Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-09 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUT€s CITY OF - PALO ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, August 9, 1982 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 2 3 3 7 Consent Calendar 2 3 3 7 Referral 2 3 3 7 Item #1, Regional Water Quality Control Capacity 2 3 3 7 Study - Referral to Finance and Public Works Committee Action Item #2, Baylands Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Item #3, Firefighter Physical Fitness Examination/ Evaluation 2 3 3 7 2 3 3 7 2 3 3 7 Item #4, Police Department Physical Fitness 2 3 3 8 Program Item #5, San Francisco Water Contract Negotiations 2 3 3 8 - City of Palo Alto/City and County of San Francisco Item #6, San Franci squi to Creek Erosion Control - 2 3 3 8 Project 82-06 Item #7, Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Certain Parking Lots iri Conjunction with Temporary Conditional Use Permit 2 3 3 8 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 2 3 3 8 Item #8, City Council Hospital Subcommittee Recommendation re Stanford University Hospital Modernization Project 2 3 3 8 Item #9, Cable Television Lobbyist Ordinance 2. 3 5 1 (Continued from 8/2/82) Item #10, Public Hearing: Planing Commission 2 3 5 6 Recommendation re Cottage Zones (Continued from 3/8/82) Item #11, Santa Clara County Transit District Bus 2 3 6 0 Route Modifications 2 3 3 5 8/09/82 ITEM Item #12, Possible .Acquisitiln of 630-636 Gilman Street Through the Parking Assessment District Item #13, Request of Mayor Eyerly re Resolution Recognizing Achievements of the Palo Alto Employee Corporate Cup Track Team (Pacesetters) Item #14, Request of Councilmembers Klein, Bechtel and Renzel for Support of BCDC Jurisdiction over Diked Wetlands of San Francisco Bay Item #15, Request of Councilmember Cobb re Cable Television - Programming Decisions for a Municipal System - Referral to Policy and Procedures Committee PAGE 2 3 6 1 2 3 6 4 2 3 6 4 2 3 6 5 Item #16, Request of Mayor Eyerly re Cable 2 3 6 .7 Television Legislation - SB 2172 Item #17, Request of Councilmember Witherspoon re 2 3 6 8 Pacific Telephone Agreement Item #18, Councilmember Levy re Commendation to 2 3 6 9 City Clerk and City Attorney Offices Adjournment 2 3 6 9 Regular Meeting Monday, August 9, 1982 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. i PRESENT: Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel (arrived at 7:35 p,m.) , Witherspoon ABSENT: Bechtel ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1, Dr. Harvey K. Roth, 3422 Kenneth Drive, submitted a sample resolution, which is on file in the City Clerk's office, regarding the labeling of alcohol and alcoholic products. He thought that if a resolution could be passed regarding drinking in public parks, a memorialization recognizing the dangers of excessive drinking could also be passed. Regarding Cable Television, rather than a private cable company getting the franchise or the City going into business again, he sug- gested that consideration be given to the consumer cooperative alternative. He spoke of the formation of an anelleto club in Palo Alto. He asked for City cooperation and help. The club would focus • on alcohol and drug rehabilitation. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Councilmeroaber Fazzino moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral ITEM #1, REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL CAPACITY STUDY - REFERRAL Staff requests the approval of the Finance and Public Works Committee to proceed with negotiations with the first ranked firm, Waste LI Wator International, and to negotiate with the second ranked firm in the event an agreement is not reached. AWARD OF CONTRACT WASTE & WATER INTERNATIONAL Action ITEM #2 BAYLANDS ;ICICLE/PEDESTRIAN PATH (CMR:441:2) Staff recommends that Council 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the .attached,_- contract with Keyco Engineering Corporation for $307,002.80; . Authorize staff to execute change orders to the construction contract of up to $50,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT KE ; CO ENGINEERING CORPORATION' ITEM : 03; FIREFIGHTER PHYSICAL FITNESS ' EXAMINATION/EVALUATION. L' MR A I : Z) Staff recommends that , the . Mayor be, authorized to -sign t tract. YMCA CONTRACT ITEM #4, POLICE DEPARTMENT` PHYSICAL FITNESSPROGRAM (CMR:408:2) 1 1 Staff recommends approval of the contract with the Palo Alto area YMCA for fiscal year 1982-83. YMCA CONTRACT ITEM #5, SAN FRANCISCO WATER CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS - CONTRACT CQU)TTY OF SAN 1-1ANC15Cif 1 CMR : 4-3b : Z} Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to execute the July 14, 1982 San Francisco Water Department letter extending our contract for Hetch Hetchy water through December 31, 1932. ITEM #6, SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK EROSIO)1 CONTROL. - PROJECT 82-06 Staff recommends: 1. That the ; Mayor be authorized to execute the agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District for $187,200 to be shared for the construction of embankment stabilization along San Franci squi to Creek; 2 That staff be authorized to execute change orders to the agreement of up to $2,000. AGREEMENT SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ITEM #7 CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CERTAIN PARKING (CMR:438:2) Staff recommends that Council amend Municipal Code Section 9.04.020 to allow the issuance of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator that would grant any Palo Alto resident, business entity, or organization doing business in Palo Alto, an authorization for consumption of alcoholic beverages in the fol- lowing City parking lots: Lot D, Lot P, Lot R, Lot` S, Lot N, Lot 0, Lot_ Q, Lot C-4, Lot C-5, and Lot C-8; furthermore, that permits be granted only for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, or Saturday from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. ORDINANCE FOR. FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF 100- COUNC L •.OF THE CITY : or PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 9,04 020 OF THE PALO ALTO MU$1CPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO AUTHORIZE 'CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CERTAIN PARKING LOTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT' MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Counciiwember ' Witherspoon, . added item #17, re Pacific Telephone Agreement. ITEM #8 CITY .COUNCIL.,- HOSPITAL SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE Mayor, Eyerlr said that ,the `Council subcoialmittee . met ;-on_. August 3, 1982, .and_ 'heard:.from, _the" Coamur+i"ty' Phys'ic.ians=. and Stanford : per sonnel.regarding•the issiia. MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the Resolution and the Hospital Subcommittee recommendation as follows: 1. Endorse the application by Stanford Hospital for the Certifi- cate of Need, and that the language -contained in the present draft ordinance be used; Advise the Community Physicians .and Stanford that it will reconsider its endorsement of the Certificate of Need 90 days from August 9, and if sufficient progress has not been made in resolving the access issue, the City Council would notify the appropriate reviewing agencies of its withdrawal of its endorsement of the Certificate of Need; and 3. City staff be directed to work with all interested parties to monitor the progress of the access issue and report '.back to the Council at the 30 and 60 day points with status: RESOLUTION 6062 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF -71:.; `ALTO- REGARDING STANFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MODERNIZATION PROJECT' (Continued from 7/26/82) Jay Thorwaldson, 295 Grandview Drive, Woodside, said he thought it was clear by the resolution that they were dealing with the defi- nition of a community hospital.. He understood that Stanford was predominantly a tertiary care hospital that provided, under con- tract with the City of Palo Alto, community hospital services. He asked the Council to move forward 30 years in time --four years past the expiration of the contract for community hospital ser- vices. When looking back, the most important issue of the time would be whether the community in 30 years hence would have a com- munity hospital in close geographical access to its residents and physicians. He had watched the subject for a number of years, and it had not, on a consistent basis, been addressed because Council - members changed and issues come up and it was hard to sustain a 40 year span of attention on one issue. He thought that community access would be a major issue of Palo Alto's future.. The Council should clearly state what was meant by`., a community hospital .so that everyone would use the same terminology. He did not think that was yet the case in Palo Alto, President of Stanford University Donald Kennedy, thanked the Council for the opportunity to appear on behalf of Stanford University. He said the matter was very complicated and of the deepest interest to Stanford University as it tr;ed to fill a com- plex array of roles --as provider of community health services, as a research organization, as tertiary care provider for e wider area, and as a training center. He _suggested that perhaps the City Council was beginning to wonder what possessed the City to enter into the debate over private physician access to hospital based services and laboratdries at the .Stanford Hospital. If so, he assured the Council that that 'was ;.an almost universal reaction among those who had first started to :,come to grips with that issue. I hat reaction was not derived fromthe conclusion that the issue was unimportant, but rather from the ` realization that it was, unending --that it would absorb all of the time one was willing to devote, that it was endlessly complicated and not at al;" the sort of confrontation that made it readily possible to distinguish the righteous from the _ evil. The resolutions which were framed for the Council action tonight indicated that the council was .deter- mined to hold at least a watching brief over the progress over the continuing negotiations about access. He regretted that the. effort was made to link an important and absolutely noncontro-c versiaV declaration in support of modernizing *everyone's* hose pital with the subject of access, which was both complicated and controversial While he regretted; even more that. the effort had succeeded oven to a limited degree, he ..was not going to address 2 3 3.9 8/09/82 the. Council on behalf of what they had already decided to do. Rather, his purpose was to look ahead to the task of monitoring a complex process of decision -making that was in motion at the hos- pital and then to judge whether it produced satisfactory results after some fixed time. Hi ddenh in that task which the Council assigned to themselves was a high potential for a misunder- standing, frustration and unfairness. If the Council did not have realistic expectations about what might be accomplished within that time, then what actually happened ,.could not be reasonably evaluated. President Kennedy said that in order to look forward, he must first look backward. Stanford Hospital operated under a set of access arrangements unique in acadealic medicine. They derived directly from the nature ofthe arrangements under which the hos- pital was built. So far as. he knew, the pattern of joint owner- ship and management of= the Palo Alto Stanford Hospital was an unprecedented experiment in university/community cooperation. It turned . out to be an uneasy relationship, so much so that it was terminated or -modified by . the deci s i on •'that Stanford would buy the City's share of - the enterprise.- In those negotiations, a set of agreements were reached that assured Palo Alto residents priority access to hospital beds for elective admissions and continuation of privileges for all those medical staff members holding privi- leges at the time. It also provided a mechanism for qualified new physicians to be admitted to the staff with admitting privileges for direct patient care. In addition, priority for 370 beds was extended to patients of community physicians. Finally, in the hospital based services and laboratories, assurances were given only to encumbents and specifically designated courtesy posi- tions. In retrospect, it was easy to see that the latter provision was really a patch provision and a patch on a problem rather than a solution to it. Note that the assurance applied only to those who were already in the door. No assurance was offered with respect to those who would come along later and would want the same oppor- tunity. In practice, those arrangements were made informally and it was a legal challenge to that informality that lead the hos- pital board to issue its August _ I memorandum which would have closed the hospital based services to private physicians except for those who already had privileges in them. The purpose of recalling that was to indicate that the issues now being discussed had a long history. They grew ,out of the same differences of pur- poses and perspective that had generated tensions when the hos- pital was jointly owned. The arrangements for ownership and governance had changed, but the differences still existed. More- over, he emphasized, they always would. The private practice of medicine was different in important ways from its academic prac- tice and those -differences breed conflicts. Stanford was com- mitted to continuing to sustain both kinds of practice in. the Stanford Hospital. They were also committed to dealing as patiently and sensitively as possible with the tensions that designed highbred would perennially produce. The work of the .liaison committee` should be seen 'in ; that -light. Its agreement, - after three years of hard work, did not solve all outstanding problems, but it did achieve some important objec- tives. It established the ..principle of ` continued limited,. access. to hospital based services for, private physicians, it established a procedure for appointment` of doctors to those services it pro- vided a regular process for periodic review of the appropriate number. of .:private doctors in each of those services and labora- tories, and it helped to put n a ace ` a new and long overdue set of polities and procedures governing - appointment to the clinical. voluntary faculty at Stanford. Those were substantial accomplish - tents —that it .,took three years to achieve them should be seen. as evidence of the difficulty of the issues and not es. a reflection on the i ntegr Lty of either of the parties . to that negotiation. With the 'conclusion of the liaison, committee . agreement, its 1 provisions were adopted by the Hospital Board and a committee on access was appointed to work on the surviving