HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-15 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
October 15, 2002
1. Joint Dinner Meeting with the Utilities Advisory Commission.487
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m...................487
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................488
1. Appointment of Candidates to the Planning and Transportation Commission...................................488
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................489
2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential
Personnel and Council Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 8096, 8117, 8181, 8185 and 8194.............490
3. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 8097 and 8112...............................490
4. Approval of Appendix 5 of the SAP Inc., Software License Agreement in the Amount of $150,000 for Training Services Related to the Implementation of the Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) Software.....................................490
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and O’Grady Paving,
Inc., in the Amount of $297,125 for Bicycle Lane, Signal and Landscaping Improvements at Arastradero Road (CIP Project 19815)..............................................491
6. Policy and Services Committee recommendation to the City Council for a strong anti-discrimination policy that
included protected groups and dealt with the leasing of City facilities with direction to the City Manager to
return with a proposal for implementation strategies that would be returned to the Council for discussion and implementation. Further, to direct the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance that would make a strong policy
10/15/02 94-485
statement that was not self-implementing and the details of
implementation would follow.................................491
7. Policy and Services Committee recommendation to the City Council for Approval and Adoption of a Resolution in Support of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).....................491
7A. (Old Item No. 9) PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider the following application and alternate project
for 2300 East Bayshore Road:................................491
8. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider amendments to the vehicle and equipment storage and repair provisions
of Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.88.160. The existing section does not contain specific restrictions in
residential zones on storage of vehicles on unpaved surfaces, visibility triangles, and front yards and does not restrict hours of outdoor screened vehicle repair. The
amendments to be considered would restrict the parking of vehicles on unpaved surfaces, visibility triangles, and
front yards and would restrict outdoor-screened vehicle repair to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The amendments to be considered also would clarify the penalty provisions of the section...................................494
9. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an Ordinance
Adopting the 2001 California Fire Code with Local Amendments..................................................507
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................508
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m...................509
10/15/02 94-486
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in
the Council Conference Room at 6:15 p.m. CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle (arrived at
6:30 p.m.), Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
ABSENT: Kleinberg UTILITIES ADVISORY BOARD
PRESENT: Bechtel, Carlson, Dawes, Ferguson, Rosenbaum
ABSENT: None
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Joint Dinner Meeting with the Utilities Advisory Commission Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, spoke regarding UAC minutes and history of Executive Summary minutes.
Richard Alexander, spoke regarding the use of utility bills as a notice device. No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
10/15/02 94-487
Regular Meeting
October 15, 2002 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
ABSENT: Kleinberg
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, spoke regarding Cable TV franchise fee.
Bunny Good, P. O. Box 524, Menlo Park, spoke regarding Mayor’s proclamation of Doomsday celebration for Edgewood Shopping
Center. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Appointment of Candidates to the Planning and Transportation Commission
FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
VOTING FOR JOSEPH BELLOMO: Beecham, Morton, Mossar,
Ojakian VOTING FOR CEDRIC DE LA BEAUJARDIERE: Burch
VOTING FOR LEE LIPPERT: Freeman, Kishimoto,
Lytle VOTING FOR MICHAEL LYZWA: VOTING FOR MARTIN STONE:
SECOND ROUND OF VOTING FOR THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
VOTING FOR JOSEPH BELLOMO: Beecham, Burch, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
VOTING FOR CEDRIC DE LA BEAUJARDIERE:
10/15/02 94-488
VOTING FOR LEE LIPPERT: Freeman, Kishimoto,
Lytle VOTING FOR MICHAEL LYZWA: VOTING FOR MARTIN STONE:
Deputy City Clerk Mary Jo Bucchino announced that on the second
ballot Joseph Bellomo (with 5 votes) was appointed to an unexpired term ending July 31, 2003.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Morton, to approve the minutes of September 9, 2002, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kleinberg absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Burch, to approve Item Nos. 4 through 7, with Item Nos. 2 and 3 being removed at the request of staff, and Council Member Lytle
abstaining on Item No. 6. City Attorney Ariel Calonne asked to change Item No. 6 to
conform to what the Policy and Services (P&S Committee) requested. The Council recommended an ordinance and an
implementation plan related to anti-discrimination. In addition, the P&S Committee asked for an analysis for adding weight and physical appearance to the protective categories. A separate report was included in the packet. He asked that the weight and physical appearance portion be referred back to the
P&S Committee.
Council Member Mossar stated that would accurately reflect the action taken by the P&S Committee. The action that evening would be to refer the prior discussion of the P&S Committee to
the City Attorney for drafting the ordinance and refer the weight and appearance portion back to the P&S Committee for
potential later revision to the ordinance. Council Member Freeman stated the implementation plan would be
generated by the City Manager. She asked for clarification on Item 4, which was the additional $150,000 for training services
related to the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software since Council had previously approved for $4.5 million.
