Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-02 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES' Regular Meeting Monday, August 2, 1982 CITY OF PALO ALTO ITEM PAGE Oral Communications Minutes of June 7, 1982 Item #1, Resolution Welcoming Visitors from Oaxaca Consent Calendar Referral Action Item #2, Council for the Arts - Palo Alto and Hidpenihsula Area (CAPA) Community Box Office 1982-83 Contract (CMR:428:2) Item #3, Ordinance re Parking for the Handi- capped Item #4, Policy and Procedures Committee Recommenda- tion re Changes to the Architectural Review Board Ordinance (CMR:394:2) Item #5, Public Hearing: Public Hearing to Confirm City Engineer's Report and Proposed Assessment for Demolition of 778 Loma Verde Avenue (CPIR:414:2) Item #6, Ordi:;lance re Handicapped•Access Regulations (CMR :433 : 2 ) Item #7, Cable Television Lobbyist Ordinance Item #8, Passive and Nonresidential Solar Applica- tion Financing (CMR:412:2) Item #9, Request of Councilmembers Fletcher and Levy re Concealable Handguns to Remain in Policy .. and Procedures Com ittee Utem #10. Request of Mayor. Eyerly re Gas Utility Item #11, Request of Councilmember Klein re Opposi- tion of AB 571 Adjournment 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 7 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 3.1 0 8/02/82 Regular Meeting Monday, August 2, 1982 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Aveue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Levy (arrived at 7:40), Renzel, Witherspoon (arrived at 7:40) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1, R. F. Bennett, 524 Middlefield Road, commended the City for its repair of a poorly constructed sidewalk. 2. W. J. McCroskey, 4158 Oak Hill Avenue, spoke regarding the flood problem of Dry Creek. He said the problem had increased over the past few years. Dr. Heyman, who organized a peti- tion regarding the creek erosion, was contacted by Mr. Bagdon, and the City had committed to do something about the problem. Councilmembers Levy and Witherspoon arrived at 7:40 p.m. MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 1982 MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the minutes of June 7, 1982 as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #1, RESOLUTION WELCOMING VISITORS FROM OAXACA Councilmember Klein, Council liaison to Neighbors Abroad, welcomed the student representatives from Oaxaca, and read the Resolution. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 6061 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOGNIZING THE PRESENCE OF, AND WELCOMING TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REPRESENTATIVES OF OAXACA, OAXACA. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Vice Mayor. Bechtel read the Resolution, welcoming the representa-. tives from Oaxaca in Spanish. Councilmember Klein and Vice Mayor Bechtel presented the resolu- tions as follows: Carolina Santibanez Woolrich Ulises Bonilla Martinez Haruko Oda Woolrich Roxanna Blanchet Alejandro Mei xuei ro Montle; Sergio.Ogarrid Castro Luz Berti l a 0fel i a Ortiz Aguirre Armando MacBeath Rocher Laura Rivera Bennett Veronica-lgancfo Diaz Alejandra Santibanez Woolrich Juliete Suarez Linares Eduardo Cuahonte Cal vo Aurelio Romero Quintero. Elizabeth Diaz Carbal l i do 2 3 1 1 8/02/82 1 1 CHAPERONES Rosita Gutierrez de Molina Flor de Maria Molina Gutierrez 1 1 Ralph White, President of Neighbors Abroad, said they were de- lighted to have the group in Palo Alto. He extended a personal invitation to each of the members of the City Council . to join Neighbors Abroad on ;August 18 for .the annual Oaxaca exchange stu- dent picnic. Mayor Eyerly commented that Mr. White was very helpful to the Councilmembers contingent travelling from Palo Alto to Oaxaca. The Palo Alto City Council appreciated its relationship with Oaxaca and particularly enjoyed the exchange program with the stu- dents. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None Action ITEM #2, COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS - PALO ALTO AND, MIDPENINSULA AREA f;CAPAI COMMUNITY BOX OFFrCE 1982-83 ONTRACI" (CMR: 428: 2 T Staff re.ommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to exe- cute the contract renewal between Council for the Arts - Palo Alto and Midpeninsula Area (CAPA), CAPA Community Box Office and the City of Palo Alto for fiscal year 1982-83. AGREEMENT - COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS AND MIDPENINSULA AREA (CAPA)/CITY OF PALO ALTO ITEM #3. ORDINANCE RE PARKING FOR THE HANDICAPPED ORDINANCE 3373 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 18) WITH REGARD TO PARKING FOR THE HANDICAPPED* (1st Reading 7/19/82., Passed 8-1, Klein *no') MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES; ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Councilmember Klein added Item #1l, Opposition to AB 571. ITEM #4, POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE CHANGES BOARIi ..QRUI ANCE (OR :)94:2 ] _ Councilmember Levy ,said that the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Com- mittee met on June 1, , to . consider a referral from the Council regarding the Architectural .Review Board (ARB) ordinance and procedures. The Council was concerned about the following: 1) Referral of ARB dec i si ores_ in areas other than design to the Council or the Planning Commission. 2) The lack of publicity surrounding .4R8 actions related to miti- gated negative declarations. 3) Ongoing communication between the ARB, the Planning Commis- sion, and the ,.Council; and 4) The handling of Planning Commission and .ARO functions: in rela- tion to_ new residential condominiums. 2 3 1 2 8/02 /82 MOTiu'i :-- Counci 1 Berber Levy moved, on behalf of the Policy and Procedures Committee, the following recommendations that Council: I. Establish the revised application process outlined in the chart attached to the staff report (CMR:394:2) for which staff is normally the decision -maker; 2. Make no change at this tine to the order of processing condo- minium projects, but - reconsider this issue after the conclu- sions of the Planning Commission's subcommittee on residential development are available; 3. Establish a formal liaison between the ARB and the Planning Commission; 4. Require annual reporting from the ARB to the Planning Commis- sion and the City Council; 5. Make the changes to the ARB ordinance listed under Section IY, A -F, of the staff report (CMR:394:2); 6. Determine that ARB agendas, including mitigated negative declarations should be published; 7. That if the Director of Planning disagrees with the recommen- dation of the ARS, the Director may return the project to the ARB with a statement of concerns or if after reconsideration there is still no agreement between the ARB and the Director of Planning, then the project would be sent to the City Coun- cil for final decision or the Planning Director may send the item directly to Council; and 8. That the Planning Commission not be a review body for routine appeals of ARB actions. Appeals should go directly to the City Council with the understanding that if there are special circumstances in the appeal which cause the Council to desire views of the Planning Commission that the Council refer these individual appeals for.comaent. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland\ said the chart reflected most or the current process. Presently, staff received and reviewed the project first either for, a negative declaration or for a full environmental impact report (EIR), which was repre- sented by the first box ..in the flow chart. If staff . called for a full EIR, the process was reflected by the top . l ine .of boxes on the chart. On the other hand, if staff recommended a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration on .a project,the process was somewhat different, but the staff recommendation for a mitigated negative declaration did not necessarily mean there would be a mitigated negative declaration because the ARB may call for a full EIR. If there was a full EIR, then the project would go :to the Planning Commission and the City Council for review of the EIR, and once the environmental issues were resolved, then there could be action on the project itself. Two major changes were reflected on the chart. The first major idea involved a clarification of who the project decision -maker was in terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Charter required that boards and commissions' not be the decision -makers, and the California Environmental Quality Act required that a decision -maker must be the one to take the environmental action. That left staff in somewhat of a dilemma because they needed to find a process which would allow ARB decisions to proceed without 'N.: making the ARB take the role of a furl `dec i sion-araker and run into conflict with the City Charter.. By creating a . process for proj- ects that go through the negative declaration route and one for projects that go through the full environmental impact route which would have the ARB in the role of a recommending body to the staff on the architectural aspects of the project, staff would be; asked, within three working days of an ARB decision, to ;either confirm or modify that recommendation. If staff did not act within three 2 3 1 3 8/02/82 1 1 1 days, it would be an automatic approval of the ARB recommendation. In order to keep an adequate check and balance on the whole pro- cess, staff added a process whereby if staff did disagree with the ARB, rather than having the staff decision become final, the proj- ect either would go back to the ARB for consideration to see if it would be possible to work out the differences, or could be sent directly to the City Council to become the decision -maker. If the project was sent back to. the ARB and there was still disagreement, then it would go to the City Council to be the decision -maker. In effect, so long as staff agreed with the ARB, staff was the decision -maker. In the event staff did not agree with the ARB, they could try and talk the ARB into agreement, or if there was no agreement, the City Council would become the decision -maker for that project. Staff opined that the recommendation satisfied the requirements of the City Charter and made it possible to satisfy the City's obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Freeland said that the other major change created a new pro- cess so that a project with controversial issues associated with it, or issues beyond the scope of design itself, could be sent from the outset to the City Council and to the Planning Commis- sion, which was reflected on the entire bottom line of the chart. If either the staff or the ARB concluded that there were major issues associated with the project, either of them could •send the project to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and the City Council would become the decision- maker. Sending the item directly to the City Council in the first place, would eliminate the need for an appeal and would ensure the broadest community input. Councilmember.Renzel asked if the ARB decided that the project shoald be acted upon by the City Council, would it still go for- ward with a mitigated negative declaration or could it be decided that a full EIR was needed. Mr. Freeland responded that it would be a recommendation for a mitigated negative declaration, but the City Council being the decision -maker would be in the position to require a full EIR. If the City Council felt that a full EIR was needed, it could call for one or would have one as part of that same process. Councilmember Fletcher said she was confused about the comment that the ARB may call for an EIR because she understood that the ARB could certify .that they had considered the .EIR, but that they were not to consider other items outside of design. Mr. Freeland said Councilmember Fletcher was correct. The ARB would recommend the full EIR, but it would be the decision -maker that would have to call for one. Councilmember Klein said he was concerned about Section V -F on page 4 of CMR:394:2._: which said that it wanted to change the existing ordinance to provide that items such as building cover- age, setbacks,, building height and other site development stan- dards would now be subject to the ARB and :posing requirements more restrictive than the maximums set forth under the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance. He was concerned about the legality, fairness' and wisdom of giving that much discretion to both the. ARB and the City Council bec_ auee there were . no limitations. As he read . the section, if the City received a development proposal in an area which had a: 35 foot building height limitation, the ARB could say that the building could only be ten feet high. ; He asked for clarification. Mr Freeland responded that Councilmember Klein's .example was drastic, and: in tact, the ARB did, from time to time, mandate that the design ., not use the entire building envelope that the zoning described. For instance, the ARB might feel that a project, i;f 2 3 14 8j02/82 built to its full height at the front property line, might be too massive and blocky in terms of its relationship to its neighbors. It might require that the second floor be set back additional feet beyond what the zoning might strictly require. He thought it was fundamental to the ARB being able to properly influence design. It was unlikely that the ARB would directly say there were too many housing units. Councilmember Klein's example was extreme, but there had been projects where the ARB required buildings to be less than the full height of the zoning ordinance. There had been very little abuse of the power in his opinion, but it was some- thing that should be clarified if it was going to exist. Staff interpreted the conflict statement, "that the ARB is empowered to review a list of items with respect to the proposed project, to the extent that the results of said review are not in conflict with the provisions of Titles 16 or 18 of the Code," to mean that the ARB could have more restrictive but not less restrictive stan- dards. If that interpretation was to continue, clearer authori- zation was needed. Councilmember Klein said he agreed. He did not want to totally remove the ARB's power, but was concerned about there being no limitation. He thought that if the zoning ordinance was to mean anything and be a guide to perspective developers, there should be some limitations in the ARB's power. He asked if it would be appropriate to say that the ARB could be more restrictive, but no more than some percentage of what was contained in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Freeland responded that he would have a problem with a percent or a straight formula. He used an example of an apartment build- ing that was going up in an area near downtown where there were a lot of older structures built in a past era and the desire was to have the new buildings fit architecturally with the surroundings. In order to do that, the front facade needed to be broken up, and not all be out at the front property line or the front setback line. If the design could not be influenced more than ten percent as it affected the setback of the structure, it would be difficult to either interpret that into what a building would be or to have the control necessary to match that new design with its neighbors. He had no problem with making it clear that certain things were off base, for instance, the number of units. He thought it would be inappropriate for the ARB to directly say to reduce the number of units to less than what the zoning allowed. Councilmember Klein said another approach might be to have a quantitative test --something that placed some limitations on the conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, or except in extraordinary situations, the ARB would not depart very much from what was set forth. City Attorney Diane Lee said that one of the standards for review of ARB decisions was consistency and compatibility with the ele- ments of the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding Subsection B, that they ARB is empowered. to review each of the. following items with respect to the proposed work. Some of those items did not lend themselves to a -quantitative approach. Consideration was required of how some of those things affected some of the other things the ARB was empowered to review. One could look at uses permitted as they related to . some of the more particular standards in Subsec- tion A. Traffic patterns -and safety was one of the things the ARB was required to look at. ,By - virtue of making that decision, there could be less units because of the size of a given parcel and the logical traffic flow. Councilmember Klein -said he was not sure the Council was be-in9;. fair to the 'zoning ordinance, and if it was not going to be mean- ingful, it should be stated. Some standards should be placed at the discretion of the ARS. While his example was farfetched, it was possible. 1 1 Mr. Schreiber said that in the development of the zoning ordi- nance, the zoning was never considered to be an entitlement --that one had a right to build so much square footage on a particular piece of land. It was felt to be the maximum that would be allowed, but that the evaluation of what could be done would be made within the context of the design review on any individual parcel. He thought it was critical to try and keep some of that flexibility. The flexibility was exercised in most situations through the ARB process. It was important to remember that the City only had a few zones in Palo Alto --one commercial zone which applied to areas as diverse as downtown Palo Alto, the Stanford Shopping Center, and California Avenue. Residential zones that applied were adjacent to the downtown commercial and adjacent to midtown area and adjacent to some single family in the Barron Park area. He said the flexibility was needed to work with that zone within the framework of each of those areas. He said he would have difficulty seeing how a really hard and fast quantitative rule would work within that variety of areas. The City did not have the variety of zones that many other communities had, and he hoped the City did not end up with a zoning practice which applied a different zone to almost every street. Councilmember Renzel commented that the ARB required that the majority of its members be professionals in the design field. They wrestled with the problems every day and were regulated by the rules. She did not expect that the ARB members would abuse their discretion in their function on the ARB. If the zoning ord- inance itself was the only criterion for what could be built, it would relegate the ARB to deciding whether to have scroll work or grill work on the facade and what color of paint. She felt the Council wanted the ARS to do more than that, and it would be a mistake to attempt to limit their discretion. Mr. Schreiber said that one possible consequence of tying down the ARB's decision-making process too tightly would be to create an ARB process whereby the decision would be to grant or deny a proj- ect rather than working with applicants to try and get the prob- lems resolved. If the ARB did not have the flexibility, and yet the project was strongly objectionable, his sense would be in some cases that the ARB's decision would be no, the project could not be built, which would trigger more appeals and more items for the Council. Councilmember Levy asked what would happen if there was a differ- ence of opinion in design matters between the applicant and the ARR. Mr. Schreiber said that if majorconcerns were voiced when the ARB initially reviewed an item, the applicant would °go back and look at alternatives or modifications of the project and bring back a more in-depth analysis to show the ARB why the 'applicant thought that a certain proposal made sense within that site or area. It 'was a give and take type process. Sometimes :the applicant came back and said this was what he wanted to < do and here's why. In other cases, he had . seen very drastic changes come out of that. If it came down to an absolute dispute where the applicant said this was want he wanted, and the ARS said no way, then there would be situations of denial. He said there had been very few denials in the ARB process. Councilmember Levy said he was concerned about phrases like, "the AR8 may impose requirements," which, in his opinion,_ .were foreign to the process outlined. ; He asked if the matter would be appealed to the City Council if .' ,e ARB imposed certain restrictions and the applicant rejected,' the impositions or could the applicant build the project even in opposition to the ARB's recommenda- tions. 2 3 1 6 8/02/82 Mr. Schreiber responded that the ARB approval would indicate approval subject to conditions. If the applicant did not want to live with the conditions of the approval, the applicant would have to appeal to the City Council Councilmember Fazzino said he did not like ambiguities or broad allowances of power, but realized that without Section 16.48.090(b), the ARB would not have -a reason to exist. He felt that it did create the possibility of a decision -making body with the power to evaluate all aspects of design which could develop the most comprehensive approach in a quid pro quo kind of manner. Regarding Item D3, he was concerned about the staff authority pro- vision that resolution of an issue may not be practical to achieve and, therefore, staff should have the authority. Mre Freeland responded that staff's concern had to do with the agendas of the ARB. Often a situation arose where a building per- mit was applied for, a construction' crew was out in the field, and it turned out that instead .of the wood sash windows that were on the ARB approved plan, the applicant appeared with a different window detail, and the Building Department was ready to put a stop work order on the project because the plans were not in confor- mance with the approved drawings. The question was whether to hold up the construction of the project for the two weeks it would take to get the matter on the ARB agenda in order to resolve the problem. He said that when they were talking about minor issues, i .e., where the window sash they had in mind was similar to, but not identical to the ARB item, staff's judgment was that it might not be practical to wait the two weeks to get a proper resolution at the ARB. Further, when the ARB took action, there was a ten- day appeal period, and staff was suggesting a five-day appeal per- iod for minor issues. Mr. Schreiber said that in exercising that discretion, what could be a minor change in a routine project may not be viewed the same way by staff if it was a project where intense controversies had existed, and where the neighbors had been really involved. In that situation,' staff might say that any change would have to go back to the ARB because of the level of controversy and the need to maintain the contact with the neighborhood. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said he agreed with Mr. Schreiber that his attempt to define the word "major" probably would not work, but asked that it be kept in mind that a change in the service level at intersections could be considered major. Staff agreed with his suggestion about delineating the extent of the ARB's authority. Regarding the mitigated negative declaration question, Mr. Moss said he was overly tied up in detail trying to identify a manner in which it could be handled, but his intent was in consonance with staff and the Council. For example, the project at 350 Cambridge where the ARB made a decision which turned. out, under \the CEQA guidelines, to be the final decision, the ARB became the decision -making body and the Council was not allowed to change the ARB's mind. The Council should be given the opportunity to review a mitigated negative declaration and to assent .by silence or to take up the issue in another way. In a real controversial proj- ect, at least one out of the nine Councilmembers would make an objection and start the appeal process. He thought the idea of the Council having a nocost appeal basically solved that objet tioe. Mr. Moss said that regarding the ARB's restrictions, he agreed with Mr. Schreiber about unduly tying the hands of the: ARB. He recalled a .project On Maybell which completely filled the zoning envelope and where one Planning Commissioner stated that the applicant had no entitlement to build to t'e maximum of the zoning ordinance or the zoning envelope. In fact, the : Commissioner , made a motion to deny the application and to request 'the developer to come back with a much More modest plan. He thought it was only appropriate that the ARB and the Planning Commission be allowed 2 3 :1 7 8/02/82 discretion and be allowed to require a developer to cone back with a plan more in consonance with the entire community and with the requirements of the overall flavor of the Comprehensive Plan. The. Planning Commission and. the ARB should be given the opportunity to decide what was right, and not just live within the letter of the law. R. F. Bennett, 524 Middlefield Road, said that regarding the miti- gateainegative declaration, he believed the items should be adver- tised for the public, He said it was the people who had to live with the decision, and, he thought the public should _ be more involved. Linda Ludden, Chair of the ARB, 1048. Ramona, said that the ARB was concerned that it always be informed and have the opportunity to see what the Director of Planning overturned, amended or objected to with regard to ARB decisions. The P&P Committee recommenda- tions and the staff', report reflected the way the ARB would like to see things continue. Regarding the one year limitation on ARB approvals and the option for art appeal for an additional . year extension on a project, currently there were some outstanding projects which were approved two or three years ago which have not been built. She asked how those projects would be handled when the new one year limitation goes into effect. Mayor Eyerly asked regarding a disagreement between the Planning Director and the ARB, whether the Planning Director may return the item to the ARB for reconsideration, or if the Planning Director could just send the matter to the City Council. Mr. Freeland said it was not essential that the Planning Director have the choice. There could be points where the disagreement was well known at the first round of the ARB. By returning the matter to the ARB, time would pass and all parties would have had an additional two weeks to reflect on the matter, but the actual issues and substance of the disagreement would not change and a decision for the applicant would be delayed for a couple of weeks. Mayor Eyerly said he thought the City had a provision governing the length of time that approved projects could be held in abeyance before construction was commenced. • City Attorney Diane Lee said no such provision existed, and the recommendation indicated that some of the approved projects noted by Ms. Ludden would automatically lapse. There would be a possi- bility of applying the section prospectively with a different kind of time limit for previously approved projects. She said that was something the Council should consider if they wished to change the recommendation. She said the way it was currently written, every project, whether it was previously approved o.r would be :approved in the future, would have a .one year approval period and a one year extension. If the Council wished to change that, then the section should be made prospective and have a. different time pro- vision for previously approved projects. Counc i l member Klein said he supported the ARB process and wanted the ARB. to have a good deal ofdiscretion on howto accomplish its goals. However, it was not just the ARS that would have the authority --it was also the City Council because things could still be appealed to them. Further, he was concerned about process in order to minimize errors. He said there were a lot of places where safeguards and limitations existed on what the City Council, or anyone else who functioned in the name of the City could do. He wanted to make sure that the ARO process fit within those guidel in4s--that there not only be proper discretion within the- ARB and the City Council, but also that they be guided and safe- guarded by appropriate guidelines, safety standards, etc. No one in the City government process had unlimited discretion and no one should. By setting up ;guidelines, the ARS was not restricted, but rather guided to a better goal, and it ensured that everyone who participated in the process --developers and citizens, could have some better idea of what can and cannot be done by the ARB. He did not think it was appropriate to have zoning ordinances. which could be totally overruled by the ARB. The zoning ordinances must mean more than that. He thought people were entitled to have some idea of what they could accomplish when they read the zoning ordi- nance, which did not mean they should feel entitled to 35 feet, but they should know that they were not limited to 15 or 18 feet. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Levy, that on return of the ordinance, staff be directed to nedify the language under paragraph 5-F of CMR:394:2, to reflect appropriate standards specifying the conditions under which and the degree to which the ARB may impose requirements more restrictive than the zoning ordi- nance. Councilmember Levy said he was not entirely happy with the amend- ment, but agreed with the concept. In his opinion, the language contained in the amendment was too ponderous, and it might be more appropriate to say that the ARB may impose requirements which were somewhat more restrictive. He wanted to give the ARB flexibility, but thourlht it was important that the ARB not be given the discre- tion to make fairly major reductions from the maximums set forth in the zoning ordinances. Councilmember Witherspoon said she supported the concept. Councilmember Renzel said she thought the basic standard by which the ARB functioned was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to provide for harmonious design. The field of design was broad and the options were many, and it would be difficult to categorize exactly how to limit a review of design. Further, if one looked at individual standards --for example, height or setback or lot coverage, and said that any one of those standards could only be reduced by ten percent, there was no way to compare them. If the ARB wanted to take a six foot stretch of building and bring it in a few feet on the setbacks, it would violate some percent standard when it was really a minor portion of the project to improve the overall design.. She did not .see that any problem existed, and if anything, she agreed with Councilmember Fazzino and would rather see the ARB be more restrictive than they had been with some proj- ects. She thought the broad language should be left, and if the Council perceived that an abuse existed, then it could be looked at. She opposed the amendment. Councilmember Fletcher said she agreed that the work of the ARB had been exemplary and she had not heard that any abuse of powers had occurred. If the Council imposed restrictions such as out- lined in the amendment on the ARB, the same shouldbe done for the Planning Commission and the Council. She would oppose the amend- ment. Councilmember Fazzino said that either the ARB was given the power to look at a project as a whole and decide what made sense under the Comprehensive Plan, or not. . The ARB had the power and had exercised it well. The Comprehensive Plan was in place as a guide and if there were problems, an appeal process existed. He saw no need to change the language, and urged his colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mayor_ Eyerly agreed that the amendment did not. appear necessary. The appeal process, which was open to the developer, solved the issue :in his opinion. Caunci1meaber Klein said that in order to give the- staff appro- priate leeway, the amendment should not include any numerical tests. The fact that an appeal process existed did_ not help. The Council must recognize that if -the ordinance was left as is, it was a depar'ture, .and was not the way it was presently written. 2 3 1. 9 8/02 /82 If the ordinance was left the way it appeared to be under the staff recommendation, he thought the City was going to an ad hoc zoning system --that each project would be considered on its own merits, and that developers were no longer provided with any mean- ingful guidelines. He did not think the City should function in that manner. The fact that no problems had occurred in the past was no reason not to safeguard against any for the future. Governments were not run by giving people unfettered discretion. Councilmember Cobb asked Councilmember Klein if in his opinion the guidelines should be fairly specific or if he saw them as being broad and general in nature. Councilmember Klein said he felt staff could come up with some- thing that was qualitative rather than quantitative. He felt something could be written to state that while the zoning was not absolute, it should not be departed from in a major way. He did not think the Council was constituting the ARB as a body to rezone property which came before it. The zoning which had been set up on parcels must mean something. Councilmember Renzel said the Council had in the Comprehensive Plan , harmonious ,development standards that were written into the ordinance, which were qualifiers of the general type. Words such as ."substantial" and "generally" would constantly throw the ARB into debates over standards rather than over the essence of the desi en. She felt the Council wanted to focus the ARB on design and not on a sub -issue of whether the project was "generally" con- forming to the Comprehensive Plan or in "general" compliance with the zoning ordinance. It would be a difficult task for staff to begin to provide some standards that would be meaningful in the discussion of a project. Because the ARB had a majority of design professionals, and by law was required to, they were not going to say one could only build a ten foot building in a 35 foot zone. She agreed with Councilmember Klein that procedure was very important, but she thought many protections were already set out in the procedure --it was rot unfettered power. Councilmember Klein said there were varying degrees of specificity in the documents used by the City. The Comprehensive Plan was too general, in his opinion, to establish the guidelines. The Compre- hensive Plan was somewhat like the Bible --people could find almost anything in it they wanted to find. If the zoning had any mean- ing, it must be more specific than the Comprehensive Plan, getting down to a parcel by parcel basis. To totally ignore it and tell the ARB to look at the Comprehensive Plan, he thought threw out the zoning ordinance. Vice Mayor Bechtel said she concurred with the comments made by her colleagues who were opposed to the amendment. She believed the Council needed to allow the ARB to have some flexibility. In her opinion, the difficulty was because the Council had not seen the actual ordinance as ., drafted by the City Attorney. When that language wag received, and if the language was so broad as to open the door to total flexibility and total disregard for the zoning, that would be the time to look at tightening it up. She was con- fident that the -staff would draft the ordinance in such a way -that it would be compatible with the City's zoning ordinances. Councilmember Fletcher asked if the ARB would be permitted to require a project to be more restrictive which was not in con- formance with the zoning. 14r. Schreiber said that theoretically Councilmember Klein was cor- rect that the ARB could impose conditions which were severely more restrictive than the zoning allowed, however, any restrictions which would allow less than the zoning permitted would be done for good cause. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Levy, Klein, Witherspoon voting "aye." AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Klein, (1) Details of mitigated negative declarations be forwarded to Council as soonas possible after ARB approval and that there be no fee for an appeal by a Councilmember; and (2) that the chart be amended as proposed by Bob Noss in the event the Planning Director disagrees with the MB on a project with a negative declaration the referral should be one step back, to the ARB review of the negative declaration, not to the recommendation to proceed. Mayor Eyerly said he would divide the amendment for voting pur- poses. Councilmember Renzel asked if staff appro►ed a mitigated negative declaration before the project went to the ARB. Mr. Freeland said no. Now, different staff people would be involved, but the project planner for the ARB would make a recom- mendation that there be a mitigated negative declaration which would go to the ARB. Under the clarified process, the Director of Planning would be called upon to adopt that mitigated negative declaration. After that decision, it would go to the City Council in that the ARB is a recommending body and not a decision -making body. Councilmember Renzel was concerned that the Council should know as soon as the recommended negative declaration was available, rather than when an action was taken, because if a Councilmember was interested he or she could go to the ARB and follow the procedure or see what the resolution was. She thought a three day appeal period seemed short, and because of the way the Council's packets were received, there was a good chance that the time would go by before the Council would even see that information. Mr. Freeland said that the notion that there would be a free appeal for City Council belonged with item 1 of the amendment. He felt the point was so that the City Council would receive the material very shortly after the preparation of the documents. As a practical matter, staff sent out the staff materials to the ARB about one week earlier and perhaps the Councilmembers could be individually copied. Further, the three day appeal period was for the Director of Planning to decide whether he agreed or disagreed. There was still a ten day appeal period after -that action in which the Council could intervene. Ms. Lee said that the concept to notice the Council of the deci- sions, and the appeal period in which the Council as individuals, but without a fee, could take advantage of that process might be more appropriate if the appeal process ran from the date the Coun- cil was provided the information.- Councilmember Renzel said that since the negative declaration may be modified by the actions of the ARB or the negotiations between the ARB and the Director of Planning, there could be some confu- sion about what was complete notice of what happened. Further, on the question of when the - Director of Planning disgreed with the ARB. the ARB reviews the negative declaration and considers it in acting on the project. Was the staff putting the ARB into a posi- tion of saying yes or no rather than negotiating if the staff: had a disagreement override. Mr. Freeland responded that the : staff override was to send the matter to the City Council. Councilmember Renzel said Ms. Ludden raised the question of the ARB being plugged into a staff decision to send something to the Council without returning 'to. the ARB for a negotiated process. She thought that could be simply handled if the situation arose where it was clear at the time the AR8 reviewed the negative 2 3 2 1 8/02/82 declaration that staff and. the ARB are not going to resolve. the problem, at that point staff could indicate its intent to send it to the City Council, and then the ARB would be informed. Ms. Ludden responded that the major things would be obvious during the meetings. All the ARB needed was to know what action was taken by the Planning Director. She said that in theory, it could be sent off to the City Council without anyone telling the ARB that it had been denied. Mr. Freeland said he thought the ARB should definitely be formed. Councilmember Renzel said she was concerned whether the reason the ARB wanted to be informed was simply to be informed or whether the ARB wanted to be informed in order to discuss the matter further with the Director of Planning. If that was the intent, the speci- fication should be clearer. Ms. Ludden said the ARB would be more concerned if the matter were modified. The ARB needed to know what happened in order to also appear before the Council and make a statement. Vice Mayor Bechtel said that Councilmember Renzel had asked that all mitigated negative declarations going to the ARB be copied and sent to the City. Council. She asked for an idea on the numbers, and if it would become an incredibly thick packet and whether it would be more i nforn:ati on than the Council wanted to receive. Mr. Freeland responded that from January, 1980 to may, 1982, there were 16 mitigated negative declarations. Vice Mayor Bechtel said regarding the appeal process commencing the same date the Council was sent the mitigated negative declara- tion. She asked if that was too premature and whether it ought to date from the date of the ARB meeting or the decision. Ms. Lee said see presumed a later notice to the Council than what Councilmember Renzel and Mr. Freeland discussed. She presumed more of a post decision --placing the matter in the packet kind of a decision and then having the appeal period run from that point. With the process of having a pre -decision notice to the Council of the mitigated negative declaration a different type of starting date for the running of the appeal period would be appropriate. Vice Mayor Bechtel said she supported the amendments. Councilmember Witherspoon said she assumed any Councilmember could agenda ze an item, and she asked why a formal procedure was needed for a Councilmember to have an appeal without a fee, etc. Mr. Freeland said that if the staff started making a carbon copy of mitigated negative declarations to the Council with a follow up of the determination which was made that would be the whole pro- cess. Councilmember Witherspoon said she agreed. Ms. Lee said that jurisdictionally the question was who had autho- rity to override what decision and on what basis. If an appeal process existed, any interested party could appeal so any Council - member could put the matter before the Council. One Councilmetuer could agendize an item, but _did not have the power, without five votes, to : get the Council to take it , up - The distinction was that the Council -was giving one member,'of,- its body, '`without a fee, a right which any other, member of the public had to appeal a deci- sion. 2 3-2 2 8/02/82 Councilmember Witherspoon said she was confused about Mr. Moss' revised flow chart. She figured out where the dotted line went, but asked about the handwritten additions. Mr. Schreiber responded that Mr. Moss' handwritten additions were not a part of the motion. FIRST PART OF AMENDMENT RESTATED: That details of mitigated nega- tive declaration be forwarded to Council as soon as possible after ARB approval, and that there, be no fee for an appeal by a Council - member. FIRST PART OF AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT RESTATED: That the chart be amended (as proposed by Bob Moss) in the event the Planning Director disagrees with the ARB on a project with a negative declaration, the refer- ral should be one step back, to the ARB review of the negative declaration, not to the recommendation to proceed. SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Cobb said that notification of the ARB with regard to some of the more extreme acts had been discussed, and Ms. Sudden commented about having the ARB informed when staff approved d-ecisions on minor matters, and he asked if an amendment was needed to do that, or if it would be done autocratically. Mr. Freeland said he understood that informing the ARB of minor amendments was implicit in the recommendation from staff. He had no objection to it being made explicit in the motion. Councilmember Witherspoon said she understood that once someone went through the process, the next step was to obtain a building permit. She asked how long a building permit lasted. Mr. Schreiber responded that a building permit generally lasted a year although there were qualifications and ways of extending it. 1e recommended that the time limit apply to all future projects after the effective date of the ordinance rather than trying to take it back to previously approved projects. He said the ARB processed about 250 applications per year, and if he looked at the last two or three years, there would be between 500 to 1,000 applications to be reviewed to find out how many of them were com- pleted and how many were not in process. Councilmember Witherspoon said that if an applicant had not obtained a building -permit and was sitting in limbo, the applicant would have to reactivate the matter in order to obtain a building permit. Mr. Schreiber said that if the :applicant already received ARB approval , but did not have a building permit, they could come in for the building permit no matter~ how long after the ARB appro- val. He thought it should be clarified that the time limit applied to all future projects beginning with the effective date of the ordinance. Ms. Lee said the Council had the option of going back and putting a time limitation on previously approved projects. She agreed with Mr. ;Schreiber that it would be best to clarify the provision to make it apply to future projects. AMENDMENT: Cosncilme*ber Witierspooi moved, seconded by Cobb, to odd 'this prevision applies only to .sew projects.* Councilmember Renzel .asked about the purpose of including the pro- vision that the approvals would lapse if not used within a period of time. 2 3 2 3 8/02/82 Mr. Schreiber commented .that from staff's standpoint, it was important in the sense that there were projects which lingered around for a long time. While it was important, it was not so important as to be worth the effort to go back and identify the historic projects and go through the notice procedure. He did not want to drop that kind of procedure on an applicant without some -- thing being published in the newspaper, Mayor. Eyerly said he was concerned that the process would be too horrendous because he agreed with, Councilmember Renzel that the old projects should be brought to some parameters to apply for their building permit. He suggested that staff , prepare a report with the ordinance as to how much work would be involved and whe- ther it would be feasible to actually put out a notice. He was interested in that procedure because he thought the old ones should be cleaned up. Councilmember Renzel clarified that typically when people obtained ARB approval, they did not apply for a building. permit until some- time hence so that a lot of the ARB approvals were out without a building permit. Mr. Schreiber responded that the application fora building permit might come as soon as the end of the appeal period or somewhat_ longer. For: complicated= projects especially, it :would_ be unusual for the developer or applicant to go into working drawings and all the money and time before they knew they had approval. That pro- cess alone could take_ between two to five months before the mate- rial was ready to come in for a permit. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Eyerly, that staff report back on number of projects for the last two to three years. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote . of 6-3, . Bechtel, Witherspoon, Klein voting "no.' AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. RECESS FROM 9:45 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. ITEM. #5, PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONFIRM CITY Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open and receiving no requests to speak, declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to approve the staff, recommendation to confirm the Engineer's Report and Assessaent re 778 Loma Verde Avenue. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #5, ORDINANCE RE HANDICAPPED ACCESS REGULATIONS (CMR:433:2) Mayor Eyerly said he sympathized with City Manager Bill Zaner's concerns about the State legislation. Councilmember Fazzino commented that the City presently had a task force for the disabled and he wanted to see that group become the consulting group for staff for various issues arising out -of State legislation. Assistant City Manager 4une Fleming responded that Councilmember Fazzino's comments were well taken. She said it was staff's intent that when the advisory group was set up part of the member- ship would : be drawn from the existing task force. 2 3 2 4 8/02'/82 MOTION. Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Fletcher, to approve the staff recommendations as follows: 1) Affirm its commitment to make public'facilities available to all persons, including handicapped individuals; 2) Direct staff to contact and work with other public and private agencies to seek revisions in the current regulations to allow for e•Xceptions where circumstances clearly show that such exceptions are warranted; 3) Direct staff to consult with the Task Force for the Disabled during these efforts; 4) Direct staff to identify added costs to City projects imposed by application of these regulations; 5) Direct the City Attorney to determine if the added costs identified in (4) above can be recovered by judicial action; 6) After receiving the City Attorney's report, consider the advisability of seeking reimbursement of those costs through the courts; and 7} To communicate costs of this program to State legislators, and add to ordinance right of City Manager or his designee to con- tinue the hearing EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 3374 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL Of THE CITT OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 16.56 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL MODE 'ESTABLISHING A PROCESS TO APPEAL DECISIONS OF THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL REGARDING THE HANDICAPPED ACCESS REGULATIONS (PART 2, TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE --OFFICE OF STATE ARCHITECT)* Councilmember Cobb said that item #4 directed staff to identify added costs to City projects imposed by the application of the regulations. He thought it would be appropriate to ask staff to correspond again with the State legislature, and specifically Palo Alto's local legislators, with some specific information as to what those costs were. Councilmember Fletcher had no objection to incorporating Item #7 in the motion. Mary Minkus, Chairperson of the Disabled Awareness Task Force, 1600 Dana, said the task force reviewed the ordinance and sug- gested that Section 16.56.060(d), include that three days before the time and place set for the hearing, the City Manager cr desig- nee shall receive all documentary evidence, orp > anything . that can be read by the advisory group. If people brought documentary evi- dence to such a meeting that there ,be three: days which may be requested additionally in time to respond to new evidence. She said it was felt that an inordinate la*ount of paper might be heaped upon the group, and they should have the opportunity to review the material. City Attorney Diane Lee said she had a problem with a pre -cutoff date for submission of documents when talking about this type of hearing because it was not even done in a court proceeding. Tes- timony could be introduced when a case -was presented and in rebut - "till and there was no cutoff prior to the trial. In order to address the concerns of Ms.'Minkus, she thought -it would be more appropriate te. allow the City Manager or his designee conducting the hearing to continue the hearing from time to time to give people, the time to respond to that type 'of', evidence when pre- sented. 2 3 2 5` 8/02/82' Mayor Eyerly said he thought it was possible the way the ordinance was written. 1 1 Ms. Lee said she did not believe the ordinance contained anything which expressed the ability of the City Manager or designee to continue the hearing from time to time. She said there was a pro- vision, which was not satisfactory to the Committee, that if cir- cumstances warranted, those members of the advisory committee who were present at the hearing may have three working days to trans- mit their recommendations to the City Manager, but that would be after the hearing was concluded as opposed to being put on the record during the hearing. She thought it would be appropriate to add language that the City Manager may continue the hearing from time to time. Mayor Eyerly clarified that the motion could include the right of the City Manager or his designee to continue the hearing. Councilmembers Cobb and Fletcher agreed to incorporate that the City Manager may continue the hearing from time to time in the motion. Councilmember Renzel was concerned about the language contained in item 2 that the City wanted to seek revisions for exceptions where circumstances clearly show that such exceptions were warranted., The staff report indicated that the City was very concerned about costs. She asked if that was going to be considered a reason to not warrant providing handicapped access. She suggested that language be added to indicate that such exceptions were warranted due to existing alternative access. She did not want to see the City getting revisions in the current regulations with costs being the basis. Mayor Eyerly clarified that Councilmember Renzel wanted to show that an alternate was feasible. Ms. Fleming agreed with Councilmember Renzel. Staff's concern was not costs alone, but whether the reasonable alternatives should be permitted. The City was currently prohibited from doing so. , Councilmember Levy said costs were not something to be ignored. Anything could be done if the City was willing to pay for it, but one of the problems with the regulations was that the costs were deemed to be excessive in relation to the benefits. to be achieved. He did not want: to see the City go out of . its way to exclude the concept of costs. He thought the way the recommendation was worded injected elements of sensibility into some regulations that otherwise ignored some of those elements Councilmember Renzel was concerned because they were talking mainly about public buildings, and she thought the public build- ings ought to be reasonably accessible. If every community reacted such as Palo Alto --who was supposedly enlightened --the. handicapped people would end up with nothing because politicians would take a lot of heat for something that would not work polit- ically. She thought the regulations should be .= modified, so _ that reasonable access to all public buildings was provided, particu- larly when a remodel was taking place. She was concerned that givens the current economic climate, which would hopefully change. over a. period of time, that the City not allow costs to be its overwhelming .consideration An whether or not to provide handi- capped access. Mayor Eyerly said it would be expensive to provide the ramp to the Police Station on Forest when an alternate access, already existed. Councilmember'Renzel said that if the City did not already have an alternative access, the only criteria would be costs rather than reasonable access. '2 3 2 6 8/02/82 i Mayor Lyerly said he did not think Councilmember Levy was sug- gesting doing away with handicapped access, but rather whether it was economically feasible to do it one way or through the alter- nate solution. Councilmember Renzel clarified that the City sought exceptions to the current regulations where circumstances warranted such as alternative access was already available. She did not think the City was looking for exceptions just because it would cost a little more to put the access provisions into the design. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that the first recommendation was foy the City to affirm its commitment to make public facili- ties available to all persons, including handicapped individuals, and the third recommendation stated that staff would consult with the Task Force for the Disabled on all matters before making a decision. She thought that if a change was warranted, the Council would get the message from the Task Force for the Disabled. NOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #7, CABLE TELEVISION LOBBYIST ORDINANCE City Attorney Diane Lee said she had received a few calls from Counc i l members asking questions about why certain provisions were contained in the ordinance. During the Council meeting at which the ordinance was discussed, she said she took notes of some of the comments made by the Council about what they would like to see in the ordinance. The ordinance was a compendium of those com- ments with the thought in mind that as many of those things be con- solidated into as few documents for the lobbyist as possible in order not to be overly bureaucratic. Councilmember Fazzino said he thought that for the most part the proposed ordinance was excellent, and related well to the issues. He was concerned about section 2.11.050 regarding campaign contri- butions and the limitation on lobbyists. He was not so much con- cerned about the lobbyists, but rather the cable company. He was concerned that any company could,;get around the provision and make a contribution to a candidate or a committee. He asked if the, pro- hibition could be extended to include all cable companies who were part of the formal bid process. Ms. Lee said that when she first started to do the ordinance, although it was not part of the direction, she looked at making some requirements for lobbyist employers. She said she reviewed what the Council requested, as well as the sample ordinance pro- vided by the Council, and it was not part o.f the request. She did not want to exceed her authorization and did not include any requirements for lobbyist employers. Regarding campaign contribu- tions, she thought that could be changed and some limitation placed on not only lobbyists, but anyone employing oyinga lobbyist. MOTION Councilmember fazzino moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the ordinance for first reading as prepared and amend to extend campaign contractlimitation include employers of lobbyists (Sec- tion 2.11.050). ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COMM OF THE CITY Or PALO. ALTO ADDING : CHAPTER 2.11 TO, THE PALO ALTO kUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ACTIVITIES OF LOBBYISTS ON BEHALF OF PERSONS FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN CABLE TELEVISION° Councilmember Cobb clarified that e. co -©p member_ who was not com- pensated, but was working to suggest that the :City_, go: co --op, would not be considered a lobbyist. As. Lee, responded that 1f someone was appearing at the behest . of a paid lobbyist, and as long as that was disclosed that person would 2 3 2 7 8/02/8Z not be required to comply with the ordinance. For example, if a paid lobbyist asked a friend to go to the Council meeting and speak for or against something, and as long as the friend discloses that he was asked to appear by a paid lobbyist, they would not fall within the ambit of the ordinance. She opined that the Council wanted to know who they were dealing with and on whose behalf they were speaking. Councilmember Cobb clarified that the entire burden of reporting was on the lobbyist, which would include whether or not someone else was solicited specifically to extend the lobbyist's activity. Ms. Lee said no because any violation of the ordinance would be a misdemeanor, and if the person appearing on behalf of the lobbyist did not make the disclosure they would be equally guilty of the misdemeanor. Councilmember Cobb asked how that would be enforced. Ms. Lee said she recognized that Councilmember Cobb had a valid point, but thought that many of the City's ordinances were suscept- ible to the same problem in terms of enforcement. Staff enforced on a complaint basis, and assumed that the same would be done in this case. Councilmember Cobb said that since the lobbyist was doing the reporting, a lobbyist could report conversations with any member of the Council which may not be accurate, and given the political nature of the problem, the lobbyist could be in a position to make life politically difficult if things were reported inaccurately. He asked how that issue would be dealt with. Ms. Lee responded that the Councilmember would file a counter statement. She explained that her direction was that the Council wanted the information and did not want to have to provide that information themselves and preferred that someone else do the reporting. Councilmember Renzel asked when the ordinance would go into the effect. Ms. Lee responded that it would go into effect . 45 days from first reading. Councilmember Klein asked for clarification on Section 2.11.020(a)(2) using as an example that if Time, Inc.'s subsidiary appeared before. the Council to lobby, someone from Time, Inc. would provide the City Clerk's: office with a list of 20,000 share- holders. Ms. Lee said that ryes , correct. Councilmember Kl ei n:. sai d he was concerned about whether Section 2 .11..050, was constitutional Ms. Lee said that in her opinion it was constitutional. Campaign contributions: were not prohibited by a particular group, but rather the .time In which -those contributions could be male. She felt it was constitutional although she did not think the Court had decided that particular _issue:, Councilmember Klein asked if that could have been done with regard to other' issues, i e., on the last special election." Ms Lee clarified that she was not talking about -a ballot measure, but rather contributiohs to candidates and the candidates' con- trolled committees;. As she read , the cases, the limitations with respect to making -campaign: contributions to individual candidates were less likely to be successfully challenged in court than those for ballot measures. A ; recent Berkeley case overturned their campaign contribution limitation ordinance with respect to ballot measures. Buckley v. Vallejo was the major case in the field which upheld federal campaign limitations to candidates. Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, said she supported the ordinance and thought it had been well thought, out. She thought the ordi- nance focused well on that issue. Section 2.11.030(4) concerning the actions of a publisher or working member of the press who would be exempted from registration requirements was necessary for the reporting press and media, but raised the complex problem of con- flicting interests within the media She stated that as many cards as possible needed to be laid out on the table. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Menzel moved, seconded by Eyerly, to prepare changes and bring back for adoption as emergency ordinance and simultaneously prepare a regular ordinance, Ms. Lee said there were practical, as well as legal, problems with making the ordinance an emergency measure. The practical problem was that Councilmember Fazzfno and other Councilrnembers would add other amendments, and she did not see how they could be done if the ordinance was adopted tonight as an urgency measure. She was con- cerned about whether the ordinance was an appropriate use of the urgency provisions of the City Charter, but would let the Council be the ultimate decision -maker. She reminded the Council that in order to preserve the public health, peace and safety were the cri- teria for adopting an emergency ordinance. She was troubled by the use of those provisions and asked Councilmember Renzel to explain the relationship between the immediate adoption of the ordinance and her feeling that it affected the public peace, health, safety and welfare. Councilmember Renzel said that since the Council would be making major decisions soon, it would be important to have the ordinance in effect at the time the decisions were made. Councilmember Levy said he was reluctant to support the ordinance as an emergency measure ev`en though he supported it strongly as a regular .ordinance. He thought the Council was dealing with too sensitive an area to consider it on an emergency basis. The sensi- tivity related to the fact that the Council was putting restric- tions on the ability of individuals and companies to lobby, and also to participate in the election process. He felt that those restrictions were proper, but felt they should be considered in the normal course of time rather than rushing to it in an emergency way. Further, he hoped the Council would make a decision on September 13, but he did not think it would happen. He thought the process would take a considerable amount of time, particularly if the Council was going to give a thorough hearing to .the private sector, which was the real subject of the ordinance. He did not think 45 days to approval was critical. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Levy, Cobb Witherspoon, Klein voting "no.' AMENDMENT: Councilmesber Menzel moved, seconded by Eyerly, that any reporting by lobbyists be retroactive to July 1. Vice Mayor Bechtel said that if people were being asked to keep track of •conversations and appearances, it would be fairer to Start when the ordinance goes into effect. Ms. Lee said that the penalty for.,vielation of the ordinance was a misdemeanor, and am ,act coul d not be made a crime retroactively. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to remove the words "directly or indirectly from Section 2.11.040(d) and remove words "summarizing discussions." Councilmember Cobb felt it would be sufficient for a lobbyist to say that they had contacted Councilmembers A, B, and C and staff members X, Y S 1; and the following materials were provided to them. Councilmember Levy said he saw the purpose of the ordinance to essentially identify who lobbyists were so that when the Council and other members of the community dealt with individuals it was known who those individuals represented if they were paid to repre- sent someone. He was concerned that paragraph 2.11.040(d) went beyond that, and called for every lobbyist to record every contact made. He did not see where that furthered the Council's ability to make decisions on the issue. The fact that one lobbyist was more assiduous in his contacts than another was irrelevant. Further, he thought it raised a threshold of paperwork whereby not only did the lobbyist have to keep records, but the Councilmembers and staff would have to keep records so that if the lobbyist said they made certain kinds of contacts on certain kinds :of subjects, the Coun- cilmembers and staff would also have to be in a position to respond to that kind of public information. He thought that went far beyond the need of the situation. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to delete Section 2.11.040(d) of the ordinance. Councilmember Cobb asked what the lobbyists would be reporting if Section 2.11.040(d) were deleted. Ms. Lee respondhd that lobbyists would report financial matters only. r Councilmember Renzel said she thought it would be valuable for the public to know what kind of activity was .taking place, and she would oppose the substitute amendment. Councilmember Fazzino said he agreed with Councilmember Renzel. The substitute amendment destroyed the guts of the ordinance and that simply listing who the lobbyists were and not indicating who they had contacts with removed the Councilmembers from any respon- sibility whatsoever. If the lobbyists had to bear some burden in being identified, Councilmembers should share that burden. He encouraged his colleagues to oppose the substitute amendment. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT .FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Fazzino, Renzel, Eyerly►, •Fletcher, Witherspoon voting 'no." AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Klein, Section 2.11.020(a)(2)„ on Page 2, be changed .to reflect that "stock- holders, partners, or owners holding S% or more of the stock...' AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Eyerly, that the first report be within 30 days of the ordinance passing and subsequent repots on d quarterly basis. Councilmember : Witherspoon clarified that the first reporting period would be thirty days after the effective date of the ordinance, and asked when.the registration of the lobbyists would occur. Ms. Lee said that lobbyists.would be required to file immediately. 2 3 3 0 8/02/82 Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that lobbyists would have to register almost immediately especially if they intended to do any lobbying. If that was the case, she was less' concerned about hav- ing to report right away because she knew they would have to regis- ter right away as lobbyists, and that registration as a lobbyist would be public record. Councilmember Renzel said it would be desirable to have the records of contacts made available during the time the Council was making various decisions. She said_ the Council would be reaching various decision points along the way between now and December, and the ordinance would be meaningless once the die was cast. She thought the Council should have that information available sooner. Councilmember Levy commented that any self-respecting lobbyist who wanted to be sure he earned his pay would make as many contacts as possible since they would all be public. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Levy, Cobb, Wl therspoon, Klein voting °'no.' MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Witherspoon, Klein voting "no.. ITEM #8, PASSIVE AND NONRESIDENTIAL SOLAR APPLICATION FINANCING Acting Director of Utilities Mark Harris said staff recommended that the program not be extended to passive solar applications or large commercial applications because there were currently good financing options available. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Bechtel, to approve the staff recommendations as follows: 1. Approve an extension of the Solar Financing Program to nonresi- dential utilities customers as outlined in CMR:412:2; 2. Approve staff's plans to meet with local business and financial representatives to discuss methods to ensure the availability of conventional financing for large solar systems and conserva- tion investments, as well as private solar leasing services. Councilmember Fletcher said that when the solar loans for residen- tial homes went into effect, the applications far exceeded the cap- ability of the City to pay the loans. She asked about the current status. Further, if the Council adopted the staff recommendation, the loans to residential homes would be limited. Mr. Harris responded that the solar fund used by staff- did not interfere with the $1 million line. of credit received {from Bank of America. ..Those funds were available for owner -occupied residences and would not be affected. He said it was true that there was con- siderable interest last year and that the fund =was thppedfar in excess of what was originally anticipated. This year, the solar loan demand was down considerably, and to date, only about $10.0,000 had been loaned on the $a million line. of credit. Mayor Eyerly said the .staff report , indicated.: that . the difficulty. from the commercial entities: -.i n trying: to provide; solar was the lack of cooperation in the banks or the loaning facilities for the size loans generally needed. Staff suggested loans at a 10 percent. interestrate, and he asked if the low interest: rate for commercial entities was necessary to make a solar _; -,application viable or was it the lack of the availability of money fro* the private sector. Mr. Harris responded that therewas money available, but on a loan of $4,000 or $5.,000 the loan application and generation fee points were generally high and the terms were about three years i n,; most caseswhich did not fit with the match of payback needed for those 2 3 3 1 8/02/82 1 1 types of loans._ Staff ran some analyses and ascertained that at a market rate, which today might be 16% or 18%, it did not make sense for the smaller type applications. Staff felt this was one way to find a nitch in the market where the City could help the solar application. Mayor Eyerly clarified that for the solar system to pay out within the :life of the system, the 16%-18% loan was not feasible. Mr. Harris said that was correct, especially for the smaller sys- tems. The systems being talked about were not much larger than what would be seen on a typical residential application. Ellis Jacobs, 437 Cambridge, said they were working on a possible addition of solar collectors to their present 4,600 square foot office building. They not only had a hot water use which included a beauty salon, but there was regular heating i n , .the building which could also be served. The :loan program would be a great aid for that kind of small collector use. He urged the Counci lmembers . to support the motion. Councilmember Fletcher commended the staff : for coming up with the proposal. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #9, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS FLETCHER AND LEVY RE CONCEALABLE HANDGUN TO REMAIN IN POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE Councilmember Fletcher said that in March, 1982, the Council referred the matter of ,adopting a local ordinance for the prohibi- tion of ownership of handguns in private hands, to the Policy and Procedures Committee. Since that time, a State initiative quali- fied for the ballot, and the P&P Committee felt that since that was imminent, the Council should be asked to let the issue stay in the P&P Committee until after the election in November. Further, she realized that the City could possibly be subject to suit the same as San Francisco if the ordinance was adopted before the suit in San Francisco was settled. She favored waiting until, the outcome of the suit in San Francisco. Councilmember Levy suggested that September 20 would be an appro- priate day for the Council to confider its support of the initia- tive. He • said ample notice should be given to the public that the issue would be discussed. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council ,allow the Policy and Procedures Committee to withhold con- sideration of concealable handgun ordinance pending outcome of November election and lawsuit in San Francisco. Assistant City Manager June Fleming pointed out that the rezoning on 4277 Miranda was continued to September 20, and would be a lengthy item= Mayor Eyerly commented that i t• was impossible for every Council - member to attend every meeting, and sometimes things of importance come back when someone is absent. That did not preclude an absent individual from ' reagendi zi ng a matter if they . thought there was a chance to -Change the vote or were not- happy- with the outcome. Councilmember Cobb=, said.: he thought zit I.was- a safe assunpkioo. that discussion of the State- initiativeiwoul:d= bring out :a large: crowd and he hoped that would be recognized and the decks cleared, on Septemb►r.20 as much as possible. Councilmember"Fletcherasked if September 20 would also be the night for all the Planning Commission recommendations. 2 3'3 2 8/02/82 Ms. Fleming said yes. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #10, REQUEST OF MAYOR EYERLY RE GAS UTILITY Mayor Eyerly said he understood that staff had ' been working for some time on the possibility of the use of gas from the Sacramento Central Palley area where there was considerable gas exploration, and capped wells avai'i abl a for usage and owners eager to sell the available gas He said Palo Alto's gas utility was a : real profit maker, and he felt it behooved the Council to look into the possi- bility of another source besides PG&E, and at the same time to see whether any consideration should be given to the use of available gas supplies for electric generation. MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Klein, that staff be directed to prepare a report to address the issue of gas utility. The report should include a course of action and rough exploration costs estimates, if the Council decided to pursue a new gas source, explanation of current PG&E contract and ramifications of any change, plus general comments on our gas utility. The report shdnld also include possible use of these gas supplies for electric generation. Acting Director of Utilities Mark Harris said he understood the purpose of the motion to possibly identify and explore additional sources of gas outside of PG&E. The gas utility had had problems in recent years partially because of an aggressive conservation program on the part of Palo Al to. Al though >the profit picture may riot look that good, the difference between what anticipated sales might have been ten years ago versus what they were now had saved rate payers on the order of $5,000,000 annually. He thought it was important to include the ramifications of purchasing gas with the Public Utilities Commission because the City may find other sources which would end up causing the PUC to increase Palo Alto's costs of gas on any additional gas needed. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #11, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER KLEIN RE OPPOSITION OF AB 571 Councilmember Klein. said he previously had correspondence with Assemblyman Naylor on AB 571, indicating his personal opposition. The League of California Cities Legislative Bulletin of July 19, 1982 stated that every city should be strongly opposed to AB 571, which would:;result in significantly increased litigation, and sub- stantial local government costs would ;virtually bring ..land use decision -making processesi to a standstill Almost every time a property owner conies before a government. .agency,: -there was the potential for substantial changes in property values both of that property and adjoining property. There was no way a government agency could be expected to protect every property owner against changes in fluctuating market values. AB 571 would, in effect, give property owners a right of legal action against municipalities in that event, and for that reason would have a dilatorious effect on the way Palo Alto operated as well as other cities in the State. NOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Rented, to autho- rize the Nayor to mrite Members of the local legislative delege- tl aa, *embers of Senate Judicial Committee and the Senate Finance Committee indicating the - City of Palo Alto's . opposition to- AB 571. Councilmember Fletcher asked about the - intent of the, bi l l . Councilmember Klein' said' that the intent of the bill was that any time a government agency made a decision or did not make a deci- sion, it had the effect of decreasing the value of someone's prop- erty, and that the property owner could sue the government agency 2 3 3 3 8/02/82 for the reduction in the market value. For example, if that law was in effect when the City did the Comprehensive Plan and changed the zoeing of various properties, presumably every landowner who had his property rezoned in a way he thought reduced his property value could have sued the City. Ms. Lee said the present rule was something like "deprives a prop- erty owner any reasonable use of their property." Diminishing value was completely different and would be a more costly concept to cities and a lot easier to prove. - Councilmember Klein said that according to the League of California Cities, the Senate Judiciary Committee was due to meet August 3, and perhaps the communication to them should be by telegram, and the Senate Finance Committee was due to meet next week. MOTION •PASSED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:35 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Assistant City 'ierk v Nice 2 3.3 4 8/02/82