Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1988-07-18 City Council Summary Minutes
` • N CITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALOALTO CITYCOUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FRCOUENCY90.1 ON FM DiAL-ar+a- Regular Meeting July 18, 1983, 7:30 p.a. ITEM Oral Communications Special Orders of the Day PAGE 60-162 60-162 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to 60-162 Douglas B. Aikins for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Ad Hoc Com- mittee on Single -Family Residence Zoning and Design 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Evelynn.L. Doors for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Ad Hoc Com- mittee on Single -Family Residence Zoning and Design 3. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Lorick A. Hill for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Ad Hoc Com- mittee on Single -Family Residence Zoning and Design 4. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Sobbi Redstroa for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Ad Roc Com- mittee on Single --Family Residence Zoning and Design Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Christopher P. Saari for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Ad hoc Committee ami-`Single-Family Residence Zoning and Design 60-162 60-163 60-163 60-163 60-163 60-159 7/18/81 6. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to 60-163 Jonathan Schink for Outstanding Public Service as a Mee ,er of the Ad Hoc Committee on Single - Family Residence Zoning and Design 7. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Linda R. 60-163 Scott for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Single --Family Resi- dence Zon' .ng and Design CONSENT CALENDAR 8. Contract with Mikro-Tel, Inc. for Purchase and Installation of a Load Research System 9. Agreement with CAP,► Community Box Office for Ticket :Tandling Services for the Children's Theatre 10. Contract with D.S. Pollution Control, Inc. to Dispose of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Contaminated Equipment and Fluid 11. R+t3olutions re Dependent Care Assistance Plan and Flexible Benefits 12. Report from Council Legislative Committee re 1) Initiative to Restore Cal/OSHA; 2) California Tobacco Talc` and Health Protection Initiative, and 3) Child Care Legislation 13. Resolutions Amending Merit System Rules and Regulations and Resolution Adopting a Compensation Plan for Police Non - Management Personnel 60-163 60-163 60-164 60-164 60-164 60-164 V. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Approving 60-164 Amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan 15. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recoa- 60-165 sendation re Approval, with Conditions, of the Application of the City of Palo Alto for a Tentative Subdivision Nap for Property Located at 2253 Park Boulevard 16. PUBLIC NEARING: Planning Commission Rocca- 60-166 mendation re Application of the 1107 Hamilton Partnership for a Prel:airary Parcel Map for iTcperty Located at 1137 Hamilton Avenue 60-160 7/18/S8 • 1 17. Planning C7smission Recommendation re Approval of the Application of Anna and F. Lynn Ilay for a Pk}eliainary Parcel Map for Property Located at 541 Seale Avenue 18. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Ccmaission Recom- mendation re Moratorium on Now Flag Lots 19. Contract with Power Engineering Contractors, Inc. for Colorado Power Station Expansion Project 20. Consultant Work for Civic Center Plaza 21. Accounting for Water Utility Back Rent Charges Adjournment at 10:55 p.m. 50-171 60-178 60-181 60-181 60-182 60-183 60-161 7/18/88 Regular Meeting July 18, 1988 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:34 p.a. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 8:19 p.m.), Renzel, Sutoriva, Woolley Mayor Sutorius announced that a Special Meeting to interview Planning Comer =ion candidates was held at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ban Briley, 171 Everett, spoke regarding the inability of the City to disclose info" nation re Palo Alto Police Department complaints. 2. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spc.ke regarding ban on smoking, destruction of the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, and disclosure of information on Palo Alto Police Department complaints. 3. Ptah, 524 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding no war against plants. 4. John dock, 736 Barron Avenue, was concerned with limiting the time allotted for members of the public who wanted to speak. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY )SD?IONI Council Member Cobb coved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of Items 1 through 7, resolutions espresoing appreciation to hers of the Ad Moo Committee on Single Family Residence Zoning and Design. 1. RESOLUTION 6712 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAL ALTO EXPRESSIP4G APPRECIATION TO DOUGLAS B. AIDS POR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS. A MEMBER OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING AND DESIGN* (701--04) 2. RES0IUTIOB'_#713 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSIFG APPRECIATION TO EVELMNN 1,. DOOMS POR .OUTSTANDING .PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE AD HOC COMU TTEE ON 'SINGLE-FAMILY -FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING > AND DESItN ° (701-04) 60-162 7/18/88 1 3. RESOLUTION 6714 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO LARICK A. HILL FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING AND DESIGN" (701-04) 4. RESOLUTION 6715 entitled "RESOLUTION OF I11E COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO BOBBI REDSTROH FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING AND DESIGN" (701-04) 5. RESOLUTION 6716 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO CHRISTOPHER P. SAARI FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING AND DESIGN (701-04) 6. RESOLUTION 6717 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO JONATHAN SCHINK FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING AND DESIGN" (701-04) 7. RESOLUTION 6718 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ""HE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO LINDA K. SCOTT POR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING AND DESIGN" (701-04) Council Member Fletcher commended Lima Scott for her extraordinary efforts in preparing an addendum to the wain report. Mayor Sutorius announced that Linda Scott would be serving on the Urban Design Committee. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucai absent. CONSENT CALENDAR M TZOIt nos Mayor Klein coved, sanded by Woolley, approval o Consent Calendar items 8-Y3. 6. Contract with Mid- fel a Inc. for Purchase and Instal lat yn of a Load Research System (cNR: 3 60 8 ) (720-06;1101) 9. Agreement with CAPA Community Sox Offico for . Ticket Handling Services for the Children's Theatre (C 8:365:8) (730-06/1304-01) 60-163 V/18/68 10. Contract with U.S. Pollution Control, Inc. to Dispose of Polychlorin-ted Biphenyl Contaminated Equipment and Fluid (CKR:366:8) (720-06/1440-01) Staff ".s further authorized to execute change orders in the amount of $2,700. 11. RESOLUTION 6719 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PLAN WHICH PLAN WILL BE EFFECTIVE ON JULY 30, 1988" (CMR:372:8) (701-04/501) RESOLUTION 6720 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN WHICH PLAN WILL BE EFFECTIVE ON JULY 30, 1988" (CKR372:8) (701-04/501) 12. Report from Council Legislative Committee re 1) Initiative to Restore Cal/OSHA: 2) California Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Initiative, and 3) Child Care Legislation (cMR:373:8) (702.06) 13. RE OLUTION 6771 entitled "RESOLir"IoN OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 1601 OF THE MERIT SYSTEM RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE PALO ALTO PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION" f C ' :; 374: n (701-04/501) RESOLUTION 6722 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR POLICE NON -MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6532" (CMR:374:8) (701-04/501) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Pstitucsi absent.. 14. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan (CMR:368:8) (701-04/1072) Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Rearing closed. MOTIOMs Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Reuel, to adopt the staff recommendation rove the resolution which includes consideration of the environmental effects of the proposed amea t as shown is the County=* negative 4eoleratio©. RESOLUTION 6723 entitled NRIIOLUWION OP THS COUNCIL O! TIM CITY Op PALO ALTO APPROVING TU 1!SS AMENDMENT TO TES SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID MASTS )ANT PLAN TO CO1mINS TES MOAT' AND CSIITRA . GUSRSQIO Z, =MAKS MX SO EST SUDRSaIOM AND PROVIDR CONTINOSD ACCRSS TO GUAD&LOPS MINNS LANDFILL, AND PSl3VID3 TOR ANNUAL *SPORTING REGARDING VAST* REDUCTION TO ACEXSVS TS1 PLAN'S 2S% GOAL ST 1,9S" NOTION PA$31D unanimously, Patituoci absent. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Approval, with Conditions, of the Application of the City of Palo Alto for a Tentative Subdivision Kap for Property Located at 2253 Park Boulevard (300) Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Bearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Cobb coved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt Planning Comaission recommendation that the City Council uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Board and the Director of Planning and Community snvironnent, and approve the Negative Declaration and the design of the nine -unit townhouse project inoludinq the following findings and conditions: 1. The project, as proposed, win not have a significant 4 npaot on the physical . environment sines the project has been designed to decrease the visual impact, minimise energy consumption and reduce packing and automobile impacts, as reflected in the attached negative declaration. 2. The design of the project is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan objectives and oompatibls with the immediate environment, in that it meets Program ! of the Housing Element by providing a net gain of sin housing snits and a M unit, and it promotes orderly and harmonious development of the site in consideration of einao nt residential uses. 2. The site design promotes a harmonious transition in scale and obaracterr between the adjacent residential properties is that the depressed parking reduces the apparent height of the building, the apparent mass of the building hes been reamed by eliminating plaid, flat grails, the busk of the building has Leen reduced by utilising a design that provides for five interconnected buildings, and the sloping **of* and limited 'all heights will allow air and son into the site and surrounding properties. 60-165 7/16/66 4. The building design and amount of open space is appropriate for the function of the building and site in that the project design provides for immediate :lantificatiou of the building function and orientation as to acoesa and egress for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The landanapimg plans, including plant material and screening •aatarials, are designed to *Jainism visual and parking impacts on the adjacent land uses. 5. The planning and location of the various functions on the site create au internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that landscaping, vehicular parking, bicycle parking, and user amenities have been designed to create a safe and convenient environment for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci absent. 16. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Denial of thc- application f the 1107 Hamilton Partnership for a Preliminary Parcel Nap for Property Located at 1107 Hamilton Avenue (CXR:376:8) (300) Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said as part of the recent annual joint City Council/Planning C. pission meeting, single family regulations were reviewed. It was observed that the City's single family regulations had changed significantly over the past year. Previously, conformance of a subdivision with the R-1 regulations in the Zoning Ordinance generally would have resulteC. in a presumption that tha lotting pattern of the subdivision was consistent with the Comprehensive Kan. Last April, Council adopted interim R-1 regulations establishing size limits on single family houses. One of the factors cited by members of the public for encouraging those new regulations was that new large houses covered more of the traditional rear yard area with structure and created many privacy and visual intrusion problems for adjacent properties. Also last April, staff. referred the 1107 Hamilton flag lot subdivisiom application to the Planning Commission and Council for review even though it appeared to be consistent with the R-1, b, 000 square foot lot zoning. The referral was based on staff's conclusion that consistency with the R-1 regulation, no longer meant a presumption of consistency with the Comprehensive plan, and the use of traditional rear yard area for a separate lot was, in the case of the Hamilton Avenue flag lot, inconsistent with many Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and programs as cited in the JUly 14, 1988 staff report (CHR:371:8). He referred to John Karma's notes in his letter that the Plan objective was to maintain a diversity of housing, a range of housing costs, and housing afford 1s to those who worked in Palo Alto. Se noted .Hr. Hanna's comments on page .26 of the June 29, 19$$, Planning Commission minutes of two alternmtives 6►0-166 7/18/88 1 for the property --to put two houses in the $900,000 range, or a single larger mini -.state in the $1.5 million rang.. Mayor Sutorius referred to John Hanna's latter of July 12, 1988 (on file in the City Clerk's office) . He asked whether staff had reviewed the letter and whether any of the conditions outlined presented new information with which staff and the Planning Commission had not dealt. Zoning P)in Checker Joanne Auerbach *mrsorily reviewed conditions 1 through 8 that specifically referred to potential conditions. She understood the only condition which represented a new proposal was condition 3 which was to put a new driveway on the western side of the property. The condition would not affect the actual creation of property lines and their location, but it referred to an alternative location to a driveway to serve the house on the front lot. Vice Mayor Klein vas concerned when material was submitted to Council between when an item was heard by the Planning Commission. He queried whether anything ih Mr. Hanna's letter would caues the Planning Commission to take a different view of the natter. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Jobe Hanna, 1736 Waverley Street, said his cements were included in his July 12, 1988 and in the documents included with that letter. Mayor Sutorius referenced the proposal to relocate the driveway entry for the existing hone to the westward property aide and to locate the garage behind the existing house. He asked the impacts of the change. Mr. Hanna said ono of the objections raised by the Planning Commission was two side -by -side driveways. Another objection was having . the garage added to the front which would change the street-scap.. Itwas determined there was adequate roe along the western boundary of the property to include a driveway and put the garage at the end of it behind the ho u.e. The garage meld not be seen from the street and the existing driveway would resnin in approximately its present location. Neither of the two street trees would be affected. Mayor Sutorius referred to the westward property side driveway and the garage being behind thehouse, and asked whether the garage midi be literally behind the existing house or whether it would be at the end cf a driveway that would extend beyond the edge of the haus*. Mr.. Hanna said the driveway would extend back asfar as it could go. The garage would actuallybe behind the existing house in the beck portion of thh lot. The front of the garage 60--167 7/18/88 would be to the rear of the existing back of the house which was now in the front of the lot. Mayor Sutorius clarified the yucca plant and loquat tree and possibly a privet or some other shrubbery which were in the separation between tho existing house and the westward property line would be given up. He clarified the problem of the electric cable and telephone could be taken care of. Mr. Hanna said that was correct. Jean Wood, 1109 Hamilton Avenue, urged approval of the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the application. It was tdo such house for too little a lot. The impacts were too great. S. W. DoSord, 50 Hamilton Court, valued his privacy and opposed the proposed project. Marlene Prendergast, 560 Chaucer Street, opposed the proposed parcel map. The proposed nap was discretionary and the law specifically required a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Sufficient evidence showed the proposed nap was inconsistent with several major policies and programs in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan having to do with residential character, density, neighborhood quality and lot splits specifically. The nap should be denied --not approved with conditions. Arguably, the present flag lot regulations were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan making any par.:el nap which net those minimum standards 'Inconsistent with the plan. She suggested the possibility of a moratorium. She urged denial. Tracy Hgrrick, 1150 University Avenue, urged that the flag lot subdivision not be approved. If the lot was allowed to proceed and the house built as indicated, virteally half the windows would face his lot. Although there was an 18 inch diameter sycamore tree which presently acted as somewhat of e shield, the possibility of its remaining was doubtful because the location of the house would likely jeopardize the tree. He believed tare wars ten adjacent properties and all but one would face deterioration of privacy and the character of peace and tranquility which now existed. Suzanne Gunther.. 1101 Hamilton Avenue, was concerned about there being two driveways for ono property along Hamilton and about the bamboo hedge which divided her property from 1107 Hamilton Avenue. She was concerned about the driveway having to go right up along side of her hedge and the possibility of damage or destruction. Jocelyn Baum, 909 Hamilton Avenue, associated herself with the its of the previous speakers. The original house at 1107 Hamilton was beautiful and one of the batter examples of an 60-168 7/18/88 1 authentic Spanish type structure. She urged denial of the project. Dan Fylstra, 555 Chaucer, vas the co -applicant. If the lot line adjustment was approved, the back ,f his lot would become the backyard of the new house. The sycamore tree vas protected in perpetuity because of a convenant which ran with the land. The house at 1107 Hamilton Avenue was. in poor condition and badly in need of remodeling. He urged approval. Mayor Sutorius advised that he had visited the applicant's poperty as well as the adjacent properties. John Hanna opined the lot qualified for a subdivision both under the City's ordinances and under the State Subdivision Map Act. The applicants did as much as possible to mitigate the objections raised by the neighbors and the points made by staff. Council Member Levy asked 'ihether the applicant would consider a one-story development. Mr. Hanna said a one-story development was considered but given the agreement with the Flystras for only building on a mall part of the property being acquire from them, a one-story house would not be of suffic.ant size to work. Planning Commissioner Pan Marsh reviewed t'►rr Hanna's letter and believed she could assure the Council that a majority of the Planning Commission would continue to find, despite Mr. Hanna's letter, the configuration of the lot was such that even the development restrictions imposed by the applicant were insufficient to shield neighbors from the development and that the development was inconsistent with the Couprehensive Plan. MOT:4lfs is'ounoi1 Member Pletcher moved, seconded by aensel, that Council adopt the staff and Planning Commission reoom,rmeadationis to deny the preliminary parcel map based on the following findiL,js pursuant to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plana The first objective of the lousing Piesent of the rehensive Plan is "to aaintaia the character and physiew 1 quality of residential neighborhoods... to avoid drastic, ehan es in neighborhood character... to protect nsighborhood equality, to impr`:xv visual amity... a Polley 1 of the Mousing Plesmeat is to: aaaintaia the gsrai low -e ity character of eainti single-family areas.* Thin policy is also cited is the Pianos iatr atioa .a* ono of the five major proposals of the Comparehessive Plan. Policy 3 is *to prot#.at ao it =Manes 60-166 7/18/86 thoaa qualities which sake Palo Altos's neighborhoods •apeaially► desireble.', One of the obfiotives of the Urban Design dement of the Compr•hanaive Plan is to ',Iai'ntify av4 maintain tit* smaller wale visual features that give oharaotar to Palo alto and its asigbborhoods." Program 2, under Policy 1, is to ',tastore and maintain residential character in older sections of Palo Alto.', the proposed preliminary parcel map and the design and configuration of the proposed map are not consistent with the policies and objeativ.s of the Palo Alto Coaprohersive Plan citad above, in that the existing low -density charaatar and physical quality of the surrounding singlo-family neigbborho4rd will not be maintained, protected or enhanced if it is approved, particularly the streetscap•, the surrounding lotting pattern, and the privacy and configuration of private, rear yard open space of the six parcels adjacent to the proposed flag lot (parcel two). Therefore, the state subdivision Act (oovernssnt Code section 6647$) requires denial of the mapw The pattern and configuration of roar yard open space in tki, block is an important "smaller scale visual', feature ',that {fives aharaotar to this neigbborhoc�', and a ',quality' which makes this neighborhood ',ospeaially desirable.', Council Hoaber Fletcher said quality of life waa the priority in Palo Alto and *canonic gain should have no role in planning decisions. T • detriments to the neighborhood had already boon pointed out. Council Hembar Bechtel wont by the site and read the materials, and she concurred with the notion. She could not find that a flag lot would be beneficial to the citizenry of Palo Alto. Council mar. Hensel said despite the fact a flag lot was often 20 percent larger than a standard lot, all part. ng ended up on the strut which was diminished by at least one more driveway cut. The specific location where Hamilton curved and there was relatively short access along Chaucer to a signal at University Avenue, was an arse whir* the City should not create the additional hazard of parked cars and activity. When . ;a lot was r onf igured in such a way that it was necessary to d+ aign the house in order to approve the lot, it said eo-oathing about the desirability of approving tb• lot. It mad* no sense to subdivide the area and ratrof it another lot into an area with a long--astablishad pattern. 60.170 7/18/88 Council Member Klein agreed with the comments of his colleagues. Any zoning iaposdd some rsstriations on property owners, and the question for the Council was the fair balance between allowing someone approriato use of their property and the good of the entire coaaunity. He believed the balance clearly favored the Planning Ccmaission recommendation to deny the application:,, AMEMO MMT= Council Number Rsnsel moved that the following finding be added a The sitewas located at a bead in the road and near a cross street which headed towards a signal at Univor3ity Avenue and received a lot of traffic at rush hour. Plaor lots tended to have visitors to the site use the strait for parking. Ap7roval of the flag lot would significantly add to she level of activity it an already constrained area. AMIEDIUIT DIED FOR LACE OF A MSCORD. ROTIOR PRSBED unanimously. RECESS FROM 9:10 p.m. To 9:26 p.m. 17. Planning Commission Recommendation re Approval of the Application of Anna and F. Lynn !Clay for a Preliminary Parcel Map for Property Located at 541 Seale Avenue (CMR:371:8) (300) Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber referred to the policy issue of Coapreh snsive Plan compliance. A year ago conformance with the R-1 regulations resulted in the presumption that the lot pattern crated by a subdivision was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In April 1988, Council adopted interim R-1 regus.ations establishing a site limit on single family houses. The subject application began through the City processes last Spring a little before the discussions of R-1 interim regulations were underway. One of the factors for the new regulations adopted in April was that new large houses covered acre of the traditional rear yard aroma and created potential privacy or intrusion problems for adjacent property owners. The proposed a liA:ation began with a number of exceptions and wa: not subject to staff public hearing and approval. During the course of the Planning Commission review, the application evolved Tito one without exceptions. It tell into the sass category as the original Hamilton application in terse of there being concerns that consistency with the R-1 no longer meant a presumption of consistency with the Casprshensive Plan. Planning Commissioner Pam Marsh said the Planning Commission vote was a 3-2 majority. The majority of the Commission recommended approval of the application finding that it was consistent with the subdivision ordinance. The applicant, in 60-171 7/16/68 the process of the application, vent through substantial changes so it no longer required any kind of variations with the ordinance. The majority of VAle Commission found the lotting pattern to be consistent with the neighborhood.;, There was an occasional flag lot within surrounding blocks end the creation of a single flat lot on the block was a reiteration of the pattern expressed within the other blocks. Most important, the Planning Commission found that the configuration of tae lot was such that development restrictions would protect the privacy of adjoining neighbors, would prevent any adverse conditions, and would maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Development restrictions would allow the application to aeet the confines of the Comprehensive Plan. The restrictions basically included a 17 -foot height limit; a back setback of 30 feet and side setbacks of 20 feet. At the time of the hearing, the Planning Commission did not have the acquiescence of the applicant on the restrictions but moved 2orward under clauses suggested by the City Attorney. The minority opined found that the application was a violation of the lotting patterns in the neighborhood and inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the proposed development restrictions could not provide adequate remedy to the problems. Council Member Patitucci clarified there would be less restrictions if the property was divided into two 50 -foot frontages 61-.nd two units were built consistent with current zoning. There could be two 4500 square foot houses on the iota if the setback requirements were met. Hr. Schreiber said that was essentially correct. Through a nondiscrstionary process, two 50 by 100 square foot lots could be recreated and if the existing house was demolished and the site cleared, there could be two new houses built at a maximum of 4,500 square feet each. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Lyn 'Clay, 541 Seale Avenue, represented her father and sister, and said the application was the result or many meetings. The application was revised to avoid the need for a variance which would require removal of a portion of their home. She urged approval of the application. Don 1laynor, 2471 East Eayshore, Suite 501, referred to the favorable decision by the Planning Commission. Substantial compromises were made including the height limit of 17 feet, simile story, end the 20 -foot setbacks. He did not generally support flag lots in Palo Alto except in those instances where the a't•rnative fors of development was lass favorable. As a result of a substandard width lot, homes could be built that were tall, long and large. They would be iaposing on the adjacnt properties and because of the narrow widths of the lot, _ .they would use the entire width of lot except for the 60-172 7/18/68 six-foot setbacks. A Planning Commissioner who opposed the project argued against the types of hues, that would likely go on the subject lot. A home such as the one at 505 Seale Avenue would be very imposing on adjacent residences. He urged there be a distinction between the proposed project and substandard lots. The Planning Commission imposed 20 foot by 20 foot by 20 foot by 30 foot setbacks for the architect, which resulted in a 3,000 square foot building. The building would be a box, and the applicants requested a 20 -foot setback in the rear that would apply to normal 20 -foot rear yards in Palo Alto to allow a six foot encroachment on two sides and the construction of a patio or a courtyard to give some rear yard distinction. The applicants relied on existing ordinances: which had been on the books for a long tine. He compared the setbacks, square footage and height of what the applicants could do AS a regular subdivision with the flag lot in order to show the advantages of both. The setbacks were much narrower on the regular subdivision compared to the existing lots, the square footage would be larger in the regular subdivision compared to the one being sought, and the heights would be such larger than the one being proposed with the flag lot Regarding the Comprehensive Plan concerns about density and character of the neighborhood, the proposed project would be /ass dense, and from the front and adjacent neirbborhoods, it would reeult in a better project. Mayor Sutorius clarified the applicant suggested a six-foot encroachment on two of the sides in the rear lot, and the applicant requested that it be extended to the two sides. Mr. Mayncr requested it be extended to one of the other rides. It was not as typical situation. There were normally not 20 -foot setbacks on the side lots. The applicant did not want to sake a larger hones but rather allow the architect to have sown discretion to add some patio or courtyard effect. He preferred to have the discretion on two sides of the building. Mayor Sutoriue clarified they were operating on the theory that since the condition was a 20 -foot setback, it was treating it like a normal rear yard setback, and the applicants wanted the encroachment option on two sides. John Boyd, 1196 Hamilton Avenue, was an architect, and he urged approval of the proposed parcel rather than going into the two, 50 x 200 foot lots. He requested a little more freedom in the design of the ono story house rather than just the 3,000 square feet. The floor area ratio was 0.35 which was considerably lower than the moratorium. John Beggs, 1835 Cowper, said the property was adjacent to 541 Seale. Re pointed out that 32 out of 35 of the neighbors signed a petition opposing the proposed project. The neighbors felt strongly that two, 50 by 200 square foot lots was far sore in kespiay with the neighborhood. All the lots 60-173 7/1spee throughout the neighborhood were long and narrow. He urges. denial. Council Huber Cobb asked whether the neighborhood preferred two large houses. Mr. Beggs believed the neighbors understood the alternatives. Mr. Maynor vas unfamiliar with the survey alluded to by Mr. Beggs. How!ver, some of the same people who were said to oppose the project supported an earlier survey circulated by the K1o►ys . When he spoke to the property owner next door about the option of the long building next door, that neighbor hoped nothing happened to the existing !Clay home. The next door neighbor preferred the flag lot approach rather than a long narrow home with a tall building six feet from her yard. He was concerned about weighing the effects of the tall narrow homes on two property owners versus the people who were affected in the rear. He could not imagine how people in the rear would be affected by the project ur_? ass they climbed up on a ladder to look over the other side to see the building. Mayor Sutorius referred to -Mr. Maynor's letter regarding the 3,500 square feet' as opposed to 3,000 square feet. He asked for clarification. Mr. Maynor said if the applicants were entitled to a 20 -foot setback in the rear, it, would result in a 3,500 square . foot building. If the Council canted a 30 -foot setback in the rear, it would result in a 3,000 square foot building. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member *easel moved, seconded by Pletcher, to reopen the public bearing. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. John Gilbert, 1827 Cowper Street, said when the Xlays circulated their petition, they said they wanted to build a little cottage on the backlot. The neighbors had no idea how big the house was. He was concerned about misrepresentations. Ms. 'Clay said when she and her sister vent to the surrounding neighbors for approval to the project, she did not recall giving specific size', but rather they spoke of their plan to try and split the two lots and to sell the piece of property in the back. She did not intend any misrepresentations. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. 60-174 7/18/88 1 1 Council Member Bechtel said staff described the existing lotting patterns within the neighborhood were for 50- to 60 -foot wide lots by 150 and sometimes 200 feet dear. There were no other flag lots existing in the immediate area, and in addition, the proposed flag lot would abut six adjacent parcels. She lived at 458 Lowell which was two blocks away and her neighbor's property at 442 Lowell was on paper two lots but in fact it was one house and a garage. Thera were not two houses and two properties. The same was true 434 and 436 Lowell. They were not flag lots. They were one house and one lot. The existing pattern was approximately 50 feet by 200 feat. MOTION: Council Member Beohtsl moved, seconded by Woolley, to uphold the staff recommendation to deny parcel sap b7 -PM -29 pursuant to Government Code Section 66474„ and Palo ]alto Municipal Coda seatiou 21412.090(b), based on the following findings: The 'reposed preliminary parcel nap and the design and configuration of the proposed map are inconsistent the policies and objectives of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Pianos Mousing and Urban Design !laments cited in this report, in that: 1. The existing low -density character and physical quality of the surrounding single-family neighborhood will not be *aiutaiaed, protected or enhanced if it is approved, particularly the privacy and configuration of rear yard open space of the sire parcels adjacent to the flag lot (Parcel One). 2. The pattern and configuration of rear yard open space in this block is an important %smaller scale visualin feature ',that gives character to this neighborhood,' and a "quality" which makes this neighborhood "especially desirable" Council Member. Patitucci asked whether the possibility of building a cottage under the cottage ordinance was ever discussed. Mr. Schreiber said the applicant was aware of the possibility. Council Menber Patitucci asked how much of a cottage could be 1 �ci1t. Mr. Schreiber s, id the maximum size of a cottage would be 900 square feet.. Council Moabeer Woolley agreed with Council Member Bechtel 'that the consistent lotting pattern was the one recommended by staff. She was disturbed that in order to sake the project work., the Planning C. scission included several conditions but 60-175 7/18/88 As Corrected 9/12/88 the applicant did not necessarily agree with the conditions. The conditions would have to be reworked at the Council level which she believed was inappropriate. Council needed to allow parameters to be set by ordinance. She supported the notion. Council Member Menzel concurred with the remarks of Council Members Woolley and Bechtel. While Council could not guarantee that people would not build at exactly the 20 -foot rear setback, the typical patterns in such lots tended to preserve the backyards which was part of the essence of the character of the neighborhoods. Council could not expect that a developer would break the pattern in any significant way if the two lots, side by side, were created. Council should preserve the existing nigh orhood pattern. There was a distinction among flag lots that were subdivided as part of an original subdivision versus those superimposed on an existing neighborhood. Some flag lots were created as part of subdivisions but few were granted as part of a retrofit, and generally she did not believe they should be. Vice Mayor Mein asked about the square footage of the existing house. Ms. Auerbach believed it was around 4,000 square feet. Vice Mayor Klein believed the flag lot approach produced leas density for the neighborhood, which was significant. The existing house contained about 4,000 square feet and the new house would contain approximately 3,000 square feet for a total of 7,000 square feet. As an absolute matter of right, the applicant could create two lots and build two, 4,500 equars-foot houses for a total of 9,000 or 30 percent core square footage. It seemed that when looking at the neighborhood as a whole, having 30 percent more sgiare footage in housing was not in the neighborhood's interest. He supported loss density and urged approval of a flag lot. Ha referred to the difficulty with petitions and said while Council wanted to give credence to people who participated, Council knew peetitions wore subject to vagaries and it was easy to obtain signatures. The adjacent neighbors on Seale were wi l l irig to go along with the flare lot. He supported the majority position of; the Planning Commission to allow the flag lot subject to the conditions. The situation was difficult and it was worth the time to exercise discretion by imposing conditions to eke the project work. Council der Levy said Council Member Woolley cited as en objection that conditions would be imposed on the flag lot. He welcomed the opportunity to impose conditions on the flag lot, particularly nne that would limit the f1agr lot home to one story and 17 feet in height, which he believed would make the structure almost unseen from the adjacent properties. He believed the amity vas better served by carefully worked out conditions an a flag lot. He believed a 20 -foot setback 60-176 7/16/86 1 on all sides as requested by the applicant was acceptable, especially since the trees could be preserved. Council Member Patitucci supported the motion to deny the flag lot. He was concerned about designing an acceptable flag lot in the midst of Council saying it did not know how to handle the problea. Council could be setting a precedent that the particular set of conditions should apply in the future. Thy: closeness of the Planning Commission vote said to his the Ceaeission itself was divided on the issue. It was not even a majority of the full Commission that approved the project. He believed a cottage would be an excellent interim solution to whatever the long-term disposition of the property might be. Council Member Menzel agreed with Council Meter Patitucci. Council Member Woolley said in terms of square footage the flag lot would provide a less dease situation, but the placement of the square footage was key. With the present lac pattern, the square footage would be at the front of the