Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-02 City Council Summary Minutes1 PAGE 6 0 5 6 0 5 6 0.5 6 0 6 6 0 6 6 0 6' 6 0 7 6' 0 8 6'0 9 6 1 0 6 3 2 4 2 6 4 4 6 4 8 6 4 8 6 5 0 6.5 0 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES' CITY CAF PALO ALTO Adjourned Meeting of January 26, 1981 Monday, February 2, 198 1 Regular Meeting ITEM Oral Communications 1. Louis Fein, 1540 Oak Creek Drive 2. Frank Manfredi, 219 Addison Avenue Minutes of November 3, 1980 Consent Calendar - Action Items Regional Water Quality. Control Plant (RWQCF) - Award of Bid For Pumping Plant Repairs Resolution Re County Plan For Expenditure Of Proposition 1 Funds (California Parklands Act Of 1980) Ordinance Authorizing Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) To Issue Bond Anti- cipation Notes Modifications To Public Hearing And Application Notice Procedures Request Of Councilmembers Eyerly, Bechtel, Fazzino, and Witherspoon q.e Rental Housing For Employees Public Hearing: Deletion Of Willow Road ."Prot sed Arterial"/Review Of 13 --Acre ' Site Planning Commission Recommends Re Updated Comprehensive Plan Downtown Parking Management Plan Animal Services Ordinance ITT Excavation/Restoration Agreement Report of, City Attorney and City Controller Regarding Council Vote Of January 12, 1981 Budget Amendment Request Of CouncilMe hers Eyerly- and Levy Re Drought Precautions Request Of CouncilmemberLevy and Mayor. Henderson Re Allocation Of Interest Income Regttest Of .Councilmember Renzel Re Gift Of Labor Library To Palo Alto Report Of Councilmembers Witherspoon, Levy and Eyerly Re Visual ' Arts ► xgry Selection Adjournment of Meeting of January 26, 19.81 60 1/26/81 Regular Meeting February 2, 1981 ITEM Minutes of November 10, 1980 Resolution Of Appreciation - Delmar D. Wilcox Resolution Of Appreciation - Georger`t. Briggs Consent Calendar - Action Items Crescent Park 1, Underground Utility District No. 20, Assessment Bonds - Underground Conversion Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Member Service Agreement Cable Television Ownership Alternatives Yacht Harbor - Santa Clara County Park and Recreation Department's Recommendations Request Of Mayor Henderson Re Filling Frances H. Brernner's Term Ending 1W31/81 PAGE 6 5 1 6 5 1 6 5 1 6 5 2 6 5 2 6 5 2 6 5 2 6 5 5 Request Of Councilmember Fazzino Re Annual Fee For Tennis Court Use (Referral To Finance and Public Works Committee) 6 5 5 Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Member Service Agreement 6 5 5 Adjournment of Regular Meeting of 2/2/81 6,5 6 Adjourned Meeting of January 26, 1981 Monday, February 2, 1981 Regular Meeting The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. for an Executive Session concerning personnel, and at 7:45 p.m. for the adjourned meeting of January 26, 198.1. 1 PRESENT: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzinc, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon ABSENT: None (One Council seat vacant - Frances H. Brenner, deceased 1/26/81) Mayor Henderson'announced that the Council would meet, probably at 9:30 p.m. recess and possibly later if necessary, for an Executive Session concerning personnel. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Louis Fen, 1540 Oak Creek Drive, (a) referred to a letter in the packet to the Councilmembers concerning the Oak Creek Conversion, complaining about the questionable, probably unauthorized activities of the converter in soliciting irrevocable consents, and of the city staff in processing and validating these consents, even before the filing of an application by the converter for a new subdivision 'map. He asked that his suggestion for a remedy be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting, and tha. staff be directed to discontinue processing consents in the interim, until the Council ruled on the subject. (b) Mr. Fein addressed the organization of the City Council and the School Board. He had considered for some time that the City Attorney, the City Collective Bargaining Negotiator, and.the City Internal Auditor should all report directly to the City Council, and that the School Attorney, the School Collective Bargaining Negotiator, and the School Internal Auditor should all t'eport directly to the School board. He made this suggestion in the interests of avoiding possible conflicts -of -interest. 2. Frank Manfredi, 219 Addison Avenue, expressed his regrets at not being able to attend Councilmember Brenner's memorial- services, due to illness. He wanted to express his feelings that Frances Brenner was one of the most outstanding women in the City of Palo Alto, and. in his estimation came up to the standards of Ma Perkins, Eleanor Roosevelt, and others. He thought they should honor her further, by caring the Council_ Chambers the "Frances H. Brenner. - Memorial Hall," because. for. those who knew her, "she H can`t.be beat." MINUTES -OF .NOVEMBER 3, 1981 11- Councilmember Witherspoon pointed, out that, on page 406, in the paragraph just above "RECESS," the word "jobs" should be changed to the term "employed persons," to read: "...they agreed that the issue of number of employed persons per household would be included in the Employment Section." MOTION Councilmember Fa•zino"moved, seconded by. Witherspoon that the minutes of,November 3 be approved as corrected. .5 .0 5 1/26/81 MOTION .PAI:cED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Henderson asked that the item regarding the request for approval to accept state f;rnds for the federally funded Housing Improvement Programbe continued, to allow for the accumulation a.' more documentation. Mayor Henderson asked that the item regarding the second reading of the Animal Services Ordinances be removed, at the request of a member of the pubi i c. Referral Items None. Action Items REGIONAL WATER IUALIT'i CONTROL OR Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with General Engineering & Machine Works in the amount of $35,311.32. AGREEMENT - REFURBISHING OF REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT STANDBY PUMPING PLANT General Engineering and Machine Works RESOLUTION RE COUNTY PLAN FOR XPENL�ITUR�iiF�li UNDS CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 198D r' 1: 1 Staff tecommends that Coup:.: i 1; enact the following Resolution approving the Santa Clara County "Priority Plan for Expenditure" in accordance with Proposition One, California Parklands Act of 198 ;. RESOLUTION 5868 entitled "RESOLUTION - OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING THE PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITUREOE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR PARK, BEACH, R'CREATIGNAL AND HISTORICAL. PRESERVATION PURPOSES (CALIFORNIA. PARKLANDS ACT OF -1980)' - ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING. NORTHERN TO TSTIrIUMTWITTITT Mayor Henderson introduced the following ordinance for first reading: ORDINANCE _OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY TO ISSUE REVENUE NOTES (First Reading) MOTION: Counci lmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Consent Calendar as corrected. .r 6 0 6 1/26/81 MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote, with the item regarding the federally funded Housing Improvement Program removed for continuance, and the item regarding the second reading of the Animal Services Ordinance removed at the request of a member of the public. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the item regarding the federally funded Housing Improvement Program be continued to February 9, 1981. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADuITIONS AND NS None. UNFINISHED BUS_I NESS MODIFICATIDNS TO PUBLIC HEARING The.Planning Commission unanimously recommends modification of the City's public hearing and application notice procedures. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Fletcher, that this item be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee. Mayor Henderson had some hesitation about this referral, because the Planning Commission did act as the Council's advi- sory body on this type of matter, and had submitted a ver;, complete report on.this item. He wondered about consulting them in the first place, only to rehash the subject and hold a as public hearing at the committee level. Councilmember Eyerly answered that it was not one of the func- tions of the Planning Commission to set policy. They__were pushed for time that evening, and he felt that this item did warrant disscussion. The fees, for instance, should be consid- ered under the Budget Hearing in the Finance and Public Works Committee, along with the other fees. Councilmember Fazzino agreed with Mayor Henderson that there ••�c c:., to i ,1ly a wealth of matterial already available on the item and it appeared that. the Planning Commission had discussed it at length. At ,fife same time, if there were some issues that Councilmember Eyerly or some others wished to have discussed further and in`more detail,'he would prefer to simply refer the, matter to the Policy and Procedures Committee, if Vice -Mayor Fletcher were wi l l ing. He asked Councilmember Eyerly if there was a particular item of concern to him. Councilmember Eyerly replied .°vhat there seemed to be quite a bit of detail, mentioned by staff, about mailing labels and areas to be noticed, etc. He had ,many questions and felt that the procedure would require so much time that it would be better dealt with by the Policy and Procedures Committee.' Vice -Mayor Fletcher had seconded the : motion for referral, because she had some 4uite substantive suggestions for changes to the `recommendation. , She emphasized that she certainly did not mean to imply lack of respect for the work of the Planning. Commission, but the urgency of the many —items on that evening's agenda influenced her decision to second the motion. 1 607 1/26/81 • Councilmember Bechtel suggested that, rather than referring the item to the Policy and Procedure Committee:, it be continued to a. later Council meeting, if lack of time that evening was the problem. She asked if there was some urgency for complet- ing the item from the staff's point of view. Mayor. Henderson ascertained that staff felt no urgency regard- ing the matter, and added that he would support that suggestion himself-. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to continue the item regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation for modifications of the City's public hearing and applications notice procedures to the Council meeting of March 9, 1981. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: The substitute motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Bethhel, Fazzino, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon NOES: Eyerly, Fletcher REgUEST OF COUNCILMEMBFRS EYERLY, ' ACHILL, FAZZINO, AND WITHERSPOON RE R NTAt HOUSING FOR EMPL _ S- Tcon nued from 1 /19/x1 Councilmember Eyerly referred to a memorandum to the Council from Councilmembers Eyerly,,.Bechtel, Fazzino and Witherspoon, on this subject, dated January 10, 1981, a copy of wh>ch is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. He felt it fairly obvi- ous that City, as well as other, employees found it extremely difficult to find housing, and that this problem impacted on the availability of qualified employees for hire. He therefore made the following motion, as a step toward trying to set some policy for alleviating the situation. SJTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Bechtel, that Council direct staff to provide. a report on: 1. The relation of housing costs to employee retention and recruitment; 2. Housing assistance programs that major employers and other cities are using, and 3. The legal and economic feasibility of ways to ease housing costs for Palo Alto employees. Vice -Mayor Fletcher said she had no problem with the motion, but wondered if the staff would comment briefly on the status _,of their current assignment on :this matter. City Manager Wil1 am'Zaner said staff was in the process of - preparing material And -making of survey of the various cities to determine if,' or how, they were dealing with the housing .cost issue. Findings .so far, indicated that some cities were dealing with At; others were looking to Palo Alto for some. - guidance. He did -not believe preparing the type of report now requested by' Council wovlt: prove difficult for staff; -it would be a cont-1 nuat i on of -their present ass i gn6ent . 608 1/26/81 MOTION PASSED: The motion directing staff to provide a report dealing with the housing problems for City employees passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: W LLOW ROAD "PROPOSED TCTI Mayor tUenderscn opened the Public Hearing on` the Planning Commission recommendations regarding deletion of the proposed Willow Road "Proposed Arterial" designation from Arboretum to E: Camino Real, and a change in the land use designation for all or part of the 13 -acre creekside,area. Philip C. Williarras, Director of "tanning, Stanford University, did not wish to belabor, or waste Council's time on, a subject which continually gave discomfort to all concerned. He thought it obvious that Stanford supported the connection of Willow Road to El Camino, as a potential solution of a number of traf- fic problems and an improvement of the access to the hospitals and potential housing sites in that area. He felt a little uncomfortable, as a Planner, seeing a plan forecl^sed on any alternative for solving that kind of a problem, before all the facts.or options had been made clear. As far as Stanford was concerned, he thought it a matter of leaving the options open until then. Regarding the 13 -acre parcel, again he did not think the options should be foreclosed, and Stanford would not want to place a use in that area that would foreclose the Willow Road option. .However, the value and the taxes paid on that property had been established for well over 20 years, and it seemed somewhat unfair to redesignate it to a far different kind of use, especially since the planning in that area had not yet been completed. Standford had designated that site as a study area in their new land use plan, and it .seemed prudent to them to retain the present designation until, again, all the planning had been done and all the facts were in. Ali 1 ly Davis, 344 .Tennessee Avenue, reported on a meeting of the Palo Alto Neighborhood Coalition, held on December 9, 1980. The members had voted unanimously in support of the deletion of the "Proposed Arterial" symbol for the Willow Road extension from Arboretum to E1 Camino, so that the land use map would conformto the Comprehensive Plan. There being no other -.members of the . pubs is wishing to speak to this item, Mayor Henderson closed the Public Hearing. City Attorney Roy Ahr1ams reported that, as he had previously advised Councilmember Witrrerspoon not to participate in matters impacting Willow Road because of the relationship to the' previ- ous request by Stanford, he would continue to so advise her. Mayor Henderson ascertained frwm Mr. Abrams that five votes were required for approval of the Planning Commi ss i on recom- mendations. He then called for a motion to uphold the Plar:n4..ng Commission recommendations. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council pass the following Resolution and uphold the Planning Commission recommendations that: 1. The "Proposed Arterial" symbol for the Willow road extension from Arboretum to El Camino Real be deleted:, 6 0 9 1/26/81 2. The former "Proposed Arterial" area be designated Regional/Community Commercial up to the Shopping Center lease line, and Major Institution/Special Facilities for the Children's Hospital lease area; 3. The remainder of the 13 -acre parcel (from the Shopping Center lease line to San Francisquito Creek) be designated Open Space...Controlled Development. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ,THE DEVELOPMENT `OF''THE CITV OF PALO ALTO REGARDING LAND USE DESIGNATION OF CREEKSIDE SITE ADJACENT TO' SAP FRANCISQUITO. CREEK. Councilmember Eyerly mentioned a call he had had from the Committee for Green Foothills, giving their peeference for retaining the symbol, because, as he understood their recom-- mendation they saw the need for housing acid for facing the issue, as previously suggested by Mr. Williams,.before ,closing the door completely.. MOTION FAILED: The motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Fletcher, Renzel NOES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson, Levy ABSTAINING: Witherspoon PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS Mayor Henderson briefly reviewed the background of this item, commenting that work on the Revised Comprehensive Plan hod been goingwi for a full year; the first Planning Commission meeting on the subject had been held in January 1980. The Resolution on the floor was based on the Council's final action following review of the recommended plan forwarded by the Planning Com- mission. Following that Council review, all changes made by the Council had to be returned for further review by the Plan- ning Commission. The Resolution before the Council that evening was based on the Council's action, plus a list of 36 changes recommended by the Planning Commission. The Council could, and should, take action on those recommendations, amend the Resolution, or not, as required, and pass the Resolution. He cautioned that they must avoid making any further changes, because these would have to returnto the Planning Commission for further review. They would then have a never-ending cycle of review, and thus never attain adoption of the Revised Plan. He urges°Council to deal a~ rapidly as possible with the Plan- ning Commission recommendations, and to approve the,Resolution that evening, either in its present state, or as amended. He would therefore not be calling on each Councilmember, but hoped they agreed that the best approach was for each to read through all the items and ;speak only on those with which they dis- agreed. For> -those ,items not mentioned, it would be assumed that a -single motion of approval would`be in order, after. dealing with the others. Councilmember Renzel wondered if it would be possible to follow a semi -Consent Calendar pt'ocedure, by moving the full Planning Commission recommendation, aid then removing items for discus- sion. 6 Co 1/26/81 Mayor Henderson's Feeling was that these were recommended changes, so that the change was the motion that should require the necessary number of votes. If Council moved the entire recommendation, negative action would be, required to reject specific. items. Counci?member Renzel asked if herassumption was correct that only those items disagreed with were to -be discussed, rather than moving for each item in agreement. Councilmember Bechtel suggested working through the recom- mendations page by, page, for instance, she would move Items 1 through 12 on the first page. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, :seconded by Witherspoon, that Council pass the following Resolution, upholding the Planning Commission recommendations regarding the updated Comprehensive Plan: (a) Approval of the r2comended changes, and (b) Adoption of the Plan. 'RESOLUTION 5869 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTG Councilmember Eyerly had some concerns about the overall procedure. lo his understanding, five votes were required for. passing the overall Comprehensive Plan, as structured and voted upon. His concern was that some of the programs and.policies had not been given five approval votes by the Council. There may have been only a majority vote of four, but there was no information before Council that evening regarding the voting on individual items. He did not feel free to vote on the Compre hensive Plan, incorporating those items which had not received a substantial vote at the time of discussion. Mayor Henderson checked his assumption with the -.City Attorney that all of the previous actions had been legal, now that they. had reached the point of an overall Resolution. City Attorney Abrams replied that the final Resolution pursuant to charter provisions required five votes. Historically, throughout all preceding Comprehensive Plan reviews, the present Council had utilized -the administrative procedure of allowing the adoption of amendments by majority vote, because the final Resolution required five votes. Notwithstanding, he had attempted to monitor, throughout this process, any changes in' the actual wording in the policies themselves to assure that theyhad received five votes, To his kaowledge, all the actual policy changes had been approved by fi ve,votes AMENDMENT TO MOTION Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve Items 1 through 12, on Page 1 of the Plan- ning Commission recon►rtendations, dated January ?.5, 1981.' AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Levy moiled ,to exclude Item 4 from Councilmember Bechtel's Amendment to Motion appeOving' Items 1 through, 12 of Planning Commission recommenda- tions. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Levy c}lled attention, regarding Item 4, to P1ar�-- ring Co'dmjsOon Secy`etary.Kenneth Schreiber's comment, in the Planning Comuission eeting, that the _25% figure he hod heard .(for households to allot for housing costs) was establ is,hed 1 1 1/26/81 sometime between 1915 and 1920, and was based -on pure conjec- ture even. then. He felt that, . ay it did ,riot seem to, have been establ�s: ed nii a formal basis, an intention to change it should be inserted in the Comprehensive Plan. Otherwise, it appeared to Councilmember Levy, that they would be legitimizing a nuumbe,r• that was in process.of change'anyway, and the derivation of which was in question, as well., Mayor Hendereson remarked that_figure had been the traditional housing cost percentage throughout all his life, and he had no problems with it.- Councilmember Levy said the chart on Page 12B, Item 6, was not clear to him, unless the heading stated that the median Santa Clara County income, was' for purposes of housing .assistance. The figures listed -were a series, beginning with an ,arbitrary figure based on a household of one person, and adding more income':is the number of persons per household increased. He was sure that it was untrue that the median Santa Clara income for a family consisting of one person was $15,000, for two persons, $17,000; for three persons, $19,000; for four persons, --",21,000 per year, etc. He thought it should be made clear that these were not the actual median incomes, but the median incomes which had been listed for purposes of housing assis- tance. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to delete Item 6 from Councilmember Bechtel`s Amendment to Motion approving items 1 through 12 of Planning Commission recommendations. Mayor Henderson stated that the recommended change was to elim- inate that wording, as the Planning Chmmission had decided it was unnecessary. Councilmember Bechtel said it seemed to her, from reading the minutes, that the heading at the top of the page had merely been unnecesarily duplicated further down, therefore the change in wording to delete one of the headings. The heading, "Feder- al Assistance Program Income Limits" would still be retained at the top of the page. Mayor Henderson welcomed members of the Planning Commissinn who were present and asked for any comments they might have. Planning Commission Chairman Nichols expiained"that "Housing Assistance" -had been listed twice. It was their understanding that the title was sufficient tu'_cover the column listing median Santa Clara County incomes for the purposes of housing assistance, because of the reference jri the title. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTiON PASSED: The Amendment ,to the Amendment to Motion excluding Item; 6 from the approval list of items 1: through 12 of the Planning Commisson recommendations, passed on the following vote: AYES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, ` Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon NOES: Bechtel, Renzel Councilmember Levy felt ghat, regarding Item 10 (on Page 14B), the phrase "...and the :jobs/housing imbalance..," should not be added, because the critical element was the °absolute size, and not they balance, existing at any time°between jobs and ,housing. rExplaining.further, he said he did not wish to see a lot more employment= or housing, even if brought into balance. 6 1 2 1/26/81 AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MUTTON: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to delete the. phrase "...and the jobs/housing imbalance..." from Item 10 of approval list of Items 1 through 12 of the Planning Commission recommendations. Mayor Henderson confirmed that the point the :Planning Commis- sion had tried to make was that employment growth would have a negative effect on the jobs/housing imbalance. Councilmember Renzel opposed deleting that language; she felt it important to keep in mind as they proceeded with the imple- mentation of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Witherspoon thought it was simpler just to delete the phrase, rather than spend a great deal of time discussing it. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION EAiLED: The Amendment to Amendment to the Motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Levy, Witherspoon NOES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher. Henderson, Renzel Coranci lniember Levy wished to discuss Item 11, where the Planning Commiss£on had suggested the addition of the words "...work to maintain the shift in land use along El Camino Real from Automobile and Service/Commercial toward Neighborhood/ Commercial and Residential." He felt that, since the Comprehensive Plan zoned part of El Camino' -as Neighborhood/Commercial and part as Service/Commercial, the wording, which recommended shifting the land use from Service/Commercial, was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Henderson thought that the idea was to work from the Service/Commerc;a.l uses, where they exist on El Camino, toward the shift to Ne ghborhood/Commer-cal and Residential. Planning Commission Chairman Fred Nichols thought the Planning,: Commission was not necessarily making reference to the current`' zoning, because that may or may not change. Councilmember Eyerly asked, -egarding Item 11, that the.lan- guage, "...in line with current zoning," be added to the end the paragraph, because the intent, as it now stood, was to change that zoning to more Neighborhood/Commercial, and that was not what had been set up on the zoning map or in the Comprehensive Plan. He thought it important to clarify, for future readers of the Comprehensive Plan, that it was intended to change only within the. zoning accepted. Councilmember Fazzino did not disagree with Councilmember Eyerly's approach, but was concerned with Councilmember'Levy's See feeling that it was necessary to _,emphasize the fact that they; Correction were totally behind the emerging trend toward Neighborhood/ pg. 786, Commercial and Residential along El Camino. He thought- the. 4/27/81 statement did indicate a clearly -defined trend, and he would certainly support its retention in the Plan. Councilmember Renzel's.understanding of the intent behind the policy, or program, was to.. add a little emphasis to the fact that a land use change" had recently been made along El amino, and that it was' desired. to may nt_ ai h , that change, and not make exemptions and shift back. She thought that perhaps Council - members Eyerly and Levy's intent might be accomplished ..by of 6 1 3 1/26/81 -adding the word "recent" before "shift," so as to read, "...work to maintain the recent shift in land use along El Camino from Automobile and Service/Commercial to Neighborhood/ i,oinmercial and Residential." Mayor Henderson pointed out that the statement related to what had .been done, but -not the intention of continuing that trend. Councilmember Renzel countered that it would state the inten- tion of maintaining that trend, and not shift back. Councilmember Levy read aloud the present wording in the Comprehensive Plan, because he thought it quite adequate and accomplished Co-uncilmember Renzel's intention: "The appearance and function along El Camino Real, especially, from Matadero Creek to the southern limits, is of special concern among Palo Alto's commercial areas," and, "...work to maintain the,shift in ratio of land use along El. Camino Real from Automobile and Service/Commercial towards Neighborhood/Commercial and Residen- tial, in line with current zoning." He felt the language made it obvious that there was no intent to change the zoning. Commissioner_Ellen Lynne Christensen commented that the Plan- ning Commission's particular concern was with the words "ratio of"; that the change was in the land use, not just the ratio. Mayor Henderson asked City Attorney Abrams if the recommenda tions would have to be returned to the Planning Commission, if changes made by Council ir, the wording were not too substan- tial. Mr. Abrams answered that the recommendations would not have to be returned to the Planning Commission if the changes were not too substantial, and promised to notify them if Mr. Schreiber indicated they were veering in that direction. Councilmember Bechtel suggested amending the Motion to retain the second portion of Item 11, "in line with current zoning," but delete the wording, "in ratio of," which seemed to worry the Planning Commission. Councilmember Levy concurred with this suggestion. At Mayor Henderson's request, he the., read the Item as amended: "..:work to maintain the shift in land 'use along El Camino Real from Automobile and Service/Commercial to neighborhood/ Commercial and Residential, in line with current zoning." Planning Commissioner Christensen said that the only concern she had with the language "current zoning,"-- was that the Comprehensi-ve Plan would have to be revised if any future . changes in zoning for that area should be desired for some reason, at neighborhood request, for instance. She wondered if it was wise to "lock themselves in" by such ,specific language in the Comprehensive Plan:` AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Eyerly, to delete the ph;ase ratio of" from, and add the phrase •"i n line with current zoning" at the end of the paragraph of, Item 11 of the approval list of Items 1 thrcugh 12 of the Planning Commission recommendations. _ - AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO s THE MOTION PASSED: The. Amendment to Amendment to the, Lotion passed onthe following vote: AYES: .Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Levy, ._:Renze1, Witherspoon NOES: Fletcher,Henderson 6' 1 4 1/26/81 Mayor Henderson then called for a vote. on the original Amendment to the Motion: AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: Councilmember Bechtel's Amendment to the Motion to approve Items 1 through 12 of the Planning Commission recommendations, dated January 15, 1981, passed unan,'mousiy. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded oy Fletcher, to approve Items 13 through 25, on Page 2 of the P13nniny Commission Minutes, dated January 15, 1981. Councilmember Bechtel suggested that the phrase "delete 198" should be changed to "delete 1981." She also had questions about Items 20.and 22, which appeared somewhat confusing. Mayor Henderson, after checking Item 20, ascertained that it became clearer upon closer reading. He agreed that there might be some question about the clarity of Item 22. Councilmember Renzel suggested a change in. Modifier in Exhibit I, under Program 27. The words, "in. assessment district" should follow "development," so as to read, "...requiring new developments in assessment districts to provide_ a significant proportion.of their long-term employee parking...," otherwise the requirement appeared to be for new developments to provide new assessment district parking. It seemed to her the modifier belonged with "new development." Mayor Henderson opened the hearing to Program 27, stating that the only motion required would be to not adopt Item 22. Councilmember Witherspoon suggested it might expedite matters and clarify the discussion if Item 22 were withdrawn from the approval list and continued to a time when Council discussed the Downtown Management Plan and/or other aspects of the problem. Mayor Henderson was concerned about the delay in approval of the Planning Commission recommendations and consequent defer- ment to another updating of the Comprehensive Plan, because a Resolution had been passed adopting the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Witherspoon countered that additions were made to the Comprehensive Plan all through the year. Mayor Henderson tbought the issues should be faced and_,dealt with. His own inclination was to delay this particular pro- gram until the next updating of the Comprehensive Plan the following year, studying it in depth in the ,interim, because of its many hidden. ramifications. Vice -Mayor Fletcher pointed out that there did exist a proce- dure for updating the Comprehensive Plan, consisting of: reviewing of recommendations from the Planning Commissions, suggesting some changes, sending recommendations with suggested changes back to the Planning Commission; presumably they 'were now acting only on those changes which they had recommended. The ' program -under discussion was an entirely new program, which, because it was such a lengthy item, she felt inappro- priate to insert at that time. City Attorney Abrams agreed that Vice -Mayor Fletcher was basically correct. As he understood it, part of the question was whether or not the language in that program was mi"splaced. To that extent, modification would ',he considered clerical or minor. ' General ly, he agreed; with 'her statement that the Plan- ning Commission was restricted by those suggestions returned by the City Council. 6 1 5 1/26/81 Planning Commission Secretary Schreiber stated that the section regarding park.i'ng had been thoroughly reworked by the City Council the previous. fall, so that the Commission and staff felt they had the prerogative of revising and rearranging the section also. The changes that were. now before Council flowed out of the changes made by Council. Planning Commission Chairman Nichols further explained that Commissioner Cullen had taken that section, as it was returned f rom_. Counci 1 , and tried to bring some order out of the cons`:aerable hodge-podge of ideas, a mixture of parking and neighborhood traffic problems. What little new material had been added came from what seemed to be missing from already existing material, mostly addressing the downtown parking problems. Mayor Henderson said he had no problem approving the rest of the programs in the new sequence, but he did have concerns about Program 27. Planning Commissioner Patricia Cullen wished to add to Mr. Nichols' statement.. The Planning Commission had rearranged, the programs which had been returned by Council, but, in the rearrangement, it became very clear that there was a very real policy. Therefore, given that parking section, they had devised and recommended a new policy, the one before the Coun- cil for approval, which they hoped would be given very careful consideration. Planning Commissioner Christensen added that the deletion by the Council of the Downtown Parking Management Plan, and any reference to it, had left a gap relating to the downtown parking problem. The gap had been filled when the recommenda- tions had been sent to Council, was addressed and again deleted, so the Planning ('omrnission had filled it again. Mayor Henderson replied that he had no problem with that; it was the one new program which concerned him. AMENDMENT TO AMEt1DMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, to accept all of amended Item 22, except for Program 27 and material right under it, Councilmember Fazzino explained the reason for his motion. He was seriously concerned with the recommendation, how realistic it really was, and whether it could really be ir*rplemented as the Planning Commission hoped. He suggested it was worthy of some additional study, but questioned its viability in its present -form, and hoped they could'defer action on it. Mr. Nichols suggested inserting the requirement to consider the item, if Council wished to keep it live. Councilmember Bechtel thought that the Planning Commission had legitimately raised a really serious issue. There were in - lieu, below -market -rate, housing paymentt, and .there were those who belonged to the assessment district and who di.d not have to build houses. She was, however, hesitant about the exact wording, because that did not really allow them any "out." She knew there were really quite a -few parcels, and really small lots. It would be ridiculous -"to have underground garages under every,50-foot lot up,and down Hamilton Avenue. They could either water it down - perhaps, specify "stud ," or "encopra e, new developments to provide a significant proportion of long- te'rn employee parking,"- or, _ to make it stronger; "re wire apma or new developments...parking." This was all really setting icy that would then require implementation under various zoning mechanisms. She thought it wdrrant.ed additional study. 6 1 6 I/26/81 Counci lmeinbev •Eyerly said that Item 22 referred to Exhibit I, which was over two full pages of recommendations which he was not sure had ever been before Council. He thought the public wished to address some of these ,~ecommendations, and'Exhibit 1 was holding them up. He did not understand why they could nct simply remove Item 22 for this time, and proceed with the other 36 items of the Planning Commission recommendations, to complete those they had already discussed. He asked, first, if his understanding was correct thet Council had not considered Exhibit I. Mayor Henderson replied that there were a number of things they had not discussed; the problem again was with completing approval of the Planning Commission recommendations. Councilmember Eyerly answered that he understood, but he thought that Exhibit I was e. big enough item that, they needed to separate it from the rest of the 36 items. He thought the only way they would be able to proceed with the 36 -items was to separate Item 22, so that they could address it and let t,r2 public speak to it if they wished. Mayor Henderson pointed out that had been done; there was a motion on the floor to adopt Exhibit I, excluding Program 27. Councilmember Eyerly, referring to the first page of Exhibit I, said he had problems with Policy 9, "Reduce Employee or Com- muter Parking in Resideritial Neighborhoods," as well as the last paragraph or. the first page, "The 1978 Downtown Park i rig Management Plan," specifying steps which could be taken, etc., which seemed to indicate, erroneously, that the Council had accepted the Downtown Management Parking Plan. He suggested the adding of a phrase such as, "...as presented by the Consultant.,.," so as to clearly indicate that the Council had not yet accepted the Plan. Regarding Program 24, "Help Plan and Develop Short -Term Parking," the last sentence had been added to a program contained in the original 1975 Comprehensive Plan and had been moved by the Planning Commission down to Program 27, but he felt it still belonged back with Program 24: "Private business should provide more long-term employee parking in assessment district areas as it is needed; the short-term and long-term parking should primarily be below ground or multi -story parking structur=es, so as not' to replace business and homes with extensive surface parking." Mayor Henderson explained that one program dealt with the, public sector and the other with the private sector. Program 24 referred to public action to help plan end develop short- erm parking; Program 27 was under 'Privately -Provided Parking," and spoke of requiring new developments to provide a proportion of their long-term requirements. Councilmember Eyerly was still convinced that the statement belonged under Program 24, not under Program 27; he felt, further,' that they were not 'yet in any position to accept Program 27 Regarding .Program 26, hethought the statement, ...Consider the use of park -and -ride lots located at the edge of the, city...A way of helping to reduce the effects of commute traffic is to use shuttle b,4ses to take people to their yobs from outlying parking lots...," could be used advantageously with .Program 23 at the time of its implementation. In summary, he. Was not in any position to accept Item 22, because of the problems hi`' had with Exhibit 1, and which he felt warranted more debate. Mayor Henderson acknowledged that that a fair debate. Councilmember Renzel said her understanding was tt1at::Exhibit 1 was a> retyping of a plan that Council had considered,. but from the, -recent exchanges, she was now gathering that, because the 6 1 7 1/26/81 3> Downtown Parking Management Plan -,as still under consideration, this particular section had not in fact been adopted Mayor fiendnrson thought he could clarify this for her. He had just received a note from Mr. Schreiber, stating that Policy 9 was approved by the Council as Program -29, which stated, -"Reduce employee or commute- relate parking in residential neighborhoods."' Therefore, although Council may have belayed on some of the parking -related details, they had adopted the the -most important part of Exhibit I - the pol icy. Councilmember Renzel said she had tried comparing Exhibit I - - wi.th the section of the plan it was supposed to.,replace, and it appeared to be basically intact,. other than Program 27, which was new. She asked the City Attorney if a new program sent to Council by the Planning Commission necessitated the requisite - public hearings at Council level, etc, before it could be adopted. City Attorney Abrams explained.that it would not require a new set of hearings, if, in the Council's opinion, the new program was a natural outgrowth of the changes sent back to the Planning Commission. A_totally new program, however, would require public-hearings"at Counc rlevel, etc. Mayor Henderson said that, as he interpreted it, the one new section was Program 27; all the other material did appear in the Comprehensive Plan. Public hearings would have to be held, if desired, on Program 27. Councilmember Renzel confirmed her understanding that, with reference to the remainder of the material, Council should basically be dealing only with those areas where substantive changes had been made by the Planning Commission. Vice -Mayor Fletcher concurred that Program 27 was the only really new section; regarding the program study suggested in the Downtown Parking Management Plan, the feasibility study was accepted'by the Council and had become City policy. Councilmember Bechtel, referring to the motion to exclude Program 27 from the approval list, asked Mayor Henderson if he was proposing that it be returned to the -Policy and Procedures Committee for -:More discussion, after the public hearing and if the motio, passed. Mayor Henderson confirmed that his proposal' was to return it, not in,relation to the Comprehensive Plan, but as a separate item. -He then opened the hearing to members of the public. Ned. Gallagher, 440 Melville Avenue, of Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., pointed out that the Planning Commission had not just addressed itself to -:changes made by the Council but had incorporated these into -the Comprehensive Plan as Exhibit 1. They were.,very concerned; that this new integral part of -the Plan was being presented to Council for approval at this point in time, with -major changes and with recommendations, for immediate haste An the approval process.. They felt,it unwise, because portions of Exhibit I were not continuous with relevant portions of„the Plan, or compatible -with touncills original intent. Mr. Gallagher then read a letter from the Downtown Palo Alto Inc. to the City: ,Cdunci l , dated January 28, 1981-, a ;copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, stating, i.n summary, that organization's opposition to the" adoption of the new=, -Program 27 - The main reasons for, opposition were that it Was in -opposition to >th-e basic .purpose. of the parking assessment district`s that was created`to, achieve collective solutions to parking problems in the Downtown - area, rather than ,relying on piecemeal -and--sporadic -individual-efforts by._properties on small lots. . 6,',1 8 1/26/81 Ryland Kelley, 30.5 Lytton, of the Parking Assessment District, wished to add to points made by Mr. Gallagher only that the_ Parking Assessment District did.exist; was available for use, and had participated with the Downtown Parking Inc. in parking studies which had illuminated the fact that ' there was at least a 2,000 -car parking shortage.,for employees and that these cars were spread throughout the nearby residential areas. It has been the desire of the Parking Assessment District to reduce this significantly by the creation of additional parking, to be paid for by taxes against the property Several requests had been made to 'Council for the acquisition of new property and studies for structural parking, with no actions that they -could see forthcoming toward solving this problem. They did :rot believe a solution could even be approached by requiring new developments to provide employee parking. The solution had to be a collective one, and they stood ready to cooperate with an aggressive program to help alleviate the parking shortage.. Saskia Boissevain, 410 Cambridge Avenue, Manager of the California Ayenue Area Development Associates, said CAADA's main concern for their parking was the financing of current and future bonds, taking into consideration their intent to double -deck the lots and perhaps sell off some of the smaller lots to help finance the bonds. A recently proposed five -story develor3ment on the corner of Cambridge and Birch had raised some questions regarding the provision of parking for new business, She asked. if there was any means by which new businesses could pay a retroactive proportion of the costs of the existing bonds, and about the possibility of handling the bonding by having new business buy into the district, as did San Mateo and Menlo Park, and how condos and apartments would fit into their parking district. Mayor ,Henderson mentioned that Program 27 would apply to the -.California Avenue Assessment District, not only to the Univer- sity Avenue District, which presented some additional problems for him. There being no other member of the public to speak to the issue, Mayor Henderson then called Council's attention to -the motion on the floor to delete Program 27. He asked Coun- cilmember Eyerly, who had expressed concern about the enure Exhibit, if he could urge him to act on that motion, and then make a motion to delete the entire Exhibit I, if he so desired. Councilmember Eyerly replied that he wished to make a subst tue motion, as he would uot. be satisfied with the removal of onlyi, Program 27. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Eyerly moved that Item 22 be removed, in its entirety, from discussion that evening. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Renzel strongly supported -the concepts in Program 27, but she thought that, it would be wiser, pr;ocedurally, to continue it for., proper discussion at a later date. Mayor Henderson argued that then they would be unable to com- plete the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Renzel countered that the Program was not prop erly before them as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Fazzino interjected here that it Was his assump- tion ' that any Colunc i lmember could bring the subject up for discussion at any time.. His motion was to remove the program from the .Comprehensive Plan that evening. Councilmember Renzel concurred she did feel that the Planning Commission had made a very compelling case. All of the exist- ing .assessment district funds currently being collected were 6 1 9 1/26/81 paying for parking that was already in place, not for any future marking. New developments were being built daily with no parking provisions, thus using up the existing parking, compounding the problems for the assessment districts. She felt this was a serious problem and would reluctantly support the deletion of it at that time, so that they could proceed with adopting the rest of the Comprehens:iv' Plan. Mayor Henderson wished to emphasize that he agreed with the principles behind the program; he was just concerned with the ramifications and did not feel he could move to make At a firm policy that quickly. Councilmember fazzino also reiterated his cmpathy and concern with the problem and was very concerned that its implementation in its present form would hurt small parcel owners and severely hurt the revitalization program of the downtown area. AMENDMENT. -1.0 AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: ..The Amendment to Amendment to the Motion to accept all of amended Item 22, ex,ept for Program 27 and the material right under it, passed unanimously. Counci lmember Levy had some changes, relating to other programs and policies, for Exhibit I. First, he thought the first paragraph confusing because it did not specifically state assessment districts as being either private or public. He suggested the following wording for the first sentence: "Park- ing spaces are provided by private property owners or the city through on -street parking and assessment districts." Mayor Henderson pointed out that the assessment districts were not city -owned. Counci lmember Levy quoted the beginni ng of the next paragraph as statiii "Assessment districts have been used to develop publiclly-owned parking lots," so he assumed that the term "public" included assessment districts, which in that context were further discussed as a public item. This was precisely the confusion he was trying to clarify. Mayor Henderson suggested the wording be, "on -street parking," and "public lots." Councilmember Levy then suggested the following the following motion: AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT, TO MOTION: Counci lmember Levy moved,. seconded by Fazzino, to amend the first line of Exhibit f to acid, after "owners," "...the city, through on -street parking, and through assessment districts," so as to read: "Parking spaces are provided by private property owners, the city, through on -street parking, and assessment distracts." AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to Amendment:to,.the Motion passed unanimously. Counci lmember Levy then :rloved on to Program 24, where he sug- gested the deletion of the last sentence in that paragraph, which stated: "Extensive long-term"daytime .parking on streets next to business districts hurts the,residential-areas and should be prevented through, regulations," because of the immpl ication that sho!^ --term parking was more desirable than long-term parking. IW his opinion, short-term parking was more disruptive of a residential area, besause of -more traft is movement. Mayor Henderson suggested the alternative of just deleting the phrase "long-term," to read, 'Extensive ..daytime parking... regulations." Counci:member-,Fazzino concurring, the following motion was made: } . 5 2 0 "1/26/81 AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, to remove the ;cords "long-term," from the fifth line of the text below Program 24, in Exhibit I. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to Amendment to the Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Levy then referred to Program 26; it appeared to him that the use of taxicabs should be considered for carrying passengers into the downtown -areas from the parking lots, in addition to shuttle busses. He thought that, in the long run, they would prove more economical; they were already in exis- tence and were paid to carry people all day, ,while the shuttle busses would be used primarily for commute traffic. He made the following motion. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to change the wording to; "A way of helping to reduce the effects of commute traffic LS to use shuttle busses or cabs to take people to their jobs from outlying parking lots," in Program 26. Vice -Mayor Fletcher suggested the wording "shuttle busses, cabs or other forms of transportation," be substituted. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to add the words,- "or other forms of transportation," to Program 26, to read, "A way of helping to reduce the effects of commute traffic is to use shuttle busses, cabs or other forms of transportation to take people to their jobs from outlying parking lots." Councilmember Renzel remarked that the outlying parking lots were supposed to reduce commute traffic, and having cabs run- ning tack and forth seemed to somewhat defeat that purpose. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The substitute Amendment to Amendment to the Motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon NOES: Fazzino, Renzel Vice -Mayor Fletcher had minor question regarding Policy 9, "Reduce Employee oir Commuter Parking." She wondered what the difference was Between "employee" ,=nd "commuter." The dictionary- defined both as "a person who traveled regularly between two points of the same distance." She made the following motion: AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Vice -Mayor Fletcher:, moved to remove the word "employee" from Policy 9. The motion dies for lack of a second. Counoilmember Eyerly, referring to Exhibit I, suggested adding the words "as presented by the Consultant," after "the 1978 Downtown Parking Management Plan," :in the last paragraph, of the first page. Mayor Henderson commented that those words would still give the impression that the Downtown Parking Management Plan had been approved. • 6 2 1 1/26/81 Director of Planning _and Community Environment Naphtali Knox interposed here ti'at the City :.Council had approved and adopted the Downtown Parking Managrent Plan, consisting of short-range, mid -range, and long-range steps, but had not yet proceeded with implementing the mid -range portion. 'Councilmember Eyerly then referred to Program 24, the descrip- tion in the first paragraph, reading, "In its Assessment Districts the City should emphasize providing more short -time shopper parking," and made the following motion: AMENDMENT TO_AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved to add, "and at the same time provide more long-term employee parking to take care of the long-time shortage," to the description in.the.first paragraph of Program 24, to read: "In its Assessment Districts the' City should emphasize providing more short-time_shopper parking, and at the same time provide more long-term employee parking to take care of the long-time shortage." The motion died for lack of a second. Counci lriembor Eyerly then referred to -Program 26, and made the following motion: AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Levy, to add the following sentence before the initial description: "This program could be used advanta- geously with Program 23 at the time of its implementation." Councilmember Eyerly felt that this would be a real opportunity to tie the regulating of parking out of the business district with providing a place for employees to move to, as there would be less problem if the two programs were done in concert. Councilmember Fazzino had no problem with the language, but voiced the sobering thought that they had spent more time discussing the Comprehensive Plan than had been spent iri drafting the Constitution of the United States. He understood Councilmember Eyerly's approach, but he strongly urged the Council to refrain from rewriting so much of the'language. He did not feel drafting the Plan by Committee was the best proce- dure; Council should set the policy, and then stay with the. language as set forth by staff. AMENDMENT TO' AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED: The Amendment to Amendment to the Motion to add a sentence to the initial description in Program 23 failed on the following vote: AYES: - Bechtel, Eyerly, Levy, Witherspoon NOES: Fazzino, Fletcher, Hend"'rson, Renzel CounciLuember Renzel referred to Item 13 on Page 13D, ,stating that this should be deleted, because it replaced a former program and had the effect of adding an incentive for mixed development, including housing in non-residential zones, rather than an incentive for straight housing. The desired result was to encourage employee housing near industrial .,sites, so :that people who work in Palo Alto could also live in the city. She therefore made the following motion: AMENDMENT" TO AMENDMENT TO. MOTION:- Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by r' 1 etcher, to delete Item 13 from ire approval list of Items 13-25 of the Planning Commission recomaMendations. 6 2 2 1/26/81 AMENDMENT TO AMEN0M NT TO MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to Amendment to the Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Renzel then referred to Item 19, making the following motion. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fazzino, to delete the phrase "to the bridge" in Item 19, so as to read, "Palo Alto continues to oppose an approach road south of University Avenue." AMENDMENT TO ,AMENDMENT 1=0 MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to Amendment to the Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Levy referred to Item 23, where it was suggested ,,that the phrase, -"appropriate traffic alternatives," be.changed to, "appropriate traffic solutions.". He admitted this might be: a minor change, but .he had found traffic solutions generally caused many more problems. He would therefore move to leave in the word "alternatives" and not change it to "solutions." AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved,: seconded by Dit erspoon, regarding item 23, to change the word "solutions" to. "alternatives," so as to read, "The City will work closely with the Community and School District to deter- mine appropriate traffic alternatives, when the safety of students ...cutback of school bus service." Commissioner Cullen said she was the Commissioner who had suggested the word change, because in the context it seemed to put the burden on the school to find alternatives to traffic. The paragraph :!as really meant to address the question of edu- cation for bicycle use and crossing concerns for children, and for them to find a way of dealing with traffic. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED: The Amendment to Amendment to Motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Eyerly, Levy, Witherspoon HOES: Bechtel, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to the Motion to approve Items 13 through 25, and as amended, on ,?age 2 of the Planning Commission recommendations, passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy,. Renzel, Witherspoon NOES: Eyerly. Mayor Henderson sugges`eed that Council not attempt to hold an Executive. Session during recess, but after the meeting. RECESS Recess was held from 9:30 to 9:40 p.m. Mayor Henderson announced that he was certain there would not be time enough to discuss two items on, the new agenda,.the Member Service Agreement for the Northern California Power Agency, or the Cable Television Ownership Alternatives. 6 2 3 1/26/61 AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel :roved, seconded by Eyerly, to approve Items 26 through 30 of the Planning Commission recommendations dated.Janeary 15, 1981. AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: unanimously. The Amendment to the Motion passed AMENCMENT. TO AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to add the words, "environmentally accept- able," after "long term," to Item 31 of the Planning Commission recommendations, dated January 15, 1981. Councilmember Renzel explained that this was the description, on Page 59A, of the reason for the Bayl ands Master Plan, and that the mandate from BCDC had used the wares "environmentally acceptable." AMENDMENT TO AM.ENDMENLTO MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to Arendmeiit to the Motion passed unanimously. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to approve Item 32 of the Planning Cornnission recom- mendations, dated January 15, 1981. AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to the Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Henderson went on to Item 33, questioning a large dele- tion. Councilmember Bechtel explained that the deletion was of the second paragraph under "Transportation Heading," dealing with an extension of Willow Road from Arboretum Road to. El Camino Real. Mr. Schreiber pointed,out that, given the action on the 0-revi- ous agenda item, the Plan still showed the.extension. • Mayor Henderson agreed that the Plan map showed an extension of Willow Road; therefore, it would be inconsistent to approve the deletion. .,1 Councilmember Bechtel suggested a motion to retain subject paragraph, because it did include the sentence, "In solving the severe traffic congestion problems in this area, solutions othor than extending the road should be considered. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded `y Henderson, to retain Item 33 of the Planning Commission recom- mendations, dated January i5, 1981. AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The amendment to the Motion passed unanimously,Witherspoon not participating. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Levy, to approve Item 34 of the Planning Commission. recommenda- tions, dated January 15, 1981. AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to the Motion passed unanimously. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletche to accept the planning Commission recommendation regarding Item 35 to change zaniri. 6.2 4 1/26/81 i Councilmember Renzel reminded Council of the many discussions on the jobs/housing imbalance and or:the many projections that their actions would exicerbte the situation. She pointed out that the particular site under considerat-ion was substantial, and was located near transportation and within walking distance of an entire shopping ind 'commercial area, of the -industrial park, and of the transit center at El Camino and Page Mill. She thought this an ideal=.location for housing, and a real opportunity for'them to ensure the building of housing there: She urged Council to support what she termed a farsighted action on the part of the Planning Commaission. Councilmember Witherspoon thought that the area in its present state, with its interesting mix of housing and commercial, was exactly what they had , been encouraging all along. Councilmember Eyerly would agree with Councilmember Renzel, but thought that it would be wiser not to change the area, con- sidering its present state of development, as mentioned by Councilmember Witherspoon. Changing it might disturb -some commercial parcels along Park,Boulevard which might well be left commercial, with the development taking place there now. He reminded Council of their many discussions regarding that zoning and of the decision made to leave it as. it was, and he supported that decision. Vi- -Mayor Fletcher said that, the previous discussion had been influenced a great deal by the neighborhood's fears of being impacted by a great deal more traffic if the area were changed to residential. Since then, they seemed more informed of the effects a zoning change would have, and that it would probably impact them less than `the present zoning. She would have no difficulty in leaving the zoning as it w,as, if they could guarantee that it would. become and/or remain truly a mixture of residential and commercial. However, there was no way under the present zoning laws that they could mandate that residen- tial be added to commercial. Given their choice now, she preferred residential. Mayor Henderson commented that they were having many problems with this issue,, because they had debated it for some time, and for a number of reasons had concluded that it was wiser to leave the zoning as it was. They were now hearing rumors to• the effect that the neighborh°-ad had changed its mind;: he had been working to get them to change their minds at the time, but he had no public input to that effect now, and there did not seem to be anyone to speak to the issue that evening. He realized decisions should not be !Ade on a.property based on what washappening at the time, but he did know mixed develop- ment had been ongoing, with all the plans being drawn based on statements Made before the Council. Therefore, he had problems with changing that in mid -stream, and he was also quite certain that there were not going to be any changas in the plan!: to an all commercial or an all -office building development within the next -year.. Hilly Davis, 344 Tennessee Avenue, informed the Council of the results of one of their neighborhood meetings. .The Evergreen Park Neighborhood did not have any objections to residential development on the site, if they could be assured that that the traffic generated by that development would not be allowed to travel through their neighborhood. MayorHendersondid nut feel the Council was prepared to give. such assurance; there was no guarantee that the entire area was to be closed off to traffic at that' Point. 6 2 5 1/26/81 Councilmember Renzel wished to reiterate that they were not dealing with a specific.applicatioC Certainly a_ developer had approached all of them and had indicated an interest in the site, but they were dealing with the general plans of the city and with how they wished the site developed. They had no guarantee of what would happen to a particular developer or his, -plans. She felt, therefore, that they really did have, to address the problem from the land use standpoint. They had lost nearly every other opportunity to rezone to residentia' thrughout the city; she thought it would be a real tragedy to lose tili s opportuni ty as well. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed that Council should consider the parcels from a strictly land lase point of view and not as an individual developer. However, even'consfdering the site only from the standpoint of 'its land use, she could not see California !,venue as a strictly residential area. She thought of it ideally as a mix, and greatly wished to explore, sometime in the future, some kind of mechanism that would require a mix. They did not have that now, and for that reason she felt they should stay with the commercial zoning for the present. AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED: The Amendment to the Motion, to uphold Item 35 of the Planning Commission recommendation, to change zoning, failed on the following vote: AYES: Fletcher, Renzel NOES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon Councilmember Bechtel confirmed from Mr. Schreiber, with regard to Item 36, that if the site were rezoned, there would be a 15 -year amortization period. She then asked if it was possible to build a heliport on top of a hospital building if it was structurally strong enough, and, should this be true, if a 15 -year amortization period would be adequate. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to,,uphold Item.36 of the Planning Commission recommendatidns, dated January 15, 1981. Mr. Schreiber replied that a. heliport could be placed on any type -of building which had enough space and met the structural requirements. Whether that could be done at Stanford hospital, now or in connection with remodeling, he really could not answer. Director of Planning for Stanford University, Phi1i`p Williams said Stanford was studying a number of housing .sites all of which they thought would be better for housing than for the heliport. They did not have another heliport site to propose in that area; therefore, they felt striingl,y it was inapp"opriatc at thattime to change the designation. To answer Councilmember Pechter's question, Stanford . had no buildings at the present time that, could suport a helicopter, It was possible that, as part of the hospita Y expansion, they would be able to provide such a building, but they could riot giveany assurance on that point at this point. Therefore, as far as they knew, the current heliport site was the best one for that purpose. Councilmember Eyerly said he resisted changing the zoning on the helipad, because he did not think that site was suitable for housing it was itolated from other hooting now and tilere. ) -6 2 6 1/26/8L was no possibility of its being joined to other housing in the future. He did not believe good planning called for housing it such isolated packets. 'As affirmed by Sanford, there were other, more suitable sites to consider for housing. Councilmember,Renzel stated that it had been brought out at the Planning,•Commission level, artd she had observed many timzs passing that particular site, the heliport was only a very small portion of that e!itire site; it as a large parcel and had been zoned R-4 at one the, as was the entire Welch Road site. Unfortunately, construction of professional offices was allowed under that designation, and that was the choice made for most of the other sites. She did not feel this site would be all that isolated; it -was certainly close to shopping and to a major employment center that was desperately in need of housing for its employees. In her opinion, it would be very short- sighted of the Council to fail to rezone some of the major sites that were still available. Councilmember Fazzino felt this was a difficult issue.- He had previously walked a tightrope and supported Stanford's request to keep the site as a heliport, but was not now so certain of the real need for a heliport on that site. There was no ques- tion in,,his mind that the heliport need could be met, given the possible expansion of the next few years. On the other hand, he was really concerned that this was not the ideal site for housing. It might be a unique and innovative mixed -use approach, and they might ask Stanford to consider it in that lights at the same time, he thought there were a number of other sites in the Stanford area which would be ideal for housing. He thought, perhaps at this point, it would be best to remain with their original recommendation, observe Stan- ford's development and commitment to the housing issue over the next few years, and possibly reconsider rezoning this site for multi -family residential, if they did not feel Stanford had kept up with the housing needs in that area. At this point, he would stay with the original recommendation, but it was not a strong vote in favor of, it. Councilmember Levy asked Mr. Schreiber if the map was drawn to scale; he was wondering if the site was twice as large as most of the other lots -along Welch Road. Mr..Schreiber answered that it was. Councilmember Levy said he was in agreement with Councilmember Renzel's statements about the suitability of the site for housing. He asked if there was any action Council open to Council to keep the. site for a heliport, but ensuring that any future development be residential, not commercial. He felt that, if Stanford had no alternative, the site could rennin a heliport -site, if it could be kept non-commercial.- Councilmember Bechtel explained that was the reason for `the. 15 -year amortization period. Councilmember Levy answered that he was willing give Stanford a lifetime amortization if they wished it, bout what -he did not - wish to see was for them to take -advantage of the need for a heliport'today, to build commercial on that site tomorrow. Mr. Abrams responded that the answer was very similar to one . given in answer to a question at than last meeting- chahge the nonconfora=ante ordinances to allow an expansion, an ongoing use, 'etc. However, h'e gave eiiat 'answer only in response to- a quiesti'on, not as a recommendation - it would strike. him as piece -by -piece legal planning. 6 2 7 1/26/81 Vice -Mayor Fletcher recalled that, upon the rezoning of 1100 Welch Road, she was approached, by several of the inhabitants of the Welch Road Office Buildings, who requested that she be sore to notify them as soon as the development was underway. They warted to get their applications in the mail as soon as possi- ble, because they welcomed the opportunity of being able to walk to work. She did not see that, the site was that unsuit- ble for housing, because it was surrounded by employment sites, filled with employees wishing to live near their work. Mr; Abrams wished to amplify and correct his last statement. He had,been reminded that, since the site was not yet noncon- forming, Stanford would be entitled to a .notice under the accepted procedure and could seek an exception under that process._ Councilmember Bechtel first suggested that one solution would be to grant a longer -amortization period than the present 15 years, and then stated her support of -the motion for the following reasons: (1) The site was practically across the road from the 46 -acre parcel that was being considered for housing, (2) housing was under construction down the road on a new parcel on Welch Road, and (3),they had certainly been encouraging mixed use of housing in downtown Palo Alto. Mayor Hendersonwas not sure how he would vote; he was a little tied to his opinions on the Varian property. He preferred housing on sites with other housing in sight somewhere on its four boundaries. He had doubts about housing surrounded by industry or commercial. He thought Varian was an improper location for housing , and was having some trouble with this; on the other hand, he was.committed to the housing program. Mayor Henderson then asked Mr. Williams if Stanford felt strongly about the unsuitability of the proposed heliport site for housing, or if their main concern was with protecting the heliport. Mr. Williams replied that Stanford was more concerned with with the former, but did have concerns about keeping the site as an academic use, which included a heliport, It was quite possible that, in the future, considering its .proximity to the hospital, they might consider the s.te more appropriate for another medical center/academic use than for housing, whatever .might be the final solution for a helliport. Ft- was also possible, that they would decide for housing, possibly open to people working in the area, but more likely restricted to those working in the medical center. In summary, Stanford considered it an ,academic site currently and di d:.. not intend fOr it to return to a development status. He could -not attest to the feasibility of planning to locate a heliport on top of new structures in connection with the proposed_,expansion of the medical center, although this really was th;ei r .preference. It would be better, i n the long run, to have a het,'cvpter land on the roof of the hospital and transport ,the patient directly. Counc.ilmember levy .thought he favored designating the site as residential, with' the idea that the heliport become a noncon.- forming use under that designation. Mayor Henderson clarified the point that a „15 -year amort i zat ian period would be imposed if the site became nonconforming. He was under the impression the Council was able to obtain a variance to continue that use. 6,2 9 1/26/81 Mr. Abrams explained that, as the code now read, all uses that ylere nonconforming as of June 1978 had two years thereafter to rile for an exception, and an exception period had be provided' also for those uses thereafter made nonconforming as a result of changes in the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent rezonings. If it was decided to designate the site nonconforming, Stanford was entitled to apply for an exception for period desired. Councilmember Levy asked when application should be made. Mr. Abrams answered that, upon the rezoning of a property to nonconforming, it was necessary to mndify the zoning ordinance to allow the exception process to be used by the new noncon- forming uses. A time limit was then set for those uses to come forward. Mayor Henderson clarified the motion as upholding Item 36 of the Planning Commission recommendations, which would change the zoniny of the site to multi -family residential, then to a nonconforming use with a 15 -year amortization period, with the prerogrative of seeking an exception. Planning Commissioner Cullen wished to reiterate the Planning Commission's position. They had taken a great deal of time, at Council -'s request, considering various parcels of land through- out the city; many of them which they considered not nearly as appropriate or attractive as the site under discussion. Very few of them were directly connected with a major employer who could control, in fact, the kind of housing that would be tied to the employment. The Planning Commission felt very strongly that this was an ideal spot for housing. Councilmember Faziino declared that he had been convinced. He would vote for the motion, because, as Commissioner Cullen had correctly stated. a number of possible sites had been consid- ered for housing in the last few months, on which they had, not taken supportive affirmative action_ HP_ thought. they would have to return to their housing policy as recorded inthe Plan. He did want to express his concern that this remain a`'heliport site for as long as Stanford needed it, and that, if any further development was necessary, it should be mixed -use and not commercial. AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to the Motion, to uphold Item 36 of the Planning Commission recommendations dated January 15, 1981, passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy NOES: Eyerly NOT PARTICIPATING: Witherspoon Councilmember Renzel wished to discessone more item regarding the Planning Commission recommendations. She said that part of the reason staff wished to change the map along the creekside was because a portion of what was intended to, be part of the Open Space Zone had been erroneously 'designated Major Insti- tutions in the 1975 plan, as though it were part of the Children's Hospital. Therefore, without reopening the Willow. - Road question, which had been.resolved that evening, she would like to move that the small portion erroneously designated Major. Institutions be redesignated CreeksideOpen Space. b 2 9 3./26,/8.1" 1 Mayor Henderson confirmed from Mr. Schreiber that this would merely be a correction of a clerical error. AMENDMENT TO MOT:ON: Councilmemer Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to go back and correct clerical error on Item 8 on agenda regarding changing "Major Institutions to "Creekside Open Space," in the Planning Commission recommendations of January 15, 1981. AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to t1, e Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Henderson thew asked for votes to -adopt Resolution 5869, as amended, adopting the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Eyerly'stated his negative vote on the adoption of _k.he Comprehensive Plan' for the following reasons. The 1976 - Plan as it had come to them from the Planning Commission had, very stringent policies and programs-, which were then tempered by the Council-. What had basically happened over the long process the past year was that those programs and policies -were_ reinstated, including many he had voted against because he did' not -feel they were right. He did not wish to go into detail, but wished to make some general comments. ire thought the Plan was ignoring many of the City's traffic problems, by removing the wording on policies on Willow Road. Page Mill Road had been removed. He felt the Baylands Master Plan was wrong in removing the Yacht Harbor and opting for the ITT excavation, and this would eventually show in the cost of waste disposal to the residents of the city. Regarding housing; the thrust of the Plan now was completely for providing more low and moderate income housing. He was not against this, but he thought consideration needed to -be given to all levels of housing. In fact-, there was some -wording in the Plan to that effect, but the Council has rot been willing to try to speak to that in any policies or. programs. He had already (poken that evening on the Downtown Parking problems-, a large section of which he thought will have major impact on the downtown area. He just could not support that whole section. There were policies within the Comprehensi ve Pl an which had }been supported by the Council, but which needed more debate before being incorporated into the' Plan. Twa which came to mind were an age discrimi- nation ordinance in rental housing, and the prevention of intensification of employees by current employers in expansion of their properties. There -were many such others- in the Plan, and -he just could not accept a Plan which spelled out policies in detail, because, as -he had learned in the past four or five years with the -current Comprehensive Plan, _people expect exactly what is contained in the Plan. The consequent public pressure on the Council made. it ,very difficult ,to back away from former decisions, Vice -Mayor Fletcher had some comments on the Environmental Assessments which were being approved as part of the Resolu- tion. Page -12, under the program to develop Downtown Park North, the impact assessment did not mention the negative impactNon the BMR rental housing stock in the city. Mr. Schreiber responded that, if there were ,no objection, the. negative impact could be so noted and included in the _environ mental. document. Counci lmember Witherspoon commented_ that the housing was there as`a kind of serendipit;, because the original plan had called for a park in that location. ,'The housins; was left in the interim until the development of . the park. She therefore thought it legitimate not tomake the negative impact on - the rental housing stock a major .concern. 6 3 0 1/26/81 ,J1 interim until the development of the park. She therefore thought it legitimate not to make the .negative impact an the rental housing stock a major concern. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Vice -Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by tlenzel, that, as part of the impact of development of Downtown Park North, there is a negative impact on the BMR program. AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to the Motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel NOES: Eyerly, Levy, Witherspoon AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Vice -Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, tv include bicycling and walking, with carpooling and vanpooling, in the item under the Transportation Program, "Encourage Employees to Establish Transportation Coordina- tors. It AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The Amendment to the Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Levy stated his support of the Comprehensive Plan, calling it c large and complex document which it was iuiipossible to agree with totally. He thought it -a. really, excellent document in the way it assessed traffic, housing, employment, use of school sites, etc. They had studied it in great detail, -and perhaps it was worthwhile at this time to "look at the forest rather than the individual trees." The main thrust of the Plan, as he saw it, was to maintain Palo Alto as the truly outstanding community that it was, where a modest population maintained parks, libraries, services and amenities usually available only in much larger cities, and where in those cities, they were far more t:rowded, much less well maintained, and the populace was much less well served. He did not want to vote on it without very highly commending the Planning Commission. As much time as -Council had spent on the PTO, they had spent far more, with a. tremendou-s. conscientiousness, and he, for one, was very appreciative of all their their work. Mayor Henderson said Councilmember Levy had taken his speech." He wished tb respond to-Councilmember Eyerly'"s statements. He had supported the original Comprehensive Plan that was changed in 1976, so he' was relatively pleased with the present Plan.. As Councilmember Eyerly had said, it was not perfect, and he even agreed with some of his stz.ements, but he thought it a very good Plan. He too, wanted to thank the .Planning Commis- sion, all those in attendance and the others. He knew he spoke for the entire Council and staff. MOTION PASSED: The Motion to approve Resoluton 5869, as amended, adopting a Comprehensive Plan for the Development o the City of Palo Alto, passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon NOES: Eyetrly 6 3 1 1/26/81 DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMR:111:1) Vice -Mayor Fletcher-, Chairperson of the Policy and Procedures Committee, gave a brief history of the Downtown Parking Management Plan. A study Was commissioned --and completed -almost three years ago. It had been approved at the Council'level, then referred to the Finance and Public Works Committee for the implementation stage. The Finance and Public Works Committee, after discussion, was unable -to reach agreement or give any recommendations, so it was returned to Council: It was then seat to the Policy and Procedures Committee, which has Submitted the following recommendations. The discussion focused primarily on two documents: (1) the Staff Report dated October -2, 1980, which listed 8 alternative actions which could be taken to deal with the parking problems of downtown Palo Alto, giving the advantages and disadvantages of each, and (2) the Memorandum from. Vice -Mayor Fletcher to the Committee, listing 7 suggested possible actions for downtown. MOTION: Vice --Mayor Fletcher as chairperson of the Pol i c,y; and _ Procedures Committee, introduced the following recommendations regarding the Downtown Parking Management Plan: 1 By unanimous vote, that the matter of re-routing transit buses onto University Avenue be kept in committee pending a report from staff, who will consult with the County; and that meanwhile the suggestion for better signing be implemented. 2, By unanimous vote, that as many bicycle lockers as possible be implemented in the downtown area. 3. By unanimous vote, approval of the staff recommendations listed below, with Homer being the limit at this time, preserving the potential to expand the area out if necessary in order to prevent a creep of the problem further out: a. Implement a residential and commuter permit system, with alternate mode program as presented in CMR:352:0 and Attachment 8, which includes a signing provision which limits commuter parking to one side of the block so as to provide relief to resident. b. Investigate the feasibility,of building parking struc- tures. Implement an alternative modes program including, but nut limited to, bike lockers, car pooling,., van pooling,. discounted transit/SP passes, shuttle service ,from park and ride lots. The Committee further -recommends teat the Planning Commis- sion explore the possibility of having the 'rate structure in private oarking facilities comparable to the City's public parking rate : structure. - 4. By vote of 3-0-1, Witherspoon abstaining, that the City Council encourage the downtown people to=hire a transpor- tation coordinator. Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville A=venue, Executive Director of Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., referred'to a report from his organization to the Council, dated January, '8,"1981,„a coy of 6 3 2 1/26/81 which is on file in the Office .of the City Clerk. He said he would not repeat the contents, except for two items. (1) Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., strong j agreed with the recommendation for investigating thn feasibility of building parking structures (subpara.rph 3 b), pointing out that there was already a vehicle - the University Ayenue Parking Asses»ment District,- for a omplishing this in an organized manner. Preliminary investigations had disclosed some excellent possibilities, one of which was to use the existing parking lots that were completely screened -from public View, specifically, Parking Lot J, already .the subject of a letter to Council in -May 1979.° (2) Referring to the recommendation for the "downtown people" to hire a- transportation coordinate, (subparagraph 4), the Downtown Palc Alto, Inc., felt the idea sounded fine generally; but they would like a specific job description, s� that they could comment more -intelligently on' the -subject.- It also lent itself to an organization which they were working towa,r'd--, a Downtown Business Improvement District.., in which he thought a traffic coordinator could lend valuable assistance,_to the general ideal of providing close coordination with the city on parking and traffic matters. Bill Byxbee, of Downtown.?alo Alto, Inc., ponted out that the the Comprehensive Plan and the Staff Report an the Downtown Parking Management Plan of October 2, 1980, indicated that 24% of those persons,,occupied or -employed in downtown Palo Alto use other modes of transportation than the automobile - carpools, bicycles, busses, rides from friends, or walking. Off-street parking facilities were available fur 54% of the downtown working force. Consequently, 78% used means of commuting which did not require parking on the neighboring residential streets. In their opinion, this was a very good record, and certainly meant the City did not have a parking crisis. Trie difference, or at least 22% of employees, were not p rkirrg on neighboring residential streets. in terms of magnitude, this represented a current shortfall of some 1800 long-term parking spaces, a difference of 200 in short -fall between that and the 2,000 long-term parking spaces described in the Downtown Parking Management Program. Within the private sector, two business organizations had •constructed extra employee parking lots, providing for some 100 spaces. Within the public sector, the Assessment District, at least 100 long-trm off-street parking spaces were established, some -.,on the new Ki pl i ng ..,tree t Parking Lot, some added :n existing parking lots through parking engineering adjustments. He,__complimented Mrs. Joan, Thomp.on, of the Palo Alto Transportation Staff, for her work in parking lot design. He did not agree with the Comprehensive Plan projections for an :increase of 800 downtown employees by 1990, calling attention to tP:e qmi nirnal amount of property available for construction within the .downtown area. He also noted that new developments outside the Assessment District Were required to provide employee parking, and within the District, at least some new employers would voluntarily provide parking space. Taking everything into consideration, Downtown Palo Alto Inc., projected: a difference of -only i00 new parking spaces needed by. 1989. Regarding what could be done to mitigate the -expected shortfall of -2200 off-sreet parking spaces: (1 ). An ade04te number of -tricycle and Moped lockers could --prove an inducement to the 1500 downtown employees who reside within a,two-mike radius; carpioling----was implemented lay the, City's Transportation Plan, and improv-ed, bus scheduling could enti e more ..bus ride s. (2).Regarding the enhancement ' of off-street p"a*king, he recommended serious consideration ,of using Parking Lot J multi-story`'parking--structure'. _In -'summary, he, 633 1/26/81 suggested that the Council take action by authorizing the prep- aration of a feasibility study on building a multi-stor•_y garage cn Lot J, and implement the Transportation Division's proposal for installation of bl,cycle iockers. Cliff Chambers, 18.37 Bryant Street, a new resident of Palo Alto, having been employed, as Transportation Manager in San Francisco, on similar programs, wished to briefly share some of the results. About'a year ago, 13 institutions in San Fran- cisco, including hospitals, universities, and private insurance companies, combined to:develop a broad array of transportation programs that included many of the means of alternative com- muting mentioned in the ree'immend tions.,,A year -long study disclosed a reduction in single-cccupied automobile commuters of 15%, accomplished by increasing ride sharing by 30% and improving public transportation by 20%. This..was all made possible by the creation of a public and private `partnership, which had never really been tried before, although_ i.t was beginning to be done now, for instance by the Santa Clara County Manufacturers' Association. Also, this was a compre- hensive program; there was no ore strategy singled out; they were flexible and were able to implement programs that had a broad appeal: They used transportation coordinators tc, work at the site,:and they were able to utilize some marketing skills and personalized matching quite successiully. They realized that there was a very.strong relationship between parking management and the effectiveness of TSM.PrograM implementation. In summary, he said he felt the whole concept as being approached that evening was a real opportunity, and one that should be given careful consideration, and would, hopefully, be a access. Kerm Knopf, 930 Palo Alto Avenue, thought that the recommen- dations, for the most part, addressed many of the parking problems with creative solutions. Referring to the recommen- dation for implementing a residential and commuter permit system, including a signing provision for commuter parking to one side of the block (subparagraph -3 a), he :Lommented that:this would be creating a type of "musical chairs." By suddenly wiping out about a third of the neigh- borhood parking, he cold see a real problem, with people 'bumping" for the spaces left. He suggested that other parking be provided before implementing this recommendation. Referring to the recommendation to investigate the feasibility of .huild- ing parking structures (subparagraph 3 b)', he commented that he honed for fast ,implementation. .Referring to the recommendation regarding rate structures in private lots versus public lots paragraph 3), he thought there should not be any rent contro`t' on the private par.kirig sector-; further, that the`' public rate structure should be increased. Mayor Henderson wished to acknowledge the receipt of a °letter from the Peninsula Times Tribune. Counci lmember Renzel reminded Council of their 1er4thy struggle with the Downtown Parking Management Plan, and their realization that they needed some kind of comprehensive appreach, that .involved a mode of obtaining revenue to support alternate modes and construction of additional parking down- town, and that ,'there really had to be alternatives to the single -passenger -commute cars in order to reduce the demand for parking, at the same time reducing the'on-street parking supply in the residential neighborhoods. Theend result had been a return to the bas. c recommended Parking Management Plan,' with a somewhat, narrower, _parameter in terms pf the on -`street parking 6 3 4 1/26/81. limitations. She thought, however, the original Plan had been well thought out and that it did provide, at the sane time, a means of increasing parking, alternatieve modes, and a revenue `source for implementing these solutions. :t was.very clear to. her that the Assessment District was not providing adequately for the current demand. It had been disclosed at their meeting that about 50% of the supply side of the figures used by staff was private.parking -'it was not permanent Assessment District parking. At the same time, the vacant land being considered for development was -not considered as part _of the demand side for parking. Therefore, at any time, appreximately 50% of the. spaces downtown could be removed to create buildings, losing the parking and cti'eating tore demand. She thought., it impera- tive that Council begin now with scme sort of creative solution to the parking problems. It was her opinion that serious con- sideration must be given to some '.:ind of parking structures downtown, but:that Assessment District funds should not be spent only on parking structures; the City had a responsibility for setting in motion a comprehensive parking plan. She there- fore supported the Committee recommendations. Mayor Henderson recalled extremely strong statements by present members -of the Cou.:ci l that under no circumstances would they ever consider building parking structures, and he did not want. to send staff off on a very expensive, lengthy feasibility study.., if the Council was not really serious about this alternative. The second problem he had dealt with was the probable immediate results of implementating the residential commuter permit system. He asked what provision was made to take care of the replaced demand in the immediate future. The feasibility of -a parking structure was years and years down the line, He had some problems with implementing the permit system without an immediate, really significant means for taking care of the demand - he did not feel that 400 bike -lockers could take care of 1,000 cars. . Councilmember Bechtel said that she thought that objection had been answered. She sympathized with Mayor Henderson's concern, and thought Ned Gallagher's concern as stated in his letter was one that the Committee was very aware of - the City could not just prohibit parking on -half of the streets without providing an alternative. She thought that was why the Committee was proposing a really multi -mode type of program, including outlying lots with some sort of shuttle system, arid that they did realize construction of a parking structure took a long time. She thought Councilmember Renzel's points were well. taken - that there were 2,000 parking spaces short of the projection, that those 2,000 packers were parking outside someone's ho►e,`,that one parking structure alone could not approach solving the problem. They had just begun, with`the cooperation of the downtown people and the downtown ! transportation committee, wring on the -carpooling and .vanpnoltn g program. All theO. approaches had to be strongly encouraged. Speaking,to-the recommendations specifically, she did not wish to see implementation of the commuter permit system (subparagraph 3b) until some alternate parki ng was provided. She, believed .a disincentive had to be accompanied by ihcentives. Mayor Henderson asked if that item should not then remain in Committee until some evidence was received that they were in a position to move on. Counci lmember,Bechtel replied that staff wished stronger support - a crucial point was that a grant, appi icat;on ;was', involved. 6 3 5' 1/26/81' - Councilmember Levy said he had receiied "mixed signals" from Associate Planner Joan Thompson's memo dated January 20. 1981, relating to a meeting on downtown parking. -Under "Lot Utili- zation Survey Results," it stated, "The Committee discussed the attached utilization survey results. During peak hours, the two-hour stalls in lots F, K, L, and at the Civic Center, were consistently under-utilized." The memo futher stated, on page 2: "Since t'ie Civic. Center Garage has over 100 unsold permit stalls, the Committee did not want to add permit stalls, even though the two-hour stalls are under-utilized." What_ he under- stood from the foregoing was that the parking problem was by no means universal, that there were a number of.lots that were constantly under-utilized, and that the Civic Center's permit stalls were under-utilized. Mrs. Thomspson replied that he was --correct. There was an excess of permit stalls in the Civic Center and there were several lots where, around noontime, the short-term parking was not being fully uti l i-zed.. Counci]member Levy asked for an explanation. Mrs. Thompson thought a great deal of it related to the -convenience of the parking. It had been discovered, in attempting to sell the Civic Center permit slots, that people preferred to remain on the waiting list for a lot located at the rear of their place of employment, rather than park in .the garage and walk a few blocks. Also, it was very hard to sell permits for the Civic Center lot to people who were parking on residential streets for free, and walking two blocks to their work, where they would have to walk and pay to park in the garage. Counci lmember' Levy asked about the under -utilization of the two-hour stalls. Mrs. Thompson said this had been discussed in Committee, and their only answer was that:perhaps this was related to convey{fence. Apparently, drivers preferred to drive around the block to park in front of their destination, than park in a lot and.walk a few blocks. Counci lmember Levy responded that what he was hearing, then, was that there was no shortage of short -terra parking, and that t le long-term parking was probably a case of people using. residential streets. In answer to the concerns expressed by Counci lmember Eyerly and othei s, at least to the degree of those 100 unsold permit stalls in the_Civic-Center, they could immediately decrease the amount of long-term parking available on the streets by 100 spaces. As -he understood it, the problem had to be addressed, in a way, in relation to the specific location of parking availabilities Mrs. Thompson wished to add that the excess in the Civic Center might perhaps be temporary - Northern Calfornia Savings had mOed .out':;ot about 100, .stalls . and 'Pacific Telephone was build- lag a new_ addition which might 'need some° permanent stalls. Therefore, many of the empty pereiit stalls might be sold in the next few months. Couilcilmember Levy said Ke hoped the city's vanpoo1iny,program might gI t: free even more parking stalle. He stated . he. general ly agreed With the recommendations, but wanted to make some com- ments: Regardi ns the recommendation to re-route busses. onto University Avenue (paragraph 1), he thought it very important that public transportation not be overemphasized to the: detriment of the overall aesthetics of the downtown area, as important as it mdy be. Regarding paragraph 2, he agreed that - s. 6.. 1 6 W26/81 bicycle lockers should be placed in as Many locations as pos- sible in the downtown area, but he thought there -should be a - caveat, which -may be implied, that. it should be consistent with satisfactory aesthetics and not interfere with pedestrian flow. Regarding subparagraph 3 c), one of the alternate modes sug- gested was discounted Southern Pacific passes. He personally had a fair amount of trouble with that, particularly for those who use the SP to commute out of Palo Alto. Commuters driving out of Palo Alto do not eeuse a -parking problem in Palo Alto. Secondly, he really questioned whether they should be further subsidizing those people who ride Southern Pacific, part cularly to San Francisco. He thought the, average income of the SP rider was much higher than that of the average resident of Palo Alto. Regarding paragraph 4, which recn-mmends that "...the Planning Commission explore the possibility of having the rate structure in private parking facilities comparable to,' the City's public parking rate structure," he thought the leaning should be clarified. What. he understood from it, was that the City'.s rates were lower than private rates, which should therefore be lowered to meet the public rates. He did not see how the City could control the rates imposed by the private sector - the City would have to raise its rates to meet the private parking rates, if compatibility was deemed necessary. 1 Couric.ilmenber Eyerly stated his objection to the recommendation for staff to study the possible re-routing of busses on Univer- sity Avenue (paragraph 1). He was sympathetic to the thrust of the recommendation for implementing a residential and commute permit system (subparagraph 3 a), but, as suggested by Coun- cilmember Bechtel, he thought that, considering the parking space shortage, it should be delayed until the establishment of some park and ride lots with a shuttle service, or the activa- tion of some of the other transportation mode programs. Regarding the Civic Center Garage, he pointed out that, besides Northern California moving out of it, the City had withdrawn quite a few stalls. He thought all the unused stalls would be put to use in very short order, as soon as the downtown com- muters realize they are free. Councilmember Witherspoon said she too did not, under any circumstances, want to see the busses re-routed on University Avenue. -She thought that, in general, this was _a multi -media approach to a very complex problem, and she would Prefer to -see the Council accept the Committee's recommendations, except for paragraph 1, and trust the. staff to implement then in a manner that was consistent,. and with good timing, so as to avoid throwing the different relements off. She Could see the imple- mentation_ of the plan taking more than a year. or sa,: step by step. Councilmember.Fazzino agreed with the comments made by Council - members Bechtel and Eyerly. He thought they would have pure chadsand pandemonium if they implemented the residential and commuter permit system (subpragraph 3 a), without the requisite park and lot ride alternative, and he thought they needed .to move quickly in establishing those alternatives. He therefore moved the following amendment. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Eazzino moved, seconded by Henderson, to amend subparagraph 3 a) of the Policy and Proce- dures Committee recommendations by inserting at the beginning of the . subparagraph: "When a park and ride lot or other ,=trans- portation alternativesare established, to..." Councilmember Fazzino assumed that the motion gave the staff the necessary policy to move =ahead and seek the transportation alternatives. He was so assured. Counci lmenber Witherspoon pesi nted out .that.. tftey had been count- ing on the revenue from the parking permits for the federal grant application. Councilmember Fazzino_said he seriously doubted that U.M._T.A. would be giving any grants that year, He then referred, to paragraph 4, the recommendation for the downtown peoples to hire a transportation coordinator. He thought this a very gbod idea and that whoever filled that position should become heav- ily involved in the ,ride -sharing prlgrams. He mentioned that a number of local corporations employed full-time transportation coordinators, citing the outstanding program_at HP. He would 'certainly encourage the Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., to work with the corporations to define that position more carefully. Vice -Mayor Fletcher opposed most of the foregoing statements, and reminded Council that the park and ride idea was soundly defeated by a great many people who pointed out that the idea had many problems. She thought a park and ride facility was a very worthwhile concept for long-distance commuters, but most commuters in the area lived within three or_four miles; it was not feasible to°expect people to drive their cars over to the baylands and wait around for a shuttle bus, for a short trip. She thought what needed to be done was to study the -overall transportation system; ;ler idea of re-routing the busses onto Jniversity Avenue was to couple it with removal of the .cars. She had been to a number of cities where this idea had been used very succe sfully. The congestion on University Avenue would be drastically re, :Iced if it were closed to cars, because the trips made by buses, running at half-hour intervals, would be far, far fewer than those made by cars, especially with the continual driving around looking for parking spaces. She quoted a report from Mr. Knox, .ATA California Planers Title, as mentioning bus stops as "...some of the liveliest, most attractive, most agreeable places of transportation connection points." She maintained that was the type of community inter- action people sought - they enjoyed being where they could walk around without automobile congestion and where there were other` people strolling around. This concept has worked in many places where the citizens had beep_originally opposed to it, but where some far-sighted planners had managed to persuade them otherwise. :As part of the plan, she alto wished the City would consider a jitney service; perhaps this could be under- taken,.by the transportation coordinator. There were any number of facts _and figures available to them dealing with 'where -- people live and what type of trips_they made; for instanc , just: -that week she had received a good deal -of information on a jitney service being proposed by the City of Berkeley. The projection= there was that the service would become entirely self-supporting after the initial investment. The.most effec- tive method for encouraging the use of. alternate modes of transportation was to reduce the. number ,of parking spaces. She quoted from an analysis by MTC "Control strategy which will decrease the tingle' driver autosr to the,_,greatest extent is still to reduce the number of parking spaces-, available and thereby increase walking distance and hence walking time for: auto drivers." She reiterated that transit, including busses - ond jitneys,,- should be placed exactly at most commuters` desti.- nations - University Avenue.: The jitney service could take the. farm of .q, ,shared tali system, as in washingt'one D.C., where taxi l.ic,ense$. were_ issued to..indivldual drivers, who then.: pick 6 3 9 1/26/81 ' l1 up multiple passengers on their way to work. This was also mentioned in the Berkeley jitney study. There were many means of moving people downtown without their getting into their own cars and parking in a congested area. Palo Alto residents were constantly complaining about the amount of traffic and con- 9estion in their area; she could not see why they would be attracted to shopping areas which were really congested and where there was constant traffic. Discussing the recommendations further, Vice -Mayor Fletcher said she approved the idea of the feasibility of parking structures being studied in Committee (subparagraph 3 b), for the purpose of obtaining some figures which she hoped would persuade those who would have to bear the costs that it would be much cheaper to provide alternate means of transit. Some of the cities she had visited, for instance, Los Angeles, had programs whereby developers of new construction were requested to provide, not parking, but instead, for the life of the project, some type of transit for their employees. This kind of program w as much cheaper in the long run, cut down on the congestion and on parking needs, and provided more land for development and more vitality in the long run. Councilmember Renzel commented that the current Assessment District assessments -were only paying off existing garages. It was necessary for the District to agree upon some new Assessment District bonding; there was no guarantee that they would do so. Therefore, they had no guarantee that the parking contemplated by the Assessment- District will in fact be pro- vided. She also wished to mention that, in order to qualify for funding, it it should be available, it was necessary for Palo Alto to develop a comprehensive transportation plan which was innovative and attempted to remove the cars from the streets and place people into alternative modes of transporta- tion. She thought the four parts of the Motion (the four paragraphs of the Policy and Procedures Committee recommenda- tions) were essential as part of a package. AMENDMENT TO MOTION _PASSED: The Amendment to the Motion, to amend Subparagraph 3 a), by inserting a condition:- at the beginning of the paragraph, passed on a unanimous vote. • AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Levy moored to delete "SP" from Subparagraph 3 c), so as to rend: ."c) Implemeit an alternative modes program including, ... discounted transit passes, shuttle service from park and ride lots." The motion died for lack of a second. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Eyerly, to delete the paragraph between 3 c) and 4, "The Committee further recommends that the Planning Commission explore the popssibility of having the rate structure in private parking facilities comparable to the City's public parking rate structure." Councilmember Witherspoon pointed out that -probably the P&P Committee actually meant the Planning Staff, not the Planning Commission. Director of Transportation Noguchi concurred, stating that the original referral was to the Planning Staff, rather than to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Witherspoon, addressing Mr. `Noguchi, said she believed that the rates charged by some of the parking str.:'uc- tures was so hi..gh that they were not being used. 6 3 9 1/26/81:, ,f . Mr. Noguchi agreed that was part of the problem; the Palo Alto Office Center was charging considerably higher rates than the City Parking Lot. Mayor Henderson ensured that his understanding of the ,recom- mendation was correct - it would require private facilities to lower their fees to match the public re' es. He thought Coun- ci"Imember Levy had suggested that this should_be reversed - the City should charge as much as the private sector. Councilmember Levy answered that he did not see how the City could require the private sector to charge less, and he did not know that the City wished to charge more. Therefore, he thought it be best to delete the recommendation. Mayor Henderson alcertained that it was not known if it was possible for the City to require private parking structures to lower their rates. Councilmer;ber Renzel said she had made the motion for the recommendation, because credit was given within theAssessment District f.or providing parking spaces, but if the charges were so vastly different from the public parking fees, those spaces were not, in fact, used, and the public spaces were used instead. The idea was, therefore, to bridge the gap in some ways Mayor Henderson said that he was willing to explore the possi- blility, because the problem did exist, and the City Attorney and his staff could check into it. Couoiciimeiiber Bechtel suggested that it be referred to Bill Byxbee's committee as well as to the Planning staff, because it was a problem for them as well. Mayor Henderson did not think the Council could refer anything to a private body. They could only ask staff to discuss the matter with them. Mr. Noauchi assured Mayor Henderson that they planned to commu- nicate with Downtown Palo Altn, Inc. AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED: The Amendment to the Motion, to delete the recommendation that the Planning Staff explore the possibility of having the rate structure in private parking -- facilities comparable to the City's public parking rate struc ture, failed on the following vote: AYES: Levy NOES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel. Withersy on - Vice -Mayor Fletcher thought the staff should have some guid- ance, regar-ding the recommendation for investigating the feasibility of building, concerning the type of feasibility study they should undertake. Hera , idea at the committee level was for a very cursory cost analysis, not specifying a particu- lar lot and drawing up a design If: .it turned out to' be any more thana basic financial analysis, she would vote against. it. Mayor Henderson- remarked that caused him some concerns. Ne cautioned that those who supported subparagraph 3 b) of the recommendation should be firm in thetr.`uppvrt. 6 4 0 1/26/81 Mr. Noguchi said that staff's understanding, as stated in the staff report, was that they were to be somewhat site specific, in context with a previous request from Downtowar Palo Alto, Inc. Lot J was being considered, and Lot Q had been mentioned by Downtown Palo Alto, Inc. Mayor Henderson thought it would be difficult to conduct a feasibility study without mentioning some specific sites. Vice -Mayor Fletcher announced her intention to vote for removal of subparagraph 3 b); they had just passed the Comprehensive Plan,. which designated close -in parking for short-term shopper parking, not for cummuter parking. She felt that the building of parking structures would tend to defeat the whole purpose of encouraging the us: of alternate modes of trznsportdtion. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Vice -Mayor Fletcher moved to delete. the recommendation for investigating the feasibility of building parking structures (subparagraph 3 b). The motion died for lack of a' second. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Wii:herspoon moved, seconded by Eyerly, to delete the first portion of paragraph 1 of the recommendation: " ...that the matter of re-routing transit buses onto University Avenue be kept in Committee pending a report from staff, who will consult with the County ...," but keeping the last portion, stating: "...that the suggestion for better signing be implemented." Mayor Henderson thought he would not support the motion, though he was not in favor of moving buses back onto University `,venue. For the moment, he was willing to keep that in Committee pending possible alternatives for removing some of the traffic from University Avenue. Councilmember Levy did. not think Council should capriciously give staff just another report to prepare, if they were not ready for serious consideration of the results. Mayor Henderson asked if this would be an assigned report, due by a certain date. He had thought it was just sitting in Com- ml,ttee:for later discussion, awaiting new direction. He was not ready to request a lengthy staff report, either. City Manager saner- explained that, if the Council did approve the motion as written, staff would then prepare _ond submit a report after discussion with the County. Councilmember Bechtel said that'what she had in ,Hind when she made the motion originally in Committee was not a comprehen- sive, major report, but a very brief report of only ore or two pages in length, with staff conferring and gathering a little more additional information on the increase or decrease of ridership of buses over last year, when buses were routed on Univer,sity Avenue. She had not envisioned an onerous task; it was her impression staff had already done some of the prelimi- nary work. Mayor Henderson asked staff how onerous the task seemed to them - was it a major undertaking, or a brier study. Mr. Noguchi,replied staff was not sure; they would have a bet- ter idea of the effort involved after- a meeting with the County staff the following morning. 6 4 1' 1/26/81 Director of Planning and Community Environment Naphtali Knox commented that, in his opinion, there was no such thing as a brief report. It required a great deal of staff time to gather information - if the report was too brief-, they,were told the. information was' inadequate for making a decision; if too long, it was sent back to committee for condensing. All staff reports were very carefully prepared and required a' great deal of staff time. Mayor Henderson said he was aware of the workload in the Planning Department, and thought this particular report could be requested at some future date, when they were ready to seriously consider the re-routing of buses onto University Avenue. He would therefore vote for the motion. AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED: The Amenrimer,t to the Motion, to delete the first part of paragraph 1), the recommendation to keep thematter of re-routing transit buses onto University A`venve in Committee, passed on the following vote: AYES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon NOES: Bechtel, Fletcher, Renzel Counci lmenber Renzel commented, for the record,, that she was supporting the pursuit of information on parking structures, but the only way she would support any parking structure was in conjunction with a comprehensive transportation plan. She did not wish to see the Assessment District pursuing only parking alternatives. MOTION PASSED: The Motion to approve the Policy and Procedures Committee recommendations to Council regarding the Downtown Parking Management Plan, as amended, p!ssed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Ejerly, Fazzino, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon NOES: None ABSTAINING: Fletcher .ice -Mayor Fletcher explained that she had abstained because of the portions of the recommendation relating to the parking structures and the buses. She contended that Palo Alto was "bucking the trend." Other cities were being much more forward -looking; the Council had voted for a Comprehensive Plan and were\not giving any consideration to it. ANIMAL SERVICES ORDINANCE Mayor Henderson explained that he had removed this item from the Consent Cal ender at the request of the : public. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to approve the following ordinance (second reading) ORDINANCE 3257 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL Ol` THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTERS 6.04, 6.08,-.6.12, 6.16, 6.20, 6.c^2 6.?8, 6.32, AND 6.36 ,.OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE .1 REGARDING ANIMAL.. CONTROL. (First reading j1-/12/81 ) 6 4 2 1/26/81. Mi1ly Davis, 344 Tennessee Avenue, said she had submitted a report to Council of a survey conducted to determine the .number of cats or dogs preferred per household. She read some of the final results: 9 persons preferred 0 cats 1 16 26 12 !1 y M 1 cat 2 cats 3 or more cats 9 persons preferred 0 dogs 21 try dog 21 I' 11 2 dogs 1 a3 or more dogs Taking the average for both .pets results in 1-1/2 cats and 1-a1/3 dogs voted per household: Most of,the complaints dealt with dogs. In rebuttal to a statement made by a member of the public at the first reading of the ordinance, that mere dogs. should be allowed per household in order to provide shelter to animals, she thought a better solution would be a kind of birth control. In conclusion, she thought the survey demonstrated that most people thought a total of 2 pets was sufficient per. household. Bob Moss, 4010 0rme, first seconded Milly.Davis' statements about the number of dugs and cats to be permitted per address - He thought 2 adequate and 3 excessive. He then addressed Section 6.20.080, Page 6, which requires a permit fog' keeping livestock and fees es,;abl i shed (a $10.00 fee was discussed at the first reading). He felt this was unreasonable for fowl; their dog 1 cease was only $3.00 or $4.00. He could not under- stood why the fee should be so much higher to keep one or two chickens than for a dog. He thought it absurd that tho,e who kept two dogs were not required to obtain the consent of their neighbors, as did those who .kept a few chickens, especially when chickens were never the public nuisances that dogs could be. Living in Barron Park, he liked the rural .atmosphere and felt it should be maintained; he did not think ordinances should be passed that were more oppressive than necessary. He asked, therefore, that Council strike the stction_of the ordi- nance that so grossly overreacted to the keeping of some of the animals, particularly fowl. Douglas Owen, 2814 South Court, seconded most of Mr. Moss' remarks. He also thought the fees for keeping chickens very high; he was not even sure there should be one. However, he principally wished to address his remarks to Paragraphs 4 and 5, under Section 60.20.090 of tie proposed ordinance:, dealing with the location of chicken coops. This was a matter a grave importance to his family - they had four children and ten. chickens. He had no.objection to Paragraph 4, agreeing that 25 feet was an .appropriate distance from a dwelling, but he felt the addition of Paragraph 5 caused problems, when it stated that, not only should a coop be More than 25 feet- .from a dwelling, -but also more than -.25 feet'from a property, line, unless the written permission of tile',. neighbors --was obtained for a closer location. He kn&w of at least 7 cases in Palo Alto where chickens were -kept by private farm 1 ies, all of them on lots Where it would be _mpossible to locate a chicken coop farther than 25 feet. from all of the property -lines, without their -neighbors'. permission. It, appeared to him that put the onus for deciding the viability of keeping chickens on one's neighbors, i nstead' of keeping i t the --.respons i bi 1 i ty_ of the owner. He was aware of_°no other section in the Municipal Co4e whj,ch .required the obtaining Jf permission from one's` neighbors 6 4 3 1/26/81 to do anything with ode's own property, let alone something as relatively trivial as keeping chickens. These two paragraphs rea_lly imposed an obligation on 90% of the residents of Palo Alto to seek permission of their neighbors to keep chickens. He thought this wrong, and did not think this was the intent of the Code in the first place. He therefore requested that Coun'- cil remove Paragraph 5 from the proposed _ordinance. Mayor Henderson ascertained that -a fee of $10.00 had been imposed for a permit to keep fowi. He decided that the matter should be considered separately from the proposed ordinance. AMENDMENT'TO"MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fletcher, to amend 6.01.080 of the proposed Animal Ordinance to specify no more than 2 dogs per house ol d. Councilmember Witherspoon reiterated her former argument that Palo Alto was the only city. in the Peninsula that was proposing so radical a change. A little research disclosed that there were 9 cities, 3 of them contiguous to Palo Alto, which allow three or more dogs per household. She did not think the prob- lems with dogs were necessarily related to the number of dogs per household. Mayor Henderson, responding to Councilmember Witherspoon's survey, said that most of the 9 cities had open zoning, such as Los Altos Hills, Atherton, etc, leaving Mountain View, Sunny- vale and Menlo Park, with zoning similar to Palo Alto. Councilmember Levy said he did believe there was such a thing as freedom; he just was not disposed to curtail people's free- dom to have a few pets in their house. Notwithstanding the survey giving a consensus of those who voted that they did not want more than 2_ pets per household, he thought they were only speaking of a few people, and felt those people should have the freedom to have 3 dogs if they wished. AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED: The Amendment to the Motion to amend 6.01.0P,0 of the_propdsed Animal Ordinance to specify no more than two dogs per household failed on the following vote: AYES: Henderson, Fletcher, Renzel NOES: Bechtel, 'yerly, Fazziiio, Levy, Witherspoon MOTION PASSED: The Motion to',appruve Ordinance 3257 (second reading), amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding Animal Control, passed unanimously. ITT. EXCAVATION/RESTORATION AGREEMENT - RLF'nI OF CITY ATTORNEY r i`CTTY E OF 2, T9'�'f BURET A M MirtilT7DIR:130:1 ) Staff recommends that Council determine which of the following three alternative courses of. acti ons -they wish to pursue and that -they takeappropriate action to;.e.nab,le staff to continue', the Landfill Closure Project in in orderly manner: 1) Council may vote again on the ITT design contract and budget amendment from the Refuse Fr,nd Reserve and 'perhaps obtain the required two-tf,irds vote. 1`i 2) A majority of Council may vote to reallocate existing =appropriations from other projects for this contract, if so, the alternate budget amendment should be approved. 3) Council may instruct City Staff to seek other sources of impermeable cover and to proceed obtaining this material through contracts with others. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Becntel, to reallocate existing appropriations from other projects far th' ITT excavation/restoration contract. ORDNANCE 3258, entitled "ORDIh'.ANCE OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE 'FISCAL YEAR 1980-81 TO PROVIDE FUNDS IN THE REFUSE UTILITY OPERATING BUDGET TO PROCEED WITH THE HT PROPERTY EXCAVATION) RESTORATION" Councilmember Witherspoon.made what she felt a valid point - that, as this was a project involving sanitary landfill, the citie3 participating in the cast of the "dump" should be bearing the expense for the ITT project, not the City's General Fund. She really did not think they should be spending General Fund money on the refuse operation, and wondered if and when the funds would be reimbursed. Mr. Zaner said staff did not contemplate a reimbursement of the refuse funds. Councilmember Eyerly agreed with Councilmember Witherspoon. He thought the cost -of garbage disposal should be paid for by the users,. not just.R-1 residents, and that it was inappropriate to take funds from capital improvements, in effect subsidizing by the general community. He also questioned the staff interpre- tation of Section 2.28.090 of the City Charter, which reads, "Appropriations remain in effect until the purpose for which` each is made has been accomplished or abandoned." It —had been the practice of the staff to leave remaining funds in capital improvement projects to take care of -any further work or need. He presumed that was'why the mor. y..was left in the three speci- fied projects. It was therefore inappropriate to transfer those funds to the Refuse Fund, because the Section in the Cty -Charter stated,;specif cally. that the appropriations reverted -to --the General Fund when projects were "accomplished or aban- doned." 'He would therefore contest the propriety of staff's contention that the funds could be transferred. Councilmember Fazzino:-was concerned about` the precedent of having the staff trying_ to .circumvent normal, legal procedures, by drawing resources from three major cit;�—projects. Mayor . Henderson saw a problem with the larger sizeof vote required for a special appropriaticn, after a policy had been set. Mr. Zaner wishea to make clear thatithe staff was not trying to circumvent legal procedure. They had._, given Council two-,,, alternatives fry, funding the ,project --(1) take the funds,'/ou, of Reserves, requiring six vc.t4s and ( ) transfer funds from other''projects with excess funds, requiring five votes. Mr. Abrams explained that the\Section of the Charter '.referred to by Councilmember Eyerly also contained a phrase stating, 6 4 5 1/26/81 "..,unless amended by the Council, the appropriation shall continue in full force...until the purpose -for which each was made has been accomplished or abandoned." Therefore, the wording did at least suggest that the Council could amend its previous budgetary allocations. He would not enter into any consideration as. to whether or not the amendment should to made, or whether or not the purpose for the original appropri- ations had been accomplished. Counci lmernber. Eyerly thought the Council would be well advised to read for themselves the Section of the Charter he had just read. he acknowledged there were other Sections regarding the transfer of funds, but the Section he had read was very plain in its meaning, to him, that this was a devious way of arriving at the appropriations for this. use. He contended it was common knowledge'tnat the reason for the ITT excavation was the policy set by the majority of the Council, and the use of that was spelled out - it was to be used - :to cover the dump, which was solid waste disposal expense, ; and should certainly come from the Refuse Fund, not from_the Capital Improvement Fund. MOTION PASSED: The motion to adopt Ordinance 3258 and reallocate existing appropriations from other projects for the ITT excavation/restoration project passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel NOES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Witherspoon MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the following Agreement and Ordinance. AGREEMENT - CONSULTANT SERVICES Genge Consultant ORDINANCE 3259, entitled. "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1980-81 TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE ES1ABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL IMPROVE- MENT PROJECT NO. R(i,-41 ' ITT EXCAVA- TION STUDY/DESIGN' APD \'TO DECREASE FUNDING IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ- ECTS NO. 78-31 'R[NCONADA POOL RENO- VATION,' NO. 79-40 'MITCHELL PARK FOOTBRIDGE REPLACEMENT' AND NO. 79-99 'WAVERLY BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE EROSION CONTROL.' MOTION PASSED: The Motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Fletci.er, Henderson, Levy, Renzel NOES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Witherspoon As there were members of the public to speak to the issue just voted on, Mayor Henderson moved to re -open the discussion. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Levy, torecnnsi der the item regarding the ITT excavation/restoration project. MOTION PASSED: The ,motion passed on a; unanimous vote. -„6 4 6 - t/26/81 De'k Vyn, 786 Wildwood Lane, first of all, thought Council had overlooked the third alternative, which he felt should have been examined more thoroughly. Secondly, he was worried about the contract itself. He did not disagree with the study, and he understood the City was committed to using the ITT property for dump cover, but he had been invoived for many years in design contracts; and he really questioned some of the services the Consultant was to provide and the City's resnonsibilities to him. (1) There was a 20% contingency fee in the contract he had never heard of this before in all of his extensive experience with civic organizations. The contingency f.ee was usually 1O%. (2) The work was divided. into two stages, the first being preliminary, or the feasibility study, expected to extend over six months. Sixty percent (6O',6) of the fee was to be paid at that stage. The second stage was for the construc- tion documents. In his experience, that was the bulk of the work, but in this case .J% of the fee was to be paid for another six-month period. (3) What; really concerned him was the escalation clause. for 20%, at the end of the contract. He said he would like that contract himself, on those terms. REPEAT MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved again, seconded by Fletcher, to reallocate existing appropriations from other projects for the ITT excavation/restoration contract. ORDINANCE 3258, entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE CITY 6F PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1980-81 TO PROVIDE FUNDS iN THE REFUSE UTILITY OPERATING BUDGET TO PROCEED WITH THE ITT PROPERTY EXCAVATION RESTORATION" REPEAT MOTION PASSED: The repeated Motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel NOES: Eyer:ly, Fazzino, Witherspoon Councilmember Renzel asked if staff had any comments on Mr. Vyn's criticism of the contract. Director of Public Works Adams responded that they did have some comments. The bulk of the work for this particular contract was in the analysis prior to the final construction documents.-- During that period the, Consultant would be perform- ing the environmental work, which required a great deal of research, -and developing a` concept plan. The 20.% escalation clause wos not really part of the contract, but a contingency placed by staff, because they had been informed this rwas a very, complicated procedure and study, and that`.:.there .might be a future requirement, for hiring another Consultant. REPEAT MOTION: Councilmember Renzei moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Agreement with Genge Consultants and of Ordinance 3Z59. AGREEMENT Genge Consultants \\, 6 4 7 1/2'6/81 ORDINANCE nb9, entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE .CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE :FISCAL YEAR 1980-81 TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. 80-41 "ITT EXCAVATION STUDY/DESIGN" AND TO DECREASE FUNDING IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NO. 78--,1 "RINCONADA POOL RENOVA.TION," NO. 79-40 "MITCHELL PARK FOOTBRIDGEREPLACEMENT" AND NO. 79-99 "WAVERLEY BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE EROSION CONTROL." REPEAT MOTION PASSED: The repeated Mot on passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Fletcher, denderson, Levy, Renzel NOES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Witherspoon RE UEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS EYERLY 'RE DROUGKT PRECAUTIONS Councilmernbers Eyerly and Levy had written a memo to the City Council, dated January 15, 1981, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, regarding preparations that should be made by the city staff against a possible drought. However, Councilmember Eyerly said he understood from the Utility Department staff that there was no cause for alarm, the water supply being sufficient - up to two-thirds of normal. For that reason,- and because of the recent heavy rains, he thought decision as to whether a_ report was warranted should be left to staff. Mayor Henderson confirmed that no motion would be made concern- ing this item. RE UEST CF COUNCILMEMBER LEVY AN' MAYOR Hi'NDERSON RI ALLOCATION E Mayor Henderson referred to a memo to Council, which he had written with Councilmember Levy, dated January 20, 1981, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, suggesting that interest accrued by specific funds remain with those funds rather than _.being held for the general fund. The land bank reserves were cited as being of primary concern; however, Mayor Henderson asked that the fiords, "land bank reserves," in the last paragraph be; changed to "specific funds. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Henderson, that Council authorize the Finance,ard Public Works Committee to_ review tie policy on allocatiul,of interest income,:particu- larly as it affects specific funds reserves. Councilmember Renzel supported; the referral, but •rais,ed'the' concern that, while appreciative of a desire to improve the land bank reserves, . she was hot certain that they would want every fund to retain its own accrued interest. MOTION PASSED;: The Motion passed on a unanimous vote. REQUEST OF COVNCILMEMBER RENZEL RE GT .,I OF LABUli L TRARY TO PALO -AL O Reference is made to memo to the Cou`nci`i: from Counci lmembe'r , ;: 1 6 4 8- 1/26/81 Renzel, dated January 21, 1981, and a letter_ from Director of Libraries Mary Jo Levy, dated January 29, 1981, copies of which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Councilmember Renzel said she would make a motion for. approval of a Resolution accepting a gift of the Frank Manfredi Labor Library_ to the City of Palo Alto, a gift of both books 'and funds from the Frank Manfredi Testimonial Fund. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the following Resolution: RESOLUTION 5870 entitled "RESOLUTION F OIE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING GIFT TO THE PALO ALTO LIBRARY SYSTEM" Frank. Manfredi, 219 Addison, commenting on the gift, stated that, in the history of the world, Labor had carried the burden for everyone, while, the rich and powerful held them as serfs and used their creative wealth for their own benefit. He reviewed the Labor Movement in the United States: The English Labor System of the Guilds were imported into this country, and were not successful in either country. From the Guilds the Labor System progressed to the Knights of Labor, then to the A.F. of L. He contended that everyone was anti -Labor, though they all receive the benefits of the Labor Movement. He recalled the persecution suffered by Labor, and lamented the almost universal ignorance of the Labor Movement among the young, and the absence of mention of it in school. He urged support of the Labor Library, because it was very important for youth, especially, but adults also, to learn about the Labor Movement and what it stood for. Councilmember Witherspoon had some questions regarding the conditions undzr which the City of Palo Alto would be accepting the collection,' considering the tightness of funds experienced by the Library. She asked if the City had agreed to accept the cost of cataloging, implementing and binding, etc., of the col l ect i orT. Mr. Zaner replied in_.the affirmative, and that this was consis- tent with the City's normal policy. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the City reserved the right -to delete duplicate or damaged items. 'Mr.-Zaner replied that the -City would have control of the collection. Councilmember- Witherspoon said :she waned to make clear that there was flexibility in the use of the funds, Because the Agreement . sti pul,ated the funds be used for new materials only, not for \, ma i ntenan :e. Councilmember Renzel interjected that the funds. were unre- stricted from the donor's point of view, ; Councilmembei Witherspoon said she was satisfied 'and, if the _staff, felt comfortable with the Agreement, so did she. Mr. Zaner, in answer to a question from Mayor'Henderson, said that unused portions of the collection would be -.-`periodically weeded out, so as to keep it current, as.was the case with Ony Councilmember Levy responded to comments made by Mr. Manfredi, saying ..that he hoped his .;statements regarding the ruling class e • 6 4'9 1/26/81 c� , APPROVE: and about government not caring about Labor, did not extend to the present City Council. MOTION PASSED: The Motion to pass Resolution 5870, to accept a gift of Labor Lilirary to the Palo Alto Library System, passed on ananimous vote. /REPORT OF COUNCILMtMBERS WI (HERSPOON, LEVY AND EYE LY EL v-i 1 Mayor Henderson commented that he was impressed by the report considering the approval oc seven members, including keeping one from the A.R.B, which would enable Council to accept the four recumrr.ended by the selection committee. MOTION! Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Renzel, that -Council authorize the City Attorney .to prepare an ordi- nance extending membership on the Visual Arts Jury to sever; members. MOTION PASSED: The Motion passed on a unanimous vote. Councilmember Witherspoon, before making a motion to appoint the four new members, -stated that the selection committee felt strongly i;hat, as the new members were being asked to take on a rather taxing job for the City for a term of four dears, they would like a chance to interview them. It_was her recommenda- tion that this could be done -afore Council Meetings, inter- viewing each for approximately fifteen minutes, They had not yet been interviewed in person, only by telephone. Mayor Henderson said the selection was acceptable to him, with- out further interviews. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon, moved, seconded by Levy, to appoint Ruth Braunstein; Joan D. Hancock, Tom Hickey, and Mary Jean Place to the Visual Arts Jury, and to hold a drawing at the -meeting of February 9 to -determi ne .whose appointment will be effective immediately, MOTION PASSED: The Motion passed on a unanimous vote. ADJOURNMENT The Council Meeting of January 26, 1981, adjourned at 12:07 a.m. on February 3, 1981. ATTEST: 6 5 0 1/26/81 February 3, 1981 Regular Meeting of February 2, 1981 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 12:07 a.m,, Mayor Henderson presiding. PRES OT: Bechtel, Eyerly,"Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson Levy, Re<<zel, Witherspoon ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10 1980 MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by (Henderson, that the minutes of November 10, 1980, be approved. MOTION PASSED: The Motion passed on a unanimous vote. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION r Mayor Henderson explained that Delmar D. Wilcox had been an electric underground inspector for 28 years of.continuous service with the City of Palo Alto. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fletcher, adoption of the following Resolution: RESOLUTION 58.71 entitled ''RESOLUTION OF THE.COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DELMAR D. WILCOX UPON HIS RETIREMENT'! MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - Mayor Henderson explained that George E. Briggs was a super- visor of electrical utilities for 32.1 /2 years of :continuous service with the City of Palo Alto. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, adoption of the following Resolution: RESOLUTION 5872 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL'OF THE,CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO GEORGE. E. BRIGGS UPON HIS RETIREMENT" Mayor Henderson expressed the personal gratitude of the. Council to both -Mr. Briggs and Mr. Wilcox for their Tong and dedicated service tc the City of Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on a ::nanimous vote. CONSENT CALENDAR '`: Referral Items None. Action Item 5-1 2/2/81 CRESCENT PARK 1 UNDERGROUND UTILITY Staff recommends that the Lounci 1 adopt the following two Resolutions, determining`prcperties electing to pay costs over a prri od of years. - MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Fazzino, adoption of the following Resolutions: RESOLUTION 5873 entitled "A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT BONDS BE PURCHASED BY CITY:UNDERCROUNU UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 20" RESOLUTION 5874 entitled "A RESOLUTION DETERMINING UNPAID ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR ISSUANCE OF BONDS - UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONVERSION - UNDERGROUND UTILITY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20" Councilmember Witherspoon wondered why the City was taking the trouble of bonding for the amount of money involved, since it was only $63,000, instead of taking it from the Utilities Fund. Mr. Abrams replied that his assumption was that issuance of a bond was required in order to extend the payments over a five- year period and place liens against the properties involved. MOTION PASSED: The Motion pcssed on a unanimo::s vote. REPORT OF OFFICIALS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY (NCPA . r..�..�.:. Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor to exe- cute the NCPA Member Service Agreement, setting operating guidelines for the NCPA staff and formalizing .the= relationship among NCPA and its members. MOTION: "Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the following Service Agreement. MEMBER SERVICE AGREEMENT - Northern California Power Agency MOTION PASSED: The mc;` i o,1 passed.on a unanimous vote. CABLE :TELEVISION =MAU AL'LRNATIVES MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue this item to February 9. MOTION PASSED: vote. The Motion to continue passed on unanimous YACHT HARBOR -SANTA CLARA COUNTY rimmirimemntrtimmirmirs- 1 - The Santa..Ci'dra County Park and Recreation Department recoc- mends maintenance dredging ,of the Palo. Ai -to. Yacht, Harbor .,on,)an as -needed basis‘throiryhout; the remaining five-year lease term, 6 5 2 2/2/81 rather than accomplishing a large scale single clamshell type dredging. Mr. Zaner, in a letter dated January 26, 1981, pointed out to Santa Clara County's Park and Recreation Depr,rtment, that their recomMendat i on was at variance with the Counc i l.' s 'policy, adopted June 2, 1980, of 'allowing dre,dgip. "one final time." Mr. Zaner added than: the County Board of Supervisors had acted on that date, accepting their stab's recommendation. Con- sequently, it was accepted that.the County staff would be contacting the City staff, in accordance with their recommenda- tion to -the Board. He asked Council to give any further instructions they might have to staff. - John Walker, 1,9315 Greenwood Blvd.., Cupertino, said he was assuming that Council was aware of the Park and Recreation Department's proposal, citing their memorandum to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, dated January 12, 1981, a copy of which is_on file in the Office of the City Clerk. His primary purpose in speaking was to point out the feelings of the voters that the County's proposed plan_ satisfied the objections raised in the past, that "the voters are getting something for nothing." Under the County proposal, the voters intended to dig the mud out of the harbor at their own expense. The County's proposal would serve, they felt, to provide an equitable arrangement for everyone in-volved, in that the. City -would receive some dirt to cover up the dump, the residents would have a place to sail their boats, and the County would have a park. .Also, in this case, there would be no cost to the City or County for their boating. He concluded by offerirg to answer any questions. Milly Davis, 344 Tennessee Avenue, requested Council to con- tinue the item; the subject had just been brought up at the Board of Supervisors that morning, and the citizens had very little information on which to comment. Her opinion was that, considering the County's stringent budget and the critical financial condition of the County park budget, priorities must be established in the requests for County Park and Recreation funds. She felt that the November 1980 election. results demonstrated that the majority rof Palo Altans did not want any more county or city money spent on the dredging and the opera- tion of the harbor. A survey of some of the residents who had voted against Measure D disclosed that 95% of them would not approve even one more last dredging. She suggested, as an alternative use of the funds,. the 'construction of two segments of the planned bayfront trail in Palo Alto, which could be used for recreation as well as commuting. Herb Borock, 3401 Ross Road,rquoted Mr. Walker as stating that there would be no post to the County or the City under the concept aipproved_by the Board of Supervisors: -He thought there was a cost to the,County, it__would be foregoing the $39,000 in -berthing fees which it currently recei ves, -and` the cost of one cl a-m.sh.el l_.:_dredgi ng was approximately $200,000. He thought that the minimum the Council could do was ..to ask' the County to respond,, to questions posed by Mr. Zaner's memo. Mayor Henders an commented' first, that . this was an en of i ona 1 issue with him because, -despite the personal attacks on his motives, beyond., anything_ he had ever experienced while on,the Council, he *as 'sincere in wanting' to all ow for one -More- dredging,-and he was wi lling to.. keep that finder _serious 6 5 3 2/2/81' • consideration. There were many questions to be answered: for example, he did not know who had control over the public ramp he did not know the details of putting the spoils on Yacht Harbor Point -elf put in every year, probably the first year`s. spoils would not have dried enough to remove for the iier:t year's spoils, so there would he nothing available for a long time. That would be differesitlfrom performing the entire dredging next year, and begin in a couple of years to take spoils from the top. He was sincere in looking into this, but felt there Were many questions to be answered first. The best action he could think of to take that evening was -to move the following: MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fletcher, to direct staff to -determine the feasibility of a sublease of the Yacht Harbor berthing and water areas and report back to Council. Councilmember Witherspoon recalled the problems they had` previously encountered when considering the initiation of the paperwork for the permits. She asked if it was up to the City or the County to proceed. Mayor Henderson thought they were going to have to ensure that the paperwork became _ the responsibility of the .subleases. Therefore, until it was determined for certain that the sublease was workable, it would be useless to proceed with the paperwork - there would be no official body with the authority to apply for permits. He thought staff was cognizant of the time problem and would proceed as quickly as possible. Councilinember Renzel said she had many questions about the feasibility of th .proposal over the long term, and thought the City Manager had raised some important questions. She wondered if the City Attorney had any comments on the subleasing provi- sions of the City's current lease agreement. Mayor Henderson suggested that perhaps, this could be part, of the report directed in his Motion; anything related to the issue should be included in the staff report, including the Ci t_y ,Attorney's 'opinions. Counci lmember Renzel agreed, but still wished to commment that one reason for rejecting the dredging plan that had been proposed, for dump covering was the constant disturbance of that '-Area. She did not see how the County's proposal answered: eeib&ection, For that reason, she: would not support the Motion,• 4-;n4. because she did not believe it was in keeping with the one dredging proposal adopted by the Council in 1980. Vice -Mayo -Fletcher asked if staff really had the capability of making the determination of the.feasibility'of the County's - proposal to use -the spoils for dump cover. Di rector of _public Works; Dave Adams reskonded that a portion of that questionwould be included-'-in-the permit process; the environmental'impact would be considered at that times Regard- i n'g the feasibility, the hydraulic dredgi rug ,;.`ould work in small stages in `that area. Also, as he understood it, thee -County would be responsible for initiating:t,he "permit process, with the City staffs assistance.. However, they Would check into. that aspect, and report the results to Council. Counci lmeraber Bechtel said she would "vote for the motion,- -but with many reservations, She encouraged the ..staff to consider every -aspect Of -the proposal very closely. 6 5 4 2/2/81 DECUNSIZTRATIONY. MOTION PASSED: The motion, to direct staff to determine the feasibility of a sublease of the Yacht Harbor berthing and water areas and report back to Council, passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson,Levy, Witherspoon NOES: Renzel REQUEST OF MAYOR HENDERSON RE T""1 E1 y i 'S H.' BRENNER' S I LKA ENDING 12/31/81 Mayor Henderson made the following motion to fill the Council seat made vacant by the decease of Frances H. Brenner. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Levy, to accept recent applications (November 1980) for appointment to Council, subject to request for removal by the applicants; advertise the vacancy and accept other applications until noon on February 9. Councilmember Eyerly declared his support of the motion. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote. REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FAllINO RE WORKS MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Eyerly, to refer the question of an andual fee for tennis court use to the Finance and Public Works Committee. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY (NCPA Councilmember Eyerly asked to move for reconsideration of the NCPA Member Service Agreement, which had already been voted on for approval. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded,by Henderson, to reconsider the' matter of the NCPA Member Service Agreement. MOTION PASSED: The motion to reconsider passed on a unanimous \. vote. Councilmember Eyerly explained that the NCPA members who had notyet approved the Service Agreement were Palo Alto and two other large cities. Once approved, they would be locked into the Member Service Agreement for at least,threeyears. This was fine, if all the cities became members, but if, for some - reason, the other two cities did not approve, Palo Alto should reconsider its membership, because then' they would be involved with a number of..smaller cities. At the same time, they needed to be able to debate the future of the NCPA with the other two large cities, if they did not sign the Member Service Agree- ment., In view of:, these comments, he would make the following motion: 6 5 5 2/2/81 MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the NCPA Member Service Agreement contingent upon 'approval by all cities who have 10% or larger participation in the NCPA. Councilmember Renzel asked if_the Member Agreement referred only to the geothermal proposal at that point, -or if the whole' Development Fund was involved. Counci lmember - Eyerly replied that the Development Fund was not involved, but the Member. Service Agreement did involve. all projects and the City's relationship with other NCPA members on any'projects Palo Alto might join. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote. ADJOURNMENT The Council meeting adjourned at 12 30 a.m. to Executive Session re Personnel. FINAL ADJOURNMENT The final adjournment of Council took place at 1:45 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVE: City Cler 6 5 6 2/2/81 Mayor \1'