HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-18 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting September 18, 2000
1. Study Session re Zoning Ordinance Update ................... 4
ADJOURNMENT.................................................... 5
A. (Old Item No. 7) Resolution 7998 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation of Francisco Alfonso for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architectural Review Board”................................ 6
1. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for Architectural Review Board................................................... 6
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS............................................ 6
APPROVAL OF MINUTES............................................ 7
2. Ordinance 4654 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 1.04.072 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Expedited Judicial Review of Actions or Proceedings Related to Licenses or Permits for Activities Involving Expressive Conduct Protected Under the First Amendment” (1st Reading 7/31/00, PASSED 8-0, Ojakian absent) .............. 8
3. Ordinance 4655 entitled “Ordinance of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 9.79.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Newsrack Permits” (1st Reading 7/31/00, PASSED 8-0,
Ojakian absent)................................................ 8
4. Ordinance 4656 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 a Portion of Property Collectively Known as ‘Channing Park Tract 883 and Tract 909’ From R-1 To R-1(S)” (1st Reading 7/31/00,
PASSED 8-0, Ojakian absent).................................... 8
5. Ordinance 4657 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.10.500 and Appendix A of Chapter 2.10 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Repeal the Internet and Cable Modem Service Standards” (1st Reading 8/7/00,
09/18/00 91-1
PASSED 7-0, Mossar “not participating,” Burch absent).......... 9
6. 1st Reading – Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 21.04, 21.08, 21.16 and 21.44 of Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) to Conform to the Provisions of the Subdivision Map Act9
7. Item deleted. .............................................. 9
8. Amendments to Compensation Plans for Management, Confidential, and Hourly Personnel, and Amendment to the Merit System Rules and Regulations................................... 9
9. 480 Cambridge Avenue and 1069 East Meadow Circle – Summary Vacation of Public Utility Easements........................... 9
10. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company, Inc. for Gas Main Replacement Capital Improvement Project 10 (CIP #36800), Stanford Shopping Center Gas Modifications (CIP #34876), and Stanford Shopping Center Water Modifications (CIP #30113) in the Amount of $1,983,610......... 9
11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Hot Line Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $232,699 for Installation of Electrical Equipment, Primary, Secondary, and Street Cables in Underground Utility District No. 37........................... 10
12. Nomination of Six Individuals to the Board of Silicon Valley Community Communications, Inc................................. 10
13. Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Contract No. C9110613 Between the City of Palo Alto and Auriga Corporation in the Amount of $14,794.89 for a Year 2000 Impact Assessment and Plan......... 10
14. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Company in the Amount of $312,400 for the Scum Concentrator Replacement Project at the Water Quality Control Plant......................................................... 10
15. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C8098843 Between the City of Palo Alto and Tiger Contract Services, Inc. to Extend the Contract Through November 30, 2000, for Custodial Services.... 10
16. Renewal of Animal Control and Sheltering Services Agreement with the Town of Los Altos Hills and the Cities of Los Altos and Mountain View for Three Years................................. 10
17. Implementation Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Regarding the Lease of Land at Ramona Street and Channing Avenue for a Child Care Center.. 10
18. Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 3820 Between the City of
09/18/00 91-2
Palo Alto and Santa Clara County for Abatement of Weeds....... 10
18A. (Old Item No. 25) Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements................................................. 11
19. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................... 14
20A. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation...... 14
20B. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation..... 14
21. PUBLIC HEARING: Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve an application to the Architectural Review Board by Moyer Associates Architects, on behalf of James Baer/Premier Properties, for architectural review of a project to be located at 2275 El Camino Real, to allow the remodel and expansion of the existing one-story, 8,282-square-foot commercial building to house the First Republic Bank, including demolition of 768 square feet and construction of a 3,522-square-foot, second-story addition for a total of 11,036 square feet, and parking, landscaping, and related site improvements. The Environmental Assessment for this project is a Mitigated Negative Declaration. File Nos. 99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28............................................................... 15
22. Request of Property Owners of Portions of Tracts 1371 and 1503 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning in the Garland Neighborhood - Refer to Planning and Transportation Commission.................................................... 21
23. Council Members Burch and Mossar and Vice Mayor Eakins re Consideration of an Urgency Addition to the Existing Tree Preservation Ordinance........................................ 27
24. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of September 25, 2000, Regular City Council Meeting.......................................... 34
ADJOURNMENT................................................... 34
09/18/00 91-3
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg (arrived at 6:35 p.m.), Kniss, (arrived at 6:20 p.m.), Lytle (arrived at 6:10 p.m.), Mossar, (arrived at 6:20 p.m.), Ojakian ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL MEETING 1. Study Session re Zoning Ordinance Update Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf introduced the subject, indicating that the Zoning Ordinance would implement the Council’s adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The goals for the study session included reviewing the work program, the objectives of the Update, the resources required to prepare the Update, and the proposed timeline. He emphasized that a two-year timeline was aggressive, but that resources were dedicated to meet that goal. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote outlined the key objectives of the Update, including: implement the Comprehensive Plan, reflect modern land uses, clarify terms and definitions, explore zoning techniques and formats, and make the Code user-friendly and enhance its online usefulness. She reviewed the six phases of the proposed work program: 1) identify of issues; 2) review zoning formats and techniques; 3) develop ordinance modules (grouping of topics); 4) prepare a comprehensive draft; 5) environmental review; and 6) workshops and public hearings. Ms. Grote explained that the Planning and Transportation Commission would provide oversight for the process, receive quarterly reports and conduct quarterly study sessions, and participate in workshops. The Council would provide policy direction at biannual study sessions and otherwise as needed, receive copies of the quarterly reports, and be invited to workshops as well. Ms. Grote outlined the public outreach process for the Zoning Ordinance Update, noting that a web page was established and an e-mail address dedicated to comments and questions regarding the issue, a public comment form was created to solicit public input, newspaper announcements were running in local papers, and three public forums were scheduled for later in the month. Focus groups would be used to provide input from varied interest groups on specific topics.
09/18/00 91-4
Ms. Grote concluded by summarizing the two-year timeframe, with a draft ordinance anticipated in August 2002. Workshops and public hearings would be held prior to adoption. The effort would use in-house staff, supplemented by occasional consultant expertise on particular topics, such as design issues. The initial year’s budget was funded, but additional funding would be requested in the next year’s budget for the second year of the project. Two full-time planning positions would be needed, requiring backfilling existing positions in the Department. No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
09/18/00 91-5
Regular Meeting September 18, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL, Item No. 7 was moved forward ahead of Item No. 1 to become Item No. A
A. (Old Item No. 7) Resolution 7998 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation of Francisco Alfonso for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architectural Review Board” MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Ojakian, to adopt the resolution. Council Member Ojakian said he met Mr. Alfonso when he first became a member of the Architectural Review Board and had attended a Planning Commission meeting where a contentious issue was discussed. He recalled Mr. Alfonso telling him with enthusiasm how much he learned that evening and how much he enjoyed serving the City. Vice Mayor Eakins said Mr. Alfonso was an inspiration to everyone. He was a special person who embodied the best. The City was grateful for his service, commitment, and friendship. Mrs. Alfonso accepted the resolution and said her husband took his work on the Architectural Review Board very seriously and loved doing something he felt made a difference. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino “absent.” 1. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for Architectural Review Board City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Joseph Bellomo, Clifford Chang, Joseph Disorbo, Kenneth Kornberg, Lee Lippert, Henry Lum, Richard Smith, and Judith Wasserman received four or more votes and would be interviewed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
09/18/00 91-6
Ben Bailey, 600 Homer Street, spoke regarding the big 3-mph bicycle stop-sign caper and piddlecop Perryman’s big bicycle light caper. Jack Koch, 1466 Dana Street, spoke regarding STFD mitigation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the minutes of July 17, 2000, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the minutes of July 24, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Ojakian “abstaining.” MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the minutes of July 31, 2000, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Ojakian “abstaining.” MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the minutes of August 1, 2000, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the minutes of August 7, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0-2, Burch, Ojakian “abstaining”. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Ojakian stated that he would not participate on Item No. 17 due to a conflict of interest. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, requested the Council limit the ordinance proposed in Item No. 6 and not make the two changes to Title 21 that were optional since both appeared to be for the benefit of a specific project with the application in process. The issue was whether or not the Council had a process to provide additional information on a Final Map. In the case of the Los Trancos Subdivision, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the application and made a recommendation to have project conditions from the tentative map changed or have certain 09/18/00 91-7
items implemented at the time of grading or construction. The net effect was: 1) an ordinance was necessary to enable certain things to be accomplished; and 2) the final map was an important marking point where the Council could get enforcement of conditions. The applicant did not have any incentive to get the final map approved in a hurry. Landscaping conditions were first made available at the ARB meeting but were not presented to interested parties such as the Town of Portola Valley. He asked the Council to delete sections 6 and 7 of the ordinance or refer them to the Planning and Transportation Commission. Council Member Mossar wanted to follow up with staff on Mr. Borock’s comments. City Attorney Calonne said Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth identified the changes some months prior. He did not believe there was any linkage to any particular project. Council Member Mossar asked that Item No. 6 be removed from the Consent Calendar and ask staff for further information. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve Consent Calendar Items Nos. 2 – 5, and 8 – 18, with Item No. 6 removed by Council Member Mossar. 2. Ordinance 4654 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 1.04.072 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Expedited Judicial Review of Actions or Proceedings Related to Licenses or Permits for Activities Involving Expressive Conduct Protected Under the First Amendment” (1st Reading 7/31/00, PASSED 8-0, Ojakian
absent) 3. Ordinance 4655 entitled “Ordinance of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 9.79.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Newsrack Permits” (1st Reading 7/31/00, PASSED
8-0, Ojakian absent) 4. Ordinance 4656 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 a Portion of Property Collectively Known as ‘Channing Park Tract 883 and Tract 909’ From R-1 To R-1(S)” (1st Reading 7/31/00, PASSED 8-0, Ojakian absent) 5. Ordinance 4657 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.10.500 and Appendix A of Chapter 2.10 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
09/18/00 91-8
to Repeal the Internet and Cable Modem Service Standards” (1st Reading 8/7/00, PASSED 7-0, Mossar “not participating,” Burch absent) 6. 1st Reading – Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 21.04, 21.08, 21.16 and 21.44 of Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) to Conform to the Provisions of the Subdivision Map Act 7. Item deleted. 8. Amendments to Compensation Plans for Management, Confidential, and Hourly Personnel, and Amendment to the Merit System Rules and Regulations Resolution 7999 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1701 of the MERIT System Rules and Regulations” Resolution 8000 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 7890, 7897, 7902, 7907, 7914, 7927, 7945, 7958 and 7966” Resolution 8001 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 7891” 9. 480 Cambridge Avenue and 1069 East Meadow Circle – Summary Vacation of Public Utility Easements Resolution 8002 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering the Summary Vacation of a Public Utilities Easement at 480 Cambridge Avenue” Resolution 8003 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering the Summary Vacation of a Public Utilities Easement at 1069 East Meadow Circle” 10. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company, Inc. for Gas Main Replacement Capital Improvement Project 10 (CIP #36800), Stanford Shopping Center Gas Modifications (CIP #34876), and Stanford Shopping Center Water Modifications (CIP #30113) in the Amount of $1,983,610
09/18/00 91-9
11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Hot Line Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $232,699 for Installation of Electrical Equipment, Primary, Secondary, and Street Cables in Underground Utility District No. 37 12. Nomination of Six Individuals to the Board of Silicon Valley Community Communications, Inc. 13. Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Contract No. C9110613 Between the City of Palo Alto and Auriga Corporation in the Amount of $14,794.89 for a Year 2000 Impact Assessment and Plan 14. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Company in the Amount of $312,400 for the Scum Concentrator Replacement Project at the Water Quality Control Plant 15. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C8098843 Between the City of Palo Alto and Tiger Contract Services, Inc. to Extend the Contract Through November 30, 2000, for Custodial Services 16. Renewal of Animal Control and Sheltering Services Agreement with the Town of Los Altos Hills and the Cities of Los Altos and Mountain View for Three Years 17. Implementation Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Regarding the Lease of Land at Ramona Street and Channing Avenue for a Child Care Center. Lease Agreement Between Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) and Children’s Creative Learning Center (CCLC) Approval of Fee Waivers in an Amount Not to Exceed $50,000 to Facilitate the Development of this Center 18. Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 3820 Between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County for Abatement of Weeds MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2-5, 9-16 and 18. MOTION PASSED 7-2 for Item No. 8, Mossar, Ojakian “no.” MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 17, Ojakian “not participating.” AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
09/18/00 91-10
MOTION: Council Member Beecham, seconded by Council Member Ojakian, to bring Item No. 25 forward ahead of Item No. 19 to become Item No. 18A. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Fazzino “abstaining.” 18A. (Old Item No. 25) Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Vice Mayor Eakins asked what the procedure was for a citizen who lost or misplaced a storm drain fee ballot. City Clerk Donna Rogers said citizens would call the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 329-2571 and ask for a form requesting a duplicate ballot. The City Clerk’s staff would verify that a ballot had not been received. Once the request for duplicate ballot was completed and verified, a duplicate ballot would be issued. Vice Mayor Eakins asked how the City Clerk’s Office could verify they had not received a ballot. Ms. Rogers said as ballots were received, they were scanned into the computer which registered the ballot to the property. Council Member Ojakian said concern was expressed from people about the fact their ballot did not have the typical statement about what the ballot was about. He asked where the information was available to the public. Ms. Rogers said citizens could contact the Administrative Services Department and also could look up information on the City’s web site. Council Member Lytle asked why objective ballot information was not sent to voters and whether there was time to get further information to the voters. Administrative Services Director Yeats said informational ballot information to validate the address was sent prior to sending the ballots. Not many items were returned “undeliverable.” The City mailed information to property owners, included inserts with utility bills, held five community meetings, and had a forum presented by the League of Women Voters. Legal advice from the City Attorney indicated that sending information with the ballot would take a position of advocating which way a resident should vote.
09/18/00 91-11
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the combination of explanatory material with a ballot without opposing points of view was the situation of concern. The fact that address corrections were not received from the first packet mailed gave staff some confirmation that documents went to the correct locations. He could not say that including a ballot pamphlet was absolutely illegal. Mr. Yeats said the election was different than what people were accustomed to because it was a Proposition 218 mail-in ballot election that was mailed only to property owners. Council Member Lytle said ballots in unusual elections could be formatted to provide clear information as to what was being voted on. The City might have hurt itself in the election by not having the information included with the ballot. She was sorry there was no opportunity to make a correction since the City was concerned about the legality and fairness. Mr. Calonne disagreed with Council Member Lytle. Placing blame on the City Attorney for not including information with the ballot was wrong. Council Member Ojakian said a follow-up session after the election might be helpful. The election was a learning process. Council Member Mossar said the Tactical Committee of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) held its first meeting earlier in the day with the new Executive Director. The new Director had begun to put in place policy, procedures and structure that would enable the JPA to move forward in a constructive manner. A small portion of the storm drain fee would pay the City’s basic annual support fee for the Creek JPA. The JPA was critically important if any environmental or flood control improvements were to happen. Positive movement was impossible without the JPA. The JPA was the only hope of resolving watershed issues. Council Member Fazzino did not believe Council Member Lytle’s comments were an attack on the City Attorney. He applauded the good work done by the City Attorney. He could not understand why a way could not be found to provide printed information to voters at the same time they received their ballots. He had respect for the people who put the measure in place because they had protection of the City in mind. The reality was that people would be protected from short-term flooding. The storm drain system would protect people from a 10-year, 20-year, or 30-year flood. The City’s responsibility was to provide as much quality,
09/18/00 91-12
objective information to voters to allow them to make an informed choice. Council Member Burch said the ballots would be ignored by an equal amount of “yes” and “no” people for many reasons. He was hopeful the vote would pass. Council Member Kleinberg said comments were made that storm drain fee would be the Council’s slush fund. That was not the case. The projects that were targeted were long overdue. Another comment said the Council should not spend money because money was not spent right in the past. If the City wanted to continue to have expensive maintenance deferred to the future, that was what the City would get. The Council was asking for a reasonable assessment of how to deal with deferred maintenance. The notion that people were not aware of the storm drain election was a problem. She recalled asking what the control was on the escalation of fees. The answer was the elected body, which oversaw finances and fees in the community, had the right to approve or reject any increase in fees. The Palo Alto Weekly should publish, as a public service, information to let people know what was happening. Mayor Kniss understood the rules, but said it was regrettable that the City was not able to publish or send information to the potential voters. She did not know whether, under Proposition 218, the Council could ask for any changes in the future. The current mechanism of voting was troubling because it was so new and problematic to the voters who received ballots. Council Member Burch asked whether there was an indication of the percentage of ballots that were returned. Ms. Rogers believed approximately 7,000 ballots were received out of an estimated 19,000. Mr. Calonne said staff’s effort was to conservatively interpret Proposition 218 to protect the voters’ right to control taxes and fees. Council Member Lytle said her intent was to have the information explained in a neutral fashion. Mayor Kniss said regular ballots included pro and con information and mechanisms for finding out more about what the item was. The Council’s frustration was that it was not able to put out more explanatory information.
09/18/00 91-13
Council Member Mossar said Foothill-DeAnza Community College District provided a good amount of information the prior year to voters about a tax increase. Neutrality was possible without advocating. Council Member Fazzino found it troublesome that objective information about the item was not available in order for people to make an informed choice. No action required. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 19. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Ruben Grijalva) Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Fire Chiefs Association Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 20A. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation Subject: City of Palo Alto v. Harbor Investment Partners, a California General Partnership, SCC #CV782141 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 20B. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Ione Breyer v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #CV783468 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
PUBLIC HEARINGS 21. PUBLIC HEARING: Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve an application to the Architectural Review Board by Moyer Associates Architects, on behalf of James Baer/Premier Properties, for architectural review of a project to be located at 2275 El Camino Real, to allow the remodel and expansion of the existing one-story, 8,282-square-foot commercial building to
09/18/00 91-14
house the First Republic Bank, including demolition of 768 square feet and construction of a 3,522-square-foot, second-story addition for a total of 11,036 square feet, and parking, landscaping, and related site improvements. The Environmental Assessment for this project is a Mitigated Negative Declaration. File Nos. 99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28. Mayor Kniss announced the item was quasi-judicial and Council’s procedural rules applied. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the application on July 20, 2000, and an appeal was received. The items of appeal were addressed in the staff report (CMR:366:00). Four concerns were addressed. One concern was the placement of the ATM, which would cause congestion along the sidewalk area on Cambridge Avenue. A 10-foot sidewalk existed which allowed for people to use the ATM. Another concern was that parking was inadequate. Chapter 18.83 of the Zoning Ordinance required one parking space for each 310 square feet of new square footage for the remodeled portion. The applicant provided seven on-site parking spaces which met Title 18 parking requirements. The third concern was the location of the ATM might cause people to park in the red zone along Cambridge Avenue. Staff felt that there was enough parking to meet the zoning ordinance and other on-street parking that would be available. The fourth concern was the application of the Zoning Ordinance and whether or not the underlying requirements were logical. The appellant raised questions about the fact that a smaller financial institution required more parking than a larger institution. That question might be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance update. Staff did not believe it would be appropriate to apply standards differently for the current project. Staff recommended the appeal be denied and the original decision made by the Planning Director be upheld. Vice Mayor Eakins said she had walked the site the prior day with Council Member Mossar. Council Member Lytle said she had toured the site the prior day. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Jim Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, was been involved in 125-150 ARB project approvals, and the appeal was his first. He participated in four ARB public hearings and three continuances prior to approval. During the fourth hearing, a simplification of the building to limestone and stucco and reduction of mass of the building through the height were made. Two members of the public
09/18/00 91-15
spoke during the hearings, and a number of changes were made by the applicant and the ARB in response to the public’s comments. The project included the addition of 2,754 square feet to an unattractive building. The building was cut away at the corner of El Camino Real. The Floor Area Ration (FAR) was .94 in a zone that allowed 2.0. Lot coverage was 64 percent where 100 percent was allowed. The building was 30 feet 8 inches tall in a zone that would allow 37 feet. The existing uses in the existing building required 42 parking spaces; only 36 parking spaces would be with the 2,754-square-foot addition and new uses. The vehicle trips generated on a daily basis by the existing uses were more than the vehicles generated by the proposed new uses. Cedro Lane was a badly maintained alley behind the property. The proposed parking lot provided 10.5 percent interior landscaping, but they were unable to provide a full five-foot wide landscaping strip along Cedro Lane. In the final ARB hearing, speakers from the public asked that a Design Enhancement Exception to grant the two and one-half rather than five-foot landscape strip at the Cedro Lane entry not be allowed. Staff had recommended the Design Enhancement Exception, but the ARB said a five-foot landscape strip would be provided which would lose one parking space. Losing one space would be a shame. Council Member Mossar asked who owned Cedro Lane. Mr. Baer did not know whether the City owned Cedro Lane in fee or had the right-of-way. One of the conditions of approval was that the alley be improved. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, presented a picture showing the subject property. Her home in College Terrace was on other side of El Camino Real. She was concerned about the massiveness of the proposed building, parking inadequacy, traffic and circulation impacts, and the location of the ATM. Most of the buildings nearby were single-story. The proposed building was 31 feet high, while the existing building was only 21 feet high. The proposed building did not maintain the existing scale. Replacing four small, local businesses with one large bank did not maintain the existing character and function of the California Avenue Business District. During the first ARB hearing on the project, the applicants stated they wanted to “make a statement with the building.” She did not want to be forced to live with such a “statement.” The applicants stated the same developer owned and planned to redevelop many of the buildings on the rest of the block from one story to two stories. Allowing the proposed project would end up changing the scale of the entire block. The staff report (CMR:366:00) tried to justify the scale of the proposed building by pointing out that the nearby church had a
09/18/00 91-16
two-story element. The steeple of the church could not be compared to the massiveness of the proposed building. Policy L-30 of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) called for improving the transition between the Cambridge Avenue area and the single-family residential neighborhood of Evergreen Park, and for avoiding abrupt changes in scale and density of the two areas. Parking for the building was inadequate. The applicants proposed to provide seven onsite parking spaces for the 11,036-square-foot bank. Bank of the West on California was a smaller building with 18 parking spaces, and those spaces were almost always full during business hours. The applicants claimed they would be providing seven new parking spaces on a lot that once parked up to 16 vehicles, which was contrary to Policy T-45 of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) to provide sufficient parking in the California Avenue Business District to address long-range needs. The applicants told the ARB that the seven onsite parking spaces would be reserved for bank customers, and employees would have to find parking elsewhere. She believed there was a waiting list for permit parking in the California Avenue assessment area which meant bank employees would park in the Evergreen Park and College Terrace neighborhoods. Policy T-47 of the Comp Plan said to “protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts.” Staff said the project was required to provide only nine onsite parking spaces which was reduced to seven spaces because of the bicycle lockers and employee amenity area. The determination of parking requirements concerned her because the parking ordinance favored large banks over small banks in the California Avenue area. The inadequacy of the parking negatively impacted traffic and circulation at the intersection. The ATM was proposed to be located where the Campus Barber Shop was. The staff report indicated the width of the sidewalk was nine to eleven feet. She measured it slightly less than ten feet. The curb on Cambridge Avenue, along the entire length of the existing building, was painted red to provide a right turn lane and to prevent traffic congestion at the busy intersection. The ATM would tempt drivers to stop along the red curb which would create a traffic problem and hazard to bicyclists. The ATM should be moved to face the parking lot. There appeared to be a presumption that if a project fell within staff’s interpretation of the code, it must be consistent with the Comp Plan. The Zoning Ordinance was written prior to the Comp Plan and was often inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan should rule when there was an inconsistency. She asked the Council to approve her appeal and send the project back to the ARB in order for the project’s defects to be corrected. The needed changes in the project were not minor or inconsequential.
09/18/00 91-17
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, said several small service businesses were lost and in their place was the area’s sixth bank. She asked the Council to do something about the erosion of the small neighborhood-serving businesses. The current proposed building was better than the original project. Many good changes were made. The mass was large, and the ATM location was a problem. The site currently had 16 parking spaces, and she was concerned about the effect on the neighborhoods due to employee parking. She asked the Council to support Ms. Ogawa’s appeal. Michael Eager, 1960 Park Boulevard, was pleased to see the area redeveloped but was concerned about the issues mentioned by Ms. Ogawa. Sight visibility was difficult at the intersection. The location of the ATM was a concern because of obstructions in the sidewalk and the red curb along the building. The number of parking spaces was inadequate. The Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association was concerned about overflow parking from the California Avenue area. The fact that parking garages were located down the street from the project did not provide for parking for employees. The Evergreen and College Terrace areas were already impacted, and the neighbors wanted the issues addressed. He asked that the Council refer the matter back to the ARB for reconsideration of the parking issue and location of ATM. Ms. Ogawa said the responsibility for the many hearings was due to the applicant. The first ARB hearing was held on January 6, 2000, and most of the tenants in the existing building were moved out by the end of January. After several continuations, the second ARB review was held on May 4, 2000; several ARB comments had not been addressed, and the hearing was then continued to June 1, 2000. The staff report on June 1, 2000, recommended denial of the project because the applicant had not addressed many of the ARB’s comments. The hearing was continued to July 20, 2000, at which time the applicant presented the project that was before the City Council. She felt if the Council denied the appeal, the applicants would be rewarded for being unresponsive to the ARB and public comments. Mr. Baer said five members of the ARB were present at the January 6, 2000, hearing, but only three were present at the following meetings. The ATM was relocated as requested by the ARB. The process was long and arduous and resulted in a superior project. Council Member Burch asked the applicant to explore the possibility moving the ATM to another location. Mr. Baer said he would need to discuss that option with a representative of First Republic Bank. He asked whether that
09/18/00 91-18
could be done at staff level since it would not go to the integrity of the design from the ARB point of view. Mayor Kniss said that could be explored and returned. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the staff recommendation that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of the proposed project and the associated Negative Declaration. Council Member Beecham said the issue was an ARB design issue. The Council must abide by zoning; the size and height of the building and parking were within limits. Council Member Ojakian agreed with Council Member Beecham. The location was in need of a building that provided more of a “statement” as was done with certain areas in the Downtown, such as entryways or gateway-type structures. Council Member Lytle said the discretionary approval of the ARB required a finding of consistency with the Comp Plan. She agreed with the appellant that the Comp Plan should be the guiding document in the case of redevelopment. The areas she found not in compliance included the scale of the project and the variety of uses in the single building. The project would add jobs without housing, and that was an issue in the Comp Plan. Financial institutions did not contribute to retail vitality. Mayor Kniss clarified there was willingness to move the ATM. Council Member Burch said he heard the applicant say he was willing to explore that possibility. Vice Mayor Eakins said ATM locations and treatment needed to be considered carefully in the zoning update. The interpretations of the appellant of the Comp Plan were not persuasive, and she agreed with the findings in Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:366:00). Council Member Mossar did not find the ATM argument compelling. Cedro Lane was an area that was not pedestrian-oriented. The Comp Plan talked about having pedestrian access on the backsides of buildings to make that side of the building an entrance. She hoped in the future more thought would be given to understanding how the area articulated from a pedestrian point of view.
09/18/00 91-19
Council Member Fazzino said the proposed building was attractive. He was sympathetic to the appellant’s concerns, but there was not much that could be done based on the current zoning. The Council had the opportunity to redevelop the California Avenue area during the next several years. He supported the application. Council Member Kleinberg had concerns about the location of the ATM and inadequate parking. Traffic created by the location of the ATM would create a nuisance. She was not persuaded by the discussion in the ARB minutes that people would do more online banking. She did not believe there was enough parking for the intensity of the use of a customer-oriented service building. Council Member Beecham asked whether the City had a policy or history in terms of requiring ATMs to be on the sidewalk. Ms. Grote said the Zoning Ordinance did not have standards that addressed the issue of placement of ATMs. Each design would be reviewed individually to see if it fit with the overall design and location. Council Member Ojakian recalled a comment in the staff report (CMR:366:00) about the sidewalks on Cambridge Avenue being relatively wide. Ms. Grote said the sidewalks on Cambridge Avenue were slightly less than ten feet. Council Member Ojakian said one of the advantages of putting the ATM in the proposed location was because there was enough space. Ms. Grote said the ten-foot sidewalk on Cambridge Avenue was wide enough to accommodate a variety of uses such as waiting in line to use the ATM or walking along the sidewalk. The sidewalk on El Camino Real was slightly over eight feet. Mayor Kniss asked whether scale meant size. Where zoning defined size, scale had another semantic meaning. Council Member Lytle said scale referred to two items: pedestrian and automobile, which meant small pedestrian-oriented storefront-type design or a single project with automobile access around it. Scale in the Comp Plan generally did not address the horizontal dimension of uses and the partitioning of those uses into elements that were pedestrian in nature.
09/18/00 91-20
Mayor Kniss said she could not make findings to go against the staff recommendation. She was sympathetic to the neighbor’s concerns but was in agreement with the staff recommendation. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Kleinberg, Lytle “no.” RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION: 9:40 TO 10:00 P.M. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Labor Negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 19 and Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 20A and 20B. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 19, 20A, and 20B. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 22. Request of Property Owners of Portions of Tracts 1371 and 1503 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning in the Garland Neighborhood - Refer to Planning and Transportation Commission Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the application was the ninth request applied for since 1992. The applications were evaluated against four criteria when deciding whether or not to initiate a review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). The four criteria included: 1) the appropriate boundaries for the neighborhood; 2) prevailing single-story character; 3) moderate lot sizes; and 4) level of owner support. Staff determined there was reasonable compliance with the criteria, and the application should be forwarded to the PTC for their consideration. At the writing of the staff report (CMR:361:00), 70 percent of the owners were in favor of the overlay. Since that time, eight owners withdrew their support, which reduced the percentage to 61 percent. That percentage was lower than what staff would typically say was overwhelming support. Staff used 70 percent as a standard percentage for overwhelming support; however, staff recommended forwarding the application to the Planning and Transportation Commission because there was confusion in the neighborhood as to what a single-story overlay would mean. Mayor Kniss asked what the cutoff point was. Ms. Grote said the guidelines said “overwhelming neighborhood support.” Staff used 70 percent in the past as overwhelming neighborhood support.
