HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-22 City Council Summary Minutes
07/01/22 1
Special Meeting
January 22, 2007
1. Joint Annual Meeting with Assemblyman Ira Ruskin to Discuss Issues
Related to Palo Alto and Related State Issues ...................................3
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m .................................3
1. Proclamation Honoring the 2006 Palo Alto Black And White Ball...........4
2. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Robert Scally upon
His Retirement .............................................................................4
3. Vote and Appointment of Applicants to the Parks and Recreation
Commission .................................................................................4
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.......................................................................5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES .........................................................................5
4. Ordinance 4931 entitled “The Council of the City of Palo Alto Hereby
Authorizes Closing of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005-06, Including
Transmission of the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR), Reappropriation Requests, and Completed Capital
Improvement Projects”..................................................................6
5. Approval of Expenditures of Up to $85,000 from the City Council’s
Contingency Account for Public Polling for the Mitchell Park
Library/Community Center, Public Safety Building, and Enhanced
Library Operations ........................................................................6
7. 1st Reading - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 16.28.080 (Specific Exemptions) and Adding
Section 16.28.321 (Construction of Bridges, Culverts and Storm Drain
Outfalls) and Section 16.28.322 (Stream Bank Erosion Repair) to
Chapter 16.28 (Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control) of Title 16
(Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code........................6
7A. (Old #6) Annual Review of Compliance with Development Agreement
with Stanford University for the Sand Hill Corridor Projects.................6
07/01/22 2
8. Public Hearing - Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 18 (Zoning)
to Delete Chapters 18.28 (Multi-Family Residence District Guidelines)
and 18.64 (Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for
Commercial and Industrial Districts) and to Adopt a New Chapter
18.23 (Performance Criteria for Multi-Family, Commercial, and
Industrial Districts); Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Report .........................................................8
9. Public Hearing - Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 18 (Zoning)
to Delete Chapter 18.88 (Special Provisions and Exceptions) and to
Adopt New Chapters 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) and
18.42 (Standards for Special Uses), including New Criteria for
Landscaping, Wireless Communications Facilities, Stream Corridor
Protection, and Storm Water Protection; Environmental Assessment:
Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report ............................21
10. Finance Committee Forwarding without Recommendation Staff
Proposal to Establish a Policy on Rent Charged by the General Fund to
the Refuse Fund on Unopened Portions of Landfill..............................26
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM
CONFERENCES .............................................................................27
11. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION............28
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. .....................28
07/01/22 3
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Conference Room at 6:05 p.m.
Present: Barton, Beecham, Cordell, Drekmeier, Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
Morton
Absent: Klein, Mossar
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Joint Annual Meeting with Assemblyman Ira Ruskin to Discuss Issues
Related to Palo Alto and Related State Issues
No action required.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
07/01/22 4
Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
Present: Barton, Beecham, Cordell, Drekmeier, Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
Mossar, Morton
Absent: Klein
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Proclamation Honoring the 2006 Palo Alto Black And White Ball
Council Member Morton read the proclamation into the record.
Dan Dykwel thanked the Council for the recognition, and the sponsors and
the community for their generous support of the Palo Alto Black and White
Ball.
Sunny Dykwel acknowledged the Committee members who were present.
Caroline Willis presented a check in the amount of $180,000 to Partners in
Education.
Susan Bailey, Partners in Education, stated the funds would go towards
technology support for the schools.
2. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Robert Scally upon
His Retirement
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Morton, to
approve the resolution.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Klein absent.
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts thanked Bob Scally for his service to
the City of Palo Alto.
Bob Scally expressed his appreciation to the City of Palo Alto.
3. Vote and Appointment of Applicants to the Parks and Recreation
Commission
07/01/22 5
Council Member Mossar stated there was a strong set of candidates yet few
who had expertise in issues related to open space.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Barton, to continue
the selection process of the Park/Recreation Commission until after the City
has advertised for additional candidates and completed interviews for the
new candidates. Those candidates who have already applied and interviewed
continue to be included in the applicant pool and need not do anything
further to be actively considered for appointment.
MOTION PASSED 6-2, Drekmeier, Kleinberg no, Klein absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Clark Akatiff, 105 Rinconada Avenue, spoke regarding Juana Briones house.
Mark Petersen-Perez, 434 Addison Avenue, spoke regarding Taser
International.
Jeanne Durnford, 1250 University Drive, Menlo Park, spoke regarding CPI.
Leif Erickson, YCS, 3800 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding East Palo Alto
Peace and Unity March and Rally on February 3, 2007.
Marina Latu spoke regarding East Palo Alto Peace and Unity March and Rally
and invited the Palo Alto Council to participate.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Cordell, to approve
the minutes of December 11, 2006, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Klein absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in Item No. 6 due
to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford
University.
Council Member Cordell stated she would not participate in Item No. 6 due
to a conflict of interest because she was employed by Stanford University.
MOTION: Council Member Drekmeier moved, seconded by Mayor
Kishimoto, to remove Agenda Item No. 6 for discussion, to become Agenda
Item 7a.
07/01/22 6
MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Morton, to approve
Consent Calendar Items Nos. 4, 5 and 7.