10/15/02 94-489
City Manager Frank Benest replied that staff went to Council and
recommended the ERP and the allocation of dollars to the ERP. In the staff report (CMR:401:02) at that time there was an indication that staff needed to allocate $138,000 for training, but the particular curriculum had not been developed because it would be developed as part of the implementation process. Staff
had now developed and priced the curricular at $150,000. It was not a new request for allocation of funds; it was in the
existing ASD budget and had been appropriated. Item No. 4 contained the contract for the training software.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified that the wording under resource impact stated that ”training expense will come from
existing operating budgets, ASD Enterprise funds and internal reserve funds”. She asked if funds would be transferred.
Mr. Benest answered that if it was under $65,000, he would approve the contract. However, it was a Council action. The
reason it was before Council was because of the amount of the contract not because it was not budgeted or lack of funds. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether it was in the original amount.
Mr. Benest answered the amount was anticipated but the content of the training was not known at the time of the original
request.
LEGISLATIVE 2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers and Rescinding
Resolution Nos. 8096, 8117, 8181, 8185 and 8194 (Item pulled at the
request of staff)
3. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 8097 and 8112 (Item pulled at the request of staff)
ADMINISTRATIVE
4. Approval of Appendix 5 of the SAP Inc., Software License Agreement in the Amount of $150,000 for Training Services
Related to the Implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and O’Grady Paving, Inc., in the Amount of $297,125 for Bicycle Lane, Signal
10/15/02 94-490
and Landscaping Improvements at Arastradero Road (CIP
Project 19815) COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 6. Policy and Services Committee recommendation to the City
Council for a strong anti-discrimination policy that included protected groups and dealt with the leasing of
City facilities with direction to the City Manager to return with a proposal for implementation strategies that would be returned to the Council for discussion and
implementation. Further, to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that would make a strong policy
statement that was not self-implementing and the details of implementation would follow.
7. Policy and Services Committee recommendation to the City Council for Approval and Adoption of a Resolution in
Support of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Resolution 8217 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in Support of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)” MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 4, 5 and 7, Kleinberg absent. MOTION PASSED 7-1-0 for Item No. 6, Lytle “abstaining,” Kleinberg absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle, to move Item No. 9 forward ahead of Item No. 8 to become Item No. 7A for the purpose of continuance. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kleinberg absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7A. (Old Item No. 9) PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider the following application and alternate project
for 2300 East Bayshore Road: Application by Carol Jansen on behalf of A&P Family Investments to allow a 110,000-square-foot, two-story office building with surface and underground parking
10/15/02 94-491
facilities on a 5.66-acre site replacing an existing
restaurant and office buildings totaling 41,700 square feet, requiring: 1) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a 1.84-acre parcel from "Service Commercial" to "Research/Office Park"; 2) a rezoning of the 5.66-acre site to a Planned Community (PC);
and 3) a merging of a 3.82-acre parcel with the 1.84-acre parcel to create a single 5.66-acre parcel. Environmental
Assessment: A draft Initial Study was prepared but not completed. File Nos: 02-CPA-01, 02-EIA-03, 02-PC-01.
Alternate project recommended by staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission comprised of the Comprehensive
Plan amendment, a rezoning of the 1.84-acre parcel to the LM(D)(3) zone, consistent with the zoning of the adjacent 3.82 parcel, and adoption of a Negative Declaration.
Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared and released for public review on August 28, 2002.
File Nos: 02-CPA-01, 02-ZC-03, 02-EIA-11. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to Change the Designation of a 1.84 Acre Parcel at 2300 East
Bayshore Road From "Service Commercial" to "Research/Office Park"
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to Change the
Designation of a 1.84 Acre Parcel at 2300 East Bayshore Road From "Planned Community" To LM (D)(3) "Limited Industrial with Combining Districts MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle, that the
item be continued to the December 9, 2002, regular City Council Meeting. Council Member Morton stated it would be the City’s general policy to continue the appeal, and he saw no reason to deny the
request.
Council Member Kishimoto raised two concerns regarding the request. One was the last minute nature of the request because the applicant had ample time to ask for the request. The fact
that it was removed at the last minute meant a lot of people would have to come to another meeting, and she did not know if
there was a policy in place to address that concern about that. The other issue was that out of fairness, it had been the Council’s position to honor such requests. However, she recalled
10/15/02 94-492
two scheduled appeals on the December 17, 2001, agenda and both
of the appellants who were the initiators asked for a continuance because the hearing date interfered with their holiday plans. The Council did not honor their requests, and it appeared unfair to grant the request before them that evening. She said she hoped future continuance requests would be handled
in an equitable manner.
Council Member Freeman said she was not sure when a proposal for Council to look at tradition versus law should be made. The issue she wanted to bring forward was the notion of efficiency.
The word efficiency had been stressed a lot and how Council needed to complete items placed on the Council calendar. She
wanted to make it clear to the public that the request to remove the item from the agenda was at the applicant’s request. That action should not reflect on the efficiency of the Council or
staff when items appeared to take a long time to receive Council’s decision.
Council Member Morton asked staff whether they had any objections to the removal of the item from the agenda. City Manager Frank Benest replied that staff did not have any
objections and it was Council’s decision. Council Member Burch said Council was not setting a precedent by
granting a continuance. He recalled that Council had added the phrase, on a “case by case” basis and he believed that should be
applied to the request before them. He stated the items on the December 17, 2001, agenda were a different circumstance than what was before Council that evening. Council Member Lytle said she did not recall Council denying an
item for continuance that was an entitlement application. She saw a differentiation between appellant and applicant but did not want to go into that at that evening’s meeting. It would be worth discussing when Council reviewed their procedures. Efficiency was an issue for Council and it was necessary to
think about putting too much on agendas. She understood the public questioning Council’s practices, but she did not want to
break the current tradition without discussing the advantages and disadvantages of doing that. She said she would support the motion.
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Kishimoto “no,” Kleinberg absent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10/15/02 94-493
8. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider amendments to
the vehicle and equipment storage and repair provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.88.160. The existing section does not contain specific restrictions in residential zones on storage of vehicles on unpaved surfaces, visibility triangles, and front yards and does not
restrict hours of outdoor screened vehicle repair. The amendments to be considered would restrict the parking of
vehicles on unpaved surfaces, visibility triangles, and front yards and would restrict outdoor-screened vehicle repair to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The
amendments to be considered also would clarify the penalty provisions of the section. (Item continued from 9/23/02)
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the public hearing was an attempt to provide four basic clarifications to the vehicle
storage provision in the Zoning Ordinance. The first would allow parking on 50 percent of front setback. Forty percent of the
setback could be impervious covering, meaning water could not percolate down into the soil, and the additional 10 percent would need to be permeable surfaces, which meant water could percolate down into the soil. The 40 percent impervious coverage was consistent with the regulation adopted in 2001 as part of
the R-1 regulations and individual review process. The second change would prohibit parking within the 35-foot vision triangle on corner lots. The 35-foot triangle was measured from the
point where the two street-facing property lines came together 35 feet back on each property line and then a diagonal drawn
between those two points. Parking would be prohibited within that vision triangle so visibility would not be impaired. The third change was to limit vehicle repair between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Vehicle repair activities and any continuous sounds or individual occurrences of sound would still be subject
to the noise ordinance. The final change was to state any violation of the requirements would be a misdemeanor. The 50 percent front setback number was arrived at based on the 40 percent that was approved the previous year as part the individual review requirements and then allowing for another
additional six feet to park a vehicle either next to or close to a driveway without inhibiting the ability to drive in and out of
a garage. A 20 foot driveway could still be used and have a four-foot walkway, which would equal approximately 40 percent of a 60-foot wide lot and an additional six feet to park a car
without inhibiting the use of the driveway. If Council believed 50 percent was too great, a 40 percent requirement would be a
viable option and would be consistent with the R-1 regulations.
10/15/02 94-494
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said two
meetings were held regarding the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance was to make a simple change to the proposal. The Planning and Transportation Commissioners recognized the ordinance change would not resolve all the issues related to parking. It was expected the issue would return to Council
under the Zoning Ordinance. The Commissioners supported the proposed changes and presented the following issues regarding
where vehicles could be parked on residential properties. The Commissioners agreed that vehicles should not be parked or stored within the 35-foot triangle of property at the
intersection of an improved street. Vehicles should not be parked on more than 50 percent of the front yard and must park
on a paved permeable or impermeable surface. The second issue discussed the hours when vehicles could be repaired. It involved the permitted hours when vehicles could be repaired and what to
do in case of an emergency repair. They selected the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. when conducted in an area which was not visible
from the street, which was part of the existing ordinance. The proposal for additional hours for emergency vehicles repair was not recommended for three reasons. It became difficult to define what an emergency repair was, there had been no complaints regarding the emergency repairs and the repairs might be needed
for anytime during the day. The third issue discussed was noise. The existing ordinance did not discuss noise and the Commissioners were aware of that. They decided to set hours that
would allow police to restrict any activity outside of those hours. The effect on noise was to limit the number of hours the
repairs could be completed. Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing open at 7:53 p.m. Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, said the ordinance was
complicated and difficult for police to enforce. She hoped someone from the Police Department would have been at that evening’s meeting to explain how the ordinance was being enforced. She wanted to see paragraphs C and D eliminated because she found them incomprehensible. She sent emails to
Council to request that staff review the paragraphs and explain their meaning. She also believed that the hours from 8:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m. for repair work were too permissive. She suggested changing the hours to 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. The same hours should apply for work done indoors and outdoors. The distinction
between work performed in a garage and work performed outdoors in a screened area was not clear because persons working on
motor vehicles in a garage were likely to have their doors open due to toxic fumes. The restrictions for persons sleeping in RVs and campers parked in driveways were an unnecessary
10/15/02 94-495
intrusion into privacy rights, and she wanted to see that
paragraph omitted. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said the impetus for the ordinance change was a particular residence on Clara Street with an unkempt front yard. He recommended the neighbors of the Clara
Street residence be consulted to find out if the residents were complying with the ordinance. The problem of noise was beyond
the scope of what the Police Department could deal with. He had spoken to Assistant Police Chief Lynn Johnson about the noise problem. The situation with vehicle repairs was a difficult,
intermittent, impulse type noise and the police did not have a devise to measure the noise. He suggested the hours of 9 a.m.
