Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01201975CITY / COUNCIL � M}NUTES Regular Meeting January 20, 1975 ca or ¢ii10 4TO ITEM PACE Executive Session 8 2 8 Regular Meeting of January 20, 1975 8 2 8 Minutes of December 23, 1974 Appointment to PACC 4221 Wilkie Way, Tentative Subdivision Map, Application of John N. Pappas 3801 East Bayshore Road, Zane District P --C, Request of Sydney M. Smith for Six Months Extension of the Development Schedule Resolution re State Legislature Regulal.ing Practice of Massage and Education of Massage Practitioners Retirement of Anthony J. Poso Expansion of Greer Park Council and Committee Meeting Procedures Request to Move Item 13 (Massage Establishment Ordinance) Forward on the Agenda Ordinance Relating to Fences, PAMC, Chapter 16.24 2600 East Baysbore Road, Application of James W. Foug for Site and Design Control District Approval (Office Building) • Yacht Harbor Ordinance Ordinance Amending.Title 18 of the Municipal Code to Permit Ce:meteriee in the 0—S Zone Draft Environmental Impact Statement Prepared by D.S. Coast Guard for Dumbarton Bridge Replacem&ut Project • Adjournment 8 2 8 8 2 8 8 2 9 8 3 2 8 3 2 8 3 3 8 3 3 8 4 0 8 4 4 8 4 5 8 4 7 8 4 8 8 5 7 8 5 8 8 5 a 8 2 7 1/20/75 January 20, 1975 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 6:50 p.m. in an Executive Session with Mayor Sher presiding. PRESENT: Beahrs, Berwald, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson Rosenbaum, Sher ASSENT: Clay The Executive Session adjourned at 7:35 p.m. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:30 p.m. in a regular meeting with Mayor Sher presiding. PRESENT: Beahre, Berwald, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher ABSENT: Clay mutes of December 23. 3974 rinlEl.110prwlla.im.atm�wai.nsta�llo®�mu�a0r dc�.a Vice Mayor Henderson requested that the words "around the stage" be deleted from the first line of the fourth paragraph on page 752 and the word3 "in the restaurant" be inserted. Mayor Sher referred to page 758, the last paragraph, and requested that "State Senator" be iz:serted before "Gregorio" in the thirteenth line. Regarding the sixth line from this bottom of the same paragraph, Mayor Sher asked that "with representatives" be included just after the words "study group". Councilman Norton had two corrections for page 756. He noted that the sentence stating that he left at 10:10 p.m. should appear after the final vote on that page, rather than before it; and the last vote on the page should indicate that he had voted "uo". MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Comstock, that the minutes of December 23, 1974, be approved as corrected. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Mayor Sher announced that during the Executive Session held just trior to this ateting, the Council approved the nomination of Darlene Y. King to the Palo Alto Child Cara Board of Directors, 828 1/20/75 4221 WilkieWav, Tentative Subdivision e �r�nlYp1ic :.pi.�.Ainuf �ohn N. ra3 7ji$8 Chairwoman Frances Brenner of the Plan.7ing Commission stated that the one aspect of this subdivision which was left unresolved is the side strip adjacent to Lot 100,. which is outside of this particular subdivison. It was of concern to the Commission that the adoption of the subdivision creates a corner lot out of Lot 100, and that restricts the use of the side yard. The feeling ►gas that the lot should have the protection of`a normal corner yard, that is to say - have street trees and a parking< strip; but the problem of the parking strip was not resolved by the Commission and was left to the staff to decide. Mrs. Brenner said that the need for a regular street related also to a need for diverting parking from Wilkie Way. Napbtali Knox, Director of Planning, agreed that the major item in question was the green strip. .:He. said he had taken a look at the situation sing., the matter had. out of Commission, and he had some alternatives which Council could consider. Mr. Knox stated the main problem was there was a space eleven feet in width between Christie Court and Lot 100, and the Planning Commission has directed that there be some arrangement for adequate landscaping on the green strip. The related problem is that the subdivision makes Lot 100 a corner lot and makes its dwelling nun -conforming. The first alternative would be to take the green strip adjacent to Lot 100 aid rake it adjacent to Lot 1 of the subdivisA.oa. This would move the Christie Court pavement and the curb next to Lot 100, and the dwelling there would be about eight feet from automobile traffic. The green strip would be partly within Lot 1 and partly in the public ri3ht-of--way. Hr. Knox noted that this alternative would offer some good opportunity for maintenance of the green strip. A second alternative would be to add the green strip to Lot 100. This would burden that lot with the responsibility for the green strip, but it would not guarantee improvements or maintenance of improvements. Further, Mr. Knox pointed out that Lot 100 has a six-foot fence on the side lot line; and after adding this strip, a new fence could be only four feet high unless it were kept sixteen feet back from the lot line, and the accessory building on Lot 100 would still become non -conforming. A third alternative would be to add the green strip to Lot 5. This would avoid making a corner lot out of Lot 100, which is a plus; but it would burden Lot 5 without really guaranteeing the landscaping or the maintenance of the green strip by the owner of Lot 5. Mr. Knox said a fourth alternative would be to require the developer to improve the green strip based on Architectural Review Board comments, which the developer must go through because this is more than a single-family development. Based on the ARB review, a Roane Owners' Association or an Assessment District could be required to maintain the green strip. Mr. Knox noted that this particular alternative was discouraged by the City Attorney's office and by the Department of Public Works as being complicated, ponderous, and out of proportion with the iraportanee of the problem. The fifth alternative mould be to require the developer to improve the green strip based on the ARB review, but leave its maintenance to adjacent owners. The last alternative would be to construct a five --foot wide sidewalk next to the curb on the green strip en the side of Christie Court. Mr. Knox said this would decrease the green strip from ten feet to five feet in width, and the added paving would reduce the problem. Mayor Siner asked why Mr. Knox said that adding the strip to Lot 5 would not guarantee that it would be maintained. 829 1/20/75 Mr. Knox responded that the strip was a very long appendage, and he did not feel the owner would consider that pierce of land to be actually a part of his property. Mr. Knox observed that many property owners did net maintain the parking strip in front of their houses, and that could be the feeling of this particular property owner if this strip were made a part of his lot. Samuel Halstead, 500 Santa Cruz Avenue, Menlo Park, Engineer for the tentative map, commented that Council was working with the principle and the financial burden of this strip; and he thought the principle might be more important. Maintenance of the strip in perpetuity by the city might be something that could be funded for a few hundred dollars, and that would be an annuity that could be drawn upon for this piece of land. If this suggestion made sense to Council, Mr. Halstead recommended the third alternative mentioned by Mr. Knox since that did the host kindly legal thing to Lot 100. Therefore, Mr. Halstead saw the strip as being part of Lot 5, with the city maintaining it as an easement. Mayor Sher asked if the applicant in the first instance would be willing to provide landscaping and an irrigation system. Hr. Halstead responded that something modest that would make the strip easy to •►aintain would he the proper thing. MOTION: Councilman Comstock introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Henderson, its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.5054 entitled "RESOLUTION Of THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4221 WILKIE WAY IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND GRANTING EXCEPTIONS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS" :with the finding that no environmental impact will result from this ac tioe. Councilman Comstock thought the course of action suggested by Mr. haisteed would be the only one that could be followed if there is going to be a strip of dirt next to a fence. The immediately adjoining neighbor would be in an "out -of -eight, out -of- .nd" position, and the person across the street would be looking at what might be a bare dirt patch. Councilman Comstock felt that everyone knew there was quite a lot of variability in how owners maintained parking stripe in (rout of their houses; therefore, he felt that alternative one or three should be approved, with his preference being for the latter. Councilwoman Pearson.did not think it would make too much difference in Palo Alto if the sidewalk were put within at least one foot of the fence and then have parking on the other side. She pointed out that the developer is willing to put in the trees and the sprinkler - systee, so the city would simply beve to see that the system was turned on periodically. In her opinion, that would not be any different from any of the parking strips now in Palo Alto. Councilwoman Pearson expressed ber feeling that a sidewalk at least a foot away from the fence would be necessary. AMENDMENT; Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by 8ervald, that the resolution be amended to add Cefiltion 10 stating there would be a five-foot sidiiit within a foot of the fence, a parking strip on the other side, vith tress and a dprinnkler system installed by the developer, the system being automatically controlled and metered to the City of Palo Alta. 8 3 0 1/20/15 Councilman Beahrs asked if Councilwoman Pearson's intent was to eliminate the perking strip eetirely. Councilwoman Pearson responded there would be a five-foot sidewalk and a five-foot parking strip. Vice Mayor Henderson asked if there were any trees there presently that the sidewalk would iaterfere with. Mr. Knox replied there were no trees at this time. Councilman Berwald did not think the sidewalk was necessary. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Comstock, thant the sidewalk be deleted, making a full ten -foot landscaped strip. Ruth Birgensmith, 4211 Wilkie Way, expressed concern about the sidewalk because she felt a curbed sidewalk would encourage the parking of automobiles close to her lot; and she thought this would make her property not a corner lot. Mayor Sher was not sure about that since this may be considered city property and not be attached to Lot 5. Mr. Knox commented that this would all be in city right--of-way, so Lot 100 would become a corner lot. The only way Lot 100 could avoid becoming a corner lot would be if the strip of land is attached to Lot 5. If the land is, in fact, attached to Lot 5, there might be the possibility of a landscape easement. Mayor Sher explained that the motion contemplated involving the city in order to inure the strip's maintenance. Mrs. Birgensxmith observed that it would be favorable to her if the lot were not a corner one. She called attention to the fact that the developer was willing to put a sprinkling system in; but if the money involved for that were given to the :caner of Lot 5, that would certainly take care of the watering. At one time, Lot 5 was non- conforming because it was toosmall; and Mrs. Birgensaith noted that the addition of this strip might be a good thing. C. E. Birgenemitb, 4211 Wilkie Way, asked if his taxes would be increased if his lot became a corner one and whether a lot becomes non -conforming unless there is a sixteen foot setback Robert Booth, City Attorney, thought the proposal to add the strip to Lot 5 and have an easement created in the city, once Mr. Pappas has done the landscaping and installed an automatic watering system, was acceptable. Mr. Booth added that Lot 100's becoming a corner lot would not have much effect, if any at: all, on the Birgensaitb's taxes; however, adding property to the existing lot might tend to increase taxes by a small amount. Councilwoman Pearson stated that since a sidewalk was not wanted, she would be willing te delete that part of her amendment. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT WITUDRAW : Couuci1 an Berwald, and Councilman Comstock as she seconder, agreed to withdraw the amendment to delete the sidewalk. 8 3 1 1/20/75 Councilwoman Pearson spoke to the possibility of leaving this strip as part of Lot 5. She said that if she had purchased Lot 5 with that long strip down the side, she would be really annoyed if she had to maintain. it. Ia such a case, Councilwoman Pearson thought the owner would consider the city responsible for maintenance. She felt the strip should be landscaped, and the city should be responsible for keeping the strip green. AMENDMENT RESTATED: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Berwald, that Condition No. 10 be added to the Resolution stating that the developer shall landscape and improve the green strip located between the proposed street (Christie Court) aad.Lot.100 (which lies north of the proposed subdivision) in accordanes.with the requiresenta of the City of Palo Alto Architectural. Raves. Board. Such improvements shall include street trees and ground, over,• and may include decorative paving and an underground sprinkler. ayatea to be automatically controlled and metered to the City of Palo Alto. AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT: Councilsan` Ber ald moved, seconded by Comstock, that the strip be attached to.lot-5, with a landscape easement granted to the City of Palo Alto. The amendment to the amendment passed on a t:.ru.animous vote. The amendment as amended passed on a unanimous vote. The resolution as amended was adopted on a unanimous vote. 3801 East Bayshore its d L Zone District P C Re nest .of - S die M. Snit or Six Mont Extensa on o 1eveog nt c.aue MOTION: Councilman Comstock introduced the following resolution and rived, seconded by Berwald, its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 5052 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING ORDINANCE li0. 2665 TO axIEND THE DEvuopmarr SCHEDULE FOR THE P -C DISTRICT AT 3801 EAST BATSEORE ROAD" The resolution was adopted on a unanimous vote. Resolution ice of Masse e of Mass- e rrec ti MOTIJ(: Councilman Berweld introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Comstock, its adoptions: RESOLUTION NO. 5053 entitled "RESOLUTION OF T E CECIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORIALIZING THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LEGISLATION REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF MASSAGE AND THE EDUCATION OF MASSAGE PRACTITIONERS01 8 3 2 1/20/75 Mayor Sher stated he opposed the drafting of the resolution, and he would vote against it. He explained that in his experience with the State Licensing Agencies, there is a tendency of the licensees to gain control of the agency. Instead of always acting in the public interest, the agencies sometimes acted in the interest of the licensee. Therefore, Mayor Sher was not inclined to memorialize the Legislature to create still another licensing agency. Councilman Berwald thought Mayor Sher's comments were well taken. He said he was a foe of any public regulation except when it is absolutely necessary. In this case, however, there was one owner of a legitimate massage parlor who implored Council to pass the ordinance, since those who were not legitimate passage parlor operators were ruining the business for .those who were. Councilman Berwald comMerted that there would be uniformity of requirements in this particular business if the state did the regulating. The resolution was adopted on the following vote: AYES: Beahray Berwald, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum NOES: Sher ABSTAIN: Norton Retirement of .Ar,tl�an .i. Poso 4CMR:105:5) y��y.�11.�.arnq�u..Qw+�c�war iMQiro ro.. r� MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson introduced the following resolution a.d moved, seconded by Norton, its adoption: RESOLUTION NO, 5051 entitled "RESOLUTIOF OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO ANTHONY J. POSO UPON HIS RETIREMENT" The resolution was adopted on a unanimous vote, See pg. 924 Vice mayor Henderson, Chairman of the Finance send Public Works Department, recalled that last summer the Committee and Council approved acquisition of approximately fifteen acres of lend around the existing five -acre Greer Park for expansion purposes, and directed staff to negotiate purchase of the ].and, Also, staff was directed to develop a preliminary plan for the park to show need for new facilities and to develop the cost feasibility iu solving the drainage problems. Vice Mayor Henderson noted that the ataff report covering these items, dated December 5, 1914, WAS the subject of the Decaier 10 sating of the Committee. Vice Mayor Henderson stated that the drainage problem is solvable et a lower cost than anticipated if the entire park area is worked on at the sa:se time according to the study done by Whaley Associates. The need for new facilities such as baseball and softball diamonds, soccer fielde, and tennis courts is clear from data in the staff report; and the park deficiency figures for this area of town justify establishing en new district park. Vice Mayor Henderson reported that staff had completed negotiations for the property, and the firm of Ribera and Sue, Inc. has developed a preliminary plan in close cooperation with residents of the area. That plan has been endorsed unanimously by those attending a residents' meeting and by the Finance and Public 8 3 3 1/20/75► Works Committee. Staff made full recommendations to the Committee, of which three were sent to Council with minor changee. Vice Mayor Henderson commented that staff recommended authorizing funds in the 1975-76 Capital Improvements Budget for lighting a softball field at Wilbur Junior High School, and that is an item that should be included in the proposed budget for next year since it was not directly related to the Greer Park situation. The first action before Council concerns authorization -for purchase of the land. Originally, approximately four acres of land at Colorado Avenue and West Bayshore Frontage Road owned by ONC was to be excluded. Other land owned by ONC, the drive- in theater property, and the Pellegrini and Nearon properties were to be purchased. Staff recommended the purchase of four acres at Colorado and West Bayshore and the exclusion of 2.04 acres of Pellegrini and Nearon properties. After much discussion, the Committee agreed on the four acres but also added the three-quarters of an acre of Nearon property, still excluding the Pellegrinl one and one -quarter acres. Vice Mayorr Henderson noted that the total recommended purchase was 16+ acres, making a total pack of 21+ acres, This year's Capital Improvements Budget contains one and a quarter million dollars to cover purchase of this land, and staff has indicated that the purchase can be completed within that budgeted amount. The Went Bayshore Residents Association urgee the inclusion of the Pellegrini property, Vice Mayor Henderson continued that the second proposed action concerns development of the new park. The Committee recommends that the 197S- 76 Capital Improvement Program Budget Proposal include an amount for a Phase 1 development plan that includes grading, drainage, irrigation, turfing, utilities, pathways, security lighting, minimum plantings, basic parking, and restrooms. ills approach has been strongly recommended by the consultant and staff as the best way to insure proper drainage and to provide usable recreation areas at the earliest date. Vice Mayor Henderson noted that Council :members had a memorandum from Council -- man Rosenbaum concerning an alternative approach. The final staff recommendation called for additional phased development of the park over an extended period of time based on future recreation needs. The Committee added that the basis should be future recreation needs and availability of funds. Then the Committee added that the entire - developmsent be completed within five years; and that was a split vote - Beahrs and Berwald for, said Henderson against. Vice Mayor Henderson felt Council needed to be aware of the additional costs for park maintenance and recreational supervisor that will follow purchase and development of this park. Costs for the present five -acre park are about $13,000 per year. When the park is fully developed, the costs will be about $96,000 per year. If the park is developed in its first phase as proposed by the Committee, the increased costs would be approximately half the ultimate increase. The community building would be a significant cost differential, both in :maintenance costs and pressure for additional recreational supervision. MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved on behalf of the Finance and Public Works Committee s) that staff be authorized to purchase for dedicated park property approxi- mately 16+ scree of lad which includes all the parcel* shown on the slap except the Peiiigrini property; b) that Council direct staff ,to include in the proposed Capital. Improvement Pudget for 1975-76 an a unt to cover a Phase Ons development plan for Greer Park that would include grading, drainage, irriga- tton, turfing, utilities, pathways, 834 1/20/75 security lighting, minimum plantings, basic parking, and restrooms; c) that additional phases of development of Greer Park be done over an extended period of time based on future studies of recrea- tion needs and the availability of funds, the entire development to be completed within five years. For benefit of the audience, Councilman Rosenbaum stated that he sent a memorandum to Council members suggesting the possibility of a ,second alternative for the Phase I development. He had in mind not snaking any decision at this meeting, but directing staff to prepare some sketches and coat estimates on at alternative that would perhaps provide e small building and some tennis courts in lieu of converting the entire area to turf. To provide background, Councilman Rosenbaum said it seemed to him there had been a remarkable escalation in this park. Two years ago, Council directed staff to try to add five acres to the park and put in some district -type facilities; and one-half million dollars was appropriated for that. There had been some discussion es to whether to expand toward Colorado Avenue or the Drive -In, and a decision had been made to expand in both directions. Councilman Rosenbaum recalled that at that time there was some rationale for acquiring all the land, and they had to do with the need for additional community - wide facilities. The problem, was brought up about the lack of playing fields for Little League, soccer, etc. Staff was asked to do a survey to determine whether or not existing fields could meet such community needs, and staff reported back that existing ;school fields were sufficient for the soccer leagues. Little League found a field at Hoover School; and although they had just a one year lease there, Councilman Rosenbaum felt that if the school were to abandon that site, that would be very high on Council's priorities for purchase. With regard to softball, Mr. Bruns identified a site at Wilbur Junior High School that could be lighted. Later, Councilman Rosenbaum and Mr. Bruns found another site at Wilbur, one at El Camino Park where a softball diamond could be placed, and mother at Palo Alto High School. The conclusion was that there really vas no need for additional softball diamonds. For some reason, the proposed park plans include a baseball diamond the same size as Candlestick Park. There are seven baseball fields at the present time, and that is sufficient for the needs of the community. Councilman Rosenbaum pointed out that the original rationale for converting so much land to turf just did not exist, He still felt the decision to bey all the land was a good one, but he questioned whether Council should go along at this time with Phase 1 as proposed. Councilman Rosenbaum suggested that what some of tie residents in that area wanted when the subject first came up, was some sort of city presence in the form of a small building. Aiao, there has always been a demand for tennis courts theme. It vas Councilman Rosenbaum's hope that a second alternative would be prepared to be compared with the first one, and that it would be reviewed by the Finance and Public Works Commission in cooperation with the public. Council would then be able to look at two alternatives. Councils 3eshrs hoped that members of the public would comment on the exclusion of the Peliegrini pxoperty since he inns somewhat disposed to purchase that too, Mayor Sher invited members of the aedience to address Council. Roger J. Marzul..la, Attorney, 12 South First Street, San Jose, represented the owners of the Pellegrini property. Hepainted out that the Greer Perk ec.quiaitio n is not a new idea►. Several years ago, Mr. Pellegriai - now deceased - approached Council with plans for rezoning of this 835 1/20/75 property to multiple dwelling use. The p1ens were turned down in part on the rationale that this land might someday be used for a park. Two years ago, the owners again approached Council with the surge idea of using the property for multiple dwellings. Once again, the idea was turned down because of the possibility of the city eventually acquiring the property for a park. Mr. Marzulla stated that a few months ago, the owners were approached by the acquisitions egent for the city requesting that they sign an option for the purpose of the city's acquiring park property; and the option was signed. At the Finance and Public Works Committee meeting, the owners found that after five yearo of hearing they could not have their property rezoned because of the possibility of a park being built there, the city was no longer interested in acquiring it for that purpose. Mr. Marzulla noted that twenty-two acres of contiguous open space in the heart of Palo Alto was unique, and to exclude this one piece of property in favor of permitting it to be developed into an apartment project is not the beat use of a unique opportunity. It was Mr.. Marzull&'s opinion that if the Pelligrini property were exclude4 prom park use, the prircipal aspect of open space would be neglected becaune so much of the land to be acquired would be used for tennis courts and the like. Mr. Marzulla thought it was obvious that if the property were not acquired at this tine for park use, it would be forever lost to the city. Vice Mayor Henderson referred to the triangle on the map and asked just what the acreage was of the ONC property as you would go straight across to Colorado: Keith Bruns, Director of the Recreation Department, responded that piece of land was 1.3 acres in size. Councilman Rosenbaum considered it important to make the point that the proposals for rezoning of the Pellegrini property were turned down on their merits, and there never was any discussion about park use for that land. Orville Miller, 1161 Colorado Avenue, stated that the extra land was needed for the park for the benefit of the many children in that immediate area. Robert Anania, 1069 Moreno Avenue, strongly urged Council to approve the recosmendations from the Committee as submitted. However, if Council desired to add the Pellegrini property, he would support that. He pointed out that the West Bayahare area is a high residential one, and there was a critical need for additional recreational space and facilities. Secondly, Mr. Mania noted that in this era of a growing energy crunch, citizens would be looking to their own communities to meet all of their human needs. Developing a park complex would provide for recreation, leisure time fulfillment, physical activity, and other social requirements. It was Mr. Ananie' a feeling that the cost would be offset many times over in the future by a reduction in social problems. S. L. Corcbado, 926 Colonial Lane, stated that everyone involved agreed that a park was needed. If a viable district park were to be developed, it was important to lay down the foundation first; and that foundation is ell the proper drainage, irrigation, sloping land, etc. Mr. Corchado strongly recommended that: Council adopt the proposal from the Finance end Public Works Committee accepting all three items as one package. 836 1/20/75 Erk Reimnitz, 914 Van Auken Circle, said it appeared that some people feel there is no real drainage problem in the existing park; but the fact is that under average year-round conditions, the land area is so soggy that no one can find a place to sit down. This problem is largely related to inadequate grading and the fact that a thin bed of artificial fill rests on a bed of impervious clay. Mr. Reimnitz feared that grading in the ::astern portion of the park might make conditions in the western portion worse than they are at present. He said the problem could be delayed over a five year time period if Council did not mind calling part of the park a bog and having a large percentage of dissatisfied citizens who had to enter the park from that side. Mr. Reimnitz thought it would be unwise to begin development in one area of the park before the entire foundation eras completed. It wae clear from the consultant's report that the proposed topography after grading, and the drainage pipes of a given diameter and slope, are meant to be an integral part of the drainage systems for the total area, From a practical viewpoint, a piecemeal approach would be more expensive than a total approach. In Mr. Reimnitz' view, grading and drainage for the total area and a limited amount of landscaping is a logical first step in developing the park. Kate Hooker, 3648 Evergreen Drive, President of Palo Alto Little League, said that a field had been found at Hoover School for leagues; and other school fields had been found for practice use. She feared that if schools were closed and sold, it would be difficult to find new playing fields, Mrs. Hooker noted that the situation with soccer la very much the same, and she pointed out that the number: of soccer teams and players had doubled in the past year. The soccer teams were using school district fields too, except for El Camino Park. Use of El Camino Park had to be discontinued because of its poor condition. At this point, for example, there are sometimes as many as five Wilbur soccer games plus six practices scheduled on a typical Wednesday. Barbara Hopkins, 1040 Moffett Circle, Chairwoman of the Wese Bayshore Residents Association Park Committee, noted that Greer Park expansion had been unanimously supported by Council over the past two years. The Association hoped that Council would vote to proceed with the next steps in making Greer Park a quality district park that will be used and enjoyed by all of Palo Alto. The need for the park was critical because of the numbers of children and young people who live in the immediate vicinity of the park. Mrs. Hopkins stated the negative aspects of the existing park and expressed the opinion that the park clearly needs to be rebuilt from scratch. She spoke in favor of more playing fields for organized sports, and she thought it lade sense to combine the city needs for more playing fields with the immediate neighborhood's need for a high quality park. The Association considered Plan A, developed by Ribera and Sue, to be an outstanding plan; and Mrs. Hopkins urged Council to adopt Flag A as the basic plan for the development of Greer Park. She pointed out that the importance of the foundation that would include drainage, irrigation, etc., could hardly be over:eatimated. The West Bayshore Residents Association urged Council to approve the phased development in order to make Greer Park a quality district park, and to approve the recommendation of the Finance and Public Works Committee for iced :ate land acquisition and Phase 1 development of the park. Vice Mayor Henderson caked if the Association had discussed Schematic C, which would take off the top upper right head corner of land. Mrs. Eopkina responded that the problem in that plan was the location of the tennis courts was not advantageous because of the wind direction. Also there was strong feeling about access to the park from Bayshore and Frontage Roads rather than Colorado, which was the rationale for not having a driveway from Colorado. 837 1/20/75 David Jones, 2599 Louis Road, recalled that he had spoken to Council many times about the deteriorating traffic situation in Palo Alto and specifically, on Louis Road. Even so, he wholly supported Greer Park - which will probably generate more traffic on Louis Road - because a district park was needed, not high density apartments. He stated hie preference for the sanity of pleased; resideptial, recreational traffic to pathological traffic of transient members of a high density development. Fraek Manfredi, 219 Addison Avenue, ncted that he had advocated for a long time building no more houses is Palo Alto and making mini -parks out of every piece of property that exists. &e recommended that the property be acquired by eminent domain. Mayor Sher stated that Part (a) of the Committee's recommendation was before Council. Councilman eerwald thought the decision to include the Nearon property and to exclude the Pellegrini property was a sound one from a planning standpoint for the park, from an economic standpoint, and from the standpoint that it was necessary to balance the need for open space and the need for housing. The need for the Pellegrini land for this park has not been shown, but the need for housing has, Apparently, the neighborhood was happy with the decision; and Councilman Berwa1d con=sidered Part (a) was just exactly the right motion to pass. Councilman Beahrs pointed out that this area, more than any other in Palo Alto, was highly impacted with unusually dense housing, For that reason, he would regret seeing any housing developed on the Pellegrini property. AME.h'1) )ENT: Councilman Beahrs coved that Part a) of the motion be amended to add the Pellegrini property for purposes of negotiation. The ameedment died for lack of a second. Couenellnara Comstock agreed with COUUCilMall Rosenbaum's consents; and he stated that the development proposals for the Pellegriniproperty, as far as he was concerned, were ccnsidered on their merits and .rejected. Part (a) of the motion parsed on a unanimous vote. Mayor Sher stated that Part (b) of the motion was before Council. Councilman Rosenbaum said there were five million dollars in the unallocated Capital Improvement lucid, and the projection was that nothing would be added. Phase 1 development of the park. beyond the purchase of the property vas estimated to be 1.3 million dollars. Perhaps when this wawa looked at with all of the other proposed Capital Improvements, Council would decide to spend the 1.3 million dollars. That is a possibility, but Councilman Rosenbaum was suggesting that there be available to Council a considerably lower cost s.lternetive which would provide some of the improvements for which people had been expressing a need. If this really could not be done, and if it were absolutely necessary to develop all twenty acres to get the proper drainage, then there could be no alternative. Offhand, Councilman Rosenbaum felt sure that if someone owned five or e x acres, they could develop their property - properly drained - without adversely affecting everybody else. He commented that he considered his earlier remarks about the reed for * softball end baseball held valid. In any case, the land would be there; and as needs developed, they could be provided for on the land. 838 1/20/75 AMENDMENT: Councilman Rosenbaum moved Part b) be amended to direct staff to prepare a second alternative for Phase I development of the park calling for development of approximately five or six acres along the Colorado Avenue frontage with tennis courts and a small building. The amendment died for lack of a second. Councilman Berwald remarked that he shared stoma of Councilman Rosenbaum" s feelings. He did not second the amendment because he was convinced that the drainage problems were such that it would be much more costly to ettempt to handle them on a portion of the property at a time. Councilman Berwald was etill in favor of a small buildin3, and he thought the Bayshore Residents Association would like to ha•se one as early as possible since there is no place to store equipment. Such a building could also serve as a nucleus for those children from homes where both parents were employed. Councilman Bervald commented that (b) was so open that it did not decide what finally was to he done, and there was plenty of room for discussion. He hoped there would be minimum plantings;; and since there would be a lot of children using the park from the immediate neighborhood, perhaps the building could be substituted for some of the parking. Councilman Berwald concluded that the minimum grading and the minimum planting should be gone ahead with in order to get the park ready for use. Vice Mayor Henderson referred to the fact that it had been brought out twice that baseball and softball diamonds were not needed. He pointed out that it needed to be remembered that such diamonds were not used just for formal games; but they were also used for impromptu games. Part (b) of the emotion passed on a unanimous vote. Mayor Sher stated that Part (c) of the motion was before Council. Vice Mayor Henderson was concerned about proposed additional phases of the park being based upon recreational needs and availability of funds and then have added to that a time limit of five years for the entire project. It was his hope that everything would be completed within five years, but it was necessary to remember that the city might be entering a period of severe budget restrictions. Vice Mayor Henderson thought the tennis courts should be in the tennis court program, and perhaps the community building would be just too such to be managed in a specified period. In his opinion, the time span should be left open. There would be able pressure from the residents of the area to proceed as rapidly as possible, but Vice Mayor Henderson felt Council should have the freedom to place it in line with other priorities. AST: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Se.ahre, that the Beards "the entire development to he completed within five years" be deleted from Part (c) of th:e motion. Councilman teahrs felt sure the public appreciated Council's problem and that perhaps choir help would be needed in passing a bond issue to get some of the wanted aspects that could not be amortized out of current earning,. Be stated that sow of the younger people should have the pleasure cf payin.g for some improvements themselves. Council an Bervald indicated support of the Committee's recommendation as it appears en the agenda, and he pointed out that it expressed an intent only. No ordinance would be paaaed to say that the park had to be completed in five years, but Councilman Bervald felt the residents deserved some firm statement of intent. Taking out the 8 3 9 1/20/75 time period may .leave the matter dangling for future Councils, and Councilman Berwald would like to see Part (c) passeci as stated in the original. motion. Counci1zae Comstock understood the idea that generated the time limit; on the other hand, just a few years ago the laet facilities were added to Mitchell Park. He considered that to be an object lesson that the development of facilities would reflect the needs of the area. The Finance and Public Works Committee would be looking at the Capital Improvement Program over the next five yearn. At this point, Councilman Comstock did not think a statement of colleting the project in five years was necessary. He thought the people interested in Greer Park knew very well that they had not attended their last meeting on the subject. This project could not be wedged in arbitrarily among the other priorities in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program review. Mayor Sher commented that he would support the opinion, the way the time period was stated in there was a commitment to complete the project he thought it was better to have the action be being done based on recreational needs and the amendment. In his the original motion, in five years; and in terms of the work availability of funds. The amendment t.o the motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Berwald Part (c) of the motion, as amended, passed on a unanimous vote. Council Comm_ ee Meeting Procedures Councilwoman Pearson, Chairwoman of the Policy and Procedures Committee, said if there is one thing Palo Alto City Council meetings were noted for, it is length. This is due to very important ingredients. One of them is a very active citizenry which insists on participating and making its wishes known, and that is what Council wants and expecte. Another aspect is that Palo Alto's Council is the largest one except for Los Angeles, and each member is a leader who campeignv even if there is just one person in the audience. The issues do tae longer than ever these days, and there are few things that Council can do to shorten the meetings. Councilwoman Pearson said the recoemendaticns from the Policy and Procedures Committee may speed things up, but she thought the real answer was with Council. It vas not really neceu.ary to speak to each item three or four times. The recommendations from the Committee included the following: a) that the Council implement a two-part consent calendar --the first :section to contain the following: second readings of ordinances, setting of hearing dates, vacation of easements, unsniaeouaa planning Commission recommendations and awards of contracts; and the second section to be devoted to actions and referrals to Committees, Boards and Commissions; and that any item can be removed from Consent Calendar at request of any Council .ember and the item would fall into the agenda at the and of its normal ; otegory; b) that an amendment to the procedure rules be made to permit the City Manager, with the prior approval of the Mayor, to designate on tee agenda of the City Council meetings tat an item or itera shall be taken up at a specified time; c) that the City Council amend the procedural rules to permit the Council to determine, by a majority vote, immediately after the break, those items on the agenda which are to be continued to future meetings; d) that the City Council end e40 1/20/75 the procedural rules to provide a fifteen minute limit of oral communications at the start of each meeting wherein the public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda; e) that Section 2.04.230 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pertaining to standing committee dates be amended as follows: The Policy and Procedures Committee meetings shell be scheduled for the first and third Tuesdays of every month, and the Finance and Public Works Committee tweeting dates shall be scheduled for second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Comstock, its approval for first reading: ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMNDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 2 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR A CONSENT CALENDAR, CHANGE THE TIME OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, ESTABLISH COMMITTEE MATING DAYS, ESTABLISH SPECIFIED TIME FOR AGENDA ITEMS, AND PROVIDE FOR CONTINUATION OF AGENDA ITEMS Councilwoman Pearson referred to the statement on the first page of the ordinance which said that any Council member may request that an individual item be removed from the consent calendar, in which case that item shall be considered immediately following New Business. She stated that the Committee decided that the item would fall into the agenda at the end of its normal category. City Attorney Booth suggested that a change could be made so that the sentence would read: "Any Council member nay request that an individual item be removed from the consent calendar, in which case that item shall be considered in the place en the agenda it would have otherwise appeared". Mayor Sher asked if this wording meant at the end of the category under which it otherwise would appear. Councilwoman Pearson noted that Mayor Sher's remarks reflected the recommendation and intent of the Committee. Mr. Booth stated that this recommendation from the Committee would be ,lade clear in that part of the ordinance. Mayor Sher referred to Paragraph 3 of the ordinance, under Section 1, which said: "The oral communication period at the beginning shall be limited to three speakers"; and he asked Councilwoman Pearson if that agreed with the Committee's recommendation, Councilwoman Pearson responded that Committee members had not talked about whether it should be limited to any number of speakers, but had merely recommended that the period at the beginning of the meeting should be for fifteen minutes. See pg. 924 Mayor Sher explained that part of the ordinance should read that the period should be limited to fifteen minutes, and that part referring to three speakers or whichever occurs first ehou.d be deleted, Councilwoman Pearson .agreed with this understanding. Mayor Sher noted that there would be a fifteen minute limit; and if there were not enough speakers from the audience to use up that, time, Council could proceed with the agenda. 8 4 1 1/20/75 Mayor Sher referred to Section 5 of the ordinance which states: "Upon said hour, the Council may suspend consideration of the item that should be then under discussion or complete consideration of such item". Mayor Sher suggested the wording should be "Or may complete consideration of such item" and then "ui st commence consideration of the item for which a time was specified". Otherwise, it looks as though it is not mandatory but is at the discretion of Council. Councilwoman Pearson agreed with Mayor Sher's comments. Councilwoman Pearson said that Section 6 did not quite reflect what t':e Committee had said. Committee did not say: "When additional meetings are necessary, the Chairman of each Committee may call a meeting for the next regular scheduled Tuesday". The Committee said that the Committee Chairman could call a meeting, period. Such a meeting might be on some other day, because they did occasionally meet on Wednesdays, Thursdays, etc. Also, a Chairman could cancel a meeting. Mayor Sher said the understanding was that the wording "for the next regular scheduled Tuesday" would be deleted. Mayor Sher stated that with these changes, the ordinance reflected the recotandations of the Committee; therefore, the ordinance as changed was before Council for first reading. Vice Mayor Henderson expressed concern that one group o,= people would come in and use up the entire fifteen minute period set aside at- the beginning of the meeting for Oral. Communications. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Henderson ,roved, seconded by Beahrs, that the oral communications period at the beginning of the meeting be limited to fifteen minutes and to one speaker per subject. If there is an overflow on the subject, the speakers would be heard under Oral Communications at the end of the meeting. Councilman Fseahre thought Vice Mayor Henderson was trying to be fair. If proponents had fifteen minutes, then opponents of the same subject should have fifteen minutes. Mayor Sher observed that the motion spoke to oral communications on any subject other than the item on the agenda, and he did not feel there was any reason to assume people would organize on -a particular subject. Furthermore, no actions would be taken under oral communications. The amt failed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Henderson ROES: Bervald, Comstock, Nor eon, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher AMENDMENT: Councilman ;Remold moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the following words be adopted: "Oral communication will be resumed as the item just prior to adjournment of the string". Mayor Sher understood that this would an that if there were no speakers during the first fifteen minutes, you would still have oral communications at the end of the meeting and give audience members an opportunity to be heard. Councilman Rosenbaum stated that this wan the intent of the Committee too, and it very specifically did not want to eliminate oral communications at the end of the seating. 842 1/20/75 Councilman Norton asked Councilman Berwald to consider saying that "oral communications would be resumed at the regular place on the agenda". AMENDMENT RESTATED: Councilman Serwald moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the following language be adopted: "Oral communications would be resumed at the regular place on the agenda". The amendment passed on a unanimous vote. Mayor Sher referred to the recommendation that certain items may be continued when agenda is reviewed after the, recess and asked Mr. Booth if the item could be continued as a block under "Unfinished Business" or as a certain agenda number on the :next agenda. Mr. Booth responded that items could be continued -to any place on the next agenda and in any order, the only difference being that Council would not have to bring such items up by motion before dealing with them. Councilman Berwald thought that the intent of Section 6-(A) was that where there are conflicts in schedvl frg. vssurfous. meetings, that the night be chosen where there would be the leant conflicts. In his own case, that would be the fourth Tuesday. Recommendations (a) through (e) and the ordinance, as corrected, were approved for first reading on a unanimous vote. Mayor Sher noted that his memorandum to the Committee, dated December 17, was distributed to the members of Council. }ie.recormrended that the Committee consider six points dealing with the conduct of Council members at meetings. Since there were no recommendations on these points, it was his intention to move some additions to the printed policy guidelines for Council procedure. MOTION: Mayor Sheer :::roved, seconded by Berwaald,that during the question period following_ presentation of an it W. etssaif, Committee Chairpersons, or Planning.Commission members, etc,,Connall.membeers should limit themselves to. quest. volts intended, to.•olasily: t e proposed action or to obtain additional information moat. -Haired in the supporting documents, and should not ask argumentative questiona.or. ugage in debate. Mayor Sher commented that the Chairman has to enforce runts, but he viewed his motion and others he would be. sinking as reminders. Councilman Norton stated he agreed in spirit, and he thought it was proper procedure to do exactly what Mayor Sher proposed. Further, Councilman Norton felt that Mayor Sher had been doing an excellent job in enforcing the rules of procedure; but he feared that Council was getting too strait jacketed in saying what ::::embers of Council could and could not do. He did not nee the need for this particular provision; and he could not see how Council would ever be able to prevent Councilman beahre from taking a etateaert in the or of a question, for instance, and other minor aberrations from the rules. Councilman Norton said he would vote against the motions. Councilmen Beahrs agreed that the motion would be an infringement on the Mehra' style. Be thought this kind of rule would be hard to police and would put an extreme burden on the Chair. 843 1/20/75 9 Mayor Sher observed that his motion was not aimed at any particular member of the Council; it was not designed as a strait jacket but as a guideline; and it seemed to him that it would be useful to have this concept on the record as a policy guideline. The motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Sher NOES: Beahrs, Berwald, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Comstock, as a policy guideline that during the period when Council debates en item, Council membere should endeavor to make their statements as short as possible, avoid repetition of points already made by themselves or others, and - generally speaking - should seek recognition to speak only once. Councilman Berwald expressed the opinion that these were things which the Mayor could advise Council on; and to the best of their ability, Council members would abide by his suggestion; but he did not want such rules to be put into an official document of the City of Palo Alto. He thought the motion was something of an infringement on the liberty of Council members to talk, and there were tines when any one of Council sight want to speak twice. Mayor Sher 'responded chat this was not an official document but a statement of policy guidelines for Council's conduct. This suggestion was no infringement compared to those which were already listed as policy guidelines, and the motion includes the words "generally speaking" with regard to each Council member speaking just once. The motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Comstock, iianderscn, Sher NOES: Berwald, Pearson, Norton, Rosenbaum Re»vest to Move Item 13 Massa=e Establishment Forward on the Agenda Gilt: MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Comstock, that Item 13 on the agenda (Massage Establishment Ordinance - Administrative Procedures) be brought forward for considaretion at this time. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Comstock, approval of the administrative procedures for implementation of the ordinance to regulate massage establishments, Chapter 4.54 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The motion passed ou the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Bervald, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Sher, Rosenbaum NOES: Norton 844 1/20/75 Ordinance Relating to Fences, FA1`4C Chapter 15. . Councilman Comstock stated that he would not participate in the discussion or the voting on this item. Councilwoman Pearson, Chairwoman of the Policy and Procedures Committee, said that this ordinance would provide for an exception or variance procedure which the city has never had. She did not consider the ordinance to be very clear as to what could and could not be done; but it appeared that applicants for a variance could appeal to the Al , or they could discuss a request for an exception with someone in the Building Department. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson, on behalf of the Policy and Procedurea Committee, introduced the following ordinance and moved its approval for first reading: ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REPEALING AND ADDING CHAPTER 16.24 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FENCES Councilman Norton understood that the ordinance plus the *memorandum Subsection (E) of QAO was being changed from the ordinance version to the memorandum version, and he asked if that were correct. Councilwoman Pearson responded that this understanding was correct. Councilman Norton, referring to Page 2 of the memorandum, noted that (E) starts out with reference to ten days after receipt of the recommenda- tion of the ARB; and he assumed that referred back to (D) in the preceding section. As (E) is written, it appears that if a person applies for a variance from the fence ordinance, th€n under sub -subsection (1), the Building Official shall grant the exception if he finds one of the following: exceptional convenience of the applicant - which could be assumed in every case, by (a) increasing privacy - which could be assumed in every case, (b) increasing security -- which could be found in every such case, or (c) decreasing the transmission of noise - which would be found in every case, etc. Councilman Norton was making the point that the applicant would go through the procees, but when he establishes that the fence conveniences him, plus increases privacy, security, or decreases noise, the Building Inspector has no choice but to grant the permit for a variance. It seemed to Councilman Norton that the impact on the community would be so ;,rent that the entire matter ought to go to the Planning Commission. An almost mandatory situation of granting permits for fences to be built right up against the sidewalk, perhaps, should not be taken lightly. He was really concerned that the Building Inspector would have very little latitude in this matter. Stan Novicki, Chief Building Inspector, responded that the Architectural Review Board is to ►-eview all of the applications for exception and to take all of the circumataacess into consideration before making a recommendation for approval or denial. He pointed out that the second section, E-2, requires that the Building Official shall deny an exception if he determines that the proposed exception will be detrimental to the abutting property owners by denying them air or light, if the exception will constitute s hazard, or if it would be csaceptually incompatible with the design of the immediate neighborhood. 845 1/20/75 It seemed to Councilman Norton that E-1 and E-2 were inconsistent. Under E-1, the Building Inspector is told he has to grant the exception if the requirements mentioned there were met. Under E-2, he is told he shall deny it if the proposed exception were found to be conceptually incompatible, etc. If all of these findings were made, the Building Inspector would not know what to do. City Attorney Booth thought a lot of this process would be a balancing of the one against the other heading towards the goal of granting perwits for exceptions that would not be in violation of E-2, but would meet the standards of E-1. A change could be made in the wording so that if the provisions of 2 were not met, that would make the conditions in 1 not applicable. Councilwoman Pearson reported that this was a matter that became very difficult in the Committee. She did not think the draft was very good, and she would like the Attorney to go over it and bring back an ordinance that is clearer. MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Pearson*., that thla matter be referred back to the city staff for clarification of the points that had been raised and for purposes of incorporating in the proposed amendments the suggestions contained in the City Attorney's memorandum of January 16, 1975. The referral motion passed on a unanimous vote. (Councilman Comstock not participating.) Mayor Sher apologized for not having members of the audience address Council earlier in the discussion, and he invited them to do so. Barry Schuyler, 2399 Carmel Drive, ,moved hack to Palo Alto a year and a half ago into a house that did not have a six-foot fence. Within four months, Mr. Schuyler had approximately three thousand dollars worth of goods stolen from his house. He asked the city for permission to build a six-foot fence, and he was told there was no authority for the isauance of suca a waiver; therefore, a permit would not be granted. Mr. Schuyler said he built the fence anyway; and since tha fence had been constructed, he had nothing more stolen. He asked Council to seriously consider passing the proposal that would make exceptions to the .fence ordinance possible. Peter Carpenter, 425 Lowell Aveuue, spoke in sup;aort of the exception procesa. He thought s► reasonable guide should be used with regard to an exception procedure, and Mr. Carpenter approved of the language used in the staff report of January 16. That letter removes an unnecessary restriction with respect to fences adjacent to driveways. Re had done a survey and found that as many as 252 of the fences in the city violate the earlier language with respect to a fence within twelve feet of the driveway. 14r. Carpenter thought Councilman Norton and Mr. Booth's comments about some balance between E-1 and E-2 were imperative. He brought out the point that California law indicates that the denial of air and light its not a property right except in those cases -where fences are ere :ted over ten feet in height. ie. Carpenter hoped that the new language would provide the building officials with some flexibility in being able to achieve the necessary balances. Councilman Norton asked Mrs. Brenner whether she felt a substantial nester of six. -foot fences at the eidewelk line created a situation that ought to be referred to the Planning Commission. For purposes of openness, the pattern to date has be= that within the twenty -foot setback, fences are limited to four feet in height. The Planning Commission might feel that the pattern ought to be changed, but Councilman Morton wanted to know if Mrs. Brener saw an over-all impact. 846 1/20/75 Mrs. Brenner responded that she felt there would be an over-all impact. When fences are under discussion, the design of the neighborhood - for instance - is always taken into consideration. If six-foot side yard fences suddenly appeared, Mrs. Brenner thought that would disrupt a neighborhood to a great extent. Councilman Norton thought the impact of a great number of six-foot fences being built across front yards would Zse significant.. MOTION: Councilman Norton moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the new language drafted by staff be referred to the Planning Commission. Mayor Sher ruled the motion in order even though the previous action had already been taken. The referral motion passed on a unanimous vote. (Councilman Comstock not participating.) 2600 Bast Ba3pshote Deal Aoo c n o times W. Foua for _ate and Desk Control District Approval (Office B41,446g). .. Frances Brener, Chairwoman of the Planning Commission, recalled there was a subdivision procedure on this lot; and the Commission recommended denial because it felt it would be setting itself up for a series of variances in order to accommodate maximum coverage which always becomes minimum. The creation of this lot went through denial by the Planning Commission and by the Council; however, in a re -survey, the lot was estimated to be a full acre, and the lot ,split was granted at the staff level. The matter comes back now with e project on it. Mrs. Brenner noted that the maximum coverage in the ordinance now is interpreted as the minimum, and the Commission is faced with a multitude of variances recommended by staff which were requested in order to rationalize parking requirements. Therefore, the Planning Commission suggesting sharing the challenge of rationalizing this with the ABB; and the Commission asked the ARB to comment to Council with respect to landscaping, elevations, and the design of the building. Councilman Berwald pointed out that the Environmental Impact Assessment considered the ambient noise level to be high enough to be a disturbance to those working in the building. The Assessment suggested this could be mitigated by extra soundproofing, but Councilman Berwald did not see that the matter had been taken care of in any of the conditions. Mrs. Bremer responded that it had been the Commission's hope that this problem would be approached through architectural design and landscaping, If Council feels that the additional treatment suggested by the ARB is appropriate, that should be incorporated as an amendment. MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Beahrs, that a sixth condition be added, with exact wording of this condition to be developed by staff, to insure that there is adequate soundproofing to protect employees from over -ambient sound le )els. Mrs. Brenner coa ted that the variance which allowed the building to be five feet from the property instead of twenty had some bearing on this problem. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. 8 4 7 I/20/75 Councilman Berwald remarked that the parking for the handicapped is over on the left, and the ramp for them is on the right; and he thought the parking should be adjacent to the ramp; James Foug, developer and architect for the building, said that in discussions with the ARB, he suggested that some sidewalk area at that portion of the building be eliminated and be replaced with landscaping and a space for parking for the handicapped. If the landscaping were not there, there could be a sidewalk from the parking space and a ramp that would lead to the front door on the right of the building. Mr. Foug did not think anyone would consider it an imposition to get out of a car there, and by means of a wheelchair, down the paved area to the rte; however, if Council wanted the parking for the handicapped to be nearer the front door, he would be happy to put it there. MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Pearson, that staff work out an arrangement t with the applicant AO that parking for the handicapped void be as close ae possible to the ram. The motion paned on a unanimous vote. MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Pearson, that Council uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission, as amended and to include ARB recommendations, to approve the application of James W. Foug for Site and Design Control District approval of an office building at 2600 East Bayshore Road subject to the five conditions set forth in the Planning Department staff report of December 13, 1974, and an additional condition requesting that the ARB comment to the Council with respect to the landscaping, elevations and design of the building; and includins the two motions passed earlier and finds no significant environmental impact. The motion including the sixth condition and location of parking for the handicapped to be as close as possible to the ramp, passed on a unanimous vote. Mach. Harbor Ordinance (CMR:120:5) Mayor Sher said that since he had been involved in this matter in Council. and also in carrying the Council's action to the board of Supervisors, he would like to make some comments. The subject was last before Council on October 21; and at that time, Council elopted a multi -part motion relating to dredginge, berths, etc:. Mayor Sher reminded Council that it authorized two score dredginge with motions that said: (1) there would be two more dredgings with the spoils from the first dredging to be disposed of re Phase 1 - (b) , (c) , and (d) , and Phase 11 - (a) and (b) as recommended by the Planning Commission; and (2) that excess dry spoils would be deposited at the refuse disposal area just west of the Yacht Harbor, and use of this material to construct periphery dikes to contain future hydraulic dredging spoils should await the EIR on the refuse disposal area. Finally, there was a motion that there would be a second dredging providing that a suitable disposal site cold be found for the spoils and that the neceaeary permits could be obtained. Mayor Sher stated that in regard to bertha under 5-a, the action of Council was todeletethe 86 presently proposed berths and any proposed in the future, with than understanding that the city will consider the addition of nee berths if (1) a long terse solution is found to the disposal of the spoils, (2) expansion of tha harbor 1s consistent with the Bsylands Raster Phan which is to be developed, and (3) expansion of the harbor le consistent with the requirements of the Airport Land Usa Commission. Mayor Sher noted that all of the Council action went forward to the board of Supervisors, 8 4 8 1/20/75 together with a general statement that any communication to the county should be accompanied by what has been done over the past recent meetings, emphasizing Palo Alto's determination to try to keep the harbor cper; and participate cooperatively in achieving short and long-term engineering solutions to the Yacht harbor problem, and to hers maintain the Yacht 1L rbor amid its environment as a valuable regional asset, and that City Council was serious about accomplishing this without filling any additional marsh areas. Council took those actions, and the county responded to them by preparing a memorandum dated November 26, 1974, which was the transmittal memorandum to the Board of Supervisors. In that memorandum, Mr. Amyx made some recommendations regarding the 86 berths and where the spoils would go. On page 1, Mr. Amyx makes this statement: "With the knowledge that approval of the Harbor Project by BCDC and the U. S. Corps of Army Fngineers will in part be dependent upon the applicaeion being supported jointly by the city and the county, ft is suggested that some of the actions taken by the Council might be re -worded to present a more positive interest in the project". On page 3 of his memorandum, Mr. Amyx makes points (2) , (3) , and (4) relating to the spoils and the berths. Point (2) reads: "Request that the City Council give consideration to a re -wording of the proposed amendment to the Lease Agreement with reference to the additional berthing; and paint (3) reads: "Request that the City Council give consideration to a re -wording of Section 5-A of its minute order of October 21, 1974, in which the 86 addit oval berths are deleted". Point (4) is: "Request that the city approve the use of a portion of the refuse disposal ,-area for one future hydraulic dredging spoils site, subject to meeting requirements of the U. S. Corps of Army Engineers and the Water Quality Control Bat rd". :Mayor Sher commented that he received a copy of this memorandum just a few days prior to the time that the natter was scheduled to be heard by the County Board of Supervisors; and 'ne discussed sox: of the points with one or two members of Council, specifically in regard to the 86 additional berths and what the feeling would be about the part of the motion that deleted those, and whether there would be any objection to having them come back into the Master Plan providing that the same conditions that would be attached to any additional berths, be attached to those 86. After having consulted with several members of Council, Mayor Sher attended the meeting of the Board of Supervisors and made a statement. He wanted to share this atatesuent with the other members of Council because there had been aoeee misunderstanding about what he said at the meeting. Mayor sher's statement to the Supervisors was ma follows: "We in the city share with Mr. Amyx the desire to present the beat possible case to BCDC and the U. S. Corps of Army Enuioseers when applying for approval of the necessary permits. If, as Mr. Amyx suggests in his third recommenda- tion, a re -wording of point 5-A of the City Council action concerning the proposed 86 additional berths would be helpful in this regard, I think Council would be prepared to consider and likely approve a re -wording". Mayor Steer interjected here that that appraisal was based on his conversations with Council members and an actions that had been taken at the Council meeting were some members were prepared to go abed and approve the 86 berths outright. Continuing with his statement, Mayor Sher read: "What is desired, as I understand it, is a statement by the Council that the 86 additional berths may be shown in the Master Plan, but be subject to approval by the city after the three specified conditions have been eat, one of which - approval by the Airport Land Use Commission - has already been meet, as Mr. Amyx points out in Lis report. If Council were to make this change in its motion action, then it would follow as a matter of course that the proposed Lease Amendment would be re -worded to reflect the change, as Mr. Amyx suggests in his recommendation No. 2. In regard to Mr. Aiyx'a point No. 4, the City Council did, in fact, approve an additional dredging beyond the one currently proposed with the spoils to be deposited 849 1/4/75 in the refuse disposal area subject to the findings of the EIR and, of course, also subject to the requirewnts of the Corps of Engineers and the Water Quality Control Board. I call your attention to point (1) of the City Council action, several parts of which are relevant to this point. Point (1) starts out with the statement that the Council authorize two more dredgings, and there follows a statement under the paragraph commencing with the words 'Phase 1d' to the effect that the excess dry spoils moved in connection with the first dredging be used to contain future hydraulic dredging spoils, subject to the EIR on the refuse disposal area. Finally, the second paragraph under the heading Phase 2-d reads as follows: 'There will be a second dredging provided that a suitable disposal site can be found for the spoils and that the necessary permits could be obtained'. These statements, taken together, make it clear that the Council has already taken the action Mr. Amyx recommends in his point No. 4. In my view, it is preferable to keep to a minimum the number of action items that City Council is asked to modify at this late dare. If, however, Mr. Amyx and the Board think it important to re -word this matter in sone way, perhaps by bringing these various statements together in a single statement, I believe the Council would be prepared to consider such a re -wording". Mayor Sher stressed that that was all he said on the subjects of the 86 berths and the deposit of the spoils. He wade no commitment that Council would do anything, but said that he believed the Council would be prepared to consider acme of the recofnm nded wordings. Mayor Sher referred to the blue sheet in the packet, Suggested Revision to Yacht Harbor Motion of 10/21174, and said that Paragraph 1) was the staff recommendation concerning the spoils. It was Mayor Sher's view that the proposed wording in that paragraph does not reflect what the Council did at the previous meeting, and it did not bring together the various parts of Council action relating to the spoils from the second dredging. He thought it could be made to conform to Council's desires if it included that there would be a second dredging providing that a suitable disposal site could be found for the spoils and that the necessary permits be obtained. Mayor Sher noted that the language does refer to the necessary permits but does not mention a suitable disposal site. Mayor Sher recommended, in order to accommodate Mr. Amyx' view for a more positive re -wording, that Council change ite previous action by having this read: "There will be a second dredging with spoila deposited at the refuse disposal site subject to a determination that this is a suitable disposal site and subject to obtaining the necessary permits. Alternative disposal sites and methods will be explored in the interim". Mayor Sher felt that the last sentence does reflect what Council said, which was that if better places were found, there had been no firm commitment to put the spoils in the refuse disposal site even if the permits could be obtained. With that one change, Mayor Sher would be willing to vote for the proposed wording. He wen on to say that the originsl action with regard to the berths wee to delete the 86 presently proposed berths and any proposed itt the future, with the understanding that the city would consider the addition of new berths subject to three conditions - one of which van the long-term solution to the disposal of the spoils, another was awaiting the Baylande Master Plan which is to be developed to soaks sure the expansion of the harbor is consistent with that plan, and the third was approval of the berths by the Airport Land Use Commission. The proposeed wording to put the matter in a more affirmative way would be to allow the 86 additional bertha to be shown in the Master Plan, but there would be approval or construction of the only after the three conditions are met. Mayor Sher explained that this was not a substantive change since none of the berths could be built without approval of Council, and Council would not give its approval unless the conditions had bean mat. Mayor, Sher pointed out that in the Master Plan attached 850 1/20/75 .:o the Lease, dotted lines were shown for all the additional berths, and that was a mistake. Even if the proposed re -wording occurs, only the first two dots representing 86 berths should be shown in the Master Plan. Another error was that the earlier date of September 7, 1973 was on the Master Plan, and actually tonight's date should be on the Plan if it is adopted. Regarding the Lease Amendment, Mayor Sher noted it simply said "additional berths" shall be approved subject to conditions. It should state "eighty-six additional berths may be shown on the Master Plan subject to the three conditions". Mayor Sher pointed out that the maps attached to the proposed ordinance showed the road configuration at a height of 7', and Council action had set the height at 61/2'. He realized that the height of 7' was to indicate the height of the road before it solidified, but he thought the map should show the final approved height of 61/2'. MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Berwald, that the wording with regard to a second dredging be revised to read as follows: "there will be a second dredging with spoils to be deposited at the refuse disposal site subject to a determination thet this is a suitable disposal site and subject to obtaining the necessary permits. Alternative disposal sites and methods will be explored in the interim." Councilman Comstock commented that the Supervisors did not enact Mr. Amyx' recommendations; and, in fact, did not give favorable consideration to three of his recommendations which, among other things, related to this particular subject. This put Council in the position of being asked to do something without knowing whether or not the Supervisors would approve it. Another comment on this specific item is that one of the things Council attempted to do in wording teas particular motion was to avoid entanglement in the EIR process that is involved with the analysis of the refuse disposal area. Councilman Comstock recalled that there had been a lot of discussions about more future dredgings and where all the spoils would be taken - possibly Mountain View. His own feeling was that the ;cording as shown here avoidel those kinds of complications, and he saw the proposed change much more limiting thank leaving it in the more qualified sense. Councilman Comstock felt Mayor Sher's motion was not only aiming the spoils for the refuse disposal area but was also tying it to the EIR process, which has its own peculiar timetable. Mayor Sher remarked that if the Board of Supervisors had acted on this, the action probably would have been to hold up applytg for the permit from BCDC until City Council satisfied the points that Mr. Amyx had raised. It was clear to Mayor Sher that the Board of Supervisors were very concerned, and they asked him a number of questions about this matter. Also, he thought is had been made clear that if Council made the changes, a supplement would be filed with the application. The Board went ahead with the application, but Mayor Sher understood that the hope was there could be some accommodations made for the points raised by Mr. Amyx. Mayor Sher did not feel his notion was a commitment or that it went any further than what Council actually did, but he did think it brought together the points about the second dredging that appear several places in the action which Council had taken. If you looked at 1-D regarding using the present dry spoils, you would find that the subject .is already tied in with the EIR for the refuse disposal sites but there is the clear suggestion that subsequent dred,uings_wouid be hydraulic ones that would be placed in the refuse disposal site. At an earlier time, when Mayor Sher was not on the Council, the Council approved a second dredging with the spoils to go to the refuse disposal site; therefore, it was not a new idea. Mayor Sher stated that it would be appropriate to hear from members of the public at this time. 8 5 1 1/20/75 Joseph Carleton, 2350 Ross Road, speaking for the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, thought that this whole matter had been settled at the October 21st meeting. The 86 berths were deliberately deleted; and in his opinion, with good reason. Mr. Carleton did not see any reason to feel obligated to accommodate Mr. Amyx' plan, which he regarded as being a bit too grandiose. Mr. Amyx wants the plans to be presented in a very positive way to get them pushed through, and Palo Alto is not necessarily in agreement with those plans. Mr. Carleton could see no reason for putting the 86 berths back in. It had been his experience that things placed in a Master Plan have a tray of taking on permanency. He also commented on the fact that the second dredging would be done in approximately 1979, and the spoils would be initially be placed on the completed refuse area. Later, it would be put on the remaining forty acres; and that can last about eight years. Mr. Carleton pointed out that it takes about three or four years for the spoils to dry. By the time they were dry, the other area would be filled; and this would create a problem of where the spoils would be placed, Mr. Carleton hoped that Council would not adopt the wording recommended by staff since approval had already been given by the Airport Land Use Commission; and mentioning that as a condition gave some false assurance that this might be a way of slowing down the process. The Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club would like to see the wording left as it was on October 2lst and the 86 berths deleted. Elizabeth Peterson, 1180 Harker Avenue, stated that the Palo Alto baylands are a unique and precious wilderness area; and the Nature_ Interpretive Center served as a model for citiea all around the bay. Ms. Peteraon's rna concern war that there is still no Comprehensive Plan for the baylands, and she felt that doing things in a piecemeal way was slowly corroding the quality of the baylands. She asked Council to insist upon a Comprehensive Plan before approving auy more piecemeal projects. Harriett Mundy, 757 Ten.ayson Avenue, pointed out that Mr. Amyx had said that unless the 86 berths would be included in the plan, he did not feel that he could recommend to the Board of Supervisors that even the dredging be done. That decision was made openly, and Council should stick with it. Ms. Mundy asked for some specific information regarding the Faber Tract since the amendment to the lease did not mention it at all. She wanted to be certain that the spoils would not be deposited in the Faber Tract. James Hudak responded for staff that there would be no problem with this. Ma. Mundy feltthat the statement saying that the mapping of the potential sediment deposition areas could be developed for the existing condition and for the best channel connecting the flood etorage basin with the harbor was a real threat to Palo Alto's basin, This would be ,just one more in a long line of things that had been done that had ended up being very detrimental to the baylands. Dr. Carl Ellertson, 780 Seale Avenue, noted that 1,400 siguatures had been presented to Council asking for cooperation with the county its the development of the harbor and its maintenance, and in carrying forward a logical plan for the entire area of the Palo Alto Harbor Recreational /.rea. He had hoped that from such cooperation would come a inter Plan that would satisfy environmentalists, conservationists, and yachtsmen. Dr. Ellertson urged the continuation of cooperation with the county. He could understand that the county would want to have more berths there for the additional revenue which would help 8 5 2 1/20/73 to maintain the harbor. He thought it paid for itself rather well along the way, but a little more money would be welcome. Theref .e, he thought it would be wise to leave in the revised statement the possibility of. 86 berths. With regard to the flood control basin, Dr. Ellertson thought studies might show that the old way was the best way, and that siltation could be decreased by reverting to the old channels which once kept the harbor open. Another citizen addressed Council and said she had observed that. Council constantly referred to, but never acted upon, solutions to long-range problems. Rather than voting on any more berths or dredgings, Council should set up a group whose aim would be to solve long-range problems. Such a group could do soils engineering studies on the mud which would reveal whether or not the mud would be usable in a cut and fill operation. It could also look into the possibility of hydraulic transportation of spoils of some distance, and so on. She thought I. Ellertson was probably incorrect in saying that the Yacht Harbor pays its way at all when you consider that a dredging costs $300,000. Mayor Sher stated this his motion was before Council for consideration. Councilwoman Pearson liked the original wording, and she was worried about saying that the wet spoils would be dumped in the reuse area. She pointed this out because the second dredging would be hydraulic dredging, and it would not be dry spoils. Palo Alto was already in trouble at the dump, and Councilwoman Pearson thought the city should be very careful about saying what would go over there. She indicated her willingness to consider the whole thing the way it was originally, that there would be a second dredging providing that a suitable disposal site could be found for the spoils and the necessary permits obtained. Councilwoman Pearson noted that tais would leave the door open fcr some flexibility in the matter, and she was not willing to say that the spoils would be definitely placed in the refuse disposal area. The :pity at present was trying to extricate itself from the constant dumping there, which the Corps of Engineers says has been illegal for some time. Councilwoman Pearson felt much more comfortable with the broader original wording, and she gave the BCDC credit for seeing through the ruse that was being used here. Vice ?mayor Henderson commented that what Council authorized originally spoke of the first dredging, with the dry spoils going in the refuse disposal area. Construction of periphery dikes in the refuse area was talked about if there would be EIR clearance to contain future hydraulic dredging spells. Vice Mayor Henderson could see that might be the best way to dump it, but that is not saying that Council would authorize the second dredging to be in the refuse area. For that scatter, it could be the tenth dredging down the lime. With the proposed statement, Council was giving the refuse area first priority; and he would rather leave that decision wide open. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Berwald, Norton, Sher, Rosenbaum NOES: Comstock, Henderson Pearson MOT/ON: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the 86 additional berths may be shown on the Master Plan, but the city will consider approval of those berths and others proposed in the future only after the following conditions have been satisfied: (1) a long term solution is found to dispose of the spoils, (2) expansion of the harbor is consistent with the Baylands Master Plan which is to be developed, sad (3) expension of the harbor is consistent with the requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission. 853 1/20/75 Mayor Sher stated hie belief that this motion w;.s not a substantive change in any way from the action Council had previously taken. There would be no expansion of the harbor unless such expansion would be consistent with the Baylands Master Plan. Responding to some of the speakers from the audience, Mayor Sher assured them that Council had authorized an overall. Master Plan which would control berths, expansion, etc, Mayor Sher considered himself to be one of the many who had been working to protect the baylands or a long time, and he would not knowingly take any action which he thought would jeopardize the ecology of the baylands or the natueal areas. In his view, his motio:i consisted only of drawing a lime on a Master Plan. There was no approval, and the matter did not even appear on the Park Dedication Ordinance. Mayor Sher stressed that the lease to which the plan is attached contains the same language, making it clear that the 86 berths may be shown on the plan but may not be constructed or approved by Council until the three stated conditions had been met. Councilwoman Pearson stated her preference for the original language. She commented that these was no way that she would ever approve three or four hundred berths; and the most she would agree to would be the proposed 86, and she would do that very reluctantly. It was inconceivable to Councilwoman Pearson to put that many boats out there with the expectation of continual dredgings to keep the harbor open. Sooner or later, everyone w,suld have to face up to the fact that the harbor waa a dead issue, The only way it would last would be if it had millions of dollars poured into it, and Councilwoman Pearson said that would be irresponsible. AMENDMENT: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that the words "and others proposed in the future" be deleted from the motion. The amendment passed on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES. Beahrs, Berwald, Norton Mayor Sher stated that his amotioa, as amended, was before Council. Vice Mayor Henderson stated that he had supported conoideration of the 86 berths if the three conditions were met, but he had added that he would not commit himself in any way beyond 86 berths. The amendment eliminated that commitment; however, he could not support having the 86 berths appear on any present map. To Vice Mayor Henderson, that was too much of a danger that it would, in fact, happen. In his opinion, there was no reason to have the berths appear on the map; a positive statement had been made that the berths would be considered, if the conditions were met. Then, another map could be drawn. Councilman Berwald said that a lot of statements had bean made that he did not really understand; for instance, there seemed to be the feeling that the marsh vas being invaded. He asked if there were anything convected with the 86 berths that mould destroy any marshland. Mr. Hudak responded that there are some fringes of maxeh grass along the slope where the new berths would be built, but no major marsh areas would be affected. Councilman Berwald asked if there would be any degradation of the open water by the construction of 86 bertha. 854 1/20/75 Mr. Rockwell explained that there would be no fill connected with those berths. Councilman Berwald commented that when the city entered into the agreement with the county on the Yacht Harbor, he assumed the purpose of that was to develop a more adequate regional type of Yacht Harbor. He did not see that anything that was being done was contrary to that agreement; in fact, Councilman Berwald thought that if Couacil did not allow the construction of 86 additional berths, the city would be severely limiting the usefulness of the harbor as a regional recreational facility. Councilman Comstock noted for the record that the same request was made of the Board of Supervisors, and they declined to act an it. He saw two things happening. First, the wording of the October 21st motion would be revised if Mayor Skier's motion were approved. Councilman Comstock assumed from the wording of the motion that the intention was that Exhibit (B) would reflect 86 berths by showing some kind of lines or labeling; whereas, the oii.ginal action taken by the Council would have Exhibit (B) shown without any indication of berths in those areas. The effect of this action, therefore, is to change the amendment to the agreement; but the effect also would be to present to the ECM a different picture of the application and proposed development than would have occurred as a result of the October 21st action. Specifically, BCDC would see a development plan which shows a certain number of berths that would not have been indicated by the Council action of October 21. Councilman Comstock added that obviously, the location as to where the spoilt would go - as amended - dces tot show up on Exhibit (B) because that is beyond the lease area. What Council was doing was modifying the application for BCDC, and whether the modification enhanced the application probably depended upon the individual commissioners. Councilman Comstock thought it was clear that everybody went away from the October 21st meeting thinking that the application would not show those berths; that is not now the case, and that would be found out in due course. This was too bad, in Councilman Comstock' e opinion, because the city was in a way telling the Commission it would do something that, in fact, the city was not at all sure it was going to do. He observed that the action taken on October 21st was really more to the point. The issue that still hes not been faced is what would be done with all the spoils over the next thirty or forty years. Councilman Comstock remarked the city would be hard pressed to tell BCDC that it had a long tern program. Palo Alto had committed itself to possibly two dredgiuga; that might be enough to put the berths in, but in another four to eight years the boats would all be grounded at low tide. Councilman Comstock was not sure that Council would be misleading BCDC, but he hoped they would be perceptive enough to realize that the map showing 86 berths and the existing berths vas really a very short term situation. Councilman Comstock concluded by stating support for the October motion. Councilman Rosenbaum, in recaliiug comments made at the October 21st meeting, gemmed to think the big concern vas not for the berths themselves but for things that would be the result of the berths, such as additional parking needs. The fleeter plan was going to refer very specifically to parking, etc., but Coivacil did not really feel that if such things could be taken care of, the 86 berths would in themselves be detribental. Councilmea Rosenbaum saw no reason to object to the proposed wording. Mayor Sher responded to Councilman Comstock's remarks about possibly misleading BCDC. The map showing the berths that may or may not be built would go to bCDC attached to a lease which will contain the explanatory and conditional language with regard to the bertha. 855 1/20/75 Councilman Comstock felt he had to say in all candor that he hoped someone besides Mr. Amyx would go to BCDC to make such points clear, because Mr. Amyx was honest about his feelings regarding the berths. The motion as amended passed on the following tote: AYES: Beahrs, Berwald, Norton, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the following changes be made in the Lease Agreement: "Eighty-six additional berths" should appear at the beginning of the sentence, second paragraph, page 2; the date should be changed to January 20, 1975; the line change showing the berthing areas in the southern part of the lease boundary as representing the 86 berths should indicate that the first two dots represent 86 berths, and the others should be deleted; and in 3(B) f there should be a positive statement that no spoils be deposited in the Faber Tract. r AMENDMENT: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, to remove from Exhibit (B) of the Master Plan any area designated for parking south of the area actually used for parking. The amendment passed on the following vote: AYES: Berwald, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Beahrs AMENDMENT: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Comstock, that the lease line follow the bank of the lagoon so that it takes in the whole lagoon. The amendment passed on a unanimous vote. The motion to approve the lease as amended and with changes incorporated passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Bervaid, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Comstock, Henderson .07.7.: 770 ew ri`.rc.04.f'.et 0 MOTION: : Mayor Sher introduced the following ordinance and ueo'ted, seconded by Comstock, that it be adopted with corrections made in the maps to show the road height at 64' (compacted) rather than 7': ORDINANCE tO. 2838 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR THE IMPROVMENT OF THE PALO ALTO YACHT R" Mr. Rockwall commented that the drawings were construction drawings; and the rood would be built at 7' with the anticipation that it would compact to 64', as required. Mayor Sher responded that he wants to show the road as being 64' on the map, but with a note to that number indicating that would be the height after compaction. Also, Mayor Sher wanted it to be understood 856 1/20/75 that this motion regarding the Park Dedication Ordinance assumed the changes made in connection with the Lease would be shown in the ordinance. The ordinance, including the one change in the road height, and with the understanding that the changes made in connection with the Lease would be incorporated into the ordinance, vas adopted on a unanimous vote. MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Councilman Beahrs, to approve the agreement with the county to participate in the mathematical study of tidal flow though the Yacht Harbor.. Councilwoman Pearson commented that she was not adverse to having the study go through, but she wanted it to do so with the full knowledge that people are taking issue with the possibility of having an "S" channel in the flood basin and constructing an outlet works to the Yacht Harbor, The EIR'a were interesting to Councilwoman Pearson. Page 25 of the Waste Disposal EIR talks about the 600 acne flood basin being designated as a wet land preserve. It goes on to state that its primary use is as €a flood control facility, but its use as a wet land and will life habitat sanctuary is of major importance. Contradicting that, page 610 of the Yacht Harbor EIR talks about using the flood basin as a run-off for the effluent from the dump, and then goes on to talk about using it as a disposal site for 200,000 cubic yards of the dredgings from the Yacht Harbor. These are the kinds of things that point up the fact that there needed, to be a Comprehensive Plan for the baylanda, and Councilwoman Pearson wanted to be sure that when the consultant did his mathematical model, he did not lose sight of the fact that when you are talking about the flood basin you are not just talking about a place that collects water aed is supposedly ugly. The members of the audience who had spoken to Council had indicated what Councilwoman Pearson felt; and that was that every time pan does something in the bayl.nds, he destroys something of irreplaceable value. For the sake of the Palo Alto Baylands, man needed to stop trying to improve on nature. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. ii0TICN: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Henderson, approval of the amendment to the agreement with the Water Resources Engineers to authorize them to undertake the mathematical model of the Yacht Harbor. The motion passed an a unanimous vote, rdinance M endin Title 18 of the n t e •' ne fammammimmimmummwmp MOTION: Councilman Comstock introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Pearson, its adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 2837 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION 5 TO SECTION 18.71.060 (USES REQUIRING USE PERMITS) TO PERMIT CEMETERIES IN THE 0-S DISTRICT" The ordinance was adopted on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Beahrs, Bervald e 8 5 7 1/20/75 Draft Environmental act Statement re are . . Coast Guard for 2e men ct (CMR:125:5) MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Comstock, that Council direct staff to write to the U. S. Coast Guard requesting that additions as enumerated on page two of CMR:125:5 be included in the final EIS. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Ad 1 Duman:: The meeting of January 20, 1975 adjourned to 7:30 p.m., January 27, with item No, 12 to appear first on the agenda. ATTEST: APPROVE: Mayor 858 1/20/75