4. Ordinance 4931 entitled “The Council of the City of Palo Alto
Hereby Authorizes Closing of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005-
06, Including Transmission of the City’s Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR), Reappropriation Requests, and Completed
Capital Improvement Projects”
5. Approval of Expenditures of Up to $85,000 from the City Council’s
Contingency Account for Public Polling for the Mitchell Park
Library/Community Center, Public Safety Building, and Enhanced
Library Operations
7. 1st Reading - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 16.28.080 (Specific Exemptions) and Adding
Section 16.28.321 (Construction of Bridges, Culverts and Storm
Drain Outfalls) and Section 16.28.322 (Stream Bank Erosion
Repair) to Chapter 16.28 (Grading and Erosion and Sediment
Control) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code MOTION PASSED 8-0, Klein absent.
Council Member Mossar requested that staff provide the ordinance
referenced in Agenda Item 7 to the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority.
7A. (Old #6) Annual Review of Compliance with Development
Agreement with Stanford University for the Sand Hill Corridor Projects
Council Member Drekmeier stated he had asked staff to look into the large
amount of earth work taking place along Sand Hill Road across the street
from the Oak Creek Apartments and, also, the bicycle-pedestrian path that
connected Sand Hill Road to Campus Drive along Searsville Road.
Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment Curtis Williams
stated staff needed to verify the information, but the current work was for
the Varsity Golf facility, which was permitted by the General Use Permit
(GUP.) The path was being relocated closer to Stock Farm Road.
Council Member Drekmeier stated he was surprised the City was not aware
that the path would be changed.
07/01/22 7
Mr. Williams stated he would follow up on Council Member Drekmeier’s
concerns.
Mayor Kishimoto questioned whether the path was included in the Stanford
GUP C-1 trail.
Mr. Williams stated staff would check on the path and get back to the
Council.
MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Morton, to take the
following actions: 1) Determine that Stanford University has complied in
good faith with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement;
and 2) Direct staff to issue a Certificate of Compliance to the University,
according to the provision of Section 10(a) of the Agreement, stating that
a) the Agreement remains in effect, and b) Stanford University is not in
default.
Council Member Morton suggested the motion should not be contingent on
the positive results from the staff follow up.
Council Member Barton questioned whether the path issue was legally part
of what was being certified.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie stated the
item was part of the requirement of the Development Agreement related to
the Sand Hill Road Projects. The Council’s action would not prevent staff
from returning to the Council with questions or disputes in the
implementation of the agreement.
Council Member Drekmeier stated the question was whether the removal of
the path violated the Development Agreement.
MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER
MOTION: Council Member Drekmeier moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to
postpone this item until a date following a dialogue between staff and
Stanford University for further clarification regarding earth work along Sand
Hill Road and the bicycle and pedestrian path that has disappeared.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Klein absent, Cordell, Mossar not participating.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in Item No. 8 due
to a perception of conflict of interest since Varian is a member of Joint
07/01/22 8
Venture Silicon Valley Network, her employer, and Varian is the landlord for
CPI.
8. Public Hearing - Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 18
(Zoning) to Delete Chapters 18.28 (Multi-Family Residence
District Guidelines) and 18.64 (Additional Site Development
and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial
Districts) and to Adopt a New Chapter 18.23 (Performance
Criteria for Multi-Family, Commercial, and Industrial Districts);
Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan Environmental
Impact Report
Director of Planning and Community Development Steve Emslie stated the
City had, in its priority work plan, an update of the Zoning Code. The item
before the Council was a new feature of the Zoning Code that established
performance criteria that set out the relationship and the interaction
between possible conflicting uses.
Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment Curtis Williams
stated that Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance applied to all multi-
family, commercial, industrial and planned community developments
adjacent to residential properties. The purpose of Chapter 18.23 was to
provide compatibility with the adjacent uses and would be applied by staff,
the Architectural Review Board (ARB), City Council, or the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC). Staff looked at nine categories of
impacts. Three, in particular, were substantive changes from the existing
code: Late Night Uses and Activities; Noise and Vibration; and Hazardous
Materials. Staff felt it was appropriate to provide the public and neighboring
residents with a better knowledge of what was in their vicinity.
Fire Marshal Dan Firth provided a brief update on the hazardous materials
program administered by the Fire Department. The City had stringent
regulations. In 1983, Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alto developed
a model hazardous material storage ordinance, which established reporting
requirements, controls, the public right to know, and training. The Toxic Gas
Ordinance was developed jointly in 1990. Both ordinances were incorporated
into the Uniform Fire Code, which was used in 11 western states. Businesses
with hazardous materials had to file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan if
they exceeded the State reporting threshold. The primary purpose was for
emergency response, to make the information available to the public, and to
require the business to raise the level of awareness of hazards to the
surrounding area.
Council Member Kleinberg asked for an update on the recent settlement with
CPI.
07/01/22 9
Senior Deputy City Attorney Donald Larkin stated the City reached a
settlement with CPI over the hazardous materials release that took place in
February 2006. The Fire Department’s investigation and the third party
evaluation identified a number of practices and corrective actions, including
changes to CPI’s internal waste handling and emergency notification
procedures. In addition to the changes, CPI agreed to pay $20,000 which
incorporated reimbursement for staff costs as well as a penalty for the
failure to notify the Fire Department of the release of hazardous materials.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Arthur Keller stated the Planning
and Transportation Commission (P&TC) had thoughtful discussions and came
to a good consensus. The input and feedback from the critically affected
residents of Barron Park was appreciated.
Council Member Barton said staff mentioned that including hazardous
materials in a zoning ordinance was unusual and asked why staff is
proceeding with the inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Williams stated staff knew there was the potential for hazardous
materials and, after discussions with residents of Barron Park, the fact there
was not a good way for the public to know what was happening was
apparent. Staff felt the planning process was appropriate for providing the
public’s right to know.
Council Member Barton questioned the City’s ability to affect Title 19, which
was the State law, and the City’s ability to make changes.
Mr. Larkin stated the City would be preempted from impacting Title 19
directly. The City could reference Title 19 but could not change the
requirements.
Council Member Barton questioned whether the businesses or individuals
affected by Title 19 would be ruled by Title 19 regulations rather than the
City’s regulations.
Mr. Larkin stated that was correct.
Council Member Barton mentioned the 25 percent cap in the ordinance and
asked whether any changes could be made.
Mr. Larkin responded that the 25 percent was within the context of Title 19.
The City would be unable to change threshold requirements.
Council Member Barton stated his nonlegal reading was that one could
increase by 25 percent multiple times.
07/01/22 10
Mr. Larkin said the 25 percent was over the November 1, 2006, levels and
was the maximum amount.
Council Member Barton questioned the Title 19 thresholds.
Mr. Firth said the Title 19 thresholds were significantly higher than the
numbers Palo Alto and the model ordinance established.
Council Member Barton questioned the City’s limits and abilities with regard
to changing the 25 percent.
Mr. Larkin said there was a concern about preemption if the amount were
lowered to a level that would preclude any expansion. Setting a level that
precluded any expansion of an existing, permitted facility was a concern with
regard to running into an issue with preemption by Federal and State
regulations as well as County regulations.
City Attorney Gary Baum stated any time the Council passed an ordinance,
the basic threshold was that the ordinance had a rational basis.
Council Member Beecham questioned how the City could regulate Title 19
reporting threshold amounts of materials.
Mr. Larkin stated the ordinance was crafted to put the burden on the City
and City Planning staff to enforce the right to know and pubic notice. The
City could regulate location of businesses. In terms of restricting existing
businesses, the City would have to rezone the property and do an
amortization.
Council Member Beecham questioned the permitting of Title 19 facilities.
Mr. Firth stated facilities were permitted by the County of Santa Clara and
the Palo Alto Fire Department. He stated the permit was issued under the
Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance which authorized a business to have
hazardous materials at its facilities. The type of hazardous materials
permitted were specified.
Council Member Beecham questioned whether the City had to allow
businesses to have materials as provided by Title 19 figures.
Mr. Firth stated the City had no existing authority to limit the amount of
materials that a business could have at its facility if the business met the
established requirements.
07/01/22 11
Council Member Beecham questioned whether there were constraints within
a site on locations of the facilities and whether the City had the ability to set
limits, such as setbacks from the property line or from other uses.
Mr. Firth stated there were no constraints under the Fire Code and the
Building Code had setback requirements for buildings of any type which
differed for various uses.
Council Member Beecham questioned whether the City had the ability to
constrain more than the ordinary setback of buildings from the property line
for facilities that might use Title 19 chemicals.
Mr. Firth stated that might mean a change in the Building Code.
Mr. Emslie stated the Fire Department enforced the I Codes or International
Conference of Codes, and I Codes were adopted at the State level. Each
jurisdiction was given an amount of time to make limited exceptions to the
code. The exceptions were spelled out by State law as relating to geography,
topography, and climate.
Council Member Beecham questioned whether the City could require
setbacks to Title 19 activities beyond what the ordinary building setbacks
were.
Mr. Emslie stated setback changes could be made if the change related to a
topographic or physical feature.
Council Member Morton asked the Fire Marshal to explain what went wrong
with the CPI release and what assurances residents had that the problem
would not happen again.
Mr. Firth stated that CPI had a concentrated plating solution that was
discharged into a concentrated acid waste tank. CPI believed there was
water or other contamination present in the waste tank that caused a
reaction and the release of fumes. Procedures were changed to ensure that
the concentrated plating solutions were not put into the waste tank and
retrained its staff to ensure such an incident would not occur in the future.
CPI also changed its reporting procedures to notify the Fire Department of
any release to the environment.
Council Member Morton questioned whether the current steps were in
addition to what would have been CPI’s emergency response plan.
Mr. Firth stated that CPI’s original emergency response plan included
monitoring or testing to determine the nature of the release and notifying
07/01/22 12
the Fire Department and 911 if they believed the release reached thresholds
that might cause a danger to the environment or public health.
Council Member Morton questioned whether only residents within the
primary zone of 150 feet would be notified.
Mr. Williams said the 150 foot zone was for general hazardous material
occupancy, and Title 19 included a management plan that defined affected
residents that could range in other directions.
Mr. Firth said the affected area was what was determined by the offsite
consequence analysis. If a business reached the thresholds, the business
was required to determine a worst case scenario and do an offsite
consequence analysis. The affected residents were those within the offsite
consequence analysis that would be adversely impacted.
Council Member Morton stated the definition of affected residents, such as in
the CPI case, was small.
Mr. Williams stated the neighbors, in their thorough analysis of the CPI
cases, showed the area of potentially affected residents as being
approximately 1,000 feet.
Council Member Morton questioned why any increase would be allowed
without a public hearing.
Mr. Larkin said the City did not have a public hearing for a RMP because the
permit was administerial rather than discretionary.
Council Member Morton stated the only thing was the right to know, which
went back to who was notified.
Mr. Larkin stated that was correct. The intent was to notify as broadly as
possible based on the maximum risk.
Council Member Morton stated he not believe the Barron Park residents felt
the City notified as wide an area as possible.
Mr. Larkin said, at the time, there were no notification requirements for a
Title 19 facility. The City proposed to add the notification requirements.
Mr. Firth stated that, under State law, the County administered the RMP. The
County was required to post a 45-day public awareness notice that a RMP
was available to be reviewed at the County offices.
07/01/22 13
Council Member Drekmeier stated his understanding was that Title 19 did
not allow a certain amount of hazardous chemicals but only required
reporting.
Mr. Firth stated that was correct.
Council Member Drekmeier stated he noticed in the report that the City had
ten sites with bio-safety level 2 or 3 labs and asked whether bio-hazards and
genetically modified materials were covered by Title 19.
Mr. Firth stated to his knowledge they were not covered.
Council Member Drekmeier questioned whether there was anything in Title
19 about cumulative impacts.
Mr. Firth stated he did not believe so.
Council Member Drekmeier questioned how the City would go about phasing
out hazardous chemicals if that were a goal of the City.
Mr. Emslie stated the City would look at groups or types of businesses that
tended to used hazardous materials, and the City had broad discretion in
determining location and permitted uses.
Mr. Keller pointed out there were two locations in Palo Alto with Title 19
hazardous materials: CPI and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The
City needed to make sure that whatever regulation implemented with
respect to CPI, the City had to be careful about how the regulation affected
the Regional Water Quality Control Plan.
Council Member Mossar stated the ordinance was designed to make sure
that new projects and significantly renewed projects were compatible and
well designed.
Council Member Cordell stated staff indicated under Title 19, the facility that
housed the hazardous waste had to come up with a worst case scenario,
which resulted in notification of residents who would be impacted.
Mr. Williams stated that was correct.
Council Member Cordell questioned who came up with the worst case
scenario.
Mr. Firth explained that businesses generally hired third party consulting
firms to come up with the worst case scenario.
07/01/22 14
Council Member Cordell questioned the incentive for a company to develop a
worst case scenario that encompassed a large number of residents versus a
small number.
Mr. Firth responded the County of Santa Clara reviewed the Risk
Management Plan (RMP) to determine whether it was complete and
appropriate.
Council Member Cordell questioned whether the County had found a worst
case scenario inaccurate.
Mr. Firth stated he was not aware of any inaccuracies.
Mr. Baum stated he was aware of an incident in another city in the County
where quality control was done by a regulatory authority which questioned
the assumptions that were entered into.
Council Member Morton clarified that the proposal would allow the Fire
Department to see the plans and allow the Council to respond to the County,
on behalf of the City, to the level of risk management
Mr. Firth stated that was correct, and the City would provide comments to
the County.
Council Member Morton clarified that passing the legislation gave Palo Alto
an opportunity to see whether the worst case scenario made sense.
Mr. Firth stated the Fire Department received copies of the worst case
scenarios for both businesses in Palo Alto.
Mayor Kishimoto questioned whether the County’s approval process was
appealable.
Mr. Firth stated the County merely approved the adequacy of a RMP but did
not have the authority to reject it.
Mr. Larkin stated the County had the authority to reject the RMP but did not
have the authority to reject the application for the hazardous materials, if
the plan were compliant.
Mr. Williams stated there was no discretion for the Fire Marshal to deny the
permit if the criteria were met.
Mayor Kishimoto questioned whether it was possible for the City to require
that the right to know take place prior the issuance of the permit.
07/01/22 15
Mr. Williams stated the requirement would add burden to the Planning
Department and Fire Department staff.
Mayor Kishimoto questioned whether there was a scientific rationale for the
25 percent threshold.
Mr. Williams stated he was unaware of any scientific rationale but noted
there was concern in the business community about capping at 30-33
percent.
Public Hearing opened at 8:50 p.m.
Romie Georgia, 3445 Tippawingo, stated her concern about businesses with
hazardous chemicals near residential neighborhoods.
Art Liberman, 751 Chimalus Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposal to
allow CPI to increase its hazardous materials by 25 percent.
Fred Balin, 2385 Columbia Street, stated his opposition to any new Title 19
sites without approval of the City Council.
Jeff Dean, 710 Chimalus Drive, encouraged the City to require explicit City
Council approval for any permit to build or remodel a Title 19 facility.
Bill Kelly, 632 Chimalus Drive, spoke in opposition to the current proposal.
John Dunec, 748 Chimalus Drive, spoke about the results of a possible
hazardous waste release in the air.
Michel Adar, 706 Chimalus Drive, spoke about issues that had occurred since
CPI was built in the 1960’s, including ground water contamination.
Douglas Moran, 790 Matadero Avenue, spoke about issues involved with
hazardous material businesses in residential areas.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke about the City’s primary
responsibility for protecting public health and safety, and issues with
approving businesses with toxic materials in residential areas.
Jeanne Durnford, 1250 University Drive, Menlo Park, stated the facility
should stay at its current level.
Public Hearing Closed at 9:18 p.m.
Council Member Barton questioned whether the City Council could ban future
Title 19 facilities using the City’s planning power.
07/01/22 16
Mr. Larkin stated that was yet to be determined.
Mr. Baum stated he had grave concerns about adopting a total ban on Title
19 uses. His suggestion was that the Council impose a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) requirement.
MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Beecham, to
approve adding Section 18.23.010 with the following revisions to Section
18.23.100, Sub-Section (B)(vi):
• Limit new and enlarged occupancies in excess of Title 19 thresholds to
require a Council-imposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
• 25 percent shall be revised to 10 percent.
• Direct staff to work with CPI and the City of Palo Alto to reduce
materials as soon as possible to sub-Title 19 thresholds.
• Strike the second sentence in (B)(vi) regarding the Fire Marshal
discretion.
• Report back to Council.
Council Member Barton stated he appreciated the City being on the cutting
edge of bringing the issue into the Zoning Ordinance.
Council Member Beecham acknowledged the public’s concerns and stated the
Council struggled to find a way to effectively control what was in the City. He
believed future Title 19 materials coming into the City would be limited.
Council Member Morton questioned whether wording could be added to
(B)(vi) “or (b) to increase with a Council approved CUP the quantity of
hazardous materials that already exceeds Title 19 thresholds to a quantity in
excess of 10 percent.”
Mr. Larkin responded that putting a CUP on an existing use was problematic.
Council Member Morton stated there was an increase of an existing use, and
asked whether the 10 percent increase could be required to go back to
Council prior to approval.
Mr. Baum stated there was an existing business with existing rights. Not
allowing the 10 percent with the Fire Department guidelines was
problematic.
Council Member Morton clarified the Council had no power to limit the
increase.
Mr. Larkin stated the idea was to give the business the flexibility to operate
under its existing permit.
07/01/22 17
Council Member Morton stated the company’s ability to operate was limited
when it got the 10 percent increase.
Mr. Baum said the business would have no ability to adjust its business if the
City did not give the opportunity for flexibility.
Council Member Morton stated that notification had been woefully
inadequate. Notifying only properties within 150 feet was not adequate.
Council Member Beecham asked staff about examples of uses that would be
affected.
Mr. Firth stated that, under the proposal, if someone wanted to install a tool
that used hazardous materials, the Fire Department would do an evaluation
to see if the business met the criteria, issue the permit, and then notify the
community that the permit was issued. Uses might include restaurants, dry
cleaners, gas stations, body shops, photo developing operations and plating
shops.
Mayor Kishimoto asked about residences.
Mr. Firth stated if a resident was authorized to run a business out of his or
her home and had hazardous materials, the resident would be subject to the
Fire Department requirements.
Council Member Beecham questioned whether gasoline qualified as one of
the items.
Mr. Firth stated gasoline was a hazardous material that was regulated under
the ordinance.
Council Member Morton stated the issue was how far the notification area
was.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded
by Barton, to increase public notification from 150 feet to 600 feet.
Council Member Barton suggested the language matrix might be based on
the planning process for the project.
Mr. Emslie stated the standard notification for land use decisions was 600
feet.
Council Member Mossar pointed out one speaker mentioned there were only
two Title 9 facilities in San Jose and asked staff whether that was accurate.
07/01/22 18
Mr. Firth said there were 25 RMP facilities in the County and perhaps only
two plating facilities large enough to be RMP facilities.
Council Member Mossar stated reviewing intimate details of businesses that
were a normal part of citizen’s lives was not a good use of public resources.
Staff was asked how the proposed language affected the Water Treatment
Plant.
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts stated the facilities at the Water
Quality Control Plant were in compliance with the new regulations. The worst
case scenario analysis was done and an emergency response plan was
prepared and was on file with the Fire Department.
Council Member Morton stated residents were most upset by the fact that
they did not receive notification of the problem at CPI.
Council Member Cordell clarified Council Member Morton’s amendment for
notification at 600 feet included all hazardous materials
Council Member Morton said that was correct, and it should be consistent
with the other area of the Zoning Code.
Council Member Cordell asked about the notification under proposed Title 19
limitations.
Mr. Williams stated notification was to the worst case scenario defined area.
Council Member Barton stated he seconded the amendment for the purpose
of the clarity of the process, but he was swayed by the distinct difference
between a discretionary process of zoning and a ministerial process of the
hazardous material under the sub Title 19 thresholds.
Council Member Drekmeier stated his problem with the amendment was that
something such as helium did not strike him as a hazardous material. Staff
was asked whether there was a way to satisfy Council Member Morton’s
desire to notify people about dangers without creating an excessive burden.
Mr. Firth said notification could be based on the hazard category; for
instance, helium was an asphyxiant and hydrogen cyanide was a poison.
Certain hazard characteristics could be specified for notification.
Council Member Morton stated the notification covered categories that were
considered hazardous.
Mr. Firth said that was correct.
07/01/22 19
Mayor Kishimoto stated she would not support the amendment.
AMENDMENT FAILED 1-6, Morton yes, Kleinberg not participating, Klein
absent.
Council Member Cordell stated she would like to see a ban on future facilities
and appreciated the fact the City Attorney said that could not be done
because of the liability. When the issue about limiting the increase in the
amount of Title 19 Hazardous materials came up, the Council was told it
could not limit the amount. Subsection (vii) on page 10 of Attachment B,
Chapter 18.23, gave discretion to the Fire Marshal to increase the buffer
zone. The Council should be part of the discretion.
Mr. Baum stated chlorine was used in the Waste Water Treatment Plant,
which was a material regulated through Title 19. There were other systems
such as chlorimine or bromine which may or not be on the list. The
possibility was that in the future the Waste Water Treatment Plant might
come before the Council saying it could reduce, for instance, 25,000 cubic
feet of chlorine to 1,000 of something else. That would be a Title 19, and
would be approved by the Council.
Council Member Cordell stated the sentiment seemed to be the Council did
not want new facilities. Concern was expressed as to how to indicate the
current Council’s sentiments to future Council Members.
Mr. Baum stated staff would remind the applicants.
Mayor Kishimoto stated the 300 foot threshold limit was probably covered
through the CUP process.
Council Member Cordell stated the language gave complete discretion to the
Fire Marshal.
Mr. Williams stated staff would take the provision out of section (vi) and
leave the determination to the Council.
Council Member Drekmeier questioned how the City monitored biohazards,
genetically modified materials, and radioactive materials.
Mr. Firth said the materials were permitted under the hazardous materials
storage ordinance. The biohazardous materials were lumped under ideologic
agents, and the permits covered highly toxic and other health hazards
including ideologic agents. The Fire Department had met with the industry to
talk about appropriate levels of oversight or control and was still in the
information gathering stage.
07/01/22 20
Council Member Drekmeier asked about radioactive materials.
Mr. Firth responded that radioactive materials were required to be reported
under the hazardous materials business plan requirement.
Mr. Larkin said there was a law requiring permits to be renewed every ten
years.
Council Member Drekmeier commented that most of the neighbors’ needs
were being met.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kleinberg not participating, Klein absent.
Council Member Mossar referred to Attachment B, Chapter 18.23.010,
Purpose and Applicability, and stated there were a lot of lofty goals,
including minimizing impacts to make new developments and major
architectural review projects compatible and to enhance the desirability of
proposed developments. Page 2, of Section 18.23.020, Trash Disposal and
Recycling, only discussed screening and placement. There was no language
that said the City wanted recycling facilities. Her suggestion was that
recycling areas should make it feasible and practical for the public to recycle.
Mr. Williams stated staff could add one more criteria to say that any
recycling and disposal facility should be placed so they are most usable to
the residents or businesses.
Council Member Mossar referred to page 8 of Section 18.23.080, Vehicular,
Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access, which provided guidelines for locations of
driveways but the section did not say that there should be pedestrian and
bicycle access. Staff was asked whether that was a section that should
include the value of non-automobile uses.
Mr. Williams stated there was language elsewhere to use when reviewing
projects.
Council Member Mossar said the purpose of Section 18.23 was to enhance
the desirability but it was not specified that it was expected.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Morton, to delete
Chapters 18.28 and 18.64 from the Zoning Ordinance, and to revise Section
18.23.020 to add language that reflects the need for usable recycling
facilities, and that in section 18.23.080 language be added that underlines
the value and importance to the community of having bicycle and pedestrian
facilities on site and to connect to other sites.
07/01/22 21
Council Member Barton stated his concern with applicants and developers
going to the City, familiar with the old ordinance, and not aware of the
important parts of the Section.
Mayor Kishimoto complimented staff, the PT&C, and public for the many
significant improvements that the section represents.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kleinberg not participating, Klein absent.
9. Public Hearing - Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 18
(Zoning) to Delete Chapter 18.88 (Special Provisions and
Exceptions) and to Adopt New Chapters 18.40 (General
Standards and Exceptions) and 18.42 (Standards for Special
Uses), including New Criteria for Landscaping, Wireless
Communications Facilities, Stream Corridor Protection, and
Storm Water Protection; Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive
Plan Environmental Impact Report
Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment Curtis Williams
stated the Zoning Code currently included Chapter 18.88, which included
many different types of provisions. Staff’s goal was to reorganize the
Chapter to make more sense and to add provisions that needed change.
The Code language was separated into two chapters: 18.40, General
Standards and Exceptions; and 18.42, Standards for Special Uses. New
sections were included for landscaping, water resources, and wireless
communications facilities. At the City Attorney’s suggestion, text that limited
the number of onsale liquor permits was deleted.
Public Hearing was opened at 10:30 p.m.
Sheri Furman, 3094 Greer Road, spoke about Chapter 18.40, creeks in her
area, and restrictions on resident’s properties, and asked that the Council
exempt homes in R-1 zones next to a channelized creek.
Denny Petrosian spoke about the wireless issue, which she did not believe
had full enough discussion, and urged the Council to keep this issue at the
Planning level.
Public Hearing was closed at 10:37 p.m.
Council Member Kleinberg requested that Section 18.42, which included
Wireless Communications, be taken separately. She had a conflict of interest
due to her position with Joint Venture Silicon Valley, which was the
coordinator of the Wireless Silicon Valley Project and would be seeking to
install wireless facilities throughout Palo Alto.
07/01/22 22
City Attorney Gary Baum explained that per the Brown Act, the conflicted
matter needed to be discussed first.
Mayor Kishimoto stated the Council would first consider Section 18.42.110.
Council Member Beecham referred to page 5 of the staff report
(CMR:119:07), which addressed antennas not higher than the building
height. His question was whether the antennas would be on the walls or roof
of the building.
Mr. Williams stated the intent was that antennas could be on the roof of the
building if equipment was already on the roof that did not exceed the height.
Council Member Beecham questioned whether a structure less than 50 feet
could be placed on the roof and antennas added subsequently.
Mr. Williams stated he supposed antennas could be placed on the roof as
long as they were screened and not visible.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Barton, to
approve Section 18.42.110, Wireless Communications Facilities.
Council Member Drekmeier spoke to the issue of Utility User Tax (UUT) and
how the cell phone companies were trying to get out of the tax. Staff was
asked whether the ordinance could be used to encourage cell phone
companies to agree with the City.
City Auditor Sharon Erickson stated that, to her knowledge, all cell phone
companies currently paid UUT.
Council Member Drekmeier stated that could change in a couple of years.
Mr. Baum stated the City had an instance in the past where one carrier did
not pay but concurrently had an application before the City. His position was
the City could not accept the carrier as a lessor because they had shown
they did not pay their debts.
Mayor Kishimoto stated she had discussions with members of the Los Altos
City Council regarding their approach. Staff was asked to review Los Altos’
approach to regulating wireless.
Mr. Williams stated staff reviewed the issue with other local cities.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kleinberg not participating, Klein absent.
07/01/22 23
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Barton, to approve
staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation to
adopt the ordinance to delete current Chapter 18.88 and to add new
Chapters 18.40 and 18.42 to address miscellaneous general standards and
exceptions and standards for special uses, respectively, including criteria for
landscaping, stream corridor protection, and storm water protection. Staff
further recommended inclusion of amended language provided by the
Planning Arborist subsequent to the P&TC recommendation as specified.
Council Member Barton spoke about concrete streams versus regular
streams and asked how the numbers, in terms of distances, ratios, and
slopes, related to the Water District. The Water District had some issues
already in place.
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said what was presented to the
Council was a three and a half year effort in a process known as the Santa
Clara County Creek Collaborative, initiated in 2003 by the Water District’s
proposal for an amendment to its Countywide ordinance. The proposal was
to expand the jurisdiction, and the cities had technical and legal issues with
what was proposed at the time. The result was the collaborative process
which was consistent with what water districts in other cities were doing.
Council Member Barton clarified the Water District did not separate out its
concrete channels from its natural riparian channels.
Mr. Roberts stated there were different and increasing standards for the
natural channels.
Council Member Barton suggested if Palo Alto did not think the standards
made sense on concrete channels, rules would still be in place by the Water
District.
Mr. Roberts stated Palo Alto agreed that in turn for participating in the
process and developing and agreeing to the common standards Countywide,
the Water District would pull back on its expressed desire to take over the
regulatory process. An exception process was included where it was possible
to approve things through a certain review if it were found there was no
significant impact on the concrete channels.
Council Member Beecham asked about the process for an exception and that
staff level review could allow a variance to the Section.
Mr. Williams stated that was correct. The exception could be granted by the
Public Works Director as long as he found the stability was maintained and
there were no adverse impacts on the riparian vegetation.
07/01/22 24
Council Member Kleinberg referred to page 10 of Attachment B, Chapter
18.40, section (3) and asked the reasoning for protecting a stream by not
building a deck, not allowing a trash enclosure, not allowing a particular
color and restricting nighttime lighting.
Mr. Roberts said the basic principle was that within concrete blind channels,
there were some riparian habitat and wildlife issues. The goals were
designed to try to minimize any negative impact on that type of habitat.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified trash enclosures and decks were allowed
if it met the 20 feet landward from the top of the bank requirement and she
questioned what a typical setback from the bank was.
Mr. Roberts stated the setback varied depending upon the particular
subdivision.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified that current colors and accessory
structures were grandfathered in.
Mr. Roberts stated that was his understanding.
Council Member Mossar stated that future needs and public costs were at
risk. Residents expected their deck, trash enclosure, lighting fixtures, and
landscaping to be protected from a natural disaster, and they expect the
public to be responsible for financial consequences of the loss of those
amenities.
Mayor Kishimoto referred to page 3 of the staff report (CMF:119:07) which
indicated, “Trees and shrubs shall be planted so that at maturity they do not
interfere … to the maximum extent feasible, with solar panel/collector access
to adjacent lots.” Staff was asked whether the property owner had
discretion.
Mr. Williams said there was discretion, but there was a burden on the
resident if there were solar panels on the property next door.
Mayor Kishimoto stated she preferred to keep “to the maximum extent
feasible” out of the recommendation.
Council Member Beecham suggested “so as feasible.”
Mayor Kishimoto stated the wording would be, “to the extent feasible.”
Council Member Mossar questioned whether there was a problem when a
resident had a small oak tree in their yard that turned into a heritage oak
over time, and the neighbor put on solar panels.
07/01/22 25
Mayor Kishimoto stated people should not be restrained from planting new
oak trees because it might overshadow a neighbor’s solar panels.
Mr. Williams suggested saying, “and where feasible with solar panel
collectors.”
Council Member Beecham stated the recommendation only related to new
plantings.
Mr. Williams stated staff would work on language and suggested, “…building
plans consistent with the building and landscaping for the site is feasible to
protect them.”
Council Member Morton suggested deleting the sentence.
Mayor Kishimoto agreed with deleting the sentence.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to page 8 of Attachment C, Chapter
18.50, section (5), which read, “All required perimeter yards shall be
landscaped.” Staff was asked to clarify “required perimeter yard.”
Mr. Williams stated the required perimeter yard was the setback.
Council Member Kleinberg pointed out she would be required to landscape a
part of her property that no one saw except the trash collector.
Mr. Williams stated the language was overkill.
Council Member Barton said he read the section to mean no bare earth in
order to prevent bare earth and erosion from property to property.
Mr. Williams stated the guidelines (5) on page 9 indicated, “The Director
may allow a combination of hardscape and landscape to satisfy landscape
requirements where permeable surface materials are used and where the
visual quality and screening functions of the hardscape/landscape area are
maintained.” His suggestion was the wording might be moved to section (5)
under the Requirements.
Council Member Kleinberg was concerned about the detail that people had to
follow.
INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND
SECONDER to remove the last portion of the sentence in the Planning
Arborist’s Recommended Clarifications, which was Section 18.40.130(d)(4),
“…and to the maximum extent feasible, with solar panel/collector access to
07/01/22 26
adjacent lots.” And to add to Section 18.40.140(e)(5) to add Director
discretion to allow a combination of landscape and hardscape to satisfy that
condition.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Klein absent
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
10. Finance Committee Forwarding without Recommendation Staff
Proposal to Establish a Policy on Rent Charged by the General Fund to the
Refuse Fund on Unopened Portions of Landfill
Assistant Director of Administrative Services Lalo Perez stated in November
2004, the City Auditor made a recommendation for staff to determine
whether rent should be charged on closed, undeveloped areas of the landfill.
Staff recommended the Refuse Fund pay rent and that the rent charged
should be less than full market value, which currently was ten percent of the
land value. In December 2006, staff presented to the Finance Committee a
plan which called for the rent to be five percent of the land value and for the
amount of the rent to be added at the end of the smoothing plan. The
recommendation of the Finance Committee was a split vote.
Council Member Mossar stated the people paying the rent were the City’s
rate payers. The Council needed to find a way to take the money for future
rent and convert the property to active park land for the public.
Mayor Kishimoto stated her support of dedicating some of the funds to pay
for the conversion of the park.
Council Member Barton supported taking the rent money to convert the
property to a park.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Drekmeier, to
approve staff’s proposal, as forwarded without a recommendation from the
Finance Committee, to establish a policy on rent charged by the General
Fund to the Refuse Fund on closed portions of the landfill whereby the
Refuse Fund should pay rent at less than full market value in consideration
of the fact that the landfill area cannot be readily converted to the land’s
highest and best use to:
1. Establish a policy on rent charged by the General Fund to the
Refuse Fund on closed portions of the landfill whereby the
Refuse Fund would pay rent at less than full market value in
consideration of the fact that the landfill area cannot be readily
converted to the land’s highest and best use.
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a tolling agreement
between the General Fund and the Refuse Fund whereby the
07/01/22 27
statue of limitations in connection with the collection of back rent
shall be tolled and suspended during the period that the
agreement is in effect.
3. Direct staff to prepare an agreement between the General Fund
and the Refuse Fund regarding use of the City-owned landfill.
Council Member Beecham pointed out that Phases IIA and IIB were closed
and not being used by the constituents for refuse. One of the rationales for
charging was because the land was not available for park use, but for a cost
of approximately $200,000, the land could be made available.
Council Member Kleinberg pointed out the original Byxbee Landfill Closure
and Park Development Schedule indicated that Phases IIA and IIB were to
be completed by summer 1995 and the park developed by summer 2003.
The public had been waiting for a park. Unused, closed land should be
turned into park land. There was no rationale for continuing to pay rent on
land that was no longer being used for refuse.
Mayor Kishimoto asked whether there was an estimate for turning the land
into a full park.
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts stated the cost of development was
for all the remaining areas, IIA, IIB and IIC, which the Byxbee Master Plan
said would be done simultaneously. The estimated cost was $2 million,
which was a General Fund obligation rather than a Refuse Fund obligation.
Council Member Beecham stated he differentiated between making the land
into a park versus making it available to the public for much less. That could
be done for IIA and IIB separately.
Council Member Morton asked whether there were issues of methane
collection that needed to be resolved.
Mr. Roberts said there was a methane collection system on IIA and IIB
which was above ground. The system needed to be put underground, which
would cost approximately $200,000.
MOTION PASSED 5-3, Beecham, Kleinberg, Mossar no, Klein absent.
THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO A SPECIAL MEETING AT 11:35 P.M.
AS THE PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND RECONVENED
AS THE CITY COUNCIL AT 11:40 P.M.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES
07/01/22 28
Council Member Morton referred to the Peace March and Rally in East Palo
Alto on February 3, which conflicts with the Council Retreat. He requested
the retreat be deferred for an hour to enable Council to participate.
Mayor Kishimoto noted the Rally would follow the March in the afternoon and
Council would be able to participate at that time.
Council Member Cordell stated she was in favor of a motion to find an
alternate date for the Retreat.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Barton, for staff to
work with the Mayor to find an alternate date for the Council Retreat.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Klein absent.
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. to a Closed Session.
11. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: Jaim Nulman, Avelyn Welczer v. City of Palo Alto, California
Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, No. H027764 (SCC
#CV779831)
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
Mayor Kishimoto announced no reportable action was taken. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the
meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to
during regular office hours.
07/01/22 29