HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-13 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
2. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda: December 13, 2017
Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
6:00 PM
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports
1. Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3
2. Discussion Regarding State Housing Bills That Will Become Effective January 1, 2018
3. Study Session to Review the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Implementation and
Discuss Potential Future Amendments
4. Discussion Regarding the Commission's Performance, Roles and Responsibilities, and
Opportunity for Commissioner Feedback to Improve Processes and Results.
(Continued from November 29, 2017)
Action Items
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal.
All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation to the City Council Regarding the Adoption of an
Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.20 (Planning and
Transportation Commission) of Title 2, Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of Title 9, Chapter 10.64
(Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10, and Chapters 18.04 (Definitions),
18.10 (Low-Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD)), 18.12 (R-1 Single-Family
Residential District), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood,
_______________________
1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
1.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
2.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) Districts), 18.28 (Special
Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts), 18.30(G) (Combining Districts), 18.40 (General
Standards and Exceptions), 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses), 18.52 (Parking and
Loading Requirements), 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards), 18.76 (Permits and
Approvals), 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals), and 18.80 (Amendments to
Zoning Map And Zoning Regulations) of Title 18, and Chapters 21.12 (Tentative Maps
and Preliminary Parcel Maps) and 21.32 (Conditional Exceptions) of Title 21. The
Proposed Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
in Accordance With CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). For More Information,
Please Contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org. (Continued
from November 29, 2017)
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3
6.November 8, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Committee Items
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
November 8, 2017 Draft
PTC Meeting Minutes
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
2. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission
Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are:
Chair Ed Lauing
Vice Chair Susan Monk
Commissioner Michael Alcheck
Commissioner Przemek Gardias
Commissioner Ed Lauing
Commissioner William Riggs
Commissioner Doria Summa
Commissioner Asher Waldfogel
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26.
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission
Secretary prior to discussion of the item.
Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be
delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding
the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through
2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs,
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 7785)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/13/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: City Official Report
Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
comment as appropriate.
Background
This document includes the following items:
2017/Draft 2018 PTC Meeting Schedule
2017/Draft 2018 PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)
Tentative Future Agenda
Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes
(Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if
possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum.
PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated
commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi-
judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council
agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their
respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are
available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards-
and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission.
The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items.
Attachments:
Attachment A December 13, 2017 PTC Meeting Schedule & Assignments (DOCX)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Attachment B: Draft 2018 Meeting Schedule and Council Rotation (DOCX)
Planning & Transportation Commission
2017 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2017 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
1/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED
2/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel
2/22/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
3/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk, Waldfogel
3/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
4/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
4/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
5/10/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Summa,
5/31/2017 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck
6/14/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk, Waldfogel
6/28/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck
7/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Waldfogel
7/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck, Lauing
8/09/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum
8/30/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
9/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
9/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
10/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
10/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED
11/08/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk
11/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
12/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
12/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED
2018 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup)
January February March April May June
Michael Alcheck Eric Rosenblum Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Eric Rosenblum
July August September October November December
Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Susan Monk Michael Alcheck
Subcommittees
Planning & Transportation Commission
2017 Tentative Future Agenda
Last Updated: 12/4/2017 8:26:25 AM
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
2018
Meeting Dates Topics
January 10, 2018
Update PTC Rules of Order & By Laws for Effective Meeting
Management
Training: Palo Alto’s Below Market (BMR) Housing Program
2755 El Camino Real Zoning Code Amendment Site and Design
(1st Formal)
Public Facilities (PF) Zoning Change Amendment
January 31, 2018
Annual Office Limit Ordinance
Training: Brown Act & Conflict of Interest
Draft Planning & Transportation Commission
2018 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2018 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/10/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
1/31/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
2/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
2/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
3/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
3/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
4/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
4/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
5/09/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
5/30/2018 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular
6/13/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
6/27/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
7/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
7/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
8/08/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
8/29/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
9/12/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
9/26/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
10/10/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
10/31/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
11/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
11/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
12/12/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
12/26/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED
2018 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup)
January February March April May June
Ed Lauing Doria Summa Susan Monk Przemek Gardias Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs
Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Przemek Gardias Susan Monk Ed Lauing Doria Summa
July August September October November December
Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Susan Monk Michael Alcheck Asher Waldfogel
Billy Riggs Michael Alchek Asher Waldfogel Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Ed Lauing
Subcommittees
Draft Planning & Transportation Commission
2018 Tentative Future Agenda
July 19, 2017, 2017 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
January 10, 2018
Update PTC Rules of Order & By Laws for Effective Meeting
Management
Training: Palo Alto’s Below Market (BMR) Housing Program
2755 El Camino Real Zoning Code Amendment Site and
Design (1st Formal)
Public Facilities (PF) Zoning Change Amendment
January 31, 2018
Annual Office Limit Ordinance
Training: Brown Act & Conflict of Interest
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 8665)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 12/13/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Update on Recent State Housing Laws
Title: Discussion Regarding State Housing Bills That Will Become
Effective January 1, 2018
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
This item will allow for a presentation, questions, and discussion about a package of 15 housing
bills approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in September 2017. The resulting
State laws will become effective January 1, 2018 and staff’s intention is to summarize how the
bills will affect Palo Alto.
The City Council had a similar discussion on December 4, 2017 and [need to summarize what
happened]
Report Summary
The Legislature and the Governor approved 15 new laws (referred to as a “housing package”)
intended to stimulate housing production in response to the State’s housing crisis. The new
laws will become effective January 1, 2018 and some of these may affect development and
decision-making in Palo Alto. This agenda item is intended to provide an overview of the
housing bills, and allow for discussion of potential local implications. The bills can be grouped
into the following categories:
Housing Accountability Act changes (AB 678, SB 167, and AB 1515) make it more difficult for
jurisdictions to deny or reduce the density of proposed housing projects, including mixed-use
projects, and increase penalties for jurisdictions that fail to approve zoning compliant housing
projects.
The “By Right” Housing Bill (SB 35) provides for streamlined processing for zoning compliant
projects that meet certain criteria.
RHNA Reporting Requirements & Enforcement Bills (AB 879, SB 35, AB 72, AB 879, and AB
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
1397) require agencies to report more information to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) each year and give HCD the ability to enforce compliance with
State housing laws during the housing cycle, and not just at Housing Element adoption. These
bills will also make it more difficult to carry forward sites that have not developed into the
City’s next Housing Element.
ADU Clean-up Bills (AB 494 and SB 229) make minor adjustments to the ADU laws adopted last
year and codified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code earlier this year.
Inclusionary Rental Housing provisions (AB 1505) allow local agencies to require affordable
units as part of any rental development, not just for-sale condo development.
Districts for Streamlined Processing (SB 540 and AB 73) are potential alternatives to specific
plans (called “coordinated area plans” in Palo Alto), although they each have disadvantages.
Funding Measures (SB 2 and SB 3) provide funding for the State and local agencies immediately
(SB 2) and will put a large funding package on the ballot in November 2018 (SB 3).
Background
Background materials related to the new housing laws are attached to this report and will be
discussed further at the Commission’s meeting.
As further background, staff offers the following status report on housing production (building
permits) compared to the City’s RHNA obligation:
Table 1. 1998-2016 Housing Production
Compared to Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA)
RHNA allocation Units Permitted % of RHNA*
1998-2006 Housing
Element Cycle
• 265 Very Low
• 116 Low Income
• 343 Moderate Income
• 673 Above Moderate
1,397 Total
• 1,713 total units
• 341 affordable units
• 123% of total units
• 47% of affordable units
2007-2014 Housing
Element Cycle
• 690 Very Low
• 543 Low Income
• 641 Moderate Income
• 986 Above Moderate
2,860 Total
• 1,062 total units
• 290 affordable units
• 37% of total units
• 16% of affordable units
2014-2022 Housing
Element Cycle
(Thru 2016)
• 345 Extremely Low
• 346 Very Low
• 432 Low Income
• 278 Moderate Income
• 587 Above Moderate
1,988 Total
• 310 total units
• 121 affordable units
(Thru 2016)
• 16% of total units
• 8% of affordable units
(Thru 2016)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Total all cycles
1998-2022
6,246 total units
4,000 affordable units
• 3,085 total units
• 752 affordable units
(Thru 2016)
49% of total units
19% of affordable units
(Thru 2016)
Source: Planning & Community Environment, November 2017
Regional job growth generally factors into the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) and
staff expects a larger allocation for the 2023-2031 cycle because of the regional job growth
that’s occurred since the recession and the State’s ongoing housing crisis.
Environmental Review
This agenda item will not result in any action other than possible direction to staff to provide
additonal information or prepare ordinances for future consideration and action. As a result,
this agenda item is not a project subject to review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
This item involves a presentation and discussion and follows a similar item that appeared on
the City Council’s agenda. The agenda for tonight’s meeting has been noticed as usual and
interested members of the public may appear and be heard, although no final action is
proposed.
Next Steps
The State housing bills will become effective January 1, 2018.
Alternative Actions
This item anticipates a presentation and discussion; there are no alternatives
Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information
Hillary Gitelman, Director Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2321 (650) 329-2679
hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: State Housing Bills Memo for December 4 (PDF)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
1of11
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY MANAGER JAMES KEENE
FROM: HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
MOLLY STUMP, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: APPLICABILITY OF SB 35 (“BY RIGHT” HOUSING BILL) AND OTHER HOUSING
BILLS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
Last month, Governor Brown signed a package of 15 housing bills approved by the California Legislature
intended to spur the production of housing in the State. This memo attempts to summarize the
relevance of these bills to Palo Alto and focuses on those likely to have the greatest impact.
Please note that this is a general summary only and the bills discussed are complex. Further analysis will
be provided prior to the Council’s consideration of any zoning code amendments to address the state
law changes, and as residential projects come forward in 2018. All of the recently enacted legislation
will become effective on January 1, 2018.
A number of the bills will raise the stakes for local agencies when they are considering projects on sites
in their housing inventory, when they are considering approval of housing projects, and when they are
implementing their housing element through other actions (or inaction).
A. SB 35 (“BY RIGHT” HOUSING): STREAMLINED APPROVAL PROCESS FOR ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
SB 35 (Weiner) has been referred to as the “by right” housing bill because it would require local
agencies to expeditiously and ministerially approve multifamily housing projects meeting certain
eligibility criteria, if requested by the applicant. A local agency is subject to the provisions of this bill if
the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines that the jurisdiction
has not issued enough building permits to satisfy its Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) by
income category or did not submit the required annual report to HCD for 2 years. The bill will be
effective from January 1, 2018 until January 1, 2026.
HCD has not yet made the determination as to which agencies will be subject to the bill, but we
anticipate that Palo Alto may be subject to the law. This is based on data through the year 2016 (i.e.
through 25% of the housing cycle) showing that Palo Alto has issued permits for 16 % of its RHNA
allocation for market rate units and 8% of its RHNA for affordable units.
2of11
The summary below focuses on which projects will be eligible for streamlining under SB 35, and then
discusses the project review and approval process for those eligible projects. Parking requirements are
also discussed, followed by some thoughts about how the bill will be relevant to Palo Alto.
1. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
There are a number of requirements that a project must meet to be eligible for SB 35 streamlining. To
be eligible, a project must:
consist of two or more units and be located on a legal parcel or parcels in an area with at least
75% of the perimeter developed with urban uses;
be on a site that is zoned for residential use or residential mixed‐use or has a general plan
designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses;
designate at least two‐thirds of the project square footage for residential use;
be consistent with the current zoning ordinance and all objective zoning standards and objective
design review standards in effect at the time of application;
not be located in a coastal zone, wetland, prime farmland, very high fire severity zone,
hazardous waste site, delineated earthquake fault zone, flood plain or floodway (unless a flood
plain development permit is obtained), within land identified for conservation in an adopted
natural resource protection plan, habitat for protected species, under conservation easement,
or be subject to mobile home park law;
not propose demolition of a listed historic resource;
not propose demolition of existing dwelling units that are subject to affordability restrictions or
have been occupied by tenants within the past 10 years;
not be on a site that was previously used for housing occupied by tenants that was demolished
within the past 10 years;
not involve a subdivision (except for projects using low income tax credits and paying prevailing
wage or satisfying other labor requirements);
provide a minimum percentage of below market rate units for projects with more than 10 units,
with the percentage and the level of affordability based on the City’s track record of unit
production at different levels of affordability during the RHNA period;
3of11
pay prevailing wages if the project consists of 10 units or more; and
use a skilled and trained workforce (e.g. union labor) if the project consists of 75 units or more.
2. PROJECT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
SB 35 establishes an expedited review and approval process for eligible projects. Within 60 days of
submittal of an application, the local jurisdiction must confirm the project’s eligibility under SB 35 and
provide a list of all inconsistencies with objective zoning standards and objective design review
standards in effect at the time the application is submitted (90 days is allowed for projects containing
more than 150 units). “Objective standards” means standards that involve “no personal or subjective
judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
benchmark ….” If the agency fails to provide this list within the required timeframe, the project is
deemed consistent with zoning and design review standards.
Local jurisdictions have a total of 90 days from submittal to process and make a determination on the
application, including any hearings by boards/commissions or the City Council (180 days is allowed for
projects containing more than 150 units). Reviews within the first 60 days of submittal can focus on
applicability of the streamlined process under the law, objective zoning standards and “reasonable
objective design standards published and adopted by ordinance or resolution” prior to receipt of the
application. Reviews within the last 30 days, including any hearings, can only focus on the reasonable
objective design standards. Reviews may be conducted by staff, boards/commissions and/or the City
Council, as long as they are based on these standards, and are conducted within the 90 day timeframe.
3. LIMITS ON PARKING REQUIREMENTS
SB 35 would reduce or eliminate parking requirements for eligible housing projects. Projects that qualify
for streamlined processing are not required to provide any off‐street parking if they are within: ½ mile of
public transit; one block of a car share vehicle location; an area where on‐street parking permits are
required but not offered to the development occupants; or an architecturally or historically significant
historic district. Most of Palo Alto’s multifamily and mixed use districts would meet this requirement.
Eligible projects in other locations could only be required to provide one parking space per unit.
Relevance to Palo Alto
Eligible Sites and Projects: Virtually all of Palo Alto outside of the Baylands and the foothills would be
considered urban areas and virtually all of Palo Alto’s multifamily and commercial/mixed use zoning
districts would allow multifamily projects. Only the AC, R‐E, R‐1, GM, OS, and PF districts do not allow
4of11
multifamily uses. For this reason, project eligibility under SB 35 is likely to be based on site conditions.
For example:
Has the site contained rental housing within the last 10 years?
Does the site have soil or groundwater contamination?
Is there an historic building?
Project eligibility will also be affected by specifics of a developer’s proposal. For example:
Does the proposal comply with current zoning and meet all objective zoning standards without
the need for any variance or exception?
Has the developer agreed to pay prevailing wages?
Has the developer agreed to meet affordability requirements?
For projects with more than 10 units, to qualify for SB 35 streamlining the affordable housing
requirement provides that 10% of the units must be restricted for households earning less than 80% of
the area median income (AMI). The City currently requires ownership projects to provide 15% of the
units as affordable without specifying how many units must be at less than 80% AMI, so ownership
projects could qualify for streamlining by meeting the City’s requirement at the affordability level
required in the State law. 100% affordable projects would also qualify, as would projects proposing 50
percent of the units as affordable to households at less than 80% of AMI.
The City does not currently have an affordability requirement for rental projects (which are required to
pay impact fees instead) so rental projects with more than 10 units would have to meet the State
standard (10% of the units at 80% AMI) to be eligible for streamlining. If the City enacts inclusionary
requirements on rental projects in accordance with AB 1505 (see below), those projects could be
required to meet the 15% standard currently applicable to ownership projects only.
Ministerial Review Process: The City may wish to amend the zoning code to implement the new law. SB
35 includes a provision that prohibits local agencies from adopting any requirements that apply to
projects solely or partially on the basis of eligibility for streamlined review, however, this would not
appear to preclude adoption of necessary procedures or from examining its ARB findings and guidelines
to determine whether some can be re‐framed as objective standards applicable to all projects.
While zoning compliance would be required for projects to be eligible for streamlined review, the City’s
current requirements for a use permit, for site and design approval, and for compliance with subjective
5of11
ARB findings regarding design and compatibility could not be enforced. Objective performance
standards (requirements) in PAMC Chapter 18.23 would remain in effect, although guidelines in that
chapter indicating issues that “should” be addressed may be unenforceable.
Examples: In some ways, SB 35 is a game‐changer for multifamily housing development in Palo Alto
because of its potential to influence the size and location of multifamily housing applications that the
City receives. Large projects requiring legislative actions (e.g. rezoning) or design exceptions will still
have to go through the City’s regular process. However, over 13% of the land in Palo Alto is zoned for
multifamily, commercial, or mixed‐use, and property owners in these areas could choose to shape their
proposals to be eligible for streamlined review.
For example, the owner of a site along El Camino (in the CN or CS zoning district) could propose a
project with ground floor retail and housing above. As long as the residential square footage makes up
75% of the project and other standards are met, the project would qualify for streamlined review. In
this situation, existing zoning limits residential FAR to 0.5 and other objective development standards
(height, setback, etc.) are in place, so that the project would be fairly modest in scale unless a property
owner assembles a large site. The recent development on the Compadres site at 3877 El Camino Real is
a recent example (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61110). This was a 17‐
unit project on a 32,825 square foot site that could have been eligible for streamlined review if the
applicant had not requested a design enhancement exception for an underground garage extending into
a required setback. (Note that parking would not have been required if the project was eligible for
streamlining, but the applicant may have wanted to provide parking for the units nonetheless.) Also,
in this case and others, the applicant, who provided two affordable units, could have requested bonus
units under the State density bonus law. Bonus units and design concessions enabled by the State
density bonus law are considered code complying and would not make a project ineligible for
streamlined review.
Qualifying developments in CD (downtown) would also be modest if located on small parcels, but could
be more sizeable on larger development sites because of the residential FAR of 1.0 for mixed use
projects. In the Stanford Research Park, in the RP zone district, the property owner/lease holder could
propose development consistent with the RM‐30 standards, as long as the site is not within 150‐feet of
a R‐1 or similar zone. This kind of proposal could be quite large given parcel sizes in the area and the
applicable 0.4 FAR.
Staff has not been able to estimate the total number of projects or units that could be created under the
new law because its applicability is dependent on site‐specific conditions like parcel size, existing uses,
and the property owner’s potential return on investment from redevelopment for multifamily housing.
B. UPDATES TO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
6of11
The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5) currently precludes a local agency from
denying or reducing the density of a housing development project that meet objective development
standards unless it finds: 1) the project would have specific, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable
impacts on public health or safety, based on objective safety standards, policies, or conditions in
existence at the time the application was deemed complete; and 2) these impacts cannot be mitigated
except by disapproval or reduction in density. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (j)). In addition, for projects
that meet specified affordability thresholds, an agency may not impose conditions that render the
project infeasible for the use or very low, low, or moderate income households, unless it makes similar
findings. For affordable housing projects, these findings may be required even if the project does not
comply with objective development standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (d)).
AB 678 (Bocanegra) and SB 167 (Skinner) are identical bills that significantly increase the burden of
proof for local agencies to justify disapproval of housing projects or approval of housing projects at
lower densities than allowed. AB 1515 (Daly) requires the courts to give less deference to a local
government's planning and zoning consistency determination. In sum, the three bills make the
following changes:
The definition of “housing development projects” is expanded to include mixed use projects
where at least two‐thirds of the floor area is designated for residential use.
An agency must now provide a written explanation of any inconsistencies with objective
development standards and policies within 30 days (60 days for projects with more than 150
units). If the agency fails to respond within these timelines, the project is deemed consistent
with all objective standards.
A project must be deemed consistent with objective standards and policies if there is
“substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project is
consistent. In other words, an agency must find consistency with objective standards as long as
there is relevant evidence to support that finding, even if the weight of the evidence is to the
contrary.
The bills clarify that receipt of a density bonus is not a basis for finding a project inconsistent
with objective standards.
Whereas existing law requires that agencies support their findings with substantial evidence in
the record, the bills increase that burden to require a preponderance of the evidence. This is a
much less deferential standard for judicial review of a decision to deny or reduce the density of
a project.
7of11
The bills require an award of attorney’s fees to a successful plaintiff and the imposition of harsh
penalties (at least $10,000 per housing unit) for agencies who fail to comply with a court’s order
within 60 days.
Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act are already quite stringent, and recently resulted in
successful litigation by a developer in Los Gatos. All three of these bills would strengthen existing
provisions in the law and increase penalties for non‐compliance, making it much more difficult for the
City to disapprove or reduce the number of units in a housing project.
Relevance to Palo Alto
Eligible Sites and Projects: The Housing Accountability Act applies to all housing projects in the City,
including mixed use projects that dedicate at least two‐thirds of their square footage to residential uses
and transitional or supportive housing projects. In addition, the HAA provides heightened protections
for affordable housing projects that make at least 20% of their units affordable to low‐income
households (up to 80% of AMI) or 100% of their units affordable to middle‐income households (up to
150% of AMI). These thresholds are greater than the minimums required by the City’s BMR program, so
housing projects will not automatically qualify for this heightened protection.
Short timelines for review: Under the recent amendments to the HAA, staff will have only 30 days to
review projects against objective general plan and zoning code standards before the projects are
deemed consistent. Although the City may not deny or reduce the density of a project once it is deemed
consistent with objective standards, a project may still be subject to discretionary approvals such as
architectural review. Note: if the City re‐frames some of its architectural review findings as objective
standards (as suggested in the discussion of SB 35), this may narrow the scope of discretionary
architectural review. In addition, because HAA permits denial or reduction of density only in the event of
specific adverse impacts on public health and safety, the City may wish to focus discretionary findings on
those issues.
Examples: In Palo Alto, the HAA would come into play if the City wanted to deny a housing project
that is on its face consistent with the City’s objective zoning standards, or if the City wanted to attach
conditions reducing the number of units in such a project.
Because so much of Palo Alto’s multifamily housing development has historically required legislative
changes (e.g. rezoning to Planned Community), the HAA has not regularly come into play. However, this
will be an issue to keep an eye on as the City proceeds with zoning changes to stimulate additional
housing production and proceeds with the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan that sets forth specific
standards for multifamily housing in the area.
8of11
C. NEW HOUSING ELEMENT AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WITH HIGHER THRESHOLDS AND
PENALTIES
Several bills (SB 35, AB 72, AB 879 and AB 1397) affect housing element requirements and annual
reporting of housing development.
AB 879 (Grayson) and SB 35 address the existing requirement that local agencies file a report with the
state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) each year, expanding the information required, and imposing penalties if reports are not
submitted in a timely fashion. A public hearing on the report and submittal of the report to HCD and
OPR must occur by April 1st of each year. (Charter cities such as Palo Alto had previously been exempt
from the requirement for a public hearing on the annual report.)
AB 1397 (Low) will be important the next time the City updates its housing element. Like most fully
developed jurisdictions, Palo Alto’s inventory of housing sites relies heavily on sites that are
underdeveloped, but not vacant. AB 1397 will require a more detailed analysis before allowing sites
with existing uses to be considered suitable for residential development.
AB 72 (Santiago) requires HCD to review any action or inaction by a locality that it determines is
inconsistent with an adopted housing element, including failure to implement any programs in the
housing element. If HCD identifies any inconsistency, it is required to issue written findings and provide
30 days for a response. After 30 days, HDC may revoke its certification of the agency’s housing element
and may notify the Office of the Attorney General that the agency is not in compliance with the law.
Under the current law, HCD makes a decision to certify (or not) an agency’s housing element within 90
days of adoption and certification provides a rebuttable presumption that an agency’s housing element
complies with the law. By allowing HCD to de‐certify housing elements during the eight year housing
element cycle, this bill provides an avenue for developers and advocates to petition HCD and ultimately
challenge the sufficiency of the agency’s housing element in court.
Relevance to Palo Alto
The City of Palo Alto’s adopted housing element contains 72 implementation programs and the City is
making slow progress towards their implementation. In future housing element cycles, the City may
wish to include fewer programs, make them clearer, and identify a realistic schedule for their
implementation.
Based on the heightened scrutiny for housing elements, staff would recommend extreme caution when
considering development on housing sites that would produce fewer units than projected in the housing
element. Staff would also recommend deferring elimination of housing sites along San Antonio Road
9of11
until the next housing element cycle. Both the adopted housing element (Program 2.2.5) and the
recently adopted Comprehensive Plan Update (Program L2.4.1) suggest eliminating these housing sites
in exchange for higher densities and/or additional sites in Downtown and the California Avenue. At a
minimum, staff believes it would be wise to consult with HCD on this proposal after the City adopts a
zoning ordinance to permit higher densities, identifies potential new sites, and completes the
quantitative analysis of housing at all income levels envisioned by SB 166. If this analysis cannot be
accomplished before the next housing element update, it can be completed in that context. Work on
the next housing element will have to begin in 2020 or 2021.
SB 166 (Skinner) amends the existing “no net loss” provision in state law that requires a local
government to accommodate its remaining unmet housing need at all times throughout the housing
element planning period. The bill requires specific “no net loss” findings, based on substantial evidence
in the record if the jurisdiction approves fewer (or no) units or a different income category on a site in its
Housing Element’s inventory than anticipated. If the jurisdiction cannot make the finding that the
remaining sites in the Housing Element inventory are adequate to meet the RHNA by income category,
the jurisdiction would need to identify other sites that are already zoned to accommodate lower or
moderate income housing or rezone sites accordingly. This law does not apply to charter cities like Palo
Alto, although HCD will require all agencies to include related data in their annual reports, which will
allow for a determination as to whether an agency’s sites remain adequate. Because this data could be
used by HCD in a mid‐cycle review of a City’s housing element under AB 72 (above), staff believes it
would be wise to carefully consider the status of City’s housing inventory throughout the housing cycle
and include a sizeable surplus of sites in the City’s next housing element.
Relevance to Palo Alto
Palo Alto included sites for 2,187 units in its Housing Element (which was adopted in November 2014
and certified by HCD in January 2015). This represented 199 more units than the City’s RHNA
requirement and has allowed the City to approve projects on housing sites that do not provide the
number of units anticipated on that site without coming out of compliance with the State requirement.
For example, the City approved two hotels at 744‐48 San Antonio Ave, two sites that were identified in
the housing element with a combined realistic capacity of 38 units. The City still has enough total sites
in its inventory to meet its RHNA because of the surplus included in the Housing Element.
Under the new law, the total number of units isn’t the only thing to watch, because HCD will now be
keeping track of the number of units in each income category. This means that that if sites that are
zoned at 20 units per acre or more (which HCD allows us to count toward low income requirements)
develop with market rate housing, the City could theoretically have a deficit in the lower income
10 of 11
categories. Again, this suggests that the City will need to identify substantially more sites for more units
than required by its RHNA in the next housing element cycle.
D. OTHER 2017 BILLS
1. FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Two of the newly adopted bills are funding bills – SB 2 (Atkins) and SB 3 (Beall). SB 2 establishes a fee
on some real estate transactions and is expected to raise $200 to $300 Million annually. The funds will
be collected by Counties and managed by HDC. In 2018, HCD will make 50% of the funding available to
local agencies for planning and zoning updates, and starting in 2019, HCD will make 70% of the funding
available to local agencies for affordable housing via competitive grant programs. The programs
emphasize rapid rehousing of the homeless and housing for extremely low income households (less than
60% of AMI). SB3 will place an affordable housing bond measure on the State ballot in 2018. If
approved, it would provide approximately $3B in funding for affordable housing. The City can request
some of the SB 2 funds to support zoning for multifamily housing in 2018 if desired.
2. THE PALMER “FIX”
AB 1505 (Bloom) would allow local governments to require a percentage of units in rental housing
projects to be deed restricted as affordable, which has not been allowed since a 2009 California Court of
Appeal decision, Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angeles.
With enactment of this bill, Palo Alto will be able to amend Chapter 16.65 of the Municipal Code to
require 15% of the units in rental projects to be affordable, similar to the requirement for ownership
projects. The City could either impose this requirement on all rental projects, or on projects above a
given size threshold and continue to require payment of impact fees ($20/ft) for smaller rental projects.
The new law requires agencies to make alternatives available to developers who do not wish to provide
the units on site (e. g. payment of fees).
3. SB 540 AND AB 73 – INCENTIVES
SB 540 (Roth) and AB 73 (Chiu) would provide local agencies with financial incentives to expedite
project approvals, rather than mandating a ministerial process.
11 of 11
SB 540 would allow agencies to apply for funding to prepare an EIR and specific plan (called a
coordinated area plan in Palo Alto) to create a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone that would enable
fast track (60‐day) approval of housing consistent with the plan for five years after plan adoption. AB 73
would allow agencies to adopt “housing sustainability districts” subject to HCD approval. Approved
sustainability districts would enable agencies to apply for a “zoning incentive payment” from HCD and
provide for ministerial approvals of housing projects and could be in effect for up to 10 years.
Both SB 540 and AB 73 appear to be targeted at larger cities like San Francisco or San Jose. Staff can
analyze the potential applicability of SB 540 for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan if the City
Council is interested, although the Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone provisions do not appear to
provide any benefits that are not already available to specific plan (and coordinated area plan) areas .
4. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Two of the bills, AB 494 and SB 229, provide minor clarifications of the 2016 state legislation on
accessory dwelling units. Specifically, they clarify that:
An ADU may be proposed on a parcel zoned to allow a single‐family residential use that includes
an existing or proposed single‐family home. This is consistent with the City’s implementation of
the ADU Ordinance, and conforming amendments will soon be presented to Council for
consideration.
Conversions of space within an existing single‐family home or accessory structure (i.e., garage
conversion) to an ADU shall be allowed in any zoning district where single‐family residential is an
allowed use (i.e., multi‐family zoning districts permitting single‐family dwellings). The state law
previously required only that such conversions be allowed in single‐family residence districts,
and the City’s ADU Ordinance therefore applied these provisions to the R‐1 district, all R‐1
subdistricts, and the RE district only. The forthcoming Ordinance amendment will also apply the
conversion provisions to the R‐2, RMD, RM, and OS and PC districts where single‐family
residential is an allowed use.
Parking requirements for ADUs are further reduced. The City’s Ordinance does not require
parking for an ADU, so the new state law provisions do not require any changes to the
Ordinance.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 8607)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 12/13/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Update on Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Implementation
Title: Study Session to Review the Accessory Dwelling Unit
Ordinance Implementation and Discuss Potential Future
Amendments
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) conduct a Study
Session to review the implementation of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and provide
comments on potential amendments that may be incorporated into a revised ordinance.
Report Summary
On May 8, 2017, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5412 amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to implement the new state requirements related to Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADU). These new regulations have eased the development requirements for
ADUs for property owners and support the creation of additional, more affordable, housing
units. This report provides a summary of the ADU development activity; identifies
implementation challenges and recommended changes; considers Council direction to make
ADUs available to low and moderate households and addressing illegally established ADUs; and,
reviews updated state law taking effect in 2018. The purpose of this item is to get PTC feedback
on changes or refinements needed for an updated ADU ordinance.
Background
In October 2015, the City Council approved a Colleagues Memo that directed the PTC to review
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) related to ADUs and recommend strategies to increase
production of these units. Following this, the PTC conducted two Study Sessions in January and
July 2017 (reports #6462 & #6944), just prior to the State of California adopting ADU and Junior
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
ADU1 (JADU) legislation in September 2016. In response to the new state ADU regulations, the
City prepared a draft ordinance to incorporate the mandatory state requirements and some
optional provisions with the existing local regulations. The PTC reviewed the ordinance on
November 30, 2016 (report #7368) and made recommendations. In March 2017, the City
Council held its first public hearing on ADUs (report #7517) and discussed in-depth the
ordinance, making substantial revisions. On April 17, 2017, the Council adopted the ADU
ordinance (Attachment A) with further refinements (report #7921 & #8048), which became
effective on June 8, 2017. The City Council also directed staff to provide a quarterly report on
ADU permits and to conduct a Study Session with the PTC to analyze the results of the
ordinance.
Prior to the implementation of the City’s ADU ordinance, the state regulations that became
effective on January 1, 2017 governed all ADU permit applications submitted for review in the
City. Once the City’s ordinance became effective on June 8, 2017, all ADU permit applications
not already approved were subject to the new local regulations.
Key Standards Incorporated into City’s Ordinance
The City’s ADU ordinance consolidated all development requirements for these types of units
into one section of the Zoning Code, PAMC Section 18.42.030. The standards listed below
represent the key provisions of the current ordinance:
Minimum lot size requirement of 5,000 square feet
No parking requirements (for ADUs & JADUs)
Detached ADUs allowed in rear yard
Garage conversions allowed with required displaced parking allowed to be uncovered
Attached ADUs may be 600 square feet; detached ADUs 900 square feet
Additional lot coverage and floor area provided under certain circumstances
JADUs allowed
ADU Permit Activity
On average, prior to the 2017 changes in the ADU regulations, the City approved four ADU units
a year.2 Since the beginning of this year, the City has approved nine ADU permits; there are 14
other permits still under review. No JADU permit applications have been submitted yet. The
average ADU unit size is 565 sq. ft. and the majority of units (80%) are detached from the
primary home.
Discussion
Since the adoption of the state and local ADU regulations, there has been interest expressed by
the community regarding these changes, including the implications for possible negative
1 The establishment of Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) as a permitted use was not required by state law
and was left to the discretion of the local jurisdiction. With the local adoption of the ADU regulations in April 2017,
the City Council allowed for these smaller JADU units in Palo Alto.
2 Development data based on 2015-2023 Housing Element.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
impacts, as well as potential development possibilities. The City has received increased requests
for information on ADUs at the public information counter and via email and phone calls. Staff
has set up a webpage
(http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/accessory_dwelling_units_regulations_updat
e.asp ) and an email address dedicated to ADU questions (ADUOrd@CityofPaloAlto.org ). City
staff also participated in a couple of events hosted by others in the community.
From the various interactions mentioned above, and in reviewing ADU building permits, staff
has identified some implementation challenges not anticipated when drafting the ordinance. It
should be noted that the local ADU regulations have been in place for a short time, barely six
months. As more time passes and more projects are reviewed, staff will be able to provide
additional feedback and analysis of the ADU provisions.
A. Refine the Definition for ADUs
There has been confusion on the part of some staff and applicants as to which ADU regulations
apply to certain ADU units. The term “conversion,” in particular, has been a source of
misunderstandings when applying the code. Staff recommends updating the definition to
better describe the different unit types to reduce this confusion, and update the code section
accordingly with these terms. The unit type definitions being considered are as follows:
“Attached ADU” means an ADU that is constructed as a new addition to a single-family
dwelling which may include a remodeled portion of the existing home.
“Detached ADU” means an ADU that is constructed as a physically independent
structure separate from the primary single-family dwelling unit and may be a new
structure, an addition to an existing accessory structure, or include both new
construction together with the remodeled area of the existing structure.
“Interior ADU” means an ADU that is located entirely within the existing building
envelope of the primary single-family dwelling unit or accessory structure. For the
purposes of this definition, existing structures are those legally constructed and
completed on or before January 1, 2017. [These units are currently referred to as
Conversions, as described in Section 18.42.040(a)(5)]
For consistency and clarity, the staff report discussion that follows utilizes the above listed
terminology when referring to specific ADU unit types.
B. Bonus Lot Coverage and Floor Area for Attached and Detached ADUs
The general intent of providing bonus lot coverage and floor area is to give some development
flexibility for existing developed sites that may be at or near the related maximums allowed.
With these bonus provisions, the additional lot coverage needed for an attached or detached
ADU would be 100% exempt, and up to an additional 175 sq. ft. of floor area would be allowed.
Below is the specific language from the code:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
18.42.040(a)(4) Lot Coverage/FAR
A. An accessory dwelling unit shall be included in the lot coverage and FAR
requirements applicable to the parcel.
B. Exceptions:
i. Lot Coverage. When the development of an accessory dwelling unit on a parcel
with an existing single family residence would result in the parcel exceeding the lot
coverage requirement, the accessory dwelling unit shall not be included in the
calculation of lot coverage applicable to the property, so long as the parcel meets the
underlying zoning district's minimum lot size requirement or is substandard by no more
than ten percent (10%) of the underlying zoning district's minimum lot size requirement.
ii. Basement FAR. In the R-1 district and all R-1 subdistricts, basement space
used as an accessory dwelling unit, or portion thereof, shall not be included in the
calculation of floor area for the entire site, providing the measurement from first
finished floor to grade around the perimeter of the building is no more than three (3)
feet.
iii. FAR. When the development of a new one-story accessory dwelling unit on a
parcel with an existing single family residence would result in the parcel exceeding the
maximum floor area, an additional 175 square feet of floor area above the maximum
amount of floor area otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning district shall be
allowed. This additional area shall be permitted only to accommodate the development
of the accessory dwelling unit.
The code specifically states that these bonuses are given when development of an ADU is on a
site “with an existing single-family residence.” The scenario that staff has encountered is that
property owners who are building completely new homes also want to take advantage of these
bonuses. As the code is currently written, these bonuses do not apply to newly proposed
homes. Staff is looking for input from the PTC as to whether this should be changed in the code.
Some options to consider:
1. Leave code as is to apply to existing homes. Applicants can obtain the bonus/es by
phasing the development on the site by building the home first and then coming back
after for the permits for the ADU.
2. Modify the code to specifically allow the bonuses for any ADU development, whether in
conjunction with the new or existing home.
3. Restrict bonuses only to existing homes that are existing as of a specific date, i.e., the
effective date of the ordinance.
C. Basements in ADUs
For single-family development in the R-1 zone, basements are permitted and are generally not
counted towards the site’s allowable floor area. The current ADU code is clear that an ADU may
be located in the basement level of the primary home, but it is less clear about allowing a
basement as part of a ground floor ADU unit. Staff believes it was the intent of the ordinance to
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
permit ADU basements in attached or detached structures and recommends clarifying the code
to reflect this provision. Since detached ADUs can be six feet from the side and rear property
lines, this provision would introduce basements in sideyards, which is not something that is
allowed for primary single family residences. For both situations, basements may not extend
beyond the building footprint.
D. Replacement of Noncomplying Structures
Staff have encountered ADU proposals that included the conversion of existing non-habitable
space (e.g. garage, accessory building, etc.) that had a legal noncomplying element, such as a
setback encroachment; and these types of conversions are permitted with the ADU regulations.
The issue that has emerged is that during the permit review process, it comes to light that the
legal noncomplying structure is not structurally sound and cannot be converted to an ADU, as
is. To be code compliant, the noncomplying structure must be demolished and rebuilt. The
general rule is that once a legal noncomplying structure is removed, all new construction must
be code compliant (Section 18.70.100(b) Noncomplying facility – Replacement).
The intent of the ADU code was to allow the conversion of existing structures to create living
units, including the conversion of legal noncomplying structures. But, the circumstance of
requiring existing non-complying structures to be rebuilt (retaining the non-compliance) to
accommodate the new units was not fully considered. The following options are raised for
discussion:
1. If a non-complying structure is required to be rebuilt to accommodate an ADU, the
replacement structure must be code compliant.
2. Establish an exemption to allow the reconstruction of non-complying structures when it
is required by Building code when 100% of the space exclusively used for the ADU living
area.
E. Owner-Occupancy Requirements
State legislation does not mandate or preclude owner-occupancy requirements related to
ADUs, but does for most circumstances require owner-occupancy for JADUs. The owner may
occupy the JADU or principal residence.
The City requires owner-occupancy of the accessory unit or the principal living unit for both
ADUs and JADUs. This provision and others are memorialized in a deed restriction that is
recorded against the property to advise future owners of applicable provisions related to
ADUs/JADUs.
The owner-occupancy requirement was envisioned to help address neighborhood concerns
about absent land owners and increased rental activity in residential neighborhoods. Moreover,
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
having the owner on-site creates a self-regulating condition with the tenant and land owner
relationship, and provides a point of contact for any nearby residents that may have a concern
or problem with the tenant.
One property owner has approached staff seeking this provision on ADUs be repealed because
this owner does not currently, and would ultimately reside on the property with the proposed
ADU. (See Attachment B.) Additionally, staff notes that based on the 2011-2015 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, there are 16,386 single family housing units in Palo Alto.
Approximately 23% (3,803 housing units) of those housing units are renter-occupied. If the
owner-occupancy requirement was removed for ADUs, it would provide a pathway to increase
more ADU development on those parcels.
Ultimately, this is a policy question that can be revisited and staff requests PTC comments on
how to approach this issue.
F. Opt-Out Provision
The Municipal Code does not include provisions for when a property owner wants to remove
the ADU/JADU from the site. Staff recommends adding a process to decommission an
ADU/JADU but seeks PTC guidance on how far this effort should extend. It is unclear how often
the City would receive a request to remove an ADU/JADU, but the question has come up at the
planning counter. As noted earlier, ADUs/JADUs can benefit from increased lot coverage and
floor area, and removal of the covered parking requirement for single family residences;
benefits not enjoyed by other R1 zoned properties without an ADU/JADU. Staff requests
Commission feedback on the extent to which site development benefits gained with the
establishment of an ADU/JADU, if any, should be restored to its prior condition when the
ADU/JADU is abandoned.
G. Siting ADUs on the Front of a Home
The ADU provisions include requirements for the exterior entry of an attached unit to be
located on a separate building façade from the main residences’ entrance.3 With this provision,
there was recognition that the ADU should be visually subordinate to the primary house.
A recent detached ADU proposal highlighted another aspect of development that the ordinance
does not adequately address and that is building an ADU in front of an existing home, whether
attached or detached. Because this scenario is not captured in the ADU regulations, it should be
discussed for inclusion. For clarification, the state regulations allow for local jurisdictions to
impose standards such as setbacks, landscape, and design review, for ADU development. If the
3 Except on corner lots, the accessory dwelling unit shall not have an entranceway facing the same lot line
(property line) as the entranceway to the main dwelling unit unless the second entranceway is located in the rear
half of the lot. Exterior staircases to second floor units shall be located toward the interior side or rear yard of the
property. [PAMC 18.42.040(a)(7)(F)]
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
City was to incorporate additional ADU development standards as it relates to placement, it
would be consistent with the state provisions.
There are some options identified below to initiate the discussion:
1. Leave the code as is and allow ADU placement as permitted by the existing
development standards, regardless of whether it is located in the front of the home. In
this case, the ADU would be located within the buildable area of the lot, but could be
placed in front of the existing primary home.
2. Require the placement of detached ADUs when located in a side yard setback to be in
the rear portion of the lot. Currently, for detached accessory structures, when located in
an interior side setback, they must be located at least 75 feet back from the front
property line. Detached ADUs could follow these same or similar requirements.
Requiring a rear ADU placement would likely facilitate compliance with sites that may
have received a planning entitlement (i.e. IR, HIE, Variance), including ones for
exceptions to the Municipal Code. For the planning entitlements referenced, the
approval findings include neighborhood compatibility and other similar standards. One
could argue that placing an ADU on one of these sites, especially on the street facing
sides, could negate the intentions of a previously granted entitlement.
H. Miscellaneous
a. 50% Rear Yard Coverage: The R-1 development standards require that no more
than 50% of a required interior rear yard be covered by accessory structures
[PAMC 18.12.080(b)(6)]. Staff would like feedback on whether this coverage
restriction should also be applied to ADUs. The strict reading of the code would
suggest that this provision would not apply to an ADU, whether constructed as
new or done through a conversion of an existing accessory structure, because it
is not an “accessory structure” by definition, and the 50% limitation applies to
accessory structures.
"Accessory building or structure" means a building or structure which is
incidental to and customarily associated with a specific principal use or
facility, and which meets the applicable conditions set forth in Section
18.12.080.
“Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential
dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or
more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping,
eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family
dwelling is situated. …”
b. Replacement Parking in the Streetside Setback: State law specifies that required
replacement parking (i.e. for the primary home) may be “located in any
configuration” on the subject property. The City code has identified that
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
replacement parking may be located in the front yard setback on an existing
driveway (uncovered only). In the case of corner lots, the code is silent on
allowing parking in the streetside setback. Staff suggests that replacement
uncovered parking be allowed in the streetside setback similar to what has been
permitted for the front yard setback and that the Director be given the discretion
to approve parking stall dimensions less than required by code based on certain
findings.
c. Implications for Existing ADUs: The current ADU regulations are focused on
developing new units and do not provide direction for applicability to existing
units. Staff suggests that this clarification is needed in the code and should be
analyzed for the appropriate clarifications. A few scenarios to consider would be:
i. Allow the expansion of existing units, within the allowable size limits, to
take advantage of bonuses (lot coverage/floor area).
ii. Allow the elimination of required covered parking to support expansion
of existing units.
iii. Consider exempting the deed restriction requirement for improvements
to existing units, providing no bonus lot coverage or floor area is granted.
City Council Follow-up Discussion Items
At the March 7, 2017 Council meeting regarding the ADU regulations, Council directed staff to
return in 2018 with additional information regarding the two issues below.
Options to Make ADUs Available to Moderate or Low Income Residents
City Council directed staff to explore further the possible options to make ADUs accessible to
moderate and low income residents. This type of program reflects the larger concern regarding
the lack of affordable housing in Palo Alto and the greater Bay Area., Staff still needs to do
more research on this issue, but preliminarily believes that a regulatory requirement to make
ADUs available on an income-restricted basis could create a barrier to ADU production that may
run afoul of state law provisions to encourage construction of ADUs. An incentive-focused
approach would likely be necessary.
One approach that could be feasible is to partner with an organization that has programs that
reflect the City’s intention and goals; the City could contribute funding under specific conditions
to help facilitate implementation in Palo Alto. As an example for this, Housing Trust Silicon
Valley, a local non-profit organization based in San Jose, is currently developing a pilot program
that would provide low-cost flexible loans to homeowners for the purpose of constructing an
ADU in exchange for their agreement to rent the units at affordable costs to low- and middle-
income earners. The Housing Trust’s funding “will be used to make capital loans to
homeowners — who can easily spend $100,000 or $200,000 on ground-up construction of an
ADU. But the Housing Trust also intends to create an educational outreach program — involving
classes, workshops and technical assistance — to help homeowners navigate the ADU
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
process.”4 The partnership option ideally would place responsibility of the program
management on the agreeable non-profit organization.
If the City were to develop its own program, it could include the strategies listed below. It
should be noted that many of these ideas can be used to encourage and support ADU
development in general, without the specific focus on moderate/low income residents.
Financial Assistance
1. Provide financial aid/loans or subsidies:
a. Use City of Palo Alto’s Housing funds to finance affordable loans at low interest rates
or subsidies for ADU construction.
b. Provision of interest free or forgivable loans.
c. Provide salary assistance (wage subsidy) for builders to lower construction cost.
2. Reduce or eliminate building permit fees and development impact fees.
Technical and Educational Assistance
3. Develop prototype designs for ADUs that can be readily utilized for the permit process
and can be approved more expeditiously.
4. Providing technical assistance grant where the City can pay a specified amount towards
one hour of a professional’s time to help solve particular design problems or to adjust
ADU Prototype.
5. Provide resources or training for what’s involved in becoming a landlord; develop a
“kit.”
