Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-18 City Council Summary Minutesmom Ora.Ccurnunications Minutes of March 16, 1981 Consent Calendar CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, May 18, 1981 CITY O� PALO ALTO PAGE 834 834 Baylands Bicycle/Pedestrian Path - Agreement with State 835 Zone Change at San Antonio Road and Nita Avenue from CC_and LM to RM-4 835 Application of Thomas Harrington for Site and Design Review of Pond Enlargement at 4201 Page Mill Road - 835 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 835 Planning Ccmnission R. mendation (3-2) for Denial of the Appeal of Paul and Kathryn Olmstead fram the Decision of the Zoning Administor to Grant a Variance for a New Single -Family Home at 914 Matadero Court 836 Public Employees Retirement System Contract Amendment: One- Year Highest Paid Compensation Benefit for Local Fire ors 840 South Bay Dischargers Authority - Budget North Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority - Approval of Budget Request of Councilmembex Fletcher Re Conditions at Edges Plaza Shopping Center Request of Cauncii.mem er Fletcher. Re Child Discrimination in Rental Housing Request of COuncilmember Renzel Re Parking Lot Proposal for. the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Request of C©unci lmanber Fazzino Re Resolution Regarding State of California Prioritization of Municipal Services electing of May 26 Adjournment nt to Executive Session Final. Adjournment 847 840 841 843 844 845 846 847 847 Regular Meeting Monday, May 18, 1981 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Fazzino, Fletcher. (left meeting at 9:40 p.m. and returned.. at 10:00 p.m.), Henderson, Klein, Menzel, Witherspoon, Eyerly, Levy Mayor Henderson announced that the Council had met et 6:00 for a special executive session concerning personnel and would be meeting again after the regular agenda on litigation matters and possibly personnel. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. :Kurt Teubner, 420 Cowper, Palo Alto, Manager, Pacific Tele- phone, presented to the City Council. a framed copy of the 1981 Directory cover which featured the City of Palo Alto_ Recycling Vehicle. He said Pacific Telephone hoped that by featuring the Recycling Vehicle, it would encourage more citizens to participate in the program. 2. Dean Morgan, 4276 Los Palos said that there was a commercial sign on Arastradero Road for Midas Muffler which faced the residential district and he wanted it removed. Councilmember Fazzino asked the City Manager to put a report in the public packet -on the situation. MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 1931 Councilmember Witherspoon said on page 718, second to the last paragraph, sec:.nd sentence the word "designation" should be "deletion." Next sentence should read, "Although she realized that there was no way that; :,re could afford to put a full inter- section in there, she still felt that the intersection was a major problem and caused many traffic problems particularly in the College Terrace neighborhood.". Councilmember Fazzino said on page 721, seventh paragraph, com- mencing with third line should read ..."doesn't want to run child care centers, but is locking far the necessary pack expertise, and central administration to run child care programs which bene fit their employees."' Page 734, begins in middle of sentence and should begin with the following: "Councilmember Fazzino said it was a no win situation ,no matter what the Council does. Since the traffic burden has been reduced for Southgate residents with the temporary barrier while at th same time little has been accomplished with the Council diret.:dion to study the traffic problem throughout the entire corridor. ale said he was very con- cerned..." Councilmember Bechtel said on page 724, second paragraph, third line, " delete the word "wrong" And add to the end of sentence,3:. "opposite the school M0T1OP4 Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded < by . Levu-, that ,minutes of March 16, as amended, be approved. $©TION PASS Ell by a vote of,9=0. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Zaner asked that Item 3, Public Employees' Retirement System Contract Amendment, be removed. i Counciln.ember Fletcher stated that she would be abstainin °:from Item 1, Baylands Bicycle/Pedestrian Path with State. Councilmember Eyerly asked that Item 2, Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Joint Power Authority - Approval of Budget. and Item 6,,South Bay Dischargers Authority Budget be removed. Referral Items None Action Items BAYLANDS BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PATH - AGREEMENT WITH STATE Staff recommends that Council: I. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with the State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) to develop, construct and maintain a recreation - trail along ,the approved Frontage Road Route; and 2, Adopt an ordinance whch provides for the proposed construc- tion of a pike path and associated bridge structures on dedi- cated parkland. AGREEMENT AND GRANT OF EASEMENT EAST BAY CORRIDOR/SANTA CLARA COUNTY BAYFRONT BIKEWAY ORDINANCE for first reading entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PATH IN BYXBEE PARK" PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AP, L. 1"1OEI Or THE_ ,1 TY F PA.Lo -A Z �lLH NG AT SAN h R O D r O h ENa M C AND LM T?1 RM-4 ORDINANCE for first reading .entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF .THE.* CITY F PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 Of THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY AT SAN ANTONIO ROAD AND NITA AVENUE FROM CC AND LM TO RM-4" PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD UNANIMOUSLY R I 1 N ND U l.?RGEMENT AT 4201 PAS' MILL MOTION: , Counci.lme.nber - Fazzino moved, seconded by Klein, that Consent Calendar, as amended, be approved. MOTION PASSED, by a: vote of g-0, with Fletcher "abstaining" on Item '<, Baylands Bicycle/Pedestrian Path AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Mr. Zaner advised .; that Item , 0,';,Public Employees' Retirement System Contract Amendm^ nt, would become ,_.7A, Item 6, South Bay DisChargers 4utiiority `'Budget, would` became 7B, and Item 2, Santa Clarii County Soi rd Waste Management Joint Power Authority - Budget, would become 7C. Correct- ion See 'Pg . 1-038 7/13/81 8 3 5 5/18/8! rouncilmember Fazzino said he needed to add an emergency item regardng the Governor's Budget. The Finance and Public Works Committee discussed a proposed resolution which would be sent to the Governor regarding his proposed budget for 1981-82, and because of the time element involved, he wanted to add it to this Agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 3-2 FOR DENIAL OF THE APPEAL ZONTNG 1 Fred Nichols, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said that the Commissioners which were opposed to the variance could not find a hardship. There was also concern about the neighbors' rights to property protec_tion and methods of other solar heating were available which were, almost as efficient as the oiie proposed. Michael Beanland; Solar Engineer, Utilities Department, said t -here would be a reduction in solar performance if the house was moved to within the setback limit<<tions; however; it would not be maor. Councilmember Eyerly asked Mr. Nichols how the Planning Commis- sion found that there were exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the property involved that did not apply generally to property in the same district; acid why the granting the application was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and prevented unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hard- ship. Mr. Nichols said although he did not support the variance, ho believed the exceptional circumstances were a large Oak tree and a Eucalyptus tree which prevented development of a solar heated home close to them, and also, the odd shape of the lot and the fact that the buildable regions for d solar heated house would have to be away from the trees. Councilmember-Levy said he - understood that in the 1980's, if the electricity consumption increased; it would cost substantially More to provide electricity, but that was not the case for gas. He .asked for cl ar i fir.at=i,on.- - Mr. 8eanland responded that in view of the current electric situation, within a few years, the City would be exceeding their allotment and would have to seek other -sources of electrical energy;_;?nd, as for gas, it was purchased wholesale, and there would probably be no radical increase. Kathy Olmstead, 906 Matadero Court, felt the Wagners could build an efi'ective and efficient solar house within legal setbacks without the need df a variance. She felt the atmosphere oftheir home and outdoor living area would be Seriously impacted if . :he Wagners were granted the variance. Paul Olmstead, 906 Matadero Court, objected to a 5,000 square foot :house which was forced into-` the setback area because of its size, objected`. to discussions of solar energy and energy conser- vation when reduction -Of the size of the horse and corresponding energy- savings we+uld , rot be considered. and objected to -the -second story over the garage which impacted his living area. He felt the issue was whether the Wagners should be granted a vari--: ante to build a' second story over their.; garage, to house live-in' help despite its impact on. neighbors. He requested denial of the variance, Sharon _ Wagner; ; appl'cant,- 1555 Alma -Street, felt they :.had attempted to' accommodate the Olmsteads, and that the Olmstead$ had sufficient protection under the variance. She felt the deci- sion was one- of ---balancing , needs between__ne ghbors and taking a 1 ook._. at the cumulative effect-_ of;_ solar energy and policy. 8 3._6 5/18/81 Tom Wagner, applicant, 1555 Alma Street, telt they needed the room over the garage and said the reason they did not go ahead with the plans to build a separate cottage was because it would require more energy and they would not be able to heat ;t with solar. Thelma Wol ffers-, 904 enercly house was not house irregardlese of ance be denied. Matadero Court, expressed that the solar the issue, but th.e square footage of the the setbacks. She requested that the vari- Alison Cherry Maser, 910 Matadero -Court, expressed opposition to the variance. Councilmember Renzel was generally concerned about granting. vari- ances and that when they were granted, they were not setting unreasonable precedents for future actions. However, in this case, the findings could be made. Councilmember Renzel felt that the home,. as proposed, provided a benefit to the neighbors, as opposed to an unrestricted large home which would be built on the lot without a variance. She said that when the subdivision was granted, it was granted without a public street on- a cul-de-sac, as is normally required. Had it been built with - a public street, the setbacks would have been defined differently and a variance, would not have been necessary in order to gain solar access. The tree -which sat in the middle of the property was another unusual circumstance for purposes of building. She felt the tree pro- vided a screening of the residential neighborhood from the Lockheed buildings and was a major asset to the neighborhood. She felt the Council should uphold the Planning Commission recom- mendation. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the Olmstead's appeal. Mayor Henderson felt- the decision was a difficult one. Cener- ally, in variance decisions he went along with the request unless there was neighborhood opposition Although there was neighbor- hood opposition in the instant "?ase. there was an environmental 'cost benefit not only to the applicant, but al so society. He agreed witle some statements made by Planning Commissioners,.i.e. that if they were not considering a solar energy house, they would not recommend a variance; that they should consider the property tights of the neighbors; and that the lack of a variance would nut create a hardship because the applicant, without a variance, would- have as choice of the, same size house with either active solar, conventional heating, or passive solar with a smaller house. Mayor Henderson felt the protectiot ; of the rights of existing neighboring properties took precedence over the desire.,for a certain configuration for passive solar heating.- He would vote against the motion. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed with Mayor Henderson. She felt the Planning Commission had had an enlijhtening discussion and had found --i t helpful. Further, in the ... background material and plans, the only part of;, the house that would violate the setback would be the large garae area with tile apartment above it, and that was not an integral part, either aesthetically or-<iolar- eng#.'eer•ing-wise, to the main house. She felt the Wagners could build an effective, attractive solar house minus the large 650 square foot garage, and she would %ote against _the. motion. Councilmember Fazzino supported Mayor. Henderson and'.Cnuncilmember Witherspoon and said -he would vote against the motion. He felt it was_ a difficult issue when neighbors are involved. The Wagner's desire to build a solar efficient home in an era -4f nec- essary conservation should be applauded; particularly:,.: he was pleased with their desire not to destroy a 250 -year -old Oak. tree. Correct- ion See Pg.. 1039 ?/13/81 8 3 7 5/18/81 He felt the Wagners presented a compelling argument for the vari ance. He also felt the City should see their commitment to. solar development implemented and development of -solar homes should remain a major element of the commitment, but that the Council must recognize that solar would not always_ be achieved. He pointed out that the City was orientated toward trees and -other shading and one's right to enjoy the protection of their home. In pursuit of solar, he did not feel anyone would be in favor of cutting down trees or other vegetation. He felt the tree could Correct be built within the variance, but that the tree could not be the ion primary justification for denying the neighbors' rights to enjoy See their property. Pg. 1038-7/13/81 Councilmember Fletcher also felt this case was difficult and unusual because of the odd -shaped lot, the very large Oak tree in the center of the lot. /She said that -if it was not for the fart t'rlat staff ruled that the particular dead-end street was not a cul-de-sac, there would not be a problem and the Wagners could build the house where they wanted. She felt Council was over- looking the fact that this was a quirk because of the way the street was laid out. She did not feel the size of. the house was an _issue_. it was well below the size legally permitted on the lot; the second -story was not an issue because the neighbors also had second stories. Further, the distance between` the homes, even if_the variance was granted, would still be over 110 feet. She did not feel the energy savings could be measured in dollars; but, since it was brought up, she pointed out that Mr. Aghjayan stated that natural gas costs would increase approximately 25% per year, which was the current rate of increase. She said that if the variance was granted, the Oak tree would definitely be saved, two nonconforming structures on the property would be demolished, two large Acacia trees would have to be preserved, and landscaping to protect the Olmstead'_s privacy would be installed, and the landscape plan would be reviewed by the ARB. She said she was not insensitive to the fears and desires of the neighbors, but on balance, when she weighed the pros and cons, she concluded that the neighbors would have more protection and privacy if the variance was granted. When the Council made their decision, it should be kept in mind that -the variance procedure was set up to address an unusual situations. She would vote in favor of the variance. Councilmember Bechtel believed that variances should be granted when exceptional or extraordinary conditions exist, and did not feel the instant situation fell into that category. She was opposed to the variance. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 7-2, Renzel and Fletcher voting "aye." Correction, See Pg. 038.-7/13/81 MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by vazzino, to grant the variance. Councilmember. Renzel asked if the Wagners considered not having the second story on the garage, could the ratter be continued_ to allow them to redesign their plans. Mario Sanchez, Zoning Administrator, said that if a motion were made to eliminate . the room above the garage, there would be no problem with the variance.: If the variance was. denied ,_anrl the. Wagners wished to proceed with a solar house . and redesign it' and found that a variance was still needed,; they' would have to reapply and the whole process would start again. Alternatively, Council could approve a variance wit,. that exception. City Attorney, Roy Abrams, recommended that if Council wanted _ to consider an alternative variance, they,could continue. the matte to ascertain if the Wagners would consider it. '8 3 8 5/18/81 Mayor Henderson wanted the neighbors to be assured that if .the matter was continued, they would not lose denial of the variance, and that the action was taken to approve the appeal of the O l msteads. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to continue the matter to June 1, to ascertain if the Wagners could come up with changes acceptable to all. Councilmember Eyerly was against the continuance because the same problem.would exist with the setbacks on a one-story building. Councilmember Levy was concerned that any item which sought- a variance could request any number of variations and felt that the current variance sought was to be rejected, but that other levels of the variance might be accepted. He preferred that the Planning Commission hear it before it came back .to the Council. Also, he was concerned that the purpose of the variance was .to maximize the passive solar capability of the house which meant a second story above the garage to catch the Sun. He understood that the first story would not catch the Sun, and, therefore, the purpose to increase the solar productivity of the house would not be served by the variance. Councilmember Bechtel said it was her understanding that the option had been proposed before and had been rejected by the Wagners. She did not feel it was appropriate for the Council to suggest.a continuance and she recommended denial of, the motion to continu=e. Councilmember Renzel commented. that the entire south side of the house was designed to take in sunlight to heat the rooms that the windows were on. If there were no rooms tc heat, there would be no impact of removing the room on the solar capabilities. Fur- ther, the second -story was the basis on which the Olsteads objected to the variance and if the Wagners were willing to delete the second story, Council should grant a continuance to see if the applicant could work something out with the neigh- bors. Councilmember Klein did not feel that removal of the story over the garage was the only possibility. He felt the normal variance application was very specific and could not readily be changed, but that in the instant case, Council should allow exploration of other alternatives. He did not feel the -`applicants should have to go through the procedure again and that they should be given the opportunity to come up with the most effective passive solar house possible. He urged a continuance. Mr. Olmstead stated that the procedure had continued for six months. Approximately three months ago, he had suggested that an additional restriction be made that the:., second story be removed over :the. garage. At that time, Mr. Sanchez, said all. he needed was a letter from the Wagner's, that he would add the restriction and the matter would be settled, but the Wagners said no. Mr. Olmstead .wa;s ,confused that if Council granted a continuance and there was a change in the variance, what would be the appeal pro- cess if he did not accept the change. Further, he felt, the Wagners had had five months:. to think about it, and consult with their architect He felt that the Wagners snout, make the deci- sion now, aric:.i f they accepted ' i t , he would, but otherwise, he felt a procedural error was being made because he had no appeal. Mayor Henderson said ,he would not support a continuance. The .remavai of the second'. Story was discussed previously and he felt tip Council should take action tonight,. 8 3 9 5/18/81 MOTION TO,CONTINUE failed by a vote of 6-3 as follows: AYES: Renzel, Klein, Fletcher NOES: Eyerly, Henderson, Fazzino, Bechtel, Levy, Witherspoon MAIN MOTION to deny the variance passed by a vote of, 7-2, Renzel and Fletcher voting "no. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRACiT AMENDMENT ONE-YEAR City Manager, Bill Zaner, said that the item would implement part of the binding arbitration award made for the fire fighters' 1980-81 compensation award and read a statement into the record which was required by law. "In compliance with section 7507 of the Government Code, the following cost information must be made pub- lic at least _two weeks prior to the final: reading of the ordinance amending the City-PERS contract providing for benefit increases: The cost of the benefit increase amendment,. Section 2OO24p2 known as the one-year -highest compensation amendment ha s ' been calculated by PERS to be 1,117% of the current safety employee payroll, or $56,422 per year. While PERS calculates this cost based upon the total safety empl .lee payroll which includes both fire fighters and police, the actual benefit under this amendment accrues only to fire fighters. Therefore, if the cost were calculated based only on the fire fighter payroll, the percentage increase would be 1.92% of the sworn' fire employee payroll." Mr. Zaner recommended that the resolution and ordinance :as shown on the agenda be adopted. MOTION: Councilmei;:ber Bechtel introduced the following resolu- tion and ordinance and moved, seconded by Witherspoon, their approval. RESOLUTION 5910 entitled dkESOLUTION OF 111E COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMEND- MENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION 'OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO" ORDINANCE FOR FIRSf READING entitled "ORDINANCE_ OF THE COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING AN AMEND- MENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM" MOTION PASSED unanimously, 9r0. SOUTH BAY DISCHARGERS AUTHORITY BUDGET (CMR:276:1) Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution approvi ig the proposed 1981-82 budget of the. South Bay Dischargers. :Authority. Councilmember Eyer-ly called the Council's attention to Exhibit "A" which included a $3,000 figure for Personal Services of the Governing Board, which would be $ ,00 annually for each member for attendance at those meetings. He thought the general practice of that Board was to have oneelected official and usually a staff' member as the second member. Hedid not support governing boards receiving income from the joint group. He felt that Palo Alto 8 4 0 5/18/81. spoke to volunteer service and did not expect payment for attending meetings to which they had been assigned. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded. by Witherspoon, approval of the South_ Bay DischargersAuthority budget contingent upon removal of the $3,000 Personal Services for the Governing Board. 1 1 Councilmember Eyerly thought that if the contingency went with Council approval, the concerns of the Palo Alto City Council regarding such fees being included in the budget would be brought before the Board for discussion, and he hoped such fees could be eliminated. Mayor Henderson felt the Council should be consistent and elimi- nate all types of pay for any service. He said a number of boards and agencies -had. pay in lieu of mileage and that it would cost- P-alo Alto more_ to eliminate the. $50 per meeting before them. Palo Alto paid 10% of the $50, or' $5 per meeting, and mileage for the City's representatives would be double that amount. He thought it might be possible for Council to require that Palo Alto people refuse payment for service on boards, but that some Boards' charters required that they pay. He felt Council over- looked the services performed on some of the boards, particularly the ones that meet during the -day. The people who worked made a sacrifice at their normal work that either cost dollars or required make-up time, and the fees paid covered transportation and telephone calls, etc. Councilmember Fazzino opposed the motion because he felt those types of payments were expense -oriented. He felt the people who were asked to attend those meetings did incur financial cost and believed there were expenses for necessary mileage, meals and materials. Mayor Henderson asked Councilmember Eyerly what his response would be if it was taken before South Bay Dischargers Authority and was rejected. Councilmember Eyerly responded that the budget would not approved until Council removed the contingency. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 7-2, Eyerly and Witherspoon voting {aye." MOTION. Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Klein, to approve staff's recommendation to approve the SBD's budget. RESOLUTION 5911 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF 'THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, APPROVING THE 1981-82 ADMINISTRA.- TIV'E BUDGET OF. THE SOUTH BAY DISCHARGERS AUTHORITY" MOTION PASSED by a vote of 9-0. NORTH SANTA LAO- COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT JOINT' POWERS Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the JP;A.. repre- sentative to inform the Board that the City of Palo Alto will include funding in its Fiscal Year 1981-82 budget. Councilmember_:Eyerly said that the item spoke to Council approval of a $238,000 budget item connected . rith the JPA for : the North County Solid Waste Disposal. The money would go toward solving some questions. He wanted to ascertain what types of expense for solid waste disposal they might be getting into and what 8 4 1 5/18/81 alternatives were available. A substantial portion of the report made by Peat, Marwick, & Mitchell, revolved around market inves- tigation and referred to electricity being the viable way to go, but was predicated upon a reasonable price for the users of the waste disposal under Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The report said that PG&E- would have to buy the elec- tricity generated because of PURPA. Councilmember Eyerly called the electrical utility and had PG&E requirements spelled out to him. PG&E would take their average cost of peak load and pay that- price for that electricity. It meant that they would pay what it cost to generate the electricity, and PG&E would not have to buy production in small power projects which were under 55 megawatts if there was another electricity dispensing involved. Palo Alto had already been involved in discussions, through the JPA, on the cogeneration plant, which City staff was working on. PG&E said they would not buy that electricity because of that part of the Act. Councilmember Eyerly interpreted that to mean that when the JPA on solid waste Jsposal went to PG&E for them to buy it, it would not_ bring in very much. He wanted some reports as to what the City would be getting into as far as cost on solid . waste dis- posal, and what offsetting figure the electricity might bring. He felt Council needed a better handle on what they would be getting. into --were there alternatives to the solid waste disposal and should they be explored. Councilmember Eyerly said he would be willing to approve some of the budget items, but felt the $238,000 was too much without evaluating the alternatives. He suggested 'continuing the item for 'a week to give staff an oppor- tunity to come back with more input on estimated costs. Councilmember Fazzino felt Councilmember Eyerly raised some good issues. He thought the item should be discussed in the Finance and Public Works Committee as part of Public Works' Budget, and asked the Director of Public Works about the time frame. Dave Adams, Director of Public Works, responded that he thought there was some urgency because the JPA was in, the process of hiring a general manager which was one step._,in the process. He believed staff would be responding to Councilmember Eyerly's con- cerns in the process. The JPA report to which Councilmember Eyerly referred stressed that there were significant risks and that there were a number of decision points built into the pro- gram for the procurement planning phase. He said :chat the infor- mation which was presented: to the Board by the consultants for the procurement planning included a significant network of tasks which must be performed. Among the first was the detailed inves- tiaation of the market. Mr. Adams advised that he had recently attended 'workshops on the market, conducted by the Sol id- Waste Management Board, .ABAG and EPA, where representatives of PG&E indicated that in the case of waste -to -energy type of projects they would positively buy the energy at the avoided cost formula. Councilmember .Eyerly had no problem with the budget if staff had control of how the- money was spent. He wanted to know if staff had the information, could they return to Council, advise what the costs were, and would Council then be able to halt Palo Alto's share of the expense of the JPA if theydid not approve. Mr. .Adams said ye^. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Joint Power Authority Budget. RESOLUTION 5.911 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO !APPROVING THE 1981-82 ADMINISTRATI-VE BUDGET-. OF THE SOUTH BAY DISCHARGERS AUTHORITY" 8 4 2 5/18/81 Councilmember Levy felt it was absurd to approve the budget and then in another week find out the actual costs. AMENDMENT:' Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, to authorize the JPA representative to inform the Board that the City would include funding in its Fiscal Year 1981-82 Budget. Councilmember Renzel pointed out that the success of the JPA. depended upon all cities paying their fair share and partici- pating in the overall pursuit of the project. She felt that by not approving the JPA's budget, Palo Alto suggested that other cities should also waffle on their budget commitments. Further, she said the City always had the prerogative to amend their bud- get. Councilmember Fazzino said that discussion of the issues would be helpful at the Finance and Public Works Committee meeting, but that it would be June 22 before a final funding commitment would be made. Mr. Adams said that was fine as long it was reasonably certain on the part of the representative that it would be essentially what would be needed. Councilmember Klein felt the Council should be more candid con- cerning the funding and would not support the amended motion. (Councilmember Fletcher left meeting at 9:40 p.m.) AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5 as follows: Ayes: Cyerly, Fazzino, Bechtel, Levy, Witherspoon Hoes: Renzel, Klein, Henderson Absent: Fletcher MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-0, Fletcher absent. RE UEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLE T CHER RE CONDITIONS AT EGGEWOOD PLAZA MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council request staff to report in 90 days on conditions at Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center and indicate intention to refer the PC zone and use permit to the Planning Commission for considerations, if substantial progress was not made toward conformance with the PC zone. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, opposed the motion because there had been PC zones in the..past -where the property owner/manager had not lived up to the terms of a PC zone. He felt the motion implied that staff would submit the matter to the Planning Commission and if the property owner would not live within, the law, the City would change the law to conform to the existing situation. He supported Councilmember Fletcher's original request in her memo which was to observe the PC. Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning ar'd Community Environment, said the intent of the motion was to indicate to the owners of Edgewood Plaza that failure ,to conform with the PC zone would trigger additional review which would bedesigned to find waysof tightening up the PC community zone. \, (Councilmember Fletcher returned at 10:00 p. 8 .4 S 5/18/81 MOTION PASSED by a vote of 9-0. RE UEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE CHILD DISCRIMINATION IN RENTAL HOUSING Councilmember Fletcher said a bill had been introduced in the Legislature which would outlaw discrimination in rental housing against families with -minor children. She felt it was preferable to have an ordinance at the State level rather than locally. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Fazzino, to authorize the Mayor to send a letter of -support for AB 256 to Palo Alto's legislators in Sacramento. Douglas Winslow, 630 Los Trancos Road, said 75% of Palo Alto rental units were adults only and urged support of AB 256. Herb Borock, 3401 Ross Road, sup 'orted AB 256 and urged Council support. Karen Paulsen, 943 Bryant, encouraged support of AB 256. Beverly Mann, 1400 Middlefield Road, United Families for Fair Housing supported r;B 256 and urged Council support. Councilmember Witherspoon said if there was a problem with the County law being constitutional and having to be decided by the court, then she felt the State, law would have the same problem. Councilmember Fazzino applauded Councilmemher Fletcher's bringing the matter up and supported AS -256. He felt that it was not illogical to say that a- lot of Palo Alto's problems were related to the lack of families moving in. Councilmember Bechtel supported the motion and believed the Compre'oensive Plan supported the concept and felt AB 256 was con- sistent with that. Councilmember Levy supported the concept of outlawing discrimina- tion against families with children. He had a philosophical objection to Council endorsing specific legislation either the State or Federal level. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Eyerly, that the Mayor be authorized to send a letter to legislators in Sacramento supporting the concept of prohibiting age discrimina- tion in rental housing and specifically including households with children. Councilmember Eyerly agreed with Councilmember Levy. He felt it behooved the Council to move forward with this type of matter. He reminded the Council, however, that if something came before them disallowing discrimination re not allowing children in con- dominiums, where owners have the ability to speak to their desires through CC&R's, he would vote against it because he felt it duly- impacted people who had . joined together and agreed to certat>n types of living conditions. Councilmember Renzel supported AS 256. Mayor Henderson stated that many opponents of the bill said that if the bill was limited to new construction, it would have a better chance of passing. The arguments used by the opponents in Sacramento were ores that he had also been concerned about. He felt that passage of the biAl would create, in effect, an eviction notice to -thousands of people, many -of whom rented spe- cifically to be away from children. He felt that if the bill were limited to new construction, people could make that choice. Further, he felt AB, 256 el i'i inated one type of discrimination and created another. Councilmember Fletcher responded to Councilmember Levy's substi- tute motion and felt that because of the real estate industry the bill did not have a good chance of passing, but that the stronger the support it was given, the more impact it would have. Fur- ther, she felt that to limit the law to new construction would be unduly limited because there was so little new construction. Councilmember Klein felt very strong about the concept of AB 256 and said he would v,Jte in favor of it. He did not think the sub- stitute motion spoke sufficiently enough to the issue. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 5-4 as follows: Ayes: Eyerly, Fazzino, Levy, Witherspoon Noes: Renzel, Klein, Fletcher, Henderson, Bechtel MOTION PASSED to support AB 256 by a vote of 6-1-2 as follows: Ayes: Eyerly, Renzel, Klein; Fletcher, Fazzino, Bechtel Noes: Witherspoon Abstain: Henderson, Levy RECESS Council recessed from 10:10 to 10:20 p.m. REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER RENZEL RE PARKING LOT PROPOSAL FOR THE k s SP.0 r Councilmember Renzel said Midpeninsula Regional Open Space: District (MROSO) presented to its Board a plan f:.)r a,parking lot which she, felt had adverse impacts on the City. Because it was not within Palo Alto's jurisdiction, .she felt the only way to comment would be to send the Council's comments ire. a letter from the Mayor to the MROSD. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Eyerly, to authorize, the Mayor to send a letter and this week's staff report, without the recommendations, to the MROSD and the County of San Mateo expressing concern about the traffic safety impacts and visual impacts of the proposed lot, and encourage the MROSD to consider alternative locations on either side of the road, and to apprise Palo Alto of any locations not already subject to our Site & Design review; and further, to direct City staff to work with staff of San Mateo County and the Open Space District to find an appropriate spot for a parking lot. Fred Nichols, Chairman of the Planning Commission, reported that the Commission made a unanimous, declaration that the matter should receive full public review with eventual referral to the Planning Commission for review and comments. Therefore, he asked the Mayor to forward a letter to David Hale, Planning [~;rector of San Mateo County, encouraging the review. Larry Faber, 3127 David Avenue, Palo Alto, was concerned about. the dangers of the proposed, parking lot and encouraged an alter- native. Tom Harrington, 4201 Page Mill Road, had a report from George Nolte which ,indicated the proposed ;Site had significant graphic problems which: would be a danger to the public and felt, in gen- eral, it was aesthetically :inseftsitive to the area. He agreed that something suitable should be found and encouraged _that- a letter be written to the Country and to the District. 8 4 5. 5/18/81 Ellie Huggins, 824 San Francisco Court, Stanford, Peninsula Conservation Center President, spoke for the flatlanders who sup- ported the concept of a regional park system which could be used. She urged that a suitable site be found and that a parking lot be installed on the Monte Bello side. Mark Schneider, 7051 Alpine Road, La Honda, lived several miles from the proposed parking lot —and did not like the proposed loca- tion for the parking lot. He urged a study for the feasibility of alternatives i.e. public transportation rather than parking lots. Dan Wendin, Vice President, Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District, 961 Regent Drive, Los Altos, spoke on behalf of the District. He said additional parking was required somewhere if the land- were to be open to the "fl.atl antlers." He felt public transportation was a great idea, but that was quite a ways down the road. Regarding -which side the road should be on, the District was concerned about the overriding issue of safety for children, and the elderly. The Page Mill side would not open the Monte Bello side to the public because people did not want to cross Page Mill Road.; The- proposed site was not the District's ideal site, but the District felt that politically they would not get another site from the City of Palo Alto. They would welcome the opportunity to find another site on the' Monte Bello side of Page Mi 1 1 Road. He asked that Council direct City staff to work with the District's staff and the County of San Mateo to find an appropriate site, evaluating all the sites and chosing the best. He felt that, everyone should concur that the site be on the Monte Bello side of Page Mill, Lee Hendrickson, P. 0. Box 343, Star Route 2, La Honda, also like the public transportation policy and wanted to see. someone do a study. She endorsed Councilmember 1enzel's letter. Councilmember Klein felt it was clear that a parking lot was required, but also felt there was a safety problem with the pro- posed site and urged a solution for an appropriate parking lot to be found. Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment, felt it should be recognized that any parking lot on the Monte Bello side of Page Mill Road would receive some level of objec- tion. Councilmember Renzel felt that if a site could be found on .the Monte Bello side, it ought to be done, but that the_praposed site was ',lot: a good one. `. Counciimember Bechtel understood that the parking lot. issue had been continuing for about 2 1/2 year's .and that whatever was decided should be expedited. She suepor.ted -a parking 1-6,t on the Mont:-. Bello side. Bah sendin did not want anyone misled. The Board only directed MROSD to look at sites on the Monte Bello side, they wanted the area open to the public. MOTION PASSED by a ;.vote of 9-0. REST OF COUNCILMEMBER F`A.lLIt0 RE RESOLUTION REGARDING_ STATE DRN-IA• putuurnivri firli Counci I0ember Faz ino ; said that the Finance and Publ-ic WorksCommittee _. discussed the proposed resolution which would be \sent 1 to the State regarding Governor Brown's proposed 1981-82 budget. He said it was clear that the City's budget had substantial uncer- tainties directly related to the State budget for the next fiscal year. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Levy, to approve Resolution with changes in Section 2(a) to read: "Design the cuts in revenues so as to leave most states and local agen- cies with the same approximate unrestricted revenue growth in 1981-82; "and Section 2(e) to read: "Return the unsecured prop- erty tax collected in Santa Clara to the respective jurisdictions in the proportions as the jurisdictions which generated such taxes."_ RESOLUTION 5912 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REGARDING STATE OF CALIFORNIA PRIORITIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES" Councilmember Klein felt that the resolution had been substan- tially improved. He wanted to see the State legislature have a formula adopted which approximated how taxes would be divided if they had been received in the year they were actually collected. Bill Zaner, City Manager, agreed with Councilmember Klein's in- tcnt, and felt if the legislature adopted legislation which dis- tributed the `money back to all cities and counties proportionate to the collection there would be no problem, but felt there was no guarantee that the legislature would do that. MOTION PASSED by a vote -of 9-0. 11 1.11.1.2_21.12,1_212. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fazzino, to can- cel May 26 meeting. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 9-0. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Council adjourned to executive session re Personnel at 11:00 p.m. FINAL ADJOURNMENT Final adjournment was at 12:45 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 8. 4 7- 5/18/81