Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-12 City Council Summary MinutesRegular Meeting Monday, January 12, 1981 ITEM PAGE Roll Call 5 3 6 Ora` Communications 5 3 6 Consent Calendar Amendments to Residential Conservation Service Plan 5 3 7 Firefighters' Compensation Plan 5 3 7 Ordinance Amending Zoning and Building Codes 5 3 7 Ordinance Amending Public Employees Retirement Contract 5 3 8 Weed Abatement Prooram 5 3 8 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 5 3 8 Policy and Procedures Committee Recommendations re Animal Services 5 3 8 Award of Agreement for Consultant Services - ITT Excavation 5 5 3 Consultant Selection for Alma Street Widening at Embarcadero Road, Project 80-51 5 5 5 Request of Counciimernbers Eyerly, Levy and Witherspoon re Creation of Additional Rental Housing Units 5 5 7 Request of Mayor Henuerson Concerning Nomination of James G. Watt -as Secretary of the Interior 5 5 9 Request of Councilmember Fazzino re Parking at European Health Spa 5 6 1 Councilmember Bechtel - Palo Alto Weekly's Letter re Proposed Publication of P.C. Agenda, 5 6 5 .Councilmember Renzel-JPA Solid Waste 5 6 5 Mayor Henderson re South Bay Dischargers 5 6 5 Oral Communications 5 6 5 Adjournment 5-6 5 535 1/12/81 Regular Meeting January 12, 1981 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:00 p.in for a Special Executive Session concerning Personnel, and at 7:30 p.m., for the regular meeting, Mayor Henderson presiding. PRESENT: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, H€nderson, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon ABSENT: Brenner ;Mayor Henderson announced that there world be a brief Executive Session concerning litigation during recess or at the end of the regular meeting, and an Executive Session concerning Personnel at the end of the meeting. Mayor Henderson commented that he understood the League of Women Voters was trying to determine the number of listeners to the Council Meeting broadcasts each week, and had asked for a telephone survey. Accordingly, Mayor Henderson announced the telephone numbers for listeners to call in: 321-3246 or 494-0346 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Jim Gregg, 2513 Alma Street, spoke regarding three matters: (a) An incident where he had been struck by a car while traveling by bicycle on Alma Street northbound to Oregon Expressway underpass. (b) The noise ordinance. (c) The Alma Street construction seems to have made bicycle rioting_ on that s'.:reet_ too dangerous. He felt bicycles are often blamed unfairly for auto -bicycle accidents. He had seen one incident of a teen-ager driving over on the left side of the street almost running over a bicyclist en the other side - this had been -narrowly averted by his shout to stop. Ile felt strongly that a bicycle path was absolutely essential for Alma Street. CONSENT. CALENDAR f•4 yar Henderson asked that the matter concerning Consultant Selection for Alma Widening at the Embarcadero Intersection be r_emoved for action, rather tl=an referred to the Finance and Public Works Committe-e. Councilmember Renzel._Nrished to ensure. record being made of her "no" vote to Part 1, permitting continuation of existing motels in R -M Multiple FaMiiy Residential Districts, of the proposed Ordinance amending Zoning and Building Codes. 5 3 6 1/12/81 Mayor Henderson remarked that he assumed all councilmembers wished their votes at the First Reading of the Ordinance to stand, and that they should so signify. He would direct that votes on the Second Reading be recorded exactly as the First Reading of the Ordinance. AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL tONS4I 7711 RYICL PLAN (CMR:109: i ) Staff recommends that Council authorize submission of Palo Alto's response, shown in Appendix B, to response, comments received from the U.S. Department of Energy on our RCS Plan. FIREFIGHTERS' COMPENSATION PLAN TrER:116:i) The recommended Compensation Plan for Fire Employees implements the compensation changes provided in the arbitration award. Under provisions of Article V of the City Charter the Council is required to carry out the arbitration award by approving the compensation plan and directing the City staff to initiate the procedures for amending the City contract with PERS for provi- sion of the highest single year retirement amendment. RESOLUTION 5865 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL (effective January 1, 1980) AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 5714" ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING AND 8UT-L TG econd Re d ng) ORDINANCE 3255 entitled, "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO • ALTO AMENDIdG THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 18) AWJ THE BUILDING CODE (TITLE 16) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY,' THE DEFINITION OF 'LOT AREA,' THE IMPROVE - MEN'! OF NONCONFORMING SECOND DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, EXISTING .MOTELS IN MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONES, ETC." (First Reading 12;15/80) At the First Reading.of the Ordinance, the Planning Commis- sion's recommendations regarding amendments to the Zoning° -\and Building Codes passed on a unanimous vote, except for the followiny sections: 1. An amendment permitting continuation of existing motels in R -M Multiple Family Residential Districts. PASSED on the .following vote, AYES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon NOES: Renzel ABSENT; Brenner 4. An amendment adding animal care facilities with boarding and kennels as conditional uses in CN and CC Districts. 5 3 7 -1/12/81 FAILED on the following vote: AYES: Fazzino, Levy, Witherspoon NOES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel ABSENT: Brenner 7. An amendment permitting- a new definition for "family" and• "lot area." PASSED on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Hendt rsor:, Renzel, Witherspoon NOES: L2vy ABSENT: Brenner The above votes on Sections 1 and 7 applied to the second reading, with all other sections passing unanimously, 8-0. ORDINANCE AMENDING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES econ ,ea RrnirrnM=Trrr ig) ORDINANCE 3256 c nt it 1 ed "ORDINANCE OF HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (First Rearming 12/22/80) .WEED ABATE1ENT PROGRAM RESOLUTION 5866 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DECLARING WEEDS TO BE A NUISANCE AND SETTING A HEARING" MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Consent Calendar. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote, with exceptions noted on item regarding Second Reading of the Ordi- nance amending Zoning and Building Codes. AGENDA CHANGES ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The following items will be added to the Agenda for considera- tion by Council later in the meeting: I. Counci lmerriber Bechtel wished to add an item, regarding the response from the Palo Alto Weekly to the proposed publication of the Planning Commission Agenda. 2. Counci lmember Renzel intended to mace a report on the JPA Solid Waste. POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE 'WCTJMMLNDATJUNS RE ANIMAL ILRV 10ES The Policy and Pro,; .educes Committee recommends to Council, by a uni nirncus vote, that Council -dopt the.. 0rdi narice amending Chap- ters 6.04, 6.08, 6.12, 16.16,.. .20, 6.22, 6.28, 6.32, and 6.36 5 3 .8 1/12/81 Councilmember Fazzino reviewed the background of this item, which had been placed before Council for vote three months ago. However, because of concerns expressed by a number of citizens about the Ordinance as proposed, it was referred to the Policy and Procedures -Committee, -which ri.ade a number o -_ . recommenda - - tions as -part of the new Animal Ordinance. He mentioned that; prior to the. Committee meeting, there had been a session involving Superintendent of Animal Services Bi l l Burke, and a number of interested citizens, where a number of problems and issues were discussed, thus avoiding controversy at the meeting itself. On behalf of the Policy and Procedures Committee, Council,nernber Fazzino then read the recommended changes:, 1. Re Reclaiming Animals, giving the Superintendent of Animal Services. the au'ehority to waive. redemption fees In lieu of owners having their animals neutered. 2. Re Injured Animals, add to the Municipal Code the State Law, which describes the method in which injured animals are to be handled. 3. Re Fowl, Goats and Rabbits, amend the section that reads that anyone owning one or more of the above described animals must secure a permit. 4. Re Barking Dogs, extend the time limit for which a dog can bark before being considered a nuisance. S. Re Slaughter of Animals, add a section to outlaw the slaughter of certain, animals, named in the Ordinance, with- in the city limits. 6. Re Permits Required for Pet Shops, add a sentence indicat- ing that, by obtaining a permit from the city, permit holders do agree to unannounced periodic inspections of the premises by other members of the Animal Services Division or the Police Department. 7. Re Sale of Kittens and''uppies, a provision forbidding the sale of kittens and puppies under the age of eight weeUs in pet shops. This section was part of the original proposal wade in October 1980. At the November 18 Meeting, the Committee added a. few changes: (1) Racoons be included among those wild animals that are not to be.sold in pet stores. (2 Fowl, �, kens and guinea hens will at no time .�. ducks; chickens ,.., . �.li be allowed to run at large off the property and shall be confined within a suitable house o=- coop after sundown. . (3) Amend Section 6.20.090(5) to add: "...without the unanimous written consent of the adjacent neighbors." (4) Amend Section 6.20.090.8 to read: ...more than two adult goats." (5) A basic statement of the other functions of shelter, pet adoption and humane education to be included in the City's ordinance. The Committee was 'particularly concerned about the need for additional pet adoption and humane education programs. - 5 3 9 1/12/81 Ccunci l member Fazzi nc adder, that the Committee also suggested that, during the course of this year, a citizens' committee be formed, which would meet regularly with Mr. Burke to refine the Ordinance, improve upon trie City's program, and make certain that emphasis is placed on the areas of humane education. He _said he understood that there may be some -additional amendments and comments by counci lrnembers, and that some letters had been received the past week regarding this item. Councilmember Fazzino, on behalf of the Policy and Procedures Committee, moved approval of -the City Animal Ordinance as amended: ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL_ OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTERS 6.04, 6.013, 6.12, 6.16, 6.20, 6.22, 6.28 AND 6.36 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RE GARD I itq ANIMAL CONTROL. Mayor Henderson asked the councilmernbers to indicate in their comments if they -; ntended to make - root i ons for amendments, so as to eive the public a chance to respond. Counci lrnenrber Witherspoon had three comments: (1) She -believed squirrel c were added, as wel 1 as raccoons, i n the amendment forbidding sale by -pet stores; if not, she wowed make a motion in that regard later. (2) She believed Me. Burke had some comments about goats, as a result of a discussion she had had with him about some wording. (3) She believed hr. Burke also had recommendations for language change in the basic statement of the -other functions of shelter, pet adoption, etc. Counciimember Renzel inquired of the staff, since there had been a great deal cf correspondence about the $25 fee for fowl, rabbits, etc., the rationale behind that -figure. Mr. Burke explained that an approxirate figure of $150 had been computed for an officer's time it investigatine any complaints involving livestock. Since there was - •a $25 fee attached to most of the permits out of the animal shelter, it was decided that the same fee should apply in this case. Councilmember-Renzel ascertained that the fee was significantly i yher__ than for dogs. Mr. Burked agreed, but added that, in dealing with livestock, follow-up trips were necessary to ensure that the recommenda- tions were belayy-complied with. The $25 fee was actually much 1 nwer than the cost to the City of enforcing the Ordinance. Councilmember Levy asked how the section regarding barking dogs was to be enforced. Mr. Burked responded that, based on the experience of other cities, upon a receipt of a complaint, an Animal Control offi- cer would personally visit the premises.. In order to declare the animal a nuisance, he was obliged to actually hear the source of the complaint for a total of ten minutes within a fifteen -minute period. Their concern was possible involvement with neighboe)aood feuds; therefore, it was considered best for an Animal Control Officer or Police Officer to actually witness the barking. Counci lmember Levy said he could sympathize: with their prob- lems, but. it seemed to him that, in a practical situation, by 5 4 0 i/12/ BI A 1 1 the time a neighbor made a complaint .and an officer arrived on the scene, the barking would have stopped. Mr. Burke agreed that this was- a possibility; he could not state that every incident would be verified. -IIc thought, how- ever, compared to current regulations, the pro; used Ordinance, would greatly increase the. effectiveness of the Animal Control Service. He reiterated that it was only fair for an objective person, not directly involved, other than an investigator, to decide whether "successive barking" was involved. Councilimember Levy asked if, with the present complement of personnel, response to complaints could be made on a reasonably timely basis. Mr. Burke answered that response was usually made within a 2O -minute period. Councilmenber Levy then asked the reason for the requirement that grooming shops must have a permit. Mr. Burke replied that currently grooming shops were required to have a City business license. The purpose .of the permit was -to include them as part of - the enforcement program for Animal -Services, so that inspections could be made as for pet shops. Cou.ncilrnember Levy ascertained that the permit, then, would be no different than the required business license. Councilmember Bechtel wished to verify, on Page 1 , Section 6.20.U90, of the Ordinance, that "guinea• pig" was a typo and should be changed to "guinea hen." Jane Taylor iioraj, 615 Elorales Drive, Sarron Park, took issue with the $25 for keeping chickens in the backyard. She and her husband were senior citizens, living on a fixed income. Keep- i ny a garden and some laying hens was one way of trying to cope with food inflation, She felt -.-they were being penalized by the fee for their efforts. She reminded Council that Barron Park had been promised that its rural character would be maintained aster .joining Palo Alto. Hannah Cranch, 220 Emerson, objected to the proposed $25 annual fee. She recommended that Council consider if the total Animal Services costs were prorated out per --type of animal. She felt that the $25 annual fee was really beyond the means of most of those trying to cope with .inflation by raising chickens for eggs, pointing out this would be paying out about 26 weeks' worth of eggs. She also asked reconsideration of the wog ding in Section 6.20.090(5) "No person shall keep or maintain any housecoop or runway within 25 feet of any property line of the lot or parcel of land upon which it is situated, without th4 unanimous written consent of the adjacent neighbors." She thought that should be changed to read "...without the writ- ten consent of, the affected neighbor," it being her opinion that requiring permission from both neighbors was unnecessary- only that neighbor whose property abutted housecoops-or runways was really affected. Addressing Section 6.20.090.!6), someone who had attended the small, ommittee meeting had informed her that it had been agreed that this should read: "No person - shall keep or maintain in the city, except in the agricultural zone or open space declared area., more than six chi ck_ens__.;; ; L ;- out the written consent of the adjacent neighbors." -She asked that these changes be made. 5 4 1 , /12/81. i Mayor Henderson asked staff to check the two items - whether "written consent" was to have been added to No.(6). He thought, too, that "adjacent neighbors" under No.(5) was not a clearly defined statement. Pat de Lemos, from Woodside, As a member of thc''Palo Alto Humane Society, bu.t was speaking as an individual. She thanked the mere ers of the various committees for their understanding or the various points. She. wondered if Palo Alto residents realized how fortunate they were in being allowed three dogs and, three cat as pets per househnld. Qther sections of Santa Clara County allowed only two or three adult pets per house- hold.- Her reason for noting this was the very severe pet population problem. She approved of allowi:ig three dogs and three cats, but strongly disagreed with permitting one of each to remain unspayed or unneutered, per househo i-;. . She thought Mr, Burke took in about 5,000 animals per year, the greater percentage by far having to be ei'thani zed. She made a el ea on the part of the animals and of those working in the shelters that all residents consider the -problems human beings cause for others and for the animals involved. She asked triat Mr. Burke be given the funds and assistance neede or a humane eduction prograni for spaying and neutering and tor adoption. Addr.ssina the matter of squirrels and rarrn"n5, Ms. de Lemos identified herself as having asked that these animals be forbidden as pets, because they do not make juod pets after six months. Kay, Bushnell, 775 Northampton Drive, said that defining the City's responsibilities towards animals was one of the purposes of animal ordinances. She felt the proposed Animal Ordinance clearly spelled cut the city's responsibilities to injured stray animals and those left unclaimed at the shelter. She emphasized, however, that the Aniural Shelter was a law enforcement agency, a branch of the Police Department. She suggested, therefore, a small but significant change on Page 16, Section 10, No. 3, concerning the need for active promotion of pet adoption and education of new pet owners, which she had discussed with Mr. Burke. She felt that the new wording -could be implemented with little budget change and within the present framework, at - the same time increasing successful adoption of homeless pets. Milly Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, referred to Page 5, of the amended Chapter, Section 6.16.08G, with regard to the number of dogs permitted per household. She believed that Part (a) should read: "No more than -two dogs should be kept or main- tained at any street address within city..." She felt that Changing the number of permissible dogs from two to three in effect rewarded those now illegally keeping three dogs, as well as increasing the number and consequent problems by 50%. She cited some incidents of neighborhood annoyances and nuisances involving three -dog households. Jaynes Lyttle, 930 Roble Ridge, Barron Park, referred to Page 7, Section 6.20.090(6). He pointed out that restricting the permissible number of chickens to six was not economically feasi tl e for providing eggs for a large family. He propoosed the number be increased to at least 12 chickens - he did not believe this would upset the neighborhood atmosphere at all. In addition, he thought the $25 fee excessive when applied to keeping chickens for eggs, for the same reason - . it, absorbed so much of the economic. advantage -as to make the project almost. useless. He added his complaint to that of___Mrs. Gora , about the apparently forgotten promise that Barron Park's rural atmosphere would be maintained after joining `Palo Alto. 5 4 2 1/12/81 Mayor Henderson asked Police Captain Bob E 1 1i ott, Coordinator of Field Services, about the ratio of barking dog complaints to other types of complaints received by the Police Depart- ment. Captain Elliott replied that, of Disturbing -the Peace -com- plaints, ;rob Ably one-third concern barking dogs, especially during holidays or long weekends, Elissa Schlick, 765 Josina Avenue, -Barron Park, used to live behind some neighbors raising chickens. This did not ©other arty of the neighbors. She supported statements made by others about the economic value of raising chickeos for eggs, -and a?so supported the .keeping of rabbits, if confined in su i tab) e cages. - Lisa G i raud, ,`'_200 Byron, opposed the limiting of dogs per household to two again, instead of three. Actually, she was opposed to any limitation on the number of animals per house- hold, provided they were spayed, neutered, and kepi; responsibly. She pointed out that allowing more pets, on the condition they were- well kept, added to the number of possible adoptions of unreclaimed animals. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, felt that restricting the number of fowl permitted without a license to one a little excessive, since chickens and ducks were fairly unobtrusive, in his opinion. He also had some _questions about the intent of the Ordinance regarding, for example, the prohibition on slaughtering various animals, specifically a number of predators, particularly raccoons. He wondered why this was a protected species, which he considered a nuisance. He expressed sur•pr"se at the portion of the ordinance which prohibits the disposal of "...less than six. . ' of a number' of identified species such as rabbits. He asked if the. intent was really to require six or more rabbits before permitting disposal. Mayor Henderson said they would check that item. He then asked staff about the two points raised on Page 7 of the Ordinance (Sections 6.20.090(5) and (6)). City Attorney Abrams than -gilt that some new language would probably take care of the problem (6.20.090(5) regarding having to obtain written consent -`of adjacent. neighbors: "...without the unanimous written consent of neighbors whose property lines are within said twenty-five feet." With respect. to Section 6.20.090(6), it was not their recollection that the Committee added -similar language to that section; it was intended to be a limitation to six chickens. Mayor Henderson said that, as the Committee Chairman nodded agreement, tha;: section would remain unchanged, unless the -- Council wished to -make an amending motion. Councilmember Withrspoon:wished to make the motions for the three amendments she had previously mentioned. She felt that a large family could certainly use more than six chickens. She wished to move that the same proviso about the written consent, of the •affected or adjacent neighbors be included in Section '6.30.090(0 for someone having more than six chickens, Mayor Henderson clarified the motion - that it would just add the new language of Section 6.20.090(5) to Section (6). 