Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-09 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL. MINUTES PALOALTOCITYCOUNCI LMEE fINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VtA KZSU- FAEQUENCY9©.I ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting November 9, 1987 ITEM Oral Communications Approval of Minutes of October 5, 1987 PAGE 58-392 58-392 1. Ordinance 3779 Amending Section 18.08.040 58-392 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Rezone the Property Known as 2995 Middlefield Road from RM-2 to PC 2. Public Hearing. Resolution Approving Amendment to the Santa Clara Solid Waste Management Plan 3. Policy and Procedures Committee Recommen- dation re Hazardous Materials Storage Permit Process 4. Council Member Ellen Fletcher re Wine Cooler/Spirit Cooler Deposit Ordinance 5. Mayor Gail Woolley re Use of Plastic Packaging for Takeout Foods 6. Council Member Patitucci re Downtown Parking 7. Council Member Emily Renzel re Nomination of the San Francisco Bay -Delta Estuary to the Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program. Adjournment at 10:26 p.m. 58- 39 3 58-393 58-407 58-411 58.412 58-418 58-419. 58-391 11/09/87 Regular Meeting Monday, November 9, 1987 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletchr, Klein (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Levy,, Patitucci (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Edmund R. Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the meaning of greater public access to the Bay and his request that.the City provide acces to Palo Alto harbor and the Bay from one standing pier in the harbor. According to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (f3CDC) the decision to destroy.the harbor was made by the Palo Alto City Council in 1980. At least 1,648 citizens of Palo Alto were still waiting for a was a matter of valid reason. The suture 0E t��e harborw great present importance. 2. Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, backed what Mr. Power had to say. He spoke about a bullet hole through his window. - APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5, 1987 MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Minutes of October 5, 1987, as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously.. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION; Council Meier Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Consent Calendar. 1. ORDINANCE 3779 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 1.8.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO REZONE THE PRO- PERTY KNOWN AS 2995 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD FROM RM-2 TO PC" (1st Reading 10/26/87, PASSED 6-2, Fletcher, Sutorius "no," Klein absent) (300/701--03) MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Fletcher, Sutorius voting 58-392 11/09/87 2. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 7174R74-90:7) R 90: 7+7) (1072) - -. ---� Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak; she declared the pub- lic hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt staff recommendation approving the resolution, which includes consideration of the environmental effects of the proposed amendment as shown in the County's negative declaration, and the amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan as stated in the "Policy on Importation of Solid Waste from Outside Santa Clara County" dated May 19, 1987. RESOLUTION 6652 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING THE POLICY ON IMPORTATION OF SOLID WASTE FROM OUTSIDE SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO BE ADDED TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY" MOTION PASSED unanimously. 3. POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAG1 PERMIT PROCESS (CMR:518:7) (1440-01) MOTION: Council Member Renzel for the Policy and Procedures Committee moved that the City Council concep- tually* approve the revised Hazardous Materials Storage Permit Process and: a. Direct staff to increase the permit application cycle to two years; b. Direct the City Attorney's office to prepare amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 17 to include the revisions to the permit process as described in staff report (CMR:447:7)= and c. Incorporate- applicable provisions for staff report (CMR:346:7) including: 1) ,SIR Consultant Selection Committee process, 2) Semi-annual notice to the Council and contemporary notice of public hearings and approved permit appeals, and 58-393 11/09/87,: MOTION CONTINUED 3) Addition .f Appendix 2 charts illustrating new per- mit processes. Mayor Woolley clarified Appendix 2 was Exhibits 1 through 9. She asked the City Attorney if the appeal of a hazardous materials permit chat had already been issued was part of the subject item. City Attorney Diane horthway said the appeal was not a part of the item, and under the current ordinance the Council did not have authority to hear appeals_ of hazardous materials permits. The decision of the Fire Chief in those cases was final, except for certain limited matters not before the Council. Lise Giraud, 2200 Byron Street, a member of the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Humane Society, said their primary concern was with animals, -.and they carne to -deal with environmental matters when 'they investigated the proposed extension of the Stanford underground animal facility and discovered that no EIR had been deemed necessary. The situ- ation had now been rectified. They were citizens who were aware that they could not open a newspaper without finding that one more environmental accident had taken place... There were no guarantees when it came to the handling or disposal of hazardous materials. How were they to know that .01 per- cent of a substance being emitted day atter day was not going to present some ghastly hazard cumulatively.- When it came to estimating the impact of toxics, they must err on the side of over- rather than under -estimating their poten- tial, and it was up to their public officials to safeguard community interests. Corporations had to learn the most stringent safeguards must be formed as part and parcel of the cost of development. Perhaps the resistant corporations could be made to understand that acting in the public interest included their own interest, and they might in the long run profit more from an ounce of prevention than from a mammoth lawsuit following some disaster. Alan. Miller, 3852 CoriOa Way, was not an employee of any of the industrial Park businesses but simply a concerned resi- dent of Palo Alto. The last time he spoke before the Council was with several speakers representing Stanford industrial businesses who asked the Council for a vote of confidence against Proposition 65 with threats of having to _nave-, 'unemployment because of all the pollution lawsuits, etc. They got an almost unanimous vote from the Council against Proposition -65. All businesses sought profit for themselves and their stock holders in a competitiVe market; that was their number one interest. The residents' number one interest was the environmental- health of the City. They paid their firefighters and police to protect them with their expertise from fire and crime. They must have impar- tial environmental watchdogs who would use technically expert consultants before the pollution tragedies occurred. Dianne KcKenna, Supervisor for -the 5th District, spearheaded a task force 'to insure the impartiality. For example, if a business wished to put a building up that could be an envi- ronmental impact threat, the task force would suggest several consultant firms. The applicant would pay for the service, but all of it would return to the task force and they would hold a public hearing to make a decision. Rosemary Dinelli, 1230 California Avenue, said there was a lot of merit to the current proposal and she was pleased to see it come before the Council. Several areas required further attention and were deficient. A primary concern was the quantity per vessel or container, and she found it dif- ficult to understand why quantities in underground storage were considered minimal. She encouraged the'Council to give proposed quantities of underground storage the same method and matter of evaluation as those for aboveground storage, In regard to freed quantities, she believed the more fre- quent an underground tank turned, the greater the potential hazard to the community relating to transportation accidents_ and potential air degradation. She encouraged the Council to consider not only .the quantity of materials contained in a particular vessel but also to verify the quantity proces- sed through a facility, and to issue master permits to regulate the volume of storage for a particular site. There were several companies along California Avenue that had sev- eral Permits for a particular address. William Heaton, 2345 Dowdoin Street, urged approval of the revisions toTitle 17. Ttey had serious problems with chem- ical storage. Title 17 was a good start and the revisions gave them another good step along the way to handling the problems. In regard to underground storage, confidence in the storage. methods did not justify ignoring the risks of increased volumes, transportation, loading and unloading, and increased use throughout the Industrial Park. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, found a numhsr of areas of the staff report (CMR:518:7) either vague or lacked adequate description. FOr example, Exhibit 1, had no box for "Fails 58-395 11/09/87 to'Meet Safety Codes & Title 17," and no branch for what to do if the facility orthe operating procedures did fail. It was assumed that everything inspected would pass and a permit would be issued.-. The same applied to the other deci- sion trees. In Exhibit 3, Track 1, and the other exhibits,' after the permit was issued, notice was given to the Hazardous Materials Coordinating Committee (HMCC) and filed in the Library, which meant only after the fact did people find out that a permit had been requested. In the interest of greater public information and awareness, the notifica- tion should come before the permit was issued. In the case of Track 1, it could be argued whether to have public input as well as notification, but in the case. of Tracks 2, 3, and 4, there should be can opportunity for public comment. In Exhibit 8, at no time had staff identified what an acutely hazardous material was, Ranges 1 or 2 through 5; what were the amounts which were or .were not considered within or above the categorical exemption limits; and whether there would be ae combination of increases both of toxicity and volume which should be considered. He believed there should be. He worked personally with materials which would be con- sidered fatal in doses as low as five parts per million. He worked with plutonium which was considered fatal in the parts per billion range.' He wished to know what staff_..con- sidered highly toxic and how they intended to control it. In Exhibit 9, allowable increases were given only in terms of volume and not related to classes of toxicity. In Category -II, Below Grade Storage was allowed a 50 percent bonus. His company never stored any of their solvents or chemicals below grade with the exception of fuel tanks and, as a result, never had a spill to ground water. The Fire Department's insistence on below grade storage was not necessarily the best ' way to go. In staff report (CMR:447:7), Attachment A, he was concerned there was no review or appeal for categorical exemptions in Track I under any circumstances. Appeals should be allowed either for extremely hazardous materials or for combinations of mate- rials above some specific amount. In regard to increasing storage and actually increasing the danger, if one increased the volume of the storage vessel, one could either increase the number of trips made to fill that vessel or the number of times a vessel was emptied, and filling and emptying a vessel were the most likely times for an accident. :era Murphy, 105 fncina Hall, as Managing Director of Lands Management at Stanford University, was responsible for the Stanford Research Park. She read a statement saying the City of. Palo Alto had adopted one of the most stringent hazardous materials storage ordinances in the. State of 58-396 - 11/09/87 California, and they had confidence in the ability of the City Fire Department to enforce the ordinance.. diligently. Stanford obviously had a strong interest in the wellbeing of the Research Park neighbors, of which they were one, and of the firms in the park. The park had been a tremendous asset to both the City of Palo Alto and the University, and its presence had bestowed significant academic, social, and economic benefits upon the entire community. They supported the Council's efforts to allow for the public right to know, substantial public review, and to maintain the strict stan- dards of --safety afforded by the ordinance; but, at the same time, encouraged the Council to listen to the concerns -of the firms in the park and to minimize disincentives for them to upgrade their chemical storage facilities. Peter F. Carpenter, 950 Page Mill Road, provided the Council with a more lengthy statement (on tile in the City Clerk's office), and emphasized the matter before the Council was an ordinance regarding the storage of hazardous materials, and not one designed nor intended to control whether chemicals were used in Palo Alto nor whether particular quantities were to be used on a particular site. It was clear that the use of chemicals and their quantities in Palo Alto was a real concern. `:If the Council judged the issue needed to be addressed, he urged an ordinance', be drafted controlling the use or quantities of chemicals allowed in Palo Alto. He complimented City staff on their superb job dealing with a difficult issue. In the main, he supported the etaff recom- mendations. However, if the process was made too difficult, cumbersome, and uncertain, the objective the Council hoped to ,achieve would not , be achieved. As business people, they were prepared to live by the rules bu_t needed to know what the rules were. The rules needed to be precise, well- defined, and they needed to know the process to go through to satisfy the Council that they were accomplishing the objectives set.: In regard to whether larger quantities being stored on site were in the public interest, he would much prefer to have a small number of deliveries of large quantities of material into underground storage tanks. They agreed with the judgment of the Fire Department and other experts that it was in the best interests of the. citizen s to make fewer deliveries and put them in underground tanks. The City had limited, if any, control over the transporta- tion of chemicals within the City, , If an ordinance was put in. place which was so cumbersome and uncertain that the com- panies in the Industrial Park did not know how to deal with it, .they would continue -to transport chemicals on a more frequent basis, rand some of the -activities in which .they were engaged would go elsewhere, and it was possible that 58-397 11/09/87 they would have a Stanford Office Park instead of a Stanford Research Park, increasing the number of employees from 30,000 to approximately 44,000 without a single action of the Council, without a single building permit or environ- mental impact report. The transportation impacts of that growth would be profound. He urged the Council request the staff_to draft an ordinance which was totally under the con- trol of the Cit of Palo Alto, i.e., an ordinance which did not allow discretion on the part of the City staff such that the permit issuing _process exposed them all, after the permit was issued, to going through a long series of litiga- tion under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions. Council Member Klein asked for clarification of Mr. Carpenter's last point. He understood under Track IV, that any time Architectural Review Board (ARB) review was required, which was a discretionary step on the part of the City, CEQA approval -was necessary as part of the process. Mr. Carpenter said that would be correct if ARB review was required because of a structure, for example, and they cer- tainly did not object to that. That was the only time ARB review would be required under Track IV, but he understood that the assumption of the City staff wa6, the entire ordi- nance would be redrafted in such a way that the ordinance in its whole would come under the purview of CEQA whether it was Track IV or not. It was useful for the staff and the Council tQ decide whether that was the way they wanted the ordinance `drafted. 0,ty Attorney Diane Northway said Section 17.32.110 of the current ordinance, adopted in 1983, provided that activities under the particular chapter, Hazardous Materials, were already subject to the CEQA. Nothing being proposed that evening would change that. The question of whether CEQA applied related to whether -or not something was discretion- ary, and because they had it totally under the control of the City did not change the discretionary nature of a pare ticuiar type of activity by the City. She wanted a ciarifi- cation of the point also, because she did not understand how something would be totally in the control of the City and yet not be discretionary. Council Member Klein believed the only question was when an EIA or EIR was required. As far as he could see it would only be required under Tracks III or IV, and it would have been true under Track IV anyway. Ms. Northway said yes. 58-398 11/09/87 Council Member Klein said if that understanding was correct, he had trouble understanding the complaint.: Mr. Carpenter said specifically when Title 17 was adopted by a countywide group and then passed by the Council, no one involved in the process he could find acknowledged it was the intent of anyone in that group or any of the jurisdic- tions that pawed the ordinance to apply CEQA. The City Attorney opined that CEQA applied. That determination was not made until March, 1987. Prior to that time, the -City and. every other jurisdiction in Santa Clara County had administered Title 17 without the application of CEQA unless CEQA was brought into effect by some other review associated with the project, Such as an architectural review. Council Member Klein believed that was precisely what the City Attorney said. Mr. Carpenter heard the City Attorney say that CEQA had always applied to Title 17, and that was not his under- standing. Ms. Northway, clarified the ordinance always contained a requirement for CEQA review, and Mr. Carpenter was correct that was not applied in Palo Alto. They did not go through any environmental review process unless it was associated with an ARB approval, but the ordinance always required that. When staff was asked the question, they looked at the ordinance and that was the determination. Mr. Schreiber understood Mr. Carpenter was requesting that Title 17 be modified to function the way the Building Code functioned. The City issued thousands of building permits per year. If a proposal met the standards of the Building Code, the City did not have the discretion to condition or deny the application. The absence of that discretionary power on the part of the Chief Building Official effectively removed the Building Code from the jurisdiction of the CEQA and no environmental review was required. If Title 17 simi- larly structured, there would need to be a set of standards under which the responsible City official would not have the authority to deny nor add conditions to the permit, if an applicant met those standards. If the discretionary authority was removed, his interpretation was that the whole process would move out from underneath the environmental regulations. As long as one had the discretionary authority on the part of staff to add conditions or to deny, they had met the test of the" Environmental Quality Act that the pro- cess fell under CEQA and the- environmental review was necessary. 58-399 11/09/87 Council Member Patitucci understood the Council was modi- fying the ordinance. Ms. Northway said yes, if the Council approved the recommen- dations, they were recommending that staff return with a modification. Council Member Patitucci asked if it was possible in that modification to differentiate the applicability of CEQA to the different tracks.` In other words, to say that Track I and Track II were basically procedures which were similar to the procedures followed in the Building Code approvals, and III and IV•,,got into the definition of discretion. Ms. Northway believed that would be possible. The key to whether CEQA. applied was whether the Fire Chief had discre- tion. It would be possible to -say that below a certain quantity, or with certain ,chemicals, if the applicant applied and certain standards were met, the permit should issue period. Council Member Patitucci asked if the Council could instruct staff to achieve that so some tracks were more or less pro- cedural and others were more discretionary. Ms. Northway said yes, the Council could direct staff to do that. Franz Schulte, 3210 Porter Drive, Vice -President with Coherent, one of the leading laser systems located in Palo Alto, said they had approximately 600 employees in the Stanford industrial Park, many of whom lived within the com- munity so they had a concern for the employees, for .the community,: and with sustaining their business. They were concerned about leaving, the proposal regarding CEQA open- ended. A lot could happen within the City in terms of the permit process that could delay the activity, so if they were going to have some type of facility improvement or a new facility, those delays could results in a loss of tech- nology, resulting in a potential loss of jobs. Loss of jobs resulted in loss of revenue to the City and help to the com- munity. He encouraged the Council to make what amendments were necessary. They were in support of a strong regulation in the area, of being good citizens, and of good environ-- m ntal controls, -but not to the extent of establishing some type of bureaucracy that would cause the per6itting process. to be delayed. Margaret Beernink, lived on the corner was a convergence 2351 Oberlin Street, said where she of California Avenue and Oberlin Street point of industrial and. residential 58-400 11/09/87 As corrected 12/07/87 issues. It seemed a paradox there was a gradual decline in the quality of living in her neighborhood at the time the property values were rising continually. She urged the Council to vote for the new hazardous chemicals process and would like to see underground .storage of toxic materials subject to the Track III review procedures and reviewed like the aboveground checrnicals. She would also like to see the period for public notice increased to 20 days. Brian Carilli, 2150 Columbia, enjoyed the intellectual qual- ity of the area which was a result of the companies in the area. The ability to know what the rules of the Building Codes were was something he had to deal with on a day-to-day basib. If the process was. a adopted, there had to be an end. If the Fire Chief said what was being undertaken was acceptable, they had to go with that. It did not make sense to adopt more rules and regulations unless somebody could say -they had taken all their knowledge and were doing the best job possible. The City Council should take responsi- bility for the staff's work and say enough was enough. Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, said Hewlett-Packard was doinga good job, and the Council was doing an excellent job enforcing the regulations', which were needed. He favored surface tanks because they could be monitored. Industry was needed in Palo Alto, but industry must work with the City to prevent toxic waste and to ensure future children had a chance. Council Member Cobb referenced a letter from the College Terrace Committee dated March 26, 1987, (on file in the City Clerk's office), and asked if their interpretation was cor- rect and whether there was a reason why they looked at underground storage differently from aboveground storage in terms of what was substantial. Fire Chief Bob Wall said yes, underground storage depended on the material but was a method of storage that provided an'.. excellent separation between chemicals. Belowground storage reduced signifscantly the potential for the material_ to be exposed to a fire:or an incident where the vessel:could rup- ture, leak, or become involved in a fire explosion. The frequency :of filling and handling bulk vessels was much less, SO the incidence of spill of leakage from handling was reduced. One of the main features of the current ordinance was a requirement for double containment of all vessels, including underground vessels. Th,.double containment and monitoring of the vessels would go a long way towards eliminating future leaks. Because underground storage was seen as_ a more effective_ and safer mechanism, larger increases could be allowed without going to a higher track. 11,8;)85 Council Member Cobb asked if Chief Wall had any concerns on the issue of through -put.. - Chief Wall believed through -put was an issue that would be addressed in the Hazardous Materials management in the future. Now, the whole regulation cycle was under the con- trol and regulation of the State Department of Health Services and, in some cases, was delegated to the counties. There might be a time when that became an issue for local entities to administer. Council Member Cobb clarified the Council's action was pre- empted by the State in that instance. He asked about multiple permits per location. Fire Inspector Dan Heiser said: each permitted facility must submit maps, inventories, and retails relative to their storage; therefore, the City•, permitted by 'building so they could get ouch more detail on` -their permit information. It would be ,more difficult to give a permit over an entire facility. Effectively, they could have separate plans for each building_ and a single permit with the fees, but pres- ently they got individual fees and individual information`. on each building. Mayor Woolley asked if it was clear all underground storage facilities would never go to Track III but would stay in Track II. Both new underground and increases in underground were indicated as. Track II, according to Exhibit 8. Chief wall said that was right. Mayor Woolley clarified it -was. all underground storage, as long as they were not acutely hazardous materials„, no --matter how much. Chief Wallsaid that was right, . but even :under Track II an environmental impact assessment would be required for the particular permit application. That would come under CEQA. Mayor Woolley understood earlier that Tracks I and II could be structured so there was no discretion involved. Ms. Northwayi falarified that was in response to a question about could staff change..the ordinance or change the pro- posal, and the answer was yes. The way the ordinance was presently layered, there would be an environmental assess- ment prepared for Track II. -Exhibit 2 contained a list of the different tracks -and their particular requirements, 58.402 11/09/87 Mayor Woolley referenced Council Member Da t a tucc ii' s sugges- tion and asked if underground storage needed to be handled differently. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan said the key to whether:., CEQA applied was whether there was discretion. It did not matter what the subject was, how big, .or what the quantity or chemical was. They could set up a procedure in the City to issue permits for all sorts of things. If there was discretion to deny the permits or condition the permits, then CEQA applied. If the applicant simply had to meet a certain criteria and the decision maker, whether a staff ,member or the 'City Council, had no- discretion to weigh things but just issued the permit, then it would be minis- terial and CEQA would not apply. Mayor Woolley understood there was discretion for Track II with underground storage, and she asked if the Council should change how they handled that if they wanted to elimi- nate discretion from Tracks I and II. Ms. Sloan said yes. Mayor Woolley asked how that situation shciolrl be altered. Ms. Northway suggested putting aside discussion of the Tracks for the moment and determining the basic concept of the permit. If the Fire Chief a got permit providing _ fot underground storage of any quantity, if the construction was of a certain type, and the quantity met that standard, he had to issue the permit. He could not change the standards. They applied objectively. Under that process, Tracks I, II, III, and IV, there was discretion on the part of the Fire Chief. He could look at an application and make a determi- nation that he would like to sce a different type of storage in a different location on the site or that there was too much of a particular chemical. He had the discretion to make those kinds of decisions. In order to not have to apply, the Council would take that discretion away from the Fire Chief or from the Council, and make it an absolute requirement for -issuance of a permit. Vice Mayor Sutorius said, as an example, the Building Code had certain standards. It somebody applied to build some- thing according to the Code, a permit was issued, and the City could inspect and -con .irm it was built according to the Code. The permit ;was not--denied,_beause they had applied for something that was definitely described and there was no. discretion. -Removal of the discretion would require very definitive description and a whole host of things would need 58-403 11/09/87 to be precisely spelled out in order to ensure that what happened under the permit process was what they wanted to happen, and there was no undue risk. Agreement on that understanding was important to any other discussion the Council had relative to that concept. Council Member IPatitucci believed the question was one of quantity. Discretion and nondiscretion did not have to do with tracks, and he asked if there was another definition that would simplify the process, or, did the field not yet have sufficient detailed standards that could apply. Chief Wall said staff would need to review what changes were necessary to remove the discretion from the process. There would have to be precise definitions and standards similar to the Building and Fire Codes, but it could be done Ms. Northway said the only exception would be projects which had ARB review because the element of discretion was re- injected into the process. Projects which did not require ARB review could be made ministerial with precise stan- dards. Council Member Patitucci clarified the City would have to develop the standards which were not readily available at present. If 'the tracks did not track to discretion or non - discretion, his concern was whether they could make part of the process predictable. They did not want to keep every- thing up in the air for industry nor to have every change in the hazardous materials storage end up in a drawnout proce- dure or lawsuit, and with tremendous expense in regard to EIAs and EIRs. It would be beneficial if they moved toward a process of getting 'down to the 20 or 30 a year that really were discretionary. The recommendation proceduralized and added new steps into a process which he hoped would allow more people to participate but did not nail down and make predictable much of the process any better than"previously. Ms. Northway said if the Council wanted to make the process ministerial, the tracks did not aid that process. If it was ministerial, there was no reason to have a hearing because no facts would be at issue. There would be no need for the Fire Chief to take testimony because he had before him some- thing that spelled out what he had to do when he received a plan that met those tests. Council Member Fletcher wondered if the ordinance could contain categorical exemption when there was a net benefit 58-404 11/09/87 to new construction, and to include in the equation the number of transportation trips that might be saved if a larger container was constructed. Ms. Northway believed the State of California spelled out the appropriate categories for categorical exemptions in promulgating the CEQA guidelines. Staff could embellish those with their own guidelines, but they would not be binding necessarily on the courts, legislature, or anyone else. Staff could do that in aid of the City's own process. It would depend on what the Council hoped to accomplish by having their own categorical exemption. me,- Schreiber said the P&P Committee and staff struggled with providing more . predictability in the .process. It was important to note as now structured all the process was under CEQA and thus there was the potential for procedural challenges, legal concerns, etc., with any one of the four tracks. By placing items within the categorical exemption proces^, it might provide greater predictability to the applicant, but it did not provide certainty because there was still nothing to preclude anyone from challenging that action. In Tracks III and IV the challenge involved appeals to the City Council in public hearings. To make the process less cumbersome, Track I. did not involve the step of appeal to the Council which was felt to be a potential major con- sumer of time and energy; instead, the focus of public involvement was on the public hearing held by the Fire Chief._ Again, that increased the potential for predictabil- ity but. not certainty. The only way to create certainty was to get the process out from under CEQA. That policy posi- tion wasa major issue which needed to be examined care -- fully. Members of the City Manager's office, City Attorney's office, Fire Department, and Planning staff spent innumerable hours putting together the tracks and defining the process before the Council. In none- of those discus- sions did they speak to creating a ministerial, building permit -type process. There were layers of issues that would need to be carefully considered, and he cautioned that the matter was extremely complex. Council Member Fletcher asked if the table on Exhibit 9, the CEQA Quantity Increases Allowable for Categorical Exemptions, were State guidelines or mandates, Ms. Sloan clarified the -State of California in the CEQA guidelines set out broad categories, e.g., existing facil- ities'as long as the use change was not a substantial change in use. Exhibit 9 was an attempt by City staff to fit the Title 17 procedure into the State guidelines and was still a 58-405 11/09/87 working draft. Staff was working on what would be logical to fit into categorical exemptions in Palo Alto. Just because the City treated something as categorically exempt from environmental reeiew, did not mean that it was not challengable in court. It was up to the State to make the final determination. Council Member Fletcher asked, if staff was still developing quantitative guidelines, could the number of transportation trips and handling events be built into the equation so an overall safety factor could be measured rather than just quantity. Ms. Northway harkened back to Mr. Schreiber's comments. The concept was new, and staff would have to examine and see how everything titted together. The concept seemed possible. Council Member Bechtel commended staff and the P&P Committee tor their. work on the ordinance. She believed the process was improved by allowing more public input and the opportu- nity for an appeal process. She had heard only two Council Members speak to the- idea of making the process nondiscre- tionary. Vice Mayor Sutorius and Mr. Schreiber spoke articulately on the subject. It was a cumbersome process to make exact, definitive standards, and she did not believe the Council would want to get into it. It also conflicted. with the possible appeal process and the public input. They had a good outline and the Council should proceed. Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Bechtel and reiterated that the whole intent. -of the P&P Committee was to improve public input. The process before the Council allowed public notification and understanding of "what kind of chemicals were being approved for storage and where and, at the same time, minimized the red tape companies would have to go through in order to improve their chemical stor- age. The majority of permits came in `,hacks I and 11, neither of which had appeal to the Council, but one of which had a hearing/ it requested. Maybe .about ten permits might have more serious ramifications in terms of the effect on various companies in the community. However, the motion still offered some protection to the'public .and she urged support. Council Member Patitucci asked if it was feasible within the time frame for Track -E to be a possibility for developing a nondiscretiOnary category. Ms. Northway believed that was a possibility. Staff did not necessarily have a time frame. When the item returned to the Council, the ordinance would be complete. 58-406 11/09/8.7 AMENDMENT: Council Member Patitucci moved that staff take the categorical exemptions in Track 1 and create a process whereby they would be exempt from CEQA. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Paticucci voting "no. "_ 4. COUNCIL MEMBER ELLEN FLETCHER RE WINE COOLER SPIRIT COOLER DEPOSIT ORDINANCE (1420) Council Member Fletcher said the proposal was for a local beverage container deposit ordinance limited to wine and spirit coolers. Other beverages were covered -by State law, AB 2020, and she said it was impossible to tell the wine cooler bottles and the other bottles apart and showed samples. One solution was to have the F'.rchasers return the cooler bottles to the store for a deposit which would elimi- nate the confusion over which bottles were covered by the redemption law. The intent was to implement the ordinance after the legislature had time to include the cooler bever- age bottles in the State law to make it uniform and simpler. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to: 1. Direct the City Attorney to research the pre-emption issue regarding a local beverage container deposit ordi- nance; and 2. If it is determined that the City is not pre-empted, the City Attorney draft an ordinance establishing a redemp- tion value of five cents for wine cooler and spirit cooler containers for Palo Alto, to be effective January 1, 1989. Tom French, 631 Coleridge, said their law firm was counsel to the California Wine Institute, a trade association with over 50U members. They opposed the proposed bottle ordi- nance and hot i Avpd it was expressly preempted by AB 2020 and it was, _therefore, unconstitutional for a city to adopt an ordinance of the type being considered that evening. He gave their opinion onthe.matter to the City Attorney. They understood the purpose of the ordinance was part of a Statewide strategy ; to send a message to Sacramento to broaden the rope of AB 2020 .to include wine coolers. They had no quarrel with sending messages to -the legislature but felt the Method of communicating to the legislature had. the 58-407 11/09/87 potential for harm for the following reasons: First, the ordinance had a punitive effect, punishing retailers who must be responsible for sorting, collecting, and storing empty containers and for making deposit refunds. AB 2020 put the burden on recyclers, not retailers. Retailers were not set up to accept deposits and eit would be an unfair burden on them to do so. The ordinance also punished the retailer because it imposed a five cent deposit on wine coolers, or a five -times greater deposit than that already required under AB 2020 for the regulated containers. Secondly,. the ordinance was not necessary due to the fact that wine coolers constitute less than two -tenths of 1 per- cent of all litter Statewide. Experts testified before the legislature that wine coolers ranked 17th in the major groupings of products which littered California's streets and highways. Moreover, Palo Alto's curbside recycling pro- gram ensured a high percentage of wine cooler containers would continue to be recycled regardless of whether the new - ordinance was adopted. Enforcement of the ordinance would be difficult at best. Purchase of wine coolers exempt from any deposit requirements would still be possible in locales in the area such as Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos or East Palo Alto where no similar ordinance would be in effect. Public confusion was likely to result. AB 2020 had just come into effect. If other municipalities attempted to regulate container deposits at the local level, each in its own way, a confusing mess would result. in the materials enclosed in the Council's packets to support the ordinance, the suggestion that the wine cooler market was rapidly growing was not the case. A recent New York Times article reported accurately that the market for the products, while initially strong, was now leveling off, In Palo Alto, which had never been a strong market. for products of that type, there was a similar trendy in regard to the suggestion. that the wine industry single-handedly caused wine coolers to be exempted from AB 2020, certainly the, wine industry fought the move vigorously because bottle deposit regulation was costly. It fought to have all wine products exempted from AB 2020, including wine coolers, and that effort was suc- cessful, but the legislature also took into account that agricultural i.eerests in California were likewise seriously affected by how California's wine industry tared. The suc-' cess of the wine cooler was a much -needed shot in the arm to California's wineries, particularly to growers of the lower - end grapes which had been battered by ,foreign competition. The legislature also recognized that wine products in gen- eral ar;v wane coolers in''particular did not contribute- to 1ittec' its the $Late1 58-408 11/09/8.7 Mark Murray, 1212 "S" Street, Sacramento, local liaison for Californians Against Waste, sponsors of AB 2020 and AB 612. The exclusion of the wine cooler containers from the State Recycling and Litter Reduction Act would mean that more than 200,000,000 single -serving glass wine cooler bottles sold in California next year would continue to pose a problem for all communities in terms of litter, safety, and a wasted resource. Recycling the glass saved 65 percent of the energy that would otherwise go into manufacturing a new glass bottle. There was also a solid -waste problem in terms of unnecessarily occupying space in the landfills. The solution was to provide a monetary incentive to consumers to recycle the bottles. Californians Against Waste worked with the legislature, _specifically Assemblyman Byron Sher, to include wine coolers in the State recycling law which placed a one cent redemption value plus scrap value. The model ordinance was in effect in nine states. Opposition from the wine and liquor industry was keeping the statewide solution from being instituted. The delayed implementation date sug- gested January 1, 1989 which would provide the legislature with a third opportunity to rectify the problem. He urged support. Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, said his brother-in-law had 4,000 acres of vineyards in the Napa Valley. He believed the legislation would jeopardize the wine industry which made a big contribution to the economy. Council Member Levy agreed with the need to include wine cooler bottles in AB 2020. He was not moved by the argument that the wine coolers is a small business and was not growing fast. It was analogous to the soft drinks and beer that were now being sold. The intent of the motion was to send a message to the legislature but he believed it should be done in such a way as to represent less -work and time for City staff. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Levy. moved, seconded by Sutorius, to direct staff to prepare a resolutionembodying twomeasures: 1. That the City Council urges the legislature to include wine and spirit cooler bottle deposit in the Bottle Bill by September 1, 1988; and 2. if the State does not enact the change by September 1, 1908, that staff prepare an ordinance to enact a five cent deposit on wine and spirit cooler bottles to be effective January 1, 1989. 58-409 11/09/87 Vice Mayor Sutorius believed the substitute motion repre- sented a way in which Council could express its concerns and intents and convey the message to the legislature. It was the type` of message Assemblyman Sher could include in his portfolio for his continued negotiations with the wine industry. If a formal_ Council ordinance action became appropriate, he hoped Council would be able to solicit an Attorney General opinion on the constitutionality aspects. Council Member Fletcher said Assemblyman Sher said the bill would be reviewed again in January, 1988. He wanted..a strong message and a resolution was not a strong message as pointed out by the league of California Cities. She did not see the staff assignment as being big. The model ordinance just needed a couple of changes to apply to Palo Alto. She envisioned the City Attorney writing one letter to the Attorney General requesting an opinion or requesting Assemblyman Sher or another legislator to do-ss City Attorney Diane Northway believed the issue was the legislative intent when the wine cooler industry was exempted, which would require researching the legislative history. She did not know the extent of the legislative history so it was hard to forecast the amount of work. Access to the materials about the hearings could require trips to Sacramento. Council Member Fletcher referred to a letter from the State Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling (on file in the City Clerk's Office), which indicated that the legis- lation as written covered only beer and other malt bever- ages, carbonated, mineral, and soda waters and similar car- bonated soft drinks in liquid form which were intended for human consumption. If the bill was preempted and the wine industry was sure it would win a court case, she did not know why the other jurisdictions who already passed the legislation were not taken to court. She urged support of the original motion in accordance with Assemblyman Sher's request. Council Member Renzel agreed with Council Member Fletcher that an ordinance was a much stronger message to send to Sacramento. Council's intent to pass an ordinance in the future would probably not have a lot of strength as much as if an ordinance was adopted which would only go into effect if the legislation failed. There was good reason for adopting an ordinance. In terms of the legislative research, the State Legislative Analyst and the Attorney 58-410 11/09/87 General's Office would be obliged to issue an opinion and she would be willing to accept the opinion. She urged sup- port of the main motic .. Council Member Patitucci did not believe it made sense to pass an ordinance Council hoped it did not have to imple- ment. Although he did not completely agree with the substi- tute motion, he would support it. Council Member Fletcher said the author of AB 2020 already requested a legislative analyst opinion on the issue. Retailers already had five cent deposits on Coke, Sprite, Pepsi, 7 -Up and the Schwepps Tonics bottles. In terms of the discrepancies from one cent to five cents, the Schwepps bottles had a 20 cent deposit. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Renzel, Fletcher, Bechtel voting "no.' Council Member Renzel asked whether the intent to pass an ordinance would return to Council at some point automat- ically or whether Council would need to agendize it. Ms. Northway said if by September 1, 1988, no action has been taken by the legislature, she would return with an ordinance or an opinion. 5. MAYOR GAIL WOOLLEY RE USE OF PLASTIC PACKAGING FOR TAKEOUT FOODS (1440) ..., .� MOTION: Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, to direct staff to report back ons 1. The extent to which t h i City uses plastics containing CFC"s, the available alternatives and the comparative costs; and 2. The feasibility a;:d ::ther problemst) of: a) banning the use of plastic food containers made with CPC's within a reasonable time frame, and b) curtailing the use of all nonbiodegradable packaging by fast food establishments. Further, that staff work with the Chamber of Commerce in preparing the report, Mayor Woolley spoke with the Chamber of Commerce and the Executive Director recruited a committee of people who were ready and willing to work with City stmt on exploring the possibility of cutting sown on the use of plastics in the community, particularly those with CR`C's. 58-411 11/09/87 Council !ember Renzel said many establishments in Palo Alto had already converted their containers and it made sense to proceed. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 6. COUNCIL MEMBER PATITUCCI RE DOWNTOWN PARKING (211-02) MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Renzel, to retain current parking mix in Lots P and R and not implement staff's proposed changes. Council Member Cobb asked if staff determined whether the proposed changes were impacting the businesses. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said staff met with representatives from a couple of businesses who indi- cated they were being affected but the degree to which had not been evaluated. Council Member Cobb said if there was a negative impact on the businesses, he queried whether there was an alternative plan. Mr. Overway said if the plan was not implemented as proposed by staff, there were two alternatives. One was to leave the status quo, or to make Lot R all public parking and Lot P all permit parking. Lot P was chosen as a permit lot because Lot R could impact the businesses to which it was adjacent, Mayor Woolley said if the two lots were reversed, she queried Whether there would be a problem in terms of num- bers. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Vice Mayor Sutorius sensed a sincere effort to ineugrate the entire plank for the entire downtown area. If a change was made in one set of parking lots, he queried whether it would have an effect on the intended purposes in the other por- tions of the lots. Mr. Overway said one effect of a reversal would. be insuffi- cient spaces in Lot P to accommodate all the permit spaces in Lot R. Staff also reassigned some of the people from Lot A to Lot R and those people would have to be accommodated elsewhere. Staff was concerned about the balance and main- taining the approximate percentage of public and permit spaces. Many business owners expressed more concern about parking for their employees in that same area and wanted 11 BOP more permit parking, and others wanted to maintain the pub- lic parking. The present arrangement resulted in the general area of Lots A, P, R and K of a net gain of eight public spaces and a net loss of eight permit spaces. A switch would equate to a net gain of 28 public spaces and a net loss of 28 permit spaces. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked if the plan was included in any preliminary discussions with the Chamber of Commerce Committee on Parking and Transportation. Mr. Overway believed the Chamber of Commerce Committee's awareness was similar to the Council's. The plan had been laid out in writing but had never specifically been di - cussed as to the detail specific actions with regard to Lots P & R. Mr. Schreiber said at a meeting he attended one of the con- cerns voiced strongly was the importance of separating permit spaces from public spaces. He was gently chided for staff's not implementing the Council's direction last year in an expeditious manner to separat-e out the lots. A number of merchants at that meeting voiced strong concerns about the confusion created by the continued intermixing of permit and public spaces. Council Member Levy asked about on -street parking around that block between Alma and High Streets on University Avenue. He assumed there was no parking on the circler Mr. Overway said there were 11 spaces on Alma and the circle., There was no parking University Avenue between the circle and High Street. On High Street between University and Hamilton Avenues there were 22 spots. There was parking on both sides of the block of Hamilton between Alma and High. There was parking all the way on Alma except at the driveway into the parking lot. Council Member Levy asked if there was a reason why Lot T was still mixed. Mr. Overway said Lots K and T were related in a zone. People from Lots A, S and F were moved into Lot K. Staff was concerned they might be going further than they should and decided to wait about six months before converting Lot T. When more information was available, they would conclude whether to make Lot T into a permit or public lot. Council Member Levy asked if . Mr°. Overway had any feelings about revising Lot R after reading the public letters. 58-413 11/09/87 Mr. Overway said he considered the public's comments, met with them and respectedtheir opinions. There were a number considerations why Lot P was superior to Lot R even with the public's strong concerns about their particular situations. He felt the consequences of the actionsresulted in parking availability not significantly different from a number of other stores in the downtown area. He had not changed his opinion. Bob Stevens, 125 University Avenue, was managing partner of three buildings and ran his.own business on the 100 block of University Avenue, and said the property owners were not notified. His experience was all the people who ran busi- nesses were vitally concerned about the availability of public parking. Over the past three years, he had seen pub- lic policies change and Lot Q added in_the area and parking had definitely improved. However, in the last year Lot 0 went from half two-hour parking/half permit parking to all public parking, and most of the permit holders went into Lot Q, which action had proved successful. The net effect of the change for Lots O, Q, R and P was a loss of 17 .permit spaces. There were four retail occupants in their build- ings, and nobody ever expressed a concern about public parking. He had repeatedly.been called by the heads of com- panies in that area about concern over the permit spaces. As the mix continued to change away from permit -to public, the pressures and concerns on the part of business owners would increase. George (Du f) Sundheim, 871 Sycamore Drive, had an office at 420 Florence Street which had Lot S in front and Lot F across the street. Historically the two lots were able to take care of their building. Approximately two years ago, permit spaces were taken away from Lot S such that there was insufficient permit parking for the employees. The proposal would now remove all permits from Lots.S and F and put them in Lot K. All the people in the building were sympathetic to the concerns of the retailers, but he was speaking on behalf of his staff who raised the concern that at 5:30 p.m. there would be no parking spaces for them either in front of or across from the building. -They would like to retain the status quo. The concern was so strong and there were ,:'o few spaces that the hours of the office were changed from 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m.=5:00 p.m. to ensure permit parking spaces either in front of or across the street from their building. Council Member Renzel asked if people were concerned about security in getting to their cars. 58-414 11/09/87 . Mr. Sundheim said yes, the staff did not want to walk down the street at night. Stafford Hebert, 1204 Middlefield Road, the manager of Crown Books on the corner of Alma and University, spoke regarding Lots 0, Q, P, and R. He advocated the Council leave P and R the way they were because seven retail businesses surrounded Lot R and they draw about 90 percent of their business from that area. The alternative was to change Lot R to total public parking. He averaged 200 customers a day, and Crown -Books got the lease in that building. partly based upon figures that included parking in that area. If they lost the spaces, he had been told they might have to close their business, and he understood that might be a possibility in the case of the other business owners. In regard to the loss of 17 permit parking spaces in the total of the four lots if the parking changes were implemented, he referenced the parking survey upon which the recommendations were made. At the time the survey was taken, the public parking spaces were 100 percent occupied and the permit parking spaces were 75 percent occupied. Robert Tennyson, 116 University Avenue, the owner of Bungey Travel and 116 University Avenue, concurred with the previ- IOUs speaker. If parking was moved to Lot P, and R was put into all permit parking, it would be a net reduction of five spaces for public parking in the area. They were consider- ing redoing the building at 116 University Avenue, which was the cornerstone of the entry into Palo Alto, but could not justify increasing the facade with reduced parking and c:ustorner base. He urged the Council's support in maintain- ing a status quo situation on the parking lot. Jeffrey Hankins --Koppel, 529 Alma Street, owner of The Great American Framing Shops, said 99 percent of his customers parked in Lot R, and taking the lot away would basically put him out of. business. There were about ten parking spaces on Alma' to be shared by seven businesses. The downtown core of Palo Alto had foot traffic, but their business was based on drive -by traffic and convenient parking. Lot U could be made permit parking. Of the total usage of Lots P and R for permit parking, 45 of the 60 spaces were used. Lot Q could -totally absorb all the permit parking spaces and both Lots P and R could be public, or Lot U could be activated. He felt the business owner's should have been notified. He presented a petition .from Paula's Porcelain. Bill Crawford, 288 Everett Street, of Cppymat on the corner of High Street and University Avenue, said they had from 250 to 300 customers a day. Most of their customers haddealt with his business for years; however, if Lots P and 0 were 11/09/87 made public, two competitors on that side of the street would benefit from new clientele which would have an effect on his continued expansion. Businesses like Crown Books would not have enough parking. He urged the Council to minimally maintain the status quo and not make Lot R permit parking. Eric Dunn, 2260 St. Francis Drive, worked at 540 University Avenue, and he protested the proposed changes at the Webster/Cowper garage where he parked. He was concerned the proposal would eliminate half the floor in the basement and another half a floor on the -roof of the garage, effectively removing one floor of permit parking. He observed there was currently less than one floor of permit parking available and removal would result in insufficient spaces. He won- dered if the decision to make the basement of the garage public parking could -be reconsidered. One of the advantages of a covered garage for permit holders was that the car was not exposed to sun and rain, and. the public who parked for brief periods of time would be better occupants of the roof than permit holders. Council Member Cobb was concerned about driving small ser- vice and retail businesses out of town. He was sympathetic to the concern of the speakers that evening. From his own shopping habits, he would go to another store if he could not park easily. From the map, he did not see any signifi- cant difference in terms of the permit spaces but could see how businesses adjacent to public spaces would be concerned about the half -a -block difference. As mentioned by mt. Sundheim, they seemed to have taken away a lot of permit spaces and added a lot of public spaces on Lots F, S, and L, and he wondered if there would be a short -fall. He would like to support Council Member Patitucci's motion or a vari- ation to make Lot P the permit parking lot and pick up a few more permit spaces on Lot R to balance the number difference but leave the balance in public parking. Mr. Overway clarified eight permit spaces in Lot F and ten in Lot S were being converted to public parking and that was being offset by conversion of existing public spaces in Lot K. to permit spaces. Council Member Patitucci clarified that a change in the plan would reduce the number of public parking spaces from 70 in two lots to 55. He had no problem with either retaining the status quo or retaining 70 public spaces in Lot R and con- verting Lot:P entirely to permit if appropriate. Another consideration was that High Street was a one-way street and getting in and out of..Lot P was not 'as easy, making .it more 58-416 11/09/87 amenable to permit parking. Lot R was more convenient for the person who had to park for a few minutes because it had two entrances. Mayor Woolley asked if staff believed it would be a more workable situation to have Lot P entirely permit parking and to pick up a number of permit spaces in Lot R. Mr. Overway said the suggestion maintained the objective of separating the lots, which was one of the long-stanaing goals of the policies the Council adopted in terms of clarifying which lots were available for public and which for permit. His only concern was the people around Lot P. Staff distributed to the people _around Lots P and R- a -copy of the report with a notice that the Council was discussing the matter. It would be better to continue separating the lots, and staff would deal with the oversale of permits in some manner. MAKER AND SECONDER OF MOTION AGREED TO CHANGE LANGUAGE TO "REVISE DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN SO THAT PARKING LOT P BECOMES PERMIT PARKING, AND THAT STAFF BALANCE OUT THE . PARKING SPACES IN LOT R TO PUBLIC PARKING SPACES AS APPROPRIATE" Council Member Levy said two policy matters came into con- flict. Fundamentally, he believed it was a good objective to have lots that were all permit or all public parking because there had been an incredible amount of confusion with people getting tickets in permit spaces. However, the City could not be dogmatic, and there was no question that there had to be public parking in Lot R to serve those retail establishments on the circle and on Alma Street. Alma Street was heavily traveled with parking on only one side, and the circle on University was even harder to park on, and there was no parking on University at High Street►` He supported Council Member Patitucci"s. motion which gave staff discretion. Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Levy's remarks with respect to the traffic situation being unique in that particular block, which mitigated towards the Council's deviating from its general policy of keeping the parking spaces closer to the core. council Member Bechtel concurred w i to the comments made by her colleagues. She was concerned about the lack of notice to the business owners and property owners. She ,appreciated staff='s efforts the last Friday but believed it was a prob- lem unless people happened to be permit _ holders. Some 'residents told her they did not shop An downtown Palo Alto 58-41-7 11/09/87 on Saturdays,because they could not find parking places, and they were concerned the permit spaces were being enforced on Saturdays. She asked whether that was true and what the signs indicated. Mr. Overway said the regulations were not enforced, and temporary signs would be going up within the next week or two clarifying people could park in permit spaces on Saturdays. Vice Mayor Sutorius said in addition to the two lots subject to the motion that evening, the Council received comments about other lots and situations. If Council took the action that evening, he asked if they were only putting a finger in thedam and if more situations would go before the Council related to the implementation of the plan and notification process. For instance, a speaker was concerned about employees in his firm having to go to Lot K, and he heard from a property owner on Lytton who was concerned about Lot K being changed to 100 percent permit. Air. Schreiber said staff assumed that every time they made changes in downtown parking, a number of people were upset no matter what the changes were; however, Council Member Renzel had used the word "unique" to describe the circula- tion pattern and the distribution of retail and offices uses around Lots R and P, and he did not believe that would auto- matically carry over.to other lots. From staff's stand- point, the motion before the Counca.l did not undermine the separation of permit and public parking by much --an impor- tant policy, in the Downtown Study. He could not guarantee the Council would not receive other complaints. Vice mayor Sutorius supported the motion as worded. He encouraged continued interfacing with the Chamber of Commerce Committee. Mayor Woolley heartily agreed there was less foot traffic in the area of Lots P and R. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 7. COUNCIL MEMBER EMILY RENZEL RE NOMINATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY -DELTA ESTUARY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY S NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM (1440) Council Member Renzel clarified the indication in the Resolution that the City of Palo Alto would agree to 58-418 11/09/87 participate in the management conference for the San Francisco Estuary study, simply meant they would give their input and not that they would do any of the work, contribute funds, etc. MOTION: Council Member moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION 6653 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDING THE GOVERNOR'S NOMINATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY - DELTA ESTUARY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM" MOTION PASSED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:26 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Mayor 58-419 11/09/87: