HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-01 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting May 1, 2000 SPECIAL MEETING.............................................. 125 1. Study Session re Review Scope of Work and Schedule for the Performing Arts Center ................................... 125 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.............. 125 1. Welcomed Visitors from Albi, France. ..................... 126 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.......................................... 126 2. Resolution 7959 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving “Landscape Beautification of El Camino Real” as a City Priority” ................................ 126 3. Resolution 7960 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Authorizing Execution of Amendment of Lease PRC 7348.9 with the State Lands Commission Regarding the Palo Alto Landfill Partial Closure Phase IIB Project” .... 126 4. Ordinance 4632 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $50,000 for Legal Contract Assistance in the City Attorney’s Office” ....... 127 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS..................... 127 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider a Planned Community (PC) Zoning District amendment application by ChildrenFirst, Inc. on behalf of Stanford Management Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University to allow the establishment of a day care center in a portion of a single-story, commercial-office building located at 3000 El Camino Real, the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road (3 Palo Alto Square) ..................................... 127
05/01/00 90-123
6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will review an application by Bergtraun-Evard Architects, AIA, on behalf of the Goldman family for Site and Design review of the construction of a complex of two residences on two adjacent parcels located at 3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive having a combined total area of approximately 3.2 acres within the Open Space Zoning District. 130 7. Ordinance Adding Chapter 9.06 to Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit New Construction or Replacement of Wood Burning Fireplaces and Appliances ................... 130 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........... 142 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.............. 142
05/01/00 90-124
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins (arrived at 6:20 p.m.), Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Ojakian ABSENT: Mossar SPECIAL MEETING 1. Study Session re Review Scope of Work and Schedule for the Performing Arts Center No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
05/01/00 90-125
Regular Meeting May 1, 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 (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Welcomed Visitors from Albi, France. Mayor Kniss welcomed the visitors from Albi, France, many of whom were in Palo Alto to paint the City. No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 600 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding a citation given to him on February 15, 2000, for failing to stop his bicycle at a stop sign while traveling 3 miles per hour. The finest toymaker, chess player, and comedian lawyer in the galaxy, spoke regarding the creek flooding in 1998. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding build out in Palo Alto. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the lack of response to points raised during oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 – 4. 2. Resolution 7959 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving “Landscape Beautification of El Camino Real” as a City Priority” 3. Resolution 7960 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Authorizing Execution of Amendment of Lease PRC 7348.9 with the State Lands Commission Regarding the Palo Alto Landfill Partial Closure Phase IIB Project”
05/01/00 90-126
Amendment to Lease PRC 7348.9 Between the City of Palo Alto and State Lands Commission Regarding the Palo Alto Landfill Partial Closure Phase IIB Project 4. Ordinance 4632 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $50,000 for Legal Contract Assistance in the City Attorney’s Office” MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Kniss announced that Item No. 6 would be removed from the agenda to be heard on May 22, 2000. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider a Planned Community (PC) Zoning District amendment application by ChildrenFirst, Inc. on behalf of Stanford Management Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University to allow the establishment of a day care center in a portion of a single-story, commercial-office building located at 3000 El Camino Real, the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road (3 Palo Alto Square) (Continued from 2/22/00) Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council’s assignment on conflict of interest assistance included a piece to obtain earlier notification to the Council concerning who or what was behind planning applications. Senior Planner Luke Connolly said staff recommended Council approval of the PC zone amendment for PC zoning District 2533, the Palo Alto Square office complex. The zoning would allow childcare by right in the zoning district. The item was considered by the Planning Commission on January 12, 2000, and the Planning Commission recommended approval in accordance with the staff recommendation. Mr. Calonne recommended two changes to the text of the ordinance. The Council received at places a revised copy of the first page of the ordinance under Section 2.c., a sentence was added, “The modification will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of general districts or combining districts.” The PC zoning district under question was adopted in 1969 before the City Zoning Ordinance required any finding of
05/01/00 90-127
public benefit for PC zoning. Nonetheless, the City consistently sought amendments of PCs to include a public benefit finding as well. The childcare purposes described in the Comprehensive Plan and referenced in the ordinance provided ample public benefit and was a technical omission. The second change was found in Section 3, which made a reference to a recently prepared development plan. Staff believed the proper reference ought to be to the Development Plan included in 1969 with Ordinance 2533. The entire Section 3 would be replaced to read, “The development plan included as part of Ordinance No. 2533 is made part of this ordinance by reference.” Council Member Fazzino supported the proposal. He questioned why so called “backup childcare centers” were not required to provide the same kinds of recreational and other amenities associated with childcare centers, i.e., what was the difference between backup childcare centers and childcare centers. The issue of childcare centers had been discussed a number of years ago. Mr. Connolly said there could be some sort of an outdoor play area or some type of a drop off area, which were two items discussed at the Planning Commission. The City had no requirements for such centers. Given the nature, the backup childcare issue was one reason staff felt it would work at the site. Another primary reason was that the site had already been developed and its configuration made it difficult to find an outside play area and other areas for such amenities on the site. Council Member Fazzino clarified the childcare was temporary. Mayor Kniss understood that not only was the childcare very temporary, but was also meant as an emergency measure. If the measure was for any length of time, the Council would not be approving it. Mr. Connolly said backup meant “emergency childcare,” i.e., if the traditional childcare broke down, the backup was available. Council Member Fazzino asked whether “backup” was defined under state law. Mr. Connolly said staff used the term to differentiate between the childcare under discussion and traditional childcare. Some questions might be clarified through the applicant’s presentation on the matter. Patricia Forbes, Vice President, Children First, 75 Federal Street, Boston, MA, said site availability was a challenge, particularly in Palo Alto. Currently, the Children First (CF) had 20 such childcare facilities, predominantly in urban environments across the country. Palo Alto’s Planning staff was very helpful in
05/01/00 90-128
assisting the applicant. Regulations relative to children going outside to a play space were twofold. One was to provide the children with gross motor, or large muscle activity, and the other was to provide the children with the opportunity to get fresh air. In many environments, like Boston or Manhattan, the environment and weather were not sympathetic to taking children outside everyday. Many parents found their children in backup childcare, or emergency childcare, which for many children represented the first time in a childcare center. The duration of the stay was usually from one to five days. The children were not inside all day. The CF goal was to meet the intent of the regulation by approaching it differently. One of the things provided was a gross motor room to provide large muscle activity through basketball, tricycles, and other activities that children could do outside. In addition, children were taken on walks every day to take advantage of fresh air. The Department of Community Care Licensing in California granted a waiver from the requirement for structured outdoor play and accepted the alternative that met the regulation in spirit. Planning and Transportation Commissioner Kathryn Schmidt said the Planning Commission supported the land use. Although the Commission also asked about the outdoor play aspect and the drop off area, the Commission was convinced by the applicant that indoor play areas were sufficient and existing drop off and parking areas would work well for the use. Vice Mayor Eakins disclosed having met with the applicant and its attorney many months ago. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing open. No one came forward to speak to the item, and Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Burch, to adopt the Ordinance amending the permitted uses for the property located at 3000 El Camino Real. Also, to add under Section 2(c) the following
last sentence: “The modification will result in public benefits
not otherwise attainable by application of general districts or combining districts,” and replace Section 3 in its entirety to “The
development plan is included as part of Ordinance No. 2533 which is
part of this ordinance.” Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property at the Intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road Known as 3000 El Camino Real (Palo Alto Square) From PC Planned Community 2533 to PC Planned Community” MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar “not participating.”
