HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-21 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUNCIL
FIIEiUTES
Regular Meeting
October 21, 1985
CITY
OFD__..
r 11 \J
ALTO
ITEM PAGE
Oral Communications 5 4 6 0
Minutes of August 12, 1985 6 4 6 0
Consent Calendar 6 4 6 0
Referral 6 4 6 0
Action 6 4 6.0
Item #1, Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Program 6 4 6 0
Item #2, Request for Authorization to Negotiate 6 4 6 0
with Combustion Engineering, Incorporated for
Capacity at their Planned Waste -To -Energy Fac i ; ity
Item #3, Remodeling Second Floor of the Civic 6 4 .6 0
Center
item #5, Ordinance ke Application of Robert Lerch 6 4 6 1
Et Al. for Property Located at 170, 174, and 1.0
Monroe Drive.
Item #6, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
Zoning Ordinance Amendments Pertaining to
Development Restrictions for Single Family
Residences in the R-1 Districts
Recess
Item #7, PUBLIC HEARING: Urban Water Management
Plan
6 4 6 1
6 4 7 5
6 4 8 9
Item #8., 1985-86 Housing Assi s _ ince Plan for the 6 4 8 9
Community Development Block Grant Program.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:35 p.m. .6 4 9 0
Regular Meeting
October 21, 1985
The City Council of the City o f Pal c Alto met of this dace in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy,
Renzel , Sutorius, Witherspoon. Woolley
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 1985.
MOTION: Councilaember Woolley moved, seconded by Cobb, approval
of the Minutes of August 12, 186, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff removed Item #4, Earthquake Video Training Agreement, to be
rescheduled.
MOT'O9i: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein,
approval of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
None
Action
ITEM #1, HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM (SAF 5)
TT-mR:568:5)
Staff recommends Council award a contract to Safety Specialists,
Inc. in the amount not to exceed $46,000 for the disposal of
household hazardous wastes.
AWAR D. OF CC ATRAL T
Safety Specialists, Inc.
ITEM #2, REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATIOP TO NEGOTIATE WITH COMBUSTION
ENGINEERING, IlCO RUT' D ft P ITY ii R PLAN4 1 WASTE-TO-
rNF:RGY FACILITY (UTI 4y- MR: 5:
Staff recommends Council ';authorize negotiations with Combustion
Engineering, Incorporated fo.r capacity at their planned waste -to -
energy facility.
ITEM #3, REMODELING SECOND FLOOR OF THE CIVIC CENTER (PWK 7)
(Cif:562:5)
Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to:
1. Execute a ,cpnt=,act °with, . A. P. Construction Company in the bid
amount of $10,352; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders of up to $6,000.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
A. P. Construction Company
•
6 4 6 0
10/21/85
ITEM #5, ORDINANCE RE APPLICATION .)F ROBE tl LtRCH El AL. FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1/0, 174, and 180 MONROE DRIVE (PLA 3-1T
ORDINANCE 3643 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE
CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 170, 174, and
180 MONROE DRIVE FROM R-1(929) TO R-1(743)" (1st Reading
10/7/85, PASSED 8-0, Witherspoon absent)
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM 6 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RE ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR SINGLE`
AAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE R-1 DISTRICTS (Continued from 10/7/85)
(PLA. 7-9) (CMR:552:5)
Planning Commission Chairperson Pat Cullen said the item was a
referral from the City Council to study the imposition of floor
area ratios (FAR) for single family developments. The Planning
Commission had four meetings on the item, and alerted Council as
to the complexity of the matter. The initial staff recommendation
of a four percent, 0.4, FAR across the board on all single family
residences both new and remodel additions in the City of. Palo Altc
was probably the most drastic proposal to go before the,Planning
Commission, and affected almost all residences in the City. Many
at Fcted property owners were unaware it was under consideration.
The Commission's consensus, with the possible exception of Commis-
sioner Hirsch, was the imposition of a City-wide FAR was not
needed, nor would it address the problem identified in the course
of the meetings; namely, the many overscaled houses on raw land
adjacent to neighborhoods developed as single -story, low-key
dwell inys. Commissioner Northway expressed it best on Page 19 of
the September 11, 1985 minutes, "I've been trying to figure what
exactly we're trying to solve here and whether proposed regula-
tions are actually yoiny to do it. A lot of people have com-
plained about the height of the structures. The proposed floor
area ratios aren't going to do anything for that. A lot of people
have complained about invasion of privacy from second floors, and
the proposed reyuletinns aren't going to do anything about that
either. A lot of people have said that tha structures are ugly,
and the proposed new regulations aren't going to do anything about
that. They may do something about bulk." Essentially, the Com-
mission proposed an alternative to the FAR proposal. First, the
new proposal be applicable only in new multi -lot subdivisions and
it be. a new combining zone with objectives and r=egulations to
address the perceived problem, listed on Page 3 of CMR:552:5.
Some of the possible new regulations considered by the Commission
were listed on Page 4. The Commission requested Council consider-
ation, and to return its thinking to the Commission. The Planning
Commission recommended Counci : 'direct the Commission to pursue the
new combining zone expeditiously. The issue of substandard and
flag lots were under separate study and not yet completed. The
Commission further recommended staff monitor the size and bulk of
additions currently being built in Palo Alto and also of new
houses on single lots and submit a report every nine months to a
year tc the Commission.
Chief Planning Official Brute Freeland said as Commissioner Cullen
mentioned, . it was a complicated issue. The original staff recom-
mendation dealt with both new and eemodel ed homes on all types of
lots includiny substandard lots and flag tote. Regarding the
staff ,oriyinal recoraanendati3n, the Commission concluded the issue
which needed . attention was` -multiple -lot subdivisions for new
homes. If Council agreed that was the correct area for. focus,
then there were two major considerations _ to be dealt with that
evens ne.. One was the ides Conic ss1 ones Cullen explained abet the
new combining district to apply to new multiple -lot subdivisions,
and the other was a more specific issue of what to do about the
Ross Road and DeAnza school sites which were subdivided and due to
6 4 5 1
10/21/85
be sold in the upcoming months. One possibility was to develop
the new combining district, -,and apply ie to the school sites. The
Schocl District suggested the sites be dealt with through deed
restrictions limiting the FAR of the individual properties. There
were definite advantages and disadvantages to the different op-
tions fer dealing with multiple -lot subdivisions. The new combin-
ing district was attrar.tive in that it allowed the City to con-
sider the specific- factors that ar!:i ressed the concerns noted by
Commissioner Northway of privacy, separation of homes, height,
bulk, 'etc., and allowed a uniform basis for dealing with those
sites in the future so the City did not have to "reinvent the
wheel"' each time. Thd\disadvantage was it would take some time.
Even moving expeditiously it would .be- some months before a new
combining district could be adopted and applied to the Ross Road
and DeAnza School sites. In the future, as new subdivisions
arose, the zoning could- :accompany them and be a more routine
matter. Because of the urgency to set'; the lots at the DeAnza and
Ross Road sites, the Shoot District proposed the City not deal
with the combining district for those two properties, but instead
consider regulations based around the concept of deed restric-
tions. The advantages were it could be done rapidly through pri-
vate initiation, dnd as indicated by the report, it allowed tail-
oring to individual circumstances tc a degree difficult for the
City to do through regulations. Precisely the correct rules to be
applied to those lots was still a matter of negotiation, and the
specifics in the material received from the School District were
taken to be more examples and less final word on how those could
he worked out. The major disadvantages had to do with the issue
of deed restrictions. Basically, there seemed to be two limita-
tions Council needed to consider. First, there appeared to be
definite limitations on City involvement in enforcement of deed
restrictions; and, second, there were undoubtedly limitations on
the extent to which neighbors outside the subdivision became par-
ties to the deed restriction process. In regard to the DeAnza and
Ross Road school sites which were a subset of the larger issue
before Council, it probably came down -to the following choices:
(1) pursue the idea of the new combining district with the thought
of applying it to the Ross Road and DeAnza sites. The time
involved would frustrate the School District's desire to move
quickly toward sales in a way that allowed prospective buyers to
understand exactly what the rules were; and (2) take the District
on its offer, recognizing that restrictions on deeds processed
were there and there might be more promises for deed restrictions
than reality was able to deliver, which Mr. Bennetti would ex-
plain; and, finally, decide the Ross Road and DeAnza sites were
subdivided in the past acrd would not receive special 'restrictions.
The decision pn those sites still required Council to consider the
broader issues of whether to have` a new combining district avail-
able for future sites, aril whether" -- to limit consideration to
multiple -lot subdivisions.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Anthony Bennetti said the major
difficulty with ;usiny deed restrictions to impose the development
limitations was `the City had no ongoing property interest in the
subdivision to wnich the conditions er restrictions could attach.
Essentially, deed restrictions were used .to impose burdens on
property for the benefit, of either a common grantor or common
grantee, or someone in the ch,ain of property title with which the
subdivision dealt. The City used deed restrictions in limited
instances in the past where it either had devel opmert approval or
property interests, such as the BMR units where the City used deed
restrictions to enforce its rights to have BMR units dedicated to
the City. Likewise, the adjacent property owners --the people most
directly influenced .by a major or multi -lot sThdivision developing
i n .their area --had no resi'ual property interest to which the deed
restrictions could atach,'nor was there any consideration for the
grantor, which in that instance was the School District, giving
the restrictions. Therefore, the restrictions were, in all like-
lihood, unenforceable as against future- property,. owners within the
subdivision. Theoretically, the restriction might be enforceable
6 4 6 2
10/21/85
against the first buyer as a matter of contract between the School
District and buyer if the City or adjacent property owners were
named as third party beneficiaries. Again there was the problem
of no consideration given for the promise. Certainly, there ias
l ittl a likelihood it was enforceable against subsequent buyers.
Councilmember Klein said if Council could not do that, what could
it do short of adeptiny an ordinance.
Mr. Freeland did not believe the information on the restrictions`,.
ilplied Council could not do it. What it said was there were
limitations, and . Council should not expect more than could be
delivered. Mere was a good probability the original houses were
built in conformance with the deed restrictions.
Councilmember Klein understood the Schoo,' District could enforce
by contract against the first owner.
Mr. Bennetti said that was correct.
Councilmember Klein asked if that left , the City, as land use •en-
forcer for the community, out in the cold.
Mr. Bennetti said that was correct.
Councilmember Klein heard Mr. Bennetti's report as more negative
than Mr. Freeland stated it to be. Frankly, he regarded it as a
'nice proposal by the School District, but it would not work if
somebody wanted to violate the agreement.
Mr. Bennetti believed that was correct.
Mr. Freeland said Council could accept the limited nature of deed
restrictions and hope they did the „lob; deal with a regulatory
process that might be slow and therefore burdensome to the School
District; or, conclude th.e Ross Road and DeAnza sites were sub-
divided and remained under the old rules.
Councilmember Klein said it seemed to him the first alternative
was a mirage because of what Mr. Bennetti said. If some builder
had good legal work done, he would not have to obey anyway. He
asked if there was any other way on a private basis to accompl ish
what the School District suggested.
Mr. Freel ard was not aware of any. Again, the question was what
kind of commitment the City had from the School District on en-
torcing the deed conditions on the first buyers:, It would be the
School District's obligation, net the City's abil'ity to control.
Mr`. Bennetti said he was concerned the City would have no enforce-
ment mechanism because it was not in privity. The surrounding
neighbors also had no enforcement mechanism. The School District,
if it made the CC&R's applicable, could enforce the. restrictions.
The City had no way to force the School District to enforce the
building restrictions. He was not sure any individual owner. with-
in the subdivision had any motivation to enforce the restrictions
ayai nst the neighbors if it ended -up they were enforcing the
restrictions against themselves.
Director of Planning and .Community Environment Kee, Schreiber said
regarding the process if Council went that route, the Chief
Building Official was responsible for issuing building permits
under the Municipal Code and Uniform Building Code incorporated
therein. The Chief Building Official had no discretion to deny
issuance of a ;permit in conformance with the Building Code, zoning
ordinance and other reyulations._ They could find themselves in a
situation where if the District impascd deed restrictions, they
then had the obligation of enforcement, and if someone, wanted to
challenge, it would be up to the District to gain an injunction,
6 4 6 3
10/21/85
go to court, against the thief Building Official to stop the
issuance of a aermit that exceeded whatever the deed restriction
was, but was within she confines of the zoning ordinance.
Councilmember Klein said that was fine, but he understood the
School District was not equipped to do the inspections and
measurements that Chief Building Official's office did. He was
not clear how the School District could enforce its contractual
obligations if there was a ratio that said by applying the ratio
to a particular lot ft could not have more than 3,600 square feet
in the house. He asked if the City would loan one of M•. Herman's
people to do it.
Mr. Schreiber said Mr. Bennetti might have other advice, but at
the most, the City might be able to assume some type of obligation
to attempt 'o notify the District regarding the submitted plans
for each of the properties. The caveat he wanted to add was the
City processed many permits and applications, and despite hopes
for computer systems, etc., it was easier said than done. Things
had slipped through the system in the past although there was
presently a better system to catch those types of items, but eval-
uating developments consistent with a zoning ordinance when people
were used to dealing with a zoning ordinance was a challenge.
Evaluating applications consistert with not only the zoning ordi-
nance, but another set of regulations perhaps not clearly identi-
fied in any one location presented a substantial additional chal-
lenge for the plan check people and those who tried to advise the
public either at the counter or over the phone as to what they
could do with their property. The potential for administrative
hassle and problems significantly increased when talking about
regulations beyond the zoning ordinance and not codified.
Vice Mayor Cobb asked if there a way to use an overlay with a PC
type characteristic to it to basically impose the covenants or..
deed restrictions on the existing zone.
Mr. Schreiber said the mechanism that came most readily to mind
was a specific plan to identify the maximum site coverage, height,
or whatever regulations were desires on specific properties, which
was a time-consuming process. A specific plan to begin with
needed public hearings of Planning Commission and City Coenci1,
and the devel opment of the document was complex.
Councilmember Witherspoon assumed if Council went ahead with
developing some kind of combining district, it would be with the
idea of putting it on the properties when it was developed and
passed. Therefore, Council was only talking of the per;od of time
from the present until when the combining district could be
applied to the ;aroperty. She did not believe it would cause as
much of a problem as Mr. Bennett' anticipated. She believed Coun-
cil needed to assume that _ by the School District's making the
alternative request of the City, opposed to what the City origin-
ally wanted, it would act in good faith with the City's help, and
she could not believe it would take more than six to eight months
to develop some kind of combining zone and find out whether Counr-
c i i wanted to apply it. She was less concerned about_ those first
owners.
Councilmember Sutorius asked for clarification about whether the
possessory interest in the streets net the condition cited of
haying granted some consideration, making the City a party- to the
subdivision process and therefore 'eligible to enforce any deed
restriction.
Mr. Bennetti said not where the City was right then. As he under-
stood it, the dedications were complete and no further land use
approvals were necessary : from the City to ,build on tjlei. T•he
process was complete and therefore there was nothing to which the
City could attach the conditions.
6 4 6 4
10/21/85
Planning Commissioner Cullen said the Planning Commission was as
concerned as any of the Council about regulations being in place
as was the School District before it marketed the lots. The Plan-
ning Commission recommendations were specific so they could'hold
the hearinys end get the ordinances in place within the next two
or three. months. She understood the bidding would not take place
until spring, although the marketing was already out. The Plan-
ning Commission was attempting to tailor the time frame about
which the School District and staff were concerned.
1
1
Councilmembers,Renzel said most of her colleagues focused on the
problems related to the School District. Despite the Planning
Commission's concerns, she remained concerned about individual
lots and the degree to which builder/speculators moved throughout
the neighborhoods, found small houses and decided to remodel them
and rebuild them. She asked if staff knew how many of the single-
family permits applied for were owner generated versus builder/
developer generated.
Mr. Schreiber said no. If it was possible, it would be difficult
to try to yet that type of information since most permits were
taken out by contractors.
Councilmenber Renzel said it seemed like the value of the land was
based on what you could do on it, which would continue to be a
problem throughout the neighborhoods.
Mayor Levy declared the public hearing open.
J'trl ian Crocker, 25 Churchi l l , Superintendent of Schools, Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD), said staff did a good job ex-
plaining the position of the PAUSD. The issue of enforcement was
the one most focused on. The problems with deed restrictions were
relatively late to the PAUSD in terms of when it became aware that
might be a problem. PAUSD voluntarily imposed deed restrictions
on the Ortega School site. It was correct the issue of the deed
restrictions spoke primarily to the concern of the initial owner,
but it was presently the major problem of the new homes, which was
one reason the District requested that Council delay its action
that evening to a later date, specifically until the November 12,
1985 meeting. The PAUSD wanted the opportunity to take the en-
suing time to work with staff to come up with an; acceptable alter-
native. PAUSD recognized the '•problem and presented a voluntary
proposal involving two general concepts: a sliding floor area
ratio which considered the sizes of the lots, and that the City
review the process with the architectural review process already
in place. If Council decided it was appropriate, it seemed the
best way to tailor restrictions to the individual lots. -The Dis-
trict's suyyeetion did not encoTnnass individually owned lots, but
lots or homes built by an owner with more than one lot. Tc sum-
marize, the District was concerned any kind of uncertainty would
negatively affect the sale of the lots. PAUSD was already in the
market i ny process a:rd hoped to sell- the Ross Road site on March
1Z, and the DeAnza site by the middle of May. PAUSD's concern was
to mote as rapidly as possible and that Council separate the two
school district sites from the rest of the concerns. A tentative
plan was already presented for consideration, but more important-
ly, he requested Council delay any action because of the complica-
tions, allowing the District additional time to work with staff
aed the community to arrive at a voluntary solution to at least
extricate the two sites from the rest of the process Council
needed eo consider. Other members of Ole District staff as well
as its Consultant present to answer any questions.
Vice Mayor. Cobb referred to the time line, and clarified
would take place in March.
Mr. Crocker confirmed the bids would be in March. The
brochure was already at the press.
marketing
6 4 6 5
10/21/,85.
Vice Mayor Cobh said his question referred. to the whole issue of
time line. As Commissioner Cullen indicated, it was possible for
Council to move its process along and yet some things in place.
If the point was _pressed, he believed Council could do it more
quickly than normal. He asked about the time line in terms of
if Council had to adopt some specific rules to make them enforce-
able, which was the thrust of the questions earlier, how it
related to the time line. In other words, how late could it be
and not impact what the School District was trying to accomplish
with the sites.
Mr.` Crocker said the District had to be certain by January 1,
1986, _ without question.
Councilmember Klein asked whether the dates mentioned related to a
particular need or desire of the PAUSD, or picked on a business
basis.
Mr. Crocker said the District preferred to have the money by the
end of the fiscal year. Its experience was that sometimes when
going into the marketing and bidding of sites, things did not
happen as wanted. Therefore, the dates were picked for financial
projection in order to be able to count oe the return for certain
during the fiscal year, and to allow enough time between` the two
sites to ensure it could happen. It was part of a larger finan-
cial projection.
Councilmember Klein asked if there was a particular reason why it
had to occur during the fiscal year ending June 30.
Mr. Crocker said it related to the PAUSD's budget planning for
next year. PAUSD actually submitted its preliminary budget in
May. Although the budget itself was not passed until September,
the Board liked to have a deyree of certainty as to what the
revenue was. At that point, the District was planning on the
revenues fce the following year.
Naphtali Knox, 1025 Forest Avenue, represented the PAUSD, and made
a slide presentation. He painted out it was not a new problem to
Palo Alto to see subdivisions in areas where there were no houses
before. He did not recall whether it was the Palo Alto Military
Academy, or the Harker School site, but two school sitee in the
subject area of town were removed and replaced with one-story
Eichler homes around 1977. The hue and cry then was how the City
Y
could allow the homes at 35 percent coverage with only six-foot
side-yerLs. They looked awful, and there was no way they would
ever be reasonable homes. No amount of landscaping or vines in 5,
10, or even 20 yea; s would accomplish anything to overcome the
atrocities. Slides of the .Eichler homes in the vicinity of Roma
Verde and Middlefield, at Torreya and Toyon Court, showed the
ameunt of lot coverage which was .really only 35 per' ent, built out
to six-foot side-yerds and squarish lots. Finally, anoLeer slide
showed the Georgia Avenue area, a sibdivision known as Foothill
Green which was an orchard in 1974. Crosby Place and Willis each
had one of the first below market rate duplexes in the City in
1974. The homes on the right side of Georgia were two-story homes
put on t,000 square foot lots, and immediately behind them on
Hubbart Drive were 7,000 square foot lots. Again people said
they were atrocious, too big for the lot, and there was no land-
scaping. He pointed out there were opportunities to consider
other than deed restrictions. Regarding Councilmember Klein's
question about what to do about the other restrictions, a possi-
bility might be to start with the staff and PAUSD agreement to set
some square foot limits and follow it with the City establishing
the sane square foot limits by . some kind of overlay zone as was
implied by some of the. C ounc11meaut.ers. PAPS!) : was not opposed to
the restriction; it was voluntarily willing to make the 'restric-
tions, but wanted to assure it had the right numbers in the first
instance to get that degree of security and certainty. He spoke
to some attorneys retarding the deed restrictidns, and was
6 -4 6 6
10/21/85
informed a out California • Civil Code Section 1468, which real
estate attorneys dealt with al.l the time, where parties with
adjoining lands could enter into an agrees -lent. Vor example, in
the case of DeAnza where the City had parkland and the School
Uistrict had land which was subdivided, an agreement could be
enforced by the City as an interested party. He was told there
were four ingredients: That there be adjoining land owners; that
each property be specifically described; that there be a descrip-
tion of the restrictions; and thet the restrictions run with the
land and inure to successors in interest. The District believed
that could work for the DeAnza site with adjacent parkland, and
huped 1 . might work with the Ross Road` site based on the adjacency
of the street. The District did not bring it up beeause it did
not know enough about, the legal matter and hoped it'ewas something
they could discuss with staff in the ensuing two or three weeks.
The PAUSD also hoped to find a solution where it could act without
involving the City in any kind of complicated agreement, He also
showed slides of how the subdivisions presently looked, citing
instances of the least amount of 1 aedscapi ny to show Council how
close the houses were.
Virgil Carter, 941 Emerson Street, Chairman of the, Architectural
Review Board (ARB), said the ARB discussed the matter at its meet-
ing of September 5, and the consensus opposed recommendations for
design review of single-family homes, be they new or remodels.
The support voiced for design review was only under strict condi-
tions where the new single-family homes might not be owner- occu-
pied or might be developer oriented. The ARB was unanimous in its
concern that a fixed floor area ratio would not approach the
design -oriented issues, and would not address windows, scale, or
style of the building.. As a practicing architect, resident, and
interested observer, he believed ehere were three important prob-
lem areas, each one distinct from the other. Regarding sub-
standard lots, multi -lot subdivisions be they school sites or
other subdivisions, and new homes or remodels on all of the other
R-1 lots in town, it was important to understand they were
distinct problems areas and he had a hard time envisioning any
solution equally appropriate for all three areas. The experience
of architects in Palo Alto in remodeling homes was many people
wanted to add a new master bedroom that might be approximately 400
square feet, and also wanted the master beiroom's dressing and
bath area to be about the same size, which was another 400 square
feet, which brought it to 800 square feet. If the individua did
not have adequate room or wanted to maintain landscaping and add
it at the second floor, then another _ 100 to 150 square feet were
necessary for stairs, landing, etc. Any FAR that precluded resi-
dents adding something in the range of 750 to 1,000 square feet to
their home should be carefully considered in those terms. Final-
ly, the issue before Council was not one of design control, but
change, and specifically change without the opportunity of public
input. If one looked down on south Ramona a few blocks away, the
neighborhood was predominantly two-story homes side by side which
existed there for 40 or 50 years. The homes were mostly bulky,
with windows that tended to look into the windows of their neigh-
bors. Certainly, they had the benefit of 50 years .of landscaping.
The neighborhood was highly desirable because of its homogeneity.
Where he lived in Green Meadow, a one-story Eichler neighborhood,
the majority of the homes whether Eichler or .others, were all one
story, and it too was a homogenous neighborhood. When a large
home was proposed next to a smaller home and the .neighbors had no
opportunity for public . comment nor for participation in the
process, they expressed their concern. The concern was over ehe
change and the neighbors inability to participate. He hoped. Coun-
cil could find an :.administrative procedure within the existing
City procedures and policies to deal with the matter and allow for
publi'c input. If Council moved in the direction of design review
and control, he guessed Council would have overregulation, and he
was not sure good design could be guaranteed" in any event.
4 4 6 7
10/21/85
Councilmember Sutorius said regarding Mr. Carter's comments on the
ARB's assessment of whether it was viable, reasonable, or practi-
cal for the ARB to be involved in the single-family revue process,
he appreciated the __report to the Council. but was not certain_ he
understood the ARB assessment when it was multiple development of
single-family lots by a single developer. He asked for clarifica-
tion as he believed they were both brought up under Palo Alto
Municieal Code_Chapter 16.48, which assured the ARB would not be
involved in sinyly-developed single-family, or singly -developed
duplex. The flip side eras that multiple development of 'single-
family by a single developer would be an arena for which the ARB
had not only authority but responsibility;,
Mr. Carter said Councilmember Sutorius was absolutely correct.
There was a City ordinance and the ARB reviewed single-family
homes only where more than two single-family homes were applied
for simultaneously in the permit process. In practical terms,
it meant when a subdivision or series of lots were proposed for
development simultaneously and the permit applications made simul-
taneously, it went to the ARB. However, it was not a particularly
effective procedure because it did not take a developer in Palo
Alto long to figure out all he needed to do was to apply for a
bui 1 di ne permit for the first lot, and as soon as he received it,
apply for the second lot, etc., which made the regulation null and
void. The procedure occurred infrequently, but it was on the
books and the ARB responded to it when it occurred.
Councilmember Sutorius believed the quotation he referred to was
in Chapter 16.48, and its interpretation might be a house rule,
and he wanted to understand the house rule as opposed to the enab-
ling ordinance. Regarding the changes as they affected the situa-
tion of remodels and additions, or a single isolated lot, there
was ;lot the opportunity for citizens to participate or know about
the change before it physically occurred, or communicate their
reactions. He asked if Mr. Carter evaluated concepts such as an
FAR threshhold that would be the applicable figure for an addi-
tion, or a maximum, whether new or additional construction went
through the process unfettered. Beyond the threshhold and up to a
final physical maximum would be where an individual could make
appl i 'ati on is exceed the threshhold and nut exceed the maximum.
In doing so, the individual would go through a process similar to
that of a variance. One or the advantages would be it would allow
the immediate neighborhood to be aware of the proposed change. He
asked if Mr. Carter had any reaction to that type of a process.
Mr. Carter said the APB discussed how a FAR could be done, and it
was the consensus that should a FAR be the direction Council
wanted to go, the implementation should be in an administrative
way, not in a design review sense. It was important to clarify
why the Board opposed the design review hearing procedure as
opposed to an administrative procedure. First, single-family
homes, or additions thereto, were not required by State law .to
utilize the services of a. design professionals but it was not the
case with multi -family residential nor commercial structures other
than agricultural buildings. All of those were required be State
law to •uti l ie the services of a licensed architect or engineer . in
order to insure conformance with building codes and meet the needs
for public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, :trying to
critique and review single-family homes in a constructive way was
difficult when the proposals themselves *ere, in the majority of
cases, probably not pjepared by trained design professional..
Secondly,, there was a tradition in single-family homes where
people believed their individual right to do as they saw fit,
given the conditions under, which they lived. No one expressed
their individuality more strongly than in his home. Thirdly,: the
ARB believed there would probably` be many appeals from its recom-
mendations, in which case why have a review procedure frnm the ARB
in the first place. Why not just direct it to where . the appeals
normally went, which was the Council. The ARB believed the idea
6 4 6 8
10/21/85
1
of design review was essentially a forum for neighbors to really
express their real eeeceees, which was, "Your house is too close
to mine," or "I don't like that blank wall," or "I want a blank.
wall," and not necessarily design issues. Those kinds of issues
raised by neighbors could be handled An an administrative hearing
similar to a variance situation.
Dick Walker, 3512 Ross Road, lived adjacent to the Ross Road
School. .The Planning Commission worked long and hard to get a
solution to the entire problem talked about that evening. In a
couple of months Council would have a solution to the problem, and
he was sure it would be a good one. Therefore, he hoped Cc-incil
would not panic and allow the PAUSD to sell the lots with no
restrictions when restrictions good for the City should apply also
to Ross Road and DeAnza. He urged Council to make sure whatever
it did applied to the houses in his neighborhood.
Lee Vouel _. 765 Christine Drive._ said his home backed up to the
Ross Road site. He believed the character of his neighborhood and
others in Palo Alto should be maintained and some effort made to
do so. Where a large area like a school site was developed by one
developer .and, maybe, builder, he, because of his training and
artistic background used some coordination in the scale of houses
developed around a particular street. Christine Drive was a homo-
genous street. The PAUSD proposed to auction off the lots to the
highest bidder. They could be individual homeowners, builders
building one home and speculating and selling it, or building five
or six homes and selling them. The main motivation was profit,
and the bigger the house the more the profit. The neighborhood
was at the mercy of the speculator as opposed to a large tract
developer. The PAUSD presently had only sites developed, not
structures, so the character of the neighborhood could still be
controlled. The PAUSD would benefit by auctioning off the proper-
ty by getting a direct sale to the final builder; whereas, if sold
to a developer as a tract, the developer had to make a profit so
the PAUSD would make less money. Since the PAUSD had the oppor-
tunity to make a greater profit, it should go through the burdens
as everyone else in the City and meet zoning requirements and some
restrictions. The restrictions should apply to new buildings, new
homes as well as additions to old homes, and there should be some.
kind of ratio established based on surrounding area. A survey
might be done by computer of the surrounding community and streets
to add up their ratios, come to an average, adding a reasonable
percentage for future additions, and stick to that for everyone in
the City, or each neighborhood. Looking at slides of previous
developments looked into the past, and they should look to the
future, There was not much lei-; in Palo Alto that was not
developed or committed. An open piece of , property could end up
looking like the Ortega site, which he hoped everyone would drive
by and look at as an example.
Dr. Peter Moskowitz, 1941 Tassu street, was a 10 -year resident and
homeowner in Palo Alto. For the past six months he and his wife
designed a second -story addition. The proposed new 0.4 FAR
restriction would destroy his project. Accordingly, he poke
against extending new building restrictions to home additions.
From July to September, he attended the hearings of the Planning
Con►mission and listened carefully. He heard discussion focused
primarily on homeowners' concerns of recent construction of new
homes, particularly at new school sites, which were excessively
massive. There was also general agreement among homeowners and
Commissioners that remodeling of existing homes was gererally not
a_ problem. The Commission concluded, "Additions have not been as
obvious a problem as new home construction and data On the size of
additions is not as readily available." Accordingly, the Commis-
sion recommended if restrictions -were applied,, it be only for hew
construction and not`, additions. Unfortunately, City staff by-
passed the Commission recto endations''. and submitted- to Council
guidelines to impose a floor area ratio on all Construction. He
queried the purpoje of the Planning Commission's debate and
6 4 6 9
10/21/85
1
thoughtful analysis. Its recommendations and the testimony of
concerned homeowners were virtually ignored by City staff. Should
a FAR be applied to additions, it would potentially impact every
homeowner in the City. Those contemplating additions would find
too late_ that a 0.4 FAR severely limited the flexibility .of home
enlargement_ Many _
enlargement. V • Many homes urest,nz � V. h�ti 1_t +..
. ,, , ,. �., cover 35 percent of
lot area would find a 0.4 FAR permitted no more than an additional
five percent increase in total floor space. In many instances it
would not permit construction of a modest master bedroom/bath
addition. Furthermore, a FAR applied to additions impacted pri-
marily young families with children struggling to expand their
living space. By discouraging additions among such families, a
FAR had the long-term effect of .driving up the cost of existing
urger homes in the City. 'A FAR on additions would, and should,
te viewed by homeowners as a deliberate attempt0by the City Coun-
cil to discourage young families from settling in Palo Alto. The
problem lay not with homeowners additions, but with the greed of
unscrupulous developers and real estate investors/speculators,
Those individuals repeatedly raped Palo Alto neighborhoods by sub-
dividing existing lots, building unsuitably large new homes on the
resulting substandard lot, and frequently building new homes with
blatant disregard for the prevailing size, scope, and style of
surrounding homes. If there was a crisis in home construction in
Palo Alto, it was created at the Crescent Park School site where
developers built massive homes, grossly out of proportion to lot
size apparently to maximize profit on their already overpriced lot
parcel. He was also concerned the Planning Commission recommenda-
tions to add stricter height and setback limitations to new school
site developments might be.. bypassed by City staff and the City
Council and a FAR substituted instead at the insistence of the
PAUSO. It was obvious the PAUSO feared tighter controls might
inhibit the sate of new lots at Ross Road and DeAnza sites
presently in preparation for bidding„ It appeared the Pi'.USD, just
as with developers and speculators, was motivated primarily by
profit and had little or no concern for preserving the beauty and
architectural integrity of Palo Alto. A FAR was not the magical
solution to the problems. It would not prevent the building of
massive homes as numerous anccitecta pointed out, nor would it
guarantee pleasing or efficient design. However, tighter setback
requirements, height restrictions, etc„ could help the problem
and should be applied to new, multi -lot subdivisions as well as to
new homes on substandard lots. Council should preserve the ini-
tiative of individual homeowners seeking to add to their homes on
standard lots. Over the years, generally good taste and judgment
prevailed. Such additions added to the charm and eechitectural
diversity of Palo Alto. In summary, the Council should not forget
who they represented. They represented home- owners just like
himself who believed present restrictions on new additions were
strict enough "as is. Homeowners had already spoken out, and the
Pl anfi ny Commission agreed additions need not be subjected to new
restrictions such as a FAQ'. If the Council believed; otherwise, it
should conduct a City -wine referendum to obtain hard data on the
number of homeowners who supported an FAR for additions before
tampering with the basic freedom.
Uoug MacDonell, 3649 Ross Road, said the former speakers made his
pelnts. He hoped all the meabers of the City Council looked at
what was built o►i the school sites and would do something to
protect the neighborhoods.
Martin Bernstein, 3315 Waverley Street, was glad to see the excep-
tions presented in the proposal concerning the parking area, attic
and basement areas. He also wanted to exempt porches In houses
because there was _a State law of energy conservation so porches
allowed- blocking from sun to keep houses cooler. It was important
Palo Alto not have an ardieance to dictate ti building. form. For
example, if house size was restricted, if.. people wanted to maxi-
mize the living space, the City might get more boxy -looking houses
rather than something more spread out. The :_daylight plane might
already solve the problem,
6 4 7 0
iD/21/85
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, complimented Naphtali Knox on his report. He
was surprised to find himself in agreement with almost everything
he said. He made one correction; there were occasions when the
ARB reviewed single-family homes. On April 18, 1985, it reviewed
a ;even -house subdivision at 4270 Suzarrii . Even th uyii the AR
aaeiewee thn-cinnlp-fAmilu Anyolnpmen. f ity Wall dill "t„.,A• He
was present at several Planning Commission meetings and spoke to
many people about the issue, and people did not object to the con-
cept of a floor area ratio for R-1 homes. There was some argument
about the right number, but people appreciated the concept and the
need for controls on the size of homes not only in new subdivi-
sions but in existing neighborhoods. Additions were the problem;
not in every case, but everyone could drive around the City and
look at overwhelming additions. The adoption of a FAR was an
appropriate means of control of excessive development. It was
also appropriate because it was simple .or staff to administer,
and it was the sort of thing Council could adopt relatively easi-
ly. He sympeehized with. the PAUSD's concern about an extended
process, but amending the 'zoning ordinance did not have to take
three or four months. Staff could be asked to return with a revi-
sion adding a FAR to the existing zoning ordinance, review it,
pass it, and have it become effective by the first of the year if
ail was done expeditiously. In terms of what made a good neigh-
borhood, comments by Virgil Carter indicated uniformity was a good
thing. Ha lived on one of the most heterogenous streets in the
City. The difference between the maximum and minimum house size
was about three to one. No two houses looked alike, and it was an
extremely attractive neighborhood. He was familiar with all three
of the neighborhoods Mr. Knox described and they were relatively
large houses. Those on Georgia were rather large and looked some-
what overbearing if one went a block crier to Hubbart. He sug-
gested Council address the issue of substandard lots. The staff
recommendation on substandard lots was excellent. If Council
adopted the FAR City-wide and also adopted the staff recommenda-
tion on substandard lots, it would ,not preclude a homeowner from
requesting a variance to develop at`a larger FAR. If it was set
at 0.4, the homeowner could ask to develop to a larger FAR,
request a variance and have a review. If the Appearance of a
neighborhood was important, Council could ask for ARB review of
all subdivisions of "n" or larger lots, where "n" was anything
from two to two hundred. Even though the ARB might find it
undesirable to do, he saw no reason why Council could not. He
urged Council to move forward to adopt some controls on overdevel-
opment In R-1 neighborhoods and believed a floor area ratio was_ a
good way to start.
Peter Stern, 2274 Princeton Street, spoke on behalf of the Steer-
ing Committee of the Palo Alto Civic League, and said the problem
heard that evening had to do with a shortage of land and a great
demand for housing in Palo Alto. Because there was a shortage of
land it was expensive if a developer had to pay a lot for the
1 and, he wanted to put the biggest possible house on the lot in
order to get the most amount of money for it, which was common
sense and capitalism. The result was a big house with a big price
which might not be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood.
He made a slide presentation of the College Terrace area, and said,
in the middle of Princeton Street where he lived, as in the middle
of all of the cross streets, the lots were larger than the normal
50 foot frontage. A street went through on each side, Cambridge
Avenue on his side, and when the ;trees closed down, the lots ad-
jacent to ` ',t got an extra 25 feet or so from the right-of-way.
Across the street, from him. a house on a 75 -foot lot went on the:
market and sold in two days for $260,000. The developer who
bought it turned around and sold it and 50 feet of frontage to the
people living in the house for in excess of $200,000. With the 25
feet of frontage left, he then built a house. It was not a bad job
from many points of view. The contractor used trees skillfully
and he could imagine: many worse houses built on that lot; but,.
nevertheless, it did many of things Council heard about. It was
much larger than the neighboring houses, presented vast surfaces
6 4 7 I
10/21/85
Uf wall space, and overlooked the houses on either side. The
house was wi tai :r all the codes It had a back yard of about 20
feet. It was almost exactly six feet down the side, and 20 feet
from the garage to the sidewalk line. It had only a one -car
garage and there was only covered space for parking. He. estimated
it was about 1,500 square feet in two stories on a 2,500 square
foot lot, which was about 0.6 or a little larger. The Steering
Committee of the Palo Alto Civic League at its meeting of October
3, 1985 adopted the concept without fixing a number of the floor
area ratio of residential properties of a FAR. It was difficult
to fix it with precision presently, but the Civic League believed
if such a concept was adopted, it would help to restrict the
"build it as large as possible" construction. On substandard
lots, the Civic League asked the City Council to consider one of
three alternatives: Either a restricted zoning envelope; or, if
a FAR was adopted for residential properties, a lower FAR for sub-
standard lots; or ARB review of R-1 buildings if they went on sub-
standard lots.
John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, was more concerned about the long
term problems in residential areas as Council would be able to
deal with the PAUSO problem one way or another. The staff and
Planning Commission listed four objectives on that question: To
protect privacy of .adjoining property owners; maintain apparent
size and scale of properties from streetscape compatible with sur-
rounding neighborhood character; provide adequate design flexi-
bility; and create restrictions which were easy to administer and
understandable by the public. 4nfortunately, the objectives
seemed to be pursued in the wrong order. The staff recommendation
seemed to weigh heavily in the direction of administration and
least answered the problems of privacy and neighborhood compati-
bility. The floor area ratio, while useful in some areas, was not
sufficient in ethers. A building appropriate in Downtown North or
Professorville might be almost disastrous in Barron Park where all
of the buildings were primarily one story. It was not just a
question of lot coverage, but also height and density. Until
recently, he was one of the unfortunate few in his immediate
neighborhood with a two-story addition directly behind them. The
addition was out of character with the Eichlers in the neighbor-
hood and also took away a lot of privacy. While they planted tall
vegetation to . regain some of the privacy, they also lost much of
the full sun in their vegetable larder„ He pitied the person who
just put in a new hot tub only to find a second story sprouting up
behind them. Substandlyd lots and flag lots posed special prob-
lems, and he supported the staff recommendation. The general
problem needed to be solved before it got worse, and without set-
ting up a climate where other people rushed to make new additions
or developments before the inevitable restrictions were applied.
While a floor area limitation might be a step in the right direc-
tion, it was entirely appropriate for all areas. Consequently, he
suggested the floor area and height limitations be based on the
neighborhood according to some understandable formula; otherwise,
Council should consider making different R-1 zones according to
neighborhood.
John Boyd, 1 196 Hamilton Avenue, spoke as an architect, and said
the zoning ordinances ,and the requirements for the R-1, not sub-
standard lots, were adequate as written. With the lot coverage,
daylight plane, and maximum height, the City had good requirements
as they were, and unless Council did something really drastic like
limit anything new to a single story, tittle would be accomplished
with minorchanges, and .it might cause problems, especially in the
case of additions, to homeowners who planned to expand their home
and would be unable to, or they would be unable to do what they
thought they could when they bought the property years ago. Coun-
cil should remember some of the single-family homes behind some of
the two-story homes night also become two-story, . and there would
not be the big discrepancy between the ones and the twos,
6 4 7 2
10/21/85
Wil Larsen, was a 21 -year resident of 723 Christine Drive, and
watched the other Ross Toad School be built and tore downs. It was
nice to have the open space. The PAUSD proposed a FAR plan which
souneed good and scaled down would even go below 0.4. He lived in
a two-story house so should not throw stones, but the two houses
behind him were at least one-fourth to nne-third larger than his,
and his neighbors already said his stuck up quite • a way. The FAR
was not a good measure, and while he appreciated the PAUSD's con-
cern for planning and making money, it never had that much lead
time in the past so it did not n€eed to worry then.
Jack Miller, 751 Ciri sti ne, l aryele: agreed with M. Larsen. Much
bleediny was heard for those who were not allowed to put an extra
800 square feet on their houses. When he first arrived in the
City of Palo Alto, he and his wife lived on Cowper across from the
Hoover School in a roll -away. Four of them lived, in 960 square
feet; next, they lived, at 2463 Bernam Way, which was 1120 square
feet, and they were reatvnably comfortable. His present house had
approximately 2,000 square feet and five of them were extremely
comfortable. He believed it was the middle class fighting the
rich. Dr. Crocker was a reasonable man and he believed something
could be worked out. He hoped to live in his neighborhood for
another 20 years, and believed his neighbors felt the same way.
Their concern was the environment and over a long period of time
the other people either had a fleeting interest in the situation
or a fleeting and venal ,.interest. He and his neighbors had little
time, knowledge and a tremendous interest. The opposition had all
the time in the world and a fleeting interest. He appreciated
Council taking the time and interest to consider the opposing
interests in the case.
Neil Belles, 725 Christine, said Christine Drive ran from
Middlefield Road t, Ross Road and bordered two sides of -the Ross
Road . property. Their neighborhood was unique and every year
closed off the street and had a block party. So far they had no
need to form a neighborhood association, but it would not take toy;
much to find an issue around which to rally. He did not believe
the proposed 0,4 FAR would work. His house was two stories, five
bedrooms, and 2400 square feet excl ud ng the garage. Behind him
were two lots, and if they went with the-PAUSD's proposal , one of
the lots would have a 3,200 square foot house, and the other house
would be 3,400 sgciare feet. It meant one of the houses would be
one and one-half times as large es his. He did not understand
where all the big families would come from. It called for a
tighter FAR than a 0.4, He was not a City planning specialist and
did not know the answer. He urged the matter be given the consid-
eration it needed and make the Ross Road project one in which
people could compliment the City.
Neil Beilas, on behalf of Valerie Stenger, 721 Christine Drive,
said ner concern was that physical and visual balance be main-
tained in the neighborhood. For the most part;, she was pleased to
see new residences in the neighborhoods, but was anxious to retain
the qualities which made Midtown attractive. She wanted new con-
struction to compliment the existing.
Susan Levenbery, 825 Garland Drive, was a land use, attorney, and
did not believe the proposed zoning• regulation applied across the
board would serve the purposes the City was attempting to accom-
plish. She opposed any additional restrictions on existing
single-family homes. . The 0.4 ratio was extremely .harsh on the
small lots where small or young families taught the lots with the
expections of adding on. Mr. Carter pointed out the current trend
in master bedroom suites was 'bout 600 to 1;000 square feet. It
was impossible on a 6,000 square, foot lot .built to the 35 percent
even with the 400 square foot exemptions given for a _ garage. S'qe
believed the financial imps icntions were additional and it made, t
impossible to add on a small amount .when adding on a second flO.:r
addition. The 0.4 FAR was very restrictive on p ,rsmal l lot and
would negatively impact families in Palo Alto. The City already
6 4 7 3
10/21/85
had many restrictions in pl acc. The newspaper contained a font
page article which spoke to the City Council meeting that evening,
and she did not believe most of the community in her position were
aware of the meeting. There was a different situation at the
school sites in her opinion. She was a Jordan neighbor and was
concerned about what would happen at that site in the future. The
Planning Commission had some good ideas and regulations to apply
on those subdivision sites. She did not believe the FAR on exist-
ing single-family homes would be a fair or equitable way to solve
the problem.
Rog r. Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, was an architect and did many
singe, second floor additions in Palo Alto and new homes. He was
not sure the. FAR would be appropriate because it would be so
restrictive on the smaller lots and houses in town, and a single
number to apply to all lots without any reference to lot sizes
would not have any effect. An 8,000 square foot lot with a FAR of
0.4 would be twice as big a house as one on a 4,000 or 6,000
square foot lot. He looked at some of the new homes on the Ortega
School site and one thing people found objectionable on the new
homes and on some of the additions was the visual impact of the
designs. There were certain impacts of a design on peoples' ad-
joining houses.` He' proposed to limit the amount of second floor,
continuous or two-story wall that could loom up over an adjoining
lot. Under his proposal, the continuous second floor wall could
not be built. The second floor would be limited in the continuous
two-story wall to 60 percent of the overall length of the first
floor excluding reer yard projections. The 60 percent, if the lot
was 100 feet long, and the house was maximum 60 long, would be 30
or 35 feet. If the lot was 250 feet long, one might be able to go
up to 30 percent of the overall dwelling of the lot dimension,
which also turned out to be 50 or 60 feet. He attempted to arrive
at something to respond to not onnly lot size, but lot area and not
limit the design of the second floors and provide some privacy for
the adjoining neighbors. He combined nut only the limit to the
amount of continuous second floor at the setback, and also lent
back to the old second floor setback limit which was three feet
beyond the six feet of the first floor, and nine feet for the
second floor. He also proposed the same criteria for the front
yards except instead of three feet, one would have to go back at
least "five feet for 40 percent of the width of the lot. The 60
percen., allowable would not necessarily have to be in one continu-
ous wall lure. He proposed the second floor rear yard projections
be eliminated and only allowed in the first floor as suggested by
several staff members.
din Chin, 727 Christine drive, had a one-story, 2,569 square foot
home, with a FAR of 27.27 percent without the garage. He sup-
ported a lower threshold for . FAR with the possibility of an
increase through the variance process.
Mona Miller, 751 Christine Drives was alarmed as Commissioner
Cullen and others essentially said the residents would have no
protection. She hoped the problems could be solved, and realized
the immediacy,of the Ross Rood school site compared to some of
the other important problems being presented. S.he did not com-
pletely accept PAUSD's presentation, but did not want to attend
any more meetings. From the time of the demolition of the school
until that evening,, there were many meetings and ..it looked like
nothing was happening. She listened to Mr. Knox' presentation and
did not find too much logic in what he had to say. He presided
over another era and she wished he included some of the monstrosi-
ties at Ortega and C'escent Park. She did believe the PAUSD was
faced with quite the immediate problem. Her house backed up
against the Ross Road school site which was slated to be developed
into single-family. homes. They -bowed reluctantly to the school
demOl i t i on, but were .concerned about the future -development of the
land. They watched with horror at what happened with the land a
short distance away at Ortega. She understood there were cur-
rently no building restrictions, and the new amendment was
6 4 7 4
10/21/85
supposed to help. She commended Mr. Brown on his recommendations.
She hoped the Pi anni ny Co m ei on and City Council were ors the
sides of tie residents. The PAUSD real sled a profit, the devel-
opers realized a profit, and she only saw grief for the residents
in the future. The Council had a cnance to protect its residents
and she pleaded it be done with setbacks, height restrictions, FAR
and whatever else. It was needed urgently.
Mayor Levy declared the public hearing closed.
RECESS FROM 9:25 p.m. TO 9:45 ).m.
Mayor Levy said two items were embraced in the item under discus-
sion. The question of multi -lot subdivisions, or the question of`
`overall normal si zed lots and substandard lots.
Councilmember Bechtel said after 1 isteniny to the speakers, going
over the minutes of the Planning Commission and the staff report,
it seemed Council's major concern was with the multi -lot subdivi-
sions particularly those at the school sites. Ultimately, Council
had to deal with the substandard lots. In the immediate time
frame, there were two PAUSD properties to be marketed soon. It
seemed to her the suyyestion of the PAUSD to continue the matter
for two weeks to yet some input from the neighbors and to explore
the legality of the, restrictions described by Mr. Knox were appro-
priate.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, that
staff be directed to work with the Palo i to Unified School Dis-
trict (PAUSD) and the City Attorney's office to explore the mech-
anisms of deed restrictions or other possibilities for Ross Road
and DeAnza sites and return on November 12.
Councilmember Woolley was impressed with the efforts demonstrated
by the PAUSD in voluntarily making its own proposal. A letter
from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (on file in the City
Clerk's office) referred to the generous accommodation by PAUSD in
changing the lots for the BMR unit, as other regulations changers,
so the BMR unit could go forward. She agreed with the spirit of
the motion to allow the continuance in order for -the City and the
PAUSD to work together She queried the combining district, how
many other potential sites the City had for multi -lot subdivisions
other than school sites, and how big the problem was.
Mr. Freeland believed there were relatively few. The City saw, in
the last several years, many subdivisions which did not involve
School District sites, and additional ones might be received. He
could not give names of candidate sites, but believed they were
relatively few in number.
Councilmember Woolley asked how many lots it took to constitute
such a subdivision.
Mr. Freeland said five or more was the .criteria.
Councilmember Woolley asked, if the school site solution pro-
yr+ssed on one track and the combining district being studied on
another, where it .would end up because some action might be taken
with the PAUSD which might be in conflict with what the staff
recommended for the combining district.
Mr. Freeland said in tnat event, staff's recommendation would be
to not apply the combihiny district to those sites dealt with it
an incompetib1a manner.
Count.ilmember Woolley said if the City had only an unenforceable
deed restriction, the City would end up with nothing on the school
sites.
6 4 7 5
10/21/85
Mr. Freeland agreed. It seemed to be a "do it one way or the
other" proposition. It seemed unlikely, but unless the deed
restrictions and zoning maeched, they would not both be on the
same property.
Councilmember Woolley said when staff returned on November 12,
it would be an important piece of information for Council. If it
looked as if whatever PAUSD proposed fit in with the combining
district proposed for the rest of the City, it would be a lot more
reasonable if there was not much chance they meshed.
Mr. Freeland said it probably required a more uniform treatment of
lots within a subdivision. It was difficult through a combining
district to have `-he kind of lot by lot variation envisioned by
the current district proposal.
Mr. Bennetti _asked for clarification. He understood Councilmember
Bechtel wanted staff to explore deed restrictions to deal with the
problem with the school sites.
Mayor Levy agreed with Mr. Bennetti.
Vice Mayor Cobb was prepared to take a similar path to the one
outlined by Councilmember Bechtel, but listening to the earlier
discussion about the efficacy or lack of efficacy of deed restric-
tions caused him to rethink the matter. Mr. Crocker stated the
time line was such if the City was going to do something formally
through the Planning Commission as recommended, it would need to
be completed by ,,.the first of the year to enable the PAUSD to do
its marketing as planned . During the break he discussed the time
line with planning staff and Commissioner Cullen who indicated if
Council got about its business, it could do precisely that. He
believed it_ was ._a better course of action, and staff and
Commissioner Cullen agreed if 'Council took the road spelled out by
the motion, and returned on November 12 and was not totally satis-
fied with what it had, Council would not have any more time.
C:,uncil really did not have the option of hoping the road worked,
and returning to the Planning Commission if it was unsuccessful.
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that
staff study creation of is combining zone district to apply to new
s<ilti-lot subdivisions, including the following potential
restrictions:
1. Reduced maximum building height to 27 feet;
2. Total interior side yard setbacks of 15 feet, with a mii nummaum
side yard setback of 6 feet;
3. Total front and rear setbacks of 50 with a minimum front or
rear setback of 20 feet;
4. Site coverage modifications to 46 percent for single story
structxres and/or site coverage limitations fore...
story construction equal to some proportion of lot size or
first story size; and
5. R, FAR of .4 w1thotat exemption for the garage.
Mr. Bennetti said the amendment was appropriate.
Mayor Levy asked whether staff could r°espord in the three-week
period.
Mr. Freeland asked for clarification. If the Council was making a
referral to the Planning Commission to initiate hearings on a. new
rezoning matter, it could not possibly return in a few weeks., If
Council's intention was to do both of those things, staff could
initiate the hearing having to do with the overlay zone, but it
could not return to Council in,.a few weeks. He asked if the
6 4 7 6
10/21/85
motion ' till envisioned working with the PA1fS0 on the other
mechanisms. Staff could report back on deed restrictions or other
mechanisms in three weeks.
Vice Mayor Cobb said Council should definitely go down the road to
see what could be done with the -PAUSD, particularly with the
language suggested by Mr. Bennetti about other mechanisms, but if
the process was the one Council would ultimately have to use,
i.e., the combining district, then according to Commissioner
Cullen and the planning staff, Council had to start the process
right then in order to achieve the same kind of time line results
the PAUSD wanted. He did not see the two were In conflict then,
but we's not convinced they would return on November 12, with some-
t;iing Council could, accept with the necessary teeth based on what
was said earl iert., The process would start to run, so the three or
two weeks was not germane. What was germane was if Council
started then, . they could finish by the end of the year, and then
if it was needed as a solution, it was available.
Mayor Levy clarified the original motion was that staff report
back to Council on November 12 the discussions with the PAUSD.
The amendment did not have the November 12 date attached, and- was
found on Page 4 of the staff report (CMR:552:5) that staff study
creation of a combining zone district to apply to new multi -lot
subdivisions, including the following potential restrictions: 1)
Wider sideyard setbacks; 2) Reduced site coverage for second
stories; 3) Reduced height; and 4) Possible application of FAR.
Mr. Schreiber clarified Mayor Levy's last comment, the reference
cited on Page 4 was to a Planning Commission recornmendetion devel-
oped September 11. The Commission then added considerebie preci-
sion to it on September 25, which wording was on the top of Page
5. !f Council referred sornethi ng back to the Commission, staff
strongly encouraged Council to be as precise as possible as to
what they wanted in the combining district, which was the way to
expedite the matter. The broad nature of asking somebody to study
something took more time.
Vice Mayor Cobb said he intended to include the edditional.materi-
al as pert of the amendment. He meant "Planning Commission recom-
mendation" in the broadest sense.
Mayor Levy clarified items 1-4 on Page 5 of the staff report
(CMK:552:5) were added to the amendment, to Study the following:
1) Reduced maximum buildiny height to 27 feet;;) Total interior
side yard setbacks of 15 feet, with a minimum side yard setback of
6 .feeti.3) Total front and rear setbacks of 50 with a minimum
front or rear setback of 20 feet; and 4) Site coverage modifica-
tions to 45 percent for single story strucures andfor side cover-
age limitations for second story construction equal to some pro-
portion of lot size or first story size.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked whether Council was talking about
subdivisions of five ,or more lots.
Mayor Levy said yes, they were talking about •multi -lot subdivi-
sions.
Councilmember Witherspoon clarified a multi -lot meant more than
five.
Mr. Schreiber clarified the Commission was to consider a combining
zone and the application to DeAnza and Ross Road sites.
Mayor _ Levy clarified the first item was the exploration with the
PAUSE related to Ross Road and DeAnea. The second item was the
combining zone district. Council .intended, if the combining dis-
trict was the way to ,4, that it be applied to Ross Road and
DeAnza.
6 4 7 7
10/21/85
Mr. Schreiber said if the motion passed in its present form, staff
would advertise a pudic hearing for the Commission as soon as
possible in November to consider both amendment to the zoning
ordinance to create a regulation, a combining district, and con-
sideration of an amendment to the Zoning Map for DeAnza and Ross
Road for the applications discussed in the first item.
Counci lmember Klein believed the amendment was consistent with the
main motion. He liked Mr. Knox' memorandum, it was thoughtful and
well done, and he wanted to see Counci 1 be able to tailor FARs to
a particular site on a lot by lot basis, which opportunity was
rarely before Council because of the need for more uniform regula-
tions applied across the board in the community. He was disturbed
by Mr. Bennetti's report to Council at the start of the meeting.
With good faith on all sides, he could not support something
legally unenforceable. He hoped either Mr. Knox' suggestion or
some other solution could be found so if Mr. Knox' proposal or
something similar`ewas the way to go, Council was assured it had
some teeth. He said with regard to both the numbers used in Mr.
Knox' proposal and the Planning Commission's numbers, i.e., maxi-
mum building height of 27 feet, etc., he did not feel committed to
any numbers because Council had not discussed those and he wanted
to hear more on the numbers before Council passed anything. Vice
Mayor Cobb's amendment to the main motion was necessary because
ultimately Council needed an ordinance and could not rely on
informal agreements. Presumably there were other multi -lot
developments in the future, either from the PAUSD or others, and
he was willing to work as fast as Council could so the PAUSO could
go forward with its proposal. If it turned out Mr. Knox' proposal
was not workable and something else occurred, he would regret not
being able to pass it in time for the PAUSO's marketing plans.
