Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041519741 CITY council MINUTES' April 15, 1974 CITY Or PAID ALTO The C' ty Council of the City of Palo Alto mat on this date at 7:30 in a regular meeting with Vice Mayor Pearson presiding. Present: Beahrs, Berwald, Clay, Henderson, Norton (arrived 7:40 p.m.), Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher Absent: Comstock Minutes of March 25th, 1974 v. p.m. Councilman Henderson referred to page 322, fifth line from the top, and requested that the word "block" be corrected to "blocked." On the same page, the next sentence should end with the words "Stanford Avenue or California Avenue." Councilman Henderson requested for the sake of clarity that the words "concerning the right turn off El Camino" be added after the word "motion", first line, top of page 325; secondly, he asked that the next vote on the page include the words "concerning the Bowdoin Street barrier" after the word "amendment." Councilman Clay requested that after the unanimous vote noted on page 320 regarding the MTC Regional Transportation Plan, the minutes show that he was not present when the vote was taken. Councilman Sher pointed out that the phrase "with the" was repeated near the end of the first full paragraph on page 323, and requested that it be deleted. Councilman Sher referred to page 333, the first full paragraph, line four, and requested that the word "would" be deleted and the words "could not" be inserted in its place. Vice Mayor Pearson requested that the words "1975th anniversary" near the center of page 312 be corrected to read "75th anniversary." Vice Mayor Pearson referred to page 314, fifth paragraph, and requested that after the words "ten years" the following words be added: "only two years of which were occupied as Councilman Beahrs stated, the remaining eight years being used by shoppers, office workers and clerks to good advantage." Vice Mayor Pearson requested that the word "found", third paragraph from the bottom, page 323, be corrected to "fend." Vice Mayor Pearson asked that Mr. Jerry R. Harrison's address be corrected from 28 Ramona to 828 Ramona, page 328, second paragraph. Vice Mayor Pearson asked that the word "they," page 334, first paragraph, eighth line, be corrected to "there." Vice Mayor Pearson requested that the words at the end of the last paragraph on page 338 be changed from "the tennis people" to "the group headed by Mr's. Jean Slocum." 367 4/15/74 MOTION: Vice Mayor Pearson moved that the minutes of March 25 be approved as corrected. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Eleanor Pardee Park (C :255:4) Vice Mayor Pearson noted that the first order of business was the Finance and Public Works Committee recommendation that Council reaffirm its previous policy with respect to a passive park use for the Eleanor Park area and that the Proctor plans be approved as presented. She stated that Council members had copies of ali of the correspondence from citizens with respect to this matter. Councilman Henderson said there were two subjects to be covered on this item --the petition to add tennis courts to Eleanor Pardee Park, and approvalof the design plans for the park as submitted by Helen Proctor. With regard to tennis courts, Councilman Henderson said that last year at this time the Finance and Public Works Committee held two public meetings on the subject and recommended to Council that tennis courts not be built in the park. Council upheld that recommendation. On ?larch 19 of this year the committee addressed itself to the same subject, and the result was a unanimous four to nothing vote against adding te=<nis courts and for a passive park. Some of the reasons for the negative decision are: 1) the proximity of Eleanor Park to Rinconada Park with its tennis facilities; 2) the advantages of adding courts to existing tennis centers, taking over school courts during non -school hours, and lighting more of the existing courts; 3) if courts are to be built in neighborhood parks, priority should bee given to parks located farthest from existing tennis facilities; 4) if courts are built on the site of the old Dixon house, some trees would have to be removed, others would be threatened, and there would be a constant problem of leaves on the court; 5) if courts were built on the large open turf area, that would eliminate the one area in the park where baseball, football, etc. could be played; 6) courts in this park could not be reserved exclusively for area residents; 7) fencing would have to be installed around the courts which would be massive, dominating the park and creating a security problem by blocking off clear views through the park; 8) the tennis activity would be disturbing to the residents living adjacent to the park. Councilman Henderson said these and other reasons led to the committee's unanimous negative vote. Councilman Henderson said that Mrs. Proctor's plans for the use of the park received an enthusiastic endorsement from the members of the Finance and Public Works Committee. He added that the committee did not have the input of the Architectural Review Board, but he felt safe in saying chat the committee would not endorse the addition of rest rooms in the park. As for a nursery holding area, the committee directed the staff to provide Council with information about the activities there, and the traffic related to these activities. That information was now available, along with the alternative of adding 470,OOO to the Capital Improvements Programs Pudget for 1974-75 to construct facilities at the !Municipal Services Center and move this function from Eleanor Pardee Park. MOTION: Councilman )Lenderson mover, that Council reaffirm tics previous policy with respect to a passive park use for the Eleanor Pardee Park area; further, that the Proctor plans be approved us presented. 368 4/15/74 Mr. Charles Wacker, Assistant City Manager, wished to comment on the review by the Architectural Review Board of the design considerations, which were approved with some reservations. He said staff wished to continue to work with them indicating both the Council's action on the policy issues as well as working to alleviate some of the ARB's concerns on some of the design considerations. Mr. Walker said the current plans continued to include a nursery holding area. Councilman Beahrs asked Mr. Walker why the nursery holding area had not been moved to the Municipal Service Center long ago. Mr. Pawloski replied that originally the master plan for the Municipal Service Center showed a nursery, but between the drafting of that master plan and the subsequent years there was a change in the operation of the nursery from a typical nursery to a holding area. Therefore, the priority changed from a greater to a lesser priority. Staff's feelings were that with the reduced traffic at Eleanor Park, chat facility would be suitable for such a use. Councilman Beahrs stated he was not inclined to agree with the staff'u opinion in this matter. Mr. Tom Reese, 80 Kirby Place, said the proposal before Council could be considered a monument to a landscape architect's dream, but that it was unrealistic:. He felt the plans were almost providing a buffer one to the property owners near the park, and he did not feel sure that the plans would eliminate the safety problems in the park. Further, Mr. Reese felt that the plan before Council would not serve the interests of the most people in the community. He said thl petition for tennis courts established a mandate, and a couple of courts in this area would help that situation. Mr. Reese pointed out the need for making the children's play area more active, for instance with climbing equipment. Mr. William Dworsky, 1057 University Avenue, representing University/Crescent Park Board of Directors, stated that they supported an active park. He pointed out that getting as many adults as possible into the park is one way of controlling vandalism. Mr. Dworsky stated that the current use of the park for nursery and experimental gardens is incompatible with the purpose of a public neighborhood park. Pauline Hayward, 1040 thenning Avenue, stated that when the tentative plans for Eleanor Park were presented to the residents at Crescent Park School in January, she was amazed that the plan did not reflect the views of the majority of the residents. She pointed out that the area was get aside as a public park and recreational facility in 1915; therefore, anyone buying a home there was aware that the land was designated as a park. She asked if Council were creating a passive park for the residents of Pitman and Center, or a public neighborhood park with active elements for the one-half mile area that surrounds the park. Marilyn Stoddard, 1050 Charing Avenue, indicated her support for an active park. She asked that the plans not be locked in for a passive park, but to allow the possibility of adding active elements at a later date. Michael Stoddard, 1050 Charming Avenue, felt the present open space provided in the park is more than adequate. He stated he could see no reason why active facilities could not be put into the park. Co:ncilman Sher asked if Hr. Stoddard want tennis when he mentioned active facilities, or were there other activities that he would lug under that. 369 4/15/74 Mr.. Stoddard replied that he believed active facilities could include tennis courts, handball courts, and an extension of the picnic facilities. Mr. Keith Petty, 14.0 Pitman Avenue, said this matter resolves down to whether or not a pleasant area should be paved. He asked if two tennis courts would be very helpful. Mr. Petty spoke against the addition of tennis courts and had those people who were in the audience and against tennis courts raise their hands. There was also a show of hands of those persons in favor of tennis courts. Councilman Berwald noted that several people had brought up the possibility of a rather semi -active, small scale type of improvements such as horseshoe courts, which would not require paving. He asked Mr. Petty if he and his group would have any objection to such things as another bar -be -cue, more benches, improvement in the children's play yard equipment, and perhaps shuffle board. Mr. Petty replied that his group would not have any objection to the kinds of things mentioned and had confidence that the landscape architect would place such items appropriately. Nancy Marty, 1041 Channi.ng, called Council's attention to the Parks and Recreation Study of 1969 which concluded that "in the future the city should make itself more responsive to the recreational needs of residents and improve neighborhood recreational facilities by better equipping these facilities to serve the needs of area residents". It was her feeling that parks had been treated more as beautification items than recreational facilities. MB. Marty pointed out that there was no other park for the area surrounding Eleanor Park except for Rinconada which was small compared to Mitchell. She supported Eleanor Park becoming an active area. Councilman Sher asked Ms. Marty if she equated "active" with "tennis courts". She responded that tennis courts would be first choice, but that bF.ckboard would be a welcome addition also. Furthermore, more picnic tables would be desirable; and same people indicated a desire for a small plot where they could grow flowers or vegetables. Also, there was a need for another play area in the sun, near the picnic area, with climbing equipment, etc. Councilman Beahrs asked Mrs. Marty if she found it impossible to use the tennis courts at Rinconada Park. She replied that the dinner hour was about the only time she could find a court available. Councilman Beahrs suggested that the Palo Alto Tennis Club might be encouraged to use other tennis facilities in the city, so that more residents near Rinconada could take advantage of the courts. Gordon Hayward, 1040 Charming Avenue, presented 209 more signatures for the petition for an active park. He stated that unlighted tennis courts were the most favored item as far as the petitioners were concerned, but other possibilities were handball, volley ball, and basketball courts for adults and intermediate age children. Councilman Henderson asked Mt. Hayward what he would be willing to give up in the -park to make room for the tennis courts. Mr. Hayward replied that two tennis courts would not take up very much room and there were a number of different places where they could go. Jive Steele, 525 Center Drive, spoke in favor of tennis courts and a mixed -use of passive and active elements in the park. He said he was disheartened that the last time this subject was discussed that the idea of a more active park was turned down, and he hoped that with the obvious interest shown for an active park, the Council would consider it. Horner Stephens, 1408 Pitman, did not feel there would be much wisdom in putting tennis courts in Eleanor Park. He said the city would be serving a great many more people intei•eeted in tennis courts by investing in a more extensive kind of tennis facility. Mr. Stephens said he would support a better and more extensive tennis facility someplace other than at Eleanor Park. Vice Mayor Pearson asked the Architectural Review Mr. Knox responded that all public projects and as possible in light of being mad e . Mx. Knox if he would clarify just what Board is supposed to do. the Review Board is charged with reviewing properties, and they review them as fully the architectural improvements that are Vice Mayor Pearson said that if a policy has been made by Council or a committee, she would assume the Architectural Review Board would decide whether facilities were aesthetically pleasant aad whether equipment, benches, etc., are properly placed. She felt that would be their charge and not to redesign the park. Mr. Knox responded affirmatively. fie added that there had been some aspect missing in terms of staff support to the Architectural Review Board. He felt responsible that staff had not provided the ARB with some of the background, and they did not have the opportunity to read the minutes of the Finance and Public Works Committee with regard to the review of this proposed project. If they had, they would have understood better how policies are formed, and what their role is in reviewing the architectural aspects. Mr. Knox said he had scheduled a discussion this corning Thursday with the ARB to go over the matter of the role of the Review Board. He noted that the Board was less than a year old and was still in the learning process. Vice Mayor Pearson stated that the Council policy has been that staff is to work with citizens, the'PTA, and other groups, in trying to develop the parks in the best possible way, with the citizens involved. In this matter, staff did proceed in this direction. They solicited views from the people in the area, and those views indicated a desire for a passive park. Mrs. Pearson said Council was surprised to find the interest in an active park. She noted it is possible to have an active park without tennis courts, and that although there is a need for additional courts, she did not feel they should be in Eleanor Park or in the Baylauds. With regard to the 9uggeetion that the Garden Club have a mall area in Eleanor Park, Vice Mayor Pearson pointed out that they already had been given a substantial area in the Cultural Center. She also explained that the areas of Mitchell Park and RincoEDada Park are approximately the same. Vice Mayor Pearson was disappointed that this matter had been to the committee so many tunes, and said that if the Planning Commission had had a chance to work with it, perhaps there would have been a different solution. 3 7 1 4/15/74 Councilman Berwald stated that in Mrs. Proctor's note to the Architectur- al Review Board she mentioned that she had based her plans on the understanding that Council wanted a passive park. He said Mrs. Proctor had done a fine job of designing such a park, However, since that time a considerable number of residents had made pleas for an active park, and he was persuaded by some of their arguments. Councilman Berwald did not think tennis courts were necessary or desirable, but he was in favor of reviewing the plans to see if some modest activity mould be built into the plans without destroying the idea of maintaining the feeling of open space. He felt Council might take a look and decide if some active adult and child facilities which required minimal paving might be considered, but restricting the to those that would not require massive above -ground structures. ft was his feeling that a small garden for the Garden Club would be a good idea. Councilman Berwald wondered if the project should be returned to staff with instructions to see if there was a possibility of building more active areas such as a child play area with climbing equipment near the picnic area, additional picnic benches, bar -be - cues, etc. Vice Mayor Pearson asked Mr. Sipel to comment on having the matter referred back to the Planning Commission where there could be a public hearing, but prior to that have staff make recommendations to the Planning Commission, so they would have something to ,cork with. Mr. Sipel replied that he was not sure why it would be sent to the Planning Commission rather than to the Finance and Public Works Committee. He asked if it would be referred without directions just to get opinions. Vice Mayor Pearson said staff had heard from the public and had the petitions, and she felt staff could redo the plans making a more active park. Perhaps staff could indicate a couple of alternatives to the P1asuning Commission, whereupon there could be a public hearing. Mr. Sipel responded he would not be very comforttble.with doing it this way because there would be at least twenty definitions of how active an active park should be. He rege,ested that specific activities be mentioned that ought to be included in a new plan. Councilman Henderson asked if there were more safety problems at Eleanor hark than at other parks. Mr. Sipel replied there were no more calls about Eleanor Park than there were for any of the other parks. He noted that staff had done everything possible with the present plans to be sure safety problems were not being bal It in. He added that park security in general is a, problem in the city, but problems were not more prevalent in Eleanor Park than in other parks. Councilman Henderson said that the tennis court aituation would involve a change in policy for the Council, and he pointed out that many signatures could be gotten lot tennis courts ia any of the neighborhood parr in the city. This would just _mean fewer teanie courts finally, because so mach more could be done in the present City program of converting school courts and in lighting more courts. He stated that people would come from all over town to play on any tennis courts, so that the residents around -Eleanor Park would not be able to walk over and play tennis any time they wanted to. He further felt there would be pressure in due time to light the courts. 3 7 2 4/15/74 Ccuncilman Henderson said he could not support tennis courts at Eleanor Park because Council policy would have to be changed to put tennis courts in other neighborhood parks. He was, however, willing to hear other suggeetiee s for an active park. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Henderson moved, seconded by Pearson, that the plans for Eleanor Pardee Park be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration of additional activities but excluding consideration of tennis courts and rest rooms. Councilman Sher observed that it wet too bad to see an issue like parks divide a neighborhood as much as this project has. He felt that some of the problem developed from the use of symbolic emotional words such as "passive" and active," and he would not support the committee's motion saying the park must be passive. He noted there had been a lot of time spent on this subject by citizens, staff, and Council; and the easy thing to do now would be to have a hearing and have all of the input rehashed. It was his opinion that would be an irresponsible thing to do, and the right thing to do would be to give some direction to the kind of changes in the design that would be acceptable to Council, ask the architect to consider them for inclesion, and bring the plans back to Council, Councilman Clay stated that he understood the real issue to be tennis courts or no tennis courts, and that matter should be dealt with 4.t this meeting rather than have it referred to the Planning Commission. Councilman Rosenbaum said that at the Finance Committee hearing he got the impression that the issue was tennis courts. He did not feel there was a great deal of :interest in some of the other suggestions made for a more active part. rather, he felt the park with its large green area provides for a tremendous amount of activity, As far as he was concerned, the idea of tennis courts was out; and he felt that backboards would create a noise problem. He said a few more picnic tables could be put in, but if you made the picnic area too large, people would be drawn to the park from beyond the neighborhood area. Councilman Rosenbaum would be contented to leave the plans as they are, unless some people felt strongly about horseshoes or volley ball. Coucilman Beahrs said that when this matter was first brought up, the tennis advocates were not in the audience and everyone enthusiastically went down the line for a passive park. Since then, there had been much going back and forth, and he felt a sense of frustration and coafusion. He said that in his experience he found the more features and activities that are provided, the more a nuisance is created in an area want for pleasure and disciplined behavior. He felt that maintaining a passive park would be doing the neighborhood a great good. Councilmen Henderson said his personal feeling was that making Eleanor Park active would be a mistake but that he hard to respond to the desires of so many people. He withdrew his earlier substitute motion and moved the following: SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Henderson aonve3, seconded by Pearson, that the plena for Eleanor Pardee Park be returned to staff for preparation of an alternative design that includes more activity, excluding tennis courts and rest rooms, and that staff return the original and alternative plans to Council for consideration. 373 4/15/74 The substitute motion `ailed on the following vote: AYES: Henderson, Pearson, Sher NOES: Beahre, Berwald, Clay, Norton, Rosenbaum Vice Mayor Pearson stated that Council now had before it the original motion from the Financo and Public Works Committee. Councilman Berwald said he could not accept the motions that were made as a response to his ideas because they did not give the staff any real direction. He stated he would be willing to approve the original notion with the understanding that as a result of the discussion at this meeting, the staff would come back with one alternate that would add facilities for horseshoes, recommendations for a minimal addition to the bar -be -cue iacilities, and any other facilities which would not require paving or above -ground structures with the exception of perhaps playground equipment. AMENDMENT LOTION: Councilman Berwald moved that the above type of instruction to staff listed above be added to the Finance and Public Works Committee's recommendation before Council. The amendment failed for a lack of a second, SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Sher moved, duly seconded, that Council take the position in connection with the expansion of Eleanor Park that there should be included no tennis courts or rest room facilities, but that there should be included such leisure time activities as another play area in the sun near the picnic area, a garden area, a handball backboard facility if that could be constructed in a situation that would not impinge on the neighbors, and more picnic areas. Vice Mayor Pearson asked if this kind of a program would cost more money than was available. Mr. Walker replied that additional money would be needed; for instance, a handball court would cost something in the area of $16,000 to $20,000 per court. He said that in trying to deal with the problem of tennis courts, a lot of other issues had been raised that staff felt had been dealt with less than a year ago by the Finance Committee- The Finance Committee recommended, and the Council adopted as policy, that not only tennis courts and rest room facilities not be included, but also that the picnic area not be enlarged, no additional drinking fountains be installed, and no additional playground equipment be provided. Mr. Walker said these suggestions had been adopted because the people in the neighisorhood did not want the intensity of the park to be increased. He added that such things as horseshoe courts aright he nice to have, but he did not feel sure everybody wanted them. Councilman Henderson asked Councilman Sher if it were intended to have both plans come back, or is direction being given that there would be handball courts, more picnic tables, etc. Councilman Sher replied that he would like to aee both plans cue back to Council. He said he had heard enough to be convinced that "active" did not necessarily mean "tennis courts," and he could like to wee if more adults could be drawn into the park by incorporating into the plans some of the suggestions heard tonight, 374 4/15/74 Councilman Henderson responded that he could not support the substitute motion because if that much area were going to be paved over, then there may as well be tennis courts. The substitute motion failed on the following vote!. AYES: Sher NOES: Beahrst, Clay, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum. ABSTAIN: Berwald Vice Mayor Pearson asked for a vete on the main motion. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Recess The Council adjourned for a recess from 9:45 to 10:00 p.m. Housin Reizsbilitation Froyra Councilman Henderson stated that as has been the case in previous Council discussions concerning rehab programs in Fire Zone I, the deliberations of the Finance and Public Works Committee produced anything but a consensus of opinion or a strongly endorsed recommended course of action for Council to take. Rather, Council would have to accept the committee's recommendations as starting points for further deliberation. He reported that no two people on the committee agreed as to precise programs, as was indicated in the minutes. Altogether, there were four referrals wade by Council to the committee, and those referrals with the committee's responses are as follows. The first referral was a motion of Comstock/Pearson that staff be directed to develop guidelines for various programs which would require relocation assistance on demolitions and rehabilitations of Type V structures for review by the Finance and Public Works Committee for recommendation to Council, relocation assistance to be provided by the developer or other entity causing the demolition. Councilman Henderson said the relocation assistance was not discussed by the committee because of the time needed to discuss rehab alternatives in financing and because it seemed wise to wait until it is seen what, if any, rehabilitation program is developed. The staff has issued a report on relocation alternatives, and the subject remains in committee. The eecoud referral was that a committee of ctaff be established as proposed in the transmittal letter to develop a rehabilitation program and finazcial plan based on the proposal submitted in the Fire Zone I report, and that they consider including, buc not limited to, use of the i.andbank Program as a funding source; explore