Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-02-01 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCI L t1INUT€s ITEM Planning Commission Recommendations re Draft Zoning Ordinance (Continued from 1/16/78) A{d j ournment CITY Of - PALO ALTO Special Meeting February 1, 1978 PAGE 5 59 5 9 4 Special Meeting February 1, 1978 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:30 p.m. with Mayor Sher presiding. PRESENT: Brenner, Carey, Clay (arrived 7:50 p.m.) , Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon (arrived 7:37 p.m.) ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS WIEWIZEMrlininers==e8d from 1/16/78) Mayor Sher said there were three items from the draft zoning ordinance to be discessed--the Envirenmetal Impact Assessment, Residential Districts and industrial Districts. Discussion will be limited to those three topics and hopefully Council will be able to complete consideration of them tonight. He noted that Council will take up the Environmental Impact Assessment first. He noted this was not a full EIR, but that a full EIR will be prepared in conjunction with the final zoning ordinance. Council will consider it when they receive the zoning map, which the Planning Commission will be _on-- siderating and bringing back to Council after Council has adopted the new zoning ordinance. The application of the new zoning regulations will came when the nap is complete and the zoning regulations will be applied to particular parcels of property throughout the City. Mayor Sher noted that first, however, them must be a negative declaration on the preliminary impact assessment. Council can't take any action on th-c draft zoning ordinance until they adopt or take some action on the EIt. Mayor Sher then listed the Residential District chapters that will be covered: 18.10, RE Residential Estate District; 18.12, R-1 Single Family Residence. District; 18.15, Special Residential Building Site Co bining District; 18.17, R-2 Two Family Residence District; 16.21, RM-I Restricted Density Multiple Family Residence District; 18.23, R-2 Low Density Multiple Family Residence District; 18.23, PM -3 Moderate Density Multiple Family Residue District; 18.27, 1M-4 Medium Density Multiple Family Residence District; and 18.29, i -5 High Density Multiple Failly Residence "District. De noted that it also seemed appropriate to consider 18.71, which is the Open Space District, at this time because that is a district in which residences say be leailt, end 18.72, AC Agricultural. Conservation District. Km **id there were only three chapters under the Industrial Districts -- 18.35, CM General Manufacturing District; 1e.%0, LK Limited Industria]. ForkiReeearch District; and 18,63, Limited Industrial Site Combining District. for Shet. saki the Council is scheduled to discuse the zoning ordinance again on February 6. That is Council's regular meeting date. At least the first hour of the meeting will be regular Council business, but the zoning ordinance will be set for 8:30 p.u. The subject mtil be Commercial Districts. Thome start with 18.37, OR Office Research District, and include 18.41, CM neighborhood Commercial District; 18.43, CC Community Commercial District; 18.450 CS Service Commercial District; and 18.47, Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. If " there is time at : that meeting, Mayor Mier cu geated they discuss 18.32, PF Public Facilities Distvict, wail 18.68, PC Planned Community District. What they don't finish on February 6 can be carried over to the February 7 special s ting. The February 7 special meeting has been advertised as dimcbleicn mill be on the miscellaneous districts and various admindstrutive sores under the proposed ordinance, such as 18.01, Adoption, Purposes sad forcament. Discussion will also include 18.70, Leadeceping" Cobining'Dietrict and 339 2/1/78 all the sections from 18.74 to thP, end, that is, those provisions that are not actually definitions of specific zones. Mayor Sher said he had a card from someone wanting to speak about a property in the Mid -Town area which is subject to an amortization. He said that was not before the Council tonight and will be considered on the 7th. If the new residential zones or industrial zones are applied to some area of the city so that there are some nonconforming uses in those zones, there may be a problem about amortization, but he said they would not be discussing that until February 7. Councilmember Henderson said he didn't understand the inclusion of the Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Districts. He wondered if members of the public didn't define that as residential. He was a little hesitant to discuss those two areas tonight. Mayor Sher responded that if there was a concern about discussing Os and AC because residential was advertised, they could be held for future meetings. Coutcilmember Henderson suggested they discuss the items if they have time tonight, but leave the matter open for people who might have misunderstood the advertising and want to bring the Districts up later. Mayor Sher said they would take up the Environmental Impact Ae essment first. He will, call on staff to comment and if any members of the public wish to speak, they will have an opportunity. Then the Couacil can take action. He said the appropriate action would be a negative declaration, if ouncli agrees. Then they will consider the draft zoning ordinance itself, which he will introduce in order to get a motion on the floor. Council coaideration of amendments can follow. Ee7ironzer tal Ii act Asses :nt Ceozge Ziamernan, Principal Planner, said copies of the Environmental Assessment are avel.lable to the public. The EIR describes the changes between the current ordinance and the propcted ordinance. The tables in the EIR were to provide a device for that comparison. These tables were • analyzed and the possible impacts of the more important changes were noted in the, **easement! The assessment concludes that until the text changes are applied to a new zoning map, no significant impact will result. If cbeug+es ere made to the zoning ordinance text by amendment which staff or their counsel feels are so significant as to require revisions to the assessment, such revision* will have to be - e prior to fins/ adoption of the ordinance. MOTt M: Councileember Carey moved, seconded by Fazsino, that the negative declaration is sufficient enl will be incorporated into the osdl:wane* later. Vice Mayor Drestor asked if the Elk was based on the assumption that Council not anticipate up-soming. as the new zones plate the odd ones? W. Zeman replied that the taabla s chow that pa#e*mittedl densities for residential scams are not dirasctly comparable withtath the existing 00411, so by and large, it is stated in the summary assessment nt that overall the permitted densities in the multi -family zones will be lower. He emphasized that the sew multi -family zones are not directly comparable with the existing multi -fancily somas is terms of permitted densities. Coencilmembar Carty said he diae't feel the ttsr was relevant at this time. Until the *mime text is applied to specific land uses, they can't cooper* the current =mime with oft is Dam to ' be on it* and what `fie impact will be istricia Cellos, 409 Melville, President of the Civic League, said she thou ht that befog* the erasing ordinance could be diecessed there begat be a negative daclaratoSmn mod she hoped the met( s calm takentelbmillaaa a preltalPmgrY 44c Mayor Sher said that was what he wanted to make clear. The environmental essesament is not a full scale review of the impact of any action on the environment. Tonight they are merely taking action on the preliminary assessment. Lou Green, Assistant City Attorney, said he would like to review the terminology. At this point, the Council will be considering action to adopt a zonissg ordinance. Therefore, an environmental finding is necessary and it would be a negative declaration if the Council approves this motion. With respect to approval of the motion, it is preliminary in the sense that there will be a further environmental evaluation in the form of a full EIR. Basically, what the negative declaration says at this time ie this is the final environmental action to date and more environmental review will be done later. Mayor Sher said, in other words, the environmental assessment is final, at lease for purposes of adopting the words which are the new zoning ordinance, but that this new zoning ordinance is not yet to be applied to specific parcels of property azound the City. That will come later after the Planning Commission has given fill consideration and the matter comes back to the Council. Then there will be a full EIR to consider. But as far as adopting these rules as the new zoning ordinance, it is necessary to adopt this environmental impact aascsement in order to go forward with the discussions end amendments. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Residential Distracts Mayo. Sher suggested they now proceed to >!.: discussion of Residential Districts. MOTION: Mayor Sher iltroduced the following orc ican, a and moved, seconded by Henderson, approval for first reading: ORDINANCE OF THE COJ''CIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REPEALING TITLE 18 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (EONIIG) AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 18 E7F E.C- TrYE UPON ADOPTION OF A NEW ZONING MAP Mayor Sher aabd he wanted to mak* 3t clear that the rurpoae in moving this motion was to set the stage &o Council can consider the various arms end make its to the extent Council wishes to make amendments. } E*phtali mss, Director of Flaming and Community Environment, raid staff had five recommended =oedemas. They are incorporated in the staff report of Jenuary 12 and two staff reports dated Jay 26. In the staff report of January 12, there are three cots relating to residential districts. Item three states that on paw 83 of the zoning text, line 20, the wording "ice" should be changed to "BO." Item =veep with -re and to Chapter 18.17, the Opee Spec* Tease, says that where to appear,. they should be revised in the metric form, followed by thethe'Englieb equivalent in paren- theses. Yhe revised locations are on pew 1.52i line 10, 18, 22, 26, and on page 153, line 3. The third muter is also in relation to item seven. It simply indicates that with reepect to Section 18.71 that the format arhould be changed in various motions, Cifr that batters appear before numbers.. scd ors appear before letters. Mayor Sher suggested that someone move a motion, as the corrections are_ . simply dcal or typographical oa es - ' ANENBMBIM Canner Carey moved, oeceided by Brauer, to incorporate the is in staff's memo of January 12, 1978. a NISMXT ti : The ineeseiatent poised eassizeicaly, 941 2/i/Is Mr. Knox said that the Last two items staff wishes to comment on are contained in the memos of January 26. The first memo is titled "Responses to Comments on the Draft Ordinance Text." On the page entitled "Responses" Item 3 is a staff recommendation that responds to a request to allow a replacement of apartment buildings in districts where permitted densities in the new ordinafice will be reduced. This is also mentioned in the second January 26 memorandum. If the Council wants to assure that multi -family residential uses could, in all cases, rebuild to their present site coverage, height and gross floor area, and if those changes would place such existing multi -family buildings in more restrictive zones, staff feels that the chances are that the new sits development regulations will be more restrictive in those zones than the present development regulations are with respect to those existing buildings. In that regard, he asked Mr. Green to indicate the kind of change that would be required and how an amendment might be worded. Mr. Green said at earlier Commission meetings he advised that !a view of the present language of the various residential zones, except U, where it specifically states that two-family and multi -tamely uses can be rebuilt or replaced, it would appear that they would have to build to completely new building standards.- After reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, it did not seem to fit the intent of the Plan and that the intent of the Plan basically was to alloy those same buildings to be rebuilt or replaced to the sane dimensions and area as previously existed. Mr. Green said there is a section in eech of the residential sections under epecial requirements, i hich indicates two-family and multi -family uses existing on the date of the effective ordinane.e are deemed conforming uses and can be rebuilt. If the Council wishes ?:o modify that, he would suggest the language be placed in a subsection which could read "such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements on the same site", and then insert the wording "whether or not complying" and continue with the existing wording, Mayor Sher asked if "whetb.er or not complying" meant in terms of size, etc.? Mr. Green replied that complying would refer to any development standards as opposed to nonconforming, or conforming relates to the use. It could be expanded to say "whether or not with the currently existing site development regulations." Mayor She said he bad read the staff memos and the recommendation, that deals with the so-called Carey notion, that this laneuagie would be necessary, but then he referred to some of the residential tones, for example MK 3 on page 69, where it talks about rebuilding sari it says two-family, multiple family uses erefst$e on' the effective date of this section, which prior to that date were 1a al permitted uses or conditiol uses opereti'ig pursuant to a conditional use permit, 'ball be deemed conforming uses. rhe next sentence read, 'Summa uses shell, be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site impr is om lib sae ' site or cotinued,use and occupancy by the same use pro idezd ttnat any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result- in ietreased floarareae, eueber of derailing its, height, length, : or other increase in the else of the improvement . " Mayor Sher said he read that to mean they could bell _ tie same building, the *ems dieensiona, and the same helefit even if those are greater than whet would be iced in the sone ewer the new ordinance. He didn't aaderetaad why an amendment is needed. height, of the which complying Mt. Green said mhan this matter come up at the Commission meeting, he felt .there was soma ambiguity ' they bad referred to conforming usee which are separate from ;allying or noncomplying build . At that time, they sivlind the -Cemplaeiom that such rehaildise would bev a to cantors with the nerds. He if the Coomal felt comfortable with the present warding, it can -clarify it by merely stating its intent for the record. Mr. room: said he, other comment regarding the 26 . In the ammo see d . Neepoesee to tents on the Draft gaming Ordinance -Text, O page 4, items 16*- there is a recommendation that imepomds to a cwt side by liay. Staisfaidt. Staff recommends that language be addend to the it -1 district is Seale* 18.12. ome 44, to aela4WM4S {.t 3 tt 2/10, or boardiag home to accommodate the nUcleili,family, which defined in Definition 37 as no more than 4-6 additional persons, p ided that such lodging and bearding is provided in loco parentis and further t'{6t such home shall not operate within 1,000 feet of any other such facility. Mayor Sher suggested Council hear from the public and then come back to the staff recommendations. If Council thinks amendments are necessary, they will move them. Mr. William Sanders, 3106 Bender., spoke about his concern regarding the conditional uses of the proposed Residential Estate District, and parti- cularly about the omission from that section of the conditional uses permitted in the present zoning ordinance. The two conditional uses mentioned in the current sections regarding Dog and Cat Kennels and Dairies ere not included in the proposed Residential Estate District. This omission removes the historic right for these rural neighborhe s to decide by the use permit process whether they want