Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-12-04 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES moznae PAL.O ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE. VIA KZSU- FREQUENCY90.1 ON FM tMAL Regular Meeting December 4, 1989 RAGE Oral Communications 62-365 Minutes of October 23, 1989 62-365 Consent Calendar 62365 1. Consultant Agreement with SCS Engineers for Land 62-365 fill Gas Monitoring System Design, Construction and Reporting; Amendments Not to Exceed $3,000 2. Contract with George Bianchi Construction, Inc. 62-365 for Seismic Restraint of Substation Transformers; Change Orders Not to Exceed $4,500 3. Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Rezone 62-366 Property at 4260 Suzanne Drive 4. Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Plan for the 62-366 Development of a Methane Gas Recovery System in a Portion of Bybee Park 5. Ordinance Adopting the 1988 Edition of the 62-366 Uniform Fire Code and Amending Chapter 15.04 Q. Ordinance Regarding the Requirement that the 62-366 Landlord Give the Tenant 60 Days Notice 7. Compostable Debris Program Update 62-369 8. Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated 62-377 PALO ALTO CITY alt MEETINGS ANN ALIO CASUCA$T ON WVEIVINENT CSAINIEL 16 62-363 12/04/89 ITEM RAQK 9. League of California Cities Annual Conference 62-378 Resolutions 10. Ordinance Amending the FY 1989-90 Budget to 62-381 Provide Funds for Plan Check Services 11. Sand Hill Corridor Study Cooperative Agreement 62-383 and Request for Proposal for EIR Preparation 12. Boards and Commissions Recruitment Process 62.392 13. Council Member Ellen Fletcher re Response to 62-393 Tri-County Apartment Association re Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing 14. Council Member Leland Levy re National League 62-396 of Cities Report 15. Council Member Ellen Fletcher re National League 62-396 of Cities Report Adjournment at 11:45 p.m. 62-397 rinal Adjournment at 11:50 p.m. 62-397 62-364 12/04/89 Regular Meeting December 4, 1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:31 p.m. Mayor Klein announced that the Closed Session to discuss Employee/ Employer Relations Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 was held in the Personnel Conference Room at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Richard Rundell, 859 Lytton Avenue, World Peace through Religious Organization, spoke regarding religious sacraments. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Harbor and Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) . Ben Bailey, 105 Cotton, Menlo Park, spoke regarding the Police Department's Citizen's Complaint Summary Report. John (Jack) Penick, 2911 Sevyson Court, spoke regarding opposition to the construction of a cottage at 855 Clara Drive. MIMS OF OCTOBER 23` 1982 NOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Minutes of October 23, 1989, as corrected. MOTION PABt3ED 8.0-1. Patitucci "abstaining," gMENTSALLEMR NOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein, approve Consent Calendar Items 1 -- 5. 1. Consultant Agreement with SCS Engineers for Landfill Gas Monitoring System Design, Construction and Reporting; Amendments Not to Exceed $3,000 (1113) (CMR:532:9) 2. Contract. with George Bianchi Construction, Inc. for Seismic Restraint of Substation o: Transformers; Change Orders Not to Exceed $4,500 ( 212 ) (CMR:563 : 9 ) 62-365 12/04/89 3. ORDINANCE 3919 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 4260 SUZANNE DRIVE FROM THE "PF" TO THE "R-1" ZONING CLASSIFICATION" (1st Reading 11/06/89, PASSED 9-0) (300) (NPG) 4. ORDINANCE 3920 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A METHANE GAS RECOVERY SYSTEM IN A PORTION OF BYXSEE PARK" (1st Reading 11/20/89, PASSED 8-0, Renzel absent) (1321-05) (NPG) 5. ORDINANCE 3921 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING THE 1988 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE" (1st Reading 11/20/89, PASSED 8-0, Renzel absent) (701-02) MOTION PASSED 9-0. , Q NQA =ANUS._ ?RDITIQNS 1 AND DELETIONS Council Member Levy added the Item regarding the Report on the National League of Cities to become Item 14. Council Member Fletcher added the Item regarding the Report on the National League of Cities to become Item 15. UNFINJ; HED alj$;NESS 6. Ordinance Amending Section 9.68.030(d) Regarding the Require- ment that the Landlord Give the Tenant 60 Days Notice to Increase the Rent (250) Council Member Renzel referred to the court case regarding the City of Mountain View and queried if the City's proposed ordinance was in compliance with the State Code section. City Attorney Diane Northwey said the proposed ordinance complied with the State Code section. She referred to the recent court case under the holding of Try, County Apartment Association v. City of MOUntAiji View (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1283, in which the court concluded that the Mountain View ordinance was invalid because it impermissibly conflicted with statewide legislation by invading an area preempted by the Legislature. The case was written by Judge Stone and was written in such a way that there was an explanation of what preemption was. The case not only referred to pre-emption of the narrow type of notice in the Mountain View case, but pre- emption of all notification in all landlord/tenant relationships. 62-366 12/04/89 Based on her reading of the case, she did not believe it possible to reduce the time requirement. Council Member Sutorius queried if State law provided for a 30 - day notice. Ms. Northway said State law provided for a 30 -day notice in certain situations, but was silent with respect to notice in a situation where a long-term lease was involved. State law talked to a 30 - day notice for month--to-month tenancy. When State law was silent on a small portion of a larger area, it was presumed the intention was to have no regulation of that area because the entire field was preempted. John Mock, 2923 Alma Street, apologized for the late arrival of his letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office), and referred to the Mountain View ordinance which was inclusive and related to any type of rental unit. Palo Alto's ordinance was restricted and applied only to one-year leases, not month -to -month leases or shared living situations. He believed staff should obtain an interpretation regarding what was pnrmiseible in the case of the year lease under State law, the terms of the one-year lase should be more explicit, and the current ordinance should not be repealed until challenged. Stephen Avis, 284 Margarita Avenue, sai.: the current ordinance was not well understood by the public, judging from calls received by the Palo Alto Area Information and Referral System (PAAIRS) from both landlords and tenants. .Mountain View's ordinance added on to an existing State regulation in terms of notification period, but Palo Alto's did not. The Statewas mute on the issue, so it was reasonable that the City of Palo Alto would be in a position to institute some type of regulation. He understood the City's concern about a potential lawsuit similar to Mountain View's, but he believed a 30 -day notice provided conformity with landlords who had tenants on a month -to -month basis. LION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt the ordinance as amended to remove the third "WHEREAS." . inAnce lst adinq entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO WINDING SECTION 9.68.030 (d) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDLORD GIVE THE TENANT 60 DAYS NOTICE THAT HE INTENDS TO INCREASE THE RENT" (continued from 11/13/89) MOTION fSED 9--0. 62-367 12/04/89 MOTION: Council Member Fletcher request Assemblyman Byron Sher to a 60 -day notice before increasing of one year or more. moved, seconded by Renzel, to sponsor legislation to require tenalt rents for rental leases Council Member Renzel supported the motion and wanted the State Legislature to address the notice issue and whether it should be more extensive than current requirements. She believed a 60 -day notice was minimal in the current tight -housing market. Mayor Klein noted the motion requested State guidance and the City Attorney had pointed out the issue was a judicial decision and the courts did not give out advisory opinions, so State guidance was not in order. The State Attorney General's opinion would not be binding since the courts had already spoken, so he queried what was intended in the request for State guidance. Council Member Renzel said her intent was, since the court interpreted legislative intent in determining pre-emption, the Legislature should clarify pre-emption. Mayor Klein queried if Council Member Renzel was requesting a State opinion in the amendment. The only way to obtain an opinion from the State was through a lawsuit. Council Member Renzel said if the Legislature was not able to clarify whether it intended to pre-empt leases, then . Mayor Klein said if the Legislature acted as Council Member Renzel recommended, it would have spoken. Mr. Zanet said more flexibility was needed in the request to As- semblyman Byron Sher that he convince the Legislature to make the law statewide. A statute giving local options to cities wishing to adopt such an ordinance could be enacted by the Legislature. ANZIDMENT TO obis MUNICIPALITIES TEX OPTION TO ENACT REGULATIONS LOCALLY INCORPORATVD INTO MAIN MOTION BY MAKER AND SECOND Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Fletcher to dime' the portion relating to State guidance if there was no way to obtain it. Ms. Northway said the Legislature spoke through the statutes it wrote. Sometimes the statutes were not clear, and courts provided the interpretation through court cases. Legislation was needed to rewrite the statute, not an opinion from the Legislature. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 62-368 12/04/89 Q 7. Constable Debris Program Update (continued from 11/27/89) (1074) (CMR:554:9) Director of Public Works David Adams said the staff was ready to respond to items Council had requested at a meeting in July. Council Member Woolley queried how much of the $20,000 appropriated by Council last summer was used for buying the bins for the corrugated cardboard collection program, and when the bins would be available for businesses to use. She also queried if anything other than the brochure had been done for promotion and how much was spent. She referred to the staff report (CMR:554:9) statement that the balance wrs being used for other services and queried what those were. Superintendent of Public Works Mike Miller said $10,000 was used to purchase 23 corrugated cardboard bins which had been received, and two bins would be placed in businesses that week. The balance of the funds was used for the program promotion consisting of a brochure for distribution to retail businesses, and a comprehensive commercial/industrial brochure which listed other recycling services available to businesses would be distributed with the bins. Council Meer Woolley queried the timeframe for getting all the bins distributed to the businesses. Mr. Miller said most of the bins would be placed within the next two months. Staff was working with businesses to locate areas easily accessible and shared. The program might even move out of the California and University Avenue areas if there were sufficient bins. Sins serviced by the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) at the Stanford Shopping Center were being installed with cor- rugated cardboard compactors through a lease/purchase agreement with a private firer. Council Member Woolley noted staff requested an additional clerical position for $34,762, and queried what the program impact would be in terms of the cost on the residential refuse bill, if Council decided to approve the position. She also queried if it would be reasonable to bill the residential refuse, which wa►s responsible for approximately one-third of the waste generated, one-third of the cost of the extra position; and if the cost could be absorbed without raising rates. Mr. Adams said staff would need to review and determine the feasibility at the next program setting and total program needs would need to be adjusted and rates set accordingly, so a firm answer could not be given yet. 62-369 12/04/89 Vice Mayor Bechtel queried if the tagging program would be similar to the program in Seattle where tags could be ordered by mail rather than in person. Mr. Miller said the tags could be ordered by mail or purchased at Safeway or 7-11. Vice Mayor Bechtel said being able to obtain them at local markets was even better than by mail or in person. Mr. Miller said each tag in the Seattle distribution system had a value of $5. The City sold the tag to businesses for $4 and businesses received $1 for services; collectors received $1 for each tag collected and the Seattle Solid Waste Utility received $3 for administration, overhead, printing costs, and program promo- tion. Council Member Fletcher queried if the tags were used only as a method of collecting fees and not reusable. Mr. Killer said that was correct. Council Member Fletcher queried if each tag cost $5. Mr. Miller said that was correct. Council Member Fletcher queried if Mr. Miller was proposing $5 tags for Palo Alto. Mr. Miller said the costs could be reviewed, but he believed $5 per tag was an appropriate fee. Council Member Cobb queried if Council implemented a program similar to the Seattle program, would extra staff costs be covered by a $5 tag. Mr. Miller believed PASCO might be able to notify residents and handle requests through the normal billing process. Council Member Cobb queried if the program could pay for itself regardless of implementation procedures, and if degradable plastic bags could bedistributed by PASCO for convenience. Mr. Miller said the plan was for PASCO to handle the initial distribution and hoped to set up retail outlets. Council Member Cobb queried how the information would be made public. 62-370 12/04/89 Mr. Miller said two manufacturers were interested in marketing the bags for the retail outlets. Council Member Levy noted two alternatives had been offered before; the resident could pay $12 a yard for pickup or could take, the refuse to the dump, and queried if a resident could still go to the dump under the tag concept. Mr. Miller said yes, both options would still be available. Council Member Levy clarified the tags would be in addition to the regular services. He referred to the letter regarding the reusable collection cans and queried the cost to PASCO and viability of reusable containers. Mr. Miller said a resident -provided, reusable container collection at 25 percent participation, would cost PASCO approximately $50,000 per year and required no additional staff or equipment. If the participation was 50 percent, the cost would be approximately $125,000 per year; at 80 percent participation, the cost would be approximately $500,000 per year. Additional facilities would be required for PASCO equipment and additional staff. Mr. Adams said additional equipment would be needed because the compost materials could not be mixed with the rest of the trash pickup. A compostable program had to be a separate pickup; so additional equipment, personnel, and storage would be needed. Council Member Levy queried if the 25 percent was a reasonable figure based on current data. Mr. Miller said the participation rate was calculated based on the success of the curbside recycling program. Approximately 80 to 85 percent collection of the rubbish program was compostable; people participated frequently, and the frequency increased in the fall months. He anticipated a 50 to 75 percent participation eventual- ly, perhaps even 80 percent. Council Member Levy queried if data regarding resident participa- tion was available from other communities. Mr. Miller said programs differed so participation in different communities varied; it was successful in Davis, Sacramento, and Modesto. Berkeley recently kicked off a pilot program, but par- ticipation rates were not available. Council Member Levy _queried if other communities had participation rates to use as a gauge. Mr. Miller did not have the information available. 62-371 12/04/89 Council Member Woolley queried if the pilot program averaged 14 percent participation as indicated in Richard Gruen's letter, and when the program took place. Mr. Miller said the pilot program was from September to November 1987. Three methods were tried; one month each methods Council Member Woolley queried how 80 percent participation could be predicted if only 14 percent participation took place during the pilot program. Stephen Avis, 284 Margarita Avenue, representing the War on Waste Committee (WOW), said the committee met and appreciated the continuance on the matter. The committee believed the Seattle program was a workable prcjram and applauded the City staff for checking out and bringing the program to the City. He supported additional staffing for the recycling program because it was important, was considered a high priority for the Council, and should be reviewed. The WOW Committee researched disposable plastic and paper bags, concluded the kraft paper bags were no problem, and endorsed the use of the paper bags and reusable containers. Calls were made and information received from companies making degradable plastic bags. All polyethylene bags were degradable and enhanced so the degrading process occurred more rapidly. A large plastic bag decomposed into smaller pieces of plastic; the bonds that held the plastic together broke down into a plastic dust that could be decomposed by other organisms. The process might take 20 years before the plastic was completely decomposed and some hazardous products might be released in the decomposition process. Plastic was a concern only to the compost program, not the landfill; however, if the compost was used to spread over the landfill, then a problem would exist. Bio- degradable bags were not an alternative in the compost program because they still remained plastic bags. Research has not been conducted long enough to evaluate the total process since plastic was a comparatively new product. Richard Gruen, Box 2351, referred to his letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) . de also referred to the Newsweek cover story in which a company vice president stated the rush to degradable plastics was a joke; however, the company was forced to produce degradable bags because of legislation. He supported the tag program but recommended the Council review the cost of the program. When the refuse program ways implemented, the charge was 50 cents a month for an unlimited number of bags. The current proposal was for $5 a bag, extremely high by comparison, so he believed more real -cost information should be obtained before the price was set. He called PASCO regarding the rate of resident participation in the pilot program and believed the 20 percent and the 80 percent rates 62-372 12/04/89 were true at the same time; the question was what they were a percentage of. If 80 percent of the households participated in the program, 20 percent could be each week, and the numbers in the recycling program followed that trend. If the pickup was only once every four or five weeks, another fleet of equipment would not be needed. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher, to approve the staff recommendation as follows, with an amendment to Recommendation No. 1 to change the words "degradable plastic bags" to "reusable containers": 1. Authorize the use of degradable plastic bags and kraft paper bags in the compostable collection program; and 2. Direct staff to develop an implementation plan and costs for an excess non-compostable rubbish removal tagging system for residential customers, and report back to Council by March 1990. Council Member Woolley believed plastic bags and kraft paper bags were a ludicrous contradiction in a recycling program. The objectives of a recycling program were to reduce the amount of material, reuse it, and recycle. If people were requixed to purchase more packaging materials to recycle the compost, the tenet to reduce the amount of packaging materials would be violated. Residents might protest when realizing the costs of the bags and the administrative costs of the program. More money should be spent on labor instead of more packaging materials. PASCO had performed satisfactorily and should be adequately compensated for the compostable debris program. She supported a higher fee for the refuse pickup program instead of requiring participants to purchase plastic or paper bags. Council Member Levy supported the motion, and believed the public should have choices to further the basic compostable materials program. Plastic bags had two benefits; they were cheaper than paper and offered an alternative. Including the plastic bags was a benefit to the public andencouraged compost program participa- tion as an alternative to hauling compostable materials to the landfill. Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Woolley. She suggested the compostable materials could be placed on one side of the street to eliminate the need to travel the same street on both sides if the program showed large participation, and the pickup became a problem. Mr. Patitucci asked if Council really wanted people buying that many plastic garbage cans, if picking up different sized con - 62 -373 12/04/89 trainers was part of the problem, and if the difference was that the cardboard boxes had to be tossed back on the lawn. Mr. Miller said cardboard boxes would be disposed of. Plastic or metal garbage cans would be reused but any disposable material would be picked up. He did not know if Council would want residents to purchase a large number of plastic garbage cans. Council Member Patitucci queried if Council was making a decision on staffing now. Mr. Adams said not unless Council chose to do so. Council Member Patitucci believed the staffing decision should be dealt with in the budget process, because a reduction in one area could add staff to an area with greater need, such as the compost debris program. Council Member Fletcher supported reusable plastic or metal garbage can used as containers and kept indefinitely. The paper bags used considerable amount cf paper and were wasteful. The manufacture of the degradable plastics was environmentally harmful and the oils used was a finite resource. A compost recycling program should be completely recyclable by using recyclable containers. Vice Mayor Bechtel referred to staff and PASCO's concerns regarding program participants paying for only one instead of two garbage pickups at the rear each month with the option of bundling or using a cardboard box at no cost; PASCO picking up and putting cans back on the curb as opposed to dumping the trash into the truck; having the recyclable cans sitting on the curb all day; reducing the rear - yard collection; and lessening the revenue to PASCO. The contract would need to be renegotiated and fees increased; either a ban needed to be placed on reduction of rear -yard compost, or a ban on placing the can in the front and not paying for pickup in the rear. She queried if Council supported the concept how the problems could be prevented. Mr. Adams said a minimum of one can would be required. He did not know how someone could be forced to have two cans if they chose not to. A major problem would be not being able to meet Council's deadline to have the program in place; the whole program would need to be re-evaluated. Council Member Renzel believed there were ways of handling the boot -legging ofgarbage in the front under the pretense of compostable material the same way the garbage company tags garbage cans that were too heavy or contained hazardous materials. She queried if staff could report back about whether reusable, standard containers were advisable, the cost, and the possibility of tagging 62-374 12/04/89 1 them to be used only for compostable material. She purchased a set of effective recycling containers for $13 from the City of San Raphael. Se queried if staff had looked into systems of other cities. Mr. Miller said staff looked at a resident -provided container system using wheeled tubs for both garbage and compost collection at a cost of $60 per tub. Council Member Sutorius queried if the method of composting and shredding made the product unusable commercially because of the use of degradable plastic bags and the screening process used. Mr. Adams said no. Council Member Sutorius said he had eight bags full of compostable materials last week. He queried if he were doing that in con- tainers, he would have needed that many containers and figure out some way to haul them out and leave them in the designated space, and make sure there was separation from the newspapers, cans, and bottles being recycled in the pickup that week. He opposed the motion because it limited the opportunity for utilizing the composting service and had the potential of adding to the PASCO coats which would be passed on to the users. Continued mandated expenses would be faced with respect to the closing of the landfill and plenty of opportunity to raise rates. He believed the staff recommendation was a reasoned proposal and supported the staff recommendation. Council. Member Patitucci opposed the motion for the same reasons given by Council Members Bechtel and Sutorius. He believed the confusion and problems with recyclable garbage containers would be a problem. Material produced for the compost pile was produced every two or three months and was a big operation; not something done on a regular basis like the garbage. If the problem of plastics in the compost was to be countered, he queried why the bags could not be broken open when being thrown into the piles which would assure the bags went into the dump. The additional money spent on labor picking up containers, might be better spent on cracking the bags open and making sure they did not get into the compost. Mr. Adams recently attended the American Public Works Association aa-eting where the subject was covered in detail. One of the representatives was from a aidwest town where the process was tried; it did not work,; and the town went to degradable plastic bags. The Keep America Beautiful organization, the National authority on recycling, said degradable plastic was yet to ba proven, but the place it was good was in compost programs. 62.375 12/04/89 Mayor Klein supported the motion. He could not see why reusable containers would cause a delay in the program. The compostable program should be entirely of material that was compostable. Materials indicated that recyclable plastic did not really exist yet and that experts in the field still did not fully understand what happened during the break -down of plastics. The society in general must become serious regarding recycling waster. Recent legislative action concerned recycling. Palo Alto should be taking a leadership role in recycling and make the entire project recyclable; degradable plastic bags was not the way to go. Reusable containers presented problems, but had the most potential for composting and recycling, and had the least problem in breakdown time. The costs would depend on public participation, but he was confident the program would work out. MOTION PA89ED 7-2, Patitucci, Sutorius "no." MOTION; Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher, to direct staff to include as part of the recommended budget for Fiscal Year 1990-91, a clerical position to the recycling staff. Council Member Woolley believed the recycling program was a high Council priority and the corrugated cardboard report showed the wheels were moving very slowly. The money was appropriated in June and $10,000 had been spent on the bins. Corrugated cardboard was one-third of the industrial/commercial waste stream and the industrial/commercial waste stream was 70 percent of the waste stream in Palo Alto. The program had great potential; the problem was staff did not have time to Lake necessary contacts to get the corrugated cardboard out of the waste stream. The money was spent for brochures and ads; relying on printed materials because staff did not have tine to make personal contacts. She believed the request for staff was extremely important; the clerical position would free the one and one-half recycling staff members to make personal contacts. She noted that Assemblyman Byron Sher's bill (AB 939) dealt with solid waste and would require more staff time for planning in the corrugated program, so less time would be available for actual recycling. She urged Council to give the direction to staff so that when budget planning time came, one additional staff person would be added. Mayor Klein believed directing staff to include the item in budget recommendations was inappropriate. The issue should be raised as part of the 1990-91 budget where tradeoffs were made. Council Member Renael said given the cutback mode of the budget processes, she believed staff would be hesitant to come in with additional positions unless there was a reasonable possibility Council would consider it, and the motion would toll staff that 62-376 12/04/89 Council saw a need to propose the position in the budget, but the normal budget process would still need to be followed. Council Member Levy agreed with the comments made by Council Member Renzel. He believed it appropriate for Council to give indications of interest and general directions to staff; and Council's function was to direct staff regarding budget priorities. Council would compare the position with other expenditures and make the final decision when the total budget was analyzed. Council Member Cobb was concerned priority it directed staff to add budget process; there would be no motion. if every time Council had a staff personnel in the next end to it. He opposed the Mayor Klein said the motion was inconsistent with the two-year budget process and was taking away from the role of the City Manager. The idea that the City Manager was loath to make recommendations regarding positions was ludicrous; he was paid to make recommendations he deemed necessary. The motion was a reminder to Council to consider the position when the budget process came around; but was totally inconsistent with the long- term budgeting process. Council Member Fletcher said recycling was a Council priority item and Council could chose whether it wanted a recycling project that was a dynamic program in the end because it would be more cost effective and there would be less landfill. Council had projects, but insufficient staff to implement the programs. She believed the motion was very appropriate because it indicated to staff the amount of emphasis to be placed on the project. Mayor Klein agreed with Council Member Fletcher, but believed the motion should be part of the budget process. The motion was not asking for the position to be included during the remainder of the 1989-90 fiscal year; none would be implemented until very late in the fiscal year. Requests for the 1990-90 fiscal year should be brought to the table during the budget process. Council Member Sutorius opposed the motion. MOTION mum 4-5, Fletcher, Levy, Renzel, Woolley "aye." PUBLIC ARIi CS 8. Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated (1250-01) Removed by staff. 62-377 12/04/89 REPORTS OF _O 7J CIALS 9. League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions (1540-07) (CMR:576:9) Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin said of the two staff reports, the most recent contained staff recommendations which covered the resolutions discussed in both reports. Council Member Renzel queried if the staff recommendation regarding Resolution 34 would be conveyed to the Council's delegates to the League of California Cities (LCC). Ms. Rudin said at the Policy Committee meetings, either the delegate or a staff member could state Palo Alto's opposition. Council Member Renzel queried if explanatory materials would be presented. Ms, Rudin said written material was not necessary; oral expression would suffice. Vice Mayor Bechtel queried if the staff's recommendation was for Council to oppose Resolution 34. Ms. Rudin said the stakfes recommendation was to go with the preliminary recommendations of the Policy Committee to refer Resolution 34 for study during the coming year. Vice Mayor Bechtel did not see that recommendation in the summary pages. Me. Rudin said the recommendation was worded so that the staff recommended approval of the preliminary policy recommendations with the exceptions noted. Recommendation 34 did not show because it was not staff's recommendation to make it an exception. Council Member Fletcher said some of the resolutions were directed to the N Tonal League of Cities (NLC) which had already completed its annual_reeeletion process. She queried what would happen to the resolutions at the LCC. Ms. Rudin believed the national resolutions would be used in lobbying via the legislators in Washington, and would give credence to letters the City might write regarding the legislation. Council Member Fletcher said one resolution was passed at the NLC in a different form and was already policy, so she queried what the LCC would do with the remainder of the resolutions. 62-378 12/04/89 i MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to approve the staff recommendation to endorse the preliminary recommendations of the League policy committees concerning Annual Conference Resolutions with the following exceptions, and in addition to disapprove Resolution 34, Wetlands Policy: 1. Approve Resolutions 14, 17, 31, 51, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66, and 67; 2. Amend and approve Resolutions 13, 39, 61, 62, and 63; 3. Disapprove Resolution 38; 4. Take no action or position on Resolutions 12, 28, 29, and 68; 5. Determine the appropriate Council positions on Resolutions 4, 9, and 30; and 6. Instruct the Council's voting delegate accordingly. Council Member Renzel said some of the WHEREAS' regarding the wetlands resolution were incorrect and the resolved portions would weaken existing policies to protect the wetlands. Mayor Klein recommended Council go through each of the five categories listed in the motion for discussion and decision. AMIMMOOMMTs Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to oppose Item 2 relating to growth management strategies. Mayor Klein opposed Item 2 because the key points stated the only way to have a growth management strategy was by local governients initiative and cooperation. The message sent to the Legislature was hands-off growth management. In the WHEREAS on Page 15, fourth from the bottom, "Creation of any area -wide new authorities would be initiated by local government," on Page 16, at the bottom of the indented italicized section, "Each City should retain the option of choosing the growth management strategy which reflects the needs and preferences of the local community." The language would enable the City of Santa Clara to continue its strategy which negatively impacted neighboring cities, including Palo Alto. The statement on Page 17, "An area -wide organization should provide a meaningful opportunity for reviewing plans of neighboring jurisdictions," needed more force behind it. He opposed the resolution unless it were amended. Council Member Woolley agreed with Mayor Klein that the item did not go far enough, but was concerned about how to get the message to the LCC. She did not believe further changes would be made by the LCC at the committee level. The resolution was a step in the 62-379 12/04/89 right direction, but she was unsure whether to vote for or against the motion. Mayor Klein noted that the LCC had been a roadblock to growth management programs in the past. Item 2 was the first step ever taken towards the program. Council needed to keep in mind that growth management was not a program the LCC had supported. Vice Mayor Bechtel agreed the LCC had not been an advocate of growth management, but to outright oppose Resolution 30 would put further roadblocks in the path of growth management. She concurred with Council Member Woolley that Council should support the resolution because it was a first step in the right direction. Council Member Renzel believed Mayor Klein was correct in assuming that when something was purported to be something that it was not, a wrong impression would be conveyed. She believed that a "no" vote by Council would be a clear stance regarding growth manage- ment. A letter, written by the Mayor, could accompany the recommendation to clarify Council's position. AMENDMENT FAILED 3-5, Cobb, Klein, Renzel "aye", Patitucci absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, to disapprove Resolution 30. AMENDMENT PASSED 8.0, Patitucci absent. CESS: 9:30 P.11M: - 94.45 P.M. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Woolley, to disapprove Aesolution 32. Council Member Sutorins queried if Council Member Fletcher was concerned that the resolution should not be studied. Council Member Fletcher said the item was not a problem so it should not be studied. The item had been referred to the Transpor- tation Communications Committee by the NLC. Her first preference was to disapprove the resolution, and if not disapproved, she would attempt to have the wording c,:anged to conform with what was passed at the NLC Conference. Vice Mayor Bechtel agreed with Council Member Fletcher that the resolution should be opposed rather than referred. She supported the motion. Council Member Woolley said the decision to refer was made by the Policy and Procedures (F&P) Committee on which she served. 62-380 12/04/89 i Resolutions 32, 33, 34 were all she believed it was a fluke of were referred because there was submitted by the same person, and the legislative process that they not much committee support. AXRUDICZET PASSIM 8-0, Patitucci absent. A)IB T: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to disapprove Resolution 4. A*$ED1tl$T P1188ED 7-1, Levy "no," Patitucci absent. AKSMD1[ElIT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Woolley, to disapprove Resolution 9. Mayor Klein believed the WHEREAS' pointed out inconsistencies in the language contained in Proposition 73 regarding the limit for campaign contributions and the purpose of Resolution 9 was to clarify the inconsistencies. Council Member Renzel queried if the terms of Proposition 73 regarded the limit on campaign contributions or a limit on the time. City Attorney Diane Northway said Government Code Section 84308 was the Participation Act. Proposition 73 dealt with statewide campaign limitations. If participation was banned, it should be banned at the same level as the campaign limit. Vice Mayor Bechtel agreed with Council Member Renzel to oppose Resolution 9. The difference was that campaign contributions of over $1,000 could not be accepted if serving on a county decision - making board. Mayor Klein said the disclosure was the purpose of the resolution. Council Member Renzel said the disclosure was at selected intervals and did not help the public if someone was disclosing six months after the action was taken. AMMOKZUT PASSIM 5-3, Cobb, Klein, Levy "no," Patitucci absent. MOTION AS AMIDKD PAM= 8-0, Patitucci absent. 10. Ordinance Amending the FY 1989-90 Budget to Provide Funds for Plan Check Services (210) (0411:569:9) Council Member Sutorius queried if the prime reason for the backlog was the surge in applications prior to the expiration of: the interim R -I regulations, and how much volume was added over previous levels. 62-381. 12/04/89 Chief Building Official Fred Herman said once the permits were issued and the backlog caught up, the department could return to normal times fairly quickly; however, unless something was done to eliminate the backlog, the process would never be caught up. Council Member Sutorius queried if that applied only to the Inspection Services Division, and what the status was of other divisions. Mr. Herman said the other primary area was the Planning Division's zoning requirements which was included in the two proposed contracts. The Fire Department and Public Works Departments were involved in some cases, but not to the sane extent. Council Member Sutorius queried if staff had any comment regarding the letter which offered "pro bono" services, and whether the offer could be considered. City Manager William Zaner summarized a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) from Enviro Design System, Carrasco & Associates, Comprehensive Architectural Services, and Roger Kelley Kohler offering voluntary plan check assistance to ease the backlog burden. He slid the offer of free assistance contained problems regarding conflicts of interest, and various insurance provisions would be difficult to apply to vole ateers. He would respond to the four architects, but not concur to their assistance. Council Member Sutorius said the letter referred to the experience of the local, A.I.A. assisting some cities as part of the earthquake recovery activities. MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor to execute the two contracts for plan checking services and approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance. O ZNANCE 3922 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAW ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR PLAN CHECK SERVICES" Agreement with K.utzman and Associates Agreement with Willdan and Associates Council Member Renzel queried how Council ascertained the contrac- tors would be familiar with the zoning ordinance, particularly R-1 and if a liaison would be working with the companies. 62-382 12/04/89 Mr. Herman said both contractors had been used in third -party plan checking where the applicant had not been willing to wet and they would also receive a two-day marathon training session strictly on zoning issues. The backlog of plan check applications involved the old standards, not the recently adopted standards for R-1. Council Member Renzel queried if the plan was approved and something was inconsistent with the zoning, would the approval or the zoning prevail. City Attorney Diane Northway apply; a permit was necessary, reliance, and good faith money faith permit. Construction as Council Member Renzel said if value would have been removed said the same vested rights would the party had to act in good faith must have been expended on the good well as approval would be required. a house was demolished, substantial from the property. Ns. Northway said value was not in the removal of the house, but on the value of reliance construction on the permit. MOTION PABB 8-0, Patitucci absent. 11. Sand Hill Corridor Study Cooperative Agreement and Request for Proposal for EIR Preparation (1168-02) CMR:565:9) Sand Hill Road Study Agreement Mayor Klein announced that he and Council Member Cobb could not participate in the item due to conflict of interests. He welcomed Council Members Sorensen and Grant from Menlo Park who would speak on the item. He turned the meeting over to Vice Mayor Bechtel. Council Member Woolley said the staff report (CMR:565:9) indicated that Stanford was willing to pay $4 million toward the project, but the project crlt would probably double or triple that, and queried if construct )n funding could not be found and the project terminated, 1..ould Palo Alto be required to fund half the study costs. Assistant Planning Official George Zimmerman said no. Referring to Recital F, Page 2 of 5 of the Cooperative Agreement, the last phrase, "nothir:5 herein requires funding of the CONSTRUCTION by the CITY.* Council Member Renzel queried if the City Attorney was comfortable with the interpretation because shut believed the language regarding termination stated "if the state terminated the project prior to the issuance of the authorization to start construction.* 52-383 12/04/89 Ms. Northway believed the only obligation to pay would be specific items, i.e., procedural framework traffic studies, preparation of an EIR, or alternative conceptual designs. Nothing would obligate the City to pay for any actual construction costs. The City would need to reimburse if the Public Works Directur voluntarily did not issue a notice or authorization to proceed. Council Member Renzel said the City, as the lead agency, would have to form assessment districts as mentioned in the documents, and queried if Council received many protests and refused to establish an assessment district, would it become obligated to pay half the costs of the EIR, etc. Ms. Northway said yes, but only landowners who had to pay the assessments would be able to protest. Council could still override a majority protest. Council Member Renzel said the protest to override would cost over $250,©00. Stanford was the legal owner, but the costs would be passed on to everyone in the Sand Hill Corridor who were Stanford tenants. Ms. Northway said she would expect the costs to be passed on if the tenants had triple -net leases, but they would not have standing to legally protest. Council Member Renzel clarified that in the particular instance, an assessment process was pro forma snit had no effect if Stanford wanted to proceed with the project. Ms. Northway said no assessment proceeding was pro forma because it was subject to Council inside and outside of hearing. Council Member Renzel queried why Stanford was designing the routes for the alternatives to be studied instead of the consultant or the City of Palo Alto, as the lead agency. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the consultant and the lead agency, with advice from the Joint Policy Committee PM), would determine the alignments and alterna- tives to be evaluated. Stanford would handle conceptual design responsibilities and respond to the prepared alternate route align- ments. Council Member Renzel queried how staff distinguished the alignment from the conceptual design if Stanford was following the instruc- tion of the JPC. Mr. Zimmerman said Stanford would be following the direction of the JPC that would select the final set of alternatives for eval- 62-384 12/04/89 nation. The JPC would determine the alternatives and Stanford would have conceptual designs prepared during the preparation of the EIR. Council Meaber Renzel queried why the JPC, consisting of only two Palo Alto Council Members, was doing both the scoping and the alternative selection. She believed the decisions should be made by the lead agency, particularly when the decisions might cost $250,000. Mr. Zimmerman said the JPC had been given a designated and important role in recognition of its long-term involvement and background studies. Nothing in the environmental review process foreclosed options of the Planning Commission or the City Council to add additional alternatives for study, but the scoping meetings were slated for the JPC to facilitate the public review process. Council Member Renzel queried if alternatives for study needed to go through the Planning Commission before coming to Council. Mr. Zimmerman said the alternatives would not have to go through the Planning Commission; however, environmental matters usually went through the Commission. When the draft EIR was completed, it would go first to the Planning Commission. Council Member Fletcher queried the survey figures and was concerned about some inconsistencies. Mr. Schreiber said the consultant was not available but he could return with the figures during the week. The Origin and Destina- tion Survey was transmitted for information purposes, and not a substantive item in relationship to the content of the agreement. Council Member Sutorius mentioned the reverences on Page 4 of the Summary and the time line on Page 5, and queried if the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee review was necessary when a process was already in place to handle the process. The current F&PW Committee had two JPC members who were adept at making decision .. Mr. Schreiber said the City's consultant selection procedures required that contracts go to the F&PW Committee unless there was an explicit decision not to have a committee review. Given the time line, there would be little if any cost savings. If Council wished to direct that the item not go to the F&PW Committee, but return directly to Council, the schedule could be adjusted. Council Member Rental queried why on Page 1 of 5 of the recitals, the study togetherwith the construction were deemed to be the project. 62-385 12/04/89 Mr. Zimmerman said the study was being separated to define the study portion and previous work done subject to the contingency clause at the end of the agreement. Ms. Northway said for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in terms of the scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the report would include the possibility of construction and would cover environment consequences. Council Member Renze_ queried what the mechanism would be if Council wanted to add alternatives to those selected by the JPC. Given the proposal, the JPC would be making the decisions without coming back to Council. Mr. Schreiber said Council could agendize the issue and give direction to staff and the consultants. When the final EIR came before Council, alternatives could be added or issues further evaluated; Council could gJve direction and not take action on the final EIR. Council Member Renzel queried if adding alternatives at the draft EIR stage was appropriate. Mr. Schreiber said one of the objectives of any EIR was to include broad ranges of alternatives in the initial draft EIR; it was common for testimony on a draft EIR to raise questions regarding the level of analysis or need to analyze additional alternatives. Council lester Renzel queried what process would be used to reconcile all existing information in presenting the information to the public and to Council, as a lead agency. In the contract, there was a heavy reliance on the recent Origin Destination Survey; but other material was generated, including the 1972 Origin and Destination Survey, which had conflicting information. Mr. Schreiber said one of the requirements of the environmental process was the incorporation of available information. Inform- ation was available from Menlo Park, Palo Alto, the Stanford Use Permit process, and a variety of other studies which would be incorporated into the process. Regarding the 1972 Origin Destina- tion Survey, the work done within 1989 was extensive, detailed, and substantial. A lot had happened since 1972, so he would not rely on it as reflecting current situations and would not intend to devote notable energy to analyzing 20 -year old information, unless the consultants concluded it had relevance to the situation. The current survey provided a much better database. Bill Peterson, 228 Fulton, requested that Council reject or postpone the Request for Proposal (RFP) on the Sand Hill Road Extension because the scope was too limited. When the JPC was sot 62-386 12/04/89 e up, long-range traffic plans for the City of Menlo Park were not established; however, Menlo Park had now adopted a traffic policy to dump all east -west traffic onto the Sand Hill Road Corridor as exemplified by the recent cut -in -capacity of Valparaiso and Glenwood, and had not considered the extension of University Avenue across the creek to Stanford which would alleviate traffic shown in the Origin Destination Study. The RFP did not address mass transit solutions. The recent Citywide Land Use Policy treated traffic as a whole and was as important as the Sand Hill Road Corridor; a regional approach was more logical than an isolated proposal. The next Council would be the appropriate body approve the funding of five or six staff positions for two years. The reason for connecting Sand Hill Road was to promote and encourage development in the Sand Hill Road Corridor; the new Council Members, who campaigned for a no -growth policy, would bear the responsibility of paying the $250,000 for the extra staffing and not be able to carry out campaign promises. He urged Councilto send the proposal back to the JPC for reconsideration because of Menlo Park's new policy to dump the traffic onto Palo Alto. Menlo Park Council Member Gerry Grant believed the extension of the Sand Hill Corridor to El Camino should be a four -lane road. He was concerned that so much money was spent in the study session portion of the project, and wanted to narrow the scope of the project down to a no -project or a four -lane highway; a three -lane road would be unusable and a two-lane road was out of the question because of the congestion. Although the JPC authorized three areas of study, he wanted to see it cut to two areas in the interest of conserving money. He urged Council to look at the conservation of moneys in funding the expensive project; when Stanford indicated it was limiting its contribution to $4 milliont assessment districts and other entities would be forced to pay the balance. •'ime was an important element; the draft EIR would not be ready until November, 1990. Decisions were already postponed, and postponements increased costs by an approximate 5 percent inflation rate which would add substantially to the total amount required to complete the project. Much of the traffic was destined to Stanford Univer- sity, with a considerable amount going through Menlo Park's residential neighborhoods which were being severely impacted. Menlo Park was pleading for the City of Palo Alto to assist in handling regional traffic, expeditiously. Menlo Park Council Member Ted Sorensen reviewed the 23 -year history of the project; 14 years ago the two cities agreed on a four -lane road for the corridor but Stanford was not prepared to go further, so the project was put on hold. Stanford was now prepared to act and assist in the funding, so the project should proceed. Conceptual agreements to bring Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real were made in earlier meetings. Palo Alto City Council had expressed concern that access to Alma Street would be detrimental 62-387 12/04/89 to residents on Alma; however, the last JPC vehicle study showed a problem might not exist. The Menlo Park Council was concerned about having a four -lane road going into El Camino, a six -lane road, and maintain the ability to go north and south. Time was important; he questioned some of the recommendations and was concerned it wo:ild take another year to study the proposal before the draft EIR would come out. He urged Council to speed up the process, pursue and support the project, and to proceed in a manner which both Councils could support. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said the City was being coerced because if the City decided it was not in the best interest o the community to support the project, it had to pay $250,000. The project was a benefit to Stanford and its tenants and most projects benefiting another entity were paid for by that entity. He urged Council to delete Condition No. 4, which called for the City to reimburse Stanford for one-half of all funds advanced by Stanford if the City terminated the project prior to issuance of authorization to start construction by the City's Public Works Director. He requested the study include moving the intersection 200 feet to the southeast so traffic from Sand Hill could not cross over to Alma, and more emphasis be placed in the report regarding the other end of Sand Hill. The previous EIR indicated most of the bottlenecks were near Sand Hill, Alpine, the Alameda, Santa Cruz Avenue, and Juniper° Serra. Sand Hill did not terminate in a parking lot but at: Arboretum. He believed it would be detrimental to have a highway through a parking lot and the benefits would not justify the costs. He urged Council to modify the reports because if permitted to go forward as submitted, the result would be a biased EIR in favor of a connection without studying all the options. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron, urged Council (1) to postpone action on the study agreement until after the Stanford Board of Trustees had an opportunity to review firm dollar estimates on the extent of earthquake damage to Stanford buildings because Stanford spending priorities might be changed in February, 1990; (2) to delay circulating the RFP until it was amended to include an alternative for an urban interchange at the intersection of Sand Hill Road and Santa Cruz Avenue which was included in Menlo Park's draft General Plan/draft EIR and transmitted to the Planning Commission on November 3, 1989, in compliance with the Menlo Park/Palo Alto Land Use Agreement; (3) remove the JPC from any oversight rule of any kind in the EIR process because its actions were subject to challenge for violating the conflict -of -interest provisions of the Political Reform Act. The two Stanford officers were prohibited from participating in making, or in any way attempting to use the JPC membership to influence, governmental decisions relating to Sand Hill Road; and to (4) reject the agreement because (a) it was. one-sided and granted Stanford rights during the EIR process that CEQA reserved to Palo Alto, as the lead atency; (b) the termination 62-388 12/04/89 A r provisions failed to state what constituted termination and how notificationof termination would occur, and he queried if Palo Alto would have to pay Stanford $250,000 in situations which occurred in 1977, when a Council Member, who was a Stanford employee, participated in a decision to approve an extension project and the Council had to rescind its action; or in 1978, when Stanford insisted on an assessment district financing when it knew there were insufficient votes on the Council, so the City tabled an approval; or in 1984, when Stanford lobbied the Council to omit a feasible alternative from the EIR and Council was forced by the courts to rescind the EIR approval based on that omission; (c) the Stanford officer's signature was illegible and the title was omitted on the agreement; only the Board of Trustees had the authority to grant Stanford's rights on an agreement; (d) the Origin and Destination Survey was flawed because the 5 percent figure for plus or minus error was unrealistic; and (e) the RFP mentioned as many as 5,000 vehicles per day used the shopping center parking lot tc access El Camino, so Stanford should pay for the EIR and realize that Palo Alto, as a lead agency, had the right to reject the proposal without paying any money to Stanford. D.J. Brawner, a resident of Menlo Park, queried if the Palo Alto City Council was the lead agency, why it was necessary to have two Menlo Park City Council members on the JPC which had no authority and who haJ the responsibility to pay for the $10 million inter- change at Santa Cruz, Alpine, and Sand Hill if a four -lane road was built. Regarding the Origin and Destination Study, he believed the stations should have been placed on Sand Hill between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m. to record traffic headed towards the hospital., He failed to see how an extension to El Camino was a solution to Stanford's problems if Stanford was allowed to build Stanford West and the Senior Citizen Retirement Community. Menlo Park had enough traffic problems and an extension to El Camino would not solve its problems because the traffic on Menlo Park's streets would continue. *OTIOlWs Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve the Study Agreement with Stanford University to initiate preparation anti Banding of an EIR (including traffic forecasts) on possible Sand Hill Road improvements; and 2. Direct staff to circulate the Request for Proposal (RFP) to prospective consultants for EIR and related study preparation. A)1EMDEBNIT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the scoping and selection of alternatives be done by the lead agency, as opposed to the Joint Powers Committee (JPC). 62-389 12/04/89 Council Member Renzel believed Mr. Borock raised some important questions. Also, the JPC consisted of six members but the City of Palo Alto, as the lead agency, was only represented by two members. The scoping might not address Palo Alto's concerns and the selection of alternatives might create a situation in which the City was either forced to approve an Alma connection or forfeit the $250,000 because the alternatives were onerous and should be reviewed by new Council Members. The decisions should not be made by the JPC with a majority who favored a more extensive proposal than Palo Alto, but by the full City Council. By giving authority to the JPC, Council would be constructing a process that could backfire. Mr. Zaner said the problem with the Sand Hill Road issue was it was unable to have a cooperative endeavor; the JPC allowed for a mechanism that worked and provided a consultative and cooperative arrangement between the three parties. The normal process was for staff and a private applicant to work out scoping arrangements of an EIR; withthe JPC a full airing and alternative identification process allowed for exchange of ideas, so when the process came before Council for final review, everyone had the opportunity to speak. He urged Council not to change the arrangement because the JPC served a valuable purpose in allowing that type of interchange to occur. Council Member Renzel thought the issue was important and that she should be heard. The Joint Policy Committee had worked out the process to move the item along with the understanding that some of the options were available to Council. Since the City of Palo Alto was the lead agency, the decision should belong to the Council. Stanford and Menlo Park should have input into Council's scoping study and selection of alternatives, but allowing a minority of two Council Members would place then in the position of being outnumbered 2 to 1. The JPC did not provide minutes and required the interested parties to request public notice to know when and where the meetings were conducted. The process would undermine the four new Council members ability to legislate properly. Council Member Fletcher said selection of alternatives was one of the key components of the road project and it was important to have the City Council make the decision because it offered the most opportunity for citizen involvement. The JPC met during the day time and did not allow for much visibility. She supported the amendment. AMENDtEMT PAILD 2-5, Renzel, Fletcher "aye", Cobb, Klein "not participating." Council Member Renzel queried if the option to add a left -turn lane from Alma to southbound El Camino Real had been before Council. 62-390 12/04/89 Mr. Zimmerman said that option to the alternatives came before Council in either March or April of 1989 in response to a recommen- dation from the JPC as reasonable options to the basic alterna- tives. Council Member Renzel believed a left turn from Alma onto El Camino Real would connect to Sand Hill. She did not recall Council making a decision on the option, only that it was discussed at a Menlo Park luncheon. AM[ENDME]NT: Council Member Renzel moved to. delete Option B to make a left turn lane from Alma onto El Camino Real. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to add to page 8 of the Consultant RFP that a meeting be scheduled with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC). Council Member Fletcher pointed out that bicycle traffic was an integral part of any traffic study and there were intersections, a bridge, and bike lanes in which PABAC should be involved. AMENDMENT PASSED 7-0, Cobb, Klein "not participating." Council Member Patitucci commended staff and the JPC on working with Menlo Park and Stanford to come up with a plan which had a high level of community support. The project needed to proceed and he supported it. Palo Alto often forgot to cooperate with its neighbors. During the last four years, Council ventured out a number of ways to work with other communities who affected Palo Alto, i.e., Golden Triangle Task Force, the City of East Palo Alto, and the City of Menlo Park. The Council needed to do the best job possible in representing Palo Alto's interest in working towards solutions that effected the City. He would like to see the progress continued, so he supported the motion. AMENDMENT: Council Member Renzel moved to have the design work for the project alternatives included in the scope of work. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACE OF A SECOND Council Member Levy concurred with Council Member Patitucci that the Sand Hill connection was an important corridor to Palo Alto and adjacent communities, so it was important to work together and with sensitivity to all communities involved; however, Palo Alto was the lead agency, and all decisions would come back to the Palo Alto City Council, just as the basic decisions of the JPC had come back 62.391 12/04/89 to Council. The procedure presented an important method for attacking regional and community -wide significance. Council Member Fletcher requested to divide the motion to separate out in the agreement the first sentence of Item 4 on Page 5 of 5. She was willing to vote on the agreement, but objected to the section requiring the City to pay if it turned down the project and would like the opportunity to vote "no" on the sentence, "City agrees to reimburse Stanford for one-half of all funds advanced by Stanford to the City for the Sand Hill Corridor Procedural Framework, traffic studies, preparation of an EIR, or alternative conceptual roadway designs if the City terminates the project prior to the issuance of authorization to start construction by the City's Public Works Director. City Attorney Diane Northway said the document could be voted for or against in its entirety, or amended to delete the objectionable language. Council Member Fletcher did not propose an amendment but registered a protest against the first part of Item 4 on Page 5 of the Stanford agreement. Council Member Renzel said putting a route through may or may not be acceptable to the City of Palo Alto. If Council decided the road would not be in the best interest for the City of Palo Alto, it would cost $250,000. The alternatives and every aspect of the project was done in a meeting process that was not public and did not incorporate the majority of the Council as part of the process. She strongly objected and would not support the agreement. Vice Mayor Bechtel said an EIR was prepared and alternatives/scope was discussed at the staff level frequently in the past. Decisions made at JPC meetings were more of a public participation project than decisions made at the staff level. She believed the process promoted cooperation. MOTION A8 MEM= PABbED 6-1, Renzel "no," Cobb, Klein "riot participating." 12. Boards and Commissions Recruitment Process (702) City Clerk Gloria Young said if Council approved the recommendation to add an orientation session to the process, • she would do the orientation in early February of each year. 62-392 12/04/89 ) i XOTIONt Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Bechtel, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Maintain the current City of Palo Alto recruitment process for boards and commissions, with the addition of holding an orientation session for all potential applicants to inform them about the general information regarding the board or commission responsibilities; and 2. Allow staff the flexibility of consolidating the recruitment of an unexpired term with an upcoming expired term to allow for a larger pool of applications. Council Member Cobb was pleased with the report, thought the analysis was good, and believed the process was good and on the right track. AMENDMENT: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, to direct staff to change the expiration date for terms on the Public Art Commission to April 30, effective in 1991. Council Member Woolley said the February orientation was good for Human Services and Historic Resources Boards, but the Public Arts Commission would just miss it. The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board would not be that much of a concern because the people tended to be apprentices or have special professional expertise. Ms. Northway alerted the Council that the Palo Altc Municipal Code would need to be changed if terms of boards and commissions were to be changed. AMEND ' PASSED 9-0. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MAC 13. Council Meter Ellen Fletcher re Response to Tri-County Apartment Association re Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (250) MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH) and Associates and Tri-County Apartment Association (TCAA) in response to their letter addressed to him October 24, 1989. The letter should state that the Palo Alto City Council, and its citizens, very much appreciate the work of MCFH, and that the Council endorses their techniques en being effective in the common goal of reducing discrimination in housing. 62-393 12/04/89 Council Member Cobb.. queried if Tri-County had made any progress in trying to work out some common ground with MCFH. Mr. Zaner was not aware of any. President of the Board of Directors of MidPeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing Susan Mirch-Kretschmann, said MCFH had tried to explain the importance of fair housing and methodologies, but had not been able to work out a solution with Tri-County who had lobbied various cities. When the Sunnyvale City Council voted to go with the notification issue, the MCFH attorneys were alarmed. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was called in to investigate legalities of the Sunnyvale ordinance and filed on behalf of MCFH, but discovered later it was not in HUD's jurisdiction. The letter from the Tri-County Apartment Association (TCAA) attached to Council Member Fletcher's memo, referred to HUD's action. HUD was distressed to learn of the reporting requirement as specified in the Sunnyvale ordinance which com- promised Sunnyvale's ability to fulfill its fair housing actions, diminished the effectiveness of its fair housing program, required monitoring, and individual testers could suffer injury as a result of the reporting requirement and would have standing as a com- plainant. MCFH's was concerned about confidentiality and did not want to inform on participants; once a person handed a name or identification to a landlord or manage: of the property, the individual was at risk and would be compromised in discrimination cases. The notification process compromised MCFH's ability to carry out fair housing practices and affected the legal rights of complainants to follow up with attorneys. She urged the Council to support MCFH and to voice concerns regarding the notification issue. Council Member Cobb queried if Tri-County had contacted representa- tives from MCFH regarding the two parties meeting in an attempt to establish some common ground. Ms. Mirch-Kretschmann said no one had contacted her and she knew of no such effort by any Tri-County representatives to contact anyone freeA MCFH. MCFH had not received a copy of the letter to the City Council. Council Member Cobb queried if people who had complaints filed against them had any protection against a complaint based upon a personality conflict or something other than discrimination. Ms. Mirch-Kretschmarn said a complaint was investigated and checkers sent out posing as people with children or three adults as a brother-in-law and a husband to apply for the apartment. Reports were then prepared to see if the complaint was verified or 62-394 12/04/89 outside evidence existed. The report was then sent to HUD or an attorney for further investigation. Council Member Cobb queried if all of the check data from a filed complaint was made available or was it kept confidential. Ms. Mirch-Kretschmann said the information had to be kept confiden- tial until it went to another department such as HUD or an attorney. Council Member Patitucci clarified the Sunnyvale City Council wanted to know which cases were disposed of without further litigation or extension of the complaint process, not that prior notification be given to any apartment owner. He queried if the relationship of the City of Sunnyvale with MCFH was similar to the relationship of MCFH with the City of Palo Alto where the City decided whether to fund the activity, and if MCFH was asking the Palo Alto City Council to tell the Sunnyvale City Council that one method was better than another. Ms. Mirch-Kretschmann said no, Council Member Fletcher was asking for a letter of support. It was not an issue of Palo Alto versus the City of Sunnyvale, but Palo Alto's stand on the issue of notification. Council Member Patitucci clarified that the City of Palo Alto was requested to notify the Sunnyvale City Council of nonsupport for the new Sunnyvale ordinance regarding notification. Council Member Fletcher believed the central issue was that the Tri-County Apartment Association should know that the Palo Alto City Council was supportive of the present method and did not want to weaken the process by supporting the Sunnyvale ordinance. Ms. Mirch-Kretschmann said MCFH did report to the Sunnyvale City Council after complaints had been investigated in certain instan- ces, a panel of consultive attorneys who handled cases advised the MCFH that when investigations with inconclusive evidence or no - evidence did not mean future evidence would not be forthcoming and because a case might be reinvestigated, the notification to Council infringed upon the legal realm of a citizen's rights. Mayor Klein said the motion was limited to the letter expressing appreciation for the job MCFH had done and endorsing methods used thus far in Palo Alto. The letter was addressed only to MCFH and to the Tri-County Apartment Association. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, referred to his remarks under Oral Communica- tions because Try. -County was trying to underline the activities of MCFH to all City Councils in the County. In his letter, attached 62-395 12/04/89 4 to Council Member Fletcher's memo (on file in the City Clerk's Office), he endorsed what the MCFH was doing and requested Council send letters to other councils in the area, stating opposition to the Sunnyvale ordinance which undermined the intent of fair housing and anti -discrimination. Council Member Fletcher noped staff would use some of the points Mr. Mass stressed in his letter and thanked him for his participa- tion. Council Member Sutorius supported a temperate letter from the Mayor, but not a coauthor, to convey Council's action on the motion. NOTION 7A88ED 9-0. 14. Council Member Leland Levy re National League of Cities Report (1540-07) (NPG) Council Member Levy said the main issues discussed at the National League of Cities were the environment, drugs, and a session on conflict resolution; the question of education was brought up frequently in relation to drugs. William Riley, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, stressed that environmental problems were being experienced by cities across the country. Cities nationwide would be cooperating in Earth Day 1990 on April 22, 1990, and the United Nations was sponsoring a World Clean-up Day on June 2, 1990. Considerable discussion center on drugs; many cities had random drug testing for all employees. He presented a paper and participated in a panel on the use of volunteers; the City of Palo Alto lead in the use of volunteers, particularly at the Cultural Center, the animal care facility, and the Police Department. He thanked staff for bringing him up-to- date on the volunteer program. No action taken. 15. Council Member Ellen Fletcher re National League of Cities Report (1540-07) (NPG) Council Member Fletcher was fascinated with the electronic network that many cities had instituted. Frm her hotel lobby, she touched the screen of a terminal and obtained a printout of basic informa- tion and a number to call regarding the transit system, city services, hotels, etc. Two-way communication was available for local residents of Santa Monica to inquire, complain, or question and receive a response via a modem on the computer at home. Staff time was saved, more citizen involvement was increased, and Council packet materials and reports were available: by computer. Within 18 months, 1700 residents signed an agreement and registered with 62-396 12/04/89 1 1 staff; one-third of the residents had personal computers. She believed the process should be considered by the Council in the future because of the increased citizen involvement and the staff satisfaction. No action taken. kDJOURNMENT: Adjourned to a Closed Session re Personnel Matters at 11:45 p.m. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Wotti*- Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Pale Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years from the date of the meeting, and the Finance and Public Works Committee and Policy and Procedures Committee meeting tapes are retained for Six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours. 62-397 12/04/89