Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-16 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES ringsmaisna PALO ALTO CITY COUNCILMEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREQUENCY 90.1 ON FM DIALS-� Regular Meeting October 16, 1989 pAQ' 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Helene 62-190 Wheeler for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Planning Commission Oral Communications 62-190 Minutes of September 11, 1989 62-191 Consent Calendar 62-191 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to David 62-191 Zink -Brody for Outstanding Public Service as a mmiber of the Historic Resources Board 3. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Noel Blase for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Historic Resources Board 4. Task Fore Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District re Non -Point Source Program 5. Amendment to Contract No. C4647 with AdSery Corporation for Claims Administration Services for City Employee's Health Plan; and Amendment to Contract No. C4630 with Pacific Review Services for Pre -Auto ;rization and Utilizati'n Review Servicen for City Employee's Health Plan POLO. ALTO CITY CCUNCIL MEMO ME s.IO CANLICAS7 ON SIMINMEX7 CMOINEL 55 62-191 62-191 62-191 62-188 10/16/89 7. Refuse Administrative and Operational Facilities 62-191 Project 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recoa- 62-192 mendation re Negative Declaration, Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map for Properties Located at Bautista Court, Talisman Court, Talisman Drive, and 3516 and 3530 Ross Road 9A. (Old 8) Ordinance Amending the FY 1989-90 Budget to Create an Additional Appropriation for a Landfill Compactor 11. Mayor Larry Klein Regarding the Global ("ties Project of Earth Day 1990 12, Council Me b rs Sutorius and Woolley Regarding Consolidation of Countywide Organizations Adjournment at 11:25 p.m. to Tuesday, October 17, 1989, at 8:70 p.m. UTO CITY It SWIM M* ALOO CAA =T ON SIT CNANNEl 53 62-208 62-209 62-210 62-210 62.189 10/16/89 Regular Meeting October 16, 1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:35 p.m. Mayor Klein announced that a Special Meeting for the purposes of holding a Closed Session to discuss threatened litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) was held at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Conference Room. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley SPECIAL ORDERS or PAY 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Helene S. Wheeler for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Planning Commission (702-03) (NPG) NOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION 021 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO HELENE S. WHEELER FOR OUTSTANDING P'UBLI'C SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION" MOTION PASSED 9-0, Mayor Klein commended Ms. Wheeler on her wisdom in judging the issue over the years and presented her with the _zz-zded resolution ORAL cQ $ICATIOIls Richard Mandell, 85 Lytton Court, spoke regarding World Peace Through Religious Organisation and the use of controlled substances as sacraments. Louis Sclafani, 88 Howard Street, San Francisco, distributed a report and referred to Fire Report No. 00376 regarding his previous apartment at Oak Creek Apartments which vas burned. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Harbor, specifically the maintenance of the facility. Ptah, 524 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding the homeless, specifi- cally that some lend be set aside to address the issue. 62-190 10/16/89 Mayor Klein referred to Red Ribbon Week, and read a proclamation which spoke to the seriousness of the drug issue, and the activi- ties that would be occurring in the communities. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11. 1982 NOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Renzel, approval of the Minutes of September 11, 1989, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. r&HEEET_CALODAB Item 6 was removed from the Agenda, Council Member Patitucci removed Item 8 from the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve Consent Calendar Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. 2. RES0W Ic 6B26 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DAVID ZINK-BRODY FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD" (702-02) (NPG) 3. RESOLUTION 6827 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO NOEL BLASE FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD" (702-02) (NPG) 4. Task Force Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District re Yon -Point Source Program (1520-01) (CMR:473:9) 5. Amendment to Contract No. C4647 with AdSery Corporation for Claims Adainietaatio i Services for City Employee's Health Plan (501) (CMR:4 7 9: 9) Amendment to Contract No. C4630 with Pacific Review Services for Pre -Authorization and Utilization Review Services for City Employee's Health Plan 7. Refuse Administrative and Operational Facilities Project (1074) (CMR:484:9) Contract with A*fel Construction, Inc. for Phase 1, Construc- tion of Office and Tollbooth; Changan Orders Not to Exceed $19,000. 62-191 10/16/89 1 Contract with Acme Scale Company for Phase II, Installation of a Computerized Truck Scale; Change Orders Not to Exceed $12,000. )IQTIOM PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES. ADDITIONS. . AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill. Zaner announced that Item 8 would become Item 9A. PU$LXC HEARINGS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommandation re Negative Declaration, Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map for Properties Located at Bautista Court, Talisman Court, Talisman Drive and 3516 and 3530 Ross Road (237-01) (C :489:9) Mayor Klein said he intended to hear the public testimony that evening and to continue Council discussion to October 17, 1989. MoTI011s Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Renzel, to limit public testimony to three minutes per speaker. Council Member Patitucci referrid to the vast amount of discussion and testimony already received on the issue, and believed the restriction would be appropriate and might facilitate some Council discussion on the matter that evening. MOTION PASSED 5-4, Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Sutorius, "no." Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen presented models to illustrate the interim R-1 regulations and the differences in floor area ratios (FARs) . Council Member Renzel referred to the remodel exception process condition that 75 percent of the exterior walls be retained, and she assumed it want they were retained as exterior walla. NA. Jansen said that was correct. Council Member Renzel asked about the relationship between the FAR and the building envelope and what happened as the FAR increase. . Jansen said in looking at the daylight plans for front and rear yard setbacks as opposed to a cut of three feet or twenty feet as recommended by the Planning Commission, and if the FAR increased *meths area within which oue could build did not, staff opined the architectural styles would take on a pyramid shape or the shape of 62-192 10/16/89 the area within which one could build if the housing continued to "max out" in terms of its permissible FAR. Council Member Woolley queried whether someone who intended to demolish all or a part of their house needed to obtain a demolition permit. Assistant Building Official Gene Brown said a demolition permit was not required to partially demolish a home but was required for a total demolition. Sometimes a contractor got carried away with a partial demolition and the end result was total demolition. At that point, a demolition permit would be requested from the field. Council Member Cobb referred to the existing definition of a "demolition" and queried whether it was possible to have a different set of regulations for demolitions and remodels. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said the definition built into the current regulations was more related to what was not considered to be a demolition, e.g., a home improvement or a remodel as opposed to a "scrape" for purposes of the exception process. There could be a difference between regulations for one as opposed to the other as long as it was specific enough so each side knew the rules. Council Member Cobb referred to the possibility of stricter regula- tions for demolitions than for remodels and clarified as long as the definition of "demolition" was clear, it would be legal. Ms. Northway did not believe the assumption could be made at that point the current definition was clear enough. It would need to be clarified. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Sally Dawedoff, i256 Dana, said many residents purchased small homes with the intention of adding on when their family needs dictated and when they were financially able to do so. The net effect of the proposed changes would force out families who outgrew tlsir existing homes and could not afford to purchase a larger, ire -existing residence in Palo Alto. Palo Alto had grown into an affluent and dynamic community, and should not be legislated into regression through ordinances. She quoted the observations of it present Planning Commissioner when he was seeking a variance to increase the size of his house, "It is my ernest belief that it is a substantial property right to be able to retain and remain in *y present home and modify it for more comfortable family living." She agreed and urged Council to be mindful of the damaging impacts of the proposed changes, and to reject them. 62-193 10/16/80 i Paul Walker, 1423 Hamilton Avenue, was President of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association, which was composed of 1,700 households. In a recent survey, 25 percent of their residents identified oversized homes as a major concern. Mayor Klein, in his "State of the City Address," said maintaining Palo Alto's diversity was a major concern. The trend to tear down current homes in favor of very large, expensive houses was destroying neighborhood diversity both in houses and in homeowners. He cited three such situations in the Crescent Park area. Council's constituency warted to continue to live in and enjoy Palo Alto. He said developers and investors looked only at the financial benefits of their actions. He asked for help in preserving Palo Alto's neighborhoods. De -Anne Appleton, 567 St. Claire Drive, said her proposed second story was designed under the original regulations, and was redesigned under the interim regulations. Tightening the .45 floor area ratio (FAR) and eliminating the safe harbor of 1,000. square feet would inflict undue hardship on many families. When con- fronted with the interims regulations, the architect, with over 40 years experience, developed several floor plans, but the con- straints of the existing house and their desire to have both children upstairs, left only one viable alternative which was far more complex and expensive to build. She recommended Council adopt the concept of tee interim regulations as permanent. Such an approach would provide residents with some flexibility in satis- fying space needs while still protecting the ambiance of Palo Alto. Stanley Vs j tasa 4157 Solana Drive, moved his family of four to Barron Park in the 1970's into a 1,000 square foot house with a 400 square foot garage. Their previous home had been much larger, but they were willing to compromise on house size in order to live in Palo Alto. His home was now a four bedroom, two bath arrangement, with a total living area of 1,800 square feet plus a 400 square foot garage, giving a total, square footage of 2,200 square feet, which could be built on most Palo Alto lots under the proposed rules. His home could easily accommodate a family of four or five. He had 'iFo sympathy with developers or others who claieed the proposed building restrictions would not permit young families to expand their houses. If a family wanted a 3,000 plus square foot house, they needed to decide whether living in Palo Alto or having a large house was more important. The character of a neighborhood should not be destroyed for the benefit of a few. For those residents with special requirsmenta, the exception process allowed for reasonable requests. He etronlly supported stricter building restrictions. Carolyn Reese, 80 Kirby Place, said the Comprehensive Plan spoke to retaining neighborhood integrity and discoursgirg demolitions and subdivisions. In her neighborhood, there were two projects 62-194 10/16/89 where two houses would be demolished and five houses would be built. The only people who could benefit from the expensive homes would be the speculators and builders. She supported the lower density and the Planning Commission eecommendation as being the only way to stop demolition. John Murden, 1331 Martin Avenue, tried to decide how big too big was. He referred to the project on the corner of Pittman where a 2,500 square foot house would be demolished and replaced by two houses each just under 4,000 square feet above ground. The plan was to put a three car garage under each house the approach to which would have a 25 percent grade. A separation needed to be made between those who needed to expand their existing homesfrom the needs of the speculators and developers to make "a fast buck." Aino Vieira Da Rosa, 951 Lincoln, was & member of the Architec- tural Review Board (ARB) and read a letter which had been submitted by it (on file in the City Clerk's Office), which indicated the proposed regulations were too restrictive and would not have the desired effect of preserving the character of Palo Alto's residen- tial neighborhoods and would lead to odd ball remodels and encourage tear downs of existing houses. Numerical formulas would fail to control aesthetics and promote good architecture. A