Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-02-27 City Council Summary Minutes1 CITY COUNCIL Manures Regular Meeting February 27, 1978 CITY OF PALO ALTO .ITEM PAGE Minutes of January 16, 1978 7 3 1 Announcement of -Executive Session 7 3 1 Oral Communications Dr. Herbert O. Zeman, 464 W. Charleston Road Tom Harrington, 1250 Montebello Road Wi l l l am Thompson, 410 Wilton Consent Calendar -- Referral Items Consent Calendar - Action Items Policy and Procedures Committee Recommends re Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Contract Compliance 4164 El Camino Real: Zoning Classification Change Ordinance - Second Reading Moratorium Extension Ordinance on Portion of El Camino Real - Second Reading Golf Course Facility. Approval and Authorization of nda t:tn Lease Ordinance - Second Reading Ca 1 averas Hydroelectric Project Palo Alto Water Rate Decrease Finance and Public Works Committee Recommends re Miranda vemee/Al tat Mesa Cemetery - 695 Ar3s t!adero Road: Open Space Easements, Alta Mesa Improvement Company Adjournment to Executive Session Planning Commrission Recommendations re Draft Zoning Ordinance (Continued frame 1/16/78, 2/1/78, 2/6/78, 2/7/78 and 2/14/78), Policy and Procedures Rucommendetion re Tree Houses CMce1lation of Council Westin 3,>f March 6 AdjoUemment 731 7 3 1 732 732 732 732 733 7 3 3 733 733 733 734 7 3 7 737 753 753 7 5 3 730 2/27 ► Regular Meeting February 27, 1978 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:40 p.m. in a regular meeting with Mayor Sher presiding. PRESENT: Brenner, Carey, Clay, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 1978 - Anne Steinberg, Chairwoman of the Planning Commission, asked that lines 10 and 11 of paragraph five on page 529 read instead, "A new pedestrian/ shopping combining districtand other proposals will add vitality to the commercial areas. Mrs. Steinberg remarked that the staff memoraodun: of December 22 points out some of the new provisions, ." � TION: Councilmember Henderson moved, seconded by Carey, , that Council approve the minutes of January 16, 1978, as corrected. The minutes passed on a unanimous vote, Councilnember Eyerly absent. ANNOUNCEMENT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Sher announced that an Executive Session concerning some litiga- tion would take place later that evening. ORAL C( N I CAT I TINS 1. Dr. Herbert 0. Zeman, 464 W. Charleston Road, ;o -Chairman of the Charleston Meadows Association, referred to a statement made by Mr. Traynor, owner of property at Charleston and El Camino. His statement had been that property owners in that area had no objection to his plans for developing that property as service/commercial. Dr. Zeman had conducted an opinion survey regarding Mr. Traynor`s plans, asking those neighbors being surveyed "If you prefer to have a service/.. commercial development . . ." and If you prefer to have a m+ulti-family development, ." and "If you prefer to have a new residential development. ." Of one hundred and seventy four respondents, one hundred and fifty favored multi -family development, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Tom Harrington, 1250 Montebello Road, expressed concern about fire hazard in his area which was off Upper Page Mill Road. Residents in that area had met about the problaa . µ Gently, which had arisen because the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District had acquired the property, which meant the property, formerly private, would now be used by the public. The area was thirty minutes from the nearest Palo Alto fire station. A letter he had distributed to Councilmembers asked that a fire station be built in that area, and a discussion that week was scheduled with the fire department. He wanted Council to place the question on 'the agenda. Charles Walker, Acting City Manager, said a member of the Midpeninsula Regional OPen Space District and a representative of the California Division of Forestry would also be included in the dismission. If action were taken staff would info Council without putting the matter on the agenda. 731 2/27/78 3. William Thompson, 410 Wilton, read to Councilmemmmbers a letter the Ventura Parents Association had asked him to read. The letter gave reasons why that Association objected to closure of Ventura School, and was addressed to Councilmemmbers. A decision, following a public hearing by the Palo Alto School Board, would be made on March 7, 1978. Mayor Sher explained that the Palo Alto School District was a separate and autonomous jurisdiction, and not a matter for City Council deliberations. CONSENT CALENDAR Referral Item None Action Items Mayor Stier pointed out to Councilm enbers that the tie vote arrived at by the Policy and PrrKedures Committee on point 2) of the fiAiuking recommenda- tion was, according to the Policy anti Procedures Committee's accompanying memo, tantamount to approval of the items but without eutLorization of additional staffing. The matter of additional staffing was to be reviewed by the Finance and Public Works Committee during the budget review process. On the matter of water rates, the rate decrease was based on the assumption that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors were going to reduce their rates to the City of Palo Alto --that reduction had been deferred to March 6, and so Palo Alto had changed the wording of the resolution to read that the decrease would be effective when approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, but no later than May 1, 1978. POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE TT 1=4647 5:8j The Policy and Procedures Committee recommends to Council re Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Contract Compliance, by unanimous vote: with the exception of recommendation 2), which had a tie vote, 1) To revise the Municipal Code to be in compliance with the most recent Federal and State AA/EEO provision and in conjunction update formes, process and mire periodic performance reports; revise state Affirmative Action/Equal Employment provisions. 2) To tncrease staffing in the Purchasing Depart- ment to be responsible for monitoring AWEEO contract compliance and to immmmplemert the fallowing: 2a) If contracts or agreements exceed $50,000, a requirement that the contractor or local representative meet with the compliance monitor for counseling on their AA/EEO program at least once a year. Additionally, a requirement that the compliance monitor can require counseling on an as -needed basis on contracts that are less than ,000. It is estimated that this would impact approximately twenty- five to forty companies providing construction, maintenance, professional and miscellaneous services. The cost to implement and maintain would be aPnroximaaely 1O0 hours of additional staff times. 2b) A requirmeant shat all contracts, lenses, and concession agreements be accompanied by a certificate of non --discrimination. The cost to implement would be approxiestely 20 hours of additional staff tie. 2c) Periodic field audits and subsequent reporting. There are approximately 135 organi- zations with whom the City contracts that could conceivably be audited. The cost to implement would be approximately 300 hours of additional staff timmme, assuring it takes four hours to field audit lolly one half of thit group. 3) To provide general administration over tint AMEO program, File, consolidate, i3 d maintain reports,review Federal and 732 2/27/78 State AA/EEO regulations, counsel minority contractors and employees, prepare case reports for City Attorney. The cost to implemmmeryt and maintain would be approximately 400 hours in staff time, plus $300 in office supplies. 4) The Hunan Relations Commission (HRC) to be involved in the selection process for the staff person. 5) The staff person responsible for this program will make sure vendors are not exc uded from counseling, monitoring, or audits because individual City purchases are small, especially if the accumulation of contract payments is over $5,000. 6) Periodic reports will be made to the HRC as to how the Affirmative Action Program le working. king. 4164 EL CAMINO REAL-- 7111111C7DESIMTM CHANGE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE 3041 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY (WPAL} ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4164 EL CAMINO REAL FROM C -3-S TO P -C SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.' (1st reading 2/13/78) m ATOR I UW EXTENSION ORDINANCE CMR:151:8) ORDINANCE 3042 entitled "(ROMANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXTENDING THE TERM OF A MORATORIUM ON ALL NEW BUILDING PROJECTS, BUILDING EXPANSIONS, ZONE RANGES, SUB -DIVISIONS AND CHANGES OF USE ALONG A PORTION OF EL CAMINO REAL IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE 2975." (lst reading 2/13/78) GOLF COURSE FACILITY --APPROVAL TO LEASE ORDINANCE 3043 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE tiTi niTO APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT TO LEASE OF GOLF COURSE FACILITY AND OF LEASE AS AMEND WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO GOLF COURSE CORPORATION." (lst reading 2/13/78) CALAVERAS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (CMR:174:8) Staff reds that Council approve an ordinance amending the FY 1977- 78 Electric Utility's operating beset by appropriating $75,000 from the Electric Utility Reserve Fund to prsvide for the City's share of the prebend election development costs of the Calaveras Project. ORDINANCE 3044 entitled "ORDINANCE . OF THE COUNCIL OF THE alinr-PlEVTO SING THE BUDGET FOR TOE FISCAL YEAR 1977-78 TO PROVIDE HANDS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE JOINT NORTHERN CALIFtiRNt: POWER AGENCY—CALAVERAS MUNTY WATER DISTRICT HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT.` PALO ALTO ldllTER RATE D CN EA.'�E (C98ts1713:8} Cont1 n9ent upon the San rranc i sco Board of Supervisors' approval of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission adopted rate schedule, it is recommveN6ed that Council adopt a resolution revising rate schedules. RESOLUTION 5520 entitled "RESOLUTION OF TNE AIL OF NE C t HALO .ALTO AMENDING G SCHEDULES Y-i AND N -I -0 OF NE CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RATES MI) CHARGES TO PASS THROUGN TOE DECREASED COST Of SAN FRANCISCOMERem 733 2/27/76 Councilmember Carey asked that his votes on numbers 2 and 3 regarding zoning classification and ending the moratorium be recorded as abstentions. Councilmember Witherspoon asked that her vote on number 1, on Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Contract Compliance, en Section 1, subsection 2, 4 and 5, be recorded as "no,", as well as en Sectioe 3. MOTION: Councilmember Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzinc, that Council approve the ordinances, adopt the resolution, and.approve the recommendations on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed on a unani- mous vote, Councilmember Eyerly absent, witA Councilmembie Carey abstain- ing on items 2 and 3, and Councilmember Witherspoon voting Know on item 1, subsections 2, 4 and 5, as well as on item 3. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS :4 MirtrAMTMENTS ALTA me.SX fRPROVMETT COMPANY Mayor Sher commended staff and participants in the Miranda Avenue/Alta Mesa Cemetery matter for working out a compromise. One question about whether or not the road was to be deeded to the residents or to the City still remained. Both residents and the Alta Mesa people felt it would be better for the City to have the property; the Finance and Public Works Committee recommended that the road be deeded to the residents. Staff was ready to answer questions regarding the entitlenent going to the City. Councilmember Carey said the history of the case was lengthy and complex. The Finance and Public Works Committee had made a unanimous recommenda- tion, end he would put it before Council. MOTION: Councilmember Carey, Chairman of the Finance and Public Works Committee, introduced the following re:o sendation and resolution: The Finance and Public Works Committee recommends to Council re Miranda Avenue/Alte Mesa Cemetery, by a unanimous vote, one absent, that the Council approve the cpen space easement requested by the Alta Mesa Cemetery Association with the condition that the Association grant an additional fourteen -foot easement for the approximate fifty hundred foot length of the road to the Miranda area residents. Planing Co fission unanimously recommends that the City Council accept the three proposed open space easements of Alta Mesa Cemetery at 695 Arastradero Road. RESOLiflON 5521 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE AIL OF THE UTY1MFIXErADO ACCEPTING THREE CORPORATION OPEN SPACE EASEMENT'GRANT DEEDS FROM - ALTA MESA IMPROVEMENT commy PURSUANT,TO CALIFORNIA C)VERiMENT CODE SECTIONS 5107041067 AND CALF IA REYENdE AND TAYATION COOS SECTION 421 (e) and 422 (d). Countilmember Carte said that if the property were deeded to the res i - dents they would have the obligation to maintain it. If the City took fee title it might have an obligation beyond maintaining the agreed -upon width of the roar-: Such as installing curbs and gutters; and also, had the City maintained access to the road, which led free a City street, were two questions which had ruined unanswered. 734 2/27/78 Robert Booth, City Attorney, said the City had no obligation to install curbs and gutters on the street: City obligation was to keep all City property free from dangerous and defective conditions only. Charles Walker, Acting City Manager, said that recorded City involvement with the private portion of Miranda Avenue showed two c411s far patching potholes in 1973, along with one call each in 1974 and 1975, a•total of four instances for which there were work sheets. Also on record were three repairs of speed limit signs in 1975, and five of repairing "no parking" signs in 1976. Custorprary City road maintenance involvement would be resurfacing, slurry seal and street sweeping, none of which had been done. The City regarded the street as private and involvement in repairhad been by'people who Were not aware of its private ownership. Coencilmember Carey emphasized the complexities of the history and the working out of the compromise now before thew. For Alta Mesa Cemetery to obtain tax benefits to justify deeding the additional fourteen feet of property at no cost, the cemetery would not maintain an easement. Councilmember Carey would accede to the City accepting the property if it were clear that the City's obligation to maintain or improve the !road would be limited to the existing roadway, and not to installing curbs, gutters, or walks or bicycle pathways. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council approve City acquisition of the fee title for the present roadway with its 14 -foot addition in width, with the understanding that the City has no obligation to maintain or improve the road or install curbs, gutters, or bikeways or walkways.. Councilmember Witherspoon asked about results of the title search. Councilmember Carey replied that the title was clear and was owned by the cemetery, which would deed it ove,-. Whether or not the cemetery granted an easement was not important, for if the City acquired title there would be customary safeguards, either through title insurance or a joining of the homeowners in the granting of the fee. Councilmember Fazzino asked what maintenance costs there had teen on Miranda Avenue since 1973. Arthur Reschke, Public Works, said he thought it world amount to a few hundred dollars, with a like amount anticipated for the future. Mr. Walker said about that amount o ld have to be expended repairing potholes this year. Councilmember Fazzino said he would support the amendment. Councilmember Henderson asked if the City did not maintain other streets in the area. Why was the exclusion ofmaintenance put into the motion? He stressed that inclusion of the limitations was not different from the City's usual terms., Mayor .Sher said he thought the exclusion was put into the motion to assures residents that they would not have to pay for any improvement, and also to allay expectations on the part of residents that the City would provide bike or walk rays. Vice Mayor Brenner said she thought the City Council was at this time assuring that a street which had been satisfying to the .neighborhood was being held for them; neighbors could, at any time, for an assessment district to install curbs gutters and the like. The City would maintain the street, but would not develop it, as- the* `w,uld for a subdivision. 735 2/2778. Mayor Sher clarified that residents could not form an assessment dis- trict; they could cone to the City to request that one be formed. Mr. Walker said that staff recommended that the street from Arastradero Road to its termination be named Miranda Avenue; staff also wanted Council to "accept the concept" of the County moving the fence to the other side of the roadway --perhaps the Mayor would help staff persuade the county to do that. Councilmember Fletcher wondered about the length of time the motion would take in with all of its exclusions. Mayor Sher repeated that the City would help the neighbors form an assessment district when they so asked --the possibility of their asking would not be foreclosed through passage of the.motion. He also repeated that he would call on members of the public unless Council did not pass the motion. Andrew Spears, representing Alta Mesa Improvement Company, said a letter gave pre -conditions to the granting of the fee title and the fence. Mayor Sher pointed out that those two matters were a part of the motion now on the floor before Council, Allan H. Reid, 8EO Miranda Green, said he had had to dedicate 20 feet to the roacheay from 890 Miranda Green. He added that prior to the matter of the road coming before Council there had been streetsweeping. The road. users of which paid gas tax, Mr. Reid pointed out, had been in use since "mart 1850," :end he thought "private" was not a fitting term for it. He urged that Council include a bicycle path, since funds for bicycle paths were now available in the City. Frank Olson, 4309 Miranda Avenue, represented Miranda Avenue residents. Mr. Olson said residents "are in complete agreement" with the terms of the compromise. He asked that Miranda Avenue not be excluded in con- siderations for those streets which would have bikepaths; along with that he asked that in a subsequent motion staff be requested to give permission 'to establish the two -foot shy -away" region next to the county fence which was next to the expressway. Such a motion would be consistent with the staff's aim of establishing safer streets. AMENDMENT PASSED: The alit that Council approve City acquisition of the fee title for the present r adway = ,i th its 14 -foot addition in width, with the understanding that the City has no obligation to main- tain or improve the road or install curbs* gutters, or bikeways and wrlkways, passed on au=nanimous vote, Councilor Eyerly absent. AMENDMENT: Cowncilmember Carey moved, seconded by Fazzi no, that Council approve INi rands" as the name for the street, and that the City nego- tiate with the Comity to move the fence line two feet, as recommended by the staff report. AMENDMENTPASSED: The amendment passed on a unanimous vote, Council - member Eyerly absent. MAIN MOTION AS AMEND: The main erotfon, that mil approve the acquisition by the City of fee title, as amended, passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Eyerly absent. Mayor Sher thanked Mr. Walker, City N eager, and all the participants, for Hamel r efforts. He said the papers would be taken that wren i ng for filing with the County. 736 2/27/78 ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Council adjourned to Executive Session from 8:40 to 9:15 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION RECONIENDATIONS cn nu cos► I /1 /78, 2/6/78, 2/7/78 and 2/14/78) Mayur Sher reminded Council that the motion approving the Draft Zoning Ordinance was on the floor. .He pointed out there were five subdivisions and said they would begin with Chapter 18.88 and continue.to the end. The public had spoken on those Chapters at the last meeting and the matter was now before Council. Vice Mayor Brenner had raised the matter of appeal procedure in relation to Chapter 18.83.080. Staff had pre- pared a mem from February 23, regarding Chapter 18.99 that addressed those points, suggesting a possible appeal procedure, to some adminis- treeave decisions on those two sections. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Brenner moved seconded by, Henderson, that the procedure for appeal to decisions made by the Director of Planning, as comprised in C1 :169:8, dated February 23, 1978, be applied to 1) Section 18.83.080, paragraphs A and B, excluding those items as sug- gested by staff because they dealt with preferred parcels: and to Set -6‘n 13.99, su that it eipplie. minor changes on projects which have been approved under Chapter 18.68, P -C zone, and Chapter 18.88.082, Site ari Design Review. With this airy the Council directs the City Attorney to insert the appropriate 1anpage for second reading of the ordinance approving thedraft, texts AMENDMENT PASSED: The am►,ant passed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Clay, Fazzino, Fletcher~, Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon NOES: Carey ABSENT: Eyerly AMENDMENT: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council approve addition of changes covered in staff memorandum :172:8, dated February 23, 1978. The amendment passed on a unanimous vote, Counciieeeber E,Veerly absent. Mayor Sher pointed out that the next items concerned bicycle parking in public parking lots, as raised by Council r Carey. Council:amber Carey observed that the dollar amounts of $143,000 in lieu of ;Arty -tom parking stalls was a sure ray to kill a motion. The figures had been put forth in the staff memorandum. He had not intended that the 10 percent requirement for off-street _ perking facilities for bicycles to be included into the zoning ordinance text be the same as what his motion inquired about„ but merely "some bicycle parking in the central business districts: . . He acknowledged that it was diffi- cult to try "to wedge into the text a retroactive requirement." He asked that staff return with mare realistic figures, and also that bicycle parking requirements might best be dealt with apart few the zoning ordinance. MOTION TOCONTINUE: Councllmember Carey moved, seconded by Brenner, ne natter of bicycle parking requirements in public parking lots be continued to an indefinite time. Ccsmci lmeeber Carey said that perhaps there would be bicycle parking places available that mould not take up present automobile parking places. 737 2/27/78 Councilmember Fletcher asked that action on the motion not preclude concluding the zoning ordinance considerations that evening. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED: The notion, that the matter cf bicycle parking requirements be contioued to en indefinite time, passed'on a unanimous vote, Councilmiberlyerly absent. Councilmember Henderson referred to page 194, line 29, under Accessory Use and Facilities. He said he did net want to include Newsstands, Drugstores and the like as a part of the definition of Accessory Use and Facilities. he felt they should be included as part of.P-C. AMENDMENT: Councilaaar ber Henderson moved, seconded by Brenner, that number 5 under item C, on page 194, be d 1 eta:. Naphtali Knox, Director of Planning and Community Environment, said that toting and drinking facilities +old not be affected in the Inddustriel • Park. There might be sae effect from the action in the P -F zone where _. there were hospitals as well as golf courses. Councituber Witherspcon said she thought the facilities would be small and solely for the use of guests and would not increase traffic. She did not favor the amendment. AMENOMdENT FAILED: The amendrent deleting number 5 under item C on page 194 failed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Henderson NOES: Carey, Clay, Fazzino, Fletcher, Sher, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyer l y Counci laraeanber Henderson referred to page 199, 1 i ne 21, referring to a permitted height limit of chirmeys. flues and the like of "not more than 15 feet." That permitted height, he said, would allow a total height limit exceeding that of 50 feet. Was it a current regulation? Mr. Knox Bald it allowed an additional height for utility and mechanical features in all zones. R -E, 10 and g-2 districts had been excepted from that requirent, which made the requirement "tighter than the present ordinance." Counc i 1eEember Henderson referred to page 201, line 21, reading 90. advertising' shall be permitted on the site." D#d tit elisainate notary publics, attorneys and so ogre who had "hung out their shingles"? Mr. Knox said there was a provision limiting sign size in residential districts. Lou Green, AQsistaant City Attorney, said that under the present ord- inance, as he read it, that kind of sign would not be permitted. Business in hoaxes meant business was done there, and not advertised to rsserseby. Coimcilmember Henderson said that type of occupation often was operated by a handicapped person. He felt it should be granted restricted use. Mr. Knox said the 1angage on line 21 ,old be modified, es, for example, "No adverts s i ng shall be permitted on the site, except for purposes of identification only in accordance with Section 1i.2d.120." The section itself proscribed the size of signs in residential districts. 7.3 3 2,/27/78 Mr. Green said such signs were not now permitted, and such peraission would have to be specifically given. There might have to be q change in the sign ordinance. Councilmember Henderson referred to page 202, line 14, concerning mobile homes, and ascertained that Palo Alto's "one and only" mobile bo a park had resulted with the annexation of Barron Park, and was located -at the corner of Los Robles and El Camino. He referred to page 203,1in1!620, regarding servicing of vehicles. He said such servicing seemed to have a debilitating effect on residential neighborhoods. He would also bring that consideration up later, after determining that the draft zoning ordinance did not take care of there. Councilr r Witherspoon referred to page 200, line 6, and questioned the passage that limited the height of decks that could be built to one foot. Mr. Knox said the provision applied only to decking to be built in required yards, that is, those portions of the yard that were required to be yard, in order to fulfil zoning regulations. In that way it would preclude "a six-foot teenager appearing over the six-foot fence peering into the neighbor lady's pool." All of the provisions in 18. : were subject to variance, with the burcen of hardship proof on the applicant. Councilmn er Carey referred to the. non -conforming uses section, which dealt with the "now infamous exceptions or compa ii bi l i ty procedure that is found in the Comprehensive Plan text on page 61," the langueee of which was to prevent such applications to properties which would change tha now -existing uses of those properties just for the sake of "tidi- ness." The non -conforming text has now been drafted, he said, approved by the Planning Commission and recommended to Council. As he understood the compatibility requirement on caste 61, it meant that if the non- conforming use was in an area to ultimately be zoned for another use, finch as manufacturing, the residential will be allowed to continua, automatically, unabated, without conditions, including the previous traditional condition, which meant that if over half of the structure were lost by fire it could be re -built. The only condition was that were it to be re -built, it could still only have the same intensity of use. Mr. Green confirms that Counc11 r Carey's understanding was correct. Councilmber° Carey continued that he understood, with respect to office use or property that could perhaps be designated for another use, the sane principle applied. Mr. Green replied that it would be correct insofar as the office uses were located in districts now zoned multi -family. Councilmember Carey said that essentially the situation raised "the R -3- C problem," addressing the preblem of change from present multi -family zones where they were penaitted, to those which do net. There was, then, no provision other than amortization, for those improvements or uses which were either Commercial or industrial and which would ul ti- tely be in zones o rb than commercial or industrial. tir. Green said that Councilmember Carey's assessment was correct, as provided for in Chapter 18.94. Councilmember Carey asked what was need. Those property owners rye properties had commercial or 1ndufitrial improvements or uses would find themselves being re -zoned for uses that did not permit the current uses or improvements. ents. "they could apply for relief as a P -C application 7.39. 2/27/78 procedure, stating that they are, in fact, compatible with the text as written on page 61 of the Comprehensive Plan. They should be granted P -C to allow them unlimited and continued use nithout amortization and all the rights of re -building to the same intensity, as would be the case with residential use. Mr. Green said that was correct. The text concerning compatibility could be looked to as one element of the consistency requirement for re -zoning. At the same time it would allow any provisions to be made to insure that compatibility. Perhaps Counc{ laeaber Carey s suggestions would be the most expeditious way to handle it. Councils .tuber Carey said that what he and Mr. Green had just agreed on varied from the language on page 61 which directed the Planning Commission to review such propertiee for the purpose of determining compatibility. The burden,now, shifted from the City to the property owner with respect to initiating the compatibility test. If Council did not modify the text it would have to modify page 61 of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Green said the Planning Commission on its own could view the proper- ties and apply or not apply the P -C zone; it would be an elaborate procedure. Countilme ber Carey said he thought the City was ciligated to tell property owners what the city was and was not goixtg to do. Be thought property owners should know if the burden had now shifted to them. Cotacil should set the policy, and not permit the ambiguity. If the burden was to be on the property owner there should be some mandatory language in the P -C eection stating that the applicant, upon a showing of compatibility of use and structure with the surrounding neighborhood, shall be granted the P -C approval, as a matter of course, so that he would have the same righta the residential user would have in his property that changed in use, that is, no amortization and the right to re -build to the same intensity. Mayor Sher said he understood that that provision would apply only to existing commercial end industrial uses that now found themselves in a residential zone --it would not be applied to new application for P --C. Council er Carey confirmed that the language on page 61 limited itself to existing improvements. In the course of the application the applicant could make changee in his property to attain compatibility and preserve its use, and that could be assumed to be part of the process.' For example, if a facade bad to be changed in order to achieve compatibility that could be done. Therefore, Councilmember Carey summarized that if the burden of establishing ..ompetibil.ity were shifted from the City to the property owner, there should follow the mandate that the application *hall be granted. "That's what the compatibility motion of a year ago was all about," he conc luded . Anne Steinberg, Chairwoman of the Planoing Commissiop, milted if Couuci1- a her tasty inteddad that the application be subject to all the regula- tions of the P- C some. Couucilmember Carey replied that he would root so igend. Mayor Slur added that there were conditions to achieve comPatib.ilitY. Coluecilmember Carey said that the requirement that public befit be demonstrated, a* was the case with other PPC applications; did not have to be ate; for only showing of compatibility had to be 'esde. Mayor Sher ash abut how many properties the circumstances Councilmembox Carey was spa/Odes of night apply to. ?40 2/27/7$ Mr. Knox replied that the number was "somewhere between ten and forty." Ms. Steinberg said the Planning Commission had net been able to assess properties in the category they were discussing for they did not yet have the zoning ordinance. Mr. Knox said the P -C zone had been very briefly described. He ques- tioned handling the properties in the P -C zone, and suggested that the amortization section would be more appropriate. As Planning Director he had recommended to the Planning Commission, that, since the Comprehensive Plan called for mixing of uses, the City should not be very strict on the amortization. Some of the Commissioners, he said, had felt that since there was a land use map it should be strictly observed. For that reason the amortization had lost its stringency. Councilmember Carey questioned the right of. the City to impose any amortization schedule on a property. If the use and structure were compatible an exception had to be made. He asked if he was interpreting staff's recommendation incorrectly --were they not recommending that analysis of the property be shifted to the property owner? Mr. Knox said one question related to amortization and ncn-conforming use; the original recommendation was that the original non -conforming use be identified as non -conforming, and that brought along with it some disadvantages, particularly with those portions of El Camino that might be zoned as multi -family because the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan showed them ae multi -family. Those particular uses would be desig- nated non -conforming, but amortization had not been initially recommended; it had been thought that the buildings would live out their lives, and uses, with the expectation that the area would change gradually. The Planning Commission had recommended to Council that the planning was carried out "in short crier" and that had meant, Mr. Knox said, applying amortization. He continued, say1ng that he assumed a second aspect of the question was shifting the burden of proof • cram the Planning Commission to the property owner. There had never been a situation where Planning had initiated a P -C zone. To do so created a number of problems. Counci lmneasber Carey asked how the provision on page . bl of the Compre- hensive -Plan could be carried out -other than in the P -C. - Mr. Green said that the use of the P -C was considered inappropriate by staff, and that it would be t better - to establish an exception procedure in 18.9ee. Councilmember Carey answered that the main point was that upon a showing of compatibility the amortization provisions eeeld spot apply and the property owner would have the right to reconstruct. Councileefter Carey moved, sanded by Clay, that appropri ate language be written into Section 18.94 providing . for a procedure by L ich a property owoer shall, by shcming compatibility as prescribed in the Compressive elan text, be a1lc d'to continue the use or improvement. Mayor Sher said that page 221, of the nee zoning ordinance would remain in effect if the motion passed. The City Attorney was to lraft tine language; included would be rev$e eby the Planning Commission with rest to compatibility,as described en page 61 of the Comps ens i ve Plan, along with a recommendation to Council. Mr. Green asked if an exception could be applied for any tisme, or if there would be a specific time period during which exceptions could be applied for. 741 2/27/78 Councilmember arey replied that there should be a cut-off time, along with some procedure of notification to the affected property owners. He asked if that would pose any problem. Mr. Knox answered that once the mapping was done, about twelve months should perhaps allowed in which to file an application. He then modified that length of time to two years. Councilmerber Carey said he would add to the amendment that such properties be given individual notice by staff; after delivery of such notice the property owner had a period of two years in which to apply. Vice Mayor Brenner suggested.that the phrase "...review upon application" should be added to the Comprehensive Plan, to clarify the procedure. Ms. Steinberg said that the Planning Commission would conduct its first review of the Comprehensive Plan 400n; they would take that suggestion into account. AMENDMENT RESTATED: CCeenrilMember Carey moved, seconded by Clay, that upon second reading, language be included in Chapter 18.94 to provide for a procedure by which property owners shall, by showing compatibility as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, be allowed to continue use or make imprnve nts, such property owners to be given individual notice by stafY and after delivery of sut t notice, property owners will have a period of two years to apply. AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment passed on a unanimous vote, Council - member Eyerly absent. AMENDMENT: Councilor Carey move , seconded by Clay, that lines 28-33 on page 223, subsection (b), referring to structures which are non- conforming and w1 ch have been abandoned, and stating that they shall be re -instituted only as conforming use, be deleted. AMU-10MM FAILED: The amendment failed on the following vote: AYES: Carey NOES: Brenner, Clay, Fauziiao, Fletcher, Henderson, $her, - lei therspoon ABSENT: Eyerly Counci lr Fletcher referred to a letter which Councilmembers had in their pats from an attorney for' the Pale Alto Medical Research Foundation. The letter spoke of parking and storagelots next to the Foundation which, should theey be zoned non-conforering use, squid have to be amortized within five years. She cited Sectino 18.88.0209 subsections (a)* (b), and (c). The attorney, Lawrence Klein, of Blase, Valentine A Klein, asked that an exception be made to the amortization provisions. Mr. Green cited page 193, lines 8--11, regarding accessory uses. The Ironworks Restaurant and the Palo Alto Times had parking facilities which were accessory to a principal use —they were now located ; n a residential zone. Under the old zoerteg ordinance they had been pereitted under the multi -family zoning, and the, r we d not be with the we zoning ordinance. For such reasons those places would amortized. Not many of them were of very great lealue and aim be amortized in a very short peed. That led to a situation ire parkin lots for mired park- ing, which were in anther , -raid have to be amortized. He asked if Ceurcil did not wish adjacent.parting AMISS to be amortized. If so the ordinence wording gild have' to be` merged. 742 2/27/78 Councilmember Fletcher said perhaps such parking lots could demonstrate that they were "compatible" and hence fit under non -conforming uses. Mr. Green suggested the wording, "Parking lots which provide necessary or required parking shall not be deemed non -conforming uses." AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that Council direct staff to prepare the appropriate language for the ordi- nance for second reading that permitted parking lots to be classified as accessory use. Mr. Knox stressed that the language the ordinance would have, would apply to existing parking lots. Mr. Green said that clarification was needed as to whether or not the language would .apply to all existing parking lots which were accessory uses, or, all existing parking lots which are providing required parking. Mr. Knox pointed out that the Palo Alto Times was in the assessment district; in the five situations known it was desirable to nintein the parking associated with the permitted use. The language in Mr. Klein's letter covered that, about whether or not it was required parking. Councilmember Witherspoon said she did not like to cut back on parking if the overflow would then park on the street: Vice Mayor Bremner said that some parking -would overflow to the streets in residential areas. She preferred seeing the question of working out the specifics go to the Planning Commission or else some re -zoning done some years back would be negated. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Brenner novel that the question of parking lots which came under accessory use go to the Planning Commission. The substitute &enchant died for lark of a second. Mr. Green said the requested-chan ,of language would apply to lawfully existing parking lots. AMENOMCNT PASSED: The emendment that Council direct staff to incor- porate into the ordinance for second reading the provision for an exception in the amortization provisions of the wig regulations of existing off-street parking lots ,ryhich would qualify as accessory uses except for the fact that they have not been included in the saw district as the principal facility. Such parking lots should be al l hosed to continue as conforming uses so long as the pri c c1 pa i =use with which they are associated continues, passed on°the fnlioming vote: AYES: Carey Clay, Fa2zino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon NOES: Brenner AGENT: Eyerly AMEMOMENT; Mayor Sher moved, secooded by Henderson, that on page 210, line 11, Which said that if a variance of a use penm1 t is not used within two -,ors i t r ui d become null d= voi d, be changed to read '...ulthin one year. Mayor Sher said his motion was aimed at making that passage consistent with a correction of another pese.t sada earlier in the meeting. 743 2/27/78 AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment passed . on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon NOES: Carey, Clay ABSENT: Eyerly Mayor Sher referred to page 236, about amendments dealing with the zoning sap; Section 18.98.050 spoke of action by the Zoning Adminis- trator on a change in boundaries. Stith application was to be given to the chairperson of the Plaanniag Commission, he read, and then it was diverted for administrative approval pursuant to Chapter 18.99, a section which dealt with minor changes. He didnot understand why a cha ege in boundaries should be considered a -minor change. Mr. Green explained that a change in :boundaries was really a change in designation. The section Mayor Sher spoke of related to a P -C zone where anychange, since it related to underlying permitted uses, would be considered a change of boundaries. Mayor Sher said "Well, you know, we have a history related to minor changes --it makes me a little nervous . " Mr. Green said the passage in 18.98.050 permitted minor changes in the P --C zone without having to bring it -before Council. Mr. Knox displayed a sheet showing the fourteen changes made to date under Section 18.99 within.the-past'year ant one-half: trellises, garden sheds, and the ;ike, Ms. Steinberg observed that none of the fourteen chi..;ges seed to be concerned with boundaries. Mr. Green said he was not aware that anychange of boundary had been processed by the Zoning Administrator. ills poiht-was that if, for example, a commercial zone, bounded by specific lines, were changed to a: residential _zone, that would be considered a change of district boundaries to R-1 from C-3, and any change under P -C could be viewed fn the same way. He. said Section 18.98.050 was not :intended nor would it be inter- preted to expand any authority -under 1S.99.. It merely clarified that saaaetning done, under 18.99, dos not have to have a public hearing before the Planning Coneiss9cri: Mr. Knox said that with the present ordinance the saw 1 angeage mars ne epage 674 ofthe } it did -not -refer to appl i cacti on for change in boundary, but_ to the application only. Mayor- Sher said that presumably the language hed found itself in e chapter that- dealt .witip +d ages in-heendartes and zoning caps, and the chapter in the draft ordinance had a broader moaning than the chapter in the code in which the leafage appeared. Mr. Green said that in Section 18+98, 0. ie Oe general section on meendments, wording appeared amt Owing immediate notice of the filing of the application. "1► p l i cats ce a'efer9s - to awl i cati on for a change of district. He thought it was esseetial ly the s. Meyer Sher said paragraph (a) talked about an application for change .of boundaries. (c) followed (a), and the conrlusioe was not clear. Some langeaoe should be added to limit the -meaning to a chamge in district, by putting it into ',he "unless*. clause. Wr. Knox : eferred to page -236s line l7, tahi ch adds "...for a chugs in boundaries." lie thought . that mos the languagemhich should be changed. 744 2/27/18 -7kly AMENDMENT: mayor Sher moved, seconded - by . Brenner, that for the second reading of the ordinance staff return to Council with language which would clarify that the diversion, for -administrative approval would apply only to the kindsof cases where it was now possibleunder the existing zoning law Councilmember Carey said that under 18.99.010 conditions of non-contro- vers i a l i ty, with a l i kel i hood. of acceptance by Council . and the Planning Director, and not minor when considered -in -the context of the applica- tion, had to be met. Matters which related to page 236.then reverted back to those conditions; for that reason,- he would vote against the motion. Councilmemaaber Clay said there was no definition for the term "boundary," in the zoning text. Mr. Green said wording eliminating.ttme •ward "boundary' could be formu- lated. Consistency was needed for change of district and change of boundary. "Change of boundary" .indicated change of zone rather than change of the zoning regulations. kMvADMENT PASSED: The amendment, that for the second reading of the ordinance staff return to Council with language which would clarify that the diversion for administrative -approval would apply only to the kinds of cases where it was now possible under the existing zoning law, passed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Clay, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sherr Witherspocin NOES: Carey ABSENT: Eyerly Mayor Sher referred to page 244, relating to the appeals provision and the Architectural Review Board (ARP). There was mention of "appeals by the applicant," from the decisions of the ARB. Mayor Sher asked if that .. , v nc v..i. T. a SC bl!'Si I li Mr. Knox replied that Section 18.99 now grated in that way. It dealt with minor changes only. A new appeal -procedure was to be worked out, so that the applicant and any citizen cold appeal.a procedure. Mayor Seer observad. that all the chapters in the draft zoning ordinance had been oonsideret; some amendments had been made. The public, as each category was addressed, had an - opportuni ty to, speak to Council. ge said the public could speakagain oe its reactioos to the. actions Council bad` tken, though he cautioned that the consideration of the zoning ordinance was essentially over'. Councilatmae ers old also speak of actie;s that had been taken, though he did not encourage it, and only those Councilmembars who had been on -the -prevailing side were permitted to make a m ,t1, to reconsider. Alice Schaffer Smith, 4284 Los Puce Circle, represented Willis Photo Lab, which was located 0157 Lama Verb. She spoke on the compati- bility feature which had'been accepted 'as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. She aid- that Section Your of that amewleiat bt struck, and applied to people who had +. re -wed ta the pact. n co forssetng use , which could be compatible,Nith surrounding uses, were now per- mitted tt.ed to appeal under the c i attbt t 1 t . f eat rs.. She asked that such permission be granted to those who had berm re -zoned in the past. Hilly Oavis, 344 Tennessee, speke-regardieg Section 18,43.o7o, pamge 107- Councilmembers had in their its apetition asking do to reconsider 745 2/27/78 whether or not 100 feet.of usable open space should be required for mixed residential and non -residential -use on sites in a community/ commercial district. Owners of such properties had been offered a considerable bonus, because they could. build residences at.a density of 45 dwelling units per acre; owners of exclusively residential sites had been held to a density of 29 units. She thought owners of community/ commercial property should be required to give quality of living to residents in their properties by havingto provide 100 feet of open space, perhaps through balconies. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, commented on the special requirement Sections,18.12 and 18.17.070, peg* 47% alloying existing two-family, multi -family uses in new single-family and duplex zones to become con- forming uses, and also office uses currently existing -in multi -family zones. Language had been added saying ... Sri thc,ut the necessity to c ly. with site development regulations." Therefore non -complying facilities could be re -built. The -result of that added language, she thought, was that those properties were to be accorded separate treat - t from other buildings in non c p1 i aace; such grandfathers ng gave special privilege, to which she objected.. She preferred that the former wording 5e unchanged. Mayor Sher confi rmmerd .tint Ms. Renzel was making a distinction between non -conforming uses and non- plying facilities, Sections she had cited resulted in making certain uses non -conforming through post- dating, and if they were destroyed they were to. be re -built at no greater intensity of use. Ms. Renzel said that if it was more than 50 percent destroyed it would have to be re -built in a complying fashion. Mayor :her said he wanted to inquire of staff if that had been the un4erstanding. M. E. Pratt, 1136 Wc.verley, said he would like to see planning given some instruction. He gathered from the draft zoning ordinance that some old and Few Tones were regarded as equivalent---. for example, R=2 equaled RN -2, and R-4 equaled R#4-4. He had checked into the downtown area . and 'had food that smaller properties bed an increase of first -unit require- ments; time old R-2 was actually equivalent to the RN -3; the old R-4 was actual 1y equivalent to the RN -5. he - hopsrd i t wou l d be taken into consideration when the maps were- dry"etc#- that densities that were 'really equivalent" would be used. If not, 35 to 50 percent of the housing potential in downtown, an ars ant adaptable to low-income housing, would be lost. Robert Noss, 4010 -Orae, agreed with . the < is regarding open .space amil- by Hilly Davis. and also MC.Reezelis tents about ., -confor 1ng use not being required to met site- r latioes. He referred to page 97, 1 i ne 27, noting that Council had .fr oot-yard setbacks in CM yes from 20 to 10 feet.: Helelt-inodequate attention had been given to the safety problem. Structures _built :too close to . the road made it impossible at corners to see oncoming trafficuntil one was too far into the intersection. He asked that the Z0 -foot setback be, restored in Neighborhood/Commercial zones. Kermit M. Knopf, 930.P le Alto Avenue, spy of the RN -3, RN -4 and R1-5 ar : :Perin ? vii et ors— soave Meeks back he had submitted a recommentkition. He wanted now -to -explain why: a smeller -lot owner suffered an unfair loss of value beta a .of. throe .high .square -footage requirenent the first Unit. Suchwrequtrament led developers to boy smeller pals, mhtch had a lamer value;:then revert them to acreage, 1n that mey thereby picking.picking.up extra 'aafts. aced increasing thc, value of the total property. Such latia8 prsctiees encouraged destruction of existig housing, mmhich wes contrtryte.the.Conprehemsive Plan. He 7.4 6 2/27/78 asked that Council consider returning toa.lower .initial renuirement on square footage. He continued on the -matter of setbacks, especially the 16 -foot requirement, increased from 8 feet, for a corner side yard. He felt a far better architectural design could be achieved 11 that 8 feet were available, particularly in the downtown area. He felt the ARB should make the decision as to what the side yard setback should be. Council er Henderson referred to page 122, referring to General Manufacturing District regulations, seying there were no setback require- ments, whereas the Light Manufacturing (Li District did set forth such requirements. The requirements, he felt, rare most appropriate in manufacturing zones. AMENDMENT: Counci lmemb er. Hendersona moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council amend the zoning ordtranceeto.replace i (a) through (f) on page 122, with the words regarding setbacks for the LM district on page 130, which gave the minter site area as one acre and so on. George Zimmerman, Planning Department, said such a change in wording w ul d make all existing industrial structures and warehouses non -complying. There was no provision to grandfather their non-compliance. If Council approved the change and a building were lost through -fire, the property owner would have to re -build in compliance with adopted requi rents . Mayor Sher pointed out that new developments had no setback requirements in LM. He asked the rationale for making them different. Mr. Knox answered that LM was really Office/Research/Park category according to Comprehensive Plan language, end General Manufacturing was really Light Manufacturing zone. GM allowed more intensive use than LM. Mr. Zimmerman said that GM uses for transportation terminals, for example required such setbacks. Mr. Knox added that there had been no specific rationale; the Planning Department had retained those parts of former zoning requirements which him worked. Councilarember Carey said the `tack of requirement for setback had to be related through practicality; such areas were already -built almost to capacity, and Leaving such setback r quir nis'out of the text helped Planning to avoid the problem of non-conformance with those LM zones that existed. AMENDMENT FAILED The amendment that ,Ca i1 amend the zoning ordinance to replace items (a) through (f) with the words r+egerdt eg - requirements for setbacks - on page 130, giving minim site area . as -one acre, and so on, failed on the following vote: AYES: Fletcher, henderson NOES: Brenner, Carey Clay, Fau1mo, Sher, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly MOTION TO REC®$Sl k: Councilmember Henderson moved, . seconded by Fleteher, . that Council reconsider the e 1 iari n'atioa of the requirement for open spate which had ai red on page 107, lire 24. Councilmamber Carey said he thought - the annulment had been made to add open -space on mixed residential/sun-residential uses. The motion to add open span had failed. 747 2/27178 MOTION TO RECONSIDER FAILED: The motion Lo reconsider elimination of the requirement for open space.which:hadlappeared.on page 107, line 24, failed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher NOES: Carey, Clay, Fazzi no, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly Councilor Henderson returned to the matter of conforming/non-conform- ing alluded to by Ms. Renzel. Mayor. Sher referred to-page.47, and comparable places with special requirements relating.to the non -conforming uses. Councilmember Carey had moved to add language removing the necessity to re-bui i d without complying with current site development -regulations. When he voted for it he had been unaware , of the poi nt, subsequently made . by Mt. Renzel, that gave such a property owner a better break than the owner whose building conformed, which, were" i t destroyed, could not be rebut i t to a non -conforming size. Mayor Sher asked the effect of the language -added by that motion, Me. Knox relied that the amendment -had been suggested by a request of a 'property owner of an apartment -building who had pointed -out that he would not be allowed to.re-build-unlessAaequirement for Lczplying site development were changed. The. Pl anni ng Departwent was trying to structure part.of the ordinance in Section -18.12.070. The property ownier would be in a new -zone -with new setback requirements when he re- built, and the amendment wording made allowance for that. Mayor Sher inquired what happened in -the case of a building which had a conforming use but had obtained -a variance so that under the new zoning ordinance it was then non -complying. .Would it not have to be built within the new rather than the former dimensions? kr. Green replied that_it-wind not,because the buiiding.which existed under a lawfully issued variance would not.be a non -complying building. If it had instead been "grandfithered : i n" .. as a non -complying structure it would have to be reebu lt_within the new dimensions, Mayor Sher cked what,mould be the cage. if the structure did not have a veri ante, an..1, had beinokay 'under tie` di d zoning law, but _ i t had burned down,,amd,the new zoning ordinance had a more restri cti ; could it be beat it back to the old (but 'i l leg41) •dtmensi cis even th6igh it had f erly conformed' ice. Green said the .language ndopted:in'the.amendient which had passed addressed the motion on past ' 6l ' - t# -Coo ,sheet i tae P l ae and a l so t!: housintpoliciets in the Plan. 'It was itmited to multi -family uses within twee zones.. There were insuranteerand other problem regarding repi amt and so . i t Wes decided to = le t.. sum structures be . reebui l t as otgin 'ly built, Mayor Sir seed that.since, thurationale, was -developed to carry out the ComprehcAsive Plan he would not-dWanything further. AMMO: _ Counce lager Carey moved, seed by Clay, that with rat to Rii-2, RV4-3, and -W4 tomes; `that the sire footage -for the initial unit be mod- in each case'by 1,000 square feet. 748 2/27/78 Mr. Knox .asked .to show some.slides which he had brought in response to.a discussion with Mr. Knopf. The s'ltdes;:wtth.differentiating' colors, showed the effect of the amendment now before :hem. He showed that the site requirements were 1500 square feet less in the RM-2, -3, -4 zones. The effect of the difference was that on a 6,000 square -foot lot two units were allowed; on 7,000 square=footiats the present ordinance gave one more unit; there was no difference at 8,000 square feet, and on 9,000 square feet there would be one-more.unit, and so on. Mr. Knopf had said that the differences seemed to end at about -16,000 square feet. Mr. Knox displayed a chart showing 'what would happen if there -were a 1,000 square -foot reduction; the number of units would remain about the same. In the present zoning ordinance the:RFi-2, with 4,000 square feet for the first unit had a density range from 12.5 VI 20.7 units per acre; the target density was 10 to 20 units -per acre. To adopt the 1,000 square -foot reduction would raise -the /ensi ty at zr Rf the scale. The Beeeon Park Associationtad :54id -they tnought 9.8 units per. acre was desirable density. The . RM-1. zone :got -wel L bel ow 9 units per acre. Councilmember Carey said he.made-the.motaoe.:_:e Amend because smaller lots were penalized.to a -reduction -of -about 25 percent --.going down from -four to three was quite a decrease, and.wouldresult ineforcing devel- opers toward accumulation; also; though, if the amendment.passed there would be intensification, it wouly not be to any great degree, and the matter of righting job/housing imbalance showed that some modification had to he made regarding -intensity; -. He asked Councilraemmbers to support the amendment. Mayor Sher said he was troubled by the fact that Council's policy of achieving 9.8 density had not been accomplished in the Barron Square Rl- 1 development even through combining -two parcels. Counci lmember Carey said he had deliberately left RM-1 out of the 1,000 square -foot reduction, so that those Barron Square densities would still fit. AkEnomemi FA1! i:w: The amendment, thst with. aspect to RM-2, RM-3, and R4 . zones , that the square footage for : the initial unit be reduced 1,000 feet,.-failed.on the following vote: AYES: Carey, Clay, Fazzino NOES: Bremner, Fletcher, IHenderrson, Sher, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly Councilmember Carey raised the matter of setbacks --it was proposed to raise the setback limit from 8 to 15 feet on side yards. Mr. Knox displeyeti a chart showieg difference among t-2, -3, -4, and 5 zoo s. Mr. Knopf, he said, had requested changes in the RM-4 and -5 zones. Councilmember Carey asked about tSe rewired setback oo non -street side yard- setbacks Mr. [mac r0O11.04 that the present'requirvient was feet _ otr•_ 20_ percent. the pewordinance wires. 6 'iwt; . .T a street sideyard prepeted requite- ment of 16 feet -was o 1y for . -4 and . RM-5 zones. Ceuntilsember Carey said that in tit event . he wdul d not propose an amendment. He referred to pew 10. of ; .0 +ptriehenslve plan -and rid 749 2/27/78 Policy. 6: "Support the .mixing.of.residential .uses. in commercial and industrial areas." He then referred tc- Program.11 in the:draft zoning ordinance, welch discussed the facilitation of residential and industrial districts over parking lots. He concluded that according to that, passage of the zoning ordinance as it -now stood, would make it incon- sistent with Policy 6 in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Zimmerman referred to page 120, line:6,.which listed single-, two - and multi -family residential uses to General Manufacturing (GM); in the Light Manufacturing (LM) section, page'132, residential.densities were provided for, beginning on line 24. Councilmember Carey stood.corrected--thee text, under GM and LM, per- mitted residential use. He said~ pege-10 1ia1ted.residential use in in trial areas to public parking lots. Mayor Sher.said_that-the text CouncilMeMber Carey.referred to die not say residential could not be built 'elsewhere. Councilor Carey read Program 10: "Provide-1ncentives for new retail and office construction to provide -some partioreo re uential-space on or near the same site." Accordieg-to'the discipline of logic, if limiting factors were given, other ppseibilities'.were excluded. A previeus.Counci1 had debated the -matter at some.1ength, setting a policy that -it would not allow -or encourage -residential use in industrial districts. He asked how to reconcile =that with the text in the Compre- hensive Plan, and with the GM and LM permitted use text. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out the Employment element of page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan, Progra ±:2, "CstabIlsh.Procedures to permit housing beyond established zoning standards -for -industrial zones." That passage shod that the draft zoning-ordinaece-didtallowresidential uses In industrial zones. Counci lr Carey asked if a previous Council had not rejected that policy. Mr. Knox said that to the initial Comprehensive Plan there had been a requirement for affixing resi tial- andindustrial. Coumci 1r Carey mid the point had been debated by a previous Council - and voted dom. Neyor Sher referred to .Policy 6 in t , Co prehens i ve Plan supporting a mix of residential with rctal' and-tr trial --it was.not a requirement. -Ceeecilmember Carey recalled , that Council.had.rejected the concept of mandatory requirements; there might possi bap have lea .sow kind of incentive —it had been two or more years ago and-he.dtd-not recall • clearly. He t oug,t. the elimination or the requirement for open space on residential/ commercial mix,wes,oneincentive; ,yet he did not see i centives set out in -the !:M and -`text- r :eting .to residential'mix--1t was merely given as a permitted use. .He asked .if_it had -been a Council policy to encourage residential/industrial mix?. If so, were were the incentives? Neyor Shar.asked if,Counc:lnember. Carey wanted to undertake some motion 'to per i ire Councilmenber Carey .said that lacking`firm recollection of -the action a prowieNs Council had tams halwavvoluctant to move for change. Nr..Knox sai d. b was qutte . sura :that Council had.made t!he poi i cy to support residenttaltto trialf ncial- mix, He referred referred.again to the paasa e . in the wing ordl nancc that crag the mix, on page 132, 750 2/27/78 and one incentive had been van e11n'rtnation of the .requirement for open space. That..led to a permitted density of about 35 dwelling units per acre, about the same as the RM-I' zone --that was another incentive, for it almost doubled the allowed density. So far as facilitating develop- ment of residential units on air -rights, that could perhaps not be handled in the zoning ordinance. Councilmember Witherspoon referred to page. 39, about Allowed Uses - Residential: She asked about provisions on keeping and raising animals. As she recalled, dogs and cats were not considered "animals" in the same sense as livestock. Mr. Green recalled having discussed private kennels, keeping and raising of dogs; he thought that the matter could be dealt with in Title 6. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council direct staff to amend lime 19, page 39, by adding.''...including kennels for. dogs or cats." .Mr..Green referred to Section 4.;8, which made it unlawful to maintain a dog or cat kennel if the animals were for sale in districts other than agricultural. Councilmember Witherspoon said that since the statement related to residential zones it prohibited raising animals for commercial purposes. AMEN ENT FAILED: The amendment failed on the following vote AYES: Clay Fazzino, Witnerspocn NOES: Brenner, Carey, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher ABSENT: Eyerly Councilamober Fazzisho asked wily there was a requirement of one parking space far every 300 square feet -of building space in the LM zone, while in all ether zones only cee space per 260 square feet was required. Mr. Ziassern said that the Planning Ctm mi ss i otin had t4anted one standard for all uses in the LK zone, to e1 tow for building change use. The Lid ems considered a special area to protect. Ms. Renzel .replied that many IA buildings .are built on speculation, without known tenants, and therefore without ; known .uses . Three hundred square feet was felt to be a more elesti c- provi sign. Cowncilammber Fazzino asked how the 12' x 45' requireeent for loading. space is arrived at. lie understood.the present ordinance only required 10' x 2C'. Mr. Knox answered that a standard semi -truck measured 12' x 451 —even small operations were provided for by Marge trucks. The 10' x 20' requirement had been adopted in 1961. Couocilmember Clay referred back to -the distinction made earlier between non -conforming buildings and terse whi,h bey .nos -conforming. He asked if tyre wouad.be a problem itall-buildings were to be treated the same. Meyor Sher pointed out the passage, relating to Councilor Clay's question on page 227, parrgraph four. MOMENT: Councilmamber Clay moved, seconded by Carey, that all non- conforming uses, in the app l i cati o of .the compatibility test, be made unify. 761 2/27/78 75/ Mayor.Sher clarified that tk►e.intent.af Counciliember.Clay's amendment would-be to delete sub -paragraph Con page 227. Mr. Green. said he did not think the.intent of the amendment was to delete sub -paragraph 4 on'page-227. The purpose of that section was :basically to take care uf.a situation.wbere soaethtng.was presently being amortized and to which a new aerie :schedule was .r-cw beteg applied. The passage would not give tt aay-ea e years. One situation to come up was a new exception procedure to:carry out the intent of page 61 in the Cottprehensive. P1an; .He could see' expanding_that to already.extsting rton- . conforming .uses . then, if it fai led to get the exception, the sub- paragraph 4 mould come Into play, and would not extend the time any -further. As he recalled Alice Smith had .r tioned that in connection with the Loma Verde area. That was a special amortization district establ i shed under Chapter 18.95. Page 227, lioes 11-16 related to that . Loma Verde/Middlefield sec ,ton alone --Chapter 18.94.070 and .action of . Hew. amortization schedules. Wtth respect-to.that special .amortization district, when the Council adopts the- -zoni. g -map; _it - 11 have to determine whether or not -to apply a new amortization .district to that area. If, at that. titre~, the Council elects:to remove it from the special amortization provision, that action could take .precedence over 18.94.070, which:did not inter -relate with Chapter.18.95, for the new as well as -the old zoning ordinance provided -for special .amortization of some building,. at Loma Verde/Middlefield. .Mayor. Sher asked Where sub --paragraph 4 -applied, i f . i t were.not under a special.amortization district with a rer•tain nu r of years. Mr. Greeo said it applied to certain -districts with.commercisl and non- -residential uses which -are presently*amortized under the general amorti- zation provision. Mayor Sher clarified that the issue then, was one of general versus . spact fic. , He than asked about the . best way . to accomplish the intent of the motion now before Council. Mr. Breen .said : that the best tray to do . that was to have the amendment included in the amendment adding a provision for an exception procedure, as proposed by Councilseraber Carey. If•sub-paragraph.4 were deleted the amortization section might result in -the -amortization being renewed. Mayor Sher. asked what the -result sold :be . i f Council took no action. W. Green said that if amorti zati on were to continue Council +rou l d have • to apply a special amortization zone to it. RE ISW AMENDMENT:. Cuuecilmambertlay revised his amendment -to hive z.non:-confurming uses made unifov in tinueppl1cation of the oaMpatibility to tt i etc) uded in the ent adopted -earlier, stating that -appropriate language be written into Section 18.94 -providing .for a procedure by which a property vaner.shali, by shoesng'corrpatibtlity as presct-ibed in the Comprehensive Plan text, be a 11 oaf- to coeti nue use or improvement. .Corencilmember Carey agreel.to_its inclusion, for he felt it would clear up an -inequity, Ate. FAILED: The .amsndeent • fed lot on . the . following vote : AYES: Cater, Clay, Faaeaioc, Witherspoon NOES: Brenner, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher Eyerly 752 2/27/7 Mayor Sher said that since there were.no further,proposed amendments it would be appropriate .to vote on,adopting.the proposed zoning ordinance as amended for -first reading. MOTION PASSED: The motion, adopting the proposed zoning ordinance, as amended, for first reading, passed'en a unanimous vote, Councilmember Eyerly absent. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REPEALING TITLE 18 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING) AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 18 EFFECTIVE UPON ADOPTION OF A NEW ZONING MAP. Mayor Sher thanked Councilmembers, staff and participating citizens for their. cheerful and persistent hard work.- The work now pissed to the Planning Commission, he said, as they began applying it within the City, as, concurrent -with approval of the land use map, it would go into effect. POLICY AND PROCEDURES RECOMMENDATION MOTION TO CONTINUE: Miayor Sher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that Council continue the matter on tree -houses to March 13. The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Eyerly absent, CANCELLATION OF COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6 NOTION: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Clay, that Council cancel the next scheduled meeting of March 6. The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Eyerly absent. ADJOURNMENT MOT ION : Councilmember Carey moved-, seconded by Brenner, _ that Council adjourn. The motion passed on a unanimousvote, Couocilmember Eyerly absent. Council mourned at 12:25 a.m. 7 5 3 2/27/78