Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-22 City Council Summary Minutes1 ITEM Approval of Minutes January 18, 1982 January 25, 1982 CITY COUNCIL Minutes CITYCe DAIO ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, February 22, 1982 PAGE 1 6 9 6 1 6 9 6 1 6 9 6 February 1,, 1982 1 6 9 6 Resolution of Appreciation for Adiai E. Stevenson 1 6.9 7 House Consent Calendar 1 6 9-7 Action 1 6 9 7 Resolution re Housing Improvement Program and 1 6 9 7 Non -Profit Facility Program Income Guidelines Revised 1982-83 Community Development Block 1 6 9 7 Grant Program Ordinance re Transfer of Authority for Banner 1 6 9 8 Permits to inspectional Services (First Reading) Ordinance re Council Salaries (First Reading) 1 6 9 8_ 0rdinar.-ce re Vacancies on Boards and Commissions (Second Reading) Planning Commission and ARB Recommend Approval of Hawley & Peterson Application for Site and Design Review Final Subdivision Map - 431-441 College Avenue (Continued from 2)0/82) PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation to,.Approve Appeal of Mr, and Mrs. Kenneth Allen and Findings to _Support a Variance PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve City of -Palo Alto Application for a Zone Change for Parcel Nos. APN-120-16-30 and APN-120-16-31 1 6 9 8 1 6 9 8 1 6 9 8 1 6 9 9 1 7 0 3 PUBL1C HARING: Planning Commission Recommendation 1 7 0.5 to Approve Application. of Gary- Meeker for an Exception to Property at 4050 El Camino Real Ordinance Re Resale Controls for Units Financed 1 :7 0 7 with Mortgage Revenue Bonds :(First Reading) Developer Agreements for Mortgage Revkk,nue Bond ,Program i 7 1 2 ITEM PAGE Ural Communications Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Dredging Time Extension Request of Councilmember Fletcher re Wearing of Stereo Headsets by Bicyclists Request of Councilmember Cobb re Biographical Information Form for Appointed Boards and Commissions Request of Councilmember Renzel re Protection of Palo Alto's Ground Water Quality Cancellation of March 1, 1982 City Council Meeting Council Adjourned to Executive Session Adjournment 1 7 1 2 1 7 1 3 1 7 1 5 1 7 1 6 1 7 1 6 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 8 1 ,6 9 5 2/22/82 Regular Meeting Monday, February 22, 1982 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City :a11, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Witherspoon, leenzel Mayor Eyerly announced the need for an Executive Session regarding litigation to be held during the Council recess. MINUTES OF JANUARY 18 1982 Counc i l member Fletcher had the following correction Pa.ye 1603, fifth paragraph from the bottom, second to last line; "come out in the black," should read "come out in the red." MOTION: Councilrnember_Cobb moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Minutes of January 18, 1982 as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MINUTES OF JANUARY 25 1982 Councilrnember Klein had the following correction: Page 1639, sixth line from the bottom, delete the words, "some type of an emergency." MOTION: Councilrneniber Klein moved, seconded Witherspoon, approval of the Minutes of January 25, 1982 as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1 1982 �rrn.urorn esr..n�rrrrr�.ry.aa �ap.�s^sn�eaRr®7� Councilmember Fletcher had the following corrections: Pace 1663, fourth paragraph from the bottom, first sentence, the quote should read, . "The types of development occurring are pre-, dominantly yeneral business office/financial services which have occupant intensity and day time duration characteristics more severe than usually associated with retail areas." Paye 1669, fourth paragraph, last line, "good service" should read "good transit service" MOTION: Counci lniember Fazzino moved, seconded by Renzel, approval of the Minutes of. February 1, 1982 as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Vice Mayor Bechtel commended City Clerk Ann Tanner and the,: staff person doing the work . for providing the Council with such. up-to-date Minutes. She said that as of this meeting they - were only one meeting behind on the Minutes and she thought that was marvelous. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ADLAI E. STEVENSON HOUSE MOTION Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the resolution of appreciation. RESOLUTION 6000 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING ITS APPRECIATION TO ADLAI E. STEVENSON HOUSE FOR THEIR FOURTEEN YEARS OF SERVICE TO SENIOR C[TIZENS IN THE COMMUNITY MOTION PASSED unanimously. Mayor Eyerly presented the resolution Carr. appreciation to. Ray Mr. Carr expressed his thanks on behalf of the residents, of Stevenson House and the Board. He said that they were starting a fund raising campaign to build a fund to supplement the costs for some people who could not afford it. Stevenson House could not get any more Section 8 or Housing subsidies, and they were trying to build a fund in order to use the interest to help those people and to do some more rehabilitation work. He said that the residents had given them a check for $1,600. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Klein- advised that he would not participate on Item 9, Approval of Hawley & Peterson's_ application, because Hawley and Peterson were clients of his firm. Vice Mayor Bechtel removed Items 5 and 7 relating to the Mortgage Revenue Bond Proyram. Councilmember Levy asked to be recorded as voting "no" on Item 5, Council Salaries. Councilmember Renzel asked to be recorded as "abstaining" on item 5, Council Salaries. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Consent Calendar as amended. HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND NON-PROFIT FACILITY PROGRAM 1�4: Staff recommends that Council adopt the new income figures for both the Housing Improvement Program and Non -Profit Facility Rehabilitation Program for establishing income limits for eligibility to participate in the programs. RESOLUTION 6001 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ESTABLISHING INCOME FOR RECIPI- ENTS OF LOANS UNDER THE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND THE NON-PROFIT FACILITY REHABILITATION PROGRAM" REVISED 1982-83 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to include the changes reflected in CMR 149:2 Lo the 1982-83 CDBG program to be submitted to kUD. TRANSFER Of AUTHORITY FOR BANNER PERMITS FROM SUPPORT SERVICES 10E —Pt l IllTJEPAR;MtN1 (CMR :146:2 ) Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. - ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTIONS 9.48.010 AND 16-.20-.110 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO TRANSFER AUTHORITY FOR ISSUANCE OF BANNER PERMITS FROM CHIEF OF POLICE TO THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL" ORDINANCE RE COUNCIL SALARIES ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 2.04.395 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH COUNCILMEMBERS SALARIES AT $400 PER MONTH FOR ALL COUNCILMEMBERS" 1 ORDINANCE RE AMENDMENT TO CODE RE VACANCIES ON BOARDS COMMISSIONS AND ORDINANCE 3333 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF _PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 2.18, CHAPTER 2,20, CHAPTER 2.22, CHAPTER _16.48 AND CHAPTER 16.49 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR AN EXTENDED FILING PERIOD IN _ ILLING VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR FILLING VACANCIES ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (1st Reading -2/1/82, Passed 8-0, Renzel absent) PLANNING COMMISSION BY A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR, 1 ABSTENTION, AND L U MOTION PASSED unanimously with Levy voting "no," and Renzel "abstaining" on Item 5, Council salaries, Klein "not participating" on Item 9, Application of Hawley & Peterson. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill Zaner announced that Items 6 and 7, regarding Mortgage Revenue Bonds, would become Items 13-A and 13-B, respectively. FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP - 431-441 COLLEGE AVENUE CONTINUED. FROM €1: I S : Staff recommends approval of the final map. MOTION: Counci lmeinber Klein roved, seconded by Fazzino, approval of the final subdivision map. Counciimember.. Fazzino said he understood that the subject parcel which was located in Evergreen Park was officially being called College Terraces. Mayor Eyerly . asked if the subdivision map called the parcel` College Terrace. Chief Planning Official Bruce: Freeland said that the name of the proposed subdivision was purely the developer's option and of no 1 6 9 8 2/22/82 official consequence. Councilrnember Fazzino commented that the name College Terraces was an incorrect characterization. He strongly encouraged staff to make his comments and concerns known to the developer. MOTION PASSED unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS 0 H t1CblJiUi`d V' if1C LUr�1NU HUP91rM1�!KNrUK I—fW E9b% LJ r11YtJ1T1i rU IriMirMATIAME To- mlin A SECUND ST0RY'AiDDI iJN rOT PitOPERTf L A a H t t Chief .P -fanning Official Bruce Freeland commented that the appli- cation was for a variance which was originally denied by the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council reverse that derision and grant the variance. He said that staff had reviewed the case, and it was their opinion that the Zoning Administrator had made the correct deci- sion. He said it was a house with a somewhat unique circumstance in the flag lot configuration of the property. It was a large piece of property, and in staff's opinion, the key issue had to do with the second required variance finding about hardships. He said it was a case where it was quite clear that an addition could be built to the house, and the issue would be which addi- tion of the potential alternatives that could be designed should be approved. He said that the applicants had designed a handsome second floor addition in the proposed concept, and staff did not dispute that. Staff was concerned that there could have been other second float additions or ground floor additions which could have been designed for the property which would have fully conformed to the zoning. He said the issue on which staff would like the Council to focus had to do with whether preference for a particular design or expression or convenience of the owners could rise to the level of hardship. Staff could not find that hardship in this case. Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown-Hawkes said that the Planning Commission was able to make the second finding. She concurred with Mr. Freeland's comments that basically the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission were in agreement on the existence of exceptional and extraordinary -circumstances on the property and the fact that granting the variance would not be detrimental to any surrounding properties. She pointed out that the exceptional, circumstance was the existence of a flag lot driveway which pushed the property line for the Allen's property within three feet of their house . rather than 15 feet away as it would have been before the flag lot. She said the Commission felt that granting the variance would be appropriate to avoid unnecessary hardship because even though it w.as a large piece of property, there were several large well -established trees to the rear of the property which significantly impacted the ability to construct.a ground level expansion of the main residence, and the issue of the second story addition was such that the second story addition would have to be built not directly above the first. floor main bearing wall. The Commission felt that the require- ment that.. something be built no.t above the first floor load bearing wall would be an unnecessary hardship. She said that the _problem the Planning Commission struggled with on _ the variance requirements related to whether one could .properly consider the improvements, that is, the characteristics of the house as a part of the analysis to make the findings. She pointed out_that the Planning Commission had, in its meeting of last week,- made a recommendation that the Zoning Ordinance- be modified with respect 1 6 9 9 2/22/82 to the definition of "property," which came into play in the variance findings so that the improvements on property, as well 'as the physicial characteristics of the real property, could be` considered in making the findings. She said the Commission believed that a variance would be appropriate in that situation. Vice Mayor Bechtel asked what the area of the second_ floor addi- tion would -be if it were to meet the setback and daylight plane requirements. Mr. Freeland responded that the applicant had presented a drawing to the Planning Commission which showed what a second floor addi- tion, which conformed, to the zoning, would be like,- and deferred to the applicants who would make a presentation. Councilfnefnber Cobb asked that the applicant speak to the -'uestion of the cost trade offs between building over a load bearine wall as opposed to not being able to build over the load bearing wall, -Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open. Susan Ailen, 3784 Grove, the applicant said that there was 32 feet between their house and the next building, and in between was the flay lot _driveway. She said that there •was plenty Of room for daylight and fire trucks or for the other reasons that the daylight plane was enacted. She showed a slide of a home close to hers which was the most similar, but pointed out that the difference was that the driveway was an easement rather than the rear lot owning the driveway, which reflected special circum- stances in her opinion. She urged the Council to approve the Planning Commission recommendation. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing closed. Cooncilmernber Fletcher said that when considering an application such as this, the prime importance to her was whether granting the variance was detrimental to Palo Alto or to the neighborhood or even to the immediate neighbors. She realized that that was not one of the legal findings, but the judgment still had to be made on whether it was of benefit. In this case, she felt that it overwhelmingly was. She said the Planning Commission was able to make the findings. MOTION: Councilfaember Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Allen from the decision of the 7onine Administrator with findings: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (2) The granting of the application is necessary for the , preservation and enjoyment of a -substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss: or unnecessary hardship, (3) The granting of the application will, not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Councilmember Fletcher thought the situation was unusual in that the property line was " moved on paper, but in essence it was not. She pointed out that it was a technicality rather than a physi- eal change which took place, and that the ,driveway acted as a buffer and met the intent of the zoning ordinance without meeting the actual specifics 1. 700 2/22/82 1 Councilmeinber Witherspoon thought that the application was another , exampl a .why the Council needed to consider redesigning the required findings for situations like it. She thought that the Council and the Planning Commission expressed that the pre- sent requirements created a straitjacket for the City. She thought that as long as the requirements existed, the Zoning Administrator, Planning` Commission and the City Council must uphold -them. She symphathized`with the fact that the variance would .benefit the neighborhood; but since she had to -sit on the quasi-judicial proceeding and make findings, and since she could not make all three of the findings, she felt required to vote against the motion. She:urged that the Council ascertain exactly what they were trying to accomplish in the daylight plane and to provide some.legal loopholes in the findings process with which they could address the extraordinary situations. Councilmember Fenzel ageed with Councilmember Witherspoon that the Council had findings: that they -..had to cake. She thought staff and the applicant had demonstrated that it was possible to make the addition without invading the daylight plane. She come mented that the lot was 11,392 square feet with a second unit on it, and while it cor!tributed to Palo Alto's housing supply, it was available to the homeowner. She pointed out that the subdi- vision that created the lot lines took place over 20 years ago, and presumably the applicant was aware of the lot line when they purchased the house. She said they did not have to go into their rear yard and could still go up. She felt that while the height parameter was called the "daylight plane" it was intended to con- trol the mass and the scale of buildings, to provide fire protec- tion and a variety of other factors as well as to control the daylight. She could not make the findings because of the extraordinary size of the lot a;id the other options available . to the landowner. Counci lmeinber Levy said he was inclined to grant the variance, and thought that a hardship would be imposed if the variance were not granted. One alternative was to ask the owners to do away. with the dwelling unit on their property, and he thought the dwelling unit served a favorable purpose which was consonant with what the Council was trying to accomplish in Palo; Alto, and to destroy it would be a hardship not only to the property owner, but to the community. .,.Another alternative was to ask the prop- erty owner to destroy several trees including two large fig trees, which he thought was contrary to what the City Council was trying to accomplish. The third alternative was to build on the second _story in a way which would not be as aesthetically satis- factory as the one planned and which would be a disservice to the neighborhood. He pointed out that another hardship was the, con- figuration of the flay lot driveway and the fact that they were only three feet from the lot line. The driveway there could only serve as a driveway, and nothing could ,be built upon it whether it took the form of being part of the flag lot itself or an ease- ment to the flag lot. He thought the purpose of the daylight plane was so that houses were not side by side with each other. intruding on the living space of_- adjacent houses. He felt that this -house, because of the driveway next to it, did not intrude on the living ,space of the neighbor. He felt that in terms of the .mass and; scale, if the Council did not allow the applicants to go up', but rather insisted thaw they go _.,out because of the. nature of the, sot, they would have to build an unusually shaped ground floor addition which would, be less favorable in terms of both mass and scale than allowing the intrusion -requested on the second floor. He thought that _ in this particular case allowing the variance was best for the community as:' a whole. 1 Vice Mayor Bechtel said she read the same set of extensive minutes and the extensive staff report, and she visited the prop- erty from the front. She said that in 1978 a different Zoning Administrator looked at the same set of plans and denied the same application. The applicants resubmitted an almost identical application, and the new Zoning Administrator again denied the application. She concurred with the Zoning Administrator --it was a large piece o1 property and a fairly large addition. - To restrict them and not approve the variance would allow them, instead of a 1,023 square foot -second floor addition, an appruxi niately 900 square foot addition. She thought it was a large addition --a 12 x 19 foot master bedroom and several 12 x 12 rooms and eliminating 128 square feet would not take -away a substantial property right. She would not support the motion. Ccuncilmember Fazzino felt the situation was a classic one where City laws were sometimes completely divorced from reality. He was upset that the Zoning Administrator denied the application, and felt that the Council would start to see a lot .of similar cases. unless the overall problem was dealt with. , He said he had always judged --variances on the basis of neighborhood support, the issue of enjoyment of property rights, and how a variance would fit into the entire site. He thought it was clear that a vari- ance was necessary to preserve the second dwelling, the open nature of the site, and the trees. He would support the motion. Councilmember Klein did not like to see the Council having to grant variances and he hoped a procedure could he developed whereby it would not be necessary for tie Council to hear too many variance proposals. He had agonized over this variance, and would vote in favor of it. As he read the minutes, he felt that Finding #1 was conceded by the Loningg Administrator. To him, the key was Finding #2, "Would denial of the request for variance result in an unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship." He thought it would and the best evidence given of that _fact was the designs presented. He felt that the designs,, which would give the applicants the equivalent amount of ,pace were substantially less desirable than the one the applicant was requesting. He thought denying the variance would also create a hardship to the City because everyone had a stake in producing housing which was as attractive as possible, and he thought that could be best accomplished by granting the variance as requested. Mayor Eyerly said he had heard: that the Planning Commission was ready to make a suer recommendation concerning the daylight plane. He said his decision would rest uporyswhate decision the Planning _Commission made, and deferred to --staff for -comment. Chief, Planning Official Bruce Freeland responded that there were two different proposals from the Planning Commission dealing, with the issue of variances for R-1 districts. The first was -that where- the 'daylight plane no* starts at 10 feet in the air, it would start at 12 feet in the ;air ---:the additional two .feet Cor- responded to :the variety of existing . configurations of houses which had had second floor addit.ions.put on recently. He:said re the additional -two feet would not help the particular variance which was for a six foot intrusion ninto the daylight plane The second provision would be. a.::definitional change-;.of the word "property" in the findings ,"to include land, improvements, and incidental improvenients - Hof al 1,: --sorts on the property, which would Rake it much easier to find exceptional circumstances -in the future. Ae .said that even with the -change' iri definitions, staff still ._questioned this particuiar aiplication. 1 7 0_.2 2/22/82 Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown-Hawkes said third recommendation related to building a second floor above the first floor even if it was in the sideyard which was somewhat related to the problem. that the addition setback, Mr. Freeland said that was correct, but since it would still be constrained by the daylight plane, it would not solve the problem in that particular case. Mayor Eyerly commented that when the flag lot was created, it had to have a driveway for access, which changed the property line for that piece of property. He said that when the City granted the flag lot, it divided a piece of property; and in return, the driveway was created which created a new property line. The request for variance asked that the old property line be con- sidered in order to accomplish what they were asking. He felt that according to'what Mr. Freeland had said, the proposed recom- mendations regarding the changes in the daylight plane still would not accomplish what the applicant- desired. He would vote against the motion. Councilmember Renzei thought it was important for the Council to remember whenever it considered a variance on a lot which was 11,392 square feet, it was not necessarily the only variance which would ever be requested nor the only addition ever made. She felt that within a given lot, the parameters were set for what could be built, and when the Council allowed a variance into a portion of the lot without restricting a comparable portion 'somewhere else, they were allowing more development on a given lot than what would otherwise be, allowed under the zoning ordi- nance. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-4 as follows AYES: Fazzino, Fletcher, Cobb, Klein, Levy NOES: Renzel, Bechtel, Eyerly, Witherspoon PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION, BY A VOTE OF 4 IN FAVOR, 2 STEHTIO li G Lill Zoning Administrator Robert Brown said that the -rezoning action would complete _the property transfer between the City -of Palo Alto and Northern .Cal ifor nia Savings which wzs initiated in -June, 1981. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open. Receiving. no requests from the public to speak, Mayor Eyerly declared the pub- lic hearing closed. MOTION,: Counci.lrnember Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon, ;to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation with findings, and introduced the following ordinance for first reading: ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ° PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) . TO CHANGE THE , CLASS I F I CAT ION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS PARCEL A (PARKING LOT ; E) FROM PF TO CC(P) AND: PARCEL 6 (630-636 GILMAN) FROM CC TO PF" 1 1 1 Counci liner ber Renzel asked if there was anything which prevented Northern ` California Savings. (NCS) fror!ae developing the property into commercial, or if there were any plans to develop the prop- erty adjacent to,Northern California Savings on Bryant Street. Mr. Freeland said there was nothing to prohibit development of the property, and staff was not aware pf any plans. Staff felt that Northern California Savings wanted the parkiny for their customers, but ay making` a-- larger contiguous area also in the CC zone, they had a developable piece of property if they wished. Councilmember Renzel said that some years ago a height variance was granted for the Northern California Savings building, and in conjunction with that, a restriction was placed on the lot at the corner of Gilman and Hamilton. The addition was never added, and she wondered if the restriction was ever placed into effect. Mre Brown responded that ttivt ees correct. If a- variance was not activated within one year by construction, both the variance and any unposed conditions became null and void. Counciimeniber Renzel asked if the property could retain a zoning such as PF and the parking continue to be a legal use within the zone, _Mr. Freeland said that the PF district was intended to apply to public property. This was not public property, and he .saw no basis for retaining the PF zone. He said the area was designated on the Cemprehens i ve Plan for commercial use, and it would be an unreasonable constraint to retain the property for public use. City Attorney Diane Lee felt that because the property was in the parking assessment district it enjoyed the same benefits as other properties in that district. She did not feel the City could. unduly burden that property more than the others. She felt Mr. Freeland was correct that PF zoning was for Public facilities, and that this was not a pubi_ic facility= If the City wanted to continue to zone the property PF, it could create some legal problems down the roach. Mayor Eyerly,said that although he -would support the Motion, when the original recommendation of staff to exchange the properties -with no charge to Northern California Savings was presented, he voted against it. He "felt that what had happened was that the City had -enhanced the NCS property, and instead of having two separate pieces of property, they had been joined together and now NCS had a more viable option for development. He felt that was not What - the Council or the staff had An mind originally on the switch. 1He hoped that if NCS ever came. in for a building permit, the minutes -would be urfacede. and that the eCouncil at that time would. strongly survey `what was requested in view of the way the properties were joined. Counc i lmember Levy said he had voted i n favor: of the swap and was now embarrassed that he did. He had not realized the'element of enhancement taking place since the talk was completely about the convenience of the property as a parking lot. He, said that didn't mean there was any _ other thought in mind now, but clearly the city was making the property more _valuable for development. He asked staff if the City had any other alternatives --if there was another zone which would be proper, or any other action. Mr. Freeland said the Comprehensive Plan clearly designated the property as commercial --the same as the rest of the downtown. 1 7.0.4 2/22/82 Mr. Freeland felt that short of renegotiating the land transfer and putting the parcels back, there were little options under the present Comprehensive Plan. If the Council wanted to change the Comprehensive Plan, -he did not know what it could be changed to that would be reasonable. He said that block was looked at and there were some multi -family ,designations nearby, but not con- tiguous. He recognized the dilemma, but given the fact that the property was transferred, thi,i Comprehensive Plan designation was clear and the CC zoning followed. SUSS T ITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to continue the item to l_,March 15 and that staff report back on alternative land use, and contact Northern California Savings & Loan to see what they would be agreeable to. Councilmember Renzel asked that staff explore the possibility of renegotiating the exchange because she had not supported the exchange -when it occurredeand felt the City had substituted_ a less advantageously situated parking lot for NCS in order to allow them to consolidate their parking and failed to look at the overall ramifications. She was interested in whether a neighbor- hood commercial zone would be appropriate. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS APPR L HE Z O U I N tG O R T T MT 7I TCNfit :3 5U :` J Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown-Hawkes said that the Planning Commission discussed this matter at length, and the basic recommendation was to allow a 257year extension to make its life compatible with the Veterinary Hospital and which would make all the properties available for multiple family development at the end of the 25.. years. She said the Commission had discussed staff's recommendation that the corrugated building at the rear of the parcel was a less desirable feature of the property and that consideration be given for requiring that it be removed by 1993. The minutes reflected that there was concern about what would happen in 1993 because the property owner indicated that he would not be willing to remove the building,- and if it happened, the flower shop use . would not be able to continue after 1993. She said a motion was ma4 which included a condition that the corrugated building be removed in .1993 which failed by a vote of 3-3. The Commission recommended the extension for both _the f toWere shop in the front and the corrugated building in the rear with the condition that if the rear building was used for . any- thing other than in conjunction with the flower shop, the exten- sion would 'be terminated. Unfortunately, that required some enforcement by the City, bute it was the Commission's best attempt at getting around. the problem of whether the building could ever be -used for anything other than in conjunction with the flower shop. Councilrhember Renzel asked that if no extension were granted, what option was available to the current landowner and the cur- rent f aci 1 i ty. Principal pianner George Zimmerman said that . the landowner could stile continue with the retail flower shop use until 1993. According to the non -conforming use termination provisions in the Zoning Ordinance, under certain conditions, they could switch to an equally intensive ; or ,less_ intensive non -conforming use between now and 1993, which would be subject to Conditions out l ined - in 1 the Zoning Ordinance and subject Building Official. approval of the Chief Councilmember Renzel asked if by granting the extension, the options in the interim period were narrowed. Mr. Zimmerman said that the;. options in the interim period were not really narrowed, but there was a provision in the non- conforming use provisions that if an extension or exception were granted, and during the interim period they reverted to another equally intensive or less intensive non -conforming use, the termination extension or exception provisions were exempted, and the subsequent non -conforming use was subject to termination in 1993. Councilmember Renzel felt that if the City's nabjectiVe in the long-term was to achieve residential development on those sites, i t would be reasonable to require that the corrugated building be removed in 1993 as part of the extension. If the owner chose not to opt for that, it was the owner's privilege. She thought the City could require that the building be terminated, but that the flower use -could continue 'until the adjacent property was also available. Mayor Eyerly said he understood from the. Planning Commission Minutes that it was decided to leave -the corrugated .building because it would work in conjunction with the flower use. If the flower use faded away, the owner would not have any options regarding the corrugated building. He said that as it presently stood the building had to stay 'as a flower use until 2018, and the corrugated building must be used for a similar use. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open. Gary Meeker, 4050 El Camino Real, the applicant and tenant, said his family had operated lanai Flowers at its present location since 1951.` He said it was important to the future of their business that they be granted the 25 -year extension. .He said that with respect to the corrugated building, before the Panning Commission's last meeting they: contacted all of the residents of the _townhouses in the complex behind them asking for their opinion as to the building, and if screening it by landscaping along .the southside would .be. an acceptable and sufficient solu- tion t.o any visual _problems with the building.: He said they had received 22 responses all of which stated that landscaping along that side would be a sufficient: -solutions Fie said that to his knowledge there were no negative responses with respect 'to his business or the property in general. The adjacent parcel, 11 Camino Veterinary was granted a 25 -year extension, and he hoped he would be allowed the same period of time. Mayor zyerly declared the public hearing closed,: MOTION:.. Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Fazzino, ..to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the application et Gary Meeker for a 25 -year extension to the toning Ordinance's Non -Conforming Use Termination Provisions for property located at 405U El Camino Real with the following findings to support the 25 -year extension: (1) That continuation of a retail flower shop use at this site until June 20, 2018 when the adjacent El Camino Veterinary Hospital must also terminate, would not impede resi- dential development of the surrounding area; (2) That continua- tion of this retail flower shop use ;would not resol t in any inJreased adverse environmental impacts such as noise,'air pollu- tion or traffic; (3) That rcontinuation of the retail flower_ shop 1 7 0 6 2/22/82 1 1 1 use beyond_ its current termination date of July 20, 1993 may 'impede one of the major proposals specified in the Comprehensive plan, i.e., to'chanye this section of El Camino Real fromservice commercial uses --to multiple family residential uses. However in this finding, staff found that given the 'smal l area of the site, its limited access to El Camino Real and its proximity to El Camino Veterinary. Hospital which can continue until July 20, 2013, it is unlikely that housing would be developed on this site until the adjacent El Camino Veterinary hospital site becomes residential in use;. (4) That the corrugated steel storage building located in the rear of the parcel and which is accessory to the retail flower._ shop. use is visually Incompatible with the adjacent Villas de las Plazas townhouses, but that this visual incompatibility _can be successfully mitigated if -a) the corru- gated steel storage building" is painted, and b) a landscaped .bdf- fer is planted between the storage building and the wall abutting the Villas de las Plazas common area so that the storage building will not be visible from the adjacent residential areas. Councilmeniber Cobb complimented the Planning "Commission on creating what he considered to be a good compromise soiuticn to the problem of allowing Mr. Meeker's business to continue' by tying the back building's use to the life of the flower shop in front. He responded to Counci lmernber Renzel's remarks that if the City's goal was to encourage housing on this site eventually, he thought that to take the corrugated building out without the front piece of property would not give the City a very nice housino development, and that tying the two uses together was logical and proper. Mayor Eyerly said that there were no alternatives in view of the fact that the Veterinary Hospital was given a 25 -year eXtens ion. He was disappointed that the extension was not given originally. MOTION PASSED unanimously; ORDINANCE RE RESALE CONTROLS FOR UNITS FINANCED WITH MORTGAGE Councilmember Levy asked City Attorney Diane Lee if he could par- ticipate on this Item. He _recalled that he had not participated originally; but after reviewing the matter again, he did not see that it directly conflicted with his employment. City Attorney Diane Lee said she saw no problem with Council - member Levy's voting on the ordinance. Vice Mayor Bechtel said she . removed the matter from the Consent Calendar because after her conversations with members of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation Board and staff, she would propose minor changes to the ordinance. She said that page 2 of the Ordinance contained a definition for "Median household income." She recom- mended ° ;that "Median household income"- be deleted; Item (3 ) "Qualified buyer" would become (2) and would be rewritten to read, "Qualified Buyer" meansa person or persons whose household income does not exceed that max imUm income , established for a person r� o persons who qualify to obtain a housing unit in the City of Palo Alto Below' Market Rate Program and is otherwise eligible under said program." She said that "otherwise eligible" included such items as living in Palo Alto or working in Palo Alto. It also included the present, income restrictions. She thauoht this would make the program the same kind of program as the below -market -rate (BMR) program. 7 0 7. 2/22/82 Vice Mayor Bechtel said she thought that for clarification the title for Section 9.70.030 should be Resale Controls for units originally financed with mortgage revenue .bonds; and, under Item (1), the beginning. of the second line, the word "originally' should_ be inserted. She said that under Item (2), fifth line, after "units," insert the word "originally." Under Section (3), the way the program worked was that a sel 1 er,- under the mortgage revenue bond program, offered his property first to the City of Palo Alto, or its designee, who in this case would be the Housing Corporation, and the Housing Corporation would be obligated to find a- buyer, within sixty days. She thought that was restric- tive and did not provide much time to find a buyer. She said staff and the' Housing Corporation were being optimistic and thought they could meet that obligation in sixty days, but after further discussion it was: felt that ninety days Would be more appropriate and . would allow more flexibility. In Section (3), line 2, word .''sixty" would be changed to "ninety"; and-, line 5, word "sixty" would -be changed to "ninety." She said. the ordi- nance was prepared at Council's request last December; and-, at that- time, there was some discussion about whether the Oak Creek conversion units should be included in the Mortgage Revenue' Bond financing. She said the Oak Creek units were the only ones presently part of the program which were not BMR units as were the others in PaloeAlto's package. She said 35 units that were BIER units were being constructed in some projects' already approved as Well as the Housing Corporation's Project which was in the -process of receiving Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval. • She said this was to insure that someone who was able to purchase property would not receive a windfall if his loan were not assumed. If it were a mortgage revenue bond and the property was sold several years later to someone else who assumed the same loan, in order to assume the loan, the new buyer would have to meet the 'same restrictions as the first buyer, i.e., first time homebuyer or not buying within three years, as well as the sale price and the income limitations. She said this would keep the same restrictions for those units that would not be an assumed loan. MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel introduced the following ordinance for first reading and moved, seconded by Renzel, its approval with amendments: ? ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 9.70 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH RESALE CONTROLS FOR UNITS FINANCED WITH MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS" AMENDMENT: Delete Section 9.70.020(2), "Median household income" and substitute "(2) 'Qualified buyer` means a person or persons whose household income does not exceed the maximum income established for a person or persons who qualify to obtain a housing unit in the City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate Program and is otherwise eligible under said program." Title for Section 9.70.030 be changed to read "Resale Controls for Units Originally Financed with Mortgage Revenue Bonds"; and, under 9.70.030(1) , line 2, the word "originally" be inserted -before the word.. °"financed." Under Section 9.7.0..030(2) fifth line, insert the word "originally" after the word "units." Section' 9.70.030(3), line 2, the , word 'sixty' be changed to "ninety"; and in line a, the word "sixty" be changed to "ninety." City Attorney Diane Lee said that in terms of the staff report, her office listened to the tape and read the minutes to make sure they were proposing the appropriate resale controls. She said that based on. the motion and its proximity to suggestions, staff understood Council's direction to- be to draft an ordinance which proposed a limitation on the resale to be 90% of the average area home price, and the qualifications of the buyer to be 120% of the median county income. She said she had run into a snag known as "the rule against restraints on alienation" while drafting the ordinance which required that a provision for right of first refusal to the City be inserted as opposed to just blanket restrictions, which required the administering agency such as the Housing Corporation. -- When Staff got into discussions with the Housing Corporation, they requested certain changes in the ordinance relating to what the appropriate resale price would be and who a, qualified buyer would be. She said they were somewhat concerned about deviating- too far from Council's direction which was why Vice Mayor Bechtel made the recommendations directly to the Council. Councilrnember Levy asked for clarification that the restrictions would be in the deed conveying title for the property and Would run with the land for thirty years, and that the owner of -the property at the end of thirty years was free to resell the prop- erty at market rates, and would be the one to reap the market wi ndfa l -1 . Ms. Lee said that was correct and was a term of the mortgage revenue bond. Counci l meiirber Witherspoon commented that the Report from City Attorney mentioned that the resale unit must be owner occupied. She asked if that meant that the unit could be rented for any period of time. Planner Glenn Miller responded that: under the City's Below Market RatePrograrn there was a possibility that a unit could be rented upon acceptance from the City Manager of the City of Palo Alto which had occurred in one BMR unit where there was an extraordinary case where a person needed to be away for a short period of Lime. Vice Mayor Bechtel said that at the end of the new 9.70.020(2) ".,.and is otherwise eligible under said Program would include the restriction of using the unit as the owner's principal place of residence. Ms. Lee said that the staff report had addressed the ordinance as it appeared in the packet. She said there was language con- tained under "qualified buyer" which read, "...who intends to use the dwelling unit as his or her principal place of resi- dence." The staff report did not apply to the particular amend- ments before the Council this evening. Scott Carey, 1180 University, Palo Alto, said that they would not proceed with the revenue bonds with the resale constraints because it would not allow them to honor a right of first refusal .with someone else. He said that the way the ordinance was worded, the City got the right of first refusal on those units and determined who would purchase. Councilmesrber slain was concerned because his recollection was that the Council had made it clear that Oak . Creek would be included and that the the right of first -refusal for:, limited profits on resale would also be`included. He suggested that whether to include Oak Creek be continued. Ms. Lee pointed out that a blanket ordinance was before the Council that applied to everyone except Oak Creek that came within the City's terms. If the Council did not wish to have 1 7 0 9 2/22/82 ordinance apply to Oak Cree adopted. then the ordinance- should not be Mr. Miller said they were told by the County that the City needed to have developer agreements approved by the City tonight with all: constraints to be included within the developer agree- ment by February 26. Cooncilmember Fletcher said she thought the agreement with Stanford was limited to 200 units, an.d asked Mr. Carey for clarification. Mr. Carey responr':ed that Stanford had an option to initially acquire 200_units outright. With respect to other sales,'there would .be an equivalent of the right of first refusal on other units which: would conflict with the language in the proposed motion. Councilmember Renzel said she understood from the last time. Mr. Carey Was before the Council,' that -the conversion _would not go forward without the mortgage financing. Mr. Carey responded that he had said he did not know if the con- version would go forward even if the mortgage revenue bond financing was available. He said it would 'help, but was not a cure to all the problems. Councilmember Renzel felt that the Council was put in the posi- tion that since concerns were raised with respect to the fact that Mr. Carey had already made interest rate guarantees to the people to whom he was selling that the mortgage revenue bond rates were higher but would simply buy down the market rate for his purposes. She was concerned before because in this. instance the subsidy was not needed to go to the people who were the buyers because they already had ae guaranteed subsidy. It was competing with other possible units for the mortgage revenue moneys which was why she moved to incorporate the resale con_ trots. She thought it was very clear at that time that it was specifically related to Oak Creek since the other applicants from within Palo Alto were the Housing Corporation who already had the resale restrictions on their units. Mr. Carey said Oak Creek Associates was not competing for the bond money and if another project came forward that needed Oak Creek's bond money, he thought it should be given to the other project because it was not certain that the Oak Creek Conversion. would actually go through. Vice Mayor Bechtel said she thought that Mr. Carey was_ concerned about the right of first refusal, and the-. income restrictions, which was a percentage increase equal to the increase in the average area purchase price, which might not be that severe a restriction. She agreed with Mr. Carey that the issue of the right of "first refusal was not discussed at the December 21, meeting —that it was something the City Attorney discovered would be necessary in order to make the bond financing legal. She asked if it would be possible for the City to have another designee, i.e. Stanford. Counci lrember Levy said that, as he read item #7, which was the ilevel oiler Agreements . for Mortgage Revenue Bond Program it indi- cated that the program would not go ahead on the mid -March target date , if a mortgage rate of approximately 14% was not obtainable. Heasked if ..the mortgage rate was 2% above what the. bond rate was likely to Je. Mr. Miller responded that it .was more like 1%. The limitations of the law required about 1%, but it was irrelevant from the County's standpoint because they wanted the City to move from a conservative standpoint that it could sell as soon as all thee cities had approved the Developer Agreements. He said there was no way of knowing what the bond market would be like from day to day. He .said the County- intended to go ahead and market the bonds within two weeks, which was not rational by looking at the bond market right now. Mr. Carey was concerned that subsection 4.05.€ of the Developer Agreements stated that the developer must offer the units to first-time homebuyers on a first corne first serve basis. He commented that by State law they must ofer the eunits to the tenant in possession, and therefore, it was net truly a. first come first serve basis.. He wanted assurances that the statutory requirements and tentative map conditions superseded that para- graph. Further, regarding the qualification that a buyer must be a "first-time home buyer," he specifically recollected the discussion and that that qualification was. a "first-time home buyer within the last .three years." RECESS FROM 9:35 p.m. TO 9:50 p.in.4 ;Cit.y.Manager Bill Laner said that the issue was a question of the ordinance. Mr. Carey Andicated that hP would prefer eo see the designee listed in the ordinance itself named as Stanford. Mr. Laner said staff could not recommend that, and recommended that the ordinance be adopted as presented which would give the City ar its designee, the .right of first refusal-. He said the designee was to be decided by the City Council in a formal action. He pointed ont that Mr. Carey was free to come back to the- Council and recommend a designee for the Council to choose, but that the Council would not be required to accept that recom- mendation . and could designate whoever they chose. He recom- mended that :.the Council adopt the ordinance as presented, and that the Developer Agreements be adopted subject to any minor chanyes'the City Attorney might approve. Vice Mayor Bechtel thanked staff for taking the time to meet with Mr. Carey. She asked how long Mr. Carey or his associates had had the copy of the proposed ordinance prior to this meeting. Mr. Carey responded that the packet he received included the Developer Agreement and staff report, but did not include a copy of the proposed ordinance. He said he first saw the ordinance tonight. He said if Council chose to pass the ordinance, as written, he would probably come back before the bonds were issued and request- that a designee be appointed. MOTION PASSED unanimously. .,Counci lmember Renzel commented that as far as she .was concerned, ,f..tanford had already, made agreements to purchase 200 of the units; and, if Stanford was sincere about acquiring those. 200 units, perhaps ',hey would release Mr. Carey from his obligations to give them ri jht of first refusal on all the remaining units at least with regard to those financed through mortgage revenue bonds. She hoped that would be subject to some negotiations between Mt`. Carey -and Stanford. DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS FOR MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM - RE'UEST City Planner Glenn Miller pointed out that the Mayor would be authorized to sign the agreements when the developers and the County had signed the agreement which would be when the bond market was favorable to an issue. Vice Mayor Bechtel pointed out that there were.two agreements. The first one was for the Housing Corporation, and the second one was for Oak Creek. She said the end ndf the second agree- ment; under Exhibit "B," it paid that "...the City's resale con- trol if applicable," and clarified that it would be the ordte Trance just adopted by the Council for first reading when it was appropriately drafted to fit_ into the spot. She .removed - the item frrim the Consent Calendar because this could not be adopted before the other was discussed. MOTION:. Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the developer agreements, and that the Mayor be authorized to execute the two agreements after execution by the approved developers and the County, subject to minor changes approved by the City Attorney, and stiff to draft resale restrictions to conform with .the ordinance. DEVELOPER. AGREEMENT - Mortgage Revenue: Bond Program Palo Alto Housing Corporation/County of Santa Clara 1 DEVELOPER AGREEMENT - Mortgage Revenue Bond Program Oak Creek Associates/County of Santa Clara MOTION PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Levy said that in Item 13-A, he objected to the element which stated that the restrictions would run with the land for a period of thirty years, which meant that the property owner who owned the unit at the end of thirty years would be able. to resell it on the open market without any restrictions. Since restrictions applied when the owner bought it, there could be a speculative profit made because that person - -was the owner at the end, of thirty years. He thought that could be taken care of by saying that the restrictions would run :for a period extending through the owner as .of thirty years, whichlieant that the owner would also -be subject to the same restrictions that he too would have to offer the City the rU nt-_ of first refusal .on the same basis as previous owners had. L He thought. that would allow the City . to have the' right of .first refusal on the property after the mortgage expired and the City -could reoffer, the property °an any basis it felt was appropriate.. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, reconsider Item 13-A. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Levy, Eyerl y, - F1 etcher voting "aye." Mayor Eyerly said he would permit a citizen who had arrived late:: to speak under Oral Communications atthis time. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Melanie Villafana, 425 High Street, said she had complained previously --:-about the Palo Alto Police Department and her automobile. She said she _`'found, her car and explained that to the police officers, .who was going to send, her a letter stating that she had found her own car, and including all the particulars. As of this date, she had received no letter from the Palo Alto Police Department. City ManayereBil1 Zanee commented that staff would have a writ- ten report in the next .packet responding to Ms. Villafana's com- ments'. He indicated that Palo Alto Police Department officers had been in touch with Ms. Villafana's attorney, and that the vehicle's whereabouts was known. He said the autornobi 1 e had a Mechanic's lien on it, and that the City had no authority to pick it up. PALO ALTO YACHT HARBOR DREDGING TIME EXTENSION (CMR j 53:2) fr Director . of Public Works David Adams said that the Palo- Alto Harbor Association had asked for a twoemOnth extension because they were held back due to weather. He said staff .felt the request was reasonable, and BCDC indicated that they would make an extension to the permit if the Council_ agreed it was reasonable, Counci lrcienrber Renzel said the staff report indicated that 35,000 cubic yards were removed from Yacht Harbor Point, and asked for clarification that the end of the contract called for removal of mud at Yacht Harbor Point, or was it expected that more mud would be removed from Yacht Harbor Point to complete. the 50,000 cubic yards, Mr. Adams responded that the City had the obligation to make sufficient room to excavate approximately 50,00.0 cubic yards. He said the City was stopped from completing the excavation because of weather, but that there was sufficient room for the Harbor Association to start the dredging. Staff _decided it was best for the dredging to commence and that the City may. have to remove more as the work progressed. He said the contract was terminated, and that a new contract would be needed. Counci1nember Renzel asked for clarification that the extension was just for this year and next year, and subsequently the Schedule would be l iraited'to the August 1 to March 1 period of time. Since the Yacht Club had purchased their own dredge, she asked if the City could change the period of time for the final three years to September 1 , since the period was moved back to August to accommodate the Use of the Santa Cruz dredge which was not now at issue. Mr. Adams said .that could be addressed, but that the City would have to deal with BCDC. He said staff could work with BCDC staff and the County to see what could be worked out. MOTION: Counci lmember Renzel moved, seconded by 'Klein, to grant an extension of two months for the current period and corres- pondingly shortening next year, and in subsequent years dredging to start on September 1 and end on March 1. Counci l meriber Witherspoon asked for clarification that the reason for the delay was because the City was not . able to exca- vate Yacht Harbor Point and not because the Yacht Harbor Association had any problem. Mr. Adams said that isas correct, and that the City' the weather. Mary, McLean, 645 College, said that as the Council looked into the two -month extension because of the weather, she hoped .that the Council would be alerted that wet Bay mud had been deposited on the road leading out to the ramp, which was within. the first week of dredging_. She was- concerned how it would be enforced -- if there was money available from the County for the enforcement or was the City going to do something about it. Mr. Adams responded that the City had been- in touch with the Countyy, and the County had been asked to clean it up.. They said they would to the best of their ability. Counci lmernber Renzel commented that she .was concerned that the County goofed because In 1969 they had also goofed' and filled the same area. She said they were required to remove the mud and -should have known better particularly since there was such sensitivity and concern expressed at the time the permit was granted by the City. John F. Walker, 19375 Greenwood Circle, Cupertino, President of the --Palo Alto Harbor Association, said he was confused in terns of the move to dredge in the future from September 1 rather than August 1. He said that the length of time they had originally planned to dredge, from August 1 until March 1, was good because, it allowed the .required work to be done and the mud could dry .in the middle of the surr,mer. He said that if another month was lost, at the end of five years, the entire project would not be accomplished. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Mayor Eyerly commented that the Council was aware of the mud dumped on the marshlands by the County in error, which had been done before. He said it was a sensitive area environmentally, and it seemed that what should not happen could not be pre- cluded.- He said that in investigating the- contract, the city had no administrative control, and that if the City did have some administrative control, perhaps some things could be precluded. MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Renzel, to direct staff to attempt to gain administrator control of dredging operations either by County or by the Harbor Association. Mr. Walker commented that the mud which was on the road had been placed there by someone working on the road. He said that what the Harbor Association was doing would not put mud on the road. MOTION PASSED unanimously.. Councilrrember Renzel asked if, aside from the financial implica- tions there were any major problems with the City trying to bring the road back into the City's purview on the lease rather than being in the County's leasehold so that ,the road could be properly maintained by the City.. She ,thought it was unlikely tnat within the _ next five years the County would have the money to expend to properly maintain the road. Mayor Lyerly said - ,he. was contemplating a meeting with some of the staff concerning the Baylands and areas of concern` of which the road was one. After 'the information was obtained from staff, some of the Councilmemberc might be in a position to -agendize the matter for proper discussion. 1 7 1 4 2/22/82 Mr. Zaner responded that Mr, Adams had almost put together the final draft of the CIP and in the process had prepared a compre- hensive overview Of the entire Baylands project. He said that staff now knew..what it looked like spread out over=a number of years, and it Might be appropriate to have a short work session where Mr. Adams and his staff could crime in and refresh the Councilmembers' memories and lay out what was planned in she Baylands, what the steps were as perceived by staff, and how 'the financing might work. Mr. Zaner responded to Councilmember Renzel's question, and said he did not think there were any financial problems, and he thought the County would love to give the City the road back immediately, but he Would rather have an instruction from the Council to start insisting that the County uphold its responsibility for maintenance of the roadway and parking lots. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to direct staff to urge County to uphold its commitment to maintain the roadway and parking lots. MOTION PASSED unanimously. RE BEST OF COUNCILMEM Ft ETCHER RE WEARING OF STEREO HEADSETS BY ��� Councilmember Fletcher said- that what triggered the agenda • item was a letter from Diane Lewiston, -who said the matter was brought up before the PTA and many members were concerned about the increasing trend to ride -around on bicycles with headsets. She felt that it made sense that bicyclists should be inc uded in the prohibition, along with motorists, who were already banned from wearing headsets while driving an automobile. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher coved, seconded by Levy, that the Mayor send a letter to our legislative representatives urging legislation to prohibit the wearing of headsets by bicyclists while using the roadways. Diana Lewiston, 1849 Newell, said she received a letter from Captain T. D. Star of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), who advised that the CHP's official position was that the CHP had also observed an increase in the wearing of the headsets by bicyclists and pedestrians. He said that as part of his unit's responsibility they monitored accident trends and searched for the reasons for their occurrence. The CHP agreed that there appeared to be an increase in the use of stereo headsets by bicyclists and pedestrians, and that his staff had examined recent accidents reported in California to ascertain if such headset use had created a safety problem. He said the CHP was unable to show:a relationship between the headsets and traffic safety at this 'point. He said they would continue to monitor headset use and would support new legislation if such a rela- tionship could be established. Ms. Lewiston felt that the "wait and see" attitude was improper because under the, California Vehicle Code bicyclists enjoyed the same rights and responsi- bilities on the roadways as motorists, and if stereo headsets were deemed hazardous enough to . be banned r from ;motor vehicle operatcrs, she thought the same factors that made them undesir- able -for motorists also made them undesirable for bicyclists. She wondered how many police officers ; would note whether stereo headsets were worn at the time of an accident because it was not an observation required as mart of, the standard accident form. She felt there was a need, . for the legislation without waiting for accident data to substantiate the need.. She said she, would appreciate the Council's statement in support of legislation to change the California Vehicle Code to include bicyclists in a law banning the. wearing of stereo headsets. Councilor ember Levy supported the motion and urged that the Council communicate with their Assemblymen and with their Senators while they still had one. Vice Mayor Bechtel said she agreed that when the headsets were on loud there was no way someone could hear another sound, but when they were soft, one could definitely hear. She was con- cerned . that there would be a problem of enforcement with such a law, and asked if skateboarders, rollerskaters ,ors pedestrians would be prohibited from wearing headsets. She was not sure where the line would be drawn. She applauded_ Ms. Lewiston's concern and warning, and:thought that there was no question that they were unsafe if turned up loudly. Councilthernber Renzel said she supported the motion. Counci l rie;nbe r Fazzino said he thought Diane . Lewiston and .Counci lmember Fletcher had satisfactorily stated the case. He was symphathetic to Vice Mayor Bechtel's commentse and could remember the human cry a couple of years ago about whether motorcyclists shoOld be forced to wea'={ helmets. His reaction was that if they did have an accident, they would be scraped off the sidewalk and public funds would have to be used to do it, and, therefore, it became a public issue. He: thought that to a less gory degree, the argument applied here also. He thought it was reasonable, given the safety factors, to broaden the law which now applied to vehicles to include bicyclists. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Bechtel, Cobb, Witherspoon voting "no." RE JEST OF CQLJNCILMEMBER COBB RE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FORM PROCEDURES co 1Mr TEE FcyRFt$RTJ Co.uncilmemoer Cobb said he wanted to see the City obtain a little more information about persons who applied for -the Boards and. Commissions. He thought the existing form tended to give insufficient data to make a choice truly open to everyone including persons unknown to the Council or --people who had not surfaced in town previously. MOTION: Councilrnember Cobb moved, seconded by Fazzino, to refer the Biographical Information Form for Appointed Boards and Commissions to the Policy and Procedures Committee for the February 23, 198? meeting. MOTION PASSED unanimously. RE UEST OF COLINCILM .MBER RLNLEL RE, PROTECTION OF PALO ALTO'S Councilmember Renzel commented that it was reported in the news- paper that one well was contaminated with trichlor.oethylene and provided each Counci lmember with a copy of a campus report of an article' with respect to contamination of ground water. She said it was a _ serious problem nationwide, but was reaching closer to h orne 1 7 1 6 2/22/82 MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved-, seconded -by Bechtel, for staff to report on how the City monitors the safety and security of chemical storage in Palo Alto and whether the City has a regular program of ground water monitoring to detect the intru- sion of poisonous —chemicals before the_. water is permanently con- taminated and include investigation of underground storage.. Councilmember Fletcher•'said she was alarmed when she read the reports in the paper and called Alan Henderson, Chairman of the State Water Quality Control Board. He advised her that they were looking into the problem and had set up a Committee to con- centrate on it and develop new controls. He also pointed out a possible conflict in the manner in which the storage was desired to be kept by the various regulating bodies. Councilmember Fletcher said that the Palo -Alto Fire Department was one that regulated storage of chemicals and their emphasis was on the prevention of explosions and fires and, therefore, preferred to have the chemicals stored underground. She said that the Water Quality Control Board preferred to have those types of facili- ties stored above ground because of the. possibility of contami- nation and especially because it was difficult to know when a Teak occurred until after the damage was done, and would be easier to detect above ground. She desired that when staff prepared the report to Council that they coordinate with Alan Henderson to ascertain what was being done at the regional level. Councilmember Renzel pointed out that she had been told that some of the solvents evaporated through plastic containers and were not properly stored. She presumed that the companies were aware of that fact, but thought it was important to look .at some u pects that traditionally were not looked at. MOTION PASSED unanimously. CANCELLATION OF COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 1 1982 Mayor Eyerly said that with the number of Councilmembers attending the National League of Cities meeting in Washington Monday, March 1, the regular Council meeting needed to be cancelled,. MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Levy, cancellation of Council meeting of March 1, 1982, MOTION PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Fazzino said that Colonel Walter Gaspar, Mayor of Palo Alto from 1948 to 1951:::had passed away. He said Mr. Gaspar was greatly responsible for the development of the City's first ',significant Master Plan in 1Q48 and was involved in the establishment of the City Management form of government in 1950, and was the one who personally selected Jerry Keasley who was then in Stockton to be Palo Alto's first City Manager. Further, he lead the effort in 1951 to annex most of the area in Palo Alto south of Oregon. After _ leaving the City Council, Col. Gaspar served on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors for four years. Councilmember Fazzirro thought it was interesting that .,Col. Gaspar's natural leadership ability was demonstrated by the. fact that he was elected as Mayor only one year after being el eeted to the Council in 1947. ADJOURNMENT.. TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT- 1.}:45 p.m. FINAL ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:50 p.m. in memory of former Mayor Walter. Gaspar. ATTEST: City_ Ci erV APPROVED: