Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-11 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES --'-PALOALTOCITYCOUNCII.MEETINGSAREBROADCASTLIVEVIAKZSU-FREOLIENCY9O.i ON FM DIAL -- Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of March 14, 1988: PAGE 59-376 59-376 1. Presentation by Greg Van Wassenhove, 59-376 County Agriculture Commissioner re Declaration of Oriental Fruit Fly Eradica- tion Consent Calendar Referral 59-377 59-377 2. Consultant Selection for the Downtown 59-377 Transportation Coordination Program - Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee Action 59-377 3. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 4504 - 59-377 Professional . Engineering Consulting. Services with EMCON Associates for Underground Tank Removal 4. Terman/Varian Bike Paths Maintenance 59-377 Project CIP 86-16 - Rejection of Bids 5. Request from Palo Alto Community Child 59-377 Care for Extension of. Fundraising Matching Period 6. Resolution Ordering the Summary Vacation of a Sewer Line Easement at 3833-3875 Park .boulevard 59-377 59-374 4/11/88 ITEM PAGE 7. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the 59-377 Fiscal Year 1987-88 to Provide an Addi- tional Appropriation for the Library Division and to Provide for Receipt of Grant Funds from the Federal Library Services and Construction Act 8. Policy and Procedure Committee, Unanimous 5S-377 Recommendation re Recovery of Costs for Emergency Responses 9. Civic Center Heating, Ventilating, and Air 59-377 Conditioning Modifications CIP 87-16 - Rejection of Bids 10. Report from Legislative Committee: 1) Hetch Hetchy Water Supply System; and 2) Toll Bridge Revenue 11. Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation re Human Resources Allocation 12. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1987-88 to Establish and Fund a Store Drainage Enterprise Fund 13. Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1987-88 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Consultant Investigations at the Landfill 14. Transportation 2000 Draft Phase III Summary Report 15. Council Members Frank Patitucci, Emily 59-385 Renzel and Gail Woolley re Follow-up to Work Session with R-1 Ad Hoc Committee's Report on R-1 Zoning Adjournment at 1:29 a.m. 59-410 59-378 59-379 59-381 59 382 59-383 59-375 4/11/88 Regular Meeting Monday, April 11, 1908 The. City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers. 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m, PRESENT: Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Patitucci (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Bechtel ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 171 Everett Street, spoke to the Palo Alto Police Department complaints and citizens' freedom of information.. 2. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street,. asked what was meant by "greater public access" and why the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor was destroyed. 3. Alan Noonan, 2211 Lake Road, Belmont, and Paul Cohen, 1750 Bryant Street, spoke to a legal judgment against Cable Co-op. . ® APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Messssbwr Woolley loved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Minutes of March 14, 1988, as ilubeitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. 1. PRESENTATION BY GREG VAN WASSENHOVE, COUNTY AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER RE DECLARATION OF ORIENTAL FRUIT FLY ERADICATION 1 NPG ) Greg Van Wassenhove, 3838 La Donna Avenue, announced the successful eradication of the oriental fruit fly from the College Terrace neighborhood. In October, 1987, two adult. oriental fruit flies were trapped in the neighborhood, and they responded with several hundred traps and asked state crews to sample fruit in over 200 residences. They res 3nded to over 50 suspicious specimens called in by home owners, and began a program involving the treatment of inanimate objects with bait, and after three hypothetical generations found no additional flies. He thanked the Council, the City Manager's office --especially Assistant 59-376 4/11/88 City Manager June Fleming --and the invaluable cooperation from the residents of the community. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by F1etc; .sr, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral 2. CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR THE DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION PROGRAM - REFER TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE CMR: - Action 3. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 4504 - PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH EMCON ASSOCIATES FOR UNDERGROUND 'TANK REMOVAL OMR.:22 4. TERMAN/VARIAN BIKE PATHS MAINTENANCE PROJECT, CIP 86-16 -- REJECTION OF BIDS (CMR:225:8) (1018) 5. RE UEST FROM PALO ALTO COMMUNITY CHILD CARE FOR EXTEN- SION OF FUNDRAISING MATCHING PERIOD (CMR:223:8) ( 035) 6. RESOLUTION 6682 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE; CITY OF PALO ALTO ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF A SEWER LINE EASEMENT LOCATED AT 3833-3875 PARK BOULEVARD" (CMR: 219:8) (701.04/720-03/)00) 7. ORDINANCE 3802 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR •THE FISCAL YEAR 987 88 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR TOE •LIBRARY DIVISION AND TO PROVIDE FOR RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDS•FROM THE FEDERAL LIBRARY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION - ACT TCMR:-12f:8 )'`, (701-03/41'f-03) POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT TUE. CITY COUNCIL RE RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSES, INCLUDE IN THE 198889 BUDGET.PROCESS A FEE TO RECOVER .COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POLICE AND FIRE RESPONSES TO INCIDENTS. INVOLVING THE OPERATION OF A VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE Of ALCOHOL AND OR DRUGS (CMR:I7d:8) (1202/1.230) 9. CIVIC CENTER HEATING,; VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING MODIFICATIONS CIP 87- 6 REJECTION OF BIOS _.(CMR:127:8 ). MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. 10. REPORT FROM LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE: 1) HETCH HETCHY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM; AND 2) TOLL BRIDGE REVENUE (CMR:201:8) (702-06) (Continued from 3/28/88) Council Member Levy said two months ago Secretary of the Interior Hodel recommended that the Hetch Hetchy Valley be studied with the idea of returning it to its original pristine state, which would mean destruction of the O'Shaughnessy Dam. At the time, the Legislative Committee recommended, and the Council approved, a resolution opposing the destruction of the Hetch Hetchy water supply system unless the users --including Palo Alto --could be assured of the availability of an .alternative source comparable in cost, quality, and quantity. Subsequently, $250,000 was spent by Secretary Hodel, the administration sought another $600,000 for 1988, and another $5 million over the next six years to study the question. The studies to date convinced two of the three members of the Legislative Committee that the money was unwisely spent and the assurances could not be attained. Council Member Patitucci believed the issue should be kept open because if Hetch Hetchy was not pres- ently dammed and existed in its original state, they cer- tainly would not favor erecting the dam. MOTIONS Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt Council Legislative Committee's Recommendation 1 to urge Congress to deny funding requeststo further study the proposal by Secretary of the Interior Hodel to dismantle the Retch Retchy Water Supply System. Council Member Patitucci said it was not often the Council had the opportunity to undo some fairly major environmental damage. If the conditions were met, the Council certainly would support the dismantlement of the dam and the return of the incredible valley to its original state. Spending a few hundred thousand dollars at the federal level did nut bother him much, and he did not necessarily want to see the City of Palo Alto in line with all the other Public Works Departments saying they could not get good water from any other source. Mayor •Sutoriue conveyed the City's .concerns on the matter directly to Senator: Wilson during the National League of Cities meeting. One concern was the motivation behind the proposal which thinly disguised public relations problems and efforts against a difficult and appropriate challenge of offshore drilling. The proposal was an effort to divert attention and create an unreal image. Many 59-378 4/11/88 environmentalists and those who understood the actual size and nature of the valley would recognize the destruction of the dam, the outflow of the water, the type of narrow, deep canyon, and the residual environment for centuries would not be pleasant. MOTION PASSED by a vote, of 7-1, Patitucci voting "no,1° Bechtel absent. Council Member Levy referred to page 2 of the staff report (CMR:201:8) and said the Legislative Committee would like to change the language in the indented paragraph from "in the range of 60%" to "at least 60%1" because there were pro- posals afoot that might cause 100 percent of the increased toll revenues to go to transit, which the Legislative Committee would favor. NOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt Council Legislative Committee's Recommendation 2 with modifications to authorize staff to communicate to Senator Morgan a proposal that: At least 60 percent of the increased toll revenues attributable to the Dumbarton Bridge be spent for mass transit capital expenditures, maintenance, and operation . within the Dumbarton Bridge corridor; to the degree that additional highway lanes were authorized, they be BOY lanes; and on a region --wide basis, funds be used to extend the round -the -bay trail system. Council Member Levy clarified they were dealing with the funds that would be raised from the Dumbarton Bridge.tolls. Mayor Sutorius said in order for Senator Morgan to represent viewpoints from her constituency, she would be interested in the Council's views on the three so-called Peninsula crossings, i.e., the Bay, San Mateo, and Dumbarton Bridges. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. 11. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE HUMAN RESOURCES ALLOCATIONS (1030) NOTION: Council Member Patitucci for the: Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee moved re Human Resources Allocation, the following: 1. Adoption of the Human Relations Commission's .(HRC) Human Services Priorities for Fiscal Tear 1938--89; 59-379 4/11/88 MOTION CONTINUED 2. Based on review of these recommendationsand existing service providers, the Requests. for Proposals. for new and expanded services not be requested: and 3. Approval of the concept of the fund for unmet needs, and that staff return try Council with suggested .isplesenta- tios through the budget process. Council Member Patitucci said the first two items passed unanimously and Council Member Woolley opposed the third. In the present year, the fund would amount to about $20,000 to $30,000. He understood it would not necessarily be a response to requests for proposals but more in line with responding to situations where the Council saw an unmet need, were not able to go through the regular eprocess, and would be able to appropriate moneys from that fund. The fund would by moneys already appropriated but available for the Council to specify specific. use. Mayor Sutorius congratulated Commissioner Richard Roe on his reappointment to the HRC and wished him continued success on the anniversary of the Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing organization. Commissioner Roe appreciated the reappointment and spoke to the amount set aside for flexibility. The HRC obviously had limited funds and a number of agencies doing fine work. If there was a need for a new program, it was difficult to break into the established funding. One way of getting more flexibility was to set aside a small amount so they could have the possibility of responding to a new need. The HRC also looked forward to working wi< . staff to establish some criteria for evaluation that might go beyond what they had been doing. Council Member Woolley said Mayor Sutorius convinced her that her fears were unwarranted, and she would support the flexible fund. Her concern had been the money might not be used, but she understood the HRC would try hard to ensure the fund was used. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. 59-380 4/11/88 12. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR Tt - ESTAELISH AND FUND A STORM DRAINAGE ENTERPRISE FUND (CMR:18 2.8) (701-03/1073-01) Council Member Patitucci said when Council approved the addition of the new position he understood the concept was to explore the advisability of setting up an Enterprise Fund. He had expected more debate on the concept as he believed the result was an additional tax on the public in that the City would be charging a fee for a service that was now included in general taxation. In order to get the item in under the FY 1987-88 budget, Council might be preempting one of the decisions they were supposed to be studying. He did not remember- a decision that the Enterprise Fund was the most desirable way to proceed. He had no idea how people would be assessed for storm drainage, which was different from sewage. With no concept of how the City would bill and charge people, it did not seem to be a good idea to set up the fund and preempt a future decision. He believed a con- sultant could have been used, and Council was approving the item because they had to meet some arbitrary deadline of the end of the fiscal year. It was not the appropriate way to make a decision, and he preferred to see the matter dis- cussed in the budget process and analyzed as a complete package. Assistant City Manager June Fleming recollected staff brought the matter before the Council at the time they were ready to add the position to conduct further study. The Council approved that position, and staff would discuss it further in the budget process. Council Member Patitucci queried whether the City might not want an Enterprise Fund if the billing process and cost created a lot of objection. Ms. Fleming said the Council could always reconsider any item on which it took action. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy, to refer the item to the F&PW Committee. Council Member Levy believed what Council Member Patitucci was suggesting was a more measured way of going through the process, and he concurred. Vice Mayor Klein said the process was only more measured if Council insisted on doing everything twice. The matter was previously considered and a policy decision was made on November 23, 1987, and the action requested was consistent with that action. 59-381 4/11/88 MOTION TO . REFER FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Levy, Patitucci, Woolley voting "aye," Bechtel absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor. Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt staff recommendation authorizing th Mayor to approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance which: 1. Authorizes the creation of a new Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund; 2, Moves $36,000 previously appropriated to Public Works Engineering into the new Enterprise Fund; 3. Moves $475,000 from existing CIP projects 87-01, 86-01, and 85-02 to a new CIP project (278-701) which will be set up within the Storm Drainage Fund; and 4. Moves one Senior Engineering position in the Table of Organization from the Public Works Department O the Storm Drainage Fund. ORDINANCE 3803 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TEE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO ESTABLISH AND FUND A STORM DRAINAGE ,ENTERPRISE FUND" MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Levy, Patitucci "not" Bechtel absent. 13. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987--88 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR CONSULTANT INVESTIGATIONS AT THE LANDFILL" (CMR:'1228) (701-03/ 0 2-01) MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt staff recommendations as follows: 1. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance of $150,000 to fund additional consultant work at the landfill; 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement for $44,300 with J. V. Lowney 4 Associates for the preparation of a final slope analysis report 3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement for $73,100 with EMCON Associates for phase one subsurface investigation ofsoil and groundwater conditions; 4. Authorize staff to execute change orders to agreement 0.4672 with Scientific Applications International Corporation of up to. $15,000; and 59-38 2 4/11/88 MOTION CONTINUED 5. Authorize staff to execute change orders to agreement with J. V. Lowney & Associates, and BACON. Associatesc of up to $17,600 ORDINANCE 3804 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO PROVIDE AM ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR CONSULTANT INVESTIGATIONS AT THE LANDFILL. AGREEMENT WITH J. V. LOWNEY & ASSOCIATES FOR PREPARATION OF A FINAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS REPORT AGREEMENT WITH FIICON ASSOCIATES FOR SUBSURFACE INVESTI- GATION OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CHARACERIZATION N INCREASE OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY TO SCIENTIFIC APPLICA- TIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION FOR ENGINEERING ADDI- TIONAL UNDERGROUND GAS MONITORING WELLS MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Patitucci voting "no,* Bechtel absent. 14. TRANSPORTATION 2000- DRAFT PHASE III SUMMARY REPORT CMR:232:8) (1163-01) Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway introduced Planner Tracy Stephensen from the County Transportation Agency whn a uthnre`ai the nr i g i nal report Vice Mayor Klein said he was not a member of the Steering Committee as listed but was appointed as a liaison between the Golden Triangle and the Transportation. 2000 Committee late in the process and had not attended many of their meetings. Council Member Cobb referred to page 3 of the staff repott (CMR:232:8) •where it said, "If the will nor the ability to., pay the costs can no longer be assured, then the concept of regulating demand warrants some consideration, if not action.' Built into that was the observation that if the public in the county understood the trade-offs, they might be more willing to accept the costs. He hoped that could be communicated to the public in some meaningful way. Council Member Levy calculated that roughly 26 percent of the funds to be raised came from automobile users, yet a little over 50 percent of the expenditures were directly 59-383 4/11/88 automobile related. He would feel more comfortable if the sources of funds were more in line with the expenditures and roughly 50 percent of the funds raised were from auto - related sources. Vice Mayor Klein commended the dedicated work of the Transportation 2000 Committee and the insights they pro- vided. The survey work provided a clearer view of how the public felt about transportation.. issues and how various solutions to the problems would be financed. The survey work also indicated the potential for gaining public support and the necessary education to make people understand the trade-offs involved. The work would be helpful as they moved into the next decade and faced how to .finance the lorious transportation projects. Council Member Fletcher believed almost all the transportation -related fund6 should be raised from auto -related sources at that point because the more transit was used the easier it was for the motorist on the roadway system. The gasoline tax was an excellent source because it related directly'to the amount of travel, plus some type of payment for parking spaces at the work place would have a direct effect on the amount of traffic on the roads. She pointed out the last page of the report under "Implementa- tion Responsibilities," under both County and Cites, shoul6 read "Appoint a bicycle coordinator and advisory committee,.." instead of "...or advisory committee...." Also, the Transportation -2000 Plan called for that to happen from zero to five years. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher *owed,, seconded by Klein, to adopt staff recommendations_ to express general support for the Phase III Summary Report as a. framework for con- tinued discussion, with the understanding that City deci- sions regarding whether to support •implementation of spe- cific projects and funding mechanisms will be based upon specific information and evaluation from an ongoing planning process. Also, to endorse the implementation responsibili- ties, summarized as follows: 1) .The Transportation Commission,: serving in an advisory role to the Board of Supervisors and individual_ cit.,tes, should assume overall responsibility for coordination of plan implementation; 2) Individual cities should update General Plans, pursue land use/transportation interface policies, and .partici- pate in joint planning efforts that support the imple- mentation of the plan; 59-384 4/11/68 MOTION CONTINUED 3) Caltrans is responsible for developing .tom.. _Davey com- ponent of the plan, but funding and .implementation will require stronger coordination efforts by Caltrans, County, Traffic Authority, and cities; 4) The Paratransit Coordinating Council, along _ with the County Transit District, should be responsible for service development and funding of paratransit services to elderly and handicapped persons; and 5) The County Transit District/Transportation Agency should bear primary responsibility for the transit, expressway, and commuter lane components of the plan, including priorities and financing. Further, to reiterate strong support for the effective land use/growth management strategies as being equally important as transportation system improvements. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent. 15. COUNCIL MEMBERS FRANK PATITUCCI,1 EMILY RENZELL AND GAIL WOOLLEY RE FOLLOW-UP TO WORK SESSION WITH R-1 AD HOC COMMITTE&&S REPORT ON rR-11 ZONING (702-03/250) NOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, to direct staff to: 1. Evaluate the recommendations of the Ad. Hoc Committee including those of the minority opinion and report back Council on May 2, 19$8. 2. Since mass is not a factor ' per se, , but is one factor which contributes to overly intrusive development, : the Council also directs staff to evaluates s) a lower FAR; b) calculation of ?AR for spaces open to second story; c) extension of noncomplying .exterior walls; and d) height basements soy rise above grade (presently six feet.) Mayor Sutorius asked whether part 2a) of the motion anticipated a floor area ratio (FAR) would come into play in some fashion. 59-385 4/11/88 Council Member Woolley clarified the recommendation was a lower FAR than the de facto FAR of .7. Mayor Sutorius asked if a definition of R-1 FAR could be 'incorporated. Council Member Woolley clarified the definition would be the one currently used to calculate a de facto .7 FAR.. Mayor Sutorius was concerned .with the use of the term FAR. He was rot certain the intent was for the definition in the ordinances to be the definition as it would apply to single- family residences because of the items that excepted mechani- cal and equipment areas, basements, from coverage such as required parking, etc. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE IN ITEM 2a) OF THE MOTION, 'A LOWER FAR THAN OUR DE FACTO FAR OF .7 AND A CLARIFICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF FAR" City Attorney Dane Northway suggested Council direct staff to complete the CEQA reviewfor the proposed ordinance which was required to adopt any moratorium and return to Council with the findings and the proposed ordinance. Vice Mayor Klein asked how the procedural change would affect the process of hearing from the public on the matter. He asked whether the Council was to hear from the public on the true underlying motion that evening and when the item returned to Council. Council Member Woolley said the item was advertised as being on the Council agenda that evening, and anybody getting the memorandum from City Hall would believe the Council could take action. She believed the Council should hear from the publicthat evening. If the Council could conclude what it wanted staff to, review . for CEQA .purposes, they would have essentially finalized their thoughts and the next week would be fine-tuning at most. Vice Mayor Klein had a problem with that. Staff would be looking at what was written, and if the Council came. too close to its final decision, the CEQA process would be short-circuited. Ms. Northway said Council would define the project that evening. Council had done that in the past with Environ- mental Impact Reports (FIRS). She did not want to presume they -*ere not going to do an FIR, but it was not of the magnitude of many otherprojects where Council defined the 59-38.6 4/11/88 parameters of the project. Staff needed some direction in order to analyze whatever it was Council wished to adopt, or might be considering adopting. Vice Mayor Klein said, in that event, the public . input should be primarily that evening and what returned might .b.e fairly routine depending on the staff analysis. Council Member Woolley said the partial moratorium on proj- ects in the R-1 zone which exceeded a .5 FAR provided an exception that in no case should the second floor be restricted to less than 1,000 square feet. The calculation of the FAR in the ordinance was a little different because any floor space with a ceiling of 17 feet or greater in height would be counted twice. The ordinance would not affect any project which received a building permit before the effective date of the ordinance --which would be around the end of May or beginning of June. Theordinance would remain in effect for eight months or until new regulations were in place, whichever occurred first. She made a slide presentation which showed the 200 block of Tennyson with five durnpsters, illustrating that it was almost true that the crisis was almost over. The Council had come a long way since last August when it voted 4-5 as to whether there was a problem. A slide of the school sites indicated that if Council did not do something, enough redevelopment would result in existing neighborhoods beginning to look crowded with the back yards resembling cluster housing. She referred to a legal house with an FAR of .53 and 3,300 square feet. The problem was primarily the height. A house in College Terrace was believed by most people to be an apartment or condominium,, but it was a single-family house with an FAR of .55 and an interior of 3,400 square feet. A house in Barron Park had an FAR of .61, and one in Crescent Park had an FAR of .64 and an interior of 5,300 square feet. A house on Fife Avenue contained only 3,200 square feet and had the usual living room, dining room, kitchen, five bedrooms, a family room, a library, and an entertainment center. She showed slides of houses on Clara, an apartment for five families which was not terribly different in size, a house on Tennyson with an FAR of .56 but which was better than the box. Other slides showed a house on Lowell ".coaxed out at .7 FAR, one on Emerson, and the remainder were of a house on Churchill taken from various neighboring houses. She referenced the mora- torium ordinance's suggestion for calculating FAR, and explained the FAR on the house was only a .52 because of _ the large lot. It was partly the fault of how the FAR was calcu- lated. The house had a large living room and nice -sized library, both of which Were open from the first floor to the second floor. Because FAR was supposed to measure mass or 1 1 volume, several cities would double the square footage of the floors of the library and living room because they were two stories high. This calculation gave an accurate idea of the ;volume • from ..the, exterior whioh was what, .they were, trying to control. Such a calculation would give an FAR .of .b,. :If, the moratorium ordinance were in effect, it would not solved all the problems but would reducethe volume by 800 square feet. The moratorium was only addressing FAR, which was one piece but was not the "whole pie." Many other refinements were needed, and lots of good suggestions wre made by the Ad Hoc Committee. In the meantime, in order to do something rela- tively easy to understand and administer, the moratorium ordinance was one method to use. Council Member Cobb referred to a paper headed "Amendment to the Moratorium Ordinance," (on file in the City Clerk's office), which read: "Request the City Attorney to develop exception procedures similar to the downtown moratorium using those standards compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and economic hardship based on cost incurred relative to applying for a building permit." He asked whether the item regarding economic hardship was legally possible. Ms. Northway said yes, as long as it did not relate to an individual's finances but to abstract econoic hardship. Mayor Sutorius did not differ greatly with the Ad Hoc Committee, particularly in how their suggested modifications to zoning demonstrated that no single item of zoning could stand alone in achieving what was wanted in terms of rela- tionship _Of.. the building an; a lot, to its neighbors?, .the design characteristics, and size itself. In considering the FAR proposal and the invoking of a limited moratorium, he believed they could get benefit out of having the concepts and the particular recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee come under live experience. He asked the public to respond to an alternative to conceptually take advantage of the work performed and try to put it in practice. He suggested an interim design review process in R-1 zones to apply to single-family building permit applications that would other- wise be approvable under existing ordinances in the following cases: Where there was construction on an existing vacant lot or replacement of a pending property demolition; addition of second story to existing :single -story dwellings; and remodels, which increased habitable floor area by 50 percent or more. He suggested consideration be given to an interim design review committee numbering five members to be appointed as follows: Twofrom the Ad Hoc Committee . on R-1 zoning, one from the Architectural Review Board (ARB), one from the Historic Resources Board (HRB), and one from the Planning Commission. The Committee would be advisory to the City Council, would evaluate the particular applications that 59-388 4/11/88 came before it for compatibility with the appropriate provi- sions of the Comprehensive Plan, and also the concepts and recommendations contained in the R-1 Ad Hoc Committee Report, including the neighborhood -character aspects identified in Appendix I of that report. Committee findings and recommen- dations would be subject to final action by the City Council. The alternative did not institute even a limited moratorium. Cases which did not fit the criteria identified would proceed 1 nea noemal= fashioni: cafes -tHat' }Fft the cri-teriaf ":applUd -for the building permit but an additional review step was incor- porated. Whether the a application would 'be granted would depend on the quality of the review and of the project. Council Member Fletcher asked whether. the process would allow for requiring reduction in sizi if the application was for a passive single-family home. Mayor Sutorius said yes. As stated by Council Member Cobb: If the home was too big, too ugly, and too intrusive, it would not pass. That was covered by the references to the Comprehensive Plan and to the entire report of the Ad Hoc Committee. Using the recommendations and guidelines con- tained therein, it would be a clue to the applicant as to the important things to consider in the sizing and, shaping of their application if the home fell within one of the three criteria. He believed the Committee would be able to analyze and make appropriate judgments. Council Member Levy said if the City had a moratorium, he believed there should be an exception procedure so members of the public who had put a good deal of effort into the development of plans that did not meet the. moratorium could still appeal and go before Council to plead their cases based on some standard. If the moratorium passed, the effective date should be for applications which had been submitted as of the-'present'day)jso.lthey would= not have a }rush of.poorly thought-out applications during the next few days. _ >, Council Member Renzel said the staff definition of a demoli- tion meant flattening 100 percent to the ground. If an but one wall was demolished, it was called a remodel. She asked if Mayor Sutorius proposed to use that definition. Mayor Sutorius believed Items A, B, and C should cover the bases for the things of which Council was aware. If the approach was technically the project was not a demolition, and nothing remained but a wall, it had to fall under remodels which increased the habitable floor area by 50 percent or more. Better language tocoverdemolition could be inserted if necessary. Council Member Renzel asked whether in the case where one wall was left of a preexisting house, the proposal measure 1 was the 50 percent from what was left or from what was there before. Mayor Sutorius said the concept was from what was left-. Council Member Renzel said a number of homes had attic spaces which were not currently usable second floors. They were usually located within a pitched roof and were unobtrusive to the neighborhood. She asked if the existing attic spaces would count as single -story home's if the owner proposed to add a second flcor. She understood the Building Department considered that a single -story home. Mayor Sutorius did not see why it would be considered second floor if it was not currently habitable space. Council Member Renzel asked if projects which had already been the subject of public scrutiny in variance or use permit applications were covered in the approach suggested by Mayor Sutorius. Mayor Sutorius said the suggested approach was not sup -- planting the variance process by the Zoning Administrator and that type of administration. Council Member Cobb asked about the enactment process. Ms. Northway said Council could make the effective date the same as the other ordinances before it, or . the same as suggested by Council Member Levy. Council .Member Cobb asked if a CEQA review would still be required. Ms. Northway said absolutely. Council Member Woolley asked if the alternative would need to go to the Planning Commission because it involved planning matters. Ms Northway clarified the alternative w.as not an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and was not required to go to the Planning Commission. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:1.5 p.m. tog 35plm. Nancy Dearborn, 885 Sharon Court, planned a second -story addition to their home and their costs to date ran in excess of $4,000. Because of the moratorium's arbitrary limit of .5, their plans with an FAR of .526 would be denied a permit, which she believed was unfair. She had lived in the shadow of a.large second -story addition for several years and liked 59-390 4/11/88 it. The bulky new houses which drew criticism were in the minority when viewed in the context of overall construction in Palo Alto. She believed the Ad Hoc Committee report presented a more thoughtful, equitable approach and its standards should be applied. If interim measures were necessary, they should be tailored to the problem and a mechanism should be included to exempt or grandfather those already in the process. Virginia Briggs, 55 Waveriey Oaks, hoped the .moratorium would be put in place as soon as possible based on their experience. Two massive constructions on adjacent parcels over a period of three years had left them with permanent damage in their -own 'environment and quality of living. Stan Shore, 242 Kellogg Avenue, was concerned about the changes in his neighborhood. He supported the moratorium. Judy Peterson, 228 Fulton Street, was concerned about the proposed moratorium. An arbitrary FAR would not solve the problems. She opposed the moratorium. John ioussouris, 252 Fulton Street, said financing problems forced many people to consider expanding their houses and there were also those who required additional space. He opposed the FAR -based formula for a moratorium. He was con- cerned about selectivelydown-zoning small properties because those were the ones owned bythe people least able to afford to have their houses devalued. The concept that somehow it would b€► easier for young families to move into Palo Alto was untrue. He was more encouraged by Mayor Sutorius's sugges- tion to institute a review process based upon the spirit of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee. Dan Epstein, 358 Tennyson Avenue, said the Ad Hoc Committee's research suggested the reality of ugly housing did not corre- late with size. He was concerned the suggestions were emo- tional rather than rational. Julia beady, 3444 Kenneth Drive, did not support the mora- torium. Council should adopt the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee. Bill Sayer, 2295 Cornell Street, was opposed to a moratorium and . to the suggestion of an emergency. . He did not appreciate the Council deciding it was all right for the people to lose $50,000 .to $100,000 to enable someone else to move into Palo Alto. He recommended Council get in touch with its constitu- ents. Robert Herriot,., 2066 Byron Street, opposed the moratorium. He urged support of the Ad Rot Committee recommendations. 59-391 4/11/88 Judith Schwartz, 2330 Bryant Street, commended Council for trying to solve the problem. Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant, saluted the Ad Hoc Committee's patient exploration of the matter and she believed Council was bypassing their recommendations by proposing the mora- torium. It was estimated that the moratorium would result in decreased property values of about 25 percent. Sae urged the moratorium be defeated and that more creative solutions be sought. Perry Irvine, 1135 Waverley, was concerned that diversity in Palo Alto would be legislated out of existence. People would not move into Palo alto without the opportunity to purchase a smaller house and create value by adding to it. He opposed the moratorium. Tom Cunningham, 340 Churchill, supported the moratorium in order to determine how much Palo Alto should grow and how it should be done. He sympathized with those who wanted to add on to their homes. He preferred something less than the .5 FAR, with `•enough .flexibility that individuals could add on another room. - Ralph Parker, 222 Kingsley, opposed the moratorium. He and his wife recently submitted an application to make repairs on their 85 year old house. The issue was an emotional one and he urged careful consideration. Douglas J. Cox, 485 El Dorado Avenue, opposed the moratorium. He recently submitted an application for a demolition permit and would ultimately need a building permit. He was advised that the structural foundation of his house would not support a second floor. He needed to move forward. Robin Clark, 114 Lowell Avenue, supported the moratorium. His block was overdeveloped. He supported the suggestion of a review committee but urged caution in deciding its mem- bers. Several starter homes on his block were demolished t !Bd five enormous spec homes were built. The developer was Stanford Financial Services and a principal in that organiza- tion, Jon Schink, was on the Ad Hoc Committer. There was little to prevent developers from buying the Starter homes, destroying them, and building large, expensive homes. He believed imposing a moratorium and adopting restrictions such as those proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee might ensure more appropriate construction to the respective neighborhoods. Michael Shafran, 1926 Emerson Street, opposed the moratorium especially the declaration of an emergency. He supported the spirit of community participation. While he had plans cur- rently in the City's processes, his FAR vas less •than .5, 59-392 4/1;1/88. there was nothing saying Council would not reduce it to .4 next week. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, supported the action to control over- sized single family homes. He supported the moratorium but preferred a smaller FAR. He supported the suggestion of design review of. single family homes, but it should not be a special ad hoc committee. The ARB knew how to design and review projects. The intent was to deny bad designs and the ARB could do that. Landscaping was not the answer to overbearing homes. . John Boyd, 1196 Hamilton Avenue, believed it would be diffi- cult to legislate design. He was impressed by the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and their report deserved further con- sideration. He clarified he was an architect and any designs would be within whatever rules were in effect. He opposed the moratorium. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, believed .5 FAR was too large and he urged a moratorium with an 0.35 FAR, the same as site coverage. It would still allow for design flexibility and permit reasonable expansion of small homes, but it would not permit large expansion of medium sized homes. Additions beyond a 0.35 FAR could go before a review committee. A committee should include residents as well as design professionals. Failing support for that he suggested approval of a 1985 staff recommendation of a 0.4 FAR. Jim Girand, 590 East Crescent, believed there was a serious problem. He believed a .5 FAR was too large. He supported the idea of a review board but believed a neighborhood consensus would also be important. Linda Houle, 244 Tennyson, was upset by the construction of massive houses on small and medium sized lots. She urged that Council carefully consider the proposal of the Ad Hoc Committee on R-1 zoning particularly the addendum by Linda Scott. She supported the moratorium while the report was reviewed. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said something needed to be done to control oversized housing. She believed the .5 FAR was too large. Council needed the moratorium to have the time to find the right answer. Sally O'Oowd, 611 Tennyon Avenues took issue with. the sug- gestion of a crisis. Based on the evidence, she did not believe F'ARs were related to the way houses looked. There was no reasonable basis to believe that a .5 FAR would address any of the identified problems. She supported Mayor Sutorius's suggestion of a review committee, but she was concerned it would be time consuming. She urged approval of the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation on an interim basis. Richard Elmore, 819 Guinda, designed buildings. He opposed a moratorium and encouraged Council to endorse the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. He associated with the comments of Mr. Boyd. Martin Bernstein, 617 High Street, urged Council to study and eventually apply the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations for an interim period without a moratorium. The adoption of a FAR or a moratorium undermined the Committee's efforts. Larry Haupt, 2361 Bryant Street, supported the moratorium, Lois Vanderbeck, 736 Barron Avenue, supported the moratorium but preferred a .4 or lower FAR. It was a crisis situation. Doug Akins, 1359 Byron Street, opposed the moratorium. He was a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, and believed con- sidering the moratorium proposal was a repudiation of the Council's impulse in establishing the Committee. He took issue with the declaration of an emergency for the mora- torium. There needed to be a factual reference, and the conclusions cited in the ordinance were not borne out by the facts. Bob Johnson, 1536 Emerson Street, preferred to see a balance between the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and a degree of architectural review to prevent oversized houses in R-1 zones. The Ad Hoc Committee reflected the spirit of Palo Alto and he was proud to be a part of such citizen involvement, Paul Engle, 951 Bryant Sreet, did not believe proper consid- eration was. given to the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee.• He opposed the moratorium. Bill Conlon, 233© Bryant Street, urged the adoption of an interim ordinance but that it be more strict than the .5 FAR. He suggested there be something that homeowners could work with and be certain about. John Griffiths, 1266 Hamilton Avenue, was opposed to the moratorium, as a violation of due process. He supported the recommendations of the Ad HocCommittee. Stan Parry, 1157 Hamilton Avenue, was unclear about when California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review was required. He queried why the moratorium was not discussed at the study session and why the Planning Commission was not involved in the process. The concept of a design review committee should be studied as seriously as the Ad Hoc Committee's report. 59-394 4/11/88 Council Member Renzel clarified the Ad Hoc Committee's report was referred to the Planning Commission. It would take at least six months for the report and any ordinance changes to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, return to Council for first and second reading, and be adopted. Most agreed a problem existed, The moratorium would be in effect for eight months or until interim regulations were adopted. Eight months would provide for the timely adoption of new regula- tions and would allow serious and thoughtful consideration of all the various possibilities without the pressure of pro- posed developments. A .5 FAR allowed a five bedroom home on a 6,000 square foot lot with all the amenities. While the .5 FAR would not result in specifically good design, whatever was designed would be a little more in keeping with the R-1 neighborhoods than what could be designed under the current .7 FAR. The real estate community expressed concern that the properties would depreciate in value with the moratorium, but she did not see a moratorium of eight months or less depre- ciating property values. The current building envelope was generous; and, even if Council adopted more restrictive regu- lations, there was ample opportunity for diversity. An emer- gency ordinance required eight votes out of a nine -member Council. The item was carried in the paper as a front page item. Everyone recognized that PAR alone would not solve the problem, but i t was not the final decision. Council did not intend to preempt the Ad Hoc Committee's recommmendation but rather to deal with the permit issue until permanent standards could be adopted. She understood both the design committee recommendation of Mayor Sutorius and the moratorium would require CEQA review before any action was taken. Vice Mayor- Klein clarified Council was suggesting to staff on what project it should conduct a CEQA review, and staff could be requested to do a CEQA review on more than one proj- ect. Ms. Northway said yes. Vice Mayor Klein said the word "moratorium" unfortunately conjured up images of bringing everything to a halt; whereas, none of the proposals before Council would do that. Staff recommended the word be used because it was legally required to move swiftly; however, he believed it. more appropriate for purposes of analyzing the matter on a substantive basis to regard what the Council was considering as "temporary restrictions." Hebelieved they did have a problem. .They were seeing houses that were not as sensitive as they should be. They were also seeing an overreaction because some of the homes mentioned really were not problems. Some people did not like any changes in their neighborhoods, and,: Council 59-395 4/11/88 had to draw the line between allowing change and preventing homes ;that were too big. Their reasoning should not be based on the economics. Council's concern should be to do the best it could to preserve the look, feel, and aesthetics of the community so it was a desirable place to live, at the same time giving people as much leeway as possible to design the home in which they wanted to live. It was not new for the City to have restrictions, e.g., the long-time limit:, of a 35 percent lot coverage limitation. He liked the Ad Hoc Committee's approach and believed Council should do ..omething with it as soon as possible. While an FAR had some advan- tages, it was too blunt a tool and had not proven to be more than a partial answer to the problem; whereas, the Ad Hoc Committee's approach was the more sophisticated, creative way of handling the problem. That type of approach would also give an opportunity to see haw it worked in practice. It was true the Ad Hoc Committee's approach was untested, but the FAR approach was equally untested. In regard to the remarks that Palo Alto was losing children and closing elementary schools, that had been true in the past; however, the school data for the past two years showed a gain in children, par- ticularly in the elementary schools. The trend had come to an end, and in the next year the school board would be con- sidering reopening an elementary school. He would not sup- port Mayor Sutorius's approach because adding another layer of bureaucracy would bog them down in never-ending detail. Mayor Sutorius clarified the first motion was a combination of points 1 and 2 in the Patitucci/Renzel/Woolley memo dated April 6, 1988, which confirmed the direction to staff to evaluate the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee including those of the minority opinion and to report back to Council on May 2, 1988. Further, Council was also directing staff to evaluate a FAR and the definition of FAR as it would apply in an R-1 situation; and to look into the calculation of FAR for spaces open to the second story, extension of non- complying exterior walls, and the height to which basements may rise above grade. Al ENT: Council Member Renzel. moved, seconded by Woolley, to add to item 2, to evaluate a change in the daylight plane. Mayor Sutorius said the daylight plane was specifically called out and recommendations were incorporated in the R-1 report. Council Member Renzel clarified the R-1 report said to maintain the existing daylight plane. The side setbacks were not addressed in the R-1 report. 59-396 4/11/88 Mayor Sutorius did not understand that to be the case. The report introduced a new measurement of an additional daylight plane in order to allow the design reflections that generally all people were favorably inclined toward, and that was a powerful addition, Council Member Woolley asked if staff needed the specific direction in the amendment. Chief Planning Official Carol . Jansen said no, the Ad Hoc Committee report addressed the daylight plane extensively and it was staff's intent to respond to the report in part and in whole. Council. Member Woolley withdrew her second, AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Renzel said the Ad Hoc Committee recommended exemptions to the present daylight plane for eaves, etc., and she was concerned the daylight plane needed to be lower with those same exemptions. Council Member Levy asked for staff's interpretation of the motion. ,Item 1 called for an evaluation of the _ Ad Hoc Committee report, and Item 2 brought up a number of other issues. He did not know to what degree Item 2 was to be integrated with Item 1, coordinated with Item 1, or treated as completely separate from Item 1. Ms. Jansen opined Item 2 could be integrated with Item 1. She referenced the multiple -family regulations where a number of different development parameters were being proposed, one of which was an FAR; but' many others related to side yard setbacks, revised building heights, and revised definition of parking. Council Member Levy clarified staff would use the Ad Hoc Committee report as a base and then advise Council how the elements mentioned in Item 2 would affect the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation if they were factored in. Ms. Jansen said that was generally the case. Staff's inten- tion was to look at the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations as a whole and to respond from a staff standpoint, an adminis- trative standpoint, and the interrelation of the regulations with the FARs. AMENDMENT: vice Mayor Klein moved Item 2a) be changed to "to evaluate an FAR for Single-family housing. 59-397 4/11/88 MAIER AND SECOND OF MOTION AGREED .TO INCORPORATE THE AMENDMENT Council Member Cobb asked if the answer "in whole and in part," in regard to daylight plane also applied to the vari- ous setbacks involved. Ms. Jansen said yes. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Renee], to direct staff to complete a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the proposedordinances which impose a partial moratorium on projects in the R-1 zone which exceed .5 FAR. However, an exception provides that in no case shall the second floor be restricted to lessthan1,000 square feet. Mote that in the calculation o.f the FAR, any floor space with a ceiling of 17 feet or greaterin height will be counted twice. The ordinance will not affect any project which receives a building permit before the effective date of the ordinance. The ordinance will remain in effect for eight months or until new regulations .are in place, whichever occurs first. Further, direct staff to make any changes as necessary to the ordisnces and return the ordi- nances on the April 18, 1988, Council agenda, if possible. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, that rather than the .5 FAR language contained in the third lino of paragraph 3, that the wording be, "exceed the side yarn], front yard,, rear yard, height, and daylight plane reco- mmendations as set forth in the R-1 Committee proposals.' Mayor Sutorius said the amendmentunder discussion was the use of the front setback, side setback, daylight plane, and height recommendations out of the Ad Hoc Committee and sub- stituting that for the .5 FAR in the main proposed ordi- nance. Council Member:Renzel asked if staff would he able to evalu- ate projects in light . of the Ad Hoc Committee's recommenda- tions presently if they were to be ,adopted as the criterion under the moratorium. Ms. Jansen replied it would be difficult to administer cer- tain portions: of the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations, especially as an interim regulation. Some of the proposals were dramatically different from the kinds of regulations on which staff normally had discourse with the public. The front impact formula, in particular, would be perceived as 59-398 4/11/88 complicated by most lay members of the public, and it would take a lot of staff time to explain and probably take profes- sional assistance to calculate. . The Ad _Hoc Committee's recommendation on the front setback was not comparable to a 20- to 25 -foot setback, but was a formula which evaluated different planes in different locations. Council Member Renzel asked exactly how much compliance with the standards the amendment would require in order to get through the moratorium. Vice Mayor Klein understood the Ad Hoc Committee's recommen- dation was that ahouse would have to meet all the standards, like any zoning regulation. The beauty of the formula was there were trade-offs. Council Member Renzel asked what the position was where the Ad Hoc Committee recommended standards which were more liberal than the current ordinance. Vice Mayor Klein said the flexibility was inherent in his proposal. Council Member Renzel asked the City Attorney if the Council, for purposes of the interim moratorium, could take standards that were more liberal than the City's current zoning ordi- nance and allow them to go into place. She referred specifi- cally to the exceptions to the daylight plane. Ms. Northway said no. Council Member Renzel clarified essentially the Council would be using the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations up to the limits of the current zoning ordinance. Ms. Northway said yes. Council Member Renzel was concerned about putting staff in. the difficult position of administering a proposal which the Council was supposed to be studying. The amendment prejudged the the proposal before the Council dealt with it. There Were a number of good ideas in the proposal, some of which she would like to see augmented --in some areas they did not go far enough and. some provided good solutions --but to adopt them, wholesale them . at the present time would be as burdensome, if not more so, to the people Currently or about to be in the pipeline than a' FAR which left open the flexibility to use all the tools currently in the zoning ordinance but to a different degree. She opposed the amendment. 1 Council Member Woolley said the basic idea of having a flexible way of approaching the problem was excellent. The amendment allowed fiexibilty to architects. She was con- cerned about the impact on both staff and applicants' time in order to put the proposal into place on an interim basis. She asked for comments. Ms. Jansen said Planning Department staff received approxi- mately 50 phone calls a day on single-family inquiries and spent about 5. minutes per call. If the question involved .an issue relating to the daylight plane, the time doubled because the concept was more complicated and visual. Staff estimated there were approximately two full --time Planning Department staff members engaged in single-family issues. Seventy-five percent of the initial phone inquiries were made by lay members of the community or potential buyers who might be less schooled in the City's regulations. Staff time of any complicated interim measure would be enormous, and it was a delicate public relations issue. The knowledge that the measure might change in a short time might put the applicant in a great deal of jeopardy. At present, they had 161 building permit applications in process for residential alone. She urged a more simplified form of dealing with the single-family applications in process until new regulations were adopted. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said the major impacts on the Building Divisors were interpreting the ordinance. Curently the Division answered most questions. With the standards under discussion, they would probably refer everything to the Planning Department. The field problems would be a matter of educating the inspectors as .to what could be built. Mr. Jansen added the front impact formula was a difficult one to assess in the field. In regard to applicants, it would take substantially longer to get an application through the planning process and the proposal would force the use of professionals on any major addition or reconstruction. At present an architect was not required for single-family development. It was hard to judge how much extra time would be involved, but she opined it would be substantial. Ms. Northway said an ordinance that incorporated and analyzed the propasal:vis-a-vis the current ordinance would probably return to Council for its meeting of April 25, 1988. Council Member Woolley was concerned that the impact on staff would be such that something else would have to give, and it would be difficult for the Council to push harder on getting 59-400 4/11/88 a permanent set of regulations into place for single-family residences. She was also concerned with the public relations problem. The proposal would put the Planning staff in a difficult position to explain the series of formulas, and possibly on a temporary basis. For those reasons, she would not support the amendment. The amendment -she made to require the applicant to demonstrate that the project maintained character was fairly concrete, could be administered by staff, and would speak .to part of what the Ad Hoc Committee recommended on an interim basis. Council Member Fletcher said Vice Mayor Klein's proposal was appealing at first, and she. was going to suggest that instead of having it replace the .5 FAR, it be added to it. However, the remarks of staff clarified that the FAR was the manner to approach the problem. She knew it was claimed that the FAR would not take care of the mass or attractiveness of buildings. In all cases, it would not; but in some cases, it would help considerably. What was not considered by the Ad Hoc Committee, which looked almost exclusively at the: front - street view, was the impact of large buildings on the neigh- bors to the sides and back. The FAR of .5 was overly gener- ous but, under the circumstances, was acceptable for the interim and\would impact few people who were remodeling and adding on. Council Member Patitucci believed the arguments had been made that the amendment would not work ac an interim measure. He was .confused by a situation where the Council would put as temporary those standards they were buying time to evaluate. The Ad Hoc Committee did a service with their report. Tf he had not learned a lot in that process, he would be arguing for a .4 FAR because ultimately he believed an FAR would help. However, he did not want to elevate the report to a sacred document. There were some serious issues which needed to be addressed, especially the complexity. Although the amendment sounded appealing, he did not believe they could go ahead with it and hoped to move towards something simpler. Mayor Sutorius. referenced .the 161 single-family residence applications in process. Ms. Jansen clarified the number was 129 and 19 of the appli- cations would be affected by the .5 FAR cutoff. Mayor Sutorius asked how many were at .5 FAR. Mr. Herman said 4 out of the 19. Mayor Sutorius clarified .the four would not be affected, according to the way the motion was written. 59-401 4/11/88 Mr. Herman said that was correct. Mayor Sutorius clarified 15 out of the 129 in the process might be affected. He asked for a figure on the number of cases on existing vacant lots or replacements involving a demolition, and also what volume was associated with second stories being added to single -story dwellings. Mr. Herman explained 129 proje^.tc were currently in a planned process, had been accepted, and were complete packages. There were 13 new homes involving 13 demolitions of existing structures. There were 116 additions in process; 82 were one-story additions, and the question there was whether they would exceed Mayor Sutorius's suggestion of exceeding half the area. There were 34 two-story additions in plan check, and 19 total at .50 FAR or greater, or 15 which exceeded .50. They . ranged from .50 to .68 FAR. MOTION TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Patitucci, to call for the question. THE CALL FOR THE QUESTION FAILED on a vote of 2-6, Levy, Patitucci voting "aye," Bechtel absent. Mayor Sutorius was concerned about the types of impacts staff indicated for implementation on an interim basis. He wanted to understand the numbers to see how it scaled down if the application applied to the vacant lot or demolition situations, the addition of a second story to an exisitng single story, and remodels which increased habitable floor area by 50 percent. The pipeline perhaps had_. applications for February, March, and into April and was probably inflated. slightly by moratorium and zoning -change talk. he asked if the volume was far off what the volume would be ordinarily. Mr.. Herman said the volume of permits was fairly consistent with normal trends.. Most applications were from March and April. Mayor Sutorius would not support the amendment because the weight of implementing it was more severe than could be applied across the board. Council Member Cobb asked if they could reduce the number of places where the amendment would be applied along the lines of. Mayor Sutorius's plan. He understood the test would apply to every application. lbs. Jansen said yes. 59-402 4/11/88 Council Member Cobb believed if the volume could be cut down, the plan would be worthwhile. He had troublewith a mora- torium based on FAR alone. He shared Mayor Sutori.us's con- cerns with the amendment but believed it was closer to the answer than the pure FAR. Vice Mayor, Klein did not agree the proposal would be much more complex. They had a difficult problem in the community and needed to be more creative, and the formula was basic algebra. He urged staff to take another look, and he hoped they could overcome the fear of something different. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to ascend Section 4, to read, "This ordinance shall_not apply to structures for which an application for a building. permit has been made prior to close of business on April 11, 1988, and which application is subsequently accepted as complete." Council Member Levy said \the amendment put the onus on the applicant to fulfill the requirements by that day. If the applicant had the application in by that day, the processing was allowed to continue. He preferred the language in the amendment because the language on Section 4 related to the issuance of a building permit which was an action of the City. If the City should be delayed in its action, then the applicant suffered and that was not proper. However, the effective date was April 11, 1988, regardless of when the Council passed the moratorium. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Bechtel absent: I• • AMENDMENT: Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to amend Section 1 of the ordinance to read, "A moratorium is hereby imposed on the processing and/or issuance of building permits for structures in R-1 zones involving construction on existing vacant lots or, replacing pending property demoli- tions, additions oaf a second story to an existing single story, and remodels which increase habitable floor area by 50 percent or more if the front and side yard setbacks, and day- light plane particulars contained in the R -b1 Ad Hoc Committee report are not wet." Mayor Sutorius said the point was to limit . the number of. cases to which the moratorium would apply on an interim basin. The amendment was not necessarily less confusing than Vice Mayor Klein's on initial contact, but it reduced the base of cases to which the regulations would _.apply. The amendment was more manageable and got at the most severe types of concerns registered by the public and the Council., 59-403 4/11/88 Council Member Levy clarified the interim design review would apply to the elements and Items 2, 3, and 4 were part of the: amendment. Mayor Sutorius said no, Items 2, 3, and 4 were not contained in the amendment and there was no design review committee process. •If there were 129 applications in the pipeline now, 47 of them would be affected, which cut the volume consid- erably from that affected by Vice Mayor K•lein's proposal while addressing the situations that potentially had the most negative impact and concern. Council Member Patitucci asked if the .5 FAR would be elimi- nated. Mayor Sutorius said yes. Council Member Patitucci clarified they were determining those projects to which they would then apply the Ad Hoc Committee's criteria. He had the same objections as he did to Vice Mayor Klein's proposal. The amendment gave the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations more status than they should before the Council had an opportunity to study them. The Council was attempting to come up with something simple to use for a period of time while they studied the report. He continued to support the FAR. Council Member Fletcher clarified only 47 applications would be affected by the criteria. Mayor Sutorius said yes. Council Member Cobb was convinced the issue was complicated and difficult to solve with a simple measure like FAR. The Ad Hoc Committee showed samples of buildings larger than .5 FAR that looked all right, and build :n gs well below _5 FAR that looked terrible.. He suggested the egregious examples should go through some sort of approval process that ended with the Council ---'because it had to legally. The process could be -used to learn more about the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations, using them as guidelines not as an absolute measure. He believed such a process would solve the problem and make most of the attending public feel the Council had dealt with the issue in a way that was fair to everybody on both sides. He believed the .5 FAR would create a lot of houses from developers with FARs of .49,..and in -a few months some big, ugly houses. at .49 would . havebeen built He was also concerned that something as unsophisticated as the FAR was apt to let some of the bad buildings through and stop some of the good ones. In order to not hurt the wrong citi- zens, an exception process would be needed.. The amendment was an improvement over the FAR and he would support it. 59-404 4/11/88 Council Member Woolley liked the idea of doing something stronger than a .5 FAR and would be , pleased to put that down to a .4 FAR or to combine it with other ideas. The item was returning to the Council on April 18, 1988, and even if it was .the project that went for the evaluation, she assumed Council could still make minor changes. Ms. North+ai said yes, and it depended on what the Council gave her whether the item would return on April 18, 1988. She believed staff could study some possibilities. Council Mewber Levy believed if they had something simple and direct, the public would understand it, the Council would better understand what they were doing, and the possibilities of unintended consequences would be reduced. He agreed a .5 FAR was comfortable and ample, and they would only catch the most egregious exceptions to it. A .5 FAR might be a little high; however, it had the benefit of being simple, direct, and comprehensible, particularly to first-time callers. The key `.,was the action for a moratorium, i.e., a temporary expedient, which gave an incentive to move ahead quickly with the analysis demanded by the Ad Hoc report end devise more sophisticated and yet more thoroughly thought-out set of regulations. He believed Mayor Sutorius's concepts were pre- mature. Council Member Renzel concurred with the remarks made by Council Members Patitucci, Woolley, and Levy. The whole pur- pose of the moratorium was to allow the Council to study carefully the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations. They had been looking at the subject for over two years, and, they should not adopt wholesale a set of complex recommendations that might not go far enough, might be too innovative, or might not work together to accomplish allowing people reason- able development while protecting the neighbors' rights. In the interim, something like an FAR that left untouched all the City's other zoning parameters;made better sense. She hoped they would have a shorter period than eight months before adopting a permanent ordinance, Mayor Sutorius said his interpretation was that in some situations the amendment imposed possible hardship, some com- plexity, and risk that it might not work. He asked his colleagues to compare that with the hardship imposed and the difficulty of understanding why an application was blocked from processing at all based on a FAR, which increasingly everybody was understanding was not the way of approaching the problems. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of. 3 S, Klein, Sutorius, Cobb voting "aye," Bechtel absent.. 59-405 4/11/88 Council Member Levy believed there would be little need for exceptions but would like to allow for an exception appeal if a member of the public felt he/she was strongly being wronged by the moratorium. AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, to request. City Attorney to develop an exception procedure siilarto that for the Downtown moratorium using as standards: 1. Compatability with the surrounding neighborhoodj. and 2. Economic hardship based on cost incurred relative to pre- paring and applying for a building permit. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to add a section to the ordinance under Section 2J or in any other section the City Attorney deems appropriate, that reads, *In addition, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate the project maintains neighborhood character in ter : f: 1) front yard setback, 2) driveway and garage loca- tion, end 3) retention of street trees. Vice Mayor Klein opposed the amendment and would have trouble supporting the main motion if it passed, because it gave staff too much discretion and did not enable an applicant to figure out what to do to get approval. For example, it would be difficult to define neighborhood, neighborhood character, front yard setback, and driveway and garage location. Such problems created a morass and the idea was to make the motion simpler and more understandable. The amendment added an unwarranted degree of uncertainty. Council Member Patitucci agreed with Vice Mayor Klein. Council Member Cobb said the burden would fall on staff to determine neighborhood character, and he asked if they felt in a position to do that. As he understood the amendment, if something did not meet neighborhood character, it would fall into the confines of the moratorium. Ms. Jansen believed it would be prudent for staff to return to Council with a definition of how: they might interpret neighborhood character. A gross example was if a normal front yard setback was 35. feet and a : house came in at 20 feet, it would violate the frort yard setback. If a house was shown to remove the two street trees and replace them with ivy, that would violate, the street tree provision. Staff had the expertise, but it was a question of meeting the Council's objectives. 59-406. 4/11/88 Council Member Renzel clarified if the ...amendment passed, staff could return with suggested criteria .for evaluating compatibility for Council to consider in conjunction with the ordinance. Ms. Jansen believed neighborhood compatibility was evaluated at length in the Ad Hoc Comittee report, particularly in the, minority report, and that would be staff's stepping Stone. .Regarding whether a neighborhood constituted one or two blocks, staff would need to return to the Council .for clar- ification. It complicated the definition of What the moratorium would entail. From staff's standpoint, it would be easier to define neighborhood compatibility than to incorporate a separate set of regulations. The amendment complicated .the issue of having a clear-cut moratoriuri; however, a .5 FAR would not get to the heart of some of the neighborhood compatibility issues. Council Member Renzel wanted to see the amendment evaluated as part of the referral, and for the Council to see, if it could be handled. She would support the amendment with the idea that, if it was too difficult to deal with, she would return to supporting the plain FAR. Ms. Northway said if staff did. not feel the standards in and of themselves provided sufficient guidance to be able to carry out the direction of the City Council, then the standards had some problems; in which case, the City Attorney's office could not develop more detailed standards that staff would need to implement their portion of the ordi- nance covered by the amendment by April 18, 1998. She needed to hear if staff could operate under the standards. Council Member Levy said Council Member Renzel reflected his feelings. The language Council Member Woolley used in making the amendment reflected that they were not looking for fine, precise guidelines but rather some standard so that if there was a clear violation of the neighborhood character, they would be able to catch it. If the. violation was borderline, it went through. Those were the kinds of guidelines he wanted to see return to the Council. Council Member Woolley said that was her intent. She pulled the amendment from the draft Residential Neighborhood Preservation Overlay Zone which was part of the minority report which went into much more detail. She hoped with the amount of groundwork already done, staff might be able to return on April 18, 1988,. with something that would help to tighten up the .5 FAR. She .agreed some cases would be missed, but on a demolition for example, if it did not exceed 59-407 4/11/88 .5, it was important the characteristics in her amendment be adhered to in addition to just the concern about the actual size of the building. Assistant City Manager June Fleming said staff would use, the report as a stepping stone and would do their best to return to the Council by April 18, 1988. If not satisfied, ''The Council could then give further direction. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Klein, Patitucci voting *no,' Bechtel absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, to request the City Attorney to develop an exception_ procedure similar t:-, that for the downtown moratorium _ ._using as standards: 1. Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; and 2. Economic hardship based on cost incurred relative to preparing and applying for a building permit. Council Member Levy commented the exception procedure would not be automatic but would be an appeals -type procedure. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Cobb, Levy voting "aye," Bechtel absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to broaden the CEQA review to include in addition a .4 FAR and a standard appeal process. Council Member Woolley clarified the standard appeal process would be interjected so that cases could go to the City Council and would be judged according to the Ad Hoc Committee's report. Ms. Northway asked if the appeals would go through the Planning Commission. Council Member Woolley said yes. Council Member Patitucci heard Council Member Levy state eloquently that simplicity should be the order of the day. Now, they were hearing amendments which added increased complexity and uncertainty to the entire process. AMENDMENT DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING 59-408 4/11/88 FIRST PART OF AMENDMENT REGARDING .4 FAR PROCESS FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Fletcher, Renael, Woolley voting "aye,' Bechtel absent.. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO WITHDRAW THE SECOND _ PART OF THE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE STANDARD APPEAL PROCESS Vice Mayor Klein would have voted for the plain motion on the basis that the FAR was probably better than nothing and would accomplish some good. He still believed while it was not the long-range desired result, it would help alleviate some of the problem. However, he could not handle the last amendment regarding neighborhood character because it gave a totally different character to the motion and introduced elements of uncertainty and complexity for the : staff. Reluc- tantly, he would have to vote against the main motion. Council Member Levy said. it was clear that the community was concerned with maintaining its present character. Council needed to take steps to bring the R-1 character into shape, and the moratorium would affect few of the houses and only the most egregious exceptions; and it would give the Council breathing room to examine more carefully the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee. The element mentioned by Vice Mayor Klein would return the next week, and he looked upon it as simply a standard which would be used only to catch the most extreme violations of neighborhood character rather than a standard by which every single applicant would be judjed. If the standard operated to catch only the largest exceptions he would vote -for it; if not, the Council would have the ,oppor- tuni.ty not to include that . element in the basic .moratorium. He believed the basic moratorium was on target and was desired by the community. Mayor Sutorius asked about the effective date of the action. Ms. Northway said the Council would not have an ordinance upon which it could act until April 18, 1988. If the ordinance was passed by the normal vote, i.e., five votes, that would be first reading. If the ordinance passed as an emergency ordinance, it would be effective on the date of passage if the votes were sufficient, i.e., a four -fifths vote. She assumed she had the liberty to tone up the ordi- nance to the extent that none of the bae is concepts would be changed. Mayor Sutorius said that was understood. Mayor Sutorius was tempted to associate with Vice Mayor Klein but for opposing reasons. He was not enamored of FAR. 59-409 4/11/88 He voted for the neighborhood character out of concern that, if the motion passed, that was a possible way of at least reflecting some of the more difficult things that could occur in a demolition and in the design of a replacement house. Yet, he was so unenaiii td of. FAR that he was tempted to vote against the main motion. However, he would not oppose sending the material to staff and would evaluate it when it returned to the Council. MAIN NOTION AS ARMED PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Cobb, Klein voting *no,* Bechtel absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 1:29 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 59-41U 4/11/88