Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-01 City Council Summary Minutes 12/01/97 85-271 Regular Meeting December 1, 1997 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................85-273 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................85-273 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Wollborg/Michelson Personnel Services Inc. for Temporary Agency ServicesContract between the City of Palo Alto and Interim Personnel Service Inc. for Temporary Agency Services....................85-273 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Karleskint Crum, Inc. for Irrigation System Installation at Foothills Park 85-273 4. Ordinance 4465 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 675-695 El Camino Real/31 Wells Avenue From CS-Service Commercial to PC-Planned Community≅ ...85-274 5. Ordinance 4466 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of Property Collectively Known as >Blossom Park Unit 1 Tract 709' from R-1 to R-1(S)≅ .................85-274 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................85-274 5A. (Old Item 8) Resolution 7720 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Initiation and Implementation of the City of Palo Alto Direct Access Program≅Resolution 7721 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Rule and Regulation Number 19 of the Utility Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Direct Access≅ ...............................................85-274 12/01/97 85-272 5B. (Old Item No. 8A/Item No. 3) Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 18.04.030 and 18.88.020 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Carports≅ ....................85-283 5C. (Old Item 9) Request for Approval to Prepare a Request for Proposals for the Provision of Universal Telecommunications Service...............................................85-284 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the Zoning Administrator=s decision of a conditional use permit for the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and construction of one additional court and a park area, including restroom facilities, in a PF Zone District 85-285 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Palo Alto Medical Foundation request for the Urban Lane Palo Alto Medical Foundation Campus to 1) reduce or eliminate the Inspection Services Fee Schedule as it pertains to Plan Check Fees and on-site Building Inspectors, and 2) modify the Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance (Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code)..................................85-300 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........85-301 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m............85-301 12/01/97 85-273 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:11 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding Sand Hill Project waste and annihilation of the projects. Cathy S. Brandhorst, homeless, Little Orchard Shelter, San Jose, spoke regarding brutal attacks against the people of the United States. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding Colorado Avenue which had been referred to as an arterial rather than a local street. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the wayward press. Allen Calvin, 940 East Meadow Drive, spoke regarding the desire for a crosswalk in the 900 block of East Meadow Drive. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of October 6, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-5, with Item No. 3 removed. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Wollborg/Michelson Personnel Services Inc. for Temporary Agency Services Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Interim Personnel Service Inc. for Temporary Agency Services 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Karleskint Crum, Inc. for Irrigation System Installation at Foothills Park 4. Ordinance 4465 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification 12/01/97 85-274 of Property Known as 675-695 El Camino Real/31 Wells Avenue From CS-Service Commercial to PC-Planned Community≅ 5. Ordinance 4466 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of Property Collectively Known as >Blossom Park Unit 1 Tract 709' from R-1 to R-1(S)≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 3 would become Item No. 8A. Mayor Huber announced that he was setting special City Council Meetings on December 3 and December 6, 1997, for the purposes of participating in the workshops regarding the historic preservation ordinance. Mayor Huber announced a public report of the City Council closed session action on Monday, November 24, 1997, which was that the City Council authorized the City Attorney to participate in settlement of the existing litigation for Glenbrook Court, LLC v. Luo, et. al (City Attorney report submitted). MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, 1) to bring Item 8 forward to become Item No. 5A, 2) to bring Item No. 8A forward to become Item No. 5B, and 3) to bring Item No. 9 forward to become Item No. 5C. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 5A. (Old Item 8) Resolution 7720 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Initiation and Implementation of the City of Palo Alto Direct Access Program≅ Resolution 7721 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Rule and Regulation Number 19 of the Utility Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Direct Access≅ Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said in March 1997, the Council had approved three policies in response to deregulation of the electric utility industry. One policy was implemented in the current budget when rates were approved allowing recovery of the Electric Utility=s stranded investment while unbundling Palo Alto=s electric rates. To implement another access policy, staff had 12/01/97 85-275 initiated an intensive effort to develop the necessary plans, procedures, and agreements. The effort was carried out by a number of teams of individuals from the City Manager=s Office, Utilities Department, Administrative Services Department (ASD) and the City Attorney=s Office. Council approval of the plan in the staff report (CMR:460:97) would phase in direct access over a four-year period. Staff believed, as stated in March 1997, that although supply costs were low, Palo Alto residents and businesses should have the right to choose their energy supplier. Council Member Schneider asked about the fiscal impact mentioned on page 4 of the staff report (CMR:460:97) that the change was Αnot likely to have a negative impact on the electric utility=s financial resources,≅ such as the impact when stranded costs were paid. Mr. Mrizek said the stranded costs would pay down the Calaveras debt over a four-year period at the end of which time, in the year 2002, electric rates would decrease a certain percentage since the debt service would no longer have to be paid. Council Member Schneider asked whether staff had any indication about which major users, if any, the City was in jeopardy of losing to alternate providers. Mr. Mrizek said staff had spoken with all of the City=s major customers, all of whom had indicated a desire for choice. However, none had indicated a desire to receive energy from another marketer. Assistant Director of Utilities Tom Habashi said Mr. Mrizek was correct. Palo Alto had received no indication from any customers concerning a change. Two customers had signed national and regional contracts with other suppliers. A few customers requested direct access. Council Member Schneider asked about the percentage of revenues from the major users. Mr. Habashi said the large and small commercial sectors constituted 85 percent of the City=s revenue requirement on the electric side. Council Member Rosenbaum became aware of three Αthemes≅ over the past year, one of which had been expressed by staff about Palo Alto=s customers having the same right as customers of other suppliers to make a choice. The second theme was that the City expected no one to take advantage of the choice. For example, if a customer expressed a desire to go to another supplier, staff would 12/01/97 85-276 probably