HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-05 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting October 5, 1998 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................87-203 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.............87-203 1. Proclamations Recognizing City of Palo Alto Businesses
Identified Among Joint Venture Silicon Valley=s Fastest Growing Businesses....................................87-204 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................87-204 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................87-205
3. Fifth Amendment to Santa Clara County=s Agreement for Abatement of Weeds....................................87-205
4. Ordinance 4524 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Accept a $5,699 Grant from the Arts Council of Santa Clara County and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $5,699"..............87-205 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Lucas Concrete, Inc. for the FY 1998-99 Sidewalk Replacement Project..87-205 6. Amendment No. 1 to Existing Financing Agreement No. 94-SAO-00047 between the City of Palo Alto and the United States Department to Energy and Department of Interior for Shasta Powerplant Rewind Project.............................87-205 7. Approval of Appointment of Director of Planning and Community Environment...........................................87-205 8. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates for the Palo Alto Local Bus System Plan.......................................87-205 9. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in the Court of Appeal Case of San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. City of San Jose, SCC #773524.................................87-205
10/05/98 87-200
10. Ordinance 4525 entitled Α Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built
Before 1940 to Change the Definition of ΑMinor Project≅87-206 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ..................87-206 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Council will consider an application by Jeff Levin for a Tentative Subdivision Map approval to create 12 residential condominium units on a 41,253 square-foot parcel for property located at 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane..................................................87-206 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to assign a designation of No Historic Merit to the property located at 951-955 Addison Street, under the Interim Historic Regulations for pre-1940 residences...................87-211 13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Request by Property Owners of Tract 1722 and Portions of Tract 1977 for Single Story Overlay Zoning for Meadow Park Unit #5 Neighborhood. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared.....................................87-213 15. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $60,000 for Recruitment Assistance ..87-217 15A. (Old Item 2) Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Sebastian & Associates for the Residential Arterial Streets Traffic Calming Project-Phase 1...............87-217 14. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending the Suspension of Collection of Certain Fees for Flood-related Damage Authorized by Resolution No. 7746..............87-226 16. Council Members Eakins and Mossar re Changes to the Building Code to Allow the Use of Permeable Paving Surfaces in Residential Areas.....................................87-227 17. Council Members Fazzino, Kniss and Ojakian re Extension of Refund of Debris Box Rental Charges and Suspension of Landfill Fees Related to Flood Recovery........................87-227 18. Council Members Victor Ojakian and Dena Mossar re Pedestrian Safety................................................87-227 19. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-227
10/05/98 87-201
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:12 p.m............87-227
10/05/98 87-202
10/05/98 87-203
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:13 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins (arrived at 6:25 p.m.), Fazzino, Huber (arrived at 6:25 p.m.), Kniss (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designee (Jay Rounds) Unrepresented Employee Groups: Management and Confidential Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. * * * * *
10/05/98 87-204
Regular Meeting October 5, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Proclamations Recognizing City of Palo Alto Businesses
Identified Among Joint Venture Silicon Valley=s Fastest Growing Businesses Proclamation Recognizing Brio Technology, Inc. of Palo Alto as
One of the Silicon Valley=s 50 Fastest Growing Businesses Proclamation Recognizing E* Trade Group, Inc. of Palo Alto as
one of the Silicon Valley=s 50 Fastest Growing Businesses Proclamation Recognizing Incyte Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Palo
Alto as one of the Silicon Valley=s 50 Fastest Growing Businesses Proclamation Recognizing Omnicell Technologies, Inc. of Palo
Alto as one of the Silicon Valley=s 50 Fastest Growing Businesses Mayor Rosenbaum presented the proclamations. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Rosenbaum acknowledged that the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable named the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(RWQCP) program to prevent water pollution the nation=s Most Valuable Pollution Prevention Program. Mayor Rosenbaum acknowledged that the City of Palo Alto was
selected by the State of California for its effort in ΑOutstanding
Organics Management.≅ Mayor Rosenbaum acknowledged that Ariel Calonne was elected president of the League of California Cities City Attorney Department. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic duty. T.J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding creating environmentally defensive technology to help government and energy efficiency.
10/05/98 87-205
Bob Moss, Orme Street, spoke regarding report from Orme Street. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of July 20, 1998, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of July 27, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider "abstaining." CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-10, with Item No. 2 removed by Mayor Rosenbaum at the request of a member of the public.