6. Providing other resources, such as an online information library on ADU resources.
Strategies for Legalizing Illegally Constructed ADUs
As with the item above, on March 7, 2017 Council directed staff to return in 2018 with
discussion on approaches to bring existing illegal ADUs into compliance. Staff has researched
what other jurisdictions5 have done to address this concern and compiled the discussion below.
There are a few cities in the bay area that have implemented protocols to legalize illegal ADUs.
These cities include San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Oakland. A reoccurring fundamental
condition was the required documentation that the living unit was in existence by a specific
4 The Mercury News “Bank funds ‘granny’ units project in affordable housing experiment for San Jose, L.A.”
October 9, 2017: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/09/an-affordable-housing-experiment-for-san-jose-and-
los-angeles-bank-funds-pilot-project-to-help-build-granny-units/
5 Staff contacted the following cities for information: Berkeley, Los Altos, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Oakland,
Redwood City, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
date, and only those units would then be considered for the unique legalization process.
Generally, the units had to be made building code compliant for all health and safety concerns,
and then special consideration was given to other non-complying development standards (e.g.
setbacks, height, lot coverage, etc.). Staff is still exploring options to balance city interests in
possibly legalizing such ADUs while addressing life and safety concerns. Staff welcomes the
Commission’s feedback on an approach to address this issue. The more common approach to
incentivize property owners to legalize their units is associated with cost savings. Some
strategies used by one or more of the cities with legalization programs include:
Waiving permitting and or development impact fees
Reducing permitting and or development fees
Fee waivers/reductions can be associated with a specific timeframe to motivate
property owners to participate.
State Regulations Taking Effect January 2018
Earlier this year, the City adopted comprehensive regulations related to ADUs to conform to
state law that became effective on January 1, 2017. Subsequently, the state Legislature passed
two additional bills AB 494 and SB 229, signed by the Governor in September 2017, clarifying
the previously adopted ADU legislation. The City’s existing ordinance only requires minor
modifications to remain consistent with state law. The proposed amendments include those
conforming changes as well as other very minor clarifications. These amendments were
included with the Planning Code Amendments agenda item at the November 29, 2017 PTC
meeting (report #8041), but was not discussed due to a continuance; it is now on the December
13, 2017 meeting agenda. The changes are summarized below:
State law has been revised to clarify that an ADU may be constructed on sites with
either an existing or proposed single-family dwelling. This revision is consistent with the
City’s implementation of the ADU ordinance, and the proposed ordinance would make
conforming changes to reference proposed single-family homes.
The proposed ordinance would also add to the list of zoning districts where ADUs are
allowed (R-1, R-2, RE, RMD and OS districts) and those sites that are zoned Planned
Community where single-family dwelling is an allowed use. The PC zoned sites would
require a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet like the conventional zoning districts
(other than the OS district) where ADUs are allowed.
With respect to ADUs established through conversions of space within an existing single-
family home or an existing accessory structure, the new state legislation requires that
such conversions be allowed in any zoning district where single-family residential is an
allowed use. The proposed amendment would allow interior ADUs in the R-2, RMD, RM,
and OS and PC districts where single-family residential is an allowed use.
These state driven code amendments are anticipated to be reviewed by Council in February
2018.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
Environmental Review
The Study Session review does not require action and therefore does not constitute a “project”
requiring environmental review and is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). However, any resulting ordinance will be reviewed in compliance with CEQA.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not require notice of this public hearing be published in a
local paper because it is a Study Session. As a courtesy, a notice of a public hearing for this
discussion was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on December 1, 2017.
For the discussion in this report, staff did not perform any specific public outreach; the meeting
was noted on the City’s ADU project webpage. Staff did receive one comment letter that was
focused on the owner-occupancy requirements and the interest in having them be removed
(Attachment B).
Next Steps
It is anticipated that staff will return in Spring 2018 to the PTC with a draft ordinance for review
and recommendation, which would be forwarded to the City Council soon thereafter.
Report Author & Contact Information PTC6 Liaison & Contact Information
Clare Campbell, AICP, Senior Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 617-3191 (650) 329-2679
clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: ADU/JADU Ordinance #5412 (PDF)
Attachment B: Lundy Comment Letter (PDF)
6 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 1
Ordinance No. 5412
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement New State Law Requirements Relating
to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and to Reorganize
and Update City Existing Regulations
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Housing in California is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The average California
home currently costs about 2.5 times the national average home price and the monthly rent is 50%
higher than the rest of the nation. Rent in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and Los Angeles are
among the top 10 most unaffordable in the nation. With rising population growth, California must
not only provide housing but also ensure affordability.
B. Despite a high median income in Palo Alto, nearly 30 percent of all households
overpaid for their housing (more than 30 percent of their income) in 2010.
C. It is estimated that 63 percent of extremely low income renter households and 75
percent of extremely low income owner households overpaid for housing in 2010. Of the
estimated 1,520 low income households, 75 percent of renter households and 44 percent of
homeowner households paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing.
D. The Palo Alto City Council, recognizing the severity of the regional housing crisis,
requested that the Planning and Transportation Commission review constraints affecting the
production of second (accessory) dwelling units and recommend modifications to the City
development standards.
E. While existing law enables accessory dwellings as a source of housing, recent studies
show that local standards like P unintentionally, prevent homeowners from
building ADUs with standards like lot coverage, large setbacks, offstreet parking, or costly
construction requirements.
F. In September 2016, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1069, Assembly Bill
2299 and Assembly Bill 2406 relating to the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior
accessory dwelling units.
G. These new bills were intended to address the housing crisis by easing regulatory
barriers for homeowners who choose to build affordable housing in their own backyards.
H. This ordinance is adopted to comply with these new State mandates regarding
ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units, and to reduce regulatory constraints affecting their
production.
SECTION 2. Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18
(Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 2
18.04.030 Definitions
. . .
(4) Accessory dwelling means an attached or a detached residential dwelling
unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall
include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same
parcel as the singlefamily dwelling is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the
following:
a. An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
b. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
In some instances this Code uses the term second dwelling unit interchangeably with accessory
dwelling unit.
(46.5) Dwelling unit, se means a separate and complete dwelling unit, other than
and subordinate to the main dwelling unit, whether a part of the same structure or detached, on
the same residential lot.
(74.5) Junior accessory dw means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in
size and contained entirely within an existing singlefamily structure. A junior accessory dwelling
unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing
structure.
(132) Singlefamily use means the use of a site for only one dwelling unit and,
where permitted, an accessory second dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.
. . .
SECTION 3. In Section 18.10.010 (a) substitute the ter essory dwelling unit( for
second dwelling unit(s).
SECTION 4. Section 18.10.030 Table 1 and Footnote (2) are amended as follows:
TABLE 1
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED LOWDENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES
[P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required]
RE R2 RMD Subject to
Regulations in:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted
uses (no limit on number of plumbing fixtures) P P P 18.10.080
Home Occupations, when accessory to permitted residential
uses. P P P 18.42.060
Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products for
consumption by occupants of the site. P P P
Sale of agricultural products produced on the premises (1) P 18.10.110
Second Accessory Dwelling Units P P(2) P(2) 18.4210.0470
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 3
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units P P(2) P(2) 18.42.040
AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE USES
Agriculture P 18.10.110
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES
Private Educational Facilities CUP CUP CUP
Religious Congregations and Institutions CUP CUP CUP
PUBLIC/QUASIPUBLIC USES
Community Centers CUP CUP CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services to the
neighborhood, but excluding business offices, construction or
storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards.
CUP CUP CUP
RECREATION USES
Neighborhood Recreational Centers CUP
Outdoor Recreation Services CUP CUP
RESIDENTIAL USES
SingleFamily P P P
TwoFamily use, under one ownership P P
Mobile Homes P P P 18.42.100
Residential Care Homes P P P
RETAIL USES
Cemeteries CUP
Commercial Plant Nurseries CUP
SERVICE USES
Convalescent Facilities CUP
Day Care Centers CUP CUP CUP
Small Adult Day Care Homes P P P
Large Adult Day Care Homes CUP CUP CUP
Small Family Day Care Homes P P P
Large Family Day Care Homes P P P
Bed & Breakfast Inns P(3)
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit
Required
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 4
. . .
(2) Second Accessory Dwelling Units in R2 and RMD Zones: An accessory second dwelling
unit or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit associated with a singlefamily residence on a lot in the R
2 or RMD zones is permitted, subject to the provisions of Section 18.10.07018.42.040, and such
that no more than two units result on the lot.
. . .
SECTION 5. Section 18.10.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.10 (LowDensity
Residential (RE, R2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
18.10.040 Development Standards
(a) Site Specifications, Building Size, Height and Bulk, and Residential Density
. . .
18.10.040(a) Table 2, Footnote
. . .
(5) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached second
accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are included in the calculation of
maximum house size. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one
detached covered parking space shall be included in the calculation. This provision applies only to
singlefamily residences, not to duplexes allowed in the R2 and RMD districts.
. . .
(i) Individual Review
The Individual Review provisions of Section 18.12.110 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be applied
to any singlefamily or twofamily residence in the R2 or RMD 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 twofamily dwellings. , except where architectural review board review is required for
an accessory second dwelling on an RMDzoned site. The individual review criteria shall be applied
only to the project's effects on adjacent singlefamily and twofamily uses.
SECTION 6. Section 18.10.060 Table 3 is amended as follows:
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 5
TABLE 3
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RE, R2 AND RMD USES
Use Minimum OffStreet Parking
Requirement
Singlefamily residential use (excluding second accessory
dwelling units)
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be
covered
Two family (R2 & RMD districts) 3 spaces total, of which at least two must
be covered
Second Accessory dwelling unit, attached or detached:
>450 sf in size
50 sf in size
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be
covered
1 space per unit, which may be covered or
uncovered
No parking required
Junior accessory dwelling unit No parking required
Other Uses See Chapter 18.40
. . .
SECTION 7. Section 18.10.070 (Second Dwelling Units) of Chapter 18.10 (LowDensity
Residential (RE, R2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is repealed in its entirety and a new
18.10.070 is added to read as follows:
18.10.070 Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units are subject to the
regulations set forth in Section 18.42.040.
SECTION 8. Section 18.10.120 (Architectural Review) of Chapter 18.10 (LowDensity
Residential (RE, R2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
18.10.120 Architectural Review
Architectural review, as required in Section 18.76.020, is required in the RE, R2, and RMD
districts whenever three or more adjacent residential units are intended to be developed
concurrently, whether through subdivision or individual applications. Architectural review is also
required for second dwelling units of more than 900 square feet, when located in the Neighborhood
Preservation Combining District (NP).
SECTION 9. Section 18.10.140 (Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP)
Standards) of Chapter 18.10 (LowDensity Residential (RE, R2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning)
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 6
is amended to read as follows:
18.10.140 Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP) Standards
. . .
(b)(2) Design Review Required
For properties on which two or more residential units are developed or modified, design
review and approval shall be required by the architectural review board in compliance with
procedures established in Section 18.76.020 for any new development or modification to any
structure on the property and for site amenities. No design review is required for construction of or
modifications to singlefamily structures that constitute the only principal structure on a parcel of
land or for accessory dwelling units or junior accessory units.
No design review is required for construction of second dwelling units on a parcel except
when the second unit exceeds 900 square feet in size.
. . .
SECTION 10. Section 18.10.150(e) (Existing Second Dwelling Units on Substandard Size Lots)
is deleted in its entirety and reserved for future use.
. . .
SECTION 11. Section 18.12.010(a) is amended as follows:
(a) Single Family Residential District [R1]
The R1 single family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas
suitable for detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording
maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children's play. Minimum site area
requirements are established to create and preserve variety among neighborhoods, to provide
adequate open area, and to encourage quality design. Second Accessory dwelling units, junior
accessory dwelling units and accessory structures or buildings are appropriate. where consistent with
the site and neighborhood character. Community uses and facilities, such as churches and schools,
should be limited unless no net loss of housing would result.
. . .
SECTION 12. Section 18.12.030 Table 1, is amended as follows:
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 7
Table 1
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL R1 RESIDENTIAL USES
R1and all R1
Subdistricts
Subject to
Regulations for:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and uses customarily
incidental to permitted uses with no more than
two plumbing fixtures and no kitchen facility, or
of a size less than or equal to 200 square feet
P 18.04.030(a)(3)
18.12.080
Accessory facilities and uses customarily
incidental to permitted uses with more than
two plumbing fixtures (but with no kitchen), and
in excess of 200 square feet in size, but
excluding second accessory dwelling units
CUP 18.12.080
Home occupations, when accessory to
permitted residential
P 18.42.060
Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food
products for consumption by occupants of the
site
P
Second Accessory Dwelling Units P(1)18.42.04012.070
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit P(1)18.42.040
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUSAND ASSEMBLY USES
Private Educational Facilities CUP
Churches and Religious Institutions CUP
PUBLIC/QUASI PUBLIC USES
Community Centers CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility
services to the neighborhood, but excluding
business offices, construction or storage yards,
maintenance facilities, or corporation yards
CUP
RECREATION USES
Outdoor Recreation Services CUP
RESIDENTIAL USES
SingleFamily P
Mobile Homes P 18.42.100
Residential Care Homes P
SERVICE USES
Day Care Centers CUP
Small Adult Day Care Homes P
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 8
Large Adult Day Care Homes CUP
Small Family Day Care Homes P
Large Family Day Care Homes P
P=Permitted Use CUP = ConditionalUsePermitRequired
(1) An Accessory Dwelling Unit or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit associated with a single
family residence on a lot is permitted, subject to the provisions of Section 18.42.040, and such that
no more than two total units result on the lot.
SECTION 13. Section 18.12.040 Table 2, footnote (8) is amended as follows:
(8) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached accessory second
dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are included in the calculation of maximum house
size. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one detached covered
parking space shall be included in the calculation.
SECTION 14. Section 18.12.060 Table 4 is amended as follows:
Table 4 shows the minimum offstreet automobile parking requirements for specific uses in
the R1 district.
Table 4
Parking Requirements for Specific R1 Uses
Use Minimum OffStreet Parking Requirement
Singlefamily residential use (excluding second accessory
dwelling units)
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be
covered.
Second Accessory dwelling unit , attached or detached
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be
covered
No parking required
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit No parking required
Other Uses See Chs. 18.52 and 18.54
. . .
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 9
SECTION 15. Section 18.12.070 (Second Dwelling Units) of Chapter 18.12 (R1 Single
Family Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) is repealed in its entirety and a new 18.12.070 is
added to read as follows:
18.12.070 Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units are subject to the regulations
set forth in Section 18.42.040.
SECTION 16. Section 18.12.090(b)(2) is amended to read as follows:
. . .
(2) basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the first floor is no
more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundation.
Basement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be counted as floor
area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size of the unit (but may be excluded from
calculations of floor area for the total site). This provision is intended to assure that second
units are subordinate in size to the main dwelling and to preclude the development of duplex
zoning on the site.
. . .
SECTION 17. Section 18.12.150(d) (Existing Second Dwelling Units on Substandard Size Lots)
is deleted in its entirety and reserved for future use.
. . .
SECTION 18. Section 18.28.040, Table 1, is amended as follows:
Table 1
Land Uses
Subject to
in
Chapter:
ACCESSORYAND SUPPORTUSES
facilities accessory uses
Chs. 18.40
and 18.42
and drinking services in conjunction with a
use
(1)
CUP
services as accessory to the administrative
offices of a organization, that such
services do not exceed 25% of the gross floor area
of the combined services and retail
uses
(1)
CUP
services in with a permitted use (1)
CUP
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 10
of on the premises;
provided, that no commercial for
the sale or of agricultural shall be
permitted.
Second Accessory dwelling units, to
regulations in Section 18.28.07042.040 18.28.070
18.42.040
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit 18.42.040
AGRICULTURALANDOPEN SPACEUSES
Uses, including husbandry, crops,
dairying, horticulture, livestock farming, tree
farming, viticulture, and similar uses not inconsistent
with the intent and of this chapter
conservatories, nature
laboratories, facilities
sanctuaries
Park uses and uses to park operation
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES
schools (1)
CUP
Churches and institutions (1)
CUP
research, and philanthropic
institutions CUP
facilities (1)
CUP
Public or colleges and and
facilities thereto CUP
classes (1)
CUP
OFFICEUSES
services for nonprofit
organizations
(1)
CUP
OTHER USES
Other uses which, in the opinion of the director, are
similar to as or conditionally
uses
CUP (1)
FACILITY USES
All facilities or leased, and or used, by
the City of Alto, the of Santa Clara, the State
of California, the of the United States, the
Palo Alto District, or any other
agency
Facilities CUP
Centers CUP (1)
Utility Facilities CUP CUP CUP
RECREATIONALUSES
centers CUP (1)
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 11
services CUP (1)CUP
uses including riding clubs,
stables, clubs, and golf courses CUP
Youth clubs CUP (1)
RESIDENTIALUSES
dwellings
(including mobile homes on
foundations) 18.40.
Guest ranches CUP
care when existing
on the site CUP (1)
Homes
use, and accessory and uses
to dwellings; provided,
that such dwellings shall be the
of the owner or owners, or or lessor
of land upon which the is
conducted, the of other of the
same family and bona fide employees of the
aforementioned
SERVICEUSES
care, including boarding and kennels CUP CUP
Cemeteries CUP
Cemeteries, not including mausolea, crematoria, or
columbaria CUP
day care homes
day care homes CUP
Day care centers CUP (1)
Art, dance,gymnastic,exerciseor music studiosor CUP (1)
Medical Services:
Hospitals
Outpatient medical facilitieswith associated
medical research
TEMPORARY USES
Temporary parking facilities,provided that such facilities CUP (1)
TRANSPORTATION USES
Airports and airportrelateduses CUP (1)
. . .
(2) An accessory dwelling unit or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit associated with a single
family residence on a lot in the OS District is permitted, subject to the provisions of Section 18.42.040,
and such that no more than two total units result on the lot.
SECTION 19. Section 18.28.070(a) (Second Dwelling Units) is amended as follows:
18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations
The following additional regulations shall apply in the OS district:
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 12
(a) Second Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units are subject to the regulations
set forth in Section 18.42.040.
Not more than one attached or detached second dwelling units shall be allowed on a lot in the
OS district, and shall be subject to the following regulations:
(1) Second dwelling shall only be permitted on sites with a minimum site area of 10
acres;
(2) Attached second dwelling units shall comply with the OS district height limitation of
25 feet;
and
(3) Second dwelling units shall follow the standards set forth in the Residential Estate (R
E) District for second dwelling units (18.10.070(b)), with the exceptions outlined in subsections 1 and 2
above.
. . .
SECTION 20. Section 18.42.040 (Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) is added as
follows:
18.42.040 Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
The following regulations apply to zoning districts where accessory dwelling units and junior
accessory dwelling units are permitted.
(a) Accessory Dwelling Units
1. Purpose
The intent of this section is to provide regulations to accommodate accessory dwelling units,
in order to provide for variety to the city's housing stock and additional affordable housing
opportunities. Accessory Dwelling Units shall be separate, selfcontained living units, with separate
entrances from the main residence, whether attached or detached. The standards below are provided
to minimize the impacts of accessory dwelling units on nearby residents and throughout the city, and
to assure that the size and location of such dwellings is compatible with the existing residence on the
site and with other structures in the area.
2. Minimum Lot Sizes
(i) In the R1 district and all R1 subdistricts, RE district, R2 district, and RMD
district, the minimum lot size for the development of an accessory dwelling unit is 5,000 square feet.
(ii) In the OS District, the minimum lot size for the development of an accessory
dwelling unit is 10 acres.
3. Setbacks and Daylight Plane
(i) Except as otherwise provided in this section, accessory dwelling units shall
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 13
comply with the underlying zo setbacks, including daylight plane requirements.
(ii) Notwithstanding section (i) above, no setback shall be required for an
existing garage that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, except as provided in subsection
(a)(5) below.
(iii) In districts permitting second story accessory dwelling units, a setback of no
more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit
constructed above a garage.
4. Lot Coverage/FAR
(i) An accessory dwelling unit shall be included in the lot coverage and FAR
requirements applicable to the parcel.
(ii) Exceptions:
a. Lot Coverage. When the development of an accessory dwelling unit on a
parcel with an existing single family residence would result in the parcel exceeding the lot coverage
requirement, the accessory dwelling unit shall not be included in the calculation of lot coverage
applicable to the property, so long as the parcel meets
requirement or
minimum lot size requirement.
b. Basement FAR. In the R1 district and all R1 subdistricts, basement space
used as an accessory dwelling unit, or portion thereof, shall not be included in the calculation of floor
area for the entire site, providing the measurement from first finished floor to grade around the
perimeter of the building is no more than three (3) feet.
c. FAR. When the development of a new onestory accessory dwelling unit on
a parcel with an existing single family residence would result in the parcel exceeding the maximum floor
area, an additional 175 square feet of floor area above the maximum amount of floor area otherwise
permitted by the underlying zoning district shall be allowed. This additional area shall be permitted only
to accommodate the development of the accessory dwelling unit.
5. Conversion of Space in Existing Single Family Residence or Existing Accessory
Structure
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(7) and (a)(8), in the R1
district and all R1 subdistricts and RE district only, an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be permitted if the
unit is contained within the existing space of a singlefamily residence or an existing accessory
structure, has independent exterior access from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks
are sufficient for fire safety, and if the accessory dwelling unit conforms with the following:
a. For the purposes of this section, the portion of the singlefamily residence or
accessory structure subject to the conversion shall be legally permitted and existing as of January 1,
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 14
2017.
b. Notwithstanding the allowance in this section, only one accessory dwelling unit or
junior accessory dwelling unit may be located on any lot subject to this section.
c. No new or separate utility connection shall be required between the accessory
dwelling unit and utility service, such as water, sewer, and power.
d. The accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the provisions of subsections
(a)(6), (a)(9), and (a)(10).
6. Privacy
Any window, door or deck of a second story accessory dwelling unit shall utilize techniques to
lessen views onto adjacent properties to preserve the privacy of residents. These techniques may
include placement of doors, windows and decks to minimize overview of neighboring dwelling units,
use of obscured glazing, window placement above eye level, and screening between the properties.
7. Additional Development Standards for Attached Accessory Dwelling Units
(i) Attached accessory dwelling units are those attached to the main dwelling. All
attached accessory dwelling units shall be subject to the additional development requirements
specified below.
(ii) Attached unit size counts toward the calculation of maximum house size.
(iii) Unit Size: The maximum size of an attached accessory dwelling unit living area
shall not exceed 600 square feet and shall not exceed 50% of the existing living area of the primary
existing dwelling unit. The accessory dwelling unit and any covered parking provided for the accessory
dwelling unit shall be included in the total floor area for the site, but the covered parking area is not
included in the maximum 600 square feet for attached unit. Any basement space used as an accessory
dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the
maximum size of the accessory unit.
(iv) Maximum height (including property in a special flood hazard zone): One story
and 17 feet. However, in the RE District attached Accessory Dwelling Units may be two stories and 30
feet. In the OS zone, attached Accessory Dwelling Units may be two stories and 25 feet.
(v) Separate Entry Required for Attached Units: A separate exterior entry shall be
provided to serve an accessory dwelling unit.
(vi) Except on corner lots, the accessory dwelling unit shall not have an entranceway
facing the same lot line (property line) as the entranceway to the main dwelling unit unless the second
entranceway is located in the rear half of the lot. Exterior staircases to second floor units shall be
located toward the interior side or rear yard of the property.
(vii) If covered parking for an accessory dwelling unit is provided in the RE zone, the
maximum size of the covered parking area for the accessory dwelling unit is 200 square feet.
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 15
8. Additional Development Standards for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
(i) Detached accessory dwelling units are those detached from the main dwelling.
All detached accessory dwelling units shall be subject to the additional development standards
specified below.
(ii) The maximum size of the detached accessory dwelling unit living area shall be
900 square feet.
a. The accessory dwelling unit and any covered parking shall be included in the
total floor area for the site, but the covered parking area is not included within the maximum 900
square feet for detached unit.
b. Any basement space used as an accessory dwelling unit or portion thereof
shall be counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size of the accessory unit.
(iii) Maximum height (including property in a special flood hazard zone): one story
and 17 feet.
(iv) Setbacks: notwithstanding section (a)(3)(i), a detached accessory dwelling unit
may be located in a rear yard, but must maintain a minimum s
encroach into a daylight plane beginning at a height of eight fee
one foot (1 .
(v) If covered parking is provided for an accessory dwelling unit in the RE District,
the maximum size of covered parking area for the detached accessory dwelling unit is 200 square feet.
(vi) There shall be no windows, doors, mechanical equipment, or venting or exhaust
systems located within six feet of a property line.
9. Additional Requirements for All Accessory Dwelling Units
(i) Sale of Units: The Accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the
primary residence.
(ii) Short term rentals. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be rented for periods
of less than 30 days.
(iii) Number of Units Allowed: Only one accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory
dwelling unit may be located on any residentially zoned lot.
(iv) Existing Development: A singlefamily dwelling shall exist on the lot or shall be
constructed on the lot in conjunction with the construction of the accessory dwelling unit.
(v) Occupancy: The owner of a parcel proposed for accessory dwelling use shall
occupy as a principal residence either the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling, unless both the
primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling are rented to the same tenant and such tenant is
prohibited from subleasing the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling.
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 16
(vi) Prior to issuance of a building permit for the accessory dwelling unit, the owner
shall record a deed restriction in a form approved by the city that: includes a prohibition on the sale of
the accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the singlefamily residence; requires owner
occupancy consistent with subsection (a)(9)(v) above; does not permit shortterm rentals; and restricts
the size and attributes of the accessory dwelling unit to those that conform with this section.
(vii) Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they
are not required for the primary residence.
(viii) Street Address Required: Street addresses shall be assigned to all accessory
dwellings to assist in emergency response.
(ix) Street Access: When parking is provided, the accessory dwelling unit shall have
street access from a driveway in common with the main residence in order to prevent new curb cuts,
excessive paving, and elimination of street trees, unless separate driveway access is permitted by the
director upon a determination that separate access will result in fewer environmental impacts such as
excessive paving, unnecessary grading or unnecessary tree removal, and that such separate access will
not create the appearance, from the street, of a lot division or twofamily use.
(x) For properties listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, the California Register of
Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, or considered a historic resource after
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be required, as determined by the Planning
Director.
(xi) No protected tree shall be removed for the purpose of establishing an
accessory dwelling unit unless the tree is dead, dangerous or constitutes a nuisance under Section
8.04.050. Any protected tree removed pursuant to this subsection shall be replaced in accordance with
the standards it the Tree Technical Manual.
(xii) Except as modified by this Section 18.42.040, the accessory dwelling unit shall
conform to all requirements of the underlying zoning district, any applicable combining district, and all
other applicable provisions of this Title 18.
10. Parking
(i) No additional parking shall be required for accessory dwelling units.
(ii) If an accessory dwelling unit replaces existing required covered parking,
replacement spaces shall be provided. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is
demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, any required
replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit,
including, but not limited to, within the front setback if on an existing driveway, as covered spaces,
uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts. All new
parking structures shall comply with development standards of the underlying zoning.
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 17
(b) Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
1. Purposes: This Section provides standards for the establishment of junior accessory
dwelling units, an alternative to the standard accessory dwelling unit. Junior accessory dwelling units
will typically be smaller than an accessory dwelling unit, will be constructed within the walls of an
existing single family structure and requires owner occupancy in the single family residence where the
unit is located.
2. Development Standards. Junior accessory dwelling units shall comply with the following
standards:
(i) Number of Units Allowed: Either one accessory dwelling unit or one junior
accessory dwelling unit, may be located on any residentially zoned lot that permits a singlefamily
dwelling except as otherwise regulated or restricted by an adopted Coordinated Area Plan or Specific
Plan. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall only be located on a lot which already contains one legal
singlefamily dwelling.
(ii) Size: A junior accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 500 square feet in size.
(iii) Lot Coverage/FAR:
a. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall be included in the calculation of lot
coverage and FAR applicable to the property.
b. A lot with a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted to develop an
additional 50 square feet of floor area above the maximum amount of floor area otherwise permitted
by the underlying zoning district. This additional area shall be permitted to accommodate the junior
accessory dwelling unit.
(iv) Owner Occupancy: The owner of a parcel proposed for a junior accessory
dwelling unit shall occupy as a principal residence either the primary dwelling or the junior accessory
dwelling. Owneroccupancy is not required if the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or
housing organization.
(v) Sale Prohibited: A junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold independently
of the primary dwelling on the parcel.
(vi) Short term rentals: The junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be rented for
periods of less than 30 days.
(vii) Location of Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit: A junior accessory dwelling unit
shall be created within the existing walls of an existing primary dwelling, and shall include conversion of
an existing bedroom.
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 18
(viii) Separate Entry Required: A separate exterior entry shall be provided to serve a
junior accessory dwelling unit, with an interior entry to the main living area. A junior accessory
dwelling may include a second interior doorway for sound attenuation.
(ix) Kitchen Requirements: The junior accessory dwelling unit shall include an
efficiency kitchen, requiring and limited to the following components:
a. A sink with a maximum waste line diameter of oneandahalf (1.5) inches,
b. A cooking facility or appliance which does not require electrical service
greater than one hundred and twenty (120) volts, or natural or propane gas, and
c. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size
in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.
(x) Parking. No additional parking is required beyond that required at the time the
existing primary dwelling was constructed.
(xi) Fire Protection; Utility Service. For the purposes of any fire or life protection
ordinance or regulation or for the purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, a junior
accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new unit.
(xii) Deed Restriction. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a junior
accessory dwelling unit, the owner shall record a deed restriction in a form approved by the city that
includes a prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the
singlefamily residence, requires owneroccupancy consistent with subsection (b)(2)(iv) above, does
not permit shortterm rentals, and restricts the size and attributes of the junior dwelling unit to those
that conform with this section.
SECTION 21. Section 18.52.040 (6)(c) Table 1, is amended as follows:
Table 1
Minimum OffStreet Parking Requirements
Use Vehicle Parking Requirement
(# of spaces)
Bicycle Parking Requirement
Spaces Class1
Long Term (LT)
and Short Term
(ST)
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single Family Residential (Primary Unit) Tandem Parking Allowed
(a) In the OS district 4 spaces, of which at least one
space must be covered
None
(b) In all other districts 2 spaces, of which at least one
space must be covered
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 19
(c) Underground parking for single family uses is prohibited, except
pursuant to a variance granted in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of this title, in which case the area
of the underground garage shall be counted toward the gross floor area.
Second Accessory DwellingUnit
(In addition to main dwelling unit
requirements)
>450 sf in size
<450 sf in size
2spaces, of which at least one
must be covered
1 space, covered or
uncovered
No parking required
None
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units No parking required None
TwoFamily Residential
(R2 & RMD Districts)
1.5 spaces per unit, of which
at least one space per unit
must be covered
Tandem Parking Allowed, with
one tandem space per unit,
associated directly with
another parking space for the
same unit
1 space per
Unit
100% LT
Multiple Family Residential 1.25 per studio unit
1.5 per 1bedroom unit
2 per 2bedroom or larger
unit At least one space per
unit must be covered
Tandem parking allowed for
any unit requiring two spaces
(one tandem space per unit,
associated directly with
another parking space for the
same unit, up to a maximum
of 25% of total required
spaces for any project with
more than four (4) units)
1 per unit 100% LT
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 20
(a) Guest Parking For projects exceeding 3
units; 1 space plus 10% of
total number of units,
provided that if more than
one space per unit is assigned
or secured parking, then guest
spaces equal to 33% of all
units is required.
1 space for
each 10 units
100% ST
. . .
SECTION 22.
SECTION 23. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto
inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 24. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection,
sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any
portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
20170419_Palo Alto ADU FINAL 21
SECTION 25. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21080.17 (Application of Division to Ordinances Implementing Law Relating to Construction of Dwelling
Units and Second Units) and CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b) and 15301, 15303 and 15305 because it
simply provides a comprehensive permitting scheme for accessory dwelling units whose construction
is exempt from CEQA.
SECTION 26. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirtyfirst date after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED: April 17, 2017
PASSED: May 8, 2017
AYES: DUBOIS, FILSETH, FINE, KNISS, SCHARFF, TANAKA, WOLBACH
NOES: HOLMAN, KOU
ABSENT:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
(SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( )*'( ()% %%% (
'IVXMJMGEXI3J'SQTPIXMSR
)RZIPSTI-H )*'( ()% %%% ( 7XEXYW 'SQTPIXIH
7YFNIGX 4PIEWI(SGY7MKRXLMWHSGYQIRX 36(%(93VHMRERGITHJ
7SYVGI)RZIPSTI
(SGYQIRX4EKIW 7MKREXYVIW )RZIPSTI3VMKMREXSV
7YTTPIQIRXEP(SGYQIRX4EKIW -RMXMEPW /MQ0YRX
'IVXMJMGEXI4EKIW
%YXS2EZ )REFPIH
)RZIPSTI-H7XEQTMRK )REFPIH
8MQI>SRI 98'
4EGMJMG8MQI 97
'EREHE
4E]QIRXW ,EQMPXSR%ZI
4EPS%PXS'%
OMQFIVP]PYRX$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
-4%HHVIWW
6IGSVH8VEGOMRK
7XEXYW 3VMKMREP
%1
,SPHIV /MQ0YRX
OMQFIVP]PYRX$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
0SGEXMSR (SGY7MKR
7MKRIV)ZIRXW 7MKREXYVI 8MQIWXEQT
7ERHVE0II
7ERHVE0II$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
%WWMWXERX'MX]%XXSVRI]
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
:MI[IH %1
7MKRIH %1
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
,MPPEV]+MXIPQER
,MPPEV]+MXIPQER$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
:MI[IH %1
7MKRIH %1
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
.EQIW/IIRI
NEQIWOIIRI$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
'MX]1EREKIV
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7MKRIHYWMRKQSFMPI
7IRX %1
:MI[IH %1
7MKRIH %1
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
%GGITXIH 41
-( JIEE GFFH EG I
,+VIKSV]7GLEVJJ
KVIKWGLEVJJ$GMX]SJTEPSEPXSSVK
1E]SV
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7MKRIHYWMRKQSFMPI
7IRX %1
:MI[IH %1
7MKRIH %1
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
7MKRIV)ZIRXW 7MKREXYVI 8MQIWXEQT
&IXL1MRSV
&IXL1MRSV$'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSSVK
'MX]'PIVO
'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS
7IGYVMX]0IZIP )QEMP%GGSYRX%YXLIRXMGEXMSR
2SRI
9WMRK-4%HHVIWW
7IRX %1
:MI[IH %1
7MKRIH %1
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
2SX3JJIVIHZME(SGY7MKR
-(
-R4IVWSR7MKRIV)ZIRXW 7MKREXYVI 8MQIWXEQT
)HMXSV(IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
%KIRX(IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
-RXIVQIHMEV](IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
'IVXMJMIH(IPMZIV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
'EVFSR'ST])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQT
2SXEV])ZIRXW 8MQIWXEQT
)RZIPSTI7YQQEV])ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQTW
)RZIPSTI7IRX ,EWLIH)RGV]TXIH %1
'IVXMJMIH(IPMZIVIH 7IGYVMX]'LIGOIH %1
7MKRMRK'SQTPIXI 7IGYVMX]'LIGOIH %1
'SQTPIXIH 7IGYVMX]'LIGOIH %1
4E]QIRX)ZIRXW 7XEXYW 8MQIWXEQTW
)PIGXVSRMG6IGSVHERH7MKREXYVI(MWGPSWYVI
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PLANNING DIVISION- CORRECTION LIST
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please return both this correction list and any marked drawings or calculations
along with your revised drawings when submitting corrections to the Building Department. Please
reference on the correction list where on the plans the corrections have been made to assist in providing a
more timely review.
1. Please adjust the scope of work for the project to include the construction of the new garage.
2. No AC units were shown on the plans; if AC units will be included in this scope please update the
site plan to show the AC unit location. Also new AC units must be shown to comply with Palo
Alto Municipal Code Section 9.10 (PAMC 9.10 “Noise”) and cannot be located within interior
yard setbacks per PAMC Section 18.12.040(l) location of noise-producing equipment. Within this
area of Palo Alto noise producing equipment are allowed to produce no more than 66db measured
at the property line. Please provide specifications (spec sheets) for the AC units indicating their
db range and update the plans to include model numbers and code compliant location.
3. Per the Building Permit Submittal Requirements, the Site Plan must be drawn to a scale of
1/8” = 1’. Please submit a revised site plan measured to this scale.
4. Please include the following information on the site plan: all trees located on the property along
with their species, the public right of way, street tree location (see attached parcel report).
5. There is a public utility easement that runs along the northern and eastern side of the property that
is not indicated on the site plan. Our records indicate that both are about 10 feet from the property
line. Please show the utility easement on the site plan. (see attached parcel report)
6. On site plans from 2013 there appears to be a deck located in the rear yard of the property that is
not indicated on the site plan. Please include and indicate all structures and paving for the
property on the site plan.
7. On page A-2 the proposed garage has dimensions of 10’x20’ from exterior wall to exterior wall.
Per PAMC 18.54.20(b)(2), interior dimensions for covered/garage parking must be 10’x20’.
Please revise the plan and FAR/Lot Coverage calculations to reflect these dimensions.
Date: June 7, 2017
Address: 592 Loma Verde Avenue
Permit # 17000-00992
Reviewed by: Garrett Sauls
8. Please submit a completed T-1 sheet (signed) and update the site plan to include the Tree
Protection Zone for any protected trees such as heritage trees (oak/redwood) or protected trees in
the public right of way as instructed by the T-1 Tree Protection sheet. If the proposed work is
within the TPZ then an arborist report would need to be submitted and modification to the project
based on the assessment by the arborist may also be required. You may find copies of the T-1
Tree Protection Sheet here; http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6460.
9. Prior to approval for a building permit, a deed restriction will be required for the new cottage on
the property. Information about what needs to be in the deed restriction can be found in section
18.42.040(a)(9)(vi) of the new ADU ordinance. Here is the link to the new ADU ordinance:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57945.
10. Due to the increase in net dwelling units on the property, new development impact fees will be
assessed for the property. The impact fee is estimated to be $9,371. You can find information
about development impact fees
here;http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/27226.
If you have any questions, please contact me by e-mail garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org or by phone at
650-329-2471 to discuss the above comments prior to resubmitting.
Sincerely,
Garrett Sauls
Planning Technician
/HJHQG < <HV WKHPHDVXUHLVLQWKHVFRSHRIZRUN
3DUW 3DUW 3DUW 3DUW
1 1R WKHPHDVXUHLVQRWLQWKHVFRSHRIZRUN
3ODQQLQJDQG'HVLJQ &RGH6HFWLRQ < 1 &255 ,1,7,$/ &255 ,1,7,$/ &255 ,1,7,$/ &255 ,1,7,$/
0DQGDWRU\'HFRQVWUXFWLRQVXUYH\ ORFDOO\DPHQGHG 3$0&$*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\6WRUPZDWHUGUDLQDJHDQGUHWHQWLRQGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ OHVVWKDQRQHDFUH *%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\*UDGLQJDQGSDYLQJ *%&&Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\(OHFWULF9HKLFOH (9 &KDUJLQJIRUQHZUHVLGHQWLDOFRQVWUXFWLRQ ORFDOO\DPHQGHG 3$0&;1RW$SSOLFDEOH Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\(9&KDUJLQJ 1HZVLQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQFHV ORFDOO\DPHQGHG 3$0&$;1RW$SSOLFDEOH Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\(9&KDUJLQJ 0XOWLIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDOVWUXFWXUHV ORFDOO\DPHQGHG 3$0&$;1RW$SSOLFDEOH Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\%LF\FOH3DUNLQJ ORFDOO\DPHQGHG 0XOWLIDPLO\RQO\ 3$0&$ ;1RW$SSOLFDEOH Ƒ
:DWHU(IILFLHQF\DQG&RQVHUYDWLRQ
0DQGDWRU\,QGRRU:DWHU8VH :DWHUFORVHWV JSI *%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\,QGRRU:DWHU8VH 8ULQDOV :DOO0RXQWHGJSIDOORWKHUVJSI ;*%1RW$SSOLFDEOH Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\,QGRRU:DWHU8VH 6LQJOHVKRZHUKHDG JSPDWSVL ;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\,QGRRU:DWHU8VH 0XOWLSOHVKRZHUKHDGVVHUYLQJRQHVKRZHU JSPDWSVL ;*%1RW$SSOLFDEOH Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\,QGRRU:DWHU8VH 5HVLGHQWLDOODYDWRU\IDXFHWV JSPDWSVL ;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\,QGRRU:DWHU8VH >0XOWLIDPLO\2QO\@/DYDWRU\IDXFHWVLQFRPPRQDQGSXEOLFXVHDUHDV *%1RW$SSOLFDEOH Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\,QGRRU:DWHU8VH 0HWHULQJIDXFHWV JDOORQVSHUF\FOH ;*%1RW$SSOLFDEOH Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\,QGRRU:DWHU8VH .LWFKHQIDXFHWV JSPDWSVL ;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\,QGRRU:DWHU8VH 6WDQGDUGVIRUSOXPELQJIL[WXUHVDQGILWWLQJV 0HHW3OXPELQJ&RGH ;6KHHW$Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\2XWGRRUSRWDEOHZDWHUXVHLQODQGVFDSHDUHD 7LWOH&KDSWHU*%Ƒ
0DWHULDO&RQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HVRXUFH(IILFLHQF\
0DQGDWRU\5RGHQWSURRILQJ ;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\(QKDQFHGFRQVWUXFWLRQZDVWHUHGXFWLRQ'LYHUVLRQ /RFDOO\DPHQGHGLISURMHFWYDOXDWLRQFRQGLWLRQVDUHPHW 3$0&$;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\&RQVWUXFWLRQZDVWHPDQDJHPHQWSODQLQ*UHHQ+DOR;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\:DVWHPDQDJHPHQWFRPSDQ\;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\2SHUDWLRQDQGPDLQWHQDQFHPDQXDO ;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\5HF\FOLQJE\RFFXSDQWV ;*%
(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\
0DQGDWRU\)LUHSODFHV ;*%1RW$SSOLFDEOH
0DQGDWRU\&RYHULQJRIGXFWRSHQLQJVDQGSURWHFWLRQRIPHFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQWGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ ;*%Ƒ ; ;
0DQGDWRU\$GKHVLYHVVHDODQWVDQGFDXONV7DEOHDQG;*%Ƒ 6LJQDWXUH 'DWH
0DQGDWRU\3DLQWVDQGFRDWLQJV7DEOH;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\$HURVROSDLQWVDQGFRDWLQJV ;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\&DUSHWV\VWHPV ;*%$UDVK)LURX]MDHL
0DQGDWRU\&DUSHWV\VWHPV &DUSHWFXVKLRQ ;*%Ƒ 3ULQW)XOO1DPH
0DQGDWRU\&DUSHWV\VWHPV &DUSHWDGKHVLYH ;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\5HVLOLHQWIORRULQJV\VWHPVIRU;*%DUDVK#FDOWLWOHFRP
0DQGDWRU\&RPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWV ;*%Ƒ 3KRQHRU(PDLO
0DQGDWRU\&RQFUHWHVODEIRXQGDWLRQV ;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\&DSLOODU\EUHDN ;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\0RLVWXUHFRQWHQWRIEXLOGLQJPDWHULDOV ;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\%DWKURRPH[KDXVWIDQV ;*%Ƒ
0DQGDWRU\+HDWLQJDQGDLUFRQGLWLRQLQJV\VWHPGHVLJQ ;*%Ƒ
5(6,'(17,$/*5((1%8,/',1*$33/,&$7,21&$/*5((10$1'$725<
9HUVLRQ
7LWOH3DUW&DOLIRUQLD*UHHQ%XLOGLQJ&RGH &$/*UHHQ KWWS ZZZEVFFDJRY+RPH&$/*UHHQDVS[
&LW\RI3DOR$OWR*UHHQ%XLOGLQJ3URJUDPDQG5HVRXUFHV KWWS ZZZFLW\RISDORDOWRRUJJRYGHSWVGVJUHHQBEXLOGLQJFRPSOLDQFHDVS
&LW\RI3DOR$OWR*UHHQ%XLOGLQJ2UGLQDQFH 3$0&$PHQGPHQWV KWWSV ZZZFLW\RISDORDOWRRUJFLYLFD[ILOHEDQNGRFXPHQWV
0$1'$725<
*%
$FNQRZOHGJHPHQW
3U
R
M
H
F
W
$
G
G
U
H
V
V
/
R
P
D
9
H
U
G
H
$
Y
H
3
D
O
R
$
O
W
R
&
$
5
(
6
,
'
(
1
7
,
$
/
&
+
(
&
.
/
,
6
7
&
$
/
*
5
(
(
1
0
$
1
'
$
7
2
5
<
$SSOLFDWLRQ 7KLVSODQVKHHWLVIRUPXOWLIDPLO\DQGVLQJOHIDPLO\QHZ
FRQVWUXFWLRQOHVVWKDQ6)RUDGGLWLRQRUDOWHUDWLRQVOHVVWKDQ
6)WKDWLQFUHDVHWKHEXLOGLQJVFRQGLWLRQHGDUHDYROXPHRUVL]H
7KLVSURMHFWLVUHTXLUHGWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKH
6WDWH&DOLIRUQLD*UHHQ%XLOGLQJ&RGH 7
3DUW DQGWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR
VORFDO
DPHQGPHQWV 3$0& ,WKHSURSHUW\
RZQHUOHJDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYHDFNQRZOHGJH
DQGXQGHUVWDQGWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVDQG
SHQDOWLHVIRUQRQFRPSOLDQFH SHUWRQRI
ZDVWHQRWGLYHUWHGIURPWKHODQGILOOZLWKD
PLQLPXPRIDQGDGD\IRU
QRQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHUHPDLQLQJJUHHQ
EXLOGLQJPHDVXUHV ,DPUHVSRQVLEOHIRUDOO
DFWLYLWLHVSHUIRUPHGE\GHVLJQWHDP
PHPEHUVFRQWUDFWRUVDQGVXEFRQWUDFWRUVLQ
PHHWLQJWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV
1RWH ,QOLHXRIDVLJQDWXUHDQDWWDFKPHQW
OHWWHULVDFFHSWDEOHLIWKHRZQHULVQRWORFDO
DQGFDQQRWVLJQWKLV*%VKHHW
3ODQ6KHHW6SHFRU
$WWDFKPHQW5HIHUHQFH
&RPSOLDQFH3DWK9HULILFDWLRQ
3ODQ&KHFN 5RXJK*%
,QVSHFWLRQ
,95
)LQDO,QVSHFWLRQ,95
The Green BuildingSurveyisarequiredprojectsubmittal.Thesurveycanbefoundatthefollowinglink.ThesurveyshallbecompletedonSurveyMonkey
andascreenshotshallbeincludedonaseperatepageinthisplanset.Pleaseindicatethereferencepagehere_____________________.The Green BuildingSurveyisarequiredprojectsubmittal.Thesurveycanbefoundatthefollowinglink.ThesurveyshallbecompletedonSurveyMonkey
andascreenshotshallbeincludedonaseperatepageinthisplanset.Pleaseindicatethereferencepagehere_____________________.The Green BuildingSurveyisarequiredprojectsubmittal.Thesurveycanbefoundatthefollowinglink.ThesurveyshallbecompletedonSurveyMonkey
andascreenshotshallbeincludedonaseperatepageinthisplanset.Pleaseindicatethereferencepagehere_____________________.
The Green BuildingSurveyisarequiredprojectsubmittal.Thesurveycanbefoundatthefollowinglink.Thesurveyshallbecompletedon
SurveyMonkeyandascreenshotshallbeincludedonaseperatepageinthisplanset.Pleaseindicatethereference
pagehere_____________________.
com.apple.idms.apple
id.prd.7833544e4d74
4747772b685474526
7304777756a35773d3
d
Digitally signed by
com.apple.idms.appleid.prd.7833544e4d744747772b6854745267304777756
a35773d3d
DN:
cn=com.apple.idms.appleid.prd.7833544e4d744747772b6854745267304777
756a35773d3d
Date: 2017.05.03 08:47:46 -08'00'
"CALGREEN NOTE"
4.1 PLANNING AND DESIGN
Section A4.105 Deconstruction and Reuse of Existing Materials.
Section A4.105 is adopted as a Tier 1 and Tier 2 elective measure and
is amended to read:
A4.105.1 General.
Existing buildings on the site are deconstructed and the salvaged
materials are reused. Reused materials or products must comply with
the current building standards requirements or be an accepted
alternate method or material. Salvaged materials may be reused onsite
or for a different project.
The Chief Building Official may require documentation confirming that
salvageable materials have been reused.
16.14.140
A4.105.2 Reuse of materials.
Non-hazardous materials which can be easily reused include but are
not limited to the following:
1. Light fixtures
2. Plumbing fixtures
3. Doors and trim
4. Masonry
5. Electrical devices
6. Appliances
7. Foundations or portions of foundations
Note: Reused material must be in compliance with the appropriate Title
24 requirements.
4.106.2 Storm water drainage and retention during construction.
Projects which disturb less than one acre of soil and are not part of a
larger common plan of development which in total disturbs one acre or
more, shall manage storm water drainage during construction. In order
to manage storm water drainage during construction, one or more of
the following measures shall be implemented to prevent flooding of
adjacent property, prevent erosion and retain soil runoff on the site.
1. Retention basins of sufficient size shall be utilized to retain storm
water on the site.
2. Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system,
collection point, gutter or similar disposal method, water shall be filtered
by use of a barrier system, wattle or other method approved by the
enforcing agency.
3. Compliance with a lawfully enacted storm water management
ordinance.
A4.106.2.3 Topsoil protection.
Topsoil shall be protected or saved for reuse as specified in this
section.
Tier 1. Displaced topsoil shall be stockpiled for reuse in a designated
area and covered or protected from erosion.
Note: Protection from erosion includes covering with tarps, straw,
mulch, chipped wood, vegetative cover, or other means acceptable to
the enforcing agency to protect the topsoil for later use.
Tier 2. The construction area shall be identified and delineated by
fencing or flagging to limit construction activity to the construction area.
Heavy equipment or vehicle traffic and material storage outside the
construction area shall be limited to areas that are planned to be
paved.
4.106.3 Grading and paving.
Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage
system will manage all
surface water flows to keep water from entering buildings.
Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1. Swales
2. Water collection and disposal systems
3. French drains
4. Water retention gardens
5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from
buildings and aid in groundwater recharge.
Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.
16.14.150 Section A4.106.8 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for New
Construction.
Section A4.106.8 is not adopted as a Tier 1 and Tier 2 elective
measure. Projects must comply
with the mandatory electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE)
requirements stated in Section
4.106.4, as amended.
16.14.150 Section A4.106.8 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for New
Construction.
Section A4.106.8 is not adopted as a Tier 1 and Tier 2 elective
measure. Projects must comply with the mandatory electric vehicle
supply equipment (EVSE) requirements stated in Section 4.106.4, as
amended.
A4.106.8.2 Single Family Residences.
The following standards apply to newly constructed detached and
attached single family residences.
In general. The property owner shall provide Conduit Only,
EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for each residence.
Location. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal
or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site
parking space consistent with City guidelines, rules, and regulations.
A4.106.8.3 Multi-Family Residential Structures.
The following standards apply to newly constructed residences in a
multi-family residential structure, except as provided in section
A4.106.8.4.
Resident parking. The property owner shall provide at least one
EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each residential unit in the
structure.
Guest parking. The property owner shall provide Conduit Only,
EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed, for at least 25% of guest
parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall
be EVSE Installed.
Accessible spaces. The percentage calculations and substantive
requirements imposed by this section shall be applied separately to
accessible parking spaces. Parking at accessible spaces where an
EVSE is installed shall not be limited to electric vehicles.
Minimum total circuit capacity. The property owner shall. ensure
sufficient circuit capacity, as determined by the Chief Building Official,
to support a Level 2 EVSE in every location where Circuit Only,
EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed is required.
Location. The EVSE, receptacles, and/or raceway required by this
section shall be placed in locations allowing convenient installation of
and access to In addition, if parking is deed-restricted to individual
residential units, the EVSE or receptacles required by subsection (a)
shall be located such that each unit has access to its own EVSE or
receptacle. Location of EVSE or receptacles shall be consistent with all
City guidelines, rules, and regulations.
A4.106.4 Water permeable surfaces.
Permeable paving is utilized for the parking, walking or patio surfaces
in compliance with the following.
Tier 1. Not less than 20 percent of the total parking, walking or patio
surfaces shall be permeable.
Tier 2. Not less than 30 percent of the total parking, walking or patio
surfaces shall be permeable.
Exceptions:
1. The primary driveway, primary entry walkway and entry porch or
landing shall not be included when calculating the area required to be a
permeable surface.
2. Required accessible routes for persons with disabilities as
required by California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter
11A and/or Chapter 11B as applicable.
A4.106.5 Cool roof for reduction of heat island effect.
Roofing materials for Tier 1 and Tier 2 buildings shall comply with this
section:
Exceptions:
1. Roof constructions that have a thermal mass over the roof
membrane including areas of vegetated roofs, weighing at least 25
pounds per square foot.
2. Roof areas covered by building integrated solar photovoltaic
panels and building integrated solar thermal panels.
18.54.060 Bicycle Parking Facilities
Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided for new buildings, addition or
enlargement of an existing building, or for any change in the use that
results in the need for additional vehicle parking facilities consistent
with the parking requirements contained within Section18.52.040.
Bicycle parking facilities required by Section 18.52.040 may contain
bicycle parking elements of the types described in subsection (a)
below, and arranged according to the layout requirements described in
(b) below.
The department of planning and community environment maintains a
list of Approved, Conditionally Approvable, and Prohibited types of
bicycle racks and bicycle lockers. Bicycle racks and lockers not on the
“Approved” list must be approved by the director. Likewise layout
diagram examples specifying clearances and other aspects of bicycle
parking areas are also available from the department of planning and
community environment.
A4.103.1 Selection.
A site which complies with at least one of the following characteristics
is selected:
1. An infill site is selected.
2. A greyfield site is selected.
3. An EPA-recognized
A4.103.2 Community connectivity.
Facilitate community connectivity by one of the following methods:
1. Locate project within a 1/4-mile true walking distance of at least
four basic services, readily accessible by pedestrians.
2. Locate project within a 1/2-mile true walking distance of at least
seven basic services, readily accessible by pedestrians.
3. Other methods increasing access to additional resources.
Note: Examples of services include, but are not limited to, bank, place
of worship, convenience grocery, day care, cleaners, fire station,
barber shop, beauty shop, hardware store, laundry, library, medical
clinic, dental clinic, senior care facility, park, pharmacy, post office,
restaurant, school, supermarket, theater, community center, fitness
center, museum or farmers market. Other services may be considered
on a case-by-case basis.
16.14.120 Section A4.104 Site Preservation.
Section A4.104.1 is adopted as a Tier 1 and Tier 2 elective and is
amended to read:
A4.104.1 Supervision and Education by a Special Inspector.
Individuals with oversight
authority on the project, as defined in 16.14.090 ofthis code, who have
been trained in
areas related to environmentally friendly development, can teach green
concepts to
other members of the builder's staffand ensure training and written
instruction has
been provided to all parties associated with the development of the
project. Prior to the
beginning the construction activities, all the builder shall receive a
written guideline and
instruction specifying the green goals ofthe project.
16.14.130
Note: Lack of adequate supervision and dissemination of the project
goals can
result in negative effects on green building projects. If the theme of
green
building is not carried through the project, the overall benefit can be
substantially reduced by the lack of knowledge and information
provided to the
various entities involved with the construction of the project.
A4.106.2.1 Soil analysis.
Soil analysis is performed by a licensed design professional and the
findings utilized in the structural design of the building.
A4.106.2.2 Soil protection.
The effect of development on building sites is evaluated and the soil is
protected by one or more of the following:
1. Natural drainage patterns are evaluated and erosion controls are
implemented to minimize erosion during construction and after
occupancy.
2. Site access is accomplished by minimizing the amount of cut and
fill needed to install access roads and driveways.
3. As allowed by other parts of the California Building Standards
Code underground construction activities are coordinated to utilize the
same trench, minimize the amount of time the disturbed soil is exposed
and the soil is replaced using accepted compaction methods.
4.3 WATER EFFICIENCY AND
CONSERVATION
4.303.1.1 Water closets.
The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed 1.28
gallons per flush.
Tank-type water closets shall be certified to the performance criteria of
the U.S. EPA Water Sense Specification for Tank-type Toilets.
Note: The effective flush volume of dual flush toilets is defined as the
composite, average flush volume of two reduced flushes and one full
flush.
4.303.1.2 Urinals.
The effective flush volume of wall mounted urinals shall not exceed
0.125 gallons per flush.
The effective flush volume of all other urinals shall not exceed 0.5
gallons per flush.
4.303.1.3.1 Single showerhead.
Showerheads shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 2.0
gallons per minute at 80 psi. Showerheads shall be certified to the
performance criteria of the U.S. EPA Water Sense Specification for
Showerheads.
4.303.1.3.2 Multiple showerheads serving one shower.
When a shower is served by more than one showerhead, the combined
flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a
single valve shall not exceed 2.0 gallons per minute at 80 psi, or the
shower shall be designed to allow only one shower outlet to be in
operation at a time.
Note: A hand-held shower shall be considered a showerhead.
4.303.1.4.1 Residential lavatory faucets.
The maximum flow rate of residential lavatory faucets shall not exceed
1.2 gallons per minute at 60 psi. The minimum flow rate of residential
lavatory faucets shall not be less than 0.8 gallons per minute at 20 psi.
4.303.1.4.2 Lavatory faucets in common and public use areas.
The maximum flow rate of lavatory faucets installed in common and
public use areas (outside of dwellings or sleeping units) in residential
buildings shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi.
4.303.1.4.3 Metering faucets. Metering faucets when installed in
residential buildings shall not deliver more than 0.25 gallons per cycle.
4.303.1.4.4 Kitchen faucets.
The maximum flow rate of kitchen faucets shall not exceed 1.8 gallons
per minute at 60 psi. Kitchen faucets may temporarily increase the flow
above the maximum rate, but not to exceed 2.2 gallons per minute at
60 psi, and must default to a maximum flow rate of 1.8 gallons per
minute at 60 psi.
Note: Where complying faucets are unavailable, aerators or other
means may be used to achieve reduction.
4.303.2 Standards for plumbing fixtures and fittings.
Plumbing fixtures and fittings shall be installed in accordance with the
California Plumbing Code, and shall meet the applicable standards
referenced in Table 1701.1 of the California Plumbing Code.
4.304.1 Outdoor potable water use in landscape areas.
After December 1, 2015, new residential developments with an
aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet
shall comply with one of the following options:
1. A local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current
California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), whichever is more stringent; or
Projects with aggregate landscape areas less than 2,500 square feet
may comply with the MWELO’s Appendix D Prescriptive Compliance
Option.
GB.2
RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING
APPLICATION CALGREEN
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
G
R
E
E
N
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
C
A
L
G
R
E
E
N
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
T
h
i
s
p
l
a
n
s
h
e
e
t
i
s
f
o
r
us
e
b
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
5
9
2
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
,
C
A
04/02/2017
3039
GB.3
RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING
APPLICATION CALGREEN
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
G
R
E
E
N
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
C
A
L
G
R
E
E
N
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
T
h
i
s
p
l
a
n
s
h
e
e
t
i
s
f
o
r
us
e
b
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
"CALGREEN NOTE"
Notes:
1.The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(MWELO) and supporting documents are available
at: http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/ land
scapeordinance/
2. A water budget calculator is available at: http://
www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/
16.14.220 Section A4.304.6 Irrigation Metering Device.
Section A4.304.4 is adopted as a Tier 1 and Tier 2 prerequisite and is
amended to read:
A4.304.2.11rrigation Metering Device. Dedicated irrigation meters
are to be installed in all new construction and rehabilitated landscapes
when the landscape is greater than 1,000 square feet.
16.14.230 Section A4.305 Water Reuse Systems.
Sections A4.305.1 through A4.305.3 are adopted as Tier 1 and Tier 2
electives and are amended to read:
A4.305.1 Gray water. Alternative plumbing piping is installed to permit
the discharge from the clothes washer or other fixtures to be used for
an irrigation system in compliance with the California Plumbing Code.
A4.305.2 Recycled Water Piping. Based on projected availability, dual
water piping is installed for future use of recycled water at the following
locations:
1. Interior piping for the use of recycled water is installed to serve
all water closets, urinals, and floor drains.
2. Exterior piping is installed to transport recycled water from the
point of connection to the structure. Recycled water systems shall be
designed and installed in accordance with the California Plumbing
Code.
A4.305.3 Recycled water for landscape irrigation. Recycled water is
used for landscape irrigation.
Section A4.305.4 is added and adopted as Tier 1 and Tier 2
prerequisite and shall read as.
follows:
A4.305.4 Additions and alterations. All multifamily residential
additions and alterations exceeds 1,000 square feet.
Section A4.305.5 is added and adopted a Tier 2 prerequisite and shall
read as follows:
A4.305.5 Diverter Valve. Newly constructed Residential Buildings with
a landscape area of any size shall install a three-way diverter valve in
the drain-line of all laundry fixtures to assist-in the future installation of
a "Laundry-to-Landscape" irrigation system.
A4.305.5.11dentification. The diverter valve shall be labeled as
"LAUNDRY-TOLANDSCAPE CABABLE".
A4.303.1 Kitchen faucets.
The maximum flow rate of kitchen faucets shall not exceed 1.5 gallons
per minute at 60 Kitchen faucets may temporarily increase the flow
above the maximum rate, but not to exceed 2.2 gallons per minute at
60 psi, and must default to a maximum flow rate of 1.5 gallons per
minute at 60 psi.
Note: Where complying faucets are unavailable, aerators or other
means may be used to achieve reduction.
A4.303.3 Appliances.
Install at least one qualified ENERGY STAR dishwasher or clothes
washer.
Note: See Section A5.303.3 for nonresidential dishwashers and
clothes washers.
4.4 MATERIAL CONSERVATION AND
RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
A4.403.2 Reduction in cement use.
As allowed by the enforcing agency, cement used in foundation mix
design shall be reduced as follows:
Tier 1. Not less than a 20 percent reduction in cement use.
Tier 2. Not less than a 25 percent reduction in cement use.
Note: Products commonly used to replace cement in concrete mix
designs include, but are not limited to:
1. Fly ash.
2. Slag.
3. Silica fume.
4. Rice hull ash.
A4.405.3 Recycled content.
Comply with the requirements for recycled content in Section
A4.405.3.1.
A4.405.3.1 Recycled content.
Use materials, equivalent in performance to virgin materials with a total
(combined) recycled content value (RCV) of:
Tier 1. The RCV shall not be less than 10 percent of the total material
cost of the project.
Required Total RCV (dollars) = Total Material Cost (dollars) × 10
percent (Equation A4. 4-1) Tier 2. The RCV shall not be less than 15
percent of the total material cost of the project.
Required Total RCV (dollars) = Total Material Cost (dollars) × 15
percent (Equation A4. 4-2) For the purposes of this section, materials
used as components of the structural frame shall not be used to
calculate recycled content. The structural frame includes the load
bearing structural elements, such as wall studs, plates, sills, columns,
beams, girders, joists, rafters and trusses.
Notes:
1. Sample forms which allow user input and automatic calculation
are located at www.hcd.ca.gov/ CALGreen.html and may be used to
simplify documenting compliance with this section and for calculating
recycled content value of materials or assembly products.
2. Sources and recycled content of some recycled materials can be
obtained from CalRecycle if not provided by the manufacturer.
A4.405.3.1.1 Total material cost. Total material cost is the total
estimated or actual cost of materials and assembly products used in
the project. The required total recycled content value for the project (in
dollars) shall be determined by Equation A4.4-1 or Equation A4.4-2.
Total material cost shall be calculated by using one of the methods
specified below:
1.Simplified method. To obtain the total cost of the project,
multiply the square footage of the residential structure by the square
foot valuation established pursuant to the ICC Building Valuation Data
(BVD) or other valuation data approved and/or established by the
enforcing agency. The total material cost is 45 percent of the total cost
of the project. Use Equations A4.4-3A or A4.4-3B to determine total
material costs using the simplified method.
Total material costs = Project square footage × square foot valuation ×
45 percent (Equation A4.4-3A) Total estimated or actual cost of
project × 45 percent (Equation A4.4-3B)
2.Detailed method. To obtain the total cost of the project, add the
estimated and/or actual costs of materials used for the project,
including the structure (steel, concrete, wood or masonry); the
enclosure (roof, windows, doors and exterior the interior walls, ceilings
and finishes (gypsum board, ceiling tiles, etc.). The total estimated
and/or actual costs shall not include fees, labor and installation costs,
overhead, appliances, equipment, furniture or furnishings.
4.406.1 Rodent proofing.
Annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits or other
openings in sole/bottom plates at exterior walls shall be protected
against the passage of rodents by closing such openings with cement
mortar, concrete masonry or a similar method acceptable to the
enforcing agency.
16.14.260 Section A4.408.1 Enhanced Construction Waste
Reduction.
Section A4.408.1 is adopted as mandatory and is amended to read:
Section A4.408.1 Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction.
Nonhazardous construction and demolition debris generated at the site
is diverted to recycle or salvage facilities.
75% construction waste reduction is required for all Residential
Projects, including new construction, additions, and alterations, as long
as the construction has a valuation exceeding $25,000. Residential
projects with a lower valuation shall remain subject to California Green
Building Code Chapter 4 mandatory requirements.
4.408.2 Construction waste management plan.
Submit a construction waste management plan in conformance with
Items 1 through 5. The construction waste management plan shall be
updated as necessary and shall be available during construction for
examination by the enforcing agency.
1. Identify the construction and demolition waste materials to be
diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project or salvage for
future use or sale.
2. Specify if construction and demolition waste materials will be
sorted on-site (source-separated) or bulk mixed (single stream).
3. Identify diversion facilities where the construction and demolition
waste material will be taken.
4. Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of
construction and demolition waste generated.
5. Specify that the amount of construction and demolition waste
materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by
both.
4.408.3 Waste management company.
Utilize a waste management company, approved by the enforcing
agency, which can provide verifiable documentation that the
percentage of construction and demolition waste material diverted from
the landfill complies with Section 4.408.1.
Note: The owner or contractor may make the determination if the
construction and demolition waste materials will be diverted by a waste
management company.
4.408.5 Documentation.
Documentation shall be provided to the enforcing agency which
demonstrates compliance with Section 4.408.2, Items 1 through 5,
Section 4.408.3 or Section 4.408.4.
Notes:
1.Sample forms found in “A Guide to the California Green Building
Standards Code (Residential)” located at
www.hcd.ca.gov/CALGreen.html may be used to assist in documenting
compliance with this section.
2. Mixed construction and demolition debris (C&D) processors can
be located at the California Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle).
4.410.1 Operation and maintenance manual.
At the time of final inspection, a manual, compact disc, web-based
reference or other media acceptable to the enforcing agency which
includes all of the following shall be placed in the building:
1. Directions to the owner or occupant that the manual shall remain
with the building throughout the life cycle of the structure.
2. Operation and maintenance instructions for the following:
psi. Equipment and appliances, including water-saving devices and
systems, HVAC systems, photovoltaic systems, electric vehicle
chargers, water-heating systems and other major appliances and
equipment.
Roof and yard drainage, including gutters and downspouts.
Space conditioning systems, including condensers and air filters.
Landscape irrigation systems.
Water reuse systems.
3. Information from local utility, water and waste recovery providers
on methods to further reduce resource consumption, including recycle
programs and locations.
4. Public transportation and/or carpool options available
in the area.
5. Educational material on the positive impacts of an interior
relative humidity between 30–60 percent and what methods an
occupant may use to maintain the relative humidity level in that range.
6. Information about water-conserving landscape and
irrigation design and controllers which conserve water.
7. Instructions for maintaining gutters and downspouts and the
importance of diverting water at least 5 feet away from the foundation.
8. Information on required routine maintenance measures,
including, but not limited to, caulking, painting, grading around the
building, etc.
9. Information about state solar energy and incentive
programs available.
10. A copy of all special inspection verifications required
by the enforcing agency or this code.
4.410.2 Recycling by occupants.
Where 5 or more multifamily dwelling units are constructed on a
building site, provide readily accessible area(s) that serves all buildings
on the site and is identified for the depositing, storage and collection of
non-hazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper,
corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals, or
meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive.
Exception: Rural jurisdictions that meet and apply for the exemption in
Public Resources Code Section 42649.82 et seq. are not required to
comply with the organic waste portion of this section.
A4.405.2 Concrete floors.
Floors that do not require additional coverings are used including but
not limited to stained, natural or stamped concrete floors.
A4.407.4 Material protection. Protect building materials delivered to
the construction site from rain and other sources of moisture.
A4.407.6 Door protection.
Exterior doors to the dwelling are covered to prevent water intrusion by
one or more of the following:
1. An awning at least 4 feet in depth is installed.
2. The door is protected by a roof overhang at least 4 feet in depth.
3. The door is recessed at least 4 feet.
4. Other methods which provide equivalent protection.
A4.407.7 Roof overhangs.
A permanent overhang or awning at least 2 feet in depth is provided at
all exterior walls.
4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SECTION 4.503 FIREPLACES
4.503.1 General. Any installed gas fireplace shall be a directvent
sealed-combustion type. Any installed woodstove or pellet stove shall
comply with U.S. EPA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
emission limits as applicable, and shall have a permanent label
indicating they are certified to meet the emission limits. Wood stoves,
pellet stoves and fireplaces shall also comply with applicable local
ordinances.
4.504.1 Covering of duct openings and protection of mechanical
equipment during construction.
At the time of rough installation, during storage on the construction site
and until final startup of the heating, cooling and ventilating equipment,
all duct and other related air distribution component openings shall be
covered with tape, plastic, sheet metal or other methods acceptable to
the enforcing agency to reduce the amount of water, dust and debris,
which may enter the system.
TABLE 4.504.1
ADHESIVE VOC LIMIT1, 2
Less Water and Less Exempt Compounds in Grams per Liter
ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATIONS VOC LIMIT
Indoor carpet adhesives 50
Carpet pad adhesives 50
Outdoor carpet adhesives 150
Wood flooring adhesive 100
Rubber floor adhesives 60
Sub floor adhesives 50
Ceramic tile adhesives 65
VCT and asphalt tile adhesives 50
Drywall and panel adhesives 50
Cove base adhesives 50
Multipurpose construction adhesives 70
Structural glazing adhesives 100
Single-ply roof membrane adhesives 250
Other adhesives not specifically listed 50
SPECIALTY APPLICATIONS
PVC welding 510
CPVC welding 490
ABS welding 325
Plastic cement welding 250
Adhesive primer for plastic 550
Contact adhesive 80
Special purpose contact adhesive 250
Structural wood member adhesive 140
Top and trim adhesive 250
SUBSTRATE SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS
Metal to metal 30
Plastic foams 50
Porous material (except wood) 50
Wood 30
Fiberglass 80
1. If an adhesive is used to bond dissimilar substrates together, the
adhesive with the highest VOC content shall be allowed.
2. For additional information regarding methods to measure the
VOC content specified in this table, see South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 1168.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
5
9
2
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
,
C
A
04/02/2017
3039
GB.4
RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING
APPLICATION CALGREEN
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
G
R
E
E
N
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
C
A
L
G
R
E
E
N
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
T
h
i
s
p
l
a
n
s
h
e
e
t
i
s
f
o
r
us
e
b
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
"CALGREEN NOTE"
4.504.2.1 Adhesives, sealants and caulks.
Adhesives, sealants and caulks used on the project shall meet the
requirements of the following standards unless more stringent local or
regional air pollution or air quality management district rules apply:
1. Adhesives, adhesive bonding primers, adhesive primers,
sealants, sealant primers, and caulks shall comply with local or regional
air pollution control or air quality management district rules where
applicable or SCAQMD Rule 1168 VOC limits, as shown in Table
4.504.1 or 4.504.2, as applicable. Such products also shall comply with
the Rule 1168 prohibition on the use of certain toxic compounds
(chloroform, ethylene dichloride, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene
and trichloroethylene), except for aerosol products, as specified in
Subsection 2 below.
2. Aerosol adhesives, and smaller unit sizes of adhesives, and
sealant or caulking compounds (in units of product, less packaging,
which do not weigh more than 1 pound and do not consist of more than
16 fluid ounces) shall comply with statewide VOC standards and other
requirements, including prohibitions on use of certain toxic compounds,
of California Code of Regulations, Title 17, commencing with Section
94507.
4.504.2.2 Paints and coatings.
Architectural paints and coatings shall comply with VOC limits in Table
1 of the ARB Architectural Suggested Control Measure, as shown in
Table 4.504.3, unless more stringent local limits apply.
The VOC content limit for coatings that do not meet the definitions for
the specialty coatings categories listed in Table 4.504.3 shall be
determined by classifying the coating as a Flat, Non flat or Nonflat-high
Gloss coating, based on its gloss, as defined in subsections 4.21, 4.36,
and 4.37 of the 2007 California Air Resources Board, Suggested
Control Measure, and the corresponding Flat, Non flat or Non flat- high
Gloss VOC limit in Table 4.504.3 shall apply.
4.504.2.3 Aerosol paints and coatings.
Aerosol paints and coatings shall meet the Product-weighted MIR
Limits for ROC in Section 94522(a)(2) and other requirements,
including prohibitions on use of certain toxic compounds and ozone
depleting substances, in Sections 94522(e)(1) and (f)(1) of California
Code of Regulations, Title 17, commencing with Section 94520; and in
areas under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District additionally comply with the percent VOC by weight of product
limits of Regulation 8, Rule 49.
TABLE 4.504.2
SEALANT VOC LIMIT
Less Water and Less Exempt Compounds in Grams per Liter
SEALANTS VOC LIMIT
Architectural 250
Marine deck 760
Non membrane roof 300
Roadway 250
Single-ply roof membrane 450
Other 420
SEALANT PRIMERS
Architectural
Nonporous 250
Porous 775
Modified bituminous 500
Marine deck 760
Other 750
4.504.3.1 Carpet cushion.
All carpet cushion installed in the building interior shall meet the
requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute’s Green Label program.
4.504.3.2 Carpet adhesive.
All carpet adhesive shall meet the requirements of Table 4.504.1.
TABLE 4.504.3
VOC CONTENT LIMITS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS2,
Grams of VOC per Liter of Coating, Less Water and Less Exempt
Compounds
COATING CATEGORY VOC LIMIT
Flat coatings 50
Non flat coatings 100
Nonflat-high gloss coatings 150
SPECIALTY COATINGS
Aluminum roof coatings 400
Basement specialty coatings 400
Bituminous roof coatings 50
Bituminous roof primers 350
Bond breakers 350
Concrete curing compounds 350
Concrete/masonry sealers 100
Driveway sealers 50
Dry fog coatings 150
Faux finishing coatings 350
Fire resistive coatings 350
Floor coatings 100
Form-release compounds 250
Graphic arts coatings (sign paints) 500
High temperature coatings 420
Industrial maintenance coatings 250
Low solids coatings1 120
Magnesite cement coatings 450
Mastic texture coatings 100
Metallic pigmented coatings 500
Multicolor coatings 250
Pretreatment wash primers 420
Primers, sealers, and undercoaters 100
SPECIALTY APPLICATIONS
PVC welding 510
CPVC welding 490
ABS welding 325
Plastic cement welding 250
Adhesive primer for plastic 550
Contact adhesive 80
Special purpose contact adhesive 250
Structural wood member adhesive 140
Top and trim adhesive 250
SUBSTRATE SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS
Metal to metal 30
Plastic foams 50
Porous material (except wood) 50
Wood 30
Fiberglass 80
1. If an adhesive is used to bond dissimilar substrates together, the
adhesive with the highest VOC content shall be allowed.
2. For additional information regarding methods to measure the
VOC content specified in this table, see South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 1168.
4.504.3.1 Carpet cushion.
All carpet cushion installed in the building interior shall meet the
requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute’s Green Label program.
4.504.3.2 Carpet adhesive.
All carpet adhesive shall meet the requirements of Table 4.504.1.
A4.504.2 Resilient flooring systems.
Resilient flooring systems installed in the building shall meet the
percentages specified in this section and comply with the
VOC-emission limits defined in at least one of the following:
1. Products compliant with the California Department of Public
Health, “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile
Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental
Chambers,”
Version 1.1, February 2010 (also known as Specification certified as a
CHPS Low-Emitting Material in the Collaborative for High Performance
Schools High Performance Products Database.
2. Products certified UL GREENGUARD Gold (formerly
the Greenguard Children & Schools program.)
3. Certification under the Resilient Floor Covering Institute
(CHPS) FloorScore program.
4.Meet the California Department of Public Health, “Standard
Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical
Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,”
Version 1.1, February 2010 (also known as Specification 01350.)
Tier 1. At least 90 percent of the total area of resilient flooring installed
shall comply.
Tier 2. At least 100 percent of the total area of resilient flooring installed
shall comply.
Exception for Tier 2: An allowance for up to 5-percent specialty
purpose flooring may be permitted.
Note: Documentation must be provided that verifies that finish materials
are certified to meet the pollutant emission limits in this section.
A4.504.3 Thermal insulation.
Thermal insulation installed in the building shall meet the following
requirements:
Tier 1. Install thermal insulation in compliance with the California
Department of Public Health, “Standard Method for the Testing and
Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor
Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” Version 1.1, February 2010
(also known as Specification 01350), certified as a CHPS Low- Emitting
Material in the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS)
High Performance Products Database; products certified under the UL
GREENGUARD Gold (formerly Greenguard Children & Schools
program); or meet California Department of Public Health, “Standard
Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical
Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,”
Version 1.1, February 2010 (also known as Specification 01350).
Tier 2. Install insulation which complies with Tier 1 plus does not
contain any added formaldehyde.
Note: Documentation must be provided that verifies the materials are
certified to meet the pollutant emission limits in this section.
4.504.5 Composite wood products.
Hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium density fiberboard
composite wood products used on the interior or exterior of the building
shall meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in ARB’s Air
Toxics Control Measure for Composite Wood (17 CCR 93120 et seq.),
by or before the dates specified in those sections, as shown in Table
4.504.5.
4.504.5.1 Documentation.
Verification of compliance with this section shall be provided as
requested by the enforcing agency. Documentation shall include at
least one of the following:
1. Product certifications and specifications.
2. Chain of custody certifications.
3. Product labeled and invoiced as meeting the Composite
Wood Products regulation (see CCR, Title 17, Section 93120, et seq.).
4. Exterior grade products marked as meeting the PS-1
or PS-2 standards of the Engineered Wood Association, the Australian
AS/NZS 2269, European 636 3S, and Canadian CSA O121, CSA
O151, CSA O153 and CSA O325 standards.
5. Other methods acceptable to the enforcing agency.
TABLE 4.504.5
FORMALDEHYDE LIMITS1
Maximum Formaldehyde Emissions in Parts per Million
PRODUCT CURRENT LIMIT
Hardwood plywood veneer core 0.05
Hardwood plywood composite core 0.05
Particleboard 0.09
Medium density fiberboard 0.11
Thin medium density fiberboard2 0.13
1. Values in this table are derived from those specified by the
California Air Resources Board, Air Toxics Control Measure for
Composite Wood as tested in accordance with ASTM E1333. For
additional information, see California Code of Regulations, Title 17,
Sections 93120 through 93120.12.
2. Thin medium density fiberboard has a maximum thickness of
5/16 inch (8 mm).
4.505.2 Concrete slab foundations.
Concrete slab foundations required to have a vapor retarder by the
California Building Code, Chapter 19 or concrete slab-on-ground floors
required to have a vapor retarder by the California Residential Code,
Chapter 5, shall also comply with this section.
4.505.2.1 Capillary break.
A capillary break shall be installed in compliance with at least one of
the following:
1. A 4-inch-thick (101.6 mm) base of 1/2 inch (12.7 or larger clean
aggregate shall be provided with a vapor retarder in direct contact with
concrete and a concrete mix design, which will address bleeding,
shrinkage, and curling, shall be used. For additional information, see
American Concrete Institute, ACI 302.2R-06.
2. Other equivalent methods approved by the enforcing agency.
3. A slab design specified by a licensed design professional.
4.505.3 Moisture content of building materials.
Building materials with visible signs of water damage shall not be
installed. Wall and floor framing shall not be enclosed when the framing
members exceed 19-percent moisture content.
Moisture content shall be verified in compliance with the following:
1. Moisture content shall be determined with either a probe-type or
contact-type moisture meter. Equivalent moisture verification methods
may be approved by the enforcing agency and shall satisfy
requirements found in Section 101.8 of this code.
2. Moisture readings shall be taken at a point 2 feet (610 mm to 4
feet (1219 mm) from the grade stamped end of each piece to be
verified.
3. At least three random moisture readings shall be performed
on wall and floor framing with documentation acceptable to the
enforcing agency provided at the time of approval to enclose the wall
and floor framing.
Insulation products which are visibly wet or have a high moisture
content shall be replaced or allowed to dry prior to enclosure in wall or
floor cavities. Wet-applied insulation products shall follow the
manufacturers’ drying recommendations prior to enclosure.
4.506.1 Bathroom exhaust fans.
Each bathroom shall be mechanically ventilated and shall comply with
the following:
1. Fans shall be ENERGY STAR compliant and be ducted to
terminate outside the building.
2. Unless functioning as a component of a whole house ventilation
system, fans must be controlled by a humidity control.
a. Humidity controls shall be capable of adjustment between a
relative humidity range of ≤ 50 percent to a maximum of 80 percent. A
humidity control may utilize manual or automatic means of adjustment.
b. A humidity control may be a separate component to the exhaust
fan and is not required to be integral built-in).
Notes:
1. For the purposes of this section, a bathroom is a room which
contains a bathtub, shower, or tub/ shower combination.
2. Lighting integral to bathroom exhaust fans shall comply with the
California Energy Code.
4.507.2 Heating and air-conditioning system design.
Heating and air-conditioning systems shall be sized, designed and
have their equipment selected using the following methods:
1. The heat loss and heat gain is established according to
ANSI/ACCA 2 Manual J—2011 (Residential Load Calculation),
ASHRAE handbooks or other equivalent design software or methods.
2. Duct systems are sized according to ANSI/ACCA 1 Manual
D—2014 (Residential Duct Systems), ASHRAE handbooks or other
equivalent design software or methods.
3. Select heating and cooling equipment according to ANSI/ACCA
3 Manual S—2014 (Residential Equipment Selection) or other
equivalent design software or methods.
Exception: Use of alternate design temperatures necessary to ensure
the systems function are acceptable.
A4.504.1 Compliance with formaldehyde limits.
Use composite wood products made with either California Air
Resources Board approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or
ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins.
Note: Documentation must be provided that verifies that finish
materials are certified to meet the pollutant emission limits.
A4.506.1 Filters.
Return air filters with a value greater than MERV 6 shall be installed on
HVAC systems. Pressure drop across the filter shall not exceed 0.1
inches water column.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
5
9
2
L
o
m
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
,
C
A
04/02/2017
3039
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
O
P
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
O
P
NO.REVISIONS
DRAWING TITLE
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN
PROJ. NO.
CAD FILE NO.
CHECKED
DATE
OF SHEETS
MAY, 2017
DM AF
S-1
T24-01
TI
T
L
E
2
4
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
Al
i
A
d
i
b
12
0
2
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
C
i
t
y
,
C
A
9
4
0
6
3
Te
l
.
(
6
5
0
)
3
6
3
-
2
3
3
8
,
F
a
x
(
6
5
0
)
3
6
3
-
2
0
3
1
Em
a
i
l
:
a
t
a
@
a
t
a
e
n
g
.
n
e
t
DATE: 03-22-17
NOTE: PRIOR TO ORDERING OR PURCHASING ANY ITEMS RELATED TO TITLE 24
SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO: WINDOWS, DOORS, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT,
INSULATION, ETC., CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AS
STATED IN THIS REPORT AND INFORM ALI ADIB IF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE
NOT MET. IF SO, CALCULATIONS MUST BE REVISED AND APPROVED BY BUILDING
DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ORDERING AND PURCHASE
NE
W
C
O
T
T
A
G
E
;
LU
N
D
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
59
2
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
PA
L
O
L
A
L
T
O
,
C
A
9
4
3
0
6
T24-02
TI
T
L
E
2
4
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
Al
i
A
d
i
b
12
0
2
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
C
i
t
y
,
C
A
9
4
0
6
3
Te
l
.
(
6
5
0
)
3
6
3
-
2
3
3
8
,
F
a
x
(
6
5
0
)
3
6
3
-
2
0
3
1
Em
a
i
l
:
a
t
a
@
a
t
a
e
n
g
.
n
e
t
DATE: 03-22-17
NE
W
C
O
T
T
A
G
E
;
LU
N
D
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
59
2
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
PA
L
O
L
A
L
T
O
,
C
A
9
4
3
0
6
CO
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
/
N
O
T
E
S
/
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
CITY OF PALO ALTO NOTE:
PA
L
O
A
L
T
O
,
C
A
59
2
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
GR
A
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
S
SMP
AP
N
:
1
3
2
-
1
0
-
1
9
8
ENERGY REDUCTION BOX
SECTION Z-Z
Z
SECTION W-W
W
PLAN
W
Z
ELECTRICAL NOTES:
PA
L
O
A
L
T
O
,
C
A
59
2
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
GR
A
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
S
SMP
AP
N
:
1
3
2
-
1
0
-
1
9
8
GR
A
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
/
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
4. INLET/ PUMPWELL DETAIL
ELEVATION VIEW
X
PLAN
Y
X
Y
SECTION Y-YSECTION X-X
PO
L
L
U
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
PA
L
O
A
L
T
O
,
C
A
59
2
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
GR
A
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
S
SMP
AP
N
:
1
3
2
-
1
0
-
1
9
8
CO
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
/
N
O
T
E
S
/
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
CITY OF PALO ALTO NOTE:
PA
L
O
A
L
T
O
,
C
A
59
2
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
GR
A
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
S
SMP
AP
N
:
1
3
2
-
1
0
-
1
9
8
ENERGY REDUCTION BOX
SECTION Z-Z
Z
SECTION W-W
W
PLAN
W
Z
ELECTRICAL NOTES:
PA
L
O
A
L
T
O
,
C
A
59
2
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
GR
A
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
S
SMP
AP
N
:
1
3
2
-
1
0
-
1
9
8
GR
A
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
/
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
4. INLET/ PUMPWELL DETAIL
ELEVATION VIEW
X
PLAN
Y
X
Y
SECTION Y-YSECTION X-X
PO
L
L
U
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
PA
L
O
A
L
T
O
,
C
A
59
2
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
GR
A
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
S
SMP
AP
N
:
1
3
2
-
1
0
-
1
9
8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
O
P
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
O
P
NO.REVISIONS
DRAWING TITLE
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN
PROJ. NO.
CAD FILE NO.
CHECKED
DATE
OF SHEETS
MAY, 2017
DM AF
S-1
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 8746)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/13/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: PTC Annual Process and Performance Review
Title: Discussion Regarding the Commission's Performance, Roles
and Responsibilities, and Opportunity for Commissioner
Feedback to Improve Processes and Results.
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following
action(s):
1. Discuss and provide direction as appropriate.
Background
Chair Alcheck requested the subject discussion item to periodically review PTC processes and
performance. Alcheck requests each commissioner to reflect on the previous 12 months and 22
meetings with the intent to discuss and appraise the commission’s performance and clarity of
roles and responsibilities with the goal of improving processes and results. Specifically, Chair
Alcheck would like to engage the commission on the following topics:
Meeting Management
Goal Setting
Agenda Setting
Preparation
Commission and Staff Interaction
Meeting Organization
Discussion and Debate
Public Engagement
Motions, Amendments & Substitute Motions
Speaking to Motions, Speaking to Dissenting Perspectives
Anything Related to the Commission’s Work and Finished Product
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
To facilitate this discussion, Chair Alcheck requested links to the Commission’s By Laws and
Procedural Rules be provided:
PTC By Laws http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8256
PTC Procedural Rules http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30900
To further assist the Commission, this excerpt from the Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 2 is
provided:
2.20.010 Membership.
There is created a planning and transportation commission composed of seven
members who are not council members, officers or employees of the city, who
are residents of the city, and who shall be appointed by the city council.
2.20.020 Term of office.
Terms of office on the Planning and Transportation Commission shall be four
years. Effective January 1, 2016, terms of office due to expire on October 31 of
each year shall be extended to expire on December 15 of the same year, and
thereafter terms of office shall commence on the sixteenth day of December. If a
successor is unavailable, a member may remain in office until his or her
successor is appointed.
2.20.030 Officers.
The commission shall elect its officers annually at the first meeting in November.
2.20.050 Duties and powers.
The commission is an advisory commission. In addition to the duties set forth for
the planning commission in Titles 18 and 19 of this code, it shall, as requested by
the city council, the city manager, or the director of planning and community
environment provide advice on any matter pertaining to land use planning and
transportation systems affecting the city. The term "planning commission" used
anywhere in this code or in state law shall refer to the planning and
transportation commission.
Additionally, here is additional information related to PTC roles as it relates to the
Comprehensive Plan and review of the Capital Improvement Plan:
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/title19masterplan*/chapter
1904planningcommission*?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca$anc=JD_
Chapter19.04
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2679
jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 8739)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/13/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Planning-Related Code Amendments (2018)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation to the City Council
Regarding the Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.20 (Planning and
Transportation Commission) of Title 2, Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of
Title 9, Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of
Title 10, and Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.10 (Low-Density
Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD)), 18.12 (R-1 Single-Family
Residential District), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16
(Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC
and CS) Districts), 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC)
Districts), 18.30(G) (Combining Districts), 18.40 (General
Standards and Exceptions), 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses),
18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.54 (Parking
Facility Design Standards), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals),
18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals), and 18.80
(Amendments to Zoning Map And Zoning Regulations) of Title
18, and Chapters 21.12 (Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel
Maps) and 21.32 (Conditional Exceptions) of Title 21. The
Proposed Ordinance is Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). For More Information, Please
Contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org.
(CONTINUED FROM November 29, 2017)
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following
action(s):
1. Find the proposed draft ordinance exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3); and
2. Recommend to the City Council adoption an ordinance (Attachment A) to amend
various sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Report Summary
The discussion regarding the proposed code amendments was not completed at the November
29, 2017 PTC meeting. The PTC reviewed the majority of proposed code changes and continued
the discussion. This report includes staff responses to the PTC comments and the addition of
one code amendment, as discussed below. The November 29, 2017 staff report (Attachment B)
and meeting minutes (Attachment C) are attached for reference.
Background
The PTC reviewed the items listed in Table 1 below and provided suggested minor text edits to
a few topics (“revise”) and identified topics that needed more in-depth discussion (“pull”). This
report summarizes the staff response to the PTC discussion and the draft ordinance
(Attachment A) has been revised to incorporate these changes.
For the items that were not discussed (see Table 2) and for general background, please refer to
Attachment B, the 11/29/2017 PTC Staff Report. The exception to this is for item #28 Correct
Code Section Reference for Cannabis Definition; this is a newly added item that will be explained
in the discussion section that follows.
Table 1: Proposed Code Amendments Discussed by PTC
Amendment PTC
Direction
1 Correct Threshold Requiring a Transportation Demand Management Plan No Change
2 Correct Reference to Transportation Management Association No Change
3 Remove Duplicate Definition of “Director” No Change
4 Correct Table Reference – Parking Stall Widths No Change
5 Correct Site and Design Code Reference No Change
6 Clarify that the Contextual Garage Placement Applies to Carports Pull
7 Clarification of Carport and Garage Definitions Pull
8 Site and Design Review – Correct Code Reference for Minor Projects No Change
9 Resubmittal of Denied Applications – Correct Language No Change
10 Map Exceptions Process – Add Reference to Title 18 No Change
11 Clarify Floor Area Exemptions for Historic Homes Revise
12 Office Restrictions in CS/CN/CC – Remove CS Reference Pull
13 Preliminary Parcel Map – Add Option of Director’s Deferral Directly to
Council
No Change
14 Remove Restrictive Election Time for PTC Officers Revise
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
15 Establish Uniform Timing for Public Hearing Notices for Maps and Zone
Changes
No Change
16 Add Provision to Allow Closure of Inactive Applications and Require New
Application for Substantially Modified Projects
Revise
17 Prohibit Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers in Commercial Districts Pull
18 Add Floor Area Exemption for Trash Enclosures in the CD District Revise
Table 2: Proposed Amendments To Be Reviewed
Amendment
19 Expand Exceptions for Historic Homes Related to Floor Area and HIE’s
20 Clarify Setbacks for Outdoor Fireplaces and BBQs
21 Establish an Over the Counter Architectural Review Process
22 Various Updates to Application Processing and Approvals
23 Clarifications to the Wireless Communication Facilities Review Process
24 Modify Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirements Per State Regulations
25 Update Residential Density Bonus Per State Requirements
26 Remove Bicycle License Requirement
27 Individual Review and Demolition of Historic Inventory Properties
28 Correct Code Section Numbering for Cannabis Definition with No Substantive Change
(ADDED ITEM)
Discussion
There are eight follow-up items from the earlier PTC meeting and one newly added item that
are discussed below. The numbering shown below reflects how the items were presented in the
previous staff report (Attachment B). All proposed text modifications to the ordinance are
presented in the draft ordinance, Attachment A.
Item #6: Clarify that the Contextual Garage Placement Applies to Carports
Staff understands the expressed position of commissioners speaking to this item on both the
substance and process for the proposed amendment. Staff has a different perspective as to the
nature of the regulation and the proposed change in question. Staff will present the PTC
comments as articulated at this and the preceding meeting to the City Council along with a staff
recommendation for the proposed amendment.
Item #7: Clarification of Carport and Garage Definitions
The PTC expressed some concerns about the clarity of the definitions for carports, garages, and
porte-cochere. The proposed revised definitions of “carport” and “garage” are listed below along
with the City’s “porte-cochere” definition in the Municipal Code. When comparing a carport and
porte-cochere, they are described similarly, with the exception for how it is used. A porte-
cochere is a sheltered transitory location used for loading and unloading; it cannot be used for
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
any required onsite parking. It seems appropriate to clarify carports and garages are intended for
the parking or storage of vehicles.
(24.5) “Carport" means a portion of a principal residential building or an accessory
building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter parking or storage of
one or more motor vehicles, which is open (unenclosed) on two or more sides, including
on the vehicular entry side, and which is covered with a solid roof.
(59) “Garage, private” means a portion of a principal residential building or an
accessory building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter parking or
storage of one or more motor vehicles, and which is enclosed on three two or more sides
and covered with a solid roof.
(114.2) “Porte-cochere” means a covered structure attached to a residence or adjacent to
a residence and erected over a driveway, which is completely open on three or more sides
and used for the temporary unloading and loading of vehicles.
Item #11: Clarify Floor Area Exemptions for Historic Homes
In response to PTC’s comments, staff added a clarification to the table that included clear
direction on how to measure the basement for purposes of excluding it from the floor area
calculation.
Item #12: Office Restrictions in CS/CN/CC – Remove CS Reference
The PTC asked for additional clarification for the proposed removal of language that permitted
ground floor office along El Camino Real, providing no housing was developed on the site.
The current code subsection 18.16.050(a)(2), which applies to CS, CN, and CC zones, states that
ground floor office is permitted providing it would “occupy a space that was not occupied by
housing, neighborhood business service, retail services, personal services, eating and drinking
services, or automotive service on March 19, 2001 or thereafter.”
Subsection 18.16.050(a)(3), the one proposed to be removed, states that “in the case of CS
zoned properties with site frontage on El Camino Real, [ground floor office is permitted
providing the sites] were not occupied by housing on March 19, 2001.”
With the adoption of the citywide ground floor retail and retail-like preservation requirements
(PAMC 18.40.180 – also referred to as the Retail Preservation Ordinance) earlier this year,
subsection 18.16.050(a)(3) is no longer accurate; the City would not support the removal of
retail/retail-like uses to accommodate ground floor office. Because the retail preservation is now
applicable, subsection (2) is a better reflection of what would be considered if ground floor office
was proposed on El Camino Real. This subsection (2) is slightly more restrictive than the retail
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
preservation requirements in that it also includes protections for neighborhood business services
and automotive services.
Staff’s recommendation is to remove subsection (3) with the understanding the subsection (2)
would then apply to CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, which is essentially how it is carried out
today because of the retail preservation requirements.
Item #14: Remove Restrictive Election Time for PTC Officers
Staff revised the proposed text based on direction from PTC. It is noted that additional
discussion on this subject matter will occur separately when the PTC conducts a retreat or
special discussion on a future agenda.
Item #16: Add Provision to Allow Closure of Inactive Applications and Require New Application
for Substantially Modified Projects
The intent of the proposed revision was generally supported, but there was concern about
the use of overly strong and subjective language. The language has been revised accordingly.
A commissioner also expressed concern with the six month timeframe. Staff notes that six
months of inactivity is unusual for planning applications and that it mirrors the time after
which a building permit is deemed to have expired by reason of inactivity.
Item #17: Prohibit Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers in Commercial Districts
The PTC was concerned about the unintended consequences of adding the gas-powered leaf
blower prohibition to commercial properties and allowing for an exemption for City-related
uses. Staff will conduct additional research on this item and report to Council as to whether
this amendment is worth pursuing at this time.
Item #18: Add Floor Area Exemption for Trash Enclosures in the CD District
There were two primary comments made on this issue, one suggesting that the floor area
exemption be placed in the CD district chapter (PAMC 18.16) of the zoning code and not in
the definitions section; and the other was related to the floor area exemption revision, as
proposed, would now allow hazardous material storage and resource conservation energy
facilities in the CD district.
The proposed text modification does not make any changes to the allowable uses in the CD or
other zone districts. The existing exemption, unmodified, allows the floor area exemption in
all zone districts but the CD, and staff is proposing to modify this language to have the CD
district included for the exemption. Again, if the CD zone was included in this exemption, the
established allowable land uses would not be impacted.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Additionally, the added clarifying language regarding the refuse area being exempt is not a
new provision to the code. The code already allows exemptions for resource conservation
related compliance, which staff has interpreted to include refuse areas. By adding the specific
refuse reference, it would eliminate any misunderstanding to it being included within this
category of floor area exemptions.
With regards to relocating the exemption to the CD district chapter of the code, staff feels
that keeping it within the definitions section is more appropriate since the language already
exists there.
Item #28: Correct Code Section Numbering for Cannabis Definition (ADDED ITEM)
On November 13, 2017 the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 5419
(“Cannabis Ordinance”) to prohibit medical cannabis dispensaries and prohibit commercial
cannabis activities, except for deliveries. Included in the ordinance was the new definition of
cannabis that is to be added to Title 18. The new definition was numbered incorrectly, and the
amendment is to correct that. There are no substantive text changes being proposed to the
definition in the code.
Environmental Review
The proposed code amendments have been assessed in accordance with the authority and
criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the proposed
amendments have been determined to be exempt from further environmental review per
CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemption) because the activity is covered by
the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significantly effect on the environment.
Additionally, all future development that may be impacted by any of the proposed code
changes will be subject to a project specific CEQA analysis as part of the required planning
entitlement review (e.g. Architectural Review, Site and Design, Subdivision, etc.) to determine if
there are any environmental impacts.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) does not require notice of this public hearing because it
was Continued to a Date Certain at the November 29, 2017 PTC meeting, which was publicly
noticed in accordance with the PAMC.
Next Steps
Upon recommendation from the PTC, staff will forward the staff recommended ordinance with
agreed upon changes to City Council for review. In instances where a majority of the PTC has a
different recommendation from staff, that viewpoint will be represented in the staff report
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
along with implementing language for the Council’s consideration. Only one ordinance,
however, will be presented to the Council, which is anticipated to occur in early 2018.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may:
1. Recommend adoption of the draft ordinance to the City Council with modifications.
2. Continue the discussion to a future PTC hearing with the expectation that a
recommendation to the City Council would be forwarded that time.
Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information
Clare Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 617-3191 (650) 329-2679
clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org
jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: PTC Staff Report w/o Attachments, November 29, 2017 (DOC)
Attachment C: PTC Excerpt Meeting Minutes, November 29, 2017 (DOC)
Attachment D: Draft Over the Counter Architectural Review Guidelines (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 1 November 2017
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
Chapter 2.20 (Planning and Transportation Commission) of Title 2, Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of Title
9, Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10, and Chapters 18.04
(Definitions), 18.10 (Low‐Density Residential (RE, R‐2 and RMD)), 18.12 (R‐1 Single‐Family
Residential District), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and
Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) Districts), 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts),
18.30(G) (Combining Districts), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions), 18.42 (Standards for
Special Uses), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.54 (Parking Facility Design
Standards), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals), and
18.80 (Amendments to Zoning Map And Zoning Regulations) of Title 18, and Chapters 21.12
(Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps), and 21.32 (Conditional Exceptions) of Title 21
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 2.20.030 (Officers) of Chapter 2.20 (Planning and Transportation
Commission) of Title 2 (Administrative Code) is amended as follows:
2.20.030 Officers
The commission Commission shall elect its officers annually at the first meeting in
Novembera chairperson and a vice chairperson from its membership who shall serve in such
capacity for terms of one year each, or until a successor is elected, unless his or her term as a
member of the Commission sooner expires.
SECTION 2. Section 9.10.060 (Special provisions) of Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of Title 9 (Public
Peace, Morals and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) is amended as follows:
9.10.060 Special provisions
The special exceptions listed in this section shall apply, notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 9.10.030 through 9.10.050.
. . .
(f) Leaf Blowers.
(1) No person shall operate any leaf blower which does not bear an affixed
manufacturer's label indicating the model number of the leaf blower and
designating a noise level not in excess of sixty‐five dBA when measured from a
distance of fifty feet utilizing American National Standard Institute methodology.
Any leaf blower which bears such a manufacturer's label shall be presumed to
comply with any noise level limit of this chapter provided that it is operated with
all mufflers and full extension tubes supplied by the manufacturer for that leaf
blower. No person shall operate any leaf blower without attachment of all
mufflers and full extension tubes supplied by the manufacturer for that leaf
blower.
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 2 November 2017
(2) No person shall operate any leaf blowers within a residential zone except during
the following hours: nine a.m. and five p.m. Monday through Friday and ten a.m.
and four p.m. Saturday. No person shall operate any leaf blower within any non‐
residential zone except during the following hours: eight a.m. and six p.m.
Monday through Friday, and ten a.m. to four p.m. Saturday. No person shall
operate any leaf blowers on Sundays and holidays. No person shall operate any
leaf blower powered by an internal combustion engine within any residential or
commercial zone after July 1, 2005. Commercial operators of leaf blowers are
prohibited from operating any leaf blower within the city if they do not
prominently display a certificate approved by the Chief of Police verifying that
the operator has been trained to operate leaf blowers according to standards
adopted by the Chief of Police. In addition to all authorizations and restrictions
otherwise provided in this chapter, public streets, sidewalks, and parking lots in
business districts and at the Municipal Golf Course and all city parks may be
cleaned between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. using leaf blowers which bear an
affixed manufacturer's label indicating the model number of the leaf blower and
designating a noise level not in excess of sixty‐five dBA when measured from a
distance of fifty feet utilizing American National Standard Institute methodology.
(3) The use of leaf blowers powered by an internal combustion engine shall be
allowed when used on property owned or operated by the City between nine
a.m. and five p.m. Monday through Friday and ten a.m. and four p.m. Saturday
for routine maintenance operations, and at any time for emergency operations.
. . .
SECTION 3. Sections 10.64.010 (Bicycle license required), 10.64.060 (License fees), and
10.64.070 (Safe mechanical condition prerequisite to issuance of license) of Chapter 10.64
(Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the PAMC are deleted
in their entirety.
10.64.010 Bicycle license required
No resident of the city shall operate any bicycle (defined as any device which a person
may ride, which is propelled by human power through a system of belts, chains, or gears and
which has wheels at least twenty inches in diameter and a frame size of at least fourteen
inches) on any street, road, highway, or other public property within the city, unless such
bicycle is licensed in accordance with Division 16.7, Sections 39000 through 39011 of the
California Vehicle Code. Any person who violates the provisions of this section may be cited
pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 39002(a).10.64.060 License fees
The license fee to be paid for each bicycle licensed pursuant to Section 10.64.010 shall
be paid in advance. A fee shall be paid for application for transfer of license pursuant to Section
39008 of the California Vehicle Code. Said fees shall be as set forth in the municipal fee
schedule.
10.64.070 Safe mechanical condition prerequisite to issuance of license
Any person applying for a bicycle license pursuant to the provisions of this chapter
must demonstrate to the chief of police or his designated representative that the bicycle for
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 3 November 2017
which the applicant desires to secure license plates meets the requirements of this chapter and
the California Vehicle Code as to safe mechanical condition.
SECTION 4. Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of
the PAMC is amended as follows:
18.04.030 Definitions
(a) Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
ascribed in this section.
. . .
(23.5 94.5) “Cannabis” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus,
Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the
resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds,
or resin. “Cannabis” also means the separated resin, whether crude or purified,
obtained from cannabis. “Cannabis” does not include the mature stalks of the plant,
fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks
(except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the
plant which is incapable of germination. For the purpose of this Title, “cannabis” does
not mean “industrial hemp” as defined by Section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(A) “Commercial cannabis activity” includes the cultivation, possession,
manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging,
labeling, transportation, delivery or sale of cannabis and cannabis products as
provided for in Division 10 of the California Business and Professions Code.
“Commercial cannabis activity” does not include personal uses allowed by Health
and Safety Code sections 11362.1 and 11362.2 or personal medicinal uses
allowed by sections 11362.765 and 11362.77, as amended from time to time.
(B) “Cultivation” means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting,
drying, curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis.
(C) “Medical cannabis dispensary” is a facility where cannabis is made available
for medicinal purposes in accordance with any provision of state law that
authorizes the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.
. . .
(24.5) “Carport" means a portion of a principal residential building or an
accessory building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter parking or
storage of one or more motor vehicles, which is open (unenclosed) on two or more
sides, including on the vehicular entry side, and which is covered with a solid roof.
. . .
(41.5) “Director” means the director of planning and community environment
or his or her designee.
. . .
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 4 November 2017
(59) “Garage, private” means a portion of a principal residential building or an
accessory building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter parking or
storage of one or more motor vehicles, and which is enclosed on three two or more
sides and covered with a solid roof.
. . .
(65) "Gross floor area" is defined as follows:
. . .
(B) Non‐residential & Multifamily Exclusions: For all zoning districts other
than the R‐E, R‐1, R‐2 and RMD residence districts, "gross floor area"
shall not include the following:
. . .
(iv) Except in the CD District and in areas designated as special
study areas, For existing structures, minor additions of floor area
approved by the director of planning and community environment for
purposes of resource conservation or code compliance, upon the
determination that such minor additions will increase compliance with
environmental health, safety or other federal, state or local standards.
Any additional floor area approved shall not qualify for grandfathered
floor area in the event the building is later replaced or redeveloped.
Such allowable additions may include, but not be limited to, the
following:
a. Areas designed for resource conservation, such as
trash compactors, recycling, and other energy facilities meeting
the criteria outlined in Section 18.42.120 (Resource
Conservation Energy Facilities); and
b. Areas designed and required for hazardous materials
storage facilities, disability related access or seismic upgrades.
For the purposes of this section disability related upgrades are
limited to the incremental square footage necessary to
accommodate disability access and shall be subject to the
Director’s approval not to exceed 500 square feet per site.
Disability related upgrades shall only apply to remodels of
existing buildings and shall not qualify for grandfathered floor
area in the event the building is later replaced or otherwise
redeveloped.; and
c. Areas designed and required for refuse storage, such
as trash, recycling, and compost, when it is the minimum
amount needed to comply with current code requirements. The
provisions of this subsection (a)(65)(B)(iv) are not intended to
and do not allow the removal of a previously approved existing
interior refuse storage area.
. . .
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 5 November 2017
(D) Low Density Residential Exclusions: In the RE and R‐1 single‐family
residence districts and in the R‐2 and RMD two‐family residence
districts, "gross floor area" shall not include the following:
. . .
(vii) For residences designated on the city’s Historic Inventory as
a Category 1 through 4or Category 2 historic structure as defined in
Section 16.49.020 of this or any contributing structure within a locally
designated historic district, or if individually listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources,
the following gross floor area exclusions apply.
. . .
(114.2) “Porte‐cochere” means a covered structure attached to a residence or adjacent
to a residence and erected over a driveway, which is completely open on three or more sides and
used for the temporary unloading and loading of vehicles.
. . .
SECTION 5. Sections 18.10.080 (Accessory Uses and Facilities) and 18.10.090 (Basements) of
Chapter 18.10 (Low Density Residential RE, R‐2 and RMD Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
PAMC are amended as follows:
18.10.080 Accessory Uses and Facilities
. . .
(b) Location and Development Standards
. . .
(3) An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear yard
unless the building is at least seventy‐five feet from any property line adjacent to
a street, measured along the respective lot line. Provided, on corner lots,
accessory buildings including detached garages and carports may be located in
the rear yard if located at least 75 feet from the front street and at least 20 feet
from the side street property lines.
(A) Fixed outdoor fire pits, fireplaces, and cooking surfaces shall be set back a
minimum of four feet from the interior side and rear property line.
18.10.090 Basements
. . .
(b) Inclusion of Gross Floor Area
Basements shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area, provided that:
(1) basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as crawlspace; or
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 6 November 2017
(2) basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the first
floor is no more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the
building foundation. Grade is measured at the lowest point of adjacent ground
elevation prior to grading or fill, or finished grade, whichever is lower; or
(3) basement area is associated with a historic property as described in Section
18.04.030(a)(65)(D)(vii).
. . .
SECTION 6. Sections 18.12.040 (Development Standards), 18.12.080 (Accessory Uses and
Facilities), 18.12.090 (Basements), 18.12.110 (Single Family Individual Review), and 18.12.120
(Home Improvement Exception) of Chapter 18.12 (R‐1 Single‐ Family Residential District) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended as follows:
18.12.040 Site Development Standards
. . .
(b) Gross Floor Area Summary
. . .
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Description Included in GFA Excluded from GFA
Accessory structures greater than 120 sq. ft.
Second floor equivalent: areas with heights >17' counted twice)
Third floor equivalent: areas with heights > 26' (counted three
Third floor equivalent, where roof pitch is > 4:12 up to 200 sq. ft.
of unusable space
Garages and carports
Porte cocheres
Entry feature < 12' in height, if not substantially enclosed and not recessed (counted once)
Vaulted entry > 12' in height (footprint
counted twice)
Fireplace footprint (counted once)
First floor roofed or unenclosed porches
First floor recessed porches <10' in depth and open on exterior side
Second floor roofed or enclosed porches, arcades, balconies, porticos, breeze‐
ways
Basements (complying with patio & lightwell requirements described in Section
18.12.090)
Areas on floors above the first floor where the height from the floor level to
the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface is 5 or greater
Bay windows (if at least 18" above interior floor, does not project more than 2',
and more than 50% is covered by windows)
Basement area for Category 1 & 2‐4 Historic Homes or contributing structure
within a historic district, and individually listed homes on the National Register of
Historic Places or California Register of Historic Resources (even if the finished
level of the first floor is greater than 3' above grade)
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 7 November 2017
Unusable attic space for category 1 & 2‐4 Historic Homes or contributing structure
within a historic district, and individually listed homes on the National Register of
Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources
(up to 500 sq. ft.)
. . .
(f) Contextual Garage and Carport Placement
If the predominant neighborhood pattern is of garages or carports located within the
rear half of the site, or with no garage or carport present, attached garages/carports
shall be located in the rear half of the house footprint. Otherwise, an attached
garage/carport may be located in the front half of the house footprint. "Predominant
neighborhood pattern" means the existing garage/carport placement pattern for
more than half of the houses on the same side of the block, including the subject site.
This calculation shall exclude flag lots, corner lots and existing multifamily
developments of three or more units. For blocks longer than 600 feet, the calculations
shall be based on the 10 homes located nearest to and on the same side of the block
as the subject property, plus the subject site, but for a distance no greater than 600
feet. Detached garages/carports shall be located in the rear half of the site and, if
within a rear or side setback, at least 75 feet from the front property line. Detached
garages/carports on lots of less than 95 feet in depth, however, may be placed in a
required interior side or rear yard if located in the rear half of the lot. Access shall be
provided from a rear alley if the existing development pattern provides for alley
access. For the calculation of corner lots, the "predominant pattern" shall be
established for the street where the new garage/carports fronts.
. . .
18.12.080 Accessory Uses and Facilities
. . .
(b) Location and Development Standards
. . .
(3) An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear yard
unless the building is at least seventy‐five feet from any property line adjacent to
a street, measured along the respective lot line. Provided, on corner lots,
accessory buildings including detached garages and carports may be located in
the rear yard if located at least 75 feet from the front street and at least 20 feet
from the side street property lines.
(A) Fixed outdoor fire pits, fireplaces, and cooking surfaces shall be set back a
minimum of four feet from the interior side and rear property line.
. . .
18.12.090 Basements
. . .
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 8 November 2017
(b) Inclusion of Gross Floor Area
Basements shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area, provided that:
(1) basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as crawlspace; or
(2) basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the first
floor is no more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the
building foundation. Grade is measured at the lowest point of adjacent ground
elevation prior to grading or fill, or finished grade, whichever is lower; or
3) basement area is associated with a historic property as described in Section
18.04.030(a)(65)(D)(vii).
. . .
18.12.110 Single Family Individual Review
. . .
(i) If a structure listed on the City’s Historic Inventory or by the State of California as
National Register Eligible was demolished on a site in conjunction with the issuance of an
approval for a building permit, no application for Individual Review for the same property shall
be filed within five (5) years from and after the date of issuance of the demolition permit,
unless the structure was demolished pursuant to a determination by the Building Official under
Section 16.40.040 of Title 16 of this Code that the structure was a dangerous building that
cannot be repaired or rehabilitated.
18.12.120 Home Improvement Exception
. . .
(c) Limits of the Home Improvement Exception
A home improvement exception may be granted only for one or more of the
following, not to exceed the specified limits:
. . .
(10) For any residence designated on the city's Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or
Category 2 through 4 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code or any contributing structure within a locally
designated historic district, to allow up to 250 square feet of floor area in excess
of that allowed on the site, provided that any requested addition or exterior
modifications associated with the HIE shall be in substantial conformance with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. The property
owner who is granted a home improvement exception under this subsection
(10) shall be required to sign and record a covenant against the property,
acceptable to the city attorney, which requires that the property be maintained
in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic
Rehabilitation.
. . .
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 9 November 2017
SECTION 7. Sections 18.15.020 (Definitions), 18.15.030 (Density Bonuses), 18.15.080
(Application Requirements), and 18.15.090 (Review Procedures) of Chapter 18.15 (Residential
Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended as follows:
18.15.020 Definitions
Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the meaning
established by this Section:
. . .
(h) “Density bonus” means a density increase over the maximum residential density
granted pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and this ordinance., or, if elected by the
applicant, a lesser percentage of density increase, including, but not limited to, no increase in
density.
. . .
(s) “Replace” means either of the following:
(i) If any dwelling units described in Section 18.15.030(h) are occupied on
the date that the application is submitted to the City, the proposed
housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of
equivalent size or type, or both, to be made available at affordable rent
or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in
the same or lower income category as those households in occupancy.
For unoccupied dwelling units described in Section 18.15.030(h) in a
development with occupied units, the proposed housing development
shall provide units of equivalent size or type, or both, to be made
available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied
by, persons and families in the same or lower income category in the
same proportion of affordability as the occupied units. All replacement
calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next
whole number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units,
theses units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at
least 55 years. For purposes of this subsection (s) of Section 18.15.020,
“equivalent size” means that the replacement units contain at least the
same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced.
(ii) If all dwelling units described in Section 18.15.030(h) have been vacated
or demolished within the five‐year period preceding the application, the
proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number
of units of equivalent size or type, or both, as existed at the highpoint of
those units in the five‐year period preceding the application to be made
available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied
by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as those
persons and families in occupancy at that time, if known. If the incomes
of the persons and families in occupancy at the highpoint is not known,
then one‐half of the required units shall be made available at affordable
rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low income
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 10 November 2017
persons and families and one‐half of the required units shall be made
available for rent at affordable housing costs to, and occupied by, low‐
income persons and families. All replacement calculations resulting in
fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the
replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be
subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years.
. . .
18.15.030 Density Bonuses
This Section describes the density bonuses that will be provided, at the request of an
applicant, when that applicant provides restricted affordable units as described below.
(a) The City shall grant a 20 percent (20%) density bonus when an applicant for a
development of five (5) or more dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct at least
any one of the following in accordance with the requirements of this Section and
Government Code Section 65915:
. . .
(iv) A qualifying mobile home park; or.
(v) At least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units of the development for
transitional foster youth, as defined in Section 66025.9 of the Education Code,
disabled veterans, as defined in Section 18541 of the Government Code, or
homeless persons, as defined in the federal McKinney‐Vento Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 11301 et seq.). The units described in this subsection shall be
subject to a recorded affordability restriction of 55 years and shall be provided at
the same affordability level as very low income units.
. . .
(c) No additional density bonus shall be authorized for a senior citizen development or
qualifying mobilehome park beyond the density bonus authorized by subsection (a)
of this Section.Reserved
. . .
(e) Each development is entitled to only one density bonus, which shall be selected by
the applicant based on the percentage of very low restricted affordable units, lower
income restricted affordable units, or moderate income restricted affordable units,
or the development’s status as a senior citizen housing development or qualifying
mobilehome park, or the development’s provision of restricted affordable units for
transitional foster youth, disabled veterans or homeless persons. Density bonuses
from more than one category may not be combined. In no case shall a development
be entitled to a density bonus of more than thirty‐five percent (35%).
. . .
18.15.080 Application Requirements
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 11 November 2017
An Application for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification or
revised parking standard shall be made as follows:
(a) An application for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification or
revised parking standard shall be submitted with the first application for a
discretionary permit for a development and shall be processed concurrently with
those discretionary permits. The application shall be on a form prescribed by the
City and shall include the following information:
. . .
(iv) If a concession or incentive is requested, a brief explanation as to the actual
cost reduction achieved through the concession or incentive and how the
cost reduction allows the applicant to provide the restricted affordable units.
. . .
(viii) For concessions and incentives that are not included within the menu of
incentives/concessions set forth in subsection (c) of Section 18.15.050, the
application requires the submittal of the project proforma or other
comparable documentation (referred to herein as the “proforma
information”) to the Director, providing evidence that the requested
concessions and incentives result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and
actual cost reductions. The cost of reviewing the project proforma
information, including, but not limited to, the cost to the City of hiring a
consultant to review the financial data, shall be borne by the applicant. The
proforma information shall include all of the following items:
. . .
(B) Evidence that the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide
affordable rents or affordable sales prices; and
(BC) Other information requested by the Planning Director. The Planning
Director may require additional financial information including information
regarding capital costs, equity investment, debt service, projected revenues,
operating expenses, and such other information as is required to evaluate
the financial proforma information;
. . .
18.15.090 Review Procedures
. . .
(a) Before approving an application for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver,
modification or revised parking standard, the Approval Authority shall make the
following findings, as applicable:
. . .
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 12 November 2017
(ii) Any requested concession or incentive will result in identifiable, financially
sufficient, and actual cost reductions based upon the financial analysis and
documentation provided. The City finds that the concessions and incentives
included in Section 18.150.050(c) will result in identifiable, financially
sufficient, and actual cost reductions.
. . .
SECTION 8. Section 18.16.050 (Office Use Restrictions) of Chapter 18.16 (Neighborhood,
Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
PAMC is amended as follows:
18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions
The following restrictions shall apply to office uses:
(a) Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non‐Office Commercial to Office
Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor,
unless any of the following apply to such offices:
(1) Have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and as
of such date, were neither non‐conforming nor in the process of being amortized
pursuant to Chapter 18.30(I);
(2) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, neighborhood business
service, retail services, personal services, eating and drinking services, or
automotive service on March 19, 2001 or thereafter;
(3) In the case of CS zoned properties with site frontage on El Camino Real, were not
occupied by housing on March 19, 2001;
(43) Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 2001;
. . .
SECTION 9. Section 18.28.070 (Additional OS District Regulations) of Chapter 18.28 Special
Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows:
18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations
. . .
(b) Site and Design Approval
(2) Major Site and Design Review: For all other projects not reviewed as Minor
Site and Design Review, the project will be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation
Commission for review and recommendation and then placed on the Council Consent agenda
for final action, as prescribed for staff actions outlined in Section 18.76.06018.77.060 (Standard
Staff Review Process). Provided, however, that the following projects may be forwarded
directly to the City Council Consent agenda by staff without review by the Planning and
Transportation Commission, where all of the following conditions apply:
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 13 November 2017
. . .
SECTION 10. Section 18.30(G).060 (Action by Commission) of Chapter 18.30(G) (Site and
Design (D) Review Combining District Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended
as follows:
18.30(G).060 Action by Commission
Unless the application for design approval is diverted for minor architectural review
under Section 18.76.020 (b)(3)(DE), the planning commission shall review the site plan and
drawings, and shall recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem
necessary to accomplish the following objectives:
. . .
SECTION 11. Section 18.40.050 (Location and Use of Accessory Buildings) of Chapter 18.40
(General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended and a new
Section 18.40.190 (Application Withdrawal) is added to the same Chapter as follows:
18.40.050 Location and Use of Accessory Buildings
. . .
(b) Limitations of Uses for Accessory Buildings
In residential zones, accessory buildings may be located in a required interior yard
subject to the following limitations:
. . .
(3) An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear
yard unless the building is at least seventy‐five feet from any street line,
measured along the respective lot line.
(A) Fixed outdoor fire pits, fireplaces, and cooking surfaces shall be set back a
minimum of four feet from the interior side and rear property line.
. . .
18.40.190 Application Withdrawal by Applicant or Director
(a) Applicant Withdrawal. The applicant may withdraw any rezoning, permit or other
application submitted pursuant to this Title at any time before action to approve,
conditionally approve or deny the application has been taken by the decisionmaking
body, by providing written notification to the Director.
(b) Inactive Applications. Where there is inactivity on an application on the part of the
applicant for a period of at least six consecutive months, the Director shall have the
authority to deem an application withdrawn after providing written notice as
provided herein. The Director shall provide notice of his or her intent to deem an
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 14 November 2017
application withdrawn at least thirty days’ prior to the proposed effective date.
Such notice shall be provided by first class mail to the last known address of the
applicant on record with the Director. For purposes of this section, “inactivity” on
an application means that the Director has requested from the applicant or has
provided the applicant with notice of additional information, materials and/or fees
needed by the Director from the applicant to continue to process the application
and the applicant has failed to adequately respond to that request or notice.
18.40.200 New Application Submittal Required
The Director shall have the authority to require the filing of a new application when a
pending application project description, proposed land uses, building design, or other aspects
of the project are substantially modified as to warrant a new review of the project to applicable
code sections. The filing of a new application shall be subject to new fees and shall render the
previous application withdrawn.
SECTION 12. Sections 18.42.040 (Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units), and
18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended as follows:
18.42.040 Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
The following regulations apply to zoning districts where accessory dwelling units and
junior accessory dwelling units are permitted.
(a) Accessory Dwelling Units
(1) Purpose
The intent of this section is to provide regulations to accommodate accessory
dwelling units, in order to provide for variety to the city's housing stock and
additional affordable housing opportunities. Accessory Dwelling Units shall be
separate, self‐contained living units, with separate entrances from the main
residence, whether attached or detached. The standards below are provided to
minimize the impacts of accessory dwelling units on nearby residents and
throughout the city, and to assure that the size and location of such dwellings is
compatible with the existing or proposed residence on the site and with other
structures in the area.
(2) Minimum Lot Sizes
A. In the R‐1 district and all R‐1 subdistricts, RE district, R‐2 district, and RMD
district, and properties zoned Planned Community (PC) where single‐family
residential is an allowed use, the minimum lot size for the development of
an accessory dwelling unit is 5,000 square feet.
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 15 November 2017
B. In the OS District, the minimum lot size for the development of an accessory
dwelling unit is 10 acres.
. . .
(3) Setbacks and Daylight Plane
A. Except as otherwise provided in this section, accessory dwelling units shall
comply with the underlying zoning district's setbacks, including daylight
plane requirements.
B. Notwithstanding section A. above, no setback shall be required for an
existing garage that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, except as
provided in subsection (a)(5) below.
C. In districts permitting second story accessory dwelling units, a setback of no
more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an
accessory dwelling unit constructed above a garage.
. . .
(5) Conversion of Space in Existing Single Family Residence or Existing Accessory
Structure
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(7) and (a)(8),
in the R‐1 district and all R‐1 subdistricts, and the RE district only, R2, RMD, RM and
OS districts, and properties zoned Planned Community (PC) where single‐family
residential is an allowed use, an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be permitted if the
unit is contained within the existing space of a single‐family residence or an existing
accessory structure, has independent exterior access from the existing residence,
and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety, and if the accessory
dwelling unit conforms with the following:
. . .
(7) Additional Development Standards for Attached Accessory Dwelling Units
A. Attached accessory dwelling units are those attached to the main
dwelling. All attached accessory dwelling units shall be subject to the
additional development requirements specified below.
B. Attached unit size counts toward the calculation of maximum house size.
C. Unit Size: The maximum size of an attached accessory dwelling unit living
area shall not exceed 600 square feet and shall not exceed 50% of the
proposed or existing living area of the primary dwelling unit. The
accessory dwelling unit and any covered parking provided for the
accessory dwelling unit shall be included in the total floor area for the site,
but the covered parking area is not included in the maximum 600 square
feet for attached unit. Any basement space used as an accessory dwelling
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 16 November 2017
unit or portion thereof shall be counted as floor area for the purpose of
calculating the maximum size of the accessory unit.
18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities
. . .
(f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings
(1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's
decision shall be final and shall not be appealable pursuant to the
procedures set forth in Chapters 18.77 or 18.78;
(2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds
that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request;
(3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1
WCF Permit:
(i) The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing
concealment elements of the support structure; and
(ii) The proposed WCF shall comply with the development standards in
Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7), and the conditions of approval in
Section 18.42.110(j).
(g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings
(1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her
sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board. The
Director's decision shall be appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal
may be set for hearing before the City Council or may be placed on the
Council’s consent calendar, pursuant to the process for appeal of
architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f).
. . .
(h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings
(1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her
sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board and/or
Planning and Transportation Commission. The Director's decision shall be
appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing
before the City Council or may be placed on the Council’s consent calendar,
pursuant to the process for appeal of architectural review set forth in
Section 18.77.070(f) and the process for conditional use permits set forth in
Section 18.77.060.
. . .
(k) Removal of Abandoned Equipment
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 17 November 2017
A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use
for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless
communications service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the
cessation of use of that WCF. A new conditional useWCF permit shall not be issued
to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications service provider
until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed.
(l) Revocation
The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with
any condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be
appealable pursuant to the process applicable to issuance of the Permit, as provided
in subdivisions (f), (g), and (h) of this sectionfor architectural review set forth in
Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in
Section 18.77.060.
SECTION 13. Sections 18.52.030 (Basic Parking Regulations) and 18.52.050 (Adjustments by the
Director) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
PAMC are amended as follows:
18.52.030 Basic Parking Regulations
. . .
(i) Transportation Demand Management Plan
(1) Requirement for TDM Plan: A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
to reduce and manage the number of single‐occupant motor vehicle trips
generated by the project shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant in the
following circumstances:
A. For all projects that generate 100 50 or more net new weekday (AM or PM
peak hour) or weekend peak hour trips;
. . .
(1) The Director shall have the authority to adopt guidelines for preparing TDM
plans and when applicable shall coordinate such guidelines with the
Transportation Management AuthorityAssociation.
18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director
. . .
(d) Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
(2) Where a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is proposed or
required, the TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures
to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. The Director shall
have the authority to adopt guidelines for preparing TDM plans. Required
measures may include, but are not limited to: participation in the Transportation
Management Authority Association or similar organization, limiting “assigned”
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 18 November 2017
parking to one space per residential unit, providing for transit passes, parking cash‐
out, enhanced shuttle service (or contributions to extend or enhance existing
shuttle service or to create new shared or public shuttle service), car‐sharing,
traffic‐reducing housing, providing priority parking spaces for carpools/vanpools or
“green” vehicles (zero emission vehicles, inherently low emission vehicles, or plug‐
in hybrids, etc.), vehicle charging stations, additional bicycle parking facilities, or
other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program
shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the director, shall include proposed
performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction and indicate the basis for
such estimates, and shall designate a single entity (property owner, homeowners
association, etc.) to implement the proposed measures.
. . .
SECTION 14. Section 18.54.020 (Vehicle Parking Facilities) of Chapter 18.54 (Parking Facility
Design Standards) of the PAMC is amended as follows:
18.54.020 Vehicle Parking Facilities
(a) Parking Facility Design
. . .
(3) The required stall widths shown in Table 5 3 of Section 18.54.070 shall be
increased by 0.5 foot for any stall located immediately adjacent to a wall, whether on
one or both sides. The director may require that the required stall widths be increased
by 0.5 foot for any stall located immediately adjacent to a post, where such post limits
turning movements into or out of the stall.
. . .
SECTION 15. Section 18.76.020 (Architectural Review) of Chapter 18.76 (Permits and
Approvals) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows:
18.76.020 Architectural Review
. . .
(b) Applicability
No permit required under Title 2, Title 12 or Title 16 shall be issued for a major or minor
project, as set forth in this section, unless an application for architectural review is reviewed,
acted upon, and approved or approved with conditions as set forth in Section 18.77.070.
(1) Exempt Projects. The following projects do not require architectural review:
Single‐family and two‐family residences do not require architectural review,
except as provided under subsections (2)(C) and (2)(D).
(A) Single‐family and two‐family residences do not require architectural review,
except as provided under subsections (2)(C) and (2)(D).
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 19 November 2017
(B) Projects determined by the director of planning and community environment
to be substantially minor in nature and have inconsequential visual impacts
to the adjacent properties and public streets. These exempt projects are
referred to as “over the counter projects”. The director shall have the
authority to promulgate a list of such exempt projects under this subsection.
. . .
(3) Minor Projects. The following are “minor projects” for the purposes of the
architectural review process set forth in Section 18.77.070, except when
determined to be major pursuant to subsection (2)(I) or exempt pursuant to
subsection (1)(B):
. . .
SECTION 16. Sections 18.77.020 (Applications), 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process),
18.77.070 (Architectural Review Process), 18.77.080 (Notice), and 18.77.110 (Revocation or
Modification of Approvals) of Chapter 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the PAMC are amended, and new Section 18.77.077 (Over the Counter Project
Review Process) is added to the same Chapter, as follows:
18.77.020 Applications
. . .
(d) Resubmittal of applications
If an application is denied, the director or city council may specify that a substantially
similar application may not be accepted within 12 months prior tofollowing the date of such
denial, unless it is shown that the circumstances surrounding the application have changed
substantially.
18.77.060 Standard Staff Review Process
. . .
(b) Notice of Application Completeness
Not later than thirty days after an application has been received, the director shall notify
the applicant in writing whether the application is complete. If the application is determined
not to be complete, procedures outlined in in Section 18.77.030 shall apply. Once an
application is deemed complete, notice that the application has been filed and deemed
complete shall be given by mail to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the
property, by publication, by e‐mail, and by posting in a public place. The notice shall include the
address of the property and a brief description of the proposed project.
(c) Decision by the Director
Not less than twenty‐one days following the date an application is deemed complete:
. . .
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 20 November 2017
(2) Notice of the proposed director's decision shall be given by mail to owners and
residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication, by e‐mail,
and by posting in a public place. The notice shall include the address of the
property, a brief description of the proposed project, a brief description of the
proposed director's decision, the date the decision will be final if no hearing is
requested, and a description of how to request a hearing.
(3) The proposed director's decision shall become final fourteen days after the date
notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a hearing is
filed. The director may, for good cause, specify in writing a longer period for
requesting a hearing at the time he or she issued the proposed decisions.
. . .
(d) Withdrawal of Hearing Request
. . .
(2) Notice of the proposed director's decision shall be given by mail to owners and
residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication, by e‐mail,
and by posting in a public place. Notice shall include the address of the property,
a brief description of the proposed project, the specific modifications made to
the application, the date the decision will be final, a description of how to
request a hearing, and a statement that any request for a hearing on the revised
decision is limited to those modifications.
(3) The revised proposed director's decision shall become final fourteen days after
the date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a
hearing is filed. The director may, for good cause, specify in writing a longer
period for requesting a hearing at the time he or she issues the proposed
decision.
(e) Hearing and Recommendation (Upon Request) by the Planning and Transportation
Commission
(2) Notice of the revised director's decision shall be given by mail to owners and
residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication, by e‐mail,
and by posting in a public place. Notice shall include the address of the property,
a brief description of the proposed project, and the date, time and location of
the hearing.
. . .
18.77.070 Architectural Review Process
. . .
(b) Tentative Director’s Decision and Hearing Upon Request for Minor Projects
For a minor project, as defined in Section 18.76.020(b)(3), once the application is
deemed complete:
. . .
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 21 November 2017
(2) Notice of the proposed director's decision shall be given mailed to property
owner or applicant and posted in a public placeby publication. The notice shall
include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project,
a brief description of the proposed director's decision, the date the decision will
be final if no hearing is requested, and a description of how to request a hearing.
(3) The proposed director's decision shall become final 14 7 days after the date
notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless an appeal is filed. The
director may, for good cause, specify in writing a longer period for requesting a
hearing at the time he or she issues the proposed decision.
(i) When there is more than one entitlement required for a project, the longer
appeal or request for hearing period shall govern the effective date for the
Minor Architectural Review decision.
(4) The applicant or the subject property owner, or owners or tenants of an adjacent
propertyAny party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the
architectural review board on the proposed director's decision by filing a written
request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting
such a hearing.
. . .
(d) Decision by the Director
Upon receipt of a recommendation of the architectural review board:
. . .
(2) Notice of the director's decision shall be given by mailing to owners and
residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication once in a
local newspaper, and by posting in a public place. Notice shall include the
address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, a brief
description of the action to be taken, the date the decision will be final, and a
description of how to request a hearing.
(3) The director's decision shall become final 14 days after the date notice is mailed
or published, whichever is later , unless an appeal is filed. The director may, for
good cause, specify in writing a longer period for requesting a hearing at the
time he or she issues the proposed decision.
(e) Appeal of the Director's Decision – Filing
Any party, including the applicant, may file an appeal of the director's decision with the
planning division for projects reviewed by the architectural review board. The appeal shall be
filed in written form in a manner prescribed by the director.
. . .
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 22 November 2017
18.77.077 Over the Counter Project Review Process
The director of planning and community environment shall be authorized to adopt
guidelines, rules, and procedures to implement the over the counter project review process for
projects exempt from architectural review under Section 18.76.020(b)(1)(B) of this Title.
18.77.080 Notice
. . .
(f) Notice by Posting in a Public Place
When notice by posting in a public place is required, notice shall be posted in one or
more locations accessible to the public, which may include posting on the city’s website. The
director shall determine the location or locations for posting.
. . .
18.77.110 Revocation or Modification of Approvals
. . .
(c) Decision by the director
. . .
(2) Notice of the director's decision shall be given by mailing to owners and
residents of property within 600 feet of the property, and by publication once
in a local newspaper, and by posting in a public place. Notice shall include the
address of the property, a brief description of the noncompliance, a brief
description of the action to be taken, the date the decision will be final, and a
description of how to appeal the decision.
. . .
SECTION 17. Section 18.80.060 (Notice of Public Hearing) of Chapter 18.80 (Amendments to
Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows:
18.80.060 Notice of Public Hearing
(a) The planning commission shall give a notice of hearing on a proposed change of
district boundaries in the following manner:
(1) Notice of the hearing shall be given by publication once in a local newspaper of
general circulation not less than twelve ten days prior to the date of the hearing.
(2) Additionally, excepting a city‐wide change in the zoning map, the city shall mail
written notice of such hearing at least twelve ten days prior to the date of the
hearing to each owner of real property and to each residential occupant within
600 feet of the exterior boundary of the property for which classification is
sought. Notice shall be provided as specified in Section 18.77.080. Compliance
with the procedures set forth in this section shall constitute a good faith effort to
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 23 November 2017
provide notice, and the failure of any owner or occupant to receive notice shall
not prevent the city from proceeding with the hearing or from taking any action
nor affect the validity of any action.
. . .
SECTION 18. Section 21.12.090 (Action on tentative and preliminary parcel maps) of Chapter
21.12 (Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other
Divisions of Land) of the PAMC is amended as follows:
21.21.090 Action on tentative and preliminary parcel maps
. . .
(e) Action on Preliminary Parcel Map. Subject to the appeal procedures of this title, the
director of planning shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny any preliminary parcel map
filed. The director of planning shall take such action or defer the application for decision by the
City Council pursuant to Section 18.40.170 of Title 18, within fifty days of the date of filing,
unless extended by the mutual consent of the director of planning and the applicant. Prior to
taking any such actionapproving, conditionally approving, or denying a preliminary parcel map,
the director of planning shall hold a public hearing at which any interested person shall be
allowed to present testimony regarding the preliminary parcel map. If, in the opinion of the
director of planning, there are issues of major significance associated with the proposed parcel
map, such map may be deferred by the director of planning to the planning commission and
the city council for processing in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsections (c)
and (d) of this section.
(f) Notice of Hearing.
(1) Notice of the hearing required by subsections (c), (d), or (e) above shall be given
by publication once in a local newspaper of general circulation not less than
twelve ten days prior to the date of the hearing.
(2) Additionally, the city shall mail written notice of such hearing at least twelve ten
days prior to the date of the hearing to each owner of record of real property
within ninety‐one and four‐tenths meters (threesix hundred feet) of the exterior
boundary of the property for which classification is sought as such owner of
record is shown in the last equalized assessment roll and to owners or occupants
of the property within ninety‐one and four‐tenths meters (three six hundred
feet) as shown on the city utility customer file. Compliance with the procedures
set forth in this section shall constitute a good‐faith effort to provide notice and
the failure of any owner or occupant to receive notice shall not prevent the city
from proceeding with the hearing or from taking any action nor affect the
validity of any action.
. . .
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 24 November 2017
(4) In addition to any other information required, the applicant shall submit with its
application a list of all owners of record of real property within ninety‐one and
four‐tenths meters (threesix hundred feet) of the exterior boundary of the
property to be subdivided as shown in the last equalized assessment roll (as
updated by the semiannual real estate update information).
SECTION 19. Section 21.32.010 (Application for exceptions) of Chapter 21.32 (Conditional
Exceptions) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the PAMC is amended as
follows:
21.32.010 Application for exceptions
A subdivider may apply for conditional Eexceptions to any of the requirements and
regulations set forth in this title and Title 18, as defined in Section 21.04.030(b)(17). Such
exceptions may be granted only by the city council after recommendation by the planning
commission. Application for such exception shall be made by petition of the subdivider, stating
fully the grounds of the application and the facts relied upon by the petitioner. Such petition
shall be submitted with the tentative or preliminary parcel map for which the exception is
requested and shall be reviewed and processed concurrent with said map.
SECTION 20. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent
with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is
hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 21. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each
and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or
unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be
subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 22. The Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections
15061(b) and 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting
scheme.
SECTION 23. This Ordinance shall not apply to any planning or land use applications deemed
complete as of the effective date of this Ordinance.
//
//
//
NOT YET APPROVED
171011 jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 25 November 2017
SECTION 24. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first date after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 8041)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/29/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Planning-Related Code Amendments (2018)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation to the City Council
Regarding the Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.20 (Planning and
Transportation Commission) of Title 2, Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of
Title 9, Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of
Title 10, and Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.10 (Low-Density
Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD)), 18.12 (R-1 Single-Family
Residential District), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16
(Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC
and CS) Districts), 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC)
Districts), 18.30(G) (Combining Districts), 18.40 (General
Standards and Exceptions), 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses),
18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.54 (Parking
Facility Design Standards), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals),
18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals), and 18.80
(Amendments to Zoning Map And Zoning Regulations) of Title
18, and Chapters 21.12 (Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel
Maps) and 21.32 (Conditional Exceptions) of Title 21. The
Proposed Ordinance is Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). For More Information, Please
Contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org.
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following
action(s):
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
1. Find the proposed draft ordinance exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3); and
2. Recommend to the City Council adoption an ordinance (Attachment A) to amend
various sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Report Summary
This report transmits proposed amendments to various sections of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC), with many changes affecting Title 18, the Zoning Code. These code amendments
are intended to modify code provisions to reflect current practice or policy, correct errors, and
introduce some new policy initiatives. The proposed code modifications are focused on the
items listed below and are presented in the report in this same order.
