HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-02 City Council (12)TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:NOVEMBER 2, 1998 CMR:414:98
SUBJECT:PLANNING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED
INCENTIVES AND BENEFITS FOR THE PROPOSED HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council review the preliminary listing of incentives and benefits
developed by the Planning Commission (Attachment A) and provide direction as to which
incentives and benefits should be further considered as a part of the~drafting of the proposed
permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
Palo Alto’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 16.49, PaloAlto Municipal Code) and
the Historic Inventory were initially adopted in 1979 and have undergone only minor
revisions and additions in intervening years., In June 1996, the City Council approv~d-a
Work Program for revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Inventory.
On October 28, 1996, the Council adopted an Interim Ordinance and has extended the~
Interim Ordinance on several occasions to remain in effect untilMarch 31, 1999. The intent
of the Interim Ordinance was to allow consultants to develop the Historic Inventory and to
allow City staff to complete the drafting of revisions to the permanent Historic Preservation
Ordinance. On July 13, 1998, during discussion of the proposed extension to the Interim
Ordinance, City Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to create a
proposed incentive program to be included in the permanent Historic Preservation Ordiiaance.
In addition, City Council, on July 13, 1998, directed staffto report back in fall 1998 on the
progress made on the development of incentives.
The Planning Commission (Commission) held seven public forums. The Commission
conducted preliminary discussions at its July 29, 1998 meeting. On August 12 and 26, and
September 9 and 30, the Commission completed further review in a "study session" format
CMR:414:98 Page 1 of 7
to allow more interaction from the public and other interested parties. The Commission held
two special meetings on October 14 and 28 and recommended a finalized listing of incentives
and benefits to be included in the permanent Historic Ordinance. The minutes of the October
14, 1998 meeting are attached (Attachment B). The minutes of the October 28, 1998 meeting
are not included due to the due to time constraints.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
To assist the Planning Commission, staff prepared a worksheet matrix listing numerous
proposed incentives and benefits.
This matrix is divided into five categories (columns) that include the following (see
Attachment C):
Column
1
2
3
4
5
Title.
Listing of the available incentive/benefit and brief explanation.
Identified options, questions and issues relative to the implementation
of each incentive/benefit.
Planning Commission and staff listing of options to be discussed for
each incentive/benefit. Items noted in "bold" indicate staff
recommendations.
Applicable 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan programs and policies that
support the proposed incentive/benefit.
This section identifies those incentives/benefits that will be applicable
only to properties included on the final Historic Inventory.
Attachment C identifies a list of twenty-six potential incentives/benefits. This listing was
assembled from previous- staff reports forwarded to City Council in February 1998
identifying a preliminary listing of incentives. Additional incentives/benefits were included
as a result of the meetings the Ombudsperson conducted with the public, historic
homeowners, developers, etc.; correspondence received from interested parties; and input
from the seven public meetings/study sessions.
The twenty-six items identified are divided into five distinct areas:
.Development exceptions;
¯Development review process improvements;
¯Fees;
¯Technical assistance; and,
,Others.
The Commission reviewed each of the twenty-six items, and as a result of its discussion, a
total of twenty-two, incentives and benefits-were identified for possible inclusion into the
permanent Historic Preservation Ordinance. The reduction in the number resulted in the
CMR:414:98 Page 2 of 7
consolidation and deletion of various benefits. Attachment A is the Commission’s detailed
recommendation and options for the implementation of each incentive/benefit.
Applicable to Historic Properties on Historic Inventory..
Throughout the discussion of the twenty-six incentives/benefits, the Commission had a
considerable amount of discussion concerning the applicability of the incentives/benefits to
the categories of Landmarks and Significant Resource and whether there would be
mandatory or voluntary compliance. When the City Council provided policy direction
regarding the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance in March 1998, it directed that the
permanent Ordinance should require mandatory compliance for residences in both the
proposed Landmark and Significant Resources categories. The Commission considered the
relative value of various incentive/benefit proposals to the property owners who could choose
whether or not to preserve their structures and, alternatively, to owners who were required
to comply with preservation standards. The Commission determined that utilization of the
incentives/benefits will assist those who voluntarily comply and those who are required to
comply.
Development Exceptions
The Commission recommended a total of seven development exceptions as
incentives/benefits. It recommended consolidation of floor area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage
into one incentive. Two of the-seven development exception incentives (Incentives l~and 2
on Attachment A) were identified as "significant incentives" in the following priority: 1)
allowances for increases in FAR; and 2) relaxation of the setback/daylight plane
~requirements. FAR was determined to be the most significant or noteworthy development
exception. The Commission recommended up toa 15 percent increase in allowable FAR up
to a maximum of 500 square feet,~.including a recommendation that the proposed
modification and addition, although assumed ~to be granted as a "use-by-right," be required
to undergo design review and Home Improvement Exception .(HIE) and/or Design
Enhancement Exception (DEE) review.and approval by the Historic Resources Board (HRB).
This design review is intended to insure that any increase in FAR preserves the historic
integrity of the building and fits into the context of the neighborhood. The Commission also
recommended that a transfer of development rights program be examined where the impacts
of such transfers would be minimal.
The Commission noted the development exceptions are the core of potential
incentives/benefits that historic property owners will have available. It also recognized that
not all of the options will be available to each homeowner given the unique characteristics
of historic structures. The Commission concluded that the list of the development exceptions
is a "tool kit" that is available to historic property owners as a whole but applicability will
vary from property to property.
Development Review Process Improvements
CMR:414:98 Page 3 of 7
The Commission recommended staff review of minor projects; maintaining the flexibility
to define a minor project; allowing the HRB (in lieu of the Zoning Administrator) to decide
HIE’s and DEE’s; and continuing the current Code requirements that multi-family/non-
residential properties undergo both HRB and Architectural Review Board review and
approval.
Fees
The Commission agreed with staff and recommended no fees be assessed for the review of
historic properties with the exception of property owners desiring a demolition permit.
Technical Assistance
The Commission recommended staff provide and distribute information on the programs
listed and facilitate various improvements to help the public and community in understanding
the programs that are available. The Commission spent a considerable amount of time
discussing the State Historical Building Code (SHBC). The SHBC program is presently
mandated and is being used by several historic property owners. The Commission
recommended staff continue to utilize the SHBC program and improve the distribution of
information to the public, historic homeowners, developers, builders, architects, etc.
Other Items
The Planning Commission had considerable discussion on regarding the use Mills Act
contracts. The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) attended two meetings and
indicated-strong opposition to the use of the Mills Act contracts unless the PAUSD was
reimbursed for lost revenue. PAUSD believes there is a significant reduction in property tax
revenues to the School District. Consequently, PAUSD requested the City Council "backfill"
the lost PAUSD revenues if this incentive is provided. Representatives indicated the PAUSD
would be forwarding a resolution at a future date indicating its concerns.
The Commission requested that PAUSD staffprovide the potential fiscal impacts. PAUSD
staff provided an estimate based upon the two properties in Palo Alto with Mills Act
contracts, 900 University and 4145 Old Adobe Road (see Attachment D). The Commission
had overall concerns about the impact that Mills Act contracts could have on the PAUSD and
recommended that, if used, the Mills Act should be rarely employed and utilized only to
preserve a structure that would not otherwise be preserved. The Commission recommended
very restrictive criteria be utilized for the sole purpose of preserving a significant historic
resource.
REVIEW BY HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
On October 21, 1998, the Historic Preservation Incentives/Benefits Matrix was provided to
the Historic Resources Board for discussion and input. Although the Planning Commission
had not completed its discussion of the incentives/benefits, it had completed consideration
of seven of the twenty-six identified incentives/benefits.
CMR:414:98 Page 4 of 7
The HRB was supportive of the Planning Commission efforts and recommendations. It
offered the following general comments:
o The application of the incentives should be relatively simple and clear.
¯Language should be added to each incentive or perhaps to the final ordinance that
stipulated that these incentives would only apply if the project met the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and if the project was determined to be
compatible with its surrounding neighborhood.
°If there is a voluntary compliance environment, receiving any orall of the potential
incentives/benefits should be related to some commitment on the part of the property
owner to preserve and maintain the historic property in the future.
The HRB also forwarded the following specific comments on each of the listed incentives
(Note: the numbers below correspond to the numbers of Attachment A):
1.FAR:
o
21.
22.
Because "bonus" FAR may not be compatible with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards, the Board felt that the term "use by right" should not be
used in the final set of incentives or in the final ordinance.
o-The Board felt that the basement portion of this incentive should be separated
from the FAR bonus portion.
o The term "flexibility in basement design" should be defined.
Lot Coverage:- ~ ..... ~ ......
¯ The Board was in agreement with Planning Commission recommendation.
Second Dwelling Units:
The Variance, HIE orexception process should allow for approval of second
units larger that 900 square feet; the only limit would be EAR.
o The second unit should be constructed so as not to obscure the visibility of the
existing historic residence from the adjoining public right of way
Subdivisions:
° The Board was. split on the issue of flag lots. Several Board members felt that
flag lot configurations were not a historic lot pattern and should not be used
while others felt that this option gave more flexibility to owners of historic
properties.
Parking:
° Two Board members commented that allowing tandem parking was
problematic and could detract from historic neighborhood parking patterns.
District modifications:
° The Board was in agreement with Planning Commission recommendation.
Mills Act Contracts:
° The Board agreed with the Commission, but felt that the use of the Mills Act
should still be a limited option in unusual.situations where other incentives
could not apply.
CMR:414:98 Page 5 of 7
One Board member felt that if the Act is used, the PAUSD should be
compensated for any financial losses.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Resource impacts will be assessed as incentives are finalized as a part of the Municipal Code
changes or changes in other Planning Department programs.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Please refer to the matrix under applicable 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan criteria for a
listing of those policies and programs that are applicable to each incentive.
TIMELINE
Council-approved inCentives/benefits will be included in the consideration of the permanent
Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Historic Resources Board will conduct public
workshops and public hearings and additional hearing(s) before the Planning Commission
discussion on incentives/benefits occurs, in the context of the proposed Historic Preservation
Ordinance. Therefore, additional opportunities will be provided to comment and to secure
additional public input on the final listing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Development of a listof possible incentives is not a project under CEQA. There will be
CEQA review Conducted for the draft permanent ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Planning Commission Recommendation of Historic Preservation
Incentives/Benefits
October 14, 1998Planning Commission minutes
Historic Preservation Incentives/Benefits Matrix
PAUSD memorandum dated October 14, 1998
PREPARED BY:Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
7~ G. EDWARD
Director Community Environment
CMR:414:98 Page 6 of 7
PROJECT COORDINATOR:
EMILY
Assistant City
SON
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Planning Commission
Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage
Palo Alto Historical Association
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Palo Alto Board of Realtors
Palo Alto Unified School District
Barron Park Association
College Terrace Residents Association
Crescent Park Neighborhood Association
Community Center Neighbors Association
Downtown North Neighborhood Association
Midtown Residents Association
Palo Verde Neighborhood Association
Ramona Homeowners Association
University Park Association
University South Neighborhoods Group
Ventura Neighborhood Association
John Paul Hanna
Palo Alto Homeowners Association
George Zimmerman
Architectural Resources Group
Origins Design Network
Carol Harrington
Norman Beamer
Monica Yeung-Amariko
CMR:414:98 Page 7 of 7
/’~LLct~I II I I~IIL ~=~
Planning Commission Recommendations on Historic Preservation Incentives/Benefits
(Options 1 and 2 (shaded options} were recommended as the most significant incentives/benefits to historic property owners./
1.Floor area rat o (FAR)1 : Recommended increases up to
and ot coverage.I maximum of 500 square feet; asa use-by~nght’. However; the p~opose
I addition, modificat on etc. is required to U~dergo design review ~nd HIE
and/or DEE review and appro~. Increases in FAR ~e subject tO but not¯
I I I mited to the follow ng cdteria:
I I a Not counting the ~x sting basements or new basementsthat dO not
I :I : resultin th~ ~louse bein~ rai~ed; so~ion’g as any grade cha~ge at the¯I I base of the structure is mi~i~aland is consistent with the historical
I I-: appearance of the struCture,~or existing attics or:unfinished Spaces
; tt~t do not resultin exterior changes to the structure, (Staffto further
I ::I research)" ....
I I. b; : Allow flexibility in basement design.
I I Recommended floor area ratio (FAR) would be a betterto0 to reg,!ate lot
I I overage ,iiistruCtedstafftO,;co~pie~efurtSera~aly~is(testca~es) upOn:-
-I;!receipt bfhi todc profii~ (inventory list) fo~ eachof ;the
-I I~- ~--¯scen~ri°s:
-!1 ’: I a. Aiow for in sed !6t c0V~i;age t650%~orma~ y~rd aa~ition~f ~}r"-
" I ;:," :~ I ..... existing h st0ri~re~idenceS~(R~lz0ningiS 35%).
: I :I b: Allow i~creasedlot overage to 40% With
I ’".....i ¯ ! p0rches’~°verhangs’ etc~
I~"~i "- Recommended staff research the transfer_ f
" 1~- fr0m hiStoriC properties. Suggested-receive~site~ould
Subdivision/lot line
adjustments/
mergers.
Permit subdivision/lot line adjustments/mergers subject to but not limited to
the following criteria:
a. Allow the creation of smaller lots consistent with the historic pattern of
neighborhood.
b. Allow for the creation of a flag lots if not inconsistent with historic pattern
of the neighborhood, but prohibit second story additions on new flag lots.
c. Allow standard and substandard lots to frorit on alleys.
d. Allow vehicular access from alley.
e. Allow non-conformities (lots and structures) to be created.
Parking requirement
reductions.
Permit reductions in parking requirements subject to but not limited to the
following criteria:
a. Permit one parking space for single family residence.
b. Modify/reduce parking requirement for multiple family structures with a
minimum of one space per unit.
c. Allow for uncovered parking in driveways to satisfy required parking
regulations.
d. Allow detached garages with reduced setbacks off alleys. Staff will
propose minimum setback requirements.
e. Allow detached garages less than 75 feet from front property line or any
street side property line.
f.Allow garage conversions for permitted residential uses (as is permitted
in R-1 regulations).
g Allow tandem parking for two separate dwelling units on one property.
I. Allow on-street parking to satisfy requirements if ample parking is
available in surrounding area.
Relocation of historic
structures.
Allow relocation of historic structures with flexibility to include the following:
a. Relocation of Significant Resource structures offsite only to promote
preservation.
b. Strongly discourage offsite relocation of Landmark structures.
c. Allow relocation/movement of historic structures onsite.
d. Evaluate reduced setbacks/daylight plane via the HIE process.
e. Subject to Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.
Non-conforming uses
and structures.
Permit non-conforming uses and structures as follows:
a. Increase the time frame in which nonconformity can be vacant from 12
months to 24 months without losing grandfathered status.
b. Allow intensification of nonconforming use if needed to preserve historic
structures in nonresidential areas.
10.
Minor projects.
Home Improvement
Exceptions (HIE) and
Design Enhancement
Exceptions (DEE).
Multi-family/non-
residential properties.
a. Maintain flexibility in definition of minor projects.
b. Create a definition of "minor exterior alteration".
c. No noticing requirements. Allow staff to determine if courtesy noticing is
required.
a. Establish specific criteria (Secretary of Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation) applicable only to historic structures.
b. Both HIE and DEE should be reviewed and decided by HRB. (HRB
review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment for action would result in one public review).
c. Develop less burdensome HIE standard for the HRB to utilize.
Continue current Code requirements requiring both ARB and HRB review.
11.Exterior alterations.No fee. Total cost borne by City.
12. Demolition.a. 100% cost recovery.
b. Research fees charged to determine if increase is
warranted.
13.Applications for Home No fee. Total cost borne by City.
Improvement Exceptions
(HIE).
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
State Historical Building
Code (SHBC).
Use of Federal
Investment Tax
Program.
Low interest
rehabilitation loans.
Low interest or first time
buyer loans.
Architectural advice
19.Historic Preservation
Awards Program.
Recommended the continued implementation of the current program,
continued improvement of the distribution of information to the general
public, historic homeowners, developers, builders, architects, etc., increase
in training of personnel.
Recommended staff distribute and provide information to the general public,
historic homeowners, developers, builders, architects, etc. of the program.
Create a data base of information.
Recommended staff distribute and provide information to the general public,
historic homeowners, developers, builders, architects, etc. of the program.
Create a data base of information.
Recommended staff distribute and provide information to the general public,
historic homeowners, developers, builders, architects, etc. of the program.
Create a data base of information.
Recommended staff secure assistance in the creation and implementation of
the program from the private sector.
Recommended staff begin initiation of a Historic Preservation awards
program with recognition with the use of a plaque/public recognition by the
HRB. Secure assistance in the creation and implementation of the program
from the private sector.
20.Flood Regulations
exemption (PAMC
Chapter 16.52).
21.Districting modifications.
22.Mills Act Contracts
Staff is completing further research of this option and a recommendation will
be provided in the proposed Historic Preservation ordinance.
Directed staff to complete further research/evaluate the implementation of
incentives relative to the creation of overlays, or creation of zoning districts.
Staff will include the methodology of implementation of incentives in the
proposed Historic Preservation ordinance.
Department of Community Development and Environment
Division of Planning
October 29, 1998
Recommended the following:
a.If utilized, Mills Act should be very limited in use.
b.If A(~t preserves a structure that would not otherwise be preserved, it’s
use should be considered.
c.Criteria for use should be very restrictive to insure preservation of
historic structure is only purpose.
S:lPlanlPladivlHistoficlpcincent.fnl
3
~acnmen~ u
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
October 14, 1998
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Session called to order at 3:00 P.M.
Commissioners:
Owen Byrd, Chairman
Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair
Bern Beecham
Annette Bialson
Phyllis Cassel (absent)
Jon Schink
Patrick Burt~
Staff:
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Wynne Furth, Senior Attorney
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
George White, Planning Manager
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Amy French, Associate Planner
Chairman Byrd: I’d like to call this regular meeting of the Palo Alto Planning Commission to
order. WOuld the Secretary please call the roll. Six present.
The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications this is the portion of our meeting where
members of the public may speak to an item that is not on our agenda for up to three minutes per
speaker. Do we have anyone who wishes to address us in Oral Communications? Seeing none
we will move to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions. Again seeing none we will then
move to Unfinished Business. The item is a public hearing on Discussion and Recommendation
of Incentives and Benefits of the Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. Would Staff like to
introduce this item.
Mr. Eric Riel. Chief Planning Official: Staff recommends the Planning Commission complete its
review of the incentives and benefits for insertion in the Proposed Permanent Historic
Preservation Ordinance’and provide a f’malized recommended list of incentives :which are
reference in Attachment C in your packet. The Planning Commission has discussed this particular
issue on five separate occasions, two of those in a Public Hearing format, and the remaining three
in a Study Session format to allow interaction from the general public as well as other interested
parties. Attachment A in your packet was the first matrix that was prepared by Staff and was
essentially a working-in-progress draft. Attachment B in your packet is essentially a summary of
those issues that you reviewed at each of those sessions. Staff revised the format of the matrix
and included the information that was on the previous matrix. The intent was to have this matrix
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25-
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
go forward to the City Council and the HRB so they get an overall understanding. If you will
look at Attachment C I just briefly want to go over it. There are eight columns. Columns one,
two and five are identical to the previous matrix in terms of the terminology. Colunm three is a
listing of the Planning Commission and Staff’s .discussion/interaction on options available.
Column four obviously will be filled in upon completion of your discussion of each item.
Columns six, seven and eight are modifications done to that particular aspect of the chart
regarding landmark and significant resource being mandatory compliance and voluntary
compliance. That column ch.ange was done as a result of the Commission’s discussion at the last
meeting regarding whether or not these were incentives or benefits dependent upon whether it is.
mandatory or voluntary compliance in the significant resource category. So what we would like
the Commission to do this evening is focus in on column three.. I have prepared an incentive
summary list which you should have before you. We will have that on the overhead projector so
the general public can see it. It is five pages and it is the first bullet points of our discussion on
column three. Again, basically what is on this list is a summary of all issues that had been
discussed that were available. Staff has highlighted those in bold which are preferred options or
recommendations that Staff would recommend. I would also note that this particular agenda item
will be heard by the Historic Resource Board for their input next Wednesday, during the later part
of their agenda, at their regularly scheduled meeting. This will be considered by City Council
on November 2 of this year. That concludes Staff’s report.
~: Are there any question of Staff at this time? In reviewing the revised matrix that
Staff has created and perhaps even easier to view the Incentive Summary that we have before us,
I noted that Staff had, in a very helpful fashion, re-organized this and listed 14 development
exceptions, 5 incentive-based fee ideas, .the Mills Act and then these 6 technical assistance
programs. During our study session the six items that are identified as technical assistance, we
said at that time that those were interesting but not critically important to any incentive program.
That they really fell into the realm of public education/pub!ic information. So in working
backwards to define our task today, the first thing that I would like to suggest is that we can
presume that the technical assistance section is adequate and that we focus our attention on the
heart of the matter which is the development exceptions, the incentive-based fees and the Mills
Act. Is that acceptable to Commissioners? Okay. Our study session was purposefully informal
and we worked our way through a discussion on each of the incentives. We left outstanding the .
final recommendation on each incentive as well as a priority ranking of these incentives, as well
as the issue of whether or not these incentives would be applied in the same manner in a
mandatory or a voluntary environment. There are a number of different ways that we can now
begin to work through these and make motions and come to closure on this subject. I’d like to
ask the pleasure of the Commission. One option is to begin again at the top and work our way.
through these 14 development exceptions, narrowing down and defining what we want each of
their scope to be, and then going back and putting them in some sort of a rank order. As well as
distinguislfin, g, as we go, whether the exception should be defined differently for a voluntary or
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23.-
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
mandatory environment. Does that meet with everyone’s approval or does someone have a better
idea on process? Commissioner Beecham.
Commissioner Beecham: In doing that we may want to start in particular with Item 1, the second
dwelling unit, or Item 6 which is FAR. As we go on those I think that will provide a lot of
discussion for the other items and kind of a backdrop for setback discussions and things like that.
Also I understand there may be someone here from the school district who may have some
information for us. If that is the case we may want to take that item out of order, in order to
attain that information.
Chairman Byrd: That is a very good idea. Should we jump straight to Mills Act and deal with
it first for the convenience of our school district visitor?
Commissioner Schmidt: Just want to take another stab at a way of looking at this. As I look
through all the wealth of possible incentives that we’ve put together it seemed to me that only a
handful are real incentives if there is some sort of voluntary choice. A lot of things could be
categorized as just procedural things that we should do anyway or benefits that go with this. So
we might look at them in that respect instead of exactly ranking 1-20. Let’s say that only half a
dozen or so are actual incentives..Another thought is that we’ve talked about the idea of hoping
to come up with a simple concept for this..A simple concept might be to identify one or two
major incentives that could be available simply and then the vast majority becomes a tool kit that
is used when working with Staff, architects or used as a review procedure to go through and say
what’s appropriate for each particular historic situation.
17.,]lah3]l~II_]~: Why don’t we return to that thought both at the beginning of our discussion of
development exceptions and after _we’ve worked through them all at the end as we lay to organize
them. In fact I think Bern’s suggestion that we pick off one or two that initially appear most
important to us is a good one. Before we start with FAR and gecond dwelling units, although my
gut feeling is like yours that those are the two biggies, let’s poll ourselves and see if among the
14 there are two to five that are most important and deal with those first. With the Commission’s
permission I would like to jump forward and address the Mills Act Contract issue first. I would
invite any speaker who is here representing the school district to address us on this subject at this
time, Please state your name for the record. ~
Dr. Bob Golton. Business Manager~ Palo Alto Unified School District: Thank you for the
courtesy. This is a follow up to the previous meeting. There was a question asked and also I
want to provide you with information on the two current Mills Act properties. First as it relates
to the percentage of your property taxes that go to the schools, it varies from 39.7% to 49.2%
currently. There are 41 tax rate areas in Palo Alto Unified School District and this percentage
varies from area to area. Secondly there are two Mills Act properties in the district. The first
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
.33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
is located at 900 University and the second at 4145 (sometimes known as 4245) Old Adobe Road.
In the case of the first property, we have information from the assessors office that provides us
with a saving to the property owner of $16,900 a year. We also have information from the
County that the T.RA (Tax Rate Area) in which the property is located has 45.61% of its taxes
allocated to the school district. This results in an annual loss of $7,700 to our district. If one
wants to put it in material terms as opposed to dollar terms, this particular property is located in
the Addison attendance area, this $7,700 would allow us to provide five new computers to
Addison each year, or stepping ourselves through doing a classroom each year, providing five
new computers to that classroom. The second property, doing a similar kind of calculation, it
results in a loss of $3,780 to the school district. That particular property is located in the Nixon
attendance area. These funds would allow us to buy approximately 300 library books each year.
for the library at Nixon School. We continue to recommend or reque.st that the Mills Act not be
recommended as an incentive or a benefit.
.~: Mr. Golton, or perhaps to Planning Staff, my memory was that Staff identified
three properties in Palo Alto currently under Mills Act Contract, am I wrong?
Mr. George White: I think the confusion stemmed from the fact there are two existing Mills Act
Contracts in place and there is one Mills Act Contract pending.
Other questions forMr. Golton? Commissioner Schink.
Commissioner Schink: Actually I think my. question is more for the Planning Staff. Could you
again describe how the Mills Act works? Or maybe someone in the audience understands it.
From the way this is described the In’st example implies that the assessed value is established
entirely because the property is in the Mills Act. I th6ught the.Mills Act referred to no increasing
the basis or does it actually roll the basis all the way back to some previous figure? I see Gall
Woolley is in the audience, she is shaking her head like maybe she can answer the question if
Staff can’t. How is it calculated.
.~: As Ms. Woolley approaches, I neglected at the beginning of this hearing to
advise the members of the public that we want to encourage public participation in this. Rather
than having all the comment at the beginning and then we talk about all of the incentives that there
will be an opportunity for public communication as we discuss each possible incentive.
Ms. Gail Woolley: Jon, the formula is extremely complicated and I have never been able to
figure it out but I can tell you that in practical terms it doesn’t have anything really to do with the
basis or anything like that. It simply is an agreement between the assessor and the owner of the
property and the City, a three-way agreement., to arrive at some very significant reduction. I
know that in the case of the [-Brionis] property it is about a 75 %. forgiveness. It is very healthy.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Schink: So it is basically the decision-makers in the process can decide whatever.
Ms. Woolley: Not that. There is a real formula but it is extremely complicated.
Commissioner Schink: That you.
..Commissioner Beecham: That was pretty much my concern too so what I want to confwrn is that
by using the Mills Act the property at 900 University, its tax rate was cut by about 95 %. The
other example was cut, it says here, by 82 % because of the Mills Act. Is that correct?
¯Mr. White: That is Staff’s understanding from the data that the school district has provided.
These were not checked independently of this.
Dr. Golton: Yes, and further this information came at our request from the Assessors Office.
We didn’t do an independent analysis on this. I think that statement is accurate, this is an
extremely complicated calculation. In my conversations with some members of the Assessor’s
staff; they feel as if this is, I guess the accurate word is that they might perhaps prefer that this
calculation turn out in a different way. My understanding is that it’s based on the rental value of
the property. As you might imagine, single family house’s rental value probably isn’t going to
be same as the value to a homeowner. This is all anecdotal. If you want further information on
the Mills Act I have an extensive write-up back in my office that I could provide you but my
understanding is the calculations are very complicated indeed.
Chairman Byrd: The Staff recommendation based on our study session discussion of the Mills
Act is in three parts. One if it is utilized at all it should be very limited in use. Second, that if
the Act preserves an historic stru6ture that would not otherwise be preserved, that is an
appropriate use. The third criteria for the use should be very restrictive to insure that preservation
is its only purpose. Do any Commission Members have comments on the Staff. recommendation?
Commissioner Schink: Just a question for Staff. What do they mean "very restrictive to ensure
preservation of the structure is the only purpose"?
Mr. Riel: The discussion we had at the last meeting was not really its only purpose but its last
resort in terms of an incentive available to a possible structure. So that is probably mis-worded.
Commissioner Burt: How would these proposed criteria have rendered decisions on the properties
that we either already have under the Mills Act or the ones under consideration?
Mr. White: Could you repeat the question?
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
¯27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
CommisSioner Burt: We have two current properties under the Mills Act and one or two others
under consideration right now. If we were to use these criteria, that you are proposing, how
would those properties have been judged or would they be judged? Would there be a difference
from our current criteria?
Mr. White: I can’t speak to whether there would have been a difference for the existing Mills Act
Contracts because I wasn’t here when that was discussed. However I can tell you that for the 420
Maple Mills Act application that is pending, the Council specifically asked for this sort of
discussion to take place and that any criteria that was developed would be applied.
Commissioner Burt: Maybe I can ask it slightly differently then. Are these proposed criteria
different from what we’ve historically used as criteria?
Mr. White: I think they are generally the same. These are pretty broad kinds of criteria that are
listed here. I think the specifics would have to be fleshed out.
.~: Let me offer an alternative in order to contrast with these three. An alternative
to this set of recommendations would be that we should, in general, not use Mills Act Contracts
to pursue preservation because we .have lots of other tools in our tool kit and Mills Act Contracts
compromise fundii~g for local government, particularly the school district.
Commissioner Burt: Well then perhaps another way we could look at this Mills Act and whether
it is warranted would be after we come up with our list of criterion and really then determine if
there is any need for use of the Mills Act with. the other incentives that we might come up with
this evening.
.~llit]~l_l~: My only fear with that approach is we could take i~ with all of the incentives and
as we go we’re going to have to make a final recommendation on each one. Remember that this
is not our last bite of the apple. The package of incentives will be cycled back through the
Commission after Council takes a look at it. I would prefer as we go, to come to closure on each
possible incentive even this one, if we can.
Commissioner Beecham: I do recommend that we simply not do the Mills Act as an historic
preservation tool. The reason for that is partially philosophical and partially practical.’ The
philosophical part. is that it is the community at large and the neighborhood in particular that will
benefit from saving any particular home. The school district really has no role in that. No
particular benefit applies to the school district. In that sense I think it is unfair to have them suffer
a burden for it. The practical part, at this point, is that so far I don’t understand at all how this
is applied, how the formula is made, who made it, and who applies it. ¯If it is applied by the Tax
Assessor’s Office that is outside our scope and our control. If we want to go in and use this as
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
a tool I’d like to have the control here in the City and it doesn’t seem that that is the case. So
based on those two reasons I recommend that we exclude this from further consideration here.
Chairman Byrd: Other comments. Kathy?
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with both Bern and Owen that I would like to not use the Mills
Act as an incentive here for the kinds of reasons that Bern has elaborated. I just had a question
then. If we recommend this and the Council agrees to it does that mean that the Mills Act cannot
be used for anything in the City? Is it a state law and we have to be able to offer that for
something? Or is it a separate issue because it is potentially part of an incentive?
Wynne Furth, Senior Attorney: It is a local option. The power to do it is created by the state
because it involves multiple agencies. The state created the original outlines of the formula which
is a multiplier of income. I think the state maybe even picked the multiplier factor but of course
it is the local assessor who decides what the income is that is going to be multiplied tO give you
the value of the property that is substituted. So if the City passes an ordinance binding its own
hands and saying that it will not use it, it would have to amend that ordinance before it could use
it again. The other thing to keep in mind is that these are ten year rolling contracts, a Mills Act
decision is not a decision forever.
Chairman Byrd: If we recommend and the Council adopts a new policy in town that Mills Act.
contracts should not be entered into I presume that means that when the two current contracts are
up for renewal, they cannot be renewed or they can apply again?
Ms. Furth: No, it depends entirely .on what your instructions are. Those are agreements that
were m~ide :and by their own terms. They are like the Williamson Act they automatically extend
unless somebody elects not to, either the property owner no longer wants to comply with the
covenants or the City no longer wishes to provide that tax incentive. Incidentally I have not
reviewed the. previous ones. I don’t know what kinds of commitments or understandings there
may have been at the time they were given.
Commissioner Schink: I think that going back to our original charge and that was to come up
with some strong incentives for historic preservation and if we look at this from that perspective
I think we can conclude that this is not a strong incentive. It is complicated, burdensome
incentive that has a lot of problems to go with it and it doesn’t really get at the problem we’re
trying to address. I don’t think we should recommend the City change its current position on the
Mills Act. We should just come forward now and say this isn.’t gong to solve a lot of problems,
it is not going to be a lot of help to people, the City might want to leave it in their tool kit but it
should be off the table as far as the incentives that we’re looking at.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Bialson: I have to agree with Jon on that. I think that is the best approach for us
to take and probably the most efficient one.
Chairman Byrd: I’ve heard two approaches. One .is sort of leave City policy as is, the other is
make a statement that City policy on Mills Act Contracts should become more restrictive.. I think
we are going to have to do motions on each of these incentives as we go to bring them to closure.
So Bern would you try a motion?
Commissioner Beecham: I move that we recommend to Council that the City policy be modified
to delete offering and delete use of Mills Contracts as an incentirve towards preservation.
Chairman Byrd: Is there a second?
Commissioner Schmidt: Second.
Chairman Byrd:. Any discussion? All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? (nos) 3-3. That motion
fails. Is there another motion?
Commissioner Schink: I would move that we table discussion of the Mills Act as a possible
incentive .being suggested by the Planning Commission.
~,,h~lLl~!~: Not just l~ave City policy as is?
Commissioner Schink: That effectively leaves City policy as is. We just say the Planning
Commission makes no recommendation on use of the Mills Act as an incentive. Thereby it stays
in the City’s tool kit if a good idea comesforward in, the future where it applies, f’ine,but for right
now we don’t change it.
~: Is there a second?
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
.~.h~i!~alL]~: There is a second. Any discussion? Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: The question I have is, is Phyllis going to be with us later today?
~: I don’t know.
Commissioner Schink: You want Phyllis to come break the tie?
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
20
21
22
_.23
24
25.
26
. 27
28
29
30
.31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Beecham: We’d have a clear motion going to the Council which would be useful.
Alternative to that is if you would make a motion for Staff recommendation which I think is what
you were doing, I would support passing it since my motion failed.
.Commissioner Schink: I was leaning in that direction but the Staff’s recommendation goes one
step further and says it has to be very restrictive. There is some language that I didn’t feel
comfortable with.
Chairman Byrd: Jon, I have. a question on your motion which sort of speaks to our big picture
task of creating this list. It is my assumption that we are going to make a recommendation one
way or another on every incentive on the matrix. I didn’t anticipate that a recommendation would
be to remove an incentive from the matrix. I thought that our task was to prioritize them and say
some are very important, some are unimportant. Especially since Mills Act Contracts are
exclusively about historic preservation, and that is what we are doing here, it just seemed to make
more sense to me to leave it on the list and just say, leave City policy as is rather than delete it
from the list.
Commissioner Schink: I think it is actually more effective to say leave it off the list when you
don’t know if it is going to apply, to one more property in Palo Alto or three more. If it is not
going to apply to too many, why confuse the issue with an incentive that is so shallow?
l~l~l~]aIl,[~: That brings up the structural question again of how we address the entire matrix
because there will be other issues throughout the matrix.
Commissioner Schink: And I intend to bring that same point up again.
.~: You want to boil the list down and there may be an interest in keeping the list
as is and merely saying here are the three or four that are critical, and here are the other ten that
are less important.
Commissioner Schink: I think it is a discussion we need-to have fairly soon in this process.
Maybe we should step back, have that discussion now, and then come back to my motion.
~: Yes, I agree if the Commission is willing. This issue about whether our task
is to identify the incentives that are more valuable or less valuable but to end the day with the
same list but with a rank order versus Jon’s suggestion which is to take some items off the list and
end up with a shorter list is a very important issue. Does anyone want to speak to it.
_Commissioner Bialson: I could see taking items off the list if we don’t expect them to be used
at all for the purposes of historical resource Preservation. I would like to keep this in the tool kit
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
26
¯ 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
and I would like to have it used as infrequently as it has been in the past. I think we’ve got to
lo0k at all these items as things in the tool kit should the City Council decide they should be in
there. I’d like to give them a more comprehensive rather than a less comprehensive tool kit.
Chairman Byrd: Jon.
Commissioner Schink: Let me expound on my opinion. That was that I think the community
would be best served if we put forward three strong incentives. Limit it to three categories.
Other than those three categories we should try to fill the tool kit with as many other good ideas
as we can but it needs to be very clear that they are just in a tool kit, they are common sense, but
they really don,t fall into the category of incentives. Making exceptions on the daylight plane I
don’t really think is truly an incentive. It should be in the tool kit for good historic preservation.
We can get through this list rather quickly if we could focus on tool kit items and real incentives.
Chairman Byrd: I’m with you on that. Does that then suggest that we leave everything on the
list and we put three big stars next to the three big ones and put the three big ones up front? The
concern is that the Mills Act Contracts exist for historic preservation. This is an historic
preservation incentive list. If it is not on this list where does it belong?
Commissioner Schink: The problem with the Mills Act is that it is so complicated and it touches
so many issues that it really deserves a full day’s debate just in and of itself. Then the question
becomes that it applies to so few properties why have that long debate? ~
~: It’s just that we have 14 of one kind and 6 of another, we’ve got 20 or 30
different incentives here. My expectation was that we were going to report them all out to the
Council and then I very much l~e your instinct of identifying a few of them that are truly
important and then put the rest On the B List. But we are still going to report out the B List
because that is valuable to Council while we make clear that We care about what is on the A List.
Bern. ~ ~
Commissioner Beecham: In a way it sounds likewe are talking about what kinds of shades of
gray do we want to use and do we want to go all the way to light. Whether we believe number
one, that the Miils Act should be used at ali is one question I think we should talk about. Maybe
we can’t decide that. There may be others where we say this is not a good incentive. It just isn’t
appropriate and let’s delete it. Just because it is on the list because someone else at one point
brought it up doesn’t mean that we have to rank it as 14 out of 15 in priority. It may not be on
the priority list. It may be a recommendation not to do it. So if there is something on here be
it Mills Contract or something else and we think it is not an appropriate incentive, we should say
that and recommend that it be deleted.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
¯ 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Schmidt: I think many of us are saying sort of shades of gray of the same thing.
This is similar to the statement that I made at the beginning that I think there are a couple of major
incentives. I think actually much of what is listed here still could be in the tool kit for specific
properties. We’ve tried to get our arms around what is out there and we don’t know. There are
big ones and there are little ones and there are medium ones and they are in different
neighborhoods. It is very difficult to say other than a few general incentives that could apply, but
yet I would want to keep this variety of things available as a tool kit when a specific property
might be reviewed. That some of them might be very important for small properties and some
might be very important for big properties.
Commissioner Schink: I was just going to add that in listening to all the public testimony over
the last almost year or more, there is only one point that everyone has agreed on and this to date
it has been too complicated. I think that it would serve the community best if what we put
forward was relatively simple and focused on just several points. Put the rest of it in a tool kit
someplace else. Try to focus the debate on issues that the community can try to come to some
agreement on.
~.Cdl~da_,]~: I think there will be a way to achieve all these purposes. Bern made a motion
to take this one off the list because he didn’t think that was a good idea. That motion failed. If
the subsequent motion is to leave it on the list but acknowledge its lack of importance then we
leave it on the B List. When we’re done we end up, as you suggest, a very short list of what is
important and really highlight it in our communication with the Council and the community.
Commissioner Burt: I ,think that Owen your suggestion is a little.more in keeping with the
Colleagues Memo. They gave us a laundry list that was not intended to be all encompassing and
not prescribing that we hold to it but I think that they were clearly asking for response to at least
the items they .put in the bullet points there. I think it would be better to have the items in greater
priority and lesser as the way we end up making recommendations:
Commissioner Bialson: I had hoped that we could come up with an A and B list but I,had hoped
that part of the A List would be rather automatic incentives that would not require another
reviewing body to decide whether or not they are appropriate for a certain prope,rty, I think pa.~
of the difficulty that we’ve had has been a lack of certainty and the need to go through a review
process. So what I’m looking for in the short list, so to speak, is what is def’mitely going to be
applied to every property that is subject to the ordinance which is passed. And then give to a
reviewing agency all those items in the tool kit including the Mills Act. If someone wants to go
through all those hoops and it is seen by the reviewing agency as being appropriate that’s free with
me. So can we also look at things as being universally applicable and things that will require the
reviewing agency not just those items that we think are very important? I would like to get
something out to the Council that they could then hand overto the community that is so upset
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
about having to go through a lot of different agencies on this issue.
Commissioner Beecham: Taking that into account and some other comments, and I don’t know
if we currently have a motion on the table but I think we do, I would make a substitute motion
to move this to the B List to make it clearer that that is what we have. Also to move for a small
change in the wording under column 3, Item B. I won’t do that as 10ng as we have a motion on
the table. On the other hand I guess I can make a substitute motion and see if I get a second so.
Commissioner Schink: I will accept a substitute motion in the place of my motion.
Commissioner Beecham: I move that we put Item 20 Mills Act Contract in category B or
whatever we call it and change the wording in column 3, Item B to read: If Act preserves a
structure that would not otherwise be preserved, its use should be considered. That makes it
subjective and a discretionary for the Council.
Commissioner Bialson: I second that motion.
Chairman Byrd: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Schmidt: I just wanted to make a comment. On the next page of the matrix there
is just a~ note in the first colunm about contracts would not be granted retroactively for
rehabilitation work already completed. Is that something that we need to note here or is that
something ~that the Council has said and has decided that’s what should be done? Does Staff have
a comment on that?
Mr. Riel: That came out as a part of the discussion on the 420 Maple application. That was one
of the concerns that. they raised when that application came through. So that is implied by
Council. .
Commissioner Sehmidt: And so it’s just been discussed by the Council and it does not need to
be stated or does need to be stated as part of the incentive for renovation and if something has
already been renovated then we don’t need to talk:about it.
~: If you feel strongly you want to include that in your motion, you can do that,
Commissioner Beecham: I understand that it is current City policy, is that correct?
That is correct.
_Commissioner Burt: I just want to note that Item B of the Staff recommendations essentially
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
covers the potential for a retroactive benefit because if it’s being preserved for some other reason
then it would be excluded from the Mills Act coverage.
Chairman Byrd: If there is no further discussion, all those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? Good.
[Zarhia, no count was given but I think it passed 6-0]
Thank you Mr. Golton for coming. Let us return to the 14 development exceptions that are
proposed as incentives. What I’d like to do is read just the title of each of the 14 incentives. Bern
threw out that second dwelling units and FAR are his two big ones, we all may agree but what
I want to do is quickly run down through these 14 and ask the Commission whether anyone thinks
that it should be included on Bern’s short list so we know which two, or three, or four are
potentially important enough to be on that front list.
Commissioner Beecham: Well that front list was only to start a discussion. It wasn’t my list of
what I would put on it.
Chairman Byrd: I understand. This is a preliminary attempt to begin to rank order these without
going from one to 14. It’s just to create a group that may be more important than others. So
second dwelling units? Bern said yes. You with me on this?
Commissioner Schink: We going through and doing an A List or B List?
!~: A preliminary, yes. This is a preliminary shot at A or B. Second dwelling
units? B, Bern thought A.
Commissioner Beecham: Actually I think B I just want to talk about it first.
~: Okay, let me try this a little differently. All I wanted to do, Bern threw out two
out-of 14, I just wanted to make sure that Bern’s .list of two was appropriate. We can do this
differently. Does anyone have any additional development’ incentives that they think should be
discussed up front because they may be so important in addition to second dwelling units and
FAR?
Commissioner Schink: I liked your idea. I think we should go through all of them and just do
a quick A or B on all of them then find out where we stand and go back and debate the A’s.
Commissioner Schmidt: An A would refer to let’s have some major discussion, this could be an
incentive.
Commissioner Schink: This is an incentive and B is in the tool kit.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Schmidt: B is tool kit.
Mr .Riel: What if you went through and did A and B and then obviously as you discussed each
one they moved from one column to the other if that’s what your intent is.
Chairman Byrd: Right.
Mr. Riel: And I would vote. There are 9 development exceptions, the other ones that are listed
are process changes. We are hopeful that the Commission will recommend those process changes
to implement those incentives. So hopefullY those are relatively easy to go through and we ask
that you focus on the development exceptions because those are the real carrots on the incentives
program.
.Chairman Byrd: So on your Incentives Summary that came out today there really perhaps could
be another subhead between item 9 and item 10 that says "process" or "streamlining" or
something.
Mr. Riel: Unfortunately, what you see on the overhead over there we made an error and a
renumbering but if you look at the first nine items that are listed as incentives, then the next
category is streamline historic review process, then incentive-based fees. I think we got some
clear direction on incentive-based fees from the Commission regarding our discussion in the past
five meetings, As well as streamlining historic process, I think we got some good direction.
What we are looking for is some good discussion this afternoon on those first nine items.
.~: You can tell I’m working off the Summary sheet which is numbered one to 14.
Let us ~ry to go through one through nine as a fn’st cut and I will presume that each item is a B
unless someone potentially thinks it is an A. So if you think it is an A call out and we’ll at least
know what our first cut is. So the first one is second dwelling unit. Does anyone think that’s
potentially an A topic? Okay. Does anyone think that subdivisions and lot line adjustments and
mergers is potentially an Atopic? Does anyonethink that zoning modifications, I guess they are
all modifications, as defined here this category of zoning modifications.
Ms. Furth: Those are essentially districting modifications.
~: That’s a better way to say it. That districting modifications are potentially an
A category?
Commissioner Beecham: Let me say that I am not voting A, but iet me also say that Staff’s
recommendation on this is TBD. So that until we see it, I don’t know.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: For our In:st cut we’ll call it a B. Does anyone think that parking requirements
is a potential A? (yes’s) Alright. Does anyone think that lot coverage is potentially an A? (yes’s)
Does anyone not think that FAR is potentially an A? It is an A. Does anyone think that
relocation of historic structures is potentially an A in significance? Alright that’s a B. Does
anyone think that changing the non-conforming uses requirement is potentially an A? That’s a
B. Does anyone think that setback and daylight plane issues are potentially an A subject? That
is a B. That mean that we have 5 of the 9 development exceptions identified as potentially being
more important than the other four. This is good. This is progress. Having said that, let’s just
begin at the top of the list with the second dwelling units. The Staff. organization of the column
3 on the incentives matrix, in some respects resembles a multiple choice quiz. Perhaps we can
order our discussion around making these choices. Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: Let me suggest a little bit different approach. A question to Staff, as
I go through this I think this is the same as our current ordinance with two changes. One, our
current ordinance has a lower limit in the lot size which I think is around 8,000 or 8,100 square
feet, and what we are talking about here has no lower limit. So that’s one change. The other
change is that in here we talked about the construction basically must be behind the historic unit.
So if those two changes are what we’re talking about here is really our current ordinance. So
that’s why to me that’s not an aid because this is not a big deal. One reason also why this is not
a big deal is when you get below about 8,000 square feet you are so constrained by setbacks that
it’s nearly impossible to build a sizeable second unit. So I think this will not wind up being an
incentive to any site that ctirrently is not eligible for it.
ff, hifil:!~L[kv~: My memory was we did discuss relaxing the minimum lot size requirements in
out second unit discussion.
Ms. Warheit: That is what Bern was just saying. That’s the key point here isthat on a lot where
you otherwise are not allowed to build a second unit and it is quite restrictive now, .if you :have
under 8,100 square feet you don’t have any option of having a second unit and that is just Wiped
out there is no minimum proposed. I would just say that I think one reason that we didn’t get into
recommending a lot of loosening up of existing single family ordinance is.,we heard the
Commissioners in your discussion raising concerns that if this gets introduced of neighbors might
say well, now it’s two-stories high it is going to look into my backyard, or it’s going to be too
big, or that allowing second units has enough controversy associated with it that’ to start allowing
them now in a lot of places where they wouldn’t be is a big enough deal- without in addition saying
by the way they are going to be a different kind of animal than what you are used to. The
community has accepted second units with certain kinds of restrictions, 900 square feet, one-story,
etc. If you’ll leave that package in tact but you say on historic properties we are going to consider
the possibility of having one of these on any lot size that is a big enough deal that it might attract
resistance and controversy to offering the second unit by now having it be a different type of
Oty of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
second unit. So that was just for simplicity and not to attract.
Chairman Byrd: I’m sorry I’m confused. Are you saying the existing 8,100 square foot lot size
limit would remain or there would be no minimum lot size limit?
Ms.. Warheit: No minimum lot size limit but the site development requirements for the cottage
would be same as they are for cottages now, i.e., not over 900 square feet, one-story high, etc.
Commissioner Schink: Let me sort of take it to the next level as I see it. The only way this
becomes an incentive is if we allow you to put a cottage on a 6,000 square foot lot. The only way
to do it on a 6,000 square foot lot is to put the second dwelling unit above the garage and you are
not allowed to do that so you would get the community too up in arms over this incentive.
Ms. Warheit: There are many places where if you have a 6,000 square foot lot you could put a
small second unit on that lot and rent it and have a significant income where you are not currently
allowed to now. That’s the incentive. The incentive is if you’ve got un-built floor area, which
many properties do, that it can be financially beneficial to the owner to be able to put that 2, 3,
5 up to 900 square feet in a separate dwelling unit than to have no option except to attach it to his
house and not have a second kitchen and no second unit. That’s the potential advantage.
Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Beecham has prepared and distributed a handout that we should
enter into the .record.
Commissioner Beecham: I apologize for I don’t have a transparency to show. What I’ve got is
a table that shows for lot sizes 6,000 through 10,000 square feet what FAR is, what it would be
if we gave it a 10% bonus, which is under consideration here today, what the site coverage limit
is and how that relates to a buildable envelope, which is a little bit subjective in what I’ve got
here. I’ve got two buildable envelopes, one if for attached second units and the other is detached.
If you’re detached one big difference is you need an additional 12 feet of space between the two
units. So normally in most circumstances that means your second unit is 12 feet back from your
first unit and that uses up a lot of your available building envelope once you take into account
your setbacks. Using 8,000 square feet as a starting point perhaps, current FAR allows you to
have 3,150 square feet FAR. That is almost a 40% FAR. Your site coverage is considerably less
than that at 35% but we’re considering increasing the site coverage. So I think that’s no practical
limit here for us. What is a practical limit is if you’re talking about a detached unit your
maximum FAR is 3,072 feet or a bit less than what you could build 3,150. So if you do a
detached unit, and you build it to the build-back lines, you’re still not getting as much FAR as you
could and with the setbacks which I think don’t make good situations. This is also presuming
single story which is what we are kind of embedding in our talk here too. So if we are talking
about single-story then there really is not much benefit. I think we would not see many
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
¯27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
applications of some one coming in and building a second unit. That’s why I think it’s not
especially valuable as an incentive.
Ms. Furth: We have had at least one phone call. in our office from an owner of an existing
historical building which includes a cottage which has not been illegally converted to a second
unit. But which they believe would be suitable for a second unit but isn’t eligible for second unit
classification. One, because it is an R-2 not R-1. You don’t have the option for the conditional
use permit second unit in the R-2 district presumably on the theory that they could have two units
anyway. Secondly because they don’t have 8,100 square feet. They are between 7,000 and
8,100. It would appear that those owners of that kind of property believe that this would be
valuable if they could convert that existing cottage into a legal second unit.
Chairman Byrd: I thought that FAR was uniform throughout the R-1. Why does your FAR
percentage vary with the size of the lot?
Commissioner Beecham: The formula the City uses is 45 % starting at 5,000 square feet and the
neighbor thing beyond that is a 30 % addition. So the percentage changes as you go.
Commissioner Schink: Can I ask Bern a’ question?
Ms. Warheit: Can I just back up what Wynne said? I’ve had calls from three or four people,
very specifically, giving me case studies in a sense, by hearing about this back last year when it
first surfaced at the Council. ¯
Commissioner Schink: Virginia, how small a lot would you include?
Mr. Warheit: There are cases in which there is a big lot and a small house. They’re realizing
that for themselves to be able to put another separate dwellingunit on there is to their advantage
as opposed to simply one large house or an addition On the existing house.
Commissioner Schink: Bern, my question was the 12 foot separation between the units, is that
in the zoning code? So it could be modified by this. Are there any important historic
preservation rules that would, I know we have that 10 foot separation?
Ms. Warheit: I know we have the building code there is some kind of rule. I suppose that is the
only thing that is immutable. Three.
Commissioner Burt: I think it would be interesting pursuing that reduction in the separation
requirement because that is one aspect that would not infringe upon neighbors. At least not that
I can envision.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Beecham: I can agree with that and also certainly if we’ve got empirical data that
we have people than that is your guidance to in saying that there is an application for it.
Commissioner Schmidt: I just want to note the other thing that we’ve seen that is different that
we have sort of mentioned here: to allow a second attached unit. That is not currently allowed.
We’ve had some discussions of that during the Comprehensive Plan but that, as far as I recall, is
not currently allowed in the R-1. So that may or may not be something that if we go ahead with
the idea of a second unit that we discuss that further.
Chairman Byrd: Sfiall we walk ourselves through the list that is presented by Staff and see if that
gives any shape to a final motion. The first issue is the limitation on the total square footage of
the second unit. The preference here is to leave it at a 900 square foot maximum. Does anyone
feel differently? Alright, let’s potentially leave it at 900. Jon
Commissioner Schink: I think you might want to use the overall FAR for the property as the
limitation. Using the example that Virginia brought up before, someone trying to preserve the
small place in the front -- they’ve got a 1600 square foot place in the front, why do we want to
say they can’t put 1300 square feet in the back? Why should they be penalized just because they
want to save the one in the front?
Commissioner Schmidt: I was just wondering why Staff recommended the 900 square feet.
Existing requirements.
Commissioner Schmidt: I know that’s the existing requirement. You were just keeping consistent
with the existing requirement? That was the basic idea behind it.
Mr. Riel: Correct.
~: Jon, perhaps this is one of these situations where there is a difference between
a mandatory and a voluntary environment. If it is a mandatory, environment, you can’t tear down
that 1600 square foot front house. Maybe we do want to limit them to a 900 square foot house
in the back because it is compensatory in its nature not trying to incent behavior. Whereas if it’s
a voluntary environment we might want to give them more in hopes that they’ll bite at the carrot
andpreserve the front house, so maybe the should get more square footage on the second unit.
Commissioner Schink: Well, you know where I’m coming from on that. If you want tell people
howto deal with their property that’s one thing. If you want to try to intent them that’s another.
Chairman Byrd: To .play that out, do you theri think that we might want to give them more Square
City of palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
footage on the second unit in a voluntary environment than in a mandatory environment?
Commissioner Schink: I think that if we are looking at meaningful incentives one would be to
allow them use all of the FAR they have a right to use.
Commissioner Schmidt: This would be reviewed by HRB. If HRB thought that the second unit,
if we allow total FAR, if they thought the second unit didn’t work with the ftrst unit, if it was too
big or didn’t work in the neighborhood or something like that, would HRB be able to say, well
yes you should be able to do a 1500 square foot one but we think that a 900 or 1000 square foot
one would look better, and that’s the only thing we think is appropriate here.
Ms. Warheit: There might be a way to turn that and put it in a positive that I think will get at
what I think Jon is getting at which is to say typically the second unit would be limited to 900
square feet per existing regulations. However, in a situation where the HRB concludes that the
person’s allowable floor area on the site is better put into a second dwelling unit than added to the
existing house then you could exceed that.
Commissioner Schink: I wish I had said that.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think that sounds like a better way to phrase it also.
Commissioner Beecham: Let me address the question about being mandatory or being optional
or an incentive. In terms of applying these differently towards those that have no Choice to
comply and those who may come in~and say,’ tell me I’m historic, somehow there is :some issue
of fairness~ or due process, or equality under the law, to have two properties; one of which is true
historic and we say, oh you get a small benefit; and someone else who is less historic, less
valuable, and we say to them, we didn’t make you ~be historic but since you are willing to we’ll
give you a bigger benefit.- That doesn’t feel right to me and I think we ought not be putting
ourselves in tha.t position, wherewe have a set of people we’ve told properly you’re historic, and
you shall do these things and we’ll give some benefits. And you guys who aren’t, you can get
more if you come in and ask and you can talk us into it. I think that is a bad approach. So I
would say, whatever we. do for mandatory and whatever we do for the optional ought to be the
same.
Chairman Byrd: While I disagree with your outcome you have perfectly framed the issue. I think
we need to step back here for a minute from second unit, just as we during Mills Act and deal
with a structural issue, and deal with this structural issue of this difference between mandatory
and voluntary. You have eloquently stated why we shouldn’t.draw that distinction. I think it is
a critical distinction and I’d be in favor or a very different package to incentivize behavior as
opposed to compensate for restrictions. I think that’s a distinction we ought to solve now before
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
we go through all of these. So I would invite other comments on that subject now so we can try
to bring it to closure.
Commissioner Schink: Well one thing I think is important to recognize is it is either historic or
it is not historic. There is an opportunity for someone to build a case as to how important their
property is and I think you want to create a situation where some people may want to build a case
as to why their property is historic and why it is integral to the character and the fabric of a
particular neighborhood and thus it should be so designated and then it would qualify for certain
incentives. I think that is all we are suggesting.
Commissioner Burt: I think we were talking about another circumstance which is that the Council
may yet decide whether significant resources fall under mandatory or voluntary compliance. We
don’t know what the Council will ultimately decide but we may have a different notion of what
are appropriate benefits if it is a mandatory compliance or incentives if it is voluntary. I suspect
there will be a great deal of similarity between our packages but I think that it is very possible that
we will see some different incentives that we would want to create if it were a voluntary
compliance environment for the significant resources. Having said that, just as an example on this
previous issue, I think it illustrates that there is going to be a question of what is fair. If someone
is bound by a mandatory compliance shouldn’t they get the same sort of benefit .as if it were not.
I think we are going to maybe be struggling with a little bit. I think we have two possible
circumstances. One based on the Council’s decision and another one that Jon sounded like he was
alluded to which is whether people might be able to essentially petition to have their homes
categorized as a significant resource. Jon was saying that really it is not going to be dependent
on whether they would prefer to be categorized that way or not. They either are going to be
significant resources or they are not. Virginia is that something you have any thoughts on, or
anyone else on-Staff?. Is there going to be a prerogative on the basis of the homeowner as to
whether they could try to get on a list and therefore qualify for some incentives that they
otherwise would not qualify for?
Ms. Warheit: I think the way I’ve been conceptualizing this is that we’re trying to look for all
the incentives that we can that would be consistent with historic preservation. It is all kind of
constrained by the fact that we are talking about designated historic buildings and the intent is to
preserve them. That is the whole purpose of the incentives is to look for ways to preserve them.
So it seems as though one way to approach it is to say what are all the different ways we can relax
the rules we currently have and let people do some things that we don’t generally let people do,
that is consistent with the treatment of an historic property. Then that is only available to historic
properties so it is a benefit for them. Presumably somebody only ge~ that benefit if they are in
a situation where they are accepting some restrictions. Then you let people who have a property
that is eligible for historic designation ask to have it so designated if they’re interested, they join
the club and they accept the whole package which is they get the benefits and they have the
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
restrictions.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think we’ve engaged in this before but every once in awhile or each
year there is going to be an additional number of houses in Palo Alto that become 50 years o!d
and it is possible that people would begin to petition to join the ranks of historic homes if the
incentives are really good for that group of houses. I suspect we are going to have a lot of
housing stock joining in the next few years being post-war housing, I don’t know if we do have
any plan for putting additional housing stock or reviewing additional housing stock as time to goes
on to be possibly included.
Chairman Byrd: Carroll.
Ms. Carroll Harrington. 830 Melville Avenue~ Palo Alto: I don’t know how you are going to
weave this into your discussion and I brought it up before and I think this goes along with the
mandatory versus voluntary but it is going to make a big difference how many houses are on the
fmal list. At this point it ranges from 700-800 up to 1300-1500 and that makes a big difference
in how you are impinging on the neighbors that aren’t on the historic list getting all these
incentives. I recommend that you figure it in someway, it may be a caveat at the end or a preface
at the beginning. Thank you.
Commissioner Schink: I justwant to make a final point on this and that is so far we’ve worked
with a rather arbitrary approach of saying 50 years and looking at houses older than that. I
believe that I could build a very strong argument, if i owned on of the very fast eichlers that was
constructed in this town, that it met all of the qualifications for historic preservation and should
be preserved. So I think that as we look at this document, we need to realize that it is a document
that is going to extend onin time, that.is going to evolve and that we need opportunities for people
to come forward and say, look I’.ve live in one of the first eichlers built, or I live in one of the
first Price & Stern homes and it was important for this reason and that’s why it should be added
to your list. We want people to come to us and say please add me to your list because of the
meaningful incentives that will help them preserve that eichler.
~: One side question for Staff. Does Staff anticipate that Council will continue to
define historic in the final ordinance as more than 50 years old as opposed to picking an arbitrary
cut off date and saying everything older than it is historic?
Ms. Warheit: This 50 years is widely mis-understood. That’s an absolute rock-bottom minimum
at which you even begin to look at something. There are many other criteria to be met before a
property can be considered to have historic significance. There is a lot of, as we are in the midst
of right now, a lot of very hard, complex and expensive work that goes into the analysis that is
necessary to determine whether something meets criteria for historic significance. I do not see
the City undertaking that open-endedly on and on and on into the future looking at every single
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29.
0
31
32
.33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40.
building as it becomes 50 years old. Now to keep ourselves up to date that is not to slide back
into the situation that we got in where we were sort of 20 years out of date. It is considered good
practice to every few years at least become aware of what properties in your city have now passed
that threshold so you can begin to ask some questions. It certainly doesn’t mean that every time
the 50th birthday of a building passes that building is now probably historic. There is a vast gap
between those two things.
Chairman Byrd: My question was is the 50 years going to be the definition of the threshold or
is the definition likely to .be a fixed year. Up until now it has been 50 years.
Ms.. Warheit: 50 years is the standard for National Register consideration. That’s where the 50
comes from.
Chairman Byrd: Does Staff anticipate that the final ordinance will continue to rely on a 50 year
defmition of the threshold or will Council use a specific year like 1940 or some other specific year
to be the cut-off?
Commissioner Beecham: If I could break in for a moment. I believe the criteria did not specify
any given year. Right now the City’s policy is that they are reviewing all houses older than 50
years to see if they comply. The criteria that they are judged against does not specify any year.
.So, the criteria for being historic is based on association, with events, with a lot of different
architectures, example of houses and so on. But in the criteria there is no reference to any year
or any age in particular.
thought I was asking a simple question.
Ms. Furth: ’No, no this is historic preservation. Virginia should correctme if I go wrong because
we all went to the same workshop but she has a better memory. The City is not alone in control
of the process of having structures designated as historic even if they are within the City. You
are all familiar with that with the federal register but it is even more true with the state register
in which property owners or any individual can nominate districts, structures, groups of
structures, as suitable for the California Register of Historic Properties (which is actually a
different name), and those do not have to be 50 years old. Their emphasis seems to be much
more on either architectural wonder or narrative importance. So one of the choices the City has
to make, unless it is already made for us by our contract with the state, is if through whatever
process a house or a district becomes listed on the California Register whether the City will treat
those as historic properties in. its own special rules.
Chairman Byrd: Somehow we got ourselves off of talking about whether the distinction between
mandatory and voluntary is meaningful. I heard Bern say that, he didn’t think it was. I think I
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
heard Jon say that he didn’t think it was. Pat said that he thought it might be. Do you two want
to add any more?
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with Bern.
Commissioner Bialson: I agree also fundamentally on a fairness basis.
Chairman Byrd: I can count noses on that one so I’ll spare you another speech on the subject.
I think what we should do is remove from the matrix the distinction between voluntary and
mandatory. I would suggest however that since we are talking about -- well, it seems to me that
the use of these tools in a mandatory environment is in fact a benefit and not an incentive because
you are not incentivizing behavior, you’re just giving someone a benefit for having come under
this set of regulations. So should we for clarity re-title the package we report out as a package
of benefits for historic preservation?
Commissioner Beecham: I agree, number one, they are benefits and Iwould not mind calling
them that. Number two they remain incentives, we can talk about it, but I still believe that under
the policy and procedures that the City is under now and tends to be heading toward that people
can petition to be assigned to the historic register.
You are right.
.Commissioner Schmidt: Even if the Council decides to say that significant resources have
voluntary compliance the benefits exist for those that are mandatory landmark structures should
b~, for fairness, should be good enough that they are incentives for the voluntary if that happens.
.C.~: Perhaps we can title the package Benefits and Incentives because they are
benefits if you are already on the list and they are incentives if you are not.
r]~L_J~e_!: That’s what the original reference in the first Staff report had, it was called Benefits
and Incentives.
~: Well then back to second dwelling units. We are still on the first subject which
is the total square footage. There are two options of the table. One is to use the 900 square foot
limit in the R-1. The other is to regulate it by FAR which would provide more flexibility,
Commissioner Schmidt: I would recommend going with essentially a type of wording that
Virginia suggested that is 900 square feet maximum typically but the HRB may rule that part of
the FAR for the house may be given to the second unit if the design is appropriate. Virginia
worded that in a much clearer, nicer way.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: Does anyone have a disagreement with that approach? Okay. The next one is
to continue limits on the type and intensity of uses permitted in the second dwelling units. Does
anyone have a problem with that?
.Commissioner Beecham: If I can go back and clarify, I think Kathy you may have said and I
didn’t hear it, that up to the limit, of the total FAR for the site.
Commissioner Burt: Owen, could we just briefly review what those limits are on the intensity
of uses and the type of uses?
Chairman Byrd: We did discuss them and they are in the code. Let’s come back to that. Let’s
move on to limit on height and daylight plane with a 17 foot height maximum or whether or not
we want to allow second units above the garage and set a maximum height in that circumstance.
Commissioner Schink: I would suggest that later on we are going to discuss exceptions to height
and daylight plane and if we provide some meaningful flexibility in that category it should then
spill over to second units.
Chairman Byrd: So you want to come back to this piece of it?
Commissioner Schink: No, I think we should just want to footnote this to say that exceptions to
the daylight plane or height for historic p~operties should apply to second units also.
.~]l~!~l_~a~: Except there is really a very sPecific issue here about allowing the second unit
above the garage which is more than height. It is fundamentally height but it is more than height.
Commissioner Schink: I think you should allow second units above the garage.
~: How do’other people feel about that? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I think that it would be appropriate to allow it.
Chairman Byrd: Does anyone else agree that it would be appropriate to allow?
Commissioner Burt: I think in certain circumstances it would. I.think it may be one of those
things that is best left to the HRB’s discretion.
Mr. White: I should point out that currently, in the R-1 section of th~ code, second story second
dwelling units are possible subject to the Zoning Administrator making certain findings.
Oty of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2-3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Ms. Furth: And there are two kinds of findings. Basically a CUP finding and a variance finding.
In other words there is some particular thing about your property that requires it and secondly that
it won’t hurt anybody else. It may be that the exceptional circumstances one would be irrelevant
on an historical but the historical would automatically be the circumstance. But you would still
have to show that you don’t hurt anybody else.
Commissioner Bialson: Owen, I think these items that we are going through right now are things
that we can perhaps set outer limits on but in order to maintain flexibility for use of this incentive,
or whatever we are going to decide to call it - a benefit, we’ve got to leave a rather broad range.
That’s what I had hoped to accomplish going through here and finding what absolutely was not
acceptable and leaving the rest to the reviewing agency.
.Chairman Byrd: Well then on this subject of what the outer limit of acceptability is on height and
whether second units can be above garages, where do we come down? Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: Well I would support it being consistent with the existing R-1 ordinance
which I guess specifies that the Zoning Administrator would hold a hearing and we could
recommend that the fact that it is an historic parcel makes it unusual, a condition not normally the
situation which is maybe not true but we could say that’s a sufficient factor. Then the Zoning
Administrator would determine whether or not there is any potential harm to nearby residences
and hold a hearing on it. That would satisfy mel My concern is that putting a second floor next
to somebody else’s bedroom when they’ve never had it may be a problem. If they have a hearing
and they find out it is no problem then f’me.
~: Except that I think when we get to streamlining the process we talked about
taking the Zoning Administrator out of the loop. The ordinance speaks about Zoning
Administrator reviewance. So we might want to recommend that it be-reviewed by HRB in order
to streamline.
Commissioner Beecham: As long as the~e is a hearing and people can comeand explain whether
or not it impacts them then I’d be satisfied with that.
Commissioner Bialson: I’m assuming this is not an automatic benefit. One of those .items that
I want on A but rather something that is in a tool kit for another agency to use whether it be the
Zoning Administrator or the HRB. Is that correct? I think we all need to understand that before
we make these votes. I do think we are all assuming that each situation is going to be reviewed
and the balance made for the benefits to the individual homeowner versus any detriment to the
neighbors, etc.
~: I’d like Staff to clarify this. I’m presuming that with each of these incentives
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
or benefits, since they require HRB review that we are presuming for each one the requirement
that Commissioner Bialson just imposed which is that it is not automatic..It is subject to the
review of the HRB.
Mr. Riel: That’s Staff’s intent, yes.
Chairman Byrd: So we won’t need to address that subject as we go because that’s presumed for
each one.
Commissioner Bialson: I’m going to make a slight change in that and say that the square footage
or FAR maybe something that does not require HRB review. So I wouldn’t agree right now that
every item we discuss is going to be something subject to review.
Chairman Byrd: Except I thought the intent of the regulatory structure that was being created here
is if it is a category one or two structure and you wanted to make changes you had to run those
changes through the HRB whatever they are.
Ms. Warheit: I think you’re talking about two different levels of things here. They are all going
through HRB review to see how it is designed. For example the second unit, if you say historic
buildings have the right to put some of that FAR on a second tmit that’s presuming that they have
that right but that the way they do it has to go through HRB review. I suppose it is theoretically
possible there would be somebody who couldn’t but I was with the ARB for many years and I
never ever saw that there was something where there was absolutely no solution.
Ms. Furth: I do think it is helpful if you give the Council your thoughts, your direction, your
recommendation, on whether second units which are presently in R-1 zones with a conditional use
permit should continue to be conditional use permit items for historic properties or matters as a
right subject to the special kind of design review that the HRB does.
Commissioner Schink: I wouldn’t see someone having to go to the HRB if they had an existing
garage and we end up modifying the parking-requirements and the garage has a door on the side
and a couple window and they say, well we’re going to turn this into a separate little place for
people to live. It has no impact on the structure, the appearance to any oneat all, I wouldn’t see
that having to go to the HRB to have the HRB say that’s okay.
Chairman Byrd: So that has to go through the Zoning Administrator.
Commissioner Schink: That would go through the normal process.
Chairman Byrd: Well then Commissioner Bialson is entirely right to point out that as we go we
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
should probably identify which of these benefits are by right and which require HRB approval.
Maybe that’s a whole other column on the matrix. We could re-use the voluntary column.
Ms. Furth: It may come down to where are you comfortable with it. Commissioner Bialson has
talked about certainty, it may come down to are there safe harbor areas which are both safe
harbors for the owner proposing something and safe harbors for the neighborhood because you’ve
defined what’s permitted as a right sufficiently.
Chairman Byrd: Part of my concern is it is now 20 to 5:00 and we’re still on page one and we’ve
got 20 some-odd incentives to finish before this night is through.
Commissioner Bialson: I think what we’re discussion now is sort of if you want to call it getting
hung up about are global matters. I think we need to resolve those. I for one think that part of
the upset of the community has been, I think it has been widely reported, having to go through
too many review or rather undesirable extent of reviews, and what I’d like to be able to give
people is some certainty and whether it is a safe harbor of some sort or what we decide to call it,
some incentives or benefits that they are sure they have that some reviewing agency doesn’t take
away from them. If we say, in regard to second units, if you meet the normal .rules we are giving
you this benefit in addition to the normal rules that seems acceptable to me. FAR and lot
coverage if we say as long as you put it in the back and it doesn’t impinge on your neighbors
you’ve got an extra 10 % or whatever you want to determine the square footage or lot coverage
to be. Something like on the single story overlay. I do think that. we need to give some things
on a rather automatic basis rather than dangle various alternatives in front of these people and then
through the reviewing agency find that they are rather elusive or maybe not be ofmuch substance
at all.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think we need to be very careful in selecting what we would want to
give to everyone. I am interested in giving to everyone the procedural things. The elimination
of fee kinds of things. When it comes to the design of additional square footage, the design of
a cottage or chhnging a garage into a cottage or an office, I’m very concerned about granting to
everyone in this historic category this ability without review. I think HRB review for the majority
of things that we are talking about, when we’re talking about the big incentives or benefits, I think
that’s important. As I said the things later in the list, the procedural things, I think those should
just be a done deal. When it comes to design I think it is important that someone looks at and that
neighbors have a chance to say whether they completely object to it or not.
Commissioner Bialson: I agree that the majority of these things should.not be automatic but rather
subject to review but I do think that there are some items that we should have as giving them. I
look to FAR or lot coverage as one of those. I think that just by dint of what’s being requested
anything is subject to the eventual ordinance whether it be anything that is visible from the front
City of Palo Alto"Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
of the home or the side of the home or whatever is then decided, yes those items would be subject
to review but that they would be receiving the ability to increase the square footage or the lot
coverage. I’m just using that as an example because I think that’s about the only thing I’d see as
automatic.
Commissioner Beecham: I think I agree that the FAR is something that we should give as a right
or a clear benefit, a firm benefit, or a safe harbor if that’s the word. Essentially a property right
is conferred on a property when we, the City, designate it.as being historic one way or the other.
Even in that situation though when they come in for a design because it is historic they have to
go through the design review. So it is not necessarily a question of how large their addition in
the back can be but it’s got to be a compatible design. So the design is covered but they have a
right to whatever square footage we may come up with here. So that’s how I feel on the FAR.
On probably all the others I think they probably all should be discretionary on whether or not they
fit for the situation as defined by either HRB or the City Staff.
Commissioner Bialson: I absolutely agree with Bern on everything he said.
Chairman Byrd: Well I’m not sure then how to accommodate that thought as we go through the
rest of these other than to have that known up front, and Staff can prompt us to re-address it when
we get to those couple of exceptions that will be treated differently.
Commissioner Bialson: I O_ink what we should do as w~ go through this is just see what we come
up with as outside limits and subject to the reviewing agency using the outside limits or not using
the outside limits but not looking at whether it is appropriate to have second units above a garage
knowing that a reviewing agency is going to look at it and say if its got too much of an impact on
neighbors, no. we won’t allow that, but yes, that’s something you can come in and request.
Commissioner Beecham: Just one more comment. We’ve got some months until this is final in
front of the Council. What we do not know yet .is the profile of the homes that will be in the
historic listing. There are a number of questions still in here under the issues list where we’ve
asked and Staff cannot answer yet, how many homes might fit this category? By the time this gets
to Council I expect that Staff will be able to give profiles to the Council so they can get a better
feel for what kind of problems there may be, do many fit, yes but here’s what the typical profile
is and it could be a problem.
..C~: Let’s see if we can finish second dwelling units and then take a short break.
Commissioner Schmidt: A quick clarification. It was not clear to me whether we’re talking about
the second unit above the.garage~ my understanding is that is not part of the current ordinance that
allows a second unit. A second unit now can only be single-story.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Ms... Furth: Let’s make it really complicated. In the R-1 district a property owner, who has a lot
that is at least 35 % larger than the base lot, may apply for a conditional use permit to build a
second unit. ~ That second unit is the kind you describe, under 17 feet, single-story. There is a
sub-application or finding within that which says .that if the Zoning Administrator can make
variance findings in addition then you can be in the second story. So it is two stages. Nobody
has right to the second unit.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you for the clarification.
Chairman Byrd: Let metry to bring us back to this list. We’re trying to come to closure on F
which is the limit on total height. It’s not a full motion yet we’ll package it all as a motion. Does
someone want to make a recommendation about what the rule should be so we can move on?
Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: No. I’ve got a question as opposed-to a recommendation. We’re
considering a second story over a garage, and we’re tentatively considering to say that that’s okay.
If that’s okay, then why isn’t a second-story unit okay? What’s the difference between having it
over the garage which is most likely on the property line versus having a two-story unit centered
in the property? So it seems if we.go to say it’s okay on the garage then the logic says it’s even
better in board so let’s allow that too.
Chairman Byrd: I presume it’s in part because of the square footage restriction that if you
presume a 900 square foot standard by the time you put that in two stories that’s a skinny
building. ¯
Commissioner Bialson: I think that’s also presuming that the garage is a detached’garage and on
the property line. A lot of garages are attached and we are going to have homes with attached
garages become historic resources.
Commissioner Schmidt: I propose that we leave the Item H as stated but cross off everything past
"with." So we say allow second unit above garage.
ChairmanByrd: How does that reconcile with G which is a 17 foot maximum height?
Commissioner Schink: I think you need to reference under G setbacks and daylight planes for
historic properties..
Commissioner Schmidt: Obviously Staff has dealt with it because that is what the current
ordinance says for second units -- that its one-story, 17 feet high. The Attorney just noted that
it can be dealt with in a sub-section of the current ordin~ance so I think that Staff would deal with
City of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25-
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
it in the same way.
Chairman Byrd: So that second units are limited to a maximum height of 17 feet unless they are
over a garage. And they are only allowed over a garage if they meet all the other requirements
that were expressed. Is that what you proposed? Okay.
Commissioner Beecham: Here’s a question for our resident builder. If I’ve got a garage and it’s
kind of quaint-looking, not too large, and it’s got a tip roof, and I’ve got a 17 foot height limit
and I want to put a second floor on there, what’s it going to look like?
Commissioner Schink: Well the only way it is going to look decent is if you start over right from
the ground up. There are some p.retty nice designs’ that are just a little bit above 17 feet for units
above garages.
Chairman Byrd: But if you’re starting over isn’t quaint garage an historic structure itself?. And
the .point of the benefit and incentive package is to have it preserved? So what’s the point of
allowing these second units above garages if their foundation or their structure won’t support the
second unit up there?
Commissioner Schink: You won’t be saving too many garages if you put second units on the top
of them.-
.~: But it will save the main house.
Commissioner Schink: It’ll be good incentive to save the main house. You will probably see a
lot of two car garages or extra deep garages or unused garages that have .spaces on the back of
them converted into units: So it is only a small garage that is at risk.
Commissioner Schmidt: Also assuming that, under the existing ordinance, if a second unit above
a garage is granted it is higher than 17 feet. That ispart of the variance proceeding because 17
feet doesn’t get you anything but a flat roof basically.
!7.~:. We have to move on. Here,s what we have to do. We are never going to f’mish
at rate. What I suggest is that we not try to go to a level of what I’ll call staff work in the details.
That we elevate our sights and not try to anticipate every outcome and regulate for it but instead
speak in broad policy terms about in general how these benefits and incentives should apply.
Then leave it to Staff to filter them through the technicalities before they are brought to Council.
Can we do that?
_Commissioner Beecham: With the qualification that we identify to Staff the open issues which
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
I’m sure they are noting duly anyway. But make sure that is in the record clearly.
Commissioner Schink: Some of this is. torturous but at the same time we are flushing out the
issues and getting them out on the table and talking them through. Somebody’s got to do the
work. I know it is painful but it does need to be done.
Chairman Byrd: Well, we’ve just been told that Council expects our report on a certain date and
that requires us to finish today.
Commissioner Beecham: Were Council always on time, I’d be more -worried about that.
Chairman Byrd: Is that on the record? Let’s keep plowing on this second dwelling unit because
that break is still hanging out.
Commissioner Burt: For clarification, it says 17 feet maximum height now is that truly maximum
or is that the average, of the roof line?
Mr. Riel: It is to the highest point of the building.
Chairman Byrd: Okay, so I think we brought.F to closure which is 17 feet maximum~height
unless it is a second unit above a garage which implies all the regulatory oversight that has
previously been identified. Let’s go back to E which we skipped. It is the intensity and types of
uses. Staff was going to briefly list what they are. Pat you asked this question.
Mr. Riel: -The listing that we provided to you on August 26 is "Rules for Second Dwelling Units
in R-1 Zones,"-requires conditional use permit, minimum lot size must be 35% greater than
normal, .must be separated from the main building or accessory buildings by at least 12 feet, and
meet all setbacks; maximum size is 900 square feet plus 200 square feet for covered parking
space, total of four parkin~ spaces for both units with two covered, maximum height of 17 feet
to the highest point of the building, common driveway access with the main dwelling unit,
architecturally compatible with the main structure, and a minimum of 200 square feet of usable
open space accessible to each unit and not located in the front or side yard.
~d~:!~flld~: That mostly speaks to intensity of use and not so much type of use. Are there
limitations on what types of uses can be located in these structures.
Ms. Furth: There is no specific limitation on second units.
Chairman Byrd: Okay, does that answer your question? Okay. Do we want to leave it that
roughly the current limitations on type and intensity of use prevail? Obviously some of the
City of PaloAlto Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
intensity of use issues are made more flexible by some of the other things that we are doing and
that will be incorporated in the final details of the package. Leave it as is? Great. On to L, the
architectural character must be consistent with the primary residence.
Commissioner Bialson: Yes.
Chairman Byrd: Fine. Limit construction of the secondunit only in the rear of the site. So I
guess that means limit the construction to the rear of the site?
Mr. Riel: That’s correct.
Chairman Byrd: We did talk about what happens if you’ve got a small existing building on the
back of a large lot.
Commissioner Bialson: I think we should leave this to the reviewing agency to determine.
Chairman Byrd: Everybody agree on that? No. Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: We also talked about enabling historic houses to be relocated on the
same parcel. To me if we’ve got something historic I prefer to see that historic moved possible
out of it’s old historic exact surroundings and movedto the front of the street scape so that it is
still in the neighborhood face and the new structure is behind it.
~: Which means you would then leave this rule as is because.the construction would
be behind. By doing so you are requiring that property owner, in our hypothetical of a small unit
on a large lot, to move it if they wa~t to add the second unit.
Commissioner Beecham: That’s correct.
Commissioner Bialson: I think I see what Bern is saying and I think maybe we can give some
direction to the reviewing agency by indicating that the visibility of the historic resource home is
not compromised. But saying it must be in the rear doesn’t allow them to put it in the side which
quite often these homes are on extra wide lots as well. If it is of a complimentary architectural
style or character I don’t see a problem with that so long as the reviewing agency recognizes that
our interest is to maintain the visibility of the main house.
Chairman Byrd: So Bern has recommended that we leave J as is, and I’ve heard Annette suggest
that we simply remove J and therefore it will be left to.the discretion of the HRB.
Commissioner Bialson: Well, we can remove it and put in this guideline which indicates that it’s
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
~33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
the preference of the City that the visibility of the historical resource structure not
compromised.
Chairman Byrd: A preference that it not be compromised. Pat.
be
Commissioner Butt: I don’t have a specific recommendation to implement this concept but this
seems like a place where we might have a prerogative on behalf of the homeowner and where we
might search for an incentive to encourage them to move it to the front as opposed to mandating
it. I don’t know what that incentive would be or whether we can find an appropriate one but I’d
like to bear that in mind as we move along and if something emerges, that would be a match for
this, reconsider it.
~: Well, we’ve got two points of view on table about this issue. How do we resolve
it? Does anyone who hasn’t spoken to it have a preference? Should we limit it to the rear or
should there be some flexibility?
Commissioner Schmidt: I thought what Bern had said was if we leave this statement in here and
deal with some of the other i~sues later that would be incorporated so I would tend to leave it as
it is.
Commissioner Bialson: I think this restricts you from being able .to put the second unit on above
the garage unless it is a detached garage behind the house. I think you’ve got in mind a certain
type of historic resources which is not allowing for future type of resources which may have
attached garages up front.
Chairman Byrd: But don’t you then get into facade?
. Commissioner Bialson: That’s to be reviewed by the agency?
Commissioner Burt: Annette, if we changed "limit construction of the second unit to the rear of
the site" to "encourage construction of the second unit to the rear of the site" and that would then
be within the purview of the HRB.
Commissioner Bialson: That would be fine. What I was trying to avoid was us being involved
in some of the nits here.
Chairman Byrd: Okay, then what’s on the table is that we encourage construction of second units
on the rear of the site.
Ms. Furth: The purpose of that is to maintain Visibility of the historic resource from the public
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
right of way?
Chairman Byrd: If possible.
Ms. Furth: So that might be in there.
Commissioner Beecham: As long as the definition of "if possible" is not limited by the
requirement to in fact move the historic house. Owen said if possible and I’m wanting to include
moving the historic house in the realm of possibility,
Chairman Byrd: I think because historic is in part defined by site layout and not just structure that
would be at the discretion of HRB and there may be cases where HRB would conclude that the
historic nature of the site was best preserved by leaving the small old house in the back even if
you can’t any longer see it because there is a big new thing in front. We will rely on HRB for
that. Okay I think we have closure on that one. The next one is allowing for encroachments into
setbacks. This is prohibit windows on side, reduced side setbacks are granted and this is not in
bold and remind me, the bold are the preferences of Staff among the range of options that we
discussed?
Mr..Riel: That’s correct.
~: So Staff does not like this idea, do we?
Commissioner Burt: I don’t think we should be prescribing this but once again it is something
that we might put language in that says we might allow some encroachment in the setbacks
provided the HRB determines that it does not have a unreasonable intrusion on neighbors privacy
or some other language similar to that. I don’t know whether that’s par for the HRB’s rule.
~: Essentially that’s why we didn’t like it because it was too specific.
Chairman Byrd: So Pat, are you suggesting that it would say something like allowing for
encroachments into setbacks so long as adjoining neighbor privacy is preserved?
_Commissioner Burt: Yes.
Chairman Byrd: We have closure on that one.
Commissioner Schmidt: I just want to note that Eric said that Staff didn’t like it because it was
too specific.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Butt: How does the Staff feel about that wording?
Ms. Warheit: Well if something is going to be built in the setback then there is going to be some
decision about allowing that through the HIE process or variance or whatever. That’s typically
what’s considered when you look at whether or not you are going to make the exception is there
some kind of disadvantageous situation for the neighbor.
Ms. Furth: I think you keep getting back to the issues of what does the existence of the historic
resource do to the property. Are these "do no harm" findings? In other words, it doesn’t hurt
the neighbors findings or are you requiring a variance level finding? We don’t have the power
to allow variances beyond a certain point unless we can make very specific variance findings. So
it is a different regulatory environment in which the HRB will be operating if they have the scope
to permit these encroachments without making variance findings.
Chairman Byrd: Well, the summary I’ve just provided on this issue, at least in my mind,
presumed that the definition of preserving the neighbors privacy would not rise to the level of a
variance f’mding. In other words, in an effort to encourage historic preservation, we could allow
some compromise of that privacy at a threshold lower than what would otherwise be required by
variance f’mdings but not by right. So it is really a fairly flexible standard thai would be overseen
by HRB.
Commissioner Schink: Doesn’t O get at both of those?
O and say that’s a good idea.
So we could drop this and go straight to
Ms. Furth: Go for less verbiage.
.~: Fine. But before we do we have to get to M which is allowingthe second unit
as an attached unit to the existing structure only on the rear of the structure with no reduced
setbacks. How do people feel about that? Do we concur with the Staff recommendation on that
one.
Commissioner Schink: I think I’d drop the "with no reduced setbacks." We just don’t address
that issue and if somebody wants to try an HIE for some reduction of the setback then they’ve got
to prove their case.
Commissioner Burt: What about in the case of second units’that are on the second floor and
¯ occupy perhaps the entire second floor and the ground floor is the primary unit. I know there are
circumstances in the historic neighborhoods where that’s been done and you have a sense of it
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
¯ 27
~28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
being one home but in reality there are two units, one above the other. So do we really want to
mandate that the second unit only be allowed on the rear of the structure?
Chairman Byrd: Are you suggesting that we should say there is a preference for the second unit
being on the rear of the structure to allow some flexibility?
Commissioner Burt: Sounds good.
Commissioner Schmidt: If you were adding space you’re not going to be making a second story
on an historic structure I’m fairly sure. You might be able to add a two-story space on the rear
or cover up a one-story garage on the rear but I don’t think you’d be adding space, you might be
sort of sub-dividing existing space. Maybe we need to address that, that there can be two kitchens
in a house, allowing two units in a single building.
.Co.mmissioner Schink: I think you get to it if you take out an "as follows" and just make it a
subsection. Any additions would occur on the rear of the structure.
Commissioner.Schmidt:
Chairman Byrd: Okay.
Yes, that sounds clean and simple.
Commissioner Beecham: Idaink that gets to the intent is we’re not telling the homeowner how
this has to be allocated internally. They can have the ’two units divided up internally however they
want to. Also as Pat was talking he was making clear to me that there may be cases where it is
historically advantageous to add a second story if that is more compatible with the historic
structure. So in-those cases we should encourage it, I think. If either the historic structure is
already two stories or otherwise situated on the lot is such that the best use and least obtrusive use
would be to have a second floor attached to it.
Chairman Byrd: Are you talking narrowly in the second unit context or are you talking more
broadly?
Commissioner Beecham: Both.
Chairman Byrd: Just to come to closure on second units for now let’s confine ourselve~ to this
just so we can wrap up.
Commissioner Beecham: Then I need to fred out if on the second unit we have limited to a one-
.story addition. If not, then I’m done. We haven’t done that have we?
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
. 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: No. The final item on the list is utilization of the HIE process for the
exceptions. Does everyone agree that procedurally that’s the way to go? Then let me try and
summarize what we have said on second dwelling units and someone can make it into a motion.
I want to add at the beginning of the existing list to make explicit that we’re saying there will be
no minimum lot size requirement. That second, the limitation on total square footage for the
second unit will be 900 square feet but that the HRB can use FAR as an alternative limit to allow
build-out of the second unit up to. the total for the FAR for the site where appropriate. That third
.we continue to limit the type and intensity of uses permitted in second dwelling units per the R-1
regs. That fourth, the limit on total height and daylight plane will be preserved as in the R-lwith
a 17 foot maximum height except where second units will be allowed above garages subject to the
f’mdings currently required by code. Fifth, that the architectural character of the second unit must
be consistent with the primary residence. Sixth, that we will encourage construction of second
units on the rear of the site and attempt to preserve visibility of the historic unit. Seventh, that
we will allow for encroachments into setbacks so long as the privacy of the adjoining neighbor
is preserved.
Commissioner Schmidt: I thought we eliminated that.
.C~: Okay, good. We eliminated that. Seventh, we will allow attached second Units
to be attached to existing structures only on the rear of structures.
Commissioner Schmidt: No, we just said allow second unit as attached unit in existing structure,
period.
.~: Allow the second unit as an attached unit to the existing structure. We did not
specify that it had to be attached to the rear. Eight, that the HIE process would be utilized to
regulate these development exceptions.
Commissioner Cassel: There was a small wording change. I don’t think you’re encouraging
second units, you’re encouraging that the second units be in the rear. :
Right, I said encourage construction of second units in the rear.
Commissioner Cassel: Second units should be encouraged to be in the rear. See what I’m trying
to do. You’re not encouraging second units here, you’re encouraging that the second units be in
the rear.
Cdl~: That. is the intent of number six. Jon~
Commissioner Schink: I would move the Chairman’s summary as the first tool in our tool kit.
City of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
¯27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: Is there a second?
Commissioner Beecham: I second with a small change and this is really in the direction of Staff,
to confirm as written and as restated by the Chair .this would not limit an attached unit (that is
attached to the primary unit) to be 17 feet if that is inconsistent with the design to be most
compatible with the historic unit.
Commissioner Schink: That’s acceptable. I also had a request for clarification. In YOUr summary
you said there would be no limits regardless of lot size and I think we should clarify that it would
be a standard lot unless we want to go on a whole long discussion about whether these rules
should apply to substandard lots:
Chairman Byrd: What square footage are you using as standard and sub-standard? 6,000?
Commissioner Schink: No, I think the standard would be 50 x 100 anything under that becomes
substandard.
Ms. Warheit: Actually it takes two items out of three to become sub-standard. So anything that
is sub-standard is pretty small, down around 4,700 square feet usually.
Chairman Byrd: I think the intent of our discussion on that subject was to preserve for HRB the
flexibility to see whether or not it works.
Commissioner Schink: Yes, I would just caution, you’re opening a pretty amazing can of worms
if you include this or if.you allow this for sub-standard lots.~
.~: What again are you def’ming as sub-standard?
!~ommissioner Schink: L6ss than 4,700. Say your typical sub-standard lot in town is going to
show up as a 25 foot wide lot or a 30 foot wide lot. It is going to have some odd little structure
on-it and people are always looking for different ways to sort of maximize the utility. You are
going to end up with a lot of problems..
Chairman Byrd: Wouldn’t those be constrained by HRB compatibility review?
Commissioner Schink: Yes, but I think you should be more forthright with everyone and tell
them it doesn’t apply because it is not going to work.
Chairman Byrd: Since sub-standard is not defined in our code ....
City of Palo Alto Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2-3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
.Commi.ssioner Schink: Virginia just defined it.
.Chairman Byrd: Should be define it by numbers, by square footage?
.Commissioner Schink: Bern had 6,000 square feet.
Commissioner Schmidt: Virginia just said it has to meet two or three requirements to be standard
or sub-standard. I agree with Jon that I think we should work with standard lots not sub-standard.
Can’t this go by referral to the rest of the code or add that as a definition somewhere - what a
standard lot is?
Commissioner Beecham: Perhaps regardless of what our official def’mition of standard is, I would
propose 6,000 square feet here. One reason is I think as you get even approaching that you really
have real constraints because of site limitations and setbacks. I think it’s going to be very difficult
to shoehorn in truly a second unit. On a 6,000 square foot lot if you’ve got an historic house
where you can in fact addon to it attached, it may be feasible but having two units below 6,000
square .feet would begin to push it just for definitions of R-1. So for me that would be a
reasonable number to set as a lower limit for lot size.
Commissioner Cassel: Bern, why not 5,000 square feet which has been a traditional standard lot
on many of these historic lots in the north part of town?
Commissioner Beecham: Because in most R-l’s they’re entered as six. Most-R-1 areas, I think,
that the lot size is.six. There are certainly some in old north Palo Alto where I am that are all
over the place, but in most areas I think six is what is really normal.
Commissioner Schink: I think you then get back to what,s important is meeting a number of
criteria not just the square footage. If it’s 25 feet wide and too long it still doesn’.t ~work. So
that’s why I suggest you stick with the language of simply saying a standard lot. It fits better with
the rest of the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with Jon. I think we should say standard~
Commissioner Schink: If the seconder will accept that as a clarification to my adopting the
Chairman’s earlier language then that’s my motion.
Commissioner Beecham: I accept.
Chairman Byrd: Is there any further discussion on the motion?
City of Palo Alto Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
¯32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Burt: One request for clarification under E where we talk about type of use
permitted. A lot of the reality of second units is they get used for home offices. Is that
prohibited use technically?
Mr. Riel: That is a permitted use.
Commissioner Burt: Great, thanks.
Any further discussion on the motion? Staff comment.
Mr. Riel: My assumption is this goes on List B.
a.~: We said it initially was an A.
Commissioner Schink: My motion said that this is the first tool in the tool kit. I was referring
to List B.
a.~: This is a B. Alright.
Ms. Furth: And this assumes that a conditional use permit is required for any second unit. So
all of these will be subject to conditional use permits.
.~: With those clarifications is there any further discussion? Seeing none. All those
in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That carries.
Commissioner Beecham: Question of clarification based on our attorney’s comment that this.
would require a conditional use permit. That has to come through what bodies?j Not only the
HRB in that case, is that correct?
Mr. White: Currently thatwould be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and under advice
given by the HRB.
~: I thought when we talked about, here in streamlining historic review process,
number 11 for HIE’s, we said allow for review by HRB. So since we said in here on number
eight or formerly O, that we’d use the HIE process that I would read those together to mean that
this would fall under HRB jurisdiction.
Ms. Furth: Well you can make these recommendations but they don’t have jurisdiction to give
use permits at the moment. The code gives that to the Zoning Administrator.
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2"/
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Ms. Warheit: I think Staff’s intent with using the HIE was for all those site development issues
which are already subject to HIE but then later on in the process we say let the HRB take care of
that so you save; now they’d have to go to the Zoning Administrator even for HIE’s for little
setback issues or whatever. It’s those site development regulations that was the intent that that
would be handled by HRB looking through an HIE process. Second units is a change to use
essentially.
Ms. Furth: It’s a different kind of review than they have been doing.
Ms. Warheit: Or than the HIE is designed to handle.
Chairman Byrd: What is Staff’s recommendation? Should this go through the Zoning
Administrator because it is a conditional use permit? Or in the interest of streamlining the process
should this just fall under the jurisdiction of the HRB? Or do you have a preference right now?
Ms. Furth: Staff will give you Staff’s recommendation but from the legal point of view it depends
upon how you view this use. If you think it should be permitted as long as they come up with an
acceptable design you don’t need a conditional use permit. If you want to have more freedom to
say no, then you have a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Beecham: I think conceptually that is why v~e were putting this in B and saying
that it is subjective to some point versus the A List which is a given.
~: So it sounds like because it is a B it is a two step process. You go to the Zoning
Administrator and HRB in spite of our preference for streamlining.
~: I think in some senses if you make it a conditional use permit it becomes a B, If you
don’t it becomes an A.
Chairman Byrd: Okay, we’ve clarified that. We will now take that long promised break and
return in five minutes.
I’d like to call this meeting back to order. The discussion of second units pointed out that the
Commission is going to have to exercise some considerable self-discipline regarding the level of
detail we reach if we have any hope of f’mishing this. Easy to say in theory and tough to do in
practice but this is not our last cut at this list. It is really just our first and I think we would be
well served by speaking in broader brush stroke terms about whether we think this stuff is a good
idea or not as opposed to trying to anticipate and respond to every conceivable application of
every nuance of each rule. So with that said I am going to try and move us along significantly
faster.
City of Palo Alto Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37’
38
39
~ 40
Commissioner Schmidt: Item 2, Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment/Mergers. I think that is
a B, something that should be in the tool kit. I think all of the things listed are fine.
Chairman Byrd: We originally identified it as an A so who else wants to speak to that? I do think
we do need to go through the items in column 3.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would just say that I think there will not be a lot of instances of many
of these things. So I wouldn’t think it would have a high use whereas some of the other things
we’ve talked about would have a higher use. Yes, we should discuss these but I think they’re a
lot of different small applications.
Chairman Byrd: Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: Would you clarify for me the difference between A and B.
i~~: It was an initial cut subject to change, as we saw it change on the first one, of
our relative ranking of importance. Jon said up front he hopes we identify three or so really
important central benefits or incentives. We’re going to come back and try to isolate those and
say this is the centerpiece of our program and the rest are tools in the tool ldt but are not nearly
as important.
Commissioner Beecham: The clarification I’m looking for yet then is whether A is more of a
right versus B is more discretionary.
.~: I don’t think that w.e’ve reached it. I don’t think we have to reach it. I think
at this point it is a more generalized statement of the relative significance, importance and broad
applicability of the benefit or incentive. As this comes back to us at a later date in different form
and as Staff works more on it, that issue of the technical distinction between an A and a B will
be offered up by Staff.
Commissioner Bialson: It would be helpful to me if we could make comments to the Council
along with our recommendation as to whether we do want some of these to be discretionary or
a right as Bern indicated. I would like to have at least one right in there.
Mr. Ed Gawf. Director of Planning and Comm. Env,: If I may comment, I think it will also help
determine whether it is an A category or a B category. For example the item that you just
discussed on the second dwelling unit. If you had made it by right I would certainly say that’s
an A category. That’s a heck of an incentive. Since you left it at th~ CUP that’s a B. So as you
go through that question of Whether it’s by right or some type of discretionary review may help
you determine whether it’s an A or B category. ~
City of Palo Alto Page 42
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
.36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: I neglected up front to introduce the newest face at Staff table. I apologize.
This is Ed Gawf, our new Director of Community Development.
Mr. Gawf: Thank you very much.
Chairman Byrd: We’re glad you’re here.
Mr. Gawf: I was a couple of hours ago as well. It has been a very interesting discussion.
Chairman Byrd: Okay, with Kathy’s broad brush comment that this subject is probably a B
category subject and that in general all the items listed in 3 probably look okay to her, let’s at least
tick through them one by one and resist the temptation to try and apply them to every
hypothetical.
Allow creation of a subdivision where itis not otherwise allOwed.
Commissioner Schink: Owen, I’m sorry, since you’re going through them one by one I have to
comment. I just don’t think you can put that sentence out there. We can go to the specific and
say possibly allow creation of flag lots subject to so and so but you just can’t say you would allow
the subdivision where you otherwise would not.
h.~: Jon, I’m n6t sure you were here when we reconvened. We reminded ourselves
that we are just speaking at a generalized policy level now. This is still going to go through Staff
and Council and come back to us. I agree with you that there is no way that the final ordinance
can contain this sentence. We’re just saying now at this early introductory stage that that’s a
generalized statement¯ that needs significant flushing out;
Commissioner Beecham: Jon before you Came in we agreed that we would not disagree with
anything.
Commissioner Schink: Maybe I’ll be more blunt. I just see that statement as a little on the absurd
side and it doesn’t give very good po.licy direction. We should focus on issues like the next point.
Chairman Byrd: Okay, should we remove A from the list because it is over’broad and rely on
the remaining rules.
Commissioner Bialson: It helps clarify the rest of the sub-headings and I think perhaps if the
wordage is something that bothers Jon we come up with another verbiage. I think it really does
help clarify the rest. So how about, "allow creation of a sub-division if irrespective of the rules
that would otherwise apply."
City of Palo Alto Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
.35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Beecham: I think Jon’s point is taken and I think this is simply not worded
correctly and I would have Staff re-word it so it is not giving unlimited rights but it is per the
following details.
Commissioner Schmidt: It’s the introductory statement.
Chairman Byrd: And is not a stand-alone rule by itself.
Ms. Warheit: That is intended as an introductory statement.
Chairman Byrd: Alright. The next one is to reduce lot size requirements if the new lots fit the
historic pattern of the neighborhood and I don’t understand the second Staff comment about create
a minimum lot size. Do you mean create a new lot that meets minimum lot size requirements?
Mr. Riel: Yes.
Chairman Byrd: Okay. Seeing no comments the next one is to allow for the creation of flag lots
so long as no second story is permitted and that the new flag lot is consistent with the historic
pattern of the neighborhood. Is there any controversy about this? I’m not thrilled about it.
Commissioner Schink: I think you’re going to have a hard time making an argument that a flag
is consistent with the historic pattern of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Beecham: Actually as I was reading that I was looking more that it is not
inconsistent as in there is one other example in that block is how I would look at it.
Commissioner Schmidt: As an example, I think it would have very little applicability but there
are some lots in some of the very deep blocks that have been there for many years that are flag
lots with attractive homes on them. All of those properties may already be used up there may not
be any opportunity to even use this but I think as it is stated there.might be one or two somewhere
that would happen.
Commissioner Burt: This was a Staff recommendation in that it is in bold. Could you expand
.on what your thinking was on why you wanted to recommend that?
Ms. Warheit: Once again, it’s just the general concept that one way to add value is to allow for
a part of a lot to be sold fee titled separately. We’re still dealing with very general concepts here.
Commissioner Schink: I don’t understand "consistent with the historic pattern."
Oty of Palo Alto Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: Iwas presuming we had at least tentatively accepted Bern’s suggestion that it
read not inconsistent with the historic pattern. Well I’m all for historic preservation but pretty
unenthusiastic about flag lots and probably not even willing to use them as a benefit or incentive
but it doesn’t look like anyone else agrees with me. You want to leave it on there for the just in
case. The next one is allow for lots fronting on alley. Only allow for smaller lots, Staff what
does that mean?
Mr. Riel: Actually Commissioner Burr mentioned that as an option. I guess there were some
smaller lots that were fronting on alleys and you wanted to allow that opportunity to occur.
Commissioner. Burt: Yes, it is as Eric says, there are circumstances where smaller lots are
commonly on alleys in a lot of the historic neighborhoods and to allow for that sort of
circumstance.
Chairman Byrd: So really 8 should just read: allow for smaller lots fronting on alleys, or sub-
standard, allow for sub-standard lots fronting on alleys.
Commissioner Cassel: Smaller is better.
Commissioner Bialson: I think sub-standard because smaller, the question immediately comes to
mind, smaller than what?
Commissioner Beecham: ! think the point is allow the parcel to be separated so the back half is
on an alley. I think the intent of the smaller here is smaller than standard size perhaps but it could
be larger. There is no reason why it couldn’t be larger if it was a huge lot which it probably isn’t
but the intent is just to allow smaller ones if that’s the requirement.
Mr. Gawf: It could also mean or be that the lot fronting on the alley must be subordinate or
smaller to the primary lot’which is the one fronting On the public street. That’s how I read it.
¯ That is sort of the thought I had, that what you are doing is creating a secondary lot in effect, a
smaller lot fronting on the alley.
Commissioner Beecham: Although the one in front may be the historic home which is a small
historic home.
Commissioner Schink: I think it is important to include the provisions for the sub-standard lot
if you want to really make it any kind of a workable tool.
Commissioner Beecham: So it would read something to the degree of allow for sub-standard lots
as well as larger lots to front on the alley.
City of Palo Alto Page 45
1
2
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: Allow for sub-standard and standard lots fronting on alleys. Okay. Then there
is the notion of making the option available for vehicular access to those new alley-fronting lots.
Mr. Riel: That should be bold.
Commissioner Beecham: I don’t understand that one.
Chairman Byrd: We discussed that at our study session where if the new lot only fronts on the
alley you have to get in and out somehow. So you get to have your vehicle access on the front
of your new lot which fronts into the alley. The code currently otherwise restricts. Just to
clarify, it says "make the option available." If it is a new lot and it fronts on the alley doesn’t that
presume that the vehicular access is from the alley so we can drop the "make option available"?
Okay next one is facilitate lot line adjustments to allow transfer of development rights from
historic properties. Are we going to say where they go? Should we say to, what’s the receiver
site?
Commissioner Bialson:
Commissioner Beecham:
rights.
I think we are getting into too much detail again.
Although we can get into a long discussion on transfer of development
Commissioner Schink: I think we should sometime tonight but I’m not sure this is the time.
.~hil~a~]_]~: Did Staff have a receiver site in mind?
Mr. Gawf: Apparently not, and this gets into the issue of TDR’s and what value they have and
things like this. It is a lot broader issue than this.
.~hltJI:lllitll_~t~: We reached that elsewhere in that matrix.
Commissioner Schink: I thought when this issue came to.us before and I’d asked the question the
response was we would recognize lot line adjustments with some exceptions, was the point that
we talked about a little bit. Thatmight be what we are really getting at here is that you would
allow for some lot line adjustments with exceptions. That is an important tool for historic
preservation.
.C~hRilll:I~L~: That’s not really a TDR application.
Commissioner Schink: No, but originally when we talked about this it was facilitate lot line
City of Palo Alto Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
.29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
adjustmentsl Then we explored why and it was well there might be circumstances where
exceptions would be needed.
Chairman Byrd: So are you suggesting that this should instead read allow for exceptions to lot
line adjustment requirements and leave it undefined for now?
Commissioner Schink: Facilitate iot line adjustments.
Chairman Byrd: By allowing exceptions?
Commissioner Schink: Yes, with exceptions.
Chairman Byrd: Are you dropping the TDR?
Commissioner Schink: Yes.
Chairman Byrd: Is everybody comfortable with that? Okay.. Allow non-conformities to be
created, that’s both lots and structures. Us the HIE process for the site development exceptions.
Alright, let me summarize. The intent of this incentive and benefit is to allow creation of
subdivisions where they would not otherwise be allowed by first reducing lot size requirements
consistent with the historic pattern of the neighborhood and creation of new lots that meet
minimum lot size requirements. Second to allow for creation of flag lots so long as no second
story is permitted and the new flag lot is not inconsistent with the historic pattern, of the
neighborhood. Third allow for sub-standard and standard lots fronting on alleys with vehicular
access to the new lots from the alley. Fourth, to facilitate lot line adjustments by allowing
_exceptions to existing lot line adjustment requirements. Fifth is to allow non-conformities to be
created. Sixth is to use the HIE process.
Commissioner Beecham: So moved.
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
~L~ti!~:l~l_~ff~: It has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Is the maker of the
motion want to identify whether this is an A or a B?
Commissioner Beecham: B although we could have a separate vote on that. To me it is a B.
Chairman Byrd: Is that acceptable to the seconder? Any discussion? All those in favor (ayes)
Opposed? That passes. And we move on to what we are calling districting modifications as
opposed to zoning modifications. This involves modifying-the zoning code to provide for the
City of Palo Alto Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
26
27
28
.29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
creation of historic overlay zone districts and/or new historic zoning districts with the definitions
of these overlays and districts to be determined by Staff. I guess the question to us is in general
do we think it is a good idea for Staff to pursue creating these districts. Then we will look at what
the details include.
_Commissioner Beecham: I’m not sure if this is coming from comments I made earlier but I had
suggested earlier that there be an historic zone but it not necessarily be a district type zone but an
individual parcel zone by which we can use the flexibility of all these incentives we’re talking
about. So if this is the case and we’re talking about this it should be clearer in my mind that it
is not necessarily district-wide, it could be applied individually !ike we do the PC.
Ms. Furth:. You’re thinking of a zone that people would apply for on a parcel by parcel basis?
Commissioner Beecham: Well, actually this can all be postponed. What you have down here is
a TBD which I agree with. The whole thing is to allow a mechanism by which somebody can
come in and there is a wide range of options for them. I don’t know how we want to write the
ordinance that gives these rights and the tool box that we’re talking about toward homes, To me
one option in doing that, and it’s an option that would have to be supported by Staff if you think
it doesn’t work that’s fine with me, but one option is to create a zone called historic something
and say when you do this you have a tool box available but all this is discretionary by Staff and
HRB.
Ms. Furth: SO it is another way of conceptualizing what you are doing by saying if you qualify
as a landmark house or an historic resource this special set of rules applies. So if you draw a
bunch of squares on the zoning map to show where they apply that is your floating district.
.C,~: So Bern are yousuggesting it is really the administrative tool for applying the
benefits and incentives as opposed to other processes that have been discussed.
Commissioner Beecham: That’s right.
Ms, Furth: It is just a very non-euclidian zone.
Commissioner Cassel: We have the HIE process, maybe it doesn’t have to be a zone but the
concept.
Ms. Furth: It certainly sounds like a chapter in the ordinance. If you consolidate those standards
in one place it looks a lot like a district or a set of district standards.
_C~: So do we then run into spot zoning problems if it’s applied on a parcel basis?
City of Palo Alto Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Ms. Furth: Well if we know, not if there is a rational basis for our application of it.
Commissioner Cassel: And it is consistent across every .house that meets a certain historical
definition.
Ms. Furth: I think Staff would be happy to think about this.
Commissioner Beecham: That’s all I wanted to do. If Staff then on their assessment thinks it’s
good, fine. If they think it is not appropriate that is also fine.
Ms. Furth: I think I understand you to be saying that there is the notion of an historic district
which by definition does include a block of properties. Your thinking about standards that are not
applied on a large block basis.
Commissioner Bialson: This seems to be more of a process question as to how the incentives and
benefits we’re coming up with would be in the code and I think that is something we should leave
to Staff. I don’t think that we should list that as. any sort of incentive. Is that correct, Bern?
Chairman Byrd: Should we move this to the streamlining section because it is really an as applied
issue? Okay. We are down to eight development incentives. Just so we don’t forget to come
back to it can we make the decision now? Actually we should have our motion on it now before
it gets moved or we’ll never come back it. Do yoti want to move that a districting modification
should be included in the matrix under the streamlining section?
Commissioner Bialson: I think the.y are the matrix so to speak. I don’t think they are an
additional item to it. Or am I mis_understanding what it is?
Ms. Furth: It depends on how you want to use it. You do have historical districts that have
geographic boundaries and they do have very real zoning implications. That’s one kind of
process. So one of the questions is whether you think that’s a process that could be of value.
Then there is the whole issue more of what Commissioner Beecham is talking about which is how
do we write down and publicize and attach these standards to particular properties.
Commissioner Bialson: It seems like this was meant to be per resource or per parcel rules, That
this would be nothing more than the package that we use. Is that correct, Bern?
Commissioner Beecham: It is a mechanism that the City uses to say here’s what’s available. In
terms of what we do tonight, I don’t think any action is required. As I read this from the City’s
recommendation this says TBD.
City of Palo Alto Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: I think we need an action on whether or not we think it should be pursued or
not. Since we are forwarding to Council a list of recommended potential benefits and incentives
we don’t know whether this will make the final cut but we have to at least suggest whether we
think, it should be researched or not.
Commissioner Beecham: If you are looking for that kind of motion I therefore move that we
recommend to Council that Council direct Staff to evaluate this further.
Commissioner Schink: I’ll wait for you motion to get a second.
Chairman Byrd: There is a motion on the table, do we have a second?
Commissioner Schmidt: I’ll second it.
Chairman Byrd: Is there discussion.
Commissioner Schmidt: Question. Does Staff recommend, according to the bold and un-bold in
this, you are not recommending historic creation of historic overlay districts or creating new
historic zoning districts, or are you?
r.M_L._.~: That is not our preference in terms of a mechanism to implement it.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay.
Mr. Riel: I guess what we are saying is let us come up with and make a recommendation of how
to implement it but we don’t feel it is appropriate to do it via this overlay or zoning district at this
time.
!~ommissioner Schmidt: Thanks.
Commissioner Beecham: So what Staff is saying here is further, analysis is required and that’s all
I’m supporting with this.~
.Commissioner Schink: My point was that I don’t think this issue is sufficiently Crystallized to the
point that it should be presented to the Council or anyone else. I think it should just be left for
further analysis and we shouldn’t forward it to the Council as the motion suggested. It should just
go away for now.
Mr. Riel: That’s what Staff’s intent was. We want to look at historic preservation ordinance and
put a mechanism in that and that’s what will take care of it.
City of Palo Alto Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: Is the motion withdrawn? The motion is withdrawn and this item is stricken
from the list. This brings us to the quick and easy subject of parking requ.irements.
Mr. Riel: The reason they are all bolded is because you go to the end on J, Utilize the HIE
Process for All Site Development Exceptions, in other words these are options that are available
via that process. That’s the reason why they are bolded.
Chairman Byrd: Okay then I guess the question to us is do we at least think that each of the
options listed here is correctly stated and should be on the list of choices. Let’s march our way
through them. Permit one parking space for single-family residence rather than the required two
spaces per unit.
Commissioner Schink: Owen, I think the big issue is you have to decide whether you’re going
to go through the HIE process or not.
Chairman Byrd: You want to back into it procedurally instead?
Commissioner Schink: Yes, I mean if you go through the HIE process it’s all fine. If you don’t
then there’s some real argument.
~: Spell that out. If you don’t go through the HIE process, what’s the concern?.
What is the alternative process and why is it better or worse?
Commissioner Schink: I for one would suggest that you don’t need to go through the HIE process
and that you should in fact, if you’re serious about providing incentives these are all good strong
incentives,, you should go ahead and let them go forward.
Chairman Byrd: Subject to HRB review?
Commissioner Schink_:. By right, no.
Commissioner Beecham: The HRB review is for the design not necessarily the discretionary
approval of any of these options. I think that is our difference.
Commissioner Schink: Right. You just say this is what the architect is allowed to know are the
rules when he sits down and designs the modifications or improvements to the property. Not
subject to the HIE process.
Chairman Byrd: This sounds like an A+.
City of Palo Alto Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
¯ 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Schmidt: I think it should go through the HIE process. I think parking is a
challenge in Palo Alto in many, many areas. I think people are concerned about it and I think
they are for the most part good possibilities but I don’t think they should be guaranteed.
Commissioner Bialson: Could we possibly get some direction with regard to the granting of these
through the HIE process that in so far as this does not negatively impact on the neighborhood,
shall we say those parking challenged neighborhoods, that we would see these as not rights but
something to be granted unless through the HIE process it is found that this in a parking
challenged neighborhood?
Chairman Byrd: Are .you suggesting maybe that the HIE process, when it is applied to these
parking requirements, use a set of f’mdings that are easier to meet than the existing HIE f’mdings?
Commissioner Bialson: I like that, nicely put. Yes.
Chairman Byrd: Then we will leave it to Staff to figure out what those easier findings will be.
Ms. Warheit: I have a question here aboutwhat exactly is anticipated. With an historic property
you already have whatever you have. If you have a garage then the person has covered parking.
If the person doesn’t have a garage no one is .going to tell them they have to build a garage. So
except when you add a second unit and have to decide whether or not that second unit should be
required to have parking, I’m not following how this is going to get used.
Commissioner Schink: Where I see this as a great incentive is if you allow for uncovered parking
in the driveway, you suddenly no longer require the garage to exist. So that~ if I need to create
office space, so ~that I can work at home, no longer do I need to add on to the back of.my house.
I can simply go convert my garage into my office and park my car On the driveway. That I think
is a real strong incentive.
Ms. Warheit: Right. That particular one I see. So it’s a conversion of existing garage space to
a non-parking use because you are no longer required to have the covered parking.
Commissioner Schink: Huge incentive. Easy, no pain.
Ms. Warheit: What number is that? That’s not exactly C. Uncovered parking is already allowed
in the driveways.
Chairman Byrd: To allow uncovered parking in the driveway to fully meet the parking
requirements.
City of Palo Alto Page 52"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
.Commissioner Schink: What we talked about in our earlier meetings is not having a covered
parking requirement.
Commissioner Schmidt: We do have G down there "allow for garage conversion to residential
use."
.Ms. Warheit: Right, G is the one that actually gets at what Jon was talking about. C could have
all kinds of other unanticipated consequences just standing there by itself with no requirement to
not tear down your possibly historic garage, of a request to demolish the garage and take that
square footage and add it as new square footage to the house which could have some pretty
damaging effects on neighborhoods where garages are a real typical part of the pattern. So G is
much more specific and gets to what Jon is talking about.
Mr. Riel: So delete C?
Commissioner Schink: I think some of us are allowed to park in our driveways anyhow, right?
Commissioner Beecham: Just to clarify. Under G, if a garage is converted to residential use, that
still counts against their FAR. Is that correct?
Commissioner Schink: The big point here is that most people think it is really a pain to go
through the HIE process, or any other kind of process. If you want to create incentives you have
to minimlz" e these processes. So I think you just exempt that one from the HIE process then you
have a real meaningful incentive.
Chairman Byrd: What about the notion of HIE light? Where there is a reduced -set of finding
requirements but there is still a process.
Commissioner Beecham: HIE is already variance light.
Commissioner Schink: I just don’t think it works. I make my living filling out this paperwork
and goingthrough cities and I’I1 tell you, if it ever comes down to making a decision whether we
go through any process or not we just say forget it. People don’t like to go through those
problems.
Commissioner Burt: I’ve found our HIE process to be pretty light as it is but if there is no
necessity for the HIE, if we feel that these exemptions can be given across the board then I’d
support doing that.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think that we’ve had a lot of use of HIE according to Lisa Grote. A
City of Palo Alto Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
_23
24
25
26
27
28:
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
lot of people do use it and get things through pretty quickly and easily. We’re still talking about
if we’re converting a garage to some sort of other space that we still want it to look decent with
the original house. So I think there needs to be some review process with it and not just say okay
you can do that.
Commissioner Schink: If you want to make significant changes all that has to go to the HRB and
that is all publicly noticed. This is all additional process on top of the HRB process.
Ms. Warheit: Well further on in our process the recommendation is that the HIE’s will be
handled concurrent with the HRB review and they wouldn’t be in a separate process.
Commissioner Schmidt: That’s been my assumption. That theHRB is going to take care of
HIE’s.
Commissioner Beecham: I share Kathy’s concern about parking. It is an issue in a lot of areas
and how it is done is going to be an issue. I understand Jon as saying let’s say these basically are
the rights of somebody of that now has been assigned as being historic. I’d rather have it be a
little bit more discretionary even though I do know that it is a real benefit. I know that a lot of
the older garages are not very useful and some may be impossible to get a reasonable size car in.
I still would like to have it go through some discretionary process and verify that’s it, verify that
it’ s going to be. kept as historic and. so on. Not just make it a right that goes along with being
historic.
Commissioner Cassel: I.think--that the issue, of parking is very sensitive to a lot of people and
that’s probably why we need to do the HIE process. And my presumption is that is done at the
same time with the HRB. If it is done welland itworks ~well it ~may help us in Other areas that
we’ve talked about. We’ve also talked about can we get rid of some parking requirements
elsewhere, garages that aren’tbeing used, and yet we can’t count all the spaces and yet we need
off-street parking for people. This will give us a chance actually to try some things and see if they
begin to work. I’d rather like to have the process and as we do this the HIE process goes through
the HRB. So you are not using two different steps and taking six more weeks to go through
another process.
Commissioner Schink: This will be myf’mal wordon the subject. This is a very simple easy
incentive for people. The more process oriented you make it the more you skew someone towards
thinking, you know what, if I have to do all that stuff I might as well add the office. If I’m going
to draw up the plans and do that stuff for this extended process, I might as well draw the plans
and just add the Office to the back of the house which has a greater impact on the historic
property. I really think you’ll make it easier for people, provide a greater incentive and do more
to protect historic properties if you just say make it simple, and just eliminate that requirement.
City of Palo Alto Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Beecham: Are you suggesting that this should be an option, an alternative? If they
choose this alternative they are precluded from something else?
Commissioner Schink: All you’re doing is eliminating their requirement to have a covered
parking spot.
Mr..Riel: Let me make a comment. I think where Staff is coming from is I don’t believe a
property owner is just going to come forward and ask for this one particular exception. I think
they are going to look at the whole host of incentives and they’ll pick and choose which ones they
would like to request and that are applicable to their properties. I don’t see them just coming
forward just for this reason and moving through the HIE process. Again, we see this as part of
this tool box or laundry list of options or benefits that are available, and this is one of those that
they can select from. That’s why you’ll see at the end of each of these recommendations that they
go through, an HIE process.
Commissioner Bialson: I think so long as we make it an HIE light process, they are not going
into a full-blown remodeling, etc., I feel strongly that it should be subject to some review.
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree also with Eric’s comments that I think people will come forward
looking at the whole list of possibilities and want to do a variety of things. I think we need to
look at it in that context. That there are probably_are a few who would just say great, I convert
my garage to an office but I think there will be many who will have lots of ideas and they will
need some guidance.
fftl~!21X!~:l~2t~: I would like someone to bring to closure this discussion of the process of
applying these parking exceptions so that we can then break. When we return to this subject later
tonight we will then tick through the specific options themselves. Does someone have a consensus
suggestion on how these options should be administered?
Commissioner Beecham: I will simply move Staff recommendation which includes HIE. As
we’re talking about it is HIE light which in fact should be credited to Owen, because we are
talking about this not going through the Zoning Administrator but being decided by the HRB. I
do have a question about what I is -- allow on-street parking, I don’t know if that was answered --
but otherwise I move Staff recommendation.
Chairman Byrd: Is there a second?
Commissioner Cassel: Second.
Chairman Byrd: I wasn’t looking for a motion on all of them. I wasn’t even looking for a motion
City of Palo Alto Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26¯27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
I was just trying to bring to closure this discussion on process so that we can then go back through
individually each of the options to make sure that they are correctly worded here. For example
some of them include question marks and have questions for us to answer.
Commissioner Beecham: Well the closure on process is to follow Staff’s recommendation which
is to use HIE light as we are talking about it here.
Mr. Riel: And all of these items would be included in the laundry list.
a~: Is the motion withdrawn for the moment?
Commissioner Beecham: Withdrawn.
h~: So for now we have consensus on how these options would be administered?
Commissioner Beecham: I don’t think we have consensus because Jon didn’t like it.
Chairman Byrd: Right, we don’t have consensus but we’ve got a nose count so we can move
forward on how the program will be administered. I’d like us then to break now and when we
return we will go through A through L and talk about each of the specific exemptions. That will
occur after we hear the other item on our agenda at 7:00 p.m. This meeting is adjourned until
7:00 p.m. Thank you.
.... continue through our agenda. For those who are just joining us this meeting began at 3:00
p.m. where we continued our discussion-of the historic incentives program.~ We have continued
that item to proceed now at 7:00 p.m. with our regularly scheduled items and we will return to
our discussion of historic benefits and incentives after we hear these othe~ items. So the fn’st item
on our 7:00 p.m. agenda is the approval of the minutes of September 9th. Do I have a motion?
Commissioner Schmidt: I move approval.
Chairman Byrd: Is there, any discussion? All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That passes 7-0.
The next item on our agenda is a public hearing on 581 Addison Street. We have a request from
Staff to continue this item?
Mr Riel: That’s correct.
Chairman Byrd: To a date certain.
City of Palo Alto Page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Mr. Riel: October 28th.
Chairman Byrd : October 28th. Do I have a motion?
Commissioner Schmidt: I move that this item be continued until the regular Planning Commission
meeting of October 28, 1998.
,Chairman Byrd: Second? Motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All
those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That carries 7-0.
The next item on our agenda is the single story overlay for tract 714, 4738- La Jennifer Way.
Would Staff like to introduce this time please.
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner: Yes, this is a request by the owners of tract 714, tract 4738 and
parcel map 7721 for a single story overlay. Your Commission has seen several requests for
similar single story overlays in the recent past. This particular application is somewhat different
from the previous districts in several manners. One is that there is a smaller number of lots in
particular request. There is 20 in this particular application. Secondly, there are a fewer number
of moderate lots as called for in the guidelines before you. Thirdly, there are no deed restrictions
limiting the existing height of the homes in the area. Because the guidelines that are included in
the packet are in fact guidel’.mes and not regulations, Staff.believe that the intent of the guidelines
can be met and is recommending approval of the project. Alison Collin from the neighborhood
is here representing the supporters of the project. In addition there are three letters from
neighbors before you this evening. Thank you.
,Chairman Byrd: Are there any questions for Staff. Commissioner Beecham.
Commissioner Beecham: From Staff’s point of view what- are the detriments of a having an
overlay zone this small. -
Mr. Lee: I’m not sure there are any detriments per se, I think just from a technical standpoint
if you look at the map in the back of the Staff report it shows where the other districts are and
they tend to kind of cluster into neighborhoods. This would kind of be out by itself if you can
.visualize that map. We have an overhead if that will help. It is not necessarily a detriment but
it would be different from the other projects that we’ve seen up till this point.
Commissioner Beecham: Would it cause any difficulties in Staff following these or insuring that
you monitor it correctly?
Mr. Lee: No there wouldn’t it really would simply be a matter of amending, the zoning map
City of Palo Alto Page 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
~39
40
which we have at. the counter all the time and it would very clearly state that those 20 homes, or
whatever the ultimate number is, are subject to those regulations.
Chairman Byrd: Other questions for Staff?. Commissioner Cassel.
Commissioner Cassel: I have a question that is not straight on. I’m not sure that you can answer
it but I want to lay the question out. Do you know when it was decided that homes could have
an FAR of approximately 4.5 but a site coverage of .35? What the history is of that?
Ms. Lisa Grote. Zoning Administrator: I believe that was part of the 1987 through 1989 study
of the zoning regulations and update of those regulations.
Commissioner Cassel: What was the purpose because it forces people to go up and use the second
story if they want to use all of their FAR?
Ms. Grote: Well, I think the site coverage was to try and determine what a reasonable amount
of impervious surface is although it doesn’t count impervious landscaping, but it was to limit the
building coverage on the site so it didn’t appear to be over-built. I don’t know the complete
history of that.
.~]liti~a~tB_l~_L~: Other questions for Staff?. Seeing none, I would then like to open the public
hearing. We.have five minutes per speaker and as Staff introduced the first speaker is Alison
Collin who will represent the neighborhood, to be followed by -Jessica Bernhardt. Please re-state
your name and address for .the record..
Ms. Alison Collin. 828 La Jennifer-Way. Palo Alto: Good evening. My name is Alison Collin
a Barron.Park resident of 18 years and a resident of La Jennifer Way for 12. Together with
Knudsen sigrmtory in the single story application. I represent the neighbors that are in favor of
applying the single story overlay to these areas and some of our neighbors have come to support
me. Would those who support the application please stand up? Thank you. These tracts are
jewels set in the very heart of Barron Park.. They are characterized by cul-de-sacs of low profile,
unobtrusive single story homes of similar age and architectural appearance. Tract 714 being
composed of early eichlers and tract 7438 containing low ranch homes. Mature trees, many of
them magnificent specimens, dominate the landscape both as street trees and within the individual
lots. To come home after a day working in an urban environment where one is only too aware
of buildings, walls and people, to return to our tranquil neighborhood and eat one’s evening meal
outside in complete privacy .and surrounded by trees who’s full beauty we can see more than just
¯ a few of the highest branches over the top of a high roof line, this represents the quality of life
we wish to retain and is the reason for our application of the single story overlay. We have met
all the City guidelines required to comply with the story height limit combining district as per
City of Palo Alto Page 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
.31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Staff report. We feel most strongly that approval of the overlay in this neighborhood will be in
accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, I refer to policies L-5 and L-12, and instrumental
in the preservation of the existing scale and character of single family neighborhoods. There was
overwhelming support for the overlay in the neighborhood and also from an adjacent cul-de-sac,
La Calle Court which you can see on the map, however we were advised to exclude this cul-de-
sac from our application as their larger lot sizes were outside the City guidelines. I should like
to say a few words on the way the information was distributed to our neighbors and signatures
collected. Under the guidance of Chandler Lee, Knud Knudsen, a resident of La Jennifer,
prepared a printed information package. This included an introductory letter, a map showing the
appropriate area, a copy of Chapter 1813 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, single story height
combining district guidelines, the telephone numbers of Mr. Knudsen and myself for any queries,
and a signature sheet. The letter advised people to read the information and if in agreement to
mail or deliver the signature sheet to Mr. Knudsen. Wherever possible we delivered by hand and
spoke to the homeowners. Where this was not practic.al the information was mailed. Two
homeowners that I approached were. entirely against any regulations and refused to accept the
package even for information purposes. These are in cul-de-sac areas that were not included in
this application as it turns out. Two follow up letters were sent at later dates with progress
reports. But these were not sent to anyone who had been opposed to the overlay on first contact.
Those who were initially undecided did receive them. There was no pressure put on anyone to
agree to overlay but people we knew to be undecided were contacted just before we submitted the
request to Council, and advised of the approaching deadline in order that. their signatures could
be included if they wished. I know that this Commission has already heard many representations
from applications in other overlay areas the benefits of single story dwellings. Of course the same
.points such as privacy, feelings of light and space apply to these tracts but rather than take up
valuable time reiterating them I should like to point out some of the features that are special to our
tracts, i :see I have sum up light,_I understood I had 15 minutes to present this.
Chairman Byrd: I will grant extra time. It is true that we have a rule for applicants that allow
for extra time. Technically the City is the applicant here.
Ms. Collin: I’m sorry I had not realized that. La Jennifer way is a very unusual shape. As you
can see from the map it resembles something of a cloverleaf. Depending on its position, each
house occupies a very different site within its lot. Perhaps Chandler, you could help me point this
out on the overhead. For example I live in lot 99 on the map. Our house is quite close to the
road while our neighbor’s house in lot 100 is situated at the end of a long driveway and is very
close to her boundary with La Calle Court. Almost like a flag lot and that is
around the whole cul-de-sac, that patterning. The front of her house is very close to the front of
ours which faces away from the road. On lot 98 the house runs parallel to Carlitos Court and a
good deal of that lies behind our house. This imaginative design of cul-de-sac is well suited to
single story homes with low roof lines, we love it. It is hard to see how any two story houses or
City of Palo Alto Page 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
~33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
extensions could be constructed without causing loss of privacy to the immediate neighbors-, Some
of the houses would be vulnerable to being entirely boxed in. The lots 96, 99, 104 and 107
project into the cul-de-sac and any two story buildings on those spots would be extremely
dominant. In Timlott Court past the 165 is already .a flag lot. Many of the homes have already
been extended and modernized keeping the single story level. Yet on observation it is hard to tell
which these houses are because they have so well maintained the integrity of the low profile
neighborhood. When these people have endeavored to keep the look that we so love it would be
unfortunate indeed if this character was now lost. We should not equate single story with second
class. With the overlay in place there is very little difference in the size of house that could be
constructed on a moderately sized lot. And no reason for a single story house to be any less well
appointed than a two story. We just ask that it blend in with the existing neighborhood. We feel
that by applying the single story overlay developers and prospective purchasers would know ahead
of time exactly where they stand, the size of house or extension that they could build on a
particular lot. This can only benefit all. Palo Alto’s wonder single family neighborhoods along
with the excellent schools are among her best resources. The reason why so many families are
desperate to move here and willing to extend themselves fmancially in order to do so. Many other
cities have houses, lots of them. Palo Alto has homes and neighborhoods exemplified by these
tracts. Please let us do whatever we can to keep this advantage. Thank you for listening to our
application.
.~: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Jessica Bernhardt to be followed by
Sharon Long.
Ms. Jessica Bernhardt. 875 La Para Avenue, Pa!o Alto:-I am speaking for myself and also my.
husband who was unable to attend, so that’s two voters. I live in Barron Park at 875 La Para
Avenue, and I own two houses. I aiso own 879. I. am very strongly opposed to this overlay. I
believe that Palo Alto is already over zoned.. I believe that this is a distinct infringement on our
property rights. I think that one of the nice things about America is the original idea that a home
is one’s castle, that one can do what one likes. I am very disturbed by the trend to building
housing developments where there are all kinds of rules about not only that fact that you have the
rules in common but what color you can paint the house, how long you can keep a wreath on the
door, and everything else. Single family homes in California especially are disappearing along
with people’s personal rights to choose to do what they want with their property. In regard to
some of the issues raised by them about the trees. Palo Alto has some verystrong tree heritage
rules about preservation of those trees which I have carefully investigated due to some other things
I’m thinking of doing on my property. Very large trees, you have to build around them. I know
other people have. Maybe you build up a two story house but you be careful about those houses.
Another issue I feel about it is that if it really bothers you in this thing, you should do what I do.
The .reason why I bought the other house is I was worried about this happening. I believe that’s
the way you deal with it. I bought it. Now I realize not everybody can afford to do that but
City of Palo Alto Page 60
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
:22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
.33
34
35
36
37
38
39.
40
nobody says you have to live there. I have lived in B&rron Park for over 13 years and I think
that’s the way to deal with the issue about how it should be. That’s our main point is that we
think it infringes on our property rights. I’m very worried living only a couple of blocks away
that somebody will decide to extend it to my neighborhood. I think one of the beauties of Barron
Park is that it is not a bunch of identical eichler houses. The fact that it’s a wonderful collection
of eclectic houses, small, large, one story, two story, even some three and four story. That’s
what makes that neighborhood interesting. Very few houses look like one another. Even the new
houses are two stories that are going up. Very few look like one another. I think that various
developers have gotten the message that we don’t like it. Some of them have also gotten the
message about don’t look in other people’s yards. There’s a house that James Witt, the developer,
has built on Los Robles while it isn’t the most attractive house from the front one of the
interesting things that he’s done, and it’s currently for sale so you can go inside and take a look
at it if you want to see what I mean, is that he built the upstairs such that you can’t look out of
any windows to the right and left towards the next door neighbor. You cannot look. into the
neighbor’s backyard. So it is possible to build a nice, fancy, two story, four bedroom, three bath
house without impinging on the neighbors. I think he did a very good design on the inside even
if I’m not too crazy about the outside of that house, You should go take a look at it. It is
possible. I hope that you keep in mind that I think it is time tO preserve some more property
rights. I believe at this’ point you practically.need a permit to hang a picture in Palo Alto and it
is getting ridiculous. If these people don’t want to extend their houses to second stories that’s
wonderful but they shouldn’t have the right to keep other people who own their property from
doing so. Thank you.
i.~: Thank you very much. Sharon Long to be followed by Bruce Jaffe.
Ms. Sharon Long. 838 La JenniferWay. Palo Alto: My name is Sharon Long, my husband
Harold McGee and I are 16 year residents of Barron Park. I was going to speak about three items
but for five minutes I am just going to speak about the first two and the third is implicit. I read
something in the newspaper article about this that I really liked which is about the concept of
neighborhood e~,olution and managing that. I think that is a great concept. It is not only desirable
but it is essential. I wanted to make a point about evolution..~ You could def’me it as a change over
time that results in improvement or optimization with respect to some stated goal. Neighborhood
evolution might be a highly charged issue so I would like to illustrate it with something that comes
from a completely different area to show the point that there are multiple ways to evolve
successfully, many paths to successful evolution. The example comes from engineering, it’s from
bridge design. The goal of a bridge is clear you carry a load over a span. How bridges evolve
and get better is a bigger over a larger span but that has happened over time not by the emergence
of one single superior design. These two great bridges, Sydney Harbor and Golden Gate, are only
26 inches different in length but chose completely different greatly evolved designs, the one bow
design versus the suspension. You make a choice according to many factors one of which is
City of Palo Alto Page 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
aesthetics. So now this example taken from such a different area is only to make the point that
there is more than one way to evolve. I think the same is true for neighborhoods. What’s our
goal in Palo Alto? It’s to have vibrant neighborhoods with valuable houses that attract people to
come and be contributing citizens in our community. There are several good ways to evolve value
in neighborhoods and houses. One is obviously the construction of a large size house with many
square feet and a large number of rooms. Another, not the only other one but the one we’re
talking about, is one that has a certain neighborhood feel, a vista, low roofs and lots of trees. So
what’s the hitch? If they’re both good why doesn’t the natural selection of suburbia produce both
naturally? I think there are a couple of reasons. One is that both of these can yield long-term
value but one of them, only one, the large house is favored in addition by short term economics.
There are several reasons shown at the bottom. One is that the profit on construction and sale and
development for a larger house is much more clear in the short term. The second is that the large
house value is autonomous to the house, it comes with the unit whereas for neighborhood the
value is only with the aggregate. The f’mal is that a really nice, beautiful two story house can be
built in six to twelve months but a neighborhood with a vista of low roofs and trees takes 30 years
and can be destroyed by a short term change of an inappropriate obtrusive structure. So we, on
our street, believe in evolution, we’re not dinosaurs and we want to evolve. I have one picture
to conclude with which is our example. I’ve got to get that out. This shows our street. This is
a view from here looking towards .the end. When my husband and I wanted to extend our house
in 1993 it was apparent from our position that the construction of a two story house would have
so greatly changed the vista of the neighborhood that it was just inappropriate. So we petitioned
to the City, again this was 1993, for exceptions to the setbacks because we wanted to keep the
eichler feel, keep the one story low profile feel, true not only of the eichlers on our street but also
of the adjacent ranch style single story homes.on the other streets. In order to do this we, of
course as you know it is expensive to apply for an extension, it takes a lot of time, but we went
to that trouble and here is the petition that we circulated to our neighbors in support of our request
for the exception. You’ll see what we have here is stated that the Single story expansion would
maintain a symmetrical and even vista at the end of the street and that the single story is a
prominent feature here. I see my yellow light is on and I’m at the end. Just to say this isn’t
something we thought up on the short term. This petition dates from 1993. The very large
majority of the people who are on the street, .most of whom are here tonight, signed it at that time.
We’ve all felt this way for a long time. So we really believe in the concept of evolution. We
think that diverse neighborhoods and diverse features are important because different people look
for different things in neighborhoods. This is something thatlreally can only be preserved by the
community. So I’ll thank you for your attention. I’ll stop there.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much, Bruce Jaffe to be followed.by James Witt.
Mr. Bruce Jaffe, 3780 E1 Centr0, Palo Alto: Hi, I’m Bruce Jaffe, I represent myself and my
wife. Although I’m not in opposition to a one story overlay for the La Jennifer homes I cannot
City of Palo Alto Page 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
support if for the four houses on E1 Centro that are included in the tract. Three out of the four
of us have not signed the petition for the single story overlay. E1 Centro is a very diverse street,
only including four eichlers and then a number of one and two story homes. So although I
support the La Jennifer homes I do not support E1 Centro and hope you will not pass this petition
for rezoning ours and will change it to reflect just the homes of those, since it is a small area now,
I think it can be squeezed four more homes for the three out of four of us that don’t really want
it and we can move on. Thank you,
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. James Witt to be followed by Susan Knudsen.
Mr. James Witt, 722 Chimalus, Palo Alto: Hi I’m James Witt, 925 Ridge.
I’m probably the catalyst for the petition and then I’m a developer and I bought one of the lots,
808 La Jennifer. So I want to just say right off the bat I am designing a one story house and
hopefully that will take any pressure off the neighbors might feel in terms of urgency. I just want
to go through some specific things and mention them and sort of throw them out for your benefit.
With regard to meeting your criteria I think there are some important distinctions here that
separate this from some of the other one story overlays. Most important is that it is not in the
deed restriction. There is no height restriction in the deeds. So when people bought these houses,
or buy them, they are under the impression that they can add. a second floor onto their house.
They are not similar. In fact the houses on Timlott are completely different. So if it were just
the eichlers it would be similar but Timlott is conventional homes. A lot of them are not moderate
size and some of the biggest people pushing for this have the quite large lots. So of course they
are okay with one storybecause they have 8-12,000 foot. The people with the 7,000 and 8,000
foot lots are the ones that are really going to get hurt by this. In the design of the one story versus
the two story I experienced about a 20% increase in the cost, I covered up more of the yard, I had
a problem with flexibility, design, light, long hallways. It is just not as nice as the house would
have been. I’ve done a lot of houses in Barron Park, I don’t consider any of them to be monsters.
We do things for privacy that are much more on target than one story versus two story. That’s
the problem here, this tool of a one story, overlay is being used to address the privacy issues and
the size issues -- it’s not the right tool. So what we do is we take windows OUt of the second floor
on the sides, we use glass block, we plant trees, plant trees on the site, plant trees on the
neighbor’s site, adjust the mass of the second floor, these kinds of things. None of which are
being addressed with this one story overlay. The house that I’m going to tear down is an eichler,
it’s a dog. It has a slab, there is no furnace, there is no place to put the ducts, there’s no seismic
reinforcement, it is totally unsafe in a earthquake. If I went to add on to the house it is virtually
impossible. After January it will be virtually impossible to add on to these homes. People have
done it in the past but that’s under the old rules. Those rules don’t allow you to just add on to
an eichler and leave the rest of it alone. You have to go back and seismically upgrade it which
is almost impossible. They are energy inefficient, there is no crawl space under the floor, there
is no attic space to run the ducts, slabs are cracked, radiant heat is leaking, the front door to this
City of Palo Alto Page 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
- 27
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
house is around the back of house, you can’t even f’md it from the street. So what do you do with
that? Remodelling wasn’t in the cards for this house. Granted there are some nice houses there
and that’s why I liked theneighborhood. So I’m going to do the one story thing but I think this
is the wrong tool for the problem. I think if anything looks like spot zoning, that’s it. So anyway
I want to point out I have no financial connection to what happens here with regard to this one
story overlay. It is not going to affect me financially one way or the other. I’m speaking because
what I feel is right or wrong and nothing more. Let’s see if I’ve missed anything. There are two
points I want to make also in that one of the people that voted for this has already got a two story.
So his vote needs to be thrown out. Another person that voted for it is 80 years old and has no
clue what she’s signed. So here vote ought to be thrown out which puts you under the threshold
of 80%. Two out and you are under the 80 % threshold so you need to consider that. Do .you
have the letter from what’s his name on Timlott that mentions the 80 year old lady had no clue?
You don’t have his letter? He’s the one that talked to his neighbor and she said I signed what?
I had no idea I was signing something said I couldn’t put a second floor on my house. He asked
why she would do something that would devalue her property. She didn’t have a clue. Anyway
it is food for thought. Thank you.
.~: Thank you very much. Our fmal speaker is Susan Knudsen. If there is anyone
else who wishes to speak, please fill out a card now otherwise this will be our final speaker.
Ms. susafi Knudsen. 835 La_ Jennifer Way. Palo Alto: My husband and I bought our home at 835
three years ago after an intensive search. As you are now well aware it is an eichler. Previously
we had rejected eichlers, we always thought they were rather strangely designed. When we saw
this home in this location it didn’t matter that it was old eichler. We wanted to live in this place,
in this quiet tree-lined cul-de-sac. We paid a lot of.money to do so and we did it with the full
knowledge that we would spend more money to bring this old and poorly maintained home up to
the standard that we desired. This house had been rented for 14 years before we bought it and
at least one of the other bidders had slated it .as a tear down. We value the place, the
neighborhood as part of our home. It is a refuge in our busy professional lives. We value the
quiet, privacy and sense of community that comes with the neighborhood. We sought out this
kind of place. I am Confident that at any time there will be other busy professional people seeking
this kind of place to live in.. I must emphasize here that if our home had been overlooked by a
two story residence we would not have purchased it. I urge you to remember that there is much
more to the concept of value than the selling price of the property. My husband and I, and I
believe our neighbors, are not reactionary or preservationist. Most of us have made some
modification to our homes. We have done so with the intention of making the minimum impact
on our mutual environment, We have worked with thoughtful and creative architects and
managed, for the most part, to enhance our living space without having to add second stories.
A majority of the families in the neighborhood are in agreement that we do not want new two
story homes or addition to homes changing the character of where we live. We present our
City of Palo Alto Page 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24:
25
26
¯27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
petition to you in the only way that we can legitimately express our majority opinion. We ask that
you recognize and honor our wishes. We ask that you support our single story petition. Thank
you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Seeing no further speakers, I will now close the public
hearing and bring this discussion back to the Commission. Do Commissioners have any
additional questions for Staff or speakers at this time? Bern? Any additional questions before .we
begin our discussion?
Commissioner Burt: When we’ve gone through these single story overlays, what have been the
criteria for setting the boundaries within which we determine a plurality or the overwhelming
support?
Ms. Grote: Again, these are guidelines that we’ve used but if there is a deed restriction in place
we’ve used a general 75 % or greater would be overwhelming support. If there is no deed
restriction in place we’ve said 80% or greater would be overwhelming support. Again, those are
guidelines rather than strict boundaries.
Commissioner Burt: So that is the definition of the plurality required but how do we determine
what’s the geographic boundary.in which we take that vote?
Ms. Grote: Again, as a guideline we’ve said it needs to be an identifiable neighborhood and we
have not defined it beyond that. We have not said it needs to be a tract or an area of a certain
number of homes or lots. So I think generally if it is defined by streets that would suffice, and
it’s got a similar architectural style to it, and it could be def’med as a neighborhood. I did also
want to mention that the letter that was referred to, by the second to the last speaker, is in your
packet. I think it is the second to the last letter.
Commissioner Schmidt.
~ommissioner Schmidt: Question for Staff. We’ve just talked about these things~being guidelines
rather than specific requirements. Is that also true for the lot size recommendation? So that we
say characterized by a medium sized lots but since that’s guideline it could be larger lots, smaller
lots, etc.
Mr. Lee: Yes, that is my understanding that every definition in the guideline is subject to some
flexibility. That’s correct.
Commissioner Beecham: On the same subject, a question on lot size. The Staff report says there
are five lots between 6,000 and 7,000 feet. Looking at the map I am assuming that the four lots
City of Palo Alto Page 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
:24
25
26
¯27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
on E1 Centro are between 6 and 7,000. Would that be correct?
Mr. Lee: There actually is an inventory in the packet here and bear with me while I find it.
Chairman Byrd: Attachment B.
Mr. Lee: Right. The four lots on E1 Centro are roughly 62-6300.
Chairman Byrd: Other questions for Staff?.
Commissioner Burt: Yes. This letter that asserts that Lloyd Stanly who had signed the petition
is not in support of the petition, it’s a second hand assertion. Has there been any ability to
determine whether that is a changed position or accurately portrayed here?
Mr. Lee: We have a signed petition from the owner of the home and have not had any either"
verbal or written communications to the contrary.
Commissioner Burt: We’ve now had two consecutive overlay applications where we’ve had
disputes where folks who either signed it have retracted their support or in this case someone else
claiming that this person has retracted support. It seems like this is becoming a problematic
pattern that somehow we need to be able to have a better sense whether we have achieved that
80% or that 75 % whichever the requirement is. Are there any thoughts on how we might do that
differently in the future?
~: One of the purposes of these hearings, as you know, is to try and shake out those
issues. In the previous instance that you mentioned the people who did change their mind came
forward at the public hearing and submitted either a written or an oral comment to that effect.
Absent that second input I’m not sure there’s a whole lot els~ we can do.
Commissioner Beecham: In that regard, I understand from one of the speakers tonight that you
assisted with writing up some type of presentation that went along with the petition to be signed
so that people could read the Staff’s words so to speak. Is that correct?
Mr. Lee: Not exactly. What I try anddo with every neighborhood that comes forward is to share
with them the information that presented by previous neighborhoods. The signature form that has
been used by all neighborhoods, to my knowledge, is exactly the same and that is because we
share with them the petition of the prior applicants.
.Commissioner Beecham: That form, does it include a description of what the intent is?
City of Palo Alto Page 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Mr. Lee: Yes it does.
Commissioner Beecham: Thank you.
Commissioner Butt: Is that attached in our packets?
Mr. Lee: We do have it available here to pass out if you’d like.
Commissioner Schmidt: The applicant I believe it is stated in the report here that for example the
people on La Calle were also in support of this concept. They have larger lots so that they were
not included in the proposal. My general question is why wasn’t this addressing a larger area,
that there are additional on Timlott that are not included, and there are lots on Carlitos and E1
Centro that are also small lots.. It looks like from the information we have that most of them are
one story. This is a very small group of houses and I understand the beauty of the particular
street.
Mr. Lee: That was exactly my reaction when I received the initial inquiry from the neighborhood
and I encouraged the applicants to look beyond the original proposal which was just on L Jennifer
Way to see in fact whether there was support beyond that individual street. There is another map
in your packet which shows the support and the number of stories in that neighborhood. In
discussion with the applicant we looked at the pattern that the supporters on a geographical basis
would make and it did not, in our opinion form a coherent neighborhood. So there were several
issues. One was whether there was a coherent pattern of support which we believe there was not.
And two, what the lot sizes were, and three the existing pattern of two story homes. So the areas
that were not included in the subject application did not meetone of those three criteria and the
neighbors felt that it was not in their best interest to include them.
Commissioner Schink: Could Staff comment on their opinion whether this application would be
harmed much by the elimination of the four houses on El Centro?
Mr, Lee: It would not change the basic rectangular or L-shape of the proposal. It would not
change the overwhelming support of the proposal. It would not affect materially the percentage
of single story homes in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Schink: Maybe I can ask the question a different way. Why were they included
if three of the four didn’t want to be in there?
Mr. Lee: The original tract is basically def’med along E1 Centro so that was the original thinking.
Chairman Byrd: Seeing no further questions, why don’t we open up a discussion. We have a
City of Palo Alto ~Page 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Staff recommendation in front of us in support of the application. Would anyone like to offer first
thoughts. Commissioner Cassel.
Commissioner Cassel: Actually I wanted to aska question of Planning Commissioners that I
asked of Staff. I’d be interested to know why it is we allow more floor area ration, what the
arguments were because I was not involved in that discussion, to allow more floor area ratio for
the building itself than for site coverage. So that we in essence tell people that if they want to use
all of the floor area ratio they must use the second story.
Commissioner Schink: My recollection of sort of weighing those two issues when we went
through the single family rewrite is that there was very little attention paid to lot coverage. All
of the focus was on FAR and FAR was reduced quite dramatically. I don’t think people really,
at the time, gave it a lot of thought that suddenly the FAR was coming as close to the lot coverage
as it was. So I don’t think that there was any balancing that was considered. It was just totally
separate issues. This lot coverage figure has been pretty much the same for as long as I can
remember, a good 20 years.
Commissioner Cassel: In terms of discussion, one of the things I’ve noticed is that we’re more
and more covering area with a single family overlay zone and in order to allow people to use the
rest .of their FAR, essentially the rest of it or most of it because Jon’s calculations say that if you
went upyou lose 150 square feet anyway in the staircase, that what weare doing is forcing people
to go up. In making the-two numbers different we’ve lost the ability in any place in town to
electively use all of our FAR. We’re forcing people to want to go to overlay zones to allow
themselves to stay on the fn’st floor. It’s sort of a backwards way of thinking of what we’ve been
doing but I feel a real dichotomy. This neighborhood, I’m just using this neighborhood as an
example or any neighborhood, gets a single family overlay zone everyone must stay to a single
family overlay zone. But if you’re in another single family residential neighborhood that doesn’t
have any overlay zone and you want to use all of your FAR you can’t and stay on the first floor.
Today with the land prices so high you want to use all of your FAR. So you are essentially forced
into using it on the second floor. So here we are really getting angry about second stories and not
really saying but it is permissible to use a single story. I’m f’mding a real dichotomy. It’s not an
issue we are going to resolve tonight but it’s something I think we need to think about as we
approach the zoning issue. If this is really so important that people stay on the first floor then not
only people in single overlay zones but others ought to be electively able to do it. I just sense that
one of the things we were looking at was if energy efficiency and some of those issues, but Jon
said they weren’t thinking about that. It is of course unfair to put Jon on the spot for having
looked up what he said that.many years ago. I have other issues on this and some other people
want to talk.
Perhaps a reaction to the Staffrecommendation if we’re that. far along.
City of Palo Alto Page 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
- 27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
Commissioner Schink: I was just going to say that one of the nice things about us having to do
these single story overlay reviews is that we have done a number of them so our positions are all
pretty well staked out here. We all know where everyone is coming from so let me cut to the
chase and I’ll get the real issue in front of the Commission and then maybe we can argue over the
specific facts of this application. So I would like to move the Staff recommendation but modify
it by eliminating 3780 E1 Centro, 3790 E1 Centro, 3800 El Centro, 3806 E1 Centro.
Chairman Byrd: Is there a second?
.Commissioner Beecham: Second.
Chairman Byrd: Discussion on the motion? The maker.
Commissioner Schink: I think the arguments that the applicants have made for this application
are obviously compelling. It is a neighborhood that is well suited to a single story overlay that
the character is best protected by doing so. But in keeping with our tradition of not forcing this
upon people I think it is hard to apply those rules to the four homes on E1 Centro where there isn’t
consensus. It is easy for us to just move the sort of the line of demarkation in one set of lots. I
think we get better consensus and still accomplish what we are trying to accomplish.
Chairman Byrd: Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the motion?
Commissioner Bialson: I find this a very difficult proposal. I wasn’t comfortable in previous
applications that have come before us but felt that because there was a pre-existing deed restriction
that it was an identifiable neighborhood and alarge neighborhood. Privacy was a large concern.
Homes behind the homes that were moving the application were included so that someone behind
those homes could not build a second story. Those are rather compelling. What I have here
seems to be somewhat gerrymandered, sort of "neighborhood." As I drove through that
neighborhood I was struck by the fact that the only homes that seemed to constitute a
. neighborhood are on La Jennifer Way. Timlott does not seem to bear very much relation to those
homes on La Jennifer. It seems to me that before we take away from these people on La Jennifer
¯ the right tO build a second story we consider whether due process has been done. I think this goes
to one of the questions that was asked about well, is the process sufficient for people who may
have changed their minds or mis-understood what was being done. The City was not involved
with this process and it is much easier for me to see us going into an overlay when people are
acquiring homes subject to a deed restriction. That doesn’t exist here. We can have this problem
of the people on La Jennifer who are uncomfortable about the possibility of second story homes
resolve the issue by having some sort of cross-covenants in their deeds. They are a very small
number of homes and I think that this can be handled in that fashion. I don"t think it is something
that needs the City involvement. I fear for.the precedent that we are setting here. I think this is
City of Palo Alto Page 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
too small a neighborhood. It is one that, should they want to have the deed restriction, they can
impose it.
,Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Schmidt.
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with much of what Annette has said. I think La Jennifer Way
is a lovely street. I am very impressed with what various neighbors have done to maintain the
character there. I appreciate very much the attitude and the wonderful description of value versus
take the buck now, short term versus the long term value. But I think a couple of issue have come
up here that indicate indeed that, as one of you said, this was the only way we could legitimately
present our wishes, single story overlay, and the developer who is going to build there who says
this is the wrong tool for the problem. I think that’s true. It seems like the goal was to end up
with a one story house on that one particular lot. That’s the problem right now. It seems like that
particular problem is being solved. I agree with Annette’s comments about the neighborhood as
presented looks gerrymandered. If we cut off the ones on E1 Centro that don’t want to be part of
it, it still part of La Jennifer, part of Timlott and in my opinion it is very small. It doesnlt really
represent a neighborhood as many of the other single story overlays that have come before us.
I think also Phyllis brought up a very good issue, how do we deal with this in an appropriate way
to allow greater build-out for single story to help as an incentive, for an area so that you didn’t
have to resort to single story overlay. As I drove around Barron Park, much of it is single story
but there are two stories. I still feel that many neighborhoods are transitional neighborhoods.
That things change, that things can be updated if people are sensitive as I would hope they would
be, and they aren’t necessarily, but that we will continue to have good looking neighborhoods
without applying single story overlay in much of Palo Alto. It’s still this question of what’s an
appropriate design to fit into a neighborhood tO be considerate and we don’t really know how to
solve tfiat problem other than people solving those problems right now. As I said, I really
appreciate that particular street. I think going to vote against putting a single story overlay on it.
Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: I s .hare some of the concerns that have been expressed especially regarding
the lots on Timlott, that I think a stronger case can be made for the homes on La Jennifer being
a small but identifiable neighborhood with overwhelming support within La Jennifer if we exclude
the E1 Centro lots. I would like to propose an amendment to the motion in that the lot on Timlott,
840 Timlott, that there seems to be a question as to whether that property owner supports
inclusion in the overlay. That if Staff should determine ...........
[Section missing on the tape]
Commissioner Cassel: [in process] ....things around them, ways of living. There maybe
City of Palo Alto Page 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29~
30
31
32
.33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
something we need to do in terms of how we design some of these homes and how we handle that
is certainly an issue that we’ve talked about and we’re going to be talking about more. I’m also
concerned about comments about 80 year old’s. All of us hope to be 80 and most of us who get
to be 80 will be quite alert. Some of us at 40 are. not. Age is not related to our dementia or
.dementia is not related to our age it is related to our health and our good luck. Because someone
is 80 they may have difficulty, it’s not because of their age and understanding. As we work with
people we must understand that most 80 and 90 year old’s have the ability to understand as well
as you and I. I will be voting against the motion.
Chairman Byrd: They’ve had a turn and have another. Bern, go.
Commissioner Beecham: I’ve not had a turn yet. Let me say first off that I do truly enjoy
Phyllis’ points of view and fresh points of view that are otherwise are not represented well here
on the .Planning Commission, even .though she is wrong on this issue. Let me address a few
points just going down a short list here. One, there was a comment made about taking away
rights on Timlott. As far as we know by signatures on the petition rights are being voluntarily
surrendered to. the community by those on Timlott who are in fact involved in this consideration
tonight. I think Pat’s amendment to the motion is appropriate if this one person at 840 does
decide that it’s not right for them then it is appropriate that they be let out it. I think Jon was
right in looking at the four lots on E1 Centro. They are generally smaller lots. They are more
impacted. Fortunately if we do go through with this tonight and they are excluded that will not
have that much impact on the neighborhood of La-Jennifer. Certainly the gateway is a little bit
affected as you come in but on one side you’ve got Mr. Witt and his development at 808 which
will be. single story and he’s not the resident there. The property at 813 may be affected some
time in the future but I think that’s an appropriate accommodation to maybe move us forward.
Mr. Witt also mentioned this is the Wrong tool for doing things such as apparently he’s done on
one ofhis houses out there. We’ve talked about that up here ourselves and unfortunately we have
no right tool. One tool that has been discussed and other places have is design review. We don’t
have that. There is no tool by which we can insure that other developers maybe as thoughtful
in this regard as Mr. Witt has been. On the boundaries, I think the boundaries as drawn by the
group coming in here tonight and as proposed by the Staff is appropriate, winding down-La
Jennifer and over and picking up a portion of Timlott. It .may not be ascleanas we ordinarily
might like to see but it Certainly is a definable neighborhood for La Jennifer. Even though it is
small I know you guys think you are a neighborhood. That ought to be the definition, I think.
Another comment is, as we talked about already, there has been concern on what people really .
understand is really going on as they get the petition and sign it. I was glad to hear tonight that
Staff has worked with you in developing what you took around. I would urge Staff to go further
in the next neighborhood and actually write-up or present a summary that is to be attached to the
petition to say here is what is going to happen, here is what’s given up, here is what your rights
are that you are forgoing. So that aSother groups get it there won’t be any question about at least
City of Palo Alto Page 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13.
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
the information they had. They may not have thought about it. They may sign it under duress
or not reading it but we can’t help that. At least we will have taken every possible step to insure
that what they get is representing what may happen. I do believe in this case you have probably
done that. One other thing I’d add, and this gettinga little bit out of the area before us tonight,
the Staff had recommended to this group that the neighborhood on [La Cow] not be included
because the houses are too large. Just as we’ve said for this location that these are guidelines we
are looking at for moderate sized lots, I’d be curious, I don’t know what the Commission would
do and I don’t know what the Council would do, but I’d be interested to entertain an application
even from larger lots if they are of a consistent mind, and the other criteria are generally met,
even though their lots are not what we call moderate I think that may warrant coming in here and
requesting a single story overlay if that is what they desire. So with all that said, I will support.
the motion.
Commissioner Bialson: I know I’ve already had a chance to speak but this is in response to
comments made by my fellow Commissioners. I only want to touch on two issues that are of
concern to me here that I haven’t already spoken about, some of them I already have but I want
to expand on them. Number one is due process. I don’t think you achieve that by having
neighbors go around presenting proposals to other neighbors. I think there is a pressure there,
subtle or not so subtle, that does not allow people to enunciate their true feelings or to give the
proposal enough weight in their consideration. I feel strongly that while it is nice that Mr. Lee
assisted that does not rise to the level of due process in this situation. I think we need to be aware
of that and nothing in this proposal that is before us meets the requirements of guideline number
four. We do not have moderate lot sizes. We def’mitely do not have generally consistent lotting
pattern. I think what this was intended to go towards in terms of having overlays applied on
properties that with a typical grid pattern where privacy was a large issue especially with eichlers
and you don’t have that here. I think it’s in appropriate for the City to impose this sort of burden
on people who may, a few months from now, fred themselves in a situation where they might not
feel as they do now with their neighbors sitting next to them as they appear before us because of
other factors being brought to their consideration. It might be a situation where some damage has
occurred to their home and in redeveloping that home they fred that they could perhaps have less
impact on their neighbors, assure themselves privacy through some other means other than having
a maintenance of their eichler type home. One of our speakers here spoke about evolution and
allowing that to occur. I think that’s what we need to do. We can’t freeze-frame certain housing
in this community.
Commissioner Burt: I want to take one more cut at it. I share a lot of Annette’s and Phyllis’
concerns about our whole overlay process. First the due process aspects in the last two overlays
that we’ve considered. Second, the issue of essentially penalizing .folks who would like to have
full build out of their FAR and would like to do so on a single floor without having to have an
overlay zone in order to be allowed to do that. However, in this circumstance I think that what
City of Palo Alto Page 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
we have is essentially all of these properties that we are now including, in the boundary being in
support except for Mr. Witt’s property and he’s going to build a single story home, a new
structure that presumable would be for a long while. So I’m inclined to allow these people to
decide for themselves what they want for their neighborhood. If some of the other speakers and
some of the other letters had great concerns that an overlay zone could be imposed upon them on
nearby properties in the future, I would be supportive of those people from having this imposed
upon them. Since we have a near unanimous agreement that this is what these people want for
themselves I’m inclined of letting them decide for their cul-de-sac what they’d like. The
properties that we now have included, I think all now are defined as the moderate size lots. They
have a certain shape, they are generally pie-shaped lots, there is a similarity. It’s a community
that has a similarity to it that I think meets the-criteria on number four.
Commissioner Schink: Well, I just have to add one more point of view. As we’ve gone around
and talked the opinion ¯that I don’t think has been emphasized enough here is that we are giving
this neighborhood another tool to better develop their property in a way that is compatible with
the other homes in the neighborhood. It is not so much an issue of taking away the second story
as it is giving them more lot coverage so that when they do decide to remodel or add on to their
homes they have a tool that works better with their particular neighborhood. So I think we need
to put the emphasis on this as something positive as opposed to taking away the second story..
Commissioner Beecham: Since you are looking around, one more time. To me, whenever people
come in here and they voluntarily want to basically down-zone or restrict their future abilities for
something that they believe is valuable to them, and in a way that is not going to detriment the
City in any other way, I just don’t know how we can say no to that.
Chairman Byrd: One of the risks of going last, and it is last, is when the headcount is as it
appears to be. I have voted for every single story overlay that has come before us since we’ve
been on this Commission. While at the same time expressing my displeasure at a policy level with
the way that this zone is ffritten and administered. Ithink it is a sledgehammer when we need
a scalpel, but I don’t think it is my role to take that out on the applicants for any given overlay
if they can meet the guidelines. I favor the City, at a policy level, going back and taking a fresh
look at this tool and perhaps getting rid of it. That’s a policy level discussion that needs to come
later. What we have before us is a specific application. So then I turn to the guidelines and while
they don’t rise to the level of f’mdings they are intended to structure my thinking about this
¯ application. As I work my way through these guidelines on the first one there have been questions
raised about the level and format of owner support; on the second one on appropriate boundaries
I do have concerns about the small size of this overlay and it being an island and not really a
neighborhood unto itself. It is an island within a larger neighborhood as opposed to a
neighborhood unto itself. I agree that there probably is prevailing single story character within
the identified by the proposed overlay zone but I do not find that these are in fact moderate lot
City of Palo Alto Page73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
sizes for the reasons expressed by Annette. So solely and narrowly on the merits of this
application and not inspired by my general reluctance to continue use this tool, I’m not able to
support the Staff recommendation for this overlay. For that reason I will not be supporting the
motion:
Commissioner Schink: A procedural question. If this fails on a 4-3 vote it still goes to the
Council just on a 4-3 vote, right? That the Planning Commission failed to PaSS it.
Chairman Byrd: I think technically if the motion fails we need an alternate motion which is to
recommend denial of the Staff recommendation. Staff can advise me on that. I can either, call for
a vote on the motion.
Ms. Furth: Why don’t you start there while we look up the answer to your other question.
,Chairman Byrd: Why don’t we vote on the motion that’s before us. We have a motion before
us which is the Staff recommendation as modified by removal of 840 Timlott and the four lots on
E1 Centro: Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye: (ayes) Opposed? (nos)
That motion fails on a 4-3 vote. The ayes were Commissioners Schink, Burt and Beecham with
the nos being Commissioner Cassel, Schmidt, Byrd, and Bialson. Do I have an alternative
motion?
Commissioner Schink: I would move that we report and we forward this application to the City
Council reflecting the negative vote .that was just taken and our discussion.
Ms. Furth: I think we found the right Code section. It says that you will forward your
recommendation to the City Council along with your findings that are the basis for your
recommendationwhich would suggest to me that you should make another motion if you havea
different recommendation.
i.~: So I need a motion that recommends denial of the Staff recommendation and the
basis for that. Since we don’t have f’mdings here, they are just guidelines for the underling basis.
Ms. Furth: I think it means the basis for your decision.
Chairman Byrd: Annette or Kathy?
Commissioner Schmidt: I will recommend denial of this based on the fact that the application
does not meet the guidelines as Owen just elaborated in his description that there is a question
about overwhelming support of neighbors, the application does not seem to have appropriate
boundaries and that it is not characterized by moderate lot sizes.
City of Palo Alto Page 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: Do I have a second?
Commissioner Bialson: I second, and I would ask that we modify the motion by also sighting the
fact that these are not generally consistent lotting patterns that we find in the applicants.
Commissioner Schmidt: That’s acceptable.
Chairman Byrd: You want to also modify the motion to include other comments that have been
made in support of the motion through our discussion in case in review of the notes Staff finds
other rationale that was expressed to deny the Staff recommendation?
Commissioner Schmidt: Yes, and we might mention that there we no original deed restrictions
on this.
.Commissioner Bialson: I would agree certainly that we sight to all the discussion that held.
Chairman Byrd: Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor? (ayes)
Opposed? (nos) That passes on a 4-3 vote with Commissioner Bialson, Schmidt, Byrd and Cassel
voting ayes; and Commissioner Beecham, Burt and Schink voting no. Staff when will this item
go to Council?
Ms. Grote: This will go to Council On November 16th.
Chairman Byrd: Very good, that concludes this. item. Thank you all very much for coming
tonight. I would like now to move on on our agenda to do the housekeeping and then come back
and do historic. The next item is Reports From Committees, seeing none. we have Reports
From Officials which is on the review of the Comp Plan Implementation Plan.
Mr. Riel: Staff is requesting that item be continued to the October 28th hearing.
Chairman Byrd: Do I have a motion. It has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That leaves us with having to return to historic.
Commissioner Beecham: Report From Officials?
Chairman Byrd: You are right. Reports From Officials.
Commissioner Beecham: At this last week’s Council meeting the Council had a public hearing
on single story overlay for tract 1977 and 1722 down near Charleston. At the hearing there was
more contention about what was passed around and appropriate signing and that is an issue that
City of Palo Alto Page 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
.20
21
22
23
:24
25
=.26
27
!28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
needs to be taken care of, however, that was all done at the end of the meeting and it will be
considered by the Council next month.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Seeing no .other reports we will take a five minute break
and return to our work on historic incentives.
..... this public meeting of the Planning Commission and return us to our discussion of benefits
and incentives. Before we launch in where we left off in the middle of parking requirements, I
want to address up front for the Commission’s convenience and the public’s, what our options are
in terms of finishing this task. The Staff has conveyed it’s strong preference and evidently the
Cot~ncil’s preference as well that we complete our work tonight in order to stay on the timeline
identified for a final report on this topic to Council in early December. If we can’t do a good job
because we’re tired that doesn’t make much sense either. So I’d like spend just a minute
discussing our options presuming that even if we use our best efforts here, for the next hour or
two or two and half, and we can’t finish what are our options? I guess one is to continue the item
to our October 28th meeting. I guess the options are to go as late as it takes tonight or to do what
we can until we are too tired to continue and if needed continue it to the 28th. Do people have
other options? Or does Staff have input beyond its strong preference that we finish tonight?
Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: I’m a little bit optimistic that we can finish by 10:30. We spent about
two and a half hours on this so far and I think we’ve gone through the major issues. We’ve got
two significant parts to go, site coverage and FAR. The other stuff is more procedural and I don’t
think we’ll take much time so I think we can probably f’mish off tonight. On the other hand, if
we don’.t ourfirst commitment is to do a good job. If we don’t do a good job tonight then we
==should take our time and do it when we can.
Chairman Byrd: How late are people willing to go tonight? 10:30 sounds late .to me given that
.we started at 3:00. 10:00?
Commissioner Cassel: Can we go to 10:00 and see where we are? Because if we’re ver~ close
to finishing then we may want to. I agree a little bit with Bern, a lot of these issues we’ve hashed
and hashed and hashed, and then we say well does it fit over there. We may get down towards
the end and fred these things fall into place easier. Remember the first chapter of the Comp Plan?
It was much harder than the last. Some of it was really that the issues had been discussed already.
Chairman Byrd: Then lets go until 10:00 and see where we are with the expectation that if we’ve
got a ways to go we will break then and continue it to the 28th. Okay?
We were in the middle of parking requirements. We had concluded our discussion on the process
City of Palo Alto Page 76
1
.2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
of reviewing these exceptions to parking requirements that we sort of wanted to use HIE light,
as it was called, and perhaps create a lessor set of findings to be reviewed by the HRB if it in fact
ends up being the body that reviews HIE’s for historic properties which is the suggestion to follow
when we get to the process section. So now what I’d like to do is go back up with that process
in mind and run as quickly as we can through this list of options. The first one being to permit
one parking space for a single family residence rather than the required two spaces per unit. I
think in our study session we all expressed enthusiasm for that. We will leave it as is. The
second is to modify or reduce parking requirements for. multiple family structures, keeping a
minimum of one space per unit. Sounds flexible? Seeing no disagreement, we keep it. The item
C here, when we began our discussion it was tentatively removed, allow,for uncovered parking
in the driveways. That technically re-states what is already the case. You are allowed to have
your second car in the driveway. I guess the question is whether this should say, "allow for
uncovered parking in the driveway to completely satisfy the parking requirement." Is that our
intent? The next item is to allow detached garages with reduced setback off alleys. We had
discussed whether there should be a zero lot line ability there or whether there should be a
minimum five foot setback. This gets us into our grinding detail again. Should we leave that to
a Staff recommendation to be sent to Council? Very good, then we will scratch zero or five feet
and let Staff ponder that. The next one is to allow detached garages to be sighted less than 75 feet
from the front property line or any street side propertyline which is a significant modification of
the existing R-1 rule. Are we in favor of that? Wow. The next is to allow for uncovered parking
in the driveways off alleys for second dwelling units. Another good idea. The next is to allow
for garage conversions for residential uses which would increase the FAR? We’ll have to get back
to that. Scratch that. Allow for garage conversions for residential use relative to the creation of
uncovered parking. This I think, meant that an existing garage could be converted to a home
office or a second residential unit so. long as it met all the other requirements without running
afoul of covered parking restrict_ions. However, this would be constrained by preventing
demolition of existing garages, Jon.
Commissioner Schink: Since we’re now say that all of these have to go through an HIE or the
HRB process I think you should just eliminate that clause about the demolition. I think you are
going to get into too many confusing arguments.
Chairm~: Does anyone have a problem with that? Very good, then we will scratch that
last bit of item G.
Ms. Furth: Excuse me, do you understand that to be subsumed by C as a practical matter? I
¯ mean you may want to point this out. That once you allow uncovered parking to satisfy covered
parking requirements.
Chairman Byrd: As Staff repackages our recommendations for Council, Staff has a certain
City of Palo Alto Page 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
.33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
amount of leeway to repackage the recommendations in the most tight form.
Commissioner Cassel: You haven’t worked with us before, but we’ve done this before.
Ms. Furth: I believe you. I was just curious as to whether there was another code provision that
was involved.
Chairman Byrd: This isn’t verbatim, this is policy direction. The next item is to allow tandem
parking which is currently permitted. So I guess the question is whether we’re allowing two
uncovered tandem spaces to satisfy the requirement. Jon.
Commissioner Schink: Does this now mean that that allowance has to go through the HIE/HRB
process also? I think I would ~believe you would want to strike it from this list since it is already
allowed. By including here now it is no longer an incentive. You are taking it away.
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with Jon. I think we’ve already.covered it in previous statements
here anyway.
Commissioner Burt: When we go back to A which allows one parking space and then elsewhere
we allow it to be uncovered, where would the tandem come into play? Am I following that
correctly?
Chairman Byrd: You’re right.
Commissioner Cassel: No, not necessarily, if you had two units you might.
Commissioner Burt: That’s right and that’s what I’m concerned with: If we have two units
should we allow those two units to have tandem?
Chairman Byrd: So the wording would be allow tandem uncovered parking to satisfy the parking
requirements for two unit on a lot.
Commissioner Burt: I don’t think I would support that.
Chairman Byrd: Because?
Commissioner Burt: I think the reality is that you don’t have two separate residents who are
going to be able to coordinate coming in and out. The reality would be people would go to on-
street parking. Whereas if it’s one household with two cars it gets coordinate at least a reasonable
amount of the time. This is going to be a defacto, we’ve got one uncovered parking space for two
different residential units and I think that’s going too far.
City of Palo Alto Page 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
26
¯ 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Mr. Riel: Staff would recommend that we not allow two units tandem parking.
Commissioner Beecham: A question on how this would work. I’m envisioning these houses
having one driveway and if it is an existing historic, it has one driveway likely going down the
side perhaps to a garage in the back. We’ve already said you can build out or you can add a
second unit in the back. The most convenient scenario is you still have one driveway going down
to one garage in the back. If we say no tandem parking we’ve kind of wiped out that scenario
unless they now take a driveway and pull it off into the small space between the two houses. I’m
not sure if that’s what we want or if that actually works. I think we put ourselves in a situation
where in most cases by saying no tandem parking for two, which may be¯ reasonable, but the
implication for that is there is no parking for the set up that we were otherwise supporting.
Commissioner Cassel: May I suggest that we just simply don’t say no tandem parking but we
don’t say yes you may do it. We just leave it as it is and when those little tiny details, it’s kind
of a rare situation. You can sometimes make a two pad space share one driveway.
Commissioner Burt: One of the things that we’ve talked about allowing is that if we have a
¯ second dwelling unit in the bacl~, I’m trying to see where this was, basically there is a possibility
of an alley parking spot for that second ttnit. Then also there would be the possibility of having
two parallel uncovered spots which would have one width of a driveway entrance to two parallel
spots. There are a lot of circumstances where that piece is there. Or that people simply have to
have another covered parking spot. I just think that ¯having two residential units having one off-
street uncovered spot is too little off-street parking requirement. We’ve. gone too far in that
circumstance is my concern.
~: Well the next item is whether or not we allow on-street parking to satisfy the
parking requirement. It sounds to me like we should strike it for now because we are not exactly
sure how it will work in practice. Does anyone have any opposition to that? Because tandem
parking is already allowed so long as one of the spaces is covered. It can work it’s way through
the HIE process through the HRB and so you’ve got to have one covered.
Commissioner Burt: Is it currently allowed if it’s two different residential units provided one of
those spaces is covered? Is tandem, parking allowed for two different residential units provided
one of those spaces is covered which is what I believe Owen just said?
Mr. White: I think the answer to the question is the requirement is different now. There would
be a requirement for four total spaces, two covered and two uncovered. Therefor you could have
a tandem arrangement separated by dwelling unit.
Commissioner Burt: Right and that’s four spaces but if we go to two spaces for two units whether
City of Palo Alto Page 79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
one of those is covered or not I don’t think tandem parking should adequately satisfy that. We
are currently going from four spaces down to two for two units. We on a defacto basis would be
going from four spaces currently required down to one.
Chairman Byrd: Well that’s why I said we are going to strike it unless there is opposition to
striking it. Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: I think we should strike it number one, because I agree with what Pat
is saying that you’re going from four to one basically. I think we need to be aware that by doing
that we are putting a severe crimp in people’s ability to do everything we talked about before in
putting a second unit on a parcel. They are going to be parking space constrained. I think that
is going to affect what we tried to get to.
Chairman Byrd: Unless, and this is a good segue, unless moving to our next one we allow on-
street parking to satisfy parking requirements.
Mr. Riel: I’d like to make some comments regarding that. I think in terms of Staff’s viewpoint
I would probably like to change our recommendation because that is an issue that is obviously an
issue that is being discussed in several neighborhoods throughout the Ci(y. It is also being
discussed as a part of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, south of Forest area plan, and that issue
was brought up on a number of occasions. What I’m saying is that perhaps we should be silent
and strike that particular opportunity at this point in time.
Commissioner Schink: The comments that Bern made ar~ really important. If you take away the
ability to tandem park and you don’t include that here all the work we did on allowing the second
unit is gone. The only way with most of those historic properties is to end up with tandem
parking or street parking. "There is no way you are going to fit all the pieces on the site. I think
tandem parking, as a solution, is a real good.solution. What happens is thatyouessentially force
someone who puts a second unit in the back, since they don’t want the renter who’s staying there
to park their car behind their car all the time, they end up renting to a student who rides their
bicycle back and forth to Stanford or takes the train or something. So we can serve a number of
goods this way. You have to be realistic otherwise you won’t get the second units.
.~: On the related matter, I may be the only one, but I’m actually in favor of leaving
the on-street parking thought in the mix. Remember that this is just a laundry list of ideas, that
it will be constrained by the HIE process, and I think there will be times when the agenda of
historic preservation will be well served by a situation that results in the parking requirement
being met by having one.of the required spaces met on the street. I know that’s a controversial
City of Palo Alto Page 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
issue because of existing parking challenges but we have competing agendas here. I don’t think
our need to create car habitat should trump our interest in historic preservation.
Commissioner Cassel: Here I’m going to disagree with you. I think it is much more realistic to
consider uncovered parking. That’s what we do in the real world. I think we do a lot of wasted
cement space in some of the ways we don’t count uncovered parking spaces that are off street.
This time I think this other process that we’re working through may end up with what you are
going after for the whole City, as a whole issue, rather than in just one little portion of it. We
should let that issue ride through that process because I think it is a liyely issue under discussion
and not have people get tied up on that issue in the historic ordinance. It has enough problems
of its own. If we want to go back and look at the tandem parking thing that is another issue
because it’s a question of how you do it on site and then maybe someone goes on the street. How
we’re going to monitor it for one thing is a problem.
Chairman Byrd: I should have said that my suggestion is to strike the issue about the monitoring
system. I think the HIE process can anticipate how many spaces are required. For example if
two spaces are required because there are two units and you can only have one on the lot, well
you know the other spot is in front of the house.
Commissioner Beecham: What was the monitoring system that Staff was considering here?
Mr. Riel: That is being discussed at the present time. The difficulty in that is creating a
monitoring system that can be actively monitored-on an equal and fair basis. That system has not
been developed yet.
Commlssioner Beecham: What are you monitoring?
Mr. Riel: In terms of the parking for an entire area or a neighborhood in terms of what spaces
are available on the street. It is more of a neighborhood issue than a single family residence issue.
Commissioner Beecham: So conceptually if you’ve got a particular neighborhood downtown that
has no available on street parking then you would say this is not’an available option?
Mr. Riel: Essentially.
Commissioner Beecham: If they are off in the boondocks of Palo Alto and you’ve got wide open
spaces then you say it is more feasible there.
Mr. Rie______!l: That’s an option.
City of Palo Alto Page 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
_23
24
25~
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Burt: Eric are you essentially referring to the proposed permit parking programs
in downtown north and University south?
Mr. Riel: Yes, yes I am and the ramifications it.could have for other neighborhoods as well
because it is a contentious issue.
Commissioner Burt: Among the areas of the City that have a high concentration of historic
properties, those are largely the same neighborhoods that have had the parking problems and have
been exploring permit parking for the last couple of years. I’ve spent more time involved in that
than I wish I had. I think one of the things that we have to consider in all of these programs is
that we’re trying to create a set of incentives that will also have community support. We’re
abdicating going quite a ways in liberalizing parking requirements. I think we have to be cautious
about going too far and creating a backlash. I’ve already heard comments with concerns about
what we were proposing of going from four spaces down to two. I think we’ve got to be real
cautious in going too far. I’d also like to say that those same neighborhoods where we are talking
about allowing second units very often have alleys. We do have a high percentage of those
circumstances where we could .get a second parking space on the alley side. So I don’t think we
lose all of the incentive for the second units by not allow the tandem parking and not allowing the
on street parking to count.
Commissioner Sc’hink: Could I try a motion on this section and then we can get a vote and we’ll
see how it goes?
I would move that we adopt the Staff recommendations with the following chariges: sentence C
would be moved down to be a sub-set of sentence G; we would strike the word "increase FAR"
in section G; sentence H would be modified to say "allow tandem parking for-two unit sites";
section I would be modified to state "if street parking is ample it may be considered to satisfy
parking ""requn’ements ; and J stays the same.
Commissioner Schmidt: One other thing thatwas discussed was item D, deleting any reference
to number of feet.
~: Another item that was discussed was deleting in G the sentence "do not permit
demolition of garage."
Commissioner Schink: Correct.
Chairman Byrd: To future makers of motions, just for our convenience in following it, it might
help to read through the list from the top. Although in this case I think we got it.
City of Palo Alto Page 82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Schink: Pat has asked me to repeat my language for I. I had suggested that I be
re-written to say, "if street parking is ample it may be considered to satisfy parking
requirements."
Chairman Byrd: There’s a second. Is there any discussion? Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: I’ll support this but in everything we’re doing tonight this is probably
the one that I had the biggest concern that we’re making mistakes. I don’t know when we’ll
figure out what it should be, maybe when the Staff knows what the profile is of the historic houses
out there, looks at it in more detail, finds out how they are configured, but I think this area is
fraught with problems for the future. So I urge Staff and Council when they get to it to really
consider it in more detail.
Commissioner Schmidt: Bern, I have the same concerns but I will support it also. I think that
this is a problem area and that we’re basically sending lots of cars out to the street in most of these
things. People generally don’t park in their garages very often anyway, and use them for storage.
Maybe they will enclose them and not park in their driveways, and store things in their driveways,
and park in the street. I agree with Bern’s comments that Staff really needs to look at this and
make it work.
Mr,Gawf: If I could comment for Staff by saying that we also share the concern. I’m sort of
taking the sense of the Planning Commission as asking Staff to explore how this might work, the
tandem parking, on street I’m more concerned about but explore both of these issues to make sure
we fully understand the potential impacts of the decision. Make sure that the Planning
Commission and the City Council understand those when we bring them back in an ordinance
form. Eventually.this will come back with more detail as a final recommendation.
Chairman Byrd: Okay, further comment.
Commissioner Burt: I share Bern’s concern that we have to give greater consideration to whether
this is appropriate but I can only support the motion if we omit H which is, if I understood Jon’s
motion correctly, allows tandem parking for two unit sites. I don’t think I could support the
motion with that inclusion there.
Commissioner Beecham: If I can respond to that. We have .a tandem driveway and for the two
of us it doesn’t work well. If you’ve got two units where they are not talking and communicating
intimately it will not work. So as Jon said, the realistic option is either f’md somebody who bikes
to work, or one of the units parks on the street. That’s simplicity is what we’re saying is most
likely to happen if we allow tandem parking.
City of Palo Alto Page 83 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: Well I would hate for this to be passed to Council without someone speaking
with some enthusiasm about the concept. I think that historic preservation is far more important
than parking requirements. I think that this should be an A and not a B because I do think that
it enables the other tools that we want to use such as construction of second units. I think this is
very creative on our part to try and use this tool to further the preservation agenda. So I hope
Council shows some enthusiasm for it.
..Ms. Warheit: Question or clarification for Jon about this deletion of the "not to demolish the
garage." Is G still intended for conversion of this existing space from parking to residential use?
Commissioner Schink: The only reason I wanted you to strike that "do not permit demolition of
garages," is because we haven’t tackled the definition of demolition. When you take out the
garage door and you do a few other things you suddenly get into a big argument about whether
you have hit 50 %.
Ms. Warheit: I see, I thought maybe that’s what you are referring to, but you’re still talking
about converting this structure to another use.
Commissioner Schink: Right.
~: Jon, one f’mal question on your motion. Is this benefit an A or a B?
Commissioner Schink: I’m really torn, I was sitting here thinking it almost means we need a C
category for all that stuff that’s going to come later.. I don’t think this rises to the level of a real
incentive that applies to all of the homes which is what I think our primary charge needs to be but
it is a very important benefit. So I’d put it as a B but I’d move a bunch of other stuff into a C
category.
Chairman Burt: Jon, would, you be receptive to us voting separately on H?
Commissioner Schink: No. I think you should comment on your feelings about H.
Chairman Byrd: Okay, well then with no further discussion on this one and it being proposed,
I think what I hear is for now since we only have A’s and B’s, that is a B. We’ll come back and
revisit that subject later. All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (no) That
passes on a 6-1 vote with Commissioner Burt in opposition.
That moves us to lot coverage which we preliminarily identified as an A. Although so far the
Staff bet that we’ll switch them all to B’s is winning. The ideas that we’ve previously discussed
on this subject involve increasing the amount of allowed lot coverage. Specifically allow for
City of Palo Alto Page 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
increase coverage to 50% of the lot for rear yard additions for existing historic residences. That
means residences that are already on the list whether they are landmark or significant? Yes, okay.
The second is to allow increased lot coverage to 40%. What is that from? To 40% from 35%,
so the 5% increase from 35% to. 40% accommodates coverage porches and overhangs. Am I
reading that wrong?
Commissioner Schmidt: I believe that currently it is 35% plus 5% for porches~ etc. So what item
B is doing is increasing the baseline from 35 % to 40% and still allowing an additional 5 % for
porches, overhangs, etc.
Chairman Byrd: The third is to provide for different maximum percentages of lot coverage for
single family residences. What does that mean? Well, let’s come back to it. Fourth is the
process issue of using the HIE. You want to start with the fu’st one? We’re going to 50% so long
as it is in the rear in an effort I presume to preserve the facade. Fine? Fine. The second one is
let them go to 40% with another 5% that gets them to 45% to accommodate covered porches,
overhangs and similar features. That’s fine. I thought it was graduated.
.Commissioner Schink: The difference being I guess with the 40% you could do some in the front
where the 50% its all got to be in the back. Is that what we’re trying to say?
ChairmanByrd: Right.
Ms. Warheit: Highly unlikely to be in the front. I don’t know I wasn’t here when you discussed
this but I would think that probably what happened is at one point there was a proposal to go up
to 50% and someone else proposed only to go up to 40%.
Commissioner Schink: I think what you should do is strike B.
Commissioner Burt: I guess I would like to hear a bit more discussion of whether 50% is the
amount we need to go up to in order to provide a benefit or an incentive for historic preservation..
It’s a big jump and I’d like to consider it more carefully before recommending it.
Chairman Byrd: Another option would be to get rid of this distinction between rear yard and
combine A and B say that we will allow for an increase to 45 % with a 5 % increase for porches
and overhangs and so on.
Commissioner Burt: Do you mean an additional 5 % beyond the 45 %?
Chairman Byrd: Exactly, I’m trying to split the difference between the existing A and B here and
create just one rule which would be increase coverage to 45 % regardless of where it is added with
City of Palo Alto Page 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
26
27~
28
29.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
5 % increase for the porches and overhangs.
Commissioner Cassel: Can I ask a question here? When we go back to the single family overlay
zone what was the increased site coverage we allowed on those units?
Mr. Riel: 40% with a 5%.
Commissioner Schmidt: Just a point of reference. The chart that Bern gave us earlier shows .a
6,000 square foot lot with current FAR of 2,550 square feet which would be 42.5 % coverage.
I think they would be the same. That would be the same, I believe.
Commissioner Schink: Under the current zoning ordinance on a 5,000 square foot lot you can
build a 2,250 square foot structure, So if we’re going to require all of it to be developed on one
floor, if you want to provide for any type of incentive, you’ve got to go up to at least 50%.
You’re margins only 250 additional square feet.
Commissioner Beecham: If you take a 7,000 square foot lot, right now their FAR is about 40%.
If we talk about a 10% increase we are talking about a 44% FAR so that is under a 50% site
coverage. But the limiting factor generally is the developable envelope so we’ve got to get into
that. What I would recommend now, we have Owen’s suggestion of a 45% plus 5% is probably
in the right range. I think Staff needs to go and make some tables, maybe similar to mine maybe
not, fmd out what fits and what constraints we have and what is really the limiting factor. When
they come back to Council, lay that out and show here’s the constraint you need to work with
whether it is the setback or site coverage and how it relates to the different sizes all the way down
to 5,000 square feet. Until they can do that and until they have the profile of the historic houses
out there we don’t really have the right data to do anything more than make an estimate. I think
Owen’s estimate is as good as any.
Chairman Byrd.: Thank you. And I think Jon is right that if we don’t give them enough it is not
really an incentive. So at this point, since this is our first cut at it, if we come up with a rough
number with the understanding thatit needs to be run through a more technical review, but the
number signals the policy intent to give them something substantial that is enough.
Commissioner Schink: I think the other option that we might throw out her is that you just stop
calculating lot coverage and you focus on FAR. Why do you need both?
Ms. Warheit: I think the intent of raising this way back at the beginning was to allow a single
story house to add its floor area staying one story because it can be so unworkable to add two
stories to a single story historic house. People would bump up against the coverage first and not
be able to use the FAR. It is exactly the same issue as the single story overlay, exactly. I was
City of Palo Alto Page 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~22
23 -
~ 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
calculating here, 40% of a 5,000 square foot lot is about 2,000 square feet. So they don’t need
50% they just need slightly over 40% and they’ll have it.
..Commissioner Schink: 45%.
Ms. Warheit: 45 % is more than they need.
Commissioner Schink: 45 % is what the FAR is.
Ms. Warheit: It’s not,
.Commissioner Schink: 2250.
Chairman Byrd: Jon did I hear you to suggest that maybe the way to get at this is to simply
remove the lot coverage restriction entirely and regulate just through FAR?
Commissioner Schink: That way you don’t this disconnect tension that comes into play when you
are trying to renovate an historic structure. People get to use their FAR. If it means that it works
best by putting it all over on the site, maybe it’s in lots of little places, but it gets used on the site.
Then we eliminate this tension. You’ve still got to go through HRB. So I think that’s your
easiest solution.
Ms. Warheit: It’s not going to be going much over 40% anyway. By the time they use up all the
FAR they are only slightly over 40 %.
Commissioner Schink: What we .say is whatever we come up with for FAR is going to rule, not
lot coverage.
Ms. Warheit: Yes, and you won’t have the problem of people covering more than about 40%
because they will run out of FAR.
Commissioner Schmidt: They will also run out buildable area. Just for info, if we’ve been
talking about a 5,000 square foot lot of 50 x 100 your buildable area is 2,280 because you’ve got
20 foot setbacks front and back and six on the sides.
Commissioner Burt: I support the concept of just focusing on the FAR but right now we
essentially have a floating scale where that f’u’st 5,000 has a certain FAR. I think we ought to look
at whatever increase we have that we go in a similar direction because if we go to a 45 % then
we’d providing a very small benefit for folks with a 5,000 or 6,000 square foot lot and a very
large benefit for people with a large !ot in terms of what additional floor area they’d be able to
City of Palo Alto Page 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
- 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
build. So we may want to encourage Staff to look at a structure that would mirror the pattern that
we current have on FAR.
Commissioner Schmidt: We’re talking about lot coverage right now, right?
Commissioner Burt: I think we are talking about both FAR and lot coverage.
Chairman Byrd: No, not right now. We just have lot coverage in front of us and the suggestion
is whether we stick with the Staff recommendation, we split the difference and go to 45 % plus 5 %
or whether we just remove the lot coverage restrictions entirely as an historic incentive.
Commissioner Burt: Aren’t we proposing that the new lot coverage would actually exceed the
current FAR allowance if we’re at 45 % on the large lot? They aren’t currently allowed to go to
a 45 % FAR.
Commissioner Schink: You’re correct.
Commissioner Beecham: But on a small lot currently they can go to 45% and if you’re given a
10% bonus they can go to 50.5% or 49.5%.
Commissioner Schink: Yes,.to simplify it I think we should strike this section and simply say
floor area ratio should govern lot coverage.
Commissioner Beecham: Or alternatively, delete lot coverage limitations for historic houses.
Cdlail:IIl~l~B2~: Okay, does someone want to makethat motion?
Commissioner Schmidt: I’m just wondering if we should discuss floor area ratio before we apply.
it to the lot coverage..
~: We can always come back if we want.
Commissioner Schink: I think the only other part of the discussion that probably needs to be had
is making sure you don’t count covered porches and overhangs in FAR.
Chairman Byrd: Why don’t we reach it when we get to FAR. Let’s just deal with the lot
coverage issue now and double back if we need to.
Commissioner Beecham: That’.s in the .standard definition anyway. We’re not modifying the
definition of FAR.
City of Palo Alto Page 88
1
2
3
4
5
6.
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
1~4,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
.33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: Let’s hold that for our FAR discussion. I just want to bring us to closure on just
the lot coverage idea. Gail.
Ms. Woolley: I appreciate that you’re going to ask Staff to iook at this more carefully, I just
wanted to remind you that very often historic houses do not have the current setbacks. Three foot
side yard setbacks, ten feet front yard setback. So you may have rather a different situation than
when you are using our current setbacks.
Chairman Byrd: So Gail, are you suggesting that we should retain some form of lot coverage?
Ms. Woolley: I’m just saying this really needs to be looked at by Staff to see what the results are
going to be with what you are talking about which is what you were saying earlier.
Commissioner Cassel: I just think we ought to look at this because what we are trying to do here
is allow the small single story units to stay on the first floor. I think we really have to look at the
concept seriously and see if we can .make it work. We’ve got a lot of details. What is the FAR
you’re getting? If this extra FAR bonus we’ve been talking about is 500 square feet, it’s 500
square feet for a little lot but also for a big lot. So it does some of the same things by dropping
the FAR. I think we should look at those number and keep this concept in mind. I think it is well
worth looking at. I like having small coverage and two stories but it doesn’t always work and
isn’t going to gain our goal.
Commissioner Burt: Gail could you clarify a little bit more what you meant in terms of what Staff
should look at on the setbacks? Or are you saying that we should request Staff to look at not only
the lot coverage aspect but what allowances should be allowed for setbacks on historic structures?
Or that we should be looking at gi:andfathering in existing setbacks? Did you have certain
recommendations in that regard? -
Ms. Woolley: I was just simply thinking that if you’re Using todays current setback standards to
figure out lot coverage, in other words that you could only go so far because the setbacks would
limit how much you could build, that that might not work for an historic building because the
setbacks were much less.
Commissioner Schmidt: The setbacks are different too in other areas. In my neighborhood for
example the front setbacks were 30 feet. So the original houses were built 30 feet back. If we
are preserving the front of homes and giving additional FAR that is an impact to look at. I agree
with what Gail is saying that Staff needs to look at how widely applicable the variety of setbacks
are too.
Commissioner Schink: The point that I think this emphasizes is the need for flexibility and you
City of Palo Alto Page 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38.
39
40
get more flexibility by utilizing one standard
Mr. Gawf: Seems like it actually emphasizes two things. What you just mentioned Jon, but it
also emPhasizes the fact that whatever we do tonight, we as Staff need to take that and sort of test
it. We are sort of brainstorming in effect. There are unusual circumstances, different
development configurations and we at Staff need to test some of these concepts. We will
obviously share it with Planning Commission once we’ve done that but maybe that is an
underlying assumption with this. That whatever you do tonight we will take it, play with it, test
it and report back to you any problems that we see as a result of what we are doing.
Commissioner Schink: I was trying to make a motion before but it started to ftzzle. Should I try
it again?
Chairman Byrd: Why don’t you withdraw whatever was there and start over.
Commissioner Schink: Scratch whatever my previous attempt was and I simply want to say that
floor area ratio should govern lot coverage. No?
Commissioner Beecham: Another way of doing it is to say there is no site coverage limit for
these houses.
Commissioner Schink: I was just trying to clarify that it was a change in the world but that’s a
cleaner way to say it. I’ll second your motion Bern.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think that we might want to revisit this or think about this more because
if you say that there is no site coverage requirement that to me doesn’t send the right message
either. I think even in our statements we want to be able to say that it does relate to FAR, that
it relates to something. We are not saying you can build out the entire 50 x 100 feet or whatever
size it is.
Commissioner Schink: That’s why I said floor area ratio should govern lot coverage.
Chairman Byrd: Or put a different way since issue is lot coverage that lot coverage will not be
constrained by a percentage of the lot but will be constrained by FAR. We’re saying the same
thing.
Commissioner Cassel: I,think we are arguing ourselves to death. I think we are all trying to get
to the same thing and I think that Staff get the point and they are going to do the analysis. I don’t
think it makes a difference which way we word it. We are going to have some other constraints
down the line.
City of Palo Alto Page 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
¯ -27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: Okay. So we are suggesting no lot coverage and instead use FAR.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, that lot coverage should be limited by FAR.
Chairman Byrd: Good, moving on. Oh, by the way, was that an A or a B?
Mr. Riel: There was not a final vote on that.
Chairman Byrd: That’s right we didn’t vote on the motion. That was a motion, there was a
second. Actually before we vote, are we considering this incentive, at first cut, an A or a B?
Commissioner Schmidt: We still have the HIE process listed here as far as I’m concerned.
Chairman Byrd: Well you won’t need one because there is no lot coverage requirement. So there
is no process. Sounds like it might be an A.
Commissioner Beecham: An A presuming that the next FAR issue is an A because this goes hand
in hand with it.
Chairman Byrd: It will be a tentative A?
Commissioner Schink: Yes, it goes with FAR.
h!~: Very good. At least it breaks the streak. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed?
That passes 7-0. And we move on to. the narrow subject of floor area ratio. How should we do
-this? We have 10 of them. in front of us and perhaps for the benefit of us all it is worth running
through them once and then beginning our discussion. No, Jon?
Commissioner Schink: I was going to suggest that you start at the bottom and work your way up.
.~,h~l~l_]~z~: As we’ve done before, do the process issue first..
Commissioner Schink: I’d just go right up from the bottom and it gets easier as you go.
~: Alright. Let’s start with process. Whatever floor area relaxation we come up
will be governed.by the HIE process which we are presuming will be in the hands of the HRB.
Do we all agree on that? No, okay. Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I am not comfortable saying it is an HIE process. I think you have to
make it stronger and imply it is a right like the rest of the zoning ordinance. If we modify the
City of Palo Alto Page 91
1
:2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
- 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
floor area ratio for historic property it has to be clearly modified for the historic property. That’s
not to say that the HRB can’t find that in the effort to preserve these properties you just can’t
build that much. I think you can’t put it in a way that the homeowner has to prove that there’s
no hardship. It has to be easier. It has be a right to begin with.
Chairman Byrd: Since all the other exceptions and other design and compatibility issues have to
run through HRB anyway, what’s the difference?
Commissioner Schink: The difference is that they don’t have to make the findings to prove that
they get to use the square footage.
Commissioner Beecham: I think in all the other items, I’m assuming at least, that the HRB can
say, in this case we don’t think you deserve it, need it, it doesn’t work, doesn’t’ fit, it is
discretionary on HRB’s part given whatever guidelines we come up with or they come up with
for it. On FAR, I agree with Jon that this should not be discretionary by HRB. This FAR bonus
benefit, incentive should be there period. If they are an historic house, significant or otherwise,
they should get this FAR bonus as incentive or benefit for being constrained. They still need to
go to HRB for design review but HRB can’t say, oh, by the way we think you should only get 200
feet. That’s not in their purview.
Chairman Byrd: But HRB can reachit indirectly by saying we don’t like your design. Come
back with a smaller design.-I see where you are going but in practice how is going to make any
difference when you have to go through HRB .anyway and HRB has a lot of discretion?
Commissioner Beecham: I think the intent of how it is written makes a big difference.~ If we say,
and it is clear, that the FAR bonus or addition is there and it is theirs to use given that they have
to through a design review; I think the HRB is going to have to work real hard to say that it is
impossible to come.up with a good design that provides that additional FAR. Versus all the others
are much more subjective. All the others are at the discretion of the HRB given whatever
guidelines there might be, this one is very, very little discretionary, if at all.
Ms. Woolley: I think I would agree with you on that Bern depending on whether the Council
decides that significant resources should have voluntary or mandatory compliance. As I
understand what you’re saying, if the Council goes with voluntary compliance, then the person
can say, great I’ve got my FAR so long, goodbye and I’m going to build just exactly what I want
to, and it might not be so good..
Commissioner Beecham: I think in every case I think design review is required if that’s what you
mean by voluntary or not.
City of Palo Alto Page 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
_23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Ms. Woolley: Compliance. You’ve that three columns here and the last one is voluntary.
compliance.
Chairman Byrd: Actually, unfortunately we don’t.have three columns any more. We had this
discussion up front and the Commission determined that there was no distinction between
mandatory and voluntary environments. That they work as benefits in a mandatory environment
and as incentives in a voluntary but that we were not going to address that distinction in our
discussions.
Ms. Woolley: Right and I would agree with that completely as long as it is a discretionary
benefit. So that in the case that it is a voluntary compliance, if it is a discretionary benefit, then
obviously the owner, the applicant has to go through and produce something that the HRB thinks
is going to satisfactory.
Commissioner Beecham: Yes, that’s right. If it turns out that the Council winds up saying that
it is voluntary to comply or to be in the program, anybody who is not in the program does not get
these benefits.
Ms. Woolley: No, that’s not it. If the review process is mandatory review but voluntary
compliance.
Commissioner Beecham: We’re not saying that.
Chairman Byrd: We are presuming that you have to comply with the review process. It is
voluntary about whether or not you want to enter into the system but once you are in the pipe you
have to play by the rules.
Ms. Woolley: Okay, I hope Council goes along with you.
Commissioner Schink: That is an important point to stress. You don’t give the incentives unless
they are willing to sign the contract that says they will go a!l the way through.
Commissioner Burt: I think Gail is correct that one of the options that the Council is considering
is mandatory review but voluntary compliance. Isn’t that the case?
Commissioner S~hink: Just like the old ordinance.~ That’s how it has been for a long time.
Ms. Warheit: Yes, and what I hear Jon saying and other members is, then if all of these
incentives are not available to someone who doesn’t agree to comply.
City of Palo Alto Page 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Beecham: If there is any voluntary portion of this, if somebody voluntarily opts
out then they opt out of all these benefits.
Commissioner Schmidt: I want make clear, are .we saying then that we will guarantee that
someone can get an FAR that we decide upon that even if the party has to come back to HRB a
hundred times to get a design that is appropriate, or they have to keep coming back until a design
is approPriate, that they are going to get that square footage.
Commissioner Beecham: A hundred times we guarantee. I think that if that happens something
has gone wrong with the process. Either Council, Staff or the public will figure that out and work
to rectify it. Staff, when they do the profile, will know if they are close to finishing most likely
in the houses that are out there and figuring out how the stuff applies to it and all the unintended
impacts. I’m sure Staff will have ready for Council, when it goes their packet, how this works
and whether or not in 95% of the cases if you’ve got an historic house can you successfully add
on the amount of square feet we’re talking about destroying the historicness of the house. So that
is something that we don’t have in front of us, I’m presuming it’s true, you’re worried it’s not I
think. Staff needs to present that analysis to Council when it goes to them.
Commissioner Schmidt: I’m worried that there are lots and lots and lots of different cases and
I don’t think that Staff is going to be able to analyze a huge percentage of them to understand if
this really applies.
Commissioner Beecham: I think they’ll need to f’md what cases are the outlyers, the boundary
issues and evaluate them and say at the worst case here’s what happens.
.~.’- Let me bring us. back to issue that is on the table which is R on this list which
is the process for reviewing the Use of this benefit or incentive of increased FAR whatever it may
be. I guess I understand the desire to send a clear signal to the community that this is our A +
incentive and you have an "expectation that you are going to be able to use this increased FAR but
at the same time since you have to go through HRB for design review anyway, what’s the
difference whether or not it is constrained by the HIE process along with the way that all the
others are?
Commissioner Bialson: I understand Jon’s concern and I think what we should dois perhaps use
a differen~ label for the review process to make it clear that the FAR that we are granting is a right
and the only review is for the design that is utilizing that additional floor area ratio. Whether we
use something like historical resource additional FAR or additional square footage, some other
term which allows the HRB understand that this has a different flavor to it. That they are starting ¯
out with sort of the burden of proof already accomplished by the applicant. They are coming in
with this right and therefore it is the Board’s ability to only tinker with how it is designed in and
City of Palo Alto Page 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
not to grant it or withhold it from the applicant.
Chairman Byrd: So instead of using the term "using an HIE process," you are suggesting
substituting "use an HRB design review process"?
Commissioner Bialson: I think that would be fine. We have-got to get the message across
somehow and perhaps by renaming it so that it is different from all the other incentives we will
accomplish that.
Chairman Byrd: Which will then have either no f’mdings or different findings or reduced findings
but in some way would be less burdensome than an HIE.
.Commissioner Bialson: Yes, we’ve got to make it clear that it is different.
Commissioner Schink: The HRBjust has to apply their standards of review. Having spent almost
ten years on the Architectural Review Board let me tell you that the Board looked at things
differently if it was an applicants right to build a certain number of square feet versus making it
clear that it had to fit in in a different way. It really changes the standard of review. I wanted
to add one other point. I think that as we work our way through the list, the example that Kathy
gave that certain things just aren’t going to work, we’ve got to recognize that that’s the case, and
I think we are going to have to talk about ways out. There needs to be a safety valve in this
process and I think there are some other things we can do to address that.
Commissioner Bialson: I think we use the safety valve to be exceptions. Some f’mdings that can
be used so that the review process is targeted to perhaps finding those exceptions existing so that
the additional FAR cannot be granted. Those have got to be very, very narrow ones.
Chairman Byrd: [off mike] will be to utilize an HRB design review process with a presumption
that the increase in FAR" can be used by the property owner. Is that sufficiently strong?
Commissioner Beecham: Along with that if Jon hasn’t said it already, I think consistent with that
is modifying C to say 10% bonus based upon size of residence.
Chairman Byrd: Do you mind if we work our way up. Okay, we’ve got our process in place let’s
work our way up the list. Q is to allow all of the above to be discretionary through the HRB.
Sounds like that’s in Conflict with our new presumption so we might want to scratch that.
Commissioner Schink: Right.
Chairman Byrd: Scratch it. P, relax light well regulations with the review by the HRB to ensure
City.of Palo Alto Page 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
historic integrity.
Commissioner Bialson: I think that’s getting a little too detailed. I think that is something we
should leave to the HRB.
Commissioner Burt: N, O and P maybe could be grouped under a more generalized wording that
allows latitude on basements subject to Staff or HRB review.
Chairman Byrd: We’ve already stated what the review process will be so I think you are right.
These get subsumed in one which says allow flexibility on basement design.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think Staff was not recommending O and I do not recommend O.
.Chairman Byrd: The idea was not to reach that level of detail. To create one generic item in
place of N, O and P, that says allow flexibility in basement design.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, and let Staff come back with recommendations on how to do that.
Commissioner Beecham: I think for the light wells that is not an historic regulation that is based
on other codes within the City. I~think we need to throw that in the pot so the HRB has the
authority to play with it basically. Otherwise they don’t have that authority to play with it. So
I think we might as well leave it in here at this point and then Staff can muddle around with it.
Commissioner Schink: I think N and P are clear, we should just say they are good ideas and
move on.
a.~,haj£I]~l]_,]~: We’ve got a number of different ideas on the table what’s the pleasure of the
Commission?
Commissioner Bialson: My concern is that by being specific on some items we may give a
message to the HRB that these are the items to be considered and maybe we use some language
like "including but not limited to." I don’t want to in any way restrict the Historic Resource
Board.
Chairman Byrd:
regulations?
How about allow flexibility in basement design such as relaxed light well
Ms. Warheit: If I could just say, my experience since I’ve been working with the Board for a few
months and a few light wells that came in is that there is already plenty of flexibility. That what
the R-1 zoning ordinance allows in terms of light wells is already way beyond what’s usually
City of Palo Alto Page 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
:22
23
24
~25
:26
27
28
29
30.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
appropriate on an historic building. So I don’t think anything needs to be done on this actually.
Chairman Byrd: Alright, so we’re back to simply allow flexibility in basement design, pursuing
our agenda of simplicity. That subs for N, O and P. Backing up to J because the others are
beneath it, consider not including the following items in the FAR calculation. The first one if
existing basements or new basements that do not result in the house being raised, so long as any
grade change at the base of the structure is minimal and is consistent with the historical
appearance of the structure. That gets us into a lot of detail.
Commissioner Beecham: How is that different than current than current policy?
Mr. White: I think this is a reference to that somewhat rare situation where we call it a basement
but it doesn’t necessarily meet out definition of basement so therefore it counts as FAR.
Ms. Warheit: Right. It’s because it is more than three feet above grade. If the basement is less
than three feet out of the ground it already doesn’t count as FAR and is totally a non-issue. In
many.historic houses the f’mished floor is already more than three feet above the ground and under
current code that means that all that basement counts as floor area. This is saying it would not.
Commissioner Cassel: This is repeating something that we really did discuss in detail before and
came up with this language.
Chairman Byrd: So Shall we leave the basement language as is?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes.
Chairman Byrd: Okay, lets move to the attic language. Existing attics or unf’mished spaces that,
do not result in exterior changes to the structure. Is that okay? The final one that Staff would like
us to remove is removing detached structures and garages from the FAR calculation which Staff
does not support. This would relate back to this now lack of lot coverage, the absence of the lot
coverage requirement.
Commissioner Beecham: I think if we increase the floor area ratio excluding those is sort of
overkill.
Chairman Byrd: So should we remove M? Okay we remove M..So we’re not going to count
basement and attics so long as they. meet these rules.
Commissioner Burt: Under K, if someone has a basement currently in an historic structure but
say it is only a seven or eight foot basement, not a full living space. They would need to raise
City of Palo Alto Page 97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
the house in order to turn that basement into a living space if it were a new structure. People are
putting basements in and they are being used as full living space. The historic structure would
not be able to do that. They wouldn’t be able to raise the house. They would be in a situation
where they would basically have less FAR allowed than a new structure that could put a full
basement in. I’m just looking at whether it is putting, the historic homeowner at a disadvantage
by not being able to raise the house two feet and turn that basement into a full living space that
w6uld not count against their FAR.
Ms. Warheit: That’s usually done, not by raising the house, almost always changing that
basement into living space is associated with completely rebuilding the foundation. What they do
is they just dig down an extra foot or two. They are usually completely rebuilding the basement
walls and the foundation.
Commissioner Burt: I’ve seen several recently where they raised the house. I’m thinking of at
least one on Gwenda and another one I’ve seen around where they jacked up the house just a
couple of feet. They turned what was really just a cellar into living space in the basement.
Commissioner Cassel: I’m confused why you’re confused. I thought we had’ gone through this.
In the historic structure if they are going to go down they are going to allowed to not count it if
they don’t move the space. Currently they are allowed to not count it if it less than three feet.
If it is more than three above the ground they must count it.
Commissioner Burt: SO currently if someone would have to jack up the house by say two feet to
get a full living space in the basement.
Commissioner Cassel: But it is not three feet above the ground.
Commissioner Butt: In that case it would go to three feet above the ground, they would be
penalized in that that would count against their FAR in that historic structure.
Chairman Byrd: I have to take the Chair"s prerogative on this one. We’re danger of entering the
basement of detailed discussion.
Commissioner Burt: Maybe we could just explore that one later and see whether that in fact is
an issue or not.
Chairman Byrd: We worked pretty hard at the study session to come up with language and again
this is our first cut, it is going to go through Staff and Council, it will come back and they’ll
consider all the permutations.
City of Palo Alto Page 98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Burt: I’m just asking Staff to look at this issue in between time.
Chairman Byrd: They are going to be looking at all .the issues before it gets reported to Council.
My question is at the beginning of J whether we want to leave the words "consider not counting"?
Are we instead forthrightly saying that we are not going to count the following items as FAR?
Yes, okay. Do not count. The next item above it is only allow additions to the rear of
residences. Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: Let me ask how rigorously we mean that. Doe~ it have to begin at the
rear wall and anything beyond that is acceptable? Or are there cases where if you’ve got a long
house you can begin half way down and pop out a side or something.
Commissioner Bialson: I think that is why we have the HRB reviewing this. Maybe we can state
a preference but I wouldn’t go much beyond that because we are hoping for design review to take
all these different components into consideration.
Chairman Byrd: What if we expressed it in the negative and instead said, "do not allow additions
to the front of residences," which wouldretain the ability to work on the sides and the rear?
Commissioner Burt: Could we get Staff’s opinion whether they think it is necessary?
MS, Warheit: I would rerrdnd you again these only apply to historic buildingk which are subject
to the Secretary of the Interior Standards, review by the HRB so where an addition is appropriate
should be decided individually on each property. I think it is once again getting into detail that
you can’t possibly predict. _ ~
Chairman Byrd: Do you suggest we scratch it?
Ms. Warheit: I do. J-
Chairman Byrd: Does the Commission want to scratch it? Scratch it. Very good. The next one
above it, additions must be compatible with the residence and the historic neighborhood patterns.
I think that’s self evident so we’ll scratch that as well. Now we get to the meat of the thing.
Allow for different FAR’s for landmark and significant resources to include the following. The
options include a 10% bonus based on the size of the residence. I think we would scratch the
words "subject to HRB" because that is implied. The second option is a 500 square foot increase
for landmark or 400 square .foot increase for significant or 500 for both. The final is to allow
FAR increases for .historic residences subject to mandatory compliance. That sort of restates
what’s above it and punts on what the choice is so why don’t we scratch that and just make the
choice. Do we want to do it by percentage or by square footage and if so, how much? Jon?
City of Palo Alto Page 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Schink: I tried previously to make the strong case that you need 500 square feet.
I would just state again that it’s one, significantly more complex and more expensive to renovate
a landmark structure. The existing elements of a landmark structure, because you have to respect
them, you have to respect the inefficiencies which are built in, and because of those built-in
inefficiencies often times you just need to add a whole new component. You’re not in a position
necessarily to take some of the rooms and have them naturally configure themselves as a family
room flowing into a kitchen. You might have to build that whole new piece on the back. It just
requires more flexibility to do the job right. For that reason I think you need to start with 500
square feet. It is an expensive process, requires detailed review and this is the kind of incentive
that will make people feel comfortable about embarking on it. I think if you contrast that with a
10% bonus which is close to what you are already allowed with an HIE process. Well you
already have the HIE process. The charge to us was to come up with incentives. I don’t think
we are doing our job if we go back and say, "here you go, you can use the current HIE process
as an incentive." We’ve got to a step further and it’s easy to justify 500 square feet. That’s a 20
x 25 room on the back of the house.
Commissioner Cassel: If you. do a fixed number, smaller lots get a higher percentage and larger
lots get smaller percentage. Does that make a big difference? If you’ve got an 8,000 square foot
lot, they would be allowed more to begin with.
Commissioner Schink: The initial costs are fixed costs. So if you take fixed costs involved in
this process you come up with a fixed number. The second issue you face is what is this incentive
trying to do? It’s trying to offset the problems you encounter in doing these types of projects.
On a small lot you’ve got more problems and it’s more difficult so you needthat square footage.
As the lots get bigger you have a little bit more flexibility but again the lot is bigger so there are
more costs involved because the house is bigger. So I think that as you weigh the variables it
keeps coming down to sort of the derivative of all of it is a fixed number.
Commissioner Schmidt: Just going back to an example we’ve been using, a 50 x 100 lot with
current setbacEs has a buildable are of 2,280 square feet and it’s allowed currently the 45 % FAR
on 5,000 square feet so it gets 2,250. If you add 500 to that you are forcing them to a two story
or you’re defmitely going into setbacks. You are coming to a complex situation right away for
the Small lots if you’re saying you can have an extra 500 square feet. That you’re potentially
making sure that everybody goes to two stories on a small lot if you say everybody gets 500
square feet. Unless we relax setbacks and give six on the sides and 20 on the front and back
which doesn’t leave you a whole lot of yard.
Commissioner Schink: I think that if you look back to what our zoning ordinance was in 1987
or 1988 that is about what you were allowed to build on a 5,000 square foot lot. I think you could
build a 2,700 square foot house before we re-wrote the ordinance. So that takes us back to a
City of Palo Alto Page 100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
previous time. If you looked at many of the historic homes they are pretty close to those kinds
of square footages. I think somebody could do it compatibly. It’s just one option. I think one
of the other issues that we need to address is there are properties where this just isn’t going to
work at all. I’d go back and throw out the example of the Julia Morgan house that got knocked
down. I don’t think this incentive would have worked at all. I don’t know how you could have
remodeled that house up to these types of square footages. So I think we should throw out on the
table another option to consider and that is the ability to sell this square footage to another user.
That would be a real incentive.
Commissioner Bialson: I’d like to re-introduce the concept of lot coverage here and perhaps use
the 500 square feet that I agree with Jon on but say that provided that it cannot exceed a 50% or
55 % lot coverage. I take Gail’s point with regard to many of these homes having setbacks far less
than the 20 feet front and back and six feet side yard. Maybe say that on the small lots we need
to add another control and I can’t come up with anything but lot coverage and have it be broad
enough to address all those situations. So I’m in favor of the 500 square feet. I agree absolutely
with Jon on that and I don’t think we should distinguish between a landmark and a significant
resource, but I do think that we need to re-introduce the lot coverage and maybe this is where we
bring it in.
Commissioner Beecham: As an alternative to the 500 square and to the 10% I think 500 square
feet as you get to the smaller lots doesn’t work well for the lot itself. I think it is going to be an
impact on the neighbors. In spite of Jon’s exquisite statements on the derivatives always coming
down to a fLxed number. Somewhere in the middle of 500 square feet and 10% is 15%. 15% at
the upper end of a 10,000 square foot lot is 550 feet more or less. So it gets there on the upper
end. At the lower end it certainly isn’t 500 square feet but I think it is still a significant increase
in capability and should be of value to the homeowner. It reduces the impact on the neighbors,
it reduces the strong incentive for a two story house and it is some middle ground for us.
Commissioner Burt: I was just thinking about what Jon was saying or/the TDR perhaps being
necessary to take advantage of the opportunity. Perhaps if we were going to consider it, we might
only consider it for those homes that could not take advantage of the bonus adequately.. So
essentially for the smaller lots, I.don’t know whether it’s a good idea or not to go that route, but
if we’re seeing that because of setback constraints the small lot sizes could not take advantage of
the bonus that would be allowed for other historic properties then maybe only in those
circumstances would they be able to sell that development option.
Commissioner Bialson: With regard to the transfer of development rights I think we have a real
a problem of not having a review if we do allow transfers. So I’d rather not discuss that issue at
this point. It brings up a lot of problems with regard to certain homes being able to acquire
City of Palo Alto Page 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
development rights and whether they are reviewed for design compatibility or not. So I think we
need to avoid that at this point.
Chairman Byrd: What if, just as we did on the creation of a new district, we just add language
that we ought to have Staff consider creation of a transfer program that would allow sale of it
without specifying whether we think it is a good idea or not? Is it worth at least looking into?
Commissioner Schink: I wanted to comment on Bem’s comment but could I ask the Chair could
I expand a little bit about the concept of transfer of square footage to give Staff some ideas?
Chairman Byrd: You might want to convey them in writing.
Commissioner Schink: I think it is a very essential concept if you want all of these incentives to
work and I would encourage Staff to go forward with some ideas fairly soon. No matter what we
do it’s not going to fit. After playing with the numbers here a little bit I can see some of the merit
in what has said about the 15% and I would support that if he put it forward with a cap of 500
square feet bonus. There is no point in getting beyond that on the bigger properties.
Ms. Warheit: I think a cap is a good idea. I think as we get into the larger lots we could get
some large expectations forlarge additions that may not work.
Chairman Byrd: So I’m hearing 15% or 500 square feet whichever is lesser. Do we attach
Annette’s proposed lot coverage restriction to that?
Commissioner Bialson: I think that’s handled by having the bonus percentage. I was just looking
for some other parameter that we could use.
Chairman Byrd: Fine. Okay and the 15 % or the 500 whichever is less would be ~applicable to
landmark and significant?- We’re not distinguishing between the two? Okay, well that moves us
up the list. The A on this list is the most important incentive which is sort of again, I suppose it
should be reiterated but isn’t itself a line item. So let me take a crack at summarizing this and see
if it can provide the basis for a motion. On FAR benefit and incentive we are suggesting number
one that you can have increased FAR for landmark and significant resources of 15 % based on the
existing size of the residence or 500 square feet whichever is less.
Commissioner Beecham: It’s 15% of FAR based on lot size.
Chairman Byrd: 15 % of the FAR requirement.
Ms. Warheit: The Staff recommendation is 10% when you to 15% based upon
City of Palo Alto Page 102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
:23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
the size of the existing residence which is exactly what you said.
Chairman Byrd: But that’s not what we came up with. So in reiterating what we came up with..
Ms. Warheit: You are saying based on the size of the FAR irregardless of the size of the house
that’s on there?
Chairman Byrd: 15% of FAR or 500 square feet whichever is less. Is that not clear?
Commissioner Cassel: Is there a question that we’ve got houses that are already over the FAR ’
and you’re concern is that that won’t work?
Ms. Warheit: During your discussion I thought you were talking about if you were talking about
a percentage that you were talking about the size of the residence since that is what was written
here, So I’m sorry. If that isn’t what you are talking about I do feel obliged to just raise a
caution which is since you are proposing this floor area bonus as something that is sort of a right
that’s out there that people are going to come in with a full expectation of using, if it is an amount
that is not in anyway tied to the size of the existing residence which is what you are supposed to
be preserving and that’s the purpose of all of this effort, I’m afraid that what you are going to do
is build up expectations that cannot be met without eliminating the historic significance of the
house.
.~: So what is your alternative st]ggestion?
MS. Warheit: That the bonus is a percentage of the size of the residence. So that a small house
gets 15% increase of that as a bonus over and above other unbuilt floor area that they have which
is already frankly going to be very difficult to achieve in a lot of circumstances. You’ve got to
take your 5,000 square foot lot that you’re talking about, say you have a 1,200 square foothouse
sitting on there. They’ve already go more unbuilt floor area than the whole size of the house.
They can already more than double the size of that house. If you now add a bonus on top of that
you are creating a difficult situation but if we feel it’s really important to do that then at least if
that bonus is tied to the size Of that existing house it tends to mitigate the situation.
Chairman Byrd: 15 % of the house size or 500 square feet whichever is greater?
Ms. Warheit: Whichever is less. 15% of the size of the existing house is the bonus on top of all
other unbuilt floor area but in no case would the bonus exceed 500 square feet. I think is what
Jon originally intended, right?
Chairman Byrd: That is better stated.
City of Palo Alto Page 103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Commissioner Schink: But that is not the direction we were going in. It greatly understates
where we were. That’s essentially what they’ve got through the current HIE process.
Ms. Warheit: Actually I think that’s not quite right.. The way the HIE ordinance reads-is the HIE
is not for floor area but it may include what is called "incidental," which according to the way the
Ordinance is written is floor area which happens to come along with whatever change it is that you
are needing to make that doesn’t exceed zoning. For example, maybe your eaves need to extent
further and in order to continue a wall line you are actually adding some to the size of the building
and that includes floor area and that’s okay. Gradually, I think the Zoning Administrator has
indicated to us, that through precedent she tends to think of anything over 100 square as not being
incidental. Now, in the last year or two since we’ve had historic buildings going through review
that has been somewhat increased, but essentially what you’d be doing here is saying you have
a right to expect this little bit more for historic houses. So it’s not so much that it is already there.
It is not already there. And even then if something goes up to a 120, 150 square feet that’s about
as big as the HIE’s get. Most historic buildings being 1,200, 1,500, 1,800 square feet or bigger
that even 10% is going to be more than is ever given out with HIE’s.
~: I was trying to summarize and failed. I want to bring us back to try and bring
us to closure because we said we’d stop at 10:00. What the Commission said was a bonus of 15 %
beyond the existing FAR requirement not to exceed 500 feet. Staff has pointed out that evidently
the Staff preference would be to have that 15 % pegged to the size of the existing house. Can we
just fairly quickly just poll ourselves on which of the two baselines we want to use?
Commissioner Schink: I believe to be meaningful it has to be 15% of the allowable FAR. I also
¯ agree with what Virginia said, it is not going to work in some instances and I don’t think we are
doing our job unless we put forward the other alternative, the other idea of how you dispose of
this allowed FAR in a market form.
Commissioner Beecham: I think that the smaller, most at risk house, has the least benefit of
keeping it if you tie it to percent of the existing house. So that is kind of a counter curve to where
we want to go.
~: Is there anybody on the Commission that would prefer to pursue the Staff
approach and tie this to size of the existing house as opposed to FAR?
Commissioner Burt: I wouldn’t say that I would prefer it but I don’t feel like I’ve been able to
adequately sort through this really important distinction between the .strong points Jon is making
those and those that Virginia is making. I just don’t feel like I can make that snap judgment as
much as we’ve discussed it previously and it is very important. I just don’t feel prepared to make
that decision.
City of Palo Alto Page 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
¯ Commissioner Beecham:
Commissioner Beecham:
Let me say also in support of what Virginia says ............
[lots of blank tape]
all that in front of us.
Chairman Byrd: That was about to be my reminder. That this is not the end of this process it is
really a beginning.
Commissioner Schink: Please indulge me and let me take one minute and give you an idea that
I think is the only way that I think is the only way we are going to solve this problem in the long
run. That’s that I think you’ve got to give owners of historic properties the right to sell of some
of their allowed FAR to commercial developers, for example in the Stanford Industrial Park.
They would then be controlled by deed restrictions and you would get meaningful historic
preservation backed up with incentives that would have a market value. I think it would work and
frankly, what difference would it make if we ended up transferring 15 or20,000 square feet out
of Professorville and old Palo Alto up to the Industrial Park. Suddenly we save a whole bunch
of homes and make it work.
Chairman Byrd: Could we include that right below as the very next item? That we consider
creation of a transfer program.
Commissioner Schink: Without it you’ll have too many examples that won’t work. Virginia is
right.
Chairman Byrd:- Let me continue, to try to summarize and see if the summary is adequate. We
are going to allow for an FAR bonus of 15% of the allowable FAR not to exceed 500 feet. That
is our first item. Our second item will be to consider creation of an FAR transfer program.
Enough said. The third item will be what was previously J which is tO not count the following
items as FAR -- the description of basements and the description of attics. The fourth item is to
allow flexibility in basement design. The fifth item is procedural which is that we will utilize an
HRB design review process with a presumption that the bonus FAR can be used by the property
owner. Those are the five items. Is that enough for now? Will someone move that?
Commissioner Beecham: I so move.
Chairman Byrd: Will someone second it?
C.ommissioner Schmidt: Second.
City of Palo Alto Page 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chairman Byrd: Does anyone want to discuss it? All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That’s
right we didn’t distinguish, that’s our A ÷. That’s our lead item.
Commissioner Schmidt: I just want to make one comment to go with Jon’s statements about
TDR. We actually have noted on our spreadsheet here that back with item 3 there is a reference
to Comp Plan program L-60 that says continue to use a TDR ordinance to allow the transfer of
development rights from designated buildings of historic significance in downtown commercial
zone to non-historic receiver sites. So we have already conceptually addressed that and we did
discuss that in our other meetings here.
Chairman Byrd: No we have a motion that directs Staff to flesh it out. We are now past 10:00
p.m. and we have a long way to go. We said we’d stop here and see where we were. Is it the
Commission’s pleasure to continue the remainder of this discussion to our meeting of October
28th?
Commissioner Cassel: I’m thinking we could schedule something next week so we keep it
moving. It is going to louse their schedule up anyway but it might help.
Chairman Byrd: We went through that at the study session and nothing worked.
Commissioner Schink: I w.as just going to say that in reviewing Staff recommendations on the
following items, I can say that I agree with Staff and they all belong in the tool kit category. I
could accept the Staff position on the remaining items.
Chairman Byrd: So you want to keep going and see if we can finish this?
Commissioner Beecham: Alternatively just poll us and ask if we have any issues on any of these
items, one by one.
Chairman Byrd: I don’t think we can do that. I think we have done well to flush out items by
taking the time to walk :through each one. I’d be afraid we were going to miss a step.
Commissioner Burt: Owen, you said next week didn’t work for folks?
Chairman Byrd: I remember discussing it.
Chairman_B_y_Ld: Next Wednesday doesn’t work?
Chairman Byrd: Right. We talked about it at the study session and none of those days worked.
City of Palo Alto Page 106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25:.
26~
27
28
29
30
31:
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Mr. Riel: The other alternative would be to start early on the 28th again. I don’t know if that’s
an option. The November llth meeting is a holiday so we cannot have that meeting date. You
have already canceled the meeting prior to Thanksgiving. So as an alternative date we are looking
at November 18th as being the only meeting in November for the Planning Commission..
Chairman Byrd: I’m confident that we’ll complete this at our next meeting whenever that is,
presuming it is the 28th.
Mr. Riel: You realize by doing that you probably will delay the Comp Plan Implementation "
because that is on that 28th agenda as well as another agenda item.
Chairman Byrd: You can agendize after this and we’ll see if we get to it.
Mr. Riel: Okay.
Commissioner Bialson: I think Eric’s suggestion of perhaps meeting early on the 28th is a good
one. Maybe we should have another 3:00 p:m. meeting. 4:00 meeting?
Commissioner Cassel: I’m available that day it’s not a problem.
Commissioner Bialson: We can always break early and give ourselves a longer break between.
.C, JI~!:II~L]~!~: I can’t. I think we don’t have that far to go. I think we will be able to finish
this, complete the other agenda and begin the implementation discussion on the 28th.
Commissioner Bials0n: Can we meet an hour early?
Chairman Byrd: I can’t.
Commissioner Bialson: Could we possibly have a meeting without you for the f’u’st hour? Maybe
the rest of the Commissioners could come early.
.~: Is it the pleasure of the Commission to start at 6:00 p.m.?
Commissioner Cassel: It will help us. We would like that time. We will miss you.
Chairman Byrd: It sounds like we will start at. 6:00 p.m. on the 28th. Okay then we will
continue the remainder of this discussion until the 28th. In addition, Eric, do we need a motion
to move the meeting of the 1 lth of November to November 18th?
City of Palo Alto Page 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
.16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Ms. Furth: You simply need to direct Staff to give notice that the meeting will take place at that
¯ time. You could either adjourn this meeting and hold it for a short period of time before your
next regular meeting or more reasonably set a special meeting that starts earlier.
Chairman Byrd: That’s a different issue. Can we move our llth meeting to the 18th.
Mr. Riel: We will so do .it an advertise it appropriately.
Chairman Byrd: Very good. Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: I have one new business item. That is to ask Staff, if the Commission
concurs, to agendize at the next available meeting a discussion of the single story overlay zone
issues.
Commissioner Cassel: Would you like a motion to have a special meeting starting at 6:00 p.m.
to continue this discussion on October 28th?
Chairman Byrd: No it is not a special meeting. We are already done on that.
Ms.~ Furth: The next thing you are going to do is start you next regular meeting early, right?
Mr. Riel: Right.
Ms. Furth: Okay and that we’ll handle by posting notice of it. If you desire to continue that
matter ~ver further from that meeting, you can simply continue that meeting. If you want to have
it publicized you can do that but I don’t think it is advisable since you don’t know for sure what
is going to happen.
Chairman Byrd: Are there any other items? Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I was wondering if we could ask the Chair if we could agendize the
Silicon Valley 2010 report on our agenda sometime in the future for our discussion.
Chairman Byrd: Great, let’s add that to the list with single story overlay for some day. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Are we just scheduled for one meeting in November and that being on the
18th?
Mr. Riel: Correct. In all likelihood you will only have one meeting in December as well.
City of Palo Alto Page 108
Historic Preservation Incentives/Benefits Matrix
Attachment C
October 29,1998
Floor area ratio (FAR).
Lot coverage: Allow coverage limits to be exceeded to
accommodate a one-story addition to a one-story house where a
second-story addition would otherwise be allowed. In many
instances, one-story additions are preferable to two-story
additions because they result in less impact on the massing and
other significant characteristics of the historic house. Allow
increased coverage for accessory buildings, such as garages, tool
shed, home office that would decrease impact on historic
structure.
Significant incentive to encourage historic preservation.
What are the number of homes that could be impacted?
Workable on large lots, but on very small lots increased FAR
may be a problem.
How is FAR defined, should we redefine?
How much increase allowed? Increased square footage to
include a sliding scale based upon the size of the residence?
Or based on category -, e.g., 500 sf. for landmark, 400 sf. for
significant, 300 sf. for "other historic?"
Require design review? Neighborhood concerns.
Basements allowed to extend beyond building footprint?
Current regulations penalize.
Light wells - must maintain historic integrity - to be addressed
by HRB.
Allow raising for Significant Resources?
Negatively impact historic structure. Factor of small house on
small lot and large house on large lot.
When existing homes over FAR? Allow addition on back of
house?
Amount of increase allowed. Consider as high as 50% lot
coverage for backyard additions. Has been applied to single
story overlay districts?
Applicability to neighborhood characteristics.
Not for new structures and for preservation purposes only.
Lot coverage and FAR are essentially the same.
g.n
h.o
I.o
m.o
n.[]
0.[]
p.[]
q.o
Allow for different FAn’s for Landmark and Significant Resources to include the
following:
b.n Up to 10% bonus based upon size of residence subject to HRB.
c.n 500 square foot increase for Landmark.
d.n 400 square foot increase for Significant
Resources.
e.n 500 square foot increase for Landmark
and Significant Resources.
f. [] Allow FAR increases for historic residences subject to mandatory
compliance.
Additions must be compatible with residence and historic neighborhoods
patterns.
Allow only additions to rear of residences.
Consider not counting the following items as FAR:
j.[] Existing basements or new basements that do not result in the house being
raised so long as any grade change at the base of the structure is minimal
and is consistent with the historical appearance of the structure.
k.[]Existing attics or unfinished spaces that do not result in exterior changes to
the structure,
I.[] Detached structures/garage not to count toward FAR.
Allow basement enhancements to encourage seismic upgrade.
Allow basements to extend beyond building footprint (concern discussed was the
elimination of vegetation adjacent to buildings).
Relax light well regulations with the review by the HRB to ensure historic
integrity.
Allow all of the above to be discretionary (evaluation on a case-by-case basis)
through the HRB.
Utilize HIE and/or DEE or similar variance process for this site development
exception.
a. []Allow for increased lot coverage to 50% for rear yard additions for existing
historic residences (R-1 zoning is 35%)~
b. []Allow increased lot coverage to 40% with 5% increase for covered porches,
overhangs, etc.
c. n Provide for different maximum percentages lot coverage for single family
residences versus multi family residences.
d. []Utilize HIE and/or DEE or similar variance process for this site development
exception.
is to establish cdteria that
have a significant:adverse impact
5o
Setback/daylight plane.
Second dwelling units. Allow a separate (second) dwelling unit
on property where otherwise not allowed. The provision of a
second dwelling unit would facilitate historic preservation in
situations where the amount of development or general intensity of
use on the property is substantially less than what is allowed
under existing regulations. An example would be a small historic
hous.e located on an unusually large lot. In some cases, the
amount of building area allowed on the lot is two or three times the
size of the existing house. This discrepancy between actual and
allowed use can create economic pressure to demolish the small
historic house and replace it with a large house. The ability to
increase the use of the property by constructing a second unit
may be an attractive alternative to the property owner. Various
types of outbuildings and ancillary structures, including second
dwelling units are part of the historic pattern in the City’s
residential neighborhoods. Permitting unused development
potential to be realized by the construction of a cottage or house,
may help to achieve preservation objectives, especially
preservation of small, modest houses.
¯Additions onto non-conforming building in same plane not
required to meet new setbacks?
Subdivision/lot line adjustments/mergers.
Limitation on total square footage of unit?
How many parcels does this benefit apply to?
Limitation on total height and daylight plane?
Impacts on character-defining features of the historic property?
And the neighborhood?
Impact of a larger house constructed behind a small historic
house and vice-versa, the hiding of a historic house behind a
larger house?
Allowing for encroachments into setbacks?
How many parcels does it apply to? What is an alternative lot
size (i:e. Where is the cut off line?)
Section 18.12.040, Conditional Uses. Provides a control point
for case by case review of second dwelling units. Should the
process be made easier for historic resources so requirements
will be met?
Satisfy Code requirements for second dwelling units in R-1
zoning districts.
Cumulative effects on neighborhoods-with concentration of
historic properties.
Very minimal impact.
Cumulative effects on neighborhoods with concentration of
historic properties.
Revise definition at alley to permit lots fronting on alleys.
a. r~Relax standards for Landmark and Significant Resources structures (concern
was noted side yard setbacks should not be reduced).
b. rn Allow flexibility in roof pitch consistent with historic neighborhood patterns.
c. []Existing setback non-conformities to allow an increase of nonconformity (i.e.,
allow enclosure of front porch which currently extends into prevailing front
setback, daylight plane).
d. []Provide a lesser setback for garages (i.e. garage on corner lots measured from
one street).
e. [] Allow for minor encroachments such as stairways, light wells, etc.
f. []Utilize HIE and/or DEE or similar variance process for this site development
exception
a. [] Limitation on the total square footage of unit:
b. []400 square feet
c. []900 square feet maximum (per R-I zoning regulations).
d. []other:
e. []Continue limitation on the type and intensity of uses permitted in second
dwelling units per the R-1 zoning regulations.
f. []Limitation on total height and daylight plane as provided in the R-1 zoning
regulations:
g. [] 17 feet maximum height.
h. [] Allow second unit above garage with a maximum height of? feet.
I. []Architectural character must be consistent with primary residence.I.j. []Limit construction of second unit only in the rear of the site (behind primary
residence).
k. []Allowing for enbroachments into setbacks as follows:
I. [] Prohibit windows on side reduced side setbacks are granted.
m.[] Allow second unit as attached unit in existing structure as follows:
n.[] Addition only on rear of structure with no reduced setbacks.
o. [] Utilize HIE process for all site development exceptions.
a. []Allow creation of a subdivision where it otherwise would not be allowed;
b. []Reduce lot size requirements consistent with the following:
c.[]historic pattern of neighborhood.
d.[]create a minimum lot size.
e. []Allow for the creation of a flag lot subject to the following:
f. [] No second story is permitted.
g.[] Consistent with historic pattern of the neighborhood.
h. []Allow for lots fronting on alleys.
I. [] Only permitted for smaller lots.
j. [] Make option available for vehicular access from alley,
Program H-4 states, "Evaluate
the provisions for second
dwelling units in single family
areas to determine how
additional units might be
provided." Program H-4 includes
references to "increased
flexibility in regulations such as
reduced parking requirements,
maximum size limitation,
attached units, minimum lot size
requirement reduction,
compatibility review."
k. []Facilitate lot line adjustments to allow transferring of development rights from
historic properties.
I. [] Allow non-conformities to be created.
m.n Utilize HIE or similar variance process for this site development exception.
Program H-6 states, "Amend
zoning regulations to permit
residential lots of less than
6,000 square feet where smaller
lots would be compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood."
2
10.
11.
Parking requirement reductions.o
o
o
Relocation of historic structures. Allow the relocation of ¯
residences and accessory buildings to permit possible additions to
existing residences or new residences, if the proposed historic ¯
structure limits the development potential due to setback
restrictions.¯
°
Nonconforming uses and structures. Allow nonconforming uses ¯
and structures.
o
Reduce parking requirements and/or modify parking standards,a. rn
Parking is needed (tread cautiously)
Coordinate with parking committee to research issues, ( i.e.,b. rn
provide adequate parking for commercial and do not have a
blanket provision),c. []
Allow more parking on a constricted site.d. []
Look at detached two-car garage on alley, re: setback e. []
requirements.
Factor FAR into parking. Provide an incentive to retain f. []
detached garage through relaxing floor area ratio standard re:
garage area.g. []
Cumulative effects on neighborhoods with concentration of
historic properties,h. []
I. []
j.[]
Not consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for a. []
Rehabilitation unless flood hazard or similar "act of God."
Impact on historic site characteristics if accessory building b. []
removed from site.c. []
Impact on neighborhood character for both locations,d. []
Limited applicability. Only allow relocation on the site (small
houses, accessory buildings),e. []
Conditional uses allowed in certain residential zones (e.g.,a. []
service, day care, limited retail, live-work, etc.).
Utilized in Portland, Oregon.b. []
Permit one parking space for single family residence rather than the required
two spaces per unit.
Modify/reduce parking requirement for multiple family structures with a
minimum of one space per unit.
Allow for uncovered parking in the driveways.
Allow detached garages with reduced setbacks off alleys. 0 or 5 feet?
Allow detached garages less than 75 feet from front property line or any street
side property line.
Allow for uncovered parking in the driveway off alleys for second dwelling
units.
Allow for garage conversion for residential use relative to the creation of
uncovered parking. Do not permit demolition of garage.
Allow tandem parking for two separate dwelling units on one property.
Allow on street parking (this would require detailed monitoring system).
Utilize HIE and/or DEE or similar variance process for this site development
exception.
Allow relocation of Significant Resource structures offsite only to promote
preservation.
Allow offsite relocation of Landmark structures.
Allow relocation/movement onsite.
Reduced setbacks/daylight plane reductions subject to HIE and/or DEE or
similar variance process.
Subject to Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.
Increase the time frame for nonconformity being vacant from 12 months to 18 or
24 months.
Allow intensification of nonconforming use if needed to preserve structures in
nonresidential areas.
Minor projects. Provide for staff review of minor projects. This
would speed review and allow the opportunity to provide property
owners with information about alternatives available under the ¯
Code and to work collaboratively with applicants in an [nfoFmal
setting. Staff review would be optional -- any project could be
submitted for review by the HRB instead of staff either by the
applicant or by staff, with no penalty or prejudice to, the applicant.
Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE) and Design Enhancement
Exceptions (DEE). Under current regulations, the Zoning
Administrator refers HIE applications for historic properties to the
Historic Resources Board for comment before making a decision,
thus requiring extra time for both processes. The HIE is limited to
very minor exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance and requires a
finding that the exception is desirable for the preservation of an
existing architectural style or neighborhood character.
Notification. Reduce the radius of notification of Home
Improvement Exceptions (HIE) and Design Enhancement
Exceptions (DEE). At the present time HIE required a. 150-foot
radius of notification and DEE require a 300-foot radius
notification.
°How to define minor? No additional square footage or cutoff at
a low square footage?¯Major remodel would be any additional square footage or more
than a specific minimal square footage?¯Public noticing requirements.¯Benefit to homeowner is substantial given reduced review time
frame.
Allow for review by HRB. HRB review and recommendation to
the Director of Planning and Community Environment for action
would result in one public review.
¯Notify only contiguous property owners and across rights-of
way.
¯Allow for posting of notices.
a. [] Maintain flexib]lity to define minor project.
b. [] Definition of minor exterior alteration is required.
c. ~ No noticing requirements. Allow staff to determine if courtesy noticing is
required.
a. [] Establish specific criteria (Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation)
applicable to historic residences only.
b. [] Both HIE and DEE should be reviewed and decided by HRB.
a. [] HIE required notification of 150 foot radius per existing code requirements.
b. [] DEE required notification of 300 feet radius per existing code requirements.
c. [] Require notification to neighborhood associations.
d. [] Reduced notification radius for either HIE or DEE (i.e. neighboring properties, 150
feet, etc.)
Program L-59 states: "Allow
parking exceptions for
historic buildings to
encourage rehabilitation.
Require design review
findings that the historic
integrity of the building
exterior will be maintained."
Policy L 55 states: "Relocation
may be considered as a
preservation strategy when
consistent with State and
National Standards regarding
the relocation of historic
resources."
Program L-61 states, "Allow
nonconforming uses for the life
of historic buildings."
3
12.a. [] Continue current Code requirements requiring both ARB and HRB review.
b. [] HRB review only with increase in design professional on Board.
Fees.
13.
Multi-family/nonresidential properties. Modify the review and
approval process. Currently multi-family and nonresidential
properties on the historic inventory are subject to both HRB and
ARB review. The Certified Local Government agreement
requires that the review body for projects on designated historic
properties have certain special expertise in historic preservation
and related fields. The HRB meets these special requirements.
¯Qualifications of HRB to review all aspects of the project.
Modify requirements for appointment of HRB members to
reflect the current majority of design professionals to assure
the Board’s continued ability to meet an expanded design
review role.
¯Continuity of decisions and impact on other reviews made by
the ARB and HRB on other projects nearby or adjacent.
¯JointARB/HRB review.
°One-time or annual joint ARB/HRB meeting to discuss issues,
establish criteria, etc.
Exterior alterations,a. []
14. Demolition.
¯No fee. Total cost borne by City.
¯50% cost recovery.
¯100% cost recovery.
¯This is not an incentive given its minor impact.
Could be used as a disincentive to demolish if full cost recovery?
Applications to demolish a structure on the historic inventory
would be charged full cost recovery for the processing the
application, or charge the major alteration review rate based on
the size of the house, whichever is greater.
No fee. Total cost borne by City.
a. [] 100% cost recovery.
b. [] Research fees charged to determine if increase is warranted.
No fee. Total cost borne by City.
Not a viable option.
15.Applications for Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE).a. []v’
16.a.n ~’Not a viable option, in era of utility deregulation, utilities need
ability to adjust with changing trends and to be competitive in fees
and cost structure. Current Fibre Optic system will be doing some
home trials in the near future. To be viable at least 30% of a given
neighborhood must tie-on and as currently established only 75%
of actual cost is recovered. Could be reviewed again in the future
after home trials and further establishment of the ring?
Utility connection fee waivers. The Commission suggested staff
research the possibility of waiving utility connection fees,
particularly access to the Fibre-Optic ring.
17.State Historical Building Code (SHBC). Facilitate the use of the
SHBC for qualified historic buildings by working with property
owners to support and assist them in using the Code. This is an
existing State program that is an alternative to the regular Code
for "qualified" buildings (i.e., those that are on a local, state or
national historic lists). It is a performance-based code that allows
the structure to be evaluated as a whole, and allows
accommodation of a noncompliance as long as there is not a
hazardous condition. Under the SHBC, historic buildings are not
required to meet California Energy Efficiency Standards. It allows
work to be limited to the area where changes are being made,
while =triggers" in the regular Code might require more extensive
changes to be made to other parts of the building. The ability to
use this alternative Code can be a valuable benefit of historic
designation. Additional information has been provided on
~revious attachments. Primarily useful for commercial buildings),
but also available for all residential buildings on inventory, for both
significant structures and landmark structures.
¯The City must make available for use upon request, but
applicant not required to use SHBC for remodel. City is
proactive in offering this as an option where applicable.
¯SHBC is used for existing features of house, not for new
addition (i.e., an existing stairway not to current UBC may
remain for additional floor area added to an existing second
fiooO.¯Staff will be trained to assist applicants in their understanding
of the SHBC’s applicability to their structure.
a. [] Continue to implement the current program.
b. D Continually improve the distribution of information to the general public,
historic homeowners, developers, builders, architects, etc.
Program L-65 states, "Seek
additional innovative ways to
apply current codes and
ordinances to older buildings.
Use the State Historical Building
Code for designated historic
buildings."
4
18.Use of Federal Investment Tax Program.
19.Low interest rehabilitation loan.
~20.Low interest or first time buyer loans.
21..Architectural advice.
,22.’Historic Preservation Awards Program.
Federal Investment Tax Credit program information
distribution. Provide information from the Federal Government
to property owners regarding the use of the Federal Investment
Tax Credit Program. This program is available to a property
that is on the National Register or in a National Register
Historic District and is an income-producing property. A
nonprofit developer can partner with a for-profit
partner/developer to realize the benefits of this tax credit
program. This arrangement has been used effectively to
rehabilitate historic buildings for affordable housing.
City Council requested staff assess the possible use of low
interest loans as a benefit to property owners. The City
formerly had a Housing Improvement Program that provided
for low interest loans for home improvements to income eligible
recipients. Funding was through the Community Development
Block Grant Program. The program was discontinued due to
insufficient recipients to justify staffing. Options include-the
following:
¯Consider reviving Home ImprovementProgram
¯Income eligibilities.
¯Applicability to other than historic.
¯Consider no-interest loan utilized in Pasadena.
The City does not have a redevelopment administration.that
would normally fund low interest purchase or .first.time buyer
loans.
Offer architectural advice and guidance (i.e., seismic,window
sources) or assistance in developing specifications. Redondo
Beach. Architects provide pro-bono assistanceforseveral
hours to assist applicants, arranged by City
Plaque Program. Initiate a Historic Preservation awards
program with recognition with the use of a plaque/public
recognition by the HRB.
a,r-]Provide information to the general public, historic homeowners, developers,
builders, architects, etc. of the program. Create a data base of information.
Provide information to the general public, historic homeowners, developers,
builders, architects, etc. of the program. Create a data base of information.
-Provide.information to the general public, historic homeowners, developers,
,builders, architects, etc. of the program. Create a datalbase.ofinformatian.
:Seoure assistance in the creation and implementation of the program from the
private sector.
a. [] Initiate a Historic Preservation awards program with recognition withthe-use of
,a plaquelpublic recognition by the HRB.
b. []Secure assist in the creation andimplementationof the program from the
private sector.
Policy L-53 states, "actively
seek state and federal
funding for the preservation
of buildings of historical merit
and consider public/private
partnerships for capital and
program improvements."
Program L-54 states,
"Encourage and assist
owners of historically
significant buildings in finding
ways to adapt and restore
these buildings, including
participation in state and
federal tax relief programs."
Program H-14 states, "Enact ¯
development regulations that
encourage rehabilitation of
historic residential buildings,
remodeling of older multifamily
rental buildings and retention of
smaller single family
residences."
Program L-62 states, "Promote
awards programs and other
forms of public recognition for
.exemplary Historic Preservation
:projects."
23.Flood Regulations exemption (PAMC Chapter ~i6.52). This
exemption would allow applicants to modify:City, designated
historic structures without the requirement to elevate them :above
base flood levels, even if the improvements othenNise would:have
been considered "substantial" per the Flood Hazard ,Regulations.
The current regulations allow exemptions from flood zone
requirements for properties listed on the National Register,ef
Historic Places or the State of California inventory of~historic
)laces.
o Policy implication of allowing additional buildingimprovements
to be made in flood prone areas.
The Department of Public Works is completing further research on this issue and the
findings and a final recommendation will be included in the proposed Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
24.Districting modifications.
25.Use of Mills Act Contracts. The Mills Act contracts are limited :
situations that meet criteria established by the City Council, the
use of Mills Act contracts to support historic preservation has been,
discussed. During City Council recent review.of an application for
a Mills Act contract, several Council members expressed concerns-
about the use of this tax relief program to support historic
preservation because of the resulting loss of revenue to the
School District. These same concerns were expressed by the
Historic Resources Board in its review of the members of the
~ublic in regard to the application and at other.f~rums in the
~Historic Ordinancerevision process, staff is researching:proposed
i criteria for consideration of future Mills Act apl~lications: The
property/project should provide the following:
¯Benefits that will be enjoyed by the general public and that
should serve an educational purpose for the students of the
Palo Alto schools; and
¯Encourages the preservation of a structure/property whose
preservation is otherwise threatened
The contracts would be used in situations where the tax.savings
will be used to offset an unusual economic burden of rehabilitating
the structure that is due to unusual characteristics or
circumstances of the structure or property, suclras structural
problems or poor condition not resulting from lack of care by.the
present owner. The contracts would not be .granted retroactively
for rehabilitation work already completed. Staff would note
implementation and monitoring of Mills Act contractscan be very
labor intensive dependent upon the type of program and criteria
established.
Department of Community Development and Environment
Division of Planning
October 29, 1998
Explore an overlay zoning district or subzone, or create new
zoning standards for historic houses that’s flexible (i.e., similar
in from to the single story overlay zone, Planned Community
zone).
Representatives of the P.alo Alto Unified School District were
present at the request of ~taff at the September 30, 1998
meeting. Representatives were also present at the October 14,
1998 meeting. The issues/concerns raised included the
following:
°Reduction in taxes results in reduction in allocation of
revenues to the School District.
¯Most likely chosen incentive historic homeowners given the
fact incentive is in perpetuity.
¯Requested the City Council "backfill" the lost revenues if
this incentive is provided.
°Previously enacted development fee is a revenue not
available for the General Fund. These monies can only be
earmarked for capital improvements.
¯Representatives indicated the PAUSD would be forwarding
a resolution indicating their concerns.
°Staff has requested from the PAUSD the actual impacts
relative to the reduction in dollars. Staff suggested several
scenarios be completed for different types of residences to
determine actual costs. If this information is available, staff
will provide the information at the meeting on actual Mills
Act contract impacts.
a. []Modify the Code to provide for the following:
b. []Creation of historic overlay zoning districts.
c. []Create new historic zoning districts.
d. []Implementation of incentives to be determined later. Further analysis is
required. Implementation is envisioned to be complete via implementation of
permanent historic preservation ordinance.
a. []If utilized, Mills Act should be very limited in use.
b. []If Act preserves a structure that would not otherwise be preserved, it should be
utilized.
c. [] Criteria for use should be very restrictive to insure-preservation of historic
structure is only purpose.
Program H-5 states, "Create
a Planned Development zone
that allows the construction of
smaller lot single family units
and other innovative housing
types without the requirement
for a public benefit finding."
Program L-60 states,
"Continue to use a TDR
Ordinance to allow the
transfer of development rights
from designated buildings of
historic significance in the
Commercial Downtown (CD)
zone to non-historic receiver
sites in the CD zone.
Planned Community (PC) -
zone properties in the
Downtown also qualify for this
program."
S:lPlanlPladivlHistoricllncentch.fnl
Attachment D
M E M O R
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 25 Churchill Avenue Palo41...t 99
Business Services Phone: 650-329-3706 Fax: 650-329-~803 ... -
October 14, 1998
TO:Palo Alto Planning Commission
FROM:Bob Golton, Associate Superintendent - Business Services
SUBJECT:Additional Information Regarding the Mills Act
The following is additional information that I believe will be of help in your deliberations regarding
the use of the Mills Act as an incentive for historic preservation.
The percentage of property tax that goes to Palo Alto Unified School District varies by Tax
Rate Area (TRA). There are 41 TRAs in the Palo Alto Unified School District. The percentage
of property tax to the school district varies from ~ to ~
There are two Mills Act properties in the school district. The following are financial details on
each of the two properties.
The property located at 900 University is under a Mills Act contract. The Assessor’s
office states that the transfer tax on the deed indicates a sales price of $1,600,000,
that in 1998-99 the house is assessed at $92,906, a reduction of 94.1% from the
purchase price, and that the estimated tax savings is approximately $16,900. The
TRA in which this property is located has 45.61% of its taxes allocated to the school
district. This results in an annual loss of approximately $7700 to the school district.
As an example of the effect of this loss, this amount would be sufficient to provide
five new computers to a classroom at the local school (Addi$on.I EACH YEAR.
The property located at 4145 Old Adobe Road is under a Mills Act contract. The
Assessor’s office states that the transfer tax on the deed indicates a sales price of
$900,000, that in 1998-99 the house is assessed at $158,232, a reduction of 82.4%,
and that the estimated tax savings is approximately $8,300 per year. The TRA in
which this property is located has 45.58% of its taxes allocated to the school district.
This results in an annual loss of approximately 3~ to the school district. As an
example of the effect of this loss, this amount would be sufficient to provide 300new
library books to the library at the local school (Nixon) EACH YEAR.
Palo Alto Unified School District continues to request that the Planning Commission does not
recommend use of Mills Act as an Incentive or Benefit.
CC:Don Phillips, Superintendent of Schools
Board of Education Members