3. Fifth Amendment to Santa Clara County=s Agreement for Abatement of Weeds
4. Ordinance 4524 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Accept a $5,699 Grant from the Arts Council of Santa Clara County and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $5,699" 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Lucas Concrete, Inc. for the FY 1998-99 Sidewalk Replacement Project 6. Amendment No. 1 to Existing Financing Agreement No. 94-SAO-00047 between the City of Palo Alto and the United States Department to Energy and Department of Interior for Shasta Powerplant Rewind Project
Resolution 7799 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Signing of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 94-SAO-00047" 7. Approval of Appointment of Director of Planning and Community Environment 8. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates for the Palo Alto Local Bus System Plan
10/05/98 87-206
9. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in the Court of Appeal Case of San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. City of San Jose, SCC #773524
10. Ordinance 4525 entitled Α Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Interim Regulations Governing Historic Designation and Demolition of Residential Structures Built
Before 1940 to Change the Definition of ΑMinor Project≅ (1st
Reading 9/14/98, 8-0, Huber "not participating≅) MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Items No. 3-9. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber Αabstaining≅ for Item No. 10. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 2 would become Item No. 15A. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Council will consider an application by Jeff Levin for a Tentative Subdivision Map approval to create 12 residential condominium units on a 41,253 square-foot parcel for property located at 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane (continued from 9/22/98) Senior Planner George White said the staff and Planning Commission recommendation was that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration with the finding that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and approve a tentative subdivision based on revised findings and conditions. The applicant requested Tentative Subdivision Map approval to reconfigure 3 existing lots into 12 condominiums for the purpose of constructing a new 13-unit residential development. The proposed parcel reconfiguration was consistent with the Architectural Review Board (ARB)-approved residential development project on the site. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on July 8 and July 29, 1998, and voted to recommend City Council approval of the Tentative Map. Subsequent to the Planning Commission review, the City Attorney recommended that language be added to the required findings of approval which reflected specifications of the Subdivision Map Act. The City Attorney also suggested additional conditions be added to the draft conditions of approval that related to security for required housing in-lieu fees. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said a number of Council Members commented on the notation in the staff report (CMR:376:98) about
the Palo Alto Housing Corporation=s action of September 9, 1998. He spoke with Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director for the Housing Corporation, and both the City and the Housing Corporation
10/05/98 87-207
concurred with the off-site Below Market Rate (BMR unit). There were a number of rehabilitation steps that needed to occur on the property. The action under consideration by the Council would not commit the City to accepting the property but would commit the City to go through the rehabilitation process if the property were found to be unacceptable. Neither the City nor the Housing Corporation were being asked to accept the off-site BMR at the current time. Council Member Kniss felt the Council was in an awkward situation since the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) had been passed but the zoning changes not yet discussed. On page 6 of the July 29, 1998,
Planning Commission minutes, Commissioner Byrd stated, ΑThere is no zoning to accompany it yet, and no land is designated with it, but for our own education, if such a land use designation and a zoning category existed, is it possible to say whether you would have
pursue that route.≅ She was pursuing that route. Mr. Calonne said the Planning Commission was caught off guard by the application because the applicant pursued a development which was permitted as a right under the zoning. The Planned Community (PC) zone and the accompanying detailed design elevations had been previously approved by the ARB prior to Planning Commission review of the Tentative Map. When implementing zoning, an effort would be made to integrate more closely the ARB and Planning Commission functions so that the apparent disconnect between the packages of information going to each board did not occur. Council Member Wheeler said in prior years when projects came in under the zoning, the Planning Commission was mystified about what it was supposed to do with a Tentative Subdivision Map. The role of the Planning Commission was misunderstood. Regarding the BMR contribution, she asked what the City Attorney viewed as options if the rehabilitation plan did not come to fruition; for example, what were the alternatives that the Housing Corporation and the City might pursue in lieu of acceptance of the house. Mr. Calonne said the option was another off-site unit or a unit within the project. Council Member Wheeler clarified the decision would need to be made prior to the time of building occupancy. Mr. Calonne said that was correct and added that the Housing
Corporation=s concern was that monitoring the rehabilitation would take a significant amount of effort and depended on careful execution for its success. Council Member Wheeler said the Planning Commission held a lengthy discussion about the tradeoff between the green space at the end of the new lane versus the two guest parking spaces which was the decision that came to the Planning Commission from the ARB. In order to have had the green space, she understood that the ARB
10/05/98 87-208
would have had to approve a design enhancement exception, which they chose not to do. Mr. White said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler clarified the Planning Commission had no option to recommend differently. Mr. White said that was correct.
Mr. Calonne said the ARB=s action was complete and beyond any
appeal period. The Council=s current action was limited to approving or disapproving the Subdivision Map and conditions. Vice Mayor Schneider asked at what point the ARB came back into the picture. Mr. White said the ARB made its determination and forwarded its recommendation to the Planning Director who approved the project. Vice Mayor Schneider clarified the City Council had the recommendations from the Planning Commission and staff and not from the ARB. Mr. White said that was correct. The ARB did not have purview over the Tentative Map application. The renderings and plans that were displayed at the meeting were the ARB approved plans for the site. Mr. Calonne said the project could be constructed as viewed on the wall renderings with no action by the City Council. The applicant would not be able to sell any of the units but could retain them as an entire project. The project was approved for development in a multifamily zone. Approval of the subdivision would allow the applicant to sell the units. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. Jeff Levin, applicant, said the project was designed as a 1930-1940 cottage-style Bungalow on a cobblestone, private street to resemble a small, single-family community designed with large front porches and community interaction. The park at the end of the lane was denied, which was unfortunate. The Planning Commission and staff favored the park idea, but the existing zoning required two parking spaces. His original understanding was that the ARB requirement for the two spaces was a recommendation to the Council. The materials proposed for the project were of the highest quality. All the houses were designed and painted to create an illusion that each house was completely unique. Bay Area Stream Water Management would be utilized in the storm drain, which was experimental and unusual for a project in Palo Alto. Outdoor street lamps would enhance the old character of the neighborhood.
10/05/98 87-209
Council Member Eakins asked whether it was possible to rescue the park. Mr. Levin said the parking spaces would be cobblestone rather than asphalt, but he would look at the possibility of retaining the park. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether Mr. Levin had an idea as to what the selling price would be on the units. Mr. Levin said the suggested selling price was in the high $600,000 to low $800,000 range. The $600,000 unit would be 1500 square feet, and the low $800,000 unit would be 1700 square feet. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendation that the City Council: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration, with a finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and 2. Approve a tentative subdivision map based on the revised findings and subject to the revised conditions. REVISED DRAFT FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP Recommended Findings for Approval 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs including those policies governing land use, residential density and housing. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed lot configuration accommodates construction of 13 new residential units in twelve new buildings and other site modifications which meet the Architectural Review Board Standards for Review and which fully comply with all existing zoning regulations. 3. The design of the new lot pattern and building locations will not cause any environmental impacts as the site improvement has undergone environmental review and mitigating conditions of approval have been attached to the Architectural Review Board approval. 4. The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed improvements will not result in serious public health
10/05/98 87-210
problems in that all necessary public services, including public utilities, are available and will be provided. In addition, no fish or wildlife or habitat thereof are impacted by this subdivision. 5. The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public easements for access through the property in that there were no such easements. An ungated private street provides access to eleven of the new units and the remaining two units have direct access to a public street. REVISED DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION GENERAL 1. All Conditions required under Architectural Review Board application 97-ARB-152 shall apply to this project and are incorporated as a part of this approval. 2. The developer shall repair, restore or replace, at the developers expense, any City property damaged while performing work within the City right-of-way. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP 3. The Applicant shall arrange a meeting to discuss the improvement plans necessary for the project with Public Works Engineering, Planning, Fire and Transportation Departments. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. 4. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements
or other property under the City=s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. 5. The applicant shall submit a current Preliminary Title Report and Grant Deed for the subject properties. 6. If the applicant desires to name the new private street, a submittal shall be made to the Palo Alto Historical Society for this purpose which is consistent with the street naming policy contained in the Palo Alto Policy and Procedures Manual, Section 1-16. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP 7. Security for the payment in lieu of providing additional housing, pursuant to the Below Market Rate Letter of
10/05/98 87-211
Agreement, herein incorporated by reference, shall be submitted in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. This shall include a provision that a second on-site below market rate unit shall be designated and held by the subdivider until such time as the City accepts an off-site unit. 8. The final map submitted shall show all the widths of streets in the vicinity as well as all easements affecting the property. 9. The final map shall include a five foot wide public utility easement along the western property line for the exiting overhead wires. 10. If necessary, the subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel map to guarantee completion of the items approved under improvement plan. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning Division and Public Works Department. MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to assign a designation of No Historic Merit to the property located at 951-955 Addison Street, under the Interim Historic Regulations for pre-1940 residences. The property comprises a Bungalow Court with three small cottages and an accessory building. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said the property consisted of 3 cottages constructed around 1927 and was currently listed as a
Category 4 on the City=s historic inventory. The applicant applied for Historic Merit evaluation under the Interim Regulations Program. The staff recommendation to the HRB was for a designation of contributing residence, and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) approved a recommendation of No Historic Merit. The Director of Planning and Community Environment accepted that recommendation and issued a decision of no historic merit. A neighbor of the subject property appealed the designation and requested that the Council designate the property a Contributing property. Historic Resources Board Member Carol Merton said the members of the HRB who voted for No Historic Merit did so because they felt the neighborhood had lost its historic character, and they were concerned about the changes to the house closest to the street.
10/05/98 87-212
Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. Bob Kuhar, 947 Addison Avenue, appellant, said Palo Alto was a unique City, unlike any others in the area. Part of the charm of Palo Alto was the neighborhoods. The property at 951-955 Addison
Avenue was on the City=s current historic inventory. Although originally recommended as Contributing by the staff to the HRB, the property was later designated as having No Historic Merit. After the HRB meeting, the staff did further study and found that the changes to the front cottage were quite minor and not as extensive as was presented at the original meeting. He felt that the ruling was possibly made with incorrect and insufficient data. Another argument presented at the meeting was that the historic fabric of the neighborhood was not that great. About the same time, 965 Addison Avenue was found to be Contributing. Because of the ruling, the cottages were being allowed to be placed without a design review. He wanted a definite say on his neighborhood, especially next door to his property. He urged the Council to reverse the findings of the HRB of No Historic Merit and return the property to the original designation of Contributing. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. Council Member Kniss clarified that by designating the house Historic Merit under the Contributing category, the house could be demolished, but the guidelines set by the Council would have to be followed. Ms. Warheit said yes.
Council Member Mossar asked whether staff could answer Mr. Kuhar=s question about how a structure on the existing historic inventory could have No Historic Merit. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the standards listed in Attachment
E, ΑStandards for Historic Designation,≅ of the staff report (CMR:382:98) replaced the standards under which the Category 4 designation was developed. The answer was there were different standards. Council Member Wheeler said the block on Addison Avenue where the subject property was located could be described as eclectic. There was a variety and disparity in the sizes and styles of residential structures. She questioned whether there was a definable character to the neighborhood.
Ms. Warheit said the City=s consultant who prepared the staff report concluded there was sufficient community character. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to direct the City Attorney to return to the Council with findings
10/05/98 87-213
applicable to uphold the appeal and designate the structure as a Contributing property as defined in Attachment E. Council Member Kniss said she would like to see the property designated Contributing because the current ordinance would allow some freedom for the homeowner yet remain in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Schneider said the neighborhood had charm. She voted to uphold the appeal because there would be a process for design review for whatever replaced the cottages. Mr. Calonne referred to the last page of Attachment E of the staff report (CMR:382:98) with respect to Contributing Properties and
said he would treat Αcharm≅ as another way of saying what was described about neighborhood groupings. Mayor Rosenbaum said the issue was having the Council support the appeal on the basis the action would allow design review for construction of the house. Mr. Calonne said the consequence of the designation should not be a material factor in deciding whether to apply it. The regulations
addressed the nature of the property rather than the City=s desire to control what would be built if the present cottages were demolished. Council Member Eakins asked whether the property was one, three, or four lots. Ms. Warheit said the property was one parcel. Council Member Eakins clarified there could be one large house on the property. Mr. Warheit said that was correct. Mayor Rosenbaum did not support the motion. Based on the Interim Ordinance, the house was not worthy of a Contributing designation. MOTION PASSED: 7-2, Eakins, Rosenbaum, "no." Council Members Kniss, Mossar, and Ojakian and Vice Mayor Schneider announced they had visited the site. Council Member Wheeler said she had done a quick windshield survey. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Request by Property Owners of Tract 1722 and Portions of Tract 1977 for Single Story Overlay Zoning for Meadow Park Unit #5 Neighborhood. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared.
10/05/98 87-214
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of Property
Collectively Known as ΑMeadow Park Tract 1722 and A Portion of Tract 1977" from R-1 to R-1(s) Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said there were 106 lots in the proposed area located off Charleston Avenue and bounded by Bibbits Drive and Grove Avenue. Staff believed the four criteria in the Single-Story Guidelines could be met. The four criteria included moderately sized lots between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet; prevailing single-story character; a reasonable and identifiable boundary to the neighborhood; and, overwhelming support in the neighborhood. Originally, staff used 75 percent as the demarcation for overwhelming neighborhood support. When the application was originally made, 79 percent of the residents in the area supported the application. Between the time the Planning Commission heard the item and the present meeting, the percentage dropped to 69 percent. The change occurred because of misunderstandings between some of the residents who requested signatures on the petition and what those signing the petition thought the restrictions would be. The overwhelming support had not been defined either in the code or in the guidelines. The Council had the authority to interpret overwhelming support in a manner which the Council felt was acceptable. The Planning Commission heard the item on August 26, 1998, and recommended approval with modifications: the house at 3943 Grove Avenue be exempted from the proposed S Overlay District, and any houses or lots that had building permits in process for second-story additions should also be exempted, which included one site at 3940 Bibbits Drive. Staff did not agree with eliminating the home that had a building permit in process which could result in irregularities in the district and could establish a precedent for other single-story overlay districts and homes within the districts. Staff recommended approval of the single-story overlay.
Planning Commissioner Bern Beecham said staff=s rationale was valid for including the property at 3940 Bibbits Drive within the single-story overlay. One factor was whether the neighbors contested the action which would reduce the rationale of the City to exclude it from the action. Council Member Fazzino asked for clarification on what the role of private deed restrictions had been with respect to prior Council actions on single-story overlay zones and the relationship of current private deed restrictions on Council action with respect to the overlay zone. Ms. Grote said that in the past, the neighborhoods that had a single-story deed restriction had the guidelines applied to them in a more flexible manner, especially with the overwhelming support criterion. Seventy-five percent was considered overwhelming support
10/05/98 87-215
in those neighborhoods that had single-story deed restriction. Without the single-story deed restriction, the percentage would be 80 percent to be considered overwhelming support.
Council Member Fazzino asked how the Council=s prior actions related to the criteria. Ms. Grote said the neighborhoods which had been before the Council had a single-story deed restriction attached to it and had between 76 and 79 percent overwhelming support. Council Member Fazzino clarified the Council had not approved any overlay zones without private deed restrictions in place. Ms. Grote said that was correct. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the role of the guidelines for Council decision-making was not binding and not part of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The intent of the Council in creating the overlay appeared to backstop existing private restrictions; however, the Council left itself the discretion to apply the overlay even if there were no deed restrictions present. Under state and federal constitutions, the property owner would not have any right to build a second story until the time a valid building permit was received and substantial construction of the second story was undertaken. In the past, when the Council exempted property owners who had merely applied for building permits, the Council did that under its own authority rather than a constitutional rule. Council Member Huber asked when the first deed restriction was imposed. Contract Planner Chandler Lee said the original deed restriction for the neighborhood was in 1953. There was a rescinding of that deed restriction in the 1980s, and the deed restriction was reinstated in 1997. Council Member Huber clarified from 1980 to 1997, a property owner was able to build a second story and not face a lawsuit from a neighbor. Mr. Lee said that was correct. Council Member Huber asked what criteria was necessary for a majority to impose the restriction on the entire subdivision when the reinstatement occurred. Mr. Lee said the action required a simple majority of the homeowners within the area. Council Member Kniss said if the Council became more careful about
looking at a second story, given neighbor=s concerns, the Council
10/05/98 87-216
could deal with the situation in a different manner. The Council had heard from neighbors who did not want monster homes built next door. She could not recall when the Council discussed overlays. Ms. Grote said the first overlay was implemented in 1992. At the present time, building permits and second-story additions would be ministerial in nature. Permits would be approved without benefit of extra or discretionary review if applications met zoning and building code requirements. Staff would not look at where windows were placed or where allowed daylight intrusions or encroachments might occur. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the City received supporting information other than what was included in the packet. Ms. Grote said there was additional documentation. Staff organized the information into a more readable form, but the original petitions and letters were on file in the Planning Department. Council Member Wheeler did not think the Council had seen in prior applications any indication from those who were opposed or who changed their minds in the interim the degree of discomfort about the manner in which they were approached or the documentation which they were or were not given as part of the approach. She did not know how the Council would make a judgement on the fairness of the questions which were asked in the process the neighborhood went
through and whether that was germaine to the Council=s discussion. Mr. Calonne said the Council could take that into account in determining overwhelming support. Council Member Wheeler said there had been some suggestion in the current application by members of the public who corresponded with the Council that the instrument used to elicit support may or may not have stated the case fairly. She wanted to know whether staff made the judgement as to the fairness of the original instrument or whether the Council needed to determine that the instrument was fair.
Ms. Grote said staff looked at a Αsignature form≅ which requested a
zone for a tract and listed the tract. The form read, ΑI understand the single-story height combining district limits structures to 17 feet in height, increases allowable lot coverage
to 40 percent≅ and Αthe City of Palo Alto will initiate the zone
without charge to me if there is overwhelming support.≅ When staff looked at the signature forms, staff made an assessment that people understood what they were signing and that there was an understanding of the district and its limitations. Council Member Huber said it was important to know whether the properties were legally restricted and whether what was suggested by Attorney Steven Cone was true that if a majority agreed to
10/05/98 87-217
restrict their properties, all other properties in the tract would also be restricted. He asked how the Council could exempt a property if it were restricted by deed. Mr. Calonne said the question was not whether the Council had authority to relieve property owners of the deed restriction, but whether Council action to do so would have any effect. Staff would research the state of the title if the Council directed staff to do so. He did not know whether Attorney Cone was correct. From a legal standpoint, the Council could avoid the issue by applying stricter standards in the guidelines, assuming there were no deed restrictions. Council Member Huber said his intention was for the audience to convince him rather than asking the City Attorney to research the title. MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to lay the item on the table. MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to bring Item Nos. 15 and 15A forward to be heard before Item No. 14. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 15. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $60,000 for Recruitment Assistance MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the ordinance.
Ordinance 4526 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $60,000 for Recruitment
Assistance≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. 15A. (Old Item 2) Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Sebastian & Associates for the Residential Arterial Streets Traffic Calming Project-Phase 1 MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the Council approve the agreement with Sebastian & Associates and authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to issue change orders up to a total amount not to exceed $11,000.
10/05/98 87-218
MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to take Item No. 13 from the table. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. Christina Willrich, 3934 Louis Road, supported the single-story overlay and did not feel misled about the overlay. The deed restriction was one of the factors that encouraged her and her husband to buy in the neighborhood. Privacy was valued, and the only private area around the house was the back yard. The rear wall of the house was completely plate glass, comprising of the living room and master bedroom which gave the illusion that the tiny back yard was larger and had played a major factor in the purchase of the house. The intent of paying a large amount of money for the house was for back yard privacy and not to look at a second-story structure. The only direct light the house received was from the rear property. The property values of the houses on tiny lots would be reduced by neighboring second-story structures. Abby Boyd, 3998 Bibbits Drive, said her neighborhood was the sixth to request the single-story overlay. Strong support was found when visiting homes in the neighborhood. Over 50-percent support was needed to amend the deed restriction, and 83 people signed the single-story zoning request. After 40 years, only 3 two-story homes were located in Tract 1722 and none in Tract 1977. Since the Planning Commission meeting when Mr. and Mrs. Evans said they had been misled, some other people rescinded their request for a single-story overlay. An open letter opposing the single-story zoning was delivered to every homeowner in the neighborhood. The letter contained inaccurate and accusatory statements. Planning Commissioner John Schink had some practical and compassionate comments to make about the single-story zoning overlay. When there was a deed restriction, the zoning prevented neighbor from suing neighbor. Other alternative approaches such as design review were not coming for quite a few years. The single-story overlay was the least restrictive measure available. A number of commissioners also commented on attractiveness of the neighborhood. A strong majority of homeowners supported the zoning request. There was a deed amendment for two-thirds of the neighborhood. The Planning guidelines for applying for a single-story overlay required a greater amount of flexibility for a request for a neighborhood with a deed restriction. The Single-Story Height Combining District
Overlay Zone Guidelines specified, Αfor neighborhoods in which there are no single-story deed restrictions or where such restrictions exist yet have not been strictly adhered to. Applications are to be evaluated through more rigorous use of these
guidelines.≅ Her understanding of the deed restriction, was that
10/05/98 87-219
the application should be considered without the more rigorous use of the guidelines. Faith Hastings, 3940 Grove Avenue, favored the single-story overlay as previously stated in an e-mail to the Council. There were comments heard about property values being destroyed if the overlay were allowed. Property values would be diminished if two-story houses were located next to the single-story houses. The 2 two-story houses surrounding her property led her to replace the 6- foot fence with a 7-foot fence and to plant large hedges. The action improved the privacy but enclosed the yard and diminished the amount of light available for growing sun-loving plants. She did not want to be subjected to additional invasion of privacy and
noise and light pollution. She requested the Council=s favorable vote on the proposed overlay. Phyllis Klein, 4264 Newberry Court, represented Tract 840 of Charleston Meadows II, where an overwhelming majority of 61 property owners requested the single-story overlay that was granted by the Council on September 15, 1997. The property owners were glad to have the single-story overlay because it protected and preserved the privacy of the indoor and outdoor Eichler homes. Property values had not depreciated as some had predicted. She supported the granting of the single-story overlay for Meadow Park Tract 1722 and a portion of Tract 1977. Millie Davis, 443 Tennessee Lane, lived in the third neighborhood to obtain the single-story overlay, and the neighborhood benefited by the overlay. She urged the Council to approve the request by Meadow Park Tract 1722 and a portion of 1977 for the one-story overlay. She read a letter from Florence and Philip LaRivier, two original residents of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood which
stated, ΑWe moved into our house in Charleston Meadows when it was built in 1951. We had two children at that time and two more were born to us in the next few years. The house has been a continuing joy to live in. As the family grew, so did the house by two more rooms plus a bath. We were assured that the quality of life in our pleasant neighborhood would remain because the builder had established a single-story restriction at the time the land was subdivided. At the request of residents, the Council reiterated the protection was already in place so we would continue to have the light and airiness that we have all enjoyed for the last 47 years. We had the assurance that, while our friends all over town
have complained bitterly about, will not happen here.≅ The benefit of the single-story overlay was that the light and sunshine would be preserved. When design and buildings were tastefully chosen and approved by a design review process, two-story houses built close to smaller, one-story houses would still be objectionable by the height of the building which would block out the sunshine. Someone who investigated the deed restriction told her it was not always enforceable and that the only sure way to achieve the benefits was the one-story overlay. She believed whether or not a neighborhood
10/05/98 87-220
had a deed restriction, that should not be a factor in the City=s decision on one-story overlays. The problems posed by large, two-story houses on smaller lots existed whether or not there was a deed restriction. John Klein, 4264 Newberry Court, spoke for a neighborhood resident who could not be present, but whose point was that privacy was the main advantage of the single-story overlay. Larry Mitchell, 3888 Grove Avenue, said while cutting down hedges in his yard, he noticed that the house behind his was a two-story. The house next door, which was not in good condition, would be going up for sale, and he worried about speculation. His concerns were with light and noise. Eichlers had tradition and historic significance. The houses were designed for inside and outside living. A single-story home was less offensive than a two-story home. Joe Pickering, 3931 Grove Avenue, expressed the concern the majority of the residents in the area had about the negative impact on the economic value of their homes if more two-story homes were built in the area. When the issue first arose, the residents contacted Jerry Ditto, a recognized authority on Eichler homes. His unequivocal position was that one, two, or three two-story houses in a single-story neighborhood had a negative impact on the values of the property. He spoke with several real estate agents who concurred that two-story homes in single-story neighborhoods had a negative impact on prices of homes. RECESS at 9:30 PM - 9:50 PM Mike McMahon, 3923 Grove Avenue, said he and his wife favored the single-story overlay because they did not want a two-story house next to theirs. He urged the Council to consider the fact that there was overwhelming support of the residents and also consider the prevailing single-story character of the neighborhood. Of 106 homes, only three were two-story. The character of the neighborhood was recognized by the City Profile in the City of Palo
Alto=s Website which indicated that Palo Alto=s neighborhoods were distinctive, each with its own character and ambiance. The character of the neighborhood was also recognized by Planning Commissioner Schink in his comments at the August 27, 1998, hearing, stating that the tracts included some of the best Eichlers left in the community, Eichlers that deserved to be kept in their current form. Commissioner Schmidt agreed with his comment that it might be appropriate in that neighborhood to preserve the character by applying the single-story overlay even though there were some people not in favor of it. Additionally, his neighbor, Esmail Essabhoy of 3939 Grove Avenue, asked that the Council reconsider that 3943 Grove be removed from the single-story overlay at the August 27, 1998, Planning Commission. Mr. Essabhoy objected to a
10/05/98 87-221
second-story at that location because it would intrude on his privacy. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the overlay. Duf Sundheim, 1920 Barbara Drive, spoke on behalf of Sue-Yia Cheng. He was touched by the input of the various people who wanted the single-story overlay. The issue was confusing. A comment was heard that 67 percent of the residents had approved the deed restriction, but that was not accurate. Only 39 out of the 72, or 54 percent, approved the deed restriction. Certain aspects of the properties were subject to the deed restriction. The County Recorder was confused by the issue. There had never been anything
recorded against his client=s property. The only properties that had anything recorded against them were those who had signed the petition. The County Recorder took the people who submitted their approval to the overlay and put the deed restriction on their property. The people who did not approve it were not legally subject to the restriction. Everyone should agree on a process where there was a formalized vote; and if that was what the community decided to do, his client would not stand in the way of the judgement. He would like to see a more structured approach where people were given an opportunity to hear both sides of the story before being asked to sign something. Council Member Huber said someone loaned him the original restrictions and changes. There was an original deed restriction in 1956, an amendment in 1985, and filings in 1997 which were individual addresses. He asked whether Mr. Sundheim believed that in 1985, the amendment removed the ability of the majority to make future changes. Mr. Sundheim said that was one of the issues he would like to see reviewed. Section 16 of the original restriction was unclear whether a property owner had to wait 30 years or 10 years to amend the deed. Council Member Huber said if one could continue to amend by majority, either the methodology by which the restriction was described in 1997 was wrong or the Recorder made a mistake. Mr. Sundheim believed the Recorder made a mistake. Sue-Yia Cheng, 3940 Bibbits Drive, bought her house in 1992 and submitted a plan in early 1998 to extend the house. The lot was small; and in order to preserve the yard space, the only addition
possible was a second-story. In March of 1998, the Recorder=s Office did not indicate any restrictions. Architects were hired, plans were submitted in July, and in August the Planning Commission sent information which indicated there was a hearing for a single-story overlay zone. The recorded deed restrictions of 1956 and 1985 were located but not the 1997 deed restriction. The Planning Commission approved an exemption in August 1998. The deed restriction process was confusing and the rules that governed the
10/05/98 87-222
process were unclear. She urged the Council not to make any decision based on the deed restriction because it was not overwhelming. The matter should be referred back to the community in order for the property owners to understand the implications and participate in the process. Mary Ostrom, 790 Gailen Avenue, said the Council had heard all the reasons why the property owners did not want two-story houses in the neighborhood. She was concerned about a house next door that might be torn down, built on speculation, and sold for a profit, which would affect property values and the ambiance of the neighborhood. She urged the Council not to send the matter back to the community. Sol Solk, 784 Gailen Avenue, said the addition of two-story houses in the Eichler environment did not look right. Two-story additions were different and foreign to the neighborhood. The majority of the residents wanted the overlay. Priscilla Williams, 729 E. Charleston Road, said a two-story house anywhere around her would affect her privacy. She supported the overlay. The rationale for the restriction was something the majority of Palo Alto voters supported. Jim Doolittle, 716 Gailen Avenue, said he and his wife circulated the signature forms requesting the single-story overlay zone for their tract, 1977, and assisted with the circulation of signature forms for Tract 1722. The memo from the Director of Planning and Assistant City Manager, dated October 5, 1998, included Attachment
A, entitled ΑOpen Letter.≅ The significant paragraphs affected were at the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3. He rebutted contents of both paragraphs. The first paragraph claimed that when the deed restriction information was checked with the County, only 39 houses who agreed to the single-story overlay were affected by the deed restriction out of 72 homes listed in Tract 1722. The homeowners who did not sign the deed restriction were not recorded with the deed restriction under their properties. The original Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the tract
contained the restriction on two-stories, ΑThese covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all
persons clinging under them for a period of 30 years,≅ which would
have been 1986, Αfrom the date the covenants are recorded. After which time covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of 10 years unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owners of the lots has been recorded, agreeing to change
said covenants in whole or in part.≅ That would take care of the 1985 change and cover the 1997 change. A trust deed dated 1957
indicated, Αto comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations,
covenants, conditions and restrictions affecting said property.≅ Just as the original CC&Rs affected all lot owners within the tract who had notice of it by recording or otherwise, so did the
10/05/98 87-223
amendment. The second paragraph noted claimed that the deed restriction was not properly processed and recorded with the county. According to Civil Code section 1355, the deed amendment process was not properly followed. The fact was the amendment complied with all legal requirements to create a covenant on real property. The allegation by opponents to the deed restriction and zoning change that the procedure followed by proponents did not comply with Civil Code section 1355 was inaccurate. Section 1355 was in the statutory provisions concerning condominiums and common interest developments. Tract 1722 did not fall within the definition of such developments as the tract did not include a common area owned by an association or by owners of the lots. The misinformation in the two paragraphs might or might not have had any bearing on the eleven defections noted, but he believed rebuttal was in order. As to the misrepresentations claimed on page 2 of the document, he and his wife obtained support of the person at the top of the defections list and possibly others on the list; they told each that the deed restriction affecting all lots on the tract had been approved by sufficient numbers and submitted for recording. That was true. Support of the zoning overlay was asked for as a way to avoid conflict and injured feelings among the neighbors, angry suits for enforcement of the deed restriction, or wasted efforts due to lack of knowledge about the restriction. Jan Pederson, 3913 Bibbits Drive, was opposed to the zoning restriction. He listened to his neighbors claims about the style of Eichler living and the indoor-outdoor aspect. Many of the properties on Bibbits back up to Fabian Way, a commercial zone, with large two-story commercial buildings. With respect to the single-story aspect of the neighborhood, the area was already dominated by commercial buildings. The important factor was the matter of property value. His house was an important aspect, and he would not like any restriction placed on it that would decrease the property value. People argued that a single-story restriction would increase property value, which he did not understand and found unlikely. The overwhelming support was 69% and that was only with a certain amount of recanvassing of the people who signed the original petition. That should be a red flag to the Council that something was amiss. Bob Evans, 812 Gailen Avenue, said there was something wrong with the process. Over 10 percent of the people who signed for a single-story overlay changed their minds which brought the amount below the 75 percent that was used as a guideline for overwhelming support. The petition process took place over a long period of time. If Civil Code section 1355 was discovered to not apply because the project was not a condominium, there must be an appropriate section in the Civil Code. There was little time to get 10 people to remove their name from the petition and to show that something was wrong with the process.
10/05/98 87-224
Sam Steel, M.D., 3937 Bibbits, said he had never seen an issue split such a peaceful community. There were a number of fears and misinformation on one side and issues on the other side that had not been heard. A quick decision would not resolve the issue. Issues included size of house that would overwhelm the smaller house, privacy, sunlight, and speculation. There were other ways to address the privacy issue, such as no windows, frosted or stained glass windows. A good architect could deal with the sunlight issue. People who lived in the neighborhood did not move very often. The cohesiveness of the neighborhood was important. Legal issues needed to be addressed to determine whether or not the deed restriction was valid. Lawyers were looking into the issue and it might take a judge to rule on the issue. Even if the recorded restriction provided for amendment with the consent of less than all the landowners, a purported amendment that did not comply with the expressed provisions of the recorded restrictions would not be valid if the subsequent party was unaware of and did not rely on the amendment. There were family issues to consider. Charleston Road was a speedway and Louis Road was becoming one. Back yards were needed because children could not play in the street. The only way to keep back yards was to build second stories. The process was not proper and should be redone. A quick decision would not solve the issues. Heike Schmalstieg, 812 Gailen Avenue, bought her house two years prior, and there was no deed restriction. Building up was better than use yard space. Most of the houses surrounding hers were not Eichlers. A second-story single room would not inflict on the
sunlight in her neighbors= yards, and windows could be placed in a
sensible way that would not face neighbors= yards. The neighborhood was attractive to families, and most of the people who were opposed to the overlay were young families. She hoped there would be flexibility with the properties in the future. Anil Gupta, 785 Gailen Avenue, said there were two central issues before the Council: deed restriction and overwhelming support. A more democratic process with discussion, an opportunity for each side to present its view, and a secret ballot would be appropriate. In future cases of a similar nature, the Council might want to recommend certain standards of the process that would be followed. The fact that 12 people reversed their position on the petition would indicate that there was confusion about the process. The community should be given the opportunity to go through the process which should take less than eight weeks and see what the outcome was. If the outcome showed clear, overwhelming support, he would support the position of the community. If overwhelming support did not exist, the rights of those who wanted to build a second story should not be restricted. Zaki Lisha, 779 Gailen Avenue, wanted to know how to set an example in getting the neighborhoods to address the question of zone changes. In looking at that process, a bad precedent was set. The
10/05/98 87-225
process undermined the trust that people had in each other. In the process of gathering signatures, there was no knowledge of the deed restriction and as a result, the process continued. Based on the deed restriction, residents were told they had to sign the petition. He asked for reconsideration of the process. Arguments to be made included the gathering of the signatures which the Planning Commission based its vote on and the validity of the signatures. He urged the Council to give the community the chance to look at the issue wisely and make a decision on it. Paul Grimsrud, 3955 Bibbits Drive, said following the Planning Commission meeting of August 26, 1998, he had discussions with several neighbors who felt they were misled in the petition-signing process. He did not believe he was reversing the deed restriction change that he supported in 1985. Many neighbors felt vulnerable to the potential loss of privacy and negative impact on neighborhood character that two-story houses built by profit-hungry contractors presented. The current process did not ensure informed and clearly thought out decisions by potentially affected property owners. He was concerned that people would sign their names to a petition without having all the information or wrong information, only to be neighborly or because they would not want more pressure from their neighbors. Many people felt uncomfortable speaking at public meetings. He recommended after the petition-signing process that City staff prepare an information memo which included facts about the proposed ordinance and a ballot to be returned to staff. The process would allow people to make their decisions in an informed and objective manner rather than a state of confusion. He recommended the Council consider less heavy-handed methods of addressing the privacy in neighborhood character issues including possibly a design review team or approve a single-story overlay which allowed for variances for second-story additions. The process would allow for some flexibility for neighbors with growing families and with tasteful plans to add to their homes. An overwhelming majority of the neighbors would prefer flexibility. The Council should decide on and announce to the public its
definition of Αoverwhelming majority.≅ He agreed with the opinion he heard earlier in the meeting that 75 percent majority should be the lower cutoff. Donald Rooney, 3948 Bibbits Drive, said there were no Eichlers where he lived, and there were two-story homes and office buildings surrounding his home. He favored allowing people to add second stories and would like to see the process formalized. Mary Beltrami, 762 Gailen Court, read her e-mail to the Council, dated September 21, 1998, which urged the Council to vote in favor of the single story overlay for Tracts 1722 and 1977. When she was approached to sign the petition, the issue was explained clearly. She read the documents and did not feel misled.
10/05/98 87-226
Robert Weiss, 3916 Louis Road, chose to live in his home because of the CC&Rs on his home when he bought it in 1984. His lot was small but had an open feeling because there were no two-story homes surrounding his. He was offended to hear neighbors tell him that he could plant 20-foot hedges in his 8-foot wide space between the fence and house in order to block out a two-story addition that could be built next to his house. There would be a definite loss in quality of life and economic value. He was involved in the process to obtain signatures and had copies of documents, petitions, zoning regulations, zoning change laws, and a book on applying for home improvement exceptions. He overwhelmed the property owners with information before anything was signed. Ruth Lisha, 779 Gailen Court, did not believe the Council should make a decision that evening. Due process had been denied to many people. She was unaware of the deed restriction until neighbors tried to pressure her into signing the overlay petition. Accurate information was not given to her. The issue should be sent to the community to decide. Mary Campbell, 3946 Louis Road, was one of the people who circulated the petition and differed with people who said they were misled. People were given material and the deed restriction form. Diego Beltrami, 762 Gailen Court, said the process had worked well. Opponents and proponents had the opportunity to demonstrate their views to the Council. There was overwhelming support for the single-story overlay zoning. He urged the Council to make a decision in favor of the single-story overlay. Other districts had gone through the process successfully. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, said the City had the potential to increase the density in a way that would work well in single-family neighborhoods, such as utilizing in-law units. Density and affordable housing issues needed to be considered. Single-family home neighborhoods had a responsibility to increase the density without building multi-story structures. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the item to the Monday, November 16, 1998, City Council Meeting. (Public Hearing Closed) MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent. RESOLUTIONS 14. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending the Suspension of Collection of Certain Fees for Flood-related Damage Authorized by Resolution No. 7746
10/05/98 87-227
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the item to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 16. Council Members Eakins and Mossar re Changes to the Building Code to Allow the Use of Permeable Paving Surfaces in Residential Areas MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the item to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent. 17. Council Members Fazzino, Kniss and Ojakian re Extension of Refund of Debris Box Rental Charges and Suspension of Landfill Fees Related to Flood Recovery MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the item to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent. 18. Council Members Victor Ojakian and Dena Mossar re Pedestrian Safety MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the item to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent. 19. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:12 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
10/05/98 87-228
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.
10/05/98 87-229