The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-06-20 City Council Summary Minutes1 CITY CQUMCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, June 20, 1983 ITEM Oral Communications Consent Calendar Referral Action Item #1, Ordinance re Changing Classification for a Portion of 605 Arastradero Road (the Former Terraan Middle School Site) - 2nd Reading PAGE 3 4 4.8 3 4 4 8 3 4 4 8 3 4.4 8 3 4 4 8 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 3 4 4 8 Item #3, PUBLIC HEARING: 'Planning Commission Recommendation re City of Palo Alto Application for. Zoning Ordinance Amen1ments, and Zone Changes in College Terrace 3 4 4 8 Item, #4,, Planning Commission Recommendation re . .3 4 5 5 Amendment to, tide Greer Park Plan Item #5, Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Recommendation re City of Palo Alto Application for Site., and Design Review for Prop- erty Located at 1920 Cmbarcadero Road Item #b, Amendments to Political Sign Ordinance item #7, Ordinance re $25.,000 Grant ., for Ice Skating Item #8, Initiation of .Perk Planning . Study for City -owned Arastra Property (Old Items #2)," Cable Televisior, .. re Amendment to Cable Agreement .; to Extend (ounci l ,, APRrOvi of Request for Proposals to, July 10 -1983 • ->Item #9, Regiie.st of .COgaci isember Fletcher Smoking Ordinance Item #11.4 !equest.; of 11ayo`t' .Bechtel I3$ue Ito* .11,. Request of COuncI:' State $udget 3 4'6,9 3 4 6 3 a ITkM Item 111, ..Request of Counci lmember Levy re Cable Tei°eri si on Lobbyist Registrants Item #13, Request of Counci lmeMber Levy re Damages Due to 'Recent Winter Storms Item #14, Re c uest of Counci lmember Renzel re Solid Waste Management Authority Meeting Adjournment PAGE 3 4 8 1 3 4 8 1 3 4 8 1 3 4 8 2 Regular Meting Monday,. June 20, 1983 1 •f The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day -in the Council Chambers at City_ Ha l I , 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:3b p.in'. A special executive session re Employer/Employee Relations was held in thepersonnel conference room at 6:00 p.m. A .special meeting was held at 7:U( p.m., in the Council Chambers, wherein the American Lung Associotion showed a �3film titled "Death in the Hest." PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon Mayor Bechtel announced the need for an executive sessio,', re liti- gation to be held at some point in the meeting. UKAL COMMUNICATIONS I' None CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cobb asked that Item #2, re Amendment to Cable Agreement to extend. Council approval of RFP be removed from the Consent Calendar. NOT/ON: CounciIae•ber Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the Consent Calendar as amended. None Referral Action ITEM #1p1 ORDINANCE RE CHANGING CLASSIFICATION FOR A PORTION OF 655 AKAS IKAD.KU 'KUAU [ 111E FURMtk ' I LRNAg MIDDLE SCHOOL, 5fTL) - S>`6Ilir KtIb1Ns ORDINANCE 343$ entitled' 'ORDINANCE OF THE- COUNCIL 4F PA MT u ' PALO ALTO AiEllDINC `zSECTION 18.03.040 QF TNL -PALO ALTO NUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING NAP) _ TO CNA$OE Tit CLASSIFICATION_ OF A POtIIUN OF: TOE PROPERTY KNOWN AS -60 AMASTRAM(RO ROAD (FORNER TERMAM NZODLE SCNOOL SI tE) FRON rf TO RN -3" (10 Reading 3/e/83, PASSED 8•O, ReA#el Pbseet) NOTION PASSED rnam1.ysly. MEILLailiii4.021141ELALaidalia City ,Marlage`r, ,gi 11 ZaAer said tl:at,Item ;:#2. Algreealent, w.uld becose. ltd. $-A. Counci lmeaber Fletcher added Ite SPt1,' re State' $u'dtget. ITEM;. 3 ; P.:BLIC"HE G i EPA CO Ni SJO#_ R .COQ P „ Ceameiss_Ion thetrperson: Jeeh McCown Bald = the PL°annln9 C 9sala i-10M e_ t sd h aod`i t`i'on , to the ion#n$ ordinance, rst oe vela ed to approval of- the:=melt: =RM D toI4. ° ;Appra ia`T` was riC l .flded b1► the r 1 Commission or a vote," Commissioner Cui lens "no" vote was based on her concern —a out whether-a-problem existed in the par- ticular neighborhood which was -_the cocus of the study, and assum- ing a problem oxisted, whether the mechanism of the RrI-D would protect single family homes. The principal discussion related to the staff recommendation that there be a requirement that both units --if a unit was added to an existingpiece of property --be under common ownership. After a lengthy discussion, _it was recom- mended that the requirement not be included in the ordinance(, There was a concern about the economics of constructing additional units if there were to be such an ownership requirement " The Planning Commission recommendation did not mean that a second unit could not be a rental, it left the option of rental or separate ownership to the marketplace. There ,Was a unanimous recommenda- tion to add the new neighborhood preservation combining district to the zor3:Ang ordinance and to apply the two zones in the College Terrace area. Councilmember Eyerly asked for :,a comparison of tie proposed new zone with the "cottage zone." He understood that a cottage zone would require 6,000 square feet to divide or build a second house, and the new. proposed zone would require 5,000 square feet. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said the cottage provision in the R-1 dis'ttict required a lot size 35 Percent greater than the mini !'!m standrd In ti. - - . .. Y...� . �. . ,. ,...,: ;.c►rtl�.ulal rt-i uisLl•it: Most K-i azstricts required a 6,000 square foot lot size, and in order to build a cottage, one would need at least an 8,100 square -foot lot plus a use permit. In addition, the cottage would have to be under the same ownership as the principal residence and could not be divided off as 4. separate unit for sale. Councilmember Eyerly asked for clarification of the proposed new zone. Mr. Brownesaid that under the RM-D proposal, one could build a maximum of ,two units on any site 5,000.; square feet or larger. The - Planning Commission recommendation was that the units be allowed to be under' separate ownership so there could be condominium ership. Councilmember, Witherspoon said she a3sumed that two unrelated per- sons could own a piece of property in common and she was cncerned, about the subdivision possibilities of a tiny lot. She did1:not believe two parties were precluded from owning an interest in the total property. NOTIi1Ns - Cosnci Member Levy moved. Seconded by Cobb, approval of tba' Plannidyy .Cousissioi race reendation,so approve the City •f Palo Al tl's ,application for aiming erdi eaaCe aaendments and zone ctaa es'` in College Terrace as follows;, 1. To create.: a new : R$ -o zone (Two Unit Multiple Family Residence District); 2. To create a new nP combining district (Neel glep*rbrod Preserva- tion Ciabiniel District);.road _ 5 3. To apply the N$ ii 'zsere and`° MP, combining district to the College Terracee area new aimed .NN -3 (Moderate tensity Multiple Family Wosiesece District). Apt i t l ikd °'011011ANCE AF Tilt ` 0 ALTO A81111141 CUPTU 10.31 .(NtI4MMAI1 PIE �A:T1 c inzas •TMTR CT (IP) 1tE 1. T i e5s) : e 'TNE - PdtM ALTO 001IICIPAr Ci E" ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE wireit,1t dr ilk V1TT Up PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.0H:040 OF THE PALO ALTO _-MUNICIPAL COPE (THE ZONING HAP) TO GRANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN COLLEGE TERRACE BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AVENUE,. STANFORD AVENUE, EL CAMINO:REAL AND WELLESLEY STREET FROM RM-S (MODERATE DENSITY MULTIPLE FAKILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO RMD (TWO UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT) NP (NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION COMBINING DISTRICT)", 1 1 Mayor-bechtel declared°;the;'public hearing open. Mae ,:Kenrick, 2255 Ramona, said her daughter _and son__ -in-law lived in the ..College Terrace area. Her son-in-law`, Mark Chandler, pre- pared a statement for last week's meeting, and asked her .to, speak on his beha i f . tons ght. Mr.. Chandler supported the Planning Com- mission recommendation including separate ownership, and= --=Believed the RM-D proposal was basically sound since it would ;eliminate the incentive to merge small lots to gain increase42: density under RM-3. RM-U was not R-1 and he opined that R-1 wou.'.d be inappro- priate for the neighborhood since most lots and units were multi- family and some of the smaller'Single family homes were not in good repair. The RM-D zone permitted modest density increa :es and added architectural controls to eliminate large scale, multi- famii_y developments__and the -_Planning Commission'smodi-f-icatien of - proposal -to , permit the separate ownership of added units was wise. without_ that". modification, no additional 'housing, especially rental - - that -Ru D - .•-_ • -- souid-..be... �spe..,a � t� rental � housing e[fl-EJ supporters walite�, added, and the trend toward converting existing homes to single family, expensive homes' would accelerate'. The tenants at 610 and 624 California were already evicted- as the owner prepared both - homes for sale as single family. Last year he had applied for =.a division of his duplex into separate ownership units, and. Jin, Cu Epepper attended his hearing - and supported him because the_ neighborhood had a six to one (6-1) renter/owner ratio and a few: more owners would be good for the area. John Northway argued at the Planning. Commission meeting that more direct practical reasons militated that separate ownership be permitted and that zoning should` net be unrealistic. "The staff report to tr_ `e. Commission proposed a ,hypothetical project"in, which construction costs were $6U per square -foot —carport,- $15 per square_. foot; no costs for \Land, no costs for architects.; no costs for construction inter - `es s; and $500= for paving. In f.att, the price of land in the area reflected the dense zoning and the' proximity to jobs and transpor tation. _ ,With---si al i ` coact: ained sites getting on site parking, ti roe__ spaces";:for two units .'was tricky and required professional assistance,,:and $60 per square,. foot was unrealistic,,,:Most`remodel jobs in Palo .Alto --not requiring.,tlat utilities _be moved, plumbing.. or additional parking -cost around $SO pe'i square foot; carports were usually- calculated at 5a percent.. of_"the cost-.-, of house con- st'ructi'on --not 25 percent -as' the staff'°report suggested. The ,pav- fo' his project,' a `relatively simple concrete driveway, cost $b,UQU-snot $500. Houses "could not be a built of spa` . and rubber bands anywor-, anc ,those- who- 1. 00400, i dea l.ly to the cottages - in College Terrace might'' be surprised -that the vast _1gajori-ty -probably_ did not confor4. to oning or bui.ldiog, ,codes.' To suggest .that-: costs ' be . reducee by' promoting ed exception procass to reduce, the -parking requftee-enW wQU d\not- bb` a _good idee ire a neighborhood ;. a 1 ready-: crowded wi.th_, cars. We commended Pine staff -for ° a superb job in reathiny taut : for 'inforiaatlon fro. tine neighborhood by .con- ducting meetings and :in, the preparation of -the report, but the • adpirable,goal of ._wo're rental heus'iag would hot be`.ailded cif sops- rate`orod,er yip whs barred..slnce no: housing would be built. : It was not a_TTdr'4#bl!-. to but i4kontkose di if ict 1t _ si.tas, and If :,the RM- dang l_t,• naa deemed :e.bbrop.r1ate, the aeans _.to teach it - sh*u i d :bo* -04 040,011.4 Thy C nci;1 : regeoatsd:: that the l ►nninq Cc+ iss:'l+ n .-,� study tht separate awil0$11ip,. iaitie--that visa dose and the o`verl hrrelm ng conclesion 'was `:that- separate owaershl# should be perait- to -44r:: Ht uwg,d :tjhtd ta! :Plaoeieg ; Co*issue:: Tess enoation be :' passed. ,, Jim Culpepper, 2121 Amhert Street in College Terrace, said he was happy to.. support Mark 'Chandler's application for a subdivision, under the old RM-3 zone, but it was now a new ball game ;and the reasons -for the various regulations '4f the new zone would be different. He ,favored the staff recommenda.tt:ions because they reflected a lot of field work, discussion with the public and compromise of .conflicting interest's, When he .asked the Council a year ago to impose a moratorium on the demolitions, he was clear Chat he favored a subtle rattier than abrupt change in zoning,' and he believed the solution before the Council tonight •;:represented _,. 'those desiree:. The Planning Commission made one change in the original. staff proposals and he expressed his second thoughts about„that change in a letter to the Council,. which was_on file in the City Clerk's Office. He believed it was in the;Hong-term best interests ,rf the property owners" and the City that the second unit be allowed' on a 5,000 square foot lot,. but that it be, under the same ownership as the first as Was the case in: the cottage zone. Bob -Brown spent a 'lot of time surveying the area ..on foot and his recommendation ,was more in accord with the. practical possibilities of future development of the area's properties. -If an old house were torn down and the property redeveloped from scratch, he could see how a duplex/condominium could be built on a 5,000 squarefoot lot. Separate- entry ways, ---parking garages ar:'.l patios could be planned and each tenant could have a measure of privacy _anti__inde-_ of%nciiiilcY f l;nvl. -�- o-nfinrar.--t w : t._ t t`-=--_ - _ _---- _ -_ -_- _ _..: �_.ti vv,:�.i i.....�.114, tut 411 L' �JY1��JV.1L: �� r�i: I�PI'r� Zone was to discourage people from tearing down, the older housing. To the _extent that incentives- were offered to do so, such as ---tie opportunity to subdivide, the purpose of the ordinance was de- feated. It sought to encourage people to preserve an existing house while allowing for the possibility of adding a second rental unit in back. • The parking requirement would almost inevitably require a garage/epartment type structure, and that type of house ing was well suited to the great demand for the temporary' housing needs of students. He had lived in College Terrace for 19 years and it was hard for hire to imagine selling off such apartments as separate units because everytime that was done, the value of the larger house.. in ',front would be diminished. If someone was going to live in the backyard of ones 5,000 square foot lot, it was important to identify that person and determine cowpat-bility4 The total package of a house in College Terrace with a rental unit in pack was very much in demand on the real estate market and it was not necessary to sell a second unit separately to realize a return on that investment. _His _neighbor's home across ,the street was olderand had a garage/apartment in back.,; It was built in the 1930's wren an R-1 zone was permitted in College Terrace. Recent- ly,, _the total package of the -house, garage and apartment were appraised and the value, of the property was-- determined et, well (were piV:0,uuO. Plenty of incentive exited_ in tb! fora of overall,. capital gain-`` to add a second rental unit where ,possible; profit` 'came less ,from rent than frem,appretiation of the total package, and he su jgested that the Council reinstate the staff •,'recommenelae tion to keep the second unit under the sse owners as the first, as "in the case: of the Cottage zone. Staff would =report. back' to Cduhtl l in. three-year* on the effects of t�e..new zone, and ate -that, point, :tile situation could be reassessed' and: the eeyuireasents of the Zone could be changed, if necessary..,,z cased on a detailed knowledge of the development patterns Peculiar _to College Terrace, he bee levied the staff-' recom*endat i on was : correct and :hat their concept should be, given,, a hence to work. Peter St•ri 2274 ` Pr1 ncetcn Street;,, requested that the Council reinxert; thik language in tine coning 'ordinance `related ownership:. of=t the units...bul it inn the RI4-R. zone. a:- eras a renter _ e:hd was *t w:ck *by the Pienning Conati,ssiOn sinutes of stay. 11, -and that; thn. SpetiflC ,goals ,leiledea, to.c`in the Nay 5 :staff rap ort-- 1ncreasii,d r ntn.h stock aid preervation .;of existing noue'in iri. , College Terre4e�--teemed to drop "frog' the discussiOft . A. -these of the staff report. was existing stock -and Make: what ever ,:nest\stock affordable. The PIann#n$ ,Coll ision took; Issue -'=rith`Mr....uirown`�s figures and. "seaaed °to.favor posstbl_e suadivlslons 1 1 1 1 because if people were allowed to build and sell out, - the City could,realize a profit and someone else could decide whether to live, there or rent. That might be the ,only realistic way to look at the situation, but he believed uch' a trend would counter the basic goals set out in the 'staff report. In setting any rent, someone who bought the subdivided 5,000 square foot lot for investment purposes_ would have to factor in the profit of the person who built the ,unit. If the socond uiitt were a rental, the rent would inevitably_ be greater than ;,f the original - lot -owner- decided 'to build the.; second unit • and rent. No . matter how it was 1 ooked;,at, there would be an "x" factor to make it more expensive. He He askfed the Council to take ' a position on the desirability of creating incentives for affordable rental stock as oppused to the wording of the •ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission. After reading Mark Chandler's comments to the Planning 'Commission, he toured his development on Williams from outside the property line. He also walked through the l {firer College Terrace area and used the addresses provided by Sr. Brown as properties large enough for a second unit, as his guide. He compared those with, what was done by Mr.. Chandler in .:order to get a handle on the price factor, and found that Mr. Chandler took the roof off an existing house and ,built from there w:th a separate carport area in the back and ended with an innovative but expensive unit. He was struck by the fact that most of the properties he looked at � f'. i ..�- -----------= - ----a..�.�.-tea- -- uVuiv Wig uo4v Aiiiiij ai lie :eL:: VV . viiir`�`.r�.. riir�i u.. i.'Ifii ufi.v..v was bui It over a garage, 'and the garage was bi.g enough to house three :or more vehi._l es..- Rost lots he inspected could fit _ a 60n to 800 square 'foot unit of about 25 feet by 30 feet, and the cost might be more in line and make the building a second rental unit the way to go. He urged consideration. Bob Moss, 4010,Urme, supported the concept of the RM-D zone and the NP overlay. On page 6, paragraph 3 of the NP ordinance, asked for clarification about the reference to the lifetime excep- tion procedure. The RMeD and NP zone were the mechanisms by which to allow the construction of=a second unit on a lot with site and design review and the MP- ordinance allowed exceptions to things like setbacks and height. In reviewing the ordinance, it occurred to t4im that '+;the statement "an exception granted prsuant to this chapter shall exist for the life -Of the existing structure pre- served or such structure as may be constructed pursuant to the approval.." could create a situation whereby the structure one was trying to preserve was destroyed by fire, earthquake, etc.% and the ex4epted structure was the :.only thing left on the lot. The exception='was apparently extinguished -for the pre-existing struc- ture, but not for the, new structure. He asked under what. oircum- stances the exception for.'the new structure would be extinguished, and whether the Council —wished to -;exti ngp i sh .,that exception or require that the pre-existing structure tie rebuilt essentially as before. If - so, he :asked how 'the ordi nonce could be' worded to, pre-` serve the existing steucture. He did' not pick up hording to cover that possibility in •the ordinance and wanted assurances that ,a neighborhood preservation overlay preservea.;the desired structurRes and did not provide a loophole whereby a second structure could be bui i t and the o. ,l gina l Structure was lost leaving only the _one add `-on. Steve Jarvis, +: ►5`' Lowell Street, said that. he and his wife owned- - the :property at=:2130• talc in 'College 'terrace .:for about.eigh.t years, and .it -trac dine of the.: ouSes .1lsted• as being of hiatoracal significance.- He iavor'eld=:_the Planning Commission's- modification; of the proposed ordi nante.:to a 1,1 ow .:for the Construction of `. two condominiums' on :_a _ 5;ilgg . square foot lat. ,\'fie purchased and c2a w pli a ly _rest°ered hi property ` with the' --1 ntent i o = of _adding info a'ddit1dsa-i unit =, ith. village .tips architeetursl-design. 1h+� regeiatide# were subse a tly.e-cbanged•ind the':ons' unit=.:presentt3 41 owed might not_ be dependent upon : Count` 1 I ct i on teal ght. He wee so*ewhat: confUsed about the goais:,,Q1 the ordinance and re- 'tailed `that prioe ..staff reports- favored: the proposed hhra rot ®it;- rental _housing stock== i in thy, district. He was .not sure whether 1 1 the yoals to create more rental stock would be achieved by tree proposed ordinance because it decreased the number of units that could be built on certain square fontages, and was uncertain whether the Council's -goal was to convert the area to single family or increase the dcn-sit.y_ or allow for more rental stock. it was suggested that condom{ni'uras woul' be owner -occupied and he believed _ that assumed unsupportable-."i'aets. Much of the rental stock in Pa 1-07A1 to was investor -owned :condominiums which had beef, his plan. The economics of building a cottage as opposed to'",= condoms ni pm on the lot were rot that ;;Ouch : different --the differ- ence_ was going through the subdivision process, ..but that did not add :greatly- to the cost.- _ :_He personally wou/ d "not build a_: rental cottage in the rear of his property because -he did -not- believe the return, as a, landlord, was :there. lie did'not believe many people who occupied the single family residence would want a rental house on the property or ,that the goal of increasing the rental stock would happen automatically" by preventing the allowance of an addi- tion. Having no further requests from the public to'speak, Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Levy said that a new zone was developed in College Terrace designed to keep the appropriate density and to maintain a more human scale. He believed that staff, working with the pub- lic, creatively designeda zone that _would --c n_ that;_ which- he _s._o_ t , i - p pper, a resident of College �c� ��.. a��eu he cvmmenaea uim gut e Terrace, for his excellent thinking that went into the ordinance. The controversial element was whether there should be separate ownership where two units were developed on a single lot. He believed Mark —Chandler's letter to the Council made the strong- argu ►ent that it was not economical to build a rental unit based on -tne fact that none were being built by the private sector. Staff's analysis in that regard was flawed' because it indicated that if everything went well and if costs were kept to a modest level , a rental unit might be a break even kind of investment. He did not believe that represented .an incentive, and reiterated that approximately 4U percent of the condominiums in Palo Alto were rented --not that far from the overall rental level in town. He believed the Council's objectives would be better aciompiished if two unit's on an individual lot were allowed to be under separate ownership. The concept was thoroughly Studied by the Planning Commission and resulted in the recommendation before the Council. He urged support of the Commission recommendation. Counci.lmember Witherspoon was persuaded by. Mr. Culpepper, Mr. Stern and her own common sense that one could ensure any rental units i.f people were allowed to subdivide a 5,000 sq{lare foot lot. Further', the . incentive would be lost to :maintain the , first unit which waS the= purpose of the ordinance. If two families wanted;to live on the property, that . could be accomplished: by joint tenancy or anundividedinterest incommon of the total property ---without "jeopardizing the future possibility that one or another of the _. units . might: ;be rentals. one of -her original concerns about the cottage zone was the fact that with the pressures ot pricing in Palo Alto,; the -lots would be probably be sold:, many times over; and, IT, one was given the _oppoctunity Co subdivide a,5,000 square foot -lot with an, instant Windfall of profits, it would be hard to resist the tesptati`bn AMS; i MUIT: Ceeac! Imeiber.; lfstrsrsimoe s eeel,< -s* sNaed Repse 1 { t.1 add a : phrases that pre10, is . ssparate *rrmrs 1 p Councf leember Cobb' said the* when -he and Vitt Mayor - fa,zzi no intro- muted'the i teal a- year 3 sso, �, ae --was . not tAre where -they . would end up, and be co.plileented. the staff,, Pla;• n1nt 'Coaaeission and Mr«. =Celpepper for the outstodln st lut oe� bel_leved C. unc laewber= • Wither -Spoon ,tele Such' to \•44-y «- `th .raierd : ` .pot» tiny the ownership -goes -00e back where it -was -before ,because he was bast -Oa -1 by concerned about=`trjirig to' subdivide lots that- sail i « It was a dangerous -practice and ;could -get-,;the- City- haCk,, to the problew. of try ag to do :too such with- too _-sara.l� a -,-pieceoof 1 d property. He supported the amendment, but should it fail, he would support the main motion because he believed the basic over- lay zone was good. He urged. Council support of the reversion back tothe original staff recommendation. As pointed lint by Council - member Witherspoon, if the staff recommendation were not given the chance , to work with further review in a few years, and too many subdivisions took place, it would be too late to lock the barn because it would already'have burned down. Chief Planning Official. Bruce Freelandclarified they were talking about ; condominium subdivisions, and that in order to physically divide_ one lot into two, each lot would require a minimum of 5,000 square feet. For all practical- purposes, the only way to . divide the lots' for separate ownership was through a cdndominium division that would not actually affect ttFe lot division. He further clar- ified he was not attempting to undercut the thrust of the recent arguments ber,ause staff still held its. original position of pre- ferring the joint ownership provision. Counci imember Fletcher supported' the joint ownership of the two separate units in concept, but reminded the Council that when talking about the density .to be created' the current density was RM-3. it was . all a matter of whether the Courici 1 wanted __less .earl AM -4 VI- f1V !ovum- gene oi4 unan -Sne was not con- v.inced that Mr. Chandler's structure was more expensive solely because it was built en existing unit her roof b�.i ,,.. top of an �..,v,..n� unit where the was removed-. In order to put a structure over a garage, one would probably- be required to, remove_ a .roof because garages were _ not usually built as ,solidly as a home, and_ in addition, extensive foundation work, r=estructuring of walls, and an extension of new sewer and -uti l i tyi- 1 i nes might : De necessary. Based on the material provided, she was persuaded that it was not financially feasible to build rental -units on those lots and would support the Planning Commission recommendation. Counci lraember Renzel said -since Council -member Fletcher indicated her philosophical support of the rental concept, she would attempt to persuade her, to vote ifr support. Anyone purchasing land in that area would` base an evaluation on whether it was a 'house with F'4he potentials for a. second, unit under the same- oWiie_ rshiM..-- Eu-r- ther, the dollar values: frost. that kind of assessment might beOvery different --people paid a lot for cosmetics, a brand new unit and something fairly separate'. It was easier to build -two units at the sa:ae time than to add a unit. Since the goal of the ordinance was to maintain the visual and historic character of the neighbor- hoods, to foster the,_retention ofexisting homes and additions to properties -without demolition of sound structures, and to assure- ? corupati bt tit/ of design -with- the: general" nei ghbor.hood, `the Counci 1 would be- better served to take- the. cons'ervatiire- approadh now' and. see what happened;'. If nothing `ilia j)pened, :the! Council would recog- nize that :perhaps the second unit could not be built,' and the price- for those properties would -reflect whether the potential existed. _If :.the Council dnia_ev$d the potential was for,,•a,, condo a inivr> subdivision, `that'=.was what the. price would reflect. if- the .units had to under 'the` ,sane vin sh-1p, a different:-flnanci.al arssessarent !would.; be -are-4 ti_'eifffetee+ price would 'be_ paid diftepent kind of unit would' be `bu f. ,s She believed the Council should glye the_ staff recoa ierdatibh °'1 try;: monitor -its :implemen- tation and a sessF' it in= ;three., pear potenti'i t`o` go- to the. subdi ri sion. She u'eged Counci-1 --support of'04! motion' add believed ; it was an excellent wove for College'°Terrace. c.ounci larsarber E .etly : bel ieyed a l of of ...ti.e was spent blithe item ;by staff and ,ths dl fferent 'Ci bo;liel and: there we're`not t#) t_.: many a4do t n4nits. He paced yto `see -whet :Council .go? a e d wltn '� tie , 014100.$141- : `' idle i A.-'ui:bar t -C. it fir; ght' '`I. ' t `rend -.. other net gdboeh4ods. lie could ` $e.pp , tt' soave type of low de ..s1t' on.. 1 ng. _Phii ose`ph i ca i hy. - hr des iya i n tt -the l,ttbnd°` i t en the lot size whether =:it "ryas a rental or Whether =it was subeividdd ;lned tiro lots. The cottage zone hadbeen in existence fu'r a while now and problems were now developing, and he believed the proposed zone=' might follow the same trend. Those people in the University Park area, involved in creative initiative, were developing properties and using the coti:age zone to do what they wanted, but the end result was net as the Council planned. He believed the proposed zoning would create problems, and a survey in two or three years wou id be too late Counc1lm ember -Levy pointed out that the zoning was boing changed„ from RM-3..to a lower density, and the question before the Council was whether :to go from RM-3 to what amounted to R-1'. Because he believed the buildi,ny of rental units was unlikely, the Council was, in fact; downzoningto R-1, which cnuld have been done ear-. - l'ier if that -was the Council's intent. There were a number of reasons why R-1 was not the proper zone for the area. Mayor Bechtel said she concurred with the comments made by Coun- cilmembers Fletcher and Levy and believed the arguments made by the Planning Commission were persuasive. She would oppose the amendmenttoprohibit separate ownership. Vice. Mayor Fazzino commented that -he was excited about the entire Ur ua:css uii rs r-- i_uM IIA Vii_.. V.•A i' 9fa al_a! Le4A[a Tfi ..■-n.r '.LiprcL f'w-1-.-- Naief7fONlfa - tion before the Counci!. He believed it was a step in the right direction and would help "The Terrace" preserve its unique qual- ities as a residential area. He believed the concept was trans- portable to other parts of the City and something to be evaluated. With-=respect to the amendment, he concurred with-Counoilmember Levy's comments about economics- and would support the PlanninP Commission recommenuration. AMENDMENT PASSED by a Vote of 5-4,_.Fletcher, Fazzino, Bechtel, Levy voting *no." . MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Eyerly voting *no." ITEM #4 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE AMENDMENT TO THE Planning Commission Chairperson' Jean McCown said the Commission recommended approval of the changes set torth in the staff report. The two members of the neighborhood who spoke to the Commission indicated their support for the changes and the Commission con- curred in that - support. NAY) :. NE NTEL IM1ENR P 0 AN } MEP NH TITER AS PART OF'' THE NE OW11. IEFNL TQ In wtKiAu f E - i.i-�ia`LiAil it- IA if 1 A ft M NMTIOItz ,V#ie -Misr haslet lieved, seconded' i ► likoz01, to rive,' thy . oxi e i NI:...#rNteel Tim No "- Argest 1t,: 1913, a*d i utreiec: d tki ; crdiaaec t t.rwleatti tM .x1stiNg a ratarlia •m d m I1tl p..r !it*: AV AE Il ewtI t1.i "OIOIIAICE OP' THE •TT _ f Ai.S�T" t�Etl�. T I1 IRE £zi T114 Y 1 L ANCE01 U ITION ,PA TS' t •A$I L :it tt��_. 1 , 1' . 11 `'Z4� i f C11.LL U T� Tt ' . I tUTA :OPINE . STAU J ,.,£L � - t -A I LIES$ET: $►TOE ` . MNTI illi 'PASUEN� Miraaif $I►" f f RETURN TO ITEM #4 RE AMENDMENT TO TREE PARK PLAN Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown said the recommenda- tion was, consistent with the staff report and the Commission unanimously recommended approval. Councilmember Cobb asked if the tennis courts were being' reduced eight ceu-rts to four because' of space aval l ab,l a or because of City needs. Director of Recreation Patel Thiltgen responded it was basically a space a'vai l able situation and the change in the needs of the neighborhood. Councilmember Cobb asked whether -the tennis courts might not serve a City-wide need as was the case with softball diamonds. Mr. Tni l tgen said. yes, they fit into the program as was di scitssed at the time of the fee schedule approval. Coundi lmember Cobb r''+i di n the relocation of the third of the softballs' fields, that: if it were moved down a sNade further, a fourth diamond could be achieved without impacting any of the other activities. He asked if the power lines were a problem with f hst ' concept. Mr. Thiltgen said that was correct. Councilmember Cobb said he always noticedthe plaucity of drinking fountains at --Greer -Park and -asked whether that was included in the plan somewhere, Mr. Thiltgen said it -was. Councilmember Cobb asked if a restroem structure would be built at the park sooner than later if the plan was approved. Mr. Thiltgen said yes, it -was a part of the CIP proposal for the coming fiscal year. Councilmember Witherspoon asked for a .recap of the F&PW Committee recommendation since she was not present the night the item was heard. Councilmember Klein said the Finance and Public Works (F.PW) Com- mittee tentatvely recommended the Greer Park development be accelerated by putting roughly $200,000 into the current years CIP rather than next :years: so that construction might start earlier-- probably the early part- of 1984. �. Mayor Bechtel commented that in reading the Planning Commission recommendation and the staff report, `'she believed the $200,000 would only go for the completion of restroom facilities and some portion of the already developed part of Greer Park, but would not do anything for.,the undeveloped part of Greer Park. She 2._asked when the tennis courts,_ other fields, etc., might, be developed. Me. Thi!;tgen, responded ;that the CIP provided for -no further deyel-+ opse►t after the coming fiscal' year irl order -to obtain approval of the- master plan, -get ,orae--direction fro* :Council , and then `come O., bac In the next year's CIP to eiteol-op= the ;ongoing scheduleIII A. -.1 k) ._ Mayo.r Bechtel clarified that temporary restroom fac i 1 i ti es al-readY existed-, snd asked whet.he'. it= would 'riot be - better to get the rest of the park completed and cont'fnu.e to use those= :-temporary facl1- itiess, iS Mr. Thl ltgen said temporary fc11ities existed. To complete the restrooms would cost better than $200,000, and to move into the rest of the park would require that _working drawings be prepared, and a major drainage problem that would -cost in the neighborhood of $500,000. It would take time to design and develop those plans. If 'Council proceeded with the restrooms at this point, that could be :Completed early on, Councilmember Levy asked whether a seating area would be connected with thebaseball diamonds. Mr. Thi3-gen responded the facilities were designed primarily to use the turf areas so there might be a minor seating area or some bleachers, but not a large grandstand area. Councilmember Levy urged there be some kind of reasonable seating because his experience in little league was that a number of parents watched the games. He asked whether _ staff had a better handle on the total cost and timetable of carrying out the master plan. Mr. Thi l tgen said he did not have a firm handle on the timetable, but depending upon how it was set up, it could take three to five. years to complete. The cost changed from the initial plan of t4.4f0.000 to approximately $?,000,000' for the development of the taciilty. Councilmember Renzel said the minutes reflected some discussion whereby the residents indicated the need for somcr, unstructured playing area where children could play disorganized sports. She saw from the map that there were a lot of dotted baseball and soccer fields that appeared to occupy the entire park, and she reed in the mintues that one of the baseball diamonds was a relo- cation. She asked which field was being move:_` Mr. Thi l tgen clarified' that the purpose of the dotted lines on the map were to show that a soccer field could be, ccommodated in the area, but it would basically be a grassy open space area where two soccer goals could be .placed. As one lookecE at the field, it would basically be a large "aspen space turf area. The exception was the, one softball diamond' to be located in the middle of the new area which would be relocated from a parking area on the left. Councilmember Renzel clarified that there. would then, tie three baseball diamonds: Mr. -Thlltgen said that was what presently existed. Councilmember Renzel clarified that once something was d .5agnated as a possible soccer play area, it would undoubtedly be used for organ# zed soccer. She realized the strong demand= and -that. thee field would be reserved for practices and games and scueduled==for a good portion of the Year, ,but if the nefOt.vrhood desired - 4n unstructured Area, she questioned whether '1t was 'desirable to' indicate a possible field on the master -plan. it was one;, thing to ' use the field that way occasionally, but it was another ;;thing -1 f it was aff,icie1 y sanctioned. It looked 1 i ke `°a: lot. df,the park - AI now 111d.out for possible soccer fields or btsebal.l _diamonds, ong while .she did _not object . V,' providing as many .'fields and ,..diamonds. as: --possible, she did not' want. it done-, at -the, total. expense of ,unstructured park,=,wh-ich.:al so: had,- its -purposes. Mr. Th"i1tgen **id the.use `of -°other. parks reflected ,heavy : usage itc.erai n t�- mes -p,f ._ the day: and year fororgani zed soccer peayiv ;;but that -did not account for.;.th'e eajor. ty "of the facility's- tl ee. He agreed that it appeared that an ,>athlet l c f t l t ty was being ng built, "1 t , but that Was, not . the case. He .'pointed th t when _the ;,,space was there_'and available, ;the.. community :would be urged t(uSe it it Counci lmember Cobb clarified that - tho diamond would not be lost when 1t was moved and the diamond was p&rt of, prior approval in terms of the first block of money to be spent, Mr. Thiltgen said the diamvn . would remain at the location until the other part of .the facility was completed and ready for reloca- tion of the diamond. Charles Scott, 3136 Genevieve Court, represented .the West Bayshore Residents AssoOlation, and said the residents in the vicinity of Greer Park demonstrated an understanding of the current situation, cooperated with the t y ':ip accepting the delays in tie develop- aent-`of Greer Dark several times and suffered the modifications of the original master- :plan to one that .was basically open space with few amenities. The residents watched the development of other City projects without complaint and worker!. with City staff in the preparation of a modified plan acceptable to the area residents, and now requested that Council approve full implementation and completion without undo delay in ` order for the residents to real- ize a fully completed park : in the near future. MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Planning Comeisston recommendation for an amendment to _the _---[=NA4/• �s i►i _ Y� � i �— O 7 _ � Lam. 7 7 _ - •ar s.•rs sswi scs ...... WO • V, 1 \#wa. 1. To eliminate recreat4e' building; - • rw .r.r•• building; Z. Eliminate adventure garden; 3. El imir,te day camp area; 4. Ei± ►inate group picnic area; S. Eliminate tots and apparatus area; 6. Eliminate spray pool; 7. Eliminate stream; B. Reduce tennis courts from eight to four and relocate and retain practice backboard court; 9. Reduce size of second parking area; ©o Relocate existing softball field; 1. Relocate existing picnic {areas; 2. Relocate caeine ezer ise area; 3. -Add .a :par Course;, Add an adds ieaal rest-roem aad l relocate tke restroom_ existing Master Plan, ,� Aetta1l draieagt; 6. Install turf, trios, shrubs and -ground cover. Councilor_ ember Witherspoon -clarified there was only one parking' lot on the site itself and,.that other cars parked along Colorado or - Amarillo 4r.. . Thl,l tgen res04nded there were two parking lots, one by the tennis courts . n4 one by the ba 1 -14- C 'ee ounci Y. eber< M#ther ri ai` s�ao ske�i Mow many bars co. ld�`bP ac�commu-� dated. f ,. '�: Mr. Thi l•tgeh- respo ded 30 cars could be accommodated in -the lot b the tennis courts and 96 could be accommo-dated in the other. NOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM O. _ PLANNING- COMMISSION AND ARCHITECT. RAL REVIEW BOARD Planning Cammission Chairperson Jean McCown said she did not par- ticipate can the item because of a conflict with her employment, but that the recommendation was completely consistent with the staff report. Councilmember Klein said Spencer and Associates. the Architects and Planners -of the project-: were clients of his law firm and he would not participate on the item. Councilmember Renzel said there was a new access to the Sewage Treatment Plant off Embarcadero Road and the question of the angle of that entrance which was .basically turning somewhat backwards and rather than a straight right angle it was a _little more than a right angle into the site. The only explanation given was tha: a light fixture existed and she asked why the light fixtures were so sacred as to require such an awkward turn for large trucks.. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said if the Traffic Divi- sion advised that it would cause a problem, staff would have felt ei fferently about saving the 1 i gft standard, but staff opi Eied- that it was workable for trucks and saved the City some money. Councilmember Renzel asked if the new access connected with the circulation pattern over by the two towers. Mr. Freeland said the new access provided a second means ,of access' to the site. Councilmember Renzel said part of the ultimate Baylands Master Plan was to have access to Baylands Park; located on the,current dump site, on . Embarcadero Way, and to. make the current access , at the end of Embarcadero Road, into a minor circulation pattern for pedestrians, hikers and bicyclists in order to eliminate a lot of auto traffic. It night make sense in terms of the ultimate plan to have a second access off Embarcadero Road, but she believed it might be wiser to design one to accommodate the kind of heavy, truck traffic it: might ha?e if the trues delivering lime, etc. to the towers -had to use it. She was willing to sacrifice the'1lght fixture for the long-term plans of the Baylands. City Manager Bill Zaner sr.id the driveway was short, and .if there was a desire to relocate in the future, It would not be a major job. NOTION: Couaci leember Renkel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval ,of,the ?lousing Coa+missioM,and Architectural Review Board reconieedattee,to approve the: apps cation of the -City of Palo Alto for Site wed Design review` for coastructi•a of a l,I$O egeare foot -- saieteeenco and warehorie ;facility for the Rsdiosel ; Wastewater:. Trsataoet _Plaet located et ,1920 Embarcadero ;Read w#tl►=` the . Chew; that roadway be angled Is opposite direction (sa asdle iR. •ego site direction)... Councilmember Renzel said whew. the Sewage Treatment ;;Plant was built, landscaping. was placed on the _corner of F.barcadero Road . and the ,Bay. The landscaping ,.just got,. up .to -.speed when it• was decided to put.. in, the chlorine, settling tanks and the' whole thing was rippod out. Now the .City ;was- goindto start again with a ease\- sive ,buliding,,to stamen and she believed :the City should Avoid ha-ving to disrupt the, landscaping any wore; than necessary. The area where the road was shown would 'be an _ Obvious pLLce _for some screen landscaping and she _preferred that it be_ done now with the thought of. going- toward the- _longer ter.- when the access to the -new par=k 'trod l d be along Eeba rcadero way. 1 1 Counci lmember €yerly noted the circulati-km pattern to: she ware- house maintenance building did not necessitate a second opening from Embarcadero and could be handled from within the area now off Embarcadero Way. He asked whether_ Embarcadero Way was intended to be the main entrance or whether Embarcadero-Road would also; be used. 1 1 Zoning Administrator Bob Brown responded that Embarcadero Way would be J,he principal entrance to the Baylands Park. f Councilmember Fletcher said she noticed than men got two showers and women got one and clarified that an equal amount of showers for the women was not justified at this point. She asked whether the plumbing for a second shower should be installed now. Mr. Zaner responded that, staff attempted to note redesign the bui);Jing as presented by the architects. Staff believed there were adequate showers for the people who worked i n the facility, and if the mix of people changed, there were enough facilities to change the designations. :.Staff recommended the plans remain as submitted. Mr. Brown said there was room for two _showers__ and would only. necessitate r c uua L i Fly the wuuuen 5 luck ers if the need a ruse. Mayor Bechtel said she understood the third shower was a unisex handicapped shower. Mr. Brown said there was a handicapped shower in each restroom-- male and female. MOTION RESTATED: TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A2CHI- TECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS WI1H THE CHANGE IN THEANGLE OF THE ENTRANCE ROADWAY OFF OF EMBARACERO ROAD MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein "not participating." ITEM #6, AMENDMENTS .TO POLITICAL SIGN ORDINANCE MOTION: Vice Mayor: Fazzino moved, seconded b,y Klein, approval of the ordinance for first reading. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST PEADING entitled- "ORDINANCE OF THE. rtMiltirlffnirmeirTrir—FTLO ALTO AMENDING THE PROYI- S 1 t\NS OF THE BUILDING REGULATIONS REGARDING ELECTION SIGNS" Councilmernber Witherspoon asked about the presumption in the last paragraph of the first page of the ordinance that political ,signs were different/ from other signs. City Attorney Diane -Lee responded that the courts believed politi- cal signs were different than others because they involved pro- tected first amendment free speech. The City Attorney's --)office attempted to accommodate the 'ordinance to that end, . bearing. in mind -that the public safety had' to be protected and 'buildings and other public facilities had to be kept for the purposes for which they were ;intended and not standards for political signs. -Since the courts took the : position about `'what political signs were sup- posed to be, the Attorney's office attempted to ac;coawodate both interests to the extent possible.', Counci lsieeber Witherspoon clarified that -`:because of the --first aae deent rights, political- signs had: rights that other signs did not \s' Ms.Lee said -the Vincent decision =was pending before ,the Supreme Court, and oral arg men si were scheduled -in the :fall ._.. She hoped' "that :for., the election _following the 'one in--'3Movember, the City.'T would have definitive answers regarding the __United States Supreme Court's view on the issue. Councilmember Levy believed it was worthwhile for the City .to not be papered with election signs, and that the sixty-day concept was valid. He wondered whether the City could tailor the definition differently to acccrnplish its objectives, and redesign the period. during which election signs could be .displayed' to .relate to the election filing dates. For example, if the City determined that an elecyien sign should not be erected prior to the last filing day for that election.. -about sixty days --perhaps it could be described, in terms of an appropriate;;government objective. Ms. Lee said the problem was setting a prior limitation. After the election, the. purpose of the speech was past and the City could impose fairly quick aeadiines on removal. The speed was important prior to the election, and the courts took the position against prior restrictions.. Practically, the City hoped there would be a limitation because people` would not be filing. for office and the "name/identification" issue of the election might militate against putting up signs too early. She hoped the solu- tion would be practical • because legally she did not believe the City could prohibit the time line before the election. Councilmember Levy said he was concerned that one day after the last election was "x" number of days prior to the next election, And thAr e e minht to b12 t2 ve. hi: sin.+ up d he _ __ �.. -- .... ,. �. .�., .. be uva� n.. .i.M ii. hi: ii�t� �M and 34r he f�4.7 running again. Ms. Lee believed if a sign were posted in conjunction with an election just .ended, it would be removed under :,the provisions established for removal of the sign --five or six days or whatever it was. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM f7, ORDINANCE RE $25,0U0 GRANT FOR ICE SKATING (CMR:355:3). MOTION: Councilmember Klein` moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the budget amendment ordinance in the amount of $25,000 ae!,. the contract with the Trust Fund for Community Skating ORDINANCE 3438' entitled . "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF. THE 1172 of ?ALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1982-$3 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT a2-34 'TRUST FOR COMMUNITY SKATING' • AGREEMENT Trust Fund for -Community •Skati Ag Counci imember Fletcher said the staff -.report accurately reflected • that a six month limit -was placed as the amount of, time In - which money could be raised, but, that it was not reflected. in -the con- tract. `She was concerned that when the matter was heard on May 9, 19133, the Council -was lead to `believe he deadline for ta_'c i ng any action was May 15, and on May- 10, she `learned that rAe =Jeadl i ne - was no longer in effect and the principals involved "w 'e aware cf.. i t, '` but did not advise the Cc nc ti . ' She, felt deceived, and • be- ``l ieved.- it was an unorderly . way for the Council to appropriate $25,000. Staff was scheduled to prepare a . r°epor-t regarding.City involvement in ?the .-facility for the following Council meeting,, which would have been. timed for an Orderly process .to have -taken plate. The report was now moot and never finalized because .the Counc it took :that initiative away from staff -and went over their - heads to form the pol.icy.,to and out $25,000. She became mores' upset a week or two later- whek\she leaned ;that the _ human service. ,. contractors were desperate for addjtlonal fonds and wt_ ra cut off fro :-County. support .becausa huaai 'Suffering was taking place, and without any evaluation, the Council handed out MAO.. The Lion- tracts were prepared and= a lot of staff time was i.n-vo '.ved.,3J and she 414 not know-�whether she would support &t. 1 1 Ms.: Lee said the proOsions for providing matching_ funds or for the Trust to raise a certain amount of money were not included b-acause she understood that was almost completed. 1 1 Financial Planning Administrator Gordon Ford sai4 the Trust al- ready raised $22,000 and preferred to wait until the full $?.5,000 was raised before receiving the matching grant. He did not believe there woulo be any timing problems. Counci lrrernber Witherspoon was _ nct concerned about whet the Trust. Fund w �'d complete its fund rasing, but rather that the City should be businesslikeandinclude a time limit. Ms. gee pointed out that the City's duty _ to provide the money _related to the __."Crust's providing matching funds hut did not include a time limit. Co►incilmember Witherspoon said she did not support the motion the first time around and was not keen on supporting it now. She pre- ferred matching grants to outright grants, but with the con- straints on the City budget she observed the last few weeks on the F&PW Committee, she was still not inclined to .put the City's money up front for the community skating. She asked for clarification that the Trust Fund had raised almost _$25,0 10_,:_ and that the match - 1(19 yrau . wds for another Mr. Ford said the it list rued raised about $22,000, which the City could match now, but the Trust indicated a preference. to wait until i_t had the_-t_o-tal__$2.5,000,_,.which they were confident would occur, shortly. Councilmember_Eyerly believed it would bewise for the Council to insert a time limit of about 60 days by ,41;c -h to complete fund raising. Mr. --Ford deferred to Mr. Morton of the Trust Fund for Community - Skatiny for response. Jack ,Marton, .2343 Webster Street, assured Counci lmei0er Fletcher that An times past he was before the Council with deadlines ;he believed ominous and firm.: He further assured the Council. that- he hand carried the agreement between the Trust acid .Dun4an Williams. on Friday, June 1.3-, 1963, to -ensure . that thy` deadl i n+ s Were met and because of the Council's support for doing so. To date, the;_ Trust raised $22,000, and the_efforts in the past weeks were devoted more to the formalities o'f_-the contract`;an_d determing_.the "Y's" position: The "Y"- Task Force raet i'ast week and: unanimously voted to recommend to the "V'' ,hoard of lii rectors that it become . the operator-: but, the final decision woui'd not be made until June A. based on the 'T" Task Force decision, tne,NTrust Fund under- took the idst: s_tag-e of its campaign which had been held _off pend- ing furtfler information from :..the "Y."' The Trust '.was in its; "Almost There Fund Raising Program," which was expected to be.00m- Mete within ;the next two weeks, The equipment was transferred `to the Trust, 4h0- -+since, hay °13,. 1983, had been responsible -for the facility and all expenses retitled theretn. Those repairs possible were stagy ted with -:e ainimur "do`iiar outlay and on1= the time mitment.__of the `facility -- an M ager. ;,A more .aggres ive,volunteer-proT, t&= gram- woof;, be undertaken once it, was char that -all other elements_ of the- program.'`were in place, ...and .decisions would be' -made - next week about-- how' much Mork: could be,, done on..a vol unte!ir. bash s.` Councilmember Klein � bet iered - Counci lrsetroer' Fletcher served the Council by ;pec nti ng out . the i •inadvertent cml ssi on, of the time 1.110t i#e suggested that the City Attorney's- sta1,U fntert law!, geese to that effect _ because i t repres*nted : the rthhhC 11�'.epprovl l v Council was -Ohl1 sed to have a -r.icord,: that the $22,00U was a_h actual i.n�►hand, f.igare because the' $25,00O. -sight _never be retched. V i rtui' I ly , a 11,-.Counc,1 l me*bets .pointed . out that tPle coney 'was not intended to be -an on,nlno subsidy, and chile -he, bell eyed it was a°.- - !J -worthwhile investment to save the valuable City asset that would otherwise disappear, if community skating. were -to be saved,, it would need a lot of capital infusion from someone other than the Gity. • ----------- -- - LANGUAGE RE• TIME LIMIT Of SIX MONTHS FROM--MAY--94i 1983"" INCLUDED IN MAIN MOTION _WI -NTH -APPROVAL---OF MAKER AND SECOND Counci l member Cobb believed that if the -'Council did not act when it did back in May, _the May I5 ;deadline would,.quickiy have: become real. That could .not be proven one-way or the other because he, believed a game of "thicker*" was played between- all the various parties ---not including 'the Trust. -It 'was a tough situation- and some . people played ard, and it was ' the Council `s action that allowed the deadl i neto disappear. -He was glad the Council took .the action he believed was' appropriate.-, Regarding the human ser- vide .contractors, he was sympathetic to the point -made, serve ; on the board of one of -those contractors and: was aware of the finan- cial problems. Taken the limit, that argument suggested that the Council divert far more of its dollars on. a permanent basis to meet needs which far surpassed anything the Council could do. The Council was in the business of balancing the needs, hopes and desires Of -,a lot ` -of other community interests and constructing recreation for young people. was a valuable part of the community. Councilmember Levy registered his. general agreement with.the com- ments made --by Count/iireember Fletcher. - The council, wrestled with all the items on an agenda at .length and in good faith, and it was frustrating when there was an indication that members -of the pub- lic did not act in similar good faith. On the other hand, he agonized over whether to support the -original Council action, but determined that the action was proper and should be endorsed. However, he would not see his way clear to provide further support in the future. The Council wrestled with -City budgets that in- cluded substantial ` amounts of money ; for recreation facilities at Terman tonight at Greer and in other areas -throughout the city. While he agreed with his colleagues as to the tremendous value of ice skating -in the •community, he believed that for .many years it Was conducted as a private endeavor and there was every reason to bel..ieve . it should be supported on a private basis in the future. He was satisfied the Council was doing the right thing by provid- ing the matching seed money to go along with'.the money being raised "initially in the community., and he hoped the community could move ahead to cOntinue ice Mating as a permanent part of Palo Alta.'s recreational program. Councilrnemb er Fletcher^ clarified that the deadline- set by, Mr. Uuncan was removed by mid -day the day on which. Council 'niet,,a;n the evening and voted. The deadline was moved to June 1 which would have provided Council .with enough -time -,to see the staff report and - make a more inf_oraaed-dec"isi.on. She would -be. much more ` skeptical in the future, ancOtrotTd" support the item only because of the $Z2,-UU.0 already raised.. " OTIOPI P-ASSEO by a vote of 8-1. Witherspooe voting `no." ITEM #13. INITIATIOti. OF: PARK PLANKING STUDY _f OR CITY -OWNED ARASTRA Codncilrnember Cobb asked why ,the item was made a high priority. Chief Planning Official 8rUce::freeland said staff ,understo'od that mn uneasiness existed in the community 'over -the -inability t4 -use the property. The -issue re i ved a series of discussions six> .or, eight .vmonths ago with Members ' of ,;� the community who anti cl�patad that Alm ..steal: would coo.ente :moth earlier than it had. Staff believed the study could be put_ together between now and ,.when the ',.)Comprehensiye, Plan Program' was started .in the fall, tad i f `the„ relatively wail study touid_-be Contained as such, it could, be atcoapl i shed '►rithout a major dent in other assignments. 1 1 1 1 Councilmember Cobb asked whether other high priority :items pre- viously pushed were l i kei_y__ to -be -held back l onyer- if the proposed study were moved to the top of the _cue.. Mr. Freeland said good progress was being made in the special studies work program of the Planning Department. If the proposed study were not pursued now, Council would either be asked to move up a lower priority item or put more staff effort into earlier preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. A coupe of other items could bloom in the future that might impact stafYs Jworkload heav- ily and included the potential study toward a specific plan for the Maximart. property, and if another middle school came up that needed planning assistance more rapidly. Councilmember Cobb said based upon what he read, the possibility of a middle school coming up rapidl was a reality, and if the proposed study were. moved up, would there;.still be time to prepare for the middle school. Mr. Freeland said in the event staff initiated the study and a middle school came up for more rapid attention than was planned, the major update of the Comprehensive Plan schedule would probably suffer. [�.. ...-.. :_l me+... ►. J -.w 1 i. Fri•-_ rya».3f�r.- ___-+-M-.. }..wt.' _ ._ '_. - 1'� - ' - V YY Ii \. i � ♦�i �. :::'vin i vv �— v : a : i i r �w v.i i. :d wv�. iii i Vii R kOiai i i.: wk. y- the pressing item which was the middle school, and he was sur- prised that Stanford West was not.mpntinn'd_ Mr. Freeland said he considered Stanford West to be current work- load. Councilmember Witherspoon said the, study was pending for three years and, there, were groups. who were anxious to know the future of that property. She could not remember where it was left,- but recalled settinv.< a Council policy when the residences on the prop- erty were goingto be phased out. Loniny Admin•i,strator Bob Brown did not believe there was any Coun oil policy with regard. to; the. Reimer house --decisions were made on the houses on the 77 acres. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified the policy had to do with existing houses on the -',500 acre parcel. There were two houses -- one with the stable and one being rented to a private party. There was quite a dfscussion as to whether the City should phase them out immediately or -=whether they should be allowed to be used as residences until the study was completed. City Manager Bill Loner recalled the area was exempted when ,the park dedication ordinance was before the Council. He believed the intent was that it be exempted until completion' of the study when aLdetermination about what to do with it could be made. CountilmeMber Witherspoon was encouraged by the expressed inter- .r`in the community to serve on the committee --both from environ- .entalists and tho a who wanted hiking and riding;, trails, -ands believed the -discussions would be productive. MOTIOK; Councilmember Witherspoon gloved, seconded by Cobb, *Wove] of .,the . staff _ recoomeodati on that staff .be directed °t4: 1. Activate the Arastra Park Study ,at a Mi$ priority study on the' Planeinii _ U1V1sten's special studisk`f5iist. Phis study should pro sked as. Oetl1Ahd in the work program ;_e'ltois :a cos- - ceptua,i frasowerk; of crowtia. a low,; ateositr lied -low cost ''parks with eap$osis se' the mature) 440., n space ase afties Of the 'aao „--*ad seasitirity to tai ftkI le foothill ecology. Uses planned fo,r the park shouldnot dopicate these provided MOTION CONTINUED in urban neighborhood or region& parks. If the Council wishes to entertain a different or broader part: concept, staff should be so instructed; 2. Establish an ad -hoc citizens advisory committee to make recommendations on appropriate park uses and conceptual loca- tions of improvements. These recommendations should be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission and City Council by December 31, 1983. The Council should request the followir,g.groups to nominate one member and one alternate to serve on the com- mittee: The Palo Alto Horsemen for Trails Preservation, The Committee for Green Foothills, The Sierra Clubs The Santa Clara County Intergovernmental Council Trails and Parks Committee, The Palo Alto Planning Commission. The Mayor should be authorized to appoint two members from the public at large, Councilmember Eyerly asked if staff recommended that the advisory committee be comprised of Palo Alto residents. Mr. Brown said not necessarily. Councilmember Eyerly said the Council discussed what would be dedicated on the Arastra property some time ago and the 532 acres were set aside and dedicated for parkland. The Council believed that the 77 acres should Op retained for ---possible development to recapture approximately $B4O00,000. Staff appeared to be in conflict with themselves because the Council continually heard t.. t the City was short of money and that staff envisioned the 77 acres as an asset that cw"ld capitalized at some future time if necessary. He was concerned about why staff wanted to include it in the plans --he could understand planning the entire thing, and would also like to .dedicate the, whole thing if he did not believe the City needed the money or might at some point in the future. `ie; was not sure whether the City should have a plan for that part 'because it moved toward the assumption that the policy was set and that it would be dedicated. The policy of residents versus nonresidents in Foothills Park was a big issue and he did not want to release it. ,to an aliviCory committee if it included a lot of people from out of town. He always envisioned that the Arastra property would be preserved for the residents who actually put up the money, and asked staff to respond. Mr. Brown said -that with regard to the 77 acre portion of the property, it was included with the study because, there might be a number of; viable interim uses for the property --not necessarily requiring substantial improveme'ats, Currently there was Only grazing on the site, and there might be more suitable interim recreational uses to which that` portion of the property could be put. The residency question would have to be brought up in the Arastra study, and if the Council's desire. was to have only Palo Altans discuss the issue, the commAittee,_could be limited to Palo Altans only. Councilmember Levy was conceptually opposed to special interest groups -making up working coiiimi.ttees and believed as a normal course-- that- committees should be made.- up of representative citizens and that the specie.) interest groups should -,.present their case to that committee. Kt -asked whether there would be a° problem with the committee if it -were made up of interested Palo 'Alto residents` perhaps appointed by the Mayor with the idea being.. that the various interested groups present their ideas to such a committee. Mr. .Freeland said it sounded like a description of the Planning Commission, and if the Council wanted a study along those lines, it might consider making it a task of, the Planning Commission 3 4 6 5 6/20/83 ffe problem was getting motivated citizens with interest in that particular topic to take on the thorough job of hearing view- points, yettiny acquainted enough with the issues and following through. It was generally easier to get that motivation from people with a point or view on it, and he su99ested that if the Council wanted a truly -neutral body,_ it might onsideeonsider the Plan-. ning Commission itself. Mrs Laner concurred with Mr. Freeland's comments. Staff discussed the possibility of recommending that the task be assigned tc the Planning Commission --staff world do its work, there would be pub- lic hearings and people from the community -,could come --forward and make their points. Staff considered the possibility of using representatives from interested Foothills groups, and the lists appeared to be well balanced with all points of view represented. To further that end, two members at large could be selected by the Mayor. He emphasized that the committee would only be a recem- rnending body and that Council would have the final determination. Councilmember Levy clarified that a heavy workload would be coming up for the Planning Commission, and to add that responsibility would not be wise. Mr. Freeland said he sought to have the Planning Commission's ..innv inns$ -innnalnht - Amen tit -A ini.r-M nrir'iiii i level. With two -scheduled meetings per month, a third was required frequently, and a fourth was required at one point last year. He preferred that the Com- mission not be loaded with too much more. Councilmember Klein shared Councilmember Levy's concerns and said he was bothered by the policy. He did not like the idea that pri- vate organizations should have a seat on any particular City advisory committee. People with those interests could apply and the Mayor should consider them, but should be able to come up with a balanced committee. He did not like the idea that a small group should feel an entitlement to a particular committee. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein Moved, seconded by Levy, to amend Paragraph two of the staff recommendation to provide for r seven (7) member committee to be appointed by the Mayor, one of whom shall'be a member of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Klein said he was not so concerned that a member be a Palo Alto resident. Past members of City advisory committees were not Palo Alto residents and served well. Councilmember Fletcher asked how the Mayor would find citizens who were not members of the Committee for Green Foothills, the Sierra Club, etc. If it was a matter of excluding those people, they were the ones that would be interested in the item. She did not see how the appointment process would take place by deliberately excluding certain, groups and not others. May�.�r Bechtel envisioned that the distinction between the staff recommendation and the amendment was that the Council would not be bound by the particular recommendation and nv' one would be ex- cluded. She pointed -out -that .raven people were appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee on the City's -financial structure by seeking sug- gested names which._peop-le represented a spectrum'of individual viewpoints.- Koslyn Gray, 1135 Hamilton Avenue, .said ;that regarding represents. Lion from different groups, she sat on three different .groups, two of which represented possibilities for the ad hoc advisory comm1t- tee for the Arastra lands.. She knew - that people in the Sierra Club and the -Trails -and Pathway Committee _of-_ Santa Clara County were very interested in what happened fit' Palo Alto as well as con- necting trail s stems, and was concerned about one person appoint- ing or suggesting people for the d hoc committee and where .the line would be drawn. The interested people were those who—*-ete 3 4 6 6 6/20/83 currently on committees or who representes' the big environmental groups in Palo Alto and who spoke .about the Arastra lands again and again. She was concerned about democratic representation and the Mayor deciding what person should be appointed and who should not. It was now set up_ as an equal representation from the larg- est user groups--hikinrs.and horsemen groups, and she was concerned that it would be chanted and appointments would be made to people who did not previously express interest. Mayor Bechtel said it might well be that the appointments would end up totally along the lines suggested by staff with the possi- bi l ity of some expediting of `.he process in terms of making the appointments. Councilmernber Renzel favored the amendment 'because it was well articulated that it was not a ' good idea to have seats designated for specific groups. She preferr..d to see invited applicants apply for the committee and for t'.^ Mayor to make a selection based roughly on the criterion of representing environmental, trails, and horsemen groups, etc. It was appropriate for the Mayor to make those appointments, an4 the application form pro- vided an opportunity to indicate past Involvement in an issue, which she expected the Mayor would take into consideration. A W L M I• Y T .1 T r. a n r.f r. r.Uu j.FiL.1.1 i"f1JJICN 711iiI11111VYify• AMFNi»l1FNT: r - ,ember i i realm.• Cobb moved, 4 -4 b.. Renzel i . .. . •... �,:.wr.:. vrr ,wv�ca., iG',.UI UVU by 1►CIIiLCI , %.0 reaffirm the desire for low intensity, minimal cost park, ;with emphasis on the natural and open space amenities of the land and sensitivity to the fragile foothill ecology. AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO MAIN MOTION WITH APPROVAL OF MAKER AND SECOND MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. ITEM s -A ULU ITEM 2 CABLE TELEVISION RE AMENDMENT TO CABLE ItitT 1, 198 c' 3� Staff recommends that the Council approve the amendment to the Agreement with Arnold and Porter to provide for an extension of the time for completion of Phase I of the cable franchising pro- cess to July 1, 1983. The extension would allow the Council to consider and approve the Request for Proposal (RFP), on Thursday, June 30, 1983. Although the ,extension of Phase I wi l l necessitate an extension' of Phase II, the time allotted for cable companies to respond to the RFP, it wi 1 l not, under the on gi r.a 1 assumption of the Agreement, cause a delay in the due date of November 15 for the evaluation report to Council from Arnold and Porter. Councilmember Cobb asked if by extending the deadline, the City would incur any additional costs from the consultant. City Attorney Diane Lee said the consultant's work Was essentially done., The amount of time spent at the prior -public hearing- was probably the same as. would be spent at the future public hearing so the hours would' be the same, and the consultant w4s paid by the hour. MOTION: Counci lmemberl Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Amendment of Cable Agreement to Extend Council Approval of Request for Proposals to July 1, 1983. ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 4292 Arnold & Porter Vice hryor Fazzino was disappointed that he would not be available to attend the meeting, on June 30 to discuss the issue and that staff and consultant did not ,have their acts together with respect to the original dates elected for that purpose. 3 4 6 7 6/20/83 Councilmember Renzel asked whether there were any alternative dates when the entire Council might be present because she would not be available. on -June 30. City Manager Bill ZO.ner sal.d it was diffi-cult for staff to keep up with Councilmembers' calendars. His 1 i st was different than what ere was now hearing, and the only other date was July 11. AMENDMENT: Councilmamber Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that the cable agreement be extended to July Councilmember Eyerly caeified that July 11 was a regularly sched- uled Council meeting, and asked whether the Council's agenda on June 27 was too heavy. Assistant City Manager June Fleming said the June 27 agenda included the budget hearings, tentative contracts usually asso- ciated with the budget, charter amendments, PG&E interconnection agreement might be ready, and a few other small items. Councilmember Eyerly believed that if the June 27 agenda were held to the budget and cable television, it could all be wrapped up. Ms. Fleming said staff did not verify that Arnold & Porter would be available on June 27. Councilmember Fletcher said she spoke with the City Clerk today a ♦ �. Jobs for 1'll .. Initiative .t a looked .d though r regarding the vvbs for Peate Initia ive and i {. looney as it would be before the Council on June. 27. From what she heard from those involved in the petition drive, they were rounding up a lot of people to speak on the item that night. RECESS FROM 9:40 Mayor Bechtel said the motion was to extctnd the RFP date to July 11, but all Counci lmernbees were available on June 2b. She asked if the maker of the motion would change the date to June 28. Councilmember Fletcher asked if the consultant was available. Mayor Bechtel responded that his assistant would be available. Councilmember Fletcher asked whether the Council should go with the assistant or wait a few days for the real thing-. Mr. Loner responded that someone from Mr. Sinel's office would-be present. Councilmember Fletcher said the item was of great importance and she did not understand rushing it for the sake of saving 12 days. Counci l member Levy asked who from Arnold &. Porter would a tten ;the Council meeting of Juc.e 3d. Mr. Laner responded that Mr. Sinel,-would be present,. Councilmember Levy recaUed -.ed that when the process. started ,.a year ago, a number of Councilmembers preferred making immediate deci- sions rather than a longer study period.. kola, _some- of the same Councilmembers were not concerned with continuing •the. time table andwere willing to postponefor a ,couple of weeks,,:,here or there. He believed that since the City was spending, a got of :`rune+ -=on consultants, it should get the person in charge to attend the meeting to .explain the RrP. Further, it wasnot absolutely criti- cal that all nine Councilmembers be .present: for any particular: item. In the ,subject case, he telleved'it was important to get to the end of the process before the -end of the year. Several Coun- cilmembers would leave at the end of the year, .a new group would take over, and it would be unfortunate if because of the slippage of a few weeks, another fCouncil made the decision. If the Counci,l V 6/20/83 stuck to the dgroed upon time table, it -would have Councilmembers. who participated in the issue for a number of years to make the decisions. Most Councilmembers would be present on 'June 30' and the Council should stick -to that timetable in order to get the important process moving and not suffering the delays that a lot of governmental processes suffered. Councilmember Klein basically agreed with Councilmember Levy, and pointed out that the history of the cable television franchising process was one detay after another, which was unfortunate.• The process lost public confidence when it dragged Tout, and pressure must be kept on the Council,, staff and the consultant to ke.p ahead. It was not critical that all nine Councilmembers attend because it was not the most crucial policy setting time in_ the process. It was an important night, but the policy was-sct and the RFP was supposed to line up with the established policies. It could trigger some policy changes or new decisions, but basically he saw the session as much more technical than the last one. He would oppose any extensions to July. Councilmember Renzel said ordinarily she would agree that all nine Councilmembers were not expected to be able to attend every regu- larly scheduled Monday night meeting, but when a special meeting on a special subject was scheduled, it behooved the Council that it be scheduled when all Councilmembers were present. Those dates were a iii,% built i iii,u i.lie calendars and were different tnan requ tar agenda items. A special Council meeting should attempt to coin- i with the calendar i all n,....,..ii_,�_� .. S r_ _ the calendars . o! Q' 1 Y Councilmembers. tl i,. 1 -.; Ii1 CiNUC1'J• She preferred i'CU Councilmember Fletcher's amendment, but would support either June 27 er 28 if it failed, AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Fletcher, Renzel, Fazzino voting 'aye." AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to affirm June 30, 1983 as the date for the special meeting on the RFP. } Councilmember Ren el urged her colleagues not to support the ,motion because t`'e 27th and 28th dates preceded the 30th and all Councilm.embirs could be present. She realized that the principal administrator of the contract would not be available, but believed there were other people in his office who worked on the RFP and could sufficiently deal with the Council's concerns. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Couhcilaember Renzel coved, seconded by Fazzino9 that the special meeting be held on dune 28, 1983. Councilmember Witherspoon'clarified that Mr. 'Sinel was not avail- able until June 30. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by it vote of 3-b_, Renzel, Fazzino, Witherspoon voting "aye." SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Coueci lraember Eyerly ,.,moved, seconded Ivy Renzel, that the special meeting`be scheduled for June 27, 1883, and if a major consequence cannot be achieved by the consultant, that the spacial meeting be scheduled for June 30, 1983, SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Eyerly,. Renzel, Fazzno, witheri.poO►n voting ",tye.-" AMENDMENT PASSED for meeting to be held on June 30, ;,1983, vote of 4 1temzel .voting 'no.' MOTION AS AMENDED 'PASSED unanimously. 3 4 6 9 6/20/83 ITtM -#y, HL ULST OF CUUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE SMOKING ORDINANCE Councilmember Fletcher said the matter of t smokey environment in the workplace and being caught in a situation where one spent 40 hours per wec: where damage.was done to the lungs and other respi- ratory- functions as demonstrated in various studies weS of prime importance for the benefit of a healthy population. In a recent study in Japan, ---women _whose husbands smoked more .than 20 ciga- rettes per day were found to have a risk of lung cancer twice that of women whose husbands did not smoke. Other studies showed severe -medical conditions that could/be from the effects of smok- ing in the workplace,_ A C;ty regulation•wae warre ted because the employee' was in an unfortunate situation where if' he complained about the working conditions to his supervisor, he might be ostra- sized or denied promotions or fear for the loss of the job itself. She had received many calls since the San Francisco ordinance was adopted expressing support for a local ordinance. She urged those people to speak before the Council but many _were reluctant to do so because they did not want their employers to know they had com- plained about the conditions at work. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance regulating smoking in the work place, in elevators in office, hotel and multi -family buildings, and section 4503, subsections (c) and (d) of the Ukiah Sizekilie Vid,ieee , eddi7i4 eee ,eci.Iee lJ) e.pliejiee 4.uu erenut rooms, rest rooms, two-thirds space of cafeterias and all common areas in tiro work Osiris., Councilmember Fletcher commented that the public overwhelmingly supported the rdinance in San Francisco, and the mail and phone calls received by Mayor Feinstein after the ordinance was enacted were 80 percent in favor. She pointed out that Palo Alto voters enacted the separate smoking sections proposition which was on the State ballot in November, and she was confident they would over- whelmingly support the ordinance. Vice Mayor Faz ino strongly supported the ordinance and applauded Councilmember Fletcher for her leadership on the issue, and believed it should be considered a health matter, He often took a strong position in the Council Chambers against government over- regulation, but believed the proposed ordinance was a reasonable method to -ensure protection for nonsmokers in the workplace. The Citymade efforts to enact the first anti -smoking ordinances back in the early seventies, despite claims made that it was an intru- sion on personal rights. It was claimed that the public world never support efforts to limit the effects of smoking on others; however, the public strongly supported such actions in the past. he recalled an attempt by the Aquarius Theeter management in 1974 to _ embarrass the City Council by projecting their names onto the screen which backfired, and the effort by citizens through.letters and complaints About noncorspl 1ance by restaurantsafter tht Adop- tion of the Restaurant No Smekine Section ordinance in 1979. Many large restaurants continuedrto ignore the law, and it was time to take the'next step to eliminate smoking in the workplace. 'Oes'pite encouragement of voluntary efforts to limit smoking in conference rooms of local employers, he had not yet seen.a "No Smoking" sign in a Palo Alto employer's conference rove. He :believed a sign requirement was adopted, although I t was i gn:9red" by employers. The evidence of the harmful ,effects of sidestream smoke was over- whelming, And Pe believed it was absolutely necessary that smoking in common rooms of employers i.e., conference rooms and cafe- terias„' be prohibited. He hoped that regardless ;:oaf his col- leagues' views on the entire workplace issue, they would consider, limiting smoking in the . common areas mentioned:- ,His employer, Hewlett Packard, wars one of the first local ,codpan,ies co adopt a no smoking policy. The policy was inadequate in' one respect because it allowed the Chair of a Meeting to determine whether smoking would be - Permitted in the conference ;woos, and it was unlikely that a jun#"or ttaployee would challenge a decision made by 3 4 7 0 6/20/83 a senior chairing the meeting and who smoked. Newlett Packard attempted to please all employees, but had pleased no one, and the City Council was the prrper body to determine issues pertaining to public health. It ,was incredible that any company concerned about rising health costs would jeopardize the health of its employees. It was insufficient to ban smoking in common areas such -as Cafete- rias and conference rooms because many_ local electronics firms had open and forfal workplace areas. There were few barriers in those areas to siOstream smoke, and he believed employers should be required to accommodate nonsmokers 1n,.those environments_because many were sensitive to the deleterious effects of spoke and wer.e powerless to.d(i'anything about it. He did not believe much effort should tie devoted to the enforcement of the ordinance, Old not want to establish a "Palo Alto R.) Smoking Police Squad,' nor did. he.sugees` that penalties be extracted from offenders. His inter- e<. was in setting high community health standards which might be comfortably followed by emp'loyers and employees. He urged Council support of the motion. Councilmember Levy referred to the Ukiah Ordinance which allowed smoking in bars. He asked Counci i r3•izmber Fletcher whether she intended that. the Palo Alto ordinance make a sim=1ar exception. Councilmember Fletcher replied the saiie exception ou i d apply, and referred to subsection (e) --of S ctio n.'--i tiis5---o - o z;_,:�_ ,_Y,.-•�; .,:rti which listed bars and tobacco stores as exceptions Counciimember Levy understood the rationale behind exempting tobacco stores, but asked for clarification about the exclusion of bars. He asked if there were a policy matter concerned. Councilmember Fletcher siad that smoking and drinking were intrin- sic to bars, but was ,open to suggestions. Councilmember Levy mentioned the San Francisco ordinance, which indicated that if a satisfactory accommodation of all affected nonsmoking employees could not,_ be reached, then an employer must prohibit smoking in the office` workplace. He -interpreted that to wean that if one nonsmoking employee opposed the attempts to work out an accommodation, the employer must ban smoking entirely. Councilmember Fletcher concurred with that interpretation, and said the right to breathe clean air superseded the -right to smoke when the health of the individuals involved was at stake. Councilmember Witherspoon,was concerned -the Council was discussing two .different.. philosophical issues on controlling 5rheking. One concerned control in the -.,,workplace, with which she sympathized.; but the other --concerned regulations on smoking in,public areas. In order to facilitate the proposed Ordinance, she suggestedthat the issues bersepar•ated. She asked for clarification' of the San Francisco ordinance that ° the penalty to the employer for. noncom- pliance was $500 per day, and asked about the penal -`.y to the employee who smoked in violation -of the ordinance. She believed the regulatory part of the ordinance was too vague. Counci lmeaber Fletcher_ cortpented. that she did not expect the Palo Alto ordinance to -read exactly like San -Francisco's in terms of the enforcement mechanism. She -- had. lengthy discussions ::with ,.Polite Chief Zurcher, City Manager Bill Zaner and City Attorney 0i.ane Lee, and it was agreed that enforceent of the,4rdinance wars within the- province of the City Manager. Mr... Ze_lrer had pa.i nted out that the_City's. building coapl fiance i nspetors ='and fire "inspectors would examine ,the best way to enforce the ordis e nanc, .5he was, not I n .favor of the harsh *500 penalty _ establ i s.hed `i n Sa`n Francisco, but:. wanted: the, Council ; to direct the-.Ci ty Attorney to draft an ordinance tailored to the- needs of Palo Alto. .Some` `di rectllon would be given ton.i ght, but the City Attorney, and the City Manager should st.' Best en enforcemen. t _mechanism. She _sug gested that' enforcement not be heavy-handed, because the ordinance 3 4 7 1 6/20/83 was intended to be self -enforced. The present smoking regulations did not significantly increase the workload of the Police -Depart- ment, and no problem was contemplated. She envisioned that "No Smoking" signs ,would be posted in various places, and that if an aggrieved party pointed out to the offender that a regulation existed in the City of Palo Alto against smoking in that place, the matter would be settled. 1 0 City Attorney Diane Lee. referred to Councilmember Witherspoon's remark concerning the San Francisco Nonsmoki ng,ordinance, and tt e fact that no penalty was extracted from an employee who infringed the ordinance. The/ San Francisco ordinance was geared towards arousing the consciousness of the employer and showing his respon- sibility'for providing a smoke free environment. She saw legal difficulties when -an attempt was made to prosecute an employee who smoked in contravention of a policy that was drafted by an employ- er, whereas the -requirements of the employers under the ordinance were fairly straightforward, Councilmember Renzel complimented Councilmember Fletcher and Vice Mayor Fazzino on: their presentations, but as a sponsor of the motion, stated that the inertia in industry and elsewhere was greet because, as things stood, nonsmokers felt intimidated, but if a regulation was adopted, nonsmokers would be apt to complain. Inert 4 wa + easiest- re+•von c-- but st belle �J � --�. :,was the_ ... J 3..J v i,.+..rvi+;+ • but ..f c i'sc I i.'crcv _-� � tir'n i- n ii important health consideration that people be allowed to breathe clear; 'air, and the .ordinance provided several methods for com- pliance. The ordinance would relieve the companies by placing the onus on the City Council due to the strong support expressed by the public. Regarding Vice Mayor Fazzino's reminder about the Counci lmembers' names being flashed on a screen, she was pleased when she- saw "NO SMOKING BY PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION" flashed on a screen which was almost always greeted by _cheers. She--anticipat,ed that the ordinance would receive a similarly dra- matic response as the earlier one. Councilmember Eyerly was not clear on.the substance of the motion. The last paragraph of the memo clearly regulated smoking in the workplace, but the memo continued: "in elevators, and in office;, hotel, and multi -family buildings." We understood that the sec-' tions regarding restrooms and indoor service lines of two or more people were stricken from the Ukiah ordinance, and asked for clar- ification. Councilmember Fletcher said the confusion arose because the word "and" was erroneously inserted after "elevators." It should read: "in elevators, in office, hotel and multi -family buildings." Fire Chief Bob Wall agreed that it would con;.;titute a good Fire Code provision to prohibit smoking in elevators because it was a fire hazard. Councilmember Eyerly believed it made sense to prohibit smoking in elevators, but asked whether smoking in all office buildings could be banned. Councilmember fletcher said she intended the ban, to apply solely to elevators in' all office, hotel, or multi -family buildings. Councilmember Cobb referred to a concern expressed by a member of the public :about the difference between civil and criminal penal- ties, and asked the City. Attorney for;_ confirmation that the San Francisco ordinance imposed civil penalties. City. Attorney Diane Lee said she would have to research the ques- tion, but the San Francisco ordinance specifically provided for civil penalties. There W s a general provision under the Palo Alto Code which stated that any violation of any ordinance was a misdemeanor, and ,she believed it ,was possible that the San Frantiso Code tirade similar provisions. Counci lmembcra Coto wheel if the motion before the ..0 Vinci 1 speci- fied which penalties pertained. Cuunciimember Fletcher said the matter should be left to the City Attorneys but believed it should be handled in. the least nea vy- handed manner possible. Ms• see tee said her recommendation would be to consider a viola- tion as an infraction. She -o.einted out that the ,City had provi- sions preventing smoking in -elevators within- buildings generally used by and open to the put .,c-, and .that most office and apartment buildings fit into'the-descriaticn. She requested that the Coun- cil consider how the Cede--m-g":t be changed in conjunction with its discussions on banning -•mold ' _-ire elevators. Robert Lewis, 347U Kenneth Drive, said in February 1975, he was determined to have a carcinoma of his vocal chords. He was admitted to Stanford Hospital where he threatened to file suit unless he obtained a nonsmokiny; room. He realized that happened a long tiute ago, but in the Radiation Therapy Croup, a neighbor of his who -smoked two packs a day, was dead before the end of the therapy. When 1►is own therapy wa3 completed, his doctor ordered him to quit smoking, but he had never smoked, and was certain that he was a victim of the smoke around him. Although the growth was remc.V fA h 1 r t nr_.. a i - - - - .,�.,,.,,.,�, :� .. �� vas iRu� �1C111iGaliCi141s UQtir=ye[1• nC 17a -b ep.tr1-Cf1iC''ly susceptible to pipe smoke, and believed his resistance to smoke was lower --all of hie male relatives having died of oral cancer • He furtner suspected that he lost his job advancement because he was a cancer patient. He believed that the effects of tobacco smoke on a long-term curve were similar to those of asbestos --the damage was done far in advance of the apparent symptoms. Doug McDonald, 3649 Ross Road, said he quit smoking seven years ago and was now allergic to tobacco smoke. Four years ago his brother, a heavy smoker, died of a heart attack, leaving four children. He was now 44, and wanted to live into old age and see his children grow up. He wished to muke the point that, in his experience, most employers were afraid to do anything to control smoking. He confirmed what some Counci lmembers had said: somebody must set the trend, and he said that the public needed the Council to enact a law. He called for support of the motion. Kermit Smith of Sunnyvale was on the Inter -city Council Committee_ that evolved the model ordinance. He was concerned with enforce- ment of the ordinance by police officers, as it\ was planned to be self -enforcing. The first version of the Sari Francisco ordinance directed the District Attorney to institute criminal proceedings, and the Chief of Police and his agents to assist in the enforce- ment Those demands were rejected, and the final version stated that an employer in violation aright be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $500 per day. He believed that less than $100 per day would be more appropriate and that the police should not become involved when an employee complained of a smoking infrac- tion because the co(apany could handle the situation. The infrac- tion method was preferred Countywide, and he reiterated that crim- inal penalties werestruck, from the -San Francisco ordinance. He submitted a certified .,copy, of the ,San Francisco ordinance, which was on file in the City Clerk's office. Regarding self- enforceability, the City , of Palo Alto could prove to be a peime instigator of such legislation and that other cities in the Penin sula. would follow its lead., F Further., bars were frequented only by persons over ,21' years, of age, constituted _ a separate place,- .and should be exempted. Civil rath'er•;..than criminal penalties should apply. gloria Wall, 291 Cr•eekside Drive, was a Board Member Hof both the Santa Clara County luAg Association and the State Board. Other people's tobacco ;ao,ke was hazardous to one's health with deleter- ious effects of sidestream smoke in both the healthy and sick. She Was ogre of the 565 million Californians suffering from lung 3 4 7 3 6/20/83 and heart disease and spent d iot of time inrorrniny the public about new findings. Smoke -sensitive people were troubled by head aches; nausea, burning eyes, nasal passages and general discom- fort. She was part of the group that worked to pass the ordinance in 197.f. to limit smoking in public ,places in Palo Alto, and. deplored the fact ,that -nothing was done to protect Workers who spent one-third of their day in an atmosphere that posed a threat: to their health and livelihood. -From the phone calls received by the Lung Association, almost a;l the complaints were ignored by' the industry or the complainer suffered retaliation by ridicule, being ignored, transferred, or fired. She pointed out that the issue was one of health, comfc;rt and well-being 'for employees, and their protection from the_ toxic effects and discumfort of indoor tobacco smoke. She urged the Council to support an ordinance to encourage smoke free air in the workplace. Sybil Anderson, 704 Chi ma i us Drive worked in Palo Alto for about .-Lo years, and except for a period in the late 1940's, in places where smoking was allowed. Her present. ,employer.. encouraged employees to smoke. by having ashtrays placeu'down the halls at intervals of about 30 feet. Her hall office was perpetually filled with tobacco smoke, and although the air conditioner was supposed to clean the air every thirty minute",, it moved smoke to' previously clean areas. She hoped a smoking ordinance would be _enacted because her upper respiratory allergies were aggravated by smoke. 17x..1 U^nt-so1 AAl Nnuzelz Aunn1►n c-�ifi h wirtnl,a4 nal+ of h+r 1.i.K... 1 %lV1 114111 L. 1, 'i -ii 1* 11/,VW f1tl11 U' JV1V 11%. nV1 I%L l VW1 Y1 $114 11011110, -- but previously worked for Singer as its patent counsel. After a heart attack, he was unable to find a smoke free working environ- ment, and even though he pleaded his case, he was fired. The problem was complex and full of emotion, and,without an ordinance, an employee was on his own. He believed that if society encour- aged his employer, the HEW guideii€ies would be adopted. Charles Savage, 1104 Hallenbeck, Sunnyvale, worked in Mountain View. He spoke as. -an employee and not as an employer, and pointed out that an employee is captive in the work place, and normally had to work in a smokey environment, whether he liked it or not. If an ordinance such as the one under consideration was passed, a company or an employer could avoid the controversy he would undoubtedly at present encounter if he had a policy to support nonsmoking areas. Such an ordinance would enable the employer to express his concern for the health and well-being of -all of his ,employees, both the smokers and the nonsmokers. Joe Lewis, Uak Creek Apartments, 1619 Willow Road and 101 Alma Street said the residents of the 0ak Creek Apartments -had prob- lems, -and he believed the proposed ordinance would Prove to be self-regulating. Smoking was banned in the elevators and lobbies at 101. Alma, and banning smoking-in the hallways was being con- sidered. He bel ieveJ that all public areas should be smoke -free, and urged that Council direct the City Attorney to extend:the pre- sent ordinance to include elevators, and other common areas" such -as lobbies and halls. Paul kaskopf, 2171 Syron Street,, Palo Alto, spoke as a Palo Alto resident, past president of the American Lung Association, severe su,fferer of asthma and allergies, and employer. He ,(hoped the testimonies received provided a good sampi i ng,' of hOw the,%residents of Palo Alto felt. As an employer, he experienced few problems regarding requests for smoke free areas. Many of his, employees smoked, and nonsmokers had air machines and _ separate areas. He had violent reactions -to smokes but --ha, no problem in conference rooms or in his'` office and had never bite complaint from smokers.,_ Since smoking . promoted -illness, employers should -support the ordi- nance,= :,,and , non -management employees needed. the:'enforcement to strengthen their rights. He urged 'Council support of the ordi trance. Homan Lewiston, M.D. , 1849 Newell, Palo Alto, li rected the Allergy Research and Teaching Program at Stanford, and ` endorsed she motion by Councilmember Fletchte. He believed the case was understated, and on behalf of about 12,000 Palo Alto residents who suffered from respiratory allergies, urged the Council tie provide smoke free areas in the workplace and in all public areas. Jerry Korb, 151 South Bernardo, #30, Sunnyvale, hoped the Council -would pass a nonsmoking ordinance. Two and one-half years ago, she discovered she had an allergy to smoke, but Lockheed, her employer for 16 years, could not provide her with a nonsmoking area. She was put on disability four -months ago, and was nappy to find that she was not an isolated case. She hoped the increased publicity would eventually yet her job back. Ed O'Dwyer, 5992 Cahalan Avenue, San Jose, spoke as president of the Envi ronmenta 1 Ilea 1 th Committee representing- citizens- in Santa Clara County. The Surgeon General advised nonsmokers to avoid breathing secondhand smoke, and initial research indicated the harmful effects of smoke on nonsmoking office workers, and employ- ees were concerned about their work environment. When the Council addressed the question of: smoking in the work. -place three years ago, it was decided that the problem could be solved by the busi- ness community-, apd little had been done to protect the health of nonsmokers in the work place -and th _ - �: • �ar�u •LI�o ^ 4 uGi-F 3 i 4r+ mnru otten given lip service or demoted. His commtttee e told three years ago that if Palo Alto required no smoking areas in restau- r=arits, they wou i d nave to close. which forecasts were false. The Council had an opportunity to provide the catalyst needed by the busi nes.3 community to protect the hea 1'eh and comfort of the work- iny community in Palo Alto. The Environmental, Health Committee supported the goals of a San Francisco type ordinance and com- mended the Council for addressing the problem. Councilmember, Levy asked Mr. O'Dwyer to comment on his latter which stated that current data might be insufficient to conclude that breathing secondhand tobacco smoke harmed nonsmokers. Mr. O'Uw,yer responded that he believed the data was Insufficient because the issue was still under study even though 30 years of researcn indicated that it harmed the smoker in spite of cla:'Cris by tobacco companies. Breathing fumes of a cigarette which harmed a smoker could not be good for the nonsmoker, and although there might be insufficient evidence to arrive at a final decision, research indicated that we should not wait thirty years to act. Alan Bel 1 , ?125 Emerson, supported 'the plan to restrict smoking, and suggested that teenagers might be discouraged from starting to smoke by the inclusion of a ban an the=:;:gale of cigarettes via vending machines. Vice Mayor Fazzino said that he 'and Councilmember Fletcher wanted to 'include Section 4503 (j), page 3 of the Ukiah ordinance to the mainmotion as follows: "the prohibition of smoking in employer-- conference rooms, rest rooms, two-thirds space of cafeterias, and alt common areas in the work `place." The last line would read: ''A4l1 employers meshpro. ride a smoke free area , to all employees who -request one 1*;,, ►,ri t- ine.' Mayor Bechtel asked for clarification that the addition included "the prohibition of smoking in employer conference rooms, rest rooms, two-thirds space of cafeterias, and all common areas in the work place," and a second sentence from the ;Ukiah crd1neince that "all eepldyers mudt _provide a. smoke free area to any employee who requests one in writing." 8 3, 4 7 5 6/20/33 City Attorney uidne Lee said blot if the Sari Francisco urd cii,rrc,'e- was used, she .was not clear aL'out hew the (j) portion of the Ukiah ordinance would ` mesh in ter=ms of adding "a 1 1 empl oyee=s must pro- vide -a smoke free working area to any employee who requested one in writing" Uecause it would obviate the. entire procedure in the San Francisco ordinance. 1 Vice Mayor •Fazzino said that was a good point and suggested the following substitute language be included in the main motion: "prohibition of smoking in employer conference rooms, rest rooms, two-thi; ds space of cafeterias and all common areas of the work place. LANGUAGE INCLUDED BY MAKER AidD SECOND OF MAIN MOTION Ms. Lee clarified that the ccnflict wasa different procedure, but the ultimate result was the same. Councilmember Cobb said not only had he never tried a cigarette, he might be the most fanatical anti -smoker on the Council. Smoke made him sick and his allergies responded sensitively to it. He supported the proposed ordinance in principle, and his fanatic opposition to smoking notwithstanding, he was concerned about the details of implementation. He asked how "work place" was defined; and w i tii regard to d smd i i work p i a ce, he asked 1 t there was a paint at which the work place was so small that an exception for size was necessitated. With regard to a large company with numer- ous facilities, if one person in one facility was unhappy.with the particular arrangements made by the company, would it mean that the entire multi -thousands of people had to change because of the one person. The ordinance should be dealt with in small modules in order to be. realistic. He asked how the enforcement would work, and suggested the penalties would be civil. He asked how convention areas and hotels would be treated.where there were a lot of people from outside Palo Alto. There were jobs there --- waiters and cooks were working in an area where it would be hard to control smoking. Recently, he left a company where his respon- sibility was to manage facilities and shuffle those things around so that smokers and nonsmokers could be accommodated.- the job could be difficult, but could be done. As one who preferred not to eat outside Palo Alto because it was so hard to find a nonsmek- ing area in a restaurant, and whereas it was a blessing to have them in Palo Al to,. the law was still imperfect. :He observed that many restaurants provided the nonsmokers 'With the worst areas of the restaurant and he was struck by Vice Mayor . Fezzi no's . sugges- j tion that.two-thirds of the- area should be nonsmoking. The size of the area should be consistent with the ne smoking ordinance i'n existence related to restaurants. :He hoped those concerns could be incorpora`eed into a good :ordinance, and his_abhorrence of smok- ing in general drove him to'want the ordinance done right. 1 Councilmember Levy said he was also struck by the inconsistency in. the two-thirds smoke free area for the cattteria, and suggested that the cafeteria and restaurant elements de brought into con- formity one . way or the ,other. he did not smokes :'never did, worked in an office where. smokiTry was.:.not permitted, if:d no one in his family smoked. He did not like . i t_; ,4nd did not : like to be .around it, but because he did not 1 ike :it ° .did not mean he should pass a law so that no one could do it. He was concerned that with the ordinances in San Francisco, Ukiah and seen to be in, Palo Alto,. there did not seem to be standards established for the need, health concerns and' what was required ,to meet the needs. He believed everyone recognized that cigarettes were bad for health, and intu}ti'vely1, believed that seconkary smoke was bad. There was more earo.ti ono l i sm involved in the i s f,ue , a. d not enough facts, and the ordinances --alight not stand up in court `unless there were facts upon which to base some standards. Currently, the standards being used. in San Francisco, if any, were very- vague. For example, bars were excluded from the ordinance,.•and he could not see any reason fov a person working or congregating in a bar to find that work area exempted from the ordindance. Councilmember Fletcher did noe yo to bars, but many, people , i1d, and they should have the came protection as the rest of society. The Sa,i Francisco and Ukiah standard was that any individual nonsmoker's desires must prevail regardless of the basis for those desires, but he believed that was too vague to be good legislation. He suggested that the Coun- cil wait until the ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney before,becoming too specific i.e. the two -third cafeteria element, anie that she should be- given the .leeway to make the 'ordinance con- sistent with other ordinances on which' it might impinge. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy raoved that staff be requested to contact the National institute of Health and other medical re- search institutes for the latest studies and corclusluns regarding the effects of secondary smokini. Councilmember Levy said as the Council moved ahead, he would feel more comfortable with the conclusions of as many studies as pos- sible on which to base decisions. AMENDMENT FAILED for lack of a second. Councilmember Witherspoon said she was more concerned about the work place in the context of what Counci-lmember Levy said because it was more an involuntary captive situation there as. opposed to in a bar or in a restaurant where one could opt not to go. --In the three, years since the last ordinance was passed, she observed that a great preponderance of the peblic were now nonsmokers whereas it was probably the other way around three years ago. The Council was deciding who had the.basic right --the smoker or nonsmoker --but assumed it was the smoker with the rights. She believed it made more sense to prohibit smoking in the work place, and that an employer would provide a place for smoking for those who aesireti to do so. The problem with that was that all the employers would be in the Council Chambers in 90 days screaming. She was confi- dent that any ordinance drafted by the City Attorneay,would be a yood and workmanlike way to get airound some of the:problems men- tioned, that the moral obligation would probably be the best enforcement, and that the City probably would not be embarrassed by an employee who insisted on smoking regardless of whether triere was an ordinance. She supported direction to the City Attorney to draft the -ordinance, and was not concerned about prohibitingesmok- ing in elevators of any kind--publi.: or private --because of the safety factors involved. However, eshe was nervous when the `.City got involved with private condominiums and the common areas in private buildings and telling them where they could and could not smoke because -that was something the owners of such a building should decide for themselves, .She reiter=ated that who had the basic right had to be determined --those who smoked or those who did not. The Council appeared to be concerned because the__non smoking employee was afraid to speak -'up ande request the empl:`oyer or fellow employee to stop -smoking, but under the ordinance, the employee would-be required to be braver- and stronger 'to tri'gyer the ordinance by i nsi s'i ng that asmoke free environment be -pro-. vided. She Ysuggest,ed that.- reversal of the' -process should have been.,stodied to let the smoker request a ,place to 'go to smoke. Councilmember ,-Eyerly said he was a nonsiioker, paid asthmatic prob- lems, and a sensitive nose... Tie had no doubt _about the health impecti of eemoking, but the issuee was.,, the level of government regulation that the Council wanted. for the..City of -Palo Altos He supported the on gi-na 1.. sr ok i ng ordinance which was well received by: -smokers' and nonsMokers, but had problems `with individuals hav- i ng jto turn to.-governaent to solve their probl esi , M.r. Lem s -coe- _.mented that the condoei ni um board where he also i i red enacted a =rule prohibiting smoking in the common areas of the tabbies --1t was previously only elevators --and no problems --had occurred. 12 0 3,4 1, 6/2O/83 1 1 1 nu i ne -ries he erevi orts ly owned encountered prob 1 ems before smo'. i rig ordinances existed in terms of wher, people -could smoke, but were not hard to solve. A person should look to ,the employers, labor unions-, -or themselves for ,smoking regulations, and he would not support any auditions to the present smoking ordinance because, it created overregulation in his opinion. Couneilmember Fletcher said no one waf denying the opportunities for employees to smoke --it was where if the ordinance passed, a person could .not smoke in the vicinity of someone sensitive to smoke or who objected, but could request another work station or smoke outside during breaks. The employers and labor uniois had not taken action in that regard even though swine comments, letters and phone calls indicated that a problem existed.. She did not believe it would create a terrible situation in the work place for an employee to point . out the existence of an ordinance. pro- viding him the right to a smoke free area.` Most people had the ability to work things out among themselves,-_ and -those_ situations where conflicts arose to the point of a pr=oblem would be rare. She asked that staff be directed to bring the. ordinance back when the full Council was present, and that the City Mariagr;r look into an enforcement mechanism. She had a problem w -4th -the infraction situation because when she spoke to Chief Lurcher abut it, she understood that it would be a low priority for the Police Depart- eieet_ � ._ , 1_er sus eI,IM ss sc c,n -� cmc it "ccmp!atnt - �.d t:lo tNe _ _ - - 3 - - � — _ _ �.. � ... � .. . • . `f c,. 4i .::'i � �.i i I I V , 4 1 1 V Y ! i V V {. 1 1 �. Department would have to be invited onto private property in order to investigate, and asked for correction and/or clarification. Ms. Lee said the difference in the various types of criminal pen- alties, from felony down to misdemeanor and infraction felonies which could not be proscribed in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, were the amount of penalties and whether a jury trial was in- volved. The City had Code enforcement personnel who cited for infractions. Regarding enforcement in keeping with what she heard from the Council, the infraction was the most efficient and expeditious method of . eeecing the ordinances and the lea3t heavy-handed because no jury trial was required whereas in civil penalties, a defendant could ask'_for a jury trial. The civil calendar was -so backlogged in municipal court, she did not want to think about how long it would take to get to trial whereas crimi- nal cases had to be brought to trial, within so many days from arraignment. Further, infractions were much less expensive to enforce with graduated penalties for violations, She pointed out that condominiums were treated as single family residences in Palo Alto. -With regard to the "work place" issue, she requested that the direction to he.r be .to generally address the issue of prohib- iting smoking. in the work place in the most legally enforceable mdrne_r. She sensed the Council's desires and pointed out than any ora ance she presented coup be amended. Vice Mayor° Fazzino said he Hbelleved Ms. Lee was .clear about the Council's intent, and said there were specific areas in the work- place where Council wanted smoking completely prohibited and other areas that involved a\.combination. Counciimeriber Klein said it was interesting that none, of. -the City Counci imembers smoked. - Ile commended Councilmember Fletcher, Vice Mayor Faz<r.ino and Craunci lmember Renzzl ..fnr bringing the matter. before the Cvunci i be-cal/se he believed it was a useful and timely ordinance. At first he was "concerned about enforceability, but. concluded that the ordinance was an example not so much of en- forcement:' or the establ i shment of a ."smoke police," Out. rather -an example of governmant leading by moral persuasion and encou`ragi ng others to state their' right to smoke freeair in , which to #_4a.tne:, He believed society was moving -in that direction and the proposed ordinance would help move it further. He `Aioubted whether =-the. } ordinance would have been possible 10 or 15 -years ago b cause a significant majority of the people had to be behind th,e idea, °and. through a combination of things, a majority of Palo Altans 3 4 7 8 6/20/83 realized that smoke was bad and were ready to take a step further to require that smokers be isclated in order to not impinge on those who disliked smoke. He was not.erorried that the Council was unduly interfering with employer/employee interrelationships and believed these relationships would be helped because as pointed out by Mr. Hoskoph., the employers would be helped because there would be less time lost due to illness. He would support the motion. Counci lmer+fiber. Levy was concerned that the ordinances before the Council being used as guides were vague and that there were no standards by Which to designate areas for smoking or nonsmoking and omitting others. Any individual- employee could demand that large areas be off limits to. smokers including an area to which nonsmokers might need acctis,s, and provided substantial power in that regard based on no objective ' crrteri on. He opined that the failure of the Council to request the presentation of the latest research information on the subject was irresponsible, and he could not believe that a Palo. Alto City Council was going to go ahead and set standards based solely on anecdote and' personal bias without reviewing the facts. of the matter. He believed that some intelligent, carefully thought out action would be worthwhile in the area. -Movile nia�-iiriai d1f.!- I- - _ -: _._ ..�� c►� iiei iiecision to support the motion was based solely on personal bias or anecdote. She did not believe City. staff should be require; to write to the National Institute of Health for the latest statistics. She believed she read ample scientific articles on the subject including articles of the popular news media, and was convinced that secondary smoke affected the health of nonsmokers, and that there was validity in supporting the motion and directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance. She believed the ordinance was purposely vague as to exact criteria because the force of the' ordinance was not the code com.,el i ancer-- i t was the moral persuasion to give strength to the nonsmokers to speak up for their rights, and for the -Council to feel comfortable to say the same thing to those smoking in elevators or in movie theatres. She supported the ordinance and encouraged the City Attorney staff to come back as quickly as possible with a draft. Ms. Lee assured Council. that her ordinance would not be vague otherwise she would not come back with one. MOTION IMITATED: TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDI- NANCE REGULATING SMOKING IN THE WORK PLACE AND TO INCLUDE THOSE PORTIONS RELATING TO ELEVATMRS, OFFICES, MOTELS AND MULTI -FAMILY BUILDINGS AND SUISECTIONS (C) ANi" (D) OF THE UKIAH ORDINANCE AND THE NEW -SUBSECt ION (J) MOTION PASSED by a vote of 1-1-1, Eyerly voting "no," Levy "abstaining." I T..�i.l:�i .KE 5rT OF MAYOR BECHTEL RE LEGISLATIVE ISSUES Mayor Oechtel said the . Council needed to follow those legislative items of concern to - the City- of Pale' Alto. Some items were tracked well by the League of California Cities and the; Natinnal League of Cities, but there were others on which those urganiza =, tions oiyht' not., -have positions- that need:'.`,to be trac!:ed. MOTION: Mayor .Nechtel ■oied, seconded by?Faazlae, twat the City Manager be'dir"ected to devise a Plaa to track legislation aad;:that he report back to the.-Coµatil within a month* Counciiweaber Eyerly asked Mr. Zaner what he could do on .the matter. Mr. Zanet said the current, system could- be tightened_- with better eoordi nation. A forma 1, Aillithanjsm involving" the Council on all 3 4 7 9 6120 /83 1 1 issues was riot in place, which could be studied. Staff did riot presently make use of all its resources for tracking legislation, and there was legislation in the utility and conservation fields of importance to the City that were not tracked as carefully as possible. Counci imember Eyerly asked if the City could tap into the County Board of Supervisors as to what their legislative counsel was reviewing. 1 1 -73 Mr. Zaner .Said those resources were not now used, but could be. Mayor Bechtel suggested that there were other cities. in Santa Clara County with staff members assigned to follow legislation, and she believed Pelo Alto could do a better job of coordinating those cities. Une reason would be to find out the appropriate dates by which to comment because timing was so crucial in legis- lation. Councilmember Cobb supported the motion, but urged that care be taken not to create an -open-ended monster for the City Manager, and he hoped that some criterion could be provided as to what the City woAld track. Those measures had significant fiscal or opera- tional impacts on the cities, and particularly Palo Alto, and ao atI l ty to du decision -making locally. POTION PASSED unawimoucly._ ITEM #11 REl2UEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE STATE BUDGET Councilmember Fletcher said she intended to bring the matter up last week, but reconsidered when the hour:got so late. It hap- penea that the Governor did not sign the budget :on the .date he was constitutionally supposed to, and she was urged by the Local Gov- ernment Commission, who pointed out that there was still time to act, to bring the matter up again. The issue was a $140,000 bud- get for the fiscal year to fund the activities of the Local Gov- ernment Commission on Conservation and Renewable Resources and the staff at Sacramento. She was a member of that commission and pointed out that it tracked and influenced legislation: concerning energy, conservation and building standards, and a number of things related to energy conservation and the promotion of solar energy. The City of Palo Alto benefited from actions of the Local Government Commission and rceived,technical assistance and publi- cations of.studies in the area of conservation. She reminded the,. Council Oat. it voted in favor of a- $400,000 bike path within few feet of an .existing` bike lane from state funds, which would have benefited only Palo Alto, but the $140,000 would benefit the entire State. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moveds seconded by Bechtel,, that the Mayor be directed to send a mailgram to the Governor asking that he retain Rha budget item for the`Local Government Commission his _recommended bythelegislature. Counci lmember. Eyerly had no ,probl em with the Local Government Com- mission, its objectives or . what it did for Pero Alto, but believed a budget must be looked at in its entirety. Last year, there were more expenses .;.than revenues whi ch ra,i l ed over into the next bud- get, and if some balance Ala not occur, the State would be faced with a sales tax increase. An action like the one proposed was somewhat irresponsible in that the entire budget was not surveyed and debatedto set priorities. -The Council could pick out an item that appeared important, but was not 1n- a position to weigh it against others.' 'He would "abstain" from voting; but} did not believe the Coukci l should ::support those„ types of actions. MOTION PASSED by a vote -of 7-1-1, Witherspoon voting en Eyeriy 'abstaining .# 3 4'8 0 6/20/83 1ILM #1 HL UEST OF COUNCI I MEMt3ER LEVY RE CA3LE TELEVISION to S 1 KEG S RAn S ...�..� Councilmember Levy said that on 'tune 13, 1903, the Council re- ceived the latest statement of cable television lobbyist regis- trants and he realized that the City's ordinance did not -require that the companies for whom those registrants lobbied be shown so, the list was one of names-, positions and addresses, but not com- panies paying the bill for the lobbyist. MOTION: CouncilmemberLevy moved that the City Attorney prepare an amendment to the Cab1Q Television Lobbyist Ordinance to require that the names of the companies be shown. City Attorney Diane Lee believed the matter must wait until next week unless there was a reason for urgent necessity She believed the code required that when giving -staff an assignment of that nature, that the matter appear on the agenda and that people be given the opportunity to respond. Councilmember Levy said the, urgency involved the fact thet the City was in the middle of :the cable television consideration --a process that would only last for a few more months, and that tke .normal process might make some of the effects of the lobbyist ter dirn'rrcr Mayor Bechtel said she had a problem with rnncidarinn the natter J an emergency because in looking at the list, the vast majority had. the'same address which gave a good idea that they all worked for the same company. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. ITEM f13, REQUEST OF CUUNCILMEMBER LEVY RE DAMAGES DUE TO RECENT Councilmember Levy said that on June .9, 1983, the City Manager sent a lengthy memo to the Council which listed the extensive actions of City staff in combatting the damages due to the recent winter storms during the period January 21 through the end of March. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved that the City C1 erk be di r -acted to prepare a resolution of commendation to City - staff regarding their extensive actions in combatting the effects of the recent Winter storms. -Mayor Bechtel said she -already sent a letter to City staff thank- ing them for their work in helping with the storms. Councilmember Levy said he brought the matter up because the memo spelled out the several thousands of nonmanagement staff time cal- culated after all was said and done. He believed it was importar:t to make sure that proper recognition was given to the tremendous amount of work involved. MOTION FAILED FOR LICK OF A SECOND ITEM •14, REQUEST _ OF CDUNCILMEMBER REIIZEL RE SOLID WASTE �", • �- ` R 111 rw 1 ri V ti Councilmember Renzel reminded the Council that on June 29, 1983, there would be an all day meeting` of the Solid -Waste Management Authority. The meeting was crucial and was a time to get :informed. and be brought up to date on whim the SWMA was doing to work toward 4 solutionfor the solid waste in five communities plus,.the unincorporated county. The issues` were heated --Palo, A1lo was the second largest producer = of garbage within the Solid Waste Manage- ment Aathority~, and Palo Alto's landfill was runaing out of space and alternatives would be needed.;- Palo Alto's strong support would be required to help find a solution within -its own jurisaic- tion-arid she-uryed all Counciimembers to attend because decisions points would be reached soon and the Council should• be aware of what was happening end why. Mayor Uechtel said she planned to attend the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:40 p.m. ATTLST: i APPROVED: