Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-16 City Council Summary Minutes1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY of PALO ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, August 16, 1982 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 2 3 7 2 Minutes of June 14, 1982 2 3 7 3 Consent Calendar 2 3 7 3 Referral 2 3 7 3 Action 2 3 7 3 Item #1, 1982 Slurry Seal - CIP Project 8154-_ 2 3. 7 3 Item #2, California Avenue Perking District Ad 2 3 7 4 Valorem Assessment Rate 1982=83 I teem #3, Master Social Worker Item #4, 1 Professional Services of Health Resources Coordinator Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #5, Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendation re Change of Land Use Designation of Mayfield School • Item #6, Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendation to Add. a New Program Under Housing Policy 5 in Comprehensive Plan Item #7, Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendation re Subdivision Ordinance Amendment to Allow Amendments to an Approved Tentative Map or Preliminary Parcel Map (Excluding Condominium Conversions). Item #8, Public Hearing: Planning Commission RecoMmendation re Comprehensive Plan Amendment to. Adopt Land Use Designations Similar to Those Approved by. Santa . Clara County for Stanford :Lands Item #9, Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendation re a Tentative Subdivision Map' for the Application of JTC, c/o William Stevens Jarvis, to . Divide One Parcel into Office Condeminiu* Units for Property Located at 540-542= University Avenue 2 3 7 4 2 3 7 4 2 3 7 4 2 3 7 4 2 3 7 5 2 3 8 0 3 8 5 ITEM PAGE Item #10, Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of the City of Palo Alto for a Change of Zoning District from RM-4 t0 R-1'for Property at 359 Oxford Avenue Item #11, Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendations rye Change of Zoning District from R-2 to . RM-4 for Property Located at 350 College Avenue Item #12, Lytton Plaza Dedication Item #13, Palo Alto Avenue/E1 Camino Real Intersection Signal and Palo Alto. Bike Path Improvements Project Financing Item #14, Request of Councilmembers Fazzino and Klein re Grecian Health Spa Problems Item #15, Request of Mayor Eyerly re Northern California Power Agency Meeting and Equal Rights Amendment Policy Item #16, Request of Councilmembers in Joining Amicus Brief Prepared by City of Berkeley in the Following Iwo Cases: 1) Soracco, et al vs. City and , County of San Francisco; Jane Doe, Quentin Kopp et al vs. City and County Q San Francisco Item #17, Request of Councilmember Renzel re August 30, 1982 Council Meeting Adjournment 2 3 9 3 2 3 9 4 2 3 9 5 2 3 9 7 2 4 0 2 2 4 0 6 2 4 0 6 2 4 0 8 2 4 0 9 Regular Meeting Monday, August 16, 1982 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton. Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Cobb, Eyerly, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Menzel (arrived at 7;35 p.m.), Witherspoon ABSENT: Bechtel, Fazzino ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ralph Crawford, 1111 College Avenue, said that the law was recently changed regarding the storage of building materials and he had been storing building materials on his property for five years. He was within a couple of months of completing the need for the building materials and he needed the ones that were currently on site. The Building Department was asking that he remove those materials immediately or else face the fines. Since he was so close to completion, he asked that the City ',back off and allow him to complete the project, Mayor Eyerly advised Mr. Crawford that the City Council was not at liberty to discuss his concerns at a Council meeting. He sug- gested that he find a Councilmember to agendize the matter for discussion by the Council. 2. Lou Fein, 1540 Oak Creek, said his comments were prompted by a parallel he saw in the newspaper articles reporti ng the Cable TV discussions and another attempt to revive the Oak Creek condominium conversion. Given that millions of dollars were at stake, he understood that communications between cable principals and their lobbyists on the one hand, and members of the City Council, _staff or commissions, that may have an influence on the outcome, must be reported _i n writing as part of the public record. He saw a strong parallel between the cable enterprise and the Oak Creek enterprise, which also involved an extraordinarily large sum of money depending . upon the outcome. The August 14, 1982, Peninsula Times Tribune story reported as follows, "Mr. -Carey has informed tenants who may wish to buy their units they would have difficulty pro- viding 11.34 percent, 30 -year mortgage rate, and that any new mortgage rates offered to condominium buyers would have to be approved by. the City Couincil because that rate was written into the subdfvision plan." Since the Oak Creek preliminary map was approved, a number of tenants had talked to members of the City Council, Planning Commission and staff intending to influence the outcome: He was sure that the principals, including the converter or his agents, had talked to members of the Council, Commission and staff also attempting to influ- ence the City decisions, on the outcome.. He asked that the Council agendi ze the quests on of requiring a written record of all communications between Oak Creek principals or tenants, and the City Councilmeaobers, City. staff and City Commissioners when the intent of that communication was to influence; CI ty decisions with respect to the outcome. . Glenna Vl01ette,' 95 Crescent Drive, asked the City Council to recgpslder the use recycling passes at the Refuse DispOsal Area. She was net' privy that the, rule would be changed and that recycle center passes would no _longer . be permitted for 'anything buts private passenger cars and station wagons. She could not imagine that there was' 'any val ue, in encouraging people to own certain types of vehicles, and that the intent must have been to limit the quantity being disposed of. She 1 said the Council's regulations should .address the topic of how much could be disposed by an individual and how often. 4. Nancy Jewell Cross, 301 Vine Street, Menlo Park, spoke regarding recent research involving carbon monoxide hotspots in the Bay Area. The Bay. Area Air Quality. Management District analyzed the volume of cars and trucks at signal light inter- sections . in 25 cities in the Bay Area, one of which was Palo Alto. The report concluded that signalized intersections were. carbon monoxide hotspots, i.e., places where the air was non - attainment of federal air quality standards by reason of too much carbon monoxide Basically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District talked about the entire Bay Area as being nonattainment of federal air quality standards, and in Santa Clara County, Los Gatos and San Jose were usually the cities mentioned because of permanent monitoring stations located in those cities. She said Palo Alto was a special study, and she suggested to the District that Palo Alto might be an appropri- ate place to have a permanent monitoring station. It was said that the new Dumbarton Bridge would increase the carbon mon- oxide 30 percent on the area. She suggested an electric trolley across the Bay that would allow people to cross over without putting more carbon monoxide into the air. An elec- tric trolley such as the San Diego trolley was compatible with the structure of the bridge, and she thought it was a likely possibility if Palo Alto wished to take it up. 5. Dr. Harvey K. Roth, 3422 Kenneth Drive, said he had been before the Council many times regarding a home room message in terms of the labeling of alcoholic containers. He had not received any indication in terms of whether the Council would be willing to introduce the matter and give it consideration. Mayor Eyeriy commented that Dr. Roth's lobbying effort was not successful, MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 1982 NOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Minutes of June 14, 1982, es submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Fazzino absent. CONSENT. CALENDAR NOTION:_ .Counci lmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None Action ITEM #1, 1982 SLURRY SEAL CIP PROJECT 81-54 (C.MR:466.2) Staff recommends the. following: 1. The Mayor be authorized to execute a contract with Palley Slurry Seal Company in the amount of $55,435.60; and . ' Staff . be authorized to execute change orders to the construc- tion contract up to 15 percent ($8,315.34) of the contract amount. AWARD-.,QF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Verity Slurry Seal Comilaoy ITEM #2, CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING DISTRICT AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT 1 1 ORDINANCE 3376 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY. OF PALO ALTO FIXING AN ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1982-83 FOR . THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE. DISTRICT OFFSTREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 60-8" ORDINANCE 3377 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COIiNCIL OF LO ALTO FIXING AN ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL TEAR 1982-83 FOR THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE DISTRICT OFFSTREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 55-5" ITEM #3, MASTER SOCIAL WORKER (CMR:404:2) Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to sign an agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Social Services for the Master Social Worker's services in the Police Department. Funds in the amount of $18,183 have been approved in the 1982-83 budget. AGREEMENT County of Santa Clara ITEM #4, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OF HEALTH RESOURCES COORDINATOR It is recommended that the Stress Management Program continue. The program will ,be monitored and properly evaluated. The merits of its continued success can then be based on its demonstrated cost-effectiveness to the entire City. It is further recommended that the Mayor be authorized to execute an agreement with Ms. Sue Wal ima effective August 1, 1982 to June 30, 1983, to continue professional services designed to reduce stress -related disabilities in the Police Department. Sufficient funding, not to exceed $16,900 is included in the 1982-83 Police Department budget for this program. RENEWAL OF CONTRACT Sue Waling MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Fazzino absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Councilmember,Renzel said she had heard that a Council meeting was to be scheduled for August 30, 1982, and she wanted to discuss the matter. ITEM #5, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE • • Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown said that the environ- mental impact assessment was •discussed at length,. but was dis- cussed before the Commission ea$ aware of the El Dorado opinion which affected the manner in which the Commission 'Looked at the situation of comparing a proposed land use change with a vacant piece of property. The additional information provided by staff responded to many of the questions raised by the Planning Com ission. Mayor Eyerly declared .the public hearing--- open. - Receiving requests to -speak, he declared. the publ lc hearing closed. MOTION; Comnciliesiker *a*Ae1 -*o*ed; seconded by Levy, approval of the .Planning Co 1ss1oA-.r.cosliendatioa� -for A CoOprehensire Plan amendment to change.. t e - aa*d;."os* designation of -Mayfield' School from School District L4Iads to-°$ni.tiple Family Residential. 2 3.i 4 8/16/82 MOTION CONT'D RESOLUTION 6066. entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF -PALO ALTO AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY • AMENDING THE. _LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE FORMER MAYFIELD SCHOOL SITE AT 26.50 EL CAMINO REAL" Councilmember Renzel commented that she was pleased that the City was going forward with "multiple family" as a designation for the site. She hoped the :City would see some housing built there. MOTION PASSED unanimously,Bechtel , fazzino absent. ITEM #6, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO (CMR:449:`) Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown commented that the idea was presented to, the Commission by Tony Carrasco and Gail Woolley. Staff's initial report expressed a number of reserva- tions about how the idea would work. The Commission recommended adding a new program to the Comprehensive Plan to encourage devel- opments with smaller sized units and conceivably more units per acre than the zoning ordinance might otherwise allow if such a proposal was pursued on a case by case basis through a planned community zone. The program was viewed as being similar to the policy in the Comprehensive Plan to encourage air rights develop- ments. The idea was for the City to see, on an individual sites specific basis, whether the concept of creating affordable housing units might work and whether the benefits would outweigh the nega- tive impacts. She said the Commission was specifically concerned about traffic and parking issues. The Commission concurred with the recommendation because it addressed a policy in the Compre- hensive Plan which spoke to trying to provide affordable housing for the middle level of buyers who at present could neither buy nor rent housing in the community. She specifically highlighted comments made by Commissioner Wheeler which supported the concept because the burden of pursuing an experiment or a study was on a private , developer rather than... the City's staff. A concern was also raised about devoting a lot of staff resources to exploring the idea further with the risk that it might not go anywhere. The concept was to encourage private individuals to explore the idea, and the Commission would look at individual instances to see whether it would work out in practice. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said staff's initial nega- tive recommendation was on the idea of having a study to look at or explore the feasibility of defining density in terms of square feet rather than number of units. Staff felt that a detailed study would be a questionable expenditure of staff time. Staff did not have the same reservation about the proposal if someone would like to try a planned community development. Any added units to be gained through the application would be locked into affordability by griddle income households. Staff was satisfied that an experiment could take place. The planned community di s-- , tri ct had always been available and someone could always apply for such an experiment, but the pragram would add an open invitation from the City to do so. Councilmember Cobb said he was concerned in Section 2 of the reso- 1ution where it said, "...the City will consider planned community developments." He asked if that made It obllgatdry on the City to. consider or was the language such that it still remained at the City's option. City Attorney ' Diane Lee responded ' that the, word ',will" was more mandatory _ than "may**. but the woad, ,"consider," 'did' not.,- mean approve.;" . She did :not think ; that was fterrib7y, binding :..language although : the word.<<"wi l.P was i n - there. Councilmember Cobb said that the next paragraph stated "that in considering such developments, the City shall assure.." He asked. if that language was sufficiently tough that if the City wanted to require it as a condition of development, it could. Ms. Lee responded that there was a sufficient; standard there to enable those particular standards to be applied in considering such developments. It did not necessarily lock the City in, but meant that the City had to look at all those factors when reviewing such a development. 1 1 Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open. Gail Woolley, 1585 Mariposa, Palo Alto, said that during the cam- paign last fall those on the platform were asked about three issues: 1) Crime; 2) Traffic; and 3) Affordable Housing. Some progress had been made with moderate income housing in that Birch Court was well on its way, but nothing had been done for the mid- dle income sector. Policy 5 of the Comprehensive Plan said, "In addition to efforts to provide low and moderate income housing, some housing should be provided for middle income households priced out of the Palo Alto housing market." So far no program existed in the Comprehensive Plan to implement that policy, there- fore, the proposed program was needed. The current zoning prescribed an envelope, and a certain amount of divisions, or units, could occur within that envelope. The proposed program did not affect the height limit, the setbacks, the parking, or the open space requirements, but rather would allow a developer to make a greater number of divisions i nJi de of the envelope. The result would be that the land cost could be divided, or spread, among a greater number of units, and the construction costs could be lower since - the units would be smaller. Density was a concern because the word "dense" tended to mean overcrowded. She thought dense should be rethought to mean an effective use of space. People for Open Space, an environmental group in the Bay Area, was conducting a housing study. Dan Marks, the Director, defined the word "dense" as compact gross. She thought the proposal gave the City an opportunity to try something new, but with a minimum amount of risk. First, the burden was on the private sector so it would not take staff time to do a study. Second, with a PC, the City had even more control than it would normally have because it had to go through the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Planning Commission, .and the Council. There was only a small amount of vacant land left in Palo Alto for development, but most citizens did not realize how much land in Palo Alto was underbuilt. She thought the .program might. help to insure that more of what building occurred on the underdeveloped land would be affordable. Tony Carrasco, 4216 Darlington Court, Palo Alto, said it was a misconception that the new program would not address itself to family- housing. Currently, there was a question about how many units could be put on to a site, and a developer would try to maximize the amount of square footage he had and put in the large amount of square footage marketable. Therefore, there was incen- tive to provide a more affordable type of unit.,. The Planned Community process could remove that incentive from the regula- tions. He agreed that the concept would not apply to all loca- tions in Palo Alto, but in certain locations where traffic was not a major issue, it might be appropriate to go through a planned community process. Irene Sampson, : 3992 Bibbi is Drive, spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters (LWV) of ; Palo Alto, and said they were still concerned about the problems of maintaining an economic range of housing opportunities in the coarmuni.ty. As the need for housing grows faster than the supply, innovative` approaches needed to be considered in order to pro_ vi de more affordable units. The LWV believed that the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive PIan, which would provide zoning f . exibil ity to encourage ' smaller affordable housing units, offered a worthwhile option to developers. The LWV hoped that the possibility of spreading_ land costs over more units and lowering construction costs by reducing the size of the units would provide an incentive to some builders to produce such affordable units. Limiting the overall building size to that established by the standard zoning of the area would: lessen the effects of increased density. By placing such develop- ments in planned community districts the City could and should maintain controls and insure that the resulting housing units were carefully planned in order to minimum adverse impacts on traffic and public services. Ways to insure that the units gain could continue to be affordable to moderate income households would also be important. The LWV supported encouraging the private sector to be involved in developing more affordable housing which would use the City's zoning and planning powers. Steve Saul, 349 N. California Avenue, was employed by Harrington Kulakoff Development Company, 835 Page Mill Road. He said his company recently had a nine unit condominium project approved to be built on Alma Street, with a unit size of about 1,300 square feet. In the last six months, 500 condominiums were being con- structed or just , completed in the City of Palo Alto. The over- whelming majority of those units were between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet in size, with an average sales price of $180 per square foot, or approximately $250,000 per unit. His company did not particularly like going into that type of. market and tried to get in a little lower than the market price, or about $180,000 per unit. Even at that price, it required an income of $2,000 per month or between $60,000 and $75,000 a year to buy one of the units on Alma Street. His company received a call from the top people in the Bank of . America in San Francisco, who had been financing their construction projects for the last ten years, saying they would not finance the project on Alma Street because in the next 12 months, massive foreclosures would occur, on the projects because there were no sales. The bank felt that to loan on new condominium construction would be competing with themselves because within the next 12 months they would have so much inven- tory on their hands. The specific market for high income execu- tives was overbuilt in Palo Alto. Aside from a builders natural tendency to do what other builders were doing, the zoning encour- aged the larger units. He felt that the proposed policy was important for the City of Palo Alto, and if the proposal passed, his company would like to discuss the possibility of increasing the number of units for the project on Alma Street, guaranteeing a maximum affordable price of those units and possibily qualifying for numerous bond programs which were now in effect, which had a price maximum: of about $110,000. Zoning on a units per acre basis was an old planning tool that no longer worked.. In the current society, they could no.. longer afford the broad brushed type of approach that said a 600 square . foot studio apartment was equiva- lent in zoning terms to a 2,500 square foot family condominium unit Finer distinctions were needed to provide for an ignored market in Palo Alto. Councilmember Levy "clarified that Mr. Saul said that the average price of candominiuv s in Palo Alto was about $250,000. Mr. Saul clarified that his comport), studied 20 projects that had either completed construction within the last six months, or were slated for completion within the next six months, and of those . 400 units, the average price was $250,000. Councilmer+aber.. Levy asked what the affordable price to a middle income family would be. Mr; Saul responded that ``the, people from the - Bank of- America were . basically saying that $125,000 to $130,000 was Balk for a middle income family in the interest rate environment being experienced Their tong -term view would not change substantially . within the next year or two. ._ 1 1 Councilmemb built, the Mr. Saul s a $250,000 timing and where betw Councilme the Alma still 1i existing limit in able. Mr. Sa parking They c not ha expens woul d about Tad econo consi fema and able the buy uni in Po Ra co wh d a u d er Levy said he assumed that if a $250,000 unit were percentage profit was higher than on a $125,000 unit. id that was not necessarily true. The dollar profit on unit was higher. Percentages ranged dependent upon quality of the project. His company experienced any- een 15 and 20 percent regardless of the sales bracket. mber Cobb asked Mr. Saul if he thought they could convert Street project into. the type of project proposed and ve within the kinds of parking constraints contanied in zoning laws. Further, he asked if Mr. Saul saw any lower size beyond which units like that would not be market- ul said that every project they studied had underground Projects in Palo Alto no longer took land for parking. ould live within the parking constraints because they did ve to use any land to do it. Building the parking was less ive than buying the land - by a long shot. He was sure there be a market for the lower limit in size, but was not crazy the type of city one would end up with. Cody, 212 High Street, said that the life style based on my had changed over the past years. He asked the Council to der the successful independent bachelor of life as a male or le because no one was any longer forced into the get married have children style. Some viewed that that was not afford- --like housing. The current design reflected that and many of designs for cities like Palo Alto were set up for the Go- ers. Palo Also said you could only have so many two -bedroom ts, but could not limit the number of people who could invest and buy that unit or live there as unrelated adults. The pro- sed ordinance attempted to recognize that as a new market. ther than having to build 1,400 square foot for co -buyers, you uld build two 750 square foot units for the people as they were, ich reduced some of the anguish involved in that process. He id not think unit size was of particular importance to the intent f the city beautiful as Palo. Alto imagined itself. If a four - nit site required two automobiles per unit, and it turned out the eveloper could only sell eight units to individuals, eight cars would still have to be parked so nothinghad really changed. Mayor Eyerly decared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Klein said he supported the Planning Commission's recommendation. He thought it was a step in the right direction recognizing the changes in the marketplace and the difficulty of providing affordable housing to almost all groups in the com- munity. MOTION: Councilsember .,Lein moved, seconded by Fletcher, to approve the Planning CoMirM°ssion recommendation for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to add a new program under Housing Policy 5 to encourage smaller affordable ,housing units. RESOLUTION 6064 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE MITT OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PY :ADDI$G PRUGkAM 7A TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF -THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO PROVIDE ZONING FLEXIBILITY TO ENCOURAGE., SMALLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS" Councilmember Levy said he was concerned because -4s he looked at the.. numbers, :> the. Council was aisl-eading themse' ves, developers and the' community. It was not simply a case of adding a '"few . more units, but rettvIr. a case of dramatically -increasing the density. If the average unit being built today was $250,000, and if the average middle i ncoae unit needed to sell, for $125,000, that twice as many units were required for the developer to o end up with the same total receipts and profit. He did not envision wanting to allow double the number of units, because parking would not be available, etc. No matter how the numbers were bent, they were talking about much more dense developments than would other- wise be allowed. One way of doing that would be to change the zoning to allow more units and none of the Councilmembers would desire that. It was implied that a developer could come in with a PC, and the PC would be evaluated, but he could not see himself approving any PC that called for a 40 percent to 100 percent greater density than the zoning in its area called fora He liked the concept of encouraging middle income housing, but thought the proposal was a misleading encouragement. Councilmember Cobb said he had many reservations about the whole issue of density. He wanted to insure that the program could be approached in an experimental way and that it had sufficient pro- tections built in so, that the kinds of concerns raised by Council - member Levy would ,ot become problems. The program had to be approached cautiously because the opportunity to create certain kinds of problems was there. It put a burden on the Council to review each project carefully, and the first few projects con- sidered would set the standard for any further ones that may come along. Today a young woman who worked for him, who was a single female adult and who worked on a more limited salary than some who had homes in Palo Alto for a long time, was discussing the prob- lems of how she could get a hold on the housing market. He thought that was interesting, independent of his study on the item, because she was so typical of the kinds of people the City would like to be able to serve. He thought it was an experiment worth attempting and would support the motion for that reason. He cautioned that the Council could now allow themselves to start dropping parking standards and other kinds of standards that could cause dilatorius affects. Counci member Fletcher said she was in favor of the whole concept. She looked at inviting developers to plan for such developments as a first step to see how they worked out, and if they worked out she looked to work on revising the zoning ordinance. Palo Alto lacked small units for single or retired . people, and the develop- ments did not have to be a detriment to the neighborhood. She used Lytton Gardens as an example of being way beyond what the zoning requirements would be if it were a regular development and yet it did not overburden the neighborhood. She looked forward to tt'e program filling the gap in Palo Alto. Mayor Eyerly said the concept was interesting and realistically analyzed the situations surrounding density and related to density on a square footage basis rather than by units. He accepted Coun- ciimember Cobb's statements about approaching it cautiously. He would like to see the concept in the Comprehensive Plan so that developers would be encouraged to come for ward with proposals. As the development critiqued, the City would h ve to le careful about parking, etc. He would support" the motion. Counc',l iember Renzel ' said she agreed with Counci lmember Levy. She felt the City would see 'developers negotiate prices for properties based on what they ' felt they could build and would make their offers contingent on' getting the PC zone. As a result, the land price would get jacked up to reflect the fact that more 'units could be built .:even though; they would be at ` a' different price level Typically, land prices were . about one-third of a housing cost i and that.. meant that only half the cost was being spread over the increased density :and the rest of the cost 'would.:'_ be to the construction itself. It could take .e re than doubling to make any significant effect into ; the i ntome ; level. She thought the Council presupposed that people who could afford to.. pay a certain amount of money were willing to pay it for such a small. unit. Although she recognized the goal was admirable, she feared that the Council wouldopenup an encouragement of increased density without really accomplishing anything significant in terms of the most pressing need for housing in Palo Alto --for rental and lower income people,. The Council should concentrate their efforts and densities in that vein Since' anyone could come in at any time and ask for vari- ances from the zoning ordinance through the pianni ng community process, she was concerned that the Council was creating fal se impressions and may open up a density problem th,'at she did :not want to see in the City's zones. She would oppose the motion. She urged those CounciImembers supporting the motion that if there were to be any density changes in a zone, the developers should strictly adhere to the other aspects of the zoning ordinance, rather than to allow general adherence to the zoning. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Levy, that the paragraph at the bottom of Page 1 of the Resolution be amended to read, "In order to encourage smaller affordable housing _i n mUl ti -family, commercial or industrial areas, the City will con- sider planned community developments which otherwise conform to the zoning ordinance but which exceed the number of units normally allowed under the existing zoning," and to delete the last senteno;e, Counci1member Klein opposed the amendment because he felt it was directly contrary to the spirit of the resolution. As he read the resolution andthe proposals, the idea was that the City needed to have additional flexibility to try out different ideas with regard to density. The amendment would put the City into a straight jacket with the most minimum type of flexibility, and he urged that his colleagues not support the amendment.. Couraci1member Witherspoon said she thought the concept of a planned community zone was to be able to custom design each site. The amendment would take away the City's flexibility to do that. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of, 2-5 Levy, Renzel voting Faye," Bechtel, Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Levy, Renzel voting "no," Bechtel and Fazzino absent. ITEM #7, PUBLI,C HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE TOTTITTITTUrrarrinrk et. Arltnumth l ! U ALLOW AMLNALN IS l u AN AVFkuvtf Planning Commi sss an Chairperson Jean McCown said that after exten- sive discussion, principally on how to adopt the proposed _amend- ment mechanism to a condominium conversion map s i tuati an , the Com- mission concluded that it was too difficult to resolve al l of the concerns raised. There was a concern that the basic amendment procedure for maps as original iy proposed by staff was needed, so the Commission concluded to eliminate condominium conversion maps from the amendment- process all together. If an amendment proce- dure was needed for condominium conversion maps, that should be addressed °separately,. and placed in the condominium conversion ordinance Mayor Eyerly asked how amendments to the Oak. Creek Condominium conversion would be handled in -view of the proposed ,ord{nance. City Attorney Diane Lee said -that currently there was no proce. dure under . the City's' ordinance. When it was brought to her , ,attention,- it was- di scutsed ad-th experts in the subdivision area and they suggested that Palo ; Al tp follow an ordinanceth"ey had on amending lamps. Most.::.citles' had specific authorization to allow maps to be amended. - As the -ordinance was. initially_ �- proposed tO . the Council, it was an omnibus 'ordinance which would have covered a31 types of subdiv-ision saps, and -was not limited. In doing that, staff tried to allow a procedure for amendment under all circumstances, butthat was no longer the ,case.. 1 1 1 Mayor Eyerly asked what would happen to Oak Creek conversions in terms of a requested amendment. Ms. Lee responded that it would take a new map unless they were incorporated into the proposed procedure. She did not believe that any final map that Oak Creek filed that would change those conditions would be in substantial compliance. Mayor Eyerly said that for the record, he was aware of a possible change in what the developer might offer by way of mortgage money and the price, Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open. Scott Carey, Cornish and Carey, 180 University Avenue, said that while the proposed change in the ..ordinance to allow amendments of tentative maps had merit, "the confusion and debate in the Planning Commission hearings had to do with whether the same provisions ought to apply ,to, a tentat1"ve map for, a condominium.conVersion. He could not ' speak to , the' issue tonight, but if he were to speak about the inclusion or noninclusion Of condominium conversions, tentative maps and the ordinance, he would point out that the City, in the case of Oak Creek, did have an economic interest. He spoke of the need for housing, and that the Oak Creek conversion would provide some 55 units of moderate or below moderate housing should the conversion occur. He asked the Council to consider an additional motion that the adoption of the ordinance was without prejudice to the consideration of the inclusion or noninclusion of tentative maps by reason of conversion, and that that question be referred back to the Planning Commission or continued for at least 30 days for further consideration. At that time, he would appre- ciate giving his thoughts on .what would be appropriate should the Council wish to include conversions in the proposed ordinance. Mayor Eyerly said that based on the ruling from the City Attorney, the only way to amend the Oak Creek map was to come in with a request for a new subdivision. He asked if that would create a hardship. Mr. Carey responded that it was an impossibility. If a new appli- cation were Made, it would be under the pew conversion ordinance which, for example, would require that 50 percent of the units at Oak Creek be in below -market -rate housing --a below- market -rate requirement of some 370 units. That would render that conversion _economically impossible --no one could possibly reapply under the new ordinance. They understood that should they wish to modify one of the terms of the maps, i.e., mortgage rate interest, if they went through the reconsent process, the Council could deter- mine whether or not to modify the tentative reap. Obviously, that could not be done now without an ordinance : change. The question was whether the Council wanted to continue ; considering the pos- sibility of amending the ordinance to include conversions on some basis for tentative map modification or to exclude them entirely. In that -event, if Oak Creek Associates needed to ask, for a modifi- cation, they could not do so because they could not reapply under the new requirements. Lou rein, 1540 Oak Creek Drive, said the issue was whether the conditions under which people consented to the Oak. Creek conver- sion was a set of conditions under which the particular °con- tracted issues" could now be undone --not by going back to the tenants, but by going to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The issue of whether the conditions of = the proposed ordinance should apply to condominium conversions was something that was the subject of the various hearings before the Planning Commission, It was decided that condominium conversions wouldbe excluded. The requestto eland the Council back seed to him to tie a request . ;to undo all of the discussions and all of " the deci- sions that were already made by the Planning Commission He urged 2 -3° 8 1 8/16/82 1 1 the Council to pass the ordinance without any side letters or side recommendations that it be opened again by the Planning Commission or by the Council. He noted that there was not only the matter that the converter would like to change the 11-3/4 percent mort- gage rate, it turned out that the price people thought they had for their units was not the price that was indicated under the conditions. The prices the tenants were given was a fixed price, and now under the conditions placed on the converter, it was within a range. The conditions under which people signed the con- sents had to do with an agreement that was presumably made between the converter and Stanford University. It was clear .that there was no such agreement, and that the conditions under which people signed the consents were not met. Futher, he reminded the Council that it was highly likely that the two-thirds plus number of per- sons that originally signed consents, under conditions they thought existed, that few of the two-thirds of those original signatures were still there to be asked whether or not they would consent to a change. He urged the Council to pass the ordinance and not to permit the circumvention of the agreement between the tenants and the converter through the proposition made tonight. Ms. Lee commented on a point of continuing disagreement by the City Attorney's office. Tenant consents were imposed as a condi- tion by the City, but as far as the City was concerned, those were not the basis of any contractual arrangement. Those were placed by the Council and could be removed by the Council. She was not suggesting that that would happen, but they were not viewed in any contractual sense. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Witherspoon asked for clarification of how the original City Attorney's office proposal would have worked. Ms. Lee responded that it would have included condominium conver- sions. The Council and the Planning Commission, on a recommenda- tion from the Planning Commission, could determine that the requested amendment would negatively affect tenants or that the tenants relied on an aspect of - the map, and the converter would have to go back to the tenants to get additional consents prior to approval of an amendment. Councilmember Witherspoon said that condominium conversions dealt with tenants and their ability to enter into a contractual agree- ment. She was in favor of allowing flexibility, but preferred that the burden of obtaining the two-thirds agreement from the tenants on the developer before coming to the City and asked for a ruling. She understood that any change in the original conditions was considered to be a substantial change and, therefore, that did not have to be determined by the Council or the Planning Commis- sion. Ms. Lee responded that there were so many different kinds of con- ditions --landscaping, how many trees and the kinds of trees. Those were minor conditions, but almost any nonphysical change would be considered substantial Cvuncilmember Witherspoon clarified that the original process was to have the Council screen and determine what was substantial, and then go to the tenants The burden of deciding "substantial" would come from the planning Co mission.; Ms. Lee said that it was a staff decision as originally proposed, but staff was, not comfortable with making' -that decision and recom- mended to.- the Commission `'that It be changed.._ The language for that change was in a_repdrt from the City Attorney, dated June 25, 1982. When it eventually went to the Council and then back to the commission, the Commission: chose.to recommend the ordinance to the Council without the condominium conversion, provision in it. Councilmember Witherspoon said she did not think that a simple paragraph would answer all of the questions which were raised. If there were enough Councilmembers who -wished to go into the matter further, she thought it should. be referred back to the Planning Commission, but with some policy direction from: the Council as to the concerns to be addressed. Ms. Lee said that regarding new consents, the.original proposal would have been interpreted to mean= that if there was a turnover in residents,othe consenters woulds be the new tenants occupying the premises provided that the minimum qualifications of residency were met. Mayor Eyerly said that the Planning Commission came up with a recommendation concerning amendments to a"subdivision map, but did not speak to condominium -"conversations Staff ruled that any changes by Mr. Carey via a subdivision amendment would have to wort'_.:under the proposed ordinance structure. He did not think thai'was fair to Mr. Carey since he was not advised or for some reason was not in contact with what was happening. He asked if there was any other way to tackle that problem rather than sending the ordinance back for consideration of condominium conversions. He asked if it would be possible for the subject of Oak Creek Apartments to be agendized separately to speak to the possibility of an amendment that would allow the conversion to go forward with sufficient votes from the Council and provided that Mr. Carey obtained the two-thirds consents from the tenants. Ms. Lee said she thought the appropriate procedure for amending any map would be the one which was originally proposed --specific procedural authorization for a map to be amended. If Mayor Eyerly was suggesting that the City had a process outside the map proce- dures that do not allow for amendment, she would have to say no. Mayor Eyerly said it appeared that the only way for the Oak Creek condominium conversion to proceed was for the Council to refer it back.; to the Planning Commission for discussion to consider condo- minium conversions witnin the ordinance. Ms. Lee clarified that the procedure did not have to be strictly in the proposed ordinance --it could be in the ,condominium conversion ordinance, but there had to be a procedure allowing for amendment. Ms. McCown clarified that the. issue of the amendment procedure for condominium conversions was not discussed at length largely because there were a number_ of additional new issues raised by long letters presented at the meeting. The Commission's desire was to get a recommendation related to non -conversion maps trans- mitted to the Council because it had been before the Commission since April in order for staff to go ahead with ordinary subdivi- sion map amendment procedures. Those Commissioner's who commented on the issue of condominium conversion amendments indicated a willingness to take a look at that subject, but preferred to do it separately rather than continue to try and figure out how to fit it into the broad ordinance. She said the Commission_ had, not expressed a view one way or the other about whether an amendment procedure for condominium conversions should be pursued. Mayor Eyerly clarified that the condominium conversion ordinance could be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration of an amendment to the ' Oak Creek conversion Ms. - Lee said she mentioned it as an option -_, She preferred to see the procedure contained ;in the proposed ordinance now before the Council because condomini`um conversion map were another type . of subdivision` map. ,She thought the procedure four amending condomin- ium : conversion maps and where it should . go was not that signifi- cant, as long as theprocedure authorizing that to happen was in place. 2 3 8 3 8/16/82 Mayor Eyerly thought it would be simpler to amend the condominium conversion ordinance with a simple amendment as it related to Oak Creek. Ms. Lee responded that the amendment would not just be as it related to Oak Creek. It would be as it related to any condomin- ium conversion. She felt it was best to leave the condominium conversion ordinance alone. i MOTION:• Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Planning Commission recommendation for approvpiof a Subdivision Ordinance amendment to allow amendments to an approved Tentative Nap or Preliminary Parcel flap (excluding Con- dominium Conversions). ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING TENTATIVE MAPS" Councilmember Witherspoon commented that she thought the ordinance was a good one and urged its passage. Councilmember Cobb said he thought the Commission had done a good job, and it was important for the issue of condominium conversions to be separated from the rest of the process. Councilmember Renzel said she agreed with her colleagues that the Planning Commission thrashed the matter through and realized that the City had many regular subdivisions which needed minor amend- ments to their physical conditions. Condominium conversion amend- ments were much more complicated and the Planning Commission and City Council should look at the issue as if the books were clean, rather than as though there was something the City wished to push through one way or the other. The Council had to look at the issue in the overall context of protecting tenants and the process which was in place for condominium conversions. She would support the motion which eliminated condominium conversions from consid- eration at this time. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Fazzlno absent. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Eyerly, referral of the June 25, 1982 City Attorney's report to the Plan- ning Commission for recommendation on the proposed language regarding condominium conversions. Councilmember Witherspoon suggested that the Planning Commission make it clear who was eligible to revote on the newcondition, and make a finding as to which exact conditions were new and changed so there would be no confusion among the tenants. Councilmember Klein said he had no philosophical problem with the motion, but wondered whyit was necessary. He thought the item was before the Planning Commission at the present time. Ms. McCown said that the ordinance was adopted without the section regarding condominium conversions, Without direction from the Council, the Planning Commission would not go forward again to reconsider the section which they had just recommended not be iocluded. Councilmember Cobb clarified that if the Council supported the motion, they would get right back to folding the, condominium conversion` issues into .:;the same part of the Code they just decided it should be separated . from. Ms. Lee responded that the issues related to condominium conver- sion were much more.complex because of the tenant consent process. It was- not the placement so much as the concept. The difficultly was dealing with some of the complexities of the issue, not how it was folded into the Code. While the -Commission -and Council dealt with the more' complex side of the subdivision; map issue relating to Condominium conversions, it wras important to have something in place for everything else --the ' Jrdinance which was just passed. The other side --was Whether the' Council wanted 1m continue to deal with the more complex side of the issue related to condominiums. Councilmember Cobb wondered whether the motion gave the Planning Commission sufficient direction as to the Council's desires. Ms. McCown said it was difficult for her to respond to the ques- tion. If the purpose of referring the matter to the Commission was to hold a public hearing and evaluate a proposed ordinance. She assumed the Council wanted to hear the Planning Commission's recommendation rather than the Council giving the Commission pre- cise instructions in advance. She thought that if there were specific concerns such as those raised by •Councilmember Wither- spoon, those were helpful, , but the direction to be taken on a particular issue would constrain the Commission somewhat. Councilmember Cobb said he hoped the City did not start having ordinances related to one particular conversion even given its significance. He recognized that Oak Creek may be a one -of -a -kind condominium conversion should it happen, but if the City was going to have an intelligent ordinance dealing with the question of condominium conversion, one should be written which would apply to any condominium •conversion or at least a large portion of them. He had no problem with the Commission considering the issue, but did not want them to be trapped into being project specific. Councilmember Renzel said she agreed with Councilmember Cobb's comments. Having looked at a lot of condominium subdivision maps which showed virtually nothing but a footprint of the building, it was hard to envision that there would be much to amend on a tenta- tive map that' would. relate to the' physical aspects of a condomin- ium conversion. She thought it was important to bear that in mind because essentially it,meant that any amendment to a condominium conversion short of the number of units that would be divided --and that was usually fixed according to how °many,existed in the build- ing at the time --would be an amendment to the kinds of conditions that were put in for tenant protection. Councilmember Witherspoon had indicated that it might be outlined which conditions were sub- ject to amendment and which were not so that the people consenting would know what they were consenting to. The consents were a pre- condition to applying for a condominium subdivision so that there were no conditions at the time someone signed the consent. Those consents were signed before the City would even look. at a condo- minium conversion. She wanted the Commission to bear those things in mind when looking at amendments to a condominium conversion ordinance. She agreed with Councilmember Cobb that the ordinance should not . be ' project specific, but an ordinance which was in keeping with the general thrust of the condominium ordinances. Councilmember Fletcher said :;she had difficulty with going ahead with the concept because the ordinance which was just passed related to amendments which were minor in nature, such as, correc- tion of property lines or a change in the phasing of a develop- ment or maybe a change in the type of tree required. She was not sure whether those kinds of changes , would warrant obtaining a condominium conversion amendment process, it could require that all amendments would require a consent, that some amendments would require a consent and a classification system could be set up. A process condominium conversion did not have to follow the process adopted for all other maps. 1 1 Councilmember Fletcher asked for clarific.§tion about when a new tentative map would have to be applied for. Ms. Lee said she made her statement before the ordinance was passed. The ordinance which was ,just passed only related to cer- tain types of subdivision naps --not condominium conversion maps. The ordinance would become effective in 45 days, and after that time, it would apply to those maps which were in the process or which may come along later and would give the City a procedure to amend them, which the City did notcurrently have. Councilmernber Klein thought the Planning Commission should be allowed to consider the :natter, and the Council could get into specific comments when they had something before them. He urged that the motion be voted on. Counci lrnember Renzel . said that while she supported the referral to the Planning Commission, it was in no way a commitment on her part to neeessari ly pursuing changes to the condominium ordinance that would endanger tenants in any way. She considered that to be of paramount importance and expected that the Planning Commission would consider it. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Fazzino absent. RECESS FROM 9:30 p.m. TO 9:4] p.m'. I . nl�..�fi/III.Yllk1'RYiRN�1.�r09fi.1i1`.�7OCiV..y� ITEM #8 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE .. u�"._ S OTT Hills Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown said that the Planning Commission had three hearings on the subject of adopting land use designations for Stanford lands similar to Santa Clara County's. The first proposal made specific text wording changes to the sec- tion of the plan regarding land use designations for Stanford in orderto make changes consistent with the language adopted by the County and Stanford. The Commission had not intended to look at where the new designations, if adopted, would apply. That posture made a number of the Commissioners uncomfortable since they could not see how it would work on the map. As a result, the Commission did not resolve the language or text changes, but rather asked that staff come back with an analysis of where the termswould be applied on the map. Ms. McCown said that the second hearing focused on the same text changes, but as applied specifically to the lands they would cover, and some requests from Stanford to make some actual changes of designations. Staff presented a new analysis of what the City would be required to do in terms of the environmental review of the changes as a result of. the El Dorado decision. A lot of lan- guage.changes were worked out in t e:second hearing, and the Com- mission asked for a further review of the environmental impact on some specific properties. A wording change was made regarding- the new "academic reserve and open space" designation which.necessi- tated a full environmental review. The change was to delete reference to the. City's ten acre, OS zone from the proposed word- ing because concern was expressed by staff and members of the Com- mission as to whether the wording was ,helpful. She ''noted that the language of the proposed resolution contained the most current version of the Planning Commission r'ecbmaendation as opposed to the language contained in the staff report. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said that the proposal to add new land use categories to the text of the Comprehensive Plan, but not to apply them to the land at this time, started out to be rather simple but became more complicated as the proposal was con- sidered. He said the ultimate recommendation proposed new lan- guage and applied the designations to the land. The land under discussion was the unincorporated portions of Stanford University only --no discussions affected any of the land within tie corporate boundaries of Palo Alto. All designations within Palo Alto remained .the same, That the proposal received from Stanford was to adopt the same land use categories as appeared in the Santa Clara County General Plan. An excerpt from the Stanford Univer- sity Land Use Plan picked up the County language verbatim. An objective of the process was to have a common set of definitions and meanings for the land use categories applying to Stanford lands in order that the County, City and Stanford could all speak the same language. Hopefully, they would all agree as to how the policies should apply to the land. When the- proposal was first analyzed by staff, a number of problems were found with adopting it in the exact form as the County's. First, the County applied its language to more than the- unincorporated lands of Stanford. There were a number of areas in the County that had similar designations, which made for some awkward direct applica- tion. Furthermore, the format of the County's Comprehensive. Plan was somewhat different than the City and the language would have, looked out of place in several instances, Finally, staff found some language that could open up some ill-advised .policy changes. After several discussions, the Planning Commission came up with a set of proposed designations which were close to the County's, but which were worked around and tailored for Palo Alto application. Basically all of the designations before the Council tonight were a subset of the major institution designation of the Plan, Pre- sently, there were major institution/special facilities, major institution/multiple family housing, and major institution/single family housing. Under the new proposal, the major institution/ special facilities would still apply to many places in the City, and there would be a whole new group tailored- for university lands. The new designations would be major institution/university lands/campus single family residential, major institution/ university lands/campus multiple family residential, major insti- tution/university lands/campus educational facilities, and major institution/university lands/ academic reserve and open space. At the time the original request was made, it was only to adopt simi- lar categories and hold them in reserve until some future point in time when Stanford might propose the application of the designa- tions to the map itself. The Planning Commission was not comfort- able with that procedure and asked that Stanford come in with a map, to show how they would like to have the lands actually applied, and to consider the full amendment at that time. Stan- ford presented a map that contained the four major categories men- tioned before ---campus educational facilities, campus multiple. family residential, campus single family residential, and academic reserve and open space. Staff analyzed that map and found that by and large most of the land under consideration simply exchanged new titles for old titles, but left the basic policies as they would apply to the land -about the same. There Were a few excep- tions. There were blacked in areas on the map which, as Stanford. initially proposed the Amendments, would .create substantive changes --not simply new language to` describe batsically similar Old Policies. The colored areas of themap simply subsituted the new =designation for the old designation, and the new designationswere very close in their actual policy content to the old. 1 1 The blue area on the map would be changed from "major institu- tions/special facilities" to "major institutions/campus educa- tional facilities." The Peter Coutts Hill area of themap was the only area which was designated "major institution/multiple family residential" and would now be called "major institution/university lands/campus multiple family residential." The yellow area on the map would be changed to "major institution/university lands/campus single family residential." The green area would be "major insti- tution/ university lands/academic reserve and open space." He noted that for most of the land, there was no shift in boundaries, but there were a number of areas blacked out on the map where sub- stantive changes occurred. .The proposed changes by Stanford could be seen by color. Four of the changes were shown in red, which indicated that the change in land use was to reflect existing dev- elopment different from that which was indicated in the City's existing Comprehensive Plan. Those changes corrected errors and reflected existing land uses. He said that a number of the. let- ters were missing from display map "B" of the proposed ordinance. The blue areas indicated areas of substantive change in land use proposed but where the change was not just a reflection of what had already occurred on the land. The Planning Commission recom- mended the same four .red areas, but did not go' along with the change in land use of several of the large blue areas. Those were reflected by the two green areas --(H) part of the golf cout se, and (I) which were the two parcels along Quarry and Arboretum In both of those, the Commission could not see a change in basic pol- icies at that point, and were content to change the names to the "academic reserve open space" category. They would have several substantive changes as follows: Area A was an area presently used for student housing and included re""rs"i Bence clubs and fraternity houses. In the past it had been designated "major institution/single family housing," whereas all other areas of similar student housing on campus contained the "major institutions/special facilities" designation. It could not be explained as anything other than an error in the way the old original map was drawn. ' The chanile would be from "major institu- tion/single family housing" to "major institution/campus educa- tional facilities," and would bring the area into the same desig- nation as other similar lands on campus. Area B appeared to be a mistake in the City's existing plan. It was presently "major institution/special facilities," but was single family housing. The change would put the area back to the "campus single family housing" designation which reflected exist- ing use. Area C was presently indicated for "major institution/single arn'f"`"'TF housing" and actually had a condominium project on the site. The. change would be to "campus multiple family housing," which reflected current use. Area D which was back behind .Ryan Lab,. was a little more compli- cam" As originally submitt “).y Stanford, the area included a small City reservoir. The.. area for the City reservoir was not proposed for any change whatsoever. It was presently "major institution/special facilities* and should stay that way. Area D was primarily an open space buffer. The present designation was. rnmaJor institution/special facilities" category which did not seem to be an appropriate one,for a residential buffer. The proposal was to change the designation to "campus single `" family pious i ng,". which was still not an apt ,.descri ption of the intended use, which Was an open, space buffer. ,throughout the _ residential areas "of Stanford there were green buffers provided by the University but there was no designation in the City's plan _ for green buffers in residential areas. However, staff felt that the nearest designa- tion would be the "housing" designation since it was a buffer for a residential area. Of the available designations, the "campus single family housing" seemed more appropriate than the "major .institution/special facilities" designation as it was in the past. The .R an Ca Site on Stanford Avenue was proposed to be changed ` rom a ma or nstitution/special facilities" category to "cam- pus multiple family .residential," which would allow a new multi- family project of sense 60-80 units Area F, was a small triangular piece at the intersection of May - f el d Avenue and J uni pero Serra Boulevard and was also compli- cated. Presently, the area was designated "major institution/ special facilities," and in fact was an empty field. On Stan- ford's plan, it consisted of a green belt buffer and a small strip of land which might accommodate a few 'single family residences. The proposed change was to "campus single family residential" designation which would at least allow a few more single family homes on a portion of the site. Area G was a small strip of property along Santa Terresa. The aT n appeared .to look like a little traffic median, and was be- tween existing campus housing and new dormitories. It was pro- posed for a change from "major institution/special facilities" to the "campus single family residential" designation. Mr. Freeland said the only two other areas were the portion of the golf course and the lands near the Quarry and Arboretum which had no basic change except for the word change "open space controlled development" to "academic reserve and open space." Area J was an area picked up from the original Stanford map, and T r w s a drafting error on their partr Mr, Freeland reiterated that the version, as recommended by the Planning Commission, was contained in the resolution before the Council. . Courcilmember Renzel asked to be refreshed about the City's cur- rent land use procedures with respect to,. unincorporated Stanford lands. Sometime ago, when there were great budget cuts, it was suggested that the City might not be plugged into that process. .by way of notification of any applications by Stanford for use per- mits. She asked if the City was receiving notification and what plan was being used as a basis for comment. Mr. Freeland responded that the City was being notified, the City used its Comprehensive Plan to make comments, and since the County plan was very cacefully tailored to be as consistent as possible with. the Palo Alto plan, there were very few changes and discrep- ancies. The City's plan had a finer level of detail than the County's, so the City was able to make more precise comments in some areas. Caunci lorember Renzel asked if every application .. for a use ` permit referred to the City, and if it was referred with an ample period of time for comment. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber _ said that the application was referred to City= staff with an adequate time for comment. He said that in about 95 peircent of the cases, staff received material from Stanford before it was received from the County. Most of the =eevlewt were ,conducted by staff,", but; sOme i tais had been referred to the ,Planning Commission and the City Council. 1 1 i Councilmember Renzel said she was concerned about the change from "major institution/open space" -to "major institutions/academic reserve and open space." Historically,' Stanford had used "acade- mic reserve" to mean any land which was available •for academic purposes._ In recent times, she thought Phil Williams had been calling academically related research industrial -research as being academic in nature. She wanted to know if there was 'a clear understanding that the City-. did not consider it As academic use, but rather an industrial use. Mr. Freeland said he had mentioned that staff felt that some of the County's language was open to loose interpretation, and the City did not feel it should pick it up directly. The County's designation for those lands presently was the "academic reserve and open space," and their definition was somewhat looser. The City felt that by going to their designation, but having the some- what tighter definition, the point would have tc be clarified. He did not think there was a risk, in that regard, but rather a clari- fication by the change. Councilmember Renzel said she was concerned that while the City disclaimed: in its text and while the titles were similar, the City's definitions were tailored to meet the needs in Palo Alto, planners would change at the County, and they would not know all the history attached to the titles, and would not read further into the City's text to determine the differences. She was con- cerned especially because there was a great deal of concern about how the open space land was used. Mr. Freeland said he was concerned too. If the County ever stopped referring their development projects to the City, it would be a real concern, but as long as the City received the referral, the City would interpret its own policies, and it would be fairly clear for the County. Should the referrals stop, the County would be guided by their plan and the City's plan. He said the Cl Corado case in effect held that if the City had any substantive change in policy, a very extensive environmental analysis would have to be done with the land in its present condition and the land in the condition as it could be used under the change. Staff was not prepared to do that kind of analysis. Councilmember Renzel asked what the City's recourse would be if the County ceased the referrals. Mr. Schreiber said the .last ti are the County said they were going to stop the referral process , the City sent off a strongly worded letter and started copying the Shard of Supervisors andi other jur- isdictions. Staff found that there were a lot of other munic:ipal- ities in Santa Clara County that did nut -want the process cut off either because they had their own unincorporated areas, -their- own development issues, and the same types _of City/County Anterplayr that went on. When the City . copies other planning directors in the County , suddenly other City Councils:, started getting ,into the .ct, and the County service was reinstated- very rapidly.- He thought that was probably the best protection the City had --that i t wa,s not the only city In the County that relied on ; the County, for notification -of adjacent unincorporated -area development. If the City got cut off totally, and the. County refused to make the. referrals, Stanford- still provided the City with that material , and. --.the City wGul.d -work. more close-ly with- Stanford to make sure that ; the materi al was -received prior- to or as part of the County review, process. . layor Eyer-ly declared -the public hearing open. Andy Doty, 4072 Scripps Avenues employed In Public =Affairs at Stanford, sal d . that last! .week Stanford had -,the first., second and third teams present at the meeting for the HospitalMospital Modernl nation Progra*, and- tonight they did, not -even. have the ceptainJ of the fourth team:. I.n the CS zone agreement, ' Stanford agreed uni l ater- Stanford agreed unilaterally to report all development on its lands in Santa Clara County .to the City whether or not they were within the controversial areas of "A," "B" or "C." When the issue arose a year ago as to whether the County would continue its referrals to the City, Stanford offered to send a letter along with the City's letter to the County encouraging that the County continue to refer Stanford matters to the City. Stanford intended to abide by that. He said that Phil Williams was on vacation and his assistant, Judy Chan, would_ try to answer any questions. He pointed out that planners had some kind of fetish for being con- sistent, clear and orderly. A number of years ago, Phil Williams, Naphtali Knox, Roy ,Cameron and members of the Santa Clara County staff started to get together to seek uniform land use designa- tions for Stanford's property, the idea being to designate them as lands owned by a university rather than farmlands that might inci- dentially house some academic facilities now and then. Dozens of hours were spent on the subject, and at the same time the County was revising its. general plan, and San Mateo County was revising its Plan, Palo Alto was revising its Comprehensive Plan, and Stan- ford was updating its 1974 Land Use Plan. It all came together and a number of minds had been at work on the matter over the years, including Alan Henderson, Jerry Steinberg, Nancy Alexander, Enid Pearson, the City's planning staff, and the Planning Commis- sion. Essentially the changes were minor ones in mapping and gra- phics in wording, and basically Stanford gained no new powers or freedoms through the changes. In fact, the proposed changes were more restrictive than the City's existing designations. The record should show that Stanford concurred with almost everything in the staff report and the resolution, but the University still favored a campus educational facilities designation for the Quarry Road parcels and for the golf course and Red Barn areas. The idea was that the Red Barn area was clearly an area of possible future use for the central campus, and the Quarry Road parcels seemed to be ideal infill sites to be used for housing or medical center related uses. He said that "academic related" and "academic reserves" were two different categories. If a project was academ- ic related and had a commercial overtone or profit making over- tone, it did not fit in the academic reserve open space area, and there would have to be a change in the designation. Palo Alto would have a voice in that, and if it were a commercial venture of any kind under a County policy, it would have to be annexed to the City of Palo Alto, , or in San Mateo County to the city or town and whose sphere of influence the lands lie. Councilmember Renzel said that in the County definition of academ- ic reserve end open space, there was language about academic facilities with a wide range of services that gave -an urban char- acter. She asked if it was contemplated that those, same facil i- t es could also be accommodated anywhere in the academic -:reserve and open space category and was the urban character resolved with the open space character. Mr. Freeland said that the language from the County was for the County's campus .designation. , The ` campus designation turned out to be : the one the City called "campus educational facilities" so that the County language for academic reserve and open space said lands outside of the campus area which currently had an open space char-- acteror use or a low intensity academic use. All of the comments he saw that had to do with urban character dealt with the central campus and would still be, blue major- educational facilities desig- nation. Councilaember Renzel asked if staff saw any potential conflict in how the County might at some future date look at the designa- tions. e 1 Mr. Freeland responded that unless Councilmember --Renzel was read- ing from a different place, the language having to do with urban character could not apply to academic reserve and open space. He said there was a County' policy that they must have a Comprehensive Plan amendment in order to expand the' academic ` reserve and open space, and that any intensive uses in that area would require a specific area plan in advance. 1 1 1 Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mayor'Eyerlymoved, Seconded by Klein, approval of: the resolution with the designations on Exhibit 8 to be the' same as. the staff report of June 18, 1982, an page 8, and the first "Whereas" should be corrected to read "May 25." RESOLUTION 6065 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO PTO AMENDING.. THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT . OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (STANFORD UNIVERSITY LANDS)" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Faazino absent. ITEM #9, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE A SUWDTY SION , c 1c� CUNuOMINLON LNI I a Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown said that the matter was viewed by the Planning Commission as a fairly straightforward application consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commis- sion was able to make the appropriate findings in support of the staff recommendation. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open. Steve Jarvis, 445 Lowell Avenue, said he was one of the appli- cants. They were dealing with an office building which was approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) sometime ago. It would be a three-story office building on University Avenue, and the issue before the Council wAs whether the building would be a landlord owned building or whether they would have the option to sell space to tenants who would more than likely be the occupants of the space. The applicants felt that owner occupied office buildings, better known as "office condominium buildings," had gained a lot of popularity recently in the area, and would be a positive thing for the community. The building was a relatively small building and addressed itself to small users. Many. s4{al l office users in Palo Alto had been increasingly squeezed from larger spaces, such as 525 University Avenue, whose present leas- ing policies were one tenant per floor. He said there were exist- ing tenants occupying less than one floor, but when their leases came up, they were not renewable unless they could take the whole floor. The applicants felt that there were additional advantages to an office condominium building and probably the purchasers would be members of the local community who had stable businesses in town and planned to remain in Palo Alto, the possibility existed for greater use of biking facilities in that many people would perhaps live within biking distance of the facilities.,. There was a pride of ownership factor in maintaining the building, etc... Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Cpai nc11aieaber _Cobb moved, . ,seconded by, Witherspoon,. ,to adopt the fPi nbiag 00100 . s1oA recfilao•MdItioas ` with ithe foi-1owln conditions 1 1 1) The project, including the design and improvements (e.g., the street alignments, drainage and sanitary facilities, locations and size of all required rights -of -way, lot sizes and configuration, grading, and traffic access) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Pien including the land use designation of Regional /Community Commercial; 2) The project complies with the Subdivision Nap Act and Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; 3) The project will not have a significant impact on the environ- ment nor be likely to result in serious public health prob- lees 4) The Commission has considered' the Envi ronmeiital Assessment previously certified' during the design revlew'in making its decision on this project; 5) The Site is physi 4a11y 'suitable for the type i'nd density of the proposed development; 6) The project does not conflict with public easements; and rec- ommend apprO al of the Tentative Subdi Vi short Nap. Councilinember Cobb said that on page 4, there was some comment about Lot J being the site of the first parking structures located at the rear of the project site. He asked if any kind of signifi- cant problem would be created if the City did not get such a structure. . Mr. Freeland said no more here than any other building in down- town. Each building which was added without adding parking to the district added to the cumulative problem. Councilmember Cobb thought it was a good development and appreci- ated the comments of the Planning Commission, but the parking problem was there again, and the City Council was forcing them- selves to dead with the problem sooner rather than later by approving the projects even though this project was a good one. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Fazzino absent. ITEM #1O, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE AVVLLCAtION OF Th. Ca rT of 'PA. 01 STRT Planning Comma ss,i on Chairperson Jean McCown said that the change was_ initiated by the staff to clear up what appeared -to be a map- ping error. The error` was detected when the Commission was look- ing at the:: property at 350.:Coilege Avenue. The Commission could not come up with a good explanation as to why there was just one 'Nsliver of RM-4 inserted into the R-1 zone, and recommended that the property :be made R-1 to be consistent with the surro-- nding properties Councilmember-Levy asked if the Chapples were properly notified. Zoning .Administrator RObert M. Brown said that the Chapples were not)fi,ed first at the initiation of the zone change by the Plan- -ping Commission. and then for' the Planning Commission and- City' Council hearings. Mayor'_ Eyeriy declared---- the public hearing open. Receiving .no requests to ;speak, he declared the public.). hearing :open. l QT I Oil t • Copitt 111•00 is r , 00,100 b i .pp rOV 1 s of the P 1 aoi�i a Coa *1,"a oo` r tto�i�eadtti oa far tppfbr.il Of the application ,of ,tb`e C.1 Of- of Polo .Alto for a cb pge of aaa-iog disa trl;ct from -R14 -4J -to k-1 "for - property at 359 Oxford. Avenue: MOTION CONT'D ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL— r THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 359 OXFORD AVENUE FROM RN-4`TO R-1" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Faxzi no absent. ITEM #U PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE 1 1 F Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown said that the under- lying Comprehensive Plan map change application considered last year caused the 'Commission to analyze the whole stretch of College Avenue to determine whether a risk existed to single family type structures along there because of,,the present RM-4 zoning. The particular piece of property had one single family residence on. it. The Commission recommended that the Council not make any changes along College Avenue, and as . a result, the land use desig- nation for the property was changed from single family to multiple family. The proposed zone change would make the property consis- tent with the zoning of the neighboring properties, and consistent with the Commission's earlier actions that th'e zone change be made. Mayor Eyerly clarified that the change would make the zoning simi- lar to the adjacent properties. He asked about 280, 302, and 390 College which would remain R-2. Mr, Freeland commented that the organizing logic behind the plan was that where there were single family uses contiguous to other single family uses, they stayed single family --R-2 being single family from the Comprehensive Plan point of view. He said the R-2 was contiguous to the . R--1 in both of those cases back behind, whereas the subject property was in between.. larger apartment buildings and was out of scale. At the time of the hearings con- sidering the Comprehensive Plan changes in the area, there were members of the public who came before the Commission and recom- mended a policy of always preserving the single family uses on the corners because they helped to lend a more single family appear- ance to the general neighborhood. The feeling was that continuity existed with single family and those properties were not sur- rounded to the same degree in that at least they had a 'street in between them and looked across the street to . a single family use,. and that helped to keep more of a single family flavor to the gen- eral neighborhood. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Renzel asked why the Planning Commission selected RM-4 instead of RM-3 or RM-2 or RM-1. Ms. McCown said it was basically. to treat . the property consis- tently with the zoning -pattern -for similarly. situated parcel's particularly those across- the .street. She,said there were, a lot of., other : similar sin.gl'e fami)y structures ; that ' were' zoned' :.RM-4. She.