Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-02-14 City Council Summary MinutesCcutinu tics of Z ring 0rdiance Review Adjourafteat CITY COUNCIL MINUT€s Special Keating February 14, 1978 ITEM Planning Commission recommendations re Draft Zoning Ordinance (Continued from 1/16/78, 2/1/78, 2/6/78 and 2/7/78) CITY of PALO ALTO PAGE 6 9 1 Palo Alto 1lvnicipai Code Chapter. 18.04 —Definitions , - 6.9 1 Combining Districts -Caster 18.70; Flood Plain District -- Chapter 18.74; Civic Center Combining District --Chapter 18.79; Sits and Design Review Combining District-- bapter 18.82; Off Street Parking end Loading —Chapter 18.83 (Including bicycles) 6 9 6 7 0 6 7 0 6 69 0 21 O4 e Special Meeting February 14, 1978 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in a special meeting to discuss the proposed new zoning ordinance. PRESENT: Brenner, Carey, Clay (arrived 8:20 p.m.), Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly PLANNIW ^OLD ISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RE =Mar Continued from Mayor Sher reminded those present that Council had finished reviewing Residential and Industrial zones, Commercial zones, and also a discussion on bicycle parking. Council had then begun Chapters 18.04 and 18.08; 18.04 concerned a long list of definitions anI the process of working toward satisfactory definitions would now continue. At the outset of Council's review a motion had ben lade, which was before thus, that Council approve the Zoning Ordinance as it had been received from thy,=. Planning Commission. Council had tcen engaged to the process of making desired amendments and ideally Council would complete their review of the Zoning Ordinance provisions that evening. Falo Alto Munici al Code Chapter 18.04 :,,pefini#ions Councilmeaber Fletcher said she had some minor amendments. On page 8, line 13, "Automctive Services --A uS4 engaged in sale, rental, . . . or mtijor repair of new or used automobiles, . . . motorcycles," she suggested adding Ho"-Peds. Mayor Sher raid that addition had been made by staff. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Hendereon, that on page 21, lint 24, under Retail. Services, after ". . .bicycles," that Mb - Pods be added. Napltali Knox, Director of Planning and amity Environment, explained that Me-Feds sherd be in Automotive Services, not Retell Services, for service and sale of :NS --P ds more appropriately belonged there. if the, Retail Service said r —Pods and related parts, eluding service ,sod installations it would be more acceptable, though sales without service was unlikely. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN: CoaaeciLer Fletcher withdrew her fit, acknowledging that noise end added traffic made her idea less appropriate. Co: ncilmember Wirberopoon referred to page 11, Equipment Terd, and page 22, Service and Equipment Turd, which appeared to be repetitive. ffiWm confirmed With Mt. Eoi that on page 22, Service and Equipmeet Teed had been deleted. Mayor Slur referred to page 10, City Center, and questioned that in the definition of lobe would be carved by such a center no mention had been made of their being profit. Would, for example, a p elehell be included? 691 .2/14/78 Louis Green, Assistant City Attorney, replied that such a use would not fit the definition, for it would not be a "recreational program" serving "significant segments of the community. "Mayor Sher asked about including the words "non-profit." Community Centers were, he thought, a permitted use in more than one zone. Mr. Green said they were conditionally permitted in R-1 and also in more intensive zones. He bad no objection to making the profitlnon-profit distinction. Mr. Knox said groups such as the YMCA and Jewish Community Center were, in fact, community centers; whether or not it was for profit did not determine how the facility was used. Mayor Sher asked what the position would be toward a private luncheon club. Mr. Green replied that the phrase "...generally open to the public," had been inserted to exclude private clubs; with r"generally" being the word that uia not restrict possible use for a wedding or banquet. Mayor Sher asked if "fraternal" organizations were "generaley open to the public"? Hr. Green said participation policies of a fraternal organization would determine if they could use a community center; a lodge hall, for example, would not qualify. .one Steinberg, Chairwoman of the Planning Commission, said the Commission had decided that use was not affected by the fact of profit/n€n-profit. Councilmenber Fletcher asked if the Green Meadow City Center would qualify.. --it was open just to the neighborhood residents. Mr. Knox replied that it would be listed under "Outdoor Recreation Services," page 19, line 15. Vice Mayor Sre r referred to page 22, Shopping Censer, defluing dimensions uJ a shopping center as 50 acres. Only one e ppiag center had those dimensions. She asked why Town end Country Village had not been in Iudad how much land did it occupy? Mr. Knox said be thonghe,there were 13 acres at that site; differences between it end Stanford Shopping Center bad been. diacv red, and it was felt that Stamford Shopping Center had_special problems for it had large regional stores, and was neat - a collection ofsmall shops, as was Tore and Country Village. Vice Mayor Brenner asked if it would cause any problems to change the classification to read "Regional Shopping Center." . Knox answered that in a fee places in the text "Shopping Center" mould have to be changed to read "Regional Shopping :enter"', and it meld change to smother alphabetical place. It could a. celled "Shopping Canter, " end stirin the amine per. MOTION: Vice Mayor Brenner moved that "It al" be in the title or no pert of the definition. The smondment dIM for lack of a second. 