HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-05 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting June 5, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ......................................... 76-78 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission ........... 76-78 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. ............ 76-78 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ......................................... 76-79 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 13 AND 20, 1995 ................ 76-79 1. Council Approval of Appointment of Debra L. Cauble as Senior Assistant City Attorney ......................... 76-79 2. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C0018151 between the City of Palo Alto and Foundation Health and Psychcare Services for Employee Assistance Plan Services ......... 76-79 3. Revision of Santa Clara County Cities Association Bylaws and Agreement ................................... 76-79 4. Resolution 7509 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Reversing the Zoning Administrator's Decision to Approve a Variance (94-V-18) at 1475 Stanford Avenue to Allow a New Two-Story Single-Family House to Encroach Within a Twenty-Five Foot Setback, and Sustaining the Appeal Thereof ........ 76-79 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council the approval of staff's recommendation for a modified exemption to the City's real property transfer tax for low- and moderate- income first-time homebuyers ........ 76-80 6. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council re Future Use of the Terman Community Center (continued from 5/15/95) ........................ 76-80 7. Six-Month Evaluation of the Curfew Ordinance (continued from 5/15/95) .......................................... 76-81 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 36 ..................................................... 76-83
06/05/95 76-76
9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment clarifying the inclusion of residential uses in the definitions of land use categories .............. 76-86 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and the Archi-tectural Review Board recommend to the City Council final review of a proposed rezoning from CD-S(P) to a Planned Community (PC) district in order to demolish an existing, approximately 3,000 square foot auto service building and to construct a mixed use project consisting of 107 units of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing, up to 1,763 square feet of ground floor commercial office space and 70 to 74 parking spaces in a two-level parking garage at 725-753 Alma Street ...... 76-88 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of the findings for the variance denial and a use permit for the location and construction of a redesigned second living unit (cottage) for property located at 1457 Edgewood Drive .. 76-88 12. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.16 (Boards and Commissions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Section 2.16.040 to Prohibit Board and Commission Members from Making Financial Interest in Contracts with the City .......................................... 76-89 13. Council Members Fazzino, McCown, and Rosenbaum re Study of Truck Regulations ................................... 76-91 14. Council Members Andersen and Kniss re Resolution to Obtain Public Ownership of Headwaters Forest ........... 76-92 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ......... 76-93 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. ............ 76-94
06/05/95 76-77
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:34 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived 5:37 p.m.), Fazzino (arrived 5:45 p.m.), Huber, Kniss (arrived 5:40 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 5:45 p.m.), Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding use of the Utilities Fund for landscaping. SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
06/05/95 76-78
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Floyd Kessler, 3272 Los Palos, spoke regarding a group of citizens who recently attended an Architectural Review Board meeting and were issued parking citations for parking in the Civic Center for more than three hours, and regarding cars that were parked in a bicycle lane. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding Sand Hill Road - Third Installment - Eight Year Anniversary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 13 AND 20, 1995 MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of March 13, 1995, as corrected. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of March 20, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 5. 1. Council Approval of Appointment of Debra L. Cauble as Senior Assistant City Attorney 2. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C0018151 between the City of Palo Alto and Foundation Health and Psychcare Services for Employee Assistance Plan Services 3. Revision of Santa Clara County Cities Association Bylaws and Agreement Agreement for the Administration of the Santa Clara County Cities Association, a Section of the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities 4. Resolution 7509 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Reversing the Zoning Administrator's Decision to Approve a Variance (94-V-18) at 1475 Stanford Avenue to Allow a New Two-Story Single-Family House to Encroach Within a Twenty-Five Foot Setback, and Sustaining the Appeal Thereof"
06/05/95 76-79
