Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-11 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, June 11, 1984 ITEM CITY of ALTO PAGE Ural Communications 4 6 2 6 Approval of Minutes of May 7 , 1984 4 6 2 6 Consent Calendar 4 6 2 6 Referral 4 6 2 6 Item #1, Recommendations of City/School Liaison 4 6 2 6 Committee re Recreational Use of Cubberley Fields Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee Action 4 6 2 6 Item # , Parking Permit Zone System - University Avenue Parking Assessment District Item #3, Final Subdivision Map - 745-769 Loma Verde Item #4, ir:ilo Alto Housing Corporation - Renewal of Contract tor 14 -5 - Item #+S, Hanover Substation Fence Relocation 4 6 2 6 4 6 2 7 4 6 2 7 4 6 2 7 Ite #6, Removal of Special Setback for 1681-1691 El 4 6 2 7 Camino Real Ayenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #7, PUBLIC HEARING: California Avenue Area and University Avenue Area Uffstreet Parking and Parking Maintenance Districts Item #U, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Proposed Changes to Housing Element of Comprehensive Plan item #9, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of Sorensen Real Estate Development Corporation for. Variances for Property located at 496 Charleston Avenue Item #10, PUBLIC HEARING Planning 'Commission Recommendation re Appeal of Laurence Moore for Property located at >1.280 Lincoln. Avenue 4 6 2 7 4. 6 2 7 4 6 2 9 ITEM Item #I1, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Appeal of Roger Kohler and Bill Armstrong for Property located at 4293 Wilkie Way Item #14, Replacement of Parking Lot Entrance Signs i n the California Avenue Business 0i strict item #16, School Site Acquisitions: .Ue Anza, (Ortega, Hoover School Sites Item flb, Request of Vice Mayor Levy re Policy and Reporting re Investment of Cash Reserves Item #12, PUBLIC H TARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of William Cox, Jr., for Preliminary Parcel Map for Property located at b19-625 Guinda Street Item #13, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation to rezone the property at 727 Ramona Street and deny the application of. Harrington Financial Corporat4.:,n fur reestablishment of th PC ui stri ct for 727 Ramona Street PAGE 4 6 3 0 4 6 3 0 4 6 3 0 4 6 3 1 4 6 3 3 4 6 4 6 Adjournment : 10:45 p.m. 4• 6 4 7 4 6 2 5 6/11/84 Reyuldr Meeting Monday, June 11, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:40 p.m. PRLS,NT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley Mayor. Klein announced the need for a closed session re personnel to be held at some point during the meeting. URAL COMMUNICATIONS None :11NUTES OF MAY 7, 1984 Councilmember Woolley had the following correction: Page 4506, paragraph 7, second to last line, after the word ''n 41ways_' insert: "for that purpose..." Councilmember Fletcher had the following correction: Page 45tb, last line of page, after "," sentence should read: and the transportation Commission was told..." Pa a 4507, line 10, sentence should read: "A rail study was about o un ertaken by the MTC." The rest of the sentence should be deleted. MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded Witherspoon, approval of the City Council Minutes of May 7, 1984, as cor- rected. MOTION PASSED unanimously. CONSEuf CALENuAK Councilmember Renzel asked to be recorded as voting "no," on Item #3, Final Subdivision Map - 745-769 Loma Verde. Vice Mayor Levy asked if all of Item #1, Recreational Use of Cubberley Fields, was being recerred to the Finance and Public works (F4PW) Committee. Mayor Klein said yes. MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral ITEM 01, RECOMMENDATIONS OF CITY/SCHOOL LIAISON COMMITTEE RE ‘110110110PIIIIIIMM1110111110~6,711111ffmartMer Action ITEM 02, PARKING PERMIT ZONE SYSTEM - UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING Staff recommends that Council: Adopt the zone system concept of combining lots and garages into zones of 2-3 adjacent facilities for the Downtown Parking District; and 4 6 2`6. 6/11/84 e. \Direct staff to maximize the number of spaces for all day permit parking, particularly in peripheral facilities. however, any changes must not occur at.the expense of legitimate demand for short term parking by clients and customers of downtown businesses. FILM #3 FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP - 745-769 LOMA VERDE (CMR:328:4) • , — Staff recommends that the City Council approve the final map. ITEM #4, PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION 7774777- P . tPTA 2-3-1; Staff recommends that Council approve the amendment to be renewed for one year with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. RENEWAL OF CONTRACT FOR AMENDMENT MO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 4327 LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING SERVICES Palo Alto Housing Corporation ITEM #b, HANOVER SUBSTATION FENCE RELOCATION (CMR:318:4) (UTI 3) Staff recommends that a•contract in the amount of $28,739 be awarded to Palo Alto Landscaping Co., Inc. for the construction of the Hanover Substation Fence Relocation Project. AWARD OF CONTRACT Palo Alto Landscaping Company, Inc. REMOVAL OF SPECIAL SETBACK FOR 16b1-1691 EL CAMINO REAL Staff recommends that Council adopt the ordinance amending the Special Setback Map to delete the required twenty-five foot special setback along El Canino Real affecting the property known as 1681-1691 El Camino Real. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled dORD INANCE OF THE r-17 OF PALO ALTO REMOVING THE SPECIAL TWENTY-FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY AT 1681-1691 EL CAMINO REAL" 'NOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel voting "no," on Item #3, Final Subdivision Map - 745-769 Loma Verde. MANUA .hANGES, AUDITIONS AND -DELETIONS None ITEM #7, PUBLIC HEARING: CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA AND UNIVERSITY : • • ••• Mayor Klein made the following opening remarks: "'(his is the time and place set for the public hearing on the parking assessment rolls for the following projects: . 1. California Avenue Cambridge Garage Project No. 65-09 (Resolution ;of Intention Na. 3950, Adopted January 3, 1967) ; Z. California Avenue Area Uffstreot Parking. Project No. 71-63 (Resolution of Intention No. 4993, Adopted September. 10, 1974); 3. California Avenue Area Offstreet Parking Maintenance District (kesoi uti ors of Intention No. 5343, Adopted February 14, 1977); '4 6 2 7 6/11/84 4. University Avenue Civic Center Parking Project No. 66-08 (Resolution of Intention No. 3896, Adopted June 13, 1966); and 5. University Avenue Area Offstreet Parking Project No. 75-63 (Resolution of Intention No. 5242,; Adopted August 9, 1976. The City Engineer has caused to be poepared and filed with the City Clerk a report providing for the levying of special assess- ments within the parking assessment districts created and estab- lished for the projects and under the Resolutions of Intention ,lust expressed. The report sets forth the amounts of assessments proposed to be levied for the fiscal year 1984-85. The assess - merits will be used to pay principal and interest on the bonds is- sued in the various projects. The report is and has been open for public inspection. The purpose of this hearing is to allow this Council to hear all persons having -an interest in any real property within these park- ing assessment districts; to hear all objections, protests or other written communications from any such interested persons; to take and receive oral and documentary evidence pertaining to mat- ters contained in the filed report; to remedy and correct any er- ror or informality in the report and to amend, alter, modify and correct ano confirm the report and accuracy of the assessments therein. if you desire to speak, please come forward to the microphone, give your full name and address and identify which assessment par- cel or parcels and in which project or projects you are inter- ested. In the interest of time, please be as brief as possible consistent with the full presentation of your views. The hearing is now open." Assistant Iii rector of Public Works George Dagdon said " since the assessment rolls were filed with the City Clerk, discussion with many property owners resulted in changes being made in the assess- ments of six properties. Three properties were located in the California Avenue Parking and Maintenance District, and the changes in their assessments were indicated in Exhibit "G." The properties involved were: 40 Cambri dge Avenue, 360 California Avenue, and 405 California Avenue. Changes were also made for three properties in the University Avenue Parking Districts, and the details of those changes were indicated i n Exhibit "i-1." The properties involved were: 525 University Avenue, 530 Lytton Avenue, and 539 Alma Street. He submitted Exhibits "G" and "Hn'to the City Clerk for incorporation into the amended roll. Mayor Klein received no requests from the public to speak, and aeclared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Councilmeraber Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, approv- al of the resolutions regarding the California Avenue Area and University Avenue Area Offstreet Parking and Parking Maintenance Districts, and including Exhibits "H" and 'G. RESOLUTION 6Z45 entitled "'RESOLUTION OF THE CCUMC IL OF 0 ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE PROJECT NO. 65-09 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984-85" RESOLUTION 626fa. entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF 'Int. COST Ot PAtO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL CALIFORNIA AVENUE OFFSTREET PARKING PROJECT NO.. 7-63 FOR _FISCAL YEAR 1984-85": 4 6 2 8 6/11/84 MOTION CONTINUED RESOLUTION 6267 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF �Ht ciir of PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET PARKING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984-855" RESOLUTION 6268 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF tl ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA CIVIC CENTER OFFSTREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 66-08 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984-85" RESOLUTION 6269 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF n 4i(T OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 75-63 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984-85" MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #8, PUBLIC ttEAt ING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE Mayor Klein said Council considered the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan as proposed by the Planning Commission, and made a number cf changes which had to be raferred back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Council discussion was limited to the changes in its recommendations. Executive Assistant Glenn miller said official notice was received from the State that Palo Alto's Housing Element was consistent with State regulations. Councilrnenber Cobb asked for clarification of the third paragraph on page 3 of ::MR:324:4. Mr. Miller said the paragraph should read as follows: "Third, in order to lessen the jobs -housing imbalance, Palo Alto needs to increase its housing supply especially for low and moderate income individuals and households with children, middle income households with children, and for those who work here." Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open, end receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. MOTION; Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the resolution adopting' the 1985-2000 Housing Element as part of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, including, the changes last recommended by the Planning Commission. RESOLUTION 6270 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF 71M7 -Lily tit rALO ALTO ADOPTING A 1985-2000 NOOSING ELEMENT AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" Counciimetber Renzel said she generally approved the Housing Element, but was opposed to the text related to permitting second kitchens in R-1 zones; the bonus for BMR units; and that the housing Element failed to address the problems of increased jobs as a cause of the City's housing problem. MOTION PASSED uha*imously. ITLM #9 PUBLIC HLAR1 t : PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE Intirrnt' ` uK Upuff TUCAab A1rtib 1ARttST fi AvE ink 3"'T Mayor Klein said the applicant requested a continuance to July- 2. 4 6 2 9 6/11/84 Councilmember Cobb said the applicant requested a continuance to July 2, 1984 in order to work out additional details with the Recording Studio for the Blind, the next-door neighbor. The prin- cipals were out of town, and the actions could not be accomplished in time for the meeting that evening. MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to continue the application of Sorensen Real Estate Development Corporation to July 2, 1984. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #1u, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE ITEM #11 PUBLIC NEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE AeF'tAL , t Bur ARMSTRUr1t FUR PRUPLHTT LL ATLU Al 29J Warr Mayor Klein . said for both Items #10 and #11, the applicants with- drew the applications. MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, to accept the withdrawal of the appeals of Laurence Moore for Property Located at 1280 Lincoln Avenue; and Roger Kohler and Bill Armstrong for property located at 4293 Wilkie Way. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTIuN TO BRING FURWARu ITEMS #14 AND #15 MOTION: Councilmember Satorius moved, seconded by Klein, to bring forward Items #14, Replacement of Parking Lot Entrance Signs in the California Avenue Business District; and Item #15, School Site Acquisitions: DeAnza, Ortega, Hoover School Sites. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. ITEM #14, REPLACEMENT OF PARKING LOT ENTRANCE SIGNS IN THE :sz • MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel coved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the mount of $15,285, to establish Capital Improvement Program Project No. 83-31, "California Avenue Business District Sign Replacement Project." URO INANCE 3540 entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE Lief . uk IwAtu' ALTO AMENDING THE . BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPRUVENENT PROJECT NO. 83-31 'CALIFORNIA AVENUE BUSINESS DISTRICT SIGN REPLACEMENT PROJECT' AND TO PROVIDE FOR RECEIPT OF FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT* Councilmember Woolley was concerned about the proliferation of signs in the community. As the City got more ideas for regulating signs, it got more signage. She was pleased that the California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA) was willing to go the extra mile, to retain the redwood signs, which she believed were more attractive than the metal signs. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #1b, SCHOOL SITE ACQUISITIONS: DE AWZA, ORTEGA, HOOVER 4 • Coehcllmeraber .Cobb was pleased to see =Council moving ahead to preserve the public uses on surplus school sites. MOTION: Councilaeieber Cobb roved, eeueded by raechtei , to adup t the staff recowwendat1 ns as follows: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Purchase Agreement for the purchase of portions of the De Anza, Ortega, and Hoover School sites; and 2. Adopt the ordinance correcting the Park Dedication Ordinance for Meadow Park, AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FROM THE PALO ALTO SCHOOL DISTRICT ORDINANCE for first reading entitled °ORD INANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CORRECTING THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR DEDICATED PARK LAND KNOWN AS MEADOW PARK° Councilmember Woolley advised that she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley °not participating.° MOTION TO LikING FORWARD ITEM 416 MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to bring forward Item #16, Policy and Reporting re Investment of Cash Reserves. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #16, REOEST OF VICE MAYOR LEVY RE POLICY AND REPORTING RE Vice Mayor Levysaid there was presently no stated Council policy for the investment of funds, and he believed one should be on record. The investment policy should be a statement related to the quality of investments being sought and include a statement related to the timing of the City's investment maturities, as re atcd to the cash requirements of the City and the timing of its cash needs. MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Klein, that staff develop written investment policy guidelines for Council approval and report to go '1rst to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee Mayor Klein believed ved it was necessary to establish the guidelines, but clarified that Palo Alto was prudent and well managed its investment portfolio. The motion 'made by him and Vice Mayor Levy was not intended to be a criticism —staff was reporting the City's investments, and he believed_ Palo Alto's investment policy was prudent and well handled. The trouble in San Jose caused the Council to take another look to be absolutely sure the City's policies were correct and proper, and it was in that spirit that he supported the motion. Counci lmember Witherspoon said the F&PW Committee was presently discussing format of reporting, etc. Counci lmember Cobb associated himself with the remarks of Mayor Klein ;and Vice Mayor Levy. C unci l , might want to consider an independent review of the City's investment policy on an annual basis much like the independent audit of, the City's financial situation. MUTIOM'PASSED +amanimemsly. 4 6 3 1 6/11/84 MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Klein, that the reporting format include the following: 1. Guarantee or backing for each investment should be noted as part of the regular report received by Council; 2. Explanation should be provided for all holdings with maturity greater than two years; 3. All holdings should be listed chronologically by maturity date, regardless of investment type; and 4. Other than normal roll-overs of similar securities, all portfolio changes should be detailed and highlighted. Vice Mayor Levy clarified the "explanation!' in Item #2 related to holding funds -being invested and the need for those funds. Mayor Klein asked whether the proposed format would first go to the FaPW Committee. Vice mayor Levy did not believe there would be a major change in the way staff reported to Council, and did not see the need for the report to go to the IOW Committee or return to Council. Counci lmernber Witherspoon suggested the focus be on the liquidity factor and what it would cost the City to liquidate in a hurry rather than the maturity date of the holding. The first motion would determine the City's policy on what percentage of the port- folio should be in what type of holdings, and she suggested it he highlighted in the report to assist. Council in keeping track of how much of the portfolio was short-term, highly liquid assets. Vice Mayor Levy concurred that when the City had a specifically stated policy, reporting should relate the investments ,to the elements of the policy. He did not mention "liquidity" because current reporting provided current valuation of all holdings, and told the Council the current market at the time of the report. There was no need to change the reporting format. Counci l member Witherspoon said sometimes there was a stiff -penalty for liquidating early, vice Mayor Levy said the market value might be less or more than what the City paid, but i t was included in the present reports. Louncilmember Woolley believed staff should have more latitude in the format. She °Las concerned that liquidity was hard to quantify and reduce to a column on a sheet, and some investments paid "back principal on a monthly basis whereas others did not. There were only about ten UnitedStates agencies in which the City currently invested s and she believed it was possible to have a description of each instrument, which was standard, and why there might be so much of one. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to refer he matter.to the F&PW Committees Councilaoember Sutorius said the Council's discussion pointed out. that staff and Council would be better served if the proposed formatwent through the F&FU Committee where it could be hashed out. In the long run, it might save time and be more efficient. 43MEMOMEMT PASSED unanimously. Counci lmember _ Cobb asked if the F#&PW Committee would discuss . the natters as part of the budget process. City Manager Bill Zaner said no. 4 6 3 2 6/11/84 MOTION AS AMENDED rASSLu unanimously. ITEM #I2, PUBLIC NEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE , Councilmember Cobb said he would not participate due to a conflict of interest. Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler said the Planning Commission concern was that the proposed flag lot conform to all require- ments. There were no objections to the current 50 foot lot which did not conform, ;but some Commissioners believed the .flag lot policy should be reconsidered in a policy context ---not in the review of a particular application. There was concern that alter- native development opportunities on the site, such as cottages, would not allow imposition of the conditions to which the appli- cant agreed. During the public hearing, staff ascertained the answer to an earlier question which it conveyed to the Commission, but concern was expressed by the public that possible development alternatives were requested after the public hearing closed. Councilmember Witherspoon referred to the concern about future C i ty liability should the Council require that the trees not be cut down. Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan believed the concern was about future enforcement. Deed restrictions were recommended so that neighbors might be authorized to require cutting of the trees by a possible future owner. Councilmember Witherspoon was concerned that if Council required a deed restriction and a tree. fell on someone, the C ty would• share in the liability. Ms. Sloan said the circumstances and a jury decided how liability was apportioned, but she believed the chances of liability in such a situation were slim. Councilmember Witherspoon said the minutes of the first hearing reflected that a ruling was not mad on whether it constituted an exception, but the Planning Commission believed the exception should be addressee. Ms. 'Sloan said -the first hearing before the Zoning Administrator u,,cided whether the exception was neceasefry. Councilmember Renael said a special setback was discussed the previous week. Page i3 of the staff report ;mentioned a 24 foot setback on G ri nda, and she asked if there was a porticul a.r reason, Ms Sloan said she knew of none, but it was shown on the setback Iaap. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the special setback ' ran all along Guinda but not the rest of the district. Executive Assistant Lynnie: Helena said some earlier sUbdivisons had special setback lines, but many were eliminated by earlier Council action and most houses on Hamilton had 40 foot setbacks. Councilmemuer Sutorius referred to the map which indicated the proposed flag lot was between newly created lots 1 and 2, -and did not border on any existing neighbors. If the application went forward, he asked if _ it would preclude the possibility for an easement being granted by proposed lot 3 for lot 2 to have access from the street over lot 3's driveway on the rationale of one less curb cut and driveway. 4 6-3 3 6/11/84 Ms. Mcicr.a said lot 2 had the requir=ed street frontage. She asked whether the question was access to a garage on lot 2. Councilmember Sutorius asked if lot 2 would have access to its property for purposes of driveway, garage, and location with an easement from lot 3, so there would be no requirement for another driveway. Ms. Melena said yes. The zoning ordinance required the owner of flag lot to own the driveway. Councilmember Sutorius clarified that lot 3 qould be granting the easement —not receiving it. Councilmember Menzel asked about the regulations, procedures and criteria for a lot line adjustment, and the basis for denial. pis. Helena said a lot line adjustment required application for a preliminary parcel map, and could be treated as a simple parcel map and go before the Uirector - of planning and Community Environment for approval if there were no conflicts with the four specific items of the subdivision ordinance. Ms. Sloan said a lot line adjustment was defined as an adjustment between two or more parcels where the land from one parcel was added to an adjacent parcel without creating a greater number of parcels. Mayor Klein said the report indicated lot line adjustments were granted unless one of the four conditions was not met. Ms. Sloan said staff had some discretion in granting the line adjustments. If there was a problem, with one of the four conditions, it went to the Planning Commission and Council. The conditions were as follows: kl a The lot line adjustment will cause any of the parcels to become nonconforming with respect to any of the requirements of this Title and Title .18 of this Code, including, but not limited to, lot area, depth and frontage requirements; The lot line adjustment will cause an increase in the degree of nonconformance of any existing lot not in compliance with the ri\.qui rments referred to in (a); The lot line adjustment involves any lot not lawfully existing in compliance with the provisions of this.. Title or the Subdivision Map Act; "d. The lot line adjustment will necessitate the modification of any existing facilities approved pursuant to Architectural Review Board or site and design procedures or a PC zone, etc.; we. The lot line .adjustment significantly modifies the means of access to any of the affected lots; "f. The lot line adjustment will render any existing facilities noncomplying or uses nonconforming, or will increase the degree of any such noncompliance or nonconformance; "g. The lot line adjustment' affects any public:. utilities or easements or public improvements." Councilmember Councilmem er Menzel referred to the criterion established for cottages. Cottages were approved at the Zoning Administrator's discretion, she asked if = -there -was a possibility to deny the application for other reasons if it met the criterion. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the Zoning Administra- tor could deny a use permit if the record reflected sustained findings of a potential public detriment or any reason it might be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. A use permit was normally granted unless it was shown to not meet plans and policies. Cuuncilrnember Renzel asked if lot width was considered average for the full depth of the property or where it was measured. Mr. Freeland said it was measured as a single slice across the property at the setback line. Councilmember Renzel said theoretically there could be a parcel 1,000 feet long and one inch wide at the far end. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. dun achink, speaking for the applicant William Cox, 420 Lowell Avenue, said the first question revolved around the exception re- quired for the subdivision . .Luring the Planning Commission hear- ing and subsequent public testimony, there was no question that the findings were intended to grant an exception, but he believed the question was whether it was an appropriate flag lot. The Planning Commission found that even if flag lots were inappropri- ate for Palo Alto, it way inappropriate to use the current appli- cation as a basis 'for new legislation. The plan was one of the most superior flag tot plans proposed in Palo Alto, but it was in- appropriate to consider changing the ordinance at this time. The neighbors were concerned about preserving the special features of the neighborhood. It was a beautiful parcel in the middle of a block filled with trees, and the proposal was specific. The con- ditions guaranteed the neighbors were not adversely affected, and there was a 20 foot setback in the sidelards for a second story, which would rot have windows facing the two property sidelines to protect the neighbors' pri vacy. -The City Arbori st would be con- sulted about how to save all Redwood trees on the lot and tech- niques to not damage the roots, and restrictions would be placed on the deed sc•. tnat no cottage could be constructed on the parcel. The impacts were mitigated with a specific plan, and the parcel map showed the design of the proposed home with minimal impact on the'neighoors. No one wanted to see adverse impacts on a specific neighborhood, but it was difficult to control precise changes in a nei yhoorhood. Specific controls were offered, and Council would have no control if it was left as a l arge.. parcel : The development on the 400 block of Melville had a negative impact on the neigh- borhood, but the proposed plan offered an opportunity to forever protect the -neighborhood and its special character. Tim uuilford, tbZ9 Forest, lived in the area and was concerned about the impact of a building at the rear of his house. A person buying a house bought into a neighborhood, and creating a'substan- dard or flag ,lot, or allowing it to persist would significantly change the character of the neighborhood. There were no other flay lots i n the area, and a reason for buying his house was the bO foot restriction which he believed meant people would not be able to build a house directly behind. He ,visited such flag lots, and wondered if the neighbors were given the opportunity to voice their'dismay and whether Council heard them. In order to be heard that evening, he souyht legal advi ce and - was told that -nothing could be done.e The notice of the public hearing said--the.Planning Commission and -City Attorney detersii ned that lot 1. -could be con- sidered substandard in Width, therefore ?requirlhg Planning Commis- sion and City Council approval_ . He asked the Council _to use its discretion to preserve a neighborhood wl th a distinct character. There was a soa11 , gran,r.y ty:pO dwel l l ng In` the back _of -833 Forest gu' which was appropriate as 4 del i ne -i n making the decision. 4 6 3 5 6/11/84 Pat uulliord, 829 Forest, offerea the Council many grounds on which to deny the petition. The first major element of the Com- prehensive Plan was to maintain the general low density character of single family areas, and the splitting of large lots would have an adverse effect because it would increase density. She wanted the character of her neighborhood preserved. She realized the status quo could not always be maintained, but splitting large lots was part of an upsetting trend to develop all R -I land, whether leyi timate or not. Although many exceptions and variances were granted, one more might make a difference. Each case should be given as much thought and care as a unique neighborhood deserved. A flag lot was a restricted, discouraged, and contro- versial way to increase density. She asked why there was a guide for the future of the City if Council did not abide by it. The Code provided size requirements on lots to protect its citizens, and the plans did not meet the requirements. The Comprehensive Plan also proposed more low and middle income housing, not a $300,000 or e400,0QU house. Application could be made for a use permit to construct a granny cottage. The exception challenged the Municipal Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and was unpopular with surrounding neighbors. To obtain the exception, an applicant must prove it was necessary for the preservation of his property rights, but the lot split application was made by a developer who specifically chose the piece of property in anticipation thereof, not by a long time property owner. He believed there were grounds for denial, and granting an exception went against the guidelines for Palo alto's future. Bernard Bouysso.inouse, 840 Hamilton Avenue, urged the Council to deny the application, which would affect the quality of living in Palo Alto. He and his neighbors moved into the area because of its special quality, and he pointed out the. 30U signatures on the petition from the immediate neighborhood= A large house would be placed in a quiet and natural environment and would create noise, invasion of privacy, and his pool would be directly overlooked by the second story. Palo Alto was special because of its trees, and he was anxious to preserve the large Redwood grove, which was healthy because of its natural environment. The Arborist told him the trees needed water, the roots under the drip line were one to three feet deep, and any cut within the drip line would sever big routs and stop the supply of water. The plan of the house was grossly incorrect because the drip line was not represented. The house would be directly under the 60 -foot tree, which would cut the water supply. A lawn was proposed on the other side, and the dryness on one side and watering on the other would cause the trees to fall. Any building within the tree line created a risk of having the trees fall, and protection of the trees should be a major concern. He wanted to see the -tree line on the map show how far the branches went because it would show that not much land was left. He urged the Council to give careful consideration. Don Maynor, 2471 East Bayshore Road, Suite 501, thankedethe Coun- cil for rearranging the agenda. Concern was expressed at the Planning >.Commi ss i on meeting that Mr. .Cox could circumvent the ex- ception process through a lot line adjustment. The Planning Com- mission believed the time was appropriate to put in protections, and that it was doing the citizens a favor. He did not think that was correct, and referred to Councilmember° Renzel-'s remarks that -a lot line adjustment required at preliminary parcel map and the Planning Uirector had the discretion to impose conditions. The Planning Uirector might place a condition Of lot line adjustment that it be in compliance with the Code. For lots of 60 , and 65 feet, it meant it was impossible to put in a flag lot without an exception. The City procedures gave discretion to deal with -the Problem, and i t. was unfortunate . that such technical issues ob- scured the real issue of whether i t was appropriate for the City Council to grant a discretionary exception and subdivision which resulted in a substandard and a flag lot. The majority of resi- dents would ,say no. The overwhelming response to the door-to-door 4 6 3 6 6/11/84 petition was because people did not want such small parcels sub- divided to .increase density, traffic and noise An residential neighborhoods. A letter dated May 17, 1984, was signed by many people of Palo Alto and contained ample reasons to deny the proj- ect. The Council's hands were not tied, and the potential existed to give a message to developers and property owners of `large lots to ask for flag lots as a matter of right because the City would grant exceptions even for substandard lots. The majority of Palo Altans did not want that message given, and he urged the Council to deny the project. He agreed itwas an appropriate policy issue to determine whether there should be a flag lot ordinance at some other time, but if there was -none, a person wanting a flag lot would have to apply for a variance. That WAS the current situa- tion, and Council had ample discretion to deny the application. He urged Council to look at the findings. Robert 8.achman, 16930 Old Pond Drive, Dallas, Texas, owned the property at 820 Hamilton Avenue, which would be most adversely affected by the proposed project. He and his family would have to crane their necks to see the sky if the project went forward. The founder of the Monsanto Company said a community or government "needed four fundamentals for a reputation --policies, performance, benavior, and comhrunication." A serious ethical problem arose at the Planning Commission meeting, and the Council now probed the same issues. The Commission should have asked Mr. Cox if he in- tended the final result to be the creation of an additional parcel on Guinda Street, which might provide the simple, layman's answer to a questionable use of the law. If the project went forward, from the middle of his backyard, it would by nerees eey to look up at a 30 to 45 degree angle to see the sky, and the sunlight would be totally blocked. He restored the foundation of his house, and carne from ual l as to discuss the matter. Abraham Lincoln advised the houseless to not pull down another's mouse, but to build his own to ensure it was safe from violence. He was more interested in the reason for the Council's decision than in the decision it- self because that was what would preserve the quality of life in Palo Alto. uary Sacon, 823 Ferest, lived in Palo Alto far 15 years, first on Cuinda then on the block of the proposed project in order to live in a low density neighborhood. The petition submitted by the neighbors focused on their own neighborhood and one south of Lmbarcadero that was already impacted by flag lots. Only one per- son refused to sign. In the area of Middlefield end Tennyson, an overwhelming number of neighbors of a flag lot signed the peti- tion. When toe windows at his home were open, he could hear car doors, and the proposed development would create a two -car garage by his back fence, and there would be far more noise. A principle or guide on which to act was given in the Comprehensive Plan, and the community needed representatives to carry out _ that principle in order to maintain the quality of the neighborhoods. Mt. Schink said part of his role Was to protect the features that grade the neighborhood special. A plan and offer was presented to Mr. Cox to ,buy - the -two properties and restore the houses.; $r. Cox would have made a, l i ttle. money, and the space in back would be owned by all the. neighbors, green belted, end -_tied into the deeds to protest _ the area erorever. Mr. Cox had other -plans, and he urged the Council to deny Hr. Cox's request, Frances 8asti das, 830 Hamilton Avenue, made a written pPesentati on to the Planning Commission and participated in the. collection of petitions, She appreciated.all efforts to keep Palo Alto a unique and beautiful city, partially - due to its low density residential areas. She was grateful, for the responsiveness of the City Coun- cil in the past, but was concerned that Palo Alto's cedes and regulations were being nul1_i--f1Ad by fron'!ont . t-tsc..,. She gested the elected Counci lme*bers consider how they would feel if a several story building was erected over their back fence. Flag lots posed severe problems, and she asked 'hat.a moratorium be placed on them. 4 6 3 7 6/11/84 George uasti das, 830 Hamilton Avenue, said he and his wife moved to Palo Alto eo years earlier, and he was proud of the way the elected officials ran the City. There was now a problem, and he suggested Council place a moratorium on flag, lots, and that a meeting of the immediate neighborhood be called before the issue went to either the Planning Commission or Council. After the neighbors discussed, approved, or suggested alternatives, the same procedures might be followed. doeelyn Baum, 909 Hamilton, lived a block away from the proposed development, and pointed out .that neighborhood integrity included more than flag lots. The C i ty Council members saw what happened to the front of a property when a flag lot was split off from behind. She referred to a house on Middlefield just south of Embarcadero and three on Hamilton where the houses were 15 to 50 feet in front of the adjacent houses on the street. The people who lived in there did not like them and the houses were repeatedly for sale. All such houses. were created because a flag lot was put in behind, and it was the nicer. In the present si tuati un the .lot on which the house was to be torn down was small, and she did not believe Mr. Cox would build a small cottage there. Michael Fleming, 655 Seale, developed single family homes and was concerned about the particular site. He was a property owner in Palo Alto and developed other properties. When. there was an exception from City regulations, public concern end statements took effect. There was much public input on the subject matter, and the adverse effect was demonstrated. He looked to the City Council to set a precedent. There were many 100 foot lots in Palo Alto he would love to split which would not even create flag lots. There were 50 foot lots joined by the City which could no longer be split, and the subject lot was 50 feet wide, but as a new parcel lot was being drawn, it brought the whole project into consideration as would occur during the variance process. He hoped .the issues would be carefully considered by the Council in terms of the future of Palo Alto for builders and property owners. weorge Young, u6► Tennyson, lived adjacent to the large 1736 Middlefield Road structure squeezed into a 40 x 50 foot lot. He believed Council should use past performance as a yardstick of a person's integrity . and work. It was said the Middlefield Road structure would have no windows, and many other things were promised that did net occur. Actions spoke louder than words. Susan and ifienry. Satenstei n, 890 Forest Avenue, were unable \`to attend the Council meeting but asked that their opposition to the parcel map be recorded. Ms. Sloan said Mr. Bachman misquoted her when she stated at the Planning Commission that a lot line adjustment could be freely redrawn. The minutes of the Planning Commission showed that Commissioner Chandler asked her if a lot line adjustment required an exception, and she answered "No , it would not require an .excep- tion.' She then read from the lot line adjustment language as she aid for Councilmember Renee] and said it could be done at the staff level Susan Sherwood was not a Palo Alto resident, but inherited the property at 518 .Fulton from her sister. The inheritance was like a dream come true for a Wisconsin wage earner because of the high price of, real estate in Palo- Alts+. The possibility of the large structure coming in to shadow the surrounding houses made her doubt the dream. She hoped , to rent the house intact and have it for her family, but if such structures .moved into the residential neighborhoods, she preferred to sell'. She put nothing into it, but Council should be concerned that people who put many years into their property would prefer to move. She urged the Council to maintain the quality- of Palo. Alto, for which people paid r fortune to en4oy. Shelooked forward to being part of Palo Alto some day, and wanted to keep the house on Fulton Street. 4 6 3 8 6/11/84 e Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. COUNCIL RECESSLU TU EXECUTIVE SESSION RE PERSONNEL FROM 9:30 p.m. TU 9:55 p.m. Councilmember Woolley asked the City Attorney for clarification apout what Council was considering, The referral from the Planning Commission and the staff report indicated they were considering the creation of a substandard lot at 619 Guinda. Ms. Sloan said the request was for a . preliminary parcel map with an exception for one of the three lots. The entire parcel map was before the Council --the division of the land into three lots. Councilmember Woolley obtained confirmation that the exception applied to the lot at b19 Uuinda although all three parcels were before the Council Councilmember Fletcher asked what kind of construction could occur if the application were denied. Ms. Melena said the applicant could apply for a cottage unit on the larger lot with the normal R-1 setback requirements, and the owner would not be subject to the conditions suggested in the staff report: Vice Mayor Levy referred to the discussion at the Planning Commission that the subdivision could be accomplished in two steps without any exceptions. He asked for reclarification of the process. Ms. Sloan said the first step would be a request . for a lot line adjustment, which normally went through staff unless one of the seven conditions she read existed. If none of those conditions were present, staff could act on the lot line adjustment, and place conditions on the lot line adjustment, which were subject to appeal and might end up before the Planning Commission and City Council. After adjusting the lot line so the back portion of 619 was attached to 625, the second step would be for the applicant to to request a division of land from one lot into two. That would also be a preliminary parcel map which would narmal1y .only go before the staff since it was fewer than five lots, required no exceptions, and the frontage on 625 would be adequate for both the flag and front lots. The Director of Planning could, at his dis- cretion, recommend the preliminary parcel map go before the Planning Commission and the Council, but since an exception was. not being requested, the findings would be unnecessary --only the yui del i nes as set forth in the Subdivision Map Act for any subdi- vision. 'Vice Mayor Levy asked if the Director of Planning had the discre- tion to impose requirements such as preservation of the trees or different setbacks. Mss Sloan said the Director of Planning coul d pi ace. conditions on the subdivision related to the physical division of - the land, improvements, and design. Vice Mayor Levy asked to what degree such map changes ` and recom- binations took place in the past, and the general policy of the Council. Ms. Melena she there :were not many flag lots i n the past few years, but if one met ail the requirements, conditions could be imposed. She did not .recaal I ...specific" conditions. Vice Mayor Levy asked if a flag lot referred to one large 1 of divided into a flag lot and a regular lot. 4 6 3 9 6/11/84 Ms. Melena said yes, and that no exceptions were requir=ed as a result of the flag lot. Councilmember Renzel asked if the new way around a substandard lot would expect such a request to permit a major chunk of land to be shifted without the other lot being brought into conformance. Mr. Freeland said staff did not look at the question As pointed out by Mr. Maynor, it was reasonable in the process of shifting lines, to ask that both lots be brought into conformance. e Councilmember Renzel said that would mean there would not be a 15 foot, in fee right-of-way off the other lot. Councilmember Woolley said if a lot line adjustment resulted in the rear parcel being attached to 625 rather than the way it was now, but still making two parcels, she believed it would be pos- sible, if she correctly understood the cottage ordinance, to put the main house at the rear and the cottage in the front. Mr. Freeland said the requirement that a cottage always be in the rear was discussed at the Planning Commission but found to be un- reasonable because invariably it would be up against a situation where a house they wanted to preserve happened to be small and in the front. Cottages were not required to be in front. Vice Mayor Levy asked how many lots on the block surrounded by Guinda, Seneca, Hamilton, and Pope were 50 feet wide. Ms. Helena said the block the parcel map had six 50 foot lots and one 47.5 foot lot. Councilmember Sutorius asked if an alternative was td have lot I -- the Su foot lot --gain 10 feet from the existing flag lot to make bO feet, and lot 2 would be 65 feet wide. The property line, as it extended to the rear of the property and absorbed lot 3, could either be a straight line continuation or some irregularity to create two R-1 lots where the gross 24,000 square feet_ were some- how divided into two lots. Each lot size would allow an applica- tion for a cottage without any exceptions or variances, and the result would be two primary stand two cottage residences, each re- quired to be under the same Ownership. Mr. Freeland said such a configuration was possible. MOTION: Couecilmesber Renzel moved to overturn the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the parcel sap. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND. MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy raved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt Planning Commission recommendations that the proposed preliminary parcIl map will not have an adverse environmental impact and find that the exception of a SO foot width should be granted because: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property including that the onginral. parcel (ApM 3.31-15) is an exceptionally large parcel with a narrow frontage which appears to have resnl ted from the original plating pattern which still exists on other lots in the area; 2. The exception is necessary fir , the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner in tat the flag lot is a more than ample building site and the use of which is limited toeless Lot 1 remains 50 feet wide and access is obtained over the original Lot 14; 3. The granting of the exceptaoe will not be detrimental to the public welfare or inJMrlous to other property in the territory in which the property is sit:eated in that:. 4 6.4 0 6/11/84 Mul UUN CUNTIWU£U a. the 50 foot width previously existed; b. other 50 foot wide lots are present in the area; and c. the many large trees which screen the site from scar - rounding properties can be retained as a condition of approval; and 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the require- ments, goals, policies, or spirit of the law in that it does not increase the density of the area beyond that which would otherwise be allowed. And approving the preliminary parcel map with the following Condi- tions: A. The house and garage on Lot 2 be removed; B. None of the major Redwood or pine trees on the site (defined as those over 13 inches in a diameter is sho,n on the approved preliminary parcel map) can be removed t;icept for reasons of safety. Those major trees considered to be unsafe because' of damage from storms, diseases or other natural causes can be removed only after obtaining approval from the City's Parks Division; C. That the second story on any house built on Lot 3 be set back 20 feet on all sides (es proposed by the applicant); 0. That no second cottage 4ait be allowed on Lot 3 (even if the requirements for allowing second cottage units are changed at a time in the future to allow the units on smaller lots than is presently the case); and E. That the house on Lot 3 be submitted to the Architectural Review Board for review and approval before construction. Vice Mayor Levy said his motion represented a compromise of con- flicting City policies and was difficult to make. The. neighbors enjoyed proximity to the internal open space when they bought them' proper�ties, but could not assume the site would remain undevel oiled forever. The portion to become Lot 3 met City zoning requirement as -a flag lot and conformed with city policies and practices which permitted flag lots on parcels of that size. The problem was the front lot which remained 50 feet wide, or less than normal throughout the City, but many lots, including many in the particular area, were of the 50 feet wide configuration. He supported the Planning Commission recommendations because the restrictions placed on development of the flag lot considered the objections raised by the neighbors and did many things requested by the neighbors such as the preservation of the mature trees; restrictions to maintain- privacy including a 20 foot setback with no windows at the ends of the second story; and that under no cir- cumstances would a cottage be allowed on the flag lot. The fact. that it would have to go before the Architectural Review Board (ARB).would also allay concerns about the appearance, and the aesthetics of the property and the specifies related to the sitings. As indicated by Councilasember 5utorius, the likely alternative to the development of a flag lot was the construction of two cottages. The cottages would be smaller, 900 square feet each, with a total of 1,800 square feet of building as opposed to a home with over 2,000 square feet that would go in. However, it would result in four families occupying the site rather than three, and there would be no restrictions related to the siting of those cottages and setbacks;, 110 ARB and no assurance that the mature= redwoods and pines would be maintained. He believed, i t was a way to develop a flag . lot which was of _ a+apl a size, and _ at the same time maintain the Redwood trees and open space. Counci lmembcr Witherspoon concurred with Vice Mayor Levy. She lived four docks away on Hamilton and was cognizant of the neigh- borhood and the concerns about the large lots being split up. Some rezoning was done about four years ago on some of the large, 10,000 square foot lots on Hamilton Avenue, and almost all those blocks had at least one flag lot. She believed many of the neigh- bors' fears were unjustified, and Commissioner McCown remarked on page 23 of the Planning Commission minutes that it was one of the least exceptions sought in any of themany subdivisions that went before the Commission. She agreed because the flag lot was almost double the size of most front lots in Palo Alto, and it was il- logical to deny it. She pointed out that of the seven properties immediately contiguous to the proposed three parcels, not one was less than 100 feet deep, and three were 200 feet deep. With the mature trees, shrubbery, and distance, the privacy.- of the neigh- bors would be preserved. The motion did not speak to the concern expressed by those who signed the petition and their desire to not have lot splits and flag lots created as a general rule. Commis- sioner McCown clearly pointed out that it was a. separate policy issue and not something that could be addressed by Council on a individual application. It was appropriate that it be addressed by the Council and Planning Commission, and a separate motion could be made later. The two items should not be confused. Councilmemoer Woolley supported the motion because she believed they were discussing the exception that involved the substandard lot. The concerns she heard that evening were primarily expressed about the flag lot, not the front lot at 619 Guinda. Mr. Bouyssounouse expressed it well at the first hearing .when he said he considered the area a kind of wildlife refuge. She visited the site and agreed it was a delightful oasis, but the Council's work was to balance individual property owners' rights with the good of the entire community. With that in mind, over the years the Coun- cil was much more specific in the rules and regul a ci ons that ap- plied to multi -family or commercial properties than to R-1. The ARb reviewed other properties, but she could only remember :i t re- viewing one property, which was in the College Terrace area. Be- cause . of the general policy to not put heavy restrictions on R-1 properties, she could think of two scenarios where thc- neighbors would be much worse off than with the present specific plan. If no lot line changes were made, the person with the deep back yard at b19 Guinda could put in a large pool, and the trees might then be considered a nuisance and chopped down. The Council could not prevent that because it rejected an ordinance protecting trees in back yards. Another possibility would be a lot line adjustment giving two lots and not three, with the rear property attached to 625 Guinda, which would make it possible to build a large house at the rear and a cottage in the front, with no restrictions over the large house except the usual daylight plane and setback require- ments . It could be 35 feet high with windows on all sides, and the trees removed. She supported the motion because she believed it provided the most protections. The impact in five years would not be as great as the neighbors feared, and she respectfully sug- gested the neighbors plant .their own Redwoods. She lived next to the Southern Pacific tracks and planted Redwoods to buffer them- selves, The architect told them redwoods grew fast, and they did --for the first twohundred years. Councilmember Renzel said the motion was suggested as a nice com- promise, but she believed it compromised the neighborhood. It was said that 5U - foot lots were common, so more should be added, or subdivisions that incorporated them should. be permitted, Standards were set for the City of Palo. Alto, and everyone who bought into the City bought into those standards, and when the Council evaluated new proposals, it should make sure they complied with such standards. She reminded her coileages, with regard to the restrictions on the proposal that the cottage was net auto- matic, but required a use permit, which was, subject.: to conditions and was capable of being denied' if not found appropriate for the circumstances. ;ieither the cottage nor the subdivision was d "given," which only needed the Building Inspector's approval. The Council was given discretion, and there were policies in the Com- prehensive Plan to protect k-1 zones, which the motion did not do. Every house that bought in had done so with the character of the neighborhood in mind. It was reasonable for people to assume that one house per lot was the maximum, and they should not have to second-guess whether a future Council would subdivide. If some sort of lot line adjustment could be made to permit two cottages,. there were ample controls in force. The cottage zone was limited to 900 square feet single story structures; the Zoning Administrator was given considerable latitude as to the conditions of the location and nature -of the structure, and in term, of the contribution to the housing stock in Palo Alto, one big $500,000 house did not address the real problem, whereas two cottages would be more apt to do so. Cottages were less intrusive, and she as- sumed there would be only one, rather than two. She believed the two -cottage proposal was a threat that was bandied about, and would again be at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. The cottage would have to be under the same ownership as the other house, and therefore there would be a strong incentive on the part of the owner of the principal house to have a low-key type facili- ty. It would be a rental and would contribute to the housing sit- uation. To build a large house in the middle of a lot where it would affect five other property owners plus the two property own- ers in the subdivision was a major intrusion without any real net benefit to the City and with a net loss to the overall quality of the particular neighborhood. She believed passing such a motion was an invitation for Mr. Cox and others to start working their way through the neighborhoods again to find extra little pieces of land. Councilmember Sutorius said Councilmember Renzel performed a ser- vice by many of her comments and earned a lot of respect from the audience. He was particularly glad she pointed out some of the situations involving the cottage zone, and did not want the record or any earlier comments by any of the parties to leave the impres- sion that the cottage zone was automatic. It had the features described more completely by Councilmember Renzel. He supported the sense of the motion. AMEW0ME 1T t Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley, to include in the refer=ral to the ARB a consideration for an ease- ment from Lot 3 to Lot 2 for the purposes of access and a drive- way. Councilmember Sutorius said the purpose of his amendment was to reduce the amount of asphalt, pavers, or concrete that would be necessitated by one more driveway. He believed the potential exi3ted for excellent siting, use of lot to site, and enhancement of that use if there was a way to provide the easement so it was accessed to z garage to improve the effect on the streetscape. Councilmember Bechtel ascertained that the amendment was a con- sideration --not a requirement. ' ouncilmember Sutorius said he worded it so that through the ARB process, the applicant, staff, public, and affected neighbors could arrive at a final arrangement that would be the most bene- ficial. Councilmember Bechtel supported the amendment, but only i f it was a consideration and not a requirement, It was passible to design a garage towards the front on the other side of the lot to avoid- the problem of a shared driveway, -=and a garage in back might re- quire even more asphalt. The Council should notbe involved --it should be decided at the ARB level. Councilmember Sutorius agreed. 4 6 4 3 6/11/84 Councilmember Renzel believed the whole purpose of having in fee title ownership of the right of way fcr rear lots was to avoid potential conflicts between property owners about easements. She did not think it mattered whether the easement was given by the front property to the rear property or vice versa, as the same kinds of problems were entailed. She considered the idea unwise, and permitting such access could only mean a bigger house would be built on Lot 2. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Renzel and Klein voting "no.n Councilmember Sutorius said the presentations by the concerned neighbors were thoughtful and respectful. They might have begun to accomplish the purpose they had in mind. Some future action might result, although it might not bring the immediate benefit they sought. When things moved forward, even if it entailed a personal sacrifice, some satisfaction was obtained if it resulted in some future good. He understood the concerns about the trees even with deed restrictions and controls regarding the design, but he assured the neighbors that the ARB would carefully consider the design, patio materials and the drip line. Some comments made that evening which evolved from conversations with the City arbor- ist were fair. He did not believe the drip line was fully reflec- ted on the plan and seemed t.o indicate a drip line of 16 to 18 feet, which he thought should be bigger. The ARB would pay close attention to such matters, and although Redwood was sensitive, it had a tremendous advantage over other trees in the area. Survival protections were available and could be introduced to retain the forest feeling. Councilmember Renzel had correctly stated that the potential under another plan for a two lot development with two primary houses and two cottages was not a certainty. While the conditions she cited as available would avoid a disaster from occurring, the cottages might well be rented to persons outside the family. Although it was not the intent of the granny ordi- nance either at the state level or in Palo Alto, it often occurred and might introduce less_ satisfactory usage than the single fami- lies to occupy the three proposed lots. Councilmember Bechtel said she lived in an area of 50 -foot wide lots, and much of the older part of Palo Alto was so subdivided. Her lot was 7,500 square feet, 50 feet wide and 150 feet long. When she purchased her house, the .75 acre lot across the street had a forest in front so the house could not be seen. She would have preferred it to remain that way forever, but since the zoning allowed 6,000 square feet lots, a house was constructed, That house blended in and the trees were not cut, and although the giant deodar trees caused problems for the roofers, they were pre- served because they added value to the house. They came to know and appreciate the new neighbors. The plot was a half -acre in 6,000 square foot zoning, and there was a long history of per- mitting flag lots, subject to conditions. The Council had to pro- tect the surrounding neighbors, which they attempted to do by the conditions imposed, while being consistent with the zoning mechan- ism already in place. She supported the motion because she be- lieved the conditions made it finally acceptable although not ini- tially liked by the neighbors. Councilmember Fletcher said many of hersentiments were expressed, and agreed that the motion and its conditions provided maximum protection for the neighbors. If the main house were built on the rear .lot, there would be no protections. It would not go to the ARB, there would be no setback for the second story, and no restrictions on windows or cutting down the trees. She was not convinced that flay lots were detrimental. She lived in south Palo Alto and was aware of several .flag lots, : which were not a detriment to the neighborhoods. There were several nice ones on Ross and Louis and there were others in other parts of town which did not make the nei ghoorhood run : down. She supported the motion. 4 6 4 4 6/11/84 counci rnernber Kenzei pointed out that flag lots which were incorporated as part of an initial subdivison gave everyone notice of what they were getting when they bought a home. The flag lot in question was being superimposed on an existing neighborhood. • Mayor Klein said Councilmembers Bechtel and Sutorius reflected much of his own thinking and appreciated the neighbors' concerns. Any such change was painful, but they also had to look at things from other perspectives. He believed the applicant requested somethinP that was readily appropriate from his vantage point, and the conditions being imposed would well protect the neighborhood. With those in mind, he would vote in favor of the motion. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Renzel voting 'no," Cobb not participating." MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to refer the subject of flag lots rto the Planning Commission through staff for review and recommendation on changes, if any, including the application process itself for any modification or substitu- tion. Councilmember Sutorius said his intent was whether the present ordinance process as opposed to a variance process was a potential way to approach the subject of flag lots. He was well aware that flay lots were modified in the early 1980's to solidify the situation for access and making sure it was guaranteed. He did not believe the expressions by affected neighborhood, corres- pondence and the s i gnators of petitions could be ignored. He referred to a letter from Thomas S. Clark saying he and his neigh- bors were able to block the erection of a seven foot fence and asked why the change proposed on Cuinda was not worthy of ten times that consideration. Although the case received considerable attention, it drew attention to the fact that Council sometimes focused on a detail out of proportion to its size. He too lived on a block with two flag lots and one cottage under the cottage zone. His own lot could have a cottage on it or be, converted to a flag lot, and the potential for such things to occur might be greater than was recognized in the City. He felt a review of the flag *lot ordinance was appropriate. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed to support the motion. CouncilmeedeeE Woolley concurred with Councilmember Sutorius' motion, - particularly because she shared the concern voiced by Jocelyn Baum that evening regarding the houses on Hamilton which projected into the traditional setback line. She believed it should be included in the consideration. Mayor Klein sa.iu by asking the Planning Commission to study the item they would be given a lot of discretion. Councilmember Woolley said she did not want to make a formal addition to the motion, onlyto have it recorded in the minutes. Councilmember Menzel said i t was late to close the barn door after the neighborhood was isr_jacted by the Council decision. She was willing to send the matter to the Planning Commission, but believed Mr. Clark meant that when he said his neighborhood were able to ban the seven foot fence, the neighbors believed they had not been listened to. They had an opportunity to speak to the matter, and the Council had the opportunity to respond with discretionary decisions, which it chose not to make. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 4 6 4 5 6/11/84 ITEM 013, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO ULNT TFCE AVYLILAI LVN W- HARRINGTUN FINANCIAL CORPURATIUN FUR hayor Klein clarified that Mr. Harrington ` s other projects, 744 Ramona and 745 Emerson, were not before the Council despite the fact that a lot of the material referred to those two projects. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said that was correct. He believed Council would see those items within the next two months. The present proposal was to remove 727 Ramona from the previous Planned Community (PC) classification. Mayor Klein understood the applicant agreed with the redesignation to Medium Density Multiple Family (RM-4). Mr, Brown said although he did not see the applicant in the audi- ence, he concurred with the Planning Commission action to rezone the property to RM-4. Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler informed the Council that the item went before the Commission several times within the brief period. The staff, and particularly Mr. Brown, dese.'ved credit for foliowing through. with the applicant to arrive at a result that might produce housing on the block. It was a yeoman effort that paid off. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Councilaeaber Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt Planning Commission recommendation for approval of the rezoning of 727 Ramona Street from PC to RM-4 with the following finding: _ 1. The proposed rezoni rig _will be in accord with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan - in that the RM-4 district will allow the development of two residential units iL a location proximate to the downtown area and nearby commercial uses which is encouraged by Comprehensive Plan Employment Policy 2 tnd Rinsing Element Objective 3. Further, that the application of Harrington Financial Corporation for reestablishment of the Planned C±+remuni ty District be denied based on the following findings a. Thie development of two residential units does not require a i*ezani ng to the Planned Community district, bat could be 'accomplished by the application of existing multiple family districts; and b. Development of the site under the provisions of the Planned Comsanity district will not result i n, public benefits not otherwise attainable by appli catf on of the regulations of general districts:. ORDINANCE FOR F 1R ST READ IMG entitled 'ORDINANCE OF_ THE ALO ALTO:- AMEMD IMD SECTION 18.08-.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE UTHE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE YOKE CLASSIFICATIOM. OF` •THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 727 RAMONA FROM PC TO Rai -4" Counci lmember Renzel commented that the --application "was probably a mistake at the outset. To have a PC zone incorporating three df fferent properti es that were not even contiguous was:a mi stake, and she was glad to see at least a°portion resolved. - MOTION PASSED unanimously. 4 6 4_6 6/11/84 AUJOUkUMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:45 ATTEST: Ci APPROVED: