being added
to the adjacent parcels rather than creating the peculiar shape.
Mr. Freeland said that was basically the Planning Commission's
thinking when it proposed the additional requirement that Parcel B
not be developable until such time that it might be merged with
adjacent parcels. There was quite a bit of discussion at the Com-
mission about Parcel B and whether it was practical to have a sub-
division that would merge it with some of the adjoining parcels.
The response at that time was that it was the most likely future
for .Parcel B, but that Stanford had not negotiated with the prop-
erty owners of the larger parcels to which, Parcel l? could be
added, and they were not prepared at this time to proceed with
such a subdivision. The City needed the property .owners consent
for the subdivision process. Stanford believed it was premature.
Councilmember Menzel asked if the leaseholder was considered the
owner.
Mr. Freeland said that normally permission was obtained from both
the leaseholder and Stanford University on those matters in the
industrial park.
Councilmember Renzel asked if Stanford would still have the owner-
ship if it were merged into the parcel because it would . not be
part of the leasehold, but ; rather part of _the parcel.
Mr. Freeland said it would be a part of the leasehold. Property
lines were intended to yo With leasehold interests and it would
be a new parcel. A portion'_ of a . parcel of land could not be
leased, and the lease would . have to be -amended to. include - the
whole revised parcels which would =incorporate the panhandle.
Counci 'member Renzel said she bel ieved e properties were partially),
teased , to different parties all the time so that it Was possible
for Stanford•.to maintain its interest in :-that portion until' it
could negotiate its value.
to see those
1
1
City Attorney Uia.ne . Lee said she believed long-term leases were
treated differently under_ the Subdivision Map Act, and that the
city needed more -information in -_order to give a definite response
on how the particular property would fall.
Councilmember Renzel said there was still the' question- of the pan-
handle for Parcel A, and she asked why it was not being merged
with the adjacent parcel.
Mr. Freeland said the parcel could have been merged with 700
Hansen Way, which parcel was immediately to the left of Parcel A.
I n fact, that panhandle area backed dp ion the other -side to the
propert)e of the same applicants, and based on, .the .coincidence of
ownership of some of the land on the, other side, it made sense to
carry that parcel line over to that point.
;.Councilmember Renzel said she coeild see how it tied in from the
applicant's point of view, but from a planning point of view, the
City should not plan according to who owned parcels because that
was a transitory condition. She believed it made more sense to'
attach the little bits and pieces _to-. contiguous parcels. -
Mr. Freeland, said that part of the rationale for not allowing the
panhandle to have a development potential was the fact that the.
parcel was not a completely normal contiguous type of addition to
Parcel A.
Councilmember Renzel said the staff report mentioned improving
grossly substandard lots, and she asked if there was something in
the subdivision ordinance which automatically merged substandard
•parcels.
Ms. Lee said she believed someone had to take the action in order
to merge parcels even if they were in the same ownership.
Councilmember Renzel said that since the City received a request
for action: with a proposed map, which map was the only one shown,
could-. it do something other than what was requested. She asked
What action the Council would be required to take, and whether
that action _could be taken tonight or whether it would_ have to be
referred back to the Planning Coomission.
Ms.. Lee said the Council's options were to approve the map, dis-
approve the map or .approve the map with conditions. She did not
believe -the ;natter had to be referred -back to the Planning Cor mis-
sion to do any of those things.
Mr. Freeland said that as a practical .matter, there was no point
in approving a subdivision which was contrary -to the interests of
the people who control i_ed the property' because they simply =would
not f;i l e the final map.
Councilmember Renzel -clarified that the proposed map could be
denied and the Council- could indicate its edestre
properties- merged with the -more appropriate parcel s.
Ms. Lee clarified that the Council would make. the finding that
some of the parcels being created were noi physically suitable for
the .type of ..dovelo_ pent- proposed.
91UTlE i► .. . Coratiireeber: Rear el se ed .that tee tehtati re.. subdlrf
-sionAplep be denied„ fihsiing that the, parcels were net sw1table for
_Abe type of development bet a proposed , .
Councilmember Renze.l ` said she'bel i-eved t: was more :appropriate for
those: portions of, the rai l roan ;right-o:fway to be -'merged- with the
immediately adjacent parcels,. and _furthers .that'. it. made ,more., -sense
from"a - planning perspec.ti ve which the Counci l_ must. ;look- at. without
regard to specific owne-rships:
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
NOTION: Copncilmember Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
approve the Planning Commission recommendations that the . project
will not have a significant impact on the environment; the proj-
ect, including the desigrw or improvement, is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and complies with the Subdivision Map Act an,d
Title 21 of the PAMC: that the site is physically suitable for
the type and density of the proposed developmente that the sub-
division is not likely to result in serious public health prob-
lems; that there are not conflicts with public easements, and
finding that:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property in that` the substandard width and area of proposed
Parcel B is due to its use up to now as a railroad right-of-
way, and will result in a parcel less substandard than the
existing two parcels;
2. The exceptions are necessary for the preservation and enjoy-
ment of a substantial property right of the petitioner;
3. The granting of the exceptions will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or Injurious to other property in the territory
in which the property is situated in that the proposed parcels
are consistent in size and configuration with the existing
land use pattern in the area;
4. The granting of these exceptions will not violate the require-
ments, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that proposed
Parcel 8, although substandard, is less substandard than the
existing parcels which comprise it, and in that the non-
contiguous portion of the right-of-way parcel to be added to
600 Hansen Way will not be counted towards increased floor
area ratio for the parcel;
5. The land identified on ,the map as Parcel 11 shall be merged
with ;contiguous parcels prior to development of Parcel 8;
6. The existingeasement_' which runs along southwest property line
of parcel known as 700 Hansen Way and which crosses proposed
Parcel. A shall be shown on final mmp; and furthers approval with exceptions from the requirement for a 100 foot wide one
acre parcel with the conditions that;
7. For purpose of calculating the allowed floor area ratio for
proposed Parcel A, the site area shall be limited to the area
of the existing parcel plus the area of the right-of-way which
is .contiguous .to the existing parcel (25,000 +. square feet),
excl udin the area of the noncontiguous `panhandle" (10,937 +
square eat). Thus, the floor area alloie4 on proposed Parcel
A shall be limited to 10,000 + square feet over the 88,723 +
square feet allowed on the existing parcel, or 98,723 + square
feet total;
8. The railroad track and crossing warping equipment on El Camino
Real be removed and the ": street resurfaced and sidewalks
replaced where necessary;
Prior to aobmittal .of a final map, a Corrected title report
which agrees. With the parcels: as shown on the tentative wap
shall be, submitted; and
The 10 -foot sanitary sewereasement along - the east
l ina of . proposed` ?a rcel A be shown ,.om the .final ., p.
NOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-1. Rental voting
Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #11 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
Alii'LftAt !UN uF (AM' U41.16110 rUK A rKLLT'l T1
Planning Commissioner John Nortnway sald the Commission.'s only.
concern, was how access to the site would be worked out, and thus
added the condition that it be finalized before submission of the
finaI map.
Mayor' Bechtel declared the pu►bl is hearing open. Receiving no
requests from the public to speak, she declared the public hearing
closed,
MOTION: Vice Mayer. Fazzino moved. seconded I+y Le`ry, approval of
the application of John Chambers for a Prel lminary Parcel Map for
property letatedJet 5065 Skyline Boulevard with -the following ton-
ditions:..
1. An access easement for the portion of the roadway within Par-
eel: 2 Chat is -acceptable to staff shall be worked out,prhor to
submission -Of the final map. Thus 'easement shall be granted
prior to any application for site and design review;
2. A test ,well shell be -dug -and tested for quality and quantity
of water by the Santa Clara `County Health Department. Their
written approval based on the results of this testing will: be
necessary prior to subnission of the final map;
3. No approval of the final map shall occur until San Mateo
County approves this _lend division pursuant to the conditions
outlined through Palo Alto's review process;
4. Recordation of the final hip by San Mateo County shall be
accomplished and written notification of this recordation
received by the City of Palo Alto prior ,to the issuance at any
building permit;
5. Future building coverage and other impervious coverage eXclur-
sive of the driveway and existing barn shall be limited to
3500 square feet with provision fora greater area of building
coverage to be allowed through the site and design approval
process.
The exception shall be granted with the following condition:
1. That the portion of the map within San Mateo County be record-
ed showing the designated scenic setback line thereby preclud-
ing further development within this 200 foot setback.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly and Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #12, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE DOWNTOWN RETAIL
anrimmirier
Planning Commissioner John hlorthway said- that when the Commission
1 ooked at the whole downtown reta i 1 area, it believed that al 1 eys
could be an asset in 'that they could provide interesting pedes-
trian walkways `and access tb businesses. In designing for the
downtown area, he had personally -found that it was difficurt at
times ,to work with the City. Some of the biggest problems _when ..
dealing with the alleys . was working . with the Uti 1 iti es Department
and sotse of the restrictions ..which- were, placed on the use of the
a11eys. The Commission believed that' those alleyways could be. a
tremendous asset to the development::. of __ the downtown and: both
visual. and pedestrian 'interests. If by-, working With the City`
staff and City _Utilities Department, a good policy could' ,be estab-
lished so that merchants and.people doing projects _downtown could
improve- those alleys, it would have a `significant -impact on the
downtown in terms of -adding to it.
1
Coun t lmember Renzel asked who had to pay if a brick walk . was put
in and had to be dug up for utilities.
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said that was the kind of
question which lead to a referral to the Policy and Procedures
Committee. There were many policy issues to be resolved with this
and all of the other programs for downtown enhancement in terms of
the extent of City involvement for upgrading that one part of town
and the extent to which the City should participate in more than
just policy in terms of setting the direction for the area.
Councilmember Renzel said she concurred with the idea of improving
the alleys and walkways, but- wondered who had the decision making
power about how they were improved. Once that was done, who had
the responsibility for repair and/or replacement as needed..
City Attorney Diane Lee said that to the . extent public rights of
way were . involved, the City had the decision making power about
how they were improvedand was responsible for repair and replace-
ment as needed. -
MOTION Corncii.ember Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, regarding
Downtown Retail Study, that the concept of improving City alleys
and walkways be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee.
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #I3 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE AMENDMENT TO
(Z M R :2 2/177"."'
Planning Commissioner John Northway said the item was studied by
the Commission for a long period of time and was a complex issue
on which to get a handle. He commended Mr. Freeland for the.
excellent manner in which the information was put together, and
said the informatien was understandable and enabled the Commission
to -proceed to snake'. some decisions. The study was' complicated and
well outlined in the staff report and data provided. He deferred
specific questions regarding the interpretation of the data to Mr.
Freeland. It was important to note that the Commission looked
seriously at approaching the areas under consideration and down -
zoning there all. That approach created complex problems of having
a lot of nonconforming lots, not to mention the financial impacts.
Further, the Commission looked at a straight one -for -one replace-
ment, which also did not seem to . be financially or practically
feasible. The Commission believed that the need for low and mod-
erate income housing in Palo Alto was very important, and that the
availability of small homes was one of the City's great resources
in terms of providing that low and moderate income rental. housing.
It was extremely important for the City, as a` policy, to do .every-
th-1ng possible to protect those houses or to make sure that if a
project was coming through 'which would take away some of those:
rental houses, that programs be in place to provide replacement
value. for those houses. The Commission did not want to create a
situation where it was totally impossible to redevelop `those areas
because some of those areas really needed to be redeveloped, which.
was ..why the Commission's recommendation' essentially offered four
different ways of meeting the criteria of either increasing the
number of units significantly, or replacing the number Of rental
houses actually being destroyed, or by increasing the amount of
BMK units that would be provided in the projects or by guarantee-
ine that not less than 50 percent of the ,units be available- for.
households, of middle income. It Was: important to:, note 'teat -there
was an "or"= after every ' one of -the items,` but . that the situation,
did:not require that all four criteria had to be met or else some-
thing could not. De. done. The Commission wanted At to be .possible
for necessary development and- redevelopment` to occur, but wanted
City policy to be clear that it was extremely'important to protect
the rental housing in Palo Alto.
1
1
1
Vice Mayor Fazzino commended the Planning Commission for doing an
excellent job. He believed the program went far in protecting
rental units, but he. was concerned that it did not go far enough
in terms of protecting existing structures. He asked for clarifi-
cation under Option A, that when 100 percent more units were added
than wer=e lost, they did not necessary have to be rentals.
Mr. N,rthway said that was correct,
Vice Mayor Fazzino asked why that was selected as an option and
not a specificrental proposal as a part of the recommendation.
Mr. Northway said that if 100 percent more units Gould be ob-
tained, whether they be for rental .or for sale, the City would
receive a si,gni f i carat benefit and gain.
_Vice Mayor Fazzino asked what .options were, evaluated by the Plan-
ning Commission in terms the prohibition of demolition or in light
of the specific College Terrace Study -and -the downtown area, and
why specific_ proposals were riot made relating to the preservation
of the character of an area An terms -of existing structures or
outright demolition prohibition.
Mre ktorthway said the Commission wanted to be very careful to not
set up such restrictive prohibitions that slurs -were created in
town. If it was impossible to take down structures which -really
needed to be taken down, the Commission was concerned about land-
lords simply letting them deteriorate.
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the Planning Commis-
sion also discussed the need for some .selective reconsideration of
policies in neighborhoods which seemed to be stable or upgrading
themselves based on the existing housing stock rather than heading
toward a future of redevelopment. The Commission did not want to
close that option because there was.a desire to go ahead and
selectively look at some neighborhoods for preservation, which
might mean some selective rezoning of certain areas. Rather than
identify those areas at this point and focus the discussion on
downzoning, .the effort was an attempt toy, get across-the-board
rules, but not to- replace, and also to continue looking at specie
fic zoning in specific areas.
Councilmernber Renzel said that Circumstance 8 stated that the num-
ber. of rental --units to be provided by the . project would ° be at
least equal to the number of existing rental units. If that''
alternative were .chosen, she asked how the ongoing rental condi-
tion Would be protected in a subdivision context. In her opinion,
almost anything ,built ,would be subdivided, and _she asked how the
City would guarantee a rental or how that would apply. -
Mr. Freeland responded that- if e rental were. created -not a condo-
minium subdivision map --it was a rental and once created, could
only_ be converted through the corrdomi:nium ;,conversion ordinance. ,
As long as .the project started uff as an apartment building,. the_
City had control `through -the condominium conversion ordiriante.
Council member Renzel said suppose there were five current rental
units, and the developer:.wanted to build nine. units, five -of -which
` to be- retained as rentals and "the other= four to bee -sold. She
asked if that would >;not:. be a subdivision_ whitir created' nine
units.
,Mr. Freeland said if that were .the case, the City :would have to
enter- into a long-term agreement, whiche°_ had not yet been ex-
plored:
Copncilmember Renzel clarified that .Circumstance 11 strictly' as-
sumed that there '`'would not be a . subdivision with respect to the
Property at this .point
Mr. Freeland said that was his understanding at the time, but
Councilmernber Renzel was correct that if the number of units total
was greater than the number of rentals replaced, there might be a
subdivision with a fixed pool of rentals plus some that might be.
sold. In that case, the City would have to .work out some type of
long-term agreement to protect that rental .stock,
Councilmeraber Renee' clarified that all of that would have to be
done in advance of a demolition.
Mr. Freeland said that was correct. A demolition permit could not
be obtained until permission was granted to build the new residen-
tial units.
Counci l,nember Levy said he recalled_ that the original: basis for
concern with deMel itions related to the primarily older homes in
the downtown area, If. he awned one: of the homes and it was
divided into two or three rental units, he asked if there was any-
thing to prevent him from going back into that home and living in
it as an owner -occupied home.
Mr. Freeland said there was nothing to prevent him from doing
:.that. If the house was legally converted. in the past to apart-
ments, then it would show in the Building Department records. If
the owner decided to tear that house down at --some point in the
future and replace it with something, the City would compare the
property against the Building Department records-. He clarified
that if an owner desired to occupy the entire house and live in it
as if it were one unit, it could be done, but if the owner wanted
to remove and alter the structure and take out kitchens, etc., it
would require permission from the Building Department.
Council#nember Levy said that if an owner converted the structure
at one point to a rental unit, then henceforth it could not be
converted back to an owner -occupied dwelling within the context of
the ordinance.
