Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-05 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES ITEM CITY OF PALO ALTO Special Meeting Monday, April S, 1982 Interview of Two Candidates Seeking Appointment to the Visual Arts Jury Special Meeting Monday, April 5, 1982 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue at 7.00 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Renzei, Witherspoon ABSENT: Levy The purpose of the meeting was to interview applicants for a vacancy on the Visucal Arts Jury. 7:00 p.m. Dr. Harvey K. Roth 7:15 p.m. Jan Thompson ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. APPROVED: /.///// 7.15.4)4C..) ATTEST: 2r ' City Clerk67 1 1 8 3 2 1 8 3 3 1 8 3 4 18 3 4 1 8 3 5 1 8 3 5 1 8 3 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ITEM CITY of PMLo ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, Apri 1 5, 1982 Oral Communications 1 8 3 0 Minutes of March 8, 1982 1 8 3 1 Appointment of an Architectural Review Board Member to Fill the Unexpired Term of John C. Northway Ending September 30, 1982 Appointment of an Architectural Review Board Member to Fill the Unexpired Term of John D. Sjtorius Ending September 30, 1984 Canvass' of March 30 Special El ecti on Consent Calendar Action Resolution re Application for a Grant from State Coastal Conservancy re Bike Path Construction in the Bayl ands Ordinance re Seventy -Two Hour Parking Issue Agenda Changes Additions & Deletions Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendations re Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments. Finance and Public Works Committee Recommendation re Separate Gas Meters for Existing Swimming Pools Civic Center Retrofit (Project 81 -87) - Retired Safety Employee Benefit Improvement Midyear Budget Amendments Request of Mayor Eyerly re Letter Arts Jury=Chai.ra an Request of Mayor .Eyer•l.y re Bayl ands Overview Meeting equest of MOW - Eyerly re Adjournment 1 Regular Meeting Monday, April 5, 1982 The City Counc i 1 of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City. Hal 1 , 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel , Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzi no, Fl etcher, Klein, Renzel , Witherspoon ABSENT: Levy Mayor Eyerly announced the need for an Executive Session regarding 1 i ti gati on to be held during recess. 'ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. R. F. Bennett, 524 Middlefield Road, Palo Al to, said he noticed that only two people applied for the opening on the Visual Arts Jury. He thought the citizens should decide what sculptures should be erected in the City rather - than a few jury members. 2., Frank Manfredi, 219 Addison, said that unemployment in 1936 and 1937 resulted in peopl e 1 osi ng , their houses. Today, people must take steps to prevent money lords from destroying our lives= and a moratorium must be declared on debts including taxes as soon as one loses their job. 3. J. Zonn, 1510 Oak Creek'. Drive, said that the erosion problem of San Franci squi to Creek was getting worse every year. He said many trees had been lost over the past eight years, and he asked 1) what plans were being made to repair the damage; 2 ) what about a future comprehensive solution or a 'flood con- trol project and beauti fi cati on. He said San Franci squi to Creek was beautiful and if it was let go for a few more years., most of. the trees would" disappear. He was very concerned about the future of the creek and what action should be taken by Palo Alto. David Blumenthal , 1766 Will ow Road, #210, said that . many people at Oak Creek were i n the dark concerning the factual present status of the conversion at Oak Creek. He said that on March 17, 1982, Scott Careyy indicated that he had sent Stanford ,University Offici als a letter in an attempt to move_, negotiations forward on the conversion. He said that several months ago St anford University announced that there were basic disagreements with Carey and Oak Creek Associates that put a doubt on the entire transaction. The disagreement reportedly focused on the City's lifetime lease conditions for those tenants who could stay in their apartments until they vol un- tari ly moved out. He thought that at this point, it would be appropri ate . for the City Counci 1 to ask Scott Carey and Stanford about the . exact status of the Oak Creek Conversion. John F. Walker, 19375. Greenwood Circle, Cupertino, regarding;. the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, said that the engi ne to the dredge had been repaired. He said the launch ramp and the sea scout base had been dredged, and they . were trying to finish ,the rest of the project. A lot of time had been lost because of the weather conditi ons." :, He pointed out that when the San, Francisco Bay Conservation and Development (BCDC) was asked ,to. extend the dredging ti rye by two months, everyone:, assumed that the BCDC's equipment would churn rapidly, and unfortunately it it took about three weeks to get word back._ Rather. than resuming -work on schedule about ;tw_ o Weeks were lost. -He said he had spoken 'with the BCDC people. and asked the Council to request that BCOC" return those 15 days'. 1-> 8 3 0 4/05/82 Mr. Walker said that the County had begun to repair the roads twice --had graded and graveled and then the rains came and destroyed them again. He said he was in touch with Charlie Rockwell, the County Engineer, who told him that if it ever stopped raining, the County would fix the road. City Manager Bill Zaner said the Council ,had received two reports from the public that sabotage was i nva ved in the dredge. He reported that the Police Department investigated the claim and found no evidence of sabotage. 1 1 1 MINUTES OF MARCH 8-, 1982 Richard Kiuzek, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, submitted the fol- lowing changes: Page 1751, seventh line, change the word "self" to "soft." Line -40, change "and industry, on community institutions and had permitted the resident, board, or" to "and industry, and community institutions and had permitted the resident, voter," Line 45, change "and" to "in." Line 47, change "taxpayers to" to "taxpaye.rs through," Line 51, change "the contracts" to "their contracts." Page 1752, first paragraph, fifth from the last line, change the word "predicted" to "predicated." Councilmember Renzel had the following corrections: Page 1737, last paragraph, line 8, sentence should read, "She was concerned whether any of the programs in the Baylands Master Plan were being heeded." Line 1U, word "part" should be "park." Vice Mayor Bechtel had the following correction: Page 1723, second paragraph from the bottom, third line, word "line' should be "lined." Councilmember Witherspoon had the following correction: Page 1738, last paragraph, delete the words "did not" and insert "could." Councilmember Klein had the following correction: Pale 173.5, second paragraph from the bottom, line 31, should read, "Communications Commission staff who ,was active..." Councilmember Fazzino had the following correction: Pap 1754, fifth paragraph, third line, should read, "could pro- wide the service more . cheaply, whether a service void existed in... MOTION: Councilmember Eazzi r'o _proved, ,seconded by :Cobb,. approval of the Minutes of March 8, 1982, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously Levy absent. APPOINTMENT OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEMBER TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF JOHN C. NOTRTHWAY ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 Mayor Eyerl y read the list of candidates: Jocelyn Baum Anthony Carrasco Virgil Carter Sally Ellenberger Dan Finkle Larick Hi 11 Naphtal i Knox Thomas McLaughian Richard Pennington. Harvey Roth Jonathan Schink Loui s Scl afani Gary Talbot Gary Wetzel Edgar Williams City Clerk Ann Tanner read the results of the first round of voting: VOTING FOR BAUM: Bechtel , Renzel VOTING FOR CARRASCO: Fletcher, Witherspoon VOTING FOR CARTER: Eyerly, Cobb VOTING FOR KNOX: Fazzino, Klein City Clerk Ann Tanner read the results of the second round voting: VOTING FOR KNOX: Klein. VOTING FOR CARRASCO: Witherspoon, Fletcher VOTING FOR BAUM: Renzel VOTING FOR SCHINK: Bechtel VOTING FOR CARTER: Eyerly, Fazzino, Cobb City Clerk Ann Tanner read the results of the third round voting: VOTING FOR .KNOX: Klein VOTING FOR BAUM: Bechtel VOTING FOR CARRASCO: Witherspoon, Fletcher Renzel VOTING FOR CARTER: Cobb, Fazzino, Eyerly City Clerk Ann Tanner read the results . of the fourth round voting: VOTING FOR PENNINGTON: Klein VOTING FOR ,CARRASCO; Witherspoon, Fletcher, Renzel VOTING FOR CARTER: Cobb, Fazzino, Eyerly VOTING FOR BAUM: = Bechtel 1 8.,3 2 4/05)82 City Clerk Ann Tanner read the results of the fifth round of voting: 1 VOTING FOR SCHINK: Witherspoon VOTING FOR CARTER: Cobb, Fazzino VOTING FOR PENNINGTON: Klein, Bechtel VOTING FOR CARRASCO: Fletcher, Renzel, Eyerly City Clerk Ann Tanner read the results of the sixth round voting: VOTING FOR CARTER: Cobb VOTING FOR PENNINGTON: Bechtel, Klein VOTING FOR SCHINK: Fazzino, Witherspoon VOTING FOR CARRASCO: Renzel, Eyerly, Fletcher City Clerk Ann Tanner read the results of the seventh round of voting: VOTING FOR CARTER: Klein VOTING FOR SCHINK: Bechtel, Cobb, Witherspoon VOTING FOR CARRASCO: Fazzino, Renzel, Eyerly, Fletcher City Clerk Ann Tanner read the results of the eighth round voti ny: VOTING FOR CARTER: Klein VOTING FOR SCHINK: Bechtel, Cobb, VOTING FOR CARRASCO: Fazzino, Renzel, Eyerly, Fletcher;, Witherspoon Ms. Tanner said that Mr. Carrasco had five votes and was appointed; Mr. Carter had one vote; and Mr. Schi rik had two votes. APPOINTMENT OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEMBER. TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERA OF JOHN O. SUTORIlUS ENDING SEPTrMBER 30, M4 Mayor Eyerly read the list of candidates: Jocelyn Bau. Virgil Carter Sally Ellenberger Dan Finkle Ronald Hall Larick Hill Roger Kohler Richard Pennington Harvey Roth Jonathan Schi nk Louis ;Scl afani Gary Talbot Gary Wetzel . Edgar Williams City Clerk Ann Tanner read the results of the first round of voting: VOTING FOR BAUM: Renzel VOTING FOR HALL: Bechtel , Fl etcher VOTING FOR SCHINK: Eyerly, Witherspoon VOTING FOR CARTER: Fazzino, Cobb, Klein City Clerk Ann Tanner read the results of the second round of voting: VOTING FOR CARTER: Cobb, Klein VOTING FOR HALL: Bechtel, Fletcher VOTING FOR SCHINK: Fazzino, Renzel , Eyerly, Witherspoon City Clerk Ann Tanner read the results of the third round voting VOTING FOR CARTER: Klein VOTING FOR HALL: Fletcher VOTING FOR SCHINK: Fazzino, Renzel , Bechtel, Eyerly Cobb, Witherspoon Ms. Tanner announced that Mr. Carter had one vote; Mr. Hall had one . vote; and Mr. Schink had six votes and was appointed. Mayor Eyerly congratulated John Schink and Anthony Carrasco, He said the Council took so much time on the balloting in view of the large number of applicants with a very high level of expertise. He thought it was a. tribute to the City that so many people, with such fine backgrounds, applied for the positions. CANVASS OF MARCH 30 SPECIAL ELECTION Mayor Eyerly announced that Councilmembers Renzel. and Klein had canvassed th.e votes as prepared by City Clerk Ann Tanner, and acknowledged that they signed the necessary certi fi cati dns Mayor Eyerly advised that the registered voters in the City of Palo Alto on March 1, 1982 (close of .; registration) numbered 38,313, that the whole number of votes cast in the City at the Special Election held on March 30, 1982 was 7,481;.' that the total of number of• votes cast in favor of Measure "A" (initiative ordi fanoe) was 2,195; and that the total number of votes cast against. Measure "A" (initiative ordinance) was 5,286. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 6013 entitled NRESOLUT ION of .,THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO_. ALTO. DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE -SPECIAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 30= 1982" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION:: Counci lmenber Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, - approval of the Consent Calendar. 1 _8 3 4 4/05/82 Referral None Action RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM THE STATE S 1 CCTIR:I Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution authorizing application submittal for bike path construction in accordance with the requirements .of. the State Coastal Conservancy. The reso- lution identifies the City Manager as the official representative in connection with the application and certifies that the. City will comply with Conservancy requirements as indicated in the "List of Assurances" which is incorporated in the resolution. The application in no way binds or obligates the City to go forward with the project. RESOLUTION 6014 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVAtCY FOR PURPOSES OF BIKE PATHS IN THE BAYLANDS AREA" ORDINANCE fE SEVENTY-TWO HOUR PARKING ISSUE 2nd READING ORDINANCE 3341 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF. PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 10.36.030 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE AND HEARING PRIOR TO AND AFTER REMOVAL OF A VEHICLE PARKED OR LEFT ON THE STREET FOR SEVENTY-TWO OR MORE CONSECUTIVE HOURS AND PROVIDING THAT A VEHICLE SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE PARKED OR LEFT FOR SEVENTY-TWO OR MORE CONSECUTIVE HeiRS IF IT HAS NOT BEEN MOVED AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND FEET WITHIN SA --?:D TIME (1st Reading, 3/15/82, Passed 7-0, Levy, Witherspoon absent) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. AGENDA CHANGES ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Mayor Eyerly announced a new. business. received Visual Arts Jury Chairman, item regarding a letter Orlando Malone. Mayor Eyerly announced a. new business item regarding State. Report. on Baylands Overview. Mayor Eyerly announced a new business item regarding a movie on Nuclear Disarmament, prior to meeting on April 19. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RE ZONING AND. MOTION: Counc i lmember Kl.ei n moved, seconded by .Cobb, : that Council go ,through item by item and hear from the public on each indi- vidual item. MOTION PASSED- unanimously, Levy absent. Item 1i Ch an''yyl1es `Y>o:Daylight Plane,-Hei ht and .Side2 and ��w��MrisMMyw11� amp iworN �uuira�r.o nn��- . . . .. � . .�i, 1 t Milly Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, reported that the Neighborhood Coalition recommended that the height limit in the R-1, Single Family Zones be reduced from the current 35 feet to 30 feet. She said the City's solar access expert stated that a 30 -foot height limit would be better than a 33 -foot height limit, as recommended by the Planning. Commission, because solar collector panels could be laid flat on reefs similar to skylights rather than high on .racks as seen on some roofs. Further, a 30 -foot height limit - would be better for p,assi ve solar heating systems which used greenhouses in cement blocks on the ground level because sunlight would penetrate lower to the ground. __ She said that Palo Alto and Menlo Park were -thee only cities she contacted with a 35 -foot height --limit in R-1 zones; ,Sunnyvale, Los Gatos, Redwood City, Los Altos and Saratoga had a 30 -foot height limit in R-1 zones; and Santa Clara and Mountain View had' a 2.5 -foot height limit for single family homes. She said that according to the records of homes in Palo Aito that. constructed second story additions last year, the average_ height was 23.75- feet for the sec_ and floor... She said that indicated that a 25-30 foot "height limit would be ade- quate for two story houses. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said he supported the proposed modification in . the Dayl i ght- Plane, Aleight and Sideyard Setbacks in the R-1 District. He felt the modification was a move in the right direc- -tior, but thought it should go further. He supported Milly Davis' - and the Neighborhood Coalition's recommendations that the height limit be reduced to 30 feet as well as the redefinition of "hei eht as the peak of the roof rather than the average. He felt the definition of "height'' should be uniform throughout the zoning ordinance, and measured to the peak of hipped or pitched roof for all zones not just the R-1. If that failed, he endorsed making the definition apply to the R-1 zones. Barbara Carlitz, 450 N. California, an architectural designer, said both projects on her desk currently involved second story additions and were variance bound under the present daylight plane definition. Neither would require a variance permit to proceed if the proposed change from 10 to 12 feet were enacted. She said it was common for small houses to be only six feet from -the property lines, and the ten -foot definition- was very limiting. Bizarre roof alignment situations trying to maximize space appeared to be the biggest problem, and with many small houses it was difficult to locate a stairway sensibly within the house to access the. second floor if only walls between two to four feet high, from the sidewall were allowed, and further there was a €'S" requirement for headroom in a stairway. She did not see any adverse effect's. from the change, and thought it would result in less.paperwork for staff as well as some better design decisions which people could live with on the inside of their houses and everyone could view from the outside. Vice Mayor Bechtel asked Hs. Carlitz if a 30 -foot height limit would be difficult to work with in her current projects as opposed to 33 feet. Ms. Carlitz responded that it would be no problem.. Barry A. Hennings, 2360 Emerson, said he supported the comments made by Ms. Carlitz. He recollected that he had started the variance procedure to exceed the daylight plane by two., and one- half feet a year ago, and he was yet to build. Raising the day- light plane from -10 feet to 12 feet probably would have eliminated his need for a variance , at all. He said that the variance had cost eight or nine months of time ...,and cost his neighbor about $1,000. in att:rr'ey5' fees, :and a lot of ill will that was not entirely mended. He said there were Severe problems in designing anything usable on a second floor in a community where older homes were that close. to .,property lines. MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to approve Sections 1-4, "Changes to Daylight Plane, Height and Sideyard Setbacks in the K-1 District,"' and amend page 1, section 2, of the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission with an addi- tional amendment that` rather than 33 feet on height limit it be 30 feet. 1 Councilmember Witherspoon said that on Page 6 of CMR:200:2, last line of Item C, it said, "Al so, bring forward Section 18,88,120 on horizontal yard encroachments in the R-1 Di strict to accompany this addition." She asked for a summary of what that would involve. Chief Pl anrri fly Official Bruce Freel and said that i n the "Excepti ons" secti on of the ordinance, people in R-1 Districts were allowed to have a hori zontal extension of a noncomplying structure that was built within the sideyard setback. He said that exception only applied to R-1 Districts; and, since it- was a related idea to give a house already built into the sideyard a horizontal extensi on with an addition, staff felt it would be a better communication device to move it from th.e "Exceptions" sec- tion of the ordinance to the R-1 part of the ordinance for clarity . Councilmember Witherspoon cl eri fled that Mr. Freel and meant that i n addi ti on to what was being changed, one al so had the option to go out horizontally with a bay window perhaps. Mr. Freel and said that generally it meant an additi on to the living area done along the same line as the existing structure and was only allowed for about eight feet. He said it could be a window, or a small covered porch. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if variance procedures existed for all sections of the ordinance. City Attorney Di ane Lee responded that no vari ance procedures exi sted for "uses ," but for any of the.'standards of site develop- ment variance procedures existed. She said those would continue to apply to any changes made in the ordinance. Councilmember Witherspoon said she supported the motion, but in the interest ofmore flexibility for designers she would prefer to stick with the 33 foot height limit. Mayor Eyerly advised that he would divide the motion for voting. Counci lmember Renzel asked regarding Section C on Page 6 of CMR :200: Z, if an encroachment was allowed under the exceptions, would Section 18.12.08U apply to building a second story wall over the encroachment. Mr. Freeland responded that the new language would allow building over a legally constructed portion of the house. Zoning Administrator Robert Brown, commented that the horizontal exception mentioned in Section 18.88.120 must be five feet, from the sideyard and actually was a onefoot exception from the normal six foot sideyard. Director of P l ann r ng and Community Environment Ken Schreiber also commented that, exception would still have to remain within the daylight -plane. Councilmember Renzel commented that if someone had a three-foot si deyard, as was the case in one matter, and if they `.wi shed t ►, stay within the daylight _ plane, they would start at 12 feet and move with three feet and would be 15 feet vertical and three feet from the sideyard, : which would be permitted. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel said she supported the. 30 -foot height limit, but was concerned about raising the daylight plane. She said she had not found it difficult to make the variance decisions in the past, and she felt that the ordinance was loosened when the old setback requirements were changed. She was concerned about people building substantial Walls six feet or less from the property line. She would oppose the daylight plane aspect of the motion, but would support the 30 -foot height limit. Councilmember Cobb said he understood that the City's goal in making many of the changes _ was to : reduce the number of variances and make it easier for Mr. Brown to administer the rules more con- sistently and get overturned a little less frequently. Mayor Eyerly said he felt that the original ordinance gave more flexibility to the design of the homes and -he he did not think that height had been a particular hardship for the City to live with. He would not support lowering the height limit to 30 feet. AMENDMENT PASSED to lower height limit to 30 feet by a vote of 5-3, Fazzino, Witherspoon and Eyerly voting "no," Levy absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 7-1, Renzel voting 'no," Levy absent. ITEM #2� Da.yl i ght Plane Definition .(Section 18.04.030[44 } W rrwer rrrR �rr.dal owrw rrirrrr�a>tre.al.rsr+o+Ar�.ors.����r..w��/n1�wt� aaOta�rr�enw MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Item #2, Daylight Plane Definition. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #3 Da li ht Plane for Residential Properties Conti uous to torinnerci a _ones MOTION: -Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by .Fletcher, approval of -Item #3, Daylight Plane for Residential Properties Contiguous to Commercial Zones and adopt -Planning Cammi ssion recommend'ati on that there be no change to current regulations. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #4, iiei ht Defin.it.ion tSe`tiion 8.04,Q3Q r,1] wsrw�+w�w.n ��r�e .*oresr�r�rwui�� - MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to approve Item #4, Height Definition and adopt Planning Commission recommendation of no ;.change to current definition of Height. Councilmember Renzel thought that for the public's clarity, the City should use the maximum height limit for its -definition rather than the obscure definitions of average heights, etc., which allowed considerable excess above what people thought the height limit was. She would not support the motion. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 1-1, Renzel voting "no," Levy absent. ITEM #51 Flood Li htin J estr io s Nwarrer rnr i r.a rs r... MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel , approval of the staff recommendation that both recreational and security lighting be restricted in height to a maximum of 12 feet and be required to be shielded so that direct light could not extend beyond the : subject property,. Mr. Schreiber -noted. that the staff recommendation could not be ' applied retroactively, and the Planning -Commission recommendation could be applied retroactively. 1 1 1 Councilmember Cobb asked if any situations existed where the pro- posed definition of flood lighting would cause the City any prob- lems. Mr. Brown responded that the section only applied to the R-1 zone. Councilmember Renzel asked for clarification that even though the 12 foot restri-ction was being added, it would not change the City`s ability to retroactively require shielding. Ms. Lee said no as long as. it was clear. Councilmember Renzel said she supported the motion as, made. Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown -Hawk es said that the Planning Commission deleted the height reference because there was concern that 12 feet might not be the best number, and there was concern about exactly what the appropriate height of a light would be. Some commissioners commented thet there were a number of situations in R-1 zones where lighting on an existing house was above 12 feet.. She said it was felt that addressing the issue of the shielding and the impact of the light seemed to be a direct enough way to get at..the problem that was identified. 1 1 Mayor . Eyerly said that the Planning Commission Minutes revealed that there was considerable discussion on the item, and one of the points was that some houses had second stories and -a need for lighting from the second ,story which would be above the 12 feet. Further, he said there was considerable discussion about such lighting and the needs to be allowed for security reasons, etc. He said he could think of a number of examples where lighting should be above 12 feet, and he thought that shielding of that light so that it would not have too much of an effect . on the neighbors would be the proper way to go as the Planning Commission had recommended. He would not support the motion. Mr. Brown commented that if the problem was primarily pole lights' that were 'excessively high and not necessarily those lights which Were attached to residential structures, the motion could specifi- cally limit pole lightirg to 12 feet in height. - Councilmember Renzel commented that lighting on a second floor was obviously not aimed at a house, but away from the house and every bit as much a cor:cern as tennis court lights, etc.i She thought those lights facing outward would be more difficult to shield. Ms. Lee clarified that Council's intention was that the 12 -foot height limitation on the lighting would not apply retroactively, but the shielding portion would. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel ,. that the 12 -foot requirement apply only to freestanding lighting. Vice Mayor Bechtel commented that she seconded the amendment with` slight hesitation. She was concerned that the requirement was only limited to a freestanding pole and she was .thinking _about the kind of lighting she had seen in some neighborhoods where people ran an electric line up with fairly high bright lighting from -a giant Oak tree. She said she would just as soon not see that kind of lighting. Councilmember Klein commented that that was his intention: MOTION PPSSEO by a vote of -5-3, Renzel, Eyerly,: and Witherspoon voting "no," Levy absent. MOTION AS AMENDED by a vote of 7-1, Eyerly voting "no," Levy absent. ITEM #5, Child SafetL in.Mult �le-Farr�ilyProjects MOTION: < Counci lmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fazzino, approval of Item #6, Child Safety in Multi -Family Projects and adopt Planning Commission recommendation of no change. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. Definition of Usable 0 en S ace. Section 18.04.030[142] wma..rim w.eu�rwi�,nr� •r....e a®Il�rrt Mi 1 ly Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, said her personal view was that balconies and rooftops could add much to the quality of living for those living in upper stories of buildings. She would like to see them included as usable open space and 100% of their area counted. She said that at first. the Planning Commission considered counting a , x 6 foot balcony as usable open space. It was not adopted because there was a fear that it would result in less usable open entice on the ground level. She felt that for some people a pri- vate balcony might be preferred to common ground level open space. She asked if restrictions either to require a minimum amount of ground level open space and/or to count parking spaces as part of the lot coverage to encourage underground parking spaces would help to ensure some open areas at ground levels. Counci lmember Renzel said she agreed with the staff recommendation of no change because she thought the object of the open space was to generate some meaningful open spaces in the residential areas. She thought it was important for the City to continue to encourage a sensible usable open space in projects. As a practical matter, she thought that most developers were going to nevertheless include small balconies even though they could not be counted because they provided an amenity, but were not usable open space. She thought that if the requirements were watered down, the City would find itself with many little tiny ,odd patches of space that were not usable, and she would object to that. MOTION: Counciimember Renzel moved, seconded!' by Cobb, to approve Item #7, Definition of Usable Open Space and adopt staff recom- mendati on that there be.no change to current regulations. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #8. Usable 0 en S ace in Mixed Use Developments Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, urged that the Council not adopt the staff and Planning Commission recommendation, but refer back to the Planning Commission a request for some minimum level of usable. open space in mixed use developments. He said that all emphasi s had been on the fact that most developments which were reviewed sti 1 1 provided some. He said that one devel opment which was not reviewed was the one at 3700. El Camino Real which was a proposed mixed use and which provided trivial amounts of usable open space. He felt that the" City was relying upon the goodwill of a developer, and further, the emphasis was on providing incentives for a developer's financial benefit, and no recognition of the need for the people that lived there. He referred to a pure, high density, multiple family development, RM-5, which required 150 feet of usable open space. He said that the staff report listed actual.. amounts provided -in various RM-2, RM-3, RM-4 and RM-5 developments, and there were significant amounts of usable open. space. He. felt .'that usable open space-: made the project more livable for those people who were actually residing. there whether` it be- owners or tenants. He proposed that first preference be given to the living quality of ,the- developments' rather than whether the developer could make the last possible ni ckl e, and that the Planning Commission be _.asked to come back with at least an - RM-5. level required open spice: in ::mixed use developments. 1 1 1 1 Hi l ly Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, said that' at the February 7, 1978 City Council meeting, Frances Brenner moved that the words "no usable open space shall be required in mixed residential and non- residential uses" be deleted, and that 100 square feet should be required. She said that last month the Neighborhood Coalition voted to endorse that request in order to add a higher quality of living : to resi dents in mixed use developments.. She said that mixed use projects were given other profits such as a possible 20% reduction in parking requirements. She thought it was doubtful that a requirement for a small amount of usable open space would cause developers to refuse to build mixed use projects. She said that a more direct way to ensure mixed use projects rather than pure commercial would seem to be to include a_ new zone which required ll�commercial on the first floor only, with all upper floors to be housing. Councilmember Renzel agreed that some usable open space was needed in the residential developments. She said it appeared that developers understood that to sell the units they had to provide some in general, but were not required to under the current ordi- nance. She said that in conjunction with the item, during the Comprehensive Plan revision, the Council supported a motion to look at providing the incentives in commercial zones for 100% housing rather than for mixed housing/commercial. She thought that a lot of the concerns about usable open space and about traf- fic, density, etc., would be alleviated if the City's bonuses were granted to developments that provided 100% housing ir,.nonresiden- tial zones rather than the mixed developements. She thought that what was happening was that the City was providing incentives to add a little commercial in order to get the bonuses. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to Refer Item #8, Usable Open Space in Mixed Use Developments to the Planning Commission to address the question of bonuses being given to 100 percent residential rather than to mixed uses in all nonresidential zones. Councilmember Cobb said he would like to see the Council return the question to the Planning Commission with the idea of them defining some appropriate open space requirements which could, be used for mixed use developments which would not create di si ncenti veso and at the same time look . at the broader question of providing incentives for all housing developments. Councilmember Renzel said she did not want to increase incentives beyond ,what was already allowed, but rather having th.e incentives for all residential developments. Councilmember Cobb said he preferred to have the Planning Commission look at the broad question . and return with something that would deal with all the issues ranging from the open space issue .to the bonuses in all nonresidential zones. Councilmember Renzel clarified that her motion was very broad with respect to how the bonuses were delegated within the nonresiden- tial zones, but was not intended to increase the bonuses. She said it could be intended to reallocate the bonuses if the Commission would consider it. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #9, Lot Covera_ge Exception for Amenity Structures Councilmember- Fazzi no said he was structures was defined. He asked if a formal definition existed. Mr. Freeland : responded that in the proposed ordinance sections, the word "amenity" features used a specific listing of _ feature s that would be exceptions. concerned about how- amenity, 1 8 4 1- 4/05/82 As Corrected 5/24/82 MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve Item #9, Lot Coverage Exception for Amenity Structures and adopt staff recommendation_ that there be no change to the site coverage restrictions, including deletion of Sections 8 through 12 in the ordinance. V ; ce Mayor, Bechtel said that the Planning Commission had recom- mended a 2% exception for the amenity structures and she did not believe that the City would get additional landscaping. She felt that additional parking area would be more likely, and therefore, she recommended no change. Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown-Hawkes said that the Planning Commission's intent was that the 2% additional site cov- erage could only be used for the very specific covering of the listed items. Vice Mayor Bechtel commented that she wantedto continue to count the 2% as part of the lot coverage. She said that the Planning Commission did not want to count the 2% as lot coverage. She said that with the staff recommendation only 33% would be covered plus the 2% for covered mailboxes, garbage cans, etc. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION RE LITIGATION FROM 9:32 p.m. TO 9:_55 .m. ITEM #10 CN District Hei ht for Mixed Use Pro'ects Section . . Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, asked if this Section was considered part of the incentive package in view of what was referred to the Planning Commissioe. Mr. Freeland said it was part,_ of the same subject matter and it made -sense lo study them together. dilly Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, read a letter from a member of the Barron Park community regarding the proposal by the Barron Park Association that the maximum height limit for mixed residen- tial and commercial uses be lowered in CH Districts. Barron Park had many older homes built before its incorporation by the City of Palo Alto, and since setback requirements were unheard of at the time of their construction, most of the homes on Los Altos Drive sat directly on their respective property lines which abutted an unnamed alley claimed by the City of Palo Alto. The alley also abutted property zoned for CN use. If construction of 35 foot structures was allowed in the CN zcnes adjacent to single family dwellings, the privacy .of the homes would be greatly endangered. Those people who purchased property when the height limitation was 25 feet , would be victims of changes which would be beyond their control. It was requested that the height limit for CN structures ,adjacent to single family homes be returned to 25 feet. MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to refer Item 10, Reduction of Height Limit for Mixed Use Projects and the incentives for Residential Use in a Neighborhood/Commercial area to staff and Planning Commission. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM#11 CN li str# Plane Section 18'.41.070 d Councilmember Renzel said that when there was a residential site line, it was not known what side of the alley it would be on and whether it would incorporate the alley or. not. She thought the daylight plane would be more restrictive' if it were,measured from the site line of the project rather than from the residential site line. i 1 1. 8 4 2 4/05/82 Mr. Brown responded that currently there was,a two to one daylight plane when the CN site directly abutted residential property. He said the proposed provision was requested by the Barron Park Association, and was previously in the zoning ordinance which was adopted in 1978, and since removed. He said the particular item referred to the daylight plane when the CN site was separated by a_ right of way from a residential property. Councilmember Renzel commented that it measured the daylight plane from the residential si de of the right of way rather than from the property line of the property. She asked about the reason for that. Mr. Freeland responded that if the residential property were immediately adjacent and they had a common lot line, then it would be measured from the common lot line. He said if the idea was to protect the single family residents, the single family residence was put i n the same position relative to the daylight plane if it was measured from the residential property. Staff felt that by measuring it from the residential side, they would have at least the same relative protection as _ an immediately abutting property would. Councilmember Renzel cl.eri fi ed that properties which abutted alleys were in a more favorable position than those that abutted a zone directly because they had the distance of the alley to go vertically before they even got on to their own property. Mr. Brown said that the alley did provide some distance for the adjacent residential property plus there was a requi red 10 foot landscape strip on the commercial property adjacent to the . alley which made a 30 foot buffer. Councilmember Renzel asked if there were any other situations in Palo Alto where the property was allowed to use the street as a part of the distance that computed the daylight plane. Sam Sparck, 4099 Laguna, said that the reason for the provision was to plug a loophole. He said the daylight plane was in effect so long as the residential parcel abutted a commercial parcel. If there was any right of way or alley, the letter of the law stated that there was no daylight plane for anything in between. Their request was that there should be a daylight plane even though there be some right of way between the two parcels. Mr. Freeland said that if there was an alley separati ng parcels, then the residential parcel would not impose the daylight plane on the CC. -;He said it was adding the protection above and beyond what existed. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said he thought that the staff's and Planning Commission's attempt to.;,. protect property aujacei.t to a CN zone was fire, but thought the way it was being handled created confusion. He said the problem arose because the original zoning ordinance contained protection whenever a residential zone was within 150 feet of any nonresidential zone. He said the 150 foot limit was taken out and the word "abutting" was left in. Hethought it proe' tected the residential zones adjacent to or near CN zones, but did nothing for the CC zone or CS zone, etc. He thought it would be clearer in the case of the CN zone and all commercial zones if the language saying "within 150 feet of" was reinstituted.. He said that Section 14 of the proposed zoning -ordinance referred only to sites opposite any site in an RE and referred only to CN. He thought that ' should be extended to CC, CS, LM and GM zones to give the same kind of protections; or, it should say within 150 feet.. 1 8 4 3 4/_05/82 Vice Mayor Bechtel said that because the Planning Commission spent so much time discussing the matter and previous discussion was also had, she thought Bob Moss' comments could be brought up at a later date by the Planning Commission for further discussion and further ordinance changes. MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to approve Item #11, CN District Daylight Plane to add Section 13 and 14 to the ordinance. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #12, CN District Corner Setback Sam Sp.arck, 4099 Laguna, said he was -generlilly in agreement with the staff's conclusion, but asked if there were any restrictions for landscaping in the corner on the public right away along the street to protect the visibility around the corner. The reason for _the request was to make sure that there was sufficient visi- bility for safety in making turns. Mr. Freeland responded that when the property was developed, it would be sent to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and they would look at the landscaping, which would be referred_ to the Transportation Department for comment. In the event that shrub- bery became overgrown, the City Jleoperty, maintenance standards could be used to -enforce the limitation in the future. MOTION: Counci linember Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve the Planning Commission's recommendations re Item #12, CN District Corner Setback. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #13, Status of C ress Lane - MOTION: eVice,.Mayor Bechtel moved,_ seconded by Cobb, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation on Item #13, Status of Cypress Lane, that no action be taken. - MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #14, Parkin. Structures as a Princisal -Use in PF District ec ion ,:. Councilmember Witherspoon said it looked as though a restriction was being set up, and then said to be undesirable.. Mr. Freeland responded that staff was seeking ways to accommodate the potential need - to build parking structures in the PF lot, One way was to rezone and go under the - site development standards of other •'di s -t ri cts; and another, was to try and invent a new package of site development standards just for parking, structures in PF districts, lie said staff thought about inventing some standards that would be. generally available in PF districts, but- was con- cerned about conflicts with neighboring land uses, It was thought that the site development standards from the most restrictive adjacent zoning district could be borrowed and let ` them stand. He said that was what was described under Alternative B. Staff felt that Alternative B would work well for many lots, but that there would be some problems remaining --particularly Lot J --which was being looked at presently as one of the potential downtown struc- ture- lots. He said it happened to :be right across the street from a residential district, and the residential districts were the most restrictive zones. If its standards had to be used, then Lot J could not be built for a parking lot. Alternative A, was pre- ferred by. the Planning Commission, but was limited to only some of the zoning districts. 1 .8 4 4 4/05/82 Mr. Freeland said that the Planning Commission's recommendations. would allow a parking structure to be built on al l of the downtown lots because they would be rezoned to a commercial district and could be bui it to the same si ze as commercial structures. MOTION: .Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve Planning Commission recommendation for Item ; 14, Parking Structures as a Principal Use in PF Districts (Alternate A). Counci lmember Renzel asked if the Council went with Alternative A, was the only control the fact that the City of Palo Alto owned the property. Mr. Freeland said it was the primary control, but . i t was suggested that they go through a conditional use permit so that within the CC, CS and GM districts where it .would be applicable, a use permit would have to be applied for,: which could, also control. Counci l member Renzel said that a parking garage had been built An the California Avenue area in an assessment district proceeding, and asked if there was anything preventing the City from rezoning a public facility lot to commercial to allow a parking structure. Mr. Freel and , said the irony was that under the City's present ordinance, only commercial parking lots were listed as a condi- tional use in a commercial district so that where the private party could build a parking structure that would make a profit, the City would be barred under the present ordinance from putting up a nonprofit parking assessment district type lot. He said the main change that was suggested for the CC and CS zones was one which allowed public lots in addition to the private commercial lots. Counci lmember Renzel said she preferred to keep the public facility zones and would prefer Alternative B. She did not object to making a parking garage a conditional use under commercial zones, hut preferred to see the City operate generally under the PF zones with the restrictions. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Renz'el moved, seconded by F azzi no,. to adopt a combination of Alternative A and B, namely that the PF zone be the primary zone for building parking garage structures and that as a secondary method a zoning change with conditional use permit be provided in commercial zones, with the added condition. -that City parking lots be required to meet the landscaping and other requirements of the zone. Counci lmember Fletcher commented that the staff report . said that there mast no significant environmental impact because parking structures would attract the cars which now parked on the adjacent residential streets. She had no particular objection, but pointed out that she thought the: environmental assessment took a short view to say there was no environmental impact because while cars would be taken off the adjacent street, in the long run more trips would be generated. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED unanimously; Levy absent. ITEM #1.5, Elimination of Commerci al Parking as a Conditional Use in Mayor Eyerly asked, if the previous motion had any effect on Item #15. Mr. Fre i and said that the Planning Commission had considered the item on several different meetings, and recommended that.commer- cial parking be eliminated from the OR district. He said that the GM District, as in the CC and CS districts, there was a change from the words "commercial parking" to parking as a principal use. I a Councilmember Fletcher said she was unclear about the definition of "commercial parking" being parking provided at a fee for a profit. She clarified that with the City's Downtown Parking Management Plan, a fee was charged for parking and the City was making a profit and `using the profit to run a -shuttle service, and asked if the City was then running a commercial parking arrange- ment. Mr. Freeland responded that the distinction would no longer have any meaning, and reminded the Council that in the previous motion, the wording was changed in the CC, CS and GM Districts. Where it previously read "commercial parking," it how read parking. as a principal use," and described parking provided by either a private or a public entity. He said the wording "commercial property" no longer existed in the zoning ordinance, and where the spot was still appropriate it would be called "parking as a principal use." MOTION: Councilmember Renzei moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Item #l.5, Elimination of Commercial Parking as a Conditional Use in OR & GM Districts. Mayor Eyerly commented that staff, had pointed out that only the District on Welch Road would be impacted by the motion. He said he was concerned about removing commercial parking as a condi- tional use in view of the City's efforts to remove on -street parking in the re°si cienti al neighboring areas to the. commercial districts. 'He weighed the impact of removing the parking area along Welch Road, and thought it would be insignificant. He would support the motion. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #16, Failure to Meet PC Development Schedule ITEM #17, PC District Inspection MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, approval of ITEM #16, Failure to Meet PC Development Schedule, and -ITEM 17, PC District Inspection. Councilmember Witherspoon asked why staff decided not to charge a fee for PC `Inspections. Mr. Schreiber responded that it was a problem of clumsiness in administration as well as the City's attempts to inspect proper- ties in general --and especially property with conditions --on a regular basis. Staff did not feel it was appropriate to single out one type of zone for a fee. Counci'lmember Fazzino was concerned about the lack of fee. He said that three years ago when the Jarvis -Gann budget was being reviewed, the Council and the Finance Committee made a conscious decision that any additional work done by City staff °would neces- sitate some type o fee, He had not seen the kind of enforcement with respect to PC's that was foreseen by the proposal. If the ,City was going to enhance enforcement- efforts particular in the PC area, he thought a fee was necessary. He would oppose the staff recommendation. Mayor Eyerly Clarified that staff said they could make regular inspections on the PC due to past history of needed inspections without any impact on staff time or a need fen a fee to cover it. He said he did not know from where the time would come. He said that as he understood the staff report, the City Attorney's office had said that a fee could be charged. Mr. Schreiber responded that he had instructed the Chief Building Official to establish a . schedule for a section of the planned community zone. He said most of the zones were inspected once I, 8 4 6 --.4/O5/t 2 every three years or so and it would be appropriate. He said no great probl ems were foreseen. If a third of them were done every year, it` would be worked into the schedule of the Ordinance Compliance Inspector. Mayor Eyerly said he thought the Planning Commission's recommenda- tion made sense He said it established regular inspections of PC zones, which had been a problem before, and the staff appar- ently felt there was no need for extra personnel or that other duties would be robbed. He would support the motion. Counci lmember Fazzi no said he would support the overall moti on, but asked the staff to reevaluate the need for a fee based upon the amount of staff time necessary to accomplish the inspections and have the finance consider it as part of the overall fee struc- ture for the 1982-83 fiscal year. Councilmember Fl etcher said she .had tried to get the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center to spruce up, and had an especially hard time because all three of the owners were absentee owners. If a., fee were charged, she thought the City wou3,d have a -hard time collecting it. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #18 Calculation of Impervious Coverage When Clusterin in e �' ins ric .I MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Eyerly, approval of the Planning Commission's recommendation re Item #18, Calcula- tion of impervious Coverage When Clustering in the OS District. Councilmember Renzel felt that the City was asking for a lot of trouble on the smaller lots in the Foothills if the impervious surface was changed to a small area. She felt that 6,000 to 8,200 square feet of lot coverage was .more than adequate for most single family homes; and for accessory .bui l di ngs , it was a -massive amount of space. She supported the general concept of' urging cl us-- tering, but did not feel it was detrimental to keep the lot cover- age proportionate, to thet`,lots. She' felt that the discretionary a 1 1 ocati on of the open space among the lots might create a fain amount of difficulty for staff particularly where the lots were i n separate ownershi p in a clustered situation. She would oppose the. motio=n. Zoni ny Admi ni strator Bob Brown mentioned that the concept of if:pervious coverage was not 'the same as bui ]ding coverage in the US Zone. He said impervious coverage included driveways which :'generally consumed a good portion of allowable coverage. He said that in the case of the Hewlett house specifically, staff took some liberties i n i nterpret,ati on that the Hewlett house ' could not have been constructed with its driveways if constrained by the 3.5 percent on a four acre lot. He pointed out that although it was a 5,000 square foot house, the driveway took - up so much .of the impervious coverage. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7.1, Renzel voting "no," Levy absent. ITEM #19 Consideration of Improvements in Required Variance i ndi ngs (18 .91.1050 ) Scott Donahey, 273 Ri nconada, said he understood. that the present ordinance did not permit the consideration of improvements in required variance findings. That did not make sense to him unless one was improving a vacant lot, or making an improvement adjacent to a vacant lot. He applied for a variance to build a second story addition which would minimize the inconvenience 'and effect on his nei ghbor si nce most of his exi sting space was behi nd an 1 $._41 4/05/82- existing structure. He said he could build back without a vari- ance and cut off more light than he would if he obtained a vari- ance and built up. He would also have to move his existing garage which would be visible to other neighbors to whom the garage was not visible at the present time. It did not make sense ,to not consider the existing i nprovements i n relation to the surrounding land and improvements in granting variances. Mark Chandler, 2333 Williams Street, said that at first blush the proposed change seemed to make a lot of sense. He agreed with the previous speaker that it seemed like blindness to examine the way the zoning affected someone and not he allowed to look at the way the proposed construction interacted with the improvements already on the site. He sai d- that was exemplified by the amount of cases involving second story additions over the past several months, and particularly regarding setbacks where houses were built legally on a setback that was now illegal or where the daylight plane infringed. He realized the situation was hard to deal with and people had come forward with meritorious proposals that were not allowable under the existing ordinance, but did not seem to be i n the findings requirements either. He said the Council had legiti- mat ely tried to do justice to the applicant and the nei ghbors i n cases while trying to be sensitive to the. situation. He thought it was asking too much of el ected officials to expect them to fol low a bureaucratic rule when the reality of the situation and the benefits to the community were apparent. It was clear that there was a conflict between the desire to do justice, and the existing findings ngs requirements. He thought the bulk of the prob- lems involving the second story additions were caused by circum- stances which in themselves were not that extraordinary, but that, in general, the zoning ordinance did not fit the needs of the com- munity. He said that the bulk of the proposed zoning ordinance changes were designed to make the ordinance better fit the needs of the community and to remedy the source of problems which had occurred so that meritorious projects could proceed without the need for variances. He thought there was a need for consistency in standards in providing for variances so that people could have a fair idea, . by looking at the zoning ordinance, what would be permitted when they wanted to build on their property; and, to be clear when a variance would be permitted. He thought that indi- vidual improvements were so unique in themselves that to allow consideration of the improvements alone , as a basis for hardship and granti ng a variance, made the process an ad hoc system. People who knew how to massage the system knew how to obtain variances; or, those who paid the extra money and went to the trouble would be able to proceed with specialized cases, but other people would not. He did not think that was a desirable way to proceed. He read a statement by Professor Donald Hagman from his text Cali forni a Zoning Practice. "Even if a variance would have no harmful effect on the public or the neighbors, it would not be proper to grant the variance unless the property was unique in some way so that the zoning restrictions caused unusual hardship. In poorly administered programs : this standard is seldom applied. When it is implied, it is often incorrectly interpreted In these programs, if there is no adverse effect on the public or neigh- bors 0 the requirements of uniqueness and hardship are often regarded as technical limitations. that had more to do with theory rather than with substance Of course, if these technical limita- tions are not observed, there is an effect on the public _because the zoning ordinance is quickly emasculated. _ This cumulative effect of variances, however, is hard for the zoning board to appreciate when .__variances are considered, solely in terms of each individual case. Moreover, once variances are granted without, meeti ng that sort of standard of uniqueness and hardehi p, the result is a defacto system of administrative precedent." He 'said it was that inconsistency and standard listless ''that--. he thought would -result from the proposed, changes. He thought it would be- easier to enforce `the . existing findings standards, once the new ordinance was 4`n place.- _ Difficult cases might arise,- but he thought the, City would benefit from the Council saying no, in those places. He said the payoff would be in much greater consistency and clarity for people in the community. MOTION: Councilm_ember Renzel moved, seconded by Eyerly, that there be no change in the findings and that Council NOT approve Item #19, Consideration of Improve ents in Requi reT Vari ante Findings, and leave the ordinance as is. 1 1 1 Counci imember Renzel said she thought that even more serious was not how a variance affected the property seeking the variance, but how it affected the predictability of what could happen in the neighborhoods if variances were too loosely granted. She said that people buying into a neighborhood who expected that certain setbacks and rules and regulations would apply would find them readily breached by the variance requirements making it very easy to obtain variances. Mayor Eyerly felt that by adding the improvements as a considera- tion for variance findings, the City .would be opening a can . of worms and were apt to compound some of the problems which were already inherited. He understood that the Planning Commission made the recommendation partly due to the frustrations they had been through partly due to the Council's actions, but he thought other changes that were made may help the situation and no further increase in considerations should be made at this time. Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown-Hawkes said she thought that initially there was sentiment similar to what Mayor Eyerly expressed, and that the specific zoning ordinance changes that were acted on earlier relating to daylight plane, etc., were going to handle many of the reasonable single family, R-1 kinds of situations which had been coming up and which frustrated the Planning Commission. She said the staff had pointed out that those did not solve all the problems, that apart from those spe- cific second floor addition situations, there had always been a lot of frustrations with being told that the Planning Commission could not consider :anything about the characteristics of the improvements oh the property in making a finding. She said it was difficult in most neighborhoods to find anything unique about any particular lot. She referred to Mr. Henni ngs who had spoken earlier about his lot, which was a narrow 50 x 150 foot -lot, and said the Council had denied his variance request partially because there was no way, to distinguish between hj s property and any others similarly situated in terms of just the characteristicS of the lot. She sai d- the problem would continue . to come up over and over, and it was difficult to explain to rnernbers of the public that their house that had existed for 50 years and had certai n charac.teri sti cs had absolutely no bearing on the. Zoning Administrator's findings. She was not sure that by making no change there would be fewer variance applications ani:` that the same types of frustrations would not continue. Mayor Eyerly said he was concerned that so many of the variances seemed to be related to economics and the savings of dollars for, the property owner. He said that gave him problems when there were other ways to go. Mr. Freeland said that staff did not want to oversell .those tech- nical changes. Staff felt they _would help in, marry cases, but they were not the end of vari.ances._ As an : additional _pitch, he hoped that the staff and = Council woui d come out sharing the same rules;' and, i f , in fact, rio change : was made, staff intended to proceed along the ,.i i nes previously followed in terms of how to interpret - the findings. Counci iraember Fletcher' felt that if .the. recommendations were not adopted, the Council would ; be overruling the Zoning Admini strato;r in many cases. She reminded the Council of a recent application for a covering of 4 porch. The lot could not .be found to be 1 unique, but the way the house was situated, it was an improvement to thewhole neighborhood to enclose that porch. She also recol- 1 ected when the Council had an appl i cati on_, for a variance because the family wanted to build a solar home and there was a huge Oak tree in the middle of the lot which prevented the house from meeting all the setback requirements. That was a unique situation related to the so-called improvements which in that case was an Oak tree. She thought the change would give the Council more abi 1 ity to deal with uni que situations, and was in favor of Planning Commission recommendation. She would oppose the motion. Vice Mayor Bechtel said she would vote against the motion. She supported the Planning Commission and thought the Council needed to be sure and give staff clear guidelines and be consistent. If the Council consistently said that it was going to take into con- si der ati on and define property as including the structure, she thought that would help. Counci lmemb_er Witherspoon agreed with Mr. Chandler and Council - member Renzel . She had serious concerns about making the improve- ments a criteria. She recalled that one of the Council's most controversial and agonizing decisions was based not on the improvements on the.proper'ty owner's property, but on the improve- ments on the neighbor's property. She observed that one of the problems had been that the owners and their architect .did not want to face some of the difficult desi gn decisions that the ordinances imposed on them, and that they usually took the easy approach which was to come in and apply for a vari ance. She was not sure she was wi l l i ng to go so far as to not meet the applicants half way. She thought that in conjunction with what the Council had already passed, she would rather stand fi rm. Counci lmember F azzi no said he was opposed to the motion , and thought the. Counci 1 was avoi ding real ity by not dealing with improvements. He thought that dealing solely with land and not improvements should have gone out with 18th century English land law. He was concerned that by approving the motion, the Council was beholding solely to the concept of fewer variances rather than the reasonable needs of the citizens and the zoning ordinance as it had played out in Palo.. Alto for the past five years. If the Council voted against the Planning Commission recommendation, he thought variance requests, confusion and frustration would increase on the part of residents. The issue would continually be discussed as the Toning Administrator and Planning Commission recei ved more and more requests. He thought that in the final_ analysis in a year or two, the Council would throw their hands up and ultimately approve the Planning Commission recommendation. ' He thought_ the Council needed to remember that they were not talking about large budgets aria fancy architects , but single family homes for the ' most part with pecul ;\a -T .probl ems. He thought it was important for the Council to r'es'pond to those people who were really the major reason why the issue was before the Council. He encouraged that the Counci lmembers vote against the motion on the floor and support the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Klein said the Council was supposed to serve the public, and he did not think it was the Council's, goal to either have more or less vari ance requests. ,He thought it was the Council's job to do the best it could to come up with a community that was well designed and where -people could accomplish what they wanted without infringing upon the. legitimate rights of -their neighbors. When he placed that -as the standard, he thought the test as suggested by the Planning Commission was appropriate. He said that for those who _ supported the. motion on the' floor, he thought`- that perhaps they were_, suggesting the- variance requests would be autom'ati c He did.- not think that was the ` case --the Council would only consider the impact''of''the =improvements. some times' °that would be sufficient ' to grant the -variance and ; some- times it would not. It would, depend ,upon all the facts and _..1 8 5 0 4/05/82 1 1 circumstances. He thought it was an appropriate consideration for the Council to take into account. He pointed out that the law ran into trouble when it started to run contrary to what the public expected. He thought that the public expected that improvements should be taken into account. He said that as' he thought back over the variances he had considered, he thought that if the Council really ignored improvements, about ` 98% of the variance requests would be denied, He thought the Council should be realistic and adopt the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Renzel felt that when the Council said it had "more flexibility i n approving vari ances , they al so had less fl exi bility in denying variances. She asked what the situation was where someone had a :building which already had a variance under a separate owner' for a sideyard intrusion, and then they came i n and said they wanted to build up along a wall. Assuming that was not allowed, that would mean that that would have to be taken into account and. because the property was granted one variance, the Council could not say "sorry, the property already intruded on the setback." City Attorney Diane Lee said she felt that situation fell into the realm of self-induced haedshi p. She thought the self-induced hardship could . be traced back to the previous property- owner, and make the determination. She did not want to say that the City could not do that. Councilmember Renzel said ,she was concerned that the City would be creati ng situations where there would be no basi se for saying that someone did not have an unusual hardship when they wanted a view, had a tree, or a particular setback problem. She thought tremen- dous problems of predictability for the neighbors was being created as to what they were buying when they bought their little piece of Palo Alto. She said they would expect that the house next door would be following the same ordinance as they were buying into. She poi nted out that the Counci 1 only saw the van - ance requests when they were appealed from the eZontrie Administrator in one way or another. She said staff would take the more flexible rules into account and perhaps grant the *earl ances, and put the burden 06 to the nearby nei ghbor to pay $90 for an appeal before the Council ever saw it, and she thought that was unfai r. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that variances were not granted. without all the neighbors being notified that a public , hearing would be held on the matter, and they, bad every right Ao protest before th.e appeal process ever became necessary. Ms. Lee said there was a required ,fi riding that an appl i cati.on would' not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improve- meets in the vicinity and to the public health, safety, general wel fare or convenience. She thought. that finding - required taki r,g . into account the nei ghbor s and thei r concerns, -etc, MOTION FAILED by .a vote of 3-5, Eyerly, Renzel, Witherspoon voting aye," Levy absent. MOTION. Councilmember Cobb' moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the Planning Commission recommendation, ITEM #19, consideration of Improvements in Regrti red Y Sri ance Findings, to add a definition of propertyto allow consideration of improvements on the land in the finding of - uni-que circumstances, MOTION PASSED by a vote of b2, Renzel, absent: MOTIONS V •ce Mayor ,Bechtel::moved, seconded by Eyerly, to approve. Item 20, Consideration of Practical Difficulties in Required Variance Findi ngs and the Planning Commission recommendation of no change; #21,' Variance and Use Permit Revocation; #22, Variance and Eyerly voti ng use Permit Transferability; #23, Use Permit Duration; #25, Expense of Providing Plans Upon Appeal; #25, Fees for Minor Site and Design or PC Zone Changes, #27, Removal of Lot Lines Between Two Parcels; #29) Deferral of Preliminary Parcel Map Procession to the Planning. Commission; and #31, Subdivision Map Duration. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM ;24 Y ari antes i n. Con unction with Subdivi_si or3s 18.90.100 Councilmember Renzel said that on page 35 of the staff report, the probi em statement spoke of accommodating existing developments in the case of the subdivision, and she asked if it also included condominium subdivision existing developments. Mr. Brown responded that_ if could if there was a variance request in conjunction with the development. Counci lmember Renzel said that when there was a condominium con- version, if the building was not conforming to the current set- backs, were they required to get a variance in order to convert? Mr. Brown said no. Councilmember Renzel clarified that the structure was dealt with independently and the new lot lines were established within the condominium, and that there would be no occasion to grant a variance when there was not an existing structure. Mr. Brown said it was very unlikely that a variance application would be applied for with a subdivision for a new condominium development. Before the development was reviewed by the Architec- tural Review Board (ARE), which was well before the Council received the subdivision map, the ARB would forwa1 d a variance application to the Zoning Administrator well before the subdivi- sion was applied for. Councilmember Renzel asked if this only related to subdivisions. Mr. Brown said ` that section 18,90.100 cited that the variance could be applied for both major and minor subdivisions. Councilmember Renzel asked if on a minor subdivision —like a lot split or up to four lots --who would get notified. Mr. Brown responded that all property owners within 300 feet were notified. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of ITEM #24, . Variances in Conjunction with Subdivisions. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #28 Time Restriction : on Pl anni n ' Commission Review of ve up., vi s on as Chief Planning Official . Bruce Freeland comciented that the itemwas a demonstration of some kind of natural law, and was purely a technical change to bring Palo ; Alto's ordinance in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act, which -used to say that there were 50 days for Planning Commission recommendations on : a tenta- tive map, and which changed in >1980. to read 30 day's. He said that staff had just received the latest version of the Subdivision Map Act through a new bill that went into effect March 1, which seemed; to imply that they had gone back to 30_days. Staff requested that this , item be continued to April 19, in order to double check the status of the State'. law. 1- 8 5 2, 4/05/62 1 MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, to con- tinue Item #28, Time Restriction on Planning Commission Review of Tentative Subdivision Maps to April 19. MOTION PASSED unanimously,. Levy absent. 1 i ITEM #30 Amendme.'s to Tentative or Preliminary Parcel Maps Louis Fein, 1540 Oak Creek Drive, Palo Alto, referred . the Council to the paper h.e submitted regarding Amendments to the Approved Tentative Maps, dated April 5, 1982, whi ch is on file in the City Clerk's Office; page 40 of CMR:200.2; and page 8 of the proposed ordinance. He was concerned about the staff ruling that there should be a, procedure by _which a subdivider Could apply to amend a tentative map i ncl udi no its conditions without submitting an entirely new map. He wondered what portion of the public the Council and staff -intended to serve by empowering the Director of Planning and Community Environment, at his discretion, to amend terms and conditions under which: some subdivisions were approved. He believed that the main , purpose of the ordinance should only be to amend approved tentative maps to facilitate the correction of inadvertent, minor errors in physical aspects of an approved tentative map or preliminary parcel map --what the Map Act called "technical aspects." He clarified physical aspects- to be. hei-ght-, volume, surface area and other kinds of things normally considered to be "technical aspects." Fie bel ieved it should not be Council's intent to empower any City offi ci al to approve changes in the non- physical aspect' of an approved tentative or preliminary parcel map especially when such aspects were the result of carefully con- si dered and negotiated agreements among developers, the City, and interested groups and i ndi vi dual'.,,; and in the case of condominium conversion under Palo Alto law, agreements amon€t converter, tenants and other interested groups and i ndi vi duals , -To empower a City official to change egal , financial and other nanphysi c al terms and conditions of a., in approved tentative map a.s was done by the proposed ordi nance would authorize a uni 1 aterai breaching of a contract. Mr, Fein thought that Section 21.12.110. as proposed was faulty in that it permitted approval, at the discretion of City officials, of changes in nonphysical aspects, and,. did not define a minor error. He presented an amendment to Section 21.12.110 as fol- lows! (a) minor changes restricted to the physical aspects (e.g. height, volume, surface area, setback) in an approved tentative map or prel iminary parcel map, may be made if changes are approved by both the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City Engineer, upon application of the subdivider or on the Director's or Engineer's own initiative, provided: (1) No change will exceed five percent of any physi cal aspect of -an approved tentative map or preliminary parcel map; (2) Such changes are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and with the Council's intent when it approved the original tentative map; (3) Code. Such changes do not violate the Palo Alto Municipal Mr. Fein also proposed - that a Section (e) be added as follows: (e) The City Council or any City employee, or official is pro- hibited from amending legal, financial, environmental or other nonphysical aspects, conditions or requirements of an approved, tentative map or preliminary parcel map. 1 Mr. Fein summarized that if- miner. changes in technical aspects were going to be made, that was fine, but. City officials should be prohibited from having the discretion to interfere with the implied contracts of tenants with converters, or the public, the City or others with developers. He said that the interest part of a tentative map should be entirely different from the technical part, and that the technical part should not be tampered with. Milton Worth, 1736 Oak Creek Drive, said he thought the proposal should be disapproved. He said that if the Council insisted on amending the. procedure, he thought there was a question as to what constituted a "ssubstarti al change" and what constituted ,a "minor change." He thought the wording "substantial compliance" was unclear and a minor technical change did not make it clearer. He thought it would be perfectly acceptable to make a minor change in any technical aspect of .5 percent, 10 percent or less, but adding the number of lots,, units or buildings was substantial in his mind. He thought that changes other than physical characteristics of the tentative map were substantial and should be prohibited. J. Zonis, 1510 Oak Creek Drive, said regarding -Section 21.12.110, he was concerned about the lack of definition of a "minor change." He suggested that the Council link and clearly define in the ordi- nance what would constitute a "minor change."_ He thought it would be i n.appropri ate to leave to the discretion of City employees the determination and distinction between "minor" and "substantial" changes. He understood that any of the minor changes pertained exclusively to physical aspects of the tentative map. MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel , that Item #30, Amendments to Tentative or Preliminary Parcel :Maps, be referred back to the Planning Commission to address the public concerns expressed tonight. Vice Mayor Bechtel asked if what Mr. Fein and the others had sug- gested had to be returned to the Planning Commission. She felt it was simply that nonphysical. -.changes were prohibited after centa- t i ve map approval , and thought that could be incorporated and come back at second reading. Councilmember Cobb said he did' not know whether 5 percent, was the right -number, -and he thought that was the reason for referring it to the Planning Commission. Ms. Lee said one problem which occurred to her was if the City wanted to change the kind of trees that were required in a plan. She.. said that was not a percentage figure. She said it would be difficult for the staff to come back in two weeks . Sri th a rewrite. Planning Commission. Chairperson -Jean McCowneHawkes asked eounci l - member Cobb if there, were any _specific elements of the comments that he was concerned with. Councilmember Cobb said he thought the speakers had laid it out well. He felt there were some definitions that needed to be made, and the idea of saying "minor changes" was far too vague. He thought it was reasonable to say that minor changes should be allowed to be made by staff, but the definition of a minor change should be clear so that staff was not . placed in the situation where ::everyone would have a problem later. He asked that the Planning Commission come up with a recommendation of what would be a reasonable change for staff to decide, and something that the public would accept . MOTION PASSED unanimously 1 1 e ITEM #32 Street Widths (21.20.24q) Councilmember Fletcher said the proposed standard seemed to be for a very wide street, which limited the City's flexibility. She said the City wanted to pave as little as possible, and create narrow streets with parking bays so that such a wide street was not needed, and could create something like the 46 acres where there was a little community unto itself, mad where there was a possibility to use a lot of flexibility. She referred to the Village Homes Development in Davis where they had very nice streets, with no sidewalks , and had a separate network of foot and bike paths which were separated among landscaped greenery. She did not want to set the standards because she did not want to be locked into them. Mr. Brown said that the issue was not setting a Public Works standard --those were set by the Council some time ago. The issue was to reduce the subdivision ordinance standards into conformance with the Public Works standards. Mr. Schreiber said that the recommended standards referred to right of way, and the configuration of the paving within that right of way, was a design consideration. Mr. Freeland said the specific proposed change in standard had to: do with the right of way width, and in this case, it was a reduce ti ova from the present subdivision ordinance. He thsaught the changes were moving in the same direction as Councilmember Fletcher wished, and although not -as far as she would like to go, it would,briny the City into conformance, and would not affect the pavement standard at this point. Mr. Schreiber added that within the subdivision zoning process, the Council had the discretion and prerogative to either approve or require narrower paved areas. He said that tonight's proposal did not touch that prerogative. Councilmember Fletcher asked if the matter could be referred back to staff to have the language revised to make it more flexible. Mr. Schreiber said he thought there was considerable flexibility in the subdivision approval process. Councilmember Renzel said she supported the Planning Commission recommendation to bring the subdivision ordinance and the Public Works standards into comformance. She thought that as a basis for a subdivision, the Council should have the standards that made sense from the City's prospective. If problems from those were mitigated by alternatives, then a reduction in widths might be appropriate, but at this p01nt , . both standards were just being brought into conformance. MOTION: Councilmembe-' Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of Planning Commission recommendation on ITEM #32, Street Widths. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. Councilmember Cobb complimented the Planning Commission on a tre- mendo,us effort, and especially complimented Mr. Brown for an excellent staff report which made a potentially difficult evening a lot easier for• the Council. Councilmember Faizino felt it *as important to reiterate Council member Cobb's comments with respect to the staff report. . He thought it was one of the ,_best staff reports he had , come across in his experience with the' City. 1 Mayor . Eyerly seconded the appreciation comments, and said he was convinced, after tonight, that he would never run for the Planning Commission. MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Renzel, approval of the ordinance, as amended, for first reading. ORDINANCE FOR FI'AST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 18) AND THE SUBDIVISION CODE (TITLE 21) IN REGARD TO DEFINITIONS, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, USE PERMITS, VARIANCES, APPEALS, ACTION ON AND AMENDMENTS TO TENTATIVE AND PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAPS, LOT LINE REMOVALS, ETC." MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT ADOPTED Councilmember Witherspoon said that staff looked into whether it would be feasible from an energy conser.vati on point. of view to put separate meters in for swimming pools that were heated by gas. The survey found that only one-third of the pools were heated with gas: and that those people were already paying the highest rate if they were using their gas meters. She said the cost for putting in separate meters was estimated to be at least $1,200 if not $2,500 for each home or multiple family building respectively, which seemed not to be cost effective. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved approval of the Finance and Public Works Committee recommendation not to adopt separate gas meters for existing swimming pools. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. Councilmember Fazzi no said he thought it was a crime if the staff members were forced to sit at the Council meeting for 4-1/2 hours. He thought it was a waste of staff time and City money, and hoped it was not repeated. He thought that if Councilmembers had ques- tions of staff and did not intend to follow through with them, the questions should be handled during the course of the day. CIVIC CENTER RETROFIT PROJECT 81-€l7) :(CMR:198:2) A�..rearrs��+�ovrrRn �aiw r. r uea.rei.n�ir � MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by, Klein, approval of the award- of the contract and the budget amendment ordinance. AWARD OF CONTRACT Comm Air Mechanical Services ORDINANCE 3342 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1981.82 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION FOR- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 81-87 'CIVIC CENTER FILTER RETROFIT' AND TO DECREASE THE APPROPRIATION FOR. CAPITAL- IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 8O-02 'CIVIC CENTER IMPROVEMENTS EXTERIOR TOWER' AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 81-81 'SOLAR SCREEN AT CIVIC CENTER-'" MOTION PASSED. unanimo RETIRED SAFETY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT IMPROVEMENT (CMR:201:2) City Manager Bill Zaner read the following statement into the record: "In compliance with .Section 7507 of the Government Code, the following cost information must be made public at least two -weeks prior to the final reading of the ordinance amending the CITY/PERS contract providing for benefit increases. • Thai cost of the benefit increase amendment (Section 21222.4) which will provide a one-time 15% pension increase for public safety employees who retired prior to January 1, 1975, has been calculated by PERS to be .115% of the current safety employee payroll or $5500 per year. The rate increase i_s-applied to the year 2000 and is subject to change with future amendments and/or experience and other factors." MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Renzel , approval of the Resolution and introduced the ordinance for first reading. RESOLUTION 6015 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' PALO ALTO OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRA- TION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO" ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING AN AMEND- MENT 1O THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S RETIREMENT SYS'iEM" MOTION -PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. MIDYEAR BUDGET AMENDMENTS No action taken. Staff will reagendize. REt�U'EST O MAYOR EYERLY RE LETTER FROM VISUAL ARTS JURY CHAIRMAN Mayor Eyerly said a letter was in' the packet from Orlando Maione, Chai-rman of the Visual Arts Jury,, suggesting that the interview. process and advertising be reopened because only two people applied for the current vacancies. He did not think the Visual Arts Jury application period, should be reopened because the process was completed. No .act on taken. RE 0EST OF MAYOR EYERLY RE BAYLANDS OVERVIEW MEETING 'Mayor Eyerly said he had had discussions with the staff, which included Counci lmembers Witherspoon, Cobb and Renzel , to get some input on the Baylands and the solid waste disposal. He had also set up another meeting for a Baylands Master Plan overview of some of the problem areas to include Councilmembers Renzel , Fletcher and . himself. He said if more Counc i l members wanted to attend, it would necessitate calling for a public workshop. He suggested that the combination of the two subjects could well be covered by Counci lmembers Renzel , . Fletcher, -Cobb and himself. He said both Counci l members Witherspoon and. Bechtel . said they would be filled in by other councilmembers and did not need to attend. Vice Mayor Bechtel said, that since.Mayor Eyerly had announced this publicly, she felt it excluded the public' and the press not to have a public workshop. 1 8 5 7 4/05/82 Mayor Eyerly said that staff had an open door policy on their staff meetings unless they concerned matters'of litigation or per- sonnel. He said he would put a notice in the packet so that the newspaper personnel or whoever else wanted to sit in would be free .to do so. He did not want ; a majority of the Council to show up without going through the. official noticing requirements of the Brown Act. - RE UEST OF MAYOR EYERLY RE NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT FLETCHER ITEM Mayor Eyerly said that Councilmember Fletcher was going to have a movie concerning nuclear disarmament shown ahead of the Council meeting of April 19. He said that if more than four council - members attended the showing, proper public notice to the papers, etc., would have to be made. Councilmember Fletcher said she had no intention that the showing would be private for a couple of Counci lmembers. She had a public showing of the movie in mind, and Councilmembers would be invited and informed on some aspects that related ,to the agenda item she planned to bring before the Council meeting that evening. She dice not intend that the showing be private, and said it would be noticed. She said she polled Counci lmembers on their willingness to have a presentation on the nuclear issue, and had five people who were willing and eager to participate. Councilmember Renzel suggested that the preliminary meeting be noticed. She did not think it would be a problem because no busi- ness was to be discussed whether or not there was a quorum. Councilmember Fletcher said that the movie. was "The Last Epidemic," by the Physicians fur Social Responsibility, and dealt with the medical effects of a nuclear explosion. Ms. Lee- said that the Brown Act applied if the Council showed the movie, etc. on an item which related to something on the agenda. She suggested that either the Mayor or the Council call a Special Meeting. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to give public notice and have an official workshop preceding the Council meeting of April 19, to view a movie requested by Councilmember Fletcher. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if it was to be .a Special Meeting of the Council, would another view also be presented. Mayor Eyerly felt that if the Council made an official meeting out of the presentation, it would partly endorse the item on the agenda. Councilmember Fazzino said he had no problem viewing the movie, but was concerned about the item on the agenda. He did not want the movie to appear Council-endorsed, and would have preferred that a private group rent the Council Chambers for an hour, show the film, and Counci lniembers among others were invited to see it before the start of the regular meeting. In that way, he would have no problem moving ahead. Counci lmem5er Fletcher said that a pri vate - outside group had offered to show the movie. rShe pointed out that it was not a workshop, but just the showing of a movie, and no discussion would take -place until later in the evening when it was on the publ i c. agenda. 1 B•5 8 4/05/82 COUNCILMEMBER BECHTEL LEFT THE MEETING AT 12:08 a.m. Councilmember Cobb said he would vote against the motion because he felt very strongly- that the Council should not get involved in issues beyond its jurisdiction, and a nuclear freeze clearly was. He thought it would open a can of worms. in terms of potential issues in the future. He thought the subject was inappropriately before the Council, and thought the Council would get itself involved in more and more things which had less and less to do with City busi ness which troubi ed. him. Counci l member Klein said he did not want to get into the merits, but thought it stretched it to say that showing the movie in any way implied the Council's taking a position one way or another. He urged Council approval of the motion Mayor Eyerly said he would -have preferred that themovie be shown away from City Hall or at a separate time from the Council agenda item, Counci lrnernher Fazzino said he was concerned about a formal City meeting being called at that time and place. He did not endorse the issue being on the agenda, and could not endorse showing the film and having the item on the agenda the same evening. Councilmemeber Klein suggested that the Council Chambers be rented free.. for the period 5:45 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-2-2-2, as follows: AYES: Klein, Renzel , Fletcher NOES: Cobb, Eyerly, ABSTENTIONS: Fazzino, Witherspoon ABSENT: Levy, Bechtel MOTION: Counci lmember Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, that Council authorize showing of Physicians for Social Responsibility movie, „The Last Epidemic," the night of April 19, 1982, at 6:45 p.m., in the Council Chambers, rent free. Said showing not to be an offi- cial meeting of the Council. Ms. Lee said she i oul d be concerned if a majority of the Council - members attended the showing of a movie which related to an item of business coming before the Council >- because of the Brown Act, and said that proper noticemust be given. . Counci lmember Fletcher wanted to follow the motion and put a notice in the packet which would be a public notice that the showing would take place in the Council Chambers. =Ms. Lee said that if five or more Councilmembers attended a func- tion where the business was to be . the subject of a Council discus- sion, a Special Meeting was required to be noticed.' Mayor Eyerly asked if a problem would exist if the movie was shown on another night. Ms. Lee responded that it depended upon how many Councilmembers attended. Counci lmember Renzel said she assumed that some of the Council - members were concerned about a stamp of approval being placed on a matter about which they knew nothing. Mayor Eyerly said that as he understood the City Charter, a Councilmember could place any item on the agenda, and had the right to as much time as they wished as' long as it related to the agenda item. Neither the Manager nor the Chair could stop such action. He thought Councilmember Fletcher had the right to show the movie at the time she desi red unless a majority of the Councilmembers voted at that time against seeing it. He thought that might be the way to handle the matter. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to continue the item until April 12 for further discussion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Levy absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:18 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: