Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-21 City Council Summary Minutes 07/21/97 −46 Regular Meeting July 21, 1997 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................84-48 APPROVAL OF MINUTES.........................................84-48 1. Request of Property Owners of Tract 840 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for the Charleston Meadows 2 Neighborhood - Refer to Planning Commission............84-48 2. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Mountain View for Emergency Animal Control and Sheltering Services84-48 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Consolidated Engineering Laboratories for Soils and Material Testing84-48 4. Application for Approval of a Final Subdivision Map to Consolidate a 9.2-acre Property Owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Into a Single Parcel, with Associated Requests for Approvals of Related Agreements and of Modifications to Housing and Plan Checking Fees for Property Located at 795 El Camino Real (continued from 7/14/97)..........................84-48 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the appeal of the Zoning Administrator approval of a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) application for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family house on a substandard lot located at 1022 Webster Street.........84-50 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the proposed construction of a new, detached single-family dwelling on an existing vacant flag lot parcel of 2.6 acres for property located at 920 Laurel Glen.............................84-59 7. Golf Course Master Improvement Plan Construction and Financing 84-64 8. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.08.050 of Chapter 2.08 [Officers and Departments] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize the City Manager 07/21/97 −47 to Prescribe and Enforce Regulations for the Public Use of City Buildings and Other Facilities.........................84-70 9. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 2.04.370 and 2.04.380 of Chapter 2.40 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Council Salaries and Expense Allowances to be Effective January 1, 1998..............................84-70 10. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting the Women’s Cup 1999 Organizing Committee, Inc. Bid for the 1999 Women’s World Cup to be in the San Francisco Bay Area84-71 11. Mayor Huber and Vice Mayor Andersen re Referral of MPACT Sand Hill Road Initiative to the City Manager and City Attorney for a Report on Planning and Legal Issues..................84-73 12. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........84-75 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m..............84-75 07/21/97 −48 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:06 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins (arrived at 7:07 p.m.), Fazzino (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic responsibility (letter on file in the Clerk’s Office). T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding reducing nonemployee use of government housing and needs for employee parking. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of April 22, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 3. 1. Request of Property Owners of Tract 840 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for the Charleston Meadows 2 Neighborhood - Refer to Planning Commission 2. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Mountain View for Emergency Animal Control and Sheltering Services Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Los Altos for Emergency Animal Control and Sheltering Services 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Consolidated Engineering Laboratories for Soils and Material Testing MOTION PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. Application for Approval of a Final Subdivision Map to Consolidate a 9.2-acre Property Owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Into a Single Parcel, with Associated Requests for Approvals of Related Agreements and of Modifications to Housing and Plan Checking Fees for Property Located at 795 El Camino Real (continued from 7/14/97) 07/21/97 −49 Construction and Maintenance Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation--Urban Lane Project Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Subdivider Under Provisions of Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code 795 El Camino Real (Improvement and Maintenance Agreement) Palo Alto, California--Tract No. 8985 Deferred Parking Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation for Health Care, Research and Education--795 El Camino Real Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble noted with regard to the Subdivision Improvement and Maintenance Agreement, Attachment D in the staff report (CMR:328:97), that Exhibit A was inadvertently not included. Exhibit A was an Engineer’s Estimate which detailed the numbers that added up to the bond amount approved by the Public Works Department. A fully executed copy of the Urban Lane Construction and Maintenance Agreement, Attachment F, had been received from the other parties to the agreement and was ready for Council approval that evening. Additionally, the Council was asked, as part of the approval to the agreement, to authorize the Mayor to execute a short-form Memorandum of Agreement, to be recorded. The Joint Powers Board had made the request which staff believed was appropriate. Council Member McCown said she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest due to her employment. Council Member Schneider asked whether the request from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) to reimburse the City for the inspector was in exchange for building permit fees. Ms. Cauble said yes. Staff was asking Council to set a time for consideration of the request and staff would have a full report in September when the item returned to Council. The request was based on the fact that the large project really justified a separate inspector and would be fully cost recovered. The PAMF, therefore, was asking that the ordinary fee be reduced somewhat to avoid a double fee. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak. He declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to 1) approve the final subdivision map; 2) approve the related agreements; 3) set a hearing for the September 22, 1997, City Council meeting for consideration of modification to the housing mitigation fee ordinance; and 4) set a hearing for the September 22, 1997, City 07/21/97 −50 Council meeting for consideration of modifications to the Inspection Services fee schedule as it pertains to Plan Check Fees and applicants’ funding of on-site inspectors for large projects. Further, that the Mayor be authorized to sign a memorandum of agreement to be recorded pursuant to the Joint Powers Board’s recommendation. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown “not participating.” PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the appeal of the Zoning Administrator approval of a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) application for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family house on a substandard lot located at 1022 Webster Street with the following exceptions: 1) a total height of 22 feet, to match existing, where 17 feet and one habitable floor is the maximum ordinarily allowed; 2) an 8-foot clearance for a driveway to future covered parking where 10-foot clearance is otherwise required; and 3) provision of two uncovered parking spaces where one covered and one uncovered space are otherwise required. Mayor Huber said he had a letter from the appellant, Mary Connors, (letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office) which indicated she would not be present that evening and reiterated her objection to the zoning variance on the subject property. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said since the appellant was not present, the public hearing should be opened, public testimony and any other evidence heard, and the Council should then make its decision. Council Member Rosenbaum said the applicant had requested a fee waiver for the variance and asked staff to comment. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said staff had recommended against the fee waiver for the variance. A fee would have been charged for the variance if staff had known a variance was required at the time. When a request came up in the future, a public hearing was still needed, notices were prepared, and a staff decision was required; therefore, there was not justification for a waiver. Mr. Calonne added there was no structure in place for the Council to waive the fee. Code amendments would be needed to assure that fee waivers were handled rationally. The Council would need to provide direction to staff to look at code revisions if it chose to waive fees. Council Member Fazzino questioned the claim that staff had incorrectly processed the application thereby creating additional 07/21/97 −51 headaches for the applicant, i.e., increased the cost or extended the time period for the application to go through the City process. Assuming staff had handled the application inappropriately, he asked whether that would change the circumstances. Mr. Calonne said yes. If that were the case, a City claim could be filed and the fee waived; however, that was not his understanding of the facts. The variance was an alternative to building covered parking, and the application was actually unusual in that the City was allowing a period of time to have the covered parking constructed or to seek a variance. Council Member Schneider clarified the first Home Exception Improvement (HIE) application had been for no covered parking. When the HIE went to the Planning Commission, it was discovered that a variance was needed. She asked if a second fee had been charged when the applicant returned with the second HIE. Ms. Grote said there was an initial HIE application which was denied for a variety of reasons and which included a covered parking space. Part of the issue was whether the covered parking space would be a garage or a carport. There were other reasons summarized in the staff report (CMR:336:97) to deny the initial HIE application, mostly having to do with the incompatibility of the addition with the original structure. Rather than appealing the denial, the applicant met several times with the Historic Preservation Architect and other staff members and decided the best way to move forward was to make a second HIE application which incorporated responses to the reasons raised in the initial denial. The second HIE application did not include any covered parking but had two uncovered parking spaces at the rear of the site plus a number of other changes. The second HIE was approved, that HIE was appealed, and that HIE went to the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission hearing, it was determined that the two uncovered parking spaces could not be approved through the HIE process. If the applicant desired to have two uncovered spaces rather than one covered and one uncovered, a variance would be required. At that time, the condition was added that there should be covered parking provided within 24 months of completion of the approved addition. Council Member Schneider asked whether the applicant would have been required to apply for the HIE had she known from the beginning that a variance was required. Ms. Grote said the applicant could have wrapped the HIE request into the variance request. Council Member Schneider asked what the fees would have been in that case. 07/21/97 −52 Ms. Grote said $900, the variance fee at that time. Mr. Calonne said an applicant needed to make a strategic call when applying for a variance. As the Council was aware, standards for issuing a variance were far stricter than for an HIE; it was difficult to reconstruct what someone might have done. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Carina Rossner, 1022 Webster Street, said she had gone through many steps and compromises to reach the current design and was requesting the Council approve the majority of the HIE already approved by staff and the Planning Commission. She noted there were no negative impacts on neighboring properties after having made over 20 revisions to the plans in response to the neighbors’ and the City’s concerns. She wanted to move ahead with construction as the architect’s fees had tripled and she was faced with building during the winter instead of spring. She noted the first plan had parking and had been approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) which said the plan was architecturally integral. Instead of bringing the issue to Council at that time, money was spent for another set of plans which allowed for rear, detached parking for the future, even though the applicant would need to not put the parking there in order to use the space as a play area for her children. She worked with former Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle and Preservation Architect Barbara Judy on the new plan and was advised the project could be done with an HIE. She filed for the HIE, paid an additional $367, moved through the process, and received the necessary approvals. At that time, a neighbor filed the appeal. At the Planning Commission hearing, she was made aware of the variance process and additional $1000-plus fees to waive the parking requirement within the next two years. She believed the City needed “to make good” on fixing its mistakes and asked the Council to either grant the parking exception in the original HIE; or waive the fees; or, at the very least, ask for the difference between the fees already paid and the variance fee required at the time. Marc Rossner, 1022 Webster Street, reiterated the amount of hard work it took to comply with the changes and expressed his frustration over being misguided. He noted the two uncovered parking spaces had been one of the least objectionable concerns by neighbors during the initial HIE application. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Schneider asked whether it was possible to grant the parking exception from the original HIE or was the applicant forced to apply for a variance. 07/21/97 −53 Ms. Grote said it was not possible to grant an exception from the first HIE; it was an entirely different application. Council Member Schneider confirmed the applicant would either have to apply for a variance or provide covered parking within 24 months. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval, in accordance with the proposed Findings and Conditions. These Findings and Conditions modify the original Zoning Administrator approval in that they add the requirement to provide a covered, on-site parking space within 24 months of finishing the construction of the addition. Further that the Council reduce the variance fee to what the application fee was for the HIE. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR 97-HIE-7 AT 1022 WEBSTER STREET 1. There are 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 site is substandard in terms of size and width (4,500 square feet rather than the 6,000 square foot minimum required in the R-1 Zoning district and 45 feet in width rather than the 50 foot minimum required to be standard in the zoning category). In addition, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) determined that the existing house is a “Contributing Structure” according to the “Interim Historic Regulations”. The size of the lot coupled with the placement and historic nature of the existing house limit the potential locations for additional square footage; 2. The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of this chapter in that the proposed modifications are consistent with the architectural style and simplicity of the original structure. The height of the second-floor addition will match the height of the existing partial second-floor and will maintain the “widows walk” over the original portion of the house. The massing of the second-story addition is consistent with the small scale of the original structure and the provision of one on-site covered parking space within 24 months of completion of the approved addition, will add two uncovered parking spaces at the back of the site allow room for a future one-car covered parking space, which is a traditional element of houses built during the early 20th century. In addition, the project has been found to be in substantial compliance with the Compatibility Review Standards for the Interim Historic Program. As conditioned below, this HIE will 07/21/97 −54 be valid and time-lines for obtaining building permits shall begin once the project complies with the remaining details of the Compatibility Review (see Condition 2 below); and 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the project does not include daylight plane intrusions or floor area overages. Dormers have been reduced to approximately half the size of a typical dormer and include small windows at approximately six feet above floor height. The use of these dormers reduces the visibility into neighboring yards and retains the privacy of these yards. The project as conditioned below, will also provide additional screen planting on the site along the north and west property lines (see Condition 3 below), which will further protect the privacy on neighboring properties. The parking lay-out includes two uncovered off-street parking spaces and will provide one provides the opportunity for one of the uncovered spaces to become a covered space within 24 months of completion of the approved addition in the future. PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR 97-HIE-7 AT 1022 WEBSTER STREET 1. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with plans received April 28, 1997, on file in the office of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. 2. Approval of this HIE application shall be considered valid and time-lines for obtaining building permits shall begin once the City of Palo Alto Preservation Architect for the Interim Historic Program determines that the project complies with the Compatibility Review Standards for Contributing Structures (see File No. 97-HRB-98). 3. Screen landscaping, including trees and shrubs, shall be planted and maintained along the north and west property lines. Plant material shall be the choice of the property owner. 4. The two trees in the public right-of-way and any private trees to be retained on site shall be protected during construction of the project as stated in the associated Compatibility Review (see Sections 1.D and 1.E - Street Trees and Public Right of Way and Landscaping, respectively, in file 97-HRB-98). 5. Caution shall be used during demolition of the existing garage on-site to prevent damage to existing oaks on the adjacent property to the west of the site (see Section 1.E - Landscaping - in the associated Compatibility Review, file 97-HRB-98). 07/21/97 −55 6. All construction shall comply with the City of Palo Alto Noise standards as stated in Chapter 9.10, Noise, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Specifically, as stated in these standards, demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the following hours: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday and holidays. All other applicable sections of Chapter 9.10 also apply to this project. 7. One covered on-site parking space shall be provided within 24 months of the completion of the approved addition. Mr. Calonne said the Council did not have authority to take the proposed action. If the Council wanted to waive fees, Council direction to staff to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) would be required. Council Member Schneider clarified the Council had no recourse to allow some relief for the applicants. Mr. Calonne said no. Recourse could not be based on an individual request but on an ordinance that set up rules which could be applied evenhandedly to each applicant who fit the criteria. The Council had authority to establish a system for fee waivers, but such authority did not currently exist either in the Municipal Fee Schedule or in the PAMC for the Council to handle ad hoc requests for fee waivers. Council Member McCown clarified that had the applicant been apprised that the covered parking space issue required a variance when the HIE was originally filed and the applicant applied for a variance at that point, the fee would have been effective as of that date rather than the current fee. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said yes. Council Member McCown believed the intent of the motion was not to waive the fee but to accept the covered parking space issue as presented in the HIE as an application for a variance. She asked whether the Council could accept that aspect of the application as a variance application, with the appropriate fee paid, effective the date it was filed. Mr. Calonne believed the facts did not support that. The application in front of the Council that evening did not compel the applicants to seek a variance. Council Member McCown confirmed the City had processed the request for two uncovered parking spaces as a part of the HIE until it went to the Planning Commission where the error was uncovered. She asked 07/21/97 −56 why the error of processing could not be corrected and rolled back to the fee structure at the time. Mr. Calonne clarified the question was whether the Council could authorize an application for a variance under the old fee structure. He said if the applicants wanted to indicate that they were treating the issue as an application for a variance, the Council could instruct staff to accept the fee which was applicable last April. Council Member McCown agreed it would be the applicants’ decision as to whether they would request the current application be deemed a variance as of last April and pay the $900 fee. INCORPORATION RESTATED that the City Council reduce the variance fee to what the application fee was when the HIE was applied for in April 1997, if the applicant should apply. Council Member Kniss had been the Historic Resources Board (HRB) Council liaison during the past year and said the process seemed awkward. She acknowledged the impact of the Interim Regulations for Historic Preservation and a number of staff changes and asked whether staff believed a smoother process was currently in place so the community would not feel a sense of angst or discomfort as the City moved forward. Mr. Calonne asked the Council to keep in mind that the project under discussion was an expansion of a property on a substandard lot and in any zoning structure, would be a difficult process. Without making excuses for mistakes on the part of staff, he noted the project was a custom-tailored, custom-fitted type of project in the best of circumstances. Council Member Kniss was sympathetic. Because the community was having difficulty understanding it, many phone calls and letters had been received, and she needed to be able to talk about and defend that which had been done. She believed it was important to have clarity and to be able to define the process. Having acknowledged that perhaps there was a “bump” in the process, she asked staff for reassurance. She was familiar with the property and its being substandard; however, she was asking about process. Mr. Calonne was respectful and sensitive to the Council’s obligations to the public. There would always be a balance between certainty and what an entity could do with its property and flexibility. In any process, as one moved toward flexibility, the cost of the process went up. Last fall, the Council tried to come up with relatively administerial staff guidelines for the Historic Compatibility Review and, in trying to cut a middle path, perhaps erred closer toward staff discretion, less process, and easier application. The Council had grappled with fairness of case-by-case flexibility and its 07/21/97 −57 process costs versus the certainty of absolute rules and their potential unfairness and having the process be as easy as possible. He believed the issue was a legitimate one, but one which would always be there. The issue was where to draw the balance. Council Member Kniss did not disagree; however, she queried how the process was going currently and what changes might be made in the future. Mr. Schreiber said a request for a six-month extension of the Interim Regulations to match the historic work still needing completion would be brought to Council in the future. The Interim Regulations process had been a “live and learn” experience. Last fall, the process to put the package together had been a frantic one. The mistake within the process was the sense that within the historic compatibility framework, an HIE could be used to grant an exception for the parking; further analysis of the staff report for the Planning Commission uncovered that could not be done. The process was getting better as staff learned the nuances and anticipated questions and problems. As the City became more involved in single-family design review issues whether they were historic or not, and more flexibility was desired, situations would arise with other combinations of factors that created confusion for people. Regarding the flexibility versus certainty issue, staff wanted to provide flexibility; however, flexibility would lead to more situations like the current one. Council Member Kniss appreciated the answer. The City tried to have both a sense of certainty and flexibility, which had not been easy. The community was in a state of flux in many areas. She did not believe the problem was with the “bump” in the process; the problem was if there was not an acknowledgment that there was a “bump.” Council Member Fazzino supported the motion and believed the amendment addressed the issue of fairness. He would have preferred to do more in the area of a waiver; however, he agreed with the City Attorney that the legal authority to waive a fee did not currently exist. The issue needed to be addressed in the future, but he believed the approach suggested by Council Member Schneider was the right one. He commended the owners of the property for offering a plan which provided them and the City with a structure that was consistent with the historic flavor of the neighborhood. Council Member Eakins supported the HIE and the use of the earlier date for the fee. She asked why the parking space issue had been included in paragraph 2, Attachment 1, of the staff report (CMR:336:97). Ms. Grote said the wording in italics stated “...provision of one on-site covered parking space within 24 months of completion of the 07/21/97 −58 approved addition, will add a traditional element of houses built during the early 20th century.” and was a reflection of the Planning Commission’s discussion on how much time should be allowed for the applicant to supply the covered parking or apply for the variance. Council Member Eakins clarified the applicants needed to indicate that evening whether they would apply for the variance. Mr. Calonne said no. Council Member Eakins queried whether a time limit would be included to use the earlier fee schedule. Mayor Huber assumed it would be consistent with the 24 months included by the Planning Commission. Council Member Eakins said when she visited the house, she noticed a 100-year-old plaque. She believed no one had a garage 100 years ago because people had stables for their horses. She queried when a garage or covered parking space became a requirement. Ms. Grote thought the garage was built in the 1940s or 1950s. If the house were an existing house and never had parking, it could have gone through many additions and/or alterations without triggering the need for parking. The only time the parking requirement would be triggered was if the house were torn down and a completely new house were built. Council Member Eakins asked based on that, why the parking was being required currently. Ms. Grote said once a house had an existing garage, it could not be removed. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that if applicant chooses to proceed with the variance, the City Council “back date” to charges for variance at the rate in effect at the time the HIE was filed for in April 1997. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the proposed construction of a new, detached single-family dwelling on an existing vacant flag lot parcel of 2.6 acres for property located at 920 Laurel Glen. The dwelling will consist of 5,220 square feet with a 3-car garage, swimming pool and exterior decks. Contract Planner Jerry Haag said the proposed project was a 5,220 square-foot single-family residence on an existing 2.6-acre lot at the foothills. The lot was created in 1979 as part of a cluster 07/21/97 −59 open space subdivision of 10 lots, 9 lots being residential. The Planning Commission reviewed the application on June 25, 1997, and recommended Council approval. Major issues addressed by the Planning Commission included sites of the proposed house from nearby open space areas, use of native plant material for revegetation, the amount of impervious surface to be built on the site, and grading. A Negative Declaration and Site and Design application were recommended for approval. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Pamela Brule, Anderson Brule Architects, 160 W. Santa Clara Street, San Jose, the project architect, said a three-dimensional model and color board were available for viewing. The building was located in a cluster of homes not visible from any public roadways. The development was partially visible from the Arastradero Preserve and was built below the view line of an oak tree forest. The home was built to curve around the hillside and was made of three distinct elements, more village-like than a large massing of home. No one elevation faced any one direction. The house was built with all natural color materials using shades of brown and tan. Meetings with the neighbors were held to discuss how the house would affect them and the open space side. The house was cut into the hill to reduce its height, and the neighbors were pleased with its location. Earth was left on-site to minimize how much was removed. The largest impervious surface was the pool area and was located in the natural, flattest area of the site. Because the lot was a flag lot, the drive up to the house was long and was the reason the impervious amounts were as large as they were. John Aldrich, Landscape Architect, worked with the architect, civil engineer, and neighbors in siting the house so the house would have the least impact on neighbors’ and off-site views. The house was dug into the hill to minimize the effect of seeing it over the ridge and faced the open space. Two meetings were held with the Palo Alto Fire Department to discuss the issue of fire trucks getting in and out of the site. As a result of those meetings, because of the steepness of the driveway, and to preserve trees, the driveway design was a circular loop. Natural planting materials were used to the extent possible so the house would sit on the site without disturbance, i.e., oaks and natural chaparral taken out would be replanted in front of the house. Council Member Schneider asked what materials would be used on the driveway. Mr. Aldrich said interlocking paving stones were planned because of the steepness of the driveway and for minimal impact on the trees. 