HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-17 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting April 17, 2000
1. Interviews for Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors ...................................................80
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m...................80
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................81
1. Proclamations Congratulating the Girl Scouts Silver Award Recipients ..................................................81
3. Contract with Trinet Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $75,285 for Oil/Water Separators for the Fire Stations 1 and 2 Project (CIP 10015) .......................................81
4. Contract with B&M Collision Repair in the Amount of $200,000 for Automobile and Light Truck Collision Repair Services ....81
5. Contract with Empire Equipment in the Amount of $425,000 for Landfill Heavy Equipment Maintenance and Repair .............81
7. Ordinance 4629 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending The Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Accept a $103,108 Grant From the Public Fund of the State Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $103,108” ..................82
8. Request for Authority to Participate in Amicus Curiae in the Court of Appeal on University of California, Hastings v. City and County of San Francisco, First Appellate District, Civil No. 89183 .............................................82
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS.........................82
9. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation...........82
10. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation...........82
11. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation...........82
04/17/00 90-78
11A.(Old Item No. 14) Council Members Burch, Beecham, and Fazzino re Requesting Staff Assistance on the Possible Preservation of the Sea Scout Building ...................................83
12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Manager’s decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit application at 3655 Middlefield Road, to allow a second detached single family unit ...............87
13. Council Members Beecham, Kleinberg, and Mossar re Peninsula Creamery Project ............................................104
15. Finance Committee recommendation Regarding Infrastructure Management Plan and Staffing Requirements ...................107
16A.(Old Item No. 2) Adoption of Traffic Signal Upgrade Plan.....108
16B.(Old Item No. 6) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Crosswalk Between Inter-Sections on East Meadow Drive Between Louis Road and East Meadow Circle .108
17. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements...............108
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.................108
04/17/00 90-79
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:40 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL MEETING 1. Interviews for Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
04/17/00 90-80
Regular Meeting April 17, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding leaf blowers. Linda Jolley, 3757 Haven, Menlo Park, spoke regarding leaf blowers. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Proclamations Congratulating the Girl Scouts Silver Award Recipients Mayor Kniss asked Council Member Lytle to read the proclamations. The proclamations were presented to the Girl Scouts from Troops 941, 101, and 208. CONSENT CALENDAR
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, requested Item No. 6 be pulled from the Consent Calendar and referred to the Policy and Services Committee. There was no justification for the type of crosswalk in the proposed location. The crossing was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, good planning, and good traffic management.
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Items 3 – 5 and 7 and 8, with Item No. 2 removed by Council Member Lytle and Item No. 6 removed by Council Member Beecham. 3. Contract with Trinet Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $75,285 for Oil/Water Separators for the Fire Stations 1 and 2 Project (CIP 10015) 4. Contract with B&M Collision Repair in the Amount of $200,000 for Automobile and Light Truck Collision Repair Services 5. Contract with Empire Equipment in the Amount of $425,000 for Landfill Heavy Equipment Maintenance and Repair
04/17/00 90-81
7. Ordinance 4629 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending The Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Accept a $103,108 Grant From the Public Fund of the State Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $103,108” 8. Request for Authority to Participate in Amicus Curiae in the Court of Appeal on University of California, Hastings v. City and County of San Francisco, First Appellate District, Civil No. 89183 MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Council Member Lytle removed Agenda Item No. 2 to become Agenda Item No. 16A. Council Member Beecham removed Item No. 6 to become Item No. 16B. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, second by Burch, to move Agenda Item No. 14 forward ahead of Item No. 9 to become Item No. 11A. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
9. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation Subject: City of Palo Alto v. Service Employees International Union, Local 715, (re: Danton Camm), SCC #CV773215 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 10. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation Subject: Karolyn Zeng v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #CV777838 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 11. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation Subject: Roland Luo v. City of Palo Alto, SCC # CV778354 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL Agenda Item Nos. 9, 10, and 11 will be continued to April 24, 2000.
04/17/00 90-82
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11A. (Old Item No. 14) Council Members Burch, Beecham, and Fazzino re Requesting Staff Assistance on the Possible Preservation of the Sea Scout Building (Continued from 3/27/00) Council Member Burch said an extension was placed on the Sea Scout lease in the past. He and Council Member Beecham met with Kevin Murray and agreed the possibility of extending the deadline was worthwhile to give the Sea Scouts an opportunity to secure funding and find a location for the Sea Scout building. Kevin Murray, 2069 Harvard Street, said the goals of the Lucie Stern Maritime Center included preserving a historically significant Palo Alto building dedicated in 1941, establishing a maritime museum open to the public, creating a community meeting site, and preserving the Youth Center which provided 60 years of public service. Three primary roadblocks included the parklands, air zone at the airport, and destruction of the building. With respect to the air zone, he received a waiver from the County of Santa Clara. He met with a structural engineer who prepared a report that the building remain in its current location. Those endorsing the plan included former Council Member Emily Renzel, the Palo Alto Historical Society, Palo Alto Homeowners Association, South Bay Alumni, community activist Karen Holman, and former Mayor Fred Eyerly. Sylvia Smitham, 2514 Birch Street, said much work was done on the project, and the Sea Scout building was important for the youth of Palo Alto. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, said the City Council, by terms of the City Charter, was the sole responsible government of the City. If the Council were to approve a staff decision, the Council’s duty was to show the evidence that the decision made was for an action in the public good. The prior week, he submitted documentary evidence to the Council with regard to previous Council action pertaining to Palo Alto Waterfront and the one-time harbor and marina. One item was distributed during the campaign against the 1985 Harbor Maintenance Initiative with the approval of the 1985 Palo Alto City Council. The information was loaded with falsehoods with regard to financial liability of the City and insinuations that the harbor maintenance would cause damage to wetlands. Palo Alto’s government violated the McAteer Petris Act from years past by the act of denying public access to the Bay from the Sea Scouts. Landfill that occurred on the waterfront was destructive. The Council vote in 1988 was an insult to Lucie Stern who presented the building to the Sea Scouts. The fact that the City might own title to the land
04/17/00 90-83
beneath the building was not important. The fact that the Council asked in 1980 for a commission to destroy the building did not constitute any demands from the Bay Conservation Development Commission that the building be destroyed. Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said the Palo Alto Historical Association supported retention and preservation of the building. Michele Lucien, 1168 Cleveland Street, Redwood City, had been a Mariner for four years and learned how to be a leader, how to feel confident about herself, and the importance of teamwork. She was proud to be part of the Scouts program which pushed everyone to do his or her personal best. Taking away places to meet hurt the Scouts’ programs. Scout bases were few and far between. Destroying the building took away a place to hold meetings, dances, and competitions, as well as a special place in the heart of every scout who walked the halls of the building. The base was a home to scout events for 60 years. She was concerned that the building would be torn down despite the fact that it had done much for generations of the Scouts. Shawn Peck, 1142 Lafayette Drive, Sunnyvale, spoke on behalf of the thousands of young men and women who went through the Sea Scout program and said the program made them fine young men and women. Nabil Shahin, 1142 Lafayette Drive, Sunnyvale, said there were no other programs that compared to Sea Scouts to teach young people to work as a team or a leader of a team. He hated to see the Sea Scout base disappear. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, President of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST), supported the retention of the Sea Scout building. She suggested the Council direct staff to work with the Sea Scouts to preserve the building. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the text of the Colleague’s memo from Council Members Burch, Beecham, and Fazzino spoke only to giving the Sea Scouts and other supporters of preserving the building an opportunity to study the matter by giving an extension on the lease. The subject matter of the memo and of the current meeting’s agenda item referred to requesting staff assistance. There was nothing written from the proponents on the Council nor any introductory remarks about that request for assistance. When the lease was extended in 1988, one of the conditions was that the building be made available for the general public to use. To his knowledge, the current leaseholder did nothing about that to advertise the building’s availability or indicate how it could be made available to the public. The Municipal Fee Schedule did not mention the Sea Scout building. The Community Services Department should take charge of building in order for the public to find out about the building’s
04/17/00 90-84
availability, and City staff could schedule meeting space. That would get into the issue of the extent to which the building was restricted for any particular group and the public in general. Richard Geiger, 714 E. Charleston Road, supported the Sea Scouts and its program that provided a unique program of hands-on operation and training. He questioned why the City would consider demolishing a public building. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the Sea Scout building turned 50 years old in 1991 and was eligible to be declared historic. The building was a Birge Clark structure, unique with an unusual design, and a fixture in the Baylands. A key element in saving the building was to make it historic which would exempt it from a number of regulatory constraints that might otherwise apply. The building would be eligible for County Park money. She urged the Council to try to save the landmark building, which was recognized by the City’s consultant as possibly eligible for the National Register. The building served the community well and should be available to the general public. There was a tremendous shortage of meeting space throughout the City. With private and public funds, the building could be updated and made into a fine public space. MOTION: Council Member Beecham, seconded by Burch, to reagendize the item in order to allow staff to work with the Sea Scouts to find out what options were available to the City to preserve the building, consider making the building a historic structure, and extend the lease to January 31, 2001. Council Member Burch understood there were a number of locations suggested which were not acceptable, and that was the reason for Council Member Beecham’s motion to allow additional time to raise the money. He supported the motion because it put the burden on the Sea Scouts to raise the money. Council Member Mossar supported the motion and agreed with protecting and preserving the structure and not trying to move it. The ideas for moving the building were fraught with complications. She strongly supported designating the building as historic and using that designation as a vehicle for protection and restoration of the building. She agreed with the deadline of January 31, 2001. Preferably the project could be accomplished through a coalition of organizations with private funding for preserving it. She hoped the coalition was not only supportive in preserving the building but also willing to do some fundraising. Although she understood the need for meeting space, as the item moved forward, the location and site should be considered with regard to the appropriate uses and restrictions that should be placed upon it in order that it be ecologically compatible.
04/17/00 90-85
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that consideration be given to preservation of the site as a historic structure with a preference that the project be accomplished through a coalition of organizations with private funding. Council Member Ojakian strongly supported preservation of the building, which could be used in many ways including meeting space. As a public/private partnership, funding could come from the private sector, and the City could look into where it could or could not be involved. As Ms. Renzel stated, it was a historic building on public land that was parkland, and hopefully the City could receive some County money. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion and thanked Kevin Murray for his leadership. The Sea Scout program was an integral part of Palo Alto for many years. He agreed that the building was one of the most historic structures remaining in Palo Alto. Vice Mayor Eakins said the decision was whether or not to save such an important structure. Normally, she tried to keep separate what was happening in a structure from the physical and historical values. When she visited the structure, she saw a diversity of kids learning and doing. Saving the program for the community because there was not enough for kids to do was important. She took pleasure in having the opportunity to support keeping the richness of offerings in the community. Council Member Burch said previously, the Council gave a two-year extension to the building; and yet, not until the last minute was there a remarkable demonstration of community support. People who cared about an issue needed to speak up; and if it were not for a few people, the demolition might have happened in June 2000. Mayor Kniss said without a study, she felt there was a possibility of raising the building, and she would like that looked into. Council Member Kleinberg said she was emotionally in support of the issue. Her rationale was the building was of important value and was an historic treasure for the community. The Sea Scout building was an example of community values, philanthropy, enhanced scouting and leadership, and could be used as another venue for a youth center. She felt the building should stay as a celebration of human relationship with the sea and Palo Alto’s historic relationship to the bay. Council Member Beecham was glad the Council agreed and said the task of obtaining funding and moving the item forward would not be an easy task. The City staff would be glad to work with the 04/17/00 90-86
Sea Scouts, but the burden was in the Sea Scouts’ hands to find the resources that would lead to the preservation of the building. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Manager’s decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit application at 3655 Middlefield Road, to allow a second detached single family unit. (Continued from 3/20/00) Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said all second living units within the City of Palo Alto required a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Two findings were necessary to approve the CUP: 1) “That the proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property in the vicinity or detrimental to the public health, general welfare, safety or convenience."; and 2) “That the proposed use would be located in a manner in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 (the Zoning Ordinance) incorporated in the Municipal Code.” The Planning Manager held a public hearing on the item in November 1999 and found that both of the findings could be made and approved the CUP. The approval was appealed in late November 1999 by a neighbor at 714 East Meadow Drive, directly adjacent to the site. The appeal procedures for a CUP required both a Planning Commission hearing and a City Council hearing in accordance with Title 18, Chapter 18.90 under Appeal Procedures. The appeal went to the Planning Commission on February 23, 2000, and the Planning Commission found in favor of the appellant because the two findings could not be made and recommended the appeal be approved and the Planning Manager’s decision be overturned. At both public hearings, there was considerable public testimony given with regard to the occupants of the existing house as well as the potential occupants of the new cottage. CUP’s could not be denied or approved based on who would be using the structures, but had to focus on physical characteristics of the site and the use. Planning staff was still recommending that the Planning Manager’s original decision be upheld and the appeal be denied. She elaborated on four primary reasons for the differences in recommendations between the Planning and Transportation Commission and staff. Planning and Transportation Commissioner Owen Byrd said the Planning and Transportation Commission did not lightly disagree with staff on a recommendation. The Commission concluded the property could easily handle a second unit, and the Commission was generally in favor of second units. The Commission hoped the applicant would return with a second unit which made sense from a physical design at the location. The Commission looked closely
04/17/00 90-87
at the findings and concluded the parking and circulation program for the site did not make sense, and there was some concern with regard to backing out vehicles at that busy corner which would create challenges. The Commission was concerned with the design of the unit. The approval was discretionary and an opportunity for the City to exercise its option to get the design right. The location of the uses, the windows, and the overall impacts did not mesh with the existing structure on the site or with the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. For that reason, the Commission relied entirely on issues of physical design of the proposed structure in concluding that the findings could not be made. The Commission wanted to go on record that comments made by the public about the inhabitants of the property were not its concern. Issues of physical design were relied upon and not status or behavior. The Commission reluctantly disagreed with staff. Council Member Kleinberg said there was much correspondence received concerning the matter, and she asked City Attorney Ariel Calonne for some guidance as to which matters were legally relevant to consider in terms of Council policy making power in order to have parameters for conversation. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the basic role was the same as on every application. The permit ran with the land and the Council’s considerations should be related to the physical characteristics of the site and the proposal. The inhabitants could change the next day. The nature of the current or future inhabitants did not matter. If the public chose to speak about the nature or characteristics of the inhabitants, the Council was not in a position to demand that those comments not be made, but was in a position where it had a legal obligation to ignore those comments. Council Member Lytle confirmed that the Council could not demand that the comments not be made but could ask that they not be made. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Lytle asked that the Council agree to make that request to the public. She was not interested in hearing those comments and would like the public to adhere to the physical issues. Mayor Kniss said the Council concurred. Council Member Lytle said the findings were generally related to the physical conditions of the property, but there were some additional findings in the staff report (CMR:210:00) that were being requested. The actions the Council could take were to
04/17/00 90-88
approve the CUP as submitted, approve the CUP with conditions, deny the CUP, or with the applicant’s consent, continue the permit for redesign. Ms. Grote said the additional findings referenced were on page 6 which stated at the end of the paragraph, “If the Council wishes to deny the use permit for non-discriminatory reasons, it is important (1) to have a detailed and explicit statement of the particular facts and circumstances leading to the denial; (2) to demonstrate that this application has not been held to a higher standard than other applications for second units that did not propose to house disabled individuals; and (3) to conclude that denial of the permit will not have an adverse impact on the provision of housing for individuals with disabilities in Palo Alto.” Those reasons would have to be wrapped into the two primary findings that were required for a use permit. The discussion of those three items should be put into the broader context of the two findings. Council Member Lytle said the additional findings merged the things she tried to separate which were the physical conditions of the property regardless of who the applicant was. She had difficulty figuring out that second level of conditions. Mr. Calonne said the nature of the applicants could not be taken into account in issuing the use permit. On the other hand, the law clearly required the City to make reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. He believed the three additional pieces referenced on page 6 of the staff report (CMR:210:00) concluded an affirmative finding that a decision denying the use permit would not have an adverse impact on the availability of housing for the disabled. That statement would be an important conclusion for the Council to make. They were inconsistent, but that was what the law stated. His primary concern was on that kind of record where there clearly was animosity directed at the people rather than the site. His concern was that the Council be clear on that type of record. He could not tell the Council as a matter of law that the City had a duty to accommodate in that circumstance, but that was the safest course and the policy behind the laws that called for accommodation. He could not advise that the Council had a mandatory duty to do such. Council Member Lytle asked in accommodating, must the Council reduce the normal and typical standards used in making findings for a use permit such as privacy conflicts, architectural compatibility, and inconvenience to the neighborhood through the traffic and circulation type of condition. She asked whether the application be treated by accommodating the use but conditioned with community level standards.
04/17/00 90-89
Mr. Calonne said any element of the Zoning Ordinance was up for grabs when it came down to accommodation. Dependent on the impact of the particular condition or City requirement, the Council might have a duty to modify it to allow accommodation. The answer was, notwithstanding Comprehensive Plan or Zoning rules, that any of those requirements were up for relaxation if necessary to accommodate people in protected categories. Council Member Lytle clarified to do that dialogue, the applicant would need to give feedback if the Council was going to condition the project for approval. Her understanding was that the applicant was not at the Planning Commission hearing and would be at a great disadvantage in terms of being able to find out how to negotiate between normal community standards and more reasonable accommodation. Ms. Grote said unfortunately, the applicant was not able to attend the Commission hearing and thus unable to have a dialogue with the Commission. Council Member Ojakian said there was comment from the Commission that the parking and circulation did not work, but the Transportation Division stated otherwise. He asked what the parking and circulation were. Ms. Grote said there was an existing driveway off of East Meadow Drive that accessed an existing garage. The parking for the unit would be in the garage that held two cars. There would be two additional parking spaces on either side of the garage that would effectively widen the driveway, which was a consistent pattern in the neighborhood to have wider than typical two-car driveways. The proposal would reflect that kind of pattern. Council Member Ojakian asked whether it would be unsafe. Ms. Grote said it would not be unsafe, a total of four cars could at any given time be backing out of the driveway, and that was not unusual for a single-family house. Council Member Ojakian asked whether there was a danger with traffic in the area, and were there any traffic counts that made East Meadow Drive appear to be dramatically different from other areas. Ms. Grote said there were no additional or high accident counts in that area. Much of East Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road were either red curb or “no parking,” so there was sufficient visibility. There was no police history to reflect additional safety issues.
04/17/00 90-90
Mr. Calonne said he wanted to give a better explanation regarding reasonable accommodation. If one thought of reasonable accommodation as a balancing of the gravity of public health and safety or weighing the cost of the change in the project necessary to accommodate, that was where reasonableness was determined. For example, if there were a change for $50 where all traffic safety problems could be eliminated, that would be reasonable. If there were a change for $100,000 to relieve a minor esthetic concern, that would not be reasonable. The gravity of the health and safety concerns had to be weighed against the costs and impacts of the project. Council Member Beecham disagreed with his colleagues with regard to not hearing the personal issues related to the project. He did agree with the objectives of the Council and City Attorney in advising the Council that those items should not be taken into account. The basic issue was a community problem separate from the land issue that should be heard, and the Council should find a way to address it separate from the land issue. Mayor Kniss said she understood the City Attorney to say it was the Council’s decision. Council Member Kleinberg was sympathetic to Council Member Beecham but felt the Council needed to deal with matters within its purview to handle as policy matters. She did not believe the Council had a role in community dispute settlement, although there were services available in the community for that particular neighborhood. Mayor Kniss advised there was a majority of the Council who did not want to deal with the neighborhood issues and asked Council Member Beecham if he would accommodate that. Council Member Beecham replied yes. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing open. Karen Jew, 714 East Meadow Drive, the appellant, said she found the appeal process in Palo Alto difficult and that the neighborhood was not sufficiently notified of the hearing. She was disappointed that her attorney’s letter, a letter from the Ng’s, and other materials that were submitted to the Planning Commission were not included in the Council packet. Her attorney’s letter addressed the issues and codes stated by the Supreme Court that would impact the decision of the permit. Comments by Associate Planner Amie Glaser in the Planning Commission staff report dated February 23, 2000, stated that objections to the use permit would be treated as evidence of bias in the community, which was not true. The neighbors were prepared on March 20, 2000, but the Council meeting was canceled. Planning
04/17/00 90-91
Manager George White had stated there were significant problems with the plans as submitted. He advised the Ngs of the changes that were to be made, and they chose to go forward with the plans they had. Since the Ngs did not meet the Zoning conditions, they should have been denied. She wondered how the Planning Department could approve plans that did not meet its criteria. As stated in letters to the Planning Department, the neighbors felt the plans for the project were poorly put together. The property appeared to be a compound of buildings rather than a residential home. As the Planning Commission stated, there would be significant problems with cars leaving the driveway. There was not one lot in the area that had a second unit or that had cyclone fencing surrounding the property. The project did not fit in with the neighborhood. She hoped the Council would follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation and deny the permit. Nancy Ng, 718 East Meadow Drive, the applicant, felt at a disadvantage because she and her husband, Harven Ng, had deliberately not appeared at the Planning Commission hearing as they did not wish that the decision for the CUP be made due to their children’s disabilities. They asked that the decision be made in accordance with the law and Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Because they did not attend the meeting, a letter was sent stating the reasons for non-attendance that she discovered was not included in the Council packet. Upon arriving at the Council meeting that evening, they discovered a derogatory letter written to the Planning Commission by neighbors. They had no fight with the neighbors except for the validity of their children as members of the community. She felt those friends and neighbors who attended on their behalf and who knew their children and supported them should be given the right to speak. She believed that the decision to grant the CUP would be based on City code and not from the false, irrelevant accusations of a small group of neighbors. She did not want a special privilege nor to repay in kind the neighbors’ fear-driven and mean-spirited attacks on her family. Her children were present to experience justice and fair play. Her family was built by birth, adoption, love, law, and commitment and embraced the social, cultural, economic, and developmental diversity that marked the best of the country. Her children learned about family and caring and that often those with the most were the least tolerant; they learned that prejudice was alive. Her family followed all the codes enacted by the City, followed the rules, and made the changes suggested by the Planning Department. She read a letter written by a daughter regarding her parent’s intention to apply for a permit to build a cottage for her disabled brothers and sisters and the opposition faced by the neighbors. The letter requested the Council approve the permit. Harven Ng said when they first applied for a conditional use permit, their expectation was that two goals would be
04/17/00 90-92
accomplished by building the cottage: 1) they would add to the pool of available, affordable rental housing in Palo Alto; and 2) they would have an adapted building that would serve the needs of any disabled person. The proposed cottage would be available as an intermediate place to live as a transition to independent adulthood. Their approach with respect to cottage design and property development was to be in complete compliance with all applicable Palo Alto zoning ordinances, codes, and other legal requirements such as the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). A designer was hired and charged with the task, and the need for compliance was underscored. The process that brought his family to the Council at the current meeting revealed several unanticipated and disturbing aspects of their quest to build the cottage, and the matters were unrelated to the structural, architectural, and physical aspects of the cottage. To the extent that those matters took the form of blunt, biased, and intolerant and prejudice objections to their plans and directly involved their special needs children, the children became victims. Special needs children were challenged and challenging, and parenting special needs children was a challenge. Special needs children deserved special attention by able-bodied people who were obligated to ensure that those less able were afforded the opportunity to live full and independent lives. He asked that the Council allow the cottage to be built. He submitted a document written by his son, Michael, who was a student at Harvard Law School, and a letter from Virginia Debs. Margene Chnyz, 1440 Tasso Street, said in 1979, she presented a disabilities awareness program, Footsteps, to the elementary schools throughout the County. She commended the Ngs who disciplined, nurtured, and saw the spark inside their children. The mean spiritedness of a letter included in the staff report (CMR:210:00) brought her to the meeting. George Chippendale, 2241 Santa Ana Street, said the Ng’s son, Bunchai, was disabled and helped approximately 750 families by volunteering for the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Bunchai was taught by his parents to be a kind and considerate person, and his parents were very responsible for their children. He did not believe the family was incompatible with Palo Alto. Louise Claspill, 651 East Meadow Drive, supported the Ng family. She found the children to be polite and helpful, and she would be proud to live next to the Ng family. Eleanora Jadwin, 3488 Janice Way, said as a former employee of the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), she had the privilege of teaching five of the Ng children. The program she taught required parent participation, and she became familiar with the Ng family. She found the children challenging and challenged, and she learned much from them. The Ngs asked for the
04/17/00 90-93
opportunity for some of the children with special needs to have a small sense of independence and live on their own with parents nearby. Polly Haight, 1032 College Avenue, supported the Ng’s request to build an addition to their property. The Ng’s efforts on behalf of children went far beyond their own family. She urged the Council to grant approval of the Ng’s application. Janina Nadener, 3860 Middlefield Road, encouraged the Council to grant the Ngs a permit to allow their children with special needs to stay and enrich the community. Lansing Wood, 1009 Forest Court, favored the application for a conditional use permit on the Ng’s property. She was amazed that the application for a building permit was not approved in a routine manner. Personal information about the family making the application as part of the process was unusual and distasteful. Since questions about the Ng family became intertwined with the process, she felt compelled to speak to the Council. She worked with the Ng family to support children and families through a nonprofit organization called Families Adopting in Response (FAIR). The Ng family was deeply committed to the idea of permanency for children. She hoped the City Council would see the importance of upholding the rights of the unique, yet ordinary family who sought to use their property in compliance with the laws and policies that applied to all Palo Alto citizens. Tim Verschuyl, 3720 Grove Avenue, said architecture affected how people interact. The Council had the potential to include real world conditions that any book of rules could not. He agreed that the Ngs had good qualities, and he admired what they did to reach out to children. He resented the fact that as a neighbor, he was put in the defensive, prejudice point of view. The Ng family, like all people, were not perfect and had shortcomings, such as they did not want to work with their neighbors to resolve differences. He referred to the site plan and elevations of the building which were presented on the overhead. The building was a rectangular box with a gable roof and covered porch on the entry. Architecturally, the building was not respectful of the property lines. He was saddened that the Planning staff could not recommend the potential of a 12,000 square foot lot to try to look better than a random scattering of buildings on the lot. Traffic issues concerned him, especially the four cars coming and going from the driveway of the subject property. Ceci Kettendorf, 3719 Grove Avenue, said the Jane Lathrop Stanford School PTA and FairMeadow PTA looked seriously at the traffic safety issues surrounding the feeder streets going to the super site. A crossing guard was added to help assist children across the intersection. The driveway that accessed the subject
04/17/00 90-94
property was close to the intersection of Middlefield Road and East Meadow Drive which added to the danger of the children crossing in that area. She was concerned that more cars accessing the site would impede the safety of school children. Norman Sutherland, 3731 Grove Avenue, took exception to the Planning Commissions comments that the intersection was ordinary. The First Baptist Church and Avenidas, the Covenant Presbyterian Church and Day Care Nursery School, and the Fire Station were in the immediate vicinity of the intersection which were sources that contributed to unusually heavy traffic in a residential neighborhood. Middlefield Road was heavily traveled with speeds frequently over 40 miles per hour. The nearby school situation was notorious for traffic congestion and was recently selected by the San Jose Mercury News as one of the worst areas on the peninsula for traffic problems. The intersection at Middlefield Road and East Meadow Drive was difficult and was not engineered during the 40 years he lived in the neighborhood. He also took exception to the Planning Commission’s encouragement of increased housing in the area. He did not disagree that the Ngs were a fine family but was concerned about how much more the City would let the property support. He questioned at what point the property became an unlicensed, unsupervised halfway house with increased population of children. Ms. Jew said the property with two homes on it did not fit in with the neighborhood. There were no studies of traffic problems at the intersection of Middlefield Road and East Meadow Drive, as admitted by the Traffic Department. Ms. Ng said a number of people in her neighborhood said the garage was used for living, but that was not true. She read her statement to the Planning Commission which was included in the Council packet. Mr. Ng reminded the Council it had an opportunity, and he was happy to work with the Council to ensure that the opportunity did not get wasted. He wanted to continue the spirit of the neighbor’s bequest to his family to contribute something to the community; that is, to provide a structure that would be used as low income housing. He would continue to work with the Planning Commission to ensure that the approved structure was in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. Planning and Transportation Commissioner Byrd said there was much interpretation of the Planning Commission’s action expressed at the present meeting. He said the Planning and Transportation Commission appeared to be the “bad guys” for disagreeing with staff and for recommending denial. The Commission was charged with looking at physical issues, site layout, and proposed structure. The only thing the Commission could do was recommend
04/17/00 90-95
denial. He reiterated the recommendation, which was to figure out a process to change the site plan and structure enough to have it delivered on the site. Mayor Kniss closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the staff recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Manager’s original use permit approval, and to ask the appropriate division (Transportation Division, Public Works Department) to look at the corner of East Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road with the hope to extend the “no parking” zone from 25 feet to 50 feet. Council Member Kleinberg acknowledged the Planning and Transportation Commission and Commissioner Byrd and said there was no finer group of individuals who volunteered their time to review and develop a thoughtful consideration of the subject use permit. She appreciated the comments made by the public. She did not want her judgment to not address the comments made by many of the speakers construed as not hearing the public. Her judgment was based on the conviction that the decision regarded land use. The decision was not based on the occupant. Making a decision based on emotion rather than law was tempting, but the Council could not do that. The question had to do with property rights rather than human rights. The job of a City Council was to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the constituents. She was persuaded that the plan met the concerns of the appellant and of the Planning Commission, particularly in the area of parking, traffic, and privacy. She believed the plan as proposed was in compliance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and that the fence and landscaping should ensure privacy. She believed that the design and placement, while they could be fine-tuned, met the Comprehensive Plan housing goals. She did not agree that the described plan of the extra building detracted from the neighborhood. Traffic and safety issues at the intersection needed to be handled by the City’s Transportation Division and not be the subject of the use permit. The PAMC said uses that would interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property should not be allowed. She implored the neighbors to find other ways to handle what they might regard as a nuisance. She was convinced that the subject use and plan did not create any particular nuisance. Council Member Ojakian said a comment was made about the public noticing of the meeting and asked whether the meeting was properly noticed. Ms. Grote said when the item was originally before the Council, it was continued to a date certain, so additional notices were not sent out.
04/17/00 90-96
Council Member Ojakian asked whether cyclone fences were allowed in the area. Ms. Grote said cyclone fences were not prohibited. Council Member Ojakian clarified if the property was undeveloped, a home approximately 6,000 square feet could be built. Ms. Grote said the addition of the cottage did not exceed the floor area ratio (FAR) allowed on the site. The applicant’s plan was under lot coverage and FAR. Council Member Ojakian said the applicant handled his property in a very judicious manner and tried not to impact the area to the degree it could. He commended the applicant for that. He was a proponent of diversity in the housing stock in the City and did not find the proposal incompatible with the neighborhood. The plan provided a good use for the property and the building and, in his opinion, was acceptable. He reminded his colleagues and the public about the project built on Ash Street and the tremendous need there was for such housing. Regarding the traffic issues, he did not believe it was fair to put an unfair burden on one particular site for an issue that was generalized over an area. Several projects were in the offing to improve the intersection of Middlefield Road and East Meadow Drive, including additional crossing guards and moving the telephone pole that blocked where drivers made a right hand turn off East Meadow Drive on to Middlefield Road. He understood why the Planning Commission looked for a different design, but he also appreciated that an applicant could only go through so much process. He would vote to support staff against the appeal. Vice Mayor Eakins asked staff whether there was a discussion of additional conditions for the application such as landscaping and better quality fencing. Ms. Grote said there was a discussion of conditions when the Planning Manager made the original decision, and those were reflected in the decision in the Council’s packet. Conditions that required a different fencing or additional landscaping could be added. The applicant agreed to the conditions. Ms. Grote said the Planning Commission discussed reversing the floor plan and changing the fenestration. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether the quality of architecture and siting of the cottage could still be discussed with the applicant. Ms. Grote said those items could be discussed.
04/17/00 90-97
Vice Mayor Eakins noticed there was a cluster of storage sheds on the property. Ms. Grote said there was presently at least one accessory building on the site. Vice Mayor Eakins said there appeared to be additional areas where staff and the applicant could relook at some of the conditions. Ms. Grote said the Council could recommend specific conditions to return to staff. Vice Mayor Eakins agreed that the application should not bear the burden of the neighborhood traffic problems. She had many near miss accidents at that intersection. The intersection was highly impacted and needed to be looked at as others suggested. She did not believe the Council could do anything directly about neighborhood relations, but the physical conditions of the applications should be worked out by the applicant and staff with the consideration and cooperation of staff, the appellant, and the remaining neighborhood that joined the appellant. She asked whether the maker of the motion would include something about additional conditions to explore for the applicant such as fenestration and the privacy issues. Council Member Kleinberg said her understanding was that the applicant agreed to a solid fence at a certain height. Vice Mayor Eakins wanted the fenestration issue with respect to the neighbors’ privacy to be restudied. Council Member Kleinberg said she would accept a change to the motion if the wording was that it not be a requirement but looked at by the staff and applicant to see if any improvements could be made. Vice Mayor Eakins added that adjustments in siting and location of the building be looked at. Council Member Kleinberg accepted that change as long as it was left to the discretion of the Planning staff. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether staff felt the issue of storage sheds was reviewed. Ms. Grote said staff did not address the issue of storage sheds since most of them were less than 120 square feet, which did not require building permits. The storage sheds were behind the main buildings and should be screened by the fence.
04/17/00 90-98
Mr. Calonne said the Council could not properly give staff authority to make changes that might not be brought to the attention of anyone who was interested. He suggested staff and applicant review the application and return to the Council with a Consent Calendar final action item consistent with Council direction. Council Member Ojakian asked about timing. Ms. Grote said the item would come back to the Council in a month. Council Member Ojakian thought a 7-foot high solid fence would be enough of a barrier. He asked what would be found that would change site views on the applicant’s side. Ms. Grote said most of the windows, as currently located, would be screened by the 7-foot high fence. Council Member Kleinberg said she was not convinced that the Planning Department would come up with any significant difference that would mitigate any perceived intrusion into the neighbors’ enjoyment and privacy. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether the location could be improved with respect to all concerned or whether setbacks could be adjusted. Council Member Kleinberg said there were certain limitations to where the second unit could be located because of the location of the existing main house. The second unit needed to be 12 feet away from the main house and other structures. Mayor Kniss said the fenestration and replacement of the building issues would be eliminated. Council Member Lytle shared Vice Mayor Eakins’ concerns about the chaotic state of the site plan. She suggested adding a condition that enforced Section 18.12.040 H5 which indicated, “the second dwelling unit shall be architecturally compatible with the main residence with respect to style, roof pitch, color and materials.” The 36 feet to 40 feet of pavement width could be screened by code from off site views with fencing or vegetation. She suggested seeing the site plan modified or conditioned to reflect code requirements. AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kniss, to add a condition to modify the site plan to conform with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.12.040 H5 and H6 (roof pitch and
04/17/00 90-99
screening) and study fenestration for improving privacy considerations. Mr. Calonne said staff believed the site plan met Section s 18.12.040 H5 and H6 and, while the Council was appropriate in disagreeing, staff needed guidance as to what was missing. He asked that Council Member Lytle be more specific. Council Member Lytle said the roof pitch and style were not compatible with the main residence and needed to be modified to match the residence’s roof pitch and style. The architectural features and character of the building did not have a relationship to the main residence. The two existing trees did not screen the pavement width. Mr. Calonne understood the conditions required the roof to match the style of the existing house, so pitch should be objectively determined. Mayor Kniss announced that Agenda Item Nos. 13 and 15 would be continued to another meeting. Regarding Item No. 13, she said if the Council could find a way to shortcut the current item, the Council would get to Item No. 13. Ms. Grote said the Planning Manager’s original condition No. 6 discussed the roof pitch. “The roof pitch on the secondary dwelling unit shall be altered to be similar in design and pitch to the roof on the main house, specifically, the gabled roof shall be redesigned to be a hipped roof.” Additional landscaping along East Meadow Drive could be looked at to be consistent with what was proposed in order to screen the paved area. Council Member Mossar was sympathetic to the general concern that the project might have been done better, but she was not interested as a Council Member in getting involved in the detailed activities that the Council relied on the Planning staff to handle. She would not support the motion and hoped the Council could vote to uphold the appeal or not to uphold the appeal. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-4, Beecham, Kleinberg, Mossar, Ojakian “no.” MOTION TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MAIN MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Fazzino, to call for the previous question without further debate. MOTION TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MAIN MOTION FAILED 5-4, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Mossar, Ojakian “yes.” Council Member Kleinberg repeated the main motion: 1) to accept the staff recommendation with the approved amendment, 2) that the
04/17/00 90-100
curb along the street be extended back to 50 feet of red “no parking,” and 3) staff be directed to review the traffic and pedestrian/bicycle safety measures at that intersection. Council Member Burch clarified that the issue could not be debated by anyone. MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED 8-1, Lytle “no.” Council Member Lytle voted no because she was cut off in terms of addressing other concerns she had about the site plan which would have allowed the proposed use to fit in better with the surrounding issues. Council Member Fazzino recalled that in order to call a question, according to Robert’s Rules, it was necessary to have a two-thirds vote. Mr. Calonne said Council Member Fazzino was correct and the motion to call the question required a two-thirds vote, so it would have failed on the 5-4 vote. In terms of procedure, the presiding officer’s decision was binding, subject to appeal by the Council. A majority of the Council could overrule the mayor. The only piece was a question whether Council Member Lytle’s conceded the floor before Council Member Eakins called the question on the amendment, which was possibly subject to appeal. That was done, and the presiding officer’s determination was binding. Mayor Kniss asked whether the Council wanted to discuss Agenda Item No. 13. The consensus was yes. Council Member Beecham said his intent was to ask the Council to agendize it for a future meeting. Vice Mayor Eakins said the Council needed to decide whether to put it on the agenda to talk about it or not to put it on the agenda. Mayor Kniss said the Council would continue with the previous debate and was back to the original motion by Council Members Kleinberg and Ojakian. Council Member Lytle shared some of the public testimony concerns regarding how the onsite circulation parking interfaced with the intersection, which she did not feel was a normal single-family intersection. She felt it would be to the applicant’s best interest to improve the ability to turn around and exit the property face out.
04/17/00 90-101
AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kniss, to add a condition that the applicant work with staff to reconsider the position of the circulation and parking. Council Member Fazzino asked if staff would make the final decision. Council Member Lytle favored that it return to the Zoning Administrator level and not return to the Council. Council Member Fazzino clarified that it could be appealed which would return the circulation and parking issue to the Council. He understood Council Member Lytle’s intent. Mr. Calonne said it could be delegated to staff within boundaries. The Council should leave staff the discretion to return to Council if the changes went outside the scope. That procedure was subject to challenge by someone not invited into the process. The motion defined the range of discretion enough for staff. He suggested it be referred back to the Planning Director. Mayor Kniss said Council Member Lytle’s comments regarding circulation were compelling and was concerned with that piece. The neighbors who spoke to that issue were adamant about the safety issues which warranted a second look. Council Member Beecham would not support the motion. He did not feel the intersection was dramatically different than many others in the City that did have residences on the corners. More broadly, the Council got way overwrought in the details as mentioned by Council Member Mossar previously. The basic plan was simple. There was a basic zoning issue which met the requirements, and he felt the Council should be done with that aspect. Council Member Ojakian said the project would be going full circle. Staff already looked at the project and made recommendations. Now, the thought was to send it back to staff to look at it again. He felt it was a grievous mistake to put an overburden on a particular piece of property to deal with an issue not belonging to that property. He would not support the motion. Council Member Burch understood the Planning Commission denied the project because it was the only thing it could do, but hoped the Council could make modifications the Planning Commission could not make in order to approve the project. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-4, Beecham, Kleinberg, Mossar, Ojakian “no.”
04/17/00 90-102
Council Member Burch understood that the cyclone fence on East Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road was for reasons of safety or security. Ms. Grote said the fence was in place for many years, and she assumed it was for both safety and security. Council Member Burch asked since the fence was on the lot line, would people have to pull up in a car, leave the car parked in the street, and get out and open the gate in order to drive into the parking area. Ms. Grote said someone in a car with the engine running would have to get out of the car and open the gate manually. Council Member Burch said he hoped there was some way so the car could pull off the street and into the driveway area before needing to get out of the car. The fence could be set in enough to allow that. It might not be a legitimate concern, but it was to him. Ms. Grote said that was not discussed since the fence was existing. Council Member Burch asked if there were any other cases in the City where the fence was up against the lot line and people had to get out of their cars to open the gate to get in. Ms. Grote believed there were similar situations with older fences that were in place for many years. Council Member Beecham felt the Council had missed the point of the issue. There were two issues: 1) a clear land use issue which was basically approvable, and 2) the children’s’ special needs. Children with special needs created special problems and one could not pretend that it was an ordinary situation. Special attention needed to be paid to the neighbors as well. He believed the parking or traffic problems were not that extraordinary. He would not do a special study unless warranted by other City information. He felt the Council needed to deal with the relationship issue. It was not a zoning issue. AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, to direct staff to have the proper City department contact neighbors to identify problems for resolution, and further to report by information only the status and options for Council to take further action if necessary. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
04/17/00 90-103
Council Member Fazzino agreed with Council Member Beecham that the issue was land use. The Planning Commission and staff did a good job in addressing the land use issues while at the same time being sensitive to the neighbors. He was comfortable with the amendments that were proposed. In terms of formal action, the Council needed to limit itself to issues before it. He hoped, as the Council moved forward, that the neighbors could work together to address any concerns that might come up. Council Member Kleinberg said she would vote against her motion because it was amended out of her original motion which was to accept the staff recommendation. The Council was presented with a thoughtful, acceptable, normal proposal, and she was persuaded that staff considered all the things that were within the bounds of acceptability. She did not want to micromanage staff. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to accept the staff recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Manager’s original use permit approval. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 4-5, Beecham, Kleinberg, Mossar, Ojakian “yes.” MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 6-3, Kleinberg, Mossar, Ojakian “no.” City Manager Benest clarified the item would be referred to staff to look at and explore concerns raised but decision will be based on the professional judgment of staff, and the issue would not come back to the Council. Mayor Kniss said that was correct. 13. Council Members Beecham, Kleinberg, and Mossar re Peninsula Creamery Project (Continued from 3/27/00) Council Member Beecham said the item on the agenda was to honor a request by the applicant for what might be a summary judgment on the application based on the known issues without going through Phase II which would subject the applicant to a tougher set of criteria. Council Member Mossar said when the item came before the Council in November 1999, the Council decided not to hear the project until after the completion of South of Forest Area (SOFA) Phase II because the project was within the boundaries of the study area. When the applicant asked whether the current Council could make a ruling on whether it wanted to take action on the project, staff ruled that the only way was if there was Council consensus
04/17/00 90-104
to agendize it. She had a conflict of interest with SOFA II because of where she lived, but she did not have a conflict of interest with Mr. Rapp’s project. She could not in good conscious vote on Mr. Rapp’s proposal without being able to talk about the surrounding circulation, the sidewalks, the pedestrian/bicycle access, and the parking. Should the current Council choose to agendize the item, she would not participate. Council Member Ojakian said his vote on the item was not connected with his judgment on how he thought the project should end up. Council Member Lytle said while the applicant should have a right to have a project reviewed in a timely fashion, it would be difficult for her to approve a commercial building creating more jobs outside the context of the plan that attempted to deal with the imbalance. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the proposal was for a three-story building, 48 feet tall, 80,000 square feet in size, with 26 residential units. Nine of the 26 residential units were below market rate. The project included 2,400 square feet of retail space, 48,000 square feet of office space, and two levels of underground parking with 275 parking spaces. The public benefits were nine BMR units, a $350,000 contribution to the park, parking management for public use, and a public seating area with public art included. The existing zoning was Downtown Commercial with a Service Combining District (CDS-P). Council Member Lytle asked whether there was an estimate of jobs for the commercial and retail office space. Ms. Grote said that was not done, but the current estimates for the downtown area was one employee for every 300 square feet of area. The schedule for the SOFA Phase II was to begin immediately, with a working group meeting in May and June, and a subcommittee of the working group to create a technical advisory group. Phase II would return to the Council in July for review and final decision. She presented a map that showed Phase II. The area was bounded by Forest Avenue, Addison Avenue, Ramona Street, and Alma Street. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Ojakian not to agendize the project. Vice Mayor Eakins said the project needed to be part of the SOFA plan. The corner was too important not to be part of the SOFA plan. Council Member Fazzino assumed that any Council Member had the right to place an item on the agenda.
04/17/00 90-105
City Manager Frank Benest said the Council needed to tell staff if it wanted to deal with the project at the current meeting or after the SOFA Plan II. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER to reaffirm the Council’s decision not to consider the project until after the completion of SOFA Plan Phase II. Council Member Lytle said the applicant filed an application, and the Council had an obligation to process the application within a certain period of time. Ms. Grote said the applicant was within a one-year timeframe of the date the EIR started. That date was coming to a close. The EIR needed to be recirculated if it waited until after Phase II. Mr. Calonne said the worst case would end with automatic certification of the EIR, but the project was not subject to permit streamlining, so that was not an issue. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the agenda of March 27, 2000, included the item, but Mayor Kniss said during that meeting that the Council would not discuss the item. In the past when the Mayor said an item would not be discussed, it was the same thing as a motion to continue. At the March 27, 2000, meeting, Roxie Rapp stayed in the room after the Mayor said the item would not be discussed, and it was only after the Mayor said it a second time that Mr. Rapp left. Earlier in the meeting, Mayor Kniss said the Council would not discuss items 13 and 15. He suspected that those interested people who watched the Council meeting on TV or listened to the radio turned off their TVs and radios after the comment was made earlier in the meeting. He understood the procedure was that when an item was continued, the Council did not go back and revisit it. Roxie Rapp, P.O. Box 1672, said he started his project over three years ago. When the SOFA study first started, he met with Council Member Joe Huber who told him the SOFA study would be completed in one year. He and his partners were patient and tried to work with the neighbors and others involved. The Council gave directions in September 1999 to the Planning Director to return to the Council in January 2000 with a report. The Planning Director did not come back in January and the rumor was that the report would not be completed until late fall. He had the support of the property owners, the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, the Planning Commission, and the Planning Director. He asked that he be allowed to present the project to the Council.
04/17/00 90-106
Council Member Fazzino opposed the motion, noting that Phase II was a moving target for some time. Mr. Rapp was forced to wait a long time before the Council was willing to take up the issue of deciding whether or not to approve the project. If the Council gave him the opportunity to be heard, there was no commitment on the part of the Council to support his project, but it was reasonable for the Council to hear from Mr. Rapp. Council Member Kleinberg agreed with Council Member Fazzino. She thought there were many benefits tied to the proposed project which were in jeopardy of being lost. In fairness to Mr. Rapp, he should be given a hearing. Council Member Burch agreed with Council Members Fazzino and Kleinberg, and said he would vote against the motion. MOTION FAILED: 3-6, Eakins, Ojakian, Mossar “yes.” MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to reagendize the project. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Eakins, Ojakian “no.” BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL Agenda Item Nos. 15, 16, 16A, and 16B were continued to a date uncertain. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 15. Finance Committee recommendation Regarding Infrastructure Management Plan and Staffing Requirements Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend the Budget and the Table of Organization for the Public Works Department in the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $16,400 and Add a Full-time Position for the Infrastructure Management Plan (IMP) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7890 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7897, 7902, 7907, 7914, 7927 and 7945 to add the Classification and Salary of Senior Project Manager REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 16. Single-Story Overlay for DeSoto-Channing-Alester: Request by Citizens to Start the Evaluation Process
04/17/00 90-107
16A. (Old Item No. 2) Adoption of Traffic Signal Upgrade Plan 16B. (Old Item No. 6) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Crosswalk Between Inter-Sections on East Meadow Drive Between Louis Road and East Meadow Circle COUNCIL MATTERS 17. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements City Manager Frank Benest announced that the Closed Session Item Nos. 9-11 would be agendized to a Special Council Meeting of April 24, 2000, at 6:30 p.m., and that Item Nos. 15, 16A, and 16B be agendized for the Regular City Council Meeting of April 24, 2000, under the Consent Calendar. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 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.
04/17/00 90-108