HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-19 City Council Summary Minutes1
CITY
COUNCIL
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
August 19, 1985
CITY
Or
PPIO
ALTO
ITEM PAGE
Oral Communications 6 1 9 6
A pro.vai of Minutes of June 17, 1985 6 1 9 6
Approval of Minutes of June 18, 1985 6 1 9 6
Item #1, Order of Ballot for the General Municipal 6 1 9 6
Election on November 5, 1985
Consent Calendar 6 1 9 7
Referral 6:1 9 7
Action 6 1 9 7
Item 02, Miscellaneous
Projects
Facilities
Maintenance 6 1 9 7
Item #3, Landscape Maintenance
Item #4, Chip Seal Program
Item #5, Public Works Inspection Services
Item #6, Maybell 15-KV Duplex Unit -Type Substation
Item #7, Civic Center Improvements Project - Tower
Roofing
Item 08, Resolution Re Compensation Plan Changes
for Council -Appointed Officers
Item #9, Ordinance Re Park Improvement -Downtown
Park North (2nd Reading)
Item #10, Ordinance Re OR, CN, And CS Distr.icts
( nd Reading)
Item #1I, Ordinance Rig Airport -Related Uses, Hotel
Room. with Kitchens y and Chemical Storage Facil-
ities (2nd Reading)
Agenda. Changes,Additions and Deletions
Item f13, Report from Council Legislative Committee
Item #15, Gamble Property Garden Center Award of
Option - Request, for Continuance
Item #16, _Board cif Realtors_ Building
6 1 9 7
6 1 9 7
6 1 9 7
6 1 9 8
6 1 9 8
6 1 9 8
6 1 9 8
6 1 9 8
6 1 9 8
6 1 9 9.
6 1 4 9
8/19/85
IitFt PAGE
Item #14-A (Old Item #12), Ordinance Re Moratorium 6 20 2
in College Terrace (2nd Reading)
Item #14, City-wide ' Moratorium on Demolition and 6 2 0 7
duildiny Permits for Substandard Lots in the R-1
oning Districts
Item #17, Cancel September 3, 1985 City Council
Meeting
Adjournment to Closed Session re Litigation and
Personnel: 10:35 p.m.
Adjournment: 11:00
6 2 2 1
6 2 2 1
6 2 2 1
R u l t r Meet i n J
August 19, 1985
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.rn.
PRESENT: Cobb, Fletcher,_ Klein, Levy, Renzel (arrived
at 7:35: p.m.), Sutorius, Woolley
ABSENT: Bechtel, Withersp on
Mayor Levy announced the need for a Closed Session re Litigation:
1) Case No. 560069 The City of Menlo Park v. The City of Palo Alto
and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University; and 2) Case No. 56024 Citizens for Sensible Planning
and Hobert 0. Ekedahl v. The Cit of Palo Alto and the Board of
rustees o`f the Leland Stan ord un or Univers ty, pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956(a) to be held at some point during
the meeting, and the need for a Closed Session re Personnel to be
held after the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
MINUTES GF JUNE 17, 1985 AND JUNE 18, 1985
Minutes of June 17, 1985
Councilmember Witherspoon submitted the following correction:
Page 5884, fourth paragraph, third sentence, delete the word
Irfunds, end add "accumulated interest earnings.."
Page 5891, first paragraph, second sentence, delete the words
"impact and/or"; last sentence should read, "She asked whether
there would also be an economic impact if the zoning were changed
either in respect to floor area ratio or from retail to office lrse
or vice versa."
Minutes of June 18, 1985
Mayor Levy submitted the following correction:
Pale 5935,.: fifth line from the bottom, delete the word
the sentence reads, "Housing should be the focus..."
MOTI0N: Councileember Sutorius-: moved, seconded by
approval of the Minutes of June 1/, 1985 and June' 18,
corrected.
NnatB' so
Woolley,
1985, as
MOTION{ PASSED unanimously, echtel, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM 1213 ORDER OF BALLOT FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON
NOVEMBER 5, 1985 (ELE 22-1)
Assistant City Clerk Gloria Young introduced Brian Strausser who
drew the . names for the ballot order.
The order for the ballot was as follows:
Mike ..Cobb
Larry Klein
H. R. Roberts
Ellen Fletcher
Frank Patitutci
Betsy Bechtel
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Sutorius removed Item #12, Ordinance re Moratorium
in College Terrace.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval
of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
None
Action
ITEM #2, MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROJECTS (PWK 7)
(CMR:445:5)
Staff recommends the Mayor be authorized to execute the two
blanket order contracts, each for a period of one year or an
aggregate total of $20,000 each for various projects as assigned,
whichever occurs first.
AWARD OF BLANKET ORDER CONTRACT
Plumbing: Roto-Rooter Sewer Service
Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning:
Climatech
ITEM #;3, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE (PWK 7) (CMR:470:5)
Staff recommends that:
1. The Mayor be authorized to execute a contract for a third year
with Green Leaf Landscape Management for $98,142; and
2. Staff be authorized to execute change orders for to
$15,000.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Green Leaf Landscape Oaintenance
ITEM #4, CHIP SEAL PROGRAM (PWK 2-5) (CMR:468:5)
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Santa Clara
County for $61,000; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders of up to $9,000.
•
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY
ITEM #5, PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION SERVICES (PWK 7) (CMR:4S7:5)
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement to the agreement,
(CO.4507) with Barrett Harris and Associates, inc. , for
inspection services amounting to $25,000; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the: agreement of
up to $3,500,
FIRSTS AMENDMENT TO CO.NThACT NO - 4507
Barrett Harris B Associates
I TE.� HG, MAYBELL 15-I;V DUPLEX UNIT -TYPE SUDS I A I IUN (UTI 3)
Chii2:474:5)
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Rosendin
Electric in the amount of $921,500, which includes the base
bid of $847,196 plus $59,304 tax and $15,000 for early com-
pletion; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders of up to five (5)
percent ($46,075) for additional services.
AGREEMENT - SERVICES AND MATERIALS FOR
MAYBELL SUBSTATION 15 -KY DUPLEX UNIT SUBSTATION
Rosendin Electric, Inc.
ITEM #7, CIVIC CENTER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - TOWER REROOFING
(PWK 7) AMR: 451:5)
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with Blues Roofing
Company for $49,575 for reroofing the Civic Center tower; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders for the project in
the amount of $7,500.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Blues Roofing Company
ITEM 08, RESOLUTION RE COMPENSATION PLAN CHANCES FOR COUNCIL -
APPOINTED OFFICERS (PER 2-1)
RESOLUTION 6422 entitled `RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, ADOPTING SALARIES FOR COUNCIL -
APPOINTED OFFICERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO., 5947`
ITEM 09, ORDINANCE RE PARK IMPROVEMENT -DOWNTOWN PARK NORTH (2nd
Reading) (PLA 7-15)
ORDINANCE 3630 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNITY PARK AT DOWNTOWN PARK NORTH"
(1st Reading 8/5/85, PASSED 7-t{, Cobb, Witherspoon
absent)
ITEM #1U, ORDINANCE 12E OR, CN, AND CS DISTRICTS (2nd Reading) (PLA
7-9-2)
ORDINANCE 3631 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO SETTING INTERIM REGULATIONS REGARDING
THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE OR, CN„ AND CS DISTRICTS AND
EXTENDING THE. LIMITATIONS ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF
OFFICE USES IM THE CS DISTRICTS (EXCEPTING CS DISTRICTS
IN THE DOWNTOWN .AREA BOUNDED BY LINCOLN AVENUE, ALMA
STREET, 'HAMILTON AVENUE AND: RAMONA STREET)' (1st Reading
8/5/85, PASSED 7-0, Cobb,Witherspoon absent)
MCHENS ITEM #11 iRDI.NANCE.RE AIRPORT -RELATED USES HOTEL ROOMIS WITH
rid ending
ORDINANCE 3632 entitled *ORDINANCE ; OF THE COUNCIL. OF THE
CITY 01 PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE ' 18 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING CODE) REGARDING , AIRPORT-
RELATED USES. HOTEL. ROOtS ifITH KITCHE*S,. AND CHEMICAL
STORAGE `_FACILITIES' (tat. Reading 8/5/85, PASSED 7-0,.
Cobb, Witherspoon absent)
MOTION! PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Ilitherspoon absent.
6 1 9.8
8/19/85
AGENDA CHANGES, AUDITIONS AND DELETIONS
City Manager Bill saner advised that Item #l2, Ordinance re
Moratorium in College Terrace, would become Item 14-A.
ITEM #13, REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE (LEG 4-2)
(CMR : 47t3 : 6 )
Councilmember Fletcher, Chairman of the Council Legislative
Committee, said the Committee considered the suggestion that all
public agencies join the Social: Security system. It looked like
the legislation would mandate that all current employees would
have to join Medicare as of January I, 1986, and all new employees
would have to be in the total Social Security system. It would
have a severe impact on the City's budget as shown in the exhibit
to the staff report. The Committee was concerned that it would
commence in the middle of the City's fiscal year.
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved on behalf of the Council
Legislative Committee that Council directly communicate to its
representatives in Congress that mandatory Medicare/Social
Security coverage for state and local government employees should
be opposed or, at least, the implementation delayed.
Vice Mayor Cobb said it might be the kind of issue where it was
worthwhile to invite Congressman Zschau to meet with the Council
since it seemed to have far-reaching consequences, and since he
offered to meet with the Council on occasion.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent.
Councilmember Fletcher said the other item was proposed resolu-
tions to be submitted to the Transportation and Public Works
Committee of the Leayue of California Cities. The subject was
transit funding, and the first resolution dealt with mass transit
and the second one with Amtrak. The Committee did not want to see
funding cut. Even - though the budget resolution passed in
Washington, the process was just beginning because the fiscal
policy committees needed to act and the appropriations made.
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved on behalf of the Council
Legislative Committee that Council submit the resolutions regard-
ing mass transit and Amtrak funding to the League of California
Cities for review by the Policy Committee on Transportation and
Public Works, and approval by the General Assembly of the League.
MOTION'PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent.
ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS
MOTION: Councilmember '..Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein, to
bring forward Item 14-A, Ordinance re Moratorium in College
Terrace, ahead of Item 14, City-wide Moratorium on Demolition and
Building Permits for Substandard Lots in R-1 Zones..
Counc`l i member Renzel was somewhat concerned the item was on the
Consent Calendar and interested people had no time to get to the
meetsny if they were listening on the radio. She oppoed changing.
the order to be certain interest people had time to yet to the.
meeting and participates
Mayor Levy '. asked if considering a matter out of order required a
unanimous vote.
City Attorney Diane Lee said n
Cc' ncilmemher Fletcher asked whether it wound he possible to
consi Jr Item #12 at the same time as Item #14 so they would be
discussed together. The discussion would still be open on Item
#12 until the Council completed action on both items.
1
Mayor Levy believed that would be cumbersome,
Councilmember Sutorius suggested that Council take Items #15 and
#lb out of order and act on those items. Anyone in the listening
audience was aware that Council was going to talk further about
the College Terrace moratorium,
Ms. Lee pointed out the ordinance attached to Item #14 referred to
the ordinance which was now 14-A. If Council took Items #15 and
#1.6 first, it would help in terms of a eeference in #14, to take
14-A first so there was a fixed number otherwise there would be a
blank in the other ordinance.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by
Cobb, to consider the Agenda in the order of Item 115, Gamble
Property Garden Center - Request for Continuance; Item #15, Board
of Realtors Building; Item #14-A (Old Item #12), Ordinance re
Moratorium in _College Terrace; and #14, City-wide Moratorium on
Demolition and Building Permits for Substandard Lots in R-1 Zoning
Districts.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #15, (AMBLE PROPERTY GARDEN CENTER AWARD OF OPTION - REQUEST
FOR CONTINUANCE (PWK 6.2-9) (CMR:469:5)
Real Property Administrator Jean Diaz intended to complete the
negotiations for the option for the Garden Center and have the
Council award the option that evening, but a few issues remained
unresolved and, therefore, staff requested continuance to
September 10, or as suon thereafter as possible. Staff was meet-
ing again the following day with the attorneys for the Garden
Center and hoped to resolve the issues and return to Council
shortly.
Mayor Levy asked City Manager Bill Laner whether there was any
action Council needed to take.
Mr. Laner said Mr. Diaz informed him that notices needed to be
issued, and it would help to have Council action on record where
the notices could go out appropriately and everyone would know
when the meetiny was to occur.
MOTION: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to continue
Item #15, Gamble Property Garden Center Option, to September 10,
1985.
Councilmember Klein asked why the motion was needed. It was not
done with other things to be agendlzed in the future.
Mr. Diaz said in the particular case, Council had adopted a policy
regarding the leased use of City property which required formal..
notices be sent to surrounding residents.
Councilmember Klein said that was true of many things Council did,
but motions were not required to specifically-agepdize them.
City Clerk Ann Tanner said past practice was if an;. action item
appeared on the Council agenda, and Council did not, deal with it
that evening, they made a motion to continue. Only. Council could
continue an action item once , it : was published on an agenda;
Councilmember Klein did not understand why the item was agendazed,
and said it would have been better for Council to receive an
informational memorandum,
6 2 0 0
el1g/85
Mr. Laner said people were notified Council wnuld art on the item
that evening, and it was listed so people would be available. If
Council did not want to pass a motion, staff would publish it on
the September 10 agenda, and get the notices out.
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #16, BOARD OF REALTORS BUILDING (PWK 6-2) (CMR:466:5)
Real Property -Administrator dean Diaz said the attorneys for the
Board of Realtors submitted a revised agreement which was at the
Council's places. Staff was not pleased with that aspect of the
negotiations and the process of -getting the revised agreement
before `-the Council at such • a - late time. However, staff reviewed
the proposed revised agreement and found it acceptable. The
revised agreement before Council eliminated the immediate sale,
lease -back option and fixed the close of escrow eat October, 1986.
Previously the agreement had two options: Either a two-year
deferred close of escrow, which made it October of 19.87,. or an
immediate close of escr=ow and a one-year with. two six-month
options`' lease -back. It: also fixed the sales price for the
Uctober, 1986 close ,of escrow at $632,500, which reflected an
approeimate one percent __annual rate of appreciation over the cur-
rent appraised value of the aproperty. -The revised agreement was
more straightforward and eliminated many cumbersome options that
were incorporated into the initial agreement presented to Council.
It was unfortunate it was not presented before as it would have
saved he and the attorneys for the board a lot of time in arriving
at an agreement. Because it was more straightforward and because
the economics were comparable to the other two options that were
presented in the previous package, staff recommended that Council
adopt the budget amendment ordinance es presented, and authorize
the Mayor to sign the revised acquisition agreement as presented
by the Board of Realtors and any other documents that might be
needed to implement the revised agreement. The agreement would
also require ratificiation by the Board of Realtors in the near
future,
vice Mayor Cobb asked whether the City Attorney had an opportunity
to thoroughly review the revised agreement since Council had not.
Ms. Lee said she and Mr. Diaz reviewed the document that after-
noon.
Vice Mayor Cobb asked whether Ms. Leff, was satisfied the document
was as represented.
Ms. Lee said yes.
Vice Mayor Cobb was concerned about the impact of the purchase on
the City with respect to the Gann limits. He raised the question,
because he still looked at the possibility that Coucil would need.
to deal with some manner of financing in the purchase of a surplus
school site. He was concerned about whether the_ matter was struc-
tured such that the Gann limit it was narrowed so much ,it would make
the problem more difficult.
Mr. Laner believed it would not have an effect. The City was
below the Gann limit by about $1.5 million. As noted in the
report, eventually the purchase would go against some kind of
assessment district or long-term financing if a structure was to
be built en the property, or if it was to be used for surface
parking against the assessment districts. Ultimatel,y, it would
not go against the General: Fund. With the new arrangement des-
cribed by Mr. Diaz, itappeased the City would have possession of
the property in approximately a year, - Should the Board of
Realtors chose _to remain, the City could lease to the : which ,would
yenerate revenue to the City, or the City ` could use the property
for the utilities, which would again shift the load away from the
General Fund. He believed the Gann limitation problems were
Oni mi zed, and did not see it as a problem.
6 2 0 1
8/19/85
Mayor Levy asked about the present condition of the unappropriated
capital reserves.
Mr. Laver replied they were about $4.5 million.
Mayor Levy asked if they were expected, absent that item, to rise
during the current year.
Mfr. Laney said if the revenue projections were accurate, and he
believed they were fairly close, staff expected to end the year at
appro•;dimately the same level, within $100,000 or so, at about $4.5
million.
MOTION: Counci l member Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, approval
of the revised agreement at places an August 19, 1985 and adopt
the budget amendment ordinance.
ACQUISITION AGREEMENT
ORDINANCE 3634, entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PACT AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1985-86 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION FOR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRCJECT NO. 85-22 *ACQUISITIONS OF
PALO ALTO BOARD OF REALTORS BUILDING"
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Witherspoon absent.
Noting that Real Property Administrator Jean Diaz would soon be
leaving the City stafr, Mr. Zaner wanted to publicly acknowledge
Mr. Diaz' contribution to the City. He was not sure Council was.
aware, but Mr. Diaz' reputation in the field was national, he
wrote many articles, and his opinion was sought after by his
colleagues. He would be sorely missed on the staff. Staff was
already recruiting for a replacement and knew it would be diffi-
cult to find one. He said Mr. Diaz worked on various projects
ranging from school sites, to the Gamble House, to downtown, to
the Air Rights project --a first for local government --MacArthur
Park Restaurant, airport leases, ice- skating rinks, and many
others. He was sure the Council joined him in wishing Mr. Diaz
well in his new endeavour. He thanked Mr. Diaz for his help.
Mayor. Levy seconded Mr. Laner's comments on behalf of the Council.
They wished Mr. Di az all the best in the next couple of years and
beyond.
ITEM #14-A (OLD ITEM #12) ORDINANCE RE MORATORIUM IN COLLEGE
TERRACE (2nd Reaad ngj (PIA 3-T6
Councilmember Sutorlus said he removed the item from the .Consent
Calendar in order for Council to consider two modifications. The
first modification related to the definition of °substandard lot,N
contained in Section 2 of the ordinance. As presently defined, a
lot measuring 50 feet by 100 feet with a site area of 5,000 square
feet, would not be affected by the new construction moratorium.