two lots, and the area at the back would continue to be the little forest. If there was a one story house on the back property, it would impact the. neighbors. She preferred the 2,000 additional square feet with placement in the standard pattern. ]Mayor Sutorius associated with sone of ^c:.r.zil Member Patitucci's comments. Council Member Klein's observations were valid and one could add that the potential for the split lot situations of two, 50 by 200 -foot lots not only had the long narrow aspect associated with it but each resulting lot could have a 900 square foot cottage. In the present configuration and the proposed lot split and with the setbacks associated with the rear lot it was not possible to have a cottage on the rear lot. In the configuration of the front lot there would be no opportunity for a cottage even after reaovL1 of a portion of the home occurred. Potentially, 1800 square feet could be added to the density that might bail under the 50 by 200 -lot foot split. He opposed the notion. Council Meatier Cobb *creed with Mayor Sutorius and Vice Mayor Klein because if economics concluded that the two, long narrow lots would eventually sprout two houses, Council would end up —1th a less dense, less intense situation if the particular flag lot was granted. Council Member Menzel clarified cottages were granted by use permit so there was some control over whether and where they were allowed, Cottages were subtracted from the psraitted coverage on a lot so they were not in addition to what would be ordinarily permitted.. Council Member Bechtel agreed with Council Member Hensel. If Council was concerned about the density of the 50 by 200 -foot lots, it should worry about the density of every 50.y 300- 50-177 7/18/88 foot lot in the community which was the purpose of .he present R -I study. MOTION PA BID by a vote of 8-4,, Cobb, Klein, Levy, Butorius voting Mao.“ 18. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Moratorium on New Flag Lots, with Restrictions (242) Mayor Sutoriuw declared the Public Hearing open. Steve Pierce, 209 Cowper Street, war sensitive to'the planning and building changes in Palo Alto. He urged that Council consider that major subdivisions be exempted from any moratorium. City Attorney Diane Northway said a subdivision was a quasi-judicial proceeding which should be -^'ssed at a duly noticed public hearing on the particular !mioui.ision. She advised that Council not hear any discussion az:4t a proposed subdivision. Mr. Pierce referred to major subdivisions and believed the preliminary Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and final Architectural Review Board reviews provided the public and concerned citizens with an opportunity e+ rem?o14 proposed projects on their merits. Council Meter Cobb clarified a flag lot would generally give a developer the ability to squeeze one more unit or a little more density, Mr. Pierce said in Palo Alto the alternatives were whether to go to the long, skinny lots or wider lots stacked in the other direction. The process was sufficient in pa.lo Alto to pick up situations where a flay lot was being recommended primarily to squeeze up density as opposed to a better design solution. Mayor Sttorius declared the Public Hearing closed. ISOTIOMs Council Member l ohtel moved, seconded by 'teasel, that staff be directed to prepare an ordinance tot 1. 'lime a moratorium on Ws creation of any new.. flag lots until now sung'. -family development regulations are adopted: and t. Adopt interim flag lot development regulations consistent ,vita the provisions of Section 18.12.055 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to substandard lot development, with tam exception that single-family 'ooastruation would . be limited to a single, habitable floor not to emceed 17 feet in height. The effective data of these notions is to be 60-178 7/18/88 applied to any subdivision which bas not received tentative nag approval and any building permit not issued. Director of Planning and Community Development Ion Schreiber said staff intended to return to Council with the proposed ordinance on July 26, 1988. Council !Member Patitucci said the issue of flag lot subdivisions seamed to be aimed at what were considered to be single-family lots split into flags or configured iv an odd manner. He queried whether a subdivision of more than a single property flag lot would be covered by the moratorium. Mr. Schreiber said the staff recommendation would cover parcel naps as well as subdivisions for any number of The essential issue was the placement of structures and creation of density. Mr. Pierce indicated an alternative to the use of flag lots would be narrower and longer lots. That type of situation tended to create more open or yard area neap. the back of the property. Since the areas in the back were often adjacent to an existing development, staff believed it might DP better to treat all aubdivirions alike under the procedure rattier than try and single out subdivisions versus parcel map because certain subdivisions would have as great or greater an impact as a parcel map. Council Member Patitucci believed it night not be the case for someone trying to develop in an area where there had not been backyards. Where there was some flexibility, there should be a different process. He understood Council was trying to deal with the examples where large lots in Palo Lito, which were designed as part of a neighborhood, were now being dealt with singly. When talking about six houses in a row where more open apace and a better design could be achieved to accommodate the neighbors, he wanted to see as many options as possible. It did :3 t make sense to exclude something because it happened to apply to another situation. aM 88$11T: Council Member Patitucci aged to amend the motion to apply the proposed osdinasoe to the subdivision of single lots into two lots is which one would be a flag lot and not to apply to larger subdivisions. DUD FOR L*CX OT a R Council Member Patitucci opposed the moratorium. Council Member Levy sympathised with Council Member Patituoci's direction. He queried at what point in a subdivision development did it need to be submitted to the Architectural Review Joard for approval. Mr. Schreiber clarified the subdivision was not approved by the Architectural ReView Sward. The scenario would be 6G-179 7/18/88 situations where there was more than one single-family lot developed at one time. There was some precedent for attaching a condition on recent single-family subdivisions requiring Architectural Review Board approval of the houses but it was after the final map was approved and recorded. Council Member Levy asked whether the lotting plan procedure could go before the Architectural Review Board. Ms. Northway did not believe it was possible under this current ordinance. It was possible to amend the existing ordinance. Council Member Renzel said everyone knew what they were getting into with an initial subdivision ` versus a retrofit. Even where flag lots were designed into subdivisions, they had sone unique problems such as onstreet parking. The situation needed review. Mayor Sutorius referred to the recommendation that the effective date of the motion be applied to any subdivision which had not received tentative map approval and any building permit not issued. He queried whether the non-grandfathering action was proper. Mr. Schreiber said if the motion passed, staff would do further file searches to reaffirm that there were no subdivision parcel maps in process that would be subject to the moratorium. In terms of the building permit proems, staff believed there was one application for a flag lot and more information would be provided. Mayor Sutorius clarified staff had no knowledge of any tentative map which was approved but for which a building permit had not been applied for. Mr. Schreiber said existing lots always had the potential for redevelopment, etc. There were no applications on file for reconfiguration of an existing lot to a flag lot. Ms. Northway said the procedure for subdivision approval was specified in the Subdivision Map Act. She was uncomfortable with saying the City could add other layer of approval other then those already specified. TIONs Vice Mayor *loin coved, seconded by Sutorius, the previous gweatioa. MOTION PASSED iNy a vote of 7-2, Ley. Patitracoi voting. "no." ] IOM VMS= by a vote of 8-1, latituooi voting "ao. R 60-180 7/18/88 19. Contract with Power Engineering Cor_tractors, Inc. for Colorado Power Station Expansion Project (701-03/ 720-06/1101) (C :370:8) NOTION: Council Number Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt staff recommendations as follows: 1. Reject the bid subsitte( by Pleasanton Iagineeringa 2. Execute a contract with Power Zngineerinq Contractors in the amount of $177,000 for the Colorado Parer Station Expansion project and waiving any informalities or minor irregulations in the bid prorralf 3. Authorise staff to execute ohmage orders for extra work items in the .count of $27,000: and 4. Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance to appropriate $204,000 from the Bleatrio SIR to finance the contract for the Colorado 12 3 Power Station until this 1965-89 Electric Fund CIP is approved by Council and to reinbv rse the Eleotrio SIR by $204,000 upon Council adoption of the 1988-89 Electric Fund CIP Budget. ORDINANCE 3821 entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TIN ITT OF PIMA ALTO ARRXDI 3 TBI maw. BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 TO PR09IDE AN APPROPRIATION FOR T8E CONTRACT FOR TIE COLORADO PO= STATION ETPPXS30N PROJECT* NOTION PASSED unanimously. 20. Consultant Work for Civic Center Plaza (810-02) CNR:302:8) Vice Mayor Klein was concerned when the consultant did not submit his statement for so long. As stated in the report (Cl9R:302:8) , = on June 13, 1987, staff received an invoice for services rendered in April and Nay. On the invoice the consultant also listed *other services performed but not yet billed.* He understood that on approximately November 2, 1987, staff received a letter fr e the consultant which itemised the unbilisd services. Re queried the City's policy with regard to statements submitted in ouch an untimely manner. City Manager Bill Saner said with contracts of long duration, bills were submitted at various :intervals. The City maintained a 'payment and work order record so that any given time, staff knew how such work was colleted and an satin ce of how much was still outstanding. W ,vas reluctant to give tbe consultant full responsibility for Act providing the City with information as to billing. Re believed the City knew the status with regard to theconsultant's billing. Re did not 60-181 7/18/88 believe the billing cycle was normal and appropriate, but it was not a surprise. Council Member Patitucci said the proposed actions to keep the sage thing from occurring in the future were appropriate. NOTION: Council Member Patitucci coved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the staff r000mmendations to: 1. Accept the Report of Consultant Work for Civic Center Plasm: 2. Acknowledge that the consultant services were provided to the City at staff direction: and 3. Authorise staff to expand additional funds for the project in the aaourt of '18,000. NOTION BASTED unanimously. 21. Accounting for Water Utility Back Rent Charges (701-03/1130) (CMR:363:6) City Manager Bill Zaner recommended the General Fund in effect forgive the back rent owed by the Water Fund. There might come the time where a future City Council wished to reconsider the action. Co4ncil Member Patitucci said the gist of the report was the Council's desire to have a footnote in the financial statements noting the back rent charges were not considered generally accepted accounting practices. For purposes of equity, Council charged the other utilities and given the overall health of tie City's utility system even though there were some problems with the Water Utility, the fact that rates were substantially increased and the reserves were being replenished, the Water Utility could stand to have on its books with an appropriate explanatory footnote, that the intent was for the liability to be paid. MOTION: Council. Member Patituoci moved, seoondsd by Woolley,, direct staff to book tks liability in tbs water Fund. Council Member Fletcher asked whether the money would accr le or in the future at some time, the payments would be made. Council Member Patitucci said at any time in the future, the decision could be to make the layaer,ts, charge the fees to make the payments, or forgive the payments. Tha point was that the amount would go on the books as a liability to the Water Fund. Council Member Reruzel asked best long such a liability could be maintainer an the books without being dealt with. 60-122 7/13/88 City Auditor Mike Northrup said the liability could be maintained in the books indefinitely. MOTION WMRD unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at :0:55 p.a. ATTEST: APPROVED: NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance With Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years from the date of the meeting, and the Finance and Public Works Committee and Police and Procedures Committee meeting tapes ars retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours. 60-183 7/18/88