HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-26 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 26, 1998 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................87-290 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................87-290
1. Ordinance 4528 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≅ ........87-290
2. Ordinance 4529 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≅ ..........................87-290
3. Ordinance 4530 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 $17,644.18 for a Traffic Safety Project and Full Reimbursement from the Office of Traffic
Safety≅ ...................................................................87-291
4. Resolution 7802 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Determination of Property Tax Exchange Pursuant to Provisions of Chapter 282, Section 59, Part .05, Implementing of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution Commencing with Section 95, Division 1, of the
Revenue and Taxation Code≅ ............................87-291
5. Resolution 7803 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring its Opposition to the Initiative
Measure Entitled ΑUtility Rate Reduction and Reform Act≅ Amending Various Provisions of the California Public Utilities
Code≅ .................................................87-291
10/26/98 87-288
6. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....87-291 7. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Application for Funding under the Home Investment Partnerships Program...............................................87-291 8. Request for Conceptual Approval of the Recommendations of the Arastradero Gateway Committee; a Commitment of Funding from the Arastra Fund; and Referral of the Site and Design Application for the Facility as Well as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Change to Zoning Regulations to Change the Setback Restriction on Arastradero Road...............87-292 9. Palo Alto Sanitation Company Acquisition by USA Waste, Inc.87-296 10. Request for rehearing of 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 Center87-297 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-302 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:16 p.m...................................87-303 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.......87-303
10/26/98 87-289
10/26/98 87-290
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:03 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:12 p.m.), Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Police Chief Patrick Dwyer spoke regarding October as Domestic Violence Month. Edmund R. Power, 2254 Dartmouth, spoke regarding honesty in government. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the Architectural Review Board process. Cathy S. Brandhorst, San Jose, spoke regarding threats. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the Minutes of September 14, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 5.
1. Ordinance 4528 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≅ (1st Reading 10/13/98, PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent)
2. Ordinance 4529 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≅ (1st Reading 10/13/98, PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent)
3. Ordinance 4530 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the
10/26/98 87-291
Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $17,644.18 for a Traffic Safety Project and Full Reimbursement from the Office of Traffic
Safety≅
4. Resolution 7802 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Determination of Property Tax Exchange Pursuant to Provisions of Chapter 282, Section 59, Part .05, Implementing of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution Commencing with Section 95, Division 1, of the
Revenue and Taxation Code≅
5. Resolution 7803 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring its Opposition to the Initiative
Measure Entitled ΑUtility Rate Reduction and Reform Act≅ Amending Various Provisions of the California Public Utilities
Code≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 6. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Michael Campbell v. City of Palo Alto, et al. SCC# CV767084 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) RESOLUTIONS 7. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Application for Funding under the Home Investment Partnerships Program MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council approve the resolution which authorizes the submittal of an application for up to $835,000 in FY 1998 Federal HOME funds, for the Sheridan Apartments project, to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizes the City Manager, or her designee, to execute the application, the certifications and the standard grant agreement and any amendments thereto on behalf of the City.
Resolution 7804 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Application for Funding under the Home
Investment Partnerships Program≅
10/26/98 87-292
MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Request for Conceptual Approval of the Recommendations of the Arastradero Gateway Committee; a Commitment of Funding from the Arastra Fund; and Referral of the Site and Design Application for the Facility as Well as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Change to Zoning Regulations to Change the Setback Restriction on Arastradero Road Council Member Mossar noted she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison commended staff and members of the community on the work that was done on the item. Acting Superintendent, Open Space and Sciences, Gregory Betts said approximately one year prior, the Council considered the concept of a Gateway Facility and requested that staff work with a facilitator and architects and return to the Council the conceptual design for a facility. A ten-member task force was formed, represented by park users of the Arastradero Preserve. The task force consisted of naturalists, equestrians, bike riders, and Bay Area Action stewards who use the Preserve on an ongoing basis. Based on ongoing dialog between task force members, he felt the staff report (CMR:406:98) was a concise and modest representation of what the park users found necessary in a facility for the enjoyment, safety, and interpretation of the preserve. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the Arastra Fund Advisory Committee (AFAC) had reviewed the conceptual plans being presented
at that night=s meeting. Ms. Harrison said no. The AFAC would not meet until the Council approved an appropriation or expenditure. Council Member Wheeler clarified that the Council was to make a decision without any input from the AFAC.
Ms. Harrison said the intent of the fund was to have the Council=s direction in terms of the Gateway Facility or any other expenditure and not to have the AFAC be the first to review the conceptual plans. Council Member Kniss noted the unusual design of the conceptual plan. Mr. Betts said the architects who worked on the conceptual design created a three-dimensional topographical model of the area around
10/26/98 87-293
the parking lot to the area where the trail crossed Arastradero Road. The facility was designed in three small components to eliminate the feeling of one large structure. The structure was to
be Αtucked≅ along the contour of the hillside so very little grading or excavation would be necessary. Mayor Rosenbaum noted a discrepancy in the cost estimate on page 1 of the staff report (CMR:406:98) and the backup material contained in section 6 of the committee report. Mr. Betts said the cost estimate staff used as a goal through deliberation from the committee was approximately $250,000. The $289,756 estimate was based on the grand total and construction and design estimates of $374,756, less figures that were included on Table 6.1 of the staff report. Mayor Rosenbaum asked why staff recommended changing the setback for all properties along Arastradero Park from 200 feet to 75 feet. Senior Planner Brian Dolan said during the site and design review, staff discovered the project had been designed in violation of the existing 200-foot setback set forth in both the Comprehensive Plan and the special setback map which was incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. A variance was considered for the project; however, staff discovered making the findings would be very difficult. An overall change in the setback was examined and found to have merit on other properties in the corridor. Mayor Rosenbaum noted that the existing parking lot and temporary restrooms were within the 200-foot setback and asked whether that was permissible. City Attorney Ariel Calonne clarified the parking lot would not be covered under the setback law in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Jerry Hern, Arastradero Gateway Task Force Member, extended his thanks to the members of the public involved in the process. He said the Task Force kept in mind three documents: 1) The Management Plan for Arastradero, 2) the Stewardship agreement with Bay Area Action, and 3) a 1997 City Council resolution which requested carrying out a design process for a facility limited to 1200-1500 square feet. The Task Force began the process by determining the needs of the user groups, including the needs of the Task Force and the general public, and determined there were four items necessary in a facility to meet those needs: 1) a multi-purpose covered meeting space; 2) storage for tools and equipment related to preservation, education, and research activities; 3) a small work space for the steward and the rangers; and 4) general amenities for the users which included restrooms, water, and informational displays. The Task Force created a design program which was reviewed by the architects who then returned with a set of
10/26/98 87-294
potential sites. The facility was designed in three separate units to minimize the effect of one large facility. He felt that at the end of the process, the Task Force had designed a facility that addressed the unmet needs of the preserve and users while staying within the parameters of the three documents mentioned previously. He urged the Council to approve the recommendation. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, expressed concern over the staff recommendations regarding funding for the facility and altering the setback. She was not aware that the Arastra Fund would be responsible for funding the construction of the Gateway Facility. Secondly, she felt that the recommendation to reduce the setback along the length of the road would dramatically affect the scenery along the corridor. John Baca, 4171 Verdosa Drive, said although he had no quarrel regarding the plans for Arastradero, the staff report (CMR:406:98) did not give the public a way to respond to the report. He understood the issue was not a quasi-judicial matter and that it was all encompassing and not just affecting one residence. The proposed setback change would affect four parcels in Palo Alto: the Arastradero Preserve, Portola Riding Stable, the Bressler property, and the American Research Institute. Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los Palos Avenue, liked the design of the facility but found the staff report puzzling. The staff report gave more details than was needed to know the site and design of the proposed facility, but the staff report did not give enough information to make a decision for the approval of the conceptual plan. At a minimum, the staff report (CMR:406:98) contained no information regarding alternatives considered in site location, levels of service, or size. The process seemed to proceed in a backward fashion. The Council should not be making a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should review the conceptual plan and make recommendations to the Council. She urged the Council to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for further review including an environmental review, broader public scrutiny, and an evaluation of the consistency of the plan. More importantly was the question of whether the Gateway Facility should be the first priority for funds spent. The Preserve was definitely in need of help; however, there were a variety of trails and habitat issues in need of funding. The
utility road and the City=s use of the road continued to be problematic, and the volunteer trails used by mountain bikers and hikers created habitat and erosion problems throughout the preserve degrading the scenic value. She believed before any money was spent on a facility for the Arastradero Preserve, funding should be made available for habitat repair, a properly designed and implemented trail system should be completed, and more rigorous management of the property should take place.
10/26/98 87-295
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, attended an August 21, 1996, meeting held by staff to review the Draft Management Plan for the Reserve, and two issues came out of that meeting. First, there were many comments and suggestions made about the Draft Management Plan; however, when the draft was presented to the Council, the comments and suggestions were not incorporated into the document. Secondly, with the exception of Bay Area Action, the first group of users thought a structure was unnecessary on the preserve and that habitat restoration could be done without one. As a result, the task force that was formed was a much narrower representation than the group that met at the August 21, 1996, meeting. Habitat restoration was most important along with trail restoration and creating a trail system that met the needs of all users. Rosemary Young, Arastradero Gateway Task Force Member, said she was a contributor to the Arastra Fund, a concerned neighbor, and one of the two citizen members on the five member Arastra Fund Committee.
She agreed with the City=s land use plan for low intensity and low impact for Arastradero Preserve. The Preserve was the only Palo
Alto park the City=s Comprehensive Plan described exclusively in terms of having a natural open space purpose. Public conveniences, such as bathrooms, benches, and signage, should be kept at a minimum. She urged the Council to not make the facility first priority for funding, but to ensure that preservation of the habitat was first to be considered for funding. Council Member Wheeler felt she had inadequate information to approve the staff recommendations. Issues needed to be resolved. She was troubled by the issue of reducing the scenic setback based on the amount of information provided at that meeting. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to refer staff recommendations 1 and 2 to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board for review without any indication of Council approval. 1. Refer the site and design application to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Boards for review and approval; and 2. Refer to the Planning Commission an amendment to the zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan, which would reduce the set back restriction along Arastradero Road within Palo Alto, between Page Mill Road and Alpine Road, from 200 to 75 feet. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He felt it was appropriate that the Council request the ARB and the Planning Commission to review the staff report. He had some concerns regarding the setback, size of the property, and funds available for trail and other improvements.
10/26/98 87-296
Vice Mayor Schneider supported the motion. She said the Council had discussed a modest facility. She felt a $290,000 facility that accounted for approximately $200 per square foot for construction was not a modest facility. She was also concerned about the setback and the change to the zoning regulations.
Council Member Huber said the Council always emphasized Αmodest≅ referring to square footage. However, square footage translated into dollars. Although the Planning Commission would not return a recommendation to the Council as to how much money to fund the facility, he encouraged the Planning Commission to examine the size of the facility as it related to the total cost. He was interested in the setback issue because there was some merit in having the facility closer to the road; however, more information was needed.
City Manager June Fleming said that Council Member Huber=s comments would be taken into consideration. Council Member Kniss said Council Member Ojakian and she had calculated the cost per square footage to be approximately $240. She considered the cost to be extremely high, despite the inclusion of landscaping. She supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar "not participating." 9. Palo Alto Sanitation Company Acquisition by USA Waste, Inc. City Manager June Fleming said the Council had an important decision to make related to the refuse services as received by the City. The staff report (CMR:402:98) outlined the issues before the Council. Staff made every attempt to address all questions and concerns.
Council Member Fazzino said a few years prior, a Αsplit-roll
concept≅ was offered concerning the change in ownership of Palo
Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO). The definition of Αsplit-roll≅ was that a change in 50 percent of stock over time would constitute change in ownership of a company. He could not recall the basis for the use of the concept. He asked whether the focus was on the terms of the contract or an accepted legal definition of change of ownership. He felt a change of ownership was occurring and that the Council had the right to re-examine the entire contract. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said PASCO would retain control of the contract and continue to do business with the City; however, PASCO would have its stock controlled by another entity, which did not get to the issue of taxation that was mentioned. The legal issue was, to the extent to which the anti-assignment provision in the contract could apply, that the Council was entitled to confidential
legal advice if there was a concern about staff=s position. Staff endeavored to give the Council the most prudent legal advice
10/26/98 87-297
possible. He emphasized that the Council=s control dealt with assignment, not change in ownership of PASCO. Council Member Fazzino said he was not addressing the merit issues. It appeared the contract related to the issue of assignment, not the issue of ownership. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino asked whether other similar situations across the state were analyzed.
Mr. Calonne said if the Council were highly focused on the City=s rights and obligations under the assignment clause, the Council should consider meeting in a Closed Session at the next Council meeting. Council Member Fazzino again emphasized he was not addressing the merits of the case. He felt more discussion and inquiry were necessary before a decision was made. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Mossar, to table the item. MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE PASSED 8-1, Rosenbaum "no." City Manager June Fleming said a Closed Session on the item would be scheduled before the Council meeting of November 2, 1998. Council Member Fazzino asked whether discussing the item would be appropriate after the Closed Session.
Ms. Fleming said staff would follow the Council=s direction; however, an item that would more than likely result in lengthy discussion was scheduled for the November 2, 1998, Council meeting. Mayor Rosenbaum said a Closed Session would be scheduled before the November 2, 1998, Council meeting, and the item would be placed on the agenda for public discussion as soon as possible. 10. Request for rehearing of 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
10/26/98 87-298
Vice Mayor Schneider was absent from the meeting of October 13, 1998, and noted she would not be participating in the item. Council Member Eakins was absent from the meeting of October 13, 1998, and noted she would not be participating in the item. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the item was the result of letters from two of the appellants questioning whether the Council had improperly relied on materials received from Community Skating, Inc. (CSI), immediately before deliberating at the prior public
hearing. At the time the City Attorney=s Report of October 22, 1998, was written, it was not clear whether all the materials that were submitted were attached to the report. The materials had since been identified and were attached to the report. The materials included in the report constituted all the materials the Council received. None of the materials was evidentiary and not such that a rehearing would be warranted; however, given the long and unusual procedural history of the matter, it was prudent that the Council review the request for rehearing. Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, requested the Council rehear the item. She felt the hearing at the October 13, 1998, Council meeting should have been continued when new material from the applicant, CSI, was made known to the appellants only after the October 13 hearing was in progress. The material was hand carried
by CSI to Council Members= homes and submitted to the City
Manager=s Office the day of the hearing. She noted the appellants were not notified that there was new information, nor were there any copies available to the public in the Council Chambers. The appellants were given six minutes to review the new materials which contained last-minute changes in the use permit as well as introduced new evidence on the soundwalls. She indicated the appellants were not given the opportunity to comment on the new information. The Council seemed confused about the conditions of Phase 2, the fifth tennis court. The Council voted on that issue believing the matter of the fifth court would come before the City again for additional review. When the misunderstanding was cleared up after the vote, the Council did not call for a revote. She believed the Council should be given the opportunity to review the matter of the fifth court. No mitigation was provided for the condominiums. The eight-foot wall was not a mitigation effort. Should the fifth court be built, there would be no mitigation. The negative declaration stated there would be monitoring for only one year; and only if the applicant found a violation would there be a use permit hearing for a possible mitigation. There was a clarification by the Mayor that the wall would only extend to the end of the courts and not to Middlefield Road. She queried that should the wall only extend to the end of the courts, would the homes on Ellsworth Place near Middlefield Road be impacted by noise from the tennis courts as well. She urged the Council to add a condition that the wall should extend to Middlefield Road and
10/26/98 87-299
parallel Middlefield Road to Αclose off≅ the end. She asked how the soundwall would impact the Matadero Creek and Ellsworth Place should there be flooding. Newspapers reported that residents on Edgewood Drive were concerned about the impact of a floodwall across the San Francisquito Creek. The developer conceded that the environmental review was inadequate. The City was upset when the City of Menlo Park built a temporary flood dam on the creek after the flooding. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, requested a rehearing of the item because the neighbors were not given the opportunity to review and respond to the materials submitted by CSI on the morning of the last hearing. She commended Ms. Fisher on the work she had done, especially on the matter of a double lock on the tennis courts. Without the double lock, the neighbors would have to deal with commuters who wanted to use the park area, bathroom, or the tennis courts outside the hours posted. After dark, light from the surrounding area could be used. She felt that would encourage people to stay beyond the posted hours for reasons other than to use the facilities which could result in noise disturbances to the neighborhood. Since a nuisance complaint was not a high priority call, the police took approximately 30 to 45 minutes to respond. By the time the police arrived, the people had already left. The area would become popular with the homeless because of the housing shortage in the area. Thinking of all the consequences was difficult given the short period of time to review the materials. The other condition was the glass portion of the wall which would result in more light and feel less like a prison. She wanted an opportunity to talk with the City Attorney regarding the legal aspects. In summary, she requested a rehearing of the item, a meeting with the City Attorney, and a report from Mr. Rodkin. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, included a copy of his