- s'ai d it was a feed ing of consistency to give the property` owner the- sane zoning designation that, ,Was' given._ a ` .. nuiaber. of other similar properties alongthat street: CouncilMember, Re;nzel4ai d that when the CoMpre_he'ns#ve Plan was orignai.ly :000 4; h, land uSe ` was- ` speCificall. tailored., to - irdivi.dual prapertles-, andf. was : MOre or:lAessx to relict ex'istin9 land uses. She said; R-2. might "reftect a duelex"'on 4, si.ngl`e lot, but was concerned_ if someone expected.:. -the and uses which were` f_i xed ' at that time would. be_ mai ntai hed i nu character. Mr. Schreiber responded that the RM-4 had a sliding height re- striction, and. within 150 feet of the R-1, it was 35 feet. The particular lot, would actually have a 35 foot height limit. MOTION. Councilmember Klein woeed, seconded by Cobb, tb apply the Planning Commission recommendations for approval Of a change of zoning district from R-2 to km -4 for property located at 350 College Avenue, ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINAOCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.04.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 350 COLLEGE . AVENUE FROM R-2 TO RM-4' MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Fazzino absent. Mayor Eyerly thanked Ms. McCown for her perseverance, and congrat- ulated her on her unanimous reelection as Chairperson of the Plan- ning Commission. ITEM #12, LYTTON PLAZA DEDICATION (CMR:452:2) City Attorney Diane Lee said that the exhibit designation in the body of the ordinance, Section 22.08.360, should read Exhibit A-23 as should the exhibit attachment. Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown said that during ttse context of the examination of the Downtown Retail Study, and in the study of the need, and possible location, for a food market in the downtown area, and as part of a recommendation which would be going to the Council within the next month or so, related to the food market specifically, the City would be asked to pursue var- ious means to enable, or assist, in the location of a food market in the downtown area. The possibility of looking at available City- owned sites, including parking lots that might support a parking structure in which a market could be incorporated, will be mentioned in that recommendation. ,The Commission was not very detailed, but the idea was for the City to assist in an innovative proposal for a food market by looking at the possibility of using City -owned sites for such facilities. Lytton Plaza was mentioned in passing but was not enumerated in the recommendation. Staff picked up on that recommendation from the Commission, and initi- ated the suggestion that perhaps the Council could postpone acting on this smatter. until the food market -recommendation was received by the Council: -- , Councilsember Witherspoon said she could see that the Planning Commission would inventory all of the downtown, publicly owned sites when considering the placement, of. a market. She did not consider Lytton Plaza a realistic place for the location of a mar- ket because of the access for produce trucks, and because it was a small site. She said that when the City purchased the property, the need for open space and a pedestrian oriented park in the heart of the . downtown area was recognized, and she would not be the, least bit interested in locating a building of any kind on that site. MOTION; Coencil.ember Witherspoon :moved seconded by Renzel, approval of the ordinance for -first:` reading, as corrected, (*Exhibit 1* designations contained in text of ordinance and *Exhibit 16 attachment corrected to read *Exhibit B.-2316). ORDINANCE, FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF TOE COUNCIL .,OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING C*APTE.R 22.08 (PANE DEDICATIONS) OF THE PALO ALTO CODE NT ADDING SECTION 22.080.35.0 (LYTTON PLAZA) _. i 1 1 1 Councilmember Levy asked about the size of Lytton Plaza, and said he thought the location was too small for a market. Mr. Schreiber responded that the space needed for a. market would vary --anywhere from a 13,000 to 15,000 square foot building in total, but that would depend upon how much of a retailer and the type of rent structure the building would have to support. He said Lytton Plaza was about 8,500 square feet, and the City park- ing lot next to it was about another 10,000, for a combination total of a little less than a half an acre.. As mentioned by Ms. McCown, neither staff nor the Commission was advocating that a food store be placed on Lytton Pl aia right now, but' the concern was that it should be at least kept alive in terms of considera- tion until receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation. He said the site would probably be large enough for a food store if the food store was designed for that site. Councilmember Levy asked whether the 13,000 square feet was for just the store or the store and parking. Mr. Lefler responded that it was just the store Councilmember Renzel said all .the Councilmembers had thought that Lytton Plaza was a dedicated park, and the subject was open because the City tried to bring the law into conformance with reality. She found it distressing that people would look at park- land for something like a supermarket. She was not prepared to use the City's parks in that way, but would be prepared to use 'a parking lot or some other type of public land for a supermarket downtown. She urged the Councilmembers to support the park dedi- cation ordinance. Mayor Eyerly supported Councilmembers Renzel and Witherspoon. He understood that staff had an at‘signment concerning the grocery store from the Planning Commission in terms of feasibility and where the grocery store might be located, He did not want staff to look at Downtown Park North. Staff was going to consider air rights over some of the parking lots, and it was apparent to the Council, through the proposed development for housing, that there was no way - the City would get a grocery store in air rights with- out some subsidy. He asked who would do the subsidizing --the City from its general fund, the assessment district because they want the grocery store, or would it be the developer. it would be most logical to look to the developer, and for the developer to be able to give a grocery store within those air rights , as portrayed by A -K Properties, it would take some bonuses to make the store feas- ible. In staff's report to the Planning Commission, it appeared that staff was going to have to address bonuses which related to exceeding the 50 foot height limit within air rights on parking lots, or some bonus with adJ acent property in the area where the proposed development might occur. Mr. Zaner assured the Council that staff was not looking at Down- town Park .North for anything. Further, staff did not have a direct assignment with regard to the market downtown, but rather had'` an assignment to work with the already existing Downtown Mar- ket Committee, which was an adjunct of the Senior Citizens Coun- cil, Staff was working closely with them, and there were a number of proposals to be considered including coordination with the. Co -Op. Also, staff.. -was working closely :on the __air rights issue. Jean, Diaz was in the middle of those ;discussions With the Downtown Market Committee, the Senior Coordinating Council, and the City's planning . staff on the use, of air rights and a ,starket, and what kind of a .subsidy might have to be involved in order to make a market work. He clarified that staff's_. assignment was. to work in Cooperation with the already existing groups. Staff, was reporting back to the Council and the Planning , Commission periodically as information became available, but had no _ ;direct assignment to report back to the Council on the Ate*. 1 Mr. Schreiber said that the Planning Commission's discussion of a food store did not constitute a staff assignment. The Planning Commission's recommendation was generally to have the City take an active role to try and facilitate a food store, and would come to the Council on or about September 20. At that point, it would be the Council's prerogative as to how staff should follow up on that assignment. Councilmember Renzel commented that if people were going to have to go upstairs to do their grocery shopping, the fourth floor of City Hall might be considered. Sue Cottle, 971 Mears Court, said that the Downtown Market Commit- tee formed a subcommittee --a technical advisory committee-- which had been meeting for the last month to seriously look into all possible options. The. Downtown Market Committee requested a little more time --until the food market issue was considered by the Council on September 20 --and that no possible land, such as Lytton Plaza, be tied up. Councilmember Levy asked about the procedure for taking another look at the name for the Plaza. Mr. Zaner responded that the item was referred to the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee for review and recommendation back to the City Council. Mayor Eyerly clarified that if the Council dedicated Lytton Plaza, staff would automatically go into the process. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM x#13, PALO ALTO AVENUE/EL CAMINO REAL INTERSECTION SIGNAL AND :442:2) Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said that the item was a follow up of an item that the Council had con- sidered several_ times. The City received some CalTrans money that would be available. The Council's action tonight would tie up the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and CalTrans money and allow staff to go ahead with the intersection improvements, and direct staff to evaluate bicycle/pedestrian facilities along Palo Alto Avenue from El Camino to Alma and come back to the Coun- cil with some suggestions for upgrading the facilities in that area. Councilmember Witherspoon asked how frequently the new signal would stop the flow of traffic. me Schreiber responded that it would be demand activated. Councilmember Renzel was concerned about the number of stops south bound traffic .would have to make in the vicinity of the shopping center. Mr. Schreiber said that somecars would be in the position of hav- ing to stop, formally rather than having pedestrians/bicyclists dashing across the. street. Councilmember Renzel asked if . any traffic models, had been done regarding how people : might change their minds and get into the left turn lane :if they were stopped at that intersection, and head on to Palo Alto Avenue to go down Alma Street, instead of going down El Camino. Mr. Schreiber said he ,was not *wire ofany analysis that wouldbe at that -level of detail. Councilmember Renzel asked if a pedestrian activated signal would be cued in with the left turn signal so that if someone activated the signal , it would wait until the left turn stopped the north- bound traffic before letting people go across, or would it be independent of that. Mr. Schreiber said he understood that the system would be unified and not solo. 1 1 i Councilmember Renzel asked if there was a maximum time a pedes- trian could be required to wait_ before the signal was activated. If no left turns were being made, presumably the pedestrian would eventually activate the signal anyway. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. He did not think there was a magical time In the sense that the controller could be set to react as rapidly or as slowly as would seer appropriate given the volume of traffic. Councilmember Renzel said that at the time the Willow Road project was considered, there was a great effort to try and offset the place where Willow Road would come in from Palo Alto Avenue so that there would not be a direct access across. If $63,800 was going to be.. spent on a si gnal , should the City not be mindful of that possible eventuality or would the City just expect to respend that kind of money if Sand Hill or Willow Road were ever extended through to El Camino. Mr. Schreiber said that if the City ever got to the point of . put- ting in a Sand Hill or Willow Road connection, and if the proposed project were in place, it would be one of the current conditions that would have to be modified at that time. Councilmember Renzel clarified that Mr. Schreiber did not see the expenditure at this time essentially making a planning decision about where an intersection might be located. Mr. Schreiber said absolutely not. Councilmember Witherspoon said there was very little pedestrian traffic coming all the way across El Camino, but there was a lot of it where the road came into Stanford Shopping Center. She thought that would be the appropriate place for the bicyclists to cross El Camino. She said it was only two blocks or less away and. was a much used intersection and needed ramps and bike paths improved. She considered that to be a much safer place to put the intersection because cars expected to stop there, and it was very well marked. Mr. Schreiber said that one of the problems was the existing eight foot wide two-way bike path which went to the Southern Pacific depot all the way down to the intersection of El Camino and Pal o Alto Avenue. The City now had a bicycle path in that direction, and an existing five foot wide path on the other side of Palo Alto Avenue coming out in the same general area. He said that bicycle and pedestrian traffic from Menlo Park were focusing a lot of activity on the Palo Alto Avenue area rather than the shopping center entrance. NOTIo11 :Coaaci lseMber Witherspoon moved, seconded by., Klein, adopt tie staff recoeeuidit1oas as follows: 1. Authorize staff to notify CalTrans that Palo Alto agrees to contribute $190000 of ':Transportation Development. Act (TDA) funds toward the signal improvements project; 2. Direct staff to -proceed to develop plans for bike/pedestrian improvements along Palo Alto Avenue; 1 MOTION CONT'D 3. Approve the budget amendment ordinance establishing CIP Project No. 82-24 for $57,620 and increasing the estimated revenue of the Capital Improvement Program by $57,620. Staff to return for approval of the cooperative agreement between CalTrans and the City of Palo Alto and the final plans for the signal improvements,, and for approval of the construction contract and final design details for the bike/pedestrian path improvements. ORDINANCE 3375 entitled ".ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITT OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1982-83 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 82-24 'SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT OF PALO ALTO AVENUE AND EL CANINO REAL' AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION" Councilmember Levy asked if the total grant of $57,000 was depen- dent upon the Council's approving the whole project. If only part of the project was approved, would the City still be able to get part of the grant, Mr. Schreiber responded that the major part of the grant was the intersection improvement. The Council, in December, added the bike path work as an add on if funds were available. He thought the City may be able to drop out the bike path part of MTC, grant but it may not be possible to drop out the intersection portion without going back through the whole MTC reallocation process. riayor Eyerly said that regarding the bike/pedestrian improvements along Palo Alto Avenue, he presumed that staff was going to consi- der a bike path on the south side of Palo Alto Avenue --along side of El Camino Park. Mr. Schreiber said that staff's initial indication was that would probably be the preferable side, but the study area was along both sides of Palo Alto. Councilmember Renzel said she gathered that planning still had to be done for the exact configuration of the improvements. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Staff had two sets of improvements --the signal improvements and the bike path improvements, and planning still had to be done on both. He said that regarding the signal improvements, the normal course of events would be that the City would enter into a cooperative agreement with . Cal Trans, and Cal Trans had indicated that it would do a lot of the engineering work which would lead into the project that the City would participate in. The bike path was in a more preliminary stage and the speci- fics of that project, since it would be a:.,City project, would come back through the City Council. Councilmember Renzel ` said she was concerned because the northbound. traffic had to •'stop for the left turns onto Palo Alto Avenue and it would be a shorter and more direct route for pedestrians to go across to the shopping center. She thought it would also have _ the benefit of having the 0910 for th aouthbound allowing some traffic to stack up: before havf ng a;" choice of whether,to go into .. the left-hand lane. She' was concerned that the City would gener- ate a lot = more 'eft turns. ontp,A11 a Str set by stppp1 ng ; traffic at that; -point, and there could ;be, sbwe ifouble benefits by stopPin9 traffic a little further down in' terms Of the potential traffic problems that would be caused by -southbound` traffic > changing its mind-: about how it _ traveled squithbouad. Mr. Schrei ber commented that was a level of detail that woul d not be ..resolved tonight. If Council wished to have staff bring more detail on the design back with the cooperative agreement with Cal - Trans, that could be done. Councilmember Witherspoon suggested, with the concurrence of the second to the motion, that staff bring back the final configura- tion of the crossing of the El Camino or the whole map of bike/ pedestrian improvements. Mr. Schreiber responded that the bike improvements themselves would come back anyway Mayor Eyerly said he used the intersection frequently and it would be a great help to both pedestrians and bicyclists if a bike path was accepted and built on the south side of Palo Alto Avenue. He thought that from the pedestrian standpoint, crossing to the Stan- ford Shopping Center would be handier at the island where the cur- rent stop light was, FIRST AND SECOND PART OF NOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Renzel, Levy voting *nova Bechtel 0 Fazzino absent. THIRD PART OF MOTION FAILED (BUDGET AMENDMENT) by a vote of 5-2, (six votes neede ) , Renzel, Levy voting "no,' Bechtel, Fazzino absent. Ms. Lee commented that it did not make sense to authorize the staff to contribute, if Council did not give the money to do so. Mr. Zaner said it would make the matter somewhat more complicated since the funds were reimbursable grant funds --the budget amend- ment provided for the City to put its money up first and get paid back. Since the budget amendment failed, he assumed that the project would stop. If no money was appropriated, the City would not have money to spend for the project and thus would not request a reimbursement. Councilmember Fletcher thought perhaps one of the dissenters could reconsider. Tne intersection was one which was used extensively, especially by pedestrians from the north Palo Alto area, who lived north of University Avenue, who were prevented from using other i ntersecti ons because of the railroad tracks. To walk down a couple of blocks north on El Camino to cross the street was quite an imposition. There. was , a footpath to the entrance of the shop- ping center at the corner near the creek which was an invitation for pedestrians to enter the .shopping centerfrom that corner and also exit from there. She had seen a lot of pedestrians do just that and dodge the traffic. She felt there was a need for people to cross that intersection. Councilmember Klein asked if a motion to continue would be appro- priate.. He felt that one of the two abs ,nt Counsel 1members would be a "yes" vote on the item Ms. Lee sai d yes . NOTION: Councilmember Untie the item. sorted, seconded by Eyerly, to . ton - Klein Count# 1 member Renzel. said ° she was distressed about seeing the potential pathway shown 'on the ,neap., She ;was`'. concerned, that south- bound traffic would be rerouted on to Alma Street. She could be persuaded to change her vote if she felt that the line of the signal and the pedestr-i an crosswalk would' ai a :, more toward the shopping center at an angle pore: southwesterly than where it was shown on the map. 2 4 O 0 8/16/82 Mr. Schreiber urged the Counci lmembers to approve the budget ordi- nance with the provision that staff would bring back more detail on the project before getting to the point of formal agreements, design, etc. He was concerned that if the budget ordinance was not approved, the City would end up notifying MTC and CalTrans that the City was in limbo with no project. The City worked very closely with MTC and CalTrans in other areas. Staff often gave the MTC and CalTrans the City priorities, etc., and people were prodded to try and get .the funding foi' City projects. Now the City would have to go back to them, when they were trying to give the City help, and say the City did not want their help. It created a difficult working relationship with some of the burea- cracy in terms of what the City Council in Palo Alto really wanted. If, after reviewing in more detail, the City decided it did not want to go ahead with the project, he would feel more comfortable in going back to MTC and CalTrans in that situation rather than saying they did not get enough votes from the City Council. Councilmember Renzel asked the maker and seconder of the original motion (Witherspoon and Klein) if they would,.consider adding that the particular drawing was not: the Council's contemplation of how the project would look. She wanted any reference to the drawing deleted: Councilmember Witherspoon said she thought the intersection would be a very dangerous one for pedestrians and bicyclists. She would prefer to see the intersection at some other location, Mayor. Eyerly said he understood: that Councilmember Witherspoon's motion would lay a requirement on staff to at least provide some schematics that would put a crossway for the Council to consider. Councilmember Klein said he would not withdraw the motion to con- tinue. He had a lot of trouble holding the ordinance in the man- ner being discussed. He did not think that one particular Coun- cilmember should have the right to design the interesection at this particular point. While he favored adding on to the main motion, that the Council was not committed to any particular design. He would oppose the motion if it were specified that staff had to come back with a particular design at this point. Councilmember Renzel said that the amendment was not meant to sug- gest that staff had to come back with any specific design, but found the proposed design to be quite offensive and she could not support the motion with that design as part of the documentation. Councilmember Klein said as far as he was concerned, there should be no restrictions on what staff brought back with regard to design. He felt they should be unfettered in their discretion as to what they thought was the best design. Mayor Eyerly withdrew his .second to the action .:to continue. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Eyerly, to recon- sider the main amnion. MOTION PASTED unanimously,: Bechtel and Fazziaao.. absent. AMENDMENT: Councilmember it+eezel moved, seconded by Eyerly, its amend main motion to *Wpr°ove the- aethori zat1 On of funds without reference to the schematic nap ether: than that there rill be a crossing in that area. Councilmember Fletcher asked for' _clar ficatt9n that the particular configuration would not be allowed even if staff analyzed the alternatives and decided that it was the best way. 2 4 0 1 8/16/82 1 1 Councilmember Fletcher suggested that a traffic engineer make some kind of an analysis about whether Councilmember Renzel's concerns had grounds. 1 1 Councilmember Levy mentioned that he shared Councilmember Renzel's concerns about the southern flow of traffic on El Camino. He held the concern to such an extent that he did not see himself approv- ing signals at that intersection almost regardless of the configu- ration which was evolved. He would continue to vote no on the motion. He would prefer to see a specific plan he could approve before voting. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Levy voting 'no," Bechtel and Fazzino absent. MOTION AS AMENDED. PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Levy voting "no," Bechtel and Fazzino absent. ITEM #14, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS FAllINO AND KLEIN RE GRECIAN liEALT'I SPA pRogrEIT - Councilmember Klein said he appreciated the members of the neigh- borhood staying through all - the items which were considered by the Council. He and Councilmember Fazzino placed the item on the agenda because of the long standing frustration of the problems which had been encountered at the Grecian Health Spa and its pre- decessor. He and Councilmember Fazzino hoped that there would be dialog tonight between members of the neighborhood and the . people from the Grecian Health Spa, but instead the Spa wrote a letter saying all the nice things they said a year ago, and that no one could attend the City Council meeting. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to direct staff to update their previous reports to the Council with cost data so that when the item returns to the Council, Council will be able to take action. Councilmember Fletcher said she recalled that staff's last report indicated that they were awaiting the outcome of the study with the Evergreen Park situation, which in turn was held up by the court decision regarding the barriers. Both items were tied together and staff was awaiting an interpretation or new state legislation which would approve installation of barriers and then the Evergreen Park study could move forward. Mr. Schreiber said: that while this problem was in the same neigh- borhood as Evergreen Park and had been discussed to a certain extent within the framework of the Evergreen Park study, it was a distinct item. He did see the ,expectation from the staff report or from the Council's minutes. last July when the item was last discussed, that the matter would come back with the Evergreen Park study. Staff outlined a number of alternatives in the report and indicated a recommendation - that a permit parking plan not be imposed for °a small area. Other than that, staff, the neighbor- hood and the Counc0 were not able to come up with an alternative that seemed to be acceptable, workable and financially feasible. Mayor Eyerly said it had been suggested to him that an insert to the membership agreement was needed that the Health Spa members would agree to park in certain areas and restrict their parking. He did not see any way for the Council to get that legally, in that there'eaere no use permitsor anything else. Mr, Schreiber said he was reminded of correspondence submitted by the managerof the Health Spa, Mr. Turley, a if_ ari exchange in terms Of one, or more of the neighbors not wishing = to : provide license plate numbers for people who were parking on the street. He wondered if that attitude had changed in terms of providing Mr. Turley something he could'go on. 2.4 0 2 8/16/82 Councilmember Cobb clarified that the property was designated as a CSI zone, and he asked if the Health Spa was a permitted use, or had a use permit David Gleason, 396 Stanford Avenue, President of Evergreen Park Association. He clarified that his letter of August 4 mentioned that in 1980 Evergreen Park requested two actions: 1) the imposition of on -street parking restrictions which would guarantee that the spaces on the north side of Park Boulevard would be reserved for residents and their guests. He cor- rected that request and said they would like restrictions in conformance, with the staff . report of 1981. It was ea larger area, and he had not meant to limit that request to just the north side of Park Boulevard. 2) if the current tenants were to vacate the, property, the Coun- cil could take a look at the use of the property. He clari- fied that the residents were not implying that the Health Spa was going broke, but it had changed hands several times and the neighbors were suggesting that it may be appropriate to. look at the land use in case it changed hands again. He reiterated that there was a severe problem, and it had gotten worse over the years. The Association appreciated the Council's attention. It was known that the management of the Spa had good intentions, but he did not think they were in a position to police their own patrons, which he felt was the crux of the problems. He felt that the City must take some action if anything was to be done. Ms. Stewart, a resident of Park Boulevard, spoke anonymously on behalf of the 92 signers of the petition dated September 8.. ,She said the residents were asking for relief from the constant noise, traffic, litter, parking problems, harassment and vandalism. The residents were weary trying to cope with the ,problems, .coming : to City Council meetings, meeting with City staff and various Spa management. Little progress was ever made and the situation was not good: Encroachment of their neighborhood by Spa parkers was worse than ever --they now parked on the El Camino frontage,, road. Noise continued to be a problem and patrons hung around the neigh- borhood before and after exercising, often for an hour or more. Because Spa management did not have an avid interest in good neighborhood relations, spa patrons, showed a disregard to the local parking ordinance and a lack . of cooperation with the neigh- bors. The neighbors had tried to work with Mr. Turley, who was sympathetic to the problems., but that did not solve them. The neighbors needed relief and postponing action was no solution. She asked for a solution that would achieve desired results. Restrictive parking was one solution, and the Spa was now open six days rather than seven days which would make policing somewhat cheaper. Councilmember Levy asked if the police had been called about the various concerns, i.e,, noise, vandalism and parking, and what type of . cooperation was received from them. Ms. Stewart said good cooperation was received by the police. They came . up and took the noise meter reading of the compressors and the Spa was cited = on July 5. Kathleen Hi amei ber°ger, 1763 Park Boulevard, said she had lived in her house for ten years and had problems with Spa parking for ten years. She thought the Council should show priority to the last- ing segments of Palo Alto neighborhoods. To date, action taken by the City Council had not done any good. The same probl ems sti l l existed, and in some cases were worse. She recommended permit parking which would be enforced on a comriaint :basis If- the police came, the revenues from the ticket would be there. Unlike some of her neighbors, she had encountered several 2 4 0 3 8/16/82 instances of illegal parking in front of her house. She had called the police about three times this year, and the police had not responded in any of those cases within one and one half to two hours. If the police responded after that time, the patron had left the Spa. She thought the Council was probably as tired of the issue as the neighbors, and would like to finally do something which Would have some effect. 1 1 1 Mayor. Eyerly confirmed that the parking problems related to a patron parking in front of her driveway and her not being able to get out. Mr. Schreiber responded to Councilmember Cobb's question and said the land was zoned service commercial --not neighborhood commer- cial. Within the CS category, the specific uses would fall under the commercial/recreation heading, which required a use permit, but the use existed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1978. Therefore, the use was pre-existing, and a new use would be subject to a use. permit. The zoning ordinance did not contain any abatement provisions in the case of use permit items now requiring a use permit which were legal under the old ordinance Councilmember Cobb clarified that the use permit would go with any spa use that would go in the location. Until an entirely dif- ferent use were placed there, the City could not getat it through the use permit process. Mr. Schreiber said that use permits, as with zoning, go with the property --not the owner. Councilmember Cobb said he perused Mr. Zaner's file on the' sub- ject. The Council minutes dealt with the subject during 1981 on five different occasions, and there were no less than six staff reports on the subject. The problem had continued for more than a year, and the petition was first submitted in September, 1980. Given that the Council could not deal with the problem through the use permit process, and the problem still existed for the resi- dents, a solution was needed. Some kind of restriction was in order because parking was available on El Camino on the Stanford side. He hoped the report could be returned quickly and that Council could get on with some kind of a solution. He would like to see the staff, in addition to looking at some kind of restric- tions which would get at the problem now, consider it as part of the larger considerations of the Evergreen traffic problem which would be before the P&P Committee in October. Mr. Zaner acknowledged that a substantial amount of work had been done on the problem before, but that no success was achieved. . He reminded- the Council that if the motion passed, staff would update its previous memos and would get new cost figures to the Council. He reminded the Council that the problem was essentially a behav- ioral one. If the parking were restricted at this location, the cars would still come to the neighborhood and the problem would be moved down the street. The behavior being seen was the behavior of the patrons and they would exhibit that behavior whether it . was on the street or a block down. His original memo to the Council, in February 1981, suggested that some way be found to enable the Council to require the Spa to pay for the enforcement. He felt that would change the behavior of the patrons. As long as the taxpayers were doing it, the problem would just be moved down the street, and the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association would be back next week complaining that a parking problem was created for them. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if Councilmember Klein intended to have a staff report before the whol a neighborhood park matter came up in October. 2 4 0 4 8/16/821 1 8 Councilmember Klein said yes. He saw the problem as being con- nected, but really separate, from the overall Evergreen Park traf- fic situation. He saw the Council being able to move without that being in hand. Councilmember Witherspoon said she would have to vote against the motion because she saw this as part 'of the whole problem of a neighborhood being too close to a commercial area --the same prob- lem existed in the downtown area. The City had a study going and the Council had tried to isolate the issue and look at it from an isolated point of view unsuccessfully. She preferred to look at the problem as the whole neighborhood and would wait until Octo- ber. Councilmember Cobb said that from what he had learned about the eobject, the generated a large amount of customer traffic. He did not thin ,e City would allow something like that there now because it = I be required that the ` parking problem be under. control. They e isically had a grandfathered use which happened to generate an enormous amount of outside traffic, and he thought that was unusual. He thought some kind of a solution had to be found. If the City could connect this to an even better solution and the ties of the larger traffic issue, that was fine, but this problem had to be dealt with now. He asked if there was a legal way for the City to get at making the Spa pay for enforcement. Ms. Lee said no. Mayor Eyerly said he could support the motion for the staff assignment to update the cost data in order for Councilmembers to relate to possible courses of action. Realistically, he would never support any motion that might impact the General Fund and the general taxpayer of the City. Complaints should be followed up by the Police Department more rapidly to remove any illegal parking in driveiays, etc., but he did not see any solution. The only reason for having the staff report was that the. Council mem- bership changed and had changed while all this had been going on. He thought the people in the Evergreen area surrounding the spa were good lobbyists and periodically were capable of getting some- one on the Council to agendize the matter. He thought the Council had to struggle with the costs that would come out of the report and bite the bullet. Hopefully, the Council would not be lobbied again for a while. Councilmember Levy said he recognized the difficulty of the prob- lem. However, there had to be some elements that the Council could deal with. Even though the Council was not successful up to now, the problem persisted and he thought it would be worthwhile to take another crack at it. He did not think the Council had to wait until the Evergreen Park Traffic Study was completed because he did not ,.think this particular problem contributed significantly to the traffic problems at Evergreen. This problem was on the perimeter and the problem seemed to be localized ._:right .around the Spa and impacted those residences heavily. He would support the motion. Councilmember Renzel saidshe would support .the motion. The Coun- cil must respond to :concerns expressed by residents, and she did not think the residents liked coming to City Hall to complain any. more than the Council liked the frustration of not being able to deal with the problem adequately. She thought it was clear that the problem persisted and something had to be done. She hoped the Council could find a solution that would work., Cuunc i lmember Klein said that regarding the problem being a behav- i oral one, that was true - enough, but that did not mean the ,Council should give up and throw in the towel. The Council had dealt with other behavioral problems where steps -were taken that were ,ulti- mately proven successfpl, i.e., pornographic bookstores" and mas- sage parlors. ,2 4 0 5 8/16/82 MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6.1, Witherspoon voting "no," Bechtel and. Fazzino absent. ITEM #15, REQUEST OF MAYOR EYERLY RE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER 1 1 i Mayor Eyerly said that the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) had their annual meeting scheduled in Nevada again this year, which was a state that did not support the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The Council's policy did not allow Councilmembers or staff to attend such conventions or meetings and obtain reimbursements for them. He hoped that the. Counci lmembers might see fit to attend the meeting if the policy could be clarified. MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Klein, to remove the current ERA policy and hold . it in abeyance until such a time that a:new :amendment is presented to the states for ratification: Councilmember Levy asked Ms. Lee if there was a time limit on the Council's former policy so that at the conclusion of the ERA amendment being before the country, the Council's policy also came to an end. Ms. Lee said she did not believe any time frame was built into the policy statement, Councilmember Levy said he thought it was appropriate that if the Constitutional amendment was not before the country, that the Council's policy be held in abeyance. Mr. Zaner said he understood from press reports, that the major organizations which supported a boycott of states that had not adopted an ERA, such as the National Organization of Women (NOW), had removed the boycott in view of the fact that the amendment was no longer before the states. Councilmember Renzel said it was with great regret that she had to support the motion. She felt it was unfortunate that groups like NCPA continued to schedule meetings in places like Nevada when the ERA was still before the various states for ratification. Those kinds of bookings were usually done several years in advance and she thought it was unfortunate that NCPA continued to book in.,a non -ERA state. It was obviously meaningless for the Council to continue to have a boycott on its books that related to legisla- tion not currently pending. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Fszzinn absent, ITEM #16,• REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS IN JOINING AMICUS BRIEF SU Actt 1 LT AL vs. UANL 'DOE, vs. - Mayor Eyerly referred the Coufcilmerbers to the Report from City Attorney, dated August 11, 1982, and reminded the:oublic that .the Council was addressing the right. for a charter city, such as Palo Alto, to enact a prohibition -of handguns. It did not address a handgun ordinance. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded` by Levy, to autho- rise the City Attorney to join nano to Amicrs„ brief. Councilmember Witherspoon understood that .the City of Palo Alto would be adding its dame to the brief, but would 'not.: be actively participating in the defense of San Francisco's handgun :.ordi- nonce• Ms. Lee said, that was. correct.' Before the City of Palo - Alto added its name to the brief, the City Attorney's, offlce'would scrutinize the brief to make: eure-they,__agreed with the legal points taised: 2 4 0 6 8/16/82 Counci1member Witherspoon clarified that the City of Palo Alto would not be actively participating in the lawsuit nor affecting its outcome one way or the other. Ms. Lee said the City would affect its outcome to the extent that the Court would be influenced by our name appearing on the Amicus brief. Councilmember Witherspoon said she would vote against the motion because she would prefer to debate the handgun issue on its own merits as appropriate or not appropriate for Palo Alto. Her inclination was that the ordinance was probably preempted by the State and that . was the most appropriate place to be effective with such an ordinance. She did not foresee that San Francisco's case had anything to ,do. with:Palo Alto at this .point. Counci lmember Renael :said she saw the issuemore as being .whether Palo Alto, as a charter city, enjoyed the broad powers that had traditionally been allowed to charter cities legally. She thought it was important for the City to participate in the Amicus brief and would support the motion. Mayor Eyerly said that the Council received a letter from the Human Relations Commission (HRC) who discussed the item of joining the Amicus brief, and unanimously approved support. Away V ossbri nck, 552 Kellogg Avenue, said she supported the idea of the Palo Alto City Council supporting Berkeley and San Francisco because Palo Alto was affected by the handgun violence which took place not only in those two communities, but in Palo Alto's sur- rounding communities. She presented an article from the Peninsula Times Tribune which said, "Peninsula residents survive a night of terror." —irfii family described in the article was her sister and her family. Her family had personally experienced what it meant to be at the other end of the gun, andto know that kind of exper- ience would stay with you for the rest of your 1 i fe . Even though you were not the one involved, you could see what happened to your family when. these kinds of .things happened. Her . nephew was ten years old at the time of the occurrence and he still had not over- come the fear. Although their story was terrifying, they were gagged and bound and held at gun point for two and one half hours while their house was ransacked, was mild compared to some of the things that had happened to some people. She was among one in eight Americans that would experience some type :.of handgun vio- lence in her lifetime. She encouraged the Council to support San Francisco and , Berkeley 1 n . their effort to stem the handgun vio- lence in the.country John F. Walker, 19375 Greenwood Circle, Cupertino, said that when he was 10 or 11 years old, he lived in Ventura. One day . one of his friends brought out his daddy's gun, and when he pointed the gun at ,one of his other little friends, it made an awful big hole where the bullet went out of him. He would never forget that, and did not think there was any need _ for a handgun in a home. He thought it was important that the majority who did, nct play with guns not be run : by a minority that does. The United States was generally ruled by a minority when it came to the gun issue. The. majority of Americans felt there should be some. -,:regulation of handguns. Counci lmember Levy =thanked As. vossbrinck and -Mr. :`Walker - for- comments. He said the specific, issue before the Council was whether 'the City should have a right to take action in the ;area The action or lack of action was up- to the Councili but.the_ ques- tion was whether the Council had the right, in the-:tir'st place. He had no objection ,:to the State taking an affirmative; action; in that regard, but that had not been done. \Rather; a, statement was made that no one else could take any action in that regard. He thought that was insulting -to the residents of Palo Al;toy which was a -charter city. He supported the' Amicus brief ".far beyond this one particular issue. Councilmember Cobb said he would not have a gun anywhere near his house. Both speakers reinforced.his.concerns about the. City join- ing in the brief. Berkeley and San Francisco had taken positions and properly had a case to argue before the Court, but Palo Alto had not yet taken a position. If the City joined' in the brief, even though they were doing something on much narrower ground, it would be interpreted as if Palo Alto had taken _a position. For that technical reason, he would not support the motion. Councilmember Fletcher said: that ideally Palo Alto should take a stand first with a local ordinance, but it was, irrelevant in the sense that Palo Alto was interested in the rights of charter cities to have the authority to pass local ordinances. She hoped San Francisco was successful in defending its ordinance because it was of great importance and the vast majority of citizens wanted that kind of control. The representatives in Sacramento and Washington were not open to doing anything about the issue, and it was an important,test .case in this particular instance because if San Francisco was successful in defending the suit, she saw many other cities following. Mayor Eyerly agreed. MOTION PASSED= by a vote of S-2, Witherspoon, Cobb voting . "no," Bechtel, Fazzino absent.: ITEM #17, REQUEST OF COUNC I LMEMBER REN7EL RE AUGUST 30, 1982 Councilmember Renzel said she understood that the Council had to decide whether to schedule a meeting on the fifth Monday. Mr. Zaner commented that the City Council had to call for a meet- ing on the fifth Monday because normally one would not be held. He reminded the Council that a few weeks ago, the possibility of a meeting was discussed on 'heat night, and as a result, the hearing for the Downtown Improvement District was set for August 30. Councilmember Renzel said she tried very hard to schedule her absences from town when no meetings were scheduled. She was scheduled to be gone on the fifth Monday, and was concerned that three Councilrnembers might be absent on August 30. She did not think- it was :a good idea, if possible, to schedule meetings on the fifth Mondays. Mayor Eyerly said a � y y public hearing had been noticed for August 30; and asked what the Council would have to do to reset the hearing. Ms. Lee said would advise the Council by next' -week of whatever, was -necessary. Possibly the Council could have the City Clerk con- ti nue --the meeting for the Council , but that had to -be done on the date of the meeting,' which would cause some inconvenience to the public. She thought it might be better to do another resolution - setting a .new date, and having a _new publication. Mayor Eyerly 'said. that: at this time of the- year, a lot of Council- members_ were gone. It was difficult "for staff to work -around the Council calendar, and ,he was concerned that some .items had to be addressed In the' late summer period.:- Besides --the downtown' hearing which was -already scheduled, cable.. tel ev i si on was scheduled for S.epteaber 1.3,, and there was a.- deadl i,ne - to address- the- CaTaveras Project before . S.eptember 23'� Ms., Lee` said A special meeting was going to have to August 3D, and. that -had not been done yet.` 1 1 NOTION: Councilueaber Renzel moved that the Council not sched- ule a Special Nesting for August 30, 1982, and that those items to be scheduled be readjusted between August 23 and September 13. NOTION FAILED for lack of a second. Mr. Zaner said the City had a deadline to get back to.. NCPA by September 23 with a decision regarding .Calaveras. Council's instructions to staff were to give Council the material and at least. .a week's time to review it. The calendar reflected that staff would probably get that information to. Council on August 30. No meeting was scheduled for the Labor Day week, September 13 was the second Monday and cable television was scheduled on that night. He recommended that Council consider having a special meeting soaeti me early in September for the purpose of dealing with the Calaveras subject °only. Mayor Eyerly clarified that staff could not get.. the Calaveras information to the Council in the packet of August 23. Mr. Zaner said they were going to try, but thought August 30 was more likely. NOTION: Councllmeaber Klein moved, seconded by Eyerly, to schedule an August 30, 1982 (fifth Monday).Council meeting.= Mr. Zaner said he thought the information could be provided to the Council by August 30, but he was concerned whether the Council would be ready to take action the same night. Mayor Eyerly asked why the information could not be provided to the Council over the weekend of August 21 or 22. Mr. Zaner said they were going .to try. Staff would not wait for packet distribution, and as soon as the information was available,. it would be distributed to the Council. Counci lmember Fletcher said she was sympathetic to Counci 1 member Renzel's concerns, but she was worried about the future schedule. if the August 30 meeting was skipped. She thought the situation was special and she would support the motion. NOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Witherspoon and Renzel voting •no,'" Bechtel. f azzi no: absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:20 afm.