HomeMy WebLinkAbout101019721
MINUTES
city of palo alto
October 10, 1972
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto me` on this date at 7:35 p.m.
in a regular meeting with Mayor Comstock presiding.
Present: tteahrs, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton
(arrived 7:43 p.m.) Pearson, Rosenbaum, Semar.;,
Absent: None
u_,utzs of Septe er 25, 1972
a �r wa�w.w
iiayor Comstock noted that at the close of the 9/25 meeting, the Council
adjourned tc, an executive, session. 'i2, :.2 stated the record should show
that at the conclusion of the executive session the Council returned
and prior to adi rn_T T, ! e t ti 4uLhorizei the mayor
to sign
tl! :e agreement on behalf of the City on the settlement of the
Coyote Hill lowsitl t.
Councilwoman Pea:son referred to her motion on page 353, and stated
question #1 should read, "1. Are landlords overloading the houses
with tenants, and; because of the housing shortage, do we assist them
to do so?" She stated that question 11 on page 351 should read the
same. She stated that the third paragraph on page 356 was out of
order and should he inserted after Councilman -ice rwald's statement on
page 3.57.
Councilman Berwald requested that the first paragraph on page 357 be
changed as follows: The first line to remain the same with an apos-
trophe d ,d tine word 'concluaiOns" added after Councf loran Henderson's
name. The second line to be deleted, and at the beginning of the third
line, insert the words, "He said that the matter of this..." On page
361, fourth paragraph, should read, "Councilman Bervald said he would
like to see staff proceed independently on this and report back to the
Council. He stated that he had initially been negative on this subject,
but now could sea that there are many advantages for coordination of
such services as police and fire."
Councilman Henderson referred to page 346, the last sentence in the
second paragraph from the bottom, and stated thst the word "Jaycees"
should be changed to "Chamber of Commerce."
MOT/ON: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Henderson, that the minutes
of September 25, 197'x. be approved as corrected.
The motion carried unaniausly on a voice vote,
Couan_Cel Agenda
Mayor Comstock noted that there are three public hearings on the Council
agenda this evening. In addition, Item #4 on the agenda is directly
related to the public hearing of Item #3. He referred to the depth
383
10/10/72.
of material received by Council on item #4 (prezouing of property in
Frenchman's Terrace area). This material includes full transcripts
of the Planning Commission's minutes on this item, and a great many
lei;ters sent to the Planning Commission and to the Council. He stated
that in his opinion the best interests of ell participants would best
be served this evening if a certain amount of time is devoted to the
Frenchman's Terrace prezoning, and then the matter continued for at
least two weeee .. He suggested that Council deal first with items #1
and #2, and then advance Ite: #4, the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tion on the prezoning, out of order. After this, the next course of
action would be to open the public hearing on the Frenchman's Terrace
annexation and immediately continue it for at least the sane length cf
time. This procedure was agreeable with Council.
Public Hearing ---Foot :ills --.I
eseemee
Protects 5a=1 , G2-06 aadd X30-8 ►Igt 36i; a j
iii. aa.vv ZaaR- ��To;_
1 .. a fixed for the
i�-3YOr i:GyD.itG'c•,, noted that this 1; the ties ttists place fixed ac.•s the
public hearings on the matter of the reassessment of property in the
so-called ' r :lnthi i Tc" .ago} rof t _. City. Tzre zr� thrac en:YAr?tc+
hearings scheda_1ee which -will beheldconcurrently inasmuch as they
deal with the same basic subject ---the reassessment zlf all of the property
in the areas of the original assessment districts. They are: (1)
Foothills Annexation No. 1-A Sanitary Trunk Sewers an4 Water Supply
System - Project 59-1, (2) Portions of Foothills Annexation No. 3
Sanitary Trunk Sewers and Water Supply System -- Protect 62-08, (3)
Foothills Gas System - Project b6 -S2. He noted that the sole purpose
of the hearings is to provide each owner the oppor-unity to object to
the amounts of the proposed reassessments and to present to C,zuncil
such materials at may be necessary for he Council to determine whether
the reassessments are in proportion to the benefits from the various
improvements as theoretically redesigned. He then declared the
hearings open and asked the Assistant City Clerk to report on the
various affidavits and notices given in_cernection-s-iy1; the bearings, Assistant City Clerk Simkins reported that on file in the City Clerk's
office are affidavits of publication with notice of time and place of
the hearings on the reassessment, certificates of sailing notice of
time and place of the hearing on the reassessments to all property
owners in the area, and certificates of posting notice of time and
place of the hearings on the door of the Council Chambers.
In response to question from Mayor Comstock as to protests received,
Mrs. Simkins reported that a protest had been received from Mrs. Ina R.
Dahl, 1176 Palo Alto Avenue, and noted that Council had received copies
of Mrs. Dahl's protest. A second protest vas received this evening
from Mildred S. Ligda, Box 397, Los Altos, and Council has not received
copies of this protest. At the request of Mayor Comstock, Mrs. Simkins
read the letter of protest from Mildred Ligda and stated copies would
be made for Council.
Mayor Comstock asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak to the
matter.
Dick Geiger, 3931 Page Mill Road, property owner in the area, stated
he felt he had not really been informed as to what is going: on with
regard to this reassessment. He said he had received notice of the
hearing.
�►36 .
10/10/72
Mayor Comstock explained that at the Council meeting of September 25,
a report had been received from staff which had been prepared at
Council direction and contained a series of calculations and information
on the reassessment program that would establish a reassessment pro-
ceeding relating to the utility system needs under the existing zoning
as compared to previously designed systems. Mr. Geiger stated he
had seen the reports, but they seemed very general and were not
specific as to why it is being done and what the effect will be. He
said he did not agree with the figures on his reassessment.
City Manager Sigel advised that every property owner of record as of
March 1 received notice telling him what the original assessment was
and what the reassessment would amount to and how the reassessment
refund would be -paid. He stated that his office had received a number
of calls from interested and concerned property owners and staff had
tried'to provide them with information over the phone. He noted that
there had been a fair amount of contact with property owners since the
--notices were sent out.
Marrs Bever_ 1050 Crestview uri ve, MoLntain View, said he wished to
_make a formal -complaint that he does not agree with the reassessment
district.
Bond Counsel Kenneth Jones explained that the rationale for the reassess-
ment spread was a paper redesign of all of the utility facilities that
could have been constructed to provide service in the Foothills area
if the present zoning had been in effect at the time the facilities
were constructed. The basis for the reassessment is the rezoning which
the Council has now ordered. The legal rationale for the Council's
power to order the reassessment under these circumstances is the pro-
vision in the City's ordinance that such a proceeding may be undertaken
whenever the Council finds that it is in the public interest. He said
it should be noted for the record that the reassessments have been
distributed against the properties originally assessed in proportion
to the benefits which those properties would have enjoyed if the system
had been actually constructed in the manner in wmich it has now been
- - ---------- - -
--designed. :e- co aced that the - feast that there was say physical recon-
struction or dismantling of the systems that are now in place is not
warranted. It is not intended to disturb the physical installations at
all. However, in the event that there is ever any change in the situation
of any particular parcel with regard to these facilities over what the
situation is at this time, the charges will be adjusted accordingly in
the form of connection charges.
There being no one else wishing to speak on the aaatcer, Mayor Comstcck
declared the hearing closed. He stated that the next enurse of action
far Council would be -to 'adopt the resolutions.
Councilman Henderson referred to staff recommendation i5 in the report
of October 5, 1972, that staff be directed to utilize the interest rate
of 6% on cash refunds. He said he didn't believe the paying of interest
had been discussed, and he noted that the proposed direction doesn't
state the date from which the interest_ was to be paid.
Mr. Sigel replied that apt. ar►e time there was some lengthy discussion
-on whether interest ought to be charged or refunded from the date of
the formation of the assessment district, and it was staff's conclusion
that would not be in order, but interest from the date of the effective-
ness of the zoning ordinance would be in order. This date would be
3 8 7
10/10/72
somewhere around September 13; so interest would be from that date
until the time the district is formally recorded. This would be a
period of probably no more than two months, with the total interest
roughly around $1,200.
Councilman Beahrs referred to the staff report of 10/5/72, noting the
statement that a cash outlay of $121,068 would be paid immediately to
the property owners. He asked if it were possible or advisable to
consider placing this money in trust, inasmuch as the amount might be
subject to dispute and also to recollection depending on the results of
litigation. He also noted the statement that the City would advance
far future payments of bonds and interest $481,555, which would other-
wise be paid by the property owners, and said he did not understand
this.
Mr. Jones replied that as far as the reassessment itself is concerned,
if the Council acts to confirm the assessment, that in itself will
create a right of the property owners to obtain a refund in some form.
He noted that City Attorney Stone had just informed him of the possi-
bility that he might require some form of a release in connection with
a payment, but with that exception, there would be no basis for with-
holding the refund paymant once t e Ceen i1 hae reaffirmed the reassessment.
Retie ding the principal and interest payments on the bonds, he explained
that the bonds which have been issued to finance these utilities were
issued to represent the special assessments which were levied against
the properties, and the bond payments mentioned mean that the City would
make an annual appropriation to the respective bond funds for these
properties and pay the portion that is represented by the refund. In
the abcence of Council action, the full burden of those payments would
remain on the property owners. If the Council acts to confirm this
reassessment, the Council is fort"ally and obviously rejudging the question
of the extent to which those properties have been benefited by those
utilities, and having done so, the consequences just simply flow from
that, and confirming the reassessment entitles the property owners to
either cash or credits on their bond payments.
He continued that if there are delinquencies in any assessment install-
ments by the property owners, the City is obligated to advance the
amount of the delinquencies and to recover the advances, with Interest,
from the sale or redemption of the delinquent properties. To that
degree there is 4 City guarantee behind the assessments.
Mr. Jones explained that the basis for this reassessment is Council's
rr_ ieee adios ia teaming the property. Obviously, the rezoning
decreases . the design capacities to provide sewer, water, and gas service
to the area which: is the basisforthe reassessment. He said that if, as
a result of litigation and legal activity which may ensue, the ultimate
result is that the rezoning is held to be invalid, the physical existence
and design of the facilities would not change but would reinstate those
properties to their previous use and would, in his opinion, give the
Council basis for further reassessment to reinstate the original amounts
that the Council is now in the process of reducing.
Councilman Berwald said he would like staff to respond to the c:mssents
in lirs. Ligda's letter and also to Mr. Geiger's comments about not
being contacted. He referred to the time when the Webster House property
was before the Council, and that after the Council meeting, staff per-
sonally contacted people in the area to advise them of Council action.
He asked taw this matter differed from the one before Council th3.9
evening.
Mr. Sipel replied that the level of contact with respect to this particular
project was not the same as the Webster House project because they are
not the same, kind of proceeding. In this case there was a larger number
of property owners. He stated that as far as he could recall, at least
one of the reports which discussed the basic rationale for the reassess-
ment was sent to all the major property owners in the Foothills. Itt
addition, two legal notices were sent to all of the -property owners.
There were discussions of an informal nature, but no specific meetings
were set up, although there were informal meetings with individual property
owners who sought information. With respect to Mrs. Ligda, staff had sev-
eral contacta over the pest several weeks with her, including two telephone
conversations and at least one letter from City Treasurer Anderson. He
said there had been difficulties in trying to deterstine which properties
were included, since there have been changes in ownership and some other
things that clouded the_ issue_.__- These -matters- Eyere iaiiy discussed by the
staff and the property owner= Regarding,Hte Geiger, there was no contact
that staff could -recall.
Councilman Berwald commented that in view of the puzzlement expressed
by at least two of the property owners . ha if bond counsel
felt i might affect the integrity of the public hearing. He asked
if it would be possibly to continue the hearing in order to explain to
these interested property owners the basis of the reassessment.
Mr. Jones replied that there was no question in his mind that the matter
had been handled in accordance with the laws that control the proceedings.
It is a question of judgment as to how ouch additional persona contact
may be necessary or desirable, but the legal proceedings have been
fully complied with. He commented that he did think it would be well
to clarify the points in Mrs. Ligda's letter.
Mr. Sipel replied that with respect to the Ligda property, according
to the official records as of March 1, 1971, there were seven parcels
under consideration, totalling approximately 128 acres. The principal
amount of the assessment on these properties is roughly $68,000. The
reassessment reduced that cost` -to approximately $27,000, creating s :
credit refund of approximately $41,000. This does, ��1;. �i�
KV L-- 1 - Lhe
interest amount that has been paid_ on _the=-bondffi- beginning with the
levying of -the , asr ess ent beet it does deal with the principal amounts
and varies somewhat the information received in the letter. He
asked Mr. Anderson to respond regarding the figures on the Geiger
property.
City Treasurer Anderson explained that the Geiger property was assessed
on the basis of 14.24 acres. The original assessment for both water
and sewer was $8,335.97. Following completion of the project there
was a refund provided to all property owners because: the cost of con-
struction was less than anticipated. Following this credit, the net
assessment was $7,493.28. In providing the reassessment, the re -engineered
project by Brawn and Caldwell was computed on the same basis as the
original. The acreage charge on reassessment is $208.25, compared to
the original net assessment of $526.45 per acre. The -result is the
reassessment was $2,960.82. The refund amount is $4,532.46.
Councilman .Berwald said he could understand why interest goes back to
the date of the zoning, but wondered if consideration had been given
to paying interestwhile there ;irasa moratorium on the property.
Mr. Jones replied that it was felt that the interest which the property
owners paid during the period from the : date . of the original assessment
389
10/10/72
1
to the date of the reassessment was, in effect, a payment for the right
which they had throughout that entire period to develop their property
to its fullest extent, with the possible exception of the moratorium
period. The feeling was that the moratorium period was a temporary
measure which should not disturb the basic right or lack of right to
an interest refund.
City Attorney Stone added that any development moratorium is covered
in the ?:first instance by state law and noted that the courts have
decided uniformly that injury to property owners as the result of tc
moratorium, even if proven, would not be compensable under any
circumstances, and particularly with respect: to assessment districts
formed under state law.
I ITTON:_ __May r C the �..t..�.-c
ti. . . LPL• ,•_
s e^onded..by Ber'wal3, its ads+p Llis
i,/il.
i v L. TIC O. at66 FNTiT E!3 _ RES.O L TYO�si___ CONFIRMING._ RE`SSESS ENT.- -
' _" � A �...+vv+u� a „.ra, i�f.+HJJG+7J1'12`,1V 1
p__Tur/ T S ;.;;Nvv4T ION NO. 1-A SANITARY TRUNK SEWERS AND WATER
SUPPLY SYSTEM - PROJECT 59-1"
Councilman Henderson pointed out that the figures given by Mr. Sipel
and Mr. Anderson constituted refunds of over 60% on both the Ligda
and CEiger properties.
in response to question from Councilman Beahrs, Mr. Stone explained
that any litigation that has been filed heretofore does not relate to
the assessment procedure.
Mrs. Ligda said she wished to go on record as not agreeing with the
arithmetic of staff and wished to protest the formula presented.
The resolution was adopted on a unanimous voice vote.
MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following resolution and moved,
seconded by Pearson, its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 4667 ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING REASSESSMENT
PORTIONS OF FOOTHILLS ANNEXATION NO. 3 SANITARY TRUNK SEWERS AND
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM - PROJECT 62-08"
The resolution was adopted unanimously on a c'oice vote.
MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following resolution and moved,
seconded by Henderson, its _ adoption:.
RESOLUTION NO. 4668 ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING REASSESSMENT
T
FOOTHILLS GAS SYSTEM - PROJECT 68-82"
The resolution was adopted unanimously on a voice vote.
MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following ordinance and moved,
seconded by Berwald, its adoption:
ORDINANCE NO. 2686 ENTITLED "ORDINANCE OF TIME COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING Mt BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1972.73 FOR FOOTHILLS UTILITIES REASSESSMENT PROJECT NO.
72••81"
The ordinance vas adopted --unani u ly on a -voice vota.
3
10/10/72
MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, that staff be
directed to utilize an icterest rate of six percent on cash refunds._
The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Public Burin —Vacation of Easements--Tract'No 51535153
(#ockingt Ird ll 00:44.4.0
Mayor Comstock announced that this is the time and place set where and
when any and all personas having objection to the proposed vacation of
two easements located within Tract No. 5153 --Mockingbird Hill --in the
City of Palo Alto may appear and show cause why such easements should
not be vacated. He asked that the record shows that the City Clerk
-sn -rrs �_-lt _r �w$t�`r".3 _nf.-. t e ..
-�_ _ ...y.... _ , :L--? .� notice of this hearing
-dud has on file -an -affidavit of -the posting of the notice of such
8L[$ [tom -- _ --
hearing as required by law. Also let the record show that this matter
fo the. _�='_n`g o aim:.. e.nd Las been acted upon by
was
referred t►ii the.
I�l�
`+� Engineer reporfi
chem. He asked the City LI1�1iiSCi to report_
City Engineer Witbeck reviewed his report dated October 5, i972. He
commented that this matter comes up as a routine cleanup item brought
along with the development of the land in the area where all of the
undergrounding has been completed.
Mayor Comstock asked if anyone wished to speak to the matter. There
being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Comstock declared the hearing
closed.
MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson introduced the following resolution and
coved, seconded by Norton, its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 4669 ENIITLED "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO ORDERING THE VACATION OF TWO EASEMENTS
LOCATED WITHIN TRACT NO. 5153 - MOCKINGBIRD HILL"
The resoletioo was adopted on a .nanimous voice vote.
Application fare P oain4 Frenchman Terrace
MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved. seconded by Eerwald, that Item .#4 on
the agenda (prezoning of property in the vicinity of Peter Coutts
Road and Page Mill Road --Frenchman's Terrace) be considered out of
order at this time.
The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
before coemaencine consideration of Item 4, Mayor Comstock asked for
Council agreeateut as to the length of time that Council proposed to
spend on this item.
MOTION: Councilwoman Semen moved, seconded by Henderson, to limit
the discussion by the staff, Planning Commission, and public to two
hours.
The a:ot1ou p4aaed on a majority voice vote.
391
10/10/72
Mayor Comstock asked those who were going to speak to direct their
remarks primarily to things that have transpired since the most re-
cent Planning Commission meeting or points raised.up to that time._ -
Planning Director Knox and Planning Commieeiee Chairman Mary Gordon
stated that they had nothing to add at this time to the material se. t-"----
to Council, and it WM tawrPPrt to Trent frym thc puhlie.
Ira Hall, Executive Director, Stanford Mid -Peninsula Urban Coalition,
505 Runnymede, East Palo Alto, stated that in their concern ebout
housing they have found that over 80,000 units of low- and moderate-
income housing are needed on the Peninsula over the next twenty years.
Their figures for what is needed for Palo Alto agree with the City
staff's figures. He said that in achieving the 600 units that have
been set as the City's goal, two things are necessary: (1) land, and
this land must be adjacent to somebody, and (2) some subsidy is neces-
sary to reduce the cost for persons with low and moderate incomes. The
proposal before Council tonight was obtained by the Coalition from
Stanford University under a lease arrangement under Section 236. They
have been working on the planning for this over the past two years, and
they
- - e „__.. ^-__- _s i_ r s.7 L- _ h_.rdreds d th a of �..ii i. - Ls s-.-si s- �__-s. _ .'. i#-_CEL and iL i2�=3_� Vc�� ?4_
who have been ciamo ing for the "City of Palo Alto
tines for people with low -to -moderate incomes.
1 A
LV
Alan Maremonc, Executive Ditecior, Stanford Mid -Peninsula Urban Coali-
tion Hourling Davelorfrnt Corporation said that the Presentation
tonight would be limited to visual material and to specific points
that have come up either in connection with the Planning Commission
action or various comments received from Co«ncilzen. He introduced
Donald Hardison and George Ivelich of the architectural firm of
Hardison 6 Knatsu Associates.
Donald Hardison gave a slide presentation consisting of aerial and
ground photos of the site, and photos of the scale model, with explana-
tion by Mr. Ivelich.
Mr. Mares ont noted that the Planning Commission recommended the con-
veaience store be deleted but said this is something they would like
to retain as a possibility. It would not have a sign, would just be
for the uee of residents, and would not be for major shopping. The
Planning Commission also recommended that the multipurpose room be
deleted frcw.a the community building, He introduced Mr. Jerry Mind,
executive vice president of the Lustrar Corporation, which is a manage-
ment firm, to speak to this matter.
Mr. Hammond said that the plans for Frenchman's .Terrace were based on
their experiences in the management of projects similar to Frenchman's
Terrace. With respect to the multipurpose room and the k.1nda of
programs proposed for it, hee aaid it is necessary to be aware of two
reactions of a comity of this size. The first is that it does tend
to become a community in its own right with its awn identity, and it
needs to reinforce .this identity to a certain degree; i.e. tenant -
management relationships, tenants' council, recreational aspects, etc.
Also there needs to by an intermix with the outer community. Programs
can be offered in the °acility that not only provide for the needs of
the residents, but also for the community surrounding it. He said hie
firm feels that centers like this are highly important to the s'sccese
of a project. In response to question from Councilwoman Pearson he
explained that they are management consultants on the development pro-
posal, but not the management firms for the project.
3x92
10/10/72
Mr. Maremont stated that no management firm has yet been selected but
they expect this will be done shortly. The managing agent will be
subject to approval by Stanford University and also by HUD, and their
application to HUD has stated that the management firm selected will
be one which has a superior rating from HUD. In response to Council, -
Wu Pearson he said that no arrangements have been made at this time
for the City to pass on the management.
Mi. Maremont and Mr. Hardison responded to questions from Council,
advising that working drawings would not be commenced until the City's
approval and HUD feasibility are received; that the project will be
designed fully to the City of Palo Alto's code and will comply with
the requirements of fire protection, access, fire hydrants, etc. Mr.
Maremont introduced Mr. Robert Augsburger, vice president for Business
and Finance of Stanford University, and stated he would speak to the
question of priorities and the balance of Peter Coutts Road re curbs
and gutters and annexation as part of the development.
On the matter of priorities, Mr. Augsburger said one of the stipula-
tions is that in determining the rental of the units, priority as to
5U of_the._units would be Riven ro persons employed by Stanford or
students of Stanford, and in th,, other 5n, of the 4uni ts, prier# ty
r �
would be given to persons employed on Stanford lairs ----the Induitriai
Patk, the Shopping Center, Welch Road, institutes, ung office develop-
ments along El Camino Real. Stanford initiated this project in re-
sponse to the known need for low- and moderate -income housing for
people who are already in Palo Alto in terms of employment, and they
feel these priorities are in the spirit of that need. He referred to
the P1Inning Commission's concern about creating another ghetto of
Stanfordites and commented that some people fail to recognize the
social diversity that exists on Stanford lands. The priorities are
critical to Stanford's involvement and role in this project and on the
advice of counsel, Stanford's ability to lease this land to the Urban
Coalition is dependent upon this type of arrangement.
Councilman Rosenbaum quoted comments from Planning Director Knox in
response to an earlier question on priorities "...such priorities are
never written and usually are not discussed. If priorities are written
on any of the forms that are processed by 4UD, HUD advises that these
priorities wi11 have to be deleted before the project is approved.
Further, if such priorities are used as unwritten rules in tenant
selection, the sponsor or whoever is enforcing the use of these prior-
ities can be sued by an applicant who is subsequently denied a unit
because of the application of the priorities. In practice, haver,
such priorities have been used." Councilman Rosenbaum said that if
he believes what is written there, it seems that Stanford is ranging
its hat on a tenuous arrangement which is apparently illegal and for
which the University and the Coalition could be glued.
Mr Augsburger responded that he has great respect for the Director
of Planning, but he wouldn't seek to get legal counsel. fro him. HUD
will be aware of these iimitetions and will have to speak ter them-
selves. This matter will be right on the surface and Stanford is
willing towait and see if they are acceptable to HUD. In response
to question from Councilwoman Pearson, he said they would be happy to
provide copies of the founding grant and the items that are related
to it.
393
10/10/72
Codncilmwoman Sewn asked if Mr. Augsburger would concur that many
satellite firsts settle near a large firm such as might be located on
Stanford lands, and those satellite firms and their workers have a
tenuousrelationship;_so Stanford ha_s an nhli atfnn larger titan :lee, -
to those firms located _.gin rtes^ford. land.
Mr. Augsburger replied that he sees her point, but not in terms of
obligation. He continued with the second item of concern, the annexa-
tion of the balance of Peter Coutts Road from the sitelihe down to
Stanford Avenue. LA,cCO approved the annexation of the twenty -acre
site and the adjoining goad and gave its approval to the annexation,
if necessary, of the balance of Peter Coutts Road. ' tanford University
and the Urban Coalition have not sought to have the balance of Peter
Coutts Road annexed, but this was attached as a condition by the
Planning Commission. The principal concern has to do with the cost
of upgrading that road to Palo Alto standards for curbs and gutters.
Stanford has tried to maintain a rural atmosphere in areas of this
nature, and that road has a greenbelt on both sides of it. Stanford
does not oppose the annexation of the road but simply cannot justify
the expenditure of $30,000 to bring the road up to Palo Alto's stan-
dards for curbs and gutters. They also feel it is unfair for the
City to impose on the developer the additional cost of some $30,000
for these improvements.
ifl Lcaerv:sic to C --10,1-6n i -. 11ra Mr. AugsburgeT stated that part nf
the reason for annexation is. to assure the residents there of adequate
services, one -of Which would he fire services. Stanford is not in a
position, except on_ an emergency basis, to service that urea.
Councilman Beahrs said he has some personal reservations concerning
the adequacy of fire coverage out there considering the commitments
to the industrial park and College Terrace end other areas serviced
out: of Hanover Street. He felt this is something that hasn't been
discussed and should be.
Councilwoman Pearson said that in the Moulton Housing Report, one of
their recommendations was for Stanford to donate the land in order to
make housing feasible on Stanford lands. She asked why this particular
site costs $400,000 and why Stanford couldn't reduce the price or donate
the land. Mr. Augsburger responded that there are several reasons.
First, taxes have been accumulated on that land, and there have been.
development costs for Peter Coutts Road. Land represents part of
Stanford's endowment, and Stanford cannot give that away no matter
how socially desirable the purpose might be. Their function is to
provide education and research and to a lesser extent social service,
and endowment assets cannot be used for things not directly related
to their function.
Councilwoman Pearson noted that the laud reverts to Stanford in fifty-
one years, and she wondered how Stanford justified the use of the
land for the' other houeing which it is building. Mr. Augsburger re-
plied the use of the lad for the other housing is directly related
to compensation of faculty and staff, and student housing is directly
related to the educational mission.
Mr. Asaremont added that the Urban Coalition is in agreement with the
concept that people should have the opportunity to live near where
they word: and that the priorities would have the effer.t of cutting
down on traffic. They would also like to second Mr. Augsburger's
comments on the extension of Peter Coutts Road. Its annexation and
improvement are not essential to this development and without any
significant injury to anyone, this cost could be spared the develop-
ment. With respect to funding by HUD, they have.not yet processed
this application, and nnti1 they do, their reaction to the details
will not be known. HUD has indicated than. the e{ to ..,..•.l d get _ high
--._ �._��. ......iv bc.c. a tiAgn
mating for funding, they have granted a front -money loan and have
changed their regulations to accommodate the lease terra of fifty-one
years. With respect to market rents, he said a question has been
raised as to whether the rents are realistic to attract middle -income
people. Some checking into the market has indicated that the proposed
rents at the larger end of the scale are consistent with rents that
are being charged elsewhere. The question as to whether the package
of mixed -income development, and racially balanced development will
be marketable at these rents remains to be answered by the consumer.
(Council recessed from 9:25 to 9:45 p.m.)
Carl Degier, 907 Mears Court, spoke as a neighbor in support of the
Frenchman's Terrace development and said there is a clear need for
low-mederate-•income housing in Palo Alto. The argument that the de-
velopment is too small, that it doesn't meet the need confronting the
area is true but this is only a beginning. He commented that if we
wait for a massive development, there will be no low -moderate -income
Marie E. Kelly, 2370 Amherst, clarified her statement to the Planning
Commission, saying that in her opinion the time, energy, thinking,
and other resources of the City staff, and the far-from-unlimitt.i
City funds should be utilized for the greatest good in the implemen-
tation of the housing policy set by the City Council. She read from
a prepared statement urging Council to delay for an extended time
any decisions en thie rushed -into -action package request.
Toss Johnson, 829 San Lucas, Mountain View, stated that San Veron Park,
an existing Urban Coalition project, borders on his home. He related
the kinds of problems that this housing project has brought to him
and his neighbors.
Lucy M. Evans, 1440 California, read a prepared statement setting
forth her pain objections to the project. The first is priorities.
She said that Pale Alto is Against disc.risaieatien, and the specifica-
tion Of tenants from: particular places of employment is, in her
opinion, dfscrisaination. Her second objection was to Peter Coutts
-Road, She commented that Stanford siweys seems to limit ingress and
egress to their residential areas.
John Philo, 2264 Louis Road, said that 236 housing does not meet the
heeds in Palo Alto, and he believes a large number of 2.36 projects
will cause loss of lots for real low-income housing. He expresaed
the feeling that the 236 program is aimed at the housing needs of
large -cities and that Palo Alto must be wary` of turning to the federal
government to solve its problems.
James Culpepper, 2121 Amherst. Street, Chairman of the College Terrace
Residents' Association, shorwed slides of the College Terrace neighbor-
_ hood - *pier comanttd - an - the adverse effect the proposed development
would have -On it. He proposed -that the Peter Coutts Hill site should
bw used to provide a district park for the neighborhood which suffers
393
10/10/72
most from industrial park traffic. He showed a map of eight cites
which Stanford's Housing Advisory Committee proposed for high -density
apartments and recommended that one of these sites be used for the
proposed development. He said the damage___ this project -would -do do to - the old mixed-incoae College Terrace neighborhood would outweigh the
social gain of_ orovidine 45 re--at_r_i te-frr--l;;;;-1,;,come -pec,ple._
Dave Wright, 244 Oxford, asked that his group be permitted to speak
when the public hearing is reopened since the time remaining would
not permit them to finish their presentation this evening.
Discussion by Council ensued regarding whether or not to continue
hearing from the public at this meeting. -
MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Henderson, that
Council terminate further public hearing tonight and continued to
the next meeting, October 24.
The motion passed on a majority voice vote.
MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Berwald, that Item #4
regarding prezon:.ng application for Frenchman's Terrace be continued
to the meeting of October 24.
Councilwoman Pearson statec.-Lhat she.had. ny questions but -thought -
she could write them out and ask staff to respond to them, as some of
them a•_ -a Yu1 to techn cal.
Councilman Rosenbaum read his memo of October 10, 1972, ate! commented
that he had several other questions. He stated that the r.oatents of
the memorandum could be considered over the succeeding two weeks,
Mayor Comstock said that he would like to have staff prepare' °a re-
sponse to the memorandum and also that he thought the Urbeil coalition
would like to look at it and be prepared to respond in t'/o Seeks.
City Manager Sipel commented that as he interpreted the thtx°ist of
Councilman Roeenbaum's proposal, it would seem More appry?slate for
thn Urban Coalition to respond rath'r than staff.
Councilwoman Pearson said that the Planning Commission was not able
to review the site plan-_aleng with topographical and grading maps and
asked Mrs. Gordon whether or not the Planning Commnisaioncould do that
in the interim.
Mrs. Gordon responded that•.the Planning Commission haee made recommen-
dations to Council, and she didn't feel it would be appropriate for
the Commission to review anything further without referral back by the
Council. In light of Mr. Rosenbaum'ssuggestions and possible con-
sideration by the Council of them, she commented that a referral in
two weeks might he more appropriate..
Ccunci lwo n Semen said she would like to take a few minutes to express
concern about the lack of coordination between. the federal govern-
ment's role and local government's role. She asked for staff comment
about an invitation to HUD to come anti comment, not only about the _
priority question, but management and physical layout. ,
Mike-_Gri,goule Assistant •Director - of Planning, responded that inasmuch`
as the federal government has not begun its feasibility review, it
would seam to be a problem to have them present to co nt on some-
thing they haven't really gotten into in much detail. Planning
396
10/10/72
Director Knox commented that staff already knows from HUD that they
believe the density may be a factor.
Mr. Ira Hall made a correet_ion to the effect that the -Urban -Coalition has -
submitted an application for feasibility, but HUD cannot give assur--
an ze .^ff fs.m l 1, f 1 4 ty until they -have aatiurance that the urban Coalition
hat control of the land. Council's decision is required before HUD
can commit funds.
Mr. Maremont clarified with respect to the aspect of management. He
stated that because a management agent had not ben selected, it was
indicated is the application what was proposed, ',int in that respect
there is an element in the feasibility that remains to be done.
However, it is not something that would prevent processing the appli-
cation.
Mr. Knox asked if it were correct that HUD will not begin processing
the feasibility analysis until zoning of the land is guaranteed. Mr.
Mareraont replied that they have no indication of that. It used to be
HUD practice, but they are now wining to receive the application and
process it. They would not issue feasibility and allocate funds until
the matter of zoning is resolved. This is an application which they
s:,ssght, and Urban Coalition expects they will process it as an impor-
tant matter.
In response to Councilwoman Sedan, Mr. Grigoni said it would be appro-
priate to bring HUD in after they had reviewed the feasibility analysis
in some detail. Cou:tcilwoman Semen asked staff to follow through and
make inquiries about when this would occur and report back.
Councilman BerSrald expressed concern that in neither the Planning
Commission meetings nor in the Council meeting have the services of
the Housing Corporation been utilized, and their input as well as that
from the Planning staff would be valuable. He said he hoped the appli-
cant would have an opportunity to get as early as -possible a draft
of these minutes and come to the next meeting where this is discuseed
prepared to answer the principal objections, including the impact on
the adjoining residential areas. He noted some referrals have been
made to staff on buffers between residential and nonresidential uses.
The large parking area would be considered a nonresidential use.
Another point brought up was alternate sites and he asked, in light
of some of the possibilities for change in zoning, if Stanford and
the Urban Coalition feel that they have gone beyond the point where
they would like to consider alternate sites. :Ue felt these points
and other major arguments against the project should be answered.'
Councilman Rosenbaue said he had some questions for staff re the issue
of curbs and gutters, the traffic on Bowdoin; and what actions can be
legally taken with respect to annexation as far as LAPCG is concerned,
what things are permissive, that is, asking Stanford to consider, aM
what things can be made a requirement of the City's acceptance of the
annexation.
Mt-. .faux responded that in the original discussions with Stanfordg '
which related only to the project's being approved by LOCO, it was
agreed that the developer would provide curbs and gutters on the side
adjoining the project which would therefore come under the P -C, and
that Stanford would provide the curb and gutter on the opposite aide
of the street where Peter Coutts. Road abuts the project. That also
3; 9 ,7
10/10/12
would be part of the P -C. The other matters relating to curb and
gutter --extending the length of Peter Coutts Road to Stanford Avenue
the reconstruction of Stanford and Bowdoin intersections to takea_
different alignment. the walkway that would lead northward froW this
development along Peter Coutts Road and tying to Stanford --are all
part of the anneeat on, They are not really part of the project and
would only come into play if an annexation to include those lands is
approved.
Councilman Rosenbaum noted that L&FC0 took certain action which only
Included Peter Coutts Road itseef. He asked if the curb and gutters
along Peter Couts Road are in the sae category as the Bowdoin traffic
etcation, or whether that is a separate matter.
City Attorney Stone responded that that is a separate matter. What
the Council has before :[t now is prezoning with respect to P -C
property. These are proper subjects for consideration with the P -C.
What would be before the Council in the event of annexation is the
property specifically approved by LAFCO for annexation. If the appli-
cant wishes, or Council requests and the applicant complies, the
Council may also subsequently consider all of Peter Coutts Road be-
cause LAFCO did recommend the annexation of Peter Coutts Road. With
respect to the sliver of property that is adjacent to Peter Coutts
Road, LAFCO did not consider that. That is not before Council and
Council could not consider that for annexation unless and until a
AFC0 proceeding were had, and the matter recommended from LAFCO to the
City Council,
Mr. Knox indicated on the map the areas to be considered in this
immediate annexation. The lighter gray represents the project and
the full width of Peter Coutts Road abutting it. That was part of
the mandatory action taken by LAFCO, but they made it permissible for
the City Council to take in the remainder of Peter Coutts Road, but
just the right of way to Stanford Avenue. There is a question of
how much of the curb and gutter can be attached -to the project and
the requirement for installation placed upon the developer. In the
staff's view, there has to be some decision as to whether this is
Stanford's responslbi1ity or a sharing between Stanford and the de-
veloper. In the discussions staff had with Stanford regarding addi-
tional walkway from the project to Stanford Avenue, a meandering walk-
way in the greenbelt area (the future annexation) was considered.
Councilman Rosenbaum asked if Council can say _ that it will go ahead
with the annexation only if Stanford puts in curbs and gutters. Mr.
Stone responded that there are several alternatives. Council could
hold off on this annexation unless and until Stanford ascends its appii-
__tiun --_L,-______pplicati__ fvr future -public hearing on the road
�:ii.ZVu OT BiCAKs tW 8 Z�ti►t113t1
itself. The Council can pass the annexation as it stands before it
and at the same time request additional annexation of Peter Coutts
Road and the sliver which would have to go to LAFCO. What Council
cannot do ender the statute is enlarge the annexation outside of the
application unless an amended application is made and a public hearing
scheduled. Council can require an improvement as a condition of
,,annexation once that road is before the Council.
Councilman Rosenbaum indicated he had several othet questions which
might require seme written response:
1. The matter of A.B.1744 has been brought up, and it relates to
the asterisk next to the market rents in the report Council
3 9 8
10/10/72
received from the Urb:n Coalition. He noted the rent for a
two -bedroom apartment is $262 end said it was his understanding
this figure depends on changes being mAde ret-er than the
on the
current situation. He asked staff to give Council information
on the status of that.
2. He would like comment as to how staff interprets the priority
situation and possibly how Stanford interprets it.
3. 1e referred to page 7 of the large report to the Planning
Coarmissiot fro the Planning Department which states that the
school district's projections include only 96 students from
Frenchman's Terrace in the total for Nixon school, a smaller
number than the developer had estimated. He asked why the
figures did not reflect the expectation ziven by the Urban
Coalition,
Councilwoman Pearson asked for a written answer on rent prices. She
said her understanding is that the low-income and moderate -Income
rents are only for the first time, that is that there is no control
if a moderate --income renter leaves. She questioned whether the rents
can then be raised to market price.
Councilman Beahrs said he would like to know .fiat the impact of
A.B.1744 or an equivalent law might be in this instance and in future
projects which might come before Council. He said Council's main
reason for voting against development of the foothills was to save
the residential taxpayer from increasing costs which continue to
pyramid. He counted he doesn't like the cavalier treatment t'le
school costs have been given in this study and would like to have
some solid figures. Although school costs are not a responsibility
of this Council, he noted school cotta are six times the cost of the
charges the City makes for municipal services, and stated this is a
matter of serious concern to the residential taxpayer. He asked how
far Palo Alto residential interests can survive a generous outlook.