Council had to keep in mind it was a problem and the houses con-
structed on Ross Rodd and DeAnza were yoi g to be there much
longer than one year's budgetry concern. He believed Council's
primary ,,concern was to look at the long-term future of the
community and to do it right.
Council.member Renzel disagreed with the general premise the only
problem was on multi -lot subdivisions, and 'gas troubled by the
amendment and main motion. It we's a problem perceived only on
multi -lot subdivisions because people saw in those subdivisions
what their own neighborhoods could look like if fully built out.
She was concerned people bought their lots with certain expecta-
tions of expansion and some ow the City would not have families in
all those houses which for 60 years had families in them because
they could not expand. 'ene had trouble believing those arguments;
even the little bunyalows in Palo Altc once had families in them
and certainly people who paid a lot of money for houses in Palo
Alto now expected 800 square foot master bedroom suites, etc.
Some ..houses just barely had 800 square feet in which whole fami-
lies were raised. It was partly a matter of expectations. What
she saw happening was developers ran out of vacant lots. in Palo
Alto, and were going to size up where they saw a grossly under-
developed lot, buy it, build up into the maximum possible, and
sell it. One saw houses around for sale recently remodeled not by
owners, but by speculators and the City would see more of it, and
have more people complain about it. If Council did not deal with
the problem then, there would be 500 more people who would have
bought homes with expectations during the next year. They would
resist Council doing anything next year when the next group of
people complained. She favored something more on the lines of
what staff recommended although from l;he figures given Council,
the bulk of the buildings built at 0.4 after exempting the garages
suggested it should be 0.4 without the.. exemption. She did not
know to what extent Council should talk about things besides the
particular amendment, but hoped her colleagues would think about
the long -terra impacts. It also seemed Council was creating an
administrative nightmare for staff to have an overlay zone with
completelyd fferent requirements from the basic zone. There was
an R-1 zone and the bt'Eilding inspect{rs would have to say, "Yes,
6 4 7 8
10/21/85
this is R-1. You can do this and then, "Wait a minute. You've
got an overlay zone. You have a different height limit, a dif-
ferent setback, a different FAR." It was a nightmare for staff to
keep track of the few multi -lot subdivisions faced in the future
in Palo Alto. They were talking about a small amount of houses in
those multi -lot subdivisions, and few remaining places where the
particular problem would be seen, but the problem was just sympto-
matic of what would be see throughout all the neighborhoods and
Council ought to deal with it uniformly. It could have exemption
procedures for a variance procedure which allowed for hardship
cases, but to try to design something for the five -lot or more
subdivisions without considering the other problem, or the long-
term problems for staff was crazy, because they were trying to set
a zoning intended to control the initial building of a subdivlson
and did not speak to the future at all. If Council wanted to get
specific with respect to a new subdivision, then it ought to
require a PC zone where it could be specific, and leave the under-
lying R-1 standards intact. She believed Council was creating a
nightmare with the particular problem and not solving what she
perceived to be the long-term problem that would pervade every
single one of their neighborhoods. There were many basically
one-story neighborhoods in Palo Alto with an occasional second -
story addition. The City would see much more of it and not just
from homeowners wanting to expand, but from speculators because
there was no place to do it in Palo Alto, but in the neighbor-
hoods. She would vote against the amendment and the main motion.
Councilmember Fletcher agreed with Councifinember Renzel. She was
in a quandary whether to vote against the motion altogether. She
would propose a motion later dealing with non -school sites. She
believed the 0.45 FAR proposed for the school sites was ton gener-
ous since if the data was correct, the average FAR on Ortega and
Crescent Park was 0.44. Nothing was being gained -by going on the
premise they should start with a 0.45 for Ross Road and DeAnza.
On large properties it should be considered the parts of the lots
closest to the neighbors should get more restrictions.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved to add 5)
To consider allowing less density closest to neighboring existing
hoaxes
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Ceuncilmernber Bechtel said although she heard Mr. Bennetti's com-
ments concerning deed restriction, and shared the concerns of her
colleagues about wants ne to be sure the City had some control, she
wanted Council to explore the track of examining what other kinds
of restrictions it could put on those described by Mr. Knox which.
would, in fact, give the City more control with deed restrictions.
After listening to the arguments of Vice Mayor Cobb and Council -
member Klein she believed the dual -track way to go was worth pur-
su i ng. Her Initial concern was _maybe Council ought to get on and
make a decision, but it was possible Council might run . into road
blocks. Council could at least make the announcements and get the
legal notices goi ne Her only concern was Mr. Knox' arguments
were interesting, and with the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tions, the City might end up with more two-story homes than fewer
because the setbacks were greater thus forcing the homes most
likely to all go up, .which was Something she hoped would get fur-
ther exploretlon.
Councilmember Sutoriprs asked to be refreshed on the zoning of the
Ross Road and DeAnza Bites.
Loniny Administrator Bob Drown said the DeAnza School site on
Stockton was zoned R-1, and the Ross Road School site was zoned
R-1 743 which required a minimum 8,000 square foot ,let size.
6 4 7 9
10/21/85
Councilmember Sutori us wrestled with how to approach the motion
because it was difficult to support it as amended if doing so sug-
gested he was supporting some of the concepts involved in the
second track. He had difficulty contemplating lots of. hearings
s 1 S y! L S- L_ dealt
with
and rook -sees dt surne new eun my restrtct,ioirs which dea i t wrth
changing height on a multi -lot subdivision to 27 feet. For
example, he knew those were not the precise things to occur, but
were examples conveyed in the communication Council supplied to
the Planning Commission. Council was dealing with Option A on
Page 8 (of CMR:552:5) which was the complete wording and had the
items enumerated also referred to in the early pages. Little
oddities like, "Total sideyard setbacks on interior lots, with a
minimum sideyard setback of six feet." The fascinating thing was
Ross Road had an eight foot sideyard setback because of its
present zoning. He did not have the evidence to suggest there was
something about a multi -lot subdivision that should say owners of
those homes would be somehow different and not have the oppor-
tunity to have a peak height of 30 feet, which evolved over a
number of years and had some rationale associated with it, and
suddenly 27 feet was grabbed out from somewhere. He did not
understand why those lots were pulled out for a treatment dif-
ferent from R-1 lots according to whatever particular combining
district with which they were already associated. In the course
of the discussions at the Planning Commission, that evening, and
in the correspondence, he heard two types of concerns. Protection
from the abuse and intrusion of bad development next door, and to
protect the right to remodel Or add to a home and not put any
limits on it. Those concerns were expressed by the same people.
There had to be a compromise of reasonability. One could not have
both things and be fair and equitable. He would support the
motion because he believed the spirit of the PAUSD, what he heard
expressed by his colleagues, and the integrity of staff was such
that a truly honest, expeditious effort would be made- on the first
track. It could be profitable and resolve a thorny subject satis-
factorily, and he was confident it would have the input of the the
neighbors because it was a commitment on the part of the PAUSD.
In proceeding down the second parallel track, he did not look
forward to receiving a combining district which applied to multi -
lot subdivisions unless Council was ready to recognize and pre-
pared to deal with those things appropriate to apple on an R-1
basis City-wide.
Councilmember Witherspoon shared Councilmember Sutorius' concerns.
She did not believe Council wanted to create two kinds of residen-
tial lots in Palo Alto, those with restrictions and those without,
because the multi -lot subdivision was a temporary condition in the
long life of the City, and why should those people have restric-
tions others did not. She urged Councilmembers Fletcher and
Renzel to support the motion because Council needed to find a com-
bining district to be applied to the whole City rather than' just
the PAUSU, which precipitated the problem as a schedule. She pre-
ferred to go with the combining L. strict over the whole City
rather than tryto do the deed restriction, but Council could not
do either one until it gave staff the go ahead to explore. She
urged her colleagues to support the raotioa.
Mayor Levy said there were many different things before Council
that evening and he associated himself with the comments made by
Councilmember Renzel and endorsed by several other CouncilMembers.
He believed Councilmember Renzel was correct, the envelope for
every 1 of . in town Was i:; danger of being filled to whatever the
City ai l owed. It was not the immediate problem before Council,
which was, in many ways, Ross Road and DeAnza because they would
be built all at once and fully. Over the next several years there.
would be many houses in Palo Alto which ,could be remodeled to
essehti al l y the same: size they just saw built at Crescent Park and
Ortega. Eventually, Council had to get to ,the question of what to
allow on lots all osier town, which : was one general issue. The
PAUSDes ideas and presentation to Council regardieg Ross Road and
DeAnza were good and generous. He agreed with the and hoped
6 4 8 0
10/21/85
Council could find a way to administer and enforce them properly.
In terms of the motion and amendment before Council, he shared
Counci l member Sutor i us' and others' concern with the four -spe-
cifics found on page 5 (CMR:552; 5) a They seemed to be redundant
because page 4 began. with the recommendation to include a study of
wider sideyard setbacks, reduced site coverage for second stories,
reduced height, and possible application of FAR. Then, -on to page
5, it was more specific regarding those elements. He asked about
the legal --element of page 5 in the motion before Council.
Mr. Freeland said it narrowed the scope of what would be con-
sidered and returned in the form of an ordinance. Again, it
related to the time and effort which went into development of the
ordinance. The charge was meant to be broad, to look at all pos-
sibilities of side -yards and setbacks, etc., it would be a slower
process to return an ordinance for adoption.
Mayor Levy clarified if wider sideyard setbacks wereto be one of
the elements, then specifically the wider setbacks would be a
total of 15 feet, minimum of 6 feet.
Mr. Freeland said staff intended to start with that as the basis
for the ordinance drafted for the Planning Commission. During the
course of the hearings, the Commission might decide it wanted
something else, but that was a different matter than to prepare a
report which explored all reasonable possibilities for sideyards.
It was a question of focus and narrowing down the scope of
activity.
Mayor Levy believed Council should have as an objective allowing
the maximum flexibility for each homeowner in the design of their
home, which was why he gravitated to the FAR as the sole element
to 1 ii}it. If the FAR was limited, then the bulk of the home was
limited. In limiting the bulk of the home, each homeowner should
be allowed the flexibility to place setbacks as desired within the
envelope presently required. Obviously, if homeowners built up
part of their house to 30 feet, its meant other parts of the house
had to be that much lower in order to be contained within the
total FAR. If that was his going in position, he asked where he
was when he approved an amendment to explore all of those ele-
ments. Was Council still free at that point to say it just wanted
to address the FAR, and was he safe in supporting the amendment
with that point of view.
Mr. Freeland said the FAR did not appear in the more specific
list, If Council desired staff to write the Public Hearing
notices so Council's options were not cut off, it could be done.
He clarified staff intended to draft an ordinance and a report to
address the specifics listed; that was, the 15 -foot total side -
yards, etc., unless staff heard differently from Council.
AMENDMENT TO AMENOM€k : Comncilree.ber Reezel rowed, seconded by
Fletcher, to add 5) A FAR of 0.4 witaout exemption~ for the
garage.
Councilmereber Renee] believed the reason staff was . reluctant to
not exempt garages was because they were concerned people would
build only single car garages. Council saw exarp?;es of yarieus
houses with their FARs and, by and large, the worse offenders were
about 0.43 without counting the double garage, about 0.48 in abso-
lute numbers. Some of them were at 0.38, close to being 0.4 with-
out counting .the garage. The examples of the houses she saw which
reached those limits were about as much as she wanted to see.
