Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-25 City Council Summary MinutesCity Council Regular Meeting February 25, 1980 ITEM Minutes of January 21, 1980 Oral Communications 1. Jeanne Hauser, 1425 Stanford Avenue Surplus School Sites Report North Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Program -- Joint Powers Agreement (JPA).Recommended Actions Regarding Resource Recovery PAGE 470 470 4 7 1 4 7 1 CATt' Market Analysis 4 7 3 740-750 Webster Street Application For Variance By Laurence Spitters 4 7 4 Request of Mayor Henderson Re Parking Fines In Palo Alto 4 7 7 Request of Councilmember Brenner Re ABAG 4 7 9 Oral Communications 4 7 9 P Adjournment To Executive Session 4 7 9 Adjournment 4 7 9 469 2/25/80 Regular Meeting February 25, 1980 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Councilchamber at 250 Hamilton at 7:40 a.m. Mayor Henderson presiding. PRESENT: Brenner, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher, (left at 8:50 p.m,S, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly Levy, Renzel, MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 1980 .OMB.■.d ..M+�s Counciia er Brenner asked that on page 391 the first paragraph read instead: "Councilmember Brenner said that after this item of the diverter is resolved she intended to move that Council establish a Citizens' Traffic Committee." Council ber Brenner asked that on page 397, the second sentence in the last paragraph read instead: "Though a public street raised the problem of having garages back onto public streets, with a private street prospective purchasers of these lower -cost hoaxes would be saddled with costs for maintaining their own street, and further, police did not routinely patrol on private streets unless there was a special call." Councilor Renzel asked that on page 401, the thirteenth paragraph regarding a possible change in the Comprehensive Plan be deleted. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that Council approve the minutes of January 21 as corrected. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote, Councilmember Eyerly absent. OPAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Jeanne Hauser, 142.5 Stanford Avenue, spoke on the City's animal control procedures: her dog had been impounded during the weekend. She had obtained release of the dog with payment of a $31 fine; she had asked for a receipt for the money so that she could protest it, and Mr. Burke at the animal shelter had told her there was no such procedure and that she could bring her complaint to the City Council or that the could go to the City Attorney's office. She said that in the past she had, with a citation: been able to go before a municipal judge and "...plead guilty for the non -leash law, but guilty oito ex le ation, but an this case I would not have available any such thing to aye." She said that for some other violation, with a citation she could go before a judge, but in this case "...I had to pay my $31 and I didn't have any way to say I didn't like it.* She said she had spoken with Miss Ruud at the City Attorney's office, who had said she would contact Ms. Hauser. Miss Ruud had also said Mt. Hauser could come before Council. Ms. Hauser emphasized that she did not think it right for her to have to pay the fine without having anv recourse. She said she had learned that nearby cities had fewer animal control officers than Palo Alto, and she thought Palo Alto could have fewer than five animal control of=ficers. She added that she would like to know the intent of the enforcement of the leash law. She said her unleashed dog had been Whisked ewer" by the enforcement officer while it was lying on the driMewey: and Ms. Hauser had been mowing the lawn. She said that the dog's sex ned been incorrectly identified by the officer, as had the dog's age, and that by "gds." She wondered "...',chat happens to my $31 that I don't have any y way to complain about"" Meyor Henderson said the animal control center had been staffed in response to Palo Alto citizens' demand for services. He thought Miss Ruud in the City Attorney's office would contact Mt. Hauser. Roy Abrams, City Attorney, explained that the $31 was not a fine, it was an impoundment fee. A citation could have been issued in addition. Ms. Hauser said she had asked for a citation; she added that the officer could have brought her the dog --the incident had occurred right next to her house. She did not object to the leash law she objected to the dog being picked up right by the house while she was there, and not being given to her, SURPLUS SCHOOL SITES REPORT (CMR:156:0) MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, on surplus sch+ol sites be referred to The motio'i pissed on a unanimous voice NORTH SANTA CLARA Y i.t0 seconded by Sher, that the report the Council meeting of March 10. vote, Councilmember Eyerly absent. i� ACTIONS Mayor Henderson read the staff recommendations on the JPA recemmendations. Mark Harris, City Treasurer, said five of the seven JPA jurisdictions had acted on the JPA recommendations; Santa Clara and Palo Alto were to act on them this evening. He amplified that "Phase III, step l" was a pre -construction phase, for an economic analysis cf refuse -derived fuel and to see if electricity could be generated from the refuse. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel introduced the following budget amendment ordinance and second by Fazzino, moved that Council approve the staff recommendations that Council approve the JPA Governing Board recommendations of January 16 with the provisions that: the specification of a site remain open, with reinvestigation of potential sites within the JPA jurisdictional boundaries and identification of sites outside the JPA to be pursued; other participating agencies to be encouraged to pursue waste reduction techniques, such as source separation, helping to reduce the size of the problem and perhaps the size of the resource recovery facility; and that Council appropriate Palo Alto's share of $9880 of Phase III, Step 1 efforts from the Refuse Reserve Fund. In addition that Council forward to the JPA information on Palo Alto's own dump capacity, and ask Wbe included in JPA's plans for the interim period between closure of the dump and startup of the JPA facility: ORDINANCE 3183 entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE Cots Or Tl CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1979-80 Tv - halftime AUWI i Ii rya run i nE RESOURCE RECOVERY STAY CONTAINED IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Pte. Councilmember Fletcher said she understood from reading the staff report that one of the alternatives was not to consider an electric power generator. Mr. Harris said her understanding was correct; the City said that from an economic standpoint it might not be advisable. Stanford University or the City might be logical markets for the energy, and so that had to be studied. Councilmember Fletcher said she thought it would be useful to analyze the possible amount of truck traffic that would be generated by such a facility. Mr. Harris replied that one of the necessary steps in Phase III would be 471 MS/80 Corrected See Pg. 513 3/24/80 an environmental impact report, and so traffic and other impacts would then be evaluated. Vice Mayor Sher said he had not thought the environmental measures were explicit in the Phase III outline, though there were recommendations. He would like to see a comparison of the impact of trash disposal only, to traffic that would be generated at a power generating site. Mr, Harris said CMR 121 of January 17 gave estimated figures; Council was voting that evening on funding for Step I. Staff wanted to take the proposal one step at a time. Vice Mayor Sher asked if JPA had totally ruled out power generation at the Los Altos bayl a nd site. Mr. Harris said no option had totally been ruled out --they would all be assessed. Corrected See Pg. 513 3/24/80 Councilmeor4rer Brenner said she had been dismayed with the January 2f report by Northern Santa Clara County Solid Waste Disposal's program. She said that report appeared to consider the choice of the Los Altos site as an accomplished fact —she had hoped JPA would heed Palo Alto's views as stated in their January 15 statement. She acknowledged some activities had to be in the baylands, but she did not want activities placed by the water that did not have to be. JPA's site description had said the site was near San Antonio Road, and ignored that it was also very near the bay. She thought a refuse -derived fuel project should be near train tracks, so that trucks would have to be used solely. Had Palo Alto objected at the time it had been discussed at the JPA meeting? Mr. Harris said he had been involved in technical advisory meetings and so far as he had perceived all had been "...quite sensitive to these issues and it's brought out in the Phase II report itself. We went to quite an effort to look for all the potential sites within the entire JPA and for a variety of reasons all were basically eliminated except this one." He said criteria such as size, access, zoning, and the like, had been evaluated. 'We're more than anxious to find other sites, but this is one of the problems with resource recovery --in a developed area like ours there are not that many sites available." He said that all knew the Los Altos site was located near the sensitive baylands. Councilr ber Brenner ascertained with Mt. Schreiber that :he site was probably zoned heavy manufacturing. CouncIilber Renzel said she too had been concerned about the availability of railroad tracks. There would be a significant louthaule and markets for refuse -derived feels would probably be located near a railroad track. _She thought that- bringing garbage here then hauling resi ue to #ellyer Canyon did not make much sense. It might be worthwhile to look at the vacant sites listed by the Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group that seemed to have Often in more central_locatioos_ Mayor Henderson asked why Palo Alto's assessment was twice that of Mountain View when the populations were about the samee-did Palo Alto produce that much more garbage?.. Palo Alto was going to be assessed 19.76, whereas Mountain View was assessed 10,44 of the total. Mr. Harris said the history was that-JPA had wanted Mountain View to participate, particularly in the resource recn,+reryt, and so it had been -agreed.to split *WWII View's. share in half. That ratio was continued in this study se that it Would be consistent with the earlier study. Mayor Henderson said he would like to see Mountain View's share equalized. He spoke of Hellyer Canyons saying it had been discussed in the Inter -Goveriental Council (IGC) Meeting. San Jose had said that it would veto that site selection because so many residents in the area had protested. Mayor Henderson said he thought that other jurisdictions should probably be required to initiate recycling efforts as Palo Alto had, to reduce the amount of solid waste. Then perhaps the proposed plant would not have to be so large. He had discussed it with Mayor Les Nichol of Mountain View who had said he would bring it up for discussion. MOTION PASSED: The motion that Council approve the budget ordinance and the JPA Governing Board recommendations of January 16 with provisions, and asking that the City of Palo Alto be included in JPAes plans for the interim period between closure of the dump and startup of the JPA facility, passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Eyerly absent. CATV MARKET ANALYSIS (CMR:150:0) Councilmember Fazzino said he assumed staff Would select the independent consultant to conduct the -study. He ascertained that five independent companies had asked to be considered. There might be more applicants and the analysis would take about six weeks; if Council wished it could see the proposed questionnaire the consultant was to administer. William Zaner, City Manager, said that staff would select the consultant. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Levy, that Council approve the staff recommendations that 1) Council approve the draft agreement between the City and those CAT'` companies participating in the funding of a market analysis. The agreement calls for the CATV companies to fund jointly a market analysis to be conducted by an independent consultant to be selected by City staff; 2) Council to authorize staff to proceed with the selection of a professional consultant to conduct the analysis, the result of the analysis to be presented to Council no later than June 30, 1980; 3) should Council proceed with the award of a franchise/license, the successful CATV company to be required to reimburse those companies participating in the funding of the market analysis; 4) should Council, on the basis of the market analysis, decide to pursue the development of a municipal system, staff recommends that the City reimburse those CATV companies funding the market analysis. DRAFT AGREEMENT —various CATV Companies Councilmember Fazzino said he thought the market analysis would give some definitive answers as to citizens' interest in cable TV. Councilmember Brenner said she wanted to see the questionnaire before it went out. She thought the method of financing the questionnaire was like a loan being made to the City; was there to he interest on that loan money? —did -pile who might want theirmoney back expect_ to get interest? Mr. Zaner said there would be no aterest paid —the City would reject or approve the study results and act on them. Companies would get their moray back if the City decided to act as franchise owner. Councilmember Brenner said she thought that if Council wanted a survey it should pay for it. She did not think there was the great interest some people assumed. She wanted to see the questionnaire to make sure it was not slanted toward beinga sales tool. Also, installation of the cables themselves was disrupting to the whole City, and she did not want to go trough that except for a real demand. She would vote against the motion. Mayor Henderson said he wanted to see the questionnaire, but he thought the consultant would be the best judge of its content. Councllmember Renzel asked who would pay for the consultant's study if the City did not have cable TV installed. Mr. Zaner replied that no one would pay Councilmember Fenzel said she had some concern about a possible assumption among companies who paid for the consultant's study that they had an inside trac Councilmember Fazzino emphasized that a completely independent consultant was to be used; he thought such a study would determine finally whether or not Palo Altans were interested in having cable TV. Council r Brenner said she recalled one CATV representative assuring Council that there was a demand, and so she was sure any analysis would prove just that. She would support both CATV and municipal ownership if people voted for it. Councilmember Levy said he thought the study would and should show the level of interest in CATV. He did not want Council to get bogged down discussion the quality of TV available. MOTION PASSED: The emotion that Council approve the staff recommendation and approve the consultant's study passed on the following vote: AYES: Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Sher, Witherspoon NOES: Brener ABSENT: Eyerly 740-750 WEBSTER STREET WrrarrantrarrATCE LAbRENCE S TTERSit:153:0) continue rc a ruary 19) Councilor Sher left the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Mario Sanchez, Zoning Administrator, said that in addition to the seven conditions listed on CMR:153 an eighth should be included: that the applicant would be required to apply for and receive.a variance from the parking requirements of motion 18.83.060-22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Without that the applicant would be short from three to five parting spate because t the removal of the lot line, _ ayor_ Henderson aseerteined that the ap pl 1 csnt old have -to return another time to obtain the parking variance, if the application were -- approved with the seven condltip • James 3uracich, 569 Homer Avenue, said that Councilmeibers had his letter in their packets. The rear line of the subject property bordered on his mother's property at 569 Homer for which there was very little space, and the additional parking would be noisy and add to air pollution. In the 47 years he had had the property a three -storey addition to an apartmemt house had been built to tower over the yard, with attendant noise and cry conditions that took away the peacefulness of the neighborhood. /he building at 750 Webster was at least fifty years old, and he thought it little late nem to be providing parking for that." Improvements made at the front of 750 Webster did nothing for rear neighbors on Homer. He had hoped that with passage of the Comprehensive Plan overcrowding would stop with the doer zoning. He was satisfied with the Planning Commission recemmendetions. He preferred that there be no parking at the rear of the buildings and he did not know what would be the calSe if there was a fire. Mayor Henderson noted that with the modifications there would be less parking permitted than at present. Frances Krisman, 718 Webster, protested the proposed carport and also the overcrowding --she thought it might become a fire hazard. Laurence Spatters, 215 Lowell Avenue, said he resided at 750 Webster; he had bought the property to live in himself. He described his remodeling and improvement plans, which had led to him buying the two adjacent properties at 740 and 760 Webster. He reviewed the circumstances concerning the carport at 750 Webster. He said he had engaged a landscape architect, to help make the "scenic" area next to Mr, Juracich's chicken run and the six cars parked in the lot next to Mr. Juracich. He gave details on parking problem in relation to the carport. He said it would be an economic burden for him to join the properties for it would mean that if he chose to sell he would have to find a buyer who could afford to buy double lot and houses. He said he would abandon the project if he had to meet the conditions recommended by the City staff, because the project would be too costly for him. Councilmember Renzel asked if the four units at 743 and the two units at 750 i4ebster would resin if no variance were granted. Mr. Sanchez said that if the variance were not granted the Building Department would have the applicant obtain building permits, and then also to comply with the zoning ordinance now in effect, that allowed only 3 units at 740 Webster. Three units would have been permitted under the old zoning ordinance also If the property were a single family home a garage could be built next to the property line if it were only 12 feet high and was more than 75 feet back. The fourth dwelling that had to be abandoned could be used as •a garage if it were sound enough structurally. if the applicant could show the Building Department that the posts of the proposed carport would be ?0 feet back and still have enough mom for two cars a variance would no; be needed. One covered parking space per unit was required for multiple family, and depending on the number of bedrooms, one or more uncovered. Mayor Henderson noted that the Planning Comaission recommendations had been moved in the February 19 meeting and so that motion was before Council. Mow a motion for the additional eight conditions was needed. Counci l: er Brenner observed that Mr. Seaters' ` choice was to reduce 740 Webster to two dwelling units or to rive the property line --which would he choose to do? Mr. Spi tte�rs6 pJsaid he thought t choice was different■l t from the one she Love._ He_ Md_aak d____if_.a_.yar Snce was_.regtired to obtain cross at m�.nt �,..._ =n=:,��. .saanf . i�.wre c.v `,ao �rataa a cross easement Building Department e � t . s s. - - and the _Der t h Laid- it war_ not —cross easements could W � be executed without a variance. Therefore he did not think the property line was the issue Councilmember Brenner noted thet the four units had to be reduced to two if the property were to remain a single property. Mr. Spitters said he had intended to convert 740 to a two -unit building. But such conversion, along with beautification, would be very expensive -- he did not want to have to do it all this year; it would cost about $100,000. Would Council give him some years to do that? Councilmember Brenner asked if there were a phasing -out period for illegal structures. • Mr. Abrams said Mr. Spitters was not required to merge the two properties, 47 S 2/25/80 but it would have to be done if he wanted to retain the five units. If not he would have to phase out the fifth unit now. Councilmember Brenner said that she concluded that not the driveway but the number of units was the significant topic. Mr. Abrams said that the third unit at 740 Webster kept the property from . being in conformance with the code. Mr. Spitters ascertained that even if he abandoned the entire project he would still have to bring the property into conformance; he said he supposed he'd have to get legal assistance to learn about possible 'grandfather' rights. He had thought the dwelling units had been constructed about the time of World War II. He thought about one-third of the buildings in Palo Alto might have something won -conforming about the=n. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council approve the Planning Commission recommendation for partial approval of the appeal of Laurence Spitters from the decision of the Zoning Administrator to grant a variance at 740-750 Webster Street, subject to eight conditions as follows: 1) at 740 Webster, that the rear yard variance be granted and that buffer planting be provided in the remaining rear yard, and that the converted garage unit be removed; 2) at 750 Webster, that the requested front yard variance be granted; that a lot coverage of 44 percent be granted where 40 percent would otherwise be required, and that the paved area at the rear of the property be removed, and that landscaping be provided in that area; 3) that no mere than two covered parking spaces be allowed at the rear of 740 Webster, and that the backout space not be allowed to project into the 16 -foot area at the rear of the lot which is to be landscaped; 4) that review of improvements to both properties be sent to the Architectural Review Board; 5) that a bond be submitted to the City guaranteeing that all landscaping will be provided within six months of the City Council approval; 6) that the property line between 740 and 750 Webster be removed so that the five units will conform to the Zoning Ordinance; 7) that five Class 1 bicycle parking spaces be provided on -site as required by Section 18.83.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and 8) that the applicant apply for and receive a variance from the parking requirements of Section 18.83.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code because, by removal of the parcel line, making the rest of the units legal, the applicant would be short from three to five parking units. Councilmember Witherspoon said :.he wanted Mr. Spitters to understand that he had the option of not merging the properties, if he so wished. The possible use of the drive at 750 for convenience of 740 Webster had been the circumstance necessitating that merge. Mr. Spitters would not have to take advantage of all the options that would be given if the mo inn p x. s e 1 Councilmember Fletcher suggested that Mr. Spitters could merge the lots now, then remove the extra unit, then Mr. Spitters could apply for a lot split. mayor Henderson cautioned that "...tire Council hasn't been doing very well on lot splits lately —couldn't guarantee that they would do it." Counciliember Renzel asked if, should Council approve'the recommendations with the conditions, the applicant could take only a portion of the variance, or if ha had to take all the conditions. W. Sanchez said the applicant had to take all the conditions. If he didnotthe approval on the part of the City would become null and void at the end of a year. Counci lmemt r Refuel said that then she would support the motion; if Mr. Sp i tiers did proceed it would improve the property; if he did trot the 476 212100 City would be in the same position as if it had denied the appeal. Mr. Spitters had not been responsible for the illegal unit, and he was proceeding to eliminate one. The neighbors on Homer would be protected somewhat more than if the properties were single-family where a garage or carport could be built right at the property line. Councilmemben Levy referred to condition 3, the backout space. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, that condition 3 be modified to read: "That no more than two covered parking spaces be allowed at the rear of 740 Webster." Councilmember Levy said that the prescribed turning circumstances in that area were such that a tree near the space would be endangered. Mayor Henderson said the amendment left the matter of correct design too unstructured. Councilmember Renzel said that the mutter would go to the Architectural Review Board. Council could specify that the turning space need not be equivalent to an offstreet parking space. AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment, that condition 3 be modified to read "that no more than two covered parking spaces be allowed at the rear of 740 Webster, with the turning space to be sufficient only to turn around and not enough for a parking space, even for a compact car." passed on a unanimous vote, Vice Mayor Sher and Councilmember Eyerly absent. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: The main motion, with conditions, and as amended, passed on a unanimous vote, Vice Mayor Sher and Counci lmemher Eyerly absent. REQUEST OF MAYOR HENDERSON RE A Corrected See Pg. 513 3/24/80 Mayor Henderson noted that he had given Councilmembers copies of the letter he had received from former mayor, Scott Carey, regarding the recent raise in parking fines to $10.. Mayor Bien erson noted that it was ironic that the City had responded to a query from the county on parking fines, asking' that the fines be kept as they had been, then there was this dramatic rise in cost. Ex -mayor Scott Carey had written to ask that there be no increase in parking fine schedule. MOTION: Mbayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council direct the City Attorney to request. that the Municipal Court judges retain the $2 for first offense current fine schedule for Palo Alto. LF= ns i t .e� Vi the prom City Manager C that City_ _ .. _ � _ _, - - �.::. �' - - --s���'.-�°: ; �`��a."'€"+z-� e i +aces � : a� i-�s�t'ei�i Zaner the 1ss 3 aktut GC,0 0 pares' ng t Ferns per year; hat figure a was to be multiplied by the amounts of never fine echedule was in effect. The City got 80percent of that cunt. Rely Abram, City Attorney, said that the first, second and third parking offenses had been $2, $5, and $10 respectively, with authority to set that fine schedule laying with the Court. The Court indicated it was desirous of making a uniform bail. Councilmember Renzel ascertained with Ken Schreiber, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Env1rorrmaent, that staff had an an assignment from Council to return to the Finance and Public Works Committee with an on -street permit parking system; staff thought that might be completed within about two months and that would :alleviate some of the parking problem Councilmember Fletcher ascertained that the former graduated parking fines werefor one car during one day. 417 2/25/80 Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville, represented Downtown Palo Alto. He said parking infractions were increasing as commerce downtown increased. He noted that the $10 fine, through efforts of Palo Alto's City Attorney, had been reduced to $5. The authority of the Municipal Court to set fines was derived from the penal code. The general public did not know that it was not the City that set fines, however. He said monitoring was "meticulous," and citations were followed by angry, emotional outbursts directed mostly at Council and the police department, and was "...disastrous to good public relations and understanding." He thought the raise had been handled ineptly --no warning, no lead time, and did not conform to surrounding communities. Much money had been spent to make the downtown area attractive to those wishing to transact business, and incidents such as the raise in traffic fines jeopardized that investment. Kermit Knopf, 265 Lytton, said that reluctantly he had gotten used to paying the $5 fine; he thought the real problem was not the amount of the ticket but that there were not enough parking spaces. He recalled that in May of 1979 it had been decided to begin the purchase of the property at Lytton and High for eventual multi -level parking; also decided had been the examination of a parking lot within the limits of Cowper, Hami l ton , Webster and University, parking lot J, perhaps also to be a multi -level lot. He hoped there would be more immediate action on those two projects. Mayor Henderson said he had received calls from radio stations about the hearing on parking fines that evening --it appeared to be a lively item. Scott Carey, 150 University Avenue, said that the abundant good health of downtown Palo Alto had led to the present parking problem; he did not think the parking problem should be "solved" by raising parking fines. He suggested Council ask for a return to the $2 parking fine. Counci imember Fletcher said the purpose of raising the fine had been to discourage downtown employees from taking parking places that were for people who came downtown to shop. The $2 fine had not been a deterrent. A study had shown that the bulk of those who consistently took the $2 citation rather than move their cars lived within five miles and drove here in single -occupant cars. The $5 fine appeared to her to be appropriate. It cost the City about $2 just to give the citation. She favored the $5 fine. Councilmember Levy said that though the City did not set fines it did determine times of parking and general parting policy. He thought that parking policy would ensure a healthy downtown climate. He favored the motion Councilmember Renzel said that if the City issued 60,000 citations annually it seed az, though parkin privileges were being abicd. Cho thought the parking n3 rule _ l..Ii eht change when _ _ "_ i� �R �I. yw� p� ���/, a..a @ 7 aL.7 .. �. .... •..r •..:_- . . !C � �3 �-M�7.3!_L F'Ki'_a�33L�k'�__ SYYQ # #�SS�TIe. She thou Coounc i l might ask the court to evaluate its parking fine aw.'eduls, but not try to retain the old $2 fee, Fines from violations would go toward generating further offstreet parking. Councilmember Brenner said that for the time being she would go along with the motion. She feared that much larger fines would force more parking into residential areas. She thought $2 was too low. Cauncilmember Fazzino said he thought the fines hurt people who visited the downtown area to eat and shop and $5 was too severe. He would support the motion. MOTION PASSED: The motion that Council direct the City Attorney to request that *inicipal Court judges retain the $2 current fine schedule for Palo Alto passed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner Fazzino, Henderson, Levy Wither$Peon NOES: Fletcher, Renzel ABSENT: Eyerly, Sher Mayor Henderson said that Council would meet briefly in executive session for discussion of litigation. yI'��Rag_ELIMEIMEMBER BRENNER R ta Council: er Brenner asked that the matter of Air Quality as raised by the Associated Bay Area Governments (ABAG) be placed on next week's agenda. She would like to hear staff's comments such as which group recommended the most stringent standards. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Council adjourned to executive session at 9:40 p.m. ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY OF Mayor Henderson said that Council would adjourn the meeting that evening in memory of Josephine O'Hara, a. woman who had been very active in founding the Junior Museum. The executive session and meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m, AFFIRM, � „t" 'p1 C i ty C er