Mayor Comstock commented that he would like to see from Urban Coalition
in time for Council and staff review some information about the earth
moving that is going to take place, specific information about the
terrain before and after the earth moving, the nature and extent of
action that will be taken about geologic surveys to assure the City
that what is being done here will result in a desirable end product.
He said he wanted staff to see the response in order to be able to
respond to Council questions about it in two weeks. He said he also
hoped that Councilman Rosenbaum's memorandum gets a response from the
Urban Coalition and Stanford University and hopes there will be co-
operation with staff so that they can review it and respond to Council.
Vice Mayor Norton said that regarding Council.an Rosenbaum's recom-
mendation for a possible park with reduction in density, he would
like staff to consider other possible locations for a park. He
questioned whether the top of the hill surrounded by homes is the
best place for a public park. His other question related to the gray
area not now officially before Council for annexation but which had '
been recommended by the Planning Commission for annexation. He said
ea he understands it, those recommendations will not be before Council
unless some action is taken by Stanford or the City that an aiditionai
petition be made to LAFCQ and he would like to avoid a six -week delay
399
10/10/72
before the balance can be implemented if Council decides to accept
the Planning Commission recommendations. Mayor Comstock suggested
this second question be considered with Agenda Item NO. 3 --Frenchman's
Terrace Annexation.
City Manazer Sipel comment thaat ?r v. t=ic �1:4*44 L1 ale re-
questing information from the staff, the signals begin to show that
staff is not,going to be able to comply with all of those requests in
a two-week time period. Staff could h,ve some answers by October 24,
but it might take three to four weeks to answer all questions.
Councilman Clark wondered if the Urban Coalition and staff combined
could do a brief summarization of the pros and cons of doing this
through the county and without annexation.
Councilwoman Semen said she felt Council needs the Planning Commission's
comments on the physical layout. Councilwoman Pearson agreed there
are some questions the Planning CocnLtsaion must address itself to --
grading, where the park is going is be, density, etc. Shy asked Mrs.
Gordon again if the Planning Commission would like to get this back
and take a look at it in the light of the questions which have been
posed by Council.
Mrs. Gordon said that the Planning Commission did not have for study
the existing topography of the site nor the grading r.'ans as they are
now posted on the Council wall. She felt it would be appropriate to
look at that kind of information and material prepared by the staff
that could come back to the Planning Commission for discussion and
reopening of some of the areas Council is now questioning.
MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, duly seconded, that the project
be referred back to the Planning Commission, and those questions re-
lating to planning matters when answered by staff be referred to the
Planning Comission for their perusal.
Mr. Maremont pointed out that the Planning Commission has had three
extended hearings on the project and has thoroughly involved itself
in the issues raised. They came out with a particular constellation
of issues that are, embodied in their recommendations and the City
Council has now come up with a different set. He said if it could be
understood that the Citq Council is retaining jurisdiction in this
interim period and the Planning Commission will be acting in an advi-
sory capacity only, this would be a More workable situation for the
Urban Coalition to try to work through.
Discussion followed with Mrs. Gordon responding ic_` would 've,y be re?atc-i Tci�
difficult to handle at this time, as it would he a whole range of
alternatives rather than the Planning Commission's looking at a
specific alternative.
The caption to refer to the Planning Commission failed on a majority
voice vote.
Mayor Comstock noted that Council has before it the motion to continue
to October 24, and associated with that motion is a series of ques-
tions that were raised.
Councilman Rosenbaum said he wondered if Council might not take advan-
tage of the fifth Monday and schedule a bpecial meeting on that date.
Mayor Comstock stated that with the consent of his second he would be
agreeable to changing the date to October 30.
4 0 G
10/10/7Z
Mr. Maremont said that he would like the hearing to be continued on
October 24 for further public discussion and then continue it and have
Council do its deliberations on October 30.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Comstock changes; the motion, with the consent
of his seci n4, t0_move that A en,ia__ Item #4- prezoning application fot
Frenchman's Terrace, be continued to the meeting of October 24 for the
purpose of further public participation and discussion, and when that
is closed, retaining discussion and possible Council action will be
scheduled -for the meeting of Octoberr30.
The motion passed on a majority voice vote.
Public Hearin - Frenchman's Tercace Annexation
Mayor Comstock noted that this is the time and place set for the hear-
ing of objections and protests to the Frenchman's Terrace Annexation.
He asked that the record show that notices of this hearing have been
given as provided by law and that affidavits of publication and mail-
ing are on file in the office of the City Clerk. He declared the public
hearing open.
Robert Augsburger, vice president for Business and Finance, Stanford
University, noted that Council has before them a request for continua-
tion of the public hearing and asked if they should not be addressing
themwelves to this letter prior to opening the public hearing.
Mayor Comstock stated that on advice from City Attorney Stone, Council's
next action is a move to continue the public hearing and that satisfies
the requirement that the Council schedule a hearing within a certain
time period subsequent to the LAFCO action on the original annexation
proposal.
Mr. Augsburger stated he would protest that action in the absence of
assurance from the Council that Stanford University may withdraw its
application for annexation. He explained for members of the audience
the normal procedure for filing application for prezoning and annexa-
tion. He stated that in order to assist the deliberaatien, Stanford
chose to apply for annexation concurrently with Mad -Peninsula Urban
Coalition's application for prezoning; however, in view of some of the
conditions that have been attacheA by the Planning Commission and
listening to - things that are likely to arise in the future, he stated
it is very important that these two matters be separated in order that
neither the City nor Stanford find themselves in the position of
annexed. land that . has zoning thee- { e =acceptable to anyone. He said
Stanford needs the assurance that they can without prejudice withdraw
that application for annexation without the formed concurrenceofthe
City Council.
Mr. Stone responded that his concern is that if the Council does not
open the public hearing this evening and then continues the item, the
Council will lose basic jurisduction over the anne ation once and for
all. He said the research of his office indicates, and they can
assure Stanford and the Council, that Stanford has the opportunity to
withdraw its petition and application for annexation up until the pulic
hearing on the annexation is closed.
MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the public
hearing on the Frenchmen's Terrace Annexationbe continued for 30 days.
401
10/10/72
The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Norton rived, seconded by Pearson, that Stanford
be invited to take the appropriate proceedings before LAPCO so that
the area recoimer.ied by the Planning_Commission (shown_in trey on the
.: p _c aiatsag-of-the greenn-belt between Peter Coutts Road and the
College Terrace area plus the strip on the westerly corner of Stanford
and Bowdoin) that that area be taken before LAFCO and brought back to
the City at the earliest possible date so that the entire annexation
question can be taken up at one time.
Councilwoman Semen stated it was her understanding that there has been
some discussion that perhaps there is not a need to bring new areas
for annexation up to "City standards." It may be the thinking that
areas can be annexed and still maintain the integrity they had prior
to annexation. She said if this were the case with this road, them
it seemed to her that would be a middle ground where it would not cost
additional money that would impinge on the economic liability of the
p;~oject' and the Council would still have the controls they would like
to have with annexation of the entire area.
Mr. Sipel said there were two aspects to that question as he sees it.
One would relate to the application of the standards that the City
presently has on the books and the Council can do with the standards
what they wish. Re said there have been instances where there has
been complete adherence to existing standards and examples where
standards have been changed or lessened for the convenience of the
people in the arca; i.e., Old Trace Road. The second relates to an
issue raised in a staff report severalmonthsago on the total picture
of annexations and looking at whether a full adherence to these stan-
dards is really in the best interest. He noted that staff in discus-
sing the subject with the Urban Coalition and Stanford have, to some
degree, already compromised the standards by not requiring sidewalks;
however, it was felt that curbs and gutters would be necessary because
of the nature of the street. He added that Council has the discretion
to change thoe1 standards or modify as they see fit.
In response to question: from Councilwoman Semen, Mr. Sipel stated it
was his feeling it might be a bit premature to start a process through
LAPCO and added he was not sure whether Stanford would be willing to
begin this process at this time.
Discussion followed regarding Peter Coutts Road with Mr. Stone explain-
ing that if Council wishes to hear the annexation of the entire length
of Peter Coutts Road, it would hav€' to be doll rcc application of
Stanford directly to the Council.
Vice Mayor Norton stated that his motion did not regard the street
insofar as LAFCO was concerned.but he would expect:whatever steps are
neceasery to get jurisdiction for the Council on the entire area recom-
mended by the. Planning Commission.
Mr. Augsburger said he had previously advised the City that the
University would be willing to apply for annexation of the rest of
Peter Coutts Road but as he had previously stated this__evenine,- the
University is not prepared to pay for upgrading thatroad to City
standards. In -speaking to the motion, Mr. Augaburger said it was
hie feeling this places an unfair burden on the developer in terms of
time constraints, in term of the cost the developer is likely to in-
cur es a result of inflations or high . constr°uction. _ cost*.. ` To go ' back
60 2
10/14/72"
to LAFCO would mean that the earliest they could get or. the LAFCO
agenda would be December 6 which would mean it would be sometime after
the first of the year before the Council could address itself to the
total picture and he asked that they _r.,t do this
In respsonRca rn pipet{ n., - c,...__C....__s.z �_
� .�.._--. ..�..... ,.,..�...c,is....aas -1; iwtt.L.Y, ae_.saia e Would seek
authority to annex the 2.26 acre strip that lies between College
Terrace and Peter Coutte Road and a commitment to the Council that
Stanford would proceed in the ordinary course of events to do that
but not to have it tied in as a total overall package hearing for
total consideration.
The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.
V. D. A.varesess Days
MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Henderson, to move up
agenda item 110 (Y.A.C. sponsorship of a V. D. testing program) and
item #13, (City endorsement of Our Health Center, Inc:.) for considera-
tion at this time.
The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Robert Porter, Vice -Chairman of the Youth Advisory Council, said that
as their representative, he wished to request approval from Council,
of Y.A.C. sponsorship of a Venereal Disease Awareness Days program.
He referred to the various letters received by Council regarding this
matter and reviewed his memo of October a regarding the objectives,
needs, and program. He explained the procedure and noted that Dr.
Martha Krupp of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic will head the staff. The
educational staff will be trained consultants from Our Health Center,
and members of the Palo Alto junior Chamber of Commerce will take care
of refreshments with the Palo Alto Women's Club answering the phones.
Members of the Women's Club have been instructed not to ask names of
the callers, but they -are to let the ticket holder know whether his
tests were positive or negative. He said that in response to Council-
man Beahr's question two weeks ago about advising parents, it was felt
that a policy of informing the parents of kids who had been tested
would discourage and alienate this target population from coming at
all. He said he would like to add that the Youth Advisory Council is
making a.concerted effort to combat the problems of youth and young
adults in Palo Alto by sponsoring this program and hope that Council
will recognize and approve sponsorship.
Annabelle Lee, 630 Los Robles -Avenue, Palo Alto, Director of Counseling
Health Center, reviewed the training program of their counselors
at Our Real Faa
and educational aspects of the program. She stated that their people
were all trained to yelp and will _ •are eat on these two Saturdays
to help in any way they can.
Dr. Mary Riggs, Venereal Disease Control Officer from the County Health
Department, stated they were very much in favor of the program these
young people are planning for V. D. Awareness Days for two reasons.
First, the County Health Department approves of any kind of effort to
increase public awareness of the problems of venereal disease in the
county, especially iu the young people. Secondly, the County Health
Department is particularly impressed that this is the program devised
by young people for young people, and using young people in the educe-„
tioval process, end the department is expecting to support it in every
See Page
410
4 0.3
10!10/72
1. .
way they can, primarily by providing consulting services and training
to the counselors and providing audio-visual materials and staff time
on the Saturdays when they expect to be doing the V. D. testing. -She
commented that they do not expect to discover many_ cases _of _new
infectious syphy , _ s through the progrpt+± bu carp ce to w 71: g to see
anv innovAtive ittepc trlf. d in tha way of chz ctatc.y_
that their previous ideas have not been too successful and any su.cess
that may come from this project could then be tried In similar projects
in other communities on the Peninsula. She said that they would recom-
mend that the Council support the program the young people are planning.
Councilman Beahrs spoke of his belief in the parents' responsibility
for the guidance and discipline of their children and stated he could
not support an organization which protects the child from parental
discipline by conducting such a program in a high degree of anonymity.
He added he was not in complete disagreement but did feel the parents
should be notified and questioned how there could be any follow-up
for those found to be positive when there are no names.
Councilman Henderson stared he would like to coupliment Bob Porter, on
the time he has spent on this project and would like to give a couple
of statistics. The first was that venereal disease ranks second in
number only to the common cold among all communicable diseases and
that 507.of all venereal disease occurs among people aged twenty-four
or yo,.nger.
Councilman Berwald referred to Councilman Beahrs' comment and asked
if a young person is found to have an infectious venereal disease and
has brothers and sisters in the family, if there was any contact with
the home. He said he had,Always thought that public health officers
in any capacity go back and follow up through the home if there is a
possibility of infection in other ways.
Councilman Clark replied there would be public health follow-up for
all positives --this is by law. He added that he did think it is
possible for such youngsters to receive medical care without having
the parents necessarily know about it but added he is sure that counsel-
ing is going to encourage them to bring the family into the picture.
All medical personnel involved would make every effort to get the
family into the picture and see that the youngsters level with their
families. He counted that discipline and law really don't make
scared children get medical attention, and n h5 opinion -'t
absolutely essential that in situations such as venereal disease every
effort and avenue be explored. He stated it is much more important
that they be cured.
Mayor Comstock commented that this program, by setting up the testing
procedure, allows the young adult to determine more completely the
status of his health and confronts him with this information, and
he has thrust on him the responsibility for making himself well. What
is being proposed here is not only a medical treatment and information
program, but a program that is coupled with intensive counseling. He
stated the important thing here is, like it or not, there is an epidemic
and it is souping that concerns everyone.. The primary objective of
this program is education and treatment of infectious disease.
MOTION: Councilmen Henderson moved, seconded by Comstock, that the
Council approve the Youth Advisory Council's sponsorship of a V. D.
Awareness Days program.
The motion carried on a majority voice vote.
4-o 4
10/10/72
Fa. orsemen,t of Our Health Ceuta- Inc.
Councilwoman Pearson referred to the letter received from Christine
Palmer-Persen, director of Our Health Center, Inc., and noted t'-iat.it_
is related to the subject just discussed by Council. She note that
the letter points Out that thin is_ g vp1tmtpwr yeinth—nrieiftt`d- iaSara{.� and asked Christine Palmer-Persen to speak.
Christine Palmer-Persen, 680 Los Robles, said she was a corpswoman
with the First Methodist Involvement Corps Task Force and director
of Our Health Center, Inc. She stated that Our Health Center is a
free all -volunteer health clinic. She referred to material sent to
Council and noted that the statistics for Palo Alto should be 85
instead of 65. She reviewed their purposes, objectives, and sub -
objectives, stating that they encourage people to come back for follow-
up to keep the medical continuity. Their group also works with
Family Planning clinics and Planned Parenthood. She added that they
are happy to work with private physicians if and when a patient comes
in. signs a release releasing their record. Our Health Center is
presently ring the Salta Clara County Public Health Department
facilities on Grant Avenue in Palo Alto. She listed the various organi-
zations which have donated both money and assistance and noted their
fund-raising activities. She stated they are exploring both county
and governmental funding for further operation, but added they do want
to snake it clear that they are not asking the City of Palo Alto for
any funding a,t all. Essentially they want the City to recognize their
organization for its contribution to the community and are asking for
approval in concept of the activities and service they are giving to
tLe cou+urariity of Palo Alto,
MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Norton, that the
City Council commend and endorse Our Health Center for their unusual
and humane project.
Councilwoman Seman said she would like to welcome Our Health Center
to the community and commend them for their efforts on behalf of
V. D. Awareness Days.
The motion passed on a majority voice vote.
(Vice Mayor Norton left the Crurrin41 rh...th rs
did not return.)
at - !. t1a Li e
and
Miscellaneous Division of Land --
view and vote Hill Road
MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Henderson, to uphold the
Planning Commission recommendation and approve the application of Xerox
Corporation for a miscellaneous division of lend at Hiilview Avenue
and Coyote Hill Road (a recombination of Parcels 2 and 3, Parcel
Map 268, Page 7, 14.174 acres) subject to conditions recorded in the
September 27, 1972, Planning Commission! ;nutes
The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.
Prs position 20 ---Tie Coastal 2ont Conservation Act
MOT1ON: Mayor Comstock introduce d , tips folloviug resolution and-so'!ed,
seconded by Sew, its adoption:
4 CV5.
10/10/72,
RESOLUTION NO. 4610 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO URGING A 'YES' VOTE ON PROPOSITION 20, THE
COASTAL ZONE.CONSERVATION ACT"
Mayer Comstock noted that Council is in receipt of a letter from the
Sierra Club urging endorsement of Proposition 20 and stated he had
received a fetter from the League Of Wooten Voters which would be copied
for Council. He read the letter dated October 10, 1972, from Mrs. Joan
Heyman, president of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, urging
endorsement of Proposition 20. He then stated Council would hear
from members of the audience who wished to speak.
Kermit Smith, 864 Orange Avenue, Sunnyvale, stated he was California's
political endorsement chairman of the Sierra Club for the Coastal
Initiative. He informed Council of a recent opinion of Legislative
Counsel Murphy which states that Proposition 20 does not have juris-
diction over any portion of the land surrounding San Francisco Bay or
the Sacramento River Basin. He concluded by referring to the many
endorsements of this proposition by the League of Women Voters, State
Legislature, Inter -City Council, the county's Planning Policy Committee,
and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. He urged support of
Proposition 20, the Coastal Initiative.
Lee Braadenberg, 116 Fox Hollow Road, Woodside, spoke against the
Initiative Proposition 20 and stated that the bill is filled with
inequities, irconeistencies, and misrepresentations. He stated that
everyone is in favor of saving the coast but that the area of coastal
zone in the mill Is so ambiguously drafted that the area would have
to be determined by the courts. He read portions of the bill and con-
cluded by saying that a great number of people who have endorsed this
bill have done so without actually reading the bill because of all the
propaganda that is coming out. He urged Council not to endorse
Proposition 20.
(Councilman Beahrs left the Council Chambers at 12:48 a.m.
and die not return.)
Dan Alexander, manager of Pa ific Gas and Electric Co, Mountain View,
stated that his company is opposed to Proposition 20. He said they
definitely favor sound coastal planning, but they feel that Proposition
20 goes beyond practical and reasonable lisi's, and they oppose it on
the basis of what it would do to the electric power reliability. Re
urged the Council not to endorse Proposition 20.
Councilman Berwald stated that since this matter would be on the
November ballot, he would abstain from voting at this time.
The resolution passed unanimously on a voice vote with Councilman
Ierwald abstaining -
Councilman Rosenbaum referred to a couple of newspaper items in the
paper last week, one involving P.G.SV'a asking for a 22% increase in
the wholesale electric rates, and the other regarding P.G.&E's con-
tributing $25,000 towards the defeat of -`tide Coastal, Initiative.- He
stated this puts the City in the position of -pairing a public utility
_and a monopoly spend essentially some of the City's matey in an effort
to defeat legislation in which the City has a good deal of interest.
He asked staff if there might be some way in which the City might
takes hand in attempting to d .'courags public :mtilitiea' acting in
this manner.
.
4 0 6
I0/l0/72
City Attorney St .e stated that this has been raised in the past, but
the PUS' ,has take the position that the money P.G.U. uses in terms
of the support of legislation and also for advertising, does not come
from the ratepayers. In terms of the City, the City is obviously e
large ratepayer, and it certainly could, upon instructions from the
Council, get involved in that issue the next time it i _
�.. :aAAGP NA. The
city could raise it on its own if it so desired.
Scenic Recreation Routes--200-foot Setback
MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following ordinance and moved,
seconded by Pearson, its adoption
ORDINANCE NO. 2687 ENTITLED "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TEE SETBACK MAP OF THE CITY OF
PALO ALTO TO ESTABLISH R. SETBACK OF 200 FEET FOR PROPERTIES
FRONTING ON SCENIC RECREATION ROUTES In THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO"
The ordinance was adopted on a unanimous voice vote.
Alcoholic Beverage License --J & D Market
't = ieatf ?'R: 4t. "--'°"`
MOTION: Mayor Comstock roved, seconded by Pearson, that the application
for an off sale beer and wine license for the J 6 n Market, 3487 El
Camino Real, be HSea vithout protest.
The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.
1971-72 Annual Financial Report
MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, that the 1971-72
Annual Financial Report be referred to the Finance and Public Works
Committee.
The mention carried unanimously on a voice vote.
i'>r ition 14 ---Watson Initiative
MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Henderson, that staff be
directed to prepare a City Council resolution opposing Proposition
14,
The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Reve� d E;c endilgre Pro1ecti.on
MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Be rwald , - that the
request for a staff report an revenue and expenditure estimates be
referred to the Finance and Public Works Committee.
Councilman Henderson stated he would oppose this. The Finance Committee
is to receive a ten-year projection each year, along with the proposed
4 0 7
10/10/72
"Se'e-rage
410
budget. He said he could see no need to put the steff to work on a
separate ten-year study when they will have these figures. He noted
that last year the committee did review the Anderson Report, which gave
data on future projections, revenue and expenditures. He commented
that, in a sense, projections can be more harmful than good because
-tbnditihr*S are changing so rapidly that projected figuree ere seldom
good beyond ayear or two. He stated the committee hee jest finiehed
revising the -budget so they can do a more complete job of analysis,
-and he wou1J like to see the committee, concentrate on the budget that
will be beeere them.
Councilman Rosenbaum said that the Anderson Report was the sort of
thing'thet he was looking for, but noted that it related solely to
reven.uee;:and he thought that by itself might be misleading. He said
in his opinion the real thing is how the revenues compare with the
anticipated expenditures, and it was his feeling members of the Finance
Committee night have comments to make with regard to the request.
Mayor Comstock noted that the motion is to put the ides of such a
report before the Finance and Public Works Committee.
Councilwouian Semen asked Mr. Sipel how long such a study would take
and how much it would cost.
Mr. Sipel replied that staff already provides a five-year projection
with regard to revenues and expenditures, and had been doing that for
a number of years. It is intended to continue doing this as part of
the budget process. He said if they were going to provide something
that is relatively reliable over a ten-year period, they would be
tacking about several thousand dollars.
Councilman. Rosenbaum said that the fact that they would be looking
at different assuaiptions.was quite important, and the committee could
discuss whether it would be five years or ten years. He said he felt
it important that such a study ought to be out to the Council at
regular times, and this is something that can be discussed by the
Finance Committee.
Mr. Sipel replied that he thought it necessary that Council have this
type oS information, and he would urge them to refer it to the
committee for discussion.
The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Oral Communications
There was no one in the audience who wished to speak.
Executive Session
seeeseeeeeteseemememes
Mayor Comstock anr+unced that the Council would adjourn to executive
session for -the purpose of discussing important litigation.
The Council reconvened at 1:20 a.m.
Ark ourxe �t
Mayor C�a..: toCk announced _the-mzztii-kg adjourned at 1:20 a .m.
£TTEAT
;
City Clerk
1
Mayor
4 0 8
10/10/72