kennels anddairies nearby. Also, it appeared incongruous that a district where sic goats per acre are cosw1.4ered an unconditional use, the other conditional agricultural uses should arb+ate ily be removed. Re asked Council to consider this omission. Alice Smith, reprtsenting Willis Photo Lab, said she would attend the next Council meeting to talk about the amortization issue, but it was appropriate at this time to discuss the uses of residential property where there is existing commercial use. Mayor Sher asked if her question was whether commercial uses in residential zones is appropriate? !4r. Green thought the question was who ':et e come metcial use can continue, whethet different co r ercial uses might be put in, etc. II that is the case, that issue would come up within the non- conforming uae section, which deals with ctanges or alterations in existing nonconforming uses. Ms. Smith reiterated that .she represented Willis Phon Lab on Loma -Verde Road in Palo Alto. The Lab has bear in Palo Alto since the 1940's and the photographers since 1936. In 1951 they were the first to locate at the Loma Verde Road property. In 1963 the General Plan was adopted which contained this property, zoned M-1.at the time. In 1966 the. Planning Com- mission focussed on what uses they wanted on the property and at that tine it use brought to the Council's attention that the General Plan was out of ronformtty with the zones that were there, so they wanted to reorganize the zones. They revised the toning patterns end adopted my amortisations. The basic policy -decision included that it bad been determined that it was not desirable or proper to have this industrial urea in the Laert of the. residential area of Palo Alto. The minutee of the Pleanins'essemisatee did ipelude co.ats that any lea,► mode will not force sepses c t of business. In l97,,.th a Willis p ity was resoned i -2 from kkel and ewe mortised over a period of `tie . Me. Smith Contimmed,thet the City', Comprehenelve -Plan i a 1978 iacludem.such as jor proposals as *T the growth of.auto traffic to diVer'eity'of bossing opportunities:" On page 10 Of the lit filers io. a policy that sa a they tit mdzaed uses of r+esideatiel and oziowercial p`i'ty. She ensd she bad boon informed that that is really •oriented towards existing rotes property to encourage residential use of that property. She meiataieed that that policy c4uid also be applied in ,reverse order certain circemitancee. Ope of the policies being encouraged . is the increase of smpplyand to hovel, tot imatence, or rreeideetial. uses : o er existing' stores. She said the . ► ► imdieet,, a stn writs to Pala Alto's f r id tall. cow - 014440 mss; 21010011fting the commercial and in striael activities that -1414p + support the Outstanding City facilities ash services. She said Oboe we! 114oPered to promeer a -petition frond* community supporting the VilUsrprOferty,end shalt it seen in tee's of business to this town. oymerat densities Should be deed *sae far m , tshich is another policyCamel'. i' _'. . Mare are priewaptly, tit P90140) omPla `at a east feud* pror "pith **barley to term priatsrs. She sa?4 . Lt abeel4 :iceappearafplas clash 4ariat.. ?aumea'Cis tom i same, they want to have a negative impact on the environment. It is not a negative impact on the environment to tear down existing buildings and businesses which have more than an actuarial life left in them. It is not ecologically wise to strip down existing buildings to implement a general plan because that sounds good. That is not making a vise environmental impact. Mayor Sher said Ms. Smith was talking about an existing u3e, assuming it finds itself in a zone in which it is nonconforming, and noted that issue would be discussed at the next meeting. Ms. Smith said that presently the properties that are zoned residential are zoncd residential because somebody has made a policy decision that that property ought to be residential. It does not take into consider- ation whether in fact that property is residential. The Willis's want to put up a house on the back lot of their property, work, raise a family and have a business in central Palo Alto. Row can they do that with the way the zoning is wormed. There is no residential zone in a residential pattern that permits thew to have a business. They were zoned R-2. She said she would be back to discuss the issue of special amortization and to ask what it really is the Council wants in Palo Alto. She suggested that when the Council looks at the residential zones, it ask itself the question whether in fact, it wants to encourage some businesses to exist in Palo Alto, because there stay not be any businesses left if the zoning continues to be so strict. Clifford Che:nik, 1100. Alma, Menlo Park, said he represented the El Camino Anithal. Hospital at 404 El Camino Real in Palo Alto. He said be spoke at an earlier meeting on January 23, at which time he presented a petition to Council containing approximately 1900 signatures. The re- maining portion of that petition will be presented at a later date. He .said his client is located in Barron Park and has been at the current location for over 40 years. Under the proposed zoning plan, his client's property will probably be placed in a multi -family residential zone and will be placed on an amortization schedule. He said, obviously they don't want that to happen and they are asking the Council to do whatever is necessary to cause something else to take place, such as any of the summations contained in the petition. Keeping in mind the simple fact that Palo Alto residents have pets and pets require medical attention, the two most specific facts contained in the petition are ac follows: first, allow the indefinite continuation of a veterinary care facility to operate within a residential zone; or second, allow veterinary care facilities to exist within a residential zone, provided they first obtain a pertit /roe the City. Re said there are • a multitude of possibil .t tea to resolve this matter. Perhaps the simplest would be as follows: first, the definition of animal care could be broken down into at least two categories, one of which would exclude boarding and kenneling except as incidental to medical care end treatment of pets; second, an exception old be granted to allow veterinary care facilities in residential zones such as medical offices for treating humans hue been exempted. Dr. Herbert Zavia, 464 V. Charleston Road, said he vas co-chairman of the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Association. Ha said be was having trouble understanding what is meant by lodging, as referred to in the start report of January 26. Re noticed from the Draft Zoninge0rdioance Text that lodging is no longer permitted in RR, R-1 or R-2 sales and be didn't imderstand What is not going to he permitted. The definition seems to include all forms of alhn anyone else to live in a home. He aid if that meant if you own a hoes, you couldn't rent a room to anyone? Would • this also swan -tat if you areas this. , , hat don't live there Surimelf, yiee couldn't rent the hose to swops? He felt those were two vif ieerin - tbh gs. Be felt that not allowing lodging is going to have a very, significant lapact for dotomple, ova Stanford students who need hausi.ng in Palo Alto. If the _ 'hating of housing, which is a fora of lodging, is not going to tin: illowad, . if you can't` root, or if 'veers a sestet and you can'tpublet. that iE SOUS to boos a varY. significant tweet. 566 2/1/71 w.r Mayor Sher asked if Dr. Zeman's point was that lading should be specifically listed as a permitted use under RE and R-1 zones? Dr. Zeman replied that he thought it should be a permitted use. He didn't think a conditional use would be too helpful. Patricia Cullen, 409 Melville, said as President of t Civic League she was speaking for the Steering Committee of the Palo Alto Civic Teague. She said they have reviewed the residential and industrial eegtdeuta of the proposed zoning regulations. In general they are satisfied with the requirements of the zones. Her comments are based on the assumption that when these zones are actually applied to the new zoning map, they will be applied in such a way as to comply with the first housing objectives of the Comprehensive Plan --to maintain the character and quality'of residential neighborhoods --and with the employment objective of reducing employment potential. She said the Civic League did have a few questions. On page 44, under Conditional. Uses Allowed in all R Zones, she felt the definitions were a little vague and an enterprise which is recreational in nature might be permitted in R zones. Regarding the definition of "Community Center" on page 10, she asked if that meant a private club would be permitted in an R"1 zone? On page 68, regarding lit -3, she asked what provision is there for regulating those uses currently operating under conditional use permits. This would also apply to the special requirements under RN -5. She said if she read the staff memo correctly, such uses come in for PC's. If currently operating uses decide to remodel, she understood they n'tst obtain a new use permit, but otherwise there does not seem to be any provision for maintaining the conditions of the original conditional use permit. Regarding the staff recommended amendment re lodging, she understood that lodging is a conditional use in R--1, an additional de city, and the new proposed zoning regulation permits it as a regular use in R.M-1. She thought that should stay the way it is, There are plenty of Stanford avidents who can be accommodated in RN--i and also in R -1 under the "up to four non -related members of a family" claese. Councilmember Yszzino said he was unclear about her ia3t statement. Ms. Cullen said that under the present ordinance four non -related members of a family can lodge in any R -1 house; that is also State law. The proposed ameedment, which she said she spoke against before the Planning Commission, is that up to six will be allowed in R-1 zones; that brings in the issue of a lodging unit. Councilmember Fazzino said he thougict there was a blanket provision that the limit would be no more than four unrelated peraoms throughout all the districts. Mr. Green advised that that would relate to a single featly dwelling unit. The situation at present . is that lodging is not permitted in R -I and RE zones. However, under the definition of fades, a nuclear family could have up to three additional persons. In that case, it woul not be considered ledgine,, it would be considered part of the family.. by definition. Similarly, under the definition of family, there can be up to four unrelated persons. So that situation can gist, but because it comes under the definition of families, it would not be consir Bred lodging, and that is still the case in the deft ordinance. Cotmcilmember Fazzino said tea if one bad a family of three people, four students could be brought in. W. Green replied that was correct. Carol Yzaofaky, 724 Mayfield Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Mid -Peninsula Citizens for Fair Rousing. She praised the work of the Planning 2ommission, the City staff and the consultants for the quality of the ordinance. There is one cue MCFH would like Council to consf4er making. On page 2, regarding the definition of Purposes, the next to last paragraph now reads "to attain a desirable balance cf - residential and.emplaywent opportunities." - Tbis should be changed to read, "to improve the balance of residential ial and employment opportunities." 'lists avoids fruitless assts over whet is a desirable balance and also avoids implying that equality bemoan jobs and housing can be net by the poli,i.oe of the Comprehensive Plan or by the seeing ordinance. ms's other smears regarding lodging es a, permitted mse is all residential area. Ned already been dill. She said they support the request of the Cb rleston iledeme /eiaesclatti a to inelnde lodging as a permitted e : {K;= all reel- 96:54eatial sonee. When the supply of beseinm la inadequate , prlcees are 363 2/1/71 soaring, lodging can provide essential additional supply. It is to the advantage of all not to restrict this use to only a few areas within the City. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme, said he had a few comments about lodging. He said he disagreed with the staff recommendation in the January 26 memo. He thought allowing as many as six unrelated people in addition to a family would unduly burden many residential areas. 'here are a number of rentals in the area around his home. In some cases, there are obviously as many as six or seven people living in a house. Cars are parked all over the place and create problems getting by on the street. If one of the residents has a party, it really makes for traffic congestion. He related an experience he had while in school of what happens when homes are turned into lodging houses. He stated he felt four -six people, plus a family, in one house was just too much. He thought the definition of family, of three unrelated persons with a nuclear family, should be allowed to stand. The only good thing about the recommendation was the 1,000 ft. location limit. Mt. Moss continued by saying he felt there were some things in the crdinance that were overlooked. On page 29, under Definitions, there is an illustra- tion of a Flag Lot with lot width, depth and required yards. He recalled that the existing ordinance has so a definitions and restrictions on Flag Lots and they are more restrictive than a standard residential lot. He believed the requirement was 7200 sq. ft. instead of 6,000 and that there are setbacks which are different and the driveway is not included in that 7200 sq. ft. Nowhere in any of the residential zones did he find any reference to Flag Lots, althosgh he nay have missed it. If Flag Lots are not mentioned, he thought it was a serious oversight and that language similar to that in the existing ordinance should be put back in. He felt substandard Fiag Lets could cause real problems. Mr. Noss then referred to Section 18.27.040, paragraph (j), on page 73 re Rt-4 zones. Under paragraph (j) there is a provizeion for personal and retail services, when there is a single residential development coe- t:wining no less than 200 dwelling units. He thought the idea was to allow the people within that community to have their own services. He wondered about the rationale for the 200 units. He asked if there is an existing development that actuall a has that or is this projected for some future specific location? In other words, why was this particular allowed conditional use put in? /f it is proeosed for just one specific use, he felt they could get in trouble making special provisions for special cases. Mr• Moss continued and referred to page 175, Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations uses. Singly family uses in the OS District are four spaces per unit, and in all other districts two spaces were ello . ° That didn't seem reasonable to him. He thoug! parking io- ta* great in the OS District and there .is no provision for bicycle parr in a residential use is OE or` .'tber districts, He said he would like to sae the parking reduced for Item a) end some bike parking sign for it a) and b) . Theodore Cope, 278 Mbaroe Drive, Mountain View, said he owned six, '4414011 of property in Palo Alto and waited to speak to the point of the special requirements that are listed ueadcr all residential zones from RA. through f-5, Re referred to the last sentence under special requ resents for IM -1, on page 59, vhicb. is essentially the same wording as under all of the * zones. Be felt this last senteriace should be reworded of deleted completely. If there is a lawful use on it now, it saes such ewes, snall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements on the site for a continual use. He inked for the definition of continual use. In other words, it says if you have .a lot in a t-2, R-3 or 1-4 zone which is essentially100 ft. ,a 1 ft. with cue home on it, you cannot add any more units to that particular lot. Mayor Sher said he thousht it said that if the one unit that is there should burn dos,, for example, or destroyed, it