Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-06-06 City Council Summary MinutesAdjourned Meeting ofJune 5, 1978 June 6, 1978 ITEM! Recommendations of the Planning Commission on a New Comprehensive Zoning Map for the City of Palo Alto Clean -Up Regulations Noted in June 2, 1978, Planning Commission Memorandum PAGE • 975 987 Continuance of Consideration of Lease on 'Arastra Property 9 & 8 Councilmember Fletcher re County. Representation on MTC 9 8 8 Oral Communications 9 8 8 Next Council Meeting Moved to Wednesday, June 14, 1978 9 8 8 Adjournment 9 8 8 974 8/78 Adjourned Meeting of %lune 5, l';78 June 6, 1978 The City Council If the City of Palo Alto met on this date in an adjourned meeting of June 5, 1978, at 7:35 p.m. with Mayor Sher presiding. PRESENT Brenner, Carey, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher ABSENT: Clay, Witherspoon RECOMiEIB AT I • OF - THE P ISS I Mayor Sher said that Council would consider Map 11 with the general matter of approval of the Planning Commission recommendations on the re- zoning of Palo Alto now before it. The following aedment had been moved toward the end of the previous night's meeting: the result of the amendment, if passed, would limit the development to eight units. AMENDMENT:. Counci fiber Carey moved, seconded by Fazzino„ that the parcels in the 500 block of Maybell be changed from R-1 to R-2, on liep 11. (continued from June 5, 1978) Nephtali Knox said he had checke' edss1bly ispimigirmg _regulations; he seid he had determined that the amount yf lot coverage would be the deter- mining factor on the lot at 520 Maybe l l ; there were 55.705 feet frontage on one lot, (which measurement could, multiplied by four, give the total frontage in feet) with 177.73 foot depth, with ten feet deducted for right of way, leaving 36,951 square feet. With t"t t -1 ten units could be permitted, with lei -2 eight units would be permitted. RM-2 lot dimen- sions would then be 55 x 167 feet. The lots would need an exception to the subdivision ordinance since they were less than 60 feet wide. Gross density, including the total property as it now stood, with -2, would be 8.9 units per acre; with RM-1 the gross density would be 11.1 per acre. With ten -foot setback the' density vou1d be 9.4.for the -2 and 13.05 for the RA -1. Councilmember Carey asked if the exception procedure (for subdividing) was administramtive. Mr. Knox replied that it would hove to go through the Planning Commissiray. Counci lamer Carey. said the quoted 9.8 density figure was probably a net figure, The difference been th two densities was eight as opposed to ten uri is . Meyor Sher said that the two units could be viewed in one way as a reduction in traffic; the larger i sue under coasideratioe was fulfil- ling the City's commitment to Barron Park. Counci limber Henderson asked if a variance would be heeded for four duplexes. Mayor Sher said a variance would not be needed for three duplexes. Cali lamer Carey said he wentod to add to the amendmeot that if the AM -2 zoning passed it would be with the undostanding that unless there were unusual circumstances the variance would be granted es a mttmr of course. Councilammher Fezzina, as the second to the ameedeent, agreed to the eddl ti oe g7$ 0/ s Councilmember Carey qualified that he knew sitting Councils could not oind future Councils, but he did want to have that condition in the record. He said that if a variance wa needed to get eight units he wanted to assure it as much as possible. Vice Mayor Brenner said she also wanted to stand by the City's commit- ment; perhaps the RM-1 could stand with the understanding that it was based on net land, that is, land remaining after the necessary right of way had been taken. Mayor Sher said that the zoning itself should dictate the number of units. Mr. Knox, when he told about the number of units permitted, had already taken into consideration the reduction of the ten -foot right of way. AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment passed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Carey, Fazzino,-Sher NOES: Fletcher, Henderson, Eyerly ABSENT: Cl ay , Witherspoon Councilmgmbe r Carey referred to the 3606 El Camino property, partly owned by Mr. Shapiro, the lot now designated RM-4; it was on Map 11, among several other zoning designations. The lot size would take about 22 housing units. Access from El Camino only, was poor. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Everly, that the zoning at 3606 El Camino Real be designated CS (commercial/service). Councilmember Henderson said that he thought it would not be feasible to put housing on the property; he would move that It be zoned neighbor- hood commercial, himself. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Counc i l rr ber Henderson moved, seconded by Pletcher, that the subject lot be designated CN (neighborhood/commercial). Councilmember Carey said he would prefer CS zoning; he would support Councilmember Henderson's motion if CS did not pass. Anne Steinberg said a change of the land use map was being proposed, for the property was zoned residential on the land use map; that was incon- sistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Lou Green: Assistant City Attorney, replied that the land use map was not the only element to be taken into consideration, but the Planning Commission had considered it the most important element. If Council did not think the change to CS was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan the change .should notbe made, though it would be all right for Council to make ,the change if it assumed it was consistent with the entire overall plan. When the zoning was finally adopted the change would be assumed to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan --Council would find it to be so when the Zoning Map woe adopted. Councilmember Henderson said he wou l d withdrew his amendment in the interest of saving tip: Vice Mayor Brenner said she would prefer to have the ma►ttar referred to the Planning Commission, and not to pass as a part of the zoning map ordinance, but brought before Council at a later date. She wanted to know more about the commission's reasons. 976 6/6/78 Corrected see page 104? Councilmember Fazzino said Council had been.making some decisions, without sending them beck to the Pl snntng Commission --he thought that should continue. He did not think Council should holdback on a deci- sion because a proposed zoning was not on the land use.map. He thought Council's procedure that evening permitting property owners and others to state their cases was correct; he'favored going ahead on the motion before Council and not to make further referrals. Councilmember Eyerly observed that Mr. Shapiro's lot seemed somewhat larger than other lots ,en El Camino zo ed CM; CS zoning seemed more logical to him than CM would be. Vice Meyor Brenner connoted tit the old zoning wap showed the rear part of the parcel as residential. Ma . Steinberg said the Planning Commi sa toaa intended to make changes in the Cosew pensive Plan lit use mop" the subject parcel was going to be oft of the parcels the Commission looked a t . Council could recommend that the Planning Commissien look at it. NIENDMENT FAILED: The a n ent that zoning at 3&)6 El Gino Real be changed to CS (commercial/service) failed on the following vote: AYES: Carey, Eyerly, Fazzino NOES: Brenner, Fletcher, !ier erson, Sher ABSENT: Clay, Witherspoon ► MEM4. #iT: Councilmember Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the zoning at 3606 El Camino Real be changed to CH (neighborhood/commercial), The eaendeentpissed on the following vote: AYES: Carey, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher NOES: Brenner ABSENT; Cl fir, Witherspoon In response to a comet free CouneiImember Carey, Mr. Green, Assistant City Attorney, said that he thought the notion indtr.,ated that overall the CM designation was consistent with the C pr+ afive Plan; whae the Planning Cam 1 ssioR looked at the land use map the commission would bri eg that point of` vi ea+9 to bear. Councilmember Heatioson gloved, secondOd by Fletcher, that the parcel atVW igagesita be rep -wed from -2 to Mel. The emend, dent passed so the following vote: AYES: fir! Eyerly„ Fazzino, fl fir, Wandersoht Shar NOES: Carey ABSENT: Clay, Witherspoon Csu eci r Wain* raterred.to4400-E1 Camino . Neel, eo.Map 11, zoned NM -4, and he ascertained uttli.1ir; tnox.that the awn l had been to NM -3. He asked what persittetuses old lot the veterinary hospital continue. Mr. Rhos said thet the viteriamolrOmepital cool d , yeti , subject to provisioes ofthapter 111.94i ret to non-ooeformiag uses. The hospital s uld• not be allele to tit zone. !77 4li✓1111 Mayor Sher pointed out that the veterinary hospital would come under the provisions of the compatibility test for non -conforming uses. Mr. Green explained that the compatibility test applied for uses which became non -conforming through adoption of the re -zoning map. Commercial uses along El Camino which came in under the Barron Park annexation were zoned, at that time, R-1, which meant that they were presently non- conforming, and so those uses (such as the veterinary hospital) could not use the exception procedure afforded by the compatibility test. Mayor Sher said that Mr. Green's explanation referred to uses which were under an amortization schedule as related, specifically, to the Middlefield - Loma Verde area. Mr. Knox said that the CS zone would allow animal care, excluding boarding and kennels, under permitted uses --as additional use it would permit boarding and kennels. The CM zone would allow animal care as a permitted use, excluding boarding and kennels. He understood that there was boarding at the veterinary hospital at present. Counciimember Carey said he disagreed with Mr. Green's analysis of the applicability of the co pat bilitsy test. In his mind the compatibility test provision was intended to provide some equitable relief for owners of non -conforming properties, and also to make possible