Mr. Freeland said it was intended to be a policy statement in the
Comprehensive Plan --not an ordinance. Its use would occur primar-
ily with subdivision applications which were tested against com-
pliance with the Comprehensive Plan. If a person undertook an
activity which did not require discretionary approval by the City
which required Comprehensive Plan compliance, it would ,be diffi-
cult to find these policies and use them in that context.
Councilmember Levy was concerned that the policy statement d.is-
couraged people who -owned single family homes from renting those
homes. Staff appeared to confirm that by saying that econom-
ically, both in the short and long term, a person was far better
off leaving it unconverted as a one family unit, because then it
could be rented for a while, or the owner could come back and
occupy it, thereby escaping the policy statement. Therefore, it
did not make sense to truly convert the home into a rental unit
because henceforth" forever more, the owner mould be constrained in
subsequent demolition and redevelopment.
Mr. Freeland said he supposed the pol l cy could have a dampening
effect on people converting existing structures into multi -family
units. "Me did not know if that happened very often in Palo Alto
anymore, ` but said it could be investigated before the matter came
back for a final Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Counci lmember Levy.. asked for clarification that, the four circum-
stances set forth on pages 1 and 2 of . CM R 221::, 3 were the four ele-
ments under which am -existing rental _could in -fact be demolished.:.
only one of thew: four elements related -JO, rentals) ---and the other
three related to housings He under4tood that -the City did _,not get
any rental units under the RMR wogram--1twas an all . ownership
program...so only Circumstance B -actually related to rental units.
The others all related; to total -unit -and overall _density.
Mr. Freeland said that was correct.
Mr. Northway said the Commission realized' during the study that
there would be a "loophole" in that there might be people who were
presently renting ou_t their houses who might move back into them
and essentially convert them from rental to owner -occupied .hous-
ing. If that happened, it would take away some --of the rental
housing, stock, but for the neighborhoods overall, it was net bad
to have owner -Occupied housing. The Commission never really con-
sidered that an owner -occupant might want to convert the house
into more than one rental unit. The Comraiss i on realized that the
policy could perhaps cause some rental houses to be "converted" to
ownership houses, but that was not considered to be negative.
Councilrnember Cobb said his first reaction was that the City's.
desire to gain more housing might encourage individual develop-
ments to be too dense for the particular area. He asked how the
City would be protected against the problems which were created as
a result of too much density. The Comprehensive Plan. also con-
tained comments regarding the preservation of existing scale, and
neighborhood character, etc. He asked for clarification that the
proposed policy wou ld :be added to the other policies already con-
tained in the Comprehensive Plan, and whether housing issues on
the one hand would be -traded off against the questions of scale,
density, and neighborhood character, etc., on the other. which
added one more complexity to the equation.
Mr. Freeland said the City was protected. Regarding compatibility
with the neighborhood, the policy would not do anything on the
question of densities. The policy worked within existing zoning,
did not increase the amount of development, and tried to arbitrate
between what could be' construes as competing policies in the Com-
prehensive Plan. As he understood the policy, if the City's
existing housing stock, and particularly the rental stock, were
torn down, it should get a benefit from what went back in its
place. That benefit could be in terms of an increase in the over-
all housing supply, a replacement of the lost rental units, or
having a portion of those new units be truly affordable --either as
BMR's or as units serving middle income people up to 150 percent
of the median income. If a development did not have one of those
overall benefits to --the community --more housing, rental housing or
affordable housing --then the trade off was not of sufficient benet
fit to the community to allow the loss of the existing housing
stock. The policy attempted to work within the existing policies,
but at the same time set some kind -of pri or-i ty where there seemed
to be -competition.
Counci lmember Cobb said he was concerned abbot density where the
City 'started combining lots, but was- reassured. by :Mr. Freeland's
comments.
Mr. Freeland clarified that his comments were not intended to say
that too much density in those combining situations could not
still occur. The policy in no way_. precl uded the recombining of
lots, but seemed to wash out those "recombinations of lots which
did not produce much in terms of overall gain in housing.
Mr. Northway said the Comiaisston believed it was extremely impor-
tant to" work. within the variety of programs already contained in
the Comprehensive Plan, but to clearly spell out guidelines for
people looking at .property in terms of potential development It
was important for the City's expectations and rules under which
one had to operate to be clear- from the outset, to preclude those
situations where people proceeded for quite some time, and then
were tdld=,that because of policies 'in..the Comprehensive Flan, they
could not proceed any further. It was important: to get specific
options into the Comprehensive Plan so that the rules under which
people had to operate in town when proceeding with projects were
clear from the. outset, and so_ it would be clear what sort of trade
offs the City would expect in those sensitive areas where the
demolition of existing -housing could occur.
Councilmember Klein asked if the problem of a rental homeowner
moving back into his . home could be solved by adding a clause that
a rental would be considered _to be anything which had been a
rental during the last two years prior to the app i i cats on . Fur-
ther, he asked how long the situation had been a problem because
in 1903.- 82, the problems occurred in those cases where where more
than one unit existed on a piece of property, and he opined those
situations would continue to be problems,
Mr. Freeland said that at :this: print,, he- did not believe any
single family houses were legally converted into apartments, but
there were single family homes, on lots around the -downtown, where
the house could be torn down and several units put up in its
place. In the aggregate, there were 30 to 40 such situations.
The policy assumed that a single family house=, whether a rental or
net, was below the threshold of the City's concerns in terms of
the other policies-.
Councilmember Klein referred to Councilmember Levy's example where
an individual converted a large old house into three or four
units; and, to escape the application of the City's policies, .that
person roved back in, took out the kitchen and treated it as a
single family home in order to come to the City with a single_
family home exemption rather than the rental unit rules.
Mr. Freeland said he was confident that if the Council's desire
was to exempt suer} situations, a way could be found to do so, If
the Council was not worried about exempting single family houses,
he suggested that it made no difference if the person converted
the use of the property and then converted it back. However, if
the Council desired that those rules be implemented once a single
family home was converted. into an apartment-, he believed it would
be contrary to Councilmember Levy's concerns.
Councilmember Levy. clarified that his concerhs were -that once a
person converted to a rental and faced those Other elements in the
future, that person aright be reluctant to convert a unit into a
rental unit.
Mr. Freeland said that during the discussions when the Council
talked about converting a unit, he understood . that they meant sub-
dividing that same physical structure as opposed to tearing it
down and rebuilding something new. The data could be checked, but
his impression was that it was either an almost nonexistent phe-
nomenon or something which rarely happened, however, staff had no
problem with rules to either exempt single family houses or not,.
dependent upon the Council's desire. He did not believe it would
make much of a differenee in the long run whether they exempted..
Councilmember t.evy, clarified that his earlier questions related to
whether the;. City's original concern was . with .the hordes in the
downtown area. He perceived that the concerns related to those
dwellings whichwere origina=lly all single famiiy, and which, over,.
the -course of the Years, -were Converted, into rental units and now
serving a valuable purpose ire the City.. He was worried "that for
the future the proposed policies would discourage people with
single . family -homes from <tonv,ertinq them ;into the modestly .priced
rentals the City was now tryi'hq tp preserve.
Councilmember Fletcher said she was pleased to see that staff was
developing .guidelines which would provide developers with some
predictability about the kinds of projects the City would accept.
She was- still uncomfortable about how a developer, who chose
"Option A," could provide at least 100 percent more units on the
existing site. She asked how a developer could be certain about
how to apply for a project which would be totally acceptable to
the City.
Mr. Freeland said the thought was to stay within the existing zon-
ing for the most part. The pel icy tended to ' focus on redevelop-
ment in those situations where there was a great potential for an
increased yield_because the lots were underdeveloped or because
the combination of lots were particularly attractive. Staff
reviewed those developments which occurred in- 1980, 1981 and 1982
to see how many would have had trouble if the proposed "Condition
A" were in effect. In 1982, there were every few condominium sub-
division map applications, and all would have been accepted. In
1981, nine condominium subdivisions replaced existing housing
stock, and two started the problem because they were denied for
lack of compliance. Neither of those two subdivisions would have
reached the 100 .percent increase in housing stock. 'The El Camino
Way/James Road Project would also not have reached the 100 percent
increase, but as originally approved, would have replaced 29
rental units with 54 units. That site had now made an application
to the City under Program 7-A, which provided for an increase in
density, The project proposed more than a 100 percent increase in
units. In 1981, the problem subdivisions under Condition A were
the El Camino Way/Jones Road subdivision plus the two that were
denied. In 1980, out of nine condominiums that replaced existing
housing, only two did not have the 100 percent gain. Most rede-
velopments took place in those situations where there was the best
potential to gain units. Most housing projects would have little
difficulty meeting the first test which sifted the projects and
held back the ones which were questionable. If a project could
not pass Condition A because the net increase of units was not
large enough, it would have to pass either "8," "C," or "U" and
provide either the rental replacement or the affordability. He
added that in al) examples quoted, no 8MR units applied to less
than ten units, which was an additional difference between what
happened in 1980, 1981 and the current proposal.
Counci lmember Witherspoon arrived at 8:50 p.m.
bob Moss, 4010 0rme, said he was pleased to see that the City was
finally doing something about demolitions and the replacement of
existing rental housing. He first raised the issue in 1976 when
three houses on Hamilton, adjacent to Wells Fargo, were destroyed
displacing several dozen people. The lots had been vacant since
then. At the time, the Comprehensive Plan was being reviewed and
adopted, and he proposed to the Planning Commission that there be
some sort of penalty for people who destroyed existing residen-
tial and especially rental units. Ann Steinberg, then Planning
Commission Chairperson, believed that it was an inappropriate time
to discuss the matter and suggested that it be discussed when the
zoning ordinance was up for revision. When the zoning ordinance
came up, he again raised the issue and was told that the time and
place was inappropriate, and that it should be done by some other
means. He believed that now was the appropriate time and place,
and that corrective action was long overdue. He had the same con-
cerns as Cou, aci lmerrbers Cobb and.. Fletcher about Condition A, and a
straight 100 percent increase in density. He used the- example of
a small single family house .which was converted into five rental
units, three of which were rented at $150 to $200 per month, and :a
BMK unit. The house waS\1 destroyed and a ten unit building, with
1
1
1
one BMR unit, replaced its The City had lost two -low -Cost, low
income rental units, but met policy A. Another example would be
getting the increase in density. Policy 7-A of the Comprehensive
Plan encouraged increases in density because if undersized units
were developed, it was possible to go above the 'existing zoning.
Further, on various occasions, the State had mandated density
bonuses in existing zones if_people came in with slightly lower
cost unite-. In that situation, overdevelopment was encouraged.
He proposed that either B, C or D be added to Item A --that 20. per-
cent of the units be BMR, or that 20 percent of the units be
rentals or a binding agreement for. affordability, in order to meet
the real goals of the Comprehensive plan tof preserve 1 -ow -cost,
affordable and rental housing. He referred the Council to the
Planning Commission Minutes, page 38, at' the top, Where Mr.
Freeland indicated regarding rental units in condominiums, that
the city did not have good data On what :percentage of condominiums
were being rented. Mr. Freeland viewed the present situation as
an anomoly because many condominiums could --not be sold, therefore,
any action taken based on the. percentage of condos which were
rentals, could change with the -changing financial conditions. Mt.
Freeland believed that the land .use --zoning and Comprehensive
Plan --should be predicated on good planning principles and what
was best for the community --not the financial situation at the
particular time.
Mr. Moss said he knew of one .condominium .development where 11
units were unsalable. Speculators bought ten of the units and
rented them out. As the economy changed, those units were put on
the market, sold and eliminated from the rental housing market.
He pointed out that a certain number of single family homes were
rented, but that did not affect the way the City looked at R-1
developments and R-1 zoning. The fact that someone happened to
rent out their single family home and then go back into it was
irrelevant to the zoning and land use. He agreed with Council -
member Klein's suggestion regarding nailing down a rental and pre --
venting people from going back and converting it to single family
use and then tearing it down and putting in two high priced units
as a replacement. He further suggested that any demolition policy
.and replacement requirement be made` effective immediately rather
than waiting until all of the Comprehensive Plan amendments were
made. Projects which the Council would review shortly Would
replace existing low cost rental housing with high ,cost undersized
units, and he believed a policy sho.uid be in place to address that
situation.
Mr. Freeland- said he was concerned about the practicality of
insisting, in all cases, that they eitner be one -per -one replace-
ment of the rental, 20 percent . BMR or SU percent affordability
because he doubted the ability of the market to produce units that
would always be able to meet one of those conditions. Staff would
have to study the situation to determine whether`'those were rea-
sonable and enforceable conditions. Staff believed that Condition
A was the easiest of the conditions to meet because many situa-
tions existed where there could be a 100 percent gain in housing
units. Beyond that, the other conditions were possible in some
situations, but not necessary always.
MOT I Oi! e Coenc i l me lber ICY e1 n moved,: seconded by Rensel , to
approve the Planning Commission recommend/fig/he to=.direct staff to
prepare a Comprehensive ve- Plan amendment clarifying the::.acceptable
trade-off between the provision of now obits` and the lots of'
existing rental units. The Amendment ,would specify tbat:�— or any
residential development which causes `'the_:_lois of an existing rental limning' unit, subdivision approYal` -(incleding eendeOiniui
halls) may he limited :> r aiy__ ender .the fol i owi ng ci rtehetences
MOTION CONTINUED
A. The project will result in a significant net gain to the City
housing supply (defined as 100% more units than those pre-
viously existing on the site) sand at least 1O% of the units
are SMR units, or
B. The number of rental units to be provided by the project is at
least equal to the number of existing rental units (defined as
all units in excess of one in any project area), or
C. Not less than 2O% of the units provided are hMR units (no in -
lieu fee), or
0. Not less than 5O% of the units sha* l be marketed to households
of middle income and shall have deed restrictions to assure
continued affordability with resale.
Counci l member Levy said he had two problems With the motion..
first, he did not believe it dealt with the problem as he under-
stood i t , which was a problem of neighborhood scales. He was riot
concerned so much with the loss of .rentals because the community
had not lost a significant number over the years. He was con-
cerned, particularly in the downtown area, that small human sized,
human scaled dwellings were being destroyed and replaced by large
dwellings. He found item -A to be particularly abhorrent because
it encouraged a doubling in density, and because of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment to say that the City considered it a
benefit to Palo Alto to double the density. He could not support.
that. Secondly, he could not live with the fact that the motion
discouraged the ki nds of rentals that the normal marketplace had
produced in Palo Alto over the years --the homes near the downtown
area which were then, in one.: way or another, used for-- rental
units --and wnich had been excellent. Some of those homes current -
1y had one family occupying them and some had two or three.
Oftentimes, they were not families, but rather younger people
beyinnirog their professional careers but who also needed rental
housing, `; The City already discouraged. rental units in one sense
when the builder of Multi -family dwelling realized that he could
not convert from rental to condominium and decided to build condo-
miniums instead of rentals. Now, the owner of a . home realized
that if he converted to rental , a number of restrictions would be
placed on the further use of the property. Therefore, an . owner
would not convert the dwelling to a rental and it was left as a
single family home which was not the City's desire. The . City
wanted the -older dWellingsO which were cheaper to maintain and
rent, made avilab.le to the rental market. There was no question
that -if an old house was. going to be torn down, it would be
replaced by more expensive` units. He believed the City was put-
ting an important conflict ,into the Comprehensive Plan because the
Plan already said that the City wanted to discourage .massive
single uses and maintain the residential character of neighbor
hoods,, etc. Language -was now being proposed for incl usi vn in the
Comprehensive Plan which stated it was al.l' right to destroy --or
damage those characteristics if none substantially More housing
could be , produced as a, resu l t. He preferred that the Matter be:
referred back to the Planning_ COMMission and Architectural Review
094t0.
SUNStI`TOE NOTION: Corac1lmember Levy wored, sews den by
Witherspoon, to refer the item back to the Planning Commission and
Architectural Review Board with the request: to specifically inves-
tigate_ means of preserving the existing neighborhood scale is
situitions where existing liaising. might be rep`la'ced by .new rest-
dential. condominiums.
Councitaember, Witherspoonapologize01for being late to the Council
meeting She was concerned that if ;,the developer preferred= to put
in 100 percent more.=, of - very small units , . i t . might be .totally, out
of cha' `aster with: tne nei gh+borhood, and she , asked if the City
reserved the right to deny the project.
3_-.0 ,9 I
3/21/83
Mr. Freeland clarified that a 100 percent increase was relative to
what was presently on the property, and was definitely pertinent
to the neighborhood character. One could not double what was cur-
rently`there without having some impact on the neighborhood's
character. The 100 percent was not an increase over prevailing
densities in the neighborhood or any densities over what was pres-
ently allowed by the zoning.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked about the situation where the den-
sity allowed six units, and presently there were four little room—
ing house type units.' She asked. if those people could put in
eight units.
Mr. Freeland said no because it would violate the zoning.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked for clarification that the zoning
prevailed and tfat the units could be doubled up to the amount
allowed by the zoning.
Mr. Freeland said that if the zoning allowed .six units, only lots
with three or fewer existing units could be redeveloped with a 100
percent increase to six. The zoning was the cap. Regarding Pro-
grarn 7-A in the Comprehensive Plan which allowed the smaller
affordable units to be the -one exception, that required a Planned
Community Zone and was not a.given exception. The thrust of the
reconirnendation was not to change thee amount of development the
City allowed, but rather to discourage demolitions in situations
where there were currently five units on a lot and someone wanted
to tear them down to put up six. The intent was that if existing
structures were to be torn down, there should be a net gain to the
community.
Councilmember Witherspoon said that if there were five units cur-
rently on the lot and the zoning allowed six, a person could not
tear down the five.
Mr. Freeland said if a developer wanted to tear down five units
and replace them with six, Condition A could not be met. In that
event, the developer would have to meet anyone of Conditions B, C
or 0.
Councilmember Witherspoon said she found the recommendation to be
a clumsy tool for accomplishing the City's goals. She hated to
see those situations which existed in some; parts' of Downtown Park
North with the towering five story apartment houses over little
cottages. She had always had probleme with legislating rental
units because she believed that when future uses of a property
were restricted by legislation, it made for instant slums. It was
hard to justify maintaining a property when only the costs for
maintaining that rental unit could be deducted. She preferred to
have more rental units in town, but did not believe it would be
accomplished by legislation. She preferred that the matter be
referred back to the Planning Commission and re -reviewed from the
standpoint of the urban scale of a project rather than solely on
the production of housing or lower than market units.
Mr. Northway said that the Planning Commission and ARB spent a lot-
of time reviewing the neighborhoods on the basis of scale. He was.
a member of the Planning Commission subcommittee and spent many.
hours driving and :walking through the neighborhoods with Mir.
Freeland. They pri Teri ly focused on the Downtown Park'North and
Ventura neighborhoods, And ;,it was interesting to try and define
the architectural and neighborhood_ character of those neighbor-
hoods because as one walked through , them there was a","variety of
scale and size. There were old=er, large-scale homes; older, "
s'rsali-scale_;hgmes, newer, smal 1`' and large-scale homes, older.. very
large-scale apartment units,. newer, large»scale apartment and con-
dominium -units. It waSs difficult to define the neighborhood
character in terms of scale because there was ,an interesting
variety of scale_ in :those neighborhoods that were the candidates""
=3 0 9 2
-3/21/83-
fur the type of demolition act vity being discussed.., The subcom-
mittee found it to be difficult. --if not impu:isible--to come up
with a strict definition of a neighborhood's character and scale,
He believed -that the character to be assigned was "in the eye of
the _beholder." Literally, any character being sought could be
found._ A little of everything was found in all o7 ..the neighbor-
hoods and that made them interesting neighborhoods of which to be
a part. The Commission and ARB spent a lot of time looking at the
neighborhoods and believed that the real neighborhood character
was almost undefinable.. He believed Palo Alto's Architectural
Review Board was excellent and considered scale and -character of
projects carefully as they progressed through the City. The Plan-
ning -Commission bel ieved that the ARB was the best safety device
for protecting the scale and character of the neighborhoods be-
cause they carefully reviewed each individual project proposed for
the City. He believed the problem was carefully reviewed and` one
which was difficult to define, and that Palo Alto's AR -B provided
the kind of protection the City was concerned about in terms of
scale and acceptability in any given neighborhood.
Mayor Bechtel thanked Mr. Northway for his comments, and said he
confirmed her beliefs. She encouraged her colleagues to vote
against the substitute motion. She believed that the ARB, in
special session with the Planning Commission, already studied the
matter --the Planning Commission subcommittee and the Commission as
a whole spent over one and one-half years an the item. All as-
pects were reviewed, and if in fact the Council was concerned that
a particular development might be too large or too dense for an
area, then some neighborhoods night have to be rezoned, but she
did not believe the "neighborhood scale" concept would accomplish
the desired goals. The staff, Pl-anning Commission and ARB provid-
ed four different options and made it more predictable for a
developer to know the value placed on rental housing by the City.
She supported the main motion, and encouraged her colleagues to
oppose the substitute motion and support the main motion.
Councilmember Klein said he agreed with many of the comments of
.Mayor Bechtel. e Regarding the dialogue between C,ounc i In ember
Witherspoon. and Mr. Freeland, he believed it -was important to .go
back to basics. They were not talking about a zoning change or an
encouragement..- Those who .believed the amendment -was a way of
encouraging greater density were wrong ---it was a procedure to
clarify what the City'did`when it turned -,down .projects like the
Barbara Turner developrient. The amendment .was an adjunct which
:provided the City with some standards in those limited cases where
condominiums were proposed to- replace existing housing -when, by
definition, those proposed condominium -5 were already within exist
ing zoning. It was not a -way to encourage an applicant to go
above the zoning, but to the contrary, was ea way of placing more
restrictions on the. developer.. He was .opposed -to referring the
matter back to the Planning Commission and ARB for the same rea
sons as Mayor Bechtel He pointed out that when the probiem of -
the_ proposed development wads, one of, scale, density, etc., the ARB
was alreadyi provided with. an extraordinarily powerful tool under
certain ci rcumsta-nces, and. one which he .believed was too powerfu l
but which was . passed by tha Coun°cite. _to reduce -.the . der;city even
though .the density .was.;,aHowed by the.;.existing zoning. . It was
-hard for him to. see what powers -the HCityelaacked in trying to
develop . proposals which atet "neighbo.chood scale." 'He worded
sometimes: that ,the weeds` "nei gheorhod sc=ale" might be used as ^'a
. - smoke screen, to not. tear. anything down. 0emol-itio'ns were fro
quently painful, and most people did not :_like; to --see .anything
demol fished ;until it wa.s about ready to fall down. but tlhet was not-.
the. ,way the world `corked. Some dempl iti ops : were necessa-ry, tot
ai' trio :.housing stock was 6Q. or: 14 yens - old, and it was:. In th'e
City`s best:-ir%=ter-ests to place it. It -would .not b i the , in.ter
est .of .the co!m0un1 tv pass d_ -law whi ch =pre-c.l uded--_-demol.i i ons
.--They >must. e done . seesit#;vely and .properly, but' -over: _time, - the
City would: need -_ newer housing:_ =.to replace -older : housiny. '' He
bel=ieved :a series df pol icie had-been:.devetoped when----co;nsi-dering
all of the rules currently on the City's books. He urged his
colleagues to reject the substitute motion and support the well
thought out Planning Commission recommendation.
Councilmember Cobb said he understood from the staff report that
the kinds of density increases which could happen were measured in
the hundreds --not in the thousands.
Mr. Freeland said that rather than the word "density" increases,
he would say that the "number of units to be gained" was in the
hundreds.
Councilmember Cobb -said that based on what he had heard over the
past few minutes, he -would oppose the substitute motion. The
Planning Commission and ARB had thrashed at the matter about as
-much as it could be thrashed and he was- not sure that anything new
would be -accomplished by sending it back. For those who" were con-
cerned about density, he believed the Council should 'face up to
those tough zoning questions, because some areas needed to have
the allowable density reduced. That was something the Council
should deal with directly, and he hoped that during the next year,
the Council would do some serious thinking about density in Palo
Alto and where the zoning allowed too much density in an area
which al -ready had its fair share. He would support the main
motion.
Councilmember Fletcher said that if the zoning densities" -were
inappropriate in particular neighborhoods, the zoning should be
revised. She concurred that the Council should not look for
guidelines and scale without looking at the zoning.
Councilmember Renzel said she agreed with Councilmember Fletcher.
She also concurred with Councilrnembers Levy and Witherspoon that
the City needed to look at densities in some places. She clearly
understood Councilmember Klein's motion, but asked whether the
Council needed to take additional action in order to have those
selected areas rezoned.
Mr. Freeland said the Planning Commission understood that more
work was necessary in teat area, Staff had many studies assigned
ito them, and if the Council desired to move the selected area
downzonine study to the top of the list, then the assignment
should be made for staff to bring back a list of various projects,
in order for the Council to set staff time priorities. He expect-
ed that staff would look ate neighborhoods as part of the March,
1984 major Comprehensive Plan update in any event, but if Council
was anxious to have the work proceed sooner, then staff priorities
would have to be set. Staff hoped to tie up as much as possible
in terms of special studies in order to move into the three year
major .Comprehensive R_lan revision cycle.
Councilmember Renzel said she was satisfied that staff believed,
there was some sort of general assignment to look at the problem,
she would oppose the substitute motion and support:. the main
.motion. She believed the main motion provided more clear guide-
lines for the kinds, of things the ..:C,i 4:.y believed; to be appropriate
within the context of the Comprehensive Plan and to meet the pro-
grams and objectives with respect to affordable -housing including
the most affordable housing wnich was rental.
Councilmember Witherspoon pointed out that a notice of the annual.
Comprehensive Plan update was contained in the packet. The first
item to be taken up in April, 1983, was review of -the housing ele-
ment of the Comprehensive Plan,' She believed the matter should be
referred back :.to the a Planning Commission to be considered in .the
whole context, and` she urged support of the substitute 'motion._
Councilmember Levy said he appreciated the comments of his col-
leagues related to scale, and' the unanimity of the Council to
1
maintain appropriate.. scale. There was some question about the
definition of appropriate scale. His concern .went beyond down-
zoning. He believed that a basic rule of zoning was that any zone
would get filled to its capacity over time if allowed to do so.
If the. City did not have some means, within a zone, to have both
smaller and larger units, which contrituted to the interesting
variety of scale and size referred to by Mr. Northway, and if the
City. was not careful, it .would simply allow all of the smaller
units within a zone to become larger and thereby eliminate the
interesting variety. To some .degree, that was seen in various
parts of town and he believed it should be the Council's objective
to develop techniques so that the scale, when smaller units were
demolished, did not automatically rise to being the largest units
possible in that neighborhood.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION . FAILED by a vote of 3-5., Fazzino„ Levy,
Witherspoon voting "aye,* Eyerly absent.
AMENDMENT: Councilmem.ber Levy moved to delete Circumstance
from the main motion.
Councilmember Levy was concerned that the item provided the Come
prehensive Plan with an element to favor the eventuality eof dou-
ai my the density on a site. He believed the City would be satis-
factorily served by Items -B, C and O and could do without Item A.
AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND,
MAIN MOTION PASSED by a vote of 2-6, Levy, Witherspoon voting
"no," Eyerly absent,
COUNCIL RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION RE PERSONNEL FROM 9:2O .m.
ITEM #14, STANFORD HOSPITAL CERTIFICATE OF NEED - PHYSICIAN ACCESS
City Manager Bill Zaner called the Council's attention to the
letter distributed .th-is evening from a member of the Physician's
Committee, which arrived today and too late. to get into the
packet. Representatives from the University, Hospital were in
attendance at tonight's meeting, inciuding-Dr. Crowley, to answer
any questions the Council might have. He believed the report was
self-expl ana,tory.
Vice Mayor Fazzino said he was pleased with the proposed Physician
Access Plan and believed the committee deserved a lot of credit
for pulling together some very different philosophies about how to
approach the issue. He believed the document met the major con-
cerns of both Stanford and the community physicians, and was par-
ticularly pleased with the number of community physicians who
indicated support for the. proposal. The critical issue was ade-
quate access for Palo Alto patients, and the proposal guaranteed
that access He was unclear about how the Physician Access Plan
worked for those priority groups listed in the 1981 board state-
ment. He asked if access forthose groups went beyond the purview
of the proposed Physician Access Plan, whether the document , only
applied to those groups which were not part of the priority groups
established in "the 1981 board., statement or whether the plan
lncl'uded all groups.
Mr. Zaner said the' issue was very : complicated and he deferred
Ur. Crowley for response.
Dr. -Lawrence .Crowley, .>pi'esident. of Stanford --'University ' Hospltal ,
responded that the document, include all groups that were laid out
in the August, 1901, pol icy . statement. , The groups of hospital.
based services were listed with a -gi vein number of ' either full time
employees . (FTE's) ' or individual s.-: and were yrandfathered in. A
___3 0 9 5
3/21/83
1
formula .for the replacement of those physicians was also developed
at that time. [he proposed document reaffirmed beat and set cri-
teria for developing numbers of community physicians into hospital
based services, new services that might be developed or changes in
existing services, which included the- ones explained in the
August, 1981' document.
Vice Mayor Fazzino said that there were five categories listed in
the 1931 -document, and until the document was presented to the
Council a couple of weeks ago, the -concern by community physicians
was that only those ' groups listed in the 1981 document had access
to hospital based services. Given that the Morton Committee docu-
ment went beyond that, and in Some cases allowed access to other
community physicians not listed in the five categories according
to a prescribed set of criteria contained in the document, •would
the five categories of community.physicians or doctors listed in
the August, 1981, document still have priority?
Or. Cr,owl ey said yes.
Councilmember Cobb said that in some conversations he had with
doctors at the Medical Clinic, some concern was expressed over the
problems encountered in recruiting new doctors to join their
staff. He asked how a new doctor in the community could even-`
tually avail himself of himself of some of the services provided
to priority physicians and other access issues.
Ur. Crowley responded that the new policy required. a biennial
report -from each of the service access committees who would be
responsible for reviewing the level of access and making recommen-
dations. In addition, it called for interim reviews. if a member
of the service, a new physician, a group in town or a partnership
who wanted to add someone, wanted to have that individual consid-
ered either as a replacement or for an additional spot, it -could
De taken up at that time. A large group, in planning for the
future, could ascertain in advance the reasonable chances of fur-
ther access for additional physicians.
Councilrnember Renzel said that page 3-3-3 of Stanford University
Medical Center's news release stated that "the hospital- board-,
with the advice of its access committee, will continuously review
these changing circuristances and adjust its policies from time to
time," She asked fif that referred to the whole proposed agreement
and process or did it only refer to access to new services.
Dr. Crowley said that the policy put into place a permanent access
committee of the board which had beendelegated the authority to
review all access issues--, which might from time to time come Aip
with. additional policy recommendations_ for approval by the entire
board. - Modern medicine and technology was„ changing rapidly and'
circumstances might arise which would suggest additional pall-
cies.
Counci member Renzel asked if it could al so change the composition
of the access committee.
Dr. Crowley said he believed the hospital board had ' the authority
to change its committees, but did not believe that was the inten-
tion.
Councilnember Renzel said she appreciated :that a 'lot .of work had
gone into developing the document, but was concerned that., the
entire document was circumscribed by the hospital board. The hos-
"pital board appointed., the nine member access .committee --three Mein-
bars who were hospital board- members, , three who were Stanford
faculty en ; three who were clinical faculty. Six_ members bash
calls took the medical school point of view for, the most part.
The .entire process was always filtered through the access commit-
tee and back to the board, and the nein release stated -that the
board could' change' the rules at. - any time. She asked how the com-
mittee was guaranteed as a permanent committee for the board.
1
1
1
Ur. Crowley said that the hospital access committee was a standing
committee of the board and not an ad hoc committee as it was ori-
ginally.- The make up of the committee was really three community
physicians, three full time faculty --physicians and three members
of the hospital board. He believed the process undertaken over
the last 15 months indicated that the process was open and evenly
divided wherein they, arrived at a concensus judgment. The hospi-
tal bylaws gave the hospital board the ultimate authority for, the
operation of the rospital. He did not know how that could be
fundamentally .changed.
Mayor -Bechtel said she understood that the Council did not need to
take any action if it approved the plan, but could simply uphold
Resolution 6062, which was passed by the Council on August 9,
1982.
Councilmember Renzel said that since the resolution was first
passed, a number of changes had been announced with respect to
exactly what the Certificate of _ Heed would cover including the
nroviny of the children's hospital, a scaled down project and a
variety of other things. She asked if that changed the findings
or any other aspect of the resolution.
Mr. Zaner said he did not believe so. The resolution supported
the hospital modernization, but reserved the Council's privilege
of reviewing the actual proposal financially, environmentally and
physically once it was submitted to the Council. The Council was
hot approving a project, but simply a modernization of the hos-
pital subject to a review of the plans, etc.
Vice Mayor Fazzino was concerned about moving ahead and not
endorsing the plan before the Council in any way. He appreciated
that by not doing anything, the Council would live by the resolu-
tion adopted six months ago, but at the same time, for future use,
consideration and the City's own benefit, it was probably better
to endorse the document before the Council so that everyone under-
stood that the Council was behind the work done by the Morton Com-
mittee in the area of access for community physicians.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, that the
Council endorse the agreement put together by the Stanford Hospi-
tal Morton Committee with regard to the governing of access to
community physicians to Stanford University Hospital.
Councilraember Klein said he would oppose the motion because he did
not believe the Council should interject itself into the affairs
of Stanford University Hospital. There was an advantage to the
City's staying at arm's length from the activities and disagree-
ments wh.ch enabled it to play the role it did in the subject sit-
uation. The City received numerous complaints from community
physicians regarding access, and wheii Stanford asked the City for
an endorsement of its Certificate of Need application regarding
its modernization because it believed the City's endorsement would
be an important part of their application process, the City pre-
sented the complaints it had received. That was =the only way the
City was involved, and he did not believe the Council should
-endorsee the agreement because it was not directly involved. The
City was a party to the contract, but the access plan was not a
part of the contract which 'directly , concerned the City. The
City's,inter-ests were not necessarily the same as the community
physicians. The City's concern, as he saw it, was to . ensure that
the citizens and patients of.Palo Alto received the best possible
medical care whether it was given by the community physicians or
the faculty of Stanford, dependent on the particular- facts and
circumstances. The' City was not Involved in the negotiations, and
while, the Council may have read the' agreement, it ::had no idea
about the back -round, compromises,' etc. He believed it =would be
inappropriate for the Council` to get involved.
Mr. Zaner said that while Dr. Paul Cooney, Chairperson for the
Community Physicians for Patient Care, was advised of tonight's
Council meeting, he understood that the committee had not- met to
either endorse or not endorse the Physician Access Plan.
MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that
the Council formally thank the Morton Committee for the work they
did with respect to the issue of community physicians access to
Stanford University Hospital.
Councilmember Renzel said it was -hard not to thank the Morton Com-
mittee. A 1.ot of progress had been made and the document was a
step in the right hiirectiOn. 5.ince no community- physicians
attended :the Council meeting, she assumed that most of them had no
objections to the process as proposed. The _ question was whether
the process provided assurances over the long-term for Palo Alto
patients, their choice of doctors, the care they received and
where that ,care was recei ved. She hoped the process would func-
tion in good_ faith on the parts of all the parties , and for that
reason would support the thanks and the Certificate of Need. Her
support was with some degree of ;_skepticism about whether it would,
in fact, be a good solution over the long-term because of the
imbalance in the way the committee was set up and the relative
lack of power of community physicians had in dealing with that
particular structure.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
MOTION: Councilmeaber Klein moved, seconded by Fazzino, that
Council reaffirm Resolution No. 6062 passed on August 9', 1982, to
support the hospital modernization.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
ITEM a15, `CABLE TV - JOINT CABLE PARTICIPATION - LETTERS OF INTENT
(C H R:
Assistant to the City Manager Ch..les McNeely, acknowledged the
presence of Michael Oman from Stanford University, Russell Scotten
from. Menlo Park and Gordon Schreiber from San Mateo County, at the
Council meeting.
Vice Mayor Fazzino said he was pleased to see the expressed inter-
est on the part of neighboring communities in the establishment of
a cable system. He hoped that those communities, as well as
others, would be a part of the system eventually developed. He
asked if a formal statement of involvement, including some finan-
cial participation, would occur before the :actual, development of
the RFP.
Mr. McNeely .raid they were asking the Council to refer the issue
to the ,consultants who would address the manner in which those
communities would participate and recommend what the structure
would look lime and whether any financibi commitment should he
made by each jurisdiction and when.
Vice Mayor Fazzino asked if that would occur before the RFP.
Mr. McNeely said yes.
Vice Mayor Fazzino clarified that it. was expected ..that the con-
sultant would return to the Council sometii a in April ' with
.recommendation regarding financial parts al-pation an'd input into
the development of the RFP.
McNeely said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Fazzino asked how the interest of other communities
could affect the possibility of a municipal system in the future.
Mr. McNeely said the proposed letter of intent represented the.
communities' interests in municipal, private : or joint systems.
That issue was still open, and each community's conditions could
be different. It was expected that the consultant would work
through the structure and make recommendations to the Council
based upon their discussions with the involved communities about
the best way to proceed in terms of a municipal or private
system.
Vice Mayor Fazzino asked if with the expression of interest, the
possibility of some form of munitipa l ownership —to include all
those communities --was still open.
Mr. McNeely responded in the affirmative and added that the City
had not received .any expressions of nonsupport for a municipal
system.
Vice Mayor Fazzino said he recalled that Stanford was not keen on
the concept of municipal ownership.
Mr. NcNeely said that Stanford's concern at that time was not so
ntich against municipal ownership, but' rather a concern about not
having the third cable in the system.
Councilmember Levy ask for confirmation that the proposed actionr
would not change the costs or the timetable now contained in the
existing consultant agreement.
MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to
adopt the staff recommendation as follows:
1. Council accept the letters of intent from neighboring communi-
ties expressing their interest in participating with Palo Alto
in the selection of a cable system owner/operator to serve
those communities participating with Palo Alto;
2. Council pursue joint participation with those communities
expressing interest in joining Palo Alto and authorize staff
to respond to the letters of intent with an expression of Palo
Alto't wish to cooperate in a multi -jurisdictional system;
and
3. Council refer to its cable consulting firm the issue of deter --
mining alternative mechanisms by which other local entities
could participate in the cable system with recommendations to
be brought back to Council and participating communities for
consideration and possible approval.
Councilmember Cobb. asked regarding recommendation No. 3, if .it was
realistic for the City to ask the consultant to come back with a
recommendation for the "best manner" until some of the underlying
policy questions were resolved, i.e., municipal versus joint own-
ership versus private operation, etc. He believed there was a
matrix of possibilities and what., was best was driven by what the
City wanted to do -with, the system in the end. The Council had
been struggling with that question for a long time and had not``
resolved it Yet. He> asked . how the . consultant ,could say what was
best unless it was simply the consultant's opinion.: Further, he
asked how the City' could move into that kind of question when he
did not know that the ,City had resolved what type.: of a role it
wanted. C i d the _City want to have . a system with an equal pa rtnet-
ship with, all players, or did Palo :Alto; want to be in: a leadership
role and: the others in some soft' of iieited==-par-tnership. He . did
not know that the City had `t-houyht; those things through and he did
-not know how the consultant could say -what -was best until the City
provided some guidance to_. that effect, or -alternatively asked the
consultant to --come up -with a series of possi bi l ities picked from
that matrix of variations
3-0 9 9.
3/21/83
Mr. Zaner responded that staff wanted the consultant to engage in
discussions with Palo Alto's neighboring communities regarding the
manner in which they wished to participate. It was a two-way
operation --the Council might have some conditions as to how it
wished to participate with other communities, but the other com-
munities might have some conditions under which they would parti-
cipate with Palo Alto. Those discussions had not gone forward.
There was an indication of interest from the communities that they
would like to discuss the issue, but those discussions had not
occurred. There might be some situations under which other com-
munities would not participate and the City needed to know what
those were. The consultant needed to put those situations into
his analysis in order to bring back a recommendation to the
Council,
Councilmember Cobb said that i-f the City's desire was -_ to' have. a
municipal system, -ha v.ingg a number of other governmental agencies
involved might not make it a good decision. Alternatively, if the
City's desire was to have a private system, it would seem that
-having a number of ,ether governmental agencies involved in some
kind of partnership would be. a reasonable way to structure it
because it was then more of a fiduciary basis than any kind of
political basis. He believed what was best depended upon some of
the structural probl-ems.
Marc Strassrnan, 685 Scofield Avenue, East Palo Alto, was a direc-
tor of the . Palo Alto Cable Cooperative. Regarding computers,
democracy and regionalism, Palo Alto had the highest concentration
of business and home computers anywhere in the world. Citizens of
Palo Alto designed, produced, sold, programmed and used computers
every day. They were used for business projections and analysis,
for writing reports, articles and books. They would be used more
extensively in the future. To a large extent, the economic
future, and, therefore, the total future of Palo Alto would depend
upon how soon and how effectively they were able to mobilize com-
puter resources within the next few years. From its beginni'ig,
Cable Co -Op of .Palo Alto had focused on the need to build an
accessible technically state of the art .cable system that would
allow present and future business, institutional and personal com-
puter users to get the most possible benefit from their systems.
Their objective and intention was to create a system that would
allow local households, businesses, banks, schools, medical cen-
ters and research institutions. to be able to access data, communi-
cations and main frame computational resources rapidly, easily and
inexpensively while protecting their individual and corporate
privacy and security. The Cable Communications Cooperative, along
withStanford University, had been among the most active in trying
to see that Palo Alto, as a City and a community, benefited as
much as possible from the computer revolution. However, they were
also the only group in the process who stressed the need for a
democratically run systems. Regarding regionalism, Menlo Park,
Atherton and Stanford University had all sent the City of Palo
Alto letters of intent expressing interest in cooperating With
Palo Alto -1n developing a regional, mid-peninsula wide cable com-
munications system, The Cable Co -Op strongly`\supported the crea-
tion of 4, mid -peninsula_,- cable network. Such a system could intro-
duce economies of scale in construction and operation by enlarging
the potential market for _cable services. It 'could provide for
more diversity in locally_ originated programming, and could pro-
vide an unprecedented Opportunityto solve regional problems on a
regional basis.: More specifically, the Cable Co - Op wanted to see
a involved Joint
to Powers
nst Agreement . among the government and universities
maintain and own the cable itse=lf; and a
region -wide subscribers' cooperative 'established to run the'
A
ystem He _ believed that would -speak to the concerns expressed by
Counc i lmember: Cobb about the , need' to maintain a municipal system,
while at the same time freeing the joint _ pa'rtnershi p agreement
that would be established among , the municipalities from first
amendment_ and- antitrust `problets that had proven to : be so bother-
some in- the past.
City Attorney Di-ane Lee reminded the Council that pleas regarding
a municipal or cooperative. ownership should not, -be heard tonight.
The item before the Council. related to tee participation of other
communities and : the remarks of speakers should address' that sub-
ject and not the formof ownership. That same Issue was discussed
last week and she believed her cements were clear that she was
concerned about discussing those issues without having had .the
benefits of discussion with the City's consultant regarding the
antitrust law considerations involved.
Mayor Bechtel advised Mr. Strassman that the item concerned letter
of intent regarding cable .television. She had previously assured
him that any decisions concerning cable television were made by
the Council and would be made in public session. She welcomed any
comments by Mr, Strassman related to the letters of intent before
the Council.
Mr. Strassman said that the Cable Co -Op believed that a regional
system with Palo Alto's participation would be the best system.
The Co -Op supported any efforts by the Council to create a region-
al system because it believed it would best serve the interests of
Palo Alto and the surrounding communities.
Tom Passell, 3825 Louis Road, Chairman of the Palo Alto Cable.Com-
munications Cooperative (PACCC). PACCC supported the concept of
regionalism, but he ryas concerned that the confusion it could
cause would result in no decision. He was hopeful that everyone
would work together to have a larger system,
Jim Dinkey, 3380 Core Oak Way, said that the fact that other
cities had expressed an interest would hopefully cause everyone to
work harder to spread the, system ee . The e,o-Op's responsibility
was to open up the interest to those other cities, and hopefully
create more citizen participation in order to obtain a system
which would economically and better solve severyones problems.
Each individual municipality would have to; handle its own particu-
lar construction type matters.
Vice Mayor Fazzino said he believed that the motion isefore the
Council represented an important` way : in which to ceilect more
information and data about the possibility of a cable eeystem #n
Palo Alto which would include other communities, which technologi-
cally and financially made sense. Before the Council could make
proper decisions, it needed to have that important. data. He..was'
pleased to see that other communities had `expressed interest, and
he hoped the consultant Would go.forward and explore all of the
ramifications of the participation by others before the Council
made. its decision. He encouraged the Council to support the
motion.
Councilmember Levy reasurred his colleagues that the consultant
was chosen because of their . sensitivity to community involvement
in the total process and their prior knowledge that Palo Alto
sought to join with other jurisdictions in the area to develop the
:optimum system, both in . terms of area coverage and ownership and
management. The consultant's timetable and costs reflected a
realization and intention on their behalf to work veith adjoining
communities Whi le ,the Council. .did not yet have the answers, the
consultants were chosen to help the -City provide the background by
which to hake the : necessary decisions. The consultant . should not
be circumvented when malting some decisions, but rather should be
used. Problems and complications would occur by adding other
jurisdictions to Palo Alto's deliberations bet it .would be worth
it to have a truly community -wide network that would offer many
more opportunities. He appreciated the vote of confidence the
City received frog its adjoining communities. He 'believed that
vote of confidence Was an inddcation that Palo Alto had moved: in.
the right direction so far and would, continue tee' do so in the
future.
3- 0 0 1
3/21/83
1
1
Counci lmeiriber Cobb was_ still bothered by the language contained in
item (3), "...find the -best manner by which others will partici-
pate and bring back for approval„." He favored the involvement
of other communities and wanted to see various ways to accomplish
that before making a decision. He believed the following amend-
ment to Item (3) of the motion would. better set forth •the Coun-
cil's desires.
EI 3
Council refer to its cable consulting firm the issue of
determining alternative mechanisms by which other local enti-
ties could participate in the cable system with recommenda-
tions to be brought back to the Council and participating
communities for consideration and possible approval."
COUCILMEMBER LEVY MW HIS SECOND INCORPORATED THE SUGGESTED
AMENDMENT INTO THE .MAIN MOTION.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
ITEM #16, RE(IUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE CONSERVATION TAX
e.r.�l.+�� nYf0�1�i �i1'INI�C��larfDlldWs.��fl>el�/rwf�A'd�[ �S�Nlila..� 4�Iwo S i4�w
Councilmember Fletcher said she did not realize that a letter in
support of SR 298 and the conservation tax credit had already been
sent to Assemblyman Sher, but as far as .she knew, one had not yet
been sent to the committee which would consider it.
MOTION: Covncilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
that the Mayor be directed to send a letter in support of SB 298
to the State Revenue and Taxation Committee.
Councilmeniber Renzel suggested that it might be appropriate to add
at the end of the motion "and any other interested parties."
COUNCILMEMBERS FLETCHER AND WITHERSPOON INCORPORATED THE SUG-
GESTED LANGUAGE INTO THE MAIN MOTION.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
ITEM #17 CANCELLATION OF MARCH 28 1983 MEETING
MOTION: Vice. Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Levy, to cancel
the City Council meeting of March 28, 1983.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent,
ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Council adjourned tv executive session regarding litigation at
10:35 p.m.
Vice Ma or Fazzino Yleft the meetin9 at 10:35 p.m. and did not
a en a execu ve ession.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN NCPA AND PG&E
1Resoiution adopted inexecutive-Msion.)
MOTION: Counstlaeeeber. Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
approval of the following resolution,
-RESOLUTION '6102 entitled "RESGLUT1ON OF THE -COUNCIL OF
T ',ITT ®' AItLO ALTO RATIFYING, APPROVING AND AUTHO-
RIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN ARBITRATION -AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY AND PACIFIC
GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
MOTION PASSED wnanime rs.ly, Eyerly and_ Falxina `absent.
FINAL. ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 11:28 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED: