Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-23 City Council Summary Minutes1 2 4 1 4 2.4 1 9 2 4 1 .9 2 4 2 5 2 4 3 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUT€s ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of June 21, 1982 Monday, CITY o ALTO eeting. August 23, 1982 Item #1, Presentation by Herbert Susmann, Western Wheelers Bicycle Club Consent Calendar 2 4 1 2 Referral 2 4 1 2 None 2 4 1 2 Action 2 4 1 2 Item #2, Rear Easement Power Line Clearing 2 4 1 2 Item #3, Palo Alto Main Library - Phase II 2 4 1 2 Improvements C IP Project 81-85 PAGE 2 4 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 Item '#5, Ordinance re Cottage Zones (Second 2 4 1 3 Reading) Item #6, Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in 2 4 1 3 Certain Parking Lots in. Conjunction with Temporary Conditional Use Permit (2nd Reading) Item #7, Proposed CalTrans Regulations Regarding 2 4 1 3 Traffic Barriers or Diverters Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 2 4 1 3 Item #8, Public Hearing: Weed Abatement Charges 2 4 1 3 Item #9, Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendation re Comprehensive Plan Change from Singh Family Residential to Multiple Family Residential for Property Located at 11.55 and 1161 Colorado Avenue Item #1O, Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee Recommendation re Loans of City Fund Item #1I,; Finance and Public Works (F'&PW).. Committee Recommendation re Downtown Parking Feasibility Study Item, #12, Policy and Procedures Committee Recommen- dation re Employee Relocation Assistance Program Item .#12-A (Old Item #4), Cable Television Lobbyist Ordinance (2nd Reading) Item #13, Request of Counc i lmerber Witherspoon Refer Corollary` Item to Item #5, Cottage Zones Adjournment Regular Meeting Monday, August 23, 1982 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton tveue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon Cobb, Fazzino ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 1982 NOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the minutes of June 21 1982 as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Fazzino absent, Mayor Eyerly announced the need for an executive session, regard- ing litigation, to be held during the Council recess. ITEM #1, PRESENTATION BY HERBERT SUSMANM, WESTERN WHEELERS BICYCLE Mayor Eyerly said that he recently received a telephone call from Herbert Susmann who wanted to mail a check to the City in the amount of $200. The Western Wheelers Bicycle Club, comprised of about 550 members, and residing from San Francisco to San Jose, felt generous toward the City because of the help City staff gave them in terms of printing expenses, and the use of Gunn High School for their Sequoia Century Ride on June 6, 1.982. About 1,400 riders participated and covered over 1,000 miles. Mr, Herbert Susmann, on behalf of the Western Wheelers Bicycle Club, thanked the_ City Council for co -sponsoring the recent Sequoia Century, and for help received from City staff. This year's Sequoia Century was the largest ever. There were almost 1,400 participants who rode for a total , of 100,000, which indi- cated the growing interest in bicycling and the benefits of that form of transit. The Club appreciated the Transportation Division for helping them gain access to the Gunn High School facilities as well as for their help in the design and printing of pesters and the application. He presented a contribution in the amount of $200 to Mayor Eyerly as an expression of the Club's appreciation for the City's support. He suggested that the amount be used to con inue the support that Palo Alto had always given to respon- sible bicycling and that consideration be given to spending it in a way that the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee might recom- mend. An effective use of the money could be the purchase of advertising for.the second annual Palo Alto Bicycle Program sched- uled for May 1983. The 1982 program was sponsored by the Palo, Alto Police Department, the Recreation Department, PTA and Western Wheelers. It drew 400 interested adults and it could grow a lot more i n ~ 1983. The Club appreciated the support it :- received from the City of Palo Alto and expected to repay that support with con- tinuing programs to promote safe and eesponsi bl e . bicycling. He'. added that. Councilmember Levy rode about 62 miles,: in the Sequoia .; Century with his son. Mayor Eyerly thanked Mr. Susmann for mentioning the City Council's active bicyclist, and for the check. He said that when _ it cave time to use it, the City Council would see to it that the bicycle 1 co bi mittee had input in order to use the money in a way to benefit yclists. Councilmember Levy thanked the Western Wheelers for the check, and for their excellent work supporting bi cyc 1 i ng. He enjoyed the Sequoia Century, and said that he and his family had participated for about six years and admired the organization of the ride. The Sequoia Century was Palo Alto's answer to the "Bay to Breakers," and he considered the event to be outstanding. C S n ounci' member Fletcher said this year's was the first "Century" he had missed since she joined Western Wheelers. The ride was of a race, people did not have to go the 100 miles -there were also shorter rides starting at 25 miles, and refreshments were served along the way. The ride was well worth doing and she hoped more people would turn out next year. Mr. Susmann said even though suggestions were made as to how the money might be spent, it was a gift to the City to be used however the City desired. Mayor Eyerly thanked the Western Wheelers Bicycle. Club. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Eyerly removed Item #4, Cable TelevisionLobbying Ordinance, from the Consent Calendar. NOTION: Coencilmember Klein moved,, seconded by. Fletcher, approval of the consent calendar as amended. Mayor Eyerly asked to be recorded as voting "no," on Item #5, Ordinance re Cottage Zones. Councilmember Renzel asked to be recorded as "not participating," zn Item #5, Ordinance re Cottage Zones. Referral None Action ITEM #2 REAR EASEMENT POWER LINE CLEARI NC (Ct R :458:2 ) Staff. recommends that the Mayor be authorized to execute a con- tract with Pied Piper ;Exterminators, Inc. in the, amount of $99,998 for providing - rear line: clearings: services. 9 1 , AWARD L eP::CONTRACT Pied Piper Exterminators, ITEM .# PALO ALTO MAIN LIBRARY Inc PHASE 11 IMPROVEMENTS CIP 110. • It ;s; recommended that Council:. I Authorize the Mayor to awarl the construction contra ct for Phase= 11 Improvements for the Palo Alto ;Main Library, Project 81-85, to Paxton Construction Covipany for $475,500 , including base _bid work and three alternates; and a. Authorize staff to 'execute 'change ,orders to the construction,. contract of . up, -to 20 ' percent of the award amount --$90';'000.- AI4R Of CONSTRUCTION' CONTRACT F acto..Construction +elutes ►: 2 4'1 ` 8/23/82 1. ITEM #5, ORDINANCE RE COTTAGE ZONES (Second Reading) ORDINANCE 3378 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THt CITY or PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 18) TO ALLOW SECOND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES IN R-1 ZONE" (1st Reading 8/9/82 Passed 6-1, Eyerly voting "no," Renzel "not participating," Bechtel absent.) ITEM #6, CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CERTAIN PARKING econ ea cr ng ORDINANCE 3379 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL .OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 9.04.020 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO AUTHORIZE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CERTAIN PARKING LOTS IN CONUUNCTION WITH TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT" (1st Reading 8/9/82 Passed 8-0, Bechtel absent) ITEM #7, PROPOSED CALTRANS REGULATIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC BARRIERS UR UIYEAtiRS CMR 4-66;21 - It is recommended that Council authorize the Mayor to send the proposed letter to CalTrans as written testimony in support of the proposed regulation. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly voting "no," and Renzel 'not participating' on Item #5, Ordlnan ;e re Cottage Zones, Cobb, Fazzino absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill Zaner announced that Item #4, Cable Television Lobbying Ordinance, would become Item 12-A. Councilmember Witherspoon said she would propose a corollary action to Item #5, Ordinance re Cottage Zones, to be a referral to the Planning Commission. ITEM #8, PUBLIC HEARING: WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES (CMR:459:2) MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by . Renzel, approval of the. Resolution. RESOLUTION6067entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TILE t TI OF PALO ALTO. CONFIRMING .REED ABATEMENT REPORT AMD ORDERING COST OF ABATEMENT TO BE A SPECIAL ASSESS - NW . OF THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES .HEREIN DESCRIBED' Mayor Eyerly read the following: "This is the time and place set for a, public hearing on the reso- lution for charges levied for weed abatement on private property under the agreement with Santa Clara County. "Let the record show that notice for this hearing has been given in the time, manner and for provided in Chapter:.8*08 of. the Palo Alto Municipal Code NMS . Tanner, have .you received ..any. written objections. Ms. Tanner said no. oayor: Eyerly, declared thepubl io "Is, there anyone who wishes to b 2 4 1 3. 