Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-10 City Council (2)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 5 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:MAY 10, 2004 CMR: 261:04 SUBJECT:ORDINANCE STREAMLINING PLANNING PROCEDURES BY MODIFYING AND CONSOL~ATING REGULATIONS FROM PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING CHAPTERS 16.48 (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW), 18.90 (VARIANCES, HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTIONS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS), 18.91 (DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS), 18.92 AND 18.93 (APPEALS),AND 18.99 (ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF MINOR CHANGES IN PROJECTS).NEW CHAPTERS 18.76 (PERMITS AND APPROVALS),18.77 (PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS AND APPROVALS) AND18.78 (APPEALS) WILL ALSO BE ADDED. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO STREAMLINING PLANNING PROCEDURES BY ADDING CHAPTERS 2.21 (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD), 18.76 (PERMITS AND APPROVALS), 18.77 (PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS AND APPROVALS), AND 18.78 (APPEALS), DELETING CHAPTERS 16.48 (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW), 18.90 (VARIANCES,HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTIONS,AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS), 18.91 (DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS), 18.92 AND 18.93 (APPEALS), AND 18.99 (ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF MINOR CHANGES IN PROJECTS), ADDING SECTIONS 18.88.200 AND 18.88.210, AND MODIFYING CROSS-REFERENCES IN VARIOUS OTHER CODE SECTIONS. CMR: 261:04 Page 1 of 4 RECOMM!gNDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached ordinance (Attachment A) reorganizing and modifying the Municipal Code to implement City Auditor’s recommendations to streamline the development review process. BACKGROUND On October 15, 2003, the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee received the results of the City Auditor’s audit of the development review process. The audit recommendations included the need for a reduction in the number of processes and appeals, more rapid turnaround times for applications, and increased use of the Planning and Transportation Commission in processing "quasi-judicial" items. Implementing these recommendations requires changes to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In response, the Planning Department developed initial recommendations in January of this year, and then developed them further over the course of four Planning and Transportation .Commission (PTC) meetings and two outreach meetings involving neighbors, architects, and one Planning and Transportation Commissioner. At its March 24, 2004 meeting, the PTC recommended adoption of the attached ordinance with some minor modifications, all of which staff agees with and has incorporated into the ordinance. DISCUSSION The ordinance, as proposed, will accomplish several tasks: It will re-organize the development and review and appeals processes contained in the Municipal Code. These processes are currently spread throughout the Code, which generates confusion on the part of applicants and neighbors, and can result in increased staff time as planners are forced to search through the Code for information. This ordinance consolidates the bulk of the City’s quasi-judicial procedures into two chapters of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18), and updates the language (generated in 1978 or prior) to make it easier to read. It will streamline the procedure for granting variances and conditional use permits while providing more effective notice to the public. Under the current procedures, these applications require a minimum of one hearing, and can require as many as three, if controversial. This ordinance establishes a process where, if staff’s decision is not contested, a hearing is unnecessary. When requested, a single hearing is required. To balance the faster timeline, the ordinance adds requirements for more effective and more frequent notice, including the availability of an electronic, subscriber-based newsletter. CMR: 261:04 Page 2 of 4 o The ordinance adds a Council consent-calendar review process based on what currently exists for Individual Review. This is intended to give the City Council more control over its agenda with respect to development applications, and to give more weight to the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendations on certain quasi-judicial items. The ordinance also clarifies the findings for variances. Staff believes these proposed findings implement the purpose of a variance better than the existing findings. The following information is provided to assist the City Council in its review of this ordinance: 1. A chart of the proposed variance and CUP process is included in Attachment A. 2. A general overview of the structure of the ordinance, as well as a detailed guide, is included in Attachment B. 3. Notes from a neighborhood outreach meeting are included in Attachment C. It should be noted that ordinance does not change the current Home Improvement Exception and Individual Review processes. These processes are currently being reviewed by the PTC and its Low-Density Residential Subcommittee. The provisions related to Home Improvement Exceptions contained in new Chapters 18.76 (Permits and Approvals (Exhibit 2)) and 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals (Exhibit 3)) of the ordinance, are simply a renumbered and restated version of existing provisions. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its meeting of March 24, 2004, the P&TC recommended adoption of the ordinance, but declined to make a recommendation on the number of Council votes that should be required in order to remove quasi-judicial land-use items and appeals of Director’s decisions from the consent calendar for discussion. The Commission requested that the amount of time available for an interested party to request a hearing or an appeal of a Director’s decision be increased from ten days to fourteen days. It also requested some language clarifications. Staff has included the Commission’s modifications in the ordinance. RESOURCE IMPACT Staff anticipates a reduction in both implementing these recommendations. staff and Council resources as a result of POLICY IMPLICATIONS This ordinance responds to several recommendations of the City Auditor in her 2003 Audit of the Development Review Process. These include: CMR: 261:04 Page 3 of 4 #4. #5. #11. #13. #15. Simplify and reduce the number of development review processes. Establish one standard and simple process for appeals. Review and approve more minor Architectural Review projects at staff level. Modify the Municipal Code to permit the Director to make a decision on an Architectural Review application in the absence of a timely ARB recommendation. Give the P&TC increased responsibility for quasi-judicial land-use items. In addition, this ordinance will complete a major Zoning Ordinance Update work item: to reorganize and revise the procedural sections of the Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: A: Ordinance Streamlining Planning Processes which includes: Exhibit 1 (Pg. 70): New Chapter 2.21 (Architectural Review Board). Exhibit 2 (Pg. 72): New Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). Exhibit 3 (Pg. 82): New Chapter 18.77 (Procedures for Permits and Approvals. Exhibit 4 (Pg. 96): New Chapter 18.78 (Appeals). B:Flowchart of new Variance and CUP process. C:Guide to reading the Ordinance. D:Comments from neighborhood outreach meeting. E:Minutes of the March 24, 2004 P&TC meeting. F:Minutes of the March 3, 2004 P&TC meeting. PREPARED BY: ABENDSCHEIN Administrative Analyst DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: /gTE~E EM~"~IE Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMI Assistant City Manager CC: Individual Review and Single-Family Sub-Committee Members CMR: 261:04 Page 4 of 4 DRAFT Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO STREAMLINING PLANNING PROCEDURES BY ADDING CHAPTERS 2.21 (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD) , 18.76 (PERMITS AND APPROVALS) , 18.77 (PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS AND APPROVALS), AND 18.78 (APPEALS), DELETING CHAPTERS 16 . 48 (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW) , !8 . 90 (VARIANCES,HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTIONS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS) , 18.91 (DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS) , 18.92 AND 18.93 (APPEALS), AND 18.99 (ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF MINOR CHANGES IN PROJECTS) , ADDING SECTIONS 18.88.200 AND 18.88.210,AND MODIFYING CROSS- REFERENCES IN VARIOUS OTHER CODE SECTIONS The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Findings and Declarations. finds and declares as fol!ows: The City Council (a) On October 15, 2003, the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee received the results of the City Auditor’s audit of the development review process. The audit recommendations included the need for a reduction in the number of processes and appeals, more rapid turnaround times for applications, and increased use of the Planning and Transportation Commission in processing "quasi-judicial" items. implementing these recommendations requires changes to the Palo Alto Zoning Code. (b) The last comprehensive update of the Palo Alto Zoning Code took place in 1978, and as a result, much of the procedural language is outdated. Many modifications have been made since that time, resulting in a code that is disorganized and difficult to read and implement. (c) The City Council wishes to implement the recommendations of the City Auditor and revise the code language setting forth City planning procedures. O12104jea 6030026 1 SECTION 2. A new Chapter 2.21 (Architectural Review Board), as shown in Exhibit i, is added to Title 2 [Administrative Code] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 3. Paragraph (3) of subsection (s) of section 4.56.100 of Chapter 4.56, Title 4 [Business Licenses and Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) Within twelve hundred feet of the exterior property limits of any other premises lawfully occupied by a hot tub/sauna establishment or by any establishment subject to the provisions of Chapters 4.54 or 4.55, or any cardroom licensed pursuant to Chapter 4.52. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision, subject to all other provisions of this chapter, a hot tub/sauna establishment license may be issued for an establishment located within twelve hundred feet of another hot tub/sauna establishment, an establishment subject to the provisions of Chapters 4.54 or 4.55, or any cardroom licensed pursuant to Chapter 4.52 if the applicant has obtained, and has in effect, a valid use ~ .......pursuant to Chapter {-S:-99conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 18.76(Permits and Approvals). Application for a license under thischapter shall be made and processed prior to an application for a use permit. In the event it is determined that a license under this chapter would be issued for the provisions of this subdivision, the application for a use permit shall then be processed. A license under this chapter shall not be issued until completion of the use permit application process. In the case of such an application, the time limit for action on a hot tub/sauna establishment license application contained in Section 4.56.050 shall be automatically extended as necessary to follow processing of the use permit application. For the purpose of determining compliance with standard (3), as to, between and with respect to establishments lawfully in operation on the effective date of this section, priority between such existing establishments shall be assigned in accordance with the dates upon which said establishments commenced such lawful operations. In the event any dispute arises regarding said dates, the applicant shall have the obligation to establish the date on which he commenced lawful operation. Any hot tub/sauna establishment lawfully in operation on the effective date of this section shall, within sixty days of said date apply to the chief of police for a determination as to compliance with the provisions of this section. Said application shall be in such form as prescribed by the chief of police. O12104jea 6030026 2 Any hot tub/sauna establishment legally existing on the effective date of this subsection and which is not in compliance with the provisions of this subsection shall comply with said provisions within three years of the effective date of this subsection; provided, however, that any such establishment which intends to in any way transfer ownership or alter or change the nature of any such hot tub/sauna establishment on or after the effective date of this subsection shall comply with the provisions of this subsection prior to such transfer, alteration or change. Any such use which at the expiration of said period is not in compliance with the provisions of this subsection shall at that time discontinue and abate its operation. Any hot tub/sauna establishment lawfully in operation upon the effective date of this subsection failing to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be issued a limited-term license containing a statement on its face reciting such noncompliance and the date by which compliance must be accomplished, and that said license shall not be renewed beyond said date. All distances referred to in this subsection shall be measured between the closest points on the exterior property lines or area boundaries of the parcels or areas involved, except that when a hot tub/sauna establishment subject to the provisions of this section occupies one unit of a multi-unit structure located on a single parcel, distances shall be measured from the exterior boundaries of the unit so occupied. SECTION 4. Paragraph (2) of subsection (d) of section 8.10.050 of Chapter 8.10, Title 8 [Trees and Vegetation] of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Removal is permitted as part of project approval architectural review approval under chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of this code, because retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissible building area by more than twenty-five percent. In such a case, the approval shal! be conditioned upon replacement in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technica! Manua!. SECTION 5. Section 8.10.060 of C~apter 8.10, Title 8 [Trees and Vegetation] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.10.060 No limitation of authority under Titles 16 and 18. O12104jea 6030026 3 Nothing in this chapter limits or modifies the existing authority of the city under Chapter I~.~S of Title 16 ~ ~ Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) to require trees and other plants not covered by this chapter to be identified, retained, protected, and/or planted as conditions of the approva! of deve!opment. In the event of conflict between provisions of this chapter and conditions of any permit or other approval granted pursuant to Title 16 or Title 18, the more protective requirements shal! prevail. SECTION 6. Section 8.10.140 of Chapter 8.10, Title 8 [Trees and Vegetation] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.10.140 Appeals. Any person seeking the director’s approval to remove a protected tree pursuant to this Ordinance who is aggrieved by a decision of the director may appeal such decision in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals)~--~~©n 16 ~8 0~ ef Chapter ~ ~8 of the ~~ ~ SECTION 7. Subsection (b) of section 9.04.020 of Chapter 9.04, Title 9 [Public Peace, Morals, and Safety] of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Permits. Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, in conjunction with a conditional use permit for a temporary use issued pursuant to Section IS.90.II0i8.88.200, the zoning administrator or his designee may grant to any Palo Alto resident, business entity, or organization doing business in Palo Alto an authorization for consumption of alcoholic beverages in and upon the following parking lots or garages: Lot D, Lot P, Lot R, Lot S, Lot N, Lot O, Lot Q, Lot C-4, Lot C-5, and Lot C-8. No authorization for consumption of alcoholic beverages hereunder shall be granted for or shall be effective during any days or hours other than Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday six p.m. to eleven p.m., and Sunday ten a.m. to eleven p.m. No such authorization shall be granted if the zoning administrator determines it would interfere with normal operations or usage of said parking lot. The zoning administrator may require applicant to furnish any information necessary to review and consider the application and shall require applicant to provide insurance naming the city of Palo Alto as an additional insured party to the policy with minimum coverage as required by city as a condition to issuance of such permit. The applicable fee shall be that set forth in the O12104 jea 6030026 4 municipal fee temporary use. schedule for conditional use permits for a SECTION 8. Section 16.20.020 of Chapter 16.20, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.20.020 Design review required. (a) No person shall erect or cause to be erected any sign upon any fence, post, pole, tree, building, or any other structure, or attached to any standing vehicle in the city without first applying for and receiving architectural review approval of the sign’s location, design and dimensions pursuant to Chaptcr l~.48chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). (b) Application for design review shall be filed with the planning division in such form, and contain such information as the planning division may require. Said application shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. Regulations that are more restrictive than those set forth in this chapter may be required pursuant to Chaptcr i~.4S architectura! review approval under chapter 18.76 (Permits and ApDrovals). The architectural review board,in making recommendations on the design of a sign to thedirector of planning and community environment, shall take into consideration the design guidelines adopted by thearchitectural review board. SECTION 9. Section 16.20.030 of Chapter 16.20, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.20.030 Master sign program. Upon payment of a fee as set forth in the municipal fee schedule, an applicant may request architectura! review approval of a master sign program under chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~ ...... ~ ....... ~ ÷~ ...... ~ ........ =~ha~ ~ = ~S or through the city council for signs in areas or for projects subject to site and design review pursuant to Chapter 18.82. "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. 012104 jea 6030026 5 The master sign program shall designate the sign locations and areas of all signs in the program, as well as typical sign designs, colors and faces. Pursuant to the approval of the master sign program, subsequent individual signs may be erected without further design review. SECTION i0. Section 16.20.040 of Chapter 16.20, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.20.040 Exception procedure. (a) An application for exception from any of the regulations of this chapter (except a temporary sign which is regulated by Section 16.20.050) may be made in conjunction with an application for architectural review approval under chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) in such form and include such information as the director of planning and community environment may prescribe. Such application shall be accompanied (i) by the written consent of the property owner and (2) by the application fee set forth in the municipal fee schedule.---T-r be applicat~ ~77 ~ ~ ................... d to the archit~ ....7 ....~--................. ~ board, ~"~ ~7~review it ~ -~..............pur~u~n~ to the prsccdures and standards set forth ~ ~~ ~r ~o....... w .........An exception may be approved by the director of planning and community environment or city council, 48, if on application and/or the facts presented, it is found that: (i) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (2) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; (3)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. In granting any such exception, such reasonable conditions or restrictions as are deemed appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, O12104jea 6030026 6 or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this chapter may be imposed. SECTION II. Subsection (a) of section 16.20.050 of Chapter 16.20, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (a) General application may be made for a temporary sign as defined in Section 16.20.010 upon payment of an application fee as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. The chief building official may, but need not, refer the application for architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)architectural review pursuant to Chapter ~4~4-~. A temporary sign permit shall be issued for an uninterrupted period of no longer than thirty days, with specified beginning and ending dates. The period of the permit may be extended once for an additional fifteen days upon the payment of a fee as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. In granting a temporary sign permit, such reasonable conditions or restrictions as are deemed appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this chapter may be imposed. SECTION 12. Paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of section 16.20.100 of Chapter 16.20, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (4) Application may be made for an encroachment permit pursuant to Chapter 12.12 for a portable sign to be placed on public property. The department of public works may grant such an encroachment permit only upon architectural review approval of the sign pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)the approval of the sign, pursuant to Chapter 16.48 and pursuant to the guidelines for portable signs adopted by the architectural review board. SECTION 13. Subsection (b) of section 16.20.110 of Chapter 16.20, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as fol!ows: (b) The sign required by this section shall conform to the requirements of Article 8 (commencing with Section 20880), Chapter 7, Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code and the other requirements of this chapter, but is exempt from architectura! review approva! pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) and the requirements of Chapter 16.48 O12104jea 6030026 7 (Architectural Review) and Chapter 18.82 (Site and Design Review) of this code. The permit required by Section 16.20.020 shall be issued without fee. SECTION 14. Paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of section 16.20.160 of Chapter 16.20, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (5) Off-site Advertising by Art Organizations. Nonprofit organizations having tax exempt status which are located within the city and which have been established solely for the purpose of supporting the performing and cultural arts in the city and other jurisdictions shall be permitted to utilize walls for off-site murals which may incorporate wording to name, designate, or identify the organization and/or the arts. The application shall be made jointly by the nonprofit organization and the property owner who owns the property where the mural is to be located. Said application shall be subject to review by both the visual arts jury in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2.26 and architectural review approva! pursuant to chaDter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)t-he I~.4S. Additionally, the following provisions shall apply: .(A) The provisions of Section 16.20.130 shall be applicable to said murals except that no part of a mural shal! be counted as part of the allowable sign area for the off-site location. (B) Murals must be painted directly on a building wall; no pennants or the like may be used. (C) The property owner shall give his/her consent to erect, maintain, and remove the mura!. (D) The mural must be properly maintained by the nonprofit organization. (E) The visual arts jury shall establish a maximum time period for the existence of a mural. (F) The property owner shall be responsible for removing the mura! at the completion of the authorized time period; however, nothing shall prevent an agreement that the nonprofit organization shall pay for and remove the mural. O12104jea 6030026 8 (G) No organization shall be permitted to have more than two off-site advertising murals at any one time. (H) Murals which are erected on city property or with city moneys shall be regulated solely by the provisions of Section 16.20.100 and Chapter 2.26. SECTION 15. Subsection (d) of section 16.20.170 of Chapter 16.20, Title 18 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, when architectural review approval is required pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)pursuant to architectural review,Chapter 16.~8, one type of sign may be disapproved where a combination of two or more types is permitted. SECTION 16.Section 16.24.090 of Chapter 16.24, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.24.090 Variances. A variance to any of the requirements of this chapter may be granted in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~~_ ~~ ~°.~ and I~.92 of this code, except that no variance may be granted to the requirements contained in Section 16.24.040 or 16.24.070. ~7 4 ~~ ......on submitta!_r~ .....~,~- and fees shal7_ be the same as fora zoning variance application, ~ ....~ ~~ ~~~~ ~.~° ~ of this code and ~n ............. w ............ SECTION 17. Subsection (b) of section 16.46.030 of Chapter 16.46, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) The following uses requirements of this chapter: shall be exempt from the (i) An on-site cafeteria, recreational facility, and/or day care facility to be provided for employees and/or their children and not open to the general public; (2) An accessory hazardous materials storage facility; O12104jea 6030{326 9 (3)Residential uses; (4)Temporary uses of less than six months’ duration; (5) The replacement of existing square footage of a nonexempt use. "Replacement"shall mean that the new use receives ~ ..........~ ....~ 15 architectural.... ~ ~ .....pursuant to ~~.48 review approva! pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) within one year of the previous use being demolished; (6) Uses that have received architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) dcsi~n ........~ .........~ ~ ~~~ .....~ ..............~ 16.48 on or before the date this chapter becomes effective. SECTION 18. Subsection (c) of section 16.47.020 of Chapter 16.47, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:~ (c)New gross square footage that replaces nonexempt uses shall not be considered gross square footage for the purposes of the ordinance codified in this chapter. "Replaces" means that the new gross square footage receives architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) ~ ..........~ .........~ ~ ~~.... ~ ~ .....~ ..............~ 16.~8 within one year of the previous nonexempt uses being demolished; SECTION 19. Paragraph (3) of subsection (c) of section 16.47.040 of Chapter 16.47, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3)A below market rate agreement shall be entered into between the city and the developer at the time of architectural review approval of the development pursuant to chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals)~~..... ~ approval of the ...... ~ .......pursuant to Chaptcr 15.58. SECTION 20. Subsection (g) of section 16.47.040 of Chapter 16.47, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (g) At the time of a developer’s application for architectura! review approval pursuant to chapter !8.76 (Permits and Approvals)architcctural rcvicw pursuant to Chaptcr i~.~8, or, if no architectural review is necessary, at the time of an O12104jea 6030026 I 0 application for a building permit, the developer must notify the director of planning and community environment whether units or an in-lieu payment will be provided to the city. The housing requirement shall then be placed as a condition on the director’s approval of the project pursuant to ~~ ~ 48 chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) or as a condition on the issuance of a building permit by the division of inspectional services. SECTION 21. Chapter 16.48 (Architectural Review) is hereby deleted from Title 16 [Building] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 22. Sub-paragraph (A) of paragraph (i) of subsection (a) of Section 16.49.050 of Chapter 16.49, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (A) Architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) is required for Pursuant to applications involving any historic structure/site in the downtown area and any significant structure/site elsewhere in the city, other than single-family and duplex residences. The architectural review board shall refer applications to the historic resources board for a recommendation on the proposed alteration of the structure. SECTION 23. Sub-paragraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of Section 16.49.050 of Chapter 16.49, Title 16 [Building Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (C) Appeals. Any interested party may appeal to the city council the decision of the architectural review board not to recommend approval of an application for a building permit to alter the exterior of any historic structure in the downtown area, or a significant structure elsewhere in the city or in a historic district. Such appeal shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 18 78 (Appeals)~~ ir ~8 090 SECTION 24. The introductory paragraph of section 18.10.040 of Chapter 18.10, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.10.040 Conditional Uses. O12104jea 6030026 I I The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the RE residential estate district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter iS.90chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals): [No further changes are made to this section, except as provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 25. Subsection (i) of section 18.10.040 of Chapter 18.10, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (i) Temporary uses, subject established by Chapter {-%-r94~18.88.200; to regulations SECTION 26. The introductory paragraph of section 18.10.050 of Chapter 18.10, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.10.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the RE residential estate district; provided that more restrictive regulations may be. recommended by the architectural d!r .....of ~7-~ ~..... ~and approved the csm~anity cnvironment, pursuant ~ ~~ ~ ~8...... ~ .......approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals): [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 27. The introductory paragraph of Section 18.12.040 of Chapter 18.12, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.12.040 Conditional uses. The fol!owing uses may be conditionally allowed in the R-I single-family residence district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter i8.76 (Permits and Approvals)Ch ~ ~o n~ [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] O12104jea 6030026 ! 2 SECTION 28. Subsection (f) of Section 18.12.040 of Chapter 18.12, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Temporary uses, established by Chapter 18.9988.200; subject to regulations SECTION 29. The introductory paragraph of Section 18.12.050 of Chapter 18.12, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.12.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the R-I single-family residence district. Modifications of some regulations may be applicable if the R-I single-family residence district is combined with the special building site combining district. More restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectura! review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) ........~ ~-- ~ ....~~ ....7 ....~ .... ...... ~ .....by ....director of planning ~ .......~- [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 30. Subsection (d) of Section 18.12.060 of Chapter 18.12, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (d) Underground parking shall be prohibited for single-family uses, except pursuant to a variance granted in accordance with the provisions of chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chaptcr 18.90 of this title, in which case the area of the underground garage shall be counted in determining the floor area ratio permitted pursuant to Section 18.12.050. SECTION 31. Paragraph (I) of subsection (a) of section 18.12.070 of Chapter 18.12, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (i) Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area, or number of offices, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or O12104jea 6030026 13 increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter IS.91. SECTION 32. Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of section 18.12.070 of Chapter 18.12, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement of any building designed and constructed for residential use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditiona! use permit in accord with chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals)~~ 7o ~ SECTION 33. Subsection (b) of section 18.12.070 of Chapter 18.12, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Two-family uses, except where one of the units is a legal nonconforming detached single-family dwelling, as described in subsection (c), and multiple-family uses existing on July 20, 1978 and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating pursuant to a conditional use permit, or which uses were, prior to July 20, 1978, located in an R-I district which was imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city without benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the date of annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditiona! use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted, to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number of dwelling units, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to ~~ {-8:-9a=, with respect to multiple-family uses, or a home imp pti ~~~rovement exce on, .......~ ~IS 90,with respect to two-family uses, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and Ol2104jea 6030026 14 may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. SECTION 34. Section 18.15.040 of Chapter 18.15, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.15.040 Site development regulations. Within any R-I single-family residence district which may be combined with the special residentia! building site combining district, the site development regulations specified in the following table shall apply in lieu of the regulations otherwise applicable within the R-I district; provided, that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)recommended by the architectural review board and District Minimum Site Area Minimum Interior Side Yard General District R-I 557 square meters 1.8 meters (6 feet) (6,000 square feet) .......~ombining District R-1 (1858)1,858 square 2.4 meters (8 feet) meters (20,000 square feet) R-1 (929)929 square meters 2.4 meters (8 feet) (10,000 square feet) R-1 (743)743 square meters 2.4 meters (8 feet) (8,000 square feet) R-1 (650)650 square meters 2.4 meters (8 feet) (7,000 square feet) Ol2104jea 6030026 15 SECTION 35. The introductory paragraph of section 18.17.040 of Chapter 18.17, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as fol!ows: 18.17.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditiona!ly allowed in the R-2 two-family residence district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter 18.90: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 36. The introductory paragraph of section 18.17.040 of Chapter 18.17, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Temporary uses, established by Chapter 18.94~88.200; subject to regulations SECTION 37. Section 18.17.050 of Chapter 18.17, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.17.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the R-2 two-family residence district; provided, that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)recommended by the architectural review board and dire-~ of arming and commun " pursuant to Chapter 16.48: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 38. Paragraph (!) of subsection (a) of section 18.17.070 of Chapter 18.17, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (I) Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number 012104 jea 6030026 16 of offices, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height,length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and ApDrovals)Chaptcr 18.91. SECTION 39. Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of section 18.17.070 of Chapter 18.17, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement of any building designed and constructed for residential use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals)~"~ io n~ SECTION 40. Subsection (b) of section 18.17.070 of Chapter 18.17, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Two-family uses, except where one of the units is a legal nonconforming detached single-family dwelling, as described in subsection (c), and multiple-family uses existing on July 20, 1978, and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating pursuant to a conditional use permit, or which uses were, prior to July 20, 1978, located in an R-2 district which was imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city without benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the date of annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number of dwelling units, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, with respect to multiple-family uses, or a home improvement exception, with respect to two-family uses, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits App ) ......~ ...........~~~ io ~i ~’~th respectandrovals .....~ .....~ ........to ....~ .....~ . , .-,~ to multiple family uses, or -home ~ ................ ~ ..........~ exception, 012104 jea 6030026 17 to Cha er !~ 90, ...... ~ ~ ~ ..........~,,,~ If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (b) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (b) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. SECTION 41. The introductory paragraph of section 18.19.040 of Chapter 18.19, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.19.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the RMD two unit multiple-family residence district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals)~-~ ~o n~ [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 42. Subsection (f) of section 18.19.040 of Chapter 18.19, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Temporary uses, established by Chapter i8.94~88.200; subject to regulations SECTION 43~. Paragraph (I) of subsection (a) of section 18.19.070 of Chapter 18.19, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (I)Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased f!oor area or number of offices, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except O12104jea 6030026 18 through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals)~~ I o ~ SECTION 44. Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of section 18.19.070 of Chapter 18.19, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement of any building designed and constructed for residential use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18 ..... 76 (Permits and Approvals)~~ IS .... ~ SECTION 45. Subsection (b) of section 18.19.070 of Chapter 18.19, Title 18 [Zoning] of~ the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Multiple-family uses existing on July 20, 1978, and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditiona! uses operating pursuant to a conditional use permit may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shal! be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number of dwelling units, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception,pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~~~.... ~ IS ....If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) which is changed or replaced by a conforming use shal! not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. SECTION 46. The introductory paragraph of section 18.22.040 of Chapter 18.22, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipa~ Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.22.040 Conditional uses. 012104 jea 6030026 19 The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the RM-.15 low density multiple-family residence district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~~ ...... io 90: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 47. Subsection (f) of section 18.22.040 of Chapter 18.22, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Temporary uses, established by Chapter !8.94~88.200; subject to regulations SECTION 48. The introductory paragraph of section 18.22.050 of Chapter 18.22, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.22.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the RM-15 low density multiple-family residence district; provided that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits ............... d the architectural review ~ andand Approvals) ........~ by ~ .... ........ ~by ~ ~~ ~ ~’a~ environment, ~.......~to the regulations ~ ;~ ~ ~-~ 16 ~................ ~ ......8 and pursuant to the multiple-family residential guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.28: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 49. Section 18.22.090 of Chapter 18.22, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.22.090 Special requirements. The following special requirements shall apply in the RM-15 low density multiple-family residence district: (a) The site development regulations set forth in Sections 18.12.050 through 18.12.080 of Chapter 18.12 of the O12104jea 6030026 2 0 Palo Alto Municipal Code shall apply to sites in single-family use. (b) Professional and medical office uses existing on July 20, 1978 and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, or which uses were, prior to July 20, 1978, located in an RM-I or RM-2 district, which was imposed by reason of annexation of the proper.ty to the city without benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the date of annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. (i) Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number of offices, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height,length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chaptcr 18.91. (2) Any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement of any building designed and constructed for residential use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chaDter 18 76 (Permits and ADprovals)~~ 7o ~ (3)If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. (4) A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (5)In the event of redevelopment of all or a portion of the site for permitted residential uses, such professional and medical office uses may not be incorporated in the O12104jea 6030026 2 1 redevelopment, except that this provision shall not apply to permanent conversion to residential use of space within an existing structure now used for professional and medical office uses. (c) Two-family uses and multiple-family uses existing on July 20, 1978 and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating pursuant to a conditional use permit, or which uses were, prior to July 20, 1978, located in an RM-I or RM-2 district which was imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city without benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the date of annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditiona! use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number of dwelling units, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, with respect to multiple-family uses, or a home improvement exception, with respect to two-family uses, pursuant to chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals)cxccption pursuant to ~~ ......ipl 9~7 .........~ ....18 91, with ~~t to mult c .......~ .....a pursuant to Chaptcr ~°.90, ".’~ to two family uscs. If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (c) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (c) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (d) Mote! uses existing on July 20, 1978, and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site O12104jea 6030026 2 2 for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in ~increased floor area or number of dwelling units, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18 ..... 76 (Permits and Approvals)~~ ......... io ~I If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (d) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (d) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. SECTION 50. Section 18.22.100 of Chapter 18.24, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.22.100 Recycling storage. All new multiple-family residential development, including multiple-family residential development that is part of a mixed use deve!opment, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shal! be subject to architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)to approval by the .~~ ....7 review board, ~ ......~ .......~’ adopted_ by that board and aDprovci_ by ~ ...... ~: ........ ~7 ~ ......... ....... t to~~~~ ~.=~8.0~0~ . This requirement shall apply only to multiple-family developments that utilize dumpsters rather than individual curbside pickup for trash collection. SECTION 51. The introductory paragraph of section 18.24.040 of Chapter 18.24, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.24.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the RM-30 medium density multiple-family residence district, subject O12104jea 6030026 2 3 to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with cha_____pter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chaptar i£.90: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 52. Subsection (f) of section 18.24.040 of Chapter 18.24, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Temporary uses, established by Chapter 18.6H}88.200; subject to regulations SECTION 53. Section 18.24.050 of Chapter 18.24, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as fol!ows: 18.24.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the RM-30 medium density multiple-family residence district; provided, that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)rccommendcd by ~ .... ~~ .... ~ .... ~’" ~ and pursuant to the multiple-family residential guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.28: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 54. Section 18.24.090 of Chapter 18.24, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as fol!ows: 18.24.090 Special requirements. The following special requirements shall apply in the RM-30 medium density multiple-family residence district: (a) The site development regulations set forth in Sections 18.12.050 through 18.12.080 of Chapter 18.12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall apply to sites in single-family use. 012104 jea 6030026 2 4 (b) Professional and medical office uses existing on July 20, 1978 and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, or which uses were, prior to July 20, 1978, located in an RM-3 or RM-4 district, which was imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city without benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the date of annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. (i) Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number of offices, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height,length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chaptcr i~.91. (2) Any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement of any building designed and constructed for residential use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chaptcr IS.90. (3)If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. (4) A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (5) In the event of redevelopment of all or a portion of the site for permitted residential uses, such professional and medical office uses may not be incorporated in the redevelopment, except that this provision shall not apply to permanent conversion to residential use of space within an 012104 jea 6030026 2 5 existing structure now used for professional and medical office uses. (c) Two-family uses and multiple-family uses existing on July 20, 1978 and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating pursuant to a conditional use permit, or which uses were, prior to July 20, 1978, located in an RM-3 or RM-4 district which was imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city without benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the date of annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses, and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number of dwelling units, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, with respect to ..multiple-family uses, or a home improvement exception, with respect to two-family uses, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)exception, pursuant to Chapter to two family uses. If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (c) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (c) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shal! not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (d) Motel uses existing on July 20, 1978, and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses, and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number of dwelling Ol2104jea 6030026 2 6 units, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approva!s)~~ 7o ~.... ~ .........If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (d) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (d) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be established, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. SECTION 55. Section 18.24.100 of Chapter 18.24, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.24.100 Recycling storage. All new multiple-family residential development, including multiple-family residential development that is part of a mixed use development, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)approva! by the d pt d by ~-~ ~ -~ ........~ by th it} ..................s re u rement s a a on to multiple-family developments that utilize dumpsters rather than individual curbside pickup for trash collection. SECTION 56. The introductory paragraph of section 18.26.040 of Chapter 18.26, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.26.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the RM-40 high density multiple-family residence district, subject O12104jea 6030026 2 7 to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~~ ...... I o 90: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 57. Subsection (f) of section 18.26.040 of Chapter 18.26, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Temporary uses, established by Chapter 18.94~88.200; subject to regulations SECTION 58. The introductory paragraph of section 18.26.050 of Chapter 18.26, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.26.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the RM-40 high density multiple-family residence district; provided, that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectura! review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) ........~ ~,~ ~ ....~~~ ....~-,~ board and approved by the director of planning ~~,~un~-~- ’~ ...... ~ ....... m........to the regulations set forth ~ ~-~ ~ r....... ~ ......48 and pursuant to the multiple-family residential guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.28: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 59. Section 18.26.090 of Chapter 18.26, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.26.090 Special requirements. The following special requirements shall apply in the RM-40 high density multiple-family residence district: (a) The site development regulations set forth in Sections 18.12.050 through 18.12.080 of Chapter 18.12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall apply to sites in single-family use. O12104jea 6030026 2 8 (b) Professional and medical office uses existing on July 20, 1978 and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses Or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, or which uses were, prior to July 20, 1978, located in an RM-5 district, which was imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city without benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the date of annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. (i) Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number of offices, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height,length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (P it d ApD i )~~ io ~ierm s an rova s ....~ ....... (2)Any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement of any building designed and constructed for residential use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter !8.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chaptcr IS.90. (3)If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shal! be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. (4) A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (5)In the event of redevelopment of all or a portion of the site for permitted residential uses, such professional and medical office uses may not be incorporated in the redevelopment, except that this provision shall not apply to permanent conversion to residential use of space within an O12104jea 6030026 2 9 existing structure now used for professional and medical office uses. (c) Two-family uses and multiple-family uses existing on July 20, 1978 and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating pursuant to a conditional use permit, or which uses were, prior to July 20, 1978, located in an RM-5 district, which was imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city without benefit of prezoning and which, prior to the date of annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses, and shal! not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number of dwelling units, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18 ..... 76 (Permits and Approvals)~~ ...... io 91, with respect to multiple-family uses or a home improvement exception, pursuant to Chapter 18.90, with respect to two-family uses. If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (c) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (c) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (d) Motel uses existing on July 20, 1978, and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses, and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased f!oor area or number of dwelling units, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of Ol2104jea 6030026 3 0 the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~~~.... ~ 18 ....If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (d) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (d) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. SECTION 60. Section 18.26.100 of Chapter 18.26, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.26.100 Recycling storage. All new multiple-family residential development, including multiple-family residential development that is part of a mixed use development, shal! provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural review approva! pursuant to chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals)to approval ~-~ ~~~-~-~ ~.~= {8.~,~0. This requirement shall apply only to multiple-family developments that utilize dumpsters rather than individual curbside pickup for trash collection. SECTION 61. Section 18.28.020 of Chapter 18.28, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.28.020 Applicability of regulations. The guidelines of this chapter shall be applicable to all RM-15, RM-30 and RM-40 multiple-family residence districts. The recommendation for fina! approval of the architectural and design elements of any project remains with the architectural review board, pursuant ÷~ ~~~=~ ~...... ~~ 48~ ....Palo Alto c as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). The architectural review O12104jea 6030026 31 board retains the authority to interpret guidelines on a project-by-project basis in order to most effectively fulfill the specific purposes listed in Section 18.28.010. SECTION 62. Section 18.30.020 of Chapter 18.30, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.30.020 Applicability of regulations. The neighborhood preservation combining district may be combined with any multiple-family residence district, in accord with Chapters 18.08 and 18.98. Where so combined, the regulations established by this chapter shall apply in addition to the provisions established by such underlying multiple-family district or chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter 18.90. SECTION 63. Subsection (a) of section 18.30.040 of Chapter 18.30, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as fol!ows: (a) Design Approval Required. No design review shall be required for construction of or modifications to single- family structures which constitute the only principal structure on a parcel of land, or for properties on which two or more residentia! units are developed or modified, provided that the second dwelling unit conforms to the requirements in subsection (d) and the development standards of the underlying district. For properties on which two or more residential units are developed or modified, architectural review is required pursuant to chapter q8 ..... 76 (Permits and Approvals)~i~ ~-~ and approval ~7! bc ..... ~ ~ ~ .... ~~ .... ~ .... ~ .... ~ ~ ~~ procedures ................... w~ 16.~ for any new development or modification to any structure on the property and for site amenities. SECTION 64. The introductory paragraph of section 18.32.040 of Chapter 18.32, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.32.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the PF public facilities district, subject to issuance of a conditiona! use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter IS.90: O12104jea 6030026 3 2 [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 65. The "introductory paragraph of section 18.32.050 of Chapter 18.32, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.32.050 Site development regulations. The fo!lowing site development regulations shall apply in the PF public facilities district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter i6.~S of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 66. Section 18.32.080 of Chapter 18.32, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.32.080 Recycling storage. All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shal! provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclabie materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and ADprovals)~ ......... 7 ~. ~ .... ~~ .... 7 ~ .... ~ in accordance "-’~by......... ~h design ~ ’~- ~~that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section ~= ~8 070 SECTION 67. The introductory paragraph of section 18.37.040 of Chapter 18.7, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.37.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the OR office research district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and ApDrovals)Chaptcr IS.90: O12104jea 6030026 3 3 [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 68. The introductory paragraph of section 18.37.050 of Chapter 18.37, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.37.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the OR office research district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and ~v~ ~com [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 69. Section 18.37.080 of Chapter 18.37, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.37.080 Recycling storage. All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and ADDrovals)to board in ~~ .......~ ~ .....~pt by...................... ~ ~ .......ncs ado cd that ......... approved SECTION 70. The introductory paragraph of subsection (b) of section 18.41.035 of Chapter 18.41, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: may (b) Conditionally Permitted Uses. The following uses be conditionally allowed, subject to issuance of a O12104jea 6030026 3 4 conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter IS.90: [No further changes are made to this subsection, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 71. Subsection (b) of section 18.41.037 of Chapter 18.41, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Conditionally Permitted Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter IS.90 and paragraph (e) of this Section 18.41.037: [No further changes are made to this subsection, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 72. Subsection (g) of section 18.41.037 of Chapter 18.41, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (g) Pedestrian Design Features Required. On any site or portion of a site adjoining a designated pedestrian sidewalk or pedestrian way, new construction and alterations to existing structures shall provide, as determined by the architectural review board, the following features intended to create pedestrian or shopper interest, to provide weather protection for pedestrians, and to preclude inappropriate or inharmonious building design and siting: (1)Display windows, or retail display areas; (2)Pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways, or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use with an area no less than the length of the adjoining frontage times 1.5 feet; (3) Landscaping or architectural design intended to preclude blank walls or building faces. features The specific nature and requirements of pedestrian design features shall be determined as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals) ~rchl~eC~ur~± revie~ board under the standard~ of ChaD=er Ol2104jea 6030026 35 The designated pedestrian sidewalks and pedestrian ways are shown on Exhibit B attached. SECTION 73. The introductory paragraph of section 18.41.040 of Chapter 18.41, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.41.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the CN neighborhood commercial district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter 18.90: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 74. The introductory paragraph of section 18.41.050 of Chapter 18.41, Title 18 [Zoning] of .the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.41.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the CN neighborhood commercial district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review Dursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~ ....~ .......d the~~.~review board and ~.......e director of ~---~~~ .........m .................~ environment, [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 75. Subsection (k) of section 18.41.050 of Chapter 18.41, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (k) Size of Establishment. Permitted commercial uses shall not exceed the floor area per individual use or business establishment shown in the following table. Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum establishment size, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter IS.90. The maximum establishment size for any conditional use shall be established by the zoning administrator and specified in the conditional use permit for such use. O12104jea 6030026 3 6 Use Maximum Gross Floor Area Personal services 232 square meters (2,500 square feet) Retail services,except 1,394 square meters (15,000 grocery stores square feet) Grocery stores 1,858 square meters (20,000 square feet) Eating and drinking 465 square meters (5,000 services square feet) Neighborhood business 232 square meters (2,500 services square feet) SECTION 76. Section 18.41.080 of Chapter 18.41, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.41.080 Recycling storage. All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectura! review approva! pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and ADDrovals)~ ......... 7 ~,,~7~-~- adopted by thatboard, in accordance with design board and ........~ ~" ~~ ......i .......i council pursuant to gection SECTION 77. The introductory paragraph of section 18.43.040 of Chapter 18.43, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.43.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally permitted in the CC community commercial district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~ ......... ~ 18.90: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] O12104jea 6030026 3 7 SECTION 78. The introductory paragraph of section 18.43.050 of Chapter 18.43, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.43.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the CC community commercial district. When the CC community commercia! district is combined with the pedestrian shopping combining district or with the civic center combining district, more restrictive regulations may apply. Also, more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals) ........ ................................... ~ .........rector o t~ Cha er [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 79. Section 18.43.080 of Chapter 18.43, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.43.080 Recycling storage. All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enc!osures shall be subject to architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (P it d ADD 1 )~- ~ ....~~erm s an rova s ~ ........a!~ .......... ~ ......z .......z counc~ ~ pursuant to SECTION 80. The introductory paragraph of section 18.44.040 of Chapter 18.45, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as fol!ows: 18.44.040 Site development regulations. Within a CC(2) district, the site development regulations specified below shall apply in lieu of the regulations otherwise applicable within the CC district, provided that more restrictive regulationsmay be approved as 012104jea 6030026 3 8 part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and rovals ................. _~ ........................ ~ board and [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 81. The introductory paragraph of section 18.45.040 of Chapter 18.45, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.45.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the CS service commercial district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter 18.90: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 82. The introductory paragraph of section 18.45.050 of Chapter 18.45, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.45.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the CS service commercial district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvais)-~~ ~~’" board and~ccommcn~e~ by the -~~ ....~ ....~ pursuant to ~m ......... ......_~6 . :~8~; t~c~ ~-7~O ~A7~ ~-~-~ cipal Code; [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 83. Paragraph (2) of subsection (f) of section 18.45.070 of Chapter 18.45, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord ¯~ ~ ~ Thewith chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvais)Ch~p~ 18 .... maximum size for any conditional use shall be established by the O12104jea 6030026 3 9 zoning administrator and specified in the conditional use permit for such use. SECTION 84. Section 18.45.080 of Chapter 18.45, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.45.080 Recycling storage. All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclab!e materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 Permits and rovals to a~ ...... ~ ......................... board, in, accordancc ~-:ith dcsign ~ ....~~g .....by that IS.48.070. SECTION 85. The introductory paragraph of section 18.46.050 of Chapter 18.46, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.46.050 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally permitted in an R district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18 76 (Permits and ADprovals)~m~-~ [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 86. Section 18.46.060 of Chapter 18.46, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.46.060 Special requirements. The following special requirements shall apply in the R retail shopping combining district: Lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating pursuant to a conditional use permit which were existing on April 26, 1984 may remain as grandfathered uses and O12104jea 6030026 4 0 shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area, nor shal! such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~~ io ~i.... ~ .........If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this section ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this section which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. SECTION 87. Section 18.47.040 of Chapter 18.47, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.47.040 regulations. Use limitations and site development (a) Pedestrian Design Features Required. On any site, or portion of a site, adjoining a designated pedestrian sidewalk or pedestrian way, new construction and alterations to existing structures shall be required as determined by the architectural review board, to provide the following design features intended to create pedestrian or shopper interest, to provide weather protection for pedestrians, and to preclude inappropriate or inharmonious building design and siting: (1)Display windows, or retail display areas; (2) Pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways, or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use with an area not less than the length of the adjoining frontage times 0.5 meters (1.5 feet); (3) Landscaping or architectural design intended to preclude blank walls or building faces. features O12104jea 6030026 4 1 The specific nature and requirements of pedestrian design features shall be determined as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals)~-- ~ architectural review board, in ..... ~ ""~ ~ ..... ~~ ~....by board .....*.....put ......to Ch~w ......~S. (b) Parking and Vehicular Access Restricted. Vehicular access to sites adjoining designated pedestrian sidewalks or pedestrian ways which requires vehicular movement across such pedestrian sidewalks or pedestrian ways shall be prohibited, except where required by law or as may be authorized by a use permit in accQrd with chapter 18.76 (Permits and App rovals ~ iS SECTION 88. Section 18.47.050 of Chapter 18.47, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.48.050 Special requirements. Hotels in the CC(H) or CS(H) District shall be permitted to develop beyond the density otherwise permitted in the CC or CS District, whichever is applicable, up to a maximum 0.6 to 1 floor area ratio, only upon issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter ~-£~°_9~, and subject to site and design review in accord with Chapter 18.82. SECTION 89. Section 18.49.030 of Chapter 18.49, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as fol!ows: 18.49.030 Repeal of regulations. Beginning on the effective date of this chapter, the department of planning and community environment shall monitor the number of square feet approved for nonresidential development in the CD district and the number of square feet approved for nonresidential development pursuant to a planned community (PC) zone (Chapter 18.68) if the site of the PC zone was within the CD district on the effective date of this chapter. When three hundred fifty thousand square feet of nonresidential development have received architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~a-i-~ ~~ review approval .........~ ~ ~~~ ~o.... ~ ........~or have received building permits, if no design approval is required, O12104jea 6030026 4 2 this chapter sha!l be repealed and a moratorium shall be imposed. This moratorium shall prohibit the city’s acceptance or processing of any application for planning approval or a building permit for new nonresidentia! square footage in the CD district. This moratorium shall remain in effect for one year while the city undertakes a study of what regulations would be appropriate in the CD district. The moratorium may be extended by the council until such study is completed and appropriate regulations are implemented. SECTION 90. Section 18.49.060 of Chapter 18.49, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.49.060 Site development regulations. The site development regulations in the CD-C, CD-S and CD-N subdistricts are set forth in the following matrix, provided that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits d App i ) ........~ by ~ ....~~ ....7 ....~, b d danrova s ~,,,L~ ....~oar an ........ ~ by ~ml~w~ .........director of arming and communi pursuant to Chaptcr 16.48. Genera! regulations that apply throughout the CD District are set forth in Section 18.49.040. Additional regulations for the CD-C subdistrict are set forth in Section 18.49.070. Additional regulations for the CD-S subdistrict are set forth in Section 18.49.080.Additional regulations for the CD-N subdistrict are set forthin Section 18.49.090. SECTION 91. Subsection (e) of section 18.49.090 of Chapter 18.49, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (e) Size of Commercial Establishments. Permitted commercial uses shall not exceed the floor area per individua! use or business establishment shown in the following table. Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum establishment size, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with chapter 18.76 (Permits and ADprovals)Chaptcr 18.90. The maximum establishment size for any conditional use shall be established by the zoning administrator and specified in the conditional use permit for such use. Use Maximum Gross Floor Area Personal Services 232 square meters (2,500 square feet) O12104jea 6030026 4 3 Retail Services,except 1,394 square meters (15,000 grocery stores square feet) Grocery Stores 1,858 square meters (20,000 square feet) Eating and drinking-465 square meters (5,000 services square feet) SECTION 92. Section 18.49.140 of Chapter 18.49, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.49.140 Recycling storage. All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shal! provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyc!able materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)approval by the ~~ ....~ ....~- board, in accordance with design ~-~~ ~ an ~m~~~ ~~ ~ .......ursuant ~= 48 ~0 SECTION 93.The introductory paragraph of section 18.50.030 of Chapter 18.50, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.50.030 Conditional uses. (a) The following uses may be conditionally allowed on the ground f!oor in the GF ground floor combining district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals)~~~¯_ ....~ 18.~ and with the additional finding required by subsection (b) : [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 94. Subsection (b) of section 18.50.030 of Chapter 18.50, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) The zoning administrator may grant a conditional use permit under this section only if he or she makes the following finding in addition to the findings required by 012104 ]ea 6030026 4 4 chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Section 18.90.0~0: The location, access or design of the ground floor space of the existing building housing the proposed use, creates exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. SECTION 95. The introductory paragraph of section 18.55.040 of Chapter 18.55, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pals Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.55.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the GM general manufacturing district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter IS.90: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 96. The introductory paragraph of section 18.55.050 of Chapter 18.55, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pals Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.55.050 Site development regulations. The following development regulations shall apply in the GM general manufacturing district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectura! review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approva!s)rccommended by the arch~c ..... ~ ~" ~-~ ........ ~ by the director of planning and .......~--’............. ~ cnvlronment, to ~-~ ~r 48 of this code: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 97. Subsection (f) of section 18.55.070 of Chapter 18.55, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pals Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Retail sales service uses or general business office uses existing on January 13, 1986 and which, prior to that date were lawful conforming permitted or conditional uses operating subject to a conditiona! use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not require a conditional use O12104jea 6030026 4 5 permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remode!, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor areaor number of rooms, nor shall such remodeling, improvementor replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~-~ no ~.... w .........If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (f) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (f) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. SECTION 98. Section 18.55.080 of Chapter 18.55, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.55.080 Recycling storage. All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~ .........~by~architectura! ~ .... board, in .....~ .......~ design guide....................~~" that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section ~ 48 070 SECTION 99. The introductory paragraph of section 18.57.050 of Chapter 18.57, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.57.050 Conditional uses. O12104jea 6030026 The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the GM(B) district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)~~ 1o [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION i00. Section 18.57.070 of Chapter 18.57, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.57.070 Special requirements. (a) Retail sales services uses existing on January 19, 1983 and which, prior to that date were lawfu! conforming permitted or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remode!, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area or number of rooms, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chaDte~ 18 76 (Permits and Approvals)~~ io ~I_ - .....w .........If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (a) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (a) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (b) General business office uses which existed on September 6, 1984, and which, prior to that date were lawfu! conforming permitted or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, 012104 jea 6030026 4 7 for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in ~increased floor area or number of rooms, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvais)~~ 7o ~..... ~ .........No gross square footage may be added for any other use on a site where a general business office use is deemed a grandfathered use by application of this subsection (b). If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this subsection (b) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. SECTION i01. The introductory paragraph of section 18.60.040 of Chapter 18.60, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.60.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the LM limited industrial/research park district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)Chapter I~.90: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 102. The introductory paragraph of section 18.60.050 of Chapter 18.60, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.60.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the LM limited industrial/research park district. When the LM district is combined with the industrial site combining district, the combining district regulations shall govern. More restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural 012104 jea 6030026 4 8 review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 103. Subsection (b) of section 18.60.070 of Chapter 18.60, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Sites abutting or having any portion located within 45.7 meters (one hundred fifty feet) of any RE, R-I, R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple-family deve!opment, shall be subject to the following additional height and yard requirements: (I) On any portion of a site in the LM district which abuts a site in any RE, R-I, R-2, RM, or applicable PC district, a minimum interior yard of 6.1 meters (twenty feet), as determined as part of architectura! review pursuant to chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals) ..........~ ~~ ~ ~¯~ ..............~ ......~, shall be required, and a solid wall or fence of between 1.5 and 2.4 meters (five and eight feet) in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. The first 6.1 meters (twenty feet) of any such yard abutting said residential district shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen¯ (2) On any portion of a site in the LM district which is opposite from a site in any RE, R-I, R-2, RM, or applicable PC district and separated therefrom by a street, alley, creek, drainage facility, or other open area, a minimum yard of 6.1 meters (twenty feet), as determined as part of architectura! review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)pursuan4~ ...... ~ i~.4~, shall be required. The first 6.1 meters (twenty feet) of any such yard opposite from said residential district shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen. SECTION 104. Section 18.60.080 of Chapter 18.60, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.60.080 Recycling storage. All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, O12104jea 6030026 4 9 shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectura! review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) to ........~~-~ ~ ....~~ ....~ ~-~ .... ..................... ~~ .............~~ that ~tion SECTION 105. The introductory paragraph of section 18.63.040 of Chapter 18.63, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.63.040 Site development regulations. Within any LM district which may be combined with the limited industrial site combining district, the site development regulations specified in the following table shall apply in lieu of the regulations otherwise applicable within the LM district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits ~ ’ ~ ....~andand Approvals)~,,,,,~ by the archl~o ......~ ....~ ~.....by the director of ~---~-w .........g and commun~t} .....~ ......~ [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 106. The introductory paragraph of section 18.64.030 of Chapter 18.64, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.64.030 Site development regulations. The following design requirements shall apply and the following design guidelines are recommended for application to any site or portion of a site in an OR, CN, CC, CS, CD, GM or LM district located within one hundred fifty feet of a residential district, for (I) new construction and (2) modifications of existing buildings or site improvements which qualify as major projects under Section 16.48.06518.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; provided, that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals) ........ ~ ~- ~ .... ~~ .... ~ rcvicw board and approved hy thc dircctor ef planning and O12104jea 6030026 5 0 commoanity environment, pursuant to ~w--~-~ ~r .... ~ ......48 of the Palo ,.UnlClp~ ~ [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 107. Section 18.68.040 of Chapter 18.68, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.68.040 Conditional uses. Any use may be established as a conditional use in any specific PC district, provided such use shall be specifically listed as a conditional use subject to the provisions of chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approva!s)Chaptcr 18.90, and shall be located and conducted in accord with the approved development plan and other applicable regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter to govern each specific PC district. SECTION 108. Section 18.68.065 of Chapter 18.68, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.68.065 Application process. (a) The applicant for a PC district shall initially submit to the planning commission a development program statement, development plan, and a development schedule which are described in Sections 18.68.080, 18.68.090, and 18.68.100. The plot plans, landscape development plan, and design plan in the deve!opment plan should only be preliminary during this phase of review by the planning commission. (b)If the planning commission acts favorably in its initial review of the PC application, the development plan shall be submitted to the architectural review board for review, except in the case of single-family and accessory uses. In this phase, a detailed plot plan, landscape development plan,and design plan of the development plan are required.The architectural review board shall make a recommendation onthe development plan based on the findings for architectural review in section 18 76 020(d) , ~ .... ~ for ~~~ family uscs acccssory uses, shall then be submitted to the architectural rcvicw board ~o) ~ ......~ ............~ ~., ..............~ ~ ........~ regulations in ~ 48 O12104jea 6030026 51 In this ase, a .........~ ~ ............. ~ ...... pmcn~ plan, a-d dcsign plan of the dcvelopmcnt plan shall (c)The development plan as approved by the architectural review board is then returned to the planning commission for final planning commission review and recommendation before being submitted to the city council for final action. SECTION 109. Section 18.68.070 of Chapter 18.68, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.68.070 Application requirements. In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.98, each application for a PC district shall be accompanied by a development program statement, a development plan, and a development schedule. The deve!opment plan shall, as approved by the city council, become a part of the zoning regulations applicable within the respective PC district. Subsequent changes in the development plan shall be made in accord with Chapters 18.98± or, for minor chanqes, throuqh the Architectural Review process, as set forth in 18.76.020(b) (3) (D) . and 18.99. The development schedule shall, as approved by the city council, become a part of the zoning regulations applicable within the respective PC district. Subsequent changes in the deve!opment schedule, if included as part of the regulations, shall be made in accord with Chapters 18.98 and 18.99; provided, that specifically authorized changes may be made by the zoning administrator pursuant to Section 18.68.130. SECTION ii0. Subsection (c) of section 18.68.110 of Chapter 18.68, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) Site Development Regulations. Maximum or minimum regulations, as appropriate, governing site dimensions, required yards and distances between buildings, site coverage, building height, residential density, and floor area ratio, open space requirements, accessory facilities and uses, and other aspects of the proposed development within the district. The regulations may be in text, or by reference to the development plan, or both. In no event shal! the maximum height exceed 15.2 meters O12104jea 6030026 5 2 (fifty feet) except as provided in chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) Chapter IS.90; SECTION IIi. Section 18.68.170 of Chapter 18.68, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as fol!ows: 18.68.170 Recycling storage. All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural review approval pursuant to chapter 18.76 ermits and Approvals ~-~ ~ .............................. ~ in ..... ~ .... with design gui~7~-~- adopted by that SECTION 112. Section 18.71.030 of Chapter 18.71, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.71.030 Regulations established. The specific regulations set forth in this chapter and the regulations set forth in Chapter 18.88 shall apply in all OS districts; provided, that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals)rccsmmcndcd hy the architectural .... ~’" ~-~ and approved by the director of pursuant to ~~ 16.48. SECTION 113. The introductory paragraph of section 18.71.060 of Chapter 18.71, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pa!o Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.71.060 Uses requiring use permits. A use permit shall be first obtained for the following uses as provided in chapter 18 76 (Permits and Approvals)~~ 18.90 when the applicant can establish adequate justification that the proposed use will be consistent and compatible with the intent and purpose of this chapter, and that the number of 012104jea 6030026 5 3 employees and resident population approximates that which would result from a principal permitted use: [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 114. The introductory paragraph of section 18.72.040 of Chapter 18.72, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the AC agricultural conservation district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approval s) ~ ~ ~~ ~.... ~ IS.~ : [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 115. The introductory paragraph of section 18.72.050 of Chapter 18.72, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.050 Site development regulations. The following site development regulations shall apply in the AC agricultural conservation district; provided, that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectura! review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) ........ ~ ~-~ ~ .... ~~ .... 7 .... ~ .... ~ and approved by the director of ~-~ ....~ .......~~ .........m .................~ environment, ......... ~ ~ Chapter ~r ~o of ~- n.~. ~7~ ~,~.~ Code [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 116.A new Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), as shown in Exhibit 2, is added to Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 117.A new Chapter 18.77 (Procedures for Permits and Approvals), as shown in Exhibit 3, is added to Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. O12104jea 6030026 5 4 SECTION 118.A new Chapter 18.78 (Appeals), as shown in Exhibit 4, is added to Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 119. Section 18.82.055 of Chapter 18.82, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.82.055 Application process. (a) The applicant seeking site and design approval shall initially submit to the planning commission a site plan and elevations as described in Section 18.82.050. The plans and elevations may be preliminary in nature but must show all pertinent information requested by the zoning administrator. (b)If the planning commission recommends denial, a detailed site plan and elevations consistent with the planning commission recommendation shall be forwarded directly to the city council. (c)If the planning commission recommends approval, a detailed site plan and elevations consistent with the planning commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the architectural review board for review, except in the case of single-family and accessory uses. The architectural review board shall make a recommendation on the plans and elevations based on the findinqs for architectural review in section 18.76.020(d) .~= ......~v~,v~ .............~~ ~ ......~~~~~ ~Chapter (d) The plans and elevations, as approved by the planning commission and the architectural review board,are submitted with recommendations to counci! for final action. SECTION 120. The introductory paragraph of section 18.82.060 of Chapter 18.82, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.82.060 Action by commission. Unless the application for design approval is diverted ~ 18.99 minor architectural review under chapter 18.76.020(b) (3) (D), 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: 012104 jea 6030026 5 5 SECTION 121. Section 18.82.070 of Chapter 18.82, Title 18 ~[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.82.070 Action by council. To the extent that site and design review is contemplated under this chapter, and upon receipt of the recommendation of the planning commission, the council may approve, modify, or disapprove the proposed plans submitted pursuant to this chapter. No building permit or other permit or approval for building construction or use of the site shall be issued or granted until the plans have been approved by the city counci!, or by the director of planning and community environment as provided in chapter 18.76 .020 (b) (3) (D) SECTION 122. Subsection (c)of section 18.83.015 of Chapter 18.83, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as fol!ows: (c)"Design approval" means approval pursuant to chaDter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) Chapter I~.4~ by the director of planning and community environment upon recommendation of the architectural review board of the design of a project as distinguished from either preliminary review applications or later minor approvals and recommendations for landscaping and design details; SECTION 123. Subsection (b) of section 18.83.030 of Chapter 18.83, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Unless a project for the construction of floor area has received design approval prior to December 19, 1983, or has undergone preliminary review pursuant to Section 18.76.020 (Architectura! Review) Chapter I~.4S on December ist or 15th, 1983, the only portion of off-street parking required for construction of floor area in a parking assessment area which may be satisfied by payment of assessments or levies made within such area on the basis of parking spaces required but not provided, is that portion of the parking requirements associated with the uses proposed to be conducted in that area of the floor equal to the exempt floor area for the site. Where only a portion of floor area constitutes exempt floor area, and uses with more than one parking standard as required by this chapter 012104 jea 6030026 5 6 are proposed for said floor, the use on that portion of the floor which generates the highest parking requirement will be designated as the exempt floor area. SECTION 124. The introductory paragraph of section 18.83.100 of Chapter 18.83, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.83.100 Design standards -Landscaping in parking facilities and required landscaped areas. The following minimum standards shall be observed; however, additional landscaping may. be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) ........~’................ by the architectural rcv~cv~ board ’ 8 of the Palo Alto Munic a! [No further changes are made to this section, unless provided in later sections of this ordinance] SECTION 125. Section 18.83.120 of Chapter 18.83, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.83.120 Adjustments to requirements by the director of planning and community environment. Automobile and bicycle parking requirements prescribed by this chapter may be adjusted by the director of planning and community environment in the following instances and in accord with the prescribed limitations, when in his/her opinion such adjustment will be in accord with the purposes of this chapter and will not create undue impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the site or in the general vicinity. (a)Substitution of Bicycle Facilities for Required Vehicle Facilities.Eight Class I bicycle parking facility spaces ~n addition to minimum bicycle requirements may be substituted for one required vehicle parking stall, up to a maximum of five percent of the vehicle stalls required. (b) On-site Employee Amenities. Square footage of commercial or industrial uses to be used for an on-site cafeteria, recreational facility, and/or day care facility, to be provided to employees or their children and not open to the general public, may be exempted from the parking requirements of O12104jea 6030026 5 7 this title, when, in the judgment of the director of planning and community environment, the provision of the facilities at the place of employment will reduce traffic to and from the site and will reduce the number of parking stalls needed. Notice of ~ ~ ................pursuant to this ~ ........................provisions of .....~-~-~--~ suah an appeal is filed ....... ~ .......therefor, the ~~ the expiration of said time period. The decision of the director may be appealed as set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals) (c) Joint Use Parking Facilities. For any site or sites with multiple uses where the application of this chapter requires a total of thirty or more spaces, the total number of spaces initially required by application of the schedule may be reduced by not more than twenty percent where in the judgment of the director of planning and community environment the joint facility will serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for each use or site. The decision of the director may be appealed as set forth in Chapter 18 78 (Appeals) ....... of any ad~ .......... made 8 ~o Any aggrieved ~ ~-~-~ p ...... may appeal an ~’~ -~ .......... ~ .....~ with the provis~- of ~--’-~ ~ ~o m~ .......~.... ~ ~~ 8 ~an ~s filed ""~t specified ~~ ~ ~-~-~-- of the director of planning ~ .......~ ~ .....~-......... . ......~ ~n ....nment shall (d) Housing for the Elderly. The total number of spaces required may be reduced by not more than fifty percent, when in the judgment of the director of planning and community environment, such reduction will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by .the housing facility, including visitors and accessory facilities. The decision of the director may be appealed as set ~orth in Chapter 18 78 (Appeals)~~ of any ~~........... ~ .......nt made m.......~ t,o this ~.~m-~-~ ~on shal! be given in ~ ....~ "-~ the ~ww .....~-~ within ....t~,,,~ ~ .................the decision O12104jea 6030026 58 and cnv~. ronmcnt shall (e) Deferral of Meeting Full Requirement. Where the expected need for off-street parking or bicycle facilities for a particular use is uncertain, due to unknown or unusua! operating characteristics of the use and unavailability of comparable data to establish need, the director of planning and community environment, upon recommendation of the architectural review board, may authorize that construction and provision of not more than fifty percent of the required off-street parking stalls and not more than twenty-five percent of the bicycle parking spaces be deferred. The number of bicycle parking spaces deferred shall be apportioned by class in the same percentages as indicated in Table 1 of Section 18.83.050. The director of planning and community environment may set such conditions as necessary to guarantee provision of such deferred spaces whenever the director of planning and community environment determines the need to exist. Land area required for provision of deferred parking or bicycle spaces shall be maintained in reserve and shall be landscaped pursuant to a plan approved by the architectural review board demonstrating that ultimate provision of the deferred spaces will meet all requirements of this chapter. (f) Transportation and Parking Alternatives. Upon demonstration to the director of planning and community environment that effective alternatives to automobile access are in effect, the director of planning and community environment may defer by not more than twenty percent the parking requirement otherwise prescribed for any use, or combination of uses on the same or adjoining sites, to an extent commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by such alternative programs. Land area required for provision of deferred parking stalls shal! be maintained in reserve and shall be landscaped pursuant to a plan approved by the architectural review board demonstrating that ultimate provision of the deferred stalls will meet al! requirements of this chapter. The director of planning and community environment shall set such conditions as necessary to guarantee provision of such deferred stalls whenever the building official determines the need to exist. Alternative programs which may be considered by the director of planning and community environment under this provision include, but are not limited to the following: O12104jea 6030026 5 9 (i) Immediate proximity to pubic- transportation facilities serving a significant portion of residents, employees, and/or customers; (2) Operation of effective private or company carpool, vanpool, bus, or similar transportation programs; (3) Evidence that a proportion of residents, employees, and/or customers utilize, on a regular basis, bicycle transportation alternatives commensurate with reduced parking requirements. (g) Off-Site Parking. Except in parking assessment areas, the director of planning and community environment may authorize all or a portion of the required parking for a use to be located on the site not more than 152.4 meters (500 feet) from the site of the use for which such parking is required, where in his judgment, such authorization will be in accord with the purposes of this chapter. Within parking assessment areas, the director of planning and community environment may authorize all or a portion of the required parking for a use to be located on the site within the parking assessment area or not more than 152.4 meters (500 feet) from the boundaries of the area where the zoning of such site permits parking as a use. The director of planning and community environment shall require such covenants and guarantees as deemed necessary to ensure use and maintenance of such parking facilities. SECTION 126. Section 18.83.130 of Chapter 18.83, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.83.130 Adjustments to requirements in parking assessment by ~ zoning ~-~-~-~^-areas .... Automobile parking requirements prescribed in this chapter may be adjusted by the zoning administratordirector for properties within parking assessment areas in the following instances and in accord with the prescribed limitations where, in his/her opinion, such adjustment will be in accord with purposes of this chapter and will not create undue impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the site or in the general vicinity. The decision of the director may be appealed as set f th i Ch pt (App 1 )~7~~ ~ ......~ ~~or n a er 18.78 ea s ~ ...................~ .......... ~...........~ ................shall be subject to application ~ ..............s ....h in Scction 18.90.020 and shall 012104 jea 6030026 6 0 r~ ...........s Section 18 The d ........ ~ ~zonln~’ administrator shall ~ ....~- ÷ ......~ ~- (a) Tandem Parking. Tandem parking (a multiple parking configuration locating one stall behind another) may be allowed where in the judgment of the ................ d~reczor the parking will serve all proposed uses conveniently. The ~~ ~~-~ ’....... ~ ................director shall require such covenants and guarantees as deemed necessary to ensure use and maintenance of such parking facilities. (b)Percentage of Compact Parking Stalls. For parking facilities exceeding five stalls, a maximum of fifty percent compact parking stalls may be allowed. (c)Shared Parking Facilities. For any site or sites where the hours and days of operation are such that joint use of on-site private or nearby public parking facilities can occur without conflict, and the use is exempt from parking assessment, the number of parking stalls required for any new development or addition may be reduced by no more than ten stalls, where, in the judgment of the ~~ ~-~ratordirector, the available parking will serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for each use or site. SECTION 127. Section 18.87.060 of Chapter 18.87, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.87.060 Transfer procedure. Transferable development rights may be transferred from a sender site (or sites) to a receiver site only in accordance with all of the following requirements: (a)An application pursuant to chapter 18.76 (Permits ipp )~~~ r ~ o jandrovalsof~4~~..... ~ ....for ma or AgJ9 architectural review of the project proposed for the receiver site must be filed. The application shall include: (i) A statement that the applicant intends to use transferable developments rights for the project; O12104jea 6030026 61 (2) Identification of the sender site (s) amount of TDRs proposed to be transferred; and and the (3) Evidence that the applicant owns the transferable development rights or a signed statement from any other owner(s) of the TDRs that the specified amount of floor area is available for the proposed project and will be assigned for its use. (b) The application shall not be deemed complete unless and until the city determines that the TDRs proposed to be used for the project are available for that purpose. (c) In reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site pursuant to this section, the architectural review board shall review the project in accordance with Scction i~.~.120 of this codcthe findings for architectural review; however, the project may not be required to be modified for the sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in order to satisfy Chapter I~ no or findings for architectural review or to satisfy any specific requirement of the municipal code. (d) Following ARB approval of the project on the receiver site, and prior to issuance of building permits, the director of planning and community environment or the director’s designee shall issue written confirmation of the transfer, which identifies both the sender and receiver sites and the amount of TDRs which have been transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder prior to issuance of building permits and shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner(s) of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the applicant. SECTION 128. Section 18.88.200 is hereby added to Chapter 18.88, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: 18.88.200 Temporary Uses The zoning administrator may grant a temporary use permit authorizing the use of a site in any district for a temporary use, subject to the following provisions: (a) Application shall be made to the zoning administrator and shall be subject to the fee prescribed by the municipal fee schedule. O12104jea 6030026 6 2 (b) The permit may be granted by the Director without a requirement for public hearing and notice. (c) The permit may include authorization to vary from specific requirements of this title as may be solely related to the requested temporary use. (d) A temporary use permit, if granted by the Director, shall be valid for a specifically stated time period not to exceed forty-five days. The Director may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. (e) A temporary use permit may be granted by the Director if, from the application or the facts presented to him, he finds: (I) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. (2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan and the purposes of this title. (f) Any person who obtains a temporary use permit as provided by this section and fails to abide by its conditions is guilty of a misdemeanor. (g) Any person who uses a site for a temporary use in violation of Title 18 and fails to obtain a temporary use permit as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. SECTION 129. Section 18.88.210 is hereby added to Chapter 18.88, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code: 18.88.210 Sales of alcoholic beverages. (a) In any district where otherwise permitted by this title, any eating and drinking establishment or other use having any part of its operation subject to an on-sale license required by the state of California shall be subject to securing a conditional use permit. O12104jea 6030026 6 3 (b) A conditional use permit shall be obtained in the case of premises for which no conditional use permit is in force, whenever a new on-sale license is required by the state of California. (c) In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, which permits the sale of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever such use is intensified or is expanded in square footage. (d) In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, but such use permit does not permit sales of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever a new on-sale license is required by the state of California. (e) The maximum number of permits for on-sale general (liquor, beer and wine) and for on-sale beer and wine licenses which may be issued in any single block where any portion of the block is classified in one or more districts in which an eating and drinking establishment is a permitted or a conditional use shall be governed by the following table, and no applications for a conditional use permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages under an on-sale license from the state of California shall be accepted unless the standards in this section are met. In any block having residentially zoned site area equal to or greater than twenty-five percent of the total block area: Maximum Number of Conditional Use Permits Which May Be Authorized No permit 1 permit 2 permits 3 or more Square Feet of Zoned Site Area in District(s) Allowing Eating and Drinking Use as a Permitted or Conditional Use 0 - 1,858.0 sq. m. (0-19,999 sq. ft.) 1,8581 - 3,716.0 sq. m. (20,000- 39,999 sq. ft.) 3,716.1 sq. m. and above (40,000 sq. ft. and above) In the same progression. In any block having residentially zoned site area less than twenty-five percent of total block area: Maximum Number of Conditiona! Use Permits Which May Be Authorized Square Feet of Zoned Site Area in District(s) Allowing Eating and Drinking Use as a Permitted or Conditional Use 012104 jea 6030026 6 4 4 permits 0 - 14,864.4 sq. m. (0 - 159,999 sq. ft.) 5 permits 14,864.5 - 29,728.9 sq. m. (160,000 - 319,999 sq. ft.) 6 permits 29,729.0 - 59,457.9 sq. m. (320,000 - 639,999 sq. ft.) 7 permits 59,458.0 - 118,915.8 sq. m. (640,000 - 1,279,999 sq. ft.) 8 or more In the same progression. (f) Additional conditional use permits may be authorized for establishments for on-sale beer and wine licenses. The total number of such additional permits shall be equal to half the number of on-sale general licenses permitted in the tables contained in subsection (c) of this section. SECTION 130.Chapter 18.90 (Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Home Improvement Exceptions) is hereby deleted from Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code. SECTION 131.Chapter 18.91 (Design Enhancement Exception Process) is hereby deleted from Title 18[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 132. Chapter 18.92 (Appeals) is hereby deleted from Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 133.Chapter 18.93 (Appeals From Determinations of the Director of Planning and Community Environment) is hereby deleted from Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 134. Paragraph (2) of subsection (c) of section 18.94.070 of Chapter 18.94, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Upon receipt of such application, the director of planning and community environment shall so inform the chairperson of the planning commission who shall set a date for a public hearing on the application which shall be held within a reasonable time from the date of filing of the application. Notice of the hearing shall be given in the same manner as ..... ~ ~ ~÷~ io ~n for ~~ ~= ~~ b~ the zonin~ ~dm~ni~r~or.by publication once in a local newspaper at least twelve days Drior to the hearing and by mail to owners and occupants of real property within 300 feet of the subject property. O12104jea 6030026 6 5 SECTION 135. Subsection (b) of section 18.98.050 of Chapter 18.98, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Upon receipt of such notice, the chairman of the commission shall, on or before the fifteenth day of the month following the month in which the application or motion was filed, set a date for a public hearing upon the matter at either a regular or special meeting of the commission, unless the application is a minor change to a planned community district deve!opment plan diverted for~,,L~z~~~’~~ approval pursuant to architectura! review under chapter 18.76.020(b) (3) (D). Nothing contained in this section modifies any provision of or authority granted by ~-~-~ ~.... ~ ......99Chapter 18.76.020. The hearing before the commission shall commence within ninety days of the date of filing. SECTION 136. Section 18.98.100 of Chapter 18.98, Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.98.100 Action by city council. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the planning commission on a change of district boundaries, or on a change to the provisions of this title other than a change in district boundaries, the council may, at its option, give notice of a hearing in the manner provided by Sections 18.98.060 or 18.94~9~8.090, whichever is applicable. After consideration of the recommendation of the planning commission, and the completion of a public hearing, if any, the council may approve, modify, or disapprove the proposed change of district boundaries or change of any other provisions of this title. Should the council determine that a change of district boundaries or change of any other provisions of this title shall be appropriate, such change shall be accomplished by ordinance. SECTION 137.Chapter i8.99 (Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects) is hereby deleted from Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 138. Section 20.04.130 of Chapter 20.04, Title 20 [Precise Plans] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: O12104jea 6030026 20.04.130 Variances - Procedure. The procedure to be followed in applying for, giving notice of and granting such variances shall be that set forth in ~~~~ ~I°. ~ chapter 18 .76 (Permits and Approvals) of the zoning code. The fee charged shall be the same as that for zoning variance applications. SECTION 139. Subsection (b) of section 21.12.110 of Chapter 21.12, Title 21 [Subdivisions] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Notice (i) Within thirty days of receipt of an application for an amendment, the director of planning and community environment shal! state the decision regarding the amendment, including the reasons for such decision, in writing and mail a copy to the applicant. ~~~~ of such ~~~~ ~I also bc ~ .... ~ accord (2) Notice of the decision of the director of planning and community environment shall be given by distributing such notice in the next available city council packet after the rendering of the decision. Such notice shall also be published once in a local newspaper of genera! circulation not later than five days after the distribution of the notice in the city council packet. (3) The notice referred to in this subsection shall generally state the address and description of the subject property and project, and the nature of the determination. Said notice shall also recite the fact that details regarding the Droject and determination will be available in the office of the planning department, and that an appeal may be taken from the determination within fifteen days after the publication of the notice. (4) Any aggrieved or affected person may appeal such a decision in accord with ~-~ 18.n~.... ~ ......Chapter 21.36 (Appeals). SECTION 140. Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of section 21.13.020 of Chapter 21.13, Title 21 [Subdivisions] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Prior to filing a vesting tentative map, a subdivider shall obtain all discretionary approvals that will be required under the Palo Alto Municipal Code in conjunction with O12104jea 6030026 6 7 the approval or conditional approval of the vesting tentative map in order to construct the development. Such discretionary approvals may include, but are not limited to, amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map, amendments to the zoning map, .... ~. ~ pursuant to Cha er ~. of t~c .-.~.~-~-7~w~ Codcarchitectura! review pursuant to chapter 18 .76 .!permits and approvals) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and site and design review pursuant to Chapter 18.82 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. An application for a vesting tentative map shall be determined to be incomplete until all other applicable discretionary approvals are processed and acted upon in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and applicable state law. SECTION 141.The City Council finds that the changes effected by this ordinance are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per section 15061 of CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. // // // // // // // // // // // // // O12104jea 6030026 6 8 SECTION 142.This ordinance days after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: shall be effective 30 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: Senior-Asst. City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment O12104jea 6030026 6 9 2.21.030 Exhibit 1 Procedures of the architectural review board. Chapter 2.21 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Sections: 2.21.010 2.21.020 2.21.030 2.21.040 Architectural review board Manner of appointment Procedures of the architectural review board Duties of the architectural review board 2.21.010 Architectural review board. There is created an architectural review board consisting of five persons, at least three of whom shall be architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. Each member of the architectural review board shall be appointed by the city council and shall serve, commencing on the first day of October, for a term of three years or until his or her successor is appointed and takes office. The architectural review board shall have the powers and duties specified in this chapter, and shall comply with the procedures specified in this chapter. 2.21.020 Manner of appointment. In filling vacancies on the architectural review board, the following procedures shall be followed by the city council: (a)Following notification of vacancy on the architectural review board, the city clerk shall advertise the same in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, including the council agenda digest, four times within two weeks. (b)Written nominations and applications shall be submitted to the city clerk within such two- week period, to be forwarded tO the city council for its consideration. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the nomination or application of an incumbent board member is not submitted to the city clerk within the period specified above, said period shall be extended for an additional five days during which the city clerk shall accept written nominations and applications of nonincumbents. (c)The city council shall review all nominations and applications and conduct such interviews as it deems necessary prior to selection. (d)Final selection and appointment shall be made by the city council at a regular city council meeting after the period for submittal of nominations and applications has expired. 2.21.030 Procedures of the architectural review board. The architectural review board shall m~et at least monthly and shall prescribe bylaws, forms, applications, rules and regulations for the conduct of its business. All meetings of the architectural review board shall be open to the public. The architectural review board shall send a 6030025 DRAFT 70 2.21.040 Duties of the architectural review board. report, not less than once a year, to the planning commission and city council for the purpose of communicating the concerns of the board with respect to the city’s plans, policies, ordinances and procedures as these affect the projects which the board reviews. 2.21.040 Duties of the architectural review board. The duty of the architectural review board is to perform all duties required of it by Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and any other applicable sections of this code. In addition, the Director of planning and community environment and the city council may request the opinion of the architectural review board on other architectural matters. 6030025 DRAFT 71 18.76.010 Exhibit 2 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Chapter 18.76 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Sections: 18.76.010 18.76.020 18.76.030 18.76.040 18.76.050 18.76.060 Conditional Use Permit Architectural Review Variance Neighborhood Preservation Exception Design Enhancement Exception Home Improvement Exception 18.76.010 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (a) Purpose The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide for uses and accessory uses that are necessary or desirable for the development of the community or region but cannot readily be classified as permitted uses in individual districts by reason of uniqueness of size, scope, or possible effect on public facilities or surrounding uses. (b)Applicability (1)A conditional use permit may be granted for any use or purpose for which such permit is required or permitted by the provisions of this title; or (2)Any expansion in the building size or site area of an existing conditional use shall necessitate the amendment of the conditional use permit. Denial of an application for amendment of a conditional use permit does not constitute a revocation of the original conditional use permit. (3)No application for a conditional use permit is necessary for existing uses which were lawful conforming permitted uses and which were rendered conditional by reason of rezoning or changes to this title, provided that any expansion in the building site or site area of such a use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. (e)Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a conditional use permit, unless it is found that the granting of the application will: (1)Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (2)Be l~cated and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). (d)Conditions In granting conditional use permits, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the punic health, safety, general welfare, or 6030025 DRAFT 72 18.76.020 Architectural Review (e) convenience, to secure the purposes of this title, and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. Application Review and Action Applications for conditional use permits shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process). 18.76.020 Architectural Review (a) (b) Purpose The purpose of Architectural Review is to: (1)Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (2)Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3)Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4)Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5)Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. Applicability No permit required under Title 16 (Building Regulations) 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 18.77.080. (1)Exempt Projects Single-family and two-family residences do not require architectural review, except as provided under subsections (2)(C) and (2)(D). (2)Major Projects The following are "major projects" for the purposes of the Architectural Review Process set forth in Section 18.77.070, and are subject to review by the architectural review board: (A) New construction, including private and public projects, that: (i) Includes a new building or building addition of five thousand square feet or more; or (ii)Is not exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (division 13 of the Public Resources Code, commencing with section 21000); or 6030025 DRAFT 73 18.76.020 Architectural Review (c) (D) (E) (iii)Requires one or more variances or use permits and, in the judgment of the director, will have a significant effect upon the aesthetic character of the city or the surrounding area; Any multiple-family residential construction project that contains three or more units; Construction of three or more adjacent single-family homes or duplexes; In the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP), properties on which two or more residential units are developed or modified, except when one of those units is a "second dwelling unit", as described in Section 18.30.040(d); Any project using transferred development rights, as described in Chapter 18.87; (F)A master sign program, pursuant to Chapter 16.20; (G)Signs that do not meet all applicable design guidelines adopted by the city council or do not conform to a previously approved master sign program; CH) Signs requiring a sign exception pursuant to Chapter 16.20; (I)Any minor project, as defined in subsection (3), that the director determines will significantly alter the character or appearance of a building or site. (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): (A) 03) (c) New construction, including private and public projects, that involves a new building or building addition of fewer than 5,000 square feet, and which is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (division 13 of the Public Resources Code, commencing with section 21000); Signs that meet all applicable guidelines and conform to any previously approved master sign program; Landscape plans, fences, exterior remodeling, and design of parking areas, when not part of a major project; (D) Minor changes to the following: (i)Plans that have previously received architectural review approval; (ii)Previously approved plarmed community district development plans; (iii)Plans that have previously received site and design approval; (iv)Previously approved plans for projects requiring city council approval pursuant to a contractual agreement, resolution, motion, action or uncodified ordinance; 6030025 DRAFT 74 18.76.020 Architectural Review (E) (v)Existing structures requiring city council site and design approval or approval pursuant to a contractual agreement, resolution, motion, action, or uncodified ordinance. As used in this subsection, the term "minor" means a change that is of little visual significance, does not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improvements, is not proposed for the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of the structure involved. If the cumulative effect of multiple minor changes would result in a major change, a new application for Architectural Review approval of a major project, Site and Design approval, Planned Community District approval, or other applicable approval is required. Any changes to previously approved plans requiring architectural review as a minor project as part of the conditions of a permit or approval. (c)Preliminary Review (d) For the purpose of securing the advice of the architectural review board prior to making an application for the board’s recommendation on a project, an applicant, upon paying a preliminary application fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule, may bring a design before the board for preliminary review. If the applicant wishes to proceed with the project, he or she must then file an application and pay a regular application fee. The comments of the architectural review board members during a preliminary review shall not be binding on their forma! recommendation. Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that: (!)The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2)The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3)The design is appropriate to the function of the project; (4)In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; (5)The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6)The desi~on is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; (7)The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; (8)The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; 6030025 DRAFT 75 18.76.020 Architectural Review (e) (0 (9) (lO) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept; Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, Cyclists and vehicles; Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: (A)Exterior energy design elements; (t3)Internal lighting service and climatic control systems; and (C)Building siting and landscape elements; The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a). Conditions In ganting architectural review approval, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, to secure the purposes of this title, and to: (1) (2) (3) Promote the internal integrity of the design of the project; Assure compatibility of the proposed project’s design with its site and surroundings; Minimize the environmental effects of the proposed project; provided, however, that the architectural review board’s sole responsibility with respect to the storage of hazardous materials is to require compliance with Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage). Application Review and Action Applications for Architectural Review shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.070 (Architectural Review Process). 6030025 DRAFT 76 18.76.030 18.76.030 Variance Variance (a)Purpose The purpose of a variance is to: (1)Provide a way for a site with special physical constraints, resulting from natural or built features, to be used in ways similar to other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district; and (2)Provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulations would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. (b)Applicability (c) Variances may be granted to the following: (1)Site development regulations (except limitations on residential density and size of establishment) and parking and loading regulations (except those accessible parking regulations mandated by state and!or federal law and contained in Chapter 18.83) applicable within any district established by this title (Zoning); (2)The special requirements that apply to site development and parking and loading regulations applicable within any district established by this title (Zoning), except provisions which restrict expansion of grandfathered uses that are subject to the special requirements of a specific zoning district. Special requirements in any district do not include special provisions and exceptions as set forth in Chapter 18.88 (Special Provisions and Exceptions) except for the location of accessory buildings; (3)The requirements of Title 20 (Precise Plans); (4)The requirements of Chapter 16.24 (Fences) except Sections 16.24.040 (Fences at Intersections) and 16.24.070 (Prohibited Fences); Findings - General Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a variance, unless it is found that: (1)Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and 03) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. 6030025 DRAFT 77 18.76.040 Neighborhood Preservation Exception (2) (3) (4) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. (d)Findings - Flag Lot In addition to the above listed findings, in the case of a flag lot, neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a variance, unless it is found that: (1)The granting of the application will not disrupt established neighborhood character and aesthetics, and will not affect the health of the residents by significantly blocking out light and air; (2)The granting of the application will not result in excessive paving, parking, potential traffic conflicts on busy streets, street tree removal or loss of private landscaping; (3)The granting of the application will not negatively impact the privacy and quiet enjoyment of adjoining single-family residences, for both indoor and outdoor use. (e)May Not be Granted for Unauthorized Use A variance shall not be granted for a parcel that authorizes a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulations governing the subject property. (f)Conditions In granting variances, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title (Zoning). (g)Application Review and Action Applications for variances shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process). 18.76.040 Neighborhood Preservation Exception (a)Purpose The purpose of the neighborhood preservation exception is to foster retention of existing single-family structures and to maintain the existing historic and general character of neighborhoods in the Neighborhood Preservation (NP) Combining District. 6030025 DRAFT 78 18.76.050 Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) (b)Applicability (c) For properties within the Neighborhood Preservation (NP) Combining District, a neighborhood preservation exception may be granted to site development regulations (except limitations on residential density), parking regulations, and special setback requirements of Title 20 (Precise Plans). Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a neighborhood preservation exception unless it is found that: (1)The granting of the application will facilitate the preservation of an existing residential structure on the same property and will be of benefit in maintaining the existing historic and general character of the surrounding neighborhood; and (2)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. (d) (e) Conditions In granting neighborhood preservation exceptions, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed as deemed appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title. Application Review and Action Applications for Neighborhood Preservation Exceptions shall be reviewed as set forth in Chapter 18.77. 060 (Standard Staff Review Process). 18.76.050 Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) (a)Purpose The purpose of a design enhancement exception is to permit a minor exception to zoning regulations when doing so will: (1)Enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties; or (2)Enable the preservation of the architectural style of existing improvements on the site. (b)Applicability (1)Design enhancement exceptions may be granted to the site development and parking and loading requirements otherwise applicable under this title (Zoning), as part of the architectural review process, when such exceptions will enhance the appearance and design of commercial and multiple-family development and other development subject to architectural review. 6030025 DRAFT 79 18.76.050 Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) (c) (d) (e) (2) (3) (4) Items for which design enhancement exceptions may be granted include, but are not limited to, donners, eave lines, roof design, bay windows, cornices, parapets, columns, arcades, fountains, art, ornamentation, atriums, balconies, trellises, moldings, balustrades, stairs, entry features, and other minor architectural elements and design features. Generally, design enhancement exceptions are limited to minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height, lot coverage limitations, parking lot design and landscaping configuration, and additional flexibility in the required proportion between private and common open space. No design enhancement exception shall be granted under this section that would increase floor area, decrease the number of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of required on-site landscaping, or decrease the required open space. Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a design enhancement exception unless it is found that: (1)There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; (2)The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the standards for architectural review set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and (3)The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Conditions In granting design enhancement exceptions, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title. Application Review and Action Applications for a design enhancement exception shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.070 (Architectural Review). 6030025 DRAFT 80 18.76.060 Home Improvement Exception (HIE) 18.76.060 Home Improvement Exception (HIE) (a)Applicability In the RE, R-l, RMD, or R-2 zone districts, the zoning administrator may grant an exception to the site development regulations for construction of home improvements and minor additions (c) (d) Findings Neither the zoning administrator, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a design enhancement exception unless it is found that: (1)There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. (2)The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, or a protected tree as defined in Chapter 8.10 or other significant tree, which would not other~vise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations. (3)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. In determining whether or not to grant exceptions pursuant to this section, the zoning administrator shall consider such applicable residential design guidelines as may be adopted and published by the city council fi’om time to time. Conditions In granting home improvement exceptions, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title. Application Review and Action Applications for a home improvement exception shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.120 (Home Improvement Exception). 6030025 DRAFT 81 18.77.020 Exhibit 3 Applications Chapter 18.77 PROCESSING OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS Sections: 18.77.010 18.77.020 18.77.030 18.77.040 18.77.050 18.77.060 18.77.070 18.77.080 18.77.090 18.77.100 18.77.110 18.77.120 Purpose and Scope Applications Determination of Completeness Time Limits for Review Review Procedures - Summary Standard Staff Review Process Architectural Review Process Notice Expiration of Approvals Duration of Land Use Permits Revocation of Approvals Home Improvement Exception Process 18.77.010 Purpose and Scope (a)The purpose of this chapter is to establish common procedures for the filing, review, and action on applications, notice of public hearings, appeals of decisions, and enforcement of permits and approvals governed by Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) (b)The procedures of this chapter apply to all permits and approvals governed by Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), unless specifically modified by another section of this title (Zoning). 18.77.020 Applications (a)Filing of application and application contents All applications pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with the director in a form prescribed by the director. The application form shall contain a list of information that must be submitted in order for the application to be deemed complete. This may include, but is not limited to, information determined necessary by the director to conduct a review of the application pursuant to: (1)State law (including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (division 13 of the Public Resources Code, commencing with section 21000), and city compliance with the Political Reform Act (title 9 of the Government Code, commencing with section 81000); (2)The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (3)The Pa!o Alto Municipal Code; and (4)This title (Zoning) 6030025 DRAFT 82 18.77.030 Determination of Completeness Signature of applications A separate application shall be filed for each site, and each application shall be signed by: (1)All owners of the real property included in the site or sites; or (2)A purchaser of the real property included in the site or sites, when acting pursuant to a contract in writing duly executed and acknowledged by both the buyer and the owner of record; or (3)A lessee in possession of the real property included in the site or sites, when acting with the written consent of the owner of record; or (4)An agent of the owner of record of the real property included in the site or sites, when duly authorized by the owner in writing. Receipt of application No application shall be deemed received until the following have been provided: (1) All fees for the application as set forth in the schedule of fees established by resolution of the city council have been paid; and (2)All documents specified as part of the application in this chapter or on the application form have been filed. (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 to the date of such denial, unless it is shown that the circumstances surrounding the application have changed substantially. 18.77.030 Determination of Completeness (a)Notification of Completeness Not later than 30 calendar 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, the director shall specify those parts of the application that are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which it can be made complete, including a list and thorough description of specific information needed to complete the application. Upon receipt of any resubmittal of the application, a new 30-day period shall be~n, during which the director shall determine the completeness of the application. (b)Submittal of AdditionalInformation Not later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the submitted materials, the director shall notify the applicant in writing whether the application is complete. The director shall specify those parts of the application that are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in 6030025 DRAFT 83 18.77.040 Time Limits for Review which it can be made complete, including a list and thorough description of specific information. (c)Failure to Make a Determination (d) If the director fails to make a written determination within 30 calendar days, the application, together with the submitted materials; will be deemed complete and the application shall be eligible to be acted upon on its merits. Appeal of the Director’s Decision - Filing Any applicant aggrieved by the director’s determination regarding the completeness of an application may file an appeal with the planning division, as set forth in Chapter 18.78. (e)Inadequate Information Nothing in this section shall preclude the director or city council from denying the application on the grounds that the information provided is inadequate to demonstrate that the application should be approved in accordance with this title (Zoning). (f)Waiver of Time Limits Nothing in this section precludes an applicant from waiving the right to a determination of incompleteness or from extending the period of time for a determination of completeness. 18.7.7.040 Time Limits for Review All applications governed by the procedures of this chapter shall be acted upon in accordance with state la~v (including the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act (chapter 4.5 of title 7 of the Government Code, commencing with section 65920) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (division 13 of the Public Resources Code, commencing with section 21000)). 6030025 DRAFT 84 18.77.060 Standard Staff Review Process 18.77.050 Review Procedures - Summary Table 1 describes the action to be taken by each review or decision-making body involved in granting a land use permit. The actions are described in further detail in Sections 18.77.060 and 18.77.070. Table 1: Summary of Review Procedures Architectural Staff review board Director Planning City Commission council Standard Staff Review Process ¯Variance ¯Conditional Use Permit ¯Neighborhood Preservation Exception Reviexv application Tentative Decision Hearing and Recommendation, (upon request) Final Decision, (upon request) Architectura! Review ¯Architectural Review (Minor) ¯Architectural Review (Major) Tentative Decision Hearing and Recommendation (upon request) Hearing and Recommendation Decision (if ARB hearing is requested) Decision Final Decision on Appeal Final Decision on Appeal 18.77.060 Standard Staff Review Process (a)Applications Subject to Standard Staff Review Process The following applications are subject to the review process set forth in this section: (1) Variances, conditional use permits, neighborhood preservation exceptions; and (2)Other permits and approvals for which such review process is required by the provisions of this title (Zoning). (b)Decision by the director Not less than twenty-one days following the date an application is deemed complete: (1)The director shall prepare a proposed written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. (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. 6030025 DRAFT 85 18.77.060 Standard Staff Review Process (3) (4) The proposed director’s decision shall become final fourteen calendar days after the date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a hearing is filed. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing of the planning and transportation commission 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. (c)Withdrawal of Hearing Request O) (2) At any time prior to the hearing, the applicant and the person or persons requesting a hearing may meet to discuss ways to address the concerns with the application. The applicant may then modify the application to address such concerns. With the consent of the applicant and the person or persons requesting a hearing, the director may issue a revised proposed decision. The revised proposed decision shall identify the modifications made to the previously issued decision. Upon the issuance of a revised proposed decision by the director, the person or persons requesting a hearing shall withdraw such request. 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. The revised proposed director’s decision shall become final fourteen calendar days after the date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a hearing is filed. Hearing and Recommendation (upon request) by the Planning and Transportation Commission (1)Within 45 days following the filing of a timely hearing request of a proposed director’s decision or revised proposed director’s decision the planning and transportation commission shall hold a hearing on the application, unless the request is withdrawn as described above. (2) (3) Notice of the revised director’s decision shall be given by mail to mvners 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. Following the hearing, the planning and transportation commission shall make a recommendation on the application, which shall be forwarded to the city council. 6030025 DRAFT 86 18.77.070 Architectural Review Process (e)Decision by the city council The recommendation of the planning and transportation commission on the application shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within 30 days. The city council may: (1)Adopt the findings and recommendation of the planning and transportation commission; or (2)Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require four votes, and: (a) (B) Discuss the application and adopt findings and take action on the application based upon the evidence presented at the heating of the planning and transportation commission; or Direct that the application be set for a new hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. Decision by the city council Final The decision of the city cotmcil is final. 18.77.070 Architectural Review Process (a)Applications Subject to Architectural Review Process The following applications are subject to the review processes set forth in this section: (1)Any major or minor project requiring architectural review approval, as set forth in Section 18.76.020 (Architectural Review); (2) Any project requiring a design enhancement exception; and (3)Other permits and approvals for which such review process is required by the provisions of this title (Zoning). (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: (1)The director shal! prepare a proposed written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. (2) (3) Notice of the proposed director’s decision shall be given by 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 heating. The proposed director’s decision shall become final fourteen calendar days after the date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a hearing is filed. 6030025 DRAFT 87 18.77.070 Architectural Review Process (c) (d) (e) (4)Any 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. Hearing and Recommendation for Major Projects, and for Minor Projects Upon Request Upon receipt of a completed application for a major project (as defined in Section 18.76.020(b)(2)), or upon receipt of a timely request for a hearing for a minor project (as defined in Section 18.76.020(b)(3)), the architectural review board shall set a hearing date to review the application. (2)Notice of the hearing shall be given at least 10 days prior to the hearing by publication in a local newspaper and by mailing to the applicant, the hearing requestor, if applicable, and all residents and owners of property within 600 feet of the project. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, the decision of the director on the project, and the date and time of the hearing. (3)Following the hearing, the architectural review board shall make a recommendation on the application, which shall be forwarded to the director. Decision by the director Upon receipt of a recommendation of the architectural review board: (1)The director shall prepare a written decision to approve the application, approve it with conditions, or deny it. (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. 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 fourteen calendar days after the date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a heating is filed. (4)If the architectural review board continues a minor project more than once, or a major project more than twice, the director may make a decision on the application prior to receiving the final recommendation of the board. 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. The appeal shall be filed in written form in a maimer prescribed by the director. Decision by the city council The appeal of the director’s decision shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within 30 days. The city council may: 6030025 DRAFT 88 18.77.080 Notice (1) (2) Adopt the findings and decision of the director; or Remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require four votes, and: (A) Discuss the appeal and adopt findings and take action on the appeal based upon the evidence presented at the heating of the architectural review board; or (B)Direct that the appeal be set for a new hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. (g) Decision by the city council Final The decision of the city council on the appeal is final. 18.77.080 Notice (a)General Provisions When notice is required by provisions of this chapter, it shall be given in accordance with this section. Compliance with the procedures set forth in this chapter 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 or affect the validity of any action. Typographical and/or publishing errors shall not invalidate the notice or any city action. (b)Content of Notice (c) As used in this chapter, "notice" means a notice that includes, but is not limited to: a general description, in text or by diagam, of the location of the real property that is the subject of an application; a general explanation of the nature of the application; a brief description of the tentative decision by the director and how to request a hearing, if applicable; and the date, time, and place of a public hearing, if applicable. Notice by Publication When notice by publication is required, the publication shall be in a local newspaper of general circulation. (d)Notice by Mail (e) When notice by mail is required, the notice shall be mailed to owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment rolls or such other interim record as may be provided by the county assessor. When mailing notice to occupants, using the addresses listed in the city’s Geogaphic Information System (GIS) constitutes a good faith effort to provide such notice. Notice by Electronic Mail (E-mail) When notice by e-mail is required, notice shall be sent to the e-mail addresses of those persons requesting such notice. The director shall establish, by administrative policy, 6030025 DRAFT 89 18.77.090 Expiration of Approvals when and how such notice will be given. Multiple e-mail notices may be consolidated and sent in the form of an e-mail newsletter, if the director chooses. (f)Notice by Posting in a Public Place (g) When notice by posting in a public place is required, notice shall be posted in one or more locations accessible to the public. The Director shall determine the location or locations for posting. Notice by Posting at the Site When notice by site posting is required, notice shall be posted in one or more prominent places at the subject site. (h)Additional Notice They director may provide, but is not required to provide, additional notice of hearings and other actions on applications by posting in a public place, by site posting, or through any other means the director chooses. Notice given under this subsection is in addition to, and may not be substituted for, notice required under other provisions of this chapter. 18.77.090 Expiration of Approvals (a)Expiration - General Permits and approvals shall automatically expire after twelve months, unless otherwise provided in the permit or approval, from and after the date of issuance of the permit or approval if within such twelve month period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. The director may, without a hearing, extend such time for a maximum period of twelve additional months only, upon application filed with him or her before the expiration of the twelve-month limit, or the expiration of such limit as may be specified by the conditions of the approval. Effect of Amendments to Approvals Amendments to approvals shall not extend the time limits in subsection (a) unless so stated in the amendment. (c)Expiration - Approvals in conjunction with a vesting tentative map Whenever a vesting tentative map is approved or conditionally approved pursuant to Chapter 21.13 and the Subdivision Map Act, the approval pursuant to this chapter shall be valid until the expiration of the vesting tentative map or expiration of development rights under the final map. Applications may be made for extensions, but only in conjunction with applications for extensions of the vesting tentative map or the final vesting map pursuant to Chapter 21.13 and the Subdivision Map Act. 6030025 DRAFT 90 18.77.110 Revocation or Modification of Approvals 18.77.100 Duration of Permits If a use authorized by a permit or approval is discontinued for a period of twelve months, the permit or approval will no longer be in effect. Ifa building or structure that is subject to a permit or approval is destroyed or demolished, the permit or approval will no longer be in effect. 18.77.110 Revocation or Modification of Approvals (a)Notice of noncompliance or public nuisance The director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of any permit or approval, or when a use conducted pursuant to a conditional use permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The notice of noncompliance shall be sent by certified mail to the address of the subject property and to the owner of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll or such other interim record as may be provided by the county assessor. Such notice shall set forth the action necessary to come into compliance and a timeframe for compliance. (b)Public hearing by the zoning administrator (1)If the noncompliance is not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified by the director in the notice of noncompliance, the director may issue an order to show cause why such a permit or approval shall not be revoked, suspended or modified. An order to show cause shall be set for a public hearing before the zoning administrator. (2)Notice of the hearing shall be given at least 10 days prior to the hearing by publication in a local newspaper and by mailing to the applicant and all residents and owners of property within 600 feet of the project. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the noncompliance, and the date and time of the hearing. (c)Decision by the zoning administrator Within 10 days following the hearing: (1) The zoning adniinistrator shall prepare a written decision to revoke, suspend, modify, or leave unchanged, any permit or approval upon finding that: (A)A violation of any condition of the permit or approval was not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of noncompliance; or (B)A violation of any city ordinance or state law was not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of noncompliance; or (C)A use as presently conducted is detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. (2)Notice of the zoning administrator’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. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief 6030025 DRAFT 91 18.77.120 Home Improvement Exceptions description of the noncompliance, a brief description of the action to be taken, the date the decision will be fmal, and a description of how to appeal the decision. The zoning administrator’s decision shall become final 14 calendar days after notice is mailed unless a timely appeal is filed. (d)Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s Decision - Filing Any party, including the applicant, may file an appeal of the zoning administrator’s decision with the planning division. The appeal shall be filed in written form in a manner prescribed by the director. (e)Hearing and Recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission (g) (1) Following the filing of a timely appeal of a zoning administrator’s decision, the planning and transportation commission shall hold a hearing on the appeal. (2)Notice of the hearing shall be given at least 10 days prior to the hearing by publication in a local newspaper and by mailing to the applicant, the hearing requestor, and all residents and owners of property within 600 feet of the project. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the decision of the zoning administrator, and the date, time and place of the hearing. (3)Following the hearing, the planning and transportation commission shall make a recommendation on the appeal, which shall be forwarded to the city council. Decision by the city council The recommendation of the planning and transportation commission on the appeal shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within 30 days. The city council may: (1) Adopt the findings and recommendation of the planning and transportation commission; or (2)Remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require four votes, and: (A) Discuss the appeal and adopt findings and take action on the appeal based upon the evidence presented at the hearing of the planning and transportation commission; or (B)Direct that the appeal be set for a new hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. Decision by the city council Final The decision of the city council is final. 18.77.120 Home Improvement Exceptions (a)Applications Subject to Home Improvement Exception Process Applications for home improvement exceptions are subject to the review process set forth in this section. 6030025 DRAFT 92 18.77.120 (b)Optional Hearing Request Notice Home Improvement Exceptions (c) Upon receipt of an application for a home improvement exception, the zoning administrator shall send an optional hearing request notice to the applicant and all persons shown in the last equalized assessment roll (as updated by the semi-annual real estate update information) as owning real property within 150 feet of the exterior boundary of the property which is the subject of the application. The optional hearing request notice shall contain the following: (1)The exact address of the property for which the home improvement exception is sought; (2) A brief description of the home improvement exception sought; (3)Reference to the application on file for particulars; (4)A statement that director will act upon the application on a date certain, which is at least ten working days from the date of mailing of the notice, if no written request for a hearing is filed prior to such date. Requesting a Hearing Any person may request a hearing on an application for a home improvement exception by filing a written request therefor with the director prior to the proposed date of zoning administrator action as set forth in the notice described in subsection (b)(4) of this section. (d)Notice and Conduct of Public Hearing, if Requested (1)Upon receipt of a request for a hearing, the zoning administrator shall set a date for a public hearing, which hearing shall be held within forty-five days of the date of filing of the application or request for hearing. (2)Notice of such hearing shall be Nven by publication once in a local newspaper of general circulation not less than twelve days prior to the date of hearing. Additionally, notice of such heating shall be mailed at least twelve days prior to the date of the hearing to the applicant, and to owners of record of real property within 150 feet of the exterior boundary of the property involved, as such owners of record are shown in the last equalized assessment roll, and to owners or occupants of the property within 150 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 or affect the validity of any action. (3)The notice of public hearing shall contain the following: (A) The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the exact address is not known, and the nature or purpose of the application. (B)The time, place, and purpose of the hearing; (c)A brief description, the content of which shall be in the sole discretion of the city, of the variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit sought; 6030025 DRAFT 93 18.77.120 Home Improvement Exceptions (4) (5) (D) Reference to the application on file for particulars; and (E)A statement that any interested person, or agent thereof, may appear and be heard. Typographical and/or publishing errors shall not invalidate the notice nor any city action. At the time and place set for the heating, the zoning administrator shall hear evidence for and against the application. Each hearing shall be open to the public. The zoning administrator may continue any hearing from time to time. (e)Decision of the Zoning Administrator Within a reasonable time, but not more than ten working days after the conclusion of the hearing, or in the case of a home improvement exception where no request for hearing has been filed, no more than ten working days after the date proposed for zoning administrator action as set forth in the optional hearing request notice, the zoning administrator shall make findings and shall render a decision on the application. The decision shall be supported by the evidence contained in the application and/or presented at the hearing. Notice of the decision of the zoning administrator shall be mailed to the applicant and to any other person requesting such notice. (f)Appeals of the Decision of the Zoning Administrator A home improvement exception granted by the zoning administrator shall take effect ten days following the mailing of the notice of the decision of the zoning administrator, unless an appeal is filed. (g)Filing an Appeal (1)An appeal may be taken to the planning commission by any person, firm, or corporation aggrieved or affected by any determination of the zoning administrator with respect to the granting or denial of a home improvement exception. (2)An appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with the city clerk within fourteen days after the mailing of notice of the decision of the zoning administrator on a home improvement exception. An appeal not filed within such time shall not be processed. The appeal shall state the grounds therefor. (3)An appeal shall be subject to an appeal fee as prescribed by the municipal fee schedule. No part of the appeal fee shall be returnable to the appellant, except that eighty percent of such fee shall be returnable to the appellant if the appellant withdraws the appeal, by filing a written request therefor with the city clerk, within seven calendar days following the filing of the appeal. (h)Action by City Clerk and Stay of Proceedings Filing of an appeal with the city clerk shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed until the determination of the appeal as provided in this chapter. Upon the filing of an appeal, the city clerk shall immediately notify the zoning administrator and chairman 6030025 DRAFT 94 18.77.120 Home Improvement Exceptions (i) of the planning commission of the appeal, and shall forward all materials submitted with the appeal to the secretary of the planning commission. Hearing and Notification Upon notification and receipt of the appeal, the chairman of the planning commission shall set a date for a public hearing on the appeal, which shall be held within three months of the date of filing of the appeal. Notice of hearing shall be given in the same manner as provided in subsection (d) for notice of hearing by the zoning administrator. The zoning administrator shall transmit to the planning commission copies of the original application, of the appeal, and of other papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed was taken, including a written statement setting forth the reasons for his decision. The permit applicant at his/her expense shall be required to provide for the commission and council sufficient copies, as determined by the zoning administrator, of papers, including plans, that constitute the record of appeal. (j)Action by Commission Upon the date set for hearing, the planning commission shall conduct a public hearing thereon, unless, for cause, the commission on that date continues the matter. Upon conclusion of the hearing on the appeal, the commission shall make findings and recommend to the city council that the decision of the zoning administrator be affirmed, changed or modified, or in lieu thereof, make such other or additional recommendations as it deems proper. (k)Action by City Council Upon receipt of the recommendation of the planning commission, the city council shall consider the appeal within thirty days of receipt of the recommendation by the city clerk. The council may, at its option, conduct a public hearing on the matter. In conformity with the provisions of this title, the council may by motion reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may modify any decision, determination, or requirement recommended by the planning commission, and may make such decision or determination or may impose such conditions as the facts warrant with respect to the appeal and to the approval or denial of the application for a home improvement exception, and the decision or determination of the council shall be final. If ganted by the council upon appeal, the home improvement exception shall be effective immediately. Notice of the council’s decision shall be mailed to the original applicant, to the person filing the appeal, and to any other person who has filed a written request therefor with the city clerk. 6030025 DRAFT 95 18.77.040 Exhibit 4 Action by the City Council Chapter 18.78 APPEALS Sections: 18.77.010 18.77.020 18.77.030 18.77.040 Propose and Scope Filing Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Recommendation City Council Action 18.77.010 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this chapter is to establish a single procedure for the filing, review, and action on appeals of the following determinations of the director: (a) Appeals of decisions on tree removal permits, as set forth in Chapter 8.10, parking adjustments, as set forth in Sections 18.83.120 and 18.83.130, and determinations of incomplete applications, as set forth in 18.77.030; and (b) Other permits and approvals for which such appeals process is authorized by the provisions of this title (Zoning), or other titles of this municipal code. Where the provisions of this title permit an appeal from a determination of the director, it shall be processed as provided in this chapter, unless otherwise provided. 18.77.020 Filing An appeal shall be filed with the planning division in written form in a manner prescribed by the director. 18.77.030 Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation Within 30 days of the filing of a timely appeal from a director’s determination, the planning and transportation commission shall review the appea! at a public meeting and issue a recommendation to the city council to uphold, overturn, or modify the action or determination of the director. 18.77.040 Action by the City Council (a)Action by the city council The recommendation of the planning and transportation commission on the application shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within 30 days. The city council may: (1) Adopt the recommendation of the planning and transportation commission; or 6030025 DRAFT 18.77.040 Action by the City Council (2)Remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require four votes, and take action to uphold, overturn, or modify the action or determination of the director. (b) Decision by the city council Final The decision of the city council is final. 6030025 DRAFT Proposed Standard Staff Review Process: Variances and Use Permits Only Attachment B 30 days (maximum) 21 days (minimum) 10 days, unless a hearing is requested Application received Application reviewed Yes Notice No 1 Applicant revises application mailed Tentative Director’s Decision - Notice mailed How would notice be sent? 1. By mail, to owners/residents within 600 feet. 2. By inclusion in a weekly newsletter posted online, sent by e-mail to subscribers, and posted at the library and in the newspaper. No final Notice mailed Council call-up 1 Attachment C Ordinance Summary The substantive parts of staff’s recommendation are mainly in the proposed chapters 18.76 and 18.77 (Exhibits B and C of the ordinance). A brief summary of the ordinance’s organization is included below: Section New chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) ......New chapter 18.77 (Procedures for Permits and Approvals) New chapter 2.21 (Architectural Review Board) Where Located Ordinance Exhibit B, blue-tipped pp 72-81 Ordinance Exhibit C, blue-tipped pp 82-95 Ordinance Exhibit A, blue tipped pg 70-71 Description This chapter lists the different types of permits and exceptions the City may grant, their purposes, and the findings required This chapter lists the procedures for granting, denying, or revoking the permits and approvals in chapter 18.76 All Boards and Commissions should be established in Title 2. Currently, the ARB is established in Title 16. This section of the ordinance corrects that problem. New chapter 18.78 Ordinance Exhibit D,This creates a standard appeal procedure for (Appeals)blue-tipped pg 96 certain Director determinations Main body of the ordinance, blue-tipped pp 1-69 Fixing cross-references, deleting old chapters that are replaced by this ordinance If a more detailed guide to reading the main ordinance body is desired, one is provided on the next page of this attachment. r~ Z 0 o o0~ 0 Attachment D Comments from the March 21 Neighborhood Outreach Meeting on Process Changes ¯Staff should avoid having plans changed at the last minute for a project. If they are changed, the neighbors should be notified. ¯The Planning Commission will not be as receptive to neighbor concerns as the Council has been. ¯It would help if people requesting a hearing or making an appeal could do so by e-mail. ¯A 21-day period between application completeness and the tentative Director’s decision is desired. After the Director’s decision, there should be at least ten days. ¯Some neighbors have concerns about the proposed home improvement exception limits on FAR, side setback, and architectural features. Some are concerned that an exception should never be granted for FAR, that the side setback limits are too large, and that no exceptions should be granted for architectural features. ¯There is concern that the limits on size of home improvement exceptions, rather than being maximums for the exception, will become automatic grants of privilege. ¯Many neighbors want to see the Director’s decision and the conditions posted online. ¯Some neighbors raised the possibility of having extra variance findings for floodplains and substandard lots. ¯Almost all at the meeting wanted two rather than four Council members to be able to pull a development application from the consent calendar. ¯There is concern that staff is focusing too much on using the neighbors as an information source, rather than making sure themselves that an exception is merited and will not have a negative effect on the surrounding environment. ¯Some neighbors said that a variance is a "yes/no" issue. There is no compromise, and staff should not focus on that possibility. ¯It should be clear what recourse neighbors have when a project that does not comply with the zoning code makes it through the development process. If possible, it should not happen at all. ¯Staff reports should be carefully reviewed for accuracy, and should be easier to read. Attachment F l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26~ Wednesday, March 24, 2004 at 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:05 pm Commissioners: Michael Griffin - Chair Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair Karen Holman Patrick Burt Bonnie Packer Annette Bialson Lee Lippert Staff: Steve Emslie, Planning Director Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Dan Sodergren, Spc. Counsel to City Attorneys Amy French, Current Planning Manager Jon Abendschein, Admin. Analyst Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary AGENDIZED ITEM: 1. The Planning and Transportation Commission will consider an ordinance streamlining planning procedures by modifying and consolidating regulations from Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 16.48 (Architectural Review), 18.90 (Variances, Home Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits), 18.91 (Design Enhancement Exceptions), 18.92 and 18.93 (Appeals), and 18.99 (Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects). New Chapters 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) and 18.77 (Procedures for Permits and Approvals) will be added. Chair Griffin: Welcome to the Wednesday, March 24, 2004 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission. Would the Secretary please call the roll? Thank you. Thank you for your patience this evening. We had a supplemental Staff Report that we were trying to skim here a bit before we got into the proceedings. At this stage of the agenda we are ready for Oral Communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the fight to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chair Griffin: Those of you who parenthetically are looking forward to speaking later this evening if you would likewise print your name. Thank you. I don’t have any cards for Oral Communications so we will move to the agenda item under Unfinished Business. CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by a Commission Member. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Griffin: I will open the public hearing on item number one which is the Commission’s consideration of an ordinance streamlining planning procedures by modifying and consolidating regulations from the Municipal code Chapters dealing with Architectural Review, Variances, Home Improvement Exceptions, Conditional Use Permits, Design Enhancement Exceptions, Appeals, Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects, Permits and Approvals and Procedures for Permits and Approvals. Would the Staff like to make a presentation? UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings: 1. The Planning and Transportation Commission will consider an ordinance streamlining planning procedures by modifying and consolidating regulations from Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 16.48 (Architectural Review), 18.90 (Variances, Home Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits), 18.91 (Design Enhancement Exceptions), 18.92 and 18.93 (Appeals), and 18.99 (Administrative Approi~al of Minor Changes in Projects). New Chapters 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) and 18.77 (Procedures for Permits and Approvals) will be added. SR Weblink: http://www.cityofpaloalto.or~cityagendaJpublish/planning-transportation- meetings/3030.pdf http ://www.citvo fpaloalto.or~cityagendaJpublish/planning-transportation- meetings/3031 .pdf http ://www.citvo fpaloalto.or#citvagendaJpublish/planning-transportation- meetin~s/3034.pdf http://w~av.cityo fpaloalto.orUcitvagenda/publish/planning-transportation- meetings/3035.pdf Mr. Steve Emslie, Plannin~ Director: Thank you Chair Griffin and members of the Commission. We did want to point out the memorandum that was referred to in the Chair’s opening comments and mention that we do have a summary of the recommendations, amended recommendations, posted up on the screen as well as extra copies of that memorandum at the back of the room for anyone in the public who would like to follow along. Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ~17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 We did want to spend a couple of minutes reviewing some amendments that Staff has made to its recommendation and go through those before your discussion and before the public comments. First of all we are recommending that the Commission forward the ordinance as it is currently drafted on to the City Council for their consideration, the ordinance that is listed in your March 3rd Staff Report. We are recommending some amendments to that motion should the Commission care to consider them. First of all we are asking that the Commission exclude in its recommendation any reference to changes to the HIE process. In essence the HIE process would remain as it is currently configured until the Commission had a chance to review change to that. The reason for this is that while we have been trying to keep separate our discussions for clarity and for ease of Commission deliberation the separate discussion from the Individual Review is it has become apparent to Staff that the Individual Review and the HIE since they both relate to single family development only and renovations to existing single family homes that the two have a lot in common and they really should be considered and coordinated with the Individual Review process as the Commission has been considering that. So we do believe that it is essential to have that discussion in conjunction with Individual Review. You are scheduled to take up the Individual Review, the continued discussion of the IR and R-1 standards, on Wednesday, April 21 at a Special Meeting. So we would be prepared to discuss the HIE amendments at that time. Secondly, we would like the Commission to review the timelines and the process for the remaining permits primarily the variance and use permits. We for ease of Planning Commission discussion and enabling you to focus we have prepared a flowchart with the notice requirements and the timing of those which I will ask Jon to put up on the screen. This process is outlined in the Draft Ordinance. We have recommended some changes to the timing and the issuance of notice that we would like to point out. It doesn’t show up very well on the screen but they have been highlighted in red. Essentially the major change is to add a 21-day review period. From the time that the initial notice is mailed to property owners within a 600-foot radius, and this is also an expansion of our original recommendation from 300, we would give 21 days for the interested parties to review the proposal, to comment and to interact with Staff and the applicant. That would be 21 days between the time the application is deemed complete and the Director’s tentative decision. The remaining ten days for the appeal period is as currently drafted in the Draft Ordinance. Then we have also listed as a sidebar to the application process the types of notices that would be sent. First and foremost mail notice would constitute the legal notice and that as I mentioned would be to all property owners within a 600-foot radius of the subject property. We would also include an electronic notification, while it would not serve as legal notification it ~vould be a regular practice that the Planning Department would incorporate into its review procedures. Essentially we would send out what we are calling a regular weekly newsletter to all subscribers to our notification list, or list serve, all of the new projects that were deemed complete for that week. We would do that on a regular basis. We would also publish the notice in the local paper as well as physically post the site with a notice during the 21-day review period. Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 So we did want to highlight those changes to the process. We would like the Commission to review those and to comment on those and then forward its recommendations on to the City Council. Lastly, if I can go back to the list of items the Commission had extensive discussion regarding the variance findings several weeks ago. We have taken those discussions and incorporated them into the Draft Ordinance. We ask the Commission to ensure that we have translated those correctly based on your discussions and confirm that they do reflect the initial decision that the Commission has made regarding modifications to the variance findings. With that I would ask if there are any questions. We have with us Lisa Grote, our Chief Planning Official, Amy French, Current Planning Manager and Jon Abendschein from Planning Staff to answer your questions and of course Dan Sodergren from the Attorney’s Office who can answer any legal questions. Chair Griffin: Colleagues? Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a couple of clarifications. One is we keep referencing 30 days, 21 days and ten days. Are those calendar days? Mr. Emslie: They are all calendar days, yes. Commissioner Holman: Then related to that, the ten days once a tentative Director’s Decision is made and the notice is sent out that ten days was there a discussion about extending that? If you look at Christmas to New Year’s ten calendar days is almost nothing. Mr. Emslie: We have considered extending that but our recommendation is that it remain at ten days. Again, if an application deadline for appeal were to fall on a holiday or weekend the application period or request for hearing period would be automatically extended to the next business day. Commissioner Holman: Just to follow up with that around Christmas and New Year’s it is not just that the date falls on a holiday. I am sure you thought about this but I would just like to know what your thoughts were that went into it. It is that City offices are closed so many of the days in that ten day period around Christmas and New Year’s that it might leave someone who was interested in asking for a hearing a couple of days of access to Staff to ask any questions or file that appeal. Mr. Emslie: Any day the City was closed would be exempt from the calendar days. So any furlough or holiday that the City were closed during the end of}he year would be automatically extended that day for the review period. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Vice-Chair Cassel: I have a follow up directly to that. It is ten days from the date of mailing? Mr. Emslie: Yes, that is correct. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: In the March 3 Staff Report you mention that a courtesy notice would be sent out when the application is received. Is that still part of the process? Mr. Emslie: We are not recommending that. We have debated that extensively going back and forth. The concern is that if we send out notices on an incomplete application there is a large likelihood that there could be changes to that and we have run into problems and concerns when not necessarily a change that would be anticipated. For example if someone looked at a plan that was preliminary, they came in and they saw it and they said that looks fine and then the plan was changed subsequently. They would assume that the plans would have stayed the same. We have a higher probability for miscommunication if we were to do that. So we have really settled on sending out the first notice at the time the application is deemed complete. Chair Griffin: I am wondering if you could explain how much of this notification procedure will be actually in the ordinance and how much would be a practices and policies type of thing. Mr. Emslie: The legal required notice, the mailing, the publication and the posting we recommend be in the ordinance. The courtesy notice, the web notice and so forth should be part of the Staff’s administrative policies that would accompany this but would not be codified. Chair Griffin: Would there be a memo that explained how that was performed or would there be some sort of a place where people could access that description of your policy? Mr. Emslie: That policy would be incorporated into the department’s list of policies and procedures that would be available for the public. Chair Griffin: But not on the website? Mr. Emslie: Most definitely it would be on the website. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Steve, when the notices go out would you be planning on in conjunction with a specific notice on a parcel informing those who are notices about how to obtain more information such as what you just described? Page 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Mr. Emslie: Yes, indeed. We would include in our notice a weblink so that someone 2 would be able to access the plans electronically. Part of the application procedure would 3 require plans to also be submitted in diNtal format so that they could be posted on our 4 website in conjunction with our mailed notice or newsletters, we are calling it, would 5 have links to the specific plan so that someone could look at the plans without having to access City Hall. Commissioner Burt: Just a follow up, that sounds like quite a breakthrough to get a bunch of people in the development community to necessarily use digital format. Is that transformation occurring right now? Mr. Emslie: Well, we have done some research and had some comments through the outreach that we have done that most reproduction services do offer a digital format. So to convert those into a PDF did not seem to be an extraordinary imposition and helps facilitate communication and reduce the need for paper. Just as a sidebar, the Auditor’s recommendation also included us actually taking plans in electronic format because that had been desired by some of our customers to actually be able to submit plans completely paperless. That is something that we are also implementing. Commissioner Burt: I think it is great. I just hadn’t appreciated that the transformation was finally happening in that field. Mr. Emslie: I just would add it wouldn’t be the full set of working drawings. It is going to be a truncated version because of the problems in accessing large graphic files like that. Primarily it would be the building elevations and the site plan that we think could easily be translated to electronic format and posted. Chair Griffin: If there are no further questions from colleagues I will open up the discussion to the public. We have five cards. Heather Trassman is our first speaker to be followed by Rick Ferguson and Karen White. If we have this few number of cards each of you could speak for five minutes. Welcome, Heather. Ms. Heather Trassman, 769 Garland Drive. Palo Alto: Thank you very much Planning Commissioners. I am the Chair of the Government Action Council of the Chamber of Commerce and I happen to be a practicing architect here in Palo Alto. We at the Chamber have not had time to fully review in detail all of these proposals so I am speaking about the spirit of what is being attempted to be done here. I am chiefly speaking for the Government Action Council. We will be going back and getting the ’yea’ of the full Board later this month. In general we think this a very positive movement on the part of the Planning Department. We endorse the Plalming Code amendments creating variance and conditional use permit streamlining. We think the package preserves the public’s right to be involved in review process while making it more efficient. Highlights of the ordinance are broader and one time notification earlier in the process along with web postings of notices and PDF plans we think this is very, very positive. This will save the Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning Department time and money in addition hearings will be held only when there is controversy over a project that cannot be mitigated by negotiation or the addition of a condition. Finally, the ordinance more definitively establishes the Planning Commission as a deliberative body and appeals go to the Planning Commission and then to City Council Consent Calendar. The ordinance specifies that four City Council members are needed to remove the appeal from the Consent Calendar. The Chamber further endorses the planning code changes because there will be a one-year trial period. Staff has already put a matrix in place to measure outcomes. In general we applaud the notion of streamlining the permit process. The reduction of the building permit review process to four weeks has been very well received and we look forward to time reduction in the Planning review sphere as well. We also like very much the idea of sort of separating out variance and conditional use permits from the more simple requests attached to the idea of HIEs and Individual Reviews. We think that is a very good idea too. Thank you very much. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Heather. Rich Ferguson. Good evening, Rick. Mr. Rick Fer_.~..ason, 1037 Harker, Palo Alto: Good evening Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. ! represent the Community Center Nei~labor’s Association and I am a member of the Palo Alto Neighborhoods. I also had the pleasure and privilege of working on the focus panel with Staffto develop some of these recommendations. We certainly support the thrust here of this first proposal. This is a great experiment and thanks, Steve Emslie, very much for calendaring it quickly and making good progress. We certainly support the thrust of the amendment tonight. It goes a long way. I would simply suggest that the mandatory component in the language of the ordinance include not only the mail to the people living within 600 feet but also the email component so that both of those become part of the mandatory notice. I think the other things are worth experimenting as a part of administrative procedure. This is line with our recommendations. There are a couple of things missing one of which Karen White will talk more about and that is the Council cali-up rule at the end of the process. The second thing, which we spoke about in the focus group as well as in earlier sessions here, is the need for some kind of a change order tracking system. Maybe it can be in the format of the notice, something in the nature of a checklist that stays stable from the beginning of the notice process all the way through a hearing. It should have the top 12 or 24 items of major interest to the kinds of people that challenge these applications from time to time. So that when things that seem to be insignificant or minor changes made by Staff along the way at least get notices, at least show up on the email list, at least show up on the website so that things that are inadvertently small or inadvertently large can be flagged along the way and we have record of what happened from beNnning to end. It is not something that should stop the process. It is not something that should force a restarting of the process. It is not something that should burn up extra time by the applicant. But if we have this uniform change order tracking system it really gives all the players a fair Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 common reference point as to what is going on during the process. I don’t envision anything complex. I truly envision something that fits on a page or two of paper, a screen or two of email. So if we could implement that as a matter of Staff administrative procedure I think that would be a wonderful addition here. So more robust notice, the change order tracking system, the increased notice that you see here, the notice response times and then a thorough discussion of the Council call-up logic. That is everything on our agenda and again this is just a wonderful first start and so we would like to support the general thrust of the Staff proposal. Thank you very much. Chair Griffin: Rick, I have a question for you. Do you have a prototype of or a template or an example of this document that you are speaking of, this change order tracking device? Mr. Ferguson: I would be happy to produce one. I don’t want to imply that it is anything more complex than a list of topics of interest. In several of the different ordinance sections there are in fact checklists of things that an application should include or should address. Maybe it is a subset of those. I think we are all relying on Staff’s experience here that some things tend to disgruntle people when they change. We are looking to save time for applicants, for Staff and for neighbors. If we can just focus on the things that tended to be troublesome in the past when they changed that probably ought to be the reference list. Chair Griffin: Thanks. Our next speaker is Karen White. Welcome, Karen. Ms. Karen White. 146 Walter Hays, Palo Alto: Thank you Planning Commissioners. First I would like to thank the Staff for spending the time on this very important process to streamline our planning. I would like to also support the changes that Steve Emslie has mentioned tonight which would recommend a 21-calendar day notice, as I understand to residents within 600 feet of the affected site. I think that earlier input will allow the Director to make a more nuanced tentative and final decision that addresses neighbors concems and I believe that the time invested early in the process will result in fewer requests for hearings from this body. I do have concerns ab6ut the Council call-up. I have told that requiring four Council votes to remove an item from the Consent Calendar would further an interest in terminating these matters with the Planning Commission’s decision rather than facilitating discussion and possible hearing by the Council. Unfortunately this elevated threshold moves in the direction of Measure J, which Palo Alto voters defeated in 2000. Palo Altoans were clear that we want our elected officials to discuss and decide matters that may be controversial. I would ask tonight that you not recommend actions that will stifle discussion by Council. I will quote now from Palo Alto Daily News, Editorial of November 3, 2000. "The approval process in Palo Alto takes too long. Changes are overdue. However any changes must not reduce the public’s ability to speak out about issues." From The Weekly of November 1, 2000, "The current practice of putting non- controversial planning items on the Council’s Consent Calendar is better than giving this and future Council’s the power to delegate final authority on certain matters to the Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning Commission." I would suggest two points. First, a contested matter that the Planning Commission has been called upon to resolve could not be considered non- controversial. Second, elevating the Council call-up threshold to a near majority of Council and where Council Members are conflicted out to a certain majority will thwart the public’s ability to speak out about these issues and may have the same effect as delegating final decision-making authority to the Planning Commission. So I would request that the Commission recommend a two-vote threshold for removing items from Consent consistent with the threshold for other issues. Thank you again for your consideration and for your time in this process. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Karen. Our nest speaker is Pat Markovitch followed by Lynn Chiapella followed by Joy Ogawa. Welcome, Pat. Ms. Pat Markovitch, 231 Emerson, Palo Alto: Hi. This is a good start. The only comment I have to make is the ten days unless a hearing is requested. It is not just the holidays but for example if the City has a Friday off and the next Monday is a holiday that is going to cut it considerably. My one request is that the ten days goes to 15. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Pat. Lynn Chiapella. Welcome, Lynn. Ms. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. I want to submit Annette Ashton’s letter, which she tried to send to you but had some computer problems today. I wanted to emphasize number two in her letter, which is to change the Council call-up from four to two for the reasons that have been mentioned. I believe it fits more with the process that they currently use. In many cases it is crucial that that’s a number two rather than four Council Members because many of these variances or CUPs people will be in conflict because they live too near the project. So I want to support the previous speakers on all of those issues. I know she would be very happy to hear about the 21-day amendment and also the 600 feet for notice. She includes some language about the HIEs as well. The things that I want to address are number one the ten days. I have frequently been on that list. The mail goes out on Friday from the City, Monday is a holiday as frequently happens so the first day I could receive it is Tuesday but in my case it is usually Wednesday because I am a day late in my neighborhood to receive what other people tel! me in other neighborhoods they have already received. So they will call and tell me personally about that. So ifI receive it on Tuesday I would have to file an appeal by the following Monday. That is a very small amount of time to get Downtown particularly when the offices are closed on Friday to read the reports, to go through the file, etc. Now sometimes the files are over in the Development Center but frequently they can’t find the files so that puts you back to the Planning Division, which may or may not be open that day. So I would strongly urge for a minimum of ten working days, which is the bottom one rather than just ten days. I think Karen Holman raised on holidays is it is very hectic to try to appeal or to try to even get information on a project. Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I am very happy to hear about the electronic access. I would ask that that access include all of the conditions because it is the conditions that make the difference to neighbors. For example, are you going to enclose that air conditioner that is eight feet from the property line where I live? Are you going to put the security lights as the ARB recommendation says at no more than 15 feet or are they 12 feet or is that going to be stuck up at 35 feet and I am going to see it from my property every single night? Those kinds of issues are important and those kinds of conditions are what we would like to see in black and white. That would make the difference between whether I would appeal a project or not. I have frequently appealed on the noise issue where the garbage cans are pushed against the fence, the security lights are 35 feet, I see them every single night and where the late night activity goes on until midnight so they are in the parking lot which I can hear from my bedroom, singing and dancing and whatever which I can understand. But when you are trying to get a good night’s sleep it is not very pleasant. I support the tracking method but I think that it must include conditions that are important to neighbors. I want to give you an example of why the change orders are so important. Longs, for example, which is not very far from my house. It is about half a block and I can see I from my deck every day. There were seven change orders. The first one removed the ARB landscaping. I fought hard for that landscaping at the ARB meeting. The second one removed parking spaces. Somebody had made a measurement error. The third one added a roof to the loading dock where the garbage was so PASCO could no longer get their trucks in to pick up the garbage so the garbage was pushed into the public parking lot where the parking spaces were thereby taking up and limiting the parking in the public parking lot. This has happened in at least four different approvals in Midtown where the garbage has ended up in the public parking lot where there should be parking and loading and delivery. These are little things but cumulatively, there were seven of them at Longs, and the cumulative project did not look like the project that I saw at the ARB when it was finished. In fact it caused a lot of headaches because they had to go back and tear out signage and redo parking and redo landscaping, etc. It was a very expensive mistake or change orders caused a very expensive problem. This has happened in several others where its lights were exposed, lights were placed at 35 feet where 15 feet was the maximum height under the ARB guidelines but they materialized at 35 feet. Two buildings currently are in violation with their 30-foot lights directly shining into neighbor’s yards. So I think it is really important that these little changes are tracked. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Lynn, could you answer a question for me please? Your ability to fax an appeal form to the Planning Department, does that help in terms of the turnaround time? You were concerned about the iength of time available to neighbors to be able to read and study and form an opinion and file on a timely basis an appeal. By being able to do this electronically via email or fax an appeal form in, does that help the situation at all? Ms. Chiapella: I know it is going to be hard for you to believe this but I and my neighbors actually go to the library when we need to look at big files. I can get a little Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 email. I really couldn’t fax it to you. I guess I could walk it down to Kinko’s or somewhere I suppose. I actually don’t have the capability of doing all these things. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Mr. Emslie: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to add we would provide the capability of doing the appeal by the web. We would have a form on the web that could be filled out and emailed to us. That is administrative process we would implement with this. Ms. French: Just quickly we are talking about requests for a hearing, just so we are all on the same page on that because appeals do require a fee. Chair Griffin: Thank you for the clarification. Our next speaker is Joy Ogawa. Joy if you could lower the microphone down and speak directly into it. We seem to be a little underpowered tonight somehow. Ms. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street. Palo Alto: Thank you. As I see it the push behind the streamlining of the Planning process was not really resident driven. It is clearly developer driven. The streamlining proposal seems to me to be pretty much a knee-jerk reaction to the Auditor’s Report that heavily emphasized developer and applicant complaints while giving much less attention to resident and neighbor concerns. Planning Staff’s reaction has been to come up with a streamlining proposal that heavily emphasizes applicant issues while giving much less attention to neighbor and resident concerns. I for one do not think that the current process is so terrible. The current process recognizes that Variances are different from Conditional Use Permits, which are different than Home Improvement Exceptions. All of these are totally different from Individual Review. Yet Staff has modeled this proposed streamlining process after Individual Review. Under Individual Review the proposed two-story single family home falls completely within the R-1 site regulations of the zoning code. For Individual Review discussion between applicant and neighbors is a constructive thing because Individual Review really is about issues such as window placement, siting and placement of the structure and landscaping issues. Under Individual Review the concepts of negotiation and compromise make sense. However, for Variance where the applicant is asking for an exception that falls outside the site regulations of the Zoning Ordinance it is improper I believe to invoke the concepts of negotiation and compromise. For a Variance it is a simple yes or no question of whether the specific exception to the code that is requested should be granted based on specific findings. To even suggest that neighbors should negotiate a compromise with regard to a variance application is a mischaracterization of a Variance and wrongly implies that a neighbor is expected to compromise on a Variance. Yet Staff is proposing a one size fits all process that is modeled after Individual Review. When I expressed this concern to a member of Staff that Staff person’s response to my expressed concern was gee, maybe but it really is difficult for Staff under the current process to keep track of the many different noticing requirements of the zoning code that Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3t 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 the zoning code has for different types of applications. My response to that is if the different noticing requirements are a major problem then why not just simplify the noticing requirements? Unify the noticing requirements. However, don’t throw out the baby with the bath water and gut the entire process and model it after Individual Review. I have a concern about the noticing that may not have been considered. There has been a point made about the difference here is there is no appeal, it is a request for a hearing and the point is that either the applicant or a neighbor has a tight to a public hearing, to request a public hearing. In this case that public hearing is being suggested to take place at the Planning Commission and really a neighbor or an applicant should not lose the right to request a public hearing simply because that request falls within such a short ten- day period. A neighbor could submit during that initial 21 days something that says I oppose this variance and the Director could go ahead and approve it anyway and that neighbor could be out of town for that ten day window that they have to file the request and loses their chance to request a public hearing. It is not ~ appeal it is a request for the public hearing. So I would suggest that either that window be widened or that neighbor be given the opportunity at the outset to say I oppose this and if you approve it then I am requesting a hearing because I am going to be out of town or away on business or whatever. I have other points I want to make about the ARB and the findings but I guess they are going to be discussed separately and I will presume I will have an opportunity to comment on those separately. As to comments that other people have made, while I don’t generally support. Never mind. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Joy. We have no other speaker request cards so I will close the public heating and bring this item back up to my colleagues on the desk. Does anyone wish to start the discussion? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: It is sort of a question but also a discussion. Did Staff in making these suggestions anticipate that you would end up with more requests for hearings given the fact that people are going to do as Joy suggested if they have a question they are more likely to just ask for a public hearing rather than feel that they have adequate input by whether it is some other form of input and questioning of Staff or more involvement in the process? Mr. Emslie: We feel that a request for heating is akin to an appeal in fact. I needed to be corrected because I erroneously characterized it as such. So we did not see this contributing to any more incidents of requests for a hearing leading to appeals. Commissioner Bialson: One follow on. Do you think it is going to lead to more questioning by the public and interested neighbors of Staff when they get these additional notices and perhaps the change order notification that you are talking about? I am just concerned about Staff time because that was one of the issues that the report by the Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Auditor was addressing and the impact on any process that occurs given the fact that we may not have sufficient Staff resources. Mr. Emslie: We believe that-the increased notice earlier and wider could result in more contact but we think that that contact generally is informational and can help resolve questions and help better understand the changes in the environment in the area. So we don’t see them leading to more controversy but more Staff requests for information and explanation on project. Vice-Chair Cassel: Does anyone else have questions of Staff? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: When I was rereading the ordinance in preparation for tonight I realized that it was geared toward the person who is requesting the hearing was in all cases not referred to as the applicant. Is there a way to change the wording so that the applicant may also request a hearing especially if the Director’s Decision is adverse to the applicant? I believe that is probably intended but the ordinance doesn’t read that way. Mr. Emslie: That is correct. Any interested party can appeal including the applicant should they disagree with a condition or a denial of a project. So that should be reflected in the ordinance and we will make that change. Commissioner Packer: If I may ask another question. I was looking at in the original Staff Report it had a comparison of the total amount of expected time from the time the application is complete to the final whatever. By changing the time period to 21 days you now end up with a time period that is a little bit longer than the existing. Is that the way you counted it as well? Mr. Emslie: We believe that this change although it does add more time to the process we are proposing still results in less time than the current process. The current process of an automatic hearing, the Director’s Hearing notice really can be completed the fastest in 90 days and generally it is a little bit longer than that. So we generally advise applicants that the process could take three to four months. This we believe can cut about four to six weeks off of that process. Chair Griffin: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have a question with regard to the notice period. On here it says notice mailed. What is the effective date? Would it be the date of the letter? The date of the postage that is applied to the letter or the date of the canceling by the post office? Mr. Emslie: It is the postmark date of the mailing constitutes the first day of the notice period. Commissioner Lippert: So the post office sets that date, correct? Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Emslie: That is correct. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then with regard to being able to request a hearing online through the internet would that in fact make it a lot more convenient for people to not have to rush down to the post office to get something in the mail to City Hall. The effective date would be the date it was posted and received at the server at City Hall, correct? So it could be on a weekend. Mr. Emslie: That is correct. We would accept the email as the request for hearing. Chair Griffin: Colleagues, any further questions? Pat. Commissioner Burt: We may have discussed this at our last hearing but I just didn’t recall it. On a prior flowchart there was an oblong bubble here that was an optional applicant and hearing requestor meet to discuss application. I didn’t see that on the current flowchart. So does Staff have any comments? Was that something that we had decided to eliminate or what? Mr. Jon Abendschein, Admin. Analyst: That should be reflected on the current flowchart. It is not and that is a mistake. It is still recommended for inclusion. Commissioner Burt: I honestly couldn’t remember whether it was just my memory that had failed me or what. Okay, great. Second, several of us on the Commission were at the public meeting last Sunday and a lot of the folks who were there spoke about increasing the period between when the first notice was mailed until the Director’s Hearing. The Staffhas responded to that and I think that’s very good but could Staff talk a little bit about why you think it is important to have 21 days between when the notice is mailed and the Director’s Hearing and ten days after the Director’s Decision until the decision would be final unless there is a heating request? I guess on just a gut level I am wondering whether we shouldn’t have a little more time on that second phase and maybe 21 days is more time than we need on the first phase provided there is adequate time on the second. What was the reasoning for that kind of proportionality of those 31 days? Mr. Emslie: We believe that the earlier notice is more constructive and that is the time when - the earlier the conditions can be set and the concerns can be known the more facility Staff has to take those into account in its decision basically. So we want to know about factors as early as possible and missing that because of vagaries of the calendar or vacation schedules would be something that we think would be detrimental to the process. We think a shorter time for appeal is appropriate because at that point there is a better understanding of the project if someone were concerned about it they would have already had a chance to learn more about the project and focus in on a specific issue that may or may not have been addressed to his or her satisfaction. So we are looking at the total of the time being essentially from the two notices being 31 days but the more constructive notice is the first notice and that is where information would be critical to Staff to receive from the community. Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Burt: If you had a follow up on that go ahead. Vice-Chair Cassel: I had a follow up to your first one. Back to that original bubble we had I had some problems with that and I don’t remember whether we were on the same wavelength with that. That had to do with the fact that the way this is worded it only goes back to a tentative discussion or decision if the applicant modifies their proposal. I am concerned that perhaps that is too harsh. It may be that in the discussion the applicant doesn’t need to modify the proposal but there is an agreement between the two parties and would take that item back to the tentative Director. Mr. Abendschein: I think the goal was the agreement between the two parties and if there was agreement between the two parties you could take it back. I don’t think it would require a modification if there was agreement. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I am a little uncomfortable with the language ’agreement between two parties’ because I think it would resolution of the issues rather than because we are talking about compliance not a compromise situation here. So I think we need to be careful of the language that we use actually. Then going back to the question that I posed earlier and that Pat was addressing too if there is ten-day period but we are talking calendar days on this second phase here but it doesn’t count if Staff is closed and that extends the period then we are talking working days. So I am confused how we are actually counting this. Mr. Emslie: We want to get some consistency in the nomenclature of how we count days. Right now the code has differences in business days, calendar days and the term business days has some different legal meanings for different people. So we want to use the same counting period of calendar days with the understanding that there will be days when the public will be not able to deliver or gain information because the City offices will be closed. Those days should not count. So our preference would be to keep it at calendar days if the Commission wants to consider extending that period that it do so in the context of calendar days and not develop a working calendar day difference between the two periods. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: As a follow up to this discussion. There is a minimum of 21 days until a tentative Director’s Decision would be issued. Now couldn’t the Director then realize that after the 21 days you have a decision but let’s say winter holidays are coming up and just delay the mailing of that decision until after those holidays happen so the notice does go out at a time when people are likely to get it. I don’t know how you would codify that unless it would be in your Staff procedures. Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Emslie: We think that that procedure would be best in the Staff procedures rather than codified. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: Just a follow up on this. I am a little confused. I thought I knew what you were saying which was that the day on which a request for a hearing is received is extended if Staff doesn’t have its office open. Is that what you mean or do you mean somewhere along the line the ten days would be modified? Mr. Emslie: No, if the end date of the appeal period ended on a day the City was closed then the appeal period is automatically extended to the next regular day. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: IfI might just attempt a more clear way to state that it would be fourteen calendar days excluding City holidays or City work closure days. Doesn’t that capture it? No? Mr. Emslie: No. The end date of the ten-day period falling on a holiday. Commissioner Burt: I misspoke. I meant to say ten. I jumped ahead to my later proposal. I meant to say ten calendar days excluding City furlough or is it also excluding holidays? Mr. Emslie: To clarify, it is the end date of the appeal period if it ends on a holiday or a day the City is closed then it falls to the next regular business day. So if the appeal period ends on a Friday that the City is closed the next Monday is a valid day to submit the appeal. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I understand this is the way that as a practicing lawyer I can tell you all the time limits generally read when we state calendar days. I think it would be confusing if we had something other than that for any applicant who wasn’t used to our Palo Alto ways to know what the heck was meant by the statute. So there is something to be said for consistency with state law. Chair Griffin: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Technically though on black Fridays the City Hall building is closed but the Development Center is open and appeals could be received at the Development Center or via the mail. Mail is still delivered here the post office isn’t closed on black Fridays, correct? Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Emslie: That is correct. I probably used the wrong example using a black Friday because there is still Staff someone is available, so yes. But if it were a holiday then that would fall to the next day because that would be a day the Development Center is closed. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Rick Ferguson brought up two suggestions and I would be interested in Staff’s comments on them. One would be some sort of simplified change order tracking system and the other whether the email to subscribers, I believe was the intention, should be part of the code. Mr. Emslie: Let me speak to the tracking system. We think that is an idea with merit that we would like to be able to explore. We understood the comment to mean that there would be a predetermined list of items that if changed would need to be alerted to interested parties in some period of time for that information to be received and commented. So that is something that we would like to pursue. Dan may choose to weigh in on this we have a little bit of concern about putting a code requirement in on a new system that we are just going to get offthe ground. Granted we are probably the most connected community on the face of the Earth but still it is not something that has been tested legally in terms of ethicacy of notice and so forth. So I think as we try to do this we would like to keep it more administrative and maybe as we get more experience with it put it as part of the code. Commissioner Burt: Those administrative functions, there were several that you alluded to earlier, those would still be written administrative practices and so these things you think would be better included as written administrative practices? Mr. Emslie: At least initially. I think there may be a day when everything is done this way but we are want to do this incrementally so that we don’t get into a legal bind by some glitch of technology. Chair Griffin: And you did say, if I remember correctly, that you would be posting these procedures on the website so that neighbors would have access to it and would be able to fully understand what it was that your administrative procedures were? Mr. Emslie: That is correct. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: I would like you to respond to two things that came from the public hearing. One was some comments about change order tracking devices or tracking what is going on and whether you already have such a system and how you are doing it and whether it is available to the public. That sounds like a lot but I think you have it. The other one is the Council call-up of four members or two members. Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Emslie: The changes are done, minor changes can be approved at a Stafflevel major changes need to go back through the heating process. But there isn’t a set criterion for what is major and what is minor. We understand the core of the comment which we think as I mentioned has a great deal of merit is to provide a set of standards or things that are sensitive that should be characterized as more or less major changes. So that I think has the value of providing direction to Staff and taking a little bit of the guesswork out of determination of a major or minor change. So we see that as a positive. The call-up provision as I think we have stated in prior instances we are trying to provide some consistency so that we are not juggling a lot of different processes but I think more importantly we are trying to establish the Planning Commission as the deliberative body in this. You are the appointed representatives of the City who charge it is to among your other duties to advise the City Council on matters of land use. The Council has a broader range of responsibilities and the Commission has the ability, the time and the agenda availability and the proper forum we believe to be the deliberative body. So we support the four members as a way to establish that clearly in this new process. We think that this is the proper forum. We think it is a change. Right now it is being done on a one-on- one basis, a hearing officer acting on the behalf of the Director holds a hearing during the day, which is difficult to access. The Commission meets in the evening, it is more accessible to our residents and so we think it is a way of expanding and having a clearer separation between the Staff recommendation and the eventual action in the fact that we have seven members up there representing different points of view and has the ability to really flesh out issues more than can be done on a Stafflevel. So we do think that there are some real benefits to establishing the Planning Commission as the deliberative body in this case. Commissioner Lippert: So if I understand what you are saying that the Planning Commission would make the final decision and that the City Council would in fact affirm that decision. Mr. Emslie: Well you can’t make the final decision per the Charter but the way to have the Commission’s decisions be thought of more credibly if you will is to raise the threshold for the Council to consider that. That does have its downsides as we understand from the many comments that we have received as well as the comments this evening. It is awfully difficult to get things scheduled. It takes a very long time for things to get scheduled on the Council’s agenda because of the press of business and their involvement in many other issues. It is often a big factor in the length of time and part of the Palo Alto process is the fact that virtually everything needs to go to the Council. That can literally add months to a process just waiting to get scheduled on the agenda. Chair Griffin: May I just interject a quick one? I don’t mean to back you into a comer but the comment about Measure J resonated with some of us up here. I am wondering if you had an opportunity to vet this scheme against the Measure J outcome at all? If you didn’t then that’s fine but I am just curious if that ever came up. Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Emslie: Well Dan may wish to discuss that because he did the Charter research and I don’t know if he took into account the recent proposition or measure to amend the Charter to do that but this was done in full consideration of the Charter requirements. Dan? Mr. Sodergren: I didn’t look specifically at that issue but I think it is also important to point out that Measure J consisted of basically two parts. One part was to modify the requirement that only the Council had final decision-making authority. The other part of Measure J was to modify the zoning regulations to make clear that for general planning purposes we can rely on more current state planning and zoning law because right now the way it reads as far as General Plan provisions we have to rely on the law that was in place I think back in the 1960’s. So Measure J was really trying to accomplish two purposes so on the final vote it is unclear as far as what went into that decision-making process there. Chair Griffin: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I just didn’t hear Phyllis’s question answered with regard to why the number four on the City Council having to call-up the item Mr. Emslie: Well, we thought five was too many and three was not enough. I don’t mean to be glib but again in the attempt to provide some consistency the four-member call-up is what is required for an Individual Review to be appealed to the City Council so we were using that as a benchmark that has already been established. So there is some consistency in that. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: In that line can you tell us how effective that has been to have the four-member call-up with City Council? Mr. Emslie: Well there have actually been very few appeals for one in the percentage of all the applications it has been probably less than two percent of the applications have been appealed and of the appeals one has been called up by the City Council and that was the Webster Street project. There was one other that was not an appeal of an IR but it was related to it and that speaks to the relationship between that and HIE because the HIE was appealed and the IR wasn’t. That one was also discussed and there was need to call that up because there was an automatic appeal. So there has only been one that has received the four vote call-up. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I have sort of two points to ask Steve to respond to. First of all I think with Measure J it really helps to understand what was being asked of the public and perhaps to understand the times in which that measure came forward. We were very much community divided on some historical resource matters. I agree it is sort of Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 difficult to sort of read the entrails of the vote at that point in time and try to figure out what the thinking of the public was in voting that Measure down. I appreciate your comments about that. With regard to the four Council Members being required to vote for calling the matter up was it in your thinking there that that higher number might perhaps lead to people who appear before the Planning and Transportation Commission making sure their case is stated in full? It would seem in my way of thinking at least and I am wondering whether it does in yours that we assure a full presentation of all the issues and discussion on a thorough basis in order to get everyone to understand that this might be the final decision and the more that that sense is given the sharper and better the presentation before this Commission might be. Mr. Emslie: Certainly that is in the sense establishing you as a deliberative body. That is a certain by-product of that. It adds some gravity to these proceedings that I think ensures full participation and I think that’s our intent to get all the issue aired out on all sides of the question. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I think has come up recently with the public and I know from my past some years ago my having filed some appeals this was discovered that all of the zoning applications and code applications were not being applied to projects before they went for say for instance Individual Review or variance hearings and that sort of thing. So what is in place now that assures that all of the zoning compliances are satisfied and verified before a hearing would pursue? Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: A zoning plan check is completed before a hearing is scheduled. So that is one of the things that we look at in detail that is one of the things that we analyze before we schedule any hearing. Mr. Emslie: That is really the purpose of the first 30 days, the determination that it is complete, if a project does not comply with zoning standards it is rejected as incomplete and the applicant is told to modify the plan to comply. Chair Griffin: Do you have a follow up? Commissioner Holman: I came on Sunday to hear the dialogue that day and it was stated that on ARB projects that if the ARB takes more than one continuance that Staff may halt the ARB review meaning deny the application and the applicant would have to start over again. I am wondering how that works in real life and real time because there is also why was it continued and what about the use of subcommittees as happens on the ARB sometimes as well? Subcommittees of ARB are used to determine what some might consider minor issues and some might consider major issues and it is not a public hearing. So I guess my concern is rather than continue an item an applicant might and Staff might be willing to in the interest of time refer to an ARB subcommittee and I am Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 !8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 not sure that is what the intention is. So how do we assure that that isn’t what is going to happen? Mr. Emslie: Well again it is an administrative policy that we can apply and the real world is not always as simple as administrative policy would lead us to believe so there are exceptions to every rule. However, the gist of the direction is that and again to establish the Staff review as something that is credible and has gravity we wanted to avoid what we saw as a growing practice of fairly sketchy or ill-conceived projects bypassing Staff essentially, knowing that I am just going to get to the ARB because I know that they are going to give me the time to revise and fix a project. That is a very serious value that the ARB provides. You have one sitting here now. You have five design professionals essentially providing architectural advice to the public. But I don’t think we can afford to do that. I think we want to be able to use the Staff review to get projects in shape that really could be tweaked but not majorly redesigned and that is kind of the purpose of the one continuance policy. That rule of thumb is we tell our Staff do you think that this project could be revised in a one continuance or a 30-day period to satisfy ARB conditions? We ask our Staffto ask themselves and ask their applicants that question. If the answer is no then this is not a project that we should be supporting because it is going to take too much time. We ought to send them back and let them fix this and not take up valuable Board and Commission time and Planning Staff time. So that is kind of the rule. It does not preclude the use of ARB subcommittees those are effective ways to review minor changes not major and the ARB does not nor do we recommend that the ARB start using subcommittees to make major design overhaul changes. They don’t do that. They do that with the full Board. If there were a detail or a color or something that would need to come back that would still be appropriately incorporated into the subcommittee process. Chair Griffin: Then we will go to Bonnie after that. Commissioner Holman: This is kind of a follow up to that. I certainly support the intention of that. Like you said it is the real-time application that I hope we don’t run into trouble. Along those same lines whether it is Planning Commission or ARB or whatever in the interest of having good review and also time effective review has Staff considered something like having a cutoff time after which applicants cannot submit additional information? I know it has happened at Planning Commission, it certainly happened at ARB and even at Council where additional information has been submitted and it really leads to helter-skelter and not effective nor what I think is time efficient review. Mr. Emslie: Maybe Amy would like to chime in as former ARB liaison. We give applicants a deadline of the packet delivery. You have to get us something in general you back that up in a couple of days so that we can take a look at it and make sure that Staff understands it. We advise applicants they need to get us something the day before the packet goes out so that it is sure to get out and fully distributed to the Commission or the Board whoever the body might be. We always tell them that that way the Commission or Board has it and they can consider it. If you bring something to the hearing you really Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 run the risk of not having your changes be fully appreciated and generally run the risk of having that item continued. If it were a major change Staff would certainly request a sufficient amount of time to be able to incorporate that. If someone decides to disagree with us and submit it anyway after the packet goes out we do warn them off of that. But it is still a public process and if somebody wanted to show some revisions they are certainly able to do that we don’t have to consider them. Ms. French: I will chime in if I can. I am trying to get tough and not have people.submit the day before a packet goes out. I need to be able to provide the planners enough time to prepare a report, to analyze what is being submitted so we don’t in any way want people to submit the day before a packet goes out. So that is an administrative policy again and it doesn’t need to be put in any ordinance but it is something we can get tough on so we can allow our Staff the resources and time that they need. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a question or maybe a series of questions on the optional meeting when the hearing is requested after the tentative Director’s Decision. I am trying to visualize how this would work and ask you whether you consider putting some timeframes around that process so that there would be some kind of certainty on the part of both the hearing requestor and/or the applicant as to how long that process is going to take. So the way it works is that somebody requests a hearing and you can say hold offa second would you like to have an optional meeting with everybody to discuss what could be done before we schedule a heating and would that meeting be held within ’x’ number of days after the request? Then would there be another ’x’ number of days before it is decided whether or not a hearing could be requested again? I was confused how that was going to happen. Mr. Abendschein: I think the goal of this really was to provide an option as opposed to layout a mandatory process for people to go through. There are a few different ~vays you could envision it going. If a hearing were requested certainly an applicant would be informed of that and at that point the applicant would have the opportunity to talk to the hearing requestor. If there could be some sort of resolution of the issues then that would be to the advantage of both parties. Of course if one party felt like the other one was dragging it out or that it was taking too long there is nothing preventing Staff from simply scheduling the heating. It would be at the option of both parties. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: I have a follow up question on that. I have a similar concern and as I think about it it may not be necessary to put a timeframe for conducting the optional hearing provided we have a timeframe for when the PTC heating would occur after a heating request is made. The optional meeting if it was going to occur would have to occur within that timeframe. But I don’t see anything here that stipulates the time from when a hearing is requested until the Planning Commission must conduct its hearing. Michael says it is in the text as 30 days. Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Grote: I believe it says 30 days for an exempt project and 45 days for a non-CEQA exempt project. Commissioner Burt: So would it be Staff’s intention to modify this flowchart since it is going to be part of the official ordinance to include those timelines as well as the existence of the optional meeting? I think then if we have that stipulated then basically the parties have that long to avoid a hearing if they so choose. Chair Griffin: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: One last question for Dan. Legally is there any reason why the parties involved could not be limited when it comes to Council call-up? In other words, only those people that have participated in either the Planning Commission heating or have filed some sort of document with the City that is a public record could they not be limited to those people? Mr. Sodergren: As far as those people speaking to the item when it reaches the Council? Commissioner Lippert: Correct. Mr. Soderaren: Well I think there is a practical concern because there are two types of comments. We have to allow people to comment for purposes of the Brown Act but you could limit it for due process reasons just to those that spoke at the Planning Commission. But it really becomes hard because they still have a Brown Act right to speak. So how do you determine which is which? So it becomes a practical difficulty really so that is why I think it would be rather difficult to limit it only to those as far as for the formal record because you will always have those people speaking. Commissioner Lippert: The intent here is not to limit people’s comments here but the intent here is to make sure that those points are made in advance of the Council meeting at the Planning and Transportation Commission and that those comments get on record. Mr. Soder~ren: I think that when it comes to the City Council and they want to call the matter up they would always have the option of calling it up and simply relying on the hearing testimony of the Planning Commission. That would be one of the options they would have. Another option they would have would be to reschedule in its entirety the public heating and reopen it. So that would really be up to the Council on whether or not they wanted to limit the hearing to what occurred at the Planning Commission or whether they wanted to reopen the public hearing again. Commissioner Lippert: One other minor follow up on that. When we do have Director’s Hearings it states very clearly that the public is reminded that they must make their comments known or get their comments on the record otherwise when it comes to any legal proceedings they may forfeit those rights. How doest that sort of fit into this? Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Sodergren: That fits in because the Council in making their decision is going to have to rely on evidence that was deduced at a public hearing. So that gets back to what I was saying before. One option they would have is they could on the very night that it was on the Council’s Consent Calendar remove it from the Consent Calendar, discuss it and either confirm the recommendation of the Planning Commission or they could go the other way, they could modify it, they could reverse it as long as their decision was based on the evidence that was received at the Planning Commission hearing because it would be basically closed. If they wanted to delve into it more, if they thought that that was insufficient and they wanted additional testimony for the record, again people would have the opportunity to speak on it for Brown Act purposes, but that testimony wouldn’t be part of the formal record. If they wanted additional testimony to become part of the formal record they would then have to renotice it and have a new hearing. But like I said, people would be able to comment on it for purposes of the Brown Act. There would have to be that legal distinction and their decision would have to be based on the minutes from the hearing and the Planning Commission meeting. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: Who has the right to make the appeal? Mr. Soder~en: Right now the way it is worded in the ordinance any person including the applicant can request a hearing. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: So could Staff clarify, I think I understand the process but I want to make sure I do. If the Council elects to call-up an item and if they elect then to reopen the hearing then are the only parties that would have the standing of an appellant or a requestor of the hearing be those parties that had requested the hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission. Can there be new parties that would have that standing that would appeal the PTC ruling on separate issues from what was originally brought to the PTC? Mr. Sodergen: Once there was a Planning Commission hearing it would automatically go to the Council. Again, if the Council wanted to reopen the public hearing they would have to remove it from the agenda and direct Staff to go back out and renotice the whole thing. Once they did that it would basically be an open public hearing. It wouldn’t be limited to any particular person it would be an open public hearing. It would be a de novo hearing. Commissioner Burt: When we have appellants right now we give particular standing for presentations to the appellant. Are you saying that that practice wouldn’t apply in this circumstance? Mr. Soder~en: Well I would imagine for procedural purposes we would probably let the applicant speak first and maybe Steve can go into that in a little more detail but legally I Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 don’t think there would be any distinction. Everybody would have the right to offer their testimony at the hearing. Commissioner Burt: Then I presume you are then saying that the scope of what could be essentially addressed at the hearing is not limited to what was addressed at the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Sodergren: That’s right. It would be a new hearing on the application in its entirety. Commissioner Burt: Legally we could not keep that scope limited to what was the original basis for the hearing? Mr. Sodergen: I think legally you may be able to but from a practical standpoint I think it is very difficult because as you know the projects and the issues are to a large degree interrelated and it is hard to segregate out various issues. That is why usually when you have a appeal hearing under the existing regulations or the Council wants a new hearing we always say that that’s a de novo hearing on the application itself and we don’t get into trying to segregate out separate issues. Commissioner Burt: I thought that when there was this recent appeal of an IR that there were issues brought by the appellant that were outside the scope of the IR review and that those were ruled to be not pertinent to that hearing. I am just wondering how different this situation is from that one. Mr. Sodergren: I think in that case the reason why it was a little different is because the project had numerous applications for Architectural Review and for other approvals. The scope of the Planning Commission didn’t include the Architectural Review findings. The only findings that were the scope of the Planning Commission were the IR findings. So really when you have a de novo hearing it is the same thing. You have to look at the scope of the findings that is within your scope. So I think in that case that you brought up I think the reason why we segregated it out in that case was because those ARB findings weren’t within the Planning Commission’s scope of review. Commissioner Burt: The reason I wanted to explore this in more depth was because one of the original principles that we had discussed when we were looking at this process was that we wanted folks to have one shot at it. It sounds to me like we would be not merely allowing an appellant to contest the Planning Commission recommendation if they had enough Council Members to have a call-up but opening this whole thing wide open again. To me that is a different issue. I would like to know more about what the options are whether it can be limited to the issues that were raised initially. If there is no new information that has been presented but it is just after we went through this reasonable timeline andI am ready to propose to give a little more time to allow applicants to review it but not to then open up Pandora’s box to any issue from any party at that time. Mr. Soder,m’en: Well, legally I think you could limit it just to the Planning Commission hearing. I think it becomes a policy decision on whether or not the Council gets to Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 reopen it if they feel that additional testimony is needed or they want an additional hearing for other reasons. That is a policy determination on whether or not that should be allowed. Legally as long as we have a hearing and a record at the Planning Commission that the Council can rely on to make its decision that is basically all that is required. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: Just a follow up to that. Do you or Steve or any other member of the Planning Staff here know of any situation where that has been done? I have been going back to your ’from a practical standpoint.’ Have you ever seen a council whether in Palo Alto or anywhere limit their review? I take it that is a no from the shaking of your head? Mr. Sodergr, en: No. Mr. Emslie: I have never been in a jurisdiction that has not had a de novo hearing in front of the council. Commissioner Bialson: Okay, so what you are saying is that it is legally possible but never has happened as far as any of you know. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Commissioners I am wondering if we could wrap up our questions here. I don’t mean to cut off anybody that has got more but if we could eventually get to the point where we are dealing with proposals one, two, three and four of the Staff Report. Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a clarifying question. What was left for us here tonight asks for us to recommend the timelines and notice requirements shown in flowchart in Attachment A. I just answered my mvn question. Well, it says to be incorporated in the standard Staff review process set forth in the March 3 ordinance. Actually, I haven’t answered my question. So is Staff referring to Attachment A in what was left for us tonight or Attactmaent A that was in our earlier Staff Report which is broader scope than this it seems? Mr..Emslie: The Attachment that is left at places and is reflected on the screen is the recommendation. Commissioner Holman: So we are not commenting then on the Attachment A that was in our March 3 packet that deals with ARB minor and major review flow? Mr. Abendschein: The Commission isn’t limited in its comments but the Attachment A we were referring to was this one. The Architectural Review illustrations in the March 24, the one left at places tonight. The March 3 Attachment A contained a map of ARB processes but those are illustrative. The ARB processes are the same as currently in the code. Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: Thanks for the clarification. Chair Griffin: Bonnie, did you have a wrap up? Commissioner Packer: I was just going to refer back to some questions I asked when we first looked at this I guess it was March 3. I asked whether it would be appropriate to include in the notices that go out to people the actual findings that need to be made in the context of the variance application, in the context of the particular conditional use permit application. Depending on the zone that the conditional use is in there might be different findings that are required. So I asked whether that would help the public in understanding the scope of review that the Director would be using to be making his or her decision and the scope of review if it went to a public hearing at the Commission level and!or the Council that that would be the scope of review. So the people knew that these are the findings it is not just review to see if it is nice but see if it meets the findings set out in the code. I don’t know if that would help but that is what I was asking if it could be done and if that could be specified in the ordinance as well. Mr. Emslie: Again it certainly could be specified but I think it could be equally as effective as a part of the regular practice to include that as part of the notice. We have no objection to that we think it would be helpful. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I would like to end our questioning too and get on to trying to make a motion here but I notice that we have present in the audience a distinguished member of the City Staff who has been very involved in the whole process of trying to get this streamlining in effect. I was just wondering if Sharon has any comments because I notice that she has had some body gestures that we might want to know about. Ms. Sharon Erickson: I am afraid I am a little more expressive sometimes than I should be. I should be able to keep a straighter face. I would like to take the oppommity to express my support for Staff’s recommendations on the whole. Now you all are better equipped than I to deal with some of the details of this. That is one of the reasons why I recommended that more power devolved to the Planning Commission not to the City Auditor and to keep it where it belongs with the people who have the time and patience to go through the details of this with you and your Staff. I do want to remind you that the issue that I brought up was that I found that almost unanimous a~eement that we needed to streamline this process. We needed to speed it up. The amount of time that things are taking was of critical importance to all the different parties that we talked to so anything you can do is deeply appreciated. I am happy to answer any questions. Chair Griffin: Thank you Sharon for your comments. I think before we get into our more detailed discussions and do the motions let’s take a break and if we could be back in eight minutes that would be appreciated. Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 We are going to reconvene our meeting here. I have a question for Staff. Did I understand you to say that the timeline in Attachment A is going to be included as part of the ordinance? Ms. Grote: The timeline will be included as part of the ordinance. The chart as you see it before you in Attachment A and at your desks will be in the procedural manual. So the timeframes will be in the ordinance but the chart will be in the manual. Chair Griffin: The timeframes at the moment are not in there. Ms. Grote: That’s right the timeframes are not in the draft and we will include them. Where the timeframes have been published is in a memo that came from the Planning Division regarding performance measures. So they have been made public but they are not in the ordinance draft. We will include them in the ordinance draft. Chair Griffin: You also said that you would modify the graphic by putting a balloon in there having to do with the optional applicant meeting with the hearing requestor in order to resolve issues. Ms. Grote: We will do that and we will also add the timeframe for the hearings themselves, for the Plarming Commission hearing, again it would be 30 days for a project that is exempt from CEQA and 45 days for a project that is not exempt from CEQA meaning there is a mitigated negative declaration involved. Chair Griffin: We have the four proposals in front of us from the SR dated tonight and we have spent a lot of time already discussing proposal number one having to do with the process changes. I am wondering we can divide this up into four different motions actually. Commissioner Burt: Michael can you clarify what you are referring to as the four proposals? These? Is that what you are talking about? Chair Griffin: I am thinking of the ones on the March 24. Mr. Emslie: They are the ones on the screen. Chair Griffin: So we have dueling proposals here. Steve if we use the four that are on the screen for our motions will that accomplish the task? The answer is yes. Then going to item number one, do we have, Annette? Commissioner Bialson: You were going to ask for a motion? I am ready to make that motion. I understand that those items are what appear on the first page of our Supplemental Staff Report? Mr. Emslie: They are the same. Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Bialson: Is it okay if I make a motion at this point, Mr. Chair? Chair Griffin: Please. MOTION Commissioner Bialson: If we want to divide this up to deal with the numbered paragraphs then I would make a motion in support of item number one. I don’t think it needs to be restated because I would be going along with that. I think the one change is that I want to make sure it is clear that we want that optional meeting bubble to appear in the ordinance. I think that is something that the entire Commission spoke to and would like to have. Was there anything else that Staff recalls that we discussed at this point that you would want to have in the motion? Mr. Emslie: We believe the other items werePart of the administrative and we have noted those and included those and will include those in the implementation phase of this. Commissioner Bialson: So that would be my motion to move this item number one and to have the only change be that the optional meeting item be included. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Is Staff comfortable with having the optional meeting included in the ordinance? I think that is the question. Mr. Emslie: Yes we are. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. SECOND Vice-Chair Cassel: I will second it. I am interested in a friendly amendment. In the 14 day instead of the ten day notice that Pat mentioned earlier. I had some of the same rough spots that other members of the Commission ran into when they asked the questions that the 14 calendar days seemed to be a more reasonable period of time. Commissioner Bialson: I would accept that amendment. Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Chair Griffin: Clarification? Yes, Karen. Commissioner Holman: I am admittedly quite tired tonight but at the same time I am confused because if we are looking at voting on only number one, the timeline and the notifications are number three. So I am confused at what we are moving right now. First let’s get that clarified. Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Bialson: My understanding is that the timelines and the notice requirements would be in the ordinance and that it is the flowchart that would be put into the standard Staff Review process. Maybe Staff could clarify that for us. Mr. Emslie: What you are doing is combining motions one and three into one if you incorporate the timelines from the Attachment in your motion for number one. That would take care of that. Commissioner Bialson: Aren’t those timelines in the ordinance as well? Mr. Emslie: They will be. I understood the motion to include the timelines and the Attachment to be part of that. So if that motion were to carry then number three would be incorporated into that. Commissioner Bialson: But it would also be saying, and I am just trying to get this clear for both Karen and myself, that item number three then would essentially say that the flowchart not be in the ordinance but be in the standard Staff review. Is that correct? Mr. Emslie: That is correct, yes. Commissioner Bialson: Okay. So Karen I think that clarifies it but you have to tell me. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: That clarifies part of it but I guess part of my difficulty with number one and moving that I almost think that needs to be looked at last or maybe it doesn’t need to be looked at. Let me go here, there are several things that are changes in the ordinance that are recommended that are not this Commission’s purview. I am very uncomfortable moving approval of anything that we haven’t discussed and isn’t our purview. So that is one difficulty I have with number one. Further if we move number one as it is written here we are also affirming number four, which we have not discussed yet which has to do with variances. While it is broken out here number one the way it is written says, as I read it, that we are approving everything on this page. I don’t think that is what we are intending to do and maybe I am in error on that but that is what my understanding is of what number one would accomplish and that is not what I am interested in doing right now. Mr. Emslie: If it helps your discussion then start with number four and work your way up to the final decision. That would I think address the concern that I am hearing. Commissioner Holman: Would Staff also like to comment on the fact that there are many changes in the ordinance that are indicated here that are not our purview and I don’t think we should be excluding those things. Mr. Emslie: Could you give me an example? Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: Yes, fences for instance and some of the Architectural Review I don’t think are our purview. I am open to being wrong here. Mr. Soder~en: I think because it is a procedural change to the Zoning Ordinance I think to that extent that those procedural changes are within the scope of the Commission. We are taking it basically to the Commission based on the procedures contained in this. Chair Griffin: I think we will go back to the motion that is on the floor. We did have a second to it and we had someone propose a friendly amendment, is that right? Would you like to state your friendly amendment? Vice-Chair Cassel: That we change the ten-day notice to a 14-day notice to appeal a Director’s Decision and the official notice date of the appeal to 14 days from ten days. Commissioner Packer: Phyllis, could you say ’request a hearing’ so we could be correct instead of using the word ’appeal?’ Vice-ChairCassel: Yes, sorry. Request a heating. So that the notice instead of being ten days there would be 14 calendar days using standard legal use of those terms. Chair Griffin: Will the maker accept that? Commissioner Bialson: Yes, I will accept it and I would like to restate from our discussion that we just had it seems that the motion would essentially incorporate all four points. Perhaps not number two but one, three and four. Mr. Emslie: If this motion were to pass then you have incorporated all four points into the one motion. If there is disagreement about any elements of that then I suggest you start from four and end up with number one. Commissioner Bialson: I don’t think that is necessary. I think we can incorporate all four into the motion and with the modification from what is stated on the Staff Report, Phyllis’s friendly amendment with regard to the 14 day period replacing the ten day period and also with the addition of the optional meeting bubble. That would be my motion. Vice-Chair Cassel: That is agreeable with me. Chair Griffin: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for Annette with regard to your motion. The optional meeting at what level or station would that happen? Would that happen with the Director? Would that happen with the Staff person who is responsible for shepherding the project through the process? Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Emslie: It would be the as designated person, the person responsible for the process. Commissioner Bialson: That is correct. Chair Griffin: Do you wish to speak further on the motion, your discussion or opinion? Karen. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a couple of friendly amendments. Would you consider I think Staff said they would do this but the flowchart would be fixed to reflect the time between the time that the hearing is requested and the time that a hearing is before the Planning and Transportation Commission, the 30 days and the 45 days? Is that included in your motion? Commissioner Bialson: That would be agreeable. Commissioner Packer: Also would you agree to have the ordinance language clarified to ensure that another person who could request a hearing would include the applicant as well? Commissioner Bialson: Yes, I see that really as a procedural thing and I would accept that. I assume the seconder would as well? Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes. Chair Griffin: Was that all, Bonnie? Commissioner Packer: Yes. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I am going to ask for a couple of things too. I am going to ask for number four regarding variances to be excluded from this motion because we have not discussed it all this evening. So I am going to ask as a friendly amendment to exclude number four, the discussion of variances, to be held separately. Chair Griffin: Does the maker wish to accept that? Commissioner Bialson: I would accept it. Chair Griffin: Seconder? Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes. Commissioner Holman: Thank you, I really appreciate that. Additionally, the ordinance right now references 300 feet and I think Staff had suggested a change to 600 feet but the ordinance says three. Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Emslie: That is in the chart so by incorporating that chart you have already done that. All the timeframes and notice radius. Commissioner Holman: Okay. Also I would like to recommend another friendly amendment that the call-up change from four votes to two votes by Council. Commissioner Bialson: That is not agreeable to me for various reasons that we can continue to discuss but I think I have made my feelings on this known. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Procedurally that seems like that is something we may want to wade into. What would be our best way to address that without bogging down the main motion? Chair Griffin: Say that again. Commissioner Burt: Well then if I might go first on a couple less controversial items or at least to throw a couple other items into the ring here. Less controversial I think is there was a discussion about some recommendations that Rick Ferguson made on administrative practices or standard Staff review process I guess is the way we are describing it having to do with the change order tracking and the emailing. Were those things that Staff planned on including or was just going to consider including? Mr. Emslie: For one I don’t think they warrant being part of the ordinance. So we will take those, we think they are ideas that we will incorporate into our procedures but we don’t need a motion from the Commission to do that. Commissioner Burt: So they are not part of this standard Staff review process? They are in another category? Mr. Emslie: Yes, they are part of our administrative oversight of this and how we implement it. We think we can figure out how to do that. Commissioner Burt: That sounds good. Then Lee had brought up this issue of if it goes to the Council it seems like there are three options. They could keep it as their discretion whether to reopen a hearing. They could adopt as part of the ordinance a standard practice to not reopen hearings or a standard practice to reopen hearings. So that to me is a very substantive issue but one first it was brought up and as it was discussed I realized it was something significant that we really hadn’t heard much from the public on and that ultimately I think that’s a decision that the Council is probably going to want to make for themselves just as the quantity of Council Members for the call-up. I think they will want to reserve those kinds of Council discretion issues for themselves anyway. We may be making our own recommendations to them on it but my sense is that is going to be their call. So I wanted to toss out to the Commission what are our thoughts on this issue Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 that Lee raised? Do we want to make a recommendation to Council on it? Do we want to simply recommend that Staff provide a little more discussion of those alternatives to Council when they go forward and address this and not attempt to make a recommendation tonight? I think it is substantive and we ought to talk a little bit about how we want to tackle that. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate your perspective. I guess I am taking a rather practical view of this in saying that I would rather not address that situation because the process that we have had in Palo Alto for a number of years and which we all seem to be tied to is one where we have revisited things de novo and to try to change that process I think politically would be very difficult to do by any Council. It would lead to confusion. It is a situation in which as an attorney I have seen it be confusing to attorneys as to what issues they can raise on appeal and what is limited and what is not limited as to the questions and arguments that can be brought. So I am very concerned about giving Council any indication that we want them change so many things at one point in time. This is a process that they will have the oppommity to change should they wish to but I would rather not put on Staff the need to go into what alternatives are available to them. I would rather have a very focused discussion by Council as to what they are going to do with regard to how they take up these matters. Commissioner Burt: So just to clarify, I wasn’t suggesting that we go back and revisit the questions I had for Dan earlier on the scope of the appeal essentially. I was talking about the issue of whether we want to make a recommendation to Council on whether they routinely would retain the discretion to reopen hearings or not. The practice currently would be that it is a discretionary practice by them. If we agree with continuing that then we could either not comment on it as part of our motion or include it as part of our motion. Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate what you are saying and I think that that is probably within the purview of the Council and not so much us as advisors with regard to transportation and land use matters to bring to their attention. I think it is something that will be brought up probably by Council Members and Staff in their discussion of this matter. So I don’t think it is an area I particularly want to go into. I would rather have the question presented in as dilute a way as possible for Council to decide how important it is to try to make the Planning and Transportation Commission hearing on matters be as important a hearing as possible for both sides of an issue to know exactly how important it is and to rally all their forces, all their people, their arguments and energy towards that one hearing. I think that Council can then go on after it has had some experience with this and change the rules and its procedures. Again, I don’t think we need to address that at this point. Chair Griffin: Tell me, are any of my colleagues wishing to pursue this or have we discussed this item sufficiently? Bonnie. Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Packer: I have a question for you Annette. Does that mean that your motion does not include a recommendation one way or another about the number of Council Members who can remove this from the Consent Calendar? That is delineated in the Draft Ordinance. What is part of your motion? Commissioner Bialson: I am sticking with the four people on the Council being required to take this up. I think in only that way are we giving the message to both applicants and those who are opposing the application to rally their forces and to finally tell people both those who are against a project and those who are for a project that this is the one hearing that they really need to attend.. I think if we reduce it down to two Council Members we remove from the people who are asking for as many supporters and as many opponents to come in the argument that this is an important that this is an important meeting. We will go on as we always have been with things going to Council and having that be seen as the final hearing. We have to give a strong message that we are trying to make this Commission more valuable to Council and that Council needs to address a whole other range of issues beyond the land use ones but it must retain the authority to get involved if we for whatever reason go somewhere that they don’t want us to. I think having four Council Members have to bring up the matter off the Consent agenda is doing that. I think doing any less does not change what we have now. Chair Griffin: Pat. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Commissioner Burt: Well that was a long discussion of a motion that wasn’t on the floor so I will make the motion on the floor as a substitute motion. My substitute motion would be to incorporate all the items that are in the main motion with the exception of the modification that the call-up be reduced to two Council Members. SECOND Commissioner Holman: Second. Chair Griffin: That ha~ been seconded. Does the maker wish to speak to his motion? Commissioner Burt: Yes. I would simply say that we have many aspects to this change in the ordinance streamlining. We are in agreement on virtually everything and the number of Council Members that is required for a call-up whether it ends up being two or four or three is hardly the only issue that is part of the streamlining process. Reducing it to two would not invalidate all the other positive parts of this. The other thing that I would say on the subject is that this is for variances and I think that what we have now of four Council Members to take it off for an IR and I think for an HIE seems appropriate. That should be a higher threshold to take it off of a Consent Calendar item than should a variance. We had some discussions from members of the public about Measure J. Measure J did not explicitly address this but it certainly was a recent voice of the public on how far they were comfortable with going on delegating some critical decisions from Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 elected officials to appointed officials. I simply think that a lower threshold on the call- up strikes a better balance than this four-member threshold. That is the reason for my recommendation. Chair Griffin: Karen, would you like to speakto your second? Commissioner Holman: No, I think enough has been said about all of that except that I do have a couple of friendly amendments still to add as I discover. One of those is for clarification sake, and Staff may want to weigh in on this, to include in the ordinance that the postmark date is the start of the counting otherwise it is left a little bit unclear. That has come up here tonight. Would the maker accept that? Commissioner Burt: No problem. Commissioner Holman: The other is the more I look at this there is more discussion Sunday and again tonight about all the conditions being included on the notification. There are several things that are already included in the notification and I was wondering if the maker would accept having those included? Commissioner Burt: That includes what Bonnie had talked about I think and a few other discussions. Commissioner Packer: What I talked about was having a clarification of the scope of the findings that need to be made for the particular application. Commissioner Holman: So is it felt then that that’s already included in the motion? Commissioner Burt: I believe so but I have no problem with the inclusion. I think it was clear to Staff and that’s fine. Chair Griffin: Any other friendly amendments? Bonnie, did you have some discussion? Commissioner Packer: Yes. I have been going back and forth on this issue and I think I am going to support Piit’s motion for these two types of applications, for the variances and the conditional use permits but would like to a four Council Members for call-up for items that come up in the R-1 context, the HIEs and the IR and there is also this neighborhood preservation thing. That is probably an R-1. The reason is the conditional use permits and variances are often much more complex and involve especially a conditional use permit involve a change in a neighborhood that could be affecting a number of people in ways that a request for an encroachment into a setback would not. So they really are not the same kinds of applications and it is valid to lower the bar for these kinds of things, a conditional use permit and a variance for it usually comes up for a larger building as opposed to just a change in an R-1 development. That does make sense to me to lower the bar. Is it true that these ordinance changes are going to be reviewed in a year and that we could look again and see how it has worked in the year? This incremental change is not really a delegation of authority to the Plarming Commission but Page 36 1 slowly putting more validity toward discussions and our decisions. So when we reach the 2 HIE discussion next month we could recolnmend that it be a four person call-up for that 3 and a two person call-up for these variances and conditional use permits and see how it 4 goes. Maybe next year we end up with four for all of these processes as we evaluate it. 5 Those are the reasons that I would support Pat’s motion. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: I believe we should keep it consistently at the four. We can still do that and go back and review it in a year. The Measure J gave the City Council the right to make decisions upon what the Planning Commission would then be assigned to do. It was an extremely broad ordinance. I even found it hard to go out and people would say to me well, what are you going to be doing and I couldn’t tell them. So I am-not so sure that this was turned down just on the basis that we couldn’t do anything and have any authority to make any decisions but rather that the scope that was proposed was so broad I believe as Annette does that this provides some consistency by having the rules the same and that I believe that we have a very sensitive City Council where issues are controversial and when there is any question that they will bring them up. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I agree with Phyllis with regard to trying to determine that the failure of Measure J to pass somehow indicated that the public did not want us to become a more important decision-maker in this process. I also am looking to easing somewhat the burden on our citizenry. It is not always just the developer or the individual asking for a variance that wants that variance. There are supporters, public supporters, for some of these items. To ask the public to come out several times is not beneficial. What you are going to have is those people who are fighting something willing to come out but not the supporters willing to come out. So I do think it dilutes our input and if you put that number at two yes I agree that Council is ultimately going to make the decision but the message that is given to people is we are not going to be making a determination that should be of importance to them to appear and support or fight against. Everybody as Sharon mentioned has asked for the process that we put these projects through to be reduced not just for the applicant’s purposes but also for those who are supporting or against the applicant. I think that we would accomplish that better by staying with the four. So I will not be able to vote for this substitute motion. Chair Griffin: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Well, I think that the operative word here is to try to streamline the process a little bit and make it go a little bit smoother here. What I am looking for is not ways to dilute the process but keep it from becoming bogged down in bureaucracy. I don’t think it really makes very much of a difference whether there are four people on Council voting to hear the item or whether there are two people that ask to have it pulled. I think really what it comes down to is whether it is going to be a retread and rehash of what has been discussed before this body in terms of our deliberations and the Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 recommendations that are forwarded to Council. I think that with that it needs to have something said with regard to the Council’s options with regard to different volumes or complexities to those hearings that they would be having. So if two Council Members were to say let’s pull this item and have it heard but it was not a complete hearing I don’t think that that.would hinder the process. I think that if four Council Members said well let’s have this thing heard and they decided to have a full hearing it can ultimately derail the project and hold the applicant’s project hostage. Chair Griffin: I like many of my colleagues have really agonized over this item and I have flip-flopped back and forth between the two and the four. I voted against Measure J. My heart goes that direction but I in the final analysis have got to support Sharon Erickson’s effort here at trying to streamline our process. It is like we have two locomotives, we have the Palo Alto process coming one direction and the desireto streamline it on the other. I am not happy with having to make this decision but I think I got to go along with what we are trying to accomplish with Sharon’s report. The only way to support that I think is to stay with the four. Consequently I will not be supporting the substitute motion. I think we are now ready for a vote but it looks like we have a comment. Pat. Commissioner Burt: I just want to respond to a couple of the comments and concerns. First whether Council decides to go with two or four members that would pull it off the Consent Calendar doesn’t change the whole streamlining process. You still have all the streamlining which was the primary objective. Then a secondary objective as part of that was to increase the authority of the Planning Commission in this and it going to Consent Calendar does that as well. That is a fundamental change from what has gone before. The only question is how many Council Members does it take to get off the Consent Calendar. I think it is a real exaggeration to think that all of this process is undermined if either we or the Council themselves decides to have two Council Members pull it off the Consent Calendar. We still have all the streamlining that has been accomplished. Just for clarification, I thought I had been clear on it but I did not indicate nor believe that Measure J spoke explicitly on this subject. So any misunderstandings that that’s what I was implying I want to correct that. I think it did indicate and what I said at the time is that it did indicate concerns in the community about going too far in that delegation process. So it shed light on this issue and validates this discussion that we are having and that was the point I made on Measure J and not beyond that. Commissioner Bialson: I could say something in response with regard to just the issue of not affecting the streamlining. I think the one item that really throws a monkey wrench into the process is having a Council hearing on the matter or the belief that a Council hearing is more likely than not. That is when we start having the huge delays. So I think what we need to do is try to convince both parties to request that this matter go before Planning Commission and then on to Council that it is going to be a high hurdle that they have to get over. That high hurdle is something that will give comfort to people knowing that yes this matter is finally going to get resolved within a reasonable period of time. That said, let’s vote. Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ...3,.3 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I didn’t even speak to my second so give me just a minute here. I do support the two and I supported the two when we discussed it previously too. As a matter of fact I supported two for Individual Review when that came before this Commission before I was on it. For me it is not a matter of a more or less likelihood. I don’t think we can forecast that. Whether the Council is more or less likely whether it takes two votes or four votes. I am looking at this as two votes is a more fair way and level of agreement by Council Members in order to hear projects. As Bonnie pointed out, that often times variances are quite sigrtificant in scope and same with CLIPs. SO I am not looking at this as a more or less likely that Council will pull them off if it takes two or four but what is a more fair way for an applicant or an appellant to get their issues heard. MOTION FAILED (3-3-1-0 Commissioner Lippert abstained) Chair Griffin: It is my understanding Staff that this ordinance is going to come back again for review? No? I think we are ready have the question here. All those in favor of Pat’s substitute motion say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) With an abstention we are three and three. MOTION Commissioner Burt: In the interest of expediency I would move then that we move everything else that we were in agreement upon, move it as a motion to Council and allow them to decide this other issue. We have stated for the record that we have a split vote on the subject and go on and get it done. O~herwise it looks like we have a stalemate and I don’t see what that serves. Chair Griffin: Is that acceptable to Staff?. Are there any complications with that? Mr. Emslie: No that is essentially, moved forward with no recommendation on that segxnent. Commissioner Bialson: I need a clarification with regard to the amendments that were suggested by Karen which were not directed toward my motion. So can I ask again what those amendments were? Chair Griffin: Yes. Can you restate them, Karen? Commissioner Holman: I want to add the date that the postmark that’s the date that the clock starts running and also that conditions be included on the notification which probably were included in the scope comment that Bonnie had made earlier too in her amendment. Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Grote: IfI could just clarify, I think you mean findings should be included in the notice not conditions but the findings, which are the scope of what the review would then be. Commissioner Holman: Fair warning, you will have keep me c!ear all the rest of the night probably. Commissioner Bialson: I have a concern with regard to the use of the postmark. I think that the law determines what mailing is and for us to write an ordinance that may fly in the face of some change in the future with regard to what the state law is is something that I am not willing to do. Maybe Dan can weigh in here. Mr. Sodergren: Well usually the person sending out the notice, I don’t know what the practice is here maybe you can elaborate on that, declares when they actually put it in the mail. Ms. French: Our practice, if I may, is to send a letter to ourselves and we then use the postmark date that comes to us as the date. So that is the practice and that of course could be written in a standard operating procedure or whatever we are calling it. Commissioner Bialson: But it is not in the ordinance and what I am hearing from Karen is she wants it in the ordinance, is that correct? Commissioner Holman: Yes, just so that it is clear to the public when they are reading this because the public has, this is the first I have heard of this I don’t object to the procedure but how does anyone know? Mr. Emslie: We it would certainly be part of the posting of the procedures on the website. This would be included. Ms. French: Furthermore we put it on the letters of action that it is from the postmark date. Commissioner Burt: So Karen if it ~vas adopted as part of these written Staff practices, I forget how we described them, is that acceptable? Commissioner Holman: Yes, I guess so, yes. Commissioner Bialson: So that amendment is being withdrawn? Commissioner Burt: It is modified that it is going to be part of the written Staff practices because I think within our overall motion we had several things that were ageed that were going to be included as part of Staff practices or is that just a side ageement by Staff?. Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Emslie: There are a number of items that were discussed that we will incorporate into our administrative practice. Chair Gfiffi : All right so that was withdrawn. Commissioner Bialson: That’s fine then. Commissioner Holman: For clarification, it is not withdrawn it is taken off the motion to be included in the ordinance but it is added to the Staff procedures. Chair Griffin: Correct. Now at this stage you made a motion that we were going to move the item number one with the exception of the specific detail on how many Council Members would be required to call the item off of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Burt: I don’t have any preference whether it is the substitute motion absent that or the primary motion absent it either way including the friendly amendments that we have just discussed but then does it really encompass items one through three? Is that correct? Mr. Emslie: Yes, you did reserve the variance findings to a subsequent discussion. Chair Griffin: Do I have a second for that motion from Pat? SECOND Vice-Chair Cassel: I’ll second it. Commissioner Bialson: There is a question by the City Attorney. Mr. Sodergren: So that is a revised substitute motion then? Commissioner Burt: I guess. It is identical to what Annette would prefer in the primary motion. I thin it is more proper probably to just have it as the primary motion. Commissioner Bialson: I think that is probably right, Pat. Then carve out the issue with regard to the number of Council Members and say that that is something that we have a split decision on, so to speak. Is that correct, Pat? Commissioner Burt: Yes. So then if you accept it and the seconder accepts it we are rocking and rolling. Vice-Chair Casse!: Great. Commissioner Bialson: That is fine with me. So given that. MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Lippert abstained) Page 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Griffin: So let’s call the question then on that motion. All in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? Commissioner Lippert: I will be abstaining. Let me just clarify that. The reason I am abstaining is because it is required that I become knowledgeable on the issues that you are discussing and I have actually entered the discussion partway this being my first hearing. As I begin to come up to speed on the issues I will be participating but nonetheless I will be adding my voice to your discussions. Chair Griffin: Thank you. So that item does pass unanimously with Commissioner Lippert abstaining. That takes us to Vice-Chair Cassel: That takes us to item number four, confirm that the variance findings in the ordinance reflect the previous action. I think this is the findings for the variance only. We discussed this before. Chair Griffin: We have. Vice-Chair Cassel: This is then just the clarification of what we wrote. Chair Griffin: Do we have discussion on this item? Karen. Commissioner Holman: Yes we did discuss this before but we have not discussed it to my recollection since it has come back with this language in front of us. We gave input to Staff but as a document in this form we hadn’t discussed it. My recollection was that we were going to be more in compliance with what the state findings were. I do find that the state findings are clearer in some of their language than is the language that is proposed in front of us. One example of that I would note is in the purpose statement where it talks about, "resulting from natural or built features to be used in ways similar to other sites in the same zoning district," whereas the state law says, "by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification." The reason I think the state language is clearer is because ’in the same zoning district’ by a layperson and maybe by Staff and I can’t speak to that exactly but the argument could be made that ’in the same zoning district’ if you have a substandard lot in an R-1 or R-2 that if you are not allowed the same benefits as a parcel elsewhere in R-1 that you could make the argument that you are laboring under a disadvantage. I just think that the state language is much, much clearer. That is one item I would put out there. Then also under the findings, general, down under C, it doesn’t say here. Previously we had to make all three of the findings that were in the ordinance. Now this doesn’t specify whether only one, two, three or four of these findings have to be made. I think all four should be made. I would add that also here under number one, third line from the last, it also says, "enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district," but it doesn’t say "under the identical zoning classification" and I think that is a big Page 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 clarification that needs to be added. Those are two comments that I would add at this moment. Chair Griffin: Would you want to pose that in terms of a question to Staff asking why that particular item was omitted? Commissioner Holman: Sure. I guess I would pose it this way. We talked about either using or being much more conforming with state law. I thou~h Staff was quite congratulatory of the accomplishment of the state law and its clarity. So I guess I am curious as to why we are not really quite there. Mr. Sodergren: As far as the purpose statement I don’t think there was any particular reason I think we were just trying to give the general purpose. As far as the actual verbiage in the findings we can clarify that. I will go back and take a look especially at number one or actually for number C-2 1 will make that consistent. I believe for C-1 that wording is consistent. We can go back and clarify that on finding C-2 and we can add that back to clarify that in the purpose statement. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a question for you, Karen. Our zoning ordinance talks about the zoning areas as districts. I don’t know if that is terms of law or just something that we have used. We call them zoning districts and not zoning classifications. So I don’t understand the substantive difference that you are raising by using the words zoning classification as opposed to zoning district. Could you help me on that? Commissioner Holman: Sure. There could be, one example because it is an easy one could be a small lot that is zoned R-1 in a larger R-1 neighborhood for instance. Some standard lots often times are restricted from having a second habitable floor but it has the same zoning classification as R-1 but it is in the same district as R-1 that has all sizes of lots. So I think it is clarification to reference the zoning classification than zoning district. Is that making sense? Vice-Chair Cassel: No. Commissioner Holman: Okay. A zoning district to me is and maybe I am wrong here, a zoning district is R-l, R-2, RM-30. A zoning classification an R-1 parcel that has specific constraints to it for instance. Commissioner Packer: Karen, will you point me to a definition in the zoning code that talks about a zoning classification? The zoning districts, there are several R-1 zoning districts that have different size lots and different types of setbacks. They are R-lxxx, they have all these numbers but I have never seen the word ’classification’ in our own code. I think if we throw in another term it would create more confusion rather than create greater clarification. Page 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Holman: Maybe Staff would like to weigh in on this because at first Dan was saying that he would make that change and you didn’t notice a difference. I am not trying to complicate things I am trying to clarify things. Mr. Sodergr, en: I don’t have the state law in front of me. Does the state law use the term ’classification?’ Commissioner Holman: Yes it is February 11 and the precise language is, "Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when because a special circumstance is applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of . privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification." I thought that was the language that we had agreed we were going to use. Mr. Soder~en: I think it is virtually the same thing, classification or district and I think you can use it interchangeabty. I think what the state law was referring to was property with the same regulations. I think that classification or district could be used interchangeably we just used district just because I think that’s primarily the terminology used in the zoning ordinance right now. I do think they are the same for the purposes of that state law. Commissioner Holman: So then Staff would think that the inclusion as we have done it here of C-2 that that would help clarify should there be confusion and confirm compliance with underlying zoning? Mr. Sodergen: I think and there may have been a misprint on C-2 but I think it should read, and I apologize for this, as C-1 property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. I think that we would recommend including that in C-2, in the vicinity and in the same zoning district and remove the words ’and zone’ from C-2 as it reads. Commissioner Holman: Would you repeat that, please? You are picking up the limitations? Mr. Soder~en: I think on page 78 it appears as if there were two additional words added. It reads, "in the vicinity and zone and in the same zoning district." I think it should just read, "in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property." So I think we added two additional words that should be removed from that C-2. So it would be, "in the vicinity and in the same zoning district." From what I have seen that is the way that state law section has been interpreted to mean in the same zoning classification or same zoning district. In fact there ~vas a recent case just on that. They compared zoning districts. Chair Griffin: Does that help clarify? Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: That does help clarify. What about, our language is again a little different from the state law. It says that "variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only when" and ours seems to be, it is a posture I guess. It says, "variances may be granted to the following" and also then under findings, general letter C, it doesn’t say that all four of the findings need to be made. Mr. Sodergren: What we can do is on C to clarify that all four findings need to be made" we could add semicolons to one, two and three and add the words ’and’ so it would just be and, two; and three; and four. Commissioner Burt: Question. Was that the intention of Staffto require all four findings? Mr. Sodergren: Yes. Commissioner Holman: Then also one clarification on b-2, the last three lines. I think I know what this means but just if you would make sure that we are all on track with this. Special requirements in any district do not include special provisions and exceptions as set forth in 18.18. Chair Griffin: Would you repeat that? Commissioner Holman: 18.88, I am sorry. Mr. Abendschein: So if I understand the Comtnissioner’s question are you referring to the line where it refers to Chapter 18.88? Commissioner Holman: Yes, just a clarifying of that please. Mr. Abendschein: Well the language here in B is taken word for word from the existing code. Chapter 18.88 contains several miscellaneous regulations. Things like clotheslines, you are not allowed to prohibit clotheslines in CC&Rs, things like that. So this is just a statement that you can’t get a variance from those miscellaneous provisions. Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then maybe the last one is really a comment about B-4. This is just a comment that it is not our purview here. This is one of the things I was actually referring to earlier. Fences currently don’t require permits and it is not our purview except for when it comes to variances. My experience in watching variances if we are talking about streamlining which that is what we are talking about tonight too, fences a lot of times get appealed because people either aren’t aware, ignore or just aren’t informed about code for fences. So they build them, they are illegal. I have even seen contractors put signs on fences that they have built that are illegal. Then they get appealed and then it takes Staff time for code enforcement, which the City makes no money on and variances are just given without findings being made. So I would just stress here that if these findings are going to be enforced for variances that they also be enforced on fences. Again, as a side comment that perhaps we need to look at having Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 fences require permits again so we aren’t losing money on that whole process. That is a comment about streamlining and not specifically about us having purview over fences. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: Clarification. We are discussing here the process that is going through and we do have purview over choosing what the process is going to be and we do have purview over the zoning ordinance. The fences don’t come back to us for review but if there was a fence ordinancein place we have in fact talked about that in the past and the process which is what we are working on here is part of the review that we are working on tonight and not whether or not the process has been enforced or not but rather whether it is applicable to this process. So we are looking at this applicability. Variances may be granted to the follo~ving. I don’t know, check with Lee but I think there are some fences that are limited it is just that we don’t have an application for them but there are some fence rules about height and where they can be and when they can be and they are listed in this chapter. We are just saying that it is applicable to it. We are just dealing with process. Chair Griffin: There is a part of me that wonders whether or not this is really advancing our item here. Lee did you have a quick clarification. Commissioner Lippert: Yes. It was my understanding that fences don’t need permits but they need to be built within the regulations and that is what that’s describing are the regulations for fences. Ms. Grote: That is correct. There are fence regulations in terms of location and height but they do not require a building permit. However, we do in Planning at the Planning Staff level review fences to make sure that they are meeting those requirements in 16.24. So there is a review. It doesn’t come before you it comes before the Planning Staff. Chair Griffin: I am wondering if we can move on beyond fences here. Is this really a critical item? How do my colleagues look at this? Commissioner Bialson: I think we really should go on at this point. We are on an item that just is not relevant to the things that we are going to do. I think Karen mentioned that they really aren’t and it was merely an observation by her. Commissioner Holman: Yes, it was an observation and I was throwing it out there because we were talking about streamlining and we are talking about efficiencies and it is not efficient to have fences be built that are illegal that get code enforcement called out. I said it was an aside. I was clear with that. Fences are only reviewed if they come up with a building project. Fences get built all the time aside from building projects and those aren’t reviewed at all. Chair Griffin: Can we have a comment from Bonnie, please? Page 46 1 MOTION 2 3 Commissioner Packer: I would just like to say that the other things that we talked about 4 at our February 11 meeting regarding the changes to the findings for the variances I 5 found were included and I was pleased with that. So I am ready to move that we approve 6 the variance findings that are in the proposed ordinance before us with the clarification 7 that all four findings need to be made and there was another clarification to fix the 8 language in C-2 to eliminate some unnecessary words. 9 10 Chair Griffin: And add the word ~and’ at the end of the applicable paragaphs. 11 12 Commissioner Packer: Yes. The reason for my motion is as I said we did discuss this at 13 length on February 11. 14 15 SECOND 16 17 Commissioner Burt: I will second your motion. Go ahead. 18 19 Commissioner Packer: Oh, thank you. We did discuss these items and I think the 20 changes were made to reflect our discussion and it is time to recommend to City Council 21 that these variance findings be approved. 22 23 Chair Griffin: Pat, do you wish to comment to your second? 24 25 Commissioner Burt: No, I just want to make sure there were some other things that Dan 26 said that he was going to incorporate in clarifications and those would be included in the 27 motion. Is that correct, Bonnie? 28 29 Commissioner Packer: Yes. I remembered two of them if there were some others would 30 you list those? 31 32 Mr. Soder, .m’en: I think it was those two and I know in the purpose statement. What we 33 will do is we will make the purpose statement verbiage consistent with the findings 34 language on C-1 and C-2 that it has to be in the same vicinity and in the same zoning 35 district. So we will have that language consistent throughout. If that is all right? 36 37 Commissioner Packet: Yes. And it will retain the words zoning district as opposed to 38 zoning classification? We won’t change that. 39 40 Mr. Soderg-ren: That would be what we would recommend. 41 42 Commissioner Burt: With the understanding that under the state regulation they are 43 synonymous terms is your interpretation. 44 45 Mr. Sodergen: Right. 46 Page 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Karen did that capture the things that you had raised and that Dan had responded to? Commissioner Holman: Mostly. I am definitely preferring the language that the state uses because it does sound like it is a posture that the state takes that the City isn’t taking. The language that the City is proposing sounds like it is an escape hatch in a way to aid and abet, if you will exceptions. The state language does say variances .... shall be granted only when because of special circumstances and I much prefer that language because I think it states a clearer intention. Commissioner Packer: That is not my motion. Mr. Soder._m-en: On that we did look at that and just because we have all these other findings it was difficult to structure it on the flip side trying to come up with granted only when. We did look at that and we went back and forth on that and that is where we came up with what we have. Chair Griffin: Dan, I think that is fine. We understood what you were trying to communicate there. Phyllis, do you have a comment? Vice-Chair Cassel: No, just that I will support Bonnie’s motion as it is and include the term districts as we use it. Chair Griffin: Lee, any comments? Annette, none? Pat. Commissioner Burt: I am sorry can I get a clarification then on that one issue of the state language saying only when versus what you guys have in this language? Do you see it as different in substance? Mr. Sodergren: No. Commissioner Burt: Okay, so you believe that your verbiage has accomplished that same meaning? Mr. Soder~en: Yes. Commissioner Burt: Okay. MOTION PASSED (5-1-1-0, Commissioner Holman voted no and Commissioner Lippert abstained) Chair Griffin: No further discussion? If we could vote this item up. All in favor of Bonnie’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) Are you abstaining or voting? Commissioner Lippert: I am abstaining. Page 48 1 2 3 4 5 Chair Griffin: So the item passes with Commissioner Burt, Packer, Griffin, Cassel and Bialson saying approve and Commissioner Holman voting against and Commissioner Lippert abstaining. That takes us to the end of item number one. Page 49 Attachment E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 !6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes March 3, 2004 EXCERPT NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: The Planning and Transportation Commission will consider an ordinance streamlining planning procedures by modifying and consolidating regulations from Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 16.48 (Architectural Review), 18.90 (Variances, Home Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits), 18.91 (Desig-n Enhancement Exceptions), 18.92 and 18.93 (Appeals), and 18.99 (Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects). New Chapters 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) and 18.77 (Procedures for Permits and Approvals) will be added. SR Weblink: http://www.citvofpaloalto.or~/citva_~endaipublishiplanning-transportation- meetin~s!3030.pdf http://wxvw.citv~fpa~a~t~.~r~/citva-~enda/pub~is~-/p~annin~-transp~rtati~n-meetings/3~31.pdf hrtp:/A~vw.citv~fpa~ak~.~r~/citvagend~/pub~ish/p~anning-transp~rtati~n~meetings/3034.pdf http:/A~vw.cirv~fpa~a~t~.~r#ci~agend~zpub~ish/p~annin~-transp~rtati~n-meetin~s/3035 .pdf Mr. Emslie: I would like to introduce Jon Abendschein who is our City liaison with the City Attorney’s Office who has been project planner for this working with both the Planning Staff and City Attorney Staff. He will be making a brief Staff Report momentarily. I did want to indicate that this is an item that Staff is recommending be continued to a future date. We have a tentative date of March 24. We would like to continue this to a date certain again because of the need to do additional outreach with our neighborhood groups to allow members of the review committee that the Planning Commission formed to participate. Due to circumstances outside of anyone’s control several of them were unable to attend this evening and we believe their input is going to be valuable testimony for the Commission to consider as it goes forward. So we would recommend that we open the hearing, take any comment, take your questions much in the same fashion that you did the previous item, ask questions that we can address tonight or take back and provide more detailed response for our continued hearing. Also they hear your comments, concerns and issues so that they could help us focus on issues of importance to the Commission when we do come back hopefully on the 24th. I am going to turn it over to Jon who is going to give a very brief Staff Report. Mr. Jon Abendschein, Administrative Analyst: Tonight Staff is presenting our proposal to simplify the planning permit granting process an effort, which as you know began with the presentation of the Audit of the Development Process, presented last October. The ordinance presented to you in your Staff Report is a consolidation of six existing chapters of the Municipal Code into two new chapters with two processes. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The six old chapters included in Attachment F-1 through F-6 of the Staff Report four different permit processes, three different appeals and a wide variety of notice and deadlines. The number of processes has been reduced to two in these new chapters. Notice and timelines have been standardized and the code language has been organized and simplified. There are four main changes despite the size of the ordinance, there are four main changes that make up Staff’s proposal. The first is the establishment of a standard Staff Review Process. This is shown in Attachment A of your Staff Report. There are three main features to this standard Staff Review Process. The first is that the Director’s Hearing has been eliminated. You have heard some reasoning behind this in your discussions last week on the Individual Review process. The reason was that Staff felt that the Director’s Hearing in more cases it was adding extra time to the application which if there were issues at a Director’s Hearing or if a Director’s Hearing was requested in the case of an HIE it was going straight on to Board review so why not shorten the process and get to a decision quickly. The corollary to that is that the focus would be on the Planning Commission as the main hearing body for appealed applications. Staff wanted to make a provision so that the Planning Commission wasn’t faced with every single application when there is a possibility of resolving it before the hearing. So Staff has included a provision whereby the person requesting the hearing and the applicant can work out a compromise at which time the hearing request is withdrawn and a revised Director’s Decision is issued. The second part of Staff’s proposal is the revised variance findings. Those are included in Attachment B of your Staff Report. I won’t spend a long time going over those, those were discussed on February 11 and hopefully we have incorporated all the Commission’s comments on that issue. The third part of Staff’s proposal is the revised Home Improvement Exceptions. Staff heard from the Planning Commission and from the community the need for a revised Home Improvement Exception and this is our response. The first finding has been removed. The second finding laying out when a Home Improvement Exception can be made is still included. This is Attachment C of the Staff Report. In order to avoid arbitrary zoning or allowing the Exception to be used for anything Staff has put specific limitations on when a Home Improvement Exception can be granted. If a person needs a larger exception then they would have to seek a variance. The fourth and final part of Staff’s proposal is removal of the Administrative Approval Process. This is a somewhat obscure process. It is included in 18.99 of the Municipal code and it is very similar to the Architectural Review process. The reason that this process exists is because after a Planned Community District or something in a Site and Design is approved there may be minor changes, minor adjustments to the approved plans to accommodate a utility meter or maybe later on the change of a window. These minor changes don’t necessarily need to go all the way back to the Planning Commission and the Council it would take up too much time. So this process, the Administrative Approval process, was developed. Staff believes that since it is so similar to the Architectural Review process that the Architectural Review process will suffice in those cases. Page 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 So these four changes make up most of Staff’s proposal and are a critical part of Staff’ 3 response to the Auditor’s Report of last October. Seventy to eighty percent of 4 development review application in Palo Alto will use these new chapters. Most of these 5 applications are non-controversial. On the overhead you can see the improvement in processing time for these non-controversial applications. This is slightly revised from what you see in Attachment A. Staffbelieves that his proposal will take us closer to answering the Auditor’s recommendations and the changes call for a more simplified effective process. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Do Commissioners have any questions of Staf£? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: First I want to congratulate Staff on making it very easy for us to go through all this material, guiding us through what we had to read and what we didn’t have to read. It is always very helpful. I have one question on Exhibit D in the back. I thought we were getting rid of appeals and so I was wondering how that fit in or maybe there are some things that don’t have appeals maybe still have to have appeals and it isn’t clarified what that applies to. That is the proposed, it says 18.78 but then the paragraph numbers say 18.77. Mr. Abendschein: Okay, yes, then there are still some numbering errors in there. Chapter 18.78 there are still some things that are going to require an appeal. This is included for things like under the Permit Streamlining Act it is required that the Director’s determination of incompleteness if it is given twice in a row can be appealed. There are also appeals in the case of a revocation hearing. Also there are instances throughout the rest of the code where the Director is allowed to make certain adjustments that later can be appealed. For instance in the case of parking exceptions, there are certain exceptions, tightly constrained exceptions that can be granted but there still has to be the opportunity for appeal and that is what this chapter 18.78 is meant to address. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: On that particular point under Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation it says, "Within 30 days of the filing of a timely appeal from the Director’s determination, the Planning and Transportation Commission shall review the appeal at a public meeting and issue a recommendation to the City Council to uphold, overturn or modify the action or determination of the Director." What happens if we continue that? In other words they come in and we decide we need to continue that? It looks like we have 30 days to respond and act on it. Sometimes we hear it and we need to continue it is that going to be limited by that language or does that automatically get included in? Mr. Soder~en: We can add language to that. Normally what we would say within 30 days it has to be set for hearing but since these types of items don’t require hearings because they are not quasi-judicial they are just discretionary we can say that. We will come up with some language clarifying that it at least has to be set. Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Griffin: Let me just interject something. When you are finished up I wanted Commissioners to think about working our way through this report proposal number one, proposal number two, three and four and trying to consolidate the questions based on those proposals. Commissioner Packer: Right, I understand that but the reason I asked this is because it seemed to be inconsistent with everything else so what I might recommend is that it be real clear which decisions this appeal applies to and which it doesn’t apply to. When you go back to the other kinds of decisions and then say oh look, I can appeal it because it says a Director’s decision. So it would be confusing unless it was made really clear. That is all. Now I have a better feeling of the whole picture. Chair Griffin: So if we start with page number two of the Staff Report, in the middle of the page, proposal one, Process Changes for Variances, CUPs, HIEs and neighborhood preservation exceptions. Do Commissioners have questions of Staff? Commissioner Burt: I have a process question. Chair Griffin: Sure. Commissioner Burt: Is it Staff’s intention to go right from this hearing onward to the Council or is there going be additional public outreach? Mr. Emslie: We are suggesting a continued public hearing for additional Commission comments. So here we think that the best use of the Commission’s time is to get questions out to the extent we can answer them here tonight we will but if it requires additional research or analysis we ,,,could do that and bring that back at a continued public hearing. So we are not looking for any motion for completion of this tonight. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a question on page two, proposal one, number one and two. It is talking about noticing. It says that notice could be given by web page, email, site posting or by some combination of these. Not everyone has access to the web and site posting can be problematic. Then on number two it talks about that the notice would be mailed to all property owners. So I am trying to rectify that. Then something that is also mentioned in number two that I find scattered throughout here as a consistent question for me is often ten day periods are mentioned. Sometimes they are ten working days but what is a working day? I thought that was some of what we were trying to get clarification on and I don’t see those clarified in this report either by language or by clarification. Mr. Abendschein: The two issues that you just brought up well let me address the second one first. The days question is one that has been brought to our attention. It slipped. What we have done is we have standardized the periods but we haven’t given the Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 definition of days. So we need to clarify that before we come back to the next hearing. Amy may be able to talk better to that. Let me hand off to her in a second. Commissioner Holman: I did see something in here and I am not sure if it is one of these core things but as I was going through these I did see something that was an eight day period. Mr. Abendschein: Which one? Commissioner Holman: I would have to find it. Mr. Abendschein: Earlier it was brought to our attention that there was some confusion about which part of this very large Staff Report represented Staff’s recommendations and which represented the old sections that were being deleted. The old 16.48 which is included in one of the Attachments F in the Staff Report included the eight day and four day periods but that is not in Staff’s proposal, which is just in the Exhibits to the ordinance. I don’t know ifI lost you in that whole explanation and Staff would like you to bring it to our attention if any of those eight day or four day periods are included in 18.76, 18.77 or 18.78. Then the other question that you brought up was about the courtesy notice. Staff didn’t have adequate time to completely establish how this courtesy notice would be done. So what we laid out in the ordinance is what basically we do now and what would be required to give adequate notice of the Director’s Decision. So that is the mailing that is done when there is a tentative decision. This is in line with what we do right now for Individual Review. The courtesy notice was envisioned as something to get the word out about applications as early as possible to as many people as possible. Staff is still working out the specifics of how to do that. Certainly mailing would be one way to give that courtesy notice. The other was to get comments out ahead of the Director’s Decision as early as possible. Commissioner Holman: Email is peat if you have it but wouldn’t it be difficult for Staff to even get the entire email? Mr. Abendschein: This is considered as something supplemental. So the way you might envision it is as a subscription based website or something along those lines. This is a problem hasn’t had the time to bring this out fully. Mr. Emslie: Let me just say that we have had the suggestion that certainly web notification cannot take the place of legal notification. We recognize that. We constantly get comments and feedback from constituents that better use of the web in the Development Review process is something very desirable. We recognize that not everybody has access to it but we have very high, 90-plus percent, saturation point of access to email. So we do get that feedback quite a bit about better use of electronic communications as more instantaneous, more recognizable and more impactful to get the attention. But it would not be done as a substitute. We would still need to use the old Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 fashioned ways of notification but the intent was as Jon mentioned to notify early, work through existing networks, it has been pointed out that most homeowner’s groups send out messages on a regular basis and that we could use that to an advantage in fleshing out issues first. So the idea is to really be kind of an early warning system, if you will, that can help alert Staff to potential problems so that we can better address them and get ahead of them. So that is kind of the idea, not to take the place but to utilize the very extensive network that we do have in the community. Commissioner Holman: A supplement then? Mr. Emslie: Yes, absolutely. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a question that is probably more of a legal question. When there was an appeal process the person who filed an appeal is a person who is aggrieved. Now we are having a hearing process and according to what I read here you don’t have to be aggrieved it can be any person aggrieved or affected by the decision. Mr. Soder~en: Right. That is currently the way it is written. Any party can file. Commissioner Packer: Is that legally required or can we include in the ordinance restrictions about who can ask for a hearing? Many of the comments were that people were concerned about the frivolousness of some appeals. Frivolousness is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. It is important to the person filing the appeal but there was this issue. I just wondered in what way can we put reasonable parameters around the requests for the hearing and what the hearing requestors obligation is in the context of the hearing and what they can expect? In the legal world, those of us who practice law, you have standing, you have all the things and not just anyone can sue anyone. I think we need to put some reasonable limits that allow people to be heard but in the context of what this is about. If there are findings that have to be made for Home Exceptions the person requesting the hearing needs to know these were the findings that need to be made an it is up to you to show why this application does not meet these findings and not put the burden on the applicant to make that it should be the hearing requestor has that burden. How can we write that in here and be within legal requirements? Mr. Soder~en: Well legally the people that are entitled to notice in a hearing are the applicant and any property owner that is substantially affected by the decision. So I guess there are a couple of ways to do that. You could put a distance requirement like right now we take the 300 foot notice we have there. That is pretty much standard under state law, the 300 foot notice. One way to do it would be to put that type of distance requirement on there thinking that those would be the ones that would be most affected by the project. That is one way of doing it. Commissioner Holman: Could you clarify that please? Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Sodergren: It would be under who could file an appeal. It would be the applicant and those property owners within 300 feet of the project. In other words the applicant and anybody that would receive that notice could file an appeal. Commissioner Packer: Or request a hearing. Mr. Sodergren: Excuse me, I am still using the old terminology. Right, request a hearing. Commissioner Packer: Then when they request the hearing could we say when we send out the notice we say this is an application that is for a variance or for whatever it is and these are the findings that have to be made before the. HIE or variance could be granted so that everybody knows what the context is that this is all about. So they can’t come in and say I don’t like the color of the house. They need to know that this is what we are talking about otherwise if anyone can request a hearing the Planning Commission is going to be meeting not only every Wednesday but every Monday and Tuesday. It could get out of control. I don’t want to limit people’s rights to raise questions but they have to be within the context of the application. Chair Griffin: You want an explanation of what is the basis for requesting a hearing. Commissioner Packer: Yes. Mr. Emslie: For items that we are talking about for this process where there is no threshold for appeal currently in the code we have obviously considered the workload in Staff in terms of the appeal and there are actually very few that actually come through. In percentage the vast majority of permits that we get there are actually very few that end up getting appealed or what would translate into a request for a hearing. Staff has the exact number but it is less than halfa dozen a year if that, about five per year and that is with no change to any kind of threshold. So we think that is an acceptable amount of hearings that could be incorporated into the annual work schedule. Commissioner Packer: I am not so much concerned about the workload but I think people who are requesting a hearing should have a better understanding of the process. I think it helps educate. Mr. Soderaren: I don’t think that would be a problem. Right now the way we propose to give notice would be we would send out the nature of the application, the description of what the application is for, in other words what type of permit and then the Director’s proposed decision. Correct me ifI am wrong, I don’t think it would much to just add, not get into details, but just say the Director has made the following findings and is recommending ’x’ or ’y’ without getting into exactly how the findings have been made, the details, but just maybe list again the findings for the permit or approval. Commissioner Bialson: I think that is what we asked. Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Packer: Do other Commissioners? Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I think that helps educate the public, it gives them more engagement in the process rather than just getting a postcard or a piece of paper that talks of these things. I think it would make for a better educated more valuable sort of input from the public. So I am all in favor of doing that. I don’t think it expands any responsibility on Staff’s part and I think it will forestall a lot of questions and make those questions that come forward more helpful to us. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: So what we are saying is that any notification that goes out to the public, say somebody has applied for a variance, then the purpose and findings for a variance would be included on that notification? Commissioner Packer: Yes. Commissioner Holman: I just wanted to make sure all of that was on there. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: There are certain permissible bases for appeals, correct, on things outside of the criteria? Is that correct? Mr. Emslie: No, there is no test for appeal. Commissioner Burt: Okay. You have the right to a hearing. So someone can appeal on something like for an Individual Review they can request a heating even if it doesn’t pertain to compatibility or any of those defined parameters? Mr. Emslie: Individual Review is a bit different in that there is adjacency requirement to request a hearing in Individual Review. There is not such a test for the variance, HIE and the other permits that we are referring to in this. Commissioner Burt: But even under the Individual Review it is just an adjacency it is not limited in any way based on whether the appeal is based on the criteria or not. Mr. Emslie: That is correct. Mr. Soder~en: I think something you do have to keep in mind though the people that are affected by the decision and that have the right to a hearing are going to be different depending on the nature of the permit or appeal. For example if you are dealing with minor changes to a single family home that is one thing and you may be able to limit the right to a hearing to just the adjacent property owners but when you are talking about a Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 major conditional use permit that is going to affect a wider area. In those cases maybe 300 feet is not even enough. So that is why it is kind of difficult to pick one standard and then just keep it. I think that is probably the reason why we said any party can file a request for a hearing to get around that because it is going to vary based on the permit. Commissioner Burt: So then back to the geographic zone for notification for the HIE you are proposing 300 feet. Is that correct? Mr. Soder,m’en: Currently the way the notice for the Commissioner Burt: For the IR. The HIE is 300? Mr. Sodergr. en: The HIE notice is 300 but anybody can file a request for a hearing. Commissioner Burt: Okay. Chair Griffin: Returning back to Karen’s initial question having to do with this courtesy notice to the public, and I think I understand what you are saying that you want to use the City website as source of information for interested parties and email perhaps to neighborhood associations, things of that nature, PAN maybe or other interested constituencies that follow these planning issues. I am wondering if you are looking for comments to be available prior to the Director’s making his decision if you could in fact get back into this adjacency situation and have the property owners on the four corners of the subject property have them be given the opportunity to respond to this initial request for information. If you did that I am trying to think what the logistics would be whether you would have to mail it to them or obtain their email address somehow, I don’t know how that would happen necessarily. But at least through the avenue of an address that we are already doing with the [R process for example. Mr. Emslie: The IR process is a good example because again the large percentage, the 95 or 98% of the IR’s go through without requests for hearings or appeals. We have seen the numbers on that but the amount of input and public contact we have on IR’s is greater. The vast majority of IR notices prompt questions or a response from the neighbors, either phone call, email, visit to the Development Center to look at the plans. When Staff was asked what percentage of your customers ask for things well it is about 100%. I think it is because of that model that you can get neighbors talking. A lot of times with information people can believe it or not work things out on their own without City involvement. So that happens a lot of the time or the City does act as somewhat of a facilitator in addressing particular issues. So we think that is a very good model to follow and it is a way to help focus our limited resources in areas where they are most needed. So being creative in terms of getting early notification through the means that we have discussed is incredibly important. Both high tech solutions, and ~ve hear that a lot, that we are not making best use of that and low tech, posting has its problems but there is nothing like a big yellow sign that goes up on a piece of property. It is there, you walk past it, and it is a great way to do it. So we think we need notification early as insurance. Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 It is basically a way to get communication flowing at the earliest possible time when we all know small problems can become big problems. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: My only concern is that you write into this document that people who need to be legally noticed are also legally noticed in legal fashion in this first paragraph. That really sent up signals to me thinking wait a minute special groups are getting information but the legal people who may not have a way to get to the website can’t be noticed. So I think it should be written there. Commissioner Packer: I notice that it is not in the ordinance, anything about the email or the website. That is just going to be a practice. The legal requirement is back here Phyllis in the Draft Ordinance that goes through the process. It doesn’t hurt to have additional education of the public as a separate Planning Department practice but that doesn’t have to be codified. Vice-Chair Cassel: I didn’t suggest that. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I was going to make a comment and I thought we were going to focus on questions. So sorry. Chair Griffin: A question, Pat? Commissioner Burt: I g~aess mine is a comment as well. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: Looking at Attachment A, the graphic that shows the Staff proposed review process for Variances, CUPs, HIEs, etc. so that would be the third chart. If you look back however at the first and second chart it includes days there and I am wondering why those timelines weren’t also included in this graph so that it is complete. Then also for the Staff proposal on the first page of it that has days above and below the line and I am confused about the above/below is. Mr. Abendschein: To address the second question the above and below the above is meant to address the minimum time but then there is the practical matter of actually writing out approval letters and things like that so I got estimates on what the expected time was on that. Commissioner Holman: If I can just say it is confusing to have above and below the line as opposed to a zero to ten days. For me it is. Mr. Abendschein: Right. Okay, I can certainly revise that to make that more intuitive. Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Along the same line on the page that has the two different flow diagrams. The first one on existing process above the line it says ten days and below it says two weeks. That goes back to this question, I had presumed but it wasn’t quite clear, whether we are talking working days or calendar days. This seems to imply that we are talking calendardays if we are making a differentiation between ten days and two weeks. I would like to know which one we are talking about at least at this point in time. It may change but are we talking calendar days? Mr. Emslie: Yes, I think that is the nomenclature that most cities use in determining periods of time. The idea is that you make them long enough so that they avoid weekends and holidays and things like that. Then you always have a provision that if the date should fall on a weekend or holiday when the calendar day is not a day that the city is open then it will automatically fall to the next complete day. So that is standard procedure and it is just high time that it becomes standard procedure here. Vice-Chair Cassel: But isn’t it better to use business days? We need a standard procedure. Mr. Emslie: Because there are so many vagaries in defining that and you get into the question of whether a holiday is defined, not everybody observes all the holidays that the City does. Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay, so you are going to use calendar days. But aren’t there supposed to be maximum days in here not average days? Don’t you have a maximum that you need to respond within a certain amount of time? Mr. Abendschein: I don’t think I understand the Commissioner’s question. Vice-Chair Cassel: You have the application is complete, you notify within ten days, or you make a decision within ten days and notify people. You don’t have a month or two months or gee I think I will do it in ten days. So doesn’t this mean the actual? You are going to complete the application and there is going to be an actual notice? I am just confirming that. Mr. Abendschein: We can clarify that. I don’t have the answer immediately but yes we can clarify that. Vice-Chair Cassel: Try to make the graph look simple and then I want to know all the details. Mr. Emslie: We will clarify the graphics to provide a little bit more. Commissioner Holman: So that would address what my other question was, my first question, about the graphic about proposed review processes for Variances and stuff. Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Abendschein: Yes, we can clarify that and include the timelines there too. Chair Griffin: Are there any more questions on proposal number one? Yes, Pat. Commissioner Burt: I am trying to figure out if it is under number one. In our meeting between the stakeholders and the Staff and Commission representatives one of the things that we had tossed about was whether to incentivize the resolution between the applicant and the appellant. The concept was that it is very expensive to have this go through the City to have this go through to a full Planning Commission hearing and then even onward to the Council for even a Consent Calendar item. Going through all the work that the Staff has to do on their own and to the Planning Commission that if when an appellant requests a hearing there is a bubble here that essentially tries to facilitate a resolution to a problem. The idea was if the applicant somehow resolves that problem and avoids all that cost to the City and to themselves do we want to incentivize that? Do we want to do any partial or full fee waiver that would encourage them to resolve the problem and avoid the full blown process of going through a Planning Commission hearing? Commissioner Packer: For one thing there is no fee for the person requesting the heating. The person who wants to have the change or the barriers or whatever I ga~ess has some fees. So there is more of an incentive on the person who is requesting the heating, they have nothing to lose except their own personal time to go through with the process. That is why I was playing around with the idea of making it really clear that the hearing requestor has the burden of doing and has the burden of showing why these findings can’t be made. I was thinking about how can we do this and it is too legalistic to talk about burden of proof and all that. That might be a bit much. I was thinking that maybe when Staffbtings the hearing issues to us in a Staff Report Staff is going to say they recommend that the variance be approved or rejected or whatever the situation is for these reasons and then it is clear that the person requesting the hearing is on the opposite end of the spectrum of what the Staff Report is. So maybe the way to resolve that is to have some, if it is possible to do, put some guidance to the Planning Commission as to what our role in review is and it is our job to find out if the hearing requestor, one of the guidelines for us to show that the person requesting the hearing who is in disagreement with the Staff Report how do we evaluate who is tight? It is another way of saying how do we determine who has the burden of proof. I don’t know if that is a way to do it but it might help us Planning Commissioners when we are reviewing this and say how do we look at the evidence, how do we judge? If the person requesting the hearing knows that we have these guidelines it might give them second thoughts about well I just can’t go in and say I don’t like my neighbor I have to show why the Staff is wrong and I have to be able to present good evidence and do a good job. That may be a disincentive-for the frivolous appeals. I am just throwing these ideas out. Chair Griffin: Karen and then Armette. Commissioner Holman: For one I am not hearing Staff saying that there are frivolous appeals. Five a year I think Staff said. Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Packer: That’s not the point. Commissioner Holman: Also what we would use for our guidelines to make determinations I won’t use the term burden of proof but what we use is this language that is now being proposed for HIEs and for Variances. That is our yardstick. That is all we need whether it is an appellant or an applicant and an agreement or disagreement with Staff. That is our yardstick. Commissioner Packer: But maybe it can say here the Planning and Transportation Commission will evaluate whether the Director’s decision is appropriately based on the findings. Mr. Sodergren: And the hearing maybe can be more focused on the findings or more structured around the findings even finding by finding. There are ways of structuring it and making it clear maybe in the Staff Report to keep focusing back on the findings I think there are procedural ways to do it and ways to do it in the Staff Report to kind of keep that focus. Chair Griffin: As an information sheet orsomething provided to the hearing requestor. Annette, you had a question? Commissioner Bialson: Well I was going to ask where we could plug that in? Are you saying you could do in both the notice and in the code? Commissioner Packer: Yes. We can play around with that. In the code for certain and maybe in the notice so all the parties know, the Staff knows, the person requesting the Variance or the HIE and any hearing requestor. This is the context. Commissioner Bialson: I think that is a good suggestion for Staff to consider and perhaps come back to us with that. I think Pat’s point getting back to it with regard to incentivizing the parties is a good one. I think we did raise it previously and I am assuming, my question is, did Staff consider it and decide to not put it in here or what? Mr. Soder~en: I thinl~ the thought at the time was that if that was the desire of the Commission to look into it we would look into it as part of the next fee study and incorporate that into the municipal fee schedule as in the application process about it would be so much to file and application however at certain times during a process you can get partial refunds based on certain stepping stones. I think that was the way we were. going to look into it. I think it is helpful to discuss it and kind of give some direction so next fee study that we do have that information and it is on our list of things to consider as part of that study. Chair Griffin: Were there any comments or have we? Commissioner Burt: Just one brief one. I appreciate that we have legal constraints on being able to use the web for notification but we are in 2004 now and really haven’t Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 progressed very far in utilizing the Internet for this aspect of streamlining. One of the thing I see is that we as a City and many organizations don’t even ask people if they would like to provide their email addresses and be notified on a whole variety of things whether it is this or other things. If the whole objective of this thing is based on the City Auditor’s report and the theme of greater efficiencies and greater speed I think we have in a separate area not in the context of this but I just want to get it out there do some additional exploration about how we can make greater use of the internet or other efficiency means electronically to do a variety of communications. I think there are a lot of possibilities and some of them are going to have to rtm up against considerations of whether legal requirements need to be changed and on what level but I think we have to move in that direction more aggressively. Six or eight years ago we were all talking about by this time this is where we would be and we aren’t there and we don’t even seem to be talking about it much anymore. That is my statement. Chair Griffin: All fight. Being that there are no further comments indicated I would like to move us to proposal number two. You did? You are so subtle. Commissioner Holman: Just really, really quickly I would like to reiterate on number five that I still support the two vote or maybe three votes to be removed from Council Consent Calendar not four. Just so it is on the record. Chair Griffin: I will do the same thing. Commissioner Burt: I as well, although I recognize that really this is going to be a decision for Council to make for themselves. Chair Griffin: I was thinking about the dynamic that is involved with four Council people. It might be easy to say I am only one of four for example and you still have three to go and it might in fact make it easier to come off of Consent as opposed to more difficult but we won’t get into that tonight perhaps. Vice-Chair Cassel: Well it is on there. Chair Griffin: You wznt to chip in, please do. Commissioner Bialson: I would prefer the four. Vice-Chair Cassel: The idea here is four of nine and the Council Members seem to be pretty good about hearing people if they feel there is a real issue. The idea is try to get the hearing at our level and get most of these issues heard at our level so that some decision-making goes on. In most cities minor decisions are made at the Planning Commission level and only go to City Council if there is a formal hearing and we can’t do that. If we go too low then too many of these will come off and people will be looking for that level. I would like to have them be sure they are presenting their ideas to us and arguing it well to us. Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Packer: I agree with that. But if we are in the position of making recommendations so I agree with Phyllis and Annette that four makes sense and is consistent with the attempt to streamline these processes and to respect the recommendations of the Auditor. Commissioner Bialson: Also to respect the decisions of the Planning Commission. If the decision goes up with the Planning Commission being divided it is far more likely for four City Council Members to decide to hear it but it if it goes up on a unanimous or a one-six vote then it might not be and we are trying to get the process such that our decision-making process is a good one that the arguments are presented to us and that we can be most effective we could possibly be. Enough said. Commissioner Holman: I think there is one little point that does need to be made. IfI understood correctly Bonnie’s comments that we need to recognize four votes in light of a process streamlining then that definitely speaks to four votes to get something off Consent Calendar being more difficult than two votes and that is a discouragement of someone getting their appeal heard. Even in a situation where there is a four-three vote on Commission. Commissioner Packer: Remember this is a heating, it is not an appeal, it is a request for a hearing and the hearing is happening at the Planning Commission level as opposed to the Director’s level. I think the recommendation of the Auditor was to have fewer hearings. You don’t need to be tried more than once. You only get one chance at your due process essentially is what they are saying. The four does make it harder but the hearing has to have meaning at the Planning Commission level. If everybody knows that on these small matters that it is going to go up to City Council then they will just sort of wing it at Planning Commission level and wait for the real time at City Council and then it is just a waste of everybody’s time at the Planning Commission level. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: If I can go back to ancient history here when we used to have annual meetings and retreats almost with the Council one of the things we kept asking for was for our decisions to have meaning and for the Council to show us respect and encourage the citizenry to show us respect to come in and give us the arguments that they are going to present to Council and Nve us the opportunity to perhaps take some matters off the plates of Council. If we go back and say two of them can take it off we are giving mixed messages so we better be very clear as to what we want Council to think of when they think of Planning Commission decisions. Are we saying respect our decisions or not? Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: I don’t think we have any ambiguity by any members of the Commission on what the process would be and what the purposes are and what the Auditor recommended. So all the statements reiterating those things are not really what Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 the crux of the issue is. The question is what is the threshold, what is an appropriate threshold? We clearly at whichever number of Council Members are required to take it off of the Consent Calendar we have changed this process. We have changed it pretty significantly in terms of the Planning Commission function being the primary means at which this process is designed to hear the issue. I don’t think that if the Council decides to go with three members to take it off the Consent Calendar or two or four I don’t think it invalidates the changes in this process. I will say again whatever we may feel as a Commission here I don’t think it really matters because I think this is a decision that the Council is going to want to make for themselves. Chair Griffin: Now proposal number two having to do with modifications of variance findings. I know we do have Joy here too. When we started this discussion this evening Staff said that there had already been a fair amount of discussion on modifications of variances. So have we in fact already dealt with that last meeting? Mr. Emstie: Yes. Essentially what we are looking for is if we have not accurately reflected your discussion we would like to know about that but we don’t think we need to have a re-discussion on that because we did do that last week. Chair Griffin: All right. I would give Joy Ogawa a chance to speak unless any of my colleagues has something to add. Welcome, Joy. Ms. Ogawa: Thanks. The first thing I wanted to say is it seems to me about community outreach it sounded to me like there was no community outreach being proposed here that basically Staff just wanted to get the focus group together again and not go beyond that and I just think that this is really important with major sweeping changes here that are going to affect a lot of people that don’t even understand the implications and I think that there needs to be community outreach and not just rely on a few people from the public to represent the public to Staff, to represent all the public’s positions to Staff. So I really think that community outreach is called for here. The other thing is the process currently I think it works. What is being proposed here I think in your discussion you have pointed out lots of problems with it. One of them that you haven’t discussed is elimination of Director’s Hearing, I don’t have enough time here. This is again the problem with trying to bring these things up at Planning Commission I don’t have enough time to bring them up. I wanted to talk about what is involved in a Director’s Hearing and how having Planning Commission having a hearing does not substitute because currently Director’s Hearings really give time to the affected neighbors to really go over their concerns. We had eight variances on a house being applied for two weeks ago. How can neighbors speak to eight variances in three minutes? Currently the Planning Commission’s schedule, you are talking about five meetings a month, now the appeals are what you hear on variances, right? How many of those are there? Maybe a total of five per year. Well you start hearing every request for a hearing that is going to be a lot more. So I just kind of don’t think that there has been a complete Page 16 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 grasp of the change in dynamic here. I really think that the fact that you are hearing so 2 few appeals points to the system working. Another thing about appeals is that currently 3 there is a fee involved in that. If you wanted to incentivize a resolution and partial 4 reimbursement of the appeals fee you could work with that but there is no appeals fee 5 being considered because there is no appeal in this process that Staff is proposing. I also want to say if a project is commercial and you can get commercial requests for variances and conditional use permits of course I think it is a very different situation where the 300 foot notification is not adequate. Well for the variance findings I didn’t hear the discussion that Planning Commission had on variance findings at the February 11 meeting, which is why I was trying to view that meeting on cable, and I never was able to see it. My understanding, I had asked someone what Planning Commission’s recommendations were or comments were and my understanding was that it was to incorporate the state’s findings. I don’t see that so I am really confused about that. Another point is the four votes to pull off the Consent Calendar you may think that that’s fine if you have nine people on Council voting but for instance a Stanford issue seven people at most get to vote on that. What if not everybody is there? So there are a lot of ramifications and I haven’t even had time to go into this in depth. So I am sure there are a lot more than I have pointed out here. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Joy. Our next speaker is Tom Ashton. Mr. Tom Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street Palo Alto: I have just a few comments I know it is getting late. Can you go back to the original thing that you are proposing? One of the things I worry about is with the Director’s Hearings we have right now I know a lot of public information comes in on that. I have been to several hearings and it is surprising what you learn in one of those hearings and what type of information comes from the public. Now if you are considering doing away with that process this is going to reduce input to the Staff I think as far as making a decision when you go to this process here. So there will be no public input there. This makes this notice here very, very important. I think if you do go to this second stage here I think that you have to assure that anybody would get notice that wanted it of that Director’s decision because some of these issues that we are dealing with in Palo Alto here now are across the city. They are not just a local neighborhood or three or four blocks so that would have to be very carefully considered whether you take this process away or whether you go to this second process. I am talking about a notice that would go out which would either be conditions of approval like they are now, what the findings were and stuff like that. I wouldn’t mind whether that was email but I would probably want to be on a list like that because some of these issues are across the whole City of Palo Alto not just neighborhood issues. On an appeal I think it has already been pointed out that since there are only five a year I wouldn’t worry to much about somebody trying to just throw in some frivolous appeals. I mean five a year is not too many. So I would think that anyone should be able to make an appeal, it doesn’t matter who it is whether it is a neighbor or not. Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The other comments I have are on the variance. I am a little bit confused about this variance, which I went over. I would like to congratulate the Staff for putting in under 1 a the Personal Circumstances of the Applicant. I have been to hearings where I felt that this was true that there were personal circumstances of the applicant taken into consideration when making the decision. I think that should just be completely thrown out. But I am a little bit confused about this (b) here. I think the variance findings right now are confusing to me. They have always been confusing to me and they look like you can take either side of the issue and prove the point with the findings the way they are now. So I especially approve of this la but in lb I would like to ask for more clarification there because the way it reads to me is it says special circumstances are expressly included for consideration are the (a) issue there and then the (b) issue any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made or occurred while the subject property is situated in the zoning district in which it is situated at the time of the filing of the application regardless of whether such changes were caused by applicant or his or her predecessors and interests. I really don’t understand that. I have one issue here. Tomorrow there is going to be a hearing held at 1158 Cedar for a Director’s Hearing and I wonder in that case since I know the house was demolished and rebuilt in 2000 does that mean that that house would have to be excluded from consideration on any other development of the house or is this just a situation where it is only the lot that is considered and not the building? So that is confusing to me. If it is just the lot then it would appear to me that it would either have to be a situation where the lot changed due to a partial sale of the lot at one point or an addition to the lot. It is just not clear at that point to me. So that is about all I had. Thank you very much. Chair Griffin: Great. Thanks, Tom. Then that brings us to 10:30 and I think that at this stage I would probably entertain a motion to continue this item. Mr. Emslie: We are continuing it to March 24. Chair Griffin: Continue it to a date certain, March 24. May I have that motion, please? MOTION Commissioner Bialson: Yes, so moved. Commissioner Holman: I was hoping that somebody would consider that we could finish the discussion about variance and HIE and then continue the meeting. Vice-Chair Cassel: I am sorry I am not feeling well and so I can’t really stay. Commissioner Bialson: I will restate my motion that we continue this to March 24. SECOND Commissioner Packer: I will second it. Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-0, Commissioner Holman voted no) Chair Griffin: All those in favor of that motion say aye. (ayes) carries with Commissioner Holman opposed. That will then take us to the end of agenda item two. Opposed?(nay) That Page 19