However, a lot measuring more than 50 feet wide, but less than 100
feet deep would be subject to the moratorium. For example, demo-
lition and/or bu i 1 d i n y permit applications would not be processed
for a 60 ,foot X 95 ' foot parcel which had an area of 50700 square
feet --larder than the 50 foot X 100 foot lot. Lot width was a
critical_ dimension in building design, particularly .when consld-
eriny sideyard setbacks, driveway area, and daylight plane. tinder
the pending moratorium, lot depth, even with standard front and
rear setbacks, could accommodate a reduced standard quite ae rea-
sonably, he believed, as was being done for width. His proposed
amendment to Section 2 applied a proportional reduction in minimum
depth, but maintained approximately the same r i nir um site area as
presently proposed. The formula,;wasmerely that the lot width was
reduced from 60 feet to 50 feet via the moratorium process, and
50/60 equalled 83 percent. Therefore, 83 percent of a 100''was 83
feet, 83 percent of 6,000 square feet, was the site area . ordi-
narily applicable which which equalled 4,980 square feet.
Counc i l mem& er SuLurius h,ad taOle wni ch illustrated the range of
minimum allowable .lot dimensions and site coverage which might
result. For example, a 50 foot X 100 foot lot produced a site
area of 5,000 square feet, at the City's standard 35 percent site
coverage limitation, it meant the site coverage would be limited
to 1,750 feet. Application of his proposal would show that as the
depth of the lot decreased, the width of the lot must increase to
compensate. Accordingly, at the opposite end of the scale, an
U3 -foot depth to a lot would require a 60 -foot width, providing a
square footage in the site area of 4,980 feet; The site coverage
at 35 percent would be limited to 1,743 feet. lie was also con-
cerned about Section 3, applications -for variances and building
permits associated with remodels and additions. He believed the
present wording of Section 3 was more permissive than was intended
or appropriate. The concluding phrase,: "...and- applications for
variances may be processed..." wad. not restricted to remodeling or
adding to an existing home. Under that wording, variance appli-
cations could also be processed for new construction regardless of
the lot size. If the lot dimensions fell within the moratorium's
allowed limits and the variances or variances were granted, a
demolition and/or building permit could follow. If the dimensions
were substandard, the variance application could still be pro-
cessed, and •if granted, associated withean abeyed building permit
application. In either case he believed even a: strictly admin-
istered variance process seemed at odds with the purpose of the
moratorium. Permitting construction on reduced sized lots without
variances was reasonable to all parties; but, Council should not
open ethe door for reduced setbacks, more .lot coverage, more
height, less restrictive daylight plane, etc., unless it was to
introduce an interim floor area ratio andiore a design review,
which was unlikely.
MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb,
approval ofthe ordinance for second reading with the following
amendments
Section 2. "Substandard lot% as used in this ordinance means a
lot with a width of less than 50 feet or a depth of less than 83
feet and an area less than 4,980 square feet.
"SECTION 3. Section 1 above notwithstanding, applications for
remodeling or adding to an existing home may be processed and
applications for variances in conjunction with such remodeling or
additions may be processed.°
ORDINANCE 3633, entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
O ALTO IMPOSING A MORATORIUM FOR ONE YEAR
ON THE PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR DEMOLITION PER-
MITS, BUILDING PERMITS, AND VARIANCES ON SUBSTANDARD
LOTS I1 THE R-1 DISTRICT OF _THE COLLEGE TERRACE AREA"
(1st Reading 8/5/85, PASSED 7-0, Cobb, Witherspoon
absent)
Mayor Levy said the motion would be divided for purposes of dis-
cussion and voting. The first part of the discussion would relate
to the change in Section 2.
Vice Mayor Cobb asked staff how the change in Section 2 applied to
a cul-de-sac lot which might be pie -shaped, or otherwise odd
shaped.
Oi rector of, Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
in terms of the moratorium, he did not believe there were any lots
in College Terrace that fell within the odd shape.
Counci lrnember Sutori us suspected staff was correct ' in terms of
cul-de-sac lots, but asked about the potential.: of corner lots
where, by the ordinances and definitions, the width of a lot could
be greater in number of feet than the depth if it happened to be a
corner lot. He clarified that was the definition.
6 2 0 3
8/19/85
Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said the zoning ordinance defined a
lot by its narrower frontage. In other words, the narrower front-
age became the front; the depth would be the longer frontage on a
corner lot, so the situation would not arise.
Councilmember Sutorius clarified the visualization the property
owner or any neiyhbo r had by reason of seeing the home fronted on
"Alpha" Street, when in fact its frontage from the standpoint of
the measurement might be on "Beta" Street, was not affected by the
proposed amendment.
Mr. Brown said neither the orientation of the home nor the address
had any bearing on how the zoning ordinance looked at the front or
depth of a lot.
Councilmember p Woolley asked if the proposal had a _ practical appli-
cation
in some cases.
Mr. Schreiber said in College Terrace on Amherst and on other
streets, there were a variety of lot sizes almost all of which
were squares or rectangles. He sensed the switch in definition
would affect some lots. Some lots would not be substandard under
the definition which might be substandard under the other defini-
tion, but it; was impossible to pick something out at that moment.
Councilmember Renzel asked what kinds of problems, if any, staff
would have in computing several different parameters in order to
determine whether a lot fell within or without the moratorium.
Mr. Schreiber clarified that "several different parameters" meant
depth, width, and area. It was slightly more difficult to explain
across the counter or over the telephone, but he saw no inherent
problem.
Mayor Levy clarified that the present discussion related to the
College Terrace moratorium and the dimensions of the lots that
would represent the standards for the moratorium.
James Witt, 722 Chirnalus Drive, was a 30 -year resident of Palo
Alto, and said his primary concern was addressed by the amendment
suggested by Councilmember Sutorius. The ordinance would probably
affect many more lots than Council realized because many of the
lots were drawn up in years gone by when the requirement was
smaller. He was purchasing a property which was 60 foot X 97
foot, and as the ordinance was written, it would be included in
the moratorium and, therefore, unbuildable even though it was a
large lot. The Council reduced the width from 60 feet to 50 feet
and he hoped it would consider Councilmember Sutorius' proposal to
allow for compromise in the area of, odd -shaped lots, and also
because at }east 15 to 20 of the lots subdivided by the school
district would be considered substandard. Consideration of more
than just the single 50 foot X 100 foot dimension would allow for
odd -shaped lots as well as lots that might be 60 feet X 97 feet
deep. He urged approval fon the amendment.
Councilmember Renzel asked where Mr. Witt's lot. was;
Mr. Witt said the lot was in Barron: Park, but the likelihood of.
the wording being changed on the College Terrace ordinance made it
likely that the City-wide ordinance would follow. He believed it
was important t.o standardize. His concern was in the Baron Park
area, but hoped that if the ordinance for the College Terrace.
moratorium was amended, the ordinance for the City=wide moratorium
would likewise be worded to consider the off -shaped -lots.
Councilmember Renzel asked whether Mr. Witt was building the home
for his own occupancy.
Mr. Witt did not knowwhether he could afford it. He believed a
persons right to build on their property was vitally important to
the country. It . seemed to be a case of Council moving . quickly to
correct what it saw as a problem which might, in fact, create
larger problems for the property owners, who were not notified.
Of the 1,500 some odd lots in Palo Alto, he gt`essed the majority
were substandard. The fact that a_noratorium on those lots was
going to affect the value of the lot was an important considera-
tion. He believed the fact the owners were not notified was
important.
Richard Ford, 2349 Cornell Street, questioned the necessity of the
moratorium. If it was impossible to reconsider, he suggested
there should be a standard square footage ratio. In other words,
make the buildable lots "Xd square feet with "X" percentage of
coverage. It made more sense than a lot of different sliding
scales. He believed the moratorium was wrong and no one should be
able to tell him whether he could demolish the house on his lot
and build his own residence.
Councilmember. Renzel was concerned about having the matter pre-
sented to Council that evening, when the item was on the Consent
Calendar, without any advance notice to the members of the public.
or to Council. One reason Council changed the width of the lot
from 60 feet to 50 feet was whole subdivisions in some of the
older sections of town used 50 feet as the standard, particularly
those subdivisions that took place early in Palo Alto's history.
However, she believed the basic standard fcr depths was always 100
feet to 125 feet and most of the properties she saw fell into that
category. 1f there were lots that were going to be less than 100
feet, they were going to be located in odd locations and probably
would present site development problems to the neighborhood and
their immediate neighbors. She was concerned about changing the
parameters of the ordinance at that time. She would not support
the motion . to reduce the lot width and site coverage requirements
as shown in the basic ordinance before the Council.
Councilmember Fletcher asked i f staff knew - the - approximate dimen-
sions of the Wilkie Way lot, because square footage -wise it was
largo but very narrow. She did not believe it was appropriate`. to
exclude that type of lot from the moratorium.
Mr. Brown did not know the dimensions of that lot, but it was
trapezoid in shape and so was irregular. He recollected in terms
of area, it was in the range of 4,000 square feet to 4,200 square
feet.
Councilmember Woolley intended to support the amendment because
she believed it did not really interfere in anyway with the basic
concern Council had for the moratorium in Col ege Terrace. She
understood the concern, was that someone would take an existing lot
and subdivide it into narrow lots of 25 -foot frontages and put up
two houses where one house was previously. She did not See that
Councilmember Sutorius' amendments made it possible. It allowed
possibly a wider frontage, but no narrower frontage than the 50
feet. She believed it was more thoughtful and thorough and A,cconl-
plished what was intended in the first place.
Councilmember Renzel was also concerned because she heard people
refer to how the ordinance as it might be modified would be
addressed City-wide. The problems City-wide vere a bit different
from College Terrace. She was concerned a change made oto the
College Terrace ordinance would be passed on to -the next item on
the agenda which referred to the College Terrace. ordinance. She
urged her colleagues to stick with the simpler ordinance previ-
ously adopted.
Councilmember Sutorius asked Councilmember Renzel to consider her
concern for the prospective transference of ` those conditions to
City-wide might not be ill-founded because he intended to ask some
of the same questions -that led to the present proposal. To pro-
vide relaxation to the concern expressed, he suggested th'e modifi-
cation to Section 3t which Council would next discuss, was an
important one because it said that new construction would not have
6 2 0 5
8/19/85
nave a variance, and therefore, one would visualize the lot at 60
feet X 90 feet, or whatever the dimension was within the allowable
square footage. It needed to provide the front rear yard set-
backs, which were - each 20 feet and, if an interior lot, needed to
provide the six-foot side yard setbacks on either side. The
effect of it was merely a 20 -foot change in the total site cover-
age, not causing more narrow lots, which still left a very build-
able lot.
Councilmember Klein asked about the rules in College Terrace with
regard to minimum depth of a lot.
Mr. Brown said for new subdivisions, the minimum depth was 100
feet, and the minimum width 60 feet as in all R-1 zones.
Councilmember Klein asked Councilmember Sutorius what the amend-
ment did. Assuming both changes were passed and someone had a
lot which was 55 feet wide and 90 feet deep, the proposed lot
passed Councilmember Sutorius' proposed Section 2, but flunked
Section 3 because it needed a variance from the depth requirement
of 100 feet. He asked if that was correct.
Councilmember Sutorius said no. It was the whole purpose of the
definition of "substandard lot" because the definition in the
pending second reading item defined it as 50 feet X 100 feet. His
arienement defined it as not less than 50 feet in its width dimen-
sion and not less than 83 feet in its de2th dimension.
Mayor Levy clarified the first part of the motion was an amendment
to the ordinance which was the subject of the first reading on
August 5, 1985.
Councilmember Renzel believed Council was likely to find where
the lots were of the substandard depths, they were corner lots and
it was likely the rear yard of one of the lots would be the side
yard of its adjoining neighbor. When it was a smaller lot, she
believed it would have a greater impact.
FIRST PART OF MOT10N REGARDING DEFINITION OF °SUBSTANDARD LOT"
PASSED by a vote of 6-I, Rer,zel voting "no,' Bechtel, Witherspoon
absent.
Councilmember Sutorius said the second part of his motion dealt
with Section 3 as described He prefaced a rereading of it with
the comment that the City Attorney pointed out the proposed word-
ing was satisfactory for Section 3, but she suggested that Section
1 should also be miodified so in Section 1 after the words, "build-
ing permits" in line 3, the words "or variances" be added. He
asked the City Attorney if that was the correct location.
Ms. Lee believed it read easier if it was put after the word "for".
in the second line.
Councilmember Sutorius asked prior to "demolition."
Ms. Lee replied yes "for variances, demolition permits and/or."
Councilmember Sutorius clarified that in making the amendment to
Section 3, it was appropriate to amend Section 1 at the same time.
/n Section 1, insert the word "variances," in the second line
between the words "for" and "demolition permits and/or building
permits on substandard lots." Consistent with that, Section 3
would read, "Section 1 above notwithstanding, applications for
remodeling or adding to an existing home may be processed and
applications for variances in conjunction with such remodeling'or.
additions may be processed."
MAKER - AND SECOND OF NOTION-
-INTO SECOND PART OF NOTION
IN4ORPORATED
AMENDMENT
TO SECTION
Councilmember Renzel asked if staff had knowledge of any prop-
erties that would qualify under- the substandard lot as modified.
Where variances were already granted, she asked about the status
of those variances, and likewise if it came up under City-wide
ordinance.
Ms. Lee said with respect to lots that had variances, but had not
received building permits, and, if needed, demolition permits,
once the ordinance was in place they would not be allowed to get
building and/or demolition permits. The difficulty came about
after the moratorium was removed because the regulations to be
adopted in the future to control that particular area_needed to
address the issue of lots with variances, but were not allowed to
proceed forwaro through the process. When staff studied the
issue, they would determine the applicability and how to treat
them.
Councilmember Renzel assumed the problem would be the same regard-
less of the City's criterion for substandard lot. If variances
were granted prior to the enactment of the moratorium, they would
still be outstanding at the end of the moratorium,
Ms. Lee said yes.
Councilmember Renzel asked if someone could proceed to build on a
standard lot if a variance was presently outstanding for something
within the new definition of "substandard."
Ms. Lee replied if it was not substandard, yes.
Councilmember Renzel clarified if it was presently within the 50
foot X 83 foot dimension and had an outstanding variance.
Ms. Lee said the person could proceed, and would be allowed to get
any permits for which they could complete applications.
Councilmember Renzel clarified the person might, in fact, intrude
into side lines, and rear setbacks. She asked if staff had any
idea how many single family lots had outstanding variances that
were. not actually constructed.
Mr. Brown said as defined by the ordinance to include only brand
new construction of new homes on substandard lots, he could only
think of the one on Whitsell in Barron Park.
SECOND PART OF MOTION TO REVISE SECTION 1 AND SECTION 3 OF THE
ORDINANCE PASSED unani.ous-lxy„ Bech el, Witherspoon absent.
Mayor Levy said he asked City Attorney Lee if the amendments nec-
essitated a new second reading, and she opined they did not.
ITEM #14, CITY-WIDE MORATORIUM ON DEMOLITION AND BUILDING PERMITS
FOR SUBSTANDARD LOTS IN- R-1 ZONING DISTRICTS (PLA 3-16)
(CMR:480:5)
Mayor Levy said the item was brought up the previous week, and
staff asked to report to the Council. He pointed out Council was
not dealing with specific parcels, but with the question of a
City-wide moratorium on substandard lots.
Bob Moss, 410 Orme, clarified that the view graph apd chart
distributed earlier was courtesy of Grady Maggard who did the
research. ` Council was already familiar with the 30 foot X 125
foot and 4.6 foot X 148 foot lots on 2085 and 2095. Bowdoin, and
there were three at 3365, 3357, and 3341. Park Boulevard in the
Ventura neighborhood. Regarding how many lots were substandard
and in what respect, the graph did not show the number of lots
less than 50 feet . wide, which was _ 16, :or about 18-1/4 . percent.
Regarding the number of lots substandard" both . in. area . and width,
there were only seven, or about 8.96 percent. The problem existed
but was tractable, and something staff could handle when going
through the R--1 zone in general. With reyard to addressiny the
matter the previous week, he suggested- setting a standard similar
to the One Councilmember Sutorius amended into the College Terrace
ordinance, but rather than a number, he suggested a percentage
because there were zones, for example the R-1 929 was a larger lot
size, so .it might be a 20 or 25 percent reduction in depth, in
width, in area, or some combination of those factors establishing
what was substandard. If it -get down to below that point, and if
there was a substandard let, how would, a building be allowed on
it, which he believed should ee -left .to , the staff study. Maybe
staff would want --to reduce the floor area ratio, lot coverage,
heiyhtt have greater setbacks, and maybe -Architectural Review
Board (ARB) review for developments_ on substandard lots. Any of
those approaches were practical and allowed reasonable control on
development without creating an overwhelming project. Substandard
was the width more Often than depth, which was also a perception
that struck people driving or walking by. One did not look at a
lot and know --it was 80 feet deep instead of 100 feet, unless it
was a corner lot, but one noticed if, it was 40 feet or 50 feet
wide, and the lots :all around it were 60 feet or 65 feet. The
width seemed to be 'more oppressive in terms of appearance in the
neiyhborhood.' That might lead staff to conclude a percent defi-
ciency. in width would be more significant than a percent defi-
ciency in depth or floor area ratio, but he left that to the staff
study. He asked that Co-uncil adopt the moratorium City-wide and
give staff specific directions as to the sort of approaches to
take when looking at handling substandard lots, perhaps along the
lines he just suggested, or ideas the Council might have that were
better. He believed- it would be appreciated if staff had a little
more specific direction.
Councilmember Sutorius asked Mr. Moss' help in understanding the
view graph and handout. If he looked at the far left-hand column
in dimensions and saw a width and a depth, he asked whether he
should look at the first column under Areas to see how it was
converted and read sequentially down.
Mr. Moss said it was not a one-to-one correlation. For example,
there were 12 lots that were 6,000 square feet which would be 60
feet X 100 feet, but there were only seven in the tabulation. The
numbers were not the same. If Council wanted to know why the num-
bers did not correspond exactly, he deferred to Grady who had the
actual data. There was not a direct cross check from one to the
other.
Councilmember . Sutorius said that explained why the first one,
which was 30 feet X 125 feet, if multiplied, turned out to be
3,750 rather than 3,600. He should not be looking for a match.
Mr. Moss said there was not a match. For example, the 50 foot X
91 foot lot came up with a number which was different from any of
the areas shown, and he was not sure why that was true.
Councilmember Sutorius said in identifying the three Park Boule-
vard cases, hie queried whether they were the three lots on Park
next to the _substation and bj:cki nq. on the railroad tracks, which
went through the Planning Commission and the Council and were
lauded by the Chestnut Wilton Homeowners' Association to move
ahead to provide some hopefully affordable housing because of the
containment of the construction costs on those lots. In fact,
they were manufactured housing units that were moved on site
there.
Mr. Moss said they were also relatively small units --a little over
1,200 square feet plus a couple of hundred square feet for ':the
garage. As he calculated the lot coverage, -'the 50 foot X 91 foot
lot was 31 percent, for the 50 foot X 95 foot let,-it;would be
less than 30 percent, end the other one; would be about 34 percent.
They were also one-storyhouses, only 13 feet high.
Counc i l weilber Sut.oe I us said one of the points one would not want
drawn from the chart was that a "substandard let" was in and of
itself bad and should not be built on because It might be the
appropriate thing and miyht have been subject to considerable
review.
Mr. Moss agreed. He clarified there miyht be lots which at some
staye were so substandard Council wanted to impose additional con--
ditions, and staff could return with the conditions which could be
many things. There were man] possibilities so the lot would still
be buildable, but' woul d not result in an oppressive development.
Earl Stahl, 689 University Drive, Menlo Park said he and his part-
ner were pursuiny the development at 3810 Whitsell. They started
on the project about 16 months ago and passed out a sheet, to the
Council outlining some of the history. To summarize, they went
through the variance process earlier that year at which time there
was a public hearing, and there was no. public comment at the time..T
They went 'for the variance specifically because the house as orlg-
i na l l y designed would have ,been buildable on a slab on grade, but
as his partner was a resident of Barron Park and he used to be and
was planniny on moving back, they were aware of the flooding that
took place a few years ago and felt it was appropriate to raise
the foundation so future residents of the house would not wade
around in water. The previous week: he learned of some concern in
the neighborhood about the house, which problem he wanted to
address. Their attempt was to take the lot, which was obviously a
small lot, and try to design a house that fit on it, that was not
oppressive and fit within the constraints of the building codes as
they currently existed. It was a little over 1,200 square feet,
two -bedroom, two and one-half bath house. They hoped to make it
somewhat affordable when compared with other homes in. Palo Alto.
he personally believed it was a fairly good looking house. They
took care in trying to use a pleasing design and include some
hiyh quality accoutrements. He pointed out he was in the. process
of purchasing a home that bordered on„ the property, and his back-
yard abutted 3810 Whitsell on 627 Barron, He would not want the
property if he believed he was going to be intruded upon:by the
home. 8e was surprised there was not.more time for the public to
have prepared comments on the matters
Terence J. Reagan, 597 Barron Avenue, lived there for about five
years. He was.Earl Stahlts partner and they proposed to put. the
structure on 3810 Whitsell Avenue. He was distressed to hear in a
circuitous manner that their proposed development was. one of the
focal points of the previous week's discussion. He lived within a
hundred, yards of the proposed property and was not contacted by
anybody in the area that there .was a problem. He understood a
petition was circulated on June 22, 1985,_biit was unaware of At at
the time. It was not until the previous Tuesday they found out it
was discussed, and the only way they found out it was -such a topic
of concern was- through a phone call from a friend who happened to
listen to the Council meeting. The proposed house did not exceed
any of the ordinances set by local. code. They were well within
the 35 percent lot -coverage, were not constructing beyond the set-
backs and, the only reason they elected to go with the daylight
plane variance was because he. lived right around the corner and
knew what happened three years ado. They had to move all their
furniture up on stiIs because they were close to being flooded-_
out and evacuated by the Red Cross. The only responsible and
sensible thing to do Was to raise the first elevation:. eight inches
above the high point of the street. tie could • have asked for one
or two feet, -but elected to 9,o with ei ght `"inches because hei did
not want to put something in -that -area that was going to look like
a monstrosity. Ttt ;y filed for permit on July 22, at which time. no
concerns had been'expressed by anyone.. They then filed for -per-
-sits and the previous Tuesday became: aware- there were problems, in
. the com unity. He believed it wa-s Important to look at what they
were trying to pot in there. They twere looking tat -energy -cone
cone
servation, musing two foot X six foot .walls so they could go with
R19 insulation.
1
They were using rwn foot_ X ten foot joists so that R30 insulation
could be used in the ceiling. They were using French doors, top -
of -the -line Anderson windows, and wood siding throughout. The
house would fit nicely in the community, and would not be an
eyesore. What they had now was an eyesore. He and his partner
made their intents clear to the City and were up front every step
of the way. It seemed a lot went on without his knowledge and
because of the progress to date, he asked if the moratorium was
considered, they be eicempted because of the stage of development
they were in. The previous Friday: he ascertained the members who
went to the previous week's meeting and tried to contact each one
of them. He had nice discussions with Bob Moss and Doug Graham.
It was not their intent to put something up and count their money
all the way to the bank. He was not a homeowner, but rented, and
this was an opportunity for him to get his family into a house.
He proposed the slope of the roof be changed, thereby minimizing
the presence of the structure on the house. If it was a workable
solution, he asked for Council's consideration.
Mayor Levy asked Mr. Reagan about the width of the house they
planned to build.
Mr. Reagan said tic feet.
Mayor Levy asked about the height.
Mr. Reagan believed it was presently 23 feet above street level,
but it was partially accountable because of the daylight plane
variance.
Mayor Levy asked if that was with the revised slope.
Mr. Reagan said yes approximately, but was willing to lower it to
a little over 21 feet.
Mayor Levy assumed the setbacks on either side were six feet.
Mr. Reagan said that was correct.
Mayor Levy asked about the front and back setbacks.
Mr. Reagan said 20 feet.
Mona Miller, 751 Christine Drive, was an active member of Palo
Alto for 31 years and lived at that address .for 26 years. She was
concerned and somewhat confused. She was not sure she was at the
right place at the right- time. Her concern was the Ross Road
School site. The last Planning Commission meeting she attended
referred back to the staff - on the ratio of homes to square foot-
age, Land free' the material given, it sounded like a long study.,
She appreciated the concerns of the developers and the school
boards, but was also concerned about the neighbors. The school
was demolished, the land leveled, and they were ready to sell.
She lived close to the Ortega School sit , watched with trepida-
tion what happened there --houses two-and-a-half stories high, loss
of privacy, headlines in the Times Tribune about Mrs. Evelyn
Carlson losing her privacy. It was real. It existed. She did
not want it tohappen to their neighborhood and hoped the Council
would not let it happen. She did not know where they fit into it
all, but did not want to get lost in the cranks, It was an imme-
diate problem, and something had to be done. She did not know how
the Council wanted to treat it, but in talking to the staff she
gathered they had absolutely no protection and, if : a developer or.
builder wanted to build a house two -wand -a -half stories high, which
looked down on them and was up against their fences, it was okay.
Was that what they should expect to happen, .did' no' onn ,care. That
was :.all she was here for. They had not had_ time to mgbi l i ze the
neivhborhood, but many were concerned. They went to many meet-
ings, but got nowhere. She hoped Council would -listen.
Bob Henshel, 990 Ticonderoga, Sunnyvale, urged regarding 3810
Whitsell, that current regulations be followed. He believed if
his son-in-law wanted to live adjacent to the structure, it was
pretty clear he did not intend to build an eyesore. His partner
indicated a willingness to change the slope of the roof, and he
believed they showed good faith. A few years back Palo Alto sent
to them, as owners of the Whitsell lot, something to do with add-
1ny it to the adjacent lot, which they did not protests Subse-
quently, they received notice the City was no longer going to do
that. They bought the lot in 1970 and he reviewed the title
policy that day with restrictions, and there was no restriction
about its intended use. They purchased it for use as a dwelling,
and paid taxes from 1970 to 1985, and no one said they were paying
taxes on something they could not use. If the City had a problem,
he suygested procedures so everyone knew going in what they had,
but it was not fair to change it mid -stream. The intent was to
build an affordable house, which was scarce in Palo Alto.
Mayor Levy clarified that creeks were the responsibility of the
Santa Clara County Flood Control District and the City of Palo
Alto was working with them to ensure the creeks did not overflow
in the future.
Michael Fleming, 576 Maybell, owned 4293 Wilkie Way, and was some-
what surprised in that he received no notice from the City with
regard to his property. He heard about the Council action by word
of mouth and had not had adequate time to prepare. He was con-
cerned in that when he purchased the lot, they were told it was
zoned t;-1. They later received documentation from Ken Schreiber
stating it was a buildable lot, that it was in the building pro-
cess, and when the permit was granted, they would be allowed to
build. If a moratorium was to be passed, it seemed to him his
property should be exempted. They attempted to design something
that fit with the existing neighborhood in terms of a floor area
ratio. It only covered about 20 percent. It was not a large
structure which dwelled over. the ether structures, and only had
two windows in the front facing the other neighbors and all the
other neighbors faced out onto the creek. They tried to preserve
everyone's privacy and concerns. He hoped there might also be a
chance for the moratorium action to be continued so that other
people who fell within the category could be. present. He was
sensitive to the problem of overdevelopment on smaller lots, and
hoped conditions could be made to allow for some sort of design
approval, but it seemed to be ,wrong to stop something in the
middle of its process.
Mayor Levy asked about the dimensions of the house Mr. Fleming was
planning to build.
Mr. Fleming said 75 feet X 17 feet, and the'height was about 18
feet.
Mayor Levyclarified it was a one-story house.
Mr. Fleming said it was a two-story house with a flat top.
Counc i l member Woolley asked the size of the lot.
Mr.:Flemtny said the lot was approximately 4,600 square feet.
Sandy White, 3,011 Waverley, recently submitted a . parcel map for
final approval and even though _their lot- exceeded the square_
footage, it would fall within the heading of substandard. The lot
was 97 feet X 81 feet . and 7,850 square feet, but it was less than
100 feet deep. When the guidelines for the lots were established,
she urged consideration of . some of the factors. A l of -of time and
effort was spent and she Urged that Council consider all the other
factors that might come into play.
U vid Stritmatter, 363.Whitclem Place, thanked the Council for
imposing a morator°iulli. While he did not know what the criterion
should be, there should be some form of redress other than liti-
yation.
Douglas Graham, 984 Rime Way, was generally concerned about the
procedures for notifying residents and builders about the pro-
posals made for the residential buildings and the progress of the
proposal through the variance hearings stage and subsequent
stages. It was time for Council and staff to take a look at the
present notification procedures, how thtey worked, how they occa-
sionally did not work, and he queried whether they ever worked
well. They tried to operate a democratic society with the majo-
rity rule, but with protection of the rights of minorities. It
seemed as if the majority might be represented by irate citizens
who were unhappy about what was happening in their neighborhood,
and the minority appeared to be a person or persons who wanted to
build something new on their house. He was not entirely happy
with the idea that the rights of people trying to develop could
just be ignored. He was concerned the problems with 3810 Whitsell
were derived because the notification procedure did not work.
Everything was done correctly except for whoever assigned the
street number. The notification did not work. He queried whether
there was a way that notification on any project could be complete
in the sense that the ordinary "John Q. Citizen" would look at it
and know what the proposed plan was. He was concerned the proce-
dure be improved so the kinds of questions asked by the ordinary
neighbor about the ordinary project were addressed on the notifi-
cation. He believed developers would appeciate notification like
that as they would like to deal with all the problems up front.
He commented that he had never had such cogent and interesting
conversation as the one he had with Mr. Reagan, a real gentleman.
Councilmember Sutorius appreciated Mr. Graham's ccnments. He
asked for his comments regarding the site and his reaction to the
design consideration and reduced daylight plane.
Mr. Graham could only speak for himself as there had not been
enough time for adequate discussion in the neighborhood associa-
tion. If the developers were talking about putting the structure
back down where it would yet flooded, he believed it would be
unfortunate. The houses in that end of town needed to be built up
in order to not get flooded. Barron Creek might flood on the
average of every three to seven years. He opined the house was
probably too big for the lot which was small. Although the house
was not very large in relation to the lot, it was kind of over-
whelming. It was 23 feet high, but w s supposedly dropped to 21,
which was still two-thirds ratio of height to width of the lot.
He did not believe there were many houses in Palo Alto, with the
exception of some of the old boarding houses and condominiums,
with that kind of height to width ratio.. Visually, that was what
people noticed.
Larick Hill, 780 Palo Alto Avenue, submitted a site plan of the
Wilkie Way project (which is on file in the City Clerk's office).
He heard comment that the Wilkie Way lot was unacceptable as a
building lot, which he believed to be a snap judgment. Palo Alto
Avenue was about a ten block stretch of blocks where no more than
about three or four of which complied with the City's definition
of a standard lot. He lived there because it was one of the most
charming streets in all of Palo Alto. There were many two-story
houses, some of which were set back from the lot line or from the
front property line no more than three feet and it was still
delightful._ He was insulted by the connotation that somehow when
a lot was less than 50 feet wide it became subhuman. It was
silly, and there were many small lots t eat could be handled in a
delightful way. He was surprised the issue arose because he was
at the Planning Commission meetings two weeks ago when they dis-
cussed the massiveness of buildings, and durrng that meeting,
substandards lots were not mentioned oned as being a ; burning problem.
6 2.1 2
8/ 19/85
As they saw on the list proposed by Mr. Moss and the staff report
on the current projects in the Buildinv Department, few lots were
in question, and some of which were lauded as being acceptable in
terms of design. One lot in the Building Department under consid-
eration was one of the cul-de-sac lots in the new Ortega develop-
ment, which was clearly acceptable. It would be ridiculous to not
consider that the piece of property be buildable. It was a large
lot and it was a brand new development. It seemed there were only
two lots in question, and he did not believe any ordinance would
solve the .problems of small lot:. They were unique, odd -shaped,
left over, were there for a long time, and were zoned R -I. Unfor-
tunately, many neighbors enjoyed them as a vicarious backyard for
a long time. Regarding Wilkie Way and the lot's dimensions, the
listed lot area excluded the flag, which was another 800 square
feet. It was only 20 percent site coverage, 35 percent FAR, and
40 percent was the discussed limit. It was a cute two- bedroom
house, and by excluding the option of using small lots, Council
was excluding the option of providing affordable small housing in
Palo Alto. If there was a problem to be addressed, a variance
could be required for all substandard lots, which provided the
City, who established the criteria for a variance approval,. to
review the properties and make a judgment call. Council had a
unique opportunity to provide affordable housing, and it should be
considered in a rational and positive way.
John Joynt, 3589 Laguna, spoke as Chairman of the Barron Park
Association (BPA), and commended the City Council concerning its
swift action on August 12, 1985, that staff be directed to draft
an emergency ordinance to address the issue of development of sub-
standard residential lots in Palo Alto. On July 1, 1985, the City
Council instructed staff to prepare an ordinance establishing a
moratorium on demolition and building permits for projects on sub-
standard lots in College Terrace. They believed the moratorium
should be extended to embrace all of Palo Alto as the problem
hi yhl i ghted in the College Terrace neighborhood was also prevalent
in other neighborhoods. The key to the objectives of the study
was clearly stated in point one, Citizen Participation, in the
outline of the study. The most important requirement of the study
was to gain a clear understanding of the aspects of development
which were acceptabe or unacceptable in the neighborhood. It was
particularly important since all who lived in the area would be
protected and constrained by the rules which emerged. The SPA
considered the issue of substandard lots to be a City-wide issue.
Their main concern was the possibility of serious adverse impact
to the character, ambiance, and aesthetics of the neighborhoods in
Pala Alto. With the 'potential of overdeveloping substandard lots
throughout the City, each neighborhood stood to lose part of its
precious characteristics. Time to pause was necessary to allow
everyone to logically develop City-wide regulations which would
act to protect the value and characteristics of each neighborhood
in Palo Alto,
James Witt, 722 Chimalus Drive, believed the moratorium as pre-
sently worded was too sweeping and all encompassing. He was pur.-
chasini a b0. foot X. 100 foot lot, and the way the ordinance was
worded now, it would be considered substandard and, therefore,
unbu i i dabl e. The . amendment to the College Terrace ordinance would
handle his problem, but it would not quite handle one of the
earlier speakers' problems. He recommended that if the entire
City be adopted, that - it be with the ' amendment . He pointed out as
the school sites were subdivided, many of their lots would be
considered substandard according to the wording of the present
ordinance. He believed the rights of the landowners in Palo Alto
should be protected with as much vigor as the rights of their
neighbor -s. While he knew it was an inconvenience for neighbors to
see .a large house next door, stopping a person from building on a
lot which was purchased with that i' ?tent impacted their financial
standing. The fact that lots were not buildable would have a
sf yni fi cant impact on - their value. One of the stated goals of the
City Council was for more affordable housing. It was a noble
goal, and the City accepted cash contributions from developer to
that end. What was seen at the school sites was what began to
briny peoples' concerns to light. The homes built on the school
sites were large because the lots sold from $200,000 down to
$140,000, and the numbers did not work unless a large home was
built on them. He agreed there was a problem in Palo Alto with
overdevelopment, but he did not believe the solution was block-
ades. The Council's job should be to institute planning --not stop
things from proceeding along the process. When Council acted and
called the proposed ordinance an emergency to stop a couple of
small two -bedroom houses which were in the development process, he
believed they were treading on thin ice in terms of legality.
Time was needed for public input when an ordinance so sweeping was
proposed in order to hear both sides of the topic and closely look
at impacts. He believed the solution to the problem should lie
more in planning and some adjustments of the current regulations.
There were many regulations governing the construction of the
home, and a minor adjustment in some of them would solve many of
the problems whereas a sweeping moratorium on all construction
would probably create more problems than it solved. The original
concern of overdevelopment stemmed from the fact that many of the
developments were 'hree and four-story condominiums which ran up
next to the sidewalk --the need for small housing was a factor and
some of the lots could be developed. He owned a home on a 25 -foot
lot, and recently sold another home which was two stories on a
25 -foot lot. The houses were built with the blessing of the City
in the past and provided a necessary part of the housing stock in
Palo Alto. He suggested Council consider waiting until the staff
report which was due on September 11 to pass any ordinance. If
the ordinance was adopted that evening, he suggested it be adopted
with the amendment that considered odd -shaped lots.
Bill Armstrong, 363 Whitci em Place, was a back neighbor to 4293
Wilkie Way. He pointed out that they contacted Mr. Fleming about
the time he Was going to buy the land and told him there were con-
siderable problems. Mr. Fleming ,was unaware of the problems, and
the neighbors said they would meet with him and tell him all they
knew. The meeting offer never transpired. Prior to that time,
they wrote to the City of Los Altos on two occasions in a span of
14 months and also made several phone callsto which there was no
response. The neighbors had been frustrated by the problems for
27 months. He invited the Council to walk the property and see
what the lot looked like. The fact that the Planning Commission
looked at the property probably had something to do with their
voting 5-0 in favor of the neighbors. He applauded the Council
for its temporary moratorium Of the hest week and heartily urged
passage of the longer moratorium. He also urged Council to con-
sider the need for requiring a variance to build on a substandard
lot. In the case of 4293 Wilkie Waye if the neighbors had not
tried to keep informed about the lot, they never would have known
it was transformed from a public facility to an R-1 lot by the
stroke of a legal opinion. The neighbors disagreed with that
opinion, but at least the three neighbors sharing property lines
with the property believed they should have been informed. The
first attempt at a building permit requested a variance which gave
the neighborhood ee proper forum through which to protest. Now Mr.
