HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-14 City Council Summary Minutesi
CITY
counciL.
M INUi€S
ITEM
Oral Communications
Consent Cal endar
Referral
Action
CITY
or
PALO
ALTO
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 14, 1982
Item #1, Los Gatos Membership in South Bay
Cooperative Library System
Item #2, Grant of Easement - Foothills Park -
Pacific Telephone and .Telegraph
Item #3, Water Distribution Study
Item #4,: Front Easement Power Line Clearing
Item #5, Public Hearing: PIPlanning Commission
Recommendation re Application of the City of Palo
Alto for a Zone Change for Two Parcels, APN
120.16-31 from CC to PF at Parking Lot £/630-636
Gilman Street (Continued from 3/15/82)
Item #6 Public Hearing: California Avenue Area
Offstreet Parking Maintenance District (Continued
to 6/28/82)
Item #7, Publix Hearing: University Avenue Area
Offstreet Parking (Continued to 6/28/82)
Item #8, Public Heari ng P1 anni ng Commission
Recommendation re Change to the . Land Use
Des] gnati on of property at 2040-2070 W el 1 es l ey
Item #9, Public Hearing:
Recommendat'i on re Change
D.esi gnats on of Property at
Middlefield
Pi anni ng Commi ssi on
to the Land Use
719, 727, and 735
Item #10, Public hearing: P1 anni ng Co rmi ssi on
Recommendation re Appeal of Scott Donahey from the
Decision, of the Zoning hdmi ni strator to Deny , a
Variance for Property Located at 273 Ri nconada
PAGE
2 1 2 2
2 1 2 2
2 1 2 2
2 1 2 2
2 1: 2 2
2 1 2 3
2 1 2 3
2 1 2 3
2 1 2 3
2 1 2 6
2 1 2 6
2 1 2 8
2 1 2 9
2 1 3 0
ITEM
Item #11, Finance and Public Works Committee
Recommendation re Contract Award to Del of tte
Haskins and Sells for the 198283 Fiscal Year
Financial Audit
Item #12, Planning Commission re CalTrans Commuter
Rail Station Location and Improvement Study
Item #13, • Moratorium Ordinance re Demolition in
College Terrace
Item #14, North Santa Clara County Solid Waste
Management Program - Status Report and New Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement
Item #15, New Parking Restrictions
Item #15, Charitable Solicitation Ordinance
Item #17; Accounts Receivable Collections in
Municipal Court
Item #18, Transient Occupancy Tax - Recommended
Ballot Measure
Item #19, Request of Mayor Eyerly re Part -Time
California Legislature Initiative
Item #20, Request of Counci lmennber Fazzino re City
Council Meeting Schedule
Item #21, Request of Councilmember Cobb and Mayor
Eyerly to Adjourn Meeting in Memory of
Counci lmernber Fazzi no ° s Lost Youth
PAGE
2 1 3 1
2 1 3 2
2 1 3 4
2 1 3 7
2 1 4 3
2 1 4 4
2 1 4 7
2 1 4 7
2 1 4 8
2 1 4 8
2 1 4 9
Adjournment 2 1 4 9
2 1.2 1
6 /14 /82
Regular. Meeting
Monday, June 14, 1982
i
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Aveue, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzi no, Klein, Levy,
Renzel , Witherspoon
ABSENT: Bechtel, Fletcher
Mayor Eyerly advised that Council met i n Executive Session at 6:30
p.m. regarding personnel matters. He said another Executive
Session regarding litigation matters was necessary and would be
held during the. Council's break.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Dr. Harvey K. Roth, 3422 Kenneth Drive, Palo Alto, said that
regarding the labeling of alcohol and alcohol products, a
letter was written to Senator Gregorio--at Senator Gregorio's
request --stating the progress of Dr. Roth's campaign regarding
alcoholism. He clarified that his request of the Council on
May 24, 1982, in consideration or' a home room message to the
County, State and Federal legislators requesting labeling of_.
,alcohol and alcohol products, similarly to cigarettes as being
injurious to ones health when used excessively, would cause
initiation and i ntroducti ve legislation to effectuate the
actual labeling. Those needs include larger penal institu-
tions, increased hospital capacities due to the physical and
bodily- damages caused, the tremendous outlays of funds for
rehabilitation programs through both institutions along -with
mental health, the courts, disability insurance paynents
through social security, ,veterans pension, private insurance
factors, and also take into consideration the loss of life due
to driving while under the influence (DWI), excessive vio-
lence, family probl ems and the need for special corrective__
police officers. He hoped that the foregoing could be incor-
porated as mitigating factors for the request by the Council
to the citizens ` representatives in the "federal legs el attire to
enact such legislation, it would be appreciated by all resi-
dents of the City of Palo Alto.
Mayor. Eyerly announced that Counci oember Fletcher , was convales-
cing at home; Vice Mayor Bechtel was absent due to the death of
her father.
CONSENT' CALENDAR
MOTION: Coeacil ember Fazzi no moved, seconded by Cobb, approval
of the Consent Calendar, Items.1 through 4,
Referral
1, LOS GATOS MEMBERSHIP_: IN SOUTH BAY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY.
Staff -recommends that Council approve the addition of the Los
-Gatos Memorial Library in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
for the South Bay Cooperative Li brar,y System, to, become effective
July 3 :19.82.
2 1.2 2
6/14/82=
ITEM #2 GRANT OF EASEMENT - FOOTHILLS PARK -� PACIFI.0 TELEPHONE
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
Grant of Easement upon recordation of the Quitclaim Deeds from
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph.
ITEM #3, WATER DISTRIBUTION STUDY (CMR:307:2)
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
agreement with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. in
the amount of $79,500.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
James M. Montgomery
Consulting Engineers, Inc.
11.7;M #4, FRONT EASEMENT POWER LINE CLEARING (CMR:317:2)
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
contract with Lee's Tree Surgeons, Inc. in the amount of $119,980
for providing front line clearing services.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
•tjee's Tree Surgeons, Inc.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Fletcher absent.
ITEM #5 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
.4 S KEtl (Gontlnueo from
Real Property Administrator Jean Diaz said that staff's recommen-
dation was to proceed with the requested zone change, and to
accept the $5,000 additional payment from Northern California
Savings (NCS) as the City's allocation of the possible assemblage
value which was appraised to be nominal if any.
Counci l member Renzel asked if the City would be restricted from
acquiring the property for r public parking at some future time if
the City accepted the assembl `age _ val ue amount.
Mr. Diaz responded -that the City's acceptance of the $5,000 as its
possible share of any assemblage value did not alter_ whatever the
value of .the assembled parcel was. He believed that acceptance of
the $5,000 would not affect any evidence that might be submitted
in terms of the value of the parcel.
Counci l member Renzel said she recognized the- parki ng - probl em down-
town She was concerned about, -,what would occur if that -'parcel,
plus the residential parcel directly across Bryant .from City Hall,
-were pot into one development with access from three sides of the
block. It could be a substantial development -with no parking et
all rerAiiith a limited amount of parking, but ;got enough to provide
parking_:for the current NCS building. She understood that NCS had
purchased --. 1 10 park ng spaces from ,th.e. ,lot under..City- Hal 1 through
the years. She asked w hat mechani gm the City had if i.t., wished to
have -the ftwd parking lots, looked at by. the Par.kl-ng Assessment
Di strict --for acq€ I si tioon- :'as public„ park;Y ng lots,:_
Mr. Diaz, said that -at the beginning of staff ° i scussions, NCS
indicated its intention to consolidate its customer parking by the'
exchange -.not to create- a more developable parcel . ini t.i al ly, ; MCS
indicated an interest ih ,agreeing' to some perr1od Of -time,.. -five: to
--ten years --w? ere they. would not _ pursue development ,of the. parcel
2 1 2 3-
6/14,/82
1
1
He said it became clear that NCS would not be able to pursue
Bevel opment because of the upcoming merger with Great Western
Savings. He said NCS and Great Western Savings needed to keep
their opt'. ens open in terms of what eappens, and he felt they
would be opposed to looking at anything whi c_ h might tie their
hands in any use of the property at this time.
Counci lmemb'er Renzel was concerned that the City not lose its
options. She asked how. the City could pursue possible acquisition
of the lots for public parking. She suggested a special arrange-
ment for a period of years that the . existing buildings could enjoy
the: use of the parking spaces as part of the negotiated price.
Mayor Eyerly felt that the City had erred in allowing the consol i -
dation of those two properties, and asked if the City could
reverse its action.
Mr. Diaz responded that .the property had been exchanged, escrow
closed, and title was transferred to both lots.
Mayor Eyerly clarified that the current zoning was PF, and asked
if . the City could be forced to change i t . He believed the Council
should discuss whether it desired a major development to occur on
that property. Further, he asked if the City could zone the prop-
erty PC so as to retain control .of what occurred.
City Attorney Diane Lee said she knew of no legal reason why the
City should not zone the property PC. She said it was not tradi-
tional for Council to initiate zoning of property to PC. Ordi-
nari 1y, the process was i ni ti ated by the owner of the property and
consisted of a revi ew process i ncl udi ng P1 anni ng Commissi on
review, a PC application and a development plan with a development
schedule, ARB review of the 1 andscapi ng design plan , PI anni ng
Commission final review, and final review and decision by the City
Council. Further, she said the property was usually undeveloped.
In this case, the parking lot already existed, and therefore, the
Council could rezone the property to PC and the development plan
would be the existing improvements on the property. She deferred
to the Planning staff on whether they would feel that the matter
was an appropri ate pl anni ng deci si on.
Chi ef P1 anni ng Of fi ci al Bruce F_ reel and sal d that one speci fi C pur-
pose of the the PF District was to facilitate governmental; public
utility educational and community service or recreational facili-
ties. He thought that the intent of the zone was that it be
appli ed to the foregoing uses and not to normal pri vately owned
property. Regarding the PC, he was concerned about equity. NCS
started off with a piece of CC zoned land. He was concerned that
when the property was exchanged and if the City followed through
and changed the zoning, NCS would end up with something More than
they had initially. Rather than '.having two separate lots, they
would have two together which would make them more likely for
development and the basis for the assemblage value. He was con-
cerned that putting a PC on the .:property would .not leave NCS with
less than they had to start with. Originally NCS had a lot, and
while._ nothing was 'on it they
were under no obligati on to limit
their use to parks ng and Caul d have developed the parcel for any
use, which would have fit on the lot. He was concerned that the
City not seek a limitation: which would penalize NCS to an extent
greater thanwhat they started with.
Counci lmember Levy shared Mr. Freeland `s -concerns.. He said that.
orl`giially NCS had a parcel zoned CC, and the City had a parcel
zoned. PF. He pointed out that the exchange was made at the
request of `TICS in order. to make parking- more cor yens_ ent : for, them.
'He asked ; if, at thf s stage, it would be pdssi blJe to include - as
part of the trade that 'if NCS wished to develop the parcel or to_.
use the assemblage value of the parcel in developing the adjoining
parcels, ' the City would -have the right ,to .reverse the trade back
and give- NCS back its parking- lot as a CC zone and take back the
City's. as a PF zone.
Mr. Diaz said that the agreement was consummated --it was executed
and implemented, and the change would require a new agreement. He
pointed out that the two parcels together were apt to create a
development sooner than what might have happened before the
exchange, but said staff's analysis indicated that the prior lot
at the corner was just as likely to he developed without the addi-
tion of the parcel. He said the previous lot was a prime parcel
in terms of shape and configuration before the exchange. The
addition of the lot added nothing in terms of .density, and NCS
wound up with the same density even if the City followed through
with the zoning. It was his opinion that unless NCS voluntarily
wished to change the terms of the agreement, the agreement was in
essence finished.
Councilmember Levy clarified that the City's only choice was to
rezone the property to CC.
Mr. Diaz said that was correct.
Mayor Eyerly asked City Attorney Diane Lee if she had a recommen-
dation for a course of action.
Ms. Lee said that if the Assessment District desi red to acquire a
lot, a resolution of intention would be necessary.
Councilmember Witherspoon said she felt the Council must honor its
agreement. She asked for the status of a Planning Commission
assignment to require any new construction to provide its own
parking.
Mr. Freeland responded that the City was only planning to actively
pursue the requirement that any new construction provide its own
parking as part of the California Avenue study. He said staff had
an assignment to look into a new assessment formula for the
Keystone Lot in the California Avenue area, and staff's work pro-
gram proposed that the City look at reinstatement of the parking
requirement for that area. He -said the requi rement was seen as a
pilot which appears favorable in that area, and then perhaps may
be considered for the University Avenue area, but plans were not
to move immediately toward it for downtown.
MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Klein,
approval of .the application of the City of Palo Alto for zone
change for two parcels, APP 120-16-31 from CC to PF at Parking Lot
E/630-636 Gilman Street, and introduced the 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
NAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS
PARCEL A (PARKING LOT E) FROM PF TO CC(P..) AND PARCEL 8
(630-636 GILMAN) FROM CC TO PF"
Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open. Receiving no
requests to speak, he declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Klein said he agreed that the City made a deal with
Northern California Savings, and whether it was the best of al 1
,deals would depend upon how things went in the future. He said
the alternatives to the proposed zoning did not exist, and NCS was
entitled to have some particular zoning on the property which made
sense.
Councilmember Renzel said that the City had not, vnl y allowed the
merger of two lots', but had .allowed the merger of three lots
because TICS owned the adjacent parcel or two immediately, to the
south of it.. She_ said she would not vote in favor of -rezoning the
property because from a planning perspective, she could not Make a
finding of no significant environmental impact by the rezoning.
"2 1 2 5
6/14/82
1
1
Councilmember Renzel said that after the motion was voted on by
the Council, she was prepared to ask staff to pursue the assess-
ment district acquisition of the properties because she thought
that was the only way to preserve parking in a critical area.
Mayor Eyerly said he would vote against the motion. He wanted the
record to show that the Council was not in unanimity on the item
and some Counci lmembers were disturbed about the exchange and the
assemblage of the property. He said NCS had the opportunity for a
grandiose building which would rob a lot of the assessment dis-
trict parking, and he was disturbed that NCS was not willing to
negoti ate any type of an agreement with the City as to what type.
of development could occur there.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Renzel and Eyerly voting °no,°
Fletcher and Bechtel absent.
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, second by Eyerly, I) that
staff report re matter of possible acquisition of the properties
(620-636 Gilman) throughparking assessment district; and 2) that
staff report on parking required to be supplied by developer for
University Avenue District in same way that staff will report re
California Avenue.
MOTION DIVIDED
FIRST PART OF MOTION . (I) PASSED by a rote of 5-2, Witherspoon and
F azzi no voting 'ono, ° Fletcher and Bechtel absent.
SECOND PART OF MOTION (2) PASSED unanimously, Fletcher and Bechtel
absent.
Mayor Eyerly clarified that the motion precluded the acceptance of
any money. It was not mentioned in the motion.
Councilmember Klein wanted to make certain that staff understood
that they had no authority to accept avy money,
ITEM #6 PUBLIC HEARING: CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET
ra- not n u e d t& 6 /2B /B2 r —
ITEM #7 PUBLIC HEARING: UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET PARKING
(CMR:339:2) on nue o
Mayor Eyerly announced that some material for these matters was
not completed. He said that a public hearing had been advertised,
but said it was necessary to continue Item #6, Public Hearing re
California Avenue Area Offstreet Parking Maintenance District, and
Item #7, Public Hearing re University Avenue Area Offstreet
Parking because the Council did not have the ability to move ahead
due to the lack of some staff material. He said he received a
card from Gai Hoy Chee, requesting to speak on the item. He
suggested that a staff member get in touch with Gai Hoy Chee
before the regular public hearing and before Council was in a
position to take any action to clarify his . concerns.
Susan iioi Chee on behalf of Gal Hoy Chee said that was fine..
NOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Fazzi no, to continue
Item $6, Public Nearing re California Avenue Area Offstreet
Parking Maintenance District, and Item 17 Public Hearing re
University Avenue Area Offstreet Parking to June 28, 1982.
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Fletcher absent.
2 I. 2 6
6/14/82
MOTION: Counci 1 member Renzel moved, seconded. by Witherspoon, to
reconsider Item #6, Public Hearing re California Avenue Area
Offstreet Parking Maintenance District, and Item #7, Public
Hearing re University Avenue Area Offstreet Parking.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Fletcher absent.
MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Fazzino, to
consolidate the public' hearings for the following:
I) California Avenue District Project 65-9;
2) California Avenue District, Project 71-63;
3) University Avenue District, Project 66.8;
4) University Avenue, Project 75-63; and
5) Resolution confirming engineer's report and assessment roll.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel , Fletcher absent.
Mayor Eyerly read the following statement into the record:
"This is the time and place set for the public hearing on the
parking assessment rolls for the following projects:
1) Cali forni a Avenue Cambridge Garage Project No. 65-09
(Resolution of Intention No. 3950, Adopted January 3, 1957);
2) California Avenue. Area Offstreet Parking Project, No. 71-63
(Resolution of Intention No. 4993, Adopted September 10,
1974);
California Avenue Area Offstreet Parking Maintenance District
(Resolution of Intention No. 5343, Adopted February 14,
1977);
4) University Avenue Civic Center Parking Project No. 65-08
(Resolution of Intention No, 3896, Adopted June 13, 1966); and
5) University Avenue Area Offstreet Parking Project No. 75-63
(Resolution of Intention No. 5242, Adopted August 9, 1976).
"The City Engineer has caused to be prepared and filed with the
City Clerk a report providing for the levying of special assess-
ments within the parking assessment districts created and estab-
lished for the projects and under the Resolutions of Intention
just expressed. The report sets forth the amounts of assessments
proposed to be levied for the fiscal year 1981-82. The
assessments will be used to pay principal and interest :4n the
bonds issued in the various projects. The report is and . has been
open for public inspection.
"The purpose of this hearing is to allow this Council to hear all
persons having an interest in any real property within these
parting assessment districts; to hear all objections, protests or
other written communications from any such interested persons, to
take and receive oral and documentary evidence pertaining to mat-
ters contained -in the filed report; : to remedy and, correct any
error or i ref ormali,ty in the report and to ; amend, alter, modify and
Correct and confirm the report _ :and 'each of the assessments
therein.
l f.. you :desire to speak, -1o1_ease come f*rward: to . the mi.cr•ophorre,
gi1 are ,your full-: name and address and identify which assessment
parcel- or parcels in : which project or projects- you are•
interested.
"In the interest of ti roe, Please :.be - as brief as possible consis-
tent with the full presentation of your views. The hearing is now
open.
1
City Clerk Ann Tanner reported a written communication from Norman
and Jennie He i wi g, 200 Lyel 1 Street, Los Altos, concerning 532,
534 and 536 Ramona Street, Parcel No. 12J-26-071. She said their,
request was to increase the credit on the property to six spaces..
MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Fazzi no, to continue
the public hearings to June 28, 1982 (Public Hearings Consolidated
and Opened).
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Fletcher absent.
ITEM 18 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown-Hawkes said that the
Planning Commission concluded that it would be inconsistent with
major policies and goals of the Comprehensive P1 an to make the
requested change from Single Family Residential to Multiple Family
Residential There was concern about the impact of such a change
on the character and quality of the surrounding R-1 area, the
likely loss <f lower cost rental units if the property were
redeveloped for multiple family use, and the impact on the policy
in the Plan to preserve the range and type of both rental and
ownership housing in the City at affordable prices. The Planning
Commission recommended against any change in the zoning.
Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open.
John Boyd, Boyd and Jenks, Architects, said that the property was
unique in that it was bound on two sides by a parking lot and a
church, and on the third side by Cameron Park, and across the
street by an eight unit apartment building. He said their pro-
posal was to ask for an RM-3 zone that would allow seven living
units on the side where there were now four nonconforming
buildings zoned R-1. He said nothing could be done, under the
present zoning, to modify those units. He said that if a new
building was constructed, it was important to stress that just
because it was a new building did not mean that it- would be
unattractive. He. hoped to construct a building that would be
attractive and that would tie in with the surrounding architec-
ture. He said that the existing buildings did not meet the.
parking requirements, i.e., two stalls for each one or two bedroom
,snits. He commented that they were only requesting three more
living units, but that it would be housing for three more families
i n - an area close to transportation. Additional housing was needed
in Palo Alto, and ,he felt the property could be rezoned to.RM-3
and be a benefit to the City.
