HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-14 City Council Summary Minutes8
Oral Communications
Minutes of July 17, 1989
Consent Calendar
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
=-PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU-FREOUENCY9O.1 ON FM DIAL
Special Meeting
August 14, 1989
ITEM
PAGE.
1. Appointments to the Htman Relations Commission 62-85
62-85
62-86
62-86
2. Renovation of Existing Irrigation System at 62-86
the Cultural Center
3. Contract with Oakland Fence Company, Inc. for 62-86
Construction of Adobe Creek Undercrossing
Lease Agreement with The Santa Clara Valley
Water District for Adobe Creek Undercrossing
4. Contract with Pacific Engineering Construction 62-86
for Foothills Park Erosion Control; Change
Orders Not to Exceed $14,000
5. Contract with Gas Recovery Systems, Inc. for
Landfill Flare Station Modifications; Change
Orders Not to Exceed $2,800
62-86
6. Contract with Stanley Smith Security Services 62-86
at the Municipal Service Center; Change Orders
Not to Exceed $2.000 Annually
62-83
8/14/89
ITEM FAGS
7. Contract with Granite Construction Company for 62-86
Byxbee Park Phase I Road Reconstruction; Change
Orders Not to Exceed $30,000
8. Agreement with EA Engineering, Science and 62-86
Technology, Inc. to Conduct Phase II of the
Effluent Toxicity Characterization Program;
Amendments for Related Services Not to Exceed
$15,000
10. Easement from Southern Pacific Transportation 62-86
Company, Alma/Churchill Intersection
Improvements, CIP 84-71
11. Resolution Adopting Salaries for Council -
Appointed Officers
13. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommen-
dation Regarding Application of Maria and Hoover
Kwok for a Comprehensive Plan Change and Zone
Change for Property at 755 University Avenue
14. Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code Regarding 62-89
Definitions in the Commercial Downtown District.
and Variance or Conditional Use Permit Appeal
Fee Refunds
62-87
62-87
15. Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding the 62-90
Residential Units at 4146 El Camino Real
15A. (Old Item 9) Contract with California Land 62-95
Land Management for Park Ranger Services for
Palo Alto Baylands Area
16. Resolution Regarding Smoking Regulations 62-97
17. Request to Revise Definition of Driveway as it 62-97
Relates to Flag Lots
Adjournment at 10:50 p.a. 62-98
62-84
8/14/89
Special Meeting
August 14, 1989
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 8:05 p.m.
Mayor Klein announced a Special Joint Meeting with the A::chitec-
tural Review Board was held at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Conference
Room.
PRESENT: Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, (arrived at 8;06 p.m.),
Patitucci (arrived at 8:06 p.m.) , Renzel, Sutorius,
Woolley
ABSENT: Bechtel
SPECIAL ORQERS OF THE DAY
1. Appointments to the Human Relations Commission (702-04)
Mayor Klein announced the two applicants were Richard Block and
Rosalyn Gray.
Council Member Sutorius said Palo Alto was fortunate to have the
benefit of two professionally qualified candidates. He would cast
his ballot for Rabbi Block.
RESULTS QF _T I „FIRST RUU2 D OF VtTING
VOTING FOR GRAY: Renzel
VOTING FOR BLOCK: Cobol Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci,
Sutorius, Woolley
City Clerk Gloria Young anmanced that Rabbi Block received seven
votes and was appointed.
Q, ►L CgMMUNIcATIONS
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the Palo Alto
Harbor.
Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, thanked the Council. Members who
had served the City and were retiring from the Council; and the
need to replace sidewalks and trees.
Jobst Brandt, 351 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding the danger of
Page Mill Road, especially the curves.
62-85
8/14/89
John Lovas, 650 Coleridge, spoke re trends, eclecticism, etc., and
cautioned the Council against imposing their taste on design.
siNuns OF JULY 17A 1989
MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Renzel,
approval of the Minutes of June 19, 1989, as submitted.
MOT/OM PARSED 7-0-1, Patitucci "abstaining," Bechtel absent.
CONSE 1T CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Fletcher to
approve Consent Calendar Items 2 - 11, with Item 9 removed by
Woolley to become Item 15A.
2. Renovation of Existing Irrigation System at the Cultural
Center - Rejection of Bids (1305) (CMR:394:9)
3. Contract with Oakland Fence Company, Inc. for Construction of
Adobe Creek. Undercrossing (1520-01) (CMR:4179)
Lease Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District for
Adobe Creek Undercrossing (1520-01) (CMR:417:9)
4. Contract with Pacific Engineering Construction for Foothills
Park Erosion Control; Change Orders to the Contract Not to
Exceed $14,000 (1073) (CMR:416;9)
5. Contract with Gas Recovery Systems, Inc. for Landfill Flare
Station Modifications; Change Orders to the Contract Not to
Exceed $2,800 (1072-01) (CMR:4 10:9)
6. Contract with Stanley Smith Security Services for Security
Servir s at the Municipal Service Center; Change Orders Not
to Exceed $2,000 Annually (130-03) (C'MR:409:9)
7. Contract with Granite Construction Company for Byxbee Park
Phase I Road Reconstruction; Change Orders Not to Exceed
$30,000 (1321-05) (CMR:393 :9)
8. Agreement with EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc.
to Conduct Phase II of the Effluent Toxicity Characterization
Program; Amendments for Related Services Not to Exceed $15,000
(1122-01) (CMR:411:9)
10. Easement from Southern Pacific Transportation Company,
Alma/Churchill Intersection Improvements, CIP 84-71 (1010)
( :412:9)
62-86
8/14/89
1
1
11. RESOLUTION 6822 entitled "RESOLUTION 01THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING SALARIES FOR COUNCIL -APPOINTED
OFFICERS AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6818" (501)
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Bechtel absent.
AGENDA Gx S. ADDI. IONS. , I,D DELETIONS
City Manager Bill Zaner announced Item 9 would become Item 15A.
PUBLIC HE7 ING
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Confirming the Weed Abatement
Report and Ordering the Cost of Abatement to be a Special
Assessment of the Respective Properties (1250-01) (CMR:390:9)
Mayor Klein announced the item was removed by staff because it had
not been properly noticed by the County. The item was referred to
a later agenda.
13. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding
Application of Maria and Hoover Kwok for a Comprehensive Plan
Change and for a Zone Change for Property Located at 755
University Avenue (300)
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open.
Maria 'Wok, 471 Addison Avenue, noted the property had been used
as a multiple -family dwelling unit since 1949. Denial of the
rezoning application would not change the existing multiple -family
use. The property was located in a mixed use area not an
exclusively single-family area. Policy 2 of the Comprehensive
Plan's Housing Element was to preserve older single-family homes
and small apartment buildings. The intent of rezoning the
particular area was to prevent widespread deenlition of single-
family homes and construction of large apartment buildings and to
preserve the existing scale of the neighborhood. She contended
the property had been missclasssified as a single-family home in 1978
and described in the Historic Building Inventory as a Rooming -In
House with a lot size of 75 x 100 feet. The converted garage had
been mistakenly classified as a separate property. She urged
approval of the project.
Lorna Masson, 478 Fulton Street, opposed the application to change
the zoning to RM-30. She was concerned about adverse effects on
traffic and parking and that the zone change would change the
character of tie neighborhood. She urged the Kwoks to restore the
Queen Anne style hone because of its historic value. She read a
letter from Sharon Conte of 789 University Avenue who also opposed
the project.
62-87
8/14/89
Jo Killen, 482 Fulton Street, presented a petition with over 50
signatures of neighbors and residents in Palo Alto who opposed the
rezoning of the property at 755 University Avenue. She urged
Council to hold to its commitment to retain buildings of historic
interest to the City and to maintain the single-family zoning of
the neighborhood. If rental income was the motivating factor for
the rezoning request, she suggested upgrading the four legal non-
conforming units to luxury apartments.
Mrs. Kwok responded to the comments made by the real estate agent
regarding the four properties owned by the Kwoks. The property :s
in San Jose were bought directly from the developer and were
recently sold.
Mayor. Klein declared the Public Hearing closed.
NOTION: Council Member Fletcher moves, seconded by Renzel to
uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the applica-
tion of Maria and Hoover Kwok for the requested Comprehensive Plan
and Zone Change from Single -Family residential to Multiple Family,
RM-30 at 755 University Avenue as follows:
YINAIj+GS
1. The public interest would not be served by rezoning this
property to allow five units. The existing four non-
conforming units are themselves more dense than the
surrounding single-family homes in the area. Additional units
would change the character of the neighborhood, in
contravention of long-standing City policy.
2. Changing the Comprehensive Map Land Use designation of the
property is contrary to the Policy of the Comprehensive Plan
of maintaining the low -density residential character of
existing single-family neighborhoods.
Council Member Patitucci requested clarification regarding the
block of University which retained R-1 zoning, although blocks on
either side, with frontages on University, were designated RM-30.
Council Member Renzel, who was on the Planning Commission at the
tine of the rezoning, believed part of itr reasoning was that the
property was on a corner which was also part of the Fulton Street
landscape. Fulton was a narrow street and maintaining the zoning
as single --family was appropriate because of the relationship to the
Fulton Street frontage.
62-88
8/14/89
1
1
0
Council Member Woolley supported the motion to uphold the Planning
Commission recommendation. She thought perhaps there were ways the
Kwoks could manage to renovate the house. Since the property was
an income producing property, the Kwoks could be eligible for tax
credits through the IRS. Secondly, there was the possibility of
the Mills Act, which provided property tax relief. There were ways
to get assistance since the structure was a Category Two Historic
Property.
Council Member Renzel supported the reasoning of the Planning
Commission that the zoning ran with the property; not with the
building. Even though the structure was a Class II,. Council's
powers to protect Class II structures was somewhat constrained.
While the Kwoks were dealing in good with, a subsequent owner
might decide to put condominiums in there.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Bechtel absent.
14. Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code Regarding Definitions of
Commercial Recreation, General Business Service and Personal
Service, Certain Parking Requirement Exceptions in the
Commercial Downtown District and Variance or Conditional Use
Permit Appeal Fees Refunds (237-01)
Council Member Cobb referred to the General Business Service
definition, and queried to what extent the changes related to the
issue that developed in the Charleston Shopping Center with regard
to the small local laundry and then the chain that came in.
Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said the change was related
because interpretation issues were raised regarding the City's
regulations and staff felt it prudent to clarify those issues.
Council Member Cobb asked whether there was a problem with the
current interpretation that might create legal difficulties which
the change would correct.
Ms. Jansen said the definition clarification would not result in
any change in existing operations. The state-of-the-art of the
laundry industry had changed substantially and although there was
a small amount of on -site solvent used in conjunction with what
staff considered to be a neighborhood dry cleaning establishment,
it did not conflict with the intent of the regulations to allow
neighborhood dry cleaners as opposed to those kinds of operations
which clearly were commercial in character. The interpretation was
contested by a minter of the public. The new General Business
Service definition clarified the existing operation.
City Attorney Diane Northway said since there were gray areas in
the zoning code, there were those who disputed that is said what
62-89
8/14/89
staff wanted it to say. The rule of statutory construction said
that contemporaneous administrative construction of a statute was
given great weight by the courts. While staff had some
presumptions on their side in caking interpretations, it was a
cleaner process to crystalize definitions where possible.
Council Member Levy asked if language should be included in the
ordinance to distinguish between large and small group instruction
in order to clarify any ambiguities for someone reading the
ordinance without the benefit of consultation.
Ms. Northway believed the problem of defining large and small group
classes quantitatively was that it was not a sufficiently
definitive standard.
Ms. Jansen said there was no magical number for small or large
groups. Code occupancy allowed a greater number in some instances
than one would ever see. Staff did not want a situation where
someone leased 5,000 square feet but maintained they would have no
more than twelve people in that large area. Some instances
involved parking problems related to a particular use. A number
of parameters were involved in an interpretation.
MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Patitecci, to
approve the Planning Commission recommendation finding that the
proposed ordinance changes will not have a significant
environmental impact, and introduced the ordinance.
OxdJnance lit Reading entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (THE ZONING CODE)
REGARDING DEFI}V TIONS OF COMMERCIAL RECREA 'ION, GENERAL
BUSINESS suvire AND PERSONAL SERVICE, CERTAIN PARKING
REQUIREMENT EXCAPTIONS IN THE COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT AND
VARIANCE OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPEAL FEES REFUNDS"
MOTION PA3BRD 8-0, Bechtel absent.
15. Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding the Proposed
Residential Units at 4146 El Camino Real (300) (CMR:414:9)
Planning Commissioner Joe Huber stated the Planning Commission had
three major concerns regarding the project. First, regarding
parking and safety, it concluded it was safer to provide access
from Thain rather than from El Camino. Secondarily, the impact of
only eight units would be minimal. Third, some type of stop sign
compelling a ' stop out of the new project to Thain should be
included, hopefully by the Architectural Review Board.
62-90
e/14/89
Council Member Woolley asked about a pedestrian access from the new
project to El Camino so guests could park on El Camino.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) Staff Liaison Jim Gilliland said
the ARB would be encouraged to add the pedestrian access from El
Camino into the new project.
Ms. Jansen said the pedestrian access concern had also been
expressed by members of the ARB at two preliminary hearings. While
there was no formal project yet and the hearings were only
preliminary reviews, the ARB anticipated any formal proposal would
include pedestrian access.
Mayor Klein asked if Council could condition its vote on the
addition of the pedestrian access to El Camino.
Ms. Northway stated Section 16.48.100 gave Council ample authority
to impose or suggest conditions to the Architectural Review Board.
Part of the rationale for the referrals was to get Council's policy
directions and, if the direction included conditions or modifica-
tions, Council had the freedom to make those modifications,
providing the conditions related to the referral.
Council Member Cobb asked if more recent discussions had resulted
in some endorsement of the Thain access by the formal homeowners'
association of the project.
Ms. Jansen was unaware of an endorsement of the access.
Council Member Cobb urged members of the public aware of such
information to advise Council.
Co'mcil Member Levy referred to the adjacent properties on El
Camino Real, the Sunset Barbecue and the Chinese Kitchen, and
queried whether they would also have eveitual access from Thain
Way.
Mr. Gilliland said no.
Mayor Klein asked if there was room for the Chinese kitchen to
access the corner from Maybell Avenue.
Mr. Gilliland said it would be very difficult.
Mayor Klein asked how many units could be constructed on the Sunset
Barbecue/Chinese Kitchen parcels since they were zoned at RM-30.
Mr. Gilliland calculated a mma:xDeus of six units could be
constructed on the isolated triangular piece of property, under the
present ordinance; however, with setbacks, open -space requirements,
62-31
8/14/89
parking, etc., the number of units would probably be closer to
four.
Architect Tony Carrasco of Carrasco & Associates, 140 Forest
Avenue, project architect, had met with the Barron Park Associa-
tion (BPA) twice over the year and at its request had scaled the
project down from eleven to nine units. The BPA felt larger,
three -bedroom units were more preferable than the two -bedroom units
found in most projects along the street. A plan was submitted to
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for nine units and later
revised to eight larger units. After three meetings with the newly
formed Barron Square Association (BSA), he agreed to work
cooperatively with the BSA and the property owner, Mrs. Su Chen
Chun to provide parking spaces which seemed to be a common problems.
Studies by traffic engineers showed it was safer to have the eight
townhouses access from Thain Wa►y rather than El Cassino. In
addition, it was better planning to incorporate eight units into
a neighborhood rather than isolate them off on a busy, public,
commercial street. He urged Council support the recommendations
of the Planning Commission and planning staff.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, presented graphs of the original Barron Square
development. The first unit showed the Barron Square project at
Interdale. The other three units; the Thain property, the Sunset
Barbecue/Chinese Kitchen, and the Townhouse Motel were not part of
the original project and were considered separately. The Townhouse
Motel came in under the Cherry Amendment and was excluded from
being amortized. The original concept was to have the residential
properties developed as a group with access off Maybell Avenue.
When the Townhouse Motel was grandfathered in, that access became
impossible. There were two residential properties fronting along
El Camino, one of which was proposed to be developed and the other
little triangle which would be almost impossible to develop
rationally. It would be more appropriate for the RM-30, the Sunset
Barbecue and the Chinese Kitchen, to be left as comme: -cial and not
be redeveloped as residential. Combining the Sunset Barbecue and
the Chinese Kitchen property would provide a viable commercial
district.
Mary W. Shaw, 553 Thain Way, felt the architect misrepresented his
purpose when he met with the Baron Square homeowners. His
responsibility was to inform the residents of the possibility of
an access from Thain Way. The majority of the homeowners were
against the Thain Way access because of the existing substandard,
unsafe street. She opposed the proposed access due to the already
existing substandard street.
Rosemary Campana, 522 Thain Way, spoke against the Thain Way access
and echoed similar complaints against the project. Her main
concern was traffic and pedestrian safety. When the Townhouse
62-92
8/14/89
1
1
Motel became planned community zoning, the property was locked in.
The result was the creation of parking problems and many near -
accidents in the neighborhood. Pedestrians had to go into the
street to access the swimming pool, tennis courts, mailboxes, their
cars, and even sidewalks. She urged Council to carefully study
this already substandard project.
Laszlo Takes, 4133 Thain Way, expressed concern with traffic
problems due to the larger three -bedroom units. The current
parking problem would be worse with the Thain Way access. He urged
consideration of the two properties in light of future development.
MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve
Planning Commission and staff recommendations that the access to
the proposed residential units on the property known as 4146 El
Camino Real be made from the end of the cul-de-sac currently
existing at the end of Thain Way with the following findings and
conditions:
FINDINGS
The recommendation to require access to the property at 4146 El
Canino Real from Thain Way is based on the following findings:
1. Access to the property from Thain Way will result in the least
environmental impacts, particularly in terms of added traffic
congestion along El Camino Real.
2. Access to the site via Thain Way is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, in that it limits driveway access to El
Camino Real and will assist in creating a greenbelt landscape
area along El Camino Real.
3. Access via Thain Way will create a neighborhood and sense of
community between the two developments, greatly improving the
quality of residential environment for the proposed project.
4. The traffic report by RGM Associates, dated March 1, 1989,
concluded that the Thain Way access is the most desirable and
will have the least traffic impacts. These impacts may be
mitigated by additional guest parking, painting of a center-
line on Thain Way and replacement of the STOP sign.
comnittpm
Final site and building design shall be subject to review and
approval by the Architectural Review Board. The Architectural
Review Board shall insure that the project is compatible with the
existing developments by adequately addressing the following:
62-93
8/14/89
1. Adequate open and available parking for
shall be provided, which may be in excess
by the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The site layout and building shall be
manner as to respect the concerns of
residents, by encouraging pedestrian and
El Camino Real.
guests and tenants
of parking required
designed in such a
the Barron Square
visitor access from
3. The project shall be provided sufficient common usable open
space and on -site amenities so as to encourage residents to
remain on site.
Further, with the suggestion that the Architectural Review Board
consider staff recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the July 21, 1989
Planning Commission Report as follows:
1. Treatment of the El Camino Real frontage as the front door of
the project with possible retention of El Camino Real
addresses. This would allow for visitors to arrive and park
along El Camino Real while the Thain Way access would be
secondary for residents only. Pedestrian access to the
project from El Camino Real should be encouraged.
2. Sufficient and usable play and common areas must be provided
for the new project so as to discourage the residents from
attempting to use the Barron Square facilities. These
facilities should be fully designed and constructed with this
project and should be sited so as to encourage their use.
3. The new project should be required to provide guest parking
in excess of current Zoning Ordinance requirements, such as
one guest parking space per unit, or by providing usable
parking aprons for each of the garages.
5. The applicant should be required to provide for two-way
reflective markers or centerline striping to be placed on the
curve on Thain Way and to replace the STOP signs at Thain Way.
Council Romer Levy believed Council should suggest to the ARB some
policies to follow, but he was uncomfortable giving definite
direction to the ARB. He wanted all residential ...yeas to be part
of a purely residential neighborhood. Fronting and accessing such
an isolated project onto El Camino would not provide quality
neighborhood residential amenities. Secondly, there were only
eight units, so it was not going to add a dramatic amount of
traffic to Thain Way. Thain Way was a substandard street, but the
alternative of making the project a part of the El Camino traffic
in all ways would be very unpleasant. The old Planning Commission
minutes were interesting because the surrounding neighbors opposed
62-94
8/14/89
the Barron Square project; however, it was built and many residents
now enjoyed the quality of life. He thought the Thain Way project
would provide the same opportunities.
Council Member Fletcher had visited the site and saw the access to
El Camino was very close to the left -turn stacking lane, and it
was difficult to merge over to that left -turn lane safely with the
amount of traffic on El Camino. She lived in a multi -family
project of 140 units, with many children using bicycles and
skateboards and garages accessing a 26 -foot driveway. The access
had not presented a problem, so she believed Thain Way was quite
adequate to handle the traffic from eight more units without any
perceptible impact.
Council Member Cobb referred to cul-de-sac parking and the fact
that family -sized units generated teenagers with cars which plugged
up the cul-de-sac. He could not support the project without
adequate consideration being given to the parking issue. He went
down Thain Way and believed it was too small and congested and
parking was limited. The triangle area was not going to produce
better developed housing. It needed to be changed; otherwise
access needed to be from El Camino.
Council Member Renzel supported the Thain Way access to the
property. She opposed the substandard public street when the
Barron Square project was originally developed. Council
consciously approved the public street and tried to ensure there
was access to the remaining portion of the Thain property because
Council believed it should be integral to the neighborhood. A
major accomplishment of the General Plan revisions in 1976 was to
have the El Camino frontage to some extent reflect the
neighborhoods behind them rather than wall-to-wall strip
development. Even though the proposed units were family -sized,
they were sufficiently small in number to accommodate the number
of cars.
Council Member Sutorius supported the motion. He did not want the
ARB to interpret the El Camino orientation suggestion to overrule
consideration of the most recent discussions between the
developer's representative and a member of the Thain community
regarding orientation on a secured basis because it was important
to not create a mall. Access needed to be carefully considered.
The project would not return to Council unless it was an appeal
situation.
MOTION PASS= 7-1, Cobb "no," Bechtel absent.
15A. (Old Item 9) Contract with California Land Management for Park
Ranger Services for Palo Alto Baylands Area (1330)
(CKR:395:9)
62-95
8/14/89
Council Member Woolly thought the cost of hiring a ranger at a cost
of $64,000 for 27 hours a week was expensive. She queried whether
staff had evaluated the costs of inhouse versus a contract
arrangement. She did not believe the Athletic Center, Duck Pond,
and Old Harbor area were part of the responsibility of the Refuse
area and she queried why the Refuse Fund was paying for services
to those areas.
Supervisor of Parks and Open Space Jerry Lawrence, referred ;:c the
cost of hiring a ranger and said labor was $12 an hour. The
contractor provided uniforms, a 50 -gallon pumper unit on a truck,
a four-wheel drive truck equipped with first -aid equipment and a
light bar for enforcement, and tools for maintenance. He had
evaluated the costs and found a contract arrangement less expensive
than going inhouse. The contract was established in 1983 and
services were only provided in the Refuse area. When the County
pulled out of the Harbor area in 1986, the City expanded the patrol
to include those areas.
Council Member Woolley asked why the Refuse Fund shouldbear the
entire burden. She asked if the Refuse Enterprise Fund received
money from the General Fund, and how much money was involved. She
had not understood the funding process during budget hearings and
requested the information come back to the entire Council.
City Manager Bill Zaner said the funds were budgeted in the Refuse
Division Budget; however, not all of the funding from the Refuse
Division Budget came from Refuse fees. General Fund moneys were
appropriated annually for the Refuse Division Budget. The funding
for the contract was from both refuse fees and the General Fund.
He would get the numbers from the budget and report back to
Council.
NOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, to
approve the staff recommendation to:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with California
Land Management in the amount of $55,920 for Ranger Patrol
Services at the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve for this fiscal
year.
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and
execute one or more amendments for additional services related
to or incidental to the scope of services, the aggregate value
of which amendments shall not exceed $8,388 for this fiscal
year.
NOTION PABDBD 8-0, Bechtel absent.
62-96
8/14/89
OUH I L )IX`I"TERS
16. Council Member Fletcher re Resolution Regarding Smoking
Regulations (1401-02)
NOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, to
request the League of California Cities to seek legislation
repealing the provisions in State law preempting local regulation
on the sale or display of tobacco projects.
Council Member Fletcher intended to bring to Council a proposal to
regSulate the sale of chewing tobacco sold to teenagers because more
supervision by the sales clerks at the check-out counter was
needed. She felt cigarette machines should only be placed in
supervised areas. Most people started smoking as teenagers and
making those products so readily available encouraged them. She
checked with the City Attorney's office and found the State
legislature recently passed legislation preempting any local
control of the sale or display of tobacco products. The League of
California Cities was not aware of the legislation nor were the
nonsmoking organizations. She had prepared the draft resolution
for the League of California Cities Conference.
Council Member Renzel supported the motion although she thought it
made more sense to lobby for statewide regulation of such
facilities.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Bechtel absent.
1/. Mayor Klein and Council Members Renzel and Woolley re Request
to Revise Definition of Driveways as it Relates to Flag Lots
(237)
NOTION: Cour cil Member Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, to direct
the City Attorney to return to Council on September 11 with a
revised Section 21.04.030 to reflect the definition of driveways
as it relates to flag lots.
Council Member Renzel said a lot of attention was paid to what
would happen on a flag lot during the revision of the flag lot
regulations, but not enough attention was paid to the definition
which was changed and which resulted in the exclusion of a number
of properties having flag lot characteristics. The proposed
ordinance would encompass those lots.
Council Member Patitucci hoped the proposed ordinance change was
not a vote against flag lots because properly designed and
developed, flag lots adequate housing alternatives. He asked
if the proposal was simply to tighten up definitions that made
sense.
52-97
S/ _4/89
Mayor Klein stated Council had alre<dy gone on record against flag
lots.
Council Member Renzel said Council had already dealt with the issue
of new flag lots and conditions of existing flag lots. The motion
dealt with existing flag lots that had all the characteristics of
a flag lot, e.g. small narrow driveways to the street, and the
principal building area was behind the property fronting on the
public street. A number of properties that previously would have
been defined as flag lots, were not because of the definition of
driveway.
Council Member Patitucci urged Council to vote against the motley)
and re-evaluate flag lots.
Terry Stewart, 1141 Forest Avenue, lived on a flag lot for eight
years. Approximately one year ago, they started trying to expand
their house and were caught in the flag lot moratorium. They were
yranted relief and started the variance procedure. On the day they
were supposed to receive the variance decision they were informed
that under a new interpretation, the property was considered a flag
lot. They hoped to acquire a building permit shortly and did not
want to get caught in a similar situation.
Council Member Sutorius shared some of the same concerns that
Council Member Patitucci raised. He would support the motion and
reserve his judgment until they had an actionable item before them.
MOTION PASSED 7.1, Patitucci "no," Bechtel absent.
pJOU MENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
C y Clerk / Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council
meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years
from the date of themeeting, and the Finance and Public Works
Committee and Policy and Procedures Committee meeting tapes are
retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the
tapes during regular office hours.
•
62-98
8/14/89-