HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-24 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting September 24, 2001
1. Adolescent Counseling Services .............................. 433
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m. ................. 433
A. Resolution 8086 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Offering Condolences and Support for the Victims, Families, and Emergency Rescuers of
the Tragic Events of September 11, 2001” ................... 434
1. 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 from 8/06/01 .................................... 435
2. 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 from 8/06/01) ............. 446
09/24/01 92-430
3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider single-story overlay zoning for a portion of
the Garland Neighborhood [Tract 1371 of Elsinore Drive]. .................................................... 449
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................. 459
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................. 459
4. Resolution 8087 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Requesting the Board of the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to allow Extension of Employment Beyond 960 Hours in Calendar
Year 2001 For Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment” ..................................... 460
5. Resolution 8088 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Intent of the Council to Assign the City's Option to Acquire the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Affordable Housing Site to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation” ...................... 460
6. Ordinance 4720 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan
for Improvements to Foothills Park” ........................ 460
7. Adoption of Resolutions Authorizing the City Manager to File Applications for Six Separate Grants from the
State of California for Renovation of the Junior Museum & Zoo; Construction of Educational Exhibits at
the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Center; Construction of a Gateway Facility at the Arastradero Preserve; Design and Construction of a Park and Recreational Facilities
in the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Area; Restoration of Habitat and Trails at the Arastradero Preserve; and
Construction of Trails at the Arastradero Preserve ......... 460
8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Architectural Resources Group in the Amount of
$134,385 for Preliminary Architectural Designs for the Children’s Library Expansion, Capital Improvement
Project 10204 .............................................. 461
9. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc., in the Amount of $212,160 for the Arastradero Utility All Weather Access Road Capital Improvement Project 0118 ........................... 461
09/24/01 92-431
10. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council re Construction Noise ......................... 462
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .................. 465
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. in memory of Naomi Solomon, a graduate of Gunn High School who was killed in the World Trade disaster ..................... 465
09/24/01 92-432
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:48 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Lytle (arrived at 6:55 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler
SPECIAL MEETING 1. Adolescent Counseling Services
Nancy Goodban, 802 Bruce Drive, provided information on the
Adolescent Counseling Services and a recent youth forum. The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) co-sponsored the youth forum. Issues addressed at the forum included stress and academic pressure, isolation and disconnectedness, the need
to value ethnic and cultural diversity, the increasing socio-economic disparity, safety in the home and community,
and meeting the educational needs of underrepresented youth. A video of the youth forum was shown to the Council and audience.
No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
09/24/01 92-433
Special Meeting September 24, 2001
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:04 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg,
Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
A. Resolution 8086 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Offering Condolences and Support for the Victims, Families, and Emergency Rescuers of the Tragic Events of September 11, 2001” MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Ojakian,
to adopt the resolution. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Fire Chief Ruben Grijalva extended gratitude to the public
for its outpouring of support. Hundreds of letters of support were received, classroom students visited the Fire
Stations, and residents brought cookies and cakes to the Fire Stations. The support was emotional as well as financial. The Firefighters raised funds for the FDNY 9-11
Disaster Relief Fund for firefighters’ orphan and widows. The Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club donated $20,000,
and Bloomingdale’s hosted an event to raise money for the Burn Foundation and the New York Firefighter’s Relief Fund. The firefighters raised over $50,000 to send to New York.
The Palo Alto Fire Department has maintained its Emergency Operation Center in a state of readiness, and support was
being provided to the Firefighters and their families. All fire apparatus was outfitted with American flags and the New York Fire Department symbol to honor the fallen brothers and sisters in New York. Routine duties were discontinued for the following 30 days and two priorities
were given to the members of the Fire Department. The first priority was to identify target hazards or areas that might be at risk. The second priority was community contact. The
Fire Department was coordinating a ceremony with Stanford University that would occur simultaneously when the New
York Fire Department offered its funeral services for its lost members.
09/24/01 92-434
Mayor Eakins thanked Chief Grijalva for what the Fire Department was doing. The City planned a dedication of an
Olive tree grove on Tuesday, October 9, 2001, for the victims of the September 11, 2001, attack. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. 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 from 8/06/01)
• This item is quasi-judicial and subject to Council’s
Disclosure Policy Current Planning Manager John Lusardi said the application was a site and design review for a new mixed-use project on El Camino Real. The staff report (CMR:335:01) contained
descriptions of the proposed project, sets of development plans, and an exhibit that delineated the location and described the variances and exceptions being requested. The
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and
recommended the Council approve the project as proposed. The project was a mixed-use development for retail, office, and residential in the (CN) Neighborhood Commercial zone. The proposed residential use required the application of the RM-15 development standards, which had a direct effect
09/24/01 92-435
on the ability to design a residential use without creating building issues subject to exceptions for the site. The
size and width of the lot, the need to preserve the mature oak trees on site, and a desire to move the building further away from the adjacent residential uses on one side and to the rear accounted for the findings required to grant the variances and exceptions. The project conformed
to the policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) to encourage mixed-use development with residential along El Camino Real. Staff needed to clarify
an item regarding the ground floor retail use. The use was recommended and encouraged by the staff and ARB to be
included in the project and was included in the revised development after the ARB preliminary review, a total of 433 square feet. The actual retail space, not including the handicapped restroom, was 313 usable square feet. The CN and Comp Plan strongly encouraged neighborhood-serving
retail that enhanced the street vitality and pedestrian activity along El Camino Real. The ARB worked with the applicant for a ground floor retail element that reduced the visual impact of the surface-parking opening from the street and the sidewalk. The project proposed one
residential unit, which was the maximum allowed under the density requirements for the site area. Concerns were
raised regarding the potential conversion of the residential use to office use in the future. That would not be allowed under the Zoning Code because of the development
standards. To ensure such a conversion would not occur, the City Attorney’s office prepared a recommendation for an
additional condition with respect to condition monitoring on the residential unit. Staff recommended the Council approve the project as proposed with the requested
variances and design exceptions based on the findings and conditions contained in the staff report (CMR:335:01) and
with the added condition to include condition monitoring for the residential unit. Tony Carrasco, Carrasco & Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, applicant, said the property was small and the project was
carefully designed to let the oak trees survive. The project went to the ARB three times to make it workable. The idea of adding one more unit was appealing and
beneficial to Palo Alto’s housing shortage. If the project were only a commercial project, the proposed building
envelope would fit within the heights and setbacks of a commercial zone. No variances were requested at the rear of the property but were imposed because of the RM-15 zone.