a look at individual properties as to whether of not they were really detrimental to the areas in which they were located. He said he thought the re- zoning of Barron Park to R-1 was to put further development in abeyance under county ordinances and zoning until Palo Alto could complete its Comprehensive Plan. In that way changes from R-1 taking place that evening were not changes in zoning which had been adopted after long deliberation; for that reason he thought the compatibility procedure ought to apply, If it did not, the City might be forced into doing some spot zoning, Mayor Sher demurred at raising such issues at this time --he thought they could be discussed at the zoning map "clean up" or when on individual property owner made application. Counciloember Fazzino said he did not agree that discussion of issues should take place "later." He had reservations about CS zoning and spot zoning; he would prefer that the compatibility test could apply. He thought that now might be the appropriate time for such di acuss i ors . Mayor Sher said there was justification for such discussion to take place now; to show the will of the Council it would be properly done by motion. Councilaiber Fazzino asked if it would be appropriate tomove that all properties in Barron Park that had been rendered nonconforming through the annexation, be made capable of using the compatibility test. Mayor Sher asked Mr. Green if the making of such a motion would clarify other problems. Mr Green said it would not; an appropriate motion would be to make the change and refer to the Pl anni ng Comemi ss i on for consideration Mayor Sher said he interpreted Mr. Green's words to say.that Council - member Fazzino's motion would result in a significant change, and that change should be reviewed by the Planning C.o ission. 978. 6/6/78 AMENDMENT: Councilmmiber Fazzi no aged, seconded by 3ronnea! , that the applicability of the Carey.metl orr tc mpati bi l 1 ty .test .for non -conforming uses resulting from adoption of the. land use map) be referred to the P1 atani ng Commi ss i ou. The amendment passed . on a unanimous vote, Counci l - members Clay and Witherspoon absent. Mayor Sher called for .possible -other aaea is , to .Map .11, and moved to Map 10, concerning the Willwillettitoed:tworrovement. Councilmember Carey spoke of the three -acre site now belonging to Stanf©rd which the City was toacquire, up to:now -zoned Cc, -meaning no on -site parking required. He tight PF zoning was presumptuous since the Willbw,Road project would proceed, he thought. If not, the City had wrongly zor ed ° h1 gb ►daeaastty commercial down to a zero value. He did not support the CC zoning,. but he mild support CS zoning, which required on -site parking; if the -City acquired time s1 to : the zoning could be meaningless, if not the Universi ty sti l l held ° land that. had some e norm c• use. Ai rINENT : Counci lmsr Carey moved, -soconded.by - Eyerly, that the subject three -acre site (Mao 10) be changed to Capring. Mayor Sher asked thet Vice .t. or Brenner chairtbe proceedings, since Stanford University was his employer. Vice Mayor Brenner asked.what tho.Planning Commission.rationale had hesn for zoning the three -acre site PF. Mr. Knox said staff had, in the first draft of the Comprehensive Plan, of dune, 1975, presentedthe subject parcel as non-oommer c1 a1. PF zoning was the result.of the knowledge that institutional facilities and colleges are allowed.in.PF zones. W. Williams of Stanford University had asked Wm the same question, and he had given t e same answer. The land use plan designated the parcel zs streamside open space, with no commercial function. CC. or community commercial, with the new zoning administration text, mull require perking. Couecilmember Carey.galesthat with his second's permission he would emend the proposed erg in his motion -to CC _ (comity commercial) . Couoci 1muvrr . Early_ agreed, uk$ng that the specific area in question be clarified, for the present Pi) ZORe included the Chi1drei s site's. subject C� i #� to acquisition lbyht� G�� Atha# only that parcel Councilor/Ur Fletcher . asked tf structure were diffeeent betel the two zones. Mr. Knox said ha bed had occasion to ask ths County Assessor that question, and the esseesor bad said s •..s . w d to' tome the actual use that could be mode ethe UDC thereby determining its value.. W. s listed soma sitermetive s plait nub, lion of CMldrea's hospital, and others. rs. NaRe said, R4 think it's a tees-up." Co ,�sc�i' r r1y-said he .land -s v y ald be reverted from PF to CC. Vice Meyer Brenner said that the commercial seeing . had been .put en teeny years ago; the w...for a little mider berth for the creek hes Own std Ond stronger and is included in the ve Plen. I feel e _ the Planing Commtsais4 and the Pluming - Wig mode a 979 rather good decision. . . ." The zoning map was never "cast in concrete" as present action demonstrated--shepreferred'keeping the zoning PF. Councilmember Carey said the parcel was PF in the Comprehensive P;an because of the assumption that it would be acquired by the City. He did not like to deal on assumptions but on what really was.the case; the land was adjacent to the shopping center and fronted on El Camino, and was on the perimeter of Stanford University --CC was a more equitable zoning. He outlined the parcel verbally, on the map. Vice .Mayor Brenner asked if . the zoning .would .extend to the center of the creek bed. Councilmember Carey - said that : if the creek bed. did not include the property the zoning could not include it either. He supposed setback provisions for creek -bed properties would apply. AMCNDMENT.FA1LED: The amendment that the three -acre site (Map 10) bounded by San Freecisquito Creek near Stamford Shopping center he changed to CC zoning, failed on the following vete: AYES: Carer, Eyerly, Tazzino NOES: Brenner, Fletcher, Henderson NOT PARTICIPATING: Sher ABSENT: Clay, Witherspoon Mr. Knox clarifiedthat the classification in the Comprehensive Plan and streamside open space had not beenrelated to Willow Road improveuent, but had been related to the existing tree cover,and the creek. Planning had no knowledge at that time of plans for Willow Road and possible subsequent acquisition of the parcel by the City. Councilmember Carey said his motion spoke to the placement of streamside open space expectations, coupling that with a.PF zone. With streamside open space requirements it was "...certainly restrictive to a develop- ment's potential. I hope everyone knees what they've done." Vice Mayor Brenner said that the matter had been voted upon. Mr. Green underlined Mr. Knox's cuts on reasons for zcning the land PF, saying that such zoning did not meantheland.was rendered value- less, and was, in fact,appropriate, and not related to the Willow Road improvement. Mayor Sher asce i net. that there were no comments from Counci lmenbers or the public on Maps 9 or 8. Cooncilmember . Fletc r referred - to the Tyr/Silver property on Nap 7. She said she thoughL.RN,4 zoning, which -permitted,' height of 50 feet in a structure, was inappropriate. Anotherbuilding with the dimensions of Rickey.'s tower was not --wanted in that area. AMEN: Councilmember Fletcher moved . that the zoning of RM-4 on tie Traynor/Silver property . be changed to RN-2. ENOMEUT DIED: The .amendment died for lack -of a second. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, ` seconded by Brenner, that the zoning of RN -4 on the Traynor/Si lver- proper"ty be imaged to Rid -3.. 980 616/78 Vice Mayor Brenner said she thought that though the 50 -foot height might be suitable downtown it was inappropriate in the part of town where the Traynor property was. It was an invasion of privacy into many yards. Councilmember Carey asked Mr. Knox if the 50 -foot height limit was possible on the back side of the Traynor property. Mr. Knox said he thought a 150 -foot bufferstrip,in which the height could only reach 35 feet, was required. Councilmember Carey said that in view of the permitted heights the argument against was not relevant. He said that if the City continued to zone out low- and moderate -income development all but wealthy people would have to live out of town. Vice Mayor. Brenner said that the tower at Rickey's was.more than 150 feet away from the properties across the street, yet the tower had damaged the nature of the neighborhood for hundreds of residents. Councilmember Eyerly asked if a heavier density could not be placed toward the CS area, with lower density toward the rear, such as Rid -3 or -5, Mr. Knox said that such -variation in density would result,in two zones, one RM-3 and another RM-5; the RR -4 might just as well remain, for it had the same provisions on the buffer strip. Mr. Traynor said the area covered 2.6 acres, net, with the easements deducted. Mr. Knox said that.with RM-4 zoning_92.units would.be permitted; with RM-3 zoning there could be.up to 74 units. Vice Mayor Brenner said she agreed that it would be somewhat better to have lower density toward the rear of the lot,,with higher density toward El Camino; it would afford Mr. Traynor about the same number of units, and lower the height limit. Mayor Sher said he thought those considerations on - dens i ty and Sri ght were built into ordinances. He also objected to the hazards of higher densities, and he wanted to acknow;edge the developer's wishes and limitations while at the same time being aware of the.needs of the neighborhood. He did not know if a zone change -was a change for the better. Mr Knox said he thought a combination AM-2andAN-5 would be best; AM -2 was 100 feet from the property line at the rear. Councilmember.Henderson - weighed - the advantages and disadvantages of possible re -zonings; he thought he -preferred to stay with the present zoning, -with its assurance of the 150 -foot buffer strip. Vice Mayor Brenner said that if Council . aanended the -anti ors to read "' ...the back 100 feet to be zoned Rfi-2, and - the front .of -thaw residen- tial section Nl-5'...wve would be inviting.a P -C." She thought that kind of project was what the motion intended. SUBSTITUTE .NTT! Vice Mayor Butner moved, seconded by Henderson, that the beck 100 feet of the Tracer property be . zoned Ali -2, and the balance of the property exclusive of the -CS and that which had a single- family dwelli4 on it, to be zoned RM-5. 981 (0/6/78 George Zimmerman, Planning assistant, showed on the map the result of the zoning the substitute amendment proposed. The portion on 496 Charleston with a single-family dwelling was to be RM-2. Mr. Knox calculated that the back portion at RM-2 would yield 24 units; the front RM-5 portion would yield 68 units,,giving a total of 92 units. Councilmember Fletcher said she agreed -with. the statement that had been made earlier that property owners were not penalized when their proper- ties were zoned residential --such properties sold at an advantageous price. Councilmember Carey said that except for the.RM-2 portion on Charleston he was prepared to vote for the substitute amendment. Vice Mayor Brenner received penli ssi on. frcn2 . the second to ,her amendment, Councilor Henderson, to except the parcel at 496 Charleston from her motion. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED: The substitute motion, that the tack 100 feet of the Traynor property be zoned RM-2, and the balance of the property be zoned RM-5, passed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Carey, Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson, Sher NOES: Fletcher ABSENT: Clay. Witherspoon Mayor Sher said that because Counci user Carey had to leave he would recognize him for a motion he wished to make on Map 2, although it was cut of the agreed -upon order. MOTION: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Eyerly, that Map 2 be moved forward for consideration. The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Council :!bens Clay and Witherspoon absent. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Carey moved, seconded by Eyerly, that the properties known as 105, 115, 121-123 Emerson be zoned RM-3 instead of RM-1. Councilmember Henderson said he had voted - i n 1971 for the preservation of the single-family nature of the north Palo Alto area; subsequent Councils and the Planning Caraission had, for the most, part, adhered to that guideline. The lots on that side of the street were zoned Rol -3, and there was a P -C around the corner; he could see no "major detrlren- te1 effect" from making the lots RN -3, though he would not, change the R- 1 across the street. He would support the motion. Councilmember Fletcher said that the -argument that .because the area already had density there could be more density, was unacceptable to her. The proposed RM-3 zoning would leave "two little his that will be sandwiched between multi -family. . . ." She could foresee thet the argument would be that those two s : ngl+e-fall ly lots ought to go multi- family because it was multi -family all around them. She wanted to preserve the quietness of the area. She would vote against the motion. Vice Mayor Brenner said she agreed with Councilmember Fletcher, but she said the justification for the R-5-L-9.had disappeared. The zones for density had been base upon a traffic system which, because of.ita. unpopularity, had boon gradually foreclosed --it had .bean thought that a Willow Freeway might cut through the neighborhood, and it had been 982 6/6/78 thought Alma and Middlefield might-beywidened, which would have given access to a high -density row. The area was returning to single-family homes since that traffic pattern had not cane about. She thought ,he feeling of small family hoses should -be preserved. Councilmember Eyerly said that with re -zoning, -under R -5-L-9 the three lots combined would give 25 units. In asking -for the P!1-3 Mr. Hoover, an aethitect, knew that the number of units would drop to 14. In R -5-L- 9 the height limitation had been 50 feet; with RM-3 the height limit was 35 feet. He thought the proposed re -zoning was logical. AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment that properties known as 105, 115, 121- 123 Emerson be rezoned.RM-3 instead of RM-i passed on the following vote: AYES: Carey, Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson NOES: Brenner, Fletcher, Sher ABSENT: Clay, Witherspoon Councilmember Carey left the meeting -at 9:15 p.m. Mayor Sher called for possible amendmerts on Map 7, then moved to Map 6. Councilmember Eyerly said that on Map 6, the. Chanproperty at Middle- field and Loma Verde was said to have been P-% at one time, he asked staff why it was now proposed to, be RM_2 Mr. Knox replied that about six years ago -Mr. -Eichler had some in for P- C (planned community) approval for thet corner. He had received, Mr. Knox thought, approval for four units, Mr. Eichler's appeal to have five units had been rejected by both Council and Plarnirg Comission. The four -unit P -C had not been developed, and the lot had become a "zero Mr. Zimmerman said that the lot size was irregular, about 9,950 square feet. Under RM--3 zone, rich Mr. Chan wanted, the yield would be about five units. Councilmember Eyerly noted that proposed. zoni g. for. the -adjacent property wxa-p-1; be did.not minl--leaving the'property at the -present zoning of R-2. Mayor Sher called.for.possible amendments on Nap 5. Counci lmember Eyerly said that near the Rim property, about ,which Ms. Riebe had spoken, there was much R -1 zoning with twolarge apartment complexes ileaT.he asked what would happen to the apart ants with the proposed R-1 zoeiog.. Would they be able to -mild .if .there -was a fire? Mr. Green .said .the.lots were presently zoned R-3 and so the .apartments were legally conforming, and could continue in existence, and could be replaced, within the soma dimensions,- by the owners. Mayor Sher asked for possible amendments on Map 4. Councileerber Eyerly referred to the property at 440 Pepper street, owned by Mr. Froth, with R-1 designation. Councilmember Eyerly said that he thought the concrete bui1dire would :ergo amortization, which, if Mr. Fruth requested, could be requested to be matte conforming, and would then have a life of 35 years. He asked if that were the case. 983 6/6178 Mr. Green replied that the property was presently conforming, he believed. If the property were re -zoned R-1 Mr. Frut'm would be eligible to apply for an exception, to have the hearinj in two years, and, without an exception, he would still have 35 years in which to amortize. 1 e 1 Councilmember Eyerly asked if there were other properties similar to the one at 440 Pepper. Mr. Knox said there were a few other such properties, which had been originally built as residences; about 75 percent of the houses were single-family, and one house, on Olive, was a City rehabilitation project. During Comprehensive Plan hearings neighbors in the area had expressed the wish that it remain as it was. During zoning hearings no residents had appeared, but some owners with commercial activities, had appeared to make sure they were not affected by proposed zoning changes. Councilmember Eyerly said he trusted people in the area would not be phased out if their buildings were similar to Mr. Fruth's, so that they could get full value out of their properties. Mayor Sher said the compatibility test gave some assurance of not being amortized, also, if it could be shown that both use and building were compatible with the newly adopted zone. Coun:ilmfinember Henderson referred to the property at 121 Santa Rita, about which Mr. Fourcroy had spoken, and for which he requested R-2 zoning. One of the lots, Lot 29, had a triplex at present, and other nearby properties were zoi .d RM-2. Councilmember Henderson said he would suggest zoning that corner R-2, for none of the lots were large enough for a duplex. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Henderson moved, seconded by Eyerly, that lots 102, 115, 121 and 129 Santa Rita, and 2065 Alma, be changed from R-1 to R-2 zoning. Vice Mayor Brenner asked if the stated footage of 7500 square feet was the minimum size for an R-2 lot. Mr. Knox answered that the minimum lot size fce. an R-2 lot was now 8000 square feet; staff had recommended that it be dropped to 7500 square feet. Vice Mayor Brenner pointed out that the dimensions of the other three lots were smaller, though she thought 121 and 129 Santa Rita might be completely suitable for R-2. Councilmember Henderson said that he knew.t a dimensions of the other three were smaller; he was only favoring s clean- line down Santa Rita, and he sew no harm in that. Vlce.Mayor Brenner said that one advantage of "a clean line" might be for the tax assessor --perhaps the* other two lots had no intention of using the R-2 zoning for additional building. Mr. Knox said he saw no disadvantage "...to making just a few properties R-2." Councilmember Henderson said that with the penal ss i on of his second he would change his motion to having just 121 and 129 Santa Rita being zoned R-2. Councilmember,Fletcher asked why just the corner had been R -l.. 984 6/8/78 Mr. Knox answered.that maps and records showed that the area was single- family; the triplex was not zoned as such. Mayor Sher asked .if the three .units .on 129 Santa Rita , should they have been built legally, would have to be amortized. Mr. Knox said they would not have to be amortized because "...lawful, conforming, permitting uses will be grandfathered in." Mayor Sher.asked.Mr. Fourcray-if he knew if the three units were legal. Councilmember Henderson said there were many exceptions to the R-1 in the area. He thought allowing duplexes onthe subjecttwo lots was reasonable, though he did not want to add any more anywhere else in the area. Mayor Sher said.that if the records showed R-l.he did not feel so compelled to re -zone to R-2. Councilmember Henderson -outlined on the map other areas nearby which had been zoned R-2 bet now held only'single-family homes. Mayor Sher said that he could vote in favor bf the amendment "...if there are, indeed, even two legal units on 129 (Santa Rita).:' Mr. Fourcrov said that them were three tunny et ."9 Santa Rita and from their appearance they were "...not -the kind that could have been gerrymandered in without a building permit.," It might be verified before the second reading of the ordinance, by -the Building Depertn nt. Mayor Sher said he would vote in favor of the amendment; if it was determined that there was "something wrong then we can go back and erase it." AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment des i gnati nag .121. and .129 Santa Rita as R-2 passed on a unanimous vote, Councilors Carey, Clay and Witherspoon absent. Councilmember Eyerly asked about 2640 Middlefield, for which Mr. fourcroy had asked RM-3 zoning. As he recalled they had originally been R -3-P, which he thought would allow three or foer units. Since 2640 was next to CM it would be logical to permit.a few units. George Zimmerman, Planning Department, -said that both 2620 and 2640 Middlefield were irregularly.shaped, about 6,600 square feet each. Councilmember Eyerly concluded that .an.RM-2 would.give-at least two units at 2640 Middlefield. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Eyerly moved that the property at 2640 Middle- field be zoned RBI -2. The amendment died for.lack of a second. Mayor Sher called for possible amendments on Map 3. Counci l imber Eyerly - ref,srred to a -letter written by John . Howard. 739 Colorado. about -that, property. He had asked for R -2-M. Mr. Knox said the old zone of R-2 was multi-fre ily, allowing up to 20 units per acre. Mr. Howard . was requesting the new R-2, which wou l d permit a duplex. The area was single -family -at present; a duplex would be in order if the lot was large enough. 985 6/6/78 Councilmember Eyarly.said the lot. abutted Crocker Bank; some of the houses "are not in good shape; I. think an R-2 zone would encourage probably a re -development of some of those and give.a better appearance on that side of the street." AMENDMENT: Councilmember Eyerly.moved,.seconded by Henderson, that properties at 739-723 Colorado be•re-zoned R-2. Councilmember Henderson said he did not think any of the subject lots were large enough for duplexes. Mr. Knox said that the three lots south of 739.were large enough for duplexes; those west of 739, toward Middlefield, were not large enough. He thought that perhaps with time some of the smaller lots might be subdivided; Mr. Howard's lot could be zoned R-2, and that would be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Fletcher said she could favor re-zoning.739 Colorado, but just because there was more density in the area she did not favor bringing about more by rezoning the other lots. The present row of houses provided less.expensive housing, and if it were re -zoned it would have increased taxes; she was very much opposed to -give, the temptation to tear it down and put up more expensive housing. Vice Mayor Brenner. said -she would. be disinclined re -zone the suggested area, but she would be inclined to respond to individual requests for re -zoning. Councilmember Eyerly changed his amendment and obtained his second's agreement, to re -zone only 739 Colorado Avenue to R-2. AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment passed -on a unanimous vote, Counci 1mem- bers Carey, Clay -and Witherspoon absent. Mayor Sher called for possible amendments on Map 2; thcre being none he moved to Map 1, for which there also were no amendments. He said that the main motion as amended was now before Council. MAIN MOTION AS. AMENDED PASSED: The main motion, that Council adopt the ordinance for first reading as recommended by the Planning Commission, in the forms of Maps 1-14, along with a finding that the adoption of those maps is required by the public interest, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare; and_a further finding.that-the adoption of the zoning map will not - bave -any . sf gni fi cant ,adverse envi rorm enta 1 impacts, a d.t at.any potential adverse impacts have been adequately rmi tl gated by reason of the Implementation of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by the proposed new zoning ordinance, and with all of the foregoing amendments incorporated, passed on a unanimous -vote, Counci ih +nbers Carey, Clay and Witherspoon absent. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (First Reading) MOTION: Mayor Sher introduced the fol l awl ng . ordi nancw, as Muted ted to the City Attorney's memorandum of June 1, 1978, and, seconded by iszzino, :Roved its -adoption by Council' for first readin : ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.20.OF:THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TRANSFEk4106 SIGN REGULATIONS FROM TITLE 18 TO TITLE 16 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE. (First Reading) 986 6/5/78 MOTION PASSED: The ordinance was approved for first reading on a unanimous vote, Counciimembers Carey, Clay and Witherspoon absent. CLEAN-UP REGULATIONS NOTED IN ON MEMORANDUM Mayor Sher said that the Planning Commission recommendation of June 2, 1978 detailed several unanimously adopted matters, making insubstantial "clean-up" changes in the zoning ordinance. Council hard received, along with the recommended clean-up, an .excerpt from the Planning Commission minutes giving the contexts in which the matters had been dealt with. MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Brenner, that Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to amend the zoning ordinance to reflect the clean-up changes. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 12.08.060 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTHS (First Reading) ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3048 MODIFYING. CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18 OF THE PALO AttTO MUNICIPAL rnnr vVV L (First Reading) Mayor Sher said that a member of the public who had wished to speak during the regular Council meeting of June 5 on the zoning ordinance had been told that he would be given an opportunity to speak during the portion of the meting deal irq with clean-up matters. He asked if George Thenn, 361 Lytton Avenues was present to speak at this time. Mr. Them. did not respond. MOT:ON PASSED: The motion and the ordin.nces for first reading passed on a unanimous vote, Councilwenbers Carey, Clay and Witherspoon absent. Mayor Sher expressed pleasure that the complicated subject of zoning had been dealt with efficiently by both public and Council, and the Planning Commission, who had given the matter a great deal of attention, along with members of staff. Vice Mayer Brenner echoed Mayor Sher's praise, and emphasized her approval of the good job the Planning Commission had done. Councilor Fletcher asked that a sumarized index be drawn to attach to the front of the zoning ordinance, giving short definitions for all the initials, so that varieus classifications could be found more easily. She felt the Table of Contents was somewhat too technical. Chairwoman Anne Steinberg of the Planning Commission commended Assistant City Attorney Lou Green for his praiseworthy work, and Mayor Sher agreed that he had been a very great help. Counciluber Henderson added his praise. Vice Mayor Brenner said that an additional concern regarding zoning was that many of the older P -C's had conditions written into their use permits; the new zoning ordinance did not hove a use process. She felt a statement shoold be written into the P -C ordinance saying that old P -C's would continue to be subject to all former P -C ordi:eances. Such wording would be a help to subsequent administration. She asked that such wording be included in the new ordinance. 987 6/6/78 CONTINUANCE OF.CONSIDERATION Mayor Sher said that Councilmember Carey -had asked that the matter of the lease on the Arastra property be continued to the next regular Council meeting. MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, -seconded by.Eyerly, that the matter rf the lease for -the Arastra property be continued to the June 14, 1978, meeting, as unfinished business. The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmembers Carey, Clay and Witherspoon absent. COUNCILHEMBER FLETCHER RE L C Counci lmc nber Fletcher. said -County Supervisor Di radon -felt that Santa Clara Ccunty representation on Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) should be increased to be prcportionate to the population level which was about 1 million. Hr proposed that Santa Clara County be represented, by five votes on MIC, so thst the County would receive more equitable consideration. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Sher, that Council authorize the mayor to write Supervisor Rod Diridon in support of the proposed increased representation on MTC. The motion passed on a unanimous.vote,_Councilmembers Carey, Clay and Witherspoon absent. Counci lmeinber. Fazzinoleft the meeting at 9:55 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert Moss, 4010 Orme, added his congratulations to Council, Planning Commission and staff for the fine Job on the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance and maps.. He thought all had done their work with dedication and skill. He commended Council foe the attention it had paid to public input at the regular Council meeting of June 5, 1978, particularly on Map 11. He thought properties and people -of Barron Park had been generally treated -with consideration. He said he had spent many absorbing Wednesday nights at zoning meetings. NEXT. COUNCIL MEETING MOVED .TO WEDNESDAY JUNE 14, 1978 Mayor -Sher reminded. Counci lmembers and public that the next scheduled regular Council meeting, during which the budget would be disc 4ssed , had been rescheduled for Wednesday, June 14, 1978. AWOURNMENT MOTION: _ Councilmember Henderson -moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council adjourn. The notion pasted on a unanimous.vote, Councilmembers s Carey, Clay, Fazziao and Witherspoon absent. Council adjourned .art 10:00 p.m. APPROVE: /note, J 988 6/8/78