Mayor Eyerly commented that the City 'Council received ` a letter
from Virginia M. Page concerning the matter, and her recommenda-
tion was to accept the Planning Commission recommendation and not
adopt the ,zone change. He said the Council also had a letter from
the Palo Alto Neighborhood Coalition in the same vein.
Receiving rio further requests to speak, Mayor Eierl y declared the
public hearing closed.
MOTION: Cor.nci lmember Fazzino waved, seconded by_ Cobb, to
Uphold the Planning COOL' WON oN.. recoutoodati:oft to deny reituested
chaege to the land use deliileet1eh of property at 2440-207{
Wellesley from Single Family Residential to ,Multiple ''Family
hesi deritl al ;
MOTION PASSE® :unanimously, Bechtel and Fletcher.=: abeeet.
2-1 2 8
6 f14/82
1
1
ITEM #9 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMENDATION RE
CHAnit (U i HE LAND .
Planning Commission Chairperson Jean _McCown-Hawkes said that the
Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested change
because the change would be inconsistent with the goals and poli-
cies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, she said the
Planning Commission was concerned that the properties were the
edge of the transition between single family and multiple family
designations along Middlefield in the area, and there was concern
over the "ripple effect" of making the change and the potential
for multiple family requests to move on down through the single
family area on Middlefield. She said that some additional devel-
opment was possible on the parcels under the present zoning.
Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open.
Mrs. Al Silver, 1450 Channing Avenue, was one of the owners of the
property at 719, 727, and 735 Middlefield Road. She said that
approximately nine years ago.719 Middlefield Road was purchased to
be used as a rental unit, and the following year 727 and 735
Middlefield Road were acquired, and a year later the property was
downzoned. She said her husband would retire in three years, and
decisions had to be made now so that changes can be finalized in
1983-84. Their options were 1) to sell the houses, which would
take three houses off the rental market, and increase the rents
considerably; 2) to completely renovate the existing houses which
would also raise the rents considerably; 3) to take the existing
houses down and put up duplexes on each lot. She pointed out that
Middlefield Road was not choice property to live on and rents had
to be limited, and said the property was next to a four-pl ex on
one side_ and a triplex on the other side, and a dental unit
across the street. She said the owners felt that a good compro-
mise would be a total of ten units for the three lots. They would
be smaller units, and therefore, the rents would be lower than
duplex unit uses. She could not understand why the property was
downzoned in the first place. With the large condominium com-
plexes being built in Palo Alto, she found )t difficult to under-
stand why they could not put ten units on their property rather
than six units.
Robert R. Jenks, Architect for Boyd and Jenks i n " Pal o Alto, said,
they felt the proposal was valid because it would provide four
additional low to moderate income housing units. He stressed that
presently the three homes on Middlefield had narrow driveways and
had to back . out onto Middlefield, and if the property was further
developed into the possibility of six units, there would be six
families backing : onto Middlefield. _ They . proposed to consolidate
the three lots and have a single landscaped ingress/egress where
people could drive in, turnaround,,and drive out. He said the
Silvers relied on the zoning that was there when they purchased
the property, and it changed. He thought the site, was a unique
one .;i n downtown Palo Alto where something much better could be
done than what now existed, or than what:woutd take place under
the present zoning.
thomas Berson 764 Forest Avenue, said he. owned property within a
300` foot circle of the ;proposed land. use Chahge.; He,urged that
the Council uphold the Planning Commission recommendation . to ; deny.
the proposed: land use change. He said that when he : pu rchloed hi s
property, he relied on the Comprehensive Plan then in, effect, which
promised that the neighborhood would remain single family residen-
tial for .a long:. time. Me -believed :drat .he :;paid a ;premium for' hi s
property and that if the proposed site were upzoned his property
value would either drop or remain .artificially depressed.
Mayor Eyerly said that the City. Council had received a letter from
the Palo Alto Neighborhood Coalition which supported the Planning
Commission recommendation.
1
Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing closed.
MOTION: Council member Benzes, moved, seconded by Cobb, to uphold
the Planning .Commission recommendation to deny the requested
change to the land use designation of property at 719, 727 and 735
Middlefield Road from Single Family: Residential to Multiple, Family
Resi dents al.
Counci l member Renzel commented that there was virtually no parking
along Middlefield Road for any guests of any units to be built
there, which would force parking onto the other side of the
street. She thought Mr. Berson was correct that in recent years.
Middlefield Road was used as a dividing line, and she wanted that
to continue.
Mayor Eyerly added that the zoning contained in the . Comprehensive
Plan was viable, and when zone changes on property such as that
requested for 2040-2010 Wellesley and 7.19, 727 and 735 Middlefield
were considered, they set up a. domino effect .on where to hold the
single family residential. He needed more convincing reasons to
change the zoning than what he had heard, and would support the
motion..
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Fletcher absent.
ITEM #10 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
t
mraimux
Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown-Hawkes said that the
Planning Commission Minutes reflected that the variance applica-
tion appeal was the fi rst the Planning Commission had considered
since the liberalization of the daylight plane requirements. She
noted that the Commission agreed with the Zoning Administrator
that the necessary findings for a variance situation could not be
made in that, there were no exceptional circumstances about the
property to distinguish i t from others similarly situated in the
area, that the variance was not necessary for the preservation of
property .rights because there was a variety of additional other
alternatives, and that no unreasonable hardship existed on the
applicant to meet the R-1 zone requirements. The Commission
focused on the over -average size of the lot, the ability of the
applicant to build a second story with adequate headroom without
the need- of a variance, or, alternatively, a first story addition
that would serve the purpose of the additional space. She said
the Commission concurred with the Zoning Administrator's recommen-
dation that the main purpose of the variance was to achieve a par-
ticular- architectural style, which, as a -..main purpose, was not
appropriatefor a variance.
Mayor Eyerly declared the . public hearing open. Receiving no.
requests to speak ne declared the public hearing closed.
MOTION: C01i$G1.1ie*ber _ ..Fazzime . iev d, -seconded by Reuel , ° - to
apaiol d ;- the Planning Commi ssi on .recor .eniati oil t:o= deny .. the appear
of Scott Oonab.y front the deci #-l'on of the •Zo*i ng Adari ni strador, to
deny a; variance for property l-bcated at 273 Di nconada.
NOTION PASSED mans moody, iechtel and FlOcher absent.
ITEM #11, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION THAT
SAL —YEAH- -AUDI
MOTION: Councilmeraber Witherspoon moved, for the Finance and
Public Works (F&PW) Committee, that the City. Council award the
1982-83 Fiscal Year Financial Audit contract. to Oeloitte- Haskins
and Sells for a fee of $17,800. •
AGREEMENT DELOITTE HASKINS i SELLS
AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS
Del of tte Haskins & Sells
Counci 'member Fazzi no said that although it was too late to change
horses mid -stream, he was concerned that the Council decided last
year to charge .firms; Arthur Andersen & Company had done, an out-
standing job for the City, and last year had raised a number of
concerns and recommendations during the development of its audit
that the City needed to address. He felt that Arthur Andersen
would have been in a far better position to audit those concerns
than a new fi rm. ile would support the F&PW Committee recommenda-
tion, but remained concerned that the Council decided to change
accounting firms particularly after. ~a variety of legitimate con-
cerns had been raised by Arthur Andersen.
Council member Levy agreed with Counci lmember Fazzi no, but Said he
had arri ved at the opposi to cocci usi on and would vote agai nst
changing auditors in mid -stream. He said that although the report
of the outgoing auditor would be available to the new firm, he
believed that a more thorough and knowledgeable follow-up, could be
expected to the irregularities that were mentioned by not changing
auditors at this time. He said it was not a reflection on
Del of tte Haskins & Sells, which was a nationally reputable firm,
but he felt that the Council should wait before changing audi-
tors.
Counci 1 nemberT Renzel commented -that the City hi red auditors to
reflect any problems contained within the City's accounting, and
Arthur Andersen did come up with a few problem areas. She felt
that was expected, and because it came out during the fifth year
of a particular auditor's service should not suggest that that
auditor should be retained in lieu of following the established
policy to change auditors every five years. She would support the -
motion.
Councilmember Cobb said he hoped the statement made by Mr.
Mitchell that the new auditors stated that "they would not be
unmindful of the management letter from Arthur Andersen," meant,
that they would be specifically mindful of it and that some bene-
fit might. _be realized from having a new auditor.
Counci l member Klein said he was upset by the use of the word
'irregularities , I and thoughtthe word was strong and unwarranted.
He said the management letter pointed out some things which, in
his experience, were typical of what - was expected from any auditor
or from arty organization the size of the _ City;, of Palo Alto. He
had read the management letter, :and _did not think items contained
therein deserved to be called "--.irregularities." He thought much
was to be gained by shi fti,ng auditors from ,_ti time to time :.and
expected that Deloitte Haskins -and :Sells: would come up :with sug-
gestions as; Arthur 'Andersen had in _the past;`- He would support the
motion.
Mayor Eyeriy 'added . that when dealing with _the, taxpayers ` mo-ney,
the Council should look at -,,hinging contracts periodically. He.
thought that any auditor had to prov , de a critique or _ some areas
where there might be suggestions 'for changes. He, thought Council-,_
member Klein's remarks were proper,propertt and said that the management
letter pointed --out., areas where .changes might . be 'considered
1
1
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Levy voting "no,' Bechtel and
Fletcher absent.
ITEM #12 PLANNING_ COMMISSION RE CALTRANS COMMUTER RAIL STATION
1
i
1
Di rector of Transportation Ted Noguchi said that the Planning
Commission comments were basically consistent with the staff's
recommendations. He said -there were some variations from the
basic staff recommendation i.n that the order of the recommenda-
tions were changed by the Commission. A major change by the
Commission included a recommendation regarding the acceleration of
the San Antonio Station. He said the Commission felt very
strongly that the schedule shown on the study needed improvement
in terms of acceleration. He said the other recommendations
related to having staff work with Gal Trans and the City of
Mountain view to refine the data selected for the future forecast
that was developed by CalTrans and its consultants. He said that
the staff recommendation contained a typographical error on the
years on the California Avenue Station as well as the San Antonio
Station. He said the California Avenue Station should . have read
1983-84 as the last year rather than 1984-85. The San Antonio
Station should have read 1984-85 as the last year. He said the
statement contained in Recommendation No. 2 of the Planning
Commission was correct as written.
Mayor`Eyer iy said it appeared to him that the west side parking
lot in the University Avenue area had a conflict in the . downtown
grant and the use of that lot for shuttle parking, etc., and the
Planning Commission recommendation was for purchase of that prop-
erty for station parking. He asked how that conflict would be
solved.
Mr. Noguchi said that the initial thrust of the Downtown Parking
Management Plan was to temporarily pane that area for parking. He
said that did not mean that the lot would be used exclusively by
the downtown employees, but staff believed that it would be at
least a backup location for the shuttle part of the Downtown
Parking Management Plan. He said CalTrans proposal dealt with
ultimate acquisition of that site with the possibility of devel-
oping a parking structure if the need arose.
Mayor Eyerly clarified that if the City accepted the CalTrans'
proposal, it would be in a position for a partnership .i n the down-
town area for the grant parking and use.
Mr. Noguchi responded that if both the Downtown Parking Management
Plan and if CalTrans went forward with _immediate acquisition of
that site, there was a strong possibility that the City could
joint venture with CalTrans to acquire the site aid go into part-
nership for a future itarki ng- structure.
Counci lmember_ Renzel said that Page 3 of the staff report con-
tained some di scussi ors about past City Counci_1 _ discussion ` of not
intensifying auto usage at that station. She asked how the matter
had received policy level -treatment in the staff report'.
Mr, Noguchi ; commented that staff did not think there was any -spe-
cific policy of the Council di sectng that: tae -Oni versity` Avenue
station not be ' devel open# with parking structures, etc. He said
there was a' -'lot of di scussion during the devel ope,eot stage_ of the
Downtown Parking Management Plan whether. there = ought to be a
parking structure at the University Avenue station can .>>.or whether
additional , par,ki;ng fsr;, st ati ons dev�el`opateht 'Ought ;' to be bui i t` at
the .cal i forni`a' Avenue: station. -staff did 'riot real 1.".that` was ever.
a policy:; but rather the -Way' It `Wes ` stated in the staff 'report
Councilmewber.Renzel : said that having beer:: 'commuter, and having
expert en'ced' the shortage'. of parking spates' during the Construc-
t Hon of : the bus projects across the ra11 road tracks,
1
that parking was needed at the depots --both California Avenue and
University Avenue. At this point with the land 'restrictions, the
only choice was to go up. She said that if the City wanted to
encourage passenger train ridership, it would have to provide a
way for people. to . get to the station and be able to use the
stations. She was uncomfortable with Council discussions •sug-
ge.: ti ng that parking _ not be provided as a policy suggestion -i n the
staff report. She felt the City had to do whatever was possible
to keep the Southern Pacific, running because it was one of the
most efficient transportations between Palo Alto and San
Francisco.
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freel and clarified that the Bart and
Ashton report indicated strongly that therewas a policy against
parking. Staff felt that error was substantive and needed to be
clarified.
Councilmember Renzel asked why the Planning Commission did not
address the later years that spoke to the construction of new
parking lots.
Mr. Noguchi said that more recently, the Planning Commission dealt
with the parking structure part of the Downtown Parking Management
P1 an that related to the Cai Trans ` proposal. He said the concern
was raised about the access and traffic circulation in and around
the circle area, and the fact that the area already seemed to be
congested. Staff's analysis indicated that For now, the addi-
tional parking lot could be well accommodated by the current
existing traffic circulation system. If the location was
developed into a parking structure, there may be some need to
improve access maybe towards Urban Lane, and with the possibility
of a signal at Homer or Wells in that area to facilitate addi-
tional access to the whole area.
Councilmemter Renzel clarified that the Planning Commission had
not made any statement with regard to moving forward.
Mr. Noguchi said that comment would come back after the Downtown
Parking Structure Study was referred to the Finance and Public.
Works (F$PW) Committee. He thought the Downtown Parking Structure
Study was scheduled to be heard : on July 13, and following that,
the Planning Commission comments would also return to the
Council.
Mayor Eyerly clarified that the Planning Commission recommenda-
tions went up to the time of the actual construction of the
parking structure or parking lots.
Mr. Noguchi said that was correct.
MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the
Planning Commission recommendation as follows:
1. Urge CalTrans to work with Palo Alto and Mountain View on more
detailed analysis. of the Palo Alto, California Avenue, and San
Aptonib -Stations
2. Endorse at this time those projects identified foe 1982.83,
1983-84, and 1984-85 for the Palo Alto station and those
identified " for 1982-83 and 1983-84 for the California Avenue
station;
Endorse the project and concept and associated =steps to ,estab-
1 i sh the San Antonio Station. The . patentl al `for increased
ridership, improved lnterttansit usage, reduced` traffic con-
9esti on and si yet fi cant relief for the. California Avenue and
Kovntai n View, stations all appear to warrant accelerating the
proposal into earlier years;
4) Refer the future analysis of rail commuter stations to the
Planning Coiami ssi on for review of future information and a
more in-depth analysis of rail station policy alternatives;
and
5) Direct staff to work with appropriate officials of Cal Trans
and the City of Mountain View for the express purpose of
refining the study results by developing more .precise informa-
tion about future parking demands and traffic circulation
needs at the Palo Alto station and the California Avenue sta-
tion in Palo Alto, as well as the potential San Antonio sta-
tion in Mountain View.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, linkage
to public transportation to other parts of Palo Alto be considered
in recommendation No. 5.
AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Fletcher absent.
NOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Fletcher absent,
ITEM #13 MORATORIUM ORDINANCE RE DEMOLITION IN COLLEGE TERRACE
City Attorney Di ane Lee said that two ordinances' were prepared.
One of the ordinances required a four -fifths vote of the
Counci lmembers present --six affirmative votes --in order to pass as
an emergency ordinance. The second ordinance was a regular ordi-
nance and would not become effective for 45 days, which meant that
any permit already in process could possibly be approved prior to
the effective date of the ordinance.
Councilmember Fazzi no said he understood that no applications were
currently in the pipeline, and it was unlikely that any demolition
would occur pri o'r to the moratorium becoming law.
Ids. Lee said that with the exception of single family residential,
if ari application came in tomorrow, the normal course of events
would take six weeks to process.
Mr. Freeland said staff , was unaware whether there might be a
single family house with a building permit to replace another
single family house. The possibility existed, but staff looked
through the records for all .uses, other than single family, during
-the last several years, and all the approved permits had compl=eted
demolition.
Councilmember Fazzino said he felt that the proposed ordinance
laid out a number of approaches which could be used by the City to
accomplish the result --to retain the hi storic nature of the area
and not lose any more of the older structures - in the future. He
encouraged that since the ordinance was already approved by the
Council philosophically, that the emergency designation should be
approved. He said the moratorium would take effect in 45 days
and he thought it would be smoother if it could take place as an
emergency item since the Council already spoke to the issue of ..
poi icy.
MOTIONS: Councilmember Fazzi no moved, seconded - by . Cobb, approval
of the emergency ordinance to place a moratorium on the demolition
Of all residential structures in the BM -3' zone in the . College
Terrace area.
Council member Witherspoon clarified that.. before -one °could obtain a
demolition permit, one- must have the replacement structure
drawings- approved.
Mr, Freeland said that was correct. Art approved building permi t
for a new residence was necessary before a residential use could
be demolished.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked what would happen if the house. to
be demolished was one of the two designations on the historic
preservation list.
Mr. Freeland responded that there would be a referral to the
Historic_ Resources • Board (HRB), and perhaps a referral from the
HRB to the Council
Counci lmember Witherspoon c,l ari fi ed that in any case the process
would take longer than 45 days.
Mr. Free) and said yes, but cl ari fled that it was more di fficult
for staff . to research - the i ndi vi dual si rigl a family homes , and
there could be some individual si ngle family homes that received
building permits where therewas an old structure to be replaced
by a new structure. Staff could :not be sure.
Councilmember Levy asked for clarification that both ordinances --
the emergency ordinance and the regular ordinance --were in effect
for six months, and that the only difference between them was that
the emergency ordinance would go into effect immediately for six
months while the regular ordinance would be effective six weeks'
from the effective date of the ordinance.
Mayor. Eyerly asked the City Attorney if the Council would be free
to change the ordinance to an emergency ordinance at a future
meeting if the regular ordinance passed tonight rather than the
emergency ordinance.
Ms. Lee said yes --the Council would repeal the regular ordinance
and adopt the emergency ordinance.
Vincent Sevely, 230 California Avenue, was an attorney who repre-
sented the family that owned the property located at 610 and 624
California Avenue in Palo Alto. He said the father- died in 1975
and the matter died in 1978, and as a result of the federal and
state taxes in those days, most of the liquid assets in the estate
were depleted. The couple's three children were the heirs, and
they were all about retirement age. He said he advised the heirs
to _ place the property on the market, and the moratorium would
place his clients in a difficult position because they .could not.
sell the property, and no one would buy- it as long as the mora-
torium was in place.
Mayor Eyerly said he would not support either ordinance. He felt
that a moratorium was too stri ngent. He suggested that the proper
method to solve the concerns of the Council would be a referral to
the Planning Commission --without .a moratorium= -for a study of the
area.
Counci 1member Witherspoon said she_ concurred with Mayor Eyerly.
She reiterated her full support for the i ntenti ons of Counci 1 -
me bers Fazzi no and Cobb, but objected to the,:. moratorium itself.
Councilmember Cobb commented that he ;felt - the; emergency ordinance
would be kindest for `all parties. because the quicker the ••Council
moved, the quicker the issue could be solved, and the shorter the
uncertainty time for. the affected property owners. He felt that
if an ordinance was, going to be passed, - it should be done on an
emergency basis.
Counci 'member Levy said he. thought Counci imember Cobb's comments
Were, logical. He thought a moratorium would be -passed either as
an emergency measure or in the regular fashion. Both moratoria
would last for ` sic °'months, and" the only difference would be
whether a moratorium commenced"immediately , 45 days earlier, and `:
it would move faster and be over sooner. He thought that was the
wiser course, and as long as something was inevitable,. the Council
should move in the most benign way possible, He was concerned
about the way the ordinance talked about hi storic structures. The
Hi stori c Resources Board had spent a lot of time studyi ng the
structures in Palo Alto and .designating them in various levels of
history. He believed that. structures 4 and 5 were on a "must
save" level, but those structures designated as 1, 2 and 3 were
also desi gnated as hi storic structures. He thought that the
Council must adhere to the strict concept of the designations when
using the term "historic structures," rather than referring to
historic structures in a vague manner. He referred to the third
"Whereas* clause in the proposed ordinance as follows:
"Whereas, the City would like to preserve as many as possible
of the historic structures in this neighborhood."
Counci1member Levy suggested that the cl ause be rephrased .as fol-
lows:
'Whereas, the City would 1 i ke to preserve as many as possible
of the structures desi gnated "hi storic" in thi s nei ghbor-
hood."
Councilmember Levy felt that language would clarify what was meant
by the term "historic" and be clearer.
AMENDMENT: Councillember Levy ,moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
that the third "Whereas" in the ordinance be changed to read:
"Whereas, the City would like to preserve as many as possible
of the structures designated °historic" in this neighbor-
hood.'
AMENDMENT APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN MAIN MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBERS
FAllINO AND COBB.
Mayor Eyerly was concerned about the wording of the amendment. He
understood that a desi gnated hi stloric structure requi red certai n
qualifications in order to be so designated and this was done by
some committee or group. He was concerned that the amendment
would requi re that the structure be designated "hi stori c," and he
thought that would slow the process down for years.
Ms. Lee clari fi ed that when something was desi gnated "hi storic,"
it entailed a decision having been made confirming its historic
qualities as opposed to a structure that could be historic .or had.
some historic potential. She said the ordinance was drafted so as
to be broad, perhaps as part of the recognition of the fact that
some of the structures could be called "historic," but had not
begin so designated.
Mayor Eyerly said that if the language was changed, the desi gna-
tion would have to be there for the ordinance to hold water.
•
Counci lmember Levy commented that' the .HR8 had carefully' studied
College Terrace,,, and, had desi gnated a- number . of structures °-hi s.-
toric. Several of them were=- given :a ftl gh hi storic 1 rating, and a
number of-: other,s - were categor zed=. s- hi storic. ,,He ,said that -the
vagueness of the prase concerned -him because the Counci was
opening the door .`for a great: 'deal-- of ',lateral- 1 nterpretati on .He
was-i.concerned that a case could--be-m,ade�_fo.r any structure..40 years
or order. •.to 'be historic, and the City woui d lose . its:' perspecti ve
of :what was truly defined as ;hi stag -s c-: -as .opposed tp si mpiy being
ol.det.
Ms. Lee pointed out that .the 'c, l Buse was a=) Whereas' clause
not really a binding part of the ordinance.
MOTION WITHDRAWN
MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, approval
of the moratorium ordinance for first reading. (Amendment to
third "Whereas" clause incorporated.)
QMOIMANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIL . OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PLACING A MORATORIUM
ON THE DEMOLITION OF ALL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN THE
RM-3 ZONE OF COLLEGE TERRACE"
Counci 1 member Fazzi no said he still believed that the emergency
item would have made sense in terms of the least amount of pain
for everyone. It was never his intention to impose an economic
burden on anyone. He wanted the Study by the Planning Commf ssi on
to take as short a time as possible in order for.. a decision to be
made by Council with respect to different zoning or adoption of
some hi stori c zone, and get ri d of the moratori um. He said that
since he had been on the City Counci 1 thi s was the first mora-
torium he ever supported, and he did not like it as a general
pri nci pl e. In this case, it was important i n order for the
Council to complete its work, and since some demolition permits
had been issued recently in the area.
Mayor Eyerly sal d that in his opt ni on, a nioratori um of any type
was the wrong vehicle to accomplish the Counci 1 's desires.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5.2, Eyerly, Witherspoon voting "no,"
Bechtel, Fletcher absent.
ITEM #I4, NORTH. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. PROGRAM
City Manager Bill Zaner introduced Tom Henderson, Manager for the
North Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management. Program (JPA) and
Jackie Stuart, Attorney for the JPA. He said the documents before
the Council had already been before the JPA and were recommended
by them. He sal d Pal o Alto was the first City Counci 1 to revi ew
the new agreement.. The existing JPA expired at the end of June,
I98a, and there was some urgency to see that the matter moved
forward.
Counci 1 member . Renzel , Council 1 1 ai son to the JPA, sal d the matter
was discussed at the last JPA meeting, and everyone was satisfied
that the agreement provided adequate protection to the local
jurisdictions while expediting the business of the JPA and moving
forward to solve the. solid waste problems.. the new . agreement pro-
vided that all major agreements rust return to the local jurisdic-
tions, but that the day to day _..administrative matters could be
handled by the JPA Board. She thought it was important for. the
Council to move forward.
NOTION: Councilmembef Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
approval of the Agreement.
AGREEMENT �- NORTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ,PROGRAM AND
REPORT AND, NEW JOINT EXERCISE :OF -POWERS AGREEMENT
Councilmember Fazzlno said he did_ not:. understand what was meant by
administrative functions Versus policy functions, and asked for.
clarification of .what powers the JPA-would have under . the proposed
agreement versus the existing situation.- Further, he was con
terned , about, what potential 1 i abi'l i ty existed for._ the individual
jurisdictions under the . new agreement.
1
1
Tom Henderson, Manager for the JPA, responded that the existing
agreement was only a planning agreement and not a JPA under the
State statutes. He said no separate. entity was created, and the
JPA could do nothing in its corn name. He said he had been. on the
JPA Board since November, and the JPA had had to return to the
City of Palo Alto, who was designated as General Administrator,
and ask the Council to approve contracts that had already been
before the JPA Board nd been approved. Regarding potential
liability, he said it would be the obligation of the individual
city councils to appropriate the annual contribution. Aside from
that, all obligations would be that of the JPA and not of the
individual members. He said any project undertaken by the JPA to
construct transfer stations, landfills, or resource recovery
plants would all be subject to separate agreements which indi-
vidual members would have to, execute if they wanted to partici-
pate.
Counci lmember Fazzi no said that if the JP.A went under for some
reason, he assumed that the individual cities would still be
liable since their members served as official city representatives
to the JPA Board.
Jackie Stuart, Attorney for the JPA, said that there was a provi-
sion that the JPA would be a self -standing entity. She called the
Council's attention to Page 41 Paragraph 9(8), Limitation of
Parties Obligations, "No debt, liability, or obligation of the
Authority shall constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of any
member party..," She said that in giving over the power to act,
the authority and responsibility for an action was al so given to
the JPA.
Mayor Eyerly asked i f , in the preparation of the document, the
participants in the proposed JPA had a committee which helped
to draft the agreement, and whether the city attorneys of the
individual cities had given their stamp of approval on the docu-
ment.
Ms. Lee responded that Tom Henderson and Ms. Stuart worked on the
agreement initially, and then met with her and Mr. Levine to go
over some of the provisions which concerned them. Some changes
were made in response to their concerns.
Ms. Stuart commented that she and Mr. Henderson were in constant
contact with all current members of the JPA. Sne said everyone
had been supplied with drafts .of the agreement, and comments were
elicited from everyone. .
Mayor Eyerly clarified that all concerns of the various cities
were represented in the agreement.
Ms. Stuart responded particularly for Sunnyvale and Palo Alto.
She said the document had been revised to conform with the sugges-
tions of Sunnyvale and Palo Alto.
Mayor Eyerly said that if the Palo Alto City Council only accepted
the document with certain changes, and other cities had already
accepted the document, would it have to be taken back to each of
the cities for reapproval.
Ms. Stuart said that was correct,
changes had already been made.
Mayor Eyerly asked what problems, : if any, would : arise i f the docu-
ment was not accepted by the end of June, 1982.
and that was the reason so many.
Ms. Stuart sal d the process would start again.
_Mayor Eyerly was not certain that the document would win approval
from all the,: ci ti es. - He was glad to see the document and thought.
it was a necessary item and _ a big step , forward for the JPA, but..
2 _-11-- 3 _8-
'6/14/82
1
was concerned: that if the document was approved, the cities would
be locked in for 30 years. He had a number of major concerns
which would take far more time than was appropriate for a.Council
meeting. He felt that the Ci,ty's Finance and Public Works (F&PW)
Committee should have the opportunity to go through the agreement,
and make a recommendation to the Council.
Ms. Stuart commented that the JPA's intent was to make the docu-
ment as flexible as possible so that any projects undertaken could
be carefully reviewed at the time the agreement was reached. She
said that one of the most important clauses in the agreement was
contained on Page B, Article V(B), Project Financing, whereby any
project entered into was entered into 6y the JPA and t'el indi-
vidual parties so that any such agreement would have to go through
the individual city councils for approval.
Councilmember Witherspoon referred to Page 9, Article VI New
Member Parties, and asked for clarification that if Mountain View
and Santa Clara did not become a part of the JPA as of December
31, 1982, they could not come oe board.
Ms. Stuart said no. She said they would be required to come in
under the "New Member Parties" provision, which would require a
vote by the members of the JPA, and setting of new terms which
would be required at that time. She said the grace period for the
two entities allowed the entities already prepared to move ahead
to do so without being dragged through the interim six month
period of inactivity. She said that if the two entities decided
to participate at some point down the road, at that time they
would have to request admission, which admission would have to be
approved by every member, and the terms of admission would have to
be set by agreement of all of the then members.
Councilrnember Cobb asked if the JPA, under the agreement, were to
be in default of obligations, would it wind up going back to the
member parties.
Ms. Lee responded that it was her understanding that public enti-
ties entered into a JPA for the same reasons that private indi-
viduals entered into corporations --to insulate them from
liability.