Minor Text Clarifications:
1. Correct Threshold Requiring a Transportation Demand Management Plan
2. Correct Reference to Transportation Management Association
3. Remove Duplicate Definition of “Director”
4. Correct Table Reference – Parking Stall Widths
5. Correct Site and Design Code Reference
6. Clarify that the Contextual Garage Placement Applies to Carports
7. Clarification of Carport and Garage Definitions
8. Site and Design Review – Correct Code Reference for Minor Projects
9. Resubmittal of Denied Applications – Correct Language
10. Map Exceptions Process – Add Reference to Title 18
11. Clarify Floor Area Exemptions for Historic Homes
12. Office Restrictions in CS/CN/CC – Remove CS Reference
13. Preliminary Parcel Map – Add Option of Director’s Deferral Directly to Council
Procedural-Related Amendments:
14. Remove Restrictive Election Time for PTC Officers
15. Establish Uniform Timing for Public Hearing Notices for Maps and Zone Changes
16. Add Provision to Allow Closure of Inactive Applications and Require New Application for
Substantially Modified Projects
17. Prohibit Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers in Commercial Districts
18. Add Floor Area Exemption for Trash Enclosures in the CD District
19. Expand Exceptions for Historic Homes Related to Floor Area and HIE’s
20. Clarify Setbacks for Outdoor Fireplaces and BBQs
21. Establish an Over the Counter Architectural Review Process
22. Various Updates to Application Processing and Approvals
23. Clarifications to the Wireless Communication Facilities Review Process
24. Modify Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirements Per State Regulations
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
25. Update Residential Density Bonus Per State Requirements
26. Remove Bicycle License Requirement
27. Individual Review and Demolition of Historic Inventory Properties
Background
As circumstances warrant, the City reviews the Municipal Code and makes changes intended to
better achieve stated goals, reflect operational practices, provide clarity, or improve a process
provided for in the ordinance. There are also instances where code changes are needed to
address changes in State law or in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The various code
amendments proposed are part of an on-going effort to bring the zoning code into alignment
with these practices and regulations. The last collection of Planning Code Amendments was
approved earlier this year in February 2017. It is staff’s intent to bring forward minor code
amendments annually, as needed.
In this collection of proposed code updates, there are references to code sections other than
Title 18 (Zoning Code). These additional sections include the noise ordinance, parking and
bicycle regulations, and the subdivision process.
Discussion
The proposed code amendments are divided into two groups, one for minor text clarifications
and one for procedural or process focused changes. Each amendment is presented with the
“issue” that is being addressed by the proposed code change, and includes any relevant
background. Additionally, for each existing code section, the staff report provides links to the
web-based municipal code so the reader can review the related code sections in full detail. For
each amendment, once the issue has been identified, the report then provides the proposed
text modifications. The majority of the proposed text amendments are included in the body of
the report and for those that are not, they can be found in the attached draft ordinance,
Attachment A.
A. Minor Text Clarifications
1. Correct Threshold Requiring a Transportation Demand Management Plan
Issue: With the adoption of Ordinance 5406 in February 2017, a text correction was missed
regarding the threshold of when a project would be required to provide a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan. Section 18.52.030 (i)(1)(A), in Basic Parking Regulations,
should reflect 50 new vehicle trips and not 100. This 50 trip threshold was what Council intended
by their motion, and the code sections were amended to reflect this change, but the correction
was overlooked for the section referenced here.
Proposed Text:
(i) Transportation Demand Management Plan
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
(1) Requirement for TDM Plan: A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to
reduce and manage the number of single-occupant motor vehicle trips generated by the
project shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant in the following circumstances:
(A) For all projects that generate 50 100 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak
hour) or weekend peak hour trips;
2. Correct Reference to Transportation Management Association
Issue: In Chapter 18.52, Parking and Loading Requirements, there are two incorrect references
to the Transportation Management Authority; it should read Transportation Management
Association.
Proposed Text:
18.52.030 Basic Parking Regulations
(i) Transportation Demand Management Plan
(2) The Director shall have the authority to adopt guidelines for preparing TDM plans and
when applicable shall coordinate such guidelines with the Transportation Management
AuthorityAssociation.
18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director
(d) Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
(2) Where a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is proposed or required,
the TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures to be implemented to
reduce parking need and trip generation. The Director shall have the authority to adopt
guidelines for preparing TDM plans. Required measures may include, but are not limited to:
participation in the Transportation Management AuthorityAssociation or similar organization,
3. Remove Duplicate Definition of “Director”
Issue: Section 18.04.030(a), Definitions, contains the same two definitions for “Director” and they
are listed in subsections (41.5) and (44.8). The second listing is the correct placement for this
definition.
Proposed Text:
(41.5) “Director” means the director of planning and community environment or his or her
designee.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
4. Correct Table Reference – Parking Stall Widths
Issue: Section 18.54.020(a)(3), in Parking Facility Design, refers to the incorrect table for the
dimensions for parking stalls.
Proposed Text:
(3) The required stall widths shown in Table 3 5 of Section 18.54.070 shall be increased by 0.5
foot for any stall located immediately adjacent to a wall, whether on one or both sides.
5. Correct Site and Design Code Reference
Issue: Section 18.28.070(b)(2), in Site and Design Approval, refers to the incorrect application
review process/code section.
Proposed Text:
(2) Major Site and Design Review: For all other projects not reviewed as Minor Site and Design
Review, the project will be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review
and recommendation and then placed on the Council Consent agenda for final action, as
prescribed for staff actions outlined in Section 18.77.060 18.76.060 (Standard Staff Review
Process).
6. Clarify that the Contextual Garage Placement Applies to Carports
Issue: Section 18.12.040(f), Contextual Garage Placement, specifies requirements for where the
required covered parking can be placed on the lot for single-family homes in the R-1 zone. Staff
believes, and has expressed in the past, that this code provision as written fails to capture its
intended purpose of discouraging covered vehicle parking in the front half of the lot where a
pattern exists with parking placed on the rear half of lots. This matter was previously presented
to the PTC on September 9th, September 30th and October 28, 2015.1 The Commission at that
time did not support forwarding to Council a recommendation to change this code section based
in part on commissioner arguments that the modification represented a new policy direction and
not a clarification. Staff disagrees with this perspective. Long term city employees with
knowledge of the municipal code have affirmed the interpretation to allow carports in the front
portion of the lot when a garage was precluded from doing so is anomalous to the historical
application of the code. Moreover, staff has found only a limited number of examples where
building permits were issued that allowed carports in the front half of the lot when the
neighborhood pattern clearly shows parking in the rear half. To avoid any future
misinterpretations, staff recommends adding text to clearly indicate that carports must also
comply with the contextual placement requirements that apply to garages.
1 PTC Meeting Minutes: 09/09/2015 Meeting; 09/30/2015 Meeting; 10/28/2015 Meeting
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Proposed Text:
(f) Contextual Garage and Carport Placement
If the predominant neighborhood pattern is of garages or carports located within the rear half of
the site, or with no garage or carport present, attached garages/carports shall be located in the
rear half of the house footprint. Otherwise, an attached garage/carport may be located in the
front half of the house footprint. "Predominant neighborhood pattern" means the existing
garage/carport placement pattern for more than half of the houses on the same side of the block,
including the subject site. This calculation shall exclude flag lots, corner lots and existing
multifamily developments of three or more units. For blocks longer than 600 feet, the calculations
shall be based on the 10 homes located nearest to and on the same side of the block as the subject
property, plus the subject site, but for a distance no greater than 600 feet. Detached
garages/carports shall be located in the rear half of the site and, if within a rear or side setback, at
least 75 feet from the front property line. Detached garages/carports on lots of less than 95 feet in
depth, however, may be placed in a required interior side or rear yard if located in the rear half of
the lot. Access shall be provided from a rear alley if the existing development pattern provides for
alley access. For the calculation of corner lots, the "predominant pattern" shall be established for
the street where the new garage/carports fronts.
7. Clarification of Carport and Garage Definitions
Issue: The definitions of “carport” and “garage” are not as clear as they should be and the
proposed text change would help clarify these terms and correct the specifications for what is
considered a garage.
Proposed Text:
18.04.030(a) Definitions
(24.5) “Carport" means a portion of a principal residential building or an accessory building to a
residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter of one or more motor vehicles, which is
completely open (unenclosed) on two or more sides including on the vehicular entry side, and
which is covered with a solid roof.
(59) “Garage, private” means a portion of a principal residential building or an accessory
building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter of one or more motor vehicles
and which is completely enclosed on three two or more sides and covered with a solid roof.
8. Site and Design Review – Correct Code Reference for Minor Projects
Issue: Section 18.30(G).060, Action by Commission, contains the wrong code reference for the
minor architectural review process.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
Proposed Text:
Unless the application for design approval is diverted for minor architectural review under Section
18.76.020 (b)(3)(D) (E) the planning commission shall review the site plan and drawings, and shall
recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish
the following objectives…
9. Resubmittal of Denied Applications – Correct Language
Issue: Section 18.77.020(d), in Resubmittal of Applications, has a text error regarding when an
applicant may submit a revised project when the earlier application was denied.
Proposed Text:
(d) Resubmittal of applications
If an application is denied, the director or city council may specify that a substantially similar
application may not be accepted within 12 months following prior to the date of such denial,
unless it is shown that the circumstances surrounding the application have changed substantially.
10. Map Exceptions Process – Add Reference to Title 18
Issue: Title 21, Subdivisions, provides direction for all subdivision processes, including a map with
exceptions. In this title, “exception” is defined to mean “an exception to any of the requirements
for lot width, lot depth, lot area, street frontage or access, as set forth in Titles 18 or 21… ” For
added clarification to the map exception process in Section 21.32.010, a specific reference to this
“exception” definition is proposed. This will help clarify that map exceptions may include certain
standards (i.e. lot width, lot area, street frontage or access) required by Title 18.
Proposed Text:
21.32.010 Application for exceptions.
A subdivider may apply for conditional Eexceptions to any of the requirements and regulations
set forth in this title and Title 18, as defined in Section 21.04.030(b)(17). Such exceptions may be
granted only by the city council after recommendation by the planning commission. Application
for such exception shall be made by petition of the subdivider, stating fully the grounds of the
application and the facts relied upon by the petitioner. Such petition shall be submitted with the
tentative or preliminary parcel map for which the exception is requested and shall be reviewed
and processed concurrent with said map.
11. Clarify Floor Area Exemptions for Historic Homes
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
Issue: Section 18.12.040(b) Table 3, Summary of Gross Floor Area for Single Family Residential
Districts, does not precisely reference how basements should be evaluated for inclusion in the
floor area. Table 3 is meant to serve as a simplified reference of the specifications for low density
residential floor area inclusions and exclusions, as outlined in the definition of Gross Floor Area
(PAMC 18.04.030(65)(C) & (D)). The edit to the Table 3 makes the language consistent with the
definition.
Proposed Text:
18.12.040(b) Table 3 Summary of Gross Floor Area for Single Family Residential Districts
Description Included In
GFA
Excluded
from GFA
Basement area for Category 1 & 2 Historic Homes or contributing
structure within a historic district (even if greater than 3' above
grade)
12. Office Restrictions in CS/CN/CC – Remove CS Reference
Issue: The section 18.16.050(a)(3), in Office Use Restrictions, specifies that for CS zoned sites
along El Camino Real, ground floor office use is allowed providing the site was not used for
housing on March 19, 2001. This provision is at odds with other code language seeking to
minimize or limit the circumstances in which office is allowed in certain districts. A preceding
code section prohibits ground floor office when housing, neighborhood business service, retail
services, personal services eating and drinking services and automobile services previously
occupied the site in the CS, CN or CC districts. Section 18.16.050(a)(3) created a loophole that
would allow in the CS zone commercial office to replace retail or restaurants, which is not the
intent of this section. It was believed that this issue was addressed in the last planning codes
update, but it was not. The City’s adoption of the retail preservation ordinance has further
limited the impact of this code section, nevertheless, staff recommends amending this section.
The proposed amendment would simply strike in its entirety subsection (a)(3) of Section
18.16.050 thereby remedying the conflict.
Proposed Text:
18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions
The following restrictions shall apply to office uses:
(a) Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office
Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless any of
the following apply to such offices:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
(1) Have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and as of such
date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to Chapter
18.30(I);
(2) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, neighborhood business service, retail
services, personal services, eating and drinking services, or automotive service on March 19, 2001
or thereafter;
(3) In the case of CS zoned properties with site frontage on El Camino Real, were not occupied
by housing on March 19, 2001;
(4) Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 2001;
13. Preliminary Parcel Map – Add Option of Director’s Deferral Directly to Council
Issue: Section 21.12.090, action on tentative and preliminary parcel maps, provides the director
of planning the option to defer action on a preliminary parcel map after a Director’s Hearing if the
project is considered complex. The current process requires both the PTC and Council to review
the deferred action. Staff suggests modifying the code language to allow the director discretion to
forward deferred actions directly to Council for review, making the PTC review optional. The
reason to provide this alternative process is to streamline the review of certain projects that have
multiple entitlements where Council is required to take action en masse and the PTC has already
reviewed the project in a non-map related public hearing, or where the PTC otherwise has no
other review authority.
Proposed Text:
21.12.090(e) Action on Preliminary Parcel Map.
Subject to the appeal procedures of this title, the director of planning shall approve, conditionally
approve, or deny any preliminary parcel map filed. The director of planning shall take such action
within fifty days of the date of filing, unless extended by the mutual consent of the director of
planning and the applicant. Prior to taking any such action, the director of planning shall hold a
public hearing at which any interested person shall be allowed to present testimony regarding the
preliminary parcel map. If, in the opinion of the director of planning, there are issues of major
significance associated with the proposed parcel map, such map may be deferred by the director
of planning to the planning commission and the city council, or the city council directly under the
provisions of Section 18.40.170 of Title 18, for processing in accordance with the procedures set
forth in subsections (c) and (d) of this section.
B. Procedural Related Amendments
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
14. Remove Restrictive Election Time for PTC Officers
Issue: The current code Section 2.20.030 specifies that the PTC officers, chair and vice chair,
shall be elected annually in November. The proposed code revision would remove the
November provision and allow elections to occur as needed, while maintaining the one-year
term limit. This change is consistent with the provisions for other city commissions, including
the Utility Advisory, Parks and Recreation, and Library Advisory Commissions, and the
Architectural Review Board. The PTC can update its rules of order as needed to establish a
preferred time to conduct its election of officers.
Proposed Text:
2.20.030 Officers
The Commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice chairperson from its membership who shall
serve in such capacity for terms of one year each, or until a successor is elected its officers
annually at the first meeting in November.
15. Establish Uniform Timing for Public Hearing Notices for Maps and Zone Changes
Issue: All required public hearings associated with planning entitlements have a ten calendar
day minimum for providing notice, with the exceptions of zoning amendments (18.80.060) and
maps (21.12.090(f)), which require 12 days. For consistency and to eliminate errors, staff
recommends using the 10 day noticing requirement for all public hearing requirements.
Additionally, the mailing radius is being updated to reflect our existing practice of doing a 600
foot radius mailing for all hearings, except for hearings for Home Improvement Exceptions and
Individual Reviews.
Proposed Text:
21.12.090 Action on tentative and preliminary parcel maps.
(f) Notice of Hearing.
(1) Notice of the hearing required by subsections (c), (d), or (e) above shall be given by
publication once in a local newspaper of general circulation not less than ten twelve days prior
to the date of the hearing.
(2) Additionally, the city shall mail written notice of such hearing at least ten twelve days
prior to the date of the hearing to each owner of record of real property within ninety-one and
four-tenths meters (three six hundred feet) of the exterior boundary of the property for which
classification is sought as such owner of record is shown in the last equalized assessment roll
and to owners or occupants of the property within ninety-one and four-tenths meters (three
hundred feet) as shown on the city utility customer file.
(4) In addition to any other information required, the applicant shall submit with its
application a list of all owners of record of real property within ninety-one and four-tenths
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
meters (threesix hundred feet) of the exterior boundary of the property to be subdivided as
shown in the last equalized assessment roll (as updated by the semiannual real estate update
information)
18.80.060 Notice of Public Hearing
(a) The planning commission shall give a notice of hearing on a proposed change of district
boundaries in the following manner:
(1) Notice of the hearing shall be given by publication once in a local newspaper of general
circulation not less than ten twelve days prior to the date of the hearing.
(2) Additionally, excepting a city-wide change in the zoning map, the city shall mail written
notice of such hearing at least ten twelve days prior to the date of the hearing to each owner
of real property and to each residential occupant within 600 feet of the exterior boundary of
the property for which classification is sought. Notice shall be provided as specified in Section
18.77.080. Compliance with the procedures set forth in this section shall constitute a good
faith effort to provide notice, and the failure of any owner or occupant to receive notice shall
not prevent the city from proceeding with the hearing or from taking any action nor affect the
validity of any action.
16. Add Provision to Allow Closure of Inactive Applications and Require New Application for
Substantially Modified Projects
Issue: The zoning code does not have a provision that specifically allows staff to close out or
withdraw a planning application due to lack of response by the applicant. In practice, staff
notifies an applicant in writing that a response to staff comments is needed within a specific
timeframe (this time line is relative to the level of response required); otherwise the project
will be closed out. This practice has been sufficient for determining which applicants are still
interested in moving forward and which ones are not. Staff seeks to codify this existing
practice by adding a new section to 18.40, General Standards and Exceptions. Additionally,
staff is proposing new code language that would give the Director authority to require the
filing of a new planning application when substantial changes to a project warrant a new
review to applicable code sections. While this does not happen often, there have been
instances where an applicant’s project plans change, sometimes significantly, and all previous
work reviewing the prior project is no longer relevant. In some of these instances, the City is
not being compensated for staff time spent reviewing a new project.
New Text:
18.40.190 Application Withdrawal
(a) Applicant Withdrawal. The applicant may withdraw any rezoning, permit or other
application submitted pursuant to this Title at any time before action to approve,
conditionally approve or deny the application has been taken by the decisionmaking
body, by providing written notification to the Director.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12
(b) Inactive Applications. Where there is inactivity on an application on the part of the
applicant for a period of at least six consecutive months, the Director shall have the
authority to deem an application withdrawn without holding any hearing. The Director
shall provide a courtesy notice to the applicant at the last known address of the
applicant on record with the Director of the Director’s intention to deem an application
withdrawn at least thirty days prior to deeming such application withdrawn, and the
notice shall specify the date that the application is deemed withdrawn. For purposes of
this section, “inactivity” on an application means that the Director has requested from
the applicant or has provided the applicant with notice of additional information,
materials and/or fees needed by the Director from the applicant to continue to process
the application and the applicant has failed to adequately respond to that request or
notice.
18.40.200 New Application Submittal Required
New Application Submittal. The Director shall have the authority to require the filing of a new
application when a pending application project description, proposed land uses, building
design, or other aspects of the project are substantially modified as to warrant a new review
of the project to applicable code sections. The filing of a new application shall be subject to
new fees and renders the previous application withdrawn.
17. Prohibit Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers in Commercial Districts
Issue: The use of leaf blowers powered by an internal combustion engine generates high noise
volumes and is generally considered a public nuisance. The current regulations prohibit the use
of these gas-powered leaf blowers in residential districts (Section 9.10.060(f)(2)). The proposal
is to carry the prohibition over to commercial districts as well. The proposed amendment
includes an exception for activity on City-owned or operated lands and on Palo Alto Unified
School District lands. Another exception is proposed on these lands for emergency related
operations.
Proposed Text:
9.10.060(f) Leaf Blowers.
(2) No person shall operate any leaf blowers within a residential zone except during the
following hours: nine a.m. and five p.m. Monday through Friday and ten a.m. and four
p.m. Saturday. No person shall operate any leaf blower within any non-residential zone
except during the following hours: eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday through Friday, and
ten a.m. to four p.m. Saturday. No person shall operate any leaf blowers on Sundays and
holidays. No person shall operate any leaf blower powered by an internal combustion
engine within any residential or commercial zone after July 1, 2005. Commercial
operators of leaf blowers are prohibited from operating any leaf blower within the city if
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13
they do not prominently display a certificate approved by the Chief of Police verifying
that the operator has been trained to operate leaf blowers according to standards
adopted by the Chief of Police. In addition to all authorizations and restrictions
otherwise provided in this chapter, public streets, sidewalks, and parking lots in business
districts and at the Municipal Golf Course and all city parks may be cleaned between
4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. using leaf blowers which bear an affixed manufacturer's label
indicating the model number of the leaf blower and designating a noise level not in
excess of sixty-five dBA when measured from a distance of fifty feet utilizing American
National Standard Institute methodology.
(3) The use of leaf blowers powered by an internal combustion engine shall be allowed when
used on property owned or operated by the City or the Palo Alto Unified School District
between nine a.m. and five p.m. Monday through Friday and ten a.m. and four p.m.
Saturday for routine maintenance operations, and at any time for emergency
operations.
18. Add Floor Area Exemption for Trash Enclosures in the CD District
Issue: Currently the code [Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(B)] allows some minor floor area
exemptions upon Director approval for non-residential and multi-family development, but
specifically excludes the CD Commercial Downtown zone district. The recommendation is to
allow these same minor exemptions to apply in the CD zone and clarify the requirements.
For existing developed commercial sites in the CD zone district, businesses are finding it
difficult to comply with City regulations for required enclosed and covered refuse areas (as
required by Public Works Water Quality). This is primarily because these refuse structures
count towards the site’s floor area calculation and many of the existing developed sites are at
or over their floor area ratio (FAR) limit. The purpose of requiring covered exterior refuse
areas is to prevent rain from falling on containers, compactors, or the enclosure floor and
carrying contaminants to the stormwater system. Additionally, polluted water can enter the
storm drain through leaks or spills when the containers are emptied.
Although this current code section allows for additional Director approved FAR for the
purpose of code compliance, the recommendation is to explicitly identify that new code-
required structures for refuse areas for existing facilities may qualify for this exemption. The
intent of this code modification is not to allow conversion of existing interior refuse area to
be relocated outside the building, but to provide some relief for constrained sites when no
refuse storage area exists. Additionally, the added FAR cannot be grandfathered and carried
over to a newly constructed project.
Proposed Text:
18.04.030(a)(65) Gross Floor Area
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14
(B) Non-residential & Multifamily Exclusions: For all zoning districts other than the R-E, R-1, R-2
and RMD residence districts, “gross floor area” shall not include the following:
(iv) Except in the CD District and in areas designated as special study areas, For existing
structures, minor additions of floor area approved by the director of planning and community
environment for purposes of resource conservation or code compliance, upon the determination
that such minor additions will increase compliance with environmental health, safety or other
federal, state or local standards. Any additional floor area approved shall not qualify for
grandfathered floor area in the event the building is later replaced or redeveloped. Such
allowable additions may include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Areas designed for resource conservation, such as trash compactors, recycling, and
other energy facilities meeting the criteria outlined in Section 18.42.120 (Resource Conservation
Energy Facilities);
b. Areas designed and required for hazardous materials storage facilities, disability
related access or seismic upgrades. For the purpose of this section disability related upgrades
are limited to the incremental square footage necessary to accommodate disability access and
shall be subject to the Director’s approval not to exceed 500 square feet per site. Disability
related upgrades shall only apply to remodels of existing buildings; and shall not qualify for
grandfathered floor area in the event the building is later replaced or otherwise redeveloped;
and
c. Areas designed and required for refuse storage, such as trash, recycling, and compost,
when it is the minimum amount needed to comply with current code requirements. The
provisions of this subsection (a)(65)(B)(iv) are not intended to and do not allow the removal of a
previously approved existing interior refuse storage area.
19. Expand Exceptions for Historic Homes Related to Floor Area and HIE’s
Issue: The existing code allows for certain exceptions to residences designated on the city’s
Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or 2 historic resource. The Historic Resources Board (HRB)
and staff recommend the two exceptions highlighted below regarding basements and Home
Improvement Exceptions (HIE) be extended to residences designated as Category 3 and 4
resources. And, in the case regarding basement floor area exceptions, to also include homes
listed on the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources.
The inclusion of these other historic designated properties for exceptions further supports
retention and preservation of these valued resources in the City.
A. Expand basement exceptions for historic homes in the Gross Floor Area definition.
Proposed Text:
18.04.030(a)(65)(D) Low Density Residential Exclusions: In the RE and R-1 single-family residence
districts and in the R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts, “gross floor area” shall not include
the following:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15
(vii) For residences designated on the city’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1 through 4
or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020, of this or any contributing
structure within a locally designated historic district, or if individually listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources, the following gross floor
area exclusions apply.
a. New or existing basement area, including where the existing finished level of the first
floor is three feet or more above grade around the perimeter of the building foundation walls; and
b. Up to 500 square feet of unusable attic space in excess of five feet in height from the
floor to the roof above.
B. Correct references in 18.12.040(b) Table 3, Summary of Gross Floor Area For Single Family
Residential Districts, to reflect definition changes noted above. See attached ordinance for
details.
C. Update basement regulations for R-1, RE, R-2, and RMD (Sections 18.10 and 18.12) to reflect
changes in definition noted above.
Proposed Text:
18.10.090/18.12.090 Basements
(b) Inclusion as Gross Floor Area
Basements shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area, provided that:
(1) basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as crawlspace; or
(2) basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the first floor is no
more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundation.; or
(3) basement area is associated with a historic property as described in Section
18.04.030(b)(65)(D)(vii).
D. Expand the applicability of HIE provisions related to Historic Homes.
18.12.120(c) Limits of the Home Improvement Exception
A home improvement exception may be granted only for one or more of the following, not to
exceed the specified limits:
(10) For any residence designated on the city's Historic Inventory as a Category 1 through 4 or
Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or
any contributing structure within a locally designated historic district, to allow up to 250 square
feet of floor area in excess of that allowed on the site, provided that any requested addition or
exterior modifications associated with the HIE shall be in substantial conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. The property owner who is
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16
granted a home improvement exception under this subsection (10) shall be required to sign and
record a covenant against the property, acceptable to the city attorney, which requires that the
property be maintained in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic
Rehabilitation.
20. Clarify Setbacks for Outdoor Fireplaces and BBQs
Issue: There has been a noticeable rise in the popularity of outdoor fireplaces and cooking
surfaces in residential properties. The key concern that staff considered with regards to siting
these features was fire safety. The Fire Department advised that there are no setback
requirements for single-family homes, but suggested a three to five foot clearance to provide
maneuverability in case of a fire was appropriate. Another concern considered by staff was the
potential nuisance from smoke and odors traveling to neighboring properties. As it stands today,
kitchens (i.e. open kitchen windows) can be as close as six feet from a property line and chimneys
four feet away, which provides some context for smoke and odor producing activities relatively
close to property lines.
When an outdoor fireplace or kitchen has been proposed in the interior yard, staff has applied
the R-1 development standards of an attached fireplace to these detached accessory structures
and uses. The R-1 code allows a fireplace/chimney, when attached to the home, to encroach into
a side setback up to two feet, maintaining a four foot minimum setback. Based on the
interpretation of this R-1 standard, outdoor fire pits, fireplaces, and cooking surfaces/BBQs have
been required to maintain a four foot setback from both the interior side and rear property lines;
they are not permitted in the front yard or street side yard. All other requirements that apply to
accessory structures would apply and remain unchanged. The intent with the revision is to codify
this code interpretation and practice.
Proposed Text:
18.10.080(b)(3)/18.12.080 (b)(3) Location and Development Standards [RE, R-2, RMD, R-1]
(b) Location and Development Standards
(3) An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear yard unless the
building is at least seventy-five feet from any property line adjacent to a street, measured along
the respective lot line. Provided, on corner lots, accessory buildings including detached garages
and carports may be located in the rear yard if located at least 75 feet from the front street and at
least 20 feet from the side street property lines.
(A) Fixed outdoor fire pits, fireplaces, and cooking surfaces shall be set back a minimum of
four feet from the interior side and rear property line.
18.40.050 (b) Limitations of Uses for Accessory Buildings [General Standards and Exceptions]
In residential zones, accessory buildings may be located in a required interior yard subject to
the following limitations:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17
(3) An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear yard unless
the building is at least seventy-five feet from any street line, measured along the respective lot
line.
(A) Fixed outdoor fire pits, fireplaces, and cooking surfaces shall be set back a minimum of
four feet from the interior side and rear property line.
21. Establish an Over the Counter Architectural Review Process
Issue: Architectural review (AR) is required prior to the issuance any permit on private property
except for single family homes and two-family residences.2 The Municipal Code identifies two
types of AR projects: Major or Minor. All Major projects go to the Architectural Review Board
for review and recommendation. Some Minor projects go to the Board, but most are
administratively approved by City staff. Minor projects range from new buildings or additions
fewer than 5,000 square feet to fences, landscaping, signs, and other minor building changes.
Any decision on a Minor AR requires a written determination and a 14-day appeal period.3 Such
requirements are not practical for trades professionals seeking to obtain an over the counter
permit from the building department for minor and routine work. Moreover, these
requirements may discourage property owners and trades professionals from seeking the
permits needed for building, mechanical or electrical work due to the extended application
processing time and costs. From a public health and general welfare perspective, staff would
rather encourage individuals to obtain required permits and streamline or exempt certain work
from the Minor AR requirement.
To advance this objective, staff proposes introducing a new category of exempt projects from
AR review. The planning director, or designee, would have the authority to determine a project
exempt if it is it would not have a significant or material effect to the building or environment
(natural and built) and was consistent in scope with a list of representative projects that the
director would maintain and update from time to time. An initial draft document is provided in
Attachment B, and includes items such as in kind window and door replacement, mechanical
screening, refuse enclosures and small business signs. A final list will be provided to the City
Council and maintained by the director.
Importantly, this process gives the director the authority to make any of the exempt projects
subject to a Minor or Major review process. Projects that are determined exempt would not be
subject to further administrative processing including formal determination letters or appeal
opportunities.
Proposed Text:
2 Architectural review may be required for these structures under certain circumstances in the Neighborhood
Preservation Combining District or when three or more single family residences are proposed at one time.
3 Amendments to the 14 day appeal period and the requirements for publication of the Minor AR decisions are
also proposed for modification in this ordinance and are addressed in the following sections.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 18
18.76.020 Architectural Review
(b) Applicability
No permit required under Title 2, Title 12 or Title 16 shall be issued for a major or minor
project, as set forth in this section, unless an application for architectural review is reviewed,
acted upon, and approved or approved with conditions as set forth in Section 18.77.070.
(1) Exempt Projects. The following projects do not require architectural review: Single-family
and two-family residences do not require architectural review, except as provided under
subsections (2)(C) and (2)(D).
(A) Single-family and two-family residences, except as provided under subsections
(2)(C) and (2)(D).
(B) Projects determined by the Director to be substantially minor in nature and have
inconsequential visual impacts to the adjacent properties and public streets.
These exempt projects are referred to as “over the counter projects”. The director
shall have the authority to promulgate a list of such exempt projects under this
subsection.
(3) Minor Projects. The following are "minor projects" for the purposes of the architectural
review process set forth in Section 18.77.070, except when determined to be major pursuant
to subsection (2)(I) or exempt pursuant to subsection (1)(B):
18.77.077 Over the Counter Project Review Process
The director of planning and community environment shall be authorized to adopt guidelines,
rules, and procedures to implement the over the counter project review process for projects
exempt from architectural review under Section 18.76.020(b)(1)(B) of this Title.
22. Various Updates to Application Processing and Approvals
Issues: Chapter 18.77, Processing of Permits and Approvals, has numerous sections affected by
the following proposed modifications. The issues have been identified below, but the proposed
text revisions are included in attached draft ordinance. Please refer to Attachment A for details.
A. Reduce Request for Hearing Timeline to Seven Days & Limit Hearing Request to Adjacent
Property Owners and Tenants (Minor Architectural Review)
Minor AR projects, reviewed by staff, are subject to a 14-day period in which anyone may
request a hearing before the ARB. Staff recommends reducing this waiting period to seven
days. The staff-level reviews are rarely called up for public hearings. Based on the last six
years, an average of 130+ minor AR applications were processed each year; and in the last
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 19
three years, only two requests for hearing were filed.4 The two-week waiting period
unnecessarily slows down work for relatively routine and minor projects. Moreover, staff
proposes limiting the opportunity to request a hearing before the ARB to the applicant,
property owner and any adjacent owner, or tenant on the subject or adjacent property. The
impact of Minor AR projects is typically negligible and if experienced at all, it is likely
affecting adjacent property owners or tenants. This modification affects code Section
18.77.070(b)(3) and (b)(4).
B. Remove Requirements for Publishing and E-mailing Director’s Decisions
In several sections of Chapter 18.77 of Title 18, the code specifies that the notice of the
director’s decision is to be given by mail to owners and residents of property within 600 feet
of the property, by publication, and by e-mail, and by posting in a public place. This
notification requirement applies to the majority of entitlements that we have and include
conditional use permits, variances, and board-level architectural review. Staff recommends
removing the requirement for publication (i.e. newspaper notice) and/or e-mail of director’s
decisions from the relevant code sections. In practice, the director’s decision for any
entitlement is not published in the newspaper, and there is no associated standard e-mail
practice that staff completes. Removing these references codifies existing practice. If we
were to fully implement these existing requirements for additional notices, the newspaper
publication specifically would increase the cost for the applicant and delay the approval
process by an additional week, at minimum. The current notification process of mailing the
decision letter to the applicant, sending notice cards to the 600 foot radius when applicable,
and posting decisions on the City’s website has served as an effective process to keep
citizens informed. Notices to individuals who request them will continue to be sent. This
modification would affect the following code sections: 18.77.060(c)(2) & (d)(2) & (e)(2);
18.77.070(b)(2) & (d)(2); 18.77.110(c)(2).
Additional clean-up language is needed to strike references to publish as it relates to the
above section. This modification would affect the following code sections: 18.77.060(c)(3) &
(d)(3); 18.77.070(b)(3) & (d)(3).
C. Miscellaneous
In addition to the issues mentioned above, staff has taken the opportunity to clarify some
additional outdated references in this same Chapter 18.77, as noted below:
a. Replace outdated language regarding application completeness in section 18.77.060(b)
with the current language from 18.77.030.
b. Include in the description of Notice of Posting in a Public Place (18.77.080(f)) that it may
include posting on the City’s website. This addition is taking into account the prevalent
and commonplace use of the internet to access public information.
4 These two projects were related to applications to install solar panels on city parking garages on Cambridge
Avenue.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 20
23. Clarifications to the Wireless Communication Facilities Review Process
Issue: Section 18.42.110, Wireless Communication Facilities, requires that the Director, or
Council on appeal, make specified findings prior to issuing a wireless communications facility
permit, including, in some cases, Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit findings. In
many cases, staff may wish to seek input from the ARB or PTC prior to issuing a Director’s
decision. Unfortunately, the current code is, at best, silent on whether wireless permit
applications may be referred to the ARB or PTC for recommendation; at worst, it suggests that
the ARB and PTC would consider a wireless permit only pursuant to an appeal after the
Director has issued a tentative decision. In addition, because the code addresses appeals by
simply referencing the processes for architectural review and conditional use permits, it is
unclear whether appeals may be heard directly by the Council or must first be heard by the
ARB, PTC, or both. Because federal regulations set presumptively reasonable “shot clock”
timelines for processing wireless permits (including appeals), it is essential that the City’s
wireless code spell out clear and efficient procedures for decision and appeal.
The proposed changes clarify that the Director may refer wireless permit applications to the
ARB or PTC for recommendation, and that appeals are heard directly by the City Council. This
clarification more closely reflects staff’s current practice of seeking ARB input prior to issuing a
Director’s decision on certain applications, eliminates the potential for duplicative hearings,
and provides a more efficient process consistent with the federal “shot clock” timelines
applicable to wireless permit applications.
Proposed Text:
18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities.
(f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings
(1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall
be final and shall not be appealable pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapters
18.77 or 18.78;
(g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings
(1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole
discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board. The Director's decision
shall be appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing before
the City Council or may be placed on the Council’s consent calendar, pursuant to the
process for appeal of architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f).
(h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings
(1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole
discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board and/or Planning
and Transportation Commission. The Director's decision shall be appealable directly
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 21
to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing before the City Council or may
be placed on the Council’s consent calendar, pursuant to the process for appeal of
architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f) and the process for conditional
use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060.
(k) Removal of Abandoned Equipment
A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for
more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications
service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that
WCF. A new conditional use WCF permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a
WCF or a wireless communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its
component is removed.
(l) Revocation
The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any
condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable
pursuant to the process applicable to issuance of the Permit, as provided in subdivisions
(f), (g), and (h) of this section. for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and
the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060.
24. Modify Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirements Per State Regulations
Earlier this year, the City adopted comprehensive regulations related to Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU) to conform to state law that became effective on January 1, 2017. Subsequently,
the state Legislature passed two additional bills AB 494 and SB 229, signed by the Governor in
September 2017, clarifying the previously adopted ADU legislation. The City’s existing
ordinance only requires minor modifications to remain consistent with state law. The proposed
amendments include those conforming changes as well as other clarifications.
Cities still retain the ability to designate those areas where new ADUs are permitted. The City’s
existing regulations allow ADUs to be constructed in districts where single-family residential is
an allowed use on parcels with an existing single-family dwelling. State law has been revised to
clarify that an ADU may be constructed on sites with either an existing or proposed single-
family dwelling. This revision is consistent with the City’s implementation of the ADU
ordinance, and the proposed ordinance would make conforming changes to reference
proposed single-family homes. The proposed ordinance would also add to the list of zoning
districts where ADUs are allowed (R-1, R-2, RE, RMD and OS districts) those sites that are zoned
Planned Community where single-family dwelling is an allowed use. The PC zoned sites would
require a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet like the conventional zoning districts (other
than the OS district) where ADUs are allowed.
With respect to ADUs established through conversions of space within an existing single-family
home (i.e., garage) or an existing accessory structure, the new state legislation requires that
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 22
such conversions be allowed in any zoning district where single-family residential is an allowed
use (i.e., multi-family zoning districts permitting single-family dwellings). The state law
previously required only that such conversions be allowed in single-family residence districts,
and the existing ordinance accordingly applied these provisions to the R-1 district, all R-1
subdistricts, and the RE district only. The proposed amendment would also apply the
conversion provisions to the R-2, RMD, RM, and OS and PC districts where single-family
residential is an allowed use.
The proposed ordinance revisions are in Section 12 of Attachment A.
25. Update Residential Density Bonus Per State Requirements
On January 1, 2017, several amendments to the State Density Bonus Law took effect. The
proposed amendments to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance are intended to conform to the
current state law.
AB 2501 made a number of changes to facilitate applicants’ use of Density Bonus Law and
clarify provisions of the law. Among them:
Local governments may not require applicants to prepare an additional report or study
to qualify for a density bonus, but may require provision of reasonable documentation
to establish eligibility for the requested density bonus.
Local governments may no longer reject incentives and concessions on the grounds they
are not “required in order to provide for affordable housing costs”. The requested
incentive or concession may only be denied if it “does not result in identifiable and
actual cost reductions.” The agency as the burden of proof for denying an incentive or
concession.
An applicant that qualifies for a density bonus can choose to accept a lower density
bonus or none at all, while remaining eligible for incentives and concessions.
Certain mixed use projects may qualify for a density bonus.
Amendments are proposed to PAMC Sections 18.15.020(h), 18.15.080 and 18.15.090, as shown
in Attachment A, to implement these changes.
AB 2442 added that a 20% density bonus shall be granted to any project that reserves at least
10% of its housing units for disabled veterans, foster youth, or homeless persons. These units
must be offered to the selected group at the same affordability levels of very-low income units.
The proposed ordinance would amend PAMC Section 18.15.030(a) to add this type of housing
to the list of projects eligible for a density bonus, and require an affordability restriction of 55
years to be recorded for these very-low income units.
The Density Bonus Law requires that developers interested in demolishing an existing housing
development (or constructing on a site where housing was demolished in the prior 5 years)
ensure the new housing project that enjoys a density bonus includes at least as many
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 23
affordable units as were demolished. This ensures there is no loss to the affordable housing
stock overall. State law requires that any new affordable units constructed are the “equivalent
size” of the units being replaced, which, the law states, means that the replacement units
contain at least the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced. This
requirement is narrower than the current requirements of PAMC Section 18.15.020(s)(i)-(ii),
which allow for new units of equivalent size or type or both. The proposed ordinance would
amend that section to mirror state law’s narrower definition of replacement.
26. Remove Bicycle License Requirement
Issue: The current code Section 10.64.010, bicycle license required, requires all residents to
obtain a license to operate a bike of certain size within the City. The license requirement has
not been enforced in the City and is considered a barrier to encouraging the use of bikes as an
alternative mode of transportation. In support of City goals to encourage and support bike use,
staff recommends the removal of the bike license requirement. In lieu of a City license, staff will
encourage cyclist to register bikes online through a state or regional program to prevent theft.
Proposed Text: Delete section 10.64.010, which requires bicycle licenses and strike all
references thereto in the chapter. See draft ordinance for details, Attachment A.
27. Individual Review and Demolition of Historic Inventory Properties
Issue: Individual Review (IR) is an application process to review two story homes in the R1
district in compliance with the IR Guidelines. The City receives about 100 IR applications a year.
Due to the discretionary nature of these applications, some properties require a historic
evaluation if the existing structure is listed on the City’s historic inventory. If a property is on
the inventory and confirmed to be a historic resource, project modifications or an expanded
environmental analysis may be required.
In some instances, an owner may seek to replace an existing residence with a single story
home. This type of project is not subject to discretionary or environmental review. Staff has
observed in rare instances, after the existing structure has been demolished, that an owner, or
perhaps new owner, seeks a project modification that includes a second story and is now
subject to discretionary review. However, with the existing structure removed, any opportunity
to review a potentially historic resource is lost, which may affect neighborhood character and
potentially the community’s historic fabric.
While rare, the above scenario illustrates a concern staff has with the code. And, while it may
not be construed by some as a loophole, the current code does not create any disincentive to
discourage this activity that effectively circumvents the historic evaluation process and could
have a significant effect on the local and community-wide environment. Accordingly, staff
recommends that a stay in application processing be established that would prevent the
issuance of a second story addition on those properties that previously received approval to
demolish an existing structure. This provision would only apply to properties that had
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 24
structures listed on the city’s inventory or listed as National Register Eligible, which are defined
terms in state and local laws. Another exemption allows for the removal of dangerous or
unsafe buildings. The draft ordinance includes a five year stay on future IR applications, but
the Commission may want to discuss whether that is the appropriate timeframe.
Proposed Text:
18.12.110 Single Family Individual Review
(i) If a structure listed on the City’s Historic Inventory or by the State of California as National
Register Eligible was demolished on a site in conjunction with the issuance of an approval
for a building permit, no application for Individual Review for the same property shall be
filed within five (5) years from and after the date of issuance of the demolition permit,
unless the structure was demolished pursuant to a determination by the Building Official
under Section 16.40.040 of Title 16 of this Code that the structure was a dangerous building
that cannot be repaired or rehabilitated.
Environmental Review
The proposed code amendments have been assessed in accordance with the authority and
criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the proposed
amendments have been determined to be exempt from further environmental review per
CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemption) because the activity is covered by
the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significantly effect on the environment.
Additionally, all future development that may be impacted by any of the proposed code
changes will be subject to a project specific CEQA analysis as part of the required planning
entitlement review (e.g. Architectural Review, Site and Design, Subdivision, etc.) to determine if
there are any environmental impacts.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
at least ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo
Alto Weekly on November 17, 2017.
Included as Attachment C of the report is a comment letter received regarding ADU ownership
requirements. Staff will be prepared to discuss as needed at the meeting.
Next Steps
Upon recommendation from the PTC, staff will forward the staff recommended ordinance with
agreed upon changes to City Council for review. In instances where a majority of the PTC has a
different recommendation from staff, that viewpoint will be represented in the staff report
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 25
along with implementing language for the Council’s consideration. Only one ordinance,
however, will be presented to the Council, which is anticipated to occur in early 2018.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may:
1. Recommend adoption of the draft ordinance to the City Council with modifications.
2. Continue the discussion to a future PTC hearing with the expectation that a
recommendation to the City Council would be forwarded that time.
Report Author & Contact Information PTC5 Liaison & Contact Information
Clare Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 617-3191 (650) 329-2679
clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org
jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: Draft Over the Counter Architectural Review Guidelines (DOCX)
Attachment C: Lundy Comment Letter Regarding ADUs (PDF)
5 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Action Agenda: November 29, 2017 2
Council Chambers 3
250 Hamilton Avenue 4
6:00 PM 5
6
Call to Order / Roll Call 7
6:02PM 8
Oral Communications 9
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 10
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 11
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 12
City Official Reports 13
1. Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 14
Action Items 15
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 16
All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 17
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation to the City Council Regarding the Adoption of an 18
Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.20 (Planning and 19
Transportation Commission) of Title 2, Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of Title 9, Chapter 10.64 20
(Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10, and Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 21
18.10 (Low-Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD)), 18.12 (R-1 Single-Family 22
Residential District), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, 23
Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) Districts), 18.28 (Special 24
Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts), 18.30(G) (Combining Districts), 18.40 (General 25
Standards and Exceptions), 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses), 18.52 (Parking and 26
Loading Requirements), 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards), 18.76 (Permits and 27
Approvals), 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals), and 18.80 (Amendments to 28
Zoning Map And Zoning Regulations) of Title 18, and Chapters 21.12 (Tentative Maps 29
and Preliminary Parcel Maps) and 21.32 (Conditional Exceptions) of Title 21. The 30
Proposed Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 31
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
in Accordance With CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). For More Information, 1
Please Contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org. 2
Chair Lauing: Ok, so the first study session is on the action item is itemized in number two so 3
we’ll not take any speaker cards for item two and (unintelligible) (interrupte) 4
Mr. Lait: Do you want to hear a Staff report first or – your call. Typically, we do it a Staff 5
presentation and then hear from the public. 6
Chair Lauing: I presume they read it but let’s go ahead and do that. 7
Ms. Clare Campbell, Senior Planner: Great, thank you. Good evening Commissioners, Clare 8
Campbell, Senior Planner. So, tonight Staff if bring forward a collection of planning related code 9
changes for adoption in 2018. The group of miscellaneous code amendments were adopted 10
earlier by Council in February. 11
The proposed amendments are intended to be minor in nature and not controversial. The 12
amendments are to address simple text errors, modify the code to reflect current practice, 13
introduce some new policy initiative and update the code to be consistent with the State law. 14
This is specific to the accessory dwelling units and the housing density bonus. As noted it the 15
Staff report, the amendments are grouped into twenty-seven categories and are broadly 16
divided into minor text amendments and procedural amendments. This slide shows that the 17
majority of changes are affecting Title 18 and you’ll also see noted that there are a handful of 18
other code sections that are also being affected by the proposed amendments today. 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
So, here is a list of all of the text clarification amendments. Basically, we’ve got some that are 1
just typo corrections and then we have some clarifying language that’s being added to the 2
code. The next list here represents all of the procedural related amendments. So, here we’ve 3
got quite a few on the list for all of the things that we’re looking at tonight and Staff has 4
selected six amendments to review in more detail in the presentation. And those are the ones 5
that have been high lighted on the slide for you so there are six of them. These amendments 6
are thought to be generally of more interest for discussion tonight. 7
So, the first one is item number 18 in the Staff report and this is related to adding the floor area 8
exemption for refuse areas for the CD District. So, in the commercial and multi-family zones, 9
the current code already allows for minor floor area exemptions for purposes of code 10
compliance. One is determined that these minor additions would increase compliance with 11
environmental health, safety, or other standards; with the exception for sites that are located 12
in the CD District and special study areas. So, the proposed amendment would remove this 13
exemption for the CD District and special study areas and then specifically mention that refuse 14
areas are considered for the floor area exemption, even though it’s already implied with the 15
existing language. 16
So, the next one is to establish an over the counter review process. So, I’d like to just clarify first 17
that the Staff report incorrectly refers to this amendment as an over the counter architectural 18
review process so this was missed in the final edits of the report. The proposed amendment 19
was intended to establish an over the counter review process separate from the architectural 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
review. As a reminder, for all commercial and multi-family projects, all exterior changes to the 1
site which can be new constructions or existing façade improvements or site improvements, 2
these all require architectural review. And depending on the scope of the work, it would be 3
considered either Major or Minor and there would be a respective review process applied to 4
that project. So, for very minor projects such as a door or window change or adding equipment 5
screening, trash enclosures and that type of thing, we regularly review and approve them at the 6
Development Center in association with related Building Permits. And we… and this is without 7
requiring a Formal Architectural Review Application to be completed first. So, our current code 8
doesn’t actually have a specific provision to allow Staff to approve projects in this manner and 9
the proposed amendment would codify this existing practice. At the Director’s discretion, the 10
over the counter process would allow approval of projects deemed insignificant and that have 11
no effect to the building or the adjacent environment. And again, it’s typically associated with a 12
Building Permit but there could be instances where maybe it’s not and a good example of that 13
is it may be a minor landscape change like switching out a plant type or something like that on a 14
site. Project subject to the over the counter review would not be subject to further 15
administrative processing so that would include appeals and having to do approval letters and 16
decision… a formal decision-making process. Everything would be encompassed within the 17
Building Permit review and that process. So, Attachment B provides a draft of the Over the 18
Counter Review Guidelines and this is still being developed. And this guideline will help guide 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Staff and applicants with the process and the possible eligible projects that would be 1
considered for this type of review. 2
Ok, so the next one is Item Number 22(A) in the Staff report and it’s an amendment to reduce 3
the request for hearing time for Staff Level architectural reviews and limit those that make 4
those requests. So, as noted in the Staff report, we process over 130 Staff level Architectural 5
Review Applications a year and we rarely get a request for hearings for these minor projects. 6
So, I think this understanding helps bolster support for these proposed amendments. So, the 7
amendment would apply to Minor Staff level architectural review projects only and it doesn’t 8
apply to anything that’s a Board level review. It would reduce the request for hearing time from 9
a 14-calendar day period to a 7-day period and this is intended to reduce the overall application 10
processing time and it still maintains a process for an appeal if that was something that a 11
member of the public wanted to do. The amendment would also reduce the range of hearing 12
requesters from anyone to project applicants and adjacent property owners or tenants. And 13
this is usually what we think of the people who are most affected by these minor projects. 14
Ok, so the next amendment is related to the ADUs and it’s to bring our local regulations in 15
compliance with the state regulations. So, the state regulations will take effect on January 1st, 16
2018, and basically, it includes these very minor but key changes. So, ADUs are permitted not 17
only on sites with existing single-family homes but now must be allowed with proposed homes. 18
So, basically what that means is if someone submits for an Architectural – I’m sorry, an 19
Individual Review Application or even and Single-Story Home Building Permit it can now include 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
the accessory dwelling unit with that permit application. And we’ve actually been doing this 1
already with the permits that have been submitted. The second item is that all ADUs must be 2
allowed in zones that permit single-family use and it’s listed here. So, that’s the R-1, R-2, RE, 3
RMD, OS and designated PC zones that have single-family as a use and not just those districts 4
zoned for single-family use. So, there are other updates to the ADU Ordinance that are being 5
prepared and that will be brought back to the Planning Commission in December in a study 6
session. So, this is also a good time to mention that Staff has received a letter from the public 7
which was attached to the Staff report. The issues raised in the letter regarding occupancy will 8
be one of the items that will be discussed or addressed in the study session coming up next 9
month. And as you are already aware, Mr. Lundy is present in the audience and his sister to 10
speak to his concerns. 11
Alright, so the next state driven update is for the Housing Density Bonus Regulations. The 12
updates state regulation took effect earlier in January of this year and the key updates include 13
local governments may not require applicants to prepare an additional report or study to 14
qualify for a density bonus, local governments may no longer reject incentives and concessions 15
on the grounds that they are not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, 16
there’s a twenty percent density bonus that shall be granted to any project that reserves at 17
least ten percent of the housing units for disabled Veterans, foster youth or homeless persons. 18
And lastly, the density bonus law requires developers of new housing projects to replace all 19
demolished affordable units so there’s no net loss. 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Alright, so this is the very last one here so… And its item number 27 and it has to do with the 1
Individual Review Process and the demolish of historic properties. So, the purpose of this 2
amendment is to discourage the misuse of the permitting process to potentially avoid 3
additional environmental analysis and historic review when building a new home. If a structure 4
is listed on the City’s Historic Inventory or is National Register Eligible and is demolished, an 5
association with an approved Building Permit for a new single-story home and no home is 6
constructed, no application for an Individual Review shall be filed within 5-years of the date of 7
the demolish permit issuance. That was a mouth full, alright. 8
So, now there are three ordinance corrections that I just want to review quickly with you. They 9
are very minor and I’d just like to point those out. So, the first one is Section Number One of the 10
ordinance and it’s related to the PTC Officer election and the highlighted text here should be… 11
Should remain in the section it was just erroneously deleted so that’s very simple there. 12
The next one is related to Section Two of the ordinance related to leaf blowers and basically, 13
we want to strike the language referring to the Palo Alto Unified School District. The school 14
district is exempted from complying with the City’s Noise Regulation. 15
The last one is related to ADUs and again, there are two words of highlighted text that just need 16
to be deleted. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Alright so for our next steps, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the draft 1
ordinance will be revised and forward to City Council for review and that’s tentatively 2
scheduled for February 2018. 3
And then I’d just like to do a summary of a revised motion. So, Staff recommends that the 4
Planning Commission find the proposed draft ordinance exempted from the provisions of CEQA 5
in ordinance [Note - accordance?] with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and that PTC 6
recommend to the City Council adoption of an ordinance with the three text corrections just 7
sited in Section One, Two and Twelve to amend various sections of the Palo Alto Municipal 8
Code and that concludes Staff’s presentation, thank you. 9
Chair Lauing: Ok, thank you. We do have two speaker cards but I understand that Commissioner 10
Rosenblum has to leave in about 15-minutes so is that, about right? So, if we could just maybe 11
slightly change the procedure, you’re speaking to one narrow issue and we can get his 12
comments a number of things before he has to leave. So, unless there are any objections to 13
that, let’s go with that and we’ll be to you in about 10-minutes speakers. Commissioner 14
Rosenblum. 15
Commissioner Rosenblum: Great, thank you so much. I have – my daughter is in the Jordan 16
Choir and she got a solo for the first time so she really wants me there. So, just a couple things, 17
first I appreciate this exercise. I’ve now gone through it several times and I think each time I 18
think it’s getting closer to the intent so my comments are really about the intent of this 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
exercise, which is there’s a number of things that are really small. So, Staff, there is a couple 1
instance where there’s clearly a word missing and they’ve reinserted that word and that makes 2
sense but then there are other things that are quick significant. So, one of my main things that I 3
think the discipline that needs to be on this Commission is that things that big should not just 4
be approve in this kind of meeting. They should have a full hearing, we should discuss is this the 5
right thing, is this the wrong thing so a lot of things I go through and I try to take the test of is 6
this is a meaningful change or is this just something that oh, we should have been recorded. So, 7
under that I say, my personal belief is that Item Number Six which is clarification of the 8
contextual garage placement [unintelligible] it applies to carports is actually significant. Even 9
though the Staff explanation is that this was always the intent, I’m not sure and I think it could 10
affect a lot of people so it’s something that I don’t think is one of these on the bus type changes 11
of just cleaning up language. 12
Number 11 which is floor are exemptions for historic homes. This is just one I don’t understand 13
as well as I should so I would just ask I hope my fellow Commissioner’s dig in a little bit to 14
understand this a little bit better. 15
Number 12, office restrictions in CS, CN, CC, I looked at the Palo Alto zoning map and looked at 16
all of the CS areas affected and again same thing. I am not sure… it’s not apparent to me that 17
this is one of those things that was just an obvious mistake and so would like the 18
Commissioners to dig in a little bit with Staff to understand was this something that when 19
drafting the ordinance around office use was simply overlooked. But it doesn’t appear that way 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
to me from the way it’s written and it doesn’t appear that way to me necessarily from where 1
the CS zones are on the map. 2
The procedural items, the ones that I think are of interest to discuss further, are obviously we’ll 3
discuss the election time for PTC Officers. I think that would be a lively discussion but on that 4
one, my only comment is since Commissioner Lauing has served on other Commissions and it’s 5
referenced in the Staff report that part of the reason for this is to align with the way other 6
Commissions do their business. It would be great to hear from you how that works in other 7
places because I just don’t know what that means that we shall elect Officers at our discretion. 8
I’m not sure what that means exactly, like what time, who calls it, is it like the British system 9
where you call for a vote of confidence at any time? 10
The – Number 17 which is the gas-powered leaf blowers in commercial districts, this is also one 11
that I just don’t necessarily understand the leaf blower industry. I’m not sure if there are certain 12
commercial properties that are just not… That you have to have a gas-powered leaf blower for. 13
So, I don’t understand if this is a big change for some folks or not a big change. I personally 14
don’t like gas-powered leaf blowers in Palo Alto but it’s possible that I just don’t understand 15
that electrically flowers may have constraints. For example, that this may have unintended 16
consequences to extend this into commercial areas. 17
The… to be consistent, Items Number 24 and 25 I’m in favor of but to be consistent I’m not sure 18
these are small deals. I think this puts us in alignment with state law, this is around ADUs and 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
density bonuses and so if the… If Staff’s argument is this simple aligns us with what the state 1
has already required then I am satisfied with that and I’m in favor of these anyway. But to be 2
fair, I’m not sure that these are small deals and I’m not sure that Palo Alto always tries to be 3
perfectly in compliance with state law. And I guess our Attorney can comment on that at the 4
time that we discuss these items but those are my impressions. These are the items I pulled out 5
as not necessarily being as simple as oh, a word was omitted and we’re just adding that back. 6
These things seem to have more substance, at least on my reading. And that’s it for me and 7
I’ll… if that’s ok, I’ll listen to the speakers and the (interrupted) 8
Chair Lauing: Yeah, no I was just going to ask you just for clarification. So, are you suggesting, 9
for example on some of these bigger deals, that we carve those out, re-agendize them for a 10
different time and give them further debate? 11
Commissioner Rosenblum: For some of them so for example, Items Twenty-Four and Twenty-12
Five (interrupted) 13
Chair Lauing: Right. 14
Commissioner Rosenblum: If it’s determined that those are a bigger deal then it should be part 15
of an ADU review for example and then this should be considered. Like I said, I would support 16
these things and say it’s in accordance with state law but this is something where if you 17
determine that these are bigger deals, then it should come back and have a more meaty 18
discussion on that issue with people preparing against that issue. And so, these are the items 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
that seem to be slightly larger. I doubt we’ll have a whole meeting on gas-powered leaf 1
blowers, I ask from the Commissioners was just to ask about this. If this is something that is an 2
onerous requirement in any way or if this is something that is actually just an omission where it 3
should have always exempted commercial properties and just no one ever did it. 4
Chair Lauing: My question was your intent on the process and it sounded like, which was why I 5
was asking a question just so that your colleagues can hear, that you want some of these things 6
carved out for more discussion at a later time. 7
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, if you guys agree with that… With those points of views then 8
of course. 9
Chair Lauing: Or others. 10
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. 11
Chair Lauing: Alright, thanks for your patience. Now we’d like to call the two speakers, Jackie 12
and Tom Lundy, in that order. 13
Ms. Jackie Lundy: Good evening, congratulations on your daughter’s solo, that’s a big deal. So, 14
my brother Tom and I are here to talk about a small unit that we’re trying to add onto an 15
existing house we own on Loma Verde. And this house and the house next door were houses 16
built by our parents and when our parents went to buy the property to build these houses on, 17
Loma Verde was still a gravel road, there was nothing but fields and oat hay. And when our 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
grandfather came out to look at it, he called it lonely acres because it was so far away so that’s 1
where we started with as far as way back when. And then we have the two houses and now 2
we’re moving up to post World War Two and these houses are completely corralled… 3
Surrounded by all the building boom that had happened in mid-town; lots of track houses and 4
modest bungalows as I’m sure you all are very aware of. And then we’ve gone to today, another 5
transition is going on in our neighborhood where these small bungalows are disappearing, very 6
large homes are being put in on many small lots, [Note - and] any big lot has an even bigger 7
house on it. The house that we’re talking about on Loma Verde at this point is between 8
Middlefield and Cowper; it’s a flag lot. That house and the house that we… that was the house 9
that we grew up in front of it, each are on quarter acre lots. The house in the back my parents 10
built as a rental, it’s been a rental ever since they’ve built it in the 1950’s. So, now when we 11
come up to today and we’re looking at Palo Alto, it’s the town we love, it’s the town that we 12
grew up in, [Note - and] we also think or at least I think back about what did it mean to live 13
here? When I lived here all my friend’s parents basically they were the teachers, they were the 14
truck drivers, they fixed the phone, they did all that sort of thing. Housing for those kinds of 15
people now, as you all I’m sure are very aware of, is rapidly disappearing, almost to zero. In 16
addition to that, just down the street from us on South Court and Loma Verda a friend of mine 17
lives there and the house across the street from her was torn down, a very large house was put 18
in, it sold for over three million dollars and this was several years ago and nobodies ever moved 19
in. The house has remained vacant so you have small houses disappearing, big houses going in 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
that nobody can afford to rent and even more of shame is big houses were nobody even lives in 1
it, they don’t even rent it. So, what my brother and I are trying to propose is a very small help in 2
the way of trying to make Palo Alto still affordable to people who have a modest income. 3
Maybe they are a teacher, maybe work somewhere in town but at least they can live in town 4
because when I taught at Ohlone School I was one of three teachers that actually lived in town. 5
Everybody else had to live elsewhere and I got to ride my bike to school, they all had to drive 6
miles. So, it’s not… even in the greater sense of what’s sustainable to have that many people 7
living that far away. So, the little house that we’re talking about putting in is a very modest size 8
house, it would go in a spot on the quarter acre where there’s a perfect spot of it. And my 9
brother will fill you in on more of the details. 10
Chair Lauing: Ok, thank you. Tom Lundy? 11
Mr. Tom Lundy: Thanks. I just had two or three points just to give a little more practical idea of 12
what’s going on here. Break a leg for your daughter. The reason we’re here is… Been talking in 13
terms of amendments to the ordinance and the reason we’re here is that I feel that the 14
ordinance overlooked having a retroactivity provision. And as a result, we got… We were on 15
parallel tracks with the new ADU Ordinance. We started planning our ADU, back then they were 16
called Secondary Dwelling Units, in early 2016. I believe the state statute passed somewhere 17
like January 2016. The City was on a track at that point to revise the ADU Ordinance and we 18
were on the track to build our ADU Ordinance under the old statue. Completely oblivious to the 19
fact that this new statue was in the works. We sold property in Santa Rosa in January 2016 to 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
raise funds to build the unit. We signed a contract in September with our contractor, we began 1
designing and engineering and doing architectural work in December 2016 through March of 2
2017. We interacted with the City during that time, we had no notice from the City that there 3
was a new ordinance in the works. Now both Jackie and I live out of town so it’s in a way I guess 4
it was our fault also that we didn’t know about this but the fact of the matter is we didn’t. We 5
submitted our application for a Building Permit on the very day that the new enactment was 6
passed that night. We were actually on file before the statue by a matter of hours but we were 7
on file before the statute but that was a complete coincidence because we still didn’t know that 8
the new statue was in effect. We finally found out in June when we went to get our final 9
Building Permit and there was a requirement of the deed restriction. And the deed restriction is 10
the problem for us, I exampled that in the letter. We don’t want to have a 2,500-square foot 11
rental, we want to have a 1,700-square foot rental and a 900-square foot rental and that’s what 12
Palo Alto needs. Thank you. 13
Chair Lauing: Ok, thank you. A question Commissioner Alcheck? Oh, he’d like to address you. 14
Mr. Lundy: Pardon? 15
Chair Lauing: If you’d you stay up there, Chair [Note - Commissioner] Alcheck would like to 16
address you, excuse me. 17
Commissioner Alcheck: I have read your letter, I’m curious if you could articulate essentially 18
what change you think could we make to essentially accommodate the goal you have? 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lundy: Well, we actually, coincidentally, we had an email communication back and forth 1
with Karen Holmen and she suggested that the Council typically has retroactivity language in 2
new ordinances that provides that if an application is on file prior to the passage of the new 3
ordinance, that application would be processed under the old ordinance. So, I would suggest 4
something along those lines given the fact that we were on file before the old ordinance… 5
Before the new ordinance was passed. It was the same day but we were before so if the 6
language of the amendment were phrased in terms of on file before the passage of the 7
ordinance, that would do the trick. 8
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I appreciate that help, thank you. 9
Mr. Lait: And Chair, if you don’t mind? Just because I’ve had some correspondence with Mr. 10
Lundy. 11
Chair Lauing: Sure. 12
Mr. Lait: I think alternatively because that could present some challenging issues from an 13
administrative standpoint to retroactively at this point go back and do that. I think the other 14
issue, and Mr. Lundy can correct me if I am wrong, has to do with the deed restriction 15
requirement that the owner occupies one, either the primary residence or the ADU at the time. 16
And so, I think that’s the specific issue that… To respond to your question, it has to do with the 17
deed restriction requirement for ADUs requiring the owner to be on… in one of the units. 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lundy: Or… Yes, or alternatively that you have to rent both units out to one tenant that 1
(interrupted) 2
Commissioner Alcheck: I actually have a quick question. 3
Chair Lauing: Go ahead. 4
Commissioner Alcheck: So, to Staff so properties that have an ADU, which have rented an ADU, 5
if the owner rents the main facility that would essentially violate our ADU Ordinance? 6
Mr. Lait: The owner just has to occupy one of the two units. It could be the ADU or it could be 7
the primary residence. 8
Commissioner Alcheck: Is that… I’m just curious because I’m not saying that’s unfamiliar to me 9
but what’s the… do you know the intent of that sort of position? Is it that we don’t want 10
essentially two renters? I mean is there… I’m trying to understand why we would require that. 11
Mr. Lait: Yeah, you know (interrupted) 12
Commissioner Alcheck: I’ll give you a quick example, I’m sorry. If the owner dies and the child 13
inherits it, the child has to take possession and live there. If they, for example, live out of state, 14
they couldn’t rent it out, they would have to sell the property. These sorts of requirements are 15
odd. 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: Right but I… so I don’t think that the ordinance would require that scenario but there 1
are some provisions in which the whole… Both units could be rented to a single entity so that’s 2
an option. 3
Mr. Lundy: Yeah and I’ll… sorry. 4
Chair Lauing: Yes, go ahead. 5
Commissioner Summa: So, before… so it’s one parcel in an R-1 zone and they want to put a 6
second unit on it which they were going to rent. They don’t live in either… They currently don’t 7
live in Palo Alto, what… so how were they going to do that before the state law? 8
Mr. Lundy: There was no deed restriction required before the state law. See that’s the problem 9
when we were… We were working under the old ordinance. We qualified in terms of setbacks 10
and everything under the old ordinance and the old ordinance did not have the deed 11
restriction. That’s where we got caught up and I just would reemphasize that the fact that you 12
can rent to a single party… You can rent both units to a single party really defeats the purpose 13
from our standpoint providing rental units. 14
Chair Lauing: Did you have any additional comments? 15
Mr. Lait: Just that we have a deed restriction requirement for… this is a one-line item on the 16
deed restriction requirement. The deed restriction that we require be associated with the 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
property that’s seeking an ADU also has to… It’s just standard language about the size of the 1
unit, the plumbing fixtures and so on. 2
Chair Lauing: Ok, thank you so let’s go… I’m sorry, go ahead. 3
Commissioner Waldfogel: I’m sorry, a point of clarification. Is deed restriction either required 4
by state law or is it consistent with state law? 5
Mr. Lait: So, it’s required for the JADU. 6
Commissioner Waldfogel: It’s required by state law for JADU. 7
Mr. Lait: But it’s not required for the ADU. 8
Commissioner Waldfogel: In the new state law… I mean I’ve seen some briefings and summary 9
on new state law which is it possible for us to be more restrictive than state law on 10
requirements? I think this is a legal (interrupted) 11
Mr. Albert Yang, Senior Deputy Attorney: So, the deed restriction for non-JADUs or just ADUs, 12
it’s not required by state law but it is permitted… Expressly permitted by state law so it’s 13
consistent with state law that way. 14
Commissioner Waldfogel: Ok, it’s consistent. Thank you, that’s what I wanted to know. 15
Mr. Lundy: Could I just interject just one quick point? 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: It’s got to be really quick because you’ve had three speaking engagements. 1
Mr. Lundy: Ok, I live in Santa Rosa and pre-fire we had a deed restriction on the ADU Ordinance 2
for 12-years. They are now eliminating the deed restriction because it was an impediment to 3
the building of ADUs; it defeated the purpose. For whatever that’s worth, that’s not… that’s 4
beyond our issue but anyway, thank you. 5
Chair Lauing: Ok, thanks so let’s get back to considering this. I do want to talk about a process 6
question which happened to come up with our first Commissioner comments is… which is how 7
should we go through this? I mean we can go through this sort of point by point and some of 8
these can be grouped I think and some can’t. But some clearly are, quote bigger than others, 9
and we need to decide as a Commission if we do want to pull those out and how that helps or 10
hinders your process. So, could you give us feedback on that first? 11
Mr. Lait: Yeah, I think that’s… I think that’s a good idea. Maybe… I think it might be good to first 12
go down the list that we have on packet Page 8 and continues on 9. And maybe we could just 13
go down the line and see what items Commissioner’s want pulled. You know, it may be… 14
Chair Lauing: Well… but the other way to do it is just to go through them and if they are quick, 15
we knock them off and if they don’t then we say well, this one seems a little bit bigger, let’s put 16
this one out… over. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: I just want to… so that’s fine and I just wanted to mention because this has come up a 1
couple times as we’ve been doing these ordinances. And Commissioner Rosenblum has left I 2
recognize at this point but it’s… This is an effort that Staff initiated a few years ago to clear up 3
the code but it wasn’t always… Our first run on this was to have minor amendments and to 4
have things that are not controversial because we agree that if it’s a big controversial item, we 5
should have a hosted public meeting specifically on that issue. But I want to push back a little 6
bit on the idea that they all have to be minor in nature and there can’t be a change in policy or 7
direction because that’s not how the report is presented. And what we’re trying to do here is 8
address some operational challenges and procedures that we’ve run into at the Planning 9
Counter or processing applications. So, we don’t think any of these things are hugely… Are huge 10
policy shift but they may be a little bit more than minor, we recognize that. And as for as the 11
final product goes, we’re presenting… This is a Staff ordinance that we’re presenting to the 12
Commission to seek the Commissions feedback and input. We may make some modifications 13
just based on the feedback that we receive. It is possible as it has been for the previous years 14
that the Planning Commission and Staff may have a different perspective on which ones should 15
advance to the Council. And the way that we’ve done that in the past is that Staff has moved 16
the ordinance forward but in our Staff report we have a very detailed discussion about where 17
were the points that the Planning Commission supported and the areas that they didn’t 18
support, then the reason that support was not there. And we presented the totality of the 19
ordinance to the Council so that they can have the flexibility to concur with the Commission 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
and pull things off or also alternatively, put things on if they think they need to move forward. 1
So, we're helping to facilitate a conversation in the best way that we can. 2
Chair Lauing: Right, you covered that on point… On Pages 30 and 31 in the packet which is 3
perfectly acceptable as you eventually go and have descending opinions or we have descending 4
opinions, perfectly fair. 5
It’s also kind of hard to estimate the amount of time this is going to take. It might take less time 6
as we start to pull things out and say we’re going to come back to them. I think we should… My 7
suggestion is we work through this for about an hour and see where we are. And then kind of 8
recalibrate relative to the other items that are on the agenda and see if we think it’s going to a 9
second meeting or we should just push on. 10
[Note - Female:] [unintelligible] 11
Chair Lauing: But we’re going to go through them in order, that’s right. And I think the simplest 12
way to do it is just to… Because someone might… Literally be simple is just to kind of go down 13
the row. I’ll go last as I often do when I sit in this chair and just see what the comments are. So, 14
this starts on Page 9, maybe we could take the first two together because they are about 15
transportation; Threshold on Transportation Demand Management. Do we want to start with 16
Commissioner Summa on that one and if anybody has no comments just say pass so we can rip 17
through these shorter ones? 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa: Pass. 1
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, no, I just had a quick question. So, if the Council’s motion was for 2
it to be 50 or for it to be 50 trips, how… What… Does that mean they… Someone spoke wrong 3
during the meeting and they didn’t realize it until too late? 4
Mr. Lait: No, it’s a Staff error. It just… The official record that got memorialized and adopted by 5
the Council said 100. We have to go through this process to change it. 6
Commissioner Alcheck: You have to go through the process to rectify it, ok. That’s all… I just 7
didn’t understand. Ok, alright, I have no conflict with this one. 8
Commissioner Monk: Pass. 9
Commissioner Waldfogel: Pass [unintelligible -mic not on] 10
Commissioner Gardias: [unintelligible- mic not on] 11
Chair Lauing: On One, ok. We’ll stay with you and what about Two? 12
Commissioner Gardias: Are we going through all of them or just one by one? 13
Chair Lauing: Well, we did one by one but now we’re on two and we’re going to come back this 14
way. 15
Commissioner Alcheck: Number Two then. 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Ok. 1
Commissioner Gardias: Number Two? 2
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, he’s going (interrupted) 3
Chair Lauing: He did… Alright, what about you? 4
Commissioner Monk: Pass. 5
Chair Lauing: Yes? 6
Commissioner Monk: Pass. 7
Chair Lauing: Ok, sorry. I have nothing, go ahead. 8
Commissioner Gardias: So, I… Excuse me so I have a question on Two. So, what’s the… Yes, this 9
is clarification, I’d like to understand what is the association? Is there a definition of the 10
association in the Palo Alto Code? 11
Mr. Lait: Yeah, so this is… the City Council formed the Transportation Management Association; 12
they formed it. We have this… There’s a whole set of… They might… Do they have their own 13
Charter? I mean there’s a whole set of procedures for it. We’re just doing a work change. 14
Commissioner Gardias: Because association is legal organization (interrupted) 15
Mr. Lait: Yeah, yeah. 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Gardias: Legally registered rights. This is legal entity, authority is not a legal 1
entity so I think this the difference right, isn’t it? 2
Mr. Yang: Well and authority can be a legal entity as well, we just got the name wrong. So, 3
there is an entity that exists and we have the wrong name so we’re fixing it. 4
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so it’s recorded as an association? Ok, good, thank you. 5
Chair Lauing: Let’s go Three, Four and Five. Commissioner Summa? 6
Commissioner Summa: Pass. 7
Commissioner Alcheck: Three, Four, Five, pass. 8
Commissioner Monk: Pass. 9
Chair Lauing: And you did. 10
Commissioner Gardias: Pass through Five. 11
Chair Lauing: Ok, why don’t you pick up Six then and come back this way. This is the one on the 12
garage placement and carports. 13
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, yeah so this is… Actually, we voted on this 2-years ago. If I… If we 14
have time just to go through the votes of how they were… How they fell so I can remember 15
how I voted but I remember there was discussion and we pulled it out. Because we felt that this 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
was rather a policy change as opposed to cosmetic change that should go through this 1
Commission without our review. So, my perspective the questions like this, can we get some… 2
And this is one of those that I would recommend maybe for pulling out till we get some 3
documentation or support documents from the Staff. And I would like to just get some statistics 4
which neighborhoods or some numbers that would illustrate what would be truly impact of 5
those changes. If we’re going to have the carport in the front as opposed to in the back. And I 6
understand totally that there is a context in place but then I think that this is in relationship to 7
the ADU Ordinance that we approve because this placement would affect the ADU Ordinance, 8
is this right? 9
Chair Lauing: Well, Mr. Lait suggested that there were going to be some potential policy issues 10
here so I don’t think there’s a debate about that right now. So, are you questioning whether it 11
should be a policy? 12
Commissioner Gardias: No, what I am saying is that I would like to just get some 13
documentation… I’d like to pull it out. I’m proposing to pull it out and then get more supportive 14
documentation… Supporting documentation that would allow us to make some judgment. 15
Chair Lauing: Ok, let me ask… Adding to the process issues here. What do you folks all think 16
about how many votes we should have for pulling it out? Is it one, two, three, four? One person 17
says majority, any other ideas? 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Gardias: Well, I mean if you are asking me, I’d like to just hear the discussion 1
about the topic so it’s… I understand that there are pros and cons. From my understanding is 2
that pros and cons are perspectives of ADU Ordinance that would [unintelligible] the placement 3
of the carports may affect how you could have an accessory dwelling unit on your lot. So, this 4
has not been… This relationship is not disclosed in here so I would like to ask Staff to provide 5
more materials, specifically from the ADU perspective. Is there any effect on that ordinance or 6
not? 7
Mr. Lait: Yeah, so Chair if I can just respond to that, the specific on the ADU? 8
Chair Lauing: Go ahead. 9
Mr. Lait: We don’t see any policy implication with this ordinance relative to ADUs. 10
Ms. Campbell: And just to kind of clarify, an AD… if you’re going to build an ADU, you can 11
remove the required covered parking to accommodate that ADU. So, if someone were to install 12
a carport or a covered detached garage, that could be torn down and that floor area could be 13
used for something else for the ADU. So, that’s… it doesn’t prohibit an ADU from being 14
developed. 15
Mr. Lait: This, from our perspective, is really about the garage placement requirement in the 16
code, which I think you’re familiar with, where it says set forth where a garage… If the pattern… 17
If the neighborhood pattern is such that most of the garages or carports are in the back, we 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
want to see new development have garages and carports in the back; that’s the Staff’s read of 1
that provision. The way that it is now if the pattern is most of the carports or garages are in the 2
back of the lot, you have to put your garage back there but your carport can be in the front. 3
And we have… I hear your request for some data, we’re… I don’t see that we’re going to be able 4
to collect the kind of data that you’re seeking for… Seeking on that but we have done some 5
research talking to the folks that have been processing these permits for quite some time and 6
there are not a lot of examples of the carports being placed in the front when they have been in 7
conflict with the neighborhood garage placement criteria. There are a few examples out there 8
but it is not the prevalent pattern and so that’s why we think this is a correction. 9
Commissioner Gardias: Sure, I understand but… So, from… The reason that I am talking about 10
this relationship is because I think that with the ADU Ordinance that we passed, there may be a 11
placement of carports either at the back or allowing this at the front against the contextual 12
pattern may either constrict or not constrict placement of an ADU. Because if you have an ADU 13
at the back, right and then you have a garage at the back, then you have to also put that 14
carport at the back. 15
Chair Lauing: Ok, so I think the question is do we want to call this out or not so let’s get to that 16
but go ahead. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: I was just going to say ADUs do not require parking in the City. That’s not… We don’t 1
have a parking requirement for ADUs. Parking… Under certain circumstances, covered parking 2
can be removed when placing an ADU but I’ll differ to the Chair. 3
Chair Lauing: Ok so for this exercise I would like to get consensus or a vote or other suggestions 4
if it’s other than four people that we need to vote for putting it on a pull-out list. I heard one 5
person say one… four and I heard one person say one. The question is if anybody… If every… If 6
one… If each of us picked out ten, we’d have forty so it seems like there should be some vote 7
rather than just anyone asking for this be sort of continued and debated. 8
Commissioner Alcheck: I guess I would support a process where if we’re going to go item by 9
item, we give everybody a chance to talk through it. So, maybe somebody might say this is a big 10
deal and somebody might say it’s not a big deal, they might persuade each other. And then 11
maybe after that preliminary discussion, you could determine whether a quick poll would be 12
required to figure out whether (interrupted) 13
Chair Lauing: Yeah, I’m asking what the poll should be? Should it be four to three or can it be 14
anyone one or any two? 15
Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t have a particular (interrupted) 16
Chair Lauing: Well, in absence of any then we would need four to pull it out. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Monk: Chair Lauing, I did have my light up if you recall. So, I just wanted to ask 1
folks here if we think it makes sense to discuss Item Seven, which discusses what the definition 2
is of a carport. Should we have that discussion before we have the discussion on the 3
modification to the ordinance? Do you think one should go first because the way they have it 4
presented is the other way? I’m wondering if that will (interrupted) 5
Chair Lauing: If you do, we can. 6
Commissioner Monk: If that makes sense to… they are concurrent, ok so we’ll discuss them 7
concurrently, ok. I think we should just have the discussion. We’ve already started it, let’s just 8
discuss it. 9
Chair Lauing: Yeah so, we are, so your... Actually, your light is not on here but anyway go ahead, 10
continue. 11
Commissioner Alcheck: You have to push up or down. 12
Chair Lauing: But you’re speaking so we don’t need a light. 13
Commissioner Monk: But can you just check because… 14
Commissioner Alcheck: It’s the green one. 15
Chair Lauing: Yeah, it’s not. 16
Commissioner Monk: I don’t know, I’m not seeing a change [unintelligible] 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: Try again. Sorry, it’s not my fault, this is the most confusing 1
[unintelligible] 2
Commissioner Summa: So, in the meantime, I’ll opine on Six and Seven that I’m fine with them 3
as they are but if any… But if some of my colleagues or one have a very serious concern about 4
it, I think we should just put it on the list and if we have too many, we’ll whittle the list down. 5
Chair Lauing: Let’s see, I think Waldfogel had (interrupted) 6
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah, just a couple of things. I think you started to speak to this 7
about the prevalence of this issue. I mean I think that if this is just a clarification of placement 8
for a feature with… What is it, two walls or two open sides versus three open sides? 9
Mr. Lait: Yeah so speaking to Item Number Seven, if you read it unmodified (interrupted 10
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yes. 11
Mr. Lait: As proposed, you can simultaneous have a carport and a garage and meet both 12
definitions. 13
Commissioner Waldfogel: Well, I think there’s also a conflict with the Porte Cochere definition. 14
Mr. Lait: There… well, we can take a look at that. 15
Commissioner Waldfogel: I think you should take a look at that because that’s defined as three 16
or more open sides. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: Ok but that’s different than… I mean that would not be considered a garage. 1
Commissioner Waldfogel: But a carport and a Porte Cochere may overlap under these 2
definitions so I just think that if we want to be (interrupted) 3
Mr. Lait: Yeah, we can take a look at that. 4
Commissioner Waldfogel: We want to be careful. If the point is that we want to restrict a 5
parking facility in the front of the building, whether it’s in the form of a garage or carport, I 6
support that. I don’t want to make a change on Porte Cocheres without being thoughtful about 7
that. 8
Mr. Lait: Right. 9
Commissioner Waldfogel: And I’ll just make a side point on this, maybe it’s slightly off topic but 10
to meet this high-level goal of vehicle parking that’s not in front half of the lots. Something that 11
I’ve noticed over the last couple of years in residential neighborhoods is that I think our 12
driveway requirements are too narrow. So, I’m not seeing people use the garages that are 13
located in the back of lots because possibly because they don’t have the driving skills to get in 14
and out of them or because we don’t require a big enough turn around space. But I think that 15
that’s something we should potentially look at for next year, to meet our high-level objective of 16
actually… of parking actually ending up in or near the garage and not in front yard setbacks. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: Ok and we… and to your point, I mean maybe there’s a… To the… Maybe there is a 1
need for us to clarify… Distinguish a carport from Porte Cochere as you pointed out. 2
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Alcheck, your light’s on. 3
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so we have dealt with this before and I would suggest that… I would 4
reiterate the comments that I made on the prior three occasions that we discuss this item. So, I 5
would share Commissioner Gardias and Commissioner Rosenblum’s suggestion that this might 6
be something that we want to visit. And I’ll suggest that… Look when… The notion that we 7
would essentially try to consistently approach the location of parking facilities on a lot is not 8
problematic for me. But I think actually there is a nuanced issue with the ADUs and I’ll tell you 9
why. And I had this conversation yesterday with City Attorney Albert Yang, which is that the 10
likelihood of a new development… A lot of ADUs are coming in by converting existing detached 11
garages into accessory dwelling units; which in assents eliminates parking for the home and the 12
result would not satisfy, for example, Commissioner Waldfogel’s desire for these people to be 13
able to get to the back. The answer Staff gave earlier about, you could always take down the 14
carport and make it an ADU also wouldn’t satisfy that requirement. So, the question is are we 15
really trying to eliminate the parking facility in the front and maybe what we want to do and I 16
think Council would be in it’s right to make that determination but I don’t think they make that 17
determination in the absence of understanding the effects on ADUs. Principally if you are to 18
build a new construction project today, the likelihood of you building two detached structures 19
in the rear of your lot is very low. The likelihood of you building a detached structure in your lot 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
that you would then take down for the purpose of rebuilding an ADU is unlikely and so to the 1
extent that if you can accommodate the parking somewhere in the front through a carport let’s 2
say, you’re actually less likely to tear that down in an effort to have an ADU because you don’t 3
have to pick between the two. So, I… it’s not that I’m opposed to this, I would support this 4
change, I just think we have to sort of figure out what is our goal. And I would argue the 5
following one comment about Commissioner Waldfogel’s suggestion that we widen the 6
concrete requirement. We are vastly… we are quickly, maybe not quickly enough, approaching 7
a world were car ownership may dramatically change. These structures that we’re approving 8
for build today are (interrupted) 9
Commissioner Waldfogel: I just want to make a point of order. I just think that that’s a false 10
and unknowable statement. 11
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, no, that’s fine. I believe that we are approaching that world. I 12
don’t think that it’s actually an argument that we can dispute but the point is that the notion 13
that we pay… I’ll just say this. The notion that we would encourage paving more, I couldn’t 14
imagine how that wouldn’t trigger some kind of CEQA analysis. How that wouldn’t affect 15
(interrupted) 16
Chair Lauing: Ok, anyway, you want [unintelligible](interrupted) 17
Commissioner Alcheck: Anyway, I’m saying I’m not opposed to the change if we determine that 18
that’s what we want. The question is how does it reconcile with our other goals, that’s my only 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
comment and then I’ll just quickly say something about the carport. It didn’t occur me that 1
there was a Port Cochere discrepancy there. I believe that we could change this to be even 2
more precise, for example, if we give a percentage. I believe in the past they’ve approached this 3
with a notion that it should be more than fifty percent open. So, if you look at the language of 4
this classification it says cover means a portion of a principal residential building on an 5
accessory building to residential use design for utilized shelter for one or more vehicles which 6
are open or unenclosed on two or more sides and including on the vehicle entry side. So, 7
obviously on the vehicle entry side, if you don’t have fifty percent of the front open you’re not 8
going to get your car in but on the other side the notion of louvers or some architectural 9
component. This seems to basically support a carport that’s just four posts, which I think it 10
architecturally restrictive. Maybe we can require seventy-five percent open and that allows 11
some architectural detailing and it would be a little less imprecise. Those are my two 12
comments. 13
Chair Lauing: Ok, Commissioner Monk, is your light still on? 14
Commissioner Monk: Yes. 15
Chair Lauing: Ok, go ahead. 16
Commissioner Monk: I just flipped it on for this issue. So, I just have a general comment about 17
how this was presented to us because it’s not how I typically receive a redline document. So, 18
it’s unclear to me what we’re trying to achieve as far as the ordinance goes under the 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
definitions because if we were to accept your proposed changes it would read, carport dot dot 1
dot, which is completely unenclosed on two or more sides. Is that what’s you’re looking to do? 2
To take out the parentheticals and have it read completely enclosed so am I reading that 3
correctly? 4
Ms. Campbell: Yes, you are. 5
Commissioner Monk: Ok because typically… Ok so redline would redline that stuff and it just 6
doesn’t look… I just want to make sure that I’m reading it correctly. So, I would propose putting 7
in language to the effect of mostly unenclosed an opposed to completely. I think it’s 8
problematic and contradictory with the rest of the sentence. I think it would be difficult to 9
comply with because you’re going to have framing on different sides and the roof, that would 10
make it not feasible to fully comply with the way that you’re making the proposed changes. 11
On the second part of that definition, I would consider adding in some language to alleviate any 12
concerns about it resulting in some sort of non-compliance with the new ADU Ordinances that 13
were inactive by the state and by our City. So, if that’s something that would be appropriate to 14
put in the definition, you don’t typically see that in the definitions. I would just encourage some 15
language to the effect that this isn’t in anyway intended to or Albert you can speak to that if 16
you’d like. I’m not trying to propose language but we just want to make sure that it's covered. 17
Chair Lauing: Well, for now, we’ve pulled this off at 6 and 7, do we want to hold on getting the 18
wording changes? If we’re going to take another look at this one. 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: Well, yeah, I guess alternatively I mean I think if the Commission is articulating… I 1
mean I can understand the challenge with the word completely and I can understand also the 2
interest in wondering how some kind of aesthetic flexibility, we can look at that terminology. 3
So, not that’s not… I think it’s ok to have dialog, not be precise about the language but 4
communicate the intent for us to work on and communicate that to the Council. 5
Chair Lauing: Yeah, ok, great. 6
Commissioner Monk: So, just to continue, I just want to acknowledge the letter that we 7
received from Ronit Bodner. I thought what was presented in that letter addressed a lot of the 8
concerns that we have in that this is something that should be presented to Council as part of 9
the regular legislative process and not as a minor clarification. These are material changes in 10
the building requirements for a carport and I couldn’t agree more. Thank you. 11
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Gardias, your light is on. 12
Commissioner Gardias: Sorry this is past light. Thank you. 13
Chair Lauing: Oh, ok. No other items on this, we’ve got this on the potential carve-out area. So, 14
Number eight… I’d like to go back to our potentially quicker process of just running down the 15
line on these things so Number Eight? 16
Commissioner Summa: Pass. 17
Chair Lauing: Eight. 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Monk: I pass on Eight, Nine and Ten. 1
Commissioner Waldfogel: Pass. 2
Commissioner Gardias: Pass through Nine. 3
Chair Lauing: Ok, I think we’re passed through Nine, do you want to go to Ten then? 4
Commissioner Summa: Pass. 5
Chair Lauing: [unintelligible] Commissioner Monk, Ten? 6
Commissioner Monk: Pass. 7
Commissioner Waldfogel: I’m just trying to sort out, is this a clerical error or is this a change in 8
any way? Number Ten the Map Exception Process? I mean does it change anything? 9
Mr. Lait: Ok, yeah, so thank you. Give us a second here to jog our memories. 10
Commissioner Waldfogel: We can keep going if you need some time. I’m sorry to be asking hard 11
questions but it was a little too complicated for me parse. 12
Mr. Lait: So, this one is we have a process in our subdivision section of our code that allows an 13
applicant to request a Map Exception to standards in the… Title 18, our Development Code 14
Standards. And we believe that the Map Exception process allows for that today without any 15
change. This added language here just puts it in black and white a practice that has been done 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
for many years using the Parcel Map Exception to grant changes to Development Standards. 1
This Commissioner considered a project, I think it was on California, there were some three lots 2
with a Parcel Map Exception for three lots. I think you considered a Parcel Map Exception for 3
the Bowmen School. There’s a number of examples where we’ve used a Parcel Map Exception 4
for Development Standards like lot area and things like that and so now we’re just making it 5
explicatively clear. 6
Commissioner Waldfogel: Just as a point of clarification, this isn’t code your changing but this 7
language may be granted only by the City Council after recommendation by the Planning 8
Commissioner. Does that mean the Planning Commission needs to make an affirmative finding 9
and the City Council does not have the discretion to do this without an affirmative finding by 10
the Planning Commission? I mean what does that language mean? 11
Mr. Yang: We would read that language that the Planning Commission has to make a 12
recommendation so that the item would need to be considered by the Planning Commission. 13
Not necessarily the Planning Commission would need to make an affirmative recommendation. 14
Commissioner Waldfogel: That doesn’t seem like a plain language reading of that piece of code. 15
Mr. Lait: So, I just want to make sure that we’re in the same section. So, right after 16
[unintelligible][interrupted] 17
Commissioner Waldfogel: It’s right after the red section. 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: Such exceptions may be granted only by the City Council after recommendation by 1
the Planning Commission. So, you can have any kind of recommendation; one of support, one 2
of against. 3
Commissioner Waldfogel: I would use different language for that then recommendation. I mean 4
then… The language I would use would only after consideration. 5
Mr. Lait: If you want we can say consideration or review, this is consistent language. 6
Commissioner Waldfogel: Well, no but I just… I mean I am just… This may not be the right time 7
or place but I’m really taking issue with this notion that recommendation just means the same 8
as a consideration as opposed to an affirmative finding. 9
Chair Lauing: Ok, we’re through Ten I believe. Ok, go back to Eleven, anyone wants to speak on 10
that starting with Commissioner Summa. 11
Commissioner Summa: I believe the only change here is to add above grade because before it 12
just said… read 3-feet, like a 3-foot. So, I don’t think it’s a substantive change at all. I know 13
that… I believe Eric Rosenblum…. Commissioner Rosenblum mentioned it but I think it’s just 14
because he didn’t read it maybe so I don’t have a problem with this one. 15
Chair Lauing: Ok, others? Commissioner Alcheck, you’re good? 16
Commissioner Alcheck: I guess I’m… The… I wouldn’t have flagged this one but I was curious if 17
Staff would help us understand really what are they preventing I guess or what… 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Campbell: I can go ahead and jump in here. 1
Commissioner Alcheck: Can you clarify (interrupted) 2
Chair Lauing: Please do, thanks. 3
Commissioner Alcheck: I didn’t want to flag this one but after Eric mentioned it, I kind of looked 4
at it again and I thought ok what are they curing? 5
Ms. Campbell: Ok, so there’s a table in 1812 in the R-1 Chapter that basically has this laundry 6
list of all of the exemptions from floor area and one… This is one of the line items in that table. 7
So, what we’ve done is we’ve just added the clarification and this reflects exactly the same 8
language that’s in the definition for low-density residential projects… For low-density projects. 9
So, basically… It’s just basically if as long as your basement isn’t more than 3-feet above grade 10
and it was just adding that clarifying above grade so it's just not 3-feet; just say above grade so 11
there’s a relationship to what that's supposed to mean. And it’s taken directly out of the 12
existing definition for floor area for low-density residential so really, it’s just a clarification of an 13
existing definition. 14
Commissioner Alcheck: If you don’t mind, I’d like to follow up. So, I was under the impression 15
that there were requirements for single-family new construction that your first floor couldn’t 16
begin more than 3-feet above grade; which essentially created a… Which made it unnecessary 17
to distinguish where a basement could exist. So, for example, if you were going to build a new 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
construction, you couldn’t build a walk up that puts you 5-feet above grade so that you only 1
had to dig 5-feet down to have a 10-foot basement let’s say. And my question here is this would 2
affect existing structures whose floors are already in place so is that right? 3
Ms. Campbell: Actually, that’s not (interrupted) 4
Commissioner Alcheck: Is this like if you were going to build a basement under a historic 5
structure? 6
Ms. Campbell: No so for an existing project, if you wanted to build a basement today and if you 7
didn’t want that basement to count toward floor area for your site, it has to only be a certain 8
distance above grade and that’s where this number comes in. So, if it’s 4-feet above grade, then 9
your basement is going to count toward your floor area for your site. If it’s less than, then we 10
won’t count that basement towards the floor area of your site. So that’s why… the idea is you 11
have your basements that are low and so it’s not a visual impact to the site, it keeps your 12
building smaller and that kind of thing. 13
Commissioner Alcheck: Got it, ok. So, is this similar to the other requirement of not having your 14
first floor above 3-feet? 15
Ms. Campbell: No. 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: Because if the top of the floor is 3-feet above grade and you count all 1
the studs and all the framing, then it kind of necessitates the requirement that your basement 2
also not be above that same number so I’m confused. 3
Ms. Campbell: Yeah, I’m confused about what you’re suggesting for this particular requirement. 4
I’m not familiar with that. 5
Commissioner Alcheck: Oh, I was under the impression that there’s a requirement in our code 6
that says that for the first floor of new development can’t be higher than 3-feet or then it could 7
theoretically could qualify as a second floor; which is why the basement would then be deemed 8
FAR accountable. 9
Ms. Campbell: We don’t have a minimum requirement for that height that I’m aware of. 10
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 11
Chair Lauing: Anyone else on Eleven? 12
Commissioner Summa: That was Eleven. 13
Chair Lauing: Yeah, I know and I said anyone else on Eleven? Let’s move to Twelve then, this is 14
that… 15
Commissioner Gardias: Just a quick comment if I may? Just [interrupted][unintelligible] 16
Chair Lauing: Are we on Eleven now or what? 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Gardias: On Eleven, yes please, so just wait… When one reads it and I listen to 1
the discussion it’s obvious what it says but when I read it without the discussion, I really don’t 2
understand this sentence. What is great than 3-feet above grade? It doesn’t specifically say 3
what is greater than 3-feet above grade so I would just suggest some clarification that we’re 4
looking for the floor level (interrupted) 5
Ms. Campbell: Yes, I think we can do that. 6
Commissioner Gardias: Or a ceiling level or just (interrupted) 7
Ms. Campbell: Right or we can refer them back to the definition which (interrupted) 8
Commissioner Gardias: Subfloor. 9
Ms. Campbell: Is much more specific. 10
Commissioner Gardias: Typically, it’s the subfloor, ok. Thank you. 11
Chair Lauing: Alright, Twelve? 12
Commissioner Summa: So, I do have some comments about Twelve and that is that I think in 13
office use, especially in CN, CS, and CC, there’s a lot of confusion about different kinds of offices 14
and what they mean. So, I would say that business offices are… Needs… Under a medical, 15
professional, and business offices should not be located on the ground floor. Does that mean 16
administrative offices as defined in the code? General business office as defined in the code? 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
So, I… and there’s a lot of question and there’s a lot of concerns about these uses in the little c, 1
as I like to call them, zones. So, I think that that could be clearer and I also, under number Two, 2
occupy space that was not occupied by housing etc.; business service, retail services, personal 3
services, eating and drinking. I also think that maybe… It doesn’t… I think there are some things 4
that… uses in there like may warehouse that should be added and that it should be covered 5
too. I’m not sure if that list is complete and that’s it on that one. Does that make sense? 6
Mr. Lait: Yes, I hear it clearly what you’re asking. I think it goes a little bit beyond what we were 7
trying to do. 8
Commissioner Summa: Ok. 9
Mr. Lait: It’s… And I’m not saying that we don’t have a position against it but I know there’s 10
been a community conversation about different types of office. And what we were specifically 11
interested in on this one is the strikeout language on Packet Page 15 because we believe that 12
creates a loophole wherein the CS zone… On any CS zone property, if there was housing on that 13
property or if there was no housing on that property which is most of them, then you can do 14
office. And we’re thinking that the one above it too is actually… Yeah, the one above it too… I’m 15
sorry. It’s actually already covered… Captured in Two where it says not occupied by housing 16
but then it lists all these other uses and so it captures the greater universe; whereas three 17
throughs out that universe and simple just say housing for the CS zone property. 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa: Yeah, I think striking out Three is good. I was wondering if the list in 1
Two (interrupted) 2
Mr. Lait: Yeah, we updated that list last year to add neighborhood business service but we 3
haven’t heard any other conversation and haven’t run across any specific issues to add more 4
items on there. Certainly, this is an amendment that is being considered by the Commission, it’s 5
been advertised if the Commission feels like there’s more that needs to be added to that it’s 6
within your authority to make that recommendation. 7
Commissioner Summa: Ok so I was wondering if it covered all retail like uses and the one I 8
really thought of was warehouse but I will stop there. 9
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Alcheck? 10
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, sorry, I’m sorry to bring this up. I just… the reason why I mention 11
this is because again, it always comes back to this sort of new ADU process you have. I’m going 12
to go back to Number Eleven for a second. On Page 5 of this… of the Single-Family Technical 13
Manual, which I know is not the ordinance, it specifically says that basements of Category One 14
and Two historic homes or contributing structures in a historic district even if greater than 3-15
feet don’t count as floor area. One of my questions here is because these structures are built, 16
whatever’s existing exists so the comment you made about sort of discouraging basements 17
from rising above a certain level and being unsightly. In theory, these basements already exist 18
and so my issue is that if you now count area that you didn’t use to count, then someone who 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
would then want to let’s say build an ADU attached in their rear may not be able to anymore 1
because they don’t have the adequate floor area. And so, the concern that I have here is 2
basically what we’re saying is we want to start counting square footage that we didn’t use to 3
count. 4
Mr. Lait: I think it’s… I think what we’re trying to do is exactly what you want us to do, which 5
excludes that floor area. So, we’re saying even if it’s above 3-feet above grade, even if it’s 6
bigger than… More than, we’re saying it doesn’t count toward floor area. 7
Commissioner Alcheck: I understand. 8
Mr. Lait: Ok, thank you. 9
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok because that’s… I was confused. I thought that what… Yeah so, it’s 10
basically the same. I apologize, thanks for making that clarification. 11
With respect to Twelve, my major concern with this one is I actually think it applies to a very 12
small number of parcels and I was concerned coming into this that did we invite the individuals 13
who own these parcels to participate in this discussion or is there any sort of notice that we 14
may want to go through to indicate to these parcels owners that this changed? I don’t 15
completely understand this one so I’m not entirely sure. I would suggest pulling it but because 16
it was so few parcels, I wondered if it merited a discussion and I don’t know. I’ll just throw that 17
out there, I don’t feel strongly about it. 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Monk, Twelve. 1
Commissioner Monk: This was included amongst the minor text clarifications section so to me 2
removing an entire section of an ordinance does not seem like a minor text clarification. I’m not 3
inclined to support this without further understanding of what the impact or the intent is and it 4
seems like something that should go to Council in my viewpoint. 5
Chair Lauing: So, you are suggesting we pull that one for further discussion? 6
Commissioner Monk: I’m just not really sure what the impact is of pulling that text is. 7
Chair Lauing: Ok, you’re fine. I mean these all go to Council eventually so but that’s fine; 8
because we’re trying to get together a list here so let’s do that. 9
Commissioner Monk: I guess for minor text clarifications that’s pretty obvious when that’s the 10
case and to me taking out it… this is not a text clarification. I’d rather have some more color 11
around what is trying to be accomplished. Chair, I know you did give some background on it. Is 12
the Commissioner stratified with this? I’m just curious. 13
Chair Lauing: Well, let’s see what some other folks say. Commissioner Waldfogel, do you have 14
any comments? 15
Commissioner Waldfogel: Are you finished with that? Yeah, thanks. I’m actually not sure 16
because I actually find this language extremely hard to parse so I’d like a little bit of help 17
because it keeps going positive and negative on me. So, I’m not quite sure what’s in and out as I 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
read through it so help me out a little bit here to just explain what are the conditions where 1
office would or would not be allowed in the CS district. Because I’m kind of… maybe everybody 2
else here is perfectly clear but I’m not. 3
Mr. Lait: No, it’s one that requires a few reads. 4
Commissioner Waldfogel: I’ve done that. 5
Mr. Lait: So, what this is saying is that in the CS, CN and CC zones, there are some additional 6
office restrictions that apply and they apply under these circumstances. The conversion of non-7
office space… housing and non-office space to office in these three zones can only occur under 8
these prescribed scenarios. The first one is the office has always been there, that makes sense. 9
The second one says for all these three zones if it has not been occupied by housing, 10
neighborhood business services, retail services, personal services, eating and drinking services 11
and automobile services; if it's not been occupied by those then you can convert to office. 12
Warehouse can convert of office under that scenario and the reason for that is… I mean these 13
are a list of uses that are seen as supporting the neighborhood and/or neighborhood serving 14
uses and so those are trying to be protected. Three is a subset of Two and it specifically carves 15
out the CS zone and it says in the CS Zone, if you’ve got housing or if you did not have housing 16
on that property, you can do office. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Waldfogel: I don’t want to pick on any size bullets. Let’s talk about… I’m just 1
trying to think of some examples. So, you’ve got like that Quonset hut building that CrossFit is 2
in and I’m trying to remember what it’s use was (interrupted) 3
Mr. Lait: Yeah, I don’t know. 4
Commissioner Waldfogel: Before CrossFit was there but… so which bucket? I’m just trying to 5
work out what bucket that would be and what the potential conversions… I mean under the 6
current circumstance, that could be taken over and converted to the office because of the CS 7
carve out, is that correct? 8
Mr. Lait: Yeah, so under the current zoning if it’s a… if a CS zone property is not used for 9
housing, it can convert to office. And we believe that, well one, the Retail Preservation 10
Ordinance kind of makes this a little bit moot because the Retail Preservation Ordinance casts 11
an even wider net than Item Number Two. The Retail Preservation says any retail or retail like 12
use that’s in existence as of a certain date has to stay there. And so, if we didn’t make this 13
change, we still have that Retail Preservation Ordinance but this has been one that’s been on 14
our list and I think that it still… We would like to have it cleared up. Clarified and cleared up so 15
it’s not… it just makes it cleaner for us to administer the code. 16
Commissioner Waldfogel: Ok, actually that helped a lot because I wasn’t sure about the 17
relationship between this and Retail Preservation and that actually helped connect a couple of 18
dots. 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, that… if we did nothing, we’re… There’s no change but from esthetics and 1
administration, we would prefer it to be removed. 2
Ms. Campbell: And I just want to add one clarification to that. Office is restricted with 3
Conditional Use Permits so it’s only up to 5,000-square feet and anything above 5,000-square 4
feet would require that use permit. 5
Commissioner Monk: Could I just add one thing before we move on? Would it make sense to 6
reference the Retail Ordinance in this ordinance in some capacity just so that when someone is 7
coming to the code and reading it, they are not reading it in a vacuum and they know there’s a 8
related code section that they might also want to reference? And likewise, in the Retail 9
Ordinance to reference this section. 10
Mr. Lait: Sure, so yeah (interrupted) 11
Chair Lauing: That seems pretty easy and helps clarify it. 12
Mr. Lait: Yeah, we’d like to maybe add that too. I think Albert was whispering in my ear that we 13
could have some kind of provision that says that in the event of any conflict between this and 14
the Retail Preservation Ordinance in section blah blah blah, that provision [unintelligible]. 15
Chair Lauing: Ok. 16
Mr. Lait: Ok, so we’ll make that change. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Good. Good suggestion. Alright so we’re onto Thirteen, let’s keep the same 1
batting order. 2
Commissioner Summa: So, I didn’t really understand the point of this one and given 3
Commissioner Waldfogel’s earlier question about the other Map Act Item and I guess this is a 4
question for Staff. Do… Doesn’t the PTC have to review this? 5
Mr. Lait: Well, the PTC and I’m going to maybe need some help here from the colleagues but 6
there was a… so the reason we’re doing this is to… let’s just back up a step because this does 7
refer to the… It relates to the referral, right? Ok. So, last year or earlier this year the Council 8
adopted this provision where the Director can differ any project that is… requires City Council 9
approval or one of the applications requires City Council approval or major policy… Basically, it 10
allows the Director to differ any actions being considered like an Architectural Review Board 11
Action, CUP, all that stuff can be pushed to the City Council under broad circumstances. We 12
believe that includes the subdivision maps that are processed in our code as well but because 13
we don’t have this specific reference in the language, a project came up where there was this 14
debate that we had internally at Staff, which was does the code allow for Director deferrals of 15
these maps to the City Council when it’s a non-controversial map? I mean we were able to 16
make the decision on it but the map was associated with another permit that was going to go 17
to the City Council for approval. I’ll just say site and design by way of example and so we were 18
kind of stuck on this procedural issue, can we send the map and the site and design to the City 19
Council for a decision or do we have to declare that this something that we need PTC guidance 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
on, even though it was a really straightforward map, to get it to the City Council? And so, all this 1
language does is it gives us the ability to link that map, that otherwise has to be approved by 2
the Director, and allows us to move it forward to the City Council along with its other Council-3
related permits. It’s awfully nuanced and more… We write it down because we stubble on but 4
it’s not a huge process change and we believe it’s reflective of the Council’s action earlier this 5
year that gives the Director the ability to move things up to Council if it’s appropriate to do so. 6
Commissioner Summa: Ok, thank you. 7
Chair Lauing: And this says, and PTC has already reviewed it in a non-map public hearing. 8
Mr. Lait: That’s right. Yeah, I’m actually trying to remember the (interrupted) 9
Chair Lauing: So, we’ve already seen it at the time. 10
Mr. Lait: You saw it in some context already. 11
Chair Lauing: Right, pre-map. 12
Mr. Lait: Saw the site and design, it was… But… And you saw the project but I don’t know if they 13
saw the map. And so, the question was, well gosh, now do we have to send a map back to the 14
Planning Commission? 15
Chair Lauing: Right, so this is just a later stage deferral. Commissioner Alcheck? 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, so I actually agree with this change but it is a good opportunity 1
for me to demonstrate sort of another issue that I have with the process that was sort of 2
outlined at the beginning of this meeting. Which is let’s say we didn’t agree with this position 3
and Staff… As Jonathan already articulated at the beginning of the meeting, they may take a 4
different position than us. And then the Staff report that goes to Council will in an effort 5
articulate our concern but maintain the ordinance as written and here’s my issue. I’m not 6
exactly sure where Staff would have the authority to sort of disagree on whether any of these 7
items are clerical and minor and where they are not. And I agree with the suggestion that this 8
isn’t just clerical and administrative, we are actually exercising an opportunity here to make 9
decisions. The problem is that if the ordinance moves forward without edits by this 10
Commission, it strips this Commission of the opportunity to essentially oversee and help Staff 11
determine what should the policy be. So, if for example we take issue with one of these items 12
and say this is policy and we need to spend more time on this and Staff goes no, we disagree. 13
Then the Commission is essentially stripped of the sort of power and authority to participate in 14
the process. And the discomfort I have is that the suggestion that this is minor creates an 15
uncomfortable context for City Council because if they fail to read our minutes and Staff 16
doesn’t articulate the narrate of our argument as well as, frankly I think we could, then there’s 17
a little bit of conflict of interest. So, while I agree with this one (interrupted) 18
Chair Lauing: Yeah, I got you. 19
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m a little… The process here is a little concerning. 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: But I think the process here you’re describing is not the intent even of the written 1
document that will go to Council. So, Jonathan, why don’t you speak first? 2
Mr. Lait: Well, so, yeah, I mean I… The reason we noted it in the Staff report and I made an 3
extra effort to communicate it in the presentation is to sort of navigate what I thought was a 4
pretty awkward experience a few years ago as we kind of did our first one of these ordinance 5
changes. And not everyone was on the Commission at that time but it was… I think it was a 6
reflection of that series of meetings would show that there was… It was not a smooth process 7
and so we wanted to be clear about what our intent is. And then it is our job I would say to 8
make these recommendations to City Council. It’s fully within what we believe to be our scope 9
of authority to make these recommendations and I would argue or suggest that this is the 10
process where we are engaging the Planning Commission in its conversation. There will be 11
minutes, there will be a Staff report, one of you will attend the City Council meeting to offer 12
those comments to the City Council in that forum. We, in fact, made changes to our Staff report 13
as a result of this discussion last year where we include this blurb for each of these things in the 14
Council reports and we’ve been sending those to the Chair [Note-asking] did we get this right? 15
And we have a dialog back and forth about that when those opportunities happen. I don’t think 16
we had any conflicts or issues in this year so I feel like there’s… and we’re having this 17
conversation now in the absence of a critical issue. I mean we already heard from 18
Commissioner Alcheck that he supports this amendment so I kind of feel like we’re rehashing 19
this in a moment where we really don’t need to do that. 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t dispute the authority that you can make the recommendations. 1
The point I’m making is when they are lumped together, something this simple and something 2
more complicated, for City Council to be able to navigate that in one meeting is complicated 3
and that’s the part that (interrupted) 4
Chair Lauing: Yeah but I think the process… The end game process is that we might pull out two 5
or three of these, we might debate them, we might then vote in a different way than what City 6
is going to recommend. The City thinks about it and says we’re still going to recommend it 7
because we don’t agree but they call out here’s the PTC’s position on these two items. We 8
don’t have an agreement, now you seven Council Members have to make a decision. So, that 9
way both… It’s been hashed by us, it’s been hashed by them, we got a dialog together and then 10
here are the twenty areas we agree, here are the two areas we don’t, then they have to make a 11
call. Ok, others on Thirteen? 12
Commissioner Waldfogel: I have a question. 13
Chair Lauing: Go ahead. 14
Chair Lauing: Again, just a point of clarification on this. I think I support it but I’m just trying to 15
understand if there any scenario under this in combination with any other Director 16
discretionary approvals where projects would completely bypass the Planning Commissioner? 17
Where it would just get processed by Staff? I’m just… Because I know the Explanatory Tax 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
describes a scenario which an intent but that’s not what the actual code language says so I just 1
want to understand if that’s a scenario. 2
Mr. Lait: Yeah, no I believe the answer to that question is no. The types of applications that you 3
would see that would be included in this would either be… It’d either be a standalone map 4
application which the Director routinely approves or reviews I should say and makes a decision 5
on. If its an acceptation, it has to go to the PTC and then on to the City Council. If it’s a site and 6
design application, that has to go to the PTC and then on to the City Council. I suppose if it’s an 7
ARB application but then the Director still makes the decision. 8
Mr. Yang: [unintelligible- no mic] 9
Mr. Lait: CUP has to go to the Planning Commission. 10
Mr. Yang: [unintelligible -no mic] 11
Mr. Lait: On a request for a hearing. If… That’s right. That’s right so no, I don’t… I’m not… I can’t 12
think of an application type where the Planning Commission would be (interrupted) 13
Commissioner Waldfogel: Ok thanks, that clarification helps. Thank you. 14
Chair Lauing: Ok. 15
Commissioner Gardias: Yes so exactly… Thank you. So exactly, I had the same concerns that 16
Mike had just… named when he spoke first. I was thinking that pretty much there would be a 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
process to bypass the Commission and then just reading the issued language. the proposed text 1
didn’t agree with this… What I understood as an issue was and I was thinking pretty much there 2
should not be any direct submittal to the Council. That this should be… my understanding was 3
submittals to the City Council would be dealt for those projects that were reviewed by the 4
Planning and Transportation Commission but the intent is no, is this correct? 5
Mr. Lait: So, that’s… We’re talking about one application type that is the Parcel Map, the 6
Preliminary Parcel Map, which is traditionally reviewed by the Director. The Planning 7
Commission doesn’t have a role in that process today and what we’re trying to do is say on 8
projects where we want to forward something onto the City Council because of some other 9
entitlement. A site and design would come already before the Planning Commission and that’s 10
what happened in one instance that we’re talking about; that we’re referencing. So, again, this 11
isn’t designed to… The reason it’s written this way is because the language in here says that the 12
Director that makes the decision or sends it to the Planning Commission and City Council for 13
review when the Director feels like there’s an issue that needs to be made. That process still 14
exists, if we felt like there was an issue that we weren’t able to make it at staff level [crosstalk], 15
it would still go through that same process. All we’re saying is for those other ones that are 16
more minor in nature, tradition… Typical but there’s this other application, we want to be able 17
to group those together. 18
Commissioner Gardias: Ok so thank you very much, then I’m fine with the proposed change. 19
Thank you. 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Ok, on Fourteen, which is collection time for Officers. Let’s start with… sorry? 1
Thirteen? 2
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah, just one other point of clarification. This language was prior to 3
taking such action, the Director of Planning shall hold a public hearing. So, what is the proposed 4
venue for that public hearing because it sounds like you can’t forward it… The Director can’t 5
forward it to Council without holding that public hearing. 6
Mr. Lait: We have Director hearings all the time, at least once a… We have them scheduled for 7
once a month and they take place either here or in other conference rooms that we have 8
available. 9
Commissioner Waldfogel: Ok, thank you. 10
Mr. Lait: On this Item Fourteen that’s coming up, just a clarification. So, I thought Commissioner 11
Rosenblum’s comments were kind of enjoyable on how this gets scheduled. So, I just wanted to 12
state that the intent of this is to strike the specific reference from the code and leave it to the 13
Planning Commission through its rules and procedures, which we hope to have a conversation 14
about earlier next year, to set the date and time… The date where this would happen. Not that 15
it’s just going to be this free-flowing concept but you will actually (interrupted) 16
Chair Lauing: Right. 17
Mr. Lait: Decided. 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Right, that’s exactly what I was going to say and he asked for consistency with 1
other Commissions and the constituency is that they now have the flexibility to choose when to 2
do the election of Officers but once you do that, it doesn’t change every month. You get on a 3
different annual schedule. One other comment though in the wording, which is actually better 4
in the ordinance but not as it’s explained, there’s the unfortunate reference to maintaining a 1-5
year term limit. Just the words term limits have implications and that’s not the intent to limit 6
anybody to only 1-year ever. And I just think it’s… 7
Commissioner Alcheck: One-year at a time. 8
Chair Lauing: At a time, yeah so if that could just be clarified. 9
Commissioner Monk: I would just say 12-month period. 10
Chair Lauing: We’re just going to do down the rows here on this stuff. 11
Commissioner Summa: [unintelligible – no mic] 12
Chair Lauing: Yeah, we’re on Fourteen. I was just tagging onto the Assistant Director’s general 13
comments about the flexibility that’s being created here, just to kind of set the stage for the 14
discussion. But the other point that I was raising was this term limit just has implications that 15
aren’t intended so I just think that there’s some language change there. Why don’t we go ahead 16
and Commissioner Summa, did you have anything on that? 17
Commissioner Summa: On Fourteen? 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Yeah, ok. Alcheck? 1
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah so, I’ll just chime in here. I think actually it’s a very good point. It 2
didn’t even occur to me when I read it and it’s happened in my experience. Commissioner 3
Eduardo Martinez served at Chair during my 10-year and the then Vice Chair was not 4
reappointed and in the absence of that reappointment we could have selected a new Chair 5
from the remaining Commissioners but we chose to reappoint Commissioner Martinez and he 6
served 2-terms. And so, the language kind of sounds like it would prohibit that so I actually 7
think that’s a really good idea. And I actually would suggest that we change the sentence a little 8
more so it would say something like serve in such a capacity for 12-months at a time or 1-year 9
at a time (interrupted) 10
Chair Lauing: It says that for 1-year each. 11
Commissioner Alcheck: Until… Then I would add at which point another election should take 12
place. I don’t think it should say until a successor is elected because I think we should codify 13
that elections should take place regularly, as opposed to… Here’s my [unintelligible], the reason 14
why this got all messed up is because the City Council had a very difficult time recruiting people 15
to this Commission and as a result, they actually unilaterally extended the terms. I originally… 16
my term was supposed to end in June 2017 and about 3-year ago they extended it to December 17
2017 and in the process, it became problematic. I guess my point is, is that (interrupted) 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: But the phrase here doesn’t refer to just the person that is elected. They could… 1
The Commission could decide to elect a new Vice Chair or somebody could resign or something 2
so it was meant to give us maximum flexibility but I agree with you. It should be tightened up a 3
little bit so it’s not misunderstood. 4
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 5
Chair Lauing: So, you could say annual terms and notwithstanding the foregoing as Attorney’s 6
say. There are no limitations to the number of terms someone can serve as an officer or 7
something like that, [unintelligible] change. 8
Commissioner Alcheck: So is it your vision that in the near term we would specifically clarify in 9
our bylaws when (interrupted) 10
Chair Lauing: Yes, right. 11
Commissioner Alcheck: I would just make one point there, which is that I… I don’t know where 12
everybody stands on this but I… Despite the fact that I don’t think it was the original intent for 13
outcoming Commissions to choose incoming leadership. I accept… I acknowledge that I don’t 14
believe that was the original intent. I believe the original intent was for the new members to 15
choose new leadership. There are two problems with that, the first is that if you have a term 16
ending Chair, there’s no one to preside over the meeting or a term ending Vice Chair and term 17
ending Chair. You have no one to preside over that meeting, that’s problem number one and 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
problem number two is that in our practice now for the last 4-years, we’ve actually had the 1
outgoing or term ending participates, so it’s the opposite of Commissioner Gardias’s point of 2
view, select the future leadership. And what I’ve personally found is that has been very helpful 3
because it allows the Commissioners who are familiar with the practices of the different 4
Commissioners to participate even if they are being termed off. Even if they “have no dog in the 5
race”, they might have a more informed opinion about who might make a better leader. 6
Whereas a new Commissioner who has never served like for example [Billy Riggs] who may be 7
unfamiliar with us doesn’t. And the significances of not making the decision today is that one of 8
those individuals who participated in the vote tonight who I believe would support my… This 9
argument that I’m making and opposed the argument Commissioner Gardias would make, 10
wouldn’t be there in January to participate in that discussion about it. That’s not to say 11
anything, I’m just making that point so that you’re aware of it and I think that there’s a vote 12
there that won’t get heard in January. 13
Chair Lauing: So, I think we get another dip at this when we come back with the bylaws so I 14
don’t think we have to really beat this up or take it offline or pull out. But let’s continue if other 15
Commissioners have comments, Commissioner Monk? 16
Commissioner Monk: Again, just looking at this purely from how it was drafted and the original 17
language which reads the Commission should elect its Officers annually at the first meeting of 18
November. So, I would hope that in the future we would receive changes that are redlined that 19
it would be more accurate so the Commission… I don’t know why Commission and elect are 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
read. Those are language that hasn’t changed so it’s just confusing to me when I’m reading this 1
for the first time. I’d like to see original context listed as it is originally. Shouldn’t be italicized, it 2
should just be black unless you want to make Commission capitalized and maybe that’s why 3
you’re trying (interrupted) 4
Mr. Lait: That’s what happened. 5
Commissioner Monk: Do it. 6
Ms. Campbell: That is what happened. 7
Commissioner Monk: So, then the C should be red and capitalized, just to make it clear for us 8
who have never seen this ever before. I shouldn’t have to be referencing it back and forth so 9
just making that as a side note from a clerical standpoint. 10
As far as the proposed language goes, I would like to see something along the lines of the 11
Commission shall annually elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from its Membership who 12
shall serve in such capacity for 12-months and just leave it at that or something as simple and 13
along those lines. 14
[Note Male:] That’s fine. 15
Commissioner Monk: Thank you. 16
Commissioner Waldfogel: I don’t think I have any comment. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Gardias? 1
Commissioner Gardias: Very good so on the… You heard me talking about this many times so 2
probably I should not be talking about this any longer but first, congratulations to the newly 3
elected Chairmen and Vice Chair; congratulations. 4
Commissioner Monk: Thank you. 5
Commissioner Gardias: However, so I resent the comments that some people are enlightened 6
and they know better whom to elect and then they have the right to elect for others. I really 7
believe this is the direct democracy and then [Note -the] body has the right to elect its 8
leadership. It means also build who’s going to be incoming Members, he should have this right. 9
and also, the same right that Commissioner Summa and Commissioner Lauing [Note -Monk?]. 10
Last time when they joined the Commission there was a curiosity because the prior leadership 11
was pretty much elected by two Council Members so for this reason, I think that things like this 12
should not be happening. Specifically, that this could make us… An argument against this 13
Commission when we fight very hard to get the public to come to our meetings and discuss it 14
with us. We should be as crystal clear from the perspective of our code and I believe that this is 15
not right. It may be legal that somebody elects people for others but I think that this is… This 16
doesn’t feel right to me. And for this reason, I think that elections should be happening once all 17
the Council… City Council appointees are installed. I think that sentence should read, the 18
Commission shall elect Officers annually at the first meeting upon installation of new 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
appointees. Which clearly says that pretty much that once the process takes place, the new 1
appointed Commissioners by the City Council, then the body selects its leadership. Thank you. 2
Chair Lauing: So those two bits of suggested wording frame the debate for the next time we’re 3
talking about the bylaws. Do you have another comment Commissioner Monk? 4
Commissioner Monk: Well, Commissioner Gardias is bringing up a point and he’s brought it up 5
now twice in this meeting so I don’t know if this is the time to discuss it but I did want to 6
address this point because he’s now made the same point twice. Is this the appropriate time? 7
Chair Lauing: Yeah but let’s keep it brief. 8
Commissioner Monk: I just want to say that I understand what you’re saying but we’re all 9
appointed by Council so the timing of it, to me, seems relevant. I think the bigger issue is what’s 10
most appropriate for this Board and I have a different perspective in that I was brought on this 11
year and Commissioner Summa was brought on as well and I don’t know if she shares this 12
perspective but I think it would be immense amount of pressure and unknowing on who to vote 13
for coming in a vacuum. I don’t know our future Commissioner Riggs and he doesn’t know any 14
of us so I wouldn’t feel comfortable coming onto this Commission and having to vote when I 15
first step onto it. I think that being here and seeing how we all interact with each other, how we 16
interact with Staff, our positions on things, I think we have a lot of value and a deep 17
understanding of what each of us brings to the table when we make out selections. So, I 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
actually support the outgoing members to do the voting versus the incoming members. I just 1
want to make that different perspective known to you, thank you. 2
Chair Lauing: Ok, Commissioner Waldfogel? 3
Commissioner Waldfogel: Sorry, just one quick comment. I just looked at the codes for other 4
Commissions and so far, everyone that I’ve looked at also includes the phrase at the end of the 5
sentence; until successors are elected unless his terms are, I’m not sure about the is but unless 6
his term is the member of the Commission sooner expires or expires sooner. So, I’m seeing this 7
under Human Relations and Utilities. 8
[Note- Male:] [unintelligible – mic not on] 9
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah but they all seem to have this mention of term expiration. I 10
mean that might be [uninteligible] in this other language about appointing a replacement but 11
I’m just pointing out the inconsistency in the language. 12
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Summa. 13
Commissioner Summa: Just really briefly since Commissioner Monk referenced my name. I 14
would have been perfectly comfortable to vote when I got on this Board. I was familiar with the 15
members and I’ve never… I mean I’ve never heard of a Board or Commission that doesn’t vote 16
for their own Chair so just for what it’s worth, I support Commissioner Gardias’s concern. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Ok, we’ll get another dip at this one as I said so let’s go onto Fifteen but before I 1
do that, I promised to do a time check, it’s about 8 o’clock. I think we’re making, actually, quite 2
good progress with only possibly two pulls outs right now. So, if we want to press on, we can 3
unless someone wants to (interrupted) 4
Commissioner Alcheck: [unintelligible – mic not on] 5
Chair Lauing: Yeah, we can set another time limit. Do you want to go to like 8:45 and take 6
another time check? Ok, so… I’m sorry, Fifteen. 7
Commissioner Summa: I have nothing on Fifteen or Sixteen. 8
Chair Lauing: Mr. Alcheck? I had a question on Fifteen as long as we’re just going down the line 9
here. I totally agree with consistency, I just was wondering how you picked which number for 10
consistency because there could be an argument that there should be long time frames, not 11
shorter. So, as long as it’s consistent, I’m cool with it but why not make it longer so that people 12
can be notified well in advance? 13
Mr. Lait: Yeah and that’s fair. I mean the… everything else is ten so we chose ten. That’s the 14
traditional noticing period that we have for all of our entitlements. On Number Fifteen, right? 15
Chair Lauing: Yes. 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: The reason twelve is problematic for us is because it actually requires everything to be 1
set forward a week earlier for publication than it does for ten. The way the calendar sets up and 2
we (interrupted) 3
Chair Lauing: What about fourteen, does that help? 4
Mr. Lait: Well, it just pushes everything back. I mean if it was (interrupted) 5
Chair Lauing: I see what you’re saying. 6
Mr. Lait: For me, there’s no difference between twelve and fourteen because it’s in the same 7
cycle but we’re so programmed to do everything at ten. We don’t… It takes somebody who’s 8
really paying attention to what they’re working on to know that this one is unique and if you 9
missed the noticing timeline for that, we get this awkward moment where we’ve got to 10
postpone it. 11
Chair Lauing: Ok. 12
Mr. Lait: We don’t really have so much of a dog in the fight for the number, we want them to be 13
consistent. Nine out of ten are ten so we selected ten. 14
Chair Lauing: But it’s harder for you if it goes longer? 15
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: It has other implications in application processing timelines will get dragged out 1
because we’re not… We lose a week of putting things together and a lot of stuff happens in the 2
week leading up to a notice and packet. 3
Chair Lauing: Ok. Sorry, go ahead. 4
Commissioner Waldfogel: Why calendar days and not business days? I mean just in terms of 5
your process. 6
Mr. Lait: Well, this… So… (interrupted) 7
Commissioner Waldfogel: I mean does that get dicey over sometimes a year to (interrupted) 8
Mr. Lait: Over a year? 9
Commissioner Waldfogel: Well, over sometimes a year like over the holidays, does ten calendar 10
days… If somebody walked in on Christmas Eve with an application or if a notice period 11
(interrupted) 12
Mr. Lait: Yeah, so this is all noticing that we do to advise the public about stuff in the paper. 13
Commissioner Waldfogel: Right. 14
Mr. Lait: And so that always gets published on Friday. 15
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: There is a requirement that if the tenth day lands on a holiday, then 1
(interrupted) 2
Chair Lauing: It goes over. 3
Commissioner Alcheck: It’s the following business day. 4
Mr. Lait: For appeals and things of that nature, we [unintelligible] (interrupted) 5
Chair Lauing: Yeah but this is our posting as a City. 6
Mr. Lait: That's right which always happens on Friday and we account for holidays and we have 7
to do some planning ahead for holidays that are especially on Mondays and things like that. So, 8
if we published a ten-day notice in the paper, it’s there for ten days. It gets published on Friday 9
and it’s there the whole next… It’s… The meeting isn’t until the next week and then the week 10
after that so holidays don’t really come into play. 11
[Note-Male:] [unintelligible – mic not on] 12
Mr. Lait: Right. 13
[Note-Male:] [unintelligible – mic not on] 14
Commissioner Alcheck: Do you have to re-publish like if it’s ten days and the paper comes out 15
twice in that period of time? 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: No. 1
Commissioner Alcheck: Do you re-publish? 2
Mr. Lait: No. 3
Chair Lauing: Ok. Did you have anything Commissioner Gardias? 4
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah so, I was looking for the same clarification and so pretty much the 5
ten means that… Is the period because a number must mean something? So, you’re saying that 6
ten is specifically because of the process of publishing on Fridays and then it pretty goes into 7
effect or pretty much it’s business, as usual, the following Monday. 8
Mr. Lait: Yeah so basically that two adds a week to our preparation time; those two days add a 9
week. 10
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, yeah, I’m fine with this. Thank you. 11
Chair Lauing: Ok, back to the other end on Sixteen. Did you already pass on that one? And so, 12
did Mr. Alcheck? I’m good on that one. Sixteen, Commissioner Monk? 13
Commissioner Monk: Can you just give us a little context of where this is coming into play 14
because it’s referring to the Chapter and I don’t know what Chapter it’s referring to since it’s 15
entirely new. 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Campbell: Yeah so what we’re trying to do is add in some specific language to state that 1
applications can be withdrawn by the applicant and (interrupted) 2
Commissioner Monk: Sorry, there’s a little bit of a side dialog. Can you just tell me where to 3
look in the current code where you’re planning on putting this and then (interrupted) 4
Ms. Campbell: 1840.190. 5
Commissioner Monk: So, it’s going to follow what? 6
Mr. Lait: It’s just another grab bag area of the code, it’s [unintelligible](interrupted) 7
Commissioner Monk: Oh, ok so where (interrupted) 8
Ms. Campbell: It’s going to follow the set Retail Preservation is… 1840.180 is the section 9
previous. 10
Commissioner Monk: Ok, I don’t have that in my (interrupted) 11
Mr. Lait: You don’t. 12
Commissioner Monk: I might have an outdated printout. I… My… The zoning code that I was 13
provided seems to end at 1840.150, that’s probably why I’m a little lost. 14
Mr. Lait: We’ve adopted a couple things probably since we’ve given that to you, Retail 15
Preservation is one of them. 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Monk: Ok so that’s why I don’t know the context of this. 1
Mr. Lait: Yeah, that’s right. So, this is like the general provisions where we don’t have a place to 2
put something, this is the section that it goes. It doesn’t neatly fit into districts or things like 3
that. And again, we just have some applications that sit around for a long time and we don’t 4
really have a mechanism to deal with them. We ask applicant… a lot of people blame the City 5
for not processing applications in a timely manner but I’ll tell you, there’s a whole other set of 6
stories where we have a bunch of applications that we’re waiting for a response from an 7
applicant or architect. It’s amazing how many times architects can change, homeowners change 8
plans and so the whole point of this is to allow us to move applications along without denying 9
them. And an applicant doesn’t get a refund on denials but here we can have their application 10
withdrawn and then people are eligible for a refund at least. 11
Chair Lauing: Was that it? 12
Commissioner Monk: Thank you. 13
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Waldfogel? 14
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah, I’m sorry, I’m still on Fifteen and I was just trying to get 15
clarification on this. Is there a reason why you wouldn’t operate on six business days rather 16
than ten calendar days? I mean would that have the same effect? What I’m trying to get at is 17
suppose you sent out… I’m not saying you would ever do this but you could imagine an evil 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Director who sends out applications… Who sends out a notice the Friday before Thanksgiving. 1
And then in the ten-day requirement goes through two or three holidays so you… But you’d still 2
be fully compliant. The end day would still be a business… It would still be a work day; the start 3
day would be a work day but this would go out over a duration that really takes away an 4
opportunity to respond. 5
Mr. Lait: Its… Again, this is a notice requirement with an outgoing notice to… From the City to 6
the paper. This is also to residents? 7
Ms. Campbell: Nope, this is just notice (interrupted) 8
Mr. Lait: This is just a notice to the paper so I… All of our notices are ten-day notice. This one’s 9
an outlying at twelve days. I don’t know how the holidays necessarily factor into that notice. 10
They always get published on Friday. 11
Ms. Campbell: It does include the card as well, sorry. It does include the notice cards. 12
Mr. Lait: Advising of the hearing date. 13
Ms. Campbell: Yes. 14
Mr. Lait: I would say I think business days adds… I mean that’s a real shift of us. If the 15
Commission thought that the ten days was too short and there’s been no indication that it is so 16
far by… Since I’ve been here. People may talk about not getting notices but nobodies talked 17
about the time frame for the notice. But I would polite push back on business days and if there 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
needed to be some movement, I’d rather see the number of days change but I’m not 1
advocating for that. I just think that’s more of a structural change. 2
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah, I’m just looking… I think there’s a legal definition somewhere 3
on what business days or work days are for the City and I’m just trying to track it down in the 4
code; I’m looking for the reference. 5
Commissioner Monk: I think that going back to the twelve days, if that’s a concern of yours, 6
would just elevate any of those calculations if that’s what you’re really worried about. But I 7
think for consistency, you’re looking… Is this… Is what you do in this section going to have an 8
impact on other notice requirements? 9
Ms. Campbell: This existing… So, the ten days requirement is what we use for everything else. 10
We use it for architectural review (interrupted) 11
Commissioner Monk: So, this is the main section so don’t you think that our community would 12
be a little (interrupted) 13
Ms. Campbell: No, it’s the other… So, for all of our other entitlements aside form these ones 14
here for the maps, we use a ten-day period… Calendar day period. So, these are the only ones 15
that are inconsistent with everything else that we do so that’s where the difference is. 16
Chair Lauing: Ok, we’re on Sixteen now. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: I have a quick question about the inactive application provision, that 1
would be on Page 18b. So, I understand that there’s a lot of application that Staff… That no one 2
is waiting on Staff to do anything. That’s really on the… The [unintelligible] is on the applicant to 3
sort of do something. One of my issues here is like for example, let’s say you submitted 4
something at the beginning of this year and then you’ve become aware of the ADU discussion 5
and it makes you want to wait so that you can sort of determine how the ADU would shake out. 6
Considering how long it took for us to sort of… We haven’t even had out study session yet to 7
sort of understand it. I was at a meeting a couple weeks ago that Director Gitelman hosted 8
where she explained how the ADU is working in our City and I noticed a lot of people felt like it 9
was very informative. I guess my point is that to me is like the classic example of somebody 10
goes in but then they are like oh, interesting and my comments that I got back reflected issues 11
but this ordinance might change. Their decision to be inactive for a certain amount of time 12
while they reevaluate the financial implications and maybe the law changing. I wonder if really 13
six months should just… My point is that six months seem very short considering that most 14
applications from beginning of submission to conclusion are not typically six-month process; 15
like you submit and if you’re in a single-family review… I mean a two-story IR review, you’re 16
unlikely to get your final probably within six months. It’s probably going to be a little longer 17
than that so (interrupted) 18
Chair Lauing: Jonathan. 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: Just to clarify, we’re talking about no activity in six months. We know that 1
applications could take six months, eight months to process. We’re saying we’re 2
[unintelligible]… We’re getting no feedback from the applicant team for six months. 3
Commissioner Alcheck: So would like an email saying we’re going to wait until your ADU 4
discussion is complete to respond to the comments you’ve made which could theoretically take 5
eight months. Would that suffice as activity? I guess that’s what I’m trying to say. I understand 6
you say we need to see your architectural plan reflect the following changes. Those changes 7
require someone to sit down with their architect and make some compromises but they may be 8
navigating other issues and financial questions and six months just seem short. That’s what I am 9
saying. 10
Mr. Lait: So, the whole point about this is to connect with the applicant, make sure their still 11
connected and engaged in the project. This doesn’t mandate the Director to withdraw the 12
application, it simply states that the Director shall have the authority. We get cases where an 13
applicant will say we’re going to have revised plans to you in six weeks. Two months pass, we’re 14
going to have revised plans in a month. Fine (interrupted) 15
Commissioner Alcheck: My question is you have a term here called adequately respond and 16
the question is would (interrupted) 17
Mr. Lait: The scenario that you just described may qualify for that. I mean if there’s a policy 18
issue. 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: That’s my point, sort of figuring out would it qualify and (interrupted) 1
Mr. Lait: It’s subject… Yeah, the Director would have that authority to make that 2
determination. I mean part of this is as an application, is it right for processing? There’s a lot of 3
expectation on Staff to process applications within a certain time frame. We want to also make 4
sure that there’s an expectation of that when you file an application, that it’s being processed 5
and that we’re getting that same response time so that we can provide that service to you. So… 6
But if there’s a policy… 7
Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t… now look, I don’t know that I necessarily think they are linked. 8
We’re in the habit of processing applications because we run a Development Center that takes 9
applications and we make it… We’ve sort of obligated ourselves to respond quickly but I don’t 10
know why an applicant is… I don’t know why the… I don’t know why our Building Department 11
would have… Would be concerned whether an applicant was working through the issues they 12
have to work through in a timely way. It’s not like if you want to build, you have to build quick. 13
Mr. Lait: So, I don’t disagree with that statement. That’s exactly right and if that’s the scenario, 14
then there’s no issue. We’re talking about inactivity, nothing, no feedback. 15
Commissioner Alcheck: Well, adequate. 16
Mr. Lait: That’s right. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: We’re talking about adequate responses so I’m just saying, my point is 1
that that’s where I’m struggling with this. I don’t know maybe the time frame should be 2
extended based on our experience with the ADU. That’s really the only reason I mentioned it 3
because I feel like there are people who are in the marketplace right now who have put their 4
plan on hold because they are still trying to figure out if the ADU changes are affecting them. 5
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Monk? 6
Commissioner Monk: To follow up with what Commissioner Alcheck was stating, perhaps we 7
would consider putting in a definition of inactivity. Just something to think about. 8
Commissioner Alcheck: It is defined. It’s the question of what is adequate? 9
Commissioner Monk: Or rather a definition of adequate. Just something to consider and I 10
would just also add that the way it’s written, the first sentence, in and of itself is quite extreme 11
if you just read it by itself. It looks like now after you read that sentence, then there’s a notice 12
that they may or may not provide. I’d like to see baked into that first sentence that some sort… 13
I think it would be fair that they would be obligated to notify the applicant because the way 14
that its written looks pretty draconian. And then just maybe clean up the second sentence 15
afterward to support that. That would just be my feedback on that content. 16
Chair Lauing: Ok, Commissioner Waldfogel. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Waldfogel: Thanks. Just some clarification on the process here so let’s say that 1
an applicant submits… Let’s say if somebody submits an application for development, do we 2
freeze the codes that apply to that application on the day that first application is submitted? I 3
mean I’m just trying to understand a scenario… What the scenarios are for something sitting in 4
the process for a long period of time; potentially dormmate. 5
Mr. Lait: So, I think it depends on the application, for one. Most of our applications would be 6
subject to the codes that are in place at the time that permits are issued. Though if you’re 7
deemed complete… Well, I guess… Yeah, once your… Ok. 8
Mr. Yang: So, typically pending applications are subject to any new changes in the law. Often 9
when we do change the law, we exempt pending applications but there’s no obligation to do 10
that. 11
Commissioner Waldfogel: Ok, so there’s no freeze. There’s no… you don’t get any entitlement 12
to the current law by submitting an application on… On a date certain, is that correct? 13
Mr. Yang: As a general matter, no, unless there’s some specific provision that says that there is 14
such a freeze but as a general matter, no. 15
Commissioner Waldfogel: Ok, let me just ponder that for a second but thank you. 16
Commissioner Alcheck: I do have a quick question, is there… I’m vaguely remembering that 17
there’s a rule that allows the Building Department or maybe the Director to refuse applications 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
if another application was submitted within a certain period of time. Is that… Is there… So, if 1
someone’s application was withdrawn, they could be excluded from re-submitting an 2
application? 3
Mr. Lait: So, this wouldn’t apply to that scenario. There is something where after… the City 4
could take an action where it would freeze the filing of a similar application that was denied 5
within twelve months. This has nothing to do with that provision that a withdrawn application 6
doesn’t trigger that. And then also, just to be clear, we’re not talking about Building Permits. 7
We’re talking about planning entitlements, these are AR… not a Building Permit. Architectural 8
Review Applications, individual review applications, Conditional Use Permits, these are the pre-9
planning process, not the Building Permit. 10
Chair Lauing: Ok. Commissioner Waldfogel, are you ok on this one? 11
Commissioner Waldfogel: I’m just still trying to work through some scenarios in my head 12
because it seems like it’s prudent if you know the rules are changing, a prudent course of action 13
is to try to get a complete application in as quickly as possible to… That you may even… You 14
may choose to amend later. But I’m just trying to understand the process and can do to protect 15
themselves from code changes because you know, design processes take time so what’s the… 16
What is a prudent person… What would a prudent person do and how does that play into this 17
timeline? 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Yang: So, typically the general rule is that you only obtain a right to the rules as they exist to 1
freeze them in place. If you have an improved… Sorry, if you have an approved entitlement so 2
you’ve made your application, it’s gone through the process, it’s been approved and you’ve 3
made a substantial expenditure in reliance on the entitlement. That’s the point in which the 4
rules freeze so just filing an application, complete or not, really, for the most part, does 5
nothing. 6
Commissioner Waldfogel: Ok, so substantial… I’m sorry, what was the word you used? 7
Substantial (interrupted) 8
Mr. Yang: Expenditure and reliance on that approval. 9
Commissioner Waldfogel: And what about substantial expenditure and reliance in a design 10
process on a rule set? That’s not something that [unintelligible](interrupted) 11
Mr. Yang: If there’s no approval, then you’re not relying on anything. 12
Commissioner Waldfogel: Ok, that may be a different topic but I think that is on the earlier 13
point that is something that maybe we need to… That bears on what the Lundy’s were 14
discussing and something that we may need to explore. Because what that does is it 15
discourages the design because it creates huge risks for taking the time to do go design. 16
Chair Lauing: Ok, one final comment from Commissioner Alcheck. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I know I… Now look, I appreciate that we’re eager to wrap this 1
quickly but the whole point here is to figure out whether or not these issues are more complex. 2
And so, I would just ask this question too or this is for the group to think through. What extent 3
does this… How could financial hardship… how could a… I don’t know a death that involved in 4
the applicant ownership group or something… I’m trying to think through the scenarios where 5
somebody is like you know, I can’t work on this. And maybe they are not even really the… I 6
don’t know. The time frame seems very short, that’s my main issue with this. I think that the 7
idea is correct, I just think the time period is short and I wonder if there’s any consensus there. 8
Mr. Lait: So, can I just offer… So, nothing about this prevents the Director from making a 9
decision on a project that’s been inactive. We can deny an application that’s been sitting 10
around for three months, four months, if we’re not getting what we think is enough traction on 11
the application to move it forward. What this is doing is it’s creating… It’s codifying a process, 12
memorializing this withdrawal procedure and it gives an applicant an opportunity to receive 13
money back. You’re not getting money back if we make an action on the application. If we deny 14
the application because we don’t have enough information to process the application, we’re… 15
And we deny it, you got to pay your new fees and all that kind of stuff. If you’ve paid fees and 16
you’ve for whatever reason, it stalled out and you’re not going to get to it for a while, maybe 17
this application isn’t right for processing. You withdraw the application, you recoup your fees 18
that you’re able to recoup and you come back and you file when you are ready to file. It also 19
doesn’t preclude the Director from having the thoughtful conversation that you are talking 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
about which is when the circumstance comes up and it’s reasonable to say yeah, you’re right. 1
This… we’ll give this one more time to move… Take the time. If there was a death in the family 2
and we’ve had that. We’ve actually had those kinds of scenarios come up and we… Where not 3
in this to be difficult, we’re trying to create a process that transparent and everybody 4
understands the rules because right now we’re just kind of winging it. 5
Commissioner Alcheck: I think what you’re trying to do is encourage… You’re trying to create a 6
process by which your encouraging applicants to be responsive. I understand that I actually 7
think it’s a smart idea. I just am of the opinion that six months is a very short time frame, that’s 8
all. I think… That’s all I have to say. 9
Chair Lauing: Ok. 10
Commissioner Monk: I don’t know about the six months but just in how it’s written, I would 11
just have you look at it again through the lens of the applicant and determine whether or not 12
you’re having it be too subjective on the Director’s side because it looks pretty one-sided. 13
Mr. Lait: Yeah, we can certainly look at how we’ve phrased it. 14
Commissioner Monk: Yeah and even at the end of it because under inactivity, that definition is 15
saying if the Director deems they haven’t adequately responded. So, even if they do respond if 16
the Director says oh, well you responded but it wasn’t adequate therefore I’m denying you. It 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
just gives a lot of power to the Director and I just would like to see a little bit more balanced if 1
possible. 2
Then going back to Section A, you might want to consider adding in a time period. You’ve 3
mentioned that the application… That by providing written notification to the Director but you 4
don’t give any indication about when so you might want to consider what would work on your 5
end on the time period. If they need to give twenty-four hours or week or whatever would be 6
best for Staff. 7
Commissioner Alcheck: A follow up question, is there a process… If someone felt that they have 8
been withdrawn in a… If an applicant felt that they had been sort of withdrawn and disagreed 9
with this sentiment of the Director that their response wasn’t aliquant. Is there a process by 10
which they could appeal? 11
Mr. Lait: So, there’s no appeal of a withdrawal, you can file a new application. 12
Commissioner Alcheck: No, I mean is there a process by which they could appeal the Director’s 13
determination (interrupted) 14
Mr. Lait: To withdraw an application? 15
Commissioner Alcheck: That their response wasn’t adequate? 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: No but I would say this. If it was… If you are an applicant, I don’t think we’re going to 1
go through the process of withdrawing it. We just may make a decision on it, I mean you 2
understand what I’m saying? It’s (interrupted) 3
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m actually just trying to understand how what oversite there is. 4
Mr. Lait: Yeah, this isn’t… I mean clearly there’s intended to give broad authority to the 5
Director to make this decision, that’s clear. And it is with the intent to make sure that 6
applications are being processed in an efficient manner both on our end but also on the 7
applicant end. It creates a process for withdraws and application refunds without having to 8
make a decision. None of this precludes the City from making a decision on an application. 9
There’s no added process, there are no added timelines, there are no added hurdles for an 10
applicant. It sets up a transparent process for dialog and we’ll work on the language to make 11
sure that it reads more balanced and less draconian as I heard. But this is how organizations… 12
The fact that we don’t have something like this in our code is a bit surprising frankly, on how 13
you process applications that have been stale. 14
Commissioner Monk: I think it’s necessary but also maybe consider you’re calling it application 15
withdrawal so maybe also consider in the title the additional powers that you’re looking to give 16
to the Director. So, at least they are aware that application withdrawal and results of inactivity 17
in six months or just something along those lines so that it alerts the applicant that there’s this 18
authority that they can lose their application within a period if they are not active. 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Campbell: I just want to add too, just coming from a planner’s perspective. We would very 1
diligently to engage with our applicants all the time. We never just say oh, I haven’t heard from 2
you in a month. We email, we call, we try to engage and we’ll hear back from them all the time 3
and we try our best to work with them to accommodate their issues and their concerns. We… 4
closing out an application is not something that we do all the time. It actually doesn’t happen 5
very often at all but this is just putting something in the code that actually gives us a process… A 6
legitimate process. 7
Chair Lauing: Ok, I have new lights popping up here and ok. Mr. Gardias? 8
Commissioner Gardias: Sure, yes, thank you so I’m fine with the language. I think it’s very 9
reasonable and clarifies the process. Maybe the wording could be a little bit polished just so 10
applicants don’t feel pressed but you know, it’s logical. Six months is a reasonable period if 11
there’s no activity within this period of time and then there’s also a mechanism to interact 12
between the Director… It says the Director shall and then just it’s a [unintelligible] process upon 13
the Director to follow up with applicants whose applications are inactive for a period of time. 14
So, I don’t find anything wrong with this process, I support this and hope we can move on. 15
Thank you. 16
Chair Lauing: Ok. Are you done? 17
Commissioner Monk: I just want to say that I absolutely support this and Commissioner 18
Alcheck and I are both attorneys so we’re looking at this through the lens of what’s the best 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
way of drafting. And we’re not… At least I’m not passing judgment on any capacity so I hope it’s 1
not interpreted that way. I’m just trying to be helpful. 2
Mr. Lait: And please, I mean absolutely, that’s why we are here. It’s the spirit of this 3
conversation and the back and forth and please don’t construe any excitement, particularly on 4
my end, about the topic. It’s just something that we’re… We’re passionate about the work that 5
we do and we’re presenting here. It’s not like we’re trying to be difficult. 6
Chair Lauing: Ok, thanks. Are we ready for a juicy one now? Are we ready for leaf blowers? 7
Commissioner Gardias: That was a very interesting statement by the way. I look forward to 8
going back to these meeting minutes. 9
Chair Lauing: So, I’m getting a question now from Commission Alcheck is this one we want to 10
pull? I (interrupted) 11
Commissioner Alcheck: I guess I would say I’m not suggesting pull but maybe at the follow-up 12
meeting we could see language that reflects the changes that we’re suggesting. 13
Chair Lauing: Isn’t that intent? You’re going to show us kind of any revised languages before it 14
goes to Council? 15
Mr. Lait: Yeah, we’ll wait to see what the disposition is here but we’re definitely going to do 16
some different language. I mean we’re hearing very clearly that we need to polish this up and 17
make it a little more… 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Lawyerly. 1
Mr. Lait: Well and you know we have our lawyers also looking at it too but we get the 2
sentiment. I mean that’s what we’ll do. 3
Chair Lauing: Right, let’s jump right into leaf blowers. I’m sure this will be completely non-4
controversial. 5
Commissioner Summa: Okey-dokey. So, you already answered one of my questions that we’re 6
not… that we don’t have jurisdiction over the school district. So, some observations I have is 7
that since we’ve determined that there’s technology available besides… That are not internal 8
combustion engine leaf blowers. Why wouldn’t the City use them as well? 9
Mr. Lait: So, this ordinance… So, I’m not… We don’t have a position on that right now. I mean 10
that’s not what we studied. That’s not what we were looking at in this particular ordinance. 11
There is a policy conversation that probably should take place about the City’s use of leaf 12
blowers. And… But that is something that has broader implications across multiple departments 13
and City operations and fiscal considerations. We weren’t interested in making any changes to 14
any existing City procedures. What we are trying to do is address a consistent refrain that we 15
get from the community and confusion about these… And we get these requests that come in 16
and they’ll say hey, this building just down the street… This commercial building… Has got all 17
these… They're using their gas-powered leaf blowers. I thought they were banned and what 18
we’re trying to do is in the same vain that the gas-powered leaf blowers were implemented in 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
the first place in the residential districts, we’re particularly interested in these transition areas 1
where people are… they are not understanding why we can’t enforce it in the commercial area 2
but we enforce it… We have regulations to enforce in the residential area. And So, I… I’m not… 3
Your topic Commissioner Summa is, I think a broader policy conversation that was beyond 4
where we wanted to go on this particular issue. 5
Commissioner Summa: Ok but we are prohibiting now in commercial areas with this? 6
Mr. Lait: That’s the proposal. 7
Commissioner Summa: And our… currently, the ordinance allows certain… Based on how 8
powerful and loud they are certain gas leaf blowers, will those still be allowed? 9
Ms. Campbell: The gas leaf blowers are not allowed a period in residential districts. 10
Commissioner Summa: Ok So… Ok, I guess I would just say that it looks a little funny to impose 11
something on everybody else in the City, including huge properties in the Research Park with 12
very big amounts of areas they might like to manicure and not ask the City to do it. So, I think 13
we should probably consider that. 14
Mr. Lait: Yeah, I… You know obviously we’ll hear from the rest of the Commission about that 15
but I think that’s a comment that we’d absolutely include in the Staff report to Council about 16
what is the City’s disposition on this issue and should we be studying it further? 17
Commissioner Summa: Ok. 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Alcheck. 1
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah so, I’m going to take a different position here but before I do that, 2
this is a good example of like why does the City Staff feel that they are in a position to articulate 3
what should or should not be allowed and why aren’t the community participating more in a 4
process to determine what they want? This is a perfect example of my issue with you advancing 5
the ordinance as written with comments of ours on the side. In theory, this is something we 6
should discuss and determine if we want. 7
Now I will make my case really quickly, I think it’s ludicrous to require commercial property 8
owners in the City to use leaf blowers. I believe that one of the reasons why the regulations 9
that exist currently aren’t well enforced, one of the many reasons, is because neighbors don’t 10
really want to call in enforcement on other neighbors. And when neighbors talk to their 11
landscapers about this, they probably hear from the landscapers that non-gas-powered leaf 12
blowers are pretty ineffective. However, for the moment I will not make that argument but I 13
will suggest to you that the notion that… Take the property on the corner of Page Mill and El 14
Camino that houses the movie theater. I don’t know the name of that property. 15
[Note-Female:] Palo Alto Square. 16
Commissioner Alcheck: Palo Alto Square. The notion that someone would drag an extension 17
cord from corner to corner on that property is so… And their little parking lot is so ridiculous to 18
maintain the property. I want to jump onto the back of what Commissioner Summa said which 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
is the notion that individuals around the corner from where Commissioner Gardias lives on… 1
across the street from Rinconada, can’t use a blower but the Staff of Palo Alto can use a blower 2
for 2 1/2-hours at Rinconada Park is also problematic. If the City… And I believe the City if they 3
did investigate this issue, they would come back and say it is literally economically infeasible for 4
us not to use blowers, that would be the response. If the City did look into it, they would get 5
feedback from their landscaping services that what do you mean? How can we possibly 6
maintain all of our property without the flexibility of non-corded blowers? So, that’s what the 7
City would say and we would exempt them because we don’t want to ensure the extra cost or 8
the inefficacy that would surround hand raking or potentially running around with an extension 9
cord. So, to me in perfect world neighbors who have real problems with this, maybe their 10
neighbors would respect them and adhere to the policy that we have in place for the R-1 but to 11
require for example our local schools that [unintelligible] private or our major property owners 12
that have huge parking lots, Stanford Research Park is a perfect example, from not being able to 13
effectively do this, seems like a problem. 14
And here’s again, I’ll restate my first point, we didn’t really notice the community that we were 15
going to take on. It’s kind of a big… I would argue a big change so nobody is here from the 16
commercial community to sort of understand this because if you read the notice in the paper, 17
we were doing an annual exercise in clarifying policies and revising and correcting little nuance 18
issues. And so, again, I don’t know why this… The Planning Department or where ever this came 19
from has a dog in this fight, aside from the fact that they may get some or to many complaints 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
from a resident. But the notion that we would discuss this without more input seems very 1
foolish and I believe that the reason why they’re excluding the City from the discussion is 2
because the answer is… I’m not suggesting that they are hiding the answer but I’m suggesting 3
that the answer is very likely to be that it would be very infeasible economically. So, that’s 4
where I stand on this one. Pull, pull it. 5
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Waldfogel. 6
Commissioner Waldfogel: Thanks, yeah, this is an interesting one. I agree with some of the 7
points that Commissioner Alcheck just made but what I point out is that the purpose of this 8
seems to be around high noise. I mean you could imagine three purposes around leaf blower 9
bans, one being the noise, the second on being dust, and the third one being fumes and carbon 10
footprint. And we generally have a requirement on noise, 65 DBA, in… what is this? 9.10.060f-1, 11
there’s a 65 DBA noise requirement that’s across the board for combustion or electric leaf 12
blowers and some compliance process. I’m not sure that’s well enforced. I looked at some 13
other jurisdictions, I think Burlingame publishes a list of approved products that meet that 65 14
DBA standard and it might be that just across the board. What we should be focusing on are the 15
noise levels. You know basically requiring that everybody meet the 65 DBA standard or some 16
other standard and that would be a fair approach. I could imagine over time battery powered 17
leaf blowers may evolve to a point where they work on commercial scale. I don’t know but this 18
just seems like it’s trying to capture something that may be a problem but I’m just not sure 19
we’re addressing it correctly tonight. 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Gardias, do you have a questions or comments? 1
Commissioner Gardias: Sure, thank you. So, I have a subtly different perspective. So first of all, I 2
don’t understand, I mean we… you told me why very much the City is excluded from these 3
operations but I just… Looking how further our government operates, for example on the 4
[unintelligible] buildings. Where pretty much it takes leadership on converting government 5
buildings to lead certifiable buildings and to allowing the rest of the world just to catch up as 6
they may economically and giving thirty percent of GEP [unintelligible] or large number or 7
twenty being a government expenditure. I think that the City should take the lead pretty much 8
on proposing the internal processes before the rest of the City is subject to this legislation. So, I 9
disagree totally that the City should be excused from this ordinance but then, of course, there’s 10
a larger problem with enforcement and we know this. I totally… It’s not enforced in my 11
neighborhood at least, everybody is using gas-powered blowers. 12
By the way, there are leaf blowers that are battery operated these days and then of course 13
contractors, they have the cord that can span for hundreds of yards away from the truck 14
because they have a battery on the truck. And then pretty much they pull this cord far away so 15
they can service large areas, even the parking in front of the theater square. But then there’s a 16
technology that allows them to do this… To use the power… Battery powered blowers 17
remotely. So, I don’t believe that from the technology perspective there’s any use, my request 18
is rather just to have the City take leadership on enforcing its own policy as opposed to before it 19
proposes any policies on the rest of the town. Thank you. 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Yeah so, I would make a couple comments here but the main one is this one 1
might have enough consensus to pull it now and just say that the Commission doesn’t support 2
it. Based on the consistency issue that any number of these other things we’re trying to get in 3
place, a number of days and so on. If we have commercial banned, homeowners banned, and 4
City can do whatever they want, that goes beyond a problem of just optics. There is just no 5
consistency with that so I think we can get there. 6
With respect to enforcement, its kind of the same thing. I mean it seems to me that there are 7
ways that you could make sure that some Deputy gives out two tickets a day to gardeners, the 8
word starts to spread that you’re not supposed to use these. That might help a little bit but 9
that’s going to be inconsistent as well because the factory next door to the house can use it. So 10
similar to what Commissioner Alcheck said if we were going to consider this I think the… we 11
would like to have the City come up with what would they do and then notice it so there can be 12
some comment on it. I think without that I’m not hearing any votes in place of that. Yeah, 13
Commissioner Alcheck? 14
Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to understand because I’m not saying I don’t see… I’m not 15
suggesting that I personal… I mean I don’t love this personally but I’m not suggesting in this 16
medium that my personal opinion about the validity of electric versus gas should control. What 17
I’m suggesting and I just want to clarify, is that we should have a conversation outside of the 18
annual code clean up where we discuss this. 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: I got it but what I’m suggesting is we might be able to go further now which is to 1
say that we (interrupted) 2
Commissioner Alcheck: No, see this is my problem, I just want to clarify. Asher… Commissioner 3
Waldfogel’s comments are actually very interesting. He just came up with a very interesting 4
way to approach it but I don’t believe that this type of decision should be made on the fly 5
where one Commissioner says oh, I know there’s electric out there and other Commissioner 6
says well, why don’t we… The real way that we should approach these decisions is by noticing 7
the community and having a discussion. 8
Chair Lauing: Right, I’m not disagreeing with you so it’s good we’re having this conversation. 9
What I’m saying is that there isn’t enough information here to even have a conversation on it 10
tonight so what I’m suggesting is we have to make a non-decision meaning we cannot support 11
what’s being done. 12
Commissioner Alcheck: I just wanted… I just hope that our communication to Council isn’t 13
reflective that we disagreed with the position. It’s that we felt that the position shouldn’t be 14
incorporated into the ordinance without further review. 15
Chair Lauing: Yeah. 16
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, alright. 17
Chair Lauing: And again, my understanding… 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: Some of us might agree that it should be a restriction. 1
Chair Lauing: Yeah so… But my understanding again, we’re reiterating, is that anything that 2
goes to Council is going to very specifically itemize and iterate what our objections were to one 3
of these twenty-three policies. 4
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah but it’s not… I just want to be clear. I’m not objecting to the policy, 5
I’m objecting to the process. The process should involve community outreach and discussion. 6
We should have a hearing where we talk about whether or not we want this new policy 7
initiative so I’m not objecting to… In this particular instance, I’m not objecting to the use of… To 8
the restriction that leaf blowers not be used on commercial property even though I personally 9
feel they probably shouldn’t. I’m objecting that we’re including this new policy as if we’re 10
annually improving our ordinance without… Nobody is here. 11
Chair Lauing: Right, no, no, that’s what I’m saying. 12
Commissioner Alcheck: That’s my point. It’s not… and that’s why I find that this notion that the 13
Staff is going to articulate that we took issue with… It’s not that. It’s why aren’t you… Why does 14
Staff believe these are minor enough to not include a discussion with the community? This is 15
my point. 16
Chair Lauing: I think we get the point. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: We can’t possibly know how involved this is without having a 1
conversation. 2
Chair Lauing: I think we got that point. Commissioner Summa. 3
Commissioner Summa: I did want to make a few clarifying comments. I really appreciate in 4
general that Staff brought this forward because I think gas-powered leaf blowers are awful 5
personally and they get complaints all the time. If you look on [Note - Building I] on the 6
enforcement map, it’s one of the most common code enforcement complaints. 7
I also would like to state that there are battery driven ones, I think Commissioner Gardias 8
mentioned it. One of the worries that I have frankly is the cost of replacing the equipment will 9
go to the people… In most cases most financially capable of … Incapable of not having it hurt 10
them, meaning small gardening firms. So, I think some consideration should be given to that 11
also because maybe the building owner should be required to provide the equipment. There’s… 12
we have to think about that at least and how that might affect a lot of people. 13
And also, I think we should examine the City’s policy of where we use leaf blowers. Leaf blowers 14
are generally regarded to be very bad for the environment because they blow away the topsoil 15
so I think maybe… I’m not saying I think the City does it wrong but it would be good to have a 16
conversation about the policy about leaf blower use in City-owned properties, especially parks. 17
So… but I think there’s enough concern about this that we should take it off. 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Yeah, what I was suggesting is that we can take it off because of all of the 1
information so right now Seventeen is off. Any other comments on Seventeen? 2
Commissioner Monk: Yeah, I had a question and perhaps it’s been answered but in the policy 3
behind bringing this tonight, you’re talking about extending this existing regulation to 4
commercial and that’s all you state. But then when we look at it, you add a whole new Section 5
Three about this internal combustion engine and all these things. How does that comport with 6
the beginning of this code section that you did not include in our packet that says, the DBA 7
levels and things like that in Item Number One? So, it is contradictory within its own section? 8
Under F you gave us a language for Number Two and Number Three but Number One talks 9
about… No one else here can look at it because it wasn’t provided. I’m looking online at our 10
code section under leaf blowers. Again, this was just pulled out of… This was part of the code. 11
The code says that no person shall operate a leaf blower which does not have the manufactures 12
label designating a 65 DBA when measured at a distance of 50-feet American Standards, things 13
like that. That’s how this provision starts so how does that comport with this new internal 14
combustion engine language that you’re adding? 15
Mr. Lait: Yeah, we can… We’ve heard a lot of comments on this one. Let us talk a look at that 16
one as well and we can report back to the Commission on this item when we come back. I don’t 17
have the code section in front of me right now. 18
Commissioner Monk: Ok. 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Ok so Seventeen is off right now. Moving to Eighteen, trash enclosures in CD. 1
Since there was a lot of discussion about that, Jonathan do you want to kind of very briefly 2
reframe that? Number Eighteen on what we’re trying to capture here. 3
Commissioner Alcheck: Oh, yeah, I’ll let Clare actually summarize the trash enclosure in the CD 4
district. 5
Ms. Campbell: Ok so let me just bring up the slide. 6
Chair Lauing: This is probably going to be the last one before we do the time check. I mean it is 7
the last one before the time check and it may be the last one we do period. 8
Ms. Campbell: So currently in our definitions in the gross floor area for commercial and multi-9
family exemptions, there is this existing language that’s referenced in that first paragraph and 10
it’s listed in our attached ordinance. I can find that page for you which is… so it’s on Packet Page 11
34 and that’s the draft ordinance. So, there was existing language that has some exemptions for 12
minor additions when its related to code compliance. So, what we’re trying to do is take away 13
the restriction of the CD districts so that we can also have this Director… At the Director’s 14
discretion to have this additional exemption provided for projects in the downtown. And it’s 15
just that it’s come up where many sites are maybe built up with the floor area but there is still 16
available lot coverage but because trash enclosures would count toward your floor area, there’s 17
no way to accommodate these trash enclosures without going through a complicated variance 18
process or some type of exception process. So, what we’re trying to do is have a provision that 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
would apply not just everywhere but… I mean not to just everywhere other the CD but include 1
the CD as well and have the provisions that are a limited amount of floor area could be made 2
available to be compliant with our code requirements for a covered and enclosed trash area. 3
Chair Lauing: Ok. Let’s start with Commissioner Summa. 4
Commissioner Summa: Ok and thank you to Staff because I sent in a lot of questions about this 5
because in my… I had two main concerns about this and one is that if… That downtown, 6
obviously it's tight. Most… Many of the parcels are all the way built out to the line so that map 7
was interesting to me because a lot of the areas that are yellow are actually, probably a 8
required garden. I know there’s on behind a big residential building on Lytton or they might be 9
parking; there are other reasons that couldn’t be used. Downtown is pretty tight and they 10
can’t… They may have area left in the parcel but it might already have parking spots on it and 11
they can’t get rid of those. So… but where… So, what the code really requires… you directed me 12
to 16… oh, whatever it was, 16 something b10 but that is actually for new buildings. So, it's for 13
new buildings and it also says covered area for a dumpster, it doesn’t say covered and enclosed. 14
So, I’m wondering if we… If there are dumpsters in the CD zone that are outside but are… can’t 15
they just be covered? Do they have to be enclosed also? So, I have a question about covered 16
versus covered and enclosed. 17
Ms. Campbell: Ok so let me just address that right now. So as part of our architectural review 18
when we have things that are placed out in the public view, we always want them to be 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
screened. So, I think from the planning perspective, we’re looking for that enclosure but the 1
Public Works Department is looking for that cover so then it ends up being a covered and 2
enclosed facility to screen the refuse area. 3
Commissioner Summa: Ok so you added that language and then the amendment, the area that 4
your planning on amending formally didn’t not exempt trash. It exempted those in special 5
environmental areas and what not. So now you want to amend… You want to exempt trash 6
rooms in basically all residential zones and large multi-family zones. Which is a change not to 7
CD, it’s actually a bigger change to all of the other zones. 8
Ms. Campbell: I was reviewing this with Sandy the City Attorney and we… In this… In the 9
paragraph subsection four, it refers to minor additions of floor area for the purposes of 10
resource conservation or code compliance. So, there is this resource conservation section that 11
we think could definitely be applied to recycling, composting and the related trash areas. So, 12
we did see a connection there and also with just compliance with environmental health. So, the 13
pollution prevention to me is consistent with that goal of compliance with environmental 14
health. 15
Commissioner Summa: And I’ll leave it at there for now. 16
Commissioner Alcheck: I have no comment on this. 17
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Waldfogel. 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah just one area, I mean directionally I understand this. I think it’s a 1
good thing. I’d like some clarification on the criteria… The areas designed for resource 2
conservation and other energy facilities… Resources conservation and energy facilities, there’s a 3
cross-reference to code 1842120 which that code allows up to 3,000-square feet for code 4
generation and energy recovery… Energy conservation… Resource conservation energy 5
facilities. So, I’d just like some clarification on what the intent is on including that language into 6
this piece of code and if there was no intent, it was just there, that’s fine? I think it makes sense 7
in other districts but from the CD district, I’m trying to understand how and where it would 8
make sense. 9
Ms. Campbell: So, I’m just going to clarify so you’re talking about subsection A? 10
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah, subsection A. 11
Ms. Campbell: So, that’s an existing language. 12
Commissioner Waldfogel: Right but we’ve never included that in the CD district before so how 13
would that make sense in the CD district? 14
Ms. Campbell: I’m not too sure, I would have to kind of think that through. 15
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah, I mean this is a thing that happens with kind of a… with code 16
changes is that the cross-references get… Can get interesting. 17
Chair Lauing: Ok, Commissioner Gardias, did you have anything? 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Gardias: Let’s see if they can answer this. I’ll wait for my (interrupted) 1
Commissioner Waldfogel: You’re curious too? 2
Commissioner Gardias: Time, yes. 3
Commissioner Waldfogel: We stumped them. 4
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, that was a good point. 5
Commissioner Waldfogel: As long as we’re all confused together, that’s all I can ask for. 6
Mr. Lait: It’s a little bit late and I think we’re probably trending to a place where we’re going to 7
be coming back for another meeting. 8
Chair Lauing: We are. 9
Mr. Lait: So, rather than just give you an off the cuff response, we’ll research it a little bit more 10
and come back. 11
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so now it’s my questions I guess. What does this 500-square foot 12
stand for? That’s the area that can be granted up to the ceiling of that area that can be granted 13
by the Director’s permission. It’s a large enclosure so I want to understand what does this… 14
how has this… How was this calculated? B. 15
Mr. Lait: Yeah so that’s… so that’s not text we’re changing, that’s just… That’s been there. 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Gardias: No, I understand but then (interrupted) 1
Mr. Lait: So presumably they got… I mean they just had to set a cap and it looks like they set a 2
cap at 500-square feet, not to exceed. 3
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, I [unintelligible], thank you. 4
Chair Lauing: Is that it? Commissioner Gardias? 5
Commissioner Gardias: For now, yes, thank you. 6
Commissioner Waldfogel: I’ll just point out in that section that Commissioner Gardias was just 7
referencing, Section B, it also references hazard mat storage facilities which I would hope that 8
the CD districts have some other restrictions on haz. mat storage. That we’re not authorizing 9
haz. Mat storage behind buildings in the CD district. 10
Chair Lauing: Ok so I would like to suggest that we suspend the discussion. 11
Mr. Lait: So, just on that last point so we’re not freaking out this stuff. What we’re talking 12
about are just exemptions… What qualifies as floor area and what doesn’t? That doesn’t change 13
any regulations in place about where haz. mat material is located or not. We’re just saying what 14
is exempted in floor area and the main purpose of this one is we’re trying to align the City’s 15
pollution prevention along with some constraints that we’re seeing with the code. And do 16
things have to be enclosed, maybe not. Do they just need to be covered? These are the things 17
that we can talk about at the next time that we come together. 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Ok so I’m going to suggest that we… Although we’re only four items from the end, 1
I’m going to suggest that we suspend this right now given agenda Items Three and Four. And if 2
we’re at lightning speed through those two, then we can come back to this and finish. 3
Otherwise, we’ll pick it up in our December meeting. 4
Commissioner Summa: Are we going to pull the last one? 5
Chair Lauing: Oh, I’m sorry and I think the three that I have… Thank you. I was going to 6
summarize this, the three that we have listed as potential pulls are Six and Seven together, 7
Twelve and Seventeen but I didn’t have this one as a pull that you just discussed. 8
Mr. Lait: I didn’t have Twelve as a pull. I thought that was just a clarification and an add 9
reference to the Retail Preservation Ordinance. 10
Commissioner Alcheck: [unintelligible – mic not on] 11
Chair Lauing: I had it as a pull so what is the view? Michael? 12
Commissioner Alcheck: I was just… My concern with this is that there’s a community of parcel 13
owners that might be impacted and I was uncomfortable with (interrupted) 14
Commissioner Monk: It was a pull because they’re striking out the language. I think you’re right 15
that it was a pull. 16
Chair Lauing: So, we (interrupted) 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: I had a concern that it just felt like there wasn’t enough interaction 1
with maybe the community on this. I’m not saying I wouldn’t support it, I think the process… 2
This process should not pass this element. That’s… I just was uncomfortable with that. 3
Chair Lauing: Ok so, for now, the pull list is Six, Seven which is kind of the same, Twelve and 4
Seventeen. 5
Commissioner Alcheck: I also don’t think Six and Seven are the same. 6
Chair Lauing: No but they are related. We discussed them (interrupted) 7
Commissioner Alcheck: I think one of them… for one of them the issue was potentially 8
[unintelligible] but for the other one its esthetics. I don’t know that they are the same. 9
Chair Lauing: Well my view on this is when we get through the next four, whether that’s now or 10
in two weeks, we’ll come back to these pulls and discuss them again and see if we need to 11
actually pull them or we just need to revise them. 12
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 13
Chair Lauing: So, we’re all concurred that we’re going to move to Agenda Item Number Three 14
and this is agenda… Sorry, Commissioner Summa? 15
Commissioner Summa: Can I make a quick comment about I. Eighteen? 16
Chair Lauing: Eighteen. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa: The one we were just doing before we move on. The one we just did, 1
the trash enclosure. 2
Chair Lauing: Ok, trash. 3
Commissioner Summa: Yeah, trash enclosure so I also didn’t understand why this wouldn’t be 4
in like 1806 which is other exemptions in the CD district. And it seems to me… I understand the 5
need to craft something for the downtown district regarding trash enclosures for existing 6
buildings but I think it would be better in the CD zoning, and there is a section as I mentioned 7
that has other exemptions, rather than changing all the exemptions everywhere to add trash. I 8
just… I’m a little uncomfortable. I understand the special conservation area as being an 9
exemption because it’s providing a unique solution to the environmental problem but trash has 10
always been around and it doesn’t fall into the same category for me. And I think it just looks 11
like kind of a give away of FAR to me, which I think that the public is uncomfortable with. So, I 12
would like to discuss it more or at least if nobody else wants to discuss more, at least get that 13
on the record. Thanks. 14
Chair Lauing: Yes, go ahead. 15
Commissioner Waldfogel: Sorry, just a question... One other legal question for Twenty-four and 16
Twenty-five, is there any urgency around deadlines proposed by state law? Is anything 17
happening on January 1 if we don’t act quickly? 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: I thought that we said this was only going to come up for Council in 1
February anyway? 2
Commissioner Waldfogel: Well but this is (interrupted) 3
Commissioner Alcheck: So how could our incorporation today (interrupted) 4
Commissioner Waldfogel: Well the question… Yes, but still the question does anything happen 5
on January 1 if we don’t act in a speedy way? 6
Mr. Yang: So, I’ll need to take a closer look at these but my understanding is that there changes 7
where just meant to conform to state law so if we don’t make these changes, we’ll still have to 8
comply with state law and our local code just won’t be consistent. 9
Commissioner Waldfogel: Right but is there any validation of the rest of our code from non-10
conformance with state law? I’ve seen some analysis that suggests that there might be if we’re 11
not fully in compliance? 12
Mr. Yang: I’ll take a closer look but doubt it. 13
Mr. Lait: Can I… Commissioner Summa, can you… That code section that you referenced you 14
said 1806 I believe. 15
Commissioner Summa: [unintelligible – mic not on] 16
Mr. Lait: Ok, thank you. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa: I think it’s e, little letter e. Its [unintelligible – no mic on] 1
Mr. Lait: Great, I see it, thank you. 2
[The Commission revisited Item Two after hearing Items Three and Four] 3
Mr. Lait: Well yeah but I… So, I… Correct and just to be clear, I thought we had tabled Item 4
Number Two to see if we were going to revisit it after this discussion. We’re happy to do that 5
but if you’re not, we would like you to continue it to the next meeting. 6
MOTION 7
Commissioner Alcheck: I’d like to move that we continue Item Two to the next meeting. 8
SECOND 9
Commissioner Monk: I’ll second that. 10
Mr. Lait: Ok, and that’s December 13 for the record. 11
Chair Lauing: Any discussion on that point? 12
SUBSTITUTE MOTION 13
Commissioner Gardias: Well, if I may just make a comment? Since this is a motion, I think that 14
it's up to you if you still have power, I think it would be beneficial to the Staff to spend another 15
half an hour just to go through the rest of the items so at least they can hear our comments. 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Otherwise, if there was to be something new, we are going to just spill this over through the 1
next after the following meeting. So, my proposal is that [unintelligible] motion just to continue 2
for another half an hour to go through the rest of the items on this second topic. 3
Chair Lauing: Yes, go ahead Commissioner Alcheck, speak to your motion. 4
Commissioner Alcheck: I’ll just quickly speak to my motion before you seek a second for that 5
substitute motion. Which is that I do think that the items that are at the end of this, some of 6
them are more complex and will take more time. I want to suggest to you that our 7
Commissioner Rosenblum began the meeting by referring to Items Twenty-four and Twenty-8
Five specifically and that I think it would probably behoove us to come together at the next 9
meeting with fresh minds and also our seventh Commissioner. Because I think it will help us 10
when we conclude the review and determine how you should process the items that you’re 11
pulling. In addition to the discussion of the remaining items, we also need to have a process 12
discussion on what we really want to see. And I think it’s just going to take time and I’d rather 13
have Commissioner Rosenblum be apart of those two discussions. 14
Chair Lauing: Yeah to be clear there wasn’t a substitute motion. He was just speaking against 15
the motion. 16
Commissioner Alcheck: I actually think he made a substitute motion. 17
Commissioner Gardias: No, actually I was trying to make a substitute motion. 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Lauing: Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that. 1
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, but I respect… He’s right because he should have spoken 2
(interrupted) 3
Chair Lauing: Yeah, I’m sorry, I did not hear (interrupted) 4
Commissioner Gardias: His motion first. 5
Chair Lauing: I didn’t hear the word substitute. I thought you were just speaking against the 6
motion. Alright, so I thought that was going to pass quickly so that’s why I moved along so the 7
second can also speak to the motion and then we’ll have to come back to the substitute. 8
Commissioner Monk: Yeah, I just want to clarify that at our next meeting it looks like we don’t 9
have a lot on the agenda and so I think we do have time to discuss Items Nineteen through 10
Twenty-Seven to continue it. Is that right Jon… Assistant Director? 11
Mr. Lait: Yes, so you’re going to receive a housing law update, that will probably be the first 12
item on your agenda and we have a discussion on ADUs. 13
Commissioner Alcheck: Thirty minutes on process. 14
Mr. Lait: We’ve got the thirty minutes process discussion, you’ve got this ordinance so I mean 15
it’s not a lite agenda. 16
Chair Lauing: How many housing laws are you going to update for us? There are a lot of them. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: There’s like thirteen or something. 1
Chair Lauing: Yeah, that’s why I was asking. 2
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m sorry, is it your anticipation that presentation will be long? 3
Mr. Lait: Well, it could be tailored to the Commission’s interest but the other thing is we’re 4
presenting it to the City Council. The Commission is interested, it could also (interrupted) 5
Commissioner Alcheck: Are you seeking input on revisions to it? 6
Mr. Lait: No, we’re just informing. There’s some interesting housing law updates that we’re 7
going to have to (interrupted) 8
Commissioner Alcheck: State law. 9
Mr. Lait: Respond too. 10
Commissioner Alcheck: It seems like a lot of reading material but not necessarily a lot of time. 11
Mr. Lait: Well again, so we can… I mean (interrupted) 12
Chair Lauing: We pace that with our numbers of questions. Ok, so let’s get back on… So, it was 13
not a comment against the motion, it’s a substitute motion to continue moving along. 14
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, so (interrupted) 15
Chair Lauing: So, now I need a second for that. 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Gardias: So, let me just reiterate this. So just (interrupted) 1
Chair Lauing: We don’t have a second so if we don’t have a second, we can’t (interrupted) 2
Commissioner Gardias: Half an hour just to give Staff the taste of our comments. I understand 3
this topic will continue in the second but I propose just to go quickly through the rest of those. 4
We can at least read out the comments, they can make a note (interrupted) 5
Chair Lauing: I understand. 6
Commissioner Gardias: And then make our following meeting productive. Thank you. 7
Chair Lauing: Is there a second to the substitute motion? 8
SECOND 9
Commissioner Summa: I will second. 10
Chair Lauing: Ok, now we get to have debate on the substitute motion; thirty-minutes more on 11
the (interrupted) 12
Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t think it’s realistic to assume we will finish in thirty minutes these 13
issues because I think they are actually just as complex as (interrupted) 14
Chair Lauing: I believe he just suggested a substitute motion to limit it to thirty no matter 15
where we are. 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: I know but the point though is that somehow by working on it tonight, 1
we won’t have anything to work on next week, which means that they could bring this to 2
complete… If we work on it in two-weeks, that means there’s probably going to be a third 3
meeting. I think he’s trying to avoid that, I think thirty minutes is going to cut it so at the very 4
least we’re going to have to meet next time. And so, I just… I don’t see why we would go 5
through that exercise? 6
Chair Lauing: Any further comments? Ok, substitute motion is to continue on, whatever that 7
was, Item Two for thirty minutes. 8
Commissioner Monk: Tonight? 9
VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION 10
Chair Lauing: Yep so all in favor of that motion? Two. Opposed? Five [Note- four], defeated. 11
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 2(Gardias, Summa) -4(Alcheck, Lauing, Monk, Waldfogel) -1 12
(Rosenblum Absent) 13
VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION 14
Chair Lauing: Back to the original motion so the motion is to continue it to the next meeting. All 15
in favor of that? All in favor of this motion, please to continue to the next meeting, Item Two? 16
Right now, we’ve got one, two, three, four, five. And opposed? One. 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
MOTION PASSED 5 (Gardias, Waldfogel, Monk, Lauing, Alcheck) -1 (Summa) -1(Rosenblum 1
absent) 2
Chair Lauing: Right, ok. 3
Commissioner Summa: [unintelligible – mic not on] 4
Commissioner Monk: I just wanted to point out that the person who drafted the Staff report is 5
no longer here so I don’t think there’s value in having it continued tonight anyway. 6
Mr. Lait: But the person who reviewed it is so. 7
Commissioner Monk: So, it would have been fine to… Ok. 8
Commissioner Gardias: And who was that? 9
Commissioner Monk: Oh, so you would like to stay? 10
Commission Action: Item was continued to December 13, 2017. 11
Approval of Minutes 12
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 13
Committee Items 14
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 15
Adjournment 16
10:41pm 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3
Chair Michael Alcheck 4
Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel 5
Commissioner Przemek Gardias 6
Commissioner Ed Lauing 7
Commissioner Susan Monk 8
Commissioner Eric Rosenblum 9
Commissioner Doria Summa 10
11
Get Informed and Be Engaged! 12
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 13
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 14
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 15
Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 16
Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 17
delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 18
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 19
the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 20
2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 21
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 22
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 23
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 24
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 25
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 26
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 27
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 28
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 29
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 30
Administrative Procedures
for Over the Counter Architectural Review
Planning & Community Environment Department
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
What is an Over the Counter permit?
An Over the Counter or OTC permit is the review and approval of a minor change to the exterior
of a property (non single or two family use) that is handled at the Development Services front
counter. These items are typically very minor in nature and may or may not be associated with
a building permit.
Authority
Minor modifications to commercial and multifamily properties are typically subject to a
discretionary Architectural Review application under Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section
18.76.020(b)(3). The authority to exempt minor Architectural Review projects as an OTC
project is contained within PAMC Section 18.76.020(b)(1)(B). The decision to grant an over the
counter approval is an administrative determination and requires no hearing or notice.
Authority Reserved
Approval of such projects may be granted by the Planning Director. The Director has authority
and discretion to determine if a project is exempt in accordance with 18.76.020(b)(1)(B).
Projects that do not qualify as exempt will be processed as a Minor or Major Architectural
Review, as appropriate, upon the filing of a complete application. The Director may delegate
this authority.
Over the Counter (OTC) Approval Process
OTC approvals occur at the Development Center front counter located at 285 Hamilton Avenue.
No appointment is required for OTC applications. OTC approvals will require an application
form with the property owner’s signature. The application form is available at the following
link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6491. A minor fee for OTC
review will be charged at the time of the review. The Planning fee schedule can be found at the
following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2653. Applicants
must provide sufficient information for staff to be able to make an informed decision. Please
see the following link for the minor Architectural Review application submittal checklist to use
as a guide for the materials that would also be needed for the OTC review and approval
process: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/26107. Applicants shall be
prepared and include items such as photos, sections, sightlines, floor plans, site plans, elevation
drawings, color renderings, color and material samples, etc. as necessary to facilitate OTC
review. Digital copies of the plans must also be provided at the time of review.
The examples above are not a complete list of items that may be exempted as “Over the Counter”
projects. Similar projects may be exempted at the discretion of the Planning and Community
Environment Director or their designee. For questions regarding the OTC process please contact the
Planner on Duty at (650) 617-3117.
Document last updated 11/17/2017
The following projects typically qualify as an Over the Counter application:
1. Rooftop mechanical equipment:
When a parapet or similar screening feature is being added or already exists and would clearly
screen the new equipment from off-site views (equipment cut sheet required with the dba level
listed) (site plan, line of site drawings, and elevation drawings are required to clearly demonstrate
the new equipment will be screened from view.)
2. Window/door changes (additions or deletions):
Like for like or substantially similar replacement of windows and doors on non-historic buildings.
Photos of existing doors and/or windows must be provided along with details/elevation drawings
for any new or replacement doors and/or windows.
3. Electric vehicle charging stations:
(Parking requirements must be met after implementation and installation of any equipment-
protecting bollards. The associated trenching for the electrical conduit must not harm existing
parking lot and landscape trees) (Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the parking
regulations for any new and existing parking spaces)
4. Minor modification of architectural elements:
Minor changes to existing (non-historic) buildings. Site plans, building elevations, color renderings,
and material samples will be required as necessary to make a determination. Changes could
include but are not limited to roof materials, awnings, exterior siding, finish materials, architectural
details, trim, lighting, etc. Additions of square footage would not qualify as an OTC project and
would be subject to a formal Architectural Review application.
5. Wall Signs: Wall mounted signs that are comprised of individual pin mounted letters made of metal
may be exempted. The proposed wall signs must compliment the building design and be
appropriately sized and no more than 50% of the area permitted by the code. If illuminated, halo
illumination only and no extreme colors. Site plan, elevations, color renderings or photo
simulations, sign drawings, and material samples required.
6. Minor changes to previously approved projects: Staff would apply discretion to first ensure the
change is minor and second to ensure the proposed change is appropriate for the building or site.
Changes could include but are not limited to roof materials, awnings, exterior siding, finish
materials, architectural details, trim, lighting, etc.
7. Minor site improvements: i.e.: changes to parking lot, pathways, hardscape, benches, art work,
site lighting, accessibility ramps and improvements, refuse enclosures, changes to building color,
etc. (site plan and details required)
8. Minor landscape changes: These changes would typically include items such as the replacement of
one plant material for another, replacement of small turf areas with other plant material or ground
cover/mulch, and other changes to planting and or hardscape layout. (site plan/landscape plan
required, if water calculations are required based on the project scope, over the counter review
would not be an option)