Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-18 City Council Summary MinutesCITY Y COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITY COUNCI L MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting April 18, 1988 ITEM Oral Communications Consent Calendar Action PAGE 59-413 59-413 59-413 1. Contract with Monterey Mechanical Company 59-413 for Installation of- Centrifugal Blower at the Water Quality Control Plant 2. Ordinance 3805 Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1987-88 to Provide for Reprogramming of Community Block Grant Funds 3. Resolution 6683 Ordering the Summary Vacation of a Portion of An Easement for Street and Public Utilities Purposes at Pasteur Drive South 4. Resolution 6684 Approving and Authorizing Execution of "Program .Supplement No. 02 to Local Agency -State Agreement for Federal - Aid Projects No. 04-5100" 5,. Resolution 6785 Amending Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) 6. Report of . Council Legislative Committee: 1) Proposed Guidelines for Council'.s Voting Delegates; 2) AB 4057; 3)AB 4123/AB 4124; 4) SB 1741 59-413 59.413 59-413 59-414 59-414 ITEM PAGE 7. PUBLIC HEARING. Planning Commission 5Fi-414 Recommendation re Multiple -Family Zoning Ordinances and Citywide Zoning. Map 8. Planning Commission Recommendation re 59-432 Appeal of Harold and Joan Schneider re Use Permit for Property Located at 855 Clara Drive 9. Ordinance 3806 re Moratorium on the 59-436 Processing or Issuance of Building Permits for Single Family Dwellings which do not Meet Certain Criteria and Declaring an Emergency 10. Planning Commission „ Recommendation re Additional Site Development Regulations and Design Guidelines to Modify the Regulations of the OR, CN, CS, GM and LM Districts 11. Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of the Landscape Combining District (L) Regulations for Property Located at 200 Pasteur Drive 12. Planning Commission Recommendation re Review of the City of East Palo Alto Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed University Circle Project 59-436 59-436 59-427 13. Citizen Complaint Process _ Police 59-436 Department Adjournment at 12:50 a.m. 59--451 Regular Meeting Monday, April 18, 1988 The City Council\of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:37 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Fletcher, Klein, Levy Pa ti tucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Cobb Mayor Sutorius announced that a Closed Session re Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) to discuss Century Federal v. City of Palo Alto was held prior to the meeting in the Council Conference Room. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding destruction of the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. CONSENT CALENDAR NOT1ON i Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Consent Calendar. 1. CONTRACT WITH MONTEREY MECHANICAL COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,000 FOR INSTALLATION OF CENTRIFUGAL BLOWER AT THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (CMR:240:8) (1122-01) 2. ORDINANCE 3805 entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE eITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987--88 TO PROVIDE FOR REPROGRAMMING OF COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS (CMR:228:8 001-03/412-02/300) ) 3. RESOLUTION 6683 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CI F PALO ALTO ORDERING THE UMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN EA3EM R STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITIES PURPOSES AT PASTE)R RIVE SOUTH" (CMR: .,6:8) (701-04/ EASEMENT VACATION 4.. RESOLUTION 6684 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL .OF THh CITY OF PALO AL O AP ROWING AND- 1 UTHORIZING EXECU- TION OF 'PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT' NO. d2 TO LOCAL AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL -AID PROJECTS NO. 04-5100 DATED MAR 4i1988I_ AMR:234; � ( �i-04/116 ) - r "PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 02 TO LOCAL AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL. AID PROJECTS NO. 04-5100". 59-4: /3 4/18/88 CONSENT CALENDAR CONT'D 5. RESOLUTION 6685 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL (SEIU) ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 6610 AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS. 624 AND 6641 TO ADD SALARY SCHEDULE FOR SECOND YEAR OF AGREEMENT (1 -89T (CMR:235:8) (701-04/50x) 6. REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE: 1) PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR COUNCIL'S VOTING DELEGATES; 2) AB 4057; 3) AB 4123/AB 4124; 4) SB 1741751177145:8T (702-06) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE MODIFICATION OF THE MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONING ORDINANCE: AND CITYWIDE ZONE MAP/ INTRODUCTION OF MULTIPLE RESIDEN- TIAL GUIDELINES, APPLICATION OF NEW MULTIPLE -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; -AND POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF (D) SITE AND DESIGN . REVIEW COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO CERTAIN PROPERTIES (CMR:239.8) 701-03/237-01) Planning Administrator Toby Kramer corrected Section 18.22.050, page 3; and 18.24.050, pages 10 and 17 to delete references to the number of units. The language was confusing and unnecessary. Staff suggested the Council go through the items as listed in the requested action in the staff report of March 10, 1988, (CMR:239:8) and might look at the issue on second stories to determine whether wording changes would be needed for that section. Planning Commissioner Pat Cullen .summarized that the proposal from the Planning Commission responded to Council directives to examine usable open space, to consider a possible floor area ratio (FAR), to look at the length of driveways in multiple -family zones, and to evaluate the appropriateness of the RM-5 zone. .The Commission concern was to protect the existing single-family setbacks and height, to ensure privacy in adjacent single-family zones, to have usable open space for each unit not only for the adjacent zones but for residents of a particular development, to examine and recommend a FAR, to reduce the bulk and mass, and to lower the densities €o families might be encouraged to use the multiple -family zones. Also, the Commission examined the guest -parking. The proposal was to replace the five multiple -family zones with three zones, combining them, to change the ` site development regulations in, those zones in terms of density, setbacks, height, the 59->414 4/18/88 imposition of a FAR, which had never been used in residen- tial housing before; and to have minimum usable open space. The Commission also recommended increasing the guest parking; site and design review for sensitive areas that were multiple -family zoned, especially Stanford West; and guidelines included in the. Zoning Ordinance so developers would know what kinds of things the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would_ be looking for, i.e., lighting, trash areas, noise impacts, paving, and landscaping. On a split vote of 4 to 3, the Planning Commission also recommended the grandfathering of projects from the time of a building permit. Three members recommended grandfathering be from the time of ARB approval. Council Member Patitucci referenced the report on the resi- dential zone applicable to a commercial district, and said the chart on page 11 showed a conversion which appeared to be one -for -one where it had RM-4 converting to RM-30; RM-3 converting to RM-30; and RM-2 converting to RM-15 except in the CC and CS zones where RM-5 was converting to RM-30, whereas in the CD -C zone it converted to an RAC -40. He did not understand the rationale and asked what impacts it had on any incentives to construct housing where commercial might otherwise exist. lbs. Kramer said the Community Commercial (CC) zone was pres- ently the designation for Town and Country Shopping Center and major shopping centers in the City. There, were not many CC zones, and they were built -out and unlikely to convert to residential. The CS zone was in a variety of areas through- out Palo Alto, and the Comrnis�'ion felt it was safer togo with a lower designation at that point and to re-examine CS areas, such as Urban Lane, which might be suitable for a higher density. Rather than giving all CS areas the RM»40 designation, the Commission felt more , comfortable with RM-3 and re-examining them to increase the density as an incentive, especially because those areas would be examined in the Citywide study. Council Member Patitucci .clarified the reason was not because the Commission believed there was an incentive or not; that, was not known at present. Comwia'ioner Cullen said that was right. CouncijMember Patitucci clarified the CD -C being downtown justif d the higher density. 59-415 4/18/88 Commissioner Cullen added most of the CS zones were in South Palo Alto, and the Commission believed it more appropriate to examine those in the second round because they did not really appear in areas where higher density would be logical. Council Member Bechtel asked about the staff recommendation concerning timing on grandfathering projects. The March 3, 1988, staff report ,proposed to grandfather projects that had received final ARB_ approval. She clarified final ARE approval would be effective from the date after second reading of the ordinance and the normal 31 -day waiting period. Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said yes. Council Member Bechtel clarified staff envisioned a couple of the projects on the list to have received final ARB approval by that time, but the remainders would not, even though they were in the pipeline. Ms. Jansen said yes, several of the projects had been through the preliminary process. While it was conceivable they could return for the final ARB approval in a relatively short period of time, others might not because of problems related to the design but unrelated to the regulations before Council. Both Items 1 and 2 were properties in the pipeline as noted and had been approved, and Item 3 had a second preliminary and would be returning for final approval. On the remaining properties shown on preliminary, staff did not know what would happen down the road. It was expected Item 5, Park Boulevard, would go before the ARB for final approval. shortly. Council Member Levy asked if the recommended guidelines for architectural and design elements were essentially the ones now being used by the ARB. Ms. Jansen replied some of the elements were being used by the ARB but not all. Many times, the ARB looked at privacy issues, setbacks, etc., beyond those required by the regulations, but they were not spelled out in the manner proposed by the guidelines. Council Member__` Levy queried to what degree Council was breaking new ground. He asked if the ARB had discussed all the guidelines recommended to the Council. 59-416 4/18/88 Ms. Jansen said yes; in fact, the ARB was instrumental in the subcommittee's consideration of the multiple -family regulations and guidelines in terms of their recognition that the guidelines were important in the ARB process. Two members of the ARB were on the subcommittee. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Bob Moss, -4010 Orme Street, asked the. Council to adopt the ordinance and to adopt the Planning Commission recommenda- tion -regarding grandfathering--that it be at the issuance of a building permit and substantial construction Only in recent years was the guideline relaxed to allow ARB approval. One of the concerns was the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) would not meet the new guidelines, but he understood it would be simple for them to ask for a minor variance, and he hoped the Council would waive the applica- tion fees for a worthy organization like the PAHC. Regarding the viability of housing in commercial zones, any development in either the CS or CN zone at 20 to 30 units an acre would be economically viable. Reducing the potential build -out in the CS to . a maximum of 30 units per acre would not preclude residential development. If the incentive was too great, they might not only, create excessive development but would be removing viable commercial properties and replacing them with high -density housing. He asked that the recommendation for RM-30 be adopted as a maximum in the CS and CN zones, and Council .restudy .,specific areas later. M. E. Pratt, 1136 Waverley Street, said the revision of the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones was discriminatory against the small landowner and destructive of the need for small, inexpensive housing units in the downtown area. The effect was a 50 percent loss in housing potential in the downtown area. To correct the situation, the existing setbacks for 50 -foot lots in the downtown area should be retained as well as the current densities for lots under 8,500 square feet. A further increase in housing could be obtained by encouraging more units in a given floor area rather than developing to the maximum size permittedin the downtown area where it was not suited for families with children'. The proposal lacked flexibility to give the ownersof the property the right to develop them themselves without having to sell to developers, Jean Olmsted, 240 West Charleston, said she and a number of her neighbors supported reductions in what could be built in multi --family .. zones. She urged the Council to take the opportunity to help Palo Alto remain a livable place. She asked that the Traynor project not be grandfathered under the old regulations 59-417 4/18/88 MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved,.. seconded by Levy, to adopt staff recommendation flat „the Negative Declaration. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein :coved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt staff recommendation #2, the ordinance .amending Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code with a modification on page 3, Section 18.22.050(a), page 10, Section 18.24..0.50(a), and page 17, Section . 18.26.050(a) to ra.vine.. itbm__ wording to read "(a) Site Area. The minimumsite area :..shall .be 8,500 square feet.' ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL dF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (THE ZONING CODE) HI ADDING MULTIPLErFANILY ZONING CHAPTERS 18.22, 18.24, AND 18.26 (REGULA- LATIONS) AND CHAPTER 18.28 (GUIDELINES), REPEALING MULTIPLE -FAMILY ZONING CHAPTERS 18.21, 18.23, 18.25, 18.27 AND 18.29 (REGULATIONS) AND AMENDING OTHER SECTIONS TO REFER TO THE NEW CHAPTERS' AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Reale', to amend Section 18.28.030(i) to incorporate m6) Planting strips and street trees shall be considered for all new multiple -family developments." Council Member Levy .referred to the interrelationship of architectural and design elements. He believed it was unwise for Council to adt without first having the ARS carefully consider the guidelines and make recommendations. Further study was underway in the context of the R-1 committee and he believed it would be inappropriate and premature to add it in the proposed ordinance. It could be added later if the ARS believedit was worthwhile to do so. Council Member Renzel said; the idea was not new; it hadjust not been used in recent subdivisions. The entire Council had experience on streets with parking strips and streets without. She had no trouble with the incorporation of the amendment as a design guideline. Vice Mayor Klein asked whether the guideline. was already addressed in other landscaping requirements. Ms. Jansen said to her knowledge no specific language directly related to planter strips and the retention of street trees in conjunction with multiple family develop- ment except for the fact that a permit was required for the removalof street trees. 59-418 4/18/88 Mayor Sutorius said attention to street trees and land- scaping of planter strips where they existed .was part of the ARB process. He understood the purpose _of incorporating the guidelines for multi -family developments was . to. assist the applicants in understanding up front what the ARB would consider in the review of projects. Council Member Patitucci had a problem with the inclusion of guidelines in legislation generally. He would not support the amendment because he did not believe the guidelines should be considered at the Council level. Council Member Fletcher believed the inclusion of such guidelines provided the ARB with the support it needed to not feel it was overstepping its authority when it made requirements in certain uses. In terms of further study of the guideline, the Traynor project would slip through the cracks without it. She urged approval. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Levy, Patitucci voting °no,° Cobb absent. AMENDMENT* Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Rensel, to amend Section 18.28.030 to add "(j) Pedestrian Protection. Water diversion techniquesfor channeling water runoff from the roof, away from pedestrian areas, shoold . be .incorporated in the design of the building. Such mechanisms may include overhangs, rain gutters, or covered walkways.° Council Member Renzel commended Council Member Fletcher for being so astute. AUEKDMEET PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Patitucci voting °n Cobb absent. 1 w AN EPEE i Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Patitucci, to amend Section 18.21.0.10 to add after the first sentence °Recommendations for final approval of the architectural and design elements of any project remains with the Architectural Review Board in accordance with Chapter 16.48. The Architectural Review Board retains the authority to interpret guidelines on a project -by -project basis in order to fulfill the specific purposes in Section 18.28.010." Vice Mayor Klein supported the amendment because it would put people on appropriate notice that the ARB was the final arbiter. He was not sure he liked weighting down the municipal code with so many signals and warnings, but once Council started down the route, the addition of the amend- ment.was helpful and desirable. 59.419 4/18/88 Council Member Patitucci agreed the amendment helped to clarify the guidelines. He asked whether Council committees had bylaws or regulations they could promulgate. City Attorney Diane Northway said.`Cou.nci:..committees did not have substantive regulations because under the City Charter all the boards and commissions were technically advisory. The only decision -making body in Palo Alto was the City Council with the exception of various City officers. Council Member Patitucci was bothered' by "guidelines" because if an applicant did not act in accordance with the guidelines section, Council would say it was okay since they were only guidelines. He preferred guidelines not be mixed with legislation because it sent the wrong signal and filled the municipal code with information that was irrelevant to the health and safety requirements of the City. Since he doubted the votes to eliminate the section, the clarifica- tion language put the guidelines at the level of regulations somewhat outside the code. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Patitucci coved, seconded by Levy, to amend the proposed ordinance to delete Sections 18.22.050(j)(2), 18.24.a5O(j)(2) and 18.26.050(.i)(2). Council Member Patitucci said they were talking about a balcony of 50 square feet, a patio of 100 square feet per unit at the RM-15 and RM-30, and a balcony of 50 square feet and a patio of 80 square feet for the RM-40. He asked why, after all the multi -family that had been built in Palo Alto, they were focusing at such a level of requirement on whet might be built in the `next few years.. It seemed to be getting into the business of design. Planning Commissioner Pat Cullen said the Committee believed the lack of success of many of the condominium projects was due to a lack of private open space. The nonmarketability of the units was affecting the City as a whole and something needed to be done, if possible, to improve the marketability of the units for the economic health of the -City and also for the livability of the people in the units. The Planning Commission discussed the same questions raised by Council Member Patitucci and there was eventual support for the idea that usable private open space was essential in the multiple family zone. Many other cities with similar regulations had a similar requirement. Palo Alto used to have such a regu- lation and it was eliminated. That was when Palo Alto started having trouble with condominiums that were not'being sold. 59-420 4/18/88 Council Member Patitucci did not believe marketability of units was the City's responsibility. He queried whether balconies were included as a guideline. Ms. Kramer said the Committee considered the regulation a compromise. Originally, a minimum five- or six-foot dimension was required for the balcony. The Committee members felt strongly that existing usable open space ended up being in driveway areas or in landscaping treatments that people could not walk on nor use. There was no provision for an actual private area contiguous to the unit. Some Committee members felt they were trying to provide housing families might find acceptable and having an outdoor private area adjacent to the unit was important. Some of the pri- vate areas seen as balconies were very small and only big enough for a plant or to open the door or window and stand there. It was not usable open space. The feeling was that a minimum size was extremely important. Another compromise allowed the trade off that if a project was designed such that it was difficult to provide a balcony or patio area, the area could be pooled with the other open space and an additional common area could be added to the project. That was another way to keep flexible but still indicate the desire for the private open space. All of the compromises were incorporated into the actual regulations for each of the districts and not into the guidelines. Council Member Renzel believed the private open spaces were important to young families where they could keep tack of their children. The provision was there as a design ele- ment. It was not dictated but Council was ensuring that somehow the needs of children were accommodated in new proj- ects. When only.65 percent of the City's multi -family space was developed, there were requirements for private open space.. It was only within the last ten years that the pro- vision was deleted. Council Member Fletcher opposed the amendment. Balconies and private open space provided for individuality and it was more attractive. Vice Mayor Klein agreed with Council Members Fletcher and Renzel. He believed it was inappropriate for the Planning Commission to consider whether other condominiums were marketable. Council's goal should not be to raise or lower property values or make them sell or not make them sell. Its goal was to determine what was best_ for the community's health, safety and welfare 59-421 4/18/88 Council Member Levy's experience with balconies in San Francisco and New York was that they were an almost useless appendage. It was far too dangerous to put an infant on a balcony. He agreed with Council Meanber.Patitucci that not demanding balconies gave developers the flexibility to include them or something else as was seen fit which might be a better idea than Council saying that balconies were a good idea in all projects. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Patitucci, Levy voting "aye,' Cobb absent. AMEMDMENT: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Sutorius, to add the staff recommendations that the language of the multiple -family regulations ordinance should be changed ou page 3, new Sections 18.22.050(e)(2) and on page 10, new Section 18.24.050(e)(2) to read as follows: "(2) The minimum interior side and rear yards_ for a structure over one story shall be 10 feet for the first_ story of the structure and shall be one-half (1/2) of the actual height of the structure over one story." The ordinance language, should also be *hanged accordingly on page 4, new Section 18.22.050(e)(4), on page 10, new Section 18.24.050(e)(4), and on page 18, new Section 18.26.050(e)(2), to reflect this interpretation for structures adjacent to_ single-family zones, with language to read as follows: The minimum side and rear yards for a structure over one story adjacent to any single-family zone (including R-1, R-2 and RM-D zones) shall be 10 feet for the first story of the structure and shall be . 20 feet for the portion of the structure over one story.". Council Member Renzel queried whether the intent of the amendment meant that if the structure was 20 feet high, both stories only had to be 10 feet away. or whether it meant an additional 10 feet for the second story that went to 20 feet. Ms. Kramer said the first story could be. 10 feet and the subsequent stories would have to be stepped into the .20 feet to recap the height of the building. The Commission wanted to make the entire building go back 20 feet with no ability to allow the first story to project into the first 10 feet. Council Member Renzel said "(2)" page 2, of the staff report (CMR:192:8), sounded as though the second story could also be 10 feet away which she did not sup rt. There should be some clarification of stepping back forr' thesecond floor. 59-422 4/18/88 Ms. Kramer said if a building was 20 _feet, one-half the height of the building would be 10 feet so a 20 -foot building could be two stories and a minimum of 10 feet. However, if the building were 19 fe.et,. , then one-half the height would be 9.5 feet. In no way should any of the building be less than the 1'0 feet which was why the additional line was included. Council Member Renzel said that was substantially different from the Planning Commission recommendation which required stepping back for the second story. Ms. Kramer said if the building was single story ---which could be from 8 feet up to maybe 18 feet for a building with cathedral -type ceilings --that would have to be at least ten feet. If the building was two living levels, they would require the building be ten feet for the first story and half the height for each additional story. If it were only 20 feet, it would be 10 feet: if it were more than that it would have to be set back further than the ten. Council Member Renzel clarified the building could go up 20 feet, 10 feet from the side yard, whether single or double story; whereas the Planning Commission definitely said the second story had to be stepped back. Ms. Kramer said correct; but the second story would still have to be half the height, and half the height of 20 feet was 10 feet so the second story would be set back 10 feet. The other protection would be the daylight plane. Mayor Sutorius believed there was discussion to illustrate that if the building was three- or four -stories, but the additional floors were only a portion of the frontage or "rearage," the additional setback did not apply to that portion of the single-story portion of the building. It would be the portion of the entire building that rose up that would have to be. setback equivalent to half the total height. Ms. Kramer said that was correct; it was somewhat modeled after the Relier senior citizen project where there was a stepping back of the various floors. Council Member Levy was concerned Council be sensitive to the adjacent zone. They were in the process of changing the R-1 zone and there might be new requirements. 59-423 4/18/88 SUBSTITUTE AMBNDMENTa Council Member Levy moved, secondOed by Woolley, that for all RN structuresL ad jacent to or within a non-RM zone, all exterior setbacks And. daylight plane calculations for the shared lot_ line shall be those in effect for the adjacent zone. Council Member Levy explained if the RM zone was adjacent to a single-family zone, the requirements for the single-family zone would apply to that particular lot line. If the RM zone was adjacent to a commercial or industrial zone, they would use the setbacks for those zones which, infact, might be more permissive. It seemed silly to have setbacks from a commercial or industrial project where on the other side there might be no setback whatsoever; in fact, it might be more constructive to have the residential development in that area turn more inside. Mayor Sutorius understood if the RM-15 were adjacent to an R-1 general which presently had a six-foot side yard setback, the substitute amendment would say the RM-15 structure could be a s close as six feet rather than the minimum. Council Member. Levy said yes. Mayor Sutorius did not believe the change was appropriate and would oppose the substitute amendment. Council Member Renzel also opposed the substitute amendment. It was not appropriate to compare multi -family to single-family when they were adjacent. It was imperative to have stricter requirements so they did not find themselves in more of the °lesser of evils" decisions. Council needed to provide the protection on the site, and the same setbacks would buffer the people living in the project from adjoining industrial or other nonresidential zones. Council Member Bechtel also intended to vote "no" on the substitute amendment. Council Member Woolley referenced the smaller lots which were RM-2, particularly the ones just off Alma Street on Coleridge, Tennyson, Lowell, and Seale and facing those streets, s.he did not know how those lots could be used if the kinds of setbacks were required. The last lots abutted R-1 and were not sufficiently large to accommodate such setbacks. Ms. Jansen said one of the purposes of the regulations was to promote the combination of parcels for multiple -family developments wherethe parcels were too small to develop. Staff felt 50 -foot parcels in particular could notdevelop and meet most of .the multiple -family regulations before Council on a lot -by -lot basis; however, if the lots combined, they could do so. Architectural drawings indicated they could do so and meet the density and the new regulations. The proposal before Council was somewhat contrary to the intent of the regulations which was to protect adjacent single-family and other development, or to protect the multiple -family development from adjacent commercial uses. SUBSTI WTE AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote Mooney voting "aye,* Cobb absent. Council Member Patitucci was confused by the which was not the way he understood the wording. 2-6, Levy, explanation Vice Mayor Klein asked for further clarification. He believed Council Member Renzel was right from the literal language, that a two-story 20 -foot high building would have no requirement of stepping back on the second story Ms. Kramer said that was right, such a building would be in the grey area, but once past that the two-story element was greater than the ten -foot minimum and the second story would step back to half the height of the building. Vice Mayor Klein asked if staff was comfortable with the numbers, and what one foot on a 20 -foot high building accomplished. . 4s. Kramer believed it was an unlikely happening. If it would be beneficial, staff could clarify the language for the Council when they returned with the final regulation. Vice Mayor Klein asked . the average height of a two-story family building. Ms. Kramer replied a flat -roofed, two-story building would be 20 feet in height. A flat --roofed, three-story building would be 30 feet, and the third story would be set back another five feet, Mayor Sutorius said a design alternative to the setback would be the entire building would be moved back the setback of 15 feet. Vice Mayor Klein felt uamfortabl a with the language and the concept, 59-n425 4/18/88 Council Member Fletcher believed they would see a lot of fiat -roofed, two-story buildings with the 20 -foot cutoff. Council Member Levy referenced language on_ Page 2 of the staff report (CMR:192:8), which said, "The staff's intent, however, was°ato apply the standard requiring the first story to be setback ten feet and that any portion of the structure over one story would have to be setback further in accord- ance with the structure's height." It seemed staff's intent was to have the first story ten feet back, and then the second story an additional amount back. He agreed with the intent that the second story should be setback further than the first story. M. Kramer responded it would not necessarily be an addi- tional ten feet but would be related to the building height. The numbers for flat -roofed buildings might be confusing. Assuming a 26 --foot building, the second -story portionwould be setback 13 feet. The first story would be setback a minimum of ten feet. Council Member Patitucci said the reason for the discussion was the daylight plane had no relevance if the original rule was in effect. The daylight plane started at ten feet and went at a 45 -degree angle, so it would cut at the 20 -foot point. Ms. Kramer clarified the daylight plane for the Rt4-15 as proposed would start at five feet. Staff made it more restrictive than the present ten feet in forcing some of the building in. The 20 -foot building, flat -roofed or pitched, would not necessarily be effected because they were within the half the height of the building requirement. In most cases, staff was seeing two-story buildings between 25 and 28 feet in height so the second story would be setback further than the minimum of ten feet. Council Member Renzel asked if the amendment affected the daylight plane proposed for the zone. Ms. Kramer said that was correct. Council Member Renzel asked why the term "story" was used rather than "direct height" which could encompass a story in terms of how it impacted the neighbors. In other words, if it went up 20 feet it was m first story versus a second story. Ms. Kramer said perhaps it was from a height standpoint but not from a living standpoint. A single -story building had a single living unit, and a two-story had two living units 59=-426 4/18/88 stacked one on top of the other. It was the subcommittee's feeling the privacy issue prevailed in the stories more than in the height of the building. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Renzel voting "no,' Cobb absent Mayor Sutorius said the Council would halt discussions on Item 7 in order to move to Item 12, set for a time certain. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING REVIEW OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO'S NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO B: PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED UNIVERSITY CIRCLE PROJECT • 1501) Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber introduced Associate Planner Bob Haley. The item before Council was a response to the Notice of Preparation issued by the City of East Palo Alto regarding -an amendment -to the adoption of the redevelopment plan for the University Circle area. It was the initial step in the environmental impact process. It was unusual for staff to refer a Notice of Preparation to the Planning Commission and Council, but given the _high level of interest in the project and its recognized significance for Palo Alto; staff believed both the Commission and Council should have the opportunity to respond. The requirements provided 30 days for adjacent cities and other interested parties to respond- to the Notice of Preparation. The Notice of Preparation and its distribution was intended to solicit indications of topics that should be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). It was not a review of the project nor of specific environmental issues. When the DEIR was released, staff would refer it to the Planning Commission and Council, at which time comments on the DEIR and . the project defined therein could be made back to the City, of East Palo Alto. Staff invited representatives of the City of East Palo Alto to attend that evenings Council meeting but had not received confirmation of their attendance. The item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 13, 1988. He clarified there were three different sets of comments before Council: 1) A memo from Transportation Division, 2) the staff report that went to the Planning Commission, and 3) the Planning Commission transmittal. The intended City comments as proposed by staff would be the summation of those three items. Mayor Sutorius asked about archaeological ima►cts in _ view of the projects proximity to the creek, and whether that should be called out as a category of interest. OWN Mr. Schreiber said that was a good point, and it should be called out. Mayor Sutorius asked the project area size measurement and what would be a comparable commercial .area within Palo Alto. Mr. Schreiber said the project area was approximately 11 acres. Page Mill Hill at Page Mill and Foothill was. an II -acre project with 185,000 square feet. 525 University, including Bank of America, was approximately two acres and 250,000 square feet, or a little less than one -fifth of the project size for University Circle. The two towers and related buildings of Palo Alto Square at Page Mill and El Camino was a 21. -acre site with 315,000 gross square feet. Staff could not identify an easily comparable mixed retail/office site of 11 acres in Palo Alto but, in essence, it would equate to about two and one-half square blocks in downtown Palo Alto. Vice Mayor Klein said Palo Alto Square with 315,000 square feet was a quarter or third as large as the proposed development in East Palo Alto on a parcel that was twice as big, which meant it was six or eight times as dense as Palo Alto Square. Mr. Schreiber said closer to eight. Council Member Patitucci asked if the recommendations from the Transportation Division were incorporated. Mayor Sutorius said yes. Council Member Patitucci said the Notice of Preparation stated they would look at three alternatives, and the Planning Commission's recommendation was to consider another alternative between the status quo and the first project. He asked if that would be a substitute or an addition, and whether. East Palo Alto had any obligation to consider that recommendation. City Attorney Diane Northway said the judgment initially would be East. Palo Alto's to make. If the Council was doing the project, she would recommend including that because that was the prudent course of action to follow when doing a project of the scope. They needed to consider more than two alternatives, and she believed the law suggested that. 59-428 4/18/88 MOTION: Mayor Sutorius moved, sseconded. by Klein, _ to accept the recommendations of staff as supplemented by the Planning Commission recommendations and incorporating the archaeological aspect. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:35 p.m. TO 9:51 p.m. RETURN TO ITEM 7, PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT NEW MULTIPE-FAMILY ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS Mayor Sutorius referenced RM-40 in regard to tradeoffs with respect to the potential affordability of smaller units and the give and take involved dealing with mass, bulk, and intrusions. He was aiming towards understanding the reduc- tion of housing stock potential with particular concern about small unit sizes that tended to be more affordable. He asked if staff and the Planning Commission addressed that area. Ms. Kramer said yes; the net increase in units under the current zoning --building out at the maximum and subtracting existing units --would be about 1,850 .units. Under the proposed zoning, there would be a reduction to around 1,760. Mayor Sutorius asked about the RM-40 relative to RM-4 and RM-5, and understood there was no change in Stanford West, and' for RM-5 the example of 2665 Park was given where current zoning permitted 98 units and revised zoning permitted 85. Ms. Jansen said Stanford West would not be affected by the change. Mayor Sutoriusclarified there was no significant effect on the number of units in buildings available on. a more affordable basis. Ms. Jansen said the effect was not significant, but they should recognize that the cost of units was generally square -footage driven. Under the RM-40, if the maximum numbers of units were built on..a.perticular project, there would be- fewer than under the RM-45, and they might be slightly larger, The FAR, however, under both regulations was proposed to be the same, so there would be no difference in building mass under the previously -proposed RM-45 and the now -proposed RM-'40. There would be a difference in building height. Previously 50 -foot building height was permissible; 40 -foot would be permissible under the RM--4©. It was difficult to assess the direct impact on the affordability of a particular housing unit. 59-429 4/18/88 Council Member Renzel referenced Section 17, Treatment of projects in the approval process, and asked for verification that, at best, staff believed there would be three projects likely to finish the process in time to qualify, under the cutoff time. Ms. Jansen said three to four; the fourth one being the California Avenue/Park Boulevard project. 800 Charleston was likely to return_and be approved by the ARB prior to the regulations taking effect; however, the project conformed to the new requirements. Ms. t4orthway said the appropriate place for the amendment for 18.88.190 would be on the last page of the first ordinance, and it should be a new Section 17. Sections 17, 18, and 19 should be renumbered 18, 19, and 20. AMENDMENT: Mayor Sutorius coved, seconded by Bechtel, that a new provision would be added to Chapter 18.88 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: °Setba€k Exceptions: £) The required side yard setbacks for multi -family residential development project located on property in the commercial downtown district say be _combined so that one side yard on the site is reduced and the other side yard is increased up to the total amount of the, required side yard area for the site, provided that the following criteria is meta 1) the property where the project is located is adjacent to property which is located in a commercial zone and which is primarily in commercial use; 2) the combination of the required side yard setback area on the site would result in a more desirable living. environment for the residents of the project; 8) the required front yard setback for a multi -family residential development project located on property in the CD district may be reduced to a setback based on the average setback of the adjacent residential structures or reduced to_ no setback if a project is adjacent to commercial or office structures.° Mayor Sutorius said the amendment gave design flexibility that could enhance the resulting project for the residents of the project when it was downtown and there were zero setbacks _involving commercial buildings. The flexibility was valuable. The actual application of it would be determined by the project applicant and be reviewed by the ARB. Council Member Renzel agreed with Part t but had trouble with Part B because she. believed a residential project in the downtown for its livability should be set back. She had no trouble rotating the setback and offsetting it . with the side yards so the open space was provided ela*where in a more amenable area for the residents of the project. 59.430 4/18/88 ANeND tENT TO AMENDMENT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Pletcher, to amend subsection (B) to read as follows: "the required front yard setback for a multi- family residential development project located on property in the CD district may be reduced to a setback based on the average setback of the adjacent residential structures or may be reduced provided that the. amount of open space was accommodated elsewhere on the site." Ms. Kramer clarified it would be permissible to allow the open space area to be within the interior of the property. Staff envisioned a center courtyard being the open space versus backyards or sideyards in a higherdensity downtown situation. Council Member Renzel used the general language "elsewhere on the site" so it provided an amenity to the residents. It could be a design flexibility, but it would compensate the residents for being in a noisy area. She was reluctant to reduce the setback to zero..,_without compensating the loss of open space elsewhere on the project. Council Member Levy believed the • amendment to amendment was unnecessary because of the five percent lot coverage limit which would be utilized. If Council reduced the open space in the front, it obviously had to be transferred elsewhere within the property. Ms. Kramer said language contained in subsection (B) was similar to that contained in the RM-40 where the front setback had the flexibility of taking the average of the residential or zero if it was commercial. It would be applied to other properties in the CD district which were not of the RM-40 density but actually RM -30. or RM-15. Rather than the 20 feet, they would have the flexibility to go less than 20 feet depending onthe surroundings. Mss' Jansen could not say the minimum 45 percent lot coverage would suffice so the trade of open space from the front yard area to the interior of the project in some ether location would not be necessary. Council Member Renzel did not intend to eliminate the portion of the main amendment where the setback reduced according to the setback of average residential development on the site. If there were adjoining residential prop- erties, she intended for the setbacks to be averaged. Where there was adjoining commercial, she intended, that the setback would be rotated within the project somewhere, 59-431 4/18/88 Mayor Sutorius suggested Council Member Renzel's amendment to amendment and his amendment be withdrawn and handled as a correlary agenda item since there was confusion and Council needed to be precise in its language. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. NOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt staff recommendation 13 to adept_ . the ordinance amending Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Nap) to: a) Change the classifications of all multiple -family zoned properties to the new designations such that RN -1 and RM-2. properties become . Rf-15, RA -3, and RN -4 properties become RN -30, and RN -5 properties become RM-40 ; and (b) Apply the Site and Design (D) Combining District to the 46 -acre Stanford West property. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF ALL PROPERTIES ZONED MULTIPLE -FAMILY" NOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. Mayor Sutorius advised that second reading of the ordinances would be May 2, 1988. ITEM 8, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPEAL OF HAROLD AND JOAN SCHNEIDER OF DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO DENY A USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 855 CLARA DRIVE (Continued from 12/21/87) (300) (CMR:238:8) Council Member Patitucci clarified the application for a building permit was separate from the use permit, and it would not be precluded by denying the appeal for the cottage. Mss Cheney said that was correct, Planning Commissioner Pat Cullen = said the Commission recom- mended denial of the appeal.' The lot was substandard and the provision for .a driveway took 11 feet off of what was already too narrow a lot to provide for a second dwelling unit and it had too heavy an impact on the surrounding areas and was contrary to the Comprehensive . Plan. 59-432 4/18/88 Clarissa Kitchen, 849 Clara Drive, saw no reason to deny the Schneiders from enlarging their home in some way. Harold Schneider, 855 Clara Drive, did. not..bexieve a cottage of 885 sqare feet was bad for a neighborhood. Regarding paragraph 1(a) of the findings, he believed the Acting Zoning Administrators Sarah Cheney and Carol Jansen pur- posely misrepresented the dimensions of the primary resi- dence by not including the proposed 460 square foot master bedroom above the garage plus entry to the dining room, a total area of about 500 square feet as was repeatedly pointed out. The revised plan made both yards, the main house and the cottage, as big as all of the surrounding yards. In response to paragraph i(c), they had the 11 feet necessary for the .width of the driveway according to Palo Alto regulations. The landscape setback for the driveway was not a Palo Alto code regulation. The 571/2 foot lot width was known by Cheney and Jansen when they twice inspected and measured 855 Clara. In regard to paragraph 2. staff deliberately ignored the proposed 500 square foot entry and master bedroom above the garage which negated the same size for duplex arguments. The revised plan was in the spirit of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The main resi- dence, including garage, was almost double the size of the cottage including garage. He requested Council consider the following actions: 1) grant the cottage permit as per the same Harmon plan that was misrepresented by the ignoring of the proposed master bedroom; 2) alternatively, accept the same revised Harmon plan but with the dimensions of the cottage reduced by whatever percentage Council deemed appro- priate; and 3) Their plans were developed and corected under the guidance of Sarah Cheney and Carol Jansen. If the cot- tage permit was denied, he believed their costs should be refunded because they were created unnecessarily. When they filed for the permit, every single previous cottage permit was granted. He read a letter to the editor of the Peninsula Times Tribune written by Clarissa Kitchen regarding the reasons for oversized housing. Council Member .Woolley asked about the normal side yard setback requirements. Ms, Cheney said six feet. MOTION: Council .Member Woolley moved, seconded by Levyi to grant the appeal, overturn the decision of the Stoning Administrator and approve the use permit for a cottage at 855 .Clara £rive, and direct staff to return to the City Couacil with the appropriate findings and conditions. 59--433 4/18/88 Council Member Fletcher asked about the substandard width of the property, Commissioner Cullen said the normal width was 60 feet and the subject lot was 57.5 feet. Council Member Pletcher said the intent of the cottage zone was to have them built as second dwellings on oversized lots. She did not consider the subject lot to be oversized. The point of the neighbors who objected was because of the crowding of the lot. She would not support the motion. Council Member Levy asked if the overall square footage of the lot conformed to the cottage ordinance, and whether the only element of substandardness was the width of two ants one-half feet. Ms. Cheney said that was correct. Council Member Levy asked how the plans for a two-story, 1350 square foot addition factored into the appeal. Ms. Jansen said it was a separate application. If Council upheld the appeal, the applicant would have the option of proceeding with the building permit application '; or to present a building permit application which reflected the Council's approval. The applicant would have to chose between the single family addition or the cottage. Council Member Levy Was surprised by the comments of collu- sion and the specific references to individuals in the Planning Department. His experience was that the Planning Department staff was generally very helpful to individual applicants. He believed the proposal met the intent_ of the Council when it passed the cottage ordinance Its concern at the time was that in some parts of town almost every lot would lend itself to a cottage and there would be many cottages which would result in too much density, but that one or two cottages on a block would open the door to allow older individuals to remain in Palo Al to or younger families to come into Palo Alto without too great an intrusion on the overall density. The location on Clara Street lent itself to the situation. The addition of a cottage would be vir- tually no intrusion on the neighborhood. He saw no reason for. Council to object to the cottage. Mayor Sutorius clarified the motion would not uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision nor the Planning Commission recommendation. . It would grant the appeal of the applicant pertaining to the cottage, not, the addition to the main house. - 59-434 4/18/88 Ms. Chaney said that was correct. Mayor Sutorius clarified Council had no knowledge of what was _ intended with respect to the building plans submitted for the two-story addition of 1,350 square feet.. It might ride on its individual merits or it might be modified but there was no 400 square foot addition proposal presently in for a building permit. Ms. Chaney said that was correct. Mayor Sutorius was confused: He asked whether the Schneiders intended to withdraw their application for the 1,350 square foot addition to the main house. Mrs. Schneider said they would have to. They hoped to get the cottage and the second story on the garage instead of a two-story addition to the rear of the house which was proposed after the City denied their application. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-3, ; Patitucci, Fletcher, Sutorius voting ino,M Cobb absent. Ms. Cheney said since Council approved the cottage use permit for the property, Council would need to direct, staff to return with findings in support of the action taken and conditions of approval. It would also be helpful to comment on the specific plan before the Council. Council Member Woolley queried whether Council could tie in its approval of the cottage with the master bedroom addition over the garage to ensure that was what it got. Ms. Northway said with 'respect to any building permit approval to which the applicant had a right, she did not believe Council could necessarily.. tie in an application for a cottage. Since Council was not making any final decisions that evening, if possible staff would return with the appropriate language. She could not provide specific language for findings that evening so any Council action with respect to the project was preliminary. Council Member Woolley said C aunoil supported alternative 2. Council Member henzel did not believe the Schneiders should be pressured into expanding their main house to create a differential from thecottage so long as the cottage met the maximum size required. She saw no rationale for requiring the Schneiders to expand their main house. 59.435 4/18/88 Council Member Bechtel suggested the following findings: 1) that the lot size meets the minimum required to permit a cottage; 2) that the driveway separates the cottage from adjoining neighbors; 3) that the cottage maximum size also meets the maximum allowed by the zoning ordinance; 4) that the existing housedoes not have to be larger than a pro- posed cottage; that there was nothing in the ordinance which required the main house to be larger; and 5) that the 57-1/2 foot width was so close to the minimum width requirement that it was not a critical issue. She agreed with Council Member Renze.l as to the size of the existing house in relationship to the cottage, and did not feel Council wanted anything that would require the addition of a second story above the garage. 9. ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE PROCESSING OR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH DO NOT MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA (Continued from 4/11/88) (701-03/250) (CMR:248:8) MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Patitucci, to allow one minute for speakers who previously addressed the City Council on April I1, 1988. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. MOTION: ,Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Renzel, to allow three minutes for all other Speakers. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb. absent. CONTINUE ITEMS 101_11 and 13 MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Woolley, to continue items 10, 11 and 13 to April 25, 19$8 City Council s ting. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. Carol Jansen said page 3, Section 5, of the ordinance should read, "This ordinance shall not apply to lots which are: classified as "substandard" as defined in Palo Alto Munioipal Code Section 18.12.055.° Council Member Woolley asked for clarification of the sentence, "In checking the applications, staff will first determine if the proeCt has potential to be incompatible with the block on which it is located." 59-436 4/18/88 Ms. Jansen said the issue of incompatibility would not be. raised on the majority of applications for additions pri- marily because they were located within the rear yard, areas which . were usually the easiest places on which to add. The extra application submittals would not be required on any applications where the neighborhood compatibility issue was not raised. If the project did not require potential tree removal, the front yard area, or the driveway location, staff would not. require any additional information other than what was presently submitted. Council Member Woolley clarified the provision would prob- ably apply to demolitions and to very extensive remodels. Ms. Jansen said that was correct. Council Member Bechtel clarified "neighborhood compati- bility" did not include design of a residence. Ms. Jansen said it did not Council. Member Bechtel said the location of the garage obviously affected the design of the residence. Ms. Jansen said that was correct and it was one of the criteria of neighborhood compatibility. Council Member Bechtel clarified there were strictly four criteria: trees, curb cuts, driveway, and setback compati- bility. She hypothesised property which existed across the street from her 15 years ago. There were only two houses on the entire block. One house was on about one acre and sat back approximately 150 feet or more and the other was set back 30 feet. She queried the predominant setback. Ms. Jansen said staff would not state there was a predomi- nant neighborhood setback in an area. Council Member Bechtel asked whether that was clear in the proposed ordinances Ms. Jansen said the proposedordinancewould have to rely upon some interpretation and guidelines that staff would have to generate in terms of making determination on the application. Staff intendedto take a light touch on the neighborhood compatibility issue and only when a clear pattern was evident would the provision be applied. 59.-437 4/18/88 Council Member Woolley clarified the word "predominant" was replaced with "at least 60 percent" to be more clear. It was the intention of the maker of the original motion that the process be a learning experience and be done with a light touch. Vice Mayor Klein hypothesized a proposal for an addition or a new house on a block where the four parcels closest to the proposed lot had a setback of 20 feet and the six other parcels on the block had a setback of 30 feet. He queried what setback would be used for the proposed house. Ms. Jansen said the majority setback would be 30 feet even though the houses closest had 20 -foot setbacks. Vice Mayor Klein clarified the new house would be required to have a setback of 30 feet even though its immediate neighbors 'had a setback of 20 feet. Ms. Jansen said yes if they used the rule of being "consistent with the predominant front yard setback of exiting residential structures on the same side of the block on which the parcel is located."' Vice Mayor Klein believed the language was unusual. He clarified "predominant" was arrived at on a strictly numerical basis. If 11 houses on the street had 30 -foot setbacks and 5 had 20 -foot setbacks, then the requirement would be 30 feet. Director of Planning and Community Environment Kerr Schreiber was not sure whether a numerical ratio would work in 100 percent of the cases. In a black with ten lots where the first four had houses built at one particular time and they were 20 feet back from the street, and the next six lots in a row were all 30 feet back, then if they were talking about one of those lots that was within the four houses built 20 feet back, it might well be administratively that it would be most logical to take one of those parcels and say the predominant was 20 feet. Vice Mayor Klein asked how an applicant would know the predominant setback before plans were drawn. Mr. Schreiber said staff would develop guidelines for admin- istering the regulation and provide them orally and in writing to applicants. Over time, the guidelines might need t.o be refined to reflect the Situations being considered. 59-438 4/18/88 Vice Mayor Klein queried whether, under Mr.:.Schreiber's con- cept --since he recognized it was not written --the applicant could get something firm to rely on before spending money on architect's fees, etc. Mr. Schreiber said staff would work with the applicant hope- fully as early in the process as they could contact staff to resolve the question if there was clearly lack of conformity with the general rules initially developed. If the plan was consistent with_ the general rules initially developed, predominant being at least a majority plus one, then it should be clear. There would be situations where staff would need to work with the applicants to find the clarification. Vice Mayor Klein went back to the hypothetical 30 -foot versus 20 -foot setback situation. If the applicant went to staff and wanted to build at 20 feet, he queried whether staff would provide an opinion on which that applicant could rely that he could build at 20, 25 or 30 feet. Ms. Jansen said staff would make the determination and advise the applicant as to how they were interpreting neigh- borhood compatibility and the front yard setback prior to plan preparation. Staff would need to review the photograph and the aerials as outlined in the report, but would not tell an applicant to go out, draw up the plans, bring them in, and then staff would review them. Staff was probably contacted by about 95 percent of applicants prior: to their beginning plan preparation. Staff would provide the inter- pretatKon for neighborhood compatibility for a particular block prior to their preparing the plans. Vice Mayor Klein said the current strong rule was that applicants were advised that staff's opinions were not: binding on the City. Ms. Northway said it was th law. Mr. Schreiber did not believe staff would be advising. some- one regarding development beyond the basic zoning parameters. The technical response could be provided . from the City Attorney , and then there was the administrative response to Vice Mayor Klein's question. He clarified that administratively staff would stick with the interpretations they provided. He would not be surprised that over the course of a couple or three swaths there would be refine- ments in the interpretation which might lead someone later on to receive what might be perceived as different advice but it would be based on staff' experience in dealing with unusual situations. Council Member Levy also had the light hand in mind with regard to the guidelines. If Council communicated its desire to only cietch the major offender not the small excep- tion, he queried whether that made it easier to answer Vice Mayor Klein's question. Mr. Schreiber said it was somewhat easier. Ho hoped the responses he and the Chief Planning. Official were giving conveyed that staff intended to exercise administrative com- mon sense and discretion and that the administration of the regulation would be somewhat of a learning process espe- cially in terms of the unusual situations. Council Member Bechtel asked about aerial photographs. Ms. Jansen said aerial photographs were an in house resource of all the streets in Palo Alto. Council Member Bechtel understood if an applicant wanted to add on to their home, they would go to the desk, and a clerk or whoever was there would help the person. They would provide the appropriate portions of the ordinance, which clearly stated "consistent with predominant." She believed a careful and conservative clerk would use the numeric approach. Mr. Schreiber said it would be any number staff people and contacts would either be in person or over the phone. Staff would be provided with a set of guidelines for administra- tion of the procedure. Council Member Bechtel clarified that Council was only adopting an interim ordinance for a moratorium, yet she heard a procedure which mic:,t be extremely difficult to evolve and cumbersome to administer. Ms, Jansen said staff complied with Council's direction to return with a regulation that would "touch" upon those issues of neighborhood compatibility. Staff believed the proposal accomplished the direction with a minimal amount of interpretation and the least amount of discretion on staff's part. Staff was trying to convey its intent to tread softly in the area. If Council's question was whether staff was entering intoa gray area not now in existence. the answer was "yes." Staff would be trained to respond to questions at the counter m ch like the Zoning Administrator's inter- pretation of some of the other regulations. It was definitely an interpretive role. The Zoning Administrator held regular meetings with potential applicants prior to their submitting an application. The same thing occurred on 59-440 4/18/88 single family.. It would take a feeling out of the interpre- tation in order to administer the regulations. Staff did not believe the regulations were impossible to administer. John Moussouris, 253 Fulton Street, said the only problem with the Ad Hoc Committee's proposal was the complexity of the rules. He provided a reformulation of the two rules that caused difficulty: A shadow plot was required which showed an example of an 21.* shaped house on the - lot. The four areas around the outside would have shadows cast by the sun halfway up the sky on each of the four sides of the house. They were equivalent to the faces of the four eleva- tions being laid down on the ground of the plot. If a front yard was defined as the front 20 feet inside of the side setbacks and side lanes 12_ feet out, 6 feet wide on two sides of the plot, then the front impact rule could be reduced to the requirement that the front shadow encroached less than half on the front yard area and the daylight planes could be reduced by the fact that the side shadows encroached less than ore -sixth in the side lane. Karen Klengel, 4090 Amaranta Avenue, said a foundation was poured at 4080 Amaranta Avenue. She was advised it was for a family room and dining room. She went to City Hall and discovered it was called an exercise room and yoga platform. It turned out to be a concert hall which accommodated 120 people. She wrote to everyone on the City Council and no one could do anything. The burden of proof was on her to prove Lhat the structure was being used for other than what was indicated in the plans. It was simple because shortly thereafter the papers were full with the report that a bene- fit concert was being held in the two-story concert hall. She believed a reasonable, semi -alert person could have known what the building would be. At 4112 Amaranta Avenue, she . noticed a truck making big ruts in the yard. The next day the entire house and yard were demolished. Shortly thereafter, a new�house was being constructed. She did not object to the fact it was a totally different kind of con- struction or that it took up a lot of the yard. A major tree on her property went over to the neighbor's line and they just arbitrarily hacked off many of the branches and were now digging a trench within the eight feet which was cutting into the root structure. The tree was being destroyed and no one could do anything about it. The new recommendations would help a little. Richard Bowden, 255 N. California Avenue, supported the limited moratorium proposed . based on the 0.5 FAR and the neighborhood compatibility requirements. He commended the Council for trying to solve the problem. Be commended staff 59-441 4/18/88 for their skillful wording of the proposed ordinance, the difficult task of converting subjective neighborhood compatibility goals into objective standards was done very professionally. He urged unanimous support. Dan Epstein, 358 Tennyson Avenue, believed a moratorium should be imposed based on the recommendations of the Ad,Hoc Committee. The proposed moratorium was too arbitrary and he preferred to have: rules under which to proceed. Linda Scott, 1057 Ramona Street, said consideration of the surroundings in which an individual building occurred was the only judicial and logical means to determine the place- ment of new buildings in existing neighborhoods. They were concerned about applicant's property rights, but there was nothing to protect the surrounding neighbors. There would be many different setback situations in the City. The City was not trying to dictate what a building looked like• --only where it was placed and that it fit within its surroundings. She supported the staff's recommendation. Council Member Woolley clarified all of the demolition projects curret :tly in the . pipeline had a 20 -foot yard setback. Ms. Scott said yes. John Boyd, 1196 Hamilton. Avenue, did not believe _ the pro- posed ordinance represented a document on which Council could make a thoughtful decision. Doug Aikins, 1359 Byron Street, said Council seemed to be driven to move forward faster than staff could respond intelligently. He asked that Section 3 be deleted from the proposed ordinance. The factual findings necessary to state an emergency were not there. The proposed ordinance wet, not simple. He urged that Council take the time to form a solution with some intellectual integrity. The 0.5 FAR was probably workable but to go beyond for an interim ordinance was asking for too much. Nancy Heubach, 2338 Ramona Street, supported the moratorium. Helen Low, 1230 .Emerson, referred to a letter with 67 signatures (on file in the City Clerk's Office) in support of the recommendations of the Ad Hcc Committee. Juliet Stewart, 1141 Forest . Avenue, said there was an overdevelopment problem in Palo Alto and the proposed ordinance was not stringent enough. 59-442 4/18/88 Terry Stewart, 1141 Forest Avenue, supported the proposed moratorium in order to consider all aepects of the building development problem. Brian Aeast, 255 College Avenue, said different people bad different needs. He was concerned about flexibility of design. Ellen Wyman, .546 Washington Avenue, urged the moratorium and applauded the inclusion of Linda Scott's suggestions. Residents looked to the Council to protect them from the drastic changes. Mel Kronick, 1156 Forrest., supported the moratorium in order to assess the . problems. A 0.5 FAR was far more generous than the neighboring communities. A lack of action would result in irreversible changes. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, said in order to preserve neighborhood character, he urged inclusion of the following in Section 3(a), "the front yard setback and overall height shall be consistent with the predominant front yard setback and overall height. of existing residential structures on the same side of the block on which the parcel, is located." Stan Parry, 1157- Hamilton Avenue, believed the dialogue between Vice Mayor r Klein and staff indicated trouble. It would be Very difficult to interpret the vague compatibility criteria being established. He recommended the moratorium provide that houses with a FAR of 0.5 or greater shall conform to the criteria established by the R-1 Committee and such construction shall be reviewed and.approved by a design review committee. Appeals could be made directly to the City Council. He further urged that the R-1 Committee should stay• - in existence and hold two more meetings. to review the current discussion and a final meeting to review the staff report that would ultimately result from the moratorium process., He did not believe an emergency was established for trees, garage, and driveways and the :anguage used specious. Judith Schwartz, 2330 Bryant, commended Council on trying to find a good solution. She urged that Council come up with an expeditious exception process so that if someone had an appeal and a legitimate project, it could be addressed,; Marilyn Mayo, 404 Oxford,` represented -the Palo Alto Civic League in supporting the moratorium. The membership believed _ strong'` action on the Council ' s part Vas needed to protect, the neighborhoods against the rapidly :increasing number -- of oversized houses. . The 0.5 FAR was a compromise 59-443 4/18/88 and would cause no hardship on contractor or homeowner. As an individual; she hoped to expand her small home in the future. She did not feel any of her land values or quality of her life was at risk with such meager measures. She supported the compatibility limitation on construction of front of the house garages in neighborhoods with the past tradition was to have garages to the side or in the back of the house. Mary Mackiernan, 114 Lowell, supported the moratorium. Jocelyn Baum, 909 Hamilton, supported the moratorium and the neighborhood compatibility test. She urged support. Jackie Salabert, 1141 Lincoln, supported the roratorium. She lived in the shadow of a spec house. Wally Whiteier, 1525 Bryant street, said his backyard faced the notorious "pink house" on Churchill. He supported the moratorium. James Girand, 590 E. Crescent, supported the moratorium. William Conlon, 2330 Bryant Street, believed the staff recommendations, particularly with regard to neighborhood compatibility, were essential, He cautioned against assuming the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations were a panacea and the City should tread carefully. Emile Houle, 244 Tennyson Avenue, urged support for the p osed moratorium. The 0.5 FAR was probably too large but it was a start to improve the present situation. Martin Bernstein, 617 High Street, was encouraged to hear Council Member Patitucci say that Council should not be the final designer. He urged caution when requiring that new projects maintain neighborhood characteristics. Larick Hill, 3250 Ash, supported the interim moratoriem. The projects in the pipeline needed to be screened. The citizens should have an opportunity to appeal a ,staff decision. Council was missing the opportunity to test the Ad Hoc Committee's and Linda Scott's proposals. He hoped Council would consider amending the ordinance. Heather White, 1177 Lincoln Courti agreed with Larick Hill, and even though she supported the moratorium and the 0.5 FAR, she wanted to see Council take another week to iron out the fine points of the ordinance. She urged that Council move with equal h#ste in loosening the design restrictions 59-444 4/18/88 with regard to such items as dormers and gables to allow for greater creativity and flexibility of design. She had some reservations about the neighborhood compatibility section. She would hate to have two stories forced on someone by a 30 -foot setback. If a person preferred a one story or a split level design, it would havebeen possible with a 20 - foot setback. She believed 26 feet was too short to be counted as a triple height. Robert Herrick, 2066 Byron, urged caution about approving a moratorium. Council needed to look more carefully at the Ad Hoc Committee's proposals. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1) Adopt the negative declaration prepared for the R-1 Single --Family Moratorium; and 2) Adopt and approve the ordinance imposing a moratorium for a period of eight months on the processing or issuance of building permits for single-family dwellings which do not meet certain criteria. ORDINANCE 3806 entitled °ORDIINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IMPOSING A MORATORIUM FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHT MONTHS ON THE PROCESSING OR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS MICE DO ROT MEET CERTAIN CRITERIJ► AND DECLARING AA EMERGENCY" Council Member Woolley reiterated that the FP.R was not a perfect solution and the neighborhood compatibility require- ments was an effort to make the net a little, bigger and pick up some houses that would fall below the 0,5 FAR but still would be intrusive because of their setback or because of their garage placement. A minimal number of applications would be affected because it was basically only the demoli- tions and significant additions. Council Member Bechtel questioned whether an interim measure was appropriate as part of a moratorium. The ideas of the Ad Hoc Committee were valuable and staff would report back in about two weeks. Council would be doing further analysis in the whole . area of design guidelines and she did not believe it was appropriate to include the neighborhood compatibility as part of a moratorium. AMXIDMENT: Cbmnci-t Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Rieim, to amend the ordinance by deleting Section 3 and 4. Vice Mayor Klein believed the City had a problem but not every solution made sense. In every other area pertaining 59-445 4/18/88 to zoning and housing the City had standards that people could figure out. Council owed it to present residents and potential applicants to set forth standards. He was con- cerned by Section, 3. No where else was staff granted such discretion, Since a 0.5 FAR was chosen without a great study, he. believed Council should go to a 0.45 FAR, which meant an additional 350 square feet. Council Member Levy pointed out Council was only after the outrageous situations but the problem was that people who might be the outrageous situation would not think they were. Council was obliged to have a standard which could be articulated, reviewed, quan- tified, and acknowledged as being fair. Unbridled discre- tion in the staff was not the way to do it. Council Member Fletcher believed it was important to retain the neighborhood compatibility in the ordinance. Every time she saw the house at 813 Melville which was so out of char- acter with the neighborhood, she knew Council needed to deal, with the issue. She did not believe a big problem would be created. Council Member Levy was sensitive to the fact that Council was dealing with a moratorium. Council needed to move more quickly and could not be as thorough as it would normally be. He shared Vice Mayor Klein's concern; 0.5 FAR was a very ample allowance. Council was not going to catch too ;many homes with a 0.5 FAR. There were some large homes that were less than 0.5. He favored the 0.5 . FAR because he wanted to be as generous as possible to those who were in the process of 6emodeling and enlarging their homes. He did not want to be constrictive in the moratorium aad recognized that everyone in the community was an individual who worked hard. He supported Section 3 because the combination of a 0.5 FAR with the Section 3safeguards was a better way to go than just to have an arbitrary tighter restriction of a 0.4 or a 0.45 FAR. He reiterate d the intent of Section 3 was for staff to only catch the blatant outrageous exceptions; that Council was not worried about someoneina neighborhood with 30 -foot setbacks and that person was coming in at 28 feet; but if a person was in an area with 30 -foot setbacks and they came in at 20 feet and they were the only ones with 20 feets and at the same time they had a large home, then the City had a way to restrict things to an appropriate size. He urged support for Section 3 and believed the com- bination of a 0.5 FAR and the Section 3 restrictions was a very fair eight -month moratorium. Council Member Patitucci asked about the difference in effect; between passing the ordinance as an emergency or not. 5g-446 4/18/88_ 1 Ms. Northway said if the ordinance passed as an emergency ordinance, any application received on April 12, 1988, would stop being processed as of April 19, 1988. If the ordinance was passed as a regular ordinance, the application would continue being processed. If the processing were completed prior to the effective date of the ordinance, which would be 45 days from April 18, then the approval would be given for c.he project. A project could conceivably be approvedthat exceeded the limitations in the ordinance. Council Member Patitucci believed it was most important to pass an emergency ordinance, but he did not believe Council could do so with the inclusion of Section 3: He. saw the need for a moratorium as well as an experiment. A mora- torium provided some time to examine the criteria in the Ad Hoc Committee's report, and Council merged along with it an opportunity to experiment with "neighborhood compatibility." The criteria used for neighborhood compatibility were not all the criteria he would want to use for neighborhood compatibility. One of the speakers brought rip the idea of height. He lived next door to a house that was built with the same setback as his house, which was more than the minimum, but the house was totally out of character with the neighborhood in its height, shape of its roof, and in the ,materials used in its facade. He was most concerned with passing the 0.5 FAR as an emergency in order to catch what was in the pipeline. He would support eliminating Section 3. If that passed, he would support referring the issue to staff to set up an experimental program on neighborhood compatibility in the future. Council Member Renzel had hoped Council would include the neighborhood compatibility because there were many neighborhoods like her own where the FAR alone would have little impact. She continued to support it and hoped Council might consider lowering the FAR to at least 0.45 if it was not going to have the neighborhood compatibility issues. There were many neighborhoods with large lots that would not see a great deal of effect from a straight 0.5 FAR without the neighborhood character aspect. Mayor Sutorius.clarified both ordinances. contained the same reference to the fact that April 11, 1983 was the cutoff date. lbs.` Northway said a cutoff date could be contained in the ordinance, but until the ordinance was effective it could not stop anything that happened beyond that date.. 59-447 4/18/B8 Mayor Stttorius clarified until the ordinance was effective, April 11 had no control; therefore, if something came in on April 12 and could pass through within the time period, it could clear. In tnat case, he would supper.t the emergency action. He would vote to remove Section 3 and his rationale was along the lines of his colleagues who spoke against it. He continued to be almost incredulous as to why the specific side yard setbacks, the daylight plane, and the front yard calculation was moredifficult when it was explicit in its implementation than the subjective neighborhood. criteria application. He commended staff who had done well to support their explanation of how they would approach the application. Good people could agree to disagree. Vice Mayor, Klein had no problem with the idea of neighbor- hood compatability. His concern was standards 'and objec- tivity, and he shared Mayor Sutorius's comments. He sug- gested that rather than deleting Section 3, they delete it only temporarily and direct staff to ;return with more objec- tive standards to implement neighborhood compatability. That might result in sufficient votes to pass an emergency ordinance. Mayor. Sutorius appreciated the positive purposes behind Vice Mayor Klein's suggestion. He reminded his colleagues that the staff desire and Council's charge to them was to be prepared with a credible evaluation of the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations and bring that forward to Council at the meeting of May 2, 1988. He was concerned about additional assignments to staff. Vice Mayon Klein believed staff would have the burden anyway because they had spoken to developing guidelines under the subjective tests. He would rather staff have the signifi- cant workload in a way more compatible with his and Mayor Sutorius's remarks. Council, Member Woolley had spoken with the Zoning Administrator and tried to come up with ways to tighten up the recommendations. Her ideas were at places but, after listening to the discussion, she ,decided that putting a fixed number such as 60 percent would not improve the situa- tion, and they were better going with the word °predomi- nan:.* If they got too precise in terms of numbers, they might defeat what they wanted to achieve because of the great variety of situations. She asked if itwas reasonable to ask staff to return with tighter or more specific recom- mendations concerning neighborhood compatibility. 59-448 4/18/88 Mr. Schreiber said staft could look at the issue of compati- bility, but he hoped not within a response time of several weeks. Over the course of the last weeks, he noticed a shifting of staff resources into the single-family issue and believed it was an accelerating process. ih, the long term, he did not believe they wanted the Planning Department to become a single-family review operation involving a large amount of staff time. They needed to concentrate on what- ever action was taken that evening as well on what Council anticipated reviewing on May 2, 1988. He was not uncomfort- able with Section 3. If starting from scratch, it was not the type of thing staff would recommend and was a response to Council's action of the previous Monday. Developing precise compatibility standards would not be an easy task because of the number of unusual situations and exceptions. AMENDMENT WITHDRI WN SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Klein, to approve the Negative Declaration and the Emergency Ordinance with Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8; atld 9 and substitute .45 FAR in Section 1 instead of .50 FAR. Also: in Section 5, change Section 18.88.050 to Section 18.12.055(a). ORDINANCE 3806 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IMPOSING A MORATORIUM FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHT MONTHS ON THIS PROCESSING OR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH DO NOT MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA AND DECLARING AN ElERGENCY • Mayor Sutorius could not endorse an emergency action at a .45 in the manner it had been arrived at. AMENDMENT: Mayor Sutorius moved to include the .45 FAR but applications. in excess of .45 FAR but which did not exceed .55 FAR may be processed with the R-1 Ad Hoc Committee side yard, front yard, and daylight plane processes. MOTION DIFD FOR LAC( OF A SECOND Council Member Renrel sensed it was important to put some- thing : in effect as soon as possible to simplify the workload on staff. It was useful to be able to adopt . anemergency ordinance and the .45 would help in controlling size. Since there was. the 1,000 square feet, for the 5,000 and 6,000 square -foot lots, there was virtually no difference in the amount of house that could be built, but it had a 59-449 4/18/88 significant effect on the larger lots. Even with a .4 FAR the 1,000 square feet controlled, and the 5,000 and 6,000 square -foot lots were identical as with .5 FAR and 1,000 square feet, so a .45 would also be identical. Those lots were the ones most apt to be pinched in terms of small families trying to expand and, at the same time, the smaller FAR would help control the large lots which provided ample room for development. Council Member Levy would vote in favor of the substitute motion in the spirit of compromise, although he preferred the orginal motion. He calculated that, .because they allowed a 1,000 square -foot second floor no matter what, a 7,000 square -foot lot could still have a .49 build out, and a 8,000 square -foot lot could have a .475 built out. For a lot smaller than 7,000 square feet, it would still be a .50. That was a satisfactory compromise. Council Member Bechtel asked for clarification of Council Member Levy's figures. She understood the FAR was. .45 times, say, 7,000 square feet which arrived at a 2,700 square foot house. Of that 2,700, 1,000 square feet could be upstairs. Council Member Levy clarified a .35 lot coverage was allowed for any size lot, then a minimum of 1,000 square feet on the second floor. A 6,000 square -foot lot got 35 percent coverage, which was 2,100 plus 1,000 for a total of 3,100, which was above a .50 FAR. Mayor Sutorius regretted he had to oppose the substitute motion. He was concerned about making a change from what was discussed the previous week, which came forward that evening, and was being modified in a way that was not being thought out cap :fully as to the '° impact and the fairness with respect to the -decision made by Council when it included the April 11, 1988 cutoff date and the understanding that effected people who knew they were in they pipelino and the judgment they made in regard to their independent _status. He felt sad to be in the minority and did not understand why it was so difficult to apply controls for an interim period with recommendations that had been carefully examined, had a lot of discussion, and found a lot of favor. SUBSTITUTE MOTIOS PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Sutorius voting "no, ° Cobb absent $OTIO1 * Vice !layer Klein . moved* seconded by Patituoci, to direct staff to develop .some. 0041/Wave standards for using tests of neighborhood compatibility to be included in the material as soon as they could develop, it. 59-450 4/18/88 Council Member Woolley noted staff was returning with a report evaluating neighborhood compatibility on May 2, 1988, and asked if the requirements of Vice Mayor Klein's motion would be included. If staff would not tetuurn with specific recommendations for a month, Council should take the general recommendations on May 2, 1988, and go from there. Mr. Schreiber said it was the degree of specificity he could not promise staff could have in the packet for the meeting of May 2, 1988. !NOTION WITHDRAWN ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:50 a.m0 ATTEST: i APPROVED: