HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-05-11 City Council Summary MinutesRegular Meeting
June 11, 1979
ITEMS PAGE
Minutes of April 30, 1979, May 7, 1979 and May 14, 1979 696
Oral Communications - Frank Manfredi, 219 Addison Avenue 697
Consent Calendar - Action Items 697
Criteria for Evaluating Exceptions to Ron -Conforming
Use Termination Provisions 697
Adoption of 1978 National Electric Code and Local
Amendments 697
Contract for Photogrammetric Services for the Refuse
Disposal Area 697
Caltrans Bicycle Locker Grant: Budget Amendment Ordinance 697
Adoption of 1976 Edition of Uniform Fire Code and
Local Amendments 698
Issuance of Encroachment Pernits 698
Sale of Surplus Property Adjacent to Matadero Canal --
Church of the Nazarene 698
Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommends Amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan 698
Public Hearing: University Avenue Area Assessments --Plan G:
Civic Center Parking Project 66-08, Parking Project 75-63 701
Public Hearing: California Avenue Area Parking Assessments --
Plan G: Cambridge Garage Project 65-09, Parking Project 71-63,
Offstreet Parking Maintenance District 702
Public Hearing: Application for Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity: Peninsula Cab Leasing Co., Inc. 702
Recess to Executive Session on Litigation 706
Planning Caaar$ ss ion Recs.: Amendments to Zoning Ordinance 706
Surplus School Sites: Recreational Needs Inventory, Financing
and Recommended Acquisitions 712
Amendment to P.A.M.C. 22.04.320 re Closing Hours for Parks 714
Request of Councilmember Eyerly re Southern Loop Bus Route 714
Request of Counc1lmember Eyerly re Emergency Parking Permits 715
Vice Mayor Henderson re Testimonial Resolution to Bill Green 716
Oral Communications and Adjournment
695
6111/79
716
June 11, 1979
Regular Meeting
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day at the City
Councilcharr rs, at 7:35 p.rn., Mayor Carey presiding.
PRESENT: Brenner, Carey,
Wi therspoon
ABSENT: Clay Sher
It S ,Q APRIL 0,,, „ 1�, 972,
Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson,
Councilmember Witherspoon asked that her name also be given as those
abstaining on a matter concerning Stanford University, on page 645.
Councilmember Henderson asked that on page 649 the first paragraph read
instead: "Vice Mayor Henderson noted that he shared anger with those
who observed that there was no gasoline shortage in such places as
Sacramento, Marin County, and south Santa Clara County, and that gasoline
was plentifully available for special events such as auto racing and
boating."
MOTIO4: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the
minutes be approved as corrected. The ration passed on a unanimous voice vote,
Councilrr bers Clay and Sher absent.
aLigLIZy. ,al
MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Brenner, that the
minutes of May 7 be approved as read. The motion passers on a unanimous
voice vote, Council bers Clay and Sher absent.
Councilmember Brenner asked that on page 665, the last sentence in the
third paragraph read instead: "There would be an increased cost to all
City consumers if the sale of cheap energy to new, large consumers,
increased."
Councilmerber Brenner asked that on page 670, the last sentence of the
second paragraph read instead: 'The Comprehensive Plan provided for
multi -family housing but only because that had been contemplated as
low/moderate housing, at that time."
Councilmember Brenner asked that on page 672, the second sentence read
instead: She said that though Stanford was a residential university,
it also owned an Industrial Park which will produce almost 2500 additional
employees in projects recently approved and not yet built."
Vice Mayor Henderson asked that on page 672. the fourth sentence of the
seventh paragraph read instead: "He had participated some years ago in
a discussion of Commercial/Service (CS) zoning) with Stanford. . . ."
Councilmember Fazzino asked that on page 672, the sixth paragraph, the
second sentence read instead, He thought the goals of ` sphere of
housing,' and housing, were worthy, and that Councifolid not wish to
take ataty Stanford's right."
r14
a 696
6/11/79
MOTION: Counci?member Fazzieo mrved, seconded by Carey, that Council
approve the minutes of May 14 as corrected. The motion passed on a
unanimous voice vote, Councilmembers Clay and Sher absent.
gal CUNFtu I CATIONS
I. Frank Manfredi, 219 Addison Avenue, said that fascism was
coming and in fact existed now in America in subtle forms: inflation,
Sirchisrn--without means to buy necessities there was "the freedom
to starve." He said American Socialism would correct the ills as
it would benefit the workers, not the rulers. He cited differences
between European socialism and what American socialism would be.
He said conditions at the present constituted "shamocracy.°"
I NSE CAA Aat
Councilmember Fazzino asked that the item relating to an ordinance
setting hours for parks closure be removed. The following items remained
on the consent calendar:
RITERIA FOR EVALUATING EXCEPTIONS
TEMTNITTIKalt(CMR:286:9)
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that Council approve the
"Compatibility Check List" to serve as criteria 4n evaluating each
exception application.
11
Staff recommends that Council approve the following ordinance for first
reading:
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.16
OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL (PAMC)
TO ADOPT THE 1978 EDITION 01 THE NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODE AND TO MAKE CHANGES THERETO
i
AREA (C1 :284:9)
Staff recommends that Council direct the Mayor to execute the agreient
with Hammon, Jensen, Wallen & Associates for the sum of $12,300 to
provide two contoured aerial photo raps and twenty detailed topographic
maps of the Refuse Disposal Area.
AGREEMENT --Haw n, Jensen, Wallen S Associates
CALTRANSBICYCLE LOCKER GRANT:
:289:9)
In March, 1979, CalTrans notified the City that passage of 581750 provides
final approval for bicycle locker grant funding; state money will be
allocated on a reimbursement basis, which requires that Palo Alto advance
the necessary $5000, to be repaid by the state. Staff recommends that
Council authorize this reimbursable expenditure by approving the following
budget amendment ordinance:
ORDINANCE 3122 entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE
OUNtirarTgr CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING
TNE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1978-79 TO
PROVIDE FIJI FOR A BICYCLE LOCKER PROJECT
IN PALO ALIT."
697
6/11/79
P F 9 EDITION
LOCAL AMENDMENTS (CMR:261:9)
Updating the fire prevention portion of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) permits the City to retain local amendments and conform to those
codes enforced by adjacent communities and also the state; and to complement
the 1976 editions of the uniform building, housing, plumbing and mechanical
codes. Adoption permits completion of automated "FIRES" system on time
without added expenditures at this time.
ORDINANCE 3123 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIC-UF PALO ALTO ADOPTING 1976 EDITION
OF THE UNIFORM FIRE. CODE AS AMENDED
(MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 15.00"
First reading May 21, 1979)
RESOLUTIONS 5692 OF THE ZOUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING FINDINGS FOR
LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE 1976 UNIFORM FIRE CODE.
��S GL �F EtiCROP�CHNDEN,� IT�S
The City Attorney recommends that, to assure sufficient flexibility for
administrative changes, Section 12.12.010 be amended to authorize the
City Manager or his designee to deal with encroachment permits, and that
Council approve the ordinance for first reading:
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 12.12.010
OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO ISSUE eNCROACHMENT PERMITS
SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
95:9)
Staff recommends approval of the sale of the 15' x 134.50' strip of
surplus land to the owner of the adjacent land, Church of the Nazarene,
by authorizing the Mayor to execute a quitclaim deed upon receipt of the
$4000 purchase price from the Church.
NOTION: Councilmeiter Eyerly moved, seconded by Henderson, that Council
authorize the Mayor to sign the agreements, and quitclaim deed, approve
the ordinances, and adopt the codes. The motion passed on a unanimous
vote, Councilors Clay and Sher absent.
Mayor Carey announced that if members of the public wished to speak on
the amendments in this public hearing they could so indicate to the City
Clerk. He said that the public hearing had been duly advertised, and he
declared it open.
Councilme uber Witherspoon asked if the word "multiple" would signify
townhouses or single-family residences; would the form "multiple" tcok
be dependent upon the proposed plans of a developer, with ten percent of
the proposed housing to be low- or moderate -income housing?
Easily Reuel, chairwoman of the Planning Commission, said she thought
that was correct.
698
6/ 11/79,
George C. McDonald, 2185 Park Boulevard, said he favored item b) regarding
change of land use designation of property at 2156-2111 Park Boulevard,
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Alma Philips, speaking for the League of Women Voters, said the League's
Palo Alto Chapter agreed with those who recommend adoption of the resolution
deleting the word "multiple" from Section 18, Housing Program, of the
Comprehensive Plan. She said the League's housing position supports
City efforts to encourage the private sector to be involved in development
of low- to moderate -income housing, and below market rate housing, for
they were one way to reach the goal of maintaining an economic range of
housing opportunities and to increase the proportion of housing available
for low- and moderate -income families.
Mayor Carey ascertained there were no more speakers from the public.
MOTION: Councilor Witherspoon introduced the fallowing ► esolution
and, seconded by Henderson, moved its adoption by Council:
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends the following amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan: a) Housing, page 13, program 18: delete
"multiple" so that program 18 reads as follows: "In new housing developments
of ten or more units, not less than ten percent of the units should be
provided at below -market -rates to moderate- and middle -income families.'"
b) Change the land use designation of the property at 2165-2211 Park
Boulevard from Regional/Community Commercial to Research/ Office Park.
i ESOLU11ON 5693 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO.'
Counc i lmember Witherspoon said that she favored retention of the word
"multiple`` in the Comprehensive Plan. She thought that, in view of
today's high housing demand and high costs, that a developer, if building
single family homes, would sell one of the homes at below market rate,
but that the buyer of that one hie mould resell at current high prices
quite soon. She therefore wanted housing to be built "multiple". She
favored item b), however, concerning change of land use designation on
Park Boulevard.
Vice Mayor Henderson said that the developer did not have to limit his
low- and moderate -income units to ten percent. He recalled an R-1
development near Gunn High School that had been very successful. "It
sus to me we could get the same kind of re -sale restraint on s i ngl e-
fami l y as we do on condomi n i uurm homes. . . . " lie thought that if development
took place on surplus school sites there was the possibility of providing
many R-1 units with some low- to moderate -income among them. When
people sold such units they would only receive a cost -of -living difference
in price --the Housing Corporation would make that kind of limitation.
Councilmenber Witherspoon said that the mirutes of this present meting
could indicate that Council intended that low- moderate- i ncome housing
have that re -sale price limitation.
Naphtaii Knox, Director of Planning and Community Environment, said that
Council had adopted a set of policies which operated to keep below
market -rate units in that classification; the major mechanism was that
right -of -first -refusal restriction was written into the deed, stating
that the owner or the owner's designees sell the unit to the City at its
original purchase price plus the cost -of -living increase over the period
in which the house was owned, plus recompense for improvements the owner
had made. That stipulation removed "windfall" possibilities, and cost -
of -living was progressing at a slower rate than casts of building and of
housing. That amide the below -market -rate housing less explipsive as time
rat on, relative to other units.
699
6/11/79
1
Mr. Knox continued. He said the program of low- to moderate -income
priced housing had started in April, 1973, through a statement of interim
hoesirtg policies. The first units, he recalled, had been built in an
area called "Foothill Green," near Georgia Avenue. Two lots in an
otherwise single-family area had been set aside for duplexes: the area
had been zoned Planned Community (PC) in order to accomplish that.
Mr. Knox pointed out that the resolution accompanying the motion ccntained
the appropriate environmental finding.
Corrected Coutei1menber Brenner said that in defining "multiple" the question was
See pg 14 raised of whether or not "multiple„ included R-2 in an application for a
(7/16/79) P -C condominium.
Mayor Carey said he too had been concerned if "weiltiple" included P -C or
duplex development. If "multiple„ applied to single family detached,
and those single family houses possibly to be priced at $300,000, would
a "moderately" priced house be something under $300,OOO? If so, was
there any true social benefit to be gained from obtaining right -of -
first -refusal?
1
Mr. Knox replied that, according to the program in the Comprehensive
Plan, which was the topic of discussion, resolution 5544 had been passed
which added the following text: "In some cases it will be desirable to
obtain fewer than ten percent of the units at a deeper discount. In
other cases payment to support the City's housing program for low- and
moderate -income persons may be made in lieu of providing units." That
addition put into the Comprehensive Plan what had been occurring in
practises in that the staff had been negotiating in -lieu payments with
developers. In San Antonio Village, Mr. Knox said, the City had obtained
three units of the 40 quite expensive units at a substantially lower
rate --fewer units, but in total dollars, the same amount of subsidy.
Mayor Carey observed that according to his understanding of the Comprehensive
Plan the flexibility the City had show on the San Antonio Village deal
was not indicated in the Courehens i ve Plan, where ten percent appeared
to be mandatory.
Mr. Knox pointed out that the word "should" left the matter discretionary.
Ali the developers so far had been willing to cooperate, he said.
Mayor Carey asked if Mr. Knox understood that the wording indicated that
ten percent low- to moderate- i norm: housing was net mandatory, and that
the wording retained flexibility to fit with current economics and also
afforded the possibility of tradeoffs.
Mr. Knox agreed that the wording gave him that understanding.
Mayor Carey said that with that assurance he wound support the motion.
Vice %e r Henderson said he thought the resolution should include the
amendment Mr. Knox had spoken of earlier. Program 18 should specifically
be worded to so state.
Mr. Knox said that reeal uti on 5544 had spoken to that concern.
MOTION TO AMEND: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Carey, that
the recommendations include the wording of resolution 5544 which had
been passed in May of 1978. The motion passed on a unanimous voice
vote, Councflm embers Clay and Sher absent.
MAIN MOTION 9a)AS AMENDED PASSED: The main motion, that housing, page
13, program 18, delete "multiple" so that Program 18 reads as follows:
"In new housing davelopments of 10 or more omits, not less than 10
percent of the units should be provided at below -market rates to moderate -
and middle -income families," as amended, passed a unanimous 'ote,
Councilmembers Sher and Clay absent.
iS
700
6111/79
MAIN MOTION 9b) PASSED: The Main motion, that land use designation he
changed for the property at 2165-2211 Park Boulevard from Regional/
Community Commercial to Research/Office Park, along with resolution
5693, passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmembers Clay and Sher absent.
'UBLIC HEARING: UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA
•
ING
M.rro.a: .;ys.... 83 :9)
Mayor Carey and :ouncil►rember Eyerly abstained from the matter because
both were property owners in the University Avenue Area.
Vice Mayor Henderson presided; He announced that it was the time and
place fixed for the public hearing, which had been duly noticed in the
Times Tribune, for the anneal assessment levies necessary for the payment
of principal and interest on bonds issued on University Avenue --Civic
Center parking project 66-08 and parking project 75-63. He said the
purpose of the hearing was to afford property owners the opportunity to
object to the mathematical computation of their assessments, and whether
or not the assessment formula had been correctly applied to his or her
property including the computation of building square footage, number of
private spaces provided and the computation of credits. Since the bonds
have already been issued, Council must levy the assessment, therefore
protests against the levy as such are not legally significant. He
declared the public hearing open.
Art Reschke, Engineering Department, said that a protest from lir. Rucker,
at 636 Waverley on parcel 120-16-022 had been received. Staff had
investigated and found that Mr. Rucker had paved 7 parking spaces
reducing his assessment to $8.24 on project 66-08; reduction to $6.87
took place on project 76-63. The owner at 431 Florence had also paved
parking spaces and had also received a reduction.
Vice Mayor Henderson ascertained there were no further speakers and he
returned the matter to Council.
Councilmember Fletcher asked how the reduction in revenue on the foregoing
parcels would be made up.
Mr. Reschke said that Cheryl Jensen of staff ...just pushes a couple of
buttons (on the computer) and reassesses all the property holders --
everybody else has a slight increase."
MOTION: Councilor Witherspoon introduced the following resolutions
and, seconded by Brenner, moved their approval including with the corrections
by Mr. Reschke, by Council:
RESOLUTION 5694 entitled "A RESOLUTION CO FIMING
E INEWS REPORT ANO ASSESSMENT ROLL -UNIVERSITY
AVENUE AREA CIVIC CENTER QFFSTREET PARKING
PROJECT 66-08."
RESOLUTION 5695 entitled "A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING
REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL --UNIVERSITY AVENUE
AREA OFFSTREET PARKING PROJECT 75-63."
The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Mayor Carey and Council'nber
Eyerly not participating; Councilmembers Clay and Sher absent.
Mayor Carey resumed the chair.
701
6/11/79
PUBLIC HEAPING: CALIFORNIA AVENUE
AREA FAFONG ASSESSRENts--PLAN G:
tmoracrtrummirretertr—
hiR :283:9)
Mayor Carey announced that it was the time and place fixed for the
public hearing which had been duly noticed in the Times Tribune, for the
annual assessment levies necessary for payment of principal and interest
on bonds issued on California Avenue Area and Cambridge Garage parking
project 65-09 and 71-63. He said the purpose of the hearing was to
afford property owners the opportunity to object to the mathematical i'
computation of the assessment and whether or not the assessment formula
had been correctly applied to his or her property including the computation
of building square footage, number of private spaces provided and the
computation of credits. Since the bonds have already been issued Council
must levy the assessment, therefore protests against the levy as such
are not legally significant. He declared the public hearing open. He
ascertained that there were no speakers from the public who wished to be
heard, and declared the public hearing closed.
Art Reschke, Engineering Department said his department had received no
protests.
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher introduced the following resolutions and
seconded by Henderson, moved, their adoption by Council:
RESOLUTION 5696 entitled "A RESOLUT ION
CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT
ROLL --CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET
PARKING PROJECT 65-09."
RESOLUTION 5697 entitled "A RESOLUTION
CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT
ROLL --CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET
PARKING PROJECT 71-63."
RESOLUTION 5698 entitled "A RESOLUTION
CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT
ROLL --CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET PARKING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT."
(New formula)
The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote, Councilmembers Clay and Sher absent.
Mayor Carey said that it was the tiare nd place to consider the issuance
of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for Peninsula Cab
Leasing Company, Incorporated. Notice of the public hearing had been
published in the Peninsula Times Tribune on June 1, 1979. Criteria for
the issuagce of a certificate of public convenience and necessity were
given in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 4.42.050, stipulating that
the applicant shall have the burden of proving to the Council 1) that
there was a public demand for additional service; 2) that the existing
service is inadequate; 3) that the applicant has sufficient financial
responsibility and experience to properly conduct such a business; 4)
that traffic conditions or hazards will not be appreciably increased, or
parking problems made *gorse.
702
6/11/79
Mayor Carey said the City staff had submitted a report which concluded
that there had been no significant change in the status of the matter
since Council had acted to revoke the certificate of the applicant in
February 6, 1979. Council had supporting data for re -application submitted
by Peninsula Cab Leasing Company, He said that the applicant would make
a statement at this time, if the applicant so desired.
Vince Maggiore, owner Peninsula Cab Leasing Company, replied that while
he was waiting for his attorney to arrive he would like to have his
drivers speak.
Mayor Carey pointed out that the public hearing had been opened and Mr.
Maggiore would rightfully speak at this time, and not at a later time.
Mr. Maggiore then identified himself, and said he had submitted an
x application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. He
said that in item 7 of his application he had stated that the present
holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity was not,
according to his response time, equipped to handle the business. Also
on May 15 the present operator (InterTrans) had increases his rates 20
percent over the rates asked by Peninsula Cab. Mr. Maggiore said that
competition would keep taxi fares "...within the reach of everyone." He
said that item B of his application said the present holder of the
certificate had kept people in Palo Alto waiting for over one hour
because he did not have sufficient cabs or operators. He said he himself
owned 20 percent of facilities located at 190 Calderone Avenue in Mountain
Viol. He had applied to the energy commission, he said, for permission
to fill storage tanks now in the ground at that location with 20,000
gallons of gasoline. He said that the company's insurance certificates
now on file were in amounts of $100,000, $300,000 and $100,000. He
stated that the company now holding a certificate in Palo Alto iiad also
applied for and received a certificate of public convenience and necessity
in Manlo Park. That other company had also applied for the certificate
in Mountain View. Mr. Maggiore said he did not mind competition. He
said he would give all-around good service at a 20 percent cheaper rate
than the other company. He said InterTrans, the other company, charged
$2.40 for the first basic rate for 2 blocks or one-fourth mile; In
Peninsula Cab, his company, the first basic rate was $1.20 to $1.40.
Reports from Project Mobility indicated the riders were charged an
average of $2.80 --his charges would be less. He noted that City staff
had begun monitoring his service after he had been in operation only
two and one-half months. There had been no letters of complaint, he
said. His drivers had given personalized service on a first -name basis
to many riders. He thought Palo Alto did itself an injustice in permitting
only one cab company. Mr. Maggiore asked that he be granted the privilege
of speaking later on, with Council's permission.
Thelma Wolffers, 904 Matadero Court, briefly related her history of
taxicab usage within the past ten years. She worked in Mountain View,
and using Peninsula Cab to return home from re cost her much less
than to take InterTrans to Mountain View f Palo Alto. She noted that
cabs in San Francisco were much less. She t ht that if Menlo Park
could support two cab companies, Palo Alto could as well. "Please,
please, reinstate the Peninsula Cab Company in Palo Alto and give me the
opportunity to choose whichever cab company I want to call. . . .M
Douglas Winslow, 117 Colorado seid he was employed at the SurgiCenter
in Palo Alto, where, following a call from one patient fora cab, after
surgery, he had had a one and one-half hour wait; another time there had
been a no-show. He had talked to people at the Palo Alto Medical Center
and at Lytton Gardens and learned that waits ranged from one-half hour
to two hours. He recalled that the Peninsula Cab had achieved a thirteen -
minute response time. He thought the complaints about the present service
were valid.
703
6/11179
Gordon Peters, 977 Commercial Avenue, president, InterTrans, said that
his cab company's response times had been averaged over four days at
less than 20 minutes for 80 percent of the calls. He gave other percentages,
saying they were not as good as he would like and they were trying to
improve the time. City staff had, however, agreed,upon review, that the
response times, under the circumstances, had been adequate. InterTrans
had ordered new vehicles January 17, 1979, but they had only been delivered
on that day, June 11. His.company had used buses, "...to get people out
of cabs and into more energy -efficient transportation." One bus
shuttled to the airport all day; four buses shuttled the Industrial
Park. In the past week InterTrans had spent over $60,000 on equipment,
which he thought demonstrated "...a substantial commitment to Palo
Alto." He asked if Palo Alto could support more than one cab company;
he projected a chart with figures that he thought showed Palo Alto could
support only one cab company. He cited "variable" costs of wages,
health benefits and the like, along with "fixed" costs such as insurance,
staff, rent, depreciation (with cabs to be written off in four years),
and the like, that totaled $179,000 per year. His company's target
figure of productivity, he said, was $10.50 per hour, and he showed how
his company, if it could not improve on that, would lose a substantial
sum of money in its first year of business --another company in operation
would lead to even greater loss. He gave some specific figures, now on
file at the Transportation Deprtment at City Hall, He asked if City
Council or economic reality should decide if there should be two cab
companies in Palo Alto.
Hugo Machel io, 4351 Miranda Avenue, said he worked for Peninsula Cab.
Though he had developed a clientele of older people in Palo Alto he had
had a hard time raking a living here since January. He got calls from
former passengers but he had to tell them he could no longer take them
because Peninsula didn't serve Palo Alto any more. People called him
because Peninsula Cab charged less. He asked that Council "...set us
come into Palo Alto and serve some of these people again."
J. R. Bertram, 151:0 Alameda, Redwood City, said he drove for Peninsula
Cab, He gave figures to show that cab drivers made a more adequate
living with Peninsula Cab. Drivers worked on a lease basis with earnings
of up to $10,000 per year.
Thelma Wolffers, 904 Matadero Court, observed further that she did not
think interTrans' figures justified its increased charges; she wondered
if Mr. Peters had presented the same set of figures to Menlo Park and
Muntain View.
Mayor Carey asked Mr. Maggiore if he wanted to speak additionally at
this time,
Mr. Maggiore observed that though Mr. Peters had said he would lose
money if Peninsula Cab were permitted into Palo Alto, Mr. Peters' company
had applied to be the end cab company in Mountain View. Mr. Maggiore
held that fir. Peters' figures "...were not quite correct," and if he
could not make honey his (Mr. Peters') operation of business should be
looked at.
After ascertaining that no one from the public wished to speak further,
Mayor Carey declared the public hearing closed.
Couicilmaaber Fazzitoo said he had felt some concern some months back
about discontinuing Peninsula Cab in view of its improved response time,
He thought now that InterTrans should be given more time to demonstrate
the adequacy or inadequacy of its service. He thought Palo Alto
was too limited a market area for more than one taxi service. He would
therefore vote against granting a certificate of public convenience to a
second cab company.
704
6/11;79
Mayor Carey said that the applicant had the burden of showing a number
of capabilities, one of them being financial responsibility. No new
information on increased financial responsibility had so far been listed.
MOTION: Mayor Carey moved, seconded by Henderson, that the application
of Peninsula Cab Leasing Company for a certificate of public convenience
and necessity be denied.
Counc11renober Fletcher noted that those speakers who had listed the
merits of Intertrans were somewhat wide of the mark, for the application
of the Peninsula Cab Company was the matter before them. The matter of
having more than one cab company in Palo Alto was still in committee -eft
would come before Council at a later time.
Counciimember Eyerly asked for staff comments on cab fares, flag drop
prices for certain distances, and the like, along with possible record
of complaints about the operation of the Peninsula Cab Company within
the Palo Alto City limits (without holding the certificate). He did not
know if Peninsula Cab's phone number had been removed from the current
directory.
James Zurcher, Chief of Police, said that three complaints had been
received about InterTrans since it began operation. Peninsula Cab had
allegedly been picking up passengers though the company was not certificated.
There had been no violations that the police department knew about
within the past five days. Service to Project Mobility currently was
satisfactory,
Roy Abrams, City Attorney, said the City made no attempt to regulate rates;
they were on the 'free-market' system.
Mayor Carey reminded Council that the issue was whether or not Peninsula
Cab was entitled to a certificate of public convenience and necessity,
Councilmemtor Brenner noted that four violations made in April by Peninsula
Cab were to be tried June 21 in Palo Alto Municipal Court --would the
decision made this evening change the decision of the court case?
Mayor Carey said her question was not relevant to the motion now before Council.
Mir. Abrams replied that Council's decision would not affect the court case.
Councilm en Brenner said that her support of the motion before them
was not intended to imply her support of exclusive use of the certificate
of public convenience and necessity.
Vice Mayor Henderson said his view regarding exclusive use was the same
as Councilmember Srenner's. He asked whether or not Peninsula Cab now
received telephone requests for stabs.
Chief Zurcher said a check of Peninsula Cab's former Palo Alto number
now gave the telephone number for Intertrans; that had been the case
within the last five days.
Mr Abrams said that whatever way Council decidedt staff would provide
information on financing and experience and other criteria required by the code.
NOTION PASSED: The uratioi(, that Council deny the application of Peninsula
Cab Leasing Company for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmembers Clay and Sher absent.
Councilmaber Eyerly asked i,hat a report be made to Council on average
response time and public response toward InterTrans.
705
6/11/79
Chief Zurcher said staff had intended to make such a report within one
year of full operation by InterTrans.
Mr. Eyerly said that after one year would be all right..
RECESt TO EX�Siii�'(i SESSION ON LITIGATION
Council recessed from 910 to 9:30 p.m. to discuss litigation in
Executive Session.
PLANNING C ISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Naphtali Knox, Director of Planning and Community Environment, said
Council had the transmittal from the Planning Commission before it along
with the minutes of the emoting of May 9. There were two staff reports
of June 7; the first was CMR:285:9. An attachment gave daylight plane
changes, and how to deal with those, in 17 pages. CMR:299:9 gave re-
phrasing of five words which appeared in seven different locations. Mr.
Knox asked that if Council moved the ordinance containing recommended
changes it also move the five -word change in those seven different
locations in the document: they were sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11
of the draft ordinance. The requested chanrc in wording would read
instead; "Sites abutting one or more sites in any R -E. . . etc."
Mr. Knox said he had transparencies to pictorialize how the daylight
plane restrictions worked, if Councilmenbers wished to see them.
Councilme rber Witherspoon noted exclusions in the RM-1 and P -C districts
did not mention solar panels.
Mr. Knox said that he recalled a discussion of possibly putting solar
panels on a crosspiece between two telephone poles the owner would erect
in order to get away from the daylight plane infringement.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked about the rationale used in deciding the
percentage of housing proposed for non-residential zones.
Emily Renzel, chairwoman of the Planning Commission, said that 50 percent
had been chosen originally and then fully 60 percent was chosen, so that
a large -enough area evu1d provide an incentive to developers to build on
non-residential zones -•-though the area could still be commercial.
Councilmember Witherspoon said sne would favor 50 or more percent going
into residential: She said it would be wise to state intent to record
the consolidation of property zoning with the county.
Ms. Renzel said the intent was that the change would be recorded with the
County Recorder's office. 'Zoning itself, she said, was not recorded,
though a subdivision could be recorded.
Mr. Knox said that the Planning Commission had met about the subdivision ordinance,
and had directed staff to make "merged -lot" provision the same in both
subdivision and zoning ordinances.
George Zimmerman, Planning Department, said that language in the third
paragraph on page 15 said "The Zoning Administrator shall cause of
merger to be recorded." The property could not be considered to have
merged until it was recorded, he said. The City would take the responsibility
for that recording.
706
6/11/79
Councilmember Witherspoon asked that the wording be made more clear
regarding the daylight plane. She suggested "Sites directly abutting."
A discussion ensued regarding the clarity of the language, and its
intent.
Mr. Knox said that information in brochures for the public was to be
written in laymen's language.
Councilmember Witherspcon said she wanted it to be clear that the words
did not apply to a site, for examples across the street. She suggested
wording such as "...share the same property liner
Mayor Carey thought the matter would become more clear through discussion
of subsequent items on the matter.
Councilmember Eyerly asked if a limitation on height for commercial
buildings would confirm the daylight plane. How was that measurement
arrived at? He had thought 39 feet would be needed, rather than 35, with
a conventional three -storey module -constructed commercial building.
Mr. Knox replied that 35 feet was the height limit in all but RM-4 and
RM-5 residential zones where there was a 50 -foot height limit. A 50 -
foot height limit was applied in a Community/Commercial zone. Where a
commercial zone abutted residential zoning, the commercial could be no
higher than the abutting residential zone. The 35 -foot limit applied to
commercial when it was within 150 feet of residential districts. With
the suggested change the height could reach 50 feet where the Community/Commercial
zone, i.e., RM-4, Rig! -5, already had a 50 -foot height limit. Builders'
plans would dictate height a few feet one way or another. Probably a
three-story building would not be within the 35 -foot height limit if the
builder started from the ground up.
Vice Mayor Henderson requested that the Planning Commission record of
votes identify the names of those who voted both 'aye' and 'no.'
Ms. Renzel said Commissioner Xeneke had voted 'no' on one issue; Commissioners
Heneke and Mitchell had voted 'no` on the 60 percent residential rate.
Mr. Knox said that the City Attorney had provided alternate language on
items 5-11; it would be "Sites sharing any lot line with one or
more sites. . . ."
George Remsberyr 305 Lytton Avenue, Hare Brewer & Kelley, spoke about
the daylight plane and also height limitation: to achieve a clear span
for constructing an office building 35 feet height limit was very difficult
to work with. He thought the 60 percent requirement would conduce to
larger units and they i' uld require more than 35 feet height. He thought
that in order to achieve more and smaller units with a desirable ameunt
of open space more flexibility was needed. He observed that nothing in
the staff, report mandated a different use from commercial as opposed to
residential --both, he thought, were entitled to the benefits of the
daylight plane.
Norman Rees, Western Energy, 114 Rirtcorada Avenue, said that daylight
plan requirements made solar business in Palo Alto more difficult,
louse with typical retrof i t hous i ng shading forced solar installations
into having a solar collector array in the side yard, to avoid hazards
from children playing in the back yard. The resulting variance problem
required time and money (with fees -up to $75.00) and effort, if there is
a commitment to solar use. He exhibited some photographs showing some
solutions to difficult solar installation. He asked, however, that the
process of installing solar be made less expensive and permit more
flexibility. He asked that Council demonstrate that it valued the
contribution that solar installations would make for the City. So far
as the daylight plane was concerned, rooftop installations did not shade
neighbors, but instead shed the roof of householder.
707
6/11/79
Councilmember Fletcher asked if daylight plane restrictions were intended
to provide shade, as Mr. Rees' last comment indicated. .
Mr. Rees said that whether or not shade was given the variance procesi
still had to be undertaken. He urged equilibrium between daylight plane
requirements and householders' wishes to have solar installation.
Tad Cody, 212 High Street, said that as the daylight plane was written•
it was basically a variance ordinance. He thought so many bodies had
worked with the daylight plane that its original intent had been distorted.
The ordinance did not recognize the matter of orientation (toward the
sun which was needed for solar). He said its application outside the
residential zones was quite unsatisfactory, and did not reflect the need
for transition between zones. He thought the idea of daylight plane had
to be either reconsidered or dropped entirely. He continued. He said
the 60 percent figure did not take into account what the market needs
might be, and he thought the idea of specified percentages should be
dropped. He spoke of the lot -size restrictions on sub -standard lot
sizes and asked that more leeway be granted the owner/builder. By
withholding the leeway to build on substandard lots the Council was not
upholding its wish to increase housing stock in Palo Alto. He said "So
I would suggest that you remove the entire concept of removing underlying
lot lines. . .s'
Mayor Carey asked if Mr. Cody thcughf a 5O -foot maximum height limit
should be imposed.
Mr. Cody rEp1ied that he thought restrictions in general should be
eliminated, because restrictions constituted a major cost in housing
everywhere.
Mayor Carey said that the 6O foot height was an attempt to afford additional
housing by permitting building above 35 feet --he thought it removed a
restriction, rather than being in itself a restriction,
Mr. Cody said that the specifying of restrictions made building very
difficult --just the restrictions, irrespective of the content of the
restrictions, added difficulties.
Svend Kaufmann Hansen, 422 Cambridge Avenue, said that a hard liquor
license was sold currently for about $50,000, a beer -wine license sold
for $482.00. He thought those figures made his point clear.
MOTION: Councilmember Brenner introduced the following ordinance
incorporating the Planning Commission recommendations regarding amendments
to the zoning ordinance, and, seconded by Witherspoon, moved its approval
by Council for first reading:
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS
OF TITLE 18 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
A NT: Counc i lmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Henderson, that
sections 5 through 11 of the toning ordinance be amended by deleting the
word "abutting" in the first sentence of each subsection, and replacing
it with "sharing any lot line with one or more sites in." The amendment
passed on a unanimous voice vote, Gounc i ln rers Clay and Sher absent.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Brenner, that
the present R-2 zone be designated instead as R -1-G.
708
0/11/79
Councilmember Witherspoon explained that "G" was a letter not yet in use
in zoning, and it could stand for "guest cottage" or "garden cottage."
That would be the zone where there could be two units under one ownership.
Mr. Knox said several hundred places in the ordinance would have to be
amended if the amendment were passed, and cross reference would be
needed. He thought that would be more confusing than to hold the R-2
designation. R-2 had permitted 21 units per acre, and it was permitted
only in Palo Alto. He thought it was standard language for two units per
lot. The only distinction was that it now meant two.units under one
ownership. He recommended keeping R-2 designation.
Vice Mayor Henderson said he favored retaining the R-2 designation
rather than having to re -write the zoning ordinance again.
Councilmember Brenner said that the amendment had been proposed because
the public consistently seemed to misunderstand the meaning of R-2.
AMENDMENT FAILED: The motion to amend, proposing that R-2 be called
R -1-.G instead, failed on the following vote:
AYES: Brenner, Fazzino, Witherspoon
NOES: Carey, Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson
ABSENT: Clay, Sher
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Carey, that sections
2, 3, and 4 of the zoning ordinance give the height limitation of 39
feet rather than the present 35 feet.
Councilmember Eyerly s.1d that 39 feet would be needed if three storeys
were to be permitted.
Commissioner Renzel said that the 35 -foot height had been taken from the
former zoning ordinance and had been transferred to the new zoning
ordinance with the idea that the height limitation would not intensify
uses formerly permitted.
Mayor Carey said he did not think it would intensify. He asked if the
present conventional ceiling height was seven and one-half feet floor to
ceiling.
Mr, Knox said that building code set the ceiling height at e'ght feet...
on building height the zoning ordinance had heights of 25 feet, 35 feet
and 50 feet, and those heights were standard throughout the ordinance.
rouncilmeerber Eyerly said he was concerned with the height given in
sections 3, 4, and 5 for buildings. His amendment intended that three
floors of commercial building could occur, and more height was needed to
place air conditioning and wiring and the like between floors. His
motion was limited to the proposed changes in the zoning ordinance
before Council that evening.
Mayor Carey said that perhaps it would be best to not state height but
to say instead "..,but not to exceed three floors." He thought the
addition of a few extra feet would permit construction of a more quality
building. He did not think that would lead to intensification of use.
He thought the amendment could state "...39 feet but no more than three
floors."
Councilmember Eyerly said that was the intent of his motion --he would
incorporate that phrase.
709
6/11/79
Mr. Knox said he did not wish to be argumentative but much time had been
spent getting rid of terms such as 'storey' and 'floor.' The terms were
difficult to define, and had a complicating effect. He suggested referring
the question of the 35 -foot height limitation back to the Planning
Commission. Also, changing that 35 -foot limit required changes throughout
the zoning ordinance. It was an administrative burden.
Councilmember Eyerly said he did not think Mr. Knox had done his homework
at the staff and Planning Commission levels. He thought Mr. Knox
should have expressed his thoughts to the Commissioners before --he did
not think the matter should have to be debated at Council level. Councilmember
Eyerly said he was ready to go ahead with what Mr. Knox had presented to
Council that evening.
Vice Mayor Henderson said that he was concerned that the raising of the
35 feet to 39 feet would tend toward breaking through the Citywide hight
limit. He would not favor the change.
Councilor Brenner said she agreed with staff; 'floor' was not a
clear enough term. She recalled one point where a nine -storey building
was some 200 feet higb--thus showing the fallacy of describing the
height of a building by the number of storeys.. She thought much thought
had been given to using heights instead of numbers of storeys.
Councilmember Fletcher said the change to storeys was not inconsequential --
she thought the latter should return to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Carey deplored the adherence shown to such "sacrosanct" numbers as
"35 feet" or "50 feet.' He thought that the practical needs of constructing
a building should dictate heights.
Councilmember Brenner noted that the desired height could be attained by
a bolder who added 60 percent housing.
AMENDMENT FAILED: The proposed statement that in sections 3, 4, and 5 be
amended re limited height to ".,.39 feet but no more than three floors,"
failed on the following vote:
AYES: Eyerly, Carey
NOES: Brenner, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Witherspoon
ABSENT: Clay, Sher
ANENO WT: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Carey, that the
matter of the increase to 39 feet of the 35 -foot height limit be referred
to the Planning Commission for study in all zones now limited by the 35 -
foot height limit.
Vice Mayor Henderson said that though he had suggested referral to the
Planning Commission he personally was opposed to any increase in height limit.
AtEN MT FAILED: The amendment failed on the following vote:
AYES: Carey, Eyerly, Witherspoon
NOES: Brenner, Fazzino, Fletcher„ Henderson
ABSENT: Clay, Sher
AMENDMENT: Counc i 1 amber Eyerly moved that in Section 14 the required
60 percent residential be changed to 50 parcel.
7'1 0
6/11/79
Councilmember Eyerly explained that if, in a four storey buildiug, in
order to attain 60 percent housing, three floors had to be devoted to
residential, he was opposed.
The motion failed for lack of a second. '
Mayor Carey said that he agreed with Tad Cody, an earlier speaker,
regarding the merging of lots as mentioned in section 22. He, himself,
had favored permitting building on so-called substandard lots where
there was no neighborhood opposition. By not permitting use of such
lots for building the potential for additional housing was eliminated.
People who had such lots at the back of their lots had counted on building
a rental unit to help economically in their retirement years. Such
people had not been notified that their "extra lot" had become merged
with the outside lot line measurements. Mayor Carey said he did not
think the City should merge substandard contiguous lots under the same
ownership in order to tidy up for the new general zoning ordinance. He
thought such tidying up was detrimental to human wishes inherent in the
ownership of such lots.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Carey moved, seconded by Eyerly, that section 18.88.050(c)
be eliminated, so that automatic merger of substandard lots by reason of
common ownership, is eliminated.
Vice Mayor Henderson asked if a variance was needed to build on a substandard lot.
Mr. Knox replied that variances were almost always needed in order to
build anything on substandard lots.
Corrected Vice Mayor Henderson said that the requirement for a variance gave him
See pg. 14 the protection of knowing that buildings not in concordance with the
(7/16/79) neighborhood could not be built, so long as there were no protest from
neighbors.
Commissioner Renzel said that the lot merger idea had been passed as
part of the original zoning ordinance in response to a requirement o°i
the state subdivision map act. The requirement of the state subdivision
map act has since been rescinded, she said. However, the Planning
Commission had felt that grossly substandard lots, such as 25 -foot
widths, should not be built upon. For that reason the 20 percent figure
written into section 3 of section 22 had been inserted and it permitted
"almost standard lots" to remain unmerged.
A discussion ensued on various lot sizes subject to the 20 percent
figure Ms. Renzel had alluded to --it was concluded that the 20 percent
applied only to existing lots, not those to be subdivided in the future,
and the merger would not occur unless the merger would correct the
deficiency --that constituted another protection for owners of such lots.
Fir. Knox said a recent study had disclosed that there were about 200
substandard lots; about 100 might be merged when the 20 percent rule .as
applied. Council would be told the number.
Mayor Carey confided that he foresaw unhappiness on the part of owners
when they learned of the mergers, and Council would soon hear about it.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked if property owners should not be notified.
Roy Abrams, City Attorney, said that the zoning amendments proposed that
evening had been advertised; also, the ordinance had within it a hearing
procedure to give each owner of such a lot an opportunity to be heard if
the lot were merged.
lit
6/11/79
Vice Mayor Henderson said he thought the questions were too complex to
go beyond what had been thought through and proposed by staff for that
evening's deliberations.. He observed that there was'to be a second
reading of the proposed ordinance; he ascertained that the information
on the lots to be merged would be given to Council before the second
reading.
AMENDMENT FAILED:- The amendment that section 18.88.050(c) be eliminated
so that automatic merger of substandard lots by reason of common ownership
is eliminated, failed on the fol lowiug vote:
AYES: Carey, Eyerly.
NOES: :.:•enner, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Witherspoon
ABSENT: Clay, Sher
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED MASSED: The motion that the ordinance incorporating
the Planning Commission recommendations along with amendments, and the
ordinance, passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmembers Clay and Sher
absent.
�. aP c . r r
NEEDS INY ; + ►,. ' }
DES AG��3Iail'Itlt :288:9)
Counciimember Eyerly said he had been talking to the president of the
school board and had learned that the school board was studying school
sites that were to by discontinued on which a report was still due. The
School board would make no decisions until it had that report. Also
the district awaited clarification from the state as to proper use of
money derived from the sale of capital irpr°ovements. For those reasons
he thought it would be premature for Council to act on information
contained in the staff report, CMR:288:9.
MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council
refer the staff report on surplus school sites to the Finance and Public
Works Committee, and also assign to the City/school liaison committee
representatives the duty of placing the topic on the agenda of that
group.
Mayor Carey said he would call on the public, and he asked that they
confine their counts to the motion on the floor, which is to refer the
question of surplus school sites to the Finance and Public Works Committee.
When • the matter returned to Council from the Committee members of the
public would have another opportunity to discuss i t .
Steve Mylroie, 415 Fernando Avenue, said he had no comment on the motion.
Joseph Hirsch, 4149 Georgia, said he had waited over three and one-half
hours to cent to Council on the staff report. He thought it a crime
to defer the matter of surplus school sites any longer because the Palo
Alto Unified School District had been waiting nearly a year for some
indication from the City of interest in the surplus school sites.
Citizens had an interest in it. -he thought it should be discussed that
evening.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme, said he had been prepared to speak to the substance
of the staff report. Since the motion included'the ratter of financing
he would like to discuss finances.
° M yor Carey ruled that discussion of finances would not be pertinent to
the motion to refer.
712
6/11/79
Mr. Moss said he did not support the motion to refer as worded; he
preferred that Council recommend, along with referral of the matter,
that the Committee do something specific, such as take action to purchase
school sites.
Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura, asked that the matter of surplus school
sites not be referred to committee; "Council tes been avoiding this long
enough." She thought Council should show specific interest in what
happened to particular school sites. She said the City was mandated, by
the Comprehensive Plan, to provide open space and park space. The
Ventura school site had been designated as most suitable for park space,
she said.
Mayor Carey asked if Ms. Petrosian or others knew of any timeconstraints
that would make referral to committee a poor idea; was there anything
the City would miss out on if the matter went to committee?
Ms. Petrosian said that the Pacific School of Clinical Psychology, now
located on Cl Camino, had approached the school district about the
po'sibility of taking a master lease on the Ventura site, and the school
di -rict had told Pacific School it would wait until it saw what the
City Council die.
Councilmember Fletcher said she thought that the information now being
gathered by the school district could be transmitted at the staff level
to both the Finance and Public Works and City/school liaison committees;
they could meet and discuss the matter, but not concurrently,
Councilmember Fazzino said he thought the City/School liaison committee
should have discussed the matter four months ago, but also it should go
to the Finance and Public Works Committee. He would urge referral to
both bodies.
Vice Mayor Henderson said he thought that Council's motion to refer
would show the school board that the City was interested. He understood
that the School board would not put any site up for sale within the next
year, except possibly the Terrnan site. He needed to review proposals of
the Jewish Community Center, the Housing Corporation, and the City
before he could speak to the issue. He thought City/School liaison
committee should meet more often and give the results of its thinking to
the Finance and Public Works Committee. The City/School liaison committee
had the staff report that Councilrrembers had.
Councilm er Brenner said the Finance and Public Works Committee could
discuss parts of the staff report, such as the Ventura site, or other
parts --it was a good staff report.
Councilmember Witherspoon said she thought it would be good for the
Finance and Public Works Committee to give the public and Councilmembers
some idea of the focus the discussion would take. Many would want to
speak before both the City/school liaison committee and the Finance and
Public Worke Committee.
Councilmember E,yeriy said that he thought his motion confirmed that
Council was interested in some of the school property. And he thought
Council should tell the City/school liaison committee to keep the matter
alive and see if the school district had something to offer. He reminded
hers of the public that the City had the right of first refusal on
all school property, so the property would not get away. He thought it
would be unwise to act prematurely and so he favored sending the matter
to committee. Perhaps some -parts of the staff report could be discussed
in particular. He said he was distressed that one document in the staff
report called the 1969 Parks and Recreation Policy Study, had not been
presented to Council, and he wanted a copy to go to each Counicilmenber,
for it gave parameters Counciimembers and Council as a thole should
address itself to when talking about park and recreational matters.
713
6/11/79
,;y
George Sipel, City Manager, said that in talking uith school administration
he had learned -of no problem that could not withstand a possible one -
or two -month delay; the important thing was to take some action within
the next fiscal year in which money went into the hands of the school
district.
1
Councilmember Fazzino said he thought the appropriate place for the
discussion was at the City/school liaison committee level.
Vice Mayor Henderson noted that the staff report had been worked out
with the school --he did not know what a further meeting with City/school
liaison could result in.
Counciimether Fazzino said the City/liaison committee had been set up to .
develop a relationship between the City and the school district. He
thought the express purpose of that committee was to discuss the matter
now before them for referral. He did not like to have the liaison committee
overlooked for it had been appointed to fill this role.
Mayor Carey stated the motion would be divided.
PART ONE OF MOTION PASSED: The motion to refer the report regarding
surplus school sites to the Finance and Public Works Committee passed on
a unanimous vote, Counciimembers Clay and Sher ahsent.
PART TWO OF MOTION PASSED: The second part of the motion, that Council
also refer the report regarding surplus school sites to the City/School
liaison committee passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmembers Clay and Sher absent.
ENYE IT TO P.A.M.C. 22.04.320
Councilmember Fazzino said he had removed the proposed ordinance from
the consent calendar to ask a question. He thought the proposed ordinance
closing parks between 12 midnight and sunrise was a good idea. He
ascertained that violation of the closing hours was a misdemeanor. He
asked what some of the problems connected with parks were, and how
police officers dealt with tom,
Captain Jack Garner, Police Department, said there were problems with
people sleeping in Cogswell Plaza and Timothy Hopkins rark, along San
Francisquito creek. Some of the people from Cogswell Plaza had set up
communal places along the creek; also, unrelated to that, one of the
woman oleo had been sleeping at the creek had been raped. He said the
new regulation concerning hours would not take away from those who
wished to use parks for legitimate reasons.
MOTION: Councilmember fazzino introduced the following ordinance and,
seconded by Fletcher, moved its approval by Counc i l for first reading:
ORDINANCE Of THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 22.04.320
OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO CLOSING HOLDS FOR PARKS
The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote, Council rs Clay and
Sher absent.
Councilmember Eyerly said he thought it would be wise to bring pressure
on the County for the proposed new buses for Palo Alto; he thought the
southern, rather than the northern. bus loop should be top priority.
7I4.
6/11/79
because it would take care of student► who formerly attended Cubberley
and transport them to Gunn high school, along with serving the industrial
park in the south part of Palo Alto. He suggested asking the county how
the county set its priorities so far as rolling stock and for what bus
routes. Counciimember Eyerly said he thought there sho!IId be more
contact with Gerry Steinberg, supervisor for the north part of the county.
The City had been told that if the proposed light -rail did not go forward
in San Jose, Palo Alto would have more than its share of transit.
Councilmember Eyerly said he would like to see that happen.
MOTION: Councilor Eyerly moved, seconded by Brenner, that the City
contact the Transit Board to ask for a priority system to be established
and that in Palo Alto top priority be given to the Southern Loop Bus
Route; that Palo Alto have direct discussion, through our liaison person,
with Gerry Steinberg to gain her support for this type of system.
Counciinseuber Fletcher said the Transit Board had a priority listing on
an implementation schedule; the schedule was usually quite far behind
she said. She explained the express route schedule, implemented during
the period of extreme commute congestion, covered Palo Alto to San Jose
and also Palo Alto to Milpitas. Bus 22 ran every 10 minutes on El Camino,
ann those were 'definite improvements for Palo Alto. She thought it
would be good to instruct staff to s srk with the Transit Board staff in
trying for an advantageous place on the Transit Board priorities list.
Present routes were integrated, and it was not unlikely that emphasizing
one loop might reduce service to another part, and there was risk of
cutting off a needed service elsewhere. This was the best time to begin
work on setting up a southern loop, however.
Councilmember Brenner agreed that Palo Alto needs had to be pushed, for
the county had indicated there would be expanded service in the central
part, rather than here in the northern part of the county.
Councilmember Eyerly said he had learned from Mr. Noguchi, Transportation
Director, that any request for a new loop would not change existing
loops, and so a new route would not disturb those now in operation.
I bTH* PASSED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmembers
Clay and Sher absent.
Councilaember Eyerly said that a letter to Council stated Stanford
Plumbing's distress with the situation regarding emergency parking. Mr,
Eyerly said he had replied that a change mats possible in view of the
fact that plumbing situations could be crucial, and it was difficult for
the plumber to apply for a special permit to park when servicing a
plumbing meergeecy.
MOTION: Couuncilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Fletcher, that staff
be directed to prepare an ordinance to provide for issuance of en annual
permit (emergency type) for use by service companies in restricted
parking areas, with the fee to be set by staff.
Councilmember Eyerly said that the permit could be displayed in the
windshield during emergencies —parking enforcement people could check to
make sure the permit was not being abused.
Vice Mayor Henderson said he wanted to be sure the permit was not to be
used for other than Emergency parking.
Mayor Carey said he had seen the problem --he would support the motion.
715
6/11/79
Councilmember Brenner reviewed the parking permit fees and said she
thought the present ordinance was "...about as good as we can get." She
did not want to favor one class o'r operators over others.
MOTION PASSED: The motion that staff be directed to prepare an ordinance
to provide for an annual permit (emergency type) for use by service
companies in restricted parking areas, with fees to be set by staff,
passed on the following vote:
AYES: Carey, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson
NOES: Brenner, Witherspoon
ABSENT: Clay, Sher
yICI :Y ;�.. Rf
VEST
Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council direct
staff to prepare a resolution congratulating Bill Greens student at
Cubberley High School, for his achievements in sports during the past
academic year. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote, Councilmerbers
Clay and Sher absent.
1. Steve Mylroie, 415 Fernando Avenue, r'ev;ewed the traffic light
difficulties for crossing El Camino; the problem would be heightened
for students who, because of the closing of Ventura School, would
be crossing et that point to get to Barron Park School. He said
that either crossing guards or another traffic light were needed at
that intersection.
ahlatafta
NOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson saved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council
adjourn its meeting of June 11, 1979. The motion passed on a unanimous
voice vote.
Council adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVE:
716
6!11/79