HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-03 City Council Summary Minutes1
ITEM
Oral Communications
Consent Calendar
Referral
Action
Item #1, Benefit
(2nd Reading)
CITY
COUNCIL
M1NUTEs
CITY
ML ()
(RIO
Regular Meeting
Monday, October 3, 1983
Increases for Retired Employees
PAGE
3 8 3 4.
3 8 3 4
3 8 3 4
3 8 3 4
3 8 3 4
Item #2, Resolution re Preference Clause for 3 8 3 4
Electric Power
Item #3, Smoking Ordinance (2nd Reading)
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Item #4, Palo Alto Golf Course Service Yard and
Storage Pad Renovation Improvements
Item #5, Staff Request for Council Direction on
Special Study of Mixed Use Plan for Former Maximart
Site.
Item #6, Recommendation to Establish Gas Utility
System Improvement Reserve
Item #7, Closing the 1982-83 Budget and Summary of
the City's January 1, 1983 Position
Item #8 Request of Vice Mayor Witherspoon re
Report ors'. Downtown Architectural Charette
Item +#9, Cancellation of October 11, 1983 Meeting
3 8 3 4
3 8 3 4
3 8 3 5
3 8 3 5.
3 8 5 7
3 8 5 8
3 8 5 9
3 8 5 9.
Adjournment in Memory of Sue MacPherson 3 8 5 9
3 8 3 3
10/3/83
Regular Meeting
October 3, 1983
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at
7:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Eyerly, Fletcher, Fazzino,
Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Floyd Kessler, 4272 Los Palos Avenue, said that during the Council
meeting in August when the wall on ?nigo Way between the 'Ferman
grounds and Ynigo Way residence., was discussed, the Council
directed that an eight foot masonry wall be erected. Residents
attending an Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting two weeks
ago believed they were agreeing to'_a wall similar to the existing
wall erected by the Jewish Community Center (JCC). However, they
discovered the wall would only be three and one-half inches thick
rather than seven or eight inches thick. Director of Planning and
Community Environment Ken Schreiber said he would investigate and
find out what, if anything, could be done. He and other residents
believed the Council's direction was not adhered to. He hoped the
wall would be made similar in texture, color, height and thickness
to the masonry wall already in place.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Vice Mayor Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fazzino,
approval of Consent Calendar Items #1 through #3...
Councilmember Eyerly asked to be recorded as voting "no" on Item
#3, re Smoking Ordinance.
ITEM #.1z. BENEFIT INCREASES FOR RETIRED EMPLOYEES (2nd Reading)
ORDINANCE 3475 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
inTrmterrinTrawPALO ALTO AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE BOARD OF
ADMINIST1ATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM" (1st Reading 9/12/83, PASSED 9-0)
ITEM #2, RESOLUTION RE PREFERENCE CLAUSE FOR ELECTRIC POWER
RESOLUTION 6184 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
rir°' PALO ALTO. SUPPORTING EXISTING FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT LAWS GIVING PREFERENCE TO PUBLICLY OWNED
UTILITIES FOR REL:CE14SING OF HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS"
ITEM *3, SMOKING ORDINANCE (2nd Reading)
smommmommmmummimmummimmumemmommomm
ORDINANCE 3476 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
'i '�'c°TIT. up 'An ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.14 ` OF THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN ELEVATORS,
PUBLIC RESTROOMS, AND INDOOR SERVICE LINES AND
REGULATING SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE" (1st Reading
9/19/83, PASSED 8-1, Eyerly `nog')
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly voting °'no," on Item 13,
Smoking :ordinance,.
AGENDA CHANGES�;ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS,
/lice Mayor Witherspoon added Item 18, Report on Architectural
Cbarette presentation.
3 8 3.4
10/3/83
ITEM #4 r'ALO ALTO GOLF COURSE SERVICE YARD AND STORAGE PAD
RTRITATTUFTT-VROYEt ontinued from 9 mob/ MR:539:3)
MOTION: Vice Mayor Witherspoon moved, .econded by Renzel, to
approve the staff recommendation to:
1. Reject the apparent low bid by O'Grady Paving Co.;
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Interstate
Grading and Paving in the amount of $113,752 including base
bid work and alternates one through four; and
3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract of up
to $6,248.
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Interstate Grading and Paving
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM g5 , S ; AFE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION ON SPECIAL STUDY OF
,°'F` 6' o n r o u e r o m ,
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said a potential Comprehen-
sive Plan change for the Maximart parcel was pending before the
Planning Commission, and was continued from May until February,
1984, in alder to give time for property owners to develop poten-
tial plans for a :nixed use project on the site. It was one of the
largest sites likely to be redeveloped in the future and was the
subject of past CoL:nc i l assignments for staff study. There were
two aspects of the potential for a nixed use project on the site
on which staff needed Council direction, Discussions with the
potential developers of the site indicated an interest in a "de-
velopment agreement," which was a planning vehicle Palo Alto had
not yet used. By the use of such an agreement, the developer was
generally willing to make concessions the City .would not normally
get, and the City in turn had to make concessions back to the de-
veloper. In the subject case, the concession was an agreement to
a long time schedule for completion of the project and assurances
that once the plan was approved by the City, it would stay in
place that time frame. One element of the proposed devel-
opment agreement would be a contract between the City and the de-
veloper that would oblige future City Councils to uphold the plan
that :night be approved. The concept was new and different for
Palo Alto, but development agreements were becoming popular in the
State. Staff reviewed the concept in June at the request of the
Planning Commission, but did not recommend that it be pursued
because there were certain philosophical and legal question marks.
Because it was an important consideration to the proposed devel-
oper, staff could not proceed without some direction from the
Council. If there was interest in actively pursuing the develop-
ment agreement, staff would like to return to Council with a
report on development agreements in order to ciari`fy the laws,
potential advantages, and pitfalls such an agreement might ' repre-.
sent for the City._ That should be done and a Council policy es-
tablished on- the general idea of• development agreements before
seriously pursuing ene_wi_th_an ,i-ndlyldual parts,
i ,agarding the level of staff involvement with the -early planning
process for a site, Pr. Freeland said staff usually encouraged
consultation with the developers before the application was final-
ized, which normally took a few meetings. It appeared that
because of the -size and importance of:: the site, it might be nec-
essary to devote several. weeks of'staff -time , prior to= having an
application, if the City.was to --take an active role in working
with .the applicant. Normally, Staff would not put in that much
time until - after `a project was filed, the fee was paid, and the
City was formally processing the application, Staff felt uneasy
with a _-major" commitment :of staff time without n expression of
interest and "go ahead" from the City. Council. .S-taff hoped that
if they were asked to spend time on.the matter, it was because
there was serious interest in proceeding along the- lines of a
3 8 3 5
10/3/83
mixed use project with substantial early City staff involvement.
The developer would always have the right to make any proposal in
the future without that early involvement.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Anthony Bennetti said the developer
submitted a letter, a copy of which was in the packet, and re-
quested that Council endorse a specific proposal, which was not
before the Council. He cautioned against any statement to endorse
or not endorse the project. The proposal would be made to the
Planning Commission at the proper time.
Mayor Bechtel clarified Council would discuss only the general
concept of mixed use, and it would be inappropriate to address a
project being contemplated, but not directly before the Council.
Mr. Bennetti said a Council assignment was pending to do a general
study in the area, and staff requested direction about whether to
change that focus to a more specific study of a mixed use develop-
ment on the parcel.
Councilmember Fazzino clarified that even if Council moved ahead
to study the mixed use concept, no commitment was made.
Mr. Bennetti said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked who made the referral to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Freeland said each year the public was provided an opportunity
to propose Comprehensive Play, amendments, and Herb Leman proposed
the amendment on behalf of a neighborhood association.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked if the thrust was whether the zoning
was too intense,
Mr. Freeland said the proposal was to change the zoning from the
service commercial designation to a multiple family designation.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked about the project being_ considered.
Mr. Freeland said the property owners went to the Planning Commis-
sion last May when it was scheduled to hear the Comprehensive Plan
amendments,_and suggested a mixed use project as an alternative to
the multiple family designation, and requested time to develop the
concept. The Commission hoped that before it acted on the Compre-
hensive Plan amendment, it might see the alternative to straight
multiple family.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon _clarified that present zoning allowed
multi -family plus commercial and a mixed use project.
Mr. Freeland said that wes correct dependent upon the site area.
The Maxmart parcel itself was about 12.5 acres and zoned service
commercial. • A sliver of land, zoned single family, was presently
the railroad spur adjacent to the site, and that railroad spur
night be considered part of the project if it were merged with the
main lot. In that case, it was not certain whether the mixed use
project be►ng considered would be consistent with the Comprehen-
sive Plan in terms of the single family strip.
Vice Mayor. Witherspoon asked what could be accompli shed with a
development contract that: could not be accomplished with a phased
PC.
Mr. Freeland responded =there might be little the City would accom-
plish that it could not accomplished through a PC, but the major
benefit to the developer was the assurance the plan could be fn
effect for a long time. The developer would voluntarily offer the
3 8 3 6
10/3/83
City a much less intense developthopt thdn was possible. under
present zoning -..and would offer housing that was not guaranteed
under present zoning.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon clarified the time period could be
stretched for development rights which could not be done under the
present PC ordinance.
Mr. Freeland said under the planned community zone process the
City laid out the timetable, and if the developer did note adhere,
the planned community zone was invalidated, and new hearings had
to be initiated to change it. If it was contemplated that a proj-
ect would take eight or nine years to complete; and if in four or
five years another Council decided it did not want the additional
part of the development, under present rules, it could change the
Comprehensive Plan and negate the completion of the project.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked whether that was true under a PC.
Mr. Freeland said yes. Although never done, it was theoretically
possible to change the zone at the City's initiation. The idea
was to have a Guarantee that once a pan was put in place, it
would stay in place and be completed without being changed by the
City.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked for clarification about what staff
would do for the proposed project that would not ordinarily be
done.
Mr, Freeland said it was a matter of doing in advance work that
staff normally commenced after a project was filed. When an ape
plication for a PC zone was filed, staff normally got involved
witli consultant studies on traffic, reviewing plans, and in some
cases citizen participation. The idea was for staff to do those
things in the preapplication stage so that when application was
.made, the proposed plan already had a lot of give and take between
City staff and the applicant. The work was much the same, and the
question was whether it took place before or after an application
was tiled.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked why Council was required to make a
policy about whether staff got involved before or after an appli-
cation -was filed.
Mr. Freeland said time would be taken away from other special
studies and projects, and normally staff would not get as involved
as it appeared right be the case in the preapplication stage. He
clarified staff wanted to touch base with the Council to see
whether that was appropriate.
Mayor Bechtel clarified the Planning Commission took up the par-
ticular parcel last spring at the request of a member of the pub-
lic, and in February, 1981, Council asked that there be another
look at the particular area with the possibility of a Comprehen,,
sive Plan change.
Director of Planning aril Co; munity Environment Ken. Schreiber said
yes, and that Cot:nci l assignment was preceded by a Planning Com-
mission discussion of the site in 1980.
Councilmer+ber Eyerly said he received a couple of calls from mem-
bers of the --public on what action the Council -would take. Staff
was requesting a straw vote about whether Council was interested
inea mixed use development, and whether staff .should_ take o-n,addi-
tional:work without some direction from the Council, and. in..view
of the item before the Planning Commission in terms of_ the zoning
to multiple family. 1f Council expressed an interest, in the mixed
use development and staff did the study, the zone change request
would still be before the Planning Commission in the spring, and
there might be a change in the t Council at the first of the year.
He asked what that might do in terms of staff work
3 8 3 7
10/3/83
Mr. Freeland respondedi staff never intended to imply Council ac-
tion that evening would in any way set a policy for when an item
carne back. Staff requested direction about whether to spend time
on the development agreement concept, to touch base with the Coun-
cil before doing the extensive work it would take to develop that
mechanism, and whether to engage considerable staff effort in a
preapplication phase. Staff did not intend for Council to set a
direction that would prejudice whether to accept the mixed use
concept.
Councilmember Eyerly said if Council directed staff to proceed
with a study of the development agreement concept, the Planning
Commission would not look at rezoning the property to some other
designation while the matter was being studied unless there was a
change in direction of policy or some straw vote from the Coun-
cil.
Mr. Freeland said the matter was technically continued at the
Planning Commission, and the hearing would be reopened in
February. Staff did not intend to do anything other than work
with the aoplicant on the mixed use project between now and when
it went back to the Commission, but the Comprehensive Plan amend-
ment was scheduled before the Commission in February.
Councilmember Eyerly clarif od it was up to the developer to ana-
lyze what was said that evening, and determine whether come late
spring or mid summer there would be support for a mixed use plan,
or whether the Planning Commission might recommend rezoning the
property.
Mr. Freeland said that was correct. Staff was asking Council to
walk the fine line on .the matter. It was clear Council should not
instruct the Commission as to the land use issues involved, (Ifs
take a position on a onixed use project or commit the Council in
any way. On the other hand, staff asked that it not be directed
to study an issue for which there was not a high level of inter-
est.
Councilmember Levy said the map showed a parcel on the other side
of Park Boulevard and one which went down to El Camino, but the
project area he saw did not include the space on the other side of
Park Boulevard which staff indicated Council should also con-
sider.
Executive Assistant Lynnie Melena said the part on the other side
of Park Boulevard should not be considered that evening. The tall
was not part of the area WSJ Properties was interested in includ-
ing in its proposal, but the raj l raod right-of-way where it ran
adjacent to the main part of the Maximart parcel was included.
Councilmember Levy asked how the project would proceed if Council
wa'sanot holding a meeting -that evening.
Mr. Freeland said it would be up to the property owners\to decide
whether to apply for a planned community zone or other project,
but staff would not proceed on its own in the further development
of the concept without Council direction.
Councilmember Levy asked if Council 'net at the request of property
owners. and staff equally, or whether one was more interested than
the other-.
Mr. Freeland said property owners were anxious to learn the inter-
est level of the Council, but staff requested the meeting.
Councilmember Renzel said when the proposal first arose in the
spring, staffmade a recommendation to the Planning Commission to
rezone and redesignate the parcel to multi -family. Presumably no
additional staff work was needed to make a land use recommendation
3 8 3 8
10/3/83
for the site, but if, on the other hand. Council instructed staff
to pursue the discussion, the Planning Commission should taxe that
as a cue and disregard their earlier consideration. She hoped the
Planning Commission would still feel able to consider the land use
in an open way even if staff put .in a lot of hours on a specific
proposal that conflicted with the original staff report.
Mr. Freeland said whatever the instructions, he hoped Council was
clear in the signals it was trying to send.
Councilmember Renzel said on page 2 of the August 11 staff'report,
the second recommendation was to have the assignment replace the
previous assignment, which was to consider the zoning on the site.
That clearly substituted one recommendation for another.
Mr. Freeland agreed it was a substitution of assignments.
Councilmember Renzel referred to earlier staff reports where there
was discussion of a site -specific plan. Because the developer had
detailed ideas, staff rejected the concept, but she believed it
offered the same kind of protection --not only to the developer,
but also to the City in terms of what would go on a particular
site.
Mr. Freeland pointed out that in the original staff report to the
Planning Commission, the multi -family designation was not recom-
mended, hit rather that time be allowed to consider the mixed use
project. That was one change in the historical record.
Councilmember Renzel said perhaps she misread the staff report on
the consideration only, but prior to the time the proposal was
received, it seemed there was a recommendation to rezone it to
multi -family.
Mr. Schreiber believed the history of the site was important. In
1979, the Council asked the Planning Commission to review both
developed and vacant commercial and other non-residential sites as
potential housing sites. In 1980, in response, -staff recommended
the land use designation. of the site he changed te_ multiple family
residential. There was a public hearing before the Planning Com-
mission, and after hearing two hours of negative testimony, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously- that no change be recom-
mended. Those items on the land use map where the Commission diced
not recommend any changes did not go forward to the Council. At
that point the item ceased to be considered. In 1981, there was a
.new Council referral, and the recommendation referred to \by Coun-
cilmember Renzel was perhaps the 1980 staff recommendation for
multiple family residential.
Councilmember Renzel agreed, and asked what the status of the
property would be if the Council gave a recommendation that eve-
ning to pursue discussions with the developer, no zoning or speci-
fic plan took place and ultimately no application was forthcoming.
She asked if someone could come in with a 1,000,000 square foot
project and do what they wanted.
Mr. Freeland said it was possible.
Councilmember Cobb remarked the multi -family designation was a
staff recommendation, but now the recommendation was to consider
the possibility of mixed use. He asked if staff was interested in
looking at one or the other in isolation., or whether they would
entertain an assignment that suggested trading one off against the
other --according to which was best for the community.
Mr. Freeland said staff was not in the position to initiate the
mixed use concept --they could set down zoning regulations , and
specific pans prescribing mixed use development, but could not
make one -happen Such a development needed active support and
participation from the property owners, and for, that -reason staff
did not try;,to impose a particular development on the property.
3 8 3 9
10/3/83
Councilrnember Cobb asked what staff's reaction would be to any
particular housing development plan and the eventual impact on the
neighborhoods.
Mr. Schreiber responded if the mixed use development was pursued,
active,_ participation by the property owners would be required and
important because it would not he inexpensive in terms of archi-
tectural fees, traffic analysis, etc..
Boyd Smith, 301 Coleridge,Avenue, represented the potential appli-
cants for the project. He said the developers did not initiate
the meeting. The principals of the Maximart property were all
long time Palo Alto residents, and for many years, all were ac-
tively involved in the civic, religious, athletic, educational
and business life of the community, and their children attended
Palo Alto schools. They cared about the City as manifested by
their commitment of time and money. They first applied for the
project when it was rezoned from heavy commercial to its present
use in 1978 and again in 1980; each time told the Council and
Planning Commission of their -intent to h_.ve a mixed use devel op-
merit.on the site, and believed their intent was clearly understood
and at least approved in concept. Their development background in
the City was extensive, basically in commercial office, R&D, and
housing. In commercial office and R&D, they were know, in the
City for low density, two-story, and fully landscaped, and -their
developments were all the highest quality. They had several
award -winning projects, one of which won a national award. They
developed Webster Woods, Birch Court, Lytton Gardens, Crane Place
and developments before the San Mateo and Santa Clara Housing
Authorities, and the Pierce -Mitchell houses at Stanford. On the
largely subsidized housing projects, they acted in different roles
sueh as contractors, active proponents before government bodies,
consultants, financial backers and supporters, and developers.
Approximately five years ago, they appeared before the Council on
the development of Page Mi 1 l Place, and had the choice of contri-
buting a fairly modest in lieu housing payment to the City or
building 12 units of housing. They chose the latter, as an exper-
iment, and learned that the 12 units cost over half a million
dollars. Council asked them to rent or lease some • of the units at
below market rates, and they intended to rent the apartments. at
the highest price the mark"et would bear because it was an experi-
ment. However, they voluntarily rented over one- third of the
units at substantially below market rates since the development_
opened. Now they offered what they considered one of the first
substantial privately subsidized rental housing developments in
the Bay Area, a nd perhaps Californi-ea The proposed mixed housing
R&D development would remove the unsightly decrepit 270,000 square
feet of warehousing development, and the creative development
would substantially upgrade the appearance of the neighborhood and
neighborhood property values with a. low density landscaped devel-
opment that would not in any way aggravate the housing/jobs imbal-
ance.
Mr. Bennetti recommended the Council not express an opinion on the
project since they might not wish -to go into the specifics pro-
posed •by the _le5f elopert Staff asked_ if time should.. be spent w4.th
the developer to develop the proposal.
Mayor Bechtel asked the developers to give oolya general informse
ti€►n because an application had to be received before the environ-
mental assessment and the planning process took place.
Richard Jacobsen, 761 Southampton Drive, one of the potential ap-
plicants, appreciated the opportunity to appear and participate in
the democratic process.. The developers were willing to proceed on
a PC development plan to avoid a detailed development agreement,
but believed their relationship with the City and their long-
standing reputation would enable negotiation of a good faith
agreement to provide a workable schedule. The lease terminat+ons
were planned for 1989, and if the Council favored a mixed use :con-
cept, they requested that staff be directed to spend time on it.
3-8 4 0
10/3/83
If Council did not favor a mixed use concept, it should be voted
against so that no one's time was wasted. Staff time r -,as recently
spent developing an unworkable plan for the City, and the devel-
oper requested consideration of the feasibility of a low density,
mixed use development on a commercial site so that private enter-
prise could produce the first privately funded, affordable City
rental housing in the last ten years. During the 1980 Planning
Commission. and,Council hearings, they were specifically encouraged
to pursue innovative, mixed use housing. One Planning Commission-
er stated the old Maximart building and the area closer to Park
Boulevard offered the City an opportunity for more affordable
housing, and referred those interested in pursuing housing possi-
bilities to that site. It was believed if the site was left in a.
CS use, he would come forward with an innovative housing/commer-
cial development. Another Planning Commissioner was concerned
about the affordability of the housing that would go into the area
if it were zoned residential, which.rnight be a reason the Housing
Corporation did not make a recommendation on the site. It was
hoped that affordability might be reached by keeping the area Ser-
vice Commercial and allowing housing in that zone, . that he would
work with the City to provide some figures on the relative value
of the purely residential versus a combination, and that with his
background, the City could look forward. to housing in that area
without causing undue hardships to the present residents.
Mr. Jacobsen continued, saying that in 1980, the property and sur-
rounding land in the area was considered for multiple family use,
but after much discussion, the City decided to retain the site as
Service Commercial. A major reason for that decision was the
potential for mixed use development that would enable private en-
terprise to produce affordable housing, a hitherto unobtainable
goal. Another reason was in keeping with Policy #6 of the City's
Comprehensive Plan to support the mixing of residential uses in
commercial and industrial areas, to have the least impact on resi-
dential areas, reduce commute costs, provide more affordable hous-
ing and improve the urban design quality of the City's commercial
districts. The proposed project met all those criteria, and the
Comprehensive Plan specifically stated the City should pursue in-
centives leading to the development of affordable housing in
industrial and commercial areas. The proposed low density, mixed
use project was a -direct outgrowth of the encouragement stated in
the 1980 hearings and the Comprehensive Plan incentives --an inno-
vative, first of its kind project; in direct compliance with the
housing policies. They intended to study the proposed mixed use
project with City .staff to be in harmony with the Housing Policy
#7 to encourage the development of housing that low, moderate and
middle income households, especially those with `children, could
afford. The commercial side of the project would provide a $5 to
$6 million subsidy for the residential site, making -possible for
the first time in ten years affordable residential housing on a
private site in the City. Policy #8 was to maintain at least the
present number of multiple -family rental units, and the proposed
project would add a significant number of rental units. He spoke,
not of government subsidized housing but of affordable rental
holrsing produced by private enterprise-. The transportation objec-
tives were to reduce traffic, and they asked for only 160,000
square feet --not the one million square feet alloWablei nor the
272,000 square feet of -the -site, which would generate substantial-
ly less traffic than its potential and about the same as the cur-
rently existing traffic generated by the site. To provide incen-
ti-ves and encouragement for private enterprise to provide afford-.
able rental :housing in commercial and industrial areas,:And then
consider changing the zoning then such projects appeared,. was con-_
trary to the meaning and intent .of the Comprehensive Plan, and
amounted to pulling the rug out from- under the landowners after
leading them down the primrose path.e By such action, government
subsidized housing.of lower quality and higher density was the
only remaining alternative. He believed the piece of property
provided unusual opportunities --it was owned by parties who were
sensitive to the City's longetermagoalsi and objectives and who-
were willing and qualified to undertake .innovative solutions to a
3 8 4 1
10/3/83--
difficult protlem. He asked the Council to approve the further
study of the concepts presented and permit the developer, in con-
junction with the City staff and interested neighbors, to pursue
the directions set forth in the 1980 hearings and the programs and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. They spent a substantial
amount of time and money to bring the project to its present
point, and were willing to invest more resources to pursue the
possibilities of the innovative concept, with a vote of confidence
from the City Council indicating the City's desire for the devel-
opers, in good faith, to seei; a mixed use solution together with
City staff. If the Council was not interested in the mixed use
concept, he encouraged voting against it.
Councilmember Cobb asked Mr. Jacobsen if he understood correctly
that the current commercial use of the site was well below its
full employment potential.
Mr. Jacobsen said yes. Presently, the site had 272,000 square
feet consisting of some office, sales, warehousing, and manufac-
turing. The 272,000 square feet could be torn down and a million
square feet built.
Councilmember Cobb said Mr. Jacobsen mentioned working with the
neighbors, and if Council elected to have staff look into the mat-
ter, he asked if the developer would work closely with the affect-
ed neighborhood.
Mr. Jacobsen emphatically agreed.. Meetings with some of the
neighbors were held, and they were aware the project would have to
benefit the entire neighborhood.
Councilmember Cobb assumed that in looking at alternatives for the
site, they were forced to consider the economics of an all -housing
development. He asked Mr. Jacobsen if he could provide figures to
show how density and cost right relate on the site, both for mar-
ket price and affordable housing, and also how many units per acre
for all types of mousing were economically feasible.
Mr. .Jacobsen said he could not answer that off the top of his
head, but believed housing could be developed that was so expen-
sive that people who could afford it, would not want to live
there. On the other hand, high density, more affordable housing
was not in the best interests of the neighborhood, and from con-
versations with the neighbors, he learned they feared it would
produce a negative traffic impact and would not upgrade the area.
The commercial side of the development was exciting because it.
would provide an economic nucleus to upgrade the area.
Councilmember Cobb said he heard 40 units per acre were necessary
to provide affordable housing, whether at current 'ow income
levels or making it even more affordable. He asked for some indi-
cation of the densities being considered.
Mr. Jacobsen said he could not give an informed opinion, but even
at those levels, the definition of affordable was laughable over
much of the United States --let alone Palo Alto. It was a tough
question, and was discussed at length in 1980 with the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation (PAHC), who did not make a recommendation on
the site. Members of the PAHC were genuinely concerned about zon-
ing the property eesidential because they were not sure how to ob-
tain affordable housing. Me believed the project was an excellent
vehicle not yet tried, and was refreshing compared with the side-
walk -to -sidewalk office buildings being built downtown. They had
no housing element --they could make an in lieu payment, but did
not have sufficient parking. His project would provide on -site
parking, housing, 40 percent landscaping, and two-story build-
ings.
3 8 4.-2
10/3/83
Councilmember Eyerly referred to the 117 unit, 10 year rental con-
dominium project with the developer presumably selling them after
that time. it was not spelled out exactly, but he believed the
length of time and the eventual disposal of the units would he a
matter for discussion, either in a PC or development agreement
with City staff.
Mr., Jacobsen said they did not require the development agreement
but were happy to pursue it on a PC. They were willing, as part
of working out the details, to discuss what would happen at the
end of that time to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Philip LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, said the public would bene-
fit greatly if the Maximart site were rezoned multiple family for
all residential development. It provided a rare opportunity for
net gain in housing. A group in the East Bay was working to
re-establish natural stream beds for channelized creeks, some of
which were underground. Matadero Creek crossed the Maximart prop-
erty making it an ideal site for imaginative planning. With con-
touring and planting, the creek could be the focal point for an
attractive housing complex with its own recreational facilities.
The development was so close to the industrial park some residents
could walk to work, and the traffic generated would be less con-
centrated than with a development containing commercial uses, and
less _intrusive on adjoining neighborhoods. He asked the Council
to consider that the cost of land was strongly influenced by zon-
ing, and make every effort to obtain a beautiful residential com-
munity with a permanent and significant below market component for
South Palo Alto.
Cole Richmond, 250 Chestnut Avenue, said he lived on Chestnut for
32 years and watched it rise and fall. When he was on the Mayor's
council for neighborhood upgrading, they looked at many .areas--,
including the one being discussed. -The Maximart site was ugly; he
opposed the development on the corner of California and Park, and
was forced to look at the Maximart site for 33 years. The City
put up a power station on Park, but the R-1 site was a junkyard.
There was a garage on the corner of Olive and Park. In 1978, when
Counci-lmember Cobb was on the Planning Commission, there was a map
crosshatched all the way up to El Camino, and at that time he
believed the little commercial shops should not be run out of
*own. The buildings across Park Boulevard were not in the Compre-
hensive Plan, and a gentleman at the previous meeting was willing
to spend money to upgrade the area that was flooded the previous
winter. As chairman of a homeowners association, he did not want
to see a HUD project with 40 units per acre. if the government
was involved, there would be a lot of paperwork and shoddy build-
ings, and he referred to the Terman site, He did not always come
to fight projects, and was not an architect, but he and many
senior citizens in t i.e area would appreciate the area being up-
graded. The Council would have to do something about the property
before 1999, and the Maximart site was the last piece of land
where the Council had an opportunity to do something; He asked
for a development that would p3ease.the Homeowners Association and
the people to the south of it. The development on California and
Park could not be torn down; the previous week citizens spoke for
two and a half .hou.rs on traffic barriers, and he did not want to
have to fight for barriers. The Homeowners Association would try
to work with the Council, but the Architectural Review Board held
meetings at 10:00 a.rn. when people were at -work. The site was
ugly and becoming a junkyard, and if the area was cleaned up,
people would take more pride in their neighborhood.
Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, said she respected the work
and contributions to `the City of Messrs. Smith and Jacobsen, and
her comments were not - i ntended personally. She feared that the ee
plan being considered replaced the .Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Review process, -and since a Comprehensive Plan Land Use map change
was agendized and noticed to the public for the Planning
3 8 4-3
10/3/83
Commission meeting of May 18, she asked why a particular develop-
ment was being discussed that evening -as opposed to the Planning
Commission recommendation re the Land Use change. The Council was
discussing a study with crucial impact on the Comprehensive Plan
without including the Planning Commission's actions of May 18 or
their discussions. The item on the agenda was not duly noticed to
the public as iucluding Council deliberations of the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use process. To straighten out the process,, she urged
the Council to direct the Planning -Commission to make their Land
'Jse recommendation to the Council immediately, and not wait until
February. She urged the Council to make their own Comprehensive
Plan Land Use decision as soon as possible. A generel study of
mixed use development could then be ordered if Council deemed nec-
essary, but in the interim, to protect the Maximart property from
a development that could prejudice the Council's Comprehensive
Plan review of a land use change on its merits, she urged an imme-
diate moratorium on development of the site. It would be unfair
to encourage the developer to proceed through the.application pro-
cess only to receive a denial in the end, but it would also be
unfair to the public to allow a specific application to reach an
advanced stage and severely bias a Council decision on land use.
She did not believe the mixed use study was necessary --the Compre-
hensive Plan priorities established that Palo Alto should slow
down its employment growth, but she did not see that happening.
The City already reached the 1990 projections for employment, and
although the project would reduce the square footage, it would
increase the number of workers, which meant an increased number of
cars. The traffic rush hour situation would be worsened and that
was always worse than residential traffic. The on ramp to Oregon
ror Park Boulevard was always backed up, and unlike the James
Road mixed use-- project, the decision on Maxirnart allowed a
straight shot at all residential zoning. The Coircil needed to
look at the option on its own merits. Even a etraw vote that eve-
ning :would be very prejudicial before the Council had the opportu-
nity to consider all options. She advocated low income housing,
but believed an all residential development of the site., even mar-
ket rate housing, would provide more net gain to the City than BMR
units. It would reduce jobs and pressure on the existing housing
market and was preferable to a development that evicted people
from their homes in 10 years. People whose income did not grow
could never go up in their housing, but deserved to be housed with
the_ same dignity and permanence as anyone else --not as second-
class citizens. An eventual study _should be ordered in the con-
text of the Comprehensive plan review for mixed -use in genera' --
not for a particular plan. The whole range of land use options
for the site should be considered, compared with mixed use, and
especially a comparison to assess the long-term benefits of
straight residential to the City including 8MR units.
Millie Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, questioned whether a mixed use
or an all -housing project would be better for the City. An all -
housing project would address the housing shortage, which affected
everyone --children who had to leave schools and friends to move: to
a cheaper area; students and working people with difficulties in
finding housing, and senior citizens faced with long waiting lists
for reasonable housing projects One hundred residents in the
Charleston/Meadow area were surveyed to determine the type of
project preferred on the James Road/El Camino Way site. Most
residents opted for an all-housifg,project and showed little
interest for the :inclusion of offices An article in a newsletter
circulated in their area said the purpose of providing more hous-
ing in Palo . Alto was to improve the jobs/housing imbalance.
Creating more jobs in the process of building housing did not lead
to a gain, only to more traffic, pollution and a generally infer-
ior quality of life. Several. commented on the article, saying
housing was needed before industry. The California Avenue „8psi-'
ness District was already at the point of overbuilding commercial
sites, and any additional building in the area should be a low
priority. Commercial developments created .too much traffic-- Palo
Alto needed housing --not jobs. She did not want Palo Alto to
3 8 4 4
10/3/83
become another San Jose, and believed the all -housing project, as
originaliy recommended by start, would provide a greater net hous-
ing advantage to the City, and was what most residents preferred.
Proximity to the railroad did not seem to be a problem to many
people who owned homes immediately adjoining railway,, and some
developers stated it was not economically feasible to build all -
housing projects that could have affordable units. Before the
Council accepted that argument and approved the concept of a mixed
use project that offered a negative or very small net contribution
to the jobs/housing imbalance, she urged the Planning Commission
and Council to consult independent expertise on the matter. Data
collected about the economics of building all -housing projects
should appear in City reports and in the newspaper for the public
to study, make comments and ask questions. In an area with such
extreme housing shortages., it was not good enough to have a proj-
ect that did not aggravate the jobs/housing imbalance --the City
should approve projects that offered the greatest possible net
benefit to the jobs/housing imbalance.
Bob Moss, 40)0 Orme, addressed the development agreement and the
staff assignment. He asked that Council not consider a large de-
velopment for the site, and although the concept was interesting,
he believed the City should start with something smaller. Mr.
Jacobsen had indicated a willingness to ge for a PC zone, which he
believed should be done. Staff already had a number of assign-
ments pending for years, and it was inappropriate to replace those
with the one proposed. He asked what assignments would be drop,'d
to make room for it, and how long other assignments would be
delayed. The Planning, Commission was scheduled to review the
entire Maximart site early in 1984 --the area was an eyesore and
inappropriately used for decades --and waiting another few months
would not hurt. The Planning Commission might decide to recommend
partial zoning for a housing development and Mr. Bennett' said it
was inappropriate for Council to consider the particular proposal
and the Planning Commission was the proper body. During the Com-
prehensive Plan Review of 1976, the former Director of Planning
and Community Development said that assessment of an RM-2 density
. in a CS or CN zone would be as valuable to a developer as a pure
commercial development because it represented 20 units per acre.
Since then, the vacancy rate in Palo Alto never exceeded two per-
cent while the office vacancy rate had not dropped below 16 per-
cent, and hovered close to 20 percent. Housing was still more
valuable than office space, and he believed a pure housing zone
was viable for the site --not RM-2. He asked the Council to defer
both the housing development consideration and, reassignment of
staff time for the Maximart site for the Planning Commission stud-
ies during the Comprehensive Plan review. -
Maria Spalletta, 295 Ohre Avenue, Menlo Park, said the area. was
presently uninhabitable, And she favored some of the presentations
made by Mr. Jacobsen. It would bring housing, beautification and
jobs, but there would be traffic whether the area was zoned -resi-
dential or commercial Some of the people in the neighborhood
might find work by crossing the road to the offices, and future
residents could look for work closer 'to their home, which might
reduce traffic, She lived in the neighborhood for 17 .years-, and
mice, noise, traffic, and pollution made the neighborhood degrad-
ing to the inhabitants. She owned four houses in the area, two of
which she tried unsuccessfully to rent,_ No decent tenants could
be' found --the area weas too dirty, and something by way of upgrad-
ing needed to lee done quickly.
David Harris, 4s.= Margarita Avenue, said although the project of-
fered benefits, e was concerned about -the traffic impact. The
Comprehensive Plan provided for an underpass under- Alma for
bicycle traffic from Lorna Verde, and he asked if the project could
make t -he_ bicycle underpass come into _existence sooner, :Everyone
could then travel other than by car.
3 8 4 5
10/3/83
A lan Brown, 2747 Park Boulevard, was 3 local contractor since the
late 1950s, and watched the area stagnate while other areas
improved. It remained dorman*•in terms of activity, and remained
an eyesore largely because of the Maximart parcel. If that site
were forced to be all -housing with: its resultant economic prob-
lems, it would remain in the same =t_ate. The project offered an
opportunity to obtain good housing, beautiful office and R&D
space, and a sprucing up of the area that was long awaited. Under
a proposed new law, all -housing zones would have to allow child-
ren, and the area --bounded by El Camino Real, the railroad tracks,
and Page Mill Road --was undesirable for families. The opportunity
to upgrade an important and neglected area of Palo Alto should be
seized, and he asked the Council to urge the developers to move
ahead with their plan.
David Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, resided in the neighborhood, and
those who followed the Comprehensive Plan changes knew that R-1
zoning was one of the first steps to reclaim an: area as residen-
tial. The area was previously zoned for manufacturing, and pre-
vious Councils already moved to reclaim it as a residential area.
Residents on Olive and Chestnut would be in a much better situa-
tion if the site was zoned all residential. He cited the City of
Emeryville as a good example of mixed zoning --housing and factor-
ies mixed together, He was sure any development would require
Architectural Review Board approval, and it would not be an eye-
sore to have an -all -residential development. A certain number of
units were allowed in each type of zone, and no matter how dense,
traffic generated by residential uses could never approach the
amount generated by the same amount of industrial use --residential
zoning would have a smaller impact on the neighborhood. The Coun-
cil was presented with a choice, not between bad cr worse, but
rather between good and bad, and he hoped the decision would be a
good one for the neighborhood.
Counciimember Fletcher said when the Planning Commission heard the
staff recommendation to rezone the Maximart site to multi -family,
the neighborhood as not in favor, and she asked Mr. Jeong to
comment.
Mr. Jeong said his testimony was contained in the Planning Commis-
sion minutes of 1980. His only concern tnat evening was den-
sity --five sites were discussed--Maximart was the .largest, then
the Southern. Pacific area, and three other sites. If all were
developed to their maximum density, it could mean 1,000 people in
that one small neighborhood,
•
Den Pojanamat, 3295 E1 Camino Real, owner of the Captain's Cabin
Seafood restaurant, strongly recommended a commercial zone in
front of E1 Camino Real and housing behind. Housing alone was not
desirable, and he urged Council consider»tion before making a
decision.
Jack Wheatley, 2240 Cowper, said the flooding of Matadero Creek
presented a problem in the neighborhood that should be considered
in a ; housing site. The proposed commercial use could, better af-
ford to have certain barricades, etc. to contain the Creek than an
affordable housing development. It would cost money, and the de-
veloper proposed to pursue a program for BMR units, and the intent
of a mixed use was to try and lease all units at sornewhat',below
market rates, which was the question to be addressed by the study.
He built housing units in the area for 30 years, building as many
as 1,000 units per year, and many of the suggestions made that
evening were economically unfeasible. The Palo Alto Housing Cor-
poration should comment and compare feasibility with its own proj-
ect on Birch which he was presently building. He did not believe
that existing vacancies for office space in Palo Alto ran from 16
to 18 percent, and the -aim was not to build offices to compete
with the downtown, but rather R&D space similar to the L -M dis-
tricts of the Stanford Industrial Patk. Traffic was an . important
consideration addressed by almost every speaker, and in order to
3 8 4 6
10/3/83
1
1
1
make a decision as to the conceptual study, information was needed
from the City traffic engineer or a complete traffic study was
necessary to indicate that traffic would not be increased at those
major intersections at peak hours. They would work with the City
in any way the study indicated as long as it was economically
feasible. He asked the Council to carefully consider the
proposal. The site was a commercial site before most of the sites
in Palo Alto existed, and contrary to what was said, he did not
believe the housing ratio would be further imbalanced. The
proposal offered an opportunity for housing in the City, and the
question was whether the City wanted it. Housing would not be
realized by taking something economically unfeasible and trying to
make it work. The property owners in that case could only write
the site off.
Peter Lockhart, 405 Olive Avenue, said his house was directly
under the R-1 zone and he would be a close neighbor of the
project. Because of rezoning, the area- was now in a twilight zone
holding pattern. He wanted a change to upgrade the area and give -
it an identity. . A clear zoning was needed --the Maximart property
was an eyesore, and the area was an iaiand that needed a community
focus. He initially raised objections with Jack Wheatley, but
lengthy discussions with him made him realize a generalized
concept would not furnish specific resolutions. Working with him
on specifics, the problems could be solved and, as a resident, he
believed there were many problems, and it was uncomforteble to
live there. The area should be given a positive, controlled
identify, not generalized theories and concepts over which the
residents had no control. He believed he could find affordable
housing if he left the area, but his family preferred their
bunyaiow in Palo Alto. There was no affordable housing in a
desirable area, and residents should work towards resolutions that
were acceptable. He hoped the City Council and Planning
Commission would he as receptive to the residents` views as Mr.
Wheatley. Although there were several differences of opinion, he
believed Mr. Wheatley made sense. His company built good
projects, and . it was possible to, work together in a positive
direction.
Curtis Harrison, 3869 Grove Court, chose to live in Palo Alto 30
years earlier because he was impressed by how well the junkyard
was administered. Many years later he met Anne Witherspoon, and
decided to vote forher because of that good administration. He
was proud to 1 ive in Palo Alto because of its planning and
administration. He . jogged around the City, and could not jog
through the Maximart area with pride because of its undesirable
appearance. The Stanford Industrial tract and others Jack
Wheatley and his partners built were desirable places by eany
criteria, and he wanted to see a similar project in the Maximart
area because he was a concerned resident who wanted to see the
overall community upgraded. He did not want that done with HUD
money or City subsidy, which would. both cost the taxpayers, He
wholeheartedly supported the mixed use project.
Frank Blanson,' 1540 Edgewood 0rive, said -he had lived in Palo Alto
since 19631' and was a long time friend of Boyd Smith, Dick
Jacobsen-, and Jack Wheatley, who were very interested i n Ithe yell,
aq 2 e_ __ . _ . -J k � t _ S
being' o.f_ ethe-- emm5i1i-3-.�y--aas-1 Ilialntalninq its standards of beauty.
They had raised- their families here, and they were committed to
serving the community -Boyd Smith was a bishop of his church` Dick
Jacobsen worked for the Boy Scuts; and Jack Wheatly was 4 former
mayor of Palo Alto. They were ; concerned about the present and
fc*ture state of the community. They had saiready upgraded and
beautified the City with the beautiful Lytton Gardens., Webster
Woods, a subsidies: housing development, and the beautifully land.
soaped` Harbor project,: to anention .a few. Recently, he had looked
at the: Maximart site and concurred it was an -eyesore -and not somee
thing to be proud of. The Council .should listen to the -people who
said, the economics dictated a Mixed use,- and encourage the appli-
cants to proceed -with the project or at least approve further
study. Between the choice of doing nothing or of upgrading, he
suggested upgrading.
3 8 4 7
10/3/83
Ray L onyanecker, 4256 Susanne Dr iVe, was born in Palo Alto and had
a business in the City. The Maxin,art area was blighted, and his
business backed up to it. Mr. Jacobsen's plan showed concern for
the area, and he asked the Council to consider that since the area
was surrounded by businesses, and was not suitable for housing
onl
y.
Mayor Bechtel encouraged the. public to look at .the displays con-
tributed by the Cal Poly architectural students who met in an
intensive session over the weekend. Sh thanked ARB member Virgil
Carter for his organizational help.
COUNCIL RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION RE LITIGATION FROM 9:20 .m.
Mayor Bechtel said she preferred a mixed use project for the prop-
erty to the one million square feet of office space that was pos-
sible. She was concerned mixed use would not represent a net gain
for the City, as it would provide the same amount of jobs as hous-
ing. Housing was needed, and it was an ideal site of over 10
acres, close to transportation and shopping and ready to be devel-
oped. It was the largest parcel left for housing, and would be
very attractive. The developer proposed a mixed use project with
a lake, tennis courts, a recreational area, good landscaping, and
office space, which all cost money, but which would result in an
attractive housing project not in the $400,000 range. She saw few
condominiums in that price range in the City --a number in the
California Avenue area were $160,000 and up, and some were in the
$200,000 range, She reasssured the resident who objected to HUD
projects the federal government did not have the necessary funds.
The Council had made a commitment years ago not to remove the bar-
riers. She would uphold the earlier Council commitment to main-
tain the barriers in the South Park Boulevard area, and believed a
mixed housing project:or a straight office project would have a
far larger traffic impact than a housing project where people
could walk to work.
MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel , to direct the
Planning Commission to =consider a Comprehensive Plan change to
multiple family housing for the former haximart site.
Councilnieniber Levy said the Council was called upon' to state its
overall policy. The community did not want _mire jobs --it sought
more housing. Although he did not advocate large amounts of new
housing, the location and configuration of the site did not pre-
clude all housing. The developers spoke of a number of -high cali-
ber developments 1p the City, and if the Council agreed on the
mixed use project, it would be an asset to Palo Alto like the
others. The Council was considering' the best way to develop and
upgrade the specific area for the total community, but he wondered
whether the area called for a mixed use project. The values of
the concept related to the generation of low income housing, which
he did not believe was as important as the basic fundamentals of
good land use, design and planning and the overall balance in the
community. Presently, the area was mixed, and residents did not
know whether fo upgrade their property because of -future intensive.
commercial :development, or whether to look f -terns of a prospec-
tive good residential area. Although �a !mixed ease development
would serve to upgrade, it would still..be aetransitional area and
not satisfactory residentiali-', and a satisfactory. commercial. de-
velopment would not upgrade.i,fe area as a totally residential dee
velopment would. For that reason, he believed the ;Planning Com-
mission should review the area closely in terms of a rezoning.
The Planning Commission should continue its analysis, of the area
and make a recommendation of the Czoning, and the Council__.: should
not act - ahead -of the norma �. proces,s• - - - - -
Vice Mayor Witherspoon said the motion revived the Planning Come
mission review of the area, and .she asked what specific area was
included, and whether the Mayor intended some CS areas be re --
zoned.
3 8 4 8
10/3/83
Mayne Bechtel said the crosshatched area shoulc be included, but
the study could comprise a larger area at the discretion of the
Planning Commission.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked how much would be zoned residen-
tial, because there were a number of long-term businesses in the
area, and although. some could be upgraded, she did not want to
amortize them all in vir-v of the problems on Middlefield Road.
She did not believe the Planning Commission should be urged to
consider total residential zoning of the site. It was an oppor-
tunity to upgrade the neighborhood, and multi -family residential
zoning at a fairly low density would mean the property and the
homes would be very expensive, whether multi -family, single family
or a combination. The crosshatched area should be included, with
the possibility to comprise a larger area at the discretion of the
Planning Commission. Her experience with a neighborhood in tran-
sition was the new housing turned its back on the existing resi-
dents, and she did not want that to happen. The multi -family con-
cept was the only hope of obtaining affordable housing, but since
the Comprehen ,ive Plan was about to be revamped and the sentiment
around town was to decrease densities in the multi -family area,
the Council should concentrate on maintaining rental housing.
Multi -family zoning on the site might not result in any rental
housing, much less some that would be maintained over the years.
She did not want to require the Mannino Commission to look at
multiple family zoning, but rather to advise the Council, in con -
unction with the neighborhood and any interested persons, what it
believed would benefit the whole area. The CS, PF zoning, and the
residential areas should be reviewed with an open mind. She op-
posed the motion.
Mayor Bechtel clarified her motion spoke to the crosshatched area
on the asap, but did not preclude the Planning Commission and staff
from looking at a larger area if deemed appropriate.
Councilmember Fletcher said the agenda item before the Planning
Commission on May 18, 1981, •was '"Comprehensive Land Use Map change
from Service Cormercial•(listing the properties involved) to Light
Industrial, multi -family residential, or any other such .designa-
tion as the Planning Commission may recommend." She did not be-.
iieve that was what Mayor Bechtel had in mind.
Mayor Bechtel clarified the motion spoke only to multi -family
housing.
Councilmemher Fletcher said that was the previous assignment to
the Planning Commission.
Mayor Bechtel agreed, and the motion on the floor was a new one.
Council:nember Fletcher supported multiple family zoning for the
site. The Pa to Alto Housing Corporation favored a mixed use de-
velopment, although the vote in favor of mixed use was a majority
one, not -4 consensus. She asked if the possibility of a bicycle
path under the tracks at Loma Verde could be explored, and whether
the railroad right -of -gray could be used as a bike path and tie in
with the ball park bike path to. provi de an excellent connection to
the Industrial Park.
Mayor Bechtel said it should be handled in a sutsequent motion or
when the staff could report on it.
Council nember Eyerly said the motion only told the Planning Com-
mission to study irultipie- housing,-_ b'it the -May 18 Planning Commis-
sion minutes indicated that Was already done, and the recommenda-
tion was -to set it aside --while a mixed use --concept was considered.
He did not understand why it was being sent back --the Commission
might change its mind ar_ ha_ve comments, but the matter already
received consideration. Some Councilmembers expressed cont-ern
about the entire area being used for -:housing, but multiple family.
3 84 9.
10/3/83
family zoning would create a solid block of housing, which was not
M
advisable in the middle of a commercial area. ultiple family
zoning for the whole area might be considered, but he did not be-
lieve it was desirable to have a large area of high density hous-
ing almost surrounded by commercial. For the last couple of
years, Council expressed fears of too many office buildings in
Palo Alto. Following studies from the Planning Commission, he
would be sympathetic to considering in the Comprehensive Plan how
much office space should be allowed in the different zones. He
felt it entirely possible, after discussions and staff -generated
information on costs, service, taxes, etc., that the following
year the Council might preclude office space in some zones or to
some degree. At this time the proposal was for mixed use, which
the Planning Commission was interested in and which staff had
asked if they should spend time on. Possible office complex ex-
pansion becoming more than the City could handle made some (oun-
cilmembers fearful of mixed use, but it had a lot of advantages
and was feasible for the area. Rather than saying the Council was
not interested, he felt they should consider a good proposal that
gave advantages to the City. Council should be realistic and
analyze the proposal --not dream it would get something just as
good in at a higher density proposal after rezoning and which
would entail lengthy discussions. The project gave the_ law densi-
ty the Council desired. It did not build up the density; some low
cost housing, as a result of some commercial use, was to the
City's advantage. The developers were ready to discuss with staff
what should happen after 10 years and whether it was economically
feasible for that housing to be retained by the City or remain low
cast, either by rental or owned condominiums The traffic in-
crease in the nixed use development would be minor. Past reports
showed a higher density multiple family use would generate con-
siderably more traffic, not just at peak hours, as would commer-
cial. A very minor commercial development was proposed,, and
studies showed it would have a negligible impact on the road sys-
tem. The neighborhood association immediately adjacent was in
favor of mixed use --other neighbors living further away and who
constantly complained about density were not in favor. He found
that interesting, as the project provided some desirable goals,
and he felt the motion would preclude it. The Council was at odds
with the Planning Commission's findings, and he would not vote in
favor of the motion.
Mr. Bennetti clarified that the intent of the motion was to ask
the Planning Commission to consider at least multiple housing and
give a recommendation on it. The Council was not attempting to
circumscribe the Planning Commission to continue to look at any
other use it felt it should not.
Mayor Bechtel expressed a wish for whatever was the usual proce-
dure. She felt it was an open process and should be a Public
Hearing for a Comprehensive Plan change. Her preference was for
multi -family housing, but she understood the Planning Commissio•
would consider that as part of the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Klein assumed it was implicit in the motion the
Council was not directing staff to work With the owners on the
mixed use con'Oept.
Mayor Bechtel agreed that was so,
Councilmember Klein found some parts of the project extremely at-
tractive, and, had it been proposed in 1973 or 1978, it would have
been_. one of the best projects to come before the Council. How-
ever, he was in favor of the motion not to pursue the mixed use
concept on the parcel. Almost every parcel in town had been built
up, ana this was one of the last few opportunities to do cavethirig
about correcting the housing/jobs imbalance in Palo Alto. The..
project, although extremely, well designed, would not reduce the
3 8 5 0
10/3/83
housing problem. It was alluring to have it rent -subsidized to a
small degree for 10 years, but it was specifically designed to
cover the housing needs of the people working there, and offered
no net imp lvement in the housing situation. Also,'the economics
of building all housing on the site were difficult. It might nut
be necessary to build $400,000 units, but the tight housing market
and the present administration's housing policies made so sidized
housing almost impossible to build. The parcel, due to the vari-
ous leases and the possible rezoning to residential, would need an
amortization period. Therefore, changes could not occur soon,
perhaps not even in the decade. Changing times, administrations,
and housing policies might produce local, state, or national poli-
cies to enable the City to build housing on the site within the
financial reach of the majority of citizens, and should not be
squandered. The alternative was attractive, but would not meet
the needs of the 80s. He, therefore, supported the motion.
Councilmember Cobb was still confused about the motion. He at
first understood it to restrict the Planning Commission to look at
only multiple family designations on the site. Mr. Bennetti gave
a slightly different interpretation. Another element of the mo-
tion was whether it was restricted to the Maximart site only or to
all other areas around it. He wanted to know exactly what the
motion was. His often -expressed concern related to density. Ae
consistently supported neighborhoods resisting higher density de-
velopments, and he was still -troubled by the excessive density he
saw going into too many parts of town. There was no shortage of
market priced housing but in affordable housing. Possibly, future
administrations would be able to subsidize affordable housing on
the site; short of that, only totally unacceptable densities could
provide affordable housing on the site, which would make the
immediate neighbors unhappy. If the City had to wait for 15 to 20
years before money became aeailab1e to provide affordable housing
without that density, the Council was condemning the people living
around the property to many years of living with a blight on the
community. He was a 40 year resident of the community, and it had
been an eyesore ever since he could remember. That also concerned
him. A near term all -housing project would be between 20 to 40
units per acre --and he felt 20 units per acre was too low econo-
mically. The project, which the developer said could go beyond 10
years, or so;nethiug very creative could be done to keep people who
came in at lower- than market rents for a longer period of time,
would provide 120 units of affordable housing. This type of
affordable housing should be examined. He could not decide
whether mixed use or all -housing was best for the site, but the
Council's decision could riot be constrained to all -housing only
unti it knew exactly the cost versus density trade-off. He
referred to his first comment, that the Council should look at all
possibilities, both for mixed use and all housing, to find out
what was best for the community.- Housing would have to be built
in a reasonably near time frame to resurrect the area, but if it
had to be of very high density in order to be affordable they
would not be doing the neighborhood any service. He was concerned
about more projects being built that made people unhappy, such as
the Pa'k and California Avenue project. He would like both sides
looked into, and see some numbers predicting the results
housing, with the cost of units as a function of different densi-
ties. 4e would like the pos ibi!ity of co-op housing discussed
with the developer. The present structure of the motion did not
allow that, as it tied the Planning Commission's hands. The Plan-
ning Commission had said it would like to look into mixed use de-
velopment on the site. Both should be considered, but the motion
did not suggest that.
Councilmember Renzel associated herself in particular with Coun-
cilmember Klein's comments. The snort term trade-off of the
particular proposal, especially as it could be implemented only
3 $ 5 1
10/3/83
over a lor.gcr period of time, was iiitippiupridte when in uppor tu-
nity for long-range planning to address significant City problems
was possible. In any non-residential zone it was always desirable
to have a mixed project over a straight non-residential project.
However, the Council ought first to consider the appropriate zon-
ing for the area. It was a 12 acre site, approximately a third or
fourth of Stanford West, which was touted as an opportunity to
make a significant contribution to Palo Alto housing. This sized
site provided a tremendous opportunity for good design to accom-
plish a significant addition to housing without impacting sur-
rounding neighborhoods. The 10 to 12 acres of the Greenhouse
project on San Antonio Road was developed at 55 units per acre,
higher than Palo Alto's highest zone permitted, with two and three
story units and much landscaping. She had not observed any signi-
ficant traffic problems from it, and it was 3 very nice design at
a very high density. High density did not have to be wall-to-wall
high-rise. That question should be addressed in the zoning and
design reviews --whether Palo Alto was getting appropriate designs.
A 12 acre site allowed significant opportunity to be creative and
could provide a significant addition to the housing stock of the
City. The Planning Commission had to review all the facts and the
public input and report back on the issue. It would be premature
for the Council to give staff instructions now with respect to the
particular proposal. The Planning Commission's review was expect-
ed to be ready in four months. The Council could_then look at
other possibilities if it was appropriate. The Planning Commis-
sion should make its determinations about the Land use before in-
dividual propooals were looked into.
Councilmernber Fazzino opposed the motion, primarily because of the
need to carefully evaluate what was a very unique, economically
sound mixed use proposal without making an ultimate commitment to
either mixed use or the specific project. At present he felt the
mixed use concept was the most ecomicaliy sound proposal that
would come before the Council for the site. It was easy to sup-
port a housing -only use in the abstract, only to seriously ques-
tion the actual impact of housing densities once a specific proj-
ect was before the Council. His colleagues and he had suffered
through very painful moments and examples of that during the past
year. The Council would certainly also seriously question the af-
fordability of housing in light of the politically acceptable den-
sities in the City. Finally, the traffic problems might be great-
er and more sustained with the higher density housing proposal
economically possible for the area. He was intrigued by the eco-
nomics and density proposals of the mixed use concept. He wished
to move quickly towards eliminating one of the City's worst eye-
sores it a reasoned way that benefited both the City and the
neighborhood at large. He could not categorically state that eco-
nomics and densities favored mixed use; however, its advantages
and disadvantages should be carefully explored by the staff. They
knew of the excellent quality of the other projects built by the
developers. It eras. safe to say the Page Mill project was perhaps
the loveliest office building in the area. Ensuring a well de-
slgned, architecturally attractive project, irrespective of who
handled it, should also be a major objective for the site, as was
expressed by a number of neighbors. He appreciated Councilmemb_er
Klein's concerns regarding the jobs/housing issue,. which would be
of great: ,concern to him when voting on a project before the Coun-
cil. However, economics and a well designed,- affordable housing
project must be: a major consideration in reaching an`alternative
to the existing situation. Finally, he could imagine rejection of
the proposal and of a high density all -housing proposal in a few
years and the subsequent continuation of the present blight for
many years. The rational way to proceed would be to allow the
staff to evaluate the economics of this and an all -housing propos-
al, then have all the Alternatives placed before the Council to
allow an oformed decision. He was very sensitive to the process
issues raised by some- neighbors. The total study of alt
alternatives_ by staff was not a rejection of. an orderly, .planning
1
1
-3 8-5 2
10/3/83
process. Ile felt the motion unfairly ly Lied the Planning Commis-
SiOAIS hands and would only provide Council with part of the
facts. He encouraged his colleagues to oppose the motion.
Mayor Bechtel said the developer asked for a feeling from the
Council as to whether it would support mixed use. It would be
unfair to continue the study if the Council felt, as she did, that
multiple family housing was appropriate and mixed use was not.
She was confident a developer who wished to try all -housing in the
project would do an excellent job. Mr. Bennetti had pointed out
that the Planning Commission, when reviewing, would have an option
to look at more than just multi -family housing.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Eyerly, Fazzino, Cobb and
Witherspoon voting "no".
MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to dir=ect
staff to prepare an ordinance to establish a six month moratorium
on the property until Comprehensive Plan changes and zone changes
are considered.
Mayor Bechtel asked staff for help in defining the area to be
placed under the moratorium.
Mr. Freeland said the Planning Commission had discussed the CM
parcels between Park and the railroad tracks, and did not recom-
mend any changes in that area. The Commission would consider it
had dealt with those parcels and would not take them back up. The
freeze on development should not extend across Park Boulevard.
Mayor Bechtel asked about the area between Ash to El Camino, Real
that was not crosshatched on the map.
Mr. Schreiber suggested excluding from the ordinance the area be-
tween; El Camino and Ash and the alleyway adjacent to the cross-
hatched area. It would not include the CS zoned area with the
smaller parcels, but would ,. be bound by Lambert, Ash, the edge of
the Maximart property and the Park Boulevard tracks.
Mayor Bechtel ascertained from Mr. Bennetti that a report could be
expected before the Council at the October 11 meeting.
Councilmember Fletcher said she believed it was a requirement to
place a time limit on moratoriums.
Mr. Bennetti said it was the City practice, and in accordance with
State law, that it run for no longer than six months.
Mayor Bechtel said it was usually tied to a particular study, and
she had tied It to consideration of the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Eyerly spoke against a moratorium. It was a wicked
instrument that could be used on a particular piece of property
and had oftentimes unfair rub -offs for the owner or developer. Be
felt the Council should consider that the majority of those who
had spoken had an interest in housing for the site. The devel-
opers were astute enough t.o know that a building permit would have
to be geared around housing. A moratorium could be extended later
on because of staff overwork due to the many Council and community
requests. �(he developers should know themselves what would be
feasible there. The moratorium would put a cold water bath on
their going ahead. They had had a reading .from the Council and
knew what might fly in the -future, The moratorium would chill
that and would cost the developers money, which was unfair. The
moratorium was unnecessary..
3 8 5 3
10/3/83
Councilmember Cobb agreed that the moratorium was uiirie&,essary.
The leases ran until the end of the decade. The property would
not move during the next few 'months, and it was unnecessary, given
the developer, the property, and the leases on the property.
Councilmember Klein found the same facts led to the opposite con-
clusion. Although he did not like moratoriums, he felt it partic-
u larly ap,.ropriate in this case. It was not a hardship to the
owner of the property, because of the leases. He thought it was a
small step to guard against the unlikely possibility that it would
be financially attractive to the owner of the land, who might be
different tomorrow, to buy out the leasehold interests, and try to
use the existing zoning that would allow up to one million square
feet of space. Although that seemed unlikely, it could lead to an
unwanted large development. The zoning had to'be changed.- In
order to avoid such a remote chance occurring, the moratorium was
necessary.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon said under the existing zoning, the devel-
opment process would require a number of months. -It would not be
possible for a project of that size, requiring environmental re-
✓ iews, etc. to go through in two months. The point of a vested
interest had to be reached, which meant the issuance of a building
permit, and substantial work done.
Mr. Freeland said that a straight commercial or office type of
project requiring AR8 approval only could take place within sev-
eral months if the plans were all ready to be submitted and the
environmental review submitted a negative declaration. The build-
ing permit took much longer, because detailed building drawings
had to be developed, which took quite a while.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon said her point was until the building per-
mit had been issued and substantial work done, the zoning could be
changed.
Mr. Freeland said the zoning could always be changed.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon said placing a moratorium on this property
was a real insult. No one would have a commercial site plan ready
to rush through before the Planning Commission came back with its
recommendations. The moratorium was totally unnecessary and was a
put down.
Mr. Schreiber said the parcels outside the crosshatched area would
at present be covered by the moratorium.
Mayor Bechtel said it would be acceptable to her to include in the
moratorium only the areas indicated by Mr. Schreiber on the trans-
parency. She understood it did not include the small strip to El
Camino.
Mr. Schreiber said the area he outlined did not include the strip.
If it was to be included, it, should be stated.
Mayor Bechtel asked if it was an access strip.
Mr. Schreiber said there was a road, and the area alongside it was
u sed foraccess and parking.
Mayor Bechtel felt it should be included.
MAKER AND SECOND OF MOTION AGREED TO INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING
LANGUAGE INTO THE MOTION "ON THE PROPERTY BOUNDED BY LAMBERT
AVENUE, ASH, THE EDGE OF THE FORMER MAXIMART SITE, PARK BOULEVARD
TRACKS,-- PLUS THE ACACIA AVENUE STRIP'"
3 8 5 4
10/3/83
Mayor Bechtel, in response to remarks that the moratorium was a
put down or an insult to the owner, said she felt it was not. The
issue of vested rights meant that, if someone obtained ARB approv-
al during the interim period, litigation might be required. A
moratorium was cleaner and made things clear to all parties in-
volved. The moratorium would be for a relatively short time, and
consistent with the previous motion.
Councilmember Levy asked if the moratorium would go into effect
that day; and what was the process --was staff asked to draw up an
ordinance subject to two readings.
Mayor Bechtel thought that would be the only way. To put the mor-
atorium into immediate effect on an emergency basis would require
six votes.
Mr. Zaner said if the Council identified the factors creating an
emergency, an urgency ordinance could be brought back. Ordinarily
an ordinance subject to two readings would be prepared.
Councilmember Levy asked for the timetable for a normal ordinance
and what notice had to be given to property owners.
Mr. Zaner said there was no notice requirement, but the ordinance
process took approximately 45 days from the date of introduct=on.
Councilmember Levy said they were then speaking of approximately
60 days from that date before the moratorium went into effect. He
felt the property owners, many of whom were not present, should be
given due warning.
Mr. Schreiber said if the motion passed, staff would attempt to
contact owners of properties in the area. Unless directed by the
Counci l , there would not be a public hearing.
Councilmember Levy said whether it was legally necessary or not,
it would be irresponsible not to give the property owners notice.
He asked for the timetable for the moratorium, and how soon it
would be considered likely the Planning Commission could hold its
deliberations and return the matter to the Council, giving it the
highest privity,
Mr. Freeland said they had not intended going back to the Commis-
sion before February, which would mean more than six months before
it came back for action to the Council, They -would have to work
to get it on an earlier agenda and to set a timetable in order to
stay within the six months. It meant moving rapidly, but he could
not -give a date.
Councilmember Levy said that meant it would be difficult to accom-
plish within six months, and unlikely to take less.
Mr. Freeland said it was not likely to take less than six months.
He assumed if land use changes were made, it would be necessary to
make both Comprehensive Plan and zoning changes. Zoning changes
had 45 days to become effective after coming before the Council,
and there were Planning Commission hearings. as 'well. Therefore,
in order to make that timetable, there was only a short time to
get- something before the Commission. The six month period .was
quite tight if it entailed Comprehensive Plan ,and zoning changes.
Councilmember Levy reluctantly favored a moratorium. The general-
ized position taken by the Council meant it was seriously consid-
ering a change, and they were serving notice on owners of the
properties to move just as fast as they could to beat that poten-
tial change. A morat orium to foreclose. was, therefore, in order.
It behooved the Council to -give. definite notice to all property
owners and to insist that staff move -4s fast as possible to get it
back to the Council. If those: two elements were understood, he
supported -the moratorium.
Mayor Bechtel clarified the ;i x month period started from the ef-
fective, date of the ordinance, or sixty .days fron that: dale, which
meant May 1984.
Councilmember Cobb was also troubled they had started out discuss-
i.,ng a moratorium on a subject on the agenda. It was then suddenly
made into a larger area. He did not think such actions should be
taken without giving due notice. He still felt a moratorium was
unnecessary, and although he would not approve any willy-nilly
development, he was concerned they should not exceed the bounda-
ries that were on the agenda. Whatever was .lone, he felt it
should be done quickly. The area had been a blight for far too
long.
Councilmember Fazzino was extremely disappointed by Council ac-
tion. It was clear evidence of rudderless Council direction.. The
due process was being totally ignored, and he was disappointed
that Mr. Schreiber identified additional properties for a possible
morator urrr, although he had, of course, been directed to do so.
As the properties had not been included in the discussion, con-
tacting the owners after the fact was to totally ignore due
processes and was unfair. He felt his colleagues were grasping at
thin air in order to find potential problems. He was very con-
cerned it was not a legitimate way to enact public policy. Laws
were enacted to solve problems. After hearing that the lease laws
precluded development, it was an inappropriate public policy to
enact a moratorium, and he opposed St. The situation for the next
few months was clear. The moratorium should not be enacted, and
if other properties were to he included, the owners should first
have a chance to come before the Council and participate. That
was the custom when enacting moratoriums..
Mayor Bechtel reminded Councilmember Fazzino that he had supported
previous moratoriums in the College Terrace neighborhood and in
1981 seconded the motion to reconsider the Comprehensive Plan aid
possible zone change for lehe property.
Councilmember Fazzino said a ptihlic hearing had been set for
College Terrace, and public opinion had been heard before the -mor-
atorium was enacted. In 1981, he supported the possibility of
housing, and his notion that evening supported the opportunity for
both housing and mixed use to be evaluated.
Councilmember Renzel, speaking on due process, said they were not
enacting the moratorium that evening, but requesting an ordinance
be drawn up.. Councilmember Levy had indicated that his support
was conditional on notice being sent to property owners. They
would have notice at the time when the Council considered enact-
ment of the moratorium. The moratorium was required because every
new building that was at present erected started a 40 year amornti-
zation.period. That was a significant reason for a moratorium
during the planning process. It had been a traditional planning
tool to not destroy options while a new direction was under con-
sideration. It was an appropriate process, and the Council was
following due process. Property owners would be notified and would
have an opportunity to be heard. It was not going behind people's
backs. The Council should recognize the entire 12 acre site did
not -have to be redeveloped.
Councilmember Klein agreed with Councilmember Menzel. The Council
was not making a final decision that evening. A moratorium ordi-
nance always started with a policy decision to enable staff to
prepare the ordi nance. The Council was making a policy decision,
but not a final one. Should a landowner advance good reasons why
his property should not be included, it would be excltded. It was
consistent with previous Council action. He felt it would not be
in order to rely of the safeguard of leases, as Council and staff
did not know the •terms of the leases, which were a private ar-
rangement between landowner and tenants, and liable to immediate
change. It would be totally inappropriate for the Council to rely
on their existence. The moratorium= was appropriate.
3 8 5 6
10/3/83
1
MfT!°N PASSED by
Cobb voting *nom.
vote of 5-4, Eyerly, Witherspoon, Fazzino ,and
Councilmember Renzel ascertained that the crosshatched right-of-
way was now zoned R-1.
ITEM #6, RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH GAS UTILITY SYSTEM IMPROVE -
MT
Councilmember Klein for the Finance and Public Works Committee
said at its last meeting the Committee unanimously recommended the
Council adopt the staff recommendation to establish the gas utili-
ty system improvement reserve. The Committee felt this to be ap-
propriate, especially with .the City's interest in establishing
some natural gas reserves and possible acquisition of interest in
wells and other matters of that nature. The recommendation would
initially establish a fund of $823,000 for this reserve.
MOTION. Councilmember Klein for the Finance and Public Works
Committee moved adoption of the Budget Ordinance Amendment estab-
lishing a reserve for System Improvement within the Gas Utility
Fund and to allocate $0.0226/therm sold to this reserve effective
July 1, 1983.
ORDINANCE 3477 %ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
;STABLISH A RESERVE FOR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
IN THE GAS UTILITY FUND AND TO INCREASE ESTIMATED
REVENUE FROM GAS UTILITY CUSTOMER BILLING"
Councilmember Renzel asked when the California Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) granted the rate- relief -if its purpose was to
establish a reserve for improvements, or rather to provide -rate
relief in the short term.
Rates & Regulations Manager Randy Baldshun said the PUC had been
silent on their rationale for providing the raise relief. The form
in which the rate relief was provided did not allow for discussion
or decision in terms _of how it should be spent. It was a mechan-
ical formula adopted in 1980, and was designed to provide a rate
relief over_.a period of time, without discussion or decision in
terms of the absolute amount of that relief. It could go up or
down --in this case, it went up, and would increase Palo Alto's net
revenues by $958,000 over the period July 1, 1983 through June,
1984, assuming the pending PUC's to be rendered in December did
not adjust that margin.
Councilmember Renzel asked if the money was to be used to find
alternative sources of lower cost gas supplies to serve existing
needs, or needs over and above those a-¢. present met by PG&E.
Mr. Baldschun said the primary intent of securing supplemental
supplies of natural gas was to reduce the gas costs the City paid
PG&E, and pass those savings on to the ratepayers.
Councilmember Renzel asked if the additional supplies were needed
in addition to, or in place of, current purchases from PG&E.
Mr. Zaner said they would substitute the PG&E supply,
Councilmember Eyeriy was pleased with the recommendation of the
Fioance Committee and the aggressive stance staff had taken in
trying to find some bower cost supplies of 9a`1 that in turn could
be passed on to the ratepayers, to bring the rates down to a more
viable level.
MOTION PASSED ienanioously,
3 8 5 7
10/3/83
ITEM #7 CLOS I {'(G Tt E 1982-83 BUDG T AND SUMMARY OF THE CITY'S
., 7
Councilmember Klein for the Finance and Public Works Committee
said so many factors were involved in closing the budget that it
was not possible to summarize the staff report and their actions.
He would, therefore, move adoption of the ordinance, as had been
unanimously recommended by both staff and the Finance and Public
Works Committee. The Committee and staff could then answer any
questions his colleagues might have.
MOTION: Councilmember Klein. for the Finance and Public Works
Committee moved to adopt the ordinance authorizing the closing of
the 1982-83 budget, establishing reserves and appropriatinrl
$194,516 into the 1983-84 budget.
ORDINANCE 3478 "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
'ALL ALAU AuiHDRIZING CLOSING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
1982-83"
Mayor Bechtel introduced two League of Women Voters observers and
the new Acting Controller, Clayton E. Brown, of Ralph Andersen and
Associates.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon said she noticed estimated income had been
$57 million but the final figure was $63 million. She understood
the difference arose from the proceeds of the sale of the bonds
for the cogeneration facility. The estimates had, therefore, bee -
fairly close.
Acting Controller Clayton Brown said that was correct.
'Councilmember Levy referred to the penultimate paragraph of page 4
of the F&PW minutes, where he was quoted as saying that some items
in the reserve did not "jive" with each other. He had not meant
to imply the Controller's department was dancing with the number,.
The word should have been "jibe." Page 7 of the staff report said
the City's reserve balances would improve during the course of the
1983.84 fiscal year. However, the reserve containing the funds
for general projects, i.e., the reserve for capital projects,
would decline by about 40 percent from $6 million to approximately
$3.7 million. Mr. Brown's statement _that- the City's overall
financial position in term of reserve balances would improvea
meant that designated reserves for the utilities primarily would
increase, while reserves available for General Fund would in fact
decline by approximatley 40 percentt
Mr. Brown said that was correct, and was due to the level of
capital projects.
Counci lmerber Levy said the City still had satisfactory reserves,
but they would decline sharply during the year. That must not
happen too often in the future.
Councilmember.,.Klein said when the paragraph concerning reserve
balances :+as discussed during the F&PW Committee, staff said they
felt the $3,9 million might- well be improved during the year:.
Staff felt they had been .too conservative, that revenues: would be
higher and expenses lower. The $3.9 million figure -was -cooidereci
rock bottom.
Mr. Brown said in absolute terms the reserve for capital projects
would decline. However3 the level of reserves predicted for the
close .of 1983,84 would very likely be improved on because of the
conservative revenues' estimate and because typically the entire
budget was not. spent. The residual would go to t,he reserve for
capital projects, probably raising the $3.9 million figure.
3 8 5.8
10/3/83
Coi,nri l nernher Cobh referred to nano 7 of the F&PW Committee
minute, of September 1:1, where he had asked Mr. Brown if he saw
any problems- the Committee had missed. Mr. Brown's response was
gratifying.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #8, REQUEST .OF VICE MAYOR WITHERSPOON RE REPORT ON DOWNTOWN
Vice Mayor Witherspoon hoped the drawings showing the resu;itf of
the Downtown Architectural Charette would be posted for a' while
longer for the benefit of the public, after they had been
publicized by the press. The drawings were very innovative and
exciting, and the students' solutions to the problems very
inspiring. She especially enjoyed the schematics for the
alleyways, and hoped some of the solutions could be implemented.
ITEM 09, CANCELLAII0N OF OCTOBER 11 1983 MEETING
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to
cancel the October 11, 1983 meeting.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY OF SUE MACPHERSON
Mayor Bechtel said she wished to adjourn the meeting in memory of
Sue MacPherson, who died the previous week. Ms. MacPherson had
been the Chair of the Housing Corporation for several years, doing
outstanding work. She had had a long time interest in City and
housing issues. A memorial service would be held at the Unitarian
Church on Saturday at 3:00 p.m.
MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, adjournment in
memory of Sue MacPherson, past Chairman of Palo Alto !lousing
Corporation.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Council adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
3 8 5 9
10/3/83