revenue - bond financing and bond sales to private banks; that they consider 3% loans, and the use of Section 23 to aaaxst residents of the Downtown Fire Zone in rental payments, and that the F/PW Committee review the total financial program as developed by this committee and make a recommendation to Council. There was an amendment, Beahrs/ Rosenbaum, that a provision be ridded that the city guarantee private loans and if necessary subsidize all interest costa between three per cent and 375 4/15/74 the then -existing market on interest costa. Councilman Henderson reported that the Finance and Public Works Committee received a detailed report dated March 21 from Mr. Pawloski and Mr. Sipel, which was the basis for committee discussion and the resulting recommen- dations. On specific points in the referral motion, however, use of the housing Landbank Program as a -funding source was opposed two to one in the committee, and then was opposed a second time during capital improvement program budget deliberations three to one, with Councilman Henderson's vote being the only one in favor of using such funds. Revenue bond financing is incluiin;e in the committee's recommendation. Use of 3% loans was rejected, and use of Section 23 funds was up in the air because of doubt of availability of such funds. He noted there appeared to be a majority interest if such funds were available. Regarding the amendment subsidizing all interest costs between 3% and market rate loan cost, this was rejected. The third referral to the committee for consideration with the other financial aspects of the program was a motion (Clay/Norton) that the City's rehabilitation financial assistance be limited to those peraons who are elderly or handicapped and who are financially disadvantaged owners or tenants:. Councilman Henderson reported that the committee majority expressed ,apposition to this limitation, and that he made a motion to that effect. Mr. 31.7e1, however, stated he did not feel any formal action was necessary if the committee left that limitation out cif its recommendation. Therefore, it was left out with the understanding that committee ,yid not want to limit the program to those two classifications. Finally, the referral that Council adopt a phased code enforcement program in Fire Zone I with initial emphasis to be placed in the area proposed for rezoning; also, 1) rate of enforcement; 2) staffing level necessary to accomplish enforcement; 3) rationale for schedule of the properties to be brought up to code to be referred to F/PW Committee. Councilman Henderson said two recommendations were being passed on to the Council, one involving five parts concerns a rehabilita- tion program for the rezoned portions of Fire Zone I; and the other is a recommendation to Council to initiate an ordinance requiring 20% low/moderate income units on all new construction involving five or more units. The rehabilitation recommendation calls for the phased code enforcement program already voted by the Council with the addition of holding off city compliance action until the third year. It includes loans from the city to property owners at revenue bond rates, with no rent increase limitations placed on the owner. It lists the source of funding all aspects of the program, and it recommends immediate hiring of a rehabilitation program specialist and a legal consultant. This recommendation was approved two to one. The motion for 20% low/moderate income housing was designed to protect the city from loss of Low/moderate income housing in Fire Zone I and all other sections of the city. It was established as a minimum requirement, and it would .pply to construction of new units for sale or for rent and to additional units provided in any conversion of existing structures or additions to existing structures. Councilman Henderson stated a new factor for future deliberations was that Palo Alto Housing Corporation is preparing a recommendation involving establishment of a nonprofit corporation which would have the purpose of buying existing structures, rehabilitating them under the city program, and then setting rentals at the lowest figures possible. 376 4/15/74, MOTION: Councilman Henderson moved in behalf of the Finance and Public Works Committee that the city adopt as a Pilot Program a rehabilitation program in the rezoned areas of Fire Zone I that would include the following: a) Council should approve a policy of phased enforcement of the Housing Code as described under the Section "Phasing" on page six of the staff report dated March 21, 1974 that would begin City compliance actions in the third year of the program; b) the program should include rehabilitation loans and grants as proposed in the report except that the loans would be made at the rate that the City pays for revenue bonds and there would be no rent increase limitations; c) rehabilitation efforts would be in the rezoned areas of Fire Zone 1 and these areas should be designated as the rehab areas; d) immediate funding of the program should be from two sources. Admxtinistretion, grants and loan servicing should be provided from the City's general operating fund. Rehabilitation loans should be funded through revenue bond fivancing as recommended in the Fire Zone I Study; and e) the Council should approve hiring, on a contract basis, one rehabilitation program specialist and a legal consultant to assist in detailed planning for the first action year and in developing a revenue bond financing package. Funds in the amount of $20,000 will be lade available from the contingency account or by means of a budget amendment. MOTION: Councilman Henderson, in behalf of the Finance and Public Works Committee, moved that the Council initiate an ordinance of the City of Palo Alto requiring 2O or some other percentage low:/moderate income units in all new construction involving five or gore units. Councilman Henderson stated that he had supported the main motion concerning the rehabilitation program in order to have something come out of the eonmittee and back to the Council. He said he was opposed to a city subsidy to property owners that would bring nothing in return. Further, he would support 3% loans as a subsidy to make programs sufficiently attractive, but in return he felt there should be restrictions placed on rent increase alloreed, or require the rental of units to qualified low/moderate income tenants, or both. He noted there were many valid arguments against overall rent control, but this was a special situation and something in return would be equitable. Councilman Henderson stated he supported the mandatory code enforcement proposal, but would be willing to support a voluntary rehab program if it included low interest loan incentive balanced with a mans of providing for low/moderate income tenants. He also felt a definite need for the 202 requirement for low/moderate income units in new construction to prevent accumulations of large blocks of property that would result in an overall loss of low/moderate income units. Councilman Henderson recalled that the rehab program was started with two gods, those being to preserve existing dwellings and zo protect low/moderate income owners and tenants. The emphasis so far seemed to be on the housing, and it is the people occupying the houses who are important, It was his hope that Council members could all bend a bit in order to meet those original goals. Councilman Rosenbaum stated that he was the maker of the motion in com-- mittee, rind since that time he found that it had not drawn ouch support from Council or members of the ca unity; therefore he would suggest another approach. With regard to rent limitation, he said it was his view that including rent limitations is a considerable disincentive to having a property owner participate in the program. If there were a mandatory program, which he had supported, the property -3 7 7 4/15/74 owner pushed by the Building Inspector would have two choices. He could participate in the program or he could knock down his house and build something new with no government control whatsoever. It was Councilman Rosenbaum's opinion that the owner would opt for the latter course. Oa the other hand, a voluntary program offers the property owner another alternative which is that he can do nothing. In the short run this would preserve housing, but he was not very sanguine about what would happen in the long run. At least though, the rent limitation issue would not force him to take action contrary to what is desired. Furthermore, if there were a voluntary program, he could not really object to rent limitation if a property owner of his own volition were willing to limit his rent. Rather than debate whether people would choose to take advantage of the subsidy if there were rent limitation, it should be tried so that results could be discovered. His suggestion was that the program be changed to s voluntary one, and that it would include rent limits. Councilman Rosenbaum said the second issue as he saw it was the size of the city subsidy. He noted that staff recommended loans be made at 3%, but it was his view that the loans should be roughly b%. He felt the city should be careful as to who received a subsidy. There are many people living in Fire Zone I who are not deserving of any subsidy because of their income levels. He referred to Councilman Clay's earlier suggestion that a way be found to see that the help would go to the elderly, physically disabled, and those persons with definite financial. problems. The committee members did not come to grips with this because they were thinking in terms of property owners. In later discussions it was suggested that maybe there could frdeed be a program inwhich the benefits went to deserving residents; and one way to do that would be to agree to make the low cost loans only to property owners who would agree to rent to those people who qualified for housing assistance. So that if a property owner wanted a loan, he would have to agree to rant limitation and to renting his units only to those persons qualifying for housing assistance. If this were done, Councilman Rosenbaum said he would be willing to go along with the 3% loan which is some additional incentive. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Henderson and Sher, that the Fire Zone I Rehabilitation Program and Financial Plan be referred back to the Finance and Public Works Committee for the purpose of developing the costs and procedures necessary to implement a program containing the following features: I) the program is to be voluntary; 2) the program is to be limited initially to the rezoned areas of Fire Zone I; 3) loans are to be made at 3% interest; 4) loans are to be made to property owners who (a) agree to limit rents, and (b) agree to rent only to those who qualify for housing assistance under criteria to be established by the city, with priority given to current tenants meeting income liMatatiorts and to the elderly. Councilman Sher commented that he favored the yoluntary aspect of the rehabilitation and participation in the financial assistance. He assumed there would be new cost figures developed based on the concept of the voluntary rehabilitation program as compared to the mandatory one. Further he felt that emphasis should not be to licit availability only to certain people, but that a priority system., should be set up; and such a system would pick up the ideas about trying to benefit long terra resident8 of the city, the elderly, current tenants, etc. Councilman Sher added he would like to see overall cost figures developed in cm ittee, with careful consideration as to where the city participation would come from, including the possibility of the landbanking program. 3 7 8 4/15/14 Vice Mayor Pearson pointed out that in regard to the qualifications for purchasers and renters, a report had been sent to the Policy and Procedures Committee which speaks to one part, of the motion, that section which is dealing with priorities V-- who the people are and what the criteria are. This report would be coming out of committee in the future. Councilman Beaters commented that he agreed it was an obligation of the community to facilitate low/moderate income housing, but not to subsidize it. His feeling was that the proposal before Council including :. tntcrest charge indicated discriminatory practice and also a rather high degree of subsidy out of the taxpayer's pocket. He said the city should urge state and federal governments to come up with a broad based subsidization of low cast hoaeing, either by guarantee of loans or outright subsidy. It was his opinion that the city was getting in over its head cost -wise, and he felt this was an i11-adeised move. Vice Mayor Pearson responded that :fir. Cranston was proposing a bill. regarding rehabilitation funds, and that she thought it had been passed through one committee. Counei1! an Clay comnlented that the original referral motion to the Finance and Public Works Cnr.zittee spoke to the idea cf assistance being limited to the elderly and the handicapped, but that he still had some concern about it. He said at that time he had asked specifically that assistance be limited to the elderly and the handicapped, not that they receive soTMe kind of priority. He wanted a good definition of the recipient. Councilman Clay pointed out that his original potion to rrstrict assistance to the elderly, handicapped, and financially disadvantage) persons had been with specific reference to the proposed ordinance that had been in front of Co,incil at that time, which incorporated Fire Zone I rezoning, rehabilitation, and some of the other things as well. He asked if this should have been a referral from the Finance and Public Works Committee, which referral is being made on the basis of a motion passed when Council was looking at a rehabilitation ordinance which was rescinded as a result of the referendum. Further, he asked if this was not the referended order cowling back to Council prior to their having reconsidered it at the Council level after rescinding the ordinance and before action be taken at this meeting. Mr. Booth responded that if he understood the question correctly, Councilman Clay was concerned about the items that were considered by the committee which were referred during the course of Council consideration of R-2, R-3 Rehab Ordinance that was subsequently rescinded. He explained those items were referred to committee for specific study as to the policy aspects of them, and therefore were not considered as a part of the rehab zone. They were before Council as new items although they were related to the long term Fire Zone I study. Councilman Clay said the matter was before Council in the form of no recommendation, and it was in his *ind technically associated with that particular ordinance. He ,stated the whole matter was referred to the Finance and Public Works Committee for the purpose of defining whatever the rehabilitation program would be, and so he vas rather surprised to see it at this meeting. However, it. did appear to be along the lines that most people could support. Councilman Clay said the more he thought about this, the more concerned he been e. :79 4/1./74 Councilman Henderson commented that the committee did say "no" to the use of Landbank funds, referring back to Councilman Sher's statements. With regard to Councilman Clay's comments, he said the committee voted not to limit the recipients to the elderly and the handicapped, but that Council could certainly change that by a vote later on if they so desired. He felt Council :should await recommendations from the Policy and Procedures Committee. Councilman Henderson stated that the referals to the Finance and Public Works Committee related to a rehabilitation program and a financing structure and had nothing to do specifically with the rezoning ordinance which was involved in a referendum petition. :1e said with regard to the motion, he wondered why at this point the voluntary program would be limited to the rezoned areas in Fire Zone 1. He asked if it could not be applied to all of Fire Zone 1 since there was concern for all of the structures there, and then have a decision made based on financial limitation. Councilman Rosenbaum replied that everyone had an opportunity to look at the figures from staff for a mandatory program in the rezoned area, and they represent a level of commitment that he was prepared to make. He felt this was a good beginning, and if this turned out to be successful, then the city could move on to other areaa. Councilman Henderson asked what Councilman Rosernbaum's thoughts were for the remainder of Fire Zone 1. Councilman Rosenbaum replied that the issue of what to do with rehabilitation restrictions could be faced at a later date. Councilman Norton stated he would not support referral to the Finance and Public Works Committee. Two hours had been spent on the subject, and because Councilman Rosenbaum decides he can not get full support from the Council, he wants to refer it. He said at best, the subject would come out of committee with a two to two vote in any event. He did not see any reason to send this matter `pack and play with it over and over again. Vice Meyor Pearson invited members of the audience to address Council on this matter. Eric Duckatad, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, reported the following actions at the Corporation's meeting on April 3: 1) to reiterate PAUC's view that a voluntary rehab program would be preferable to a phased or mandatory one, passed unanimously; 2) that PAHC favors tying lower interest loans to the provision of lower -than -market rents; e.g., that cost savings of rehab be passed on to renters rather than providing windfall profits to landlords, passed unanimously; 3) that PAUC feels that a long term (30 year) subsidized loan would provide an incentive to the owner to provide low/moderate income units. A sufficiently low interest rate (below 62) would probably be necessary to offer the threshold at which an owner will want to participate. Such an interest rate would be estimated to be approximately 3X below the existing interest rate for revenue bonds, depending on the service life of the mortgage, passed unanimously; 4) that while PAHC feei.s that requiring 202 low/moderate income units be in- cluded its'all new construction over 4 units, city-wide, may be too high a percentage, the Corporation suggests that some percentage, perhaps on a gliding scale, would be appropriate. In addition, inclusion of a percentage of low/moderate income units should be aimed not only at new construction but also at conversions and expansions within existing structures, passed unanimously; 5) that PARC recommend 380 4/15/74 that the City Council look into the question of a landlord's refinancing the entire package, subject to the limitations of the existing; loans plus costs of rehab, passed with one "nay" vote; and 6) that PAHC supports the "pilot program" aspect of rehab activities in Fire Zone I and hopes that, if successful, such a program might eventually be extended elsewhere in the city, passed unanimously. Councilman Sher asked Mr. Duckstad if he agreed that the first three points were identical to the motion that had been made. Mr. Duckstad said he thought the first three points went along with Mr. Rosenbaum's substitute motion. Joan Johnston, 441 South California Avenue, speaking for the League of Woven Voters, said the members of the League wanted to retain the maximum amount possible of low/moderate income housing units in the downtown area. In December of 1973, the League urged that action be taken on Fire one I recommendations with that as a goal. The League also favored a dispersalof low/moderate income units throughout the city; therefore, they support the proposal that the City Council initiate an ordinance requiring 20% low/ moderate income units in all new construction involving .five or more units. However, the rehab program as outlined on the agenda which may produce better dwellings will not help people of low/moderate income. It will result in higher rents which will force them out of the downtown area and out of Palo Alto. The League urged Council to not spend city funds on this program unless it benef'ts those people who need help, the elderly long term residents and young families. The League asks for the addition of rent limitations to the program. Ms. Johnston said the League supported many of the ideas expressed at this meeting by Mr. Rosenbaum and Mr. Sher, and they would be very interested in seeing a new program developed encompassing the points made in Councilman Rosenbaum's motion. Dan Williams, 2450 West Bayshore Road, President, MUM, noted that in December, 1972, the Council directed that the policy of the city would be to maintain ant enhance existing housing in Fire Zone I. In April of 1973,. the Council charged that the goal should be to meet the needs of those persons or families who were disadvantaged in the housing market. MCF11 supports the efforts of the city to achieve those objectives. Mr. Williams said that although the program before Council at this meeting seems sensible, MCFH was of the opinion that it was deficient in two respects. One was the 6% subsidy loan provision, with the absence of a statement of what type of housing was expected after the property had been rehabilitated. MCFH agreed with a 3% rate, and they were not persuaded that a 6% rate was enough incentive to rehabilitate rather than demolish. They also believed that the 6% rate would create a rental increase which would in all likelihood bring an end to rental units that could be described as being lair or moderate. Councilman Rosenbaum's idea for a eliding scale would be acceptable to MCFH. In the absence of any rent limitation being required of those who take advantage of city asaiated below market financing, there is no guarantee that the product of rehabilitation efforts will serve any purpose beyond improving the value of the property. Mr. Williams stated that the second deficiency in their opinion was in the provision for relocating persons who are displaced. Although some financial compensation is allowed, given a 2% vacancy factor in Palo Alto's rental housing market at this time, they are worried about whether or not there is housing available within the Means of displaced low/moderate income families. MCFH urged Council 381 4/15/74 to not adopt the proposed rehabilitation program until there is a financial component that provides more incentive for maintaining the housing stock, avoids the necessity for the owner to increase rents, guarantees that the persons who are disadvantaged in the housing market are better protected now and after resale, and deals more effectively with the problems of displacement. Furthermore, MCFH continues to believe that a rehabilitation program that allows for new conseruction or an increase in housing units ought to require the inclusion or preservation of a significant number of units within the mans of and reserved for persons of low/moderate incomes. Ctrs. Audrey Oswald, 3804 Nathan Way, Principal of Addison School, spoke of the fact that the lack of rent control was having an effect on some of the families involved at Addison. One family's rent was raised from $210.00 per month to $350.00 per month, and that family would have to leave the area. At this point Addison was a balanced school with many minority groups, families of low/moderate incomes, and families with high incomes, which was a desirable situation. It was her hope that Council by doing something about the rental limitation would make it possible for families in the low/ moderate income brackets to remain, Councilman Beahrs said he was not without compassion for the people in this situation, but that the correct thing to do would be to put the burden where it belongs -- at the state and federal level. Fred Eyerly, 877 Sharon Court, stated that the concept Council had before it was basically the same as the original plan except that it was not in ordinance form. He said there was a tremendous amount of money involved in this proposal, all for just eighty-four structures; and it was his opinion that much more square footage could be gotten for the money with new construction. The program calls for phased inspection, and Hr. Eyerly felt this was most unfair to enact in only one area of the city. He suggested that the moratorium be removed and restrictions be lifted on Class V structures and see what private enterprise would do. Mr. Eyerly said the present proposal was immoral in view of the rehab referendum, and overall city-wide study of housing inspection and housing rehabilitation in low/moderate income housing in a comprehensive plan is the only sensible approach. Councilman Henderson stated that he called Mr. Eyerly specifically and expressed his desire for him or some representative of his views to appear before the Finance and Public Works Committee so that they could have had his positive recommendations about a rehab program. He did not want Mr. Eyerly to feel that he had been closed off. Councilman Berwald stated he felt it was unfair for a Councilman to make such statements as this premious one, which forces a citizen to testify and be defensive about why he did not attend f committee meeting. Councilman Sher asked Mr. Eyerly if some of the features of the substitute motion did not agree with a number of his comments, such as removing the moratorium which would run out this month, and the voluntary program rather than a mandatory one. Mr. Eyerly responded that he did not like -the 32 loan money, and that he and the people who had worked on the referendum did not like that kind of subsidy. He suggested that if the restrictions 3 g 2 4/3-5/74 were removed on Class V structures and if the moratorium were allowed to die of old age, that lot of nice things might happen as a result of private enterprise. Mr. Bob Boudrias, 478 E. Charleston Road, stated that there was a faction of Council that chose to ignore a referendum of the citizens. He said there was a Council majority that felt those not completely with them were against them. In response to the referendum, the Council majority challenged the committee to present alternate suggestions for Fire Zone I, and yet when the committee did that the Mayor, with the Vice Mayor"s endorsement, wrote an unreque ted letter which was highly partisan and refused to give seriousconsideration to any opinions which differed from his own. Now, two of the Councilmen have brought before Council virtually the identical program to which the referendum objected. Mx. Jack Giosso, 180 University Avenue, stated that the average sale in Palo Alto in February of last year was $53,968,84. This year the average sale in Palo Alto was $59,979.00. He said that one way to cure the housing problem is to allow houses to be built. Mr. Giosso gave figures that showed if one house out of five had to be sold at a low/moderate income figure, then there would be no profit and all risk. Mr. Jig; Steele, 525 Center Dive, representing the Chamber of Commerce, said that during the time of the referendum the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter, some poin=ts of which were applicable to the consideration of the rehab situation at this meeting. He quoted from the letter: "The subject of low/moderate income housing within the city of Palo Alto is a city-wide concern. It should be considered in the context of the total comprehensive plan study rather than on a piecemeal basic. We don't need an expensive and cumbersome mandatory program of rehabilitation when there is a great likelihood that private enterprise can meet the challenge with no cost to the taxpayer if given the opportunity". Mr, Steele said that