HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-05 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUNCIL
MINUTES
Special Mee
Monday, October 5, 1981
CITY
of
PA10
ALTO
ITEM PAGE
Interview of Five Candidates Seeking
Appointment to the Architectural Review
Board
1 2 9 3
10/5/$1
Special Meeting
Monday, October 5, 1981
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Conference Room at City Hail, 250 Hamilton Avenue at 6:15 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson
Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon
The purpose of the meeting was to interview applicants for two
vacancies on the Architectural Review Board.
6:15 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:45 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:15 p.m.
Ms. Joan Heymann
Richard Elmore
John Sutorius
Gretchen Guard
Richard Pennington
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Mayor
CITY
COUNCIL
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Monday, October 5, 1981
CITY
of
� 1LO
HLTO
ITEM PAGE
Oral Communications 1 2 9 7
Special Orders of the Day 1 2 9 7
Appointment of Two Members to the 1 2 9 7
Architectural Review Board
Consent Calendar Referral 1 2 9 8
Consultant Selection Procedures - Referral
to Finance and Public Works Committee
Consent Calendar - Action
Amendment to Weed Abatement Contract
with Santa Clara County
Home Weatherization Program Award of
Insulation Contract
1981-82 Resurfacing Program - Award of
Construction Contract
Baylands Bicycle/Pedestrian Path -
Award of Contract - Budget Amendment
Yacht Harbor Point Excavation - Award
of Contract
Resolution Re Senate Bill 215, Gas
Tax Increase
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
PUBLIC HEARING: Planning' Commission Recommends
Denial of the Appeal of Nahib and Ahmad Waleh
from the Decision of the Zoning Administrator
to Approve a Variance for Daylight Plane and
Six Foot Setback Restrictions for Property
Located at 2360 Emerson Street (Continued
from 9/21/S1)
Finance and Public Works Committee Recommends
to Council that it, Approve Budget'.Amendment to
Provide Additional Funding for Palo Alto's
Participation in the Calaveras Hydroelectric
Project through the Northern California Power
Agency
1 2 9 8
1 2 9 8
1 2 9 8
1 2 9 8
i 2 9 8
1 2 9 9
1 2 9 9
1 2 9 9
1 3 0 0
1 3 0 Q..
1 3 0 9
ITEM
Arastra Park Dedication Ordinance
(2nd Reading)
'Lytton Gardens III - Issuance of City of
Palo Alto Insured Health Facility Revenue
Bonds - Resolution
Annual Charges for Use of Refuse Area by
Stanford University - Amendment to Contract
for Use of Palo Alto Municipal Refuse
Disposal Area
Request of Vice Mayor Fletcher re
Parking Requirements in Downtown Palo Alto
Adjournment to Executive Session
Final Adjournment
PAGE
1 3 1 4
1 3 16
1 3 1 6
1 3 1 8
1 3 2 2
7., 3 2 2
Regular Meeting
Monday, October 5, 1981
i
1
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met 'on this date in
the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:40
p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel, Levy,
Witherspoon,-Fazzino, Klein, Eyerly
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Denise Tomsky, 691 E. Meadow Drive, asked regarding Mitchell
Park's Tiny Tats Section, what the City's plan was to correct
the condition in response to a study she made recently.
City Manager Bill Zaner responded that the City had a crew look-
ing at Mitchell Park. He said Miss Tomsky had inquired about
some of the equipment and some of the facilities there, and that
as soon as staff had some indication back from the crew as to
what can be done, they would get back to the Council and Miss
Tomsky,
2. Margaret Straka, 877 Moana Court, represented Scholar Opera,
and alerted the Council and the community that on October 17,
1981,eSchplari Opera would give the premiere production of a
brand new American opera. She said the opera was based on
:he Alice in Wonderland story by Lewis Carroll, and the com-
poser was Robert Shaul l who would be in Palo Alto for the
opening weekend. She solicited a donation from the City, and
said they had received a small grant from the National Opera
Institute. She invited the`Council to attend the opening
performance .
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
APPOINTMENT OF TWO MEMBERS TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Mayor Henderson said there were nine applicants for two positions
as follows:
Richard David Elmore
Gretchen B. Guard
Joan C. Heymann
Leroy H. Hill
George A. Parry.
Richard Pennington
John D.-Sutorius
Gary E. Talbot
De r k Vyn
Mayor Henderson said that the usual procedure was to vote on one
position at a time.
City Clerk Ann Tanner read the first round oaf voting results as
follows:
VOTING
Mayor Henderson
appointment.
FOR SUTORIUS'I Witherspoon, Levy, Bechtel, Fazzino,.
Henderson, Fletcher, Klein, Renze ,
Eyer ly
congratulated Mr . Sutor ius or, '_ his unanimous
1 2 9 7
10/5/81
Ms. Tanner read the results of the vote for the second appoint-
ment as follows:
VOTING FOR HEYMANN: Bechtel, Renzel
VOTING FOR VYN: Witherspoon, Levy, Fazzino, Henderson,
Fletcher, Klein, Eyerly
Ms. Tanner announced seven votes for Vyn and two votes for
Heymann.
Mayor Henderson congratulated Mr. Vyn. He thanked all of the
applicants.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Eyerly removed Item 4, Charges for Stanford's Use
of the Refuse Area, and Item 7, Arastra Property Park Dedication
Ordinance.
MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
approval of the Consent Calendar as amended.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked that it be recorded that she
voted "no" on Item 8, Baylands Bicycle/Pedestrian Path contract
and Budget Amendment.
Councilmember Fletcher advised that she would "abstain" on Item
8, Bayl ands Bicycle/Pedestrian Path contract and Budget Amend-
ment.
Referral
CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCEDURES -
REFERRAL TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC
Staff r-ecommends that Consultant Selection Procedures be referred
to the Finance and Public Works Committee.
1
Action
AMENDMENT TO WEED ABATEMENT CONTRACT WITH SANTA C1.ARA COUNTY
Staff recommends that the amendment to the existing contract with
Santa Clara County he approved, and the Mayor authorized to sign
the amendment.
AMENDMENT -NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 3820
County of Santa Clara
HOME WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM - AWARD OF INSULATION -CONTRACT -
Staff _recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor to execute
a contract with. Budget Insulation Co., Inc. for fiberglass insu-
lation work.
AGREEMENT - THERMAL INSULATION
Budget Insulation Co., Inc.
•
1982 RESURFACING PROGRAM - AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
1 2 9 8
10/5/81
Staff recommends that:
1. The Mayor be authorized_ to execute a construction:contract
with Raisch Construction Co. in the amount of $525,812.25;
and
2. Staff be authorized to execute change orders to the constr uc
tion contract up to 15% ($78,870) of the contract amount.
1981-82 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM, PROJECT 8154
Raisch Construction Company
BAYLANDS BICYCL :E PEDESTRIAN PATH - AWARD OF CONTRACT - BUDGE�1
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the consultant agreement with
G. T. Kuntz for $13,500;
2. Approve a budget amendment ordinance to increase the appro-
priation for CIP 79-42 by $380,000; increase the estimated
revenues of the Capital Improvement Fund by $4.00,000; and
increase the reserve for -general contingency for $20,000
which represents the amount advanced to CIP 79-42 in Fiscal
Year 1979-80.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
G. T.. Kuntz, Consulting Engineer
ORDINANCE 3,363 ertitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMEiruiNG THE BUDGET FOR THE FIS-
CAL YEAR 1981-82 TO INCREASE THE APPROPRIATION FOR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 79-42 'BAYLANDS
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN. PATH' AND TO PROVIDE FOR RECEIPT OF
GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPART-
MENT"
YACHT HARBOR POINT EXCAVATION - AWARD OF CONTRACT (CMR:454:1)
Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to execute a con-
tract with Covey Trucking Company in the amount of $115,850 for
the Yacht Harbor Point Excavation Project.
YACHT HARBOR POINT EXCAVATION, PROJECT 8192
Covey Trucking Company
RESOLUTION RE SENATE BILL 215 GAS TAX INCREASE (CMR:463:1)
Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to execute a"reso-
1ution urging the Board of Supervisors to support implementation
of Senate Bill 215 and thus provide the gr.S taX funds needed for
local streets and highways.
RESOLUTION; 5959 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO URGING THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY
BOARD..,OF SUPERVISORS TO PASS A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 215"
MOTION PASSED unanimously to approve Consent Calendar as amended
with Witherspoon voting "no," and Fletcher
8, Baylands Bicycle/Pedestrian Path.
abstaining" on Item
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
City Manager Bill Zaner announced that Item 4, Charges for
Stanford's- Use of the Refuse Area, would -.become Item 13-A; and
Item 7, Arastra Property Park Dedication Ordinance, would become
Item 12-A.
PUBLIC. HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION BY A VOTE OF 5-1 RECOMMENDS
D N
CAN—EMr= FOOT SETBACK RESTRICTIORS fOR PROPERTY `LOCATED Air
IfITED FRO
Pat Cullen, Chairperson of the Planning Commission, reiterated
that the Planning Commission had difficulty with their decision.
She said it was an intrusion into the daylight plane, and the
Planning Commission felt they had examined the pros and cons of
the Situation and come up with a reduction of the intrusion into
the daylight plane, Which was considerate of the next door neigh-
bor while- at the same time in keeping with the ability of the
property owner to add to his property in terms of adding to his
family.. She said that the vote of th>'. Planning Commission was
five in favor of upholding the Zoning Administrator with the
:additional condition of reduction to 2 feet 3 inches above the.
height of the existing parapet wall. Commissioner Nichols had
voted "no" and Commissioner Cobb was absent.
Richard Dwiggins, 425 Sherman Avenue, said he represented the
appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Waleh who resided at 2344 Emerson, which
was next door to the property in question. He said that origi-
nally the Zoning Administrator, Mario Sanchez, had upheld the
request for a variance with a 3 foot setback and for a 3 foot 3
inch intrusion into the daylight plane. In making his decision,
Mr. Sanchez provided a written transcript in support of his
decision. It turned out that the transcript had left out certain
statements and put words in :peoples' mouths which had not been
said. He said that when that was looked into, it was determined
that the tape recorder had malfunctioned and, in fact, there was
no tape recording of the proceedings, and that Mr. Sanchez had
made up a transcript in support of his decision. The matter was
then appealed to the Planning Commission who decided that the 3
foot setback variance should be granted, and they reduced the
daylight plane encroachment from 3 feet 3 inches to .2 feet. 3
inches. He said they were before the Council almost as much
because of the procedures and the irregularities that were
followed prior to the hearing as they were for the decision that.
came down. He asked the Council to keep in mind that the purpose
of the variance was not to put someone in a favored position, but
for the benefit of the disadvantaged guy who got the last lot in
a subdivision which was a little irregular and a little under-
sized, and allow him to build a house the same size as everyone
else. However, in this case, theareas were of:. similar size lots
and similar sized houses. The request was for two variances in
essence to change a 3 -bedroom, 1 -bath house into a 5 -bedroom;
2 -bath house. Mr. Dwiggins sAi d that the crux of the argument
was that there was a finding by the Planning -Commission that the
granting of this variance would not ' be detrimental to Mr. ` and
Mrs.-Waleh.: He said it was not a weighing of the benefits to the
applicant vs'. the detriment to. the appellant, but there was' a
flat: out finding that it would not be detrimental to the Waleh.
He thought there was going to . be a significant loss of sunlight,
and;they wanted to attempt to show exactly what would be lost.
1
1
1
Mr. Waleh presented a diagram of his house and how it sat
relation to the applicant's house.
1
Mr. Dwiggins said that on a typical day the sun rose in the east
and basically made an arc which swung through the southern quad-
rant and set down in the West. He said that in making that path,
the Sun gave morning sunlight on the side of thr:,- house that faced
the Hennings' residence, and in the afternoon, 'the Sun -: left the
side of the house and basically came toward the back of the
house. Because of trees in the backyard of the neighbor behind
the Waleh's, not much sun came in to the back windows. and the
situation was that approximately 90% of the sun that came into
the house came through the side window. He said Mr. Waleh had a
PHD in physics and .was .a practicing physicist. He calculated how
much sun would be lost, and in making his calculations he took
into consideration_ the angle of the Sun to the Earth, the various
angles during various months of the year, the height to the four
windows, the height to the Henning residence as it was now, and
as it would be if a second story was built, without any vari-
ances,. with a full variance, and as it would be with a variance
as modified by the Planning Commission. Basically, Mr. Waleh
had taken all of his calculations and put them into a computer
program, and the results indicated the loss of sunlight. He said
that although the time differences were not that great, if one
looked at the percentage of time the sun was on that house, and
how much was lost, basically the maximum amount of lost light for
the various months of, the year was approximately 25% of the sun-
light being lost in December. It was the appellants' contention
that 25% constituted a'substantial loss of sunlight, and when
that was combined with the loss of not only direct sunlight, but
background light, scattered light, there was a detriment to Mr.
Waleh's house. Mr. Dwiggins said he was told that these figures
were conservative, and he thought they were backed up by figures
provided by the applicant himself, who had filed figures with the
Planning Commission that indicated that the first sunlight under
a house built without variances occurred at about 12:45 p.m., and
if it were built with the full variance requested, it would be.
1:55 p.m., or 1 hour and 10 minutes later. When you took the
fact that there was only about 1 1/2 hours sun on that house, the
1 hour and 10 minutes came 'to about 45% rather than the compa-
rable figure of 32.9%. Mr. Dwiggins felt that this type of loss,
coupled' with the obvious loss of privacy, and the loss of view
out of the windows to the sky, constituted a detriment and should
be considered to be significant to the point where the variance
should not be granted.
Mr. Dwiggins touched upon the three exceptional circumstances
that had been found by the Planning Commission to exist. 1). the
small size of, the lot, and Mr. Dwiggins submitted that while the
lot may be small for . the size of house planned, all of the lots
in the area appeas=ed to be exactly that size, . 2) the fact that
the applicants' house was now only three feet from. the Waleh's
property, and somehow that was viewed as a circumstance that
should allow them to continue to go up a second story three feet.
He thought that was probably the rule for the 6 foot setback --
houses that were only 3 feet away from ,another person's property,
and not a special circumstance justifying another floor built
straight up that close to a property line. 3) the applicants
had a vaulted ceiling in their living room and_ did not want to
build over -their living room --they were having, to build around .:it
which was what was putting the rooms - so close to the .: Waleh's
property line. He said they could build over it, but_would
rather not. Mr. Dwi Win _ said hie could -understand the appli-
cants' preference, however,_.. he did not think it constituted
exceptional circumstances. He, therefore, requested that' the
appeal be upheld and that the variances be denied.
Barry Hennings, 2360 Emerson, the applicant, felt there was not a
large loss of daylight. He presented a site plan for 2360
Emerson which showed that any addition they made to the property
had to be expanded upward. Further, he said they were dealing
with a short setback of 3 feet 6 inches on the right side. The
neighbors' property was actually about six feet from the property
line to the right. He said the reason they wanted to expand was
to take care of the expanding needs of their family. It was not
the kited of situation where they were making a - financial invest-
ment in a piece; of property, put on a second floor, realize a
gain and move on somewhere else. He said they had lived in Palo
Alto for ten years, and were looking for some permanency, with the
community. He showed that the area of the variance was composed
of two parts --the six foot setback backed to 3.6 feet, and ex-
ceeding the daylight plane by 3 feet 3 inches. He said that what
was important to note was that the parapet wall was already ex --
tended up to and exceeded the daylight plane by about 3 inches,
already. Since that was occurring, the setback really had no
effect on the neighbor's daylight, and the point of issue was the
intrusion into the daylight plane. They had a vaulted ceiling in
the living room which was why they bought the house. It was 12
feet high, and had excellent acoustics. It was not a matter of
personal preference to lower the ceiling, but a matter of pro-
fessional need. His wife was a professional musician and that
room was used extensively for her musical work. Second, he said
the existing bedrooms .were very small. The one on the top was
about nine feet wide, and the two other bedrooms were about
twelve feet wide. Essentially that meant they had only one
logical place to put the new staircase without intruding on the
square footage of the already small bedrooms. He said it would
effectively divide the second floor into two living spaces, and
it could be said that this would increase the house to five bed-
rooms as opposed to three bedrooms, but the utrility would be
adding a family room and adding a study rather than extra bed-
rooms. He said that the problem became evident when one took a
look at a floor .plan and cross section without the variance. The
problem would be that they would only have a 4'G" vertical wall
because they would have to stay within the daylight plane, and
that wall would extend all the way down the right sjde of the
house under the new design on the second floor. He said that not
tying into the existing structure meant extra expense structur-
ally and compounded the, height problem because they would need a
thicker floor joist. The major problem was the bathroom where
they would not get full use out of the shower because the head
height at the wall was only 4'6" before it took off at a 4b
angle. He said it created problems for him especially, but sub-
mitted that anyone over 6' would have a problem using that shower
which necessarily affected the resale -value of the. house.
Mr. Hennings said they had tried several different designs, flip
flopping the sinks to one side, the.. shower to the other, but
whatever design they ,came up with, there was - 'still the head
height problem and having to bend '.over to use the sink. Actual-
ly, the design they presented was the most logical design they
could come -up with, and it did riot really work with the setback
restrictions and_ the daylight plane restrictions. Further, he
said the same area with the variance increased the 4'6' to 613",'.
which came out and tied in to the'existing structure. He empha-
sized that when Roger. Kelley made the dr,awings, he, came in with.
the minimum design that he .felt would meet their objectives and
still . stay minimally within the daylight plane. Mr. Hennings
felt that Mr.. Kelley's design was a-= Compromise to begin with
bet°ause it was the minimum they were asking for: , to -: make the
whole thing work. He said that looking at the exterior design
without the variance, showed that the daylight plane imposed a
severe angle on the second story roof line. Further, the setback
created a condition which looked funny when you took the new
second floor and compared it with the first floor. He said look-
ing at the exterior design of the house with the variance, showed
reasonable continuity between the first and second floors. One
of the reasons they came up with 3'3" was because it was the
minimum they were asking simply to get the head height they
needed on the second floor and also copy, the angle so that there
was reasonable continuity between the two floors.
Mr. Hennings said that as to how much this would affect the
neighbors' daylight, he relied upon a licensed architect who
dealt with this daily. The comparison was that his house was on
the left and the neighbors' house was on the right. The impor-
tant points were (a) the existing parapet wall; (b) what they
were asking for with the variance; and (c) where they could le-
gally build to anyway. The important thing about the whole vari-
ance was to compare the incremental difference between what they
were legally entitled to, and what they were asking for. He
maintained that what they were asking for was minimal.
Mr. Hennings said that the shadow created at noon on July 21,
which was basically the start of summer, fell between' the two
houses and only made a difference of about 13 inches. He said he
knew it was 13 inches because on June 21, he went out and mea-
sured it at noon. Further, he said 'the same thing happened in
Spring, March 21, or Fall, September 21. He said the difference
showed about 2-1/2 feet at noon on those days, but again the
shadow was not even touching the window. By taking the worst
point --the worst day of the year --the critical point because
point (c) where they could legally build to, and point (b) what
they were asking for, on December 21, the incremental difference
did -nothing more than throw the shadow two feet higher on the
roof already because point (c) already hit the roof e The most
important fact was how the two properties, Lined:; up relative to
true South. As the year progressed, as the days grew shorter and
as the sun 'changed angles, it changed angle in- favor eof the
afternoon sun hitting all three windows.
Mr. Hennings said that -regarding 90% of the sunl i.ght being
blocked on the neighbor's house because of trees in the backyard
of the neighbor behind them, one of the main contributors of day-
light not reaching the inside of their house were awnings on the
back of their windows and bushes in front of a bedroom, and a
huge apple tree in their own yard which blocked a lot of the
light. HE said the Planning Commission had asked Mr. Kohler_ to.
make some drawings showing the actual loss of daylight and quan-
tify that loss.
Roger kehler, 378 Cambridge Avenue, an architect, said that his
diagram ,was supported by Mr. Waleh's computer print-out, showing
that the difference between the light they would get as %-!t was
now and what it could be legally, or what they were askint ; for,
was approximately 45 minutes to an hour depending on the time of
the year. ; In December, the first light which hit their window
was at 12:40 p.m.,o and if the variance they were asking for: was
granted, the difference would be at 1:55 p.m. which was a little
more than an hour, and if they built =to where they were legally..
entitled, there would hardly be any difference --about ,5 =-minutes_
later. In June, when the sun was at its highest point, the,
earliest sun now came in at 6.30 a.m.; under the. variance it
would come in at 7:20 a.m., and . under what, they could legally do,
it was 6:35. a.m. Mr. Kohler said that Mr. Wolehis 'Computer
1
1
1
program, as he understood it, tended to agree with these findings.
The Walehs were losing close to an. hour at the worst part of the
day, which was one day out of the year, and less than an hour at
other times. Mr. Waleh had pointed out before the Planning Com-
mission how important diffused light was to his house, and yet
his program did not really take into account the diffusing light
and the tremendous light bouncer that would be built for him.
Mr, Kohler said regarding -the wall they would be building, in the
summer and the winter when the sun came around, the light would
be hitting the parapit,- and providing the Waleh house with a tre-
mendous amount of reflected light. He said that one of the
newest things was passive solar energy, and another - of the latest
things was --building in indirect bounced light into house with
skylights. Regarding the effects of the compromise to the addi-
tion, .their structural engineer proposed that the thinnest floor
system that could be use would be 4" by 6", at 12" on tenter.
Normally, it was 2" by 12", at- 16" on center so that they could
allow room to get plumbing system and pipes through the joist.
Its this case, they would have to locate the new toilet and closet
right over an existing closet because they would not be able to
laterally run the drain line at all_.. It would have to come
straight_ down, but by using 4" by b", at 12" on center, and 3/4"
plywood, they could get a plate height of 5 feet and a shower
head of b-'4". He pointed out that using a system of 1.1/2" ply-
wood with tile roof and not putting in any insulation was saving
them 5" to 6" of structural space.. They would then have to over -
insulate in order to accomplish - the State law that said all
houses had to be insulated, and the shower would then be a lot
colder.- He said the compromise was working to a certain point,
but was compromising the heat loss of the house and the effi-
ciency of the structure both, by forcing then to do a couple of
different items that were not normally done. He said they would
probably do the floor system anyway because that would give them
a little extra height in the wall. He said that the ceiling
system would probably not be acceptable, and in fact, they would
have to add a ceiling joist to get their insulation- which would
drop the height of the :_shower to 6'4". Ale said the foregoing was
the compromise, and while it would not be very pleasant, it could
be worked within.
Councilmember Klein asked if regarding the benefit they saw to
the Waleh's of the diffused sunlight, any calculations had been
done as to the amount of light that .would be diffused into their
house.
Mr. Kohler said he had notdone any calculations, but could prob-
ably figure out how to do it. He said he had hoped Mr. Waleh
would have done it. It would depend on the surface of the wall,
what color it was painted, and what type of texture. He antici-
pated that it would be stucco which was fairly smooth, and it
would be, painted antique white, which was an off white, so he
thought the Walehs would be getting a tremendous amount of light
off the bounce, but had no way of calculating the difference be-
tween what was there now and what would happen. He said the day-
light plane was going to be an ongoing problem in Palo Alto's
older homes that were closer to the lot, and said that a great
majority of the lots to the north of Oregon Avenue were 5.0 feet
wide or narrower. In - this case, there was a design problem of
providing the additional floor space without adding on to the lot
coverage and also the vaulted ceiling. Effectively, looking at
the house, one would not really be aware of the rear addition be-
cause _ it was set back about 15 feet and the impact of the second
1 3 0 4
10/5/81
floor would not be as great as if the wall in the front was con-
tinuous and a flat wall.
i
1
1
Councilmember Klein said- that if he understood the presentation_
correctly, the applicants basically accepted the figures that- the
Walehs had presented-.
Mr. Kohler said that as best he could determine, it looked like
the .Walehs reinforced what Mr,. Kohler had said that -under the
worst conditions, the sun took from about 45 minutes to an hour
longer to get to the window. At the best condition, ;t was be-
tween 1/2 hour to 45 minutes, He said they took pic:`ores and
measured the shadow line on September 21, and it was wit.ii n three
to four inches of what he had calculated. At noon, the shadow
was about 2" up into the existing window, and without the addi-
tion, it would be down about 2.. feet.:
Mr. Hennings summarized his presentation by saying that the
important issue was comparing the difference between what they
were entitled to vs. what they were asking for.. Taking Anto con-
sideration their special design problems, the vaulted ceiling,
which was a professional need. and not merely a convenience, his'
size, and reasonable and pr actic.al use. of _that space on the
second floor, variances and the ,daylight plane were sensitive
issues. The point was that a variance program was set up so that
they could demonstrate individual judgments on the merits of
individual cases which was what he thought- they had. He said
that the Comprehensive Plan of Palo Alto specifically spelled out,
the fact that Palo, Alto should be encouraging young families to
expand and grow within Palo Alto, and that was -what they were
trying to do with the variance.
Counci lmember Witherspoon asked Mr. Kohler how much using a tile
roof vs. another type of roof added to the height problems of the
bathroom inside?
Mr. Kohler responded that the tile . roof was approximately four
inches thick and typically heavier: joist rafters under the roof
were. needed. The spacing could be decreased, and thicker- joist
sizes could be used. ' He said the tile roof could be taken off
and- go to. asphalt shingles, which would save 4. inches; and, if
they added "a joist back to get the insulation, they would be
coming down only 2 inches, vs. 3: to 4 inches as it would if they
left the tile roof.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the coverage of the existing
house was the maximum allowed on that lot, or was there an option
to cover more of the lot rather than go up?
Mr. Kohler responded that the coverage was very close to the max-
imum. He thought the total coverage was about 317E or 32% and the
maximum allowed was 35%,. Ifthey were to cover the lot more, he
was not sure where it could be done, but they would have to get a
variance.
Vice Mayor Fletcher asked how the roof line would look in rela-
tion to the existing roof line as the Planning Commission recom-
mended..
Mr. Kohler presented a drawing which showed that in height
this point it was 12 inches._
Vice Mayor Fletcher -`asked if it would-be an 'equal distance- at the
tip of the roof as well as on the side of the house?
1 3 0.5
10/5/81
Mr. Kohler said that the angle would not change. He showed a
roof line which was up closer to the front of the house, and said
that if the angle was different, it would be very obvious.
Councilmember Renzel confirmed with the City Attorney that the
Council should be looking at the ,thre-- required findings for a
variance listed on page 2 of the staff rtiport. Basically, the
Council had to find that "there were exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
which did not apply generally to property in the same district,
and that the granting of the application was necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant and to; prevent unreasonable_ property loss or unneces-
sary hardship and that the grant of the application would not be
detrimental or injurious..." in order to grant the variance.
City Attorney Don Maynor-said that was correct.
Councilmember Renzel asked if the interpretation of property
generally meant the land or the buildings and the land?
Mr. Maynor responded that the case law generally interpreted it
as the land itself. It was his understanding that in the past,
property had been given a broader definition administratively by
the City, but if the City were to go to court on this, the Courts
tended to look at the land itself and not the home.
Councilmember Bechtel asked Mr. Kohler if one of the reasons for
the variance request in the height was the location of the bath-
room, and was it possible to put the bathroom in a different
location on the second floor so that there was a smaller headroom
bedroom in that area. She realized that financially it was
cheaper to build a bathroom over an existing bathroom, but
wondered if there were -any other reasons.
Mr. Kohler responded that one of the main reasons was that the
staircase literally divided the house in half; so effectively
they tried to make the elevation balance out in the front. He
said that the balance of the_house seemed to be in the middle,
and if the bat hr oom were to be Moved into the stairwell, every-
thing would begin to shift ove», and if a high ceiling was put in
the master bedroom; it started to get off balance. From a design
standpoint, it made the house a little -more compact and would not
overpower the site in the sense that they were avoiding the
higher roof slopes on the driveway side which was only about 10
feet. Conceivably, they could get a low -use room i.e., a child's
study or children's playroom, but even with a reguiar bonafide
bedroom it would-be difficult to stay under the daylight plane.
,Councilmember Levy asked Mr. Maynor if on the three findings
which .were necessary to grant a variance, eit was necessary for
the Council to find all three of the conditions, or any one of-:
the three conditions
Mr. Maynor said all three.
Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open, and receiving
no requests to speak, declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Renzel said this was obviously a difficult thing
for neighbors to have to work through, and when someone . was
remodeling a home, they wanted to have maximum flexibility in
design, to work with their :existing property and to get all of
the aspects from the home that they " wished to enjoy. On the
other hand, she said the zoning ordinance was established with
1 3 0 6
10/5/81
i
setbacks and daylight planes for the purpose of protecting prop-
erty owners from the kind of dispute taking place. She said
there was some predictability to what one could- expect when one
bought a home in an R-1 zone. In the course of preparing the
zoning ordinance, the Council heard from the Fire Department that
there was an important factor from fire in terms of the _sideyard
setbacks, and it was another consideration in adoption of the
daylight plane that there would be a widening of that space
because of the "chimney effect" if there'was a fire in the neigh-
borhood. She felt that particularly in an area where the lots
were all of a similar size, there was nothing distinctive about
the size of the lot other than the= location of the, existing
house, In order for the Council to be consistent in what it was
doing with respect to variance, they must be fairly strict about
following the three requirements or conditions of granting a
variance, and look very closely at the land .and not so much at
the personal situation that was attached to each individual
application. eShe said properties changed hands, a idifferent
owner had a different interest, and what the Council post look at
was the overall City interests and the overall zoning interests
in terms of the protections of the neighborhood generally.- She
thought that while the applicant for the variance had a strong
reason for wishing their variance, at the same time anyone who
purchased into en -R-1 zone had some -right to feel that they were
not going to be encroached upon by a very tall building three
feet from their property line.
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
that. the appeal be upheld and that tie application for. the vari-
ance be denied.
Vice Mayor Fletcher said she found the case a very difficult one
because of the closeness of the two homes. However, the very
fact that the homes were so close did make it a very unusual
situation in that from the adjoining house, the walls were so
close that the difference of three feet on the very top of the
house could not be seen by the neighbors. She went inside both
homes and when you looked out of the window towards the Hennings,
the building was close and unless you went all the way up to the
window, you could not see the sky. Since the second story was
legal in any event, she thought it was insignificant that there
was an added three foot height there. Further, she looked at the
building from across the street where a property owner had writ-
ten to the Council. asking for approval of the variance because
the roof lines would be aesthetically offensive if they had to..
built within the daylight plane. -She thought the situation was
unusual. She did not feel granting the variance was a great
detriment to the neighbor in this situation, and would oppose the
motion to deny.
Councilmember Witherspoon said her inclination in these types of
matters was to favor the status quo unless it was an overwhelming
case for granting a variance. She found it hard to justify a
variance here since the applicants only had . a three foot setback,
and they should have a setback of six feet at least to begin
with, and they were faced with a critical design problem. She.
did not feel that it satisfied the requirements of the City's
ordinance to grant the variance.
Councilmember Klein: said that while he was- sympathetic to the
Hennings, he thought t1e Council's hands were tied. He thought
that if the three conditions were looked at, __at -:least two and
maybe three, of them were ':not met, and could not be : met.
Regarding whether there were extraordinary or exceptional
circumstances and conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to the property in the same district,
usually he took that to mean there was an odd -shaped lot, and
there were some rather extraordinary configurations that the
applicant just did not have any control ever; and he did not think
that was the case here. He thought they were dealing with a
neighborhood that had regularly shaped lots, and this one was
-regularly shaped. He did not see what was extraordinary or unique
about . this particular lot. Regarding whether a variance was
needed to protect -a substantial pr oper ty right of the applicant or
prevent unreasonable property Toss or unnessary hardship, he did
not find that either, He thought the only way the applicant could
get -approval would be to show that they were going to, suffer
unnecessary hardship, and he thought there would be a way for them
to do some things within the present ordinance. Lastly, he
thought that the adjacent neighbor would suffer some injury by the
loss of 15% to 20% of their sunlight in the morning hours, and
that must be taken into account-. He would support the motion to
deny.
Councilmember Eyerly said that he supported the points that .had:
been made in support of the motion, but not being ae expert, he
tried to- learn how the decision was made by Mr. Sanchez to grant
the variance. Het realized that Mr: Sanchez was no longer with
the City and that there had been same° problems with the tape, but
on the first finding regarding extraordinary or unusual circum-
stances, he. a=iced if that could have been because his house was
built with a three foot setback, and since that time, there was a
six foot setback enacted. He -asked if the other houses in the
area were on three foot setbacks or were there others on six
foot.
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said that former Zoning
Administrator Sanchez ha.d stated three points which he thought
were unusual. 1) the small size of the lot --5,625 square feet;
2) the existing first floor sidewall was three feet from the
existing property- line; and 3) the existence of the vaulted
living room ceiling.
Councilmember Eyerly felt that since staff could not answer his
questions, he would support the motion to deny.
Councilmember Fazzino said that the issues were the toughest to
deal with when they involved two immediate neighbors. He felt
that the Zoning Administrator and the Planning. Commission had
spent a lot of time debating the issue. There was a 5-1 vote by
the PlanOng Commission and a clear decision made by the Zoning
,Administrator that the minor variance should be approved. He
thought. the Planning Commission had established a reasonable
compromise which did not . unduly negate the neighbor's right to
sunlight. He agreed with Mayor Henderson that unusual circum-
stances exist given the very close _:proximity of the two homee and
the' issue . of the small size of the lot. He also agreed with
Commissioner Cullen's comments at the Planning Commission meeting
that unless . the City was willing to allow small homes like these
to expandeinto larger ones, families were going to belost in Palo
Alto. He felt that rigid' application of laws without sensitive
understanding of unusual circumstances was as bad an approach as
simply allowing_ variances in a piece -meal manne . 'rte wouldoppose
the Motion to deny and if it was defeat ed, ehe would move that the
application be approved,
:= Councilmember Bechtel also' felt that' there were substantial and
extraordinary' circumstances which warranted granting the vari-
ance. She lived in a 50 foot wide lot, and was in a house that
was built as a two-story house originally, and there were no. :day-
light plane ordinances then. She concurred with Councilmember
Fazzino that this 2 feet 3 inch compromise that the Planning
1
Commission proposed was not going to interfere substantially with
the sunlight of th.e neighbor. She believed that the Council had
an obligation to try and make it possible for families to remain
in Palo Alto.
1
Counci lmember Levy agreed with Counci lmember Klein that there
were not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved that did not generally apply
to property in the same district. The size of the lot was the
normal size for that part of town. He said the exceptional cir-
cumstance which .was brought forth was the desire to keep a.
vaulted_ ceiling and to build as efficiently as possible around,
it. He thought that was important, and he under stood the appli-
cant's desire to-do that, but he did not think. it constituted a
sufficiently extraordinary circumstances that an exception should
be made to the. concept of the -daylight plane. Further, he Said
there were two aspects to the daylight plane --first , If the vari-
ance were granted, it would. remove 45 minutes to an hour per day
of direct sunlight to the neighbor house. He believed that was
significant, but in addition, the daylight plane also protected a
home from a feeling of being walled in and provided views of the
sky and ambient light. He believed that the daylight plane was
more than just the sunlight plane, and with that in mind, he felt
that the three findings the Council was 'required to make could
not be made. He would uphold the appeal.
Mayor Hendee son said he was confused because he leaned heavily, on
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and he had the
problem of two former Planning Commission members now sitting on
the Council who were saying one thing, and the present Planning
Commission and the Zoning Administrator advising him in the oppo
site direction. He said -he was finally pe byrsuaded Ms. Cullen's
argument about encouraging the retention of families, and he
thought there was a negative impact from that if this variance
was denied. Further, he found the effect of this variance to be
minimal --the view to the sky was already lost, and the little bit
that was 'to be added did not change that situation, It reduced
the sunlight into.a couple of bedrooms in the late morning hours
at the maximum about one hour. He said they were rooms which
were not generally in use at that time. If this were the living
room or kitchen ors rooms that were daytime use rooms, the combi-
nation of the minimal effect and the fact that -the wall was
already there made him -lean toward opposing the motion to -den;;.
MOTION PASSED to deny the variance and uphold the appeal by a
vote of 5-4 as follows:
AYES: Eyerly, Renzel, Klein, Levy, Witherspoon
NOES: Fletcher, Henderson, `EazLino, Bechtel
FINANCE AND P!JBLIC "WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO COUNCIL THAT IT
riTUKUtLtt. r K1L F'KUJLU J I ri'{UU i
AGENCY , AND THAT PALL AL I kA I NTAI hi PERttilfAtE OF THE PROJECT
YR"TI f'wwyl1°�lrY! 9! �"�1 � !� /! M 14r' i�■�!1■�1 v..re Wi k■ ■ . � r' - -
Councilmember Levy for the Finance and , Public Works Committee
said that in the mid -1980's Palo Alto would outstrip its low cost
sources of energy. At the Finance and Public Works Committee
(F&PIS) on September 22, the Committee recommended to the Council
approval of the budget amendment to provide additional funding.
for participation in the Calaveras Hydroelectric Project through
the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), and that Palo Alto
1`3 0 9
10/5/81
maintain a percentage of the project not to exceed 22.95%. He
said the history of the Cal aver as Hydroelectric Project extended
back more than seven years. The project was originally conceived
at about twice the presently proposed size with the number, of
environmentally questionable elements including extensive fun-
neling, which had now been eliminated. At this time the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was evaluating the proposal
and was expected to issue a license in a few months. At that
time NCPA would proceed to raise funds through issuance of bonds
totaling $600 million. The City's. share would be the 22.95%,
which was the City's share of all NCPA items. He said that the
budget amendment represented the City's share of an increase by
NCRA of $1 million which was:necessary to raise from two to three
million for the cost of various preliminary studies including the
environmental impact report -(EIR). The funding was pursuant to
an agreement 'stating that if the City elected to opt out of the
project, a decision which did not now have to be made, the. City
would receive its funds back plus interest. By approving the
amendment, the project would be able to move ahead on a faster
timetable thereby realizing savings in future costs. He said
that among the new sources of power for Palo Alto being studied,
staff considered this to be the most vomiting. The project
involved damming portions of the upper Stanislaus River. The
F&PW Committee voiced concern about this in relation to the
remaining wild portions of the Stanislaus. Staff affirmed that
this had been taken into consideration in their !planning. The
City Was not at this point approving the final project, the
Council would be able to review all aspects of the project when
participation in bonds to finance the construction was approved.
MOTION: Councilmember Levy for the Finance and Public Works
Committee moved its recommendation.
ORDINANCE 3304 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOa THE
FISCAL YAK 198182 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
PALO ALTO'S PARTICIPATION IN THE CALAVERAS HYDRO-
ELECTRIC PROJECT THROUGH THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER
AGENCY"
Director of Utilities Edward Aghjayan said that somewhere along
the line the figure of 22.95% was used. He clarified that the
correct figure was 22.92%. He said this was not a binding com-
mitment to the project, . but rather an agreement to share in addi-
tional expenses in the development. A paint was made that the
City would get its money back if it opted out of the project at
the final decision point which would come within four months
after the issuance of the license. He said the City would
receive its funds back provided the project were followed through
by another party --either NCPA and .the other cities, or if. 'CPA
were to abandon it or another agency were to take over, such as
PG&E or SMUD. If the project never gets built, the monies would
not be recovered,
Mayor Henderson said that-, he understood that the project itself
had been approved by the voters in that area so that all consid-
erations as to environmental impacts, etc., had. been handled,
and, if. the City of Palo Alto withdrew, there would still be a
project. The City of Palo Alto was not . instrumental in saying
whether a dam would be built on that river.
Mr.' Aghjayan slid that .was correct. There was_,a two-thirds voter
approval on the bond election which was held several years ago so
there was support by the comiunity, on the project He said the
only reasons that the project may be delayed were ones which
1`3 1 0
10/5/81,
1
could not be anticipated at this time. If interest rates were to
stay as high as they currently were, there might be a slight
delay in the building of the project; or, if the FERC established
some guidelines or rules around the project which made it uneco-
nomical, He said it could not be foreseen what those might be,
they did not know of any that might come out, but in any develop-
mental project such as this, the possibility always existed.
1
Councilmember. Renzel asked if it was correct that if the City
joined in funding the design of the project, even if the City
pulled out, very likely the project would go forward, and Palo
Alto would have helped the project go forward by helping pay for
the design, -
Mr. Aghjayan said that was correct.
Councilmember Renzel said that so subsequently when the design
was done, if the City of Palo Alto did not like what it was doing
to the rivers, the City had already made the choice because even
if it pulled out, the project would go forward anyway.
Mr. Aghjayan said that the City of Palo Alto had been involved in
contributing to the development of the project for four years,
that it was not a new project.
Councilmemb€r Bechtel said that at the F&PW Committee meeting,
Mr. Aghjayan had indicated that before a decision was made there
was a possibility of an actual visit to the site to see what
might be involved. She asked if that were still planned to be
arranged?
Mr. Aghjayan said that the answer was yes as well as a complete
review of the project whenever the Council might want that made.
Councilmember Eyerly reminded the Council that the City had al-
ready spent about $450,000 to date, and to carry it along with
the advanced planning and engineering NCPA had asked for another
$1 million, which increased the City's share by $226,000, He
thought that at this time, it was important for Palo Alto to move
ahead along with the other NCPA cities because if the license
were obtained it would be an asset, and if the City started to
draw back now or if NCPA started to lose support for the project,
it was possible that FERC might not issue the license as soon and
enthusiasm would be lost. If that happened, and if the license
were not issued, there would,. be another struggle to get through a
lot of procedures for someone else to obtain that license. He
said that the Calaveras Water District and NCPA combined would
have an asset of that license as issued; and, if Palo Alto or
NCPA as a whole decided not to go ahead with the project due to
bonding costs, etc.., the City would be in a better position f1-
riancially to get its money back sooner than just delay and hope.
they pick up someone else in the future. There would be .a field
trip on October., 15, .a walking trip, of the project which would be
held by the planning committee along with Bechtel Engineering,
and all of the Council was invited to attend. Most of the trip
would be driving in, and there would be some walking. He said
the Calaveras Water District was handy and available and ready to
fly any of, the councilmembers in at any time they desired to fly
the River and see the environmental impacts. He said that most
of .the staff and NCPA members who had worked on the project had
all _done'' this The environmental impact on :the _River was negl i-
9ibla for the .: amount of power that was available from the water
resource. He ,realize' that some of the councilmembers were
1 3 1 1
10/5/81
environmentally concerned --he was also, but he felt that this had
a minimum impact on that' River and was certainly something the
City should pursue for low-cost power in the future. He said
that the motion on the floor supported .the ordinance which had
been presented, but the minutes of the F&PW Committee had a
kicker which was not in the ordinance, which limited the percent-
age _of the project for Palo Alto to 22.92%. He said that was not
put in the ordinance, he :presumed because it was premature. He
thought it would -be improper to incorporate that in the ordinance
at this time and take it back to NCPA because that started to tie
the hands of the organization. They might find that people might
be wanting to drop out, particularly PG&E cities who had bigger
problems with the bond costs ' than what the -CVP cities did.
Before participation in this project could be decided, there
would have to be a participation agreement signed by all the
members of NCPA that entered it, and that agreement would have to
come back to Council for approval-. That - would be the time to
talk about the percentage participation that Palo Alto should
enter into, and by that time, he was hopeful that the bond market
would. be in a better position, that there -would be some surplus
power available, and that NCPA would have some marketing concept
and would be in a position to unload some surplus power to PG&E,
SMUD --or the southern cities, etc. He felt it was premature to
tie NCPA's hands now.
Councilmember Levy said that at the F&PW Committee meeting, ques-
tions were raised about the location of the dams in relation to
the white water and in relation to the New Melones Dam, and he
asked Mr . .Aghjayan if he had a map that could show the loca-
tions.
Mr. Aghjayan said staff had just found out today from NCPA that
the field trip for October 15 was careened:, ed� He said he thought,
it was important enough that if any count i l nember would like to
make that trip, it could be done. He said the best way to see
the project area was by air. Regarding limiting the 22.92%, at
the last NCPA meeting, some cities made a suggestion about not
paying their share of the current $1 mill ipn. The impact of that
would be to raise the City of Palo Alto ''percentage higher than
22.92%, and he thought it was prudent to limit the City's level
of investment and commitment to the level it was in; otherwise,
the City's share might rise to 25% or 30%. He under stood Coun-
cilmember Eyerly's concern because it would cause NCPA to come up
with alternative plans to raise funds if other cities did not
contribute.
Manager of Er.er gy Planning, Bob Nagel made a presentation which
showed Spicer Meadow Reservoir and illustrated the course of the
water which would flow in the hydroelectric project from Spicer
Meadow Reservoir down the Stani sl aus River to a diversion dam and
then to a tunnel. The tunnel would travel down 11 miles and
would flow into the Cauliville Power House. Just below the Power
House was the New Melones Reservoir which was not part of the
project.
Councilmember. Levy asked if any of the current white water areas
were going to be eliminated by the project?
Mr. Nagel responded that the white water areas which were :contro-
versial in the New Melones Reservoir were not in the Project --
they were just below it. He said that the New Melones Dam, -if it
was filled to its designed level, at high, water would eliminate
two of the most popular rafting sections in California, but they.
were below the City':s project.
_1 3 1 2
10/5/8]_
i
1
Councilmember Renzel _said she would support the ,study, but she
was concerned that the Council tended to underestimate the impact
of things which were further away distance -wise, than those which
were immediate and nearby. She thought that the Council should
be aware, that this project and others which would be used by Palo
Alter we; e pr imar i-ly to get cheap power , not just some power that_
was needed. Council should be aware that even though some of the
things were further away distance -wise, they were not "cheap" in
terms of their impact at those other places. She said that about
half of Palo Alto's electricity was- used by ten users, and she
thought the Council ought to work very hard to conserve even more
the amount of power being used. She would reluctantly support
the motion now, but would be •looking very closely when the matter
came back next time.
Councilmember Bechtel said regarding Gabbot Meadow which would be
flooded, there were some trails in the meadow which connected
Yosemite to Tahoe, and she asked how the trail provisions were
going to be taken care of?
Mr. Nagel responded that Gabbot Meadow would be flooded by the
new Spicer Reservoir. The project would replace Gabbot Meadow by
constructing a meadow which was larger in another :location. As
part of the mitigation requested by California Fish and Game,
Gabbot Meadow was at a higher elevation, and in order to satisfy
State Fish and Game, the Calaveras Water District designed the
preliminary design to take an area which was not a meadow and to
modify it so that it would become a meadow and would replace
Gabbot. As far as trails, Mr. Nagel said he did not know if
there were trails from Yosemite to Tahoe.
Councilmember Bechtel felt that the Council had a number of ques-
tions. She said she would reluctantly support the motion, but
wanted to be sure that the Council had . ainpie time before they had
to make the final decision, to be provided with the Environmental
Impact Report, and have enough time to review it. She requested
maps and information about the location of trails, of white water.
rafting areas, and New Melones Dam.
Vice Mayor Fletcher said she was also concerned that Palo Alto'
was continually using more power and was upset that there were a
limited . number of users that were . the main users of the power.
She felt that Council needed to plan ahead, and that planning
ahead was not only concerned with cheap electric power, but envi-
ronmentally acceptable power. She said there was always a cost
in environment involved,, but she would far rather go for hydra
power than coal power which was the cause of acid rain and other
environmental problems. She would feel more badly about this
kind of a project if people in the area itself opposed it. She
was aware that there was an election held on this and it was
approved by a wide margin. She would support the motion.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, that
Council be provided with as much information as possible (EIR,
maps, trails) in sufficient time (at,least one 'week prior)'before
making final decision.
Councilmember Eyerly .:felt that a meeting should be set ,up for
Counci lmember s that would like to go` over >'some of the parameters
of the project, .environmental concerns, and anything`, else. He
thought the meeting with staff should be set up away from a :Coun
cif meeting. He felt that if councilmembers received all of this
information individually, it would. :;be difficult to go through
it --about an hour or two would be needed with staff. He did not
know if the entire Council wanted to do that, which was why he
suggested a separate meeting
Mr. Zaner said that Councilmember Eyerly was correct that the
material was voluminous and some members of the Council may have
seen parts of it, and did not feel the need to go back through
it. He thought one option would be for staff to establish a
working session. Data could be sent to Council in advance and
those councilmembers that would like to hear a presentation could
do that, staff could answer questions and provide material at
that time.
Mayor Henderson asked when the aecision would come -before the
Council?
Mr. Aghjayan said it depended upon when the license was granted.
He said there was a rumor of the license being granted as early
as this month, but that could be delayed. It was up to the FERC
to grant the license, and from the date the license was granted,
the City had 120 days to commit to NCPA on the agreement. He
said staff had copies of the EIR and would make them available to
anyone that wanted to review them as well as prepare a summary
report at the time the work session was scheduled.
Mayor Henderson agreed that there was a need for a work session,
but- felt it was important enough that it be held as a workshop
for.. the ,entire Council. He thought that with the election coming
up and the i idays, - now -was- not a logical time; but that after
the first of the year, it would be wise to schedule a workshop
for the entire Council.
Councilmember Eyerly thought that it was important for Council -
members Renzel and Bechtel, and those who wanted more in depth
information, to get some of this material now in order to get
ready for that meeting. He wanted them to raise their questions
so that they could be properly answered, and have ample oppor-
tunity to digest the information, rather than have the informa-
tion come a week ahead of a special Council workshop.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ARASTRA PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE - Second Reading
-!ouncilmember Eyerly said he did not have the minutes of the
Council meeting giving first reading'to the .;rdinance so could
not determine what was talked abort. As he interpreted the ordi-
nance, the "Reimer house" property was included in the dedication
ordinance with the requirements that it be spoken to yearly with
a maximum period of time of five years to Lea) it a; housing. He
thought it was preferable to leave that small section of ground
cut of the dedication at this time in view that Council did not
know what viable uses it might have for the City, and five years
might be too short a time to dedicate- it. He thought the Council
would always be in a position ro"dedicate it if they felt that
the use of the house was no longer viable. He did, not know what
Council's thinking was an this matter; he knew there were a
couple *of motions made to arrive at the current ordinanre£._.but
-
wanted to take out - the section as written and exclude the
"Reimer" property.
Mayor Henderson advised that there was a considerable amount -of
discussioiii during -rMrst reading and Mr. Eyerly was absent that
night. It seemed to be the feeling of a substantial majority of
the Council that they wanted.;to dedicate the --entire property. He
thought -it would be in order for Councilmember Eyerly to move to
exclude that portion. Council had spent a lot —of=. time defining
1
1
the actual area that would be excluded.
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fazzino,
approval of the ordinance for second reading.
ORDINANCE 3305 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 22.08 (PARK
DEDICATIONS OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
SECTION 22.08.320 (ARASTRA PROPERTY)" (1st Reading
9/21/81, Passed 8-0, Eyerly absent.)
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
that the "Reimer" property be removed from the dedication and
that the ordinance be amended to reflect that change.
Councilmember Klein said that in the last week he had spoken to
City Attorney Don Maynor, and he had added the idea that Council
needed to have an outside limit, which was the five year period
recommended in the staff report.
Councilmember Witherspoon said she would prefer that the Council
keep their options open, which was why she would prefer to wait
and dedicate it later.
Vice Mayor Fletcher said she remembered it being explained to
Council that park use was quite loosely defined and that the
building could be used for various purposes as long as it was in
keeping ewith the intent of a park use. She would not, like to
have the house used for any purpose other than in connection with
the park. She would vote against the amendment.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 1-2, . Eyerly and Witherspoon voting
aye.
Larry Faber, 3127 David Avenue, said he was concerned about the
dedication. He said he was assured by the City Attorney that
there was nothing in the language which would preclude the use of
those stables and the associated care taker house. He wanted the
City Attorney to go on record that it would , not preclude any of
the following three options:
1. That the the City had a care taker there taking care of the
property, living in the house, and looking after the horses,
and that the room and board for the horses was paid to the
City.
2. A cooperative organization would take over and run the
stable, keep the books, and take care of the problem.
3. The City would be_ able�; to "lei:" the stable out on
concession -type basis.
He asked the City Attorney to affirn=` that none- of those options
were precluded by the language of the ordinance.
City Attorney Don Maynor clarified that an .equestrian use on the
property was appropriate so long as it was open to the public.
He was not totally fami l i er with Mr. Faber's first two concepts,
but the general rule was that if the ,park use was open to the
public, then it satisfied the law.
Mr.,..Faber said he waited to be sure .that .the options wtre ,open
the ci ty�
Mr .. Maynor responded that he did not know_ all the details.: of the
present cooperative operation, and could
;closely looking at all the details.
not comment without
Mr. Faber respectfully requested that the Council not pas the
ordinance until those questions :ould be answered. He thought
that if this facility were lost, 'it would be a crime.
Councilmember Witherspoon said that while she could not speak for
the City Attorney, she assured Mr. Faber _ that the concession con-
cept was operative at the golf course, and she felt it could be
structured to suit whatever purpose the City wished. She did not
feel it closed the City's option to dedicate., and if the -City
wanted ,to continue with the stable use, they could have the City.
Attorney design the structure to suit the._ordi.nance.
Councilmember Renzel felt that as long as the use -was was a public
use that it would come within the ordinance.- She was certain
that the financial, arrangements were flexible and would not be
affected by Dark dedication per .se other than it would continue
to be available to the public. She felt that the park dedication
should move forward.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
LYTTON GARDENS III ISSUANCE OF CITY OF PALO ALTO INSURED HEALTH
Councilmember Levy asked to be recorded as not participating in
this item.
MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, to authori4e
the issuance and sale of City of Palo Alto Insured Health
Facility Revenue Bonds and the following resolution.
RESOLUTION 5960 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE
OF CITY_ OF PALO ALTO INSURED HEALTH FACILITY REVENUE
BONDS (LYTTON GARDENS CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL); SERIES A,
THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INDENTURE, LOAN AGREE-
MENT, : CONTRACT OF INSURANCE REGULATORY AGREEMENT,
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT OF PURCHASE AND
CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH"
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy not participating.
ANNUAL CHARGES FOR USE OF REFUSE AREA BY STANFORD UNIVERSITY
AMENDMENT T' C U
S a L
Councilmember Eyerly said he realized how valuable Palo Alto's
dumping area was, and when he saw the quantity of refuse that
Stanford University put into the dumping area and with the time
frai .the City was working under to still have someplace to dump
and try to get the solid waste disposal into being, he wanted
reassurance that Stanford University was paying its full share.
He saw that they were being increased ` 33% over last year's
charges. He did not know if, that was enough, in view of what the
costs. were.
Director of Public Works David Adams said staff had taken counts-:
of the trucks and: estimates of the mount of "refuse delivered
by Stanford, and then calculated it on a percentage basis. It
turned out that Stamford used approximately 8.74 percent of the
yearly capacity. The calculations for their fee were based :on.
1
all of the City's expenses including a pro rata share of person-
nel expenses, equipment, materials, and all of the costs asso-
ciated with closure including those costs that would be charged
for the ITT property excavation. He said it did rot include any
costs for the joint powers authority (JPA) because they were an
unincorporated area of the County and were the responsibility of
the County, which they currently could not be charged for. He
said staff felt it was a fair and just fee for Stanford's use of
the landfill..
Councilmember Eyerly said that Stanford was using about ten per-
cent of the dumping area available yearly. He fe l t Stanford was
helping to force Palo Alto into the JPA and he was not sure that
the cost predicated was proper if it only included personnel,
etc. He thought that Palo Alto might be forced into the JPA
before it was ready, and he thought the situation should be
analyzed and Stanford be made to pay proportionately for Palo
Alto's cost in the JPA, not directly to the JPA, but through
their garbage costs.
Mayor Henderson asked if the County was still a participant in
the JPA; and if so, did what they pay include Stanford?
Mr. Adams said that was correct. Staff was currently working
with the County to ascertain if there was a way that Palo Alto
could act as the County's agent by doing what Councilmember
Eyerly suggested. He said Palo Alto would collect the fee on
behalf of the County, but funnel it through Palo Alto and add, it
to Palo Alto's share and subtract it from the County's share of
participation. Currently, the County was still charged with
responsibility for paying Stanford's share in the JPA.
Councilmember Eyerly felt that Stanford should pay their full
share for the whole thing. He said that if the County was paying
pruportiontely for Stanford, he was pacified for now.
MOTION: \ Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Fazzino,
approval of the amendment to contract as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. 4039
U.SE OF PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL REFUSE DISPOSAL
Board of Trustees, Leland Stanford Junior University
Councilmember Renzel said that back when the City had a strike
and Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) was not using the dump,
she thought there were figures quoted that there were typically
35 trucks a day, but during the strike there were only 7 trucks
which were from Stanford, which indicated to her that one -fifth
of the daily truck garbage was from Stanford. She asked how the
City had more recently measured what proportion of the garbage
was coming from Stanford?
Mr. Adams said the measurements were taken last November and
again in June. He said it fluctuated dependent upon the time of
year and what type of refuse was being deposited. This was
agreed upon by Stanford as being a fair count. He . said , staff `s
count was fairly accurate. He said he would take Council's com-
ments into consideration and perhaps refine staff's methods next
year. -
. n 4
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
•
1 3 1 7
10/5/81
REQUEST OF VICE MAYOR FLETCHER RE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN
Vice Mayor Fletcher said that the problem parking requirement
inequity came to her attention -when she was at an Architectural
Review Board _(ARH) meeting and the item being discussed was a
four-story office building planned for University Avenue Circle
at the end of University Avenue 'She said she would not have as
much problem with a four-story building. there if the top part of
it were for residential purposes rather than offices. A Mr.
Mang, who was working on the project, said that had been very
seriously considered, but the economics of it precluded housing
because offices did not --require parking on -site, but residential
.structures did. She said she was having nightmares of having
four-story office buildings on- both sides. of. University Avenue
increasing traffic and parking needs, which Palo Alto did not
need. She thought there must be an answer to the problem, and
she deferred to Mr, Maynor for comments.
Mr. Maynor said he briefly discussed with bond counsel what would
be required to accomplish this type .of change. He said a change
to the Municipal Code would not be required, simply a bond reso-
lution would be necessary. The difficult question would be to
develop a fair formula .to allow residential to utilize in -lieu
parking requirement. Under the current resolution, formulas were
based on square footage. He said the City Attorney's Office had
not done extensive research into exactly how the change would. be
accomplished_, but preliminarily there were not any major legal
problems.
Vi ce Mayor Fletcher asked if to include the residential structure
into the Assessment. District would require a City-wide bond
election?
Mr. Maynor said that the original bond resolution which created
the Assessment District would have to be amended to ailow.resi-
denti al property to be included as having the ability to use the
in -lieu provision. Right now the provision was limited to non-
residential properties.. It would be an amendment, and five: votes
would be required,
Vice Mayor Fletcher said that in discussing it ' with Mr.
Schreiber, including residential properties presented various
problems dependent upon which way the City decided to go, and the
conclusion was that it needed Council direction for staff to
explore further,
MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein,. than staff
propose various alternate methods of dealing with the residential
parking requirements in the downtown (University Avenue-) area and
in the California Avenue area.
Cou'cilmember Witherspoon said Council had received a letter from
Ned Gallagher of Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., who was basically
asking how the plan would fit in with the ongoing Downtown Park-
ing Structure Feasibility Study, which he hoped would come up
with a recommendation in that area. She asked how it tied in
with that study.
Councilmember Eyer'ty said that.r"-carding Mr. Maynor l s comments on
a bond .resolution, bonds had been sold to finance parking lots iv
the Assessment District, and the Assessment District had been
formed by a vote of the property owners, He _ did not understand
that a simple bond resolution voted by Council would make it
possible to change all of that. He thought the people who bought
the bonds might not like this.
13 181
14/5/81
Mr. Maynor said . he understood that the properties that would be
assessed would be expanded to include residential properties.
The bond counsel at this point did not feel that would be a prob-
lem because the City would not be taking away the security that
the bonds were based upon. He said it was a preliminary opinion
and that it had not been looked at in depth. He had not talked
with the bond counsel directly, but was relying on a memo he had
received.
Councilmember Eyerly asked Vice Mayor Fletcher if the thrust of
her motion was that she was asking staff to investigate ()ply the
parking requirements for housing --she was not expecting': staff to
come back with recommendations of requiring office buildings to
provide more parking or to change the way the Assessment District
as set up to provAe for their parking.
Vice Mayor Fletcher responded that she did not want to preclude
anything. .
Counci;member Eyerly said it created a problem for- him if some-
thing besides housing was looked at. He said that would be a new
study which would be detailed and lengthy with the Assessment
District having to speak to it, undoubtedly in some type of a
percentage vote. Staff would come back with a prescription that
would say how to do it if Council wanted to. He felt that would
be a very long process.
1
Mayor Henderson added that staff already had a Considerable
assignment related to downtown parking in general.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
there were a number of assignments related to downtown parking.
Staff was pursuing and hoped to receive in the near future, two
federal grants related to Downtown Parking Management Plan imple-
mentation, and was also pursuing the Downtown Parking Feasibility
Parking Structure Feasibility Study. He suggested that the
alternatives for residential uses in the downtown area were
either status quo or reduce, the amount of parking requirement by
changing the parking regeleei ons or allowing residential uses to
obtain some of the .benefits of the Assessment District. Re-
thought that the broader approach -without clarification would be
for staff to look at -commercial ialso.
Councilmember Eyerly said he would not support the motion because
as he understood it, it was • to look at the whole situation which
he thought would be too detailed, lengthy and time-consuming, and
not feasible to go into at this time.
Mr. Schreiber said staff would be concerned if the intent would
be to try and lower the residential parking requirements. Also,
he said Council had had some clear indications from the Planning
Commission as to how they felt about it. Regarding Parking Lot
Q, he said the Planning ' Commission recommended that the parking
requirements for the residential in that development be increased
from -one space per unit to 1-1/2 spaces Per unit.
Bob , Mang 1242 Byron Street, said he supported the resol ut ` e.
He said that the development in question would 'have produced nine
moderate =housing units, but because it required eighteen parking
spaces for those units and the lot was 4,000 square feet, -there
was no way to get 18 parking spaces on the property subterranean
unless they were put. a the first two - or three floors. Thus,
.housing under the Comprehensive Plan bonus system where more
units could be put in if it were in a commercial : area was pre-
cluded,- He; said in order to put in two housing units that would
only have required four parking spaces, economically, the units
would have had to have been at a very expensive level,- $350,000
per unit or better, which would not have accomplished much by way
of meeting -Palo Alto's housing needs. He pointed out that in
this instance, there seemed._to-be a contradiction between the
Compr eher►si ve Plan desire to balance housing, and in the commer-
cial area .to: try" and reduce people's reliance on having to use an
automobile to get to their shopping. He commented that while he
was not an expert in this area, it occurred to him that there was
a lot of space that was not used at night. He knew that in for-
ma-i discussions with members of the City's staff and others,
there were problems inherent in trying to combine overnight use
for housing with daytime use for commercial because some people
living in the area would want to leave their ._cars in_ the spaces
all day and other people who wanted to- go to the movies at night
would want space that would otherwise be taken by housing units.
However, it seemed to him that there was a factor which could be
derived that would allow for an overlap of housing provided in
the commercial parking spaces.. He said than in the instance of
their development, instead of 20 additional, cars to be parked
during the day, they would have had to accommodate 18 cars over-
night and some overlap, but much less than 20. Finally, he
thought there was an inherent' and desirable objective in that the
more commercial and housing could be balanced within a smaller
sphere, the less there would 'be people getting in and out of
their cars and traversing the streets where there was a movable
parking problem. Overall, he thought this was a desirable sub-
ject to be addressing, and he hoped that in the existing study,
or in some other way, this question could be accommodated.
Mayor Henderson recon'rnended that the motion be limited to .consid-
eration of the problem of the inequity in parking requirements
between housing and commercial and a -concentration by the retaff
in seeing what ,.alternatives there might be in relation to the
housing so that Mr. Mang' s type of project could be encouraged.
Vice Mayor Fletcher said she' was concerned, in reading the
Planning Commission minutes and listening to the -downtown mer-
chants, that there was a serious parking problem downtown, and- it
was being exasperated by the building of office buildings. The.
Assessment District was not able to take rare 'of.the rising
employment downtown, and she thought the main problem was the
parking from offices. Employees take- parking spaces all day and
there was 'a definite relationship of the parking problem to
office ui ldings. _ When housing was discussed and the need to
provide parking, it was a bar to getting housing downtown. Also,
she did not think housing required as much parking per square
foot as did the- demand for offices, ,,if they had to provide the
parking.
Mr. Zaner reminded the Council that staff was doing substantial
studies and analysis of downtown par'vi ng. He said the Downtown
Parking Management Plan went through committee and to Council
It had three parts to it;
1. Staff was in the process of putting together a shuttle.
. Staff was putting together a '`permit :parking system that would
weak i r the outlying areas to free up some of the parking.
spaces out there. Staff believed -they would receive some
federal funds which would help in that process,
3. Staff was doing a
structure.
i
1 3 2 0
10/5/81
Mr. Zaner said that in short staff was doing a substantial amount
of work, and had done a substantial amount of research on the
question of parking in the downtown area. If the Council wished
to add another piece to that trying to hook- residential into the
Assessment District, he thought that would be an appropriate
additional assignment. He was concerned about making the assign-
ment too broad and going back and reconstructing all of staff's
work on the Downtown Parking Management Plan and in a sense,
setting that aside and starting over again with a new analysis.
He thought that targeting on the one item raised by Councilmember
Fletcher was appropriate and could easily be added to what staff
was now doing.
Councilmember Levy favored Mr. Zaner's proposal and hoped Coun-
cilmember Fletcher would adjust her motion. He thought there was
danger in trying to do too much and accomplishing nothing. He
thought the issue was that commercial came under the Assessment
District and residential did not. What Council should try and do
was get residential into the Assessment District. He would like
to see a study on that limited issue.
Councilmember Renzel said She would oppose any narrowing of the
motion to put residential into the Assessment District. She felt
that the Assessment-_ Districts had been a failure in providing
adequate ,parking for the -downtown. She .said shf. and Frances
Brenner had done a sidewalk survey of all the parking lots that
were shown on the parking lot map about four years ago, and 40%
of them were privately owned. That meant that 40% of that land
which the City perceived as parking downtown could at any time be
removed from parking and fully built with no parking provided.
Any assessments that would go into the Assessment District would
come no where near providing the parking that would be lost and
the parking that would be required by the new development. She
felt that the parking assessment distr i cts were an -anachronism
today. They may have been appropriate years ago when retail
zones were really retail zones, but as the areas had been -more
fully developed, she thought the assessment districts had shown
themselves to be a huge failure. She would hesitate in any way
to expand the scope of any existing assessment district or to
create any new ones. She felt they did not -do the job, . and they
were a cop-out for land use. They provided a builder of a build-
ing with no parking, a special benefit that was not compensated
by the payments to the assessment district, and that. -very little
parking was created by the assessment district. She would not --
support _anything `that resulted in expanding the assessment
district`.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked what happened to the Planning
Commission suggestion that any new construction be required \.to
provide on -site parking; and not just be able to join the assess-
ment district
Mr. Schreiber said that was discussed by Council in February, and
no action was taken on' it. The item was not.. included in the
Comprehensive Plan. He said the minutes reflected all sorts of
comments of how, the item could 'be brought up in the future, but
it had neverbeen sent back to the Commission or acted on.
Councilmember Witherspoon felt that was the source : of the in-
equity of the situation=. She was reluctant to start a whole new
study because in the last seven or eight months she, had been an
active observer of the downtown scene. Whatwas really in demand
was, on -street parking downtown, and one of -the reasons there were
empty .permit . slots included. in:,. City Hall =-and the_ central Core
areas was because everyone -.still wanted to park on the street,
and not pay the fee. She said the. City. had '_.increased the fine,
and- she was hearing the screams of anguish as citizens were
getting $10 and $15 tickets and -sometimes two per day, because
they would not pay the $35 per quarter permit fee. She said
there were empty slots in most of the lots downtown. Although
the parking may not.. be provided where people want -it, which was
behind Woolworths, for all day, there was parking downtown. She
said she would be reluctant to count on that parking for the
-weekends because she had observed_ that on Saturday ft was packed
downtown because everyone -knew the meter maids did not go around,
which would not help the residents much either.
Councilmember Bechtel thought that the -three studies outlined by
Mr. Zaner were all concerning parking of people coming into down-
town Palo Alto either to work or shop. She did not 'think it cov-
ered the issue in the Comprehensive. Plan -which ,Said that the City
wanted to encourage a mix of residential and offices or comber-
cia-1 in the - downtown area. She thought that what Vice Mayor
Fletcher was trying to do was to get that back, and, whether-.. it
was added to the assessment district or however it was done, she
thought Council needed to look at it and see if it could be _done
in a way that evaluated the possibilities for encouraging mixing
of housing in the downtown area, and she thought it was appro-
priate. She would support the motion if it was kept to looking
at -housing aspects.
Vice Mayor Fletcher wanted to limit the motion to the housing
aspects and see what happens. When it came back, if there was
not a solution available just by addressing the housing without
the commercial and office uses, a further assignment could be
made at that time.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned to
p.m.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT
Final adjournment at 11:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
Executive Session re Personnel at 10:15
APPROVED:
1
1