8/23/82 1 1 Receiving no requests to speak, Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing closed. "Let the record show that no one appeared or filed written c'jec- tions against these charges for weed abatement performed in accor- dance with the Municipal Code and under the Agreement for Adminis- tration of Weed Abatement entered into between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County, and that any resolution passed by the Council on this matter will reflect this finding." NOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Fa zino absent. ITEM #9, PUBLIC HEARING:: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE tOMPREHtNSIYE PLAN CHANGE 'FROM 3ING'L1 'FAMILY RESIDENTIAT— MU1l' PLE FAMILY Re-SIDt!4TIAt FUR RRUPE-RTY LOCATtD AT II5b AMU 1161 Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown said that an applica- tion in similar form was before both the Planning Commission and the City Council a little over a year ago, and there was almost complete disagreement between the Planning Commission's recommen- dation and the City Council's conclusion at that time. A number of Commissioners expressed concern about being asked to review the matter again, especially since it appeared that no particular change in circumstances had occurred to justify a different. recom- mendation. Since the Commission was asked to make a recommenda- tion, the majority felt it was necessary to make a recommendation on the merits rather than assuming what the Council's reaction might be. The Commission recommended, by a vote of 3-2, that the land use designation on the map be multiple family. A concern was raised, and no final decision made, about what density would be appropriate on the site. The Commission postponed taking any action to find out whether it would be worth considering based upon Council's action tonight. She added that concern was expressed about the RM-2 being more than the property could sup- port, and that consideration was perhaps needed for some kind of planned community zone if a proper number of units was to be tailored into the specific circumstances at the site. Mayor Eyerly said that the current zoning on the property was R-2, and it was suggested a year ago that it be .changed to RM-2, which the Council defeated by a vote of 3-6. The Planning Commission's minutes indicated that the Commission felt that maybe a PC zone should be considered --realizing that a PC zone could not be acti- vated by the Planning Commission . or the City Council, but rather had to come as a request of the developer. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open. Helen Gipson, 1070 Moffett Circle, said she had lived at her pre- sent address for 15 years, and was against the multiple units. It was a quiet and secure neighborhood and she wanted it to stay that way The police were called upon a lot more often since the apartments had been constructed, ;.which she felt was due to the overpopulation of one small block'. Luther Gipson, 1070 Moffett Circle, said he thought the property was zoned R-1 when the matter first came up :one year ago, and there was an RM-2 application which was rejected. Then the devel- oper came back with a request to build, duplexes which would require an R-2 zoning, which was approved by the neighborhood. That was now being used as a wedge to increase the. density. He questioned that if the developer was given the authority to put in 19 unit, it would be used as a wedge to go to 79: units. His neighborhood already had More than :its share of high density --487 units. He was worriedabout the police problem. It was difficult to put high densities next to high densities: And not have some sort of a police problem Furthermore;, Colorado Park, zoned RN -2, were below -market -rate units. The neighbors: were assured _ and A reassured that that would not be used as a wedge to increase the density of the area. Since then PC 3183 was approved without any argument. Now the argument was that since the RM-2 on the left was high density., obviously residences could not be placed next to it even though that was the assurance the neighbors received. He asked if there was any continuity on the City Council --one year ago the area was still zoned R-1. He did not see that a positive action by the Council would do anything except cause more prob- lems. Mayor Eyerly asked for clarification by staff that the Council did not activate zone change requests. Further, he asked how often a developer could ask for zone changes on the same piece of prop- erty. Zoning Administrator Robert M. Brown said there were no restric- tions. He commented that the property in question was rezoned from R-1 to R-2 in the 1978 City-wide rezonings. Eleanor Bassler, 2722 Louis Road, represented the West Bayshore Residents' Association, who opposed a change in the Comprehensive Plan to rezone 1161 Colorado Avenue to multiple housing. The high density on the small parcel of land was consistently opposed. The land was adjacent to Greer Park and had been an eyesore for many years, the structure was not maintained, and' many old automobiles and parts were stored on the property. The structure was vacated in the Spring of 1982, vandalized and burned before it was demol- ished at the City's insistence. About ten years ago, Colorado Park was developed as Palo Alto's first subsidized housing. When the neighborhood accepted that with no problem, it seemed to be a signal to developers because almost immediately there were requests for apartments and condominiums in the whole area from Oregon to Colorado. After many meetings, studies and surveys made by the City staff, schools and residents, it was evident that the area needed a district park rather than more development, so Greer Park was planned. The City purchased the old drive-in movie site and trade off land with industry along the Frontage Road so that the park could go through from Amarillo to Colorado. This was about the third time that the owners of 1161 Colorado had tried to build multiple family units. Kona Apartments and Colorado Park Apartments were already there, and Colorado Place Condominiums were developed recently, which was ,a lot of multiple housing in a short half block. The small parcel should not al so be developed as apartments or condominiums, but should remain as set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Under the present zoning, dup l exes'\ could be developed, which would provide come rentals as well as owned - occupied dwellings, and still retain in the single family atmo- sphere. The developer was granted a subdivision request last October to put in duplexes. At that time the West Bayshore Resi- dents' Association went on record supporting them. It was a rea- sonable compromise between high density and single family housing. The Association thought that the original duplex plan was proceed- ing and it was a surprise when Mr. Pellegrini requested a meeting with the Association to discuss "a compromise" for higher density to accommodate many condominiums. A = poll of - the : West Bayshore Residents Association Board and other members of the Association determined that a meeting would not be necessary since a reason- able compromise had already Leen reached with the .duplexes. Mr. Pellegrini was informed and advises that the Association's annual meeting, which was open to the public, was coming up. -Mr` . Pellegrini did not attend the meeting; however, Mr. Keith Suddjian, who lived in the neighborhood and who was a member of the Association spoke in=support of the zone change. The vote was almost unanimous to oppose the zone change. It was felt that the owners and developers. had broken 'faith with the neighborhood -,the \'duplex Plan was supported, and the Association- would like to see that move forward. -Mr. -Pei l egrl nl was asked why he thought he could get a zone changethis-year-when" the Council denied the same request, last year. He responded r=that the Council was elected, not appointed like the Planning Commission, last year was an election 2 4 1- 5 year, and this year was not. Therefore, he hoped to have Council support this year. The implication of political insincerity was an insult to the City Council. Previous Councils, including mem- bers of the present o.ne:, .upheld .the . single, family designation on the property, and the Association hoped the current zoning would -be.retained--the reasons were as, valid. now as. they:.were during the previous requests. Ruth -Gipson, 1070 Moffett Circle,; said that the argument was often heard that because Greer Park was created, there was a lot of open space, and, therefore, there was room for more housing in the remaining areas. Sh.e and her neighbors did not feel that was true: other areas of the City, such as, Rinconada Park and Mitchell Park did not have the same high density housing nearby. She hoped the Council would be consistent with their decision of last year. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, supported the comments of the West Bayshore Residents' Association, and the other previous speakers. He asked that the Council not rezone the property, but that it be left R-2. There had' been a lot of arguments about the intensification of the area and its adverse effects. That task was impossible unless the community was destroyed. There was no to increase the number of housing units in the City of Palo Alto to obtain a balance between jobs and housing without destroying the residential nature of the community. He used the example that in the job intensifi- cation analysis which was done by staff in the past two and one- half years, in excess of 4,000 jobs were added in new construction not counting intensification in existing structures. To maintain the existing 2.8 ratio of workers per housing unit would have required the construction of more .th.an 1,200 housing units He urged that the density of the _zone. not be increased'.. ; I f :a.: devel- oper .wished to come in with. ;a PC ,zone, that could ..be . done _without any change in .the existing zoning: Ronald Pel l egri ni 1540, Oak Creek 0ri ve, said that since the deci- sion was made in March 1982, to pursue a zone change again for 1155 Colorado, he contacted Mr. and Mrs. Charles Scott in an effort to discuss the possibility of reaching a compromised zoning position with them and the group they represented --the West -Bay- shore Residents' Association. His initial contacts were rejected by Mrs. Scott, as were subsequent attempts as being useless con- sidering that the Association was firm in their position. He wrote to individual members on June 3, 1932, outlining the derived solution to their three: major objections, which had been presented in writing to the. City Council, He invitedthe individuals to see copies of the proposal sent to the Planning Commission on July 12, and to date had not received any requests. He addressed the prob- lems by saying that the traffic patterns in the immediate area, according toethe environmental impact assessments prepared for the Planning Commission, would >"not be significant." Overnight on street parking, legal on that block, could be approached and mini- mized' through 1) the use of ,the PG&E land . easement at 1155 Colo- rado for ample resident and guest parking; and 2) by . allowing' the. developers to place "no parking" signs in front of 1155 Colorado and; Colorado Place,;which they would be willing to do. Direct. contact with single family dwellings occurred at onlyone juncture on the property line, and ,one . 