express the desire to talk to the customer to determine whether something could be worked out. The third theme was that the components of the service had been itemized, so everyone was charged for distribution, power, competitive transition charge, etc. If energy was priced at Palo Alto=s cost, he queried why the City would care whether a customer remained a Palo Alto customer or not and what the loss of a large customer would really mean to revenues. Mr. Mrizek said the theme that the City should allow its customers the same opportunities to select a supplier as anyone else in California was one which every utility in the State of California shared, whether a municipal or investor-owned utility, because of deregulation. However, municipal utilities had the same belief and customers had expressed the desire for choice. Secondly, Palo Alto=s supply rates were low, so it would probably not lose many customers. However, supply rates in the future were unknown compared with other marketers as deregulation continued. Customers should maintain the ability to make a choice. Although the loss of a customer would not result in a great loss of revenue since less energy would be purchased, Palo Alto wanted to remain competitive and provide top-level service for all of its customers, which made Palo Alto work harder to retain customers. If a customer presented the price of another marketer, staff would want to work to pursue the long-term contracts Council had approved with major customers. Staff vigorously pursued customers for long-term contracts to continue to provide full service. City Manager June Fleming agreed with Mr. Mrizek. Additionally, Palo Alto had been placed in a good position as a utility because of the careful and thoughtful decisions it had made. Nothing had been entered into casually. The issue would remain for some time and would require a great deal of thought, deliberation, and research before the City took a different path. Image was also very important. It was important for Palo Alto=s customers to see the Electric Utility as one which took thoughtful, deliberative processes, was competitive, and was not making decisions casually. Decisions had to be reviewed constantly. The decisions which had been made were the best for the utility at the current time. Although future decisions might change, each decision should be made in a thoughtful and deliberative manner. Council Member Wheeler asked why Palo Alto was one of the few publicly-owned utilities which provided its customers opportunities for direct access as of January 1998. Mr. Habashi said most municipal utilities were somewhat cautious. Since municipally-owned utilities were not required to comply by law, as investor-owned utilities were, the municipal utilities were 12/01/97 85-277 not moving ahead until others had gone through the experience first and had learned from it. Unlike Palo Alto, some were burdened with stranded investments and wanted to delay for as long as possible opening the doors because of concern about increased rates necessary to collect stranded assets. Mr. Mrizek said almost every municipally-owned utility in the State would be required to open their doors by the year 2000. Most of the municipal utilities would take action at that time. Council Member Wheeler asked about the adjustment in purchases to alleviate any fiscal impact in relation to the statement that if Palo Alto=s customers elected to go with another supplier, the utility would be required to act as a backup during an emergency should something go wrong with the supplier=s supply. She asked whether Palo Alto would be able to provide the emergency backup service and maintain sufficient power resources for Palo Alto=s current customers. Mr. Mrizek said Palo Alto currently purchased energy from a variety of marketers and resources, such as Western Area Power Association (Western), Calaveras, and the marketplace. As deregulation progressed, a rate would be established for companies returning to Palo Alto on a temporary basis. Staff=s goal was to regain the customer in the long-run. Palo Alto could go out on the marketplace to purchase energy on a daily basis to cover temporary companies. The fully operational power exchange would allow Palo Alto to obtain energy on an hourly basis. Council Member Wheeler clarified other emergencies would not endanger the City=s supply of energy to regular paying customers. Mr. Mrizek replied yes. Council Member Wheeler favorably noted the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) discussion raised by Commissioner Johnston regarding the reciprocal of Palo Alto allowing its customers going out and servicing outside the territory. The discussion had been very instructional. Utility Advisory Commission Chairperson James Sahagian said the industry was currently struggling to implement deregulation as of the January 1, 1998, deadline. Many industry experts questioned whether or not deregulation would actually take place during that time frame because of the various complications of transition. The competitive market would be totally different for the City. Traditionally, Palo Alto had operated as a regulated monopoly. The UAC had supported open access because it felt offering the 12/01/97 85-278 industrial and residential customers in Palo Alto a choice in terms of the electric power providers was the right thing to do. The support, which had been brought before Council some months prior, was predicated on a three-point plan which had come on the heels of a study indicating the utility would be managed better as a traditional, private-sector business as it moved from a municipal to private sector paradigm. One point of the plan involved recovery of the stranded investment so the utility would not be saddled with a debt without any means of recovery. The second point was opening access and the third point involved the opportunity to move outside the existing service territory as a way of obtaining competitively priced power as a counter-balance to any loss in the customer base which would occur as a result of moving into a competitive market. At the current time, the stranded costs recovery structure was at least materially in place. Open access, the third point which was before Council at the current meeting, provided the counter-balancing ability to move into the market outside the service territory to bring in other customers. A number of UAC Commissioners were concerned about the utility=s ability to actually obtain customers outside the service territory and that was something for which a clear understanding was desirable in order to grasp the kind of marketplace in which the utility would be operating. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Paul Johnston, 838 Mesa Court, said in March when the Council had approved the guidelines for moving to electric restructuring in Palo Alto, the intent had been to open the doors inside and also seek opportunities outside. Some of the opportunities were mentioned by staff, such as a business in Palo Alto operating facilities outside Palo Alto looking to have one supplier. Unfortunately, such accounts could not be serviced at the current time. Staff worked very diligently and successfully to prepare a plan to open the doors. Unfortunately, the other side of the equation had not been accomplished. Most of the issues were legal in nature. If the City made a mistake in the way it went about opening its doors, the customers and businesses should have the right to a free market place. If the City had known it was a one-way street and that it might ultimately lose customers, other choices could have been made, including selling off the power supply of the business and keeping the distribution side of the business. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the City cared whether it lost customers or not. If the City was really not concerned, an alliance could have been formed and rights sold to customers from which money could have been made. There were other alternatives to which the door was not closed. January 1, 1998, would not be the end of the topic of electric restructuring before Council. 12/01/97 85-279 Fred Eyerly, 101 Alma Street, supported the staff recommendation, resolutions, and agreements. Unfortunately, staff had been unable to complete the outside marketing of the utility which should not affect independent concerns about entering deregulation at the start of 1998. The wording on page 1 of the Resolution Approving the Initiation and Implementation of the Direct Access Program, attached to the staff report (CMR:460:97), in paragraph 4 stated Αthe City=s policy of funding the Calaveras Reserve to recoup the capital costs of this relatively uneconomic resource,≅ was of concern. Such wording would cast a bad light on the Calaveras project. The Calaveras project was a very valuable asset. There were very few stranded costs, which were low compared with other utilities. The Calaveras contract contained two sections; the first was a 30-year contract during which time the transition charges would be paid off. The second 30-year contract would provide the City with an opportunity to purchase power at a cost of 50 percent of market price. In the long-run, Calaveras would be a very reasonable source of energy; the only costs would be operation and maintenance. Richard Gruen, Post Office Box 2351, said a Council Member had asked how much of the power was associated with big customers. The first and second lotteries would be limited to customers using more than 1 megawatt, of which the City had 28 using a total of 85 megawatts, i.e., 40 to 50 percent of the total power used in Palo Alto. Few people understood how backup would be handled in the case of an emergency or failure. At best, the ISO and power exchange would come into operation during the first half year of 1998. More than likely, people would not switch until June of 1998. The agreements would need to be signed, etc. The UAC had not reviewed all the information in the Council packet. Council would be better served if the UAC was able to discuss the issue, suggesting a delay in action until such time. The lottery placed undue emphasis on the direct access issue. Once in place, people might be pressed into obtaining a lottery ticket. The City=s not having had an opportunity to make a competing offer covering areas outside Palo Alto put the City at a disadvantage in competing with the others. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Rosenbaum asked staff to respond to the concern about the City moving ahead without reciprocity. Mr. Mrizek said staff currently was not concerned about the reciprocity issue of seeking opportunities to serve energy to areas outside the Palo Alto service territory in tandem with the open access policy staff sought approval for at the current meeting. 12/01/97 85-280 Staff never intended to bring the three policies to Council at the same time. The first policy was approved by Council on July 1, 1997, when rates had been unbundled. Staff moved diligently with a recommendation to provide energy sales outside the Palo Alto service territory. However, in the staff report brought to Council last spring, strategic retail marketing outside the service territory was discussed. Staff expressed the desire to expand sales and services to existing customers within the service territory and, secondly, serve retail customers outside the traditional service territory. Expanding sales and services to existing customers meant such things as leasing fiber to customers, interlinking buildings, etc., to bring in additional revenues to the Electric Utility. The issue was more than only servicing outside the territory. Staff planned to return to Council early in 1998 with a recommendation to seek opportunities to serve customers outside Palo Alto. The City would not lose out on the opportunity. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the private use restrictions and the City=s tax exempt financing, and whether it might prove a serious impediment to the City or any other municipal utility ever being able to serve outside their area. Mr. Mrizek said tax questions were brought before the IRS in Washington, D.C., some of which were still being reviewed by the IRS. An unfavorable bill regarding public power was introduced by Senator Markowski of Alaska. However, the American Public Power Association (APPA), Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), and all power companies across the United States were currently exploring what the bill would mean. The bill would eliminate private use limitations on facilities financed with tax exempt bonds for public power systems offering open access. Although such a statement sounded good, the bill proceeded to say that public power systems would have to surrender their right to issue tax exempt bonds in the future and agree to call all outstanding tax exempt bonds within a short period of time. The bill was introduced but was not getting much support. If the bill moved ahead, which staff doubted, it would be vigorously opposed by all public entities. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the limitation in the private use restriction. Mr. Habashi thought it was 10 percent for the life of the project. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the private use restriction would be violated if the City sold more than 10 percent of the output of Calaveras, for example, to a private party other than municipal customers. 12/01/97 85-281 Mr. Habashi replied yes. The 10 percent was for the life of the project, not only one year at a time. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Initiation and Implementation of the City of Palo Alto Direct Access Program; 2. Approve the Direct Access Implementation Plan; 3. Adopt a Resolution approving Rule and Regulation Number 19 of the Utility Rules and Regulations pertaining to Direct Access; 4. Approve the Direct Access Service Contract form; and 5. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to amend with non-substantive changes and to execute Direct Access Service Contracts. Council Member Rosenbaum commended staff for all the work done on the open access issue. Palo Alto would gain experience from which others would probably benefit. City staff was very talented and wanted to move ahead. The experience would be very interesting. In the end, it would probably all work out well. Vice Mayor Andersen thanked staff for a very comprehensive effort. He was anxious to see staff proceed with the available opportunities. Many firms within Palo Alto would probably want to consolidate their bills. In the past, he was somewhat critical of the Calaveras project, but he was not interested in selling it. Over the long haul, the project would probably be a wise choice, even though there were albatross aspects to it. He appreciated how the UAC worked earnestly moving the utility in the new direction. The UAC role, however, was a macro, not micro, role. When feedback suggested otherwise, he was concerned. The role and responsibility of all City commissions was advisory. Council Member Kniss said the UAC=s comments were helpful and supportive. Because open access was such an unchartered issue, the City would experience a rocky time over the following months. Palo Alto had depended upon the income from the Electric Utility since 1905, and the new policy could dramatically change things for the City. Each ramification was carefully monitored. Council Member Fazzino agreed with Council Member Kniss. Staff was thanked for an excellent report. The action was probably the most 12/01/97 85-282 important one Council would take over the next few months. Staff and the UAC deserved a great deal of credit for being bold, dynamic, and innovative with respect to the issue of deregulation. Other municipalities had not moved forward as quickly as the City=s staff. Despite that fact, a few customers had already voiced appreciation for Palo Alto=s efforts. Even though in the short term there was concern over the risks associated with direct access, in the long run Palo Alto would succeed. Major customers would commit to Palo Alto in the same way it had during a regulated environment. Council Member Schneider supported staff=s recommendation. The direct access sales packet had been interesting in the great marketing effort received by all of the major users. Palo Alto would face immense competition from companies such as Enron and PG&E. Palo Alto had come to the forefront as a small Αboutique- like≅ provider. The UAC and staff were commended. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 5B. (Old Item No. 8A/Item No. 3) Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 18.04.030 and 18.88.020 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Carports≅ Council Member Schneider said she would not participate due to a conflict of interest. Council Member McCown said she would not participate due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Huber opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public. Mayor Huber closed the public hearing. Council Member Rosenbaum asked staff to comment on Vice Mayor Andersen=s proposed changes. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said there may be some people with plans drawn up who anticipated filing within the following weeks and might be hindered by the ordinance. The correspondence from Mark Bernstein regarding a historic review filed the previous Wednesday was consistent with items 1 through 6, and was identified as being exempt because the historic review had already been filed. City Manager June Fleming said if the proposal passed, staff would be asked to use no discretion. 12/01/97 85-283 Council Member Eakins asked whether 2335 Embarcadero Road, mentioned in Mr. Bernstein=s letter of November 28, 1997, could be incorporated as an exception in the motion. Council Member Rosenbaum suggested changing the date from November 21, 1997, to December 1, 1997, in Section 5(A). Ms. Fleming thought adding the property to the list was more appropriate to avoid impacting another address. MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to introduce the Ordinance with the following changes to the Zoning Ordinance in regard to the counting of carports as gross floor area in the R-1 and RE zones and two additional amendments: Section 18.04.030, entitled ΑDefinitions≅ to read as follows: (24.5) Carport means a portion of a principal residential building or an accessory building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter of one (1) or more motor vehicles, which is open (unenclosed) at the vehicular entry side and which has no more than two (2) sides enclosed. Amend the definition of Αgross floor area,≅ Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(C), to read as follows: (v) Carports shall be counted towards the maximum allowable floor area ratio requirements. Amend Section 18.88.020, entitled ΑAccessory uses and facilities,≅ to read as follows: (c)(1) Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; Further, revise the Ordinance, Section 5B, to read as follows: ΑAny development project for which a complete application for building plan check review has not been received and filed on or before December 1, 1997 shall be subject to this Ordinance.≅ 12/01/97 85-284 Further, revise the Ordinance, Section 5A, to add the following: Α7. 235 Embarcadero Road File No. 97-HRB-270.≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider Αnot participating.≅ 5C. (Old Item 9) Request for Approval to Prepare a Request for Proposals for the Provision of Universal Telecommunications Service MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Eakins, to refer the item to the December 9, 1997, Policy and Services Committee and request that the Committee include in its deliberation the following questions: 1) What are the regulatory issues involved in giving preference to a single provider of services? and 2) Where does Cable Co-op, which already provides high speed access to the Internet, fit in the process? MOTION TO REFER PASSED 6-0, Kniss, McCown, Schneider absent. City Manager June Fleming said the item would be heard on December 9, 1997, at the Policy & Services (P&S) Committee meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the Zoning Administrator=s decision of a conditional use permit for the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and construction of one additional court and a park area, including restroom facilities, in a PF Zone District (continued from 10/27/97) Vice Mayor Andersen said that he would not participate in the item because of his close involvement in the issue. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing re-open. Mike Cobb, Dixon Place, spoke regarding the history of the skating facility in Midtown involving a land trade in which dedicated City park and recreation land near the Baylands adjacent to the golf course had been surrendered in return for preserving recreational uses in the middle of the increasingly urban area. Uses contemplated by the voters during an election in 1985 were potentially at risk. The land which was surrendered had since been 12/01/97 85-285 built on and converted to office uses. Any actions taken by the City to change the recreational uses contemplated for preservation in Midtown would be a great disservice. The current use of tennis and ice skating had been present for almost 40 years, pre-dating the residential uses surrounding the property. The actions taken by the voters in 1985 should be respected. Regarding the noise level, he questioned how people dealing with the physical sciences obtained such different results when working with the same physical phenomenon. The noise consultant indicated moving the wall inward would increase the noise levels. By moving the wall inward, as requested, useless land would be created and a gift of public land would result. Council was urged to do something reasonable within the existing budgets, and to honor and respect the wishes of 70 percent of the voters in 1985 to maintain the existing uses and recreation facilities in Midtown. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, Board Member of Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) and applicant for the use permit, spoke regarding the problems CSI had encountered since the land trade, restrictions on the options the lease granted, and serious mitigations. CSI was willing to accept the findings of the City=s Zoning Administrator and to build a 10-foot fence around the perimeter of the property. Barring acceptance of the 10-foot fence, CSI was willing for Council to impose the daylight exception and grant the use permit without any mitigation. Council was asked to support the Zoning Administrator=s finding, standing up for the community, and grant CSI=s use permit. Sheryl Keller, 642 Georgia Avenue, Board Member of CSI, read the letter at places (on file in the City Clerk=s Office). Jeffrey Pack, Edward L. Pack Associates, 13980 Blossom Hill Road, Suite 100, Los Gatos, was retained by CSI as a novice consultant to analyze the project. If a 10-foot barrier was constructed along the west side of the site, residents along Ellsworth would notice a reduction in noise. However, the noise levels were measured at only 50 to 60 decibels (dBA). A 10-foot barrier along the north property line acoustically would be equivalent to an 8-foot barrier; therefore, a shorter barrier would be better than the higher barrier. A sound wall along the property line of the condominium side would make no difference, since residents lived on second and third floor elevations. Using a reasonable source level of 70 dBA, and considering the ambient conditions in worst case situations, the changes of a noise accedence would be very small. If a professional player was playing tennis on a Sunday morning, when the ambient level was at its lowest, a noise accedence was possible, although probably rare. A 10-foot wall along the condominium side would result in a noise reduction of 5 dBA, the value of which was questioned. 12/01/97 85-286 Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether an 8-foot fence on the property line was equivalent to a 10-foot fence along the edge of the courts with respect to the back area. Mr. Pack replied yes. Either one would provide a 9 dBA reduction level in noise, regardless of the source level, because the rear yard was the shadow zone of the barrier. The closer the noise receiver was to the barrier, the more effective it was considering the source of the noise was at 9 feet. A barrier closer to the high source needed to be taller to break the line of site. Using the data which was gathered and the City=s Noise Ordinance, a 10-foot wall along the property line would provide 13 dBA of noise reduction and the Noise Ordinance limit would be met. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the 8-foot height limit would be affected by the noise level for a serve at 9 feet. Mr. Pack said measurements had been taken of a tall person serving a tennis ball at 9 feet. The consultants came to an agreement after discussion on the different methodologies, analytical techniques, and calculations. Council Member Wheeler asked about placing the sound barrier walls closer to the source of the noise rather than on the perimeter. Freeway noise walls cut the noise for the people closest to the freeway, but the noise bounced off the walls and was put off into someone else=s yard. The same phenomenon could be experienced as well with the barriers around the tennis courts. Mr. Pack said consideration should only be given to a barrier along where sound was going in all directions. Mr. Morton said CSI was willing to make reasonable mitigations, such as a 10-foot fence on the property line. If the mitigation was not approved by Council, a request would be submitted for a use permit under the provisions of the daylight exemption. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the noise levels at his residence. On Saturday morning, the acoustical consultant Dr. Salmon measured an ambient level of 37 dBA in his backyard, which he desired to maintain. The Palo Alto Police Department had indicated that with a 10-foot wall, the dBA would be in the 50+ dBA level at the tennis facility. Strong tennis servers would be measured at 77 dBA, which would violate the ordinance. What would be gained in the area of tennis would be lost in the quality of life of the neighbors. In 1994, staff rejected CSI=s proposals and recommended evaluation of the site for alternate use and disposition. No new tennis courts were needed at the Midtown 12/01/97 85-287 location. Council was asked to uphold the appeal and deny the use permit. Council Member Kniss asked how long Mr. Abraham lived at 736 Ellsworth Place. Mr. Abraham said he had lived at 736 Ellsworth Place since 1985. Council Member Kniss asked whether the courts were used less when Mr. Abraham first moved into his house. Mr. Abraham said Chuck Thompson stopped using the courts around 1984. Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, said she had lived at 736 Ellsworth Place since 1976. Lorrain Brookman, 3868 Corina Court, encouraged Council to make a decision regarding the tennis facility on Middlefield Road. Pauline Parker, 430 Kingsley Avenue, member of the tennis club, said residences around Rinconada and Hopkins Parks= tennis courts were much closer than the homes around the Midtown tennis courts and residents were not complaining about the noise of tennis players. The concern was not merited. Council was asked to postpone construction of a sound wall until the courts were in use for awhile, since such walls might become unnecessary. Council was urged to approve the addition to the recreation facilities of Palo Alto. Jan Van der Laan, 3090 Ross Road, spoke regarding the fences proposed for the tennis courts. Residents in the area were willing to restrict use of the fifth court to children, with the exception of tournament time. That might eliminate any requirement for a fence on that side of the facility. John Klimp, 953 Roble Ridge, volunteer Director of CSI, said for seven years CSI tried to conduct work on a minor expansion of the existing tennis facility, initiated at the City=s request and pursuant to a Citywide vote, 70 percent of whom had been in favor of making the property a recreational facility. Extensive due process was imposed by the City=s Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission who recommended the CSI proposal with 29 conditions. No one should be required to wait seven years for a decision on a proposal. The Council was urged to approve the Zoning Administrator=s recommendation and conditions. Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Road, #101, spoke regarding the existing fence surrounding the CSI property which was filled with 12/01/97 85-288 holes and failed to block any noise from the parking lot. The City was urged to find a location, other than public property, for the private tennis courts. The existing four tennis courts were acceptable, but the fifth court was not. David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road, #206, spoke in support of improving the existing tennis courts and having tennis lessons for children, but objected to turning the facility into a tennis center for frequent, competitive tennis which would result in increased noise levels in the area. The proposed fifth court was too close to the condominiums. The additional court would allow the tennis club to run continuous tournaments. Some of the history of the property was reviewed, including how Council approved use of the facility to train tennis players and the two phases of improvement to the property. The first phase improved the four existing courts, and the second phase was a conditional use permit for a fifth court. The Council was urged to exclude the fifth court from the project. In the event the Council kept the fifth court as part of the project, the mitigation to reduce the noise impact should acknowledge the error in the negative declaration and include a sound wall along the east edge of the fifth court. Without any mitigation measures, the City=s noise ordinance would not be met. The location of the Winterlodge itself and the fences focused the sound on residences along Middlefield Road. A sound wall should be built around the entire facility, especially along the fifth court. Council Member Kniss asked Mr. Bukham about the realtor=s disclosure statement when he purchased the condominium. Mr. Bukhan said a disclosure indicated that during the winter months noise could come from the Winterlodge when windows were open. Council Member Kniss asked whether Mr. Bukhan thought the disclosure had been inadequate. Mr. Bukhan said the disclosure was regarding the Winterlodge not the tennis facilities. The four courts were acceptable, not the fifth court. Bill Rosenberg, 820 Bruce Drive, urged Council to accept the Planning Commission=s recommendation to allow the project to move forward with the conditions stated in September. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the Council had directed CSI to work with the Palo Alto Tennis Club (PA Tennis Club) which would result in a private club on private land. If more tennis courts were provided on public park land, the tennis courts would be available to the PA Tennis Club just as other courts were available 12/01/97 85-289 to the rest of the community. The intensity would then decrease, reducing complaints. The history from the 1985 Council minutes and staff=s rejection three years prior were reviewed. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, spoke in opposition to expanding the operation to include tennis tournaments and league play, which would increase the noise levels regardless of a 10-foot sound wall. The sound wall would only be effective for people receiving noise at a level of five feet. What the tennis community gained in recreation was lost in basic quality of life. An indoor facility was suggested. Competitive play on public land was not to the good of the community. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said Winterlodge was a unique facility, and although 74 percent of the voters in 1985 supported a recreational facility, she had not voted for a tennis facility. At the meetings she attended, the land had been considered as a potential housing site because of its proximity to transportation, recreation, and shopping. The City was fiscally irresponsible to consider a tennis facility without considering the housing situation, particularly in light of the three housing facilities being phased out. Greer Park was a very undeveloped and acceptable facility for tennis courts. The Council was urged to reconsider the decision and to use the land for senior and low-income housing. Louis Kavanau, 443 College Avenue, said during the 25 years he had lived in Palo Alto and played at the Chuck Thompson facility, there had not been complaints about noise. Sign ups for the PA Tennis Club in the fall were about 100 to 150 people and, in the spring, 150 to 200 people. During the spring, tennis was played two nights per week. Around town, skateboarders and rollerbladers used the tennis courts, which resulted in the issuance of keys. The PA Tennis Club contributed money for the courts, and the membership cost was $25 per year. Craig Ruess, 765 Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding the deterioration of the Winterlodge site. If not tennis courts, he queried what the land could be used for and, after years of deliberation, when. Jane Hayes, 718 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the reduction in property values because of the proposed tennis courts, citing an example of a sale falling through because of the proposed tennis courts. The Sun City analogy would not work since the homes on Ellsworth Place were built in 1945 and the Chuck Thompson center was established in the late 1950s. Newer buyers were not affected by major tennis court use. Even though the Winterlodge was on the far corner of the lot, noise could be heard from Ellsworth Place. League play was of great concern. 12/01/97 85-290 Ms. Wang spoke regarding the illegality of the wall which would not work for an average height adult because a 10-foot wall would reduce noise only below five feet. A fear of flying tennis balls was also expressed. Mr. Bukhan corrected a statement which was made about the distance from the tennis courts to the condominiums as 150 feet. The correct distance was 100 feet. Consideration should be given to mitigation measures for the condominiums. The Council was urged to stay within the noise ordinance. Ms. Fischer said Council Member Rosenbaum was correct that for a serve at nine feet, an 8-foot wall would provide no protection and the condominiums would not have any protection from a 10-foot wall. Mr. Abraham corrected an error in the staff report regarding intensity of use. The PA Tennis Club had indicated eight adult tournaments, four children=s tournaments, league play, special events, etc., would be held at the site during the year. That information was not included in the staff report and would change the meaning of the word Αlow intensity.≅ The area could be made into a park, since the closest park was Hoover. The Council was urged to keep the residents in mind who had to endure the noise daily. Mr. Morton said CSI had responded to the City=s Request for Proposals (RFP) and was willing to provide the City with tennis on the site. If conditions were reasonable, a 10-foot sealed wooden fence would be built around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Van der Laan clarified the noise source was 150 feet to the condominiums and the court line to the property line was 119 feet with an additional 30 feet to the condominiums. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. RECESS: 9:55 P.M. - 10:10 P.M. Council Member Wheeler said an allusion was made to the issue of accessibility of the courts and the park-like space at the southeast corner of the property. The implication was that the courts would only be accessible to members of the PA Tennis Club; however, she had been under the impression that anyone could purchase a key without being a member of the PA Tennis Club. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote understood from the proposal that anyone could purchase a key for use during the Αpublic≅ hours. 12/01/97 85-291 Council Member Wheeler clarified play would be unavailable only during private lessons and tournaments. Ms. Grote replied yes. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the landscaped or gated area would be of use to anyone. Ms. Grote said the land would be part of the gated area so anyone holding a key would be able to use the park area. Council Member Wheeler asked why the area could not be accessible to people other than the people holding keys. Mr. Morton said a gate would be placed near the Winterlodge and there would be no way of accessing the property other than through that gate. Concerns about liability, exposure, the lack of lights, etc., would probably cause neighbors to want to keep the area limited. Council Member Wheeler asked about the material used to construct the sound wall and the relative effectiveness of a wooden wall versus a masonry wall, both of which would have generous landscaping. Richard Rodkin, Acoustical Consultant, Illingworth & Rodkin, said the walls had to meet certain minimum requirements for weight. Once the weight requirement was met, the performance of the wall was its height and length. The wall had to be airtight and massive. The major concern with wood fences was that even if constructed as airtight when new, over the years the fences would deteriorate if not maintained properly. If the noise barrier were considered, the design would be heavy posts spaced to control the wind, plywood on both sides, faced with house siding, painted, and capped with a 2-foot by 10-foot board. The major maintenance with such a fence was painting. The life span of such a fence would be the same as a wood house with siding if painted. Council Member Wheeler clarified the wood wall would be a solid wall, not like the fence along the property at the current time. Mr. Rodkin replied yes. Many different designs were historically used for wood noise barriers, most of which would not work after a certain period of time, primarily because of not being painted, using an overlap board construction which gaped and cracked. From a noise standpoint, either alternative would work. Council Member Wheeler asked for a cost comparison between a wood wall and a masonry wall, given the description of the type of wall recommended. 12/01/97 85-292 Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the kind of wall described by Mr. Rodkin had been contemplated by staff. Masonry work would cost somewhat more than wood, but not substantially higher to make it an error in making a choice between the two. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the wood would have to undergo significantly more maintenance than a masonry wall in order to remain effective over a long period of time. Mr. Roberts replied yes. Clearly, the cost of maintenance requirements for wood made masonry the preferable choice. Council Member Wheeler asked about enforcement mechanisms related to the ongoing costs of maintenance of a wood wall. Ms. Grote said typically an enforcement mechanism would be on a complaint basis, such as a call received about a fence not being maintained. Conditions could include requiring inspections at intervals of five to ten years in addition to the complaint basis. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the issue of the two roles of Council was raised. At the current meeting, the Council heard an appeal of a use permit. The City was also the owner of the land. A variety of maintenance conditions on the lessee could provide the City with another avenue of enforcement beyond the use permit. Staff had been trying to keep the two roles of the City reasonably discrete, focusing on the use permit. Council Member Rosenbaum asked for an explanation of the City Attorney=s recommendation regarding the action Council should take with regard to recirculating a negative declaration. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council had received conflicting expert opinions in October 1997 for which State environmental law would not support a negative declaration. Since that time, the City had an unequivocal mitigation option. Although the option supported a negative declaration, State law required circulation for additional public comment for the period described in the staff report (CMR:481:97). Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether Council approval of the staff recommendation would make it important for the Council to define what the fences would be made of which would be the basis for the negative declaration. Mr. Calonne replied yes. 12/01/97 85-293 Council Member Rosenbaum asked about Mr. Pack=s suggestion for an 8-foot wall at the property line rather than a 10-foot wall at the edge of the tennis court, which he suggested would be effective and more attractive. Mr. Rodkin said a noise barrier at the property line was more effective than a noise barrier at the edge of the court. The edge of the court alternative was analyzed as part of the mediation process since it was brought forward as an alternative. Prior to that point, he assumed such a fence was not an alterative and that the sound wall would be located at the property line. In his analysis, there was not as great a difference between the two placements as Mr. Pack identified. A 9.5-foot wall would work at the north property line but, in his analysis, he recommended a 10- foot wall at the property line. From a noise control standpoint, it was better to place the wall at the property line than at the edge of the court. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the 8-foot versus 10-foot wall, suggested by Mr. Pack. Mr. Rodkin recommended a 10-foot wall around the entire perimeter. Council Member Rosenbaum said two letters were sent to Vice Mayor Andersen, one dated October 29, 1997, and one October 30, 1997. In the second letter, Mr. Rodkin stated that Mr. Pack submitted new information, presumably measurements taken at an actual tournament at Cubberley, and that if Mr. Rodkin agreed to those measurements, he might come up with different conclusions. He assumed the presumption concerned how loud a serve was. Mr. Rodkin had not taken measurements of the noise of tennis play. More data had been provided as he went through the process. His first analysis used data from both consultants with which a statistical distribution was conducted and from which a reasonable number had been determined, assuming all of the data had been representative. Mr. Pack had gathered more data of slightly differing conditions, all of which indicated lower levels would regularly occur, although Dr. Salmon=s data indicated that, given the right circumstances, higher noises could occur occasionally. His second letter had expressed a greater comfort level since the analysis was fairly conservative and used all of the data. Council Member Rosenbaum asked for an opinion on Mr. Pack=s suggestion for a 10-foot wall next to the creek at the edge of the courts, an 8-foot wall along the back fence, and nothing next to the condominiums. 12/01/97 85-294 Mr. Rodkin concurred with the 10-foot wall either along the edge of the courts or at the creek. The condominiums were potentially the most difficult problem with respect to the noise ordinance, which was included in the analysis and conclusions regarding the mitigation measures. Considering all the data, noise levels at the condominiums would exceed the ordinance limits. Therefore, some type of mitigation was necessary. Noise exceeding the ordinance limits would originate from the fifth court. Because the receivers were elevated, the only place to feasibly reduce the noise with a sound wall would be adjacent to the court. A suggestion was made by a member of the public that administrative controls were an alternative. He was unsure how feasible such controls were concerning noise generated on the fifth court. His analysis had indicated noise levels of about 5 dBA over the noise ordinance limits in a worst case scenario. If only Mr. Pack=s data was taken as representative of a class of players which could be controlled, an even greater difference in the level of the noise would exist. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the need for the 10-foot wall at the edge of the court would be eliminated if a tennis server would not produce 76 dBA except in very unusual circumstances but was at least 5 dBA less. Mr. Rodkin replied yes. Council Member Rosenbaum understood the configuration of a set of walls for a revised mitigated declaration. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation that the City Council direct staff to revise the Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect the noise mitigation recommendations presented in the October 30, 1997, letter from Richard Rodkin, Acoustical Consultant, to Vice Mayor Ron Andersen, as revised to include a ten-foot-high masonry sound wall around the edge of the creek, a ten-foot-high wall on the north edge of the property line, and an eight-foot-high masonry sound wall around the perimeter of the condominium property line and whether a sound mitigation was necessary for the fifth court. Further, direct staff to recirculate the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and that action on the appeals of this conditional use permit not be taken by the City Council until January 1998, after the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration has been legally noticed for the required 20-day public review period. Further, direct staff to prepare findings and conditions to implement the recommendation. Mr. Calonne said the 8-foot wall required factual findings regarding use of the fifth court. Some evidentiary dispute or at least an interpretive question remained about whether: 1) 12/01/97 85-295 administrative controls would make sense on the fifth court; and 2) whether or not it was reasonable to assume the high dBA range for typical play. The ordinance established a useful set of standards without creating a mandate for new project construction. The measures would not protect the users of the court from noise ordinance violations. The ordinance was neither a safe haven nor a mandate. Although, as staff had analyzed it for the purposes of environmental review, Council should use the standard. Based on Mr. Rodkin=s observation, discussion regarding the 8-foot fence along the property line by the condominiums should either consider the maximum dBA level expected or some type of administrative controls. Many different mitigation approaches could be used, including some form of periodic review, testing, reporting, etc., all of which, although burdensome, could be sustainable. Council Member Rosenbaum said the dBA levels assumed for a professional player were not representative of what would occur at the club. The 76 dBA quoted was too high a number to use in the analysis. He used the numbers Mr. Pack had more recently measured for an actual tournament at Cubberley. Mr. Rodkin needed 5 dBA to satisfy the noise ordinance. Decreasing the 76 dBA to 71 dBA, which was more like a reasonable serve by an average player, eliminated the problem. On the basis of what he assumed to be the facts of the situation, nothing was necessary along the condominium wall. However, it would be helpful for general noise considerations to have the wall. How such an observation could be figured into the negative declaration was difficult. Mr. Calonne said CSI raised the issue of whether it had any legal entitlement or basis for claiming the general daylight exception in the noise ordinance. The ordinance indicated the noise level could not exceed the 70 dBA, under its noisiest condition. Administrative controls, as a reserved jurisdiction option for Council in the future, would be very useful. In essence, a performance standard could indicate that if a problem arose with the fifth court so that it was not meeting the daylight exception, Council would reserve jurisdiction to return to the issue. There was no evidence to conclude that the court would generate such noise levels, if taken out of the daylight exception, and the City should not limit itself to observing some jurisdiction to return, should it prove not to be the case in the future. Council Member Rosenbaum had not considered the daylight exception but the 5 dBA over the ambient to satisfy the condition. Mr. Calonne said the motion should include direction to staff regarding findings and additional conditions necessary to implement the physical recommendations. 12/01/97 85-296 Council Member Eakins thought the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would eventually examine the project. Ms. Grote said Council Member Eakins was correct. Council Member Eakins expressed concern about the affect of the walls on sun and shade. The ARB would probably require a sun/shade analysis of the project. Ms. Grote said the sun/shade and tree removal issues would be addressed in the EIR. Council Member Eakins was unsure the presence of the wall would enhance the livability of some of the neighbors= backyards. Wind would also be an issue. The projected wall=s alignment with the creek and the wind tunnel effect were issues for consideration. The aesthetic monolithic effect of the wall was troubling in its prospect. Recreation should move forward, but sound protection was needed. She was concerned that reliance on the neighbors for administrative procedures might become burdensome. She was uncertain whether she could support all five tennis courts because of the harsh mitigation measure described for the noise. Council Member McCown said major elements of the proposal were before the Council in detail for many years. In 1995, the Council had granted an option to lease the facility to CSI. The Phase I portion, with four tennis courts, was spelled out in detail. She asked about the environmental review process for the Phase I element to upgrade the four courts and whether the environmental process would have been required if the four courts were going to be leased. Mr. Calonne understood the intensification of use aspects of the proposal created the major concern for the environmental review. Council Member McCown clarified the addition of the fifth court and the other recreational uses on the site, such as restroom, snack bar, etc., in the Phase II proposal had caused the environmental review. Ms. Grote said staff discussed the intensification of use. The project involved realigning two of the four courts and resurfacing the courts which would increase the usage, and minor maintenance which would not have led to intensification. Some of the work proposed for the four courts would have involved intensification and would have required environmental review. Mr. Calonne said to the extent resurfacing would have amounted to maintenance of an existing facility, exemptions in environmental 12/01/97 85-297 law could have been applied if there were no unusual circumstances. Ms. Freeland raised a question that there was a fifth court present although not in use, which factually complicated exactly what intensification should be called. Council Member McCown said the process involved an enormous amount of analysis and work on the part of staff, members of the public, the applicant, respondents, the Planning Commission, etc. She supported the thrust of the motion. The item was on the Council=s agenda for almost as long as she had been on the Council. The Council consistently supported the use of the property as a recreational facility. None of the evidence presented caused her to think it was the wrong policy decision for the community. She agreed with the observation concerning whether some greater sound mitigation was necessary for the fifth court. Based on the evidence, information from different consultants, and using the worst case scenario, higher level of sound associated with professional tennis play was not consistent with her observation of the type of play the facility would have. There was a difference between the sound a professional tennis player made and a player at the PA Tennis Club. The mitigation process would be askew if measures were designed for the noise level of a professional player. Council Member Schneider recalled specifically seeking a housing site close to a tennis and swim facility for her children. Things had changed over the years. In early September 1997, she met with Ms. Fisher, Ms. Wang, Mr. Bukhan, and Mr. Abraham and walked the property. The concerns at the time had been the noise issue and the intensification of use specifically created by the additional fifth court. Through erection of a sound wall and specific mitigations for the fifth court, everyone could be as satisfied as possible. She initially was not in favor of the fifth court. When first on the Council, she recommended the fifth area be used for community gardening or as a pocket park. She was convinced, however, that the fifth court would increase the ability of Palo Altans to play different types of tennis on courts which would be maintained through the efforts of CSI. She supported the recommendation. Council Member Wheeler said the property was on the City=s agenda for many years and she agreed with individuals who wanted to get the property off the Council=s agenda. She agreed with Ms. Chiapella=s concern regarding the use of the land. However, early in the process, staff advised Council that because the land had been swapped, it put the City under an obligation to utilize the land in the manner for which it had been swapped, and that was for recreational use. Although the land which was given away was not heavily used at the time, at some point the Palo Alto Golf Course 12/01/97 85-298 would have taken it over for expansion of the driving range. Most of the people who voted were under the impression the City was trading park land and would receive recreational use in return. The Council needed to keep in mind the promise which had been made to voters in the early 1980s. She had reservations and was outspoken about the fifth court when the item had been before Council a few meetings prior. At the time, the proposed fifth court was proposed for the corner immediately adjacent to both the condominiums and the Price Court houses. The revised plans were far more sensitive in terms of the relationship of the fifth court to the residential neighbors and took into account the fact there were residential neighbors close by. Further refinement of the relocation of the restrooms and removal of the bleachers were also actions on the part of the applicant which acknowledged the existence of residential neighbors and were sensitive to surrounding residents. It was important that the walls be constructed of substantial material which would not place upon the neighbors of the property the onerous obligation to lodge complaints which a wall constructed of less substantive materials than masonry would require within a few years time. The cost of an appropriate wall, as described by the sound consultant, would amount to about the same as the masonry wall. Maintenance costs over the years would be higher for the applicant and would be far more negative in terms of the success with the neighbors. An example of a very high wall up against neighbors= backyards was located at the Jewish Community Center and was built at the request of the neighbors. Neighbors preferred walls as high as possible. Council Member Eakins supported the motion, knowing that if the wall was too high, rows could be removed. Council Member McCown clarified Council was moving on recirculation of the negative declaration. Mr. Calonne replied yes. Recirculation of the negative declaration was in anticipation of an action denying the appeals. Council Member McCown assumed the action would otherwise adopt the Planning Commission=s recommended conditions, except to the extent the new elements with respect to the walls were modified by what was included in the conditions of approval. Mr. Calonne preferred to allow staff the flexibility to address the issue when it returned rather than at the current meeting. Staff would then have the opportunity to react to anything which came out of the revised negative declaration. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent. 12/01/97 85-299 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Palo Alto Medical Foundation request for the Urban Lane Palo Alto Medical Foundation Campus to 1) reduce or eliminate the Inspection Services Fee Schedule as it pertains to Plan Check Fees and on-site Building Inspectors, and 2) modify the Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance (Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code)(continued from 10/27/97) MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue the item to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, McCown Αnot participating,≅ Andersen absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Wheeler referred to a letter from the University South Neighborhood Group. Mayor Huber announced that the December 8, 1997, Tour of the Los Trancos Subdivision site had been rescheduled. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.