Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-09 City Council Summary Minutes 06/09/97 −338 Special Meeting June 9, 1997 SPECIAL MEETINGS...........................................83-340 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission..........83-340 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.............83-340 1. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Dr. Linda Miller Upon Her Retirement..83-341 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................83-341 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 3 AND 10, 1997................83-341 2. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending in Full Chapter 4.54 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Massage - Refer to the Policy and Services Committee ......................................................83-342 3. Ordinance 4421 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“.................................................83-342 4. CLOSED SESSION: Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation............................................83-342 5. PUBLIC HEARING: University Avenue Parking District Boundary Change ..............................................83-342 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to designate a pre-1940 residence located at 828 Ramona Street as a Contributing Residence pursuant to Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code..............................83-344 06/09/97 −339 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board to approve a proposal for a trash/recycling enclosure for the Creekside Inn located at 3400 El Camino Real..........83-350 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider improvements to the public space in the University Avenue Downtown core area bounded by Alma Street and Middlefield Road, Lytton Avenue, and Hamilton Avenue....................83-351 9. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Establishment and Operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to be a Prohibited Use Under the Zoning Ordinance, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately ......................................................83-351 10. Mayor Huber and Council Member Wheeler re Formation of Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee to Develop Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects Election Options......................................83-353 11. Mayor Huber re Cancellation of the June 16, 1997, City Council Meeting...............................................83-354 ADJOURNMENT TO A CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 8:45 p.m...................................83-354 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. .....83-354 06/09/97 −340 06/09/97 −341 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:16 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Andersen, Kniss SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission No action taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. 06/09/97 −342 Regular Meeting June 9, 1997 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Andersen, Kniss SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Dr. Linda Miller Upon Her Retirement MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7672 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Dr. Linda Miller Upon Her Retirement” MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Kniss absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, 36866 Crum Court, Newark, spoke regarding transportation eastward across the Dumbarton Bridge. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the fettered press. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 3 AND 10, 1997 MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of March 3, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Kniss absent. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of March 10, 1997, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Kniss absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 and 3. 06/09/97 −343 2. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending in Full Chapter 4.54 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Massage - Refer to the Policy and Services Committee 3. Ordinance 4421 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“ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Kniss absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. CLOSED SESSION: Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Patricia Babcock v. City of Palo Alto, et al., SCC No. CV 760187 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: University Avenue Parking District Boundary Change Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the resolution deleting territory from the University Avenue Parking District. Resolution 7673 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining to Delete Territory from the University Avenue Parking District” MOTION PASSED 6-0, Schneider “not participating,” Andersen, Kniss absent. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolutions Regarding Assessments for University Avenue and California Avenue Area Parking Bonds Plan G for Fiscal Year 1997-1998 Senior Engineer James Harrington advised that the Assessment Roll was given to the City Clerk in mid-May, and since that time staff 06/09/97 −344 had investigated a number of issues. The ones that resulted in changes were shown in Exhibit C of the staff report (CMR:275:97). Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to 1) adopt the resolutions regarding assessments for University Avenue and California Avenue Area Parking Bonds Plan G for Fiscal Year 1997-98. Resolution 7674 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer’s Report and Assessment Roll for California Avenue Off-Street Parking Project No. 71-63 (for Fiscal Year 1997-98)” Resolution 7675 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer’s Report and Assessment Roll for California Avenue Keystone Lot Parking Project No. 86-01 (for Fiscal Year 1997-98)” Resolution 7676 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer’s Report and Assessment Roll for California Avenue Parking Project No. 92-13 (for Fiscal Year 1997-98)” Resolution 7677 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer’s Report and Assessment Roll for University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Project No. 75-63 (for Fiscal Year 1997-98)” Resolution 7678 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer’s Report and Assessment Roll for the University Avenue Projects (Lot J Refunding and 250 University Avenue Acquisition) (Fiscal Year 1997-98)” MOTION PASSED 6-0, Schneider “not participating,” Andersen, Kniss absent. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to designate a pre-1940 residence located at 828 Ramona Street as a Contributing Residence pursuant to Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Council Member Fazzino referred to the letter from Harold Justman, paraphrased in the staff analysis, which mentioned a significant concern of the property owner had to do with the cost of review. Given the backlog of the first few months and the frustration experienced by many residents regarding the new process, he 06/09/97 −345 appreciated the concerns about delay and bureaucratic process. He asked that staff provide the Council with some indication as to how quickly and how costly it would be to process the application for Contributing Residence through the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and staff. Preservation Architect Barbara Judy said it would take three weeks to complete compatibility review on individual applications. Most applicants had submitted the same construction drawings that they had submitted to the Building Department for permit review. Council Member Fazzino asked how quickly plans would be analyzed and heard by the HRB if the applicant were to bring them in following week. Ms. Judy clarified the plans would be reviewed by staff only, and there would be no hearing with the HRB. Three weeks after submittal, the applicant would receive a response. If the applicant did not comply with all the requirements of the compatibility review standards, he/she would have to resubmit. The time line would become the applicant’s charge. Council Member Fazzino asked if an appeal would go to the HRB. Ms. Judy responded that an appeal would go to the Director of Planning and Community Environment or his designee. Council Member Fazzino asked if the applicant appealed the Director’s recommendation, whether it would go to the HRB and finally the Council. Ms. Judy responded it would not go anywhere. Council Member Fazzino stated it was the intent of the Council to move as many of these projects to the staff as possible, but he did not recall any provision in the ordinance to allow for a final appeal from staff. City Manager June Fleming said the ordinance would have to be checked. City Attorney Ariel Calonne did not believe there was an appeal from the staff decision. Council Member Fazzino said his intent was to better understand how the process would work over the next few weeks, particularly if the Council decided to support the staff’s recommendation, in light of the concerns raised by the applicant. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. 06/09/97 −346 Harold Justman, 715 Ashby Drive, said in June 1996, Norma Justman bought 828 Ramona with the hope of rehabilitating the house in order to make it an attractive rental home for a family. He was not able to obtain insurance on the property unless he promised the insurance company that the house would be remodeled because it was not fit for a family to live in. A local architect was hired to do the remodel and add two bedrooms to a second story. The HRB process was initiated and was time consuming and expensive. First was a historic merit screening process in which a design professional was required to prepare a site plan and existing floor plan. In May 1997, the insurance company decided not to renew the insurance on the property. With the delay associated with the permit process, the HRB insisted that 828 Ramona be subjected to more procedures, including a compatibility review process. Thousands of dollars had been spent on paperwork, and the justification was the HRB position that 828 Ramona was a Contributing Residence. The standards for historic designation defined Contributing Residence as buildings, groups of buildings, structures, objects or sites that related to and supported the historic character of a neighborhood grouping or district. The neighborhood character of the 800 block of Ramona included parking lots across the street from the property, a deteriorating church, and no original residential structures. The HRB process would be great if it would focus on significant, beautiful homes that needed to be saved, but to capture every old, little house in the process would destroy affordable remodeling in Palo Alto. Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, said she was astounded to read that the house at 828 Ramona had a Contributing status, and the architectural description lavishly identified the house as a vernacular Victorian cottage. To her astonishment, the dictionary described vernacular as an architectural style. She agreed with Mr. Justman that there was no neighborhood. Attempts had been made to remodel the house, but it had been stalled by the desire of the HRB to make it a symbol of the working class neighborhood. Mayor Huber had raised the question a few weeks prior about what was being saved when the issue of the Fife Street house came up. She did not believe the intent of the historic review was to perpetrate the elaborate review of little houses whose owners were long gone. Larick Hill, Architect, 884 Portola Road, Portola Valley, spoke regarding the status of a Contributing structure. The twelve page document he received from the City was for a project which had three aluminum windows that were added during the 1950s, and the owner wanted to replace those with windows that matched what were the original windows. He had been working on the project for four months. A small addition in the back might raise the roof a foot which would barely be seen. The process was out of control. Council Member McCown asked if the house did not receive the Contributing designation and, therefore, not have to meet the 06/09/97 −347 compatibility guidelines, whether there was an option for the property owner to scrap the house and build a new one. Mr. Justman did not want to do that because remodeling the existing house would preserve the 10-foot setback from the sidewalk where the present code required a 20-foot setback. In the downtown residential area, the 10-foot setback was more attractive than having the house drop back 20 feet. The structure next door, 820 Ramona, was a cinder block commercial building that was 17 feet tall. Council Member McCown asked what would have to be done, under the City’s codes, to maintain the 10-foot setback. Mr. Justman said he would have to remodel, not tear down the house. Council Member McCown clarified that if the Council agreed with what Mr. Justman was asking, there would be no ability to hold him to remodeling versus knocking the house down and starting over. Historic Resources Board Member Dennis Backlund said the HRB had a certain jurisdiction in the interim historic program to designate houses as Contributing landmark or of no historic merit. There were certain things that other levels of the City could do that the HRB could not, one of which was to consider the condition of the house. The HRB was not supposed to consider the nature of the proposed project for the site but merely what the house currently was. The HRB found the house to be a late nineteenth century house with alterations that lay within the period of historic significance, and basic massing and style were mostly original. Therefore, under the jurisdiction the HRB was charged with, it gave the property a Contributing status. Mr. Justman said many people were in fear of the process. It created anger and hostility because many of the people caught in the process wanted to do the right thing. The City made remodeling unaffordable in the City of Palo Alto. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Wheeler said Mr. Justman had invited the Council to visit the property and she did. She presented four groupings of photos of the house and surrounding environments. The first group were pictures of the house. The second was historic properties around the block bounded by Ramona Street, Homer Avenue, Emerson Street, and Channing Avenue. The third set showed the two immediately adjacent residential properties that Mr. Justman alluded to, and the fourth set was property in the 900 block of Ramona Street. The staff report was was done, and the case was well made. The finding of the structure as a Contributing structure indicated that the HRB and the Council, if it upheld the HRB decision, supported the historic character of the neighborhood grouping and district. She thought 06/09/97 −348 that 828 Ramona Street resembled most of the properties surrounding it and contributed to the historic character of the neighborhood. The other item that the staff report did not mention, but was important for Council consideration, was that the Council, the previous week, took steps to enter into a coordinated area planning process to study that neighborhood. It would be evolving and changing during the next couple of years. What was not in conformance currently with the neighborhood character, as Mr. Justman pointed out, was the parking lots which were not doomed to be parking lots and possibly would be developed in the future in a way that was compatible with neighborhood surroundings. The City had, as part of deliberations with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, a condition of the development agreement which protected the historic structures that the City owned until determinations were made about the future of the area. It was appropriate to apply the same standards to other neighbors in that neighborhood. The Contributing status that was suggested would allow significant modification to or demolition of the structure and would assure that what replaced the structure or what would be added to the structure would be in keeping with the neighborhood and its historic routes. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing re-opened for the purpose of Mr. Justman’s response to the photographs which were introduced by Council Member Wheeler. Mr. Justman said that the photos showed commercial buildings surrounding the property. Regarding potential for the future of the neighborhood, the HRB had said that some day the parking lots might be gone and something nice might be there. These comments disturbed him. The idea was that the house was Contributing if it contributed to the existing neighborhood, not a future neighborhood. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the staff recommendation that the City Council uphold the decision of the Historic Resources Board and Director to designate the residence at 828 Ramona as a Contributing Residence, based on the following findings: FINDINGS 1. The residence satisfies Criterion 4 for determining historic significance. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction that is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the City. The structure is particularly representative of a vernacular Victorian cottage architectural style residence. Vernacular Victorian cottages are important to the City because they are an expression of Palo Alto’s history, which included residents of modest means who resided 06/09/97 −349 in appropriately-scaled houses such as these cottages. In this context, 828 Ramona is an unusually good example of a Victorian cottage, as it was among the first residences constructed in Palo Alto, and initially housed the family of Albert Jory, a stonecutter engaged in construction of Stanford Memorial Church. The subsequent history of the 800 Ramona block, and of 828 Ramona, was representative of the experience of blue collar residents of Palo Alto in this century. 2. The residence fits the category of Contributing Residence. The residence in its scale, style and setting supports the historic character of its neighborhood grouping and district. The style and setting of vernacular Victorian cottage residences related to the more substantial Victorian residences also built in Palo Alto at this time. The cottage scale imparts a unique character to the neighborhoods in which these residences occur. In this context, 828 Ramona is a good example of a Contributing Residence, as the majority of the alterations it has experienced are pre-1940 alterations that fall within its period of significance. The presence of Palo Alto Japanese American residents ties it to the cultural and historical currents affecting the 700 and 800 blocks of Ramona. Architecturally, this residence relates to the period structures along Homer, Emerson, Channing, and adjacent Ramona Street blocks and contributes to that period context. Mr. Calonne clarified that there was no administrative appeal following a staff compatibility review decision. Council Member Eakins said she also walked the neighborhood and was appreciative of the line of three houses on Ramona. The historic buildings that housed commercial enterprises had changed their contents over the years, but the charming street scape remained. There was a modern advertising agency inside the City of Paris, but the City of Paris letters were still there. There was fragility about a district that could be lost, and each piece removed weakened the fabric. There was a need to do this for all the parts of a district in order to maintain its character. To criticize that house as being a shack and perhaps too commonplace to be valuable was to ignore the contribution it made to the character and period that it represented. She did not know how a shack would be rehabbed by a simple remodel. There was an inconsistency in that argument that troubled her. The ten-foot setback should be preserved but in a way that respected the character. One of the houses on Emerson Street that was similar to one on Ramona Street was next door to a replacement house with a bulky garage sticking out front. In order for the districts to maintain character and continuity, replacement or remodeled structures would need to be compatible. Council Member Rosenbaum commented on the “vernacular folk Victorian”; the more complete definition was a style of architecture 06/09/97 −350 exemplifying the commonest techniques, decorative features and materials of a particular historic period, region, or group of people. He suggested that it might be a description applied to buildings currently being built that people took offense to. The style was too weak to fall under the classification and not a house to look at from the standpoint of historic preservation. Council Member Fazzino asked the City Attorney about the appeal process. If the applicant went through the appeals process, was not satisfied with the decision of the HRB or the Planning Director, and and convinced an individual Council Member that the process was not working, he asked if the Council Member could place the item on a Council agenda and remove the house from the Contributing Residence category. Mr. Calonne answered no. Council Member Fazzino struggled with the issue because the house was in tremendous need of work and financial resources to rehabilitate it. It conjured up wonderful images of a very different Palo Alto during the early part of the century, but it was not precisely the home he had in mind when the Council first discussed the demolition moratorium a few months prior. He understood Mr. Justman’s, Mr. Hill’s, and Ms. Begle’s frustrations with the process, but he would have been more receptive to the concerns addressed if Mr. Justman and Mr. Hill had been forced to go through the process and had still felt as irritated as they did at the current meeting. Council Member McCown said the situation illustrated the difficulty of mixing together two different policy goals that were not always consistent with each other. Having looked at the house and read the information about it, she was unable to agree that it should qualify as a Contributing structure. The compatibility review process might be appropriate when a house was torn down and it was not known what would replace it. There was an argument to be made that the future of the block face would be determined by how the site was redeveloped. She said the Council had to assume in making decisions that the property owner could pursue any of the options legally available to him or her. The Council had to make decisions based on any of the range of things that could happen as a consequence of Council action. She was unable to make the Contributing structure conclusion. Council Member Schneider mentioned the businesses, including Whole Foods and St. Michael’s Alley, that had made a change in the architecture. There was a very distinctive element in that neighborhood that she believed needed to be retained. One of the things she found interesting about the findings, in view of Mr. Justman’s comments about wanting to provide affordable housing, was that the neighborhood was a good example of housing for people of 06/09/97 −351 modest means. That lent credibility to the neighborhood and to the particular style. MOTION PASSED 4-3, Fazzino, McCown, Rosenbaum “no,” Andersen, Kniss absent. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board to approve a proposal for a trash/recycling enclosure for the Creekside Inn located at 3400 El Camino Real MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the item to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Kniss absent. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider improvements to the public space in the University Avenue Downtown core area bounded by Alma Street and Middlefield Road, Lytton Avenue, and Hamilton Avenue MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to continue the item to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Kniss absent. ORDINANCES 9. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Establishment and Operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to be a Prohibited Use Under the Zoning Ordinance, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said inquiries had been received from one individual about the process of opening a medical marijuana dispensary in Palo Alto. When staff read the language of the Proposition 215, staff became concerned because of its vagueness. Depending on whom staff talked to, the interpretations of some of the basic tenets of the Prop 215 were not clear, and there were various conflicts as far as what the interpretation would be. For example, there was a definition of primary care- giver in the proposition, but that interpretation was being discussed statewide. Because of the vagueness of the language, staff identified other concerns that were not included in the language of the Prop 215 such as issues regarding transportation of the marijuana, security precautions, and safety considerations for security, cultivation, and storage of marijuana. It also included concerns of actual consumption and use of the marijuana. Staff had requested additional time to study those issues because of their complexity and the various opinions on the language in the proposition. Also mentioned in the staff 06/09/97 −352 report (CMR:269:97) was pending legislation in Sacramento that, if passed, would address some concerns outlined in the staff report. City Attorney Ariel Calonne concluded that the existing zoning in the City would not permit a person to establish a sales office to sell marijuana for medicinal or other purposes. There had been notoriety about the urgency process with which San Jose developed regulations to permit medical marijuana vending. Staff felt there were far too many holes in Prop 215 to enable staff to make quality judgments about how to regulate sales. The alternative was to make a policy declaration that the City’s existing zoning would not permit medical marijuana sales. The text of Prop 215 would permit a patient or personal caregiver to cultivate and possess marijuana. The problems that San Jose and the District Attorney’s office had attempted to resolve or interpret were how a person would lawfully transport marijuana if it were being sold to patients and care- givers, how a person would lawfully acquire it, and how would a person would lawfully grow it. Prop 215 did not say how a third party, middle person vendor would lawfully sell it to a patient who needed it. Another piece of the ordinance said explicitly that the ordinance was not intended to preclude people from growing their own for personal use subject to a doctor’s prescription. Council Member Fazzino asked if the Council could be challenged by an individual who wanted to operate such a dispensary if the City did not allow any opportunity for that individual to locate in Palo Alto, even during an interim period. Mr. Calonne interpreted the existing zoning to permit a hospital or physician who was in lawful possession of marijuana to dispense it. There might be a challenge, but he did not believe there was any significant legal risk with the action. Council Member Schneider asked Ms. Johnson for clarification of the third paragraph in the Executive Summary (CMR:269:97), which said, “In addition to zoning regulations, the City may wish to adopt regulations administered by the Police Department as well.” Ms. Johnson said staff had looked at the regulations that the San Jose Police Department had imposed which addressed inventory control to ensure that the marijuana was actually being dispensed for medical purposes as opposed to entertainment or social uses. One of the security requirements was to make sure there was an alarm system on. Additionally, there was a requirement that had to do with keeping records of people who would dispense marijuana. Those were things the Police Department would look at. Christiane Cook remarked that the law said people could and should have marijuana for medical purposes. It was important to have marijuana around; because there were many patients who lived in Palo Alto because they were close to Stanford. She asked if marijuana 06/09/97 −353 were allowed, although it seemed people could not consume it on the spot or transport it, whether people who needed it cultivate it in their own house. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance specifically excluded cultivation or possession by a single patient or caregiver for medical use in accordance with the law, so cultivation with a prescription for use would not be affected by the ordinance. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt an urgency ordinance which declares that the City’s existing zoning regulations do not permit the establishment of medical marijuana establishments to give staff the time needed to study the issue in greater detail. Ordinance 4422 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Establishment and Operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to be a Prohibited Use Under the Zoning Ordinance, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately” MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Kniss absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Mayor Huber and Council Member Wheeler re Formation of Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee to Develop Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects Election Options Council Member Wheeler said several questions related to the election process that the Council would need to start giving answers to on June 30 included whether there would be a ballot measure, what the question to put to the voters was, and what role, if any, the Council would want to have in framing the arguments. It would be good to have some framework for decision making and perhaps some recommendations from a small committee to be able to have an orderly discussion on the subject on June 30. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the City Attorney had previously indicated to the Council some of the options the Council had in deciding how to frame whatever question might go on the ballot. Discussions on the possible extension of Sand Hill Road had gone on for ten years, so a little extra time would be worthwhile. The first issue was whether it would be a simple or complex question. The City Attorney indicated to the Council that the Council could tie the effectiveness of all the various resolutions and ordinances to the development agreement. The only advantage of having the Council place something on the ballot was that it would be on the November 1997 ballot. If the Council chose not to place the question 06/09/97 −354 on the ballot, the only way to get it on the ballot would be through a referendum process which would place it on the ballot sometime within the next two years. If a referendum were successful, the Council would have flexibility as to which election would have such a measure. There was talk from a citizens group, consisting of people from Menlo Park who lived across the creek from the proposed apartment project and residents from Palo Alto, who would be attempting to place on the ballot another version of the same measure. He was not sure whether there was opposition in that group. The best way to find out if there was opposition, was for the Council to take a position and, if it chose to adopt the project, give citizens the opportunity to referend it. He suggested a separate measure, or as part of the project approvals implementation of Transportation Policy 19 in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which was the policy that prohibited a connection of Sand Hill Road across El Camino Real to Palo Alto and Alma Street. Since it was an open question of what the courts would do, he believed the courts, based on recent case law, would require such a connection. Then it might be necessary to have a linkage to stop such a connection and have the projects go forward so the project would self-destruct. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to authorize and direct the Mayor to appoint an ad hoc, less-than-a-quorum subcommittee of Council Members to develop recommendations on election options, and report to Council by June 30, 1997. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Kniss absent. Mayor Huber appointed Council Members Fazzino, McCown, and Wheeler as the ad hoc committee. 11. Mayor Huber re Cancellation of the June 16, 1997, City Council Meeting MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to cancel the June 16, 1997, City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Kniss absent. ADJOURNMENT TO A CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 8:45 p.m. The City Council met in a Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 4. Mayor Huber announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 4. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 06/09/97 −355 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.