'could observe that. through the vacancy ' of the City -owned strip, , the :building setbacks at ' L155 Colorado, height restrictions f and: wise: placement of G guest>parking, the effect would be :minirdf tad,► An. important, ' issue was that of Housing Policy' Mo. °> 5, _Program 7-A,- which ;was approved - by the' City --Ceunci 1 last week. :The _nproposedl development of 20 units of scaled -down square footage 'and market prices reflecting their decreased size wouleappear to be tai l or-stade , for the new program. The Market being directly benefi ted by' the development of ' 1155 Colorado es proposed would be the first time home buyer looking for an ; opportunity to enter the reap estate market ° as opposed to having their choices limited to either _R-1 or A-2 dwellings, which one - could fully -expect to be in the $250,000 to $300,000 price range on the subject property if. developed per the current zoning. Approving the Comprehensive Plan change to multiple family dwell- ings would also benefit the City in terms of placing additional below -market- rate units at its disposal. The current zoning designation would leave the City empty-handed. He did not think he insulted the City Council by voicing his. opinion that the elec- tion years. influenced Council decisions, but apologized for not having said it more sensibly. He felt it pointed out the impor- tance of Councilmembers sensitivity to the feelings of their con- stituency --the backbone of good government. The logistics of the problem favored his proposal, and in view of the decisions handed down last week by the City. Council, his proposal fit nicely into the lone -term plans of Palo Alto. He urged that the Council pay close attention to the recommendations made by the Planning Com- mission. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Eyerly commented that the Council received letters in oppo- sition to the recommendation. from Charles Scott and Jean Scott. Councilmember Fletcher said that last year's request was for a zone change and this request was the consideration for a land use designation. It was clarified last year that the commitment made at the time the Colorado Park project was approved was not to have any more concentrated subsidized housing in the area. She was unwilling to vote for the RM-2 designation last year because she felt the density was too high for the lot, but yet she felt that single family housing for the particular site was not the best idea either. It was close to West Bayshore, the traffic noise was intense, the street had good access both from West Bayshore and Colorado and some kind of multi -family housing would be appro- priate. She agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation that perhaps the developer could apply for a PC zone which would then allow a trade off density and the City could tailor it for what would be appropriate for the particular site. MOTION; Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to approve.* Comprehensive Plan change from single family residen- tial to multiple family residential for property located at 1155 and 1161 Colorado Avenue. RESOLUTION entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY AT 1155 AND 1161 COLORADO AVENUE" Councilmember Renzel sai d that if a Comprehensive Plan change was made in contemplation of a planned community zone, the change should come in at the time the PC zone was applied for in order for the City to ' know. what , it " was dealing with. If the Council approveda multi -family designation to the property tonight, and if the developer did not choose to come in with a PC zone in the. interim period, the Commission would. have to pursue a zone for the property, ' which might be RM-1, Rf-2 or RM-5. She felt that once a land use change for the parcel was made withoutany specific zone figured ,out, the Council must commit itself to at least an. RM-1 zone. There were parks all over Palo Alto intended to dissipate the effects of density --not _ to justify additional density, To say that because a _ piece ofproperty was next to a park, it should be a higher density was not a rationale -argument. She thought the neighborhood had already absorbed _ more than its share of multi- family housing --snot just. subsidized housing. She opposed the motion. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed with Countci lmember Fletcher. She -understood that they -were not talking about a tone` change., .but rather, a land use designation ,'which was a- different consideration. - The Council' had no guarantee that Mr. `Pellegrino, would' come in with a PC change, but if he could not live with what he had now,. he would have to apply for a zone change. She supported the motion. Mayor Eyerly agreed with Councilmember Fletcher. He said he sup- ported the RM-2 zoning last year for 27 units, which failed. The property was a logical place for a little higher density housing, the City needed housing. and the Council needed to face that fact. The Planning Commission wrestled with the matter in view of the Council's previous action and spelled out that they would not. recommend an RM-2 this year. He agreed with the Commission's philosophy that the developer would have to come in with a request for a PC zone, and if approved, there would be a control of about 20 units per acre Councilmember Levy asked if .the zoning or Comprehensive Plan designations were left unchanged, would the owner be precluded from coming in with a PC application. Chief Planning Official Bruce: Freeland responded that the owner would not be precluded from coming in. The City would require the Planned Community Zone to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and staff would probably ask for another Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Levy asked if there was any problem with that. Mr. Freel and said that there would be another fee and . another set of public hearings. Councilmember Levy said that regarding the comment: that some Coun- cilmembers might change their votes in an off election year be- cause their constituents would not remember --everyone in Palo Alto remembered --particularly those in the West Bayshore area. . He did not think the Councilmembers had the luxury of sneaking one over on anyone. A density in the range of 10 to 15 units was appropri- ate, somewhere between R-2 and RM-1. If he were confident that the density would be limited to RM-1, he would be amenable to changing the Comprehensive Plan designation, but since he was not, it was safer to leave it as an R-2 designation. If the applicant wished to come back and present a PC zone, that could be looked at on its own merits. He sympathized with what was said by Mr. Moss and by the residents of West Bayshore. Intensification could be carried too far, and the City did not want to see onemulti-family unit after another in any part of town. Having a variation in density was of value, ; not only for the single fami l v :dwellers but also for the multi -family i dwel l ers 4 No. one liked to have too strong and too. high a housing• intensification. He di.d not think the designation should be changed and would not support the mo- tion. Councilmember Klein said the key to him was ° if the City was going to encourage other areas of the= community to have higher densities on some of the parcels left in those= neighborhoods, it :had to be fair and not to use .it. as a wedge to make certain areas all multi- family. He thought the west Bayshore area had more than its : share and the, line had to be drawn. He would. oppose the Planning . Com- mission recommendation. Vice Mayor Bechtel said she did not . support the zone change a year ago- and had not found any new information, therefore, she would not support the motion. Councilmember Fletcher said : that the order of process was also discussed in the Planning Commission minutes and staff's response was .- that it took consi derabl e, eff ort and funds to come up with the plans for a PC development, and would be worth it for the devel- oper to come in with it without an indication whether that .:type of development was acceptable. She felt the Council should go on record -that it was amenable. to a slightly higher density than single family. The site was not the; best, for: single family hous- ing, in her opinion. 2 4=1 8 8/23/82 only control was 1 Councilmember Renzel said given the fact that the density change would be significant --at least a 50 percent increase and perhaps More --the cost of preparing PC plans was minuscule compared to the profits to be made. Furthermore, she did not think the Council should suggest that the City's multi -family housing designation should be any less concerned with the aesthetics of a neighbor- hood and the various kinds of ,site. problems than a single family designation might. In all respects, the Council must pay atten- tion to the quality of housing for all zones. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-4, Eyerly, Fletcher, Witherspoon voting "aye," Cobb, Fazzino absent. ITEM #10, FINANCE AylNDRPUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE Councilmember Witherspoon said that the matter was referred to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee to develop a policy for when the City glade a loan of City funds to any group. The Commit- tee unanimously approved the staff recommendation with two addi- tions. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved to accept the staff recommendation to adopt the proposed loan policy as stated in CMR:310:2 as a guide to evaluating future loan requests with two additions: 1) Identify the source of repayment funds; and 2) the security or collateral, if any, that is offered. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Fazzino, Renzel (out of room) absent. ITEM #11, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. RE S -Inn TT TODT-rrAlr1'S'1 Councilmember Witherspoon said that the Committee tried to confine its review of the matter to the financial aspects. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved as follows; 1. That staff be directed to proceed with preparation of prelimi- nary and final plans, specifications and estimates for con- struction at the Lot J site; and 2. That staff be directed to .work with the City's bond counsel (Jones, Nall, Hill i White) to begin the process of estab- lishing a parking assessment district for the Lot J Parking Structure with the new district to use the °Current Parking Pricing" financing method (sale of assessment bonds based on the present G Bond formula). Further, that the City advance the funds for the preparation of the. preliminary design prior to the bonding issue. Councilmember Renzel said that Page 4 of CMR:461:2, Item #3 said "...concurrently rezone parking lot J . to community commercial. She asked why the property had to be rezoned. Chief Planning Official ,Bruce Freeland said that recently the zoning ordinance was amended to allow parking as a principal use in commercial zones in order to avoid the restrictive floor area of ratio requirements of' the . PF district. , Under a straight PF district, one could not get a structure if the structure were the primary use of the property that was more than an additional deck ofparking. Councilmember Renzel clarified that the City' the fact that it owned the property. Mr. Freeland said yes. Councilmember.Witherspoon asked whether the Planning Commission also heard from Chuck Edelstein about the matter, and whether the Commission concurred that it would be feasible to study the alter- native. Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown said that CMR:461:2 was a precise summary. The need to be sensitive with the design of the lot J structure given its, location was self- evident and the Commission would look to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to be particularly concerned about it. The comments regarding Urban Lane. related to a concern about how the ingress and egress would operate if a lot was created at that location. She did not think anyone was comfortable with the level of detail as to know- ing whether it would work and the compromise was to suggest that it should be watched closely if the lot was developed to make sure that traffic conflicts through that complicated intersection, underneath the train tracks, did not occur. The Planning Commis- sion included some comments as an addendum to its recommendation because that same evening. the Commission had extensive testimony on the retail study of the food market issue, etc. Mr. Edelstein did not attend the Planning Commission hearings. Councilmember. Witherspoon asked how far staff would pursue the three alternatives presented by the consultant. Director of Transportation Ted Noguchi said the consultant's report was very clear about a recommended alternative --424 spaces --which was what staff recommended. It was expected that whoever was selected as the consultant to design the facility would pursue that alternative. Councilmember Witherspoon said that as she recalled, Mr. Edelstein pointed out that for 22 percent more in costs up front, the City would get 16 percent more parking places in the total stnuctu re and that would soon be cost effective with the escalation of land prices. Bill Murrell of. Wilbur . Smith and Associates, the consultants who performed the feasibility study, said that as part of their study, they looked into the alternative of additional underground parking as a way of expanding the. parking capacity of the site. They found that the capital costs associated with another two full levels of underground parking was an additional $2 million to the total cost of the structure. The 424 space concept would cost about $3 million. It was found that the total assessment would be increased from $.38 for the 424 space alternative up to $.60 per square; foot. It was true that there would be a significant increase in the capacity. The consultants were hesitant about recommending more underground parking because -\there was existing underground parking in the downtown area, which ' had experienced poor use over the ` years and had not been well accepted by the downtown community. The consultants also reviewed the al ternative of adding additional levels ` to the structure in a vertical wanner --not underground. It would be less expensive-- the added costs were about $700,000 for each level, and the increase in assessment would go from $.38 to $.46. The problem was that it would exceed the height limit and went away from some of the desires expressed by the Planning Commission and the ARB. Couno imember Witherspoon commented that if the City was going to go with the effort.. of designing and putting in a parking . struc- ture, it should get as many spaces out, of it as possible. She thought it would be harder to exceed the height limit, politi- cally, than to, teke another level underground. Mayor . Eyerly asked what the costs per parking space would-be at the 47 foot height, and what would they be if a level were added below grade: Mr. Hurrell recollected that the 424 space facility would cost between $6,000 and $7,000 per space. The incremental cost for the actual spaces received was fn the range of $16,000 to $17,000 per space. Underground parking would cost about $9,000 per space, which included a 510 space structure with two levels underground. For the .actual underground parking the cost per space was about $14,000. Mayor Eyerly asked if the consultant considered a level and a half below grade. Mr. Hurrell said that the alternative they considered was de- scribed as two levels underground, but actually it was one and one-half levels. Mayor Eyerly commented that there was a recommendation for 20 bike lockers in the garage, and .he asked for a comment about the usage of the current bicycle lockers which had been installed over the last one and one-half years. Mr. Noguchi commented that the present lockers were primarily focused at the Southern Pacific stations, Currently, the City had a waiting list of people that wanted to obtain lockers. at the locations. There were plans to increase the lockers, and the Council approved the Transportation Development Act grant for ad- ditional bike lockers in the downtown area. The proposed struc- ture included additional lockers as part of the structure costs. In addition, they indicated a spread of some of the lockers into the downtown area rather than concentrating in one specific loca- tion. Councilmember Levy clarified that the recommended plan provided 257 more spaces ata cost of $4,300,000, which totaled $16,700 per incremental space. If the City went to the 510 space garage, what would be the total cost, or what would the incremental cost be per space for the extra spaces. Mr. Hureell referred the Council to page 63 of the Summary Reports, Table A, Alternatives A2 and A3. He said Alternative A2 was the five level facility with 424 spaces, which had a total development costs of $2.98 million. The cost per space was $7,000, which did not consider the incremental cost to take out the existing spaces. The 257 more spaces would cost $11,600 per space. Alternative A3 was the six level facility with two levels underground, with a total development cost of $4.96 million. That alternative contained 510 spaces at a cost of $9,200 per space and an incremental cost of $14,500 per space. The overall cost per- formance did not improve with the underground concept. Councilmember Levy, asked about the difference between the $2,980,000 and the $4,300,000. Mr. Hurrell respande1 that the $4,300,000 included the recommenda- tion on Urban Lane Mr. Paul Krupka, Wilbur Smith and Associates, said that: the $4.3 million was the total bond issue that would be required for finan- cing the Alternative A2, 424 space structure If that number were to be compare_ d with the amount.. of the total bond issue necessary to construct the . underground alternative, A3, the Council would need to bear in mind that they were talking about just the initial bond issue costs Councilmember Levy thought the relevant costs with all of the financing were what it would cost for the 257 ,paces under Alter- native A2. The second alternative added 86 spaces, and the cost of each of those 86 spaces was the text, relative number. Councilmember Klein said it came out to about $23,000 per incre- mental space. Councilmember Levy clarified that to go with the lesser was $11,000 per space, and to add an extra. 86 spaces would cost $23,000 per space. 1 1 Councilmember Klein said that the extra 86 spaces cost .twice as much as the first 250 extra spaces. Councilmember Levy asked what the cost per space would be at today's prices if the City acquired some vacant land downtown, and laid it out for parking rather than .building a structure. He felt . that alternative was viable --there was vacant land downtown and putting a ground level parking space on current vacant land was a financially more feasible alternative. It was also an aesthetically more satisfactory alternative because he would rather have. more space devoted to ground level parking which also took that particular space out of the construction market and reduced the possibility of having to provide increasing amounts of parking; for increasing construction. Mr. Zaner sail that downtown property was running about $100 per square foot, it took about 350 to 400 square feet for each parking space for a total of $35,000 to $40,000 per space on the surface. Councilmember Levy asked if those figures were firm. Mr. Noguchi responded that the figures recited by Mr. Zaner were the land acquisition costs and did not include the construction costs. Bill Byxbee, Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., said that about three years ago, staff made a report that at least 1,500 to 2,000 employees working in the downtown area lived within a radius of three miles of the downtown. He felt that 300 to 500 of those employees could be enticed to ride bicycles if the City had proper places for them to park their bikes. Instead of the proposed 20-40 additional bicycle lockers, at least another 80 to 100 lockers should be added --20 in conjunction with Lot J and 80 scattered in other areas. It was particularly important.' because Bryant Street was now locked into a Bike/Park lane configuration which made it far more convenient for people to ride bicycles into the downtown. Since the only way to finance anything downtown was through assessment district proceedings, instead of acquiring 40 lockers, the City should acquire at least 1.00. Hopefully, it would work out and ultimately another 200 to 300 could be added. Mayor Eyerly clarified that Downtown Palo Alto, Inc. (DTPA) was in favor of the 424 space garage. Mr. Byxbee said there were. a _couple of pieces of vacant land that might be a possibility, and DTPA would approach Mr. Zaner with their thoughts at theappropriate time. . Mayor Eyerly said he was not clear whether the Finance and Public Works Committee recommendation covered a specific "plan. Councilmember Witherspoon said she was assured by staff that the Committee recommended the 424 space alternative. AMENDMENT: Mayor ''Eyerly . moved, seconded . by Bechtel , , to include the Planning Commission recommendation that the Counci l 1. Find that the proposed "Parking Development Program" is con- sistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; and 2. Approve the 'Parking Development Programa including prepara- tion of preliwiaary and :dial OM, speti ficationS. and esti- mates for ceostruction of a parking structure at the Lot J site, and the use of the Urban Lane site for a temporary stir" - face lot to test the suitability of the lot for long-term parking• 1 Councilmember Levy said that comments were made before the Plan- ning Commission that the use of the California Avenue parking facility was not used on the second story very fully. Mr. Noguchi said that subject was coming up at the California Ave- nue Area Development Association (CAADA) board meetings and was a manifestation of a number Of problems. 1) The nearby dental school was supposed to have access to the upper level for students at very inexpensive. rates; however, the -students were not purchas- ing the spaces they should be. If the dental school bought the spaces, the upper deck, woui d be full. Councilmember Levy said that apparently the City Hall underground facility was not being utilized fully either. Mr. Noguchi said that had changed since the last report to the Council. All permits were pretty much sold. Councilmember Levy said that although the problems at City Hall. were supposedly corrected, he was not satisfied that the correc- tion was permaneat. The City Hall facility was a good one --well maintained and fairly easily accessible. Apparently, the California Avenue facility, only one level above ground, was also not fully utilized. Those were .the two parking structures in town and the City was having trouble with each one. He realized there. was discussion at the Stanford Shopping Center about a parking. facility and that they were reluctant to move ahead on one because multi -level parking facilities had problems with utilization because of a fear on peoples' part of s i ng that kind of facility. He was surprised at the past problems with City Hall given the fact that there was such a -huge reported parking deficit, and even with that kind of deficit, there was a difficulty ge•?:ting people to overcome their basic reluctance to use a parking facility. He was on the fence because he felt the Council had to go ahead because the business community was very concerned about the short- age of parking and seemed to be relatively unanimous in their desire to have the facility, as expressed by their willingness to pay the assessments that would go along with it. He hoped that the City was sensitive about the external appearance of the facil- ity and industrious in marketing the facility and making it an attractive place for people to use. Councilmember Klein said the project was desirable in his opinion. Going to two levels underground had two serious drawbacks --the price of the extra spaces was exhorbitant; and people did not like going down very far. Councilmember Fletcher said that the second to last paragraph of page 3 of CMR:461:2 stated that "the annual operating and mainte- nance costs. would be $24,6DD. She asked what kind of maintenance would cost that much. Mr. Noguchi responded that was in reference to general lighting costs, annual cleaning costs and,:.a number of things which were not obv iou5 but were required, as part of ongoing annual maintenance. Councilmember Fletcher asked. if City Hall: was one of . the proper- ties that would be assessed. Mr. Noguchi responded 'that pUbl is faci.1i t# es . were exempted: from the assessment district. Councilmember,Fletcher said she 4aa a little bit of an. inequity. in the assessment procedure whereby it would be done by square foot- age. Office uses;`deraeded._ .much .higher rates for. parking . than retail. She was worried .thall'Alri iQtty leas not' even<rplaying catch up with the particular structure -when it Was; pointed: out.; that just two of the office buildings :;r proposed for the 5OO *block of University would take up 40Q spates, asi& $t was not even= bui lt yet 2 4 .2.3 8/23/82 The various office buildings coming on-line would create a far greater demand for parking than the City could possibly .catch up with. She had no suggestions, but focused in on the fact that the office uses created a greater share of the parking problem than the retail uses. She felt that the City needed to aggressively promote alternative transportation modes, and asked about the par- ticipation of the carpooling program whereby carpoolers did not have to pay for their all day parking. Executive Assisstant Lynnie Melena responded that it was about twenty to twenty-five per day. Councilmember Fletcher hoped that Downtown Palo Alto, Inc. would be encouraged to have a transportation coordinator to actually work on promoting alternate forms of transportation. She had reservations about parking structures, and studies she read indi- cated that the greatest inducement for using a personal .car was that there was space at the other end. Conversely, if there were no parking at .the other end, people looked for other ways to get around. She would support the recommendation because she realized there was an urgent need in this particular case. Vice Mayor Bechtel said she shared Councilmember Fletcher's con- cerns about .simply building structures, but was comfortable with the fact that the City was not just building a structure, but was looking at an overall plan. Therefore, the City was planning for the future by building such a structure. She realized that the use of structures was dependent upon the lack of other alternative street spaces, but as long as residential property surrounded the downtown where there were street spaces available for those who were willing to walk, the City would continue to have a problem. She felt the City needed to look at that long-range view. She would support the main motion and the amendment. Councilmember Renzel concurred with both Councilmenbers Bechtel and Fletcher that the project was part of a larger program to help deal with the serious shortage of parking downtown. More parking had to be' provided as part of the larger parking picture was presented in the Parking Management Plan. She felt everyone had to be prepared to support the other portions of that plan, which included a series of incentives for people to park in the public parking. She supported the motions in the fact that the Council was going to support the additional parts of ;the plan that would be necessary in order for the parking problem downtown to approach any solution. Councilmember Fletcher said that in .reading the staff ,report, the City would be advancing considerable funds to : go ahead with the project, and in; view df the last item, she wondered whether this would come in the category of a City loan. Mr. Moguchi said it was intended to be a loan. A budget amendment would come forward at the time the consultant selection was returned to —the Council. Subject<_ to the sale of: the bonds, the advanced funds would be returned to the City. Councilmember Fletcher asked if it would come under the policy whereby there would be an ., interest ;charge subject .to the condi- tions related to the policy just adopted. Mr. 2aner responded that was not normally done - when making an interfund loan. Money was moved back and:: forth -;occasionally to allow one fund to move, or it had a temporary' shortage and the City had not charged itself interest. This situation was a little different since an assessment district was involved. He thought it might be More complicated than . it was worth for the short period. 