Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-11-16 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 CITY CQUNCIL MINUTEs Regular Meeting Monday, November ITEM Oral Communications Approval of Minutes August 10, 1981 Consent Calendar Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Public Hearing: Resolution Ordering Vacation of Easement, 1131 San Antonio Road (CMR:466:1) Public Hearing; Planning Commissicn Recommendations re Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for 13 Parcels on the South Side of College Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Boulevard (CMR:522;1) Public Hearing; Planning Commission Recommendations re Application of Richard T. Hamner for a Change of Comprehensive Plan for Property located at 350 College Avenue 1 1981 CITY c E PALO ALTO PAGE 1 4 1 9 1 4 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 3 Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendations 1 4 2 5 re Approval of the Application of Environmental Concepts, Inc., for a Tentative Subdivision Map for Property located at 431-441 College Avenue Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendations 1 4 2 5 re Denial of the Application of Leon Carley for. Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map and a Variance for 134 Waverley Street Public Hearing Planning Commission Recommendations re a P -C Zone Change for 4290 El Camino Real "Ecco Ristarante" Public Hearing: Planning Commission, Recommendations for a Tentative Subdivision Map for 1155 and 1161 Colorado Avenue Vacationof Easement for Public Street Purposes, Naoely a portion of Grant Avenue between Park Boulevard and Southern Pacific Railroad; Tracks (CMR : 517: 1) Harry Allen =Coal -Fired Electric Power Project Vice Mayor, Fletcher re Mrs. Chippery Field's- Chocolate Request - o_i . Mayor . Henderson , re Activities . i n . Foothi l -1 s Park :.Regu;est_ of-MJ,yor,Hen.derson ford City.,Coun€:i 1 Ne_eOngs r•e' Procedural Rules Request of :Mayor Henderson re ABAC Ballots due December 7', .1981 J . Adjournment :1 4 2 8 1 4 2 -8 1 4 3 1 1 4 3 3 1.4 3 9 i 4 4 0 1 4 4 1 1: 4, 4 1 1 4 4 2 1 4 _1 8 11/16/81 1 Regular Meeting Monday, November 16, 1981 The City Council of. the City of Palo Alto met on this date in theCouncil Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:40 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel, Levy, Witherspoon, Klein, Eyerly ABSENT: Fazzino ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Barry Fasbender, 84-› Talisman Drive, eaid that Palo Alto had two excellent swimming programs at Rinconada Pool --the Palo Alto Swim Club which included ages 6-18, and the Masters Swimming Program which included ages 19 through whatever. He said that Rinconada Pool needed an office to support the swim programs. Thecoaches need an office to run team business to store -office materials, store training materials, and to conduct interviews. He asked the Counci-1 to consider the needs of the program and to look into the possibility of pro- viding an office. Mayor Henderson suggested that he get the materials together and get it to Council in the spring because that was when the deci- sion was made about all programs, capital improvements, etc. 2. Jeff LaPierre, 3343 South Court, Coach at the Palo Alto Swim Club, said that the proposed structure was to serve as an office, storage area, and a dry land training area. He explained that the Palo Alto Swim Club was a program started in 1955, and had been ongoing, without interruption, ever since. Since 1970, the Club had been affiliated with the City, :training at Rinconada Pool nine months out of the year, finding other places to train during the summer. He .said that the Club was a nonprofit organization. The Swim Club. felt their program was of significant benefit to a number of people throughout the City. He spoke of the need for a.n office and suggested that it would help to improvement participation. Councilmember Bechtel said that under Oral Communications, the Council could not act on their request. She said the Council was aware of the strengths of the. Club's request by the number of people who were in the audience. 3. Fred Weiner, 2932 Emerson, said he was at the Council meeting on September -21, _1981, to ascertain the status of the Just Cause . for Eviction Ordinance. .. He felt it:. was the Council's obligation to deal with the ,issue promptly and to take posi- tive action on something the Council had shown previous interest in He asked about the status. He said his major concern was that the present Council take action on this because they had been dealing with it for about two years. City Attorney Diane Lee said that she had received a copy of the Ordinance' to review. There were some problems she saw in the Ordinance, and asked :her staff to take a look at those issues. When the issues are resbl ved, the a ordinance ,will be on the agenda. ' She suggested December 1 or December 14 at ._the latest. 4. Bill Cane, 636 Webster Street, said that regarding the Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, the reason there was some urgency was that for -the last four months,,Palo Alto Area Information and Referral Services (PAAIRS) had been keeping a tally of evictions calls they received, and were averaging about 30 to 40>per month. Of those calls, rcughly ten were in the cate- ycry of unjust. He reminded the Council that delay of social justice -had individual human consequences, and frequently the consequences'were serious and sometimes tragic. As a Member of Palo Alt -ens for Affordable Housing, he received referrals of some of the many calls'received by PAAIRS of renters seeking -advice. He said there were many problems in Palo Alto, but they were manageable.-- He felt it was not in the public interest'to stifle the concern renters had for residential conditions which affected health and safety. When -tenants were protected from Unreasonable eviction, they would not be afraid to point out needed repairs, and they. would be more able to insist that landlords meet minimum standards of habitability. 5. BobMoss, 4010 Orme, congratulated the winners in. the Council election. He thanked everyone that participated in -the elec- tion, and thanked Mayor Henderson for his long dedicated years of service. He reminded the Counc i lmernbers that they were elected officials. MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 1981 Councilmember Klein had a correction on page 1135, sixth full paragraph, fourth line down, delete the words "one bid." MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the minutes of August 10, 1981 as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Henderson removed Item 1, Vacation of Easement for Public Street Purposes, from the Consent Calendar at the request of a member -of the public; and Item 2, Harry Allen Coal4ired Electric _Power Project, was removed -at the --request of .staff. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager_ Bill Zaner announced that Item 1, Vacation of Easement for Public Street Purposes, would become Item 9-A; and Item 2, Harry Allen Coal -Fired Electric Power. Project, would become Item 9-8. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION ORDERING VACATION OF EASEMENT, 1131 SAN ANtONIO ROAD ` (CFR:466 :1 ) Mayor Henderson read the following into the record: "In accordance with a published Notice of Public Hearing, now is the time set for ,Vhis public hearing regarding vacation of a sanitary sewer easement at 1131 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto. Is there anyone in the public wishing to address this issue? There being none, the public hearing is closed and discussion returned to the Council." Councilmember Renael asked if the property was located on the East side of the Bayshore Freeway, and, if so, she assumed the vacation was inconsequential to the City. 1 ...4 2 0 11/16/81 Virginia Stafford, Real Estate Analyst, said it was inconsequen- tial. She said the new sewer was in place and the old sewer had been blocked. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded_ by Fletcher, approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 5970 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ORDERING THE VACATION OF A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AT 1131 SAN ANTONIO ROAD, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS NO CHANGE TO THE COMPREHENSI°V PLAN LANG` Q i' -MAP FOR 1S''ARGELS 0 THE SOUTH SIDE OF COLLEGE AVENUE BETWEEN EL CAfIN6 REAL AND PARK B IULEVUR MR :522 :1 Chairperson of the Planning Commission Jean McCown-Hawkes said that the Planning Commission had initiated the consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the designated properties on College Avenue. After receiving some specific applications for map changes and for subdivision approval, it raised concern among the Planning Commission of the possibility of redevelopment of that area similar to the Downtown North area. After the Planning Commission hearing and discussion of the properties involved and the character of the area, the Commission unanimously concluded that a change from single --family characteristics to multiple -family or any change in that area would not be appropriate. She said there were a nuMber of reasons expressed, but principally, the feeling was that the street and areawere already very do.ninantly ultipie-family in character and although the City anticipated there would be regrets when single-family structures on those i,rts were redeveloped, i f and when they were, into multiple --family house, that was not a sufficient reason, nor was there a great enough area, to try and protect those homes from that kind of redevelopment. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Geoffrey Thompson, 416 Oxford, said he spoke before the Planning Commission, and reluctantly, he agreed with their conclusion that College Avenue was already predominantly multi -family dwellings. It was on that basis that the Commission decided to retain the property in its current zoning. He said that one of the things the Planning Commission talked about extensively was the feeling that there should be some sort of transition area between the commercial districts and the residential area to the North to avoid the sort of problems that happened in the Downtown North Area. He was afraid that by keeping this property in multi; family as it was currently, it would be 'establ i shed as the transition zone, and then multiple -family zoning would keep creeping a block every ten years. - He wanted to see some concrete action taken in terms of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations so that transition areas between commercial areas and residential area could be established on a reasonable and unified basis. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Henderson commented that " he felt this was - an excellent example of what the Council was trying to do in terms of the transition areas. He was pleased that the Planning Commission had come back and agreed that the current zoning was appropriate for the property. 1 4 2 1 11/16/81 Councilmember Bechtel said she agreed with the Planning Commission's, recommendation. She said that regarding Mr. Thompson' s testimony, Commissioner Christensen had said that regarding .the transition of Cambridge, to maintain the 35 feet height limit and not go higher than that. Councilmember Bechtel said she understood that presently 35 feet was the limit on Cambridge except if there was a mixed use project. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation that no change be mode to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for 13 parcels on the south side of College Avenue between El Camino. Real and. Park Boulevard. Councilmember Levy said he thought something should be done. He thought a mistake. had been made in zoning College Avenue as a corridor of apartment houses. The concept of transition sounded good, but he thought. that the City had drawn a knife line down between Cambridge and College, and no matter what was on College, whether it was single-family or multi -family, it all got lumped into multi -family, so that conceptionally there were very nice 1_ines. He thought that the character of a neighborhood was a function of diversity, and he did not think the -City was promoting diversity because. each block would not be diverse. Each block would be the_ same in terms of height and bulk. The nature of College Avenue was very nice, and there were seven single-family homes clustered together on either side of the . intersection of Birch and College, and one single-family home across the street in the same area. He thought that from 315 College to 383 College which were now all single-family homes should be maintained as a single -family designation, while maintaining the multi -family designation on the other parcels. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved the staff's alternate recommendation. to rezone the properties from 315 College to 383 College to R-1. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Renzel said she had supported referring the matter back to the Planning Commission with the idea to look at making the streets the dividing lines rather -than the property lines. In reviewing the street, and -,in reading the Planning Commission minutes, she said it was apparent to her that the only area that had enough ,single -fancily cohesiveness to call it a single-family were the seven homes and almost everyone of the people occupying those homes, .spoke in favor of retaining the existing zoning. With that, and the fact that the -°entire rest of the street appeared to have been largely redeveloped as multi -family,; she would support the motion as it --came from'the Planning Commission. - MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, .Levy. voting "no," Fazzino absent. MOTION: - Councilmember Bechtel moved, esconded by Klein,:. that the Planning Commission be asked to explore' further the issue of Cambridge Avenue height limit or other items related to transi- tion from College Avenue to Cambridge Avenue. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if Councilmember Bechtel was asking that different standards for transition in that area be created than in other areas. Councilmember Bechtel said she thought that was a .good point; and wanted it left vague enough. Counciimember Witherspoon felt that the transition area was always touchy. She would not support the motion because she felt the Planning Commission had other things she would prefer they. worked on. Vice Mayor Fletcher said she was concerned with the practical implementation in that it was more expensive to build units in those areas where there were assessments for parking for the com- mercial part. She felt that {'f the height were .limited to 35 feet, the City would not get any residential units because of the cost of providing parking. She wanted to see the assignment com- pleted to solve the problem of making the parking arrangements more equitable for commercial and residential units in the com- mercial areas. Counc i lrnember Renzei said she would support -the -motion because she felt it was worthwhile to look at the transition -zones. She would prefer to just look at the transition zoning which occurred in the commercial as it abutted residential in general :and.with- specific application .to this area. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-3 as fol 1 ows : AYES: Renzel, Klein, Fletcher, Henderson, Bechtel NOES: Eyerly, Levy, Witherspoon ABSENT: Fazzino PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS -APPROVAL OF THE PL I R r-77 TOR A CHANGE OF i-P�PCT� R T3 NT I I_ L ` C D O COLLEGE VE Ili Ms. McCown-Hawkes said the Planning Commission's action was consistent with the recommendation in Item 4 that the Land Use Oesignat.ion should be changed from single-family to multiple - family residential. She said that the recommendation was based on the fact that the particular property was sandwiched between two very large apartment buildings on either side. She pointed out that there were comments that the Planning Commission's recommendation that this particular parcel be changed from single-family to multiple -family not be considered a precedent for other single-family uses on that side of College Avenue and specifically the Planning Commission mentioned the parcels at the corner of College and Ash and at the corner of College and Birch which were also in the single-family designation and would conceivably be subject to a similar request. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Geoffrey Thompson, 416 Oxford, said he was sympathetic to the situation in that area because it stood out. Currently, the City was faced with a large increase in traffic flow in that area because of scheduled developments. He - wanted a moratorium on any further development until the traffic` study was done and the traffic impacts were assessed on the neighborhood. He said the - area. was faced with the feature that additional development in the California Avenue area did not have to provide adequate parking because it was a member of; the Cal ifornia Avenue Parking Assessment District. He thought that was -ludicrous . because that facility was already over capacity. He requested that no density increases be allowed until theones currently scheduled had been dealt with. Mayor Henderson declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the Council had to specify a density tonight. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland Said that•for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map it was not necessary to specify a density, the subsequent hearing .to change the zoning would have the density specified. Certainly, the City would want the density to be the same as the adjoining properties. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the application of Richard T. -Hamner for a change of Comprehensive flan from Single -Family Residential to Multiple -Family Residen- tial for property located at 350 College Avenue. RESOLUTION 5971 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 BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY AT 350 COLLEGE AVENUE" Councilmember Levy suggested that the property be kept as a single-family home. He said that he had looked at the property, and it was not sandwiched up against apartment houses.. On either side there was a driveway, one of them_ belonged to the apartment house, and the other was a separate driveway. On the other side of its- own driveway, the apartment house was set back some with some -landscaping around it. He mentioned that the apartment houses had little landscaping because not only did the apartment houses. themselves cover more of the land:area, but they must have more concrete connected. The total effect on the neighborhood was not positive at all. On the other hand, he said the scale of the single -fancily unit was the refreshing element on the entire street. He did not think that because there were a number of 35 foot buildings on that 'street, that they should have the entire street be 35 foot buildings. He said that since it was already.. toned Single-family by doing nothing, it would remain status it U o , Mayor Henderson said that when he looked at the block and saw that there was. one R-1 lot sitting there among rows_Of of multi -family housing, and the property owner desired to fit' in with the rest of the block, he did not see how he could force it to -remain a single-family home in the midst of all of the other projects. Councilmember Renzel. said apparently they had 7500 square feet and could build two units? Executive Assistant, Lynnie Melena said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel asked under Multi -family what zoning would be required to build more than two. units? Mr. Freeland said RM-3 zoning would allow three units, and RM-4 zoning. would allow four units Councilmember Renzel asked if the rest of the area was zoned RM-4? Ms. Melena said that was correct. MOTION ,PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Levy voting absent. Fazzino Mayor Henderson declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilmerr}ber Witherspoon asked if the Council had to specify a density tonight. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said that for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map it was not necessary to specify a density, the subsequent hearing to change the zoning would have the density specified. Certainly, the City would want the density to be the same as the adjoining properties. MOTION.: Councilmember Witherspoon -moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the appl ication of Richard T. Hamner for a change- of Comprehensive Plan. from Single -Family. Residential to Multiple -Family Residen- tial for properly located at 350 College Avenue. RESOLUTION 5971 entitled "RESOLUTI-0N 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 BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY AT 350 COLLEGE AVENUE" Councilrnernber Levy suggested that the property be kept as a single-family home. He said that he had looked at the property, and it was not sandwiched up against apartment houses. On either side there .was a driveway, one of them belonged to the apar=tment house, and the other was a separate driveway. On the other side of its own driveway, the apartment house was set back some with some landscaping around it. He mentioned that the apartment houses had little landscaping because not only did the apartment houses themselves cover more of the land area, but they must ha'ie more concrete connected. The total effect on the neighborhood was not positive at all. On the other hand, he said the scale of the single-family unit was the refreshing element on the entire street. He did not think that because there were a number of 35 foot buildings on that street, that they should have the entire street be 35 foot buildings. He said that since it was already zoned sinyie-family by doing nothing, it would remain status quo. Mayor Henderson said that when he looked at the block and saw that there Was once.R-1 lot sitting there among rows of multi -family housing, and the property owner desired to fit in with the rest of the block, he did not see how he could force it to remain a single- fancily home in the midst of all of the other projects. Councilnnember Renzel said apparently they had 7500 square feet. and could build two units? Executive Assistant, Lynnie Melena said that was -correct. Councilrnember Renzel asked under multi -family what zoning would be required to build more than two units? Mr. Freeland said SRN -3 zoning would, allow three units, and RM-4 zoning would allow four units. Counc i l member Renzel asked if the rest of the area was zoned RM-4? ms. Melena said that was correct. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Levy voting "no," Fazzino absent. 1 4 2 4 11/16/81. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPL1CATCON Or ENVIROfEMENTAL CONCEPTS INC., FTR A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 431-441 COLLEGE AVENUE Mr. Freeland commented that there was an error in the Site Location Map attached to the staff report to the Planning Commission. He said there were two lots involved and that parcel 439 College was not colored in on the Map and should have been. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. MOTION;: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation findincn that the project, including the design and improvements (e.g., the street ali.ynments, drainage and sanitary facilities, locations and size of all required rights -of -way, lot size and. configuration, grading, and traffic access) is consistent -with the adopted Com- prehensive Plan and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment nor be likely to result in serious public health problems; -that the. site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; -acid that there 'are not conflicts with public ease- ments, and recommended approval with the following conditions: (1) No street tree shall be removed or replaced without permi s sion of Parks Department; (2) Nine Class I bicycle parking spaces shall be provided; (3) Architectural Review Board approval shall be obtained for final landscaping plan, roof area design and materials and color, prior to issuance of a building -permit; (4) Developer —shall construct an interior drainage system and replace curb, sidewalk and gutter to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Councilmember Renzel noted that in the structuring of the Land Use Map back when the Comprehensive Plan was done, .she noticed that the R-2 zone kind of bobbed in and out, and she asked if there was a reason that those two parcels were not included in the R-2 zone rather than RM-4? Mr. Freeland said he believed that some of the other 1ot.s were also adjacent to commercial. He did not know the history of the Zoning Map..and in, fact the use at the corner 457-463 was nonresidential. MOTION PASSED unanimously,- Fazzino -absent. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS H L I Lt. RL Y FOR. API R VAL F A' ITITTRIAARY TKRCEL MAP An A TWANTr—TUFPROPERIY LOCPT'ED AT I5V1 W VERLE S RE Ms. McCown-Hawkes said that the Commission felt that the underlyings reason for the: request was not so much related to special circumstances relating to this property^-ctrcuiistances that would, differentiate the property from other similarly situated property --but rather the special circumstances in which the owners found themselves because of the circumstances of the way the property had been passed down i_n ;the. w.i 1 1_ of the owner . ., She said that the lots which were proposed to Lie' created were substantially below the requirements forwidth and the other specific requirements of the ordinance. The Commission felt that it could not make the findings necessary that there were exceptional circumstances required for either the preliminary parcel map or the variances that were requested, Mr. Freeland, said that page 3 of the Planning Commission minutes had a serious error contained in it - "The staff recommendation that the required findings for an -exception to th€- subdivision ordinance could be made." The staff recommendation on page 3 should read as follows: -; STAFF RECOMMENDATION "Based on the small size of the lots and the lot division's inconsistency with -the Comprehensive Plan, the required findings for an exception -to the subdivision ordinance cannot be made and therefore staff recommends denial of this application." - Mr. Freeland said that along those same lines, staff noted that while the basis for the findings was implied in the staff report, the :findings, as such, were not spelled out. He said staff had a supplemental report which listed those findings- in detail. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Leon Carley, 525 University Avenue, appeared as the Executor of the Will of Manual Aragon, which Will was in the course of being administered in the Superior Court. He said that inasmuch as the Planning Commission recommendation was not favorable, he would repeat his story. He pointed out that the lot was an exception- ally deep .lot, 250 feet and 50 feet wide, The owner of the lot, Manual Aragon, came to Palo Alto in 1925 and worked for Stanford Un i versi ty for a long time, and ended up doing the cooking at the Episcopal Parish House for the Senior Citizens. He purchased the property at a time _when the minimum frontage required under the zoning ordinance for R-1 was 50 feet. Since that time, the minimum had been extended to 60 feet, and the minimum lot size during all of .that time had been 6,000 square feet. If a line were drawn half way black from the street on Waverley near San Francisquito Creek, therewould be. 60, 250 feet for each lot, which was the minimum at the time and `still was the minimum except ror.the requirement that the rear lot shall. be 20% more than the front lot, and that the area of the access driveway may not be counted'in computing the square footage of either lot. He said that Palo Alto was a city that had a lot of lots that were 50 feet wide, and quite a few that were 112-1/2 feet deep with a driveway running along the side and a garage at the back. This man had more than double that because if the lot- were divided evenly, there would be 6,250 feet in each lot, including the area used as adriveway. -The ordinance now says the driveway cannot be used.in computing"the minimum square -footage of your1.Ot. In 1951,,it.was not that way. Mr. Carley said that Mr. Aragon died about a year ago, and now, although he in.good faith developed that property, had his brother, l iving. in- one)of the houses for about fourteen years; it was now used as a.rental property. He said they hAd no way of carrying out the -terms of the -Will without having a Subdivision of_ the property, which the decedent did not realize. He said they were aware .o.f the values of the - Comprehensive Plan, but it was `.also true that these houses were there. There were no -changes to be made physica_l-ly. In preparing the preliminary parcel_ reap, they had done their _best to :come. a close As they could teethe Comprehensive Plan_ as it now ex-i steel, long. after the houses were built. He said it --was .,clear from the report .of the Planning Staff thOt -there was no significant impact -that would occur as a result' of the :action requested. If.- it were possible to include the area of the driveway as it would be with any ofthe lots on the smaller streets. He said that if the application was denied, it would mean thatthe situation would remain the same until it was acquired by someone who would put multiple -family dwellings in that area. Mr. Carley saic good planning was appreciated, but on the other hand, they also appreciated how it affected human lives, Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the application and to make the following findings: (1 ) Find that the circum- stances necessary for the granting of exceptions for width, area, and access required by the subdivision ordinance (12.32.020) are not met (a) There are no special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, in that there are other similar proper -- ties with two dwellings in the same portion of the City; and (b) The exceptions are not necessary for the preservation and enjoy- ment of a substantial property right of the petitioner, and (c) The granting of the exception to lot area will violate the requirements, goals, and policies of the City in that such excep- tion would be in conflict with Housing Program 2 of the.Compre- hensive Plan which states, "Continue using minimum lot -size standards for single family neighborhoods to discourage splitting larger lots." (2) Find that the conditions necessary fo.r the granting of the variance for lot coverage (18.90.050) are not met (a) There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstnaces or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, and (b) The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, nor to the prevention of unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. (3) Find that the granting of the variance for building set back would not be consistent with sound planning, as required under Section 18.90.100, because there are no special circumstances which apply to the property. (4) Find that the subdivision without the variances and exceptions is not in conformance with the zoning ordinance standards. Councilmember Renzel said she would support the motion to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation because in a front/rear subdivision, it was not just a matter of what was there now or a minor deviation. The reason for having the extra square footage for the lots in a front/rear subdivision was because the rear lot did not enjoy the same streee open space that the front lot enjoyed, and also in the state of the automobile, it was more difficult for.accommodating guests. She thought therewas a strong policy of preserving the multiple houses in single owner- ship where a rental unit was provided. She thought the persolal situation regarding the estate was not relevant to the Council's decision, bu a thought it was cl ear� that under common ownership, if the ,people who inherited the property rented out, they could work out some solution in their own arrangements with them- selves. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if one of the structures ,was _nonconforming? Mr. Freeland said that if the structures burned down, they could be rebuilt because under the zoning, legal uses in existence at the time of the rezoning to the lower density were grandfathered in and may be .replaced. 1.4 2 7 11/16/81 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. 1 PUBLIC HEARIUG: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A P -C REC IONeL SIGNS FOR THE "ECCO RISTORANTE.r AT 42917 . Mr. Freeland said this was a two-part application. One part was for some new Walls with signs at the front entrance on El Camino. That was recommended to be denied --the most important argument for the denial was that they had .an existing very large:sign that was larger than any sign under the City's normal sign ordinance. That sign could be redesigned to include identification of Hyatt Palo. Alto. The second part of the proposal, which was being recommended for approval, was for a system of illuminated parking directional signs for the Eeco Ristorante located in the back of the complekt The plans thet Council received with the package included both the walls with the sign and Beta i,l s of the directional signs. He said- there was also a sign on the building at the. back ieantifyirig `the Ecca Ristorante which was recommended for approval. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests :from the public to speak, he declared the pubi is hearing closed. MOTION: Councilmenber Renzel moved, -seconded- by Witherspoon, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations re directional signs with the following findings: (1) The proposed -directional signs are so situated and sized as to be -compatible with the ge.n- erai character of the district in which they are located; (2) The proposed directional signs will be of public benefit by helping customers of the restaurant to find and efficiently utilize the parking spaces provided by the Hyatt Palo Alto; (3) The direce tional signs are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with surrounding land uses. To approve the Planning Commnission to deny the application for the wall sign based on the following findings: (I) The proposed walls and signs add to visual clutter and -are inconsistent with the'Comprehensive Plan Policy of strengthenino the gateway identify of the south gateway to Palo Alta on F1 Camino Real (Policy 7, Urban Design); (2) The proposed walls are inconsistent with the _Comprehensive Plan policy to "upgrade standards for El Camino Real , Midtown, and the Circle and Alma area of downtown." (Urban Design Policy 6) in that they would introduce added signs to El Camino Real and in that the identification of The Hyatt Palo Alto could be accomplished through redesign of the existing free-standing sign without introducing added signs. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COU. iCIL t1F. THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING PC ORDINANCE X10. 2006 TO INCLUDE A SYSTEM OF ILLUMINATED PARKING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FOR THE ECCO RISTORANTE- AT THE HYATT PALO ALTO, 4290 EL CAMINO REAL" \; Councilmember Klein said he would support the Planning Commission' recommendations. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. PUBLIC HEARING:---. PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS Ms." McCownHawkes" said that the Commission recommended adoption of the staff recommendation, but , added one additional cone i t i on to require that some kind of a landscaping buffer or some type"`df buffer be added to protect the Greer Park area -where it adjoined the development. The Commission ; felt that the specific, landscaping would be something for the Architectural Review Board to review. Vice Mayor Fletcher -said she was Confused where there was refer-. ence to the applicability of the BMR program, and that because there were only five new lots proposed, it would not apply. Yet, in other areas in the report, it pointed out that ten residential units could be constructed. Mr. i`reeland said that the BMR program addressed development of- ten or more dwelling units. At this point, all' that Was -being approved were five lots. These lots could be developed for five houses or five duplexes. They would only be subject to the BMR program if they were developed for five duplexes and if -those five duplexes came in together as a single development. Otherwise, they were individually developed properties and not. subject to the program. If 1t were ten -single-family lots, it would be considered, to be a development of ten as in the Hewlett subdivision. Inasmuch as this could go different ways in the future, staff felt there was not a development of ten housing units at this point. Vice Mayor Fletcher asked if whether at some future time, an application for ten units was received, the BMR program could still be applied? Mr. Freeland said that was correct, if they came in as a single project. Councilrnember Renzel said she thoughtt-that because of the potential for the ten units, it was'highly likely that the ten units would be built. She thought it could be considered a project by creating a subdivision which would allow those ten units to be built. She asked if the subdivision could be conditioned on getting in -lieu payments if,. in fact, ten units were built? Mr. Freeland said it came down to applicability of the program. If they came in for ten units to be built as a project, then the BMR program was fully applicable, and the City would have either a BMR unit or an in -lieu payment. However, if the units came in individually, then the BMR program would not be addressed. Counci lmember Renzel asked if the in -lieu program which applied to the BMR program policies applied to subdivisions? Mr. Freeland said that if there were clearly ten units contemplated, then yes. The problem here was that ten units was the maximum possible on those lots, but there was no assurance there were going to. be ten units developed there.. At most, they were approving five lots which could be developed for anywhere between five and ten dwelling units. Councilmember.Renzel asked .the City Attorney if there was any possibility of conditioning the subdivision in any way on getting in -lieu payments? Ms. Lee said it was her understanding that Section 16.4.8 of the Municipal Code exempted single-family and duplex developments from the BMR requirements. She concurred with Mr. Freeland that this was not:. really a possibility under the_way the City's, ordinance and programs were presently administered. That was not to say that it could not be remedied in the future. She felt that everyone would feel more comfortable and on a lot firmer ground if the'Counc l chose to close the loop hole with -specific regulations. 1 1 Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Steve Suddjian, Ensign Way, the developer of the project, pointed out that they accepted the existing R-2 zoning on the property, but he wanted it to be clear that because the local . West Bayshore Association objected to the previous Planning Commission approval of R-3, and that the resultant Council voted to support the Neighborhood Association R-2 zoning, even though this was not in keeping with the surrounding area. He said it was strictly against everything he had heard from the City of Palo Alto for affordable housing. As a result, the effort toward providing affordable housing was somewhat diminished. They were talking about R-2, and they were talking about single-family or duplex. He said they did not know what it would be, but assured the Council that it would not be affordable in the terms used by them. What the West Bayshore Association did was raise the price of the property. Mayor Henderson asked if Mr.. Suddjian could give a rough estimate on the sale price if they were all duplexes. Mr. S.uddjian said a duplex would sell, dependent upon square footage, for about $275,000 to $325,000 each. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Counci lmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations finding that the project, including the design and improvements (e.g., the street align- ments, drainage and sanitary. facilities, locations and size of all 'required rights -of -way, lot size and configuration, grading, and traffic access) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the Palo Al to Municipal Code; that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment nor be likely to result in serious public health problems; that the site is physically suit- able for the type and density of the proposed development; and that there are not conflicts with public easements, and recommend approval with the following conditions: (1) The developer shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer including the specifics delineated in this report; (2) Utilities shall be installed pursuant to requirements of the City Utilities Depart- ment; (3) The developer shall install a hydrant as required by the Fire Department. . Mayor Henderson said he had difficulty because he heard all the speeches made throughout the years about affordable housing, and to get as much as possible, and then Downtown Park North was rezoned and some excellent low and moderate housing was eliminated, the great struggle on Alma Street, and now, this was an area that was ideally suited for multiple density housing. They had previously had a proposal that waold have provided 30 units, including_ three low/moderate income units, all priced at. somewhere around $150,000. Instead, the City was going to get up to ten units, and no low/moderate income units. He could never see the senseof making the statements of providing all the housing possible, and take one Of the'very few ideal locations in town for higher density housing and make that kind of a change. Councilhember Renzel said she would support the recommendation. As one of who supported affordable housing, she did not support it at the expense of the neighborhoods. She supported it in terms of tryingto make significant contributions by redesignating lands that were currently in nonresidential uses where a significant impact in housing could by made without destroyingexistingneighborhoods, MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. RECESS FROM 9:20 p.m. to 9:30. p.m. VACATION OF EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES R VENUE E WEEK RK.B ULE ND RAILROAD TRACKS (CMR:517:1) Staff recommends that the Council: NAMELY A PORTION RN PACfFIC 1. Adopt the Resolution of the Council of the city of Palo Alto declaring its Intent to Order the Vacation of a Public Street Easement and Setting a Public Hearing in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code Section 8320. 2. . Direct the City Clerk to schedule the public hearing for December 7, 1981 and publish .a Notice of Public Hearing for at. least two consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code Section 8322. 3. Direct that at least two weeks prior to the day set for the public hearing notices of vacation are posted as required by - California Streets and Highways Code Section 8323. 4. If after the public hearing, the Council desires to proceed, adopt the Resolution on of the Council of the City of Palo Alto ordering. the Vacation of a Public Street Easement. It will then be recorded with the County Recorder's Office. Ms. Lee said this was strictly a ministerial act setting a public hearing. It was not a -public hearing. At the time of the public hearing, there were issues that would be addressed dealing with the necessity for vacating the easement, the public benefit of vacating the easement, and dealing With present and future public needs for the .particular easement. Those were not appropriate to discuss now because there was not a noticed public hearing on it. Streets and Highways Code Section 8323 and 8324 talked about the need to have a noticed public hearing before those issues are addressed. She asked that those procedures he adhered to in order to follow the procedures of the Streets and Highways Code. Further, she advised the Council that there needed to be a revision to the ordinance before --them. In the second.paragraph, "Whereas the Council of the City of Palo Alto intends to vacate said easement, according to the procedures set forth in Street and Highways Code, Division .9, Part 3," Chapter 3; and." Mayor Henderson declared the public heari ng open. David Jeong, 405€ Park Boulevard, felt that the public hearing should not be set because he felt that the disposition of the property had not been decided. He said that later on the City might still have some use for the property, that it might still be used as a street for access to the S.P. lot. He did not feel the hearing was necessary. Sylvia Pollack, 455 Grant Avenue, representing the Grant Avenue Condominium Owners Association, felt that it was inappropriate and premature -to talk about vacating an easement at the end of Grant Avenue until- the .considerations .were made of the Initiative Petition that had gathered . about 4700 signatures. She wanted the hearing tobe held off until the Initiative Petition -was considered. R. J. 0ebs, 3145 Flowers Lane, .pointed out that the Resolution of Intent was conditioned upon the approval of.a final subdivision map. He said the Council had enough time and power to vacate, the easement. He thought the Council was starting procedures to give up Palo Alto's permanent easement on Grant Avenue. He urged the Council to re-examine the matter, and respect the right of are - Initiative Petition. 1 1 Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said that under oral Communications the Council had heard a citizen speak that it had taken about two years for the Just Cause Eviction Ordinance to be approved, yet in the case of vacating an easement in order to speed up on a controversial project, he thought the Council was acting with haste. He hoped the public hearing would be tabled and wait for a time which would be more appropriate. Mayor Henderson declared the .public hearing closed. Counci.ymember Renzel said. she respected the right of an Initia- tive Petition, and she thought it was significant that this Initiative Petition was a rezoning of the site on which the hearing for vacating the easement was based. She -._thought it was inappropriate for the Council to act on any of the aspects of that piece of property until the Council decided what it would do on the Initiative .Petition. If the Council did not enact the Initiative, but put it on the ballot, she thought it .would be appropriate to wait until the matter was decided by the voters before taking further action. She pointed out that one of the findings which had to be made on the final subdivision map was that there was no conflict with easements, so that when the step was taken to go further, the Council was eliminating one of the conditions that later would have to be made. She would vote against setting the hearing. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved to table setting a public hearing to vacate the easement. MOTION FAILED for lack of second. MOTION: Counci lmember Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the Resolution of intent, and that the second paragraph of the resolution be amended to read, "WHEREAS, the Council of the Gi ty of Palo Alto intends to vacate such easement according to the procedures set forth in California Streets and Highways Code Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 3; and" RESOLUTION 5972 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DECLARING ITS INTENT TO VACATE AN EASEMENT OF PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES BEING A PORTION OF GRANT AVENUE BETWEEN PARK BOULEVARD AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING" Councilmembet Klein said it was a procedural matter to set a public hearing. Any project of this size had any numberof such resolutions to go through before it would come to fruition. He thought that all members of the Council supported the right of the people to have an Initiative process and would go through it if the requisite number of registered voters signed the Initia- tive. He thought . the City also had a responsibility to go by its own rules and;. procedures, and,: this was coming before the Council in the ordina6:.,course -of events. He thought that until such other action took place, the procedures shoved be followed. MOTION PASSED by a vote Of 7-1, Renzel voting "no," Fazz i no. .absent. 1 4 .3 2 11/16/81 HARRY ALLEN COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC POWER PROJECT (CMR:520:l) Staff recommends that Council approve preliminary participation in the Harry Allen Power Project and the expenditure of $30,000 from available funds in the 1981-82 budget. Director of Utilities Edward K. Aghjayan said staff believed the project needed some discussion. He introduced Roger" Fonce, Director of Planning for the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA). He said that the background for the project was that it was originally called the Harry Allen Warner Valley Energy System. It was a project that consisted of conceptually coal-fired power plants; one in Utah and one in Nevada. It consisted of the mining of coal in Utah, and the shipment of coal in .,a coal slurry pipeline 185 miles into Nevada to serve the Nevada Power plant. It had serious environmental opposition-, mostly based around the Strip mining of coal, the power plant in Utah which was located near a National Park, and concerns about water supply to mix the coal which was to be put into a coal water slurry. As of now, the project had eliminated the plants in Utah, and the one in Nevada remained, which was near Las Vegas. The,coal supply had not been firmed up yet -nor had the water supply. Those were the two other environmental concerns which could be impacted during the planning process. He said that NCPA was a-pproached by the Nevada Power Company to participate in the initial planning of the project. Further, he said the NCPA commission passed a resol utieh at its last meeting to -participate in the project and to request the cities to cone in within 30 days, and .to indicate its support or nonsupport in the initial planning process. As of now, most public power entities in California were opting to go with the initial planning process. He said NCPA felt that this was a project that for a minimal planning investment would yield a high potential in terms of power supply. The NCPA share of the approximately 2,000 megawatt plant would be 10% of 200 megawatts. That was about the size of the Calaveras Project. He said staff estimated that the NCPA total planning costs might run about $400,000 to $2 million, but probably closer to the $400,000. He said NCPA had to have in its hands a commitment from the City to proceed in the negotiation of the participation agreement. Mr. Aghjayan reiterated that the City would be participating. in the planning only --not construction. if the cities concur, NCPA would negotiate an agreement with Nevada Power, bring the agreement back to the NCPA commission within 30 days.. The steps to follow would be that, i f -the NCPA commission.voted for,.the agreement, then a phase II agreement, which would be a formal written agreement would be drafted among the cities and NCPA, to participate. Mr. Aghjayan anticipated that the agr°eerrent would spell out the total costs to be incurred, which would hopefully not be much more than another $100-,000 or $200,000. ,It would spell out the participation percentages, it would -..spell out how the money would be returned if the project did not proceed. He said that would come back to the Council in about March, 1982. The final -agreement would be the decision- to proceed with the -project. He `said that what was important to .note was that as the City starts to put money into those projects, they were putting $30,000 into the project and --that no one, could guarantee that At would result in power coming:dbwn the pipe or even that the project would proceed.e He. said Palo alto was in the power. planning business, and that those Opportunities tame along with a - lot of, thorns attached, and one of the thorns was the up --front money to even get involved with the- planning. -All of the cities were used to doing that, and -Palo Alto was just getting into it. He said that some years ago, the Council enacted -4 Utilities Reserve Fund for this purpose as. wel 1. as others., so the, money: was there, the ,tlt i 1 i dies Department had budgeted the .money, but-. the project had -had environmental criticisms, and he thought it was appropriate for the-Councl to raise their questions. Basically, NCPA was saying that jf. Palo Al to --did not _ put up the -up-front - money, - they would have , to forego the project. Councilmember Renzel asked what the City's megawatt usage -per year was? Mr. Aghjayan said currently the City was at 165.6 megawatts, and the entitlement from the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) was 175 megawatts. 1 1 Councilmember Renzel-asked how long, under the City's agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation, did the City have rights, and what were the renewal conditions expected to be? Mr. Aghjayan said the City's contract was :for 175 megawatts. From 165 to 175 megawatts would be about.two more years growth conservatively and maybe as long as three or four years. He said that was shorter than the City anticipated a year ago. A year ago, the City's peak was 153, and it jumped 13 megawatts in one year. Part of that was due to the industrial growth being experienced in Palo Alt®, a lot of the buildings which had been built were now being filled. It was not. a simple answer to say how long the City had, there were- all kinds of ramifications around the City's power supply with WAPA that needed"to be addressed in the future. WAPA was very energy deficient, and even if Palo Alto could meet the peak, they may well stipulate that Palo Alto would have to buy some of its own energy beyond their current load factor. He said there were no qualms that Palo Alto would need the energy, or WAPA would need the energy, it was a question of when. He said the project would not be built -for some time, and At may not be built at all, and Palo Alto would have to look at 'everal such projects before settling on the ones to be involved in. Councilmember Renzel said if it were assumed that Palo Alto did not have any incr=ease in energy demand and went -along under the Bureau of Reclamation Contract, what would happen and when? She said she realized that it was subject to change at some point, and that. Palo Alto's portion of electricity available may change. Mr. Aghjayan said that the contract ran until 2004. He said that historically, the City was in a position where they could argue and lobby that it should have it restored at that level. It would depend upon the policies that were being held at that time. In some cases, if there were energy deficiencies, they may elect to give Palo Alto less than the 175 to allocate that power elsewhere. They had the right to do that. Councilmember Renzel asked what the City paid per megawatt hour to the Bureau of Reclamation now? Mr. Aghjayan said 9 mi l s, per kilowatt hour and that was expected to rise very rapidly in the next two years. Councilmember Henze) said that for megawatt that would be $9 per megawatt, and if that tripled it would be about $27 per megawatt. She said she did some _calculations and if the City participated in this project and it ended up costing between $3.8 billion to $5 billion, the City's part would be about $38 million to $50 mil l ion,`'which would come out, for 20 megwatts, to something like $1,900,000 to 52,500,000 per megawatt. Even when you took the $1,900,000, it was $47,500 per year just to build the capital plan for those 20 megawatts. Mr. Aghjayan said he would not compare annual operating costs to capital investment costs, but he said her point wa,ss a good one. Any new source of energy the City was looking at was far more expensive than the current. supply. He said WAPA energy would always be the cheapest available. He said it was a question of alternatives; any new .facility the City looked at was far more expensive than any existing facility currently on line, which was one of ' the reasons - tie City had a strong conservation program to hold down growth. The City has not had to make this kind of an investment in terms of alternative energy resources, the City had managed to string out its WAPA energy for a long time, and he thought it could still be done with a load management program. All of the City's projects and forecasts, and Palo Alto was the most conservative forecaster in the business, all point toward needing a substantial amount of power by the year 2004, above the 175 megawatts. Counci imember Renzel said it was al 1 based on an increase . in load growth. Palo Alto was substantially increasing the cost to the residents of the town fo_r their electricity, as the load growth required that the City pull in the supplementary power. Mr. Aghjayani said staff had not .decided how the price would be --that was a Council policy decision. Staff had not decided how to price electricity in -the future. He said he did not think they could get around the fact that pricing was going. up, and if the City grew very fast -pricing would go Up faster. Regarding how to design the rates for who would pay, whether it was new, existing, old or a combination .of customers, that was a.policy issue the Council had yet to address. Councilmember Renzel asked if the Council had a lot of latitude in how they developed the pricing? Mr. Aghjayan said the Council would have some latitude because they were talking about a very dynamic situation. He thought that if Council discriminated on one class of customers vis-a-vis another class of customers simply because one was residential and one was commercial or vice versa, that might bring about some cliff icu€ties. If the Council were to reward customers who were staying within their allotments, he thought that was something to look out. Councilmember Renzel said what she had heard tonight was that even qith the City's vigorous conservation program, the City's demanci for megawatt hours went up 12.6 megawatt hours in the last year. Mr. Aghjayan sai:1 that was correct. Councilmember Eyerly .said the WAPA power had always been looked at as a pot of gold, but from what he heard, there were a lot of brush fires which had to be fought which was not just the fear of cost being raised, but the chance that power might be lost. He asked Mr. Aghjayan to comment . on the SMUD lawsuit. Mr. Aghjayan said that SMUG bought an allocation of power from WAPA. SMUD's position was that they had a contract that said they got nothing but pure hydropower --the cheapest power ever developed by. WAPA. Contrary to popular belief, all of WAPA's power was not , hydropower. They had a project load factor .of 40%, which meant they could meet Palo Alto's" capacity needs, but they. had to buy surplus energy. For example, Palo Alto's load factor was 60%, Santa Cl ara's was 70%. They had to buy a great deal of energy from a coal buyer's plant in ,Washington which was blended in with the low-cost hydropower. SMUO's position was that they got the hydro power first and everyone else got the expensive power. If they wain the lawsuit, it would have significant impact on Palo Alto's pricing. Obviously, Palo Alto was working to see that they .did not win the case. Mr. Aghjayan said hewas always being asked about the difference between the cost of WAPA power and the cost of PG&E power. If' Palo Alto were_ to buy all of its `power from PG&E,: like some cities were doing, they were talklng about 850 million kilowatt hours at 47 mils, which was the wholesale rate. Palo Alto's purchase powers costs would ;go upby some $35 mi l l;.ion per year. It all boiled down to the fact that there were no guarantees that, Palo Alto would get a fixed amount of power until the -,year 2004 at favorable rates. Palo Alto had to plan for the future, and one way was to have these kinds of projects waiting in the background in case they were needed sooner. Councilmember Eyerly said it was his understanding that WAPA encouraged the City of Palo Alto and other CVP cities to be looking at other power sources in their long-range power planning to supplement theirs so that they could keep their rates down. Mr. Fonce said_ that WE.?A was investigating participation in the Harry Allen project, and expected to buy in to the project for about 200 megawatts or ten percent of the project. In essence, every megawatt that NCPA to its members buys into the Harry Allen project, an equivalent of one-fourth of that would be purchased for WAPA. For every 4 megawatts we .boy, one megawatt . would be purchased for WAPA. Councilrnember Levy said that in the past, the City had taken 20% to 30% of the share of the NCPA participation in .Calaveras and Feather River,. and asked how come Palo Alto was only taking 10% in this project? Mr. Aghjayan said that staff review indicated_ that Palo Alto did not need 20%, so staff advised NCPA they would recommend to Council that Palo Alto take 10%. He thought that the 20% was a figure that was drawn up because it happened to be equal to the pro -rata -share of dues. Dues were based on the peak demand of all of the cities compared to the total of the peak demand. Since Palo Alto already -had a fixed amount of power coming from WAPA and other cities did not have that, they Were looking to replace all of their current PG&E power. Palo Alto looked at the formula a little differently, and since Palo Alto was pretty heavily involved in the Calaveras Project, staff's feels-ng was that a 10% share or a 20 megawatt share of the project would be sufficient. Staff's leaning in the projects, was that Palo Alto Was better off to diversify and hold down our total commitment in any one project to a lesser number than perhaps in the past so that the risks could be diversified,. He said `there was always a risk of getting involved in a project, and then after being committed to the bond funds, the project .got built, and then for some reason could not operate. He used the concrete monument near Diablo Canyon which was hui 1 t . and paid for and not operating, which could happen with any facility. He did not think Palo Alto wanted to. be in a position of having too large a share of that one risk. Wise and prudent planning would try and spread out that risk. Counciloember Levy asked what megawatt total .Palo Alto would need in 1990 from the 165 megawatts currently. Mr. Aghjayan said that ,_basically the City was growing at the rate of 4-6 megawatts per:year. Palo Alto got involved in more pro_- jects than staff felt would be necessary in the power _run because they did not expect that all of them would: come to fr-ui t ion. Furthermore, as,the City got involved in the planning on some projects, better ones might cone down, and the City might wish to opt out of some projjects, and get into the better ones even though the City may :have put some .money into one project. Basically, the. City was trying to fili' its entire future forecasted needs With supplemental power from other sources. One 'element of supplemental power was the fact that the City had a contract with -PG&E to supply energ3 the City -could not supply -on - its -own. The whole reason for getting into -these projectswas- to achieve some'-independencefrom reliance on PG&E because they were growing faster, and they were building new facilities 1 ike Diablo Canyon quicker than Palo Alto. Palo Alto hoped to fill -the entire gap although staff realized there would be ti €nes. when there -would not be enough power to . do that, and'. there_. would be periods when a pro j ec t .-woul d be put on -linen and there would be a 1 4 3 6 11/16/81 surplus, and then they would sell that surplus to NCPA or some other agency. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt staff recommendation approving preliminary participation in the Harry Allen Power Project and the expenditure of $30,000 from available funds in the 1981-82 budget. Councilmember Renzel said she felt this was another example of where the City failed to manage its growth and was dumping an env•irdnmental disaster- somewhere else. She said it was unclear where the coal was coming from, b.ut it was expected to ccme from strip mining in Utah. She said the coal fired plants caused air polution problems. She thought the cost was exhorbitant when you looked at what Palo Alto's portion would cost and_what It would add per megawatt. She thought Palo Alto was doing ,things back- wards when it continued to create the demand. It was clear that even though the conservation program was successful, it had still resulted in an enormous growth in one year after the conservation program was in place. It seemed to her that Palo Alto needed to do more. She would vote against the motion, and felt that Palo - Alto had to stop exporting its environmental pr-obl a:ns. Councilmember Eyerly felt that conservation was very important, and consideration of land uses doubly so, but he thought Council had to be realistic on their basis for use of WAPA power. It was not guaranteed for sure through the time of the contract. For those reasons,_knowing what was happening to PG&E rates and how rapidly they were going up, Palo Alto needed to be moving on projects within the scope of its long-range power planning and to try and .supplement that power because they may not 'even have it. He said the marketing ofthe power was something el se that NCPA would have to help with--WAPA had indicated their interest in helping. If Palo Alto still had all the WAPA power at a reasonable price, it would still need marketing. 'Palo Alto could not "have its cake and eat it too," Council had to go along with planning and protect the price of electricity in Palo Alto in the future. He felt that if the City did not look to the future, he saw that Palo Alto might be selling its electricity at a cost of PG&E or higher, Councilmember Levy said he believed that Palo Alto had stood out from other government jurisdictions in its ability to plan ahead. And, this represented another example of it. He agreed with Councilmember Renzel that conservation must take first ,place among priorities in planning ahead for power usage, and he believed it had. The problem with the generation of power was that almost every technique which could now be employed efficiently for the generation of power had environmental drawbacks to it. He said it was true of hydroelectric to some degree, coal, oil, nuclear, but the fact of the matter was that more power generation would be needed, and he thought the concept being employed Of being involved, to a modest degree in a nuthber of different projects -at an early stage made sense as they saw each project develop, hopefully they would be in a position► to back out of the ones that were wrong environmentally or financially poor and move more strongly into those that were better. At the same time, if Palo Alto's conservation programs. were continued to be pushed, perhaps the City would be able to back out of more of the projects. He felt it was necessary now to plan ahead so: that those alternatives would be available. He said he would support the motion. Councilmember Bechtel agreed that conservation was a high priority, but it was not the only answer. The only answer was the, zoning being applied to the land because if the City continued to allow more and more industrial development, they would obviously have a rapidly- escalating demand. She could not see the City getting involved in a coal-fired plant with that many environmental problems. It did not mean that she would, be opposed to the City putting its money into small other planning projects,,but she 'would oppose the motion. 1 4 3 7 11/16/81 1 Vice Mayor Fletcher asked if staff knew where most of the growth came from. Mr. Ayhjayan said staff did not know for sure, but felt it came from expansion within industrial complexes-. Electric load growth was very difficult to try and control. Another industrial building in this community could not be built and not have growth within the building. In some cases, it may be a very_ viable alternative to go to an energy intensive industry rather than a labor intensive industry. He thought that Council would rather have less traffic going up and down the streets, which would.mean amore energy -intensive, industry. A lot of industries had done thate-replaced people with machines, a.nd machines used more energy. It made sense. to serve the industry with the power they needed as long as they paid the cost -of service. He thought that was the business Palo Alto was in. Staff felt that it was prob- ably coming from the industrial sector, but be Was not sure a lot of it would be controlled with zoning.` Vice Mayor Fletcher said she .though} the City already had the zoning, the building was there, the approvals for expansion were almost automatic because it was allowed under the zoning. She said. the last Hewlett Packard expansion plans she saw were for a whopping increase in electric power usage. There was construce- tion going on all the time in the industrial park, it was never ending. She wished they could put a stop to'the growth, but it was there and it was too late to rezone it because the industries were there already. She did not like the coal-fired plant with the environmental costs and the acid rain problems which had not been addressed, but had been recognized. She wondered how much control NCPA would have under the manner of operations if they could have some say in the environmental .controls as the plans got going. Mr. Ayhjayan said that was a good point, and one of the reasons that NCPA wanted to get involved now. Mr. Fonce said that NCPA had looked at the environmental control configuration for the projects. He said this project had a permit from the Enviropmental Protection Agency now for the site in Southwest Nevada. The emission rate of this plant which would use the latest control technology, particular sulphur controls, and knox controls made it cleaner than some oil fired power plans in the Bay Area. In fact, in some cases, much cleaner. The pro- ject applicant did not have, retrofit chemical knox systems on the plant. That was the only control technique the plant would not use, but all the other advances and sulphur abatement would be used and would lower the emissions to what in the State of Nevada and to the Environmental Protection Agency were very acceptable levels. The Committee that would control the design construction of the facility would he composed of all the project partici- pants. NCPA would have a }en percent owners share and would be able to vote the ten percent owners' percentage. NCPA would not dictate the terms and conditions for design, however, the coal that they were planning to use and the western coals in general:.. were low in sulphur, low in ash. The pollution abatement equip- -went had already been specified to the Environmental Protection Agency and had been certified by them. He doubted there was much that could be added to the project to make it cleaner, and NCPA wouldnot be _able to dictate terms to the Nevada Power Company. He thought- the coordination group as a wholes could and would look at environmental controls as a reasonable condition for the pro- ject and for project participation.. Vice Mayor Fletcher_ said she hoped the emissions controls were l'firmed tip tothe degree that they would not be relaxed. Mr. Aghjayan said he appreciated Mr. Fonce' answer, but regardless of what NCPA's position was, it had always been Palo Alto's position' in these proceedings, to take a close; look at 1 4 3 8 11/16/81 the environmental -effects and to the extent that Palo Alto as participants in the planning process could impact certain deci- sions, they would take such positions. He said the decision had yet to be made as to where to purchase the coal, whether it would come from strip mining An iltah or other sources like Western Fuel Administration. He thought -that the decision as to where the water supply would come from had yet to be made. He had always felt that he would. rather be involved in the process, and try to help make it come out in a way that woul d be _ consi stent with the policies of the City of Palo Alto than to just say we don't want any part of it: Vice Mayor Fletcher thought there might be some benefit to Palo Alto's participation in that it might have some influence. At this point, she would go along with the motion. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Renzel and Bechtel voting "no," Fazzino absent. VICE MAYOR FLETCHER RE MRS. FIELD'S CHOCOLATE CH1PPERY Vice Mayor Fletcher said that when --the last extensive revision to the zoning ordinance was done in 1978, severe restrictions were placed on service windows. She was behind that because of her concern of the adverse impact on- the growing number of drive -up windows and fast food service establishments on El Camino Real. Now, it had served to restrict a type of usage which the Council wanted to encourage in downtown Palo Alto, which was a walk-up service window for pedestrians. Mrs. Field's Chocolate Chippery was located in Liddicoat's Market and they wanted to bring.their operation to the front of the store and install 'a service window. Unfortunately, with Palo Alto's new strict regulations, this was not possible because there was a service window at a sandwich shop next doors MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, that the restriction on walk-up service windows in the P zone (Combining District) be removed and that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission for a -zone change. Vice Mayor Fletcher said the intent was to improve the retail vitality and force it.downtown. She said this was the type of th ny the Council was concerned about, and should enhance i t . Ms. Lee said she was not sure that the Council should be so specific- in the motion in terns of the zone change. She was not sure that was necessary. She thought perhaps Council should look at the regulations, i.e., 10.43.040 of the Municipal Code, Subsection (e) that regulated drive=in services or take-out services. Those were only allowed as conditional- uses in certain zones. She thought that perhaps Council should address that problem in terms of proximity of those kinds of uses to one another and whether it would not be appropriate to perhaps change the regulations. Vice Mayor Fletcher asked for clarification that she meant to allow them to be closer together, but still have the same restrictions? Ms. Lee said they did not have to be allowed is conditional uses. Those were ;optional, If Council wanted to allow them, they could be allowed a certain distance from one another, but that was optional. Perhaps it would be wiser to make the distance somewhat closer together, Vice Mayor Fletcher said she would prefer to remove restrictions on walk-up service windows in any pedestrian zone because they had no adverse impact that she knew of, 1 4 3 9 11/16/81 Counc i lmember Renzel said it seemed to her that the whole prov i-_ sion in the ordinance was directed at automobile lines and drive -up windows.' She thought that all Council needed to do was to distinguish walk-up windows in the ordinance, and those should be monitored through Architectural Review Board activities - because she :did not think the Council had any ob I'ect-ion to walk- up windows anywhere. She did not think it even had to be a P zone. If people could walk up and not drive up, it seemed to her that distinction should be mace, and let it happen. 1 Ms. Lee said the section she_ was referring to talked about drive-in services or take-out services. She thought.that for what the Council was -attempting to do, the language "take-out" services could apply to pedestrian take-out as well as auto vehicular take-out. She thought that perhaps with a change. An that, if -it said "excluding pedestrian take-out" 'or something of that nature, then it could be accomplished. by regulation. She said she was concerned With the statement about changing the zoning as opposed to the zoning regulations. Vice Mayor Fletcher said it was her intent. to change the zoning regulations not the zoning for this particular property. Councilmember Klein said he was in favor of the intent of the motion, but did not think it was a good idea for the Council to try and work with the Municipal -Code at this tine SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Counci lme,nber Klein moved, seconded: by Witherspoon, to refer the matter to staff to draft language to accomplish intention referred to in Vice Mayor Fl e tcher's memo of November 10, and to go to Planning Coinrnission if staff felt it was necessary. Counctlmenber Eyerly said he thought -Council was headed -in the -right direction. He was concerned that if there were walk-up windows that stacked up a lot of traffic, that the people could be on the sidewalk. He thought Mrs.- Field was planning a three foot space which would be on L3ddicoat's property which was what he thought it ought to be. He said that in certain commercial areas such as downtown -and California Avenue, there were some drive -up spaces for banking, and he wondered if the Council was correct in restricting that type of activity. if those firms had stacking lanes on their own property to take care of the traffic,. because there was a shortage of, space in the downtown area and California Avenue for people to park, and if they lived in the, neighborhood and used that commercial area. for banking -or some Of the other drive -up services, they had to drive around and around to find a parking space, anC >- it was a disadvantage_ to :the people. He thought that the drive -up for certain areas should be -re- evaluated if certain conditions were met. Michael Murphy, representing Mrs. Field's Chocolate Chippery, said they found themselves in the unfortunate situation of being trapped between their desires and particular absence of a par- ticular ordnance. He appealed to the Council to help them out of this predicament and allow them to proceed and continue as Palo Alto's favorite daughter expanded her cookie empire. SUBSIITUTE MOTI0N. PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. REQUEST OF MAYOR HENDERSON RE ACTIVITIES IN FOOTHILLS_: PARK. Mayor Henderson said he had some serious complaints in recent weeks of ;the activities of drinking, bottle throwing, wild driving, and loud music in Foothills Park. He thought it was not only a case of discomfort of being in the Park, and wondered if there was :some legal liability to the City if, it established speed limits and certain restrictions on conduct, and then, if someone got seriously injured, whether the Lity would have a real problem. He said it was pointed out that it was not just a case 1 4 4 0 11/16/81 1 of cars driving at high rates of speed, and people that were not in a condition to be driving but down in the basic valley in the picnic areas, there were loud radios making the surroundings unpleasant for_ those who wanted to come out and spend a quiet day at the park. He thought the current park regulations needed to be looked at., the different problems, and the enforcement - problems, and see what needed to be done. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Eyerly, to direct staff to report to Council on current Foothills Park regulations and problems of enforcement, and to recommend to Council any need for new regulations and personnel. Counci-lrnernber Witherspoon said she thought Mayor Henderson's memo was very timely and suggested that perhaps findings could be made that Foothills Park Was a rural one, and loud radios, etc. were not appropriate. She also suggested that reserve police officers might also be -used on weekends to supplement the rangers. Counciimember Eyerly agreed with the motion, and said there was a study done regarding drinking in the parks, and he thought the study should be updated once in a while by staff, and Council be made aware of problems and where there might be .corrections. He said he noticed problems developing in the drinking pattern in Lytton Plaza downtown now that. Cogswell was not available. He said he would like to hear once in a while from the Police Department their observations on certain problems like this so that it did not reach the proportion that it had in Cogswell before Council did anything. Vice Mayor Fletcher said she thought something needed to be done about Foothills Park. She was wonderin;-whether it was not time to examine the idea of an admission fee. She knew it was unpopu- lar when it was suggested before, but if it was a matter of addi- tional staffing. to keep the park peaceful, she thought it might be worth $1 or $2 admittance fee to keep it that way. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. RE UEST OF MAYOR HENDERSON RE PROCEDURAL RULES FOR CITY COUNCIL Mayor Henderson said that former City Attorneys Roy Abrams and Don . Maynor had mentioned the problems concerning lack of formal rules for procedures for Council action. He said the attorney got asked for a ruling and there was nothing specific to base that ruling on. The best example was that there was no formal set of rules such as -Roberts Rules of Order. Maybe those were not the ones the Council wanted to follow, but he thought it was clear that. something was needed in the Code. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Klein, to direct the City Clerk and the C'ty Attorney to review current procedural rules for City Council meetings and recommend to the Council any changes or additions, and referring such recommendations to the Policy and Procedures Committee. Councilmember Witherspoon said,. in plugging. Roberts Rules of Order, that most .other _organizations followed Roberts Rules, and that they were updated periodically, MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. REQUEST OF MAYOR HENDE SON RE ABAG BLOTS D-UE , BY DECEMBER 7 AT ABAG . UFFICI Mayor Henderson said there was a request to complete the ABAG voting ballots. , He said he had heard some Counci imembers desiring to hold off for -further discussion. He said the final 1 4 4 1 1)/16/81 dae was December 7. City Clerk Ann Tanner said the ballots had to be back to her December 7.: ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ATTEST APPROVED: y 1 4 4 2 11/16/81