HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-20 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREQUENCY 90.? ON FM DIAL
Regular Meeting
November 20, 1989
ITEM
Oral C,-Aimunications
Consent Calendar
1. Amendment:. 10 to Contract 4039 with Stanford
University for Use of Refuse Disposal Area
2. Contract with Heath Consultant:, Inc. for
Mobile Gas (Methane) Leak Survey
3. Contract with Energized Substation Maintenance,
Inc. for Steel Street Pole Painting
4. Resolution Declaring Weeds to Be a Nuisance and
Setting a Hearing
5. Resolution Declaring the Results of the
Consolidated General Municipal Election Held on
Tuesday, November 7, 1989
PAGg
62.304
62-304
62-304
62-304
62-304
62-304
62-304
7. Ordinance Requiring Retailers to Offer Consumers 62-304
Paper Bags
8. Ordinance Regarding Private Intrusion Alarms 62-305
9. Ordinance Providing for a Storm and Surface 62-305
Water Management Enterprise and Utility
PALO ALTO Atli COUNC 1 L NEITINGS ARE ALSO CASLICAST OS GOVERMENT CNANNEL SS
62-301
11/20/89
Int PAGE
15. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- 62-305
mendation to Uphold the Appeal of Dena Mossar
from the Decision of the Zoning Administrator
and Deny a Use Permit for Properties Located at
901 and 909 Alma Street and 901 High Street
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- 62-305
mendation to Approve a Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map Change for Property Located at
1515 El Camino Real
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom-
mendation Regarding a Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map Change for Properties Located at
3277 and 3351 Miranda Avenue
62-306
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- 62-308
mendation Regarding Approval of a Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map Change for Property Located
at 531 Stanford Avenue
13. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom-
mendation to Deny the Appeal of Dana Keen and
Uphold the Decision of the Zoning Administrator
to Approve a Variance for Property Located at
543 Kendall Avenue
62-309
14. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- 62-313
mendation Regarding Approval of the Application
of James Witt for a Preliminary rarcel Map for
Property Located at 540-544 Maybell Avenue
16. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- 62-316
mendation Regarding Approval of the Application
of Marek Development Company for a Preliminary
Parcel Map for Property Located at 740 Center
Drive; and Direct City Staff to Initiate a
Study to Consider Application of an R-1,
Combining District for the Area between Hamilton
and Martin Avenue and between Center Street and
Lincoln Avenue
17. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinances Adopting the 1988 rig -320
Editions of the Uniform Building and Mechanical
Code, the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing
Code, and the 1987 Edition of the National
Electrical Code
62-302
11/20/89
ITEM , 'Agg
18. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Adopting the 1988 62-321
Edition of the Uniform Fire Code
19. Planning Commission and Architectural Review 62-331
Board recommend to the City Council Approval
of a Site and Design Application for the Palo
Alto Landfill Electric Generation Facility for
Property Located at 2380 Embarcadero Road
19A. (Old Item 6) Landfill Gas Lease and Operating 62-331
Agreement and Interconnection and Transmission
Agreement with Palo Alto Landfill Gas
Corporation
20. Release of Police Complaint Data 62-334
21. Ordinance Amending the Fiscal Year 1989-90
Budget to Establish a New Fee for Single -Family
Home Improvement Exceptions, and to Provide for
Revenue from the Fee
62-338
22. Lease and Covenant Not to Develop, Jordan and 62-339
Cubberley Interim Lease Agreements with Palo
Alto Unified School District
23. Mayor Klein and Council Members Fletcher and
Levy Regarding Naming of Adobe Creek
Undercro€sing
62-343
Adjournment at 12:15 p.m. 62-343
62-303
11/20/89
Regular Meeting
November 20, 1989
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:33 p.m.
Mayor Klein announced a need for a Closed Session to discuss City
of Palo Alto V. VMS. et al., pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9, to be held after the meeting in the Personnel Conference
Room.
PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Ccbb, Fletcher,
Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel (arrived at
7:35 p.m.), Sutorius, Woolley
ORAL CQMMUNIC.ATJONS
Richard Rundell, 859 Lytton Avenue, spoke regarding providing
electric cars for postal service.
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic respon-
sibility.
C if icaNT CALENDAR
NOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, to approve
Consent Calendar Items 1 - 9, with Item 6 removed by Sutorius to
become Item 19A and Cobb, Klein "not participating" on Item 1.
1. Amendment No. 10 to Agreement No. 4039 with Stanford Univ r-
sity for Use of Refuse Disposal Area (1074) (CMR:546:9)
2. Contract with Heath Consultants, Inc. for Mobile Gas (Methane)
Leak Survey (1110) (CMR:536:9)
3. Contract with Energized Substation Maintenance, Inc. for Steel
Street role Painting (1101) (CMR:537:9)
4. RESOLUTION 6814 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO DECLARING WEEDS TO BE A NUISANCE AND SETTING
A BARING" (1250-01) (CMR:480:9)
5. SOLUTION 035 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO DECLARING ThM RESULTS OF THE COHSOLIDATBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989"
(705-89-12)
7. ORDINANCE 3908 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
62-304
11/20/89
0
BY ADDING CHAPTER 5.35 REQUIRING RETAILERS TO OFFER CONSUMERS
PAPER BAGS" (1st Reading 11/06/89, PASSED 9-0) (1440-05)
8. ORDINANCE 3909 entitled"ORDINANCE Of THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO REPEALING CHAPTER 4.39 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING PRIVATE INTRUSION ALARMS IN ITS ENTIRETY AND
ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 4.39" (1st Reading 11/06/89,
PASSED 9-0) (1202)
9. ORDINANCE 3910 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE
FOR A STORM AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISE AND
UTTLITY" (1st Reading 11/06/89, PASSED 9.0) (1073)
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Bechtel absent; Cobb, Klein "not participating"
on Item 1.
AGENDA CHANGES, AQpITION51 AND D ,,IONS
City Manager William Zaner announced that Item 6 would become 19A.
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to bring
forward Item 15.
NOTION PASSED 8-0, Bechtel absent.
15. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation to Uphold
the Appeal of Dena Mossar from the Decision of the Zoning
Administrator and Deny a Use Permit for Properties Located at
901 and 909 Alma Street and 901 High Street (30u) (CMR:544:9)
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve
the staff recommendation to continue and refer the appeal back to
the Planning Commission for reconsideration, in order to allow the
applicant time to further study the safety and traffic issues
raised by the Planning Commission and members of the public.
MOTION PARSED 8-0, Bechtel absent.
PUBLIC ,HEARINcia
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve
a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Change for Property Located
at 1515 El Camino Real (300) (CMR:545:9)
Council Member Levy queried if the existing use in 1515 El Camino
Real and 531 Stanford Avenue would be "grandfathered in" and what
that want specifically.
62-305
11/20/89
Senior Planner Sarah Cheney said both uses were intended to be
"grandfathered in", meaning they would be allowed to continue
operation indefinitely.
Council Member Levy queried if the properties could be rebuilt to
the existing size, in the case of destruction.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case said both properties
would follow the existing nonconforming use provisions in the
zoning ordinance which was recently changed for single-family
zoning.
Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said the building would need
to meet the applicable site development regulation in effect at the
time of demolition. The parking configuration might change, but
the square footage for medical office uses could continue. The
same provision was applicable for the multiple -family zoning on the
Stanford Terrace Inn.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open, Receiving no
requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing
closed.
MOTION: Council Member Sutor•ius moved, seconded by Cobb, to
approve the Planning Commission recommendation to adopt the
ordinance and resolution changing the Comprehensive Plan designa-
tion of property at 1515 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commer-
cial to Multiple Family Residential and the zoning designation from
CN, Neighborhood Commercial to RM-15, Low Density Multiple Family
Residential as shown in Attachments A and H of staff report
(0:545:9)
O;ainancq let Beading funtitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CIT'r OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08 . A4 0 OF THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY AT 1515 EL CAMINO REAL, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITYWIDE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
STUDY"
RE$OWTION 683§ entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PROPERTY AT 1515 Es, CAMINO REAL, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITYWIDE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
STUDY"
MOTION FA81*D 9-0.
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding
a Coaprebensive Plan Land Use Map Change for Properties
Located at 3277 and 3351 Miranda Avenue (300) (CMR:545:9)
62-306
11/20/89
Mayor Klein announced he would not be able to participate in the
item and turned the meeting over to Vice Mayor Bechtel.
Council Member Renzel queried if increased property values created
an incentive for uses to be convez ted.
Ms. Jansen said the market incentive was due to the existing lease
which had potential saleability. The tennis club owners testified
at the Planning Commission hearings against the zoning because of
a potential sale of the property for other uses.
Council Member Renzel queried if club members had total control
over what happened to the club. She believed the zone change was
wanted for financing purposes. If the objective was to keep the
usage, the zoning should prescribe it.
Ms. Jansen said staff faced the problem of not having a perfect
zone fit. Current zoning allowed the club to remain but did not
provide incentives.
Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler said the principal concern
regarded spot -zoning by putting an inappropriate zoning on the
sites. It was more appropriate to leave the designation consistent
with surrounding properties.
Vice Mayor Bechtel declared the Public Hearing open.
Denis Babson, 1450 Waverley Street, President of the Foothills Swim
and Tennis Club, believed the Planning Commission acted ap-
propriately and upheld Commissioner Chandler's statements. He
we3coued questions from Council Members.
Council Member Renzel queried whether Stanford had options to enter
into the lease or cancel it for buyout, and whether the Tennis Club
Board of Directors made decisions regarding continuation of its
operation.
Mr, Babson said Stanford did not have options to enter into the
lease or cancel it for buyout. The Foothills Tennis and Swim Club
Board of Directors had a prepurchased 99 -year lease with approxi-
mately 67 years remaining which gave full use of the property as
though it were a fee use. The Club had 320 active members and
needed more courts. The Board considered other options, but none
were successful. The Club planned to stay the. full term of the
lease and wanted to improve the property so it would be usable as
a tennis facility. The Foothills Tennis Club Board believed the
existing zoning was proper for a private club which performed a
great deal of community work.
62-307
11/20/89
Vice Mayor Bechtel declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Patitucci, to
approve the Planning Commission recommendation pot to change the
Comprehensive Plan designation of properties at 3277 and 3351
Miranda Avenue from Research/Office Park to Open Space... Controlled
Development and the zoning designation from LM, Limited
Industrial/Research Park to RE, Residential Estates.
Council Member Fletcher appreciated staff's intent and agreed there
was no good solution to the land use. The intent was to preserve
the present use and not have an incentive to convert it to more
economically productive use. She supported the Planning Commis-
sion's decision and the motion to not rezone the property.
Council Member Levy opposed the motion as presented on the floor
because Council should not go on record as doing nothing.
MOTION PASSED 6-1, Levy "no," Cobb, Klein "not participating."
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding
Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Change for
Property Located at 531 Stanford Avenue (300) (CMR:545:9)
Vice Mayor Bechtel queried if the property wars owned by Stanford.
Ms. Cheney said ass sscr's information indicated the property was
owned by Hare, Brewer and Kelley.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no
requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing
closed.
WOTSONt Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Sutorius, to
approve the Planning Commission recommendation to adopt the
ordinance and resolution to change the Costpr-pensive Plan designa-
tion of property at 531 Stanford Avenue from Neighborhood Commer-
cial to Multiple Family Residential and the zoning designation from
CN, Neighborhood Commercial to RM-30, Medium Density Multiple
Family Residential as shown in Attachments C and D of staff report.
Qrstinancfs 3 t R edinq entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO
ALTO MU /CIPAL CODE (ZO'''NING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE
CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 531 STANFORD AVENUE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITYWIDE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
STUDY"
RESOLUTION 5437 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE PALO ALTO
62-308
11/20/89
1
1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PROPERTY AT 531 STANFORD AVENUE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITYWIDE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
STUDY"
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
13. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation to Deny
the Appeal of Dana Keen and Uphold the Decision of the Zoning
Administrator to Approve a Variance for Property Located at
543 Kendall Avenue (300) (CMR:541:9)
Council !Member Sutorius announced he would not participate in the
item due to a conflict of interest.
Associate Planner Bob Haley said there was une change to the plans;
the second -story window on the west elevation facing 547 Kendall
Avenue was deleted, with the agreement of the neighbor.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open.
Debbie Hilleary, 543 Kendall, the applicant, said her husband, a
self-employed general contractor, specialized in bridge and road
construction, site preparation, and landscaping. He had operated
out of Urban Lane in Palo Alto for ten years. Her children enjoyed
the local neighborhood schools and the family was proud of their
first home but had outgrown it. The only alternative was to
remodel according to the plan submitted in compliance with the
variance ordinance which was approved by the Zoning Administrator
and the Planning Commission. The plan met minimal family needs
while incorporating neighbors' interests and followed the variance
process to the letter. She appreciated the time and efforts of Mr.
Haley, the Planning Commission, and the Council in the variance
decision, and urged Council to support the deciGior of the Zoning
Administrator and the Planning Commission.
Dana Keen, 530 Barron Avenue, the appellant, believed the variance
process was a farce and queried if other alternatives were looked
at, why the one that was proposed was picked. She wanted the
Hilleary family to be able to expend their house, but the proposed
remodelling exceeded several zoning conditions. If the proposed
plan was the only viable alternative, then she supported it. She
felt berated at the Planning Cozeission meeting. Only one
Commissioner, Mr. Hirsch, addressed her question regarding
alternative methods, and he was persuaded by her comments,
especially in view of Council action on R-1, and recommended the
applicant return with a modified second -story addition that had a
lower profile. She apologized to the Hi?:learys for dragging them
through the variance process, wished them good luck, and hoped they
would hold no hard feelings against her.
62-309
11/20/89
Lois Vanderbeek, 736 Barron Avenue, supported the request of Dana
Keen to deny the variance for 543 Kendall as it presently existed;
the variance should not have been granted because it would severely
disrupt the appearance of the block in Barron Park that had homes
which blended harmoniously. She believed the one-story restriction
applicable to the substandard lot at 543 Kendall Avenue should be
upheld. Perhaps a less obtrusive second -story permit could be
applied for in another variance. Ms. Keen's home was only one and
one-half feet from the rear property line and any intrusion by
neighbors into the protective space surrounding her would have more
impact than similar construction elsewhere in Palo Alto. The
regulations supported Ms. Keen's view of the case, and she was
asking for modest changes; some of the neighbors did not feel due
process was followed. There was callous disregard at the Planning
Commission meeting for Ms. Keen's needs and of the ten others who
signed the letter opposing granting the variance; the Hi1learys'
request was viewed more favorably because of the children.
Commissioner Marsh pointed out the City was caught in another case
where the family pleaded but a develupet took aver, and stated it
was important that the Commission separate the family issues from
the architectural issues. Tim Hilleary was a contractor and more
knowledgable about the system; Ms. Keen did not know procedural
matters which should have been explained to her by staff. The
findings were not made correctly; two of the three findings had to
be rewritten after the last Planning Commission meeting. Finding
One, as revised, was flimsy; the curve referred to was barely
distinguishable and was almost a straight lino, nothing like having
a house on a cul-de-sac. The second objection was the use of the
term inordinate to describe the amount of front yard space at the
property. The front yard was postage -stamped size, so Finding One
was unjustified and not grounds for a variance. Regarding Finding
Two, if having a small house was grounds for a variance on a
substandard lot, then every house in Palo Alto could be granted
one. i`(any of the neighbors expressed concerns regarding Finding
Three. The regulations as written should be upheld because they
were written to protect neighbors.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed.
Mayor Klein
Receiving no
for rebuttal
closed.
said the Public Hearing was open for rebuttals.
requests from either the applicant or the appellant
statements. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing
Council Member Woolley queried if discussion was held at the
Planning Commission level regarding the viability of alternatives.
Commissioner Chandler said there was discussion regarding alterna-
tives._ He quoted Commissioner Christensen as not wanting the
Planning Commission to redeeign the house because the plan was
62-310
11/20/89
reasonable. The process was standardless and no limit was set of
possibilities in a comfortable zone, as opposed to going to the
extreme. A clearer limit above the FAR ordinance needed to be set
for a workable level for the Commission to follow and to guide the
applicant.
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley, to approve
staff and Planning Commission recommendations to uphold the
decision of the Zoning Administrator to grant a variance to 543
Kendall Avenue based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved that do not
apply generally to property in the same district in that the
property is an unusual shape located on a curve leading to an
inordinate amount of space for a front yard.
2. The granting of the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or
necessary hardship, in that the existing house is very modest,
measuring approximately 883 square feet of living area. There
is little opportunity for expansion in any direction without
need for a variance.
3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that,
it will conform with the daylight plane, total sight coverage
will be less than the 35 percent maximum allowed, and pri acy
loss of surrounding properties has been minimized by sensitive
placement of the proposed second story windows.
Conditions
1. All exiting site redwood and pine trees shall be retained.
Removal of any of these trees shall require the prior approval
of the Zoning Administrator.
2. Additional landscape screening shall be installed along the
rear property line. The number, size, and species shall be
required to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Ad-
ministrator prior to issuance of a building permit, and shall
be installed prior to the final building permit inspection.
Council Member Cobb regretted that the appellant was treated with
discourtesy and disrespect. He apologized to Ms keen and hoped
62-311
11/20/89
the neighbors would see if some accommodations could be made to
address the issues of most concern to her.
Council Member Patitucci supported the motion because substandard
lots created a box, and the minimum -sized lot in the single-family
ordinance had more square footage than the house at 543 Kendall
Avenue. A 2,500 square -foot house was reasonable; the fact it was
on a substandard lot was an issue Council would have to deal with.
Council Member Renzel could support the motion if the application
were just to add a second story on .a substandard lot, or a three-
foot variance for the garage, or a 14 -foot variance for the rear
yard; but the proposed combination far exceeded what was ap-
propriate for a substandard lot. The neighbor at the rear of the
property was most impacted and had no way to overcome the close-
ness. Even her front yard would be visually impacted by the new
second -story addition. The addition should be designed so it
required fewer variances. Barron Park was rural in character, and
with the exception of a few obvious rebuildse the hoses were
single -story or second -stories incorporated in the attics. Smaller
houses on smaller lots should remain as entry level housing stock
because converting them into long-term housing stock changed the
character of Palo Alto. She believed that the important con-
sideration should be whether the physical arrangement of additions
adversely affected the existing neighbors, not the occupants of the
house to be remodeled.
Council Member Levy agreed with the comments of Council Member
Renzel. The lot size was 4,400 square feet and the requested
square footage for the house called for an FAR of .50 which was
larger than what was allowed on substandard and regular lots. A
house of 1,540 square feet would be allowed on a lot oi! that size.
He was sympathetic to the question of how large a house a family
needed; many homes in Palo Alto containing 1,500 square feet had
sufficiently housed families of four or more. A 2,200 square -foot
home was larger than it needed to be and over -filled a substandard
lot. Council had granted applications to individuals in similar
circumstances and had seen them leave the area, so the hose should
be considered. not the individual applicants. Ordinances allowed
35 percent FAR on a substandard lot which allowed for a house of
satisfactory size. He appealed to the applicant to reconsider the
size of the house, consider the concerns of the neighbors, and
bring in a modest request more in keeping with the size of the lot
and the size of the houses in the neighborhood.
Council Member Fletcher was sympathetic with the applicant, but
houses across the street and the house adjacent to the back
property line were situated so ' that the addition would not be out
of place. She would vote against the appeal.
62-312
11/20/89
1
0
Mayor Klein expressed the same concern as Council Member Cobb
regarding the treatment of the appellant. He noted that the Barron
Park Association endorsed the proposed variance. Council Members,.
Renzel and Levy raised the issue of basing a decision upon who the
applicant was and whether they had children. For 50 years, the
law had applied equally to whoever was applying, so it was a non -
issue. He supported upholding the variance.
Vice Mayor Bechtel supported the Planning Commission recommendation
to uphold the variance. She was concerned about setting a
precedent by routinely granting variances for every substandard
lot. Some sensitivity to the size of the house was expressed by
neighbors in terms of the design of the windows to minimize impact
on the neighbors, to provide landscaping in terms of lot coverage,
and not violating daylight plane.
Council Member Woolley said when regulations regarding substandard
lots was passed, the Council wanted to have the review process
afforded by the variance process to determine whether second -story
additions were sensitively done. She queried if not having more
definite guidelines to the Planning Commission created a problem
for staff and the applicant.
Ms. Jansen did not believe there was a problem. Each application
was taken ozi a case -by -case basis. There were unusual circum-
stances regarding the substandard lot on Kendall that would not
apply to most substandard lots. More detailed guidelines were not
needed. The new single-family regulations provided enough
guidance.
Council Member Renzel believed when the substandard lot regulations
were passed, the primary concern was that second -story additions
could be constructed through a variance process. Her concern was
the proposed second -story addition would rise straight up, only 14
feet from the rear property line. The adjoining neighbor was one
and one-half feet away from the property line, only 15 N feet from
the proposed addition. The neighbor would be severely impacted.
NOTION PASSED 6-2, Levy, Renzel "no,* Sutorius "not participating."
14. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding
Approval of the Application of dames Witt for a Preliminary
Parcel Map for Property Located at 540-544 Maybell
Avenue (300)
Council Member Patitucci queried if flag lots were illegal in Palo
Alto, and whether a flag lot designation would be a more ap-
propriate land use for the lot on Maybell.
63313
11/20/89
Ms. Jansen said a new flag lot creation was not permissible;
however, staff did advise the applicant to look at a restricted
public street configuration that would allow for a subdivision in
a different manner.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open.
Jamee Witt, 722 Chinalus Drive, spoke to 25 neighbors who supported
his application. The Barron Park Association also supported it at
the Planning Commission meeting. He welcomed questions from
Council Members.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to approve
the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the preliminary
map with exceptions for lot width, subject to the following
findings and conditions:
Findings
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property, in that the property is one of the few remaining
single-family residential parcels in the area which is of
sufficient size to support a subdivision and is now developed
with five dwelling units, three of which are substandard and
considered a safety hazard, and all of which are in violation
of City Building Code requirements;
2. The exceptions for lot width are necessary for the preserva-
tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant, in that requiring compliance with the standard
60 -foot lot width would preclude subdivision of this site
which is four times larger than the required minimum, and
typical surrounding single-family lots;
3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory
in which the property is situated, in that new development on
the parcels will comply with the required sideyard setbacks
which are not met by existing development; as conditioned,
this subdivision will provide a public benefit by requiring
removal of all existing substandard and noncomplying struc-
tures and removing existing safety hazards;
4. The granting of the exceptions for lot width will not violate
the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the Zoning
Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan
or any other law, in that each lot will reflect the general
62-314
11/20/89
lot widths in the area and will provide substantially greater
lot depth and area than normally required;
5. The approval of the project will not result in any significant
adverse, environmental impacts as documented in the attached
negative declaration.
Conditions
1. All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to
issuance of a building permit for either of the lots.
2. The developer shall dedicate a 1a -foot wide strip along the
front property line to the City of Palo Alto for public road
right -of --way purposes. This dedication shall be shown on the
final parcel map.
3. The building permits for the new residences to be built in
this subdivision shall be subject to review by the Architec-
tural Review Board in Compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 16.48 unless they are singly developed by different
owners.
4. The existing 44 -inch and 39 -inch Coast Redwood trees, the
14 -inch Italian Stone Pine, and the 15 -inch Colorado Blue
Spruce trees on the site shall be retained. Consideration
shall be given to retaining the 28 -inch California Pepper
tree. The demolition and construction activities occurring
on the lots shall comply with the recommended tree protection
measures identified in the October 12, 1989 letter from S.P.
McClenahan Co., Inc., on file with the Planning Department.
5. All new construction shall have underground electric service.
6. The developer shall submit a drainage plan to the Public Works
Engineering Department for approval prior to completing
construction drawings. Surface drainage to the street is not
permitted. The developer's engineer shall contact the public
Works Engineering Division for approval of the drainage plan
30 days prior to applying for a building permit.
7. All work done within the City right-of-way requires a Street
Work permit. Apply for the permit from the Public Works
Engineering Department.
8. Demolition and construction activities occurring on the lots
shall be subject to the dust control measures identified in
the project's environmental assessment, 39--EIA-43.
MOTION MU 9-0.
62-315
11/20/39
16. PUBLIC .HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding
Approval of the Application of Marek Development Company for
a Preliminary Parcel Map for Property Located at 740 Center
Drive; and Direct City Staff to Initiate a Study to Consider
Application of an R-1, Combining District for the Area between
Hamilton and Martin Avenue and between Center Street and
Lincoln Avenue (300) (CMR:547:9)
Commissioner Chandler said Planning Commission recommendation to
subdivide the two existing lots into three lots was based on two
key factors; the three lots exceeded 8,000 square feet, and the new
single-family ordinance regulated the net amount of building on the
sites. The three lots could lead to a style of development in
keeping with the neighborhood. One of the lots was greatly in
excess of 8,000 square feet because a wider setback to preserve the
trees on the sideyard was required. Regarding the second part of
the motion, the Commission did not want Council to impose a new
zoning for the area between Hamilton Avenue and Martin Avenue and
between Center Street and Lincoln Avenue because approximately one-
third of the lots were under 8,000 square feet and would become
nonconforming. The motion would direct staff to initiate a study
for the area.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open.
Terry Stewart, 1141 Forest Avenue, opposed the proposed parcel map
changes because Council kept changing the rules and other hc'ises
had been added into the configuration of the neighborhood that were
undesirable. He was concerned with so many parcel map changes and
amendments that were changed to suit the developers who were trying
to change Palo Alto.
Robert Desky, Attorney for the •owners and applicant, said the Marek
Development Ct.apany was a builder, designer, developer who planned
to build the houses as a consistent pre --home development upon the
subdivision, subject to architectural review under the newly -
adopted standards. The three -lot proposal was consistent with the
preservation of the trees on the street and on the site, home sizes
would be consistent with the neighborhood, and the overall
subdivision reflected the letter and spirit of the R-1 ordinance.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed.
Council Meer Cobb queried if Council would lose the architectural
and preservation controls if the property remained as two lots;
wtereas, the subdivision would require an architectural review.
Ms. Jansen said the ease rules would apply whether there ;ware two
or three lots. If the building permit applications case in
62-316
11/20/89
together, a review by the Architectural Review Board would be
required. If the applications came in separately, an architectural
review would not be required.
MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Patitucci, to
approve the Planning Commission recommendations including findings
and conditions as follows, deleting Recommendation 2:
1. The Council approve the preliminary parcel snap for 740 Center
Street, subject to the following findings and conditions; and
Findings
The approval of the project will not violate the requirements,
goals, policies or spirit of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Subdivision Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or any other
law, in that each lot will exceed the minimum lot width,
depth, and area required which have been determined to be
appropriate in achieving the intent of the Comprehensive Plan;
all significant site trees will be required to be protected
and retained; and the relocation of the public utility
easement will be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City
Utilities Department and will not adversely impact adjoining
residences.
2. The approval of the project will not result in any sig-
nificant, adverse, environmental impacts.
Conditions
1. The building permits for the new residences to be built in
'this subdivision shall be subject to review by the Architec-
tural Review Board in Compliance with Palo Alto Muni7iipal Code
Chapter 16.48, unless they are singly developed by different
owners.
2. The existing residence, garage, study, shop and pool cabana
shall be removed prior to issuance of building permits for any
of the lots.
3. The existing street trees shall be protected and retained. No
street trees 'hall be rued without permission from the
Division of Parks and Open Space. Utility trenches shall be
clustered between tree locations.
4. The Developer shall instals a handicapped ramp at the corner
of Pitman and Center Drive. All existing unused driveways
shall be replaced with new, curb, gutter and sidewalk. All
broken sidewalk must be replaced in kind in compliance with
City of Palo Alto standard specifications.
62.317
11/20/89
5. Developer shall submit a drainage plan to Public Works
Engineering for approval prior to completing construction
drawings. Surface drainage over the sidewalk is not per-
mitted.
6. The developer's engineer shall contact the Public Works
Engineering Division for approval of the drainage plan 30 days
prior to filing for a Building Permit for any of the lots.
7. Final landscape plans for any landscaping in the public
right -of --way must be approved by Public Works Engineering
prior to installation.
8. A Street Work permit and an Encroachment Permit are required
for all work done within the City right-of-way. Apply for
permits from Public Works Engineering prior to working within
the City right-of-way.
9. The 10 -foot wide public utility easement shall be relocated
and dedicated at the developers cost, with all work ac-
complished to the satisfaction of the City's_ Utilities
Department at the developers expense. All work shall be done
per City standard specifications for underground residential
service.
10. Developer must inform property owners at 1375 Pitman and 1382
Forest Avenue prior to interrupting and relocating the two
services to these residences. Evidence that the neighbors
have been notified must be provided ir writing to the City's
Utilities Department prior to initiating relocation
activities.
11. Prior to filing for the final Parcel Map, file an application
for easement abandonment for the existing service. The
vacation of the existing easement and the dedication of the
new easement shall be shown on the final parcel map.
12. A professional arborist shall be retained to establish
necessary measures to protect and retain the following listed
trees during and after site demolition and construction
activities:
Parcel 1: the Drove of 11 Redwood trees; the 24 --inch Elm, the
10 -inch Oak, and the 12 -inch Tulip tree all located along the
rear property line; and the 9 -inch Oak located along the
northern property line;
Parcel 3: two Deodar Cedars along south property lino.
52-318
11/20/89
l
All street trees bordering the three lots (Hackberrys and
Liquidambars) .
13. This development is in a Special Flood Hazard Area; all
requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.52 must
be met.
Council Member Woolley spoke to the recommendation that there be
a study of the rezoning of the area bounded by Lincoln Street,
Center Drive, Martin Avenue, and Hamilton Avenue. Three large lots
remained which could be divided; one extended from Dana Avenue to
Forest Avenue. Developing the Dana Street portion of the lot would
not impact the neighbors. The other two lots had large homes that
could be demolished and replaced, but demolition did not appear to
be an imminent threat. She did not believe it would be a good use
of staff time to pursue rezoning the area. The impact would be
minimal. She supported removing the second part of the staff and
Planning Commission's recommendation.
MA UR AND SECONDER of THE MOTION AGREED TO WITHDRAW
RECOMMENDATION 2
Vice Mayor Bechtel apposed the motion because the subdivision of
three large lots we's not in keeping with the rest of the neighbor-
hood. The only advantage would be an architectural review would
be required if the three applications came in at the same time.
She. supported Attachment 1, Option A.
Council Member Sutorius supported the motion and recognized several
benefits in the lot configuration by the applicant. The sub-
division created three lots, two of which were corner lots. Corner
lot standards required increased setbacks to reduce the size of the
building envelope on which structures could be placed; twenty -foot
setbacks at the front and rear of each corner lot would benefit the
immediate neighbors on Pitman Avenue and Forest Avenue, and a 16 -
foot sideyard setback would also provide separation. A dedicated
public utility easement would be required between Parcels 1 and 2,
so a 10 -loot setback would be created instead of a 6 -foot setback.
The net effect would be beneficial to the preservation of
landscape, new landscape opportunities, and building envelope
limitation. He supported the motion for those reasons. He noted
that if the zone were a single --family residence zone where the
minimum lot size was 8,000 square feet, the lot line between Parcel
2 and Parcel 3 could be moved a few fest, and Parcel 2 could be
over 8,000 square feet.
Council Member Renzel concurred with Vice Mayor Bechtel's remarks
and believed many of the same characteristics which Council Member
Sutorius mentioned applied to the two underlying lots now. Keeping
the parcel as two lots would be more consistent with the neighbor -
62 -319
11/20/89
As Corrected
hood and would allow for better protection of the redwood grove.
She expected an owner of the property would consider it an asset
and would have more options for building around it without having
a more compressed lot. She believed that in developing the lots,
the utility easement would need to be negotiated to accommodate the
underground utilities. She opposed the motion.
AMENDMENT TO NOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by
Bechtel, to reinstate Paragraph 2 of the staff recommendation.
Council Member Sutorius queried if direction from Council would be
helpful in establishing the relative priority of the added staff
assignment in regards to the time involved and work load priority.
Ms. Jansen said unless Council stated otherwise, the priority on
the follow-up would come beyond the other follow-up studies they
were conducting under the single-family regulations. The effort
would depend on whether Council directed an informational memo
comparing the pros and cons be returned or an actual zoning action
which would involve a high work load she would not recommend. Her
best estimate was the follow-up would be a mid -level assignment
with a low priority.
Council Member Woolley queried the priority of the Urban Design
Study.
Ms. Jansen said the Urban Design Study for the Downtown Area would
be a higher priority. Council would soon be receiving an update
of the special study projects list and the item under consideration
would be at the bottom,
Council Aember Sutorius recommended from a work load and a priority
standpoint, that Council look at the regular process when zoning
changes could be advocated, and proposed a study at that time. He
did not see a need for the study at this point and believed making
an additional staff assignment was inappropriate.
A1i1ONZIT FAI 4-5, Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Renzel "aye."
MOTION PASSED 6-3, Bechtel, Cobb, Renzel "no."
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Woolley;, to consider Items
17 and 18 together.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Renzel absent.
17. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinances Adopting the 1988 Editions of the
Uniform Building and Mechanical Code, the 1988 Edition of the
Uniform Plumbing Code, and the 1987 Edition of the National
Electrical Code (701-02) (CMR:458:9)
62-320
11/20/89
18. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Adopting the 1988 Edition of the
Uniform Fire Code (701-02) (CMR:514:9)
Council Member Patitucci queried if in addition to standard
procedures, there were local options different from the standard.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case said local amendments on
the first item were "grandfathered in" and no local findings were
needed because no new local amendments were added since 1980;
however, staff went one step further and made the findings. Some
local findings would be discussed in the Fire Code.
Council Member Cobb queried if there was some linkage between
Council's adoption of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Building and
Mechanical Codes, the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code,
and the 1987 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and the 1988
Edition of the Fire Code.
Ms. Case said the Uniform Building Code (UBC); the Uniform
Mechanical Code (UMC) and the Fire Code (UFC) were envisioned to
work in tandem. If the UBC, UMC a;id the UFC were not adopted at
the same time, the period between would create uneven regulations.
She urged Council to adopt all Codes at,the same time.
Chief Building Inspector Fred Herman said the UBC fell under
different regulations by State law than the UFC. The Buildings
Standards Commission of the State of California (BSCSC) mandated
that localjurisdictions adopt the current editions of the UBC and
UMC 180 days after publication to become effective January 1, 1990.
The requirement did not affect the UFC; however, many sections of
the UBC referenced items such as storage of hazardous materials to
be in accordance with the UFC. Both codes should be operating in
the same editions for back -and -forth referencing. The codes wire
totally interrelated, but the State regulated the UBC differently.
Council Member Woolley queried if it .was possible to adopt the Fire
Code with the UBC, but exclude one provision for later considera-
tion.
Ms. Case said under State law, the public hearing was at second
reading, and any amendments to the UFC would render the ordinance
at first reading again. Even if Council deleted one provision, the
ordinance would have to be reintroduced.
Council Member Cobb queried whether a request for continuance could
be accommodated while still meeting the deadlines.
62-321
11/20/89
Ms. Case said Council could pass both ordinances and direct staff
not to enforce one of the provisions for a certain period of time
until an amended proposal could return to Council.
Council Member Cobb asked for clarification of the firmness of the
January 1, 1990, date.
Ms. Case said the January 1, 1990, date was firm for the UBC; it
was not crucial for. the UFC. As pointed out by staff, the codes
were envisioned to work in tandem. Council would not be at risk
by not adopting the UFC that evening, but it would be by not
adopting the UBC.
Council Member Cobb said the application of the more stringent
codes was designed to increase public safety. In a situation of
bodily injury or worse, he queried whether the City's recognition
of the situation and continuance of the ordinance placed the City
in an increased liability situation.
Ms. Case said no. The City had a fair amount of immunity attached
to the adoption of the uniform codes especially in the situation
where the City's proposal was more stringent than what the State
Fire Marshal adopted.
Council Member Levy asked what problems might be created by
postponing adoption sf the Fire Code for 30 days or more.
Ms. Case said there could be some UBC provisions which would be
awkward or difficult to enforce because they would be enforced
under the 1988 UBC and the :985 UFC. There could be inconsis-
tencies.
Mr. Herman referred to the chapter on hazardous occupancies in the
UBC which was totally rewritten in 1988, as follows: "Section
901(a) For definitions, identification and control of hazardous
materials, see the Fire Code . " There were no longer definitions
of what was hazardous in the UBC. They were moved to the Fire
Code. The reference was not included in the 1985 Fire Code. While
administrat -,re problems could be dealt with, the codes would not
be in sync.
Council Member Levy asked Chief Wall if there would be any problem.
Fire Chief Bob hall said the administrative problems could be dealt
with.
Council Member Levy referred to Section 15.04.085, day care
permits, and queried the changes.
62-322
11/20/89
Ms. Case said the changes included that permit fees could be
charged for day care centers.
Council Member Renzel queried when the two codes would go into
effect if Council adopted them both that evening.
Mr. Herman said January 1, 1990.
Council Member Renzel asked whether evidence was presented before
that time either to the effect that the City did not have the
authority to adopt certain portions of the code or that significant
problems existed. Council was limited from repealing portions of
the code which might be imprudent and could it be done on an
emergency basis.
Ms. Case said Council could adopt the code at that time and repeal
portions later if for some reason portions were found to have been
adopted unlawfully. Regarding the provisions related to high rise
buildings, the Health & Safety Code absolutely permitted cities to
adopt fire safety provisions more stringent than what was adopted
by the State Fire Marshal. In situations related to high rise
buildings, the City Council should have no hesitancy with respect
to whether they had the authority to adopt more stringent regula-
tions.
Council Member Renzel queried to what extent Council was required
to adopt the UFC and then go beyond it.
Ms. Case said for high rise buildings, the Council could not adopt
less stringent regulations than what was adopted by the State Fire
Marshal, but Council could adopt stricter regulations., The only
question among attorneys had to do with residential, non -high rise
construction.
Mayor Klein referred to the letter from the Acting Fire Marshal
which stated "the City of Palo Alto has not been exempt from these
fatal fires (in high rises); we have incurred fire deaths in two
such high rise buildings," and queried when those occurred and in
which high-rises the fatalities occurred.
Chief Wall said no high-rise fatalities had occurred in the past
15 years. There had been two fatalities at 101 Alma and one at 580
Arastradero Road.
Mayor Klein was also disturbed by the following sentence in the
Acting Fire Marshall f s letter, "Had the requirements of Appendix 18
been in place at that time, it is almost common knowledge that
those individuals would not have perished," He assumed the City
made some serious investigations at the time on those deaths.
62-323
11/20/89
Chief Wall said the Fire Department investigated all fires. It was
common knowledge throughout the country that fire sprinkler systems
in buildings were very effective. About 98 percent of all fires
were extinguished by sprinkler systems. There were 10 buildings
in Palo Alto which needed to be retrofitted, and three buildings,
Channing House, 525 University Avenue and Twin Towers at Palo Alto
Square were undertaking voluntary compliance. Unfortunately,
sometimes it took a tragedy to n►ove ahead, and he referred to the
MGM Grand and Hilton Hotel fires in Las Vegas, Nevada where 93
lives were lost. The proposed requirements had been a part of the
appendix to the UFC since 1985. Staff believed it was time to move
ahead with adoption into Palo Alto's code. The provisions did not
call for 100 percent retroactive compliance with regard to fire
sprinklers, but rather protection in key areas, e.g., near
elevators, lobbies, assembly areas of 100 people or more, and exit
ways. The regulations provided for a three-year compliance period
and an appeal process. He referred to hardship situations where
compliance was attempted and where extensions of time were
necessary. He exercised administrative flexibility where possible.
Mayor Klein referred the statement in Section 85, ". . . in any
building or group of buildings, where in the Fire Chief's judgment,
the buildings due to size, height, etc., would exceed or severely
tax the capabilities of the local fire department to perform a
reasonable level of rescue and fire suppression operation. . ."
and assumed that if the Fire Chief made that type of finding, then
those buildings had to put in a sprinkler system of some sort.
Chief Wall said that was correct.
Mayor Klein asked where the language referencing retrofitting was
contained.
Chief Wall said Appendix 1B, which is part of the Uniform Fire
Code.
Mayor Klein asked at what point the high-rise regulations went into
effect and how many buildings would be affected in Palo Alto.
Chief Wall said compliance was mandatory for buildings 75 feet; or
greater. There were 10 affected buildings in Palo Alto.
Mayor Klein asked about the appeal process.
Chief Wall.. said there were three parts to the appeal process.
First, alternative materials could be used where construction made
it difficult to install the sprinkler; secondarily, the Fire Chief
could grant an extension of time in which to achieve compliance;
and thirdly, there was a general exemption where the Fire Chief
could vaive• the individual requirements in those instances where
62-324
11/20/89
i
it was physically impossible or impractical to achieve compliance.
The regulations also indicated that financial cost of compliance
should not be the sole basis for waiving any specific requirement.
There was also some, flexibility for staff to work with building
owners and occupants to meet the intent of the Code.
Council Member Woolley said the letter to the various building
owners spoke to critical areas of the building being outfitted with
fire sprinklers. Based on her one conversation with a resident of
101 Alma, building owners did not know what the critical areas
were. She believed the residents were thinking of the living units
themselves. She asked for clarification.
Chief Wall said critical areas did not include living units. The
regulations referred to all required exit corridors, stairwells,
elevator lobbies, public assembly areas occupied by 100 or more
persons and commercial kitchens.
Council Member Patitucci said while many communities exercised
aggressive enforcement, any communities did not pass the
ordinances on schedule and seemed to get along for an extra month
or two in some cases for years.
Chief Wall said that was correct.
RECESS: 9:40 P.N. - 9:55 P.M,
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open.
James O'Brien, 101 Aiwa Street, was surprised the ordinance was on
its second reading anti that Council did not have the text of the
appendix on which it was acting. The residents of 101 Ala first
became aware of the ordinance on November 14, after the first
reading of the ordinance, in the form of a letter from the Acting
Fire Marshal. The proposed ordinance was unfair and unreasonable,
and Council needed to weigh whether the ordinance intelligently and
objectively met the requirements of the community. He doubted the
City Attorney's opinion about Council's authority to adopt the high
rise provisions of the ordinance. He provided a State Attorney
General Opinion (on f;le in the City Clerk's Office).
Stephen W. Player, 1874 Guinda, represented Barbara North, a
resident at 101 Alma. Interested parties received notice of the
proposed ordinance last week, and he was concerned about the lack
of opportunity for affected parties to respond with any sig-
nificant remarks. Channing House, of which he was a member of the
Board of Directors, had voluntarily installed some sprinklers;
however, they also just received notice about the particular
ordinance, were concerned the regulations might go beyond what it
anticipated. Not having seen the specific wording of the appendix,
62.325
11/20/89
Channing House was also concerned about the wording, especially
for areas occupied by 100 or more persons, commercial kitchens, and
what was meant by a minimum of one sprinkler head to be provided
on the room side of every corridor opening. He was concerned about
the impact of the Appendix 1B. He also believed there was some
ambiguity in the appeal process what was actually intended and what
standards would be applied. He urged an opportunity for interested
parties of the 10 impacted buildings to meet with the Fire
Department to clarify the iseues before adoption of Appendix 1B.
Council Member Cobb clarified residents understood the concern
about safety but there was a trade-off as against cost and
disruption.
Mr. Player said that was correct. There was a concern about
safety; however, it appeared the requirements went beyond the
financial impact of what might be reasonably safe. While there
might be legitimate reasons why the ordinance was d+signed as it
was, affected parties had not had an opportunity to study the
ordinance and discuss it. Channing House went forward towards
compliance, but the proposed ordinance went further than con-
templated. The matter needed discussion.
E. A. Sweitzer, 2092 Omega Road, San Ramon, fire protection
engineer, and director of the Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board of
Northern California, supported the proposals before the Council.
There was no question installation of fire sprinklers would
extraordinarily effect the safety to building occupants and
firefighters. Channing House representatives indicated it would
cost at least $500,000 is comply, and such costs would represent
5,000 doors opening into the corridors. Hewes a consultant to the
State of Nevada when its codes were rewritten after the MGM Grand
and Hilton Hotel fires, and with San Francisco following the
Cathedral Hill fire. Almost without exception in the case of the
three hotels just mentioned, and in the case of the First Inter-
state Bank fire in Los Angeles, all of the retrofit requirements
came only as a result of multiple deaths in buildings without
sprinklers. Fire fighting was much more difficult in high rise
buildings. It took about four sinutes from the time a fire started
in a wastebasket until it "flashed oven," i.e., the point at which
the temperature rose to where every bit of the room ignited from
the high temperature. With modern day traffic conditions, it was
hard for a Fire Department to be on the scene within four minutes.
Tbe proposed ordinance would provide enhanced fire protection for
the occupants of a building. When sprinklers were installed on a
retrofit basis, State law said the cost of the sprinklers was not
added to the assessment for real estate taxes. He urged coneidera-
tion.
62-326
11/20/89
1
Gerald Durarte, 5275 Grasswood Court, Concord, supported the
proposed adoption of the Uniform Fire Code and the appendix. A
vertical fire was the most difficult fire to fight. The First
Interstate Bank building fire had 384 firefighters fighting the
fire on three floors, and such resources were not available to most
agencies within the state. They were also not faced with the
evacuation problems there would be in a fully -occupied high rise
building. The San Mateo Fire Chief surveyed the high rise
buildings in San Mateo County and the resources available to combat
a high rise fire, and determined there were between 30 to 35
companies that could be called in the nine Bay Area counties and
different fire departments. The proposal for a corridor sprinkler
system with one head in each room provided minimal fire protection
to the occupants of the high rise building. The aforementioned
Attorney General Opinion specifically excluded high rise buildings
from being more restrictive than the State Fire Marshal require-
ments.
Frank A. Small, 285 Hamilton Avenue, represented the Tan Group,
which owned one of the buildings affected by Appendix 18. Since
notice was received late last week, Mr. Tan had not had an
opportunity to fully understand the implications of the regula-
tions. Preliminary costs of compliance appeared to be extraordi-
nary. He urged enactment of Appendix 1B be extended for some
reasonable period of time to allow owners of buildings and
condominiums to review the associated costs versus the benefit and
find an acceptable solution.
Don Maynor, 2471 F. Bayshore Road, represented the 101 Alma
Homeowners Association, and said it was difficult to determine how
his clients felt about the proposed ordinance since they had not
had an opportunity to fully consider it. It would be wrong to
conclude that the residents of 101 Alma had decided not to invest
in a particular safety measure. They wanted to look at the costs
and consider the alternatives. The 101 Alma building also had an
asbestos problem wh eh made the cost of the retrofit extremely
expensive. He suggested Council adopt the Building Code and have
a first reading of the Fire Code without Appendix 1B, and then have
a second reading in two weeks, which would only leave a few days
between adoption of the UBC and the UFC. He understood the
particular Appendix had been in existence since 1985 so it was not
as though it could not have been adopted in the past. There could
be appeals procedures or criteria within the ordinances of other
cities that would fairly balance some of the effects and allow for
a fAx decision weighing the costs and burdens. He would like to
see the appeals process be more formal in order to allow for
procedural protections.
Council Member Cobb asked how much time would be needed for
affected building owners to consider Appendix 18.
62-327
11/20/89
Mr. l#aynor believed two months would be appropriate.
Mayor Klein was troubled by the
not had enough time to consider
before the State Legislature for
in the UFC since 1985.
comments that 101 Alma board had
the proposal. The item had been
two sessions and had been included
Milton Flocks, 101 Alma Street, said residents at 101 Alma were
opposed tothe proposed sprinkler ordinance. The 101 Alma Board
had been active with regard to the legislation at the State level
and had written letters to Assemblyman Sher in opposition.
Chris Roden, 101 Alma, had lived there for 14 years and had never
experienced any significant fire in the building or any death.
Asbestos was a big problem in their building and it could cost as
much as $1,000,000 for a complete retrofitting, or $10,000 per
unit. Clarification of the proposed appendix was needed.
Robert Brainard, 305 Lytton Avenue, pointed out the major fires had
occurred either in residences or hotels. The one office fire in
Los Angeles had one life lost and he understood the victim had used
the elevator instead of the stairs. He did not disagree that had
sprinklers been in the building, the fire would not have spread and
there would have been no deaths. 411 buildings were not created
equal, and 525 University Avenue was all concrete and penetration
through the floor was entirely different. .However, 525 University
Avenue applied for a permit which included fire sprinklers in all
the public areas, and the only thing that would have to be added
was the fire sprinkler behind each corridor door. As a representa-
tive of 525 University Avenue and Hare, Brewer and Kelly, neither
party objected to the ordinance and would find compliance easy.
Edith Michalke, 501 Forest
and supported fire safety.
consider the ordinance and
Avenue, was an owner of Forest Towers,
She also requested additional time to
its impacts.
Fred Eyerly, 101 Alma, believed good public relations would have
dictated notice to the small number of affected high rise owners
at the time of first reading to allow for some interaction. The
Fire Department and the tradesmen who spoke that evening were
philosophically correct that high standards were needed for the
protection of lives; however, the City Council was the balance of
the equatip►n and should not want to enact parts of a Fire Code
which were too stringent and which did not consider all of the
necessary ingredients. He was concerned about there being an
appropriate appeals process. He agreed with Mr. Maynor°s sugges-
tion of adopting the Fire Code without Appendix 18, but urged
discussion of a►n appropriate exception process to consider the type
of building construction and whether it not other sections of the
62-328
11/20/89
i
Fire Code. He was concerned about the fact that 101 Alma recently
underwent a $700,000 remodeling project and the additional
hardships involved with Fire Code compliance. Of the buildings
which had complied, one was essentially a care unit, and the
commercial buildings were easy to retrofit because insurance rates
dropped dramatically which was not so true with residential
buildings.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed.
Vice Mayor Bechtel referred to when Council dealt with the issue
of seismic upgrades. Council was inundated with people who opposed
mandatory upgrades, and Council ultimately agreed to voluntary
upgrades but mandatory inspections. Two weeks ago a major Palo
Alto property owner urged mandatory upgrades. The proposed
situation was similar and she was torn. While the City legally
complied with notice requirements, she agreed the notice was
inadequate.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve
the staff recommendation to adopt the ordinances adopting the 1988
Editions of the Uniform Building, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes
and the 1987 National Electrical Code including amendments; further
to approve staff recommendation to adopt the 1988 edition of the
Uniform Fire Code with amendments for first reading, except
Appendix 1-B; and staff to report back on Appendix 1-B and an
appeals process in three months.
ORDINANCE 39111 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING THE 1988 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE AND THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE AND AMENDING
CHAPTER 16.04 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE" (1st Reading
11/06/89, PASSED 9-0)
ORDINANCE 3912 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING THE 1988 ADDITION OF THE UNIFORM
PLUMBING CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 16.08 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE" (1st Reading 11/06/89, PASSED 9-0)
ORDINANCE 3913 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING THE 1987 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 16.16 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE" (lot Reading 11/06/89, PASSED 9-0)
SJrdi Ance _1st Reading entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING THE 1988 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM
FIRE CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE"
62-329
11/20/89
Council Member Cobb asked if the appeals process was part of
Appendix 1B and would return to Council.
Chief Wall said Appendix 1B contained a section which referred to
appeals, but staff would respond to issues as raised by members of
the public.
Council Member Cobb was concerned about the lack of public notice.
He wIF also concerned the 90 days would not make much difference
for the residents who were concerned about costs. He urged an open
mind on both sides of the table but did not want to see the City
trade off a tragedy because of a concern over costs.
Vice Mayor Bechtel concurred. The safety issue was crucial. She
Personally would not want to live for a day in a building that
lacked sprinklers. When she stayed in a hotel, she always checked
to see where the sprinklers were and did not want to be thsre if
they were not. Representatives of 101 Alma expressed concern that
$700,000 was just spent on decorations, and her first priority
would have been safety issues.
Council Member Levy did not believe Council could fairly approve
the fire elements of the Uniform Fire Code contained in Appendix
1B when Council had not seen it. The comments regarding an appeals
and exception process were valid, and he expected to see some kind
of a satisfactory appeals process being connected to Appendix 1B
when the matter returned to Council. He associated himself with
the comments of his colleagues related to the safety issues
involved with sprinxlering high-rise buildings. Even if it cost
$10,000 per unit in some of the high rises, he believed it was a
small share of the value of the unit. He would be inclined to
carefully consider the safety issues. He supported the motion.
Mayor Klein agreed with all the contents. When the item was
considered by the State legislature, no notice was given but more
notice should have been given in Palo Alto. He believed the 90
days was too long.
AMB EMT: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, that the
item concerning Fire Code Appendix 1B return to Council on December
18, 198'.
Council Member Sutorius said realistically Council needed to
appreciate its own calendar. Council would be disappointing other
members of the public by putting itself in a position of having to
defer some action. He was also concerned about the quality of the
effort to be undertaken and completed in such a short period of
time. He opposed returning the item to the Council meeting on
December 18, 1989.
62-330
11/20/89
1
Mayor Klein did not see a heavy agenda for the Council meeting on
December 18, 1989. Items listen for the meeting included an
ordinance regarding organizational change, consultant agreement for
the Palo Alto Harbor, the Rail and Clean Air Bond Act, and the
Policy & Procedures (P&P) Committee recommendations regarding stop
signs.
AMENDMENT FAILED 4.4, Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein Kaye."
Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case said a memo regarding a
proposed clerical change to part of the Uniform Fire Code was at
places and the change should be included in the motion.
MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION
Further, that wording be replaced in Section 15.04.120 as follows:
"When elevators lsre provided in bgjldings two storie0 height ar
more constructed after the effective date of the ordinance
action. at feast one eiev
ize
accon odate a fire dap tmeD gurney and a minimum of two (2)
emergency response personnel. For engineering purposes, sizing
shall be based on gurney diL ensions of 24" x 82". It is not the
intent of this amendment to require elevators, but to regulate the
minimum size when an elevator is installed."
MOTION PARSED 8-0, Renzel absent.
REBUTS O ' COMMI TEES AND COMMISSIO. I.S
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to consider Items 19
and 19A together.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Renzel absent.
19. Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Recommenda-
tion Regarding Approval of a Site and Design Application for
the Palo Alto Landfill Electric Generation Facility for
Property Located at 2380 Enbarcadero Road (300) (CMR:543:9)
19A. (Old Item S) Landfill Gas Lease and Operating Agreement and
Interconnection and Transmission Agreement with Palo Alto
Landfill Gas Corporation (1072-01) (CMR:525:9)
MOTIOEz Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to
approve the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board
recommendations for approval of the project subject to the
following findings and conditions:
62-331
11/20/89
Findings
1. The project will not have any significant environmental
impacts, in that, the project is designed to minimize noise
impacts and to utilize waste methane gas produced as a result
of the City's landfill operations.
2. The proposed design will be orderly, harmonious and compatible
with existing or potential uses of adjoining property, in that
the proposed use and improvements will be similar to other
uses in the area, and the project has been carefully designed
to blend in with current landfill operations and the adjacent
Water Quality Control Plant and to minimize visual impacts
when Byxbee is completed.
3. The project will maintain desirability of investment in the
same or adjacent areas, in that the design of the project
utilizing an open earthberm landform instead of a building to
house the equipment will greatly reduce the visual impact for
future park visitors.
4. The proposed design will observe sound principles of environ-
mental design and ecological balance, in that the project has
been designed to utilize a waste product (methane gas) of the
City's landfill operation to create electricity and to
minimize impacts on air and water quality.
5. The proposed use will be in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, in that the proposed electric generation
facility and related improvements are not in conflict with the
intent of the Public Parks designation. The project is in
compliance with the Byxbee Landfill Park Master Plan and is
consistent with many of the objectives and policies of the
Environmental Resource element of the Comprehensive Plan
including Policy 7 which states: "Encourage the appropriate
use and tmplementation of alternative energy technologies in
new and existing residences, businesses, and industries in
Palo Alto."
Conditions
1. The applicant shall provide evidence in the form of written
documentation to the Planning Department of compliance with
all conditions which must be met prior to issuance of a
building permit.
2. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be reviewed acid
approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of
any grading and/or building permits. Drainage onto the
adjacent ITT site shall be prohibited.
f2-332
11/20/89
3. No grading shall be permitted during the rainy season (October
15 to April 15) without approval of the Public Works Depart-
ment.
4. The site shall be capped with a layer of clay and meet all
applicable State landfill closure requirements prior to
issuance of a building permit.
5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District and any other regulatory
agency having jurisdiction for the permanent facility prior
to issuance of any building permit.
6. If the option to operate a temporary generation facility is
exercised, the applicant shall obtain all required permits
from the BAAQMD and any other regulatory agency having
jurisdiction prior to issuance of a building permit for the
temporary facility.
7. The operation of the temporary facility shall be permitted for
a maximum period of time not to exceed six months or until
completion of the permanent facility, whichever occurs sooner.
8. The operation of the permanent and temporary facility shall
be limited to an 8 dBA maximum increase over existing daytime
and nighttime ambient sound levels.
9. The applicant shall perform sound level monitoring within 30
days of permanent facility start up, and results reviewed by
Planning staff to determine compliance with noise performance
specifications. If the project is found not to be in
compliance with the required noise specifications, the
applicant shall correct the deficiencies within 60 days of
the City's determination of noncompliance.
10. The project shall require compliance with Title 17 PAMC and
obtain Hazardous Materials permit from the Fire Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
11. The applicant shall be required to obtain a conditional use
permit from the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a
building permit.
12. The applicant shall be required to obtain an industrial waste
discharge permit from the Water Quality Control Plant for
disposal of condensate prior to issuance of a building permit.
13. The applicant shall enter into an interconnection agreement
with the City to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department
62-333
11/20/89
and the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any
grading and/or building permits.
14. The applicant shall enter into a gas lease agreement, modified
lease, or revised lease with the City to the satisfaction of
Pu
blic ublic Works Department and the City Attorney prior to
issuance of any grading and/or building permits.
15. Adoption of a park improvement ordinance shall be required
prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits.
16. Upon completion of the viable life of the electric generation
facility, the applicant shall remove all equipment and return
the site to a park design to be approved by the City at that
time.
17. The use of barbed wire shall be prohibited on the site.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "ORDINAI'CE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF _ PAIR ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A PLAN FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A METHANE GAS RECOVERY SYSTEM IN A PORTION OF
BYXBEE PARK"
Approve staff recommendation to:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Restated Gas Lease.
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Interconnection and
Transmission Agreement.
3. Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance for receipt of lease
payments and royalties for FY 1989-90.
ORDINANCE 3914 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO WENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT OF LEASE REVENUE AND ROYALTY
REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE LANDFILL GA8 COLLECTION SYSTEM"
Council Member Sutorius commended staff for the outstanding
proposal in its siting design,' use and expansion of natural
features, and keeping with the environmental features of the park
as a whole.
MOTION MORD 8-0, Renzel absent.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALO
20. Release of Police Complaint Data (AB 2222) (1202)
62-334
11/20/89
Police Chief Chrts Durkin reported that Governor Dukemejian
recently signed Assembly Bill 2222 which authorized the Police
Department to release information pertaining to citizens' com-
plaints in a► manner that would describe number, type, and disposi-
tion of complaints made against its officers. He developed a
process to release the information to the public. Two examples
were in the packet describing complaints lodged against the Police
Department for the calendar year 1987-88. In the release of the
information, the complaints were divided into five topical areas:
department policies and procedures, service complaints, demeanor
and courtesy complaints, misconduct, and unnecessary force by
officers. A brief synopsis of each complaint was included. In
all cases, a conclusion was drawn: sustained, not sustained,
unfounded, or exonerated. If a complaint was sustained, official
action was taken.
Ben Bailey, Menlo Park, tried for two years to find out the number
of complaints against the Palo Alto Police Department in 1987-88
and the number of disciplinary actions which resulted. The San
Francisco Police Department regularly disclosed the number and
nature of complaints, number and type of disciplinary actions the
names of officers brought up on charges, the nature of the charge,
past complaints and disciplinary actions of the officers, and names
of officers having the highest number of complaints. Complaint
summaries were posted daily outside Room 565, Hall of Justice. In
Palo Alto, nearly everything relating to police complaints was done
behind closed doors and complainants were not allowed to attend
disciplinary hearings or know the names of officers found guilty
of misconduct. The miswording of the law in Penal Code 832.7 did
not allow City officials to give hies any information regarding
police complaints. The wording was changed by Assembly Bill 2222
and now statistical information regarding complaints and disposi-
tion might be released. Police Chief Durkin told him the disposi-
tion of a complaint did not include the disciplinary action in the
strict point of the law; it only meant whether the complaint was
sustained, and that revealing the number of annual department -wide
disciplinary actions violated the confidentiality of individual
officers' personnel files. He did not believe there had been a
disciplinary action resulting from 400 complaints. In 1987, one
complaint was sustained, two in 1988, and neither resulted in
disciplinary action. He believed Council would continue to stall
and hide information until forced by legal action to disclose.
Bob Koss, 4010 Orme, did not agree with categories of some
complaints in the report and believed too many had been sustained.
In 1988, the number of complaints sustained was 15.3 percent, in
1987, 22.6 percent were sustained. The number of sustained
demeanor cpl.aints increased significantly. In 1987, 35.1 percent
and in 1988, 25.6 percent sustained in the case of service, another
relatively high ratio. He queried how many individual officers
62-335
11/20/89
were involved, how many had three or more complaints whether
sustained or not, how many officers had more than one complaint
against them sustained, and how many of the total 58 sustained
complaints resulted in some type of disciplinary action. Two
complaints in 1987 involved someone in the county jail whose
clothes were stolen or not returned, and the conclusion was the
complaint was unfounded. He believed those should have been placed
in the sustained category under department policy and procedures.
He believed Council should obtain answers from staff regarding the
complaints and find out why the increase in demeanor complaints
sustained in 1987-88, and whether the question had been addressed
in 1989.
Mr. Durkin said the Police Department tracked complaints on a
monthly basis and the officers were closely monitored. Action was
taken against officers who had repeated complaints, ranging from
counseling to retraining programs to allow them the opportunity to
take corrective action.
City Manager William Zaner said the nature of complaints registered
against the Palo Alto Police Department were relatively minor.
The question of the disposition of complaints was addressed
specifically in the statute and allowed only the four categories
of sustained, ,e `: sustained, exonerated, and unfounded. Staff
could not go:bey.Ad what the statute allowed.
Vice Mayor Bechtel asked Mr. Zaner to respond to the comments
regarding what other cities were doing and why they could make
disclosure, but Palo Alto could not.
Mr. Zaner said other cities might release information differently.
The City of Palo Alto had interpreted the law liberally and was
disclosing as much information as possible. He did not know how
other cities responded and their attorneys interpreted the statute,
but Palo Alto spent a great deal of time trying to assure that as
much information was disclosed as the law allowed.
Vice Mayor Bechtel queried if the information would be released on
a monthly or annual basis.
Mr. Durkin said the plan was to release the information annually.
Vice Mayor Bechtel queried if the information could be made
available on a monthly or quarterly basis.
Mr. Durkin said the information could be released monthly; however,
there would be times where some investigations would be delayed,
so reporting quarterly would be better. Regarding release of
disciplinary action, the President of the California Peace Officers
Association asked him to represent the group in Sacramento to
•
62-336
11/20/89
review some of the language created by the Attorney General on
behalf of Assemblyman Byron Sher, and was present when the language
of the law was proposed and developed. There was never any
consideration for disciplinary actions to be included in the bill;
only information regarding the sustained complaints. He contacted
representatives from the Attorney General's office who assured him
no disciplinary action was to be included in the release of data.
Council Member Levy queried if Palo Alto had an average number of
complaints, or more or fewer complaints than expected.
Mr. Durkin said the number of complaints were typical from years
past.
Council Member Levy queried if Mr. Durkin could compare Palo Alto's
complaints with those of other cities.
Mr. Durkin said communities had different standards regarding what
and how to receive complaints; some were handled at intake, meaning
nothing was written down. Some only handled serious complaints,
so comparison was difficult.
Council Maitber Levy queried if the nature or the seriousness of the
complaints had changed.
Mr. Durkin said the nature of the complaints were about the same
as before. There were very few complaints of excessive force, most
were service --related, and some were demeanor problems. Officers
on the traffic team wrote 24,000 tickets a year, parking monitors
wrote 51,000 tickets, 5,000 arrests were made, and there were 3,600
investigations of abandoned vehicles; so opportunities for confron-
tation were large, but the profile was typical.
Council Member Levy queried if the over 90,000 negative contacts
with the public resulted in only 150 complaints.
Mr. Durkin said an additional 65,000 to 70,000 calls were received
and handled by dispatchers.
Council Member Cobb queried whether the policy allowed additional
disciplinary measures if an officer was given additional training
for inappropriate demeanor, but persistently showed no improve-
ment.
Mr. Durkin said the action started with counscding, proceeded to
written reprimands, suspensions, a reduction in rank, a reduction
in pay, or termination.
62-337
11/20/89
Council Member Cobb queried if the officer was involved in some
type of excessive force, would the officer get many chances before
severe action would be taken.
Mr. Durkin said no; usually excessive force situations automatical-
ly started with suspensions, not counseling.
Mayor Klein said there was no staff recommendation on the item and
queried if a motion would be in order.
Council Member Cobb requested staff prepare an informational report
on a quarterly basis.
Council Member Levy said the item had been before Council through
the oral communications comments of Ben Bailey for a long time and
queried if it would be in order to make a couple of statements even
though no motion was on the floor.
Mayor Klein said brief comments were in order.
Council Member Levy was pleased with the information and agreed it
should come to Council on a quarterly basis. He was surprised
there were not more complaints; 180 complaints out of 90,000
negative contacts was a very small percentage. Nobody liked
getting tickets, being accosted, arrested, or interviewed. Many
of the complaints in the report were from persons who were properly
arrested. He opposed publicizing the names or actions taken; it
should not be done in running any organization and those who
advocated publicizing of names used bad management techniques. He
believed the Palo Alto Police Department was good; the policemen
and policewomen were professional, sensitive, courteous, and
competent; and the Police Chief was excellent. He found no reason
to question the competency of the Palo Alto Police Department.
Mayor Klein agreed with the excellent comments of Council Member
Levy and saluted Police Chief Durkin for running an excellent
police department.
No Action Taken
21. Ordinance Amending the Fie .1 year 1989-90 Budget to Establish
a New Fee for Single -Family Home Improvement Exceptions, and
to Provide for Revenue from the Fee (409) (CMR:542:9)
NOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Woolley, to
approve the staff recommendation to approve the budget amendment
ordinance: a) establishing a $350.00 fee plus fees for micro-
filming for new R-1 single --family home improvement and minor
addition exception applications; and b) increasing revenue in the
Planning Division by $8,000.
62-338
11/20/89
ORDINANCE A915 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
TO ESTABLISH A NEW FEE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME IMPROVEMENT
EXCEPTIONS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR REVENUE FROM THE FEE"
NOTION: Council Member Levy moved to refer the item to Finance and
Public Works Committee (F&PW).
NOTION FAX FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Sutorius se;._ a fee proposal was before Council, but
queried if Council had a process.
Director of Planning Carol Jansen said yes. When Council adopted
the single-family regulations, it adopted the home improvement and
remodel exception process and the fee had to be in place before
instituting the regulation.
Council Member Sutorius queried how one learned about the process
of applying and other important information.
Ms. Jansen said that at the time the process could be instituted,
revisions would be completed that were made to the R-1 Single -
Family Handbook that would include information regarding how to
apply, how it would be evaluated in terms of findings to be made.
The handbook would be available when the single-family regulations
took effect in approximately two weeks.
NOTION PA88iD 8-0, Renzel absent.
22. Lease and Covenant Not to Develop, Jordan and Cubberley
Interim Lease Agreements with Palo Alto Unified School
District (1341-01) (CMR:552:9) (CMR:535:9)
Council Member Sutorius summarized the changes agreed to at the
City/School Liaison Committee level and in a first reading by the
Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board. At the Study
Session, some Council Members requested a follow-up on modifica-
tions in the Lease and Covenant Not to Develop. The concerns
involved a discount on non -metered utility charges, extended day
care centers, a means to recover some capital improvement expendi-
tures within the first five or ten years if the City terminated the
lease due to fiscal constraints, and some for of credit toward
purchase to offset future repeals under the Naylor Act Purchase
Provisions. The PAUSD committee took the areas of concern under
consideration and initiated requests for modifications. Those
areas included modifying the extended day care agreements by
eliminating the language that provided the City's prior approval
on the use of portable fixtures and the consolidation of day care
62-339
11/20/89
services for two elementary schools. The Cubberley High School
site's prior leases dealt with a 15 -year maximum period; the new
lease was for 15 years, and a City option for a ten-year extension
with two five-year mutually -agreed -upon options to follow. The
longer term was a valuable benefit for planning and the City would
benefit from a long-term lease agreement. Following termination
of the lease, a two-year option to purchase under a discounted
market rate was provided. They agreed to additional spaces should
new schools be established or existing covenanted sites be removed
from covenant and reopened as a school. Extended day care payments
Lnd all the conditions applicable would be provided by the City at
the new or additional sites.
Council Member Cobb believed that including the Cubberley School
site in the agreements between the City and the PAUSD was a
momentous event for the residents of Palo Alto. He thanked Real
Estate Manager Bill Fellman, the Planning Department, the City
Attorney's Office, and the City Manager's Office for excellent
staff support during the long, time-consuming process; his
colleagues Mayor Klein and Council Member Sutorius who worked hard
during the last three years; and the dedicated school board members
who cooperated in the effort to achieve community unity. He looked
forward to the PAUSD Board's approval the next evening.
PAUSD Board Member Carolyn Tucher, 4264 Manuela Way, said the space
provided opportunities for recreational uses to the community and
protection for neighborhoods, studio and office space for the arts
and nonprofit organizations, and classroom/administrative facili-
ties for Foothill College. Extended day care would also be
provided for students at each elementary school and if the school
district did combine service on two sites, busing would be
provided; the benefits for children, parents, and employers in the
community would be a giant step forward in the services provided
by the City and the School District. The revenue from the lease
enabled the PAUSD to balance the budget for FY 1989-90 without
dipping into existing reserves. Some elements not popular with the
PAUSD Board were the length of the lease; the agreement to accept
back 30,000 square feet of classroom space on the Cubberley site
which allowed the City to demolish part of the site; the right to
approve changes to the site in excess of $20,000; the broad
language of debt limitation which allowed the City Council
flexibility in moving out of the lease; and the two vetoes on the
extended day care program regarding the combining of centers on a
single site and the location of a portable classroom. She thanked
Council Member Patitucci and Mayor Klein, who developed the concept
several years ago, Council Member Cobb, who worked hard to. add the
Cubberley School site, Council Member Sutorius, who skillfully
negotiated the terms of the lease, and Council Member Levy for
finding alternate ways to work out solutions at Jordan during his
service on the City/School Liaison Committee. She also thanked
62-340
11/20/89
i
1
City Manager William Zaner for his work and the entire City staff
for its assistance. She anticipated unanimous support by the PAUSD
Board and thanked the entire Council for its dedication and support
of the PAUSD.
PAUSD Board Member Liz Kniss, 1985 Cowper Street, said the lease
agreements were extremely important and the citizens of Palo Alto
would benefit greatly. The southern part of the community was
delighted to have the facilities available for their use for a long
period of time. The lease agreement was unique; no other school
district in the state had such an agreement with its local
government. The long-term arrangement would have positive results
for the City, the residents, and the children. She thanked the
Council and introduced the new PAUSD Superintendent, Jim Brown, who
came to the district from Lompoc.
Mayor Klein welcomed PAUSD Superintendent Jim Brown. He had the
opportunity to meet Mr. Brown when he spoke to the final candidates
during the selection process last spring. He had been impressed,
and his opinion continued to grow during their associations. He
believed the PAUSD and the City were fortunate to have such an
outstanding superintendent.
PAUSD Superintendent Jim Brown shared the viewpoint of Board
Members Tucher and Kniss that the agreement was a significant step
forward for the City and the School District and was unique in
California at a time when communities were looking for different
models for cities, school districts, counties to join in regional
effczts to improve community services. The agreement benefitted
the students because revenue coming into the School District waa
limited and could not support and maintain current district
educational programs. The arts and educational communities would
benefit from the mutual use of facilities. He appreciated working
with City staff and looked forward to positive years ahead. He
thanked Council Members Sutorius and Cobb for their efforts.
Bob Moss, 4010. Orme, believed the lease was a landmark agreement
and a significant advancement for both the City and the School
District but expressed some concerns. Unless the State modified
the Gann Limit, the City would be spending close to the limit and
was in the process of committing 7 or 8 percent of the budget to
the lease, plus capital improvements and modifications of the
school sites. The Gann Override passed with no organized opposi-
tion, but he was concerned that the override might not pass next
time. He realized the City could terminate the lease if the debt
exceeded $1.5 million, but money would have bean spent for capital
improvements. The lease required the City to return the facility
to usable school condition which would require more money and could
be a potential problem. He was also concerned about how the
facilities would be used and whether the public benefits would
62-341
11/20/89
justify the costs. Another concern was whether problems might
arise at the State level because the school benefitted more than
other schools and might not be in need of State aid as much as
other schools. He urged Council to anticipate problems that might
arise.
NOTION; Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Klein, to
approve the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor to execute
the following agreements: 1) The New Lease and Covenant Not to
Develop; 2) The Jordan Interim Lease (City as Lessee); and 3) The
Cubberley Interim Lease (District as Lessee) with the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD).
Council Member Patitucci thanked Council Members Cobb and Sutorius
for bringing the :iocument to completion which fulfilled the initial
goals of the Council; and complemented staff` the PAUSD Board, and
the Council for successful completion of the agreement. The
occasion made serving on the Council worthwhile; it not only was
his last year on the Council, but also his daughter's last year in
the Palo Alto schools. He appreciated the opportunity to par-
ticipate in helping the School District continua. its excellent
educational process for future generations. He supported the
motion.
Council Member Levy queried if the final draft, page 16, paragraph
5.1.1, "City -operated extended day child care services" should be
"City -approved" to clarify that the City would not be the only day
care provider, but could allow private providers.
City Manager William Zaner said the
for day child care services. The
contracted for services the same as
lease provided the City space
Council was the provider and
for other services.
Council Member Levy queried if it would be better to change from
City -operated to City -approved.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case said the terminology
should remain as "City -operated." The provision had been negotiat-
ed by City Attorney Diane Northway.
Council Member Sutorius said extended day care was already being
provided by the City through a contractual agreement with an
outside provider; however, the City had the authority and the
responsibility of seeing that the service was provided.
Council Member Levy clarified that it was not expected that the
City would be operating all of the child care services. He
endorsed the motion and believed the absence of the public was an
indication that the public had no complaints. The agreement
assured that the open space represented by the public schools would
62-342
11/20/89
1
be maintained. He supported the motion and commended the members
of the PAUSD Board and Council Members Sutorius, Patitucci, Cobb
and Mayor Klein for their efforts to bring the agreement before
Council.
Mayor Klein said the agreement was the most significant decision
made by the Council during his ten-year service. He disagreed with
Mr. Moss's comment that a Gann election would be needed in two more
years. He believed the core of any community was its educational
process; an excellent community needed excellent schools. The
Utility Users Tax was proposed several years ago by Council Member
Patitucci and himself because the schools needed extra funds to
carry out the fine programs already in place. The result was
better than originally anticipated and fostered a significant
spirit of cooperation. He believed other school districts and
communities in California should look towards the educational
process as one universe, not separate units, and work together to
provide better education for the students. He believed Council
Members Sutorius and Cobb should be given credit for developing the
child care concept. He thanked City Attorney William Zaner, City
Attorney Diane Northway, and Real Estate Manager Bill Fellman for
their diligent participation throughout the difficult process. ' The
City and School district had been creative, diligent pioneers in
developing a concept and bringing the lease agreement for Council
action. With great pride, he supported the motion, was proud to
have been a part of the original concept, and believed the
community .euld be well served.
LOTION PASSED 7-0, Woolley "not participating," Renzel absent.
0UNC I L MATTERS
23. Mayor Klein and Council Members Fletcher and Levy Regarding
Naming of Adobe Creek Undercrossing (1167-01)
NOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to refer
the item to the Palo Alto Historical Association for endorsement
the Western Wheelers' proposal to name the new Adobe Creek/Highway
101 undercrossing to the Baylands in honor of Benjamin Lefkowitz,
and return proposal for final action at a subsequent City Council
meeting.
NOTION PAM= 7-0, Renzel, Woolley absent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
APPROVED:
City Clerk r Mayor
62-343
11/20/89
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 the meeting, 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.
62-344
11/20/89