07/21/97 −60 Council Member Schneider noticed the use of blacktop in the area and was pleased other materials were being used. Council Member Wheeler said a large portion of the house was protected from the open space view because of the existing oak trees and planting and asked whether that would be continued to further minimize the views from the open space area. Mr. Aldrich said no, because natural landscaping was desired. The oak trees were located where the side of the hill faced more north than east and grew naturally. Chaparral and gooseberries grew more toward the west, so planting oak trees in that location would be unnatural. Plans existed for planting landscaping to hide small retaining walls, etc. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the key issues in the application were the amount of impervious coverage and the views from the Arastradero Preserve. The most recent plans, dated July 10, 1997, after the date of the Planning Commission meeting, showed if the entire flag lot were impervious coverage, the lot would exceed the allowable amount by 3,018 square feet, which was about the size of the footprint of the house. Either a variance was needed for the project, or something needed to be reduced. He believed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) assessment should have treated it as a variance at the same time. Otherwise, as was the case with other parcels in the open space zone where variances were submitted in piecemeal fashion for more impervious coverage, the project would receive minor site and design review and bypass public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council unless someone paid an appeal fee. At one point, the applicant was about to apply for a variance, and he expected that would occur in the future in order to obtain the total amount of impervious coverage that the plans showed. It was clear the applicant’s intent was to pave the flag pole with impervious coverage. Piecemeal variances set a precedence in the open space zone. Each square foot of extra impervious coverage allowed over the maximum could yield two extra square feet of floor area. State planning law treated open space zoning differently than other zoning. Normally, state law gave cities and counties maximum flexibility in zoning; however, in the open space zone, the variances had to be treated literally and strictly enforced so as to protect the public interest including the preservation and conservation of open space land. The amount of impervious space coverage would be greater if the project conformed to the Fire Department’s open space foothills development guide which required a 20-foot-wide driveway so that arriving fire trucks and evacuating vehicles could be on the driveway at the same time. Condition 12 on page 2 of Attachment 2 of the staff report (CMR:331:97)required the project to conform to the Uniform Fire Code. The applicant’s presentation said nothing about the width of the driveway, and there was no indication from the Fire Department 07/21/97 −61 indicating agreement with the 14-foot-wide driveway. The amount of impervious coverage was directly related to how much gross floor area there was, which was directly related to how much the house had to be screened from the open space preserve. The Open Space Design Guild lines made it clear that the public view must be preserved. Council Member McCown said page 5, Attachment 3, of the staff report (CMR:331:97), stated... “the impervious surface for the lot of 14,442 square feet, including the house footprint, driveway and terrace, pool and deck area....” She queried whether the 14,442 square feet was a correct figure or was it more likely 17,000 square feet. Mr. Borock said testimony by Ms. Brule indicated paving stones were needed in the flag pole portion, and 3,018 feet of the 3,570-square-foot flag pole portion could not be impervious in order to meet the 14,442 square feet. The question was whether the entire flag pole portion or 85 percent of it would not have paving stones. Council Member McCown clarified that Mr. Borock believed that 14,442 square feet which was within the maximum allowed was not the correct calculation for what was impervious in the plans. Mr. Borock said either it was not the correct current calculation or would not become the correct calculation in a piecemeal variance in the future. The record was vague as to whether or not the applicant would or would not pave the entire driveway with paving stones. Council Member McCown asked for clarification from staff on what the correct evaluation was of the impervious surface requirement and how the plans measured up. Mr. Haag said the project was considered an open space cluster subdivision where a normal lot size was 10 acres. Because it was a cluster, the applicant was allowed the smaller lot size of 2.6 acres and to count the impervious surface at 3.5 percent of the 10-acre lot size, which resulted in the 14,442-square-foot calculation. Council Member McCown clarified the issue was whether the driveway, which was shown as contributing 7,088 square feet of impervious surface, was the correct calculation of the amount of driveway square footage. Ms. Grote said yes. The driveway was not the entire pole portion; it was a 14-foot width which had been included in the impervious space calculation. Council Member McCown clarified that the Conditions of Approval would limit the width of the actual impervious surface to the 14-foot width. 07/21/97 −62 Ms. Grote said that was correct. Mr. Schreiber confirmed that the Fire Department had reviewed and approved the driveway width and configuration. Vice Mayor Andersen wanted assurance that there would be no future request for more surfacing. Mr. Aldrich said there would be no future request. Mr. Haag said approximately two month prior, staff calculated the 14,442 square feet listed in the staff report (CMR:331:97). Mr. Schreiber noted the plans submitted by the applicant listed 14,442 square feet of impervious surface including the various areas that counted toward the total. Council Member Eakins confirmed the loop driveway and car turnaround represented the 7,088 square feet and asked how long the flag pole portion was. Mr. Aldrich said it was over 200 feet. Council Member Eakins clarified the 2,800 square feet, which represented the difference between the 14,422 and 17,000 square feet. Council Member McCown said, referring to the plans, that sheet L1 mentioned by Mr. Aldrich contained different numbers than those mentioned by Mr. Schreiber. The total 7,088 square-foot figure was described as the driveway, fire truck turnaround, garage backup space, and an additional 3,570 square-foot driveway in the pole portion of the flag lot. She clarified the length of the driveway as it came through the pole portion was an additional 3,000 square feet to the 7,088 square feet and was over the 15,000 square-foot total for the lot. Mr. Aldrich said that was correct. City Manager June Fleming was uncomfortable with proceeding further. Based upon the confusion in the various calculations, she respectfully requested to continue the item. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue the Public Hearing to Monday, July 28, 1997. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. Council Member McCown noted maps had not been included in some recent staff reports which usually showed how parcels related to other 07/21/97 −63 things. She personally found the maps useful. Additionally, she found herself having to delve into the staff report to find out who the applicant and appellant were. Since she had to be aware of potential conflicts of interest, it would be helpful to have that information on the front page in the Executive Summary. Ms. Fleming said staff was in the process of reviewing CMR procedures and would take Council Member McCown’s comments into consideration during the process. ORDINANCES 7. Golf Course Master Improvement Plan Construction and Financing Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation and to Amend the Municipal Fee Schedule for the Golf Course Improvements Capital Improvements Project, Number 19624 Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Municipal Golf Course Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said the Golf Course Master Improvement Plan (MIP) was approved by Council in May 1995. Since that time, staff from the Parks and Golf Division, the Public Works Department, and the Administrative Services Department had put together both a construction and financing program. The construction program addressed most of the pressing issues on the golf course including irrigation. Staff was recommending that the project be funded through bonds with a payback in 20 years of approximately $600 to $650 thousand per year. Staff believed a $5 million project could be supported by revenue from the golf course which dictated the size of the project. Once construction was completed, green fees would be raised to cover the increased costs and provide additional cash flow for any future capital projects. Even with the projected increase, the green fees would place the golf course at the average for green fees in the Bay Area. Staff requested Council approval of the MIP. Vice Mayor Andersen said a portion of the project had been set aside in order to stay within financial limits and asked what the cost projections were for the excluded items and when they would become a part of the MIP. He referred to page 3 of 13 of the staff report (CMR:327:97), “Certain independent elements, including a storm reservoir, improvements to parking lot, including a bike path and entrance road, and an irrigation storm lake adjacent to fairway 18, have been excluded from the proposed project and may be implemented when funds become available.” 07/21/97 −64 Mr. Thiltgen said the total original cost of the project was $8 million which had been scaled back to $5.4 million. A breakdown on how the exclusions would be handled was included on page 11 of 13 of the staff report(CMR:327:97). Another change based on the recent tax law changes was that the tenants were not able to spend bond funds for tenant improvements which included the restaurant and pro shop. Any improvements would be passed on to the tenants as part of their contract with the City. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified $3 million of the original proposal was not included in the item before Council that evening. Mr. Thiltgen said that was correct. Vice Mayor Andersen asked what the projected time line was to complete the entire MIP. Mr. Thiltgen said some of the work would be done in the next fiscal year as part of the top-dressing program as proposed in the MIP and included fairways and areas not covered in the capital program. Other projects would need to wait until the year 2001 or 2002 as it would take 6 or 7 years to obtain sufficient revenues to cover the projects. Activities that could be completed using staff at a lesser cost than projected on a contract basis would be done sooner. Vice Mayor Andersen confirmed monies from the General Fund were not being used. Mr. Thiltgen said the intent was for the golf course to pay all of the construction costs. Vice Mayor Andersen said better drainage was a desired outcome of the project, although he had heard the land was not capable of draining as a result of its location. He asked staff for assurance that the project would result in a golf course that drained more effectively. Mr. Thiltgen said when the project was initially finished, resultant fairways and playing surfaces would be drained and available during the winter months. Water might still remain in the rough areas until the retention lake was built next to the 6th fairway, which was one of the excluded projects to be done at a later date. The fairways were being raised above the water level, and drainage pipes would be included in the rough areas which would drain some of the water off the course. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that with an annual debt service of $600,000 to $650,000, assuming approximately 100,000 rounds of golf a year were played, would seem to support debt service fees 07/21/97 −65 going up $6. He asked whether that was affordable and average that of similar courses. Mr. Thiltgen said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum confirmed the City was approximately $6 below that of other courses. Mr. Thiltgen said the City was currently below the average and had purposefully held back on some of the green fees because of the condition of the course. Once the course construction was completed, the fees would return to the average. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the fees were currently more than $6 below the average. Mr. Thiltgen said that was correct on the weekends and $3 below the average on weekdays. Council Member Rosenbaum asked what the explanation was for the $600,000 based on being $3 below on weekdays and $6 below on weekends. Mr. Thiltgen said the actual fee increase was going from $26 to $35, for an increase of $9. Council Member Rosenbaum said the staff report (CMR:327:97) was unclear as to the type of bond being used and asked whether it was a revenue bond or a certificate of participation. Manager of Investments and Debt, Administrative Services Department James Steele said another term for certificates of participation was a lease revenue bond and was distinct and completely different from, for example, a utility revenue bond in which the bond was directly paid for by the revenues of the utility customers. If a revenue bond were used, project revenues from a golf course were more problematic than from utility customers; therefore, interest rates would be higher. Certificates of participation were a more cost-effective way to finance the project. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified it was a lease revenue bond. The fact that it would pay for a golf course which generated revenue was not material and was a General Fund obligation. Mr. Steele said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum believed the bond issuance cost of $400,000 was high and asked if that was the figure the financial advisor was estimating the costs were likely to be. 07/21/97 −66 Mr. Steele said the figure was a conservative estimate based on uncertainties such as interest rates. A more prudent estimate would be $100,000 for underwriter costs and another $160,000 for the remainder of the issuance costs. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the expectation was for the issuance costs to be less than $400,000, but staff had built in the extra amount for other contingencies. Mr. Steele said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum asked if the item would return to the Finance Committee or the Council before the bonds were issued to review the actual costs. Mr. Steele said the debt package would return to Council for approval. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the package would include firm estimates of the costs. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said the package would contain firmer estimates on issuance costs, a closer range of the total cost of the project, and what the amount of bonded indebtedness would be. Council Member Rosenbaum asked how confident staff was that $5.4 million was an accurate projection. Mr. Thiltgen said staff had been careful with the numbers and believed the figure was accurate. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether it would be a problem if bids were received which were significantly higher. Mr. Thiltgen said the project was being bid in such a way that parts of the project could either be deleted or added. Council Member Eakins asked whether the green fees were the same for both residents and nonresidents. Mr. Thiltgen said residents were given an opportunity for preferential starting times, but there was no differential in fees. Council Member Eakins asked whether there was a philosophy about that. Mr. Thiltgen said the golf course was viewed as a revenue-producing facility that paid for itself and anyone who used the course should pay an equal amount. Youths and senior residents received specials rates. 07/21/97 −67 Council Member Eakins asked whether drainage from the airport was ever a problem. Mr. Thiltgen said no. Council Member Eakins could not find anything in the staff report (CMR:327:97) regarding a piece of sculpture to be installed at the entrance to the golf course. Mr. Thiltgen said the sculpture was part of the long-range plans. Council Member Eakins clarified whether there was a commitment to install Betty Gold’s sculpture. Mr. Thiltgen said there was a commitment to install a sculpture. Council Member Schneider asked what the projected numbers were for increased usage. Mr. Thiltgen anticipated growth. Currently, usage was approximately 90,000 rounds and was the number used to project future revenue. Staff anticipated returning to 100,000 rounds. Included in the staff report (CMR:327:97) was an anticipated drop in usage over the next three years which had been projected into the revenues as well. Jim Mayer, 2025 California Avenue No. 33, Vice-President, Citizens Golf Advisory Committee; Member, Board of Directors, Palo Alto Golf Club, said both organizations strongly supported and recommended approval of the funding. Although disappointed the funds would not cover the entire cost of the MIP, they understood the recommendation was realistic at that time. Speaking on behalf of Al Sunderquist, President, Citizens Golf Advisory Committee, he said Council’s approval of the MIP would be a dream come true. He asked that the project be given a high priority as the 1998 construction schedule was ambitious and needed 100 percent support from all parties involved. It was important for the course to be ready for play in March 1999 to generate revenue for the City, the pro shop, and restaurant, and for the golfing public who would have been waiting patiently during the 1 to 1-1/2 years of construction. Council Member Wheeler said despite the condition of the course and the fact revenues were dropping, her family had difficulty getting a starting time on Mondays. It was time for the project to proceed. She hoped by the time she retired from the Council, the course would afford her the opportunity to take golf lessons. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to: 07/21/97 −68 1) Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance to appropriate an additional $5.4 million to the existing capital improvement project 19624, “Golf Course Improvements” to fund construction costs. Funding will come out of bond proceeds, anticipated to be issued in spring of 1998, when the major construction occurs. Repayment of the bonds will come from golf revenues. The driving range work will begin this fall, with the contract for the remainder of the work to be awarded by January 1998. 2) Direct staff to pursue issuance of revenue bonds to fund the project. The timing of the sale will depend on interest rates and the actual cash outlays for project construction. Estimated bond proceeds, to cover construction costs, design costs already incurred, issuance costs, and a debt service reserve fund as part of the financing, will total approximately $7.4 million. The final amount issued will depend on the bond rating the City receives and the actual interest rates in effect when the bonds are sold. 3) Approve the amendment to the Municipal Fee Schedule. 4) Approve and adopt the Park Improvement Ordinance and Plan for the improvements to the Municipal Golf Course. Ordinance 4435 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation and to Amend the Municipal Fee Schedule for the Golf Course Improvements Capital Improvements Project, Number 19624" Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Municipal Golf Course” MOTION PASSED 9-0. 8. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.08.050 of Chapter 2.08 [Officers and Departments] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize the City Manager to Prescribe and Enforce Regulations for the Public Use of City Buildings and Other Facilities City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the ordinance was long overdue and would authorize the City Manager to enact regulations on how people needed to conduct themselves in City facilities. MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to introduce the Ordinance. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.08.050 of Chapter 2.08 07/21/97 −69 [Officers and Departments] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize the City Manager to Prescribe and Enforce Regulations for the Public Use of City Buildings and Other Facilities” MOTION PASSED 9-0. 9. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 2.04.370 and 2.04.380 of Chapter 2.04 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Council Salaries and Expense Allowances to be Effective January 1, 1998 City Attorney Ariel Calonne had been concerned the 5 percent escalator provision in the Government Code was not included in the City’s Charter amendment. The ordinance attached to his staff report dated July 17, 1997, showed the issue had been resolved by former City Attorney Roy Abrahms in 1980. He was comfortable with the 5 percent proposal and the $831 maximum. He was not sure whether expenses needed to be included in the salary and believed expenses could be calculated separately. MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to introduce the Ordinance. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 2.04.370 and 2.04.380 of Chapter 2.40 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Council Salaries and Expense Allowances to be Effective January 1, 1998" MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting the Women’s Cup 1999 Organizing Committee, Inc. Bid for the 1999 Women’s World Cup to be in the San Francisco Bay Area Council Member Fazzino served on the San Jose Sports Authority (SJSA) whose objective was to bring sporting events to Silicon Valley, Palo Alto, and primarily San Jose. The SJSA had worked cooperatively with Stanford University to use Stanford Stadium as a venue for major events. He emphasized the SJSA not only worked to bring events like the World Track and Field Championships and Women’s World Cup to the area, but devoted a tremendous amount of time to youth activities by bringing the United States Junior Track and Field Championships to the area. The area had a tremendous opportunity to be one of the hosts for the 1999 Women’s World Cup Soccer. Women’s World Cup Soccer began in 1991 in China. In 1995, the event was held in Norway and would be held in the United States in 1999. SJSA, in 07/21/97 −70 concert with Stanford University and San Jose State, had submitted a bid for some of the 1999 soccer matches. The plan was for Spartan Stadium in San Jose to host a number of first-round, double-header matches. Stanford Stadium would be used as a site for a first-round, U.S. match, as well as the possibility of a semi-final match. There was a great deal of excitement surrounding women’s soccer in the Country. Soccer was a growing sport, and the real excitement of the Women’s World Cup coming to the area in 1999 was that the area had been a growing “hot bed” for women’s sports over the past few years, i.e., the Stanford’s Women’s Basketball program and American Basketball League. Stanford and San Jose had submitted a bid to host some of the games for 1999. Palo Alto was being asked as a city to participate in the effort by working cooperatively with both SJSA and Stanford if the area was chosen as a site. A final decision had not been made although the Stanford/San Jose bid was considered one of the strongest. The resolution before the Council called for support of the bid and, if the area were chosen, to help provide services for the games. Reimbursement would be provided for any City services, i.e., public works, police, etc. He was supportive of the resolution. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7700 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting the Women’s Cup 1999 Organizing Committee, Inc. Bid for the 1999 Women’s World Cup to be in the San Francisco Bay Area” Council Member Wheeler said it was clear from recent history that women’s soccer was quite an attraction as evidenced by the large crowds when the visiting U.S. team played at Spartan Stadium. There was active involvement by girls and women in recreational soccer leagues in the area, one of the few areas in the country which continued to foster growth and competition among young women who were interested beyond their ability to play for organized college teams. The Palo Alto area recently sent a team to the national tournament for the women over 30s. Those were the first young girls who played NAYSO Soccer back in the 1960s. She recalled when the World Cup Men’s games were played at Stanford Stadium and would like the chance to repeat the happy times. She supported the resolution. Council Member Eakins asked what the City could do to protect the neighborhoods nearest the venue from the heavy impacts, i.e., Southgate and Downtown North. Normal activities were impacted when a major athletic event took place at Stanford. Council Member Fazzino recalled the City planned well for the 1994 Men’s World Cup Games. There had been publicity encouraging people 07/21/97 −71 to take alternative forms of transportation to work, Palo Alto reserve officers were out controlling the crowd, and things proceeded smoothly. However, the U.S./Costa Rica World Cup qualifying match had not gone as well. CalTrans had not done a good job working with other agencies to address traffic circulation issues. With proper planning and publicity, any significant traffic circulation and neighborhood impacts could be addressed. Ms. Fleming agreed with Council Member Fazzino. Staff planned so thoroughly that special routes to accommodate expectant mothers were implemented during the 1994 games. The recent December experience was due to the lack of cooperation to provide signs on Highway 101 indicating where people should exit to attend the games. Staff would work with Stanford and CalTrans to correct that. Additionally, staff would communicate with neighborhoods in order to accommodate special needs. Council Member Kniss said there was an inherent cost involved and recalled a discrepancy about who would incur that cost during the 1994 games. Ms. Fleming said there was a disputed amount that the City incurred; however, most of the commitment was kept. Staff had been careful with the current resolution to avoid a recurrence. Council Member Kniss did not believe it offset the possibilities or the excitement, but the reality was it was not totally without cost to the City. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 11. Mayor Huber and Vice Mayor Andersen re Referral of MPACT Sand Hill Road Initiative to the City Manager and City Attorney for a Report on Planning and Legal Issues Council Member Wheeler asked when the report would be available to the Council and the public. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the expectation would be concurrent with when folks were writing ballot arguments. City Clerk Gloria Young said the resolutions calling for the elections would be brought to Council on August 4, 1997. A certificate of sufficiency for the MPACT Sand Hill Road Initiative was received that day from the Registrar of Voters. She would bring that item before the Council on July 28, 1997, to request action on whether the Council would adopt the initiative or place it before the voters. She would expect the City Attorney’s report to be ready at that time. The argument procedure was August 8-18, 1997, and the rebuttals were from August 18-28, 1997. 07/21/97 −72 Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, supported the proposal for a report and was pleased it would be available before the Council vacation. He suggested the Council ensure that certain questions were answered because of their importance to the Council and interested members of the public. If the Council chose against enacting the initiative and exercised its ministerial duty to place it on the ballot, the question was whether a writ of mandate was appropriate to remove the initiative from the ballot if the essence of the initiative were things not appropriate for the initiative process. There were two main purposes for the initiative: 1) creating a policy for the field between Sand Hill Road and San Francisquito Creek that was irreconcilable with the Council-adopted ordinance for placing housing there, which seemed to be Council’s implementation of a state mandated duty of providing housing for low- and moderate-income families and persons; and 2) the initiative would mandate the Sand Hill Road extension, making it a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan had to have internal consistency. The Council had already indicated that the upcoming Comprehensive Plan would have an implementation section and would be implemented through the budget process, which was a Council prerogative. There was a nexus between mandating an extension of Sand Hill Road in the initiative, internal consistency of a plan that would have an implementation section, and implementing that by making budgetary decisions of whether money should go to transportation and how those transportation dollars should be allocated. There was also the question that the initiative required zoning code consistency with the initiative. Whereas, in general law and charter cities and counties that required consistency, it was consistency of the zoning code with the entire comprehensive plan, not just treating the particular sections that were added by the initiative. He provided background information regarding the subject of initiative and cited cases in which an initiative attempted to create parkland where a city or board of supervisors had wanted to put something else as implementing state policy, and creating an irreconcilable conflict in the same way Council’s ordinance appeared to create an irreconcilable conflict. In those cases, the courts ruled it was not a subject for an initiative. The issue of the Sand Hill Road extension that was mandated in the initiative said the current Comprehensive Plan was internally consistent with that. However, there was a history of actions on what the next Comprehensive Plan was going to be which would create the budget conflict. He looked forward to seeing the items returned to the Council for everyone’s review. MOTION: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to direct the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare a report on the MPACT Sand Hill Road Initiative covering the following matters: 07/21/97 −73 1) An explanation of planning impacts, with particular focus on the effect of the measure on the recently approved Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects. 2) An explanation of legal impacts, including restrictions upon the ability of the City Council to react to changed environmental, land use or other circumstances. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 12. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Huber acknowledged the tragic death of Fire Engineer Gary Petretto who died on Saturday, July 19, 1997. He is survived by his wife Cindy, who is expecting another child, and three-year-old daughter Alaina. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. in memory of Fire Engineer Gary Petretto, who served seven years as a Firefighter/Paramedic and subsequently Fire Engineer with the Palo Alto Fire Department. 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.