to 9 p.m., which would allow casual repairs. The entire ordinance needed revision but the change of hours would serve as a short-term solution.
Bunny Good, P. O. Box 824, Menlo Park, said she was concerned
about the removal of shrubbery near the golf course, which had once shielded the parking lot from view. Cedric de La Beaujardiere, 3151 Stelling Drive, said washing a vehicle in the street or on the driveway was harmful to the
environment because the soapy water drained to the creeks and even biodegradable soaps took time to biodegrade. When it reached the creek, it could kill fish. He recommended vehicles
be washed on lawns, but he did not know if that would be considered a parking violation.
Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:05 p.m. Council Member Morton asked whether the City had an ordinance that made it illegal to change oil in a vehicle without
screening the vehicle from public view. Special Counsel Lance Bayer replied the goal in drafting the ordinance was to clarify language that dealt with vehicle storage. It was not the intent to address a major policy change
for the entire ordinance. A reading of the ordinance section involving vehicle repairs indicated that the vehicle repairs
should not occur in an unscreened area. Technically, that would be a violation, although he could not conceive of an occasion where it would be enforced unless it was based on a complaint by
a resident.
Council Member Morton asked whether there was the possibility of a sudden barrage of such complaints.
10/15/02 94-496
City Attorney Ariel Calonne replied his office had attempted to
make as few changes as possible to the ordinance. He disclaimed any responsibility for the existing ordinance. Mr. Abraham had essentially said the same thing. The Attorney’s Office attempted to make as few changes as possible to the ordinance in order to accomplish a specific goal. He suggested further changes be
incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance update. A couple of issues highlighted by Ms. Grote had become more apparent with the
proposed ordinance change. The parking area coverage and how to deal with hours of operation were of particular concern.
Council Member Morton asked whether removing the word screen from the proposal would affect the ordinance. He said he did
not feel comfortable voting for something that had a chargeable offense attached to it.
Mr. Calonne said the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) needed to address that issue. The Council had the option
of returning the proposal to P&TC to receive their comments. The issue was whether the City wanted to spend the time and resources on the issue at that particular time. Mr. Bayer stated the history of vehicle repair ordinances was
outdated in most cities. They were not drafted in the best language. They often included not only vehicle repair and oil changes but also temporarily placing vehicles on blocks,
dropping engines into a vehicle, and doing major vehicle repairs. The term vehicle repair became generic and, therefore,
that, vehicle repair tended to include vehicle maintenance, which included oil changes. A broader policy could define various types of vehicle repairs. There would be a better time to address changing the policy through either the zoning policy update or a separate directive for review that and make
recommendations to the Council. Council Member Morton asked for clarification on how the 35-foot corner was measured.
Ms. Grote said it was not in the public right-of-way, but it was an area on private property. It began from the point where the
two street facing property lines came together 35 feet back on each property line and then a diagonal drawn between those two points.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Morton, to
approve the staff recommendation to introduce the proposed zoning text amendment to restrict storage of vehicles on unpaved surfaces, visibility triangles, front yards, and to restrict
10/15/02 94-497
hours for outdoor screened vehicle repair in residential zones,
with modification as recommended by the P&TC. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend section 2(a) of the Ordinance to insert the
language “with the exception of occasional light maintenance
such as changing spark plugs, filters, oil, belts, and hoses, etc.,” after “No person shall.”
