Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-22 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 mumir CITY /1111-1111\\ COUNCIL 1 M 1 NUTE ��►,���� CITY ar- MI (° AI.To Regular Meeting Monday, August 22, 1 83 PAGE Executive Session Action re City Controller 3 7 1 0 Oral Communications 3 7 1 0 Minutes of May 23, 1943 3 7 1 1 Consent Calendar 3 7 1 1 item #10, Cancelled 3 7 1 1 Referral 3 7 1 1 Item #1, Solar Energy Use in New Construction - 3 7 1 1 Referral to Planning Commission Action 3 7 1 1 Item #2, Maintenance of Landscaped Areas in Palo 3 7 1 1 Alto Item Interior Custodial Services at Various 3 7 1 1 City Facilities Item 4, Intersection Safety Improvements Item OS, Gas Rate Increase Item #6, Member's Agreement with Northern Caiilornia Power Agency - Geothermal Generating Pro).ect No. 3 Item #7S Member's Agreement with Northern 3 7 1 2 California Power Agency - Transmission Project No. 1 Item #8, ._Final Subdivision Map - 600 Hansen Way 3 7 1 2 Agenda Changes, Additions and --Deletions . 3 -7 1 3 Item #11, Planning Commission Recommendation re 3 7 1 3 1984 Loning and Subdivision Ordinance Changes Item #12, PUt3L1C HEARING: Weed Abatement Charges Item #13, Limt ed Income Weatherixation Assistance. Progr affil item X14, Bryant Street Bicycle Bridge Project 3 7 1 2 3 7 1 3 7 1 2 3 2 4. 3. 7. 2 5 3 7 2 5 3- 7 0 8 8/22/83 ITEM Item #15, Recommendations of the City/School Liaision Committee re City/School Traffic Safety Committee Item #16, Iwo. Arnendmeiits :to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan Item #17, Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation - Appointment of Board of Directors Item #18, Palo Alto Civic Center Structural Repairs, CIP 82-27, Fourth Floor Improvements and Procurement Installation of Third Elevator item #19, -Financing for Civic Center Structural Repairs item #?U, Request of Counci,rnember Fletcher re Pedestrian Crossing at San Antonio Railroad Tracks Item #Z1, Request of !layer Bechtel re State Budget PAGE 3 7 2 5 111 3 7 2 6 3 7 2 7 3 7 2 7 3 7 3 3 7 3 4 3 7 3 5 Adjournment 3 7 3 6 3 7 0 9 8/22/83 Kegu l a r Meeting August 22, 1983 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers ,at City Ha 1 l , 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 1:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Eyerly, Flet her, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon ABSENT: Fazzino EXECUTIVE SESSION ACTION RE CITY CONTROLLER Mayor Bechtel read a formal statement by the City Council regard- ing an Executive Session Action as follows: "Representatives of the City Council met with Alfred Mitchell, the City Controller, and his attorney. The Council later met in closed session to re- view Mr. Mitchell's employment status with the City. After care- ful deliberation, the Council had determined that its position and course of action with respect to Mr. Mitchell's termination re- mained unchanged. Accordingly, Mr. Mitchell's resignation would take effect at the close of business on August 31, 1983, and after that time he will no longer be an employee of the City of Palo Alto." A copy of this statement would also be available in the City Clerk's office. URAL COMMUNICATIONS Morna Bowman, 452 Everett Avenue, asked that the camphor trees on the corner of Everett Avenue and Ki pi i ng not be cut down. She presented a petition signed by 34 persons stating the trees were healthy end requested new trees be planted between then, Elderly ladies had written, one said the trees shaded her rooms, another said her tree was the only thing that gave her joy and spacious- ness. She passed photos around. The trees saved energy. The Public Works Department agreed _that trees co'jld be planted in between, but property owners would be required to pay small sums for holes to be made in the cement. Often senior citizens did not have even that small amount, so many older trees could be saved by having the City take over the small expenditure. Mayor Bechtel asked the City Manager to refer the matter back to the Council before taking action to have trees removed. John Walker, 19375 Greenwood Circle, Cupertino, said the yacht harbor dredgl ny would recommence shortly. He pointed out that harbor use had increased substantially since dredging. Use was -previously limited to two hours before and after high tide, but now could be used for ten hours. The wafer quality improved and fish, shrimp, oysters, mussels and seals were now in the harbor. Launch ramp use increased dramatically from 153 launches in 1980/ 81 to 1,709 launches in 1982/83. Although restoration was fi- nanced by slip renters, the harbor brought the City a large reve- nue and was used by uany citizens as.a park. The dried fill from dredging brought in urge revenue, and more revenue could be gene erated f.om use of wet spoils. Or. Nancy Jewell : Cross 301 Vine Street, Menlo Park, represented more than 1,0.00 -people for the Safe and Sensible San Francisquito Creek Area Routing which was concerned with transport development in the San Francisquito Creek/Oth barton -corridor. A meeting would be held with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on Wednesday, September 28, from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. in the Palo Alto Council Chambers to discuss commuting possibilities between San Jose, and San Francisco, and she offered to arrange a meeting, pos- sibly_immediately following or preceding- it, to show films and slides for discussion on South Bay options for clean air. trans- por_t. Alternatively, she su.ygesteda study session be held by the Council. 3 7 1 0 8/22/83 MINUTES OF MAY 23, 1983 MOTION: Counclieewber Klein, seconded by Witherspoon, to ap- prove the Minutes of May 23„ 1983, as submitted. MUTION Pi1SSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM #1O - CANCELLED Mayor Bechtel said she was informed by staff that. Item 10, Final Subdivision Map at 655 Arastradero Road, was to be removed from the agenda. ITEM #d - REMOVAL FROM AGENDA FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP - 600 IHANSEN Senior Assistant City Attorney Anthony Bennetti said the bond to secure the subdivision agreement for Item 8, Final Subdivision Map for 600 Hansen Way, did not match the subdivision agreement. He asked that the item be removed from the current agenda, and staff would resubmit it as soon as poseible. Both the bond and the agreement were conditions precedent to the Council's authority to approve the final subdivision map. Boyd Smith, architect, spoke on behalf of the applicant, and said the correct wording on the bond would be ready the following day, and asked if the Council could approve the subdivision map, upon approval by staff of the correct language of the bond. City Attorney Diane Lee responded trat Council approval could be given only after subnr ssiof:-of correct documents. MUTIUN: Councilmember. Eyerly, seconded by Renzel, ,coved ap- proval of Consent Calendar Items 11 through V. Referral ITEM #1, SOLAR ENERGY USA: IN NEW CONSTRUCTION - REFERRAL TO PLAN - Action ITEM #2, MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPED AREAS IN PALO ALTO (CMR:467:3) Staff recommends that: 1. The Mayor be authorized to execute a contract with Greenleaf Landscape Management in the amount of $58,478 per year for two years to provide landscape maintenance services; and 2. Staff be authorized to execute change orders in the amount of $8,000 each year the contract is in force. AWARD OF CONTRACT GreenleafLandscape Management IT[M #3 INTERIOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES AT VARIOUS CITY FACILITIES Staff recommends that: I. .the Mayor e authorized to -execute a contract---w-i_ th_Ace Bui l d- i ng L na ni s in the amount of $42,000 per year €ortwo-yea-rs;_ Sta.ff be authorized to execute change orders to the contract 4p to $4 'QUO each year the contract is in force. AGREEMENT. Ace building Dynamics 3 7 1 1 8/22/83 IlLM d4, INTLRSECTIOii SAFETY IMPNUVEMENIS (CMR:452:3] Staff recommends that: 1. 'The Mayor be authorized to execute 'a contract with M. J. Con- struction Services in the amount of $29,902. Z. Staff be authorized to execute change orders up to $4,500. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT M. J. Construction Services ITEM #b, GAS RATE INCREASE (CMR:466:3) Staff recommends approval of the resolution confirming the action taken by the City Manager increasing gas rates effective June 15, 1983 and July 1, 1983 for a total increase of approximately 7.9 percent in accordance with Resolution No. 6082. RESOLUTION 6173 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE -CITY 'JE PALO ALTO AMENDING UTILITY RATE SCHEDULES G-1 AND G-50 AS A RESULT OF TRACKING PG&E GAS RATE CHANGES" ITEM #b MEMBER'S AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY- 4 e ! : Staff recommends that Council adopt the ordinance approving and authorizing execution of the Agreement for Construction, Operation and Financing of the Geothermal Generating Project No. 3 between the Northern California Power Agency and the City of Palo Alto. MEMBER AGREEMENT FOR THE CGl1STRUCTIO M, OPERATION AND FINANCING OF GEOTHERMAL GENERATING PROJECT NO. 3 Northern California Power Agency and the City of Palo Alto ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE mulicit. U1 lttt CLIT UP rar ALTO APPROVING THE TERNS AND CONDITIONS OF A MEMBER AGREEMENT BETWEEN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY AND CERTAIN PARTICIPATING MEMBERS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AND DELIVERY OF SAID AGREEMENT BY OFFICERS OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ITEM #7 MEMBER'S AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWEN AGENCY- 1tO T No. i (C7r7417737 Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance approving and authoriz- ing execution of the Agreement for Construction, Operation and Financing of Transmission Project No. 1 between the Northern California Power Agency and the City of Palo Alto. - -MEMBER'S AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND FINANCING OF TRANSMISSION PROJECT No. I Northern California Power Agency City of Palo Alto. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE ALTO APPROVING THE. TERNS AND CONDITIONS . OF A MEMBER AGREEMENT BETWEEN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY 'AND CERTAIN PARTICIPATING MEMBERS AND All (HWRIZING THE EXECUTION OF AND DELIVERY OF SAID AGREEMENT BY OFFICERS OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO" NOTION PASSED un4nisausly, Fazzlno ibsent. ITEM #a - FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP - 600 HANSEN WAY - DISCUSSION k- - .•••••• • Counci lmernber Cobb referred to public' concern over Item 8, which would not be handled for another two weeks. He asked the City Attorney if -action could be taken -to help the applicant. 3 7 1-t 8/22/83 City Attorney Uiane Lee said state law req{,ired that everything he finalized before Council approval. Councilmember Cobb a3ked if public opinion could be heard. Mayor Bechtel said the item must be reagendized. Since no action could be taken, the Council had no alternative but to continue, but she was willing to hear a brief statement from Mr. Smith. MUTTON: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, that the Council Hear from the applicant on Item 6. Councilmember Renee] said that it would be more appropriate to wait until the item was reagendized before hearing from the appli- cant since action could not be taken before then. The applicant could have ensured conformance, and it should be done in a timely fashion for the next available agenda. Other items had to be dealt with that evening, and she opposed the motion. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Fletcher, Menzel voting "no," Fazzino absent. Boyd Smith said he understood from a conversation with the Uireetor of Planning that the City could issue a building permit before completion of the paper work. If not, the applicant would return with the corrected papers. Ms. Lee suggested that the plans be submitted to the Building Department so that when the final map was approved, the permit could be issued the following day, which would save some time. Mr. Smith said plans were submitted and checked, and everything was read' for .1' !! ! approval. Mayor Bechtel said the matter was beyond the Council's discretion, and would have to be resolved at staff level. AGENDA CHANGES, AUDITIONS AND DELETIONS NOMMIIMAIMMENNIM inommor Mayor Bechtel added Item 21, Legislative Subcommittee, to the agenda as an urgency item. Ut M #I 1, PLANNING; COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE 1983 ZONING AND • • 1cont1nue rom Planning Commission Chairperson Helene Wheeler said this Commission basically agreed with the staff recommendations, and she would speak only to the few areas of disagreement as they occurred in the discussion. Councilmember Fletcher suggested items requiring discussion be handled separately and the remainder be handled in one motion. Robert Berrie, 425 .tmbarcadero Road, said, with regard _to the "cot- tag r portion of -the ordinance, there was a flaw with the second Unit or "cottage:" ordinance. On large single family toned lots, the ground coverage restrictions Of the present ordinance were not sufficient to prevent laree,.second homes from being built, there- by creating spot duplex zoning. He clarified that he favored the second, unit concept and :its objective to`provide additional low cost housing, Ile expected the second unit would be unobtrusive. The submitted. photographs, which were on file in the City Clerk's office, were of a cottage just short of 2,000 square feet current- ly under construction at 45U Melville. H:' stressed that it was the second_- unit or "cottage" --riot- the= primary house. The swain house was not yet Started and ,would only be 'a few hundred -square feet larger. The cottage might or might not be attractive when completed, but it would not pass his expectations of 3 7 1 3 8/22/83. ur,ohtrusivetiess nor the provisions for additional low cost hous- iny. He was surprised when he discovered the ordinance revisions were proposed without correcting .that flaw because he assumed the flaw was well known and that corrective action would be a matter of course. He quoted a statement from Zoning Administrator Bob Brown which appeared in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 6, 1983, that "grown also foresees some potential prodiems with the new law. The neighborhood around the.Richeson property has many oversize lots, which could lead to a concentration of lots with two housing units and, in effect, de facto duplex zoning." He proposed that Council ensure unobtrusiveness by adding -wording to the "cottage" ordinance that would limit the second unit to a single story and with a square footage limit. He pointed out that City of Los Altos was considering such an ordinance with a limit of 640 square feet, but would personally be satisfied .:ith any limit below 1,000 square feet. Bob Moss, 4010 Urme, was concerned about Item #8 re setbacks for residential projects in commercial districts. He- was concerned about the setbacks in the CN, CS' and CC zones with regard to the abutting residential zones, ana requested that those zones address properties which abut residential zones. Regarding Item 19, re Height and Daylight Plane Restrictions in Nonresidential Zones, he was misquoted on page 14 of the 1983 Zoning Ordinance Amendments Table of Contents with regard to his statements about the height restrictions changing in the zoning ordinance. His letter only referred to the daylight plane. The R-1 zone was the only zone where the height was changed since the zoning ordinance was adopt- ed, and it was reduced to 30 feet. The problems were narrow alleyways in several places in the City between commercial and residential zones. That area was open and it was possible to build in a commercial zone with essentially no lot line setback directly across a narrow alley from an R-1 zone or low density RM zone. He was specifically concerned about the alley which ran parallel to El Camino on the west side in the 3700 block. There was_ a similar narrow alley on the east side of El Camino which ran along the commercial zone between the commercial and multiple fam- ily zone around Matadero. He wanted the definition of "alleys" changed to treat them the same as water courses and easements. With regard to Item #10 re Density Limitations for Mixed versus All Residential Use in Commercial Districts in the CC, CN and CS zones, the -.-staff and Planning Commission concurred, as pointed out on page 13 of the zoning ordinance amendments, in reducing the potential density on small lots. For example, the 6,000; 7,000; and 8,000 square foot lots would permit two, three, and four units, whereas current zoning allowed three, four, and five. The rationale was that CN zones were directly adjacent to low density residential which should be protected from overdevelopment on small lots. He believed that rationale was false because CS zones directly abutted R-1 projects just as the CN zone, and the prime example was El Camino Real where CS and Ch! were intermingled and both had R-1 directly behind. If it was appropriate to protect the R-1 property from excessive development in the CN zone on small lots, it was equally appropriate to do so for the CS zone on small l otsa Further, the staff recommended for the CC and Chi zones, that larger lots be allowed slightly greater density whic'r made more sense from a design and. livability standpoint. He urged the Council to go back to the staff recommendation for' mixed use in the CC and CS zone. Mr. Brown responded to Mr. Merrie's comments on the size of cot- tages, and said` a staff report would be a included in the -coining. Council packet.e Some changes woulck be recommended related to the size of cottages which were a:probiem, and the Council would be. asked to direct -the study back to the. Planning- Commission for possible ordinance revisidn..., With regard to Mr. Moss',comments on alleyways, that modification was made in last .year's zoning ordi- nance corrections. Now in the CN zone where there was an alleyway between a CN zoned property and. an.R-1 property, a 10 -foot 3 7 1 4 8/22/83 landscaped setback was r equ i r ei oo the CU seone property, and a daylight plane was required ate the R-1 property line. Mayor Bechtel clarified tha'e _ the change only pertained -to CN zones. Mr. Brown said yes because th::t was the only situation currently in town where alleyways were between commercial zoned properties and R -I properties. Regarding Item #1O, Density Limitations for Mixed versus All Residential Use in Commercial Districts, there were isolated instances `n town where R-1 properties abutted CS zoniny, which was one reason for the recommendation for the slightly lower density. The Planning Commission opted for slight- ly more density, but they were not talking about a large number of units. Mr. Moss' point was correct. Vice Mayor Witherspoon noticed a number of requests for second. units, and believed that if there was a concern, the question should be addressed immediately rather than waiting for a study. Mr. Brown said applications were increasing, but if Council directed staff to return to the Planning Commission in September with recommended changes, he had modifications in mind to solve the problem. The matter would be back before the Council in October, Vice Mayor Witherspoon clarified that the applications in the pipeline would have co be accommodated under the old rules even if Council acted tonight with recommended changes. Mr. Brown said if changes were made tonight, it would still have to be ayendized and properly noticed. Mayor Bechtel said the 1983 Zoning Ordinance Amendments consisted of items #1 through L4, and that Council took action on Items #2, Location of Accessory Buildings; and #3, Residential Use of Acces- sory Buildings on August 15, 1983. The matter would be handled in a consent calendar form, and she asked which items Councilmembers. wished to remove. Councilnrmber Klein noted that he would "not participate" on Item #L:1, Modification of Public Hearing Requirements. C ounci i member Con!), removed Item #ii, Showers in Commercial and Industrial Developments; Item #9, Height and Daylight Plane Restrictions it Nonresidential Zones; Item #1D, Density Limita- tions for Mixed versus All Residential Use in Commercial Dis- tricts, and Item #23, Modification of Public Hearing Notice Requirements. Councilmernber Levy removed Item 0, Certified Farmers Markets as a Conditional Use in Commercial Setbacks, and Item 115, Compact Parking Space Ratio. Counci lmember Renzel removed Item #5, Uensi ty _ Flexibility , i n Com- mercial `;ones, .a"d item' #8, Setbacks for ReOdentiai Projects in Commercial Districts. Counci lmember Cobb said Items #2 and #3 re Accessory Buildings h:appened late in the evening on August 15, and he asked the City Attorney whether anything was done about setting a maximum size on; accessory buildings in the setback areas. He asked if he could resurrect that point. Ms.. Lee said that could be done-by.Councii vote, but she was cone cerned that those people present_ least week for the i tern were not in attendance tonight because Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance. Technically-, the Council could act on the matter. 1 3 7 1 5 8/22/03 Mayor Bechtel Said Mr: Brown spoke to the issue of cottages, and she asked for clarification that Councilmernbor Cobb considered accessory buildings as a separate issue. Ms: Lee said she.. believed the Council could deal with the entire ordinance tonight including Items #2 and #3 re Accessory Build- ings. The notice referred to the entire ordinance.and the hearing was continued. She reiterated her concern about the people who attended last week's meeting and the Council's indication that final action was taken. Councilmember Renzel asked if the Council could adopt an ordinance change that was neither a staff nor a Planning Commission recom- mendation. Ms. Lee said Council could not take action on anything that was not a subject of the ordinance, although wording could be changed. Councilmember Renzel clarified that Council could make an addi- tional referral to the Planning Commission. Ms. Lee said yes. NOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to reconsider Items 12, Location of Accessory Buildings; and Item 13, Residential Use of Accessory Buildings, for referral to the Plan- ning Commission for size restrictions on cottage and accessory structures. Councilmember Levy said he would like the items regarding acces- sory buildings open for discussion, so that action could be decided at that time. He asked whether they could be added to the list. Councilmember Klein aid Items #2 and #3 should not be part of the ordinance before the Council because of the action taken lest week, and that a referral should be voted on now. Councilmember Cobb said he supported the motion and asked what guidance could be given to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Renzel said she did not want to see the size of the accessory structures and cottages get any larger. Councilmember Levy asked when a Council action might go into ef- fect if the matter were referred hack to the Planning Commissioe, Mr. Brown said he believed the Planning Commission would discuss the matter in September; it would be returned to Council in late October, and would take effect about 45 days after the Council action. Councilmember Levy suggested an interim proposal\to limit the size to about 1,000 square feet on any new cottage zone items coming before the City. He was concerned the City was leaving a window open to have lame cottages consteucted, and a period of three months where action could be taken. He asked if it was possible to vote tonight to effect a noratoriurn on cottage zones, limiting cottages to 1,000 square feet or less, until receipt of one Plan- ning Commission recommendation on the matter. Ms. Lee said an ordinance would first be required, and suggested that, as a separate motion, the City Attorney be directed to pre- pare an ordinance to im -_ e a moratorium on any new cottages ex- ceeding 1,000, square feet. MOTION RESTATED: TO REFER THE ISSUE OF SIZE OF COTTAGES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO THE PLANNING CONNISSION 3 7 1 6 8/22/83 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to direct the City Attorney to prepare for September 12, 1983 an ordinance to impose a moratorium oe the approval of new cottages of over 800 square 'let built under the cottage zone ordinance with a termina- tion date of when Council has acted upon Planning Commission's recommendation. Councilmember Klein said people throwing around numbers with no basis was a defect of ad hoc legislation, and asked Mr. Brown what was an appropriate size. Mr. Brown said the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission was 1,000 square feet. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, that the proposed moratorium ordinance be imposed an cottages over 1,000 square feet. Vice Mayor Witherspoon spoke against putting in a number because she believed a rational discussion should be held at the Planning Commission level as to the size of the cottages, Councilmember Levy's motion was to buy time for receipt of the Planning Commis- sion recommendation Mayor Bechtel believed a size limit was necessary if the Council was to put a holding on the cottages. Vice Mayor Witherspoon suggested that no building permits for cot- tages be issued until the matter was resolved. Mayor Bechtel believed that was too restrictive. Councilmember Renzel was opposed to the amendment. While the staff might recommend 1,000.sgeare feet, the Planning Commission might decide on 600 square feet or something smaller. Sne be- lieved the Council should set a lower figure so that if the Plan- ning Commission decided on a smaller size, no catastrophes mould occur in the interim. She believed a 20 by 30 foot building was large enough. Councilmember Levy said he would support the amendment based on Mr. Brown's comments and realized it did not constitute a commit- ment. The Council's job was to leave the issue open-ended in terms of the referral and act on the ,Planning Commission's recom- mendations. AMENDMENT PASSED by a rote of 5-3. Eyerly, Renzel, Witherspoon voting *no, Fazzino absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. Item 5, Desi n Ilexibilit its Commercial Zones of the 1983 Zoning nance men men s Councilmember Renee] said, as she understood the staff report, the item was to be postponed for inclusion with the amenity point zon- ing, but the Planning Commission recommended that amenity point zoning be used only for historic preservation, and the Policy and Procedures Committee temporarily tabled the _.issue. She believed the concept , still had merit as part of the California Avenue and Downtown studies. 3 7 1 7 8/22/83 As Corrected 12/19/83 1 1 Mr. Brown said the idea of limiting site coverage to encourage more creative building design was not part of the California Ave- nue study. That study was well along in formulating recommenda- tions and would shortly move into the Planning Commission arena. He was concerned about adding requirements to that study, but be- lieved it might be appropriate for inclusion in the University Avenue Corridor study. Councilmember Renzel said she understood there was a floor area ratio reduction in the California Avenue study that would accomplish the desired result. i NOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that site coverage conditions to increase the use of plaza space be considered in Downtown study. MOTION PASSED unani=ously, Fazzino absent. item 6, Showers in Commercial and Industrial Develo meats, Councilmember Fletcher said the item to require buildings to have showers installed arose because of complaints received from em- ployees in recently constructed buildings. The requirement was not uniform, but was an add on requirement after some plans were submitted to the City, and she believed it might be desirable to have something in writing so that developers would know what was required. The requirement of the larger developments was made as an intended mitigation measure to cut down on automobile traffic. The City had a proliferation of smaller buildings, and she heard from the ones on West Bayshore which were not as large as some of the 50,000 square foot buildings. That area had large traffic problems, and the showers might help. She mentioned that since the item was publicized, she heard from a number of runners who supported the item. Councilmember Cobb said when he was a Facilities Manager, he was asked by a small number of employees to put showers in some of their developments, at a considerable expense to the company. He observed that few people ever used the showers, and even the bikers just changed without taking showers. He did not belieVe showers would have the desired effect other than to add a conve- nience to a minority of employees and add an expense to the oper- ating overhead of companies, which was already a problem. It could result in the reduction of job growth in the area because it might be another small expense that companies did not want to undertake. Further, if the requirement were only made on new con- structions, an expanding company woul'i only have showers in the new areas --not in the old --and he was not sure what it would ac- complish. Councilmember Fletcher said a City employee who cycled from La Honda told her that she, appreciated the showers in the building. She quoted the press as saying there Mere eight showers in City Hall and people stood in line to use them. With regard to the cost, automobile parking was more expensive to install, and the more that could be done to reduce the need for automobile parking, the better financially for the developer. Councilmernher Levy could see both points of view, but asked how much space showers would take in a building and the cost. Mr. Brown responded that showers generally took up about four square feet, but the new state- handicap requirements meant about 24 square feet. lie could not estimate the cost 3 7 1 8 8/22/83. As Corrected 12/19/83 Councilmember L..=vy asked if any data was available in terms of the cost to install a shower and the reduce i can in the amount of income from the building. Mr. Brown said no, but that many developers found it advantageous to install showers a»en without the City requirement because it made the property more attractive to tenants. Councilmember Levy asked' for information concerning the City showers because he understood they were available for police per- sonnel. City Manager Bill Zaner said the showers were available to. City employees. There were also limited locker facilities, although most of those were used by uniformed employees in the building. Councilmember Levy asked if the City's facilities were used to maximum capacity, particularly because of bikers and runners, Mr. Zaner said it depended on the time of day and season of the year. There were times when they were heavily used, and there were times when the usage was light. Mr. Brown said the showers were mostly used during the noun hour, and particularly by runners. Mayor Bechtel said she hoped City employees would not shower dur- ing the middle of the day, but believed it was appropriate during lunch hours and prior to commencing work. She believed the Plan- ning Commission recommendation was appropriate. The City was not requiring .that showers be retrofitted or put into an already con- structed building, but many developers were installing showers without a;iy requ,i rement from the City because they enhanced a building's leasing ability. She would support a motion to approve the Planning Commission recommendation. MOTIOW: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to add shower re- quirements in commercial and industrial developments es set forth in Sections 23 through 29 of the draft ordinance, Mr. Zaner pointed out the Council action would require additional showers in City Hall as it was reconstructed. Mayor Bechtel clarified that additional showers would only be re- quired based on the square footage of the new portion. Caunci imem44r Klein said, as he read the ordinance .on page 11, no shower's were required for governmental buildings 0 to 9,999 square feet. Mr. Brown said that was correct--i'f the construction added less than 10,000 square feet, no showers were required. Mayor Bechtel said the proposed reconstruction was for about 6,500 square feet and no shower would be required. Mr. Zaner said as long as the additional square footage remained at the fourth floor, there was no problem. As people were moved off various floors and rearranged, there might be some remodeling and reconstruction work in the process. Couecilmember Klein said he wanted it to be clear that two parti- tion changes would not trigger a requirement for a new shower. Mr. Brown clarified that the requirement was only on new floor area. Mayor Bechtel clarified that remodeling or moving a wall in any building would not trigger the requirement for a shower. Mr. Brown said that was correct. MOTION RESTATED: TO APPROVE TriE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDA- TION RE SHOWER REQUIREMENTS MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. Item #7, Certified Farmers Markets as a Conditional Use in Commer c'TT '"'strict Councilmember L,ey said he supported the encouragement of farmers' markets,. but was concerned that the definition related to the state's definition --"a market wherein only the producers of prod- ucts grown can be the marketers of those products." He was dis- satisfied with that definition, and preferred a broader definition to speak to how the market related to the public rather than how the market related to the grower. Mr. Brown said the definition was based upon the state's defini- tion of what. constituted a certified farmers' market. The City was attempting to limit the number and type of markets to avoid a large number of ad hoc markets springing up for various periods of time, which would be difficult to. monitor. The state and the County Agricultural Inspector monitored certified markets, which took a burden off the City, which was the intent of limiting the definition. Councilmember Levy asked if the City was limiting the markets to only fresh food products. Mr. Brown said a number of products were permitted including food- stuffs, animal products, plants, flowers, etc., which were all included in the state definition. Councilmember Levy said he agreed that an agency should supervise the market in terms of fresh food, but for flowers or preserves, he was not sure it was necessary to submit to the State defini- tion. He asked if it was feasible to allow the State definition to apply to fresh food, but not other products. Mr. Brown said a definition tc that effect could be drafted, \jut staff did not want to have; to administer the complex definition. The current proposal appeared the most direct and easiest approach to administer. Councilrnember,:Renzel said ti'at since a certified farmers' market was a conditional use, staff eras. inn ,the position:.- to approve 'or deny an application, the definition provided some consistency between State and City law. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, to ap- pre,e Itew No. 7r Certified Farmers Mar ets as a Conditional Use in Commercial Districts. Councilmember Levy was uncomfortable with the wording because he believed it aimed to satisfy the City rather than the. consumer. He could not suggest en alternative, but since a downtown farmers' market . would be advantageous to the community he hoped--, the defi- nition could be broadened. and not constrained to the City's easi- est administration. Mayor Bechtel believed the definition was helpful the way it was --farmers markets removed the middlemen which hopefully reduced the cost and offered fresher food. A large group established: Palo Alto's first' farmers' market and the parameters were particularly important. She supported the motion.: MOTION PA$$ED unanimously, Fazzfao absent. 3 r. 2 D 8/22/83 As Corrected 12/19/83 Item #8, Setbacks for Residential Projects in Commercial Councilmember Renzel said no change was recommended by the Plan- ning Commission. At the time the zoning ordinance was amended to encourage residential projects in commercial districts, the deft - nition of "usable open space" permitted small'spaces to be counted as usable open space in mixed use projects. ,As a result, a nymber of buildings were built with basically a window with a railing in front and maybe a one foot plant shelf which was counted as usable open space. There were small areas in some of the City's new projects along Forest that were not usable by people, and as a result those projects were massive and created spaces that did not amount to open space. While she concurred with the recommendation for no change, she believed the definition of "usable open space" should be re-examined, and that there should be a minimum size requirement for usable open space. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Cobb, that the Planning Commission re-examine the definition of 'usable open space" in the old zoning ordinance and at present, Mr. Brown said the area requirements for what could be counted as usable open space were the same for residential projects built in commercial zones and those built in residential zones. The dis- tinction was that in the CC district, there was no requirement for any usable open space in a mixed use project. Councilmember Renzel believed the distinction was from a subse- quent change to the mixed use concept. She wanted to ensure that there was still a minimum usable open space size with some rela- tionship to open space that was not just a window box. Mr. Brown said that for exclusive residential use of a site, there was a minimum requirement of 80 square feet. Councilmember Renzel believed that was a reduction from the old zoning ordinance and perhaps should be larger. She wanted to see it looked , at. It might be the same as the old oruinance, but she believed the Council should see that some usable open space was required. Mr. Brown said staff would commence the process for the 1934 Zon- ing and Subdivision Ordinance Changes in December, and asked whether it could be included in the next batch of changes. Councilmember Renzel said that was appropriate. MOTION RESTATED: 'MAT THE PLAiiniie COMMISSION REVIEW THE USABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS DURING ITS NEXT ORDINANCE CHANGE ::4IEN MOTION PASSED : naniaromsly, fazzfno :,absent. I9 Hei ht and I} i ht Plane Restrictions.. fn' Nonresidential Councilmember Cobb clarified that the rear yard setback in adjoin- irg.___residential zones was- included in the Planning Commission recommendation Mr. Brown said yes. Councilmember Cobh. was concerned that in its desire to encourage housing, the City not create a situation of mini Manhattan canyons between buildings Me concluded that if the incentives were taken, it would be similar to all residential zoning of typical RM-3 and RM-4 densities, and would not be any ,worse In terms of Setbacks and impingement on the dayllght plane, etc. He asked for clariificutionh 3 7`2 1 8/22/83 As Corrected 12/19/83 'Mr. oruwir clarified thaL Lire proposal would essentially create d situation identical to that which would occur with two contiguous RM-4 lots -the same setbacks and daylight planes. Nothing more was being granted than what was received in that type of situa- tion. Counci lmemL r Cobb said with regard to Mr. Moss' comments regard- iny alley.-ays, etc., he believed there was some language to -the effect that there would be little additional encroachment on the daylight plane. dr. Brown said he believed Mr. Moss' comments were related to an alleyway between a CN and R-1 property, which wou'id not change with the ordnance change. Councilmember Renzel asked for confirmation that the item included both a raise in the height limit to 50 feet when the project was at least 60 percent residential and the daylight plane adjust- ment. Mr. Brown said that was correct, if the project adjoined an RM-4 or RM-5 zone which allowed the same 50 foot height limits Councilmember Renzel said she was continually bothered that par- ticularly in the nonresidential zones, the City should be giving incentives such as raising height limits where there was 100 per- cent residential rather than a mix.with the idea that a full use by residential of the nonresidential properties would be a total net benefit to the City. MOTION: Cou ci lmeaaaber Renzel moved that the increase in het yht limit only apply in those situations of 100 Percent residential in the nonresidential zones. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation _ re Height and Daylight Plane Restrictions in Nonresidential Zones. Councilmember Renzel said she understood the proposed height limit only applied on the property side which abutted the nonresidential zones. If the other side of the property was an R-1 zone, the R-1 restrictions would apply for whatever distance into the property. Mr. Brown said that was correct, NOTION PASSE? unanimously, Fazzino abta:nt. Iter, #1U Oensit Limitations for Mixed Versus All Residential Use in ommercia is rent Councilmember Renzel said the Planning Commission diminished the base amount for the first unit in a CN zone -from what staff recom- mended, and she concurred More with the staff recommendation. NOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the staff recommendation to -calculate residential density in the -pi District (350O square feet of site are for the f i rst rueai t, 1bUO square feet for each_ eanit thereafter), and .that the residen- tial calculation for the CC and -CS Di -Strict be based on MO ..square feet .for the first unit and -90U square feet thereafter. Counci lberber Fletcher asked for comments from Chairperson Wheeler about the.Planning Commission rationale. Planning Coaerriission Chairperson Helene iwlheeler;,,_said-.the Commission - believed the vast majority of CSand CC zones."did not abut single fa ally. residential. In 'an effort to encourage as ieMCh housing_ use. as passible in commercial areas, the Cow ission bel1tved more 3 7 2 :: 8/22/83 incentive would be given for the development of commercial zoned properties in residential use. It might be appropriate to have the Commission re-examine its recommendation and- excluder those areas where CC and CS abutted single family residential neighbor- hoods and only have that provision kick in where higher density zone districts were abutted. - SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved to refer Item #10, Density Limitations for Mixed versus All Residential ,Use in Commercial districts,. back to the Planning Commission for special consideration for those zones which abut residential zones. Councilmember Fletcher believed special consideration should be yiven where there were abutting R-1 neighborhoods, but also be- lieved all incentives possible should be given for the construc- tion of multi -family units. She was torn between the staff and Planning Commission.recommentations, and believed there should be a modification whereby there wes less density for those projects which abut R-1 zones. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Cobb said the table on page 13 showed a comparison of housing units, but .not the total usage of the land when the incentives were applied. He asked i f , by providing the- incen- tives, the City might create a- situation where it overintensified the land -u a when adding the total of the residential and commer- cial together. Mr. Mr. Brown said the ultimate limitation would be the floor area ratio which was one .to one in Cpl, three to three in CC, and two to one in CS; that remained the cap on the intensities. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Bechtel, Fletcher voting *no." item #15, Come Parkin ace Ratio Councilmember Levy asked if data was available on the sales of small car:, in Polo Alto or if national information was used. Mr. Drown said the avai labia data was based on national figures, and that there was nothing available for the Bay Area. Councilmember Levy clarified that nationally approximately 50 per - c ent of the cars could he considered to be small cars appropriate for Palo Alto's compact car stalls. The City's range was from 25 to bU percent, and he asked about the basis for selecting a point within that range. Mr. Brown responded that it was based on the number of stalls in the parking facility. Councilmember Levy clarified the larger parking lots went up to the o0 percent- figure. Mr. Brown said yes. Councilmember Levy aetieved that was sensible, and.; asked if the city edc0u;reged, going: up to;.the maximum figure' as much as possi- ble. lie .beileved trical_.small car sales were probably larger `than nationrai sa1e-s, and that More cornouti`ng was done in smaller -cars beca.!se of the gas: ef,fidiency. Mr. Brown said that wars true. NATION: Coanci Iseaaer Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to approve time PlanninirCo fission _ re oMmendation of no changa to. the compact parking sparse regirire.ents, 3 7 2 3 8/22/83 WTli}N PASSED uoanl o sly, Faxzino iusent. Item #23 Modification of Public Hearin Notice ate uirements Councilmember Cobb said page 32 said the 12 day notice would still exceed the state standard of a 10 day notice, and he asked if the City Clerk was comfortable working within.the 12.day notice. City Clerk Ann Tanner responded that 12 days would be adequate. MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to approve the planning Commission recommendation for a 12 day public hearing notice requirement. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein not participating,' Fazzino absent. MUTION: Vice Mayor Witherspoon moved, seconded by Eyerly, ap- proval of the Planning Commission recommendations 11, Restriction of the Site Development Regulations through Design Review; 14, Amendment of Cottage Lot Size Requirements; Item 111, Accessibili- ty of Drive -up Windows in the CM District; Item 112, Revision of FAR and Site Coverage Regulations in LM Districts to Encourage Housing; Item 113, Commercial Recreation in the LM District; Item 114, "Standards" vs. "Guidelines" for Parking Facilities Design; item 116, Revision o; Driveway Standards Tables; Item #17, Revi- sion of Parking Ramp Scope; Item 118, Numbering, Titling, and Rearrangement of. Parking Tables; Item 119, Other Corrections and Changes to Parking Requirements; Item 120, Modification of Condi- tional Use Permits; Item 121, Expansion of. Conditional Uses; Item 122, Conditional Use Permits for Residential Care Homes; and Item 124, Amendment of Tentative Subdivision or Preliminary Parcel Maps. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. MOTION:, Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to approve Zoning Ordinance amendments as amended. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE cr: A ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 18) AND SUBDIVISION CODE (TITLE 21) WITH REGARD TO DESIGN REVIEW, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, "COTTAGE LOTS," EMPLOYEE SHOWERS, FARMERS' MARKETS, RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS., HEIGHT AND DAYLIGHT PLAN RESTRICTIONS IN NONRESIDENTIAL ,ZONES. RESIDENTIAL USES AND COMMERCIAL RECREATION IN THE LM DISTRICT, DRIVE -UP WimormS 11! THE GM DISTRICT, PARKING FACILITIES, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. ITEM e12, PUBLIC HEARING: WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES (CMR:442:3) Mayor Bechtel annoenced that tonight was the time and place set for a public hearing on the resolution for tie charges levied for weld abatement on private property under an agreement with Santa Clara County. She asked that the record show that notice of the. hearing was given in the time, manner and form provided .in Chapter' 8.08 of tiie Palo Alto Municipal Code. She asked the City Clerk if any written objections were received to the amounts levied. City Clerk Ann Tanner said`none were received. Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open concerning weed abatement clhere S. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the public hearing closed. She as4.`ed`that the rrcord snow that no one appeared or filed written objections against the charges for weed abatement performedin accordance 3 7 2 4 8/22/83 with the Municipal i Code aril under - he agreement for administration of weed abatement entered into between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County, and that any resolution pessed by the i.ounci i would reflect -that finding. MOTION: Vice Mayor Witherspoon moved, seconded by Klein, prove] of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6174 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF in L11T.. ur PALO ALTO CONFIRMING WEED ABATEMENT TO BE A SPECIAL; ASSESSMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES HEREIN UESCRIi3ED" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. ITEM X13. LIMITED INCOME WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM MOTION: .Vice Mayor Witherspoon moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve the resolution, the budget amendment ordinance, and the contract. RESOLUTION 6175 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF WrmwmiTTTramnrrw -PALO ALTO APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION RELATING TO WEATHERIZATION. ASSISTANCE FUR PERSONS OF LIMITED INCOME" ORDINANCE 3458 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE rTTFUT—ntraltTo AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983.84 T1) PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE CONSERVATION AND SOLAR PROGRAM AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION" . GRANT AGREEMENT CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION Mayor Bechtel congratulated staff for successfully being one of the eleven recipients of the grant in the State. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. ITEM #14 bRYANT STK2ET BICYCLE BRIDGE PROJECT (CMR:471:3) MOTION: Councilmea,ber Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, approv- al of the ordinance. ORDINANCE 3459 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE trwirTruTITTr ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 83-22 'BRYANT STREET b1! CLE BRIDGE' AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION CUkNI SSI ON" MOTOR PASSEL unanimously, Fazzino absent kE.C_kSS FROM g Zt� em, to g:3Z .i. - ITLM Iv15 RECO$MENUATIUNS.OF THE CITY FSCHOOL LIAISON COMMITTEE RE • Hannah Cranch, 2520 Emerson, was thankful for the support given to, the City schools crossing guard program. Her children bicycled to and from school using the Colorado/Middlefield crossing. During the last school year, three car/.child cyclist 'accidents hap-ened. along Louis, and:-. she asked that the program continue to ensure children's safety. She praised the high quality :--of the guards, and expressed parental gratitude for the service. Rolli-ng stops, unsignalled turns an.d accelerated signal crossings by drivers made the service necessary. 3 7 2 5 8/22/83 Charmaine Moyer, 87? Fielding Drive, was a parent, representative of the PTA Safety Council, and future elementary school represen- tative of the City/School Traffic Safety Committee. She thanked everyone for the impressive work last year, and supported the staff recommendation. She looked forward to working on, the Com- mittee. Sylvia Martinez, 794 Allen Court, served �s facilitator and coor- dinator for the PTA to choose a model to minimize traffic risks to children. and find the best response. No preconceptions were al- lowed. She thanked the staff, and especially Gayle Likens, for their help, and urged acceptance of staff recommendations. She and other representatives of the PTA would be glad -to answer ques- tions. Beverly Carter, 3343 Thomas Drive, represented the Palo Alto Coun- cil of PTAs. When Sylvia Martinez explained the reorganization plan, she generated great enthusiasm, She thankea the Council for its interest. Oland Lewiston, 1849 Newell-, said the Safety Committee represented a problem solving method through' cooperation instead of confronta- tion, which was very effective and universally beneficial. MOTI€rat: Councilsember Cobb proved, seconded by Levy, to adopt staff recommendations as follows:, 1. Adopt the amended text of the policy statement for the City/School Traffic Safety Committee; and 2. Endorse the tasks and procedures described in the report to be implemented by the City, City/School Traffic Safety Committee and PTA. Mayor Bechtel commended all who attended the meeting and who worked so hard to make the process effective. The report was ex- cellent and sne supported it wholeheartedly. Counci lrneinber Levy echoed Mayor. Bechtel's comments. The Committee tarnished an excellent example of cooperation --between the City., School District and -concerned parents. Because of school closures two years ago the pattern of child.iiwbility changed dramatically, and the City was unprepared. The recommendations gave a process for cooperation and anticipation of future school closures and changes in youth travel patterns. He thanked the PTA, whose ef- fective work he!-ped accomplish the objectives. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. iTtM t1b, TWO AMENDMENTS TO 1HE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE Councilmember kenzel said she was familiar with the matter through her appOi ntment ai. North County representati ve` to the Solid Waste Management Authority, and urged acceptance of the resolutions. It was_ a requirement that a majority of all interested citi€s_ repre- senting 50 percent of the population apaly . _concurrently. San Jose applied for approval of the addition of the Kirby Canyon site, and Pato o Alto should also make .application'. She pointed out that no decision _had been reached on _which sites )4 -Mild finally be used, but the. .iros Altos Sewage .Treatment. site on San Antonio Road which was within -Polo Alto's ;jurisdiction- was -intended .for usO as a transfer station -only.- if it was included -in the Solid Waste Man - a Bement Authori ty, .the City's garbage,,_.would be_. processed there. 3 7 2.5 8/22/83 MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approve the resolutions. RESOLUTION 6176 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF int L1TT HALO ALTO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PIJO1 FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO INCLUDE THE KIKBY CANYON AS A POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITE" RESOLUTION 6177 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ALO ALTO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO INCLUDE THE NORTH COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AS POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE SITES" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. ITEM #17 PALO ALTI) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION - APPOINTMENT MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to appoint Enid Pearson, Alan Henderson, Stanley R. Norton. Scott T. Carey and Carl J. Schmitt to the Board of the Palo Alto Public Improve- ment Corporation., Counci Irnember Eyerly asked how the corporation would function. Financial Planning Admtnietrator Gordon Ford said the corporation would meet annually to approve decisions made by the City. Its power would be limited, and only necessary in the event the City failed to budget or make payments. Councilmen ber Fletcher asked if individual board members could become liable in the event the City failed to meet its obliga- tions. Me. Ford said that concern was expressed, and insurance was secured to cover that eventuality, MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. ITEM 1 # PAL.r. ALTO CIVIC CENTER STgUCTURAL REPAIRS, CIP 82.27, r S 1rrritTgrar7=14.7 Councilmember Klein asked if the prevailing wage rate of $100,000, co-Od be avoided. Senior Assistant City. Attorney Anthony Bennetti responded that the nonprofit corporation method of -financing meant that the State law provision for prevailing wage rates must be applied. Counci lraember Klein asked if the requirement was imposed solely because of the nonprofit corporation method of financing, and whether it could have been avoided with other alternatives.. Mr. Bennetti said -consideration was given to establishing a sepe __crate entity ' .n: the` Utilities {.:epar=tment and leasing it bark to - the City, but for Other re. ors that method: was determined to be una..ceµtabie. Lour',7.11 nernber Klein asked about the four or - five.. alternatives ,- that --`were- considered a few Months agars Mr. liennetti believed -all those alternatives involved the use of nonprofit corporations. Ken Jones, Bond Counsel, with the firm of tones, Hall, Hill & White, confirmed that all prior alternatives involved a nonprofit corporation. The use of a private leasing corporation, nonprofit corporation, Or a joint powers . entity as bond issuer would have 3 2 7 8/22/83 involved additional alternativc procedural requirements. A main reason for the nonprofit corporation was that leasehold interest of the corporation escaped taxation, and on balance) was the cheaper alternative. Ccunciliiienrber Klein was concerned about the additional $125,000 for costs related to inspection -and security resulting from con- struction done during off hours. He asked if that option, was open, and whether it could be avoided. Director of Public Works David Adams said off hour work was neces- sary, and it was essential to guard the facility for the 18 month pericd during which unknown people would be around. Extra inspec- tions should be carried out during the course of work since sensi- tive material was involved. Councilmember Klein suggested that if the costs resulted from .working during off hours, they should be avoided by working dur- ing normal hours. Mr. Adams said that was not feasible because of the disruption to the facilty, and much would have to be done on weekends and at night. Councilmember Klein asked why that was not determined earlier. Mr. Adams said since making ttiat determination, other work was deemed necessary which would incur additional inspection. Councilmember Klein asked whether inspections necessarily had to occur off hours. Mrs Adams said some inspection would he required as the work was completed. Councilmember Klein asked for a description of the inspection be furnished. Mr. Adams said it was basically a guard -type duty to ensure that unauthorized people did not gain access to the boiiding. Councilmember Klein asked how many man-hours the sum represented. Super;ntendent Engineer William Algire, Project Coordinator, said it provided ,one person, tU hours a day, for 18 months. Councilmember Klein clarified that it amounted to $33,000 per year. Mr. Adams said it amounted to $44,000, rounded off to $50,000. Councilmember Klein said he understood the building was already secured. Mr. Adams said it was locked, but would. not be during construc- tion. Workers would core and +o, identification would be diffi- cult, end workers could not b' 'required to act -as guards. Caunci 1anemher Kleln was shocked and concerned to see:a 30 percent increase in a noninflationary eight months. Costs dramatically increased from $3.4 million -,to $4.3 mi t 1i:on,, and he asked whether Cutbacks were possible. He ---noticed a new elevator contingency of fit3 ,000, and asked why it"was required now.. Mr.. Adams said the original estimate was wrong-, and the contin- gency was_ included when the _correction was -made. The Council now had an contract —not an estiaiiate.` Councilmember Klein asked why a contingency was necessary. 3.7 2 8 8/22/83 Mr-. Adonis said it was for unanticipated expenses, and that any majue project carried a contingency fund. Councilmember Klein asked why it was not -budgeted at first, Mr. Adams said a fiyure was included in the incorrect estimate. Councilmember Klein pointed out that the first estimate stated zero contingency. Mr. Adams said the contingency was not listed separately. Councilmember Klein asked whether there were areas where cut backs could be effected in view of the dramatic increase.. Mr. Adams said the figures represented the best the consultants and estimating firms could produce. Staff would endeavor to im- prove the estimates, but he did not believe they should be cut back. Councilmember Cobb was also struck by the increase, and suggested that it be broken down. One item might be the new requirements for additional structure repairs discovered since the first esti- mate; another might .be inflation; and a third would be the inclu- sion of build out costs shown in the original staff proposal. When the Council decided not to go ahead with the build -out, some of those costs were included in the present trackage, and he asked that the increase be broken down into those three components. Mr. Adams agreed with Councilmember Cobb's breakdown, and referred to pages 9 and 10 of the staff report where the increases were explained. Councilmember Cobb asked for a rough breakdown. Mr. Adams referred to page 10 of the staff report, and said that $Z6U,UOU of the $360,000 was for newly discovered work and the remainder was for .the prevailing wage rate, which was explained on page 3.(b). Structural consultant services to test the newly dis- covered`problems accounted for another $55,000, and the recommend- ation was to allocate $100,000 for repair of the expansion joint seal which was not a part of the original structural work, but which was prudent. The build out program to complete the design for the fourth floor was not just a floor plan --it included the design of the electrical and mechanical systems to match tie : pro- posed modifications for the entire Civic Center as part of the energy conservation program. Councilmember Levy was concerned about staff omissions. With regard to the extra $100,000 for wages due to the financing methods, he asked when that was discovered, and why it mat not discovered sooner. Mr. Bennetti said the only viable entity available as a lessor was a' nonprofit corporation, and the other alternatives would .ha-ve been more costly. The _sum was not included in the original esti- mate `because no particular financing method was contemplated, but was,. factored in as soon as -the financing decision: was made. Counci lr ember 1,evy asked if the eecurity was necessary because of the night Work involved. Mr. Adams said that increase sight. could be categorized as an over- Councilmember levy asked Dow much of the` work was originally scheduled at night. 3 7 2 9 8/22/83 Mr. Adams said it was oeiginally planned to do a lot of the work at night. There were some elements which had to be done at night because access to several parts of the bui 1 di ng was required at one time. Councilmember Levy asked how much security was originally planned. Mr. Adams said that in error none was planned.; 1 i 'Councilmember Levy asked why a contingency was necessary for the elevator when the City already had a contract with Otis. Mr. Adams said some unexpected situations not covered by the con- tract or specifications could arise. Councilmember Levy believed Otis would be. responsible and should know what was required. Mr. Adams said since he had been in the construction business, he had never known a project of such magnitude to occur without prob- lems. The contingency covered unforeseen occurrences for which figures could not be provided. Councilmember Levy aske± hoW much of the total pv aject was .set to contingency. Mr. Adams said it represented between 10 and 12 percent. Councilmember Levy said that was approximately $590,000, and asked if the $35,000 could be a part of that, - Mr. Adams said he believed so, but since staff was asked for the most reliable estimates, an attempt was made to ideritify the con- tingencies within each element to the extent possible. Councilmember Levy- asked about the $100,000 consultant fee for the fourth floor design, improvements, etc., and whether it was incor- rectly cat. orized.a. part of the tuild-out budget. - Mr; Adams said; it was in the right category for the build out plans because it was part of the entire design. Now, it was more appropriate to transfer the item and have it completed as a part of the project. Councilmember Levy confirmed that when costs for the build -out and structural design were made, they were improperly allocated. Mr. Adams..,sa i d yes. Councilmember Levy asked Mr. Adams if he beiieved_the total costs of $465,000--or b0 per square foot --for the fourth floor were appropriate. Pir. Adams said yes, dob Moss, 401U Ormre, was also concerned about costs, and .although the` competitive_ binding process was required, the Council was being.asked to approve a,negotiated bid;_ for the elevator of almost $300,000. He believed that was unwise, because the:Otis elev'tors in the building were inefficient, and a better alternative for the third' elevator was possible. He was also concerned that $115,©00 was proposed for consulting services on ak_, tu1._ld out o► 5,500 square feet of floor space, . or in excess of $40 per square foot, and again for negotiated --not bid. contracts. Much -of the contln yency and consulting sums 'were being .borrowed at nine to ten per- cent interest, -and the loans could not be' Naught ' out until 1986. The $100000 to be paid for sealing joints was ,normal wear and tear-, and. he. --suggested budgeting that in capital_ -improvements to avoid borrowing money and paying interest for 10 or -20 years. He 3 7 3 0 -- 8/22/83 oelievea some items of the budget required careful scrutiny, and loped his suggestions would help cut the total costs. City Attorney Uiane Lee referred to negotiated contracts and said it was a standard rule that competitive bids not apply to con- tracts where special expertise, such as consulting, was required. The Otis elevator constituted an exceotion because any elevator install-ed had'to be compatible with existing a-- evators. Mr. Adams said an additional breakdown for fourth floor consulting services was in the contract. Consulting and balancing measure- ments after construction, as shown in Table 3(1) in the summary of the project services would be made, and the contract included much work to ensure that the.mechanical systems were compatible with the other systems. Work on the fourth floor entailed work on the other floors, and mechanical energy conservation modification ac- counted for $10,500. Nine different items comprised the proposed $IOU,00U, and represented work much more complicated than a simple floor plan. Councilmember..Eyerly believed -the accusations concerning the fie. nancing were not warranted. Staff -was probably -not -given suffi- cient time at the beginning to make full inquiries, and errors were understandable. The establishment of nonprofit corporation funding was not - an everyday occurrence, and the period -during con- struction would have involved considerable discussion with the contractors, and resulted in more -realistic figures being allo- cated. Reyardiny contingencies and overruns, he realized it was impossible to foresee difficulties that might arise, and that -con- tingencies were required because the contract did not guarantee that hidden requirements. would not surface. He believed sealing the joints and __the entire project. should- come__ from- the Capital Improvement Budget, but there were not sufficient funds and Coun- ell tried to preserve the. CIP for other necessary requirements. He had no problems with accepting the staff proposals, although it was unfortunate that the original estimates were not more accur- ate. MOTION: Counci lmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the staffrecommendations as follows: (I) (b) Approve the budget amendment oriinance which reappropriates $I9U,000 from CIP 82-30 to CIP 82-27 to provide for additional testing, for an increased appropriation for the elevator pro- curement including contingency, for space design services for the fourth floor, and for construction management services for the fourth floor; and returns $160,000 from CIP 82-30, Civic Center Space build Out to the Reserve for Capital Projects; Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract for $294,345 with Otis Elevator Co►spany; Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement for $100,000 with Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Inca for design ser- vices relating to the fourth floor/l1UAC-modifications, Aothorfze the Mayor to execute the agree -meat for, $15,000 with Ralph Larson alp Son, Inc,,, General Contractor for construction wanagement services --relating to the fours h .floor/NVAC modffi- cations; Aitaarize staff to execute change orders daring the design stage of the struc,turtl improvements of up to $103,000. A6RZEMENT Otis Elevator Company_ AGREEMENT - ADDEVIUM MO. 1 Engineering Decision An* ysis Company, Inc.. 3 7 3 1 8/22/83 1 1 MU iUh CUVi iNULv AGREEMENT Ralph Larson A Son ORDINANCE 3460 entitled "ORDINANCE OP THE COUNCIL OF THE t1iY Ui- PALL ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 82-27 'CIVIC CENTER STRUCTURAL REPAIRS' AND TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT No. 82-30 `CIVIC CENTER SPACE USE" City Manager Bi 1 ! Zaner called the attention of the Counci 1 to a typographical error in the ordinance included in the Council pack- ages. The Council now had a corrected copy. Counci member Levy asked if the 'reappropriation of $190,000 from CEP 8Z -3U would be taken from the existing reserve or whether it would form part of the bond issue. -iirector. of Budget and Resource Management Larry Moore said that when Council originally took action on the project, it made an cppropriation --of $1,2b000,- separated into build- our. and .struc- tural repairs. The $190,000 would come from the existing GIP. Councilfnember Levy asked for clarification that the sum was a loan from the general fund to the nonprofit Corporation. Mr. Moore said yes, and that eventually the sum would be repaid with interest. Counci lrnembe = Levy asked whether the $190,000 to be appropriated would be added to the bond issue. Mr. Moore said it was already part of the bond issue. Councilmember Levy asked for a breakdown of the consulting fee of. $31,700 for space planning and interior design. Mr. Adams said the sum represented planning costs for both the temporary ,use of the fourth floor during the construction phase and its ultimate use. Councilmember, Levy asked whether $31,000 was an appropriate sum for the floor plan. Mr.• Adams satd the sure included partitioning, accoustical treat- ment for the ::open space concept, --the lavatory areas, overhead l ightine, etc. Counci 1 member Levy asked for services of $Z3,0OO. breakdown of the architectural Mr. Al gi re said the sum was needed to ensure compatibility of the electrical and mechanical systems, the build out of the available--- restrooms for use by the handicapped, peed, and to provide plans for fire protection barriers separating the usable space from the ele- vator passage. Counciliiember Levy a ked if, the sum represented planning casts only. Mr. Al gi re eaid it was foe the design preparation of the bid docu- ments. Counci lmember Levy noted that a further $20,000 was earmarked 'for mechanical and electrical energy conservation` work, and asked for confirmation that $43,000 was a reasonable sum for design of such architectural items. 3 7 3 2 8/22/83 Mr. Algire said the sure was high because the system as a ;hole was. -being considered. -There were two IiVAC systems within.the Civic Center that would require reevaluation and rebalancing. Councilmember Levy asked about 'Mr. Moss' suggestion that some of. the cost be funded out of the current City reserves. Presently, there was over $6,UUO,UUU in the City's reserves, and hull was reserved for the yeneral fund operations. The remaining $3.5 million could be used sirice the bond issue would make a total cost of about $3 for every $1 expended. The sealer repairs would cost $100,000 if funded out of the fund, but as part of the bond issue the cost would 1e over $300,000. AMENDMENT. Councilmember Levy moved that $100,000, the sum estimated for expansion joint sealer repair, be funded olt of cur- rent reserves. AMENDMENT FAILED for lack of a second. Councilmember Eyerly commented, that if future City Councils believed there was sufficient money in the inappropriated capital improvement .fund, it should rebuy the bonds. He did not second the arnendkient because the timing was inappropriate., but it could be reconsidered in the future. Mayor Bechtel agreed with Councilmember Eyerly and with her other colleagues reyardiny the high cost. Further, the structural repairs were necessary, and it would be appropriate to buy back the bonds m the future if possible. She looked to the staff and consultants to complete the project below estimated costs. Councilmember Levy said the project --was important and necessary. Although he hesitated to spend coney which raised overall costs by one-third and which were caused by many changes and last minute additions, he would vote in favor. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazz#no absent. ITEM #19 FINAr4CINU FOR CIVIC CENTER STRUCTURAL REPAIRS MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt staff recommendations as follows: 1. Approve the documents prepared by Bond Counsel: a. Lease Agreement relating to Palo Alto Civic Center Project by and between Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation.. as lessor and City of Palo Alto as lessee dated as of October 1, 1983; . Trust Agreement relating to Palo Alto Civic Center Project by and among Bank of America, N.T-atA ns Trustee and Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporations and City of Palo Alto dated as of October 1'i 1983; Assignment Agreement of Palo Alto Civic Center Project by and between Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation, as lessor and Bank of America, M.T.BS.A. as Trustee dated October 1A 1983; Agency Agreement relating to Palo Alto ..Civic Center Project by, and between Palo. Alto Public Improvement Corporation and City of Palo Alto dated October 1* 1983; 2. Approve the preliminary Official Statemee for the Certificate 0 Participation; and • —3 1 3 3 8/22/83 MOTION CONTINUED 3. Authorize the City Manger, with the concurrence of the City Attorney, to approve minor nonsubstantial changes to the four documents prepared by Bond Counsel and the Official State- ment. LEASE AGREEMENT RELATING TO PALO ALTO CIVIC CENTER TRUST AGREEMENT RELATING TO PALO ALTO CIVIC CENTER PROJECT ASSIGNMENT ACRE::SENT PALO ALTO CIVIC CENTER PROJECT AGENCY AGREEMENT RELATING TO PALO ALTO CIVIC CENTER PROJECT PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION (CIVIC CENTER PROJECT) Councilmember Levy asked whether bonds would be issued via the negotiation route. Mr. Ford said yes. Counci lmeMber Levy asked who made that recommendation.• Mr. Ford said it was part of the staff recommendation and based on the market conditions and the type of security through discussioPs between staff, outside bond couns_1, ar ` i,arcial advisors. Co'aincilmember Levy asked if ..the financial advisor made the same recommendation. Mr. Ford said yes. Cuuncimemb9r Levy was concerned about a conflict of interest since '?;he bid had been negotiated with the financial advisor mak- ing the recommendation. Mr. Ford said staff had accepted bids for the security, that the cor!lpanyYs fees were specified in its proposal, and were considered by staff in selecting Security Pacific and Merrill, Lyrfch. Fees were considered bel'or°e the companies were hired. Councilmernber Levy said the companies were hired as a consultant to advise the City whether a, negotiated or competitive bid should be made. Mr. Ford said staff already made the decision to recommend a nego- tiated bid, but bids were requested - on both a negotiated and com- petitive basis, _and applicants had to be. ready for either since the Counci l -could decide it was not proper to accept a negotiated bid. AII.the companies preferred the ,negotiated bid, however, because of the type of security And market conditions NOTION PASSED unaa$Roi e1y Fuzxin,®_ 4bsent. Mayor Bechtel thanked staff arid consultants for their efforts. ITEM #2U, 'kEQUEST OF COJNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Counci lmember Fletcher, referred to -her memo of August 17, and said that a pedestrian/bicycle crossing at San Antonio Road over the railroad tracks was: discussed for many year;, btu'• cost estimates 3 7 3 4 8/22/83 for an elevated structure had risen to a point where it was no longer cost effective, and the project was abandoned by the Mountain View City Counci l . The tragic accident of last year revived the ;natter, a neighborhood group was formed, and the Mountain View City Council decided that an at -grade paved crossing with warning lights and crossing arms would be the best alterna- tive, but would require PUC approval. The PUC generally did not favor the at -grade crossings, and Southern Pac4fic apposed it. She suggested that the Palo Alto City Council- go on record in sup- port of Mountain View's application. - NOTION: Councilmember lmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to sup- port fountain- View's application before the PUC for an at -grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing in the vicinity of San Antonio Road; also that the pedestrian crossing be serviced by a signalized crossing at Central Expressway. Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked if Palo Alto would be obliged to help pay for the crossing if the application succeeded. Councilmember Fletcher said she had no intention of proposing that Nato Alto participate in funding. If Mountains View made such a request, the Palo Alto Council ' cou l d consider it in view of the fact that the crossing connected Palo =Alto to the busy Mountain View shopping centers. Vice Mayor Witherspoon said she believed Palo Alto had a ma i me ance agreement for the °veep -ass located, technically, in Mountain View. Councilmember Fletcher said the overpass was to the north of the suggested crossing. The area was completely within Mountain View's jurisdiction, and Would be maintained by then. Councilmember Eyerly•asked where on Alma Street the crossing would be, and if it would be in conjunction with the signal lights south of the overpass. Councilmember Fletcher said it would be more conveniently placed -- at the neighborhood and the present Mayfield Mall. Presently, there was a crossing on Central Expressway. Councilmember Eyerly asked if the railroad crossing woulle. but on Alma at the signal lights at the current entrance to Mayfield Mall from Alma He believed that if Palo Alto supported the -request, mention should be made -that a signal ,light would be required to cross Alma. People should not be encouraged to cross the railroad tracks and run across Alma without signal lights. Councilmember Fletcher was not sure of the exact location of the proposed crossing, but believed it would connect with the current signal light since that was where people crossed in the past. Councilmember Eyerly asked that the motion be amended accordingly. Mountain View would ag o have to face the danger of having people face a busy street without lights. CUUNCILMEMOEW KENLEL LEFT AT 10:4U .m. FULLOMI NG LAii60il&E WAS. AD )ED AT THE END Of THE MAIN NOTION: 'ALSO THAT THIS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING RE _SE° ICED BY -A SISNALIZED CROSS1N AI CENTER EXPRESSWAY.* 'MOTION PA SED unanimously., Fazzimo absent. t TEM #21 R ij ST OF MAYOR BECHTEL KE _ STATE BUlUi;ET Mayor Bechtel referred to the memo dated August 22, 1983 from the Leyislateve Subcoraanittee..concern1ng.the State .Budget. The Council was aware, from previous reports, that the City of Palo A1;to lost �1 .3 mi i lion in State reimbursements, or $400,000 more than the 3 13 5 8/22/83 1 "uai lout" aalouflt. The Budget Trailer Bi i l (Ab223) which passed the Legislature in July would hove put the deviator into effect beginning October 1, 1983, but that was suspended for. the first three months of the fiscal year, and from August 15 to September I5 the Legislature would meet to discuss the effects of their ac- tions on local governments and seek a permanent --jeans of financing for local government. The Legislative Sutat immittee recommended that because•rto Council meeting was slated before September 12, it would be .appropriate. to, send a letter to Assemblyman Byron Sher and the Senate-Assembl., Conference Committee. The Legislative Subcommittee also sought permission to monitor the State Legis- lature's activity and act on the Council's behalf until . September 11, 1983. Councilmember Cobb concurred, and suggested that copies of the letter be sent to the governor and the minority and majority party leadership of both Houses. Mayor Bechtel said it was an excellent suggestion. MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, that the Mayor be authorized to send a letter to Assemblyman Sher, to the six members of the Senate -Assembly Conference Committee, and copies to Governer and leadership of both parties, stating the following points: The City of Palo Alto urges adoption of a permanent fi- nancing mechanism for local governments, so that cities can plan their own budgets with certainty each year; urges assurance that the City's current level of state funding will not b. reduced; urges that the AB8 deflator be suspended; urges the immediate restoration of subventions. Further, the City believes the issue of a local option sales tax requires more thorough evaluation than can be accomplished by September 15. Further, permit the Sub- committee to monitor the State Legislature's activity on these issues and act on the Council's behalf as necessary between now and the next Council greeting on September 12. Councilmember Klein said that with regard to Assemblyman Cortesi's description of the sales tax, many questions were raised, and it would be imprudent to support the tax until the questions were answered. Councilmember Eyerly commended the work of the Subcommittee. The actions of the State Legislature were despicable with regard to city funding, and would lead to reverse bail -out. The Legislature did not face its monej. shortages, and he asked if the Mayor would have time to influence other cities and organizations in the coun- ty to raise more support. Mayor Bechtel believed Councilmember Eyerly's suggestion was ex- cellent and Commented that the League Of California Cities' bulle- tin asked local groups to participate in a march on Sacramento on August 31 and September 1. She was informed that San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale arid. Mountain View were al i active in a similar fashion to Palo Alto --San Jose had a full-time lobbyist working on 't its behalf, and Palo Alto stood to lose half a million dollars. Councilmember Levy supported the motion, and urged the support of fraternal cities. He was happy to delegate responsibility to the obcommittee, and commended its timely action. MOTION PASSED unanimously, tenael and Fazzino absent. AUJUURNM.NT Council adjourned at 1U:55 p.ni. ATILST: r�l ri /7 APPROVED: 3 7 3 6 8/22/83