Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-09 City Council Summary Minutesf CITY COUMCIL M1NUTEs Regular Meeting December 9, 1985 CITY OF MO ALTO ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 6 6 3 0 Consent Calendar 6 6 3 0 Referral 6 6 3 0 Action 6 6 3 0 Item #1, Uniform Rental and Laundry Service 6 6 3 0 Item #2, Catch Basin Hood Replacement Program 6 6 3 0 Item #3, sanitary Sewer Collection System 6 6 3 0 Rehabilitation Project Item #4, Construction Inspection Services for 6 6 3 0 Sanitary Sewer Collection System - Rehabilitation Project Item #5, Final Subdivision Map - 1100 Welch Road Item #6, Ordinance re 3530 Ross Road (2nd Reading) 6 6 3 1 6 6 3 1 Item #7, Ordinance re 3120 Stockton Place (2nd 6 6 3 1 Reading) Item #8, Ordinance re 301 Cambridge Avenue (2nd 6 6 3 1 Reading) Item #9, Ordinance re Overnight Parking (2nd 6 6 3 1 Reading) Item #10, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission 6 b 3 1 recommendation re Zoning Ordinance Amendments to create R-1(SUB) Combining District Item #11, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission 6 6 3 1 recommendation re application of City of Palo Alto for zone changes to 3530 Ross Road ,and 3120 Stockton Place Item #12, Finance and Public Works Committee recommendation re 1986-8; Budget Guidelines Item #13, Request .from Barron Park Association for a letter from Council endorsing their application for a grant to investigate flood warning system Vice Mayor Cobb re Items #I0 and #11 Adjournment: 9:30 p.m. • 6 6 4 4 6 6 4 4 6 6 4 4 6 6 4 5 6 6 2 9 12/09/85 Reg;,l ar Meeting December 9, 1985 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley (arrived at 7:35 p.m.) Fletcher, Levy, Renzel ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None in the CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Counci lmember Sutori us moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Consent Calendar. referral None Action ITEM 01, UNIFORM RENTAL AND LAUNDRY SERVICE (FIN 9-1) (CMR:634:5) Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute a three- year contract with Aratex Services, Inc. in the amount of $146,320.20. AGREEMENT Aratex/Red Star Services, Inc. ITEM #2, CATCH BASIN HOOD REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (UTI 5) (CMR:629:5) Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with R. H. Wehner Corporation in the amount of $141,120; and, authorize staff to execute change orders of up to $21,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT R. H. Wehner Corporation ITEM #3, SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM REHABILITATION PROJECT U Staff recommends Council:. 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with L. J. Duarte, Inc,, in the amount of $211,100 for construction of Sanitary Sewer Collection System - Rehabilitation Project Basin B07 Contract "A"; 2. Authorize stiff to execute change orders to the construction contract of up to a total of $30,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT L. J. Duarte, Iac. ITEM #4. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICES FOK SANITARY SEWER CfLl,tCTI N SYSTEM - #EHARJLITATIAN PROJECT (U1I 6) (CMR:633:5) Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the con- tract with F. G, Luscher in the amount of $20,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT F. 6. Luscher 6 6 3 0 12/09/85 ITEM u ; , FINAL SUUD I V I S I UN HAP - 110o WELCH ROAD) ( PLA 3-1) (CMR:612:5) Staff recommends Council approve the final map. ITEM #6, ORDINANCE RE 3530 ROSS ROAD (2nd Reading) (PLA 3-1) ORDINANCE 3653 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 PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3530 ROSS ROAD (FORMER ROSS ROAD SCHOOL SITE' FROM R-2 TO R-1 (743) AND FROM R-1(143) TO R-2' (1st Reading 11/25/85, PASSED 9-0) ITEM #7, ORDINANCE RE 3120 STOCKTON PLAL.E (2nd Reading) (PLA 3-1) ORDINANCE 3654 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE rITY—OTTATIFKLTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3120 STOCKTON PLACE (FORMER DeANZA SCHOOL SITE) FROM R-2 TO R-1 AND FROM R-1 TO R-2' (1st Reading 11/25/85, PASSED 9-0) ITEM #8, ORDINANCE RE 301 -CAMBRIDGE (2nd Reading) (PLA 3-1) ORDINANCE 3655 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 KNOW% AS 301 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE FROM PF TO CC -2° (1st Reading 11/25/85, PASSED 9-0) ITEM #9, ORDINANCE RE OVERNIGHT PARKING (2nd Reading) (PLA 4.5) ORDINANCE 3656 entitled 'ORD I NAWCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE i ' OLTo AMENDING SECTION 10.44.020 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT STANDING OR PARKING OF CERTAIN COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN R-1 ZONES BETWEEN THE HOURS OF TWO A.M. AND SIX A.M.' (1st Reading 11/25/85, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Levy, Renzel, Woolley absent. VICE MAYOR COBB RE ITEMS #1(i PUBLIC HEARING RE CREATION OF AN R-1 lSUR) CO1r10:MING DisTurcr;--mr-rm---Risin HEARING %E FOir1BINING DISTRICT POR PROPERTIES LOCAfitD AT 3530 ROSS ROAD AND 3120 STOCKTON Vice Mayor Cobb suggested the public hearings and discussion fur Items #1O and #11 be combined, but the votes would be separate. MOTION: Counc i l masber•• Klein moved, seconded Woolley, to combine the' public hearings for Items #10, Creation of an R-1(SUB) Combining district, and #11. Combining District for properties located at 3530 Ross Road and 3120 Stockton. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Levy, Renrel absent. ITEM 110 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE TUNING OIDIMANCE AMENDMENTS —T K1ATf. AN . R-1 SUB COM8I_ NT trITITITT—TDI DEV 10PNENT OF tTNGL! FAMIL R D _ gOLTI-LOT $UBDIVIS101S (PLA 3-1) (CMR:631:S) ITEM 011 PEIBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE N E R0'ERTY LOCATED A' 3o 0 oc4:537:5) L 6 6 3 1 12/09/85 Councilmember Klein asked staff .o clarify how Council should handle the 400 square feet allocated to the garage, and about the average square footage for a two -car garage. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said the average square footage for a small two -car garage was about 400 square feet. Councilmember Klein asked what size cars they were talking about. Mr. Brown said it was somewhat below the zoning ordinance require- ments of 8-1/2 feet by 18 feet, which allowed 10 feet by 20 feet per car. Councilmember Klein asked for further clarification. Mr. Brown said the garage could be 17 feet by 18 feet which met the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Councllinember Klein said it was about 350 square feet. Mr. Brown said that was correct, although people normally built at least a 400 square foot garage to allow for storage and more man- euverabilty of automobiles. Councilmember Sutorius questioned the garage situation. When the question of including or exempting a 400 square foot allotment for a two -car ,,garage was under consideration, there was specific reference in some of the discussion for a grade level garage. He saw no reference in the staff report, and asked whether staff had a particular opinion or intent regarding the exemption. Mr. Brown saiu the item was not included in the final staff report. In early discussions with the Planning Commission, it was not an area upon which the Commission focused. There was an out- standing staff assignment to address underground garages. Councilmember Sutorius referred to the current proposal , and asked whether the FAR with a 400 square foot exemption applied regard- less of how the garage might be configured. Mr. Brown said no. The 400 square feet was only for an at -grade garage. There was no exemption for any square footage below grade. Councilmember Sutorius said there was no indication in the. record or materials before Council of any proposed change in site cov- erage. He asked how the 400 feet for the two -car garage allowance would be figured in because it only.. referenced FAR, not changing the site coverage. Mr. Brown said Councilmember Sutor i us was correct. The exemption on;y applied to computation of gross floor area for determination of FAR. There was no exemption given for site coverage. Councilmember Sutorius was interested in a "sunset" clause, and invited public comment. The combining district and overlay exist- ing R-1 zoning had a sunset clause effective with the passage of the ordinance and remained in effect. The period. of time could be dr•scussed as appropriate, but might be five or ten years. The purpose was to recognize the chief impacts of school site develop- ment where sites were cleared, but generally had no mature land- scaping. The lots were subdivided, and homes were built soreti_ refs to the maximum of the zoning. The physical ` appearance was a big change for the neighborhood, and it was the kind of situation where with mature landscaping and the resultant softening, it seemed inequitable for more severe restrictions to apply to what the new homeowners might do with their property than what "their neighbors in the immediate area were able to do. The purpose of the sunset clause would cause the zoning to revert to the normal zoning for the particular. locale. 6 6 3 2 12/09/85 Coueci !member Woolley said neither the staff report nor the Plan- ning Commission minutes discussed the effect on the R-2 lots, and - she asked if it was because the ordinance only applied to the R -1 - properties. Mr. Brown said yes. It was an R-1 Combining District so would not legally apply to R-2 lots. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said R-2 lots were intended to be rezoned to the planned community dis- trict for below -market -rate (BMR) duplexes. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) would process those applications and they expressed concern about the 1,000 square foot second story limit. If it applied from a policy sense to the R-2 lots, the PAHC believed it might be a major design restriction on their ability to provide a three -bedroom house. He believed the PAHC would seek guidance from Council that evening for the BMR duplexes as to whether Council wanted to see the planned community zone also restricted to 1,000 square feet, or whether it was receptive to considering a structure with a larger second story for the planned community zone. Councilmember Klein said if Council passed the recommendation, it did nothing with regard to the R-2 zone. While Council expected it would turn into a PC, he asked eif it was .rnrrect that normally the PC followed the previous zone. Mr. Schreiber said net necessarily. Councilmember Klein said they were usually not more restrictive on a PC than on an underlying zone. Mr. Schreiber said it might or might not be the case, but in the subject instance, they were only talking about the proposed R-1 zoned property. The BMR lots were zoned R-2 with the expectation of becoming a PC, so whatever .Council did that evening dick not Apply to those lots. Councilmember Klein clarified under the R-2 zone, the design used at Crescent Park and 0r eda, which had more than 1,000 sgjiare feet on the second floor, was permissible.'., Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. City Attorney Diane Lee was concerned regarding the discussion about something which was not part of the zone when the public hearing on the particular zoning ordinance only dealt with R-1. If Council desired discussion, it should to done after the con- clusion of the item. Even then it troubled her because it should be the subject of a Public Hearing. For the sake of clarity and consistency of the record, she suggested Council confine its dis- cussion -of the item to the Zoning Ordinances before Council and take up further direction to staff at the end of the discussion„ Planning Commission Vice Chairman John Northway emphasized the Planning Commission started on the project in July and held two different public hearings. The underlying basis of the Commission recommendations was it wanted to ensure a fairness happened with the overlay zone, and did not want to .end up with a zone applying to a group of houses which five years down the line would be over- ly restrictive compared with the neighbors. Vice Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Michael Fleming, ;+7b Faybell Avenue, was a builder in Palo Alto and developed :four of the sites at Ortega. He was concerned regarding the 1,000 square foot, second story limitation. If 1,000 square feet was the maximum size, it was easy to get a small box placed on top of a large box in terms of the second story - versus the first story. It was true the limitation of square 6 6 3 3 12/09/85 footage in the so.orid story would limit size or mass, but the placement of the second story was equally as important. It could be put all toward the front, or back or all to one side, and create as massive an effect as with a larger second story. It was better to allow a larger second story and somehow restrict the setbacks for the second story front, rear and Bide and therefore reduce the size of mass. The prob' err. at Ortega was they either had all the mass toward the back or i e front creating a looming effect with a two-story wall which was virtually 20 to 25 feet high. The 1,000 square foot second story was normally the bedroom area of the house --families tended to want to bring al 1 the \bed- room area into one area of the housa--basically became impossible with two or more children. There was a master bedroom, a master bedroom bath, two bedrooms, and another bathroom. Of the ten fam- ilies at Ortega with two or more children, eight had children under twelve years old, and wanted to have the other bedrooms close, for which the proposed design restrictions did not allow. Regarding R-2 zoning, it seemed fair the seme restrictions as applied to R-1 zoning should apply to R-2. It seemed unfair the City made special exceptions for the PAHC. He knew the variance process would allow possible leniency, but did not believe it could be considered an alternative. Neil Belles, 725 Christine Drive, believed the issue was to avoid another monstrosity like the Ortega and the Crescent Park School sites. He and other neighbors deciding upon their views and what might be considered favorable restrictions, and when they attended the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission Chair- person made a fifth proposal which none of them reviewed as if all the -work they had done was ignored. He felt as if it was nice they spent their time with the PAUSO, but ..the Planning Commission believed it was more knowl edgeabl a than the citi zees. He believed the Planning Commission ignored the directions given by Council. He did not believe they did an adequate job and urged Council con- sider and impose the restrictions they asked ethe Planning Commis- sion to study to avoid being known as the City Council that allowed another school site to be developed in the manner of Ortega and Crescent Park. Jin H.: Chin, 727 Christine Drive, did not believe the Planning Commission recommendations were ; estricti ,e enough to limit the size of the proposed homes. Two story homes tended to be pro- moted, while the Council assignment gave n� incentive to two stories because there was not much difference. Therefore, he pre- ferred to stick to the Council assignment recommendations. Dick Walker, 3512 Ross Road, was also a neighbor of the Ross Road School site, and agreed with the comments of his neighbors. The neighbors around the school site believed there was a lot of fuss with the hearings; especially with the City Council and meetings with the PAUSD for some restrictions which seemed to make sense. All of a sudden the Planning Commi ssi on considered a new proposal which Iiad not been aired for the whole city to consider. The neighbors preferred to adopt the City Council directions. Rosemary Bednar, Property Manager for the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) said as meetings and public hearings on the sub- ject of an R-1 Combining; District were held, several important points and features emerged for the PAUSD. First, -and prier toe sale, would be a decision regarding the l anguege of the Zoning .Ordinance in early January. The PAUSD met several times kith neighbors of the Ross Road and De Anza sites to listen tleeconeerns and fears. PAUSO staff brought the information into its delibera- tions with the Board and into its discussions with City staff. In welehiny neighborhood input against the need for fair remunera- tion, the PAUSO -was concerned remuneration could be negatively affected by uncertainty or slowness to- act, and so it agreed ,to the various points and feature's cvntai ned in the November 15 City,. staff recommendations. PAUS:0 wanted prospective buyers of the lots to know without the need for extensive calculations or con, sul tart services the size of house which could be build on a given' 6 6 3 4 12/09/85 lot. The PAUSE) lots were curnpetiveiy bid for. All bidders were encouraged in advance to have a second and third preference in the event they were unsuccessful in their first bid. The third fea- ture was equity. The PAUSD was concerned about the regulations as they applied to school sites. They were sympathetic to control- ling excessive size, but sensitive to the gap being created with adjacent partially -developed parcels and the BMR lots. Ms. Lee said since the subject was already opened, it was okay to allow the public to speak to it, but in terms of Council's action-, it shout d deal with the ordinances before them and then take up other matters. Marilyn Zatz, PAHC, 567 Hamilton Avenue, said the issue being con- sidered was what restrictions, if any, applied to building size configuration on R-1 lots in specified subdivisions. One lot at DeAnza and one at the Ross Road site were zoned R-2 to allow the PAHC to build family -sized duplexes for sale under the City's Below -Market -Rate program. It was important for the PAHC to know how Council planned to treat those two lots if restrictions were placed on the R-1 lots. Basic architectural plans for the duplexes were nearly completed when PAHC learned of the possible restrictions to be placed on the size of the secc:ed stories. The limitation would seriously impact their goals to provide modest living space for families of moderate income. With such a restriction, if PAHC hoped to retain the three -bedroom size of the units, it faced additional architectural engineering and construc- tion costs reediting in higher prices for the units above the $110,000 range. It also meant building out to the limits of the main floor and giving up important outdoor living space designed into the present plan. The other option, if PAHC was limited in size of second story, was to reduce the number of bedrooms to two. Councilmembers expressed a need for family housing, and the greatest need, in the PAHC's experience, was three -bedroom units. They understood the concern for the visual effect of overbuilding, but t:rei r duplexes contained a total of approximately 3,000 square feet of living space, which did not seem excessive on the large lots assigned to them; PAHC hoped Council would indicate its intentions with regard to the BMR lots so they could anticipate any limitations Council might apply under the eventual PC zoning. The PAEC preferred the second story limitations not apply to the duplexes. Vice Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Counci 1 arember Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, to. adapt the ordinance ;Mich creates the new zoning restrictions establishing an R-1 (Su0) Combining District, which can be applied to new multi -lot subdivisions through a rezoning process, ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE J#! L Y L0 ALTO CREATING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COMBINING DISTRICT FOR NEW MULTI -LOT SUBDIVISIONS Councilmember Woolley referred to the public's comments, and understood when Council made its assignment to the Planning Com- mission, it submitted all of its suggestions as a kind of "shopping list," and asked the Planning Commission to look at each of them and choose all or serve of them depending on how they evaluated. them. It was not a Council package where all of the ideas had to be incorporated. She assumed the new piece of information which came out of the Planning Commission meeting was the 1,000 figure. The limitation on the second etort' construction was a part of Council's directions to the Planning Commission, but in terms of a figure, Council wanted the Planning Commission to make a recommendation. She agreed the 1,000 square foot second story addressed the ; question of bulk and mass better than any other measure. She noted both Crescent Park and Ortega houses 6 6 3 5 12/09/85 were yreat.er than 1,000 feet at the second story level. The aver - aye looked more like 1,400 square feet so it was a significant help in reducing -the visual appearance of the houses. The second story was more important. She lived in a one story house and people were always surprised how big their house was once they got into it. From the front it looked like a cottage, and actually was about twice as big as people thought.- She believed the second story had the impact and therefore liked the idea of dealing with the second story. The front and rear setbacks addressed the` prob- lem of privacy, which was the second criteria with which the Plan- ning Commission and staff dealt. While the first floor was not so important from the standpoint of bulk and mass,_ she believed the setback from the rear neighbor was important and the second measure dealing , with the rear and front setbacks addressed the question. On the other hand, she did not see an impact with the side yard setbacks, height, and FAR. Staff said the side yard setback benefits were not sufficient to warrant the change. They might affect to some extent the new properties, but they did not affect existing properties. The height was not good or bad in and of itself, but the height was a matter of design, and therefore, she preferred to see Council retain the flexibility of a 30 -foot height limit. The house across the street from her was more than 30 feet high, and she raid not know of anyone in the neighborhood who ever objected to it because it was well designed. She was concerned if Council got into FAR's, they were setting a prece- dent, which was another reason for not including FAR in the pro- posal . On balance, she believed the second floor limitation to 1,000 feet, the front and rear setbacks would do a lot to allevi- ate the robs em of bulk and mass and privacy. Councilmember Patitucci lived across the street from the Crescent Park development and did not believe it was as bad as some, but believed some changes were needed to reduce the bulk of the devel- opment which could occur. He agreed the development would soften over time as did other developments when landscaping was put in and when the residents occupied the homes. He saw the 1,000 square foot limitation as accomplishing the total bulk question, but saw it presenting some difficult design issues. He asked Planning Commissioner Northway to respond. Planniny Commissioner Northway said aesthetics could not be resolved by the zoning ordinance. A bad design would be bad regardless of whether the zoning ordinance was changed. The prob- lems presented to the Commission were the visual effects on the surrounding properties and neighborhoods. The Commission con- cluded the main offenders were large second stories. The repeated complaints heard in the public hearings were the large second stories over people's back yards and side yards. . The FAR w: -t an administrative way to restrict the overall amount of sau'ar.e 'feet - age, but it would in no way handle the bulk situation. The 1,000 square foot restriction seemed to be the best way to administra- tively restrict the size of second stories. The 1,000 square feet was a nice master bedroom, bathroom suite, and perhaps another room and a stairway, but it was not enough to get a nice three bedroom suite above. Councilmembee Patitucci asked for clarification of the combined total setback. ..:-lie asked if it was expected With a 50 -foot total -1 irritation, the 30 feet annuld, •- "n 95 percent of the cases, be applied to the rear yard. Only in those situation of an odd -sized lot might someone slip the house back _off the front setbacks which was in effect_ a 30 -foot : setback in, the rear, whereas previously there was.a 20 -foot setback. Mr. Brown said that was correct. It was at the discretion of the property builder as to where to put the and it i onal setback ,if the additional 10 feet was required. Staff assumed ' in most cases the homeowner would choose to have the larger rear yard which would be usable setback area rather than place the increased setback in the front, which would essentially just be for landscape purposes. 6 6 3 6 12/09/85 Councilmember" K1eih r=eferred to the 1,000 square fF of limitation, and said he was concerned it was being applied across the board. He asked if any consideration was given to using a ratio. Mr. Schreiber said regarding the type of limitations the discus- sion focused on one number. While there was a range In lot sizes, they were dealing with one underlying zone, and a sliding scale or ratio was substantially more complex end difficult to handle from an understandability standpoint, the public, and an administra- tion standpoint from the City's perspective. Staff believed one number was a more clear regulation and guideline. The intent was to limit the size and visual impact of the second story. If there was a larger lot and the second story in some proportionate way could expand 1,300, 1,400, or 1,500 square feet, it increased the visual impact because the house might be no further from adjacent properties than on a smaller lot given the setbacks. Councilmember Klein referred to the ratio concept and used the example the second story could not be more than 17.5 percent of the square footage of the lot. It provided about 1,000 square feet on the smallest lots and went up proportionately. The second story ended up being about one-half the first story. Mr. Brown said at Ross Road, on the smallest lot, the second story would be approximately 1,400 square feet since they were 8,000 square foot lot minimum. The largest lot surveyed would have a second story of about 1,635 square feet. Councilmember Klein said the ratio could be dropped to I5 per- cent. Mr. Brown said it was possible, but as pointed out by Mr. Schreiber, it added another layer of administration in terms of plan checking, etc., but it could be done. Councilmember, Klein asked if he was correct staff belHc ed the visual impact of a 1,400 square foot second story was as much on a 10,000 square foot lot as on an 8,000 square foot lot. Mr. Schreiber said it could be because the house on the larger lot might not be located any further away from adjacent properties. It depenaed on where the excess square footage was and where the house was placed. Inherently, the larger lot had no greater rear yard setback than the smaller lot. Councilmember Klein asked if the 1,000. square foot second story was tried anywhere else. Mr. Schreiber said no. AMENDMENT: Councilmember ICS ein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to amend the ordinance to include. a floor area ratio of 0.4:1, including the 400 square feet allocated to the garage. Councilmember Klein referred to the chart on page 4 of the staff report (CMR:637:5), and said he looked at the square footage as being significant. He looked at the columns and compared the Planning Commission recommendation, column 2, with column 4, which would be: ,the result of, the amendment ' i f it passed, and saw some 'differences of around 600 to 100 square feet --almost a 20 percent differential.. He was persuaded the Crescent. Park houses were too large for the community.. It was .misleading at best to call the existing homes in Palo Alto, whether they were in Crescent Park or =Christine Drive, as partially devel_oued. He could not buy the language.. Houses were expanded from time to time, but he did not believe people. bought the houses and said, "come and visit my par- tially developed home." It was true the existing --=zoning would allow larger buildings than presently existed, and the problem was existing zoning. It seemed to him houses at 3,500 and 4,000 6 6 3 7 12/09/85 square feet were a lot larger than the community was used to, it created a dramatic change in the community, and not one he found to be for the better. He looked for a more dramatic solution, and he believed the amendment applied the FAR and included the 400 square foot allowed for the garage. Councilmember Bechtel said her concern about the Planning Commis- sion was it did not go far enough, and she believed the FAR amend- ment would further restrict the bulk of the houses. The question was the difference between the new properties compared to existing properties in already existing neighborhoods. They were talking about a subdivision and 15 to 20 hones being built at once which greatly impacted surrounding neighborhoods. They were also look- ing further at the restriction of second stories, etc., throughout Palo Alto. Council might want to consider windows facing onto neighboring properties. Councilmember Sutorius sal some of the concerns raised by Mr. Fleming and Councilmember Patitucci went into play with respect to the amendment particularly when combined with the absolute of 1,000 square foot limit on the second story. He opined the com- bination with no other alternative was too severe. The nature of the amendment in combination with the main motive suggested a situation where his own home and homes on either side of him could not be built. Two of the three homes were on fairly large lots, and were in the 1.0,000 square foot lot zoning. Two of the lots were about 16,00C .square feet, and the third lot was not at the 10,000 square foot level. Each case was a FAR of three, two story homes, which ranged from a low of about 22 percent to a high of 27 percent, and the site Coverage ranged from a low of about 15 per- cent, and the smaller lot situation went towards the 35 -percent limit. In each of the three cases, the second floor had well in excess of 1,000 square feet. When they combined the FAk plus the 1 ,000 square feet, they ignored different lot si zes and set up situations, particularly by including the garage, where .in many lots, and in the 6,000 square foot lot size, it vitually ruled out second story construction because it was too uneconomical. Taking -a 0,000 square .foot lot and applying 35 percent site coverage, there was a maximum building site of 2,100 square . feet. With a FAR of 0.4, there was a maximum total building of 2,400 square feet. It presented the kind of situation where if one had 400 square feet of garage at the ground level, and tried to utilize the second floor to get to the economical level , they' were talking about 1,000 square feet, which left 1,000 square feet for the ground level presenting a box and something the City was trying to avoid. The alternative was to have most o#. -the square footage on the first floor in which event one was left with somewhere between 300 and 400 square footage which could be utilized at the second story, which was not only uneconomical, but could present some odd looking second story construction. He could not support the amendment in its present form, in combination with the main motion, but could support something of a FAR nature if they had a more realistic approach to the second story. The most realistic approach seemed to look at a ratio which related the square foot - aye in some percentage to the currento 35 percent site coverage. He believed further review was needed of the concepts suggested by Mr. Fleming and Mr. Kohler, and to the concept of a variance approach to. second story situations in order to introduce varia- tian `to the plane and elimination ofa the large blank walls. He supported the FAN concepts in the resider;tial arena, but could not support it in combination with the 1,000 square feet. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the garage was included in the calculation of 35 percent lot 'overage, Mr. Brown said yes. 6 6 3 8 12/09/85 Councilmen.bee Patitucci understood the main dryun1Ant for excluding the garage from calculation of FAR was to try and provide an incentive to build garages rather than carports or small garages. If there was such pressure to bu4.d a lot of in-house square foot- age, there would be a lot of strange of ways of dealing with gar- age space if it was included in the total. Councilmember Klein had a hard time believing people would build houses at the $400,000 and above level and not include garages. If it was a concern, he suggested the ratio be dropped below 0.4 and exclude garages, Ccuncilmember Patitucci agreed with Councilmember Sutorius that Council should deal with either FAR or the 1,000 square foot second floor. He could be persuaded the FAR, including the gar- ages, would be the way to go if they dropped the 1,000 square foot second floor concept. Given the total square footages, the con- cerns for the way in which the second floor was developed was much less under the approximately 20 percent less bulk than if they tried to simplify things by going to a situation where they were stuck with the total 50 foot setbacks front and year and a 0.4 FAR including garages. He believed the reduction of bulk and the design issues were different in the subject instance than An the Crescent Park area. Crescent Park was developed as a lot of individual single family homes, and the areas they were talking about were more developed in tract style. He believed the wrong development in the subject instance would be more intrusive than it was 'i r Crescent Park. He could support an FAR with setbacks if they excluded the 1,000 square feet. lfice Mayor Cobb lived in one of the south Palo Alto tracts where most of the houses were single story, single family homes, and some of the kinds of square footages listed .in the staff report would be extraordinarily intrusive in the kinds of neighborhoods he lived more closely to. He agreed with Councilmember Klein's concerns. `eRegardiny FAR's, he tended to agree with Councilmem'5er Wool l ey' s comments. He did not like the idea of FAR's in R-1 dis- tricts, and could only go along with an FAR concept as a mechanism for controlling potentially excessive development on the subdivi- sions in .anticipation of a motion to include a sunset clause which would ultimately allow the zones to revert back to those surround- ing them. He could ail so support the motion in anticipation the 1,000 square foot restriction on the top floors sight be fine for the smaller lots, but could present serious design problems for the larger lots. The latter point went to`the question of whether the PAUSD was able to get the maximum development potential out of the property consistent with being good neighbors. The FAR motion presently before the Council clearly diminished it to some extent, but if they could go to some sliding scale for the, top floor so the 1,000 square feet could grow as the size of the overall lot grew, it seemed it could be recovered and it should come out about the same in the long run. He `supported the amendment. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND AMENDMENT; Coanci lmember _ Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel , to amend the ordinance to eliminate Section 18.13.040(c) re Floor Limitation and add a new Section 18,13,040(c) to read, 'Floor Area Ratios The maximum floor area shall be 0..4:1„ including the 400 square feet for the garage.' City Attorney Diane Lee :said the suggested language for a sunset clause would' be with respect to _ section .4 of the ordinance, under Item l l , -and would apply to the actual zonings, not to the. ordi- nance creating the zone. Councilmember Woolley asked if the combination was reflected in any of `the columns included in the staff report of November 15. Mr. Brown said no. 6 6 3 9 12/09/85 Coinc i l membeC Woolley asked what effect the amendment had on the reduction in the total square footage of the examples contained in the chart. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland believed it would be simi- lar, but not identical, to the City Council referral. Re recalled the FAR of the various restrictions tended to be the most restric- tive on a case -by -case basis, and it was generally the governing consideration. He believed the numbers would be similar to the City Council table. Councilmember Patitucci said lot 4 on Ross Road had 8,024 square feet, and multiplying the 0.4 FAR, it gave 3,200 square feet. Subtracting the garage meant the house which could be built was actually 2,800 square feet. The totals included a total square footage including the garages in all cases and assuming a 400 square foot garage in all cases. Mr. Brown said that was correct. Councilmember Woolley asked if most of the impacts would be on small or large lots by dropping the 1,000 square feet and using the FAR. Mr. Freeland said small lots. Councilmember Woolley asked if that was what Council wanted to do. The smaller would be smaller and the large would not be that much different. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission recommendation had the 1,000 square foot limit and no FAR. The staff recommendation and the City Council referral both included FAR. The difference wes 400 square feet, and the staff recommendation and the PAUSD request included a 400 square foot exception for the garage, and the original Council refer ral did not. From a square footage standpoint, there was a step down going from only the 1,000 square feet, which was the Planning Commission recommendation, to deleting it and having the FAR. Councilmember Woolley clarified it was a 100 to 200 square foot difference from column 2 to column 3. Mr. Schreiber said yes, but column 3 included the 400 square foot exception for the garage. The motion included the 400 square feet. Vice Mayor Cobb clarified Councilmember Patitucci's analysis was correct and -it tended to come out essentially like what was labeled the "City Council referral" within a small variance. Mr. Schreiber said generally the FAR was the controlling restric- tion on almost, if not all , of the lots analyzed. There might be a few exceptions. Councilmember Sutorius understood the City Council referral column included the fact the City. Council recommended, among the shopping list of items,._,some kind of a second story limitation expressed as a percentage. For the sake of simplicity, staff used 1,000 square feet when it put together the City Council column, Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Councilmember Sutorius referred to the City Council column and clarified the 1,000 square foot limitation staff applied in making their calculations in no way affected the square footage. The motion was exclusive; of the limitation and it was only a FAR plus the front and rear setback. b 5.4 0 12/09/85 Mr. Schreiber said the 1,000 square foot limit was not a trolling factor it any one of the lots. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the amendment did anything with the front and rear setback. Councilmember Klein said it was left in. Couocilmember Bechtel understood FAR was 0.4:1 and therefore she did not follow Councilmember Woolley's concern about lot size because it was based upon the size of the available lot's A larger lot would be able to build a larger house, and a smaller lot like -- wise. She did not believe Council was being more restrictive to smaller lots. She assumed the only argument was everyone would build a similar size garage. She believed there was validity in going to the FAR, and she urged support. Vice Mayor Cobb said since the 1,000 square feet was eliminated in the columns and the controlling restriction was the FAR, he clari- fied it said the 1,000 square foot limitation did not control the total square footage at all if the numbers were practically the same. It only had to do with bulk or design. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Councilmember Woolley was not opposed to the FAR if it did what Council wanted it to do. She could not grasp whether Council was accomplishing a reduction in the bulk and mass of the structures. The Planning Commission concluded it was the second floor which made the difference --not the first floor --and by going back to the FAR Counc i l was not doing anything about the problem. The second and first floor could be distributed however the architect wanted to do it, and they might sti l l get the same size second floor as the first floor. dased'on what the Planning Commission and staff said, it would give the same kind of massive visual effect from the street. If one looked at the plot plans, the frontages on the lots, particularly the Ross Road lot, were not that much differ- ent. The lots got bigger because of the pie shapee, and even though there was a big lot overall, she was not sure it visually appeared to be a big lot from the street. The width of the lot was approximately the same, so if there were large houses on the big pie -shaped lots and smaller houses on the not as deep lots, she was not sure Council would achieve a reduction in the visual bulk of the structures. Councilmember Patitucci said when the Planning Commission made a recommendation on a 5-0 vote, it carried a lot of weight with him and would continue to do so in the future. However, he was con- cerned with the 1,000 square foot second floor limit, and would support the amendment. He also needed further clarification. Under the current zoning, with a 6,-000 square foot lot, one was allowed 35 percent lot coverage, if 35 percent was multiplied by 6,000, it gave 2,100 square feet. If a garage was subtracted from i t , it left 1,700 square. feet. A one-story house could be 1,700 square feet, If a second floor was added under the current zon- ing, At could then be a 3,800 square foot house. Under the pro- posed 0.4, the maximum house would be 2,400 square feet, and if 400 square feet was subtracted for the garage, it meant a living space of 2,000 squire feet. Assuming a design. would not build a bigger second floor than the first floor, there was probably_ 1,000. square feet upstairs and 1,000 square feet downstairs, depending on the configuration. His_ own house optalS en a 7,200 square foot lot, and would permit 2,880 total square feet to be built. When. he subtracted 400 square feet for a garage, he arrived at 2,400 to 2,5U0 square feet of living space.. He did not:believe it was an excessive amount of living space for the particular let., and- even 2,800 square feet of living space on a 7,200 square foot lot still provided 4U percent less square footage than the allowable - envelope. He believed the -staff proposed an FAR of 0.4 excluding the garage, and to him 2,400 square feet of living space on a 6 6 4 1 12/09/85 x,,000 square foot lot veesus 3,800 square feet of living space, which was presently allowable, seemed to be a reasonable cut back. He liked the idea of sticking to an FAR, and believed the total bulk would be significantly reduced. If one looked at the maximum amount one could put, by taking the FAR numbers and dividing by two, one could see the second floors would not be that massive. Un a 6,000 square foot lot, the largest second floor would be 1,000 square feet so the total bulk would be reduced under the FAR restriction. He liked the simplicity, but did not like the exces- sive\restriction of including the garages in the FAR. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Patitucci moved, seconded by Cobb, The maximum floor area snd11 be 0.4:1, excluding the 400 square feet for the garage. Councilmember Klein believed Councilmember Patitucci was correct to a point. It demonstrated by adopting a 0.4 FAR, it would provide the same result of reducing the second floor, but not as much as the Planning Commission recommended. There would be cases where it would be more than 1,000 square feet, and ne was more comfortable with it. He appreciated the concern, but still liked the idea of giving people design flexibility on their own resi- dences. If the people were willing to make the sacrifices to have more square feet above, they would have less elsewhere, and he believed it was a reasonable trade off. If one compared the square footage between columns 2 and 4, one would see a signifi- cant difference. it averaged out to 15 to 17 percent, which had to produce more acceptable houses. He could not accept the idea of not counting the garages because it put them over to the third column which had little difference from the Planning Commission recommendation, and he did not believe it produced enough of a reduction. Generally, looking at the numbers, even the partial ones on page 4 of the staff report and subtracting the 400 square feet, Ross Road was still left with fair size houses. Councilmember Patitucci said they were talking about the envelope not the actual houses. Historically, seldom did anyone build to the absolute envelope if they did any kind of designing. He clarified Councilmember Klein was talking about the maximum allow- able rather than what was most likely to be built. Councilmember Klein believed people were building close to the maximum allowable in a variety of ways. Except for Lot 11 at DeAnza, all the other lots were substantially above the numbers. A survey of the community showed 2,000 square feet was an accepte able amount of living space to raise a family of two children, and he believed most people in Palo Alto did not have more than 2,000 square feet. He believed the numbers were sufficiently generous, and to allow the extra 400 square fe€:t ended up meaning Council did not do much. He would not support the amendment to amend- ment, and if it passed, he would oppose the entire motion. Councilmember Bechtel appreciated the clarification of 400 square feet as opposed to garages because in Crescent Park many of the developers built threeecar garages she presumed were much larger than 400 square feet and probably closer to 800 square feat. She did not believe Council should add the extra 400 square feet, but should stick with the more restrictive recommendation. Counc'i lmember Woolley was torn because she believed Cotiec i1 was trying to work through something at the Council level which was difficult. She asked for clarification of the Planning Commission's thinking whereby it recommended the 1,000 square feet as -opposed to the FAR. Commissioner Northway - said the FAR had no built in guarantee it would restrict the second -story bulk. It restricted the total square footage to be built, but it did not include a limitation on how the square footage might be ;.rranged. The Commission consis- tently found it was the overbearing size of second floors which 6 6 4 2 12/09/85 which caused the consterration among the neighbors to the new sub- division. With an FAR, the square footage could be spent any way one liked, and there could be a small building 1,000 square feet on the ground floor and 1,000 square feet on the second floor which WAS basically a monopoly house with the square footage stacked. It was an easy and economical way os building, and the the Commission believed it would probably be more the norm. From the complaints being heard from the neighbors, the FAR did not address the problems. It only addressed the overall square foot- age to be built, but not the size of the overall envelope. The Commission aiso believed it was an exceptional step to take in the residential zoning, and tried to evaluate it in terms of whether it would be comfortable applying the restrictions to the remainder of the R-1 zones in town, and it did not seem to be a fair thing to do. The Commission unanimously recommended against the FAR. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the house sizes of the existing homes in the Ross Road and DeAnza area contained in the staff report included the 400 square feet for garages. Mr. Brown said yes. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-4, Sutorius, Patitucci voting 'aye," Fletcher, Levy, Renzel absent. Vice Mayor Cobb reiterated he was prepared to vote for an FAR only in anticipation of a sunset clause. Ms. Lee yaid the sunset clause was not included in the ordinance because it was regulation and Council was not applying it. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-1, Woolley voting 'no,' Fletcher, Levy, Renzel absent. MOTICN AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Levy, Renzel absent. Vice Mayor Cobb clarified Council would vote on item #11, zone changes to add the R-1(SUB) Combining District to the existing R -1 zoning for properties located at 3530 Ross Road and 3120 Stockton Place. MOTION: Counci member Klein moved, second by Sutorius, to adopt ordinance 3120 Stockton Place with an amendment to revise Section 4 to read, "This ordinance shall become effective upon the com- mencement of the 31st day after the date of its passage and shall remain in effect for ten years thereafter, whereupon the zoning of this property shall be R-1. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING AS AMENDED entitled RD!1 ,.l_INE crNChL 4r 1HE CM 0 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 3120 STOCKTON PLACE (FORMER DeANZA SCHOOL SITE) FROM R-1 TO R-1 (SUB )' MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Levy, Renzel absent. MOTION: Counci1member Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt ordioance re 3630 Ross Road with an amendment to revise Section 4 to read, "This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the 31st day after the date of its passage and shall remain in effect for ten years thereafter, whereupon the zoning of this property shah be R-1(SUB)(743).. ORDINANCE FOR F RST READING AS AMENDED entitled fNiANeE 1' UNCIL 6F 11-C—I CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONIN MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3630 ROSS ROAD (FORMER ROSS ROAD SCHOOL SITE) FROM R-1(743) TO R-1(SU6)(743)" 6 6 4 3 12/09/85 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Levy, °enzel absent. Vice Mayor Cobb asked if it was appropriate to discuss the two planned community proposals. Ms. Lee said it was okay provided Council clarified it ,was in no way bound because there would be a public hearing. She encouraged words such as "inclination," and stressed Council equivocate it so Council in no way prejudiced the public hearing which would need to be held. ITEM #12, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE 1936-87 BUDGET GU[LDELIVES (FIN 1-17) Councilmember Bechtel for the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Com- mittee said three changes were made from the staff recommendation, essentially including items which were previously included. MOTION. Councilmember Bechtel for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved approval of the 1986-87 budget guidelines with the reincorporation of No. 3, Continue to investigate new sources of revenue necessary for future needs of the community, and No. 12, the budget should target and implement long-term savings and productivity` improvements through more efficient use of City staff and resources, and the addition of "at the accelerated level established in 1985-86°' to No. 7. Councilmember Woolley referred V. the addition "at the accelerated level established An 1985-86 to No. 7," and queried whether the budget could also include a target particularly for sidewalks and streets which would help nci 1 see whether it lost or gained. She believed there was a target in the ibudget which indicated the amount of replaced streets or sidewalks and more would be done next year, but Council also needed to know how much more needed to be done. City Manager Bill Laner saw no problem providing the information, but urged it not be included in the guidelines. Councilmember Woolley said that was fine. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Levy, Renzel absent. ITEM #13, REQUEST FROM BARRON PARK ASSOCIATION FOR A LETTER FROM THE COUNCIL ENDOR771-WiTal7RTATTETinaffriTTA GRANT tb INVESTIGATE K FLLOU WARNING SYSTEM (PRE 24) (CMR:635;5) Vice Mayor Cobb said the Barron Park Association did not receive copies of the grant application, and requested the item be con- tinued to December 16. MOTION ,TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Sutorius, to continue item to the December 15, x985, City Council meetinf4. NOTIax PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Levy, Renzel,absent. VICE MAYOR COBB RE ITEMS #I0 312.0 STOCKTON PLACE AND #11, 3530 ROSS ROAD Sylvia Seman, Palo Alto fousing Corporation (PAHC), said it was difficult for the architect to do a design for presentation as a PC without some input from the Council. Vice Mayor Cobb asked for some "non -binding" guidance to the PAHC. Councilmember Bechtel asked how close the PAHC was with its PC application. She asked about the size of the lot and building. 6 6 4 4 12/09/85 John Boyd, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, said they wer°o fortunate and switched many times with the achooi district in an attempt to get larger lots which would more easily conform with restrictions. The lets were approximately 8,000 square feet. The homes were approximately 1,b00 square feet each and a total living area of approximately 3,000 feet. The problem arose with the need for two covered cars for each unit or a total of approximately 800 square feet of garage. In Crescent Park there was a one -car garage and a one -car parking place, which might be an alternative. He asked what Council wanted to see. 1 i Councilmember Patitucci did not see -where Council could have a double standard. If Council tried to reduce bulk and size of structure and visual impact, it needed to apply to the PAHC's units in the saute way it applied to the others. He had .problems with the 1,000 square feet, but believed there was more design flexibility under the current plan. If it was bulk and total building structure they were dealing with, it was not in the best interests of the PAHC to ask for an exemption or a different set of standards. Councilmember Woolley saw ,some difference between the BMR lots and the others. First, it was- zoned R-2 not R-1 so one expected the amenities for two families. Further and most important, applica- tion would be made under a PC zone, which did not contain a 10 -year sunset. The PC provided Council with close and continuing control. At the end of 10 years, some of the other houses might add on and do a variety of things, whereas with the PC, Council would continue to have control, Councilmember Bechtel said the comment was originally interded for the City_s planning staff who were no longer present. Council s.".could be brief, and she agreed with Councilmember Wool l ey' s last comment. Vice Mayor Cobb suggested the PAHC create some dialogue over the next week or so as the matter moved through the process. ADJ(JJRHMENT Council adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: