Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12181972aErrrar0111s Mi NUTES city of palo alto December 18, 1972 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in a regular meeting at 7:32 p.m. with Mayor Comstock presiding. Present: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton (arrived 7:33 p.m.), Pearson, Rosenbaum, Seman Absent: None Cancellation of Meetir, Mayor Comstock said he had discussed with City Manager Sipel the matter of cancelling the January 2nd meeting and it was his under- standing that the city's business could be scheduled without that meeting. MOTION: Mayor Comstock roved, seconded by Clark, to cancel the regular Council meeting of January 2, 1973. The motion carried on a unanimous vote. Minutes of December 4 1972 Councilwoman Pearson referred to page 511, the last paragraph, and noted that the nam Clara Johns should be Dr. Clara Johns. Councilman 8ea.'krs referred to page 505, the top of the page, first sentence, and stated it should be changed from "Councilman Henderson asked..." to "Councilman Beahrs asked..." Councilwoman Se:nan referred to page 518, the first paragraph, and said the following words should be removed "to represent the working mother category" and replaced with the words "to increase the representation of people with child care needs." MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Beahrs, to approve the minutes of December 4, 1972 as corrected. The motion carried on a unanimous vote. Public Hearin - Frenchman's Terrace Annexation asi. Mayor Comstock noted that the Council will actually be considering two hearings this evening, the new public hearing and the one continued from the previous meeting and continued to this date. He advised that the procedure will be to open the hearing set for this evening and when the matter is being discussed such discussion will actually be to the two public hearings and when the public called upon to speak, he said he hoped it is clear that they will be asked to speak to both hearings which will be held simultaneously. 2 7 12/18/72 Mayor Comstock announced that this is the time ar.d place set for hearing of objections and protests to the proposed "Frenchman's Terrace" annex- ation to ehe City of Palo Alto. He noted that the matter was previously set for hearing on October 10, 1972 and was continued t this date in order to allow for resolution of the matter of zoning and amendment of the actual bouniaries of the annexation area. The hearing concerns the annexation of the property as described for the October 10 hearing and also Peter Coutts Road as described in the notice of this hearing. He referred to the map on the screen and stated that the colored areas are the total area being con3idered in the two consolidated hearings. He noted that the area to the ri'ht is the housing project and the area to the left, -_above -Peter Coutts Road, is the area advertised initially for this evening. He asked that the record show that all notice require- ments have been fulfilled as required by law and that affidavits of publication are on file in the office of the City Clerk. He asked City Clerk Tanner if any written protests have been filed. Miss Tanner replied that no written protests have been filed. Mayor Comstock declared the hearing open and asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak on this matter -either as it applies to the continued public hearing or the newly opened public hearing to include Peter Coutts Road. Calvin Gillard, 2120 Amherst Street, stated he was appearing on behalf of Central Palo Alto Residents' Association West, College Terrace Residents' Association and also speaking for himself as a resident in the area. He read from a prepared statement, stating that the 'ssue is one of misuse of College Terrace residential streets by through traffic. He reviewed the history of the problem of traffic in College Terrace, stating that it began :zany years ago with the beginning of Stanford Industrial Park which has continued to grow. He reviewed the staff report of December 14, 1972 and noted that Mr. Noguchi met with interested residents in the area for their views and concerns and ex- pressed their appreciation for Mr. Noguchi's interest. He reviewed plans A, B, C, D and E stating their preference is plan C and commented that features of plans D and E might also be used experimentally. He stated he would like to recommend to Council the following action: 1) to continue the issue of the public hearing on the annexation of Frenchman's Terrace until the B wdoin Street/Stanford Avenue intersection triangle is included as part of the annexation; 2) implement temporary experi- mental plan. of diversions and barriers so that information on the effec- tiveness of traffic control concepts in and around College Terrace might be gathered and examined, including examination of the Escondido Road closure; 3) comm:.nicate to the county the fact that the city is interested in maintaining the Foothills Expressway/Stanford Avenue intersection for future connection to Foothills Expressway. He con- cluded by asking that the Council not accept assertions that traffic impact is a separate issue. Mayor. Comstock announced that he may have made a misstatement regard- ing the areas actually being considered in the heari.isgs tonight. He said he had indicated that Council was considering the entire colored area and he asked staff to either correct or verify. City Manager Sipel advised that the area under consideration tn.g evening is the yellow area shown on the map, the 20 acre parcel plus the length of Peter Coutts Road to Stanford Avenue. He explained that it does not include the green area or the blue triangle. He added, however, that it 2 8 12/18/72 was his understanding the green area is in the process of being presented to LAFCO for annexation. Scott Morris, 331 Curtner Avenue, speaking on behalf of the Mid - Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, read from a prepared statement which was presented to Council. He stated that MCFH considers the traffic probleu a seperate issue from the Frenchman's Terrace annexation and feels it would be unjust to delay or possibly jeopardize the construc- tion of low and moderate income dwellings chiefly to facilitate the annexation of the greenbelt near Bowdoin Street. He concluded by urging that the Council approve the annexation. Sarah Johnson, 1836 Hamilton Avenue, stated she was speaking as a mem- ber of the Land f:.r People Committee and they would like to urge that the annexation will be approved tonight or that the process will be started and there will not be a six months delay as urged by the first speaker. Ahe said they share the College Terrace residents' concern for the traffic problem at Bowdoin Street but feel it is a separate issue from the annexation. She said they would also like to state pub- licly that they hope Stanford will maintain a cooperative att etude and will be open to whatever solution seems best. Mayor Comstock asked if enyone else wished to speak on the matter of the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Comstock declared the hearing closed. }e noted that Council has continued to receive communications on this subject fro::: people in the College Terrace area and other areas and all have been duplicated and distributed to Council. In addition, Council has received more staff reports which deal with possible approaches to the traffic problem:: in the area. He stated at this time they would hear from members of the Council. Councilman Beahrs commented that everyone was very pleased -with Mr. Noguchi's report. He referred to the street improvements listed on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report and asked if these changes decreased traffic in College Terrace quickly at these intersections or whether it w.:s gradual. He said he thought staff was being optimistic regarding the interchanges at El Camino/Page Mill and Page Mill/Foothills Express- way being effectively implemented within the next 5 to 7 years. Mr. roguchi replied that the traffic voluwe reductions throughout the College Terrace neighborhood actually occurred rather gradually as a result of the staged changes referred to in the report. In response to Councilman Beahrs' comment re the interchanges, Mr. Sipel advised that the Capital Improvement Program includes both intersection projects and involves, basically, grade separation at El Camino and Page Mill and Page Mill and Foothill Expressway. He said that staff's best guess as to the time of implementation is 1976-77 for Page Mill/El Camino and 1980-81 for Page Mill/Foothill Expressway. He noted that both these interchanges are subject to a variety of things, including fending. He noted that the El Camino/Page Mill intersection is roughly $3,000,000 and it involves 3tate contributions as well as county funds. In response to question from Councilman Beahrs regarding city control over those developments, Mr, 'ipel stated that the city had approved, along with other matters relating to reconstruction of Oregon Avenue, the general configuration of the interchange at El Camino/Page Mill. The city has not, however, looked at any plans relating to Foothill/Page Mill and he said he did not believe any exist at the present k:ime. 2 9 12/18/72 Councilman Beahrs asked Mr. Noguchi about safety for children crossing Peter Coutts Road and how that problem will be improved. Mr. Noguchi replied that the question relating to that particular problem is the diversion of traffic from Stanford Avenue to Peter Coutts. He com- mented that with Stanford Avenue as presently structured, the two signals, one at Raymundo and one at Peter Coutts, do offer the safety necessary for the school studInts to cross at those locations. He said that the interjection of Peter Coutts as a main roadway out to Page Mill does pose another issue, and said he did not know what the answers are. The signals at Page Mill and Peter Coutts and al3o at Peter Coutts and Stanford Avenue could be used as student crossings. Councilman Beahrs said he sympathized with the College Terrace area residents, but added he felt that everyone was more or less in the same boat. He asked how_this particular area compared traffic -wise to that of a comparable neighborhood. Mr. Noguchi replied that from a traffic planning viewpoint the normal local type residential street should probably carry no more than five to six hundred vehicles a day depending on the area, and a collector type street could carry five to six thousand per gay. He stated that anything above those fi`ures becomes the kind of traffic on arterial streets. He listed registered traffic counts for comparable streets in Palo Alto, noting that these various numbers are all over the city and that the volumes are not unusual with respect to different parts of the city. Councilman Rosenbaum asked the staff to comment on the history of this concern back to 1967 when Peter Coutts Road first went in and there was some interest in realigning this intersection and some interest in the Fourcroy plan. Mr. Sipel referred to the time when the plans for the Frenchman's Hill subdivision were filed with the county in late 1966-67, concerns at that time and the modifications that were made. He reviewed the Fourcroy plan and noted that later revisions of that plan provided the sort of "T" intersection which is before Council this evening. He noted that the project was put into the Capital Improvement Program several years ago and was actually funded in 1970-71. Between the time that it was first discussed in 1967-68 and 1971 there were a number of discussions between city staff and Stanford staff. He stated that last year, at the time of the Capital Improvement Program, it appeared to him there was a lack of interest in the project and he recommended to Council that it be removed from the Capital improvement Program. This was done with very little or no discussion by the Council, Finance committee or Planning Commission. Couacilman Rosenbaum asked for staff comment on the advantages of the Foc:croy plan to residents of College Terrace and what it would accom- plish in terms of traffic movement. Mr. Sipel replied that the intent of the original plan as he understood it was to get traffic from Page Mill to the campus as quickly, safely and quietly as possible and to keep this traffic out of the College Terrace area. Later modifications would allow some traffic to come back down through the Terrace but would severely inhibit it. It also would maintain some neighborhood access to Peter Coutts Road, Junipero Serra Boulevard and to the campus as well. Mr. Noguchk stated that the basic concept did attempt to minimize the impcct of traffic going down Stanford Avenue as well as trying to direct traffic for the campus to use Bowdoin Street. He .toted that it did provide a kind of dilemma, 3 0 12/18/72 however, because in order to provide access it the neighborhood it also permitted some of that traffic to go down through Stanford Avenue by its design. Councilman Rosenbaum asked for comments as to Stanford's views of the Fourcroy plan or some version that would require taking a piece of that greenbelt. Mr. Sipel replied that in talking to Stanford generally they were not in favor of this particular improvement, they were not in favor of taking any of the greenbelt area. He suggested that perhaps someone from Stanford could answer Mr. Rosenbaum. Robert R, Augsburger, Vice President for Business and Finance, Stanford University, reviewed that Stanford staff has been intimately involved with the city's staff since 1967 in discussions regarding problems at that intersection and potential solutions to it. He said that in examining the history he could not discern any sharp conflict other than the fact there didn't seem to be any strong enthusiasm, for the particular proposal presented. He reviewed that following the Planning Commission recommendation that the University offer that triangle for annexation in connection with the Frenchman's Terrace annexation, he submitted that proposal to the University Lands and Building Committee and their subcommittee on faculty staff housing. He said they met on several occasions early in November and subsequently decided to call a public hearing to address themselves to the issue of ennexation of that site. He said that at the hearings he attempted to have the com- mittees understand that annexation didn't necessarily mean that the "Fourcroy Plan" would be implemented but that it would give the city a greater degree of flexibility to determine the appropriate solution to the matter. The public hearing was held November 11 and notices were circulated to some 150 residents in the immediate College Terrace area. It was an afternoon meeting but only one person appeared from College Terrace and he stated that to his knowledge the committee re- ceived no written or phoned communications from residents in the College Terrace area. He commented that an interesting observation made by the one College Terrace resident, which was supported by a number of the faculty staff people, was that there seems to be a very strong disobey- ance of the stop sign. He stated that another speaker at the hearing from the campus community made the observation that the Fourcroy plan would present a nightmare for pedestrians and bicyclists and particu- larly for children attempting to get across from Bowdoin to Escondido School. He advised that following that hearing the committee unani- mously adopted a resolution. Mr. Augsburger read the resolution in full which in essence strongly opposed any proposal to annex this area to the City of Palo Alto based on the evidence presented and a previous commitment to protect the greenbelt area. The resolution also expressed concern with the traffic problem and urged that the University and the City of Palo Alto continue traffic studies ard work toward a mutually acceptable solution to the parties moat directly concerned, the Stanford campus homeowners and the residents of C. ilege Terrace. Mr. Augsburger stated that the resolution was directed to Acting President Miller and explained that in the absence of any persuasive data, Acting President Miller and he were simply not in a position to reject the advice of these two committees'in that regard. Councilman Rosenbaum asked if it would be fair to say that the motiva- ting factors for the two objections are: 1) loss of the greenbelt area; and 2) concern of the way in vhich pedestrians ani cyclists might be able to navigate the Fourcroy plan or the latest version of the Fourcroy plan? 3 1 12/18/72 Mr. Augsburger replied that would appear to be so from a residentialist point of view. He stated one other zoncern on the University's part is that an alignment which would create an artificial flow of traffic would be objectionable as compared to a free choice sort of thing. He com- mented that they do have an increasing amount of community traffic using private campus roads and they certainly don't want to do anything to encourage that, particularly at a time when they are trying internally to get an increasing use of bicycles as a means of campus transportation. Also, protection of the greenbelt is important as a philosophical issue in that when residents selected their lots they were led to believe that the greenbelt was going to be there. Councilman Rosenbaum commented that it would appear on the surface that the traffic, movement intentions of the Fourcroy plan could probably be implemented without taking eny of the greenbelt. He stated his con- clusion is that there is some mutual interest here and perhaps something less massive than proposed might be a satisfactory solution. Mr. Sipel replied that in his opinion there are some things that probably could be done to get some of the benefits in the Fourcroy plan. Whether it could be done within the existing right of way is something that would have to be looked into. He said he thought there might be an opportunity to do something in less than the one acre take proposed in the Fourcroy plan. Councilwoman Pearson referred to the greenbelt area on the drawing where the one acre in question is located and noted that the setback is 75 feet. She pointed out that all around that road, continuing down Stanford Avenue, 75 feet is the smallest setback with all the rest being 80, 90, 95 and up to 100 feet and this is what they have now in the way of greenbelting. She noted that the proposed greenbelting of Frenchman's Terrace is 65 feet from Page Mill Road and also for those houses on Frenchman's Hill all the way out to Foothill Expressway. She suggested that the loss of that one acre triangle of land isn't going to do very much to the green - belting of that area. She added that if the city had that triangle it did not necessarily mean that the city would use it, but it would help in the traffic study to give the city one more option. She suggested that perhaps a lesser radii of the curve on that particular road would be a little more feasible and perhaps could be part of the study to determine whether or not less than an acre would be needed. She asked if the interchange at Page Mill and Foothill is in the Capital Improvement Program this year and also whether the Foothill Expressway alignment is in the city's general plan or in the county's general plan. Mr. Sipe! replied that the interchange at Page Mill and Foothill Expressway is in the county's 10 -year plan but not in the city's. Mr. Noguchi advised that the Foothill Expressway realignment is not in the current general plan and is not in the county's 10 year plan as far as capital improvement programs are concerned. Councilwoman Pearsom stated she was concerned because Stanford's proposal shows Stanford Avenue going all the way out to Foothill Expressway and they are talking about the new alignment. She spoke of what this would do to traffic in the College Terrace area if this t;hould occur and suggested that staff work with Stanford on Stanford's peripheral traffic area in order to assist both the city and Stanford on this problem. She asked Stanford what they proposed to do with the land between Juniper° Serra Boulevard and the Foothill Expressway - the new alignment they are proposing. She also asked if all the 3 2 12/18/72 housing now being built on Stanford's campus is totally full or whether there will be more building on the campus which would probably funnel traffic out into the Stanford Avenue and College Terrace area. Mr. Sipel said he would respond to the possible funding and planning for tce extension of Foothill Expressway to the county line. He advised that it is not in the county's 10 -year plan .1971-72 to 1980-81, He said it probably would fall on the heels of the intersection or coordi- nate with intersection improvements at Foothill and Page Mill. Mr. Noguchi said he would hove to retract what he said before - Foothill Expressway is shown on the city's current general plan from Page Mill to Sand Hill Road, although the alignment is very general and not very clear. In response to Councilwoman Pearson, Mr. Augsburger said her questions contained a fey: items that he was not even aware of and said he was really not sure at all that Stanford has any plans so farsighted. He noted there are a number of faculty residences on Junipero Serra Boulevard and the University does have some low intensity institutional uses there plus the golf course, but to his kn'wledge there really aren't any plans. In terms of the internal campus, he stated there is still a parcel of land adjacent to Escondido Five which was just completed this summer and there are no present plans for additional married student housing. In the long term, he stated, there is a possibility of some additional student residences over on the other side of Lake Laganita. The toad shown going up to Foothill Expressway does not exist. He commented that presumably any additional housing on the campus would reduce the amount of traffic because the more housing on the campus, the greater it permits people to use bicycles and walk to get to school. In response to question from Councilwoman Pearson regarding extra- territorial jurisdiction, Mr. Sipel replied that generally speaking, if the city is to improve property outside city jurisdiction it has to get extra -territorial jurisdiction from that other jurisdiction. Ir. this case it would be Santa Clara County. The normal procedure the county would use would be to assess the property owners' feelings toward the improvement and if they 'sere positively disposed toward it, the extra -:territorial jurisdiction would be granted. He recalled that in the past the city backed away from extra -territorial jurisdiction when it was clear there were not sufficient property owners with posi- tive feelings. Councilwoman Pearson commented that before the city would go into extra -territorial jurisdiction, it seemed to her that in this instance perhaps the radii of that road could be restudied and maybe the -amount of land would be less than the one acre. Perhaps there could be some meeting of minds and the city could actually have that area annexed so staff would have more options to work with and study. She asked how long it would take to do a study of this area, similar to the Olive -West Meadow Study, given all the options to work with and going through the Planning Commission and Policy and Procedure. Committee. Mr. Sipel replied it would take roughly six months to do that. If, however, the proiect was given highest priority and all other projects put aside for a period of time, it could conceivably be done in three months. He commented that how fast the committee or Planning Commission could take the matter up would be a guess and would be in addition to the 9O days. In response to question from Councilwoman Pearson regarding the width of the streets in College Terrace, Mr. Noguchi replied that Stanford 3 12/18/72 Avenue is very comparable to Bryant Street in general width. Some of the other streets such as Amherst, Hanover and Buwdoin are somewhat narrower than the wider section of Bryant Street but he noted that Bryant Street also ranges in width. Councilwoman Pearson commented that in talking about equivalent traffic the impact becomes much greater because of the narrowness of streets. Councilman Henderson referred to the traffic volumes quoted by Mr. Noguchi it com aring individual streets in College Terrace with streets throughout the city and said he wondered what other neighbor- hood in Palo Alto would have that concentration of high traffic. Mr. Noguchi replied that the intent of his comparison was just to com- pare the volumes on the two principal streets that seemed to be affected in the College Terrace area, namely Amherst and Bowdoin, and the fact that they are comparable to streets like Melville, California and Gulnda. It was only to show a kind of comparison with more localized streets like Columbia and Princeton which carry about 300 vehicles a day. He said that in his opinion 300 to 600 vehicles per day is reasonable for a localized street, but when you get into the neighbor- hood of 1500 to 2000 you are beginning to talk about more than purely localized kind of traffic volumes. Vice Mayor Norton said he would like to respond to a couple of points made. The representative from Mid Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing made the statement that he believed the issue of the intersection is casting a burden on the issue of Frenchman's Terrace annexation. He said he wished to note that there is no thought that the burden of the Bowdoin/Stanford triangle or intersection should fall on French- man's Terrace developers. He said the second point he would like to speak to was Councilwoman Pearson's comment - the nearest that any new roadway would be to any Stanford private property would be 75 feet and her suggestion that perhaps that could be cut back further with the dis- tance increased. Regarcine this greenbelt area hesaid he would like •ac. nvtal4 A1RC to briefly review that when he was on the Planning Commission in 1967 the concern of people who lived in College Terrace and particularly on Amherst Street was that the new road (now Peter Coutts Road) was going so close to the back property lines on Amherst Street. He pointed to the map and noted that Peter Coutts Road is probably about 25 feet ;'reem the back property fine::. He -said he wenelerod, under the circule- stances, if 75 feet to the property line for that new roadway on the triangle area is really a legal gripe. He said he had a copy of the Planning Commission minutes from October 11, 1967 and read the following motion_ made at that time "Stromquist/Norton, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Stanford University be requested to consider modification to the Stanford Avenue and Bowdoin intersection for the purpose of minimizing the effects of through traffic on the College Terrace residential neighborhood in line with the staff's pro- posal." Mayor Comstock reviewed the various actions that could be taken by Council at this time. He recognized Mr. Maremont of the Urban Coalition and advised him that the public hearing was closed and everyone had been given an opportunity to be heard prior to Council deliberations. Mr. Maremont stated he would like to speak to the matter of the con- sequences to the Urban Coalition if the annexation is deferred. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Semen, its adoption: 34 12/18/72 RESOLUTION NO. 4688 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FINDING AND DECLARING THAT A MAJORITY PROTEST HAS NOT BEEN MADE TO THE ANNLXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF PAGE MILL ROAD AND PETER COUTTS ROAD AND PETER COUTTS ROAD, DESIGNATE!) AS 'FRENCH- MAN'S TERRACE ANNEXATION,' TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO" The resolution passed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Seman Noes: None MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Norton, that the annexation ordinance be continued for six weeks to allow staff to determine with Stanford: 1) how Palo Alto can acquire a sufficient piece of property at the corner of Bowdoin and Stanford to allow the staff to implement a plan to solve the traffic problem in College Terrace; and 2) to investigate the means and possibility of the use of extra -territorial jurisdiction. Councilman Clark said he hoped that Council would not support this motion since, in his opinion, it does put a very substantial burden on the development of Frenchman's rerrace. He commented that the develop- ment has been approved by the Council and there is a need for the developers to move ahead in an orderly way with the project. He said it has been said that the traffic situation has nothing to do with the project and does not put it in jeopardy at all. He said if this is the case, then the notion is unnecessary. He reviewed that the Council all did agree in dropping the Fourcroy plan from the Capital Improvement Program, that there hasn't been any pressure for it since 1967, there wasn't pressure from the community and the Council didn't pressure it themselves. He said this should not he a factor in further delaying the approval that the Stanford Urban Coalition needs from the city in order to continue with the project. He said he also believed that it is the Council's responsibility to give specific direr:tinns to staff for detailed studiz-s of the treffic problem. Councilman Berwald said that he did not think continuing the ordinance is going to solve the traffic problem any faster, but would only delay the housing development. He referred to the staff report which noted that development of Frenchman's Terrace will bring new problems which must be addressed and Council should allow staff to address themselves to the new situations that will be created by virtue of Frenchman's Terrace being developed in order to arrive at rational solutions to the problem. He commented that annexing the triangle at this time would not necessarily insure the solution Council wants. Re- garding extra -territorial jurisdiction, he said he did not think it would work any better here than it has worked .internationally. He said in his opinion the Noguchi-Sipel report is extraordinarily cam- 21ete and sensible and their recommendations are sound. He said that in his opinion, staff should be allowed to gather data and try out some changes and other solutions. Vice Mayor Norton expressed disagreement that the matter of traffic and annexation are separate and totally unrelated matters, as in his opinion there is some connection between the intersection improvement and the Frenchman's Terrace development. He commented that the problem 3 S 12/18/72 is an old one and the Council should take this opportunity to improve the situation. He referred to Stanford's long-term plans that all r:impus traffic having an o:ig?n or destination south of the campus is intended to be funnelled through the Stanford/Bowdoin intersection without regard to College Terrace or without regard to solving their problems. He stated that improvement of the now "T" intersection will stand on its own merits. He said if Council feels the desire for a long-term study of the overall College Terrace area, that in his opinion, that can come later as a separate issue. He commented that within the six. -month period it was his opinion Council will find some merit in improving that intersection and in order to do that will find the city needs a modest amount of land annexed to the City of Palo Alto. He said he would concur with cutting back to a much more modest taking of the greenbelt area so that the 75 feet might well turn out to be more like 100 feet. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Morton moved, seconded by Henderson, that the motion be amended to add that among the alternative alignments, staff furnish Council a modified Fourcroy plan to include a curve having sub- stantially smaller redius which would eventuate in taking less land. Mr. Sipel commented that as hie understands the amendment to :he main motion the staff studies are to be directed toward this intersection (Stanford/Bowdoin) and this intersection alone and the results of the study are to be returned to Council within six weeks. Also, if at a later date studies are to be made to other parts of College Terrace then that would be separate and apart from this particular request. Mayor Comstock stated that the ame nd--ent before Council is for a staff review of a plan similar to the Fourcroy plan but for a somewhat greater distance from the homes. Councilman Clark said that in his opinion this request for a study of that one intersection and not the other factors makes the motion worse because until such time as the Council has all of the information there is no way to decide the right way to approach the problem. He said if the matter is going to be deferred there should be a total study and the whole thing should be done at once. Councilman Henderson said he was very disappointed with the action taken by the Stanford Committee on Land and Building Development and felt it was a rather perfunctory dismissal. He commented that overall the traffic counts on the College Terrace area seem to rein well over the figures on the Olive -West Meadow where remedial action was taken. He said what was most disturbing to him is the Stanford plans for the future with a goal to protect Stanford residential areas and their proposal to close off Stanford Avenue from connecting with Junipero Serra Boulevard or the proposed Foothill Expressway. He reviewed plans A and B and said that his position is that Page Mill Road must serve the industrial park, must serve major entry roads through the campus to serve campus bound traffic and College Terrace must be restricted to -e normal residential neighborhood traffic pattern. He said that in his opinion the city needs to leave all options open and they need to have assurance from Stanford that if a roadway change at Stanford and Bowdoin is the best solution or part, that the city can go that way. He said he wao very disheartened that Frenchman's Terrace proposal becomes a factor in this discussion and yet Frenchman's Terrace is very much affected by Stanford's plan to make Peter Coutts Road the main artery to Stanford from Page Mill. He said he would support a continuance of six weeks during which time he would hope the steps toward agreement can be taken. He said he would also want 3b 12/18/72 to know what Stanford would propose as a way to alleviate the problems of commuter traffic in College Terrace and Peter Coutts Road an would want staff to more clearly define the problems and to suggest possible permanent solutions. Councilman Beahrs said he thought the Council was talking in a larger realm of interest and did not see where in six weeks there is any possibility of developing a remedial solution of this problem. Ha said he agreed with the senti.mer.ts expressed but said he could .lot see aggravating points that will only lead to frustration and discourage- ment and hoped they would not inhibit this development which everyone favors. Councilwoman Seman asked Mr. Sipel if he has any indications from HUD as to what a six weeks delay would do to the project. Mr. Sipel replied he had discussed the problem with HUD officials this afternoon and a six -week delay at this end would certainly create at least six weeks at their end or more. The way it stands now according to HUD if the project is approved this month or in January it would take three to four weeks to process the application for funding; then it would be available for funding in February. If there were a six --week delay, funding would probably have to come in March or April. A six - week delay would likely put the project into the next quarter. Councilwoman Semen said it was her understanding the earliest HUD can process would be February and a six -week delay would take it into February. She said she would like to hear from Mr. Mareront with comments on the six -week delay. Mr. Maremont, r,_presenting the Urban Coalition, explained that HUD operates on a quarterly basis and they have a funding r,eeting scheduled for December 20th. He said they recognize that they will not be funied at that meeting and HUD's next funding meeting woulu be about three months from this time. He explained the application must be processed prior to the funding meeting. He stated that they are not relying solely on the regular funding process and are trying to get supplemental funds from Washington. He said should that be the case, then wh&tever time is involved in delaying this decision and the subsequent processing would very directly affect the time schedule of the development. He said the two things they need are the Council's decision on the annexa- tion and the HUD funding decision and they are most concerned with any delay at all. He said they are particularly concerned in view of the magnitude of the study and the difficulty of the questions involved that their development not be tied to the traffic problem. Councilwoman seaan said she had three goals. The first one was to see Frenchman's Terrace a reality; the second is to alleviate the problems currently existing in College Terrace, and the third to protect Peter Coutts Road from heavy incursion of traffic and in addition to make the Frenchman's Terrace project as happy a project as it can be. Mayor Comstock noted that the amendment for development of a plan with a tighter curve and less encroachment on nearby homes is now before Council. The amendment passed on the following vote: Ayes: Beahrs, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Seman Noes: Berwald 3 7 12/18/72 The main motion as amended carried on the following vote: Ayes: Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Semen 1 Noes: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that staff be directed to begin studies to determine methods of reducing commute traffic through College Terrace, including Sanford and California Avenues, such study to be returned to the Council for referral to the Planning Co. ission and Policy and Procedures Committee. Mr. Sipel said he would sugge. that six months might be more in order because there are a numbe`_ of other projects that were top priority as of yesterday and staff could do a better job in six months. Mayor Comstock noted that the motion does not put a time limit on the study. Councilman Berwald asked staff if this isn't something that they would normally do in the course of their traffic studies in the city without some kind of Council action. Mr. Sipel agreed it would be, but noted that the problem now is that staff is substantially back- logged in their assignments and have no opportunity to get into indi- vidual neighborhoods and look for symptoms of problems. He stared if staff did not receive this assignment they would probably not give it a high priority because they do not have the staff to handle the volume of work presently backlogged. Councilman Berwald commented that in his opinion this is no way to run a city by giving staff these piecemeal assignments; that staff is doing a fine job in taking care of the traffic around the city and would look at this in the normal course of their work. The motion passed on the following vote: Ayes: Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sean Noes: Beahrs, Berwald Vice Mayor Norton commented the thought is, that during this six -week period the staff will sit down with the Stanford staff and try to work out various alternatives to that particular intersection and hopefully agree on something. He said that in order to avoid the delay that is in front of Council tonight, the Council invited Stanford to place that intersection before LAFCO so it could be before the Council this evening and through reasons explained by Mr. Augsburgar, Stanford chose not to do so. He said that it seemed to him in order to put this matter in a place where the Council will really have an opportunity to act in six weeks Stanford might be well advised to place the matter before LAFCO with the full understanding that if it is concluded that no additional annexation area is needed then they can simply abandon it, either at LAFCO or at the City Council level. He asked Mr. Stone Whether having gone through LAFCO and filed an application for annexa- tion with the city on an uninhabited basis whether it could be with- drawn prior to the public hearing. Mr. Stone replied that it could be withdrawn prior to the public hearing. 3 8 12/18/72 Vice Mayor Norton stated it seemed to him that Stanford would retain all its options even if at the last minute it decides it is not of a mind to conse._ to the annexation but at least this way the procedures could be set in me -ion so the Council could move without another delay. MOTION: Vice Maur Norton moved, seconded by Pearson, that the city request Stanford to place the triangle, or such portion of the triangle as staff studies indicate are needed, before LAFCO so Council will i- .tre the matter before it as soon, as possible. Vice Mayor Norton stated it would be his intention when the study crimes back if it shuwii that substantially less land is needed fcr annexation than the Fourcroy plan suggests, that is all the city is going to annex. Mr. Sipel stated that as he under,tands the earlier motion, annexation is not the only alternative. Extra -territorial jurisdiction is also a possibility. Mayor Comstock replied that was correct in Councilwoman Pearson's original motion. The motion passed on the following vote: Ayes: Beahrs, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Seman Noes: Berwald, Clark Gift of Pre- erty to the.at,,4of Palo Alto tom r. an .irs. Harold J. Beaver CMR:539:2) MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Beahrs that iten 4 on the agenda (gift of property from Dr. and Mrs. Harold J. Beaver) be con- sidered out of order at this time. The motion carried on a unanimous vote. Mayor Comstock noted that the Council had received a report from. the City Manager and a resolution authorizing receipt and sale of a gift of real property. He noted that the report indicates this property is being given to the city so the city may sell the property and use the money for support of acquisition of the Squire House property. He stated that at this time he wished to express the gratitude of the City Council to Drs and Mrs. Harold J. Beaver, to the Palo Alto Historical Associatic:i and for the support of Mrs. Fern Hunt in bringing this to pass. He read the proposed resolution in full. MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Berwald, its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 4689 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE RECEIPT AND SALE OF A GIFT OF REAL PROPERTY" Mayor Comstock stated they would hear from Mrs. Fern Hunt at this time. Mrs. Fern Hunt, 522 Mayfield Avenue, stated that she was unaware that 'the contract would say that in case the Squire House was not acquired that the money would go into the general fund. She said that if such an unfortunate thing should happen the Historical Association would like to request that the money would go into a fund for in-service for the elderly at the Downtown Library. Mr. Sipel responded that it was his impression that both parties, the City Manager's office and Dr. Beaver, agreed to the resolution as proposed. Mayor Comstock stated that if there is disagreement he thought it would be more appropriate for Council to return the matter to staff for further discussion. Councilwoman Pearson said she had two questions: one is the time limit and, two, is whether the Council has the right to earmark funds of this kind in this way. Mayor Comstock asked Mr. Stone and Mr. Sipel to respond. City Attorney Stone replied that with respect to earmarking funds, the Council does this every budget session but this property is a gift from Dr. and Mrs. Beaver and it is they who set the earmarkings of the donation which they propose to give. He stated that insofar as nego- tiations have been concernei, the resolution before Council is that which has been negotiated. Mr. Sipel explained that when the matter was first brought to his atten- tion the only suggestion was that if, in the event the money is net used for the Squire House, the money would go to t:e general fund to provide the flexibility that he felt was necessary in a case like this. He said this desire on his part was communicated to the other parties and it was his impression it had been accepted. He said his only other comment was that if this is the desire of the Council and Council passes the resolution before it, the City would certainly take this desire into consideration in the event the money is not used for the Squire House. Mrs. Hunt stated that would be pleasing to the Historical Association. The resolution passed on a unanimous vote. Executive Session Mayor Comstock announced that the Council would recess and adjourn to Executive Session for the purpose of discuscing litigation. (Council recessed from 9:50 to 10:20 p.m.) lication of Standard Oil Company a Ca orn a : or l of S� ns at 480 r oa rova MOTION: Councilman Beahrs moved, seconded by Henderson, to approve the application of Standard Cil Company of California for approval of signs at 480 Quarry Road, zone district C-3, as recommended by the Planning Commission with the stipulation that signs will not have a significant effect on the environment. The motion carried on a unanimous vote. 4 0 12/18/72 A lication of McCreer -D Si n Com an - Harniltcn venue ..r MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Beahrs, to approve the application of McCreery - D S-Ign Company on behalf of University Aut Center for approval of signs at 267 Hamilton Avenue, zone district C -2-C, as recommended by the Planning Commission and with the stipula- tion that the signs will not have a significant effect on the environ- ment. Mayor Comstock commented that he finds the signs and new paint job. very appealing and wished to commend the owner. The motion carried on a unanimous vote. Gift of Real Pro ert to City of Palo Alto rom r. an rs . re o '�C •:2Y MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Norton, its adoption: ORDINANCE t'0. 2697 ENTITLED "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO MENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1972-73 TO PROVIDE FOR INCIDENTAL CCSTS IN CONNECTION WITH PROPERTY DONATED TO THE CITY CAPITAL LMPROVEMENT PROJECT 72-93" The ordinance was adopted on a unanimous vote. Police Service to the Town of Los Altos Hills (?1R:'44:2) Councilwoman Pearson questioned whether a phcne call to Los Altos Hills would determine whetter or not they were willing to pay $214,000 a year for the Palo Alto Police services. Mr. Sipel replied that his intent in giving Council the information contained in the report was to comply with Council's request. He stated there are some alternatives. One would be to indicate that the City of Palo Alto is not interested; the second would be to ask - the staff to contact Los Altos Hills as to whattheir reaction might be to the report; and third would be to assume that Los Altos Hills is interested and refer the report to committee to determine the extent of Palo Alto's interest. MOTION: councilwoman Pearson moved, ceconded by Henderson, to direct staff to contact Los Altos Hills to determine their interest on the basis of level of services and cost to their community. Mr. Sipel stated he would interpret the notion as an expression on the Council's part that the level of services described in the report is the only level of services that Palo Alto would choose to provide. Mayor Comstock concurred that that is implicit in the motion. Vice Mayor Norton commented that the report is a very good report and noted that it emphasizes Los Altos Hills' need for Palo Alto's level of services or nothing loss. He said he would anticipate that Los Altos Hills will respond by saying $200,000+ is too much and asking 4 1 1 12/18/72 what level the city would be willing to talk about. He commented that speaking for himself, he would like to discuss that matter with staff before saying that Palo Alto is not willing to talk about anything less than the full package. Councilwoman Seman commented that because of the magnitude of the sums, she felt there is a disadvantLge to Palo Alto if Los Altos Hills goes ahead and then decides to stop after a year or two and leaving Palo Alto with the problem of havi.t.z to cut back to that degree. The motion carried on the following vote: Ayes: Beahrs, Clark, Comstock, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum Noes: Berwald, Henderson, Seman PlanninkPolicy Committee Resort on Fair -Housing in Santa Clara County (CMR:543:2) MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the report on Fair Housing in Santa Clara County be referred to the Human Relations Commission for review and comment to the Council. The motion carried on a unanimous vote. Edon of Eleanor Pardee Park (CMR:542:1) MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Clark, to refer the matter of Eleanor Pardee Park expansion to the Finance end Public Works_ Com- mittee. Councilwoman Pearson asked if this matter shouldn't be referred to the Planning Commission or the Policy and Procedures Committee for ample public participation. Mr. Sipel responded that, historically, park improvement projects have been the province of what was the old Public Works Committee. Ha said the other reason he had suggested the matter be referred to the Finance and Public Works Committee was because in that committee's review of the Capital Improvement Program there was some concern expressed about the level of expenditures for this particular park improvement and before staff went say further in developing plans he wanted to make certain that the Council and its co:ittees wished to proceed. Councilman Clark noted that he had had a number of calls from residents in the area regarding the park improvements and said he hoped there will be ample announcement of this meeting for the people in that area. The motion carried on a unanimous vote. Amendment to Cif of Palo Alto an ar e_c_ cations (Q'uu524:2) MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Pearson, its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 4690 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE cm OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING AND AMENDING THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO" 4 2 12/18/72 The resolution was adopted on a unanimous vote. Report re Environmental Impact Procedures MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, duly seconded, that the City Attorney's report dated 12/14/72 and the proposed ordinance establish- ing an Environmental Impact Procedure be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee to be taken up at a reasonable time. Mr. Stone stated that the City Attorney's office thinks it is :quite important ticat the city adopt the procedures that are necessary to implement the California Environmental Quality Act and the Mammoth Decision. He said it is the Attorney's office feeling that too much further delay will result in confusion to not only the private sector but to the public sector with regard to the making up, the filing, and the assessment of environmental impact reports. What Council has before it establishes, at least for now, certain guidelines and pro- cedures and allows the staff to proceed with respect to filling in whatever gap there may be. He noted that within 60 days the city will be receiving guidelines from the state and will also be giving the state the city's awn suggestions regarding the private sector procedure and guidelines for environmental impact reports. He said it is his opinion that to refer the clatter to committee at this point would be to delay it beyond the point of which Palo Alto will have taken a position and will have established some procedures so that the city can give input to the state and receive input as the 120 -day moratorium limit is reached. He commented that staff will be coming back to Council with the guide- lines as promulgated by the state for the private sector. Councilwoman Pearson said if it was agreeable with committee members, the committee could take this matter up at their first meeting in January by postponing the item regarding numbered seats on their agenda and could thus get the natter hack to Council in time. Councilman Clark said that unless some of his colleagues had input from people who have real concern about certain aspects of the pro- posed ordinance it would seem to him that Council at this point should take the word of their legal experts who have really done a tremendous job. He said it seemed to him that this is the kind of ordinance that will need to be in action for a while for people to be able to see what some of the problems are and it will have to be amended from time to time. Vice Mayor Norton said he was willing to trust the City Attorney's judgment on this. He commented that it is a Tremendously well done job, tremendously technical and quite a comprehensive report. He said in his opinion it is more important that the city get it on the books well in advance of February 1st and added that he agrees with Council- man Clark that there will be bugs from time to time and the City Attorney's office will probably recommend amendments when the legis- lature again meets on the matter on required changes to conform to the new state law. Mr. Stone stated he would like to emphasize that the report isn't just a piece of work from the legal department. He said it required a tremendous amount of input and very creative and new thinking on the pant of the planners and also an the administrative side. He stated that he very frankly doubted whether the entire concept as presented in the report could be gone into in any great detail in any less than at least a couple of days' work by any committee. 4 3 12/18/72 Councilman Henderson said he would like to emphasize the potential for amendments as the legislature takes action. Councilwoman Seman said she would 1''.e to compliment Assistant City Attorney Norek on a most comprehensive report. In response to Councilman Beahrs' question regarding the city's expo- sure to suits for damages, etc., Mr. Stone replied that the basic problem is one of getting a procedure hopefully into existence because as time goes on and building permits are issued and public projects proceed., they all continue to be in jeopardy unless and until a relatively formalized procedure is adopted and the Attorney's office thinks now is the time to do that. He pointed out that many cities have taken this matter quite seriously and rather than approach it the way, Palo Alto has, they simply passed their own moratoria so that all development is stopped under all circumstances. He said that his office does not believe that was required and that is why they presented what they have. Councilman Rosenbaum commented that he would like to see this matter reviewed in committee since he felt it might be informative not only to the committee and Council but perhaps even useful to the staff to go through the report. Councilman Berwald referred to page 12 of the report under item p (Moratorium for Private Projects) and asked if the second paragraph is consistent with his explanation of the legislative amendments moratorium. He asked Mr. Stone if his interpretation is that despite that, EQA can be applied. Mr. Stone replied that the answer to that is yes, but that is not what .is being recommended in the proposed ordinance. Councilman Berwald then referred to page 13, the second paragraph under "Outline of Proposed Ordinance" which states "that Title II become effective as to all other private projects on April 5, 1973." He asked if there was an alternative course of action that he considered in saying that Title II doesn't become effective until state guidelines .ome out. Mr. Stone replied that the way the state legislation has been drafted, April 5 is going to be the day at which the state is absolutely required under the law to have all of this input to all municipalities and counties. Councilman Berwald summarized that that provision is being under the ordinance and then if the guidelines change it will be taken out. Mr. Stone replied that is correct. He explained that putting the provision in the ordinance this way demonstrates to everybody, including the legislature, that those guidelines ought to come down by the due date. He added that his office has been informed that that is precisely what is going to happen. Councilwoman Pearson commented that with all due respect to Mr. Stone and his staff, who do fine .jobs for the Council, that there are occa- sions when they do manage to goof it up. She stated that in her opinion it is only good practice to at least have the committee go over this proposal before Council adopts it as law, particularly if the committee can review it the first part of January and get it back to the Council for adoption in time for it to be reviewed and giving the city's input to the state as required. She noted that the date of the committee meeting is January 16th. 4 4 12/18/72 The motion to refer failed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Beahrs, Comstock, Pearson, Rosenbaum Noes: Berwald, Clark, Henderson, Norton, Semen MOTION: Counci3'an Beahrs introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Norton, its approval: ORDINANCE NO. 2698 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING TITLE 11 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PROCEDURE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY" The ordinance was adopted on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Rosenbaum, Semen Noes: Pearson Report Historical Preservation Ordinance .AIA�nre Mayor Comstock noted that the report from the City Attorney dated December 13, 1972 is a status report on the historical preservation ordinance and no action is required. Revisions to Section 2.22 of the Palo Alto un �� _ ^_ens - Human Re anions own ss on. Councilwoman Pearson advised that this item is a request from Dr. Nancy Cross to put an item for review into the Human Relations Commission for their approval. It has to do with their own committee and with such things as composition of the commission, their terms of office, temporary membership, quorums, etc. She stated that since Dr. Cross is interested in it and the Human Relations Commission has been going for a long time without any review, perhaps it is time to review the way they are set up and see if there are some legitimate things that should be reviewed. She stated she had another letter from Dr. Cross which states that she would rather have it go through the Policy and Procedures Committee than HRC. She said she would like .t made clear to Dr. Cross that this is an agenda item that would have low priority in the Policy and Procedures Committee because of the number of higher priority items already on the committee's agenda. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Seman, to refer Section 2.22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code - Human Relations Com- mission, to thw Policy end Procedures Committee for review. Mayor Comstock recognized Dr. Cross who wished to speak to this item. Dr. Nancy J. Cross, 1902 Palo Alto Way, Menlo Park, said it was her feeling that the City of Palo Alto could considerably improve the efficiency of its city government by somewhat different terns of reference for the Human Relations Commission in terms of some more modern concepts of approach to relations between people of different sex and race and other kinds of groups. She commented that the old way used to be to eradicate discrimination and the new way is to improve and educate perception and participation. She referred to 4 5 12/18/72 j t) her proposed changes to the Code as set forth in her letter of Decem- ber 10, 1972 and suggested that Mary Cottrell of the Human Relations Commission would be an appropriate liaison member from HRC to attend the meetings of the Policy and Procedures Committee et which this item was discussed. In response to cuestions from Councilman Berwald, Dr. Cross stated that HRC member Mary Cottrell had helped her in contacting the HRC on this matter for scheduling on their agenda. She said the matter hasn't really been discussed by the HRC because their schedules have been so full. She stated it was her feeling that this matter is really an organizational comparison study and would be more appropriate in the Policy and Procedures Committee. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Beahrs, Berwald, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Semen Noes: Clark Oral Communications 1. Vice Mayor Norton said he wished to publicly thank City Attorney Peter Stone and his staff for their participation :a the final result of ;.he Trafficante ;ase. He stated that is the Supreme Court case that went a long way in upholding Palo Alto's ability to participate in various kinds of dis- crimination cases. He stated it was his opinion that Palo Alto's participation went a long way toward getting a unani- mous opinion out of nine men on the Supreme Court, which is pretty unusual these days. 2. Councilman Rosenbaum said he wished to bring up several changes in connection with bus service and questions that have arisen as to how patrons are to be notified of these changes, i.e. the change in fares for senior citizens, the shoppers shuttle change and the elimination of a shop around ticket. Mr. Sipel responded that staff has had some contact with Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., the group most interested in some of the services. He commented that through some of the city's senior programs he thought it would be possible to get word out to many senior citizens regarding these services as well, He said staff would do all they could to see that the citizens are informed of these changes and stated he was sure the Transit District would also assist. 3. Councilwoman Pearson questioned what happened to the modifica- tion of Churchill and Embarcadero which was approved quite some time ago by Council. Mr. Sipel replied that staff advised Council of the status of that at the time a report was sent on the intention to put the temporary modifications in at Seale, Melville, etc. He said it was staff's feeling that when the modifications are put in at Churchill it ought to be done permanently because it 4b 12/18/72 Oral. CommunicatiOaa (continued) is not a large change and staff felt that a temporary modifi- cation would create more hazard than problems it would solve. He stated that in the Spring when the program improvements are made, that one will be done. He reported that the design is currently under way and the project should be out to bid In March or April, with construction time about 45 days. 4. Councilwoman Pearson asked if the city was going to have Christmas benc:ies this year. Mr. Sipel replied they would not have them this year. Mayor Comstock said he wished to thank Council and staff for a very enjoyable 12 months and wished everyone a very enjoyable and happy holiday season. Adjournment Mayor Comstock declared the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. APPROVED: Mayor ATTEST: 4 7 12/18/72