Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-09-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY cour1c1L MIPIUTES Regular Meet September 17, ITEM Minutes of August 6, 1979 Oral Communications 1979 Consent Calendar - Referral Items Stop Sign System Updating - Referral to Policy and Procedures Committee Consent Calendar - Action Items Resolution Providing Authority to the City ilanager to Effect Certain Changes in Gas Utility Rates Stanford Industrial Park/California Pve;iue Southern Pacific Depot Shuttle Associated Bay Area Government (ADAG) Area Wide Housing Opportunity Plan 1870 Embarcadero Road - Application for Site and Design Review by Ellis and Leona Harvey 4339 El Camino Real - Application for Final Parcel Map by Paul E. Nowack and Associates 220 Miramonte Avenue - Appeal from Decision to Deny a Variance by Calvin and Shirley L. Radl Planning Commission Recommends re Revised Criteria for Evaluating Exceptions to Nonconforming Use Termination Provisions Public Tearing: Conflict of Interest Guidelines for Designated Employees Policy and Procedures Committee Recommends re Role of Human Relations Committee (HRC) Staff Liaison Policy and Procedures Committee Recommends re Leaves 01 Awsence_ of Aopointeo Board or Commission ors Policy and Procedures Committee Recommends re City -Ride Neigh Traffic Study Plan 1102-1143 Stanford Avenue Application for Preliminary iaheiiivi1e4nn ran *row rraa411,A tiaosw:. — — — a.........,. s � rve. a-..rx - =rte-- Wit *it •+G.__ivaiirv !ii1 din Arvtonio Ro*d .. ApP11c!t1on fen Site i��"!•bW +bill ice- Site ilSi Review by John taw Recess and Executive Session a wiA ilea i na. *lino v4+ i ri Palo Alto Airport Improvements - Application for Site and Design Review by Santa Clara County Transportation AgencY Request of Mpor,Henderson re Energy Conservation Month Palo Alto Airport Improvements Adjourn to September 24 1919 1 4.5 17%7°1 arsi p,io ALTO PAGE 146 1 4 6 1 4 6 1 4 7 147 14' 147 147 148 148 148 148 148 150 1 151 156 157 I 5 7 I 6 4 I 6 5 1-6 8 1 Regular Meeting September 17, 1979 1 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in the Councilchamber of City Hall at 7:45 p.m., Mayor Henderson presiding. PRESENT: Brenner, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Sher ABSENT: Witherspoon Mayor Henderson said that Councilmember Witherspoon was still i11 --he was sorry to report that the doctor had said she might not be able to return to Council until October. Mayor Henderson announced that Council would hold an executive session sometime during the evening. MiJUTES OF AUGUST 6 Mayor Henderson asked that the last sentence of the seventh paragraph of page 61 read instead: The City had not been active in removing weeds unless they were the kind that generated seeds that could blow on other people's properties. Mayor Henderson asked that on page 68, the second paragraph read instead: Mayor Henderson said that former Councilmember and Mayor, Ed Arnold, had telephoned and asked that Mayor Henderson pass on his message, i.e., was there a compelling need for nine CouncilmeMbers, which would be the case only if assignments could not be covered. He did not think Councilmembers should specialize to the degree that they would not be accessible to all citizens. He favored reduction to seven members. MOTION: Councilmember Pletcher moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council approve the minutes of August 6 as corrected. The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Witherspoon absent. taisjati ir S None Mayor Henderson rear ted that at the Inter -City Council meeting of last week a newsperson had commented that Palo Alto Councilors received the oast thorough and coeplete staff reports of any other cities it the county. s Virg-f*Yer char a.i.ked t..�t the 1♦ ,me-- i g Pl nn _. .�__`a__:_ ». _ F3.' '�..'�2 �3i�_�r�r-az:r: Fev e=.e_.ni :'= �- l��.._ `-'---nr'..:�—����:��£?Ai:3 ARB review of a proposed greenhouse to be constructed by World Resources at the Palo A to Regional Water Quality Control Plant, be removed from the consent calendar. Councilmember Renzel asked that the matter concerning an application for... Site and Design Revivw of a fence at the golf course be rived from the consent calendar. Councilmember Fazzino asked that his vote be recorded as abstaining on the matter concerning the shuttle service for Industrial Park, since his Moyer, Hewlett-Packard, was involved. The following matters react i ned on the Consent Calendar: 146 9/17/79 Referral Items STOP SIGH SYSTEM UPDA1'ING-- REFERRA } POL ►' TWEDURE5 Cf LII (CMR:414:9) or ear ng Staff recommends that the Policy and Procedures Committee consider and recommend to Council that it approve the following resolution, 1) to permit implantation of additions and/or modifications as reflected on Exhibit B; 2) authorize the appropriate revisions to existing "Stop Intersection System" map identified as Exhibit A; 3) find that passage of the resolution has no adverse environmental impact. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING RESOLUTION 4291 CHANGING THE CITYWIDE STOP INTERSECTION SYSTEM AND MAP Action Items Staff recommends that Council adopt the following resolution authorizing the City Manager to adjust gas rates as required, to recover wholesale "tracking" increases made by PGSE. These adjustments shall be limited to a maximum increase of 35 percent over gas rates effective May 17, 1979. RESOLUTION 5735 entitled "RESOLUTION CF THE COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO EFFECT CERTAIN CHANGES IN GAS UTILITY RATES (SCHEDULE G-1) (AMENDING RESOLUTION 5682)" In meetings with Peter Giles of the Santa Clara County Manufacturers' Group and representatives of the Stanford Industrial Park Transportation Advisory Committee it was agreed that $3,150 in residual funds remaining from the earlier demonstration project would be expended on a two -month extension of the shuttle service to help reduce the need to use Hewlett- Packard "transportation mitigation measure" funds for the shuttle. Because of this action it is now estimated that only $7,000 will be needed fro Hewlett-Packard transportation mitigation funds for the two month extension of the shuttle. R eiflC'r us _ i 9 r n� r �n rr�-; r_ Agreement with �Intertrans Corporation :420:9) Starr recojimends that Council adopt the fol l owl ng resolution to be forwarded to ABW.G. RESOLUTION 5736 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL t THE CITY OF PALO ALTO SUPPORTING THE AREA WIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY PLAN." 147 9/17/79 OA APP FAR SITE AND '_ .GN REVIEW The Planning Commission, by unanimous vote, and the Architectural Review Board, by a unanimous vote, recommend approval of the application of Ellis and Leona Harvey for Site and Design Review for property located at 1870 Embarcadero Road. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the application of Paul E. Nowack and Associates for a Final Parcel Map for property located at 4339 El Camino Real. T r The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the appeal of Calvin and Shirley L. Rath from the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny a variance at 220 Miramonte Avenue. (CR:406:9) The Planning Commission unanimously recommends re revised criteria for evaluating exceptions to nonconforming use termination provisions, and re,:ommends that Council approve the Compatibility Check List revised August 15, 1979, to serve as criteria for evaluating exception applications under Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.94.Oi0(c). MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Eyerly, that Council approve the recommendations and adopt the resolutions. The .motion passed on a unanimous vote, Councilm er Fazzino abstaining on the matter concerning the industrial Park transportation shuttle, and Councilor Witherspoon absent. parse Henderson anourced tauet it €€as the time and place set for a public hearing on the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated Employees of the Cit,, of Palo Alw. The tie', said, is -_---_ - . of _�:a..__- limo � the Political.. efO m Act 1914. That code is toot appiicable to the City Council nor the City Manager sine those officials are already covered by the specific requirements set forth in State law. Mayor Henderson asked that the record show that notice of the hearing had been given in the time, manner and fors provided for in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and notice gaga . wul s;iia-i i� i.riw. rr►e aYi�il�� Tiffi�-T�i�rtisiaad-e�ea �.�.gi av� � - iti'3i� _ if.. -- _— _—_�.____ ____.. _ �_.-,.�-.., ...,. ..r..et r.. vvy�..w..rwe �} 1 �/ .7. He declared the hearing open. Herb Borock, 3401 Ross Road, said he was pleased that there was a Conflict of Interest Code. He thought other positions to be designated for possible conflicts of interest were consultants, as they had been designated in the Political Reform Act. 'The Palo Alto Housing Corporation, he said, provided consultant services to the City on housing, since 1970. The corporation had decision -making power, and was not just in an advisory 148 9/17/79 capacity. Mr. Borock cited instances in which Councilmembers had corroborated the Housing Corporation's decision -making capacity. Mr. Borock said that Downtown Palo Alto, Incorporated had a similar role, functioning in such matters as choice of parking lots and patterns of traffic flow. Mr. Borock said documentation was needed to enforce Conflict of Interest codes that existed, and he said that requests for advice, and advice that was received, should be in writing. Mr. Borock recalled the former City Attorney paraphrasing the guidelines of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) in such a way to show a Councilmember could vote when in fact that Councilmember, Mr. Borock said, could not vote. He thought that when advice from FPPC was sought, or advice from the City Attorney, that factual situation should be in writing and should be a part of the public record so that both citizens and the public officials could be protected; staff would also be protected. Roy Abrams, City Attorney, said that the primary thrust of the Political Reform Act is to cover designated employee positions and a definition of 'consultant' was within that act. Mr. Abrams said that the definition seemed drawn to exclude most persons or entities working on behalf of the City, recognizing that they did not have decision -making authority, with that authority lying with the City Council or in a particular staff position. He had thought it wisest to bring the code to Council, adopt it, and then: 98 percent of employees and beards within the City would be taken care of, then the entities like the Housing Corporation and Senior Coordinating Council could be looked at. Mr. Abrams said he thought Mr. Borock's point about requests for advice were somewhat unrelated to the matter presently before Council; the Conflict of Interest situation was unusual, Mr. Abrams said, and advice given by request in writing was rot repetitive, as was customary when Council received advice in oral form. Most conflicts of interest lay with place of employment. Mayor Henderson reviewed a natter of new business he had raised at a meeting of May 1, 1978--a two-part notion on matters still to be dealt with. He read: "That the Council direct the City Attorney to report to Council on the means to revise the Municipal Code to conform with current state regulations." Mayor Henderson said that motion had passed unanimously. The second motion: "That the Council direct the City Attorney to recommend additional changes to the City code to strengthen and define the conflict - of -interest guidelines." Mayor Henderson said that motion had passed 5-2, Clay and Witherspoon opposed, Councilmember Fazzino absent. Mr. Abrams noted that the motions had pre -dated his employ by the City; he would be pleased to look at those matters. He said that the adoption of the Conflict of Interest code had been written in ordinance form, and more flexible resolution form had been used concerning designated employees so that it could be changed more easily. Councilmember 8+renner ascertained that income of spouses was included in Li4E'= - CRi:'r_ MPF - W _ T # e TPP Y �[l1d7 _ IrT - !��9L'et N �-= ilv`c a.r .y rv. wars.... ...VV..Mi • MOTION: Cauncllmember Fazzino introduced the following ordinance for first readings and resolutions for adoption, and moved, seconded by Sher, their approval by Council: ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED POSITION IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO NdNICIPAL FERMENT RESOLUTION 5737 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING DESIGNATED POSITIONS FOR THE CONFLICT -OF -INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 2.09.010 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL Cam." 14 9 9/17/79 RESOLUTION 5738 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES FOR THE CONFLICT -OF -INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 2.09.020 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE." The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmeinber Witherspoon absent. Councilmember Fazzino, chairman for the Policy and Procedures Committee, said that the HRC representative and staff had informed the Committee that the matter had been satisfactorily resolved. The Committee had agreed that the liaison person should be a professional; Carleen Bedwell Director of Community Services, would report back to the Policy and Procedures Committee in a few months. No action by Council was needed. a 0,.D Councilmember Fazzino, chairman for the Policy and Procedures Committee, said that the majority of the Committee members agreed that there was no way to separate Boards and Commissions from the political process and it would not be fair to force members of boards and commissions to take leaves of absence when they ran for other offices. The Committee further recommended that a uniform provision be applied as follows: "A member of a board or commission may be granted a leave of absence by the City Council, and a temporary vacancy thereupon shall exist for the period of such leave of absence. During the period of such temporary vacancy the City Council may fill such vacancy by a temporary appointment to the board or commission; provided, however, that the period of such temporary appointment shall not exceed the period of the temporary vacancy. At the expiration of such a leave of absence so granted, the member of the board or commission automatically shall resume full and permanent meebership on the board or commission." No specific time limit nad been included, because the feeling was that Council should apply judgement for each situation. Mayor Henderson asked if in addition to any length of leave time the leave could be for any mason. Counci3member Fazzino said that would be up to the discretion of Council. s sir _ : s' rte' ee : ryed wlr - MOTION: :. . Chairman -.-v rz s�iY �.. Yii ". K'3s%';.`rte ___ «r__- tr'.v .. �. ..�..o.. sa stw.v, -w.rvv- Zvi .y -' foregoing Policy and Procedures Committee recommendation for a uniform provision in regard to leave of absence on boards and commissions. Councilmember Fazzino said he thought that approval of the recommendation quid delete the presentprovision in the HRC cod in r rd tto_ieaves of absence during political -coigns. Councilmember E,yeriy said ne was disappointed in the recommendations tiorns of the Policy and Procedures Committee because they did not completely face the problem though he did like having the procedure standardized for all boards and commissions. He thought board and omission members were minted to make non-partisan decisions: that would be difficult if such members became candidates for council positions. He thought that owing to political pressures during such times commission and board ors should take automatic ;eves of absence, with the vacancy during that time to be filled by Council appointment. 150 9/17/74 { AMENDMENT: Councilmember Eyerly moved that the last phrase of the first recommendation "...in the sense that no board or commission shall require a member to take a leave of absence" be deleted; substituted for that phrase would be the words "In the case of a board or commission member becoming a candidate for City Council he will be automatically given a leave of absence from the date of filing to the date of election." The amendment died for lack of a second. Councilmember Fazzino noted that boards or commissions could not be separated from political issues for both served the same public as the Council; he agreed that in running for office a person became more sensitized to public issues. Mayor Henderson said he would like to see a limit for length of leave; he did not think a person was so indispensable he should be able to reclaim his board or commission membership after long times of absence. Councilmember Brenner said a time limit could be placed when a leave was granted. The granting of a leave was still up to Council, and it did not have to grant it. Councilmember Levy asked if Council could not state such stipulations even if it did not approve the recommendations. Mr. Abrams replied that currently the municipal code had different provisions for different boards and commissions; the HRC had a provision authorizing Council to grant a leave of absence. The lack of that provision in other boards and commissions implied Council could not grant a leave of absence from them. Mayor Henderson said he agreed with Councilmec er Brenner's observations -- Council ':may" ''ant a leave, MOTION PASSED: The motion that Council approve the Policy and Procedures recommendation with regard to policy on leaves of absence from boards and commissions passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Witherspoon absent. Chairman Fazzino said Council had thought it important to review traffic needs and priorities periodically. Citizens had appeared at the Committee to press for needs in their neighborhoods; as Naphtal i Knox, Director of 8Pianai-sg and Community Environment had said, '...it's a balancing act that needs to be achieved . f' whi i e _ $fOt re term rehl eee raeA i.ntrk more j . - _ P• m:....-�v.-_.rte s.�.r� .ey► fa • i rtantiv s lon -terms solutions within tiktoGoldnapdadi thSeeet. -= such as development of alternate transportation, jobs/housing imialance, and contained employment growth. Chairman Fazzino said he thought it important for Council to support the Traffic Department in its work toward that goal. The Committee had thought staff could be 'more realistic' toward neighborhood g requests, and ask that citizens take some requests directly toCouncil -ni.ar..�-. stet' did....a R.e.,..-__at,:_ '�-------- - . Con..ra.■r stnet s ar -7lot.._Tilav -tt --iebuutcts to devote to specific studies. file Committee had accepted the criteria that had been in the eteff report ef Perch 29, 1979. MOTION: Chairman Fazzino moved on behalf of the Policy and Procedures Committee, the following criteria and priorities from the staff report: Criteria: 1) Geographic relationship of residential neighborhood or area with other immediate neighborhoods or problem areas under study I51 9/17/79 (since changes in one area's traffic patterns directly affect traffic patterns and volumes in adjacent areas; 2) status of traffic problem or concern (i.e., existing versus anticipated); 3) percentage of "through traffic" (primarily commuter) intrusion in the residential neighborhood as a percentage of total neighborhood traffic; 4) relationship of Criterion 3 to the ambient level (or percentage) of "through traffic" normally found on similar local residential neighborhood streets throughout the City; 5) geographic relationship of residential neighborhood to existing major traffic generators (e.g., the proximity of College Terrace to Stanford Industrial Park); 6) geographic relationship of residential neighborhood to new major traffic generators or facilities (e.g., Dumbarton Bridge); 7) levels of congestion (level of traffic service) on major streets that form the boundaries of the residential neighborhood; 8) relationship to current or future plans for street improvements or for changes to the network of major streets. Ranking of priorities: 1) University/Crescent Park Area; 2) Southgate to California Avenue; 3) Barron Park; 4) Cowper Street/Colorado Avenue; 5) North Downtown; 6) Addison Avenue/ University Park. John Redstrom, 251 Churchill, complained that his side of the street was never free of old cars parked so the streetsweeper could not clean there. He thought they were students' cars. He said that the license plates of many of these parked cars were expired. He said the police department had responded to his complaints courteously but the only thing that had happened was that one night when he called the streetlights had gone cut. He said there had been some screaming one night but he had been afraid of his safety and had not gone out to find out what it was about. "Certainly there's something that can be done." Councilmember Fletcher asked if the 1975 figures attached to the charts showing traffic could be different at this date. Ted Noguchi, Director of Transportation, said many of the figures were from figures compiled for the Comprehensive Plan; process charts and traffic control strategy figures were current. MOTION PASSED: The motion that Council approve the priorities and criteria of the staff report of March 29, 1979, concerning a city-wide traffic study plan, passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Witherspoon absent. The Plannire Commission, by 7a6 vote of 2 -la oneabstention, T C6.i nds denial of fine application of Camille Ryan for a- preliminary subdivision_ y ivy p'o$crty located at 0Z- X43 Stanford Avenue, Lone u strict Ken Schreiber, Assistant Director of Planning, said the subject property was located at the corner of Stanford and Oberlin avenues. Mr. Schreiber referred to a transparency projected on the councilcha r wall, showing that l.I property mac ri rrrontaM �` ice^ ieftAr$4, ft.nAr .1 In --1940 - 1.G T �:-y. _.��... ate,.. .. .i ti;welling;wilt unit of 273 square feet, on ono of ► tots Rs thmood fr%J.1 the pmnorty r ild be rsiviA d into five parcels. Staff had recomaended and t Planning Commission had agreed that the division as recommended by the applicant should not be approved, since it was mat in conformance with principles of the Cempeehateive Plan. Mr. Schreiber showed how staff had recommended the property could be divided acceptably should the applicant be willing to change her current plan. Mr. Schreiber said that it seemed that in 7940 permits were issued without regard for nee property lines were located as long as the land %s under common ownership. 162 9/17/79 Councilmember Eyerly noted that in adding lots 1 and 5 a lot would result of about 6000 square feet, as would parcels 2 and 3 if added; parcel 4 was about 3000 square feet. How had staff concluded to do that? Mr. Schreiber said that parcel 4 was under separate ownership; about one year ago the house and lot had been sold to a person who is now a co - applicant. Councilmember Eyerly asked if the transaction would be legal if Council did not approve the merger of the lots. Mr. Abrams said he thought the transaction would be legal as long as the purchaser decided to leave the lots the way they were at present. A discussion ensued as to possibilities the owner could follow. The owner did not want to lose any of the structures on the lots since she could rent them profitably to Stanford students. One condition of approval of the subdivision would be that no further expansion would be permitted. in either height or floor area. Councilmember Brenner said it appeared the building area had already been exceeded, and that precluded further expansion. Camille Ryan, owner, gave a brief history of the land, back to 1891. The houses and their situation on the lot had been carefully thought out by the building/owner, she said, and there had been no thought that they were not legal. She detailed some renovation she had done with the units. She did not know if the sewer of the unit at 2020 Oberlin went to Stanford or to the City. She listed her reasons for rot wanting to rnake duplexes out of the existing units. She wanted the R-1 zoning and she also wanted to give each of her children a home, and keep one of them for herself. Robert Leverette, 1143 Stanford, said he was the owner of the property outlined in orange on the transparency; he had paid $99,000 for the property, and he had known about the lot situation. The City had given a certificate of compliance. David Fletcher, attorney, 525 University, said his letter to Council had pointed out inequities in the prevailing situation in asking the owner to, reduce the present five lots to four in number. It appeared that the City wanted to keep the houses as rental units to retain housing stock. Vice Mayor Sher not€d that legally the property could not be sold as five separate lots now.. Kr-. Fletcher said thet theoretically the other properties coup be tarn down and otter Mimic ps caan)d h. NAM th.r , Thor. wort ftwtr _bats,___ = =variances uld_b rgiquired ova the setbacks also as__Hrs. __Pvan_wanted tom Be cks to relate to the structures as they now existed. She would be willing to accept the restriction that no expansion take place. Councilor Renzel said she was concerned that many lots throughout tows had buses developed in the fashion described for the subject .31-1W__b•COVU JIT. 174+![ 51i4Ff7FiaS1101 Vt0.iitit2IX.0 ,If nilU UV 16004t.i VCU• She did not wont to set anunwantedprecedent. - - MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Brenner, that Council uphold the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Fazzino noted that the City's Building Department had `created' the situation by permitting the illegal structures. He thought the situation that had existed for 40 years was unique and would not be repeated. He favored granting the application. 1 5 3 9/17/79 Councilmember Brenner said the situation was not unique --years ago lots in College Terrace had been divided into 25 foot lots, with builders taking groups of lots to build cottages for rent, and not intended to be sold separately. If the application was to be allowed it would nullify the 'cottage zone' the Planning Commission was now talking about. The situation was not reserved to College Terrace only; more recently such lot use meant the lot lines had to be erased. The practise peedated the zoning ordinance. She thought to grant the application would create many substandard lot situations. She thought the Planning Commission had done the best it could considering the applicant was not interested in the compromise the staff had worked out. Councilmember Fletcher said that if Council granted the application it would have to state that it conformed to Comprehensive Plan and zoning and that the map was technically correct and in conformance with Title 21 and consistent with sound subdivision planning --she questioned the legality of that. She said similar situations occurred in Barron Park. Councilmember Levy asked the amount of rent Mrs. Ryan received for the cottages. Mrs. Ryan replied they were not cottages but well built houses. Mayor Henderson asked Mr. Abrams if Council could require Mrs. Ryan to give financial information. He thought Mrs. Ryan had a right to know whether or not she had to. Mrs. Ryan said she did not mind telling the amount of rent she got; she had one renter who had been with her for three years and who paid $400 a month. It would be very difficult for her if the property was zoned for duplexes, she said. Councilmember Levy reviewed the ways in which this situation was different. Mrs. Ryan had begun with five lots and ended with one or two lots, with five houses on them. In the past there had been lot divisions, not lot amalgamations. He thought the question to the City was would it be better served if two of the lots were owned and two rented or better served with four iowercost houses? He thought the second choice was as good as having more rental units. He assessed the benefits of both situations. Councilmember Eyerly ascertained that staff agreed with Mr. Fletcher that it would be possible to tear down the houses and build new ones in accordance with the lot lines all facing one street. Mr. Abrams said that it might pose some unique setback situations. Councilmember Cyerly said that regarding the sale of the one house and lot, it probably had been legal as long as both parties agreed to the circumstances. If two of the houses were torn downcould a larger homuse b wilt on two lets? ill P.T _-k� -iC:.w.iw4i FL.�._n9._" ;-i-_--- _. eis tw-�.i.e�eght �;, -Plan inn Commission decision had b hag nn th t:.0 L: h uu sea mould be .;reps as rental units. in the light of decisions made oy the Clty at the tie the lots were develop he thought the City had some obligation to the owner. He saw some advantage to he houses having single o rship. He would oppose the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the application. Vice Mayor Sher asked what would happen if the structures were torn down --under Present Co 1 1 e9e . Terrace enning would those be'l egai lots? Mr. Abrams replied that the lots would be legal but substandard. He did not know what requirements would be imposed regarding new structures. Perhaps a variance meld be required, singe the substandard lot might be thought to constitute a hardship. 154 9/17/79 Mr. Leverette said he had neglected to say that his house had a side door about one foot from the blue line shown on the transparency, and if lot lines were changed as shown on the transparency he could not use his side door. Mayor Henderson said that from reading the minutes of the Planning Commission the basis of their decision seemed to be to retain rental property. He said he favored continued rentals with the possibility of individual sales; he said he would oppose the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Renzel said that unlike years ago, building across property lines would not be allowed today. She thought it would be a source of future trouble for the City if it started ,agreeing to subdivisions based on old-time lot lines. Councilmember Fletcher repeated her uneasiness over the legality of stating that the subdivision was in conformance with sound subdivision planning. Mayor Henderson said he thought that Council could make that finding; he noted that no mention of that had been made in the Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Abrams said that in respect to the Comprehensive Plan, for example, it was not specific in every set of circumstances, and if Council felt the situation were unique the Comprehensive Plan would authorize Council to clarify boundary lines, and the like. MOTION FAILED: The motion that Council uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the application failed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Renzel NOES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Sher ABSENT: Witherspoon MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Levy, that Council approve the application of Camille Ryan for a preliminary subdivision map, including the finding that the project will not have a significant environmental impact, and that the design is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and the further specifications listed on page 5, item 3, of the Planning Omission report dated July 13, 1979. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Renzel, that setbacks conform to existing structures, with no vertical or horizontal expansion with the agreement to be approved by the city Attorney and recorded. A discussion ensued as to what {th. tit,tatirn !rir.ha be sought by the present a era. Councilor Brenner said that one of the conditions of approval of the application could be that the applicant not apply for a variance. g. — , !e..:.�: ;-iwd r Ivy rr s. tsydn, said did not represent Mr. Leverette, who would have to speak for himself. Mr. Fletcher asked if theagreement clause cc ld apply to lots 9, 2, 3 and 5 that were Mts. .at V3 Ryan's four lots. it'. Leverette asked if his base was limited at Mrs. Ryan's houses were. Councilmember Sher said that since W. Leverette's lot was substandard he could mot expand horizontally; research would be needed to see if Mr. Leverette could perhaps expand vertically. 155 9/17/79 1 a Councilmember Levy said that since the variance procedure fn this case was unclear he would like to have the matter tabled until the next Council meeting so that information could be found. Mr. Abrams said that if the Council approved the subdivision the owners could expand according to setback conditions and the like; if the application were refused the procedure was not clearly defined. Vice Mayor Sher said he thought Mr. Leverette°s lot should have the same restrictions as the Ryan lots, that is, not to exceed present College Terrace setbacks. He would stay with his amendment. Councilmember Brenner eEnph:as ized that the present lot size of about 3000 square feet was not acceptable size for expansion of the dwelling. AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment that setbacks of the lots conform to existing structures, with no vertical or horizontal expansion, with the agreement to be approved by the City Attorney and recorded, pissed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel, Sher NOES: Fazzino, Levy ASSENT: Witherspoon MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: The motion that Council approve the application of Camille Ryan for a preliminary subdivision map, including the finding that the project will not have a significant environmental impact, and that the design is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and the further specifications listed on page 5, item 3, of the Planning Commission report dated July 13, 1979, as amended, passed on the following vote: AYES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy Sher NOES: Brenner, Renzel ABSENT: Witherspoon The Planning Commission, by a unanimous vote, and the Architectural Review Board, by a vote of two in favor, one opposed, recommend approval of the application of John Law for Site and Design Review for property located at 1131 San Antonio Road. Y Kitchen. . Hannifin re ittinee---iinsisawsri_rs1,A theed _ - _ -_. �r approv in a similar form somPti + .tool E� p $ent plan contained some modification of a fourth building at the rear of the lot. Councilmember Fletcher said that sometimes mitigation measures had been agreed to in lien of a full environmental impact report,. and _one,had ilaiA.4 that c�ry..r.. „r„-.� _ L_- J -.. 'f� - s • • -----�-ry_• �q p �./� ���(� y� }�! /gyp► bva�.s; 3ha i- - nT�,o t �s - W i � is l ied a `ncourag nt_____ At f-i •+titeNfl transpo ation f such as bicycling or jogging. She wondered why that was nt agreed to in this eese. Ken Schreiber, Assistant Director of Planning, said that the proposed development wcpld be occupied by oumerous small operations and businesses. It was therefore difficult to maintain a central facility. Councilmember Fletcher urged consideration of such mitigation whenever possible. 155 9!17/79 Councilmember Renzel noted that the in -lieu payment of $28,600 was to be used in the landbanking program to buy enough land to satisfy 10 percent of the potential housing needs; she did some calculating and concluded that the amount did not cover 10 ; arcent. Mr. Schreiber replied that the same formula was used in calculating that figure as had been used with other applications. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Eyerly, that Council uphold the Planning Commission reco inendation and approve the Site and Design review. Vice Mayor Sher spoke of the county's jobs/housing imbalance in relation to the application, though it was not an issue on this project because plans for it had been approved in September 1978 before the property had been annexed to the City. Vice Mayor Sher said that he served on the county task force related to jobs/housing imbalance, and the application before Council was an example of why he had been getting a lot of abuse, he said, because the maximum number of new employees expected at the site would be 200-250. The EIR said that about 600 vehicles would be added to traffic to further impact congestion at that intersection. It had been estimated that about 100-125 employees would have a salary range of $25,000 up, and they would be looking for housing among "...moderate - priced housing, which is already scarce, which is a gross understatement." Palo Alto was known to be job -rich and house -poor, and so he got Bch criticism. The task force of which he was a member was to issue some tentative recommendations, and if they were adopted and implemented, (no easy task, Vice Mayor Sher said, because changes in the law would be required) Palo Alto would lose the power to approve the kind of project for which application had been wade. He repeated he did not think Council could do anything about the project before the because it had been approved back in September of 1978. He would vote for it, but he had wanted to inform Councilmembers. Mayor Henderson added that "...there are others who are sharing that amuse." Cou►ncilmember Brenner said she had voted against the project because it was filled land and took land away from the boylands; She did not like the location as an employment zone. She would vote "no" to register her negative feeling about "...moving just a little bit further into the baylands and adding considerably to our jobs/housing imbalance.43 MOTION PASSED: The motion that Council uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and approve the Site and Design review passed on the following vote: AYES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson: Levy, Sher i S: ABSENT: Brenner: .pen z` i Witherspoon Council recessed and held an executive session regarding litigation from s.4e psi aai_1 i P': 0 Ail O A I RPORT tweenvelorwee 1;1 te ;WO 11111.r:ill The Planning Commission, by a vote of 3-2, one abstention, recommends denial of the application of Santa Clara County Transportation Agency for Site and Design Reviem for Palo Alto Airport Improvements, 157 9/17/79 1 . Mayor Henderson noted there were twenty-one people who wished to speak on the matter. He said that Council had read the Planning Commission minutes, and were well informed for their deliberations --he hoped speakers would be aware of time and energy limitations. Councilmefber Eyerly noted that the Planning Department report had estimated operational capacity of the Palo Alto airport was 250,000 flights annually, and that once the maximum number was reached there would be no touch-and-go operations allowed at peak hours. He asked how many annualflights there were at present, and how many were to+ich-and- go. Corrected see page 245 11/5/79 1 1 Jim Hunting, county representative, said that annually there w*re about 257,000 flights at present, with about 60 percent of there being touch- and-go. Counci1in tuber Eyerly ascertained with Ken Schreiber of the Planning Department that no certain number of flights were specified in the City's lease with the county. Mr. Schreiber showed a transparency with the existing site shaded in blue, with the project site shown in red -=the taxiway was to be widened, the balance of the area would be for tiedowns, in the unpaved area adjacent to the taxiway. Vice Mayor Sher asked why the tiedown area with provision for 60 tiedowns had not come to Council for approval. Mr. Schreiber said that no approval was sought, there was a question as to whether or not it should have been. Vice Mayor Sher indicated that it was his understanding that the county had the right to construct a second runway, provision for which was in the lease. Mr. Abrams said that Mr. Sher's understanding was correct. Vice Mayor Sher asked if the second runway had to come to the City for approval before construction. He asked that, he said, in view of the fact that the City now had a policy against the second runway. Mr. Abrams replied that all construction, in accordance with the master plan contained in the lease, had to come before Council. Whether or not the City could withhold permission to construct a second runway gave rise to a seeming contradiction; it seems that the master plan authorized the county to rake certain kinds of developments, but the actual plans and details were to be finalized on6y with the approval of the City Council. He said that it had been expressed to aim that the master lease contained a tied on area and therefore the county had had the legal I inht !.!! rntrcrwalrr =he 41AHM. .• Ulth __ _- ' = - - -- -- -- -- ---- .. .�,..�.�.�..,... sr a t.ea ! �:.1�/6eo 6 LV i.,li� i.Ci►i#J►Ji-419"� t��r3owri5, �4 =.o., --" _= • •.•-••sy S(wu ias nave sough i . E y approval to put in the interim tiedowns now in place. Vice Mayor Sher asked if anyone on staff knew how many tiedowns and annual flights had to take place before the FA or other regulatory agency requireid a second run y, Mrs Schreiber said a representative of the FAA was in the chamber and would answer that question. Jones 6raebner-, Director of Transportation for Santa Clara County, said one of his responsibilities was the functions of the three general aviation airports the county operated. He said the election in 1966 permitted the airport to be located at its present site. The county airport tried to be a good neighbor, he said, and tried to encourage 158 9/17/79 flyers to stay away from residential. Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan had a strong recommendation that the second runway not be built, and that was a part of the controversy. Part of the county's present study of its airport plan required that the study go through the review process, including the Transportation Commission, on which Palo Alto had representation, and Mr. Graebner said he would not recommend for or against a second runway until that review process had been completed. Mr. Graebner continued. He said the second runway was not tied in with the application for site and design review which was the third phase of a project that, had the county had the funding, would have been completed three years ago. The FAA had just recently approved that application for funding. If the money was not used by a certain date it would be lost. The project would give space for paved area tiedowns, and it would dramatically improve the airport safety situation, he said, and would allow the airport to be financially self-supporting. Of the 50 additional to tie down only two were students and the rest were private individuals. Private aircraft generated only about 40 percent of the amount of traffic generated by flight school:. He said the application was for Project C, of a project that had received a permit in 1976; it had gone through the City, Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC), ABAG, MTC, Regional Airport Planning Commission. The project had not been mentioned in the Baylands Master Plan. The FAA funding was subject to certain conditions which he would outline if so desired. A study in 1976, he said, had concluded that added planes and added traffic could be handled with the present facilities, and did not mandate a second runway. He said he respectfully asked Council to overturn the Planning Commission recommendation to deny, and instead to grant the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency permission to construct additional tiedown space for 50 more planes. Councilmenber Fletcher said that Mr. Graebner, at the Transportation Commission meeting of last week, had said that the aviation portion of the Transportation Commission was the only one that was self-supporting. Mr. Graebner said that the overall goal was to have the aviation enterprise be self supporting; at present Palo Alto airport was about $28,000 short of paying its own way. The Transportation Commission wanted each airport to stand on its own. Counciimremrber Eyerly said Council had a letter from the county to San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) dated November 16, 1977, signed by Frances Sullivan, Environmental Specialist, and the letter indicated that 250,000 annual flights would be almost to capacity for the airport. Councilmnber Eyerly noted that Ms. Sullivan had said that if oils and chemicals gave a problem some clarifiers could be added. He asked Per. Graebner if he would stand with a maximum number of flights from one runway, and also the addition of clarifiers for storms runoff. Councilmember Eyerly said he thought the City was hesitant to a� anv expansionbbk':auSP nf_faar__n _Ane r_rup a y And glom -- Mir. ssraa+o ._ runoff i t would be helpful to Council `i f fib'° . Graebner would set some limits, Mr. Graebner- said he would stand with the capacity given in the letter of 250,000 to 265,000 as the capacity of a one runway operation; he ceded at -the Pla iefe - oeelesion had -stated there were several solutions to the drainage problem --the county would be glad to work with the Planning Commission en that. A iii cr item lull waS i many aircraft were based. He thought - that once the 509 aircraft were based there the practical limits of the field would have been reached; he would be pleased to offer a moratorium on any further expansion of any permanent fixed -base aircraft. His problem was general aviation movement within the County, he. said, and he thought that a more regional approach to that problem would be wise, and going farther than the baylands or the second runway there could be consideration, of the Front and Moffatt Field airports. The county "...was making moves in that diction" where there might be art. He thought that problems ems could be "...worm out together.* 159 9/17/79 1 Vice Mayor Sher asked why the county had riot applied to the City for the 60 tiedowns or the unpaved area. Mr. Graebner said that had happened befr;e his time; he would try to find out. He thought it might have been because permission was unnecessary. Vice Mayor Sher said there were 459 tiedowns at present, including 60 on the unpaved area --50 more brought the number to 509. A suggestion had been made that a maximum of 510 be set. Would Mr. Graebner accept that as a maximum and permanent number? Mr. Graebner said he would accept that in the same sense that he would say a second runway was not an issue; it would be a limit unless and until something was done by returning to Council and Planning Commission ...I'm not about to go over that number." Vice Mayor Sher said that if there were some way to fix the numbers now it would put the matter in quite a different light so far as he was concerned. Mike Mavrakis, of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of Northern California., outlined the way the annual capacity of an airport was computed. Vice Mayor Sher asked if Mr. Mavrakis agreed that if the maximum number of tiedowns were 510 the federal government would see no need for a second runway at the Palo Alto airport. Mr. Mevrakis said that whether or not a second runway was to be built was a decision to be rude locally, with a full EIR, public hearing, approval by ABAG, and the like, before the FAA would consider a second runway, even if the second runway was needed. Counci1rne ber Fletcher pointed out to Mr. Mavrakis that the airport was leased by the county; if the county said a second runway was needed would the same conditions pertain? Mr, Mavrakis said that the county is the legal sponsor; it, too, would have to follow the same procedure. Cauncilmember Fletcher ascertained that the City did not have veto power --the obligation lay between the FAA and the county. Councilmember Renzel noted that half of the flights at the airport were touch -and -go --was there an FAA regulation that if there were an over- capacity number of flights an additional runway mould be needed? Mr. Mavrakis said he did not know of such a regulation. ¥vor ; itendorsort int,ripttod th ARnrA= t t =4.46.4 11.4...." continued because the hour' was growing 1aEt+e and your it had expressed a with that it not ke -important decisions after midnight. He would proceed with the public hearing portion of the proposed airport improvements. David Martin represented the Santa Clara County airmen's association Chet Nad beee-feieee4 ae veunuae eiyiazi,n, I said the P4i0 Ali to airport was an integral part of statewide aviation patterns: greasing airline schedules and dere.ulatior; Ltie yr ivu of:ydsulinu had le' to an appreciable increase in number of independent flights. Since local airports were at capacity some aircraft was based as far away as Salinas. He said use of general aircraft was as fuel efficient as commercial fllg t insofar as aerial voiles contrasted with surface miles to be traveled. He pointed out that because of the recut San Diego midair collision of a commercial plane with a general aircraft plan some $100 million had been allocated to general aircraft reliever airports; if the money was not assigned to specific projects by September 30 it would be lost. Palo Alto hid 1 6 0 9/17/79 approved in 1967 a master plan for the airport --the issue before Council was to expand the number of tiedowns, and that would have no impact on any review for a possible second runway. Mr. Martin said he had been involved in the planning process for the San Jose municipal airport and he had concluded that expanded use of either Fremont or Moffatt Field airports lay far in the future. He thought that if Palo Alto turned down the proposed improvements it would be reneging on a promise, for the City had signed the lease agreement in 1967 and though the language of that agreement had been somewhat ambiguous the tiedown area had been included in the agreement. Marian Lockwood, 1043 Sonoma Avenue, Menlo Park, said the area she resided in in Menlo Park would be impacted from noise with increases in numbers of flights from the Palo Alto airport. She asked that Council turn down the improvements. Robert Katz, West Valley Flying Club, said the club's 400 members lived in or around Palo Alto. said that paving the present graveled area would increase safety, as would a wider taxiway, to accommodate the 33 - foot wingspan of most planes. He pressed for unified action among flyers, the City, and the co runity, to obtain access to Fremont and Moffett fields, so that some flights could go elsewhere than Palo Alto. William Stocker, 880 Mockingbird Lane, spoke of his many roles in the community, and the number of points relating to community health and business vitality, that were affected by activities at the Palo Alto airport. Transportation was important for medical care and he thought a widened taxiway would speed up transportation of patients. He said he thought the funds for airport improvement had resulted from user tax on airline travel and he favored having the money go for general aviation, as it would in this case. He did not think the improvements would increase the cost of services to the county, though it would increase revenues. Exhaust from plane -rotors was increased when the plane was on the ground, and so it would be well to decrease ground time of planes by way of an improved taxiway. Fred Moreno, Los Altos, concurred that the local government agencies would have to approve a second runway; he said that there were various categories of tiedowns. He said the Fremont was privately owned but publicly operated. Pressure should be brought to make Moffett Field available for air traffic. He did not see that number of tiedowns would have any effect on the issue of the second runway --10 percent increase in tiedowns did not result in a 10 percent increase of air traffic. There ,would be little impact on the environment from increased number of tiedowns. He said he had noted that the airport was extremely dark for night flight and he thought that safety aspect should be worked on. He flew in relation to his business, and could not conduct it without that air transportation, he said, and 75 other businesses also operated aircraft at the airvnrt..-ho tueeactm ikat r...�e. a f +�s•A. Leat ...__ may -.- _ .- d.aa;.7.T reus7 !.a re -k;.. -.d !le ni.4 L3' e -_._s c - -- -i _-- s i _�_ _:=.- -- ::.. '.:-_ u.ss � �.. fm .xi w�'s--'r i`� ii -a. i.�:.t II7 related property taxes, and there was no cost to the City. Enid Pearson, Peninsula Conservation Center, remarkedon the_ fine work - Ann lanner had done as City Manager Pro Tem, and that she had teen the first woman to work in that post Ms. Pearson said she would speak Gn prupw:d airport improvements 4s are individual pilot representing no group. She said that she w s a councilmember in l arts had participated in approving the airport general piano which, she added, had included plans for a second runway. along with a limit on the nor of planes to be based at the airports that nor to be limited to 400. Further revisions to the plan had been not so much official as that "...they sort of creep up on us." More planes art* more touch -and -goes and more traffic patterns, she said. She said she did not thin an EIR cal the idea of an airport in the baylands had ever been drag up; it had not been required at the time the airport had started. She tight an E I R 262 9127/79 should be made. She dramatized the dialogue with the air control that occurred when landings were stacked up and delayed, saying she feared that more planes meant more air hazard. Air control tended to accommodate pilots' wishes, and would grant "left downwind" which increased hazard and noise over residential, an unquestionable environmental impact. She said Palo Alto airport was good for practising and she thought touch - and -goes would increase. The piolot had the final say as to what disposition of him and his craft was made in the air. She noted that 40 of the aircraft were multiply owned. That situation led to more usage of the plane itself. "There's at least one plane that I'm aware of --I don't think it ever cools off." She thoeeht it very feasible to raise fees for airport use, especially since so many planes were multiply owned, and the additional fees would not impose financial hardship; she would be willing to pay more for airport services --the use of the airport was worth it to her. The additional money could be used to purchase land in the clear zone in south county. She agreed that the county should maintain and enlarge the taxiway. Roger Mansell, 550 Santa Rita, emphasized that a second runway was not a question now before Council. He held that the 200,000-250,000 figure was ''•.•ara empirical figure and it's absolutely worthless." Tower personnel controlled landings and takeoffs, and operated with safety and expeditiousness in mind. Only 8 percent more tiedowns were proposed and they would have no environmental impact. He demanded that the future of the airport not be locked up by placing 1 imies on airport plans. Joseph Carleton, 2350 Ross Road, spoke en behalf of the Loma `,rieta chapter of the Sierra Club, who opposed increase in tiedowns at the airport. If that increase were a prelude to a second runway California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required that an EIR be drawn up on both projects, "...rather than piecemeal ing with several negative declarations." The U.S.Army Corps' public notice 10587-38 had stated "The effects of an expanded tiedown area include increased number of light airplanes using the airport, more congestion, increased noise and air pollution." Then there was the following inconsistency: "From an analysis of these impacts it has been determined that the activity would have no significant adverse effect on the quality of human environment." The Sierra Club's position was that any impact was severe. Mr. Carleton did not think that the wish for increased revenue was a valid reason for adding tiedowns. He thought improved management would decrease the $23,000 deficit. Also, further airport expansion would aggravate flood hazard, should a flood occur. Rodney Robinson, 1258 Ruby Street, Redwood City, equated small planes with motorcycles without mufflers in their effect on his sense of being at ease, particularly an weekends when they buzzed by all day. The air seemed full of them. He reconmeeded charging accordingly for airport services. He thought private plane users were permitted to disturb people on the ground with no payback to theme to mitigate that disturbance. !ki .se`.,. ..—sue r_ __r9._aa__ i_ �!_� tae . � w c am �e � � asQ � e� : i ur cxi � � to t ■ e�ae�+. r� rs•+c-w s s r+�cr ereewrs - _ ._ aea a sas sr s m.e �ws SA .sw�•cr.es.ws. +0 —...m S a . �A�1 _ _ _ sq_7 seseeeee.5 phenoneeon of speedup of life, and degraded standards of living, which degradation went on and on end on, he said. He thought the airport was a visual monstrosity. Business 's ability to expand their operations by Way df fly -tire rather than drive -tine gave them an unfair advantage over other less affluent buaineesmee, as they.traveled wide and wider —did not thine eel.we as a comnunitY. sold set up situations where we create privileged 'ged classes of businessmen ...K111 this project." Sarah MacRae represented the Committee for firm Foothills, said the commttee was very concerned about the future of the baylands in Palo Alto. She feared increased airport traffic would lead to the necessity for a second runway, which the committee opposed. as did the policy of the Baylarwds !Master Plan. She thought noise and air pollution would increase. She submitted testimony from the Peninsula Conservation Center, the points of which had been covered by former speakers, she said. The testimony is on file at the City Clerk's office. 162 9/17/79 Maynard Brown, 11150 Budd Road, Cupertino, said Palo Alto had entered into an agreement with the private sector for developments at the airport. He commented on the vagueness of intent of "some of the agreements as I read them." He said the master plan for the baylands included three fixed -base operations (FBOs) and he would speak about the third. In the past there had been a contract between the county and Air Palo Alto for FBO site 3, for development, by plans approved by Council anr' ARB and county supervisors. Air Palo Alto had failed, Mr. Brown said, and so the plans had not been pursued. Mr. Brown thought the agreement had set precedent, however. He thought hangar space was needed. FB0 3 should be developed as additional hangar space, he thought. Mark Lindberg, 235 Cypress Point Drive, Mountain View, showed slides that he intended to be persuasive toward increasing tiedown space, saying that the proposed increase would not increase the space to be covered at the airport. Gordon McHenry, 204 Elliott, Menlo Park, said he had flown from Palo Alto for ten years. Councilmembers could correct such misinformation that had been given that evening by visiting the airport and they could see that when air traffic was heavy the tower permitted no touch -and -goes. He outlined weekend flying procedure. He said the FAA representative's calculations did not seem correct --they resulted in figures far in excess of actual flights. He said required architecture for the airport was akin to that of Gunn High, whereas the clubhouse at the golf course was an architectural monstrosity. He had the idea, he said, that Palo Alto was not in favor of the airport, but he thought the airport was well used. Milton Johnson, 471 Carolina Lane, said he had watched and felt the impact of the development of the baylands since 1947. He was a pilot, he said, and he had to fly in connection with his business. He said his use of the airport and others like him should be given favorable recognition by Council. He cited figures to show the airport was self supporting. He said increased nighttime lighting was needed for safety of pilots and security of planes. He thought the climate was anti -airport, and, he thought, in his case, anti -business. He said Fremont airport did not give a viable alternative for him, nor did Moffett Field. He said the noise generated by aircraft was only half over land of what it was over the bay. Lee Silverthorne, 3339 Kenneth Drive, said he had been waiting ten months for a tiedown spot at the Palo Alto airport; he had been using the airport but did not have a tiedown in his own name. He and his wife selected to live in Palo Alto because of tee baylands and the Palo Alto airport; they flew for both business and pleasure. They had understood that additional tiedowns would have been built before this --he thought that perhaps personalities or extraneous issues had led to delay. He hoped for a tiedown space soon, along a widen.. taxiway. �� r wry with c.rr widened tJCl4�Cl i�JG � �y P. ' 7 .1 _ Ply ' ft:Ctf Ka • .::. ;.=.a: r ftC rent space at the airport. Mr. Silverthorne said he could be evicted from his present space with 7 days' notice. Mr. Schreiber reported that of the 459 tiedowns 298 were operated by the county and 161 by the FBO. Fred Aytor7 1262 CoCooley, East Palo Alto, favored expansion of the airport. .r+He praised its site in relation to the City. Dale Savage, 246 Selby Lane. Atherton, said he had piloted for commercial flights as well as personal flights, "...and 1 think you're making a big mistake if you let this go." He thought that if Palo Alto lost its airport it would never be regained. The gravel did much damage to aircraft, he said. He wanted the proposed improvements to be approved. 163 9/17/79 Verna West, 2090 Mills Avenue, Menlo Park,- said she had been flying from Palo Alto airport since 1954. She said the widening and paving of the taxiway would be a great improvement. Constance Gould, 1736 Groner Avenue, Menlo Park, said she thought the airport was a regional resource, not just Palo Alto's resource. She read from Congressman McCloskey's letter in response to hers with the question "Is there not a need for more general aircraft airports in congested areas?.... I would suggest that FAA place greater emphasis on adding more general aviation access airports to these congested areas such as San Francisco. Mrs. Gould said "Growth is a reality, even in Palo Alto." Patricia Davis, 525 W. Remington Drive, Sunnyvale, said she was chairman of the Santa Clara Valley chapter of the 39's, an international organization of licensed women pilots. She emphasized that private aircraft was used for speed in transportation and not as pleasurecraft as was the case with boating, that was an activity accompanied with drinking. She deplored the length of waits for tiedown space. She noted the revenue from taxes levied on aircraft; she thought cars noisier than aircraft. Mr. Graebner, Santa Clara County Director of Transportation, regretted there was not more time for testimony because if permission for the improvements were not granted by the City of Palo Alto by September 17 the funds would be withdrawn. Vice Mayor Sher pointed out that since the letter stated "...by the meeting of September 17" Council could stay legally within that requirement by continuing the September 17 meeting to the next Council meeting. He hoped Mr. Graebner could attend, if the matter were continua#. Mr. Graebner regretted thathe would not be available for the September 24 meeting. Mr. Mavrakis, FAA representative, said that perhaps September 30 could be the furthest extension of time; if Palo Alto hed a "ro" vote the funds might be allocated to another location. Time was very short. Councilmegber Levy said he favored having Council make a decision that evening while the matter was fresh. Mayor Henderson suggested that because of the lateness of the hour another natter that could be settled quickly be brought forward. MOTION: Coancilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Henderson, that Council brim the matter concerning energy conservation forward. The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Witherspoon absent. MLUULNIALIMUR HE[ aONtK RP Mayor Henderson mated that in Section 1 of the resolution three nodes of cooperating in reduction of energy use were listed, the amendments being a) reduce use of private automobiles through eliminating driving one -1. „� .... s t) . ==, =item gy consumption oy cu percent; and c) share the ideas of voluntary cooperation for energy conservation with at least two other persons MOTION: Mayor Henderson introduced the following resolution, with its amendments, and seconded by Fazzi no, moved its adoption by Council: 164 9/17/79 RESOLUTION 5734 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ENDORSING OCTOBER 1979 AS ENERGY CONSERVATION MONTH AND ENCOURAGING CITIZENS TO VOLUNTARILY CONSERVE ENERGY." The motion, with amendments, passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Witherspoon absent. A,fi T 3 AIRPORT IMPR (continued) Councilmember Levy said he did not think the issue was anti -airport, anti -business, or pro -second runway or increased revenue; the issue was to keep the community in perspective and not have one element become out of proportion to another. He wondered: did paving the area degrade the baylands? what would the addition of planes do to the noise level? how was the comity served generally by increasing the number of tiedowns? He thought: further paving would degrade the baylands to some degree; he felt there would not be a dramatic increase in number of planes in use to raise the noise level; he thought there was community benefit resulting from the airport. He added he thought Palo Alto businesses should be encouraged to have access to outlying areas, where, perhaps, they could establish bases for employment, rather than establishing further bases here. He said he endorsed the total staff report, along with pursuit of some portion of Moffett Field services as possible auxiliary resource. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council approve the four parts of pages 2 and 3 of the staff report as follows: 1) Adopt a motion finding that the Mrport tiedown and taxiway project will not have a significant impact on the environment and approving the application subject to the following conditions: a) Prior to issuance of any building permits for work at the site, possible drainage problems must be solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; b) ARB review of the project 2) Adopt a motion setting a policy that the number of permanent airplane tiedowns at the Palo Alto Airport shall not exceed 510; 3) Adopt a motion authorizing the Mayor to send a letter to the Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Agency encouraging continuation of the efforts to have a general aviation airport developed in the City of Fremont and requesting deletion of the Palo Alto Airport second runway from the . Regional General P. iation F`jan; 4) Adopt a 'lotion authorizing the Mayor to send a letter to Congressman McCloskey requesting assistance in obtaining Federal approval of Ctre use of Moffett Field _ fries lanarai aelatien tr ini__ 1'iights._: Vice Mayor Sher said he did not think the issue of the second runway had been laid to rest, and he thought the issue might belaid to rest if there were a firm commitment from Mr. Graebner that he would recommend against it. Approval of_ the additional tiedowns would bring 50 more w e ; j, i to u 49 F im for a second runway --so far there had been no statement about when a second runway would be required from the pressure brought on from volume of air traffic. It sounded as though under the terms of the lease the county would be the sponsor of and have the right to build a second runway --the FAA mould respond to the county. Vice Mayor Sher said he would vote for the proposed increase in tiedowns if Pb . Graebner would state that evening that he ac~epted Palo Alto's policy that had been adopted by the Council, and that that would be his 165 9/17/79 recomiendation to the Board of Supervisors, and that he would persuade the Board to concur with Palo Alto's policy. Vice Mayor Sher said he thought that permission to use the U.S. N&iy facility at Moffett Field was many years down the road, from what speakers had said that evening; the Fremont airport might be another possibility, though speakers had said they would not be satisfied with it anyway. He thought "...there's a real danger of being piecerealed on this, taking this thing one step at a time which mans increasing from, as we were told earlier, the original limit of 400, up to 459 now, proposed to go to 509." He said he did not think the proposed limit. of 510 could be maintained if the county took the position under its lease terms that it was entitled to put in more tiedowns. Without Mr. Graebner's firm assurance that 510 would be the limit, Vice Mayor Sher said he could not support the proposal for additional tiedowns. Mr. Graebner said he could not state irrevocably that evening that he mould recommend holding to the Palo Alto policy. The needs of the environment and transportation had to be brought together toward a solution all could support. He said he would repeat his statements on the limits on the number of aircraft based at Palo Alto airport, along with his absolute refusal to take any action to try to promote the second runway or a third FBO. Vice Mayor Sher thanked him for his candor. Councilmember F1 etcher agreed that the airport issue had not been examined in depth in the Baylands Master Plan, though the plan stated that use of the airport would not be intensified. She thought that 10 percent addition of planes would intensify the use. The Metropolitan Transit Commission was doing a regional update on the airports in the Bay Area, anti the County of Santa Clara was doing the same for its airports --it was ready to hire a consultant. In-depth analyses and FIRS would be prepared. If the City made a decision to expand the use it could be backed into a position of perhaps demonstrating that the airport's one runway was inadequate --many had e1ready said so, in descriptions of delayed landings. So far as the danger from gravel in one present tiedown area, she would suggest eliminating those tiedowns. Councilor Renzel recalled that in past discussions it had been stated that a second runway would be necessary when 260,000 flights were reached, and now Council was told that that specific number had been exceeded. The pressure for a second runny was at hand --adding tiedowns was inviting trouble. She was shocked at the proposal to put eleven 30 - foot high electrolier lighting fixtures in the baylands. It was wholly in -appropriate to have flood -lights in that wildlife area --she thought low ground lighting could be used. The 30 -foot high lights had not been in the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. "I'd be absolutely, unequivocally opposed to those." Without a fire cormitment against the possibility of a second runway she could not support the airport improvement Proposal. Councilmember Brenner said every accession toward adding airport space created pressure for a second runway. She said her house was probably in that left downwind pattern referred to that evening, because airplanes cane over her house constantly fry the Palo Alto airport, and that was overflow flight. She agreed that the future should not be locked up, and she thought adding to airport development was doing just that. "There's no way of backing down, once you do that." It had been learned over the past 15 years that the open space, once thought to be so vast, when gone, never returned. The airport should be in scale with the City, now it was getting too big. Some pressure had coati that evening from planes parked in gravel tiffs; the request for lighting was another pressure. She said she had sat through a number of hearings on the topic through the years; she thought this was the time to say "This is it." There was no assurance that additional tiedowns would not lead to a second runway. 166 9/17/79 Councilmember Eyerly said he thought the airport valuable to both the commercial and residential community. He reminded Councilmembers that the money for the airport improvements would be lost if it weren't put to work. He did not see how the impact would be greater, since it was already there, and from a reading of the staff report 510 tiedowns would not push the City for a second runway. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Eyerly moved that 250,000 be the maximum acceptable number of flights annually, with touch -and -go -flights to be cut back if necessary. Councilmember Levy said he would accept the amendment as part of his motion AMENDMENT: Councilmember Eyerly moved that there be a reaffirmation of Council's policy of not supporting a second runway. Councilmember Levy said he would accept that amendment also as part of his motion. Mr. Abrams said the lease agreement between City and county authorizes the county to operate the airport, and he thought the proposed amendment attempted to set a parameter for the county. He added that he did not think any of the local jurisdictions could control the number of flights in and out of the airport, certainly not under the present terms of the lease agreement. He thought perhaps that might be a federal jurisdiction. Councilmember Eyerly said his amendment setting 250,000 as a maximum annual number of flights was information to the staff for information in its negotiations with the county as to what Council policy was. Mayor Henderson said that the statement about 1 it itirg number of flights would be included in the motion as a statement of Council policy. Councilmember Fazzino said he had been one of the five voting against a second runway last year. He felt he could not vote for any treasure that would increase pressure for a second runway or number of flights at the airport. He thought airport safety was the primary issue before Council, as related to the gravel and taxiway widening which would not negatively impact the baylands. He wanted to keep Palo Alto's small successful airport as it was. He feared the City would have to go to court over the issue of the second runway. Mayor Henderson said he did not support a second runway; he would vote for the improvements and additional tiedowns if he was assured the number did not exceed 510 --he did not think the airport had to be piece Baled beyond that number. he favored pursuing same use of the Fremont and Moffett Field facilities. He thought the night, -lighting could be under the purview of the ARS. He would support the motion. Councilmember Renzel said she did not think the proposed amendments directing staff to continue its present negotiating policy would change the effect of the motion, since staff was already doing that. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Sher, that the flood lighting be deleted from the airport improvements proposal. She said that low lighting would be adequate; she did not want any floodlighting in the baylands. Vice Mayor Sher said hethought Council should address the question of the proposed lighting now; if the ARS approved the project it would not return to Council. Councilmember Fazzino said he wanted to assure himself that there would be lighting sufficient for safety. 167. 9/17(19 AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment that the flood lighting be deleted from the airport improvements proposal passed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Fenzel, Sher NOES: Eyerly ABSENT: Witherspoon MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED: The main motion, that Council adopt a motion finding that the airport tiedown and taxiway project will have no significant impact on the environment and approve the application subject to the following conditions: a) prior so issuance of any building permits for work at the site, possible drainage problems must be solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; b) APB review of the project, 2) adopt a motion setting a policy that the number of permanent airplane tiedowns at the Palo Alto airport shall not exceed 510, 3) adopt a motion authorizing the Mayor to set a letter to the Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Agency encouraging continuation of the efforts to have a general aviation airport developed in the City of Fremont and requestion deletion of the Palo Alto airport second runway from the Regional General Aviation Plan, and adopt a motion authorizing the Mayor to send a letter to Congressman McCloskey requesting assistance in obtaining Federal approval for the use of Moffett Field for general aviation training flights, and the amendments that 250,000 be the maximum number of acceptable annual flights, with touch-and-go flights to be cut back as necessary; along with reaffermation of Council's policy of not supporting a second runway, failed on the following vote: AYES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson, Levy NOES: Brenner, Fletcher, Renzel, Sher ABSENT: Witherspoon MOTION: Vice Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council continue the matter of airport improvements until such time as the county can give the City a firm answer as to its position nn the second runway. Mr. Abrams said that he would not like the county to think it was losing the $453,000 because of the City; the other information Council had asked for that evening was legitimate to Council's deliberations and ability to make a decision on the proposal. That could be included in the motion. Vice Mayor Sher said he would include that matter of requested information in his motion. MOTIOi PASSED: The motion that Council continue the matter of airport improvements until such time as the county can give the City a firm answer as to its position on the second runway and other questions raised that evening, passed on a unanimous vote, Counci1 r Witherspoon absent. Mi0T10W CouncilmembeT Fazzino move, seconded by Sher, that Council continue its agenda to September 74, at 9:30 p.m., fol l owi g its interviews for Architectural Review Board.` 'the motion passed on the following vote: 168 9/17/79 AYES: Brenner, Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Sher, Fletcher ABSENT: Witherspoon AFFIRM: /?. City erk 169 9/17/79 APPROVE: Mayor