one of the recommendations made in the letter was that the matter be put before the electorate before city funds were used in subsidizing housing. Mr. Carl Smith, 454 Tennessee Lane, said that a number of speakers and at least one Councilman had made reference to a rehabilitation referendum. He noted there was a petition for referendum, but there was no actual referendum. He stated he was part of a public opinion hearing on March 2, and the conclusions of that meeting were reported to Council on March 4. The first conclusion that was very clear was that the referendum petition could not be construed as .e. voice against rehabilitation or for that matter, against low/moderate income housing. It was his hope that Council would move the matter to Committee as Councilman Rosenbaum suggeoted. Mr. Frank Manfredi, 219 Addison Street, said that l.he referendums should have been held, and it would have been voted down. It was time to atop using up land, and it was time to be in favor of rehabilitation of housing for the poor. Councilman Sher stated that objective is not just to rehabilitate - housing for particular owners of houses., but is to revitalize the neighborhood, just as the city is trying to revitalize the downtown area. He said that everyone is worried about the coat, but that 383 4/15014 the total cost needed to be kept in perspective. Further, in committee, there would be developed very carefully a system of priorities to be sure that the elderly, the handicapped, etc. would be able to occupy the houses. The referral motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Beahrs, Berwald, Clay, Norton 143TICN: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Henderson, that the subject be continued for one week. The motion to continue the matter failed on the following vote: AYES: Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Beahrs, Berwald, Clay, Norton MOTION: Councilman Sher moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the matter be tabled. The motion: to table failed on the following vote: AYES: Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES. Henderson, Beahrs, Berwald, Clay, Norton The vain motion failed on a unanimous vote. MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Henderson, that the question of requiring 201 or some other percentage of low/moderate income housing in new construction be referred to staff for an economic feasibility analysis. Councilman Beahrs stated that it was not fair or just to force the purchasers of one unit, or two or three out of a small development, to subsidize their fellow tenants. The referral motion failed on the following vete: AYES: Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Beahrs, Berwald, Clay, Norton Reort of Vice MA or Pearson re l se ta sour cova ec t Vice Mayor Pearson made the following corrections in her letter to Council members on this subject: 1) "soot strip" in the second paragraph should read "50C foot strip", 2) the state's share in the cost about:! have been incl'ided at 402, and 3) in the nest to the last paragraph the Consultant's name should read "Environmental impact Planning Corporation". Vice Mayor Pearson stated that this project is near completion, and at this point needed see more funds from Palo Alto. 3 8 4 4/13/74 MOTION: Vice Mayor Pearson moved, seconded by Berwald, that Palo Alto reaffirm its support of the Bay Delta Resource Recovery Project by authorizing payment of $1,750 to the Say Delta Resource Recovery Board. The emotion passed on a unanimous vote. Re nest to Consider Item 12• Re uest of or omit.oc re see treet r a. Citizens GrO e.se $t tion Out of -Order MOTION: Vice Mayor Pearson moved, seconded by Beaters, that Item 12 on the Agenda _a request of Mayor Comstock for citizens group presentation concerning Newell Street Bridge -- be brought forward for consideration with Item 4, the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Newell Street Bridge. The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Plannin Commission Reco"ndations r ..... ..treet Brf Re Mrs. Gordon stated that the Planning Cc -t mission re.commended by unanimous vote that the Newell Road Bridge be closed to automobile traffic, but be left open to pedestrian and bicycle traffic; that the closing be for a trial period of sixty days at the end of which time it be evaluated by the City; and that staff be directed to initiate consultation with San Mateo County officials to educate residents on the San Mateo County Side a:; to using Bayshore Proncage Road, Oregon Ixpressway, and imbarcadero Road as alternatives to using the Newell Road Bridge. Mrs. Gordon said this matter came up before the Commission as a part of the Capital Improvements Review process, and there had been a representative of the neighborhood recommending closing of the bridge present at the meeting. Frank Bernstein, 475 Newell Road, stated that the rapid population growth in Palo Alto had a real impact on the ese cf Newell Road creating a two-way traffic hazard on Newell. He said that well is being used as a short-cut to and from Embarcadero Road. lfr. Berstein spore in favor of closing the bridge to all motor driven vehicles. Elizabeth Boyle, 515 Newell, presented petitions requesting the closing of the bridge to motor driven vehicles. lam, Boyle indicated tttat much of the traffic over the bridge has been craeted by the apartment dwellings on the San Mateo side of the bridge, She considered the traffic situation to be hazardoue. Virginia Towle, 1555 Edgewood Drive, said there had been a monumental increase in traffic across the bridge primarily because of the apartments that had been built on the San Mateo side. She spoke in favor of closing the bridge to automobiles end recommended that such traffic use Frontage Road as an arterial. It was her opinion that the bridge should be used by bicyclists and pedestrians only. 385 4/1!/74 Ib. Tom McCollough, 1499 Edgewood Drive, stated that the neighbors concerned about the traffic hazards near the Newell Screet Bridge had been gathering information and speaking to many groups about the problem since last October. He spoke of his concern for the children who use the bridge to go to the Seven -Eleven Store, and who like to play near the creek. Mr. Fred Eyerly, 877 Sharon Court, represented the university/Crescent Fork Association Board of Directors. He said that the Association resisted any increased expenditure on the Newell Street Bridge for the reasons that the other citizens had already expressed. Mt. Eyerly stated that he could not understand why the staff had requested funds again in the 1974-75 Capital improvements Budget for improving the bridge. Mr. Sipel responded that the reason it has been put into the Capital Improvements Program is that the bridge is unsafe, and as long as there is a desire to have the bridge, it should not remain in that condition. He said it was his responsibility to advise the Council as to the needs of the city as he saw them, and improving Newell Bridge was one of those needs. Mr. Dave Jones, 2559 Louis Road, as a concerned citizen of Palo Alto and as a member of an ad hoc citizens traffic committee, urged that Council support the Planning Commission proposal. Vice Mayor Pearson asked Mr. Knox if it were not a difficult thing to go through when the closing of a street was being considered, in that public hearings were involved and also environmental impact reports were required. Mr. Knox responded that an environmental impact analysis was required before Council could take action on the muter. He felt that a precedent had been set in the College Terrace area, but that the kind of information staff had available there was not available in this case. It was his opinion that scan would have to collect similar data re the Newell Road bridge, then prepare an environmental irapaet analysis and advise Council regarding it. Vice Mayor Pearson said that Henry Anthony, member of she East Palo Alto Municipal Council, had been at the meeting tonight but left early. She reported that he wanted to say that at least soeee cooperative effort should be made with the city and San Mateo County regarding the bridge. MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the Planning Commission recommendation be referred to staff for the necessary analyses and reports and recommendations. Councilman 8erwald commented that perhaps there should be a recommendation that before the bridge -is closed, the staff be directed to provide public notice to area residents, and then to encourage Palo Alto residents to use the other streets, and during the process to confer with San Mateo County officials regarding their residents use of the bridge. He also wondered that even if the bridge were closed to motor vehicles, would there still, be pressure to improve the bridge. 386 4/L5/74 Councilman Rosenbaum stated that he disagreed with Councilman Berwald's original intent. He said that it was clear that people who took Newell would have to take University or Enbarcadero to get where they were going, and those streets were just as heavily residential as Newell. Councilman Rosenbaum indicated he was reluctant to have the staff do a study since it was obvious there was no real alternative route. Councilman Beahrs stated that he supported the idea of giving serious thought to ultimately closing the bridge. In his opinion Newell was being used too much as an arterial. Councilman Norton stated he would vote against the motion for the same reasons stated by Councilman Roaenbaum. Councilman Sher asked stuff if they understood what directions were being given in the motion. Mk. Sipel replied that he understood the assignment would be to develop the kinds of information they had in past matters and bring it all back to the Council, or to a committee if that were desired, for a general policy review. At that time any legal problems that related to disclosure could be discussed, and any other procedural kinds of things that might be necessary. He said he understood the main thrust of the motion is toward the basic policy question of whether it should be closed, and what the problems would be associated with that. Councilmen Sher said that staff would bring the information back to Council for a policy determination, and if the policy were to close the bridge then the hearing could be held and legal requirements taken care of. Mr. Sipel agreed. Vice Mayor ;earson said her understanding was that staff would do an environmental impact report on closing the bridge or leaving it open, and conduct origin and destination studies, and provide a very comprehensive report. She asked if staff would be doing a study in cooperation with San Mateo County regarding methods of alleviating the situation. Mr. Sipel replied that such a study could be included with no problem. The referral motion passed on the following vote: Ayes: Beahrs, Berwald, Henderson, Pearson, Sher Noes: Clay, Norton, Rosenbaum (Councilman Norton left at 11:30 p.m. and did not return.) Plaranin Commission Recommendation re ut on " . - ication o an t e staura ts, •c K t• :271:4) Mrs. Gordon stated that Council members had before them a plan in response to the conditions that were outlined by the Architectural Review Board and by the Planning Commission. One of the conditions 3 d 7 4/15/74 that the Commission addressed itself to was increasing the amount of green area and screening on what would be the northern and easterly sides as well as the Watson Court area. Mrs. Gordon noted that the plan reflects elimination of eight parking stalls and some modest increase in the amount of planting. It appeared to her that as she assessed the stipulation of plants as outlined in the plans they would not effectively increase the amount of screening of the cars that would be in the parking area. Mr. Knox stated that this was a case where .he staff, the Review Board, and the Planning Commission functioned very well. The matter went to the Planning Commission first for a decision as to whether this was an appropriate land use for the location. It was referred back to the Architectural Review Board for changes in the design of the project. When it came back to the Commission, there was the notation of additional landscaping and screening being required, and the architects have conformed the plan to that. He reminded Council that because this was a F --C 2one, it will go through the Zoning Administrator before the granting of a use permit. The concerns that Mrs. Gordon raised could be handled when the use permit was processed. Councilman Henderson ncted there was quite a bit of reference to the amount of parking in comparison to Ming's, and he asked how many spaces there were at Ming's. There was also discussion at the Commission meeting about the north driveway being close to the East Bayshore and kmbarcadero intersection, and he asked if there were adequate clearance from the corner. Mrs. Gordon replied ..nat the driveway was not discussed at any length, so she would have to assume that they felt it was satisfactory es presented. Mr. Knox reported that he recalled looking at the plans with members of staff, and they noted the relationship of the driveway t3 the building which was in a very good location and as far away from Embarcadero Road as can be achieved in terms of coming in properly in relation to the building. Councilman Henderson noted that the landscaping at the Volkswagen agency was totally inadequate and he would be expecting the final plans for this project to be better than that. MOTION: Councilman Henderson introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Beahrs, its approval for first reading: ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDIAG SECTICW 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2300 EAST BAYSHORE RCA) FROM L41 -D TO P -C, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS and finding no significant environmental iapact. Councilman Sher said that Mrs. Gordon voted for this but expreased reserv- ations, and he wanted to know if she still favored the proposal. Mrs. Gordon replied that she did support the proposal. She was still concerned, but Mr. Knox pointed out that although the Commission was still not pleased with the amount of additional screening planting, this could be appropriately resolved at the use -permit stage. 388 4/15/74 Councilman Sher stated this project concerned him because it was high intensity use at the entrance to the Baylands. The project proposes parking that would pave about 63% of the site. He said he would not vote against it, but he would like to see the parking cut down. Mrs. Gordon stated that she did feel that considerable effort was exerted by the applicant in increasing to a fairly large percentage the amount of green space over and above the original presentFtion. Councilman Sher asked i.f the restaurant would be open during lunch and afternoon hours on the weekends. Mr. John, Titus responded that on Saturdays the restaurants are not open for lunch, and Sundays they are normally open from 1:90 in some of the restaurants. They expected to be open evenings, only during weekends. Councilman Berwald stated that he did not see anything in the minutes about the possibility of a driveway off Watson Court, and he wondered if there had been any discussion about that. He felt there should be no left turn into the driveway closest to Fmbarcadero, and that there should be a driveway off Watson Court. Mr, Knox said he thought the present layout of driveways in relation to the traffic arteries was quite good, and also in relation to the internal flea within the parking lot. Councilman Berwald noted that he was concerned about the risk of left turns from East Bayahore for those people who would come up from San Antonio Road, and it would be much safer to make a left turn on to Watson Court and have a driveway there than to make a left turn into either one of the other driveways. Mi. Knox responded that anyone coming up from San Antonio would probably take the first driveway, and his recollection was that there was plenty of room for that. He felt that Councilman Berwald made a good point that there could have been a driveway off Watson Court, MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the ordinance be amended (Section II, item b) to state that there be an additional driveway at Watson Court. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. NOTION: Councilman Sher coved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the ordinance be amended (Section II, Item a) to state the restaurant and cocktail lounge be open during dinner only and not during customary breakfast and luncheon hours on Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Titus requested that their hands not be tied in this way with regard to hours. He further said that if Ming's did not have this restriction, he would appreciate being treated in the same way. The motion failed on the foUowing vote: AYES: Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher HOPS: Beahrs, Berwald, Clay, Henderson 389 4/15/7► See p. 420 Vice Mayor Pearson stated concern about the landscaping, and she asked for some description of the new plantings included in the plans. Mrs. Gordon replied that in her evaluation there was not enough planting to really screen the cars, but that Mr. Knox had indicated this problem could be handled at the use permit stage. MOTION: Vice Mayor Pearson moved that the ordinance be amended to state that the screening planting should be increased significantly along the E barcadero Road side and along Watson Court. The motion failed for the lack of a second. The main motion to approve the ordinance as amended for first reading passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Bervai.d, .:lay, Henderson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Pearson: Mr. Knox stated that the building official, or the zoning administrator, or he could refer proiects to the Architectural Review Board at the use permit stage; and if staff felt they could not handle the design adequately ;c,zd needed the guidance of the Review Board in terms of the screening of parked cars, it would be given to the ARb to handle that aspect. MOTION: Councilman the meeting to 7:30 The motion passed an Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Sher, adjournment of p.m., April 22. a unanimous vote. The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., April 22, 1974, with item 6 of April 15 agenda to be considered first. Al ai't1 : City Clark 7 ,' 3 9 0 4/15/74 APPROVE: 1 {:p Vice Mayor