Counci lmember Cobb asked about the wording, "to do any and all
things necessary or convenient to effectively and officially ful-
fill the purposes set forth herein." He was troubled by that
statement because it seemed to be tremendously sweeping.
Ms. Stuart responded that the agreement was strictly pursuant to
State law. She said that the powers enumerated in the agreement
were taken from the Code. The agency, had only the powers of its
members, and the purposes were set forth carefully in the document
so that Qtly those p erposes would be followed, and the actions
must be taken to move those purposes forward.
Counci lmember Cobb asked whether Ms. Lee was comfortable that the
City had not given up the control it should have to protect itself
both legally and ,in terms of physical actions that the JPA might
take. Further, on _. page 2, Parties' Objectives, although he
realized that "Whereas" clauses were not binding, he thought it
was a big jump from Whereas No. 2, the feasibility report, to
Whereas No. 3, for construction of the new . facilities to begin in
July, 1985. He thought those 1-1/2 years could be the most diffi-
Cult of the entire document --to get all the various political
agreements as, to where the siting would take place, where the
transfer stations would be, etc.
Mr. Henderson referred Councilmember Cobb back to Exhibit 8, the
first chart, which was incorporated as part of the agreement. He
said the Exhibit was basically a six -year schedule which spelled
out how the JPA anticipated trying to prosecute the project. He
said the schedule was based on the number of developments, in
California and the rest of the country, on similar projects. As
stated before, the calendar was ambitious , but achievable. He
said basically the JPA was trying to build as much fire as pos-
sible, which in the opinion of the JPA would move the project
along faster and get the JPA where it needed to go faster.
Councilmember Cobb asked at what point a problem would arise with
the agreement if considerable slippage occurred in the schedule.
Mr. Henderson responded that the agreement was a tool by which the
JPA could go ahead and move along on the project. It was not a
requirement that the JPA ever move beyond a study stage. He said
there were provisions for. termination by membership if it was felt
that the proposed project was inappropriate, and an annual with-
drawal period was provided for any member who felt that was neces-
sary. He thought the best that could be said was that the JPA had
developed a program it felt would allow them to meet the proposed
schedule --it was ambitious --but it was possible that the JPA might
be able to improve on the schedule.
Mr. Lefler commented that he was convinced that the agreement
represented Palo Alto's best interests. He said he was personally
involved in the agreement's development, and since Palo Alto was
the administering agency, he had been very close to the develop-
ment of the document. He said a technical advisory committee com-
prised of all city managers and public works directors was formed,
and had met for months going over drafts of all seven jurisdic-
tions. Each of those drafts had been sent to the governing board,
which reviewed each draft and made modifications. He said the
agreement amounted to a framework that would allow the JPA to move
ahead into the next phase of development, but the key was that the
next steps could not be taken without individual councils voting
on those steps. The Councils' delegates would not have the autho-
rity to bind a city council on projects the JPA might move into
without individual .city council consent. He said this framework
was needed in order to make the JPA a worthwhile organization.
Councilmember Renzel said she agreed with Mr. Zaner.. Regarding
Exhibit 8, she said there were various steps at which point "go'
or "no go" decisions would have to be made with respect to various
projects. She commented that interim projects would occur, i.e.,
landfills, .construction of shredders, construction of transfer..
stations, and those projects may not be needed by. every community
at the same time. At the point when each project was to be pur-
sued, and likewise the funding for those projects, subsequent
agreements would be necessary that the individual cities would
have to execute in order to be a part of the particular project.
By the same token, Palo Alto had the power to reject any project
to occur in its jurisdiction, so that it was not giving up any
policy powers. She said the agreement was a flexible one which
set :the framework under which the JPA could effectively do its day
to day business. She urged that the Council support the motion.
Councilmember Klein said he had ` mixed feelings. He felt that the
agreement protected the City's interests, and allowed , the City to
move forward on a project which already was subject to a lot of
delays. He thought it was regrettable that the agreement was
before the Council on June 14 when it : was to become effective on
July 1 , and that Palo, Alto was the first jurisdiction to hear -it.
He thought 'it was unrealistic to' think that all -,jurisdictions
would approve the agreement : in a 16 day period. He said that if
forced to do so, he , would vote in favor of the motion, but was
intrigued by $ayor Eyerly's . ;suggestion that some provisions were
included in the NCPA agreellient that were n'dt included .:in= this one,
which fight improve the JPA agreement. He suggested that the JPA
agreement be continued for one week, and that Mayor Eyerly refer
his written comments regarding the differences between the JPA
agreement and the NCPA agreement, and that the Counci lmembers try
and satisfy themselves otherwise with regard to the provisions of
the agreement.
Mayor Eyerly said he was concerned, i n Exhibit A, that the . agree-
ment did not provide for weighted voting. He said there were two
large members in the JPA--Sunnyv al e, and Palo Alto. He thought
certain types of projects would require weighted voting, otherwise
there were three small members who could carry the majority and
the others would have to pay the bill. He thought that Exhibit A
needed a roll call vote on all financial matters to be documented
and attached to the minutes because the JPA would be challenged
many times . He thought a provision for approval . of . expenses after
the fact should be included in the Articles. He said that consul-
tant contracts of under $25,000 could be awarded by the General,
Manager wi thout the Coinmi ssi on 's approval . He di d not thi nk
management should be able to send out Requests for Proposals (RFP)
without Board approval. He did not see anything in the agreement
which spoke to the return ofthe seed moneys to the cities who put
up the up -front moneys. He said he had a major concern that there.
was a provision in the JPA for cities to withdraw. If Sunnyvale
withdrew, who would pick up their share. He did not think Palo
Alto would be capable of picking up their share. He was not sure
how the JPA projects related to the general agreement, and he.
wanted assurances that the parties to the JPA were protected. As
projects commenced, something would have to be pledged in order to.
obtain the bonding, and he did not think bonding would be provided
on the equipment to be purchased. He thought there would be a
problem selling the bonds unless something i n the way of revenue
was pledged.
Counci lmember Renzel said that because any specs fic project and
the funding for that project would require a separate agreement,
the City Council would not find themselves in the midst of a big
project with all the parties withdrawing. If there werenot suf-
ficient parties to fund a project, the project would not commence.:z.
She sai d the agreement was desi gned so as to speci fi cal ly precl ude
that from happening. Regarding the weighted vote, the smal
cities could not afford to proceed with a big project without the
1 arger cities, and all jurisdictions had to be parties to an
agreement for a project, She thought incentives existed for the
accommodation of all . parties i n order to get the maximum parti ci -
pation and the maximum funding for any projects. Regarding the
consultant contract, she thought that provision was patterned
afte ` the City of Palo Alto's consultant contract provisions. She
thou eht that at the point of bonding, the agreements would specify
tow khe seed money would be reimbursed, and that once individual
project agreements were executed, a -City would be unable to with-
draw from the JPA.
Mayor Eyerly had a question on Page 3, Article 11(2), and asked
what it meant to pledge, any property :or revenues.. He asked elf the
City of Palo Alto was adequately protected- as an individual _city
that the JPA could not pledge any of its revenues or property.
Tom Henderson responded.that the powers. could only be exercised as
Authorized by law. re The i aw and the agreement required, that all
long: term -financing—issuance. of bonds, notes, a bank loan --would _
require the un,animous consent of the participating- eeembership i n
the project. He said the provision allowed. 1 anguage_ whereby the
JPA could negotiate contracts with the individual' agencies in-
order to enter into long- term debt assuming that the security' was.
put up under those separate: contracts. The_:JPA-' tried to :.prowl de a:
framework that could be somewhat- evolutionary as time -went on and,
at the same time provide_ maximum Protection -for its members. He
--said that the rules of procedure were #ncorpor :'ted, as was done in
a number of other JPA agreement, so that the ,ci ties would:- be aware
1
1
of the organization's bylaws. He said they were amendable, and if
the Council wanted its representative to initiate a specific
amendment, .\the Board would be happy to look at it. Specifically,
the JPA tried, regarding contracting and purchasing, to follow the
procedures of either the City of Sunnyvale or the City of Palo
Alto. Regarding purchasing, the JPA was somewhat more conserva-
tive than the City of Palo Alto in that Palo Alto's ordinance and
Charter provided that after bidding, the City Manager could issue
contracts for materials in any amount. The JPA _limited it to
$10,000. He _ said the Board had to approve any ' contract over
$10,000, including consultant selection, and the only difference
was the method by which the consultant was selected changed after
$25,000. He said it took about 90 to 120 days to geta consultant
on board using the long advertising and RFP process.
Mayor Fyerly asked -regarding voting in Exhibit "A," Page 6,
Paragraph (b), what a two-thirds majority would do.
.Tom Henderson responded that there were five board members, and. t
would take' four board members to recommend a project back to the
five city counci l s. The Board could not authorize a project --it
could only recommend projects back- :to the individual: Councils. He
said before any project could commence, and before any financing
-could take place, the city councils or county who wish to partici-
pate in the project, must specifically approve the: project. That
was required under Page 8, Article V, Paragraph B, Project
Financing in the Agreement, and under State statute.
Mayor Fyerly asked about the return of seed moneys that may be
expended for bonding. How would the cities get their money back?
Tom Henderson said that would be subject to the provisions of the
individual agreement. lt could not be in the base agreement'
because that type of action was specifically prohibited by the
State's JPA statutes --it did not allow for refunds. He said
certain project costs incurred during an interim period between
the time the project was authori zed by the city councils and
funding through a bond issue or a loan or:.; some other mechanism
could probably be refunded, but as far as annual conteibutions,
that was money that was an annual contribution and could not be
refunded.
Mayor Eyerly said that when the JPA started to move on a: project,
a considerable amount of . money may be spent .on site acquis-i ti on
before the bonding. Approval of an assessment :to the individual
members -would be necessary. He asked Mr. Henderson if he thought
that money should be included ,in the bonding in order for that
honey to be returned to the titles.
Tom Henderson thought that recommendation would have to be made by
the JPA Board back to the individual party members.
Mayor Fyerly asked what type of security would be necessary . for
the payment of the bonding.
Tom -Henderson ° said i t was anticipated that the :..bonding would be
based on a guarantee through the individual contract of -tipping
fees or through some other revenue source legally. pleageable. The
ti ppi`ng fee would be ` that -fee paid to have waste 'disposed of at
some facility or transferred at a -transfer facility. Basically,
it would be a revenue bond ie-sue.
Mayor Fyerly asked 1 f the City of Palo Alto was protected against
the JPA using any of Palo Alto's other: revenues.,, as security for
bonding.
Mayor Eyerly said he thought there should be some provision for
protection of the major participants and the amount of money
requi red from them.
Tom .Henderson responded that the original drafts of -the • .agreement
included a voting system ` whereby when votes were taken on-orL specific
project matters, which were authors zed under separate agreement,
only. those .people that were parties to the other agreements could
parki ci pate. He said the provi si on was removed after di scussi ons
with the City- Managers and the City Attorneys because i te was felt
- to be inappropr.i ate, and projects could only move Jorward on
unanimous. consent. Conceptually, JPA s were based on consensus
and unanimous support.
Counci lmember Levy said the matter should be continued for one
week i n order for Mayor Eyerly to discuss the agreement more
speci fi cal ly and try to obtain an agreement for changes. He
thought that Counci lmember Ki ei n was correct that the process
should not take longer than a week.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Counci lmember Levy moved, seconded by
Eyerly, to continue to June 21, 1982 (Motion re Agreement will be
before the Council at that times)
Council member Klein said the issue was significant, and he woul d
support the continuance for one week. He said he had not heard
anything to make hi s support of the proposed new JPA Agreement
waiver. He saw the agreement as a two part system. The proposed
organization would have a good deal of power to run things on -a
day by day basis using the City's annual allocation to it, He
pointed_; out that on a year's notice, the City of Palo Alto could
disassociate itself from the JPA, and all that would be lost would
be a year's worth of dues. He said that the big dollars repre-
sented the second part of the agreement, and he thought the City
of Pal o Alto had air ti ght protecti on in that before the JPA could
adopt any major project whatsoever, it had to return to each of
the consti tuent agenci es and make a deal . He fel t that the
administrative powere granted by the procedure were necessary if
the JPA wasto move forward. The JPA must be given some autonomy
in order to make it work. He would support the continuance.
Counci lmember Renzel urged the Counci lmembers , if their questi ons
had been adequately answered, to vote against the Conti nuarce and
support the motion. She thought the agreement was very straight-
forward and the Palo Alto , City Manager, City Attorney, and
Director of Public Works had participated' i n the drafting of the
agreement. The agreement was basically an admi ni strati ve agree-
ment, any major projects would have to be done on a project - by-
project basis., and the City would have ample say in any project
because it was a major component to any agreement. She urged
that the . Council support the Motion to approve the agreement, and
not support the motion for a continuance. She would vote against
the Conti nuance.
MQTXON TO CONTINUE ,PASSED 8Y A VOTE OE 4-3, Fazzi no, Re.izel ,
Wi tl'erspoon voting 'no, ° Bechtel, -Fletcher absent.
RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION RE .LITIGATION. FROM 10:15 b m. TO 10:25
ITEM #15, NEW PARKING RESTRICTIONS
Staff, recommends (a) that Counci 1 adopt the resod uti on -Whi th
establishes five new parking prohibited zones, and expands the
five hour return rule to a1:1 business district public parking lots
and structures; and (h) that -.Council adopt the ordinonce. which
-prohi-bits` the storage of vehicles for more than 72 consecuti i►,e
hours 1 n all business district publ'i c parking lots and struc-
tures,
Ted Thompson, 410 Cambridge Avenue, said he supported the new
ordinance. He commented that a person had purchased a yearly
ticket for $30 for the lots opposite his office, and their car had
been parked in the same spot for a,. year. The first of this . year,
he bought another ticket and was still parking in the same spot.
He said that the lot was being used for storage. He said that now
there were three people utilizing one lot strictly for storage
purposes for $30 a year. The parking stalls were worth at least
$20,000, and it would be a delight to see those cars taken care of
so that other people could utilize the lot.- Further, he said that
CalTrans had a downfall of 165 cars; they could account for 50 of
them around Bowden Park, but the other 100 odd cars were getting
parking permits under false pretenses. He thought staff should be
directed to put some meat into the issuance of parking tickets, so
that a person obtained a permit with the •understanding that he
worked in the district.
MOTION: Counciimeeber Renzel coved, seconded by F.xzino,
approval of the resolution and introduced the ordinance for first
reading.
RESOLUTION 6038 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL AF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO _APPROVING AND ADOPTING FIVE NEW
PARKING -PROHIBITED TONES AND EXTENDING THE 'FIVE HOUR
RETURN RULE' TO THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE AND MIDTOWN
BUSINESS DISTRICTS"
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION
10.06..140 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
SUBPARAGRAPH (g) THERET). TO PROHIBIT PARKING BY PERMIT
HOLDERS IN EACH CITY -OWNED OR LEASED PARKING LOT OR
STRUCTURE IN THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE, CALIFORNIA AVENUE
AND MIDTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICTS FOR MORE THAN 72 CON-
SECUTIVE HOURS IN THE SAME LOT OR STRUCTURE"
Counci lmember Renzel said she thought that regarding the Maybe]]
project, that at the time the substandard street was approved, a
no parking Arestriction was automatical ly , in effect. She asked
what happened, and if the city somehow di d not designate it.
Director of Transportatican Ted Noguchi believed that it was
thought that the parking bay created would take care of the over-
flow ' parking and, therefore, there would be no need to use the
street area itself. Unfortunately, that did not happen. When
there was an overflow from the parking bays, the visitors tended
to park in areas of the actual street travelways themselves.
Counci lmember Renzel confirmed that the, City was forced into a.
patrol situation, and had the City made a ..standard street the
si tuati on would not have occurred.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Nechtel , Fletcher absent.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked about whetner the. City made any
spot), checks regarding the people that applied for parking per-
mits.
Pr. Noguchi responded that he would discuss with .Jean Camugi ia the
way in which the, program was administered on California Avenue.
ITEM 116 CHARITABLE SOLICITATION ORDINANCE
NOTION: : Counci lseoehr°
RIDOzol • roved, seconded by : F azzi nog
approval of the ernin4ete for first reading ,
O1 M.CE FOR FIR T, READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF: THE
tOONCIt iF TI$( CIT P k F' PALO= ALTO AMENDING CERTAIN
SECTIONS OF -TITLE 4 REGARDING SOLICITING FUNDS*;
1
Councilmember Renzel said that the City needed to pass the new
ordinance to comply with the new holdings, and she thought it was
important that the City keep its ordinance in effect.
City Attorney Diane Lee said she thought the report was very com-
prehensive. She introduced Marsha Grimm, a legal intern in the
City Attorney's office, who had worked extensively on the prepara-
tion of the ordinance. She understood that Mr. Zaner was con-
cerned about the inclusion of political groups in the ordinance.
She said her office felt that it was the appropriate thing to do
because of the difficulty in defining, in some circumstances, what
was and ,what was not a political group. Traditionally, political
groups were required to get an I .D. number from the Secretary of
State, and once that was done, they were no longer bound by the
ordinance with the exception of the hours of solicitation. Staff
felt that was the cleanest way of differentiating between. the
traditional political organizations, and dealing with the particu-
lar aspect of the ordinance. She pointed out that the ordinance.
was a departure from the previous ordinance, because those groups
were not covered.
City Manager Bill Zaner said he thought the ordinance was well
drawn. He was concerned that _ there was a subtle shift :in the
ordinance. Up until now, the City had never -issued a permit to
any political group. The new ordinance would now require, in some
cases, the City to issue a permit to a political group. He said
the ordinance was set up that political groups would be defined by
showing their certification number from the State. If such a
number did not exist, and the organization still claimed to be a
political group, they would have to have a permit. He: said it was
possible that the City might be giving permits to political groups
to do the soliciting. In the past, when someone came in and said
they were a political group and intended to do some door-to-door
soliciting, the City took their word for it. He said that would
no longer be done, and the City would require the, State I.D.
number, If the 1.D. number could not: be presented, the City would
'require that political organization to obtain a permit.
Councilmember Witherspoon said that as a homeowner, she felt more
comfortable that as many groups as possible have permits when
asking for money. She said there were some very questionable
people that came to her door at very questionable hours, and when
there were children at home that answered the door, they were vul-
nerable al so. She clarified that the City was not going to charge
a fee, and asked Mr. Zaner if he knew how expensive the process
would be.
Mr. Zaner said no, but did not think it would be major. He said
Ms. Lehrkind issued the permits, and pointed out that the City did
no investigation whatsoever. If a group came in and asked for a
permit, they had to fill out a form, and the City did not check
out the backgrounds.
Councilmember Levy asked what it was about asking for money that
required a permit. He asked_ i f :the person asking for money was
more of a danger to the neighborhood than the person not asking
for money.
Ms. Lae suggested that when people went to someone's door asking
for money for :a worthy cause, some_ people had difficulty screening
the people. She thought a purpose of the ordinance was to provide
a . little check on that situation because some people were more
vulnerable in their homes, and .:for the City ; to get' some informa-
tion about those groups that were out and:. about. :She said, that in.
addition to reg l ati ng ,the need for a> permit-, the . ordinance also
provided for hours of solicitation In that respect, the ordi-
nance provided: some "rights for. privacy in one's home.
2 k 4 5
6/14/82
1
Counci 1member Levy asked if it was felt that . the homeowner was
safeguarded by the City requiring the issuance of a permit. He
understood that no checks were made, and even though someone
sol iciting money had a permit from the City of Palo Alto, the
homeowner could feel no safer with that person than if he did not
have a permit from the City of Palo Alto.
Ms. Lee said that to the extent that the City had issued a permit,
and someone abused their authority under the permit, there were:
provisions` in the Business and Professions -Code to deal with that
situation, and there were al so provisions i n the ordinance to
revoke permits for people who acted inappropriately, To some
extent, the City could safeguard the homeowners from groups that
engaged in that kind of conduct.
Mr. Zaner felt that the permit was a perfunctory kind of document.
The City did not investigate .the application, and if someone came
i n and said they were a particular political organization, they
were taken at their word and issued a permit. He said the process
►e s no =different from that of other c.i ties, and many cities were
getting out of the permit business for those kinds of activities.
Councilmember Cobb agreed with Mr. Zaner's concerns. He asked
what would happen if the Crescent Park Homeowner's Association
decided to go around and solicit members and money for those
members --would it make them a political organization. What if
literature was left, but the literature asked for money --would
that be a sol icitati on. Fie said what i f someone persi stently
solicited money without a permit. What would happen.
Ms. Lee responded that one would be guilty of violating the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, and would be required to get a permit.
Councilmember Klein said he was in favor of the ordinance. He
thought there was a big difference between people asking for money
and people asking for support of their views. He said the danger
was not that people would hear views they did not want to hear --
that was.. a first amendment right. When people started asking for
money, he thought that was a different bal l game. He said everyone
knew there were people out there that were interested in ripping
other people off. He felt that if the City :could offer its citi-
zens some protection against people who were improperly solici-
ting, then it should be done.
Councilmember Levy said he thought the ordinance was a phony. The
homeowner could not rely on the City of Palo, Alto for any
protection. He said that the fact that the person obtained a
permit ahead of time meant nothing --any unscrupulous person who
thought ahead could get the permit. Ho, could then go to the
homeowner and say that he was registered with the City of Palo
Alto, and tha* it was okay to deal with him. The City Council
knew that the City of Palo Alto had not approved that person, but
nevertheiess the homeowner did not.
AMEf014E$T: Cooeci l seater - Levy moved to delete Setts oas
.,-4.30.030(6) and (7) .frog the ---ordinance.
. ANEN0ME IT FAILED FOR LACk CF A- SECOND.
Councilmember Fazzi no said .,he thought the intent of ..the proposal
was. a- geed. ,one.• He felt that poliiti cal econtri bet i ons sere heavily
regulated at the ;,federal and state level , and he saw no reason why _. .
theyr_ should ,-not _ be . regui-at_ed at the local 1 evel . He -was concerned
that. whi) a the. ---Cttafe did ± prov0 oe, a stamp of -e 1 egi ti Macy upon a
gr`ou do` i nvesti gat i'on was conducted, - - He asked whether the. Ci-ty
cool 0 be held, l i`abl a =i f sOme., fraudulent act occurred -gi ven thee.
fact'that a permit wasp. issued oy _the City.
t
Mls.J Lee said that :-immunity was provided to the ,TCi ty i n the
-Government, Code .for issuance of: permits.
1
1
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Levy voting "no," Bechtel
Fletcher absent.
ITEM #17 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE COLLECTIONS IN MUNICIPAL COURT
MOTION(: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, approval
of the agreement.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ADJUSTING PERCENTAGE
DISTRIBUTION OF COURT ORDERED ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION 1463
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel , :Fletcher absent.
ITEM #18, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX - RECOMMENDED BALLOT MEASURE
City Manager Bill Zaner commented that the transient occupancy tax
appeared in the budget message. He said the recommendation was
that the matter be referred to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW)
Committee for their review and debate, If Council wished to act
on the ballot measure, the decision would have to be made f!y July
26, 1982,
MOTION: Councilmember -Fazzi no moved, seconded by Klein, to
refer the Transient Occupancy Tax to the Finance and Public Works
(F&PW) Committee with recommendation to be returned to Council by
July 12, 1982.
Councilmember Levy said he thought the Transient Occupancy Tax was
a minor matter, and that it was premature. He had no quarrel with
the tax itself, but was concerned about moving ahead with an item
before the dimensions of the need were determined. He thought the
Council would only receive ballot approval of a new tax, with a
two-thirds vote, if there was a clear and overriding need.
Furthiee, he was concerned that if an item wai,: put on the ballot
prematurely, and it was passed, it could preclude the City from
getting another larger and more needed tax approved later. He
thought the Council should look at the matter in a more comprehen-
sive fashion. He would vote against the motion.
Councilmember Cobb said he thought an emergency study should be
referred to the F&PW Committee to prepare the City in case a $1.7
million loss of funding was realized.
Councilmember Witherspoon said that if the matter was referred .to
the F&PW Committee, she wanted to see another staff report on the
subject, including the .anticipated revenues at each percentage
point level.
Mayor Eyerly said ..that with the referral motion, he thought it
would be wise for the F&PW to consi der the tax along with other
possible' revenue sources. He thought it was logical for the .City
to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax, but he was concerned ° about
when the matter would be placed on the ballot. He understood: that
the proposed gas tax increase would be on the November ballot. He
said he= doubted that the gas tax would pass, but he was concerned
that there could be some rub off on other increase tax measures on
the ballot at the name time. He thought the Committee should
consider the politics of when themeasureshould be on the ballot.
He understood that there was no suggestion by;:staff that the tax
increase should be effected prior to fiscal year 1983-84.
Councilmember Klein said he thought it was prudent for the City to
start planning for the tax increass,
NOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Levy voting no, Bechtel,
Fletcher absent.
2 1. 4
6/14/82
ITEM #19, REQUEST OF MAYOR EYERLY RE PART-TIME CALIFORNIA
1
1
i
Mayor Eyerly said a constitutional amendment . was proposed i n the
legislature which would repeal the fell -time system and reinstate
the part-time system. He pointed out that the costs of bi 11 s had
risen from about $9,000 in 1965-66 to about $46,000 in 1979-80.
He said there was very little change in the number of bills
enacted --about 2,271 to 2,679 currently. The number of
legislative days increased from 212 to 513. He was concerned by
those figures, and thought it behooved the Council to consider
approval of a resolution supporting the proposed amendment.
MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that .staff
prepare a resolution supporting the concept of the proposed legis-
lation to reinstate the part-time California legislature initia-
tive.
Councilmember Cobb commented that the effort clearly was from the
ri ght side of the political spectrum. He agreed that the concept
had a lot of merit, and suggested that a resolution be prepared to
support the concept presented without supporting the particular
piece of legislation. The resolution should state that the City
supported the general concept because of the escalating costs of
state government at the expense of local jurisdictions.
Mayor Eyerly said the point was well taken.
Councilmember Renzel said she was reluctant to support the motion
without knowing more about the bill and exactly how the legisla-
ture worked. She was not always thrilled with the way things
worked in Sacramento, but as a member of the public who had occa-
sionally gone to Sacramento to try and deal with bills going
through the legislature, she was appalled at how fast certain
actions were taken and the fact that the public did not have
enough time to effectively lobby or participate in the legislative
process. She was concerned that even with a full-time
legislature, bills often jammed up at the end, and legislators
were forced to act on bills without giving them proper considera-
tion. She was uncertain whether a part-time legislature system
was. appropriate, and ,soul d not participate on the item.
Councilmember Klein said he would vote against the. motion. He
thought it was a partisan measure even with the change to support
the legislation in concept. California was the largest state in
the union with complicated problems to deal with, and he felt that
moving to a part-time legislative . body would encourage wealthier
people and discourage or eliminate the poorer peoplal from ever.
being legislators.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 4-2.1, Levy, Klein voting
Renrel 'not participating,'" Bechtel Fletcher absent.
ITEM`#4Oy REQUEST- OF COUNCILMEMUER FAllJNO RE -CITY COUNCIL MEETING
�I �F���sYr wwARdwa.�lY[w�rrq�f m�fa.�e s . ,e �.emasi� �qla r�rs -
Councilmember Fazzltno said that at a recent F&PW Committee
meeting, City Manager Bill Zanier meeti tined . his interest in
developing a proposal -to reduce -the number of Council meetings.
He believed the proposal made sense in li got of the reduced number
of hours that Council had met over the past, fee months.r He said
Mr. Zener`s approach included three' planned Meetings each month
with an _option for a -fourth 'Meeting, if absolutely necessary. He
indicated that once upon a time, the Palo _ Alto . Ci.ty Council met
twice a' month and in the mi'd-19.60 `s adopted `a four -week' a month
schedule. - He thought i t Was: appropriate~ to .i eave the plan
specifics to the City Manager, and he supported- ,his intent. He
did , not want to create a: situation whereby ,tae Council met Until at _ e +ery meeting just so there `wou1 t only_ be three
meetings a month. -He hoped ° the proposed pl an would help the
Counciimembers. to move along quickly.
2 1-4 8
6/14/82
MOTION: Councilmember. Fazzino moved, seconded by Klein, that
the City Manager be directed to prepare a plan to reduce the
number of City Council meetings and to report on number and length
of meetings held.
Councilmember Levy said he thought the Council should first have
less work to do, then have less meetings, rather than having less
meetings first. Further, he was concerned that the journalists
that followed the Council every Monday night world be out of work
one night a month, and he was sympathetic to those people. He
would not support the motion.
Councilmember Cobb commented that Councilmember Fazzino's general
point was well taken. He said that marathon meetings should not
be the product of any set plan. The public was not wel 1 served
with marathon _meetings because people had to sit through an awful
lot to make a small point, which he felt was unfair. He felt that
shorter meetings had an advantage to Councilmembers and citizens
because everyone could deal with matters when they were fresh. He
did not object to reducin3 the number of meetings, but . felt that
meeting length, the Councii's ability to deal with issues, and the
public being able to contribute its two cents worth should be the
governing factors. He would support the motion with that
caution.
Councilmember Renzel said she considered that meetings that went
past 11:00 p.m. approached the marathon category. She said since
Council did not meet on the fifth Monday, it was desirable that
the second meeting off in a five meeting month not be the one
either immediately preceding or immediately following the fifth
Monday so that business was not delayed- for three weeks rather
than two.
MOTION; PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Levy voting "no," Bechtel and
Fletcher absent.
1
ITEM t21 RESUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER COBB AND MAYOR EYERLY TO III
IL S
MOTION Councilmember .Cobb moved, seconded by Eyerly, to
adjourn the meeting in memory of Councilmember Fazzino's lost
youth.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Fletcher absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 11:20 p.m, in memory of Councilmember
Fazzino's lost youth.
ATTEST:
APPROVED: