HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-13 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting
October 13, 1998
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................87-230 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................87-230
1. Amendment No. 1 to Lease No. 333 between the City of Palo Alto and R&T Restaurant Corporation for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Restaurant, 1875 Embarcadero Road87-231 2. Affordable Housing Initiative on November Ballot (Measure
A)....................................................87-231
3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will review a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and consider three appeals of a Zoning Administrator approval of a conditional
use permit to allow 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.......................87-231
4. 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. 774687-250 5. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 16.57.010, 16.57.030, and 16.57.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to In-lieu Parking Fees for
Nonresidential Development Within the University Avenue Parking Assessment District...........................87-251
6. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Historic Preservation Regulations Including Compatibility
Review Standards .....................................87-252 7. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Administrative
10/13/98 87-228
Code) to Add Chapter 2.24 Establishing a Library Advisory Commission............................................87-254
8. Mayor Rosenbaum re Resolution Opposing Proposition 9..87-256 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-256
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. in memory of Al Ruiz..................................................87-256
10/13/98 87-229
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Fazzino (arrived at 7:14 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Eakins, Schneider
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Cory T. Jasperson, Aide to SCC Supervisor Joe Simitian, announced a Town Hall Meeting to be held at Cubberley Theater on
Wednesday, October 14, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. regarding the Spangler site. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding Democracy.
Kip Husty, 3093 Emerson Street Apt. F, spoke regarding an eviction notice.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding owners who did not acquire proper permits to alter their properties.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to
approve the Minutes of August 3, 1998, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to
approve the Minutes of August 10, 1998, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent.
10/13/98 87-230
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. 1. Amendment No. 1 to Lease No. 333 between the City of Palo Alto and R&T Restaurant Corporation for the Palo Alto
Municipal Golf Course Restaurant, 1875 Embarcadero Road 2. Affordable Housing Initiative on November Ballot (Measure
A) MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will review a
revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and consider three appeals of a Zoning Administrator approval of a conditional use permit to allow 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, a passive park area, restroom facilities, and related landscaping and site improvements
(continued from 8/10/98)
City Manager June Fleming welcomed the new Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf.
Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the item was last heard on December 1, 1997. At that time, the Council directed staff to
revise the Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporate potential environmental impacts into the revised document. The impacts revolved around the sound wall, wind patterns created by the sound wall, air movement, tree removal, aesthetics, and shadow patterns. The items were addressed in the revised
Mitigated Negative Declaration which was readvertised for the required 20-day period. The revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was also readvertised 21 days prior to that
evening=s Council meeting since the item was continued from the August 10, 1998, hearing. The Council voted at the December 1,
1997, meeting to include two 10-foot masonry sound walls on the north and west property lines. Wooden sound walls as well as masonry sound walls were discussed in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration to give full disclosure of the environmental impacts associated with both types of sound walls. Both types of sound
10/13/98 87-231
walls could be constructed without harming trees adjacent to the facility. Staff recommended that the three appeals be denied
and that the original approval be upheld with modified conditions as shown in the staff report (CMR:343:98). Council Member Mossar asked what were the permitted hours for the tennis facility.
Ms. Grote said the hours of operation were 8:00 a.m. to dark, Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to dark on Sundays and
holidays.
Council Member Mossar asked whether much thought was given to the effect of the sound walls should Matadero Creek flood. Ms. Grote said the Public Works Department reviewed the location of the sound wall and the potential for flooding and did not
believe that the creek would flood. Should the creek flood, the sound wall would be able to withstand minor flooding of the bank. Council Member Mossar said there had been discussion about
permissible increases in noise. She was provided with a copy of the original 1972 City Manager Report (CMR) which came with the
new noise ordinance. One interpretation of the CMR was that decibel (dB) levels in residential properties might only be increased by 6 dB and on public properties by 15 dB. In the
current case, the residential properties would have the dB level raised greater than 6 dB.
Ms. Grote said the Public Facility section of the Noise Ordinance was used since the subject property was zoned Public
Facilities. In the analysis for planning purposes, the entire site was assumed as the noise source. Noise impacts would be
measured at 25 feet from the edges of the site. Council Member Mossar understood the frustration of a resident living on Price Court who might say the decibels in his or her back yard would be at a certain level and the Noise Ordinance
guaranteed protection from a large increase in noise. Ms. Grote said a measurement from behind the 10-foot sound wall
should mitigate the noise down to an acceptable level, acceptable by Public Facility Standards.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne was confident that the Public Property Standard was the correct standard. The fact that the edge of the property was used for planning purposes did not mean
10/13/98 87-232
it was a standard used for code enforcement. The standard remained 25 feet from the noise source.
Council Member Mossar was confused whether the tennis courts were public or private. Use of the tennis courts required a fee, were located on public land, and were referred to by Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) as being neighborhood accessible.
Ms. Grote said the facility was considered public in that anyone was eligible to pay the nominal $100 maintenance fee.
Council Member Wheeler referred to materials from CSI which were delivered to the Council the prior weekend. A letter from
Edward L. Pack Associates was included which seemed to indicate that the difference in sound attenuation between an 8-foot wall and a 10-foot wall was minimal. She questioned the validity of the contention in the letter.
Mr. Calonne said the Council had directed findings, and the extent to which the Council would entertain new evidence was up to the Council. He cautioned the Council to make sure the appellants had a fair shot at the material as well. The Council needed to be mindful that the legal standard for the use permit
was different than the environmental review. The environmental review standard was the most sensitive which applied when
deciding whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration was required. The City was operating under a Negative Declaration, and the legal standard was that could
only be done if there were not a fair argument that the project might have significant impacts. In the fall of 1997, the City
was concerned with the warring experts that the City had that
fair argument and an EIR would be required. The City=s noise consultant firmly indicated that the City had an acceptable
mitigation package. To the extent that the applicant reopened the issue, the grounds were dangerous for the Council to get into from an environmental review standpoint. Council Member Wheeler questioned the timeline if the Council
were to take action.
Ms. Grote said the next step would be for the applicant to submit to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) engineered and architectural drawings for the sound walls, landscaping, and
tree issues related to the sound walls. The process would take up to six weeks for review, and, provided there were no appeals
of the ARB decision, the applicants could then apply for building permits.
Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing.
10/13/98 87-233
Mr. Calonne said, given the passage of time and reference to the letter received by the Council the prior weekend, the Council
should identify any outside contacts it might have had with the applicants or appellants. Council Member Mossar received a packet of materials from CSI, a phone call from CSI, a phone message from Robin, and she visited
the properties of Wei Wang, John Abraham, and another neighbor. Council Member Fazzino spoke to Mr. Morton several weeks prior
and again a week prior, visited the site within the prior week, and met with neighbors eight or nine months prior.
Council Member Wheeler said she and Mayor Rosenbaum had an extensive tour with Mr. Abraham and Ms. Wang of the subject property and houses bordering the north side of the property. The CSI packet was hand delivered and a brief conversation
entailed at that time. Later, she had a more extensive conversation with Mr. Morton and Mr. Mike Cobb. Mayor Rosenbaum said in addition to the visit with Council Member Wheeler, he had spoken numerous times to the applicant
and all three of the appellants.
Council Member Huber received the information from CSI and had brief phone conversations with several people which were not significant and did not influence his opinion.
Council Member Kniss visited the site and had not been
significantly impacted by any of her contacts. Council Member Ojakian received the CSI packet at his home,
spoke with Ms. Wang the prior day, and had conversations with other people.
Jack Morton, Community Skating, Inc., applicant, said the
Council was asked to support the Zoning Administrator=s decision
to grant the Use Permit. The 48 conditions imposed were accepted by CSI, with the request that parts of two conditions
be removed. CSI felt the requirement to double lock the facility was an unnecessary burden. The second condition required 10 foot-sound walls with glass blocks on the top 2
feet. CSI did not want to provide the community with prison-yard tennis courts.
Linda Jensen, Executive Director of the Winter Lodge, said the Lodge was eager to offer a youth tennis program to the
community. The Youth Ice Skating School was an award-winning program with over 1,000 students enrolled. The same quality
10/13/98 87-234
program was planned for tennis. She urged the Council to
support the Zoning Administrator=s decision to grant the use
permit and authorize completion of the lease under the existing use permit.
Marni Barnes, 846 Boyce Avenue, reviewed the packet material provided the Council, and the location was not a high wind area.
The change in fence height would be minimum. The best mitigation was through the shrubbery and landscaping which was incorporated in the plan. For every 2 feet of wall that was
increased in height, about 3 2 feet of shade was added at noon on the longest shadow day of the year. A 10-foot fence would add 7 additional feet of shade at high noon on the most vulnerable northern property line. Regarding the fence structure, the need for a pier construction was viable with tilt-up, precast
concrete walls and wooden walls. A concrete wall was expensive, and a glass block top would prohibit a wooden base or tilt-up
base fence. Council Member Mossar requested a description of the tennis
program which was envisioned for the courts. Mr. Morton said the program would include a keyed system.
People would register and pay a $100 fee for a key. The teaching program would be modeled after the successful program at the Winter Lodge and run from late May through the summer.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said he was unaware of the
communication received by the Council the prior weekend, and he believed the Council might have had a different proposal than what he had. He objected to any negotiations that ignored the
appellant=s input or understanding of the document. The project, as currently designed, demonstrably failed to satisfy the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. Mr. Calonne said it was appropriate to offer Mr. Abraham and the
other appellants time to review the material that was before the Council.
Mayor Rosenbaum called a recess in order for the appellants to review the material.
RECESS 8:00 p.m. to 8:08 p.m.
Mr. Abraham said he was unable to respond to the calculations and asked that the Council disregard the communication from the
applicant or provide the appellant time to read the entire record. The Council was asked to uphold the appeal based on the
fact that the project failed to satisfy the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. The Environmental Impact Report under California
10/13/98 87-235
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) guidelines was requested. Disputing experts compared the October 6, 1997, letter of Dr.
Salmon and the minutes of the September 15, 1997, City Council hearing, page 84-283. A mitigated declaration was inappropriate. He read a legal statement written by him and Natalie Fisher opposing the mitigated negative declaration. Even with the sound wall as mitigation, the project would impose
on his and the neighbors= properties noise levels well in excess of 6 dB over the 41 ambient noise level in the neighborhood. He and his attorney had carefully studied the Noise Ordinance and
its history. The General Plan and ordinance provisions were intended to protect Palo Alto residential properties from a 6 dB
increase at the property line. There were exceptions where residential areas were bordered by commercial or industrial properties. He was uncertain whether the proposed project would
change the zoning from Public Property under Section 9.10.050 to Commercial under Section 9.10.040. Either way, the maximum
allowable decibel limit should be 49 dB. His letter to City Attorney Ariel Calonne, which referred to the acoustical
engineering report in the City=s administrative record,
substantiated that 1) ambient decibel level was 41, and 2) with the proposed mitigating sound wall, the decibel level at his
property line would exceed 55 dB. The application required an EIR under CEQA guidelines in that a fair argument could be made that the project would violate the ordinance. The Noise
Ordinance, Section 9.10.050(a) stated that ΑNo person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or
device, or any combination of same, on public property , a noise level more than 15 dB above the local ambient at a distance of twenty-five feet or more, unless otherwise provided in this
chapter.≅ That sentence governed the case. The staff report from 1997 made it clear that the original intent was 25 feet from the noise source. The Police Department currently went to the property plain nearest the complainant and measured at the property plain. That interpretation was not mentioned in the
Noise Ordinance. The Planning Department recommended using as criterion on the project going to the property plain between the
source and the residential properties and go 25 feet toward the residential property, which in his case amounted to a distance of 105 feet from the fixed noise source. At that point, the
noise level in his back yard was measured. An ambient measurement was taken on the Public Facilities site. There was nothing like that in the Noise Ordinance. The question came up as to what mitigation would the City accept. The discussion had always included the masonry wall at a height of 10 feet. There
was no mitigation to the north of the condominiums. Mr. Rodkin asked for either a 14-foot wall at the condominium line or a 10-
foot wall next to the courts. The City was refusing to do that. There was no wall and no protection should the fifth court be
10/13/98 87-236
built. He asked for construction hours of 9:00 a.m. on Saturday and 10:00 a.m. on Sundays and Holidays.
Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, said page 60 of the City of Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) said ΑNoise levels over 55
decibels disrupt all types of normal listening activities. Noise also causes such subtle effects as distraction, annoyance,
stress, and tension. If these effects are continued, they can
cause serious emotional and psychological problems.≅ Mr. Rodkin used a formula to derive the height of the sound wall to bring
tennis ball hit noises down to 56 dB at and below 5 2 feet from
the ground in the middle of the neighbors= back yards. The noise level the neighbors would receive inside their houses would be
higher than Mr. Rodkin=s calculations because Mr. Rodkin did not take into consideration circumstantial facts such as 1) Winter
Lodge=s sloped roof was especially designed to bounce all the noise backwards toward the residents; 2) the amount of noise generated during tournaments when all five courts were used; 3)
all five hard-surfaced tennis courts located next to each other became a powerful noise reflector; 4) police called in to make a noise measurement would stand on the deck in her backyard and
the measurement would be taken over 5 2 feet from the ground. On August 6, 1998, she asked Ms. Grote during a visit of the site
to explain the 25-foot rule in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), Chapter 9.10.050 where public property noise limit was
defined, which stated ΑNo one shall produce...on public
property, a noise level more than 15 dB above the local ambient at a distance of 25 feet or more, unless otherwise provided in
the chapter.≅ Ms. Grote said for public property, the whole site was considered as one noise source; therefore, noise measurement was made 25 feet beyond the property line into adjacent
properties. The staff report written at the time the Noise
Ordinance was adopted in 1972, stated, ΑOn public property, each individual has an equal right to use and enjoy the available space, so an increment of 15 dB over the local ambient at a
distance of 25 feet from the noise source is allowed.≅ The
document was clear that the 15 dB increment over the local ambient was allowed only on public property. The Noise Ordinance was very clear that the maximum for residential property was 8
dB above ambient. A document written by Mr. Rodkin, dated April
16, 1997, stated, Αin our opinion, the commercial and industrial
property noise limits are appropriate in the evaluation of the proposed project. That would set a limit for the noise level of no more than 8 dB above the local ambient at any point outside
the property plain of the project site.≅ Mr. Pack, the acoustical engineer hired by Winter Lodge, wrote in his June 12,
1997, report that his firm was directed by the City to use the
10/13/98 87-237
public property noise limits for the tennis court project specifically, and the project was originally analyzed using
commercial limits. All the professionals suggested that commercial and industrial noise limits were more preferred. The facility was for the public to use, and she questioned how many people in Palo Alto thought it was a public facility. The majority of the neighbors had no interest in another tennis
facility in a City which already had more than 60 courts. The residents had to put up with tennis court noise from 8:00 a.m. to sunset or longer because of the recently approved lights in
the parking lot. The neighbors were fighting for the 15 dB increment over the local ambient as not appropriate for
residential properties. The City=s Noise Ordinance did not protect everyone equally. There were concerns about the
construction of the sound walls on the neighbors= property lines.
The first concern was water drainage, and she did not want her area to end up like Highway 101 during the February flooding. A
clear cut ditch on her side of the wall would cut into the roots of her trees and could channel water to the nearby Matadero Creek. The construction of the sound wall could also damage the
roots of trees on her property.
Olu Ajilore, 3065 Middlefield Road, #203, said a fair compromise would be to resurface the four existing courts which should serve the needs for a tennis program.
Sophia Deng, 3073 Middlefield Road, #203, was a new resident and
was recently told about the proposed project at 3009 Middlefield Road. Construction of the 10-foot wall was not clear as to use of glass blocks or masonry bricks. Earthquake safety with
regard to glass blocks on the sound walls was a concern. The letter from Edward L. Pack Associates said that first floor
elevations were the most impacted. She questioned the impact on second and third floors and asked whether there would be 30-foot or 40-foot sound walls. Gershon Luria, 3065 Middlefield Road #202, said someone
mentioned there were 60 courts in Palo Alto, and one was at Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road which was less than a 3-minute drive. He questioned the urgency of adding another court close by. He spoke about an issue with the Winter Lodge where it would not trim trees on its property which were infringing on
his property. David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road #204, requested an EIR be prepared for the project because numerous acoustical analysis would be made. The report of October 3 by Mr. Rodkin was
accepted as the final one. The report showed there would be significant noise impact on the east side. There was no
10/13/98 87-238
mitigation on his side; there were no sound walls for protection. The project did not qualify for a mitigated
negative declaration. During the project discussions, there were at least two suggestions about mitigating noise on his side of the property. One was a 10-foot wall on the side of the fifth court and the other was a 14-foot wall along the property line. Neither of those suggestions were included in the final
report. The fifth court was the concern of the condominium residents. There was no objection to tennis programs for children. The objection was using the fifth court throughout the
year for tournaments. He said the original project was divided into two phases and questioned the guidelines for the two
phases. Claire Geber, 2182 St. Francis Drive, owned property at 3060 Price Court which was used as a rental unit. There was no doubt in her mind that the presence of the fifth court adjacent to the
back yard would diminish the property=s value. She supported the comments made by Ms. Wang and Mr. Abraham.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto, hypothesized that the plan from the beginning was to have a program for the Palo Alto
Tennis Court. He concurred with neighbors that the record was clear that the application required an EIR. The applicants in their opening comments said nothing about the Palo Alto Tennis Club. He suggested if the applicants were telling the truth when they submitted their response to the Request for Proposal
(RFP) that they wanted a noncompetitive program for children patterned after the Winter Lodge program for ice skating, they should come before the Council and offer a compromise to the appellants as a condition of approval to have no tournaments and no league play for any ages. There were five issues over the
course of time where the public and the appellants were presented with one set of conditions that were later switched. At the beginning, the proponents of using the site had the ballot measures for the trade of land and for preserving ice skating. The public record said if tennis was included in the
ballot measures, it would have been defeated. Former Mayor Sutorious, as a sponsor of the motion, said the land should be
flexible, perhaps for housing use. Another issue that had changed was the project definition. It started off as noncompetitive instruction for children and was only at the
Council=s direction that the Tennis Club was included. There were two negative declarations prepared in response to the
Council=s direction from its last meeting. The first one was
noticed for May 18 and then continued. Staff changed the mitigated declaration for the benefit of the applicant, without
the participation of anyone else. Less than a week after the applicant agreed to those conditions, another application for
10/13/98 87-239
lighting the parking lot was submitted. The item should be continued in order that the application, 98-ARB-86 was included
in the single project and environmental review. The question of four versus five courts was a change. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the proposal was a terrible land use decision which locked up two or three valuable
City acres for decades for five tennis courts and a park that could not be used by neighbors. There were many lower-income families with children in that area who would not be able to use
the park area. The noise issue was problematic since enforcement in Midtown was difficult-to-impossible. Two
construction sites began work at 7:30 a.m. on a Sunday morning. Neither were cited. Work stopped when the police office drove up. She questioned how the police would enforce the tennis
courts unless neighbors made a citizens= arrest. If the project were to go through, the hours should be limited to a 9:00 a.m.
start on Monday through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. on Sundays. The hours would have to be posted at the keyed entry, otherwise the Police would not be able to enforce the Noise Ordinance. The
light issue should not come forward as a separate application. The lights should be shielded and not taller than 12 feet.
Jane Hayes, 718 Ellsworth Place, was concerned about the lights and wanted the lights issue addressed with the project.
Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth, said the City staff=s reading of
the Noise Ordinance allowed a public facility to impose an added noise level of 19 to 22 dB to neighboring residential properties. The ambient on Ellsworth was 37 dB, and the ambient
on Price Court was 34 dB. A residential neighbor was allowed to add only 6 dB to the ambient. Such interpretation of the Noise
Ordinance gave the public facility a much larger impact on residential property than another resident or commercial area which was discriminatory. That type of discrimination could not be the intent of the Noise Ordinance. The spirit and intent of the Noise Ordinance was to protect residential properties from
an increase in noise levels above 6 dB over the ambient. The maximum noise level allowed by the Noise Ordinance on residential properties was 46 dB. Staff took the abient of the tennis site, 41 dB, added 15 dB for public facilities, and applied the result of 56 dB to the residential properties. That
was not justified in the Noise Ordinance. Allowing a 56 dB in the neighboring yards was illegal. Ms. Wang said Ms. Grote and Dave Dockter visited the proposed site on August 6, 1998, and could see the 20-foot distance from
where the sound wall would be to the inside of her house. They also saw the trees in her back yard and the neighboring back
10/13/98 87-240
yards. The large, older trees could push away a wooden fence. Throughout the visit, she was unable to get Ms. Grote or Mr.
Dockter to promise in writing that the construction of the wall would not damage the roots of the trees. She consulted the Chief Engineer at the Caltrans Office of Environment, whose office built the sound walls along highways in the area, and advised her to insist on written answers to her questions to the
City. She wanted better answers from the City with regard to the trees and drainage.
Diana Wigner, 3069 Middlefield Road, said she had been involved with the process for about five years and the issue of lighting
had not been brought up in the past. When the Council voted to build condominiums, commercial property was turned into residential property. The Council should not add to the
residents= level of discomfort. Tournaments should not be allowed on the property.
Mr. Morton reminded everyone that tennis had been played continuously on the site for over 42 years, and CSI looked
forward to continuing to provide tennis to the Midtown and greater Palo Alto communities.
Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
approve the staff recommendation as follows:
1. Review and approve the revised mitigated negative declaration which determines that the project will have no significant environmental impact if certain mitigation measures are included as project conditions
of approval; 2. Deny the three appeals; and 3. Approve the conditional use permit (CUP), allowing the
operation of an outdoor recreational service (tennis facility) with related parking, landscaping,
landscaped park area and bathroom facilities based on the proposed Findings and subject to the proposed Conditions.
DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT 96-UP-1
1. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience,
10/13/98 87-241
in that as conditioned below the tennis facility will have minimal impact on surrounding properties
regarding noise, traffic, parking, aesthetics and use. The plans received on April 2, 1996, show a fifth tennis court approximately 100 feet from the east property line adjacent to the condominiums. This revised location is significantly further from the
east property line than shown in the schematic drawings submitted with the conceptual proposal and helps reduce the noise impact from that court. The
noise analysis submitted with the application verifies that with mitigation as attached below, the noise
impact will be within allowable limits. The parking on the site meets parking requirements as outlined in Section 18.83 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The additional vehicle trips generated by the refurbished tennis facility can be accommodated on the existing
street network without improvements to that network. The resurfaced courts, park area and additional landscaping throughout the site will all contribute to the improved visual impact of the site and the conditions limiting the hours of use and the penalties
attached to violations of those conditions will reduce the impact of the overall use on the surrounding area;
and 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a
manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, in that Program 10 of the Schools and Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that privately sponsored community activities should be
encouraged. The tennis facility will be operated by a private entity which will provide a community activity
for a minimal yearly fee. In addition, Policy 11 of the Environmental Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that compliance with existing noise laws shall be ensured and that residents should be protected from unnecessary noise.
The noise analysis submitted by the applicant=s acoustical consultant and the conditions of project approval ensure that all applicable noise standards
will be met by the project. The project meets all parking, landscaping and noise requirements of the
Municipal Code and Section 18.32.040 of the Code allows outdoor recreational facilities in the Public Facilities zone district with a Conditional Use
Permit.
10/13/98 87-242
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT 96-UP-1
Note: Words and conditions in italics are recommended by the Planning Commission. Words and conditions in italics and underlined are recommended by Planning staff. Phase 1:
1. Phase One of the project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with plans received April 2,
1996, on file in the Planning Division office and final plans as approved by the Architectural Review
Board (ARB), except as modified by the conditions listed below. 2. Any violation of the approved ARB plans shall be considered a violation of this use permit.
3. The hours of operation for the tennis facility shall be 8:00 a.m. to dark Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m. to dark on Sundays and holidays. 4. The hours of operation shall be clearly posted at the
entry gate to the facility and at all individual entrances to the five tennis courts.
5. An individual user of the facility who violates the hours of operation more than twice shall have their
key privileges revoked. It is the responsibility of the operator of the tennis facility to clearly
document use of the facility and track any violations of the hours of operation. The methods used to track such violations shall be designed by the operator of
the facility and submitted to the Palo Alto Zoning Administrator for approval prior to commencement of
operations. 6. Personnel of the tennis facility shall be available
The applicant shall appoint a neighborhood liaison who may be contacted by neighbors of the project during
all business hours and special events to address neighborhood concerns regarding noise other disturbances at the facility. The liaison shall be
provided the authority to correct any violation of the use permit conditions and to make every effort to
avoid disturbances to the neighbors. During non-business hours, a phone number shall be made available so that neighbors disturbed by noise at the facility may call and leave a message detailing the complaint. This phone number shall be clearly posted on all signs
10/13/98 87-243
listing the hours of operation for the facility. The number shall also be kept on file at the tennis
facility and in the City of Palo Alto Planning Division and shall be made available by the operators of the tennis facility to any interested party upon request. Neighbors disturbed by noise during business and non-business hours may also call the Palo Alto
Police Department with complaints. 7. Lights shall not be allowed on the courts at any time.
Any existing light fixtures on the courts at the time of this approval shall be removed when renovation of
the facility commences. 8. The bicycle racks shall be relocated to an area immediately inside the main gates to the tennis facility. The revised location shall be shown on the
final landscape plan and shall be reviewed by the ARB and the Transportation Planning Division staff. 9. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent
properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent
properties are not altered (per Section 16.28.270 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code).
10. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant
shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the
month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division.
11. The applicant must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards.
12. The project is located within 50 feet of a creek which is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). A permit must be obtained from
SCVWD and a copy provided to the City of Palo Alto.
13. To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust
10/13/98 87-244
nuisances originating from the contractor=s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be
controlled at the contractor=s expense. 14. The developer shall require its contractor to
incorporate best management practices (BMP=s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The
Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP=s with
respect to the developer=s construction activities on
private property; and the Public works Department
shall monitor BMP=s with respect to the developer=s
construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris ( soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) Or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains.
15. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the plans reviewed by the ARB and shall be as accessible as possible.
16. The developer shall call USA at (800) 642-2444 to mark
any underground electric facility.
17. Recycling containers shall be provided in the picnic area and shall be shown on the plans reviewed by the ARB.
18. Tree protection methods to be used during construction
shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Arborist and the ARB.
19. The project shall be in compliance with all handicapped access standards and shall be subject to
review and approval by the Building Inspections Division.
20. Fire Department access to the site shall be provided. A key box (Knox) shall be provided in an accessible
location which shall contain keys to access the site in an emergency. Knox box applications can be obtained from the Palo Alto Fire Prevention Bureau.
21. All conditions of approval as stated on the attached
list from the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department - Water - Gas - Wastewater Engineering- shall be implemented (see attachment).
10/13/98 87-245
22. The applicant shall schedule regular meetings with the
neighborhood, to be held on-site on next to the site
or in the neighborhood, a minimum of one every six months, to review the status of compliance with the
terms of the use permit, the status of noise disturbance control and the status of neighborhood
relations. Advance notice of these meetings will be
provided to the Zoning Administrator in order to allow attendance by a City representative although a City
representative is not required to attend and shall not be expected to facilitate the meetings. Following the
first year of semiannual meetings, the meetings may be
held once yearly, with the consent of the neighbors.
23. A second lock shall be added to all entry and exit gates and a tennis facility staff person shall be
present to close the facility every night.
24. The pertinent requirements of Chapter 9.10, Noise, of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall be enforced at all times.
25. A stepped screen of plant material shall be planted
and maintained by the tennis facility operator on the tennis facility side of the sound wall along the
northern property line. The Αgreen screen≅ shall
consist of two rows of plant material. The row closest to the tennis facility shall grow to be approximately
half the height of the sound wall and the row closest to the wall itself shall grow to be approximately eight feet high (two feet below the top of the wall).
26. The final selection of plant material for the Αgreen
screen≅ shall be reviewed and approved by the City of
Palo Alto Planning Division arborist and by the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
27. The screen shall be located in a manner consistent with the Conceptual plans submitted by DEVA Designs,
dated 2/13/98, on file in the office of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division.
28. The applicant shall replace a all trees removed to accommodate the design of the project or the required
sound walls at the edges of the site. A general ratio of 2:1 shall be used as a guideline for tree
replacement.
10/13/98 87-246
29. The applicant shall replace the three existing grevillea parking lot trees with a suitable species.
30. The location and species of all required replacement trees shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division Arborist and the ARB.
31. The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a 10 foot high air tight acoustical sound wall along the
northern property line.
32. The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a 10 foot high air tight acoustical sound wall along the western edge of the site, adjacent to the tennis courts.
33. Any of the following materials may be used to construct the above required sound walls: masonry
panels; masonry block; wood; or concrete panels. All sound walls shall be constructed in an air tight fashion with a surface weight of at least 3 lbs. per
square foot.
34. Final design of all sound walls shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board.
35. The panels of all sound walls on the site shall be broken-up through articulation of the panels with
texture and banding. The panels may be off-set to break-up the flat vertical surface.
36. The final design of the sound walls, and other walls on the site, shall be subject to the review and
approval of the ARB. The review shall occur by the Board and shall not be delegated to planning division staff. 37. The Code Enforcement section of the Building Inspection division of the Planning Department shall
conduct a site visit once every two years to monitor maintenance of the sound walls on site.
38. The sound walls shall have glass block or other transparent material designed into the top two feet of
the walls to allow sunlight to penetrate the walls. 39. The sound walls along the north property line and
western edge of the site shall be constructed prior to the commencement of other Phase One site improvements.
10/13/98 87-247
40. To ensure that there is sufficient parking on-site,
the tennis facility shall not hold special events or
have tournament play at the same time special events are being held at the Winterlodge. Phase 2:
41. Phase Two of the project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with plans received April 2,
1996, on file in the Planning Division office and final plans as approved by the Architectural Review
Board (ARB), except as modified by the conditions listed below.
42. Tennis court #5 shall be moved seven feet closer to the existing Winterlodge building on the adjacent
site.
43. The restrooms on the site shall be moved to a location
between courts 3 and 5.
44. If a fifth court is constructed on the site, the operator of the facility shall construct an 8 foot
high air tight acoustical sound wall along the eastern
property line using the same materials design and construction technique as used for the sound walls on
the north property line and the western edge of the site.
45. The sound wall along the eastern property line shall be constructed prior to the construction of other
Phase 2 site improvements.
46. The operator of the tennis facility shall monitor noise levels at the eastern property line for the first year of operation after construction of the fifth tennis court. Acoustical measurements shall be taken at the eastern property line 12 times a year
which shall include, at a minimum, monitoring during tournament, on Saturdays and during other times when increased activity exists. These readings shall be
conducted on an unannounced basis and shall be funded by the operator of the facility. Results of these
readings shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator. At anytime during or after the first year of operation, after construction of the fifth tennis court and eight foot high sound wall, the Zoning Administrator shall have authority to order
10/13/98 87-248
independent noise monitoring at the applicant=s expense. 47. If any violation of noise ordinance standards occurs, during the first year of operation after construction
of the fifth tennis court and eight foot high sound wall, the Zoning Administrator shall schedule a use
permit hearing for the project in order to consider either operational restrictions on the use of the fifth court or other physical solutions at the eastern
edge of the fifth court. If a noise ordinance violation is shown, the Zoning Administrator shall
order this use permit amended to require construction of the 14 foot wall along the eastern edge of the property line unless the applicant demonstrates by
substantial evidence that an alternative noise mitigation will be effective. The 14 foot height may
be achieved by constructing a six foot extension of a similar material to the other sound walls on the site onto the eight foot high sound wall.
48. Final design of a sound wall constructed as part of
Phase Two, and modifications made to the wall during, or immediately after, the first year of operation of Phase Two, shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board.
Council Member Kniss said Mr. Morton=s remark about tennis having been played on the site for many years was a telling comment. The last time the item was discussed by the Council, she asked
the apartment dwellers whether there was any disclosure regarding the facility when they moved into their apartments.
The residents indicated there was disclosure around the Winter Lodge. The Council originally called for an RFP in 1990. Proposals came back, and the Council regarded the property as a continuous recreational facility. She was sympathetic to the neighbors but felt the facility met the needs of the greater
community.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the Council might consider changing the hours of operation to correspond with construction hours in terms of start times in the morning. The youth tennis
program was a benefit to the community. Council Member Mossar had no objection to tennis continuing to be played on the site but found it hard to believe that former Councils intended to end up with a facility surrounded by 10-
foot walls. The mitigation was almost worse than the project.
10/13/98 87-249
A 10-foot wall would impact the properties on Price Court. She was reluctant to support the current project.
Council Member Kniss clarified the 10-foot fence was approved under the current conditions. Mr. Calonne said the Council was constrained with respect to the wall height because of the noise mitigation.
Ms. Grote said the 10-foot high sound walls were found to be the minimum required to bring the noise within an acceptable level
on the neighboring properties.
Council Member Wheeler said there were many City facilities constructed close to neighboring residential properties that had been in existence for many years where there were no mitigations for the neighbors. She was in general support of the motion but said that several members of the public mentioned the
participation in the process of the Palo Alto Tennis Club. The initial RFP came from CSI at the request of a majority of Council Members that CSI collaborated with the Palo Alto Tennis Club. The reason the Council had not heard about the tennis club at the current meeting was that the collaboration took the
form of discussions with the tennis club in attempting to meet the needs of the tennis club, particularly with the fifth court.
The tennis club had not made any commitment in terms of financing the package. It was unfair for the Council to demand that the applicant cooperate and collaborate with another
organization that was not going to contribute financially to the materialization of plans that it would like to see implemented.
The fifth court created problems for the appellants although the fifth court did not come until Phase 2. Many of the problems associated with the application could be eliminated if the
Council discussed whether approval of the project could stop at Phase 1 and thereby delete the fifth court.
Council Member Fazzino questioned the directional coordinates in the staff report (CMR:343:98) and asked Planning staff to address and resolve the issue. There was no question that the site had long been used as a tennis facility. The Winter Lodge
concept was approved by voters in 1984 after a long campaign. The public opted for recreational uses on the site. The issue of the land use on the site was left open for future Councils
and public to deal with. The juxtaposition of the condominiums was a difficult issue. The rights of the residents in the
condominiums should be respected. He supported the sound walls
but concurred with Council Member Mossar=s concerns about their appearance. The sound walls were a necessary mitigation given
the noise situation. He supported the time of use restrictions and limited tournament use and would probably change the
10/13/98 87-250
requirement that an employee be available 24 hours per day to lock the facility. The phone number of a CSI employee should be
made available to neighbors at all times to make sure problems were addressed. Four courts were adequate. The City should contribute something in the way of cost to putting up the sound walls as a mitigation.
Mayor Rosenbaum said Condition 32 ΑThe operator of the tennis
facility shall construct a 10-foot high air tight acoustical
sound wall along the western edge of the site,≅ should be clarified to pertain to the edge of the site adjacent to the
tennis court, not to Middlefield Road. Condition 33 said, ΑAny of the following materials may be used to construct the above required sound walls: masonry panels; masonry block; wood; or
concrete panels.≅ The Council=s intention was to eliminate
Αwood≅ from the list. When the mitigation for the noise was
discussed, the Council agreed to use a noise level from a semi-professional tennis player serving as hard as he could, and that was what led to the 10-foot walls. Mitigation was imposed on
the project which would produce a cost for the applicant that was inconsistent with the revenues that could be derived from four or five courts. The property was an important community facility. He felt comfortable having the City contribute half of the cost of the sound walls.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to
change the hours of operation as outlined in Condition 3 to read Saturday at 9 a.m. and Sunday at 10 a.m.
Council member Kniss clarified that other tennis courts in Palo Alto were in use as soon as it was daylight.
Mayor Rosenbaum was unaware of any hour restrictions for any of the public courts.
AMENDMENT FAILED 2-5, Mossar, Ojakian "yes,≅ Eakins, Schneider
absent." AMENDMENT: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to
delete approval of Phase 2 of the project. AMENDMENT FAILED 3-4, Fazzino, Mossar, Wheeler "yes,≅ Eakins, Schneider absent.
Council Member Fazzino said his understanding was that the Council would start the whole process again with respect to
Phase 2 which included the proposed fifth tennis court and restroom facilities.
10/13/98 87-251
Ms. Grote said that the applicant would not have to go through another use permit. If the amendment had passed, a new use
permit would have been required. Council Member Fazzino asked whether a neighbor could force reconsideration of Phase 2, if neighbors raised concerns during Phase 1 with respect to operation of the four-court proposal and
the conditions imposed. Ms. Grote said during Phase 1, there would have to be proven
violations of the conditions that were attached to Phase 1 in order for the Zoning Administrator to call a use permit hearing
to review the conditions and whether or not the conditions were being complied with. Further, Condition 29 required replacement of the three parking lot trees. The City arborists no longer felt that was a necessary condition because the trees were in good health and did not need to be replaced.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to delete Condition Nos. 23, 29, and 38; to clarify Condition 32 to read "The operator of the tennis facility shall construct a 10 foot high air tight acoustical sound wall along
the western edge of the site, adjacent to the tennis courts;" and
to eliminate the word "wood" from Condition No. 33. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Mossar "no," Eakins, Schneider absent.
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
direct staff to return with a BAO not to exceed $50,000 to pay up to one half of the cost to construct the sound walls.
Council Member Wheeler said there were a large number of City facilities that back up to adjacent residential properties where
the City and property owners shared common fences. If the fence between the City property and residential property needed to be replaced, it was done so at the sole expense of the residential property owner. The City, to her knowledge, had never participated in the reconstruction or replacement of fencing
surrounding park facilities that backed up to residential property.
Council Member Ojakian saw the project as an individual situation rather than a blanket policy decision.
MOTION PASSED: 5-2, Mossar, Wheeler "no," Eakins, Schneider
absent. RECESS 9:40 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10/13/98 87-252
4. 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 (continued from 10/5/98) City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted that he and City Manager June
Fleming would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Huber, to adopt
the resolution.
Resolution 7800 entitled ΑResolution 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" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 16.57.010, 16.57.030, and 16.57.040 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code Relating to In-lieu Parking Fees for Nonresidential Development Within the University Avenue Parking Assessment District Investment and Debt Manager Jim Steele said that on August 13,
1998, the Council approved the staff recommendation and directed staff to return with an ordinance which would increase the in-lieu parking fee to $30,250 and make changes to the methodology to calculate the fee.
Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, supported the new in-lieu fee which better reflected the true cost of parking in Downtown Palo Alto. The City Council had approved the study and design for the building of two new parking garages Downtown; one would be 95,000 square feet, and the other would be 228,000
square feet. She said Downtown Space was valuable and used the
Council=s recent approval of $400,000 per year to pay for 6,000
square feet for the Permit Center as an example. The garages would be among the largest single buildings in Palo Alto and raised significant financial and environmental issues which
should be discussed within the context of a comprehensive planning framework. The ordinance which currently directed in-lieu parking fees to pay for parking as the only solution to Downtown transportation needs could be changed. At some point, it would be good to see a change that would allow the fees to be
used more openly for the solution which happened to be the most cost effective or the most community friendly.
10/13/98 87-253
Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, supported the increase in the
in-lieu parking fees and urged the Council to consider the wider transportation issues. If the City had a good shuttle system, the need for parking garages would be less. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, thanked the City Manager
and the staff for bringing the proposal forward. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to
introduce the ordinance.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 16.57.010, 16.57.030, and 16.57.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to In-lieu
Parking Fees for Nonresidential Development Within the
University Avenue Parking Assessment District≅
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent.
RESOLUTIONS
6. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Historic Preservation Regulations Including Compatibility Review Standards
Council Member Huber noted he would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest.
Former Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Anne Cronin Moore said the Compatibility Review Standards
recommendations came from Historic Resources Board (HRB)
members, staff=s own experience with the current standards,
comments from the ombudsman, and numerous interviews and comments from the public. There were sufficient changes to warrant one more round of review. Redundant sections were
eliminated and standards were simplified to provide more flexibility. Some items needed further editing, and exact
language in a revised resolution would come back to the Council
on the following week=s Consent Calendar.
Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, representing Palo Alto Homeowners Association, said the Board of Directors of the
Homeowners Association acknowledged the City Council=s sincere
efforts to address many of the issues that had been raised under
the interim historic preservation ordinance. The colleague=s
memo sponsored by Vice Mayor Schneider and other Council members reflected a genuine concern for homeowners. The Council was thanked for resolving to amend the interim ordinance in ways
10/13/98 87-254
that made it less onerous. Elimination of fees, implementation of new appeal processes, and other changes were in the right
direction. The Homeowners Association would continue to work with the Council, staff, and other community organizations to represent homeowner concerns about how the issues of historic preservation in design review were addressed by the City. The March 31, 1999, expiration of the interim ordinance as the
fourth extension of the ordinance should conclude the interim ordinance. The homeowners of the City had been living under the interim ordinance for almost two years. The remaining life of
the interim ordinance was likely to continue to cause problems for the homeowners who were going through the process. The best
way to handle that was through an effective appeal process. The appeal process needed to take into account the intent of the Council to increase the flexibility for the homeowners. The Council was urged to go through the appeal process to make clear options that were available to the homeowners. The Homeowners
Association accepted that the proposed changes reflected the
staff=s sincere intent to comply with the Council=s direction. After careful review, the Homeowners Association found it
difficult to measure how completely the issues raised in the
colleague=s memo were addressed.
Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, thanked the Council and the staff for the progress they made toward creating a more
reasonable historic preservation ordinance. She wanted to believe that the work on the ordinance during the prior month
would lead to an ordinance that would make restoring and rehabilitating older homes fun and rewarding. She urged the Council to interpret the compatibility guidelines in a flexible
manner.
Daniel Emerson, 1849 Middlefield Road, thanked the Council and staff for their efforts to soften the interim regulations which made them more friendly to the homeowners. The interim ordinance was not going to be an effective tool to preserve Palo
Alto=s heritage in a way that was friendly to the homeowners. He
encouraged the Council to allow enough time, given the March 31, 1999, deadline for public input and comment on the development of the permanent ordinance.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the revised ordinance was
generally a good approach and easier to administer and operate while the permanent ordinance was being created. Areas that needed modifications included in Exhibit A, Compatibility Review
Standards, to staff report (CMR:385:98), page 13 which referenced prevailing setbacks. A sketch was included which
showed what was defined as prevailing. Many people would disagree with what prevails. The ordinance was completely
10/13/98 87-255
silent about side yard setbacks. In Barron Park, the side yard setbacks varied widely. A typical or prevailing side yard, as
well as front yard setback should be looked at. Martin Bernstein, P.O. Box 1739, asked for clarification on page 18 of Exhibit A, Compatibility Review Standards, to staff report
(CMR:385:98), which stated, ΑOne street tree is required for
every 25 feet of street frontage.≅ He recommended the cost of adding the tree on City property be the cost of the City and not the homeowner. Page 10 of Exhibit A, third paragraph, mentioned
the request for an exception to the Compatibility Review Standards. He requested the HRB members be made aware of the Exception Hearing dates since contributing status was something that was voted on by the HRB to get the applicant to that position. Page 20 of Exhibit A described requirements of style
and referenced a book called A Field Guide the American Houses which included styles found in Palo Alto and a contemporary
style. Many design professionals felt a contemporary building could be designed amongst historical styles as long as definitions in the report were used. The wording in the report
Αattention to scale, balance, proportion, detail and
craftsmanship≅ did not make reference to historical style. under
Recommended practices said Αarchitectural style of the new
construction should continue the materials, details, proportions
and craftsmanship of the original house≅ which seemed to be in
conflict with the Compatibility Design Guidelines. One way to pay attention to compatibility in terms of design issue was that the issue of single family design review process for all single
family residences in Palo Alto address the issues of scale, balance, proportion, detail and craftsmanship. That became one
way of separating historical issues with design guidelines and neighborhood compatibility issues. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to
approve the item on a conceptual basis and to direct staff to
return with a revised resolution based on comments heard that evening.
Council Member Wheeler said staff and the Council tried to make changes to the interim regulations which allowed them to be
useful from the standpoint of the staff who needed to administer the regulations and the public who needed to abide by the requirements. The City needed to start its efforts toward
putting in place a rational, permanent historic ordinance.
Council Member Fazzino thanked Anne Moore and the staff for the work they did to improve the process. The role of the HRB was a concern. The HRB was in a quasi-judicial role. He found it
10/13/98 87-256
astounding that Council Member Huber could not participate in the issue and yet members of the HRB could approach the Council
as advocates of a particular point of view. The issue needed to be resolved to make sure the HRB was in an appropriate quasi-judicial way. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Historic Preservation Regulations Including Compatibility Review Standards MOTION PASSED 6-0, Huber "not participating," Eakins, Schneider
absent.
ORDINANCES 7. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Administrative
Code) to Add Chapter 2.24 Establishing a Library Advisory Commission 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 $22,500 for Expenses Generated by the Library Advisory Commission (LAC)
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, thanked the City Manager for her action in May 1998, recommending the Commission to the Council
and to the Friends of the Palo Alto Library for pursuing the idea for a number of years. He attended a forum held on
Technology Plan for the Library on September 10, 1998, and questioned whether the plan would be something the Library Commission would review. The response he received was that the
Plan would be completed in the current year, and the Commission would not get started until the following year. He was told
that the Commission would cover the proposed Master Plan. A commission should look at the Technology Plan. The idea of a facilitator did not make sense to him. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to
introduce the ordinance.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (Administrative Code) to Add Chapter 2.24 Establishing a
Library Advisory Commission≅
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent.
MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the ordinance.
10/13/98 87-257
Ordinance 4527 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 $22,500 for Expenses
Generated by the Library Advisory Commission (LAC)≅
Council Member Ojakian questioned whether the Council should consider the costs involved, such as the necessity of a facilitator.
Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether Council Member Ojakian would recommend referring the item to the Finance Committee for further discussion. Council Member Ojakian said yes, if it were amenable to his
colleagues.
Ms. Fleming clarified the figures were based on experiences and she was unsure how much more research could be done in order to get the Commission started. The budget for the Library
Commission was modest.
Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said experience included both the Human Relations Commission (HRC) and the Public Art Commission (PAC). Staff knew how much staff time was
involved and the cost of minutes.
Director of Libraries Mary Jo Levy said the recommendation in the ordinance was the Commission met quarterly, but it was anticipated that the Commission would meet monthly or more often
for a couple of years.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the assumption was that a quarter-time full-time employee (FTE) was needed through the life of the Commission even if it met on a quarterly basis. Ms. Fleming did not expect that the FTE would be reduced anytime
in the near future. She did not think that the commission would meet only quarterly.
Council Member Wheeler said questions about funding for future years would be addressed through the annual budget process.
Council Member Mossar said voting for a Library Commission was one of the most positive things the Council had done. The public wanted the Library Commission and there was much support for it.
Ms. Fleming said the $22,500 was an estimate to give the Council a range and should not be considered a firm amount.
10/13/98 87-258
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent.
COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Mayor Rosenbaum re Resolution Opposing Proposition 9 MOTION: Mayor Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the recommendation to direct staff to prepare a resolution for Council approval opposing Proposition 9.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent.
9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Kniss noted she would be out of town on Monday, October 19, 1998.
Council Member Mossar noted she attended a noise workshop
sponsored by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission which reconfirmed that aircraft created noise, no single agency claimed responsibility, and a decision on how to deal with the
issue remained unresolved.
Mayor Rosenbaum noted that Al Ruiz, a long-time barber at the
President=s Hotel, died last week. Al was the only barber to be profiled in the Palo Alto Weekly.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. in memory of Al
Ruiz.
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
10/13/98 87-259
are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/13/98 87-260