con be rebuilt, but only to the ease mdse. Mr. Cope said see if you have ,a place of property 100' s 140►' la a 101.4 some with one homes ea It asst that met should d burn dog, you cam replace only the one home. S 6 2/1/7$ Mayor Sher said he felt it was clear that the sentence wa3 designed to protect what weald become a nonconforming use under the new law if something .should. happen to the property; it would permit a new structure to be rebuilt, but no larger thar, the dimensions of the one that was destroyed. It doesn't say that one can't tear down a very small structure on a big lot and proceed to build as much as the new zoning ordinance would allow. Mr. Gape said he didn't feel that chat Mayor Sher was saying was clear the way it was written. Mayor Sher reiterated that the wording was designed to deal with remladeling, improvement or replacement. It is designed as a benefit to an existing, what would be a non -conforming use, under the new zoning, and would permit the rebuilding at the non -conforming dimensions. Mr. Green verified that that was correct. Mayor Sher said he thought Mr. Gope's concern was mis- placed if he was worried about something being torn down intentionally and then replaced with more buildings if those additional buildings would be permitte` under the new zoning laws. Mr. Cope said the wording in the draft ordinance does not away that. Mayor Sher agreed, but stated that the other provisions would say how many units could be built in an RW-4 District. Re added that no court would uphold a zoning law that says if you have an uaitmprcved lot, you can built two units on it, but if you happen to start out with an improved lot that has only one unit on it, you can never put the same two units on it that you could have if it had been un- improved frnm the beginning. Mr. Cope said he Just thought the wording was ambiguous. Mr. Green said he thought the clarifying clause was in the first sentence, "Two family and multiple family uses existing on he effective date of this section which, prior to that date, were lawful permitted uses or conditional uses operating pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit, shall be deemed to be conforming cases." They are talking about uses other than non- conforming. Councilmember Henderson suggested it might be helpful to add a few words to the first sentence. Mayer her said he 4rouid have an make a motion later in the meeting. Harrison Otis, 909 N. California Avenue, spoke in support property. The Willis' want to landscape and fix up their people really like them. He hoped the Council would take ineo consideration. opportunity to of the Willie property and their plight Mayor Sher indicated those were all the cards he had from members of the publ{.c wiahL to speak. He suggested Council raise their questions and make any amendments they had. Councilmember Henderson referred to page 41, RE Residential Estate District, and line T where it speaks of the density, "...Mot more than one single family reeidenee shall be permitted on any sit‘.. Additionally, not more thaw one accessory dwelling or guest cottage shall be permitted on any site." He wondered if there is a limit to the size of a guest cottage. Could one realty, in effect, have two full size dwelling units on that property? girst they ate sayer there can oxy be one dwelling, but then they e y it's okay to put in a guest cottNee, which is called an accessory building. Is the matter of kitchen facilities what controls this? It can be any site, but it can't have kitchen facilities? Ms. Knox replied that the ultimate overall size is limited by the lot coverage requirements of that sous. Couacil.r Henderson responded that R weans acres, so there is not much of a problem in haling a second, full-sized dwelling on it as far as site coverage is concerned. Mr. Eno' said that was true, but there could be one dwelling unit thet reaches the "minus site coverage,' or there could be one dwelling twit and a guest cottage which would reach the maximum sits coverage. With respect to Councilaweber Mendersoo'e earlier question. Mt. Moon laird a guest cottage woad have no kitchen. 567 21117$ Councilmember Henderson referred to page 44, line 5, under R-1, Single Family, Residence,where it says a permitted use is home occupations when accessory to permitted residential use. He said he could think of a lot of occupations that might not be acceptable is a neibhborhood. Mr. 3reen said home occupations is defined to generally limiting, and noted in the General !regulations, Chapter 18.88 there are further additions. The definition is limitedto those types of uses which are typically conducted within a residence. /n Chapter 18.88, pages 201 and 202, there is an additional list of regulations which apply to home occupations. and limit them further with regard to the amount of space which can be devoted to it and the general nature of those uses. Councilaearb~ Henderson said Item H, under Conditional Uses, regarding lodging, needs to be talked about because it's been a main item tonight. On page 45, lines 5 and 8, it talks about the minimum site area as 6,000 ft., ninimum site width of 60 ft., how does that relate to the present R -I's where it states 5,000 sq. ft. lots and 50 ft.? Mr. Green replied that also is covered in (aneral Provisions and he thought, in the Subdivision Title, which allows previously lawful existing lots which may be substandard to be developed. Mr. Knox added that those sections are in the present R-1 ordinance; there is no change from the present R-1 ordinance, which requires 6,000 sq. ft. and 60 ft. in width, Councilmeber Henderson said he has read page 52 regarding R-2 over and over and thought there was a contradiction. Line one says the minimum site area shall be 6,000 sq. ft., paragraph g) says not more �.han one single family dwelling shall be permitted on a site less than. 8,000 sq. ft. Not more than 2 dwelling units shall be permitted on a site 6,000 nq. ft. or greater,. It sounds as if in an R-2, there can be dwellings on a lot that is 6,000 sq. ft., but then a little below that, it says there can't be more than one on anything less than 8,000 sq. f t . Mr. Green replie that site areas are generally 'minimum for determining the minimum areas for creating lots if one were to subdivide. Basically, what this says is the minimum lot created under the zone would, be 6,000 ft., but until one has a lot up to 8,000 sq. ft., there cannot be Wore than one residence on it. ( ! 11 ' 3t Henderson wondered why they are creating a lot that's in 11--2 if 1-2 can't be developed. Mr. Green said it could still be developed for single featly use at that site. 11-2 and all the zones would permit development to more restrictive standards, so it could be used in that sense. Councilmember Ha*4eraon said if someone is in en 1-2 none end has a lot that's too small for 1-2, can one house be put on the lot? Mr. Gram • sad.d t.hat.° is basically what it sayf.. Mayor Sher added that the person would have to conform to all the 1-2 regulations if it were an R-2 zone. -Mr. Green said that wee correct. Councilmember Henderson referred to pase 53, line 21. Me did not feel comfortable about the marking spaces per dwelling unit.. Single family is fine --one dwelling unit requirement will be 2 parking spaces. For 2 family _ uses, for duplexes, for example, there is about one and a half spaces per dwelling unit. In the multiple sows it generally says that 2 or 3 bedrooms per unit will require at least 2 parking sue. &aything that is 2 bedrooms or more requires at least 2 parking spaces. He thought Sig 2/1%78 • most of the duplex developments in Palo Alto were full sized homes, generally more than 1 bedroom, and he didn't think it wee wise to limit that to only one and a half parking spaces for 2 dwellings. Mayor Sher said it would be 3 total. Councilmember Henderson said he meant it is not the requirement of 4. Mr. Knox said the parking requirements for single family, duplex and residential multi -family zones are the sass in this proposed draft as they are in the current ordinance, which requires exactly the same thing. Councilmember Henderson said that may be one reason there are so many cars parked on the street. It seems inconsistent in the multiple family zones to say that the minimum parking requirement with 3 or more dwelling units shall be 1.25 spaces per atudio unit, 1.5 spaces per 1 bedroom unit, 2 spaces for any dwelling unit 2 bedrooms or greater. There are 2 spaces required in every other zone except duplex. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Henderson moved, seconded by Brenner, that Section 13.17, O60 b) 2, he amended to read "the minimum parking requirement for a site with 2 dwelling units shall be 2 spaces per dwelling unit", Councilmember Henderson wondered if his motion could include that that wording be inserted in each of the residential zones if it passes. 'Mayor Sher suggested that Councilmember Henderson tell them which sections he wanted to change. Mr. Knox said he understood the an ndment to increase the parking requirement for a site which has 2 dwellings on it to 2 spaces per dwelling unit. This does not include multi -family so they would change the requirement for the duplex or 2 family unit throughout the Zoning Ordinance, if this amendmc*;t passes. Councilmember Henderson added but just a duplex type unit wherever it appears in each of those sections. Councilmember Carey said that they had discussed in great detail the need for alternative transportation and he discussed in great detail the lack of alternative transportation. One of the arguments he heard consistently was that so long as they cater to the automobile, like parking spaces, people will use the automobile. By increasing the parking requirement far dwelling units, they increase the encouragement of the use of the awhile. lie thought there will be some inconsistent rotes with previous status. Further, it scrod that when they get into aaaltiple/residential awning, Owl generally are talking about higher densities and presumably those densities will occur in those - areas which either have public Iranaportation, are coaat likely to get public trenaportation or are <ithin walking distance of commercial facilities or jobs. Given that, ' they ought to encourage the deveopment of such booming and discourage the use of the automobile. Therefore, any amendment that would increase the mandatory number of perkingfacilities, ought to be voted down Ms. Steinberg said it was the intent to encourage 2 family houses and this wry considered to be an incentive. That's why they thought the parking of 1.5 spaces would be helpful. The other point was Mr. Carey's mention of the reduction of the use of automobiles. 1 563 2/1/78 Mr. Knox added that it was particularly the intent to encourage a second dwelling on lots which already have a single dwelling, in areas where the R-2 zone may be applied, and it was felt that some of these lots, for example around the downtown where such lots may exist and where the R-2 zone might be applied at the, time the mapping occurs, would be so small that a second dwelling would not be possible if 2 spaces per dwelling unit were required. That's why .the 1.5 was maintained. Councilnemt er Fletcher said Councilmemaber Carey made the same points she was going to make. If the motion fails, she will make a motion to the effect that they reduce the required parking in all multiple family zones to 1.5 per dwelling unit. Vice Mayor Brenner said her' reason for seconding the sootipn was noticing that 2 spaces for any dwelling unit of 2 bedroom or greater size vas common in the other multiple family residences. Then Mr. Knox's remarks reminded her cr. their efforts to encourage a cottage zone. She would be inclined to reduce the 2 spaces for any dwelling unit with 2 bedrooms, although the apartments close to downtown are being pretty crowded for parking space. So even though the logic of not requiring too much parking near transportation is very gcod, logic of having their overflow of parking going into the commercial areas is very bad, She withdrew her second. Courcilmember Henderson said overall, he agreed. He said he had a lot of trouble because of the inconsistency. First of all,, he wo°mld agree with Councilamember Carey if -he were saying cut the parking requirements on multiple family housing, but for everything else with two bedrooms or more, provide 2 parking spaces. If it happ .cs to be a duplex with 4 bedrooms it only needs one and a half €ap;.ces. Re didn't know what to do about the automobile, because there is no way they can legislate it by limiting the number of parking spaces. He lives in a multiple unit situation now and parking is a problem. As long as people are going to have cars and are in larger dwelling situations where there are likely to be 2 people worki.ag, or even kids with a car, the cars are going to be there and he'd like to get ttem off the street. He sensed his amendment wasn't going to make it, but if-it'doesn't, then he thought for consistency, they'd better try to r4uce the requirements on multiple family housing. A : Councilmember !yerly moved, seconded by Henderson that Section 18.17.060 b) 2, "the minimum perking requirement for a site with 2 dwelling units shall be 2 *paces for any dwelling rat of 2 bedrooms or greater". Mayor Sher said technically that w,sa an amendment to an amendment. Be Asked Vice Nayor Bar if she world agree to the incorporation as the seconder to Councilmember dereom's motion. Vice Mayor. Brenner agreed. Mayor Sher said Councilmember Bendersonto motion nos included that language and limited the requiremaut <_ The aamendeent failed on the following vote: AYES: *yerly, Tessin*, Berson, Witherspoon MOSS: Bremner, Carey, Clay, Fletcher, Sher Councilmember Sanderson referre4 next to page 73,- line 9. Ibis is one section that says for sn 11-4 medium density multiple -family residence, personal services, reesle services solely for convenience nature to residents of a development, nay be allowed. He said ha was not willing to pat , that iu as a conditional us. If a residential development has a doliva to have may kind of retell service then it ought to be brought to Council es a PC. 5'7 0 211111 AMENDMENT: Counellmember Henderson moved, seconded by Brenner, to remove paragraph j) of 18 .27040. W. Knox said that everything from line 7 on down on page 73 is in the existing ordinance. That is in the R-4 zone; it is permitted as a con- ditional use now and the purpose is to provide within large apartment units a kind of "Mom and Pop" type grocery or personal service facility. 2500 sq. ft. is pretty small and the intent is to reduce the amount of traffic that would otherwise occur between apartment developments of the KM -4 density and commercial areas it people had to go out for all the convenience and personal service purchases. The staff and Planning Commission believe that aspect of the current R-4 zone ought to be retained and that is why it is in the draft ordinance. founcilmember Carey said he was going to oppose the motion essentially for Mr. Knox's reasons. Put in context, they have to realize it is limited to 200 dwelling units or more, so you've essentially built a comeunity when you qualify for 2500 sq. ft. of service use. If you take an average of 1000 sq. ft, per unit, that is 2000,000 sq. ft. of dwelling units, which is taking the Page Mill Office center and duplicating it, and 2500 sq. ft. is smaller than the 7-11 Store. That really is the impact they are talking about. He said he'd like to see more than 2500 sq. ft. because there are 50 many services that would not be otherwise per tted that could be given to those residents on site, like a small drug store, newspaper shop, etc. If they want to keep people out of their cars, one way to do it 13 to keep from getting in the car to go 6 blocks to get a bottle of aspirin. By leaving this in the proposed text, he thought they would accomplish that. Vice Mayor Brenner said the number of developments that are going to come in at 200 dwelling units is not -rery great. She remembered when this wns put in the current ordinance for a particular development. The last time she checked that development, the shopping, personal service area wasn't c'.ing too well. She remembered it was put in over the objections of the nearby residents. She felt that a development of this size wanting a special structure should go through Planning Commission review. A development of this sLze is most apt to be near existing commercial and shopping areas, so she would want to look specifically at such a proposal before granting it. Councilam ber Henderson recalie4 the great controversy they had over Frenchman's Terrace when they wantedfo put a store there. Some of them spoke in terms of the residential developotnt along Sari Hill Road, and said they would want the opportunity to look specifically at any plan Chat included a store of any type. A 7-11 type store could draw traffic from an outside area at all times of the night. Me thought there were enough negatives that it should be looked at individually. He wasn't saying they should never approve it; but be thought there sire few opportunities for this 200 units or more and if that is requested, it should be looked at independently and not be written into the code. Mayor Sher asked if that would have to be a PC it it were not permitted -as a conditional use. Mr. Tnas !responded that it might not be permitted at all in a residential, zone because the residential tones don't allow for casaercia1, facilities except in this type of tnntance. The suggestions that it could:he doge through a different procedure to permit it are not necessarily valid. He -wasn't sure it s.424114 -be that simple, since it might require .a. Change it the COmprehensive Plan first. If you have an area surf =fa Oak Creek which has a vacant parcel along side it, that area is designated on the Comprehen- sive Pion Map es multi -family and it would Oat be allowable to look et s PC that included commercial unless you could maim certain findings stated in the text of the Comprehensive e that the mixture of residential end commercial would be appropriate. Otherwise, they would have to redesignate b 571 zlt0ie I 1 e 8 55 tad the Comprehensive Plan Map tc something other than residential. He recognized that a lot of these rather exotic Sections which are being pointed out by Councilmember Henderson are coming up because they are sot usually seen and not usually dealt with. The instructions given to the Planning staff Ly the Planning Commission were to basically leave the reaientiel !ones alone if they work. This is an area which the' felt was not generally used, but it didn't cause any trouble and they considered it workable. The reasoning was to leave it ae is. Mayor Sher said there was no criticism expressed or implied of the staff or the Planning Coaamiesion, but he thought Councilmember Henderson was suggest- ing that when they see something on this comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance that looks- bad, it ought to be discussed. He asked if Councilmember Henderson was wrong when he said it vo y be possible to have such a commercial development, but it would be better to run it by the Planning Commission and Council rather than permit it as a conditioned use. Mrs Knox thought it was wrong in this respect and be referred back to the comments made by Alice Smith. By and large the policy statement and decision has been made that there are too many jobs in relation to the number of houses and that it's appropriate to miz residential and industrial, but only when housing in industrial or commercial zones is added. The reverse is not true. That is, it is not appropriate to add commercial or industrial in housing zones. The Comprehensive Plan basically states that and it is very hard to final something in the 60-aome pages that refutes that. So when they talk about mixing residential and having mixed uses, they have to look et what the Plan says and he thought that in the case of adding residential in a com- mercial zone, they can do it, but adding commercial in a residential zone they cannot do without revising the flan. - Mayor Sher aaid Mr. Knox was saying that without this provision as a conditional use, in order to have such a commercial facility in a residential development of 2 or more units, they would have to amend the Plan and allow a PC zone. Maybe that is what Coenxilember Henderson was suggesting ought to be done. Councilmember Henderson said it seemed this goes even more counter to what the Plan is stating because this is allowing commercial use in a residential zone. He was trying to make it -e bit more difficult to put commercial in and the Plan specifically says no. Vice Mayor Brenner said if it would require an amendment to the Plan to -out it in a PC, she would suggest leaving it in, if this form would require an amendment. In other word*, the existence of this in a particular zone would in itself go counter to the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment failed on the following vote: AYES: lids : Brenner, Henderson Carey, Clay, lyerly, Psaztno, Fletcher, Sher, Vitherspoon Couucilmenber Henderson acid under industrial, he just wanted to repeat that having gone through this a couple of times carefully, it's an amazing job on the P1arnnaiatg Commission's part. He wanted to compliment the staff and the Commission for their work. Mayor Sher said he would ,second those remarks. A11 are to be congratulated on a terrific job.. The Council recessed from 9:35 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Conneilme er Witherspoon said she bad three concerns. Council Mk. Neon explain whet the ore Zoning finance nays about lodgers, *specially in the H-1 zone. She said she was a little confused about the diffiren a between a lodger and a paying guest in en g-1 sane. 572 2/1/78 f, Mr. Green responded that under the present zone, lodging simply is not permitted in sn R-1 or RE zone. However, as he indicated, under the definition of family in those zones, up to 3 persons in addition to the actual nuclear family living there are permitted to live as membera of that living unit. By definition they are part of the family. Therefore, it is permissible under the single family use. It is a single family living there. Under the present ordinance and under the proposed ordinance, a nuclear family plus up to 3 non -related persons could live in one single-family dwelling unit and that would be the case as far as their interpretation is concerned; whether it is for compensation or not. Similarly, 4 unrelated rersons not living within a nuclear family would be permitted to occupy an apartment, a single family dwelling, one dwelling unit, as a family under both the old and the present draft ordinance. In effect, it is identical in actuality to what lodging ia. It is similar to taking in 3 lodgers and functionally there would appear to be very little difference except that there is that numbers limitation. If persons wish to go above that number included within the definition of family, it then falls in the category of what is called lodging and that would not be permitted in R -I or RE zones, as is the present case. He thought the definitions are somewhat artificial, but that is the way it works out. Mayor Sher said he wanted to clarify staff recommendation #16, which Mr. Knox mentioned at the outset, that lodging should be permitted as a conditional use in an R-1 zone. Mr. Green suggested M:. Knox could respond more directly, but the thing which the public spoke to and which Mr. Knox lad Mr. Zimmerman referred to, is rea...iy a more specific use than just lodging. He thought they would have to work on the definition of that use a bit more. It is in a sense a home to provide home -type services to certain youths who are in the area for purposes of going to school, etc. As he understood it, it is more in the sense of a care facility, not medical care, but more of a service being provided. He thought it was a more strict definition. Mr. Knox refers to it as an extended family environment. Mayor Sher said they were not in a position to deal with that tonight. L doing is defined and they could deal, with that as a conditional use in R~1, that is not what le being recommended. Something more limited than that is at least being considered. It seemed to him that without a definition where you say more work would be needed, if somebody wants to pursue that, either the staff or Counci1members, that ought to be done at soma other time. Mr. Green said staff probably would need some direction from Council as to whether it is accepte:.1e to any extent. Mayor Sim; suggested that a Councilmember who liked the idea could simply put that on the agenda es new bui ness'end see what the Council feels. Mt. Knox said they brought it up as an item that pertains to residential since it was mentioned under residential by the public in comments at previous meetings. Iihat he said etsentially is that the staff agrees with the proposalmade by Rev _ Steinfelt and they recommend thlt be added to the conditional uses:' They don't see it as something that will be dope by a lot of people. If the Council .tom it is a good idea, he hoped someone would propose it as an amendmentand if that is the case, staff will be worsting with the City Attorney to furnish the appropriate specific language. If Council doesn't think it' is a good idea end there is no Wit, then staff won't bother with : preparing the language. 573 2/1/78 713 1 Mayor Sher said in other words, if someone wanted.to move that at an amendment in more or less the terms described here by next Tuesday, the City Attorney's office would have the appropriate language, correct? i Corrected see page 755 Corrected see page 755 Corrected see page 755 1 Mr. Green said he would hope if they are going to act finally ou Tuesday night, they might have a motion prior to Tuesday, so staff might have the language. Mayor Sher said if any Councilmeaber wished to pursue this idea in point 116 it must be clear that it is more limiting than permitting lodging as a conditional use. Councilmember Witherspoon said her other concern was Drought up twice by the gentleman representing Dr. Smith's veterinary hospital and it would appear they have two choices, not necessarily applicable tonight. One would be to ask, when they get to the actual zoning map, that that property be zoned neighborhood commercial which would allow a veterinary hospital. Or the other would be that when they get into the section on Tuesday night on Nonconforming uses, the Carey notion, which they will discuss further, will probably be extended to include uses in the residential zone,. The third concern is the one Mr. Sanders spoke to. He has a memo to Council. There is a basic inconsistency among the large residential zones. The RE is one acre; the OS is ten acres, and the AC is 5 acres. In comparing the pages of the large uses and the conditional use permits required, they are rather inconsistent. Mr. Sanders was speaking to the subject of hobby kennels. The ordinance says that no more than two Jogs are allowed per household. However, on page 39, the allowed uses, without a use permit on one acre residential estate district, includes such things as three goats, hogs, sheep, or similar livestock per one- half acre. That means you could have six goats, hogs, sheep, or similar livestock on the one acre in this zone. It certainly seemed co►sistent to her that one could have an appropriate number of dogs. However, referring to #3 starting and as a corrolary to her observation, she said she veuld like to ask the City Attorney what he means by commercial purposes. Does that mean a 4-U Clubber could not se/1 his or her calf at the and of the year? Mr, Green replied they would have to look at the primary function. If it is basically a 4-H teaching or learning type function, use didn't think that would be considered operating commercially. An occasional sale resulting from an educational project would not necessarily make it an educational use. Counci a cr Witherspoon said that would be true of any number of animals. It would be recreational or educational, however you would went to define it and she thought that would also be true of dogs. The inconsistency occurs when you get into the AC sone in which, to have more than say, 3 dogs, you have to hive a kennel permit and she honeyed the same was true of the OS use which occurs on page 150 and 151, unless you consider dogs animal husbandry. There is a problem of definitions here. Would a cattery be an agricultural use as animal husbandry? Mr. Knox said he'd like 0 respond in two way, that will hopefully shed some light. One is that the present RE Residential Estate Regulations do not allow the raising of animals for commercial purposes. What is stated on pags 39, lime 19 through 21, it- _basically - - rime sire what is contained in the present RE some. What is stated iu lire 12 through 17." is new, and is not in the present RE some. Those are new allowances % In terns of the OS sone, their instruction* were not to cheogs say items in the OS sopa, so that is entirely the sem sone as it now fists. Councilmambsr Witherspoon said she realised that, but what does it mean? 5.74 3/1/73 Mayor Sher said the question is, is a cattery considered animal husbandry under the OS? Mr. Green sad he would suspect not if cattery is defined merely as the boarding of cats. Councilee*aber Witherspoon said it usually means the owning, showing and raising of cats. Mr. Green said he didn't thick that would fall within the area of animal husbandry. That generally refers more to livestock animals and more is terms of breeding and raising of them rather than merely keeping the animals. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if he could think of a term that would include what she would call domestic animals, in au,eal husbandry. Or maybe domestic animal husbandry would serve that purpose. Mr. Green thought basically the word is breeding of domestic animals or kennel use. Corrected see ,age 755 Corrected see page 755 Councilmember Witherspoon said she was trying to stay away from a large commercial boarding kennel unless you want to have a conditional use permit. She thought that would be an appropriate conditional use permit anywhere. Mr. Green said some of the problem comes not in the Zoning Ordinance, but rather in the title of the Municipal Code which relates to animals and the particularly troublesome feature is a limitation of two dogs per. , unit, or per family, in all residential zones. He thought if the particular problem is a greater number of dogs, that could be spelled out as an accessory use which might be permissible, not withstanding the provisions of that other title, rather than trying to specifically define it in te.'iaa of a new category. Councilmeliber Witherspoon said that would be fine as long as it is understood that those going past the Zoning Ordinance allowing for the licensing of, as Mr. Green says, special conditions, kennels, whatever, is not precluded in these three zones. They are not precluded now, she as ed, except in the language on page 39 --if it is a commercial purpose in an RE zone. Mr. Green didn't believe kennels are a permitted use in the OS zones. Mayor Sher said he thought what Mir. Green was saying is if that's the problem, what he'd like tJ do is then amend that to permit more animals to be raised by the owner on s conditional use. Ma/be that could be individually a dized at the proper point. Couacilmember Witherspoon said she agreed that is the cleanest way to go and why it is not appropriate tonight. She was just asking Mr. Green if there is anything in this that precludes them doing that at a later date without changing the Zoning Ordinance too, and he is saying he thh*s that is so. Animal husbandry does not apply to slogs and cats. , Mayor Sher said Ma. Green has said OS doesn't address domeetic. animals at all. Hz. Green said he didn't believe it specifically allows a kennel, which is what they are speaking about. Mayor Sher said Councilmelsber Witherspoon is making a distinction between kennel which suggests boarding other people's animals for compensation and a kennel for raising your own for show purposes, etc. Mt. Green sail that's correct; be thought that would not be a Use of the pr rperty, but would be solely restricted by Title 6 and that would be the only restriction. 575 2/1/78 Councilmember Witherspoon said her only concern then would be to strike "raising of animals for commercial purposes shall be prohibited" on page S9, lines 20 and 21. In other words, remove that section so they would allow 4-H Clobbers to sell their animals, and provide time for 4efining what they mean by commercial kennels. Mr. Green thought the latter might be correct. He thought he responded to that earlier by saying that, at least in his opinion, an occasional sale by a 4-H Clobber would not constitute raising of animals for commercial purposes. The primary purpose would be the educational one. Councilmember Witherspoon said but the primary purpose of the land is supposed to be residential. Mr. Green replied that was correct. Councilmember Fletcher said she had reconsidered her intention of reducing the parking in the multiple family 2 bedroom units or greater, because parking is a problem in that type of use and at t`,is time shed just as soon not change i t . V AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Henderson, recommenda- tion f16 in the staff report of January 26, 1978. Mayor Sher asked if her motion is for the City Attorney's office to ..;raw up language that would permit it as a conditional use in an R-1 zone. Courcil ber Fletcher said yes, but additionally she would like to limit the parking similar to what they have for the adolescent use services home where they do permit automobile ownership by the primary owner of the home, but not by the lodgers, if that is possible. Mayor Sher said that would also be part of this definition of the conditional use. Mayor Sher said he wanted to be sure that everybody understood that they were talking not about lodging, but a particular kind of parental relation- ship, or in loco p.rentia relationship, which would allow more than 4 unrelated individuals in en H-1 Lone, but it would be a very limited kind of arrangement, and the City Attorney's office would provide the larguage if this motion passes. Councilor arson said this would tie in with what Mr. Steinfelt was talking about, a special eitestien ire yOung people live under control of him or somebody ale., and be asked if Palo Alto Adolescent Services would be another example. Mayor Sher weld he didn't reed the language as saying they have to be Young, necessarily. Cammilmember Henderson said be knew it is not limited to young, but thoee are two -examples so that they are not getting into the open lodging type of situation. However, could in loco parentis be used to permit open lodging/ That is the concern. Mayor Sher said he thought Counci..lmmmber Henderson was talking about a cow, where people would be more or ieee um the *erase plane, as opposed to what Hr Steinfelt had in mind where there would be one individual who would be in charge and who would be providing this service for a group whether it is young people or otherwise. Councilmember Nmpderson said they had been talking about Stanford student*, for ezaapler acid he feat they better not open that up too much. Could that be used? 576 2/1/le Couucilmember Fazzino suggested that before they go on, perhaps it would be appropriate if Mr. Knox or Mr. Green could again review what Mr. Steinfelt's specific concerns were, which were raised at the meeting last week. Mr. Knox said Reverend Stela€elt wanted to provide a christian home for students in the area, and in this home he and his wife would serve as the parents and the providers of food and parental guidance. They have children of their own and they needed to seek from the Council a use like this which would he allowed with the use permit. It would go through public hearings, and would allow 4-6 additional persons beyond what the definition of family would allow. He went so far as to suggest that these could be limited in distance by not allowing them at a greater frequency than every 1000 ft. It is conceivable that the kind of concern about the number of students getting together and appointing one as a parent could occur and if the intent of the Council is clear to go ahead with what is contained in staff recommendation #16, it would be the job of the City Attorney to phrase it in such a way that that wouldn't occur. Couucilmember Fazzino asked if Councilaeer Henderson's concern about open lodging be addressed by the actual definition of family that they have included in the ordinance? Mr. Green said he thought Councilmember Henderson's gsieetiorr is whether by adopting this new definition for some use of an extended family, that would not expand the possibility for somebody who would not come under the definition of family to apply under that definition. It is 3 question of how it is drafted and whether it can feasibly be doge. Mr.. Knox added that plus you have in this definition of family, no requirement that a permit be issued. But under this particular extension of the term lodging, a use permit would have to be granted and there would be a hearing that would look into what the use permit was reinti granted for and conditions could be set upon the use. Mayor Sher said if this motion passes, he assumed staff wouldn't use the word lodging in the definition. That is partly the source of the confusion. That word is defined elsewhere and here, because you stay away from that word and define it in other words, then some of the confusion disappears. Mr. Green thought they could avoid using it. Couucilmember Fazzino said regarding the lodging issue, that after hearing from the public and Mr. Green he was almost convinced that the ordinance as it .has been presented pretty moth covers his concern about prohibiting i, 2, or 3 Stanford people from living together even in a single family environment. ,He felt uncomfortable about this particular proposal at this time and it may primarily relate to the language itself, but unless he felt totally confident the language can be tightened up, he couldn't (support it. So et this time he was going to vote against the amt. Councilmember Eyerly referred to the definition oc page 15 of Lodging. He noticed it is allowed in all the lit tones. ®e couldn't see any reason to extend this to H-1. It is a hard thing to police in It areas and so he was going to oppose the motion. Vice Mayo, Brenner said her inelinaticm was to stop at 3 people, width is presently allowed tier the definition of family. She felt they really ought to be very cautious amt getting into this bard -to -define field, so for the tinebeing orbs would oppose the amendment. Counnilmeiber Fletcher said She bid that mil will leave some options open until tk:Iey see the rather than abetting off the chance of aiming what` staff can come up vithl further, abs pointed out that another objection to more than 4 people living in a home is the traffic . That is the main objection abs mod. She hoped the Council sill:vote nett : to notion aid -see shot kind of draft ordinamee stuff con cort7hoick with. VI1178 Mayor Sher reiterated that the motion is to riqueet the City Attorney to draft language along the lines as suggested in point 16 in the staff response with the additional limitation on parking. Councilmember Henderson asked if they were just asking him to draft such a statement to come back to Council for review. Mayor Sher, replied yes, and if it passes, at least it suggests that the majority of the Council want it. Councilmember Henderson said he was going to support it with the idea to see how it would read and whether it does limit it to the special uses. The amendment failed on the following vote: AYES: Clay, Fletcher, Henderson NOES: Brenner, Carey, Eyerly, Fazzino, Sher, Witherspoon Councilmember Carey said he had a weber of modifications on the residential text. lie wasn't going to make them now on the assumption that next Tuesday he could come back with motions an the residential portion. He thought they were on a series of self-contradictory positions, statements, motions, or actions. They have talked about the housing -job imbalance and that is to mean that there are more jobs than houses, and yet there have been a series of motions that would restrict the increase in housing stock to balance the jobs. His conclusion was that they have to get rid of the jobs they already have in order to bring It back in balance, If that is the intent it ought to be stated. If that is not the intent, it is a contradiction in terms and they have go to support more housing. This proposed zoning text does not do that; it actually increases the size of lots in some cases. His guess was that when they are done uith the text, it will decrease the potential housing stock in Palo Alto. That may not happen, but if it does, then that is in contradiction with the statement that they have got to do something about the job housing imbalance, unless the intent is to get rid of existing jobs. The motion has to do with all sections of the t? zones. The sentence in each section says they: such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site. AMENDM : Councilmember Carey moved, Seconded by Fazzino, to add to .070 of all sections under R zones "without necessity of co plying with the special site development regulations". Mayor Sher said he thought that language started with the E-1 section. Co cil err Carey said this would be a clarifying amendment because the sections say that the building may be replaced and if it can be replaced, he assumed it doesn't have to comply with the setback requirements that are now in existence. If that is already srateed, all this is la clarification. The purpose of the amendment really decals 'iith what is hares as the Carey motion, dealing with nonconforming uses of structures that are compatible with surrounding areas. That motion mainly relates to where there is a residential use iu a residential zone that does not conform to the new zoning ordinance, or an office use in a residential zone that does not conform to the new residential zone and nothing else. T€aet use, that is, is residential use, or office use in e residential son..,, is presumed to be compatible and is automatically silow+ed to continue without amortization and without the inability to rebuild the structure that burned down, es would be the case under today's zoning ordinance if you remodel or replace. That would allow the property over as a conforming use in another sons, to continua to operate as long as he didn't increase the density. He could replace, 'zebu/ rd, remodel it so long as he didn't increase* the size. The problem is, without that clarifying language, if today he doesn't meet the new 578 2/1/78 setback requirements, there possibly is an ambiguity as to whether or not he has to meet them. All this amendment does is say he doesn't; that the limitation on rebuilding has to do with density and not with complying with the technical setback requirements; for example, that may change from what it was. Mayor Sher asked if Councilmember Carey meant without the necessity of complying with the specified setback requirements? Councilmember Carey replied he meant special site development requirements or regulations. Those regulations have to do with site area, site width, depth, front yard, rear yard, side yards, street yards, etc. They have to do with what they typically think of as setbacks. Mayor Sher suggested that be in the first clause, rather than the second, because the first clause says you can do it and Councilmember Carey was saying you can do it and the "provided that" puts limits on not increasing the size. Councilmember Carey said "rne .h uses shall be permitted on the same site without complying etc.," and it really is in the first clause after the comma. if that is not clear he would call on Mr. Creeri to improve on it if it passes. Mr. Knox referred to page 69 where .070 refers to RM-3. Perhaps that wasn't typical., but Councilmember Carey mentioned both offices and residences. On page 69, Councilmember Carey's clause would come in line 22 and also at the top of page 70, line 1, and it would say without the necessity to comply with site development regulations. That would apply to both clause A under .070, and clause B. Mayor Sher said he was looking at the R--1 on page 47, and the same language appears there, but it would come in after the word "site", not et the end. Councilmember Carey acid his motion assumes that the City Attorney can put it in the various sections throughout in logical and clear language, probably a lot better than he could do right now. That is the intent, that it go in each section. Mr. Knox said this was essentially what the staff recommended. It would allow whet the Carey motion originally intended and what is written in the Comprehensive plan on page 61. The difference pointed out by Mayor Sher between page 47 and the page he indicated in the RM-3 one is simply tats on page 46 and 47 in the g--1 zone, they are dealing only with 2 filly a molti--€may uses that are existing and that would then wind up in those g -I zooms. Whee- they get into the a multi -family sasses, like . 3, they are deali *g with office uses as well. As he understood the smeodment being made, staff would find all those pertinent places in .070, add this language; staff certainly supports that. Ms. Steinberg added they didn't discuaa it in those terms arc the Planning Commiss ion . Mr. Green said perhaps Me. Steinberg was not at that meeting. For clarification, the real reeson they raised this was because be had advised the Cowtassston to the contrary at the _Commission meeting as to what the interprrtaatio i would be absent clarifying lengutage, so be thought it would be correct to say the Coasaieseion approved this assuming there would be compliance with site regulations. Subseuently staff felt that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, st of ff is r- ing- the clarifying lessens to conform with the Plan, hut it is different from what was discussed at the Planning Commission. 579 l/7g 1 Mayor Sher said in other words Mr. Green agreed with this motion to clarify, but he was saying it was contrary to what the Planning Commission thought it was approving. Mr. Green replied that was correct. Corrected see page Councilaember Witherspoon said she thought when they were discussing 7 complying vs. conforming they were talking about the Building Code. III Wasn't Mr, Green mentioging that? Are they requiring people when they do remodel, even tough they build back the way it was, to use the new Building Code or the Code used when they built the original building. Mr. Green said this clarification was intended to relate to setbacks. The Building Code would take care of that. Any rebuilding of over 25% or 50% would have to be in accordance with the new Building Code. Ctuncilmember Fletcher said she preferred that any rebuilding be done in conformance with the new zoing ordinance, including the setbacks. She was going to vote against the notion. e Couneil er Carey said if they succeed, in his opinion, they have to amend the Plan because what has been done is inconsistent with what was adopted a year ago. The Planning Commiission followed it in thio case, i` their conclusion was that the new Land Use Map and the Zoning Ordinance to accompany it, would not work a hardhip on those property owners whose properties wore otherwise compatible with the surrounding areas and neighborhoods. The intent was, that because they wanted to straighten out some lines, or whatever, that they wouldn't be arbitary in the process of r;ezo.ling. Rezoning property is an awesome power and he didn't think it ought to be used arbitrarily without regard to specific and individual property owners. That was the intent of his motion, that they would apply that test of compatibility to make sure that they were not rezoning properties that were compatible, only properties that were not compatible. It they accept that premise, they have to vote for his motion, because if they don't, they t ork a hardship all over again on that compatible property owner that otherwise ought to be exempt. Mayor Sher paid he found Co ilmember Carey's argument persuasive. The structure that has been provided to deal with this very troublesome problem about what would become nonconforming under the new zone really says it is not going to be nonconforming. You can rebuild as long as you don't increase the floor size, the density, height or length; so if it is not conforming at the time the new zoning goes into effect, it seems consistent to say you ought to be able to rebuild the same' thing even though if you hadn't had that building there in the first place, you couldn't build out to those limits. 7he amendeent passed on the following voce: *IBS: Carey, Clay, Byerly, Fezztno, Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon NOES; Brenner. Fletcher Councilmembet Clay said with respect to the intent of the language under the sections described as specific purposes for each chapter, be gathered that this language is not intended to be regulatory in any way. Mt. Green said that was correct. It is a statement of intent to assist staff in interpreting the otber sections. Mr. Clay said be thought it could be misleading. although he was inclined to suggest they still :bast* some of the leaguage because it d ' t relate directly to t e latest of the section of the chapter. in example, under 1--1, Single Family Beside cee Districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance 550 2/1/75 c) 1 areas suitable for detached dwellings with a str_Ine presence of nature and with open space affording maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children's play. In a week or so they will have tree houses coming before .hem which is something children are expected to want to build and play in. That could be misleading to someone who is building a single family dwelling and decided that a play house desirable for children, would apply in that case. Under Neighborhood Commercial, he agreed with the descriptions by and large, but it says Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accomodating offices, personal service and retail sales uses of moderate size. He agreed with all that. It says serving the immediate neighborhood, and as he looked at the permitted uses, he didn't see anything in there that is aimed directly at the immediate neighborhood. Even when the language is not regulatory it can be misleading. Also, be was concerned when the questions were asked and the statement was made to the effect that they did not want to see any increased density in any of the residential districts and if that would cause them to come up with a different en,viraxamental impact . finding, then agreed, they have got a problem that has to do with the conflict they are developing far themselves in that there isn't any way to improve the jab/housing imbalance without somewhere allowing for some greater det3tity than what now exists. The objective has been over the years to proviie low -moderate income housing, or below market housing, etc , and unless they are prepared to at least look at increasing density or certainly the possibility of increased density in some of these districts, then they can't get Lo where they want to go from here. Ceuncilmember Eyeriy referred to page 45, under R-1, page 5. They have a site area of 6,000 sq. ft. mini. He understood that they have a staff assignment to investigate sieimum size lots within the community, which might be a varienee in size depending upon their locations. iir. Knox said he remembered a discussion, not au assignment. Staff indicated that there were two ways in which the lot splitting in single family areas, which seemed to be the objective of MY. Eyerly's cent, could be handled. One was in the Zoning Or i inance and one was in the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff has given Council all the things that can be take care of in the Zoning Ordinance end the City Attorney's offic3 is working on the Subdivision Ordinance. Councilmaeebe: Eyerly said his point was that he has no problem with 6,000 sq. ft., but he thought they had given staff a policy decision that staff provide a report regarding some way to handle that problem a end present lot splitting in some parte of town. If they were to do that sod Caae cil were to accept some new lot sizes, then would they emend the Zoning Ordinance? Mayor Sheer said, yes, if it were necessary at the time. Councilnember lyerly said he guessed this document could be amended as they go along and find proble with it, things they want to change; that takes a simple sction of the Council. Xerox Sher said any °valiance it amended by another ordinance. He thought that with anythlng as complicated as this, they will discover things they want to Change. Mr. tom said that Mk. Noss touched ea this in his cossets about flag lots wtoen be said he maw these were diagreened but there was no reference to the. in the Zoning ioeacs . Those d isg: ° mma were joust for purposes of illustrating t side lines and front lot lines were under flag lot rte. Sot it did drat bin to look up is the Code where flag lots are mirrored. They are covered in the Subdivision Ordiaance under 21.32.050, in the Code is page 26.2. That simply says that rear lots have to r #re202 larger in area thee ihe,.evelr the simians is required for the front lot that flouts on the itreut. g.1 2/1/71 ;4 Mayor Sher said the RM-1 zone, which starts on page 55, is the least dense of the multiple family zones and in 18.21.010 it says density is expected to range from 15 to 20 dwelling units per hectare, 6-12 dwelling units per acte. In a conversation he had with Mr. Knox he was told that the number of dwelling units in any of these multiple zones would be determined by the minimum lot sizes and in the case of RN -1, they'd look to 050 and they need so much for the first unit and so much more for the other units, and that is why it would depend on how big the parcel is, whether it. would be at the low end of that 6-12 end of that range, at the high end or in the middle. Mr. Knox said that was correct. The table attached to the staff memo of January 12, Addendum to the Zoning Ordinance Text. That explains why ' the various residential zones have ranges of density and why those ranges are called out in the Specific Purpose section at the beginning of each chapter. Mayor Sher said then there is no discretion on anybody's part to determine solely by the lot size to which the zone would be applied, and then they would look to see how natty sq. ft, it has and if it is an RK-1 zone, they would tell Council it would probably he from 6-12 units, but it would depend on how big the lot was. Mr. Knox replied yes. In the table for R.M-1, the density combination on the second column shows 4,500 sq. ft. for the first unit to be built, and 3,500 for the next unit and each unit thereafter. In the column labeled 6,000, that is the minimum lot size. If you have a 6,000 sq. ft. lot and you need 4500 sq. ft. for the first unit and 3500 for the 2nd, that is a total of 8,000 sq. ft. so you are only going to be able to build one unit. On a 6,000 sq. ft. lot, one unit gives you a density of 7.3 per acre. In the next cold, 7,000 sq. ft. you are still able to build only one unit so your density is 6.2 per acre. But the third column, 8,000 sq. ft. aetiafiea the requirements of site area of 4500 for the first .. dwelling and 3500 for the second; you could now build 2 units and that raises the density to 10.9. All the zones work that way in the present Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Sher said in his conversation with Mr. Knox he said there were 2 lots he 4as interested in, 'c►ecause there is a Council policy in regard to those 2 lots adjacent to the Barton Square project where the Council has indicated the density should be no higher than the density on Barron Square which is 9.8. !le had asked Mr. Knox if it would be possible to take those two lots and the square footage and sasume they were sowed at this least dense multiple family tone because he was told its, generally works out from 6-12. What would be the permissible nurser of unnits? Mr. Knox said he understood those particular lots were under a moratorium and the moratorium specified that until the Zoning Ordinance text and accompanying map are adopted, that nothins may be built on those lots except that - the City Council would accept a Planned amity zone proposal which would develop those lots to a density of 9.8 units per gross acre. Heyor Sher said that was accurate and he agreed. The reason that was done was because Council was viewing those lots at the time sr being relevant to the Barron Square project that was being developed and expressir.i policy that the density should be no greater. Be was trying to find out if it is possible under these new atoning laws to carry out that policy. Mr . Zimmerman said far the Maybe/1 parcels combined, the RK-district dens itiess would permit 10 units in 131 1. If the moratorium density of 9.8 units were applied, Chat would yield 8 units so that would be fewer ties what the IM -1; lstrict density would yield, f 5 8 2/1 8 Mayor Sher said he didn't follow that. The moratorium said for PC no more than ) .8 units. How would it become 8? Mr. Zimmerman replied less than an acre. The total site area for the Maybell parcels is 39,153.9 sq. ft., so it is less than an acre, so there will be less than the maximum number of units. Mr. Knox said staff needs to give Council two figures. The density figure aprtied during the moratorium to the Maybell units is ".8 and the density figure that the HM -1 zone would yield is 11.1. It is a difference of 2 units. ):t is 8 units under the 9.8 density and 10 units under the 11.1 density. Mr. Zimmerman said there is a similar difference for the El Camino Parcel. The total site area is 29,476 sq. ft. If you apply the RM-1 district density, you would get 8 units and that would be at a density of 11.8 dwelling units per acre. So for that particular site, if you applied the moratorium density, you get 6 units. So it would still be fewer units if you applied the moratorium'density. Mayor Sher said et the time, they thought about going forward and reinsti- tuting a rezoning, but they didn't have these new Zones so they couldn't. Nov they are proposing to adopt these new zones and see how flexible they can be, end the closest they come is 11 plus units per acre as against the 9 and that means 2 additional units on each parcel. Mt. Knox referred to the KM -1 line on the chart. At 8,000 sq. ft., you get a density of 10.9; at 9,000, you get a density of 9.7; at 10,000, you get a density of 8.7; and at 12,500, it jumps up again to 10.9. The made, all through there is 10-11 units per acre. He believed Councilman Clay had remarked about the densities overall being changed and how this related to the ;cbahotrsin;g balance. Mayor Sher said in the KM -3 zone under 18 ;25.070 on rage 69, paragraph A, which they talked about earlier, teals with this problem of professional and medical offices that might find themselves in an KM -3 zone and deals with them more or less as conforming uses and permits them to be rebuilt, etc. Why .'.an't similar language included in the &M-2 zone? Isn't it possible that there will be professional and medical offices in an area that Council or the Planning Commission might recommend for zoning as 9-2. If that is true and there is this desire not to make chose professional and medical offices nonconforming, won't that produce pressure to make that an Bpi -3 zone in order to take advantage of the language? In other words, is the absence of this paragraph in 9-2 likely to lead to pressure to zone certain areas kM-3 which they might otherwise wish to zone 1-2. Uhat is the reason .for not having that same language ii en 8M-2 zone. Mx. lnce responded that basically the BM -3 zone is designed to be compatible with the 1.3P zone - An which this kind of use now occurs. The lot area in the @3P is 2,000 sq. ft for each structure end 1,500 for each eubsequ+ent structure. The BM -3 is somewhat less dense then that. It is 3500 for the first structure and f5O0 for each additional -one. It is basically the same zecme. %%ere they find offices presently in an B3P zone, the logical zone to cpply when they do the mapping is -2K-3 because the density combiestions az shown on the teble are closest to sOhat they have in the 1.3? zones now. If they applied an p11-2 zone they anal begin to have A number of buildings that would be Mien in density and would become noacoc fuming. Isyor,, 8her said that is whet he Wee afraid of. Become there are exist- ing 'Office buildings and because this language is in the 1114-3 zone, the pressure mill be totone all areas 'K--3 because of the presentee of office buildings there. isn't it pose iisl+e there 'wilt be some areas that will be sore appropriately 8I' 2 even though there are sone office buildings' Isn't it possible that wherever tb'y flax' offices, there is going to be pressure to mks that IN -3 even though more logically It should be 2M-2. 583 1/1178 Mr. Knox replied that he wasn't wrong. If they wanted to add this kind of clause to the RM-2 zone they could, and then they can worry about the situation when they get to the mapping. But it does tie into the comments about the down zoning of densities which he wanted to discuss some time. Mayor Sher said if they were starting over again, Mr. Knox wouldn't want to see office buildings in the RM-2 zone, and he probably agreed with that. They.wouldn't want them in the RM-3 either. Mr. Knox said he was saying that in Palo Alto, given that offices have been developed in the R3P zone and given that'RM3 and R3P will have close to the same density, it will make sense to apply the RM3 density to the present R3P areas. If they try to apply a lower density, they will not be helping the job -housing imbalance any and will be making a lot of buildings noncon- forming. While they are taking care of a lot of these nonconformities through these various .070 special regulations, all of which are in response to the Carey amendment, it seems illogical to make a lot of exceptions. Mayor Shea: eatd suppose they find an isolated office building over in a multi -family zone that logically, consistent with current patterns, ought to have an RH-2 density. What Mr. Knox said suggests that they are going to call than an RM-3 zone, because otherwise that isolated office building will become a non -conforming :.use. He was trying to prevent that kind of pressure from building up. He didn't know if those situations exist hut it did seem to him that if they put this sass language in the RN -2 zone they would get rid of that pressure, and have complete freedom to draw these boundary lines more logically in terms of density and still take care of what would be nonconforming office buildings and let them become conforming. Mr. Knox said he agreed. AMENDMENT: Mayor Seer ,moved, seconded by Carey, that the City Attorney add s paragraph to psragraph a) of . 18.23.070 re RM-3 zone. The amendment passed on a unanimous vote. Mr. Knox stated the pres!rt Zoning Ordinance allows densities of 20 units per acne to 55 per acre. The Comprehensive Plan calls for densities of 10 units per acre to 45 units per acre. He said he pointed this out during the Comprehensive Plan process, that they are in fact lowering the permitted densities so that if they want to do something about the job -housing fmbeiauce by creating more housing, their actions are not what they are saying they want to do. When staff prepared the Zoning Ordinance, they tie an analysis of how tbe zones work and looked at what the governing lectors are that determine density. What they foEiO was;, generally, that there were some hidden features in the zones that = regulated density. It night say oe the surface that you can have 55 .units per sere and if you have a large enough lot and you have so shy thousand square feet for the first structure and so way thc ani feet for each s cture thereafter, that you get up to a density of 55 suite per acre? -when you look at the parking requirements, the cost of parking; end the fact that packing would have to be put under.' a structure; parker in fact. its what govern the density in many. of these zones. So its writing the Zoning Ordinance, staff tried to work out each zone so that the density combination of how awash is required for the i'irst dwelling, and boar muchfor each additionel dwelling in tee of site area, and the bide yard setbacks, the height i im►it at ions and the parking requirements would all work together so tbet if the total nueime of snits on a lot were established by the density, you would also find that the same number of units on the lot would be established by the side yard, the might, or parking. In other words, there is a paradox or a contradiction; it may be that the prestat toting Ordinance, although it says 20-55 units, really results in a. tower density, like 10 -45 becevie parking has been governing it.. He said he didn't have any bard facts on a particular zone. It depend. an a lot-by-int *raelysts. It seed on the surface that they are reducing density, but what they have done, whether reducing it or not, is brought all the requirements and co ditions within sect zvaae ' into as greet a degree of coufprmity as they cams, so days all operate tesether. They defi dt.1y have nee increased the density. 