5 4 3 1/12/81 MOTION FOR AMENDMENT: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fazzino, thet new language be added to Section 6.20.090(6) of the Animal Ordinance: "...without the unanimous written consent of neighbors whose property lines are within Said twenty-five feet.' MOTION FOR AMENDMENT PASSEDe The notion for amendment passed on a unanimous.. vote, Brenner` absent. Councilmember Witherspoon cinfirmed her understanding that the permit fees were due and payable annually. In -support of those members of the public objecting to the $25 fee for keeping chickens, she suggested the fee be made as nominal as possible, and that the subject of the fee and the policy thereto be referred to the advisory committee to be formed on issues dealing with animas and animal shelters. MOTION FOR it EN9i1ENT: E.:ounci lmernber Witherspoon ::roved, seconded by Fazzino, that the permit fee for keeping fowl: rabbits, etc., be no higher than $10, and that the subject of the fee be referred to the Animal Advisory Committee. Mayor Henderson said he might go along with the $10 fee, but had some problems about the recommendation 'for referral to an advisory committee. Councilmember Witherspoon responded that perhaps not everyone wished, to form an advisory committee, but that was one of the recommendations made by the Policy and Procedures Committee She knew that staff might decide that would be totally inadequate in the yearly process of revising fees, but she did think it a shock to start out with a $25 fee, especially when it was due and payable annually, not just on a one-time bas's. Mayor Henderson agreed -then to leave the motion as it stood. Vice -Mayor Fletcher pointed out that many of the City's ordinances were only enforced on a complaint basis, in effect. giving the staff a tool for addressing neighborhood problems. Council had been informed that the expense of enforcing or investigating complaints was much more than $25; she envisioned the Ordinance being enforced in the same way as the overnight parking ban; that is, only upon receipt of complaints. She would expect, therefore, that upon receiving a complaint, an inspector or a police off i cer would inquire whether or not the $25 permit fee had been -paid. If not, that person would be .instructed to do so. In that event, quite some time was spent on iait1 al investigation, and follow-up would probably take more time. It was therefore her opinion that the $25 fee :lac not excessive, assuming that this .was not the type of ordinance which would require staff to systematically investigate everyone's property for the presence of fowl, i nformi ng those keeping fowl of .the requirement for a permit. Her understanding was that, in summary, the Animal Ordinance would not, be vigorously,enforced., Mayor Henderson remarked that Mr. -Burke seemed to agree with Ccunci lmarnber Fletcher, so• he assumed that -the Ordinance would basically be enfcrced on a complaint basis. Councilmember Witherspoon thought -there_ were many people who • did not want to duck their responsibilities; the, were willing to obtain a permit if. required. These people would rather take that course than hoping for the best and then wanderiisg.whether each knock -at the -door signified a ,neighbor cor+il a i ni ng-- about 5 4 4 1/12/81 their chickens. She really did not see any reason for not starting at the low fee, then revising it upward if deemed necessary. Councilmember Levy asked if a permit was now required for keeping fowl. Mr. Burke replied that a permit was required, but with no fee attached. • Councilmember Levy personally preferred that - he thought those in government tend to get "permit happy." He did not really understand the need for a fee in this case. If it was desired to recover some o.= the cost of investigating violations, this should be done by penalizing the violator. His preference would be simply to continue the status quo. If a permit was required (th-ough he personally did not see the need even for this), he did not see any advantage to be gained by attaching any charge at all. Councilmember Henzel said she took a middle position. Being a duck -owner, she might 'have a conflict of interest, but she supported Counc; lrernber Witherspoon's idea fore -only a _nom i nal fee, especially because this was an annual fee ---she had thought it a one-time fee only. This would ;Hake the fee for keeping fowl much more than that for dogs, wh!ch she felt unreasonable. At the same time, she agreed with Councilmember Levy's s conten- tion that, if the major costs to the City involved enforcement, these should be dealt with by ticketing the violations !f the ordinance as it now stands. The vio?ators_should bear the costs rather than those following the rules. She thought it important for people to be advised of the proper care of poultry, especially in -an urban setting; a nominal fee would basically provide for educating the public and keeping track of the animals authorized by law. She therefore supported Councilmember Witherspoon's motion. Mayor Henderson inquired of Mr. Burke if the $25 annual permit fee had been based on the cost of actually issuing the permit or on spreading the cost of answering complaints, etc., in the animal control area. He was also,,concerned with the difference between a fee for everyone and a fine, for instance, -imposed on those not obeying the ordinance. He asked what, if any, steps were: taken in- dealing with actual violations. Mr. Burke replied that the computation of the total cost included administrative costs for setting up the permits, enforcing the ordinance, and investigating complaints, etc.,, i nvol vi nn all types of animals. Mayor Henderson asked what the procedure was in the case of an actual violation --was a citation i ssued only, or was there also a fiae? Mr. Burke responded that the person would be cited fur the violation. hayor Henderson then asked what the normal disposition of that citation would be --whether a fine and/or corre ion of the situation was' required. Mr. (lurked answered that the violator was first given a warn iny. if. the situation was .not corrected,, a citation was issued, which then became part of the Municipal -Court. i=on the most part,• the -offender was required to pay for the violation. 5 4 5: 1/12/81 Mayor tlenderso:i was having difficulty with trying to make a comparison with the situation involving dogs. There was a f le for recovery of stray dogs, and he could see the rationale there also applying to complaints dealing with fowl. However, if the response to a number of comp'aints took the form of merely issuins citations, with no -reimbursement of the costs involved with enforcement, then the costs were being borne by everyone for expenses engendered by those violating the ordinance. He did not care for this either; some compromise would have to be reached. Councilmembee Bechtel remarked that Mayor Henderson had made some very good points. Her questions concerned the proportion of animal control costs. opplicable to dogs; and if the charges were high enough to.cover these parcicular costs. There were many responsible ch*ickon raisers, but. there were others who were not, creating a real nuisance fer their neighbors, with flies, droppings, etc.e whu should be penalized in 'some way. She agreed that a -fee of $25 seemed exc.e_ssive, end •would sup- port Coencilme:nber Witherspoon's motion fer a. nominal fee of $10, if the motion coeld be- -split and not include, at this point, referral to an advisory -committee, ,Mayor Henderson asked Cour,cj :member Witherspoon if she agreed to this change in her motion for amendment, and she so agreed. Couneilmember Eyerly wished to clarify his ur,deestanding of the procedure for setting the -fee schedule. Mr. Burke explained that, after the amount of fee was decided, it would be made part of the Municipal Fee Schedule. Counci lmenber Eyerly asked if the fees became due at budget time, with the fee sehedul e, or earlier. Mr. Burke answered that the plan was to make an amendment to the current budget. Counci lmenber Eyerly Mien at ertai reed that the fee schedule would really be spoken to later, after decision had been reached about the amount. He asked if a motion dealing With fees was not premature at this time, since it ► ras the .Ordinance that was under discussion.: Mayor Henderson supposed that the current Ordinance,was accept- able if it -was decided to set any fee at all. Councilmenb:ir Eyerly `s point was that the time for discussing the amendi raj of the Municipal Fee Schedule fer a specified amount, be it $';0, $25, etc. , was after; pissing of the 0rdinanbe as amended.. Counci l.rrrember Witherspoon sugges ed that, .under the ci ri um - stances, the motion for amendment regarding the amount 6f..fee for a fowl permit be tabled until the appropriate discussion.' Counci l►neMber Witherspoon next suggested an amendment to - Section 6.20.090(8), referring to "...two adult goats." She did not think it a yood idea to encourage 'the keeping of billy goats within the city limits. She had d i scue,sed with Mr. Burke. the wording to permit two goats, either doe and/or neutered males. MOTION FOR AMENDMENT: Cour,cilfember Witherspoon moved, second-1Tsecond-a-VT Fletcher-, that Section 6.20;090(8) be amended to odd: "However, no adult male goat Oial1 be kept or maintained unless neutered." MOTION FOR AMENf1MENT PASSED: The motion for amendment passed on a..unanimous vote,.__Brenner: absent. 5 4 6 -- 1/12/81 Mayor Henderson had two concerns relating to.the Committee recommendations. He thou{iht the Ordinance and the recommenda- tion regarding the citizens' commission should be considered as two separate issues. The only misgiving he had about the Ordinance was the possibility of Palo Alto becoming the Animal Center of the Peninsula --no other city allowed more than twn dogs or cats, He was fairly sensitive to the consequences of raising that allowance by a of potential of 50%. The City has already had more coinpl ai nts about barking dogs than for any other neighborhood problem. It seemed to him they would be adding to those problems, rather than making Palo Alto a more pleasant place in which to i i ve. He would therefore make the following motion: MOTION FOR AMENDMENT: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Renzel, amendment of the Animal Ordinance, Section 6.20.080, under Number of dogs and female dogs allowed, to read "(a) No more two days may be kept or: mai nta i reed at any street address..., in. place_ of_ (a)_Nn mnrp than 'three dogs may be I:ept ..." Councilmenber Witherspoon strong;y supported Mrs. de Lemos' position that neutering and spaying be required for all dogs maintained as household pets. She was pleased that at least a 1 i mi ta: i on of one rinspayed or unneutered dog per household had been included in the Ordi.rance. She remarked that, at least from her 1 atest i _format i on, a total of three dogs and three cats were allowed per househol d i n Menlo Park and Atherton. This was something people '_;suaily had very strong -- feelings about '.she • hersel f felt, 'eery strongly that people were either good pet owners or not, notwithstanding the number of pets they owned. _ MOTION FOR AMENDMENT FAILED: The motion for amendment failed on the following vote: AYES: Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel NOES: Bechtel, Fazzino, Levy, Witherspoon ABSENT: Brenner Councilmember 1,evy expressed his concern about Paragraph 6.20.140, Barking Dogs, on Page his. the Ordinance. At the risk of being guilty of a pun, he did not think this section "had any teeth in it." He could not see, from a practical standpoint, how it -could be enforced. If enforced at all, it would be at best inefficiently enforceable --asking staff per- sonnel to travel to a certain location, -wait there for fifteen oinu*es-,-not knowing whether the barking which caused the disturbance fifteen minutes ago was going to continue for the - period of i n!'est i gat i o'n. He' was going to approve subject paragraph as it stood as one •means of enforcing, but he really did. not believe,. sufficient consideration had been gitien to an additional method of controlling barking dogs; that is, basing an o•di nance on the i:ompl ai tits of neighbors.-- He, recogni ze'd the problems this methcd: would carry With it; perhaps provision could be made stipulating -that cowpiaints must- be receive=' from several neighbors -within. a certain di stat!ce 'of the bark t ►gig t,dog. However, realizing this obviouelY necess'.tated ,a considerable_ amount of discussion, and not wishing --to stand in the way of adopting the Ordinance as it -now stood, he would make the following niotic : 5 4 7 1/12/81 MOTION FOR RLFLRRAL:, Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to refer the subject of an additional means of enforcement re barking dogs, based on neighborhood complaints, to the Policy and Procedures Committee. Mayor Henderson commented that he had brought. this item before the Council on a proposed, County Ordinance,' suggesting that a citation be issued when -two -or more persons in a neighborhood complained about dog barking. Apparently this suggestion had not been discussed in Committee. Mr, Abrams explained -there were alternate procedures for enforcing all violations of the City .Codce The issuance of a citation was a specialized procedure; state law required that the enforcing agent (1n this case, the Animal Control Officers) be present on the scer;c to witness i he violation before a citation could be: issued. The alternate procedure was the issuance of a formal cernpl ai nt through the City Attorney's Office for any ordinance violations; As p►=evicrtsly noted, however, one of the reasons for the citation procedure was to avoid the issuance of formal complaints, a time-consuming process normally requi ring more than orie appearance in Court by the City Attorney's Office. It was therefore used sparingly, Mr. Abrams added that there was no -procedure -for allowing a citizen to demand, in effect, the issuance of a citation, - because .of certain legal parameters surrounding this process. Mayor Henderson verified that the formal complaint process did exist, and suggested to Councilmember Levy that this could be puL:licized, s, as to inform the public that their complaints could reach beyond the provisions of the Ordinance. Councilmember Levy asked if his understanding was correct that the complaint procedure resulted in the violator or -the offender being Laken to Court. Mr. Abrams answered that this could be the ootcorne Another reason for avoi di ny the formal complaint process, besides the time involved, was that staff preferred to rely, in prosecuting a case, on the testimony of a neutral, thi r'4 -;:arty observer, such as an Animal Control Officer. The Court was incl iced to take "with a yrain.of salt" testimony from neighbors, which tended to be emotional. Mayor Henderson then asked Councilmember Levy if he still felt the issue should be referred -eta Committee, considering the existence of the alternate procedure, which only needed publicizing to inform the public. Councilmember Levy agreed that perhaps it need not be referred to Committee at that point, but he wondered 'if the City Attorney could be requested to research the issue, specifically for some means of encouraging the citizenry to deal with such situations without resorting to ea 'neutral, third party." Mr. Abrams agreed. to provide the Council with a memorandum further clarifying th'e i;rocedore. Co ,nci lmernber Fazzino stated that one of the Committee's major concerns related to pet adoption and humane edu'cat_i on. He • suggested the addition Of some Language; to the section of �ehe Ordinance dealing with the duties and responsibilities of the Animal Services Director. 5 4-E 1/12fS1 MOTION FOR AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fazzino moved,- seconded by Witherspoon, amendment to the Animal Ordinance by the addition of new language to Section 10, Paragraph 2_.08.220(3),- to read: "(3) He shall operate an animal shelter which in addition to other activities shall actively promote pet adoptions and provide rew pet owners with instruction in responsible pet ownershio." Councilmember Bechtel asked if the words "at the Palo Alto Ani- mal Shelter" could be inserted after ",..actively promote pet adoptions,"_ to clarify the Animal Services Director's area of authority. This was_ agreed to by Councilmember Fazzino, so that the motion for amendment now read: MOTION .FOR AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Witherspoon, amendment to the Animal Ordinance by the addition of new language to Section 10, Paragraph 2.08.220(3)_, to read:' -"D) He shall operate an animal shelter which in addition to other activities shall actively 2rornote pet adoptions at. the Palo Alto Animal Shelter ter and pro': i de new pet owners with instruction in responsible pet ownership.' Mayor Henderson was interested in finding out if Mr. Burke had had aneopportunity of discussing the provisions. of that paragraph with Mrs. Bushnell (a copy of whose letter to the Council, dated January 5, 1981, is on file in the City Clerk's Office). 8 Mr. Burke replied that he had discussed the issue ;1it_€ Mrs. Bushnell. One comment he had made then was his concern with the phrase "actively promote." He understood Mrs. Bushneli's concern, but he felt that making it a matter of law in the Municipal Code would tend to set the framework for forcing the Council into promoting dollars and people for i:np'enrentati-on. City ,Manager William ?aner said he had a similar_ concern with that particular' proposed amendment. Amendments of this type had the effect of stipulating to staff, in the Ordinance, the ki ends ..of programs to i nplement, whereas the normal procedure • was for dealing with that as a part of policy and budget orocedures. Ihe budget process, by a3propriating the necessary -funds, was the place for specifying how much emphasis should be placed on_a program. Using the legal process for giving such direction had the effect of locking one into that specific program_ with no leeway or flexibility. He would recommend staying with the -more general wording and using the udget and policy processes. for more specific instructions. Count ,imemuer Fazzino countered that he did not think there eras that much difference between the proposed and the current language. The -Ordinance aiready stated that. we "...;hall provide for pet adoption and hr!mane education..." The. proposed addition was simply underscoring the Council and the City's desire for active promotion of this program. Implementation was clearly not possible- without the necessary resources. • -The Finance and Public Works Committee would -consider this as a' separate process in two months' time. He could not see the - zh ff i c:,ul ty 'with thQ proposed new anguage, nor did ': he '►-agree that it world loc,' the Council into any new entitlement program on . an annual baY He -therefore •urged: Council tr . support the amendment, because Ke- felt it did indicate their particular concern teat adoption and dhumane education b ce-pridVity area - for the animal program in' Palo A i:to. 5 4 9 1/12/81 Mayor Henderson felt that the proposed ordinance already • stated that intentions adequately: "He shall operate an animal 5helt'r which in addition to other activities shall provide for pet adoption and education in the humane care of animals." The addition of words such as "actively promote" and the giving of instructions and aetails'opened the way to budget considerae t i o'is and pressure to do more than the Council at that time wished done under the normal budget procedure. There would be an undesirable emphasis on funding. He thought the policy was in the Orii-hance and, as stated- by Mr. Zaner, Council could set additional policy stipulating methods of emphasizing the pro- gram in.the budget process each year, Mayor Henderson then cal 1 er_ for a vote on the ;notion to add the Warding as presented by Councilrnembee Fazzino from Mrs. Bushnell's letter. MOTION FOR AMENDMENT PASSED: The motion for amendment passed on the following vote: .'AYES: Bechtel, Fazzino, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon NOES: Eyerly, Henderson, Fletcher ABSENT: Brenner Vice -Mayor Fletcher asked about the section, on Page 15 of the Ordinance, under Restrictions, relating to disposal of animals. Mayor Henderson read the pertinent paragraph (6.36.02C(c)): "Ho person shall sell, offer for sale, barter, or give away any rabbits, baby chicks, ducklings, or other fowl, under four weeks of aye, in any quantity less than six." Mr. Burke explained that the irr ent of that paragraph was the - protection of small baby ducks and rabbits durino the Easter Season, and it was going •to be-• moved to the section in the Ordinance dealing with Pet Shops. Mayor Henderson asked, then, if the entire section, listed in the Ordinance. as Section 9, was to be. transferred to the Section dealing with Pet Stores,- -or ;just the ore paragraph. Mr. Burke replied that only paragraphs 6.36.020(c) and .(t) under Sectiun 9 would be transferred -to the section deal i na with Pet Stores. Mayor Henderson then called for a separate vote an the Ordi- nance, and then take up the Committee recommendations for consideration. ORDINANCE PASSED; First Reading of the Animal Ordinance passed unanimously, as amended, Crenner absent. Mayor Henderson then read Part (b) of the Policy and Procedures Committee's recommendat on: "TnePolicy and Procedures Committee recommends to Council, by unanimous vote, that an informal citizens' animal commission/ committee be formed on a trial basis, with details for forming suZ.h a commission/committee and its duties, procedures,, etc., to be provided by staff." Mayor'Handerson had a great deal of concern about establishing a citizens' advisory commissio :, which he would express briefly in three parts. - - (1) The risk of expansion --beginning first by taking staff time, and then, as usually happened in such cases, moving on to a request for formal status, becoming a costly adjunct to the City's program. (2) There were already in existence extremely active citizens' groups.in this area, providing an unusual flow of input from the public through the Humane Society and other interested organizations. He had never seen any lack'of inclination on the part of staff or Council toward heeding that advice or observing that input. This seemed sufficient to him. (3r- .Pa'Io Alto was fortunate in having an Animal Service that, from everything he knew, far outshone any other, especially the County Service by which all the -other cities in the. County were served. He was really very hesitant to tamper with what he thought'was an excellent service. Mayor Henderson therefore urged the Council to vote "no" on the motion- to uphold the CoTmittee recommendation for a citizens' advisory group. - Councilmember Fazzino encouraged the Council to support the - citizens' committee, because a number of members in the commu-.- nity met with Mr. Burke and conducted what he felt was an absolutely outstanding di ei ussi oo•of the major issues arising as a result of the proposed Ordinance. He thought this effort should be continued, on a somewhat low-key basis, over the course of the next few months. There was no intention of formalizing this ccmmittei to a phenomenal degree; these were people not only involved with the Humane Society, but also with other constituencies and groups in town. The Committee had already indicated that a great deal of staff time would not be involved. Finally, he thought Palo Alto should encourage the forming of even more public oroups and committees. Vice -Mayor Fletcher ascertained from Mr. Bur' that r- .Burke a trial period of six months had beee. eixed for the citizens'commit.tee. She was willing, in that case, to go along with the committee on atrial basis, because she did like active participation by the citizenrye Shp did think, however, that the matter should. be returned to Council for reconsideration if it required an inordinate amount of staff time and/or supplementary budget ailoeation. tiayor.iiendeoson--responded to Councilmember Fazzino that he also encouraged citizens to form committees, associations, etc., Friends of the Library, for exa►Hpl e'. However, this was differ- ent from setting. up a .formal city advisory committee, even one supposedly on a low -Key level. initially,. Once begun, such a committee was -hound to depiand a great deal of staff and Council t i pie, and redonsi derat i on within six• months. He would defi- nitely warn against getting into this type of situation. Councilmember Eyerly said that the comments in the Policy and - Procedures Committee Minutes indicated the need for involving more people to .handle some of the -services which, were asked of the Animal Services Control Officer and Shelter. He found it a little difficult to rej' ct,the Committee recommendation, though he understood Mayor I-ienderson's.concerns;-he himself did not - wish •to put the staff in a position -'of having to spend.a great deal -of tine -witty citizens, if it did not .turn out to be truly-__-- helpful--ending only with a number of recommendations,,for - instance. rAt would hclp •.brim come to a decision if Mr. Burke could be specific about -how such a- group` could be of help_ to the Aniraal Services. - 5 5 1 1%-12/3) fir. Burke said it was very important for members of the citi- zens' committee ttee to be working members of that committee, volunteering their time at the Animal Shelter to: (1) essist with adoptions, which the staff simply could not handle, because of the amount of traffic through, and the amount- of activity in, the Shelter; (2) perhaps help in obtaining accreditation of the Animal Services with the Humane Society of the United States; (3) the improtiement of the other programs in effect throughout the Shelter, for example the Spay and Neuter Clinic, which definitely needed volunteers and (4) be at the Shelter to assist with any programs they wish strengtjened. Councilmernber Eyerly responded that he liked the suggestions outlined by tir. Burke, and would therefore support the motion, provided it was clearly understood that the committee was placed under the direction of Anti rna 1 Shelter personnel. He presumed that would {give the Director the authority to insist that committee members be working volunteers. He verified with the Council that this was really the purpose of the motion, and that this was not to be a loose committee, but under the juris- diction of Mr. Burke. That being the case, he felt the recommendation was supportable. Mayor Henderson interjected that he had thought to save staff`a great deal of time, but they were obviously in favor of it. He could see a difference between a purely' advisory committee and a group of volunteers actually serving at the Animal Shelter. Uc would therefore no longer oppose the recommendation and favored a "yes" vote. Councilmernber Eyerly said he also was in favor of the recom- mendation, and felt that, in general, the'city needed more involvement from the citizenry and should encourage, rather than discourage it. MOTION PASSED: The motion to set up an informal citizen's animal commission/committee passed on a unanimous vote, Brenner absent. Mayor Henderson then asked Councilmember Witherspoon about her suyye_ ion that the fee for fowl permit be set no higher than' Councilmember Witherspoon said she understood that this would be dealt with by the Committee as a budget process. Mayor H-lenderson' s understanding was that the Committee wished to establish a fee immediately. Counciimember Witherspoon pointed out.t`jat if set immediately, a fee would not go into effect for 30 days, which would bring them to March, when the new fee schedule was to be set. Mr. Abrams explained that the fee would yo into effect 30 days after. Council -,was notified. MOTION: Counci lmeinber Witherspoon moved, seconded by Renzel , that the fee for fowl permit be no higher than $10.00. 5 5 2 1/12/81 Councilmember Renzel remarked that there had been ample discus- sion to indicate that enough citations for violations would be issued to pay for enforcement of thi , section of the ordinance. MOTION PASSED: Motion passed unanimously, Brenner absent. AWARD OF AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT 1 1 MTGUTTZT-7-77=77-71-171W7110:1)- Staff recommends that Council (1) -approve budget amendment,to -establish ITT Excavation/Restotration as a project in the aMonnt of_$125,000, and --;2; •authorize the Mayor to execute the agree- ment with Genge Consultants -for engineering services. Counci lmerrber Renzel asked staff about a statement, on Page 3 of the Agreement, under Section, Material and Services to be Provided by the City, to the effect that the city,.would be . 7-provi di ng engineering services for .final maintenance dredging of.the Yacht Harbor. It was her understanding that dredging was really a county responsibility,. and she wi hed.to clarify exactly what servicus were to be provided by the city. David Adams, --Director of Public Works, explained that the statement referred to the -requirement of Palo Alto to assist the county -- in their final dredging. At the beginning of nego- tiations -for this contract, that had still been somewhat in .question, and -it was thought best tc make clear that --the Consultant Agreement did not include engineering design for dredging, which would have to be provided by the city. Coencilmember Renzel confirmed that the statement was basically what the'Council had -approved - the engineering services for fulfilling the, city's respons i bi l i ty..fo; removing soil from Yacht Harbor Point. She then suggested -that perhaps.this point should• be stated more specifically; it.appeared to her that the- general statement tended to he ambiguous, as - she did not think, the city had made any policy commitment toward providing all -of the many engineering -services that --will be . requi red for the final dredging. Mr. Adams replied that the proposed Agreement was only between the City and the Consultant; he did not feel there was any problem. Counci lmeniber Levy moved,: seconded by Fletcher, approval of the following Agreement and Ordinance (first reading): AGREEMENT - Genge Consultants ORCIttANCE OF' THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO -AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE F tSCAI...;YEAR 1980-1981 TO PROVIDE FUNS, IN ..THE REFUSE UTILITY OPERATING BUDGET TO PROCEED WITH THE :ITT PROPERTY EXCAVATION RESTORATION Counci l renber Eyerly. thought that, in view et the fact that Counci lmemk er„ &echtel had et been present at Previous dlscusstors on the Yacht Harbor, it would' be a good ;:idea to bri of ly review the background of this item, especi al:ly since 'her vote was required in order to proceed with the ITT project. 5 5 3 ,.1/12/81 tR= Counci lmernber Eyerly did not agree with that approach for implementing the Baylends,Master Plan and the eventual com- pletion of the landfill operation there. He felt the right approach would be through the Yacht Harbor dredging, to save the Yacht Harbor, providing the landfill_ requirements in that way, and perhaps going on `;o future sale of those `dredgi ngs. He feared that, in the end, the ITT excavation would prove:. to be a very expensive operation, and that they were delving into a lot of unknowns. He was certainly goinn to vote against the motion, and strongly urged the other members of the Council to also reject it. Mayor Henderson asked staff to clarify for him what would be the position if Council did reject the proposal with ITT, as advised by Counciimember ['yerly. The voters, had rejected an alternative, leaving them with the current program. Would the. project then be at a standstill? Fir. Adams replied that, from an engineering point of view, there would be a:stalemate.' Legally, there could be no progress toward closing the landfill. City Manager Zaner interjected that Mr._.Adarns was correct. The Council had not appropriated any funds for moving on to any other project. There was no authority to implement any program other than the proposed ITT Agreement. Councilmeinber Renzel had a question regarding Page 6 of the Ayreerrhnt perhaps it -was a typograpical -error. At the top of th? page under the section wat-er.Hua-lity,and Sedimentation Tasks, paragraph (f) read in part: "...oeiermine the amount and frequency of ,dredging required to sustain the marsh, and make recommendations for the disposal of dredging spoils." She wondered if the word, -"dredging" should be "excavation," to read, "...frequency of excavation required to sustain the marsh.' It was her understanding that, presumably, there., should be no dredgin! required under ITT. Mr. Adams agreed that perhaps the statement should be reworded to say, "if dredging is required," because some dredging might be required to keep the hydraulic channels open and flowing freely between the reran=4made marsh and the open waters. There will be some channels. connecting to the existing Yacht Harbor area, -and some connecting to another area. However, staff was to be informed in advance should any maintenance be required, such as excavation or dredging. Staff felt this type- of inforrnation'most important to:,have in advance in the feasi- bility study. Counc i lmember Renzel pc" 'rated out, : however, that that direction was .given under paragraph (e). -If) (f) seemed_ to presume dredging; would, be required. .She .agreed with Mr. Adams that the statement should be.;reworded, perhaps to read, "..,if it is found to be required'," because dredging ha .; not been contem- p1ated:in_the original proposal. Mr. Adams ,explained that the, Consultant had raised the possi- bility that dredging would be required in certain' areas,_ but there would be no problem with in;lading the additional wording: Mayor)Honderson Suggested; that staff check with Councilwember Renzel , after -the change' had been made; because the contract, 'not being an ordinance, would normally not' return to Council. 5 5 4 1/12/01 Councilmember Fazzino reminded Council that the November voters had passed judgement on a specific, proposal for keeping the Yacht Harbor open. Although his position had not been sus- tained - at the polls that day, he had subsequently supported the vote of the citizens of Palo Alto for closure of the Harbor by the yerr 1986. He thought it very important, however, to separafae the debate of the Harbor from the present discussion, poi nti r' -g . out that the debate. over the future of the Harbor was closed far quite a while, perhaps forever. They should put the campaign rhetoric and the fears and Anger involved with the Yacht Harbor behind them,-and'simply look at the issue of the ITT excavation itself. Having acknowledged this, he still becieved, as; he did a year ago, that this was a very poor alternative. _He ,believed now that the issue of the Harbor was behind them, Council should perhaps consider other -alternatives providing impermeable cover, because the issue of an open or closed Harbor did.not change the fact that the ITT proposal was a very poor environmental alternative. He simply, in good conscience, could not support the raping of that land for the impermeable cover needed to close the dump. He recognized that the Harbor issue was still very caught up with this issue in people's minds, and that his declaring it dead and closed would not convince them that, what was -needed was a study cf the ITT alternative in and of itself. However, he felt compelled to make that statement in recommending rejection by Council of the proposed Agreement. He therefore opposed the item, and in doing so; he hoped Council would take under consideration other alternatives, (and here he was not speaking of dredging) for providing the impermeable cover needed for the dump. Councilmember Bechtel wished to clarify, foe the record, that she had been present during the Council's previous discussion of the iTT proposal, and had attended numerous, meetings at which the pertinent issues had been discussed. Councilmember Renzel wished t6 state briefl'4 that a policy decision had been made to proceed with the ITT excavation for the dump cover. It was obviously acknowledged that Palo Alto would choose -to import fill, if available and reasonably, priced. Thi problem was in finding a reliable supply; she felt Council would have to accept that and the fact that some fill would have to be generated locally. The concept of marsh restoration had been lauded by many regional agencies; the marsh habitat was an extremely valuable resource. The somewhat sparse current upland habitat provided by ITT would be replaced by the closed dump, which was clearly above water line. She was convinced this would provide a,much more superior habitat in the end. It .was her Wnion that Palo Alto stood to gain a great deal of environmental benefit in successfully restoring the marsh,in-the ITT property. Mayor Henderson asked Mr. Abrams if six votes were required for passage, since what this Was an ordinance for a budget. amend- ment. Mr. Abrams answered that he had been informed by Mr. Liner that this was a reapprop"riation, hot a new appropriation, therefore only five votes were required for approval of the ordinance, and a majority vote for the Agreement. He did not think staff could adequately answer the question then as' to whetter this was a case of reapprbpri at i on, or if there ;had ever been an appropriation. The source of funds was evidently a eeserve. It was -his understa,nding,° from past expereece, that: money from certain reserves was considered as .''already ' appropriated. For pkample, money was appropriated into the Self -Insurance< Reserve, and Mr. Laner indicated agreement that the same requirement of five favorable votes applied in the case under discussion. It was money which had not been designated and was therefore in a fund balance which required six votes for approval. Mayor. Henderson suggested that Council proceed with the voting; if the proposal received five affirmative votes, it would be considered" ---passed, unless staff notified Council at a later date that the vote was invalid. Councilmember Eyerly sensed some confusion from the'staff as to the present status. He asked staff to report to Council the outcome of research into the question, a simple memo as to how decision was reached, the source of the funds, etc. Mayor Henderson restated the request made to staff, that in effect, Council was ?,ski ng that the vote be validated r,r invalidated, according to what was found to be legal. MdiION PASSED: The motion for approval of both parts of the recommendation, the budget amending Ordinance and the execution of the Agreement, passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel NOES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Witherspoon ABSENT: Brenner CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR ALMA STREET �F AR T 71777—T7771172717) The Selection Advisory Committee recommends that the Finance and Public Works Committee direct staff to negotiate for the Alma/Embarcadero Bridge Widening Project. M. Adams explained that this matter would normally be referred to the Finance•and Public Work=er (ommittee. However, since_ that Committee would not, be meeting for more than -a month, staff felt it -important to proceed With the__. negot.i at i ons for the contract, in order to begin the feasibility studies and obtain some timely results. As Well known,. staff was required to return with the -completed contract, at which time. Council would have°an opportunity --to study the -contract, along with the results of the negotiations. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of staff recommendation that Council direct staff to: 1) Negotiate with the consulting firm of Ruth and Going, Inc., for the, Alma/Embarcadero Bridge Widening Project; and 2) Negoti ate..with the firm of Creegan. & L'An.gelo if staff fails to reach an agreement with Ruth: and Go ng, Inc. MOTION PASSE: The motion passed unanimously, Brenner absent. Co,oncilmemher Fazzino asked if Alma Street was to be closed, and if any shopping centers or gas stab ens 'would, be adversely affected Ay this aspect of the Alma Street Widening Project Mr. Adams replied that staff could not give an answer at that time, except to state,. that no gas stations or shopp fg centers were involved. However, staff doubted that the street would have to be closed for this work, which only required a feasi- bility study at that point, subsequently leading to design. Councilmernber Fazzino ensured thatrthere would be ample public notice, should street closure be required. Mayor Henderson_ remarked that the -project -would be returned to Committeee-and--Council before- reacning that stage. RE UEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS EYERLY LEVY AND WITKERSPOOK RE CFfATI� TS Councilmernber Witherspoon cited a-memorandum addressed to Council, from Councilmembers Eyerly, Levy and Witherspoon, dated December 18, 1980, (a copy of 'which is on file in the City Clerk's Office). The authors were asking Council's concurrence in directing staff to respond on two studies: (1) identify some potential sites, in the City or within its sphere of influence,. which would be appropriate for developing rental housing of a certain number of units; and (2) identify various ways that financing for Such a rental housing project could be put together, including various methods listed in•the memo. Councilmember Witherspoon remarked that there were probably many other methods for financing a project of this type, and that they would be happy to work with staff on those listed and on identifying any others which came to mind. Councilmernber Levy reported a discussion he had had with Director of Planning and Community Environment Naphtali Knox, who had made a very worthwhile suggestion. The memo addressed itself to 40 or more units; Mr. Knox suggested that it would be no '.pore work for staff to comment on the feasibility of units-: of any size. There was therefore no reason for limiting the proposal to larger sites only. With that in mind, he wished to suggest discarding the limitation to sites of 40 or more units, and simply identify potential sites feasible for rental units. Councilmember Fazzino thought the idea an excellent one, and applauded thethreeCouncilmembers'for proposing it. His one question to, staff was whether there would be any appreciably different information with respect to land sites than had been received last year, when Council had considered the possibility of rezoni n -y i ndus ri a i sites in the area. Mr. Zaner replied that there might be some different data regaraing the sites, but they would-be_ the same. sites. Vice -Mayor Fletcher professed herself slightly skeptical. When sites for housing had been identified in the past,money was appropriated for land banking. She was not opposed to anypart of tie proposal at all, but s,he wondered if, from --1 practical standpoint.; it had much of a chance for success,;. considering the types or funding 1.o ` be raised, or the possibility that private'developers might acquire the sites or develop those` they already owned, Sne called attention to the fact that there still remained the Terman Site to finance. Therefore, though very much ::in favor of finding sites for and financing rental housing, _ he had to consider her doubts about, the final outcome of the proposal:' 5 5 7 1/12/81 Mayor Henderson had one addition to Councilmember Fl etcher' s misyivinus. The listing of sites, as had been done during moratorium considerations,'could lead'to" a rash_of development or those sites by developers. Bringing all this up again so .i soon after the ComprehenS i ve Plan discussions -might ` have the effect of promoting more office buildings, etc. Councilmember Renzel was concerned about the sequence in the perforrni ne of the two tasks, for mech the. same reason ..given by Mayor Henderson an ,Vice -Mayor Fletcher, Council last iden- tified vacant sites when the Planning Commission drew up a map of vacant single family lots, and every single cane of those singe family lots have now been built, upon. This may have happened anyway, but she felt that they should focus on -the mechanism first, be certain of the course they wish to take, and then focus on identifying the sites. As pointed. out by Vice -Mayor Fletcher , funds were not really available for land -banking as in the past, because of pe.ior commitments. She would therefore prefer to see -the tasks performed in reverse order, simply because of the prabability of losing the sites that would be identified, before they had any means for acquir- ing them. Councilmember Eyerly said the sequence had been discussed with Mr- Knox.originally, who seemed to indicate that researching into the various methods for financing the project would involve much more time than identifying the potential sites. Councilmember Eyerly suggested that Mr. Zaner, who had been present at the di sci.;ssi on, might recall the reasoning behind the breaking down of the project into that sequence Mr. Zaner recalled the reason - some of the financing mecha- nisms, a few of them being listed in the secon, assignment, tended to be site -specific. That is, the sit t;ad to be identified in order for the financing phase to make any sense at all. For example, it would not be very enlightening to explain, in:Ahe abstract, how limited partnerships work. It was necessary to observe a specific piece of property'in order to determine if a given kind of funding mechanism would work in that particular instance. Councilmember Eyerly said it, appeared to him that perhaps t!ee two tasks .should be reclassified as one assi=gnment. `He thought the fears expressed by some of the Councilmembers, about the pricesof some of the identified potential sites being raised, etc., were very real fears, in view of the shortage of land. Consequently, he would be happier about the proposal if staff would, when identifying potential sites and after checking the awne. {,ship, report. on .the "typeseof financing feasible. There was such a wide variety of financing mechanisms; he did not believe that those who had signed the memo and discussed the project had any intention of seeking city funding., They would not be taking from one and -banking source to go into some other~ ai rect wont Regarding the ,sites? he `did not agree that all potential sites had been located quite :a number -not not previously noted had been discovered as a ,' result of „recent discussions with staff. Some of these involved air rights, and, some involved properties belonging to companies considering expansion of facilities. A minor discussion had dealt with the possibility of working with these.companie.s, if staff were given sue psl i cy as to . how to proceed should the companies be willing ,to provide some., 'types of housing, peMhaps involving air rights or some of their; l and.. The point was that there were quite a fe'w sites in the area which had 'no't really been included in zRning discussions. Also, referring to discussions. 5 5 8' on rezoning of some areas recommended by the Planning Commis- sion, there might be small pi eces of 1 and within some of the large blocks of proNerty ghat might be feasible, because of individual land ownership, to recomienc; for some type of hour i ny. In his opinion, staff should . be directed to make a thorough study, taking as much time as necessary, before repo►'ting back to Council. He then suggested Councilmember` Witherspoon make a motion to that effect. 1 Mayor Henderson remarked that Councilmember Eyerly had spoken to one -of his own questions, referring to a par,egraph in the memo, stating, ;" ..preliminary report that would focus, first, on the identification of potential sites." Mayor Henderson said he would also prefer that the staff report include both tasks as one assignment. Councilmember Witherspoon 1ne,de the following motion, incorpo- ratiny the changes as suggested by Council: MOTION: Counc i lmember Witherspoon removed, seconded by Levy, the: Cou.rcil direct staff to respond to both issues in the memo: 1) Identify potential sites _in the City or within its sphere of influence- that might be feasible for rental units and yive a brief background on each one, such as ownership, eligibility for HUD ;unds, and suitability from a planning point of view. 2) Identify various ways that financing for a rental housing project might be put together, including pension funds, limited partnership venture, federal or state funding, use of City bonding capacity, etc ; MOTION PASSED: The motion -passed unanimously, Brenner absent. REQUEST OF MAYOR HENDERSON CONCERNING 17E F1UMINATIUN OF JAMES C. AATT Mayor Henderson referred to his memo regarding the nomination of James G. Watt as Secretary of the Interior, addressed to the Counci lmernbers, dated January 5, 1981 (a copy of which is.; on file in the Office of the City Clerk). `. In response to probable objections that this was not a local matter, Mayor Henderson stated his conviction that this nomina- tion most definitely affected Palo Alto, because of, some of the many programs requiring federal syupport, i.e, the Solid Waste Program now being studied by the West . County JPA; the San Jose Correctpcl_ Treatment. Plant; the Saar F`r°ancisco Sewer System, frequently in See Pg744 danger of polluting the Bay, and our own future needs, plus the 3/23/81 fact that Mr. Watt had spoken out on so many of these subjects, in just the apposite.,. direction` from that:supported by Palo Alto. He felt that `the Council should make t -heir concern known. Mr. Watt had been involvedwith the big industrialists, -- ,the oil interests, the mi_f ne interests, and,had given very' little recoyuition to the ideal ,of preserving natural beauty,_ wilderness, streams,:etc. Mayor Henderson acknowledged that the Council could only, of course, express their concern,,in the form of letter or trl egrarm whatever , seemed' to Abe needed timewise - with" copiei h our representatives in Congress. 6 5 9 1/12/81 a MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Menzel, that Coun%.i 1 direct the Mayor to write to President -Elect Reagan,_ with copies to Senators.Cranston and Hayakawa and to Repre- sentative McCloskey, expressing Palo Alto's concern about the selection of James G. Watt as Secretary of the Interior. Councilmember Levy commented that he did not think this was in - fact a locil issue on which he should! vote. It was his policy to abstain on all issues that did not pertain specifically to Palo Alto. He would therefore abstain from voting on this motion, for the following reasons: 1) The thorough analysis that staff and a concerned citizenry brought to local and relevant .. �...si,++, issues waa in this case absent. Although there had been a good deal of gnera1 given-te �����. mat national publicitY. -W t, it was Couneilmember _ .L -Levy's opinion that, if voting as representatives "ti the. whole community of Palo Alto, they would be shortchanging *heir constituencies by not gi vi no this issue the thorough background study that was normally given to other issues voted on by the Council. 2) In this particular case, they were not considering and voting on specific issues, but were ;n fact --considering a person, a much more complex and diffuse process than voting on specific issues endemic to Palo Alto. Vice -Mayor Fletcher countered that there had been enormous publicity on this particular person and about his particular policies and how they might affect the whole country, including Palo Alto. She did wish to make the point, however, that per.- haps copies of Mayor Hernderson's memo should be sent to the, committee members who weee going to be reviewing this nomina- tion. With that, she expressed her wholehearted support of the motion. ccuncilmember.Witherspeen said she would abstain for the same reasons given by Counciimember Levy. She would also say that all the publicity surrounding this nomination had brought her to a differenct conclusion than that reached .by Vice -Mayor Fletcher. She'vas always hopeful of a "c'nange. of spots" once a person -took_ office. She also questioned their political strategy on this issue = if they were going to have to "live with this'person," and it looked as if they would have to, she did not see the advantage in -:antagonizing him,., She.,simply did not think this an appropriate or particularly astute coarse of action. .. Cotincilmember Fazzino stated his intention of abstaining also, Correction but for a slightly different reason - he 'knew Mr. Watt. His See Pg744 'area of operatlon as an employee of Hewlett-Packard was the 3/23/81 - State of Colorado, Where the Mount ;in States Legal Foundation "abstaining,"_ was located. Being `personal ly acquainted with Mr.; Watt, he thought it would probably be inappropriate to vote on this issue. C'ounci ]member Eyerly supported statements made by Council - members Levy and Witherspoon. He then as\ked the, staff what effect four abstentions would have nn a vote. Mr. Abrams replied that the majority of a quorum`=was required, for action, therefore a minimum of five affirmatiye votes would De necessary. The abstentions would count as negative votes=:.,. 5 b 0 ,1/12/8.1 0 Counci lmernber Eyerly said he had wanted to be sure^ -that absten- tions counted as "no".votes. He did want to abstain on this ssue, because he felt this action would, place them in the realm of partisan voting... He did not believe they.had enough information; they were not cognizant of the other side of the issue. He had -read a bit more of Mr. Watt's more recent - comments in the newspapers; he seemed to be tempering.some of his more controversial stands. Counci lmemrer Eyerly decided, therefore,.. that, unless Councii.wished to send a directive to the investigating committee-in.Washington, it would be a mistake to go on record as opposing the nomination. -Council could send a directive listing questions. they wished put to Mr. Watt, and attempting to steer him away from actions possibly harmful to Palo Alto. H wever, since -he thought it was too late for that and becatrce of his coi�vi ct i on that it was inappropriate to consider this type .of item 4t. city level, due to -1-ask of enough input for intelligent voting, he would abstain. MOTION FAILED: The motion to direct the Mayor to write to the President-EleeL and our Representatives in Congress, stating Palo Alto's concern with the nomination of James G. Watt, failed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Ken:el ABSTAINING: Eyerly, Fazzino, Levy, Witherspoon ABSENT: Brenner Counciimernber Fazzino wished to make one more comment regarding this issue. He recalled that there had been a great deal of 'opposition back in 1969 to the nomination of Walter J. Hickel as Secretary of the Interior. Actually, compared to other Nixon Cabinet appointees, Mr. Hickel had turned out to be an excellent Cabinet member. REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBEit FAllINO TL TFT A Councilmember Fazzino referred to a memo addressed by him to the Council, dated January 8,<1981, concerning parking problems at the European Hearth Spa (copy of which is on file in the Office =of the City -Clerk). He said that it had come to his attention that.. the parking problems at the European Health Spa have been exacerbate6 by the extensive renovations and recent reopening of the center. He had personally driven by the center at its grand opening a week or so ago and:observed that the parking -Spilled out tremendously onto thy: neighhorhood streets, making it very difficutttfor neighbors to park their cars. He understood this had been a problem for -some time, and had been addressed as part of the Evergreen Neighborhood/Park Boulevard traffic problem. He was concerned that the improve- ments to the center will only worsen the parking problems. It, seemed very clear to him that the improvements to the' center have added tie need for additional parking in the area, though he understood that, by a quirk of Palo Alto's Zoning 'Ordinance, no additional parking was required to take care of the the, consequences of the improvements.. Though it` had been .suggested that Council allow staff 'to work with the European Health Spa for =90 days following i-tsoteopening, `t o., encour'age' voluntary compliance (and he was very supportive of this effort), or use of alternative forms of" transpot�tation ,and`'for patrons, to park;; ,in locations otker than in front of residences, he was really 5 6 1 1/12/81 concerned that this was an immediate problem, a problem which. was a ser Taus one before the center reopenee'., and which will only become a greater one in the. immediate future; -. He was- al so concerned that' the Park Avenue study be completed with great dispatch. Councilme,nber Fazzino said he had originally intended -to move that staff be directed to•prepare a report on the item,- but found, to his surprise and pleasure, that a staff report had already been included in the packet. In the staff report, Mr.: Stoffel, Assistant Transportation `Engineer-, (who he believed had: done an outstanding job in this and other areas), recom- mended a delay of 90 drys to allow the spa management to -work with the city in resolving the parking problems eioluntarily. Coun..rinienruer= Fazzi.rio did -net believe -this --was- sufficient; he felt more immediate action was called for. He..was willing to accept a 30 -day period for vol unt,ary resolution of the problem, though he did not look for any success from this course of action without some major changes. He would like some staff response to questions raised in his memo, and after hearing public input he might Offer a motion for a more immediate resolution of the parking problems. He did want to know, however, why additional parking was net required on the basis of improvement which clearly increased the number of clients for the center. Mr. Zaner responded that the question was'addressed in Mr. Stoffei's memo (CMR:113:1), indicating that it was not possible, under the current zoning regulations, to require additional -parking 'tor this kind of renovation. Mr. Abrams interjected that Palo Alto's Municipal Code only addressed expansion of the structure, new uses, etc.- • Simple. internal renovations did not require additional parking facile ities. Councilmember Fazzino asked if a=large increase in membership could constitute a requirement for more parking; for instance, if the center jumped from 500 to 1,000 members. Mr. Abrams Answered that an increase in membership would not require more parking facilities. He added, however, that the issue of intensificaticn of uses had been given a great deal of consideration at the Planning Commission level, particularly recently, altho#ugh his understanding from these discussions was that this had .been discussed for some number of years. It; related also to the industrial ;plants. Counci lmember Eyerly wished to point --out, especially for the public's understanding, some very potent`. information given in the last paragraph 'of Mr. Stoffel's memo, which resulted frorn working with the Evergreen Park Rest dent Group: "...There - 'after, if there is no impr=Ovement in the spa's parking problems, and if resident comnpl ai nts' continue, staff will work - with Evergreen Park residents to develop a parking restriction plan in -OW residentially -coned areas near the spa. Spa management has been made aware of this possibility. Should parking restrictions; ultimately;`.becOme necessary, staff will. implement a trial ;plan for 'at least 30 days." It seemed to him as ,.thou gh the staff had really taken fast action on this issue, due- to CoLnti lmeiaber Fazzino`is mem , but he -fv? t':they already had- a very good lan, which he hoped would be acceptable to the residents. 5 5 2 1/12/81 Kathleen Hi morel berger, 2793 Park Boulevard; .said her house was located about six° houees in from El Camino, receiving a great deal of the traffic and parking from the spa. She was con- cerned about not. -only the excessive .traffic in her neighbor- hood, but also the excess of strangers there, making the - neighborhood very difficult to police. She urged the code be changed- to require the spa to provide more parking places, as she did not think it fair that all the inconvenience should fall -upon the residents. Eric Richert, 535 Ramona St., No. 27, connected with an architect firm in Palo Alto, was there to represent Ernest -F. Weeks, trustee of the Weeks estate, owner of the proper .y 'at 1681 'and 1691 El Camino, across the Park Boulevard from the European Health Spa. He detailed Mr. Weeks' complaints con- cerning the improper -use of his property by the spa customers, including inability of the property residents to use their own parking spaces, and the problem of spa customers parking on the sidewalk and lawns and even blocking access to, the rear. Repeated contact with the spa management had proved fruitless. Mr. Weeks was considering installation of parking control devices, at a considerable expense of $15,000. Because of the increasing severity of the problem, he urged the Council to take action on this matter. -- Mayor Henderson responded that finding the action ihe city could take was the problerii. He believed there was already a law to, protect the property; the problem was with enforcing it. He did not see offhand what the city could do to create a new law which would be any more effective. He' felt, however, it was always useful to emphasize the problem. Audrey S. Poulter, 1731 Park Boulevard, lived across the street from the spa -and next to Mr. Weeks' property. • She described in detail the noise, the lack of parking, and the reta"i i ati on experienced. The noise annoyance was from the spa's cleaning crew, from 2:00 to -3:00 a.m. each night. Spa patrons' cars blocked their driveway, and residents could not have evening guests because of lack of parking. She reviewel the attempts made to resolve the problem, but all had ended - in some form of retaliation a verbal abuse -from spa personnel and patrons, and loud music and noisy playing._by the cleaning crew at 2:00 and 3:00 a.ra., as well as damage to property. She' -professed 'herself at "wits end," and askedefor Council's thoughts on the matter-. Mayor Henderson promised that the Council would be responding after the public input. ,\ Marion Slattery, 1737 Park Boulevard, corroborated her neighbors' testimony, -and also added her emphasis ors 'the problem. Tneir greatest concern 'was neighborhood safety., because, the traffic was heavy and the spa people, were so abusive. Gne solution which occurred to her, not knowing if i y s possible, was to somehow make the spa (actually, all - businesses) responsible for theirown parking and traffic problems. She wished there were some way to request or insist -that the spa provide its own patrol of the neighborhood, so that the residents would not have to be concerned. All she, a$.ked for, aong with her neighbors, was to _get into her car and.. leave her dri°r<<eray, without having to spendtime calling i:�►e spa and begging someone to move their car. She lamented the great amount of anger and frustration attendant upon the eX i stance of the spa:_ Mayor Henderson spoke for the entire Council in stating their great concern with this problem. He .thought that they should perhaps address themselves to the question of the amount of -Owe allotted to the different stages in the staff report. As he saw it, if no other solution presented ' itself very soon, Council should move toward approving a parking'restriction plan. He would think that possibility, if any, would force the spa to begin cooperating with the neihborhood. Councilmernber Fazzino,thought that., given the fact that the spa had known about this:problem for some time, 30 days was an entirely reasonable period of time for negotiations. He would therefore.make the following motion: MOTION: Ccunc i l member F:zz i no moved, seconded . by Fletcher, that staff work with the Spa and, if on February both the parking problem still exists without voluntary solutions by the European Health Spa, that staff bring to Council a proposed parking restriction ;tan for the neighborhood. Councilmemoer Witherspoon. said shoe would like to see the staff work with the Evergreen Earl:.Association, because she co-uld forsee the sane problems arising as when parking reetr;ctions had been proposed close to the downtown area; i.e., neighbors and their guests would not be able to park on their street either, and they would still lack parking spaces. Mayor Henderson agreed that aspect would have to be considered, if the problem reached that point. Counci lrnember Levy commented that he did not see any reference to police enforcement. Apparently there were violations, and he thought that, even duri nc;:. the 30 -day period, perhaps there should be closer.poUte ai.te it i on to parking violations in that area. He thought CoiJncil should bear in mind that, while the spa itself certainly hed'responsibility, nonetheless there were ,violations by individuals who happened to be patrons of the spa. Councilmember Fazzino said he would certainly incorporate that into the motion: h.. increase police enforcement over the next 30 days," to begin to alleviate the problem. With :,respect to his motion, he also wished to make clear, that he waited a formal parking restriction plan before the Council on February 10th - that they not wait until the end; of the 10 -day period to begin examining a parking restriction plan. Mayor Henderson cautloned the residents in the area not to expect too much from the added enforcement; at each Council meeting statements weremadeabout additional enforcement somewhere in the city - there were justso many police officers. The Police Department would be made aware of the problem and do what they could. Mr. Zaner said„staffwould, of course, return on February -10th with a report if so directed by Council,- He pointed out, however, the difficulty in getting a neighborhood consensus within a 30 -day period. MOTION PASSED: The motion that staff `work with the Spa and, if on February 1Oth parking problem still exists 'without =r•o1uhtar,y solutions by European health Spa, that - staff bring to Cnunci l proposed parking restriction plan for the neighborhood and increase police eirforcetiient over., next 30 days passed unanimously, Brenner _a' sent. se 5 b 4 1/12/81 COUNCILMEMBER BECHTEL - PALO ALTO WktKLY' S LLTTLR 71 5T OPO E0 ITETT TIiR OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MOTION: Counc:i lmember~ Bechtel moved, seconded by Fazz i no, to refer the item concerning officially publishing the agendas of th Palo Alto Planning Commission, and including the _agendas of the City Council, to the Finance and Public Works Ceeomittee for budget discussion. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously, Brenner absent. COUNCJLMEMBER RENZEL - JPA SOLID WASTL .-�. Councilmember Renzel reported that the JPA was moving forward on a implementation plan, which will: designate a lead,. agency, establish a contractual relationship among the ciyies, develop a --time schedule for all aspects of project implementation, 3na indicate the selected project and procurement plan'.> She pointed out that the project was arriving at a fairly crucial decision -making stage, where a permanent JPA may be formed and some significant financial contributions would have to be made. MAYOR HENDERSON RE SOUTH BAY t Mayor Henderson reported that the pibeiine issue would be before the Regional. Water Quality Control Board on Wednesday, January 21st. The indications were that the' RWQCB would not approve the pipeline at that time, but would set up a program of five or more years' duration of more intense monitoring of the South Bay. Mayor Henderson announced that the League of Women Voters were trying to determine the number of those listening to the radio broadcasts of the Council meetings, and 3sked listeners to call '321-3246 or 494.0346. ORAL'COMMUNICAT:IONS 1. Franklin Gernan addressed the Council concerning the Palo Alto Police DepartMent. Mayor Henderson noted that Council no longer heard Oral Commu- nications at the end of the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT. The Council meeting adjourned at.10:25 p.m, ATTEST: APPROVE: Mayor •