5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council the approval of staff's recommendation for a modified exemption to the City's real property transfer tax for low- and moderate- income first-time homebuyers. That the exemption be administered on a rebate basis in conjunction with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), and that a $50 processing fee per rebate request be instituted to be adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). That Council adopt an ordinance granting an exemption to the City's real property transfer tax for all transactions involving a release of ownership interest held by co-borrowers, when monetary or other valuable consideration is not involved. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.34 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Section 2.34.095 to Exempt Transfers Effected by the Release of an Ownership Interest in Real Property by a Co-owner Without Consideration" MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 1 - 3 and 5. MOTION PASSED 8-1 for Item No. 4, Andersen "no." UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council re Future Use of the Terman Community Center (contin-ued from 5/15/95) Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said when the issue first came to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee 12 months ago, the P&S Committee was asked to set up a committee to review the use of the Terman Community Center (Terman) site. The committee met several times and made several recommendations which staff brought to the P&S Committee with one minor modification. The recommendations were listed in the staff report (CMR:186:95) and primarily set up a process over the next two years to continue a trial use of two rooms for community programs. Two other rooms were still being used by the Jewish Day School. By October 1996, an assessment of how Terman was being used, what types of programs were being offered, and how successful the programs were would be completed. At that time, a decision of whether to go forward and continue to lease all or part of that wing or to open all of the rooms for use by the community as a community center would be made. Funds from the tenant would be used to renovate the rooms and to make other improvements at Terman. Recreation Supervisor Richard James thanked the Terman Community Center Advisory Committee (TCCAC) which was composed of Lisle Day, Marion Hill, Joe Hirsch, Dave Jeong, Bob Moss, Jean Olmstead, Cal Sakamoto, and Lee Wieder for their tremendous efforts. Council Member Fazzino said the P&S Committee accepted the staff recommendations with a minor change that staff would provide a
06/05/95 76-80
status report to the P&S Committee in January 1996. There was a general feeling on the part of the P&S Committee that the City had not followed through on the commitment that was made in the early 1980s with respect to creation of the Terman Community Center. A plan was in place to provide classes and other pilot activities at Terman not only for Terman area residents but also for residents of the entire community. Signage and visibility were very important issues and were being addressed in the plan. There was recognition that the Jewish Day School was an appropriate current use and would be evaluated in the broader context of consideration of appropriate future uses for the Terman site. By no means had the P&S Committee decided to preclude the possibility of the Jewish Day School continuing on that site. He believed there was a tremendous opportunity for the City, the neighbors, representatives of the Jewish Community Center, and parents at the school to work together closely over the next year and a half to come up with a mutually agreeable, long-term plan for Terman. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino for the Policy and Services Committee moved to approve the staff recommendation re Future Use of the Terman Community Center to authorize: 1) The continuance and enhancement of a pilot program of classes and activities in rooms 33, 34 and the Library Meeting Room of the Terman Community Center through August 1997; 2) The expansion of programming to make full use of rooms 31 and 32 beginning September 1997. However, if by October 1, 1996 (rather than January 1, 1997), programming proved unsuccessful during the pilot program, then staff and the community would study alternative uses for the site; 3) Beginning in July 1995, performance of minor facility rehabilitation to help create a visible City presence and a desirable environmental setting; 4) The continued use of revenue generated by the lease of rooms 31 and 32 to offset Community Center expenditures and Council approval to carryover and expend unused funds from the 1994/95 Terman Community Center budget into the 1995/96 budget; and 5) The continuance of the Terman Community Center Advisory Committee as a review committee and staff resource through September 1997. Further, that City staff would provide a status report in January 1996 MOTION PASSED 9-0. 7. Six-Month Evaluation of the Curfew Ordinance (continued from 5/15/95) Council Member Andersen said when the item first came before the Council, there had been a concern regarding the old law being constitutionally valid. Some legal and constitutional questions were also raised with regard to the new Curfew Ordinance. He asked whether any further clarification of the constitutional validity of the item had occurred. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there had been two California appellate cases since the Council had enacted the Curfew Ordinance, both of which approved curfews which were substantially similar. He had no reason to believe there was any legal problem associated with it.
06/05/95 76-81
Council Member Huber recalled the Curfew Ordinance was scheduled to sunset in October 1995. On the bottom of page 3 of the staff report (CMR:245:95) staff said... "staff doesn't believe curfew was the primary factor for decrease. There is reason to believe it played some role." From his perspective, if there were some way to quantify that role by the time the Council reviewed the Curfew Ordinance at the end of the year, he would appreciate receiving that information. He asked whether it was possible to get a comparison between Palo Alto's ordinance and those of surrounding cities in terms of how it was working. Council Member Kniss recalled a number of cities had added curfews since Palo Alto's had been adopted and asked how many there were in the Bay Area. It seemed that more cities than not within the Bay Area counties had curfews. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said that was an accurate assessment. Although she did not know the exact number of cities that had adopted a curfew, East Palo Alto, San Francisco, and other cities throughout the state and country were considering adopting a curfew. Council Member Kniss said it would be interesting to know what observations came from other comparable cities. She confirmed efforts on the part of staff and the groups it worked with had been successful. Ms. Johnson said efforts were very successful. The amount of time to develop recommendations had taken longer than anticipated. However, the time spent looking at other agencies and what other cities and counties had already done would make the final recommendations that much better. Mayor Simitian recalled he had voted against the imposition of the curfew. At that time, he made two suggestions which became an addendum to the curfew. One had to do with the potential for additional police presence and/or activity in the two neighborhoods which had been identified as potential problem neighborhoods and which had given rise to the ordinance. The second had to do with the possibility of a public or private nuisance ordinance which might provide additional tools to deal with the problems. He asked whether action had been taken on either of the items. Mr. Calonne said no direct request for a specific house-type of nuisance abatement had been received from the Police Department. However, the City Attorney's budget and work plan for the next year included a comprehensive overhaul of the nuisance abatement ordinance. A draft was done with the assistance of outside counsel. He would ensure that whatever tools were needed to do a San Jose-style neighborhood nuisance abatement process would be in place. He reminded the Council the context was two-fold: 1) to abate unsound or unhealthful living conditions; and 2) to take advantage of the street terrorism law to treat gangs as nuisances which were subject to abatement. San Jose's ordinance had been
06/05/95 76-82
upheld in the State Court of Appeal. Mayor Simitian clarified there was no need to move more quickly on that time line. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. She did not believe there was a need for additional staff as evidenced by the decrease in the number of calls for service especially in the two neighborhoods. Calls for service had been substantially reduced as a result of the Police Department being more proactive during the daytime as well as during curfew hours. Council Member Schneider asked once the ordinance sunsetted and if Council voted not to continue it, what measurement would be used to determine whether the curfew had been successful or not, e.g., an increase in calls for service. Ms. Johnson said that would be one thing to look for especially in the two neighborhoods. Citywide, staff would look at the number of young people or minors who were arrested for crime, whether there was an increase in gang activity during those hours, or whether there was an increase in young victims. Council Member Schneider asked whether staff would keep the Council apprised of the numbers. Ms. Johnson said staff would do so. Melissa Newman, 1220 Vienna Drive No. 713, Sunnyvale, said she attended Palo Alto High School where she had done a report on San Jose's curfew ordinance. She found that most people thought that police officers were taking away their rights with the curfew and focusing on minority groups. She believed in order to be safe, one needed to give away some rights. She questioned why young people should be running around at one o'clock in the morning and said none of her friends felt threatened by the curfew. Council Member Andersen said it was interesting to note the number of young people who were not present that evening. He had encouraged his students to attend the meeting so their comments would be on the record. He believed for the overwhelming majority of young people, it was a "ho-hum" issue and they believed it was not an inappropriate ordinance. Council Member Kniss expressed her appreciation for Ms. Newman's willingness to speak to the Council as it was not easy for young people to have the courage to do so. No action required. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 36
06/05/95 76-83
Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said the staff report (CMR:275:95) recommended that Council adopt the ordinance establishing the Underground Utility District No. 36. Council Member Andersen referred to the map contained in Exhibit A and the Middlefield Road area (C) and asked whether the area was scheduled for the following year or was currently underway. Mr. Mrizek said the ordinance before the Council, Utility District 36, would take place first, Utility District 37 would take place the next year, and area C would be the year after. Council Member Andersen questioned the efficiency of undergrounding Middlefield Road in what seemed like a piecemeal manner. Mr. Mrizek said undergrounding had taken place on Middlefield Road north of Embarcadero Road in one underground project, and south of Oregon Expressway had been done about 10 years prior. The center section, area C, which was a major thoroughfare, had not experienced problems like other areas and so was let go for a number of years. Utility District 36 was a heavier, industrial/commercial area which had a lot of equipment on the poles and there was a greater need to have it underground. Council Member Andersen asked whether there was a technological reason for doing Utility District 36 at the present time rather than postponing it for a year. Mr. Mrizek said staff had looked at the area for a number of years and undergrounding had been done all around it. The main reason was as additional loads had grown in that area from industrial/commercial customers, additional transformer weight had been added to the poles. The weight could no longer be supported. Council Member McCown confirmed the cost to private property owners was estimated at $425,000. Mr. Mrizek said that was correct. The fee was for the service conversion on their property. Council Member McCown noted there were 111 properties involved and questioned if the cost was distributed evenly among the property owners. Mr. Mrizek said an estimate of the length, size of service, and a dollar figure had been provided to each customer. The range was from $2,000 to $5,000 depending on the number of cables and size of service. The customers were all industrial/commercial, making the service conversions substantially higher than residential conversions. Council Member McCown clarified that each customer had been provided an estimate of the cost of the conversion prior to that evening's meeting.
06/05/95 76-84
Mr. Mrizek said that was correct. Council Member McCown said a note had been received from a property owner, West-Con Associates, regarding a separate issue of storm drains flooding in the area. She asked whether staff had or would respond. Mr. Mrizek said staff would respond and would be conferring with Public Works Director Glenn Roberts on the issue. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Gregory Deane, 4075 Transport Street, questioned the amount of money allocated for each property to pay. He referred to the map and noted his section was much smaller and did not go all the way back to the freeway system. He considered his bill for $5,000 to be excessive for a one-person business, an art studio. He asked whether the fee was fixed. Mr. Mrizek said the Utilities Department paid for 100 percent of the cost of undergrounding the public right-of-way. The cost estimate given to each property owner was to convert his/her service based on the size of the service he/she had and the estimate provided by staff. Each property owner was free to obtain his/her own estimate. Mayor Simitian asked how the estimate would actually translate into the cost for a particular property owner. Mr. Mrizek said the actual cost would be based on the cost the property owner would be billed from a contractor doing the work and could be higher or lower. The Utilities Department used the estimate to provide a low-interest loan to the customers to repay over a 10-year period. Mayor Simitian said if the estimate were the actual cost, it would be amortized over ten years including any interest. Mr. Mrizek said that was correct. Mr. Deane understood that aspect. When he moved into the building, the service had been changed to a smaller service. He questioned whether the cost was for the amount of service to the building or whether that would make a difference. Mr. Mrizek said if a smaller service could be used, then that would be the amount that could be put in and could change the cost. The cost was based on the size of service that was required for the building. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to introduce the Ordinance to create the Underground Utility District No. 36 and thereby amend Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
06/05/95 76-85
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Estab-lishing Underground Utility District No. 36" MOTION PASSED 9-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment clarifying the inclusion of residential uses in the defini-tions of land use categories: The City of Palo Alto Compre-hensive Plan in Policy 2 and Program 3 of the Employment Element and Program 17, Policy 14 and Program 32 of the Housing Element and the Multiple Family Residential definition in the "Land Use and Roadway Categories" section encourage the location of residential units in commercial areas, but residential uses are not specifically listed in the Land Use Element, "Definitions of and Land Use and Roadway Categories (page 75 of Chapter 8: Land Use, as amended). In order to clarify the City's existing policies which allow residential and mixed use in commercial and light industrial zones, the following sentence, or similar language, is to be added to the definitions of Neighborhood Commercial, Regional/Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Research/Office park and Light Industrial: "Residential and mixed use projects may also locate in this land use category." Council Member McCown said at the Planning Commission hearing and in a letter to the Council (letter on file in the City Clerk's office), Herb Borock had asked whether the Midtown and Charleston Center language should be made more specific in the Comprehensive Plan. She asked for staff to respond. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said staff was comfortable with the fact that the Zoning Ordinance contained a level of specificity and, therefore, more specificity was not needed in the Comprehensive Plan language. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, requested the language he suggested be included. The legislative history of the language in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was originally an amendment made in 1992. In staff report (CMR:450:92), the Environmental Assessment Report (92-EAR-30) stated that adding such standards to the Land Use Element would increase the consistency between the Palo Alto zoning designations and the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the language that was chosen to be placed in the Comprehensive Plan at that time grew out of changes to the Zoning Ordinance that were put in place after the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1989 citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. The suggested language referred to two neighborhood/commercial areas. He expressed concern that the Planning Commissioner in attendance that evening might have a
06/05/95 76-86
potential conflict of interest regarding the proposed language. He believed it followed through on previous actions by the Council in regard to bringing the language of the Land Use Element and the zoning ordinance into conformance with the descriptions of the land use designations. He encouraged Council to add the suggested language. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the avowed purpose for the staff recommendation was to bring clarity to the definitions and sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). As a result of the wording in the staff recommendation, there could be some confusion such as Mr. Borock described. On page 1 of the proposed ordinance toward the bottom of the page, it stated, "...residential and mix-used projects may also locate in the neighborhood/commercial districts," and then enunciated what the four neighborhood/commercial districts were. She believed it would be easy to misinterpret that to read that housing could then be developed in the Midtown and Charleston shopping areas. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to 1) adopt the negative declaration (95-EIA-11) finding that the proposal will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and 2) adopt the Resolution amending the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, that the definition of the Neighborhood Commercial Land Use category be revised to indicate that residential uses shall not be permitted in the Charleston Shopping Center or the Midtown Shopping District. Resolution 7510 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan" City Attorney Ariel Calonne had a procedural concern that the revised language needed to be referred back to the Planning Commission for action. The PAMC incorporated the State General Plan law that said, "you, the City Council, will not make and change or addition until the proposed change or addition has been referred to the Planning Commission for a report and a copy of the report has been filed with the legislative body." The appropriate action would be to send the revised language back to the Planning Commission. Council Member McCown said Mr. Borock had raised the issue at the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission declined to change it. She questioned whether the Council could not just accept that as the advice and go in a different direction. Mr. Calonne said if the Planning Commission minutes reflected that, then the Council could do that. Council Member McCown confirmed that was so. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
06/05/95 76-87
10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and the Archi-tectural Review Board recommend to the City Council final review of a proposed rezoning from CD-S(P) to a Planned Community (PC) district in order to demolish an existing, approximately 3,000 square foot auto service building and to construct a mixed use project consisting of 107 units of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing, up to 1,763 square feet of ground floor commercial office space and 70 to 74 parking spaces in a two-level parking garage at 725-753 Alma Street. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is requested for portions of the parapet that exceed the 50-foot height limit by 4 feet. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. No one came forward to speak to the item, and Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to continue the item to the City Council meeting of June 12, 1995. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of the findings for the variance denial and a use permit for the location and construction of a redesigned second living unit (cottage) for property located at 1457 Edgewood Drive. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the item was a follow-up action as directed by the Council on March 20, 1995. The revised cottage met the zoning requirements, including setbacks and lot coverage requirements. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Tom Sloan, Architect, Metro Design Group, 255 N. Market Street, Suite 255, said the overall size of the proposed guest house had been reduced by approximately 20 percent in order to bring it into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The setback requirements had been met and the overall height had been reduced from the previous application. He believed the neighbors supported the new proposal. He urged Council to approve the use permit, and no variance was being requested at that time. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to deny the Variance, 94-V-15, based on the findings, and adopt the findings approving the Conditional Use Permit for the revised cottage, in accordance with plans dated April 6, 1995. Findings for Variance denial: 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that all
06/05/95 76-88
sites in the district adjacent to San Francisquito Creek have a similar relationship to the natural feature and it is necessary to maintain the rear setback and floor area ratio for creek stability, flood risk reduction and habitat protec-tion; 2. The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, or to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that a house and cottage, compatible in size with other houses and cottages in the area, can be built on the site without encroaching into the rear setback or exceeding the maximum floor area. Prohibiting the use of 2,497 square feet of site area on this site does not consti-tute an unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; and 3. The granting of the application will be detrimental and injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that a ten foot encroachment into the rear setback will reduce the stability of the creekbank on the site and the additional 165 square feet, over the maximum floor area, will result in overbuilding the site. Findings for Use Permit approval: 1. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detri-mental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, in that the cottage will be located toward the back of the site, primarily behind the main house, and will be minimally visible from the public right-of-way. It will have vehicular access in common with the main residence and will be architecturally compatible with the main residence; 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in that the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan considers second living units affordable housing and encourages them where possible. Second living units are conditionally permitted uses on lots greater than 13,000 square feet in the R-1(929) zoning district. The subject site exceeds minimum size requirements and the cottage meets all other applicable zoning requirements for the R-1(929) district, including setbacks, height, parking and size. Condition for Use Permit approval: 1. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved plans, dated April 6, 1995, on file in the office of the Department of Planning and Community Environ-ment. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
06/05/95 76-89
ORDINANCES 12. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.16 (Boards and Commissions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Section 2.16.040 to Prohibit Board and Commission Members from Making Financial Interest in Contracts with the City Mayor Simitian said he was prepared to recommend the item be referred to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the proposed ordinance amendment was designed to bring the rules applicable to the Board and Commission members into conformance with the rules applicable to staff and the City Council. Specifically, the issue concerned contracts that were entered into between the City and members of Boards and Commissions. The general rule applicable to the Council was that that was prohibited. State law was ambiguous about how it applied to Boards and Commission members. After looking at a number of other Bay Area cities where it was relatively uniform that Board and Commission members were not permitted to enter into contracts, staff believed it was an appropriate amendment. Mayor Simitian had raised a number of collateral implications that he believed worthy of consideration and, therefore, had no objection to the matter being referred to the P&S Committee. Council Member McCown asked for an example of a collateral implication. Mayor Simitian said the proposed language implied not only entering into a contract but also having any financial interest in a contract. He recalled Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig facing a felony conviction, in spite of the fact he was a trained attorney and relatively sophisticated with respect to the issues, because of his failure to recognize the implications of his agency having a contract with a third party organization that happened to employ his wife. With respect to the City, for instance, suppose a member of the Historic Resources Board (HRB) had a spouse who worked as an employee of a social service agency and that agency had a contract to provide some services with the City of Palo Alto. He questioned whether that meant the HRB member was in violation of the provision and, if so, the Council needed to be clear what the results or possibilities were before approving the proposal. The issue was far more complicated than it appeared at first glance. Council Member Fazzino believed Superintendent Honig deserved his felony conviction on the basis of abusing his power. He was prepared to move forward and approve the proposal that evening. He believed strongly that members of Boards and Commissions should not do business with the City. If the Mayor wanted to refer it to the P&S Committee to look at possible ramifications, he would support it; however, he hoped there was a better example than Bill Honig. Mayor Simitian said he had given the example of an HRB member
06/05/95 76-90
whose spouse might work for a third party nonprofit organization with which the City might contract. The question was whether the Council wanted to find that the HRB member was in violation or whether the member could not serve. He believed the Council needed to know what the consequences would be as a result of the action Council might take. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, questioned whether the proposal would also be applied to task forces. The Tree Task Force had faced a similar issue, and some members had resigned when another member had taken a job with the City. She did not know whether that was a real problem or not, but it had led to dissention on the Tree Task Force. Mayor Simitian confirmed with the City Attorney that the proposal did not apply to task forces or advisory committees other than Boards and Commissions. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Mayor Simitian clarified if the P&S Committee decided the proposal should be expanded to include task forces and advisory committees, it could be discussed at the P&S Committee. Mr. Calonne said yes. MOTION TO REFER: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to refer the matter to the Policy and Services Committee for review. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Council Members Fazzino, McCown, and Rosenbaum re Study of Truck Regulations Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item because of the location of her home and business which were both in the affected area. Council Member Rosenbaum said the subject of truck weight regulations had been brought to the Council's attention in the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commission's (CPAC) draft of the Transportation Element and in a petition received from the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to initiate a study to determine the feasibility of changing the City's truck regulations. The study should provide information on the following issues: 1) What would be the impact of limiting truck weights to 3 tons on streets that are proposed to be classified as residential arterials, e.g., University Avenue and Embarcadero Road?; 2) Should Oregon Expressway be designated as a truck route with or without a weight limit?; and 3) Can we work with neighboring cities to develop a regional approach to truck traffic west of Bayshore so that the burden is shared in an
06/05/95 76-91
equitable fashion? City Attorney Ariel Calonne said it would be helpful to staff to know what kinds of impacts were of particular concern. Council Member Rosenbaum said clearly, the impact of reducing truck rates from 7 tons to 3 tons would perhaps affect some businesses that depended on truck delivery. The residents along the street would like to see that happen. The first question for Council was whether it was a doable and reasonable thing. Council Member McCown said the second question was what was the spillover effect or consequences of the larger trucks being routed to a smaller number of routes. Council Member Fazzino said, thirdly, what was the economic impact on the Downtown business district. City Manager June Fleming said staff had reviewed the proposal and believed it provided staff the opportunity and flexibility to look at whatever the impacts would be. Mayor Simitian said as part of the study, staff should talk with the trucking industry and involve it in the process from the beginning. Council Member Andersen questioned the reasons for not originally having trucks on Oregon Expressway and whether any promises had been made to the neighbors and the community. Council Member Fazzino believed the answer could be found in a June 1962 Palo Alto Times article appearing just prior to the Oregon Expressway election. The "No-Trucks-On Oregon Avenue" promise had been made at that time. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the people on University Avenue and Embarcadero Road who spoke at the CPAC meetings sited the same reasons as those who lived near Oregon Expressway or on Oregon Avenue: noise, pollution, dirt, and dust 24-hours a day. The suggested 3-ton limit was not honored on streets in Midtown. Colorado Avenue was a major truck route as trucks tried to get around the Oregon/Middlefield exchange. Trucks cut off at Cowper or went down El Dorado, cutting down Colorado and going to Midtown. If trucks were allowed on Oregon Expressway, even more trucks would be cutting through the neighborhood looking for short cuts. Midtown had already had a 20 percent increase in traffic in the last two years on Colorado Avenue alone. She urged staff to consider the ramifications to the Midtown neighborhoods. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider "not participating." 14. Council Members Andersen and Kniss re Resolution to Obtain Public Ownership of Headwaters Forest Council Member Andersen said members of Bay Area Action had been anxious to speak to the item and had not anticipated a
06/05/95 76-92
continuation. Materials which had been provided that day gave the chronology of the issue. He called particular attention to Assembly Byron Sher's comments in a San Francisco Chronicle article appearing in March expressing frustration on the Natural Resources Committee when the California Department of Forestry made a reversal and notified Pacific Lumber that it could proceed with cutting dying and diseased trees. There was a temporary restraining order preventing that from happening. Given the strong environmental commitment the community had and a desire to support Assemblymen Sher, he thought it appropriate to ask for Council to support the item. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the resolution. Council Member McCown raised a philosophical issue regarding how Council decided which significant issues on which the City as a City should take positions. Personally, she supported the content of the resolution; and on a personal level, she used a different standard to apply to her own action as a citizen than she applied when being asked to act collectively with the Council. Coincidentally, the Council had received a memo from Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin regarding positions on various pieces of legislation. The memo included a summary on why Council acted on particular pieces of legislation versus others. Basically, it pointed to the consequences and implications for the citizens generally and the impact on Palo Alto operations and on areas of responsibility and policy that the City had undertaken. She believed those standards were applicable for acting in the issue under discussion as well. Reluctantly, she did not believe it was an area in which the City should act. She would personally send a letter but did not favor the Council taking a position. Vice Mayor Wheeler also believed the memo clarified the issue well. She asked the City Manager whether there were any Council-adopted polices or past practices that Council could look to for guidance. City Manager June Fleming said there was no Council-adopted policy. Historically, there had been a Legislative Committee that informally used guidelines which limited Council's involvement as articulated by Council Member McCown. Vice Mayor Wheeler believed as elected officials, the Council needed to be mindful it was elected to represent the citizens of Palo Alto in discussing matters of local import to them. She did not know how the citizens of Palo Alto would want her to vote on the issue. As an individual, she was sympathetic with the proposal; however, she had grave concerns about taking an official Council position. She also had a concern for the misinformation that might be construed from a negative vote on the motion. People might believe the Council thought Pacific Lumber's activities were perfectly acceptable. She did not want to send that message. MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to postpone the issue to a date uncertain.
06/05/95 76-93
MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE PASSED 5-4, Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, Rosenbaum "no." 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements City Attorney Ariel Calonne announced that he had placed two reports at the City Council's place that evening re Council Authority under the Elections Code 9212 and the relationship between Initiative, Referendum, and the Comprehensive Plan. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (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.
06/05/95 76-94