09/18/00 91-21
Council Member Burch asked whether there was a common reason why the neighbors withdrew their support. Ms. Grote said the neighbors’ reasons were not outlined. She believed the residents wanted to maintain the flexibility to add a second story. Council Member Burch clarified that the homes were mostly Eichlers. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Mossar understood from the presentation that, although support was only 61 percent, staff recommended the matter be referred to the PTC. Ms. Grote believed there was some confusion as to what a single-story overlay did and did not do. She mailed a letter to the 87 property owners in the area that explained what the single-story overlay district did. She stated that there would be a community meeting to further explain a single-story overlay. Council Member Mossar clarified that the staff felt there was value in continuing to work with the neighborhood to get clarity on the issues. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Ojakian said where the Council had approved single-story overlays in the past, many of the homes had Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that had single-story restrictions. He asked whether that was the current case. Ms. Grote said that was correct. City Attorney Calonne said the applicant’s letter represented there were CC&Rs. Ms. Grote said the CC&Rs were included as Attachment D to the staff report (CMR:361:00). Marcia Edelstein, 924 Elsinore Drive, said in June 2000, a group of homeowners obtained the R-1(S) zoning information from the City of Palo Alto and distributed it to the 87 Eichler homeowners in the Elsinore Drive area. Each of the Eichler homes had a CC&R attached to its original deed that restricted the home to a single-story. The homeowners were asked to read the material and
09/18/00 91-22
decide whether they would like to petition the City for R-1(S) zoning. The petitions were returned at a later date in order to give the residents time to consider the subject. Based on information from the City, 77 percent of the homeowners signed petitions requesting the R-1(S) zoning, and those petitions were delivered to the Planning Department on July 28, 2000. Since that time, one current realtor, one former realtor and one developer spearheaded an aggressive and ongoing effort to get petitioners to withdraw their petitions by telling them their homes would not be worth as much if they were zoned R-1(S). Some owners were approached multiple times in an effort to encourage them to withdraw their petitions. A number of homeowners were sufficiently scared that their homes would be worthless if they were zoned R-1(S), and they withdrew their petitions even though their homes were already restricted to a single story by the CC&Rs attached to their deeds. The enforcement of the regulation was an issue for many. The realtor who led the opposition to the overlay agreed to a Channel 11 TV interview on the condition that they not be identified as a realtor. The deliberate omission misled the public as to whose interests were being represented. The group of homeowners who wanted the single-story overlay felt there would still be the high 77 percent approval for the R-1(S) zoning had homeowners not been repeatedly pressured with assertions to withdraw their petitions. She would like to see the process proceed through the channel established by the City and would like to have a neighborhood-wide meeting to clarify the issues and respond to the issues of neighbors. Council Member Burch asked what the single-story overlay gave the residents in addition to the CC&Rs which state houses could not exceed one story in height. Ms. Edelstein said the CC&Rs were enforced only by lawsuit which one neighbor brought against another. There was no requirement to notify neighbors. The City prevented a second story from being added. Stew Plock, 917 El Cajon Way, supported the change for R-1(S) for the Elsinore Drive area. Additional reasons why the residents wanted the single-story zoning included the look of the neighborhood, the resulting better property values because of the way it looked, and avoidance of conflicts in the future. The Elsinore Drive communities had a beauty and ambiance unparalleled in many of the Palo Alto neighborhoods, largely due to the 99 percent single-story, well-maintained homes. He invited the Council to drive or walk through the streets to see the homes. The single-story look had created a strong market for the properties. There was a strong interest on the part of the
09/18/00 91-23
residents to avoid neighbors suing contractors and developers when homes were sold. The R-1(S) zoning gave the residents protection by the Planning Department to halt second-story permit requests. Lea Nilsson, 925 Elsinore Court, said 40 percent of the 87 homeowners on Elsinore Court, El Cajon, and Blair Court opposed the petition. The property at 974 Elsinore Court transferred ownership on September 6, 2000, and was counted as part of the 61 percent. She wanted that information updated. Her home was one of the few that shared a fence with the only two-story house in the neighborhood and she did not feel that her privacy was invaded because she had wonderful landscaping that concealed the second story. The two-story homeowner signed the petition to keep the homes one-story. She favored having the option of a second story available for the next buyer of her home. She asked that the City stop the initiation of the process. Kathy Lierle, 970 Elsinore Court, requested the Council deny the request to initiate consideration of a single-story overlay zone for Tract 1371 and 1503 neighborhoods. The request did not meet any of the City’s guidelines. The level of support was only 60 percent and not the required overwhelming majority. Forty-seven of the 87 lots were either backed up by an unrestricted lot or across the street from unrestricted lots. Twenty-one percent of the lots did not meet the criteria for moderate sized lots. The four criteria listed in the staff report (CMR:361:00) had not been met. Half of the community would suffer from greater restrictions because they lived in the flood zone. The 40 percent of homeowners who believed the CC&Rs were enough did not want a greater degree of flexibility applied nor did they want the fees normally associated with a zone change to be waived. The residents did not want zoning changed and did not want the City to force the change on the neighbors. The City wanted to encourage new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighbors and adjoining structures. The neighbors and the CC&Rs in the neighborhood ensured that would happen. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether Ms. Lierle was approached and harassed by any real estate agents. Ms. Lierle said she visited with her neighbor, Lea Nilsson, to ask how the neighbors could stop what was happening. She had always been opposed to the single-story overlay. The distribution of materials from the City was withheld from the residents who were known not to think the overlay was a good idea on its face value. She did not receive material until the rest of the neighborhood was approached.
09/18/00 91-24
Council Member Burch asked whether a homeowner’s association existed. Ms. Lierle said there was not an active homeowner’s association, and the CC&Rs called for the possibility of a homeowner’s association. Council Member Burch said there were specific items in the CC&Rs regarding disallowing certain animals, trucks and trailers. Ms. Lierle said the neighbors decided those were items they did not want to enforce. The CC&Rs ensured the type of neighborhood the neighbors wanted. There was no reason to go beyond the CC&Rs. Xiao “Charlotte” Shuang Fu, 911 Elsinore Dive, was uncomfortable when she saw the letter about the single-story overlay from a group of neighbors. Contractors told her she would have problems with heating and leaking water because her house was old. Improvements were made, but she did not know how long her house would last. The contractor told her that the houses were old and built as low-income housing. If fire or earthquake destroyed the houses in the neighborhood, many homeowners would not rebuild an Eichler. The single-story overlay zoning restriction would discourage people to remodel their properties. The City should stop the process for a single-story overlay. Gary Chan, 991 Blair Court, recently heard about the proposal and felt it did not make much sense. He understood there would be additional meetings on the subject in the future. He believed the proponents had much initial support because people did not consider the matter thoroughly before signing their names in support of the overlay. The residents considered the facts and many withdrew signatures. As of August 31, 2000, the percentage of supporters dropped from 80 percent to 70 percent, and there were 8 additional withdrawals. The proponents had 53 votes, and the opponents had 34 votes. Sixty-one percent were in favor and 39 percent opposed. The proponents did not have an overwhelming majority. He requested the Council deny the request to initiate the consideration of the single-story overlay. The 17-foot limit for single-story homes was too limiting. MOTION: Council Member Mossar, seconded by Mayor Kniss, to direct staff to work further with the neighborhood to explain what single-story overlay is, how it works, how consideration is given to single-story overlays in flood zones, and to return to the Council with a definite support count.
09/18/00 91-25
Council Member Mossar said there was confusion with the issue. The Council recently applied a single-story overlay to a neighborhood in a flood zone and direction was given to make accommodations for flood zones and single-story neighborhoods. Mayor Kniss was uncomfortable referring the issue with only 60 percent in support. The 60 percent did not support the overwhelming majority. Council Member Burch agreed with Council Member Mossar’s comment about confusion. He supported the motion. Council Member Beecham supported the motion. There were options in the neighborhood to redefine the boundaries. He encouraged staff to work with the neighborhood to get a clear point of view out in terms of the effects of the regulations on homeowner’s options. Staff had no opinion on the value of a home, but could explain what could happen with and without a single-story overlay zone. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether the committee working on single-family design issues spent time on Eichler tracts. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the charge of the committee was not to look at Eichler tracts in particular. The committee looked at replacement houses. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether the committee was concerned with neighborhood character and a two-story stucco in an Eichler tract. Mr. Gawf said the issue came up but not specific. The committee identified issues such as privacy, massing, and streetscape. Vice Mayor Eakins agreed the issue was contentious and confusing. As an Eichler homeowner, she was distressed about the claims and counterclaims which were very divisive. Council Member Fazzino said the issue was vexing, and he had not witnessed an environment which was so ugly in terms of pitting neighbors against neighbors. Acting like a community was important including recognizing legitimate points of view on all issues. He recognized limiting homeowners to 17-foot high structures was not appropriate. The neighborhood was a candidate for a single-story overlay, given the CC&Rs, but there had to be overwhelming support for a single-story overlay zone. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
09/18/00 91-26
COUNCIL MATTERS 23. Council Members Burch and Mossar and Vice Mayor Eakins re Consideration of an Urgency Addition to the Existing Tree Preservation Ordinance Council Member Burch said the City received many letters and e-mails from citizens concerned about trees, particularly large Redwood trees, which were cut down. He spoke with the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the Director of Planning and Community Development. The suggestion was made that an urgency ordinance to the existing ordinance could be pursued. Many of the neighboring cities had ordinances that covered all species of trees of a certain size. Palo Alto only limited its ordinance to Coast Live Oaks, Valley Oaks, and heritage trees. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to direct the City Attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance to the existing Tree Preservation Ordinance under Section 8.10.020 to be in effect until December 31, 2000, pertaining to any tree of any species 18 inches in diameter. Mayor Kniss asked what year the tree preservation ordinance was put in place. City Planning Arborist Dave Dockter said the tree ordinance was put in place in 1996 and effective on January 1, 1997. Mayor Kniss recalled the Council tried to include other trees but did not receive support. She asked for background and recalled that the City had done a great deal of surveying of other communities. Mr. Dockter said the intent of the original ordinance was that the protected Oak trees would be the first step in the ordinance with the intent for a review to occur and a report returned to the Council. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the suggestion that the urgency ordinance protect all species of trees that were 18 inches in diameter. She asked how Mr. Dockter came up with the 18 inches in diameter for all trees to determine which ones should be saved, in terms of the urgency ordinance. Mr. Dockter said other cities in the Bay Area protected trees ranging from 8 inches to 24 inches in diameter. The 18-inch diameter was selected arbitrarily by the maker of the motion.
09/18/00 91-27
Council Member Burch said several cities used 18 inches as a guideline. Mr. Dockter said 18 inches as a more lenient figure that what was used in other cities. Council Member Kleinberg said different trees grew faster and had different size rings than other trees; for example, a Eucalyptus tree could reach 18 inches and not be a heritage tree. Other trees would take many years to get to that size. The number seemed arbitrary. If heritage trees were to be saved, she questioned why size became a factor. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the subject was the threshold for review. Other cities considered trees by species but he had not seen an ordinance that did that. Most ordinances listed trees by size, and trees above a certain size would be reviewed for reasons to remove. The ordinance was a threshold for review rather than not allowing a tree to be removed under any circumstance. The existing ordinance included provisions that the tree could be removed, for instance if the tree was in the building envelope. The proposal was for expanding the coverage to include all trees to be reviewed and not lose the canopy. Council Member Mossar said the importance of the motion was to fill a gap between an existing ordinance and an ordinance that would go before the Council in the future. Staff was going through the rational, non-arbitrary process to determine what other species, if any, should be covered by the heritage tree ordinance. The motion said, while the Council was waiting, staff was given the opportunity to make sure that an important tree was not removed. The ordinance would have a short life while waiting for staff to come back with recommendations for updates to the heritage tree ordinance. Mr. Gawf added there was an expectation that staff would prepare the ordinance sooner. Council Member Lytle said, had she been on the Council at the time the ordinance came through the process, she would have supported including more trees in the heritage tree ordinance, but she had difficulty using an urgency moratorium as the mechanism for filling the gap without notification to many people who had such trees on their properties. The tool was a difficult one to use in a situation where the crisis was not severe enough. Some nice trees might be lost, but she could not bring herself to
09/18/00 91-28
restrict property rights without notification of those people to the extent the mechanism would do that. She supported the process for notifying the public and people who had the trees on their property. There was too much potential for misunderstanding with the public for people feeling harmed and that the process was not proper. The current tree ordinance restricted people’s building envelopes. Council Member Fazzino asked what leeway the staff would have under the proposed ordinance in the event a property owner requested removal of a tree. He asked whether staff would have the right to consider economic and other circumstances if a tree needed to be removed. Mr. Gawf said there was not a great amount of latitude. If a tree affected a building envelope by a certain percent, that was the basis for removal. He assumed staff would prepare a report listing the pros and cons. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said June 2002 was a longer period than what he originally thought about. He suggested bringing an urgency ordinance as well as a regular ordinance for first reading. The terms in the ordinance were aimed at rare situations where the tree was dead or a severe, economic hardship existed. The ordinance did not give staff much discretion to decide whether or not to keep trees. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the Colleague’s memo identified two problems. The first was the numerous instances of mature Redwood trees being cut down in recent months, and the second was the report due from the City Arborist at the end of the year on the tree ordinance and the concern that a moratorium might be needed in anticipation of enactment of an ordinance that covered more species of trees. He wrote the Council a letter on July 12, 2000, about the Redwood trees and suggested at that time that the Council enact an ordinance that would add Redwood trees to the species that were protected. Currently only Coast Live Oaks and Valley Oaks were protected if they were 11-1/2 inches in diameter which was the same as 36-inch circumference which was the measurement used by most cities. That would have been a simple ordinance to enact as an urgency ordinance on July 24, 2000, or an ordinance of first reading on July 24, 2000, and second reading on August 7, 2000, which would have made it law effective September 7, 2000. A concern was whether the Council would get votes for an urgency ordinance. Regardless of what the content was, the Council should have the option of an urgency and a regular ordinance. Focus should be on the species of importance rather than all species. The ordinance was lenient. Staff should
09/18/00 91-29
bring to the Council comparative information from other cities, which would help the Council craft a better ordinance. If the Council was unable to get the votes for a regular ordinance for a moratorium for all species, the Council should still consider protecting species of special importance to Palo Alto, such as Redwood trees. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the Council attempted a tree preservation ordinance in 1975, and the criteria was 24-inch diameter trees measured four feet above the ground. The ordinance lost by a vote of 5-4, and the tree ordinance issue was put aside for many years. During that time, many significant trees were removed. A problem existed with developers who removed important trees, regardless of species. Steps should be taken to preserve trees at the present time and refine the ordinance at a later time. He suggested adding options in the ordinance to include removing diseased or damaged trees and making the measurement at 48 inches rather than 54 inches, which would protect more trees. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there was any documentation as to the number of trees of a particular size that were removed in the prior year. Mr. Dockter said staff received complaints about tree removals and requests to expand the ordinance. He was unaware of how many trees were removed. In the prior three months, staff received 75 calls or complaints, and 31 of those calls mentioned Redwood trees. Nineteen other species of trees were of concern. Thirty-six calls were complaints about removal of trees during construction, and 43 calls requested the ordinance be expanded to protect trees other than oaks. Council Member Kleinberg referred to the calls regarding construction and asked whether staff determined that the trees needed to be removed within the development of the parcel. Mr. Dockter said trees were allowed to be removed on the construction sites that staff responded to. Some trees were located in setbacks and homes could have been built with the trees existing in some cases he observed. Council Member Kleinberg wanted to know the exact number of documented trees. She asked whether there was an opportunity to make an independent confirmation of the size of the trees. Mr. Dockter said the trees ranged from groups of 10-inch diameter trees to large, 4-foot diameter Redwood trees.
09/18/00 91-30
Council Member Kleinberg wanted to get a sense of the real emergency nature of the ordinance when there was no documentation. One letter was received and it did not specify a tree was taken down. Council Member Burch said the letter was one of about one dozen that he had seen. If he had a 4-foot diameter Redwood tree in his front yard, he could cut it down and nothing would be done about it. Council Member Kleinberg said she was not making an argument for or against but was trying to determine the emergency nature of the ordinance. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He agreed with the City Attorney that the urgency aspect of the measure needed to be short term, and the Council needed to act on a permanent ordinance as soon as possible. He asked if it could be done in three months. Mr. Gawf clarified the Council was deciding whether or not it wanted to direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance and a staff memo that would include factual information and suggestions on timeframes. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct the City Attorney and staff to return to the Council by December 31, 2000, with a permanent addition to the existing Tree Preservation Ordinance under Section 8.10.020. Mr. Gawf understood the Council was deciding whether or not to direct staff would prepare something to bring back for a hearing, either an urgency addition or permanent ordinance. Council Member Burch said the original date of 2001 was to give Dave Dockter time to prepare the permanent ordinance with the idea he would come back before that. Mr. Gawf said staff would follow the direction from the Council. He was concerned whether the issue became a major work item, because staff already had other major work items. Council Member Fazzino said one alternative was to bring the Council a more modest, permanent ordinance. He was passionate about the issue, outraged that many beautiful trees were removed, and frustrated that the City’s ordinance was so modest in comparison to other local cities. There was a surge in complaints during the prior three or four months.
09/18/00 91-31
Mayor Kniss restated the incorporated language was that the urgency ordinance would be in place until December 31, 2000, at which time staff would return with a permanent ordinance. Council Member Lytle requested the motion to be split into two separate motions: 1) Motion bringing permanent ordinance back by the end of the year and, 2) Motion for urgency ordinance. Mayor Kniss said the motion would be split regarding a permanent ordinance back by the end of the year, and an ordinance that dealt with the emergency until the end of the year. Council Member Beecham said trees were key defining factors of Palo Alto. The ordinance required careful thought as to what trees were protected. There were two ways to remove a heritage tree: 1) the tree died; or 2) there was a severe, economic hardship. An urgency ordinance needed further consideration. Council Member Ojakian asked how people were notified of an urgency ordinance and how would people be notified if the existing ordinance was modified. Mr. Gawf said an urgency or permanent ordinance would be placed on an agenda, and it would be advertised. A permanent ordinance would not include individual notice to property owners but would have a greater outreach program. Council Member Ojakian was concerned about having an urgency ordinance and the need to make people aware. Council Member Kleinberg clarified the proposed motion was that staff would return to the Council with a suggested permanent ordinance covering all species. She asked whether there would be an option for an amendment to the current ordinance to only add Redwoods and any other tree that might be considered as heritage trees. Mr. Gawf understood there were two items for Council consideration: 1) urgency addition which could cover all species, which Council Member Kleinberg suggested that be modified to cover a certain type of tree; and 2) a permanent ordinance which would include a recommendation on what species would be covered. Vice Mayor Eakins said she thought of several trees she would not want to protect such as Monterey Pine and Blue Gum Eucalyptus. She asked whether there were other species of trees that grew to mammoth sizes and were nuisances.
09/18/00 91-32
Mr. Dockter said there were other large trees that were nuisances. Vice Mayor Eakins said she would appreciate a nuisance list when the issue returned to the Council. Council Member Burch suggested directing the City Attorney to return with an urgency addition to the existing ordinance until June 30, 2001, for any Redwood tree 12 inches or greater in diameter. Mayor Kniss said any urgency would terminate at the end of the year. Redwoods would be acceptable depending on the diameter. She understood the Council wanted to consider something that was an addition to the permanent ordinance by the end of the year. She asked whether Council Member Burch would accept 18 inches on Redwood trees. Council Member Burch said he was trying to keep Redwood trees from being cut down. Council Member Mossar did not accept the changes to the motion because the Council was talking about a short-term way to evaluate, and staff could determine a tree was a nuisance tree. Staff was asked to return with a permanent ordinance that recommended species. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSE OF VOTING FIRST PART OF MOTION to direct the City Attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance to the existing Tree Preservation Ordinance under Section 8.10.020 to be in effect until December 31, 2000, pertaining to any tree of any species 18 inches in diameter. FIRST PART OF MOTION FAILED 4-5, Beecham, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Ojakian “no.” SECOND PART OF MOTION to direct the City Attorney and staff to return to the Council by December 31, 2000, with a permanent addition to the existing Tree Preservation Ordinance under Section 8.10.020. Mr. Gawf said part of the reason for his support of an urgency addition was so that he did not have to prepare a permanent ordinance within a few months. SECOND PART OF MOTION PASSED 9-0.
09/18/00 91-33
MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct the City Attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance to protect Redwood trees 18 inches in diameter until December 31, 2000. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Lytle “no.” Council Member Mossar clarified Mr. Gawf said he was concerned about meeting the December 31, 2000, deadline for a permanent ordinance. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino said the Council established a time table and Mr. Gawf would be able to come back to the Council in December and say he could not do more than Redwoods. Council Member Burch said the Council could re-specify certain species and bring the ordinance up to date. 24. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of September 25, 2000, Regular City Council Meeting MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to cancel the September 25, 2000, Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Mossar asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Francisco Alfonso, member of the Architectural Review Board. Mayor Kniss asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Edward Mrizek, Jr., the son of former Palo Alto Director of Utilities Ed Mrizek. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. in memory of Francisco Alfonso and Edward Mrizek, Jr. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
09/18/00 91-34
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.
09/18/00 91-35