objections with his handout in regard to Edward L. Pack=s report. He felt the two-page report Mr. Pack submitted was not clear. Mr. Pack discussed the noise reduction of the proposed wall. The soundwall, as proposed, had several levels of noise reduction, 9 or 13 decibels. Mr. Pack implied there were higher sound levels than the 56 decibels that Mr. Rodkin estimated, which changed the compliance status of the mitigation. He felt when Mr. Pack
suggested lowering the soundwall, he would open a Αcan of worms,≅ by implying that the mitigation was less effective, thereby saying that the project was over the proposed limits. He reiterated Ms.
Wang=s statement that locks on the facility were very important and that the neighbors needed to have some input on the item. The real problem was that the changes were done two or three days prior to the hearing and that the appellants were not informed and essentially had no input. He felt the appellants were treated
unfairly and that Mr. Pack=s report changed the nature of the statement that there was no environmental conflict.
10/26/98 87-300
David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road, #204, submitted a letter in support of the request for a rehearing. On October 13, 1998, the Council voted 5-4 to exclude the fifth court from the tennis facility. He noted that Mayor Rosenbaum opposed the motion and quoted him as saying that the fifth court would require a second mitigation and there were further conditions to be met in phase 2 for the fifth court to even be considered. He felt the statement misinterpreted the actual conditions that were included in the project. There were no additional requirements to be met in order to build the fifth court. Noise control was not required to begin until after the fifth court was built. The statement made by the Mayor was not commented on or corrected by the staff before the vote was taken. He felt the misinterpretation affected the vote by suggesting that the issue could be further reviewed and other conditions could be added later. He strongly felt a rehearing would provide an opportunity to avoid a long-term legal dispute. After numerous discussions, the Council decided to conduct an independent study as a result of conflicting noise reports. The noise study was conducted by an independent consultant and stated that mitigation was needed at the condominium site. Two suggestions were made: 1) install a 10-foot wall at the edge of the fifth tennis court, or 2) install a 14-foot wall at the property line. None of those conditions found a place in the final conditions of the project. The 8-foot wall at his property line would not be effective, and the fifth court would violate the noise ordinance. There was a potential environmental impact and no mitigation; the project would not be considered for a negative declaration. The full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required by state law. He felt many people did not check the real estate disclosure when purchasing property; however, the ordinances and use permits were investigated. He urged the Council to base its decision on City and state laws. He supported the request for a rehearing on the item. Shirley Gee, 844 Prospect Avenue, Oakland, said it was important for the Council to understand why the decision was so important to the appellants. She commended the Council Members who actually visited the site. She owned a condominium at 377 Middlefield Road which overlooked the proposed tennis complex. She purchased the condominium 13 years ago in hopes of retiring to the location and because the condominium was located in a back area that was quiet and peaceful. When the City approved the extension of the tennis
facilities= operating hours, instead of tolerating the congestion and noise for only four months out of the year, people had to endure six to seven months of congestion and noise. Severe animosity developed among the neighbors and the condominium tenants who were forced to deal with violations of conditions associated with the conditional use permit. In fact, the condominium people were the policemen for the project. Countless hours of staff time was utilized to try to mitigate and mediate. The second encroachment occurred when the City went out for a bid for a low intensity recreational use that was compatible with the surrounding
10/26/98 87-301
neighborhoods and accepted a project that was incompatible to the
surrounding neighbors. The project=s negative impact took two years to mitigate and when mitigated, created more problems. The third encroachment occurred when the City entertained granting of a conditional use permit to expand the use of the facility to include a fifth court, a private public park, spectator sport, and a teaching clinic. There was no escape from the noise and congestion. The condominium purchased in 1985 was no longer inhabitable for future purposes. Her living room window and bedroom window would eventually face a soundwall. The neighbors, if forced to give up their peace and quiet, felt it should be for a more worthy and noble cause, than for the advancement of a private tennis club that did not have a Palo Alto residency requirement for its membership. Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Road, #101, requested the Council consider the following questions: 1) did the Council wish public officials to help the petitioner breach a local city ordinance even for the general good such as, knowingly violating a noise ordinance as technically articulated to public officials; and 2) should the integrity of the Request for Proposal (RFP) process be preserved and all advertised parameters and criteria set in motion strictly adhered to, or should the criteria contained in the RFP be loosely interpreted. She discovered at the prior Council meeting that Conditions 23 and 38 were surreptitiously removed by CSI in a report delivered to the City Council Members. She emphasized the six minutes the appellants were allowed to study the materials was not adequate time to discuss and respond to the Council. She felt strongly that Condition 23 should not be removed. The matter of lighting at the facility was also addressed at the meeting which had not been discussed at prior Council meetings. She understood the matter would be heard by the Architectural Review Board (ARB); however, she questioned the need for lighting when it was already a condition that there would be no tennis played after dark. She strongly opposed additional lighting for the tennis courts. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the City Attorney was recommending a rehearing on the item. Mr. Calonne said no. Council Member Fazzino asked the City Attorney what his recommendation was regarding any action the Council should take. Mr. Calonne said at the time the report was prepared, it was unclear as to what information the Council received before the October 13, 1998, hearing. Since that time, it became clear that the materials attached to the report included everything that the Council received. None of the materials was evidentiary and did not raise any new evidence; therefore, the Council did not have a legal obligation to conduct another hearing.
10/26/98 87-302
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to deny a rehearing of the item. Council Member Fazzino felt strongly that the fifth court should be removed, and it was the obvious compromise. He believed the Council held a fair and reasonable public hearing and all the evidence was considered, including evidence in the Planning Commission and previous Council meetings. His decision regarding Conditions 23 and 38 were not influenced by the suggestions offered by CSI, but were based on his own views that Conditions 23 and 38 were unnecessary. The fifth court was of greater concern on the part of the neighbors. He hoped the City could readdress the issue of the fifth court; however, the matter could not be addressed through a rehearing. If the Council were to establish a precedence, there were many issues that could be brought back to the Council for rehearing. Council Member Huber felt there was not enough evidence to warrant a rehearing on the item. The process had been a lengthy one, and all evidence that could be possibly heard had been presented to the Council. The evidence provided at the meeting had been heard at prior meetings and did not warrant a rehearing. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Mossar Αno,≅ Eakins, Schneider "not participating." COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Wheeler asked for clarification for the Finance Committee requesting format changes in how a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) was brought to the Council and whether enhanced information regarding BAOs in general could accompany the staff report that went with a BAO. City Manager June Fleming said when an item was before a committee and that committee deemed it needed further information to act on that item, or directed staff to provide additional information when the item was brought to the Council, that committee could make that request and it would be adhered to. Council Member Wheeler clarified if the Council wanted to make that a general policy recommendation for future BAOs, it needed to be approached in a different way. Ms. Fleming suggested talking to the City Manager about the item to see if any thought was being given to such direction before putting the item on an agenda.
Council Member Kniss asked about the status of ΑFiber to the Home
Trial≅ as there was a great deal of community interest in the item.
10/26/98 87-303
City Manager Fleming said staff was in the process of analyzing the feasibility of the project. Staff would bring the item forward in approximately one month. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:16 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 6. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 6. On October 19, 1998, the Council conducted a Closed Session to consider whether to initiate litigation on one matter. No reportable action was taken. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/26/98 87-304