692 21141?S (C5 Mr. Knox brought up the matter of defining a "water course bank" relating to water courses in the areas of lots. He and Mr. Green felt a change was needed in Section 18.88, which had not yet been reached. He put the definition Mr. Green had written on the screen so that it could be more accurately defined. It would occur as definition 99, on page 25, with subsequent numbers to be changed. "Water Course Bank: the side of a water course the top of which shall be the topographic line roughly parallel to stream centerline, where the side slopes intersect the plane of the ground traversed by the water course; where banks do not d.stingulshably end, the surrounding country being the extension of the banks, the top of such banks shall be defined as determined by the building official." The definition had been taken from the Water District Ordinance relating to strews beds. Sttn Novicki of the Building Department had understood it. It would be in 18.88.070. It related to the change Council had made that computation of lot size included the area lying within a water course. On occasions when lot easement lines were not shown in block books, the definition would be useful and specific. Councilmember Carey remarked that the definition would be needed more if the original text stayed in, rather than when the definition was superseded. Mfr. Green said that he recalled the amendment had excluded the water course from calculation of lot area only. The clarifi';.ation was needed to either case. A EN rr: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the definition "Water Course Bank: the side of the water course the top of which shall be the topographic line roughly parallel to stream centerline, where the side slopes intersect the plane of the ground traversed by the water course; where banks do not distinguishably end, the surrounding country being the extension of the banks, the top of such banks shall be defined as determined by the Building Of fic'al," be added to the zoning ordinance at 18.68,070. AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment passed on a unanimous vote. Councilmembers Clay and Eyerly absent. Mr. Knox said the new definition would be pictorielized for clarity. . Mr. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme, appeared before Council ie reseonse to a question from Counellmember Carey at the February 7 Council meeting relating to method of calculation on lot size. Mr. Moss said that he bed used cwo maps, and also had excluded non -industrial zones. He maned some creeks, some being in non -industrial areas; the boundary between S ts Clara amid San Matto counties was shown es running in the center of San Prsaacisqutto Cry. In some states of the union, however, boundaries for 'tette rapt alongside of, taot to the center of, the riverbank. The figs be bed submitted at the February 7 meeting were admittedly iarprecisa; perhaps Council could ask staff tz check their computations against hie. CounciLeember Carey said his triterett was in whether or not the stream center divided, fe - ale, a commercial zone fret a residential zone, being on either side of the creek. Mt. Moss said that zoning seamed to be asr Uarm on both sides of creeks; theta had been one exception at Natedeto Creek and Park Boulevard. He bad not made distinction among developed and undeveloped properties. Counc11meabter Carey asked if staff would give the ratable for excluding. water courses and drainage easements from '-,t-area calculations. Nr. Green said the present definition for lot area was given in the present ordinance 18.04.310, reading "That portion of a Lot exclusive o; any portion located within the lines of any natural voter course, river,' etc. adopted in the 1958.,' It inch flied control ali.dtalnage esseeeste. 4)' 3 1/1417$ O Mr. Knox added that on page 67 of the Code, 18.88.070, "Yards" (h) read "no portion of a lot which is located within the lines of any natural water course, river,. . .or flood control or drainage easement shall be included in aeasuring the yard setback, usable open apace or buildable area of c e lot." - i Anne Steinberg, Chairwoman of the Planning Cocssission, said she thought those provisions were added after the Palo Alto floods, in 1957, and the Flood District was involved. Count er Carey asked if the wording was identical to that of 1957. If site coverage is reduced because of concern for flood control, it had miscarried, for no increased flood control reoulted--reduced building coverage did not result in flood control. He thought it was apparent that one goal of the modification leading to the Comprehensive Plan had been to slow down rcial%industrial growth in the City and also to attain 4 better jobiboesing balance. Restrictions bad been placed on commercial/industrial growth, and so the awe adnent adopted at the last meeting, which would increase some commercial/industrial lot sizes, was at variance with that goal to some degree. Couucil.a~ember Clay arrived at 8:20 p.m. MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council reconsider the definition of lot area. The caution passed of a unanimous ./us vote. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the original lot area definition be restored on page 16, lines 25-29. Mayor Sher said he had received cards from people lienting to speak on definitions; two of then wanted to speak about lot area definition and also lot coverage definition. Council would hear from those people at the appropriate time. AMENDMENT PASSIM: The went that the original lot size definition, c retained on page 16, lines 25-29, be restored, passed on a unani ua vote, Counclimmaber Hyerly aba er. Mayor Sher asked if Councilaelbers had any objection to firing from members of the public about their reactions to rhaeges Council had sada es the definitions. These wee none. Kermit fhnopf, 930 Palo Alto Avenue, referred to page 14, line 5, on the matter of Wit, which, before Vi co Mayor Breenser ° a amendment, bad permitted more flexibility of . design. He said he thought that to eliminate ma Vera i" height emcomragedmaximisation of height through building of flat roofs. There is a height limitation of 12 feet on it detached savage. Be had obtained a v'aor'ist e, in his own case, and it taken time and also cost $75.00. Average height, with a 13 -foot peak and defoot sides, could have met the height limit end given as better building. A 12 -foot height maximum emcouraged flat roofs, Bch were not attractive. Be asked Vice Mayor greener to re -consider her notion. Gypsy Immeence, 1031 Varlet, said she t the smatter concerning calculating water courses into' lot size was too important a point to have been dealt with is comjunctien with d°efinittf : she said that the bear at which it was d ne was not considerate of people who may have «abed to speak on it. has thanked Colacil for restoring the original definition. 6 9 4 2/14/76 haV- r vo Mayor Sher said that Council van not inviting new definitions from the public, who had already had that opportunity; the public was invited,, at the present time, to speak on changes in definition which the Council had already made. Mr. Hearn, 2727 Greer, spoke about page 21, line 6, saying that the Residential Care Home definition was at variance with his understanding of the law --that residential care home,. were not licensed by the State or County. Mr. Knox said that definition had been revised to read: "Residential Care Homes --Use of a dwelling or portions thereof licensed by the State of California or County of Santa Clara for care of up to six ambulatory persons requiring medical care or other assistance, including overnight occupancy or care for an extended time period and including all uses defined in Section 5000.115 and 5000.116 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, or successor legislation." Mr. Knox said he undetetood that the definition had been revised to conform to an ordinance previously adopted by the City Council some months ago. Mr. Hearn said his copy did not contain that revision, and he did not take issue with the revised definition as read by Mx. Knox. Mur. Knox said that all revisions which had been made through February 8 were in Council packets at the public libraries. MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Council tuber Clay moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the definition for height limitation be reconsidered. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. AMENDMENT: Counci1sember Clay moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the original language defining average height be restored. Council her Henderson said his concern about height lay not with garage height but with the 50 -foot limit. What would the maximum height of a peak be, should "average" height apply; would that be determined by width? Mr. Knox said "average" height referred to instances where there was a gable or hipped roof; mansard roofs were not included. The possibility was of building to the height of one-hali storey, or between five and seven feet above the height li t --about one-fourth of the total cubage of a floor, enough to provide a livable floor area. He described the various kinile of roof structures, adding that he did not think there were extreme possibilities for variations on the height limit; "...to the average height" made the definition the same as the Building Code and mode the 2 iag Ordinance and the Building Code uniform, whereas now the present definitions were not. Vice Mayor's Brenner's motion of last week took out "...to the average height," from the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Paxac#se() said he thought the 50 -foot height limit was adequate, and did not burden the Building Department with variations; he would vote for the Clay ideation to reconsider. Vice Mayor Brenner said her motion had been aimed at keeping the scale of height in residential areal "somewhat the same." If the new definition ware ecce?ted "wit it would seem logical to reduce height limits in residential neighborhoods by about five feet," which, to her, seemed a cumbersome way to bring a'definition into conformance with the Building Code. She was 'disinclined" to support the motion to re -c+ to ider . 695 2/14/78 6 Councilmember Carey opposed the Brenner motion for he felt buildings constructed before the adoption of the residential height limit had more architectural interest; at present only commercial builders could afford to build interesting architectural detail. Be elaborated on the sacrifices that had to be made to build an economically successful residence. He favored restoring the initial language that permitted averages to be used. Councilmember Fletcher asked if the Building Code or the Zoning Ordinance had been followed regarding height limitation. Lou Green, Assistant City Attorney, said their use was determined by appropriateness; uniform language would eliminate having to make such judgments. The Building Code followed state requirement, so that raised a problem about revision. Per. Knox said that in one case the Building Department had applied the building definition. A builder cane in with plans that had been approved by the ARB but the plans did not meet zoning ordinance specifications. At present, the zoning ordinance used storey height, which was, two and one-half storeys, or 35 feet. The ARE had approved the townhouses on Ramona because they were under 35 feet, though some of them are three storeys, and that violated the zoning ordinance. Mr. Cox, the builder, obtained a variance, at seme time delay and cost increase. Counclime ber Fletcher said she preferred going through the vnrianne �. _. _ Lyv aca� through a.aac. sus r. cs+i �.e procedure rather than raising the height limit. AMENDMENT PASSED: The ,amendment, that the original language defining the method of determining average height be res. ored passed on the following vote: AYES: Henderson, Carey, Witherspoon, Fazzino, Clay NOES: Brenner, Fletcher, Sher ABSENT: Ilyerly Mayor Sher said that Council's deliberations on the definitions had ended. He invited those who wished to speak on ensuing sections to submit cards indicating which sections they wanted to address. Combinin District ter 18.70; food Plain District vvc .eztrnier tar 18, 79. ter 18.82 bicycles) Mayor Sher said the last group of sections began with Chapter 18.$R on Special Provisions and Receptions, and he enumerated them. Mr. Knox said Chapter 18.70 had two chapters and replaced the existing OA District which was applied to the edges of Stanford Industrial Park, and along "The Milk Way" near Rickey's Hyatt House, wUch Bones allowed only screening and landscaping. The L District could be coined with the LM District; the resulting legal format um* more appropriate. "tees on page 160-192 contained the balance of the consideration*. A staff memo of February 9 had information relating to bicycle parking requirements. Dr. Herbert D. Zeman, 464 W. Charleston mod, said be bairma of the Charleston Medical Association. Re submitted citizens petitions on Chapters 18.83.050 and 18.95. 8e read the petition statement on Chapter 18.83.0 3t '-"ibZ'hail no objection to part 3 of Section 18.63.000, page 696 2/1417$ 177, which provides that land area required for provision of deferred parking spaces shall be maintained in reserve for future need. However, we feel extreme discomfort with the administrative forgiveness of some parking requirements with no provision for recalling spaces when needed, as outlined in Sections (a) and (b) on page 177. To reduce parking requirements is a very significant change for the properties involved and might result in larger buildings being built and thus more traffic, or possibly pouring more parking into adjacent residential areas. We also are very uncomfcrtable with the fact that there is no public notice or appeal process for these decisions by the Director of Planning, and urge that such decisions be included. Notice of decisions regarding parking requirement adjustments made by the Director of Planning could be published as a legal notice at the end of the Council agenda which is readily available to the public on page 2 on Saturdays in the Palo Alto Times, and at the libraries. Explanation of the requested changes can also be obtained at the libraries within five to ten days' working time." Dr. Zeman said the basic proposal of the petition was to add perhaps another week to the time required to make a small change. David Harris, 2121 Sterling Avenue, ,:poke on 18.83.070, as a representative of the Sierra Club. It acknowledged there was a financial demand through the requirement of providing bicycle parking facilities, and suggested part (c) on page 177 reduce the number of bicycle parking spaces needed -- perhaps requiring only three instead of the eight. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that Council approve the revised staff recommendation for bicycle parking, in Chapter 18.83.060, substituting figures in the last two columns of the accompanying table. Councilmember Carey said the recommended number of bicycle parking spaces in the revised recommendation was fewer than originally recommended, and fewer than what the Planning Commission had recommended. He did not think that provision of more bicycle parking would lead to more bicycle use, for demonstrated need had not been shown. Corrected sae page 336 Coated set page 836 Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that the original recommendation had given recommendations about Class I, II, and the like, on providing kinds of bicycle parking, according to time of stay, about which the table had made no mention. M . Zimmerman of the City staff had made similar recommendations which had not been contested by the Planning. Commission in any way. Some figures showed that 3.9 percent of total trips made to a portion of Industrial Park were by bicycle on one drizzly day in February, 1974. That vas higher than the percentage of people carried by public transit to that area on the same day. Bicyclists required only 5 percent parking. If the full requirement of 10 percent were made it would be possible to defer 50 percent of the parking, and so 5 percent would be a likely and achievable figure. More than 5 percent of. Palo A.ltana rode their bikes. _ The firm, Xerox, on Deer Creek Road, provided Class I bicycle parking, with 40 racks for 200 employees; every rack was occupied on a non -rainy day. On a recently heavily raining day, 16 of the racks were taken. Xerox, then, since it was clear that those 16 bicyclists rode their bikes year round, had to provide 16 fewer automobile parking *paces. Xerox had paid $7,240 for 16 lockers. Equivalent automobile perking would have cost $24,000. inside bicycle parking presented a maintenance problem, and was discouraged at most firms. In the Mtter of City expense, it wee expensive for the . City to provide two fulitime policemen to deal with bicycle theft and vandalimme Staff recommsndetion was for token bicycle parking only. etas by a representative of Stanford University at a previous Council meeting showed that lam did not know that . requirements for bicycle parking were for new facilities only. Csmcilmesker Fletcher emphasised that. theft and vandalism to bicycles was not reported in the newspaper, though both were incalculable. Safeguarded bicycle perking vow a urgent need. 697 2II4I7g 1 f AMENDMENT FAILED: The amendment that Council approve the revised staff recommendation for bicycle parking, in Chapter 18.83,060, substituting figures in the last two columns of the accorepanying table, failed on the following vote: Councilmember Fazzino said that the possible cost of $170,000 for 400 bicycle lockers had been dismaying to him, and he had wanted some compromise. The fact that lockers were required for new construction only, and as a trade-off for concomitant automobile parking spaces, showed him it would be well for the City co make "some kind of commitment to bicycle parking," for it would promote bicycle use. He would vote for the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Clay said he supported the motion on the floor, though he was concerned that 30 percent of the space now given to automobile parking was to go for bicycle parking. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Clay moved, seconded by Carey, that the need to provide parking for bicycles at golf courses be deleted, AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT FAILED: The amendment to delete golf courses from the section requiring bicycle parking failed on the following vote: AYES: Carey, Clay, Witherspoon NOES: Brenner, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher ABSENT: Eyerly Mr. Knox observed that the only places changes had been made regarding number of bicycle parking spaces, were in the right-hand column; of 32 categories there had been changes in 2, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 25, and 28. 1 AYES: Carey, Clay, Witherspoon NOES; Brenner, Pazzino, Fletcher, Hendetaon, Sher ABSENT: Eyerly AMENDMENT: Councilmember Clay moved, seconded by Carey, that golf courses be deleted from the requirement to provide bicycle parking, page 173. Councilmember Henderson observed that many young people played golf and bicycled to the course. Assistant City Attorney Lou Green pointed out that since the golf course was not a new facility there would not be the requirement —parking would be required if additions were made to the facility. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN: The proposed amendment arcs withdrawn since bicycle parking requirements would apply only' to new facilities. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fazzino moved, &wooded by. Carey, that the Pate . requirement for bicycles be reduced to 10 percent rather than 30 pest. AMENDMENT F*u.th:` . -Tbe amendment to require lC rather than 30 percent of parking provided foil a utomeobil.es, for bicycle parking, failed as) the to/low/eft-:vote: AYES: Carey, IaaxLno, Witherspoon, Clay HOES: keener, Fletcher, Seodrrxpos, Sher MINOTa We r`ly 698 2/14/78 AMENDMENT: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Brenner, that the requirement on page P7, line 18, for 20 percent landscape reserve, be made also on page 178, subsection (d). Mr. Knox pointed out that the passage on page 178, relating to Chapter 18.083.080 (a) related to doubled uses of parking, that is, for example, a bank during the week and a church on Sunday. It had been designecrto cut down on unnecessary asphalting. He suggested adding lines 3-6, page 178, to Section (d) to take care of the landscape reserve, after line 16. Councilreember Witherspoon said her motion pertained to sections (a) an4 (b) and suggested that the parking now excused be instead placed in landscape reserve. Vice Mayor Brenner confirmed that the word "deferred" would be replaced in (d) by lines 3-6. She pointed out that uses with big buildings can change and so the notion before them said the City was prepared not to reduce requirement for parking, but to defer that need into landscape reserve. Mr. Knox said that the language in (d) should remain intact except for the insertion cf lines 3-6, after line 15. In line 18, p regraph (a), the word "reduced" should read instead "deferred," with the nature of the deferral to be explained with the insertion of lines 3-6. Council tuber Henderson asked what could be done with the space so deferred, if it were to be a permannent deferral Hr. Knox rep,ied there were many variables, depeniing on circumstances, and the AR.B or the Planning Commission would assess the circumstances, for the deferral of space made it possible for other things to happen,. Chairwoman Steinberg recalled that one of the circumstances that led to Planning Commission recommendations was, for example, the use of parking space in the evening by resteuvants. Councilor Henderson assumed that in changing (a) from a permanent reduction to a deferral. landscaping would be required. He asked that the motion be divided at the time of voting. Councilmember Carey said that if the space were left deferred it would raise financial problems. If the motion passed the incentive for residential use, the building of which coel.d result on some "deferred" space in commercial areas, would be watered dog. . Councilmember Witherspoon noted that if parking space was "borrowed" for possible residential use at night, such residences would not be paying their fair share in the assessment district. Vice Mayor Brenner spoke of the situation in Mountain View regarding she parking problem at 014 Mill, saying that had made the City ire they did not went to have reduced parking, at least not without an appeal procedure. The moment before them did not include an appeal procedure. FIRST ART OF AMENDMENT FAILED: The first pert of the amendment, changing the word "reduced" to "deferred" in paragraph (a) , page 177, with addition of lines 1-6, reading"...deferred parking spaces shall be maintained in reserve and shall be landscaped pursuant to a plan approved by the Architectural Review bard demonstrating that ultimate provision of the deferred spaces will meet all requirements of this Chapter." failed on the following . '.(6t*: 699 2/t4/79 AYES: Brenner, Witherspoon NOES: Carey, Clay, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher ABSENT: Eyerly SECOND PART OP AMENDMEN*. PASSED: The second part of the amendment, adding lines 3-6 on page 178 to paragraph (d) on page 178, reading: "...deferred parking spaces shell be maintained in reserve and shall be landscaped pursuant to a plan approved by the Architectural Review Bosrd demonstrating that ultimate provision of the deferred spaces will meet all requirements of this Chapter." passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Eyerly absent. A ENDKENT:Councilmember Carey moved that on page 174, number 17 regarding hotel parking provisions, and number 18, regarding lodging parking provisions, that the words on each reading bone space per guest room" be deleted, as they referred to bicycle requirements via -a -vie lodging, but that the requirement for bicycle parking remain with respect to banquet, dining, cc,lsterciat or the like, uses. Councilmember Carey agreed to have the amendment divided by numerical application. Councilmember Fletcher said she thought that bicycle parking requirements at lodgings of, for example, students, was a prime need. AMEND '.NT CONCERNING BICYCLE PARKING IN PARAGRAPH 17, FOR LODGING, seconded by Fazzino, FAILED: The amendment failed on the following vote: AYES: Carey, Clay, Fazzino NOES: Brenner, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon ABSENT: Councilmember Fazzino said he would oppose the second part of the amendment on number 18, for he t}ought~ the requirement for two covered spaces wa°s quite reasonable. AMENDMENT CONCERNING BICYCLE PARKING IN PARAGRAPH 18, FOR HOTELS, seconded by Vttber€goon, FAILED: The ant to delete the need for bicycle parkins provision for hotels feiIed on the following vote: ATE: Carey, Clay, Witherspoon MOOS; Brenner, Fletcher, aezino, Henderson, Sher ANOINT: Eyerly Council:member Carey referred to page 177, paragraph (c) and moved that it read as follows: mere the expected need for ` off-street parking for a particular use is uncertain, due to unknown or unusual operating charscteriati.s of the use me unavei.lability of comparable date to establish need, the Building Official, upon recommendation of tha Architectural Review Bated, may authorise, with respect to bicycle parking requirements, shall authorise, that construction and provision of not more than 50 percent of the required spaces be deferred... ." Councilmember Carey said the intent of his motion was. to automatically defer 50 percent of the requirements until the ash for the full parking requirement had been ascertained and did exist. Councilmember Carey amid that in that way it was up to tibe Building Official, rather thew the applics .t, to dotterels* ter or not peed existed. ` 700 2/14/78 I; The amendment died for lack of a second. Mayor Sher confirmed there were no more motions concerning bicycle parking provision. Councilmember Henderson asked the reason for requiring a minimum height, on page 163, lines 9-10. Mr. Knox said the present ordinance required a height of 35 feet; that was to assure that the Cvic'Center would be surrounded by buildings, not open spaces, thus giving a "reasonably uniform urban environment; and tree-scape." AMENDMENT: Councilee ber Henderson moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the words "...shall have a minimum height of 7.6 meters (35 feet). . ." be deleted. Councilmember Witherspoon recalled an MB discussion on the desirable effect of enclosure which would result for the City Hall were it surrounded by buildings. Mr. Knox said that buildinga such as the Palo Alto Art Club were desirable height. The initial requirement of 35 -foot height had been lowered to 25 feet. AMENDMENT FAILED: The amendment that zhe statement setting a r inimun height of 7.6 meters, (25 feet) be deleted failed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher NCESz Cae;•,. Clay, Fazzino, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly Councilmember Henderson referred to page 175 regarding school parking. He acknowledged that the building of new schools seemed far in the future at the present time, but the ordinance seemed, as it was written, to discourage bicycling to school. AMENDMENT: Councilnember Henderson moved, seconded by Fletcher, that on page 175 the parking spaces be reduced to four per teaching station and parking space for bicycles be increased to one space for every two students. Councilmember Faxeino said he uiderstood the City Council had no jerisdiction over the Palo Alto Unified High School District (PAS) Mt. Green said that the City had jurisdiction on facilities, except for claasroome. }(eyor Sher noted that the motion related to schools for grades 9-12. AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Eyerly absent. EMS Council recessed from 10:05 to 10:25 p.m. 7 0 1 2/14/78 MEETING RESUMED AMENDMENT ice Mayor Brenner moved, seconded by Henderson, that Council direct stash to devise the appropriate wording to introduce an appeal procedure concerning zoning ordinance requirements. Vice Mayor Brenner said citizensshould have a procedure for appeal, rather than having to approach either the Building Department official or the Director of planing, or the like. She suggested that such s Corrected procedure be inserted on 1in. 8, page 177, in Chapter 18.83.080, and to see page follow the phrase, "...may be adjusted by the Director of Planning and 836 Community Environment." The wording to be inserted would allow for an appeal procedure. Councila*eaaber Carey determined that the appeal process would be available to anyone. Was the wording concerning appeal to be added to other sections of the teat? If it were to be in several places he would like to know how many, for some of them be night find arguable. He asked staff to give ets reaction to the motion -'-he feared it might be burdensome for staff and also it might generate costs. He would like to have the item continued until there was time for staff to respond. CornlcilmeehAr Witherspoon asked why the Planning Commission had not reco rded an appeal procedure. /tune Steinberg said the Planning Commission had perhaps wanted to forestall lengthy and often emotional appeals which took a great deal of staff and Council time. Vice Mayor Brenner said her motion was meant to acknowledge that an appeal procedure was not written in --the discussion beginning line 8 on page 177 made an appropriate place to acknowledge i,s absence. Reduction of parking could result in i.nconveniew:e to adjoining neighbors, for example. Uses changed and City voters should be able to appeal to the City Council ae well as the staff --it was the Council's job. Her motion was addressed to that, rather than specific applications —she wanted an approach to a simplified appeals process for the voters. Counci er Fazzino said Council was in the position of weighing administrative efficiency against accessibility to decisionmakers; he would be helped in making a choice if all of the places where accessibility was needed were known. Mayor Sher said Cow it might consider the motion as suggesting an appeal procedure to fit k.ato the section mentioned in the motion, asking that staff return te Council with language to make • teat posaible. Vice Mayor Brenner could then, in the meantime, find the other sections where it could be applied. Vice Mayor Bremner agreed with that. Councilmember Fazzino Questioned eve need for the amendment under those circumetanceo. Mayor Sher : suggestad the notion be changed,so that the staff bring a model of an appeal. procedure for administrative decision us eaesep1ified in section 18.83.080. Co*mci_ er Bendereoe, 0.4e second to ,the notion, agreed to chat reripqrding. AME i - PASSED: The amendss. nt that the staff prepare a model of an steal procedure fur sdisisistrative de ision as,eaemplified in Section 18.83.080, passed an a Unintmous no rm, Councilsrembe r Fyerly absent. 702 2/14/70 Councilmember Carey asked if a discussion of Flood Plain would follow. Mr. Knox said that staff had contemplated .removing the Flood Plain section, for it applied only to areas near the Bay, areas zoned F on the zoning map. It did nut have to do with floods as such, though it had originated in relation to dredging of oyster shells from seawater, setting up of salt fla"s and the like, dating from the 1950s. The Planning Commission may have kept it in the Zoning Ordinance for as little reason as nostalgia. AMB MF,NT: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Clay, that Section 18.74 In its entirety be deleted. Councilmember Witherspoon asked about the desirability of permitting oyatershell dredging; she also commented about the suitability of a building height. Mr. Knox replied that oystershe.11s were sometimes used in some construction for their chemical actin:; there had been some discussion of zoning the area PF. Emily Renzel said she thought it was useful to retain the zoning for the cases in which it was applied; there were areas for potential flooding. AMENDNENT FAILS: The amendment to delete all of section 18.74 in its entirety failed on the following vote: AYES: Carey, Clay, Witherspoon NOES: Brener, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, her ABSENT: Eyerly Councilmember Carey asked if the flood plain was the only arca that did not have a require l.i : f:,r off-street parking. Mr. Green replied that C-2 and C-3 areas did not require on --site parking though they could be assessed for it in the assessment district..?age 167, lines 17 and LL, gave the regulation --the developer made the derision, along with the City Engineers -they would, together, calculate the number of spaces that would be required and allow for it in an asseseme t= district. Cotmcilmeaer Carey confirmed that under some circumstances, if a business could provide on -rite parking, it could witbdraev, or not participate in an assessment district levy. Na said be would leave the topic, since he himself 'owned property within an assessment district.. Ne continued to the matter of m as !mum/mix imam for small car parking on page 176. Since there were at the present time so many small , cars he thought the percentage of parking for email cars should be -higher. He. Steinberg said findings showed that there were not so many small cars as had been thought —at Stanford,large cars were using the spaces for smaller cars. - Councilmember Carey noted that there was demonstrated need for bicycle parking downtown, yet there would not be such new construction taking place to afford such parking. Had there been any thought of pro-. idiug it in assessment districts? Ma. Steinberg said that building bicycle parking provision and billing would, in effect, be retroactive planning --she did not think it had been discussed. 7 0 3 1/14/78 Mayor Sher sand that could become a requirement in setting up an assessment district. Mr. Green said that would require an amendment of the procedure in requiring bond amounts. He did not think it could be done solely on a retroactive basis. The present ordinance referred to parking spaces for cars. An amendment would be needed for clarification, He did not think it could be done in the zoning ordinance. A' iIONT: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Fletcher, to direct staff to return to Council at the next meeting with a brief report on the problems of adding a limited number of bicycle parking facilities to each public lot, with the extra cost of that addition, and whether costs of such bicycle parking could be added to the assessment district. Ms. Steinberg commented that the present parking study underway was to have taken other methods of transportation into consideration; she thought they would alaco come up with some recommendations regarding bicycle parking. Mr. Knox asked if staff should ' onsider the motion as separate from the Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Sher said that in the present context it related to the zoning ordinance. Vice Mayor 2renner said she thought the addition of cone of providing bicycle parking might require sone time. She thought that might hold up passage of the Zoning Ordiannce. An amendment, when Council had the information, would be more appropriate. She agreed with Mr. Knox, that the motion should be separate. Mr. Knox referred to page 177, lines 1-4, saying the passage mentioned provision of bicycle parking --he read the passage as meaning substitution for some automobile parking with bicycle parking would come about .in time. Mayor Sher pointed out that the passage spoke of substitution; the motion spoke to providing new bicycle parking facilities. AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment that Council direct staff to return at the next meeting with a brief report on the problems of adding a limited nor of bicycle parking facilities to each public parking lot, with the extra cost of such addition, and whether costs of, bicycle parking could be added to the assessment district, passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember i rrly absent. Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by lancer, that permitted dredging of oystersbells and other deposits, spoken of on page 166, be changed from a permitted to a conditional use, in the Flood Plain District. PASSED: The amendment paaased on the following vote: A Brenner, Carey, Peseta*, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon. NOES: Clay ABSENT: Eyerly Mayor Sher said Council bed completed the sec t cods up the the f inel: Chapter 1,$.,48. La said it was quite apparent that Cecil would net complete consideration of the zoning ordinance that evening; he would therefore turn discussion to those steers of the public who bad been waiting to speak on various sectiOus. 704;,: 2/14/70' /10C Alice Smith, Attorney, represented Willis Photo Lab at 767 Loma Verde, Palo Alto. Sne referred to a recent issue of a scholarly law journal in which there had been a discussion of the need for consideration for under- or un-represented factions within a community. Specifically, she equated the a ortization of the building now used by her client as "environmental waste." She gave a brief photo and verbal history of Willis Photo Lab from 1951. She submitted a petition of 301 signatures asking that the amortization period be extended. She cited passages in the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, fortifying her statements. Patricia Cullen, 409 Melville, represented the Palo Alto Civic League. She said that she would prefer to make her remarks on Chapter 18.99 when Council reached that Chapter in its considerations. She said that many people felt that variances on conditional uses and P -C variances were not being lived up to, and the section put the full burden of compliance on the Zoning Administrator, who was already overburdened. She suggested some modification of the Zoning Administrator's required duties, so that there could be some remedy other than going to court. She cited specific chapters where such modifications were needed, especially on the subjective nature of deciding betweeu "minor" and "major" changes. She noted that one passage placed the Director of Planning in a political rather than an appointive capacity, and she objected to its incl.usicn in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kenneth Buckwal er, 285 Hamilton, said he had discussed his concerns the previous week, or. sections relating to non -conforming use as they affected his client Auto Sport, Limited, on Section 18.94.070, about arottixation. He felt the times set forth were unreasonable. He favored internal. Revenue Service guidelines. He acknowledged that he had a special interest, that of business, and of retaining the value of his client's property. He maintained that each person bad his own °'special intere t." Council's responsibility was to be aware of the needs of all special interests. Robert Moss, 4010 Orm.e, spoke of the staff memo of January 26. He said he and Ms. Petrosian had asked that administrative decisions be published, so that the public could respond. He referred to a limitation on minor changes, to two in number, so that they would not add up to a major change. That number, of changes, up to four, should be delimited in the ordinance, he said. - He asked that an appeal procedure be instituted. Clifford Chernick, 1100 Alma, Menlo Park, zepresented the El Camino veterinary Hospital. He rated that an amortization period terminated a building irrespective of the building's condition; he asked that the amortization period begin on the date of the acceptance of the Zoning Ordinance. He though: amortization periods were too short. John Traynor, 30 Churchill Avenue, said he was concerned about the procedure of downgrading properties by the City. He thought each property to be downgraded should be considered individually. His family had owned property on El'Caminc Real for many years, and intended to construct a "quality commercial development." That property had been rightfully ;mooned commercial for many years, but in 1976 the City had zoned it "strip commercial." The property was about 500 feet deep, and four acres in extent. Staff had told the Planning Colk:iasion that the property was one of the few on El Camino Real that had sufficient depth to promise somethiag better than strip commercial, and therefore should be deslguaied as single land use. In June, 1976, the Planning Commission, on a 4e3 - decision, "fell just one vote short of making a whole corner service comtimireial. The possibility of developing for commercial/residential mix was not economically feasible, he said, and he felt service/comMercial was the most appropriate use. Neighbors to the property, which he . repeated, had been downgraded, did not think service/co rciel was 705 2/14178 incompatible with them. He submitted five pages of signatures in support of his positl,,n. He said land use bounda.ies had been drawn in an inconsistent manner, and that had made most of the Traynor property non -conforming. He felt that when the downgraded property site was reviewed by Council it would be returned to service/commercial zoning. CONTINUATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW Mayor Sher said Acting City Manager Walker had suggested, in view of the lateness of the hour, that the balance of the Zoning Ordinance review be continued to the Regular Council Meeting of February 27, 1978. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Sher, that Council adjourn. Council adjourned at 11:40 p.m. (7,1 7©6 2/14`78