new home could create efficient floor space but an existing house was penalized by inefficient floor plan and the second story needed to be large enough to warrant stairs and be usable. Shirley Wilson, 509 Male Street, represented the ARB, which supported underground garages if ramps began 20 feet back from the setback line. The ARB recommended Council maintain the currant interim ordinance and impose single family design review for new homes or remodels over 50 percent. Design review within the interim ordinance contrainta would allow for essential flexibility in the building envelope to achieve homeowner's needs while providing the necessary controls to protect neighborhood charac- ter. The ARB suggested a three -member administrative review board for the design process to be comprised of a City staff person hired specifically for the task, an ARB member on a rotating basis, and an architect appointed by the City Council. Palo Alto was not a planned community development, and to maintain its vitality the heterogeneous should bet encouraged. The AR3 urged Council to take an objective leadership position without being overly restrictive on residential construction whether it be remodeling or redevelop- ment. Council was cautioned not to legislate out creativity and cultural growth and not to allow the public to determine so extremely the style in which an individual could live. 62-195 10/16/89 i Doug Pendleton, 1151 Guinda Street, opposed the needless demolition and speculation which was rampant in his neighborhood. He supported the Planning Commission subcommittee recommendation to keep the FAR at 40 percent. Cassandra Moore, 3776 La Donna, urged retention of the present R-1 ordinance. She was philosophically opposed to City government being called upon to intrude into the lives of its citizens. Those who objected to large houses were under no compulsion to buy them or build them. Neither. the Planning Commission nor staff proposed to study the impacts of the Proposed restrictions. A recent housing conference believed restrictive legislation inflated the price of property and made it more difficult for young couples to buy. Young couples unwilling or unable to run the gauntlet of restrictions would not even try. Palo Alto was prided on its concern for affordable housing, and to do nothing but pass restrictions made housing less affordable. Joan Silvers, 816 La Para, purchased her dream house in Palo Alto less than two years ago. Her house was situated on the site in such a manner that it only fac;iitated a small lawn. It was 2,411 square feet, 26 feet tall, covered 26.7 percent of the 5, 820 square foot lot, and the FAR was .41. She was outraged that an official government office arcade her home an object of public derision. The Planning Department published her addrees in the proposed ordinance and took pictures of her home and posted it in the Council Chambers along with 17 others. The attitude towards homeowners with untraditional architectural styles appeared punitive. Without exception, the architectural styles of the houses in question could be characterized as contemporary or post modern. The picture of her house was taken from directly in front of the garage door and driveway making it appear larger than the house actually was. In a community which prided itself on diversity, the tone of the proposals were meant to discourage innovation and entourage rigidity and bureaucratic red tape. Joel Sergquist, 2098 Emerson Street, said there had been a problem with overly large houses being built especially in his neighbor- hood, the same problem did not seam, to exist since the implementa- tion of the interim regulations. He was concerned about an overly restrictive P'AR. If he could not construct a reasonable second story to his two -bedroom, one bath house, he would have to move out of Palo Alto. He suggested Council either adopt the interim regulations or make changes to the Planning Commission recommenda- tion, e.g., retain the 1,000 square toot minimum addition. The setbacks requirements should also be retained status quo. 62«-196 10/16/89 Teresa Nelson, 2392 Cowper Street, said she and her husband needed to remodel their current home to accommodate their two children and could not afford to purchase a new home in Palo Alto. She was concerned about the overly restrictive nature of the proposed regulations and encouraged retention of the interim regulations. Janice Fall, 126 Lowell Avenue, said her two bedroom, one bath, 1,200 square foot house was on a 7,500 square foot lot and was built approximately 65 years ago. Six homes on her block had been demolished in the past three years, and were replaced with five homes. The smaller homes were in terrible condition, and the larger homes improved the appearance of the street as well as the property values. The biggest advantage was there were now eight children on the block that were not there three years ago. She was concerned about the unacceptable risks invoked on the homeowners in trying to design additions. Seth L. Haber, 1375 Pitman Avenue, lived across the street from the home purchased by an absentee owner, John Hanna, who proposed to tear down the 2300 square -foot home and build two 3900 square - foot homes with underground parking at a 25 degree angle. Next door, another owner proposed to replace a single --story home with three large, two-story homes. Countless huge homes were being shoehorned into small lots by developers who had fueled, fired, and hid behind reasonable needs of long-term residents to expand their homes. He proposed Council adopt a five-year, 25 percent plan to apply to all new and remodeled homes that changed the external configuration or size of the home. Internal modeling would not be affected by the plan. If the owner of the home, at the time of remodeling, had not lived in the home for five years, or the time lived in the home before or after the remodeling did not total five years, there would be a forfeiture of 25 percent of the sales price of the home at the time it was sold. The plan would favor the long-term residents and discourage exploiters. Howard Xroyna►nn, 1 Somerset Place, congratulated Council for the time and effort spent on single family regulations, but he believed it would be a mistake to pass the regulations as discussed. He supported extending the existing regulations but objected to the bu1ldosing of homes. People with large families wanted to live in Palo Alto, but if the ability to expand homes ware restricted, they would need to move elsewhere and commute to work here, thereby increasing traffic problems. He read from a 1977 appeal of a Zoning Administrator's variance denial to a Palo Alto resident because he believed it was representative of the present issues. The homeowner, Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch, obtained 41 signatures from neighbors on a petition stating no objections to the plan, appealed the case to the City Council, won the appeal, and eventually constructed an addition which brought the square footage up to 3,900 on a 7,500 square foot lot, ors .52 FAR, at 62-197 1x/16/89 0 4149 Georgia Avenue in Barron Park. Commissioner Hirsch' s home was an attractive addition to the neighborhood, yet it exceeded the proposed FAR regulations by a large extent. Mary Elke, 984 Harriet Street, supported the Planning Commission's recommendations. She hoped there would be an adequate appeal process jor individuals and family situations. People living in the United States needed to consider more humble existences and she believed the City Council should approve the regulations. Theodore M. Olson, 2360 Cereal Drive, said building a garage on a property line, which supposedly was possible to build, was a problem. A 20 -foot by 20 -foot garage at the rear of a property required Ed- inches from the ground to the bottom of the mud sill, plus a door height of about seven feet, a header of about 12 inches, and room for rafters, sheathing, and roofing. He discussed the problem with a contractor living across the street who said the height limit at the property line should not be less than nine - feet six -inches and preferably ten feet to have pitch towards the street to the drain. Hugh Hendrick, 3324 Middlefield Road, distributed a handout showing a picture of the house next to him. Less than six feet away from hie property line was a massiveheight. On the brightest day, he had to have electric lights on in one of the seven roans in his house; it had become a cavern and ha had to abandon the room. He was concerned about the impact of these houeas on adjacent properties and queried at what point an owner of one property had the right to take away the value of the owner of the adjacent property. Two businesses were located there, but the only business address listed for those two businesses was the one shown in the handout. Trucks, employees, and customers had taken a planned comeunity with houses, positioned by the Eichler architect, and changed the block. One option was for him to build up az well. Annette Bialsen, 2015 Byron, said she might wish to remodel apt some time in the future and believed the proposed regulations were over- kill„ Once families moved into larger homes, the landscaping matured and people became used to the sight of the new home. The problem was that people encroached on their neighbors by violating current setbacks and proposed setbacks. She believed the definition of "demolition" should be addressed. If there was a prohibition against putting a new home on the footprint of the old home, they would not have some of the new larger hones too close to neighbors. She asked Council to consider keeping a einimum second -story allowance and avoid the "wedding --cake" appearance created by proposals now before Council. She believed the comments of the ARB were appropriate. 62-198 10/16/89 John Griffiths, 1266 Hamilton Avenue, supported the emergency ordinance passed in 1988 and opposed any exception -type process. He believed the ordinance was working fairly well and the guide- lines should be followed. His home was built in 1929 and met the guidelines of that emergency ordinance. He was proud of the architecture of the home and proud of his Crescent Park neighbor- hood. Crescent Park and the school district had matured and homes that were offensive a few years back were not so offensive after the landscaping grew. Roger Mansell, 550 Santa Rita, watched the Planning Commission ignore input from citizens and put together last-minute, regulations. The Planning Commission, at the last meeting, added a restriction of an eight -foot setback on lots over 60 feet wide that had not been discussed or proposed previously. The only logic given against underground garages came from a staff member who said no one could design a pleasing entrance. The same commissioner who 12 years ago came before Council to increase his lot to over 35 percent coverage and over 50 percent FAR, desired greater building restrictions because affluent -sized houses were not wanted in Palo Alto. He believed Council and the Planning Commission were interfering with inevitable changes necessary for the survival of Palo Alto. He had a big house in Palo Alto and believed the new restrictions would sake him wealthier than his less fortunate ne ighbors . Keith Petty, 1420 Pitman Avenue, remodeled his house three times and believed it fell within the proposed restrictions, except for the second -story. He believed underground garages on small lots were dangerous for children on tricycles and skateboards and were better suited to large, acreage -type lots, not in Palo Alto. Beauty should prevail and local residents needed more input into the process. He was sympathetic to his daughter and son-in-law, to the developer, and to neighbors who would not be able to build under the present regulations. Susan Levenberg, 825 Garland Drive, planned to add onto her house and her application was in the process. She believed the new regulations would encourage knocking down houses, especially on smaller lots because it was easier to start from scratch than to add a moderates second -story addition. Housing needs had grown, and families demanded more space. Those needs should be addressed rather than attempting to ignore, or stifle them. She believed Palo Altan&s were fortunate to live in -a community where the private sector was willing to invest so much money into redeveloping their old homes. Everyone benefited by an increased tax baeae of which the public should be proud. Council needed to retain the 1000 square foot allowance because building an architecturally inte- grated addition to a second -story home without having ability to add more space. than 300 or 400 square feet was impossible. She 62-199 10/16/89 supported the current interim regulations because they satisfied owners of both large and small homes. Liz Raffsl, 1976 Tasso Street, attended the Planning Commission public hearing last month and reviewed the staff report dated October 12, 1989. The final motion recommended by staff was c'ose to the present R-1 interim regulations which she believed were working, so the interim regulations should be retained with one exception: leave the FAR at .45 with a 400 square -foot exemption for all garages regardless of location. The current exemption for detached garages unfairly penalized the majority of Palo Alto residents who had attached garages. She believed the proposed regulations were "over -kill" to a perceived problem. Monstrosities built under earlier regulations of .7 FAR was too generous; however, the problem had been solved with the reduction to .45 FAR. She urged Council to keep the process simple and not confuse matters. RECESS: 9130 CJ(. - 9:4 P.M. Jean Olmsted, 240 West Charleston, said none of the proposed FAR limits were restrictive enough to end oversized house building. Every house in Palo Alto would eventually "max out" to the size allowed by the zoning and there would be no starter homes for growing families. She stressed the importance of choosing a housing size to keep Palo Alto liveable. She believed some people were building single-family homes that looked like multiples -family housing and were loosing things such au privacy, sunlight, places for trees to grow, etc. Shc urged Council to take a long-teza view of R-1 zoning and choose a more restrictive FAR and daylight plane. Phoebe Breesack, 21 Osage Street, Los Altos, worked as an architect in Palo Alto and believed there was a richness to the fabric of Palo Alto housing that was important architecturally. The proposed regulations attempted to find the one solution that struck a balance between individual property rights and the greater good of Palo Alto as a city •The reason the perfect solution was so difficult to find was that one solution was not enough. Size limits alone would never satisfy a two -facet problem: size and appropriateness. The well-intentioned regulations continued to encourage tear -downs over reac2dele. She concurred with the Palo Alto Weedy editorial which asked for specific definitions of what proposed exeeption process would legally allow someone to achieve. Defining "demolition" and making additional allowances for the inefficiency involved in renovating existing housing as opposed to starting from' scratch, were both critical issues. She did not understand why the City was opposed to the ARB process. Council should study the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Street require- ments for guidelines which required a small-scale drawing of the houses adjoining and facing the property being developed to allow 62-200 10/16/89 staff to see the scale and massing of the neighborhood and judge how the proposed project would fit in. Houses must be put into the context of neighborhoods. How Palo Alto changed and grew depended on the Council. George Keiser, 822 Garland Drive, moved into his three -bedroom, two -bath home four years ago. Since they were expecting their third child in December, remodeling hade become an urgent item so they consulted an architect. They met design constraints in trying to assure the house blended in with the neighborhood, protected the privacy of themselves and their neighbors, and maintained sunlight needs for gardening. When the tentative design was compared with the original proposal of the Planning Commission which was for a 40 percent FAR for the first 6000 square feet of lot -size to be followed by a 30 percent FAR, they found there was no way the second floor addition could be built. The Planning Commission proposal for an 8 percent FAR for the first 6000 square feet and a 25 percent FAR for the following footage made a very tight second -floor addition. Since so much thought and effort went into the design of an addition, the exception process needed to be very clear-cut to give people reasonable expectations about whether they would be able to achieve approval. He urged Council to adopt an FAR greater than the proposal of the Planning Commission and to sake any exception process simple and easy to follow. Hill Glazier, 350 Sequoia Avenue, believed the consequences of overbuiidiig in Palo Alto were evident. The majority of citizens wanted something to be done. The Planning Commission thoroughly addressed the issues sand problems. The detailed recommendations presented reasonable and fair solutions, balancing the property rights of homeowners with the interests of the community. He opposed the Planning Commission's subcommittee's initial recommen- dations particularly concerning the FAR because of the impacts the significant tightening of the FAR would have on families and first- time buyers. The as j ority of the Planning Commission's recommenda- tioes addressed many of the 17 problems identified by staff. Three years ago he and his wife bought the worst home in the best neighborhood in Palo Alto and invested a lot in fixing up the 50 - year -old Spanish -style home, preesrving many of the uniq ,a features of the architecture of that period. Their long-range plans had always included expansion by adding a second story which they could tastefully add without impinging on the privacy of their- neighbors or creating a visual eyesore on their street. Over the past 15 years, second -story additions were constructed on several Spanish - style homes on their street which blended in nicely with the neighborhood. If the more restrictive PARs were approve, young families in the City would be discouraged from buying "fixer -- uppers" and renovating them as time and resources allowed. 62-201 10/16/89 1 1 Richard Elmore, 820 Hamilton Street, referred to the letter from the APB ton file in the City Clerk's Office) and indicated his support for the proposal. Some fora of design review was necessary to solve the problems presented. The rules and regulations were good; the interim regulations were fair, workable, and to be commended. The subcommittee did their work well and the interim regulations should be made permanent. Ragni Pasturel, 3853 Grove Court, commended the efforts of the three members of the Planning Commission and the City staff regarding the issue. She believed the Planning Commission's minority proposal was reasonable and followed several months of studying alternatives and first -hared experience of the effect of recent construction with the larger FAR. An FAR of .4 for the first 6000 square feat and .3 FAR thereafter, allowed for a reasonably -sized house to be built; however, the proposed .48 FAR would not solve many of the problems and would not discourage developers from demolishing smaller homes and building to the maxims allowed. Nine of the 50 recently constructed homes in Palo had an FAR of .45 or less under the current regulations; six were slightly smaller; and three could have been built larger. However, she was appalled by the stark contrast between those homes and their neighbors. The smaller homes had lost almost all of their privacy and she doubted anyone would want to live next to the large houses. Housing changes were inevitable as lifestyles and values changed and she hoped the changes would be made gracefully, responding to people's needs while protecting the neighborhood character that had made Palo Alto such an attractive place to live. Nark Thomas, 195 Walter Hays Drive, lived in seven different neighborhoods during his 40 -year residency and bought a house with the intention of adding on to it so it would be adequate for his family. The interim regulations of .48 FAR was adequate and should be kept in place; however, the 30 -foot aetbaack created a problem since his present house sets back 28 feet from the rear lot and he would not be able to use his rear -bearing wall, adding a great deal of expense to an addition upon his home. Upon viewing a neighbors remodel with a twelve -foot plane, he realised the wall would start five feet above the ground on the second floor and have to slope inward reducing the floor area. He believed moderation should be put into the process to allow for specific instances. Thirty-five of his 50 neighbors signed a petition asking that the current interim regulations be extended for another year while the issue was studied. He urged Council to study the problem for a couple more years. Marge Sautxlsrs, 3852 Grove Avenue, supported the Planning Co* is- slon's recommendations and believed the economic pressures would max things out. Cosmetics were an important part of what made Palo Alto unique and must be considered. She preferred to see planned 62-202 10/16/89 reasonably -sized houses with a clear message regarding the exception process and a clear definition of "demolition" and "remodeling." Joseph Hirsch, 4149 Georgia Avenue, did not believe his 1977 variance application was inconsistent With his present position. His options consisted of a two-story audition with no variance, a two-story with variance, or a one-story addition with variance. He rejected the two-story addition as ugly and insensitive to his neighbors by cutting into their daylight plane and privacy. He opted, for a variance to construct a one --story addition with variations. His neighbors signed a petition in support of his one- story addition with a variance. The variance procedure could balance the needs of the individual versus the needs of the community. As a matter of right, there should be a relatively low FAR coupled with a remodel exception process if someone wanted to exceed that right. The exception process was a balancing procedure that allowed owners to appear before a discretionary review process. Janos Zenger, 1830 Fulton Street, had a difficult time sorting out the real issues. She urged Council to draw a line to prevent flagrant abuses of zoning issues but n't limit the freedom and ability to create an environment and home with unique living space for families. James Early, 740 Center, referred to view graphs on file in the City Clerk's office. Julia Keady, 3444 Kenneth Drive, lived in an Eichler home which was added onto by her parents in the late 1960's with a 500 square - foot addition over the garage. Under the proposed restrictions, however, the addition would not be possible. She believed the restriction were anti -family, economically restrictive, and imposed excessive governmental regulations. She supported the young families of Palo Alto. who wanted to improve their present bones, economically. They would have to spend $200,000 more to move into a neighborhood with bigger homes rather than $1001000 to improve their present home. She urged, CCZRs for those neighbor- hoods who desired more restrictions as the Green Meadows neighbor- hood was doing. Linda Scott, 1057 Ramona Street, served on the R-1 Ad Hoc Cnaeeittee and authored a minority report on neighborhood character. One set of regulations could not apply to all of Palo Alto because there were very distinct neighborhoods. If the setback of a block was 40 feet, and all the houses had front porches and the garages were in the back. a replacement structure with a 20 -foot setback and a front attached garage would be totally out of character of the neighborhood because the organisation of the icey elements vas not 62-203 10/16/89 e 1 honored. Although there were proposals to address these issues in the future, none of the changes or ordinances before Council affected those vital issues. The lack of respect for the key elements of neighborhood character was the cost destructive problem facing R-1 neighborhoods. A total of 173 houses were demolished and replaced over the last two years, the equivalent of 12 city blocks. Demolition resulted in the most significant change in a site, and it was essential that the design review of all demoli- tions as well as the review of any addition to the street facing elevation be done immediately to control interference with neighborhood patterns. Small additions did not affect neighbor- hoods as severely as the demolitions and were critical to adequate living space for families. Kevin Fong, 675 Georgia Avenue, was born in Palo Alto and became a homeowner because the City was a great place to raise children. His pocketbook, property values, and flexibility were being compromised by the proposed R'1 regulations. Underground garages helped in the flexibility in creating acceptable homes in neighbor- hoods. He believed that including the FAR in underground garages was ludicrous. As a professionally trained engineer, underground garages ;you?1 be both tastefully and safely constructed and should be encouraged rather than discouraged. Additional design capabili- ties could be utilized without adding visible bulk from the street. George Bradshaw, 255 Campesino, said present rules were already overly restrictive and did not allow a decent addition to a substandard lot. He urged Council to consider the impact on young families who had limited funds but needed more space, and to allow for creativity of small houses on small lots. He objected to developers legally buying a small house, demolishing it, and rebuilding a $700/000 house; however, homeowners who were trying to create their dream home should not be penalized. Karen Bradshaw, 255 Camesino, said her family of seven children had to have more room and she did not feel people living on Pitsan Avenue should be against her trying to snake a 1,000 square -foot house into a 20000 square -foot house. Some of her friends were driven from Palo Alto to Los Altos because neighbors petitioned against remodeling their house to accommodate five children. She could not believe Council would want to force large families out of Palo Alto. Everyone should have the right to add to their house according to their needs. Martin Bernstein, 617 High Street, an architect, referred to his letter of October 12, 1989, (on file in the City Clerk's Office) , and was concerned about the proposed 20 --foot setback fro* the front property line for the second floor. He urged Council to consider alternatives to the proposed regulations. 62-204 10/16/89 Pat Buchanan, 3873 El Centro Street, believed there were too many restrictions. She supported well -designed, two-story houses and was annoyed at citizens who attempted to turn Palo Alto into a museum of the past. Many of the old, post-war, tract homes needed remodeling. The look of the neighborhood might change, but that change could be for the better. When her neighbors remodeled their two-story hone, the landscaping soon made the addition beautiful. Young homeowners needed the right to remodel and a full two-story home was not unreasonable. The loveliest home on Amaranta Avenue was a brand-new, two-story, Spanish -style house, a very refreshing old -look amongst ranch -style houses. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, was gratified the ARB agreed with the need for single family home design review. He believed the proposals of Larick, Allen, Hill were most appropriate because they considered neighborhood differences. The basic principle thet people should not be constrained and what they did on their own property, to the extent they did not damage their neighbors, was well founded in custom and law. He originally believed the .4 FAR was adequate. However, if design review was combined with other restraints, he believed the .45 FAR with single family design was adequate. There were 49 home sales reported in Barton Park in the last year, the average size of which was 1531 square feet, the minimum was 819 square feat, and the maximum was 3000 square. feet. Only seven of those horses were more than 2300 square feet. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, believed Council should adopt one FAR for owner -occupiers and another lower FAR for everybody else because absentee owners built larger, more► offensive and burdensome houses than owner -occupiers. There should be a policy on addi- tional PAR allowed for standard exceptions and discretionary exceptions before determining a general FAR formula. Standard exceptions to such things as garages and attics should be included in the formula for Plus rather than have them as additions. The difference between the 35 percent lot coverage allowed and a typical single -story should be recognized. Staff previously informed Council most single -story houses had a much lower footprint and an FAR of .40 or .45, could still provides a reason- ably sized second -story. The threshold heights in calculating the equivalent second -story square footage should be less than the height permitted at the side setback line by the sideeyard daylight plane. In determining second -story setback, the Planning Commission method limited the height at the setback line of the first story to the first floor, whereas the daylight plane proposal presented as an alternative, would, in effect, provide a higher building at the setback line►. David Negrin, 2080 Tasso Street, supported the Planning Commission recommendation as a reasonable compromise between the legitimate, but sometimes conflicting rights of homeowners and adjacent 62-205 10/16/89 1 neighbors. He believed the proposed regulations were an improve- ment over the interim regulations. He was surrounded by two-story houses two of which were tastefully done. The third was an abomination, impinged upon his personal privacy, and penalized him, economically. He urged Council to approve the recommended daylight plane regulation and setbacks, and to study the matter of trees as presented in the subcommittee draft proposal. Ole Christensen, 788 Clara Drive completed his remodeled home under .the interim regulations. The 1000 square -foot minimum worked well on his 6000 square foot lot and the ground -level floor coverage was 35 percent. He designed a seven -foot setback for the second story which allowed for a lower roof line on the second floor. The sidewall required surewalis for support which added additional costs. He believed Council needed to recognize additional costs and structural supports were needed for wall setbacks, so mole flexibility was needed in the requirements. Mike Fleming, 1159 Lincoln Court, developed, speculated, and designed 24 family homes in Palo Alto. None had been resold in the last 10 years and 68 children lived in those 24 homes; they were not "monster homes." The proposed regulations did not address bad design which was a major problem, but regulated and gave input into balance in tarns of an individual lot in relation to its size. The neighborhood design criteria was good in terms of giving people input and balance in terms of their neighbors. Restrictions on smaller lots was too punitive and would discourage good design. Ugly houses were not caused lack of size restrictions but because of poor design and the proposed restrictions did not address poor design. He urged Council to heed the ARB's comments and consider the recommendations. Additional restrictions would drive up costs because larger lots would cost $50 - $100 thousand more. Richard Gruen, Box 2351, said the FAR was not the differentiating factor; 9 out of 15 of the houses would not be "caught" by FAR restrictions. He could not tell the floor area of a house within 200 or 300 square fest from the street. Most people were concerned by how massive the house appeared. A setback was not the answer because it gave a steep ridge and was not particularly pleasing, but the daylight plane presented a gradual impression from the street. The most important factor was tress which masked a second story. Council should consider putting trees into the proposals. Lois Shore, 507 Jackson Drive, moved from the Northeastern part of the United States seven years ago and was disappointed with the cost of the small three -bedroom, two -bath home she had' to settle for, but which she now loved. She did not want Palo Alto to turn into another "Statten Island" with large houses built on st:all- sised lots. 62-206 10/16/89 John Boyd, 1196 Hamilton Avenue, a 30 -year resident of Palo Alto and an architect, believed the interim regulations were working. He complied with the regulations and completed most of the work to the satisfaction of most families. He urged Council to adopt the interim regulations because the proposed regulations were not fair to many families in Palo Alto and a change was not needed at this point in time. John Mock, 736 Burn Avenue, was concerned about substandard lots not being considered and what speculators would do with the new regulations. Since a person's income was proportionate to the size of their house, and the cost of the house was proportionate to the area of the lot, under the proposed regulations one would be encouraged to maximize their ncome by building the largest possible house on the smallest standard lot. He had presented a proposal on how to establish setbacks and FARs on a neighborhood b lis (on file in the City Clerk's Office) , and staff had proposals to implement approaches to neighborhood compatibility. The one - size -fits -ail approach would not work. The neighborhood approach was better than a straight FAR bmcaue-► regulations needed to be compatible with neighborhoods. Landscaping should be required in the proposal and neighbors should not have to plant shielding vegetation on their side of the fence. He urged Council to consider families in Palo Alto and to adopt the tightest regula- tions possible with design review for exceptions until a more generous zoning on a neighborhood basis could be developed. Lois Vanderbeek, 736 Barron Avenue, was appalled by the ads in the Times Tr kune on the side of developers only interested in making money and not caring about others. People should be looking at how to live amicably with each other, not how much money someone would make by destroying a house and building another one in its place. She thought many small houses should be preserved for their sake and not all turned into big ones