They were big enough for people to raise families in, especially
families with 1,6 members pet household, which was what Palo Alto
had. =_, There were exceptions where there were two adults and two
childreei, but there were many houses with few people. If Council
intended to control bulk, the garage was part of the bulk. In the
price level of houses talked about, people were not going to skimp
6 4 8 1
10/21/85
on a second garage. They were required to put one in. There was
no requirement in _ the City for people to use their garages and
many people did not. To make an exemption to the FAR which con-
trolled the bulk based on concern About whether people would build
the second garage was not a serious concern. She moved the 0.4
without the exemption for the garage because it was a generous FAR
which took the City to the limits, and probably beyond what she
was willing to accept. From a political point of view it was
probably as reasonable as they could expect.
Vice Mayor Cobb reiterated he did nowt particularly like the floor
area ratio approach, but was willing to include it as part of the
amendment because it gave the Planning Commission a specific`e
starting point. It did not mean Council ended with any particular
number it started with, so it gave the Planning Commission some-
thine to begin with. He would include it in the amendment so the
process could go forward.
MAKER AND SECOND OF AMENDMENT AGREED TO INCORPORATE '5) A FAR OF
0.4 WITHOUT EXEMPTION, FOR THE GARAGE" AS PART OF THE MAIN AMEND-
MENT
Councilmember Woolley appreciated the discussion of clarification
because she also believed the FAR was the better way to yo at
present. She was always concerned Council gave architects the
largest possible envelope, and it was fine to limit the size
within the envelope. Unless staff showed some studies to the
contrary, she believed the FAR was preferable to changing the
sideyard setbacks, the front and rear setbacks, or the height.
With the addition te the amendment, it was a clear possibility for
staff study. She supported the amendrneet.
Councilmember Klein reemphasized what Vice Mayor Cobb said. It
was premature to discuss whether a sideyard setback of 15 feet,
etc. was correct. As stated earlier, he was not committed to any
numbers. Council needed a starting point, something for the
Planninj Commission to get its teeth in'o, which was what Council
was doing. When the Planning Commission returned, it would be the
appropriate time to wrestle with and decide upon the details. All
Council was doing was setting the table, in effect, and later they
could enjoy the banquet. It was premature, but he commented both
Couneilmembers Sutorius and Witherspoon expressed concern at
having something which applied to existing lots as well and not
wanting to distinguish between new development and already exist-
ing ones. He was not as concerned and believed it could be justi-
fied primarily as the City did many times before~ They all knew
historically 50 -foot lots were acceptable in the`City, and long
before the time of anybody on the Council, the City switched to 60
foot lots. Staff could come up with many examples to the same
effect. Therefore, a variety of different rules applied to lots
throughout the community depending on when they were first devel-
oped® Over time the conditions changed:: The fact that people
rai se'i children in a 800 square foot house, a 1,100 square foot
:reuse was nice, but was not where the world was in 1985 and not
what people wanted .in their community.
Councilmember Renzel said Councilmember Sutorius asked if Council
was foreclosed from applying any of the standards City-wide if it
turned out to be a more appropriate mechanism. The motion only
talked about multi -lot sutdivis'-" .. If Council made the referral
and ignored the issue of the City-iti de problem, ehe asked where
they would be in three weeks, or whenever the studies returned as.
far as being able to act expeditiously if Council decided it
wanted to do something City-wide as an alternative to an overlay
zone.
Mr. Freeland said Cousici l would have an overlay zone in front of
them, and could always initiate additional proceedings to take the
conclusions and put them into a City-wide zone, but all Ccuncil would have in front of them would be an overlay zone
•
6 4 8 2
10/21/85
Counc. i memher Renzel -clarified in terms of timing, it would have
to he referred back t. the Planning Commission for .an opinion with
respect to the - rest of the City, which was more or less already
rendered.
Mr. Freeland said that was correct. Council could legally takd
action that night on the whole issue if it was ready, but the
hearing process would be concluded that evening. If no action was
taken, he believed it would take a new public hearing later, going
through the Planning Commission and City Council, to do the City-
wide consideration.
Councilmember Renzel said it seemed like everyone was bogged down
with concerns about the PAUSD being able to market its land and
forgetting the bigger picture i;i Palo Alto. It seemed as if staff
was being put through some sort of an exercise where Council might
create some sort ,of super zone which went over five -lot or more
subdivisions of which the City was apt to have four or five more
in the entire future of the City. It did not make sense to her to
follow a pattern which ignored the real problem where Council
should have some ability to ensure its neighborhoods did not get
too drastic a change from their expectations. One problem was the
change from the old three-foot extra setback for the second story
to a daylight plane. Then, the daylight plane was raised and a
lot was done in response to specific cases because there were four
variance requests in one year. Council created the problem and
expectations, and while times changes, Councilmember Klein's
example of the 50l -foot wide versus 60 -foot wide lots in the sub-
division process was a one time event and those lots were legal,
which was somewhat atifferent than the 'City's zoning ordinance
commitments which were ongoing and had continual action with
respect to them. Once a subdivision was made, it sat there, but
the zoning ordinance had things happen all the time for changes to
structures built-under-the\ ordinance, particularly in neighbor-
hoods built with the smaller lots. They- were not built to accom-
modate 1980's yuppie houses, but rather moderate sized homes.
Council needed to recognize people who proved into those neighbor-
hoods had a certain expectation as to how the neighborhood would
continue to be. Some of the places which went in around town were
objectionable from anyone's standpoint. While everyone had to
accept some ch ,ye, some of the things were complete impositions
on the neighbor She would not support the motion since it did
not seem to lead toward a resolution of what she ,perceived to be
the bigger problem than just the subdivision of school sites and
the PAUSD's immediate marketing problem.
Mayor Levy concurred Council needed to address the whole problem,
and was sensitive to the PAUSO's timing needs. He did not believe
the reasons given to not apply :he changes to existing homes City-
wide wore valid. The only reason given was people who lived in
their existing homes bough: them with the expectation they would
be able to expand the to - the existing envelope. He believed
Council had as much a right to change the envelope as it did to
change the commercial envelope. If it restricted individual home-
owners too ouch, and he did not believe council was t.' king about
huge numbers of homeowners, then those homeowners would have to
look to ehanye their house rather than to expand it.
Councilmember Fletcher understood Council was dealing with school
sites for the first motion, and was prepared to make another
motion to deal with other pares of the City.
Councilmember Bechtel understood the Planning Commission-recom-
rnendation was only.. the specifics. She clarified Vice Mayor Cobb's
amendment has only to do with those specifics, not with the more
vague part which was the earlier motion before clarification.
Vice Mayor Cobb said that was Correct,
6 4 8 3
10/21/85
Mayor Levywas concerned Council tied itself into specifics, and
all ayreed it was not the way to g � clarification
4 �.,. � u `J O �i c for 1-
why it was necessary for Council to tie itself into specifics.
Mr. Freeland said s';aff attempted to deal with the most expedi-
tious process in order to get regulations in place as opposed to
the most elaborate process. If Council was not committed to the
numbers and wanted the matter considered in its broadest possible
context, it implied a larger, slower study. The point of nar-
rowing it down to specifics was the Commission already gave the
matter considerable study; provided its best advice to the Council
at that point, and it represented ,regulations which supposedly
could be dealt with in an efficient manner, but it sacrificed
breadth of coverage for specific focused action in a faster time
frame.
Commissioner Cullen added far from tailoring the Commission's
recommendation to the desires of the PAUSD, it attempted to tailor
the regulations so the new school developments would fit into an
overall desired multi -lot subdivision plan.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting 'no.'
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting 'no."
Councilmember Fletcher wanted to address the issue of floor area
ratio for sinyle-family homes throughout the City. She believed
there was a problem, and instead of waiting for the problem to
develop to crisis proportions and residents requesting a mora-
torium, Council should deal with the issue before it got to that
stage. Additions should be included in any floor area ratio limi-
tations, and since the FAR was not a perfect mechanism and there
could be locations where a larder FAR was appropriate, there was
still the option of a variance. where if the larger structure would
not fit into the neighborhood, there was a way out.
MOTION: Counci1member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that
Council 1 direct staff to prepare an ordinance for Council adoption
to establish a floor area ratio limitation for single-family
dwellings which would include all single-family construction
including additions. The floor area ratio limitation should be:
1. Establish a maximum FAR of 0.6 to I;
2. Exempt from calculation of gross floor area (a) parking areas
located at or above natural grade to a total of 400 square
feet; (b) attic areas deemed not habitable under Chapter 16.04
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; (c) basement areas located
below grade; and (d) any accessory bvildings loving a total
floor area of no more than 120 square feet; and
3. Adopt a grandfather clause which will permit existing resi-
dences to develop to above the allowable floor area ratio to
reconstruct to their existing square footage if destroyed or
damaged.
Counc i l member Fletcher pointed out a FAR of 0.4 to 1 was a gener-
ous, large structure, and she did not believe it was unreason-
able,
Councilmember Renzel said she had two amendments to propose. One
would deal with parking areas because she did not believe they
should be exempted. They were part of the bulk of a buildino, and
if the .parking was underground, the building would still only be
0.4 above ground, which Gras what Council was concerned about,
AMENDMENT: Couec l Imeeber Renee) moved to delete the exemption
for silvered pawing
AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
6 .4 8 4
10/21/85
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved to ascend the -first sen-
tence of the within to add -.after "floor ere; limitation for
single-family dwellings,a • texcep for areas which are not subject
to an overlay zone whic Would prevail."
Mr. Schrei Der said the. basic concept was where there were two
- regulations on the same property, the most restrictive would
apply.
Councilmember Renzel said if one had a 0.4 _ FAR and the other had a
0.45 FAR but a 27 -foot height limit, it might be hard to determine
which was more restrictive, She was attempting to suggest where
an overlay zone was applied in the particular 1° tance, it would
prevai 1 . She asked if that could be done.
Mr. Bennetti said it could be done, and wanted to clarify the
overlay zone should prevail.
Councilmember Renzel'said a majority of the Council was interested
in working out some sort of overlay zone for the new multi -lot
subdivisions in which case Council still needed to deal with
indl`vidual properties. She preferred to see Council do it that
evening while they had the hearing and were an appropriate mode to
do so without going back through the entire process ayain.
AMENDMENT REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
EXCEPT WHERE AN OVERLAY ZONE APPLIED INCORPORATED INTO MAINZ
MOTION
Councilmember Woolley believed Commissioner Cullen began her
remarks that evening by saying the Planning Commission considered
such action which would affect all single-family homes within the
City as the most drastic action ever undertaken by the Planning
Commission, The .Planning Commission held four hearings and did
not make the recommendation. Council did not hear from many
people that evening who just simply represented homes City-wide,
Almost every speaker was a neighbor of the Ross Road school site,
a member of the Civic League, and a couple of people who wanted to
put additions on their own homes,: She did not believe Council
heard from a wide representation of'� single-family owners within
the City. She would not support the motion because she did not
believe it was the kind of action Council could undertake with
such a small amount of discussion,
Councilmember Sutorius said Councilmember Woolley expressed his
views, 1iere were things to be done with respect to additions to
existing construction, and Roger Kohler offered some concepts
which also had some value to be reviewed. As Council dealt with
the subject of remodels and additions, it dealt with the combina-
tion of the physical structure being there already and how it
conformed with the zone, but it also dealt with existing zoning
regulations and what could be done with respect to an addition.
Council had not discussed it, There were stipulations in the
existing zoning, and Council saw some cases where., there were some
nuances involved. Council shook its head at the time as if to say
it was a shame the most logical type of design consideration was
precluded by the zoning which related to additions, which was the
continuous wall on the second story , subject. It was not the time
or place to stipulate that _ type of .limitation.
Vice Mayor Cobb would not support the motion. He believed there
was little evidence: presented, that indicated the traditional
methods had not worked with respect to such things as remodeling
He was not convinced there was a problem which needed, the type of
draconian steps suggested. It was a sweeping ordinance and he
agreed with the Planning Commission's comments in that -respect.
He noted some arcnitects: he respected, including Mr. Carter,
indicated the tepee' of problems the approach would have with
respect to eel houses, and he leaned on people like Commissioner
Northway, Mr. Carter, and others like them who said it was not
necessary a good road for the City to go down.
6 4 8 5
10.(21/85
Councilmember Klein associated himself with- the remarks of
Councilmcmbers Woolley, .SuterJus, and Cobb.
Counci member Bechtel agreed with the previous speakers. Council
received letters criticizing recent devel npmer:ts , and she men-
tioned the 600 block of Tennyson. The only large house on the
block was one which received variances from the City Council to
meet daylight reyulations. In terms of new houses, there was one
owner -designed new house in her neighborhood under construction
and eight speculator -type remodels, and not one of the remodel s
was large or objectionable. The owner -designed one was one of the
laryest. She believed Council was restricting families. The land
was valuable, people needed homes, and she did not believe there
should be unreaso1rable restrictions. Good zoning regulations were
i n place.
Counc i l member Renzel heard several of her colleagues speak to the
fact there were problems with the current zoning parameters, and
yet if Council did not act on the motion, the issue was dead until
it was referred to staff or the Planning Commission to do some-
thing about the zoning parameters. She hoped those Councilor embers
not supporting the motion who believed something needed to be done
would support such a referral. When she was on the Planning
Commission and zoning parameters were being set, most particularly
the daylight plane, it was the architects who said to provide
flexibility and an envelope so they could be creati'.e. The gener-
ous envelope was there and the creativity meant building out to
the envelope. Now the architects did riot want a floor area ratio
because it limited their creativity. It seemed to her the floor
area ratio was a solution which allowed the earlier parameters
which allowed creativity as to the location of improvements and
the size of them in terms of the setbacks and height limits were
concerns, and gave the final dimension which was the limits the
City was willing to yo within those parameters. She believed it
was a reasonable kind of parameter and not draconian at all. As
to Councilmember Bechtel's mention of the price of land and the
expectations people had, the price of Pal's1 Alto's single-family
lots and small homes families could afford would be driven up by
people rsho wanted to expand those homes to resell therm Clearly,
if Council set parameters to also limit peoples' expectations when
they purchased the sites, it would, keep the market more in the
reach of''youny families,..
Mayor Levy supported the motion because if Council did not support
it, it acted in art illogical manner. Council did not like or
approve of what it saw at the Crescent Park and Ortega school
sites, and it should not be allowed to happen. As a matter of
fact, if Council allowed it to happen piecemeal, it was almost
more unfair because ie meant the homeowner . who waited to enlarge
their house would then be surrounded by bigger houses because of
people acting first having the advantage. The motion before the
Council allowed houses On 6,000 square foot lots that were 2000
square feet total. i ncl ud i gig the garage. He related it to 'his
house which had four and one-half bedrooms and was 2,000 square
feet, The 2,800 square foot house _would be 40 percent bigger and
would be a good size house. If someone needed a, larger house,
they might need a larger lot than the minimum lot in Palo Alto.
He did not believe the original- parameters and envelopes set up
-were designed to really accept the huge houses now economically
poss i 6 l a lo town.
NOTION FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Renzel, Fletcher, Witherspoon,
Levy voting "aye."
NOTION TO REFER: Cordncileeeaber Renzel moved, seconded by
Fletcher, to refer to thre Planning Commission a study of the
City's R-1 Zoning parameters to det :melon whether _ any weeded:: to be
modified in order to encore too massive development wi tkl n . the R-1
6 4 8 6
10/21/85
Councilmember Fletcher believed the motion was in o0der because
there were newly constructed homes and additinns totally o_;r of
keeping with the neighborhoods. Council would see more and more
of them and should plan ahead.
Councilmember Bechtel said as part c,f the staff report, Council
received a list of all items referred to the Planning staff and
Planning Commission. ft went on for several years, and she asked
when the R -1 zones might reasonably be expected to be reviewed by
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Schreiber said at least two years unless Council wished to
rearrange the priorities and reduce staff involvement on one of
the high priority items.
Councilmember Bechtel wanted to let Council get on with the first
part of what it was doing and not add'.the suggestion yet. When
Council could be more specific, it could be added later.
Councilmember Klein would not support the motion. -It seemed to be
the twig of the one just defeated. He did not perceive the prob-
lem to the degree of the proponents of the measure. Council took
an appropriate action with the problem which was there in terms of
the surplus school sites, and he believed Council was on track
with it. To go beyond it was unnecessary at that time. The
Planning staff was already loaded down with an incredible amount
of studies, which he believed had far greater priority than the
idea of creating a study where Council would not hear back from
staff for at least two years.
Councilmember Renzel believed in two years, if Council had not put
the matter in line, many Councilmembers would regret not having
supported something then bec ruse there would-be many angry people
and it would be too late to help them with their `,.problems as it
was for a number of people al reedy. It was appalling to her to
have Counc-ilmembers say it was too specific, and now it was too
general. Somehow nothing world be done because Council knew it
was tackling every citizen in town's rights to do something with
their house. Everyone's right to uo something with their house
was also sometimes their right to impose a problem on their neigh-
bor. It was not up to them to have to say they did not like what
their neighbor did. It was up to the Council to receive the prob-
lem and try and intercept it before it became widespread.
Mayor Levy said perhaps the fact the Planning Commission =•oald not
return with the matter for two years was a good thing. Council
was sitting there trying to anticipate a problem, and if the prob-
lem did not make itself sufficiently manifested in two years, then
clearly Council was wrong. He had a feeling two years would indi-
cate it was something that would happen widespread in Palo Alto.
Councilmember Bechtel said if Council had a priority, it could
always be rearrar red. It was done in the past so if in two years
Council said it was absolutely urgent and put it to the front of
the pack, it was fine. She did not believe it should be put on
the list in the pack at that .point.
Councilmember Sutoriuswould not support themotion, but believeJ
the points made were valid. He was not prepared to add such a
broad task to the bottom ` of a long list, and hoped he would be in
a position to return with a more - specific proposal that could be
actionable in an Oarlier time framethanthe current motion would
apparently be. His negative vote against the motion lea=s not an
indication that he failed to perceive there were some problems
which existed today and would continue to occur, and there were
ways of addressing it.
NOTION FAILED by a vote . of 4-5,. Fletcher, Keezel , Levy,
Witherspoon voting "bye.'
6 4 8 7
10/21/85
MOTION! Council'etr'ber Bechtel moved, zeconded by Fletcher, _ that
staff be directed to prepare an ordinance for planning Ccmeission
and Council adoption, xhich would limit development potential for
new home construction ov substandard lots (defined as lots with
lot width or depth, and area, below 83 percent of zoning stan-
dards) to 35 percent lir coverage, single story construction, to a
maximum h'ight of 20 feet without benefit of a variance.
Councilmember Woolley asked why staff decided to limit the recom-
mendation to new home construction rather than including
remodels.
Zoning Administrator Bob, Brown said essentially to avoid the con-
troversy which occurred in the previous discussions as to whether
to include additions as well new home construction. It seemed to
be the most consistent recommendation with the past City Council
actions on substandard lots.
Councilmember Woolley observed in the City a substantial number of
remodels were achieved by almost demolishing the original house.
She believed remodels were even more of a problem than new con-
struction because most lots were already build upon. She was not
sure what to ;do, but was not happy with the motion on the floor.
Mayor Levy said staff's recommendation was to limit the substan-
dard lot development to one story construction to a ,maximum height
of 20 feet. If it was limited to a maximum height of 20 feet, he
asked what difference it made if it was one story or several.
Mr. Brown said it would eliminate the potential for construction
of a single story plus a loft, the loft having windows which might
be located above what would normally be considered to be a first
story window level.
Mayor Levy said regardless of the size of the lot, they would
still hold to the standard setbacks so that whether it was a sub-
standard lot or a regular sized lot, the location of the house
would still be the minimum distance from its neighbors.
Mr. Brown said yes without a variance.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the
motion would apply to all substandard lots and not merely to new
development.
Mayor Levy said Councilmember Woolley's point was well taken, and
it would be an invitation for the .kind_ of development suggested by
Councilmember Woolley.
Councilmember Renzel said if someone remodeled an existing struc-
ture on a substandard lot and all they did was rebuild what was
tnere a little more solidly, she clarified they could build every-
thing there. She clarified the building currently complied with
the zoning, but was on a substandard lot.
Mr. Freeland said new construction would have to conform to the
new regulations unless there was a grandfather clause.
AMENDMENT PASSED by. a vote of 8-1, Itechv el voting "no."
AMENDMENT: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to delete
the item relste4 to single story construction so the maximum
height of 20 feet would still apply, but if within 20 feet, indi-
viduals wanted to build on a second story, it could be done.
Councilmember Bechtel said it seemed one of the reasons for having
the: ordinance was to protect the adjoining neighbors from the view
of the substandard lot .with a house overlooking, which was why
they wanted to preclude the second floor. She did not believe the
amendment was a good way to go about it.
6 4 8 8
10/21/85
Mayor Levy said he suggested it was appropriate because regardless
of whether the lot was substandard, the setbacks would still apply
so the house on the substandard house would .be as far away from
its neighbor as the house on the standard lot.
Councilmember 5utor i gas said if he understood the amendment, an
amendment was already passed which said it applied to all con-
struction on substandard lots. 'Therefore, it might not neces-
sarily be the separations were the exieiting setbacks because if
there was a substandard lot and a home which now had a setback
less than the zoning requirement, the \second motion would. mean one
could in fact have a two story building which was only two and
one-half or three feet away from the adjacent property. The logic
about not being able to look down on it was not holding cor-
rectly. He believed there was a risk in the amendment. Nothing
in the motions made so far and nothing in the staff recommendation
precluded the opportunity to apply for a variance. He encouraged
his colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Councilmember Renzel said in R-1 zones she believed the 30 -foot
height limit was measured to /che peak of the roof, and in all of
the other measurements of roof height, it was to the average
height of the highest gable. She asked what the amendment was.
Mr. brown said it would be made to peak.
Councilmember Renzel suggested it be stated explicitly because in
all other references to height except R-1 zones, it was the
average height.
COU? CILMEMBERS BECHTEL AND FLETCHER AGREED TO INCLUDE THE HEIGHT
LIMIT OF 20 FEET BE TO THE PEAK OF THE ROOF
Mayor Levy assumed if it applied to an R-1 zone, and R-1 zones
were to the peak, it did not have to be specifically stated.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Levy, Witherspoon voting
*aye."
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #7, PUBLIC HEARING: URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (UTI 7)
(CMR:567:5)
Mayor Levy declared the public hearing open. Receiving no
requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing
closed.
MOTION: Coencilme.ber Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval of the resolution.
RESOLUTION 6438 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
O ALTO ADOPTING AN URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR THE CITY CF PALO ALTO"
Councilmember Renzel stated that while she would support the plan
as presented,_ there might be specific elements she would not agree
with and would vote against as they went before the COun i l . She
did .not want to. ;-see Palo Alto be another Los Angeles Water, Power
and Light draining the lakes of the Sierras.
MOTION PASSED rheni arsly.
ITEM 08 1985-88 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAID FOR THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK CRA T PROGRAM: (PLA -3) (Ci1 :6'b S)
Director of Planning and Community, Environment Ken Schreiber
introduced Planning Administrator Toby Kramer, whose primarily
responsibilities were the Community Development Block Grant
Program and some of the related housing efforts. She would also
serve as a liaison staff to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation.
6 4 8 9
10/21/85
MOTION; Ccunci l member Klein moved, seconded _ by Cobb, to autho-
rize staff to submit the 1981-08 Housing Assistance Plan to the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 1 1 :35
ATTEST:
p.rn.
APPROVED:
6 4 9 0
10/21/85