Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-23 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Mee nq February 23, 1981 Item Page ura i Communications Minutes of December 8, 1980 66 6 88 Appointment of a Councilmember to fill unexpired 6 6 8 term ending 12/31/81 Resolution of Appreciation - Marilyn F. Williams 6 6 9 Resolution of Appreeiatjon - Gordon F. Jackson 6 6 9 Resolution of Appreciation - Paula Z. Krkeby 6 6 9- C!TY OF PALO ALTO Consent Calendar Resolution Approving Application for Grant Funds -- Roberti-Z Berg Urban Open Space and Recreation Program Visual Arts Jury Ordinance Ordinance Authorizing NCPA to issue bond Antici- pation Notes Veteran's Memorial Building Rehabilitation Ordinance re change of district for property located at 27 University Avenue from P- F to P -C Blood Alcohol Contract - Milton W. Smith Palo Alto/Stanford Fire Protection Contract Amendment 403 Alma Street, Change of District, Application of Hare, Brewer and Kelley Gas Rate Increase Amendment to Management and Confidential Compen- sation Plan Public Hearing: Weed Abatement Program Public Hearing: 532 Channing Avenue, Tentative Sub- division Map, Hare, Brewer and Kelley Public Hearing: 938 Addison Avenue, Tentative Sub- division Map, John Brooks Boyd/Robert Jenks Assoc. Public Hearing: 320 Curtner Avenue, Tentative Sub- division Map, William Cox Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Depart- ment's Plans for Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Dred;ing Request of ARB and Planning Commission for a staff assignment to collect data on land use intensifica- tion 6 7 0 6 7 0 6 7 0 6 7 1 6 7 1 6 7 1 6 7 1 6 7 1 6 7 2 6 7 2 6 7 2 6 7 3 6 7 3 6 7 4 6 7 4 6 7 7 6 8 8 Request of Mayor Henderson re AB -189 (Surcharge on 6 9 1 Fines) Request of Mayor Henderson re SB-33 (Creation of 6 9 2 Office of Motor Vehicle Inspection) Request of Councilmembers Eyeriy and Renzel re 6 9 3 Funding Sources for ITT Consultant -- Request of Mayor Hendt_rson re Church Signs 6 9 3 Request of Councilmember Bechtel re Support for f> 6 9 7 League Re4 oiution Concerning PERS Investment Policies Cancellation of March 2 Meeting 6 9 7. Adjournment ,. 69 7 6 6 7- 2/23/81 Regular Meeting February 23, 1981 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in a 'Regular Meeting at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Mayor Henderson presiding. Present: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, (left meeting at 8:30 p.m.), Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon Absent: None Mayor Henderson confirmed that the Council met at 6:00 p.m. in an Executive Session concerning Personnel and Litigation matters. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Mary Macur, 1520 Willow Road addressed what shetermed the breaches of contract by Oak Creek Apartments. She moved there in 1977 and signed a lease with them which required management approval of any sublets in the future. A year later, management issued a notice to all of the tenants that they had revised the lease agree- ment. She does not believe as they have indicated, they will offer to all tenants a life -time lease if they went along with the conversion. Last week, she sent a registered letter which asked management to comply with City Ordinance 3252, granting all tenants a one-year lease. In reply, she was sent a registered letter which terminated her tenancy at Oak Creek Apartments. Therefore, she can't believe that Oak Creek will keep any of their contracts, legal or otherwise.. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 1980 MOTION: Councilmemher Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of December 8, 1980, be approved. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY APPOINTMENT OF A COUNCILMEMER TO 1 Fi rst Ba l l of Witherspoon Huber Levy Klein Kenzel Borock Fletcher K'ein Henderson Klein Fazzino. Huber -. Bechtel Klein Eyerly Huber f' Second Ballot Fazzino - Huber Eyerly Huber Bechtel Klein Henderson rlein Fletcher Klein Renzel Klein Levy Klein Witherspoon'_, Huber 6 6'8 ,2/23/81 L ) 1 City Clerk Ann Tanner announced that Larry Klein had received five votes on the second ballot, and was therefore appointed to fill the vacant seat formerly held by Frances H. Brenner, for her unexpired term to December 31, 1981. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Bechtel, that the appointment of Larry Klein be made unanimous. The motion. passed on a unanimous voice vote. Mayor Henderson welcomed Councilmember Klein to the Council and noted that he would participate in the next meeting on. March 9. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - Marilyn F. Williams Mayor Henderson indicated that Marilyn Williams made a huge contribution to her community through her Human Relations Commission service. As busy as she was, she never slackened in her efforts with the HRC and all were very grateful to her. An official plaque would be presented to her. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino introduced the following resolution and, seconded by Councilmember Witherspoon, moved its approval by Council: RESOLUTION 5879 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO MARILYN F. WILLIAMS FOR OUT- STANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION." The motion passed on a unanimous vote. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - Gcrc;on F. vackson Mayor Henderson indicated the appreciation of the Council and all of the citizens of Palo Alto for Gordon Jackson's service as a member of the Visual Arts Jury from March 2?, 1976 to January 31, 1981. He was an original member of the Visual Arts Jury. Gordon worked very hard for five years and hi -s efforts were very much appreciated by all. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino introduced the following resolution and, seconded by Councilmember Levy, moved its ..approval by Council: RESOLUTION 5880 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY UN L f HE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO GORDON F. JACKSON FOR OUTSTAND- ING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF fHE VISUAL ARTS JURY." The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Mayor Henderson presented the ,plaque to Gordon Jackson. Gordon Jackson thanked the Council and said that it was a great pleasure to serve on the Visual Arts Jury. RESOLUTION OF AlakatiTION - Pawl a Z. Kirlita Mayor Henderson 'said that Paula Z. Kirkeby was also an pr.igina1 member of Visual Arts Jury. She served from March 22, 1976 to January 31, 1981. Paula gave a tremendous amount of her knowledge and interest to the City in serving in that capacity and alll were .,very appreciative of her efforts, MOTION: Councilmember Levy introduced , the following resolution ald, seconded by Councilmember Fletcher, moved its approval by Council: 6 6 9 2/23/81 RESOLUTION 5881 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 6F PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO PAULA A. KIRKEBY FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE VISUAL ARTS JURY." The motion passed unanimously. Counci lmeinber Levy noted that the Visual Arts Jury :really was been,an outstanding group in its services to the City of Palo Alto. With a very small budget, they have given a tremendous amount of art work to the City -of Palo Alto. He felt that everyone who visited Palo Alto was very grateful for their. efforts. A short while ago, Councilmember Levy. had- the pleasure of serving with Councilmembers Witherspoon and Eyerly in a committee to nominate successors' to Gordon and Paula. They aiera so impressed by the work of the Visual Arts Jury that it was difficult to find a one -for -one replacement and, it was therefore recommended that the Jury be enlarged. In part, expanding the Jury is a recognition of the outstanding work that those people and their co-workers have done. Mayor Henderson presented the plaque to Paula Z. Kirkeby. Paula Z. Kirkeby thanked the Council and indicated that serving as a member of the Visual Arts Jury was one of the most rewarding experiences in working with the of City of Palo Alto and in particular, helping to organize the underpass project with the school children in Palo Alto. CONSENT CALENDAR Referral Items None Action Items RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLICATION FOR GRANT i-UNU AUER THE RUB TI-Z`BERt RBAN OPEN- FOR - l_ ._.PAR *NDS ACI , Stat-f recommends that City Council adopt the resolution approving applications for grant funds under the Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open -Space and Recreation Proyrans, and the California Parklands Action of 1980 which designates the funds for the Theatre Facilities Renovation Project. .RISOLUTION 5382 entitled "RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-V BERG URBAN OPEN -SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM AND THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT' OF 1980 -PROJECT: THEATRE FACILITIES RENOVATION". Visual Arts Jur Ordinance se..•n, reap n ORDINANCE ,.3253 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE TUUNUTETV'TIV CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 2.18.010 AND SECTION 2.18.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING MEMBERSHIP AND TERI4 OF OFFICE, FOR THE VISUAL ART JURY." (first reading 2/9181 -Passed 8.-0) '6 7 0 2/23/81 Or u i nance Authorizing Northern to (i.forn ita Pdiiei~ Aenr (NCPA ORDINANCE 3264 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS" (first reading 2/2/81, Passed 8-0) Veteran's Memorial Buildin e a i : a kon secon rea Ong) ORDINANCE 3265 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 22.08.230 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO REMOVE A PORTION OF EL CAMINO PARK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOVEMBER 1979 VOTER ADOPTED. MEASURE." (first reading 2/9/81 -Passed 8-0) Ordinance re change of district or ro o f located at 2T niversit RWW7F-7677-7 to second reading) 1 ORDINANCE 3266 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE :COUNCIL OF THE .CITY OF PALO ALTO. AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICI- PAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSiFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 27 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FROM P -F TO P -C" (first reading 2/9/81 -Passed 8-0) Blood Alcohol Contract - Hilton W. . -Smith Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Milton Smith, Jr. for the 1980-81 fiscal year to provide the service as required by the California Vehicle Code in an amount not to exceed $18,075. (Sufficient funds are available in the 1980-81 police department budget.) AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 4083 - AGREEMENT FOR CLINICAL. LABORATORY TECHNOLO- GIST SERVICES Milton W. Smith Palo Alto/Stanford Fire Protection Cen ract 7(mend:nent Staff recommends that Council appprove the budget amendment, establish the new position, and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract amendment. AMENDMENT OF PALO ALTO — STANFORD FIRE PRO- TECTIUH AGREEMENT Ordinance 3267 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE 1 IL H CITY or PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1960-81 TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS AND RELATED APPROPRIATIONS IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICE TO STANFORD UNIVERSITY.." 6 7 1 2/23/81 403 ALMA STREET ICT FROM P -F TO CC E KULL' BR[WLR AND K LL ' •�- The Planning Commission, by a vote of 5-0 (Commissioner Cullen abstaining) recommends approval of the application of Hare, Brewer and Kelley for approval ,if a change of district for property located at 403 Alma. from P -F to CC. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 403 ALMA STREET FROM P -F TO CC Gas Rate Increase Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution confirming the a%..tion taken by the City Manager adjusting the gas rates in accordance with Resolution No. 5863. RESOLUTION 5883 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO - AMENDING SCHEDULES G-1 AND G-50 DUE TO THE EFFECT OF A WHOLESALE GAS PRICE - INCREASE UPON PALO ALTO GAS RATES." Amendment to Mana ement and on f en 1 a ompensa tor: Plans Staff recnrrrrrends that the. City of Palo Alto Compensation Plans for -Management and Confidential employees be amended to state tht each Council -appointed officer shall be the responsible decision -maker for employees within their.respective departments who are covered by the Plans. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Witherspoon, 1approval of the Consent Calendar items. MOTION PASSED: The motion to approve the Consent Calendar items passed unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Counc i lmerner Eyerl y, to bring forward item 20. Councilmember Renzel_noted that the item was scheduled -for later ire the meeting and it would be unfortunate if members' of the public who wished to speak. on the items weren't present. Councilmember Bechtel also noted that a county staff person was goi r to be present to answer questions and she did not see him in arse audience. She asked that -the matter be deferred for a few minutes. Mayor Henderson deferred the matter until the county staff person was present. Mayor Henderson also noted that ,there would be a New Business item to cancel` the meeting of `March 2 6 7 2 2/23/81 PUBLIC HEARING: Lee,d Abaement: Prooram Mayor Henderson opened the Public Hearing on the weed abatement program including a resolution,of the Council of the City of Palo Alto ordering Weed Nusiance Abated. Notice of this nearing has been given in the time, manner and form provided for in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Munjcipal Code. Mayor Henderson declared the Public Hearing open and asked the City Clerk if any written protests had been received. Ann. Tanner responded none had been received. Mayor Henderson noted that no persons appeared or filed written -objections against the weed abatement procedure and declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Councilmember Fazzino, approval. of the resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto ordering weed nuisance abatement. RESOLUTION 5884 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ORDERING WEED NUISANCE ABATED." MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: 53"/ CFrANNING AVENUE TrRITTTVr-TTOTTITTopmAp bH t BrR1 OkS BOYD/ROBERT A. J The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0, recommends approval of the application of John Brooks Boyd/Robert A. Jenks Associates for a Tentative Subdivision Map for property located at 532 Channing Avenue. Nayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. He confirmed with the City Clerk that no one wished to speak and no written protests had been received and, declared the public hearing, closed. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Councilmember Fazzino, upholding the Planning Commission's recommendation. Councilmember Renzel said that the grocery had been abandoned as part of the project assuming that no one moved in before Correction March 21. She wondered whether or not in approving the See Pg 786 tentative neap the market would be removed and, if so, what 4/27/81 would go in its place.: Bob Brown, Associate Planner, responded that the market structure was to be removed and the condominium structure would be in its place. Councilmember Renzel felt previously that there were some design problems with the access to the site from Channing Avenue and wanted to see a revised access if the .store was removed. She knew that this was not part of a subdivision application, but it concerned her how that would work on a busy street such as Channing. Pr. Brown noted that the map showed, and the ARB approved, a circular access drivewi th 'two curb.: cuts onto Channing. Councilmember Renzel as'ed if there were parking spaces and if they were at grade level. Mr. Brawn indicated that there were two parking spaces and that they were at grade. MOTION PASSED: The mok.ion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: - VISIO MAP 1J 3 d ADDIO �i PtCU1TR --VRO P E R T I E S The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0, recommends approval' of the application of Pecora Properties for a Tentative Subdivision Map "(with exceptions) for property located at 938 Addison Avenue. Mayor Henderson declared the Public Hearing open. Nancy Sully, 956 Addison, wanted to go on record as supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation for four houses and a central driveway. She also urged that the recommended side 'setback of 20 feet between her property and the proposed house be maintained. Mayor senderson declared the public hearing closed. He commented on the excellent work by the Planning Commission on that application. He felt that they had worked out a very good solution. He was especially happy to see the final decision for a central driveway. Councilmember Renzel concurred with the Mayor's remarks on the solution to the driveway. That was a difficult lot and Addison Avenue was a narrow stre.A. She thought it w_as important to preserve as much of the street frontage for needed parking and, at the same time, to minimize the need for paving. This was a lot where some of the earlier subdivision requirements for street raised some important questions. She personally felt that were they able to meet street standards there that would have perhaps been an improvement on the parking problems of that neighborhood. The Planning Commission did come up with a very creative solution there. She also concurred with the setback provision. - Councilmember Fletcher commended staff on their role in that process. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: - iENTA; IVE SUBDIVISION MAP AVENUE - WILLIAM -COX The Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 (Commissioners Nichols, Christensen, and McCown-Hawkes in favor) to 3 (Commissioners Cullen, Cobb and Wheeler opposed), recommends denial of the application of William Cox for approval of a --Tentative Subdivision Map for property located at 320 Curtner Avenue. Mayor Henderson declared the Public Hearing open. Thomas French, 631 Coleridge, attorney, spoke on behalf of Mr. Cox. The request for a tentative subdivision map was submitted to the Planning Commission, and was denied by a 3-3 ;split vote. He felt thzt . the application should be acted on favorably by the Council because the Subdivision Map Act and the present zon}ing were consistent. It was endorsed by the Planning Department, staff and approved by the Architectural Ri-View Board. It offered much needed... reasonably Iow cost affordable condominiums to be sold at $125,OtU. The reasons that were cited for the project not being, found to be within the Subdivision ;Map Act: Section 66.474 were subsection s (c) and (d) Subsec A on (c) provided that denial of a tentative map may be 6. 7 4 2/23/81': :Made if there was a finding that the site was not physically suitable for that type of development. The Planning Commission minutes indicated that some of the Commissioners were concerned about the safety of the proposed 20 foot wide driveway which would also serve an eight unit apartment building adjacent to the property. He ft:lt that the driveway as presented did not present any safety problems and the Planning department staff shared that view. Many of Palo Alto streets were only 20 feet wide. Subsection (d) provided that denial may be made if there was a finding that the site;was not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. _Again, the Planning Commission minutes indicated that there was a concern about population density in the neighborhood overall. ,He noted that the property was presently zoned RM-4 which meant that Mr. Cox could build a ]_4 -unit apartment building on that site'without any further approval other than a building permit. The present project was nine units only. They agreed with the staff report which- indicated that Subsections (c) and (d) of the Subdivision Map Act were site -specific and should be reviewed based on reference to specific physical characteristic of the property and not the general characteristics of the neighborhood at large.' There was also one additional unofficial, but clearly stated reason why some of the Planning Commission chose to base their opposition. It related to an expressed concern that_ there were three rental units located on the property that night be razed, and additional condominium'structures placed the+reon The Planning Commission felt that would deplete the rental housing pool in Palo Alto. He felt that issue was not properly before the Planning Commission and should therefore not figure into the consideration. However, he indicated that Mr. Cox submitted a letter to the Council that had a careful and thorough statistical review of existing condominium projects that were approved on projects that previously had existing rental units over the last several years and rather than having a negative affect on the available.rental pool in the city, had a positive effect on the net available rental units. Many of the approved condominium projects resulted in ownership acquisition by investors who chose to rent them and replace theca into the rental pool. He recommended that the Council act favorably on the application. Mayor Henderson noted that the safety of the driveway was one legitimate _.concern and he wondered if there was any possibility of putting speed bumps in that driveway to at least slow down the traffic. There seemed to be a lot of children praying out in that driveway. Mr. french indicated that the reference to speed bumps was made,in the Planning Commission minutes and, the Architectural Re:view Board considered speed bumps and concluded that they would not be appropriate for that property-, Apparently, there was some controversy as to whether they served any useful purpose. There was some tesimony in :the minutes which indicated that in the majority of cases where speed bumps were installed fo;r the purpose of slowing traffic they were ultimately, taken out because they were not successful. Mayor Henderson indicated that he lived in a condominium complex and that they very definitely save the day in :his area. He hoped that if it became evident that'the.y 'were needed that they would somehow bring that about. Mayor Henderson asked if anyone_ else from the publ,iz- -wished to speak on- the. -_Item, _, Hearing none, he declared the Public- Hearing -closed. 6 7 5 2/23/81 MOTION: Councilmeuiber Witherspoon moved, seconded by CArncilmember Fazzino, approval of the staff recommendation that the project, including design and improvements (e.g.-, the street alignments, drainage and sanitary -facilities, utilities, locations and size of all required rights -of -way, lot size and configuration, grading, and traffic access s consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal .Code; that the project will not have a signticart impact or,:the environment nor be likely to result in serious. public health problems; that the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; and that there are no conflicts with public easements, and approves the tentative subdivision map with the conditions that an internal site drainage plan be submitted to the city engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit and that the developer look into the use of speed bumps for the private driveway. - Councilrnember Fletcher concurred wth the Planning Commission's concern for the extreme density of the area. However, since the zoning permitted that type of development there was no way to not approve it. She had some problems with it. She -had seen children playing in the driveway. Older children were playing in the vacant lot which won't be available to them. She suggested that as well as speed bumps that, signs be posted specifically stating that "Children are playing. Speed limit no more than 5 miles a hour" or some other such precautionary signs. . Counci1member Fazzino indicated his surprise that the Planning Commission felt it necessary to deny the plan particularly since the project was totally consistent with the ''omprehensive Plan. And, since the city's attorney at the Commission meeting stated that there was no factual way to deny the plan, he was concerned that if the Council didn't move forward and approve the plan, they would be setting themselves up for a lawsuit. It was clear that the plan conformed with the Zoning Ordinance and parking requirements. Mr. Cox's design was sensitive to the issue of density in that,- fourteen units were allowed and he requested nine units only. He also noted that $125,000 in 1981 was a moderately priced -unit He felt that they needed :nits in that price range particularly in that area...:He encouraged his fellow Councilmembers to support the motion. He also noted that Mr. Cobb made a comment as stated in the- minutes, (and he knew that this was a frustration of the Planning Commission at times when they got specific projects) that•they had no_ basis for disapproving such a project within the narrow technicalities of the Zoning Ordinance. He encouraged the Planning Commission to certainly address their specific concerns- with elements of a project that related to the Zoning Ordinance by requesting a study or change to the Ordinance, but,,that they must also do what was correct legally. It was wrong to deny a specific .project when it was in total. conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Bechtel concurred:with_-Councilmember- Fazzino and also'indicated that if it were not a condomini um, and was 'st=rictly an apartment house, there would not have even been a need to go to the Planning Commi.ssion_for the. subdivision. She said it was, a dense area. She liad driven through the.area and noted that `there were .a lot of cars. She -felt' that.; there should be a rezoning of the entire area and not .one smal l part. Counoi lmember Renzel indicated that most of her thoughts had beeu mentioned by other Councilmembers but suggested that after Council voted, that they :night wish to send A statement to the Commission and urge them- oreview this area__and see if there was any improvement that might be made to correct the problem - ♦1 6.7 6 2/23/81 they faced in that particular example. Councilmember Levy commented on the rental data that Mr. Cox provided. He felt that it was important that the data be checked. However, if in fact the data was accurate, it would give some insight into what was happening in Palo Alto in terms of rental. Specifically, the 40% of new condominiums built that ended up as rentals -- his experience conffrms• that that is probably true_ which means that there is not a clear distinction to be made between a condominium unit and a rental -unit. Many condominiums were purchased by investors who then -turned around and rented the units. Mr. Cox's data indicated that over the past'years, 49 units were demolished to make way for 582 new condominium unit:,, and of those, 231 ended up as rentals. That meant:that the recital stock from those total addresses increased by 180 units Mr. Cox also mentioned that there do's not seem to be an important distinction between rentals for new units and old units. So, not only were there 180 new units built, but fundamentally, the rentals on those units were comparable ..to the rentals for similarly sized units that had existed in older rental dwellings. MOTION PASSED: Themotion passed unanimously.`' MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Councilmember Eyerly, approval of the Council to ask that the Planning Commission review zoning in the Curtner area and see if that was a common problem to the area or if it was unique to that particular site. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Councilmember Witherspoon, approval by the Council that item 20 be brought forward ahead of item 19. Councilmember Renzel noted that because Council has only one item to deal with before item 2) and since it would not assist Mr. Fazzino to bring it forward, she felt that the Council should oppose the contifivance and deal with the next issue. Mayor Henderson indicated that Councilmember Fazzino--wished to at least make a statement regarding the item before he left the meeting. MOTION PASSED... The motion passed to bring item 20 forward on the fo i 1 owl ote: AYES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon NOES: Henze' ABSENT: None SANTA CLARA COUNTY PARK T'S sPLANS TOR PALS ALT"?ACHT 1iARBCM DREDGING David Christy, Director of Parks and Recreation for Santa; Clara County, indicated that he would respond to any quest ins. He said that the subject had been covered extensively in' the reports. He noted that the County's "primary concern at this point was fulfilling the obligation of the 5 -year agreement to continue the operation of the' harbor and,: that 'the County has a very severe financial situation which caused the Board to ask staff to look for ways to deal with the dredging `problems- that would not require a large expenditure of county funds in any one-year period of time. Staff came .up with that solution of several incremental dredgings being done by a non-profit 6 7 7 2/23/81 organization as a way to alleviate the problem from the County's financial point of view. He indicated that he would be happy to answer any questions. He noted that the County would continue being the primary lessor of the harboe from the City. The County would be responsible for the activities that take place there. They would be responsible for overseeing any dred,,sing operations that took place and if there were some problems, the City would deal with the County and not any other organization. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Councilmember Witherspoon, approval of the Council, that the dredging plan be accepted. Councilmember Fazzino noted that the proposal was economically sound. The ony concern that some of them had before the report was available was whether or not there would be an adequate amount of environmental evaluation -- the County has guaranteed that would occur -- also, his understanding was that Council was simply, approving the concept and that the specific plan would return in the near future.' He encouraged his fellow Councilmembers to move ahead and approve the concept. He felt that it conformed with the spirit of the actions that they have taken over the course of the past year. Councilmember Fazzino left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Councilmember Renzel noted that the reports all indicated dredging periodically, probably once a year. She asked how many dredgings were anticipated to be done before the lease expires in 1986. Mr. Christy responded no more than one per year. Councilmember Renzel commented that could be as many as 5 dredgings by 1986. She also asked what time of year the dredgings would take place. Mr. Christy responded that there was no data to indicate that one time of the year was better thin another. Councilmember Renzel noted that at one time, the Water Qu:3lity Control Board indicated that winter was the only time they weued permit. dredging. She said that the staff report indicated that the dewatering process might require removal of material periodically during the lease period-. Her under- standing was that the City would remove dredged mud at the outset in order to create a place to put the dredged mud. That is, the current policy. She asked whether the County was. then going to remove the mud on an annual basis in order to make way for the dredging? Dave Adams, Director of Public Works, said that the City would have the obligation of removing sufficient material for the dredging operations and it was concluded that the City would do it throughout the life of the dredging. Since the City would be obligated to remove that after a one time dredging in order to restore the area anyhow, they would just be doing it incrementally.{ Councilmember Renzel said that in the County's discussion of cost' of dredging, an earlier diagram>indica}ed. 50,000 cubic yards that would be taken from the berthing area and out to the channel. She said, if that was done.in increments of 1/5 of the 50,000 cubic years each year, 'there would be a problem of access for 'the berth boats because the whole channel would not be clear until the fifth year and, by that time, the first year's dredging would have silted up again. 6 7 8 2/23/81 �y ; Mr. Christy indicated that he could not specifically answer the question. He said there were approximately 60,300 cubic yards that would be taken out. Courtci,Imember Renzel asked whether the County would be in charge of doing an environmental impact report on the proposed dredging method. 'Mr. Christy responded yes, if; an EIR was required. Councilmember Renzel asked whu.t the criteria would be since an - environmental assessment was required for the previous dredging See to that point. -- At that time, it_ was a larger moving correction • operation and involved fi 1l ing some land. It _was clamshell p.7864/27/81 versus hydraulic dredging. -- She wanted to know what the criteria was and who would determine whether or not an environmental impact.was_needed. - Mr. -Christy respondtld that he was not totally familiar with all of the requirements of dredging. Councilmember Renzel said that Mr. Christy mentioned that the County would be the City's contact agency if there were any problems with the permit. She noted that that had been a problem for citizens in the past because of the many agencies involved. There had been virtually no enforcement of the permits at all. She asked how the County would assure that the permits would be enforced if they themselves were going through multiple lessees. Mr. Christy indicated that the County would be responsible and if they did not comply, the City could stop the work. Councilmember Renzel indicated that her understanding of the City's earlier policy to remove mud from yacht harbor point was simply to be a one time removal and not a regular annual operation. Mr. Adams responded that that was correct. It was based on a one time removal but then an additional removal after the yacht harbor point was used for that purpose and, as a part of its.' restoration to the marsh, that was envisioned. Councilmember Renzel indicated her concern that the dredging which took..pl aced in 1969 to the' yacht harbor point was still wet in 1974 and the process had been clamshell dredging. Since an hydraulic dredging was anticipated, it would be much wetter when the mud was taken out and that point hadn't been addressed in any of the reports. She asked would it be addressed in.the EIR. Mr. Adams responded that that would be a part of the description of the process. They would have some type of decanting system and the residual mud there would probably be removed with_a dragline. Councilmember Renzel asked would the City have to do that. Mr. Adams responded that, the City would have:.to do that anyhow, the only difference being - small incr-events instead "of 'i `ne laege operation. Councilmember Renzel Said that they were talking about taking. it- when it was dry rather than mucky and wet. It would be more expensive to take.. it out when it was wet.. ;11 6 7 9 2/23/81 Mr. Adams guessed that it was a term that was relatively dependent on wren they did the dredging and when the City removed it in preparation for the next dredging. If it were take i out incrementally, the odds were that it would be a shallower depth that would dry much quicker. Councilmember Renzel asked if, in terms of removing the fill, the City's only financial commitment would be the amount they paid for fill done by an ITT method. Mr. Adams responded that removal of the material and the transportation to the landfill would be no more expensive than excavation, but he didn't have a specific figure for that. Nevertheless, the City would be obligated to remove the material. Mr. Christy indicated that he had not seen the staff report and therefore was not sure what the Council was approving. He asked would the approval allow the County to proceed with their permits. He had heard mention that the County would be coming back again to the Council and what was now being approved was a tentative permit. He needed to know whether the County would be required to come back to the Council with each permit. Mayor Henderson said that it was his interpretation, if the Council decreed to approve the concept, that the lease would have to come back to the City for approval. Mr. Adams said that it was staff's intent that the permit application, including any environmental review, would be prepared and would return to Council for approval prior to forwarding the application to those agencies involved. Mayor Henderson confirmed that the County would be able to prepare the material if the concept was approved tonight. Mr. Christy said that there were quite a few permits that would be solicited during the process and they would get continual feedback from the different organizations or agencies requiring that the County change or modify the plans. He felt that if the County neeaed to come back to Council for each and every modification, it could be a real problem, From the County and staff's point of view, in facilitating the permit process which referred to coming in at one time with the plan of action, he felt that with the public hearings by each agency, there would be plenty of opportunity -for the City to express any concerns they may have. If that met the Council's needs, it would save a lot of time and energy. Mayor Henderson' indicated that it would meet his approval as long as the County informed the City grid that the City received any materials which showed major changes that would take place. That would enable Council to put it on their agenda and/or send representatives to speak at the meetings.. Counci lmember Bechtel said that as she understood the proposal, the berthing fees that would normally go to the County to operate the yacht harbor would now go to the subleasees for the operations. She asked how the County would continue to operate with that additional deficit. Last years operation costs were approximately $100,000 and berthing fees amounted to approximately $40,000' which ,caused a deficit and, it was expected to be an even greater deficit this year. Mr. Christy responded that within his budget he had the flexibility put: people and utilize funds where possible;\; and, in order to work the situation out, he would "Rob Peter pay Paul." He would reduce staff in another area to get the funds to continue sharing the harbor master in Palo Alto. The other point was that the "County no longer had a $100,000 to 6 8 0 2/23/81 operat :on in the harbor due to reductions in staff and various budget restraints._ The figure is no longer valid. There were preseitly two vacancies out of a three person staff. Mr. Christy indicated that they were keeping after the operations as best as pnssible, but that they don't have the same expenses as several years ago. Councilmember Bechtel noted that the voters in November did not approve a dredging -proposal and that Council had previously approved in June one last dredging, the clamshell.dredging whereas this was a different proposal, a hydraulic dredging for smaller increments, maybe 15,000 cubic yards a year. She asked which method was better environmentally. Mr. Christy said he could not give specific facts. He indicated that the County staff had done some checking to find out which would be better. They had spoken to consultants who had studied the bay at some length tut no study t:ad been done specifically on clamshell versus the smaller hydraulic dredge. He mentioned a couple of points that were brought out, both took about the same length of time as far as volume that = is moved over any -particular -period of time. There was one definite benefit that would be derived from using the hydraulic dredge which .was being proposed as opposed to the clamshell. The clamshell would once again eliminate the trail and all of the plant life around yacht harbor point. The last time they dredged with the clamshell it picked up the mud and dripped it all the way across and dumped it on the other side. That would eliminate the path that was recently put in along wuth the vegetation. That could be restored once the work was done which would be reeaired with a BCDC permit. But with the hydraulic dredge there would not be that. There would be a pipe that was laid across the levee and the mud would go through the pipe and not onto the levee itself. As far as noise and equipment, the clamshell dredge requires at least one and usually two bulldozers working out in the point in order to spread the material after the clamshell has dumped 1-: . So it would then be quite a bit of equipment and disturbance going on during_the operation. He also indicated that according to the specification sheets, the clamshell deposited more material in less time than the hydraulic dredge. Environmentally, it would probably be a toss up. As far as the water turbulence, the clamshell would dig much deeper whereas the hydraulic dredge does not. He felt that the difference wasn't that. great to warrant a close study. Councilm•ember Bechtel said she understood that the harbor itself was not evenly filled up. Thereewere some spots that were in great need of dredging and other spots that were not. The public launching area was in quite poor shape, She asked who would control where the dredging would be done. Mr. Christy responded that the County.would,control that. The plan would be subject to their: review. Vice -Mayor Fletcher said that when Council reviewed the Baylands Plan, a consultant who was an expert in the field, came up with a very elaborate dewatering pond system to dry spoils before transporting them to the landfill. She noted that this process was recommended by County staff who were not experts in that field. She was uneasy in not really knowing whether the process would work. She asked whether they planned to call on -expert pecple to consujt with on the matter. i Mr. Christy indicated that they have had some practical experience not just i,n_.,Palo Alto but they had done similar hydraulic dredging -- not with a small machine, but' with .a larger hydraulic dredge .- at Al vi so which was used to pump material to their Sunnyvale Baylands Park which was leveed, 6 8 1 2/23/81 and decanted. There were a lot of variable factors, i.e. weather conditions, etc. Even with the decanting ponds and the periodic turning that were proposed in the Baylands Master Plan, he questioned whether that would work under all conditions. He would not guarantee that any particular solution to the problem would work without question. So, based on their experience and on the relatively small amount of material that would be going in there each time, it seemed to have a good chance of working. If if didn't work, there would be no place for the material to go and the yacht harbor would silt up until such time as the material was removed. Vice -Mayor Fletcher said since it would serve a landfill it was more crucial that the soil was completely dry. She wondered if BCUC or some other agency would require a more elaborate study. Mr. Ciiristy commented that they wouldn't know until they went threegh the permit process. Councilmember Levy indicated his concern for the volume of dredging that was going to take place and how it would be monitored. Mr. Christy said that the actual amount of material that was taken out would be listed in the applications to the various agencies. They could gauge the volume of the material by using the perimeter to measure the area of the point and figuring the depth of the mud that was taken out after it was dried. Councilmember Levy asked Mr. Adams to describe how the amount of the mud and the way in which it would be handled was different for the one time dredging as opposed to dredging annually. Mr. Adams said that if •the work was done one time there would not be any time limit en when they went in to remove it. So nature could take its course and dry it ,Sufficiently before it was removed. That process would take several years. Under the proposed plan, it would be in thinner layers and should be removed on.a yearly basis. John Walker, 19375 Greenwood Circle, Cupertino, said that Mr. Christy covered all the details., He indicated that he was part of the group that would be spooning the mud out. He was available to answer questions. Councilmember Renzel asked if Mr. Walker's group was prepared to assume all of the risks of the project aside from the specific assumptions from the County and the City. Mr. Walker responded that he did,not foresee any risks other than those that would accompany -ny other business. He has insurance policies that cover workmen's compensation. Councilmember Renzel said . that what Mr. Walker proposed to the County earlier was to borrow a dredge, from Santa Cruz Harbor and let the operator -who currently works there, work for him. She asked what would happen if the dredging took longer than he anticipated and'if he was prepared to take the financial risks to pay the operator and pay for equipment repairs, etc. Mr. Walker responded that he was prepared to assume that. He did not foresee any great problems. One of the stipulations that Santa Cruz Harbor made was that if something broke, he was responsible, h 8 2 2/23/81 t3 Councilmember Renzel confirmed that the dredge was to be transported by truck. She asked the time frame for dredging. Mr. Walker felt that it would take 3 months at the maximum, 1-1/2 months at the minimum, dependent on the weather and a host of other variables. He notes that it wouldn't be a cost to the taxpayer. Councilmember Renzel'asked what would happen to the surplus water after the dredging. Mr. Walker said that the mud would fall to thebottomandthe clear water would be funnelled to the bay. He noted that Santa Cruz Harbor was doing that right now. Councilmember Renzel asked would someone monitor the water quality? Mr. Walker responded yes. Milly Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, turned in a survey regarding the yacht harbor dredging. The results showed that Measure D Yacht Harbor Dredging Initiative would have been defeated by Palo Alto residents in November, 1980 whether or -not the Palo Alto Council had voted to have one last dredging. Since County staff were suffering cuts due to Proposition 13 and would probably suffer more cuts, it was imperative that priorities were established for requests frr County tax monies. An alternative use for County tax monies could be construction of two segments of paved bayfront trail in Palo Alto suitable for recreation and bicycle commute. That proposal is in desperate need of monies and, since the ; nforrnat i on was new and not available to Council when they voted- on the issue last summer, she asked fora continuance of the item to a later meeting to allow public the opportunity to express their viewson which needs they would prefer County tax monies to be spent -- either operation of the yacht harbor for 5 more years or. construction of segments of the paved bayfront trail. Herb Borock, 3401 Ross Road, had a number of questions: 1) Has the lease between the City and the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor been terminated' or is it still in effect? 2) Are the buildings and structures on the land leased by the Palo Alto Yacht, --..the property of the City of Palo Alto?` 3) What is the complete records of rent payments between the C,,ty and the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor? 4) Has the County seceded ti the rights of the City under the City's lease with the Palo Alto's Yacht Club? 5) Is there a lease between the. County of Santa Clara and the Palo Alto Yacht Club? 6) What is thecomplete record of rent payments -between the County and the Palo Altof,Yacht Club under the City lease and under any County lease?: 7) Does the general public have the right, to use the landing,: shown on the -map attached tc the lease between the City and Palo Alto Yasht Club 8) Does hydraulic dredging require a --grading strengthening sr other construction of dikes to hold the mud and, if so, does such construction require City Council approval by ordinance pursuant to the: provisions :Of Article 8 of the Charter of -the City as provided in paragraph 6a of the lease between the City:- and the County? 9) What iVthe name --of the nonkrofi t organization that will dredge the harbor?(The City Attorney's memo mentions. the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor is the group.) 10) How many times a year' wi l l the harbor be dredged? How much -mud and. cubic yards will they dredge each time? What parts of the harbor. will- be dredger! (north basin, turning basin,, south basin, -launch ramp, outer channel)? 6 8 3 2/23/81. How frequently -would the harbor be dredged air alternatively how long after the last such dredging would the harbor be usable, that is, howlong after the last dredging will there be water in the harbor? 11)How much mud will be deposited on yacht harbor point in dredging? Does this amount take into account the water content variation between hydraulic and clamshell dredging? 12)Who is responsible for removing the mud from yacht harbor point? (Mr. Adams indicated that the city was. It was his understanding that the lease does. not require that. The lease ,requires th;1t the..City end County agree to disposal site and it was also his understanding that the Council has only authorized. money for moving the existing mud, and as yet, has not made any authorization about implementation of the Oaylands Master Plan for Yacht Harbor Point.) 1.3)How frequently will the med have to be moved from the point to some place else to provide more room for more mud? Will it be dry enough to move to the dump or must it be shifted to someplace like Alcatraz? 14)What are the details of the dew6tering process? Does the subleasee have the necessary technical expertise to dredge and implement, the dewatering the_ process. (He referred, to a letter from City staff to .Doctoe Carl El 1 i sr'n which indicated that a certain kind of expertise was needed.) 15)How much berthing fee income does the County receive for 100% occupancy? (That is $39,000, it will receive none under the sublease arrangement, that means over 5 years $195,000 in County taxpayers money will go to the dredging. Compare this to the cost of the dredging. The City staff memo CMR:513:i indicated a $200,000 cost for a minimum dredged area, $300;000 cost if the area in front of the seascout base was included, and that was_ exclusive of the • cost of ,,�vving the dredging muu from the point. The County at various times has said that it would cost $250,0.00 or $340,010. The relevance of that is, how much will the berthing fees need to be?) 16)Wnat will it cost to dredge hydraulically? He wanted to know if the County recommends that berthing fees be increased to pay for incurred dredging costs and harbor • operations, how much of those fees would go for harbor operations other than dredging and how that -money would be transferred from the subleasee to the'subleasor. Robert Coates, 3836 . Los Altos Drive, indicated he was a geologist and did not own a boat. 'He suggested the consideration of natural processes be used to flush the mud out of the harbor. Those processes were used to keep clear the mouth of the .Mississippi River. Councilmember Witherspoon noted that at least one study had been done extensively on that subject and there was no logical solution because it was not as simple as the water coming in from the creek. She thanked City and County staff .and voters who had gotten together and devised the plan. She felt that the plan was workable and not environmentally damaging and did allow for both the sale and the yacht harbor at least for 5 more years.. She urged her fellow Councilmembers approve it. Having the yacht harbor kept open by chargingthose people who frequent it most a fee was only fair. They all realized that the County was strapped for money and that was a solution to the problem. She was glad to see that the harbor master would remain. Counci lmember Bechtel, indicated her concern that there .was a very strong mandate by thevoters in November that they -were against a major dredging, which was similar to that proposed, but on a much larger scale. she . felt that there needed, to be more information and that the public needed time to respond. She felt that what they were doing was not what the voters 6 8 4 2/23/81 understood. In June the Council voted to allow one last dredging. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Councilmember Renzel, to continue the item for two weeks to allow time for Correction., feedback from the voters on whether or not the proposal was an See Pg 786 acceptable alternative. 4/27/81 Mayor Henderson confirmed that the Council was presently speaking to a motion to continue the item, but that it was in order for Councilmembers to express their overall feelings on the subject. Councilmember Eyerly said that unless it was placed on the ballot again, he was doubtful that from what they heard from the public, that they would know any better than they knew tonight. He asked Mr. Adams how much the City was spending for fill material for the la-ndfill. Mr. Adams said at present, they were not buying that particular material. The cost had been estimated at approximately $9.00 per cubic yard for that type of material. He felt that they should be getting into the final cover operation later. Vice -Mayor Fletcher noted two concerns: 1) the heavy agenda scheduled for Ma,�ch 9; and 2) that Council would not have any more -information from an operational nature. She preferred that Council have, at the time the additional information was available as a result of the regulatory agencies comments and the environmental review, an opportunity to fully discuss the matter again. Councilmember Levy said that the Council had approved the concept of one last dredging which had been ratified by the voters and he was in favor of that. He asked whether the plan before them was a satisfactory substitution for the concept of one last dredging. He was satisfied if, in fact, the volume of dredged spoils was comparable over the 5 year period to what would be dredged with one clamshell dredging, and Mr. Christy had indicated that the volume would- be stated in the application. He felt much more comfortable with a number of smaller dredgings than with the one large dredging. Mayor Henderson said that if the item was continued for two weeks, he wouldn't be there and was disappointed that he would not be able to participate. Despite numerous accusations by Yacht Club members, to the contrary, he was sincere in making the motion for one more dredging. He had never been among those people opposed to retaining the yacht harbor per se. He was strongly opposed to the policy of a heavy subsidy for a few beneficiaries and to negative environmental impact from disposition of the mud. When he spoke during the Measure D campaign, he always spoke about one more dredging. He found the proposed sublease and concept to be satisfactory, subject to review of the actual lease, the EIR, the permits, etc. at a later time. He was pleased to be able to support the County's dredging concept and he would oppose the:continuance. Councilmember Witherspoon spokeagainst the continance. She hoped that the permit process could have started last June. Shefelt that it would take almost a year to get through the paperw.nrk . Councilmember Renz' felt that to'apprgy a the dredging concept ,was one thing, but to approve going forward with ,the permit application -as opposed to preparation was -another. She said that Mr. Christy indicated that maintenance dredging may be categorically exempt. Either it was or -it wasn't. If it was, the Council would see no environmental review of that. The 6 8 5 2/23/81 previous dredging at Harbor Point was considered a capital dredging which was different and so an EIR was done. But there may be no further environmental review of the proposed concept. She said if the motion to continue failed, she would move an amendment thatrequires an EIR to be prepared in, conjunction with the preparation of permit application. MOTION FAILED: The motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Renzel NOES: Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy Witherspoon ABSEMT: Fazzino AMENDMENT TO MAIN MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Councilmember Fletcher, that an EIR be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of permit applications and that the FIR be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council before the -permit applications are actually submitted. Mayor Henderson asked if it turned out that a full blown EIR was not required who would pay for it. Councilmember Renzel felt that a greet deal of the information in the 1975 EIR could be used. However, she felt that there were newaspects: the proposed once a year dredging, hydraulic versus clamshell dredging, the areas to be covered by the dredging, the decanting of the water, etc. She indicated_a number of factors .in question and the fact that she did rpct know whether the County or the subleasee would be required to do the appropriate environmental reviews, but felt that the public deserved an environmental impact. While she didn't want to delay the County in preparing the permit applications, it seemed to her that they had to define the project more specifically than the information received thus far, and, that the Council should have review of .the applications before they were forwarded to the agencies. Mayor Henderson asked if, in a.normal process, a judgment was made that either a limited assessment or no_assessment was required, and then Council required a full EIR, who would be -obligated to pay. Roy Abrams, City Attorney, responded that the review authority specifically set forth in the existing lease related not to the dredging per se but to the site for spoils deposit.. So, he felt that if one took the strongest perception, the,City could do an awful lot of requiring through the ability to say where the spoils could be deposited. There was nothing in the law which pervented the City or County -from providing an environ- mental review beyond what -the law required. That was an open question which was not --addressed in the lease and he had not heard the County -address the subject. William Zaier,--City Manager, responded that the Council should be aware -of the practical effect of a full EIR. First, it would be expensive ard,. second, quite time consuming. Council -might already have the kind of protection -they were looking for in that, the agencies -that would review'thee-project, i,e._BCOC, Water_ Qual i ty, p`tc. would - not _do so without the assurance that_ the environmental aspects were addressed in some way. Mayor lienders.on confirmed,� that with all . of the agencies involved, Council was protected afd he did not feel it was nzcessary to request an environmental assessent. lie was comfortable ,with staying within the normal requirements of the agencies involved. Councilmember Witherspoon said if that the e.Council required.. an environmental assessment then she felt that the City should, go on record as being willing to pAy for it. 6 8 6 /2/23/81 Councilmember Renzel asked if Mr. Zaner's remarks suggested that an EIR was not likely to be prepared on the project. Mr. Zaner responded that if one of the agencies did an assessment and determined that an EIR was required, it would be done. However, if all of the agencies determined that it wasn't necessary, he would assume that they had looked at it very carefully and that Council would be fairly well protected. Councilmember Renzel asked Mr. Christy if in fact the dredging was categorically exempt. Mr. Christy responded yes. Councilmember Renzel said that the agencies would simply indicate that the project was exempt and that in fact what Council was doing was endorsing a blank check without any details. Mr. Christy said during the last process, the agencies did require some additional studies, but not a full EIR. Councilmember Renzel felt that the public needed to have some input on the local level before official approval went forward. It did not need to be a full blown ,EIR, but there needed to be more information_ than what was there. She indicated that she would modify her amendment to say that there be a review of the detailed permit applications before they go forward. Mayor Henderson responded that all of the material would come back tc Council. So it was either a motion for a full blown EIR or it was necessary leave it as it is. MOTION FAILED: The motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Renzel NOES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon ABSENT: Fazzino Councilmember Bechtel said she proposed the two week continance because of the County's request that they did not want tocome back to the .Council after they had gonethrough the permit process and then be turned down. She wished that theyhad heard more from the public. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon NOES; Renzel ABSENT: '"Fa Zz ino RECESS: Recess was called from 9:30 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. 6 .8 7 2/23/81 , - _� REQUEST OF THE ARCHITECTURAL WE ItW BD ARB ADD THI ANNA G CUMM1S IdN FUR A STAFF P SIGNe_ PVIT TO COL1 ECT DATA ON LAM -- St 1N1 ENSIF ICA1-IOT �3 Mayor Henderson noted that Council had received a letter from each of the Chairpersons of the groups and a staff report. Fred Nichols, Chairman, Planning Commission, said during the Comprehensive Plan review, the Commission repeatedly discussed the possible impacts of intensification. It came up during they were frustrated from lack of data. He said that during joi,it sessions with the ARB, ARB mentioned that the EIA report, that was in process resultec' ;in some dati in terms of parking, but as a joint group, the`Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board felt that some tabulation of intensification data, however limited, would be useful. However, they were, and had been in the past, sympathetic to staff's workload, but, felt that they needed a grip on intensification as it affects the City's future. William Blythe, Chairman, Architectural Review Board, echoed Mr. Nichols' comments. He felt uneasy that he had no way to measure staff's workload and therefore couldn't speak directly to that. He spoke to their concern about the incremental` effect they saw in the change of environment in Palo Alto because cf the relatively small commercial projects coming through, each of which presented no significant or measurable effect in terms of traffic, housing or any of the other concerns that they normally had for large projects. There were many small projects coming through and they felt that they were missing the accumulative effect of all of them.. They should start to collect, maintain and tabulate the data on each of the projects to get a measure of their accumulative effect. Their feeling was that the present zoning did not control development in the way that they` had hoped. He pleaded for a‘modest commitment to collect data which was relatively available. Mayor Henderson asked how a referral to staff to take the assignment, with the understanding that it does not have priority over the major items in process, would be acc€€pted. Ken Schreiber, Acting Planning Director, responded that if the referral was the request for data collection by the Commission and Review Board, that could be done easily. The problem was that the data would be of very limited usefulness. It also raised the concern as to how the data would be used. What staff was hear;ng was concern about specific levels of development and to pa�rhaps change that. If the purpose was to have a major effort to scale down future development, then staff's sense was to approach it head on and find out what the objections were. Staff had two concerns 1) workload, `and, 2) how the data would be used. Mayor Henderson confirmed that staff's concern was that the data could be misleading and not provide the guidelines that the AR8 and Commission wanted. Councilnrember Witherspoon agreed with Mrs. Schreiber. -She sensed the.. frustration of ::the ARB and Comnissin at not being able to licit the intensification 'of.:"employment in Palo Alto." She did not see the requested d,ata..;so'i ving the problem, and, they would need a lot of other data, not just `traffic. She did not want to get into it right noW. She was sensitive to the fact that the ARS and Commission were aware of the Com- prehensive Plan, that they were meeting to go over their. 6 8 8 2/23/81 joint concerns, but she did not want them to lead the Council on that. That was one of her concerns. She felt that the Planning Commission were trying to lead Council into policy decisions. She suggested some study sessions with the ARB and Commission on that subject but that to approve their request was not the way to get at it. Councilmember Bechtel was sensitive to what the planning ,staff had said and written that it was, an ongoing concern. This subject had come up during the County General Plan. She heard statistics from Peter Giles, President, Santa Clara County Manufacturers Group, that the average number of employees per square, foot was doubled. She felt that the concerns of the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board were legitimate. .She suggested that staff working with the Manufacturers Group, --the City of Sunnyvale, industries, etc. to use their expertise to collect the data. She suggested that the Council indicate to staff that it was a concern, but that it should not be placed above the other priority studies. Mr. Zaner responded that from staff's perspective, they were not too far away from where Councilmember Bechtel was, St7iff felt it was important to give an analysis of what were the components involved in employee intensification and, in order to do that, it would take some time. He felt that the data could be provided by Fall. But staff was relunctant to collect data ,and to_accumulate a category of information which might not have any relevance at all once they 'get to the point of designing a progra'n to deal with employee intensification. Mr. Schreiber said -that staff was in sympathy with the ARB and the Commission's concern and recognized that intensification was a major issue and deserved to be looked at. He felt that staff could look at it daring the Slimmer/early Fall and get back to the Council. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Councilmember Renzel, approval of Council to direct staff to prepare a report on identifying the problems of job intensification, how to approach solutions for the problems, what studies would be required, how :data could be acquired and what time schedules would be required, and, that staff return in 3 months with a status report. Mayor Henderson confirmed that the request in no way meant that the item should be placed before other prioritized staff assignments. Councilmember Levy asked whether Council was provided a list of staff assignments and priorities. Mr. Zaner responded that Council got them in a slightly different form. Council received a report l,i sti ng the assignments that they gave staff, who was working on the assignments, and the status. He indicated that they were not listed in a., priority order. They are picked up as Council asks for them. Councilmember Levy felt that it was worthwhile to review >the list of projects and to make sure that what was requested was still valid. Also, with',regard to the issue of employee intensification, he felt it was a key problem and endorsed the concept. Councilmember Fletcher .indicated her gratitude to the ARB and 'Commission for theirconcern and alertness in recognizing the. problem. She felt that it was a severe_ problem _ and was suppoiti ve and -did-not feel that the ARB `and, Commission were out of line' = at all. Counci lmember Renzel supported the request of the ARB and Commission for more information on the intensification. She said that the Zoning -Ordinance, for example, provided parking spaces for buildings based on the use of the building and that when the use changed, a use permit was needed and at the same time the parking situation was looked at. There were several check points in place- that: brought their attention .to changes. Also, during the Comprehensive Plan process, the issue of properties which were underdeveloped, focused col another kind of intensification where a building might be added on an - existing vacant site part of the parcel. While the'2oning Ordinance and zoned land was a general control of the property as to use and the type of building_ ,-.it was did not focus on intensity of use. Therefore, she felt it necessary to develop information that would lead to' getting a handle on. that. Mifly Davis, 344 Tennessee, commended the ARB and the Commission for their request on land use intensification. She revered to a meeting of the Stanford Forum, where the Mayor of Sunnyvale made -the statement: "If you understand the problem of the jobs/housing imbalance, the solutions are obvious. Excess job growth is the cause of the problem, both the amount and_ rate. To solve the housing problems we must restrain the source of demand:_ excessive job growth." He also stated that just a 25% increase 'in job intensification on 1350 acres of developed industrial land could add 20,000 new jobs. Sunnyvale has established a limit of 45 employees per acre unless a use permit was granted, and the Mayor felt that the limit would be better at 35 employees. There were also floor area ratio limits and parking spaces requirement. These restrictions have put industries on notice that traffic is increasing, and there was not enough housing, and thus the controls were as much to benefit industry as anyone. Although Sunnyvale hopes to get voluntary cooperations from industrial firms, some checks were possible: 1) Building or Use Permit. When .firms apply for a building or a uae permit, they certify statements giving the lot area, the number of employees, floor area, and parking spaces at their site. City staff Will check previous records to see that the company is not expanding<beyond limits. 2) Building Inspectors. Periodic checks ,an employees/acre are made when building inspectors check permit for various uses at site. 3) Fire Marshall. Fire marshalls routinely check all industrial firms yearly, and they can check on employees per acre. '4) Business License Applications. Each year, to: obtain a busi,ess il'cene, ffrms must list their employees in a range of low, medium or high density, as defined by the zoning ordinance. She felt that since Sunnyvale had already done much of the ground work needed to develop a program to restrict the number of `employees per acre, it,.,would not need to be time consuming for staff. It was also an important problem that should be studied immediately. Mr. Schreiber commented that Sunnyvale's situation was much different than in Palo Alto. The Sunnyvale's approach applied only to new development rather than existing facilities. The enforcement wason a complaint basis only. There was no formal mechanism to monitor developments for compliance. The Sunnyvale's effort was far less intense than what Palo Alto would really need to consider since Palo Altos dealt with the situation of expanding the number -of people within an exising structure. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on the following vote: AYES.:. Bechtel , Eyerlyb Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel NOES: Witherspoon ABSENT: Fazz i no 6 9. 0 2/23/81 RE UEST OF MAYOR HENDERSON RE Mayor Henderson noted that the Council should have a letter addressed to the Mayor from Assemblyman Byton Sher stating that he would appreciate the Council's input on the item. The request was to add a fee to various fines that would go toward the con- struction of jails and courtroom space. Mr. Lauer indicated that the only financial impact .it might have was that by; pl aci ng a su;?charge on the amount of the fine or ball, they might to some degree begin to restrict their - ability later to try to raise parking fines. Even though it was: a surcharge and separate, after a while the burden on the person who paid the fine would become heavy and would impact the Council's'ability to recommend co the Courts that fines be raised later on. However, a number of cities were considering the measure. The County a.ninistrator had reviewed it with some of the cities, and staff did not find any problem_with the notion in principle. Los Angeles County had a system similar to it. There might be some minor changes as it went through the legislative process. He indicated that Santa Clara. County was actively pursuing this data. Mayor Henderson clarified that the fee would be $1.50 for each parking violation, $2.00 for each nonparking violation and $5.00 for all other criminal cases. Councilmember Witherspoon said that it was a good idea to make those who ase the jail pay for it. But, she felt that the volume was not big-enough to make a dent in the problem. She wanted to know what the City thought they would get from it. Mr. Zaner understood that the County would finance the construction of the jail by a bond and use the funds as an annual revenue source to pay off the principal and interest. The County did not hope to accumulate the funds to build a jail but saw it as a continuing 20 -year revenue source to pay for the bond. Councilmember Levy said that no data was provided, i.e what was the need for a new jail, what the cost was, how much revenue would be raised by the levees. He also opposed the concept of designated taxes. He noted that when the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay Bridge were built, tolls- were imposed to pay off the bridges. .The bridges were paid off long ago and the tolls remained. He would not vote in favor of the item unt i' he had more information. He would rather. see a straightforward tax put to the voters rather than to have it approved in a backdoor way as an added temporary construction fee Mr. Zaner said that staff could 'ask the County for any of . the analysis they had and_.distribute-it to the Council. The County was looking for away to service the debt out .0 some ;.fie and charge and that was the mechanism they designed. • Councilmember 'Eyerly felt that the $1.50 for parking cases would create proiems. The parking fines were high for local Or smafl towns such as Palo Alto. He did not feel that parking fees needed courtroom or jail facilities, so he had a problem with a surcharge on a ticket that supported bonds for that type of construction. He agreed with Councilmember Levy that surcharges could continue forever. He suggested -,that the $1.50 parking fine be excluded'and a sunset clause added. Councilmember Bechtel wondered if -there was a legislative committee" on staff that could evaluate a Bill before it got to the Council `as a whole. 6 9 1 2/23/81 Mr, >_aner responded_ that staff did analyze Bills that came to them or that they picked up directly from the Legislative Bulletin. The'Budget staff did that. However, that particular item went directly from a legislator to Council If the County had done an analysis, staff could get that for the Council. He noted that there was a sunset clause in the Bill. The appropriations would end after 20 Years. Councilmember Bechtel commented -that -there were a series of articles in the San Jose Mercury within the last two weeks. The main jail .,was certified for .500 inmates and prior -to the Washington Birthday weekend, there were 800 inmates. There was a desperate need for a new jail. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Mayor. inderson, approval of Council that staff check.with Byron Sher's legislative office and defer recommendations for three weeks to collect information from the County. Councilrnember Fletcher commented that there was no question that there was a dire need for a additional jail .pace. Unfortunately the crime rates were soaring and the legislature kept adding mandatory jail terms for all ..types of crime, so the County's hands were tied.. At the same time their finances were shrinking and she felt that the mechanism was a worthy one. Councilmember Levy supported the proposed motion which allowed Council to get information from the County and then to act at that time. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Fazzino absent. RE OEST OF MAYOR HENDERSON RE .I Cl I NSPECTI � 1 MOTOR Mayor Henderson said he put this on the agenda at the urging of the Intergovernmental Council. It was discussed at the list IGC meeting and there was a considerable amount of controversy. Some cities considered it, others felt that -there should not be inspections at all, and others had concerns about creating a new bureaucracy. On the other hand, there mere a number of people who spoke about the need to get something, going so -that they met the federal regulation requirements ad did not jeopardize receiving federal funding for air pollution and water quality control programs. Mayor Henderson indicated his concerns of creating another off ic-e, but it appeared to be item that came down as a consensus out of a number of bills that had been attempted and defeated for one reason or another. He did not like the fact that= California did not meet the requirements. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed with the'ci'ties that were of a conservative bent because it _seerhed to he- that it was a horror story of bureaucracy.. She asked what the budget would be. Mr. Liner responded the.t no amount had been appropriated or listed in the Bill. Councilmember Witherspoon said that checks would be done at central test stations that would either be built or leased for free. It was not a pay as you go program. It would require an horrendous amount of personnel. It did not involve the licensing of gas stations. The whole, thing looked -like an absolute nightmare. MayorHenderson cover it. said that the $ 15.00 fee per, ,vehl,cl a was to 6 9 2 2/23/81. Councilmember Witherspoon said how much was that. She said if 410 dollar came in from fees, there would be,a $10 million dollar organization. Councilmember Levy indicated that -in the Comprehensive Plan there was a statement to the effect that --they supported the -need' for some type of ongoing motor vehicle inspection. He.was not in a position to analyze the particular Bill, but without ne.cessarially,.endorsing the Bill, they could endorse the need for stateWideon-going -motor ve;iicle inspection. MOTION Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Councilmember Renzel, approval 'of the Council to endorse the -need for statewide ongoing motor vehicle inspection and communicate that to the legislators. Councilmember Fletcher- commented that the legislators themselves havee-reazhed consensus and were all in favor of a vehicle inspection program. She felt that since various mechanisms had been explored, it was wiser to get behind that.-. particular Bill. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Fazzino absent. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Mayor Henderson, approval of Council to endorse S.B. 33. Councilmember Levy said he had problems with Bills coming to the Council without an analysis. Mr. Zaner responded that staff could obtain analysis done. by others and distribute them to the Council. But to,take an the job of analyzing the Sills that come through the Legislature -- would be a maor undertaking. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on the following vot-0: AYES: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson,''Renzel NOS: Eyerly, Witherspoon ABSENT: Fazzino, ABSTENTION: Levy I?E�ST OF COUNCILMEMBERS EYERLY' iTT CONSULTA'IT Councilmember Renzel said that several weeks ag.u, Council approved a transfer of funds from surplus -funds of a project that had been in the present C.I.P., and it was their feeling that the cover -from the dump should come from the Refuse Disposal Fund. MOTI`O'N: -.Councilmember Renzel moved,, seconded --by Councilmember °Eyerly, approval of Council to` instruct the City .Controller to transfer moneys from the Refuse Disposal Fund to the Contingency Reserve dlnd to equalize the use of -:moneys from Capital Improvement Projects 078-31, 079-40 and 079-99 fbr•..a consultant \in the ITT Excavation Proj`ct#80-41. MOTION PASSED;'. The motion passedunanimously. Councilmember Faztiob absent. ---REOJES I C---MAIO - l;thDERSON RE tHUI CH SIGNS Mayor_Henderson r•eiterited what was stated in his letter. He 6 ,9 3 2/23/81 hated to see all of the work being done in the individual churches with study groups preparing petitions for exception from the sign ordinance. His understanding was that there were 13 churches involved and that several had already filed petitions to be exempt from the sigh, ordinance. To his knowledge, informational signs in front of churches had not brought any ,complaints to the City. He was inclined to exempt church signs unless staff felt that it was important to nail down the present signs by requiring a special ordinance would be required for churches. Mr. Abrams indicated that, if Council approved drafting of the ordinance, an analysis be included to determine whether exempt churches and not violate soma equal protection requirement. Councilmember Witherspoon confirmed that churches were not preve:eted from having signs jut that some signs were non- conforming because they were too large and freestanding. Councilmember Renzel clarified that in referring to signs, the Council .leant only signs that identify the church and gave information about the time, of service etc. Councilmember Eyerly wanted to know what were the restrictions on churchs sign at present. Robert Coates, 3836 Los Altos Drive, objected to his taxes being spent for something that was likely ;o cost the City of Palo Alto some money and impair its reputation as a liberal place to live. He saw the request in jeopardy of the Freedom of Religion Clause in the Constitution. He quoted several Supreme, Court cases (i.e. 1939 Snyder vs. Ervington 308 US 147) which upheld religious freedom. He supported Mr. Sutorius and Mayor Henderson's request. Ron Thompson 555 Forest, indicated that he had argued in favor of churches' rights for years. He had attended church for 50 years. However, when it came to signs, public safety and public rights, he felt that the law did not .have religious connotations and, therefore, churches should not be favored anymore than anyone else. John Sutorius, 2030 Waverley, Vice Chairman, Architectural Review Board, .said that while he endorsed the separation of church and state, he didn't see a need for alienation from church to state. The ARB discussed the subject at its meetings of February 5 and 19. They had staff input and monitored the amortization issue and, as Council was aware, ARB sponsored the enactment of an amendment to the existing ordinance which provided for an exception procedure. The ordinance procedure was. passed .in August, 1980 and became effective in September. He felt that that there was a time element, an exense element, and a climate of annoyance th4,t was associated with requiring each of the applicants that needed to, to come forward and pursue an exception and, that this needed to be avoiaed. It was his,recommendation that an exemption could be provided to the amortization scheduled for those recorded nonconforming church signs within residential, districts. That meant that the existing l isteJ sites and the signs at those sites would become legally nonconforming. It would in no way limit, or di ute the authority of the sign. ordinance. It „would not remove the signs from all of the other provisions. of the ordinance, nor would it affect the administratiRn of the sign ordinance on other applications whether they were in a residential district or any other type _-of `di strtt or whether they were'' a. `church dr co umsrci al sign. He deser;bed the 16 recorded nonconformihg church signs at the.13 sites within residential districts:: one exceeds the area restriction, 10 exceed the height restriction, 2 exceed the area and height restrictions, ,,Z exceed restric- tions on the allowable number by type, of signs and on their 6 9 4 2/23/81 heights. So.that the preponderent nonconforming character- istics related to the uniformed 5 foot height limit on :freestanding signs in residential districts. He felt that it was responsive to the inquiry en what the ordinance provided for. The 5 foot height limit was unifornied in residentia1 districts regardless of type of sign. In most cases, for the deviations, -it was the structure for its placement in the landscape that caused it to be higher than 5 feet. So that the signage itself did not c,-:eate the problem. Similar circum- stances covered those that deviated from the area restictions. The area restrictions were established by code that related to the square footage of the sign related to the wall frontage. As it applied to the 13 sites and 16 affected signs, building inspection staff in their memo to Council, indicated that those were marginal cases as far as their nonconformity. In his judgment none of the signs were intrusive or could be con- sidered objectionable as measured by the, sign ordinance.. If they proceeded with enforcing conformity or abatem,:snt, they were few ironic consequences i.e. 2 of the amortized signs were in line of sight with the City property sign of the same 'style and approximate height. Signs at se,'eral of the locations could be ruled conforming by otherwise unnecessary and perhaps inappropriate soil mounding at the base of the sign. Enforce- ment at 8 corner location sites could result in an allowable subst tutior-of 2 conforming signs for each of the 17 frontages that were involved, resulting in the potential for 34 signs to replace the 10 existing signs at the sites now. At four • interior sites, combinations of wall aej freestanding signs could legally replace sign nonconforming signs. He felt that this was case where the exemption from the amortization would resolve the issue without any discriminating effect. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Councilmember Fletcher, appreval of the Council to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that amended the sign ordinance, exempting all church signs.existing as of February 23, 1981 from the amortization clause. Councilmember Witherspoon asked that if the signs were nonconforming and were part of the amortization process, did it mean that when they were amortized, they needed to be removed and brought into conformance. Mr. Schreiber responded -yes. The sign ordinance, PAMC, Chapter 16.21.20, stated that churches in residential areas could have signs that identified the premises. The ordinance set the maximum of wall signage;' at: 100 feet based on the size of the wall, and a maximum of 5 feet high and maximum of 20 square. feet for the freestanding sign. Councilmember Witherspoon felt that there was a procedure for an exemption procedure and she preferred to go that route. She asked if there ,could be -.one hearing for the 13 churches er. perhaps waiving the fee. Mr. Abrams responded that the code did not allow the waiver of fees. With respect to combining the hearings, they could advertise them -for the same time and'submit.the same evidence. Technically would each be separately subject to further review. Councilmember,Witherspoon indicated that her preference` was to keep `the ,process as they had now and not write an exemption procedure in the ordinance:' Councilmember levy asked if lilt. Sutorius had .looked at every church i n Palo Alto. Mr. Sutorius said he looked at actually 14 sites., He worked from the staff's list of the nonconforming amortized signs. On the list there were 14 sites identified and a total of 16 -6 9 5 2/23/81. signs. Une of the sites and its sign was in conformance. His language in the proposal to the ARB was carefully constructed in referring to those as. the recorded nonconforming signs, The reason being that the ordinance itself mandated a recording of nonconforming signs within one year of the enactment of that. • ordinance:back in 1974. A lot of things has happened in the interim and may happen at any time. So he dealt just with the signs that were listed as recorded. Councilmember levy asked if within an ordinance or an altern4tive action, specify .the I3 sites and grant them an exception rather than state an exemption for all sites. Mr. Abrams could not answer the, que.stion.at the present time. -Councilmember Levy did not like the concept theoretically of -'- exempting churches per se. He felt that they should fundamentally exempt all signs . of that particular type. He would hate to see' 13 churches: all putting out $40.00 in order to be certified that they were all right. He would change the word "churches" to specifying the 13 sites where recorded nonconforming signs exist. Mr.'Abrams suggested that if the Council wished to consider creating an exemption for the church signs, the most appropriate way would be to ask for some analysis of how and whether it could be done. He recognized that Council wanted to do it very quickly, but he was not sure what substa.n,tial research they were uncovering now. He reiterated what Mr. Coates cited, regarding the elderly Supreme Court cases, which had ample litigation concerning the intrusion on the 1st Amendment privileges and equal protection rights. So he was not sure what priority the assignment would take, but at this point, he couldn't answer the question. RESTATED MOTION: Mayor Henderson restated the motion to direct the City Attorney to report on the feasibility of establishing special exemptions for church signs and, if feasible, to prepare an ordinance to amend the sign ordinance to exempt all church signs existing as February 23, 1981, (seconded by Councflmamber Fletcher). Mr. Zaner said that while Mr. Abrams was doing the necessary research, staff would deal with. other signs, and let that analysis be,, done. William Blythe, 1545 Univertlty Avenue, said that he Was sure -that Mr. Sutorius did not mean to imply by his comments that - the ARB agreed with his position..Mr.-.-Sutorius--presented his proposal to_ the ARB and the vote was 3-1-, (1 absent) to not forward the proposal to the City Counci,?. The ARB-safl quite a few_ propri etors 5f small businesses come -in because they had to bring their signs into conformance .and -they faced just as much or perhaps more of an economic hardship in bringing their business signs into conformance as -any church would_. So he was concerned -about, special._ treatment for churches. He spoke against any special. -treatment, and that the ARB dial utili-ze exemption procedures. Mayor Henderson explained that his rationale for the motion was -to have Mr. Abrams determine whether.t-ney..could create special legislation. If it was -possible," then he would attach a draft ordinance for it. Counc'i loember Fletcher asked that the Analysis refer_ to noncommercial signs In general which would include schools. CounNilmenber Witherspoon said her concern was that the ordinance was a law that t ley passed with great agony several years ago. It was really an aesthetic —Consideration. She also reiterated the rights of due process and the equal protection for the public specifically those people who lived next to the 6 9 6 ,123/81 churches. She preferred to have the one hearing expedited as much as possible and to handle it that way. RESTATED MOTION PASSED: The motion passed or the following vote: AYES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel NOES: Witherspoon ABSENT;_ Fazzino REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER BECHTEL c. CUNCEP 1NG PERS INVESTMENT POLICIES Councilmember Bechtel said that as the City of Palo Alto's representative to the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities,. she had brought the item to Council's .attention The City of Daly City had taken the lead and done a lot of research on PERS. She hai: reviewed the material with the Director of Personnel Jay Rounds, who concurred with -the resolution. The statistics were shocking 'n that --they were getting 3 -and --4 percent for over hai f..of all of the PERS moneys that all of the employees are -contributing. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by-Councilmember Renzel, approval of the. Council for support of the League of California Cities proposed resolution. Councilmember Levy commented that something was not only wrong with the investment policy but also that it might be fruitful to review the accounting policies. He said that nothing today paid 3 to 4%. He suspected that if they were using a 6-3/4% crediting rate, then they were basing it not upon the current value of the portfolio, but on the original value of the portfolio. Mr. Abrams said that as a matter of interest, PERS adopted a policy some time. go that they would pay interest to a departing employee who withdrew his or her contributions only to the prior June 3a. So if some one left employment in March, he retroactively only got it to June, and the Court upheld that. So that could be a reflection that PERS was not making any money. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Fazzino\absent. CANCELLATION OF MARCH 2 MEETING MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Councilmember Fletcher, approval of the Council that the meeting of March 2 be cancelled. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Fazzino absent. ADJOURNMENT The Council meeting adjourned at 11:25 P.M. ATTEST: APPROVE: 6 9 7 2/23/81