3e4 2/1/78 Vice Mayor Brenner referred to page 99, and what she presumed was a typo under lodging. It says the minimum requirement shall be one space for each 2 lodging units. On page 174, under the same heading, #18, Lodging, it says one space for each lodging unit. If that is an error it seems relevant. Mayor Sher said be Lad 3 cards from speakers regarding industrial zones. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme, said in answer to comment #7 in the staff report on January 26, he didn't make himself clear because that wasn't the comment he was trying to make. What he wanted was a specific density that is equivalent to, as an example, an +311.1, KM -2, or say 26 or 27 units an acre so that they didn't have a nebulous density which could be allowed in these combined residential and commercial or industrial uses. Re thought it was a good idea to have some maximum density allowed. Coins to the Ili zone en page 132, Section 2, Mixed Uses, it was the intent when the Commission discussed mixed uses in commercial and industrial zones to give what amounted to a density bonus for going to resid:-ntial. Mhat this allows in Section 2 is an excessive density bonus. There are a number of ways one could circumvent the intent of the mixed zones which would allow a substandard residential development and call it a mixed zone, and he thought they should delete Section 2 in all these manufacturing zones and retain some minimua standards which are established, specified, spelled out and clearly understood by all. In Section g, sites abutting Or having any portion whithin 150 ft. of any P,g, R-1, or R-2 district, or PC district, he thought they should add RM-1 end poasihly RM-2 because in looking at the table that is on the board, they can see that RM-1 overlaps R-2 in density and the Kg -2 (the low end) is very close to the high end of the R-2 and the intent,, obviously, is When you have a relatively low density residential neighborhood next to a commercial or industrial zone, to keep the density compatible. In reference to PC Districts where it says permit- ting a single family or townhouse development, he found nowhere is town- house defined. Re thought it should say multi -family and if they want to define multi -family at some density equivalent to an KM -1 zone or something, fine, but leaving it as townhouse is unsefe. The same. -thing applies to Section 1, line 11, page 133, line 20, etc. The same general comment applies in the CA: zone; that is, that they are not sufficiently protectng the adjacent residential, property. Phil Williams, Planning Director, Stanford University, said Stanford has been working with the Planning Commission and staff for more than a year on the development of the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance so they are duly impressed with the quantity and quality of work involved mad offer. their congratulations. They have talked 'bout many subjects, •most.,of them resolved to everyone's satisfaectio n. fawover, there is one , important matter of principle that be felt eblineted-to bring to Council's consider- ation'. It is a case Where Stanford hers not succeeded in making it clear wily they consider this wetter important, and that is that they feel that collage and umieersity uses should be allowed on any Tared owned by a college and seniversity. Specifically,.the reason they are concerned about this at Stanford is that ell of their lsrwl us .;ulti eately dedicated for the purpose ni &asthenia related uses, ,7uhey have developed in snme cases land leased out to tenants for +uteri uses which eitbex are related to the educational research function, or produces income which is used for academic purposes. Those are term -teases end the ultimate purpose -of all Sttsford's land is far academic uses. It seems, then, inconsistent -to have sowing districts which mey be applied to parts of Stanford land which perrit all educational uses including college and university uses cud in other districts on Stanford lands sad perhaps other. places in the City, which allow private educational uses through the secondary level. Specifically, they allow business and trade schools and spsci f kcal ly eio not allow either as a pernitted at conditional use, college and university :ties. 585 2/1/75 He questioned why it would be in the public interest to preclude college and university uses from any portion of the Stanford land even though Stanford might not contemplate putting them to that use in the imnedicte future. The conditional use permit process protects the public against any wild schemes and at the same time they find it ironic to not be doing a legal thing to pursue ecader.ir endeavors on a piece of property where it would be legal to lease it to a business or trade school to do the same thing. 8e referred to the Planning Commission minutes of October 19, 1977, page 183 and the November 9 minutes, page i, for the previous discussions on this subject. Stanford asks the Council to consider the merits of making the ordinance consistent in this respect. Mr. Knox said in the staff memo of January 26, they responded to comments made by the public. Some of them touch on industrial, but they have no recommendations to sake for changes in the ordinance based on those comments. Councilmember Carey said regarding Stanford's question, unless be is Incorrect, they went through extent ve bearings on that question with respect to the Plan and the Land Use Map. He asked if there was anything before Council now that is inconsistent with those hearings? The speaker referred to certain Commission minutes of October and November. Be didn't have them before him so he was not sure what they say and whether or not there is an inconsistency with the policy decisions that were made by C:3uncil in 1976. Hr. Knox said that basically what happened ii' the Comprehensive Plan delib- erations is that they established a major institution special facility blue color for most of the Stanford campus and alight gray office research color for the..Welch Road office area and a LM color for the Stanford Indus- trial Park. When they came to the Zon?ng Ordinance, staff picked up a zone called Office Research which, assuming conformance to the Comprehensive Plan, will be applied to the Welch Road office area. Stanford asked that they allow for colleges and universities as a permitted use in all lands owned by Stanford. Me Commission discussed that, agreed to provide colleges and universities as a permitted use in the OR zone. He didn't remember what the staff position lees. Re thought they xecommended that and they didn't see the need to do it elsewhere, so Stanford winds up having colleges and universities permitted in the blue areas of the map which are major insti- tution and special facility and in the OR, Office Research area on rich Road; but when the mapping is dome, they won't have colleges and universities allowed in Stanford lands that are going to be zoned multi -family, such as the 46 sate parcel on. Willow Road, or that are going to be zoned and are presently zoned, Limited' Manufacturing, such as the Industrial Park. Be understood Mr. Williams wad asking for the inclusion of colleges and universities as a permitted use in the LM district. KW. yam continued that in the plan the foothills are called Open Space Controlled Development. The zone that would confer with that would be the Open Space Zone, 18.71. They have not mode any ohms in the 15,71 zocse Cowacil omb'er Carey said Stanford's request, then, to to add university facilities to the office resesrc:i and the industrial zones only? Mr. Knox replied that it is already in the Office research Zone. In any event the scree, which has slightly different language, € n, page 151, allows, with use permits, educational, charitable, research and philanthropic institutions; so the O5 does cover Stanford. Councilmember Carey said with respect to the policy decisions made a year and a half ago, on the lanai use map in respect to Stanford lands, was there any chaff? 386 2/1/78 Mr. Knox said a year and a half ago, he didn't think it was clear. Nobody really talked about whether colleges and universities would be permitted in the Industrial Park, or north of Sand Hill Road, and he thought it wasn't discussed in the Comprehensive Plan discussions. Councilmember Carey said he had 2 proposed amendments. One has to do with the roof overhang permitted before it starts to count as floor area that is determined allowable building size, and what is reco o'ded is 4 ft. That is in definitions and it is more appropriate that be wait. His other one would be the same thing having to do with compact car ratios. Mr. Zimmerman said that was in 18.88. Vice Mayor Brenner said she would like to address the subject on page 129, line 31. Looking at that she asked them to turn to page 90, lire 23. Isn't page 90, line 23, the way that the eating and drinking services are presently described in the LM zone? Mr. Knox responded it was approximately that, or if it is not described that way, it has been determined by the City Attorney that eating facilities are an accessory use in the LM zone. The reference to page 129, live 31, with respect to eating and drinking services, he said that one of the staff meatus to Council noted that in all cases they have asked that wording be added to say "except for drive-in an? take out", which are conditionally permitted uses only. Vice Mayor Brenner said she preferred to return to eating and drinking services when operated accessory to permitted use or primarily for the convenience of uses on the site and not toccupying more than 20% of the floor area in the buildings on the site. She thought that when they start introducing restaurants in an area, they change the character of the traffic that goes into those areas. Part of the high class Industrial Park depends on its appearance in the daytime, its greenery and landscaping and then they introduce restaurants or service stations, they attract other drivers into the area. Page Mill Road is one of the principle streets, but the nature of traffic from industrial is mainly at compute time. The interruption of that flow of traffic by people going to restaurants is of quite a different nature and she felt it was appropriate to have the accessory to present uses; but she world not like to spat, a commercial strip eating its way up Page Mill Road. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor %rennet moved, seconded by Sher, that the wording which is presently on pegs 90, line 23, be substituted for the vending on page 129, lip 31, and thatthe wording be aubetitoted in all the Lil districtsif that is hers that applies. • MAyor Sher said tbe motion tire, under 18.60.0 40 and any like sections in the Industrial Diatr its, is instead of permitting eating . amd drinking tOOTVielit as a :conditional use, they woad eUbititute theriamgnase that appears GM poso 90 under the ON sone arch makes it an accessory nee to a building, CouncilmeMber Clay the. ire they were given in the errata data aot include line 31, page 129, nor line 23, page 90. Se thought that was done intentionally so he had weed d with that. The additioms they were told to asks said essentially 'ercept for drive-in sad take -sot services." Me . thought it t maw appropriately *stricken cke n out of permitted mass, but then there were other sous inclwied in other areas that ba thought cowered that, that is under Conditional (lass. Es said ha would rot agree with Vice Meyer Scanner's proposal t's'.at that is a negative impact on environ= metal (Natty because ha saw it as possibly even li $tiag that =oust of traffic` going in and about the City if both take-out and drive-in services were placed in an LK district. Not only mould it ecaommodate those people who worked in those districts, but he also didn't think it would hurt the environment to hava:people drive in those districts and pick up and take out food. Counciime>aber Clay said he would oppose the motion on that basis. Corrected Councilm.mber Witherspoon said as far as she could tell the only place in town see page to have a boarding kennel is in the Manufacturing District, and if that is 755 so, which she agreed with, why is it not allowed in the Industrial District. 1 i Mayor Sher said they would come back to that; there vas a motion on the floor. Cuuncailmemaber F>tzzino said because eating and drinking services are included in the Conditional Use he didn't have that many cencerwaa about the development of a commercial strip or a restaurant strip within the Industrie) Park area. There is one very nice restaurant in the Industrial Park end it has had a positive effect in keeping employees in that area rather than having them travel down Page Mil Road into the California Avenue area. He felt comfortable with the staff recommendation and mould upheld that and vote against the motion. Councilmeber Carey asked if there was any statement made as to people density between OR and LK. Mr. Knox replied staff knows of no such statement. It would depend on the kind of facility developed in each district. Cowaac.i1member Carey said if they were worried about traffic -generating restaurants on busy Page Mill, he would suggest that very few people eat dinner between the hours of 4:30 and 6:00 p.m. When they do go to a restaurant, it is after 7:00 p.e., and that is the end of the rush hour. The same is true in the warning. When people eat lunch there -is no commute traffic, so it is the ideal use to mix with industrial because the trips into a restaurant are athec than the trips is to voxk. Cos cilmemeber Fletcher acid she would also like to encourage_ restaurants in employment ceatere. The traffic at croon coming from tea Industrial 'ark through the Califorele Avenue/E1 Camino irate reection is horrendous. This type of facility should be where the employees are. Vice Mayor Brenner pointed out that thte Ave* not elianete restaurants ae such, The one that Mr. Fsexino der ribed vas included =dee, this ordinance as "when operated accessory to permitted uses." That dose not mean they cannot exist, it means chey wit exist accessory to permitted saes. The intent of her motion eve that they not be built separately, designed to attract outside commercial traffic. The other place vheere this could exist, for eximplo, is on Embareadaxo in the ba;'arids, where- it arse zoned Corrected PC on the edge of Lk . She said that as a permitted use they are acceptable, see page but as a conditional use, she questioned that. 755 Mr. Enos said mil: ber Clay - sees right that they should have added in the errata ebast that page 129, lies 30 should have "e aaept: grivt-in and tam -out aarvices". So if the current motion does eat pas, be hoped boa would eote - tivkt amendment. It would be ,appropriate to look at all of Item 4 on the errett ..Neat of . Jewry 12. AUK', he added, this was not a staff recommendation, but. a Commission recommendation. n. 1 Meyer Sher said the errata sheet consisted of corrections ead', ones designed to reflect the Cohesion aches, and this vas one t vas overlooked. MOMENT FAILED: They amendment failed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Sher Cerey, Clay, Sysrly, Fletcher, !azsiao, hiderson, Ifitherepoon Sea 2/1/7e AMENDMENT: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Brenner, that line 31, page 129, read "eating and drinking services except drive-in or take-out services." Councilmenber Clay said he would like to know why Councilmember Carey wanted to see that in there. He thought it was intentionally left out because of the District they are speaking to and that drive-in and take- out services are not as undesirable as in some other places. As he recalled, that language applied to when eating and drinking services were included in permitted uses. Mr. Knox said the idea was that where they allow eating and drinking services as permitted uses, they would also allow as conditional uses the drive-in and take-out services. The errata sheet was an attempt to make clear to anyone looking under the permitted uses, that eating and drinking services were not just permitted per scf, but were permitted except for drive-in and take-out services. Then the person reading the ordinance could see that under conditional uses if you wanted a drive-in or take-out service, you would need a conditional use. In the case of the LM zone, the eating and drinking service is not a permitted use in the first place, it is conditional. lie recalled it was not the intention of the Commission to allow drive-ins and take-outs in the LK dictrict. The discussion related specifically to first class restaurants. They had talked about the kinds of things Vice Mayor Brenner referred to, that there could be cafeterias of the Syntex variety which could occur. The response wa3 it takes a big company to do that; there are not enough of them, and people still flow down Page Mill to the first class restaurants. If they want to keep the tr-aff.'_c in the Industrial Park, they need to allow the first class restaurants, so the Commission specifI. ally put in eating and drinking services as a conditional use. It vas his impression that there was no intent to allow drive -In or take-out facilities in the LH district. Councilmember Clay thought it made sense in the Stanford Industrial Park, where there are several companies. If there is a restaurant at Hewlett Packard that is large enough to acct r*odaate Varian, Watkins Johnson and ours, just the traffic factor alone would be enough to say that if they were to circulate within the Stanford Park area, that would be better than having them all haveto drive down Page Hill to El Camino. The language as it now reads made sense as a conditional use. Corrected PaYe $i Councilmember r Caa►zey said voting for this action, they are not eliminating drive -up facilities because they still exist in commercial zones subject to use pe. i t . Se didn't think they ought to be to the LM zones because he wasn't convinced that the trips dovetailed with commute traffic with respect to drive -up facilites, because people could wet a hamburger on the war home. He thought the trip -ins dovetailed better with a first class eestaurant in a date area; that is why he made the motion. CouncileeMber Heedereen said he believed they ,should h/we this exception because he also believed the heaviest traffic:Use on Page Kill would coincide with the heaviest use of drive -inns. Cousscilmembex Claey. Said in looking at the errata sheet, in every instance where the wo .ins "except drive -:tom and 'ta -out service*". was aedded, it was in the permitted use. section-. it eryp1ace else they permit it as a conditional use, except in the 1#1 zone, where it appears. If they put that language in there is no place for such a - :aacii i ty to go. S89 2/1/78 Shy The amendment passed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Carey, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderscn, Sher, Witherspoon • NOES: Clay Corrected see page 755 1 Councilmember Witherspoon said her earlier point was the only place in town to have a boarding kennel under a Conditional Use Petma.it is in the Manufacturing Zone which she thought appropriate for that zone, but she asked if there was any reason why it was not also allowed in the light industrial zones as a Conditional Use Permit? She added it is not allowed in the OS or AC zones either. Mr. Knox replied it is allowed in the GM zone and CS zone; animal care including boarding and kennels is a conditional use for the GM zone on page 122, line i6. When they get to the CS zone, they will find it is in the CS zone in the same form. He thought it related to the fact that the LM zone is looked at as a more limited, more exclusive, lighter, cleaner zone. Cotncilmeeher Witherspoon referred to a sort of nuisance clause on page 127, 1 through 10, which seemed to preclude all the possible problems one could conceivably have from being adjacent to the Manufacturing District. As she reibered tEey had had a number of complaints from residents living next to the LM tone, some of which look quite familiar in this list of thinga that one is not allowed to have a nuisance by. Was there any reason why this whole section C could not be put in the LM area too? Mr. Zimmerman said on page 133, line 27, it is included. Councilmember Hendcrs,00 referred :o page 133, having to do with industrial sites abutting these residential areas. AMEN : Councilmember Ren4erson moved, seconded by Fletcher, that on line 6, cross out the first "or" and after R-2, add "R2i--1, or NRW-2 so it's including all of the lower density residential areas, and to change the word "townhouse" on line 7, to "ailtiple housing", Councilmember Henderson said then they would have to carry through with the RM-1 and RN -2 where applicable in those subparagraphs, 1 end 2. Mr. Xnox said the language is repeated in other zones as well and on page 126 the name language occurs for the GM zone. He understood that Cdr Henderson wanted to expand the motion to Apply to this language wherever it appears in the Ordinance, rather than exclusively to the LK zone. The specific discustton at the Planning Commission looked for a way to limit this and it was specifically decided not to apply this to multi -family developments and that is why the language in line 7 says "townhouse development",' because they were talking about the PC's that had single family attached or single fnafly detached houses. They did not feel it needed to apply to multi -family. Councilmember Hedereau said he would add the wording, to the other manufacturing end industrial. zones, wherever it appeared. Mr. Inca i?d he thought this nuisance clause applied to single family only and the duplex zone was added at the Commission level. Someone said they ought to add PC too because they are residential, but they didn't get to multi -family. 5 9 e 2/1/78 Councilmember Carey asked what was Chapter 16.48? Mr. Knox replied the Architectural Review Board. Councilmember Carey asked about the minimum interior rear yard. What are they talking about on line 11? What is the additional burden imposed? Mr. Green said he believed that reference would refer to anything other than a street yard ---a side or rear yard. Side yard minimums on page 130, for minimum interior side yard, would be 6.1 meters, or 20 ft. In this case it would be between 15-50 ft. as determined by the 4RB. Mr. Knox said where an industrial use abuts a residential area, for example Stanford Industrial Park end Barron Park, instead of the normal interior side yard requirements applying, the lesser dimension of 20 ft., they have to go to the Urger dimension. Mayor Sher said it is just a distinction between the portion that abuts the street which is called a street side yard; and all the other yards are called interior yards. Councilmeaber Carey said in other words what they call setback would be a minimum of 15 ft., and as such as 50 ft., depending on the ARB and ordinarily it would be 20 ft. So if it a .buts a factory it is 20 ft., and if it abuts a residential area it is 15 ft. Mr. Knox replied they would probably increa<<e that along the line. They should make a change here to make this 20 f t . Councilmember Carey as d then they were talking about a possible additional 30 ft. Mr. Kr x replied that was correct. Councilmeaber Carey hoped that the ARS in determining this setback, which could be as ouch as 30 ft., would compare it to the residential density next door. If it is R-1 that is one thing, but if it is RM5 that is s thing else. Mayor Sher suggested it would be helpful to include in the motion a minimum of 20 ft. under b) 1). If the minimum general requireeent'ia 20 ft. it will never be any less than that. AMAMI= R , ATHDa Couucilammber Henderson moved, seconded by Pletcher, that on Pam 133, line 6, creee out "or" after R-2; add all R -M districts; change townhouse" to multiple holiness development" (and carry throe in subpar ). MWke "minim of 20 feet" under b)'1) in line 12 /rad line 22, page 130. Cowaciler Clay said be didn't recall the Commission's discussion on this, but in reading it he thought it ems intentionally limited to the lower density districts. He thought they bad suggested Hewlett Packard might build bossing 04 the top floor of their building and it would appear to him that if on the one hand they ware asking that in the Stanford Industriai, Park there might ve housing, and at the same time impose restrictiona having to do with the things or sites Qt�_`wa g LM districts, , it appeared to be restrictive, if not contradictory, since the ARS hawbeen aoakiu ,set tae anyway. It might be reasonable for a project witkirc a higher mot to have these restrictions imposed on them. $o said he would like to sou it less restricted by includ these things, all of the residential districts as has been proposed. 591 2/1/711 1 Mayor Sher said this would apply to residential units in an industrial or commercial district. This talks about industrial adjacent to, so if housing were built in the Industrial Park, it would still be an industrial district and he didn't think this language would apply. Councilmember Clay said the language does not apply but the thought is still there. If it i3 good in one case, thy is it necessarily bad in anothet? The amendment passed on the AYES: NOBS: following vote: Brenner, Carey, Zyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon Clay Councilmember Henderson referred to page 124, line 34, and asked about the small parking requirement. It seemed that most eating and drinking places during their heavy period are going to have more than 1 car per 4 persons, and again there will be overflow into other areas. Do fast food services apply under this? Ms. Steinberg said she believed it is carried over from the current Zoning Ordinance, but staff would check that. Councilmember Henderson said that page 123, General Manufacturing District Regulations, there are no requirements for setbacks, one can develop right up to the street. Ma. Steinberg said that spas in the current Zoning Ordinance as well. Mr. Zimmerman said he thought when the Commission went over this, one of the original objectives was to combine as any zones as possible so they tried to combine the elements out of the present Mel and M-2, and neither of those zones has setback requirements. That is why the present proposed CM doesn't have any either. He didn't think the Commission discussed it et any great length. Councilmember Carey said he had two motions. One has to do with the amendment that just passed which gives the ABB authority to increase the side yard setback, or interior yard, up to 50 ft. In to paragraph following, on page 133, &-2, it establishes a requirement that t e ainiaaaame yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscape screen. Ha thought that was a little hard. If they are going;to require the buildings to . be sat back an additional 30 ft. *haute they then impose sdditioaaal landscaping of another 30 ft on top of that. There is already 30 ft. and a fence at least 5 ft. high separatingtbe residential from the light industrial, so who is all that landscaping going to bezeafit, certainly not the adjacent land owner - with a fence thee. He said e ' otsld l iko to add to the last sentence on 8-2, lines 24 and 25 (and 81 too) , the following: "except as may be expanded by the provisions of 3-1, the minimum interior yard shall be pleated and maintained". The intent is that the ae story landscaping is limited to the original setback requirements and not as expanded by reason of the adjacent uses. So it would be 20 ft. AHEMMINTI Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Nenderson, that on Page 133, 8-1 and 3-2, lines 24 and 25, add to last sentence "except as may be expanded by the provisions of 1-1, the first 20 feet shall be..." The amendment passed on s unanimous vote. 542 2/1/78 1 Council.member Carey aaid include in the LM zone a uses, was that correct? point he was not willing than I.M. he understood part of their request, it was to college or university use along with the other: He knew there may be other areas, but at this to move that use be included in other areas AMENDMENT: Counciimember Carey moved, seconded by Fazzino that on page 129, add "colleges and universities" to L -M zones as permitted use. Mayor Sher asked about the motion that Stanford requested applying to land owned by universities or colleges. He asked if he should disqualify himself? Mr. Green said that would be appropriate. Mayor Sher said he would not participate, and asked Vice Mayor Brenner to handle that motion. Mr. Knox asked if they were just adding colleges and universities to some zones were they making it more specific. Councilmember Carey said LM --that the per fitted uses In the LM zone include colleges and universities, the see as in the OR. Councilmember Clay said Item C, private educational facilites, would not include Stanford educational use, correct? Mr. Knox replied that is because they are defined to mear something else in the definition section, specific,ily the words "colleges and universities." Vice Mayor Brenner said regarding description on the zone they are talking about, how do they describe precisely what the motion proposed to add to the 114 zone? Mr. Knox said the OR contains colleges and universities as permitted use. Vice Mayor Brenner said in other words, .a ducational institution of higher. learning. She asked if there is any restriction on the kind of building that is included as an educational institution of higher learning. Counciimember Carey said not any more then an industrial building. Hr. Knox said major institution special facilities, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, - is specialized private and public buildings and lands. Heamplen are Stanford University Veterans Administration Hospital, and other buildings and sites such as City Hall, Cultural Center, Municipal Services Centers, Libraries and Fire Stations. He slid Vice Mayor *rear has beer looking at the Palo Alto Land Uae Plan, which is part of - the Comprehensive Flan, and he thought her question is why the motion wants to include colleges in what is shown in grey, Research Office Perk, whereas there is a blue color on the map in moot of Stanford which is designated major institution special facilities. 'if that is the questions be thought the mower is that in the major institution special facility category, they would allow colleges and universities. whereas whet they are contemplating by the motion is allowing a efir of industrIel and reareerch user in the research_perk arias, as well as permitting . ollegea and universities. Mr. Green said he had revised hip ruling about Mayor Sher participating in the discussion. Although the convereatioe is in terse of this possibly being applied to a particular area, they have to recognise that . they are only adopting these general regulations which lip the future could be applied anywhere, so it really is of more general effect then a zoning of a particular property. Staff's rulings have consistently been that in such cases Mayor Sher could participate. The t: passed on a. =saloons vote. 411078 ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Councilmember Carey raved, seconded by Fazzino, that the Special Meeting of February 1, 1978, be adjourned. The motion passed or, a unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. ATTEST: (1,t,0‘ City Cle APPROVE: Mayor 'I? L.