HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-19 City Council Summary Minutes
05/19/97 −213
Regular Meeting
May 19, 1997
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................83-216
APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................83-216
1. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Gutierrez
Associates Architects for Design Services for Municipal Service
Center Security Warehouse Enclosure - Capital Improvement
Project, Number 19311.................................83-217
2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Coast Building
Services to Perform Recycling Services at Specified City
Facilities............................................83-217
3. Request to Proceed with Joint Construction with Pacific Bell
to Install Future Substructure along Forest Avenue between the
700 and 900 Block.....................................83-217
4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Stoecker and Northway
for Consultant Services to Provide Final Design for the
Relocation of the Industrial Waste Laboratory for the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant...........................83-217
5. Ordinance 4416 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97
to Recognize Receipt of a Grant from the Library Services and
Construction Act and Provide an Additional Appropriation for
the Library Automation Capital Improvement Project, Number
19418"................................................83-217
6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Price Technical
Services for Installation of Dark Fiber Optic Backbone System
83-217
7. Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. C5072062 between the City of
Palo Alto and Barry J. Miller for Editing and Desktop Publishing
Services for the Comprehensive Plan...................83-217
05/19/97 −214
8. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and D. W. Nicholson
Corporation for the Pump Replacements at the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant.................................83-217
9. Ordinance 4417 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 22.04 [Park and Recreation
Building Use and Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
to Prohibit Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Timothy
Hopkins Creekside Park, Scott Street Minipark, and Don
Secondino Robles Park”................................83-218
10. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 22.04 [Park and
Recreation Building Use and Regulations] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Prohibit Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages
in El Palo Alto Park”.................................83-218
11. Resolution 7665 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto of Intention to Delete Territory from the
University Avenue Parking District”...................83-218
11A. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision of a conditional
use permit for the operation of a private outdoor recreation
service (tennis facility) for property located at 3009
Middlefield Road on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim
and Tennis Center including the reorientation of two of the
four existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remaining
courts and construction of one additional court and a park area,
including restroom facilities, in a PF Zone District.
(continued from 2/18/97)..............................83-218
12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the
appeal of a Zoning Administrator’s denial of a Variance to allow
construction of a 6-foot-high fence, located 11 feet from the
property line, where 4 feet is normally the maximum height
allowed within 16 feet of the front property line for property
located at 1071 Embarcadero Road......................83-219
13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a
Request for approval to rezone a property located at 390 Lytton
Avenue from CD-C(P) to a PC District to construct a
18,921-square-foot, 3-story office building...........83-222
14. Council Members Wheeler and Eakins re Consideration of Palo
Alto Municipal Code Amendments to Stop Sunday Construction
Noise.................................................83-222
15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........83-225
05/19/97 −215
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.............83-226
05/19/97 −216
05/19/97 −217
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Kniss (arrived at 7:30 p.m.),
Huber, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler
ABSENT: Fazzino, McCown
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding an attorney whom she was
impressed with to clean up the region and the City Attorney’s possible
extortion.
Megan Parmer, Member of the Palo Alto Youth Council, 773 Frenchman’s
Road, Stanford, spoke regarding Shoreline Amphitheatre sound
complaints.
Kyla Farrell, Member of the Palo Alto Youth Council, 883 Loma Verde
Court, spoke regarding Shoreline Amphitheatre sound complaints.
Tyler Soper, Member of the Palo Alto Youth Council, 1270 Cedar Street,
spoke regarding Shoreline Amphitheatre sound complaints.
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth, spoke regarding honesty in politics.
Roger Craig, 101 Waverley, spoke regarding 390 Lytton Avenue.
Sid Hubbard, Mayor of Los Altos Hills and Commissioner of the Santa
Clara County Fire District, 25228 La Loma Drive, Los Altos Hills,
spoke regarding fire service.
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale, spoke regarding construction.
Dan Lorimer, 465 Hawthorne, spoke regarding the Downtown North
Traffic Study.
Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, spoke regarding the Downtown North
Traffic Study.
Connie Fasani, 62 Erstwild Court, spoke regarding the Association
for Senior Day Health.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to
approve the Minutes of February 10, 1997, as corrected.
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, McCown absent.
05/19/97 −218
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 11.
1. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Gutierrez
Associates Architects for Design Services for Municipal Service
Center Security Warehouse Enclosure - Capital Improvement
Project, Number 19311
2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Coast Building
Services to Perform Recycling Services at Specified City
Facilities
3. Request to Proceed with Joint Construction with Pacific Bell
to Install Future Substructure along Forest Avenue between the
700 and 900 Block
4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Stoecker and Northway
for Consultant Services to Provide Final Design for the
Relocation of the Industrial Waste Laboratory for the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant
5. Ordinance 4416 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97
to Recognize Receipt of a Grant from the Library Services and
Construction Act and Provide an Additional Appropriation for
the Library Automation Capital Improvement Project, Number
19418"
6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Price Technical
Services for Installation of Dark Fiber Optic Backbone System
7. Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. C5072062 between the City of
Palo Alto and Barry J. Miller for Editing and Desktop Publishing
Services for the Comprehensive Plan
8. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and D. W. Nicholson
Corporation for the Pump Replacements at the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant
9. Ordinance 4417 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 22.04 [Park and Recreation
Building Use and Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
to Prohibit Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Timothy
Hopkins Creekside Park, Scott Street Minipark, and Don
Secondino Robles Park”
05/19/97 −219
10. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 22.04 [Park and
Recreation Building Use and Regulations] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Prohibit Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages
in El Palo Alto Park”
11. Resolution 7665 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto of Intention to Delete Territory from the
University Avenue Parking District”
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown absent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
11A. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision of a conditional
use permit for the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road
on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis
courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and construction of one additional court and a park area, including restroom
facilities, in a PF Zone District. (continued from 2/18/97)
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by
Andersen, to continue the item to a date uncertain.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the
appeal of a Zoning Administrator’s denial of a Variance to allow
construction of a 6-foot-high fence, located 11 feet from the
property line, where 4 feet is normally the maximum height
allowed within 16 feet of the front property line for property
located at 1071 Embarcadero Road. Environmental Assessment:
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act. Zone District R-1.
Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the item was an appeal of a
variance denial. The fence had been built and in place for several
months. The application was originally a complaint to the Code
Enforcement Officer from a neighbor. The applicant pursued the
variance as one of several possible remedies to the violation. The
variance application was denied in January 1997 based on the
inability of the applicant to make the three findings necessary for
approval. First, there was nothing unusual or extraordinary about
the site. It was a flat rectangular, 6,100-square-foot interior
parcel with no unusual design characteristics or natural features.
It also encountered the same amount of high pedestrian and vehicular
traffic that every site on Embarcadero Road encountered and as such
was not an unusual circumstance. Second, the fence variance was
05/19/97 −220
not required to maintain a property right of the applicant. Enclosed
yard area could be obtained at the rear of the parcel in the back
yard and was not required in the front yard. The applicant raised
some arguments about providing a safe and secure environment for
his family. There were methods of providing that security and safety
other than a six-foot high wall in the front yard. Finally, it would
have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood because it would result
in a walled or fortress- type environment which would be in direct
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan policies and single-family
design guidelines. The applicant appealed the decision based on
the reasons outlined in his letter attached to the staff
report(CMR:255:97). The applicant asked that the Zoning
Administrator’s denial be overturned and the fence be allowed to
exist as constructed. The Planning Commission heard the item on
April 30, 1997, and recommended the original denial be upheld and
the appeal be denied.
Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian said the Planning Commission
agreed with the Zoning Administrator’s denial. Lack of awareness
of a fence ordinance was not sufficient grounds for granting the
variance, and the fence as proposed by the applicant as a safety
measure was not necessarily so in that police information indicated
fences in some cases could create safety hazards. Also, there were
very few fences along the same area of Embarcadero Road, which was
a scenic route.
Council Member Schneider asked whether the particular area had any
more accidents, incidents, etc., which would require a fence of that
size.
Mr. Ojakian said that had been his question at the Planning Commission
meeting. Ms. Grote had advised him that she had checked with the
Police Department, and there had not been any extraordinary number
of incidents with regard to that area.
The applicant was not present at the meeting. The Council requested
that staff call the applicant. The applicant was not available.
J. Sheridan, 1732 Middlefield Road, spoke against the variance.
The real issue was the traffic on Embarcadero Road. People were
driving too fast, and there had been some discussion with respect
to raising the speed limits to legitimize those speeds. The staff
report (CMR:255:97) substantiated the need to reduce speeds and calm
the traffic down. Otherwise, the City would be seeing many requests
to build that type of fence along streets such as Embarcadero and
Middlefield Roads. He hoped traffic calming would be the solution
to the problem.
05/19/97 −221
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
approve the staff and Planning Commission recommendation that the
City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator
denial, in accordance with the proposed Findings:
Findings for Denial of Variance 96-V-26
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 the parcel
is a flat, 6,160-square-foot, mid-block parcel surrounded by
other flat, mid-block parcels of similar size and shape. All
parcels along Embarcadero Road are subject to the same heavy
vehicular and pedestrian traffic to which this parcel is
subject;
2. The granting of the application is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or
unnecessary hardship in that there is ample open space at the
rear of the parcel for private yard area and a six-foot high
fence could be located in front of the house at the allowed
16-foot setback, which would result in private yard area in
the front as well. There are alternative methods for providing
safety and security of single-family sites rather than building
six-foot high fences within front setbacks. Denial of the
variance does not result in the loss of private, secure, safe
dwelling units.
3. The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity in that it would
create a “walled-off” visual impact on the site and would result
in the visual separation of this site and house from surrounding
houses and the neighborhood, which is contrary to Comprehensive
Plan policies as expressed in the R-1 Single-Family Design
Guidelines.
Council Member Schneider believed that when the previous
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) was written, the traffic on
Embarcadero Road and general activity in the area was far less than
it was currently, and the construction of a fortress would have been
the design least desired by any resident regardless of where he/she
lived. Many people moved from areas where guarded, fortress-type
structures and communities were normal because people were trying
to create a sense of community where none had previously existed.
Palo Alto prided itself on its sense of community and the safety
that was felt by most by being good neighbors. Isolation, which
the fortress-type fence promoted, did the opposite. She was
sympathetic to the applicant’s concerns and the desire to provide
05/19/97 −222
safety in what was perceived to be a dangerous setting. The facts,
however, did not support that notion. Additionally, she was
concerned that the fence was built without the benefit of a variance,
and the cinder block material used detracted from the scenic quality
of the Embarcadero Corridor. She tried but was unable to make the
necessary findings and would support upholding the Zoning
Administrator’s decision to deny the appeal.
Council Member Rosenbaum said there were many properties which used
scrubs as a wall, and he asked whether that was allowable.
Ms. Grote said shrubbery was not regulated the same way fences were.
Council Member Rosenbaum confirmed that one solution for the family
might be to plant shrubbery which could grow six to eight feet in
height.
Ms. Grote said that was correct.
Council Member Kniss thanked Ms. Grote for doing such a thorough
report.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown absent.
13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a
Request for approval to rezone a property located at 390 Lytton
Avenue from CD-C(P) to a PC District to construct a
18,921-square-foot, 3-story office building. Environmental
Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration approved on
October 18, 1996.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning
Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 390
Lytton Avenue from CD-C(P) to PC
MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
continue the item to the July 14, 1997, City Council meeting.
Mayor Huber announced that Council Member Schneider could not
participate on the item due to a conflict of interest.
MOTION 6-0, Schneider “not participating,” Fazzino, McCown absent.
COUNCIL MATTERS
14. Council Members Wheeler and Eakins re Consideration of Palo
Alto Municipal Code Amendments to Stop Sunday Construction
Noise
05/19/97 −223
Council Member Wheeler said the word “limit” should more
appropriately replace “stop” with respect to what the Council was
trying to accomplish. The last several applications for residential
developments which had gone before the Council and were multi-family
housing or groups of single-family houses had already been before
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) or the Planning Commission.
The projects had been conditioned to not allow construction
activities on Sundays. Where the board or commission failed to do
so, the Council would amend the conditions so construction would
not be allowed on Sunday. She was attempting to keep the Council
from making those amendments on an ad hoc basis. The ordinance
should be amended to make it clear that home construction in
residential areas should not take place on Sundays.
Many people were at home only one or two days a week and looked forward
to some peace and quiet during that time at home. To have the sound
of construction-related equipment all day on Sunday was intrusive,
especially when it occurred week after week. It was not her intent
to stop someone from doing a one-time project in the back yard or
to stop the City Public Works Department crews from effecting
emergency repairs which might occasionally occur on a Sunday. Those
were things that were accomplished in one or two weekends. The type
of noise she was referring to related to larger projects that were
implemented by commercial establishments and continued for weeks.
She realized accomplishing that limit would not be as simple as
she originally thought. Therefore, the direction to staff should
be to ask not only various City departments for input but also people
who worked in the construction industry.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, to direct
staff and the City Attorney to propose modifications to the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to limit Sunday construction in residential
zones. Further, that staff solicit the comments of local
construction professionals before returning to Council, with a view
toward developing amendments that are as consistent as possible with
the needs of business and residents.
Council Member Eakins supported Council Member Wheeler’s comments,
including the direction that there be some common sense applied and
that the limit on Sunday construction would not include unobtrusive
interior projects or finishing work. It was difficult to
distinguish between homeowner and commercial. She wanted the
Council to find a way to assure residents of at least one day on
the weekend to be relatively peaceful without the noise from cement
trucks, back-end loaders, etc.
Council Member Rosenbaum said coincidentally the City of Menlo Park
was having a study session on May 27, 1997, and the agenda item was
Discussion of Draft Noise Ordinance. He read from some material
he had received pertaining to the agenda item. “Under previous
05/19/97 −224
discussion regarding adoption of a noise ordinance, on March 1, 1989,
the City Council considered an ordinance to limit the hours of
construction for all construction activities in the City of Menlo
Park. A main reason for considering an ordinance limiting the hours
of construction was to limit early morning, evening, and weekend
noise. The proposed ordinance was not adopted.” On July 9 and 23,
1991, an ordinance was proposed and again not adopted. The reasoning
was that the proposed ordinance was to limit hours of construction
which was very controversial. Contractors and businesses
performing construction and activities in Menlo Park were concerned
about having stringent regulations. A key sentence was “Some
homeowners were in favor of the ordinance and others had concerns
about placing limitations on the rights of homeowners to work on
their homes.” The majority of the City Council chose not adopt the
1989 and 1991 proposed ordinances. The City of Menlo Park was again
proposing an ordinance. Under the category Construction Activities
was “Residents/property owners personally undertaking construction
activities to maintain or improve their property on Saturday, Sunday,
or City recognized holidays may work between the hours of 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m.” A likely situation might be someone who worked during
the week and wanted to add a room to his/her house, which left only
Saturdays and Sundays available to work on the addition. He asked
Council Member Wheeler for her views on that.
Council Member Wheeler said she did not have the answers that evening
which was partially why the direction was for staff to solicit
comments. Her preference was if a distinction could be drawn between
a project that a homeowner would undertake and a project a homeowner
would hire someone else to do. The problem might arise when the
Council discussed how that would be enforced. There was some
dichotomy between her intention, her desire, and what might make
sense in terms of returning in ordinance form. She wanted to afford
staff the ability to have that discussion.
Council Member Rosenbaum believed it was an important distinction
to make, and the Council had to be careful with ordinances of that
sort.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne did not believe that distinction could
not be made, but it might neither be rational nor get at what was
being addressed. The Council might just be looking for work done
by a single person on a home improvement project. With the motion,
he understood from Council Member Wheeler that the City would have
the flexibility to take a look at some of the alternatives and make
some recommendations rather than immediately jump on the idea that
the homeowner was different from a contractor. He understood the
sentiment of Menlo Park, and he did not have any real concern that
there was a legal issue.
05/19/97 −225
City Manager June Fleming believed it was best for staff to look
and see exactly what was enforceable. She did not think it would
be well served for the police to settle a dispute as to who was an
owner or a contractor. If noise were the problem, noise was noise
no matter how it was generated. It was whether or not people had
options. There were City crews who did work on weekends which were
noisy and not an emergency, but given traffic conditions, etc., there
was no other time to accomplish the work. The broader Council could
be in its direction to staff, the better. She clarified that the
Council was trying to protect residential areas. Sometimes there
was construction that caused a disturbance in a residential area
because of the close proximity.
Council Member Wheeler said the City Manager was correct.
Council Member Kniss clarified that Council Members Wheeler and
Eakins were asking staff to look at modifications to limit
construction.
Council Member Wheeler said that was correct. The request was for
staff to look at the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and to return
to the Council with recommendations, or if not so clear-cut, some
policy alternatives. The Council could do what Menlo Park was doing
and decide whether or not to make some choices.
Council Member Kniss thought the item should be referred to the
appropriate Standing Committee. She appreciated Council Member
Rosenbaum’s doing his homework. Someone had also asked her about
Saturday, in addition to Sunday. The person indicated that he/she
slept in on Saturday and got up early on Sunday, which put another
twist on the issue. It was tricky, and she realized that if someone
took out a home loan and was attempting to live elsewhere until the
home was finished, that person would try to get the work done as
quickly as possible. If someone were being contracted to do it and
the contract indicated work could be done on the weekends within
reasonable hours, then that was another argument. She admired the
referral and thought it would be an interesting one.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke in favor of the motion with
clarifications on the effect on residential neighborhoods. Often
construction projects that affected residents were from commercial
areas which were closer to higher density residential areas, and
the projects continued on for longer periods of time. For clarity,
he suggested deleting the word “residential” or qualifing it as
“affecting residential neighborhoods.”
Council Member Wheeler asked whether staff understood by the
discussion that the broader context was intended.
05/19/97 −226
Ms. Fleming said yes.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown absent.
15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to
reagendize the Conceptual Approval of Long-Term Council Chambers
Improvements to a date to be determined by staff.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown absent.
Vice Mayor Andersen requested that staff agendize prescreening
applications by the Council for PC zones that involved an increase
of square footage.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:25 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.