09/24/01 92-436
Lighting and privacy issues for the neighbors on the northern property line were considered.
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open at 7:23 p.m. John Baca, 484 Oxford Avenue, presented a digital photograph showing what the building would look like. The
project was more massive than anything in the area. The oak trees would be severely pruned and invisible from the street. The daylight plane would shut off light into one of
the neighbor’s residences if the variances for daylight plane exemption were granted.
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, said CN zone was for neighborhood-serving retail according to the Comp Plan. She welcomed mixed residential and commercial uses in neighborhood commercial zones, but the commercial component
needed to primarily be made up of neighborhood-serving retail rather than office. Disincentives for offices should be focused on. At the first ARB review, the applicant presented plans for a three-story project with office and residential on the second and third floors, with the ground
level devoted only to parking. The applicant returned to the second preliminary review with plans similar to what
was before the Council in which 313 square feet of retail was added. Adding retail space was a small step in the right direction; however, the neighborhood was not served
by a small token amount of retail with no onsite parking for customers. That was a formula for failure of the retail
component. The neighborhood would not be served by empty storefronts on the ground floor. The mix of uses and design and size of the project needed to be appropriate for the
location of the project. A fully commercial building in a CN zone was limited to a 25-foot height. The project was
allowed to be 33 feet high because of the residential component. Dave Mampel, 2721 Midtown Court, #110, said the project fit with the Comp Plan and provided needed housing. He
supported the project. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, did not see the
project as a vision for Palo Alto. The trade-off was that the project allowed for one 2,292 square foot residential
unit, but a variance was needed for the side and front yard setbacks as well as variances for daylight plane, to increase the site coverage, and to reduce the parking. The
09/24/01 92-437
handicap parking space was unusable because the building had no handicap accessibility to the offices or residential
components. A design enhancement to reduce the landscape area from five feet to four feet was needed. She asked the Council to reconsider the density of the building. Providing seven parking spaces for the size of the building was not practical.
Mr. Carrasco said the CN zone allowed a 35-foot height limit and allowed the inclusion of the volume of building
he proposed.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about the handicap space and access. Mr. Carrasco said Title 24 that governed handicapped accessibility did not require that a second story office be
accessible. Title 24 did require that a handicap space be provided. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:37 p.m.
Council Members Beecham, Mossar and Wheeler, and Mayor
Eakins disclosed they individually met with Mr. Baca, Ms. Ogawa, and immediate neighbors. Council Member Mossar said she also had a brief discussion with Mr. Taka.
Vice Mayor Ojakian disclosed he had visited the site twice
and met with Ms. Ogawa and Mr. Baca. Council Member Kleinberg disclosed she had visited the site
and spoke with Mr. Taka.
Council Members Burch and Lytle disclosed they had visited the site several times and had discussions with Mr. Baca, Ms. Ogawa, and Mr. Carrasco. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said condition 64, page 38 of
the staff report (CMR:335:01) talked about not requiring an elevator for the second floor but resulted in a use restriction in which the second floor could not be used for
health care providers.
Council Member Lytle said the oak tree appeared to require severe pruning. She asked how the tree would survive under that circumstance.
09/24/01 92-438
City Arborist Dave Dockter said a privately retained project arborist commented on the adequacy of the project.
He requested that the project arborist specifically address the grading situation impact to the tree roots. An issue existed as to the above ground impacts to the tree that the project might have on the Oak trees. In evaluating the impact to the Oak trees, the most important focus was
keeping below-grade impacts to a minimum. He felt comfortable that all the Oaks would survive the project with regard to the health of the tree. The above-ground
portion of the tree required semi-drastic pruning. The neighboring property owner pruned the tree, which caused
misshaping to the tree. Drastic pruning was necessary on the project side. The oak tree would have a good shading effect on the structures. In his report, the project arborist outlined specific pruning. The intent was to prune the branches with the new structure.
Council Member Beecham was concerned about the compaction of cars and asked whether Mr. Dockter was comfortable that the turf block and parking would not severely impact the roots.
Mr. Dockter said the roots would be impacted. Keeping the
roots in place was important. Material would be added on top of the existing roots, and compaction would occur.
Council Member Mossar asked what would happen to the trees if a similarly scaled building were built on the property
to the south. Mr. Dockter said the trees had grown up with the
foundations existing with the neighboring garage area, and much root diversion had occurred. A new development on the
south side would have to respect a setback, and a new foundation would be further away than the existing foundation. Council Member Mossar asked whether there was room for all
the trees as they grew to full size. Mr. Dockter said there was room for the trees. The project
would require the trees to grow up.
Council Member Lytle asked whether underground parking was considered for the property or did the City consider switching the driveway curb cut to the other side of the
09/24/01 92-439
property. She asked whether there was any consideration for additional retail in the project or whether there were any
architectural methods to improve light and air to the one residence. Mr. Lusardi said the narrowness of the site and the oak trees prevented underground parking. Staff looked at moving
the driveway but that would place the driveway on the side with the oak trees. The set back in the rear of the property was greater than what was normally required. Staff
did not look at increasing the retail.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified the building extended beyond the existing building line next door. Mr. Lusardi said the proposed project was less than one foot past the existing building line.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether that was an allowance that was normally tolerated. Mr. Lusardi said staff was exploring with the El Camino
corridor guidelines. Staff wanted to see a mixture, eclecticism, and height variances.
Council Member Wheeler clarified Mr. Lusardi said even with a building without any variances, a daylight planing issue
impact would occur on the adjacent residential property. She asked whether the issue was exacerbated with the 33-
foot building. Mr. Lusardi said staff and the ARB did not agree that
shifting the building created a greater plane impact.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether actual shadow studies were presented to the ARB. Mr. Lusardi said no shadow studies were presented.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether there was a way to protect the City from the applicant asking for a conversion if the residential unit remained vacant.
Mr. Calonne said the City would have to look at the
economic hardship at the time and make a judgment at that time. The most important aspect was the idea that the situation would be monitored. The Planning Department
09/24/01 92-440
discussed with him the idea of having regular inspections of the property.
Mr. Lusardi said going from residential to commercial would require onsite parking that would require a variance. He did not believe the City would support a variance for less parking to go from residential to office.
Architectural Review Board Member Judith Wasserman said the residences were to the south of the building. The proposed
building would not throw a shadow to the south. The site plan showed a dashed line showing the overhang of the
second floor. From the pedestrian point of view, there were setbacks. Council Member Mossar said the drawings implied there were no windows along the property to the south, but Mr. Baca
showed photographs indicating windows on the residential units on the south. She asked whether there was any discussion about the impact of the proposed building on the residences.
Mr. Lusardi said the major concern with privacy was to try to limit the amount of pedestrian activity on the site. The
ARB was explicit in wanting to see a careful lighting plan that prevented lighting overflow onto the adjacent properties.
Council Member Mossar clarified there was no fence between
the two properties. Mr. Lusardi said a fence was not proposed.
Council Member Mossar asked about the size of the retail.
Mr. Lusardi said the retail was 313 square feet. Council Member Mossar asked whether Mr. Lusardi had an idea about the type of retail that would fit in such a small
space. Mr. Lusardi said he envisioned a small café or a pick
up/drop off dry cleaners.
Council Member Mossar asked whether any of the trees were heritage oaks.
09/24/01 92-441
Mr. Dockter said four trees qualified as heritage oaks.
Mr. Calonne recalled the trees were at risk if they impacted the allowed building area by 25 percent or more. Council Member Mossar asked what mechanism the City had to make sure the trees were cared for.
Mr. Dockter said the trees would be protected during construction. The Tree Technical Manual, adopted by the
City Tree Preservation Ordinance, required the maintenance of the trees adhere to certain criteria. A condition would
be included in the Conditions of Approval that required the continual maintenance of all the landscape, perpetually. It was incumbent upon the property owner to maintain the trees according to the standards in the Technical Manual.
Council Member Burch asked about the City’s record of success for protecting trees when buildings were constructed. Mr. Dockter said the City’s success rate was about 95
percent. The most mortality occurred during transplants. A condition could be added that required replacement of the
tree with as large a tree as possible if one of the oaks died.
Mayor Eakins asked staff to describe the purpose of the 35-foot height limit.
Mr. Lusardi said the requirements were in the CN zone. The maximum height was 25 feet for anything that was
nonresidential. The maximum height for a mixed used project in the RM-15 standards was 30 feet; however, maximum height
for a residential project in the CN zone was 35 feet. Mayor Eakins asked why there was not more residential and less or no office space.
Mr. Lusardi said the zoning allowed for office. The residential was allowed but had a density requirement. The density allowed less than 1.5 units on the property.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved to approve the staff
recommendation including the additional condition of the City Attorney.
09/24/01 92-442
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to deny the project for the following reasons: 1) the inability to agree with the nexus that was used to permit the variances required for this project - the preservation of the oak trees; 2) the concern about the edges of the
project with the R-1 properties behind the project and the residential units to the South; 3) the aspects of the project did not conform to the newly adopted designed R-1
guidelines, such as balconies overlooking residential areas; and 4) the City needed to acknowledge that building
office space created jobs and increased demand for housing in the community. Council Member Mossar said a smaller design might preserve some of the trees. The preservation of the oak trees was
stretched too far to justify the project. Council Member Burch said the project concerned him as a precedent for any project on El Camino Real. The retail represented approximately 8 percent of the total square
footage of the project. The City needed affordable, attainable houses. He would rather see a project that
provided two, three, or four homes on the site. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether there would be sufficient
space for parking if the project were strictly residential.
Mr. Lusardi said the surface parking under a building would be the same, and the lot size allowed only one unit per the density.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether there was any way to get
more than one residential unit on the project. Mr. Lusardi said the property would have to be rezoned in order to get additional residential units.
Council Member Wheeler had difficulty making finding 1 for approval of the site and design permit. The inadequacy of parking provided by the amount of development proposed was
a concern. Another concern was with the loss of privacy and light and air circulation to the neighboring residential
property to the south. The heavy weighting of office versus retail was a concern.
09/24/01 92-443
Council Member Lytle said the Council was in a dilemma because the Comp Plan had a vision for mixed use along El
Camino Real, and zoning that worked for the Comp Plan vision was not in place. Mixed uses could not be accomplished on parcels of such a size without numerous variances. She suggested continuing the application to allow for some reconsideration and redesign work,
addressing issues relating to the oaks, retail component, and change zoning for more residential. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by
Kleinberg, to continue the project.
Council Member Fazzino supported Council Member Lytle’s motion, noting concerns about the trees, the size, bulk, and impact on neighboring properties. He suggested the Planning staff look at the broader issues of mixed use on
El Camino Real. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the Council needed the applicant’s agreement to continue the item.
Mr. Calonne said the Council did not need the applicant’s agreement. His concern with the motion was that staff
needed guidance on the ARB’s role. He suggested denial without prejudice and suggested the Council provide explicit instructions as to how it wanted the ARB to
interact on redesign.
Council Member Lytle said her motion was to continue the item with the consent of the applicant and include in the motion to have the project go through the ARB process.
Council Member Kleinberg was more comfortable having faith
in the architect and his skill. She favored affordable and attainable housing but did not believe the Council wanted to be in the position of requiring all housing in the City to be affordable and attainable. A variety of housing was needed.
Council Member Mossar preferred the suggestion made by the City Attorney to deny the application without prejudice in
order for the applicant to return. The Council expressed vague reasons why it was uncomfortable with the project.
The Council did not give clear direction to the applicant or the ARB about the Council’s criteria.
09/24/01 92-444
Mayor Eakins agreed clear direction to the applicant was needed.
Council Member Beecham opposed the motion. Council Member Fazzino said the rules needed to be set up front. The Council had criteria for approving variances, and the staff report (CMR:335:01) made it clear the application met the
criteria. Council Member Mossar said the concerns of the Council were vague in terms of what else to do. He agreed with that. The main reasons he heard for not approving the
application were a dislike of offices, not enough retail, concern about trees, and the housing was not affordable.
Those issues were not criteria for looking at the variances. Mr. Calonne clarified for Council Member Mossar that the Council’s rules permitted an amendment to an amendment, and
a substitute was treated like an amendment. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to deny the motion without prejudice.
Mr. Carrasco stated he preferred a continuance with some direction on processes.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBERS MOSSAR AND WHEELER WAS WITHDRAWN
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER to:
• Return the item to both the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission for
review.
• Modify plan for more room for oak trees on site.
• Require more viable retail space showing evidence of
retail space pursuant to other neighborhood commercial.
• Make parking adjusments to include design of a parking
management system allowing mixed used on site.
• Redesign using less office space.
Council Member Burch favored two smaller residences rather than one large residence.
Council Member Mossar would not support the motion. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and ARB
reviewed the project and raised questions about issues of
09/24/01 92-445
concern by the Council. Their interpretation was that the project met the criteria before them. The Council’s job was
to agree with the ARB and P&TC or disagree and explain the Council’s findings. The guidelines were nonspecific and open to interpretation. Council Member Kleinberg said the P&TC’s and ARB’s minutes
contained discussion of other ways to solve the site problem, and there was room for the Planning and Transportation Commission, ARB, and staff to work with the
architect to accommodate the concerns in a constructive way.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Beecham, Mossar, “no.”
2. 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 from 8/06/01)
• This item is quasi-judicial and subject to Council’s
Disclosure Policy Senior Planner Rachel Adcox recommended the Council uphold the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and deny the appeal. The Home Improvement Exception (HIE) as proposed was to allow the enclosure and extension of the second-floor balcony at the rear of the
house, which would create a second bathroom on the second floor. The enclosure would increase the floor area of the house by 99.8 square feet when the house already exceeded
the maximum allowable floor area by 187 square feet. The application for the HIE was originally submitted on January
22, 2001. On February 1, 2001, staff sent a letter to the applicant informing him that staff was not able to support the application and advising him to withdraw the application. The applicant chose to proceed with the project rather than withdraw at that time. The Director of
Planning and Community Environment reviewed the project at the public hearing held on April 19, 2001, and denied the
application. The denial was based on the fact that findings necessary to approve the project could not be made, such as extraordinary conditions applicable to the property or to
the structure that were not applicable to any other standard property in the R-1 district. Further, staff did
not believe it was demonstrated that additional floor area was necessary to preserve the existing architectural style
09/24/01 92-446
of the residence. The majority of the proposed architectural changes, including new windows and a new
eyebrow roof over the first story, could be accomplished without the addition of floor area. The applicant appealed the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s denial, and the P&TC reviewed the project on July 11, 2001, and voted 3-2 to uphold the Director’s decision and deny
the appeal. Mayor Eakins, Vice Mayor Ojakian, and Council Members
Beecham, Burch, Fazzino, Lytle, Mossar, and Wheeler visited the site and spoke to no one.
Council Member Kleinberg drove by the site and spoke with Planning and Transportation Commissioners. City Attorney Calonne said the Council received a letter
dated February 1, 2001, from the Planning staff. The Planning staff made an effort to warn off the application as one not likely to be approved. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open at 8:55 p.m.
Roger Kohler, Applicant, said the HIE was a mini variance
that came about in the 1990s shortly after the Council encountered a number of variances for floor area limits, daylight plane exceptions, and other things for older homes
that were not in compliance with the current R-1 Zoning. The HIE allowed for older homes to be able to add on
without major reworking of the entire house. Older houses did not have the benefit of being designed from scratch. Examples of older homes that went through the interim
ordinance but required HIEs were given to the Council. One of the properties that received a HIE was a short distance
from the house he was working on. Planning and Transportation Commissioners reduced windows on the back of the property in response to comments. People might tear down older homes and build new ones if they were unable to add on in a simple way to an existing house. Major
remodeling of interiors of older homes was very expensive and not cost-productive.
Since there were no requests from the public to speak, Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the application met the new single-family review requirements.
09/24/01 92-447
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the project was not evaluated against the new requirements as they were not in
place at the time the application was made. Ms. Adcox said the addition was too small to be subject to the new requirements.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether the project was in conformance with the philosophical requirement of window placement.
Ms. Adcox said the object of the project was to enclose and
expand the second-story balcony into the back yard. Three Planning and Transportation Commissioners viewed the site and believed the expansion and encroachment of the windows represented an increase in the invasion of privacy into the neighbor’s back yard.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the property and situation qualified for the historic incentive ordinance. Ms. Adcox did not believe the house was eligible for any
type of historic designation under current ordinances. MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Beecham, to uphold the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, to support the recommendation of the
Planning and Transportation Commission, and deny the appeal of Home Improvement Exception 01-HIE-02.
Vice Mayor Ojakian did not recall a right or grant to have every home receive an HIE. His recollection was when a
maximum square footage home needed additional modification, an additional 100-square-foot was allowed to help in the
modification of the home. There was no rule to grant additional square footage in a home that had more than the allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Council Member Beecham agreed there was no right to an
extra 100 square feet. The intent of the HIE was to enhance and preserve the architecture of the home.
Council Member Fazzino said the increase was modest. The Council grappled for years with incentives to preserve
older homes. The HIE was a reasonable way to encourage people to make modest improvements to preserve older homes.
09/24/01 92-448
Council Member Lytle said the HIE was intended to facilitate minor modifications to homes.
Council Member Kleinberg said each situation needed to be looked at on a case by case basis. She was persuaded by what Mr. Kohler said about encouraging the preservation of the older homes, which were more difficult to renovate and
enhance. The existing balcony would be enclosed which would provide more privacy to the neighbors.
Council Member Burch agreed that the ability to enclose a back balcony made sense. Common sense said the HIE should
be granted. Vice Mayor Ojakian said the interior of his 1914 house was modified. The addition of a bathroom was not being denied the applicant. The potential existed to have the bathroom
workable within the framework of the house. Mayor Eakins supported the motion because the HIE was not needed to preserve an existing architectural style or neighborhood character.
MOTION PASSED 5-4, Burch, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Lytle “no.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider single-story overlay zoning for a portion of
the Garland Neighborhood [Tract 1371 of Elsinore Drive].
Current Planning Manager John Lusardi said the item before the Council was a request of the property owner for a
rezoning for a single-story overlay zone for a portion of the Garland Neighborhood. The Council received the staff report (CMR:368:01) that described the proposed zoning overlay. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) reviewed the proposal and recommended the Council approve
the overlay zone with the exclusion of areas 1 and 2, shown in Attachment D of the staff report (CMR:368:01). The P&TC based their recommendation on the testimony of the public
hearing of the P&TC meeting and the four criteria contained in the guidelines: (1) level and format of owner support;
(2) appropriate boundaries; (3) prevailing single-story overlay; and (4) moderate lot sizes. The staff report (CMR:368:01) summarized P&TC review as well as public
09/24/01 92-449
testimony received at its meeting. Contained in the staff report (CMR:368:01), were additional letters and emails
received prior to the Council meeting. The level of support was determined at the time of the P&TC hearing and was not changed by staff. The alternatives for the Council were as follows: (1) adopt an ordinance approving the overlay zone as proposed by the residents of the Garland Neighborhood;
(2) adopt an ordinance removing Area 1 as recommended by staff; (3) adopt an ordinance removing Areas 1 and 2 as recommended by the P&TC; or (4) deny the request for the
single-story overlay.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Kathy Schmidt said the vote was close for the P&TC. All the Commissioners supported some form of the single-story (S) overlay zone for the neighborhood. The discussion focused on the level of support from homeowners and upon the appropriate
boundaries. The Commissioners came to the conclusion that the project fit moderate lot size. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open at 9:18 p.m.
Karl Schmidt, 903 El Cajon Way, said the applicants came before the Council with a petition for R-1(S) Overlay
approximately 15 to 20 months prior. The applicants met the criteria for adoption. The four criteria listed in the staff report (CMR:368:01) were met. The property owners
were governed by Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that existed in the neighborhood. The original
application was 68 lots, and there was 68 percent support. The Planning Department suggested Area 1 be eliminated which gave 73 percent support. The P&TC recommended Areas 1
and 2 be eliminated, which gave 82 percent support and 56 lots. The property owners’ preference was to keep the
neighborhood together. The CC&Rs applied to all 68 lots. Area 1 was a segment off Elsinore Court and was adjacent to Elsinore Drive and Elsinore Way. Area 2 was the gateway to the neighborhood, entering from Louis Road. The property owners wanted all consistent rules and processes and
procedures to apply to all the owners. The P&TC meeting minutes of August 8, 2001, included questions about CC&Rs and discussion about the changes to the new R-1 rules. Many
people did not know they had CC&Rs on their property. The R-1 Overlay was a way of standardizing and simplifying the
rules and their application that maintain the entire neighborhood. His recommendation was that the Council adopt the boundaries as originally proposed for the sake of
09/24/01 92-450
consistency and integrity of the neighborhood. The Council should keep the gateway to the community at Louis Road and
Elsinore Drive and align the zoning with the CC&Rs for most of the neighborhood. The property owners asked the Council to give a directive to staff to help clarify the R-1(S)/R-1 guidelines for everyone.
Lea Niellsen, 972 Elsinore Court, opposed the single-story overlay. The new R-1 guidelines changed the context of the single-story overlay ordinance. When the single-story
overlay was adopted in 1992, the ordinance took into account that property rights were diminished and allowed
for extra lot coverage of 40 percent rather than the existing 35 percent. Under the new guidelines, the 5 percent bonus disappeared. Other single-family homes were entitled to 42.5 percent lot coverage. Assuming that the ordinance was updated, how the 5 percent bonus was handled
was unclear. Given the new R-1 rules, imposing a single-story ordinance that would have unknown changes, the situation appeared to put the cart before the horse. The Council should postpone any decision until the single-story overlay was updated and understood. The property owners at
904 Elsinore Drive and 992 Elsinore Drive requested to have their support withdrawn. Taking into account the two
withdrawals, the current support level dropped from 68 percent to 64 percent, which was not overwhelming support. The votes were taken more than one year prior and were
taken for a neighborhood that included 87 homes. The ordinance diminished owners’ property rights.
Scott Schroeder, 992 Elsinore Drive, voted for the overlay initially. One major concern was that a survey was not done
to make sure there would not be flooding that required additional elevation of the houses. His home was nearly
flooded during the recent storms and was in a different flood zone than those on Louis Road. Nine houses were affected by the change of Area 1. If those property owners changed their minds, support in the neighborhood would be affected.
Kathy Lierle, 970 Elsinore Court, opposed the overlay. The Planning Department staff recommended excluding Area 1 on
three occasions: 1) as an alternative to the City Council on July 2, 2001; 2) on August 8, 2001, when the matter went
to the Planning and Transportation Commission; and 3) the P&TC originally agreed with staff that Area 1 be excluded. In the recommendation to exclude Area 1, staff stated that
09/24/01 92-451
exclusion would increase the level of support in the other area and would not affect the gateways to the neighborhood
or the boundaries that retained the basic “L” configuration. The deletion would be considered an extension of Blair Court, which was excluded by the proponents because of insufficient support. The lotting pattern of the courts was the same. Elsinore Court and
Blair Court were linked with houses facing the same direction. Elsinore Court respected the CC&Rs 100 percent for over 46 years.
Jeff Marcus, 968 Elsinore Court, said the owners on
Elsinore Court were 100 percent opposed. The Council was urged to look at the Planning Department’s recommendations and make sure that Area 1 was excluded. Allan Russell, 981 Elsinore Drive, said letters in the
Council’s packet included comments that a reason for deferring the matter was due to confusion and misinformation about what the changes were with respect to what was allowable under the R-1, the new R-1 Zoning Ordinance and the old R-1(S).
Suwen Wang, 911 Elsinore Drive, was concerned about
property rights and the change from R-1 to S-1, which would change property values. The majority of the people in Palo Alto were not in favor of the single-story overlay. More
restrictions on properties meant fewer buyers. The Council was urged to exclude the properties in the gateway.
Gladys Leu, 900 Elsinore Drive, was against the single-story overlay proposal. Her front door was on Louis Road,
and her driveway was on Elsinore Drive. Two-story houses were across the street. She had no plans to build a two-
story house but wanted to be excluded from the proposal. Scott Bortner, 925 Elsinore Drive, said he had no plans to add a second story to his property but was concerned about the perception of subsequent buyers about the ability to
add a second story to his property. He heard that the CC&Rs and the new regulations were equivalent and the only thing that was changed was the burden of enforcing. That was
incorrect. What was changing was the probability of successfully adding a second story. The existing CC&Rs
could be amended by a 50 percent vote. Changing the zoning created a more burdensome system for getting a variance.
09/24/01 92-452
The existing CC&Rs had an architectural review board that allowed for variances.
Charlotte Fu, 911 Elsinore Drive, opposed the single-story overlay in her neighborhood. Many property owners did not believe there was overwhelming support. She asked for confirmation from the Council Members or City Attorney that
the action was legitimate. James Resneck, 907 El Cajon Way, was concerned about
personal privacy. When Eichler designed the homes, single-family housing was redefined. The houses had floor to
ceiling windows. A second-story house would allow neighbors to look directly into his windows. Marcia Edelstein, 924 Elsinore Drive, said the people on Blair Court who withdrew their application withdrew it as a
separate neighborhood. The Blair Court application was separate. With an overlay, as opposed to CC&Rs alone, the neighbors lost the shock of seeing a bulldozer appear nearby to demolish a neighborhood home, and the residents lost the right to enforce the CC&Rs by dragging a neighbor
through litigation with the ill will and expenses that were generated. Approximately 700 homes in Palo Alto were
currently covered by an overlay, and individual rights were not lost. The residents would not lose their rights but would gain the certainty that prospective buyers and
builders would be made aware prior to getting into negotiations or expensive planning that the neighborhood
was to remain a single-story neighborhood. Jennifer Galanis, 986 Elsinore Drive, said traveling the
neighborhood was a joy because there was a sense of visual cohesiveness about it. The houses were in scale with the
trees, and each house was unique. Her family was pro-overlay. The overlay assured the residents that all houses would stay one story in height, avoided unnecessary legal situations, and contributed to a sense of cohesiveness.
Sally Dudley, 901 Elsinore Drive, said her concern was the lack of understanding of existing CC&Rs. She liked the overlay because of its notification. Approving the overlay
would lessen the misinformation. RECESS: 10:01 P.M. TO 10:12 P.M.
09/24/01 92-453
Terry Gibson, 921 Elsinore Drive, referred to page 7 of Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:368:01) regarding
Flood Zone Issues. The Council passed an overlay within the prior two years for the De Soto neighborhood, which had a lower lying elevation than the Elsinore neighborhood. The flood zone was not an issue for the proposed overlay application.
JoAnne Russell, 981 Elsinore Drive, was not opposed to two-story houses. The Elsinore Drive tract was designed to be
one-story houses. Lots were narrow with side views. The process went on for a long period of time, and there was
much organization by the opposition to instill fear and doubt in people. Gary Chan, 991 Blair Court, opposed the proposal. The proposal was anti-progressive. The net effect was to slow down progress. All houses became old and deteriorated and
had to be rebuilt. People needed to plan for the future and not spend a great deal of effort trying to preserve the past. The Council was reminded to consider the will and wisdom of its predecessors who declared there needed to be an overwhelming majority of passage of the ordinance.
Sixty-four percent was not an overwhelming majority. Support declined as people found out more facts.
Bradford Wood, 916 El Cajon Way, wanted to see enforcement of restrictions by the City rather than by individuals. The
overlay would not destroy property values.
Chuck Sieloff, 901 Elsinore Drive, said some speakers said the CC&Rs worked fine and others said they did not know about the CC&Rs and felt they should do what they wanted
with their property. People felt if they were excluded from the zoning, they had a better chance of not following the
CC&Rs. The CC&Rs, from a legal, technical point of view, should have been sufficient, but speakers indicated that the CC&Rs did not work as a mechanism for keeping new buyers informed. Carving out small sections created more confusion by creating the impression that one section was
subject to the single-story overlay and another section was not when, in fact, they were all subject to the CC&Rs.
Richard Griffiths, 961 Elsinore Drive, said the application was originally submitted in July 2000 with over 75 percent
approval. In September 2001, the process was still going on. At least three positive votes were lost due to home sales. There was no doubt that the majority of “yes” votes
09/24/01 92-454
that were changed to “no” were strongly influenced by untruths and misinformation. He and many of his neighbors
were determined to make sure the CC&Rs were enforced as long as they existed. William Spangler, 471 Carolina Lane, said much discussion and emphasis was placed on the percentage of support in the
tract. Where a single-story limitation would be newly imposed on an existing neighborhood, the requirement for 70 percent made sense, but that was not the case with the
current situation. The single-story limit was in place for the whole tract for 50 years via the original deed
restriction. The Council was urged to apply the (S) overlay to the most inclusive proposed area, not to exclude Area 1 or Area 2. The deed restrictions were explicit, and no one claimed they were unenforceable.
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:27 p.m. Council Member Wheeler asked if properties were excluded or the (S) overlay zone was not adopted by the Council, were
the figures presented by Mr. Russell correct with respect to the number of square feet of development that would be
permitted on the lots. Ms. Grote said the numbers were in the range of what was
permitted. The P&TC talked about the differences between the new regulations recently adopted and effective on
November 19, 2001, and how that compared to the single-story regulations in terms of lot coverage and FAR. In general, the difference was that under the new R-1
regulations, the site coverage was regulated to be equal or regulated by the FAR. The full FAR in a 7,500 square foot
lot equaled about 40 percent site coverage. A 7,500-square-foot or larger lot in a single-story overlay district used 40 percent site coverage. The smaller the site, the greater site coverage using the full FAR. Staff recommended, as part of the Zoning Ordinance update, to make it a
consistent requirement in order that those in single-story overlays to use their full FAR. Staff recommended that the height, which was currently 17 feet in a single-story
district, would be allowed to increase in a flood plain. Single-story overlays would be consistent with the new R-1
regulations.
09/24/01 92-455
Mr. Lusardi said the 6,000-square-foot lot was a typical lot size. At that size, the single-story overlay had lot
coverage of approximately 40 percent. Calculating the maximum FAR as a percentage of lot coverage under the single-family review allowed 42.5 percent. Council Member Wheeler said staff’s intention was to
incorporate leveling out the FAR in the ordinance and asked whether it would be a big deal not to wait two years for the Zoning Ordinance update.
Ms. Grote recommended not splitting individual pieces of
the ordinance, but that could be considered if the Council chose. The proposed Zoning Ordinance was scheduled for review in October of 2002. Mr. Lusardi said set backs and other issues applied. The
lot coverage given was not guaranteed. Council Member Wheeler said the opponents stated one of their objections to enacting the overlay was that it took the same extraordinary overwhelming vote of the
neighborhood to undue the single-story overlay zone. She asked whether undoing the ordinance required the same level
of dissatisfaction. Ms. Grote said the ordinance did not state that. The
overwhelming support was written into the guidelines. Should a neighborhood want to undo their single-story
overlay, that would take a similar type of support. Staff needed to confer with the City Attorney’s Office on how to undue a single-story overlay.
Mr. Calonne said the threshold was explicitly a guideline
and was in no way binding on the City Council to initiate or to undue. Council Member Beecham said Attachment F to the staff report (CMR:368:01) included Overlay Zone Guidelines. The
guidelines referred to how to request to apply the zone and did not address unapplying the zone.
Ms. Grote said that was correct. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Wheeler, to introduce the ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning a total of 68 of the requested 68 lots in Tract 1371 (Garland Park)
09/24/01 92-456
from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single-Story Overlay District.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.01.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of That
Property Known as Tract 1371 from R-1 to R-1(S)” Council Member Burch said the area should not be split, and
the gateway entrance needed to be preserved.
Council Member Wheeler said defining a logical area to which an (S) overlay was applied was important. The logical area included the streets in the tract. There was history of (S) overlay zone applications, and there was a persistent history of having the objections to the overlay
zone on the fringes of the property. The clarity of having the City recognize through its zoning procedures the
single-story of the neighborhood was important from many perspectives. She suggested adding an amendment to the motion to ask staff for a rider that would permit the FAR
allowances for the neighborhood. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to request staff for a rider that will permit
the FAR allowances for this neighborhood and all single
story overlay neighborhoods to be brought into conformance so that they will have the same rights as similarly square
footage lots – this is to be done outside the zoning ordinance revision and brought back to Council as soon as reasonable.
Council Member Kleinberg said the proposal was sensitive.
Staff and the P&TC wrestled with the proposal. There was no controversy or disagreement that the neighborhood had restrictions to single story. People who bought homes in the neighborhood needed to be told, under current law, about the CC&Rs, which meant there should be no confusion
on the part of anyone buying a home in that neighborhood. If an owner wanted to change the look of a house, the Council did not enforce the “Eichler” look. The restriction
was to single story and not to design. Existing property rights were not changed. The Council was disturbed to find
the neighborhood torn apart over the single-story overlay. She favored following the P&TC’s and staff’s recommendations to exclude Area 1. The Elsinore Court
09/24/01 92-457
homeowners, with the exception of one, asked not to be included in the overlay.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded
by Fazzino, to approve the overlay and exclude Area 1. Council Member Fazzino said the issue was difficult and a
challenge. Concerns about property rights were legitimate. On balance, the process that was followed conformed to the rules that were set several years prior with respect to
creation of single-family zones. The most important point to make was that CC&Rs were in place. The zone would only
be applied in areas where such CC&Rs existed. The process of overwhelming support was troublesome. The staff needed to address the issue to make sure there was one clear, definitive vote with respect to such proposals. The suggestion to eliminate Area 1 was supported. Since the
rules regarding single-story overlay zones were established, parts of neighborhoods were removed from the zones on several occasions. Council Member Beecham opposed the substitute motion. The
major portion of the area warranted, deserved, and wanted the single-story overlay, and the question was what to do
with the gateway and Elsinore Court. The gateway was a problem because that area was more visible. Elsinore Court was not seen. The primary concern for those who did not
want the overlay applied was property value. Homeowners believed their resale value was hindered if the overlay was
approved. Many parts of Palo Alto were valued because they were protected.
Vice Mayor Ojakian opposed the substitute motion. He recalled nine proposals since the legislation was enacted.
Some areas had a predominance of second stories already in them. The neighborhood in question was all single-story homes. To avoid legal action by neighbors, the best practice was for the City to approve a single-family overlay zone.
Council Member Mossar did not support the substitute motion. There was concern from homeowners about loss of
property rights and ability to modify or change homes. The neighborhood remained single story because of the CC&Rs.
Mayor Eakins clarified the CC&Rs would apply if Area 1 or 2 were excluded.
09/24/01 92-458
Ms. Grote said yes.
Council Member Kleinberg supported the substitute motion. The Council was voting for a layer of security on top of what already existed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 2-7, Kleinberg, Fazzino “yes.”
MAIN MOTION PASSED 9-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jackie Durant, 4250 El Camino Real, spoke regarding the State loan/BMR issues. Steven Anderson, 628 Waverly Street, spoke regarding solar energy.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to
approve the Minutes of August 16, 2001, as corrected.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding Item No. 9. The timeline on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:318:01)
indicated that construction was expected to begin prior to approval of the contract. The staff report asked for approval of the Park Improvement Ordinances when, in fact,
those were separate items. The Park Improvement Ordinance for the Arastradero Preserve was adopted two weeks prior
and took effect on October 11, 2001. The Park Improvement Ordinance for the Foothills Park portion of the project was on the Consent Calendar and took effect on October 25, 2001. The contract indicated the project schedule took account of the notice to proceed waiting the 30 days after
the adoption of the ordinances and indicated that the project might have to wait until after the rainy season to start. Putting the utilities under Alexis Drive made more
sense.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the contract date was changed in order to not become effective before the
09/24/01 92-459
expiration of a referendum period on the Park Improvement ordinance.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian,
to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4-9. LEGISLATIVE
4. Resolution 8087 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Requesting the Board of the
Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to allow Extension of Employment Beyond 960 Hours in Calendar
Year 2001 For Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment” 5. Resolution 8088 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Intent of the
Council to Assign the City's Option to Acquire the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Affordable Housing Site to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation” 6. Ordinance 4720 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Foothills Park” (1st Reading 9/10/01,
Passed 5-0, Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg, absent)
7. Adoption of Resolutions Authorizing the City Manager to File Applications for Six Separate Grants from the State of California for Renovation of the Junior Museum & Zoo; Construction of Educational Exhibits at the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Center; Construction of
a Gateway Facility at the Arastradero Preserve; Design and Construction of a Park and Recreational Facilities in the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Area; Restoration
of Habitat and Trails at the Arastradero Preserve; and Construction of Trails at the Arastradero Preserve.
Resolution 8089 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Submission to the State of California a Grant Application for Construction and Improvement of Trails and Protection
of Creeks at the Arastradero Preserve”
Resolution 8090 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Submission to the State of California a Grant Application for
09/24/01 92-460
Construction of a Gateway Educational Facility at the Arastradero Preserve
Resolution 8091 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Submission to the State of California a Grant Application for Design and Construction of the Proposed South of Forest Avenue
Park and Recreation Facilities” Resolution 8092 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Submission to the State of California a Grant Application for
Development and Construction of Educational Exhibits and Displays at the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center” Resolution 8093 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Submission to the State of California a Grant Application for Renovation of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo” Resolution 8094 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Submission to the State of California a Grant Application for
Construction and Improvements of Trails at the Arastradero Preserve”
ADMINISTRATIVE
8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Architectural Resources Group in the Amount of $134,385 for Preliminary Architectural Designs for the
Children’s Library Expansion, Capital Improvement Project 10204
9. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc., in the Amount of $212,160 for the Arastradero Utility All Weather Access Road Capital Improvement Project 0118
MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item Nos. 2-8, Fazzino absent.
MOTION PASSED 7-1 for Item No. 9, Lytle “no,” Fazzino
absent.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
09/24/01 92-461
10. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council re Construction Noise
Council Member Mossar said the item was discussed by the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee and enthusiastically embraced. Staff was encouraged to lower the maximum decibel level, but staff decided it wanted to leave the level at
the 90-decibel level. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said the Council did
not encourage discussion by the public. The second reading was likely to be on Consent Calendar. He objected to the
Council including sweeper or parking lot noise into the construction noise item. Council Member Mossar said there was considerable discussion at the June 7, 2001, P&S Committee Meeting, and
the public participated in that discussion. Mr. Abraham said there was no data over 85 decibels with regard to sweepers.
Council Member Beecham said page 3 of the staff report (CMR:717:01) with regard to Noise Exception Permits (NEP)
indicated, “The applicant would then be required to obtain signatures from residents living in the radius of the project, acknowledging that they are aware of the project.”
He questioned how that would be done.
Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said the ordinance did not speak to what would happen if some people did not want the project to go forward. Staff felt that most of the work
done on Sundays and holidays would be done by the homeowners themselves. Homeowners gathered support ahead of
time, and there would be review of signatures. Council Member Beecham said staff implied homeowners agreed to the noise, but the wording was “acknowledging that they are aware and understanding they may be impacted by some
noise.” Ms. Johnson said the intent was to make sure the residents
who most likely would be impacted were aware of the situation. By signing and acknowledging the impact, the
implication was the homeowners did not object. Based on mail system and obtaining addresses, staff found that not a reliable way to notify people.
09/24/01 92-462
Council Member Beecham suggesting sending registered letters in order to have a receipt that the letter was
received. Ms. Johnson said that would work. The language was not included in the ordinance, but the Council could adopt the ordinance.
Council Member Burch said Council Member Beecham’s suggestion shifted the burden from the person who applied
for the application to get the signatures back to the City or staff to do the work.
Council Member Beecham said in most cases, the applicant was responsible for mailing out letters. Vice Mayor Ojakian saw no problem with requesting
applicants to send registered letters. Council Member Wheeler clarified letters were to be sent to neighbors informing that that applicant applied for a permit to construct on Sundays. She asked how a neighbor
would register an objection to the issuance of a permit.
Council Member Mossar said the purpose of the process was to apply the set of rules for residential as commercial construction. Her recollection was if someone applied for
an NEP, staff should determine whether construction on Sunday was a problem, and if construction on Sunday looked
like it would not affect many people, the NEP could be issued. Staff suggested there would be a process for notifying people who lived in the area that construction
was happening.
Council Member Kleinberg was concerned about the vagueness of the notification. Staff should not make discretionary decisions. Council Member Mossar said writing a hard and fast rule was
difficult. The intent was to make the ordinance as simple as possible.
Council Member Kleinberg was concerned about the residents who lived near the construction, and there was no feedback
from the residents. The determination was on the shoulders of staff.
09/24/01 92-463
Ms. Johnson said staff weighed the need for doing the work when issuing NEPs.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified there would be a notification system by registered mail of the determination by staff that the work was necessary.
Council Member Beecham said that was correct. Vice Mayor Ojakian said the P&S Committee was creative in
developing the concept of the NEP. MOTION: Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation to amend the Policy and Services Committee recommendation to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 regulates construction noise levels in the following manner:
• Chapter 9.10.060(g) be amended to a noise level not to exceed 90 dBA when measured at 25 feet; and
• Chapter 9.10.060(k)(1) be amended to the allowed days and hours of public parking lot and business district street
cleaning from Monday through Friday from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to Monday through Sunday from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. and that the maximum decibel level be changed
from 75 dBA to 90 dBA when measured at 25 feet.
• Require the posting of signs in English and Spanish at
all entrances to construction sites requiring City building permits on residential and commercial property for the purpose of informing all persons at the location
of the allowed hours of construction. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend the procedure that the applicant be
required to send a registered letter to residents living in
the radius of the project.
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 8-0, Fazzino absent.
09/24/01 92-464
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Lytle stated her dismay about an informational staff report (CMR:362:01) on Public Library Construction Bond Act funding. Vice Mayor Ojakian spoke about his concern regarding the
funding issue that would take place at the same time as the bond measure.
Council Member Mossar said the State had money available over a three-year granting schedule Staff had been working
hard to move forward; there were a lot of different criteria to meet. Council Member Kleinberg requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Naomi Solomon.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. in memory
of Naomi Solomon, a graduate of Gunn High School who was killed in the World Trade disaster.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Vice 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.
09/24/01 92-465