05/01/00 90-129
PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will review an application by Bergtraun-Evard Architects, AIA, on behalf of the Goldman family for Site and Design review of the construction of a complex of two residences on two adjacent parcels located at 3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive having a combined total area of approximately 3.2 acres within the Open Space Zoning District. One residence is a 13,400 square foot single-family residence, including a three-car garage plus five uncovered parking spaces, and site improvements including a lap pool, turning court and terrace areas, for 15,063 square feet of impervious area (building and paving combined). The second house is a 3,359 square foot single-family residence, including a four-car garage plus two uncovered parking spaces, and site improvements including a pool, turning court and terrace areas, for 10,203 square feet of impervious area (building and paving combined). BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL, the item was removed from the agenda and scheduled for the Regular City Council Meeting of May 22, 2000. ORDINANCES 7. Ordinance Adding Chapter 9.06 to Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit New Construction or Replacement of Wood Burning Fireplaces and Appliances Planning and Community Environment Director Ed Gawf said the City Council asked staff to examine the issue of prohibiting new construction or replacement of wood burning fireplaces and appliances and to explore a means of regulating wood smoke pollution in 1999. In 1998, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted a model ordinance, outlining a model approach to regulate the use and construction of wood burning appliances including fire places, wood burning heaters, and other provisions. The model ordinance was not mandatory but a recommendation given to member cities of the BAAQMD. The model ordinance provided three basic items; a) that wood burning would be prohibited during “Spare the Air Tonight” warnings, issued by BAAQMD when the air pollution reached an unhealthy level; b) prohibit the burning of inappropriate materials in fire places; c) prohibit the construction or installation of any wood burning appliance that failed to meet certain requirements. When staff examined how the ordinance might apply to Palo Alto, it came up with two basic directions. One was to regulate the installation of new wood burning fireplaces within the community. The second effort was an education program. The problem was not just from new fireplaces, but all fireplaces. The education program would
05/01/00 90-130
provide support for changing fireplaces or do other things to reduce pollution. The other aspect was the prohibition of new wood-burning fireplaces in either new constructions or remodels. The ordinance would not affect existing fireplaces, which was an important distinction. The ordinance would prohibit new wood burning fireplaces from being constructed in residential and commercial structures. Staff in the Public Works Department, City Attorney’s Office, Fire Department, and Planning & Community Environment had all worked on the ordinance. Two provisions recommended by the BAAQMD were not included: 1) banning wood burning during “Spare-the-Air” warnings because the last warning occurred in 1992 and notifying people about the warning was important and was a regional issue, not a City issue; and 2) Enforcement would be very difficult for the City. Prohibiting the burning of inappropriate materials was already covered in the City’s nuisance laws or through hazardous materials provisions. Staff would again face the difficulty of enforcement. Council Member Beecham asked what action the City would take if someone were burning wood in an existing fireplace and was creating a nuisance toward a neighbor. Mr. Calonne said categorizing it as a public nuisance was possible, but very cumbersome and expensive to enforce because of staff time. The last time the issue was raised was the Il Fornaio food stove, which would not be regulated under such an ordinance. “Public nuisance” was a term that needed a more specific definition. Council Member Beecham asked whether the term “public nuisance” could be defined in the ordinance to make it easier to use. Mr. Calonne said yes. The ordinance included, in the enforcement section, a statement that any violation of the ordinance was deemed a nuisance. Council Member Beecham asked whether the “public nuisance” applied to existing fireplaces. Mr. Calonne said no. The difficulty was in defining how smoke had to behave to create the nuisance. Council Member Mossar thought the industry itself had a mechanism for dealing with air pollution nuisance complaints and was typically something in which the BAAQMD was involved with regard to enforcement actions. Environmental Compliance Manager Phil Bobel said in the last several years, staff discovered that a great number of air pollutants became water pollutants and contributed the burden in the San Francisco Bay (the Bay) and contributory creeks. An example
05/01/00 90-131
pollutant that had caught the public’s attention was dioxin. Dioxin was listed in the Bay because of a build up in fish tissue as a pollutant of concern by the water agencies. The air agency estimated that as much as 40 percent of the dioxin emissions in the Bay Area might be coming from wood burning. Staff’s response was to conduct a campaign with respect to existing fireplaces during the past winter. The Comprehensive Plan included a public awareness campaign with respect to wood smoke, both with regard to air and water pollution. Recognizing the two important pathways, the Comprehensive Plan directed staff to initiate a public awareness campaign. The first campaign was held in the fall of 1999-2000. Staff gleaned from the BAAQMD’s manual to create recommendations for existing fireplaces to: a) minimize the use of the fireplaces; b) burn hardwoods and not soft woods; c) burn compressed logs as opposed to wood because of less pollution than the soft woods; d) burn hot to get complete combustion; and e) not to burn trash, garbage, and plastics. The campaign included a bill stuffer in the Utility bills focusing on the issue over the winter. Two newspaper ads were issued, one during the holiday season to focus on not burning holiday wrapping papers and a second one focusing on general recommendations. The third component of the program involved handouts at all environmental activities, fairs, and school programs. Mr. Gawf said a representative from the BAAQMD was present for questions. Thomasina Mayfield, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, said the BAAQMD wrote the ordinance as a result of the drought years when so many complaints were received because of fires and the resultant smoke in the community. The goal was to present a model ordinance to the communities in an attempt to obtain some control of fireplaces and reduce particulate matter emissions. The focus was on particulate matter emissions because of respiratory distress, etc. BAAQMD wanted to convince communities that the measure was reasonable, practical, and basically what was already being done. Other cities such as Petaluma and Los Gatos, which already adopted the measure, reported back that once the measure was adopted, building developers were able to adjust. Having a wood-burning fireplace was still possible, although not all masonry fireplaces would meet the model ordinance. Gas-fired appliances were an option. Some masonry retrofits were very expensive. The City of Dublin recently adopted into its building code an ordinance prohibiting wood-burning appliances, mirroring the language within the BAAQMD’s ordinance. Ordinances were being proposed for the cities of San Jose, Berkeley, and Contra Costa County. One of the important elements of the model ordinance, and one in which BAAQMD was willing to assist the City, was public education. The advisory counsel assumed that public education and technical support would be provided to any community adopting the ordinance. Reducing
05/01/00 90-132
particulate matter would have a beneficial effect on communities. Support from the BAAQMD would include the wood-burning handbook, public outreach to schools, and staff to assist in implementing the ordinance. Regarding BAAQMD’s response to any complaints, typically if someone called to complain about a neighbor, a public relations intervention call would be made. The wood-burning handbook would be left on the door, and an inspector would attempt to convince the person to burn in a clean fashion. Enforcement possibilities were available, but had not been used. For example, if five different families in the community called BAAQMD to complain about a single-family dwelling producing a lot of smoke in the neighborhood, inspectors would confirm and issue a notice of violation. Because of the difficulty to obtain five calls at the same time, she had never seen a violation notice issued. The number of complaints had dropped substantially in the Bay Area because of the impact of meteorology on the air quality. The technical staff at the BAAQMD recognized there were two ambient air quality standards. One of the standards was being met but admittedly might not meet the standard for PM 2.5 in 2002, which was the point of the ordinance. Council Member Mossar asked whether the “Spare the Air” campaign included television advertising about the impact of wood smoke. Ms. Mayfield said yes. Television advertising was very expensive and not as much visibility was possible in the winter as the summer. Council Member Kleinberg said the proposed ordinance was a step in the right direction, but she was just as concerned about summer air as winter air. In the summer, bar-b-ques caused the most pollution. She asked whether anything in the future could control the kinds of substances burned in backyards that contributed to air pollution. Ms. Mayfield said bar-b-ques primarily contributed because of incomplete combustion products that contributed to the ozone. The items were addressed in the “Spare-the-Air” program because people were being asked not to use the charcoal because of the volatile organic compounds, which contributed to the ozone. The combustion products would be the particulate; however, with particulate, there was a seasonality. In the winter, the particulates in the Bay Area were high and were relatively low during the summer. Again, meteorological conditions were the biggest factor. Automobiles also contributed particulate matter and gasoline was the ozone product. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the heavy smoky smell in the air during the summer was the result of bar-b-que burning. Ms. Mayfield said the smell might come from wild fires but likely
05/01/00 90-133
came from bar-b-ques; however, the concentration of particulates was not the same in the summertime as the wintertime. Council Member Ojakian asked how someone could find out about the types of acceptable fireplaces and where to procure the types of burning substances that were acceptable. Ms. Mayfield said most stores where fireplace equipment was sold were aware of the need for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certification. Gas fireplaces were not the problem, but masonry presented the difficulty. BAAQMD wanted to provide information to help the homeowner comply with the regulations. Building directors generally provided guidance to homeowners and worked with vendors. Council Member Ojakian asked how staff would handle an applicant with plans that included a non-compliant fireplace. Mr. Gawf said the best process was to help with plans before applying. If the Council adopted the ordinance, staff would create a brochure outlining what was possible and what was not possible. The City should be proactive with architects, builders, contractors, etc., prior to plan preparation. As people picked up information from the Development Center, information should be made available. Michael Gersick, on behalf of California Hearths & Homes, 980 Ninth Street Suite #1600, Sacramento, spoke against the proposed ordinance because of the lack of factual information. The Council was asked to consider sending the matter to committee to consider the facts to help the Council understand the issue in detail. He was not present to argue against clean air or wood smoke regulation but was against regulation by presumption and the prohibition of an entire industry, a prohibition masquerading as an even-handed application of a Federal performance standard. The presumption that masonry fireplaces could not burn as cleanly as EPA certified wood stoves was untrue. Protocol for certification of wood stoves by the EPA was inapplicable to masonry fireplaces, that is, the machine to determine certification was never intended to apply to fireplaces and the EPA continued to decline to create a standard for masonry fireplaces. Council Member Mossar understood Mr. Gersick participated in the advisory group in the development of the model ordinance. Mr. Gersick said no. Council Member Mossar asked why Mr. Gersick had not addressed his concerns about the BAAQMD’s model ordinance to the BAAQMD rather than the communities considering adoption of the model ordinance.
05/01/00 90-134
Mr. Gersick questioned whether the BAAQMD board received communications from the senior staff regarding meetings at the BAAQMD offices about the problem. Council Member Mossar strongly suggested that Mr. Gersick focus on addressing the issue at the BAAQMD board level. Council Member Kleinberg asked Mr. Gersick to respond further to Council Member Mossar’s first question. Mr. Gersick said the Council had received a letter from the executive officer of the BAAQMD in which the point was raised that his group was trying to up-end an apple cart that was agreed to by other agencies representing the industry. The Council’s packet, however, did not contain the response from organizations such as his to Ellen Garvey’s claim that they were participants and consenting members of the ordinance. In fact, the characterization was untrue. The Home Builders Association was quoted as saying no one representing the Hearth Products Association or the Home Builders Association ever intended to indicate an agreement with the general direction that the ad hoc committee was taking on the draft ordinance and was misleading. Any representation that there had been an agreement among all parties or that such groups as his failed to take opportunities was false. Council Member Ojakian said Mr. Gersick should provide the materials to the Council. Vice Mayor Eakins said the item had already gone through the City’s Policy & Services (P&S) Committee, which was well publicized and heard a lot of public testimony more than a year before. John Crouch, 7840 Madison Avenue, Fair Oaks, spoke on behalf of the Hearth Products Association (HPA), the national trade association for manufacturers and retailers of EPA certified wood-stoves, gas fireplaces, factory-built wood-burning fireplaces, chimneys, wood-wax fire logs, etc. HPA participated in the subcommittee that generated the model ordinance, but was not part of the “consensus,” which as referenced in Ms. Garvey’s letter was in error. The package the Council received referenced northern Sonoma County and Petaluma, but the language in both ordinances was not in the model ordinance. Petaluma’s ordinance allowed its building inspector to decide whether or not a fireplace was acceptable, a policy that was not acceptable since the building inspector was not qualified to make that decision. Gas logs were allowed in the northern Sonoma County’s regulation, but gas logs in a wood burning fireplace were not allowed in Palo Alto’s. The issue related to EPA certified fireplaces was also confusing. There was no way to prove a fireplace was clean burning since there was no test other than the Washington State test and a draft test in northern Sonoma County,
05/01/00 90-135
neither of which were recognized by the BAAQMD. Cities had the right to decide about whether or not to keep the list of acceptable wood burning fireplaces. He asked why the proposed ordinance failed to address existing fireplaces. Council Member Burch thought the statement that gas fireplaces were not allowed in Palo Alto’s ordinance was untrue. Mr. Crouch said the reference in northern Sonoma County at the back of the Council packet specifically called attention to its solution, which was to construct fireplaces with permanent gas log systems. Palo Alto’s definition of a gas fireplace did not match that definition. The building inspector could interpret the definition as a dedicated gas fireplace. Council Member Burch thought Palo Alto’s proposed ordinance allowed gas fireplaces. Mr. Crouch said the building inspector might take such a broad interpretation, but language in northern Sonoma County gave its inspector the ability to install a masonry fireplace with a permanently installed gas log. The “permanently installed” language was not included in the City’s ordinance. Council Member Burch said the language “designed to burn natural gas in a manner that stimulates the appearance of a wood burning fireplace and does not burn anything other than natural gas,” sounded clear to him. Mr. Crouch said the city and county of Denver’s regulation said “a wood burning fireplace with a permanently installed gas log.” Council Member Beecham shared Mr. Crouch’s concern about not addressing existing fireplaces, but the implication was that other places successfully addressed existing fireplaces. Mr. Crouch said yes. The majority of wood burning ordinances in the western United States focused first on existing fireplaces and unless extensive new-home construction was seen, marginally dealt with new construction. One place in Palo Alto’s ordinance addressed existing fireplace replacement. Council Member Beecham asked how existing fireplaces could be addressed. Mr. Crouch said an ordinance could be developed that was more specific and would not take five letters, as the BAAQMD’s had, and would not involve the City Attorney in months of litigation. The City of Albuquerque had a prohibition that indicated that when a no-burn night was called and smoke was seen in a fireplace for more
05/01/00 90-136
than 20 minutes, that person was in violation. There was more to the issue than the Council was being provided with. Martin Bernstein, P. O. Box 1739, spoke about the lack of requirements for outdoor fireplaces, such as bar-b-ques, in the proposed ordinance, and the lack of enforcement for fireplace usage. The proposed ordinance was based on data from the BAAQMD, much of which might be based on old data. The Council was asked to add another exemption for Rumfort-type masonry fireplaces. Rumfort was specifically mentioned in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) because of its inherent proportions leading to certain burn efficiency. Loel McPhee, Andiron Technologies, 2995 Woodside Road #400-226, Woodside, spoke about a new technology developed by Richard Smith that increased combustion temperatures to supply more air to the base of the fire as a means of reducing pollution in new and existing fireplaces. Concern was expressed about the model ordinance, particularly with inconsistencies, e.g., there was no such thing as an “EPA certified fireplace,” only wood stoves; and about the fact only new construction was regulated and not existing fireplaces, particularly in an area like Palo Alto that was primarily developed. Most cities realized the model ordinance was too confining, disallowing new technologies. The Council was urged to focus on public-awareness campaigns so people would burn clean. Old wood stoves were the worst polluters. Jerry Giles, American Lung Association (ALA), 3372 Madonna Drive, San Jose, spoke about particulate emissions from wood burning fireplaces at 5,000 tons of matter per year in the Bay Area which were a serious health hazard. Wood smoke in Santa Clara County led to 5 to 25 deaths per year. The Washington State Department of Ecology concluded that the lifetime health risk from wood smoke exposure was 12 times greater than that of second-hand tobacco smoke. Masonry fireplaces could burn gas logs. Any wood stove would degrade over time. Regulating wood smoke was one of the best ways to improve public health. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the Wood-Smoke Ordinance which would prohibit the construction of new wood-burning fireplaces in residential construction. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 9.06 to Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit New Construction or Replacement of Wood Burning Fireplaces and Appliances” Council Member Mossar said the City needed to recognize that its citizens no longer relied on wood burning to heat homes. Zero emissions were a target Palo Alto had set for itself in any number
05/01/00 90-137
of things. The City’s fleet of automobiles included vehicles with natural gas and some electric, with more to come, with an understanding that it had a responsibility to protect the air quality and the health of its citizens and the environment. Wood smoke was without a doubt a problem for people’s health, especially children and seniors; two segments of the community that were discussed a great deal in the Council’s Chambers. By reducing the wood smoke in the community, the City would improve the quality of their lives. Staff had worked very hard on the ordinance and she was finally convinced it was a good place to start. The fact that existing fireplaces could be wood burning fireplaces could be seen as a flaw but, on the other hand, provided the opportunity for a homeowner who had to have a wood-burning unit to have one. The ordinance in no way ruled out new technologies. As technologies improved existing fireplace products, the ordinance could be changed to include them as permitted. In her own experience, she decided at the middle of the wood-burning season that she had had enough and sought a new product for her own home. She had found that the array of products available to the homeowner was vast. Natural gas logs could be purchased to fit into existing fireplaces. She was comfortable about extensive public education about wood smoke and that people would chose natural gas burning fireplaces. Vice Mayor Eakins said the issue had been brought to the Council because of her own experiences with a young girl unable to practice basketball outside because of the wood smoke in the air. Her colleagues were reminded of the old axiom “perfection is the enemy of progress”; even though the ordinance was not perfect or as extensive as some might want, it was a good beginning and was taking care of something that was doable. Once EPA standards were devised, and the Rumfort-type fireplaces could meet the standards, that was the time to consider amending the ordinance to include them. She asked whether the exemptions in section 9.06.040(e), “new fireplaces in Newly Built or existing residential, commercial or other non-residential structures that replace an existing, lawful fireplace,” meant fireplaces could be grandfathered in. Mr. Calonne said yes. The definition of “newly built” meant new construction, which was the policy discussion among the staff. Vice Mayor Eakins said that might be a serious flaw requiring amendment in the future. Mr. Gawf said the intent was that if an existing house with a fireplace was demolished and the plans for construction of a new house included a fireplace, it would be grandfathered in. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether Council Member Mossar was interested in removing that exemption since almost all new
05/01/00 90-138
construction was replacement of an existing structure. Council Member Mossar said the subject was one of a yearlong discussion, and she personally argued against grandfathering in fireplaces, but succumbed to the weight of staff’s insistence. Preferably a total demolition would not grandfather in a wood-burning fireplace. Vice Mayor Eakins thought there was not enough of an improvement, asking whether the Council was interested in modifying the motion to not exempt demolitions and construction of new structures Council Member Mossar would be open to modifying her motion to not allow the grandfathering of wood burning fireplaces when a fireplace was demolished and rebuilt. Mr. Gawf said “demolition permit” meant a total demolition of the existing house. Over a period of time, other definitions of demolition of 50 percent, etc., had existed. Council Member Mossar asked whether tearing everything down and leaving just the fireplace constituted a total demolition. Mr. Gawf said no. A portion of a wall could also be left standing to mean the house was not totally demolished. Council Member Mossar wanted to make leaving only the fireplace a total demolition. Mayor Kniss was not comfortable with that language. Vice Mayor Eakins thought the Council had not wanted to get involved in dramatically changing the ordinance at the current meeting. Council Member Mossar had originally not wanted to make major changes until she heard from staff. The ordinance was weak because almost all of Palo Alto’s new houses were built where there was an old house. Vice Mayor Eakins said a lot of new construction was planned for the area. She suggested the motion remain as it was and that the Council discuss the issue at a later time. Council Member Mossar agreed. Council Member Burch supported the motion. Anyone who installed a fireplace would install a gas fireplace as a result of the ordinance, which was why he supported it. Therefore, any new homes would have the possibility of gas fireplaces. For that reason, he
05/01/00 90-139
would support removing 9.06.040(e) because if a house was demolished, all the gas fireplaces desired could be installed, which was what the City wanted people to do. Council Member Mossar said part of the thought process was that with adequate public education, people would choose to install gas fireplaces without requiring them to do so. Council Member Burch said if it was an exemption, people would use the exemption. Mr. Calonne said staff had not intended to do anything different from the northern Sonoma County approach, a gas log in a fireplace was sufficient. He suggested changes to a couple of definitions that he thought would remove doubts for the Council. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change under Chapter 9.06.010(c) Definitions. “’Gas fireplace’ means a fireplace or any other device designed to burn natural gas in a manner that simulates the appearance of a wood burning fireplace and does not burn anything other than natural gas,” and second sentence under (e) “Wood burning appliance does
not include gas stoves or fireplaces exclusively used for cooking food for human consumption.” Council Member Beecham expressed a number of concerns about the ordinance. On one hand, affecting people’s ability to have a fire in their home somehow affected the concept of “castle and hearth and heart.” The fact that so much effort was going into having a fireplace meant it was near and dear to many people’s ideal of what their home should look like. The ordinance alone would not see that much improvement in terms of wood burning pollution, which was a local nuisance for the most part. The City should go further, but he was not prepared to do so at the current meeting, to control the nuisance and pollution from existing wood-burning fireplaces. Things could be done to improve the situation, such as public benefit funds could be used to start a program for inserts on existing wood-burning stoves or fund a gas line as a retrofit. The City should examine how to improve the existing situation including the ability to enforce nuisances. The discussion about EPA standards on masonry fireplaces would never happen because the EPA had no interest in doing so. Inserts for fireplaces might, however, be EPA certified. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Kniss, to amend the exemptions section Chapter 9.06.040 to include Rumfort-type fireplace for masonry fireplaces. Council Member Mossar would not support the amendment. The BAAQMD staff, the technical body in the region, had assured her that
05/01/00 90-140
Rumfort-type fireplaces, although better than some other wood burning fireplaces, were not a significant reduction in air pollution and were not recommended. When she was personally shopping for gas-burning inserts, she was told that people who installed Rumfort-type fireplaces installed with the glass doors, which was why they burned efficiently. As soon as building inspectors were gone, the glass doors were off and were very similar in burning. The BAAQMD would not support the Rumfort-type fireplaces as an exemption at the current time. Council Member Beecham would not support the amendment. At a later time, he was interested in addressing inserts when more information could be made available to the Council. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN Council Member Kleinberg suggested the City Manager return with further information on the Rumfort-type appliance and closed system wood heaters for the second reading. Mr. Benest asked whether the Council wanted information or a staff report. Council Member Kleinberg was primarily interested in the information. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved that the ordinance include a provision that upon the sale of a home, the wood-burning appliance be removed, rendered inoperable, or replaced with a permitted device per the ordinance. Council Member Kleinberg said the amendment would provide the City with an opportunity to catch the turnover situations and have a retrofit done at the time or that would not upset the current homeowner. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council Member Ojakian supported the motion and thanked Council Member Mossar and Vice Mayor Eakins for working so hard on the ordinance. The educational program should be emphasized. The public was reminded that the ordinance would be on the Council agenda again as a second reading, providing further opportunities for comments and arguments to be made. Mayor Kniss agreed with Council Member Beecham about the “home and hearth” concept and the romance that went along with fireplaces. However, when the City first put the no-smoking ordinance in place, it was extremely controversial but started with a little bit at a time. The current ordinance was the same little start. The
05/01/00 90-141
problem would not be solved in one fell-swoop. The second reading would allow for further additions or changes. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Kniss announced she attended a dinner honoring the visitors from Oaxaca who presented her with a doll, and she also visited some Russian students who presented her with a book. Council Member Burch said he was impressed that City Manager Frank Benest could speak comfortably with the visitors from Oaxaca in their native language. Vice Mayor Eakins said she and former Council Member Joe Huber previously brought forth a memo setting up some guidelines for Public Art in City Projects that would be in this week’s Council packet. Council Member Kleinberg requested that her previous suggestions for the agenda with regard to the Joint Meeting with State Senator Byron Sher be included on the agenda for the rescheduled meeting. Mayor Kniss announced the May Fete Parade would be held on Saturday, May 6, 2000. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 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.
05/01/00 90-142
05/01/00 90-143