Council Member Beecham said he hoped the motion was clear enough for incorporation into the proposal. The changes in the
ordinance spoke about limiting the hours from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. He believed the hours to be reasonable and the noise abatement
issue would be dealt with in another manner. Council Member Morton stated he seconded the motion with the
hope the ordinance could be expanded. He saw no reason why residents should not be able to work on their vehicles at their
place of residence. Vice Mayor Mossar said the proposal was intended to relieve situations in the community where residents had no recourse over neighbors who parked too many vehicles on their properties. She
did not hear anyone defending the ordinance, and she realized the ordinance had been on the books for some length of time. The language proposed by Council Member Beecham was an
interesting compromise, but it presented a potential problem because it was illegal to change oil on City streets as well as
other cities in the Bay Area. Motor oil was toxic and a significant concern to the watersheds surrounding San Francisco Bay, particularly South San Francisco Bay. She was hesitant to insert language without having a discussion to make it legal for residents to change oil in driveways because it was possible for
the oil to leak into the Bay. There had not been a discussion on that issue. It was also illegal to wash vehicles in driveways and in the street although residents routinely did so. For those reasons, she would not support the amendments but understood the intention. Past behavior, which had become
acceptable, did have consequences. The City had a sewage treatment plant and the responsibility to make certain
pollutants did not enter regional watersheds. Council Member Kishimoto said the noise issue kept coming up,
and she asked staff what the process was to amend the Noise Ordinance.
Mr. Calonne replied it would be a supplemental noise ordinance. Staff had given thought to the Noise Ordinance, and it was
10/15/02 94-498
another complicated problem because enforcement was dependent on
training and equipment that was probably a couple of decades old. The problem arose at the interfaces of different uses and activities. Staff would have to spend in the six-figure range to update the Noise Ordinance. It was something that needed to be done but would involve business and community interest, as
well as technical work and public hearing time.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether unifying the hours would help with the problem. Mr. Calonne replied Council could adjust the hours recommended
by the P&TC without implicating the Noise Ordinance.
Council Member Kishimoto asked what discussion preceded the selection of the proposed hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Commissioner Cassel answered that a considerable amount of discussion and debate preceded the selection of those hours.
The issue became how long was reasonable and consideration was given to the fact that people had different schedules. The P&TC believed the selected hours were the most reasonable compromise. Council Member Kishimoto asked if repairs had to be performed
outside of the proposed hours, would that be viewed as an emergency.
Commissioner Cassel replied the hours would allow flexibility for those types of issues.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether Council Member Beecham’s motion to add the words “occasional light maintenance” dealt with that issue.
Commissioner Cassel replied Council Member Beecham’s motion dealt with another issue and not the hours. Mayor Ojakian said hours would not be an issue if wording specified certain types of vehicle maintenance.
Commissioner Cassel stated that hours attempted to deal with
residents performing major repairs and not minor repairs. The goal was to have the major repairs performed at reasonable hours.
Council Member Kishimoto wanted to add to the motion, with the
consent of the maker and the seconder, to consider adding wording to give acceptance for light maintenance and specifying the hours of operation from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
10/15/02 94-499
Council Member Beecham would accept. Council Member Morton would not accept. He believed that Commissioner Cassel had explained the rationale for the hours and he believed that 9 p.m. was too early, especially during the
summer months. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Beecham, to change language in section 2(a) of the ordinance to “or during the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. when conducted.”
Council Member Freeman said the Noise Ordinance did not extend hours beyond 9 p.m. She asked for clarification on how the
ordinance would be enforced. AMENDMENT PASSED 7-1, Morton “no,” Kleinberg absent.
Council Member Lytle had several comments on the main motion and
suggested an amendment. The Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) had a program to update, evaluate, and review the Noise Ordinance. In the implementation chapter, it stated Council would do so by 2007. Residents would have a difficult time washing vehicles and performing oil changes on impermeable surfaces if Council
continued to relax the standards for how much of the front yard could be used for parking and pavement. She suggested the ordinance prohibit any further parking space and pavement beyond
what the recent Zoning Ordinance stated.
Council Member Beecham asked staff how common it was to have impermeable surfaces up to 50 percent. Mr. Calonne replied he did not have that information but the change was acceptable to staff.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change
language in Section 2(j) of the ordinance to “that they cover no more than 40 percent of any required front yard.”
Council Member Morton accepted the friendly amendment.
Ms. Grote said the 40 percent was consistent with what was adopted in November 2001 as part of the new R-1 regulation. It allowed a 20-foot wide driveway on a 60-foot wide lot and a four-foot wide walkway.
Council Member Lytle said the relaxation that occurred in the -Zoning Ordinance adoption was a huge relaxation from what was handed down through the zoning ordinance. Everyone should be
aware that the definition of setback allowed only a driveway
10/15/02 94-500
apron in the setback, and it did not allow other structures.
The standard was already relaxed somewhat through the R-1 revision, and she did not believe that the City should encourage the placement of more paved surfaces in front yards. Council Member Burch asked staff whether the amendment would
take care of the problem that existed on Clara Street. If the motion passed, staff would have to notify the residents that
they would have to remove the vehicles or a portion of vehicles from their lots.
Mr. Bayer replied that was indicated by the language in the changes.
Council Member Kishimoto asked how that would be enforced and whether it would lead to a civil or criminal action.
Mr. Calonne replied the administrative penalties were being
utilized more frequently, and Council authorized the creation of the administrative penalty system that was self-enforced without access to the court. It had become the mechanism of choice. The default in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) was violations were misdemeanors and the recommendation was to add
that explicitly to the specific chapter. A misdemeanor carried the penalty of a risk of imprisonment for up to six months as well as substantial fines. The City had a prosecution wobbler
in the PAMC that enabled the City to reduce misdemeanor charges to infractions when served the interest of justice. The City
did that because in addition to the threat of imprisonment and heavy fines, a misdemeanor carried with it the right to a jury trial, which was costly for the entire system. The default was the heavier penalty, which could be reduced where warranted. There were a few areas where Council had specified lower
penalties or warnings. When the City was involved in fundamental rights or civil liberties, the Sit-Lie Ordinance required a warning and it was limited to an infraction. The Median Solicitation Ordinance required posted signs to warn people of the law.
Council Member Kishimoto proposed a friendly amendment to ask
the City Attorney to add wording to first require a warning and to limit the offense to an infraction.
Mr. Bayer stated in every code enforcement case, a warning was always given first. There was never a situation where there
would be a criminal or administrative penalty without a warning. The misdemeanor option was important in those types of cases because the court had the opportunity to place a person on
10/15/02 94-501
probation. Probation in the criminal justice system was one of
the most significant tools available because the judge could inform the defendant of the consequences of noncompliance. The infraction option limited the City’s enforcement capabilities. Council Member Beecham stated the need for a misdemeanor was
warranted. The intent of the motion was to take care of one or two situations where a resident was abusing their property to
the detriment of neighbors. In those cases, it was necessary to have the ruling at the misdemeanor level to be able to enforce it. An infraction would not take care of correcting the
situation. Mayor Ojakian asked Council Member Kishimoto if there was still
a need for an amendment. Council Member Kishimoto said she would like to keep the
discussion open.
Council Member Morton asked whether the first three calls could be infractions and after that a misdemeanor. Mr. Calonne said those types of situations did not get resolved right away. The ordinance also addressed storage, which was a
static situation. His recommendation was to leave the penalty as a misdemeanor with the flexibility of probation.
Council Member Kishimoto asked Mr. Calonne if there was some compromise of including text to inform residents of the
enforcement process. Mr. Calonne answered yes, if it included only the vehicle repair part and the issue would become drafting and restructuring a section that would bring together a list of activities in one
prohibition. It was possible if it was limited to repair activity only, but he suggested the production of a six-month or annual report over the next two years to let Council know how enforcement was being monitored. A requirement could be added to the ordinance that staff would report back to Council at
various intervals. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct the City Attorney to report back to the
Council in six months and one year to review the progress with
regard to the misdemeanor issue.
Council Member Freeman said she was concerned about the aesthetics and design of a home with 40 percent lawn coverage.
10/15/02 94-502
Ms. Grote said the 40 percent was not intended to be 40 percent
of additional lawn area. The 40 percent was overall of the front setback. On a 60-foot wide lot with a 20-foot deep setback, it would be 40 percent of the total area. That equated to a 20-foot wide driveway and another 4 feet of independent walkway. It was about 24 feet of linear area on a 60-foot wide
lot.
Council Member Freeman asked if those regulations and guidelines were that specific.
Ms. Grote replied the guidelines specified 40 percent maximum. It stated 40 percent maximum coverage with impervious surface.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the guidelines could be clarified for the public.
Ms. Grote answered that it could state 40 percent of front setback area and define it as the front setback.
Council Member Beecham said the ordinance stated no person should park or store in a manner that they cover more than 40 percent of an acquired front yard. He believed that was reasonably clear and it did not need refining.
Council Member Freeman stated she wanted to see the parameters more stringent. She wanted to make an amendment to the motion.
Council Member Lytle said the ordinance Council Member Freeman
referred to was the Zoning Ordinance, which was not the one they were discussing. Her motion would have to be a follow-up motion to direct or reexamine the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance prohibited parking on more than
40 percent except on paved areas, but the limitation on the amount of paved area was not in the ordinance. Director of Planning and Community Development Steve Emslie said part of the adoption of the R-1 included a correction the first
year. Staff was in the process of looking at how the ordinance was being implemented. The discussion that evening could be
followed up when the report was presented to Council. The target date for the completion of the report was before the end of 2002.
Mr. Calonne asked whether the ordinance would restrict the
amount of impervious coverage.
10/15/02 94-503
Council Member Freeman asked why impervious coverage was being
discussed when staff had given the report. Mr. Calonne answered it was a two-step process. The ordinance being discussed that evening stated that parking was prohibited on more than 40 percent of the front yard and parking was
limited to paved areas. The amendment to take it to 40 percent was synchronizing it with the R-1 ordinance.
Council Member Freeman wanted to know how the noise ordinance would be enforced.
Mr. Calonne replied the Noise Ordinance stood alone and could be
used when there was excessive noise at any time. There were slightly different daylight standards. The permitted hours of the proposed ordinance did not excuse a violation of the Noise
Ordinance. If power equipment was being used that made too much noise and it happened to be 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., it would still be
a violation of the Noise Ordinance. Performing vehicle repairs before 8 a.m. and after 9 p.m. was a violation of the section being discussed whether or not there was excessive noise. During the daylight hours of 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., noise restrictions were in force and during the overnight hours,
excessive noise and the section being discussed were in force. Council Member Burch stated minor changes were being added to an
existing ordinance and, historically, it had been shown that an ordinance could not be written to cover each type of situation.
He believed Council was giving staff the flexibility to administer the ordinance. Mr. Calonne agreed with Council Member Burch but stated Council had authorized a substantial increase in the code enforcement
over the past five years. That resulted in a process where staff in the field identified problems and brought them back to Council to adjust the policy. That interaction was something Council and staff had to become accustomed to. The objective was to implement Council’s will as expressed in the ordinances,
and staff would find places where ordinances were not in agreement.
Council Member Burch asked whether staff would return to Council with updates as to how the process was working.
Mr. Calonne replied staff would comply and, by adding resources
for code enforcement, the ordinances that seemed to trivialize law enforcement efforts by prohibiting activities everyone did, staff would identify those who were in violation. The idea was
10/15/02 94-504
to develop a more reliable and trustworthy accountability
system. Staff would need Council’s active involvement in the process. Council Member Burch clarified everything centered on administering the ordinances with good judgment.
Mr. Benest said the City wanted compliance to the ordinances
from members of the public. When staff informed someone of a problem, most people complied. If not, the warnings were increased. A person would have to refuse to comply in order for
the warning to become a misdemeanor.
Council Member Lytle stated the difficulty for her was the idea that ordinances, which were broader and more general in terms of discussing nuisances, worked better in the field for 99 percent
of the people who did not comply with codes. Specific ordinances that targeted certain activities seemed to work better for
taking offenders to court. She believed the discussion that evening dealt with the later circumstance and people felt uncomfortable for that reason because it seemed to become limited for persons who may have been in violation but would come into compliance with a warning. She believed that as codes
were reviewed, it would be good to take that into account because persons who attempted to rightly use the codes may not have found that type of specific legislation as useful. There
had to be a balance in ordinances as they were adopted. She would support the motion but was in favor of broader, general
ordinances that targeted nuisances as an issue rather than specific types of activities. The ordinance seemed to target teenagers and hobbyists, which she was not comfortable with that.
Mayor Ojakian went back to the maker of the motion for additional comments. Vice Mayor Mossar wanted to know if the proposed changes were in opposition with any sections of the PAMC, in particular those
issues that related to water quality.
Mr. Calonne said he wanted to discuss that with the Manager of Environmental Compliance Phil Bobel. The ordinance did not permit spilling oil on driveways and into the storm drains. He
would confirm before the second reading if there were tools to enforce against someone who dumped pollutants into their
driveway and whether there were elements of a non-point program that was inconsistent.
10/15/02 94-505
Vice Mayor Mossar said that was helpful and made it possible for
her to support the motion. She asked whether it would be useful to incorporate language that would say “acceptable using best management practices.” Mr. Calonne said that was in the Waste Disposal Ordinance but
would be confirmed in writing prior to the second reading.
Council Member Morton asked whether a permit would be required to allow parking of a mobile home in a driveway.
Mr. Bayer replied the section discussed earlier made no recommendation of changes after it went to the P&TC. Subsection
(g) stated a permit was required for use of a recreational vehicle for sleeping purposes and not to exceed 30 consecutive days. Technically, if someone stayed in a recreational vehicle,
a permit was required, and he was not aware that it was actively taking place.
Council Member Morton asked if that could be resolved when the Zoning Ordinance was brought back to Council. Mr. Bayer replied the Attorney’s Office could not take ownership
of the language of the ordinance, and he intended to review a few sections and clarify the language.
Mr. Calonne said it was not his place to question policy judgments but, in terms of code enforcement, recreational
vehicles were an area that generated a lot of interest from residents. He believed Council should allow the public to participate in that discussion. Council Member Morton asked if he was suggesting Council send it
back to the P&TC. Mr. Calonne replied he mentioned it only because the issue would come up at a later time.
Council Member Beecham said he was pleased that Mr. Calonne had commented on the environmental issue raised by Council Member
Mossar. The staff recommendation for the proposed changes to the ordinance did not modify, permit, or condone the practice of performing oil changes on public streets or to inappropriately
discharge oil into drains. He expected people would respect the need to dispose of waste materials in the proper way through the
recycle program.
10/15/02 94-506
Mayor Ojakian said he was pleased with the comments made by
colleagues. His colleagues had attempted to deal with a few of the unintended consequences; however, he had not lost sight of what he believed to be the main issue. He had observed vehicle repairs being performed at private residences and not just on Clara Drive.
MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by
Morton, to accept the ordinance and include 1) section 2 (a) add “with the exception of occasional light maintenance such as changing spark plugs, oil, etc.” 2) change the hours to 8 a.m.
to 9 p.m., and 3) in section 2 (j) change 50 percent to 40 percent, and 4) City Attorney direction to report back in six
months and one year regarding progress. Mr. Calonne reminded Council about the directive to staff to
review the impermeable surface issue concerning the R-1 Zoning Ordinance Update.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.88.160 Pertaining to Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage” MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kleinberg absent.
Council Member Lytle said the current R-1 regulations allowed a
great deal of paving across the front lawn of a wide lot. She viewed that as a relaxation of the Zoning Ordinance. She had
observed houses being developed in the City that had used a great deal of paving in front yards. She believed Council had not anticipated that when the regulation was adopted.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an Ordinance
Adopting the 2001 California Fire Code with Local Amendments MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Morton, to adopt
the Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Title 15 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code for the Adoption of the 2001 California Fire Code and Local Amendments Thereto.
Ordinance 4764 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Reenacting Title 15 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code for the Adoption of the 2001 California Fire Code and Local Amendments Thereto” (1st
Reading 9/23/02, Passed 9-0) MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kleinberg absent.
10/15/02 94-507
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Mayor Mossar announced she had attended the City of San
Jose’s “Walk to End Domestic Violence” on Friday, October 11, 2002. It was an important issue and Police Chief Pat Dwyer had
taken a real interest in this problem. The main pledge for each City was that “Domestic violence will not be tolerated in their City!”
Council Member Freeman asked the City Manager if there could be
a correction to the report on Government Access Channel Policies and Procedures. There was not a charitable donation of $17 million made to that charitable donation. City Manager Frank Benest replied he would consult with staff
regarding the issue and, if the report were incorrect, it would be changed.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne stated staff was careful during the process not to get into characterizing the taxability or not of
those monies. If the concern was the report changed that, it should be corrected, the City was covered in terms of not lending credence one way or another to the taxability issue. Council Member Freeman stated she was not speaking of taxability
but the fact that the report stated AT&T made a charitable donation of $17 million to SVCC.
Mr. Calonne stated SVCC would have liked the donation to have been charitable for tax reasons, but staff would follow up.
Council Member Freeman asked for information regarding removal
of bushes around airport and golf course parking areas. She asked what the protocol was for requesting the tradition of applicants who requested a continuance be examined encouraging
equality with appellants.
Mayor Ojakian said she would need to do so through a Colleague’s Memo.
Mr. Calonne said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee was reviewing protocols and procedures, and he did not know if it
would lend itself to that issue. He suggested she could also ask for the matter to be agendized. Mr. Benest suggested if she was going to ask for the matter to be agendized it would need to be directed to the P&S Committee.
10/15/02 94-508
MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, to
refer to Policy and Services Committee review of the tradition of applicants being granted continuances of agenda items versus appellants. Council Member Morton said he viewed the motion as another way
of overburdening the system with something that was an issue to one Council Member and he did not think it should be passed on
to the P&S Committee. Council Member Kishimoto said the issue brought to light the
importance of agenda setting. The applicant asked for a continuance because they wanted the full Council present. Did
that mean Council could ask for continuance of the Trinity issue. Council Members who made the motion for the Trinity issue wanted the full Council present. There would be meetings
when the full Council was not present. She asked if an item could be removed when there was not a full Council.
Council Member Lytle said she seconded the motion because she believed it was prudent to review traditions. Some protocol issues were already before the P&S Committee and that issue would be good to increase efficiency for all Council Members.
MOTION PASSED 5-3, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian “no,” Kleinberg
absent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City
Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes
are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/15/02 94-509
10/15/02 94-510