problems and to deal with the issues that would be continuously generated without end by the development of new technologies. Some people were appar- ently impatient with the progress of that committee. He said can- didly that he was impatient with the impatience. He thought it was clear that the matters were not simple and that the people on the access committee had to come up a difficult learning curve. There was no right answer to be found, no difference to be split. Instead, there were very important •differences of purposes and style that needed to be accommodated. Anyone who said that such questions could be easily and quickly resolved, did not understand what needed to be done. If it was unrealistic to expect easier and quick answers, it was equally important to insist that nego- tiations proceed in good faith, that the processes established to conduct them be used by the parties, that neither party attempt to impose a resolution on its own terms --either by unilateral action along the lines of that unfortunate August 1 memorandum or by lobbying legislators and City Councils. No solution so imposed would work because the party on which it was imposed would not cooperate in it. It was hoed to think of a proposition about the situation that had more evidence supporting it than the one he just stated. President Kennedy asked what the Council should expect to hear, what tests should be imposed to measure satisfactory progress, and what evidence would be needed to run that test. He started by saying that no test that consisted of measuring the degree of sat- isfaction of one of the parties could possibly give a test of progress. It would only give that party one more tool to bring to the table. There was no substitute for reaching your own conclu- sions based on the testimony of both parties. Beyond that, he urged the Councilmembers to look hard at how the process was working rather than at any specific result or at which specific results were achieved in some arbitrary time period. If he was right that the University, as well as the private practioneers, faced not a problem that could be solved, but a relationship which needed to be made livable for an indefinite time into the future, then the progress for achieving that was crucial. Stanford believed that a good one was in place --a good way of doing things --and invited the Counci lmebers to satisfy themselves on that score. Stanford was confident that the process would produce results though he doubted that universal satisfaction with each product of the process= was a test that could be met. In short, he urged the Councilmembers not to look at the matters as if they were the subject of contract negotiations between a union and an employer, but as if they were analogous to that sustained long- range kind of effort required to protect the , quality of an environment. No one would suggest that any single achievement over any short period of time was an adequate measure of the suc- cess of the latter endeavor. Those problems would always be there and would always need attention, and so would the problems that concerned them this evening. President Kennedy recalled in closing that the stimulus which put the matters on the .. Council agenda was a request : for the City's endorsement of the Hospital Modernization Plan. , There . was nothing the Council could . do that would be more influential in improving the conditions of medical care for the community or that would. more dramatically improve the conditions of medical practice including access to :facilities than to lend its wholehearted sup- port to the Hospital Modernization Plan. Failure to improve the hospital now would make ail the : other questions about ; medical practice in.. this community - barely relevant. More important, it would ;relieve a great many of the successes: of that plan, would relieve a great many of the conditions _ that contributed to, and perhaps caused, a _ great many of the differences between . faculty and community physicians. Stanford did not want to . have the failure of that :important effort on its conscience, and the City Council's resolution of support was gratifying evidence that they did not 'want it on theirs ether 2 3-4 1 8/09/82 Councilmeriber Renzel commented that the City Council had heard various statements from community physicians and everyone who was. relying very strongly on the good faith of President Kennedy's statements of wishing to see the access question resolved to the satisfaction of all, and she asked for President Kennedy's state- ment that Stanford was committed to resolving the access question particularly to hospital based services. President Kennedy said he was happy to state that Stanford was committed to resolving the access question. It was something he believed deeply, and he bel,i eyed that Stanford would be a hospital with a significant community responsibility not just for the.dura- tion of the contract, but forever or • whatever fraction of forever they were vouched safe for society. It was absolutely essential that the access problems be resolved fairly and that a trusting col l eagueshi p be established with tle colleagues in the community. He thought his colleagues in the community understood his convic- tion and Larry Crowley's, but he did not think Stanford's good faith ought to rest on those kinds of brave words alone. He meant it when he said he thought the quality of the process put in place would constitute a fair and more than adequate test of Stanford's commitment. He.. believed the matters were complex in trying and fairness required that the process be given a chance to demon- strate that it worked. Mayor Eyerly said he appreciated President Kennedy's remarks on the access issue. He was called by some residents who had con- cerns about the continuation of the hospital as a community hos- pital. He knew there were at least two members of the Council with the same kinds of concerns. It seemed unrealistic to try to address whether the City of Palo Alto might be desirous of con- tinuing the contract at the expiration at this early date in view of the many changes that would undoubtedly come about in that interim period. President Kennedy mentioned that it was Stanford's intention to continue a community type operation, and he did not see how to spell out that continuation unless they got into discussions of extending the contract or writing a new con- tract. He asked for comments to set aside his fears. President Kennedy responded that in the first place, planning on a 27 -year horizon was difficult for all sorts of institutions not excluding Stanford. Stanford tried to plan far ahead and if they were sitting down to frame explicit plans, he and his colleagues as well as Mayor Eyerly would all agree that with respect to plan- ning a health .care facility and a set of policies regarding health care, this was almost the most volatile and uncertain environment one could ask for in which to do that. The distribution of health services, federal and state policies for reimbursement, and devices to contain the spiraling costs of health care were . all in the throws of intense debate at federal, state,.. and community levels all over the country, and it was perhaps the worst possible time for setting up advanced plans; He thought there were some. things that one could rely on In this particular situation, he cited the intense desire - of Stanford University to continue what had been, on balance over all of the areas of their mutual con- cern, splendidly positive relationships with the community and the other surrOundfng communities. Second was a matter not merely of desire, but of medical necessity) ite., necessity to the training and teaching programs and to the:. "scientific programs :as well ' as the .service and . patient care ,programs of the Stanford : Medical Center and hospital. It:was inconceivable for : Stanford to run, for their students and faculty and for the general view of Stanford's responsibilities, a hospital ' in: which there was not significant direction toward being a community hospital. He thought he, Dean Purpura, Vice President Crowley and Sheldon King all had that in ' mind when they -wrote to their community physician col leagues that they were committed essentially " to making . the new redesigned hospital _ .the sago thing proportionately to the com muni ty, and to its other constituencies that the present one, was. None of them could envision a Stanford Hospital in which the kind 1 1 1 of community service now rendered was not a regular part of the program for reasons of academic necessityt as well as. for reasons of the desire to cooperate. Although it may be premature_ to plan for the year 2008 with great specificity, he, told the Council that he saw no likelihood - at .al 1 that Stanford's need to provide com- munity services on approximately _the same:proportionate basis that they did now would change because it was essential to Stanford not merely because they wished it, but because it was a critical part of their academic programs. Or. Harvey K. Roth, 3422 Kenneth Drive, commented that should the relationship between the community physicians and the staff at the hospital not be conducive to function together, there was plenty of ground available for the City to build its own community hos- pital. It was necessary to approve the certificate of need because the hospital must be modernized in order to function. Stanford could not accommodate a need without that modernization. Mayor Eyerly commented that Stanford was pursuing the California Health Facilities Authority Act and not the bonding capacity of any of the surrounding communities. Jon Parson, 323 Maclane, said that although he was President of the Palo Alto Civic League, he _ spoke on behalf of himself. He asked that the City Council approach the issue of the Stanford Hospital Certificate of Need with an understanding of Stanford's historical relationship with and duties to the people of Palo Alto. When Stanford purchased the old City facility in 1968, it did so with an express agreement that it would allow community physicians and patients access to the hospital and its facilities.. By displacing the existing City hospital, Stanford assumed. the role of provider of basic medical care to the community. It seems that some of the things being heard more recently would lead some to suspect whether or not Stanford was trying to abandon its obli- gation i,nder the guise of being merely a teaching facility. Teaching medicine in and of itself had no significance absent the ultimate actual delivery of medical services to people. Stanford's,duty to the people of Palo Alto extended to more than simply allowing a certain number of Palo Alto residents to lie flat on their backs on Stanford Hospital beds. It extended by necessary implication to community access, to diagnostic facili- ties, and the whole gamit of medical support systems which were necessary in today's society to : provide good adequate medical care. He asked that the City Council keep Stanford honest in ful- fillment of its duties and obligations to the ..City and the people of Palo Altos and to fulfill the watch dog role that the resolu- tion before the Council envisioned. Mayor Eyerly added that he observed, as a member of the . Hospital Committee of the City Council, that Stanford was directing the use of the facilities of. the Stanford Hospital completely within the contract the City had with them, and that the issue :of access was for access above and beyond the ;access spelled out in the con- tract, i.e., the access V% ,laboratories, plus the opportunity to have access to new laboratories as they may be forthcoming, plus access to a coupe of laboratories that were not addressed in the contract. Mr. Parsons responded that he did not . mean to imply that Stanford or the hospital was in any way in breach of its expressed con tractual::'obligations, rather his point went" to the spirit of the agreement. - bdrt Mc,Dowel l , . M.D . , 100. Crane, Menlo Park,.. said his letter ` of August 5, which is on file, in the City Clerk' -s' office,-, clar`ified.:> the position of the Com*uriity Physicians': for--Patier t Care particu' l arly with" regard to 'the meaning of the Word ''settl'ement" of the access `issue. The Community ` Phy'sicia.ns for Patient Care agreed with President Kennedy,' Dry. Crowley, and Dean- P,urpura that the process,--�was evolutionary. They were. anxious to have a document of that process by which access could be obtained. Further, he ques- tioned whether the City Council should be involved fn the access issue. President Kennedy raised that question, and Dr. McDowell felt that the City Council had the responsibility to provide for the health care of their constituents, and Stanford was the only hospital serving Palo Alto. Councilmember Cobb returned to the point raised by . Mayor Eyerly, and said his conversations with local ,physicians at the medical clinic indicated that they felt the issue of what happened beyond the life of the existing contract was a fundamental issue, and some doctors felt it might be more important than the immediate access issue. Further, they indicated that the problem of recruiting new staff physicians for the clinic was something that occurred much sooner than the 26 years because of the life of a physician's practice, etc. Listening to President Kennedy's remarks, he heard within them an implicit commitment to the con- tinued access of Stanford Hospital to community physicians as con- tinued service as a community hospital beyond that 26 years. He asked if Stanford would be willing, not as part of the Certificate of Need process, but as a separate item that might be handled as part of the ongoing liaison committee activity, to make some kind of formal resolution of that commitment so that the people in the clinic and others would feel comfortable in terms of the long tern access to Stanford facilities, which everyone agreed were valuable. President Kennedy responded that Councilmember Cobb touched on a difficult problem, and one which was met in relationships with the City in a number of different areas. It was one that occurred whenever Stanford was asked to do something very long range that would bind Stanford's successors in a way that might put their fiduciary responsibility to the University and its assets in some kind of conflict with responsibilities he had identified to the community. It was difficult to sign away an option that one expected to receive in a little under three decades. He tried to assure the Councilmembers of Stanford's vision of the permanence of the need to interact positively and productively with the com- munity in about the same way as was being done now. Neither the Council or President Kennedy could guarantee that the society was proof against some apocalyptic changes in the way health. care was delivered, the demand of the community, and in the capacity of the University to provide something. Baring those kinds of changes, he felt comfortable about giving the Council every personal assur- ance that he could muster along with that of his colleagues, that it was their wish to continue to serve the community after the contract expired in some new arrangement in approximately the same way the community was being served now. He thought that was all Stanford could legally or sensibly do, but Stanford did it with great force and great . conviction. `.ti Mayor Eyerly restated the first part of the motion that the Council endorse the . appl i4ation by Stanford Hospital to the Certi- ficate of Need and that the language contained' in the present draft resolution be used. Councilmember Fletcher said that regarding the language of the resolution, she prepared a proposal to amend part of the resolu- tion. It had to do with the issue of long term, and how the Council envisioned the hospital to operate in the future. In light of President Kennedy's remarks, ; she did not think Stanford Would have any difficulty with the wording of _' her proposal. In approving the resolution of support for the. Stanford Hospital Modernization Project, Council was actually approving the, con- struction of a physical expansion to the existing hospital. She felt "that the Council'sapproval was based on the assumption that the ' modernized structure would serve Palo Alto residents and physicians as a community hospital for the life of the structure. 1 1 i 1 1 AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, an amendment to Section 1 of the resolution to read That the Council supports the modernization of the Stanford University Hospital so it would continue to serve as a local community hospital for Palo Alto residents and physicians forthe life of the structure." Councilmember Fazzino said ho was unclear as to the meaning of the language since the City had a specific contract with Stanford... He asked the City Attorney whether the meaning of the amendment in, any way violated or went beyond the specific contractual language with the University regarding the operation of the hospital. City Attorney Diane Lee said that in approving the resolution, the Council was not in any way working on the contract. The resolu- tion was a. separate process in which the Council was supporting an application to a State agency for what was known as a "Certificate of Need." She thought the resolution was an expression of that support, but in no Way affected the existing agreement. President Kennedy said he thought Councilmember Fazzino raised a problem that he would underscore and try to redirect. He thought one of the difficulties with the added language was that it was unclear not only with respect to its actual intent, but it was a little unclear when one took into account the audience to which it was directed. It appeared to be directed to the State official s responsible under the Health Facilities Planning Act for the Certificate of Need Process, and was not an instruction that they. could execute. It was thus not relevant to their particular pro- cess, but was in effect a note that the City Council Made to itself about its own wishes in connection with the action. He believed it would possibly mystify the State authorities because it was clearly sup.erarrogation and he hoped the Council, with respect not only to this matter, bet with respect to whatever monitoring and reporting requirements it wanted to exact from Stanford, make that a part of a clearly separate action in which it expresses its wishes to Stanford or its notations to itself, but did not confuse the matter of a straight forward endorsement of the Certificate of steed. He was worried that there would be a misunderstanding of intentions, a kind of mystification that would lose the force of support that Stanford and the City Council badly wanted to see. Mayor Eyerly commentedthat the amendment appeared superfluous to the resolution of support, He ' was not against addressing that issue in the 90 day period , when there would be communications., on the access issue with Stanford, and if there was a feeling that the Council wanted more comments from Stanford regarding that issue_. Councilmember Klein said he was strongly in favor of the series of resolutions before the Council First, he clarified that the resolutions should be regarded as three separate resolutions. The Council's ihtent was that they were separate although related. Resolution No. 1 would get sent on to the., Health Services Agency, and that was all that would be forwarded to them.` Resolution No. 2 reconsidered the Council's support itt °90 days based on whether sufficient progress was made in resolving the access issue and was one that was kept by the Council to see :what happened- over - the next 90 days. Resolution. Mo. 3 directed staff to monitor the progress and was simply a __direction to staff and nothing more. The intent was for the Council to be able to send something on to the Health Services Agency that was clean and not hedged with various restrictions and other statements --that` the Council wanted to go on record as supportl ng the modernization prbi ect. ,That same . type of reasoning -lead himto be opposed to the, ameadOent. There wasa lot of 'loaded language in the amendment, and he read the amendme'nt' to mean .- that the City was trying to bargain by saying that.,:. in exchange for the Council's support of the Certificate,of Need, they were asking for a contractual commitment that the hospital 'continue to be a local:..community hospi to ,. 2;.3 4 5: 8/09/82 Further, the Council should remember that the contract of 1968 and the Council's continuing obligation was to- the. Palo Alto residents --not to the physicians. The Council: may. feel that the contract was not being complied with -properly and agree with the Community -Physicians on various -points, but that was only because the patients of Palo Alto were not being appropriately treated. Councilmember Klein did not think it was the Council's concern whether the local physicians made more or less in theiro practices. The [Council 's concern for the local physicians access to the het- pital was only so the Palo Alto- residents could be properly served, The Council might find under certain situations_ that the faculty members were providing better medical care than, the com- munity physicians, and that would make the Council look at -.things in a different want. He did not commit to any particular issue, but wanted to make that distinction. A community hospital for Palo Alto was an important issue. If the Certificate of Need application was not before the Council, he did not think there would be any discussion about what it would be like in the year 2008 for local medical care. What form local community primary care would take i n 'the year 2008 was an issue that no one could predict. For example, the City might not be interested or willing to have Stanford provide that care. It was known that many changes had taken place in medicine and the like- lihood was that many additional changes would take place. Many of those changes related to what went on in hospitals and what did not go on in hospitals. The surgery center was a dramatic depar- ture from what went on in hospital care in years past. Counci l member Klein said the City's continuing relationship with Stanford beyond the year 2008, when and if that was negotiated, would be a very complex series of negotiations. Some people might remember that the negotiations by which Stanford bought Palo Alto's share of the hospital in 1968 were very .complex. Hospitals were big business, and one did not simply say that the contract was going to be continued. Than would not be in anyone's best interests. Stanford could take care of themselves, and the City Council's job was to take care of Palo Alto. There were many things in the 1968 contract that would be silly to continue even in 1982. The City would want to negotiate a different contract, and in any event, it would take a lot of work on the part of the Council and the staff. It would not be a one paragraph statement that the contract would continue. He thought it was inappropriate to make some type of commitment, or ask Stanford to make a : commit- ment along those lines when the issue was far more complex and fair too uncertain to work on now. It may be appropriate for the City to start thinking about the long range needs of medical care in Palo Alto. That process would be a difficult and long term one. Counci lmember Klein said that the access issue was a more finite problem, but was one that was capable of resolution over a rela- tively short time frame and onta narrow focus basis. He urged the Councilmembers to reject the proposed amendment, and pass the seriesof resolutions in the forms presently expressed. Counci laember Fletcher pointed out that the language as proposed was not so radically different from the language already contained in the first paragraph of -the resolution, *that: the hospital serves as a local community hospital for :Palo, Alto residents and physicians..." Also, the resolution was not Contractually binding so what happened at the expiration of the present contract would still have to be renegotiated regardless of what was expressed in the resolution. Further, her intent was to o express, the sentiment that not only did the `hospital serve the ;community of Palo Alto residents- andphys i C i ans today, but that the. 'Coufci l expects that relation hip to.:continue, _ which is what she heard President Kennr,dy express tonight. Therefore, she did not think the 2 3 4 6 8/0.9/82`- amendment was such a great departure from what was already con- tained in the resolution or from what had already been expressed. She thought it would clearly .state that . Pal.o Alto.. expects the modernized hospital to also serve_ the community. She wondered whether the Council wouldbe so eager to approve the modernization project at all if there were any doubt. Councilmember Fazzino said he was not a member of the hospital committee, but thought it was important to separate the two issues, and agreed with Councilinember Klein. They were talking about one, if not the best, hospital in the entire world, and he did not want to get in a position of acting like Cambridge, Massachusetts or other shortsighted communities which enjoyed. baiting local institutions because of a long simmering resentment. Given the facts before the Council, modernization was necessary in order to provide better medical care for the community. The Council needed to: move forward and support the Certificate of Need resolution while recognizing the unique nature of the Stanford University Hospital. The issue of access arose during the discus- sion because of Council and community frustration over t;^ lack of resolution of the issue. He thought that frustration was appro- priate. There was a strong parochial interest in Palo Alto about the hospital. The City helped build it 20 years ago, and had responded to sincerely felt concerns .on the part of the local physicians that they were being denied access to particular ser- vices --services which he understood to be carefully planned and allocated in nearly, all hospitals. The Council: may .be at the stage where the issue must be - resolved on . a slow case -by -case basis given the issues of ef.ficiencies, space and economy. He submitted that he had learned far 'more in the last two weeks about the issue than he had learned over the past four or five years. Even though the issues of the hospital modernization program and access were completely separated, he could not help but feel that the discussion had been a positive one for both Stanford and the community. He submitted that the Council's perception of Stanford was not helped by statements made such as physician access was an issue dwarfed and unimportant when one thought about the benefits to American medicine in general regarding the modernization. He supposed that if he were secretary to Health and Human Services, he might share the sane attitude, but in Palo Alto, it was clear that people were concerned about their care, the cost of their care, and .the people .who provide,that care. Stanford must °remain committed to those issues of care which were not simply ones of physician access. The modernization program was one aspect of that, access of patients to hospital services was another aspect per the 1968 contract, and a continued commitment to local physi- cians .. to service : Palo Alto= patients, .in Stanford .Hospital beds, a third. He encouraged the -Council to , approve the hospital _moderni- zation project proposal and _ let. Stanford, and :..the .community., physi- cians continue , to work towards a resolution of the- ,physician access issue, many aspects of which were, not _ guaranteed in :the 1968 contract. He said the Hospital ..Subcommittee on; Access: woul d be looking at specific facts and evidence regarding the need for expansion and new equipment. If the City Council agreed with the need, and the evidence was overwhelmtng* that the; irleed was there, he urged that_ the resolutionbe supporited:l`totally.T He was .willing to give- Stanford ano the= community physicians additional. time, to resolve the difficult access issue. He would oppose the amendment and support the resolutions as submitted. Councilmember Cobb said he agreed with the general ;',thrust, of the amendments,, but had.. problems, with,. Its .language and :with ,tacking .it onto the resolution per se. For that reason, he would oppose the. amendment as stated, but intended to try and find some appropriate mechanise for injecting the issue of what: to do. about access in the,, longer _term' into the :c ur-rent`=.process in ordrer.� to begin discus - signs. He did not think it was too early, he ; thought it was time it wa,s discussed. Councilmember Witherspoon said she concurred with Councilmember Cobb's remarks. Regarding point three of the resolution, to direct staff to monitor the progress, and in light of President Kennedy' s comments about the _ process itself being the goal rather than the solution, she asked what advice Councilmember Klein could give on that difficult role. Councilmember Klein said that as he saw it, the staff would be communicating with the counterparts on the access committee, finding out what was going once and reporting back to the Council in a staff report saying what happened on what date. He wanted to have some means for the Council to know what was going on in order to have some information when it was time to reconsider the Certificate of Need. Mayor Eyerly commented that the City Manager had had some discus- sion with members of staff as to how that would be handled. Assistant City Manager June Fleming said that the thrust of Councilmember Klein was generally the thrust discussed in the Manager's office as the way in which to monitor and report back. Councilmember Renzel withdrew her second to the amendment. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to insert a new third Whereas to the Resolution and make the present third Whereas the fourth Whereas. New third Whereas to read, *WHEREAS the City of Palo Al to expects that the Stanford University Hospital Modernization will for the indefinite future improve the Palo Alto communi ty' s medical care.' Councilmember Renzel offered the new substitute amendment as the Council's rationale for supporting the modernization. She thought it spoke to the Council's intent and understanding of how the Stanford Hospital served the community and to a limited extent addressed the Council's hopes and expectations that the service would continue. Councilmember Klein said he had no problem with the substitute amendment. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. Mayor Eyerly commented that the Council would first vote on parts two . and three of the Committee recommendation. PART TWO OF THE NOTION RESTATED that .the Council advise the community physicians and Stanford that it will reconsider its endorsement of the Certificate •f Need 90 days from August 9, and if sufficient progress has not been made : in resolving the access issue, the City Council would notify the appropriate reviewing agencies of its withdrawal of its endorsement of the Certificate of deed. PART THREE OF THE MOTION RESTATED that the C:i ty staff be directed to work with all interested parties to` monitor the progress of the access issue and report back to' the Council at the 30 -day and 60 -day.; points with status. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher., that part three of the motion be :aaebded to add .that' the City staff reports be agendized at the 30 -day. and 60 -day points. Councilmember Fazziio said he thought theamendment was a classic case of overkill'. He had no problem with a progress report coming before the Council, but did not sMe_- the need `'for bringing all the players. from all sides to the Council --meeting every 30 days to rehash ,,the issue. He preferred that the - groups ..go forth and resolve the issue, that the Council see progress reports, and if a �. particular Councilmember was concerned about an lteis, that person 2 3 4 d 8/09/8? - had the prerogative to put that item on the agenda, Otherwi se, he did not want it locked into the agenda process for the next three months. Councilmember Levy said he agreed with Councilmember Fazzino. Mark Twain said "its a terrible death to be -talked to death," and the Council was in danger of that on this issue. Mayor Eyerly agreed. His fear was. that the City Clerk would run out of ink. 1 1 1 Councilmember Renzel said it was not her intent to have the whole access issue discussed at each of the checkpoints, but rather that the report .-itself be before the Council. Anyone who wi shed to augment the report or .question i t could do it at that time. She thought if .the Council was really interested in having the access issue outlined or in p`race, they would want the informations on as timely a basis as possible. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote. of Y=6, Renzel, Fletcher '_voting "eye,' Bechtel absent. Councilmember Renzel said that in the course of the discussicns at the committee, it was assumed that the process would take 100 days, and as an aside, the committee requested that Council be apprised of the status of the Certificate of Need application in each of the reports. AMENDMENT; Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded toy Klein, that part three of the motion be neaended to include that staff will also report back on the stage of the Certificate of Need. Ms. Lee said that after a Certificate of Need was submitted, the Office of Statewide Health PI anni ng had 15 days within which to determine whether the application was complete. If incomplete, additional time was given to the applicant to supplement the application. After that, the Statewide office %-foul d promptl y transmit the application to the area Heal th Manning Agency. Within 30 days, the area Health Agency would conduct a hearing on the application, and within 45 days would submit recommendations or comments to the Office of Statewide Health Planning. The approval of the Statewide agency was within 90 days. They could either approve the application as recommended or order a hearing in which case it would take somewhat longer. Councilmember Fazzino said that as he understood it, there were a number of bills .presently before Congress to change, and in .some cases eliminate, the Health Planning Certificate of Need process He asked if the Certificate of Need would be considered under the present law regardless of what happened in Congress. Ms. Lee said it depended on when those amendments would be effec- tive. If.. the Certificate was already in process, the amendments probably would not affect it. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. Councilmember Renzel . said she saw the = Council's role as making certain that the Hospital Modernization Project served the com- munity. While everyone could _ look at • the hospital, and see various aspects which needed physical improvement, the reason the.. Council was.being asked to give lts' supportwas because the hospital did servethe community as a comment ty hospital. That was .the view- point from which the Council , should ` be - studying and worrying :.about the expansion. During the 30 -day and _60 -day process, she Would carefully look at the reports because she was prepared to withdraw her support for the Certificate o_ f' . Need if the access '`issue did not appear to be being resolved. ' At some point. the Council had to decide whether the issue was . resolved- to their ' satisfaction on behalf of the citizens of Palo Alto. That would involve looking 2 3 4 9 8/09/82 s Corrected 10/25/82 1 at whether the Council felt the patients of Palo . Alto, who had access to the 370 beds, had some choice about the type of medical care they wish to receive in their community. She thought that was the crux of the issue. There may be doctors interested for other reasons, and there may be doctors interested from the patient care standpoint. The Council must be interested in the patient cage aspect and whether patients from Palo Alto had a reasonable choice as to the type of medical care they receive. Palo Alto was not an ordinary community --people in Palo Alto expect to be able to have that kind of choice, and she thought it was the Council's responsibility to make sure that it continued to exist. FIRST PART OF MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Bechtel. SECOND AND THIRD PARTS OF NOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. MOTI01N: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council encourages : the access subcommittee to include •i n • their discussions and deliberations consideration of the = longei4Tterm access issues to the end of eventually developing options which could provide such access for the people and physicians of Palo Alto. Councilmember Fazzino hoped that Councilmember Cobb did not intend that the item be reported back to the Council every 30 days until 2007, when the contract was resolved. He had no problem with the motion in concept, but was concerned that it pulled the Council away from the real '.issues at hand.. He thought that the committee, given the amount of : time, hours, and people involved, _ should wrestle with the real issue before the: issue of physician access. Once that issue was resolved, and once there was a -long term commitment in that respect, he would be willing to discuss the issue of long-term care. In his opinion, "long-term" care meant twenty-five or thirty years. He did not think it was necessary to force Stanford, the physicians and the City to come to grips with an issue that could commence discussions in fifteen or twenty years, and still have plenty of lead time to be resolved. He was opposed to the motion. Councilmember Klein said he agreed with Councilmember Fazzino. It was hard to be opposed to the long-range medical care planning for the community, and while he : thought it was , far too early, if the Council was going to do it, he could not imagine a more inappro- priate committee than the access. committee. There were no repre- sentatives of the City of Palo Alto on the acccess committee, and he, did not want to delegate the issue to a committee that was not set up to consider it. If the Council wanted to get into long- range medical planning, he suggested the appropriate way to go would be for the :Council to direct staff to get into it, and per- haps appoint a special committee of the Council to start looking into it. Further, the Council should recognizethat it was a. very complex issue. Medical care in the United States had become exceedingly complex and he submitted that it could not be done by making motherhood resolutions. Councilmember Witherspoon said she was opposed to , the motion. Self-interest on tal parties involved would assure that ;the issue was handled _ at the appropriate time and place. Mayor Eyerly said that ` the access Committee, : was not the proper. committee He thought the issue could be something :that : the current hospital committee , caul d 'discuss with the City's staffan!d report back to the Council. The Council :could( then decide whether they wanted .to committo the time involved et this early ::stage.;for Councilmember Renzel said the Council should be the one to initiate the planning. She could support a motion that the Council pursue the topic because they would . be making decisions over the next 20 years that would make a difference. in the City's bargaining post tior. i n 26 years when the contract would need to be renegotiated. She thought it was important for the Council to .be aware of where they were headed and what they desired for the com- munity .by way of medical care. The Council should start now to develop some framework as to how they expect to pursue the matter, but at this point, it would be inappropriate to refer the matter to the access committee. She would not support the motion,_; Councilmember Levy said he Would support the motion. He ' thought the issue was remarkably complex, and for that reason keeping it with the community physicians was probably the appropriate place. They were the_ ones who knew most about medical care .and they were the ones most intimately concerned about how the citizens 'of Palo Al to:.had access to : the ;hospital care facilities. Councilmember Cobb said 'his intention was not to ,restrict any expression on the part of the Council to just the access com- mittee. The motion was merely an encouragement to bri ng: the- issue alive within the committee, and. he di l not `intend to delegate the issue to them.' Councilmember Fletcher said she 'seconded the motion because if the modernization program went ahead, it would in effect preclude the City from building its own hospital sometime in the future. She felt the Council needed to look ahead and plan for the came of the Palo Alto patients. . MOTION ` FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Levy, Cobb, Fletcher voting "aye," Bechtel absent. ITEM #9, CABLE TELEVISION LOBBYIST ORDINANCE (Continued from MOTION: Mayor Eyeriy, nave*, seconded by Fazzino, approval of the emergency ordinance. ORDINANCE entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL 'OF THE I ALO AIM_ADDING 1MG CHAPTER 241 TO :THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPL' CODE'RECDLATINO `ACTIVITIES OF LOBBYISTS_ ON BEHALF OF AND 'PERSONS FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN CABLE TELEVISION AMU OECI,ARIN6`,AN EMERGENCY" Councilmember Levy said that whether the ordinance was passed as an emergency ordinance or a regular ordinance, he supported the -concept of registering lobbyists in the area of cable television, but was concerned -that the Council had gone too far and intervened teo strongly in the ability of individual citizens to contact their:_ Counci lmembers. The purpose of the- 'ordinance was to essen- tially -let to two types of lobbyists --I) the person who was clearly `a paicIlobbyist representative; and 2? the so-called "rent a citizen" concept, In both of those cases, it was important to .him as a City Councilmember to know who planned to compensate the person who was tal kl.ng to him. The- ordi pence went further because employees of a company that was-- involved" in-_. cable television in -any way _ ►aere i ncl uded. There were . a letr: of 'Companies, for example, Westinghouse, General El ctr. ic, or Atari whose employees would , have to register no-- ma .ter If they were an important employee :.or on unimportant employee, Land no matter -how far. thei r - job or subsidiary ►+ s removed fr00 the issue of cable television. Besides. goring _.far too far, i-t Wo.Ml4.be_ d1fficult -for the City to c'oaaunicate .to ,thoe people 'that :they_ `waive -actually violating : a law because *ost of them --.Would not even ,realize ,Jbat they. 'were i nvol:ved I n cable television. Further, the :same thing would _occur with regard to --shareholders. If he;, owned `15 shares of . General Electric or -30 shares` of American Express Company tie `wooed have to register `�as` a lvbbyi g_t.: .He thought that *as an undue restrai ht , ti. . upon the citizens of the community and was not needed. He had asked the City Attorney if there could be an ordinance that more specifically applied to those two classes of lobbyists with which the Council was concerned. The new language would essentially define lobbyist more precisely as a person who in fact was compen- sated in any way to lobby and it also involved shareholders' of a company whose activities were specifically designed and intended to effect ownership and operation of a cable TV system in Pao Alto. AMENDMENT: Cooncilmember Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, the following amendments to Section 2.11.010: 0(e) Lobbyist° means any person who is employed or receives com- pensation for the purposeof lobbying legislative or admin- istrative action di rectl j or indirectly related to cable television, if a substantial or regular portion of the activities for which such person is employed or receives compensation constitutes lobbying. Any person who engaged in lobbying and within six months prior to the effective date of this chapter or at any tine thereafter receives or is promised stock or any ownership interest in any business entity undertaking activities designed or intended to effect ownership or operation of a cable television system in the City of Palo Alto at the time of the receipt or the promise shall be considered a lobbyist. "(b) Lobbying" means: (1) Communicating in the presence of a City official or employee with the intent to influence any legislative or adri ni strati ve a`cti on of that official or employee which action .is directly or indirectly related to cable television; or (2) Engaging in activities having the express purpose of soliciting others; to communicate ,with as City official or employee oyee with the intent to influence legs s1 etf ve or administrative action directly'or` indirectly related' to cable television. `(h) `Compeaisation' means salary,_ .fee, 'gift, paybeft, benefit, subscription, loan, tdirince, stock_ , ,stock opt1ons `°$tartner- ship, interest, eeimbursement, 'ter dekosit Of )motm4i" r any- thing of value; or a contract, 'p oi�i'se, or agreement to make compensation.' City Attorney Diane Lee stated for the record that because they were incorporating the rules of the Fair Political Practices Commission, a shareholder would have to own at least $1,000 in stock before they would have any . requirements under the. Act. Moreover, the shareholder would have to engage in communications in the presence of a City official., Therefore, it was not just the ownership of the stock, but communicating fn the presence -- meaning face to face --not written --communications. Councilmember Fletcher said she was opposed to the amendment because it defined lobbyist a little too narrowly for her comfort: A lobbyist who was specifically paid =to lobby would; exclude those employees of the company who were paid for other duties, but yet had an interestin their. companies franchise or whatever else they were trying to get the City. Council to approve, and had a definite interest yet were not paid specifically to do the lobbying. Counciloember Renzel said she thought, the problems to which Councilmember.Levy alluded were somewhat obviated by the fact that the rules were governed by the Political Reform Act of the State of California and the regul itions adopted by the ,Fair Political Practices Commission, but in effect they were similar 'rules to those ,applied to the Councilaiestbers and the kends of actions, they 1 r 1 could participate in. She would oppose the amendment and support the ordinance as written. Councilmember Cobb said he understood the amendment to mean that if a substantial or regular portion of the activities for which such person was employed or received compensation constituted lob- bying. He thought perhaps it was a little tighter than intended and asked if it covered an attorney who was hired on retainer, who might be a Palo Al to resident and who communicated with the City Council. 1 i 1 Ms. Lee said the first sentence related to a person who was employed or received compensation for the purpose of lobbying legislative or administrative actions. Under certain circum- stances, that could include an attorney who was retained to repre- sent a cable company if their activities were lobbying. The second . portion related to a person who received some kind of ownership interest in a corporation which was worth very little, but if that company were to receive a franchise from the City, that ownership interest could be worth a great deal. The second sentence related to someone with stock or other kind of . ownership interest. Councilmember Cobb said he was bothered by the part which says, "if a substantial or regular portion of the activities." He thought that could be a relatively small part of the individual's activities, but that if they were in the employ of a cable TV firm, the City would want to know about it. He thought the p eb- lern would be solved by striking the remainder of the sentence after the word television. Ms. Lee said the problem: was that there might be some unclearness about whether the only activity which they did for that particular organization was lobbying. In other words, the way .the section was written, it would not be just someone who was paid for lobbying —it could be someone who was paid to be the marketing manager. Marketing Manager was their title --they were not the lobbyist of X corporation. Whatever their title was, if some of their duties, or a substantial or regular portion of those duties for which they received compensation, included lobbying, then they were a lobbyist. If some firm flew their Vice President to California for one meeting, and that was the only contact he had with `able television, the way the ordinance was drafted, he would not have, to file as a lobbyist or file reports. If someone attended all the Council meetings and was thz, Manager of Marketing, that person would have to register and report. Councilmember Levy commented that the language contained in (a) "Any person who engaged in lobbying and within six months prior to the effective date of this chapter or at any time thereafter received or is promised stock or any ownership interest in any business entity undertaking activities designed or intended to effect ownership interest any business entity undertaking activi- ties designed or intended to effect ownership or operation of a cable television system in the City of Palo Alto at the .time of the receipt or the promise shall be considered a lobbyist." That was a compensation of promised co►.bpenseti on of any size ; made that person_.. a lobbyist, and that language was intended for the "rent a citizen concept. Ms. Lee said there were two types of lobbyists --a person %who was employed and received compensation for lobbying, such as, money and usually salary, Or some other type of income - for doing the lobbying activity. The ,second sentence related to someone who received a different type Of interest for doing a similar type of „. aetiv tj;�, Mayor Eyerly said it did not appear to him that the second part of paragraph (a) on the suggested amendment covered some type of lobbyist or financial gain that might be had by shareholders. The language spelled out that the person would have to receive compen- sation, and he thought it left a loophole. Councilmember Fazzino agreed with Mayor Eyerly. He thought the language was superfluous, and that the first part of the first sentence specifically covered anyone who was employed, regardless -of what percentage of his or her time they were employed to lobby and deemed them to be a lobbyist. Those were the people he wanted to hit, he was not interested in the marketing manager who was employed full time by a cable company who was coming to the Council meetings as part of the bid process or outside of the bid process to talk about his or her company. That identification was clear. He was concerned about the person who was employed spe- cifically to lobby. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, to delete the remainder of the sentence after the word "television" in 2.11.010(a). Councilmember Fletcher said if an attorney was retained by a cable company for the purpose of drawing up the franchise agreement and doing all the legal work, that was what he would receive compensa- tion for. If he also spoke to the Councilmembers and did other "lobbying" work, although he was not paid specifically to do the lobbying, would that be covered. She asked if "six" months could be changed to "twelve" months in Section 2 .11 .O 1O (a) because the process was a lengthy one and six months may not cover it. Councilmembers Levy and Cobb. •agreed to make the tithe period from six months to twelve months in the amendment. Ms. Lee said she thought Councilmember Fletcher raised the point that perhaps they needed to be more concerned because if someone's incidental duties were lobbying and they did not receive compensa- tion specifically for the purpose of lobbying, she was not sure everyone the Council wanted to cover was covered. Councilmember Levy said Councilmember Fletcher would like to see everyone included employed by a cable television company. For example, a machinist working for general electric, or an assembly person working for Atari. He said those people had no relation to the issue of cable television, but could be residents of Palo Alto who were concerned as citizens of Palo Alto. He hated to put those people in an ambiguous position. Further, Councilmember Renzel was concerned that; the Council did not have to worry because the. Political Reform Act said if you owned $1,000 worth of stock in a company, and that was a lot of money and very few people owned that. He thought $1,000 was a small amount of stock --oftentimes citizens would not even realize they owned that much because they happened to own " some fund which in turn owned stock in one of those companies. Those were elements so removed from what the Council was talking about, and just because the Council had the power to define the matter • as broadly as possible, it was arrogant and unwise for them to do so. The Council's conc- ern was the person who was paid to lobby --not a person who hap- pened to fall into the Council's net without really realizing it. The Council was concerned with a significant issue, which Was the right of the public to lobby their representatives. Ms. Lee suggested that in addition to the language being con- sidered tO be .stricken`, in keeping with that language perhaps it would be wl se to say "receives compensation for lobbying, and omit "for the purpose of." It would read "Lobbyist means any person who is employed or received compensation for 1obbyIn9 legislattve- or=:4dministrati ve action directly or indirectly related to cable television." 1 Councilmembers Levy and Cobb agreed to incorporate Ms. Lee's change in the amendment. Michael R Flicker, 235 Walter Hayes Drive, an attorney repre- senting Viacom Television, said that' basically he supported the ordinance. Section 2.11.0 )(4) attempted to except the press. It turned out that the principal newspaper in Palo Alto, The. Times Tribune, was owned by a company that had substantial cable tele- vision interests and, therefore, all their reporters and editorial staff would be covered under the ordinance. It was conceivable that if the Times Tribune took a position, it would ultimately benefit the cable te1evisfibn industry or their specific television company, they would have to all register. Ms. Lee responded that she did not think that was an accurate reading of the exception. . The exception related to actions Of a publisher or working member of the press, radio or television in the ordinary course or business of disseminating news or making editorial comment. In other words, the traditional news gathering and dissemination function. If someone in that capacity engaged in the traditional lobbying: type of activities --engages in further or other lobbying beyond the purview of ,that exception, then depending upon how the ordinance was written, they would be cov- ered. 1 Mr. Flicker' clarified that if the Times Tribune or some other newspaper took an editorial position TWit would not be covered. Ms. Lee said no, they would not be covered if they took an editorial position. Marc Strassman, 685 Scofield Street, Vice President, Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, asked if members of the community who were lobbying for and supported municipal ownership of the system fell under the purview of the regulation. If so, in what way. Ms. Lee responded that if the discussion continued in its present direction, it would not just be economics anymore, it would be anybody with an interest, It would be difficult to distinguish lobbying for municipal Ownership vis-a-vis lobbying for a franchise, and she assumed that kind of activity would be cov- ered. Couricilmember Levy sand that if the- ord#nonce was amended, 'people who wanted municipal cable could come and talk to the Council - members. Ms. Lee asked if the cable co-op was a nonprofit corporation. Mr. Strassman responded that the co-op was a nonprofit corporation under the State of California. Their plans were to sell member- ship shares to all the subscribers of the system should :their position be accepted by the Council. There were no paid staff members. If their proposals were accepted, and the rates charges to the consumers were less than they would be under a private system, they would -experience financial benefit from the results of the Council decision. He asked 'if that`. would put the co-op under the Jurisdiction of the regulations. AMENDMENT :TO AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Klein .: voting 4no,. Bechtel absent. AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Rental voting 'no," Bechtel ;absent. Cvuncil +eaber Levy ;sold- that Section -2.11.010(2)(d) defiled *Official" as ant -person electedto,_, or appointed to, any boa -rd, . commission,' c_oNmlttee, etc. That -meant it includes members of --the Nistoric--Resources Board -the Architectural Review Board, and: all other appointed commissions, which meant that someone who lobbied a member of the ARB would have to register. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved to amend Section 2.11.010(2)(d) to refer only to members of the City Council and employees -.f the City of Palo Alto. Ms. Lee responded that at some point, the Council was considering some kind of committee that would not be composed wholly of Councilmembers, but may draw from other areas. That was what she had in mind when she drafted that paragraph, and it might be wise to keep it that way. AMENDMENT FAILED for lack of a second. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AS AMENDED failed by a vote of 4-4 as follows: Ayes: Eyerly, Fletcher, Fazzino, Renzel Noes: Levy, Cobb, Witherspoon, Klein Absent: Bechtel MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Eyerly, approval of the regular ordinance for first reading with the amendments as passed for the emergency ordinance. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE rawarinrwr 1IitI or -PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 2.11 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ACTIVITIES OF LOBBYISTS OW BEHALF OF AND PERSONS FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN CABLE TELE ISION° Ms. Lee, said that in case of any confusion, the ordinance would be back in the Council packet for second reading as adopted. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6.2, Witherspoon, Klein voting "no," Bechtel absent. COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION RE LITIGATION FROM 9:46 ITEM #10 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE Councilmember Renzel said that because she had property which might be affected by the ordinance, she . would not participate in the item. Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown said that the Commission discussed the concept of the zone at length in October, 1981, and made the recommendation in January of 1982, to allow cottages as a conditional use in R-1 zones --where the Minimum lot size was 20 percent larger than what would otherwise be required. in that district. Further, any Second unit built would have to be separatedby a minimum of six to twelve feet, and that all ' other• R-1 site restrictions, including maximum sitecoverage, set backs, etc., would be applicable to the combined size of the two units. The Commission was concerned because it was not known how many prep.erti qs ,would be affected. tkt that time staff was ,concerned about getting 'involved with a project that would involve mapping the entire City. The data suggested that between ` 5 .2 and 6 per cent; of lots .ir the City might be large enough, :combined: with the. setback "reftrictions, to handle "a 'second `unit.` There had been some instances where individuals who owned very lahge lots in the City had come .in and ._applied for flag lot sltua►ticns where they were creating a somewhat strained or marginal stuat#on because they did have a large piece of property and desired the ability to build a second unit. She noted that ' the cottage concept was 1 preferable to the flag lot situation because both units would be under one ownership and the total site coverage allowed, even if the second unit were built, it would be 35 percent of the entire parcel. In a flag lot situation, once the second lot was created, it was a legal lot in the rear and could handle another 35 percent on its half of the net divided lot. The flag lot situation, which would be faced with the larger lots in town, could potentially cause an even more dense development pattern than what would be allowed under the cottage zone concept. Councilmember Witherspoon asked about the situation where someone now had a grandfathered second unit on their property. She asked if they would be required to come in and get a conditional use permit if the ordinance passed. Principal Planner George Zimmerman said no, that the ordinance would apply to new structures or the remodeling of an old garage. Councilmember Fazzino said he thought the staff and the Planning Commission had gone back and done exactly what the Council asked; i.e., to justify previous actions. It was clear when talking about percentages on the order of five or six percent that the action in no way harmed the community. He thought the final analysis was that the provision was very important, it added housing where reasonable, and it was important that the Council continue to be committed to long-term housing by supporting the motion. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the planning Commission recommendations that: 1. Second detached dwellings be added as a conditional use in R-1 Single Family and R-1 Special Residential Building Site Combining Districts; 2. The minimum lot size for sites where second detached dwellings would be placed shall be at least 20 percent larger than the minimum lot 'sizes the respective R-1 District zoning required; and 3. The second detached dwelling shall be separated from the principle dwelling by h minimum distance of twelve feet. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST; READING :.entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TAE CITE OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 18) TO. ALLOW SECOND DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE R-1 ZONE" Councilmember Klein said that when the matter was before the Council the first time, he thought there was some estimate by staff as to what percentage of the lots in Palo Alto would be able to accommodate a cottage. He asked how the first estimate com- paredto the present a timate. Ms. McCown said the Commission was concerned initially about whether there were lots in the City that would permit a cottage, or were they going through an exercise of creating a cottage zone and certain definitions oily to discover that there were fewer than five: lots in the entire City of Palo Alto to which the ordi- nance could apply. Councilmember Cobb asked about the distinction between the 5.2 percent and the 6 percent. He thought the numbers suggested that there really was not much difference; at' all. The issue had been raised that because some partsof town had bigger lots than others there might be come groupings. He clarified that the difference did not allow an unreasonable amount of grouping in any particular neighborhood. 2 3 57 8/09/82 Mr Zimmerman responded that the total numbers overall were not that significant between applying the 20 percent larger standard and the 35 percent standard. On the other hand, the potential lots for cottages varied within the sampled blocks. In situations of blocks with relatively large sized lots, relatively under- developed in terms of the maximum zoning envelope, there would be greater potential. In those unique situations, the 35 percent minimum above what would otherwise be required offered some addi- tional protection. As a City-wide effect, the differential was minimal. Further, the _ conditional use permit process itself offered substantial protection to any specific neighborhood or block within a neighborhood to avoid impaction. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open. Bob Moss, 4010 0rme, commented regarding Councilmember Klein's question, that in the Minutes of March 8, Mr. Zimmerman reported that there could be several hundred lots in the City where the maximum size would be at least 20 percent larger. The actual number was closer to 4,000: he said that three of the issues he raised, when the matter came up before, were confirmed- by the staff study. First, a two percent sampling was taken. When taking such a small sample of a large population, variances would occur. A two percent sample would have a variance of about four or five percent. When saying that there were 3,668 lots based upon an approximation of 14,000, the actual numbers greater than 20 percent were probably anywhere from 3,500 to close to 4,000. When taking the second figure of 840 lots, which could accommodate a unit, based on the sample, the actual numbers were probably . any- where from 800 to 900. Taking the 35 percent larger lots, the actual numbers would be anywhere from 700 to 760. He thought that was significant. He pointed.. out that the lots were not uniformly distributed throughout the City. The staff sample, which ranged from zero percent in some blocks to 38 percent in others, con- firmed the feeling of the Barron Park Association that there were large numbers of large lots, and particular neighborhoods could'be adversely impacted. Saying it was not a problem because City-wide the average was si`x percent was like saying the average depth of the river was three feet, but one could still drown in it if you happened to step in a ten foot hole. Some specific neighborhoods would be impacted. The ordinance ignored traffic and parking. problems. The standard traffic projections for traffic generated bya single family home was 10-12 trips per day. If 900 lots were developed with cottages, you were talking about 9,000 add-tional automobile trips per day roughly which would not be uniformly distributed throughout the City, but would concentrate ' i n specific areas. The value of adjacent parcels could be greatly affected by the fact that one parcel , because of the way existing property was developed, could and another property could not accommodate a cottage. Therefore, a difference would be created i n . the val ue' of adjacent zones. Councilmember Klein had spoken a number of times about fairness and • being able to understand the rules as you went in, and that applied especially in the ` R-1 neighborhoods. He felt the ordinance violated the first principle of the Comprehensive Plan to preserve and protect single family residential neighbor- hoods. There was a bill in the State legislature which would impose a requirement on cities for dividing single family property into a rental. If that was superimposed on a cottage zone, you could take what was now a single family home and all of : a sudden have three independent living units. The ordinance did not speak to the requirement for onsite parking,_ and there was nothing in the restrictions for access to the back unit or that one had to be able to park on the property. He felt that was essential. Mr. Moss suggested going for 35 percent larger lots. Second, a requirement ` of onsite parking and access to the rear unit. Third, limit the number in any particular area, such as, on anis particu- lar block to no more than ten percent incremental. Allow' no variances, that is, - no change in setbacks, sidelines, or anything 2 3 5 8. 8/09/82 else. Finally, the proposed ordinance did not say that the second detached single fae-i 1y dwelling had to be under the same owner- ship. He suggested that that should be amended. He urged that the Council not approve the ordinance as presented. Patricia Cullen, 409 Melville Avenue, spoke as a private citizen, but reinforced the Planning Commission recommendation. She agreed with Mr. Moss that precautions recommended by the Planning Commission, that the second detached single family dwelling should be under the same ownership, and that a use permit should be required so that the neighbors would be apprised of the oppor- tunity to create a cottage were not included in the ordinance. Many older people in Palo. Alto would hopefully turn their houses over to younger families, and it would be nice for that person to be a'sle to live on the same lot. The percentage of larger lots was small, but it was an -important percentage because it would allow older people to ..continue to live in the community and at the same time would create an opp'ortuni ty for younger people to occupy the houses that were now' largely occupied by two or fewer per- sons. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing closed having no further requests to speak. Councilmember Cobb asked staff about the single family ownership, use permit requirement, and to what extent the existing parking requirements would apply to the cottages. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said that the item was listed as a conditional use so that the use permit was built into the recommended ordinance. Any use of the property would need to meet the parking requirements. Another unit would have to meet the requirements for parking for a second unit, which was consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.83 of the Pelo Alto Municipal Code. Councilmember Cobb said that onsight parking and access would be required. Mr. Schreiber said yes --the unit would have to remain under a single family ownership in the sense that any division would fall under the subdivision process. A provision could be added that the two units would need to be retained under . one ownership, but he thought that would be the case in any event. Mayor Eyerly viewed the ordinance as violating the integrity of R-1 housing. He could not see the cottage zone, or the ability to have a second house on certain lots in town being anything except intensification of housing. That was not to say that the housing was not needed, but he thought what was going to happen had to be weighed against the ability to provide a little more housing. He thought the Council would find, if the ordinance was enacted, that every owner of property who thought his lot was large enough would be in for a special use permit because of the economic gain to be derived. Two houses on one lot certainly had impacts in a variety of ways. He thought the conditional use permit thrust was going to be horrendous for both .. staff , and : the Council to dd'dress;, and solve. He did 'not support the philosophy and hoped -that if the Council moved in the direction of adopting the ordinance that the percentage would be changed from. 20 percent to 35 percent. AMENDMENT: Couaci l meaber Levy': moved, -seconded by Fletcher that the Dim,imomlot Oisebe ch'auged t� 35 percent -larger than the minimum regei rea.. Councilmember Levy thought tht cdndern was valid. ' that' not only would lots that could accommodate a cottage do so, but there would be more than a . marginal' 'amount of situations: where the owners would make changes in their basic home in order to .. a commodate an extra cottage on the property. If one looked at the larger numbers, there was a substantial difference between 20 percent and 35 percent. The 20 percent figure would yield 3,700 lots while the 35 ,percent figure would yield 1,800 lots. While the numbers able to accommodate a cottage right now were fairly close, the possibilities were much greater. Councilmember Fletcher supported the main motion as well as the amendment. She did not believe there would be a rush of applica- tions for use permits for second dwellings. There were lots with swimming pools, lots with tennis courts, and she did not think people would give up those amenities that easily. She thought the 35 percent above minimum size requirement was reasonable plus the fact that all the setback regulations had to be observed. She was confident that the City would be benefited by providing a moderate amount of new housing. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of b-1, Fazzino voting "no,' Renzel "not participating," end Bechtel absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Eyerly voting "no," Renzel "not participating ,'° and Bechtel absent. ITEM #11, SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT BUS ROUTE Mayor Eyerly said he thought the Council should be moving in the direction of completing the entire future bus route system for the City, and he asked about the expected timing for that completion. Associate Planner Gayle Likens said that the last major route to be implemented by the Santa Clara Transit District on the bus routes plan was the Major Activities Loop which would serve the downtown area, Embarcadero Road, and Stanford University. In 1980, the City asked that the implementation of the Loop be deferred in favor of the Southern Loop due to the closure of Cubberley High School and the number of students that would be going to Gunn High School. The completion of the Major Activities Loop had been deferred on a number of occasions due to low rider- ship on the existing local, routes, and some operational problems cited by staff in implementing the route. No timetable was set for its completion. Mayor Eyerly asked if the Major Activities Loop was the only loop which had not been completed in the overall planefor the City. Ms. Likens responded that associated with the route would be a minor modification of existing route #86.. Route #50 and the Little House Willow Route would be SamTrans routes. Route #50 was now basically served by two routes. She was_. not aware of SamTrans plans for implementing the Little House Route. The major route yet to be implemented was the Major. Activities Loop, MOTION Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Levy, to : adopt the staff recomeendations as follows: 1. Endorse the proposed bus routemodifications on routes 184 and 186 scheduled for October 1982 implementation as shown detailed in Exhibit 1; and 2. Direct staff to send a letter to the Santa . Clara County Transit District (a) reaffrirming. Palo Alto's desire to mein - Wm existing SCCTD bus' terti ce levels al e.1 l as !Ulu Alto's sedp►ort for full 1apleeentitfon of the '51.t his plaf, and (b) requesting that the schedule for implementation rnf 'the'"kaJor Activities Loop in Palo Alta be eccelerated Leif Erickson, 1249 Harriet= Street, said he drafted the petition and was a circulator of it on behalf of a group of hard working, senior volunteer women who ;worked` In .so many places around the 1 1 1 community and used buses most of the time to get to El Camino Hospital, to the Senior Center and various other places where their volunteer work was done. The principal volunteer who sparked the idea of the loop around the San Antonio Shopping Center was a woman named Dorothy Power. She made it sound so logical and reasonable that he wrote a presentation that in three weeks time produced more than 500 signatures in support of it. He commended the engineering staff of the Santa Clara County Transit District for producing their proposal within a month. He was sure that would generate traffic users and riders for the routes, and in particular route #86, which averted the possibility of losing one of the routes. Some of the petition circulators were dis- appointed that half hour service from dawn to midnight would not be started immediately around the loop on both routes #84 and #86. The service would start out modestly with service once an hour around the loop by route #86 only, and #84 would be curtailed between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from half hour ser- vice to one hour service. Economical planning would achieve the service of the San Antonio Loop with existing equipment and existing manpower --no _additional costs of - any kind. After the loop was tested and gots roiling, ridership would develop and it would be expanded. There was nothing controversial about the plan and he urged approval. Counci lmember Fletcher said she thought the County staff acted in an unprecedented quick and innovative manner in the way the plan was drawn up. She had_ attended the operations committee meeting and objected not only to the cut back in service on route #84, but questioned their assumption that more ridership would be increased by cutting back the head ways to an hour from a half hour. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. ITEM #12, POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF 630-636 GILMAN STREET THROUGH THE P Iii Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber com- mented that the staff report followed the Council policy of having the Planning Department come back to the Council with their initial report on proposed staff assignments. As noted in the report, Council's. initial direction to pursue acquisition of the Gilman lot may not be the best course of action given the antici- pated costs of procuring that land. However, staff noted that the Gilman lot was cnl y one of a series of private parking lots in the downtown area serving different types of uses. Staff recommended that -acquisition of the Northern California Savings on Gilman not be pursued. If Council desired, staff would return with some updated informati n on the private parking supply as well as a summary of options the City could pursue if the desire was to try and protect that private parking. If Council ,felt that. the issue deserved more consideration in terms of a Comprehensive Plan amendment or zoning ordinance amendments, staff would recommend after additional Council discussion that the item be referred to the Planning Commission. Mayor Eyerly said the recommendation was for Council to direct staff to return with additional 'information ` regarding the amount and location of private parking in the University Avenue Parki ng Assessment District, and a -review of mechanisms the City could use to ensure retention of all or some of the ;parking spaces. He asked if staff had had any discussions with members of the assess- ment district as to what lots they might be interested in or sup- portive of acquiring.. Mr. Schreiber responded . that he had met with Messrs, Kinney, Gallagher and Bixby, and deferred to thee for response. Councilmember Renzel said Mr. Schreiber indicated a range of $26,000 to $34,000 per parking space to acquire the land on Gilman, and she asked if the figure would be similar with other properties within a block of University Avenue. Mr. Schreiber responded that staff used a price of $75 per square foot. The Downtown Food Committee hired a consultant who looked superficially at some options, and that consultant assumed a price of $90 to $100 per square foot for land in the downtown area. Conversely, the lot on the corner of Gilman and Hamilton was not used as intensively as it could be because of a relatively large amount of area devoted to landscaping. If the City wanted to buy land in the downtown area, it would be looking at numbers at least in the range of the mid $20,000 per surface space --maybe more. Counci lmember Renzel thought the prospects were frightening especially when looking at the magnitude of the parking problem. The Council had in the past heard $3,000 to $4,000 or $7,000 to $8,000 to develop a parking space, but they were actually talking about a lot more for surfaced parking. Mr. Schreiber responded that that was the factor that lead staff to conclude that to pursue acquisition of land would only make sense if one were looking at a parking structure. If there were a site large enough and the site were being expanded in order to build ,a structure, the land cost could be spread over many more spaces, but only dealing with surface, spread the land cost over a minimum number of spaces. If the City was interested in pur- suing acquisition of those lots, he would only feel comfortable in doing so if there was an indication that a structure was feasible in that area. No investigation had been done as to whether a structure would be feasible. The area was reasonably small area even if both private properties were added to the public lots which currently exist. Bill Byxbee, Downtown Palo Alto, Inc. (DTPA), complimented Ken Schreiber and the Planning staff for their complete and extensive report. DTPA supported the staff's position that the Gilman lots were uneconomic and generally would not fit into a complete picture of offstreet parking within the assessment district. He and Mr. Schreiber had",acquiesced on the proposrtian that the study might be made by the City to determine whether some or all of the private parking spaces now in existence should he retained. On second thought, that type of an approach could create a high degree of inequitableness plus some unfairness and somewhat con- tradicted DTPA`s_basic position that the best vehicle for solving the downtown parking problem was use of, the existing University Avenue parking district rather than placing that .responsibility elsewhere. DTPA' s current position was to encourage the develop- ment of the multi -level lots. That was the only way to spread the price of a parking space. Prices in downtown Palo Alto had gone up astronomically. DTPA felt that staff should proceed as expeditiously as possible in developing the multi -story garage on Lot Q, and to review other lots that could ultimately be developed for multi -story garage activity. The consultants who worked up the feasibility' study for Lot Q also .evade some recommendations as to what lots they :.felt might be suitable for ultimate development, and that report might be used as a basis for ,further determination of whether to go with respect to adding parking to the downtown. Counci lmember Renzel clarified that the parking assessment di s- trict was not 'really interested in pursuing any further land acquisition, but only' in pursuit of multi -layer use of existing lots. Mr.-8yxbee said i f =a parcel' lot,. could _befound that was economical to buy, that would be fine, but, not if ;they, were' going to .be faced with the prospect of -paying:$16,000 per parking space. He did not think the property on Gilman Street would be economical from the 2 3 6 2, 8/09/82 8 point of view of benefit to cost, but there were other areas that might be economic in terms of benefit to cost. Councilmember Renzel said she understood Mr. Schreiber to say that any place in the assessment district would cost $20,000. Mr. Byxbee said that was one reason they preferred to talk in terms of multi -story and spread the cost of the parking spaces over a number of parking spaces. Councilmember Renzel said that given the 1,900 space shortage in the downtown, and that 40 percent of the parking provided downtown was privately provided, had DTPA seriously considered that they would not have to buy additional land. She " felt that a major financial commitment would be needed. Mr. Byxbee said that in 1979, DTPA pleaded with the Council to provide some' property they thought was good, and for a period of time the Council was reluctant to do so. Further, a 'very good piece of property which would have held 150 parking spaces on the surface and probably 300 with a _ small multi -deck operation was let go by default because the Council's attitude at that time seemed to be negative regarding DTPA buying property. DTPA slacked off in the business of buying property and devoted their attention to the proposition of obtaining multi -decked garages such as on the upper lot Q. For the moment, DTPA would love to have the Council and staff concentrate on that lot. He understood they were going through the planning process of developing the plaits for the -lot and then would go through the bond proceedings. It was true that there was a lot of private parking in Palo Alto, and some of it was secure, but all , the lots provided economic amenities to their owners. Mayor Eyerly asked if DTPA had any problem with the Council giving the staff an assignment to look at additional parking spaces in the downtown area. Mr. Byxbee said no. Mayor Eyerly asked what kind of "mechanisms" staff wanted to review., Mr. Schreiber said they would range from acquisition through zoning requirements which could indicate that in the event of redevelopment that the existing number of parking spaces would. have to be retained. Staff would try to present a range of alter- natives the Council might be interested in pursuing. MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Cobb, to direct staff to return with additional information on the amount and location of private parking in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and a review "of mechanisms that the City could use to insure retention of all or some of these parking spaces, and staff to communicate with Downtown Palo. Alto, Inc., ;ond look at ways .the City might hear aboat sales of apropriate sites. Councilmember Renzel said she thought it " would be valuable for the City to at least be apprised .should 'any of the major parcels ever be put up for sale so as to at, least be In a: position to recon- sider the issue at that tittle when r edevel *pMent Might be immi neat . She asked if, there ►gas a mechanism by' which the City could ask for notification `of possible sale of the, sites.. Mr. Schreiber responded that it was an issue staff could look at. His sense of the real estate market was that many of the transac- tdons were not listed type transactions, but rather negotiated private transactions. If Council desired, staff could pursue that idea with . the City Attorney's offi Ce . Councilmember Renzel commented that she was distressed to see that the price of surfaced -parking had gone so high given the magnitude of the problem they faced downtown. She thought it was imperative that the Council move forward quickly with the staff studies to try and prevent the problem from getting any worse. Mayor Eyerly agreed. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. ITEM #13 RE UEST OF MAYOR EYERLY RE RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING (PACtSETTER5 Mayor Eyerly commented that the City employees track team had been most successful. MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Fazzi no, approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6©63 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF Tor'CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOGNIZING THE ATHLETIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE PALO ALTO EMPLOYEE CORPORATE CUP TRACK TEAM (PACESETTERS) AND CONGRATULATING THEN 'ON THEIR SUCCESS IN THE RECENTLY COMPLETED 1982 CORPORATE CUP NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. Director of Purchasing Mike Kelly accepted the resolution on behalf of the City of Palo Alto employees and thanked the Mayor, City Council and City Manager for their support. ITEM #14 REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS KLEIN, BECHTEL AND RENZEL FOR SUPPORT OF BOX Jlltl�DrcTION OVER DIKED WETLAN€S OF SAN FRANCISCO Councilmember Renzel said there was a possibility that the federal government was going to pull away from regulation of diked wet- lands and leave that to state regulation. Currently, there were no state regulations in place. The diked wetlands provided an important wild life habitat, and there were several such proper- ties in Palo Alto. It would be important to have some kind of a program ready in the event the federal government did pull back. She said San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development (BCDC) did a survey of diked historic wetlands in San Francisco Bay and the plan was now before the Bay Commission. Part of the motion would be to support the adoption of the diked wetlands plan. Further- more, if the federal government weakened its regulations, and if a statewide approach for diked ,wetlands was not put into plate, that regulation should then go to the BCDC for tine San Francisco Bay who would have their diked wetlands plan. - in place and ' ready to go. NOTION; Covnci lmembOr ': kebzel roved, Secvfdee by, :;Klein, 'to' ask support for aletter to the -Sirs' Erar cfiseo Bay, Conservitioa . and Development (BCDC) ar9►.ing them to adept the Diked Bsylands Plan and to seek appropriate 1 egi s1 ati On Owing: 'then permit authority over diked. wetlands if the Federal -Government weakens its -regula- tion and if a statewide approach is met adopted. Councilmember. Witherspoon asked about the term "diked historic Baylands." Councilmember Renzel said that = approximately. two-thirds of San Francisco Bay: was diked off--sL.ch of it was.. the .salt_ ponds.:` Those were con idered; diked wetlands. They mere still wet, but- no longer in their ,marshland state. . there were other diked wetlands which was low lying. land that tended to pond`: with ,fresh water, such as, ITT,' and-= the flood basin,. ,but those -were diked off 1 r from complete tidal action. Those were the kinds of lands that were important to the Bay and were important to afford some measure of protection to them. Councilmember Witherspoon asked why the term "historic" was sig- nificant. Councilmember Renzel said she used the term "historic primarily because that was the language usedby the government, but it meant those lands which were currently subject to Army Corps of Engineer r=egulations through the Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife. It was stricly those lands that were at one time sub- ject to tidal action. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. ITEM #15 REQUEST OF CODNCILMEMBER COBB RE CABLE TELEVISION - FR6GRAMRT t OECiSIM OR A MUNICIPAL SYSTEM RtFERIAt TO ralu Councilmember ,Cobb said that considerable interest was circulating about the possibility of a municipally owned system. The issue was how programming decisions would be made as a broad policy issue and he was troubled by that fact; He would have a difficult time coming to a final conclusion in •terms of whether to have a municipal . system until he had some sense of where the Council was going in terms of making those"kinds of decisions. He thought it was appropriate for the Council to disucss the matter as a policy matter before the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee. He did not want to see the Council make a final decision in favor of a municipal system until that issue was dealt with. COUHCILMEMBER KLEIN LEFT THE MEETING AT 1lA.a .m. - (not ,gart ci iatj rag n terns 15 ariU zm MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, that discussion of programming decisions for a municipal system be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee. - Assistant City Manager June Fleming said that the P&P Committee would not be meeting in August because of difficulty in getting a quorum together. Councilmember Cobb said that there was talk at one point that an effort might be made to make a decision on a municipal system after the extensive meeting' planned for September 13. He did not think that decision should be made until the issue had at least been addressed and some kind of consideration as to how to go about separating programming from politics. If no final decision was reached on September 13, he ha 1 no problem with it taking longer to get processed by P&P. If it was likely that the Council would be .pressed to a -decision on the thirteenth, he thought the issue should be dealt with before hand even if it meant squeezing in a P&P meeting the week be fare September 13. Councilmember Witherspoon said she could see a number of ways to accomplish a separation ` of programming from politics, but did not think that anyone on the Council was suggesting that the Council wanted anything to do with the programming. No matter who, runs the cable television --whether it be franchised, municipal or cooperative --that the City Council and City staff would have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do directly with programming policy. Counci late*ber Fazzi no said that ' Councilmember Cobb' s heart was in the right place, but thought he was responding to the unfortunate and undue haste with which a number,of Councilnaembert :Were pushing the issue. He felt the pressure that _ members of- the Council wanted to Make ~ a decision on " or about September 13. He did not. Councilmember Fazzino felt the Council had moved far too quickly in the past couple of weeks. He was concerned that by allowing the P&P Committee to move ahead and discuss the item, Council - member Cobb would be contributing to handing the City staff a cable system on a platter come September 13. He thought much information was needed, and he looked at the September 13 meeting as being one where the staff could provide the first bits of spe- cific information about potential financing of a municipal system. He wanted to deal .with that issue alone, and not rush ahead and allow the committee to evaluate that issue. He encouraged his colleagues to vote against the motion and let staff proceed along the lines of further information regarding the financing of a municipal system. Councilmember Fletcher agreed with Counci,lmembers Witherspoon and Fazzino. She thought the 'ilea of referring the matter and having maximum public input was -admirable because good information could be obtained from citizens in the community.. The Council should make a decision on whether the system should be franchised, muni- cipal or cooperative before wasting time discussing how to imple- ment the programming policies. She supported referring the matter to committee for maximum public .input with lots of publicity and advertising, but not to rush it against the deadline of September 13. Councilmember Levy found phrases such as "rushing ahead" and "moving with undue haste" very interesting. The issue of cable television was complex, and he did not think there was any one way of attacking it. He thought it had to be dealt with on many dif- ferent levels and he respected Councilmember Cobb's concerns. The policy questions involved were different from the financial ques- tions, but they should be attacked also. He thought the P&P Committee was the right forum to begin the attack. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to refer programming for municipal, co-op and privately owned systems to POI i4y and Procedures Committee without any specifitydate'to report biC). Assistant to the City Manager Charles McNeely agreed with the early statements that .the issue was important and one which needed some additional discussion. Staff felt that the Council, with the aid of the community and the City Attorney's office, could provide that kind of assistance. He asked for clarification with respect to private policy issues. Councilmember Levy responded that as a starting point, a report on what was conventional in the industry as to how programming deci- sions were made under typical franchised systems, and to use that as a comparison with suggestions related to municipal ownership. Mr. McNeely responded that traditionally that was handled by, the. private sector itself. He understood Councilmember Cobb's concern to be removing the Council from control of the programming. A private franchise largely removed that concern because most private cable companies did the programming without .very much involvement by the Council, Councilmember Levy said he assuaied.. they were not only talking about the national programming questions, but also the questions of local access. Counci liember itenzel said she supported the thrust of Council - member Cobb's motion. Due to the time constraints and the fact that the Council was not ready to focus ,in specifically on muni- cipal ownership, she would support':the Substitute motion. 1 1 2 3 6 6 8/09/82 i 1 1 Mayor Eyerly said that the referral to the P&P was not on an emergency basis, and staff and the Committee Chairperson would have to agree on an agenda date. He felt the Council had two major concerns --financing and marketing --both of which must be addressed. If staff were directed to go ahead on municipal. ownership, they still had a number of hoops they would have to jump through before it could happen. There were a lot of things that still had to be addressed i.e., what kind of a system, programming, construction, administration, maintenance, and a lot of little things. that _tie into the foregoing. Councilmember Cobb said he would accept the substitute motion. He did not agree that having the programming issue referred to the P&P Committee was putting the cart before the horse, but rather absolutely essential. Almost everything the Council had seen so far had a strong municipal ownership connotation to it. He did not think the issue was as simple to resolve as it might seem and it was not enough to say, the City did not want to be involved. If the City owned the system, the public would hold the Council responsible whether it wanted to be or not. He thought the deci- sion regarding programming was absolutely essential to making a decision in favor of municipal ownership. Futher, if the Council continued to do everything in series rather than parallels, in terms of the hoops, the City would never have a system. The Council must start doing the major things in parallel in order to come to some kind of a conclusion. He would support the substi- tute motion, and did not mind dropping the September 13 date. He stressed that he did not think the Council should make a decision in favor of municipal ownership until the programming policy ques- tions were addressed. Councilmember Fazzi no . said "amen." He thought the substitute motion offered by Councilmember Levy was good and represented a small victory for those Councilmembers who wanted to see some gathering of facts regarding private cable systems. He hoped that the City staff was not the only group allowed to make presenta- tions about programming --and that private cable companies would be allowed to fully participate and give some information about pro- gramming in the private sector. Information was also needed along the lines of the editorial which was in the Palo Alto Weekly `two weeks ago. He hope the substitute motion represented an effort to eventually open the process more to ` receiving the kind ' of informa- tion needed from private companies. Michael Flicker, Attorney, 235 Walter Haye , represented Viacom. He said Viacom would be very interested in making a presentation regarding how private franchising handled programming. It was different, and there was more than one way to do it. Some cities with a private franchise had a. say in the pay programming, and veto power over changes. He commended the Council for its action. SUBSTITUTE NOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent, K1 ei n not participating.' ITEM #16, REQUEST OF MAYOR EYERLY RE CABLE TELEVISION LEGISLATION Mayor Eyerly commented that SB 2172 passed out of the Commerce Committee and was - now being heard by the entire Senate. The bill pre-empted state and local authority in most areas of essential concern and prohibited almost all meaningful regulation of cable. systems. He was concerned. • MOTION: Mayor .Eyerly moVad; seconded. by Fesxi no, to direst- the Mayor to urge 1egi siators\ to, -_oppose Se 2172. • - Michael Fl icker, Attorney, . 235 : Walter Hayes Drive, .. representing Viacom, said. . that -the Goldwater bi 1 l -was.: one ot_.oany" b#11 s .- offered In previous years. Some of the provisions • benefited cable cons pawl es exclusively, some benefit cities and some worked. to the_ 1 detriment of both. For example, the bill could weaken the cable industry as a whole versus other competition which did not pay franchise fees. He did not want to discourage the .Council in any way from presenting its views because it would be helpful in the long run. The bill, if passed in a year or two, would be an effort in compromise in the competing interests. The bill as written allowed local governments to continue to have franchise authorities, and cities and cable companies to enter into freely - negotiated binding contracts. That issue came up about a year ago when a San Mateo County consortium was considering cable at that time. Viacom sent a letter, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's office, pleging to honor their contract and not to take advantage of any deregulation which might be available then or in the future, both through state or federal regulations, and stating that the position was not taken under duress. That letter was a part of the Mountain View contract. Further, a paragraph in the Mountain View contract stated that if Viacom made an effort to get out from under, it would forfeit the franchise at the City's option. iayor Eye -1y pointed out that SH 2172 contained a provision that all state and local laws contained in a franchise agreement must be brought into consistency with the federal policy within sixty days of the bill's passage. Further, there was a prohibition of all rates except for rates charged for basic services, and would preclude the states and localities from regulating the rates. The bill explicitly prohibited the regulation of rates for service. The cities woul d no longer have authority to regulate rates for installation, reconnection, converters, additions, etc. The bill also spoke to the maximum channels that could be designated for public education and governmental access. He asked the Council's support of the motion. !NOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent, Klein "not''. partici- pating.' ITEM #17 RE VEST OF COUNCILMEMBER WITHERSPOON RE PACIFIC L L MOTION: Councilraember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fazzino, to refer to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee discus- sion of _discontinuance of City collection of Pacific Telephone bills on August 10. Acting Director of Utilities Mark Harris said that at the 20 cents 'per item, the City was 'losing money on the Contract. The City went into the contract on an experimental basis with assumptions as tov volume, time and complexity of transaction, and' the impact on the --City's operations. In all cases, the experiment turned out to be -much worse than anticipated. Mayor Eyerly asked -about a deadline by which to have a definite line of .action.: Mr. Harris responded that ,the C_i ty ' could terminate the contract at any tile' by giving .Pacific Telephone-. 30 days' notice. If no action Was taken and • -the Council felt. that -the staff should ,just go -ahead;, and terminate the contract, he Would send out the notice to :Pacific -Telephone and ,notify -customers as to -why and when service would -be terminated. Counci lare*ber Levy said he thought the item was a small one . and . he did not see the policy decision to be made. If the service to be provid,d turned out to be more trouble, then it should not be done. Councilmember Faztiro`said he feyt. the issue -was appropriate: for F&PW Committee di sous sion since it began in that Committee almost a year ;ago, and let - them hake: the, policy in terms" ,of possibly abandoni ng the _ approach. He was concerned that Mark Harris- had to spend four and one-half hours at the Counoi l meeting simply to respohd to a referral item. He did not think that was an efficient use of staff resources. Mayor Eyerly said he thought the Committee should address the item, because there were some policy decisions as to the ramifications' of the action. He supported the motion with the thought that the recommendation could come back to the Council sooner than the ful.1 minutes were available. 1 "ter Assistant City NOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Mein absent. ITEM #18', COUNCILMEMBER LEVY RE COMMENDATION TO CITY CLERK AND Councilmember Levy thanked and commended the City Clerk and City Attorneys Offices for their turnaround on the CATY Lobby ordinance and on the Stanford Hospital minutes. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:50 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: