Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-14 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, December 14, 1981 CITY o� PALO ALTO ITEM PAGE Approval of Minutes 1 5 1 2 Minutes of October 13, 1981 1 5 2 Consent Calendar - Referral 1 5 1 2 Consent Calendar Action 1 5 1 ° 2 Main Library Design Award of 1 5 1 2 Contract Phase II Deferred Compensation Plan 1 5 1 2 Award of Contract Street and Trash Receptacle Emptying 1 5 1 3 and Maintenance.- Award of Contract Application for Funding from th.e 1 5 1 3 State Solid Waste Management Board to Upgrade the City Compost Project Fiscal Year 1982-83 Transportation Development Act Funding for Bicycle/ Pedestrian Facilities Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 1 5 1 3 PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission re 1 5 1 3 Designation of Area 3, Southeast Corner of Quarry -Arboretum Intersection as Open Space -Controlled Development PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Unanimously Recommends Approval ofthe Application of Spencer Associates for a Tentative Subdivision Map for Property Located at 837 and 847 Emerson Street PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of David N. Schroder from a Demolition Order Issued by the Chief Building Official for a Structure Located at 778 Loma Verde Policy and Procedures Committee.; Returns: to Council. Without a Recommendation the Matter'of the Bicycle Boulevard Study._ Namely, Installing Temporary Barriers, Either One or Two, Between- Churchill and. Oregon Expressway and One Barrier Between Loma Verde and East Meadow. And theeMatter;of,,Signtng the Route Beyond East =-Meadow .to Lead Across - the .Bridge at Duncan Over Adobe Creek to. San Antonio Road e 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 6 ITEM Initiative Petition California Avenue/Park Boulevard - Award of Contract for Impermeable Material and Discontinuing the ITT Excavation/Marsh Restoration Study Project 80-41 (CMR:538:1) Pilot Program for Curbside Collection of Rubbish and Plant Debris Prevailing. Wage Rate Request of Councilmembers Renzel and Bechtel that Staff Monitor the Santa Clara County General Plan Implementation Program - Councilmember Bechtel re_CATV Conference - Report on Highlights City Manager Zaner re Downtown Parking Management Plan Scheduled for 12/21/81 Agenda Adjournment PAGE 1 5 2 4 1 5 3,5 1 5 3 6 1 5 3 7 1 5 3. 7 1 5 3 8 1 5 3 8 1 5 3 9 Regular Meeting Monday, December 14, 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 7:40 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel, Levy, Witherspoon, Klein, .Eyer=ly ABSENT: Fazzino Mayor' Henderson announced, the need for an Executive Session re litigation at some point during the meeting. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13 1981 Counc i l member Renzel had a- correction as follows: Page 1340, first paragraph after staff recommendation, second to last line, word "topical" should be "top of the." Cauncilmember Klein had a correction as follows: Page 1338, fifth paragraph, first line,, "$300" should be "$3600." MOTION: Counci lmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Levy, ap- proval of the minutes of October 13, 1981 as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Klein advised that he would not participate in Item #1, AwardofContract, Main library Design. Referral None Action MOTION Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the Consent Calendar Items 1-5, Klein "not participating" on Item 1 MAIN LIBRARY DESIGN AWARD OF CONTRACT - PHASE II (CMR:552: 1) Staff recommends: that Council authorize the . Mayor to execute the agreement for $73,22.5 wi;th Spencer Associates Architects and Planners for design services for Phase II improvements to the City of Palo Alto Main L.ibrary. AGREEMENT - PHASE II ,IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ;,PALO ALTO MAIN :LIBRARY - PROJE=CT. N0 81-85 Spencer. Associates DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN ` (CMR:558: 1) Staff .recommends that the Counc i 1 authorize the :City Manager to execute the proposed agreemegt with The Hartford ..to become effec. trote 1 ediately 1 5 1 2 1 `/14/81 5 end o AWARD OF CONTRACT Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company STREET AND TRASH RECEPTACLE EMPTYING AND MAINTENAf?CE - AWARD OF Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with the Palo Alto Sanitation Company for emptying and maintenance of street trash receptacles. AWARD OF CONTRACT Palo Alto Sanitation Company APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT mr-rtrurnA DT rat I r t. toirus T ai— ; 5 Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution in support of the compost grant request. RESOLUTION 5977 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING/COMPOSTING GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1984" FISCAL YEAR 1982-83 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT. ACT FUNDING FOR Staff recommends that; I) Council adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to file a claim for allocation. of $121,620 in TDA Article 3 funds in Fiscal Year 1982-83 based on the following break- down: a) $57,620 of Palo Alto's three-year accumulation of Local Share category of TDA Article 3 funds to be used for the Palo Alto Avenue/E1 Camino Real traffic signal modifica- tion project. $64,000 of the Special Projects category of TDA Article 3 funds to be used for a section or sections of the Ba_yl ands Bike Path 2) Council authorize staff to pursue a cost sharing agreement with the. City of Menlo Park for the Palo Alto Avenue/E1 Camino Real traffic „signal modification project. RESOLUTION 5978 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1982-83" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino ting" on Item 1. absent, AGENDA CHANGES; ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Klein "not participa- Councilmember Bethtel said she would make a .report > at the the meeting on the' CATV Conference , she attended, Item 15, Zaner re Downtown Parking Management Plan HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RE DESIGNATION Chairperson of the- Planning Commission - Jean McCown-Hawkes said the -Planning Commission Max virtually unanimous in the view that i if development ever took place on that parcel, housing was what would be desirable. The majority of the Commission concurred with the decision made by the, City Council when the item was be- fore them that the land use designation on the City's map should be Open Space -Controlled Oevel>opment, consistent with the exclu- sion of the area from the City's Urban Service area. She said that she and Fred Nichols opposed that recommendation on the grounds that they felt it was appropriate to designate the land for housing now. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt Planning Commission recommendation to designate Area 3, southeast corner of Quarry -Arboretum intersection as Open Space - Control led Development. RESOLUTION 5979 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO" Councilmeniber Witherspoon said the Council had thoroughly dis- cussed the matter the last time it was before them, and she reit- erated that this was a better site for University housing than the site on Willow Road. She would prefer ` to see the property re- zoned, as the Planning Commission previously recommended, to Major Institution - Multiple Family Housing. She would vote against the motion. Counci1member Renzel commented that while the Council did cover the matter rather thoroughly at its last discussion, it was an area which was subject to major changes in the next five years in terms of traffic. She thought it was especially important for the Council to pay attention to what happened there before designating what could happen on this site. Because Stanford had no immediate plans for the site, there was no impediment to housing in the five-year interim period. She would support the motion. Mayor Henderson said that as he was involved in "exit interviews" from the City Council, he had been asked several times why the people who were for open space seemed to be the most negative about housing. He said it may not be true, but that was the impression that was received. To him, it made no sense to talk about housing needs especially the way the City continued to talk to .Stanford about their responsibility on housing, and then to, take negative viewpoints like this. The City wanted to save the foothills, and Stanford's property was to the West, and yet the City discouraged development of housing on the flatland open spaces. He felt that if Stanford was given the go-ahead now, they would soon be underway with preliminary plans for the property. He pointed out that no one knew what a future Council would - do.' Stanford originally wanted this site for an addition to the shop- ping center, and now they, were ready to go in terms of having < it designated for housing, and the Council cones along and says that -they would not: encourage that at this point. Regarding the de- struction of the Arboretums, - no, one had talked about,: going into the tree area --the line was going to be drawn either at the trees or north, northwest of the 'trees. He thought the Council was -making 'a serious mistake to not encourage housing to the, utmost of their ability. Counci lmemlier Bechtel _said she appreciated Mayor' Henders©n s: com *edits, however, :she wd$ an environmentalist and also' ;supported housing. She ;worked closely` with the County on their general Olin and, worked to ensure that there were orderly growths outward in a: reasonable fashion. Stanford said they did -not have plans for the property in the next five years, and she thought that urban development should take place within cities. When. Stanford was ready for housing, she encouraged them to come to the City and seek the designation-. She would support a designation at that -time when the City was ready for it. Councilmember Klein: said he was a member Of the County General Plan Advisory Committee and felt very strongly that the City should take action consistent with the County's pol icies on the matter. He thought that to designate it other than what the Council had, would be an indieat-ion_ that the City expected devel- opment to take place on the property within the Urban Service area within the next five years. Stanford had told the City that they had no plans for devel oprrient in the next five years on the property so it would be inconsistent to designate it within the Urban Service area. He felt it was an area that would undergo vast_ changes in the next five years, and he thought it would: be appropriate' for the ' Counc i l to take a closer look when and if Stanford came up with .a proposal for the property, Vice Mayor Fletcher asked what would happen if the property were designated Open Space -Controlled Development. Director of Planning and Community Environment Kenneth Schreiber said that the property was unincorporated land An' Santo Clara County. The effect: of designating it Open Space -Controlled Development would be a signal to Santa Clara County as to the treatment of the property in the .Santa Clara County. General Plan. Regarding the actual zoning, he was not sure what zone would be applied, but if the County's Land lise Designation was consistent with the City's, it would be in a designation and ultimately a zone that would be relatively restrictive.' Vice Mayor Fletcher asked if it could be developed for a parking lot for the chopping center. Mr. Schreiber said no, because that type of use would be a com- mercial use and would not even fit with the residential designa- tion, much less open space designation. . Vice Mayor Fletcher clarified that it was open space .with no development because the title was open space controlled devel- opment. Mr. Schreiber said he imagined that the County would zone that land similar to other parts of the Arboretum. He was not sure what that zoning was, but it would be a restrictive. zone. He said that Stanford also operated under a use permit with the County, and that use permit would :impose further restrictions on any land designated for some type of a natural or open space designation. He was sure that the County zoning, like the City's zoning, would allow some development of some type, but he doubted that it Would allow anything approaching the intensity of multi- ple family residential. ouiic.ilmember Fyeriy said that with the housing shortage:._in Palo Alto, past Councils had tried to indicate to Stanford University that they, hod an obligation to 'the surrounding communities to do something towards developing housing on_ their properties. ; It had come about that Stanford was now on the move to -respond to those concerns,:. and if he had his druthers, the Council would indicate to, the City staff to work with. Stanford and taffy and designate numerous parcels on Stanford University, -grounds that the City would like to have for housing. He" said that here_._was one ear- marked for houstng and , he hear& every :,saying that it was ,:1ogica1 for housing at some --time if not right now. He felt that the Council's action now would set Stanford back if they did have any s hoes i n9 plans for that parcel. " i n the future because what the 1 1 Council does now would have to be undone as well as what the County was going to do. He did not think that was wise, and felt it should- be designated housing if At was a satisfactory spot for housing. If Stanford :comes forth with a logical move for hous- ing,- he .thought they should be supported by.. the Council. He would not support the Planning Commission recommendation. Mayor Henderson said that a statement was made that the Council took a position and the Planning Commission supported that poste tion, but he wanted it- teade clear that the original position` of the Planning Commission :Was_ for housing.'- He clarified that the Council sent the matter back to the Planning Commission to be changed -because the Council wanted soMething else.. Ms. McCown -Fawkes said that was correct. The Planning Commis- sion's vote at .their last meeting was to concur in the City Coun- cil's decision that the parcel be Open Space -Controlled Develop- ment; but, their original recommendation, by a majority vote, was that the ' parcel should be in the City's Urban _ Service area and designated for housing.:_ MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-3 as follows: AYES: Renzei, Klein, Bechtel, Levy, Fletcher NOES: Eyerly, Henderson, Wi,:h-erspoen ABSENT: Fazzino PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS !%rrlwv iL ur €ii[. HrrLI�.KI Just UI JVLI14LK I UI.IP TRIETT 1. Ms. McCown-Hawkes said she had "abstained" in the voting at the Planning Commission because. Spencer Associates was a client of her office. She said the Planning Commission approved the item with great praise to the applicant for the proposal to put a res- idential development in a CS zone in the downtown area. 'She thought the only regret. exressed was that n(;e representative. of.., the applicant was, present at the Planning ,Commission meeting. She thought some commissioners 'would :have been interested in ex- ploring how the concept could -be implemented in other similar areas if it were economically feasible. Councilmember Klein advised that he would no.t be participating in this matter because his firm represented Spencer Associates. Mayor Henderson declared the public- hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed: MOTION: Counci lmember Witherspoon moved, seconded bye Levy, :. to Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and approve tenta- tive subdivision map at 837 and 847 Emerson, finding that the project, including the design and improvements (e.g., the street alignments, drainage and sanitary facilities, locations and size of . all required rights -of -way, lot. size -. and configuration, grading, and traffic access) is consistent with the adopted Com- prehensive Plan and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; that the project,will not have a significant impact' on the environment nor be likely to- result in serious public health problems; that the site_is physi- cally suitable for the type and density of the proposed develop- ,meni and =that there are not conflicts'- tlth public easements, and reccoaimend ;approval with the following condition: 1) that : the developer , shal l .:comply with all requirements of the, City E ngineer including the specifics delineated in this report. • Councilmember Renzel concurred with the Planning Commission's comments that it was nice to see a project coming in that: was all residential in a commercial zone. MOTION. PASSED unanimously, Klein "not participating," Fazzino absents Vice Mayor Pletcher] said that when the Planning Commission dis- cussed the item, they commented that the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the vastly improveed development was not in keeping with what was going to go in. She said she went to look at the block which surrounded the property and agreed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved that :the. Planning Commission study the area immediately surrounding the development and con- sider whether it should be rezoned. MOTION FAILED for lack of a second. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF DAVID N. SCHRODER FROM A DEMOLITION Mayor Henderson advised that the Council would have to follow a fairly 'formal set of rules on this item. First, it must be as- certained if anyone wished to testify and that oral evidence must be received only on oath or affirmation, Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Councilmember Re€cel felt that it was odd that Mr. Schroder would have requested that the item be on the agenda and then not show up. She wondered if he thought the item would come up later, and if he might not show up later. City Clerk, Ann Tanner administered the oath. to Fred Herman, Chief Building Official, Chief Building Official, Fred Herman said this was the second time this item hadbeen on the agenda. Mr. Schroder had not ap- peared the first time. Mr. Herman said that Mr. Schroder did not object to the City's findings, but felt thathe was not the owner of the property. The matter was in litigation, and Mr. Schroder was seeking an extension of the delay which had already been,for three years. Mr. Herman said that the neighbors were petitioning the City and wanted the structure removed. Mr. Herman requested that CMR:559:1 be entered into evidence. He said that all infor- mation had to be recorded with the County Recorder, and if action were not taken on the property by the owner, whoever he or she may , be, within ten days, by issuance of a permit for . demolition and demolition completed within within 30 days, the City would file a lien against the property.and have the work completed. Councilmeiuber Klein clarified that .if -Mr. Schroder claimed not the owner Of the' property, why Should he care at All. Mr.,. Herman said. that under° the City's -,,-ordinance, the owner .'was who was -legally: listed -ori the Assessor's rolls. -The ownership question had:. -been through the`;°Courts and awarded. to a= third party, and 'the third party refused, 'to accept ->the:- property. Mr. Schroder said it= was not hts and: theowner did: not want it. The C1ty >just wanted; the ptaperty cleaned -up ,.-and the ;moved one way ar.•anothe .' Mr, -.Klein said'he could not believe there:was _.a piece in Palo Alto that no,one;wanted buildings re property ttR Councilmember Levy said that in CMR:559:1, dated December 10, there was a statement which was signed by Mr. Schroder stating that he was the legal owner of the property. He asked if that was not legal affirmation of ownership. Mr. Herman said that the statement signed by Mr. Schroder was the appeal •filed July 30, the last time the item was before the Coun- cil. When. Mr, Schroder came back in to appeal it this time, he did not have another letter, but just got a copy of the last one from the City Clerk's office, changed the date, and resigned .it. Councilmember Levy said he did not think there was any point in going on and on, and that the City should have the property de- molished. MOTION: Councilmember Renz i _ moved, seconded by Klein, to deny the appeal of David N. Schroder from a demolition order and find that the buildings on the property located at 778 Loma Verde are dangerous buildings under PAMC Section 16,40.010 in that: 1) The main building has been damaged by fire to a point that would ex- ceed fifty percent of the replacement value, and is unfit for human habitation; 2) The fire damaged building has, become an at- tractive nuisance to children; 3) The fire damaged building .is a fire hazard to surrounding properties; 4) The accessory buildings are dilapidated and have deteriorated to a point that they are unsafe for occupancy; 5) The accessory buildings are an attrac- tive nuisance to children; 6) The accessory buildings are a fire hazard to the surrounding. properties; 7) The accessory buildings are harboring rats and other. rodents; 8) The property is covered with high weeds and trash that constitute a fire hazard to the surrounding properties._. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE, ON A VOTE OF 2 IN FAVOR 2 OPPOSED He. [ ARD. STUDY. 1 AMELY INSTALLINGi TWO, BETWEEN �RCHTLL AND DO W TO LEAD ACROSS THE BRIDGE AT DUNCAN AVER .ADOB- CREEK to SAN AffIONTO. k0A0 (CMR:556:1) Chairperson ,of the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee, Ellen Fletcher, sad that at the time the item came to the P&P Commit- tee, there was a lot of public participation, with numbers about equally divided between opponents and "proponents of :the. idea. The opponents were all from within a two-block area on Bryant and had fears 'of a bicycle boulevard going in without barriers, which would attract additional motor traffic, or 'that there would be a barrier at just about every block, and they would not haveaccess to Oregon Avenue. MOTION: Vice °Mayor. Fletcher moved,. seconded b i Klein,- :.that. the Council direct staff to.. install temporary barriers -either ,one ' or. two between Churchill and Oregon Expressway, to install 'one- bar- rier between .Loma Verde and,.East .Meadow; to sign the route beyond East Meadow to lead across the. bridge at' Duncan over Adobe Creek to San Antonio Road, and- that `' staff provide . accidents statistics for all motorized vehlcles and biket,along the bike boulevard cor- ridor. Evaluation period to eOd October 34 1982 and report from staff to .come back to Council imaiediately thereafter. Diana ,Lewiston,, -1.849 Newell -a member= of= Palo Alto Bicycle Ad visory .-°Committee. (PABAC), said: she taught Bicycle ed acation at -- Jordan Middle School. She :was.;i`n _favor of a trial` bicycle boule- vard on:•8ryant, , and said that.- Palo ki.to -had a, large population of, cyclists and, most- of them were unskilled. She .said the majority of cyclists --young people and adults --rode unpredictably; they rode against the traffic flow; and placed themselves at intersec- tions in conflict with other traffic; and ignored stop signs.. When she rode, she saw blatant disregard for the implication of a stop sign which meant to stop and yield to all traffic on the cross street. She said that some people --auto drivers, bicy- clists, moped, dri vers--may or may not slow down, and others slow- down or stop, but forget the sign means to yield to all cross traffic. Hence, 80% of the "bicycle -other vehicle accidents" re- ported to the Police Department in Palo Alto were intersection accidents where one person did not properly yield right- of -way to another. The bicycle boulevard established a bicycle arterial, a truly major street with stop signs only at intersections with other major streets. She preferred Council support of the concept of a bicycle arterial rather than bicycle lanes or sidewalk paths. Vard Johnson, 2784 Bryant, felt that this was sort of a boon- doggle. He said that presently there was a pedestrian overpass on Bryant going over to the school across the creek just beyond his street, and grade school children played and dawdled there. He had seen mopeds go through there at 15-20 miles per hour. There were posts in the middle, and motorcycle and moped drivers had learned that there was room if they put their hands inside the handlebars to go through there -and not hit either the post or the sidewalk. He opposed the projects because the bridge across the street was a real hazard, and if it were increased to two -wheel vehicles there would be an increase in moped and motorcycle traf- fic. He felt that bicyclists should be educated to follow safety rules themselves --that there had to be some sanity in the way the streets were used. He agreed something was needed, and ` if he thought this would work, he would support it. Vice Mayor Fletcher said, that concern had been expressed at the Policy and Procedures Committee that if the bicycle boulevard were implemented, there had been no criteria developed for judging its success or failure. The Committee sent to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee the task of developing criteria and the results of that were in..the packets. She was in favor of the motion and said that regarding barriers causing a great deal of havoc, she did not think the barriers could be compared to the one on Hamilton. The idea of that barrier was to divert a great deal _ of already existing traffic.. The intent of barriers on Bryant would be to prevent new traffic from entering Bryant who might be. attracted because of the lesser:- number of stop si.gns-. She said the number of barriers which needed to be installed were minimal. She was suggesting two, and she did not see that those two bar- riers widely separated would inconvenience. people. One, effect they would have was to prevent direct through traffic from the entire length of the designated boulevard. The idea of a boulevard was to give bicyclists some of the advantages that mo- torists already had. She . said bicyclists were particularly ham- pered in Palo Alto because she knew of no. other City which had as, many stop signs`. on the streets on which bicycles were made -to ride. She felt it was a move in the r'ight direction, and: if it. proved successful, it could be continued through to the .bridge over - the San Fr_ancisquito'Creek and ineb Menlo Park. She said Palo Alto had a history of encouraging -bicycle riding, and ;there was such a _ policy in the Comprehensive.. Plan; and, if the Council. wanted to be serious about it and do something to ' encourage bicy- clists, she urged adoptionof the motion. Couhcilanember 'Witherspoon said she was' the devil s advocate for the situation - on Bryant as -seen by the :Committee. She :.understood that 'there would be four stop signs on = Bryant at Churchill, California, Colorado ::and Loma Verde, . plus a light at Oregon and two barriere. She did not think that a bicycle boulevard would be achieved out of the project °and was concerned because she thought':.. 1 1 the concept was great. She was concerned about it being an exper- iment because the neighbors were concerned about their access in and out of their street which wes what would be affected by where the barriers were located, and the cost of staff time and money to do it. In addition to the modest cost to put up the barriers and implement the plan for the .,trial period, the staff report said that when the recommendations were received from PABAC, staff would ask the Council for an additional $7,500 to implement the surveys. She thought- the =mount was modest because the surveys were lengthy and subjective, and if done well, they would be ex- tensive:. She was worried that once the results of the survey were received, she was not sure she could make a decision because she did not know how much bicycle traffic would have to be taken off Alma in order to make it worthwhile. She would vote against the moti or,. Transportation Planner, Gayle Likens: said that basically there were 16 intersections along the boulevard route which would begin at Churchill. She said that because of the heavy traffic on Churchill and the coordination with the school commute to Palo Alto High School,.. they were proposing that the route begin at Churchill. She said there .were no stop signs on Churchill, and it was proposed to be a four-way stop because currently there was a lot of traffic on Churchill, and a lot of traffic coming off the boulevard. The two-way stop on Bryant was proposed to be a four- way stop; Coleridge had no changes proposed; Lowell now had through traffic and a stop on Bryant, and it was proposed that those stops would be changed so that the through traffic would be on Bryant and the stops would be on Lowell; Tennyson had no pro- posed ._change; Seale would have the stops reversed so that Bryant Street traffic would have the right of way, and cross traffic would stop; California Avenue which was now a two-way stop for Bryant would become a four-way because of the volume of traffic on. California connecting with the heavy bike traffic which would be coming on the boulevard. She said that in the corridor there would be two stops. and the proposal would be to put a barrier in the center of that area, possibly north of Seale in the Seale-_ Tennyson area. Crossing . south of Oregon, which' has a signal which would facilitate cross traffic on the boulevard, there was a four- way stop at Colorado, and it was proposed to eliminate the stop on Bryant in the test study so that it would become a two-way stop on Colorado. Mr. Noguchi reminded .the Counci l that none of the -suggestions being presented were staff proposals. They were discussed by the Bicycle Advisory _ Committee and at the Pol icy and Procedures Committee, and were the consensus of those two Committees. Ms. Likens said that El Dorado would have the stop signs reversed and crossing over Matadero Creek, and the next intersection which was a four-way stop was Loma Verde. It was proposed that no change be made there because of the proximity to the school and the school . commute as well as the volume of traffic at that inter- section. She said the last intersection where a change was pro- posed was ,at El Verano, and it -was r^ecomrnended that the stop:. on Bryant be removed so that ,it would become' a two-way stop only for traffic on El Yeraao. Out of a total of 16 intersectiohs , three would remain with stops--Loma -Verde, North California, ; and Churchill: on Bryant, and the other.. steps- would be eliminated. In the South of Oregon area, since that stretch: from Oregon to East Meadow was naturally broken by: Matadero Creek, and there was a natural automobile barrier, the stretch' which looked like - it might need an additional barrier was "south of .Mataderd =.Creek Somewhere north of El Verane. ,Count i imemberr Eyerly ,.said the bicycle b ulevard T idea had been with the City ..for a long time, in the Comprehensive : Plan, ' and: he thought that generally the Council hid; supported the .idea..: It had i been a long time coming to have a trial type section on the street. He said that when he first read `the Policy, and Procedures Committee minutes, he thought maybe there should have been more input on possible usage of Cowper, but in discussing it, and driving the streets, it appeared to him that the recommendation of using Bryant seemed to make the most sense. He knew that it was not a program that would be accepted by all of the residents in the area, but he thought that for a trial period the Council should go ahead, particularly since it had been talked about for so long. He did not see any better area or street on which to try the concept. He asked that staff be sensitive on the placement of the two recommended barricades to the immediate residential neigh- borhood. If there were people that were very against it, the staff should be sensitive as to where a barricade might be placed. Mayor Henderson said he thought Vice Mayor Fletcher intended to include the evaluation criteria as items 1 and 2, as recommended by staffs rather than the PA6AC's full group of evaluations and asked for clarification. Vice Mayor Fletcher said that was correct. Because of the added costs of the full recommendations from PABAC on the criteria for evaluation, staff recommended just two of them, which would be bicycle counts an Bryant Street, and vehicular counts on Bryant Street and selected parallel and cross streets. She concurred with Councilmember Eyerly that staff seek locations for the barricades which would not be opposed by the local residents. She thought the residents were concerned about access to Oregon Expressway being cut off. Mr. Hoguchi said he understood the motion to meare that the Council expected staff to return= with actual locations for.the barriers at somefuture date. Mayor Henderson said he thought it meant for stiff to be careful in selecting the locations for the barriers. He thought the assignment was difficult for staff because anywhere a barrier was placed, the nearby people would say it cut them off from Oregon. Councilmember Eyerly clarified that he meant that staff should be sensitive to the concerns of the residents, but did not mean they had to return to Council for approval. City Manager, Bill 'Loner said he thought staff understood the in- tent of Councilmember Eyerly's direction, and thought, there might be a technical problem: because a. resolution would ._ be required to close the street to vehicular traffic. Once the location of the barrier was determined,` staff would have ,to come back 'to Council with the resolution to close the street. Counc i l.member Levy was troubled because he strongly : encouraged bicycling, but felt that putting barriers as suggested on Bryant: Street would .meet with sharp disapproval from the neighbors! and: he was afraid the suggested trial ,would fail because of it , and with that, the failure of bike' boulevards. He felt that the bicycle boulevards .did not need barriers to be successful. He thought that qO% :of the benefits of a bike boulevard could be secured without going through the turmoil of erecting barriers. He said he rode Bryant Street' s length over the weekend, and he thought Bryant Street was a good street- for this purpose. He sa`i' much of its width was. narrow and not conducive to automobile traf- fic, and At also' had the natural =barrier of Matadoro Creek. He: did not think that area encouraged a good deal —Of- auto+ obile trhafi. fic.- In addition 'to the' barriers, he counted, that zseven stop s 9gns would be reduced -to three stop signs,: which he; .did. ;not think was enough to gen¢r4te an "increase in automobiles. He thought _the. City could_ have a .bicycle boulevard that would be safe for cars, bikes and free flowing without the need for the barriers which he thought would fail. He believed that of the 7 stop signs now on. Bryant, several could be removed without a noticeable increase in automobile traffic. Councilmember Renzel asked why staff did not wish to include the accident statistics =which she presumed were accumulated in the Police Department? Mr. Noguchi said ,that the kind of data the staff was receiving on most kinds of local streets was meager, to say the least. There was also a problem with actually getting the reports because many of the accidents were of the type that were not being reported because they were minor accidents without injuries and did not require reporting. Councilmember Renzel said she thought it would be relative to assemble the data which was available in the Police Department with respect to the particular street. Mr. Noguchi said that was true, that the reported accidents could be provided, but they were relatively meager and to get any type of statistical analysis of that kind of meager accident data was not too meaningful. Councilmember Klein -asked eif the resol ution on the floor passed, when would the bicycle boulevard be implemented? Mr. Noguchi said first he:expected that Council would want staff to do some outreach to the people on Bryant Street, and then the specific locations which would be most appropriate within the corridor would have to be determined. Staff would then have to return to Council with the resolution to implement the recommend- ations; Be estimated about sixty days for implementation. Councilmember Klein asked if it could be up and going by March 15 because he was hoping that the test period could include spring, summer and.fall, as ,suggested by Vice Mayor Fletcher. Mr. Noguchi felt that the program could be implemented by the - spring and the evaluation include the late spring, summer and fall months. Councilmember Klein said., he supported the concept because if the, Council was serious about bicycle boulevards, as included in the Comprehensive Plan, now was the time, and this was the place. He said Bryant Street was an experiment and he thought it should be. looked at in that regard. He was in favor of it because; the cost was low, the time period was fixed, and he thought the _inconve- nience which would be created by the barriers would' be minimal. He said there were barriers and there were`- barr►;ers, and to equate them all was a ;mistake. I e did not 'think the'' barriers proposed for Bryant Street would be _: anywhere near as burdensome as the one which was installed at Hamilton and Gu i nda,_ and were ones the neighbors could deal with. The suggestion that perhaps there could be a bicycle boulevard without 'barriers was not' correct. He thought more problems than it was worth would be created if that were : done, ., and that the :ey was to try and get - as many cars as possible off the street to make it solely usable by bicyclists. He feared that if stop signs :.were just ,_removed . without' barriers for automobiles, a messa,ge would, :be sent to people who were inter- ested in seeing how fast their automobiles could run and things of that nature to come : down Bryant, which would not be acceptable.: His one concern ; was to control the motorcyclists he, feared cuing on to : Bryant. ',He hoped that`: adequate policing by the PO1 ice Department :would Prevent that. He thought bicycles needed to be encouraged and felt it was well worth the City's time 'and effort andhe favored, the experiment. 1 Councilmember Bechtel said she had supported all of the efforts for bicyclists. - She had a problem, with the experiment because originally it was proposed that four stop signs would be removed, and now it was five stop signs. She tried to evaluate how much di€ferenee that would make to a bicyclist going from one end of -Palo Alto to another, or even to- one coming from another part of town. Would they be inspired to ride the extra distance to reach the road where they would save five stop signs? She was not con- vinced. that they would. She felt that there -may be some wisdom to looking at many of Palo Alto's streets and with the support of a -neighborhood remove a stop sign if they were .ready to do that. She pointed out that in the earlier staff report, it was said that no other city- in the country was Oing it, but that Portlnd was considering At at the reeueste of a neighborhood association. The idea of putting up the barricades was not the, request of the resi- dents of Bryant Street. She was cencerhed about the attractive ness the street might have to motorcycle and moped drivers. She lived in the neighborhood bound_, by Embarcadero and Oregon and late at night, much as there were good police officers out there on patrol, there were certain clever drivers who_ discovered. that if you start near the intersection of Embarcadero and Alma- you could go all the way to ,near ethe intersection of Oregon and. Middlefield witho-ut stopping once if a zig zag fashion was done. She did not think the police officers could get there:as fast as the drivers got through tree maze. She said that An reading the Policy and Procedure Committee minutes, she heard several bicyclists saying how delighted they would be to be able to ride their bicycles on a road that would be car -free. She pointed out that the boulevard would not be:a car -free bicycle route, that there would be cars, and she did not think that removing five stop signs and putting up new barricades would be that much of an advantage to the bicycles that it would outweigh the disadvantages and inconveniences. She would not support the motion. Mayor Henderson said he took it that the Council did 'not have the power to ban bicycles on Alra�Street. Ms. Lee said that was correct, but said she would like the oppor- tunity to look into it. Mayor Henderson said this subject was interesting to him because in 1972 ,he made a motion for the study of bicycle boulevards. He remembered commenting that he would like to have the boulevard ; on his street because it, would be worth it to him to have ; a little inconvenience getting to , his home to provide access for bicycles and eliminate cars. He understood the staff's concerns, and he was concerned about motorcycle usage. He thought that this pro- posal minimized the barrier problem, andcould :not see that there could " be any tremendous impact on the residents to have one bar- rier in each of the two sections installed. He said he could al- most, guarantee that if' the idee of barriers were eliminated, there would be a lot More auto traffic on Bryant, and the bicycle boule- vard concept would be destroyed. He thought the 'concept should be given a fair trial, because the Council would never know if - they could do what they said they wanted . to do in the Comprehensive Plan unless- it was tried.' He would support the motion. Councilmember Witherspoon asked what the City's`costs. would Mr. Noguchi responded that in terms of the amount of staff time, it -would probably run between $500 and $ ,000. ; The costs for the barriers and the : efforts to turro,`around the` stops_ signs, etc.. would be on the _order" of $5,000 'Councilmember Witherspoon -Said she would like to: See the h.oulevard 'tried in Order to _ascertain if some key bicycle boulevards- could be : established in Palo ►l to. She' has_. concerned, about what would 1 be evaluated at the end of the trial. She realized that there would be a terrific outcry the minute a traffic barrier was men- tioned, but did not know if the cry was justified. She said keep- ing the barriers after the nine months would have to be justified. and she had no feel about how they would be justified. Vice Mayor rietcher responded to Councilmember Bechtel's question regarding. Portland and the statement that the request for a bi- cycle boulevard had - come from a neighborhood. She said the re- quest was for a bicycle boulevard on a particular street which w.as the location of the Bicycle Commuter Service and the Bicycle Coop- erative, which was where the request came from. She said they were in the neighborhood and some of the employees and users lived right on the street. There was already one barrier on the street which made it appropriate to add; maybe a few more. Regarding the costs, she said it wasn't too long ago- that the Council enthusias- tically approved $400.,000 for a bike path in the Baylands which was parallel to an existing bike route, which she felt was very adequate, and which had no stop signs, namely, on East Bayshore. She said that cost was $400,000, and here the cost was $6,000 for a route which would aid commuters, Further, not long . ago the Council spent over $1 million to create one additional left turn lane on Alma Street which was for the convenience of the motor- ists. It wasn't anything that was absolutely necessary. and no one from the public or the Council objected. Councilmember Renzel said she was concerned about the safety as- pects of a bicycle boulevard where there were cross streets in- volved. She thought there would be .a sense of security created on the part of the bicyclists going: down Bryant Street that would be somewhat false. Since the Committee met, criteria had been pre- sented on which the use of Bryant Street as a bicycle boulevard and the vehicular changes which might take place would be measured and, if the accident statistics were also measured, she would feel more comfortable in pursuing the exper meat . She considered that it was an experiment, and was not particularly optimistic about it, but the idea had been carried in the Comprehensive Plan for a long time, and she would support it as an experiment. Councilmember Eyerly said that regarding the evaluation in the. criteria, the staff had recommended bicycle counts on Bryant Street, and he presumed that meant bicycle counts before and after installation of the boulevard, and the: same on the vehicular counts -:en Bryant and selected parallel and cross streets. He asked that number #3, accident .statistics be added to the motion. He understood Mr. Noguchi as' saying that these statistics were ob- tainable, and he would like to see them`. Mr. Hoguchi said he saw no problem collecting that data. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-B as follows: AYES: Eyez ly, Renzel , Klein, Fletcher, Henderson NOES: ABSENT: Fazzino Bechtel. Levy, Witherspoon I. IN TIATIVE\ PE-TITION _ C IEI OR iIA AVENUE/PARK BOULEVAR€} Larry Sleizer, 255 Edlee, PaIo Alto, said that he and Peter Gi a€nal.is owned : a small pi ecz ; of property at Sherman and park which may be' involved in the initiativ'e.: His purpose in being at the meeting was to see if an :accurate copy of the notice that was pub- lished_ in :tt e newspaper. Could be obtained and ° compared with - the map that would be accompanying the ordinance for the election. He said the notice which was published and placed on 'the bulletin- board` may notagree with the map actually being suhmi tted _ to the 1 5 2 .4 12/_1,4/$1 voters and he., wanted to clarify that and to, see whether their property was included in the ordinance. Director of Planning ,and Community Environment Kenneth Schreiber said that. the item marked Item 10, Exhibit "A," the small map which said at the top "NOTICE-, OF INTENTION," was the one which appeared in the newspaper. Mr. S1 ei zer said that on the copy; he had, their property was left blank, and their contention was that if it were left blank as pub- lished, they should not be included in the initiative- and would like some interpretation. City Attorney Diane Lee said that she would need to see an origi- nal map. The one she had was: not clear, and the others she had were all copies. She thought _ th'e original- would be as clean as any and thought if she could look at it, she would be in - a better position to analyze what actually appeared in the newspaper. City Clerk Ann Tanner .said she did hot have an original, The original was published and delivered to the newspaper and, as re.- quired, a copy was delivered to her office.. When the actual peti- tions' were filed, each section had attached to it, as required, a copy of the notice of intention to circulate. Also attached to each. section was a larger, clearer map. She did not know whether the larger map was prepared in City Hall or prepared by the people who circulated the petition. Her impression was -that the circula- tors wanted to clarify the petition and, realizing that the repro- duction of the notice was very unclear, circulated a clearer en- largement of the map with the petition. Ms. Lee said she was shown the notice of intention to circulate an initiative petition which included a copy of the map which was published in the newspaper, and which clearly included the entire area. David Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, said it was the intention of the petition to include that area which the Planning Commission recom- mended woald be rezoned, which would include the properties all along Park Boulevard. He said a large copy was given to the news- paper and the newspaper reduced the larger map into the smaller version which was published. He presented a communication from John West, the district Director of CalTrans, to Mr. Noguchi, dated April 8, 1981, whose major concern was for the future and noted the forecast for additional SP service on the Peninsula, which would double in .the next five to seven years, and triple in. 15 years, which would indicate a need for additional parking at the California Avenue station. With the development of the condo- minium complex, the availability of additional land for parking was seriously impacted, which meant that either underground or overhead structures would be required. It might be alleged that the increase in passenger access to the station could be handled by transit, but in discussions with County Transit, indications were that an increase of 10% over current transit, ridership could be expected. Recent surveys indicated that 40% of.. the riders on California Avenue arrived by automobile, and parked either on or off :site. Even with a reduction in the future to 30%, an addi- tional 200 parking _ spaces would be required. Mr. Jeong said there had been a lot of discussion lately that there was not enough family -type housing in Palo Alto, and he thought this was a good opportunity to have family -type housing. With this, rezoning,., there would be houses or residences with..450 square feet of usable open space- per unit* and then, would be people, living in a resi- dential area, not in adult quarters over a -comm,ercial trea. If the, Council was sincere in wanting to provide ,famiiy-type housing, here was the ' opportuni ty. 1 1 Milly Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, said that 6,400 Palo Altans signed the initiative petition, a few stated that they were sign- ing merely to get it on the ballot, but most of the people took the time to consider the two proposals. Of those, 90-95% were op- posed to the mixed use project and did sign the petition. She said so many Palo Altans were opposed to the mixed use project be- cause of the height of the buildings, some of which were over 50 feet high, a massive high density project in an area which now had a small town community atmosphere which many residents love and hate to lose. Most of the traffic would comefrom the commercial part of the mixed use project, and by changing the project to an all. housing zone, much less traffic would be generated. There were already parking shortages in the area which was adjacent to the Court House. The shared parking system plan for some of "tire parking spaces might or might not supply enough parking for the commuters and the residences. She said mixed use projects were not as effective in alleviating the jobs/housing imbalance as an all housing project would be. The jobs added in a mixed use proj- ect created and generated a demand for more housing and thus can- celled out much of the benefit of the housing part of the project. She said a much greater net benefit to the housing shortage would occur in an all housing project as proposed in the initiatve peti- tion. On December 3, the Palo Alto Neighborhoou Coalition voted nanimousiy with 20 residents present to request the City Council to vote to change the zone on the site to RM- 3, an all housing zone. In effect, it would ask the developer to eliminate the com- mercial part of the project and develop only the housing. She requested that in conjunction with that action, the Council request that the Planning Commission study the possibility of changing the zoning on the lumberyard site, which was not included in the petition, to a compatible, all housing, zone to the RM-3 which would be placed on the SP site. She requested that if the Council voted to put the issue on the ballot, the election be scheduled at the earliest possible date allowed by law, instead of almost the last date, and that the Council consider having the election by mail as was done recently in San Diego. She said they had a similar situation there, the voters had obtained signatures on a referendum petition on -whether a convention center should be built. The _",City decided toe have the vote by mail, finding it cheaper and qc.='cker, and the voter turnout was increased from 20% on a primary vote to elect Council persons, and 35% on a City municipal election to over a 60% return. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said he supported David Jeong's and Milly Davis' positions. He pointed out that th.e Council had letters from the Neighborhood Coalition and dint Culpepper giving a number of excellent reasons for adopting the initiative ordinance as sub- mitted. He recommended that action. He said there were more than 75 people circulating petitions, and more than 6400 signatures were obtained. Seventeen hundred of those signatures were ob- tained in the ten-day period which included. Thanksgiving weekend -- not normally a good time to .circulate a petition or find people at home. It was a petition which had no financial impact on the people who signed it. He noted the Measure H petition; which ob- tained over -5700 5700 signatures- in less than one m©nth,._. and in that case, people were being asked to sign it in order to get a tax -re- bate directly trr them. In this case, the people were signing the petition because they believed that Palo Alto had too many . jobs, too much ` commercial and too much congestion 'on Cal lfor^ni a. Avenue, and: that residential was necessary and needed. Regarding the im- pact of the petition on existing -commercial, ._he said` that he had met with people who -had, existing commercial _ property ;, in the area or who rented in the "area, and they were being -told that their rents would be raised, and the prices wau Id ‘go up because the new development was coming. in. They were _"finding that it was less at tractive to have a mixed use,: commercial than a pure residential, which was= at least the eAcuse being given by the landlords. - Regarding what_ action the City should take, .he suggested_ that the Council enact the initiative ordinance; and if they did not -vote to enact the ordinance, then he suggested that the Council declare a moratorium on construction .on that property until: after the --people had had a chance to exercise their rights. under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to .petition for rie-- .dress of grievance, and not to do anything by Council action to in any way inhibit or make leg -al problems for the peoples` right to petition and Vote on a significant issue of public policy. He said that if. the election -was, held, to appoint the date for the election not later than March 23. He thought that was the earli- est legal date. He thought it was a small gesture _for the..Council to make to indicate that they were interested in carrying the election forward if there was an election. He reminded the Ccun- cil :that this was -not a -question of zoning against an individual or a specific type of develc'pment, it was zoning in favor of resi- dential and against the increase in the jobs/housing imbalance, and: a.gainst increasing traffic and congestion, and decreasing parking in an already heavily: impacted neighborhood. R. J. Oebs, 3145 Flowers Lane, said he thought what Mr. Moss said made good sense. He pointed out- that in addition tv this, California Avenue efas facing a real change in that area. He said no matter what collection of prepared justifications the Council might have in not putting the initiative ordinance through to- night,: he thought it would -be a good idea to do so because in doing' so _'the Council would indicate that they did not want' the very large scale and massive impacts this development would put on California Avenue. Councilmember Levy asked Mr. Jeong to respond, as the circulator of the petition, to Why was the lumberyard parcel north of California Avenue excluded from the initiative petition? Mr. Jeong said they just wished to support the Planning Commission recommendation, and did not want the criticism of laymen -doing the professional planners job. As laymen, they did not do the profes- sional planners job, they supported the recommendation the Plan- ning Coe:mission made twice. Councilmember Levy said he thought it was worthwhile for him to. review his participation in the project, or in the rezoning of the area. He said it was brought to the Council about 13 months ago, and at that time, the Planning Commission did recommend that the area be rezoned to residential, and as Mr. Jeong mentioned, to .leave the area on the other side of California Avenue as commer- cial. He said that was discussed thoroughly and at that time, he thought the area should be rezoned to residential. At that time, the residents of the neighborhoods, particularly the Evergreen neighborhood, strongly objected to the City's rezoning the- area residential because in their estimation the residential rezoning would have, a greater negative impact on their neighborhood than the commercial ;:zoning. He and other members of the Council were surprised at that, but talked intensively with the members of the neighborhood and' the neighborhood reiterated their arguments. and understood the differences, and density to, which the neighborhood could be .developed both residentially and. commercially and held strongly to the feeling -that there . should not be a change in the zoning at that time. He felt that based on the neighborhood's strong assertion, the Council determined not to rezone the proper- ty at that time That property had been zoned commercial for many years, and the Council simply left the status quo. Subsequent .to that time, a: development was brought to the Citywhich called =for, mostly residential _ development, and 40,000 square feet . of commer- cial development," which- was far less than the property allow commercially, and a substantial amount of residential development.. He said the development was not that .much different from. zoning the full parcels, both . north .and•and south of California Avenue, as residential. If that were the case, the area 'could have 158 units 1 1 of residential development, which was only 15 units less than what was being proposed. He said a statement had been made that if the Council allowed things to move along at their regular pace, the Council was denying the petitioners an appropriate amount of time. He did not believe that, he felt the petitioners had had many years to ask for rezoning of the property, and had had 13 months since the Council first considered it to ask for rezoning, and in fact, the petition circulation was begun only in August. He felt that it was important that the parcel north of Cali forni a Avenue which was scheduled for development was not part of the petition, which added confusion to everything under consideration. He said that when the matter was brought before the public for a vote, if in fact the public voted to approve the rezoning, he was not clear what was being said about the property north of California Avenue. He said he would think that since it had been brought before them specifically, that the public by voting for it was not only voting to change one zoning, but by omission, was voting not to change the surrounding zoning. MOTION: Counci1member Renzel moved that the initiative ordinance be passed as proposed by the residents of the petition. MOTION FAILED for lack of a second. Councilrnember Rennzel commented that some of her colleagues had complained that the citizens did not act sooner and she thought the voters had every right to expect the Council to make good judgments with respect to planning and zoning in Palo Alto. It was not until a visible proposal came in that the voters .pursued exactly what the Council "s action meant in concrete terms. She thought it was unfair to suggest that the voters, like some corpo- rate entity, might galvanize themselves into action at some earl- ier stage when they still had expectations that their Council would be. responsive. She thought that once the initiative quali- f i ed and was certified, it was highhanded of the Council to take actions which gave ` the voters a different choice than the Council itself could have made when that initiative was presented. She had a high regard for the citizens' right of referendum and iani - tiative, and thought it was clear that the Council had a di scre tionary decision to make in -banning an easement which would have obviated the question of subdivision, but the Council chose to do it kniwing full we11 what the impact was and that it _might impede the voters' right to make a meaningful. choice. She believed that the area zoned commercially and developed as proposed would_ have serious impacts on the area. She said the Council, knew there were huge deficits, in parking availability, both in downtown and California Avenue, and much of the deficit -would increase as the SP parking spaces were lost. She believed that the -choice of the election date need not to be the full 109 days away, and could be at least a week earlier. Councilmember Eyerly said Councilmember`-Levy had provided a his- tory of the project as it . related to the Council, : including Coun- cil s actions, and neighborhood requests for Council action. He said that Mr. Levy's comments, and the history, Made him think tnat the Council needed to go ahead with the project by putting it on the ballot for the people to speak to. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Witherspoon, ap- proval of the following resolution and budget amendment ordi- nance. RESOLUTION 5980 entitled 'RESOLUTION .OF THE COUNCIL OF THE tftY §F PALO ALTO CALLING 1 SPECIAL ELECTION FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1982, :,FOR SUBMITTAL OF AN INITIATIVE__ PETITION. TO THE ELECTORATE REGARDING THE PROPOSED ORDI- NANCE FOR CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND' NEAR CALIFORNIA AVENUE AND, PARK BOULEVARD AND TO MAKE A CORRESPONDING CHANGE IN THE .COMPREHENSIVE , PLAN LAND USE MAP, AND. REQUESTING THE SERVICES -OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS FOR SAID ELECTION"._ ORDINANCE 3322 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE -CITY OF PALSALT;1 AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1981-82 TO PROVIDE FUNDING IN THE CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION ON MARCH 30, 1982" Councillember Witherspoon felt that Councilmember Levy had stated her feelings very -well. She said it was (pointed out that the landlords were raising the rents on California Avenue because more retail and commercial space would be.availabie. She pointed out that do so would go against ,all economic trends she had ever seen when more space was available, usually the rents stayed down for a while. She said that regarding the concern that'this commercial property would not appreciate eas fast and, therefore, not generate as much tax revenue because of Proposition 13 as �a residential would, that may be true, but she pointed out that over one-third, and growing, of the. City's income was sales tax, and hoped it would generate more sales tax for the City. She said parking was tight all over Palo Alto, bute the unofficial parking that_ :was being used now for SP riders would not be available under any: development --residential or. commercial. She thought the proposed: development offered more parking and ,was well -designed, and would enhance the neighborh000d. Vice Mayor Fletcher asked staff what the actual legal height limit was in the zone? Mr. Schreiber advised that the legal height limit in the CC zone was 50 feet, which was measured to the mid -point of a sloping roof. He said some of the roofs in the project went up to 56 or 57 feet at the very top, but the Mid -point was 49 or 50 feet. Vice Mayor Fletcher said she had explored the all mail election question with City Clerk Ann Tanner, who informed her that special legislation needed to be passed in order to make it possible in Palo Alto. She said that when the property was discussed and the Comprehensiee Plan was being revised, she was very much in favor of changing the zoning and voted to change it over the objections of the neighbors-. At this point, she looked_ forward to are elec- tion because she wanted to air some of the issues and have the op- portunity to respond to some of the assertions which were.made during the petition drive such as that the project_ exceeded the legal height limit, that it would cause the Co -Op Food Market to close down, that the barriers would_- go down Park Boulevard, and that the.grade. crossing at California Avenue would be'reopened. She said that during the recent, election campaign when she vas a candidate, people made those points to her and their reasons for signing. the petition. She said shy; addressed those points :;and what the project involved and some persons said they ware:. "sorry they si gale>,d the petition. She l ooked forward to a debate where the facts would be widely disseminated ehdo she would support the motion. Counci'member .Bechtel asked staff the earliest possible date when a special election might be held? Ms Tanner responded that the suggested date of March 30, 1982 was 106 days from today, dnd the earliest date the election could be held was 94 days.. from today, so the suggested date of March 23 was 'possible. She added that the City Clerk's office was anxious that the arguments and, advertisements they were required to do not oc- cur during the Christmas and New Year's holidays when City Hall was closed. She said it had happened hefore,`and citizens tended to feel they had not had -an opportunity .:to: participate, and that it was a bad time of year to be involved in writing ballot argu- ments. She said the Clerk's office needed 89 days from the first of January to March 30. If. the election was moved to March 23, they. would manage, but it would be a tighter schedule. Councilmember Bechtel said it, was listed that arguments needed to be filed by January 4, and she presumed .that date would just move up one week? Ms. Tanner recommended leaving the argument procedure deadlines on the dates she suggested, and said they would squeeze on other things rather than interfere with that. Councilmember Bechtel commented that she .was not .on the Council during the initial Comprehensive Plan discussion. She supported the initiative process and the right of voters to vote on issues like this. She shared the feeling that an adequate and thorough discussion was needed, and did not want to see it delayed and felt the date could be moved forward. AMENDMENT: Councilmentber Bechtel moved, seconded by Frenzel, to set the election for March 23, 1982 rather than March 30, 1982.. Mayor Henderson said that both last week and this week he heard statements about how the Council was highhanded and nonrespon- sive. He considered that votes by eight out .of nine Council - Members was a pretty clear direction given by intelligent well- meaning people and he did not consider his colleagues to be high- handed. further, from years of experience on the Council, he had encountered -a number of situations where, if petitions had been passed, there ewasino question that the people in the immediate areas who signed those petitions quite likely would have passed the special elections; namely, Colorado Park, Webster Woods, Arastradero Park, and a number of others. The turn out, of course, was small and people from the affected ,areas tended to come cut and vote, so he would not predict how the election would come out. He said there were times when the Council had to lead on issues that were for' the betterment of the entire community. He.had: no compunction about going ahead with this especiall3• in line with what Councilmember Levy commented was the history. He said he was involved in it too, went over and ,niet with the Ever- green people, discussed the impacts of not rezoning , to housing, and they were very negative. He thought the Council acted in response to .the community. Councilmember Klein said he was concerned with the procedures. He. was not on the Council at the time the various actions were taken, but if he had been, he would have voted to rezone the property. He thought that Palo Alto had to be careful of its "procedures, and did not think that changing the zoning at this particular point, after. the developer had come in with plans, would be fair, just or equitable, which was the primary reason he had consistently voted to support the ` development. A` -;;secondary factor was that it was a well designed development and well within the zoning guide- lines. Councilmember Klein said he had thought about the date for, the election, and would vote for the March 30, 1982 date because he was concerned about the democratic process being effective. He said everyone knew that special elections had low turnouts, and he wanted as much time as possible to ; generate the ::largest possible turnout. He thought that the citizens of Palo Alto needed to be educated:,: about_ the various issues before the Counci i , and,wanted the _ proponents and opponents to have as much time as possible to _, get the` largest ,possible: turnout for the. ,election.. In campaigning during the last few months.. _he exper ienced that' the interest-. in this .pretty clear issue varied inversely with the distance of the project. He said that, t'e people in the north and south ends of town 'had little interest or knowledge about ; it, but that in the... middle of town, there were a lot of questions. - As ,Mayor' Henderson had pointed out, some of the projects had beneficial effects for all parts of the City, but only those immediately adjacent had in- terest from the start. He hoped the City would get interest from all areas, and that there would be a large turnout. He supported the motion as, made by Councilmember lyerly, and opposed the amend- ment. Councilmember Eyerly said he did not hear any arguments making a real reason to move the date to March 23, and agreed with the City Clerk's reasons for keeping it at March 30,- which basically boiled down to the need to separate the required advertising in the news- paper from all of the Christmas ads which would occur if it were moved up, and urged that the Council not support the amendment. Councilmember Renzel reminded the Council. that Ms. Tanner had said that the ads .would be published before Christmas :and that they would be going in soon, which meant that was not the -issue. She said`City Council elections were two months from the filing to the election time, and she thought that was an adequate amount of time to anew ew airing of the issues. She thought the Council, was well awaree as was the developer, that the developer now held the cards as to whether he Vested his rights and obviates the results of the election., Further, she thought it was only fair to the voters that the election be scheduled as -soon.- as possible in order that the election might be meaningful. Councilmember Levy said he would respect the request of the peti- tioners that the election be held as soon as legally possible. He would support the amendment that March 23 be the election sate. - Vice Mayore Fletcher said that regarding the amendment, she felt that if t' date were moved up, it would only shorten the time period by._ ::week, but yet would make the filing of the arguments a much more difficult process and the City would get complaints because citizens would be busy with holiday activities. If the date were moved up, the democratic process would be diminished, and for one week, she did not feel it was worth it. Councilmember Bechtel clarified that the date for the filing of the arguments would be the same no matter whether the date were March 23 or March 30. Ms. Tanner said that was correct, Vice Mayor Fletcher asked for more clarification of why the March 30 date was suggested uy the City Clerk. Ms. Tanner said'. she had taken into account the entire election calendar, which included a provision that once; the arguments were written and available, they be made available at the City Clerk's. office counter for 10 days in order to permit citizens to come in, and if necessary, have an argument altered or obtain a writ of mandate., She felt the City Clerk's office and the Registrar of Voters needed the full 89 days. She said the City Clerk's office could speed 'up their duties but they were very reliant on the mail when it came to mailing the sample ballots and _following the ab- sentee ballot procedures. She said the City :Clerk's office could do their work and have the election held one week earlier, but in planning it, she recommended allowing the full 89 days from the first of the year. In terms of the arguments, she felt it was preferable to give the citizens time to write ballot arguments and to file then- after the Christmas and, New Year's holidays. Follow- ing that there was' the rebuttal argument= period for which 10 days` were allowed. AMENDMENT FAILED by a AYES: Renzel, Bechtel, Levy 1 1 1 NOES: ABSENT: Eyerly, Klein, Fletcher, Henderson, Witherspoon Fazzino Councilmember Renzel commented'that she would vote reluctantly in favor of the March 30 date since the Council had only two choices and one had failed. MOTION PASSED unanimously for election date to be held March 30, 1982, Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED unanimously to adopt the ordinar:,e amending the City Clerk's budget to provide $25,000 for the Special Election, Fazzino absent. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Klein, that the City Attorney's office . prepare an impartial analysis of the mea- sure rot to exceed 500 words. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. Mayor Henderson asked if the Council had any desires regarding the ballot arguments. He said the first choice available was for the Council as a body to present one of the arguments, and if that was not their choice, then individual members of the Council could be authorized in either direction. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if •-t took a unanimous vote of the Council to put the Council ' s name as a whole on the ballot? Ms. Tanner advised that if the Council as a body wished to write an argument, it would take a majority vote to do that. She re -- called that Mr. Maynor had recommended that the argument state the names of the Councilmembers opposed to doing that in the analysis and in the argument. If the City Council voted to sign the -argu- ment as .a body,, then it would be signed by the Mayor -for the Palo Alto City Council, Councilmember Witherspoon said she desired to be a signatory to the argument against the ordinance. Councilmeober Renzel said that when Measure B was being proposed a year or so ago, there was quite a compelling argument that un- less the Council was unanimous, the Council should not sign any ballot argument as a Council, and she concurred with that argu- ment. Councilmember Levy felt it was incumbent upon the Council.. to sub- mit the direct and the rebuttal arguments since they had taken specific actions, or failed to take specific actions in relation, to the property. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Eyerly, that the Council submit direct and rebuttal arguments :opposing the initia- tive. - Vie Mayor Fletcher" said she found it difficult .to vote on this before she saw the wording to be included. She said she would vote against the motion : at this point If a statement was drafted, .the would decide then whether she wanted to support' -it. Mayor Henderson said he understood that the Council had ° to make. the determination _ tonight- whether they were going to sign argu- ments because if not, others had to, :be given the opportunity'. If, the City prepared one and some weeks later _ decided- not to submit it, there would ,not be enough time for _. others to submit argu- ments Councilmember Renzel asked City Attorney Diane Lee if she had any comments regarding the legalities of the Council signing a ballot argument when there were, dissenting Councilmembers. Ms. Lee said she was not aware that the action was proh'bited. As for any other . action _ of the Council, if there was a majority vote of the body, the majority acted for the entire Council. Councilmember Renzel asked if there was a'requirement that it clearly disclaimed that it was not a unanimous vote. Ms. Lee said she thought it should be delineated who supported the argument and who did not, but felt that a majority vote as with all other actions, except where more than a simple majority was required, could proceed to authorize the preparation of a ballot argument. Councilmember Bechtel proposed that the decision as to who would sign an argument be delayed foe one week since the decision di d not have to be made tonight so that "someone might have time to draft an argument in, the next few days. Mayor Henderson said he had drafted arguments i n the past on bal- lot items, and felt he could do it reasonably quickly, but noted it took time. Bill Reller, Developer, asked whether there could be more than one argument for or against the measure on the ballot? If so, he hoped that if there was an opportunity, and if it was appropriate, that the Council would take a position in terms. of including an argument in the Sample Ballot. He said that others, such as him- -self, would like to be able to place an argument as well. Ms. Tanner responded that only one argument could be printed in the Ballot. If the Council signed it as the Palo Alto. City Coun- cil, however, there would be room for four additional signatures, since the limit was five signatures. Counci lmember Levy concurred with Vice Mayor Fletcher that none of the Council -members should put their names to. something until ethey had seen it written. He said he felt the Council should go on record as opposing the initiative, and thought that shoald be part-- of.the arguments. Regarding the signatories to the arguments, lie did not know what -past policy had been when the Council was on record but agreed that none of the -Councilmembers should sign the argument unless he or she agreed wittk the specific arguments pre- sented. Mayor Henderson said he thought that was another alternative that someone else or some other persons could write the argument, and Council could make a statement of opposition to the proposal. Councilmember, Klein agreed that it was appropriate for the Council ti take an official position. He said a series of Council actions were the subject, of the initiative, and he thought the citizens had a right to hear from those who had made the decisions. and for them to respond in a very official way. He thought it would be inappropriate for the Council to duck this, but that each Council - member should have an opportunity toreview the argument language before signing. AMENDMENT: Countilmember. Klein= moved, seconded ;by tfitherspoon, _that the Mayor be authorized to appoint . a Subcommittee (Klein, Witherspoon and Levy app-ointed) to write direct argument against Measure, A of not to exceed 300 words for Council review ; on 12/21/81; 1 Councilmember Witherspoon asked if it would not be appropriate for Councilmember Renzel to exercise her right as a Councilmember to submit the argument in favor of Measure A. 1 Mayor Henderson responded that if the Council did not wish to write the argument in favor, then individual Councilmembers could be authorized to do so. There would be no problem with Ms. Renzel's name appearing on it, and if Council;"could not come up with an argument as a Council, then individual members of the Council could also be on the negative side. Councilmember Renzel noted that tha petitioners had the right to submit the argument in favor, Mayor Henderson said he understood that members of the petitioners could write the argument, but Councilmembers signatures could be _included on it. Ms. Tanner said that was correct. Up to five signatures could be submitted on each argument. Mayor Henderson thought that if Councilmember Renzel were inter- ested, in having her name appear, the Council could authorize it so that she would have the choice. Councilmember Renzel said that was fine, but she was concerned that any decision made by the Council to sign as' the Council, be unanimous. R. J. Debs, 3145 Flowers Lane, said he had been here as long as anyone, and thought he had seen Councilmembers and petitioners on both sides of `he referenda or initiative. Whether the Council' had a legal opinion as to whether they could act as a Council_ was one thing, but up to five signatories could sign either side. He did not think permission was required for any one Councilmember or a group thereof to sign the arguments. Mayor Henderson said that was raised as a: question at the last election, and the Council went ahead and did that He did not_ think there was any problem that the Council would withhold ap- proval, but thought there was something in the procedure which in- dicated Council approval for individual Councilmembers. Councilmember Renzel said she thought that was a case where there were more than five Councilmembers who wished to sign an argument, and ;then the Council had to decide which five could sign. Ms. Tanner said ;that any Councilmember could sign any argument as a private citizen. The discussians_,held previously at the Council level had been whether the Councilmembers needed permission of a majority of the- total Council to use their. title .as individuals. Over the years, she - said there had been .varying opinions on that, and sometimes Councilmembers had used their titles, and on other occasions there were different opinions that they should not, which opened the debate at the last election. She said that as of the last election, the Council had decided that they wished to give authorization in the case where a Councilmember wished to. sign as a : private citizen, using" the designation "Member, Palo Alto City. Council. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Renzel voting sent. Mayor Henderson -appointed= Councilmembers Klein, Witherspoon and, Levy as the subcommittee to prepare a direct ; argument against the Measure. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that any Councilmember signing a ballot argument on any side of Measure A may use their title. . MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazeino absent. RECESS FROM 10: 1U. .m. TG; 10:20 p.m. AWARD) OF CONTRACT FOR IMPERMEABLE MATERIAL AND DISCONTINUING THE (TT E7 cAYATfcrfPARIH RtS'%ATI�3 Staff recommends that Council: 1. Direct staff -to terminate the current feasibility study with Genge Consultants but retain ITT marsh conversion as. part of the Baylands Master Plan; 2. Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance transferring $278,100 from the Refuse Reserve Fund for Systems Improvement -to the 1981-82 Refuse Operating Budget; and B. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract foi' impermeable soil with Stevens Creek Quarry over the next' five years. Councilmember Witherspoon asked for reassurance- that since the project was based over quite a period of time, staff was confident that the company would be in business. and that all that was needed from them would be received. Deputy Director of Public Works, Dale Pfeiffer said staff was con- fident. Councilmember Levy .asked if the fi ranc i a1 impact to the rate payer would be less for the five year schedule than if it were done all at once even though it would cost more overall Over the next five - years? Mr. Pfeiffer said staff anticipated the rates being set at this amount over the five-year period. He did not know the rates if the project were accepted over a two-year period as opposed to a five-year period. He said there would be a more rapid increase in the rates if it were done ever a two-year period. Councilmember Bechtel asked how many truckloads per day or month would be involved in noving`that amount of fill? Mr. Pfeiffer said he calculated that for the five-year schedule, it would be about three trucks coming in every work day for about six months, and for the two-year schedule, it would be about nine truckloads coming in per day over a ten-month period. John F. Walker, 19375 Greenwood Circle, Cupertino, said he was involved An excavating some fill material at the Harbor for the sameuse, and offered whatever assistance,, might be r,odcd in the future when . it was ascertained hOw effective they would be in drying the fill material. He thought they may be able to save the City of Palo Alto some money. MOTION Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the staff recommendation: _ 1) Direct staff to terminate the current feasibility study with Genge Consultants -but retain _.ITT marsh conversion as part of the "Baylands Master Plan, 2) Approve the Budget .:Amendment" Ordinance transferring $278,100 from the Refuse. Reserve Fund for Systems improvement to the 1983$.82 Refuse Operating Budget. 1 1 ORDINANCE 3323 entitled "ORDINANCE OF'THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY or PALO ALTO AMENDING THE .BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1981-82 TO PROVIDE FUNDING IN THE REFUSE DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR PURCHASE OF IMPERMEABLE FILL MATERIAL" Contract to come back can Consent Calendar 12/21/81. Councilmember Renzel asked what termination provisions' were con- tained in the contract? Mr. Adams responded that the contract contained no provision for - termination on the contractor's part. Councilmember Renzel clarified that -staff had ascertained that the contractor had been, in ape -ration- for a reasonable, period of time end had a:good track record and that ample material -was available at the contractor's site. Mr. Pfeiffer said staff checked the quantity and type of material at the contractor's site, and there were ample quantities. He said the _City had dealt with the contractor for the -past several years, and he was very reliable. Councilmember Renzel commented that it was hard to argue with the dollars whi-ch had come forth, and it made sense to import the fill'. She was glad it would not involve 200 truckloads per day as the -Council once feared. She said she would make a motion -to refer to the Attorney's Office the matter of preparing a .park dedication Ordinance for the ITT property so that in the absence of marsh restoration some sort of protection of that area could begin to take place. City Manager, Bill Zaner said he thought the property had "already been dedicated. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Levy, to .direct the City Attorney to prepare a.Park Dedication Ordinance for ITT Property. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. PILOT PROGRAM FOR CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF RUBBISH AND PLANT DEBRIS Staff recommends that Council authorize staff .to initiate the pilot program for the curbside collection of plant and debris. and rubbish within the areas designated. Councilmember Witherspoon said that one of her ongoing beefs ewas that the City always seemed to need new blades on the chipper. She asked if staff would be able to keep up with . the volume of debris -generated by the program? Mr. Pfeiffer said staff intended to leek at the material now and see .,what kind of material was coming in. If there were large volumes, the present ' grinder could not handle ' it. He pointed out that the consent:_ cal endar tonight contained'a request for - a State grant to help, and that t was staff's intention. Regarding whether.: the chipper could_ handle the work, the amount of debris that would come in and the City's needs, ,,,toold all be analyzed at the end of the pilot program. NOTION; Councilmember Witherspoon, moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council authorize staff to initiate the pilot program for the curbside collection of plant and . debris" and _rubbi sh within the areas designated. Vice Mayor, Fletcher asked what "nonorganic Material' was? Mr. Pfeiffer said that in area A, the garbage would continue to be picked up by Palo Al to Sanitation Company (PASCO), and when the PASCO trucks yo down the street, ;they would also pick tp rubbish that was bagged in Area A and put it in the compactors: Vice Mayor Fletcher asked if it could be garbage? Mr. Pfeiffer said no. Vice Mayor Fletcher was concerned that the pilot project was scheduled to begin in early January and would last for a minimum of one month and a maximum of four months, and asked what would haRp4n if there was a long rain storm? Mr. Pfeiffer said it -was staff's intention to ascertain the ac- ceptability within . a range of two to four months. He said PASCO could continue to pick up the debris even if it was raining. Councilmember Bechtel said she thought the timing was crucial because a l of of the rubbish people took to the dumps were prur• ings An the fall, winter. and early spring. She said she under- stood from the CMR that PASCO would not charge, but that at the ehd of the period, residents would be surveyed to ascertain if they wound be willing to pa)t for such a service. She asked - if staff had an idea of what kind of dollar amount would be charged. Mr. Pfeiffer responded that if it turned out that too much rain occurred during the proposed pilot period, .it could be extended. Regarding the fee, he said it would have to be determined later. Dependent upon how the equipment utilized worked and whether new equipment would be needed, about 50 cents per household per month was the average in some cities. Counci lmernber Levy thought the proposal was excellent and com- mended PASCO. He thought that over the years PASCO had done an excellent ,ob in cooperating with the City of. Palo Alto in many new endeavors of which this was the latest. Mayor Henderson agreed with Counci lrnertber Levy. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. PREVAILING WAGE RATE (CMR:537:1) Staff recommends that the Council change the City's existing policy requiring staff to adhere to the State of California pre- vailing wage rate. MOTION: Counci'member Klein moved, seconded by Henderson, approv- al of the fol lowing resolution: RESOLUTION 5981 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF T.HE CITY OF PALO ALTO ESTABLISHING .> POLICY REGARDING PREVAILING WAGES FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS" MOTION PASSER`:. unanimously, Fazzino. absent. RE i1EST; 'OF COUNC!LME lBLRS RENZEL AND BECHTEL THAT _ STAFF MONITOR Councilmernber• Pretzel said she agend1zed this because the County was in the process of beginning to implement its plan for the hillsides, and , some of the hillsides and how they were developed would _ affect Palo Alto. She thought it would be appropriate for. staff to monitor what was going on in the County to make sure it was in Palo Alto's best interests. She did not think it would be a major staff burden, but thought it may provide the City with 1 some important information which might be needed in the event the Council needed to comment. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, that Council direct City staff to monitor the implementation of the County General Plan and to advise the Council of issues requiring City comment 1 Councilmember Eyerly said he supported the motion, and asked staff for their understanding of the assignment and how they would be impacted. Mr. Zaner said he did not think it would be anything beyond what staff already did. He said staff watched what the County did, and that the County notified the City of their actions. He understood the assignment to mean that the Council wished to be _a little more closely advised as the information was available. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. COUNCILMEMBER BECHTEL RE CATV CONFERENCE REPORT ON HIGHLIGHTS Councilmember Bechtel said she accompanied Mr. Zaner to the League of California Cities' Conference on Cable Television. She said the session lasted for two days and was somewhat geared to cities that were more interested in franchises than Palo Alto. She said Council needed t.o consider that cable television was broader than just video and could include audio as well as data kinds of infor- mation, and that data could be localized much more than with , a broad network station. Further, a key thrust was "Cable TV is not a money tree." The cable industry was not a source of financing for the, City, and the Council must consider that as they looked into Cable TV during the next few months. Another statement, "It does not make sense to require programs the people won't watch,' was made made by an opponent of some of the public access kinds of programs, but there were other advocates who said that the chance for a city to provide programming which was unique and specialized for a particular area, and therefore,; had particular value for that area might not be appreciated by a general network and much wider population. She said that. 75% of the present cable systems served small cities and had only 12 channels. Further, cable companies felt they were lucky to get a 356 saturation ire major problem that many franchisers and cable con pani es had was in get- ting customers, which was also something to consider. Cable offered unique educational opportunities. Something the State of California was looking into was the idea of teleconferencing because California was a big state and quite a bit of money was being spent flying people in from far corners of the State to attend meetings. Currently, the State of California was spending $55,000 per day just moving people from one part of the State to another. With the use of cable as a communication tool, substan- tial savings could be had for, the State. She said it was an exciting conference, and that across the parking lot from the seminar was a display area for the manufacturers of many of the systems as 'well -as the programmers. Everyone from Showti me to HBO' to some of the more risque channels to a few of thearts and cul- tural `channels was. there. She thought the conference was useful and :thought there were many things to = be learned. CITY MANAGER ZANER RE DOWNTOWN PARKING_ MANAGEMENT __PLAN SCHEDULED Mr. Zaner .said - that' staff, included in the Council's packet::. a lengthy report on the Downtown Parking Management Plan. He hoped Councilmembers had an opportunity to read it, and that it was on the agenda- for next week.; ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:45 ,p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 1 5 3 9 12/14/81