HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-06 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting August 6, 2001
1. Report from the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Council .................................................... 335
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m. ................. 335
Regular Meeting ................................................. 336
1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will
consider recommendations regarding the R-1 Ordinance Amendments and Enabling Legislation for Single Family Individual Review and Design Guidelines. (Continued
from July 16, 2001) ........................................ 336
2. Appointments to Planning and Transportation Commission ..... 351
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................. 352
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................. 352
2A. Ordinance 4711 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Need for a Redevelopment Agency to Function in the City of Palo
Alto and Declaring the City Council to be the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Palo Alto\ ............ 353
3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 10, Chapter 10.64, Section 10.64.250 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code in Order to Reduce the Penalties for Violations of Regulations on Bicycles, Roller Skates,
Skateboards and Coasters ................................... 353
4. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 22.08.330 to Formally Rename the Dedicated Parkland Called the 'Arastra Property'
as the 'Arastradero Preserve' .............................. 353
08/06/01 92-331
5. Resolution 8078 entitled "Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Approve an
Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and the City of Palo Alto (to Provide Section 21362.2 (3 percent at 50 Full Formula) for Local Fire Members)\ ................................... 354
6. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Inglewood in the Amount of $54,400 for Parking Citation Services .......................................... 354
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Nolte Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $157,102 for Design
Services for the Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing, Capital Improvement Project 10121 .......................... 354
8. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Weed Management Area for the Control of Invasive Weeds in Open Space Lands ......................... 354
9. Amendment No. 2 to Existing Contract No. C8100757 Between the City of Palo Alto and SCT Utility Systems,
Inc. in the Amount of $557,620 for Services for Utilities Customer Information System ...................... 354
10. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Art
Center Foundation in the Amount of $100,000 for Planning and Design Services for the Main Library/Art
Center Expansion Project ................................... 354
11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Navigant Consulting in the Amount of $65,000 for Electric
Regulatory and Technical Consulting in Fiscal Year 2001-02 with Options for $130,000 for Fiscal Years
2002-03 and 2003-04 ........................................ 354
12. Open Purchase Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and McNevin Cleaning Specialists, Inc. in the Amount
of $120,000 to Provide Carpet, Upholstery and Window Covering Cleaning at City Facilities ....................... 355
13. Emerson North Apartments: Amendment to Existing Loan and Regulatory Agreement to Provide $69,300 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for a Rehabilitation Loan ........................................ 355
08/06/01 92-332
14. Open Purchase Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Carl and Manor Advertising in the Amount of
$100,000 for Graphic Design ................................ 355
16. Amendment No. 1 to Existing Contract No. S9108672 Between the City of Palo Alto and Elite Investigations in the Amount of $15,000 for Background Investigations ..... 355
17. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of
the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone PLC from $80,000 to $110,000 ........................................ 355
18. The Policy & Services Committee recommends to the City Council re Construction Noise approval of the
Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 regulating construction noise levels. Staff recommends that the Council amend the Policy and Services Committee recommendation to decrease the noise levels from 95 dBA to 85 90 dBA or the lowest reasonable
level with the clear intention of directing to staff to seek ways to continue to lower decibel levels produced by street sweeping. ............................... 356
19. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Weed Abatement Report and
Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of the Respective Properties Herein Described .............. 356
20. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a request by Carrasco & Associates and Mehmood Taqui on behalf of Joe and Evelyn Bradford for
Site and Design Review of a new 4,325 square foot, three story building for property located at 2051 El
Camino Real to contain ground floor retail (433 sq.ft.), second floor office (1,232 sq.ft.) and second and third floor residential (1,944 sq.ft.) uses plus
stairway area (573 square feet), on a 4,938 square foot parcel in the CN District. Variances are
requested for (1) encroachments into front and side setbacks and side daylight planes, (2) increased lot coverage (5% above CN District, 20% above RM-15), and (3) a reduction in required parking spaces by one parking space (a total of eight parking spaces are
proposed where nine are required). A Design Enhancement Exception is requested for (a) a partially covered residential parking space where one fully
covered residential parking space is required, and (b)
08/06/01 92-333
a four foot wide perimeter planting area on west side of parking stall #8 where a five foot wide planting
area is required. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ............. 357
21. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal submitted by Roger Kohler of the May 3, 2001, decision of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment for property located at 2340 Bryant Street in which a Home Improvement Exception 01-HIE-02 was denied. ...................................... 357
22. Auditor's Office Status Report ............................. 357
22B. (Old Item No. 15) Request by Community Skating Inc.,
on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Final Council Approval of a Ten-Foot-High Sound Wall Along the North and West Property Lines at the Rear of the Parcel Located at 3009 Middlefield Road. Zone District: PF, Public Facilities. File Number: 00-ARB-43. ................. 358
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:38 p.m. to a Closed Session. ............................................ 367
23. Conference with Labor Negotiator ........................... 367
24. Conference with Labor Negotiator ........................... 367
25. Conference with Labor Negotiator ........................... 367
26. Conference with Real Property Negotiator ................... 368
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. .......... 368
08/06/01 92-334
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:50 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle (teleconferencing from Princeville, Kauai, HI), Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler
ABSENT: Fazzino
SPECIAL MEETING 1. Report from the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Council
Nancy Shepherd, PTA President, said the year was dedicated to unity, collaboration, and cohesion of the PTA units. Issue conferences were held during the prior year to help with communication between parents and students. The PTA
held fund raising retreats, supported Proposition 39 (the simple majority for getting funds available for school
sites), opposed Proposition 38 (the School Voucher Initiative), and supported the Quality Schools Campaign. Issues for the following year included fund raising, the
growing behavior of unsafe traffic around the school ground, and transportation of students to school.
