Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-04 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALOALTO CITY COU NCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREOUENCY9O.1 ON FM DIAL - Regular Meeting January 4, 1988 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 59-86 Approval of Minutes of December 7, 1987 59-86 1. Election of Mayor and Vice Mayor 59-86 2. Appointment to Human Relations Commission 59-87 to Fill Unexpired Term Ending March 31, 1988 3. Ordinance Amending Chapter 22.08 (Park Dedications) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Dedicate the Remaining Portion of the Scott Street Minipark 4. Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation re Adoption of Ordinance Autho- rizing Closing of the 1986-87 Budget, Establishing Reserves, and Reappropriating $2,745,176 into the 1987-88 Budget 5. Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation re Approval of the 1988-89 Budget Guidelines 6. PUBLIC HEARING: .Planning Commission Recommendation re Denial of Preliminary Parcel Map for Property Located at 2239 Wellesley Street 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Appeals by Palo Alto Theatre Corporation and Samuel Kalinsky, to Uphold the Decision of the Zoning Administrator for a Use Permit for Prop- erty Located at 640 Emerson Street. 59-88 59-88 59-88 59-89 59-93 59-84 1./04/88 ITEM PAGE Recess for Closed Session from 9:30 p.m. to 59-104 9:40 p.m. 8. Palo Alto Airport Joint Community Rela- 59-104 tions Committee re One -Year Review of Implementation of Recomendations from the County Study 9. Downtown Cleanliness Progress Report 59-107 10. Gamble Property Capital Improvement 59-112 Account Report 11. Sand Hill Road Corridor Procedural Frame- 59-112 work Plan Adjournment at 10:35 p.m. 59-115 59-85 1/04/88 Regular Meeting Monday, January 4, 1988 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:37 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, `•., Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Prior to the meeting, Mayor Woolley called upon City Clerk Gloria Young to swear in recently -elected City Council Members Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, and Woolley. Mayor Woolley announced that a Closed Session to confer with and/or receive advice from legal counsel rewarding pending litigation pursuant to Go a nment Code Section 54956.9(a) re S. K. Brown Construction, Inc., vs. City of Palo Alto would be held at some point during the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ptah, 524 Middlefield Road, spoke about the gate to heaven and his hope that the world would reunite as one world, one family, one people, one place. 2. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, asked Council Member Fletcher why she wanted to destroy Palo Alto Harbor, deny public access through the Sea Scout facil- ity, and what she meant by "Greater public access to the Bay." APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 71 1987 MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Minutes of December 7, 1987, as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 1. ELECTION OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR (701) RESULTS OF FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR MAYOR City Clerk Gloria Young announced the results of the first round of voting: VOTING FOR SUTORIUS: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Rfnzel, Woolley Vice Mayor Sutorius abstained from voting. 59-86 1/04/88 Ms. Young announced Vice Mayor Sutorius received eight votes and was elected Mayor. Mayor Woolley said when she assumed the position of Mayor one year ago, while it was special to be a member of the Palo Alto City Council, it was very special to be the Mayor. She thanked her colleagues, for the ,opportunity to have served in that position. She would miss most the close con- tact with staff, and thanked all the staff for the respon- sive role they played that year. She knew the City would be in good hands. RESULTS OF FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR VICE MAYOR VOTING FOR KLEIN: Patitucci, Fletcher, Sutorius, Woolley, Bechtel Ms. Young announced that Council Member Klein votes and way elected Vice Mayor. Cobb, Klein, Levy, Renzel received nine Vice Mayor Klein thanked his colleagues for the vote of con- fidence. Mayor Sutorius thanked his family for their support. He noted the Mayor was elected by the Council colleagues and acted on behalf of those colleagues and must remember that. It was not a position where there was authority superior to any one of the Council. colleagues. The Mayor was respons- ible to act in ceremonial situations, chairing meetings, and occasionally acting as spokesperson but always in a manner which represented the entire Council and not the individual occupant of the office. The Mayor made appointments to the standing committees and liaison committees. He announced that Council Members Klein and Cobb would continue as repre- sentatives of the City/School Liaison Committee for the 1988 term. He announced that Council Member Patitucci accepted the responsibility as Chair of the Finance and Public Works Committee and Council Member Bechtel accepted the responsi- bility as Chair of the Policy and Procedures Committee. 2. APPOINTMENT TO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING MARCH 31, 1988 (702 -00 - Mayor Sutorius announced that the applicants were: Dorothy G. Atkinson Corrine J. Galas tick Gwen Bowen Robert I. Woods 59-87 1/04/88 RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING: Ms. Young announced the results of the first rounding of voting: VOTING FOR ATKINSON: Levy VOTING FOR WOODS: Patitucci, Sutorius, Klein, Bechtel, Cobb VOTING FOR BOWEN: Fletcher, Woolley, Renzel Ms. Young announced that Mr. Woods received five votes and was appointed. Mayor Sutorius congratulated Mr. Woods. On behalf of the Council, he expressed his appreciation to all of the appli- cants and looked forward to their continued participation in public affairs. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Consent Calendar. 3. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 22.08 PARR DEDICATIONS OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEDICATE THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE SCOTT STREET MINIPARK (1321-26) 4. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE UNANIMOUS RECOMMEN- DATION RE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CLOSING OF THE 1986-87 BUDGET, ESTABLISHING RESERVES, AND R.EAPPRO- PRIATxNG $2,7451176 .INTO THE 1987-88 BUDGET (7b1-03/ 280--01 ) ORDINANCE 3786 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF T;UE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING CLOSING OF THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1986-87" 5. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE UNANIMOUS RECOMMEN- THE 1988-89 BUDGET GUIDELINES AS DATION RE APPROVAL OF OUTLINED IN THE REPORT (CMR:542.7) REVISED. TO INCLUDE: 1) AFTER THE WORDS "PROGRAM LEVELS," INSERT "EQUIVALENT TO THOSE PROVIDED IN THE 1987-88 FISCAL YEAR;" 2b) INSERT THE WORDS "STREETS 3) INSERT "OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE OVERALL COST OF SERVICE," IN PLACE OF "COST RECOVERY." (280-04) AND" BEFORE "SIDEWALK REPAIR; 59-88 1/04/88 MOTION PASSED unanimously. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2239 WELLESLEY STREET TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR LOT WIDTH, DEPTH AND AREA; AND A VARIANCE FOR AN EXISTING HOUSE ON PARCEL TWO WITH A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF FIVE FEET WHERE SIX FEET IS OTHERWISE REQUIRED; AND A VARIANCE FOR AN EXISTING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN A REQUIRED INTERIOR YARD WITHIN 75 FEET OF A STREET (300) Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler said the majority of the Planning Commission voted to deny the application to dis- courage lot splits and try.. to and insure development in accordance with R--1 regulations and because it believed the variances for the existing structures were not warranted. Three Commissioners viewed the application as being a pro- posed mergerof three lots into two and believed construc- tion of an additional small house on the site subject to the substandard lot ordinance would be preferable to either development of three houses on the site or to construction of a large house and a cottage both of which would likely be possible if the application were denied. Council Member Renzel referred to the present plan map, and said the project information report suggested that a Certificate of Compliance was required to validate the three 25 -foot lots. She queried what criterion was used to deter- mine whether a Certificate of Compliance would be issued. - Zoning Plan Checker Joanne Auerbach said an application would be filed with the Public Works Department and title information would have to be submitted to that department -to show that the property was made up of the three old College Terrace subdivision lots and that no changes had occurred over time. It would also be conditioned upon removal of the existing. house. Council Member Renzel hypothesized the title report was received and the house was removed and queried whether the City could prevent the three lots from being considered as three lots. Chief Planning Official Carol, Jansen. said if the Certificate of Compliance was filed and the lots became a matter of record, the City would have to recognize them as legal sub- standard lots which could be developed under .the City's substandard regulations. 59-89 1/04/88 Council Member Renzei clarified the City Engineer determined whether the Certificate of Compliance would be issued. Ms. Jansen said that was correct and it was in conjunction with the City Attorney's office. Records of surveys and other documenting evidence would have to be submitted. Council Member kenzel asked whether there was sufficient question in staff's ,mind that the applicant would not be able to meet the. criterion for three lots that they were willing to suggest it was just one lot. Ms. Auerbach said all of the available information indicated it was likely the three lots could be re-established subject to removal of the existing house. It would not be known for sure until the City Engineer reviewed the documents. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Maria Ferrari, attorney for the estate of Carl Schuler, said the property was presently subdivided into three narrow lots which ran parallel to Wellesley Street. The proposal was to resubdivide the property to two moderately sized lots that would run through the middle of the existing narrow lot per- mitting the existing structure to remain and creating a new lot of equal size. Each of the new lots would be about 4,300 square feet which was slightly larger than the adja- cent parcel on College Avenue and similar to many other par- cels in the area which were about 37 feet by 115 feet. At the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Marsh referred to the need to look at how to best create a sense of a ,3ingle-family hone type of community that R-1 was meant to denote. If the application was denied, alternative options included building one large house on the property up to 6,000 square feet and two stories with the possibiity of cottage. It would involve tearing down the existing home. Another option was to record a Certificate of Compliance which would also require tearing down the existing struc- ture. The houses that could bebuilt would be limited to 13 feet in width on the narrow. lots. Staff recommended the applicant apply for a permit to build a guest cottage on the vacant part of the landbut they did not believe it was economically feasible given construction costs and land values. Such a recommendation would not result in any dif- ferent density from that being proposed in the parcel map except for a difference in the form of ownership. The City's ordinance for substandard sized lots would provide strict limitations on what could be built. It would be moderately sized and priced. She urged approval. 59-90 1/04/88 Bobbie Redstrom, 251 Churchill, encouraged the Council to consider the division of the property. The homes in the area were cottage -type, and one lot would probably mean another_ "Ta j .Mahal,". not: in keeping with the area. William Mellish, 2241 Wellesley Street, owned the adjacent lot, a duplicate of the lot in question. He believed the granting of the exception would violate the requirements, goals, or spirits of the law in that both parcels would be substandard, and splitting the lot conflicted with the Comprehensive .Plan. If the lot was to be split, he asked about splitting his. Mayor Sutorius clarified that Mr. Mellish's lot was a dupli- cate of the one next to him. Mr. Mellish said absolutely. He also lived in Lot 7, which was not a duplicate. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. NOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Rensel, to approve the preliminary parcel map creating two lots with exception for lot width, depth, and area on both parcels, and a variance for an existing house on Parcel 2. Council Member Woolley believed the Council's choice was three small lots with three small structures each totalling about 1,000 square feet, two structures each of which would be about 1,500 square feet for the same total of 3,000 square feet on the land in question, or a single-family residence which would possibly allow 6,000 square feet plus an additional cottage of 800 square feet for 6,800 square feet of building. Speaking to the amount of building that could go on the property, she believed they were better off with the lot split. If more building could be put up on an R-1 lot, something was wrong with their R -I zoning. That was being examined, and the item pointed out the need for taking another look at what could be done on a regular R-1 lot. She urged support of the motion. MAKER AND SENDER OF. LION AGREED TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE TEAT STA?F DETERMINE TES APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AND RETURN JANUARY 11, 1989, ON TIME CONSENT CALENDAR FOR ; APPROVAL. Council Member Renzelcould not remember ever supporting.a substandard subdivision in all her time on the Council and Planning Commission, but in the subject case, it was ironic that a substandard subdivision would provide more continuity in neighborhood character than their own R-1 zone_ , which was appalling and illustrated the need to do something about what was permitted in R-1. If the Council did not act to divide the property, it seemed almost certain that the small'. 59-91 1/04/88 As corrected 2/01/88 Council Member Renzel clarified the City Engineer determined whether the Certificate of Compliance would be issued. Ms. Jansen said that was correct and it was in conjunction with the City Attorney's office. Records of surveys and other documenting evidence would have to be submitted. Council Member Renzel asked whether there was sufficient question in staff's mind that the applicant would not be able to meet the criterion for three lots that they were willing to suggest it was just one lot. Ms. Auerbach said all of the available information indicated it was likely the three lots could be re-established subject to removal of the existing house. It would not be known for sure until the City Engineer reviewed the documents. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Maria Ferrari, attorney for the estate of Carl Schuler, said the property was presently subdivided into three narrow lots 'which ran parallel to Wellesley Street. The proposal was to resubdivide the property to two.moderately sized lots that would run through the middle of the existing narrow lot per- mitting the existing structure to remain and creating a new lot of equal size. Each of the new lots would be about 4,300 square feet which was slightly larger than the adja- cent parcel on College Avenue and similar to many other par- cels in the area which were about 37 feet by 115 feet. At the planning Commission rPeting, Commissioner Marsh referred to the need to look at how to best create a sense of a single-family home type of community that R-1 was meant to denote. If the application was denied, alternative options included building one large house on the property up to 6,000 sgvare. feet and two stories with the possibiity of cottage. It would involve tearing down the existing home. Another option wasp to record a Certificate of Compliance which would also require •tearing down the existing struc- ture.', The houses that could be built would be limited to 13 feet In width on the narrow lots. Staff recommended the applicant apply for a permit to build a guest cottage on the vacant part of the land but they did not believe it was economically feasible given construction costs and land values. -Such a recommendation would not resultin any dif- ferent density from thatbeing proposed in the parcel map except for a difference in the form of ownership. The City's ordinance for substandard sized lots would provide strict limitations on what could be built. It would b� moderately sized and priced. She urged approval. 59-90 1/04/88 Bobbie Redstrom, 251 Churchill, encouraged the Council to consider the division of the property. The homes in the area were cottage -type, and one lot would probably mean another "Taj Mahal," not in keeping with the area. William Mellish, 2241 Wellesley Street, owned the adjacent lot, a duplicate of the lot in question. He believed the granting of the exception would violate the requirements, goals, or spirits of the law in that both parcels would be substandard, and splitting the lot conflicted with the Comprehensive Plan. If the lot was to be split, he asked about splitting his. Mayor Sutorius clarified that Mr. Mellish's lot was a dupli- cate of the one next to him. Mr. Mellish said absolutely. He also lived in Lot 7, which was not a duplicate. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve the preliminary parcel map creating two lots with exception for lot width, depth, and area on both parcels, and a variance for an existing house on Parcel 2. Council Member Woolley believed the Council's choice was three small lots with three small structures each totalling about 1,000 square feet, two structures each of would be about 1,500 square feet for the same total of 3,000 square feet on the land in question, or a single-family residence which would possibly allow 6,000 square feet plus an addi- tional cottage of 800 square feet for 6,800 square feet of building. Speaking to the amount t,f building that could go on the property, she believed they were better off with the lot split. If more building could be put up on an R-1 lot, something was wrong with their R-1 zoning. That was being examined, and the item pointed out the need for taking another look at what could be done on a regular R-1 lot. She urged support of the motion. MAKER AND SECONDER OF MOTION AGREED TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE THAT STAFF DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AND RETURN JANUARY 11, 1988, ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR APPROVAL. Council Member Renzel could not rememberever supporting.a substandard subdivision in all her time on the Council and Planning Commission, but in the subject case, it was ironic that ,a substandard subdivision would provide more continuity in neighborhood character than their own R -I zone, which was appalling and illustrated the need to do something about what was permitted in R-1. If the Council did not act to divide the property, it seemed almost certain that the small 59-91 1/04/88 house would be demolished. Either a Certificate of Compliance would be applied for and there would be three "shotgun" lots or they would have an 8,000 square -foot lot in a neighborhood which was subdivided into small lots and which contained many shall homes. On an 8,000 square -foot lot, they were apt to see an enormous house be built, plus the potential of a cottage. She would support the motion. Council Member Bechtel understood the arguments made by Council Members Woolley and Renzel and the minority position of the Punning Commission, but she was concerned that the motion was an unfortunate precedent. It was not a sure thing that the three lots could meet and receive a Certificate of Compliance., and she did not like the idea of giving variances for width, depth, etc., in order to build on the extremely substandard lots. Council Member Cobb said of the three choices, he noted the one involving the three small underlying lots was the least likely to happen. The economics of today's market that created the "Taj Mahals" were precisely the economics that made it unlikely that the three smaller lots would be built. ile asked staff to summarize the restrictions on the houses that could be built if the subdivision was approved in terms of their physical size, number of stories, etc. Ms. Auerbach said the substandard lot provisions of the R-1 section of the Zoning Ordinance limited the height of the building to 20 feet measured to the peak of the roof and to a single story. Other than that, the building was subject to all other standard restrictions of the R-1 zone for coverage and setbacks. Ms. Jansen clarified the maximum coverage allowed would be 1,509 square feet for the main dwelling and would include the required one covered parking space and any accessory structures. Council Member Cobb noted the "Ta j Mahals" would not be built if the lot split was allowed. The house would be equivalent to the size of the Eichler he lived in before .he remodeled it. It was a fair amount of house for the subject lot, but might be preferable compared to some of the houses they had seen built. He believed that was the likely result if the lot split was allowed, and the big house was the likely result if it was not allowed. Council. Member Patitucci understood when they spoke to a substandard lot, they spoke to the relative dimensions of a lot and approximately a 6,000 square -foot lot being the minimum sized lot they wanted in Palo Alto in an R-1 zone. 59-92 1/04/88 The typical lot size in the neighborhood was closer to the size they were speaking to if they were to subdivide into two lots. He agreed with Council Members Woolley and Renzel and, in keeping with the character of the neighborhood rather than the overall Citywide ordinance, he preferred to see the property subdivided into two lots appropriate to the neighborhood,. He would support the motion. Council Member Renzel said with respect to precedent, the property lent itself, by the existence of the current house and its corner location, to a reasonable substandard sub- division. She would not be looking necessarily at every group of three, 25 -foot square lots as being in the same category. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Levy, Bechtel, voting no." 7 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNINC COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPEALS BY PALO ALTO THEATRE CORPORATION AND SAMUEL KALINSKY, TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINI- STRATOR TO APPROVE, WITH CONDITIONS, A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON -SITE SALE OF BEER AND WINELIlCLU.DING BREWING OF BEER, IN CONJUNCTIION WITH A RESTAURANT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 540 EMERSf STREET (CMR:104:8) (300) Planner Sarah Cheney distributed three additional letters (on file in the City Clerk's office) to the Council Members. Council Member Woolley said Naphtali Kriox's suggestion,that the dumpster be provided for by an indentation into the rear wall of the property and not be sitting in the alley seemed like a reasonable approach in light of the Urban Design Study's interest in alleys. She asked if the request was reasonable from a construction standpoint. Ms. Jansen said the idea was considered by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in their preliminary review of the proj- ect, and the ARB believed it was a problem in general to deal with trash enclosures and it should be dealt with in the process of the Urban Design Plan, but they did not feel that to require a trash enclosure to be put inside the building and, therefore, sacrifice the square footage, was appropriate in the particular case. Basically, it was the same as the trash enclosure they would have had for any other restaurant .or permitted use for the building. Removal of the hops,' barley, etc., being used to brew the beer, would be contained inside and not in the trash enclosure. Staff believed the location chosen was logical. Sacrificing the square footage within the building would be precedent - setting. 59-93 1/04/88 Council Member. Woolley said it seemed like an easier time than later to accomplish the enclosure, but she understood the ARB was saying that might not be the ultimate solution. Mr. Jansen said yes, and it was only a solution for the subject building where there were approximately four or five trash enclosures that would remain within the alleyway that served other businesses on the alley. From the ARB stand- point, the general feeling was that the overall problem had to be dealt with and not necessarily by putting the trash enclosures within individual. buildings. On the other hand, she agreed if it was going to be done, now was the time and not later. Council Member Menzel said in regard to the condition that suggested that if the applicant violated the standards with respect to noise or odor, the Use Permit would be subject to revocation, she asked what the revocation process was and how long it took. Ms. Jansen said staff had to give notice and hold a hearing like other processes involving possible deprivation of an existing property right. She believed it would take a mini- mum of 30 days to go through the process. Council Member Cobb asked for staff's opinions as to the degree to which the odor could be contained by available technology and whether there was any kind of standard by which that sort of problem could be measured in a quantita- tive way in case there was concern after approval was granted. Ms. Jansen admitted it was not a hard-and-fast science; however, both Ms€ Cheney and she visited two brew pubs while the brewing operation was ongoing to try to determine what the odors would be. She visited The Triple Rock in Berkeley and Buffalo Bills in Hayward, both located close to or with residential. The odor was extremely faint and had a "yeasty" odor inside the room where the brewing operation was ongoing. There was no discernible odor outside and neither agency had received complaints about the brewing operation. Neither one had the special filtering devices being proposed by the applicant. Staff did not have an instance where the proposed filtering devices were being used in any other brew pub in operation. In terms of com- plaints with regard to odor, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) was the agency which enforced odors. The Council recently considered odors in relation to a painting operation. The process took a lot of time and complaints; however, the BAAQMD ultimately set up a panel of "normal noses," to discern whether there were odors associ- ated with the use. It was not easy to respond whether there would be a discernible odor; some people were more sensitive than others. 59-94 1/04/86 Council Member Cobb asked the City Attorney if it was pos- sible to give strict protection in the Use Permit with respect to the odors being contained, beyond a panel of "normal noses." Ms. Northway believed the usual term associated in law with odors was "noxious," and they were getting into a subjective area. In fact, they could put something in the Use Permit to say if the operation produced noxious odors, then it was deemed to be in violation of the permit. The question would then be one of evidence at the time. Council Member Levy asked if Palo Alto had a general stan- dard for closing times for restaurants and bars in the down- town area. GIs. Cheney said a member of the Planning Department staff did a survey of a number of restaurants in the downtown area that served alcoholic beverages and had Conditional Use Permits for such. Weekday closing times generally were between 2:00 a.m. and 1:30 a.m., and Friday and Saturday nights were the same. It was pointed out by the appellant, Mr. Kalinsky at the Planning Commission hearing that the ,restaurant portion of the use might close earlier. Gener- \ally, a number of the smaller restaurants closed earlier because they did not have the patronage and did not find it economical to stay open longer. Council Member Levy asked if the facility would be unduly large. Ms. Cheney said staff had not done anv area calculations, but she believed it would be equivalent to a number of the smaller restaurants downtown. It would be smaller than some, and certainly not larger. Mayor Sutorius asked how extensive the definition of Condition 3 was, "There shall be no live entertainment, dancing, motion pictures or other amusement facilities or devices," e.g., in terns of a dart board. Ms. Cheney said the intent was to limit the condition because the applicant had originally applied for live enter- tainment, so it was related to any noise -generating uses. She did not consider a dart board to be a noise -generating use. Mayor Sutsrius declared the; Public Hearing open. 59-95 1/04/88 Doman Biersch, 140 N. Balsamina Way, Menlo Park, representing the Gordon-Biersch Brewing Company, said the organization believed they had forthrightly and thoroughly addressed the legitimate concerns of the area residents. For instance, the odor abatement device was extraordinary and was typical to inner --City breweries. No brewery of their type elected to use such a device. Samuel Kalinsky, 685 High Street, Apt. 5A, a licensed pro- fessional mechanical engineer, objected to the proposed brewery part of the restaurant and the restaurant's hours of operation. Since the Planning Commission hearing, an acoustic engineer's report had been ordered by the Planning staff to be paid for by the operators and had been in their hands for at least the past week. He tried and failed to obtain copies of the report. A noise complaint was filed against Sophie's Choice Restaurant, directly to the north of the proposed brewery/restaurant, because of the noise caused by a chiller, and the restaurant was found,to be in viola- tion of the noise ordinance. The proposed brewery/ restaurant had a larger chiller unit on the roof which would be operated 24 hours a day and, in addition, there was a large air-conditioning unit and ventilating equipment plus other equipment, amplified noise and people noise on the inside of the building'until at least midnight. He strongly urged the C.euncil to continue the hearing until they reviewed the acoustic engineer's report and the Police Department report upon which the viability of the brewery and the hours of operation might rest. Dr. Thomas R. Schneider, 685 High Street, supported Mr. Kalinsky-'s appeal. The residents objected to the location of what was originally described as a brewery/pub and was now described as a brewery/restaurant. There were 32 homes immediately adjacent to the proposed brewery and a nursing home within half a block. The basic issue was addressing and identifying potential nuisance problems in advance of, construction, working to fulfill Palo Alto's financial res-. ponsibility not only to the current residential home owners but also the property owner/applieatt. The proposed building was surrounded on three sides by high-rise structures, and the bedrooms of the 685 building were at the rooftop level. Regarding odor, the applicant pointed out the proposal was experimental and had never been used in a facility of the size and was, in fact, a heat -recovery and not an odor abatement. device. Any odor would be blown into the bedroom windows by the typical wind direction on summer afternoons. Leslie Kalinsky, 685 High Street, #5A, asked Dr. Schneider to speak on her behalf. 59-96 1/04/88 Dr. Schneider believed there should be an opportunity for public review of the acoustical noise report. In regard to the staff report (CMR:104:8), he understood there was an intent on the part of the Planning Commission to reduce the possible loud, sudden noises that could occur with the operation of a roll -up door or rear access to the building during late night and early hours. He marked the staff report to reflect Items 18, 20, and 21 to reflect the origi- nal intent. He strongly encouraged the Council to consider the staff changes as edited as a more suitable compromise to reflect the presence of 32 residential homes immediately adjacent to the facility. Ms. Kalinsky requested denial of the Use Permit of the brewery based on the intention that brewing of beer was a manufacturing process. The City of Palo Alto had areas zoned for manufacturing .which would be more appropriate. She commended -the City for encouraging residences in the downtown area and had enjoyed the benefits of the area for the past few years. Palo Alto was known for its quality of life. Before making a decision, she would like the Council to consider.whether the City was concerned with the quality of life of the downtown residences as it was with the qual- ity of life of neighborhoods. The last unit in their build- ing sold for $225,000 in May 1986. The unit next to it was listed and the price had bee.' reduced to $198,000e -and still there were no buyers. Despite the efforts of the Planning Commission to -mitigate the problems caused by the proposal, the perception was that it was a factory next to a condo, and the complex worth millions of -dollars had decreased in value as well as in livability. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Renzel said, having been an advocate for many years to get housing in the commercial zones, she was sympa- thetic that they not jeopardize the validity of that housing by permitting uses which might cause problems for the neigh- borhood. While many precautions had been included in the Use Permit as it came before the Council, she still felt concern that the proposal would not becompatible with the surrounding housing. In addition to points made by members of the public, she could see there was probably a tendency for noise to reverberate when the building was surrounded by. solid buildings going up above it. MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve the use permit for a restaurant and deny the brewery. 59-97 1/04/88 Council Member Cobb said the motion appealed to him because the Council had encouraged housing downtown and should create an environment where people were going to want to live downtown. If one chose to live downtown, the possibil- ity that one would be next door to a restaurant was no; surprising, but a brewery was different from what one might expect. The motion split that difference. The real issue was the odors, and without an assurance that the odors would not be a problem, he had some concerns. Council Member Levy found himself on the other side of the issue from Council Members Cobb and Menzel. The area was a commercial one first. When residences were located in a commercial area, they accepted the normal activity that went on. His concern was whether the activity would be normal or abnormal for a commercial area. The two issues were odor and noise. He believed the restrictions recommended by staff and further modified by the Planning Commission put appropriate restrictions on odor and noise and would keep both within levels currently in place for restaurants in the downtown area. Although there would be beer manufactured on site, the intent was the odor and noise would be no more severe than those found at normal restaurants. He did not believe the Council could appropriately disapprove a stan- dard restaurant in the commercial area. There were already two restaurants on the street and another in the adjoining condominium complex. He noted all the restrictions and conditions being placed on the request for the Use Permit and believed the appropriate action was to uphold the deci- sion of the Zoning Administrator to deny both appeals and to approve the restaurant and brewery with all the conditions put in place, which represented proper safeguards so that theactualeffect of the specialized kind of restaurant/bar would be the same as any other restaurant/bar located in that area. Council Member Fletcher opposed the motion. When she ini- tially heard about the project in terms of a brewery and nightclub, it sounded completely inappropriate, but she had been reassured from reading the material that the odor prob- lem would be controlled, that the Use Permit could be revoked. Ironically, she believed the residents were more protected with the project because the space taken up by the brewery in the back --which would be noiseless, especially at night --would be a buffer from the restaurant. If the appli- cation was denied, there would be fewer controls on the noise from the establishment. The City would not have control over live entertainment, hours of operation, etc. She was in favor of approving the application. 