2 4 2 4 8/23/82 Ms. Meiena commented that the list of recommendations contained on page 5 of CMR:461:2 incorporated the Planning Commission and the F&PW Committee recommendations except No. 2. Staff requested that the approval of the parking development program exclude those ele- ments relating to the Urban Lane site because staff wanted to come back with a report on the Urban Lane in October. Councilmember Renzel commented that a lot of attention would have to be paid to the ingress and egress from the garage for pedes- trians when they get out of their cars in order to make it an easy garage to use. She thought that was a major failing of many park- ing structures. Mayor Eyerly wanted the record to indicate that the Council was very sensitive about the design of the structure which included the ingress and egress, and the consultant chosen would have to be able to handle that. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Fazzino absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Fazzino absent. ITEM #12, POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE em P) O Ira" Mann or A i STANCE --FR .011.1 Councilmember Levy commented that the origin of the item related to the difficulty that the City of Palo Alto and all businesses in Santa Clara Valley had in obtaining employees from outside of the area because of the discrepancy in the cost of housing locally versus the cost of housing in other parts of the state and coun- try. The Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee met on July 20, and there were two elements which resulted in a somewhat confusing meeting --1) the policies related to employee relocation assist- ance, and 2) how the costs would be handled. The Committee did not deal with the budget items, and a proposal to refer that rat- ter to the F&PW Committee did not receive a second. A budget amendment was before the Council, which was not a part of the P&P recommendations. MOTION: Councilmember Levy on behalf of the Policy and Proce- dures Committee moved that the City Council approve the proposed policy that the City of Palo Alto will provide a Relocation Bene- fits Package for all new management employees. In addition, upon the approval of the Director, of Personnel or the City Manager, Relocation Benefits will be available .to non -management positions. Further, the provision of "Operational Benefits" or portions thereof, is intended only for rare instances and requires the approval of the City Manager. Further, the Policy and Procedures Committee recommends optional benefits as follows: 1. Disposal end Purchase Costs The City will cover costs that arise file -the disposal andfor purchase of residences; a) Costs to break an existing .lease will be covered up to a total payweat of threetimes the current monthly rental rate; ,b) Real estate_ commissions up to six percent of the sales price; c) lion -recurring cl os1 ag costs of both purchase and sale (*points" on sole of residence are specifically excluded)., 2 4 2 5 8/23/82 2. Bride Loan - The City will arrange for a 90 day interest ree Joan up to ninety (90) percent of an employee's equity in their current residence as determined by three independent appraisals. The assumed Fair Market Value will be the average of the two highest appraisals, providing those appraisals are within five (5) percent of each other. 3._ Third Party Purchase The City will arrange 4ith a third party to provide an immediate offer of purchase for an employee's current residence. (This item may include many of the benefits cited in options above.) 4. Mort a e Interest Differential Payments - The City will pro - v e n ree a e eF iitTiL Payments under the guidelines of the Federal Uniform . Real Property Acquisition and Reloca- tion Policies Act up to a maximum of $300 per month for 36 months 5Q Miscellaneous Ex enses - The City will pay Miscellaneous expenses assoc a e w h the relocation. The amount shall not exceed $1,000. 6. TemForar Livin Exense -.Up to thirty (30) days temporary es a available . under the following guide- lines: Lodging - 100 percent of actual and reasonable costs for all family members. Per Dieu - 100 percent of the estab- lished City rate for employee and spouse/mate and 50 percent of the established City rate for dependents for the first 15 days; 50 percent of the established City rate for employee and spouse/mate and 25 percent of the. established City rate for dependents over the last 15 days. Car Rental - Up to 30 days rental for a single .vehicle is available until such time as the employee's personal vehicle becomes available. Provision of a City -owned vehicle in lieu of rental may be made at the City's discretion. 7. Househuntin Ex ense - The City will provide expenses or m un or one househunt.ing trip for both employee and spouse/crate. The trip shall be limited to a maximum of seven days. Travel expenses are limited to the lesser of common carrier rates or the established City rate for automobile use. Lodging is provided on an actual and reasonable expense basis. Per Diem. expenses are allocated according to the established City rates. Expenses for children are not covered. Further, the Policy and Procedures Committee recommends that the pro- posed policy be reviewed in one year by both the Finance and Public Marks Committee end the Policy and Procedures Committee in parallel. City Manager Bill Zaner said basically the program recommended was broken into two parts --a) a basic package, which staff anticipated applying to all new management tfrees; and b) an optional package which had some additional features which could be applied at the discretion of the City Manager dependent upon the situation. All items appeared on page 12 of the staff report. The basic package would run approximately $9,000 if the entire packagewere used. Counci i member Witherspoon asked if the costs `"of hiring the manager would be allocated to the department who would benefit from the hire." Mr. Zeller said it was anticipated that the posts would be put into the budget where they were now --into the Personnel Department and.. in Utilities The budget amendment being recominendee would do the same thing. 2 4.2..6 8/23/82 Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that there would not be a sub- sequent interfund transfer to allocate those costs to the depart- ments. Mgr. Zaner said that was correct.' Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the new employee would be expected to sign an employment contract. Mr. Zaner said no. The basic pat kage ":conta'1ne'd items that any good employer would be ;expected, to : provide. Mos; of the items were already being done, and the only one really being added was the professional relocation counseling, If the City got to the point of dealing 'with some of the optional benefits, some special arrangements might be made with a given ,employee' regarding the length of service or some kind of reimbursement or payback if the employee did not stay a certain' number' of years. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the City had many employee con- tracts. Mr. Zaner said he did not think the City had any. Mayor Eyerly : said that the benefits --both basic and optional --were what the staff brought forward, and that no real analysis was done about how much money it might cost on a yearly basis, how many people they might be talking about, etc. He asked staff for com- ments about how many vacancies there were in certain positions that might require some benefits to attract the people to substan- tiate the budget amendment. Director of Personnel Jay Rounds said that last fiscal year the City had four employees participate ,in what might now be framed as the basic package. The first three parts of the basic package had been the City's policy for about ten years, and only the fourth part was something new. Those four employees expended a total of about $18,000. The City was fortunate in that three of the four moving expenses were under $2,000, which; meant that the City was dealing with people who did not have a lot of things to move, and the moves were within the western'part Of the'United States. The City had one rove from the east coast which ran over $6,,000. He could not give an exact estimate of what it would take,' but could only look at past experience. ' . . Mayor Eyerly commented that Utilities had looked for a long-range power planner, and : if the City. had the optional benefit package, might there be other positions that 'Could be filled. ° ,He presumed that . staff recomMended the new policy because it ;was . felt that, perhapt some of the troublesome areas could; be fil'ied. ,He asked how many present positions might be filled bar. the' proposed policy. Mr. Roured.s said at least three that were open right now, and with the resignation of Carleen 8edwell, there would be one top level position to fill toward the end of the year. Budget and Operations Analyst Bob Woods said that the Utilities Department had'$10000 budgeted for this. It was $27,000 total including Utilities and Personnel. Mayor Eyerly clarified that a total of $27,000 was budgeted for the purpose of 'the three basic parts of the : policy --not anything in the new ` policy, which was the reason for the . $30,000 budget amendment. .-Woods said that was correct. -: 2 4 2 7 8/23/82 Mayor Eyerly asked if the moneyfrom the budget amendment would be joined with the rest of the moneyor would it be scattered between the departments. Mr. Woods responded that the budget ordinance allocated $20,000 to the Personnel Department and $10,000 to Utilities. Bob Moss, 4010 0rme, commented about not having any requirement for any tenure for an employee hired with the package. It was his experience, in private . industry, that the employer required a specific period of time after employment --typically one year --in order to earn -out the relocation benefits. It was rare that the period would be less than one year, and in some cases it was as much as two years. Sometimes a person was required to serve the full year after employment, and if that person left for any reason other than a discharge at `she employer's option, 100 percent of the relocation benefit would have to be repaid. Another method was that after six months, the employee earned half of the bene- fit, and after a year, all of the benefits were earned. He thought that policy was wise and should be included. The City would not want to go to the expense of moving someone to the area and after three months have that person get a better job in pri- vate industry. If all the benefits were offered to any particular employee, that would be in excess of $37,000. He would not expect the City to offer all the benefits to anyone, but it could be pos- sible to offer enough to have a significant incremental impact. There should be some cap on the total to be offered to any employee and it probably. should be related .,to the employee's base salary. In the case of someone being offered most of the options, that person should be required to. earn it out over a longer period --maybe two or three years. He agreed with the concept and thought it was valuable, but needed some fine tuning. Mr. laver said that regarding tenure, the proposal was a recruit- ing management tool --the more flexibility of staff, the better job that will be done for the_ Council. Staff was mindful of the fact that the program was not a giveaway, and was very judicious in the use of the al ready authorized mortgage differential program. That had only been offered to one employee who subsequently did not accept the position. He urged the Council to adopt the program as recommended, give staff the maximum flexibility and trust them to use maximum judgment in making the tool worthwhile. Councilmember Renzel thought the Council must presume that anyone who was moving here must be interested in the City for some reasonable period of time. She did. not think .that one year was an unreasonable period of time to require tenure. She asked what respect .that might restrict flexibility. Mr. Zaner, said that the mortgage differential program was on a monthly basis. If that were authorized, and someone decided to leave the City's employ six months after being hired, he would not receive any benefit because it was not seen up . front. The other part to the basic _orogram--shipping household goods --was probably the most expensive part.. He knew of no case where the City had run into any difficulty with a management employee who moved from a remote location to Palo Alto, leaving the City in a short period of time. Mr. Rounds said that one of ;the reasons that tended not to happen was that the skills those people had were not as readily transfer- able in the area .as those skills in some of the private sector businesses in the area Councf lmembe_ r, Renzel ` :commented that was kind of contrary to what the Council was hearing :in terms of Salaries having, to be offered in order to compete with private industry. She did not see the har in adding the protection .to the City of a year=; tenure requirement. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to include a one year tenure requirement in order to earn out the relocation benefits (subject to review by the City Attoney) and incorporate an amortization period over the year for the optional parts of the package. Ms. Lee commented that if the Council passed the amendment, the City Attorney's office would like the opportunity to review it in order to assure that no legal problems existed. An agreement would be necessary if the City were going to require a payback by the employee, and she wanted to review the legal ramifications of such an agreement. Councilmembers Renzel and Witherspoon agreed to include "subject to review by the City Attorney in the motion. Vice Mayor Bechtel said that if the Personnel Director was trying to recruit a key employee from Washington, D.C. for some depart- ment, and if the City of Sunnyvale was after the sane person and did not have any strings attached to its particular benefit pack- age, the prospective empl ,yee might decide to accept the job with the City of Sunnyvale. The Personnel Director was losing flexi- bility and it could be the deciding factor for a key person. Rather than 100 percent payback, she felt an incremental payback would be more appropriate. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Vice !layer Bechtel moved that the pay- back be amortized over the length of employment. Mr. Zaner asked if the amortized one year arrangement would apply to the entire basic package, the optional package or to all items. Councilmember Klein said that if he were a prospective employee who realized that most other agencies did not have such policies, he would feel that the City of Palo Alto did not trust him. The Council should realize that when people moved, they were taking more of a risk with their lives than the City of Palo Alto was with $5,000 or $10,000, Mr. Woods commented that one of the provisions of the package indicated that persons qualifying for the package must qualify for a federal income tax deductions. If that person did not meet the federal job test for having stayed in the .area and the employment, they would also lose their tax deductibility ; of the expenses --it would cost that person money .not to complete the period of employ- ment. - - - Councilmember Witherspoon said she did not think the employment. contract was something new in industry. She would not expect a prospective employee to reimburse any of the costs of the recruit- ment process. Once the person agreed to come on board, and a salary and benefit schedule- was worked out, she found it hard to believe that nothing was signed. Councilmember Klein said that in his experience, employment agree- ments were the exception rather -than the rule. Employment agree- ments were considered to be pro -employee because the employee could always get up and leave whereas the employer was obligated to pay. He did not find it surprising that the City did not have employment' °agreements because they were not in the City's inter- ' est . Councilmember Levy .commented that: the Optional package ,contained_ a number of items which were decidedly unusual', but were included 17,stcause of the unique housing plight of the City of Palo Alto. Those items were the big numbers and related to helping the new employee dispose of his old house and purchase a now- house. He felt . the City had every right to ask the employee for a year's tenure. Regardless of whether the agreement was unusual, the sit- , uati on in Palo Alto was also unusual. i 1 1 Mayor Eyerly said he would not support the amendment because there were too many problems. He would support rather a staff report in order to amend the recommendation if necessary. Councilmember Witherspoon commented that staff had a couple of questions in terms of the Council's intent and thought those should be cleared up in case the amendment passed. Councilmember Renzel clarified that she intended that the amend- ment apply to the optional package and that it be subject to the amortization as requested by Vice Mayor Bechtel, Vice Mayor Bechtel said she concurred that the optional benefits were those that were unique. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 4-3, Eyerly, Fletcher, Klein voting "no," Cobb, Fazzi no absent. Councilmember Renzel said that the budget amendment suggested that other amendments would be necessary. She was concerned that the budget amendment did not go to the F&PW Committee, and since the particular amendment was a limited amount, it might be appropriate to allow it to go through. She was concerned that the overall policy which involved much more money could be allocated for those kinds of benefits and be reviewed by the F&PW Committee. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the overall financial impacts of the relocation benefits package and . how Council might budget for it be referred to the Finance and Public Works Committee. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Cobb and Fazzi•no absent. Councilmember Levy said that one of the smaller items in ;the optional benefit package related to bridge loans where the City would arrange for a 90 day loan of up to 90 percent of the employee's equity in his current home. The purpose of that loan was so that the timing could be facilitated between the employee buying a home in this area prior to the time he was able to sell his home in his former area, so that._, funds were available to bridge him over in the purchase and sale transaction. Staff recommended that that loan be interest free, which was contrary to the policy established earlier this evening. That was discussed at the P&P Committee and defeated on a 2-2 vote. It was a small amount --only $750--but the value of the bridge 'E oan was not that it was at .one interest rate or another, but that it existed. Bridge loans were difficult to obtain since it was hard to collat- eralize that particular loan while the transition took place. He was concerned that the City serve the inherent value of the con- cept without violating the basic policy regarding :loans of City funds. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy - moved, seconded by Eyerly, that the bridge loan not be interest free, but rather in accordance with the City's policy regarding the loan of City funds. Councilmember Witherspoon said she did not understand the $750 to be a cap, but rather an indication of what could possibly be spent this year. Mr. Woods said that was correct. Councilmember Witherspoon said she agreed with Councilmember Levy, but .thought .there was a possibility that .the loan might be ex' -tend- ed for more than 9.0 days because the sale at the other . end., -might be held up. She thought it would be reasonable to charge interest after the 90 day period, but had no qualms with an interest -free bridge loan for a reasonable amount of time. 2 4 3 0 8/23/82 Councilmember Levy said he was concerned about the violation of the -City policy and could not accept an interest -free loan for any period of time. Mr. Zaner clarified that the recommendation was not to loan City funds, but to arrange for a loan. The .$750 was the cost to the City to arrange the loan. The City would find a bank and would be the collateral so that the person could obtain the bridge loan. Mr. Woods commented that as was stated in the report, under Item 3 in the Optional Third Party Purchase, there were nationally known relocation companies, such as, Merrill Lynch, which was an inte- gral part of the package being sold to cities or companies. In many cases, the City would use a company of that nature to handle the transactions. Councilmember Levy asked if someone were actually making interest free loans. Mr. Woods said the loan was usually given as part of a package. He clarified Merrill Lynch as being Merrill Lynch Relocation Company, and said there were also home equity relocation compa- nies.. Those companies generally set up third party purchase mech- anisms, bridge loan mechanisms and things of that nature. Often times it would be in a package type situation. As pointed out by Mr. Zaner, in most cases it would be the cost for. the City to arrange for that sort of a position. Councilmember Levy said he was astonished „that the City could arrange for an interest free loan. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN Councilmember Klein clarified that the policy passed earlier in the meeting did not say that the City would not provide interest - free loans, but rather that they would be evaluated to ascertain if any benefit would be derived by the City. There was no overall blanket prohibition against interest -free loans. Vice Mayor Bechtel thought perhaps the Council should wait for the F&PW Committee recommendation regarding the financial implications before voting on the overall policy. Councilmember Renzel said she did not insist the the specific policy and amendment be referred to the F&PW Committee because during the current fiscal year. additional funds would require a budget "amendment. Hopefully, the Committee would have dealt with some of the financial policy issues by the time any further budget amendments were requested. The particular sum of money was not too critical because the Council could foresee how it might be used. She agreed that it would have been preferable for the matter to have gone to the F&PW Committee, but it was the Coun- cil's.Choice not to;. refer it.veIn the future, something= iik'e this should ,go through .the. F&PW Committee first. Her motion was to look at the overal=l general subject and to see- haw allocations might be handled in future years. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that the motion on the floor was the Committee's recommendation and did not include the budget amendment. Mayor Eyerly said that was correct. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED ensniseeslr, Cobb and Fazzino absent. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, approv- al of the budget amendment ordinance. ORDINANCE entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE 1TT OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1982-83 TO PROVIDE FUNDING IN THE PERSONNEL AND UTILITIES . DEPARTMENTS FOR COVERAGE OF BENEFITS IN THE EMPLOYEE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM" 1 1 1 Councilmember Levy said he understood that the Council was going to refer the $30,000 item to the F&PW Committee. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Eyerly, to refer the $30,000 budget amendment to the Finance and Public Works Committee. Councilmember Levy said that during the Policy and Procedures Com- mittee meeting he understood that the amount of money the City would budget --the $27,000 now in the budget and the additional $30,000 --would be essentially for the basic package. The optional package, with those funds,- would be taken from existing department budgets if they were required. : They were talking about a total of $57,000 this. year for : the basic package, which was the package that averaged about $9,000 per employee. He said Mr. Rounds men- tioned that last year that basic package was used to apply to four persons and $18,000 was involved. He thought the overall policy and how the City maintained responsibility and control of the moneys in the optional package and whether the City really needed $57,000 this year for the basic package of benefits was worthy of discussion in the F&PW Committee. Essentially, the same basic package had been available in past years, and last year only $18,000 was spent. Mayor Eyerly said he seconded the motion because he thought it tied into the other motion on the total impact. He did not think staff was prepared with a proper staff report when it was present- ed to the F&PW Committee originally, and he wanted to see the two items discussed. All of it could be returned to the Council with a recommendation in a relatively short period of time. Councilmember Renzel said she was pursuaded that there were some questions regarding how much money the City would be spending on the program, and since there was not a critical time element involved, it made sense to refer the matter. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb and Fazzino absent. ITEM #12-A (OLU ITEM #4). CABLE TELEVISION LOBBYIST ORDINANCE (2nd MOTION Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the ordinance. --ORDINANCE 3380, as - amended, eatitl`ed "ORDINANCE OF THE :'COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 2.1.1 TO, THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL. CODE -_:REGULATING ACTIVITIES OF LOBBYISTS ON BEHALF OF PERSONS FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IOU CABLE TELEVISION` .1Ist -Reading 8/9/82, PASSED B -Z, M1 therspoon, C1 ei nJ "no,' Bechtel :absent..) AMENDMENT, Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by-Renzel , .that the Wadi- nance be amended in. accordance vith the City Clerk`s lea , dated August 1e, 1982,:.°to change Section 2:1I.O50(b) to read' as .taliows: "Alt ,lobbyists shall file 8, -.report .wl th the, :.City Clerk 1:i sti fig. caapai ga coatri boti cns r; made to City Coanci 1 ,.candidates er thel r Control cos 1 ttee, and the aMOonts - add reci pi ants,- on the fi y-- teeeth -day pr"i or .to seiy:: RUN1 + .i p01 `_el ecti on - for a seat oa - the- City. Counci 1 .'' AMENDMENT PASSED •unanimously, Cobb and Fazzino absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Witherspoon, Klein voting 1110.14 Cobb ,and Fazzino absent ITEM #13, REQUEST OF COIJNCILMEMBER WITHERSPOON TO -REFER COROLLARY_ Councilmember Witherspoon said that although she supported the Cottage Zone, she was concerned that there,were at least three areas which had blocks 35 percent or more larger than the zoning around them. The potential impact could be significant if every one of : those lots built cottages. She asked the ' Ci ty Attorney .i f it would be appropriate to makea referral to thePlanning:Commis- sion to take a look at that situation to see if they :would .recom- mend changing the zoning in those areas. City Attorney Diane Lee said the motion could be made. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon ' roved, seconded by Klein, to refer to the Planning Commission for their recommendation on pos- sible zone changes of clusters of .three or more lots which are larger (35%) than the R-1 designation in that area within a block. Councilmember Renzel asked the City Attorney for a ruling about whether she could participate in the item since she might possibly live in such a block. City Attorney Diane Lee said no. Councilmember Renzel advised that she would not be participating on the item. Councilmember Fletcher asked whether it would be cumbersome to try and identify the clusters. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the .assignment would be tedious. The Planning Department had a Planning Intern to do that type of research.. It would involve looking at each block to determine which blocks, in fact, had larger than normal size, par- cels. Councilmember Fletcher commented that the -item passed by the Coun- cil had a provision for the use permit procedure for each applica- tion. She felt the assignment was no.t the best : use of staff time when the Council had the power of limiting those things as they came before the Council on a use permit basis. She did not see that every lot would be. developed because so many people already had swimming pools or tennis courts on the large lots. Mr. Zaner reminded the Council. that staff's procedure, when receiving planning assignments, was to come back in 30 Bars with:,:a memo indicating what would be involved in the study, some idea of the priority it could take and; what the effect: would ;.b& on, other priorities. in =order for the. Counct1 to decide to giver.'the.:;perma- nent assignment.. He thought it was on that: basis .that the City Attorneyallowed. the motion. _Vice Ma.or ,Bechtel„.=said the ,onl y ; ,probl,e with ..tir• aner'.s. proposal• was that if - the Council supported the- motion it Would- .sti l 1. 110.0_1 preparation of .;.bat: par0.1a1er: vepert-::.b; :the Paanp tag Depart rent : sta_f f , She .concurred .wi t.h„< Counc,1 lm.ember.:;f_Z:e.tcher that slnc:e i-t-,Mould .► a 4cpnditi ri-al `:use #t could be to&en ,care :.of at that ti men She =would.,oppose .the tign.. c x P4aYoi'='Eyer.ly sal d:he would- support ,.the :motion because he thought there were: some ousters.). froia observations of °:the zoning ratan., where it could have an i react on neighborhoods 4 He ` realized -the use was:.;canditiorfaEl, but was ,Concerned that if one conditional:- use i 1 1 1 was permitted on a block, how another person with a similar situ- ation could be refused. NOTION PASSED by a vote of 4-2, Bechtel, Fletcher voting "no," Renzel °not participating," Cobb, Fazzino absent. Councilmember Renzel said she understood that the Calaveras Proj- ect would be scheduled for a special meeting, and she asked at what point the Council would schedule that special meeting. Mr. Zaner said staff hoped to have that report to the Council this week, and he would place that question on next week's agenda. Councilmember Renzel asked if a date was suggested. Mr. Zaner said it looked as though all Councilmembers would be present on September 14. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned • to executive session re litigation at 10:00 p.m. FINAL ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:25 ATTEST: p.m. APPROVED: