HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-06 City Council Summary Minutes1
1
CITY
COUNCIL
Manures
Regular Meeting
July 6, 1981
ITEM
Oral Communications
Approval of Minutes
Election of Mayor and Vice Mayor
Consent Calendar
0verni.jht Parking Enforcement Program - Referral to
Policy and Procedures Committee
Water -Gas -Sewer Training Needs Assessment - Referral
to Finance and Public Committee
Demolition of City --Owned House on Arastra Property
Grant of Easement - -San Antonio Pumping Station
Gas Rate Change - Resolutions
City Wide Nonprofit Facility Rehabilitation Program -
0perating Guidelines - Resolution
Resolution re Management Compensation Plan -.
Resolution re Classified Employees' Compensation Plan
Resolution to change Date of Public Hearing for
Crescent Park Underground to August 10
Planning Commission recommendation to deny a variance
at 4123 El Camino Real (Applicant Requests Withdrawal
of Application)
Planning -Commission recommendation to approve the Zone
Change request of Wickland Oil Company for property at
705 San Antonia_ Road from PC - CS
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board
recommendation re Wickland Oil Company's request for
Site and Design Review for a service station at 3897
El Camino Real
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 9 9 7
Public Hearing: Planning Commission recommendation re 9 9 7n
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance for Expansion of Health'
Care Services for Pine Creek Center
Public Hearing: Planning Commission recommendation re 1 0.0 3
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to permit Mobile Homes
Public Hearing: Planning Commission recommendation re, 1 0 0 5
Comprehensive Phan Change and Zone Change for 1155
Colorado
Planning Commission recommendation re Palo -Alto. Community 1 0 1 0 .
Child Care Center foe 1285 Bryant
Condominium Conversion Ordinar'.ce (;Continuance)
Palo Alto Community Chill Care Center for 1285 Bryant.
(Continued)
Planning Cornmiss on_ re Site and De -sign. App _oval for
Wickland Oil Company,`705.San Antonio
Request of Councilrnembers Fazzino-, Bechtel and Levy re
Friends Of -Palo Alto Wintery Club request for Greer Park-
-
Request of Mayor Henderson re Medf]y 1-0 1 9
Request of Mayor. Henderson: re Planning Commission 1 0 2--4
Interviews
Request-:of-Counoilmember Renzel.-re Mountain View--JPA re. 1 0 2 7
Solid Waste
Adjournment -
CITY
OF
PrLO
ALTO
PAGE
9 9 1
9 9 2
9 9 4
9 9 5
9 9 5
9 9 5
9 9 5
9 9 5
9 9 6
9 9 6
9 9 6
9 9 6
9 9 6
9 9 6
9 9 7
1 0 1 3
1 0 1 3
1 0 1 6
1.0 1 7
-1 0 2 8
9=9 0
7/6/81
Regular Meeting
Monday, July 6, 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 7:45
p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson,
Klein, Levy, Renzel (Arrived at 8:20 p.m.),
Witherspoon
Mayor Henderson announced that the Council had held an executive
session !egarding Personnel matters at 7:00 p.m. and would have
another executive session regarding Personnel matters at the end
of the meeting.
Mayor Henderson welcomed David Stiebel, the KZSU announcer.
Mayor Henderson explained that he had placed the Medfly item on
the agenda so that the Council could discuss the situation, and
whether the Council should have a special meeting on the item.
He said that the Mountain View and Los Altos City Councils would
meet that evening in, a joint session, that three City employees
would attend, and that. one or more of them world be at the Palo
Alto City Council meeting by 11:00 p.m. to report on that
meeting. If. the Council decided to have a public meeting, it
would probably take place Thursday night.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Anthony Klein, 1433 Dana Avenue, Representing the Childrens'
Theater Softball Team, challenged the Council and the City
Management learn to a softball game, on July 25, at 11:00 a.m.
at Riconada Park. The game was to be followed by a family
pot luck' picnic.
2. Herb Borock, 3401 Ross Road, spoke regarding the minutes of
April 27,`1981. He asked that the minutes be amended, on
page 802, to reflect his statement to read as follows
"Herb Boroc'c, 3401 Ross Road, Palo Alto distributed a copy of
a report from former City Attorney, Bob Booth, dated April
23, 1976, and cited Mr . Booth's opinion that the Yacht Club's'
use of the Yacht Harbor could be terminated on 30 days'
notice, that City approval by ordinance was required for sub-
stantial work there, and that the County would be receptive
to the City's _desire for public use of the rigging- area -and
hoist. He referred to City staff report, CMR:513:0, dated
November 20, 1980, which said dredging _would cost $300,000
for the same area used in the BCDC permit application, . where
the cost is shown as only $150,000. He said that work in the
Yacht Har bOr requi red site and design review. He noted that
Mr Christy compared the dredging plan to the one at Redwood
Shores designated by Garbe, .which City staff and consultants
had rejected as unworkable."
. Bill Friedman, 1560 Willow Road asked the Council to recon-
sider the Golf Course Fee Schedule, which had been announced
to be effective. August 1. As a senior , citizen, he was
troubled by the monthly play card increase to $40.:` In 1971,
the play card rate was $15 per month. He said his foursome,
)al l senior citizens, played only nine holes.,, He suggested 1)
that the present fee of $30 be retained for all senior
citizens; 2) if an increase was necessary, raise resident
seniors only $5 per month, and outsiders $10 per month; 3) if
it was considered good manners to treat all seniors, resi-
dents and outsiders alike, with one set fee for all seniors,
set up different rates for nine hole players and 18 hole
players. He felt something should be done to avoid loading
down senior citizens with increases on all sides.
Mayor Henderson said the. information was being noted by staff,
but that Council could not act on it at that meeting.
4. David Blumenthal, 1766 Willow Road, spoke regarding the new
paragraph #16 of the lifetime lease for the Oak Creek
Condominium. He said the repair and damage aspect of the
lifetime lease had been written twice, and could be used as a
vehicle to help owners terminate the l i fetirne lease, rather
than help tenants get the repairs accomplished. He said that
Scott Carey's letter of June 4. 1981, in reply to his letter
of June 3, 1981, -still stressed termination rather than.
repairs. Another clause which should be in the repairs sec-
tion of the lifetime lease is, "The lifetime tenant, with the
permission of the owner, may repair damages to his apartment,
at his (the tenant's) expense, provided that the damage is
restored to its predamage status." He understood that the
final draft of the lifetime lease was not complete, and he
wanted Scott Carey and Don Maynor to call him before the next
paragraph was completed so that all could agree on the.
wording and intent and get it finalized. He felt there
should be no option to repair or terminate a lease especially
when the owner was required to have 100% insurance.
Councilmember Fazz i no said City Attorney Don Maynor had indicated
to him that the Attorney's office was working on that issue and
would have a report back to the Council fairly quickly.
City Attorney Don Maynor responded that was communicating with
Mr. Blumenthal as to the provisions in the new lease. He said he
had received the new lease today, and that he would communicate
with Mr Carey and Mr. Blumenthal.
JU PRCVAL OF MIMES*
April 27, 1981
•
Mayor Henderson said that on page 798, fifth paragraph, fourth
line, the word "of" should be "en."
Councilmember Renzel had submitted the following corrections in
writing:
Page 793,. mid -page, AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED, should show
Bechtel, Klein, Fletcher, Renzel voting "aye."
Page 795, first paragraph, third line from the bottom. Add the.
words "in patronage" after the words "drop-off."
Page 796, first paragraph, third line. Delete the words "that
the City make is golf course a high quality course," leaving the
remainder of that sentence.
Page 796, third paragraph, first line should read, "Councilmember
Renzel said she appreciated the Hughes -Reiss report's consid-
erable..."
9 9 2
7/6!81.
Page 798, sixth paragraph, first line should read, "Councilmember
Renzel pointed out that she had supported... Fourth line should
read, "because they offered substantially more significant and
safer opportunities..."
Page 803, fourth paragraph, third line should read, "first of
August up to March 1."
Page 803, sixth paragragh, AMENDMENT TO MAIN MOTION.
end of the last sentence the words, "as part of this agreement."
There would be no language 'acquired by usage.'
Page 802, immediately preceding last paragraph, add a new para-
graph as follows:
Add at the
"Councilmember Renzel said that there was little new
information before the Council except that the 50,000
cubic yards of material to be dredged became 60,000
cubic yards and the once -a -year dredging became twice-
aeyear. It was a very sketchy proposal. Her amend-
ments would offer some Minimal protection in terms of
the environmental effects of dredging. She pointed out
that there was 'little difference in this proposal from
the 1975-76 dredging proposal of 50,000. yards dredged
to Yacht Harbor Peint and covering the same area. That
dredging required an ER because it was a capital
dredging. This one is called Maintenance and by change
of a name it becomes categorically exempt f►'om an EIR.
Since Palo Alto :had not asked for an EIR because of
cumulative effects of multiple dredging, she did not
believe BCDC or any other agency would) require one."
Page 803, after the ninth paragraph, add a new paragraph as
follows:
"Counci►member Renzel said that one important question
that was not addressed in the staff report was water
quality control monitoring during both dredging and
decanting. In a similar earlier proposal there was
provision of an elaborate water quality monitoring
system and there was even a contingent proposal for an
8 acre pond to hold the water in case it needed further
treatment at the sewage treatment plant. This was not
a minor problem and needed to be addressed."
Page 803, paragraph 10. AMENDMENT TO MAIN MOTION. Delete
"seconded by Levy."
Page 803, paragraph 12. Add at the end of the paragraph:
'From the staff report, it was unclear whether any water quality'
monitoring would take place. Her motion does not preclude the
Regional Water Quality Control Board from requiring monitoring,
nor does it require additional monitoring. It simply makes sure
that some sort of monitoring takes _ place and the timely reports
to the City and County give added protection, because the City
can respond a bit faster."
"NEW AMENDMENT TO MAIN MOTION, . Counci lmenrber Renzel moved,
seconded by Levy, that we include in the local comment Section 33
of B.C.O.C. permit application a strong request that some sort of
water quality monitoring take place and the copies be sent to the
City and County on a timely ::basis.
9 9 3
7/6/81
"Councilmember Witherspoon said that she too felt there was con-
sensus that water quality should be monitored, but she did not
want to duplicate the Regional Water Quality Control Board
requirements,
"Councilmember Renzel said that the problem was that we have no
further review, so if we don't act now, we will have no further
opportunity."
MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, the
approval of the minutes with the foregoing corrections, and
including Herb Borock's corrections.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent.
MINUTES OF MAY 4, 1981
Vice Mayor Fletcher had a correction on page 822, fourth para-
graph, third from the last line, change `-'several rental housing"
to "severe rental housing."
Councilmember Renzel had submitted the following corrections in
writing:
Page 810, second paragraph, last line, "pre-emptory" should read
"peremptory."
Page 812, third paragraph, eighth line. The sentence beginning
"until then" should read, "Untj l then, there were serious pres-
sures. on rental housing in this community and low and moderate
income families would be pushed -out even faster by condominium
conversions."
Page 815, fifth paragraph, next to last line should read,
"rental. High..."
MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Klein, approval
of the ni.nutes of May 4, 1981 as corrected.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent.
PiI iUTE S _Or MAY 1 I , 1981
pnwnrrrrs.x.aaon� a�
MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved,
approval of the minutes of. May 11, 1981.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent.
ELECTION OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR
Mayor Henderson announced that the Council would be electing a
Mayor _ and Vice Mayor to serve for a special six-month term in
,accordance with a Charter amendment adopted by the voters in
November, 1979. He said that the special terms would end at the
first Council meeting in January, 1982, and thereafter election
of the Mayor and Vice Mayor would take first at the first meeting
of the calendar year. Each office would be voted on separately.
The first Councilmember to receive five votes would be elected to
the office of Mayor.
City Clerk, Ann Tanner, announced the vote was as follows:
VOTING FOR HENDERSON FOR MAYOR: Fletcher, Levy, Klein, Fazzino,
Henderson, Bechtel.
VOTING FOR EYEFLY FOR MAYOR:. Witherspoon & Eyerly
ABSENT: Renzel
e
seconded by Fletcher,
9 9 4
7/6/81
Council -on June ZZ, M r.
Action Item
DEMOLITION OF CITY -OWNED HOUSE ON ARASTRA PROPERTY (CMRe284:1)
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to.-:�x emol i:sh and remove
the house.
Ms, Tanner announced that Mayor Henderson received six votes, and
Councilmember Eyerly received two votes, Councilmember Renzel
absent. Mayor Henderson was elected.
Mayor Henderson thanked his colleagues for the honor. He
announced that he was not planning to initiate any major changes
in Committee or Liaison assignments for the next six months;
however, he would be receptive to any requests for changes the
Councilmembers might have.
OFFICE OF VICE MAYOR:
VOTING FOR FLETCHER FOR VICE MAYOR: Klein, Henderson, Fletcher,
Levy, Bechtel.
VOTING FOR WITHERSPOON FOR VICE MAYOR: Eyerly, Fazzino,
Witherspoon.
ABSENT: Renzel
Ms. Tanner announced that Vice Mayor Fletcher received five
votes, and Councilmember Witherspoon received three votes,
Councilmember Renzel absent. Vice Mayor Fletcher was elect€J.
Vice Mayor Fletcher thanked her colleagues for their expression
of confidence,
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Henderson removed item 12, the Condominium Conversion
Ordinance.
Councilmember Eyerly removed item 4, Agreement -Procurement of
Insurance Coverage and Related Risk Management Services.
MOTION: Councilmember Levy Moved, seconded by Klein, to approve
the consent calendar, except Item 12, Condominium Conversion
Ordinance, and item 4, Agreement -Procurement of Insurance
Coverage and Related Risk Management Services.
Referral Items
OVERNIGHT PARKING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM - REFERRAL
NOC OURES _
TO POLICY AND
WATER -GAS -SEWER TRAINING NEEDS ASSESSMENT - REFERRAL TO FINANCE
R: - +e;;: 7nt_f nue y
GRANT OF EASEMENT -- -SAN. ANTONIO PUMP I_NG STATION - PACIFIC
i.TPHO1 342:1)
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor
execute the Grant of Easement.
GAS RATE` CHANGE (CMR 344:1.),:
Staff redommends that Council apewe two resol l` ,ions. One which
would confi r m tne' action taken by - the City Manager adjusting gas
rates in accordance with Resolution No. 5863, and the other
amending Rule and Regulatiot: No. 1 to allow the utility to
introduce a billing correction factor that will provide for an
accurate accounting of natural gas sales to its customers.
RESOLUTION 5934 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING UTILITY RATE SCHEDULES
G-1 AND G-50 AS A RESULTING OF TRACKING PG&E GAS RATE
CHANGES"
RESOLUTION 5935 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING UTILITY RULE AND
REGULATION NO. 1 OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO"
CITY-WIDE NONPROFIT FACILITY REHABILITATION PROGRAM - OPERATING
GLi
Staff recommends that Council approve the Operating Guidelines
for the Nonprofit Facility Rehabilitation and adopt the
resolution.
RESOLUTION 5936 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ESTABLISHING A REVOLVING LOAN
ACCOUNT PROGRAM FROM PART OF THE NONPROFIT FACILITY
REHABILITATION PROGRAM AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 5898"
RESOLUTION RE MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN (CMR:346:1)
Staff recommends that the resolution be adopted so that the plans
may become effective the pay period including July 1, 1981,
RESOLUTION 5937 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO AITO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN
FOR MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO,
583,"
RESOLUTION
r?!
RE CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES' .COMPENSATION PLAN
Staff recommends that the resolution be adopted so that the plans
may become effective the pay period including July 1, 1981.
RESOLUTION 5938 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMEND_ i'NG THE COMPENSATION PLAN
FOR CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL (SEIU) AS ADOPTED BY
RESOLUTION NO. 5793 AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTION 5901"
RESOLUTION TO CHANGE DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
TINDEMITIont ID AU GUS
MI
RESOLUTION 5939 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING RESOLUTION NO 5928 TO
RESCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR ESTABLISHING
UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT f23"
CRESCENT PARK
PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS TO UPHOLD THE DECISION
HW L F. APPLI I
PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS APPR'V°L OF THE
A IU I FRUM F NEU-CO M1J 1T CI TO ERVICE,CbMRtRCT/ C r-
9 9 6
7/6/81
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIL 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
705 SAN ANTONIO FROM P -C TO C -S"
PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD UNANIMOUSLY
fi
S
MOTION PASSED to approve consent calendar .including request for
withdrawal of item 13, Varianeea:at 4123 El Camino Real, excepting
items 4, Agreement..eVrocuTeinent of Insurance Coverage and Related
Risk Management Services, and item 12, Condominium Conversion
Ordinance unanimously, Renzel .absent.
AGENDA CHANGES ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
Assistant City Manager June Fleming, advised that Item 12,
Condominium, Conversion Ordinance would become Item 21-A', and Item
4, Agreement -Procurement of Insurance Coverage would become Item
21-B.
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS BY A 6-1 VOTE 1 THAT NO
MEND EN3 1 13 i a 1' y 4 •� 1
THAT PROVIDE HrACT>H CARE SERVICES- "A4
ECOMML
rl NG F R 1NE CREED CENTRE.
Chairman of the Planning Commission Fred Nichols said that the
Planningg Commission had discussed the zoning ordinance amendment
at length and found that theedifficulties wit r such an amendment
would potentially allow a loophole for many other similar types
of uses, to slip into. The Commission felt very uncomfortable
with the amendment mainly because of opening loopholes in the
City ordinances, which they did not feel were warranted. The
majority of the Commission supported a motion to. return the
original R -E suggest -ion back to Council for reconsideration.
Assistant City Attorney Marlene Prendergast said there had been
neighborhood input en the ordinance and that she ,had not done any
redrafting of the ordinance after the Planning Commission
meeting, given their recnrpmpnda} on, She felt that the Council
might consider adding the following features in the ordinance:
1. That as of the date of the Zoning Administrator's hearing
there was compliance with all existing use permits which
permit. the primary use on . the site
Ms. Prendergast :said that was ;basically a finding that there
was compliance with related use permits.
A 'provision of requiring a bond.
Ms. Prendergast thought this could be placed-< .in the section
involving the ARB, that the. ARB could require security for
the removal.. of the expansion 'in an amount which was estimated
to:: be the cost of removal, not an amount twice the value.
3. An appeal provision. The general appeal provision in the
ordinance referred: only, to variances . and Conditional use
permits.
Ms. Prendergast said a provision could be inserted that an
appeal fromthe decision of the Zoning Administrator would be
in accordance with. Chapter 18.92, Which was the variance and
use permit :process.
9,9 7
7/6/81
1
4. If the ordinance was adopted, a provision to provide that the
removal of the expar. ion would constitute an abandonment of
the permit.
Ms. Prendergast said that the Zoning Code did not have any
type of abandonment provision as some cities avid. A use per-
mit and a permit for expansion could remain forever even
though the expansion was not there any longer. She said it
could be provided that the removal of the expansion autho-
rized pursuant to this section would be considered an aban-
donment of the permit. She said it would only apply to the
expansion and was not related to the convalescent hospital or
,the health care use and would be considered a voluntary
relinquishment of the right to the expansion.
Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open.
Stephen W. Player, 1874 Guinda Street, an attorney representing
Mental Health Management, spoke on behalf of and in support of
the ordinance. He had discussed the suggested changes to the
ordinance and felt his clients could go along with them. He felt
the issue as whether this type of facility could be allowed to
exist in a community. The Planning Commission had looked at the
issue and on two occasions the Commission had recommended to the
Council that the R -E zoning be returned to allow the facility to
operate in accordance with the plans which had been submitted.
He said the Council had directed staff to prepare an ordinance
which might deal with the problem. He congratulated the City
Attorney's Office for struggling with, the issue. He felt they
had come up with an ordinance which would allow a difficult prob-
lem to be resolved. He said that for over a year , Mental Health
Management had attempted to get permission to acquire a temporary
administrative facility to which they could move their adminis-
trative offices and which would allow them to expand the level of
services the County had required. and to which they had agreed
with the County to provide.
COURCILMEMBER RE:NZEL ARRIVED AT 8.1.2.2_14.
Mr Player said that the State of California had stressed the
importance of cities providing care for the aged and complying
with the requirements of State law. There had previously been
testimony as to the quality .of care of Mental Health Management,
their history and operation, and the fact that the - neighbors
themselves had not raised an objection to Mental Health
Management running the facility. Palo Alto was a community with
a large number of elderly and needed this type of facility. He
said Palo Alto was comm'tted to the care of its aged. There was
a Senior Day Care Center and Senior Coordinating Council He
urged that the ordinance, be adopted as presented, and reiterated
his client's support of ,the modifications suggested by Ms.
Prendergast. in the alternative. he urged the Council to recon-
sider its prior determination and to look at the quest;on of
rezoning the property to R -E. It was his opinion that an R -E
zone, which was the original zor;i ng designation, was the proper
and appropriate designation. He thought there should be a condi-
tional use permit process .which. would allow for the review ofthe
uses in an R -E zone.
Vice Mayor'= Fletcher asked Mr. Player about the nature of the
expansion that the County had required of the
Management _fael l i ty.
Mental Health,
Mr. Player replied that the contract with the County itself did
not address that question, but that Exhibit "A" to that contract
expressed the level of work and services to be provided, and that
Mental Health Management had bid to get the contract. The level
of services to be provided could not be delivered at the same
quality and rate without the expansion.
Hank Lewis, Director of Operations for Pine Creek Center, repre-
senting Mental Health Management (MHM) said that the expansion
was not -required by the contract, but the contract was let by the
Caunty with the expectation that MHM would deliver a certain
level and type of service. The staffing level for Pine Creek
Center was enhanced over a normal skille-cr nursing facility and
the current physical plant did not facilitate accommodation of
the staff. The County, did not contract for a specific building,
they contracted for a program which MHM would provide. The
facility was selected later. He clarified a point - in Mr;
Rlnsky's letter and said that the County of Santa Clara was a
public entity and could not contract for more than one year at a
time. The best assurance of continuity in the public arena would
be to get a five-year renewal option of the contract. That did
not mean that at the end of five Years the contract would not be
renewed. Mr. Lewis said that Mr. Rinsky had spoken with Paul
Gould of the Department of Health, Licensing and Certification
and was correct that MHM's license did not require expansion;
however, the surveyors from Mr. Ge-uld's office were critical of
the facility because in order to accommodate staff it took space
from the patients. MHM had converted part of the day room into
an office for the Director of Nursing and Medical Records because
there was no such space in the facility. Mr. Lewis said that
since it was summer, patients and staff spent some time outdoors,
which would end soon. Further, he said Mr. Rinsky had indicated
that MHM's situation was tenuous_. He thought it was solid given
the fact that they were dealing in the public arena on a yearly
contract. He said that as a Lessee, Mental Health Management had
no vested interest in the site at Pine Creek Center, they could
per -form their program in anothei facility in another location
and, given the demand to move, that might have to be considered.
As an organization, MHM would not be making a significant capital
investment to build a temporary building. --.:to bond it and remove
it, if —it -were not operationally necessary to have it.. Mr. Lewis
said MHt4 supported the Council's recommendation to return the
zdne to R -E, and also supported the City Attorney's office recori,-
mendations to modify the ordinance change, and would accept those
modifications if that was the only way MHM could expand the
site.
Councilrember Levy asked how ,many new personnel MHM would have
-when an addition was built. -
Mr. ewi s said all MHM's- personnel were .already on staff. MHM's
current staffing levels were approximately, 1a-12 daytime staff
More than what was there before.
Counci lmember Levy asked if there would be additional patients.
Mr. Lewis said there would be no expansion of beds, Pine Creek
Center would remain a 50 -bed facility.
€round 1i ember Levy said that parking questions had been raised,
such as that MHM personnel had been parking on. Miranda.
Counci hnenber Levy said he had : been there . and had not seen any
parking. on Miranda. He asked if there was a parking. problem.
Mr. - Lewi s replied yes. He said that MHM was going to reline the
lot. The lot lines-_ were= obliterated and people did not park
well, so MHM was going to attempt to correct part of the problem
by relining the lot. Further, he said there was legal parking on
Miranda, but that MHM wished to avoid using it.
Councilmember Eyerly asked if MHM had investigated whether space
was available to them elsewhere if they decided to move.
Mr. Lewis said that the reason this facility was selected was
because it was the one which was available at the time it was
needed, and it also appeared to satisfy their program needs since
it was An a rural community setting. From the beginning, they
had expected to be able to expand for administrative space. They
had not pursued any other options, and .wou1 d- not do so until they
found out what would happen where they were.
Philip Bookman, Manager, Mental Health Bureau in Santa Clara
County, with. program responsibility for the Pine Creek contract,
said the program at Pine Creek Center was very important and
valuable. The patients in the program were treated in the
County, and it was rare in the State eto have patients requiring
this level -of care treated in their own County. Usually, they
were treated far out of the County or warehoused in nontreatment
programs. He said it -was not.simply a nursing care program, it
was a sophisticated psychogeriatric treatment program designed to
help people get out of skilled nursing care and live in the com-
munity to the highest functioning level possible. He' said- that
Palo Alto had an extremely high need for 'this type of program.
Currently, the facility was fury staffed for a treatment program
in a facility which was designed to simply be a nursing care pro -
grain. The staff were falling ail over each other. The Mental
Health Bureau did . not feel this was a .. good environment for
.patients or for the staff. He encouraged the Council to do what-
ever they could to keep that type of program in Palo Alto.- He
thought that the County was fortunate to have gotten the neces-
sary funding from the State to have the program, and he hoped it
could be continued,
Arthur Rinsky, Attorney, 885 Moana Court, representing the
Miranda Avenue neighborhood urged the Council to maintain its
decision made in January, 1981, to maintain the R-1 zoning at
4277 Miranda Avenue, and to reject the contrary recommendation of
the Planning Commi-ss i on . Further, they asked the Council to take
whatever action possible to protect the Miranda Avenue neighbor-
hood from further action by the Planning Commission. He asked
that the proposed ordinance be rejected by the Council for the
reasons he had set forth in his correspondence, which was on file
with the City Clerk. He said the neighborhood had agreed to
nothing, that they . had made suggestions, but that subsequent dis-
coveries ' lead to their conclusion to oppose the ordinance.
Further, they felt the record should reflect that from their .con-
versations with the State and the County, regarding Pine Creek
Center, it was clear that Pine Creek Center needed to allocate
their resources to provide more patient supervision rather than
to provide more administrative space. He commented that Pine
Creek Center's relationship with the site was tenuous; that their
license expired August 41, 1981, and he ' i.ad nine copies of the
license if the Council wished a copy.
Bill Rutledge, 8554"'Miranda Green, subiitted copies of the license
for the Pine Creek Center faci l i ty , l which showed the effective
date of March 1, 1981, with' an expiration date of August 31,
1981. He said the temporary license was further evidence of the
tenuous existence of Pine Creek Center as a -licensed facility.
1-0 '0 0
7/6/Bi
He said that -as the Pine Creek Center personnel had pointed out,
their contract did not require additional administrative space.
A return to _ R -E zoning would 'not protect the neighborhood, and he
said the neighbors strongly believed that the R -I zoning must be
maintained, which would have the current use expiring at the end
of the amortization period. Mr. .Rutledge said the requirement
for administrative space could be handled with other approaches
which would not require additions to the site. He thought it had
previously been sufficiently demonstrated that the Pine Creek
site was not a proper site for this type of facility. He com-
mented thatt there had been a number of parking problems op
Miranda and as he understood it, there was no legal parking on
Miranda. He_ said there were signs :all over specifically pro-
hibiting parking on the entire length of that road, from Pine
Creek Center to Arastradero.
J. Victor Gonzales, Consultant for Mental Health Management, said
regarding the licenses, they were issued on a one-year basis
until Me.diCa1 evaluated the program. Sometimes licenses were
limited to shorter periods of time at which time an evaluation
was done to determine the extent of the license to be provided.
Therefore, the license submitted by Mr. Rutledge and the August
termination date did not indicate that the license would be
denied or that it would terminate. He thought it had been estab-
lished that there was a need for this type of facility, and it
was inconceivable that Medical would take an excellent facility
and reject the license. He said that the present administrative
space being occupied had been converted into group treatment
rooms. MHM had renovated the facility and had spent $ 70,000 in
improving the facility. The neighbors had expressed concerns
with the permits which had been issued in prior years and had
cited four violations they felt had occurred with the permit.
With Ogard to the screens which_ were to have been put out with
the parking, the Planning Department had gorge to the site and
signed off and said it was okay. With regard to the lighting,
the Planning Department indicated. that the lighting was accept-
able and that' it was the original lighting which had been
approved, and with regard to the location of the facility, it had
met all Planning permits which had been issued by the City. He
urged the Council to adopt the proposed ordinance. It would pro-
vide a vehicle for treatment of=:the City's needy population. He
suggested an annual review and inspection of the permit be made
so that if there were any issues ,or problems arising in the com-
munity, they could be addressed annually.
Carol Murray, 4281 Miranda, said she lived next door to the Pine
Creek Center. It was horrible living next door. She said there
was screaming all day, well into the night and often she was
awakened at 5:00 a.m. She did not think it provided proper care
needed for the aged. , She said that initially it was discussed
how these patients should be treated, and she,was an advocate of
making a facility of this nature work, but she never thought Pine
Creek was going to discuss a . decrease in the number of beds and
give extra space for administration. She said no one had ever
come out and spent a day at her house to hear what went on. She
did not feel the care being given was appropriate and she could
vouch for events occurring almost any time . o'f the day Also, it
was not appropriate to have the facility An a residential neigh-
borhood, and it was not a good neighborhood to raise children.
Mary. Wi l hel mson, 860_ Moana Court, lived about two ' and one-half
blocks away and and said she _`concurred with Carol Murray.. She
had�:rworked for 20 :years in a hospital taking care of typically
ill patients and had never heard sadness like when you hear
people cry.- A week ago, there were 8.10_ oldster -patients that
were out for = a walk in the sun with only two attendants in
1 0 0 1
7/6/81
1
1
control, One of the male patients sat down and relieved himself
in her neighbo''s yard. Another lady sang "Take Me Out to the
Ballgame" in the'middle of the street. She felt there was a need
for the facility, but not in the rural setting. She lived two
blocks from the facility and heard the cries for- help for over _a
year. When someone yells --"help, it touches you. Having no further requests to speak, Mayor Henderson declared the
public hearing closed.
Mayor Henderson said the item would be taken in two parts.
First, the recommendation that no amendment to the zoning ordi-
.nance be approved allowing expansion of nonconforming uses.
MOTION: Councilm:ember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
that no amendment to the Zoning Ordinance be approved allowing
expansion of nonconforming uses that provide health care •ser-
vices.
Councilmember Renzel said she made the motion somewhat reluc-
tantly because it was an important service being provided, but
after reviewing all the material and hearing from the public,
she felt that the Council had been trying to accommodate a con-
tract obligation of a private party, by trying to modify the
zoning ordinance. She thought -there were many instances where
buildings had been built within zones for specific uses and had
been quite adequate for the uses for which they were built. This
particular use was too intensive for the facility. In order for
the owners to do what Pine Center felt would satisfy their con-
tract obligations, they were asking for an expansion beyond what
the building could accommodate comfortably in an R-1 zone.
Ccuncihnember Fazzino said that the issue was not the intrinsic
work of :the program itself, but rather a perceived lack of City
commitment to senior health care or housing. He thought that the
Council could match its support of health care and housing pro-
grams for the elderly against any other City Council in the
State The only issue before the Council' now was the appropri-
ateness of the use in an overwhelming R-1 area, particularly when
concerns about noise, parking and other intrusions were raised by
the neighbors and there was overwhelming support for amortization
of the present use. He was concerned about approving an ordi-
nance which was specifically directed toward continued inclusion
of one health care facility. In his opinion, that represented
very poor public policy. He thought the only issue before the
Council a few months ago was zoning and once the zoning issue was
rejected, the entire issue should have been rejected at that
time. He would support the action of the Planning: Commission. -
Councilmember Klein said he would go along with Councilmembers
Renzel and Fazzino. He added that he felt It was _ not appropriate
for the Council to expand that use in the neighborhood and
adopting the ordinance would set a dangerous precedent in other
areas in the community. He did not think it was appropriate for
the Council to allow facilities to ,expand that would be amortized
out over a period of time. If it `did get approved, he felt it
would come back:°to haunt the Council_in other areas.
Councilmember Levy said, that the.change in toning from R-1 to R -E
should not be made. The use was a nonconforming one which would
be .amortized in twelve more years. Regarding whether health
facilities should be allowed in general to -add additions to their
facilities, he thought that was a more., general issue. . He said
that this particular facility was allowed to exist for -12 more
years with the positives -and negatives which that entailed. He
did not think it should exist for more` than 12 more years, but
with or without the addition, it would exist for 12 more years.
With ,the. addition, there would be no additional beds and no addi-
tional personnel. The changes suggested by the Attorney's Office
would give additional prot ction to the neighbors. He said that
although the neighbors had complained about the facility, since
the facility would be there for 12 more years, he thought the
addition might enable the facility to do their job better, and
may improve matters for the remaining 12 years. When a zone was
changed, an amortize4.ion period was granted, which recognized
that there were investments which had been shade and that it was
fair to allow the facility to phase out over time. If changes
are not allowed during that, time, if. there was a change in the
field, then a particular facility would be precluded from
adapting to the new changes in the overall field, and the
facility suffered prematurely before the end tof the amortization
period. He felt the proposed ordinance was properly written,
particularly with the additions presented by Ms, Prendergast.- He
-felt that a change which was made to a facility must :be removable
or it must conform to the new R-1 zoning, and before an addition
could be made, there must be a finding that there was compliance
with current use permits. He did not think this would be used in
a wide -spread manner throughout the City because it was only a
short period of time, so any permanent improvement would not pay
out. .He thought that the health facility should be able to make
the small changes t:, enable them to care for their patients bet-
ter.. He thought that in the instant case it would be fair to the
property owners on the :site, and fair to the neighbors and to .the
community. H. thought it was a proper ordinance and would sup-
port it.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Levy voting "no."
PUBLIC HEARING P.ANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS
i
lilt it
77
PROVISION.)
Principle Planner George •Zimmerman said that all cities,
ncl uding charter cities, were required by State mandate to per-
mit mobile _homes wherever single family uses were permitted. One
exception would be within the historic districts. Staff did not
expect the effect to be substantial in Palo Alto because there
were few vacant sites available and given the high demand for the
relatively limited supply of land in Paln_Alto, utilization would
be for the highest and' best use. The' return for mobile homes
would be less than that. Additional standards had been discussed
which would be above and beyond what would otherwise be required
for single family uses which would also . be under the legislation
and the ordinance recommended by the Commission. Mr. Zimmerman
had investigated standards applied by other jurisdictions and he
said they fell into four areas. 1) Requiring certain types of
overhangs; 2) requiring nonreflecti ve siding material; 3)
requiring nonrefiective roofing material; and 4) establishing a
minimum size- for the structure. Staff , recommended that the
standards not be implemented at this time because unintended -
effects of implementation of standards r;ere not wanted, which
meant that. if .; they were implemented, they would also apply" to
single-family structures. Staff felt that`. they would more likely
apply to single-family structures than they would to, mobile
homes. Staff felt they should wait and see the effect of the
legislation.
t
1. 0 0 3_
7/6/81
MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon introduced the following ordi-
nance and moved, seconded by Eyerly, its approval.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST'READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING
CODE (TITLE 18) OF THE PALO _ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PER-
MIT INSTALLATION OF MANUFACT#BRED. HOMES ON LOTS ZONED
FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS"
Councilmember Witherspoon was concerned that Palo Alto allowed
residential structures in nonresidential zones. Conceivably,
someone with property zoned commercial could put up .a mobile home'
and live in it and then in three years convert the --structure to a
nonresidential use, and she asked if that could be prevented.
Mr. Zimmerman said that a mobile home was equal to a single-
family use and would be_ treated as such. For commercial uses
there are different code requirements and any conversion would
require Architectural Review Boa!.d review.
Ms. Prendergast agreed with Mr. Zimmerman and said that probably
there was -.no way to totally . prevent the change referred to by
Councilmember Witherspoon. Further, ,she said the intent of the
State law was toward providing housing. There was a question
raised when the ordinance was drafted as to whether it was to
apply _to_ all zones where residences were allowed, or whether it
applied just R-1 zone:.. The Attorney's Office had attempted to
get an answer from the Legislative Counsel with no success, par-
tially due to the political nature of the question. She felt
there would be no way to stop the conversions, because the mobile
homes were intended to be treated as any other single-family
dwel l tno,
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Eyerly,
to allow manufactured homes in all residential zones.
Mayor Henderson asked if the requirement by the State was that
manufactured homes be allowed in any residential area.
Ms. Prendergast said the requirements were confusing. The
statute said that a City shall not prohibit the installation of
mobile homes .:on a foundation on lots zoned for single-family
dwellings. She said the Attorney's Office had tried to figure
out and sought help from the State as to whether they meant R-1,
or any district which allowed a single-family dwelling. The
answer_-. the Attorney's Office received was that the intent of the
statute was aimed at a single-family zone, but the safest thing
to do would be to allow,it -any zone which allowed residences.
Mayor Henderson said then the City could `oerhaps have trouble
because_ the City of Palo Alto allowed single- ami iv residences in
all Of its .zones.
Ms. Prendergast sand that was the clear meaning of the wording,
but from what was.. received from _ the various authorities on the
subject, the intent of the statute was possibly something else.
Councilmember Renzel asked if there -,were building requirements in
nonresidential zones that would take care of the problem.
h rector of Planning.. Ken Schreiber said there would be building
code requirements for a .commercial or an industrial use, and it
was not uncommon for a} residential structure to be used for a
'commercial use.
1 0 0 4
7/6/81
Councilmember Levy said that in Palo Alto a single family home
could be put in any zone which was zoned R-1 or higher. He asked
if that was the general case in cities throughout California.
Mr. Schreiber responded -that at one time planners were somewhat
successful in getting housing totally separated from industrial
and commercial activities, but that the trend in recent years was
in the other direction, to reintroduce residential uses in non-
residential areas. He did not think there was,a general pattern
throughout the State.
Ms. Prendergast said the definition of mobile homes or manufac-
tured housing, was "a structure transportable in one or more
sections...nd designed to be used as a dwelling. She thought
that the City could put in .its ordinance "designed to be used,
and used, as a dwelling" and thereby keep the homes as
dwellings.
Mr. Schreiber asked for clarification that the amendment was tc:
not include the provision in nonresidential zones.
AMENDMENT PASSED to allow manufactured homes in all residential
zones by a vote of 6-3, Klein, Fletcher, Henderson voting "no.'=
MOTION PASSED to approve the ordinance for first reading by a
vote of 9-0.
MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, to bring
bring Item 19, zone change for 1155 Colorado Avenue, for discus-
sion with Item 18, change of Comprehensive Lane Use Map designa-
tion for 1155 Colorado Avenue.
MOTION PASSED to bring forward Item 193, unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS.
L
:a
L
L
L
Planning Commission Chairman Fred Nichols said the Planning
Commission's finding was that, because of the existing require-
ments of RM-2's and the P -C zone allowing from .10-20 units per_
acre, and •this particular piece of property was adjacent only to
one, maybe.. two, single family residences, combined with the
critical reed for multiple family housing and the search for
sites for such housing, and because its location was adjacent to
a park facility, major traffic routes for access to the site.,
this appeared to be an ideal location for multiple family. Also,
What density should be recommended was considered, and although
the P -C zone across the street had a density of over 10 per acre,
the Commission did not feel .strongly_ about moving toward a P -C,
and recommended the nearest zoning possible, such as RBI -2.
Mayor Henderson declared.. the Public Hearing open. _
Jean Scott, 3136 Genevieve Court, Palo Alto, had lived in Palo
Alto for 21 years, was. a member of the West Bayshore Residents
Association since inception. She knew the Council was familiar
with her neighborhood; and _was aware of their concerns. She said
when she asked why the material . for 1040 Colorado .was -included
1 0 •0'5
7/6/81
in this one change request, she was advised that from an his-
torical viewpoint, it was related so she felt the, entire area
should then be looked- at on that basis. About 10 years ago,
Colorado Park was developed, (Palo Alto's attempt to bring low-
moder ate housing to the City with the ethnic and economic mix in
the neighbor hood, which was no problem.) However, that seemed to
open the: door for developers, and almost immediately there were
requests for apartments and condominiums. in the whole area from
Colorado to Oregon Avenue. That was when the West Bayshore
`Residents Association was founded. One of their concerns, had
arrays been_ high density traffic. Oregon Green Condominiums had
just been completed. After much study and many meetings and sur-
veys by the City, the schools and the residents in the area, it
was clear that what was needed -was a district -park in that area,
comparable to thosei in other areas of Palo Alto. There was a
small park alr'eady-__there and the City was, able to purchase the
land- and to trade off some land- along fr=ontage road, with the
industrial people, so that the park could go clear through. from
Arrari110 to Colorado-. At the time the City purchased the land,
it did not buy that one strip of land, the Pel 1 egr i ni property,
for -reasons unknown to the residents. She said they did not want
more condominiums or apartments, but -;oolu like 'to see some
single-family hordes on that property. Sipe` said the residents
wanted that l ast piece of --property, kept the single-family desig-
nation that it was given in the Comprehensive Plan. The Colorado
Place condominiums were selling for $160,000-$111,000. A three -
bedroom, one bath, si ngie-farm ly home in that area went for
around $155,000. More affordable housing was not being dis-
cussed, it boiled down to below -market -value units. There were
two BMR +units at. Colorado Place, and two more if 29 more units
were built. That would be a total of four families. The units
were small two -bedroom horses which would add up to four families.
With probably 2 children per family or a total of ei ght children.
Four - families, and B children that would benefit most. In order
to do that their neighborhood would have -to absorb 49 units, with-,:
50-75 cars at least. She did not think that was a fair trade
off. She knew of no other are in Palo Alto where the citizens
had to go_back 'to the Planning Commission and the Council meeting
se many times, to try to keep the 'density down.
Helene Smith, 3142 Greer Road, sympathized with the developers of
the few remaining. parcels in Palo Alto, but her neighborhood was
so saturated with apartments and condominiums, there were traf-
fie, congestion and increasing crime problems. She hoped the
Cou-nci1 would consider the 'problems of increased development in
the neighborhood.
Kathleen Martin, 2907 Sedyson Court, was against the rezoning of
the property at 1155 Colorado. She opposed an increase in popu-
lation density in the neighborhood She sal that although
street access appeared to be open to the property, and it was
open to 101 to commute out of the City, within Palo Alto, there
were three stop lights on Oregon before even reaching the fourth
at Middlefield, which was enOugh,to encourage traffic to use the
neighboring residential :.streets. The traffic on Colorado had
increase markedly in the past three years, with parking - and
bicycle lanes on both . sides, the street feels increasingly narrow
and r, i sky. Noise had increased with more sounds of gunning
motors and squealing brakes both . day and night..- Although' the
open spaces of the park were thought .to_ compensate for any
increased population density around it, the open space of Greer
Park was already needed in the single-family - dwell ing zoned
neighborhoods. Adding dense housing around the space negates
much of the effect of the - open = space, leaving the situation more
dense and in need of more open space. Al so, she ,said that the
1.0 0
7/6/61
concept of compensating for open space with high density.
dwellings had not been carried out around other City parks such
as Rinconada and Foothills. 0ne of the goals of providing
increased housing had been to accommodate those who commuted to
work in Palo Alto, yet the 20 units at Colorado Place had been
for sale for two months, and were moving .slowly. ' She said that
of the 60,000 workers commuting each day to Palo Alto, there must
have been at least 20 ready and able to buy those units,
especially in a County which had seen overnight lines for new
house purchases. She said that people with whom she had spoken
who wanted to move to Pala Alto indicated' they could find more
house for less money in other areas. Yet, the proposed buildings
at the site would be smaller. than the Colorado Place Units for
approximately the same. price. Changing the zoning had been
represented as necessary to insure an adequate return on. land
investment for the owners, but since the parcel had a history of
being zoned R-2 in an R-1 neighborhood and since past City
Councils had stated they would'not set a precedent of changing
the R-2 zoning by their Colorado Park. move,. there was no promise
to an investor that the land would be anything but zoned R-2, the
R-2 was' a given part of the investment. In addition, investments
of any other people are at stake, homeowners who had bought their
hones expecting a stable single- family zoned neighborhood. They
have an investment and a type of life they hoped to enjoy for
many years in their homes and neighborhoods. The change brought
about by increased population density erodes that investment.
The increased population density affected the entire City. The
City of Palo Alto had a history of being a quiet and dignified
residential town, perhaps because of the care with which it had
been planned. The continual increase in population could not, be
contained in certain areas, with traffic spilling from the main
to residential streets, more neighborhoods would see a need for
barricades. For the above reasons, she urged that the density of
her neighborhood be controlled and that the zoning be left as it
was, and that the Comprehensive Plan not be changed.
Charles Scott, 3136 Genevieve Street, asked that the property at
1155 Colorado Avenue continue to be zoned as .Single-family resi-
dential as it had been supported during several proposals for
change. Traffic and on -street parking in the area had increased
because of the higher density and'housing development and the
expanded services of the building leased by the Telephone Company
on East Bayshore Frontage Road. He felt the Planning Commission
was unaware of the City's previous assurances to the residents in
that area concerning -the single-family residential zones,
Abdel H. Ismail, 2960 Otterson Court, thought it was unfair to
all the people on Otterson Court -who have put their lifetime
investment in that area. After `a little while it would be an
urban _area, if the current types of density continue. The police
cars, are at the apartment behind them almost .daily, nand he . ur ged
.the Council to keep the density down.
John Brooks Boyd, 434 Forest Avenue, the :architect for the pro-
ject, realized that -the Council knew the area and the need: -"for
_ housing and appreciated the position that the Planning Commission
had taken. Fe said that with the RM-2 zone-,; theyecould:build-29
uofis which wouldemean 2.9 BMR's. Mr. Boyd seggestede that .they
be granted the RM-3.with a maximum Oft 32 units, 's0 that they.
:could build 3 BMR's.
Stephanie ' Beach, 854 .0l ara Dr i ve, . on behalf- of herself and 'her:.
nei=ghbor, members -of West. Bayshore Residents_ Association, and.
1 0 0 7
7/6/81
1
were in favor of .the increased zoning and the new plan for the
Pellegrini property. They did not feel there would be a dramatic
increase in traffic on Colorado, and felt the property was
uniquely situated in the City next to open space, abutting only
on one -single family dwelling, with easy access to other parts of
the City both internally and externally.
Luther Gipson, 1070 Moffett Circle,. said he had been assured and
reassured that Colorado Park would not mean that they would
become high density, ye,; time after- time they were having to
defend it. He was less than 'impressed with the architect's gen-
erousity in trying to put in three BMR's and suspected that the
true motive was more profits. He said that in spite of the
unanimous vote.of the Planning Commission, they did not consider
leaving it as it was. He Felt that this was a break of faith
with the people of the neighborhood and wondered how soon it
would be done' again.
Boris Dubensky, 1034 Moffett Circle, was against the proposed
change in zone. He felt that such a change would violate the
promises given to them by the previous City Council. He wanted
to keep the zone as it was, there were enough apartments in that
area.
Dave Buchanan, 1094 Moffett Circle, said he bought a home in Palo
Alto approximately one year ago, and he and his wife decided to
make a serious financial investment in the. Palo Alto community.
At that time, they understood that the zoning was to be R-1 or
R-2 and they were disappointed in the proposed change.
Jerry Tinklenberg, 2841 Greer Road, pointed out that in one short
block of Colorado Street, there were 100 units. The proposed
density for directly across the street was twice that of Colorado
Place. He thought it was a massive increase in density in an
area and neighborh hod that already had a disproportionate share
of high density units. They already had a traffic problem on
Colorado Streetereven before the people had moved into Colorado
Place, and he thought the traffic problem would increase not only
in terms of the movement of vehicles, but also in terms of over-
night parking. Now was the time to reverse that trend or at
least to hold it w"ere it was, and he urged the Council to follow
the positions of previous City Councils, which had been along the
lines of not setting a precedent by increasing further the
density in that area.
Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing closed.
RECESS FROM 9:35 .m, TO
Councilmember Eyerly felt that the area was impacted by the
densities it had in the multiple housing in the area plus the
commercial, but on the °thee hand, Greet, Park had about 21 acres
of open space, and he thought that that one last area was com-
patible for the type of housing recommended by the Planning
Commission
MP.T1O 1: Counciimember Eyerly moved, moved, 3econded _ by Henderson, to
artrove the change of Comprehensive Land Use Map designation from
Single Emily Residential to Multiple Family Residential for 1155
Colorado Avenue and to change the . zoning for 1155 " Colorado from
Single Family (R-2) to Low Density Multiple Family Residential
(RM-2).
Vice eMayoT Fletcher as_ked for clarification Aul the density fore
the Colorado - - Court devel op.ment. across the street' from - 1155
Colorado and- how` it "corpared to what RM-2 would allow.
Mr. Schreiber; replied that the Planned Community zone across the
street had a density of 10.5 units per acre_ and the -other two
RM-2 zones properties in the area had a density of about 20 units.
per acre. The RM-2 zone allowed 20.7 units per acre.
Vice Mayor Fletcher believed that. the site was suitable for mul-
tiple family housing. She said it was close to the noisy
Bayshore Freeway, and that more dense housing would act as a_buf-
fer. She also thought there was good access to West Bayshore,
but she did not think that the particular site was suitable for
R -Le She, did note want to go to a higher density than what was
across the street, and would oppose the current motion.
Councilmembee- Fazzino was supportive of increased densities to
bring about affordable housing opportunities whenever possible,
but was concerned about ,fair distribution of affordable housing
throughout the community and bringing about sensitive mixes of -
R -1 in multi -family housing throughout the town. He felt it was
important to remember the equality of life for those who. already
live in areas must be retained. He said that in the 1950's and
1960's the West Bayshore area was home to most of the apartment
units An Palo Alto, and to most of the short-term dwellers. In
the last ten years, the area had become one of the most pleasant
mixed housing uses in the areas in the City, but after a tremen-
dous amount. of struggle. :The area had accepted affordable
housing, such as Colorado Park, many times in the past with par-
ticular commitments from the City Council. In his four years on
the Council, he had supported a couple of higher density pro-
posals in that area with the recognition that at some point they
would have to say stop. e He thought the time had come to say
stop. He did not want this neighborhood and this neighborhood
only to bear the entire burden of the housing imbalance in Palo
Alto. He was sure that John Boyd would bring about an attractive
development on the site, but he was concerned that the area was
surrounded by R-1, that the neighborhood had made a tremendous
commitment in the. past to housing stock in the community, and
that the Council be sensitive to the need for both R-1 and
multi --family uses in that area. He:::would oppose the -Planning
Commission recommendation and hoped that the R-1 designation
could be retained in that area.
Councilmember Levy said he did not know whether he preferred RM-1
or R-2. He felt RM-2 was too dense_ . He was concerned about the
densities across the street in the. P -C zone which was about one-
half the rate. of an RM-2 density. He would vote against the
motion.
Councilmember Renzel said she would oppose the motion. She
agreed with Councilmember Fazzino. She thought that. the West
Bayshore neighborhood, although it had Greer Park, had virtually
the only multi -family family housing in the community, but it was
very dense. In addition, the neighborhood had an industrial area
fronting on Bayshore Frontage Road, which a lot of the single-
family neighborhoodz did not have and she thought it was import-
tart to recognize that. She thought that one should look at the
rationale being used for the particular rezoning. It was near a
park, it would provide B4R units, but that same rationale could
be, used at Rinconada, Mitchell and any others parks in the com-
muni ty. She thought one should look at the overall neighborhood
situation and she thought this neighborhood had a density'well
above what was normally thought as . R-1. She did not thinkthey
should be'penalized because they had a park.
Councilmember Klein felt it was a difficult issue -.because on_ one
hand the site was perfectly situated for residential If they
were starting: from scratch, and if large areas of the City were
being redesigned, this site would rate an A+ for building, but on
the other hand, going back about ten years to the Colorado Park
development and other things which had been built in the area
including, Oregon Green, he recollected that each time the City
oassecruponi such projects, statements were made that the Council
was not setting precedents to turn the entire area into multi-
tainily residential, and that the City was going to maintain a
concern for keeping density at some reasonable level. He felt
that point -had been reached and thought that the Council had an
obligation to see to it that the multi -family high density resi-
dential units were scattered appropriately throughout the City
and not all placed iri this -area. With that in mind, he thought
the RM-2 proposal was too dense for the area and inappropriate,
and would vote against the motion.
Councilmen;ber Bechtel felt her colleagues had amply spoken. -She
thought it was a difficult situation because it was an area -which
foul d be suited for a' higher density, yet there was a commitment
of previous Councils_ to spread the housing density increases
around. She would vote against:the motion.
Mayor Henderson said he had been through most of the,history of
the neighborhood as described. He had worked for the expansion
of Greer Park and that had succeeded in growing from 5 acres to
21 acres, and the City had stretched its budget at that time to
make that decision, which was why they did not buy the Peliegrini
property. The specific promise as he recalled was that the
Council would not put it any more "236 subsidized housing" in
that area, that it had its share of low -moderate -income projects.
He did not think there was a statement that any multiple -family
housing would not be put in. He said the City was under extreme
pressure to put in multi -family housing. He did not think the
City would consider putting in multi -family housing amidst the
single-family homes in the area. In an area between multiple-
density,: Colorado Park, and the Park itself, it did not make
sense to put in single-family residences. He felt the property
was- ideally situated .for multi -family housing. Mayor Henderson
did not see any other land to be developed for multiple -unit
housing, he thought Ctrl or ado Avenu was the end of i t , and with
all of the discussion about the need for, multi -family housing, he
could not vote against this project.
MOTION FAILED by a vote of 6-3, to change Lane Use Map Designa-
tion, with Eyerly, Henderson and Witherspoon voting "aye."
MOTION FAILED f orazon€ change from R-2 to RM-2 by a vote of 7-2,
Eyerly,. Henderson voting ."aye,"
PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY. RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE
SL !LRi►iIi� FOE A C ILO CARL CLHTEil PO 12 INFA1 ITOt6LERS
Chairman of the Planning Commission, Fred Nichols said the
Commission had asked for the review of this uue permit.. after one
year,. and that the Council had concurred and recommended it. The
Commission found that the conditions of the existing day-_ care
center were such that Benti nuati on of the use permit was clearly
warranted. He said these centers met a very great need, and
required 'that the City make all efforts in their support. Since
the :.permit runs with the =l and and not the individual, and given
the City's experience with permits offered in perpetuity, the.
Commission suggested a review after three years to insure
compliance mainly . to protect the City - in the event ` that this
particular day ,_care group no longer used the property. This
would give the, Citycontrol over a permit which otherwise would
rung. in perpetuity.
1 .0 1 0
7/6/81
Christine Doan, 375 Everett Avenue, was pleased that the Planning
Commission had given them a unanimous vote for their renewal.
She said that the PACCC Neighborhood Infant Toddler Center (NITC)
had tried very hard to live within the mandates of the condi-
tions, and she felt they had been successful. She was concerned
about the three-year limitation because she felt it was not nec-
essary. There was already a built in constraint within the con-
ditions and within the general- procedure of the use permit pro-
cess. She hoped the Council would approve the Planning
Commission recommendation and that the three-year review period
be removed.
Josanna Berko, 3201 Greer Road, was an attorney with the Federal
Labor Relations Society in San Francisco and had a child in the
Center. She felt that the people in the Center were doing a won-
derful job, and thought it was unusual to find that type of
situation and type of environment. She urged that it be able to
continue. One of the things which she particularly liked was its
neighborhood location. All of the parents were sensitized to the
needs of the neighbors, and minimizing the noise. Also, she
asked that the limited term aspect of the use permit be withdrawn
because she thought the Center had proven itself to be a good and
considerate neighbor, In her personal knowledge, they had made
many attempts to make themselves available to discuss whatever
problems the neighbors might be having, and to address them. In
return; the Center asked to be given consideration as a neighbor.
She pointed out that the permit could be revoked if the condi-
tions were violated. She understood that one of the conditions
was that the permit was issued to the PACCC organization and was
not transferrable, She also understood that they did not have
any substantial evidence that NITC had not complied with the con-
ditional permit which was granted a year ago. She felt that a
limited term would result in possible uncertainties in retaining
what she thought was an excellent staff, making necessary capital
investments, and perhaps in developing and maintaining a good,
healthy relationship with the l'ieighbors. She wanted to see the
neighbors, parents, and staff talk with each other and have the
problems addressed as they come. up.
Katherine Jarvis, 4281. Hiller Avenue, supported the NITC. She
was enthusiastic about the Center and the care her son had
received. She agreed with the previous speakers on each point
mentioned by them. She valued the Center in its present loca-
tion, its convenience to neighborhood locations, and its
noninstitutional appearance and atmosphere. She took her child
there as a two month old and she felt its appearance made the
transition easier. She urged the continuing use permit without
the three-year limitation. As a parent with a small baby, and
one who would be out of the center in three years, she was con-
cerned about the limitation's effect an the staff.
Robert Van Der , veer , 2175 Bryant Street, did not want the use per-
mit renewed He thcsre"ht their privacy' had been taken away by tie,
,Center. It was recognized from the beginning that noise rout d be
a'problem,_ and ways were suggested to alleviate the problem. The
problem was still there. He felt the facility had -a negative
impact upon his life. He was surprised that PACCC had requested
the use _permit in perpetuity when the neighbors . had indicated for
two years that not every a conditional use permit was acceptable.
Their neighbors were in full support and were concerned that the
Council would consider impacting property ,owner_s`�°of, long-
standing. He felt PACCC should be encouraged, but not at
1
1
1
1
1
the expense of neighbors' rights and under the existing zoning
codes. He wanted to regain his privacy and urged that the
Council not grant a continuation of a conditional use permit in
any shape or form.
Jeanette Van Derveer, 2175 Bryant, said that over a year ago, she
had heard that the Center would be good neighbors. She quoted.
from the Palo Alto Weekly, March 20, 1980, which said that the
Center would protect the rights of the neighbors, etc., and it
seemed to her that the burden fell to the applicant after a year
in operation to demonstrate that it had been a positive addition
to the neighborhood. She felt that the opposite was true. They
had not landscaped properly even under mandate. She said that
the gardens in her neighborhood showed long 'work and care. - As it
currently stood, PACCC benefitted 12 families, yet there were 12
families in the immediate area, long-standing residents and tax-
payers who did not benefit She had a list of over 40 people in
the adjacent area who wrote letters last year opposing any change
in status. .She said that last year a petition with over 1200
names of citizens, taxpayers and voters was submitted saying the
same. She said that PACCC had a budget of $295,000 allowed by
the. City government. She said the City was them. .It was their,
tax money, and imposing a child care center was not what a siz-
able segment of the City wanted. She felt it would be refreshing
to have their elected representatives hear what they were saying
and act upon it. PACCC had not lived up to its agreement. The
impact on her lifestyle was negative and she was a positive
person. She felt she was suffering and felt her right to privacy.
had been violated, not protected as quoted earlier, She said it
was easy for someone six blocks away to say, try it, but they had
been forced to try it and they did not like it. She said that
the noisy activities existed in volume. She played a tape to
indicate the noise level. The noise test which had been done.
said the noise level did exceed the acceptable average noise
level for .Palo Alto. She proposed two alternatives: 1) The
Center be moved into the church building with immediate access to
an enclosed playyard under the trees in the front. It was ideal
and the noise was no problem. In that instance, the church could
get the permit, there would be no ambiguity as to who was respon-
sible for the landscaping and fences. By relocating the child-
ren, the church would look more favorably at an offer by Mr. Rau
to buy the property and restore the property to its original
residential use; 2) the 12 children could be moved to two private
day care homes which would have a smaller environment and closed
home setting and warmth that i nrfants require and : no permit would
be necessary. The mandate was clear. She asked that the Council
not renew the permit.
Alan Sherman, 1O0 Waverley Oaks, an immediate .1eighbor of NITC,
said he thought that somehow there was 'an attempt at making it
seem as though the immediate neighbors were imagining the noise.
The neighbors who abutted NITC :thought it was too bad they had to
use tapes . of.children crying to show the Council how the Center
had impacted their lives. The quarrel was not whether there were
'needs and whether the day care center was on excellent one. The
property owners rights must be considered, and the Council must
hear that clearly.
Tom Rau, 2183.Bryant concurred with the comments of the Van Der.
Veers and Alan Sherman. The propet ty was to the rear of his
home. His concern a year ago was the , same as now, they hear
-noise, his wife hears ba =les-crying all day .:long.. He was not at
home during the day, so he was not impacted as badly as people
that are home. He said he was home last = week for about three
hours and heard the:- children for .,at least two hours. It = was
distressing and it was a negative impact. All the arguments had
been rehashed and both sides had a difference of opinion as to
the noise and its impact. The Planning Commission had received a
suggestion that because of the profile of the church building
adjacentto his property, that possibly some buffers might be put
against the exterior wall because it was a two-story building and
the sound amplified and bounced off, which was not included in
the formal Planning Commission recommendation. He thought they
faced the prospect of little relief in terms of noise in the
future, and because of that despite the best efforts of PACCC and
the church,:. he could not support the continuation of the permit,
and he hoped the Council would give careful consideration to
their objections.
10:30 p.m.
MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded, by Fazzino, to bring
forward Item 12, the condominium conversion ordinance.
Vice Mayor Fletcher wanted to continue the item under considera-
tion.
Councilmember Renzel was concerned about the present moratorium
lapsing before the new one would go into effect.
Assistant City Attorney, Margaret Sloan, said she thought the
Council had passed an emergency ordinance which said that the
moratorium would continue until October I.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDIi Ai CE �CONTINUANCE�
MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Item
12, the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, be continued until July
13.
Councilmember Bechtel asked if there was a prediction from staff
as to how heavy the July 13 meeting would be.
Assistant City Manager, June Fleming, said that the July 13
agenda was full, but could accommodate another item, and that all
meetings in July were full.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Fletcher voting "n
PACCC USE PERMIT .(CONTINUED)
1111.161.0..101 11.1
Valerie Saul, 349 N. California Avenue, understood PACCC's desire
to clarify the ose permit which they already had, but disagreed
with their interpretation of the hours of operation. If .,it was
assumed that the Center would have the use permit continued, she.
thought it would be unfair to the neighbors to also expand' their
hours of operation. Also, she thought it was inappropriate to
give PACCC a permit- with no time limit. It made her feel like
she had to call the police if she had a complaint. She felt
three-year time limit was more than generous.:
Hugh M. Satterlee, 2399. South Court, Chairman of the Board of
Trustees of the Fi r st Baptist Church, said the.` church was pleased
with the use by PACCC of their. property. They felt that the use
was a worthwhile one iri , the community and in the neighborhood.
They believed that the infant toddler centerr had done . its : best to.
be agood neighbor and that it had been one. Theyurged the con -
ti nuation of the permit.
Robert Fujimoto; 320 Barton Way, Menlo
sent
`' a .
letter to the Council, which Park, said he had was on file in the City Clerk's
11
1
1
1
office, and was there if the Council had any questiorfs.
Mayor Henderson advised that they had received a number of addi-
tional letters in opposition of the day care center.
Vice Mayor Fletcher said she had been interested in the progress
of the infant toddler center at its location, and in her travels
down California Avenue she had made a habit of riding up the
driveway and past the child care center and out the alley on the
other side. She had never heard a baby crying or shouting. Each
time she had been there, there were from 2 to 4 children, super-
vised by two adults. She thought that if it were a private home,
there would be much less supervision and a lot more noise. She
believed that the ,use afforded the neighbors more protection than
an ordinary family use would, because they were only operating
during the day time, there were no late • night parties, she had
never heard a radio going, and there were no weekend or garden
parties. In areas where there.. were elementary schools, she said
the noise was multiplied a number of times by the noise from this
facility and yet there were not complaints from people who lived
next to an elementary schools. She said she lived very close to
an elementary school, and there was a considerable amount of
noise associated with it, but somehow she never considered it a
detriment to the neighborhood because the sound of children to
her was a positive one. She said she realized children cried,
but it was short term especially with the type of supervision the
children received, and she would be hard put to consider it a
nuisance. She understood that PACCC wanted to make some improve-
ments.to the facility but was reluctant to do so when they did
not know if they would be there after three years.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, to uphold
the Planniny.Commission recommendation and approve the request of
PACCC for continuance of Use Permit, without time limitation; age
to be 6 weeks up to 3 years old; hours of child care operation be
1:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
-.Councilmember Witherspoon pointed out the fact that the use per-
mit was for the land, not PACCC, and that the City.Attorney had.
subsequently ruled that that provision was unenforceable and not
effective.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Eyerly,
that the three-year limitation provision as recommended by the
Planning Commission be put back in.
Councilmember Klein thought the issue was difficult.: and that
there were two differing points to be resolved._ On one hand,
the need for child care was an important one. There were long
waiting_ lists for all child care facilities, in exk}ess of 100
parents who need child care facilities and, therefore,' it was not
sufficient to say that this facility could be moved elsewhere.
He said this facility and many others would be required to meet,
the needs of the community. 0n the 'other hand, he felt that
maintaining quiet and - privacy -in the single-family residences was also important. He was not unfamiliar with the sounds of schools as he lived across the street from an elementary school, and one
of his bedrooms was approximately 40 feet from the school yard.
It seemed to him that the need for child care, and the manner in
which the facility was operated outweighed the other concerns,
and he felt . it was appropriate to continue the . use permit and
would support the motion. The : three-year .condition bothered him
and he wanted_to see it removed. The did not ` mean that he did
not want controls over the permit holders. It seemed unfair to
single out this permit holder, and there were procedures to
handle problems - as they come up. He would oppose the amendment.
1,. . 0 1 4
7/6/81
Councilmember Eyer ly was opposed to the main motion and the con-
tinuation of the use permit. He felt the little house by the
church was ,a natural place for a child care facility, and under-
stood why parents and PACCC would want to use it. The number of
,children was 12, which was not a lot of children. The demon-
strated need for child care had been shown, and the Council_ had
supported it -wholeheartedly. He reminded the Council that.
Ventura School was purchased primarily for child care, and said
there were a number of other schools which were closing or would
be closing and space could be rented from the School District if
PACCC had the funds and desire to use those facilities. He felt
that PACCC had made a mistake in asking. for the use permit on
that property in view of the neighborhood impact, and that they
had not sought a peaceable settlement for use. He thought it was
a mistake anytime for any contractor which used City funds to
request a use-permit.within an R-1 area where there was no agree-
ment with the neighbors., particularly when there were other areas
available, He thought the use in this particular situation was
unfair to -the immediate neighbors. He thought the Council should.
be cognizant of that fact. and support the R-1 neighbors in the
area. He Would feel differently if there were not other spaces
available.
Councilmember Levy said he had voted against establishing the
facility a year ago. After the one year test, he felt the site
had proven to be satisfactory for a child care facility for 12
infants. His personal experience was that the site happened to
be on his route to work when he rode his bike and he had been
there on a number of occasions during the day, and it appeared to
him that the noise levels were appropriate for an R-1 area. He
said there was no weekend child care activity which was when most
neighbors were home, and there was no evening child care
activity, and if one were living in an R-1 area, there would be a
considerable amount of activity at those times._ When he was at
the Center today, one of the employees .of the facility was four-
teen years old, and he wes one of the sensitive persons taking
care of. the children. He felt the facility was appropriate in
its operation for an R-1 area, and provided substantial service
for the commiA.nity, and should be continued. PACCC had passed the
one year test and should not be subject to recurring three-year
renewal tests. He felt that although there could not be .an auto-
matic review in the event of a change in user, perhaps there
would be some alternative if some substantial change were to take
place, but thought„that the elements of the, use permit itself
protected the City against this.
Councilmember Bechtel said she had met with some of the neighbors
of the Center and she sympathized with their concerns. They had
lived in the neighborhood for some time and they had been used to
a very quiet location since the house was largely unoccupied.
After she -.met with the neighbors, she went to the Center _ and
visited with some of the staff and observed the children. She
said there were several babies sleeping, and there were some out-
side the house playing quietly. After she was done, she went to
her neighborhood and listened _ to the noises, and found her neigh-
borhood to be not ser . She felt there was noise everywhere in the,,
community and realized it was hard ,to get used to. Councilmember
Levy expressed it well when he spoke about _ it being a five day a
week noise. She supported the motion.
1
1
i
1
Councilmember Fazzino said he supported the use for the site a
year ago, and that a key- question at that time -was not whether
the child care use was appropriate in an R-1 zone, , but how many
children would be appropriate. He said. he felt that an increase
of six children would not in and of itself 'reate major problems,
and that after one year his original view had been supported. He
felt the Council should be sensitive to the needs ,of the neigh-
bors for privacy. Being in the midst o► ,an urban environment,
total and absolute privacy could not be guaranteed, but no child
care services on weekends and limited staff use at that time, and
additional ,buffering along the lines of that suggested by Jack
Sutorius could be guaranteed. The three-year issue was a diffi-
cult -one for him, because it seemed to promise the neighbors So
much, yet in reality it did nothing. He wanted to give the
neighbors the assurance purportedly provided by the three-year
proposal, however, the present laws allow for revocation of a use_
permit at any time. A telephone call to staff, or a letter to
the Council --would begin an automatic review process of the permit
and he thought it' was important to keep that in mind. He would
support continuance of the permit.
Councilmember Renzel concurred with .Councilmember Fazzin7, and
felt that to peace a three-year review, similar to the one-year
review, on the permit misdirected the efforts of the child care
people as well as the neighbors away from their respective needs
and interests so she would vote against the amendment. While the
various sounds of life were not always the sounds someone wants
to hear-, it depended upon which side of the fence you were on.
She thought that in a single-family home there could be children
and no regulation over thee use. She felt _that PACCC had been "put
under stringent controls and she would support i t .
Mayor Henderson said he lived within two blocks of the site for
over 20 years, and he had a family next door which played very
loud rock music, and for several years, on the other side there
were dogs whieh barked continually whenever the owners were away
from home. He did not ;favor the three-year restriction, but
would support the motion.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 7-2, -Fyerly and Witherspoon voting
'aye,"
MOTION PASSED to approve Planning Commission recommendation with
additional requirements of 12 children, 6 weeks old up to third
birthday, and hours of child care operation from 1:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., and without time limitation on the permit, by a vote
of 8 1, Eyevly voting "no."
PLANNING COMMISSION BY A UNANIMOUSLY VOTE, AND THE ARCHITECTURAL
''10N At ier5 SAN Ar TUNIU.
Kent Woodell, 1650 S. Ainphlett #205, San Mateo represented prop-
erty owners and Wickland Oil,
MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, approval of
the site and design review of Wickland Oil Company,
Vice Mayor Fletcher said she was concerned that as more and more
gas stations go to self-service, gradually there would.` be no.
restroom _facilities .available to travelers, which Was not a con-
cern to local residents,- but could be a problem for others.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
AGREEMENT -PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE COVERAGE AND RELATED RISK
war o on rac
Councilmember Eyerly said he had no problem with the rising price
for the service given by Kindler & Laucci for insurance services,
but he was concerned about staff not going out to competitive
bidding on the issuance of a contract after it had been in effect
for three years with one firm. He understood that this would
make it the fourth year in a row that this firm had been
contracted with.
City Attorney, Don Maynor, said it was difficult whether to con-
strue the contract as a service contract or a consultant con-
tract. He thought it had been construed as a consultant contract
because it was over a certain amount of money and it would have
had to go to bid. He said that staff had asked questions as to
which contracts were subject to the Council policy for selection
of consultants and that there had been some misunderstanding -at
the staff level as to the Council policy in the area, and there
were considerable discussions going on at the present time.
Councilmember Eyerl.y thought it would be helpful for the Finance
Committee to have a discussion on contracts and the bidding pro-
cess and to come back to Council with a report so that everyone
would have their act together. They were dealing with public
funds, and he wanted to see a bidding process after three years
no matter what type of contract it was.
MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Fazzino, to
approve the agreement.
AWARD OF CONTRACT - Kindler and Laucci
Assistant City Manager, June Fleming, said .that until the policy
was revised, staff would follow the procedure completely as
outlined.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
RE UEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS FAllINO BECHTEL AND LEVY RE PALO ALTO
Councilmember Fazzino said the request before Council was to send
the request of the Palo Alto Winter Club to the Policy and
Procedures Committee for discussion. The Winter Club of Palo
Alto had recently celebrated its 25th birthday. In two years,
the lease of the Winter Club would be up, and a nonprofit organi-
zation known as the Friends of the Winter Club, whose goal was to
rebuild the Winter Club on three acres of . public land and Greer
Park was a possible site, would like conceptual approval of the
Council for the plan. Councilmembers Fazzino, Bechtel and Levy
felt the concept was worthy, of study and should .be referred to
the Policy and Procedures Committee for discussion and action.
He. said that :though the group was excited'and interested about
the opportunity, they recognized that Greer Park neighborhood
support was important in evaluating the proposal.
MOTION. .Councilmember F; zzino moved, seconded by Bechtel, to
refer the ' Palo Alto Winter:. Club Request re Greer Park to , the
Policy and Procedures Committee.
1
1
1
Mayor Henderson said the Council had received a hand delivered
copy of a letter from Mr. Anania, and signed by 14 other people,
addressed to Charles Scott, President of the West Bayshore
Residents Association, opposing construction of the Greer Park
skating facility.
Councilmember Witherspoon felt the question was did Council want
to continue with the present Master Plan for Greer Park or would
they open it up to another possibility. She felt if they wanted
to open it up to another possibility, then it was not just the
Policy and Procedures Committee which should be involved, but
also the Planning Commission. As she understood it, there was a
Master Plan which involved every inch of Greer Park when imple-
mented and this was a question of whether the plan should be
amended for other uses..: She did not know if the item should be
sent to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Schreiber said that the Planning Commission had reviewed the
Greer Park Master Plan when it was going through the approval
process.
Councilmember Witherspoon thought the matter should go to the
Plannning Commission to find out if the Greer Park Master Plan
should be amended.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by
Fletcher, to refer the Friends of: the Palo Alto Winter Club
request to the Planning Commission for review as to whether the
Greer Park Master Plan should be amended.
Councilmember Renee] was concerned about considering public park-
lands for very limited use. facilities. She felt some very sig-
nificant questions were raised by proposing that type of high-
energy use facility, a major structure which would have to main-
taiiied by someone not only physically, but .with staffing She
questioned whether ice skaters alone was arL appropriate use on
public .parkland which was designed to serve a broad area of the
City,
Councilmember Klein felt it should go to the Policy and
Procedures Committee first because he "thought there were signifi-
cant polio decisions to be resolved before the questions of
physical planning could be resolved. He felt they needed the
Planning Commission input as they go down the line, but there
were di cult issues to resolve. What was _the City's policy for
organizations using land owned by the City;;if private organiza-
tions were going to be allowed to use public lands, under what
conditions. He thought the policy issues should be resolved
first.
Councilmember Levy agreed with Councilmember Klein. The policy
questions had to be answered first, and after the policy had been
'decided, it should go to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Henderson felt the policy statement should be made first.
Councilmember Eyer ly. favore=d sending this matter to the Planning
Commission because, he felt: that if they went to the =Policy and
Procedures Committee, and if they made a recommendation- that such
a use be entertained on public land, and if the Council supported
it, Council would be in trouble. There would not be any end to
similar requests, and he thought it was a big issue to be thought
_about before Council got into itt, In his opinion, it was too big
`an issue to -go to the Policy and Procedures Committee.
1
Mr. Nichols felt that the Planning Commission would need a sub-
stantial report from staff, and that staff should have some policy
on which to base a report to give ,the Commission which woul include
the history and background; otherwise, the Planning Commission would
be voting their own conscience about whether there should be a
skating rink i.n the park.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 7-2, Eyerly and Witherspoon
voting Faye."
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved 1) that the P & P
Committee consider the formal Winter Club request for Greer Park;,
and, 2) that the Committee study the issue of whether general non-
profit organization use of Palo Alto parkland.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED for lack of a second.
Councilmember Renzel felt there was a specific request of the Winter
Club, and that the request in and of itself .would have a number of
question and she did not feel the Council needed to invite addi-
tional considerations.
MAIN MOTION PASSED unanimously to refer Winter Club request re Greer
Park to the Policy and Procedures Committee.
RE- UEST OF MAYOR- HENDERSON RE MEDFl.Y
Mayor Henderson asked for progress reports from staff, and reports
specifically from the Mountain View Council meeting held that
evening.
Assistant City Manager, June Fleming, said that staff was aware of
the concern generated about the potential for aerial spraying of
Malathion in relationship to the Medfly problem which had increased
in the last few ,weeks. She said staff had been in contact with
Marry Scribner, Project Coordinator for the Medfly`Program. She was
advised that new finds were continuing, -the latest count was 84 new
larvae within a 2-1/2 mile radius, which now included San Mateo
County. She said that a number of the finds had been in the Palo
Alto area. She said that most of the areas where new finds were
being made had been ground sprayed. Also, she was told that the
ground spraying would continue, but that.a technical committee would
meet Tuesday, July 7, at which time a decision would be made as, to
whether to recommend aerial spraying. The ground spraying results.
would be evaluated, and determine whether it was effective. The
recommendation of the technical committee would be mace to Mr.
Scribner, who, in turn, would make a reco.-'mendati on to Mr. Romi tiger ,
who would give the final recommendation to. the Governor. She said
that Governor Brown would make the final decision as to whether to
aerial spray. Further, she said. that Mir'. Scribner had beep .con-
tacted to ascertain if the State had authorized the funding ,and
establishment of a position which would -coordinate in=fo rmation dis-
trbuted to the communities if the spraying took'place. Staff: had,
the name -of that contact person. She, said that the.. City Attorney's
Office had legal ways in which to pursue the aerial: spraying. She
said staff was informed :that -there, was a meeting in Mountain View
that eeening which the Mountain View and Los: Altos Councils, with
Mr. Scribner, and then Mr. Scribner would . go en to Los Gatos,
Sunnyvale on Tuesday; and if desired, Mr. Scribner would come 'to
Palo Alto on Thursday.
Sr..: Assistant City Attorney, Franklin O. ,lia
Scr i brier. had indicated that-' the Governor was.
about the infestation-. One of his primary concerns, was that
California's fruit may quarantined in Japan, Florida, Texas
and other states. Even more importantly, the Governor was con-
cerned that the infestation might spread to other parts. of the
State of California. Mr. Scribner also indicated that 103 new
finds of larvae were now in existence. The Governor had not
made a decision as to whether to aerial spray, but Mr. Elia
said he was encouraged that the Governor had ordered a substan-
tial number of ground rigs, which might be implemented if a
decision were made to spray on the ground rather than by air.
Mr. Elia said that Mr. Scribner had indicated two alternatives,
1) ground spraying; and 2) aerial spraying. Mr. Scribner had
said. that the ground spraying when conducted in Santa Clan:
County was successful, however , he said it was not, done as wel 1
as - it should have been-, and that if it had been done well, per-
haps the problem as it now exists would have been alleviated.
In effect, Mr. Elia reported that Mr. Scribner said we were
left with aerial spraying. Regarding the health hazards, 2.4
ounces of Malathion per 'acre would be used, and it has _been
sprayed :n Florida and Texas in much greater quantities. Mr.
Scribner was unable to say if any studies had been completed to
determine the potential health hazards. Mr. -Scribner said
that al1-.of the experts believed that the only way to eradicate
the fruit fly -was by aerial spraying.e Mr. Elia said that the
experts with which Mr. Scribner had talked were not named, but
that there were other experts who had -not been consulted. Mr.
Elia said that when Mr. Scribner was asked whether the aerial
spraying would guarantee elimination of the fruit fly, he indi-
cated that in Florida and Texas it had been successful; how-
ever, in Mexico, it was unsuccessful. Mr. Ella reported that
the --spraying would occur during the hours of 1200 midnight and
6:00 e.m, , and that the Malathion would be An a form which
would not be inhalable, it would be contained in droplets which
were somewhat sticky and would remain in the atmosphere on the
ground for a period -'of foer'reen days. Ale said. that repeated
sprays would occur. approxirately every ten days, and that they
were expecting to spray six times.
Mr. Elia said that when Mr. Scribner was asked about the
immediate health hazards of Malathion, he said, that he did not
see any, that the only way it would be damaging would be if r;t
were digested. However, there was a possibility of it being
absorbed through the skin, but he was unable to answer any
specific questions with respect to medical or physical ramifi-
cations of the absorbtion. . Mr. Scribner had suggested that
those people who might be ultra -susceptible to the effects of
the. Mal ath i n = Sri ght `' want to be out of the area when it was
sprayed. However, Mr. Scribner was unclear as to the more
important details.
With regard to property damage, rir. Scribner verified that the
Malathion would cause damage to paint on cars Mt. Elia said
from what Mr. Scribner said, the State of California would be
assuming full liability for damage al thoegh no clear statement
was made by Mra Scribner on that point.
Mr. Elia further reported that Mr. Scribner said,; that they
would attempt - to serve notice on each residence throughout the
cities to be sprayed. If each residence could not be served
personally, there would be widespread notification, however,
reeerding the spraying, the hours and -Possible . risks.
Mayor Henc+.er son_ asked _ for _ clarification -that if ' the -Malathion
remained on the ground for fourteen days, then there could be
a problem with children getting into it.
Mr. Elia said that it would remain on the ground, in a sticky
form, for fourteen days.
Ms. Fleming said that when -she talked with Mr. Scribner she
asked.if his staff would cooperate with Palo Alto staff if, the
information -were not getting to the citizens, and he indicated
that they would give that cooperation. Further, she said he
indicated that Tuesday morning's paper would carry a hot line
number which all persons could us€ to get answers to questions
such as what should be done in case of =health hazards. She -
-
said she pursued that with him because staff had received a
number of calls from -citizens wiio were concerned because they
had allergies. She said Mr. Scribner indicated that the State
would not reimburse persons -for expenses associated with moving
because of allergies to the spray.
Councilmember Levy asked. if everything would be sprayed such as
streets, sidewalks, houses -.-
Mr. Elia said. yes between the hours of 12:O0 a.m. and 6:00
a.m. Mr. Elia said that Mr. Scribner had indicated that the
Maldthion would be more effective if sprayed during the hours
of dawn and 10:00 a.m., but that in order to minimize exposure
to the public the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 were chosen.
Councilmember Levy asked about the effects- on animals.
Mr. Elia -said that Mr. Scribner was unable t� respond to that
question. He had said that a smal l child could roll around in
the Mal athi on naked for a period of six hours and nothing would
happen, but that the long-range:effects were unknown. Mr. Elia
said that someone asked -about leaving a dog's water dish in the
yard, and Mr. Scribner suggested that not be -done.
Couicilmeniber Levy asked about water supplies.
Mr. Elia said that apparently most of the water supplies were
covered, and Larry White Indicated that it would dissipate
rapidly when exposed to ,light. Mr. Elia s.aid.,that what the,
public was concerned about was the direct exposure to children
and animals.
Counci )member Levy asked about the damage liability.
Mr. Elia felt; that everything Mr. Scribner said was unclear.
Mr. Scribner had said, "there would be damage to paint, and the
State did not want to be picking up a lot of tabs for damaged
;trehicles." Mr. Elia said that Mr. Scribner dill not say they
would not assume the liability. Further, Mr. Elia said that
the representatives of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos
took that to mean that the State would be taking the lia-
bility.
Ms. Fleming advised that staff had_ to_ .get back to Mr. Scribner
on ' uesday morning to_; let him know the Council's decision, and
,` whether staff's request for Mr. Scribner to come to Palo Alto
on Thursday would be canceled or coni i'r sed.
Mayor -`:ender sore reminded the public that tonight was not the
night for public di scu$ i 0n. if the persons wishing to speak,
were still at_ the meeting, "if they wished to Speak ; in terms of
whether the 'subject should be discussed, that would be it. He
said that the Council was, unanimous`in its oppositionto aerial
spraying, And what Council was doing tonight' was trying to
figure out what steps should be taken next. {
1 0: 2 1
7/6/81
i
Councilmember_ Klein asked if Mr. Scribner had indicated of the
104 new larvae found, how much was in an area which had been
stripped and ground sprayed.
Mr. Elia said one. He said that Mr. Scribner readily admitted
that the ground spraying had been an effective _means of eradi-
cating the fly, but that it had not been not done properly
initially and that now it was out of control
Mr. Elia said that regarding legal action, on Thursday, the
State Attorney General's office filed a temporary restraining
order against Palo Alto and other cities who had ordinances
restricting the application of Malathion by air. He said that
they were in court to respond to the temporary restraining
order and Judge Ingram, who heard the case initially, was out
of town and would be back tomorrow, and they were scheduled to
go back to court tomorrow to argue the legal aspects of the
temporary restraining order. Mr. Elia said that at the same
time Palo Alto, Mountain View, and other cities had filed a
complaint for _injunctive relief against the State of California
and the United States Government seeking to enjoin the applica-
tion of Malathion by air until such time as an environmental
impact report had been done. He said the State and Federal
Government had contended that the EIR was unnecessary because
at this point there was an emergency, The State and Federal
Government felt that under the emergency aspect of the law, the
study could be eliminated. However, the cities felt that the
EIR was essential and that there really was not an emergency
since the State had been aware of the problem for about a year
and there was eo reason an EIR could not be prepared. Mr. Elia
said hopefully some determination would be made . on Tuesday as
to the temporary restraining order. Mr. Elia said that on
Wednesday the cities would be filing a State action against the
State of California in the Superior Court in San Jose seeking.
an injunction. Mr. Elia said a trial wasexpected on Wednesday
and Thursday. Further, Mr. Elia said they would ask Judge
Ingram on Tuesday to abstain from hearing or deciding the
injunction on the Federal questions until a hearing in State
courtwas set and attempt to knock out the action of the State
in Superior Court. Mr, Elia said that in the event the
Superior Court denied the request for an injunction, then an
appeal would be made directly to the Supreme Court` to seek
review of the question. Mr. Elia, said the Court of Appeal
would be bypassed because of the urgency. If Judge Ingram
granted the State's temporary restraining order, the cities
would appeal to the circuit court, and then to the United
States Supreme Court on the issue. The cities would, of
course, request a stay of execution of any order the judge
might, render to go ahead and apply.,; pending th.e appeal process.
Mr. Elia assured the Council that the City Attorney's office
was taking every legal step necessary to .enjoin the action of
the State.
Denny Petrosi an, 443 Ventura Avenue, felt it was extremely
important that if the Council could come to any resolution of
reaffirmation of the legal action which had already been taken
in support of opposition to aerial spraying that it be done
tonight. She said theme was an important opportunity to be
gained by having a Council resolution that could be taken to
the Medfly meeting in Los Gatos. She said she had information
that there was a chance that if Governor Brown saw a big enough
and strong enough constituency at theMedf1y meeting tomorrow•
he would vote to forbid aerial spraying. As Councilmembers
defending the citizens' health, she urged that they attend the
meeting and express their opposition. She felt it -'was critical
that everyone possible attend that meeting at the Medfly head
quarters in Los Gatos.
Councilmember Fa'zino would not support another session of the
Council to discuss the issue. He felt the issue had been dis-
cussed for many months, and they were all opposed to an aerial
spraying program which he thought represented a total overkill,
and was totally inappropriate for an urban environment, and a
possible threat` to human health. He thought that the fact that
Council e had -never received any information as to possible
health hazards was mind boggi ing. What ra,s _shocking to him Was
that the program smacked of apocalypse .stow, with helicopters
flying overhead sprayin, dangerous substances and he could
envision a super stereo system broadcasting Jerry Scribner
arriving Monday morning announcing :that he loved the Smell of
Malathion in . -the morning because it smelled like -victory. He
felt that the victory he had would be for agriculture, but not
one for human health in the City.
MQTIRH;. Councilmember Fazzino moved-, se.conded by Renzel, to
(1) pursue all legal and political alternatives; (2) send tele-
grams plus formal hand -delivered letter to Governor; (3)
approve contingency fund with a lid of $10,000 for legal fees;
and (4) do everything possible to prevent aerial spraying
including personal visits ;(sit-in_ on doorstep) t� Governor
Brown by Councilmembers and staff.
Councilmember Bechtel asked Mr. Elia about the other Council s
final action tonight.
Mr. Elia responded that Los Altos was taking no action; and
Mountain View was a plaintiff in all of the lawsuits being
filed by the cities, as well as a defendant in the actions
filed by the State.
Councilmember Bechtel commended Mr. Elia and the other
attorneys in the .surrounding cities for the actions which had
been initiated. She did feel a need for an additional meeting
of the Council this week on the issue.
Mayor Henderson asked. Mr. Elia if Governor Brown would be
attending the meeting on Tuesday.
Mr. Elia responded that there was some suspicion that he would
be at the meeting.
Ms. Fleming said that staff unde=rstood the intent of the
Council's motion and that it would be handled first thing in
the morning with appropriate distribution to all agencies and
1 ocati ons..;
Councilmember Klein felt ,staff' had the legal battle -front we11"
fn hand to prevent the ' aeriai spraying. He felt it was
sho-king that ;the head of the program had not read the reports
which had been issued. He thought that the Council was wasting
its time talking with Jerry. Scr i bner, , that Governor Brown was
the only one that counted.-- Councilmember Klein did not think
the Governor fully real i zed that there was a great pot itical
liability for him in Palo Alto. Furthers the _Counc i-1 should
realize that they had-- been put -lobbied by the agricultural
•i riterests, that they. were way behind ` and they should start
making it up. He thought the Cottnci 1 needed to be able to
1 0. 2 3
7/6/91
1
1
make some assurances to the Governor that Palo Alto would take
steps to make sure all fruit was stripped because there was
fruit in Palo Alto which had net been, and that aerial spraying
would not .be necessary.
Councilmember Levy agreed with a;'1 of his colleagues to take
any and all political and legal action to stop the spraying;
but_, on the other hand, if the. spraying occurred,' he thought
the `Council had the responsibility to' make sure that the resi-
dents of Palo Alto were completely informed as to every aspect
of what was happening. He thought there would be tremendous
confusion, and there already was ignorance on the part -of offi-
cials much- less the lay people about what to do and how to pro-
tect yourself and property. -He thought that. continuing this
meeting, and meeting on Thursday., On an official basis with Mr.
Scribner. and his staff, would provide the citizens of Palo -Alto
an opportunity to come and hear what he had. to say and to ques-
tion him. Ne felt it would have a political and -informational
effect. By Thursday, .. it might be too late. If. Mr. Scribner
and the State officials- saw the turnout of people and the
intensity, he thought it would have an important political
effec',. _Further,- it was very important for everyone in P'10
Alto to know everything about when it would take place and the
effect. He thought the best way to accomplish this would be
with an informational meeting. If the aerial spraying could
not be prevented, the City might find themselves being sprayed
within a week.
Councilmember Renzel said she had heard reports that spraying
could begin as early as next Monday, and she thought that
Councilmember Levy was correct that the Council needed to be
certain that the citizens had as much advance notice as pos-
sible to protect, fish ponds, automobiles, children and many
other things which would need to be protected between now and
next week if aerial spraying took ;place. She was not sure that
a public meeting was necessarily the only way to obtai r infor-
mation, but that it was essential that the full ramifications
and precautions necessary be available to the public.
Mayor Henderson said that if a public meeting were eid,
hundreds of people would come down screaming that they did not
want , the spraying. He thought that when .the information was
available, it would be disseminated to everyone.
Councilmember Fazzino said he would like to see an entire dele-
gation of Mayors and City Counncilnembers go to Sacramento, if
necessary, at the end of the week and personally appear on the
Governor's doorstep and indicate the concern. He felt it would
take that type of action to indicate the opposition.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
RE UEST OF MAYOR H€NDERSON RE PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
Mayer Henderson said he was supportive of two Planning
Commission incumbents and he was troubled that applications had
been received. He had said before that when the positions
became available-, if the ' people who were already on the
Commissli ns desired to stay on, the Council should "deal with
that before seeking new applications.
Counci1member Witherspoon shared Mayor Henderson's concern.
She said .it' had occurred to her that when the Council election
date was changed, the appointment of the Planning Commission
was not changed to a subsequent date. She asked if it would be ._
possible to continue the Planning Commissioners' terms until
January. She realized that the Charter would have to be
changed.
Mr. Maynor said an ordinance would be, required, five votes and
twc hearings.
Cour-cilmember Witherspoon said that when the general municipal
election was held in May, the Council sat the first Monday in
July, and the "new Council" appointed the new Planning
Commission members one month later. She suggested that the
Planning. Commissioners terms be changed to coincide with the
Council.- In order to do that, it would require that the two
Planning Commissioner's whose terms were expiring have their
terms continued January.
Mr. Maynor said he would .like to review the ordinance and
deferred to the City Clerk, Ann Tanner.
Ms. Tanner said the terms could be extended by ordinance for a
further six months. Other commissions should be looked at
also. She understood Councilmember Witherspoon's question
about the Planning Commission. The Planning Commissioner's
terms were tinned to expire at the end of July, and the
Commission held its organization meeting in August. She was
concerned that the applicants other than incumbents had applied
in good faith
Councilmember Renzel said that with regard to the selection
process, a process had been established for selecting boards
and commissions, and it entailed incumbents applying often and
certainly the Council had had satisfactory service from the
incumbents. She thought it was: important in terms of under-
standing the strengths and weaknesses of a commission to inter-
view at least two or three people per . position to be certain,
that the commission or board was still functioning in the man-
ner it should. She did not think it was unreasonable to pursue
the process even if the end result was reappointment of incum-
bents. She thought it was important for the Council to hear
the concerns of -the incumbents: as well as "challengers."
Councilmember Levy said he supported the incumbents also. He
said most of the applicants had been interviewed once, and that
because he felt so strongly that the incumbents, both of whom
served partial terms, deserved to serve. full terms, he felt the
Council should not interview. Ile thought it was an unwise use
of Council's time and an unfertile use of the applicants' time.
He thought that the Council should go to the appointment pro-
cess and that the appointment process should take place next..
week. He did not think it was an affront to any of the appli-
cants, and that the reason he did not -warn: to intervi' w was
because he did not want to put the applicants in that position.
It was simply a function of the fact that the two vacanci 1
were, being reapplied for by incumbents who had not had the
opportunity to :serve out a decent length of. term.
MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, ° that
the Council . not interview for the Planning Commission vacan-
cies, but go directly to the appointment:: process as soon_ as
possible.
Councilmember Bechtel said normally she = would support .-- inter-
viewing if the Commissioners had already completed four-year
terms, but in this case, the Commissioners were recently
1
appointed, the Council had gone through the interview process
prior to their appointment, and she thought it was appropriate
not to go through the interview process at this time. She
agreed that the timing of certain appointments to certain
commissions might need to be looked at. She would not go along
with a six-month appointment at this time because there were
four-year terms for commissioners and frequently there was a
change of counci lmember s and some of those commissioners would
stay on. She thought the timing of whether the appointments be
switched to January for the Planning Commission specifically_
could be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee.
Councilmember Klein would vote against the motion. He felt the
Council should interview. He thought that the people who had
applied other than the incumbents had to be aware that they
faced a tremendous battle to overcome the two incumbents, and
they must have taken .that into account when they placed their
applications. He thought, that, therefore, they should be
heard. Although the incumbents might end up being appointed,
he felt the process should be followed.
Vice Mayor Fletcher supported the motion because the -Council
had extensive resumes and access to the applicants_ individually
if_ there were particular interest in one or more of them. As
far as interviewing the incumbents, she did not think that was
necessary because their actions could be followed in great
detail in the minutes. She thought it was a good idea to con-
Sider revising the expiration dates since the election date had
been changed, but she -did slot think it was fair to apply a new
rule to commissioners whose terms -were about to expire.
Councilmember Eyerly said that the appointment did not have to
take place until _August, so he did not see the urgency for a
decision. Personally, he wanted staff input as to the
feasibility of continuing the two terms to the first of th
year so that the time - cif appointment of the Planning Commission
in view that the election of council representatives had been
moved.- He did not see any problem with continuing the term of
the two incumbents on the Planning Commission, and did not see
why any offense would be taken of having a -six-month extension.
As far as' interviewing, he did not want to preclude it, but
thought it should be delayed fora week for staff input.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Counciilhrember Eyerly moved, seconded by
Witherspoon,- to continue the matter for one: week and for staff -
to .prepare and submit a report to Council by that -time. _
Councilmember Rennet would: oppose the continuance as well as
the main motion. She felt that the entire _matter should be
submitted to the Policy and Procedures Committee.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 7-2 Eyerly and
Witherspoon. voting 'aye.*
Councilmember Fazzino opposed the motion. He said the proce-
dure was put in the municipal code for a positive purpose. It
was not only to appoint Planning Commissioners, but to allow
members of the community to offer themselves to serve on
commissions. He felt that automatically implied a hearing
before the Council. He encouraged the Council not to ' circum-
vent procedures which had kept the Council, in good stead for
many years and not to appoint the incumbents without at least
hearing ' the others out
Mayor ;lender son.:-- sald that the
could not get a quorum together for interviews because the
Council would not come in this type of situation,
Councilmember Bechtel asked if it were in the municipal code
that interviews be held.
Mr.. Maynor read, "The City Council shall review all nominations
and applications and conduct such interviews as it deems neces-
sary prior to selection." Mr. Maynor said it suggested that if
the Council desired not to conduct interviews, that was
all right, but that all applications should be reviewed.
MOTION NOT TO INTERVIEW FAILED by a vote of 5-4 as follows:.
AYES: Fletcher, Henderson, Bechtel, Levy
NOES: Eyerly, Renzel, Klein, Fazzino, Witherspoon
Councilmember Renzel suggested that if the applicants could be
contacted in time, that the Council have interviews on
Thursday.
MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher,
meet on July 14 to interview all 9 candidates,
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Fazzino,
interview only the nonincumbents.
AMENDMENT FAILED .by a vote 'of 6-3, Fletcher, Fazzino, Levy
voting "aye."
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1-1, -Eyerly voting "no,,' Levy
"abstaining" to interview all candidates on July i4.
MOTION:' Counci lmenber Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to
refere the matter • of timing of appointments to boards and
commissions to: the Policy and Procedures Committee.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
E'UEST OF COUNCILMEMBER RENZEL RE MOUNTAIN VIEW JOINT POWERS
Councilmember Renzel stated that the City of Mountain View was
considering dropping out of the _Joint PowerseAgreement on Solid
Waste and they continued their agenda item for action for a
couple of weeks in .order to allow for public -input from other
communities. • She said that Mr. Zaner had sent a letter to Mr.
Shelley, the Director of Public Works for Mountain View, • but
s+.•e thought it .,would be helpful if the Council were to ratify
Mr. Zaner's comments. She -said that basically Mr. Zaner had.
urged Mt. View to remain in the JPA and pointed out that the
garbage problem wes never ending and that all would have to
work together, to solve it.
MOTION: Councilmember .Renzel moved.*._ seconded by Eyerly, to
ratify Zaner's comments in his letter dated July 1, 1981 to
Allen Shelley, Public Works Director, Mountain View,; re North.
County Solid Waste Management Plan
M yor Henderson added that both he and, Mr. Zaner had spoken
with the Mayor of Mountain'View as well as the City Manager on
the subject so that there had been additional input.
MOTION, 'PASSED ueanimously.
1
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned to Executive Session at 12:40 a.m.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT
Final adjournment in memory of Elizabeth Gamble at 1:05 a.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED: