HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 318-09TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
JUL Y 27, 2009
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 318:09
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SlTBJECT: Adoption of Ordinance Amending Sections 18.10.130 (Historical
Review and Incentives), 18.10.060 (Parking), 18.12.140 (Historical
Review and Incentives), 18.12.060 (Parking), and 18.13.040(c) (Single-
Fanlily and Two-Family Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning), and Sections
21.20.010 (General Provisions) and 21.20.301 (Flag Lots) of Title 21 I (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding
Subdivision of One Lot into Two Nonconforming Lots Where
Covenants are Provided to Protect Historic Properties
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed ordinance would allow owners of property developed with two existing residences,
at least one of which is deemed historic, to subdivide the property into two lots smaller than
standard for the zone district (and one of which may be a flag lot in zone districts where flag lots
are not currently permitted) using the City's standard parcel map process, where the homes are to
be maintained via historic preservation covenants. Both staff and the Planning and
Transportation Commission recon1IDend approval of the ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City
Council adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment A) amending:
1. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18, Zoning, Sections 18.10.130,18.12.140,
and 18.13.040(c) to allow subdivision ofa single parcel containing two residences into two
parcels of at least 4,000 square feet each if only one residence is historic, and of at least
2,000 square feet each if both residences are historic, and to provide covenants are
provided to preserve the historical integrity of existing residences (listed as Categories 1 to
4 on the City's Historic Inventory, contributing structures to the Professorville National
Register Historic District, or for other National or California Register eligible structures)
and Sections 18.10.060 and 18.12.060 allowing for continuation of existing, legal non-
conforming parking facilities for such proj ects, and
CMR: 318:09 Page 1 of 4
2. PAMC Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land), Sections 21.20.010
(Generally) and 21.20.301 (Flag lots), to allow the creation of flag lots within the R-1
District via a Parcel Map without an Exception process, to allow the creation of lots having
less than minimum lot area, lot dimensions, and non-conforming lot configurations (in
accordance with the proposed lot sizes in the zoning code amendments), and to allow flag
lot access (via easement or "flagpole") for subdivisions including residence(s) on the City'S
Historic Inventory, where covenants are provided to preserve the historical integrity of the
residence(s).
BACKGROUND
The impetus for the proposed ordinance was the Council approval of a two-unit Planned
Community District zoning at 449 and 451 Addison (Addison PC) on February 19. 2008. The
Addison PC allowed for the submittal and approval of a Parcel Map to subdivide a 10,000 square
foot parcel previously zoned R-2 (two family residential) and developed with two historic homes
into two fee simple, less than minimum size lots (5,000 square feet where the R-2 district
required 6,000 square feet minimum lot size). The project included a flag lot accessed by a 100-
foot-long access drive across the front parcel via a ten-foot-wide access easement (rather than
via a "flagpole" as required currently in Title 21). The Addison PC approval allowed for the
proposed substandard access width and non-conforming easement (rather than "flagpole") to
allow the historic home to remain in place and provide a minimum 5,000 square feet for each
parcel.
When the P&TC considered the Addison PC, the P&TC noted the inherent limitations of the
existing historic preservation ordinance in ensuring preservation and maintaining neighborhood
character, and stated that it would be worthwhile to evaluate revisions to the Zoning Ordinance
to allow such projects in the future without the need for a Planned Community zone designation.
As part of the Council discussion on February 19, 2008 on the PC zone change, staff and the
P &TC were directed to evaluate the potential to amend the zoning ordinance to allow these types
of projects when historic structures are preserved.
The ordinance changes were intended to encourage public and private upkeep and preservation
of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed in the Historic Inventory, by
providing subdivision incentives connect~d to the retention and rehabilitation of buildings having
historic merit. The attainment of Comprehensive Plan goals has also been cited as important, to
help with: (1) rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential properties, (2) retention
and preservation of existing legal, non-conforming cottages and duplexes, and (3) preservation of
the existing fabric of neighborhoods.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 24, 2009, the P&TC voted unanimously (5-0-1-1) to approve the attached ordinance on
consent calendar, with one absence (Rosati) and one abstention (Holman). Public hearings
before the P &TC on the ordinance were held on both January 28, 2009 and May 13, 2009. At
the May meeting, the P &TC appointed a subcommittee, comprised of Commissioners Lippert
and Holman, to meet with staff to finalize changes to the ordinance prior to the June 24,2009
hearing, thereby allowing it to be placed on the Consent Calendar. The subcommittee met with
staff on June 8, 2009 and the group agreed to the ordinance changes. The minutes from the May
CMR: 318:09 Page 2 of4
13th and June 24th P&TC meetings and the staffreport for the June 24th P&TC meeting are
attached to this report for reference.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed ordinance would have no impact on the City's General Fund. Preparation of all
legal documents would be the responsibility of the applicant and subject to review by the City
Attorney's Office. All staffwork involved in processing future applications would be recovered
by fees and deposits charged to the applicant. If the Council adopts the or,dinance, the City's Fee
Schedule will be revised to reflect the new application and resultant fees.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed ordinance supports several Conlprehensive Plan policies. It promotes the
rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential properties (H-8) by ensuring that the
structures are properly maintained. It preserves the existing legal, non-conforming cottages and
duplexes currently located in the R-1 and R-2 residential areas of Palo Alto, which represent a
significant portion of the City's affordable housing supply (H-10) by providing an incentive for
retention and preservation of these units. It preserves the character of residential neighborhoods
(L-12) by retaining the existing fabric of the neighborhoods. It encourages public and private
upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed in the
Historic Inventory (L-51) and it develops incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of
buildings with historic merit in all zones (L-57).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This action is categorically exempt fronl the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines
Sections 15305 and 15308 as the ordinance involves minor alterations to land use limitations in
accordance with the Secretary of Internal Standards for historic preservation, and can be seen to
have no significant environmental impacts, and is an action taken by the city to assure
maintenance and protection of the environment.
PREPARED BY:
Manager of Current Planning
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Interim Director
Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ( . ~Q~
y~ JAMES KEENE
City Manager
CMR: 318:09 Page 3 of4
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
CMR: 318:09
Subdivision Incentive for Historic Preservation Ordinance
P&TC Excerpt Minutes of May 13, 2009
P&TC Staff Report of June 24,2009 (without attachments)
P&TC Excerpt Minutes of June 24, 2009
Page 4 of4
ATTACHMENT A
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. ---Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Sections 18.10.130 (Historical Review and Incentives),
18.10.060 (Parking), 18.12.140 (Historical Review and
Incentives), 18.12.060 (Parking), and 18.13.040(c) (Single-
Family and Two-Family Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning), and
Sections 21.20.010 (General Provisions) and 21.20.301 (Flag
Lots) of Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code Regarding Subdivision of One Lot into Two
Nonconforming Lots Where Covenants are Provided to
Protect Historic Properties
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The proposed ordinance would establish a process that would encourage
preservation and maintenance of the City's historic housing stock without the
need for a Planned Community zone designation or variance approval and
allowing for Preliminary Parcel Map without exception process to create
nonconforming size parcels and nonconforming flag lots; and
B. The proposed ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public
health, safety and welfare as hereinafter set forth; and
C. Modification of the existing zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance to
permit the subdivision of residentially zoned property for the benefit of
preserving existing historically designated residences is consistent with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the following Comprehensive
Plan policies support the subdivision:
090721 syn 8261083
i. PolicY.H-8: Promote the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard
residential properties;
ii. Policy H-10: Preserve the existing legal, non-conforming rental cottages
and duplexes currently located in the R-1 and R-2 residential areas of Palo
Alto, which represent a significant portion of the City's affordable housing
supply;
iii. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods;
1
NOT YET APPROVED'
IV. Policy L-51: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of
resources that have historic merit, including residences listed in the
Historic Inventory;
v. Policy L-57: Develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of
buildings with historic merit in all zones;
D. The proposed uses under the proposed zoning shall include only housing
consistent with the current zoning and adjacent uses;
E. The use permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the
district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and are
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the
general vicinity.
SECTION 2. Section 18.10.130 (Historical Review and Incentives) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.10.130 Historical Review Incentives
UU Historic home review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is
required in the R-E, R-2, and RMD low density residential districts for alterations or nl0difications to
any residence designated on the City's Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic
structure as defmed in Section 16.49.020 of this code or any contributing structure located within a
locally designated historic district."
Dil Exemptions to gross floor area requirements are available for historic residences
pursuant to the definition of gross floor area in Section 18.04.030 (65)(D)(vii). Home improvement
exceptions provide for additional square footage and certain other exceptions for historic homes
pursuant to Section 18.12.120 (R-1 Chapter).
(c) Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, existing parcels in the R-2 or RMD
districts containing two residences may be subdivided into two ownerships, where all
of the following circumstances exist:
(1) At least one residence is designated on the City'S Historic Inventory as a Category 1,
Category 2, Category 3, or Category 4 historic structure as defined in Section
16.49.020 of this code or are contributing structures located within a locally
designated historic district or are eligible for listing on the California or National
Registers; and
(2) No increase in the total number of residences on the site is proposed; and
(3) Separate lots are proposed to be created, each with a minimum lot size not less than
4,000 square feet if only one residence is historic: if both residences are historic and
subject to a covenant, the allowable minimum lot size is 2,000 square feet: and
2
090713 syn 8261083
NOT YET APPROVED
(4) The resultant parcel lines-may create less than minimum lot size (no less than the
area stated in item (3) of this section), site width and depth, setback and daylight
plane encroachments, floor area and site coverage exceeding the maximum allowable
for existing development ,with respect to each new parcel, without the need for
approval of a Variance or Home Improvement Exception, but would not generally
increase any existing non-complying building features however, minor additions for
functional improvements may be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Planning
and Community Environment: and
(5) The Historic Resources Board has determined that at least one existing residence on
the property has historic integrity and qualifies for listing on the City's Historic
Inventory.
(6) A covenant is recorded to run with the land in perpetuity, assuring that the historic
residence(s) will be preserved and maintained consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation through compliance with Historic
Resources Board review and recommendations. The covenant will stipulate that
HRB review is required for all major projects on the site including significant
changes to any non-historic residence. Any modifications to a non-historic residence
must be compatible with the historic residence and satisfy the Secretary of Interior's
Standards for Historic Compatibility.
(7) The two residences on the property were in existence as of January 28,2009.
(8) Application of the state Historic Building Code is available for use on any eligible
building.
(9) Residences subject to a covenant must meet all government health, life and safety
codes."
SECTION 3. Section 18.10.060 (Parking) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 18.10.060 Parking·
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional
uses in accord with Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 of this title. The following parking requirements
apply in the R-E, R-2 and RMD districts. These requirements are included for reference purposes
only, and in the event of a conflict between this Section 18.1 0.060 and any requirement of
Chapters 18.52 and 18.54, Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 shall apply, except in the case of parcels
created pursuant to section 18.1 0.130(c) (subdivision incentive for historic preservation). .
3
090713 syn 8261083
NOT YET APPROVED
(a) Parking Requirements for Specific Uses
Table 3 shows the minimum off-street automobile parking requirements for specific uses.
Table 3
Parking Requirements for R-E, R-2, and RMD Uses
Two family (R2 & RMD districts)
Second dwelling unit, attached or detached:
>450 sf in size
:S450 sf in size
Other Uses
(b) Parking and Driveway Surfaces
3 spaces total, of which at least two must be
covered
2 spaces per unit~ of which one must be covered
1 space per unit, which may be covered or
uncovered
See Chapter 18.40
Parking and driveway surfaces may have either permeable or impermeable paving.
Materials shall be those acceptable to Public Works Department standards. Gravel and
similar loose materials shall not be used for driveway or parking surfaces within 10 feet
of the public right of way.
( c) Parking in Yards
(1) No required parking space shall be located in a required front yard.
(2) No required parking space shall be located in the first ten feet adjoining the
property line of a required street side yard.
(d) Tandem Parking
Tandem parking shall be permitted for single-family uses and for single-family uses with
a permitted second dwelling unit. Tandem parking is permitted for two-family uses where
both spaces in tandem (front space and tandem space) are designated for use by the same
unit.
( e) Bicycle Parking
For two family uses, at least one Class I bicycle parking space shall be required.
(f) Design of Parking Areas
Parking facilities shall comply with all applicable regulations of Chapter 18.83 (Parking
Facility Design Standards).
4
090713 syn 8261083
NOT YET APPROVED
(g) Parking Facilities on Lots Created Pursuant to Section 18.10.130(c) (subdivision
incentive for historic preservation)
Legal non-conforming parking facilities existing prior to the subdivision of a parcel
having a historic residence(s) may be maintained as existing non-complying facilities or
may be improved to greater compliance with parking requirements, as approved by the
Director of Planning and Community Environment or hislher designee. Preservation
covenants nlay allow non-historic residences to be remodeled; however, floor area
expansions shall be subject to the Director's discretionary action regarding improvements
to on-site parking conditions associated with such increased floor area and when floor
area over 400 square feet is proposed to be added to a non-historic residence having legal
non-complying parking facilities prior to subdivision, parking facilities shall be brought
into greater compliance with Chapter 18.52, wherever feasible. A subdivided property
having no existing on-site parking facilities prior to subdivision may be permitted to
continue as such as long as preservation covenants allowing for this continuance and any
associated access easements have been recorded.
SECTION 4. Subsection 18.12.140 (Historical Review and Incentives) of
Chapter 18.12 (R-l Single Family Residential) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
fuL Historic residence review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, is required in the R-l district and R-l subdistricts for alterations or modifications to
any residence designated on the city's Historic Inventory as Category 1 or Category 2 historic
structure as defmed in Section 16.49.020 of this code or any contributing structure located
within a locally designated historic district. The Category 1 or Category 2 designation
process for becoming a historic structure is contained in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the
Municipal Code.
iliL Exemptions to gross floor area requirements are available for historic residences pursuant to
the definition of gross floor area in Section 18.04.030(65)(C)(ii). Home improvement
exceptions provide for additional square footage and certain other exceptions for historic
homes pursuant to Section 18.12.120.
!£L Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, existing parcels containing two residences
may be subdivided into more than one ownership, where all of the following circumstances
exist:
(1) At least one residence is designated on the City'S Historic Inventory as a Category 1,
Category 2, Category 3, or Category 4 historic structure as defined in Section
16.49.020 of this code or are contributing structures located within a locally
designated historic district or are eligible for the National or California Registers; and
(2) No increase in the total number of residences on the site is proposed; and
5
090721 syn 8261083
NOT YET APPROVED
(3) Separate lots are proposed to be created. each with a minin1un110t size not less than
4,000 square feet in the R-l district if only one residence is historic or 80% of the
minimum lot size for the R-l subdistricts; if both residences are historic and subject
to a covenant the allowable minimum lot size is 2.000 square feet: and
( 4) The resultant parcel lines may create less than minimum lot size (no less than the
area stated in item (3) of this section). site width and depth, setback and daylight
plane encroachments, floor area and site coverage exceeding the maximum allowable
for existing development with respect to each new parcel, without the need for
approval of a Variance or Home Improvement Exception, but would not generally
increase any existing noncomplying building features; however, minor additions for
functional improvements may be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Planning
and Community Environment; and
(5) The historic Resources Board has determined that at least one existing residence on
the property has historic integrity and qualifies for listing on the City's Historic
Inventory.
(6) A covenant is recorded to run with the land in perpetuity, assuring that the historic
residences will be preserved and maintained consistent with the . Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation through compliance with Historic
Resources Board review and recommendations. The covenant will stipulate that
HRB review is required for all major projects on the site including significant
changes to any non-historic residence. Any modifications to a non-historic residence
must be compatible with the historic residence and satisfy the Secretary of Interior's
Standards for Historic Compatibility.
(7) The two residences on the property were in existence as of January 28, 2009.
(8) Application of the state Historic Building Code is available for use on any eligible
building.
(9) Residences subject to a covenant must meet all government health, life and safety
codes.
SECTION 5. Section 18.12.060 (Parking) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
hereby amended to amend to read as follows:
18.12.060 Parking
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional
uses in accord with Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 of this title. The following parking requirements
apply in the R-E, R-2 and RMD districts. These requirements are included for reference purposes
only, and in the event of a conflict between this Section 18.10.060 and any requirement of
Chapters 18.52 and 18.54, Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 shall apply, except in the case of parcels
created pursuant to Section 18.10.130(c) (subdivision incentive for historic preservation).
6
090713 syn 8261083
NOT YET APPROVED
(a) Parking Requirements for Specific Uses
Table 4 shows the minimum off-street automobile parking requirements for specific uses
within the R-l district.
Table 4 shows the minimum off-street automobile parking requirements for specific uses.
Table 4
Parking Requirements for Specific R-l Uses
Single-family residential use (excluding second dwelling units) 2 spaces per unit, of which one must be covered.
Second dwelling unit, attached or detached 2 spaces per unit, of which one must be covered
Other Uses See Chs. 18.52 and 18.54
(b) Parking and Driveway Surfaces
Parking and driveway surfaces may have either permeable 9r impermeable paving. Materials
shall be those acceptable to public works department standards. Gravel and similar loose
materials shall not be used for driveway or parking surfaces within 10 feet of the public right of
way.
(c) Parking in Yards
(1) No required parking space shall be located in a required front yard.
(2) No required parking space shall be located in the first ten feet adjoining the property
line of a required street side yard.
(d) Tandem Parking
Tandem parking shall be permitted for single-family uses and for single-family uses with a
permitted second dwelling unit.
( e) Underground Parking
Underground parking is prohibited for single-family uses, except pursuant to a variance
granted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.76, in which case the area of the
underground garage shall be counted in determining the floor area ratio for the site.
(f) Design of Parking Areas
7
090713 syn 8261083
NOT YET APPROVED
Parking facilities shall comply with all applicable regulations of Chapter 18.54 (Parking
Facility Design Standards).
SECTION 6. Subsection 18.13.040(c) (Single-Family and Two-Family Uses) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(c) Single-Family and Two-Family Uses
(1) The regulations in chapter 18.12 that apply to the R-l district shall apply to sites in
single-family use in the multiple-family residence districts. The regulations in
Chapter 18.10 that apply to the R-2 district may be applied, at the applicant's
discretion to sites in two-family use in the multiple-family residence districts, in lieu
of the multi-family standards.
(2) The Individual Review provisions of Section 18.12.110 of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be applied to any single-family or two-family residence in the multi-family
districts, to those sides of a site that share an interior side lot line with the interior
side or rear lot line of a property zoned for or used for single-family or two-family
dwellings. The Individual Review shall not be applied to adjacent uses other than
single-family and two-family uses.
(3) Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter. existing two-family residential
development in mUltiple family residential districts may be divided into two separate
ownership parcels where all of the following circumstances exist:
(A) At least one residence is designated on the City's Historic Inventory as a
Category 1, Category 2. Category 3. or Category 4 historic structure as defined in
Section 16.49.020 of this code or are contributing structures located within a
locally designated historic district or are eligible for the National or California
Registers; and
(B) No increase in the total number of residences on the site is proposed; and
(C) Separate lots are proposed to be created, each with a minimum lot size not less
than 4,000 square feet if only one residence is historic; if both residences are
historic and subject to a covenant, the allowable minimum lot size is 2,000 sguare
feet and
CD) The resultant parcel lines may create less than minimum lot size (no less than the
area stated in item (C) of this section), site width and depth, setback and daylight
plane encroachments, floor area and site coverage exceeding the maximum
allowable for existing development with respect to each new parcel. without the
need for approval of a Variance or Home Improvement Exception, but would not
generally increase any existing non-complying building features; however, minor
additions for functional improvements may be allowed at the discretion of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment: and
8
090713 syn 8261083
NOT YET APPROVED
eEl The Historic Resources Board has determined that at least one existing residence
on the property has historic integrity and qualities for listing on the City's
Historic Inventory.
(F) A covenant is recorded to run with the land in perpetuity. assuring that the
historic residences will be maintained consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation through compliance with Historic
Resources Board review and recommendation. The covenant will stipulate that
HRB review is required for all major projects on the site including significant
changes to any non-historic residence. Any modifications to a non-historic
residence must be compatible with the historic residence and satisfy the Secretary
of Interior's Standards for Historic Compatibility.
(Gl The two residences on the property were in existence as of January 28,2009.
(Hl Application of the state Historic Building Code is available for use on any
eligible bUilding.
(I) Residences subj ect to a covenant must meet all government health, life and safety
codes.
SECTION 7. Section 21.20.010 (Generally) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
The provisions of this chapter shall govern the design of all subdivisions. The
provisions of this chapter shall be incorporated in any subdivision approval unless the city
council, or director of planning in the case of a preliminary parcel map, finds that due to the
particular circumstances these design criteria are not necessary or that alternative designs are
preferable; provided, that any modifications to the lot size, dimensions, location or configuration
standards shall only be made upon request for and approval of exceptions to said standards,
except when each nonconforming lot to be created contains a residence with recorded
preservation covenants, where no request for nor approval of exceptions to said standards shall
be required. Design of all subdivisions shall include such facilities for the handicapped as may be
required by federal, state or local law.
SECTION 8. . Section 21.20.301 (Flag Lots) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
21.20.301 Flag lots.
(a) The director of planning may approve, pursuant to a preliminary parcel map, not
more than one flag lot, as defined in Title 18 of this code, under the following conditions:
(1) The flag lot shall be used only for single-family residential use;
(2) The flag lot shall meet all of the requirements of the zone district within which it
is located and, in addition, shall have an area which exceeds the lot area requirement of the zone
district by not less than twenty percent exclusive of any portion of the lot used for access to a
public street, aB4-except when the flag lot to be created contains a residence with recorded
9
090713 syn 8261083
NOT YET APPROVED
preservation covenants, where the flag lot area is not required to exceed the lot requirenlent of
the zone district and no request for nor approval of exceptions to said standards shall be required:
and
(3) Access from the flag lot to a public street shall not be over an easement but over
land under the same ownership as the flag lot. Such access shall have a minimum width of fifteen
feet and shall have a paved way not less than ten feet in width:-, except when the flag lot to be
created contains a residence with recorded preservation covenants. where the flag lot access may
be over an easement or land under the same ownership, the access shall have a minimum width
of twelve feet for a maximum length no more than 100 feet, and shall have a paved way not less
than ten feet in width, and no request for nor approval of exceptions to said standards shall be
required.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the creation of flag lots, as defined in Title 18
of this code, shall be prohibited in the R-1 single-family residence district, and no exceptions
shall be granted therefore; provided, however, that:
(1) Flag lots may be created in the R-1 zone district pursuant to Title 18 as long as
the residence thereon has a recorded preservation covenant; and
QL !Flag lots validly existing in the R -1 district as of the effective date of said
prohibition shall, nonetheless, be recognized as legal lots for purposes of this Title 21 only.
Development of such existing flag lots shall be subject to all applicable provisions of Title 18 of
this code as of the date of any such proposed development.
SECTION 9. Severability. If any section of this ordinance, or part hereof, is held by
a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable or unenforceable,
such section, or part hereof, shall be deemed severable from the remaining sections of this
ordinance and shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining sections hereof.
SECTION 10. The Council hereby finds this ordinance is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to
Sections 15305 and 5308 of the CEQA Guidelines because it is an action taken by a regulatory
agency for the protection of the environment.
II
II
II
II
II
II
10
090713 syn 8261083
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 11. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deputy City Attorney
090713 syn 8261083
11
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
May 13,2009
EXCERPT
All ACHMENl B
1 Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Review and Recommendation to City Council to: (1) Adopt
2 an Ordinance Amending Sections 18.10 (Low Density Residential Districts), 18.12 (R-l Single
3 Family Residential Districts), and 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential Districts) of Title 18
4 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code (P AMC) , and (2) Adopt an Ordinance amending P AMC Title
5 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land), Chapter 21.20 (Design), Section 21.20.301 (Flag
6 lots), regarding subdivision incentives for historic preservation.
7
8 Ms. Caporgno: Thank you Chair Garber. Amy and I are both going to share this presentation
9 because we kind of shared this process. First of all you will probably remember that when we
10 came to you in January there were some main components of this concept that we were trying to
11 address that is an outgrowth of a project that you had seen before you on 449-451 Addison that
12 was a PC. So what we were trying to do is codify that type of development so that it would
13 enable substandard subdivisions to be allowed so that we could preserve historic units on the
14 property. So the nlain components that we were addressing as I said were a lot of substandard
15 subdivision in all residential districts. There must be at least one historic unit on the existing
16 parcel would require evaluation of the integrity of the historic structUre or structures. It requires
17 a covenant to preserve and maintain the unit or units. Would not allow any increase in the
18 number of units on the parcel. There wouldn't be any increase once the parcelization had been
19 completed in noncompliance. Then it would restrict the parcel size.
20
21 At your January 28 meeting your direction to us was that you wanted the concept to address
22 subdivision of two or more parcels and for parcels where you are only going to create two
23 parcels one parcel had to have an historic unit. For sites where you are going to create more than
24 two parcels you wanted all parcels that would result to have an historic unit. Then you identified
25 that you wanted to have some ability for functional improvements to be nlade to these units.
26 That was your exact language. So that even though they were nonconforming structures and
27 they may not be able to meet the existing zoning standards ifin fact you had to remodel a
28 bathroom or that sort thing you wanted the ability to have that be able to be done.
29
30 Then you wanted the minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet. We provided some data for you and
31 I think we have given you the same data with a few more lots involved that show the historic
32 parcels that have these types of parcels on them. The asterisked ones are the ones that have only
33 one parcel with only two units. So they would be able to be divided into two parcels. Then you
34 wanted the structures to have to have been in existence as of the date that we first brought this to
35 you, which was January 28.
36
37 Then you also stated that you wanted modifications to say the non-historic units must be
38 compatible with historic units so that you don't affect the integrity of the historic property with
39 the non-historic by any sort of renovations to the non-historic property.
40
Page 1
1 The other direction you had given to us too was that you wanted us to identify the correct process
2 that this would undergo and also if there were any subdivision changes that were required. At
3 the time we came to you we only talked about changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
4
5 So we discussed this further and we decided that there would be two types of ordinance changes.
6 We would have to amend the Zoning Ordinance as well as the Subdivision Ordinance. So Amy
7 is going to talk about the Subdivision Ordinance in a few minutes.
8
9 So after that meeting we made some further changes to what had been the direction you had
10 given us because the City Attorney, who is here to speak to this issue, indicated that when we
11 were kind of grappling with how we deal with this particularly for the cottage clusters that the
12 type of mechanism we would have to employ in order to subdivide these that we would have to
13 do a condominium map because there were common spaces in most of these if not all of them.
14 So therefore subdivisions of more than two parcels would conflict with the condo conversion
15 ordinance. Then the other issue, and Amy is going to speak to that a little bit, is that we felt
16 particularly if we were going back to just looking at creating two units that there was going to be
17 a problem with the smaller parcels in some of these larger R-l areas. So what we were
18 suggesting and the information that you have before you is that we would be able to create
19 parcels without exceptions and it would go through Director's Hearing for reSUlting parcels of
20 4,000 square feet or nlore. If they were going to be less than 4,000 square feet then they would
21 have to go through a parcel with exception process and that would come through the Planning
22 Commission and go to City Council. So it would be an improvement over the current practice of
23 the PC because you don't have to provide a public benefit and you don't have to go through so
24 many hoops but at the same time for these smaller ones we would be able to look at where they
25 are located and it would be reviewed by the Planning Comnlission and City Council.
26
27 So what you have before you in the ordinance and what we tried to do --I know it probably got
28 somewhat incomprehensible maybe or indecipherable but in the ordinance itself we have
29 underlining or bold, and highlighted areas. Those are areas that we changed since last time you
30 saw it to address either the subdivision process or these changes that I have mentioned and I will
31 go through here in more detail. We have addressed the subdivision to two parcels only. Two
32 parcels with one parcel having an historic unit. We have eliminated subdivision for anything
33 greater than two parcels. We still allow the functional improvements. We have increased it from
34 2,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet but as I said 2,000 square feet would be allowed it just
35 would be that you would have to go through this other process. Then the structures would have
36' been in existence since January 28, 2009 and the modifications still would be required to be
37 compatible with the historic unit.
38
39 So we think that probably the biggest question that has come out of here and what we have been
40 seeing in the few letters or emails that we received and then just in the discussion that we had
41 with the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Commissioner Holman on Monday evening was this 2,000
42 versus 4,000 minimum lot size issue. Again, what we are suggesting is not to eliminate the
43 possibility of a 2,000 square foot lot but it would have to go through a more rigorous process.
44
45 ,Amy, do you want to discuss the subdivision.
46
Page 2
1 Chair Garber: One question. Comnlissioner Holnlan.
2
3 Commissioner Holman: A clarification on that because I believe the ordinance reads such that it
4 is a 4,000 square foot minimum but in the R-1 districts it would have to be a minimum of 80
5 percent. It reads 'or' and the subdivision would have to be 80 percent of the standard lot size.
6
7 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: For the sub-districts meaning the larger, the ones
8 that go beyond the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size.
9
10 Commissioner Holman: Right.
11
12 Ms. French: So where the lot sizes are 10,000 or 20,000 square foot minimunl then you would
13 start looking at that 80 percent rather than the 4,000 square feet. It all kind of gets relative to
14 how large the minimum lot size is. So in the straight R-1 district 4,000 is what is proposed.
15
16 Commissioner Holman: Okay.
17
18 Ms. French: I hope that clarifies that.
19
20 Chair Garber: Please, Amy.
21
22 Ms. French: So since a picture is worth 1,000 words.
23
24 Chair Garber: What are we looking at?
25
26 Commissioner Holman: Is this available to put on the screen by chance?
27
28 Ms. French: No. We could pin it up on the board there if you want to turn it around.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: There might be merrlbers of the public that might want to see this too.
31
32 Ms. French: What I thought I would do is use this as an example. This of course is the reason
33 we are here, the Margot Schmidt PC that resulted in this Preliminary Parcel Map. Because it was
34 a PC that said it is okay to do this lot division.
35
36 Chair Garber: Just for clarity the Margot Schmidt property is 449 and 451 Addison.
37
38 Ms. French: Yes, and contains two historic structures and a garage. The lot size was 10,000
39 square feet. The.PC proposed to subdivide this lot to make a landlocked parcel with an easement
40 across the front property less than the required easement or flagpole size to reach the back
41 property. So Ms. Schmidt went through upgrading her historic status. First of all, I think it was
42 her first process. Then she came through with a PC, and then she came through with this
43 Preliminary Parcel Map. We didn't do a Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions, which you
44 would have seen, and then the Council would have acted upon because the PC set in motion that
45 it was okay to do this abnormal thing.
46
Page 3
1 So one of the things that I think is good about this as far as illustration is that there was a garage
2 that was providing complying parking for the two homes, the one covered space per unit. The
3 line that was being proposed was chopping it in two but the resulting would still provide one
4 covered parking space per unit so it didn't change a complying parking situation. So I just
5 thought that this was interesting. First of all it is the reason why this all started and second of all
6 it is a good visual because it has some of the issues that were contained in my component of this
7 report which was looking at the subdivision code ordinance changes and the issue of the flag lot.
8
9 So in the subdivision code currently you cannot create a flag lot in the R-1 district. This
10 ordinance would change that when there are historic homes involved. It would also provide
11 some wiggle room for the flag lot currently. To create a flag lot in another residential zone you
12 need to have the actual pole. You can't do this with the easement, and the pole has to be 15 feet
13 wide. So the proposed changes, speaking with the Fire Department to make sure what the bare
14 minimum is, we went with a 13 foot minimum in the proposed ordinance. That would be the
15 bare minimum for this new ordinance section and that you could do it with an easement rather
16 thanjust a pole. So this creates a 5,000 square foot lot. If there was a pole obviously that pole
17 area would belong to the back lot and it would make a smaller lot in front given that the
18 easement is now no longer belonging.
19
20 So I just wanted to rattle off a few more things here. Regarding a parcel map process just to
21 make sure we are on an even playing field of understanding, the preliminary parcel map
22 currently goes through a Director's Hearing. We, I, typically the Hearing Officer has 50 days to
23 take action on one of those maps. I could defer that to the Planning Commission and Council for
24 action if it seemed important to do so. That can be appealed if somebody is aggrieved to the
25 Council via the Planning Commission. So if somebody is aggrieved by a decision made at a
26 Director's Hearing or subsequent to a Director's Hearing then the person could come through
27 and ask to appeal the project. It would come to the Planning Commission first and then Council
28 with 30 days and 30 days. So then if there is a parcel map with exceptions -this is in P AMC
29 Section 21.32.03 - I think Commissioner Holman may have had a question of where that resides
30 in the Municipal Code. That section does not allow the Planning Director to grant any
31 exceptions when doing a parcel map. So this ordinance, by setting the zoning regulations at a
32 smaller lot size, voila, no longer is that a parcel map with exceptions because the lot size meets
33 the new minimum for those historic situations. That is the 4,000 square feet or 80 percent when
34 we are talking the larger R-1 nlinimum lot size.
35
36 Then the other part I wanted to mention was the condo conversion, which is P AMC Section
37 21.40 if anyone wants to write that down. That I think was one of the questions you asked
38 earlier today, Commissioner Holman, what are the findings for exceptions to the parcel map?
39 Those are similar to Variance findings. I have them here I can read them off at some point if you
40 would like. Then also for the condo conversions there are exceptions. The condo conversion
41 policy applies to three or more units, so multifamily housing not two family housing. There are
42 ways of going about doing that even for three or more units but there is a list of things that has to
43 happen. We can enlighten you on that too. I have the copy that talks about a vacancy rate, it
44 talks about BMR units, etc., and you can get around that. Again that is a separate process.
45
Page 4
1 So basically Section 5 of the new ordinance addresses the whole subdivision. So there are two
2 sections. There is the design section, which has a general statement saying you have to do an
3 exception if you have any changes to lot size, dimension, location, configuration, and so I
4 thought it would be good to throw something in there. Whether it is worded correctly I don't
5 know. Section 6 talks about that flag lot change. Again, both of those talk about historic homes
6 perhaps that could be better worded because when you are creating the flag lot situation I think
7 we are saying only one of those homes has to be historic. So maybe the front home is historic
8 and the back home on the flag lot is not historic so there is some wording tweaking that could
9 happen with that. I think it references historic homes on the flag lot.
10
11 I think the rest is probably best with questions.
12
13 Ms. Caporgno: I would just like to make sure the Commission is aware that we received two
14 sets of questions today. One from Commissioner Fineberg and one from Commissioner Holman.
15 You have received them all at places. Maybe it would be easier but it is up to the Commission if
16 you want us to just go through those or if you want the individual Commissioners to ask us.
17 Some of them I think we may have addressed in the comments that we have made in the
18 presentation but it is really up to Chair Garber how he wants us to deal with them.
19
20 Chair Garber: I would just as soon have Julie walk through them if that is all right with
21 Commissioners.
22
23 Ms. Caporgno: The first one is and actually it is to Don.
24
25 Mr. Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney: I assume we are starting with Commissioner
26 Fineberg's questions. The question was to explain the determination that any subdivision of a
27 parcel with more than two existing units would violate the City's condominium conversion
28 ordinance and is in a subdivision with fee simple lots and no common interests is a different
29 legal process than a condo conversion and the answer is yes. I think just to clarify we are going
30 to want to revisit other ways to deal with the cottage clusters when we start looking practically at
31 how we would be able to subdivide the cottage clusters. The ones that we looked at couldn't be
32 done without creating some sort of a common interest. We use the word condo fairly loosely.
33 Our ordinance applies to any conversion from rental housing to a common interest development,
34 which includes not just condos, but also any development that includes common area. So if there
35 is a common driveway or common access that would be subject to our condo conversion
36 ordinance. There may be cottage clusters that would not require common access or common
37 driveways or any common area but we are not aware of those. So it is something that because
38 we have gotten Council direction to do the first part, which is the two unit subdivisions, we
39 thought it would be best to come with that and get that on the books, and then go back and look
40 at whether or not we can make revisions to our conversion ordinance or if there are sufficient
41 cottage clusters that would not be subject to the condo conversion ordinance to make it
42 worthwhile to do an ordinance to allow those.
43
44 The second question is why can't owner-occupied or vacant cottage clusters quality for
45 subdivision under the proposed ordinance? The distinction between owner-occupied and vacant.
46 Owner-occupied would mean that each unit of that cottage cluster would be required to be
Page 5
1 occupied by the owner, which means the owner has to sleep there. So theoretically if you had a
2 cottage cluster with six owners as joint tenants and each of them lived in one of the units and
3 slept there that might be a possibility. Again, we are not aware of any of those. Then vacancy is
4 a little bit different because under our ordinance if it is rental housing and even if the entire
5 cottage cluster was to be vacant but our overall residency vacancy rate was not above the
6 threshold then that would not be eligible for conversion because I think the idea would be that
7 landlords are just keeping it vacant so they can condonlinimize it.
8
9 Rather than going back and forth because Karen's question number six is related and this is
10 about describing the application of the condo conversion ordinance to projects such as 639
11 Homer where six units were supposed to be removed and replaced with three for sale units and a
12 similar project also on Homer. There were three rental units that were removed and replaced
13 with three for sale units. This is kind of an unfortunate irony competing between state law and
14 our condo conversion ordinance. The Ellis Act, which is relatively recent state law, precludes us
15 from requiring that landlords stay in business as landlords. What that means is that a landlord is
16 free to go out of business and when they go out of business they are free to redevelop their
17 property into anything they want. What the state court decided is that condo conversion is not
18 the same and they have said condo conversion ordinances are enforceable. So that creates this
19 unfortunate circumstance where if you have a cottage cluster, which I think is something that I
20 think is policy we said we want to maintain, it is in our Comprehensive Plan we want to maintain
21 them, you are allowed to demo them under state law but you are not allowed to convert them
22 because our condo conversion ordinance precludes it. I think just to mention it there is one thing
23 that could lessen the desirability to do that and that is CEQA still applies where there is a
24 discretionary action on historic structures. Common ones are if there are IR reviews involved or
25 if there is demo delay involved the property owner is going to be required to go through CEQA.
26 In most cases be required to do an EIR, and it would require a Statement of Overriding
27 Consideration if the EIR determines it would result in the demolition of historic property, and the
28 Council would have to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration before the demo would be
29 allowed. I think that is going to help stop some of the redevelopment of cottage clusters that are
30 in that historic category. So that answers my share of the questions.
31
32 Ms. French: Following on that it won't stop 639 Homer for instance because the existing
33 structures on the site holding six units were built in 1961. So they are not historic.
34
35 So the answers that I was going to tackle. Number three, Commissioner Fineberg's question
36 about should the Director's approval of minor additions be for only specific functional
37 improvements? How is minor defined, should the ordinance call out specific examples like
38 bathrooms, kitchens, closets, ADA compliance, or universal design? I will answer in reverse, no.
39 And, how is minor defined? Not defined, it leaves some discretion to the Director and his
40 designee, which we appreciate and enjoy. Then each case by case we have the ability to discuss
41 that with the applicant and hopefully in this case it is an historic home that we are talking about
42 and not the other home. It gets a little weird when you get into the nonconforming structure that
43 isn't historic, and then it goes to that kind of nonconforming or non-complying facility regulation
44 in the zoning code where you can't increase the degree of nonconformity. So in one case you
45 have an historic situation where you still have to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
46 with what you are doing functionally or minor. Then on the other side is you might have a non-
Page 6
1 historic structure that is non-complying and they want to make it further non-complying and this
2 kind of thing. So we just want to be able to have the flexibility to interpret our codes rather than
3 narrowly defme it.
4
5 Then as far as Commissioner Holman's questions or do you want to go?
6
7 Ms. Caporgno: I will probably hand this back to you. The last question of Commissioner
8 Fineberg's I think we have addressed it. She may want to follow up with some additional
9 questions but I think we have explained why we have taken the position we are taking as far as
10 the 2,000 versus the 4,000 square feet.
11
12 The first question of Commissioner Holman regarding the list of inventory properties. We did
13 give that to you atplaces. Then did Staff do any research to identify what California National
14 Register Eligible properties where this nlight apply? There are only four that Dennis had an
15 ' opportunity to identify and I added them to the list that you had received previously. So it is at
16 the end of that list and there are three of them that would be allowed to be subdivided into two
17 parcels with what we are currently proposing the ordinance include.
18
19 Amy, I think this next one is yours. The Staff Report at the bottom of the page references where
20 compliant parking facilities are ...
21
22 Ms. French: I wanted to follow up on Commissioner Holman's list of 47 homes. I thought I
23 would mention I was looking through there and it seems that over 65 percent of the 47 are
24 greater than 4,000 square feet. So two-thirds of the ones on that list would qualify for the parcel
25 map without exception process and then one-third of them are less than 4,000. So that just struck
26 me as oh well, at least we got two-thirds of those into the queue.
27
28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, you had a follow up?
29
30 Commissioner Holman: Some of these I do believe are I wasn't doing it this way when I did
31 the analysis for the Addison project but sonle of these are in the R-1929. So it wouldn't matter if
32 they were 4,000 or 5,000.
33
34 Ms. French: Okay. Let's see then number three, question of Commissioner Holman's. Page one
35 of the Staff Report says that where non-complying parking facilities are provided. Yes, that has
36 not been referenced in the draft ordinance. Perhaps, and I think this originated from a question at
37 the January 28 meeting where I believe in the minutes·there was some discussion towards the
38 end when we were all getting tired about garages or conforming parking. You start to think
39 about these things and then like the example here of the PC where you are putting a lot line
40 through and now does that mean you are going to have to remove the garage because now you
41 have a lot line running through it? Are you going to remove parking? You should have to
42 continue providing the conforming parking that you have. So that was the original thought.
43 Then as I am looking at it and considering your question perhaps a better way to say that or what
44 I am trying to get at is where non-complying parking facilities should not be created with the
45 subdivision and perhaps the corollary, which is that the existing conforming parking shall be
Page 7
1 maintained or continue in perpetuity or however legally that should be said. So that is where that
2 was trying to go.
3
4 Ms. Caporgno: Then number five, I am interpreting this as you are asking if this is acceptable to
5 use the term 'historic residences' in the ordinance.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: I am because there is a switching back and forth between units and a
8 variety of different terminologies that are used. So it is not consistent.
9
10 Ms. Caporgno: I don't think Staffhas a problem with changing. We would definitely like to be
11 consistent so using the term historic residences is fine with us.
12
13 Number six the City Attorney responded to.
14
15 Number seven, I think that from a Staffperspective adding the HRB review for major projects
16 would be fine and we can include that. That could be a requirement of the covenant also.
17
18 Then I think we have talked about this minimum lot size issue. It is something that you probably
19 will want to discuss further.
20
21 Preliminary parcel map with exceptions, we can make reference to that if in fact that is the way
22 we go. We can make reference to that in the ordinance itself. That was an oversight.
23
24 Then the final question from Commissioner Holman is reference to accessory structures we can
25 add that in also.
26
27 That takes care of the comments that we received from Commissioners.
28
29 Chair Garber: Commissioners we have one card from the public. Shall w.e go directly to that
30 and then we can come back to additional questions, comments, etc.? Sallie Strong, would you
31 please take the microphone. You will have three minutes.
32
33 Ms. Sallie Strong, Palo Alto: I own the historic property at 381 Lincoln. It used to be number
34 two on this subdivision incentive for historic preservation house. The house was owned by the
35 same three generations when I purchased it about eight or nine years ago. The family had
36 established the first Stanford bookstore. Behind it is a cottage. My house is on the comer of
37 Lincoln and Waverley. The cottage faces Waverley. It is not a flag. It is a separate entity. It
38 was a bam and it was developed into a cottage probably tum of the century. My house was built
39 in 1895. So I heartily endorse this ordinance. The sooner the better. I just happen to see this
40 email from Edwina Toledo to Zariah Betten and I presume you have all read it. I endorse this.
41 There would be no impact on the neighbors, on the neighborhood. There would be nothing but a
42 line drawn. I hope this can happen soon. Thank you.
43
44 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners? Commissioner Lippert followed by Fineberg.
45
Page 8
1 Commissioner Lippert: I have just one question or concern. That has to with whether we are
2 drawing condo lines or property lines and its relationship to the building code. As you know the
3 building code doesn't allow for, especially in residential zones, anything that is noncombustible
4 to come within five feet of the property line unless it has already been there. The new code is
5 five feet now. So a lot of historic houses are built within that five-foot setback. They are already
6 grandfathered in and archaic materials allow for that to be kept and nlaintained. When you put in
7 a new property line it would increase the nonconlpliance. So my concern is from a planning
8 point of view putting in something that life safety would later trump. Particularly looking at this
9 example where we have a garage that straddles the property line, obviously if it was a condo line
10 it wouldn't be as problematic but if it was a hard and fast property line I think it could be
11 somewhat problematic in terms of Building then imposing life safety requirements on historic
12 structures.
13.
14 Mr. Larkin: Thank you for much more clearly articulating what I tried to articulate to some
15 people earlier about why we had difficulty with the cottage cluster concept. I think that you are
16 exactly right and I think we will have to be careful with how we draw those lines. The problem
17 with doing it as condos is that as you will recall just a year and a half ago we prohibited two unit
18 condos in the R-2 and RMD districts. I think we would have the same issues with two unit
19 condos in the R-l. So I think more likely that would create a parcel map with exceptions
20 situation. If it is an outright violation of the building code then we are going to have to figure
21 out where else we can put those property lines.
22
23 Commissioner Lippert: I think what you will find is that the smaller the lot gets the more
24 problematic the property lines are going to become. So that is where .....
25
26 Mr. Larkin: That is exactly right. I think that is one of the reasons that we are looking at making
27 it easy for the larger, 4,000 square foot parcels. I think it should be easy to find a place to put the
28 property line. When you start getting smaller than that it is going to be more difficult. That is
29 why I think a parcel map with exception process makes more sense because it will require a
30 closer look at where those property lines get put.
31
32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, you had a comment.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: I was just going to respond to at least what happened with the Addison
35 proj ect. As you know I am very familiar with that. What happened was that garage was not in
36 good repair so it actually got restored. There was a demising wall that was put in the middle of
37 the garage. That is the safety feature that was added there.
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: I assumed that that is what occurred but even still I think we just need to
40 be careful about there really needs to be a level of review by Building that doesn't undermine the
41 intent of the ordinance.
42
43 Ms. French: I would like to respond to that. Back to the 449 Addison project, again that is a
44 garage, kind of easier to throw in a one hour-or two hour-or however-many-hour-wall in
45 between to create two separate garages if you will. I think the thing is when we have a parcel
46 map we have a Development Review Committee meeting, we route the plans to Building, so
Page 9
1 Building will have the opportunity to comment upon the proximity of existing structures to the
2 proposed line, etc., and weigh in prior to anything going to a hearing for a parcel map without
3 exc~ptions. I don't know how we could throw something into the ordinance that references the
4 Uniform Building Code such that we wouldn't want to see a property line introduced that would
5 violate the Uniform Building Code.
6
7 Mr. Larkin: I think the Uniform Building Code already covers that. So it may be worth a
8 reference so that people pulling the ordinance will know that is an issue.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: The issue I think you have is, and I have experienced this I have worked
11 with DRC on sonle of my projects, and Building doesn't pick up on these things early enough.
12 Then they throw it back at when it comes forward for a permit. So I don't know how you deal
13 with that. That is an internal thing. However, I think that there has to be language written in
14 here that in a residential zone a new property line cannot be drawn closer than five feet from a
15 noncombustible wall. You can create that as a development regulation as part of this ordinance.
16
17 Ms. French: I think this is good because it is really for educational purposes for the applicants
18 who are considering whether to do this so they understand. This is language Planning can use
19 with them rather than like you say until it is actually a going concern submitted for Building
20 review. So I would like to somehow have that as a cautionary statement somewhere.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: I have another question but I will come back that after this round.
23
24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
25
26 Commissioner Fineberg: We have a handout titled, Subdivision Incentives for Historic
27 Preservation, Potential Square Footage Outcomes for Selected Subdivided Historic Inventory
28 Properties in Categories 3 and 4. Who prepared the first part of it and how comprehensive is this
29 list?
30
31 Ms. Caporgno: This is the one that has the HRB meeting January 21 Study Session?
32
33 Commissioner Fineberg: It says item three so I think it came from Staff. The third page of it is
34 the Karen Holman list of .....
35
36 Ms. Caporgno: I was looking at the wrong one. It was done by Dennis Backlund our Historic
37 Preservation Planner. He had given you this one previously. The one you received today is just
38 a little bit more comprehensive than the one that was distributed in the last meeting. Dennis
39 Backlund had prepared that subsequent to the January 21 meeting with the Historic Resources
40 Board.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. It would be helpful to have it identified and dated. The reason I
43 am asking that is I received this at places tonight. So forgive me this is not a complete and
44 exhaustive review of it. In skimming through it I am not finding a single property listed that
45 would yield more than one 4,000 square foot lot. So if we are using this as our sample, unless I
46 missed one or I am misreading this or misunderstood it, there would be no subdivisions of 4,000
Page 10
1 square foot minimum lot that would be not subject to additional exception process. Correct me if
2 I am wrong.
3
4 Ms. Caporgno: Parcels with exceptions.
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: So this goes to my question four, the last part, how many parcels
7 would meet the criteria for the subdivision with a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet? If this
8 is telling me that there aren't any in this sample why are we crafting language for a situation that
9 won't exist?
10
11 Ms. Caporgno: I don't know if that is true that it won't exist because what can happen is that
12 there probably are historic properties our there potential California Register Eligible properties
13 that have not gone through review to determine their historic significance. They could come
14 forward and be placed on our inventory. That is what enables. The parcels that would be
15 eligible for this have to be either on our inventory, National or California Register or Eligible, or
16 contributing structures in Professorville. We know what the contributing structures are in
17 Professorville but there could be and there probably are many parcels out there that have homes
18 on them that are eligible for the California Register or the National Register or could be placed
19 on our inventory. The property owner would have to go through that process to place them on
20 the inventory then they would be eligible to utilize this process.
21
22 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so if they are not on the inventory they would not be eligible.
23
24 Ms. Caporgno: At this time.
25
26 Commissioner Fineberg: From what we have on the inventory at a quick glance none of them
27 appear to qualify at the 4,000 minimum. Am I correct that if let's say for instance the first
28 property the lot size would vary at 2,500 to 4,000 square feet so that would require the exception
29 process.
30
31 Ms. Caporgno: Correct.
32
33 Commissioner Fineberg: So if everyone listed here has no multiple properties that are at least
34 4,000 square feet they would all require an exception process. We are writing an ordinance that
35 doesn't solve any problems.
36
37 Ms. Caporgno: Well it does solve the problem of the PC.
38
39 Commissioner Fineberg: But nothing would qualify for it.
40
41 Ms. Caporgno: We wouldn't be requiring them to go through the PC process, which is what 449
42 and 451 Addison went through. So now they would at least be eligible to go through a Planning
43 Commission and Council process, which would be preferable than the PC process. They don't
44 have to demonstrate community benefit and they don't have to go through the ARB hoop and the
45 referral back for public hearings. I think that is the real issue for the Commission to grapple with
46 is do you feel comfortable with these smaller parcels going through the Director's Hearing. This
Page 11
1 other process that we are describing is more of a safeguard for the community. So we felt that
2 that would be something that the Commission would feel comfortable with. There may be ones
3 out there that would be like the Addison property. The Addison property, neither of those units
4 was designated on the inventory until they came through the PC process. So there could be lots,
5 there could be a few, there could be none, but we are anticipating that there will be others that
6 will be eligible to go through that same process.
7
8, Commissioner Fineberg: So the exception process would be the standard process that we would
9 see most of the time and the process with no exception review would only occur if somebody
10 added something to the historic inventory that would meet the criteria.
11
12 Ms. Caporgno: There may be National California Registry Eligible ones out there. Dennis just
13 gave us those ones that he knew of offhand. For him to have come up with an entire list looking
14 at all of the California or National Register Eligible properties was going to be somewhat of a
15 task and he didn't have time for it. So that is why he gave us those four at the end that he knew
16 would fall under this. I think they are all ones that would have to go through the exception
17 process but he didn't give us the entire list of properties where you could subdivide them into
18 two that are eligible for the California Registry.
19
20 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So you talk about those four on the National Registry. If I
21 understand this properly I think two small dwelling units in staggered arrangements with a
22 garage behind the rear dwelling on an approximately 6,250 square foot lot. So that would be
23 3,125 each parcel so it would have to go through the exception process.
24
25 Ms. Caporgno: It would have to go through the exception process, yes.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: So we don't know ....
28
29 Ms. Caporgno: I know the Roble Ridge Road project. I looked at the historic forms for that and
30 it is a larger parcel. It is just that it didn't identify the actual parcel size.
31
32 Commissioner Fineberg: But it is, okay. So there may be some out there. Okay, thank you.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: I think that is a residential estate district.
35
36 Ms. Caporgno: Yes.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: One acre or more.
39
40 Ms. Caporgno: Yes.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: I have a quick follow up on that.
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
45
Page 12
1 Commissioner Lippert: What about historic districts? If you had a large area like say
2 Professorville and there was a parcel in Professorville that you didn't really know about but the
3 historic district trumps anything that is built there in terms of it makes it automatically historic.
4
5 Ms. Caporgno: We identified them as contributing structures. I would say most of the parcels in
6 Professorville have contributing structures on them. For ins~ance there are some new homes in
7 Professorville that obviously they would not qualify for this process.
8
9 Chair Garber: Anything else? A couple of questions and this may be for the Commissioners as
lOwell. Does it matter which parcel is historic? I don't even know if this exists but I am thinking
11 of a circumstance but if there is a parcel that is not seen, it is in the back part of the lot but the
12 front is not historic should we be considering those sorts of circumstances? Commissioner
13 Holman.
14
15 Commissioner Holman: I would say so because there are any nunlber of ways for the public to
16 still enjoy that property. It may not always be that it is the most visible from the street front but
17 there are other reasons the public can enjoy it. Also, it is a piece of our history that we are
18 preserving. So I would say so.
19
20 Chair Garber: Okay, Commissioner Fineberg, a comment related to that.
21
22 Commissioner Fineberg: My understanding is that if it is R-l both must be historic.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: No. That is what I would say is an error. That is one of the errors that I
25 found in the ordinance.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: As I read it, it said in R-l both must be historic.
28
29 Ms. Caporgno: When we modified the language in here it was an oversight. It was intended that
30 in all three different types of residential districts it would be the same. You only have to have
31 one unit on the property that is historic. That was your direction from the last time. We would
32 have changed that no matter what for the subdivision into two.
33
34 Chair Garber: I am seeing a reference to the R-l District on page 6 in Section 6 and that's not it.
35 Commissioner Holman.
36
37 Commissioner Holman: Are you looking for where it says two and then the reference to the R-l
38 District that we should take out? On page 1 of the ordinance in the ordinance description on the
39 fifth line from the bottom it says, in the case of two homes having historic covenants. So that is
40 an error, right? Or that is intended?
41
42 Ms. Caporgno: Where are you?
43
44 Commissioner Holman: In the capital letters, fifth line up, third word in, case of two homes
45 having historic covenants and it should be a minimum of one, perhaps is the better language.
46
Page 13
1 Commissioner Fineberg: One of which has a historic.
2
3 Commissioner Holman: Yes, that is best, thank you. Commissioner Fineberg where did you
4 find the other reference of that?
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: I really have to find it.
7
8 Chair Garber: It continues to say allow for the creation of flag lots in the R -1 zoned district.
9
10 Ms. French: So now my badly worded section on flag lots. Are we on that now? Page 6, flag
11 lots.
12
13 Chair Garber: Well, it mentions it on page 1 and we can go to page 6, sure.
14
15 Ms. French: I had noted in my presentation that on page 6, A-2, first paragraph, in gray, except
16 when the flag lot to be created contains an historic home with recorded preservation covenants.
17 So that is an error because that is assuming that the rear lot is the one with the historic home and
18 we don't know which one is the one with the historic home. So that needs to be reworded
19 similarly down below in that whole shaded area in that section or at least A -3 as well.
20
21 Ms. Caporgno: Again, Amy and I wrote this together but separately. So the two existing units
22 on nonconforming sites for any of the zones to preserve the historic integrity of one unit. That
23 was the intent for all the three different types of residential districts. So we could go in and clean
24 that up and make sure that it is clear.
25
26 Chair Garber: Another sort of very general question here. Amy, you had spoken about
27 noncomplying that you would not want to create a circumstance that creates a further
28 noncompliance in regards to parking. Right? Then the inverse of that is that the existing parking
29 that is compliant shall be sustained and/or continued. So what about circumstances, which are
30 noncomplying now? For instance there is just one covered what would happen in a circumstance
31 like that? Maybe there is not a real answer here so I am just wondering if there is some latitude
32 here for you to figure that out going forward? Then there is another circumstance I could
33 imagine and again, it may not actually exist in real life or even in Palo Alto for that matter,
34 where you would have two covered spots but they are only accessible by one parcel. Thoughts
35 on either of those?
36
37 Ms. French: Not very clear ones. I guess with the minimum lot size requirement they are
38 looking for where to put that line and they are going to put it where they can have that minimum
39 lot size to avoid the parcel map with exception process. Then where that garage falls -I suppose
40 then the consideration of is that garage a detached garage that is historic or is it expendable and
41 they can just wipe it clean and come up with two separate parcels. They could improve the
42 degree of noncompliance by providing an additional space or they could maintain that existing
43 degree of noncompliance so that one home would continue to have a covered parking space and
44 the other home would not.
45
Page 14
1 Chair Garber: So is there enough or as little text as there needs to be in the ordinance to address
2 that sort of latitude that your staff would probably need to address this?
3
4 Ms. French: I think there is less text in the ordinance than there needs to be.
5
6 Chair Garber: One more thing. I just was confirming that the way that this ordinance is
7 currently written it is just addressing parcels that are singular and going to two and that verbiage
8 is called out on page 2, under subsection C. Is that where that is defined specifically? Okay. So
9 there is a follow up by Commissioner Lippert and then Keller. However, the City Attorney first.
10
11 Mr. Larkin: I was just going to say that we do need to add some language on that
12 nonconforming parking and we will develop something if you will give us the concept.
13
14 Ms. French: It would also have to do with the uncovered spaces as well not just garage or
15 covered spaces. I just want to make that clear.
16
17 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: Just in thinking out loud about this clean up of it might be the State
20 Historic Building Code allows for looking at alternatives. Therefore, the planning code, the
21 Zoning Ordinance could allow for looking at alternatives. What I am thinking of is that in
22 commercial districts we allow for offsite parking agreements. In this case what you might be
23 able to do is between the two lots when they are split apart one of the covenants that would be
24 written would be an offsite parking agreement where the parking is on one of the parcels for both
25 parcels. That would be written in as some sort of an easement or allowance.
26
27 Then the same thing, you were talking about driveways and with the driveways having to be 13
28 feet wide because of the fire issue. If you couldn't achieve that 13 feet and say you could only
29 get a normal driveway, which is ten feet again with the Fire Departnlent we may be able to work
30 an alternative, which would be that the house in the rear would then have to be sprinklered or
31 they would have to put in a residential hydrant onsite.
32
33 Those are the kinds of things that I am looking at to try to facilitate I guess allowing the
34 ordinance to move forward even though there would be aspects that wouldn't comply with all the
35 rules.
36
37 Mr. Larkin: We have done those things as conditions of approval on parcel maps in the past. So
38 that is how we would probably address this ordinance as well.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then there is one more follow up in this. You are not really
41 changing anything in terms of increasing the noncompliance even though you are splitting both
42 lots apart. Utility easenlents as well as ingress/egress easements have to be looked at because
43 you are traversing somebody's property in terms of driveway but you are also traversing in terms
44 of utilities. That would also need to be written into the ordinance.
45
Page 15
1 Ms. French: I think right now that is maybe one of the reasons why flag lots in the current code
2 have to have a pole because then you don't need those kinds of easements. However, as case in
3 point, and in other cases, we have done parcel maps that have the easements and those all have to
4 be shown on the preliminary parcel map prior to approval.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Two not very large issues. The first issue is that these various sections
9 refer to two structures on the property were in existence as of January 28, 2009. Do you mean
10 the two residential structures?
11
12 Ms. French: Yes.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: Because there might also be accessory structures such as garages.
15
16 Then with respect to garages as it is one parcel one can build essentially structures, accessory
17 structures or garages and things like that, roughly anywhere within the setbacks. However, once
18 you put in a lot line you suddenly get additional setbacks between the two parcels where the lot
19 line is. I am wondering what intention you want to have with respect to the internal setbacks that
20 are created as a result of the new lot lines.
21
22 Ms. French: Well, the idea would be that on page 3 of the ordinance, the resulting parcel lines
23 may create less than minimum lot size and site width and depth, setback and daylight plane
24 encroachment. So it may create those situations. Then it says, floor area and site coverage
25 exceeding the maximum allowable for existing development with respect to each new parcel
26 without the need for approval of a Variance or a Home Improvement Exception.
27
28 So I was trying to allow somebody to throw in the lot line and oops now you have a less then
29 standard front yard on the flag lot. So if you are going to introduce a new garage I guess that
30 would be the question. But if there is an existing structure there that becomes nonconforming
31 because of the lot line I think we would allow you to do that without having to go through the
32 parcel map with exception or a Variance.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: But you can't add a new structure that creates a new nonconformance.
35
36 Ms. Caporgno: Correct.
37
38 Ms. French: You would have to have a Home Improvement Exception or Variance.
39
40 Ms. Caporgno: The intent was that whatever resulted after the lot lines were placed that would
41 be acceptable but then if there was anything new introduced then that would require either an
42 exception process or wouldn't be allowed.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: I think when a document is prepared that describes the process it should
45 point out the restrictions on the possible development of the new parcels that are imposed by
Page 16
1 creating the new lot line. People might not realize that would be imposed and it is worth
2 pointing out.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, you had a comment.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: I had a few things actually. On page 5, Section 5, the first paragraph,
7 the provisions, the last sentence of it, design of all subdivisions shall include such facilities for
8 the handicapped as may be requested by federal, state, or local law.
9
10 Ms. French: That was not an add -it was there.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: I understand it was there but do we have to have that? Again, these are
13 existing facilities. This isn't like new construction, which this law would typically apply to. Are
14 we really asking -we didn't require Margot Schmidt for instance on 449 Addison to make her
15 project handicapped accessible and I think that is an unreasonable request.
16
17 Ms. French: I was noticing it says 'as may be requested by federal, state, or local law .' That
18 might be a typo that might be 'required.'
19
20 Mr. Larkin: I would say it should be 'required.' In some circumstances there may be
21 requirements that it be brought up to code for accessibility. It is not going to apply to most of
22 these.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Again there is the State Historic Building Code.
25
26 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: The State Historic Building Code designates a door that is two feet, nine
29 inches as being handicap accessible.
30
31 Mr. Larkin: It is only going to apply if stat~ law requires it.
32
33 Chair Garber: Conunissioner Holman.
34
35 Commissioner Holman: But state law is also the State Historic Building Code. So what I am
36 suggesting and I think Commissioner Lippert is supporting is that this language ifit is possible to
37 remove it because again we are not talking new construction we are talking existing facilities.
38 Weare not talking ....
39
40 Mr. Larkin: There are circumstances in which existing, and I am not an expert on the State
41 Historic Building Code and Commissioner Lippert I know is more than I am, but my
42 understanding is there are circumstances in which the state will come in and require that facilities
43 be upgraded. It may not require replacement of doors. It may be able to be done compatibly
44 with historic building and the Secretary's Standards. If the addition of a ramp is required or
45 something like that or some things that we want to make clear the state is requiring it and we are
46 going to let them do it.
Page 17
1
2 Chair Garber: I was going to simply state that particular law being a state law is no different
3 than the building code. They would have to require it whether you have it in here or not.
4
5 Ms. French: Honestly, I think this really applies more to commercial properties not to
6 residential.
7
8 Ms. Caporgno: In fact it just says as may be required. Obviously if it is not required you don't
9 have to do it, and if it is required it is required. Our putting it in here or not putting it in here
10 isn't going to make any difference.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, anything else?
13
14 Commissioner Holman: Yes. I still would like to see that come out if it is possible because as
15 you are saying that if it mostly is intended to apply to commercial and then it doesn't represent
16 the state building code I think it is going to send fear waves through people who might read this
17 and oh, I would have to do that if I subdivided. So that is one thing.
18
19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holnlan, actually I think Commissioner Keller had a comment.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: Yes. This paragraph is designed for all subdivisions. Correct me if I am
22 wrong. There is a sentence in there referencing historic subdivisions. Therefore to the extent
23 that you wanted to modify this last sentence, ftrst of all it has to be there for all other
24 subdivisions. To the extent that you want to reference historic building code for the subdivisions
25 where it makes sense but you cannot remove this because of the situation that most of applies to
26 non-historic subdivisions.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: Is that true, City Attorney?
29
30 Mr. Larkin: I am looking for the provision. Yes, that is correct. This provision is not limited
31 solely to historic subdivisions.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: I understand that.
34
35 Mr. Larkin: The reason that I wouldn't want to necessarily make a reference I think the way it
36 is written is the way we want it to be written which is 'as required by state law' because I think
37 state law changes. If it is not required by state law we are not going to require it but if state law
38 is going to require it then we are going to require it.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: Well then at a minimum there also needs to be reference to the State
41 Historic Building Code because that is also state law.
42
43 Mr. Larkin: I don't think that is required because the State Historic Building Code does not
44 preclude retrofttting of other buildings that are not historic.
45
46 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma.
Page 18
1
2 Vice-Chair Tuma: It seems to me that all this sentence is saying is that you have to comply with
3 the law. In terms of giving people notice it is better to remind them of something that they may
4 not otherwise see along the lines of what Commissioner Lippert was talking about before. So I
5 think having it in here sort of reminds people. It may in fact have a chilling effect but it is better
6 that they know that they are going to have to comply with these other laws than they get down
7 the road and say, well it didn't say anything about that. So I think taking out would be a mistake.
8
9 Commissioner Holman: So let me make one more push on this. The State Historic Building
10 Code has to be made available to owners of historic buildings. So if this has to stay then I would
11 argue that application of the State Historic Building Code would be available to the owners of
12 these properties. Otherwise many of them will not know. We have had battles with the Building
13 Department in the past because they have not made it available and have not made people aware
14 that it even exists. So I think just so there is an historic record I think that adding it here would
15 be very helpful, educational, and it would help property owners.
16
17 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: Where the rub is is that the use of the State Historic Building Code is ;
20 optional by the owner. The owner doesn't have to use the State Historic Building Code and it
21 can't be forced on them. I don't know why an owner would not use the State Historic Building
22 Code. The issue is that a property owner may very well say I don't want to use the State Historic
23 Building Code. The only caveat in that is that if a building is categorized as historic it is subject
24 to the purview and review of our local Historic Resources Board in terms of exterior alterations.
25 When it comes to the inside they could do anything they want.
26
27 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: Regarding Commissioner Holman's earlier comment where she talked
30 about referencing the availability of the State Historic Building Code. I am looking in the
31 proposed ordinance on page 2 and it references exemptions to gross floor area requirements are
32 available to historic homes pursuant to the definition of gross floor area. So would your request
33 be satisfied if there were some similar mention that development criteria pursuant to that state
34 code is available? Then it would kind of give notice in the way you are asking.
35
36 Commissioner Holman: Language such as that would be fine by me and it gets the point across
37 and it is a record that lives on. So yes.
38
39 Chair Garber: Anything else?
40
41 Commissioner Holman: Yes. Actually I am going to make a suggestion for one more thing,
42 which is a pretty simple one. The top of page 4, number 1. Throughout here this says all
43 existing units are designated on the City's Historic Inventory, that whole paragraph should be
44 like at the very botton1 of the page A. At least one unit, except for historic residential structure is
45 designated on the City'S Historic Inventory, etc. What one is does is says that all of the units and
46 it uses the word 'units' are on the inventory and it doesn't mention California or National
Page 19
1 Register eligibility. Does that make sense? So if you just replace 1 at the top with A at the
2 bottom, and then you change what is eligible and it doesn't use the word 'all.' Then if you
3 change in both A and then the new 1 at least one residential structure is designated.
4
5 Ms. Caporgno: They are diff~rent sections of the code. The one at the top pertains to Subsection
6 18.12.140 and A at the bottom of page 4 pertains to Subsection 18.13.040.
7
8 Commissioner Holman: Could they not be the same though?
9
10 Ms. Caporgno: So they should be exactly the same.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: I am saying that they are not.
13
14 Ms. Caporgno: Okay.
15
16 Commissioner Holman: I am sorry if that wasn't clear. They should be the same.
17
18 Ms. Caporgno: We forgot to add in the eligible for the National and California Registers. It was
19 intended to do that in all three areas. I am sorry.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: There are other changes too but I think Amy got it.
22
23 Other places throughout where 'residential structure' should be used instead of 'structures'
24 alone, and 'historic residences.' I could go through here and do that. One of the suggestions I
25 was going to make is that because this is in several places here that there is a lot of cleanup that
26 maybe the Chair could appoint one or two of us to review this. Hopefully I would be one of
27 those when Staff makes the cleanups for consistency.
28
29 Mr. Larkin: I was going to recommend because I think that is useful for the Commission to
30 discuss concepts but if you have wordsmithing kind of suggestions I don't think it requires a
31 subcommittee. Just send them in and when it comes you will have a chance to look at it and
32 make sure that all those kind of word smithing changes get done, but it is not worth doing in this
33 group.
34
35 Commissioner Holman: That is why I made the suggestion.
36
37 Mr. Larkin: Well you can just do it. I don't think we need a subcommittee.
38
39 Commissioner Holman: Well, I just felt more comfortable ifit was two of us not just one so that
40 is why.
41
42 Chair Garber: Something else?
43
44 Ms. French: I just wanted to go back to something else. You had used that Section 5 to discuss
45 the historic building code but there is a key concept issue there that again I feel compelled to call
46 attention to since I wrote it badly. That is because if you read it you can't create these funky lots
Page 20
1 except when a nonconforming lot to be created contains an historic home. That again is
2 assuming that both of the parcels are going to have an historic home when we have said that it is
3 just one parcel. So that gets a little hairy as far as how you write that. I guess historic or
4 contributing or again how do you describe it -that is a concept issue.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
7
8 Commissioner Holman: Well if there isn't anything else I am going to make my pitch for the
9 minimum lot size u,nless somebody else has other comments?
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: I have another question.
12
13 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
14
15 Commissioner Fineberg: What happens with a two family home, one structure, left/right? Let's
16 say for example it sits on a 10,000 square foot R-1 zoning. Do we do that and draw the lot line
17 down the middle of the single structure?
18
19 Mr. Larkin: We don't because we don't allow two unit condos so you couldn't do this with a
20 single structure that had two units. You couldn't do this with a duplex.
21
22 Commissioner Fineberg: So you couldn't build a firewall down the middle of it and divide the
23 structure?
24
25 Mr. Larkin: No because you would still have a common wall. If there was a way to split the
26 structures apart maybe but I don't think you could do that and maintain the integrity.
27
28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: I was not going to go here because it just seemed like it was more
31 complicated than we needed to get but Commissioner Fineberg asks a good question. There are,
32 and I could go five different directions with this so Chair Garber will help keep me contained on
33 this. There are any number of ways to look at this and I know as probably Julie Caporgno more
34 than anybody knows of my frustration of loss of housing units, rental or otherwise, but basically
35 with me it is housing units. We have situations where a home might be divided into six units.
36 This is like a balance of goals. There might be a home that has been divided up, legally or
37 illegally, often illegally because it was pre-zoning into say six units. Somebody could buy that
38 house and restore it as a single family home. So the situation that Commissioner Fineberg brings
39 up and frankly maybe nobody noticed this, we certainly didn't try to hide it, it was apparent in
40 many of the documents but it is exactly what happened on Addison. The front house was a
41 duplex and the rear house was a single family home. The City let us divide it. I didn't even
42 think of that condominiumization but that is what happened there. So is that a bad thing?
43
44 Just to say one thing about that, if we could and not tonight, but I would like to say that perhaps
45 we should revisit our condominiumization ordinance. I will just say one thing about it. One
46 thing that we could do to prevent the things that are happening I would suppose in the next block
Page 21
1 from me where we are losing units is that we could require that they couldn't replace with fewer
2 units. So perhaps there is that reason and other to revisit our condo conversion ordinance.
3
4 Chair Garber: I will accept the comment as a parking lot item. Commissioner Lippert.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: I would like to weigh in on a couple of things here. The first one has to
7 with the driveway issue. Maybe what you want to do is take a look with the Fire Department in
8 ternlS of rather than it being a factor of the front and back unit but how far the unit is away from
9 the street. So in other words, it becomes more problematic as you get into larger deeper lots. If
10 you were to take the lot size of 4,000 square feet, which is what we might be looking at here, that
11 is really a 50 by 80 foot deep lot.
12
13 Ms. French: I thought I would call attention to the idea that it is a minimum width of 12 feet and
14 a maximum length of 100 feet was what the Fire Department had given us. A 100-foot
15 maximum.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so after 100 feet that would have to be widened to the 13 feet.
18
19 Ms. French: Yes.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: So at 100 feet. So if it is smaller than that then that width is not
22 necessary. Okay. Then the other thing I was going to say with regard to that is if it is a corner
23 lot like these folks brought here is it really necessary to then regulate the width of that driveway
24 because you have access along the street frontage for both lots.
25
26 Ms. French: In that case they probably wouldn't be creating a flag lot, right?
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: But the question is even though it was a one point one lot would you
29 ever want to have two driveways?
30
31 Ms. French: Sure, but this is regarding a flag lot access. If it is not a flag lot then we don't have
32 this issue.
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then lastly I wanted to just talk a little bit about the idea of a
35 front unit being historic and the back unit being non-historic and the reverse of that where the
36 rear. I think you have more opportunities to develop a lot and do things with a lot if the back
37 unit is not historic. So you would be inclined to keep the historic house in the front and you
38 could always add on to it in the back. Whereas if it were the other way around where you had
39 the historic house in the back and it was a new house in the front I would say maybe that would
40 be a candidate for dividing those up into two lots. Whereas the other way around I would be a
41 little bit more cautious about that. You could demo and add on to that house, enlarge the house,
42 according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
43
44 Ms. Caporgno: I think we had structured it so you would have the opportunity to do it either
45 way. The individual property owner could come in and have the advantage of preserving that
Page 22
1 house. There may be special circumstances for different properties but we thought that that was
2 one area that we would provide that flexibility.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman you wanted to speak about minimum lot size.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: Yes, I do. It is driven by my question and further driven by this list. I
7 don't know how many are on the first list. I asked for the first list because I couldn't find nline.
8
9 Ms. Caporgno: Actually that is the first list but it just has more information.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: That is what I thought I understood you to say, all right. Further driven
12 by this list again what we are looking at here is existing conditions and dropping down lot lines.
13 1fwe are creating a situation where the majority of these properties would have to go through an
14 exception process we are creating an ordinance that is actually requiring exceptions for approval.
15 That seems rather odd to me.
16
17 Chair Garber: May I? My understanding is this is Commissioner Fineberg's line of questioning
18 a moment ago. Julie and/or Amy correct me if I am wrong. I believe that the answer that you
19 are offering is that yes it is an exception but it is quicker and more direct than going through a
20 PC route. Maybe you can review why you think then 4,000 square foot is better than the 2,000
21 in this particular case.
22
23 Ms. French: I will try. Well, we have a phenomenon here of front houses being the large house,
24 then the quarters in the back -the second dwelling unit. I would guess it is more of the case that
25 you would fmd the original house or a larger house in the front and a smaller in the rear. So you
26 could see if it was going to be a 2,000 square foot lot you might have a situation where we have
27 encouraged without requiring a Conditional Use Permit people to put second dwelling units, 900
28 square foot maximum detached second dwelling units, in the rear of the property. So you might
29 have the phenomenon of people who maybe built it last year or before this cutoff date coming
30 forward and saying now I can make this second dwelling unit in my backyard that I just built its
31 own separate lot. Then the front lIDit is going to be bigger because I have this 2,000 square foot.
32 So they could have 4,000 square feet in the front and 2,000 square feet on the back and they
33 would not have to go through a parcel map with exception on that. That would just be easy. So
34 do we want that to be easy? That might be one question. Let me see if there is another.
35
36 Ms. Caporgno: I believe when Amy and I talked about it too there was this one about the very
37 large properties where you had - I think one of the problems is if you have a second unit or one
38 of these structures on your property right now maybe you are using it for maids quarters or your
39 in-laws or something. Now you are going to sell it and it is going to introduce a different kind of
40 a concept into the neighborhood. That was one of the thing that we were thinking of that there is
41 possibly more parking. It kind of changes the environment or there is a potential for changing
42 the environment more. So ifit was more consistent with the pattern that is currently there.
43
44 Commissioner Holman had given us a list where she identified the DHS lots but they were all
45 pretty consistent. We are going to be kind of introducing this haphazardly possibly throughout
46 the city. So this way we felt that the 4,000 square foot lot isn't that far off from the minimum
Page 23
1 6,000 square foot lot but it does give you a reduction. Then you can go lower than that and that
2 gives the Planning Comnlission and the Council the opportunity to look at that particular parcel
3 and make a determination of is this right for that area. That was kind of the process.
4
5 Ms. French: I have another thing on this too. So you have the new minimum standard, 4,000
6 square feet, and then we have the new substandard of the new minimum, 83 percent of the 4,000
7 and now you are starting to have the new substandard because you have a new minimum
8 standard. So what is interesting there I guess you get in a substandard lot technically you can't
9 do a two-story house it has to be 17 feet maximum. So there is some dynamic there and I
10 thought I would bring that up. So we are talking about a parcel map with exception and we are
11 also talking about creating a substandard lot unless we write something in here about that. So we
12 are saying to keep it at one story.
13
14 Now you might have a situation like in this number 381 Lincoln where you have a two-story
15 house at the back, a converted bam. So if you made that 2,500 it would become a substandard
16 lot and then you wouldn't be able to build a two story house back there because we have that
17 restriction in our code. It happens to already be there.
18
19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Lippert.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: So here is the situation. We don't have them in front of us but my
22 understanding is from earlier response was that the parcel map with exceptions findings are
23 similar to Variance findings. So how do you make findings such as those to allow a 2,000 square
24 foot parcel? How do you make those findings?
25
26 As far as substandard lots, if you are splitting off something at the back of a parcel and it is a
27 substandard lot and you can't then add a second story that is a good thing. That is a reason they
28 didn't allow flag lots after.a period of time because they were getting big houses at the back that
29 were intruding on everybody's privacy that was around there. So that is not a bad thing.
30
31 Ms. French: Would you like to hear the exception findings? They are fairly short. Yes?
32
33 Exceptions shall be granted only upon making the following findings. Of course this is the
34 Council making these fmdings. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
35 property. Two, the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
36 property right of the petitioner. Three, the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to
37 the public welfare or injurious to the other property in the territory in which the property is
38 situated. Four, the granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or
39 spirit of the law. That is it.
40
41 Commissioner Holman: Where is that?
42
43 Ms. French: It is Section 21.32.020
44
45 Ms. Caporgno: You don't have this in front of you.
46
Page 24
1 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
2
3 Commissioner Fineberg: I am thinking about the same question and I am also thinking about the
4 question of the minimum lot size, and the question of whether or not there should be a
5 requirement that there be legally owned driveways or easements. The way I want to frame the
6 question is what are we trying to accomplish? It is almost funny that this, the nla:tmer we are
7 considering doesn't have a name. In the subject it is a paragraph. On this handout it is called
8 Home Improvement. On this handout it is called Subdivision Incentives for Historic
9 Preservation. What are we trying to accomplish? Ifwe define that in ten words or less, which is
10 generous, we are trying to preserve historic structures that don't conform. We are trying to keep
11 good smaller units. So does the proposed ordinance accomplish that? What I am feeling like is
12 it minimizes the bureaucratic burden but is it accomplishing the purpose of why we are even
13 considering amending the ordinance. In a lot minimum lot size of 4,000 I don't know ifit
14 accomplishes that. I am not trying to get into comments but would a smaller lot size accomplish
15 it more? Then I am hearing the negatives would be greater. Can we have that same conversation
16 about whether allowing flag lots with easements would accomplish that purpose? Is this
17 ordinance going far enough?
18
19 Ms. Caporgno: I think that is a question for all of you to answer but I think our position is that
20 since it is throughout the city it is going to be not consistent in the areas that it is applied. That is
21 why we were recommending that it come through a more rigorous process for these smaller units
22 or these smaller created parcels. Because, even though they are existing and I can appreciate
23 that, you are going to be introducing now a homeowner versus a tenant or possibly probably in
24 many cases someone who is affiliated with that home now. That is the concern. That it is kind
25 of a change in the composition of the neighborhood possibly. So you are going to have two
26 families mainly there and maybe in concept it is nice to purchase a 2,000 square foot parcel but
27 after you get on that parcel and you are next to somebody else it may be more difficult for those
28 two owners to inhabit that area.
29
30 Commissioner Fineberg: Could we come up with a name for this? I didn't mean that as just a
31 joke.
32
33 Chair Garber: With Commissioner Lippert's patience because he is next in line here, may I?
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: Sure.
36
37 Chair Garber: I think in my mind this ordinance is about the preservation of historic homes.
38 When you have two homes on a single lot and one of them happens to be historic, right? And,
39 by making that preservation you then allow for some degree of nonconformance because the
40 preservation of that historic residence has value to the community. Commissioner Lippert.
41
42 Commissioner Lippert: That was one of the points I was trying to nlake with the placement of
43 the historic home as the front property. What happens with the back of the property in terms of
44 the second home doesn't really factor into it because you can demo that and rebuild that square
45 footage as part of that parcel and incorporate it into the home. You could build into the home,
46 you could build it as a garage, or you could build it as an accessory structure. The point that I
Page 25
1 am trying to make here is that when Palo Alto was laid out and they did the original tract work
2 for every two parcels we have today it used to be that there were actually three parcels in a lot of
3 locations. That in order to get the minimum lot width everything had to be reapportioned. Not
4 all the homes that are historic actually fall within our current development regulations in terms of
5 setbacks, side yards, etc. When you get into an historic home that is in the front you have a lot
6 more options than you do with an historic home that is in the rear of the property. In fact what
7 happens is that that historic home is landlocked. You have options in terms of, and we did this in
8 SOFA, where there were historic houses and they were actually just picked up and moved a
9 block over and put down into another lot. They were along Bryant and Channing, correct?
10
11 Commissioner Holman: Yes, they were moved from between Homer and Channing to between
12 Channing and Addison on Bryant.
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: Correct, and for all practical purposes the block looks exactly the same.
15 It has only been shifted over one whole block. I think you have many more options when the
16 historic home is in the front as to what to do with that property than when the historic home is
17 locked in the rear of the property and there is a newer house in front of it.
18
19 Chair Garber: Are you suggesting the ordinance be changed to only allow for historic homes
20 that are in the front of the property?
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: You know I just want to be cautionary about that. I don't want to sort of
23 accelerate the process.
24
25 Chair Garber: You are recognizing an operational opportunity should the ordinance go into
26 effect.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: Correct.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma.
31
32 Vice-Chair Tuma: So I am trying to think of what the right mechanism here would be. This is
33 on the 4,000 to 2,000 issue. Could we have a process here that both is slightly easier but yet
34 allows some protection? Where we could have the decision be made at the Director's Hearing
35 but that if it is between 2,000 and 4,000 square feet it goes on a Consent Calendar that we don't
36 have yet, and Council Consent. So that it allows it to go through a little bit more easily but yet
37 there is an opportunity for a check if it needs to get checked.
38
39 Mr. Larkin: I think that is a good idea. I think it is not something that the Commission could
40 recommend tonight because that would require a change to our parcel map ordinance and we
41 have not noticed that change. But it is something that if the Commission was to adopt the
42 recommendation that we could add to our parcel map ordinance and I think you could probably
43 initiate that change to the parcel map ordinance or that section of the subdivision ordinance
44 tonight. You can initiate that change and we can come back with those changes in the parcel
45 map section.
46
Page 26
1 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
2
3 Commissioner Fineberg: What about a situation where both the front and the rear units on the
4 parcel are historic? Would we want to have an easier process for that?
5
6 Chair Garber: Yes.
7
8 Commissioner Fineberg: That we are not forcing it into the exception process because of the
9 new nonconforming small lot size.
10
11 Ms. French: I was thinking the same thing right before you said that. Perhaps we could have a
12 2,000 to 4,000 square foot range when both homes are historic and will have covenants.
13
14 Commissioner Fineberg: Would that be just R-1?
15
16 Ms. French: That would then not have to go through parcel map with exception. I guess we are
17 talking about R-l. We can look at that -maybe not for the 10,000 or 20,000 square foot lots -
18 but for R-1, RMD, R-2lots.
19
20 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Lippert.
21
22 Comnlissioner Holman: If he wants to follow up that's fine.
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: That was the point that I was trying to make with moving the historic
25 home that is in the front is that you could actually just re-site it in order to reapportion the lot
26 sizes. As opposed to the house that is in the back where you really can't move it, it is
27 landlocked, and you don't have the ability to reapportion the minimum lot sizes.
28
29 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: I would say I appreciate the comment but I would not support that
32 because we are talking about the structures already exist in place, and one of the historic
33 elements of historic is its context. So by moving it you are changing its context.
34
35 What happened on Bryant is they moved the whole block so it was not perfect but it moved the
36 whole block so it moved the context sort of at the same time.
37
38 I appreciate Commissioner Tuma's recommendation about the Consent Calendar. I even more
39 appreciate Commissioner Fineberg's comment about ifboth are historic. I just want to say that
40 project did not have to go to the ARB so what I am trying to avoid here is we are trying to make
41 this easier for people. So if people have to go to the Planning Commission and the Council and
42 go through an exception process it is almost as hard as going through the PC process
43 theoretically. So we are trying to encourage people to do this so we need to make it simpler. So
44 I would certainly support, I think it is a good idea to allow the smaller parcels.
45
46 Ms. French: Without exceptions?
Page 27
1
2 Commissioner Holman: Without exceptions.
3
4 Ms. Caporgno: I think the Staff will be very supportive of that also. It provides that check that
5 we were concerned about. That is really the issue for us.
6
7 Chair Garber: So Commissioner Holman where were you relative to the parcel map suggestion,
8 which would allow presumably for a more direct process to be pursued and give some latitude
9 presumably to the Planning Director at that hearing?
10
11 Commissioner Holman: I think Commissioner Fineberg has resolved some of this. We would
12 change this so that in the R-l, R-2, and RMD or the R-l subsets to it because that is the vast
13 majority in Professorville and Old Palo Alto where most of these addresses are located, not all
14 but most. So that ifboth of the structures are historic then you can have a parcel at 2,000 square
15 feet.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: Can I interj ect something?
18
19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
20
21 Commissioner Fineberg: Historic is defined as the term that you added that it be defined.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: It is in here everyplace, yes. In those cases covenants would have to be
24 added to both structures. So that would satisfy it.
25
26 I do have for the other where both are not historic I am a little bit concerned about the findings as
27 you read them. I think they would be kind of difficult to make for other projects. So I don't
28 know if other Commissioners felt that way but I feel that they would be a challenge.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Just a quick comnlent. I think you don't mean both are not historic, you
33 mean that one is and one is not. One is historic and one is not. I just want to ....
34
35 Commissioner Holman: Yes. Where both are historic it is 2,000 square feet and when one is
36 historic and one is not historic.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Right, you said both are not historic.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: I am sorry. One is and one isn't.
41
42 Chair Garber: Can I try a motion?
43
44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Please.
45
46 MOTION
Page 28
1
2 Chair Garber: I will likely say this too generally and I will likely miss something so I expect that
3 the motion will be perfected as we go through this. I would like to move that we move the
4 Staff's recommendation that Staff prepare and return a revised ordinance to include the
5 following things. One, to define or refine the verbiage in the text of the ordinance to utilize the
6 words 'residential structures' where appropriate. Two, to replace on page 4, Section 1 at the top
7 of the page be replaced by Section A at the bottom. Commissioner Keller?
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Section 3, paragraph C-l match Section 4, paragraph 3-A.
10
11 Chair Garber: What he said. Three, that the language of the ordinance address Staffhaving
12 latitude to find appropriate parking compliance solutions. Four, that we clean up the language
13 regarding flag lots. Five, that the ordinance clearly state that we are dealing with two structures
14 on the same property. Six, that in the appropriate place in the ordinance we reference the State
15 Historic Building Code. Seven, that in the case of both homes being historic that 2,000 square
16 feet allowed without exception and with a covenant. Finally, that Staff investigate the
17 opportunity to modify the parcel map procedure to facilitate ....
18
19 Mr. Larkin: What you probably want to do is initiate first.
20
21 Chair Garber: Okay.
22
23 Ms. French: Parcel map with an exception procedure?
24
25 Chair Garber: Parcel map with an exception procedure allow the Commission to then initiate a
26 change to the parcel map ordinance allowing that.
27
28 Mr. Larkin: I think you can initiate by directing Staff to do it.
29
30 Ms. French: The direction is to modify the parcel map with exception procedure to allow for a
31 Consent Calendar placement?
32
33 Mr. Larkin: My understanding is that a subdivision would create parcels of 2,000 to 4,000 feet
34 where one of the structures is not historic but it would come to Commission for a procedure that
35 would allow it to be placed on Consent for the Commission. The Commission could choose
36 whether or not to hold a public hearing and either way forward it onto Council where the Council
37 would do the same thing. It would go on Consent and require a certain number of votes to be
38 pulled off Consent. We would do that consistent with how we do other parcel map appeals I
39 would think.
40
41 Chair Garber: Commissioners, any other?
42
43 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes, clarification on that.
44
45 Chair Garber: Actually before you get that let's get a second and then we can come back.
46
Page 29
1 SECOND
2
3 Commissioner Holman: Second.
4
5 Chair Garber: The maker of the motion is passing on his opportunity to speak to the motion.
6 Does the seconder wish to speak before we get to discussion?
7
8 Commissioner Holman: Yes because I have more things to add.
9
10 Chair Garber: Go ahead.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: On your eighth point here might we also revisit the findings for the
13 historic parcel map with exceptions? That was not in your motion but can we do that?
14
15 Chair Garber: You had sort of said it when you stated that one of the two buildings needed to
16 have the historic status. '
17
18 Mr. Larkin: I think when we come back -the direction is already to amend our parcel map
19 section but we are not going to actually amend it. We are going to come back. So when we
20 come back I think you can make those suggestions but it is harder to do in the abstract without
21 having it in front of you. I think that yes it is something we can look at.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: Okay. The things to add are ... well cottage clusters will come back to us
24 that would be a recommendation.
25
26 Chair Garber: Yes.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: Okay. We would not hold this up for that but cottage clusters will come
29 back.
30
31 Commissioner Fineberg: Is that nine?
32
33 Chair Garber: I think that is just a comment as opposed to part of the motion. Question?
34
35 Commissioner Holman: Other Commissioners have to agree to that either way. That the non-
36 historic structures would have to, whether residential or not, would have to go to the HRB if it is
37 a major project for compatibility review.
38
39 Chair Garber: Would that be implicit in the process already or do we need to .....
40
41 Commissioner Holman: No, it is not referenced in the ordinance.
42
43 Ms. French: Wait that would be an existing structure.
44
Page 30
1 Commissioner Holman: The reason for that is because it says in the ordinance now that the non-
2 historic structure would have to be compatible with the historic one but it doesn't say what
3 determines historic, what determines compatible.
4
5 Ms. French: To determine that it is compatible.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: Yes.
8
9 Chair Garber: It does not exist ifit does not exist on the City's or the State Historic Register?
10
11 Commissioner Holman: Well, if it is not historic it isn't on any list. We are dealing with the
12 non-historic structures that have to be compatible and have to go to HRB review. Commissioner
13 Lippert.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: I think the question is whether the non-historic structure would need to
16 be done along with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. I think that is really what the issue
17 IS.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: It is different than that in that the building wouldn't have to satisfy the
20 Secretary's Standards but the Secretary's Standards do address compatibility and that is what the
21 ordinance is stating but it doesn't say how you arrive at that.
22
23 Chair Garber: Isn't it a prerequisite that you have a historic structure so therefore prior to
24 anyone applying for this they would have to have an historic structure in place?
25
26 Commissioner Holman: No, we are talking about the non-historic building.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, but the issue here is if you know what the Secretary of the
29 Interior's Standards are does the building distinguish itself as being different than the historic
30 structure or is it something that is going to compliment in terms of creating maybe false history
31 and a misunderstanding.
32
33 Chair Garber: I am sorry, I am not following here.
34
35 Ms. Caporgno: It may not be clear but I think the intent is that when the covenant, and I think
36 this is getting at Chair Garber's issue that we have already, I think the intent was the that the
37 Historic Resources Board would review these even when it is one structure or two structures on
38 the property because the covenant is going to run with the land. You are going to look at the
39 historic structures but you look at the non-historic structure also in conjunction with that. So
40 maybe we can be clearer regarding that. I think it was the intent that the Historic Resources
41 Board would be reviewing the package.
42
43 Commissioner Holman: Well, but they might come in independently for projects.
44
45 Mr. Larkin: Actually, I was going to say exactly what Julie said but add on your follow up point
46 that the covenant would address what happens to both the historic structure and the non-historic
Page 31
1 structure because the covenant would run with both properties. It would not be exclusively with
2 the historic structure.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: So that needs to be clarified in the ordinance. So it would be a
5 covenant on both the historic and non-historic. The historic would have to satisfy the Secretary's
6 Standards itself and the non-historic would have to satisfy Secretary's Standards compatibility
7 requirements. Does that make sense?
8
9 Ms. Caporgno: Yes, and maybe what we can do is we added in 8, well 8 is an example on page
10 3, maybe we move 8 into number 6 so the covenant would be review and recommendation and
11 any modifications to, or somehow put that 'any modifications to a non-historic unit must be
12 compatible with the historic unit,' will be in that same section where it discusses the HRB
13 review.
14
15 Ms. French: You could say a covenant is recorded on both, you could just add 'on both homes,'
16 or what the structure is.
17
18 Commissioner Holman: Is that acceptable to the maker?
19
20 Chair Garber: It is. Commissioner Fineberg had a comment.
. 21
22 Commissioner Fineberg: I might have a correction and if Staff agrees it is a cleanup and I will
23 propose it as a friendly amendment. On page 3, number 5, the Historic Resources Board has
24 determined that at least one existing unit on the property has historic integrity and qualifies for
25 listing on the City'S Historic Inventory. What if it is already listed as national or state would that
26 qualify it for findings?
27
28 Chair Garber: Yes.
29
30 Comnlissioner Fineberg: So is that an omission that would be corrected?
31
32 Ms. Caporgno: I think the reason we put that in there was because even if it was originally
33 National or State Register eligible there could have been changes made to it. The HRB really
34 isn't empowered to make a determination whether or not something is National or State eligible.
35 This was more of a check on the property so if it met our requirements then it would be
36 acceptable and that was the reason we put it in that way. Do you follow what I am saying?
37 Somebody could have a property and at one point it may have been determined to be National or-
38 State Register eligible and they have not taken care of it. So to go back to the HRB, and at least
39 ifit was determined to be eligible for our Inventory that would be acceptable and we could place
40 it on our Inventory.
41
42 Chair Garber: Okay, Comnlissioner Holnlan you have two more and then Commissioner Keller
43 has one.
44
45 Commissioner Holman: I have a couple more amendments. We talked about this earlier, add
46 reference to the preliminary parcel map with exceptions so that people know where to find that.
Page 32
1 What we have done in most if not all locations where we have dealt with historic we have talked
2 about or added a reference to how to determine historic eligibility. So if that could be a footnote
3 or something to that effect if the nlaker is agreeable to both of those points.
4
5 Chair Garber: That is fine. Staff?
6
7 Ms. Caporgno: That is fine.
8
9 Chair Garber: Fine with the maker on both points.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: I think that is it.
12
13 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Keller.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: Yes. I just have one comment to clarify the wording of the motion. The
16 wording of the motion with respect to 4,000 and 2,000 I want to indicate that with respect to
17 Section 2, paragraph C-3, which mentions the 4,000 and respect to Section 3, paragraph C-3,
18 which mentions 4,000 that that threshold be reduced to 2,000 ifboth residential structures are
19 historic.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: Could you repeat that please?
22
23 Commissioner Keller: All I am saying is on Section 2, paragraph C-3, page 2 bottom of the page
24 where it referenced 4,000 square feet that it is 4,000 square feet unless both residential structures
25 are historic in which case the minimum lot size is 2,000 square feet. The same change being
26 made to Section 3, paragraph C-3, which is on page 4, the same change. I am just trying to
27 tighten the wording of rather than no exceptions or whatever that is exactly where it should
28 happen.
29
30 Chair Garber: That is fine with the maker. Seconder?
31
32 Commissioner Holman: Yes.
33
34 Mr. Larkin: That was part of the original motion.
35
36 Chair Garber: He is just noting the places in the text.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: I am also noting that you said something about without exception and that
39 language is too loosey-goosey.
40
41 Mr. Larkin: The only reason I am saying that is this is coming back to you. If it wasn't coming
42 back to you I think it would be okay to tell us where to put everything but since it is coming back
43 to you we probably shouldn't spend a lot of time on that.
44
45 Chair Garber: If Staff finds a more efficient way of expressing these concepts I suspect they will
46 advise us of those. Commissioner Lippert.
Page 33
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: I have two friendly amendments. One is that property lines not be
3 drawn that would allow health and safety Building Code issues to undermine the historic fabric.
4
5 Conmrissioner Holman: Restate that please.
6
7 Commissioner Lippert: I am stating it in a more general way. It was a point that I raised earlier
8 where the property line would be drawn closer than five feet, which would then put the building
9 into noncompliance from a Building Code point of view. So in other words, if you have a Type
10 5 non-rated wood frame building basically and you were to put the property line within five feet
11 of that building you have brought that building into noncompliance from the Building Code and
12 therefore the Building Department would require you to rebuild that wall out of noncombustible
13 material. Thereby you are undermining the historic fabric of the building. It was a point that the
14 City Attorney raised. The reason I didn't use five feet in the terminology is that the code just
15 changed.
16
17 Mr. Larkin: The point is well taken and the point you raised earlier and I agree with it. So we
18 should make some reference in here that they are going to have to meet all the health, life, and
19 safety codes and put them on notice up front. As you pointed out it sometimes comes too late.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: Right. The problem is that the Building Department chimes in after the
22 fact and then you are stuck.
23
24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
25
26 Commissioner Fineberg: So I think what Commissioner Lippert is saying is set the expectations
27 that the process of parcelizing the smaller lots would not allow an owner to think that I can do
28 this and it doesn't matter if I mess up the building. That the expectation is going to be set that
29 the health and safety issues won't compromise the historic integrity and they know that up front.
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: It is a little more complicated than that.
32
33 Mr. Larkin: Yes, putting them on notice they are going to have to meet the Uniform Building
34 Code regardless of the fact that it is an existing structure that has been there for presumably for a
35 long time.
36
37 Commissioner Lippert: I am suggesting that it just be a little more proactive.
38
39 Chair Garber: Understood and accepted. Seconder?
40
41 Conmlissioner Holman: Clarification of City Attorney's language that it meets all life safety
42 issues because ....
43
44 Mr. Larkin: All of the codes, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, all of those codes that
45 it is required to meet and state codes. I think a fallback on that is that may be required by state
46 law. I understand about the historic, the Historic Building Code doesn't trump the five-foot
Page 34
1 setback and some of the other things. It is something that you have a problem even though the
2 building has been there for 100 years you put a property line four feet away from it all of a
3 sudden it is dangerous. I understand it doesn't make sense but that is what the Unifonn Building
4 Code says.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: When this comes back can you bring a description? I will accept it but
7 not being an architect I don't have the knowledge of what those specific things are other than the
8 five foot one, which I understand as has been described.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: Where we are getting into trouble is archaic materials. So let's say a
11 building is done with cedar shakes. Cedar shakes are flammable.
12
13 Chair Garber: And the other issue there is that if you are using the State Historic Building Code
14 significant latitude is actually given to the Building hlspector to allow for exceptions and there
15 are a variety of ways of dealing with those issues.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: Right. I would just like to know what I am including so if you would
18 bring a fuller broad description of that when you come back.
19
20 Mr. Larkin: We will highlight the language.
21
22 Chair Garber: You had a second one?
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. The second one would be to allow a property owner to use
25 planning alternatives. By that what I mean is in the case of this garage issue that you could for
26 instance use an offsite parking agreement between the two properties in order to make the
27 parking comply with both properties.
28
29 Chair Garber: Julie? Amy?
30
31 Ms. French: Along that line, Lee does that incorporate by reference the idea of the Fire
32 suppression, you can put a sprinkler or a hydrant if you are not going to meet that flagpole
33 requirement?
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: Yes.
36
37 Ms. French: The planning alternatives could be technical alternatives.
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, the idea is that the same palette that the Building Department uses
40 with the State Historic Building Code it would allow for Planning to do in order to bring things
41 into compliance with the intent of what the ordinance is. It is almost like what you call
42 exceptions. I am just using a different word which is planning alternatives and that is the way
43 the State Historic Building Code is done.
44
45 Chair Garber: In other words, it would allow Staff latitude to say split the garage in this case.
46
Page 35
1 Commissioner Lippert: No, what it would say is put the property line where it needs to be, the
2 garage can be on the adjacent property, but you write a covenant that would say it is an offsite
3 parking agreement for the first house that the parking is on the second property.
4
5 Chair Garber: This is just an example, it could be something else, but you are just getting the
6 latitude to Planning to find a creative way to keep the historic structure in place.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Right, rather than having to run the property line through a structure.
9
10 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg.
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: 1 was just wondering if that scenario would make it a common interest
13 and it would be a two-unit condo then?
14
15 Mr. Larkin: No not unless the garage was -ifit was a first come first serve either parcel can use
16 it garage then maybe, but 1 think that the way Commissioner Lippert is describing it it is for the
17 exclusive use of the other property. So it is not commonly owned.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: It is like an lIE, an ingress/egress.
20
21 Mr. Larkin: Yes, it is being provided for the use of only one of the parcels it is not being
22 provided for the use of both parcels equally. It would have to be done that way.
23
24 Ms. French: It is not for living purposes, right? Just for the car we are talking about.
25
26 Chair Garber: Yes.
27
28 Ms. French: We might want to use residential homes, we might want to use that word 'homes'
29 somehow.
30
31 Chair Garber: The Chair accepts the amendment. Seconder?
32
33 Commissioner Holman: Yes and no. 1 can think of situations 1 appreciate what Commissioner
34 Lippert is introducing but 1 am thinking of other situations where actually the situation Sallie
35 Strong has, it is not practical to have an agreement, from my perspective because it is a situation
36 where the only off-street parking is -and 1 can think of another situation where this exists too.
37 The only off-street parking that exists is in front of the second unit. These are comer parcels. So
38 the unit that is on the comer that has the parking to require that a parking place be allocated to
39 the other house is then going to definitely and negatively, severely negatively from my
40 perspective, affect the salability of the other comer house.
41
42 Chair Garber: But in a circumstance such as that you would have to have an owner that is
43 interested in pursuing it. You would have to have the Planning Director be willing to entertain it.
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: 'Right.
46
Page 36
1 Chair Garber: So in a circumstance like that presumably neither of those two things would work.
2 All it does is give latitude for the Planning Direct and the owner to find a way to work through
3 an issue that may otherwise restrict the location of the property line.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: So if it is in relation to property line location I would accept it. But if it
6 is in relation to requiring the parking agreement then I wouldn't accept it.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: No, I am not say -that is just an example that I was giving. I am not
9 saying that that's what I am prosing be the language. What I am saying is that it allow for the
10 property owner to use Planning alternatives the way the Building Code allows for building code
11 alternatives.
12
13 Commissioner Holman: Okay, so it is not a requirement. You are not calling it a requirement.
14
15 Chair Garber: Right.
16
17 Con1IDissioner Lippert: I used the offsite parking agreement between the two of them because
18 when you subdivide the lot then you can create a covenant that would allow for ....
19
20 Chair Garber: As an example.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: As an example, I understand.
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: Right. One person has the driveway the other one has the parking.
25
26 Chair Garber: So the seconder accepts the amendment. Anything else?
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: No.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
31
32 Commissioner Fineberg: When this comes back to us can we review it on a Consent Calendar?
33
34 Commissioner Holman: We don't have a Consent Calendar.
35
36 Mr. Larkin: There is nothing that says you can't have a Consent Calendar. In fact your rules
37 provide for a Consent Calendar. So if you would like we can put it on a Consent Calendar.
38
39 Commissioner Fineberg: Can I make a friendly amendment?
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: That this come back to us on Consent?
42
43 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes.
44
45 Chair Garber: Sure. I anl happy to accept that because it still allows any Commissioner to pull it
46 out and talk about it. Seconder?
Page 37
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: Two Commissioners or one?
3
4 Mr. Larkin: The way the rules are written one Commissioner can pull it but we can revisit that
5 when we revise the rules.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
8
9 Comnlissioner Holman: One last thing. As mentioned earlier I think to expedite the Consent
10 Calendar proposal is that if Chair would appoint a couple of Commissioners to preview this
11 because there are other language errors or inconsistencies or whatever understandably. Then I
12 think that would expedite the Consent Calendar.
13
14 Commissioner Fineberg: Would Commissioner Holman prefer I withdraw my friendly
15 amendment?
16
17 Commissioner Holman: No.
18
19 Chair Garber: The Chair is happy to accept that and happy to accept Commissioner Holman
20 volunteering for it. A second person?
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: Are you appointing me?
23
24 Chair Garber: I am giving you the opportunity.
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: Sure.
27
28 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Rosati absent)
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert will accept the appointment. With that will all
31 Commissioners in agreement with the motion as stated say aye? (ayes) Opposed? The motion
32 passes unanimously with Commissioner Rosati absent.
Page 38
TO:
FROM:
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Julie Caporgno and Amy French DEPARTMENT:: Planning and
Community Environnlent
AGENDA DATE: June 24, 2009
SUBJECT: Subdivision Incentive for Historic Preservation: Review and
recommendation of an ordinance amending subdivision (Title 21) and
zoning (Title 18) codes to allow subdivision for ownership purposes where
covenants are provided to protect historic properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) approve on consent
the recommendations in this report to forward to the City Council to adopt the attached
ordinance (Attachment A) amending:
I. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18, Zoning, Sections 18.10.130, 18.12.140,
and 18.13.040(c) to allow subdivision of a single parcel containing two residences into two
parcels of at least 4,000 square feet each if only one residence is historic, and at least 2,000
square feet each if both residences are historic, and to provide covenants to preserve the
historical integrity of existing residences listed as Categories 1 -4 on the City's Historic
Inventory, Professorville contributing structures or National or California Register eligible
structures, and Sections 18.10.060 and Sections 18.12.060 allowing for continuation of
existing, legal non-conforming parking facilities.
II. The P AMC Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land), Chapter 21.20 (Design),
Sections 21.20.010 (Generally) and 21.20.301 (Flag lots), only when Inventory-listed
historic residences have associated covenants executed to preserve historical integrity, to
allow the creation of flag lots within the R-l District via the Parcel Map without Exception
process, to allow the creation of lots having less than minimum lot area, lot dimensions,
and non-conforming lot configurations (in accordance with the proposed lot sizes in the
zoning code amendments), and to allow flag lot access (via easement or "flagpole") having
City of Palo Alto Page 1
a minimum width of twelve feet, a maximum length of 100 feet, and a paved way not less
than ten feet in width.
BACKGROUND:
On May 13, 2009, the PTC held its second public hearing on the proposal to provide subdivision
incentives for historic preservation. The PTC had first discussed the incentives at its January 28,
2009 meeting and had requested several changes to the proposed incentives. The incentives
require changes to the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances to allow separate parcelization
and ownership of units on nonconforming size parcels containing historic unite s) with covenants
provided to ensure preservation of the historic integrity of the units. The May 13thpTC meeting
minutes are attached (Attachment B) for reference. At that meeting, the PTC requested that staff
further revise the ordinance to include several additional changes, appointed a two-member
subcommittee to work with staff to incorporate those revisions in the draft ordinance and
requested the revised ordinance return to the full PTC on consent calendar. The subcommittee
met with staff on June 8, 2009 to discuss the revisions.
DISCUSSION:
The zoning and subdivision ordinances have been modified to incorporate the changes that the
PTC requested on May 13th•
These include:
• Consistently use "residence" throughout the ordinance
• Change Section 3, paragraph c-1 to match Section 4, paragraph 3-A
• Add text that allows latitude by staff to find appropriate parking compliance solutions.
• Modify text regarding flag lots for greater clarity.
• State clearly that ordinance is only dealing with two existing residences on the same
property.
• Reference that use of the state Historic Building Code is allowed.
• Allow parcels without exception for residences on new parcels greater 2,000 square feet
when covenants are placed on both parcels.
• Create "consent calendar" process for subdivision of parcels of2,000 to 4,000 square feet
when one of the residences is not historic.
• Clarify that allowed development will have to meet all health, life and safety codes.
• Enable the property owner to use planning alternatives if necessary and allowed by staff.
Initiation of parcel map with exception procedure to allow a consent calendar process for
xreation of 2,000-4,000 square foot substandard parcels with one historic unit was not included
in changes since that would require renoticingand a public hearing. c
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed ordinance supports several Comprehensive Plan policies. It promotes the
rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential properties (H -8) by ensuring that the
structures are properly maintained. It preserves the existing legal, non-conforming rental
cottages and duplexes currently located in the R-1 and R-2 residential areas of Palo Alto, which
City of Palo Alto Page 2
represent a significant portion of the City's affordable housing supply (H -10) by providing an
incentive for retention and preservation of these units. It preserves the character of residential
neighborhoods (L-12) by retaining the existing fabric of the neighborhoods. It encourages public
and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences
listed in the Historic Inventory (L-51) and it develops incentives for the retention and
rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit in all zones (L-57).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This action is categorically exempt (per Section 15305 (Class 5) of the CEQA Guidelines) from
the provisions of CEQA as they comprise minor alterations to land use limitations and can be
seen to have no significant environmental impacts.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
PREPARED BY:
Draft Ordinance
Staffreport for May 13, 2009 PTC meeting
PTC Meeting Minutes of May 13,2009
Amy French and Julie Caporgno
DEPARTMENTIDNISION HEAD APPROVAL: ___________ _
City of Palo Alto
Julie Caporgno
Chief Planning and Transportation
Official
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
41
42
43
44
45
ATTACHMENT D
air Garber: Okay. That concludes the study session on the Housing Element. It will be
con' ued with additional discussion on July 8 and will occur before the regularly scheduled
mediately into the regularly scheduled session.
Chair Garber: As a remin if anyone in the public has received their enda prior to late last
week there is an addition. TIl e will be a discussion on the Report Council at the very end of
this meeting by the ad hoc comm' ee of the Commissioners sho we have enough time to
discuss it.
Ms. Tronquet: I just want to clarify that
posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
at that revised agenda was properly
Chair Garber: Great. Thank you. We have al
any members of the public could speak to t Commis' on on items not on the agenda this
evening. I believe there are no cards.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Me ers of the public may spea to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) mi tes per speaker. Those who des! to speak must complete a
speaker request card availab from the secretary of the Commission. e Planning and
Transportation Commissi reserves the right to limit the oral communic . ons period to 15
minutes.
ES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have a
ntil 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair rber: We will move to our first item, which is the Consent Calendar. Let me first k if
ther are any members of the Commission that would like to pull any item from that Consent
endar? I am seeing no hands and no lights.
Consent:
2. Historic Covenants/Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Review and
recommendation of an ordinance amending subdivision (Title 21) and Zoning (Title 18)
codes to allow subdivision for ownership purposes where covenants are provided to
protect historic properties.
Chair Garber: My I hear a motion to move and approve the Consent Calendar as it has been
submitted?
Ms. Tronquet: Excuse me, Chair Garber actually you should probably ask if there is any public
comment on this item.
City of Palo Alto June 24,2009 Page 15 of82
1 Chair Garber: All right. Thank you City Attorney as well as Zariah. There is public comment
2 on this item. There is one card. Mr. Borock you will have three minutes.
3
4 Mr. Borock: Thank you Chair Garber and Assistant City Attorney. I have not been following
5 this item recently. However when it was being discussed by the Commission and Staff at the
6 time it was a Staff assignment, I was concerned at that time of whether any Commissioners who
7 might own property that would be affected by this ordinance change regarding the R-2 and RMD
8 second units would have a conflict of interest. Just by word of mouth, I don't recall anything
9 being said at a Commission meeting or any pieces of paper going on was that the advice from the
10 City Attorney's Office, and it was a different attorney then that the one who is here this evening,
11 was that no it was not. My understanding of the conflict of interest law is that the test is as to
12 whether the change would affect a significant segment of the public, a significant segment of the
13 properties that would be affected. By my counting of the number of parcels I concluded that
14 there would be a conflict.
15
16 I don't know what the final item looks like. When I first saw notice for your meeting earlier this
17 year I couldn't tell that it was the same subject. However, the one for this evening it appears to
18 be and I still have not had time to see if it was any different in concept than it was prior at the
19 time it was a Staff assignment.
20
21 I don't like to do this at such a late time and it might have to be when it goes to Council but I
22 want to give everybody fair warning that if it is the same analysis that I had last time I believe it
23 would involve a conflict and that may require doing things again. This is not the fault of any
24 Commissioners. It gets to be the kind of advice you get and the extent to which that kind of
25 analysis is being done by the people who are supposed to be doing it, and the office where it is
26 supposed to be done. I apologize for bringing it up this late but I do want to let you know that it
27 is not going to be something that I just thought of if it is necessary when it comes to the Council.
28 It is just something that it took me a while to realize we are talking about the same thing. I
29 don't' know yet whether it covers the same properties or a smaller number or a larger nUlnber.
30 Thank you.
31
32 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: I had a brief conversation with Mr. Borock a week or so ago. I
35 appreciate you bringing this up. There was some interest in knowing whether I had a conflict of
36 interest. I checked with, I don't remember it may have been Cara or the sitting City Attorney
37 this evening, and it was determined I did not have a conflict of interest. I had misstated the
38 situation to Mr. Borock because I was thinking of prior. We are not including the multifamily
39 zones in this ordinance because we are not addressing the cottage cluster. So this is the R-l, RE,
40 RMD, and R-2. I live in R-2. Most of us probably live in R-l. So I am not exactly clear on
41 what the potential conflict of interest is because it covers that many ,zones. I would like some
42 kind of comment from City Attorney as to whether any of us or all of us are conflicted on this
43 item.
44
45 Chair Garber: City Attorney.
46
City 0/ Palo Alto June 24, 2009 Page 160/82
1 Ms. Tronquet: These particular facts and this particular issue was not brought to my attention. I
2 do trust the Assistant City Attorney's analysis of these things. Ultimately the decision to
3 participate is always up to the individual Commission member. To the extent -I just don't know
4 what your property interests are. We would have to discuss it in more detail. If you have
5 contacted the FPPC or the Assistant City Attorney about it I trust that.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: If it wasn't you it must have been Cara Silver because it was one of the
8 female attorneys. Maybe it would be a question for Mr. Borock so we can perhaps get some
9 clarity here is I am not sure why I would have a conflict where others don't. I think your
10 question had to with because I live in R-2. Could we ask Mr. Borock to clarify?
11
12 Chair Garber: Mr. Borock.
13
14 Mr. Borock: I don't know, Commissioner Holman. You said it was a brief conversation as to
15 whether if you had an R-2 property that would be affected by this ordinance. If not then I don't
16 see it as any problem. If you are in a situation where you were affected then it is a factual
1 7 question of seeing how many properties are affected. .
18
19 Commissioner Holman: Understanding better the question because my property has two houses
20 on it, is that what you are saying?
21
22 Mr. Borock: And whether it is affected by this ordinance specifically since it doesn't apply to all
23 R-2 and RMD properties. As I said I don't know the specific language so I can't say. To the
24 extent that the property is affected by the ordinance then it is a factual question of the number of
25 properties related to the City's housing stock as a whole as to whether a significant segment of
26 properties.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: Appreciate the question. It was a part of the question also I had posed
29 to City Attorney and I am happy not to participate if it causes any cloud over this. I do own a
30 property that has two houses on it. My house, which is a potential California Register, is one of
31 the however many thousand that is. Then there is a cottage on the rear of the property that was
32 built later and is not in a potential category. So it wouldn't be covered by this ordinance because
33 well yes it could potentially, potentially it could. The advice I got was it is not a conflict
34 because there is no known evidence. Again, I am happy not to participate if that takes any cloud
35 off of this.
36
37 Chair Garber: I think the choice is yours.
38
. 39 Ms. Tronquet: The standard generally is if it is reasonably foreseeable or substantially likely that
40 the decision you will make tonight will have an impact on your property. So to the extent that it
41 is not reasonably foreseeable that it is just something that could be out there in the future that
42 may have been a component of her analysis.
43
44 Conlmissioner Holman: That was, and again maybe just in the interest of removing any cloud I
45 just won't participate in a vote on the ordinance. I have participated to this point so does it make
46 any difference actually?
City o/Palo Alto June 24, 2009 Page 170/82
1
2 Ms. Tronquet: If you are not participating tonight out of an abundance of caution probably not.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: You are saying it wouldn't make any difference?
5
6 Ms. Tronquet: Not at this point. We have not been able to determine tonight whether you do in
7 fact have a conflict or not. To the extent that you are deciding not to participate simply out of
8 caution, it sounds to me like you may not, but I would have to go into more analysis. You can
9 always decide not to participate even if you don't have a conflict. If you are concerned about it
10 that is perfectly fine.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: I think it is not feasible. It is certainly not in any kind of foreseeable
13 future but I think just in the interest of excessive caution I just won't participate in the vote even
14 though I have participated to this point so it seems kind of odd in that regard. Again, if it helps
15 remove any clouds whatsoever that might exist.
16
17 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, briefly.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: How would this be different than many of us that live in R-l and doing a
20 legislative act, which is basically coming up with development regulations for the R-l zone? We
21 would all live in that zone. We couldn't simply recuse ourselves and have a bunch of new
22 Commissioners here that live in RM deciding on R-l.
23
24 Ms. Tronquet: It is really difficult to say without having the facts of exactly what you are
25 deciding on. So it is just difficult to say.
26
27 Chair Garber: Attorney, thank you. Commissioner Holman thank you. Let us assume that you
28 are going to recuse yourself from this. May I hear another motion to move approval of the
29 Consent Calendar?
30
31 Commissioner Holman: If I am going to recuse myself I should leave the room. So again just to
32 state for the record I did pursue all of this discussion with City Attorney previously and
33 determined we didn't have a conflict of interest but I will recuse myself on the vote.
34
35 Chair Garber: We will wait for a brief moment. Commissioner Lippert.
36
37 MOTION
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: I move adoption of the Consent Calendar.
40
41 Chair Garber: May I hear a second?
42
43 SECOND
44
45 Commissioner Keller: Second.
46
City of Palo Alto June 24, 2009 Page 18 of 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
41
MOTION PASSED (5-0-1-1, Commissioner Holman recused, Commissioner Rosati absent)
Chair Garber: Seconded by Commissioner Keller. All in favor? (ayes) All opposed? That
passes with Commissioners Lippert, Fineberg, Tuma, Garber, and Keller with Commissioner
Rosati absent and Commissioner Holman not voting.
Commissioner Holman is returning and we will move to the next item.
As a general announcement to those in attendance the Commission has been in session with its
Special Study Session since six o'clock. At eight o'clock we will take a five-minute break.
The next item is item number three, the Charleston! Arastradero Corridor Project. This is a
review and recommendation on the alternatives to the Arastradero Road restriping trial
implementation project. Would Staff please make a presentation?
We would like to note with pleasure that it is being made in part by Gayle Likens, as one of her
last moments before the Commission.
ans ortation Mana er: Good evening Chair Garbe nd members of the
Commission. We are e tonight to present our recommendations 0 e second phase of
Charleston! Arastradero R Corridor trial, which is the restripin nd implementation of the
corridor improvements along astradero Road.
hat are seated at the table. Rafael Rius
The last time we were before yo 0 discuss the Charlesto astradero Corridor was roughly a
year ago, a little bit over a ye ago, when we presented the res s of the Charleston Road Phase
1 trial. At that time we w e recommending permanent retention 0 he striping improvements
that were put in place part of that trial on Charleston Road. You rec mended that and the
Council approved e permanent retention of those improvements and dire ed us to move
forward with P ase 2, and also to implement some improvements at the Gunn igh driveway.
42 So we now coming to you with recommendations on the segment of the corridor
43 Ca 'no Real to Gunn High-School, just the Arastradero Road corridor. I would like to j go
44 efly over some background on the project just to bring everyone up to speed as to the inte 4V this project.
46
City 0/ Palo Alto June 24,2009 Page 190/82