andsold at exorbitant prices. Third stories should not be permitted in Palo Alto where they were intrusive. A third -story house built on Madonna in Barron Park was one of the worst offenders. It towered over its one-story neighbors and completely disrupted that part of the 3lock. A maximum height limit should be set that bore some relation to neighboring houses. She invited Council Members to view the house on Madonna, a raw -wood house between Los Robles and Barron Avenue, as an example of how the interim regulations were not working and why they needed a smaller FAR. She supported the .4 FAR and the staff alternative of a daylight plane requirement instead of an additional setback for the front of second stories. She did not think the bulk of the house should be pushed deeper into the lot where it would be more intrusive on the neighbors. Council should institute neighborhood compatibility controls which offered the common ground which people oh both sides of the issue supported. She objected to flag dormers because they were detrimental to 62.307 10/16/89 1 protecting privacy of adjoining neighbors and she urged Council to delete the provision for dormer exceptions, unless the house was on a corner. Strsetscape issues were a lot less important than impacts from side and rear neighbors who had to live with the house's continual intrusion, and she believed houses built in a traditional, colonial -style with a straight front, were fine. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. NOTION TO ADJOURN ITEMS: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to adjourn consideration of Items 9, R-1, and 10, League Resolu- tions of the regular City Council meeting of October 16, 1989, to Tuesday, October 17, 1989, at 8:30 p.m. Mayor Klein clarified the meeting for purposes of consideration of Items 9 and 10 would reconvene on October 17, 1989, at 8:30 p.m. Council Member Sutoriva preferred the meeting begin at 7:30 p.m. as opposed to 8:30 p.m. Item 9 would require extensive discussion and hi would be concerned if Council found itself deliberating on the matter at a late hour. Mayor Klein believed a large number of people wanted to watch both the World Series and the Council meeting, and the later time would accommodate both events. Three or four hours should be ample time to decide the R-1 issue since much attention had already been given to the item. NOTION TO ADJOURN ITEMS 9 AND 10 TO OCTOBER 17, 1989 PARSED 6-3, Cobb, Fletcher, Sutoriva "no." 9A. (Old 8) Ordinance Amending the FY 1989-90 Budget to Create an Additional Appropriation fora Landfill Compactor (1072) (Ct :488:9) Council Member Patitucci was concerned about why a $100,000 budget revision item was on the Consent Calendar, and requested an explanation. City Manager Williaun Zaner said budget amendments were not normally on the Consent Calendar. The original intent was to lease - purchase the equipment but the bids were rejected. It now appeared to be more economical .to purchase than lease the equipment, and thus the budget amendment. Council Member Patitucci clarified the current fund was not adequate to purchase the equipment which was why the budget a ndment was needed. Mr. Zane. said that was correct. 62-208 10/16/89 Mayor Klein queried the savings as projected in the staff report since the $101,000 budgeted as an annual lease cost based on 36 months et payments totaled $303,000, and the purchase price of the landfill compactor was $336,000. Mr. Zaner said comparing the original bid price with the budgeted amount realized a savings, but comparing the annual budgeted amount of $101,000 over a three-year period versus the purchase price of $336,836 for the landfill compactor required an additional. $30,000. Council Member Sutorius contacted staff to better understand the item and believed because the first bids were rejected, the competing bids came in significantly lower than the July bids. The total cost after 36 months in the July bid was $294,490 and the current bid by the same company for the same piece of equipment was $226,836, so the delay resulted in a lower total cash price and a significantly higher repurchase agreement. The cash price guaranteed bye repurchase agreement produced a significant savings over the July bidding. Unfortunately, not all the figures quoted to hies by staff were supplied to Council. MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Fletcher, to approve staff recommendation to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $201,860 for the purchase of a new landfill compactor from Peterson Tractor Company. ORDINANCE 3904, entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR A LANDFILL COMPAC- TOR" MOTION PASSED 8-0, Levy absent. 11. Mayor Larry Klein Regarding the Global Cities Project of Earth Day 1990 (1401) MOTIONS Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to become a member of and support the Earth Day and the Global Cities Project event and to contribute $1,000. MOTION PARSED 8-0, Levy absent. 62-209 10/16/89 12. Council Melberg Sutorius and Woolley Regarding Consolidation of Countywide Organizations (1520-04) MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, to approve the bylaws with the suggestion (not condition) that the annual meeting and election of officers be held in February rather than October. Council Member Woolley said the consolidation of Countywide organizations was a Council priority for the year, and while the bylaws needed fine tuning, there was value in getting the organization going and fine tuning the bylaws later. She urged Council to support the bylaws as presented. Council Member Patitucci queried whether there might ever be a couplets consolidation. Council Member Woolley believed so. There would, however, always be a need for some organization which included the County because under state law there were many ways in which cities had to cooperate :�jth the County. Council Member Patitucci queried why the consolidation decision was to be a section of the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities (LCC) as opposed to a separate division. Council Member Woolley said creating a separate division would essentially leave San Mateo County by itself since San Francisco was not really involved in the LCC, and it was too small to be its own division. More importantly, the consolidation as a section within the division of the Peninsula Division of the LCC was an opportunity for Palo Alto to associate in an organized fashion with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. Palo Alto more than any other city within the 15 cities wanted to stay a part of the entire Peninsula Division rather than splitting off. MOTIOW PASSED 8-0, Levy absent. halam : The regular City Council meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.a. to Tuesday, October 17, 1989, at 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 62-210 10/16/89 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. 62-211 10/16/89