No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
08/06/01 92-335
Regular Meeting
August 6, 2001
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Kleinberg, Lytle (teleconferenc-
ing from Princeville, Kauai, HI), Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded
by Mossar, to continue Item Nos. 20 and 21 to September 24,
2001. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will
consider recommendations regarding the R-1 Ordinance Amendments and Enabling Legislation for Single Family Individual Review and Design Guidelines. (Continued
from July 16, 2001)
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the ordinance was the product of approximately one and one half years of working with the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group (Advisory Group). The Advisory Group was chaired by Annette Ashton, John Northway and
Carol Harrington and was a 16-member group consisting of representatives from the neighborhood, stakeholder groups, builders, architects, and designers. The issue of Single
Family (R-1) neighborhoods was not a technical issue but rather what was right for Palo Alto. Five questions were
asked of the Advisory Group and staff. The first question was “Are there identified issues with new single-family home construction in Palo Alto.” The Advisory Group and staff believed there were issues that needed to be addressed. The second question was, “If yes, what are the
issues or problems.” John Northway was instrumental in making sure the group did not charge immediately to a solution and said the problem needed to be identified prior to finding solutions. The issue was the changing relationships that occurred within the residential
neighborhoods. Issues of privacy, mass and scale, and
08/06/01 92-336
streetscape were identified as problems to be addressed. The third question was “How to identify the best way to
address the issues.” The two basic approaches were: 1) ministerial or regulations; and 2) discretionary approach. The fourth question related to Specific Changes. Three basic products were looked at specific to Zoning Ordinance changes, individual review process, and a product called
Guidelines and Checklists. The fifth policy question was Implementation. Issues looked at included classes at community colleges on building or remodeling homes,
staffing, and a process for change. A major aspect of the individual review included safe harbor. Staff and the
Advisory Group felt it was important for people to have an option, which was, a chance to opt out of a discretionary review system. The recommendation was that any new residential single-family house, new second-story addition, or additions greater than 150 square feet had to go through
an individual review prior to obtaining a building permit. A single-story house required a building permit. The review would not be arbitrary but would be based on the modified R-1 code regulations, zoning changes, and the individual review guidelines. The guidelines were not intended to
restrict two-story buildings, regulate individual taste or define a prescribed style. Applicants were strongly
encouraged to meet with neighbors prior to application of a two-story home. The formal neighborhood process included neighborhood notification. Staff would meet with the
architects to meet guidelines and fit the house into the existing neighborhood. Staff would then draft a proposed
decision that was sent to the neighbors. Staff recommended the Council adopt the Single Family Residence (R-1) District regulations and the Individual Review Process,
including a threshold for Individual Review for any new two-story house, new second-story addition, or greater than
150 square feet to an existing second story, and the optional Director’s Hearing and City Council “call-up” appeal procedure; direct staff to finalize the Guidelines for Director’s approval; conduct an annual assessment of the impact of the proposed ordinance and Individual Review
Guidelines to identify necessary changes and adopt a “sunset” clause five years after implementation of the Individual Review program; and direct staff to develop a
community and staff awareness program.
John Northway, Co-Chair of the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group, thanked the Planning staff for its magnificent job. The Advisory Group came up with a
08/06/01 92-337
tightly crafted program that addressed highly identified problems.
Annette Ashton, Co-Chair of the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group, recognized members of the Advisory Committee who were in the audience. The Advisory Team worked hard to bring the Council a total package and
asked that the Council endorse the package. Planning and Transportation Commissioner Phyllis Cassel
said the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) endorsed the recommendations of the Advisory Group with
some exceptions. The threshold for Individual Review of any site construction greater than 80 percent of the floor area ratio for the site was not a unanimous agreement. The P&TC felt the final Individual Review Guidelines and associated checklist to be reviewed by the P&TC and adopted by the
Council prior to the implementation of the program, should be reviewed by the Council rather than only the Planning staff. Bob Woo, 557 Maybell Avenue, said the review process began
with much publicity against large homes. Many participants were against the monstrous homes. His concern was that the
attempt was to tell people that Palo Alto was a “one-story” city. The City had a valid process for people who wanted to keep their homes as one-story, such as the one-story
overlay.
Roger Kohler, 721 Colorado Avenue, said he went through design reviews at other cities where entire neighborhoods came out in force to battle with Planning Commissions and
City Councils with second floor and design review of homes. The situation was often volatile. The formula for the floor
area had not changed, which he suggested was going to be an onerous process for single-family homeowners. He suggested the floor area ratio (FAR) be revised to compensate for the extra process that was involved. Some of the features had an impact on the livability of the house on small lots.
Staff changed the daylight plane regulation a year prior. Steve Pierce, 209 Cowper Street, concurred with the design
review process. The R-1 code changes were a concern, particularly the section dealing with fireplaces which
said, “Fireplaces shall be included in the gross floor area.” The problem perceived was massive fireplaces, particularly in side yards. The solution was design review
08/06/01 92-338
as opposed to creating more code. A suggestion was that fireplaces be included in the gross floor area if they were
in the side yards. The item regarding recessed porches needed further clarification. The direction was recessed porches and entries. Concerns regarding daylight issues would be picked up in design review. The ordinance was too constricting and pushed people toward a particular design.
The notion in the ordinance was if there was a predominantly backyard garage neighborhood, an attached garage should be in the back half of the footprint of the
house, but a detached garage should be in the back half of the yard. That was a problem with deep lots. Much
discussion was held by the Advisory Group about window seats that would pop out into side yards. Concern was raised about privacy issues on the side yards. Well crafted pop-out windows should be allowed. The thrust of the design review was to deal with privacy issues.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said side yards were not mentioned in the guidelines. Side yard setbacks were a hot topic in Barron Park when the subject arose three or four years prior. That issue should be addressed. The idea of a
mediation session and a call up process was the wrong way to go. He suggested if a design was appealed from the
Director of Planning and Community Environment by the applicant or neighbor, the appeal should go to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). ARBs are accustomed to
looking at design issues. In Palo Alto, when projects were reviewed by the ARB, approximately one appeal was made per
year. Adjacent property was listed as houses on either side, those across the street, and those diagonally visible. “Adjacent” should be defined as any property
within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property that was being modified.
Edie Keating, 3511 Waverly Street, supported the work of the Advisory Group. She did not support the requirement of the call-up appeal. Appeals were an important communication that Council had with staff. If the Council affirmed
staff’s position in an appeal, the Council was telling staff they were going in the right direction. If the Council upheld the appeal, the message to staff was that
the Council did not like what was done. The Council should not make appeals difficult for people.
David Solnick, 227 Webster Street, said most of the guidelines were well thought out. One of the guidelines
08/06/01 92-339
said, “secondary roof forms should be included to identify important components of the house.” The most prominent
contemporary architecture in Palo Alto, Eichler homes, would not pass the test. The document should not carry forward anything that carried style elements in it. Another guideline said, “The addition should blend with the existing parts of the house. A second-story addition that
balances the overall form, mass, and composition of the existing building is expected.” His clients wanted to build additions that did not look like add ons. Some architecture
did the opposite.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, supported the staff’s recommendation and Advisory Group’s recommendation for how to choose which houses went through the process. The P&TC’s “safe harbor” of 80 percent was opposed. The P&TC recommendation on the guidelines were appropriate for
review by the P&TC and Council. The interpretation staff used for fireplaces was incorrect. Because fireplaces were allowed in a front yard or side yard, they were excluded from floor area. Chimneys should have been mentioned explicitly. The measuring of floor area to the exterior of
the stud walls would result in larger houses. Properties with single stories or long, paved driveways had more
impervious surface and should have a higher storm drainage fee. A concern was with the intersection of the definitions of “grade” and “height.” A grade was adjacent to where the
building was going, and height was measured to the grade directly below the highest point.
Steve Reyna, 840 Kipling Street, said the review process that culminated in a call up appeal was a counter
productive proposal that would place a greater burden upon the Council. If the R-1 rules worked the way people hoped
they would, there would be no need for appeals. The Council was encouraged not to support the call-up aspect of the proposal. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed.
Council Member Mossar asked how the appeal would go through the process to get to the Council for a decision.
Mr. Gawf said other communities used the Council appeal
call-up procedure where the process worked well. The appeal would go on the Consent Calendar, and if at least four Council Members chose to pull it off the Consent Calendar,
08/06/01 92-340
the appeal would be placed on a regular agenda for consideration.
Council Member Mossar asked whether it was the Planning and Community Environment Director’s intention that the only people who could appeal a decision were the adjacent property owners or the property owners.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said only the adjacent property owner could appeal.
Council Member Mossar said when an item was on the Consent
Calendar, the Council allowed anyone to request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar. Mr. Calonne said the existing Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) provisions on appeals called for the Council to set
a public hearing at its option. The worst case, from his perspective, was that the Council heard arguments at the time the Council decided to grant an appeal hearing. Mr. Gawf said from his experience, that was the worst case. The Council sometimes argued the case twice, arguing the
merits on calling it up.
Council Member Kleinberg said if the appeal were filed and placed on the Consent Calendar, the staff would prepare an analysis and recommendation. She clarified if the staff
recommendation was not to support the appeal, the rights of the person appealing was denied.
Mr. Gawf said calling up an appeal was the Council’s decision. Staff needed to make sure the Council had all the
information in order to make that decision.
Council Member Wheeler said she was curious as to what would be in the Council’s packet when an appeal was filed, that is would the Council receive the full packet of information in order to make a meaningful decision whether or not to call it up. There would be a temptation to
discuss the item twice. Mr. Gawf said the Council would get the basic facts of the
case. The recommendation should wait for the hearing.
Council Member Wheeler said the effective date of the Ordinance as noted in the staff report (CMR:338:01) was October 29, 2001. Should the Council endorse the P&TC’s
08/06/01 92-341
recommendation to have the Council approve the guidelines. The staff’s recommendation for the effective date was
November 29, 2001. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler clarified that the Council
guaranteed to have the guidelines in place by the dates specified.
Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Staff would make sure the guidelines were in place or request an adjustment to the
time frame. Council Member Wheeler said the “safe harbor” gave people with single-story residences an incentive to stay at the single story. In areas governed by the single-story
overlay, a 40 percent lot coverage existed. She assumed that would not change by what the Council did at the current meeting. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the changes before
the Council would not change the single-story overlay site coverage. Staff would recommend consideration as part of
the Zoning Ordinance update in order to have a consistent requirement and allowance throughout the City.
Council Member Beecham said Attachment D to the staff report (CMR:338:01) summarized the changes in the R-1
regulations. The first section talked about first floor recessed porches as a third point, and the final point talked about exterior entrance structures. He asked how the
difference was defined.
Ms. Grote said the recessed porches or entry features came into the building and did not extend beyond the edge of the building. The exterior entry feature, or tower element, protruded beyond the edge of the main wall of the building.
Council Member Beecham asked whether in a case where a house did not fit, would Home Improvement Exception’s (HIE’s) or a variance be brought on the changes listed on
Attachment D of the staff report (CMR:338:01).
Ms. Grote said HIE’s would be available. Going through a HIE process would work concurrently with an individual review. The Zoning Ordinance changes allowed garages to
08/06/01 92-342
have flexibility. If there were a pattern of detached garages along 50 percent of a block, a detached or attached
garage was allowed. An attached garage was at the back of the building, and at the back of the lot. Council Member Beecham said in the case where the lot was long, for instance more than 100 feet from the street, the
garage would be out of scale. Ms. Grote said the grounds for a HIE might be considered.
Council Member Beecham said a question was raised about
measure and grade. He asked how the grade was measured. Ms. Grote recommended a modification to the wording under the height definition on page 6 of Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:338:01): “height shall be measured from
the highest point of the structure’s roof, including wall parapets, to the grade directly below.” She said that referred back to the definition of “grade” which talked about the lowest point on the site.
Council Member Beecham said page 4 of the staff report (CMR:338:01) indicated that “A Council Member or member of
the public can request the item be removed from the consent calendar for discussion.” He clarified that only a Council Member was able to remove the item.
Mr. Gawf said that was the intent.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the main cost of the program was the addition of staff. The way to recover the cost was to
charge a certain fee based on whether the project was a new two-story or addition. The assumption was there were
approximately 300 units during a year, which meant the fee multiplied by the number of units equaled the cost recovery amount. He asked what would happen if the City did not have enough units.
Mr. Gawf said the thought was that more staff was needed initially than what might be needed over the long term. One full time employee (FTE) and one contract planner were
proposed. More staffing was needed to set up the program. Money for hiring people to do the program would go down if
the number of applications went down. The 300 number was a good number. Staff would know during the following six to
08/06/01 92-343
nine month period how much staff was necessary for the program.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked why staff made a recommendation for a sunset provision as opposed to looking at annual assessments.
Mr. Gawf said the staff proposal was for at least a once a year review and to make adjustments as a result of the reviews. After five years, he was confident that the
program would work. The sunset provision was not initially recommended. After listening to comments, it was important
on the part of staff to make a statement that staff was confident it would make the program work well. Council Member Lytle asked why staff decided to give the flood plain residents only half of the advantage of having
the height defined from where the homes had to be, given the flood hardship. Ms. Grote said staff thought the change in most cases was minimal. In most cases, there was a three-to four-foot
allowance that needed to be made to meet the base elevation in the flood plain. The small need for a bigger base on the
foundation or berming up the site could be accomplished with a two to two and one half foot additional height.
Council Member Fazzino said the intent was to avoid anxiety by neighbors as far as loss of privacy, mass, and design.
He asked whether P&TC Commissioner Phyllis Cassel believed the 80 percent threshold was a better way of addressing concerns about anxiety.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Phyllis Cassel
said the understanding of the majority of the P&TC was that the Council would force people who wanted to use all the FAR to go through a design review process. Council Member Fazzino asked about Ms. Cassel’s personal
view. Ms. Cassel said she did not agree with the majority of the
P&TC.
Council Member Fazzino asked why Mr. Gawf decided the Council was the right place to go as opposed to the ARB and
08/06/01 92-344
what was the experience with other cities with similar ordinances.
Mr. Gawf said the concept that only the Director of Planning and Community Environment or the City Council could make the final decision was to provide some due process.
Council Member Fazzino said the assumption was the issues that might otherwise be addressed by the ARB or a new body
could be addressed as part of the perspective mediation process as well as by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Council Member Burch asked how a typical decision of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment would be appealed. Mr. Gawf said in a community of 6,000 square foot lots, absolute privacy was not realistic. There was no guarantee
that a new house would not intrude in some way on the adjacent properties. If there were numerous appeals, the
process did not work. Council Member Burch asked whether it would be possible to
do an initial review in six months rather than in one year.
Mr. Gawf said that was a good suggestion. His recommendation was that the review be not longer than one year.
Council Member Burch asked why Mr. Gawf did not believe the
80 percent safe harbor would work. Mr. Gawf said the 80 percent did not address the real issue. Very few people would leave square footage on the table. Staff felt firm about the idea that problems were
identified and solutions should reflect the problems that were identified. The potential existed for game playing with the 80 percent rule.
Council Member Kleinberg said with respect to the light
fixtures and the attempt to shield light from neighbors’ homes, page 9 of Attachment A to the staff report (CMR:338:01) stated “Outdoor fixtures shall have lens
08/06/01 92-345
covers that diffuse light or reflectors that shield the lamp from view.” She questioned whether lamp meant the
actual light bulb. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Council Member Kleinberg said there were lights that had
lamps recessed to the point where the light could not be seen.
Mr. Gawf said his office received complaints about neighbors’ lights shining on adjacent properties. The
thought was to do something structural with lens covers. Council Member Kleinberg clarified staff was talking about the design of the lighting fixture in order that the light bulb could not be seen from adjacent property.
Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Kleinberg said the word “reflector” was confusing. She suggested “devices” was a better word.
Ms. Grote said “devices” could be used.
Council Member Kleinberg said page 9 of Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:338:01) stated, “’Predominant
neighborhood pattern’ means that of half or more of the houses on the same side of the block.” She asked how “half”
got to be predominant. Ms. Grote said the intent was “most” of the houses had the
same pattern.
Council Member Kleinberg was concerned with disagreement because what looked like half to one person might be the other half to someone else. Ms. Grote said staff assumed 50 percent established a
pattern. Mr. Gawf said staff would reconsider the wording.
Council Member Kleinberg asked staff to respond to Mr.
Solnick’s concerns about roof lines.
08/06/01 92-346
Mr. Gawf said there was a subcommittee that worked on the draft of the design guidelines.
Mr. Northway said the beginning of the guidelines indicated that the guidelines were thoughts, and anyone with a better idea should bring that idea to staff. The guidelines were not prescriptive.
Council Member Kleinberg said the guidelines were clear for rectangular lots but not for a pie shaped or odd shaped
lot. The guidelines were to be customized in terms of their application and flexible in terms of their interpretation.
Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the Advisory Group discussed that the mediators attend a class to better
assist people. Mr. Gawf said there was an Architecture I course which was a primer on architectural concepts, and staff would extend it to include the mediators.
Mayor Eakins asked whether the Advisory Group considered
making a recommendation about notice for demolitions. Ms. Grote said the Advisory Group talked about not allowing
demolitions until a replacement building permit was applied for or issued but did not include it in the formal
recommendations. Mayor Eakins asked whether the item was on the list of
subjects going to the Zoning Ordinance update.
Ms. Grote said that was correct. Mayor Eakins asked whether the issue of lights and commercial neighbors was going to the Zoning Ordinance update.
Mr. Gawf said that was correct. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Wheeler
to:
1) Adopt an Ordinance amending the Single Family Residence (R-1) District regulations (Attachment A), including changes to the definition of floor
08/06/01 92-347
area ratio (FAR), daylight plane, lot coverage, parking surfaces, height and grade definitions,
contextual front setback, and new regulations related to contextual garage placement, restrictions on bay window and fireplace projection into minimum side yard setbacks, outdoor lighting, and permeable surface standard
for the front yard setback area. 2) Adopt an Ordinance for an Individual Review
Process (Attachment B), including:
a) A threshold for Individual Review for any new two-story house, new second story addition, or addition greater than 150 square feet to an existing second story. b) Optional Director's Hearing and mediation
program. c) City Council “call-up” appeal procedure. 3. Direct staff and the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods' Sub-Group to prepare final
Individual Review Guidelines and associated checklist to be approved and adopted by the
Director of Planning and Community Environment after review and comment by the P&TC.
4. Direct staff to conduct an annual assessment of the impact of the proposed Ordinance and
Individual Review Guidelines to identify necessary changes and adopt a "sunset" clause five years after implementation of the Individual
Review Program.
5. Direct staff to develop a community and staff awareness program in conjunction with the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group Program Planning Committee.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 of Municipal Code to Adopt Changes into the Single Family
(R-1) Zone District Regulations"
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 of the Municipal Code to Add a New Chapter 18.14
08/06/01 92-348
(Individual Review Process For Certain Two Story Residential Construction Projects in the R-1 Single
Family District)" Council Member Beecham said the Advisory Group identified the problem and alternative solutions. The community agreed there was a problem and accepted the need for individual
home design review. The staff report (CMR:338:01) and public comments raised issues. The P&TC had two recommendations that differed from staff. On the issue of
safe harbor, the P&TC’s primary concern was to allow a safety release valve for residents who wanted to add a
second story to their house but did not want to go through a long City process. The staff and R-1 Task Force were persuasive in arguing that there was not enough value to overcome the risk, primarily to privacy. The second recommendation from the P&TC was to approve the guidelines
before the ordinance. The Council and community saw the guidelines, and there were no great concerns about how the guidelines were drafted. Another main issue was the call-up procedure and how an individual appealed. The Council was satisfied with the requirement that four Council Members
needed to approve the appeal to have it placed on the agenda. Council Members were concerned about the item
regarding one Council Member being able to remove an item from the Consent Calendar. Given that items might be removed from the Consent Calendar, the Council was
concerned about the applicants who might want to argue or present their case in a public hearing. The item would have
to wait until later in the meeting to be heard, once removed from the Consent Calendar. The overall concept of the call-up procedure was satisfactory.
Council Member Wheeler said she was a member of the
Planning Commission in 1989 when it last reviewed the R-1 regulations. The mood of the community was different then. Concerns were expressed about the proposed content of the recommendations and the process which the Council was aware of and needed to be mindful of as it proceeded. There was
not a lot of community division, which was because of the work the Advisory Group did. The educational component was an important part of the success of the regulations and new
processes.
Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. The ability of the Planning staff and the Advisory Committee to bring together very disparate parties who were on different sides
08/06/01 92-349
of the historic issue several years prior was remarkable. The proposal was a set of guidelines rather than rules and
was flexible with an appeal process. The emphasis of mediation and the annual review were important. The staff approach on the 80 percent rule was supported. Council Member Lytle said she had concerns about the
underestimating of the level of staffing that was necessary to handle the new requirements and the call-up appeal process. She was willing to go ahead without any
modifications if the sunset provision was a shorter sunset, such as one year, and the review process was six months
from the date of effectiveness. The call-up appeal separated the citizens from the Council. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved to amend
the motion to change the sunset from five years to one
year. Council Member Lytle asked what was gained from a five-year sunset.
Mr. Gawf said staff knew changes had to be made. The six-month review was appropriate. The five-year sunset gave
staff enough time to work out the issues and gave the process a fair chance of working. AMENDMENT TO MOTION failed for lack of a second.
Council Member Kleinberg said the City should use its website more interactively and suggested an interactive collection of comments and observations included on the
website.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the Advisory Group figured out what the issues were and tailored the solution toward that. Members of the community would continue to express concerns about two-story homes. Many of the features that could go into a home would be allowed. The key to the sunset issue
was the assessment process. If that worked well, the sunset was not necessary. Concerns included the timeline; the amount of time to go through the process, the assessment
process, and cost recovery.
Mayor Eakins said the guidelines were most useful for mixed-style neighborhoods. Her understanding was that the
08/06/01 92-350
Advisory Group did not intend to address the single-style neighborhoods, specifically the Eichler tracts.
Council Member Lytle asked for a separate motion on the call-up appeal process and the sunset provision. Mayor Eakins said the Council Members did not want to
support the separation, but Council Member Lytle’s objections were noted.
Mr. Calonne said a Council Member could ask to separate items that were severable. The ordinance was not severable.
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMF) did not allow a Council Member to cause separation of something that was not severable. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Appointments to Planning and Transportation Commission
Mayor Eakins said the Council had two full terms and one unexpired term to fill.
Council Member Beecham announced that the consensus of the Council was that the third person to receive five votes
would be appointed to the unexpired term.
Council Member Fazzino reviewed the tapes of the candidates interviewed and found them to be impressive. He voted for Bonnie Packer who served a short period of time on the
Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) with great distinction and deserved a full term. Jonathan Schink was
an outstanding member of the P&TC and brought a different perspective. Sarah Jones had outstanding, professional expertise. Leannah Hunt represented a new point of view. Cedric De La Beaujardiere was encouraged to remain interested in becoming a member of the P&TC. Karen Homan
and Michael Griffin represented a neighborhood perspective. Council Member Lytle encouraged Jonathan Schink and Leannah
Hunt to run for elected office. The choice between Michael Griffin and Karen Holman was difficult.
FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
08/06/01 92-351
VOTING FOR CEDRIC DE LA BEAUJARDIERE: Eakins
VOTING FOR MICHAEL GRIFFIN: Beecham, Burch, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Mossar, Ojakian
VOTING FOR KAREN HOLMAN: Burch, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Wheeler
VOTING FOR LEANNAH HUNT: Kleinberg
VOTING FOR SARAH JONES: Beecham Lytle, Wheeler, VOTING FOR BONNIE PACKER: Burch, Eakins,
Fazzino, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler, VOTING FOR JONATHAN SCHINK: Beecham, Eakins,
Fazzino, Ojakian
City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that on the first ballot Bonnie Packer (with seven votes) and Michael Griffin (with six votes) were appointed to the two, four-year terms; and
Karen Holman (with five votes) was appointed to the unexpired term.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jackie Durant, 4250 El Camino Real, spoke regarding the City Manager’s Report.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian,
to approve the Minutes of July 2, 2001, as corrected, and
July 9, 2001, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Lytle absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Eakins announced that Item No. 15 would be removed from the Consent Calendar to become Item No. 22B.
08/06/01 92-352
Emily Harrison said staff requested that Item No. 18 be
brought back to Council after the Council’s vacation on September 24, 2001, and that Item No. 7 be heard that evening due to a timeline for state and federal grants. Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in
the second ordinance in Item No. 4 “Approving and adopting a Plan For Improvements to the Arastradero Preserve” due to a conflict of interest because the ordinance had impacts on
properties owned by Stanford University, her husband’s employer.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham,
to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2A-14, 16 and 17. LEGISLATIVE
2A. Ordinance 4711 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Need for a Redevelopment Agency to Function in the City of Palo Alto and Declaring the City Council to be the
Redevelopment Agency for the City of Palo Alto" (1st Reading 7/23/01, Passed 6-1, Fazzino “no,” Lytle “not participating,” Beecham absent)
3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 10,
Chapter 10.64, Section 10.64.250 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in Order to Reduce the Penalties for
Violations of Regulations on Bicycles, Roller Skates, Skateboards and Coasters"
Resolution 8077 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Fine Schedule for
Bicycle Infractions" 4. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 22.08.330 to Formally Rename
the Dedicated Parkland Called the 'Arastra Property' as the 'Arastradero Preserve'"
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and
Adopting a Plan For Improvements to the Arastradero Preserve"
08/06/01 92-353
5. Resolution 8078 entitled "Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Approve an
Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and the City of Palo Alto (to Provide Section 21362.2 (3 percent at 50 Full Formula) for Local Fire Members)"
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an
Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the California
Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) (to Provide Section 21362.2 (3 percent at 50 Full Formula) for Local Fire Members)" ADMINISTRATIVE
6. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Inglewood in the Amount of $54,400 for Parking Citation Services
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Nolte Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $157,102 for Design
Services for the Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing, Capital Improvement Project 10121
8. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Weed Management Area for the Control of
Invasive Weeds in Open Space Lands 9. Amendment No. 2 to Existing Contract No. C8100757
Between the City of Palo Alto and SCT Utility Systems, Inc. in the Amount of $557,620 for Services for
Utilities Customer Information System 10. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Art Center Foundation in the Amount of $100,000 for Planning and Design Services for the Main Library/Art
Center Expansion Project 11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Navigant
Consulting in the Amount of $65,000 for Electric Regulatory and Technical Consulting in Fiscal Year
2001-02 with Options for $130,000 for Fiscal Years 2002-03 and 2003-04
08/06/01 92-354
Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Navigant Consulting in the Amount of $115,000 for Gas
Regulatory and Technical Consulting in Fiscal Year 2001-02 with Options for $190,000 for Fiscal Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Interstate
Gas Services, Inc. in the Amount of $60,000 for Gas Regulatory and Technical Consulting in Fiscal Year 2001-02 with Options for $100,000 for Fiscal Years
2002-03 and 2003-04
Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Flynn and Associates in the Amount of $150,000 for Electric Regulatory and Technical Consulting in Fiscal Year 2001-02 with Options for $280,000 for Fiscal Years 2002-03 and 2003-04
12. Open Purchase Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and McNevin Cleaning Specialists, Inc. in the Amount of $120,000 to Provide Carpet, Upholstery and Window Covering Cleaning at City Facilities
13. Emerson North Apartments: Amendment to Existing Loan
and Regulatory Agreement to Provide $69,300 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for a Rehabilitation Loan
14. Open Purchase Contract Between the City of Palo Alto
and Carl and Manor Advertising in the Amount of $100,000 for Graphic Design
16. Amendment No. 1 to Existing Contract No. S9108672 Between the City of Palo Alto and Elite Investigations
in the Amount of $15,000 for Background Investigations 17. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone PLC from
$80,000 to $110,000 COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
18. The Policy & Services Committee recommends to the City
Council re Construction Noise approval of the Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 regulating construction noise levels. Staff recommends
08/06/01 92-355
that the Council amend the Policy and Services Committee recommendation to decrease the noise levels
from 95 dBA to 85 90 dBA or the lowest reasonable level with the clear intention of directing to staff to seek ways to continue to lower decibel levels produced by street sweeping.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 9, Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Relating
to Regulation of Noise) in order to Increase Restrictions on Construction, Demolition, or Repair
Activities and to Amend the Restrictions on Public Street Sweeping and Parking Lot Cleaning" MOTION PASSED 9-0 on Item Nos. 3, 5-14, 16, and 17.
MOTION PASSED 7-2 on Item No. 2A, Fazzino, Ojakian “no.” MOTION PASSED 9-0 on Item No. 4, first ordinance. MOTION PASSED 8-0, on Item No. 4, second ordinance, Mossar
“not participating.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment
of the Respective Properties Herein Described Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open. There were
no comments from the public, and the Public Hearing was declared closed.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian,
to adopt the resolution. Resolution 8079 entitled "Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of the Respective Properties Herein
Described" MOTION PASSED 9-0.
08/06/01 92-356
20. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a request by Carrasco & Associates and
Mehmood Taqui on behalf of Joe and Evelyn Bradford for Site and Design Review of a new 4,325 square foot, three story building for property located at 2051 El Camino Real to contain ground floor retail (433 sq.ft.), second floor office (1,232 sq.ft.) and second
and third floor residential (1,944 sq.ft.) uses plus stairway area (573 square feet), on a 4,938 square foot parcel in the CN District. Variances are
requested for (1) encroachments into front and side setbacks and side daylight planes, (2) increased lot
coverage (5% above CN District, 20% above RM-15), and (3) a reduction in required parking spaces by one parking space (a total of eight parking spaces are proposed where nine are required). A Design Enhancement Exception is requested for (a) a partially
covered residential parking space where one fully covered residential parking space is required, and (b) a four foot wide perimeter planting area on west side of parking stall #8 where a five foot wide planting area is required. Environmental Assessment: Exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act. Continued to the September 24, 2001, Regular City Council meeting.
21. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal submitted by Roger Kohler of the
May 3, 2001, decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment for property located at 2340 Bryant Street in which a Home Improvement Exception
01-HIE-02 was denied. Continued to the September 24, 2001, Regular City Council meeting. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
22. Auditor's Office Status Report City Auditor Sharon Erickson said the Auditor’s Office
Status Report was the first in a series of reports on the status of the Auditor’s Office. She would return to the
Council in September with an Audit Plan for Council approval.
08/06/01 92-357
Mayor Eakins appointed an Ad Hoc committee of Vice Mayor Ojakian and Council Members Beecham and Wheeler to work
with the City Auditor to prepare an Audit Plan for the remainder of the fiscal year. 22B. (Old Item No. 15) Request by Community Skating Inc., on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Final Council
Approval of a Ten-Foot-High Sound Wall Along the North and West Property Lines at the Rear of the Parcel Located at 3009 Middlefield Road. Zone District: PF,
Public Facilities. File Number: 00-ARB-43.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said staff was requested at the June 25, 2001, Council Meeting, to return with four follow-up items on the sound walls. The four items included the possibility of reducing the height along Price Court from ten feet to eight feet, looking at a darker color and
different material for the sound walls, moving the sound wall along the Price Court property line into the CSI site approximately two or three feet, and looking at whether or not the sound wall should wrap around the tennis courts on the Matadero side or extend further toward Middlefield
Road. Staff recommended that the height of the sound wall remain at ten feet based on updated and reconfirmed
information from the acoustical consultant. Staff did not recommend that the wall be moved in from the Price Court side because it would not preserve as many trees as staff
tried to preserve on the site. Staff recommended the same structural support, foundation, and material for the sound
wall as brought to the Council on June 25, 2001. Staff recommended the wall continue 110 feet further towards Middlefield Road at the ten-foot height.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said the acoustical
report, dated 1997, clearly showed the long wall. There was no question that the wall was always included. The residents on Ellsworth Place wanted the 110-foot extension wall. The Council was urged to continue to require the 110-foot wall. The residents wanted ivy on the walls. The
option to bring the wall closer to the fourth court was available, but the Council had to take the initiative on that. Mr. Calonne made a statement at the June 25, 2001,
meeting that the City Manager’s letter called for the removal of the light standards in the court. That was not
true. There was no current requirement to remove the light standards. The residents would like the light standards removed.
08/06/01 92-358
Sophia Deng, 3073 Middlefield Road, #203, said neighbors within 300 feet were not given notice. The Planning
Department gave out notices to people who put their name on the record to request information. A 10-foot high sound wall would not mitigate the noise. The Community Skating Inc. (CSI) had always planned on having a sports complex at the site. The project was broken into pieces in order to
get around the environmental impact laws. Irit Luria, 3065 Middlefield Road, #202, urged the Council
to act on the homeowner’s behalf. The Council should not allow Palo Alto residents to suffer from noise pollution
created by CSI. Most people would agree that the right to play was subordinate to the right for respite. Affected neighbors had a right to peaceful home and protection to their property values.
Keith Slipper, 2182 St. Francis Drive, said he was impressed with the way in which the Council and staff reached out into the community to try to get a consensus about what the Council did. That was not the case with the wall. No one attempted to return a call or communication in
order to build a consensus on the wall. The property should be developed in a way that made the people come together
and satisfied all concerned as best as possible. As owner of 3060 Price Court, he was concerned about the 10-foot wall that would obscure light and prevent sun from getting
into the house. There was no mention in any of the documents he read that the price of the properties would
drop. The neighbors could not afford to take the financial loss due to the wall placed on the parameter of their land. Outreach was necessary for all the unanswered concerns.
Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, said many people in Palo Alto
knew the City spent millions of dollars paying consultants, but few people knew that some consultants used invalid data. The sound wall was the result of a noise analysis done by Mr. Rodkin, the acoustic consultant, hired by the City four years prior. Two years prior, the lawsuit
settlement agreement eliminated the tennis court that was used in Mr. Rodkin’s noise analysis for the wall. She hired two acoustic engineers to do a noise analysis of the wall,
taking into consideration the elimination of the fifth court. Both engineers came up with the same result which
was that the noise received by neighboring properties with the erection of the wall far exceeded the noise level that was derived by Mr. Rodkin.
08/06/01 92-359
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, provided the Council with pages from the CSI lease signed by Jack Morton which said the
ballot measure approved by the voters was for the purpose of continuing the uses as an ice skating facility. The lights should be removed. A use permit hearing was needed to match the approval the Council currently had. A letter from Wei Wang included a map of the site with sound walls
that Mr. Rodkin provided. The sound wall was needed to mitigate the adverse effect of the project, but the wall was put on the property line, which meant that the people
who were being affected by the sound should bear the burden of the negative effect of the wall on their property line.
If the property line ran continuously between both side property lines, there was no way to get behind it. Twenty feet existed between the property line and the fence around the tennis courts. The simplest compromise was to put the wall ten feet from the property line so that landscaping
would be planted in front of the wall. That would leave an area to be maintained. Marni Barnes, Landscape Architect, 346 Boyce Avenue, said she had worked closely with the Planning Staff on the
project and was available to answer questions.
Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, asked that the request for the last minute addition of the extension of the 110-foot wall be removed. The issue of the extension was
previously debated by a prior Council, and the decision was made not to extend the fence. CSI signed the lease based on
that understanding. The additional 110 feet turned the site into something like a San Quentin prison and made the community pay a large price for what was relatively minor
mitigation. CSI was sympathetic to the neighbors who preferred an eight-foot fence and would support that. His
sound consultant indicated the additional two feet of mitigation did not produce enough for the aesthetic degradation of the area. Council Member Beecham asked whether the Council could
approve an eight-foot fence if a parcel owner wanted an eight-foot fence.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne was unsure whether lowering the wall to eight feet would impact anyone else. Assuming it
would not impact anyone else, the Council might find a waiver that would work to protect against an environmental
08/06/01 92-360
claim. If there were no consequences on other properties, it was possible that the owner could waive the impact.
Council Member Beecham said the 110-foot extension came as a surprise. In 1998, the Council directed that the extension not be included. He asked whether the Council was at a legal risk to not include the extension at the current
time. Mr. Calonne said there was some legal risk. At the current
state, the problem came with defining what the project for the purpose of mitigation. He inferred from the record
that, not withstanding the claim that the extension toward Middlefield Road was valuable for sound mitigation, it was not required at the time in 1998. Part of the problem was that some of the neighbors, who had a definite interest in a particular point of view, spoke directly to the
consultant and represented what the consultant had or had not done. He was unclear whether what Mr. Rodkin said recently about the wall extension being better than, equal to, or not as good as the information the Council relied on in 1998. The fact that the Council, in 1998, chose not to
extend the wall had to speak for itself.
Mayor Eakins asked whether there was a way for any or all of the residents along the disputed 10-foot wall section to waive their rights and was there a way to protect the City
if that were done.
Mr. Calonne said some of the Price Court residents did not have good faith intention of reaching resolution with the City. A waiver was theoretically possible but not
practical. The Council put in an incredible effort in the early 1990s, including mediating with the neighbors. There
was no shortage of effort. Mayor Eakins asked whether there was an estimate of how many meetings were held on the subject.
Mr. Calonne said when CSI was with the tennis club, there was a lot of effort.
Council Member Mossar asked whether it was possible for the Council to say that even though the sound wall was called
out as a mitigation for the sound, that it was too injurious to the homes along Price Court and not necessary to build.
08/06/01 92-361
Mr. Calonne said one of the key distinction in the negative declaration format was that the short form could be done to
avoid public participation. The first challenge to the legal theory came when the neighbors brought in their own noise consultant. The matter was settled rather than letting a court resolve it. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), rather than the short form, gave the choice of
saying an ugly wall was not wanted. That procedural choice was not available with a negative declaration.
Council Member Wheeler recalled a sound wall issue with the YMCA, and the ultimate resolution was that the neighbors
had an option for the height of the wall. Council Member Fazzino recalled the sound wall was for aesthetic purposes, noting that the YMCA programs were enclosed.
Council Member Lytle said the wall at the YMCA varied in height and in location, which was done to accommodate neighbors’ preferences. An EIR was used in that situation. Noise mitigation was necessary because some activities at
the YMCA took place in the parking lot, and many concerns of the neighbors were related to noise. The wall was
effective and was chosen to be a landscaping feature that would blend well with the back yards of the properties adjacent to the YMCA. With regard to the current issue, the
Council left two items for staff follow-up: the height of the wall and the location of the wall. The 110-foot
extension was eliminated in the original motion and in a clarifying colleague memo. She was surprised that the 110-foot property line aspect and the upgrade of materials came
back to the Council. The wall needed to blend in with the neighborhood, and a more subtle material might help make it
less objectionable to the neighbors. The Council’s objective was to try to balance the neighbors’ enjoyment of their property. Ms. Grote said one of the items to be reconsidered was
whether or not the wall should wrap around the edge of the courts or be extended towards Middlefield Road. Staff looked at both options. Mr. Rodkin was of the opinion that
either option was equally effective in noise attenuation; however, the length of the wrap was longer than discussed
at the prior Council meeting. In either event, the wall had to be 100 to 110 feet wrapped around the edge of the court or extended toward Middlefield Road to get maximum
08/06/01 92-362
acoustical attenuation. Staff reviewed the minutes of the 1998 decision and discovered that the 110-foot extension
was not required at that time. The material of the wall was looked at, and staff found that the design and construction type presented on June 25, 2001, was the best for the property because of the pier and post foundation and the desire to save as many trees as possible.
Council Member Lytle clarified the wrap-around or 110-foot extension were not necessary.
Ms. Grote said for maximum noise attenuation, both would be
required, but they were not required as part of the Council action in 1998 and would not be required at the present time. Council Member Lytle said if the Council wished to accept
the less expensive wall construction type, would the Council have to include the decorative element on it or could vines be planted on the wall. Ms. Grote said the decorative features did not have to be
added. Staff’s opinion, based on Architectural and Review Board (ARB) comments, was the wall was better designed if
the decorative features were included. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Wheeler,
to approve the staff recommendation affirming the June 25, 2001, approval of the construction of a ten-foot high sound
wall along the north and west property lines at 3009 Middlefield Road and modifying the conditions of project approval to include the following:
1. The required sound wall on the north (Price
Court) side of the property shall be ten feet high and located along the north property line; and 2. The required sound walls on the north and west
sides of the property shall be constructed in the “crown wall” pattern, with the articulated side of the wall facing the neighboring properties.
Council Member Mossar said there were transitional
neighborhood issues. The single-family and other residential units had rights to light and air. Approving a
08/06/01 92-363
ten-foot wall on Price Court was unconsciousable. The neighbors were asked to accept something that was unfair.
Council Member Kleinberg said there were differences of professional opinion as to whether the wall could be eight or ten feet and still do its job. A wall that backed up to someone’s home was disturbing. The Council should consider
an eight-foot wall and see if it would. Council Member Fazzino said the property was formally used
as a tennis court, and the community approved a measure in the mid-1980s approving use of the site for recreational
use. For fifteen years, the neighbors of the property enjoyed peace and quiet from the site. The condominium development was built after CSI was in place. Regardless of how high the wall was, there was much anxiety associated with the site, and any tennis noise on the site would
bother neighbors. The Council should delete the wall, and CSI should be encouraged to consider reducing the amount of usage on the site. Council Member Burch agreed with Council Member Kleinberg
that there should be a wall that looked nice. A lower wall could fit in. The wall at the YMCA was attractive and
divided the facility from the neighbors. The wall should not be extended 110 feet.
Council Member Wheeler was concerned whether the City would have a decent legal defense if there were a suit against
the eight-foot wall. Mr. Calonne said he could not inform the Council whether or
not an eight-or ten-foot wall would solve sound mitigation. The project previously approved called for ten feet. The
current application was to build a wall. The environmental issues associated with the wall were aesthetic rather than sound mitigation. He was unsure whether the Council had a duty to mitigate noise for use of the existing four courts under the old use permit. The Council could come up with
something different for the Price Court wall. His suggestion was that the Council try a trial operation with another type of wall with the provision to increase it if
necessary. Alternatives regarding waivers and wall heights beginning at eight feet guaranteed that the Council would
continue in its role for the foreseeable future. From a legal administration standpoint, he preferred to see the Council out of the middle and leave the Police in the
08/06/01 92-364
position to deal with sound meters. The Council was talking about performance standards without requiring them. The
performance standards at the YMCA dealt with times of day, activities that could occur outside and were based on how people behaved on the site. Short of having only four courts, there were no behavior controls on the tennis players. Mr. Rodkin was asked what it would take to deaden
the sound of a racket hitting a ball. The analysis was that the sound would move in a straight line over the wall and into the neighbors’ yards. CSI appears to be concerned that
it would end up in an expensive dispute. If the Council said eight feet should be good enough and, if not, the wall
would come back to the Council. That was defensible but not encouraged. Council Member Mossar clarified that Mr. Calonne suggested the Council not pursue the wall but rather pursue
performance standards for the courts. Mr. Calonne said he would not suggest that without a use permit. The only way to reopen the use permit was a showing of nuisance or change of circumstances. The best
alternative to reduce the height was to go to eight feet with a requirement there be onsite studies at some point.
The cost consequences were unstated at the current time. Council Member Beecham said none of the Council Members
wanted a ten-foot fence and suggested changing the requirement from a ten-foot wall to an eight-foot wall.
Mr. Calonne suggested staff return to the Council with an eight-foot package plus a review of waiver.
Council Member Beecham wanted to go with an eight-foot wall
and have staff make it work legally. Mr. Calonne suggested staff make a specific proposal to the property owners and ask them to choose the height of wall. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to let the property owners along Price Court
choose either an eight-foot or ten-foot sound wall.
Council Member Burch clarified that each property owner
would decide whether they wanted an eight-or ten-foot wall facing their property.
08/06/01 92-365
Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Staff wanted to make sure it did what people wanted.
Vice Mayor Ojakian understood the suggestion was for either an eight-foot wall with assurance from the adjacent property owners or stay with the ten-foot wall.
Council Member Beecham said the ten-foot wall was the default, without an indication by the parcel owners that they preferred eight feet.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether the idea in the 1990s was
that the City did not want to run the tennis courts and that a third party was looked for to run the tennis courts. Council Member Wheeler said the City put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for proposals on how to use a portion of the
property. The stipulation was that it had to be low intensity recreational use. CSI submitted a proposal, and the Tennis Club submitted a proposal but had no money. Vice Mayor Ojakian supported the motion but did not believe
the 110 foot wall was necessary. The message was clear for quite some time that recreational use be allowed at the
site. Council Member Lytle suggested considering removing the
decorative cap on the wall in light of the amendment to allow property owners to choose the variable height.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove the decorative cap on the sound
wall.
Mayor Eakins said she was in a quandary because the Council made a series of decisions over the prior years and felt it had to mitigate something that might not actually be so bad. An eight-foot wall was acceptable, but she did not want the issue to continually return to the Council. The
subsequent people who bought the condominiums do not like the tennis court noise. Something should run with the property so that future buyers do not keep returning to the
Council with complaints. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Fazzino, Mossar “no.”
08/06/01 92-366
CLOSED SESSION
Council Member Wheeler announced that she would not participate in Item No. 26 because she worked for Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC). Anne Fletcher, 2020 Waverley Street, referred to Agenda
Item 26, and said the agenda item was premature because it was up to the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board to decide whether it wanted to give up the site on
Ventura Court. There could be more school age students in Palo Alto in the future. Statistics did not prove a lot in
the past. Terman was a good example of wrong estimates.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:38 p.m. to a Closed Session.
23. Conference with Labor Negotiator
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designee pursuant to Compensation for Unrepresented Employees (Frank Benest, Jay Rounds)
Unrepresented Employee Groups: Management and
Confidential Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 24. Conference with Labor Negotiator
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations
(Jay Rounds, David Ramberg, Lynne Johnson, Brad Zook, Tom Merson)
Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA) Authority: Government Code section 54957.6
25. Conference with Labor Negotiator
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations
(Jay Rounds, Ruben Grijalva)
08/06/01 92-367
Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (PAFCA)
Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 26. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 3990 Ventura Court, Palo Alto
Negotiating Parties: Palo Alto Unified School
District, Palo Alto Community Child Care City Negotiators: Frank Benest, Emily Harrison Subject of Potential Negotiation: Price and Terms of
Payment The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Labor Negotiations as described in Agenda Item Nos. 23-25 and Conference with Real Property Negotiator as
described in Agenda Item No. 26. Mayor Eakins announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 23-26.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.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.
08/06/01 92-368