59--98. 1/04/88 Vice Mayor Klein associated himself with the remarks of Council Members Levy and Fletcher. He lived downtown for nearly two years, and it did mean living near to businesses. That was not necessarily a negative because the exhilaration and level of activity was fun. He supported establishing housing downtown, but they should take into account that it, was different from the housing established in an R-1 neigh- borhood. They should not allow nuisances, but the rules did have to be different. He was persuaded that the restrictions imposed on the subject business adequately protected its. neighbors. Indeed, the list of restrictions :imposed were extraordinary, and he agreed with Council Member Fletcher that the neighbors might be better off with the particular use than with another allowed use. The Council should keep in mind that if the subject use was turned down, the building would not turn into a park or empty shell but another busi- ness would be there. It was inevitable that businesses that had uses at night produced noise. The risk was on the devel- opers. The developers stated they were prepared to live with all the restrictions and could meet them. If not, they were aware the City had a strong record of enforcing its ordi- nances. The Council had to go with the evidence before it. It had been suggested that the proposed use would produce an odor, but staff had checked similar uses and found there really was no odor problem. They did not have evidence of a similar use that produced that problem, and thus the use should not be regarded any differently from a restaurant cooking food containing spices that some people found offens- ive. The motion was really one to deny the whole use and to divide it in two was not a fair statement. The developers had a particular type of restaurant in mind, and to say they could have half was like saying one could only have half of one's child; it did not work. He hoped the Council would deny the motion and move to deny both appeals, incorporating one or two of Dr. Schneider's suggestions., Council Member Bechtel favored upholding the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the decision of the Zoning Administrator. She agreed with the comments trade by Vice Mayor Klein and Council Members Fletcher and Levy. It was a downtown area and a mixed area, and there were inevitably noises. It was the Council's responsibility to ensure the noises were reasonable and controlled. The Planning Commission and staff conditions were excellent in providing protection for the residents who lived there. That day she spoke to someone who lived at 685 High Street and who ini- tially spoke opposition at the Zoning Administrator's hearing and at the Planning. Commission. He now believed the conditions outlined by the Planning Commission were excellent and that he would support the project with those conditions. His bedroom was one of those closest to the area. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy to adopt Planning Commission recommend- ations to deny both appeals and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve the conditional use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine, including the brewing of beer, in conjunction with an eating and drinking establish- ment to be located at 640 Emerson Street, subject to the findings and conditions stated below: FINDINGS 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, in that consumption of alcoholic beverages will be on site in conjunction with a permitted restaurant, with limited quantities sold off -site in conjunction with a catering operation; the brewing of beer is an accessory use to a permitted use, and specific measures have beenincorpo- rated into the project and required as conditions to control potential odor and noise impacts of the brewery operation. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in that the Downtown Community Commercial land use designation and zoning specifically permit such uses, subject to a limitation on the number of permits issued per block. CONDITIONS 1. The provisions of this use permit supersede Use Permit 84 -UP -29, which upon issuance of this permit is no longer valid. 2. The serving of alcoholic beverages shall not be allowed unless all Zoning Ordinance and Building Code Regulations are complied with for this location, 3. There shall be no live entertainment, dancing, motion pictures, or other amusement facilities or devices. 4. Compliance with all applicable codes. and ordinances including. Titles 9 (Peace, Morals and Safety), 15 (Uniform Fire Code), and 16 (Building Regulations including Industrial Wastes) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and Titles 4 (Alcoholic Beverage Business Regula- tions) and 19 (Public Safety) of the State of California Administrative Code. 59-100 1/04/88 MOTION CONTINUED 5. There shall be no operations of any kind between the hours of 12:00 AM and 8:00 AM, except the cleaning of the premises. The permitted hours of operation shall be from 11:00 AM to 11:00 PM, Sundays Through Thursdays, and 11:00 AM to 12:00 AM, Fridays and Saturdays. 6. Deliveries to and from the restaurant and brewery will be permitted in the rear alley, but shall be limited to occur between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Mondays through Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays. 7. In compliance with Section 18.48.e'40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the brewery and restaurant shall be conducted in a manner so as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive condition including crea- tion or emission of odor, fumes, or noise. 8. Solid Brewery waste products shall be stored within the building in sealed, airtight containers and removed within 24 hours of the time the waste products are gen- erated. Such containers shall be; cleaned after each use, with the residue trapped and discharged to the sanitary sewer. 9. The active phase of the brewing process (fermentation phase excluded) shall be limited to occur between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and shall be limited to occur a maximum of two times in any given week. 10.. Should sanitary sewer discharges from the facility be increased above average levels due to a faulty batch of beer, the brewery operator shall contact the Regional Water Quality Control Plant for disposal instructions prior to disposal. 11. An odor abatement device determined to be appropriate by the Bay Area Air Quality. Management District (BAAQMD) in effectively eliminating potential brewery odors, shall be installed within .the exhaust ventilation .system for the brewery portion of the restaurant/ and be in place initiation of brewing activities . on the site. Prior to application for a Building Permit, the applicant shall apply to the BAAQMD for the authority to construct the required odor abatement device. 59-101 1/04/88 NOTION CONTINUED 12. Fra&taursnt staff shall monitor the rear alley and adja- cent plaza during evening hours and at time of closing to di cohrage exiting patrons from loitering in such ,areas, with increased surveillance on Thursday, Friday, _and_.Saturday nights. ,13.. Use of the alley entrances shall be prohibited for all but restaurant staff, except in cases of emergencies. 14. Prior to appli e tion for a building permit, submit an acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified noise con- sultant which demonstrates that the proposed use will operate in compliance with the provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance. Such analysis shall include: 1) The level of noise to be generated from the brewery and restaurant exhaust systems, brewing activities and site deliveries; 2) The noise attenuation provided by the proposed exhaust equipment and method of building construc- tion; and 3) Any additional noise abatement measures which have been incorporated into the project to assure compli- ance with the City's Noise Ordinance, such as additional insulation or modifications to the exhaust systems. - 15. Off -site sale of beer produced on the premises shall be limited to a maximum of 20 percent of total quantity of beer brewed, calculated on a monthly basis. The restaurant/hrevery operator shall submit a biannual status report to the Zoning Administrator documenting total gallons of . boar brewed per month and : total gallons of beer s;iold for consumption off -site for catering functions. No increase in sales above the 20 percent figure shat;,`:. be permitted. 16. The sale of alcoholic beverages and brewing . o2 beer under this use permit shall be deemed an agreement on the part of the applicant, the owner, their heirs, suc- cessors, and assigns to comply with all .the terms end conditions of this use : permit. Any violations of the conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of this use permit. 59-.102 1/04/88 .MOTION CONTINUED 12. .The .operation shall comply with all applicable State and Eedsral4.regula.tions and licensing requirements. 11. U e of the rear roll -up door shall be restricted to day- time . (8:00 AM to 6:02 PM) deliveries only. No nighttime use of the roll -up door will be permitted. 19. The required acoustical analysis shall address use of the roll -up door and shall identify noise attenuation measures incorporated into the project, necessary to minimize noise generated by use of the roll -up door. 20. Use of the rear access door shall be prohibited after 10200 PM, except for emergency egress, 21: Disposal of facility garbage in the bait alley shall be prohibited during late evening hours (after 10:00 PM). Waste material collected during late evening cleanings shall be contained inside of the building and disposed of the following morning. 22. Any substantial change in use or in the nature of the operation shall be subject to use permit review by the Zoning Administrator. Council Member Patituccf aareed with Vice Mayor Klein and Council Members Levy, Fletcher, and Bechtel. Although the solution might not be perfect for all concerned, the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, and staff came up with a balanced solution that would protect the rights of residents and the appropriate use for the property. He supported the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation. ENT: Vice !Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to amend Condition 20 to r.14140 -6Use of the rear access door shell be prohibited after 10:00 PM and before 8208 AN .6; and Condition 21 to read, *Disposal of facility garbage in the back alley shall be prohibited during early morning and late evening hours (after 10:00 PM and before 8:00 AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT; Council Member .Mensal loved, seconded by Woolley, that the hours in Conditions 20 and 21 include/ before 10:00 AN on Sundays. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE AMENDMENT TO AMEND- MENT INTO AMENDMENT 59-103 1/04/88 MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE IN CONDI- TION 18 TO PROHIBIT USE OF THE ROLL -UP DOOR BEFORE 10:00 AM ON :.,+ 1DAYS INTO THE AMENDMENT Council Member Fletcher believed the noise ordinance and con- struction activity regulations specified 9:00 AM on Sundays. City Attorney Diane Northway believed it was 10:00 AM and varied depending on the type of noise. Certain types of noise were'permitted to begin at different times. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE AMENDMENT INTO THE MAIN MOTION MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Renzel, Cobb voting "no." COUNCIL RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION FROM 9:30 PM TO 9:40 PM 8. PALO ALTO AIRPORT JOINT COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE RE ONE --YEAR REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COUNTY STUDY (CMR :107 :8) (1161-01) Vice Mayor Klein referenced page 3 of the report of the Palo Alto Joint Community Relations Commission for the Pa Alto Airport, last paragraph and asked whether there were any development plans that were not coaling before the City in the usual course of events_ Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin deferred response to the Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport. Midge Vaughn, 283 Yerba Santa, Los Altos, Vice Chairman of the Santa Clara County Airports Cornmisaion, said the refer- ence wa,s to the beginning discussions of development in the Whiskey Gulch area which was not technically within the City's purview nor within Santa Clara County. It provided an interesting situation in that the development could have some impact on the airport. Vice Mayor Klein said it was not a question of technical- ities; the development was not within the City's jurisdic- tion. They were cognizant of what was going on but had no control. Ms. Vaughn said they were aware the City had no -control; nor did they, and that was part of what made the situation interesting since they were on the border of both the City 59-104 1/04/88 and the County. They had to develop new ways of protecting both the Palo Alto city and the safety of the airport in looking at new construction in an area not within the City's jurisdiction. MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Cobb, to accept the report of the Joint Community Relations Committee and request the County to continue to report to the Council on the progress of the FAA Noise Study. Vice Mayor Klein asked for clarification of Item 5 on page 4 which referred to the new Port Authority that was being developed. Ms. Vaughn was not certain what the Port Authority was geared to, but knew there were political members representing the various counties of the Bay Arealooking at providing an uni- form plan for the Bay Area, including San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward, and all the general aviation airports in the area. It would provide greater communication and coordination in regards to air safety in the area. Mr. Zaner said staff would research and provide the Council with a memorandum about the new Port Authority in the next packet. Council. Member- Renzel referenced Item 1, page 3, and said she would not want necessarily accept that conclusion as part of accepting the report. Right now, the duck pond which was one of the most popular facilities in their Baylands, was located within the southerly safety area of the airport. The airport was currently focusing on the northerly end of the airport, trying to get people to stop using the levee and the trail. She wondered how long it would be before they tried to clear out the duck pond as well. Ms. Vaughn could not address the issue. The subject had not. been discussed by staff nor by the Committee. The difficulty with the north end was the elevation of the dike whrA added to the elevation of people and especially those riding on horseback, presented some danger. They did not have the same difficulty at the other end of the airport. Council Member Renzei believed that anyone walking on the levee would be aware ofany plane and any problem the plane was going to .have in that area, and it was going to the "gnat's eyebrow" to enforce the safety area there when cars drove by regularly at the other end of the runway, and other activities within the safety areas were more dense than the occasional use of that levee, 59-'105 J/o as Mayor Sutorius did not see the acceptance of the report com- mitted the Council or stimulated the potential of the action Council Member Renzel was being alert to. Council Member Renzel said the airport and levee had been there for many years, and when the bike bridge to East Palo Alto went in, the airport was suddenly concerned about the use of the safety area. She had concerns about the motiva- tion and also believed it was a false safety concern in the particular instance. AMENDMENT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, it was the sense of the. Council that it was important to maintain the trail access. Mr. Zaner did not want to let' go unchallenged the notion there was no safety hazard there. They had been over the issue both with the. Committee, airport officials, County otliciais and. there was a safety hazard. The problem was people were walking on the levee at the end of the runway and an accident might occur that might be prevented by taking some simple precautionary safety :measures, end they were attempting to do that now. Signs were posted t� tell people what they were supposed to be doing and, if those were not effective, the Council might want to consider more drastic safety measures to protect people:. Council Member Patitucci tended to agree with Council Member Renzel that they did not want to lock themselves into closing the access off or determining thelevel of safety; however, it was the Committee's job to point out what they saw as the issues and to bring them to the Council's attention. By accepting the report, the Council was not saying it agreed with every point. They were not being asked to take any specific action, and he suspected the report just expressed the Committee's point of view and what they had done to date. He preferred to accept the report.. Vice Mayor Klein agreed with Council Member Patitucci. He believed the only reason the item was agendized was to allow people to testify before the Council, and it was not the right format nor venue for discussion of the significant issues. He did not want to encourage the Council to read more things into a simple report than were there. He would vote against the motion. Council Member Levy said the staff recommendation was for Council to acknowledge the report and request the County to continue to report to the Council .on the progress of the FAA Noise Study, and he believed that was the appropriate 59-106 1/04/88 language. "Accepting" the report had the connotation that Council approved its content, and he was not satisfied Council had a policy on the matter raised by Council Member Renzel. He would be interested in further discussion of that at the appropriate time. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND MAKER AND SECOND OF MOTION AGREED TO CHANGE LANGUAGE TO "ACKNOWLEDGE THE REPORT" INSTEAD OF "ACCEPT THE REPORT." Ms. Vaughn expressed her appreciation for the members the Council appointed to the Joint Community Relations Committee. It was an excellent group of people, and she looked forward to continuing to improve the airport through their participa- tion. Mayor Sutorius hoped Ms. Vaughn would convey the Council's sense of appreciation to the full Committee for their actions. Council Member Renzel commented she had occasionto call the "Good Neighbor" line because she noticed major airlines were flying directly over her house, and >he got information that those should stop as soon as they finished paving the runway at San Francisco Airport. She appreciated the fact the "Good Neighbor" line was answered promptly and the person was know- ledgeable. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 9. DOWNTOWN CLEANLINESS PROGRESS REPORT (CMR:101:8) (1401- 01/701-03) Council Member Patitucci asked what the impact would be if Council postponed the appropriation, waited for the budget process, and looked at the item against all the others that might be proposed to use their scarce resources. Director of Public Works David Adams said the only result would be that staff would delay implementation of the use of the custodian until sometime after July 1, 1988. Council Member Woolley was pleased to see the participation of the Chamber of Commerce Committee. If the Council agreed to the appropriation for the extra cleaning downtown, she asked if it would affect the activity of the Chamber of Commerce Committee and the merchants in terms of their own cleaning program. She hoped it would be a supplement. 59-107 1/04/88 Council Member Bechtel verified the issue related to steam cleaning of the sidewalks would return with further informa- tion. Superintendent of Field Operations Mike Miller said that was correct. The City of Menlo Park currently had a program underway in its downtown and staff had arranged to see one of its cleanings in progress and assess its benefit. Staff would return in four to six weeks. Council Member Bechtel clarified staff believed that even though the cleaning might be expensive, it might be required.. Council Member Fletcher referred to Item 7 at the bottom of page 3 of the staff report (CMR:101:8). She knew the ade- quacy of the trash receptacles in the California Avenue area was a problem and she queried whether the California Avenue District was also being reviewed. Mr. Adams said staff was also working with the California Avenue District, which at that point was satisfied with its level of service. If a problem arose, staff would work with the California Avenue District to solve it and Council direc- tion would not be required. Council Member Fletcher asked whether it was possible to use as.s,essment district funds to clean parking garages. Mr. Zaner said it was possible to levy an assessment to cover maintenance costs. While the system was not completely structured that way, maintenance and upkeep to, a structure were legitimate costs to an assessment district. Council Member Fletcher queried whether it would have to be a special assessment. Mr. Zaner said yes. It would have to be added to the already -,existing assessment because it was not currently programed in. Council Member Bechtel commended staff for responding so wel1. to the Council's concerns. The report was a good start and Council look forward to future reports. She also commended those downtown merchants that were part of the Pride and Appearance Subcommittee for the Downtown Marketing Committee for their involvement and awareness of their responsibility for keeping the sidewalks clean. 59-108 1/04/88 MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $11,500 to increase the Public Works Department 1987-88 Refuse Budget to fund one temporary position and equipment for business district sidewalk cleaning for the remainder of FY 1987-88, and approval of the amendment to the Noise Ordinance to allow use of leaf blowers between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in business districts. ORDINANCE 3787 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR BUSINESS DISTRICTS' CLEANLINESS'" ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.10 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE NOISE STANDARDS FOR CLEANING OF PUBLIC STREETS IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS* Council Member Patitucci opposed the motion. He believed progress had been made downtown and staff did an excellent job working with the community to organize it. He did not see the necessity for a raid -year appropriation. He had stipported mid -year appropriations where he saw an absolute necessity. Council Member Fletcher was concerned about the nighttime use of leaf blowers. She realized leaf blowers were only used intermittently but yet they would be used for approximately 20 minutes in a specific section three times a week. She could not see it being acceptable to the surrounding areas. She would not support that portion of the motion. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING Vice Mayor Klein was also concerned that the overwhelming number of City financial decisions be rilade during the budget process; however, there were situations where Council needed to move forward with a budget amendment to allow projects to move forward mid -year. There did not necessarily have to be an emergency► but rather such an amendment needed to make good sense. The budget amendment before the Council made sense because of the project's current momentum. It was not just something the City wanted to do; the merchants were involved and their cooperation was essential. To take a six-month break until the budget was completed might send the wrong signal to the merchants. Council Member Levy agreed with Council Member Patitucci that the budget amendment should be considered in a more orderly process even though it was a small amount of money. He also agreed that the timing was not as critical since in the next couple of months the usage in the downtown area would be slower and the need reduced. AMENDMENT TO REFER: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, that the budget amendment for $11,500 be referred to the Finance and Public Works (FSPW) Committee. Council Member Renzel supported the referral and said Council Member Patitucci made her much more cognizant of the mid -year personnel changes. Even though the motion called for a temporary personnel change, in February- 1987, staff recom- mended push -cart and broom maintenance. She was concerned that what would inevitably happen would be those areas of Council interest which involved personnel additions would be saved for the raid -year changes while other staff decisions :night be added during the budget process. To the extent pos- sible, all personnel changes should be considered as part of the budget process. Mr..Zaner. said a referral would not cause irreparable damage. He was concerned about how much additional information could be given to the F&PW Committee beyond what Council already had. The funds were not in competition with other Public Works Department dollars and did not come from the General Fund but rather the Refuse Fund. The scope of concern in terms of the dollar comparison was rather limited. Vice Mayor —Klein clarified that in the last fiscal year only one position had been added mid -year. Additions to staff were not being made through the back door. Mayor Sutorius asked whether the routing process associated with the leaf blowers was such that the City would always be in the same area at the same time or whether it changed. Mr. Miller said it would be more of a craving operation based on where the most litter rested and how much was redeposited before the next cleaning. Mayor Sutor•ius was concerned about the ability of people to adjust to something they could identify and which was pre- dictable. While the interruption might not be enjoyed, people adjusted to living close to the train tracks because the trains always went by at the same time. He was not sure residents could adjust to irregular intervals and asked whether routing could be established so that the hours did not vary. 59-110 1/04/88 AMENDMENT TO REFER THE BUDGET ORDINANCE TO THE F&PW COMMITTEE FAILED by a vote f 3-6, Renzel, Levy, Patitucci voting "aye." FIRST PART OF MOTION TO APPROVE THE BUDGET ORDINANCE PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Renzel, Levy, Patitucci voting "no." Council Member Levy asked for clarification of the term "business" districts. Me. Adams said the word "business" was used so the exception might be implemented at some 'point in conjunction with the California Avenue District. The word "business" was used for clarification in all surface parking lots both in the California Avenue area and in areas immediately adjacent to the downtown/University Avenue District. Council Member Levy asked whether the exception was contem- plated for use in other business districts such as Middlefield. Mr. Adams said while the ordinance would provide for such an exception,. staff was not currently considering the Middlefield Road "business" district. Council Member Levy was concerned that some commercial or "business" districts were close to residential districts. He did not mind implementing the exception to the noise ordi- nance on University Avenue and .maybe in parking lots between University and Lytton but north of Lytton was close to resi- dential areas. He was concerned that if the exception were implemented within a few hundred feet or a couple of lots of residential areas, he would be uncomfortable. Mr. Adams said staff intended to stick pretty much to the University Avenue area and the immediate cross streets. If a valid complaint were received, i.e., one where someone pro- vided their name and address, staff would cease using leaf blowers in that area. Council Member Levy was reassured and accepted the clarifica- tion as an endorsement of the recommendation. Council Member Renzel was concerned about disturbing people's sleep with leaf blowers and opposed the motion. SECOND PART OF MOTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ORDINANCE PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Renzel, Fletcher, Patitucci voting 'no." 59-111 1/04/88 10. GAMBLE PROPERTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT REPORT (CMR:103:8) (300/900) Real Property Manager Bill Fellman requested the item be con- tinued because a structural problem in the main house was discovered :which needed to be further investigated before reporting to Council. The President of the Gamble Gardens, Fred Eyerly, was contacted and agreed with staff. MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley, to continue the item to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 11. SAND HILL ROAD CORRIDOR PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK PLAN (CMR:100:8) (1017-01) Council Member Woolley said if Council adopted the work plan as presented, which the City of Menlo Park already d'd, staff would begin the consultant- selection process, in which the Sand Hill Road Corridor Joint Policy Committee (JPC) would become involved when the selection was down to two or three consultants. The consultant contract would then be placed on the Palo Alto City Council's agenda since it was the lead -agency for approval. It would not go to the Menlo Park Council. The consultant would then begin the Part (A) items listed on the third page of the work plan; and upon comple- tion there would be a check point where the consultant's work would return to each jurisdiction for a decision about whether to .continue. While the consultant was putting together the information called for in Part (A), the JPC would be involved to the extent that the consultant would want to ensure all concerns of the various parties were addressed but there would be no decision -making by the JPC. Council Member Renzel queried how determining a project acceptable to Stanford, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Caltrans, affected the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process. The report stated "the objective of preparing a Procedural Framework is to identify and decribe a process, which, if followed, will lead to the completion of a Sand Hill Corridor project." She believed that put the "cart before the horse" in terms of normal environmental review. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the concept did not assume any decisions without appro- priate environmental review. He interpreted the phrase "upon endorsement by the relevant agencies" to mean both the proj- ect and alternatives to be studied in the EIR. It was simply identification of the project for the EIR.4 59-112 1/04/88 As corrected 2/01/88 Council Member Renzel queried whether it should be specified in the language rather than suggesting the language approved a pro iect per se. Mr. Schreiber said one of the major activities as part of the work program described in Part B was the environmental review. He believed the intent was :consistent with Council Member Renzel's concerns about the relationship to the EIR. Council Member Renzel said when the Sand Hill project was before Council twice previously, it was Stanford's project and it was suddenly Palo Alto's. She queried on what basis it was Palo Alto's project. Mr. Zaner said Council Member Renzel was correct. The proj- ect would appear before the Council as a City of Palo Alto project. The concept was explored previously both with the present Council and with the JPC. Stanford saw the project as a City of Palo Alto project with their participation. The City anticipated Stanford's full financial participation. It would be easier for Palo Alto to manage the project since it was within its jurisdiction and it would make the process smoother all the way around. Council Member Fletcher asked whether the study was a cost - sharing arrangement. Mr. Zaner said the study as a result of the work program was to be fully funded by Stanford, not to exceed $50,000, and was included in the requirements for a new Children's Hospital by the Palo Alto City Council. Bill Peterson, 228 Fulton, said previous studies showed that connecting Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real would increase traffic which meant presently existing traffic jams would move into the residential and commercial areas of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Council indicated it wanted traffic barriers to keep traffic from going on Alma but the traffic on Alma would have to go down University Avenue, Middlefield, and Embarcadero which were already full thoroughfares. Stanford University had many development plans down the road and he believed Council was 'buying a pig in a poke." He suggested the whole package be put together with Stanford West, the hotel, etc. and then they look at how they could move traffic through the residential areas of Univerity Avenue, Middlefield Road, and Embarcadero Road and retain the present quality of life. He urged rejection of the proposal.. 59-113 1/04/88 Mr. Zaner clarified that Alma was a City street in the City of Palo Alto, not a County road, and the Council had juris- diction over it. MOTION: Council Member Fatitucci moved, seconded by Klein, to approve the staff recommendation to review and approve the Procedural Framework Work Plan. Council Member Fletcher was strongly opposed to the process earlier. She could go along with some of the recommenda- tions in the Procedural Framework Work Plan, such as identi- fying alternatives and problems, and maybe cost esti►ates, scheduling etc., but under Objective, third paragraph, it said, "As the work progresses, the consultant will meet with the Joint Policy Committee to resolve differing expectations and viewpoints." When they were speaking to different expectations and viewpoints, she believed it was up to the Council to resolve those and not for two representatives from the Council, Council Member Cobb hoped the results received from the con- sultant were more precise and focused than the language in the Work Plan. He believed what. the report was saying was that it would be a process for developing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Council Member Renzel saw the Work Plan as saying the normal public processes showed significant public opposition to the project and, therefore, they should design a new way that dampened the ability of the public to participate and make their concerns known. She had real concerns about that. If they could believe the EIR done the last time the project came through, the project would not do anything wonderful for Palo Alto. It would put 3,000 more cars through downtown Palo Alto, change the level of service from E to F of vir- tually every intersection surrounding the area and affected by it, and she could not sew what benefit that was to their community, not to mention to the damage that would be done to the creekside area. It was clear the connection to Alma Street was within the hands of Caltrans and whatever politi- cal forces were at work there. They saw what Caltran s' word was good for with respect to the southern approach to Dumbarton and would see it again with respect to Alma and El Camino. She objected to the language that said they would describe a process which would lead ::o the completion of the project. She opposed the motion and reiterated her written request for notice of the meetings. Mayor Sutorius associated with Council Member Cobb's comments. 59-114 1/04/88 MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Renzel, Fletcher, voting ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:35 p.m.