Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-04 City Council Summary Minutes1 i CITY COIJIICIL MINUTES ITEM CITY NoWe/ J ALi u . TG Regular Meeting _ November 4, 1985 PAGE Oral Communications 6 5 0 4 Approval of Minutes of September 16, 1985 6 5 0 4 Item #1, Appointment of Historic Resource.. Board 6 5 0 4 Member to fill Unexpired Term Ending May 31, 986 Consent Cal endar 6 5 0 5 Referral 6 5 0 5 Action 6 5 0 6 Item #2, Resolution Expressing Appreciation to - 6 5 0 6 Howard Carlyle Item #3, 1985 Slurry Seal - Rejection of Bid 6 5 0 5 Item #5, Ordinance Re Cable Television 6 5 0 5 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 6 5 0 5 Item #6, Finance and Publ is Works Committee 6 5 0 5 Recommendation Re Ordinance Authorizing Closing of the 1984.85 Budget Item #7, Project Agreement No. 2 - Transmission 6 5 0 5 Agency of Northern Cal ifornia Item #8, California Avenue Area Bevel opment 6 5 0. 8 Association Request Regarding Additional Parking Supply for the California Avenue Parking District Item #8-A (Old Item #4), Naming of "Lot J" Garage 6 5 ? 0 Adjournment to Closed Session re Litigation 6 5 2 3 Final Adjournment: 9:30 p.m. 6 5 2 3 6 5 0 3 11/04/85 Regular Meeting November 4, 1985 PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutori us, Woolley 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. ABSENT: Witherspoon Mayor Levy announced the need for a Closed Session re Litigation to discuss Citizens for Sensible Planning and Robert D. Ekedahl v. City of Palo Alto and Stanford University pursuant to _ Government Code Section 54946.9(c) to be held at some point during or after the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MAYOR LEVY RE WEST BAY OPERA Mayor Levy presented a framed proclamation to members of the West Bay Opera, which as celebrating its 30th anniversary, and the longest existing opera between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The proclamation said the City was proud to be the home ,of the renowned West Bay Opera and was markieg 30 years they haci per- formed to acclaim, As Mayor, he proclaimed that week as "West Bay Opera Week" because Friday, November 8, 1985, would be the inaug- ural performance of the 30th Anniversary season of the West Bay Opera: Dorothy Nutto thanked the Council for the recognition of West Bay Opera. They were proud to accept the Proclamation, and as the Opera started its 30th year, next Friday with a double bill of Gia#rni Schicchi and Pagliacci, they hoped everyone would be there and the Opera would be around tor another 30 years to keep up its operatic tradition. In keeping with the operatic tradition, they sang the Proclamation for the Council and were joined by Mayor Levy. MAYOR LEVY RE CITY MANAGER OF AUCKLAND !iEW ZEALAND Mayor Levy introduced Bruce Anderson, City Manager of Auckland, New Zealand who was present as part of an international City Manager exchange program. He would provide the City the benefit of his experience south of the equator for the next two weeks, and next year Palo Al=to's City Mananee, Bi 1 1 Zaner, would complete the exchange by spending a couple of weeks as Mr. Anderson's guest in Auckland. He also recognized the presence that evening of Mr. and Mrs. B. Coral from Tel Aviv , Israel and welcomed them to Palo Alto. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16 1985 MOTION: Couaici lmember Sutori us moved, seconded by Cobb, ap- proval of the ltiinwtes of September 16, 1285, as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, NitherspOon absent. ITEM 01 . APPOINTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEMBER TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING MAY 31 1985 (COU 5.9-2) Mayor ,Levy said five applications were submitted for appointment to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) to °fill the unexpired term ending May 31, 1986. The applicants were Ken Alsman, Florence Lynch., Carl McDowell, Jim McFall. and George Moore. Council had the benefit of interviewing all tIle available applicants the pre- vious week, and they were all excellent. 1 6 5 0 4 .11/04/85 Ci7ililc ill#iember Klein was unable to Join in the interviews, and would not vote on the position. Councilmember Woolley said as a Council liaison to the HRB, she reminded her colleagues one member of the Board served in two of the prescribed positions; _he was both an architect and resident of an historic house. Therefore, it would be helpful further down the line someday if Council were able to choose a person who ful- filled one of those roles so they were not in the position someday of having to find an architect who lived in a historic house, which limited the choices considerably. She intended to vote for Ken Alsman who brought an unusual combination of qualifications. His vocation as a City Planner was helpful as the HRB was consid- ering an overlay zone for the Downtown area in the next six months or so, and his avocation as a restorer of historic structures made him valuable to people applying to the Board because it was pri- marily an advisory board. Councilmember Renzel was also unable_ to attend the interviews, but read the materials submitted by the applicants and believed she_ could vote on the decision. Councilmember Sutorius was in a similar position tc Councilmember Renzel and took the opportunity, beyond reading the materials, to make inquiries with some members of the HRB and colleagues and felt qual ified to vote. Mayor Levy reflected on the comments made by Councilmember Woolley because it also influenced his choice of candidates. He was impressed by many of the candidates, particularly - Carl McDowell who was a long and active member of the Historic Association; Florence Lynch who rehabilitated Downing House, which was cer- tainly a delightful landmark in town, and Jim McFall who also had a lot of interest in historic renovation al thong►z a member of the community for a short time. He also believed Ken Alsman was out- standingly well qualified. de would support Ken Alsman. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING City Clerk Ann Tanner announced the results of the first ballot: VOTING FOR ALSMAM: Levy, Fletcher, Bechtel, Woolley, Sutorius VOTING FOR LYNCH: Renzel VOTING FOR McDOWELL: Cobb Ms. Tanner said Ken Alsman received five votes and was appointed. Mayor Levy congratulated Mr. Alsman on his appointment. CONSENT CALENDAR layor Levy removed Item #4, Naming of "Lot J" Garage, at the request of a member of the public. MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None. 6 5 0 5 11/04/85 Action ITEM #2, RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO HOWARD CARLYLE (PER 4-.) RESOLUTION 6439, entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO HOWARD CARLYLE UPON HIS RETIREMENT" ITEM #3, 1985 SLURRY SEAL - REJECT JN OF BID (PWK 6-2) Staff recommends Council reject the bid of $125,121.78 from Valley Slurry Seal Company for the 1985 Slurry Seal Project, CIP 85-70. ITEM #5, ORDINANCE RE CABLE TELEVISION (PRE 7-3) (CMR:587:5) Staff recommends Council approve the Ordinance. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE C01JW IL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO GRANTING A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM TO CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COOPERATIVE OF PALO ALTO, INC." MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bi l l Zaner said Item #4, Naming of "Lot J" Parking Garage, would become Item #8-A. ITEM #. FINANCE AND PUB'.LC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE iiRD NANC. AUHORIZING CLOSING pF THE 1984-85 BUDGE! (FIN 16-1-16) TLMR: 588: 5) MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved adoption of the ordinance authorizing closure oaf the 1984-85 Budget, establishing reserves and reapprepriating $1,942,518 into the 1985-86 Budget. ORDINANCE 3647 entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING CLOSING CF THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984-85" AOTION. PASSED unanimously Witherspoon absent. ITFM 171 PROJECT AGREEMENT NO, 22 - TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN -i f (CMl 82-: 5 ) Mayor Levy said the item was a commitment for the City's share of approximately $850,000 of the total estimated $20 million invest- ment, which was in planning. - He asked staff for an idea of the ultimate costs the project would entail and how the City would benefit, Director of Utilities Richard ,Youre said the overall cost projecr tions for the construction of the project amounted to $315 million in 1985 dollars. If stretched to 1990, it would be $430 million. The benefits .to the City were based on the 4.25 percent share of Transmission Agency -of Northern Cal ifornta's (TANC) portion, Which was slightly under half, 46.1 --percent, which ro nded out to about' $6.25 millican total -_-investment for the City1 ,the major benefits in participating in the project Were in an access to the - Northwest, which area had --excessive hydropower- in the ---times when - the City had 4 -need for capacity and energy. The bottom line was the City hoped to do some active Work in power management and pure: chasing of power in such a manner as to reduce costs in the time periods when assts normally were the highest. 6 5' ' 6 11/`UU4/85 Mayor Levy asked the difference in cost at the present time between Northwest power and the City's current alternative sources. Mr. Young said the last information he had on surplus power out of the Northwest was about 1.1 cents, where the City presently paid about 3.5 cents. MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Sutori us, approval of the staff recommendation to adopt the resolution authorizing execution of the Transmission Agency of Northern California Project Agreement No. 2 for the California -Oregon Transmission Project, providing for the benefits and responsibilities asso- ciated with participation in the project. RESOLUTION 6440, entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE 'TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, PROJECT AGREEMENT NO. 2 FOR THE CALIFORNIA -OREGON TRANSMISSION PROJECT AMONG THE TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL" TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PROJECT AGREEMENT NO. 2 FOR THE CALIFORNIA -OREGON TRANSMISSION PROJECT AMONG TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA THE CITY OF ALANEDA THE CITY OF LIGGS THE CITY OF GRIDLEY THE CITY OF HEALDSOURG THE CITY OF LODI THE CITY OF LOPPOC THE MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT THE CITY OF rALO ALTO THE CITY OF REDDING THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE THE SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA THE TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT THE CITY OF UUKIAH THE PLUMAS-RIFRRA RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Councilmember Fletcher asked how the timing of the project fit in with the Calaveras development of the project because,. there would be a. time when the City would have ample power. Mr. Young replied both projects were close to each other for their commercial operation dates, 1980 and 1981. Councilmember Fletcher asked if there was a time when the City had surplus for which it had to find a purchaser. Mr. Young said there was a distir_ction to be made between the two. The TANG project was a transmission line which opened access to a marketplace where the City could purchase only what it needed. The Calaveras project was _a power project where the City had capa- city and energy according to the project itself. There .were time factors involved where Calaveras, as explained in the workshop, still did not cover the proper time zone to supply the City's needs fully at certain times of the year. That was an opportunity to fill in those valleys Mayor Levy clarified that Mr. Young was sayinn the City's commit- ment was only for the cost of the ' project, i.e. $6.5 million; beyond that the City only paid for the power needed. Mr. Young replied that was correct. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Yitherspoon absent. b 5 0 7 11/04/85 ITEM 0D CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION RE UEST RyE 'ARDING ADDITIONAL PARKING SUPPLY FOlT THE CALIFORNI . PARKING DISTRICT (PLA 4-6-3) (CMR:583:5) Cour,rilmember Woolley had three questions to #sk of staff and one more properly addressed to the California Avenue tree Development Association (C.A.A.D.A.) In the staff report (CMR:583:5) the deficit was discussed as being presently 117 spaces and, at t the same time, it said the District's public facilities were t, per- cent occupied at the peak periods. She wondered how staff arrived at the tact there was a deficit when there was a 17 percent unoc- cupied facility. Transportation Planner Dave Fairchild replied that resulted from the different bases. The occupancy was the actual survey of 'the facility on a given day which varied a fair amount from day to day and was a one-time measurement in the field. The deficit assess- ment was based on land use and the rate at _ which that land use presumably generated parking demand. It was zoning -related calcu- lation. If the zoning requirement was looked at for parking in the area, it was not being met by that amount. Councilmember Woolley asked if it was fair to say that one was what happened in practice and the other was what happened in theory. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland replied yes. The occupancy survey was more factual , more empirical . There was an additional consideration which was cars that were expected to be parking as long-term parkers in the District lots were sometimes found out on the streets. There might be a deficit in terms of having all of the cars parked where the City wanted them to 4e parked. That deficit was identified during the California Avenue Study at about 112 or 117 spaces. He also noted there were, from time to time, extra spaces in the Downtown lots. He walked by he Lot J garage that day and there were a number of spaces there. Councilmember Woolley's second question had to do with the table on page 9 of the staff report. The suggested alternative which C.A.A.D.A. recommended had the City come up with a total of 420 spaces if both the Keystone $ Lit 3 and also Lot 7 projects were built. That gave 5U spaces more than the City presently needed adding up all the different sources of the deficit. She wondered if staff was thinking that the 50 "extra" spaces eould somehow be sold to property owners of small sites who wished to cover more than the present 0.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which did not cause them to need more parking. If they wanted to go to the full build -out of 2.0 then they had to supply on -site parking which, of course, was not possible on some small sites. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Over.way replied . th:t was a possibility, but it was important to recognize also that the direction staff recommended was that a further study be made of both of those lots to determine the feasibility of putting a park- ing structure at them and else) the timing that those parking structures should go in. He estimated both ofthem would not pro- ceed at the same time, one of them would be built first and then, at the need developed more definitively, the second would be pursued. Councilmember Woolley : understood that was a assignment from the Gouecil to staff, or else an assignment from the Plenning Commission, to try tu figure out how to deal with a very small property which cuuld. not provide on -site parking. She asked Mr. Freeland if that was somewhere down the line. Mr. Freeland said yes.. In the Downtown Study there was a recom- mendation that would be going to ` Council to allow an in -lieu fee rovided there were excess spaces in . newly -built parking struc- tures. That was one way to allow small . sites to develop without providing their on -site parking. The Downtown Study also 6 5 0.8 11/04/85 recommended a more relaxed off -site; parking rule which allowed sp- aces at greater distances from buildings. Councilmember Woollen said her final question had to do with costs. The staff recommendation was both that the City retain a bond counsel and also retain a consultant. Would those costs be paid for by the present Assessment District or by the General Fund. City Attorney Diane Lee replied that, with respect to bond coun- Cei , normally they were paid out of the proceeds of the bonds. Depending on which bond counsel firm the City decided to retain„ some required that if the bonds were not issued they received some minimal sum. Counc it member Wool 1 ey asked about the consul tent costs. Mr. Overway said that would be paid for by the Assessment Di strict either as a reimbursement to the City or it could be folded later on into the bond issue if there was one. Councilmember Sutorius was surprised he had not seen [fir. Freeland at Lot J that day because no one el se was there. - He hoped that the public listening would be aware that Lot J, between Cowper and Webster, was open at that point and, while not fully completed and the elevators not in service, there was ample parking there. That led him in the direction of a question first for staff, and cer- tainly any of the public who spoke to that subject and wished to offer opinions in the areas he intended to ask questions. First, following Councilmember Wool 1ey's question regarding peaks and occupancy, he was curious to know what was considered the peak period on a typical wee'en le, because as folks who were associated with the California Assessment District and C.A.A„D.A. were aware, he often azked quest ions about the occupancy because it seemed he did not personally find It difficult to locate a parking space When It was necessary to drive a car to the California Avenue area, Mr. Fairchild responded that to get peak periods staff counted the occupancy starting at 9:00 arm. usually through 4:00 p.m. The peak in California Avenue ran between 11:30 a.m. and 1: 30 p.m. Councilmember Sutorius's experience included that peak period identified. That day though was not within that peak period. He found between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. there was no lot at whi c` he could not fir. parking, and there wa,s parking available on the street, too, 'in many of the blocks. The thing that continued to be his observation, and he admitted it might be a Very small saNttpl a and maybe the luck of the draw that it occurred at the wrong time, was the Cambridge lot. The experience that day between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00. a.m. was really not out of norm from his personal observations, which was that on the first level , there were 63 cars with permits and 15 cars wi thout permits for a total of 78 cars. On the second level there were two cars with permits and five cars, including his own, without a permit for a total 'of seven cars. In other words, the occupancy ofthe lot was 85 cars out of 161 spaces, or 52.8 percent occupancy. He would be pleased if that observation were not the norm for his experience. He had tried not to be selective but that wrs what he was seeing there. It led him to ask the question about what would be necessary in order to limit some, or all of the first level of that structure to non -permit parking -time related parking —and to, therefore, provide permit parking within the vicinity of that 1 of be on the second structure. He was , sure there ; {ere a variety of reasons why people did not park on the second .structure, but believed that the perceived parking problem might be quite dif- ferent ' from the actual parking problem for great portions of the 6 5,0 9 11/04/85 day and it seemed a shame that people were circling the streets, or going around and around in parking lots when there was quite .a bit of parking up above. lie would appreciate any comment staff had about the feasibility of a sign or discreetly identified timed parking versus permit parking. Mr. Fairchild believnd when the garage was initially opened it was "free for all," and subsequently the first floor was made off limits to permit. For a while it ran that way, and them were complaints from permit holders working in the area who wanted it to he "free for all" again. It had been "free for all" for about a year and the City was, at that point, about to do exactly what Councilmember Sutorius suggested. The change order has been writ- ten up to place the signs making the first floor off limits to permit parking. Councilmember Sutorius said from time to time when the subject of parking in the California Avenue district was discussed, mention was made by one or more persons, including himself, of whether there was value in looking at some of the postage stamp lots for determination as to the economic and logistic value of a couple of the small lots not too distant from one another, and whether any reassembly opportunities were worthwhile as far as getting a little more economy of scale at a larger facility, offsetting the costs associated with a structured facility, or the acquisition costs of an additional facil ity. He was curious to know whether in the current process followed and outlined in the staff report any of those assemblage possibilities were considered. Mr. Fairchild replied yes. The current process directly con- sidered one which was the lot alternative studied in the feasi- bility study for combining the postage stamp lot south of Lot 4 with Lot 4 in three different combinations. Councilmember Sutorius appreciated '.that was a reasonable altern- ative to be included An the list, but was looking at a trade-off situation where one or more postage stamps, examples of which might have very considerable economic value to the Assessment District and be used in either a trade situation or a sales situ- ation so that the final configuration offerea more parking. Mr. Fairchild said Councilmember Sutorius' s point vas well taken. One of the possibilities in the next phase of that proposal was to negotiate the purchase of the Keystone parking lot site. One of the features of that negotiation could be a swap as opposed to outright purchase. Councilmember Sutorius_ said his last area of question turned to the Keystone subject. He was. curioc's for whatever was an approp- riate update from staff vis a vis an application that was in pro- gress and, therefo'_ e, part of the public record and public pro- cess, for some other type of development at that site. He asked what was its status and progress. Mr. Freeland said there was an appl ication 'on file for Architec- tural Review Board (ARB) approval of an office building on the Keystone lot --the two lots together. It ,was a little over 30,030 square feet and was proceeding through'the process. It had not reached any level of approval at' that point. Councilmember. Sutorius inquired whether the property owner of the Keystone site was aware and kepteinformed of the potential . inter- est in that site for'a parking facility. Mr. Freeland replied the: property owner was certainly informed of C. A. A. D� A.' a interest as soon as the City heard of it. 6 5 1 0 11/04/85 Mayor Levy wanted to be sure who was paying for that project. He understood an Assessment District would be formed to finance the bond issue and all of the costs of construction and maintenance would be born by the Assessment District. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Mayor Levy commented, before turning to members of the public, that fresh in his mind was the experience of the recent Downtown Improvement Assessment Di strict where, al though Council thought there was very widespread support in the Downtown area, it found out when it came down to implementation the matter was quite con- troversial. He understood there were many differences between the California Avenue parking assessment area and what Council tried to accomplish in the Downtown area, but he was concerned al so about the differences between the reality and tte theory of parking availability so would like members of the C.A.A.D.A. area as they spoke to reassure him there would not be opposition to the project upon which Council was embarking. Councilmember Woolley had a question of C. A.A.D.A which she wanted to ask at that point so that speakers might try to speak to it when they came to the microphone. She was somewhat concerned about the choice of lots. Certainly Lot 3 and the Keystone lot were excellent sites, both from the standpoint of location, that was where the greatest need was, and also from eliminating the potential need for 32 more spaces by not having a development there, but she did not feel all that sure about Lot 7. The statistics in the staff report said lots 6n the Cambridge side were 95 percent occupied at peak, and lots on the Sherman side were only 75 percent occupied at the peak periods. She wondered if putting another lot over there was raal y the right place. She was also aware the three new, as yet unoccupied buildings were all on the Cambridge not the Sherman side. Therefore, she wanted to hear some discussion as to why C. A.A.D.A. came up with the recom- mendation of Lot 7 instead of doing something to 4 or 5. Saskia Boissevain, 410 Cambridge Avenue, spoke as President of the California Avenue Area Development Association (C. A.A.D.A.). There were three other speakers that evening from C.A. A.D. A. and their comments would probably be brief, C. A. A. D. A. strongly recommended the purchase of the Keystone lot and the doub1edecking of that lot along with parking lot C-3 located next te the Post Office on Cambridge, and also recommended that the parking lot C-7 bounded by Sherman, Ash, and Birch be double -decked. Even though the Keystone parking project was slightly more expensive per parking space than the Lot C-7 site, the _.need for additional parking in the Cambridge area was far greater, as mentioned it was at 95 percent capacity, than the Sherman area. The recent, devel- opments in the Cambrtdye Avenue area at .250 and 350 Cambridge added to the current parking deficit and those buildings were far `rrom full occupancy at present. She personally vouched for that deficit of parking spaces since her ,office was en Cambridge. It created a carousel effect. She apprecfated that Councilmember Sutorius always did his homework, but .believed he needed to go at lunchtime. He should go to the Little Mermaid where one coul d smell the food as one 'passed by. She made an informal survey Of tee businesses In the California Avenue/Cambridge Avenue area and parking was top priority; there was a lot. of moaning about parking there. 7 he bottom line was the additional parking must be placed where most needed. le answer' to soate of the questions that were asked; talking about real its► versus- theory, she was an expert on reality -as - fee as .,-the Cambridge Avenue area was concerned and there was a real need for parking. Councilmember Klein follvwecr up. on Mayer Levy's earlier comments about- how wide and deep support e was for that: project, since Council understood that the merchants and land- owners in the- Area would be paying the entire cost of it. it seemed the average 6 5 1 1 11/04/85 property would have a 40 to 50 percent increase in property taxes to finance the projects. He asked if people really understood that. Ms. Boissevain believed that needed to be addressed to the three property owners present; she was a tenant, but it was her feeling the property owners were very keen on it. Councilmember Klein, addressing Ms. Bo ssevain as the President of C.A.A.D.A., asked if the message had really gone out and everybody informed as to how much the project would increase their costs. Ms. Boissevain repl ied it was -hard for her to answer slice it was not going out of he; pocketbook, but her landlord was present and would be happy to answer. N, Council member Klein was sure that one way or the other it would be reflected in the rent. Ms. Boissevain said her landlord was not a greedy man. Council member Wool] ey hoped that C. A.A. °. A. could address the question of why Lot 7 insteed of 4 or 5, because she agreed the need was on the Cambridge side. Ms. Boissevain said one of the problems was she was not on the Parking Committee . There were three people present from that committee who could answer those types of questions. Terry Shuchat, who lived at 737 Northampton and otioed property at 290 California Avenue, spoke as a member of C, A. A.O. A. Parking Committee, All seven members of that Committee recogn; eed the need for additional parking in the business area and ai:l supported the purchase and construction of additional parking. Of the seven members on the committee, six were either property owners or represented property owners who accounted for 18 percent of the property in the parking district. He and other members had con- tacted additional property owners in regard to new parking spaces and they were all in favor of the proposed parking project. They were all aware of the large financial costs involved in obtaining additional parking but believed it necessary if they were to keep the California Avenue a viable retail and business area. In regard to the question on the fact that parking was avail able at present, it real 1 y was because of the number of unoccupied buildings in the area. Once the two new buildings on Cambridge Avenue were filled to capacity there would be a dire shortage of spaces. Council member Klein said Mr. Shuchat talked about 18 percent of the owners being in favor of those projects and presumably they all knew the costs; that left 132 percent yet to be heard from. Had the committee talked to those people and we -e they aware of how much the prof er is would increase their costs. Mr. Shuchat said yes, many of them were spoken . to and were in favor. Without parking it was impossible to obtain market value rent in that area. Counc i 1 member Klein asked what percentage of the 1 and owners were e spoken to. Mr. Shuchat did not . know the percentage but believed it was upwards of 50 to 60 percent. Councilmember Woolley asked how the committee felt about Lot 7. Mr. Shuchat believed the committee's concern was it was fairly Common knowledge that people did not wish to climb more than one set of stairs to a parking garage. The only possibility,. for obtaining additional parking was the use =of air rights and going over an existing dental building in the middle of Cambridge which 6 5 1 2 11/04/85 was very expensive and involved a lot of questions the committee could not answer. The committee then turned to the Sherman Street lot which enabled them to gain a lot more parking yet still kept the lots to two storys. Councilmember Woolley said the cost per space was not as Great for that Lot 4 combination of air rights and various proposals, as the Keystone lot, which- was more expensive than any of the alter- natives looked at. Mr. Shuchat replied that the Keystone lot really was not as expen- sive as it seemed because there was no need to provide parking for additional construction that could take place on that piece eF property. Councilmember Woolley clarified Mr. Shuchat was talking about the 32 spaces. e Mr. Shuchat said yes; which brought in a great many more cars and, even if that building provided parking for 100 percent of its occupancy, there were still many people whe did not care to use underground parking at buildings and wound up using the street. Councilmember Woolley asked whether the Lot 4 main portion only, which was not expensive but only yielded 60 spaces, was not thought to be enough. Mr. Shuchat believed the committee's thought was that the entrance and exits required so much space there would not be as great a gain as it seemed if just that one portion of the lots was double - decked. Robert Kavinoky, 2091 Cornell Street, was a member of C.A.A.D.A. and of the Parking Committee. He appreciated the concern of the Council as to support for having assessments increased. C.A.A.D.A. expected and discussed a formal distribution to prop- erty owners in cooperation with City staff to be sure it had all the correct property owners, and would do that before that proj ect got very far downstream. There had been a reluctance to say to a property owner, "Wel l , this is going to cost you so much," when there was no real assurance aside from the preliminary estimates included in the staff report. it was thought that was not a wise thing to do. Those property owners tal ked to who understood the consequences of not having additional parking, were in favor, and others had discussed that. He had not been in the process of questioning property owners, but it was one step which C.A.A.D.A. planned to take in cooperation with staff to distribute the costs on the basis of the partial numbers and the property owners to get their formal reaction and give them an opportunity, which he understood would happen, to be heard. It might well be that Parking Lot 7 step should be further downstream when there was further and more definitive knowledge about the need there, but C.A.A.D.A. had experienced deficits as perceived by the merchants in the area Their customers experienced problems, so C.A.A.D.A. urged Council to move ahead ->expeditiously so better answers could be collected to the questions that the Councilmembers asked. The Association was not in a position to answer those questions witn- out a lot of research and needed good information from staff on which to question the property owners. C.A.A.O.A. worked for a long time to come up with the formula. They now had it and it was submitted -to Council and accepted as the way to go until bond counsel got it, TA provided a more equitable distribution. to the. newer owners and was the most viable procedure they could have. Councilmember Sutor ius said Mr. Kavinoky anticipated an area of question when he commented on the formula process, because he was going to ask if the Parking Committee, through the participation of the California Avenue Study'°ar,d the development of the proposed 6 5 1 3 11/04/85 formula process, if in that process there was not participation by a 1 aryer spectrum of property owners than represented by just the six property owners identified earl ier and the 18 percent of property holdings they represented. Mr. Kavinoky responded that, i,n the process of developing the formula, the six property owners alluded to also discussed those costs with various other property owners, so the six involved represented a much larger proportion of the property in the California Avenue District than their own holdings. They had to inform Council whose proxies they had, but that process was also followed during the development of the formula and he understood a very substantial number of property owners were aware then what their i ikely exposure was. To refresh Council's memory, the consul tant who developed that formula presented to Council and C.A.A.D.A. the likely assessment based on a $1 million, $3 mil- lion, and $5 million bond issue. C.A.A.D,A. was in the position of only being able to point to those things and say, "Well, if it's between three and five it's going to be about here," because the exact assessment and the proportion of the total depended upon the size of the bond issue required to do whatever _ was undertaken. It was a little touchy to say to a person, "This is what it x°ould be for $3 nail l ion," knowing that it would not be four -thirds of that for $4 million. He asked if that addressed Councilmember Sutorius' concern. Councilmember Sutorius said yes. If his recollection was correct from the California Avenue study there were very interested, informed, active participants who were not members of C.A.A.D.A. but property owner, in the area including some of the newly- con- structed buildings. He tried to recall, and wondered if Mr. Kavinoky's recollection was the same, there was a broad interest in the formula and in developing something that had equity asso- ciated with the formul a and an awareness of how the costs spread. Mr. Kavinoky said that was quite correct. There were others than C.A.A.D.A. involved in the study. At one time representatives of all three of the new buildings participated. As a matter of fact, the final formula was accepted only after inputs from some or all of those three indicated they were opposed to earlier versions. He bwl ieved at 1 east one of those owners, not a member of C.A.A.t;,A. was present that evening. Lino Gusl aei , 425 Sherman Avenue, was al so a member of C. A. A. D. A. and of the Parking Committee, although he hated to admit that because of the questions some of the Councilmembers asked which he did not know if he was able to answer. Being they fourth speaker on the subject he might be repetitious; however, he wanted to say they were at present 117 spaces in deficit and immediately in need of 219 more spaces. The 219 ` were broken down as foe l ows : 85 spaces for the office building at 250 Cambridge, 67 spaces for the building at 350 Cambridge, and 67 spaces for the building at the corner of California .. Avenue and El Camino. The committee, who worked hard, as Dare Fairchild knew as he attended many of their meetings., had directed them, and kept them on track, decided that C.A.A.0.A. needed the so. -called Keystone lot. If they did not get that lot they would yet a postage stamp parking • lot. He recalled that when C.A.Aa0. A. first talked about that lot many years ago, it was appraised for less than $100,000. He hated to tell what it was • appraised for at present and, if it .was obtained, what the District had to pay for it. C.A.A.D.A. asked the Council to pro- ceed expeditiously to purchase that lot and double -deck it. It had to be do`ubl e -decked because of that particular area. He could not understand how Councilmember Sutorius could find parking there, as he could never find parking in that particular area. It was very difficult with the Post Office, the buildings thecae end then if those office, buildings were rented there was not gei e— to be any parking avail=ble. Councilmember Klein asked the Question, "Da , the property owners know that they have to pay for the parking?" if the Keystone lot was purchased and there was a second 1 6 5 1 4 11/04/85 decking. What did Council think would happen to the property, and the property owners, tenants, and businesses if parking was not provided for that particular area. Property values would go down. There were, not going to be any tenants or businesses, so the property owners had better want parking and had better pay for it while the paying was good. He urged Council to act soon to get the project on the road. Councilmember Klein appreciated the sales pitch given by Mr. Gusl ani, but it did not answer the question. It was funny how some people never accepted the sales pitch even when they heard it. In Mr. Gusl ani s experience and to his knowledge, how -many of the landowners knew of the economic implications, meaning the amount that would appear on their property tax bills if the proj- ect went through. Mr. Gusl ant replied maybe Councilmember Klein would say that was not a direct answer, but he had not personally, and did not believe anybody had gone out and taken a poll of all the people at Cal ifornia Avenue. Present that evening were people who knew many others, and he believed it was probably closer to 25 percent than 18 percent of the assessed valuation of the Cal ifornia Avenue area in that particul ar district. People that C. A. A. 0. A. knew would say right then to go for the parking, purchasing of the Keystone 1 ot, etc. No matter what the project there were people who objected, there was no question about that. He had been in the California area for about 33 years. They tried to look forward to provide parking for the area, and had some good-si zed parking lots, not postage stamp lots, although there were some of those too. They had bond issues, so people who owned property there well knew they had to pay for it.. It had been on the tax bills all those years. He, paid taxes there all those years and knew it was on the tax bill. So, when Council asked if the owners knew it, if they owned property there they knew it because there had been a parking district for over 30 years. Did a new property owner know it. He was sure Tig would tell them he knew it and he had just bought property there. His property was reassessed, put on the rolls right then. He asked if that answered Councilmember Klein's question. Councilmember Klein said it did not, he was more cynical. Mr. Gusl ani understood Councilmember K1 ein wanted C. A. A. D. A. to take a poll. Councilmember Klein said yes; that was what he would propose. Mr. Gusl ani believed they could do that. Councilmember Klein said perhaps he had sat up there too long and, although.. he agreed about the neai, he had seen to many situations where suddenly people told Council they nevc' heard about a proj- ect, Council had never informed them, and it was just terri►ble how much money it would cost.. He wanted to avoid that if possible, Mr Gusl ani said looking at Downtown Palo Alto and the situation there with regard to parking, C.A.A.D.A. was bad off, but not as bad off as Downtown Mayor Levy said, after the final speaker,,, he would ask staff to make _ sure .,Co►jnc 11 was aware of all the steps that would be fol- lowed in going through the process, and exactly what Council was approving that evening, if they approved it. Tig Tarlton was managing partner of 250 Cambridge Associates, the group that owned the new and as -yet unl eased office building at 6`' 5 1 5 11/04/85 250 Cambridge. He said unequivocally for their group that they supported= an Assessment District with the highest priority being given to the Keystone lot, combined with Lot :3. He al so attested to a series of meetings involving not only the members of C.A.A.O.A. and the Parking Committee, and others participated to the extent there was a series of lengthy negotiations relative to whether the "new boys" on the lot should pay a disproportionate share of any future assessment than the "old boys." There was, in fact, general agreement and -a formula, and David Fairchild was very helpful along with the consul tant in developing an appro- priate per rata sharking disproportionate for the new property owners. Of the three parcels that made up the address known as 250 Cambridge, one was a quonset hut, one a single floor _ concrete block structure and one a commercial laundry. It occurred to them there had been a considerable upgrading of the Cambridge Avenue area, although obviously there was still some work to- be done. At the time they submitted for an Architectural Review and Develop- ment Permit, they were not required under the then existing zoning ordinances to install parking. However, they went to a_ one-story basement parking with 24 underground spaces even though that was not required. He believed that attested, to their commitment and conviction and additional parking spaces were needed. If it had been cost-effective, he would have gone another floor basement, but ran into the water table which made it difficult. II his opinion, not being a member of C.A.A. R.A. but participating as an invited guest in their deliberations, a vast majority of the prop.. ty owners were aware of the need for additional parking and would support an Assessment District to take care of it. He believed he spoke, because of the prior association for the 350 Cambridge and the California/E1 Camino office building of Hare, Brewer and Kelley, that they all ' supported that district and urged Council eo adopt it and liked the priority of the Keystone lot. There were a lot .of problems indigenous to the Keystone Nightclub, not the least of which was going down on a weekend morning and picking, up dozens of beer cans, but that was part of owning property in that district. The elimination of another potential development site and converting it instead to parking seemed to make eminently good sense. They urged Council's approval. Mayor Levy brought the issue back to Council. Staff made a recom- mendation to Council and, in addition, made the statement that appeared on page 11 of CMR:583:5 as follows: "Proper procedures call for Council to publicly notice its intended actions, hold a public hearing, consider formal protests by property owners and then decide on a specific course of action." He assumed that was all included in the staff recommendation, although not spelled out specifically. He asked staff to clarify the recommendation it was making to Council, specifically with, regardto the question raised by Councilmember Klein and himself that Council be sure to have concurrence from a large number of property owners that it was an action desired by them. Anthony Sennetti , Senior Assistant City Attorney, replied what the Municipal Code provided was the Council would preliminarily deter- mine public convenience and necessity in acquiring that.. property. and its intention to acquire by the use of assessment bonds. At that point that resolution was then published and mailed to.. each property owner in the district. If Council wanted more notice than that, it needed to tell staff which other persons it wanted notified, such as tenants or occupiers of property. Staff could give more notice than was required but certainly not less. Then a 6 5 1 6 11/04/85 public hearing was held at which the majority of persons owning property in the district had a right to file written proteete. If there -was a majority protest and Council failod to ovorrulo that protest by a four -fifth vote, the proceedings ended right there. If Council believed that public convenience and necessity, in spite of the protest, required the project. go forward, it could overrule the protest with --a four -fifth vote Then there as a further hearing on the engineer's report which set out the exact cost to be assessed against each property -in the district. If Council wished to give property owners an idea of the cost of the project, staff had to give additional notice not required by the Code in advance of the engineer's report. The way the Resolution of Public Convenience and Necessity worked was that Council did not have to have the exact cost of the project n -.r the exact assessment to be made against each property in the district avail- able to it at that time. So if Council wanted to give some idea of the order of magnitude, staff had to give some additional example of what different properties in the district might under- go, which was not required by the Code. Councilmember Bechtel, after listening to comments from C.A.A.D.A. and staff, was convinced that Council needed to move ahead expeditiously with the acquisition of the Keystone lot. Whether Council got into the discussion, she did not believe at that point Council needed to worry about whether it was going to eventually be Lot 7, because t'"at was something that was going to be part of the job later on. As -staff indicated, there was a project going through the planning, building, etc. procedures, and Council could not afford to delay. There would be ample notice to effected property owners, and she liked the idea suggested by Mr. Bennett). but not required by the Code, that Council gave property owners an idea of the cost as close as it could be estimated. MQTI®Ns Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb to approve staff recommendation too - (a) Retain bond counsel to institute appropriate assessment proceedings to purchase the Keystone parcels; and (b) Retain a consultant to prepare a Parking Structure Plan for parking structures at ` the costined Keystone/Lot 3 site and the Lot 7 site. Further, that property owners be provided, in advance of the first preliminary public hearing, an idea of tha coat of their assess- ments. Councilmember Klein said he had a couple questions and then he would have a proposed amendment. He asked when the consultant would be hired as compared to when tha bond counsel did his work. Mr. Bennetti believed the bond counsel process would begin immed- iately and . proceed as quickly as possible. The consultant was a second o': iority and _ it would probably be the- lattv part of January before the consultant was hired. He understood the bond counsel was not subject to consultant selection procedures. Councilmember. Klein asked when the next time was that something w juld return to Council on that item. Mr. Bennetti responded that staff would return to- Council with a recommendation for retention of bond counsel as quickly as poss- ible. Bond counsel couldprepare a resolution of a preliminary determination of public convenience and necessity within a week or two after being retained.- That resolution would return to Council' setting a public hearing on the matter. He estimated a public hearing in Jai.uary. 6 5 1 7 11/04/85 Councilmembor Klein hoped Councilmember Rer_htel anreed that the notice she talked about was to the property owners affected for that meeting tentatively for January. Councilmember Bechtel said the real question was in order to give an estimate of the coeL Lheie had to be _ si.iute piaiieiiiac y vrel n Lc, find out what the engineering costs were, because of not only the acquisition but the construction of a second story. She would be interested to hear from staff as to whether there was even a possibility of doing an estimated cost by the January public hearing. Mr. Overway said he believed staff would use the numbers presented in that report as a basis for purchase and construction for that preliminary determination. It was only after the more formal con- sultant study was completed, at some future date, that the actual costs of the construction aspects would be -available. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCLUDE, 11$ ADVANCE OF THE FIRST PRELIMINARY PUBLIC HEARING' IN THE MOTION. Councilmember Klein's concern was, as Mayor Levy said earlier, that Council head off a process where people came screaming at the end that they had never heard about the matter and had not been given notice. He was not persuaded, with all due respect, that 25 percent equalled 100 percent. That was not the math he was taught; that 25 percent of landowners equalled what everybody felt. He was also concerned about what was going to be in that. notice to the land owners and renters, and what form of notice it, would take. In other words, could certified letters be sent. City Manager Bill Zaner replied that normally, notices were not sent by certified mail. What might be helpful in that case, was to send out the formal notice and, in addition, include a "plain language" letter or message along with the notice so people had an opportunity to read it. Often, when an official resolution showed up, people did not fully understand or read it completely. The City could include some additional information that made it clear that it was an Assessment District and people should read it care- fully and attend the public hearing if interested. City Attorney Diane Lee said there was one cavaet that she needed to add, which was where the City obtained the list to whom it sent the notice. The City used the Assessor's Rolls, or Assessment Rolls as they were called. She believed in that circumstance the City would use the microfiche which were updated. The Rolls them- selves were not updated but annually, and the microfiche were within about ten weeks of being up-to-date. It was possible that. if there was a transaction that involved one, or maybe twc, of those parcels of property in that area, that the City would not be givAng notice to the then owner of the property, so someone could still go to Council and say they did not receive that notice. That was always a problem the City had because i t was using the best information it could obtain on ownership that was legally available. Councilmember Klein asked if copies could also be hand -delivered to the actual businesses occupying the premises. Ms. Lee believed there would be a problem in sending notices to the businesses. They needed to be addressed to the appropriate businesses. That was the problem the City had with the Downtown Improvement District; getting the correct information on which business was in which location. The City could do it, but it was more difficult than just going to one stable source, which was the Assessor's Rolls to get the list of property owners. There were UUerent legal requirements. There were no requirements for _o apante or renters to get those notices. If Council wished, perhaps the City could use the Utility list, but she was not sure that would give all _ the information needed. She was somewhat 11/8+1As col/13/86 troubled by assuring Council that tre City could get notice to renters or occupants and have it be current because th changee in that was even greater. Councilmember. Klein did not want to put it in the form of a motion. He wanted to avoid what turned out to be an unfortunate situation with Downtown, and wanted staff to be creative, imagi- native, use a "belt and suspender" situation, and send two notices to the same address. One other request he had with regard to that matter, and staff might respond , was he wanted to see an example in there of what the average increase would be for a typical property in big, bold, red letters so a property owner got some estimate of what that was going to cost him. He al so wanted to head off somebody saying they did not eal i ze it was going to cost that ,much. Ms. Lee believed at the point staff was ready to renew the resolu- tion of intention, could also bring Council a sample notice they intended to send out which would give Council an opportunity to see if it met some of the standards that were expressed. Councilmember Bechtel commented that one of the problems Council had with the Downtown Business Assessment District was it was going to assess businesses and not property owners. In the pre- sent case, it was an assessment of property owners. Those property- owners might pass that increase on to their renters, etc., but the key group thEt Council wished to notice were those property owners. Council should not burden staff with notifying the business occupant, the tenants, etc., which would confuse the situation greatly. Counc i i member Klein respectfully disagreed because a great number of leases those days were written on a net/net/net basis, where such increases were automatically passed onto the tenant. The tenant was the one concerned, and the landlord might not be con- cerned at all LLecause it did not come out of his pocket. Councilmember Bechtel said that was a valid point. The question was how many of those leases were like that. Councilmember Klein was unsure, but those leases wore certainly common in current real estate. Councilmember Sutorius anticipated that the information readily available was the information in the Table A-1 of the appendix, and ne imagined it was not too difficult to say all of that was prepared on the basis of $3 million bond issue in 19Bf, and, if one wanted to look ahead to 1.986 or 1987 as an issuance there, there were some factors that could be appl led. That was very discrete information parcel .by parcel so he did not believe there was a lack of credible information available to all interested parties. He hoped Council did not go any further in the notification dis- cussions to compl icate it any further. Mr. Caner clarified the notification issue because the question of property owners and business owners was mixed, and they were two very distinct groups of people. It was relatively easy for as staff to contact property owners. With the exception of the property transfer problem the City Attorney raised, staff could hit themail because the Rolls gave the addresses. It was much more difficult for staff ,to get to all of the business owners. A store that was vacant when , staff_ made its notices might not be vacant when the hearings came up. He wanted to clarify Council's expectations. Staff could certainly do a good . job of not veing all business owners and all property owners, but he was reluctant to tell Council that they could get them all ;f Council wanted staff to try to get to as many business owneres as possible, they could do that but it was a much less formal process. There was no list of those people. 6 5 1 9 11/04/85 Mayor Levy clarified that Council wanted staff to be sure the City contact authoritatively and clearly noticed all who were respons ibl a for paying the assessment whether they were the owners or, de facto the renters because of the terms of a lease. Obviously, the City did not know how a lease was written and he assumed from a legal standpoint it was the owners regardless of how the lease was written. Nonetheless, if it was a lessee who in fact bore the burden, Council would like to see that lessee contacted. He, for one, understood the difficulty in that but believed Council's responsibility to the community was that it recognized that de facto responsibility and tried to meet it as best it could. The cooperation of the property owners in the California Avenue area would, in fact, enable the City to contact almost all because they knew who the most likely lessees i'eee who bore the burden of the assessment. Councilmember' Bechtel said, at the ris`•, of belaboring the matter, that area was relatively small and, rather than staff going- to the trouble of acq tiriny all kinds of lists, it could strictly do a mailing to property owners and do a flier that was hand walked around that district. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent, ITEM 8-A (OLD ITEM #4), NAMING OF "LOT J" GARAGE (PRE 7-3) TCMR:587:5) Mayor Levy said he had removed Item #4 foam the Consent Calendar. by himself. Carl McDowell, 580 Arastradero Road, was a Director and Past President of Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA). He under- stood there was some unhappiness that the Association, in response to a request for suggested name, did notanswer positively. The directors of the Association tel t that ' ._ was more a geographic matter than a historic one. He suggested if any member of the Council suggested the family name of Vandervoort for the Lot J garage, that name would truly be acceptable to all of Palo Alto, and particularly the PAHA. To a fellow PalO Alto High School graduate, Vice Mayor Cobb, he said that Sid Vandervoort was a classmate and good friend of his at Paly High. The name Vandervoort in the moving and household storage business in Palo Alto was truly a historic one. It was quite fitting the name Vandervoort be associated with the name of that garage. Mayor Levy said Council had before it the recommendation from staff which was the name of the facility be the "WebsterCowper Garage." Council had a comment from Mr. McDowell, President of the PAHA. He found himself of the same mind as Mr. McDowell and had no objection to either going ahead directly with that name or perhaps better to ask the Historical Association to review that name and perhaps any other names. NOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt staff recommendation formally designating the public parking structure now occupying the termer Lot J parking. lot as the "Webster -Cowper Garage, Councilmember Klein respected Mr. McDowel l' s remarks and pre- viously had been in favor of 'naming public facilities after his- torical figures in Palo Alto, which was not accepted; by the majority of Vie Council, but he did not feel that way:, on that issue mainly because he did not get very excited about naming garages after people but much preferred to name fields, schools, parks, etc, therefore, it was more appropriate to have the geo- graphical naming so the citizenry could readily identify where the garage WAS. 6 5 2 0 11/04/85 Councilmember Fletcheragreed with Councilmember Klein's remarks. Pt ima ily, $lie appcec.iaLvd havihq yevyLaphie lucaliou iu the name also in City parks because it was much easier to identify where the park or any place was if the location was identified in its name. She queried staff if there were plans for a grand opening for the aaraae so there was a little publicity about it. Mr. Overway replied the City had no such plans. It was open. einal touches were being completed and people were using the garage. His last journey through indicated it was about two - fifths full. Councilmember Woolley said when she read the report she had the, same reaction as Councilmembers Klein and Fletcher. She believed that a garage was not the kind of thing that one really wanted to name after someone, and then Mayor, Levy called the previous night saying he was also disappointed that it just had the name "Cowper - Webster Garage." She thought r<hout Vandervoorts and did a few seconds of research. She passed down a postcard. The Vandervoort's livery stable was on Alma, almost directly across from 'he SP station. It was not always the Vandervoort livery stable, although there was always a livery stable there. The first owner was Paulsen, but there was already a lane named after Jasper Paulsen next to the Senior Citizen Center. The Vandervoorts still owned that property. It was not a garage obviously anymore although from the time when it was not a livery stable until more recently --it was where Paula's Porcelein was located --it was a Ford dealership, or various --car dealerships, so that name had veen associated with cars in Palo Alto, or various types of transportation and would be an appropriate consideration for the garage. SUBSTITUTE NOTION TO REFER: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, that Council refer the naming of the garage back to staff with the suggestion of the name "Vande voort" and that the Palo Alto Bistorical Association be contacted as to the appropriateness of that name. Councilmember Woolley said there were several Vandervoorts and she would not like that evening to say how to reandle that situation. Council needed the advice of the PAHe. Councilmember Sutorius had a facetious suggestion of calling it the "Patienee Rewarded Garage," but was not going to mention that until Council got so hung up on discussing the matter. He was going to vote against the motion which had absolutely no reflec- tion on the Vandervoorts past or present. He believed that geo- graphic location was important tor that garage. He visited there with the idea of trying to spot something that would give it a name Other than "Webster -Cowper" or "Cowper -Webster" but still have a locality identification associated with it; but there was clearly nothing that would do other than "Cowper -Webster." He believed Council should get ahead with the b siness at hand. He certainly understood recognition efforts toward personages who contributed greatly to Palo Alto's history and the Vandervoorts certainly counted in that regard, and he was sure the opportunity would come sometime. Mayor: Levy said he supported the substitute motion. He believed the name "Webster -Cowper," while descriptive in a way of .location, was terribly unimaginative, awkward, And contributed nothing in the way of historical, or any other kind of remembrance or contri- bution to the community. There were a lerge number of civic leaders who had gone unrecognized and should be recognized in the community. Although a garage naming might not be pleasurable , to so0e, in the case of Vandervoort it was entirely appropriate and a nice waj of remembering one of Palo Alto's civic leaders. He urged his colleagues to support the substitute motion to refer back to staffs so that Council could get another chance before ending up with "Webster -Cowper." 6 a 2 1 As con ec 15 1/04/8 e 1/13/SS- Councilmember Renzel was certainly open to referring the matter back to explore other names, she was reluctant to he taming a specific name at that point in tine as part of the motion. She would prefer to sea a name more universally known by people if it was going to be something that helped them identify where thay were going. She was not sure that referring a specific name like. Vandervoort was what she instantly had in mind in terms of referring back to staff, Shejoined Councilmember Sutorius at the present time in opposing the motion. She originally believed she would refer back, but believed it was too specific and was not what she had in mind. Councilmember Bechtel said, for those reluctant to name a garage after a historical figure, she had been in the City of San Mateo quite a bit recently and they had a five -story parking garage named after one of their former illustrious citizens. Councilmember Woolley clarified that her substitute motion was to refer back to staff with the suggestion of the name Vandervoort, not necessarily that would be the name. Mayor Levy clarified that Councilmember vioolley's substitute motion was with the suggestion of the name Vandervoort and also to consider the names of other civic leaders and historic personages. Mayor Levy hoped that language was acceptable to Councilmember Renzel because he hated to see Council take almost irrevocable action that ended up with "Webster -Cowper," and he also reflected on his attempts to try to rid the town of a confusing name when he suggested that perhaps "Lytton Plaza" might be renamed because of its location not on Lytton. He believed the town was not confused by the fact that Lytton Plaza was on University and not Lytton, and doubted those people who needed a place to park would go unrewarded in their attempts to find a garage that did not happen to be named "Webster -Cowper." SUBSTITUTE NOTION TO REFER FAILED by a vote of 5-3, Bechtel,` Levy, Woolley voting "aye," Witherspoon absent. Mayor Levy said that brought Council back to the original motion which was the staff recommendation. SUBSTITUTE NOTION TO RBFEP.* Mayor Levy moved to refer the name of the garage back to staff with the suggestion that the garage be named after historical personages in the history of Palo Alto. Councilmember Klein said, as a point of order, he believed that was the motion Council had just turned down. Mayor Levy said the motion Council had turned down did mention strongly an individual. Councilmember Klein said that was only precatory language, only advisory. The main guts of the motion was the same as Mayor Levy just wade. SUBSTITUTE NOTION TO REFER WIThDRAWM BY NAM. Councilmember Renzel said she had occasion to use the garage a couple of time, and it seemed to be very well - designed. She was not crazy about the scaffolding that was going to remain perma- nently on =:tne outside, but functionally it worked well and she was very pleased. NOTION PASSED. ,by a vote of 4-R, Levy, Meolley voting "no," Nitherspeen absent. 6 5 2 2 11/04/85 As corrected 1/13/86 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION RE LITIGATION Council adjourned to Closed Session re Litigation at 9:25 p.m. FINAL ADJOURNMENT Final adjournment at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: City 1—e. APPROVED: