Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-26 City Council Summary MinutesRegular Meeting Monday, October 26, 1981 ITEM PAGE Oral Communicat ions 1 3 8 3 Approval of Minutes 1 3 8 3 Special Orders of . the Day 1 3 8 4 Resolution of Appreciation - Donald H. 1 3 8 4 Maynor Resolution of Appreciation -- Francis V. Meshinski Ccrsent Calendar Consent Calendar Action Tree Trimming and Tree Removal (CMR:491:i) Santa Clara County Contract - Fire Investi- gation Cause and Training (CMR:477:1) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions public Hearing: Tentative Subdivision for Property located at 210, 218, A -=B, 224 -and 228 Waverley Continued to November 23, 1981 Structural Assessment of Civic Center - Budget Amendment (Continued from 10/19/81) (CMR:481:1) Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommenda- tions re Land Use Changes to Major: Institution/. Multiple Family Re':idential and to Open Space Controlled Development Near- the Stanford Arbore- tum (CMR:501:1) Public Hearing: Planning Commission'Recommenda- tions re Changes ,to the Urban Service Area Near Stanford Arboretum Public . Hearing: , Planning Commission and Ar•chi - tectural Review Board Recommendation re the. Appl icati,Qn of Courthouse Plaza for an Amendment to the P -C- Ordinance No. _ 2224 for 260 Sheridan Avenue to 811(9i -one ParkingStructure = (CMR:500 ;1) 1 3 8 4 1 3 8 5 1 3 8 5 1 3 8 5 1 3 8 5 1 385 1 3 8 5 1 3 8 6 1 3 8 7 1 3 8 7 1 396 1381 10/26/81 ITEM Public Nearing; Planning Commission Recommenda- tions re the Application of the City of Palo Alto for a Zone Change for 390 and 440.442, Page Mill Road; to Change 390 Page Mill Road from GM to CN; and 440-442 Page Mill Road from R-1 to RM-5 Historic Resources Board. Recommendations re 2310 Yale Designation as an Historic Landmark. (CMR:470:1) Alma/Embar•cadero Bridge Widening;Feasibility Study (CMR:496:1) Water -Gas -Sewer Training Assessment (CMR:494:1) (CMR:300:1) Joint Powers Agreement Request to Use Landfill (CMR:482:1) Request of Vice Mayor Fletcher re Medfly Spraying Request of Counci member Eyerly re Planned Com- munity Zones Request of Councilrnember Eyerly re Lytton Gardens Nursing Center Adjournment to Executive Session Structural Assessment of Civic Center - ISudgct_ Amendment (Continued -from 10/19/81) (CMR:481:1) Adjournment PAGE 1 3 9.8 1 3 9 9 1 3 9 9 1 4 0 1 1 4 0 3 1 4 0 3 1 4 0 5 1 4 0 6 1 4 0 8 1 4 0 8 1 4 0 9 1 3 8 2 10/26/81 Regular Meeting Monday, October 26, _ 1981 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:45 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel, Levy, Witherspoon, Fazzino, Klein, Eyerly Mayor Henderson announced the need for an executive session re litigation at the end of the meeting. Mayor Henderson welcomed Diane Lee, the new City Attorney. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Geoffrey Thompson, 416 Oxford Avenue, commented on a denial of a zoning variance he had requested. die thought that the particular denial- indicated that -City government did.. not fill itS intended goals. -He said he had developed an .expansion plan. for his• prop- erty which was compatible with existing.. structures in .his neigh- borhood, preserved existing large trees on his tot, considered his- neighbors as well as economy and simplicity of construction. He had hoped to build the structure alone in. maxiMum- conformance with City zoning, He required a -daylight - plane variance -for the garage. The daylight plane he would have blocked involved- no direct sun, it shaded the garage entrance for a multiple -family dwelling at the .rear of both lots. -He said it was at the extreme rear of all the lots concerned. All of the adjoining neighbors had• seen the plans and approved them. The Acting Zoning Adminis- trator who heard the case said it .seemed like the only reasonable way- to achieve the desired results. He felt he must be the victim of a 'new tightening, up ' pol icy on variances. He could appeal the variance, but that would -cost -:$90,.24 sets of plans, and four. -- additional months of time. He thought something was wrong. His current plans were to go ahead and build -a conforming structure, but to-do that, -he -would have less usable space, more expensive. buildings, -4 less attractive building, a building which - did• not match the existing - structures in the area, and a buy ld ng he could' not bui ld himself because .of . the additional structural complexities. He could not understand the denial. MINUTES OF JULY 13 , 1981 Vice Mayor Fletcher had a correction on cage 1049, fifth paragrap , first line - Change "Byron Sher's Office," to "member of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation," Caunci lniernber Witherspoon had corrections as follows: Pale ._1046, second paragraph - Change the . first three lines to read: _ "-Counc i lmernber Witherspoon was concerned ' about who would qualify to vote on conversion. If below -market -rate units were rental units, then..." Page 1050., third to last paragraph, second line - Change "cash how. But . there was..." to "cash flow. There was ..." Page 1062, second paragraph, fifth, 1 ine. - Del ete the sentence ared the traffic c0Agestion problems.", 1:421 .14E.11, second .to last paragraph, last "line - Change "review of the City." to "review if the Comprehensive Plan at a later date." MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Minutes of July 13, 1981 as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION -- DONALD H. MAYNOR MOTION:- Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the resolution of appreciation for Donald H. Maynor. RESOLUTION 5965 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING 'APPRECIATION TO DONALD H. MAYNOR FOR YEARS OF SERVICE" MOTION PASSED unanimously. Mayor Henderson said the best statement he could make of hit. feelings for Edon Maynor is what he responded during the search for a new City Attorney --that Palo Alto needed a new Don Maynor or at least someone with as many of his .qualities as possible. He felt the Council. was extremely fortunate to have Don Maynor available during the interim period between City Attorneys. - Mayor Henderson said Mr. Maynor quickly restored peace and har- mony and brouvht relief as well as his well-known intelligence and integrity to staff and the Council. His service had been outstanding for the entire five years and especially for the last two or three months. On,hehalf of the Council, he wished Mr. Maynor all possible success. Councilmember Eyerly said he wholeheartedly supported the resolution. He said he knew that in the past five years Don had been extremely dedicated to his job. He thought Mr. Maynor was most capable in everything he had undertaken thanks to Don, the City had been able to protect some of the major contracts which were so important to Palo Alto. Mayor Henderson asked Mrs. Maynor to stand and thanked her for all she had done for the City. Mayor Henderson presented Mr. Maynor with a framed resol ution and a plaque. Maynor thanked the Council. He also thanked his wife Karen ;Maynor who had made considerable sacrifices especially during the last four or five months. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION -- FRANCIS V. MESHINSKI MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval.of the resolution of appreciation for Francis V. Meshinski. MOTION PASSED unanimously. RESOLUTION 5966 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE : CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO FRANCIS V. MESHINSKI UPON HIS RETIREMENT" Police Chief_ Jim Zurcher said that on occasion an employee who had given nearly a lifetime of service was honored. In 1950, "Ski" was appointedr'.`as a reserve officer and has served the. City since then. On behalf of the Police Department, Chi ef'Zurcher wishedhim well. Vice Mayor Fletcher said that when her oldest child was in elementary school, she had attended a couple, of programs on road safety of various kinds Sergeant Meshinski was very effective and "popular with the children. She wished him luck. 1 3.8 4 10/26/81 Sergeant Meshinski thanked the Council and staff for the award. He said that no matter how good a person was or would get, there were always people behind him. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 i MOTION: Councilrnember Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the consent calendar. TREE TRIMMING AND TREE REMOVAL (CMR:491:1) Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to: 1. Execute a contract with Pied Piper Exterminators, Inc. in the amount of $99,956 for providing services in conjunction with the City'annual tree trimming program. 2. Execute a contract with Arbor Tree Surgery Company in the amount of $49,990.50 for providing tree trimming services along Arastradero Road. - AWARD OF CONTRACT Arbor Tree Surgery Company Pied Piper Exterminators, Inc. SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONTRACT e FIRE INVESTIGATION CAUSE Staff recommends that: 1. Council .authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Mountain V i ew, Los Angeles -and Santa Clara County Fire Marshall's Office -to provide fire cause investigations and training services. 2. Approve the Budget Amendment to transfer $26,771 from the Capital Projects Reserve to the technical -services account in the Fire Department to cover Palo Alto's share of the cost of - the contract. FIRE CAUSE INVESTIGATION AND TRAINING AGREEMENT- County of Santa Clara, City of Los Altos, City of Mountain View ORDINANCE 3308 enti-fled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1981-82 TO PROVIDE FUNDING IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FIRE CAUSE INVESTIGATION AND TRAINING" MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS -. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Eyerly, 1) to bring Item 7, Public Hearing fo Tentative Subdivision Map at 210, 218 A -B, 220 and 228 Waverley for the purpose of continuance, and 2) to set a study session for November 16 to discuss the - Comprehensive Plan Consistency Requirement: : -of the Subdivision Map Act and multiple -family subdivisions. City Manager Bill 7aner said that staff had requested the - continuance and the applicant concurred. MOTION PASSED unanimously. PsJBL.-IC.- HEARING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT an - MOT1Ot1: MayorHendersonproved, seconded by Eyerly, to continue Item 7, Public Hearing for Tentative Subdivision Map at 210, 218 A -B, 220 and 228 Waverley to November 23. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 1 3 8 5 10/26/81: STRUC ORAL RSSLSSMEN' OF CIVIC CENTER - BUDGET AMENDKENT (CUN I INS `'1U Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt a budget amendment ordinance to increase the appropria- tion for CIP 80-13 by $93,000. 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract for $74,500 with Engineering Analysis Company, Inc. for a seismic risk analy- sis and related work to the Civic Center building. 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the consultant contract of up to 20% of the contract amount. Councilmember Klein said he was concerned about what was being bought. He --asked why the City was spending. this money and what would be accomplished.by the analysis. Particularly, he wanted persuasion•that staff did not already know what:the results --would be. Director of Public Works David 'dams said staff did know that some remedial action would nave to be taken. The main purpose of the study was to make sure that staff did the proper repairs for the least amount of money. If staff just went in and brought the structure up to code, it could costa considerable amount of money and might not be necessary. He said the study would allow staff to determine the effects of an earthquake of various magni- tudes on the building and what the most effective means of remedial measures would be, one of which might be to do nothing Councilmeinber Klein said he thought the consultant already had a good idea of what the City will end up being told it should do, and he was concerned —that that the- .City would get its money's worth. Why did a. study have- to be done, why could the City not just move toward construction or design of what was needed. Mr. Adams said first there must. be something to base the design on. If the staff just went to the current building code, which had changed since the building was designed, and designed a remedial fix which would comply with the current building code, more money would be spent than necessary. Staff's purpose was to spend the least amount of money and come up with the soundest engineering solution. MOTION: Councilmeiuber Klein moved, seconded by Fazzino, approval of the following contract and budget amendment ordinance: AWARD OF CONTRACT Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Incorporated ORDINANCE 3309 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981-82 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 80•-13 "ANALYSIS OF NEED FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS TO CIVIC CENTER" -.Councilmember Levy asked whya budget amendment was necessary rather than being handled in the normal course of the budget pro- cess? Mr. Adams responded that this was something , staff felt should be proceeded with immediately and should not 'wait for the normal budget process. Staff knew that it :was ;-going ` into a preliminary study last Spring, but the outcome was not known. This was an extension of that previous work. Count lmeaber Levy said he was uncomfortable approving a budget amendment for almost $100,0'00. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmernber: Levy ,moved, that the contract 1 3 8 6 10/25/81 and budget amendment be referred to the Finance and Public Works Committee for review. 1 MOTION FAILED for Jack of second. Councilmember ,Eyerly said that seismic analysis was included - in - the work to be done by the consultant, and -he wondered if any of it was spoken to in the 'original design. When the buildi-ng was designed, was any seismic analysis necessary, or was it added to the State code since then? It seemed to him that if it was in the Code when the building was designed, the City was taking the wrong approach to find out about it. Or. Zaner said staff's reluctance to answer the question related to the pending - law suit and they would prefer to answer all questions in executive session. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Klein, to continue tie -item until the end of the agenda, after the Council had held its executive session. MOTION PASSED unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RE LAND USE ANGE5 r7PEN SPACE CONTROLLED DE LI�PMI Nor iTI� TFiAl-`�1I�-i ORe fUM tR : 501: _ °`""'' PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS GES l Planning Commission Chairperson, Jean McCown-Hawkes said it was accurate to say that the recommendations of the Planning Commission as to the areas designated Nos. I, 2, 5 and 6 were basically viewed by the Commission as some clean --up items. She said.they were passed unanimously, consistent with the staff recommendation with relatively little discussion and concern. the principal items in the ?fanning Commission discussion and deliberations were areas 3 and 4. Area 4, the Planning Commission's recommendation related -both to the urban services area change and.. the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation. The Commission's recommendation was to keep the• area out of the City's urban --service area and to redesignate it on the City's Land Use Maps from Major Institution and Special Facilities to Open Space Controlled Development. That was passed by a vote of 5-1, Commissioner Heneke voting "no," on the basis primarily that this area and area 3 should be:treated consistently. 1n _CoM issioner Hencke's view, both sites _would be appropriate for housing. Regarding area 3, by a vote of 4-2, the Commission recommended including_ area 3 within the urban services area and changing the Land Use Designation from Major Institutions and Special Facilities to Major Institutions/ Multiple -Family. Residential. Commissioners Christianson and Cullen voted in - oppositioh to the urban service area change. After that change, the Commission considered the Land Use Designation Con'missioners Christian"son. and Cullen supported the Land Use Designation but opposed bringing it in to the urban services area. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open Phi_ l Williams, Planning Director, Stanford University, said that if it was any reassurance, they were in agreement with 0:i Planning- Commission on five out of the six parts of the land. use, P commendations., - Stanford did not want., to appear quarrelsome on an item that may not have any real permanent implications -on the course of events, but felt that the items should be discussed. He said that City sta r had conducted' an extremely thorough study of the history and issues involved in the urban service area 1 3 8 .7 10;26/81 designations in the six areas ire-ar the Stanford_Arboretum. Stanford felt that the staff recommendations were correct :and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, on principle, it was important to forward them intact as the recommendations to:Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). However, the Planning Commission recommendation differed from the staff recommendation for area 4, the S.7 acre parcel on Quarry Road between Hoover Pavi l l ion and Arboretum Road. JAlthough the site was there and was never part of the Arboretum, the Comrni ssi on reconnnended a designation of Opp! Space Control led Development. and exclusion from the urban service area form Site 4. At the same time, the' Commission recommended a multiple -family housing designation _and inclusion in the urban- service area -for area 3, with which Stanford concurred. Stanford felt this was a situation where positions hardened while some of the issues were still fuzzy. Mr. Williams said that while areas 3 and 4 -were •similar, there was a difference politically, which was given special attention in the CS Zone Agreement, --Area No. 4 was in Area A of the -CS Agreement which --provided, independently of the physical characteristics, that no development could occur there without a special use permit and resulting public hearings. The wording of that agreement established a „difference and a means for accoirrmoda-ci ng that difference. As an overlay to normal land ise and zoning provisions, past and current designations recognized those two parcels as different from the Arboretum and as having potential academic use, while the CS Zone Agreement had retained a means for giving any such proposal close scrutiny. Furthermore, any use other than academic, such as general housing would also require a request for annexation to Palo Alto. Stanford thought that was the best way to handle the situation, and it would avoid unnecessary inconsistency both in the Comprehensive Plan and LAFCO determinations. Mr•. Williams said that for many years Stanford had considered using Area 4 for additional shopping center parking. This was no longer the case, and Stanford had advised their tenants in the center. Area 4 was rot like area S which was wooded and was a buffer along El Camino. Area 4 was like Area 3 and the planning designations should recognize that. He said that the CS Zone Agreement recognized other interests in Area 4, and provided protection for those interests. Stanford recommended to the Council and to LAFCO that areas 3 and 4 both be included in the urban service area and be designated as Major Institutions/ Multiple -Family Housing. Cournc i lmember Bechtel asked Mr. Williams what Stanford's plans were for those parcels for the next five years? Mr. Williams responded that nothing specific was planned for those parcels. StanforCliad concl uded that the most likely use of any would be for housing, and they would prefer to wait until the Stanford West Project had been taken further, and their Comprehensive Housing Plan completed before specific plans were made for those areas. Councilmember Witherspoon asked Mr. Williams, if the Planning Commission recommendation were approved and parcel' 4 was given a different designation than parcel 3, and then Stanford wished to. develop housing on those two parcels, what procedures would Stanford have to go through to get them consistent. Mr. Williams said he understood Stanford would have forgo through LAFCO as well as the Palo Alto City Council. undoubtedly, Stan- ford would plan them both together, because Stanford felt they 1 3 8. 8 10/26/81 1 were related to each other. If one were in the urban services area and had a designation which was concurrent with Stanford's plan and the other did not,.Stanford would have to go to the Palo Alto City Council first with a recommendation to LAFCO for a change_ in the urban services area and a change in. the Land Use Plan designation. He understood that all of these things could happen, but it would add a level of complications and tended to give a different signal than Stanford preferred. Councilne€giber Fyerly said that regarding what plans Stanford might have for that parcel within the next five -years that the Pianninq Commission had recommended to the Council as open space, he assumed that Stanford had some long-range planning .out there and he .asked Mr. Wi 11 ians if, in that long-range planning, Stanford had that property designated as open space, or whether it was earmarked for some type of development? Mr. Williams responded that Stanford's Land Use plan designated both of those areas as academic related, which in Stanford's definition meant that they could be research related for academic programs, or housing of a general nature such as that planned for - Stanford West. Nancy Alexander, 755 Newell Road, member of. the County Planning Commission, complimented staff on a well -prepared report. She agreed with staff on the designations_ of Items 1., 2, 5' and 6, and with the Planning Commission on the designations for Area 4. With respect to Area 3, she thought it should remain outside of the urban service area along with Area 4 because the purpose of the urban service area was to invite or entertain development within the next five years. If Palo Alto was not anxious for development in Areas 3 or 4 within the next five years, it did not belong within the urban service area. She thought the urban service area was something that could be changed very readily when the time came. In the event Stanford came up with a pro- posal for housing in those areas within four to six years, they could process the change in the urban service area with LAi=CO at the same time as their petition for annexation. It was not com- piica ed. She thought that an advantage to be gained by Palo. Alto keeping the area outside of the urban service area at this time would be that Palo Alto was committed to -very large projects in the area of the Stanford Shopping Center in the short run -- mainly, the 46 acres which would be intensive housing, and the new department store. Palo -Alto had projected impacts for those two projects, and by areas 3 and 4 being kept outside --of the urban service area now, it would be able to access with certainty the impacts of those projects in the area of the -Stanford Shopping Center. She said that by then the projected impacts would be history because Palo Alto would know what in fact the traffic impacts were which might alter the density that the Council would entertain for parcels 3. and 4. She thought that was an important reason for the Council to keep those two areas out of the urban service area at this -time Councilnember Witherspoon asked for clarification that Ms. Alexander Wid suggested that parcels 3 and 4 remain outside of the urban service area, but did not speak to whether both parcels should have the same kind of zoning. Ms. Alexandersaid she thought if- the Council kept them out of the urban service area, they did not really need an urban desig- nation. She recommended they be kept in a -Controlled develop= ment,` open space designation. She pointed out that down line, she thought Area 3 was a very good"housing site. She did not think the door should be; closed on housing, but right now, for the next five years there was no plan for a specific develop- ment there -so it did not need to be an urban service area. When the time care, the Council would know the effects of the develop.- ment. and would be in a- better position to evaluate the total situation. She said the area was heavily impacted and would. be heavily impacted, and -Council would eventually be pressured to extend`Willow Road. She thought that Council needed to look at .the holding capacity of that area which included the Stanford Stopping Center, and the 46 acres, and the new department store. She thought that if the Council kept this area outside of the urban service area for the next five years, Council would .have all the information needed to make a better decision down the line. Councilmember Bechtel said that if the Council went along -with the Planning Comnriss.ion's recommendation for Area 3 and did change the urban service area boundary, that parcel would not be in the City limits of Palo Alto and would be within the urban service area. What process would Stanford follow to develop that parcel for academically related housing, and:would it come to the Council? Ms. Alexander responded that it would not go to Council. It would only _come to.the Council if it was within Palo Alto's ,jurisdiction --if Palo Alto annexed the property. For an. academic use,. it would not come to the Council, however, under Stanford's current operative blanket use permit with the County, that area was designated as open space. The. process Would be that Stanford would go to the County for any, variation to the blanket use permit or for a special .use permit. She said it would involve public hearings, referrals to Palo Alto which the County considered very seriously, and then the County Planning Commission would vote on it. A decision would be appealable to the Board of Supervisors. She said the only way for 'Palo Alto to gain control Over that area would be to annex it. Ms. Alexander said that the effect the change in the urban ser- vice area would have, was that the County would --say that Palo Al to was open to urban development because the property was placed in an urban service area. When the County' saw land in an urban service area, At inferred that the locality was open to urban type densities in that land. The County would look more favorably upon urban development in Parcel 3 if it were within .the urban service area, --and even if it- were outside o'f Palo.Alto. But, if it were outside' of the urban service area and Stanford carne in for the same kind of development, i.e., student and faculty housing, then the County would note that Palo Alto had not given the green light for development in that area. - Once the property was put in the urban service area, Palo Alto would be asked for comment, but the signal for development was considered given. Counci lmember Henze] asked if Palo Alto's comments were given at the Staff level? Mr. Freeland said that on Stanford's campus there were several formal areas for review and comment. Parcel No. 4 was in one of those areas --it was Area A under the CS Zo'ie Agreement. He said that within that area there was a formal referral that did go to the Planning Commission and the Council for an opinion. Also, there . was an Area B which had a formal referral. He said that Area 3 was not in one of the formal referral areas- it went automatically to the Planning Commission. There was a staff referral of all projects. For a brief period there was not :a staff referral, but . ib- hadt been reinstated and they were -coming through. However, he said staff had the authority,* if the 1 3 9 0 10/26/81 project appeared to be of major significance, to place it on an agenda. The only problem there was that if the time for approval at the County was excessively short, there might be difficulty in getting a full approval cycle. He said staff would intend to refer any major projects in an area like this, Councilmember Renzel said she read somewhere that Palo Alto had a 35 -day period to comment. She asked if it was sometimes shorter than that? Mr. Freeland said he thought ' hat was correct. He said staff depended on the type of a project that might be before the County for exactly what the nature of the referral would be. Director of Planning and Community Environment, Ken Schreiber said that it was 35 days usually. from the date put on a letter. Sometimes ti.e letter did not arrive in Palo Alto for a week or two or three. 'However, Stanford's staff was extremely good at getting Palo Alto the information before it went to the County. On any develpnent of this area, past history was cons Stent that Stanford's staff worked very closely with City staff prior to starting the County process. Palo Alto Planning Commissioner, Pat Cullen said she was one of the minority, on Area 3, and she pointed out that there was a legal diffence between Areas 3 and 4. Area 4 fell under the CS Zone. Agreement, Area 3 did not. She urged the Council not to treat the two areas the same. There was a deliberate buffer in there, and ten years ago, it was a very serious concern in the community, She suspected that if the area started being devel- oped, Palo Alto would d ee the concern again. She pointed out that about once a year Stanford came in to have the area between Arboretum Road and Campus Drive, between -Palm and Quarry, redesignated from open space, controlled development to major institutions/special facilities, which was part of Stanford's commitment to keep as much flexibility in their land use as pos- sible. It was also part of Palo Alto's prerogative to see .that such flexibility did not destroy the environmental quality of the .community. She said that if that area: were to be developed, nudging into that was another "approach" to that kind of redesig- nation, Council would find that' the next side of the trap might become a rectangle. On behalf of the minority, and the people who had followed this through the years, she urged the Council to leave the urban service line in area 3 where it was, and to support the compliance of the urban service area, and Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan with CS Zone Agreement in the Area A. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Witherspoon asked about the difference between the two parcels regarding the designations. Mr. Freeland said that under the CS Zone Agreement, four different areas were in_effect on .Stanford land. Area A, which ran all along El Canino, was an area that was essentially an open space designation- in which AUStanford wished to develop anything structural, there was.a special use permit process required. --Area A not only had a -referral back and forth between the County and the City, but required `a special .'use perrw t by the County in order tce be developed, Area 8 required a simple project : referral. .Area C, the land in the foothills on the other_ side- of -280, were in an .open -space category `►here . no building over 5,000 square feet could .be .erected That also required a "special`' referral . -- The fourth area on campus wa.s: all of the - part of the .campus, not in rea` fit, 'B .o.r In all of the -vest of. the, -campus, 1.3 9 1 10/26/81 development simply proceeded under the guidelines of the County's own blanket use permit for Stanford. He said there was a staff referral of projects and staff could bring applications before the. Planning Council and from there to the City Council. He pointed out that it was not a formal referral process, Councilmember.Witherspoon said that in other words, no matter where the urban service boundary line was or what the designation of the land use on Site No. 4 turned .oat . to be, in any case, since it was in the A designation, it would always require a_ - special use permit to have a building ,pot on it. Mr. Freeland said so long as At was in Santa Clara County ---the use permit was a rider on the blanket use permit .of the County. Couricilmember Witherspoon clarified that unless it was annexed by the City, those who were concerned about the kind of development or any development on that site, were protected on parcel 4 versus parcel 3.:,by the special designation;. She said that ft was probably a neat point what the actual zoning map in Palo Alto's case said. In any case, it would have to go through a very special review. Mr. Freeland said that was correct, Mr. Schreiber said that if Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan gave it a designation of open space, controlled development, that would -be a pretty clear indication to both Stanford and the County that Palo Alto would oppose any type of housing use, campus use, of that property in the staff -or Planning Commission review of a proposed development. If, however, it was multiple -family resi- dential of some type, that would be an indication that Palo Alto would be somewhat favorably disposed, depending upon the specifics of the project. Councilniember Witherspoon said there were two issues --where the urban service area line would be, and- how the two sites would be desigated. Mr. Freeland said staff hoped that the two decisions would follow together logically ---that if the land was in an open space desig nation, it should be, excluded from the urban service area. If it was to be designated in Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan for an urban type of density, then it should be included in the urban service area. He said it was true that the urban service area had a five-year implication to it, but, in fact, all of Stanford's central campus was in .the urban service area, and not all of the land was slated for development in the next five years. For consistency with the way that other Stanford land was treated, staff thought it made sense that it was going to be a development designation, it should be in the urban service area; and open space should be --outside the 'urban service area. - Mr. Schreiber said he thought it was important to remember that the Palo'Alto Plan was a 15 -year plan. He thought that was -:the time frame which was most appropriate. in looking at 'the land use designation, and then as Mr. Freeland had indicated, the urban service decision should flow out of -that land use decision. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that in addition to what Council wanted to do with the land, they should think of it in terms of a time -factor. as well? Mr. Schreiber thought that if, as staff believed, the land -would be developed within the next 15 years, then it was appropriate to 1 3 9 2 10/26/81 be designated multiple -family residential and be included in the urban service -area. Councilmember Renzel asked if the Council put, for example, Area 4 into the Planning Commission's recommendation which was out of the urban service area and into open space controlled develop- ment, and if Stanford decided to put housing on that parcel, could Stanford come in and apply for a Comprehensive Plan change and an urban service area revision? Mr. Schreiber said yes, Stanford cou"Ed do that. He thought that staff, in looking at the' range of recommendations on this, was cognizant of the fact.that if it Was once in an open spade con- trolled development category, it became much more difficult to get the land use changed to something that had a more intensive development potential. He thought that staff's.second concern with the open space/controlled development designation for Area 4 was whether it really__fit into how the City defined open space/ controlled development in other areas and historically this area had not been part of the Arboretum. That had been the basis for. making decisions as to whether Stanford should get open space/ controlled development designation in this area or they should.. not get that type of designation. He said that went back to the 1972 open space plan in which areas 3 and 4 were outside. of the open space/controlled development designation. They were desig- nated as urban development. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded . by Fletcher, to adopt Planning Commission recommendation for Areas 1 and 4 to amend the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as follows: "Land Use Plan Map (a)- Change the land use designation of a strip of land near El Camino Real from Major Institution/Special Facilities to Open Space . .. Controlled Development as shown on attached Exhibit "A"; (b) Change the land use `designation of the triangular area at the northeast corner of Quarry -Arboretum intersection from Major institution/Special Facilities to Open Sapce ... Control ed`Development as shown on attached Exhibit "B"; that Area 4 be -excluded from the Urban Service Area; that Area 3 be designated Open Space 3.. Controlled Development and removed from the Urban Service Area and that the boundary be realigned to Quarry Road. RESOLUTION 5967 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO Councilmember Renzel said she felt that back in 1972 and 1973 or prior a careful look was► riot made to this area in terms of the timing of development, and the overall intensity of the area. She thought the City had witnessed an enormous amount of. construction in that area. She thought it was most appropriate for the Council to reserve for a future more enlightened decision ,the matter of whether there should be urban development and to what extent in that area. Councilmember Witherspoon said she thought the issue was whether Palo Alto wanted to, encourage Stanford to develop the property sooner than it would otherwise. She did not think -there was any question that in the next 20 years with the housing crunch not getting any better that Stanford would have to put housing of some sort on the site. She was not clear whether it was not a better site to have for housing than the Willow Road, 46 - acre site because it was much more contiguous to other: development. plus it was buffered by the Arboretum. She did not share the concern that Palo Alto was encouraging Stanford to develop because it was designated that way. She thought that especially in the case of Parcel 4, that since it was in the magical desig- nation A, it would get special consideration before it could ever be developed. She said it seemed to be too late to put Parcel 3 1 3 9 3 10/26/81 in that category which would probably reassure a number of people. She thought both parcels should be treated the same only she would like to see them designated Major Institution/Special Facilities, Multiple -family housing. She would vote against the motion. Mayor Henderson said the Council would divide the motion and vote on Area 3 and Area 4 separately. Councilmember Klein said he would -Support the motion. He thought it was a symbolic issue to consider the message the Council would_ send and who was receiving it. TO some degree, the message was being received -by people in San Jose and the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors who would not be privy to all of the discussions at the Palo Alto City Council meeting, and they might consider this four or five years from now. He --was concerned that if the Council designates this as multiple -family, residential at this parti-cular point in time, somewhere down the line it would be read as "Palo Alto endorses the proposal arid thus does not have to be listened to as carefully as it might otherwise be." He thought the site may be appropriate for housing, but there were no plans for development now, and he thought the Council wanted to consider all the impacts which resulted in that area from Stanford West, the new department store, and maybe the four movie theaters. In any event, he thought it was going to be a sensitive area, and the Council should not say. that it wanted ter go forward with development at this time. Also, in general hr'oughout the Coonty, urban service area did mean something that wouid be developer: in the next five years, He did not think :it did much yocr.d for the Council to say that in Palo Alto we meant 15 years rather than -five years. Further, Councilmember Klein thought the. Council needed to be consistent with their desires for other cities in the County. In general,'he he thought the Council's position was that it did not want to see cities prematurely developing their land. When the other cities designated property for urban service area, they meant they were going to go ahead and develop it. Premature development of turban service areas was not something to be encouraged.. He thought -the City was better off having the property outside 'the urban service area, designated as controlled development. When and if Stanford formulates plans it thinks are in the community's .best interests and in the university's best interests to move forward, then the procedures were readily available, but the City would have the advantage of starting with a clean slate and not having any implication that could be read into the Council's prior acts that they were really ready to go forward. Councilmember Eyerly said that_ regarding the designation placed on this ,land _by the Council being read by the County and others, his thought went in the other direction from Councilmember Klein's comments. He believed.. that the two parcels, numbers 3 and 4, should be zoned major institution/multiple-family \, residential_ so. that CouHicil gave a signal= to Stanford that they were interested in what they had .been talking about for the last six or seven years, that . Stanford provide more housing to help relieve the City of Palo Alto. - If the Council did not make that desivnation, they were delaying a decision that would have to come sooner or later. He thought it behooved the .. Council to move along, that it was a logical place for housing. It was all entwined with the other requests for housing that Palo Alto had placed with Stanford, particularly with the Willow Road housing, and it did not seem proper to delay the action. If the zoning were changed,,` it would be a definite delay when Stanforddecided that it wanted to go for some housing there. People would be 1 1 1 used to the open space designation. He recommended that Areas 3 and 4 be put in the multiple -family residential zoning. Councilmember Bechtel concurred that there was need for housing and Palo Alto had been encouraging Sta-ford to provide it, but she also felt that Stanford was not ready to build that housing on those parcels. Nancy Alexander's points were very good particularly that the ,Council would have a chance to see the effects of the various projects currently in the works. If the . Council Waited, she did not feel Stanford would be delayed in :any way when they came to the point when they were ready for some housing. She said it was a relatively simple process to go through, to get an -urban service area boundary change. If the Council.waited, they could be very sure that the City would be notified and would-be involved in the decisions. She would Support the ;potion. Vice Mayor Fletcher said there was an intensive development going on.in that area, .and since there was no immediate plan .for housing on that large parcels she thought it would be a good idea to wait to see what the effects were of the development. She said that Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan received major revisions every. five years., and if there was a proposal for housing before that, the Comprehensive Plan could be amended before then. She did not think it was any barrier at this point to hold off desig- natiny that particular parcel. Mayor Henderson said he had been concerned for years about Area 3 because he used to hear about it in terms of academic facil ivies --not housing --then parking possibilities. He said the Council was constantly saying they wanted to provide housing and then they discouraged housing by the actions they took. He thought this was another case where the Council was saying they wanted housing, but ... lie was prepared to give the signal that housing was what the City did Want in Area 3, and was ready to encourage Stanford to move in that direction, Stanford could not move any faster than was economically feasible anyhow. ,Ile would rather have that signal and did not think the permanent open space type designation was practical for that particular piece of property. He thought the Council needed to state now what they would encourage and he thought it should be housing. He would oppose the portion of the motion related to Area 3. Councilmember Renzel commented that she supported Stanford's pro- viding housing on campus and on the 4b.acres,'and other housing that Stanford was providing. She thoug'h't that the Council should not be confused with respect to the two parcels in thinking. that they were the only two parcels where Stanford :night have options to place housing in the future, and with what priority they might c-hoose those sites. She said the entire area designated major lastitution/special facilities allowed housing to be built. Cer- tainly there was a low density, what was originally intended to, be temporary housing development, on Sarah Street and campus - Drive that could ultimately be redeveloped: to that much higher a density to provide nearby_ housing. -She did not think the issue of housing should necessarily be confused with the. land use. des- iynat,ion and urban service area designation.for this site. Stanford had many sites on which it had opportunities_to'provide housing, the' City ;did .not ;snow at this point what Stanford's priorities were with respect: to those sites, but_ she thought the . Council should establish its priorities at _this- time with respect to thin site'so that this Council could allow a future Council to determine,d. in view of the either developments which "will have occurred .in that area, the appropriate density 'and type of development that should occur there. 1 3 9 5 10/26/81 MOTION PASSED to approve Area 3 Land Use Designation and exclude all of it from the Urban Service Area by a vote of 5.4 as follows: AYES: Renzel, Klein, Fletcher, Bechtel, Levy NOES: Eyerly, Henderson, Fazzino, Witherspoon MOTION PASSED to approve Area 4 Land Use Designation and exclude all of it from the Urban Service Area by a vote of 7-2, Eyerly and Witherspoon voting "no. MOTION PASSED to amend the Palo Alto Urban Service Area to exclude Areas 1, 2, 5 and 6 by a vote of 8-1, Eyerly voting "no." MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt proposed Resolution with the amendment that Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 be removed from the Palo Alto Urban Service Area (Area 1 - being the Area 1 referred to 6A). RESOLUTION 5968 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO MAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) REGARDING AN AMEND- MENT TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA OF THE CITY TO REVISE BOUNDARY NEAR THE CAMPUS OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 5852" Councilmember Renzel asked if the Council had to send Area 3 back to the Planning Commission for. a report because the .Council made a change? Mr. Schreiber said Area 3 would go back to the Commission --the Council could not take action. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Eyerly voting "no. RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW B RO JN HIM USLY RED ENY APPROVAL Cr ITH} APPLICATION -OF COuR HOUSE PLh7A r(R AN AMENDMENT Tb THE - A G J i ISU . 1 ui is . �[� ruk L0U J�SLK1UHr'r 'iYtNUL tU I-LLUW sl it • 1 Councilmember Klein advised that he would not be part.te-ipating on this item. Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown-Hawkes said that originally this was presented a two separate parking structures, Parking Structure A and Parking Structure 8, and the Planning Commission at. its first review of this recommended denial of the application ,for denial. of Parking Structure 8 basically on the:. grounds that it was not -necessary for the office building --that the site would be better used for multiple -family residential uses. It did recommend approval of the Parking Structure A. Structure A went on through the Architectural Review Board (ARB) renew, and came back through the Planning Commission_and was given unanimous approval. Mayor Henderson asked if the Council had to formally reject Parking Structure 8 in its -action tonight. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. 'Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open, and receiving no requests from, the public to speak declared the public hearing closed. 1 3 9 6. 10/26/81 MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon. noved, seconded by Levy, to approve the Planning Commission/Architectural Review Board recom- mendations that (1) The entrance ramp have a height limitation control including both the physical structure and sign program that accomplishes the goal of limiting high roofl ine vehicle access to the lower level so that free line of sight vision is protected for cars on the off -ramp to Birch Street; (2) The siyriaye program return to the, Architectural Review Board; (3) The material be concrete with Surface and color to match .:the existing Courthouse Plaza Office building; (4) Cracked and broken curb, gutter, and sidewalk be replaced; (5) -Abandoned driveways be replaced with standard curbs and gutters; (.6) Abandoned concrete slabs be removed; (7) A drainage system within the: properties be designed subject__ to approval by the City Engineer; (8) No state trees be removed or _relocated without. a prior permit from the City's Parks'Department; (9) A11 landscaping in street right -of way be subject to.approval by the Parks Department; (10) A handi- capped ramp be constructed on both corners of the Sheridan Avenue and Park Boulevard intersections; (11) All lights:be on timers or photocells; and that Parking Structure B be denied. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO_ ALTO AMENDING THE PC ORDINANCE I0. 2224 TO INCLUDE Ai VARKING STRUCTURE AT THE CORNER OF BIRCH STREET AND SHFRIDAN AVENUE" Counci liuember Renzel asked if she was correct that there was only one entrance to the parking garage on the Park Boulevard end of the _block so that hopefully a backup of traffic would not be caused from the Birch/Sheridan intersection? Mr. Freeland said that was correct. At staff "_s request, the entrance to the parking garage was at that end of the property in order to keep the traffic away. Councilmember. Renzel asked if when the traffic exited did staff contemplate any conflict with any traffic coming off of Park Boulevard on to Birch? Mr. Freeland said no problem was contemplated. He said the site was presently being used for parking as was the area indicated for Structure B, so that the traffic which was going to be at the structure was traffic already coming from the same area. Counc i lmember Renzel asked .what was meant by "limiting high roofline vehicle access to the lower level so that free line of sight vision is protected?" Mr. Freeland said that the off ramp off Oregon Expressway came up a hill and made a sharp bend to the right. He said it was pres- ently difficult to see around that corner even without a. parking structure there. It was difficult because there was a slight hill, some ivy, and it Was mounted up. He said that in the pro- cess of designing the 'structure, visibility around that corner would be somewhat improved by having, the second level of parking set back on the property so that it was not in the way at all i n terms of the line of sight vision coming around that corner, and the lower level was going to be slightly depressed to the ground. That would mean that a compact car parking in the lower level, at the part of the structure nearest Birch Street, would, be actually below the line of sight one would be looking at. He said that was f i E)e so long as it was a compact .car, - if a van were to park in the part of the structure. nearest Birch Street, then there would be a tall obstacle in the way of the line of sight vision. The solution;was to build a barrier and to put signs that would prevent vans and other large vehicles from getting in to the part of the structure where they might park; and obscure the vision. Councilmefber Levy said that with regard to handicapped parking, there were only two handicapped spots in the whole -garage, and he asked if that were enough? Mr. Freeland said the structure had been checked out with the City's present ordinance requirements, and it did meet the requirements. He said originally several additional handicapped parking spots were intended, but were lost in the redesign of the building in order to meet the City's safety. requirements. Counci lrriember Levy said the handicapped parking spaces seemed to be in a place that was not as convenient as it ought to be to the entrar.eto the Courthouse Plaza. Should they not be located more in the center of the garage? - Mr. Freeland said there was a ramp immediately adjacent to then for access off of that structure which were located at the most convenient spot for the use of the ramp rather than the stairs. Councilmernber Levy said as he read the plans, there were two ramps coming out of the garage, and if people wanted to turn right coming out of the garage, wouldn't one of the ramps interfere with the other? Mr,, Freeland said that was a possibility which would also be there without ramps, and there was simply a driveway where people were turning in one lane and out the tithes. Mr. Schreiber said that the plans had been reviewed very thor- oughly -by the Transportation staff and engineers and analyzed for site distances and conflict points, etc., and they were comfortable with it as a workable solution given the size of the structure, the number of cars, use patterns, etc. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein "not participating." PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL 0FTT{ C F CHANGE FOR - MILL= ROAL) FROM- GM. TO CIS; - u F T A -D MM "1-I T) Planning Commission Chairperson, Jean McCown-Hawkes said that the changes were initiated by the City to change the zoning consistent with the changes made to the Land Use Map in March,. 1981. -She highlighted the recommendation of RM-5 for the property at 440.442 Page Mill Road because the Commission felt that if there was any kind of location in the City that could handle the highest density zoning it had, it Would be a location such as this which would have relatively less chance of impacting neighborhoods and where there was potential to do some buffering of the property from Page Mill Road. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Receiving no' requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Eyerly said in considering changing the zoning to CN, he wondered why the City had not recommended multiple -family. He asked staff about the viabiAity of changing the zoning to Neighborhood Commercial because he could not see any uses for tnat site other than housing. He thought the other types of 1 3 9 8 1.0/26/81 uses that could be put there would be misplaced. Mr. Schreiber said that the decision as to the Land Use Designa- tion was made when the Comprehensive Plan was updated a year ago. This area was scrutinized and designated neighborhood commercial because of the service station. He said the feeling was to put in that designation and have the zoning followed from that. In multiple -family, the .Comprehensive Plan would have to be changed, and once it was zoned a multiple -family designation, then the service station would be amortized so it would :have fifteen years or somewhat more. This way, the service station was felt to be a viable, acceptable use, and once in this zone, it could get a use permit and could continue. Councilmember.Eyerly clarified that if it did go to neighborhood commercial, this service station with the use permit, which would undoubtedly be issued, coiid continue forever, whereas if it were chary -gad to multiple -family, it would have to have an amortized time. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. MOTION: Councilmernber Fazzino moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt Planning Commission recommendations that the project will not have a significant environmental impact-;: that the CN zoning for the parcel at ,390 Page Mill Road and RM-5 zoning for parcel at 440-442 Page Mill Road are compatible with the surrounding zoning and are consistent With the Comprehensive Plan, and approve the designations of the CN and RM-5 zones. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "=ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 390 PAGE MILL ROAD FROM GM TO CN MW PROPERTY KNOWN AS 440.442 PAGE MILL ROAD FROM R-1 TO RM-5" MOTION PASSED unanimously. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD RECOMMENDS RE 2310 YALE DESIGNATION. AS I aISiORIC LAtDMARK (C R:T70:1) `'` Staff recommends that Council approve the recommendation of the Historic Resources Board for Landmark Designation of the resi- dence at 2310 Yale Street, and instruct the City Clerk to so inform the owner and to file notice of this designation in the Building and Planning Department files. MOTION Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt the. Historic Resources Board .recommendation that: 2310 Yale Street be designated as an historic landmark. Councilmernber Witherspoon asked if anyone had responded to the Emile McAnany; s letter? Mr. Schreiber said he understood that the Zoning Administrator, Bob Brown had been in contact with the owners and would continue to be as the process moved along. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ALMA/EMBARCADERO BRIDGE WIDENIPW FEASIBILITY STUDY (CMR:496:1) Staff recommends that' Counc i l v. 1 3 9 9 10/26/81 -- 1. Accept the findings and recommendations of the feasibility report for widening the Alma Street bridge at Crnbarcadero Road. 2. Adopt a motion finding that the project will not- have a sig- nificant environmental impact. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fazzino,- to accept the findings and recommendations'of the feasibility report, and tnake-a finding that the project would not have a significant environmental impact. Councilmember Levy asked if, in doing this, Council was doing no more than accepting the report. Cour.cil was not moving forward with any -of the recommendations of the report. Director of Public Works, David Adams said that was correct. Councilmember Bechtel said that various. people had pointed -out that the bridge, by narrowing that way, was a natural break between the -35 mile -per -hour speed limit and the 25 mile -per -hour. speed limit and signaled -drivers to slow down, which she thought was a -valid point. She said staff had given statistics that this - was really a safety hazard and that there had been eight accidents. She asked how this compared with other areas of Palo Alto, and was it, in fact, serious enough -to justify the $500,000 or.mare'potential cost of widening? • Mr. Adams said those answers would be addressed by staff- in the future, which was why -the staff report said this would be con- sidered for inclusion in a future Capital Improvement -Project. Councilmember Bechtel, said that in accepting the report, the report indicated that of the five or six alternatives, the first alternative was ,to not do anythinga which was- considered by the consultants to not. be feasible and was definitely not recom- - mended, while the recommended action was the particular: design building on the easterly side of the:.,bridge or expanding in that direction. Council was accepting thiase, recommendations which would 'be to move ahead at some future point. Mr. Adams clarified that if the City was to take care of the problem, it would pretty much have to do what was recommended in the report. He understood Councilmember Bechtel's question to deal with the economics involved and whether the work was of the value estimated--$50(1,00(1--and that had to be weighed against other projects that should be done and the risk involved. That world be analyzed, but if the City was going to do the project, staff agreed with the recommendations of the consultant, that option 5..should be done. Councilmember Klein said the recommendation in the report said to accept the findings and recommendations of the feasibility report which did make it a natter of policy set by the City Council that they were in favor of widening the bridge.. The question. would be whether the City could find the money to do so. City Manager, Bill Zaner.said that staff was intending to say that the consultant had made a series "of findings and rude some recommendations. Staff concurred that if Council. wished to do the bridge, the alternative which should be followed was Alterna- tive No. 5. Staff was not persuaded that the bridge needed to be done. Staff proposed to come to Council at. CIP time with, a pro- ject with a recommendation to. Council that it be done. The pur- pose was to eliminate the other four alternatives : if possible. 1 4 0 0 10/26/81 J) If staff was going to do some analysis and design, they needed to know what they were going to shoot toward. He -said staff wanted to analyze the necessity for doing the project with alternate 5. Staff might come to the Council with a recommendation that they did not think it was worth doing. Councilmember Klein asked if it would be better for the Council to say that they were merely receiving the resort. Mr. Zaner-said yes. MOTION PASSED unanimously. WATER -GAS -SEWER- TRAINING ASSESSMENT (CMR:494:1) (CMR:300:1) Staff recommends that Council approve the award of the contract to Gilbert Associates, Inc. Councilrnember Eyerly said he hid no problem ..with the need for the assessment, but he had thought the approach was basically wrong. He thought the City had something going here for which Utilities was pioneering the `way on this type of audit,--a.nd he thought the same work could well bedone for other.departments within the City. He said he would like to see the city have someone on the staff, part of whose job it would be to handle that type of thing. He knew it would save the City money in the long run. eHe said that of the $15,000 which was going to be given to this one consultant for this one audit and recommendation, a considerable amount of staff time -would also be consumed which he felt would be better- spent by -.someone within the staff doing the audit as part of their job He thought it was too easy for staff to turn to consultants when their staff positions were not filled, and something needed to be done. He thought it was the wrong policy for the Council to allow to be followed because there were monetary problems within the City, and he thought this was a way the City could economize. Councilmember Eyerly said he was yet to be convinced that this study could not be done with personnel which have either not been hired, or that could not be designated from the Utilities Department or another department. Mr. Zaner reminded the Council that in this year's budget pro- cess, the Personnel Department requested funds to have the approe priate staff in the appropriate department to be able to do that. The training person was removed from the budget --it was a half time person that Mr. Zaner had requested. In addition, a half- time recruiter was removed from the'•.budyet. He said -.staff was now 40 positions behind in their recruiting, and as a result, there were not sufficient resources in the Personnel Office, and staff was unable to provide the services to .the ;1 ine departments for their needs. He said that Mr. Aghjayan was in a fortuitous position because his budget had enough flexibility that he could afford to make this type of request and get a program moving. He deid not know where the funds could come out of other line departments. He -felt the solution was to, put the function in the Personnel Office. Mayor Henderson said he remembered the debate ,quite well and the presentation,. made by staff. The majority of the Council decided to el iMinate that: position, and he did not se.e what alternative staff had except to recommend a consultant when there was a specific need in the Utilities Department. 1 4 0 1 10/26/81 Councilmernber Eyerly said he thought Mayor Henderson was correct, but he did not think that at the time that` position was presented =to -the Council that it was explained that this was the type of work that person would be doing. He thought that with the number of positions Which were added to this year's budget, with the positions that were not filled within the staff, that there were personnel which could do this type of work.- He tel t the position could be squeezed out of the current budget. Director of Utilities Edward Aghjayan said that in this case staff was looking for a -consultant who had -not -only experience in training needs and training programs; but also who had opera- tional experience in Utilities. He said -it was difficult to find personnel and training consultants who also had experience in Util hies_ operations. Staff wanted someone who had looked at .15 -or'2O -other utilities, and only a -consultant could provide that. It was very difficult to find an in-house staff person who could lend that kind of broad prospective. to an assignment - such as this. The study would go•into a full-blown operational audit as well as recommending improvements - in work -flow management and efficiencies. He said that the•training needs assessment would assess the Utilities Department's ability to train internally and would come up with'a training plan for all positions including management in this one division. He said it -was the first time staff had done this for an operational division in Utilities. He said they felt a need, particularly in that division, to have an external view at -what their operations wereliked He thought it was difficult as well as risky to have an internal audit of your own_ department. As to whether staff could perform future studies internally or externally in•other operations divisions in Utilities, he did not know. He said he.liked the concept -of getting an external audit because of the objective, unbiased -view with someone who had .the broad perspective of having looked at a whole wide range of utilities Counci member Eyerly said that -regarding Council removing the person thbt was going to do this from Personnel Department's. budget, maybe Council did not understand that that was what that person was going to do. He did not `think•this report had been brought to Council or that there -was any particular word for the Utilities Department at that time and maybe Council did -not •make. a wise decision where that was done. He thought Council was making a mistake in spending $15,000 on a consultant because he could see this kind of service being needed in other departments. If a one-half person in Personnel could handle this type of work, which was the position mentioned by Mr. Zaner, he would prefer to add a budget amendment for a staff person at •something in the salary range that would carry -this, rather -than spending $15,000 for a consultant for a one-time deal. Mayor Henderson said he disagreed in this particular case because he thought the Utilities operation was so special and it would be very difficult to get an expert for this type of a program from other than outside. tHe could see the need for person to do this kind of work City-wide, and there probably was personnel to be found whowould be helpful in this type- of work for general personnel Within the City. He thought "there was a need for the Utilities Department to have this done and soon, because_he he knew there were problems. MOTION: Mayor -Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzinu, approval the award of contract. AWARD. OF CONTRACT Gilbert Associates, Inc= 1 4 0 2-- 10/26/81 1 1 Councilmember Fazzino said he was the person who lead the effort to eliminate the proposed personnel position from the budget. He felt that inadequate information was presented to the Council, and that a general position like that could not provide the necessary expertise to take care of the technical needs for this. particular department. He felt that the City's Utilities Department was a marketplace unto itself and the City needed to train its own people and define its own needs because of this specific marketplace. He thought that the modest expenditure was well worthwhile to insure that the Utilities Department continued to have the outstanding technical expertise it had for many years. MOTION PASSED by a vote of a-1, Eyerly_voting "no." JOINT ROWERS AGREEMENT RE4UEST TC� USE i.ANDFILL (CMR:.482:1 ) r�.ar is�csr�E7a+a�wssirAsmr�w.�araewoRr�st�ylrilnaL Counci1mernber Renzel said she concurred with; the City Manager's assessment of how the Council should respond. She commented that when the matter was before the Joint Powers Authority (JPA), she did not realize what she was voting orG when the new manager of the -IPA asked to pursue their alternatives during an emergency Session to respond to Mountain View's, offer for use of their landfill. The JPA Director said they would like to pursue their alternative and he in the past had spoken of alternatives in terms of shredding facilities :to diriinish the amount of solid waste being generated.' She assured the Council that she would have informed him directly that the City did not have surplus capacity to take JPA garbage in -its landfill, but the JPA was pursuing a site acquisition. COUNCILMEMBER FAllINO LEFT THE MEETING AT 10:25 .m. RJc Councilmember Renzel said there were several sites in _the vici- nity. of Sunnyvale that they were looking at. She said they were moving ahead with possibilities of resource recovery and electric power generation as part of their project. She would continue to keep the Council informed on that. She thought that the City Manager or City Attorney ought to be authorized to respond that the City did not have the surplus capacity at its landfill`=to offer. NO ACTION TAKEN.: REQUEST OF .VICE MAYOR FLETCHER RE MEDFLY SPRAYING Vice Mayor Fletcher said she was concerned at: the direction the: Medfly Project Managers were taking to continually move to earlier and earlier hours the commencement of the spraying schedule. She said that since her memo was written oneweek ago, the spraying schedule was again being moved up to 1:00 p.m. Before we know it, it might be 6:00 because it'would be dark- at that time. She was concerned that the people were being ignored as"to the exposure that people were subject to when the Malathion spraying was being done at an hour when there was normal traffic and people were not in their homes. She said that regarding the helicopter crash, : it had not been determi ed that 'it was because of fog. She had read that there were indications that mechanical problems were at fault in that case. ,Although she did not want_' to jeopardize the safety, of the helicopter pilots in any way, she -. did not think it was foggy every night and she was sure that the weather forecast could predict the hours -of fog and the location of the fog, and that it could be worked around. Further, she wanted to follow up on the request that the Council made for the project people to cooperate with the researchers and biological. control. , She diet n'ot tl n nk they had received an answer. She 1 4 0 3 10/26/81 wanted to follow up on Assemblyman Sher's comments. that the legislature did appropriate sufficient funds for the study of the affects of the Malathion on healtht and other environmental factors MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel , that the Mayor be directed to write a letter to Medfly Project Director requesting that aerial spraying not commence before 11:00 p.m. in Palo Alto; that he ask for a follow-up to letter re biological control of the medfly and request that study commence re health effects of malathion spraying; and that there be no spraying done on Halloween, October 31. Counci lmernber Witherspoon said she .would vote against the motion because she felt that in that they were asked not to spray Palo Alto until midnight, they would spray earlier somewhere else. She was concerned that no .one actually knew when ground fog started, and since there was only two weeks left of the spraying, it was a moot point. She would be much more interested in hearing their comments, once the spraying was over, on what they were going to do about ongoing control- and biological controls. She did not think the biological controls were ever intended to stop the Medfly, they would hopefully mop them up if there was ever a recurrence. Counc i l member Levy agreed with Vice Mayor Fletcher, and felt that all of this indicated the insensitivity of the Project Directors of the Medfly spraying to all of the human factors involved. He suggested that no spraying be done on Halloween, Courrcilrnember Fenzel said she would support the motion, but thoUghte she had heard Assemblyman Sher say he would appreciate some support from Palo Al to in terms of his concerns about the hours of spraying also. She thought it would be appropriate for the Council to also send a letter to Assemblyman Sher expressing their concerns, or at least copying him on the letter to the Project Director so that he had it officially from the City of Palo Alto. Vice Mayor Fletcher responded to Council:nember Witherspoon's comments that she had pointed out in the memo that the reason given for moving the hour to an earlier time was because of the expanded area to be covered. The area had now been condensed considerably, so there was much more area to cover. It was not her intent to move it to an earlier hour to a different area. She said the Medfly spraying would only stop if there were no new larvae or fly finds so it was possible that it would not stop in a couple of weeks. Mayor Henderson said he was concerned about the midnight situa- tion because he had heard that there was increased danger at that hour especially at thie time of the year. He thought that with the reduced area, thee, could be doing all the spraying in a couple of hours each 'night. If it were done between 10:00 p.m. and midnight or 11.:00 p.rri. _.and 1:00 a.m., he would not mind. He did not want to place the pilots in the jeopardy they were in the other night when the helicopter crashed because all the others were turning awaybecause of the fog problems He said it came on very quickly this time of the year, especially late at night. Vice Mayor Fletcher said she would be willing to change the. wording to as late an hour as possible as was consistent with safety. 1 4.0 4 10/26/81 Councilmember Bechtel said she would rather it be more specific an hour, such as 11:00 p.m. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Witherspoon voting "no," Fazzino absent. 1 REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER. EYERLY RE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONES Councilmember Eyerly said he agendized this because of the prob- lems within PC zones, the time consumed by staff for certain problems which might develop, and at the same time realizing that once a PC zone was enacted and had a development plan, it was sort of locked in cement' and if the developer saw the need for -- a change,- such as no children in a housing unit -anymore; and that he could use some of the play area for some other part of the development plan, it was a problem for him to get that changed. He wantedto see some regular inspection of PC zones or some mechanism by which the PC people could come to the City, request inspection,.and develop' some type of consultation with staff at that time. He thought that if the Councilmembers supported this, they --should have a fee which would be commensurate with the cost of the inspection and time involved by the„staff. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly Moved, seconded by Levy, that staff report back. on procedure .,re P -C zones and prepare an ordinance, Mayor Henderson said he had a problem with adding a section that would require each PC development to request a bi-annual inspec- tion. He thought that the City would. then have to keep a record to make sure it was requested. He suggested having_a schedule that the City requires a bi-annual inspection, and thought the City could send a notice when it was required to be done. Councilmember Eyerly said he had had some discussions with staff and they had some feelings about which procedure might be better. The thrust on their having to apply for a bi-annual inspection sets up a reason for a fee and gives them the opportunity to talk-: about it, too. It did not mean that Inspectional Services would not have to keep a list of who.was due to come in --that type of procedure would have to be built in. H' said there was no procedure now other than on complaints for the Department of Inspectional Services to go out and inspect if the City 'had a problem, If there were a fee with this, then the staff would_be able to do it on some type of an automatic basis to see that the development plan was properly carried out. --At the same time,` it would give the developer an opportunity to speak to it if he needed some changes or wanted to talk about them. City Attorney Don Maynor said he sa.w no problem with making a mandatory requirement of the PC zoning ordinance that if someone received a PC zoning authorization, one of the requirements would be that an inspection would be done every two years and a fee would be paid Vice Mayor Fletcher said she admired the intent especially for a= PC such as Edgewood Plaza to be rattled into compliance periodically. She said she would like to see in the staff report the feasibility and how it would be handledbecause a lot of the PC's had multiple ownerships and absentee ownerships, out of state, and she was concerned about the selection of the fees. The inspection was easy enoug ;, but she was concerned about the ability of the City to demand compliance of noncooperating owners. COats cllmember Wi thersppon to_existing PC's? 140.5 10/26/81 Mr. Maynor said no. He said that would be one of the things the City Attorney's Office would research, but right now, his -opinion was no. He said it could be a condition on all new PC's, but did net see how it could be imposed on past zoning. Councilmember Witherspoon asked about ones that had been found in violation of their original PC. Mr. Maynor said that clearly the City could enforce the PC zonings on past PCs. There was no prohibition against that. Councilmember Witherspoon said that for .instance, if Edgewood Plaza slid not comply with the letter sent by Bob Brown, then the City would have to go back and renegotiate a change in their PC.. At that time, perhaps this requirement could be put on. Mr. Maynor said he thought that was something to be built into the new ordinance. C unci lmember Reniel said she thought the _City always had the right to enter on property to see that it was complying with its zoning requirements, and that Co.uncilmember Eyerly had identified a real problem. The City had the ability, when they observed violations, to bring it to staff's attention and to enforce the PC at that time. She thought there might be some merit in some sort of regular, periodic review of the PC's by staff to see whether they were in general compliance with'the ordinances -"and use_;permits of the PC, but she did not think it needed to be every two years. She thought that was too frequent and an unnecessary burden on staff given the fact that at any point in time, regardless of any. periodic •inspections the City might do, staff could enter on property and check for compliance if there were any reason to believe that they were not complying. She preferred not to have an automatic, bi-annual inspection, but maybe something every five years to review the PC's in the City to check for general compliance and enforce any other noncomplie ance on a complaint and observation basis. She would oppose the motion as made, but would be interested in staff's comments on what might be a workable way to keep an on -going review of PC's. Councilmember Levy said he had long felt that it was necessary for tie City to have a- regular program of inspecting PC's. He thought that asking the PC owner to pay a fee for that on an on -going basis was proper, and hoped there was some way that this could be made. -.retroactive in one way or another to existing PC's. Mayor Henderson said he would support having staff prepare the report, and where it said to include an ordinance, staff world probably come back with one. Although, if staff felt it was not proper for some reason, they would be able to recommend that it not be approved. He thought the motion should be supported. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. RE UEST OF COUNCILMEMBER EYERLY P.E.LYTTON GARDENS NURSING Councilmember Eyerly said he had a9end ized the item so that the Councilmembers could talk about it. He :said Lytton Gardens had had to delete about $500,000 from their plans - in view of the delay, and the cost of inflation. He said they would try to reinstate as much of what had been removed as possible. He wanted to give them some City support in view of the fund :raising they had done, and had made Phase III possible. He said the City 1 1 had given Lytton Gardens considerable support in the past by providing the ground, guaranteeing'a loan, guaranteeing the bonds, etc. He said the City had not provided Lytton Gardens. with any cash in their fund drives, which the City had done for some other organizations within the City who had had difficulties in proceeding. In l ook i ng ' at the problem, he realized that there were two sources of money the Council might look --at and `calk about. One,- was the Land Bank funds -which totalled around $1 million. He said it was exclusive of in -lieu and mitigation funds which had been collected from developers, which were in another budget item. Further, as of July 1, there was $7.3 million of uncommitted reserves within the General Budget. He suggested that the best place to help Lytton Gardens would come from the Land Banking Funds because An the Land Bank Funds there were $35O,OOO that had come from the Capital Improvements Programs which had been set there and not designated for any particular use other. than Land Banking. The Council; if interested in helping Lytton Gardens, would need to decide whether those funds should be available from the Land Banking Fund. He -felt that the Council could well accept it as part of housing in view of Phase III of Lytton Gardens did compliment the housing which was ' there .and provided shelter, etc. Staff was not agreeable.to that and had spoken against using Land Banking Funds for any medical facilities several years ago, but Council had not spoken to it directly. He felt it was .not precedent setting because the City had no other nursing centers it was involved' with. The rest of them in the City were private and did not have ary connection with the City or use of City backing. He felt it was unrealistic to suggest that this should have come to Council at budget time, He was sure that Lytton Gardens wished it could have spoken to it at Budget time or that this -had never happened. However, it did happen and at a very inopportune time, and now it was somewhat of an emergency to Lytton Gardens as far as whether they would be able to proceed with the full project. Counc i lrnember Eyerl y-. fel t that with the reserves the City had, either in the Land Banking Funds or within the General Reserve, t l'iere were ample funds to help Lytton Gardens. He suggested the City match the $150,000 that Lytton Gardens had to raise them- selves. He did not think the City's reserves could be locked up in view that the City was locking at Terman School or school pur- chases for the future. He thought that the activities of the City and the needs of th-e City .went on day to day and as: problems arose, they should be addressed, and he thought this was`. a proper time to address this problem. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to appropriate $150,OOO from the Land Banking Funds as matching funds for the use of Lytton Gardens in Phase III. Counci lmernber Eyerly said that if the Council supported the idea of funding, but did not want it to come from Land Banking, he was perfectly happy to amend the motion to be from the uncommitted reserve, He pointed that it took five votes to make an appro- priation from the Land Banking Fund, and it would take six votes from the uncommitted reserve Mayor Henderson said the City had historically followed the DepartmentofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines in terms of the use of Land Banking _funds, and HUD did not define this kind of use as qualifying as housing funds. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. City funds rather, than Community Devel ooment _funds would have to be used. Mayor Henderson said that in terms of the housing developments in Palo Alto, the Council had followed that guideline pretty much on their own considerations. He said they .kept referring to HUD guidelines. Councilmember Levy said he, as a matter of policy, felt that items -of this size as budget amendments should go to the Finance and Public Works Committee first before consideration. He did not want to speak at all to either the worthiness of the need or the sources of funding at this point. He thought it should be subject to greater deliberation at the Finance Committee. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Klein, referral to the Finance and Public Works Committee for considera- tion. Councilmember Witherspoon said she would, support the substitute motion and commented that she was uncomfortable about using Land Banking Funds for this purpose, but.as she recalled, Community Development Block Grant Funds -were used when the Senior Center was being remodeled to help them with the elevator and some other projects. She thought there must be some other criterion so that this type of facility could be helped. Mr, Schreiber said the City had used Comrnunity'Development Block Grant Funds for the Senior Center that was a specifically eligible activity under the Federal guidelines. However, any type of medical related facility was listed as ineligible as a Federally funded activity. The City could not use the Federal funds. Councilmember Witherspoon said she thought the City had used Community Development Block Grant funds to free up City money from projects wherever possible, and maybe this was the time to pay back the debt. She would leave it'up to the Committee to decide. Mayor Henderson felt Councilmember Levy's motion was proper because the Finance and Public Works Committee had been directed to review the requests for Social and Community funding needs annually. This was out of schedule with that, and may be a totally supportable item, but he felt it should go through the Finance -Committee and then to the Council because the Council had taken the Committee's request for the basic funding for this year. Any change to that should come from the Committee. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Council adjourned to Executive Session regarding litigation at 10:55 p.m STRUCTURAL - ASSQ SSMENT €1F CIVIC CENTER - BUDGET .AMENDMENT NTIN HUE' FROM 1' Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt a budget amendment ordinance to increase the appropriation for CIR 80-13 by $93,000. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract for $74,500 with Engineering Analysis Company, Inc. for a seismic risk analysis and -related Korn to the Civic Center building. 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the consultant contract of up to 20% of the contract amount. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Fazzino; approval of the following contract and budget amendment,,oroinance: AWARD OF CONTRACT Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Incorporated ORDINANCE 3309 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981-82 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVE- MENT PROJECT NO. 80-13 'ANALYSIS OF NEED FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS TO CIVIC CENT R" MOTION PASSED to approve budget amendment ordinance and contract with Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Incorporated unanimously, Fazzino absent. MOTION: MayorHenderson moved, seconded by Fl etcher, to cancel meeting of. November 2. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Levy voting "no," Fazzino absent. ADJOURNMENT Final adjournment at 11:15 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: vice Mayor