Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-23 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA K SU • FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting October 23, 1989 Oral Communications Ccnsent Calendar 1. Contract with Bank of California for Safekeeping of Investments PAGE 62-216 62-221 62-221 2. Extension of Banking Service Agreement with 62-221 Wells Fargo Bank 3. Contract with Modern Office Machines for Rental 62-221 and Maintenance of Photocopiers; Change Orders Not to Exceed $7,000 per year 4. Contract with Aratex Services, Inc. for Uniform 62-221 Rental and Laundry Services 5. Rejection of Bids for Driving Range Tee 62-221 Expansion 6. Resolution Confil.Aing Existence of a Local 62-221 Emergency Proclaimed by the Director of Emergency Services 62-214 14/23/%s9 LUX 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- mendation Regarding 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 62-221 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- 62-240 mendatior. Regarding Application of the City of Los Altos for a Zone Change and Zone Map Amendment for property at 4260 Suzanne Drive 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- 62-240 mendation Regarding the Application of Steve Pierce for a Preliminary Parcel Map for Property Located at 950 Guinda Street 10. Mayor Larry Klein re Special City Council Meeting on October 30, 1989 adjournment at 11:30 p.m. 62-243 62-243 62-215 10/23/89 Regular Meeting October 23, 1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb (arrived at 8:00 p.m.), Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Patitucci ORAL COMMUNICATIONS City Manager William Zaner referred to a memo in the packet regarding the earthquake on October 17, 1989, and presented updates. All city -owned facilities had been inspected and found to be safe to occupy with no structural damage, but with cosmetic damage to some buildings, including City Hall. Large, private facilities were inspected the night of the earthquake for any obvious hazards to the community, and none were reported. Upon closer inspection, property owners and inspection crews found some structural and safety problems. The bank of America building on Lytton Avenue was closed to prevent the danger from fallen window glass in the event of an aftershock. Two buildings on California Avenue, the Printer's Inc. building and the building next door occupied by the dance studio, needed structural work. On Welch Road, one floor of a building was not safe to occupy. Others might be identified later. The City utility service and PG&E were unable to deliver for a brief period; however power was restored by early morning to a good portion of the City and later iii the day to 100 percent. Excellent cooperation was received from members of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA). Roseville sent eleven people to relieve local line crews. Hetch-Hetchy remained in service and full water service was 'field with no loss of water pressure. A few gasp problems surfaced; the largest was a gas main problem near the Veterans' Administration Hospital. Fortunately, the City had been doing gas work in that area and had a small temporary yard near the hospital with equipment and tools, so crews had equipment readily available. The Utility crews and the Fire Department worked together to restore gas service to people who turned the gas off during the earthquake and to others who called to bring furnaces back on for the cold weather. No communications service was lost at any time. Radio operation and telephone service worked at all times, although it became quickly overloaded since spillover calls had to be 'routed from 911 into the EOC to free operators for radio communication with emergency crews on the street. There were some small fires; a few brush fires in the hills, a few chemical spills in some of the labs up at Stanford, but nothing that our crews were not able to handle. The next day, City Hall was closed until 1:00 p.m. to clean up. While the 62.216 10/23/89 building did not suffer structural damage, on floors four, five, six, and seven, bookcases and filing cabinets were turned over, typewriters and computers were on the floor. The lower part of the building sustained little damage. The patio area in the front of the building was still blocked off as a precaution because some windows in the building were still loose. Many windows could be repositioned and tightened from the inside and that work was in progress, but the patio would be closed off until the windows in the building were secure. The library system came through very well because of the seismic bracing work done on the stacks. Books were on the floor but stacks did not overturn and were not twisted or bent out of shape, no one was injured, and the libraries were back in operation quickly without any real loss in service to the community. The City of Palo Alto was extremely lucky, mainly because the earthquake occurred at the time of day that it did. Many people were able to respond to the Emergency Operations Center, and because our communication system stayed in operation, radio transmission was not lost so people in the field were easily contacted. An auxiliary Emergency Operating Center could operate all of the radios from the Municipal Service Center. A complete set of radios was connected with power supplies and antennas so the operation could be moved to the MSC if necessary. About 25 employees suffered significant personal damage, either their homes had been damaged, in some cases knocked off the foundation, or they had some kind of significant damage to their personal property. Of the 25, some were back to work, some were not. Many were from the Santa Cruz mountain area where the problem was serious. So far, four employees had literally last their homes. All of those employees were now living with someone, either a friend or relative, and were safe. In terms of their continuing as part of the Employee Benefit Program, a counseling service was put into operation where families, employees and members of their family, including children, had access to counselors for psychological or emotional help. Employees who did not report to work had the time charged against paid leave, so those employees who could not get here for whatever reason would be taken care of. Employees who needed additional time would be dealt with on a case -by -case basis to meet with contractors, talk to builders, etc, and those persons would be allowed that opportunity without charging it against their time. They could take a leave -of -absence for the time they need. The code gave him authority to do that for a period of 30 days. If employees needs exceeded his authority, he would return to Council and request additional authority. He instructed department heads to check carefully with employeesand if employees needed flex time, department heads were to authorize it. Employees who had suffered some damage seemed to have more immediate needs for cash. An account was set up in the finance office and employees and members of the community could donate on a voluntary basis. Checks should to be made out: to the City of Palo Alto Earthquake Relief Fund. 62-217 10/23/89 Council Member Sutorius complemented Mr. Zaner for the comprehen- sive report that compressed a great amount of work done by a remarkable organization. He asked about the services the City immediately offered to nearby communities. Mr. Zaner said Palo Alto was very fortunate and suffered much less damage than many other communities and was able to offer assis- tance to others. The City of Los Altos Hills lost electricity and some of its water supply. It used pumps to get the water up to the hillside homes and was concerned about fire danger. Palo Alto immediately dispatched an engineering crew and other personnel to provide assistance, and Pacific Gas & Electric was able to get power back and water service restored, Palo Alto provided a substantial amount of service in Los Gatos. Fred Herman, Palo Alto's chief building official went to Los Gatos the next day, as did police personnel. At no time did the emergency outstrip Palo Alto's internal capability; whatever came up was dealt with and reserves were available. The City of Palo Alto was lucky to have been in that position. Council Member Sutorius said the Calaveras Hydroelectric Project, of which Palo Alto owned 23 percent, was quickly inspected after the earthquake and was fine. Tha testing processes were very critical and the pro j eet was util l zed to deliver electric energy into the Northern California Transmission grid. The testing continued and dispatched electricity into the network through Roseville via remote processes, and, in the six days since the earthquake, had delivered 2.2 million kilowatt hours of energy. A residential house utilized about 15 kilowatts a day, which meant the project contributed to the network serving Northern California, the equivalent of about 147,000 households. In terms of value to Palo Alto; the project was on time and continued to head toward a full production, r ad the test mode plus the cooperation between the onsite personnel and PG&E enabled it to turn electricity into important energy at a time of crucial need. Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon summarized events before, during, and after the earthquake. The City Hall tower had two things going for it that other buildiegs structurally damaged during the earthquake did not have. First, the building was constructed over stable soils, whereas the Marina and the Nimitz freeway which were damaged during the earthquake were constructed over mud, sand, or former landfill sites. A second advantage was the building was retrofitted three years ago to meet the later building standards. Buildings built prior to 1975 used a different technology. Since the 1971 San Fernando Valley earthquake, a lot was learned and buildings built in the mid -70's and later had much ;e stringent design requirements. City Hall was brought up to those standards just three years ago. During an earthquake, it was 62-218 10/23/89 Carmcbed 12/05/89 important to get the seismic force down into the ground as fast as possible. The building was seismically retrofitted by placing sealed plates on the interior walls of the elevator shafts, from top to bottom, to transmit the seismic load down to the ground. Bracing was put in both stairwells so that energy could be transmitted down into the ground and dispersed there, rather than in the building causing any damage. The steel plates were not bent, twisted, or contorted in any way. There was enough clearance for the elevators to run so there was no problem with the steel plates in the elevator shaft. The columns in the basement levels supported the tower and the decking on the plaza in front of the building, and upon inspection, it was found that no new cracks or concrete popped out of the column. Monitoring devices had been placed in the ceiling and in the concrete slab where cars were parked in the lower levels of the building to see if there was any motion or any movement, or if the slab moved off of its ledge. The monitoring devices indicated no movement at all during the earthquake. The facade columns between all the windows which were not a structural element of the building but connected to the building were, however, refastened and none of those fell during the earthquake. Some concrete had fallen off and there was some cracking, but that was not a structural problem and could be fixed. During the retrofit, extra connections were installed to light fixtures, and no light fixtures fell during the earthquake. Most of the ceiling tiles stayed in place during the shaking of the building. Ceiling tile had been replaced with non-asbestic material, and when dust was stirred up during the shaking, there were no asbestic fibers in the air, which was wafer for the people in the building. The initial investigation showed no structural damage to the building. A structural engineer would take a look at the morn inaccessible areas of the building, particularly in the Police Department attic areas to assure the roof was attached properly to the structure. Mayor Klein commended the City staff who were frequently targets of criticism by people who may have some concern with how the City was being run. He believed the City was fortunate to have a group of very dedicated, skilled, highly -qualified people and in the eight -plus yeses he had been on the Council, never was that more evident than on the night of the earthquake. Mr. Zaner referred to the Emergency Operation Center (EDC) in City Hail on A -level, designed just for such emergencies. The dedication of the City employees, all of the City's top-ranking staff, helped in a variety of ways; not necessarily jobs they performed on a day-in/day-out basis, but ones that were necessary in any. emergency. Palo Alto was fortunate; nobody on the staff had to do anything heroic and no one was hurt or had to be rescued. The staff's first move was to go to the. E+DC rather than their homes to see hoes theirr families were doing. Their devotion to service and to the City in which they serve, was very heroic. He thanked the City staff and hoped 62-219 10/23/89 i the thanks of the entire community would go out to staff for a job well done. A positive thing about the earthquake was the spirit of the community; those who heard the calls knew an extraordinary number of people in the community called to volunteer their services. It was nice to know that in times of emergency people rallied to the cause, put aside selfish concerns, and worked together. He believed there were numerous ways to contribute now that the initial emergency was over, such as the Red Cross and the fund for City employees who had been hit very hard. There would be some lessons learned from the earthquake as there had been from every major California earthquake. Mr. Bagdon mentioned the tightening of stand4rds that occurred in the mid -70's as a result of the earthquake of 1971 in Southern California. The City's Chief Building Official, Fred Herman, a recognized expert in the area of earthquakes, was also one of the people who was called in to do an analysis of what went right and what went wrong in the Coalinga earthquake of a few years ago. Palo Alto was lucky, but the City also had planned well. The retrofitting to strengthen City Hall and other City buildings was wise, and the Palo Alto Municipal Code had one of the most stringent earthquake ordinances in the state. While new restrictions may be expensive, the expense would be small compared to avoiding another incident similar to what occurred in Oakland at the Cypress viaduct. Council Member Renzel strongly seconded the remarks of Mayor Klein regarding the professionalism and dedication of the City staff on Tuesday evening. Many were concerned about their families but were dealing with the problems of the City, answering phones and advising people how to take care of their problems. Many people asked the same questions, but staff remained patient and polite to each person who called. In addition to the various things mentioned by Mayor Klein, the police department guided traffic on El Camino and, within a short period of time, put up stop signs where the signals were, so people passed safely through Palo Alto during the rush hour commute and after dark when unsupervised intersections became dangerous. The City owed a great deal of thanks to its staff for what they did on Tuesday night, October 17, 1989. Jim Baer, 532 Channing, thanked City of Palo Alto employees for their support during the earthquake, and referenced the seismic ordinance, specifically Category 1 buildings, and requested support of the City and legislation to rehabilitate the buildings. Maria Kwok, 471 Addison Avenue, spoke regarding R-1 deadline for submittal of plans. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding 1) the October 20 meeting of the candidates for Council meats, specifically the 62-220 10/23/89 Palo Alto Harbor; and 2) that the discussion of the earthquake issue at the beginning of the meeting was out of order. Louis Sclafani, 88 Howard Street, San Francisco, rebutted Fire Report No. 00376. Ptah, 524 Middlefield Road, was concerned the signs at the entrance of the Civic Center appeared as if the building was closed due to the earthquake. CONS CALENDAR LION* Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Levy, to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 - 6. 1. Contract with Bank of California for Safekeeping of Invest- ments (407-01) (cMR:494:9) 2. Extension of Banking Service Agreement with Wells Fargo Bank (407-01) (CMR:493:3) 3. Contract with Modern Office Machines for Rental an:. Main- tenance of Photocopiers; Change Orders Not to Exceed $7,000 per year (603-02) (CMR:495:9) 4. Contract with Aratex Services, Inc. for Uniform Rental and Laundry Services (501) (CIR:478:9) 5. Rejection of Bids for Driving Range Tee Expansion (1323) (CMR:474:9) 6. E „QJTION, 6828, entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY PROCLAIMED BY DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES" (201-02) (CMR:501:9) NOTION PASSND 8-0, Patitucci absent. UNFINISHO BUSINESS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding a Negative Declaration, Ordinance Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map for Properties Located at Bautista Court,. Talisman Court, Talisman Drive and 3 516 and 3530 Ross Road (continued from 10/16/89 and 10/17/89) (237n-01) Mayor Klein announced Council had heard from the public and the public hearing on the R--1 item was closed at the October 16, 1989, meetings Council planned to discuss and perhaps decide... the 62-221 10/23/89 continued item on October 17, 1989, but the meeting was cancelled because of the earthquake emergency. Council Member Woolley asked about the design guidebook which would be the next step after Council made its decisions on the item and whether neighborhood patterns or architectural styles were top priority. Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said the design guidelines would be voluntary and used throughout the exception process which was ultimately adopted by Council. They would primarily focus on neighborhood patterns, but also on architectural styles, particularly in relation to remodels and additions to existing construction. Additions to Eichlers, especially second -story additions, were difficult to achieve. The design guidelines would address acceptable ways those additions might be made. Council Member Woolley queried what would be covered in terms of neighborhood patterns and whether compliance would be voluntary. Me. Jansen said neighborhood patterns included streetscape, predominate setbacks, location of garage structures at the rear of the site, and compatibility of second -story adds `ions within areas consisting of single -story bungalows. The recommendations would be voluntary. Council Member Woolley queried if the eight -foot driveway needed to be an impermeable surface or whether concrete blocks could be used instead. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said the zoning ordinance required driveways not be of mud, dirt, or compressed gra'el that might be tracked over sidewalks and into the street. woncrete pavers, bricks, cobblestones, concrete, or macadam were accep- table. Council Member Sutorius queried if driveway surfaces measuring two feet of two strips with interior space between containing a planted area with a ground cover would become nonconforming driveways. Mr. Herman said the zoning ordinance since 1978 required the full width be paved because oil, dripping, gas spillage from working on a car or changing oil or car transmission leaks must go onto a nonpervious surface. Ms. Jansen said the driveway width would be reduced from ten feet to eight -feet. Council Member Fletcher queried if staff could define paving that would allow variations to allow growth. She had seen brick work 62-222 10/23/89 with plants growing through, and unless one was right on top of it one could not see anything solid at all. She believed the strips with greenery between were very aesthetic. She asked if the ordinance could permit such greenery strips. City Attorney Diane Northway said Council could give staff a direction to rewrite the ordinance and return at a later date. There was a deadline, however, and amendments were required, but staff could do that at a later date. Mayor Klein read Council Member Patitucci's letter into the record on file in the City Clerk's office regarding the R-1 ordinance. Council Member Patitucci did not believe the issues before us had anything to do with "property values" or "property rights". Real estate value was created by two factors: (1) location and (2) saleability. Ho actions of the Council were going to affect where land was located or anyone's ability to sell it. The issue was not "affordable housing". Virtually all increases in prices that had taken place over the past 15 years were due to increases in land values. The price of square footage increased only with inflation. Therefore, housing costs could not be measurably reduced by restricting hew such house was built. The issue was trying to balance the need for residents to build housing to fit their life styles, to protect the privacy of neighbors, to main Ain neighbor- hood and community character, and to adjust to the inevitable change in the community. He was concerned about daylight plane and setbacks because they directly affected design. Building a new house to new setback and daylight plane requirements was easy, but the wrong set of rules for remodels could foster unusual designs or encourage teardowns. He could support a daylight plane that started at a 16 -foot height at the setback lire with 60 degrees for front and rear, and 45 degrees for side yer_ds, and with the 15 - foot linear penetration allowed on each e ice . He opposed the restrictions without the penetration. He opposed the existing daylight plane because of its severe impact on design. The ability to penetrate the daylight plane was a reasonable tradeoff for a lower starting height, and it would permit more flexible design. The Current FAR proposal of the Planning Commission was acceptable. He previously supported a .4 FAR with 400 square feet :for a garage, which would produce 2,800 square: feet on a 6,000 square -foot lot, where the current proposal allowed 2,880 square feet. He still preferred the allocation of space to a garage in order to avoid large houses being built with s --car garages or carports. He believed 2,400 square feet of living space produced an adequate size home for average family needs in Palo Alto. The Planning Commission proposal to decrease the square foctege for lots over 6,000 square feet was acceptable, although he preferred .3 rather than .25 for the lot sizes of 6,000 square feet. As the size of the lot increased, it was not necessary to proportionately go up in square footage. He discouraged Council from imposing the severe 62-223 10/23/89 As Corrected 12/05/89 I tions on square footage. He opposed any concept to tighten the FAR but allow more FAR on an exception basis; for example, to allow FAR increases for remodels by homeowners rather than by "developers." He did not believe Council should establish such tight restrictions that forced everybody through an exception process. The proposed exception process as presently defined and the variance procedures were adequate. He endorsed the exception process and hoped it would expedite minor remodels; however, additional FAR should not be permitted in this process. The proposed study_of neighborhood character offered an opportunity to get neighborhoods more involved in the City's regulatory process, and he endorsed the concept of studying neighborhoods to see what identifiable characteristics differentiated them. He believed there should be Citywide regulations, combined with overlays for specific neighborhoods where single -story, setback, garage placement, etc.- could define the neighborhood's character. Council Member Cobb noted the community was divided on the R-1 issue. Council had heard from people upset because of the excesses of some homes that had been built, and from people who had a legitimate need to expand small homes to meet the needs of growing families. He questioned whether one set of numbers could work in every area that had homes and neighborhoods as diverse as Palo Alto. He believed the Planning Commission's majority proposal suffered from a lack of flexibility, and the minority proposal was much too strict and put an undue burden on the families who would like to expand homes on smaller lots, and the selection of either would perpetuate the divisions seen over the last several eenths. He favored a fairly strict floor for protection against excesses that had occurred, yet a flexible system with a discretionary process which was easier, faster, and less costly than a variance and with a ceiling somewhat higher than the Planning Commission majority recommendation. He believed a design review for demoli- tions was one additional barrier to the destruction of homes not needing to be destroyed. He supported staff ideas with respect to the daylight plane. He cross -plotted some plots he borrowed from Planning Commissioner Beecham with the 15 homes used as problem home examples against different FAR formulas to illustrate the effectiveness of the different formulas. The interim regulations would have stopped five of the 15 houses: the Planning Commission minority recommendation would have stopped all 15 houses; and the Planning Commission majority recommendation would have stopped 12 of the 15 houses. Council Member Levy said the issue was larger houses and he believed the 45 to 50 percent FAR was too large. The greatest problem was with second stories because in all of the hearings, he heard no complaint about single -story houses or the present standard of the .35 lot covera9e; therefore, he supported limiting second -stories, but being liberal with ground floor build -outs. 62-224 10/23/69 He believed either recommendation for the 6,000 square foot lot, and freezing the second -story allowance, no matter how large the lot would be, but allowing the ground -floor coverage of .35 to be continued would result in slightly larger homes in terms o47 overall square -footage, but significantly smaller second stories which would significantly limit the impact. His neighborhood consisted mostly of 6,000 square -foot lots with single -story homes, built to a maximum .35 lot coverage. Most had four bedrooms and two baths, and included a decent -sized kitchen, a family room, a living room, and in some cases, a separate dining room. Houses with a .40 FAR on a 6,000 square -foot lot could have five bedrooms and three baths and could accommodate larger families. He believed landscaping was the most important follow-on project that had been recommended, both in relation to tree retention and the :development of land- scaping standards. An Architectural Review Board review for single-family homes was unwise because it was too time consuming, tno (lastly, and too difficult for individual homeowners who were not ,.esign professionals. If an ARB review process or anything similar were required, it would open the door to recurring appeals anr; neighborhood animosity. In a residential area, factors such as landscaping and level of home maintenance were often more important than the architecture. He differed with Council Member Cobb regarding the revel of flexibility that should be built into the ordinance. He believed it bes:-. to have firmordinances that defined the rules for both the homeowners and the neighbors so they would know what to expect; exception procedures and variances should be for exceptional cases and should not allow for a great deal of judgmental interplay based on the case of a particular homeowner who may live there for only a short time, move, and leave. Council Member Woolley was satisfied with the range of recommenda- tions presented and was comfortable with a .45 FAR for the first 6,000 square feet with the excess at .25 zAR. She was concerned about getting involved in a design review process with a range dependent upon the success with which a project passed. In Palo Alto, it would require a public process which was incredibly time consuming. If it was an administrative process, a real problem would . be deciding who the players would be. Those two practical concerns indicated any discretionary process involving the FAR would be difficult to handle, especially when the design review guidelines were not in place. She was concerned about dropping neighborhood patterns and believed the most intrusive part was the garage placement. She believed the garage of a house which was voluntarily demolished should have the same placement as the existing garage, and if relocated, it must be 10 feet from the front of the house to address the problem in the older part of Palo Alto, without affecting areas which already had garages in the front. 62-225 1.0/23/39 1 Vice Mayor Bechtel agreed with staff on retaining the six-foot sideyard and on the front and rear yard daylight plane. She agreed with Council Member Patitucci's point that we should not have an exception process that would include FAR; however, she would support a limited exception process. She opposed ARB or design review of the single-family residences, either for demolition or for any other purpose. As to the FAR, she had been looking at different properties and essentially supported the Commission minority recommendation which was a .45 FAR of the first 5,000 square feet and an excess at .30 FAR. Mayor Klein believed setting a philosophy would be helpful, and although he disagreed in detail with Council Member Patitucci he admired his statement of the philosophy. He believed the issue was one of balancing and not one that was apocalyptic. Some houses in the community were oversized and Council tried to find the right balance. Philosophically, he did not believe any of the proposals were anti -family or that families would be driven out of town. Neighboring communities had similar restrictions already in place, and in some cases stricter rules. Palo Alto was not a community of big houses of 6,000 or 7,000 square feet, except in the foothills area where people had 10 acre minimum lots. In the 1950's and 1960's, Palo Alto prided itself on be g a community where people of all incomes could find housing. Although that opportunity was no longer possible, he did not want Palo Alto to become an enclave of the wealthy. The question was how to balance the needs of those property owners who wanted to expand their homes and the majority of Palo Altans who wanted to retain the long- standing character of the City. While his views were similar to those of Council Member Woolley and Vice Mayor Bechtel, it was difficult to judge whether the FAR for the first 5,000 or 6000 square feet should be .45 or .43, and he was prepared to go either way on such issues. He was more concerned about what type of exception process there should be, and whether there should be a strict set of numbers and a limited exception process, or whether the FAR should be stricter than that proposed by the Planning Commission and have e lenient exception process that would include FAR. While he saw advantages to a more liberal exception process, people should have certinty in the law and know what they could and could not do. Staff could become overburdened by a large amount of .exception applications and Council could become overbur- dened by a large number of appeals of exception applications. Council needed a sufficient amount of time to deal with the big picture and not have to be involved on a block by block basis in the community. While the suggestion that there be a design review for all single family homes had some appeal, he believed there was too much variation as opposed to the commercial industrial area. While there was some truth to the comment that a well designed big house did not intrude upon neighbors, he believed size restrictions were appropriate. The numbers put forth by Council Member Woolley 62-226 10/23/89 and Vice Mayor Bechtel were close to what he could support together with the other rules and recommendations made by the Planning Commission. Council Member Renzel said the average present FAR on the ground was approximately .27, and a .40 to .48 FARs under the interim regulations, was a significant increase in the density in the R--1 zones. She was more inclined to support the Planning Commis- sion subcommittee's FAR recommendations of a .40 and .30. She was not adverse to an exception process with a limited amount of FAR, perhaps up t- five percent of the first 6,000 square feet or something on that order for extenuating circumstances or par- ticularly good design, but as a matter of right, there should be some stability and predictability when someone purchased in a neighborhood, that the surroundings would not change radically. She agreed with lowering the daylight plane and the exemption, and with establishing a daylight plane rather than a setback for the front and rear. It was important to note the relationship between the FAR and the building envelope and that the higher the FAR the more buildings would resemble the building envelope, e.g., the daylight planes, side yard setbacks, etc. She believed if the City went to a restricted enough daylight plane, people who were either remodeling or rebuilding homes would be more creative and sensitive in their design to the adjoining neighbors and would not be pressured to go to the full extent of the envelope. She agreed with Mayor Klein in terms ci the issue of family. The existing .27 housing stock supported more than twice as many children as there presently were in Palo Alto. With the extensive building in the community in the last four or five years, the school district enrollments increased slightly but those reflected the Tinsley enrollments. If those were subtracted out, the population in the schools had probably reduced. She did not see the bigger homes generating more children for the schools. She was intrigued by Council Member Levy's proposal to limit second stories and supported Council Member Woolley's proposal to get garages back from the front face of the house. Council Member Fletcher said it was clear to her the .45 interim regulations allowed many oversized, intrusive homes. She supported a .40 FAR. If the City continued to allow oversized homes, the character of many of the neighborhoods would be lost and the nature of Palo Alto would be changed. Council Member Satbrius strongly supported the staff recommendation for the 6O degiees angle daylight plane for front and rear yard setbacks. He also supported the recommendation . to delete the eight -foot side yard setback for lots 60 feet or greater to avoid differing standards in the various overlay zones. He also supported applicant verification, daylight plane and the amendment regarding noncomplying provisions. He commended staff and the 62-227 10/23/89 1 e Planning Commission for the outstanding effort applied to the subject, and he commended the citizen participation. Regarding FAR, he did not believe any of the levels discussed would positively affect aesthetics and design. The daylight plane recommendations and particularly the front and rear proposals were fundamental design regulations that would positively affect how things could be suited to the envelope. He referred to any of the homes singled out as being excessive or frustrating to the passerby, and believed the daylight plane would have made a dramatic change in the appearance of what was perceived as excess. The regulations would have the greatest impact on remodels. He did not see a problem on a vacant lot when starting from scratch. Any active discussion of another definition of "demolition," needed more consideration. In terms of balancing equity and fairness, his priorities were the homeowner and the adjacent property owners. Any property in direct line of sight as well as the homeowner of the applicant party were the ones affected every day of the year. The potential for more demolitions would occur as regulations became more restrictive. He supported the .48/.25 recommendation of the majority and would consider a .45/.30 but believed an exception process was fundamental. Regarding an exception for incidental square footage associated with accommodating the stairway, etc., but not any increase in FAR beyond those incidental square feet, he suggested there might be a bonus of additional FAR related to & reduction in the site coverage or a holding off of going to the maximum of site coverages e.g., if a ground floor was held below an allowable 35 percent site coverage, there should be a mechanism to allow it at the second floor. Back yard space was precious to the homeowner and to iemediate neighbors. The additional opportunity for landscape, nature trees, light and air and a sensitive envelope being provided by the use of daylight planes merited an encouragement not to use up the full ground floor that could be occupied by a full 35 percent site coverage. EC S : 9:30 p.11, - 9;0 pee. XC?IORs Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded oy Klein, to adopt the Negative Declaration. MOTION MSS= 8-0, Patitucci absent. IOM: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, to approve staff recommendations as follows, with the exception that the floor area ratio (FAR) requirements for the R-1 and R -E zoning districts be changed to provide that the maximum FAR for lots 5,000 square foot or less shall be .45; and that the maximum FAR for lots greater than 5,000 square feet shall be .45 for the first 5,000 square feet and .25 for all square footage in excess of 5;000 square feet, and further including the revised staff alternative 62-228 10/23/89 proposal number 1 specified in the memorandum to Council, dated a'tober 16, 1989, which specified the daylight plane. 2. Adopt ordinances for amendments to the text of the R-1 and R -E regulations and to the zoning map with the following amendments: a) b) c) d) Incorpoa ation of a 60 degree angle daylight plane for front and rear yard setbacks in lieu of the proposed 30 foot setback requirement. Deletion of the eight foot side yard setback for lots 60 feet or greater as recommended by the Planning Commission. Requirement for applicant verification of daylight plane regulations. Amendment of the proposed noncomplying provisions to permit replacement in kind for nonwillful destruction only, i.e., would not apply to demoli- tions. Adoption of the ordinance is based on the following findings: a) The ordinances will have no significant environmen- tal impact, as documented in the attached Negative Declaration, in that the regulations are designed to encourage neighborhood compatibility by reducing bulk and mass of new and remodeled single-family homes, bringing them into scale with their surround- ings. b) The change of district boundaries will be in accord with the purposes of Title 18 and in accord with the Palo Alto Co prehensi'.,e plan in that it will protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto's neighborhoods especially desirable by requiring that new development in those areas affected by the change be accomplished compatibly and in scale with existing neighborhoods. 3. Directing staff to undertake the four follow-up studies described in the August 4, 1989 staff report, in the following priority order: a) Consultant preparation of a new single-family submittal guidebook containing design guidelines for identified neighborhoods and variable architectural styles. 62-229 10/23/89 i Follow-up implementation on the front yard setback survey and redesignation by blockface in single- family neighboncc,ds of street -specific, front yard setbacks (where substantially greater than 20 feet). c) Adoption of a tree retention ordinance. d) Consideration of a single-story/expanded lot coverage overlay zone, including neighborhood outreach, to address those areas of the City currently limited by private deed restrictions to single -story, and desirous of adopting City zonirg regulations requiring such. 4. Direct staff to revise the engineering standard now used in administering the Federal Flood Insurance Program to allow for no more than a one -foot grade differential between properties in R-1 zones, as described in the August 25, 1989 staff report. Ordinance 1et Revd g entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF :THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AS FOLLOWS: DELETING CHAPTER 18,13, AND AMENDING SECTION 18.04.030(15) , 18.04.030(44) , 18.04.030(65) , 18.08.020, 13.'8.030, 18.10.050, 18.10.060, 18.10,080, 18.12.090, 18.83.060(B), 18.83.080 (TABLE 10), 18.88.030, 18.88.040, AND 18.94.100" OrsUnanccL. lst .Reading entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO REZONE CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FROM THE "R-1 (SUB)" TO THE "R-1" ZONING CLASSIFICATION" Vice Mayor Bechtel believed the motion was a good balance between protecting existing neighbors and those who wanted to add on or remodel their homes. Under the proposal, on a 6,000 square -foot lot, one could build approximately 2,500 square feet, including a garage, with more allowed on a larger lot; and, on a 5,000 square foot lot, one could build a 2,250 square -foot house both of which ware reasonably sized houses. Council Member Woolley said the subject of retaining diversity in Palo Alto was difficult, but there was something to be said about retaining the diversity in the housing stock. She urged support of the lower FAR. Council Member Cobb queried the evidence that tighter restrictions on small lots encouraged demolitions. 62-230 10/23/89 Ms. Jansen said staff had no evidence that any of the ranges before the Council would encourage or discourage demolitions. Council Member.. Cobb asked Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch to clarify the minority positior that the way in which to justify the more restrictive regulations on the smaller lots was to have a discretionary process. Commissioner Hirsch said the Planning Commission minority supported a relatively liberal remodel exception process as a means of balancing the interests of the property owner versus the adjacent property owners. In the process, each party could present their arguments for or against some addition over and above the FAR and why it should or should not be permitted. Council Member Cobb did not oppose a "stiff" floor but had difficulty supporting more restrictive measures on the smaller lots without some kind of more liberal exception process. He did not believe the issue was the same on the larger lots, but in the smaller lots under 6,000 square feet, he would be more comfortable supporting some kind of simple bonus process. Council Member Levy asked what the FAR reductions amounted to on the various lot sizes. Mayor Flein said there was a maximum difference of 250 square feet at the 10,000 square -foot level to a difference of 50 square feet at the 6,000 square -foot level. Council Member Levy was more comfortable with the subcommittee recommendation which resulted in a .40 FAR up to 6,000 square feet and tailored off after that, The motion recommended a .45 FAR on the 5,000 square -foot lot, which was about the same on a 6,000 square foot lot and it tailored off sharply thereafter. He believed the .45 FAR homes at the 5,000 square foot level were intrusive. Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Levy in terms of the .45 FAR on the 5,000 square -foot lot. While her house of 2,130 cuare feet, including the garage, was very livable, she was not sure it belonged on a 5,000 square -foot lot. Most neighbor- hoods with 51009 square -foot lots typically had much smaller homes. In the north part of Palo Alto, there was a Comprehensive Plan program to try and discourage the demolition of the houses. She was concerned about the incentive to demolish with a .45 FAR would be great in the northern area of town where there were so many 5,000 square -foot lots. 62-231 10/23/89 e i AIEExDNT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to reduce the FAR on a 6,000 square foot lot to .40 and thereafter a .30 FAR. Council Member Fletcher said even though the daylight plane requirements would help significantly, she believed the actual lot coverage was at the heart of the matter. The amendment would allow for reasonably sized houses. Council Member Sutorius was concerned about discussing FAR with a variety of motions because the main motion had not included any follow up discussion on areas of concern. He was concerned the amendments would lead to discussions regarding demolitions and other aspects of the main motion and premature decisions regarding the FAR. Based on the discussions to that point, he opposed the .40 FAR to 6,000 square feet and a .25 thereafter as extra- ordinarily and unnecessarily restrictive. Council Member Renzel disagreed on the restrictive nature of the FAR but believed it would result a livable house size. In terns of the other parameters of the zoning ordinance, she had not seen a diversity of comments. There seemed to be general agreement in terms of setbacks and daylight planes, and the Planning Commission subcommittee held 13 meetings and had many tours of houses to arrive at its recommendation. In general, the package was balanced, and she was willing to look at other changes if the package became unbalanced. She believed the FAR was the most important parameter with the daylight plane in a close second. Council Member Sutorius said the Planning Commission majority recommendation was for a .48/.30 and an exception process that did not have additional FAR opportunity other than the incidental FAR created by retaining the structure and compatibility aspect. The Planning Commission minority recommended there be a better opportunity in terms of additional FAR through the exception process. Council was dealing with a narrow .40/.25 proposal, and nothing was said about the associated exception processes. He believed it was dangerous to arrive at such a restrictive FAR recision without understanding the flexibilities beyond those numbers. TO AMIEMDIMITt Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Sutoriusto provide for an exception process to allow a 600 square foot maximum on a 6,000 square foot lot. Council Member Cobb could not support the limits being proposed without same kind of exception process. He would rather have started at a .43 rather than a .40, but there needed to be an exception process to allow a total FAR exception up to a maximum of .50 at 6,000 square feet and which would follow a parallel path 62-232 10/23/89 to whatever the curve was thereafter. The exception would allow a discretionary ban between the .40 and the maximum of .50 of the first 6,000 square feet. The grounds would have to do with the issue of "neighborhood compatibility/acceptability" patterns but they had not yet been defined. The intent was to allow the smaller properties to get to a little more generous situation up to about 6,000 square feet. Thereafter, he did not believe it was as important because at that point the overall size of the home was so large. Vice Mayor Bechtel believed to give a 600 square foot maximum for a 5,000 square -foot lot and a .40 would end up with a 2,600 square foot house on a 5,000 square foot lot which was higher than the Planning Commission majority or minority recommendation and just about as high as the interim regulations. She believed the exception process for exceptions to FAR for dormers, stairways and architectural features was sufficient as listed on page 14 of the ordinance, Council Member Menzel believed 600 square feet was too iuch of an exemption. She would support a 300 square foot exemption process for lots up to 6,000 square feet and no exemption for lots greater than 6,000 square feet. Council Member Sutorius supported tnt ex-eption process. AM NDMIMT TO AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Cobb, Sutorius voting "aye." AMAX TO AMEMDIIENT* Council Member Renzel moved that for lots 6,000 square feet or less to allow a floor area exception process for 300 square feet. AMEP T TO AMIMDMMUT DUD for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Bechtel referred to Council Member Cobb's concern about the smaller lots and believed the main motion of a .45 really addressed the matter by allowing 2,250 square feet out of a 5,000 square foot lot, and 2,375 for a 5,500 square foot lot which was adequate for a smaller lot. She encouraged support of the main motion. City Attorney Diane Northway clarified that any changes that Council made to R--1 were also intended for R -E. AMT FAILED 3-5, Fletcher, Renzel, Levy "aye," Patitucci. absent. Mayor Klein referred to page 4 of the staff report (CM 1:489:9) , and said the maximum house in the R --E zone would be 7,000 square feet, 62-233 10/23/89 which equalled the adjacent Los Altos Hills maximum and more generous` than the 6,000 square feet imposed in the City of Saratoga. AMEMDMMITs Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Woolley, to revise the maximum size of a perm eaible hone in the R-1 and R -E zones from 7,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. Council Member Sutorius said the Planning Commission did not respond negatively to the 7,000 square foot limitations, and Los Altos Hills had cut back to the 7,000 square feet maximum. Council Member Levy clarified the`largest house that could be built in an R -E zone was 6,000 square feet, and he queried how large a lot would need to be to have a 6,000 square foot house. Mr. Schreiber said a 20,000 square foot lot would yield a 6,000 square foot house, or a little less than one-half an acre. Vice Mayor Bechtel said the Planning Commission chose the 7,000 square foot figure because it was the same as Los Altos Hills. There were only two R -E neighborhoods in Palo Alto, one was on Miranda by Gunn High School and the other was in the foothills but not in the US zone. The Town of Atherton had a 6,000 square foot limit. She supported the amendment. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Ms. Jansen said there was no evidence that Palo Alto had anywhere near 6,000 or 7,000 square feet in the R -E zone. The houses were considerably smaller. The reason the cap was placed by adjacent communities was they had seen significantly larger hillside homes than what were compatible. Which number was correct was not considered by the Planning Commission because it was significantly greater than what existed. Commissioned Hirsch said the present ordinance proposed a 7,000 square foot limit which was arrived at by a split vote at the Planning omission with the minority not knowing how the 7,000 square foot number was arrived at. Council Member Woolley said the R -E lots would conceivably be less than a couple of acres and based on the other communities, a 6,000 square foot house was probably way out of line. She supported the amendment . Council Member Sutorius referred to the City's overlay zone in the R--1 district and a email area in Palo Alto where 20,000 square feet was the minimum lot size. He clarified it was possible to end up 62-234 30/23/89 with an FAR that in an R-1 overlay zone could yield more square footage than in an R -E zone. LAEmmAOE TO INCLUDE A 4,000 SQUARE P00T AUBT*ICTION IN R-1 BORER INCORPORATED INTO NAIR NOTION EY 1A*1E AID SECOND AXINDN~SIT PASSED 7-1, Levy "no," Patitucci absent. Council Meer Woolley referred to neighborhood patterns and the upcoming stedy and guidebook. The guidelines would only be voluntary. When it came to single family houses, emotions ran higher than that of any other issue. She was not sure the City would achieve voluntary compliance with a set of guidelines. She was concerned about garage placement. A (!WDMZNT: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, that the garage of a house which was voluntarily demolished may have the placement of the existing garage; or, if the garage was relocated, it must be set back at least 10 feet from the front of the house. Council Member Woolley clarified the house would be voluntarily demolished, and the definition of "demolition" would be as contained in the ordinance for the exception process, e.g,, if 75 percent of the walls were not retained or not replaced with new material to reconstruct the same building and 25 percent of the roof frame was not retained, it would be considered a demolition. Council Member Sutorius asked about unintended consequences of the amendment. Ms. Jansen said if other alternatives were available, staff would resist setting up a variable on a per lot basis that was relative not to a setback but simply to the placement of the home:, and the adminis,ration of "voluntary" replacement of an existing garage. Although the intent and desire about special provisions was under- stood, there were many discussions with the subcommittee to avoid setting up a variable on a lot by lot basis. Council Member Woolley believed the subcommittee wrestled with the problem of garage placement and cane up with the idea of a 400 square foot bonus if a detached garage were placed at the rear. People felt that was an injustice tohouses particularly in South Palo Alto where the garages as a pattern tended to be at the front. The problem remained about what to do with a brand new house where the garage was placed in the front yard particularly in the older neighborhoods. Her amendment was an effort to address that problem. Vice Mayor Bechtel supported the Planning Commission recommendation because page 12 of the ordinance contained a restriction on the 62-235 10/23/89 1 numbers of feet of garage door which considered some of the problem which bothered sone people particularly in the Crescent Park area. Although she understood the thrust of the amendment, there had been a lot of discussion at the Planning Commission level. She opposed the amendment. Council Member Fletcher understood the intent of the amendment and believed it was aimed at the two -car garage situation. She was not sure whether the limit as contained in the ordinance would (Insider the problem. She suggested the requirements be an "x" number of feet from the front setback so as to not be a problem with houses that were further set back and that it be a blanket requirement after demolitions. Council Member Woolley said the word "voluntary" was suggested by the City Attorney because it distinguished between a disaster and someone who was allowed to rebuild which was different from a demolition which was not the result of a disaster. She was not sure she understood staff's problem with regard to the setback because to her it seemed easier to calculate the setback from the house from the plans rather than a setback from a property line. Ms. Jansen said while 98 percent of staff's conversations with people were before plans were prepared, staff did not see the plans until after they were submitted, The proposal would require staff to see the plans before determining where the garage should be located. Initial inquiries to staff were related to setbacks and not to where the front facade of the house should be located. There needed to be a provision for staff to tell an applicant their front yard should be 20 or 30 feet or whatever it might be and the house needed to be within whatever parameters were set. The proposal was such that until staff saw the plans, they could not tell an applicant to make the determination whether to voluntarily remove an existing garage located in the rear setback area. The provision would be difficult to explain to the public and one they might never know about until after the plans were prepared. Council Member Levy believed the proposal was a design element and should be considered in the follow up study to develop design guidelines. He opposed the amendment. Council Member Sutorius opposed the amendment. AMINDMI!r FAILED 2-6, Renzel, Woolley Faye," Patltucci absent. A8(#MIONSIT: Council Member Levy moved to limit all second stories to a maximum of 1,250 square feces Council Member Levy said the basis for the second story number of 1,250 square feet was a 6,000 square foot lot which would enable 62-236 10/23/89 a 2,500 square foot house to be built. The number would not affect the total FAR only the second story build out. In terms of intrusiveness, the issue was the second story. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACE OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to amend the FAR for the first 5,000 square feet from .45 to .48. Council Member Renzel believed a .48 FAR was too much as a matter of right on a 5,000 square foot lot. She opposed the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-6, Cobb, Sutorius "aye," Patitucci absent. Council Member Cobb supported everything before the Council except the FAR formula. He would have preferred the discretionary prot;.ess and since it did not pass, he had trouble supporting the motion. There would be exceptional cases on which the door would be closed in some instances. AMENDMENT: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to revise Section 21 of the ordinance to delete the following language "that provisions hereby enacted shall be effective from and after October 23, 1989 at 5:00 p.m.; and provided, further..." AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Patitucci absent. Council Member Levy was frustrated that Council gent further than it needed to for the lots above 6,000 square feet. For example, the present FAR formula on an 8,000 zquare-foot lot maximized the FAR at .38. There were complaints when houses were above .45 FAR and greater, and there were few complaints about houses below a .40 FAR. A ,38 FAR meant almost the whole house could be built as a single story. The City tried the .40 and .30 FAR concept, and he believed .30 would be more fair. The present proposal was a .45 and .25, and while .45 was as high as he wanted to go for the smaller homes, he w.auld have preferred some formula to enable the person with an 8,000 or 10,000 square foot lot to build a larger hone. ANENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius, that the FAR above 5,000 square feet be .30 rather than .25. Council Member Menzel opposed the motion and believed Council Member Levy 's comments were predicated on the premise that the lots were all the sane size in a given neighborhood. In many neighborhoods, large lots were adjacent to smaller lots and the differential FAR brought hie -size comparability within a neighbor- hood. She believed an important concept, from a planning point - of -view and in terms of preserving neighborhood character, was to 62-237 10/23/89 not have an overwhelmingly large house next to a much smaller house. Council Member Levy believed one of the appealing parts of Palo Alto was diversity, not conformity; and he welcomed having a diversity of house sizes as long as they did not become overbear- ing. Council Member Sutorius said the .30 FAR incorporated and pointed to the right differences. The 250 square -foot enlargement for a home on a 10,000 square -foot lot could not be seen from the atreetecape, and an adjacent neighbor would not notice it. Most of the homes on 10,000 square foot lots were in overlay zones which had larger setbacks. The opportunity for flexibility in the revised form of .45 and .30 FAR headed more toward Council Member Cobb's concerns, but would not change the FAR for a 5,000 square - foot lot. Council Member Woolley agreed with Council Member Sutorius that minimal square feet were involved and 250 square feet probably would not make a lot of difference in the design; however many lots obtained square footage from the depth of the lot. Her lot was 50 feet wide and 200 feet deep, so there was a tremendous amount of coverage and a very large FAR, The homes were built toward the front, so from the streetscape the impact was tremendous. Por that reason, she opposed adding the 250 square feet. Council Member Sutorius believed streetscape impact should be weighed against providing a *roper balance to the property owner and mediate neighbors. Jackyards we • e enjoyed by all. The mature trees, the landscap"',q, the light and the air, were all very important to people living there 365 days a year. Large homes, bulk, and mass were talked about a gnat deal and under the interim regulations, a 4,500 square -foot home could be built on a 10,000 square -foot lot. The proposed amendment reduced it to 3,750 square feet, a significant percentage and total square -foot reduction. AMEW FAIL 3-5, Cobb, Levy, Sutorius *aye,', Patitucci absent. AMMONSINTs Council err Sutorius moved, seemed by Cobb, to establish an exception process of up to 450 square feet based on the same standards presently contained in the draft ordinance. Council amber r Sutorius said the exception process allowed for all lots that were nonconforming, and people would want to remodel in a way that was tasteful and cpatlble. They should be allowed 450 sire feet additional FAR as a latitude in the piss that would be judged by all of the standards applied in an _ architectural assessment and review. w. 62-238 10/23/89 Council Member Cobb supported every step Council had taken except he believed it was essential to have an exception process for extraordinary situations. He could not support the ordinance without the exception process. Council Member Woolley was concerned that 450 square feet would apply to all lots, whether it was a 10,000 square -foot lot or a 6,000 square -foot lot. She believed the variance process was for extraordinary circumstances. She could not support the amendment without more specifics. Vice Mayor Bechtel agreed with Council Member Woolley that exceptions to the FAR in the proposed ordinance would allow for architectural features including, but not limited to, dormers and stairways, or approximately 150 square feet. Council Member Renzel said while she was prepared to support a limited amount of FAR for an exception process, with properties being "coaxed out" and with the fairly permissive FAR, there would be some differential between the houses on small -lots and large lots. She believed it was backwards to design around circumstances that would not be an issue in the future because the houses would all be "coaxed out." AMINDKENT FAIIm 2-6, Cobb, Sutorius "aye," Patitucci absent. MOTION, AS AMENDED PASSED 7-1, Cobb "no," Patitusci absent. MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to direct staff to report back in 21 months on the effects of the regulations and request quarterly reports on the progress of the guidelines. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Patitucci absent. `IOM: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Woolley, to direct staff to prepare a proposed ordinance amending the language with respect to driveways which would allow permeable surfaces. Council Member Renzel supported the thrust of the motion and was interested to learn Mr. Herman's feeling that the present ordinance prohibited impermeable driveway surfaces to prevent leakage of gasoline, oil, and other hazardous chemicals into the soil. She would support a referral to look at an apron behind the garage that was not permeable so the driveway itself could be anything impermeable or permeable. Most people parked on theapron or in the garage which would solve the problem of pollution while at the same time allowing different materials to be used in driveways. Vice Mayor Bechtel queried if the motion was a referral to staff for information or request for staffto prepare an ordinance. She 62-239 10/23/89 1 i 1 would not support an ordinance because she did not know the pros and cons of permeable and impermeable materials. If the motion was a referral to staff for additional information on the pros and cons, then she would consider supporting it. Council Member Fletcher had seen two types of surfaces exhibited in National League of Cities conferences where there was porous brick work with grass between that looked really great and yet was solid so the cars did not sink into the ground. She had also seen the twin strips of concrete with growth between where the wheels stood on the solid surface, and it was more attractive than solid asphalt or concrete. She had seen that type of surface on a driveway on Mark Twain, off Embarcadero Road; it looked great and had been there for some time. She did not see a need for staff to present more information and queried how long before staff could return with an ordinance. Mr. Zaner said 90 days. NOTION FAILED 3-5, Fletcher, Renzel, Woolley "aye," Patitucci absent. NOTION* Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Woolley, to direct staff to prepare a report on the subject of permeable surfaces with respect to driveways in the R-1 and RE districts. NOTION PASSED 8-0, Patitucci absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Application of the City of Los Altos for a Zone Change and Zone Map Amendment for property located at 4260 Suzanne Drive (300) NOTION '10 t M?IIuE t Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to continue the public hearing to the next City Council meeting. MOTION USED 8-0, Patitucci absent. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding the Application of Steve Pierce for a Preliminary Parcel Map for Property Located at 950 Guinda Street (300) (CMR:486:9) Council Member Sutorius queried whether the condition to replace all unused driveways with curb, gutter, and sidewalks in an area of Palo Alto having driveways of parking strips or boulevards meant replacing the driveways with pavement or could those areas be continued. 62-240 10/23/89 Planner Sarah Cheney said areas having a landscape strip wouli be continued. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation approving the preliminary map with exceptions subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property in that the parcels in question are located in an area where 50 -foot lot widths are typical, and lots of 60 feet are atypical. One of the underlying lots proposed to be merged and resubdivided is already only 50 feet wide. The other 100 -foot wide lot appears to be combination of what might likely have been two 50 -foot lots. 2. The exceptions for lot width are necessary for the preserva- tion and enjoyment of _1 substantial property right of the petitioner in that requiring compliance with the standard 60 - foot width would result in two lots which are wider than the majority of surrounding lots. 3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated, in that 50 -foot lots are predominant in the neighborhood. 4. The granting of the exceptions for lot width will not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or any other law, in that each lot will meet the typical lot width of the area and will provide greater lot depth and lot area than normally required. Allowing reduced lot widths in this particular area is likely to result in new structures with narrower building facades which will be more in keeping with existing area development. 5. The approval of the project will not result in any sig- nificant, adverse, environmental impacts as documented in the Negative Declaration. 62-241 10/23/89 Conditions 1. The 'Du -tiding permits for the new residences to be built in this subdivision shall be subject to review by the Architec- tural Review Board (ARB) in compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.48. 2. The existing church building and related improvements shall be removed prior to issuance of building permits for any of the lots. 3. The existing street trees, including the Magnolia located at the entrance to the private driveway, shall be protected and retained. Utility trenches shall be clustered between tree locations. 4. The existing 36 -inch redwood and the five oaks located along the southern property line of the new lots shall be retained. The demolition and construction activities occurring on the lots shall comply with the recommended tree protection measures identified in the August 24, 1989, letter from S.P. McClenahar. C as= o ie with the Planning Department. 5. The private driveway located within the easement shall have two separate ten -foot wide access driveways at Addison Street and a minimum p►ved width of 18 feet. The driveway width may be reduced to 15 feet bordering the 36 -inch Redwood tree and to ten feet where serving a single lot. The driveway paving may include portions of bomanite, reinforced concrete, brick bedded on concrete or other semi -impervious surface, subject: to recommendation by the ARB and the approval of the City Engineer and City Transportation Official. 6. Prior to filing the final parcel map, submit a private maintenance agreement for review and approval by the City Attorney. Such agreement shall provide for the future maintenance of the private driveway, establish individual property owner obligations for such maintenance and include a provision for creation of a private driveway for access, requiring all garages served by the private driveway within this subdivision or oa adjoining lets, to be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal, or to provide and maintain a minims side yard setback of ten feet on one side of the lot. Such agreement shall be recorded with the parcel nap. 7. The private driveway improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney prior to approval of the final parcel sap. 62-242 10/23/89 8. Prior to filing the final parcel map and completion of construction drawings, submit a drainage plan to Public Works Engineering for approval. Driveway cross -fall shall be a minimum of two percent. 9. Replace all unused driveways with curb, gutter and sidewalk. 10. Construct new handicap ramps, at the corner of Addison and Guinda streets and where the new driveway connects to Addison, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 11. A Street Work Permit and Encroachment Permit are required for all work done within the city right-of-way. Apply for permits from Public Works Engineering. 12. New construction occurring on the lots shall be subject to the dust control measures identified in the project's environmen- tal assessment 89-EIA-36. 13. These conditions shall be included on the final parcel map. Council Member Woolley was delighted the recommendations came in a configur,.ion compatible with the neighborhood and recognized neighborhood patterns. MOTION PABBED 8-0, Patitucci absent. CQUNNCLIJ.. MATTERS 10. Mayor Larry Klein re Special City Council Meeting on October 30, 1989 (701) (NPG) MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to hold a Special City Council meeting on October 30, 1989. Council Member Renzel noted that the information provided to her by the City Clerk aswured her that there would be a meetivig scheduled for October 30, 1989. Mayor Klein asked if staff could provide an agenda for a City Council meeting on October 30, 1989. Assistant City Manager June Fleming said staff was not prepared to provide an agenda for a City Council Meeting on October 30, 1989. MOTION FAILBD 7-1, Renzel "aye," Patitucci. absent. 1DJOURNUNT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. 62.243 10/23/89 ATTEST: APPROVED: City Cl k 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. 62-244 10/23/89