Fleming was attempting to design within code, and if he succeeded,
and if :a building permit was issued, the neighbors' only reco,ir- e
was litigation. He queried the point of calling a lot substandard
if it could be built on -anyway, He was aware that requiring a
variance on a substandard lot would further burden the already
busy City staff, but procedural due process and thereby the pro-
tection of his own property rights and the integrity of his neigh!.
borhood was a more important _issue.
Roger Kohler, -4291-Wilkie Way, was a neighbor and said they had
been working on the problem for 27 months. Even though he was- an
experienced architect, there were several things;'along the line
which caused a great deal of frustration in his own mind. The
6 2 1 4
8/19/85
purpose of the zoning ordinance was to. lessen congestion and
secure safety from fire and other hazards. The zoning ordinance
stated the requirements were to be held as a minimum and when a
conflict arose between several regulations, the more restrictive
regulation shall apply. Five years after the lot was brought into
Palo Alto,` a drainage easement was granted by the current owners
of the lot, which reduced the lot area by approximately 400-500
square feet. The City determined thCe the definition did not
hold. There - were two ways to determine lot area which was
frustrating because recently he went in for a lot split at 570
Matadero near a creek in Barron Park and the staff report clearly
stated that the lot area excluded the portion in the Santa Clara
Valley Water District. It said the parcel area did not include
the area within the creek and yet the City Attorney was deciding
in the subject instance, that it did not matter. It was a matter
of opinion between the City and the neighbors, It was frustrating
to him because Palo Alto had always been straightforward and it
was clear what the zoning ordinance meant which he respected. One
of the problems with the substandard lots was because they were
substandard, in order to build the house on the lot they had to be
built to the maximum. In the subject instance, the house was 75
feet long and almost 18 or 19 feet high, He believed people were
more concerned about the visual impact of the houses built on
substandard lots, not so much the zoning ordinance.
ieorye Uai, 535 Arastradero, spoke regarding 3733. Ortega Court,
which was owned by Mr.- and Mrs. John Chang, and said the lot was
originally part of the Ortega School site, which was subdivided
and approved by the City Council. Not more then seven months ago,
it was offered for sale. When the Changs bought the lot knowing
it was recently subdivided and approved by the. Council, he had no
idea the term "substandard' would apply to his lot. According to
the wilding Department, all of the City requirements were met,
and the building permit was no more than two -reeks away. Even
though the lot had the appearance of a substandard lot, the lot
size itself was over 6,300 square feet, and, the setbacks, etc.
.received no challenge from the Building Official. He pointed out
that with the Ortega site, most every 1o4 was built on. He
believed all the building permits were issued except one, which
happened to be Mr. Chang's. He urged that. Mr. Chang's permit be
processed.
Councilmember Fletcher asked the dimension of l\'. Chang's lot.
Mr. Dal said the total lot size was 6,320 square feet_. The
dimensions were 93 feet ..X 104 feet X 91 feet It 46 feet.
Councilmember Fletcher believed it might be exempted from the sub-
standard lot definition by Councilmember Sutor•ius amendment.
Mayor Levy said the discussion was a moratorium consideration for
substandard lots in R-1 zoniny districts City-wide. The standards
that applied to College Terrace would only apply to the City-wide
ordinance if the City Council did so.
MOTION* Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt
the moratorium ordinance with the definition of substandard lot
(Section 2) amended to add "and_ an area less than the minimum area
required by the zoning of the parcel* and the wording re the
termination date (Section 5) amended to in -effect Lentil December
31, 1985.".
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE
COUI TE 6P THE cirrurnro= ALTO IMPOSING A MORATORIUM
ON THE ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMITS AND BUILDING
PERMITS FOR SUBSTANDARD LOTS IM Rrl DISTRICTS IN THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO".'
Councilmember---Renzet._ said her motion was with -instruction to staff
to -work with tae Planning -Commission to complete some new limited
restrictions to' control more . excessive overdevelopment; policies.
6 2 1 5
8/19/85
Cuuricilmember Sutorius referred to some of the data supplied in
the staff report and the data provided in the lot size listing
used as a view graph by Mr. Moss. He remained concerned that the
definition of "substandard" would have some of the same problems
discussed in the College Terrace situation. Referring back to the
lot size data from new house building permits issued, used by Mr.
Moss, of the 11 lots that were noted as being less than 100 feet
deep, excluding the three on Park Boulevard which the Council
directly acted on, of the remaining eight lots, the least square
footage in area was a,880 square feet. The range was from 5,880
to 0,888. In the case of those listings, the depth that went the
furthest below 100 feet was 82 feet and, therefore, produced 5,985
square feet. For those reasons, he was concerned the imposition
of the proposed moratorium, with the reading in Section 2 includ-
ing the addition made by Counciimernber Fenzel, would still intro-
duce too many situations that were really not abnormal, allowed
plenty of building area, would not answer the design question, but
the design question was not answered by anything thus far acted on
by Council.
AFiEN0MEKT: Counci l member Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to
amend Section 2 to change 100 feet to 83 feet and amend Council -
member Renzel's motion to add "and an area less than 83 percent of
the minimum area required by the zoning of the parcel .°
Mayor Levy believed everyone understood zoning of the parcel to
mean the zoning of the, area in which the parcel was located
because the individual parcel technically might be zoned for a
different area than the land it was in. He asked if a. substandard
parcel was zoned for a higher level.
Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said staff referred to the minimum
lot size standard unposed by the zoning district in which the
subject parcel was located.
Mayor Levy clarified the zoning district.
Mr. Brown said that was correct. .
Counci lmember Sutorius said 83 percent of an R-1 zone with a mini-
mum lot size of 7,000 feet under the moratorium, the minimum would
be 5,800 feet; whereas with the R-1, a 60 foot X 100 foot, 6,000
square foot site area, , tne minimum would be 4,980 as was discussed
in College Terrace, and it progressed up that way on through the
R-1 zone. He appreciated staff's committing to a prompt effort
with the .Planning Commission and returning to Council in October
in order to have regulations Council could review and hopefully
lift the moratorium on a prompt. basis. It might or might not
require yoing into a design review for situations where either
variances or a proposal that .exceeded a given floor area ratio
might become necessary. He asked about the status of the building
permit application for the Whitsell and Wilkie lots, and how staff
interpreted Council's action that evening as affecting either
one.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
the building permit applications for both parcels were still in
process and no permits were issued on either parcel. He believed
both parcels would be subject to the moratorium.
Councilrnesnber Klein believed it was a classic example where
Council world, have spent a lot less time on the issue if there
were other items on the agenda. It seemed Council was flogging a
flea,- and he did not see the issue in the same dimensions as did
the speakers on both sides. He supported the amendment and the\
moratorium. Council probably got off the track several times that \:
evening because the issue before the Council was not a particular
house on Wilkie Way or on Whitsell. They might be of concern, but
Council had before it an ordinance which pertained to a City-wide
moratorium, and he believed some of the discussion was 'out of
order when they yot into the merits and demerits of particular
6 2 1 6
8/19/85
lots. It was not Council's role, and it was unfortunate the dis-
cussion went along those lines. Council was discussing a mora-
torium, which under the motion would last four and one-half
months. Some speakers remarks suggested Council was imposing a
ban on building forever. He expected there would be some changed
rules at the end of the moratorium, but as far as he was con-
cerned, they would come up with a system that still allowed the
small lots to be developed. He believed Council showed over the
years It was committed to having more housing built and would
continue to do so in a way that tried to protect the existing
housing as well. It was always a fine balancing act and while it
might disappoint some, there was a housing shortage problem and
Council needed to continue to allow and encourage new construction
of housing. He believed Council would continue to perform that
balancing act as well as possible. The word "substandard" might
be an unfortunate choice of words because it sounded like sub-
standard meant not as good as it could be, but that was not the
case. He would have preferred a word like "smaller" or "less than
present standards." He did not regard the lots as "substandard" or
unbuildable, and Council needed to find the appropriate regula-
tions for 1985 that would produce development standards which on
one hand allowed the City to go foward with the housing and at the
same time protected existing neighborhoods. He believed the
amendment accomplished that to a great extent. Councilmember
Sutorius should be congratulated for his thoughtful consideration
in tryi ny to get the numbers to a place where Council struck at
the problem before it, which was overdevelopment of the lots
smaller than present standards, but not creating a situation in
which Council created something far more sweeping than necessary.
When all was said and done, the moratorium would not apply to that
many lots in the community, which was probably the right result
and one he intended to support. He hoped ;when staff returned
with a re orrmendation, Council would see some better regulations
and would be able to !wove forward.
Councilmember Menzel clarified as it was worded, when the ordi-
nance spoke to the zoning of the area, she assumed it also meant
whatever the criterion was for a flag lot, it would have to be 83
percent: of the flag lot requirement and not an ordinary lot
requirement.
Mr. Brown said that was correct. The flag lot size requirement
was 20 percent above the minimum standard, so it would be 83
percent of the larger flag lot requirement.
Councilmember Renzel urged her colleagues to support the ordi-
nance. Council heard from some residents how concerned they were,
and the impacts of one major oversized house in a neighborhood
could be devastating`. to everyone in the neighborhood. One of the
highest priorities in the Comprehensive Plan was to protect R-1
neighborhoods.
Vice Mayor Cobb associated himself with the comments of Council -
member Klein. With Councilmember Sutorius' amendment, he asked if
he was correct that the lots owned by the two speakers who had
situations other than the specifics Council dealt with that
evening, would be buildable and not included in the moratorium.
Mr. Brown said yes. He recalled the lots, which were a problem
under the original wording, would be buildable.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a rote of 6-1, Renzel voting "nos'° Bechtel
Witherspoon absent.
Councilmember Woolley did not see the need for the moratorium, and
believed, Mr. Moss' chart brought that home to her most graph-
ically. There were not that many cases that fell into the sate -
gory. What Council did two weeks ago in College Terrace was
different from what was being done that evening. The problem in
College Terrace was when two houses replaced one, which was not
the concern with the substandard lots in the rest of the City.
6 2 1 7
8/19/85
They were not dealing with lot splits, but rather larger houses
than they wanted to see for the size of the lot. She did not feel
dimensions were the sole criteria for producing an acceptable
house. .She agreed Palo Alto Avenue was a delightful street, and
the lots were all sizes and configurations because of the bend of
the Street, which contributed to its being an interesting neigh-
berhood.e Mr. Kohler said it was the Visual impact. --not the
zoning ---that bothered him, which she understood. The changes they
discussed would not get at that type of a problem; therefore, she
preferred .Cou is i l go in the direction suggested by Mr, Moss in.
terms of Architectural Review Board. (ARB) approval. Since the
number of houses falling in the category was Small, she did not
believe it would impose an onerous burden on the ARB, and she pre-
ferred to see the City Attorney return with a ordinance defining
substandard lots, the way it was just done in the amendment, that
the time period would be the same, but instead of instituting a
moratorium, ARB approval be required.
Councilmember Renzel said while it was helpful to have the infor-
mation provided by Mr. Moss, it was history, not what was -harpy
peniny in the future. Council did not exactly know what was out
there, where it was, or what its impact would be. Her hunch was
that Council would see more and more little tag end lots, and for
that reason Council could not assume the compilation list would
reflect what was out there and what was apt to be seen.
Councilmember Fletcher said regardless of whether there were many
cases, two were before the Council in two weeks, in addition to
the ones in College Terrace, so they might be rapidly multiplying.
The impacts on the neighbors of each of the individual ones was no
less than if there were more of them in town. If there were not
that many cases, then the ordinance was not that --ominous and would
not affect so many property owners. The ARB review. option was an
enticing proposal and could be one of the recommendations which
returned to the Council -at the conclusion of the moratorium.
Mayor Levy associated himself with the comments of Councilmember
Woolley. After hearing the public comments, he did not see an
emergency need for a moratorium. The few examples that evening
did not indicate to him .,that such ominous overbuilding was taking
place on the smaller lots. One of them covered the lot to 20
percent and the other conformed to the front and back setbacks,
and the heights were nowhere near the heights being seen in
Crescent Park, for example, where the buildings all went up to 30
feet. Admittedly, the widths were less on ,the substandard lots,
but nevertheless the heights were 18 feet in one case, and 21 feet
in another case. They did not seem to be out of line in a major
way with the neighborhood such that a City-wide moratorium was
called for. Further, he was concerned with comments made by other
members of the public regarding public notification. In the
subject instance, notification even to members of the public who
were specifically concerned was weak and there was no question
that when Council did something like declare a City-wide mora-
torium on an emergency basis, there would be satiny members of the
public who were clearly caught unaware who had individual circum-
stances surrounding their own particular needs that Council in-
truded upon without any realization on Council's part or their
part that it was happening. - While he was concerned about where
Council ended up, he did not see the situation as an emergency and
of such major dimensions that going to the extreme notmerely of a
moratorium, but of a moratorium on an emergency basis was called
for. For those reasons, he would riot support the moratorium,
Councilmember Fletcher said the 20 percent site coverage was the
developer's calculation. It` was not authoritative and it depended
on how one calculated them out. It was a flag lot, plus looking
at the diayram, the large setback was from the creek. Most of the
development was in close proximity to the surrounding houses, and
it was overbeariny and out of character with the;, distances between
6 2 18
8-/19/65
the houses in that area --it had tremendous impact. She saw the
lot and the stakes outlining the footprint of the building.
Mayor Levy clarified six votes were needed for the ordinance to
pass as an emergency.
City Attorney Diane Lee said yes,
MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED by a vote of 5.2, Levy, Woolley voting
*no,* Bechtel, Witherspoon absent.
Councilmember Klein believed only the emergency item failed and
the same item was before the Council on a non -emergency basis.
Mayor Levy said the motion included the emergency element as part
of the ordinance.
Councilmember Klein believed Council procedure in the_ past was
that the emergency was a separable part of it.
Mayor Levy said the ordinance could return on a normal basis.
Councilmember Klein said if it was treated all as one, then the
motion passed in a non -emergency _basis. Only the emergency ele-
ment failed on a 6-1 vote, but the main motion passed on a 5-2
vote.
Mayor Levy asked the City Attorney for a ruling.
Ms. Lee did not recall what was done previously, but read authori-
ties which said when something passed that called itself an emer-
gency, and only a majority vote was obtained, and more than a
majority was required, then it was sufficient to pass the ordi-
nance for first reading.
MOTION PASSED FOR FIRST READING: Mayor Levy was willing to
accept the ruling. The motion passed on a first reading, but did
not pass an an emergency basis.
Councilmember Renzel asked about the procedure on a non -emergency
basis.
Ms. Lee said the ordinance would not become effective for 52 days,
and she presumed there would not be a Council meeting the week of
Labor Ua,y. Until the ordinance was effective, things would pro-
ceed on as they had. There was no authority to do anthing else.
Councilmember Renzel said if someone got to the point of a build-
ing permit, the ordinance did not apply even if it went into
effect before construction was undertaken.
Ms. Lee said the action was a moratorium on the issuance of per-
mits, and it did not go .into effect for 52 days, Until that time,
anyone who had a pending application and went through the normal
process would be treated in the normal fashion.
Councilmember Renzel said to pursue Councilmember Woolley's idea,
in the event the City had>`projects that were going to be underway,
eeshe asked if there was any way Council could require that evening
that such projects go through architectural review that night.
Ms; Lee said no.
Coy+cilmember Renzel clarified the City Attorney could be directed
to prepare an emergency ordinance to do .so for the projects that
were not yoi ng to be covered by the moratorium.,
Ms. Lee said yes.
5.2 1 9
8/19/85
Councilmember Renzel said in view of the effect of the ordinance,
it might be well to see that the remaining things that would have
impact on neighborhoods at least went through the ARB.
Councilmember Woolley wanted to see a forum for some discussion
provided between the developer and the neighbors. She believed
the ARB would provide that official public forum,
MOTION: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Rerazel , to
direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance which will use
the same definition for substandard lots as passed in the amend-
ment or City-wide moratorium ordinance, but require Architectural
Review Board approval - of the buildings that fall within that
definition and declaring an emergency and using the same time
period to 12/31/85.
Ms. Lee clarified the new regulations would expire on December 31 ,
1985.
Councilmember Woolley said yes, or until some other action was
taken oy the Council.
Couecilmember Renzel said presumably the ordinance would have. an
emergency feature so At could pick up the pieces.
Ms. Lee said yes.
Vice Mayor Cobb said if the motion were to be passed on an
emergency basis, he asked when its effective date would be.
City Manager Bill Lefler said if an, emergency ordinance were before
the Counci4 the following week and received the required votes, it
would become effective immediately.
Vice Mayor Cobb said the practical effect of the motion, if passed
on an emergency basis, would be to bridge the gap between next
Monday evening and when the moratorium ordinance took effect.
Once the moratorium ordinance ._, took effect, he understood ARB
review was moot because nothing would happen on those lots.
Ms. Lee said yes.
Councilmember Klein believed they now had a moratorium by another
name, and it would be cleaner to just have a.woratorium than a
funny truncated ARB process whicheno other single family housing
went through, and also requiring people to go to the expense of
filing ARB applications. He believed he would support the motion,
but as a substantive matter, Council would be better off with the
moratorium. He urged Council reconsideration .of its vote on the
moratorium.
Mayor Levy was confused about what would happen. If Council
imposed the ARS review, then he assumed whatever was currently in.
the pipeline had t� get into the, ARB pipeline. By the time .they
-were in the -middle of the ARB, pipeline, the ,moratorium would have
been endorsed.
Mr. Schreiber said with one caveat, there were still applications
in process, and under normal process, if ..staff reached the point
that week where those applications were reviewed, and they were
consistent with the building code, permits would be issued.
Councilmember Fletcher clarified building permits would be issued
before they went to the ARB.
Mr. Schreiber said as of that moment, there wereno restriction or
authority for City staff to stop the processing of those applica-
tions. They would receive the same processing as any other appli-
cations in the office. If the applications finished all of the
5 2 2 0
8/-19/85_
processes and were ready for the permits to he issued, he had no
authority other than to have the Chief Building Official issue the
permits.
Mayor Levy believed it would be cleaner to take up the moratorium
emergency question again the following week, or maybe vote the
emergency that week rather than go through the sloppy system.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Levy voting "no," Bechtel,
Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #17, CANCEL SEPTEMBER 3; 1985 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MOTION: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to cancel the
greeting of September 3, 1985.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent.
AUJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION
Council adjourned to •closed session re Litigation and Personnel at
10:35 p.m.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT
Final adjournment at 11:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
6 2 2 1
8/19/85