Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 335-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: JULY 27, 2009 DEPARTMENTS: CITY CLERK AND PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 335:09 REPORT TYPE: REPORTS S SUBJECT: Council Direction to either Adopt the Initiative Defining Minimum Width of Private Streets or to Adopt a Resolution Placing the Initiative on the Ballot for Consideration by the Electorate EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Initiative to provide minimum widths for private streets (Initiative) has qualified for the November ballot, according to the certification of the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters on July 15,2009. The Council must direct staff to either: 1) place the item on the ballot, or 2) return with the ordinance exactly as written for adoption. Setting the Initiative for the ballot would result in election costs to the City of approximately $100,000. Staff believes the intent and substance of the Initiative ordinance are reasonable, but has identified some language deficiencies that would prevent effective application to achieve the objectives of the Initiative. Staff therefore recommends that Council direct the preparation of an ordinance, to be considered on September 21, 2009, to precisely reflect the Initiative, but also direct staff to subsequently prepare a new ordinance to address the problems identified, in order to fully achieve the intent of the Initiative. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to: 1. Conduct appropriate environmental review for the ordinance; 2. Bring the ordinance with the exact wording proposed in the Initiative back to Council for adoption on September 21,2009; and 3. Prepare additional ordinance changes necessary to carry out the intent ofthe ordinance and bring that ordinance to Council for future adoption. BACKGROUND The proposed Initiative to provide minimum widths for private streets (Initiative) has qualified for the November ballot, according to the certification of the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters on July 15, 2009. The Notice of Intent to circulate the Initiative was advertised in the Palo Alto Weekly on May 1, 2009, and signatures were gathered prior to submittal to the City Clerk CMR:335:09 Page 1 of5 on July 13,2009. A total of 1,990 signatures (6% ofthe registered voters in the last general municipal election) was required to qualify, a total of 2,308 signatures were submitted, and a total of 2,056 signatures were certified by the County Registrar. City Council Options Pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 of the City Charter, if the petition accompanying the proposed ordinance is signed by qualified and registered electors equal in number to six percentum (6%) of the number of registered voters at the last general municipal election, the Council must either pass such ordinance without alteration or submit the same to the electorate at the next general municipal election that shall occur at any time not less than eighty-eight days from the date of the Clerk's certificate of sufficiency. The City Council must act to do either of the following prior to August 7,2009 (the Council's final meeting before then is August 3), the deadline for setting the election: 1. Place the Initiative on the November ballot; or 2. Adopt the ordinance exactly as presented in the Initiative. The Council's action at this meeting is to direct staff as to which option is preferred. If the ordinance is to be adopted, the Council's direction will require further staff preparation and environmental review subsequent to the deadline date. The implications of and options related to this are discussed further below. If the Council opts to place the Initiative on the November ballot, it must pass the resolution attached as Attachment C. DISCUSSION The intent of the proposed Initiative, as stated, is to address concerns about vehicle circulation on private streets (particularly for fire and garbage trucks), inclusion of streets in determining lot size and floor area, and overflow traffic and parking onto nearby residential streets. The Arbor Real proje¢t is cited as an example of the kind of development with private streets that has resulted in such problems. The specific provisions of the Initiative would amend the Subdivision Ordinance of the City to: • Generally limit private street width to a minimum of 32 feet (as compared to a public street width of 40 feet); • Allow lesser width at a minimum of26 feet where either a) at least a 6-foot parking strip is provided adjacent to the street or b) homes are set back at least 20 feet from the street; • Allow lesser width at a minimum of 22 feet where the street serves 4 or fewer lots; • Provide that all of those widths are "minimums" and the streets must be shown to be adequate to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, for widths less than 32 feet, by the City Council; and • Exclude the area of private streets from the calculation of Floor Area Ratio for determining allowable development. Additionally, the definition of "Lot area" would be amended in the Zoning Ordinance to exclude "public or private" street right-of-way (current code interpretations only exclude public right-of- way). This would again further limit the floor area allowed on a site. CMR:335:09 Page 2 of5 Finally, the ordinance indicates an effective date of July 31,2009, although the ballot measure would not occur until November 3,2009. There is a provision that notes that, if the retroactive date is voided or otherwise deemed unenforceable by judicial action, then November 4, 2009 would be the effective date, if passed by the voters. Each of the Council's options is discussed below: Set the Initiative on the Ballot The Council may direct the City Clerk to proceed to schedule the Initiative for the November 3, 2009 election by passing the attached Resolution. Some of the considerations and implications of this action are addressed as follows: • The City Clerk must file with the Registrar of Voters by August 7,2009 the Resolution of the City Council forwarding this Initiative to the ballot. • The deadline to file written arguments for or against a measure not to exceed 300 words is August 12, 2009 in the City Clerk's office. • The deadline to file a rebuttal argument not to exceed 250 words is August 19, 2009 in the City Clerk's office. • The Council may designate up to four Council Members to author the argument in favor of the measure. • The City Attorney should be directed to file an Impartial Analysis with the City Clerk by August 19, 2009. • The estimated cost for this measure would be approximately $100,000. Enact the Ordinance The second potential Council action is to adopt the ordinance exactly as proposed, which would avoid the need to spend City resources to place the measure on the ballot but could result in enforcement difficulties that thwart some of the intent of the Initiative. Some of the considerations and implications of this option are addressed as follows: • There is not presently adequate time to provide public notice and environmental review to adopt the ordinance in advance of the July 27 or August 3 Council dates. If adoption of the ordinance is desired, Council should direct staff to provide public notice and to conduct appropriate environmental review and return after the Council's break in September or October with the ordinance. The direction would need to explicitly provide that the ordinance must be identical in wording to the Initiative in order to preclude the need for the election. • Staffbelieves that the substance of the ordinance changes is reasonable and will help clarify the recent concerns regarding private street width, parking, and floor area. The proposed 32-foot width still provides for flexibility for applicants to use less than the 40- foot public street width, and allows lesser widths under certain circumstances. • Staffhas identified some provisions of the Initiative (and of the City's current Subdivision Ordinance) that would be problematic to implement and confusing to applicants, and are likely to potentially thwart the intent of the Initiative. The applicability and enforceability of the ordinance are discussed in the following section. • Approval of the ordinance on September 21 would result in an effective date on or about November 3,2009, the election date. CMR:335:09 Page 3 of5 Applicability and Enforceability of Ordinance It is the opinion of the City Attorney that the retroactive provision is not legal. In order to avoid the costs of an election, the Council must adopt the Initiative ordinance exactly as written. Thus, the Council would be required to adopt the retroactive provision. The City Attorney has indicated that although the retroactive provision is unenforceable, it would not nullify the ordinance if adopted as written because the ordinance contains a severability clause that would leave all legally enforceable portions of the ordinance intact. Using the City's current defmition of private streets, the Initiative would apply only to non- dedicated streets which are on a "separate parcel ofland used for ingress to or egress from two or more lots which do not have the minimum street frontage" or non-dedicated streets that provide access to one lot that does not meet minimum street frontage "if the parcel of land used for ingress or egress is more than two hundred feet in length." Because this definition predates enactment ofthe Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, it is unlikely that any future development will propose vehicular access in a way that would meet the City's defmition of private streets. As such, absent further clean-up, the Initiative would not have any direct impact on any project currently in the planning or development process. The ordinance will have no impact upon the Alma Plaza development as the tentative map was already passed by the Council long before the Initiative. Due to the improper definition, it is the City Attorney's opinion that the ordinance will have no impact upon any current application including the proposed Palo Alto Bowl project. Potential Revisions to the Ordinance Staffhas met with the Initiative sponsor and believes that a few revisions to the City's subdivision ordinance would allow for effective implementation of the intent of the Initiative. The key changes anticipated in the ordinance would likely include: • Deletion of the reference to "required minimum lot frontage" in the definition of "Private Streets;" • Clarification that "Private Streets" are parcels of land that provide access to "three or more housing units" rather than ''two or more lots" (this would address condominium developments); and • Clarification that "Private Streets" could also be part of a common area, not necessarily designated parcels of land. If the Council directs, subsequent to adoption of the Initiative ordinance, staffwill prepare further subdivision code amendments to make those clarifications to better realize the intent of the Initiative. Staff believes the amendments could be made in a way that does not affect the Initiative ordinance and would not therefore require a public vote. Staff expects to provide those amendments to Council for adoption prior to the end of 2009. POLICY IMPLICATIONS If the Council directs adoption of the ordinance, Comprehensive Plan policies that support that determination will be referenced in the preamble to that ordinance. The Initiative specifically CMR:335:09 Page 4 of5 calls out policies C30, L17, T23, and T25, as well as Programs T33 and T53 of the Comprehensive Plan, which would be enhanced by the ordinance. Staff does not believe that the existing street width allowances necessarily conflict with those policies and programs, but concur that those policies and programs are further supported by the proposed standards. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No environmental review is required if the measure is set for the November ballot If Council directs staff to prepare an ordinance, then environmental review will be necessary prior to adoption. Staff anticipates a Negative Declaration would be prepared. RESOURCE IMPACT The costs of setting the Initiative for election are estimated at $100,000, including costs of the Registrar of Voters and public notices required to be published by the City Clerk. The costs of preparing an ordinance involve staff time, at an estimated cost of $5,000. Such costs probably would have been necessary in the future to prepare a similar ordinance anyway, however. The ongoing costs of private street maintenance are anticipated to be negligible, since the costs of such maintenance will be borne by project developers and subsequent owners and homeowners' associations. D~/;Uv DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: City. Clerk ~\Jj~ CURTIS WILLIAMS irector of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS A. City Clerk Certificate of Sufficiency of Petition B. Notice of Intent to Circulate Initiative Petition C. Resolution Submitting Initiative to Electorate With Proposed Ordinance COURTESY COPIES Robert Moss CMR:335:09 Page 5 of5 REPORT FROM THE CllY CLERK CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF THE INITIATIVE PETITION REGARDING DEFINING MINIMUM WIDTH OF PRIVATE STREETS I, Donna J. Grider, City Clerk, City of Palo Alto, do hereby certify: 1) that an initiative petition regarding defining minimum width of private streets was received in this office on July 13, 2009; 2) that said petition containing 2,308 was delivered to the Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County for veri'fication of signatures; 3) that the Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County has issued his certificate dated July 15, 2009,stating that after examining 2,308 signatures, 2,056 signatures were placed on the petition by registered voters of the City of Palo Alto. 4) that in accordance with Palo Alto City Charter, Article VI, Section 2, Initiative, the proposed petition is signed by six (6) percent of the registered voters as of the last General Municipal Election (363,172 which is 1,990 and therefore, said petition is found to be sufficient in that it contains the qualified signatures. Witness my hand and official seal this 16th day of July 2009 ATT ACHMENT A County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters 1555 Berger Drive, Building 2 San Jose, California 95112 Mailing Address: P,O. Box 1147, San Jose, CA 95108 (408) 299-VOTB(8683) (866) 430-VOTB (8683) FAX (408) 998-7314 www.sccvote,org July 15, 2009 Ms. Donna J. Grider, MMC City Clerk, City of Palo Alto PO Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 c ri~.'\'{ CITY G 09 JUL 15 PM 5: 20 RE: Initiative Petition Regarding Defining Minimum Width of Private Streets Dear Ms. Grider: The Initiative Petition Regarding Defining Minimum Width of Private Streets submitted to our office on July 13, 2009, contained 2,308 signatures. The petition needed 1,990 valid signatures to pass, based on the 6% requirement of the registered voters within the proposed boundaries of the City of Palo Alto per your letter dated July 13, 2009. We verified 100% of the total signatures utilizing petition guidelines issued by the Secretary of State. Based upon our verification, the petition had 2,056 valid signatures. Therefore this petition has passed. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at (408) 282-3051. Mag y Elec Division Coordinator County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Acting County Executive: Gary A. Graves JOBc59 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE TO INITIATIVE PETITION I, JESSE DURAZO, Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereby certify: ThaUhe "Initiative Petition Regarding Defining Minimum Width of Private Streets" has been filed with this office on July 13, 2009. That said petition consists of 74 sections; That each section contains signatures purporting to be the signatures of qualified electors of this county; That attached to this petition at the time it was filed was an affidavit purporting to be the affidavit of the person who solicited the signatures, and containing the dates between which the purported qualified electors signed this petition; That the affiant stated his or her own qualification, that he or she had solicited the signatures upon that section, that all of the signatures were made in his or her presence, and that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief each signature to that section was the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be; That after the proponent filed this petition I verified the required number of signatures by examining the records of registration in this county, current and in effect at the respective purportive dates of such of -signing, to determine what number of qualified electors signed the petition, and from that examination I have determined the following facts regarding this petition: 1. Number of unverified signatures filed by proponent (raw count) 2,308 2. Number of signatures verified 2,308 a. b. Number of signatures found SUFFICIENT Number of signatures found NOT SUFFICIENT 1. NOT SUFFICIENT because DUPLICATE 2,056 252 54 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 15th day of July, 2009. . (SEAL) Jesse Durazo Registrar of Voters BY~ Petition Result Breakdow._ Job059 City of Palo Alto ~ Private Street Widths JobC59 City of Palo Alto ~ Init Pet RE: Defining Minimum Width of Private Streets RESULTABBR Approved NotReg OutOIDist Duplicate Reg Late RegDiffAdd Cantldntfy NoResAdd NoSig -" .. -- :MR012 -Petition Result Breakdown nted: 7/1512009 1:59:54PM Signatures Required Raw Count Sample Size Sigs Checked Sigs Not Checked Sigs Valid Sigs Invalid Duplicated Non-dupllcate Invalids RESULT DESCRIPTION Approved Not Registered Out of District Signed more than once Registered Late Registered at a Different Address Cannot Identify No Residence Address Given No Signature 1990 2,308 2,308 Percent of Sigs 2,308 Checked 0 2,056 89.1 % 252 10.9% 54 2.0% 198 9.0% 2,056 89.1 % 144 6.2% 3 0.1 % 54 2.3% 1 0.0% 36 1.6% 6 0.3% 6 0.3% 2 0.1 % Percent 01 Sample Size 0.0 % 89.1 % 10.9% 2.3 % 8.6% Page 1 of 1 Notice of Intent to Circulate Initiative Petition Notice is hereby given of the intent of the persons whose names appear hereon to circulate an initiative petition within the city of Palo Alto for the purpose of defining the minimum width of private streets as 32 feet, with a limited exceptions where private streets may be 22 feet or 26 feet in minimum width, removing aU private streets from being included for the purpose of defining allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of buildings. A statement of the reasons of the proposed actions as contemplated in said petition is as follows: Private streets may be as narrow as 20 feet wide with no on-street parking, violating Policies C30, L17, T23, and T25 and Programs T33 and T53 of the Comprehensive Plan. These narrow streets also can be more difficult for fire trucks and garbage trucks to traverse, and can impede responses to public safety emergencies. Developments with 20 foot wide private streets cause serious spillover traffic and parking on adjacent neighborhood streets, and offer inadequate parking for residents and visitors within the developments, adversely impacting both the new developments and adjacent neighborhoods. Private streets, unlike public streets, may be included in lot sizes allowing larger buildings than in neighborhoods with public streets. Prohibiting inclusion of private streets in lot sizes treats all developments the same in regard to FAR, making home sizes more compatible. Arbor Real, the former Hyatt Rickey's site, typifies these problems. The narrow streets and limited guest parking caused overflow traffic and parking onto nearby residential streets. If Arbor Real residents park in "visitor parking" spaces they get tickets. Permitted visitor parking costs $25/month. Wider streets with adequate parking and emergency access are essential for adequate safety and functionality. To be circulated by Bob Moss and numerous citizen volunteers. ATTACHMENT B * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for November 3, 2009 Submitting to the Electorate for Special Election an Initiative Measure to Amend Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 18.04.030(a)(85), 21.04.030 and 21.20.240 to SpecifY Minimum Widths for Private Streets, and Ordering Consolidation of Said Election WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 8930, the City Council has called a general municipal election for the election of Council Members for November 3, 2009, pursuant to Article ill, section 3 of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto; and WHEREAS, an initiative petition to amend Palo Alto Municipal Code sections 18.04.030(a)(85), 21.04.030 and 21.20.240 to specify minimum widths for private streets and exclude such streets from floor area ratio calculations has been presented to the City Council in accordance with the requirements of Article VI, section 2 of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and this Council has concluded that it wishes to submit the initiative to the electorate of the City of Palo Alto, rather than the alternative of adopting it directly; and WHEREAS, elections are held on November 3, 2009, in certain school districts and certain special districts in Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Education Code section 5342 and Part 30f Division 10 of the Elections Code commencing at section 10400, such elections may be partially or completely consolidated. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Elections Code sections 1405 and 9214 there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Palo Alto, California, on Tuesday, November 3, 2009 a special election. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Article VI, section 2 of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, this Council submits to the electorate of the City of Palo Alto the following question(s): CITY OF PALO ALTO INITIATIVE MEASURE ----Shall an ordinance be adopted to amend Palo Alto Municipal Code sections 18.04.030(a)(85), 21.04.030 and 21.20.240 regarding private streets to specify minimum widths and to treat private streets the same as public streets by excluding them from floor area ratio calculations? F or the Ordinance Against the Ordinance __ 090723 mb 8261099 1 ATT ACHMENT C * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * SECTION 3. If a majority of qualified electors voting on such measure shall vote in favor of City of Palo Alto Initiative Measure "_", it shall be deemed ratified and shall read as provided in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 4. The Council of the City of Palo Alto requests the Governing Body of any such other political subdivision, or any officers otherwise authorized by law, to partially or completely consolidate such elections and to further provide that the canvass be made by any body or official authorized by law to canvass the returns of the election, except that in accordance with Article III, section 4, of the Palo Alto Charter, the City Council must meet and declare the results of said elections; and that this City Council consents to such consolidation. SECTION 5. Pursuant to section 10002 of the California Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City of Palo Alto relating to the conduct of Palo Alto's General Municipal and Special Elections which are called to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. The services shall be of the type normally performed by the Registrar of Voters in assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections including, but not limited to, checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and arranging for polling places, receiving absent voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving absent voter ballots and opening and counting same, providing and distributing election supplies, and furnishing voting machines. Subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County of the foregoing request, the City Clerk is hereby authorized to engage the services of the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara to aid in the conduct of said elections including canvassing the returns of said election. Further, the Director of Administrative Services is authorized and directed to pay the cost of said services provided that no payment shall be made for services which the Registrar of Voters is otherwise required by law to perform. The City Clerk is directed to submit a certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara. SECTION 6. The City Clerk is directed to do all things requested by law to present the measure to the electorate, including required publication and noticing. Further, the City Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the City Attorney for preparation of an impartial analysis of the above measure consistent with applicable law. II II II II II 090707 mb 8261099 2 * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * SECTION 7. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment Director of Administrative Services 090707 mb 8261099 3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE Initiative to Amend Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 18.04.030(a) 85, 21.040.030 and 21.20.240 Regarding Private Streets to Specify Minimum Widths and to Treat Private Streets the Same as Public Streets by Excluding them from Floor Area Ratio Calculations. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(a) (85) shall be amended as follows: 18.04.030 (a) Defmitions (85) "Lot area" means the area of a lot measured horizontally between bounding lot lines, but excluding any portion of a flag lot providing access to a street and lying between a front lot line and the street, and excluding any portion of a lot within the lines of any natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood control or drainage easement and excluding any portion of a lot within a public or private street right-of-way whether acquired in fee, easement, or otherwise. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 21.040.030 shall be amended as follows: 21.04.030 Definitions. (a) Except where alternate definitions are provided in this title, or the context clearly requires a different usage, the defmitions of words and phrases contained in the "Subdivision Map Act" are hereby adopted for use in this title. As used in the "Subdivision Map Act" the term "general plan" means the Palo Alto comprehensive plan, including all elements, objectives, policies, and programs thereof All references to any section of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or general laws of the state of California mean those sections, as may be hereafter amended, or any successor legislation. References to any officer or employee of the city include any designee of that officer or employee. (b) Except where the context clearly requires a different usage, the following defmitions are hereby adopted for the purposes of this title: (18) "Final map" means a map, other than a parcel map, prepared in accordance with this title and the Subdivision Map Act, designed to be placed on record with the county recorder and thereby finalize a subdivision approved by a tentative map. A final map shall be prepared pursuant to and in conformance with the approved tentative map and shall be based upon an accurate and detailed survey of the property. Final maps typically will be required for major subdivisions creating five or more lots, or five or more condominium, community apartment or stock cooperative units. (30) "Private street" means any parcel ofland not dedicated as a public street which is used for ingress to or egress from two or more lots which do not have the required minimum frontage on a public street, or to or from one lot which does not have the required minimum frontage on a public street if the parcel ofland used for ingress or egress is more than two hundred feet in length. Private streets shall be excluded for the purpose of determining Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Minimum width of "private streets" shall be as defined in 21.20.240(b)(4). Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 21.20.240 shall be amended as follows: 21.20.240 Widths. (a) Streets shown in any master street plan or affected by proceedings initiated or approved by the city council shall have widths as required by such plan or proceedings. (b) All other streets shall have rights-of-way of the following widths, except where the city council detennines that the topography or the small number of lots served and the probable future traffic development are such as to justify a narrowed width. Increased widths may be required where streets are to serve nonresidential property, or where probable traffic conditions warrant such increased widths: (1) Major arterials: eighty-six feet to one hundred feet; (2) Collector streets, local streets, or cul-de-sac streets longer than three hundred fifty feet: sixty feet; (3) Cul-de-sac streets three hundred fifty feet or less in length: fifty feet; (4) Private streets: Such right-of-way as would be required for a comparable public street, except as specified below .. l:Hlless sabsh4der eaR 6emoostrate to the satisfaetioo of the city eOlHleH or difector ofplan.aiB:g aru:l oommtmity eaWOBmem, as awro'(Hiate, facts relating to the Hamre or loeatioo of the proposes street or the Bature of the PFOflosed de:vrelopmeat 'NlHell reaeer sooh rigIlt of 'Nay llllfteoessary for or aeB:iJ.Befttal to the pualie health, safety or vt'elfare. Streets serving five or more lots shall be no less than thirty two feet wide. Streets serving four or fewer lots shall be no less than twenty two feet wide providing that the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City Council specifically approves the twenty two foot street width. Cb) C 4) Ca) If a building adjacent to a private street has a setback of at least 20 feet between the street and building allowing on-site parking. then the width of the private street may be no less than twenty six feet at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community environment and the City Council. (b) C 4) (b) If a private street has a public parking strip of at least six feet in width between the street and the building location, then the width of the private street may be no less than twenty six feet at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City Council. Effective Date: This private street width requirement applies to any project or development that has not obtained a final map. building permit and performed significant construction as of J my 31, 2009. (a) Ifthe effective date of July 31, 2009 is held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable, or unenforceable, then the effective date of this ordinance as it applies to private street width shall be November 4,2009. Severability. If any section of this initiative ordinance, or part hereof, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable. or enforceable, such section or part hereof, shall be deemed severable from the remaining sections of this initiative ordinance and shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining sections hereof.