HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-04 City Council (5)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
& COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:OCTOBER 4, 2004 CMR: 437:04
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE
ADOPTING A REVISED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) CHAPTER
(18.12); AMENDING RELATED DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER
18.04 AND RELATED HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION PROVISIONS IN
18.76 AND 18.77; AND INCORPORATING RELATED R-1 SINGLE-STORY
HEIGHT COMBINING DISTRICT (S) REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN 18.13,
RELATED SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SITE COMBINING DISTRICT
REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 18.15, AND RELATED R-1
SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
CHAPTER 18.14 INTO CHAPTERS 18.12, 18.76 (PERMITS AND APPROVALS)
AND 18.77 (PROCESSING OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS) OF TITLE 18
(ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend Council
approval of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A), including Exhibit A, comprising the
revised S ingle F amily Residential (R- 1) Chapter (18.12) of the Zoning Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
Planning staff and the City Attorney’s office have developed a revised and reformatted
R-1 chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, intended as a stand-alone chapter. The adoption of
this R-1 Chapter will allow fbr its implementation in advance of the complete Zoning
Ordinance Update (ZOU). The R-1 district and its various subdistricts encompass
approximately 74% of the total number of lots in Palo Alto (about 15% of the City’s total
acreage), and the adoption of this chapter is a significant step forward in the
implementation of the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU).
The intent of a stand-alone R-1 chapter is to provide all of the relevant regulations related
to R-1 development in one place, avoiding the need for applicants and others to search
CMR: 437:04 Page 1 of 8
the entire code for pertinent requirements. The proposed revisions to the R-1 chapter are
critical to implementing Housing Element and other Comprehensive Plan programs by
providing added opportunities to develop second dwelling units, to discourage loss of
housing units, and to protect existing residential character through context-based setbacks
and garage placement criteria.
The reformatted code also is more readable than the existing zoning, including the use of
tables to outline allowable uses and development standards, with cross-references as
needed to other sections of the chapter.
Preliminary revisions to the R-1 chapter have been developed based on review and
comments from the Planning & Transportation Commission (P&TC), the P&TC Low
Density Residential (LDR) Working Group, the Single Family Advisory Committee
(SFAC) Co-chairs, ZOU and Current Planning staff, and public input through community
workshops, focus groups, the ZOU website and e-mails. The P&TC met six times
between May 26 and August 4, 2004 to review issues and draft provisions related to the
R- 1 chapter. The LDR Working Group met a total of nine times during the past year plus
three additional times jointly with the SFAC Co-chairs as input to the P&TC. Three focus
group meetings were held with R-1 residents in May of 2004, and ZOU staff participated
in two public workshops related to Housing Element programs and second units in 2002.
The P&TC recommended approval of the attached ordinance at its August 4, 2004
meeting.
DISCUSSION
The R-1 chapter includes tables and text outlining the allowable uses and required
development standards for the district and its subdistricts, as well as related overlays,
combining districts and review processes that are primarily applicable to R-1. The
revisions incorporate the Single Story (S) Combining District, Individual Review, and
Home Improvement Exceptions into the R-1 chapter. Some procedural updates made by
staff and resulting from the City Auditor’s report are also included and are discussed
below.
The proposed ordinance adopting revised definitions, process changes and the updated R-
1 chapter is included as Attachment A. Exhibit A to that attachment is the R-1 Chapter
18.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. A summary table outlining all of the proposed changes
(other than minor formatting) is presented in Attachment C. Attachment D is a redlined
version of the R-1 chapter and the revised Low Density Residential definitions,
presenting the changes in a ~iket~.rougb2underlined format to compare to the existing
regulations. P&TC staff reports and attachments, along with the Commission’s minutes,
are also attached.
CMR: 437:04 Page 2 of 8
Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Recommendation
The Planning & Transportation Commission (P&TC) considered and recommended
approval of the proposed R-1 Ordinance and related Low Density Residential definitions
on August 4, 2004. A summary of Commission votes on various sections of the
ordinance is included as Attachment E to this staff report. The following discussion is
intended to outline the Commission’s revisions related to several key R-1 issues, but is
not intended to be a comprehensive review of the changes. Attachment C provides a
complete list of the proposed revisions.
Format Changes
The stand-alone R-1 chapter has been reformatted, substituting easier to read tables for
development standards and allowable uses, as well as for frequently requested
information, such as gross floor area measurement and basic R-1 parking. References to
metric measurements have been deleted. The encroachment and exception sections,
formerly in Chapter 18.88, are also incorporated as they apply to the R-1 district.
References to other sections or chapters of the Code applicable to the R-1 district have
also been added.
Staff is also working with the ZOU urban design consultants to incorporate some of the
tools of the Context Based Design Form Code into the R-1 Chapter, including
illustrations for calculating the daylight plane and locations for attached and detached
second dwelling units. Examples of these illustrations are shown in Attachment C. This
form code component will be incorporated with the final ZOU along with clarification of
the existing illustrations contained in the definitions Chapter 18.04.
Allowable Uses and Basic Development Standards
Allowable uses in the R-1 code remain substantially unchanged, but have been updated to
reflect current State law for day care homes, delineate the sizes of accessory structures,
and provide flexibility for below-grade patios and lightwells for basements. The R-1
update also revised criteria for substandard lots to allow more flexibility for building on
those constrained parcels, including permitting second story development, subject to
Individual Review, and less stringent contextual garage, site coverage, and streetside
setback standards. This wouldprovide for more incentives to retain this type of
affordable market rate housing, help families needing a new bedroom, and discourage lot
mergers resulting in the potential loss of two houses.
The ZOU staff recommended new location criteria for placement of noise -producing
equipment, specifically in the rear setback area. The P&TC recommended requirements
for noise-producing equipment to require the permitted location outside of all setbacks
and that all such equipment be fully "housed and insulated."
CMR: 437:04 Pa=e ~ of 8
Since the P&TC’s action, the City’s Building Department and some local architects have
expressed concern regarding requiring all such equipment to be located outside all
setbacks and to be "housed and insulated." They indicated that some equipment such as
air conditioning equipment cannot be completely insulated or housed. Additionally, the
Building Department indicated that many manufacturers of such equipment would void
warranties if such equipment is entirely enclosed. ZOU staff recommends that the
Council consider other options to the Commission proposal, including:
Allowing the Director limited discretion to locate, screen, and/or house such
equipment based on existing conditions on the site;
Allowing such equipment in the rear setback, except where the rear setback is
directly adjacent to the sideyard of an adjacent property, it must be located at least
6 feet from the rear property line; and/or
Retaining the existing language in the Code stating that "if visible from off-site,
the equipment shall be screened or fenced from view."
The P&TC review also included substantial discussion of contextual setbacks for front
setback and garage placement. This review involved discussions with the LDR Working
Group and Single Family Advisory Committee (SFAC) Co-chairs. The contextual garage
placement standards were mainly clarified and modified for more efficient application
and to reduce the need for continual interpretation.
The consistent application of these provisions, without requiring frequent interpretation,
and reduced anxiety for applicants was also a maj or goal of reviewing contextual front
setback standards. The calculation of contextual front setbacks is clarified to apply only
where the average setback is greater than 30 feet, and to clarify what is included and
excluded in the calculations, and to address setback "anomalies." Additionally, staff wilt
"memorialize" (record) contextual front setbacks for entire blocks as applications are
received or as staff resources allows.
Staff notes that the Single Family Advisory Committee (SFAC) Co-chairs indicated their
support for most of the changes presented above. However, they supported a lower
threshold of 25 feet when contextual front setbacks would be required, reasoning that the
difference between 20’ and 30’ is quite obvious.
Housing Element Policies
Staff identified approximately twelve, key Comprehensive Plan Housing Element policies
and programs that provided a basis for revisions to the R-1 Chapter. These are described
in the May 26 P&TC staff report, Attachment G:(page 8). A major tenet of these policies
for single family residential is the protection of existing houses and neighborhoods.
CMR: 437:04 Page 4 of 8
Rather than be strictly regulatory in approach, staff’s preference was to develop a positive
approach to protection of existing homes through 1) improved regulations to facilitate
second units, 2) Home Improvement Exception (HIE) incentives for retaining existing
homes, including historic homes, 3) provisions in the nonconforming provisions of the
code allowing minor improvements and upgrades to existing nonconforming units, and 4)
village residential (cottage cluster) regulations that would provide incentives for
preserving that unit type rather than developing new homes. Some of these changes such
as the nonconforming provisions and the cottage cluster land use are being developed
outside of the R- 1 Chapter.
Two key Housing Element policies addressed by P&TC review in the R-1 Chapter
include providing greater opportunities to construct second dwelling units and providing
for maximum lot sizes to restrict the potential for lot mergers and the subsequent loss of
housing units.
Second Dwelling Units
Housing Element Program H-4 states (in part): "evaluate the provisions for second
dwelling units in single family areas to determine how additional units might be
provided." including "increased flexibility in the regulations such as reduced
parking requirements, limiting the maximum size of the unit, allowing for attached
units, and reducing the minimum lot size requirement."
To address this policy, the proposed R-1 chapter includes many revisions to
encourage second dwelling units:
Allowing small (up to 450 sq ft) units on single-family lots meeting the
minimum lot size requirements, rather than requiring lots to be 35% larger than
the minimum.
Reducing the required parking for such small (up to 450 sq ft) units to one
parking space, rather than two.
Permitting attached units up to a maximum size of 900 square feet, similar to
detached units.
Allowing second story second units, either detached or attached, subject to the
Single-Family Individual Review criteria and all other development standards.
Eliminating open space requirements for second dwelling units.
All second dwelling units would still be required to meet all other development
standards, including the setback requirements of the R-1 district.
2.Maximum Lot Size/Loss of Housing Units
CMR: 437:04 Page 5 of 8
Housing Element policy H-5 states (in part): "Address the loss of housing due to
the combination of single family residential lots. Consider modifying the R-1
zoning district to create a maximum lot size to prevent the loss of housing or
housing opportunities."
To address this policy, the proposed R-1 chapter includes the creation of
maximum lot sizes that are just under the twice the minimum lot size to discourage
lot mergers that could result in the reduction of potential housing (buildable lots)
in the City. In the R-1 districts where 6,000 square feet is the minimum lot size,
the maximum Was set at 9,999 square feet, to specifically prohibit the merging of
two 5,000 square foot lots. Exceptions are provided for.cases where lot mergers
are required to eliminate nonconformities and to allow for modifications that do
not reduce the number of lots or potential housing units.
The P&TC and staff heard concerns at the last public hearing from members of the
real estate community in opposition to this change. The speakers’ primary issues
were that 1) the City should allow the housing market to determine the size and
number of lots, 2) the effect of the requirement would be insignificant compared to
other means of increasing housing stock, especially facilitating higher density
housing in appropriate areas, and 3) combining lots helps preserve open space.
Staff believes, however, that the ordinance provisions provide for sufficient
flexibility to address most unusual situations, and directly implement a very
specific adopted Housing Element program. Staff has met with the real estate
community to discuss their issues and will continue this discussion with them for
the entire ZOU.
Review Process Changes
The revised R-1 chapter incorporates provisions and changes related to the Single Story
(S) Combining District, the Individual Review (IR) process, and Home Improvement
Exceptions (HIE):
The review process and criteria for establishing (and removing) the Single
Story overlay has been incorporated into the Code, including establishing
defined percentages for "overwhelming support" and "prevailing single story"
criteria and eliminating the "moderate lot sizes requirement."
The Individual Review process is added to the Chapter.
The HIE provisions are modified to provide for specific limitations of
exceptions that may be granted, and to make the findings less stringent.
CMR: 437:04 Page 6 of 8
References to architectural (ARB) and historical (HRB) review have also been added and
incentives for historical preservation are added to exclude certain basement and attic
space from floor area calculations on historic homes. The HIE process also provides
exceptions for historic homes, including increased floor area.
In response to the audit, the P&TC recommendations serve to streamline and clarify the
processes for Single Family Individual Review and Home Improvement Exceptions The
revised IR and HIE procedures may be found in Section 18.77.075 of the Zoning
Ordinance (Section 36 of Attachment A).
Definitions
The Low Density Residential-(LDR) definitions included in the ordinance provide
necessary clarifications to gross floor area and other terms, and adds definitions for terms
such as porch, structure, porte-cochere, and vaulted entry feature.These modifications
will also apply to the other LDR districts (R-E, R-2, and RMD).
RESOURCE IMPACT
The implementation of the proposed ordinance is not expected to significantly impact
staff.resources or the City’s budget. Some additional staff time will be required to
initially call out the proposed changes to both staff and the public. Staff anticipates that
the revisions and reformatting of the regulations will result in an ordinance that is more
readily accessible and understood by applicants and staff, with no increase in the time or
resources required for staff review.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Recommendations of this staff report are consistent with the overall land use and housing
goals of the Comprehensive Plan, some of which are listed in the discussion above. The
Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance
with the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Commission believe that the
proposed amendments are a significant step in that direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has considered the proposed revisions to the R-1 district, especially including
changes made to basement and second unit requirements, in comparison with the existing
zoning regulations and with the environmental analysis that was conducted for the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was certified by the City Council on July 20, 1998. The Addendum to the
Comprehensive Plan EIR was adopted by the City Council on December 2, 2002, and
encompasses the Housing Element policies and programs, including second unit
regulations, addressed in the R-1 Chapter. In addition, upon request from the
Commission, staff asked the ZOU environmental consultant (EIP) to prepare a
CMR: 437:04 Page 7 of 8
groundwater/basement issue paper that was presented and included as an attachment to
the July 14, 2004 P&TC staff report. The report concluded that there would be no
significant impact on groundwater, either individually or cumulatively, from the
construction of basements. It is staff’s determination that the changes proposed with the
R-1 chapter therefore do not have significant environmental impacts and that they do not
extend beyond those already analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Proposed Ordinance Adopting Changes to the R-1 Chapter (18.12) and
Definitions (18.04) of the Zoning Code
Exhibit A: Final (Clean) Version of R-1 Code
Attachment B: Map of R-1 and R-1 Combining Districts
Attachment C: Summary of Changes being made to the R-1 Chapter
Attachment D: Edited (Redlined) Version of R-1 Code & Definitions (Chapter 18.04)
Attachment E: Summary of P&TC Votes on R-1 Items
Attachment F: January 14, 2004 Staff Report and Commission minutes
Attachment G: May 26th Staff Report and Commission minutes from May 26th, June 2nd
and June 9th
Attachment H: July 14th Staff Report and Commission minutes from July 14th and 21st
Attachment I: August 4th Staff Report and Commission minutes
PREPARED BY:
ardi,
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
,
/ Director of Planning and Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
City M
CMR: 437:04 Page 8 of 8
NOT YET APPROVED
ATTACHMENT., A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO UPDATING THE R-I ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS,
THE R-I INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROCESS, AND THE HOME
IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION PROCESS OF TITLE 18
[ ZONING ] OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.04, 18.12, 18.08, 18.12,
18.13, 18.14, 18.15, 18.77, 18.88 AND AMENDING
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 follows:
The City Council
(a)That in December 2000, the City Council approved
a work plan for the Zoning Ordinance Update involving the
preparation of a new Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC), including the update of existing land use
chapters and processes as well as the preparation of chapters
for new and revised land uses;
(b) The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
includes several programs and policies related to the R-I
district. The Zoning Ordinance Update was initiated in part to
accomplish these programs and policies.
(c) The last comprehensive update of the Palo Alto
Zoning Code took place in 1978. Many modifications to the R-I
district have been made since that time, resulting in a code
that is dfsorganized and difficult to read and implement.
(d) On August 6, 2001, the Palo Alto City Council
approved an Individual Review Process for single-family homes.
The program requires review for al! new two-story homes, new
second story additions, and additions to an existing second
story greater than 150 square feet. This program went into
effect on November 19, 2001.
(e) On October 29, 2003, and December 15, 2003, the
Department of Planning and Community Environment presented the
second annual report on the Individual Review program to the
Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council,
respectively. That report recommended several minor adjustments
to the Individua! Review process and ordinance language.
012104 jea 6030042 1
NOT YET APPROVED
(f) Input from the City Council, the Planning and
Transportation Commission, the Department of Planning and
Community Environment, and the community during review of home
improvement exceptions has revealed the need to revise the home
improvement exception.
SECTION 2.
following:
Purpose. This ordinance will accomplish the
(a) Reorganize and update the various chapters
applicable to the R-I single-family areas of the City to improve
usability and clarify the code language;
(b) Implement programs in the Palo Alto comprehensive
plan relating to low-density residential districts;
(c) Revise the regulations governing Planning permit
processing to enable home~ improvement exceptions (HIEs) and
Individual Review approvals to be processed in the same manner;
(d) Revise the findings required for approval
HIEs, and place specific limitations on such exceptions; and
of
(e) Clarify code language
Individual Review approvals.
applicable to HIEs and
SECTION 3. Summary of Code Changes.
this ordinance will be accomplished by:
The purpose of
(a) Amending and restating Chapter 18.12 (R-I Single-
Family Residence District Regulations) in its entirety;
(b) Amending and consolidating chapters 18.13
(Single-Story Height Combining District (S) Regulations), 18.14
(R-I Single Family Individual Review), 18.15 (Special
Residential Building Site Combining District Regulations), and
section 18.76.060 (Home Improvement Exception) into chapter
18.12;
(c)
Approvals ) ;
Amending Chapter 18.77 (Procedure for Permits and
(d)Amending Chapter 18.04 (Definitions);
(e) Relocating to ~ Chapter 18.12 parts of Chapter
18.88 (Specia! Provisions and Exceptions) specifically
applicable to the R-I district; and
012104 jea 6030042 2
NOT YET APPROVED
(f)
sections.
Amending cross-references in various other code
SECTION 4. Paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] is hereby deleted.
SECTION 5. Paragraph (15) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(15) "Basement" means that portion of a building
between the lowest floor and the ceiling above, which is fully
below grade or partly below and partly above grade, but so
located that the vertical distance from grade to the floor below
is more than the vertical distance from grade to ceiling.
SECTION 6. A new paragraph (15.5), is added to
subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
(15.5) "Bed and Breakfast" lodqinq means the furnishinq
of rooms or qroups of rooms equipped reqular~y to provide
~odqinq by Drearranqement and for compensation for short periods
of time and not to exceed six quest rooms. Meals may or may not
be provided, but there is one common kitchen facility.
SECTION 7. Paragraph (24.5) of subsection (a) of
section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(24.5) "Carport" means a portion of a principal
residential building or an accessory building to a residentia!
use designed to be utilized for the shelter of one (I) or more
motor vehicles, which is open (unenclosed) ..at ........ the vehicular
entry side and which has no more than two sides enclosed on two
or more sides (includinq on the vehicular entry side), and which
is covered by a solid roof.
SECTION 8. A new paragraph (41.5) is added to
subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
(41.5) "Director" means the director of planning and
community environment or his or her designee.
O12104 jea 6030042 3
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 9. Paragraph (43) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pale Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(43)Day Care Home.
(A)"Family day care home" means a home licensed by
the state or county which regularly provides care, protection,
and supervision of twelve or fewer for fourteen or fewer
children-..undcr ~ a~c ~; ~~,~~ in the provider’s own home,
for periods of less than twenty-four hours per day, while the
parents or guardians are away and includes the following:
(i) "Large family day care home" means a home which
provides family da_gy__care to sevcn to t~clvc childrcnfor seven to
fourteen children, inclusive, including children under the age
eighteen of ten who reside at the home, subject to the
requirements of State Health and Safety Code §1597.465. ~
term includes, but is not limited to, nursery schools,
preschools, and similar facilities.
(ii) "Small family day care home" means a home which
provides family day care .to sixfor eiqht or fewer children,
including children ~-m~ ~ ~gh~nthe aqe of ten who reside
at the home, subject to the requirements of State Health and
Safety Code §1597 44 ~ ~~--~" -~"~ ~~................. s not limited t~
........... ~ ......~ and similar ~~
(B)"Adult day care home" means use of a dwelling
unit or portion thereof, licensed by the state or county, for
daytime care and supervision of twelve or fewer persons, above
the age of eighteen, and includes the following:
(i) "Large adult day care home" means a home which
provides daytime care of seven to twelve adults.
(ii) "Small adult day care home" means a home which
provides daytime care to six or fewer adults.
SECTION i0. Paragraph (44) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pale Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(44) "Daylight plane" means a heiqht limitation that,
when combined with the maximum heiqht limit, defines the
buildinq envelope within which all new structures or additions
must be contained. The dayliqht plane is an inclined plane,
O12104jea 6030042 4
NOT YET APPROVED
beginning at a stated height above average grade, as depicted in
the development standards for each zone district, and extendinq
into the site at a stated upward anqle to the horizontal up to
the maximum heiqht limit. ~ The~ average grade~ .... ~, ...... for
the purpose of determinin~ the dayliqht plane, is the average of
the grade at the midpoint of the building and the grade at the
closest point on the abutting ~-elot linc,~-~ ~~~-~~ ~-~
the site at a statcd ........ ~ angle to ~ ~-~ ~-~ The
daylight plane may further limit the height or horizontal extent
of the building at any specific point where the daylight plane
is more restrictive than the height limit applicable at such
point on the site. The daylight plane shall be measured
separately for each building on a lot, and separately for each
side of each building.
SECTION ii. Paragraph (43) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(46) "Dwelling unit" means a room or group of rooms
including living,sleeping,eating,cooking,and
sanitation/bathinq facilities, constituting a separate and
independent housekeeping unit, occupied or intended for
occupancy by~ ..........;~ on a nontransient basis and having not
more than one kitchen.
SECTION 12. Paragraph (64) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(64) Grade.
(A) "Grade," in all districts other than the R-E and R-I
residence districts means the lowest point of adjacent ground
elevation, of the finished surface of the ground, paving, or
sidewalk, excluding areas where grade has been raised by means
of a berm, planter box, or similar landscaping feature, unless
required for drainage, within the area between the building and
the property line} or when the property line is more than five
feet from the building, between the building and a line five
feet from the building. In building areas with natural slopes in
excess of ten percent, "grade" shall mean the adjacent ground
elevation of the finished or existing grade, whichever is lower.
(B) "Grade" in the R-E and R-I residence districts, means,
for each building or structure, the lowest point of adjacent
ground elevation prior to grading or fill, if the site has a
012104 jea 6030042 5
NOT YET APPROVED
natural slope of 10% or less. For R-E and R-I sites with a ~
natural slope of more than 10% (calculated using the lowest and
highest elevations on the site), "grade" shall mean the adjacent
ground elevation of the finished or existing grade, whichever is
lower. The calculation of "averaqe qrade" for the DurDose of
determinin~ the davliqht Dlane is described in the definition of
~Grade"
SECTION 13. Paragraph (65) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby restated in its entirety to read as
follows:
(65)~Gross floor area" is defined as follows:
(A)Non-residential & Mhltifamily Inclusions: For all
zoning districts other than the R-E, R-l, R-2 and RMD residence
districts, "gross floor area" means the total area of all floors
of. a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior
walls, and including all of the following:
(i)Halls;
(ii)Stairways;
(iii)Elevator shafts;
(iv)Service and mechanical equipment rooms;
the
(v) Basement, cellar or attic areas deemed usable by
director of planning and community environment;
(vi) Open or roofed porches, arcades, plazas,
balconies, courts, walkways, breezeways or porticos if located
above the ground floor and used for required access;
(vii) Permanently roofed, but either partially enclosed
or unenclosed, building features- used for sales, service,
display, storage or similar uses; and
(viii) In residential districts other than the R-E, R-I,
R-2 and RMD residence districts, all roofed porches, arcades,
balconies, porticos, breezeways or similar features when located
above the ground floor.
(B) Non-residential & Multifamily Exclusions: For
all zoning districts other than the R-E, R-l, R-2 and RMD
O12104jea 6030042 6
NOT YET APPROVED
residence districts, ~gross floor area" shall not include the
following:
(i) Parking facilities accessory to a permitted or
conditional use and located on the same site;
(ii) Roofed arcades, plazas, walkways, porches,
breezeways, porticos, and similar features not substantially
enclosed by exterior walls, and courts, at or near street level,
when accessible to the genera! public and not devoted to sales,
service, display, storage or similar uses.
(iii) Except in the CD District and in areas designated
as specia! study areas, minor additions of floor area approved
by the director of planning and community environment for
purposes of resource conservation or code compliance, upon the
determination that such minor additions will increase compliance
with ~environmental health, safety or other federal, state or
local standards. Such additions may include, but not be limited
to: areas designed for resource conservation, such as trash
compactors, recycling and thermal storage facilities; and areas
designed and required for hazardous materials storage
facilities, handicapped access or seismic upgrades;
(iv) In commercial and industrial districts except in
the CD District and in areas designated as special study areas,
additions of floor area designed and used solely for on-site
employee amenities for employees of the facility, approved by
the director of planning and community environment, upon the
determination that such additions will facilitate the reduction
of employee vehicle use. Such additions may include, but are not
limited to, recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias
and day care centers.
(C) Low Density Residential -Inclusions and
Conditions: In the R-E and R-I single-family residence districts
and in the R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts, "gross
floor area" means the tota! covered area of all floors of a main
structure and accessory structures greater than one hundred
twenty square feet in area, including covered parking and
covered stairways, measured to the outside surface of stud
walls, subject to the following inclusions and conditions:
(i) Floor area where the distance between the floor
and the roof directly above it measures seventeen feet or more
shal! be counted twice;
012104 jea 6030042 7
NOT YET APPROVED
(ii) Floor area where the distance between the floor
and the roof directly above it measures twenty-six feet or more
shall be counted three times;
(iii) Carports and garages enclosed on more than one
side shall be included in gross floor area;
(iv) The entire floor area (footprint) of a vaulted
entry feature, whether enclosed or unenclosed, shall be counted
twice in the calculation of gross~floor area;
(v) The footprint of a fireplace shall be included in
the gross floor area, but is only counted one time;
(vi) All roofed porches, arcades, balconies, porticos,
breezeways or similar features when located above the ground
floor and more than 50% covered by a roof or more than 50%
enclosed shal! be included in the calculation.
(vii)Recessed porches on the ground floor extending in
height above the first floor shal! be included once in the
calculation.
(D)Low Density Residential -Exclusions: For the
R-E, R-!, R-2 and RMD residence districts, ~gross floor area"
shall not include the following:
(i) Basements where the finished level of the first
floor is not more than three feet above the grade around the
perimeter of the building foundation, shall be excluded from the
calculation of gross floor area, provided that lightwells,
stairwells and oLher excavated features comply with the
provisions of Section 18.10.050(m) and 18.12.070;
(ii) Two hundred square feet of unusable third floor
equivalent, such as attic space, shall be excluded from the
calculation of gross floor area. Provided, there shal! be no
exclusion of floor area if any portion of the unusable third
floor equivalent area has a roof slope of less than 4:12;
(iii) Attic storage space where the distance between
the attic floor and the roof directly above it is less than 5’
in height shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor
area;
(iv) Bay windows shall be excluded from gross floor
O12104jea 6030042 8
NOT YET APPROVED
area if the bay structure is located at least 18" above the
interior finished floor level, projects no more than two feet
from the main building wall and more than 50% of the bay area is
covered by windows;
(v) Open or partially enclosed (less than 50%
enclosed) porches, whether recessed or protruding, located on
the first floor shal! be excluded from gross floor area, whether
covered or uncovered. Recessed porches located on the first
floor with a depth of less than I0 feet shall be excluded from
the calculation if the exterior side(s) of the porch is open,
and provided such porches do not extend in height above the
first floor.
(vi) Porte-cocheres and carports completely open on
three or more sides shall be excluded from the calculation of
gross floor area.
(E) Low Density Residential - Exclusions for historic
structures: For residences, in the R-E, R-l, R-2 and RMD
residence districts that are designated on the City’s Historic
Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure, or
for any contributing structure within a locally designated
historic district in the R-E, R-l, R-2 and RMD residence
districts, ~gross floor area" shall not include the following:
(i)New or existing basement area, including
basement area where the existing finished level of the first
floor is 3 feet or more above grade around the perimeter of the
building foundation walls; and
(ii) Up to 500 square feet of unusable attic space
where the distance between the attic floor and the roof directly
above it is greater than 5 feet in height
All exterior alterations to historic structures are
subject to the provisions of 16.49, (Historical Review).
Additionally, if the structure includes a second story or second
story addition, the project is subject to the provisions of
Section 18.12.110 (Single Family Individua! Review).
SECTION 14. Paragraph (66) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby deleted.
012104jea 6030042 9
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 15. Paragraph (67) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows.
(67) "Height" means, for all districts other than the
R-E and R-I residence district, the vertical distance above
grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to
the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the
highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof, except that in the R-
2 and RMD Districts the height of a pitched or hipped roof shall
be measured to the height of the peak or highest ridge line. In
the R-E and R-I sinqle family residence districts, height shall
be measured from the highest point of the structure’s roof,
including wal! parapets, to the grade. The height of a stepped
or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the
buildinq.
SECTION 16. Paragraph (75) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows.
(75) ~Kitchen" means a room designed, intended or used
for cookinq and the preparation of food and dishwashinq.
Kitchen facilities include the presence of major appliances or
utility connections and the ability to store, prepare, cook, and
cleanup of food and food preparation.
SECTION 17. Paragraph (82) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby deleted.
SECTION 18. Paragraph (83) of subsection (a) Of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows.
(83) "Lodging unit" means a room or group of rooms not
including a kitchen, used or intended for use by overnight
occupants as a single unit, whether located in a hotel, motel or
~ bed and breakfast providing., lodging. Where
designed or used for occupancy by more than two persons, each
two-person capacity shall be deemed a separate lodging unit. ~
SECTION 19. Subparagraph (B) of paragraph (84) of
subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18
012104 jea 6030042 10
NOT YET APPROVED
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows.
(B)"Flag lot" means an interior lot on which the
buildable area is located to the rear of a lot abutting a
street, and which has access to the same street only by means of
a narrow driveway.
SECTION 20. A new paragraph (113.3), is added to
subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title ~18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
(113.3) ~Porch" means a roofed open area, attached
to or part of the building and with direct access to the
residence. Please see definition for "vaulted entry feature"
for similar structures greater than 12 feet in height.
SECTION 21. A new paragraph (114.3), is added to
subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
(i14.3) "Porte-cochere" means a covered structure attached to a
residence or adjacent to a residence and erected over a
driveway, which is completely open on three or more sides and
used for the temporary unloading and loading of vehicles.
SECTION 22. A new paragraph (114.5), is added to
subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
(114.5)"Privacy" means a reasonable expectation
that personal activities conducted within and around one’s home
will not be. subject to casual or involuntary observation by
others.
SECTION 23. Paragraph (127) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows.
(127) ~Screened" means shielded, concealed and effectively
hidden from view at an elevation up to eight feet above ground
level on adjoining sites, or from adjoining streets, within ten
feet of the lot line, by a fence, wall, hedge, berm, or similar
structure, architectural or landscape feature, or combination
thereof. "Partially screened" means that the direct view of an
identified object is interrupted as viewed from a specifically
referenced vantage point.
012104 jea 6030042 11
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 24. A new paragraph (127.5), is added to
subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
(127.5) ~Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic
Rehabilitation" means the Secretary of the United States
Department of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of
Historic Buildings, issued by the National Park Service (36 Code
of Federal Regulations Part 67), together with the accompanying
interpretive Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,
as they may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 25. Paragraph (132) of subsection (a) of section
18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as fol!ows.
(132) "Single-family use" means the use of a site for
only one dwelling unit and, where permitted, a second dwellinq
unit.
SECTION 26. A new paragraph (143.5), is added to
subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
(143.5) "Vaulted entry feature" means a roofed but open
structure qreater than 12’ in heiqht attached to or part of the
buildinq and with direct access to the residence. The heiqht
shall be measured from qrade to the top of the roof or, if there
is a second floor above the feature, then to the underside of
the floor above.
SECTION 27. Subparagraph (E) of paragraph (146) of
subsection-(a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows.
(E) "Street yard" means a yard adjoining a street lot
line, other than the front lot line.
SECTION 28. Section 18.08.020 of Chapter ¯ 18.08
(DESIGNATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
18.08.020 Designation of combining districts.
012104 j~a 6030042 12
NOT YET APPROVED
In addition to the classes of general districts set
forth in Section 18.08.010, the following combining districts
are established and designated:
Zoning
Map
Designation
S
(20,000;
8,000; 7,000)
NP
CC(2)
R
P
H
GF
GM (B)
3,5
L
D
N
i0,000;
District
Name
Single-story height combining
district
Special residential building
site combining district
Neighborhood preservation
combining district
Community commercia!
combining district
Retail shopping combining
district
Pedestrian shopping combining
district
Hotel combining district
Ground floor combining
district
General manufacturing
district
Limited industria! site
combining district
Landscape combining district
Site and design review
combining district
Hazardous waste facility
combining district
Nonconforming use
amortization combining
district
Chapter
Number
18.12
18.12
18.30
18.44
18.46
18.47
18.48
18.50
18.57
18.63
18.70
18.82
18.85
18.95
SECTION 29. Section 18.08.030 of Chapter 18.08
(DESIGNATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
18.08.030 References to districts.
Reference within this title to residential districts
generally and as a grouping, includes all districts identified
in this section. Where references are made to more restrictive
or less restrictive residential districts, such references shall
012104 jea 6030042 13
NOT YET APPROVED
apply sequentially between the most restrictive and the least
restrictive.
Residential
District
Restrictive
Reference
R-I (20,000)
R-I (I0,000)
R-I (8,000)
R-I (7,000)
R-I
R-2
RM-15
RM-30
Most Restrictive
Least Restrictive
SECTION 30. Chapter 18.12 (R-I Single Family Residence
District Regulations) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby restated in its entirety to read as
shown in Exhibit A.
SECTION 31. Chapter 18.13 (Single-Story Height Combining
District (S) Regulations) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby deleted.
SECTION 32. Chapter 18.14 (R-I Single Family Review) of
Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby
deleted.
SECTION 33. Chapter 18.15 (Special Residential Building
Site Combining District Regulations) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby deleted.
SECTION 34. Section 18.76.060 (Home Improvement
Exception) of Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby deleted.
SECTION 35. A new Section 18.77.075 (Low-density
Residential Review Process) is hereby added to Chapter 18.77
(Procedures for Permits and Approvals) of Title 18 [Zoning] of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
18.77.075 Low-density Residential Review Process
012104 jea 6030042 14
NOT YET APPROVED
(a) Applications Subject to Low-density Residential
Review Process. The following applications are subject to the
review process set forth in this section:
(i) Individual review applications, home improvement
exception applications; and
(2) Other permits and approvals for which such review
process is required by the provisions of this title (Zoning).
(b) Notice of application submittal. Within three
days of submittal of an application, notice that the application
has been submitted shall be given by mail to owners and
residents of property adjacent to the subject property, and
shall be posted at the subject property until approva!, denia!
or withdrawa! of the application. The notice shall include the
name of the applicant; the address of the proposed project; and
information on when and how comments will be accepted by the
city. The mailed notice shal! also include a description of the
project.
(c) Comment Period. The comment period shall be
twenty-one days beginning on the third business day after an
application is submitted. If notice is mailed or posted on a
later date, the comment period shall begin on the later date.
Written comments received by the city during this period shall
be considered as part of the staff review. 0nly one comment
period is required. If plans are revised during or following
the comment period, a statement that the plans have been revised
shall be included in the notice of the proposed director’s
decision set forth in subsection (e).
(d) Decision by the director. Following completion
of the comment period and any staff review:
(i) 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 mailed to owners and residents of property adjacent to the
subject property, and any person who has made a written request
for notice of the decision~ 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 fina! if no hearing is
requested, and a description of how to request a hearing.
012104 lea 6030042 15
NOT YET APPROVED
(3) The proposed director’s decision shall become
final fourteen days after the date notice is mailed unless a
request for a hearing is filed.
(4) The applicant or the owner or occupier of an
adjacent property may request a director’s hearing on the
proposed director’s decision by filing a written request with
the planning division before the date the proposed director’s
decision becomes final. There shal! be no fee required for
requesting such a hearing.
(5) The time limits set forth in this subsection (d)
may be extended upon the written request of the applicant.
(e)Director’s Hearing (upon request).
(i) Following the filing of a timely hearing request
of a proposed director’s decision the director shall hold a
hearing on the application. A hearing request received after
the expiration of the time limits set forth in subsection (d) (3)
shal! not be considered.
(2) Notice of the director’s hearing shall be mailed
ten days prior to the hearing to the project applicant, to
owners and residents of property adjacent to the subject
property, and to any person who has made a written request for
such notice. Notice shall include the address of the property,
a brief description of the proposed project, and the date, time
and location of the hearing.
(3) At the time and place set for hearing the
director shall hear evidence for and against the application or
its modification. The hearing shall be open to the public.
(f)Final Director’s Decision
(i) The director shall issue a written decision
approving,approving with conditions, or denying the project
application within fourteen days of the hearing.
(2) Notice of the director’s decision shall be mailed
to the project applicant, the owners and occupants of all
adjacent properties, and any person requesting notice of the
decision. 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
012104 jea 6030042 16
NOT YET APPROVED
be final if no appeal is filed, and a description of how to file
an appeal.
(3) The director’s decision shall become final
fourteen days after the date notice is mailed unless an appeal
is filed. The director may, for good cause, specify in writing
a longer period for filing an appeal at the time he or she
issues the proposed decision.
(4) The applicant or the owner or occupier of an
adjacent property may file an appeal of the director’s decision
by filing a written request with the City Clerk before the date
the director’s decision becomes final. The written request
shal! be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee
schedule.
(g) Decision by the city council. If a timely appeal
is received by the City, the director’s decision on the
application shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city
counci! within 30 days. The city council may:
(i) Adopt the findings
director; or
and recommendation of the
(2) Remove the recommendation from
calendar, which shall require four votes, and:
the consent
(A) Discuss the application and adopt findings and
take action on the application based upon the evidence presented
at the director’s hearing; or
(B) 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.
(h) Decision by the city council Final.
of the city council is final.
The decision
SECTION 36. Subsection (d) of section 18.77.080 (Notice)
of Chapter 18.77 (Procedures for Permits and Approvals) of Title
18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
(d) Notice by Mail. 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
012104 j~ 6030042 17
NOT YET APPROVED
notice to occupants, using the addresses listed in the city’s
Geographic Information System (GIS) constitutes a good faith
effort to provide such notice. When notice by mail to adjacent
property owners and residents is required, "Adjacent proDerties"
means those DroDerties sharinq a common boundary with the
subject property, the Droperty or properties located directly
across the street, and the next properties located diagonally
across the street from the subject property.
SECTION 37. Section 18.77.120 (Home Improvement
Exception Process) of Chapter 18.77 (Procedures for Permits and
Approvals) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is hereby deleted.
SECTION 38. The following entry is added to Table 1
(Minimum 0ff-Street Parking Requirements) of Section 18.83.050
(Schedule of off-street parking, loading and bicycle facility
requirements) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code:
012104 jea 6030042 18
NOT YET APPROVED
Use
Single-family
residential
use(including
second single-
family dwelling
units):
Minimum 0ff-Street Parking
Requirement
(a) In the O-S district:
for the primary dwelling unit,
4 spaces, of which one must be
covered
for a second detached dwelling
unit, 2 spaces, of which one must be
covered
for a second attached dwelling
unit, 1 space
(b) In the R-I district:
for the primary dwelling unit,
2 spaces, of which one must be
covered
for a second dwelling unit
larger than 450 square feet, 2
spaces, of which one must be covered
for a second dwelling unit 450
square feet or smaller, 1 space
(c) In all other districts:
for the primary dwelling unit,
2 spaces, of which one must be
covered
for a second detached dwelling
unit, 2 spaces, of which one must be
covered
for a second attached dwellin~
unit, 1 space
Minimum Bicycle
Parking
Requirement
Spaces Class
SECTION 39. Paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of section
18.88.030 (Location of Accessory buildings) of Title 18 [Zoning]
of the Pale Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as
follows.
(3) An accessory building shall not be located in a
required interior side or rear yard unless the building is at
least 22.9 meters (seventy-five feet) from any street line,
Pr ......, ~ corner ....measured along the respective lot line. ~..~ ~ i~
in the~R i ~strict,~~~~ ~~ ....... and~~ may ~
~~ ~ the rear yard if at leact~~" five ~ ~,,~ the
front -~ and ~ ..... ~ ~ from ~ ~m~ -~
012104 jea 6030042 19
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 40. Paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of section
18.88.040 (Separation between buildings) of Title 18 [Zoning] of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows.
(a) The minimum distance between separate buildings
located on the same site shall be as required by Title 16;
provided. However, accessory buildings in the R ! and RE single-
family residence districts shall be separated from the principal
building by at least three feet.
SECTION 41. Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of section
18.88.090 (Projections into yards) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby deleted.
SECTION 42. Paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of section
18.88.090 (Projections into yards) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby deleted.
SECTION 43. Section 18.98.020 (Changes in district
boundaries) of Chapter 18.98 (AMENDMENTS TO ZONING MAP AND
ZONING REGULATIONS) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.98.020 Changes in district boundaries.
Changes in the boundaries of districts established by this
title may be initiated by any one of the following actions:
(a) By application of a property owner as provided by
Section 18.98.030;
(b) By motion of the city. council, or by motion of the
planning commission, as provided by Section 18.98.040.
(c) For creatinq or removinq a sinqle-story combininq
district (S), by application of an affected property owner as
provided by Section 18.98.035, or by motion of the City Council
or Planninq Commission, as provided by Section 18.98.040.
SECTION 44. A new Section 18.98.035 (Application for
Single-Story Overlay Districts.) is hereby added to Chapter
18.98 (AMENDMENTS TO ZONING MAP AND ZONING REGULATIONS) of Title
18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
18.98.035 Application for Single-Story Overlay Districts.
O12104jea 6030042 2 0
NOT YET APPROVED
An application for creation or removal of a sinqle-story
combininq district may be made by an owner of record of property
located in the sinqle-story overlay district to be created or
removed, in accordance with the requirements of 18.12.100
(Requlations for the Sinqle Story Overlay (S) Combininq
District). Such applications shall be considered in accordance
with the provisions of this Chapter 18.98.
SECTION 45. 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.
SECTION 46. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days
after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
012104 jea 6030042 21
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 18.12
R-1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
18.12.010
18.12.020
18.12.030
18.12.040
18.12.050
18.12.060
18.12.070
18.12.080
18.12.090
18.12.100
18.12.110
18.12.120
18.12.130
18.12.140
18.12.150
Purposes
Applicable Regulations
Land Uses
Development Standards
Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions
Parking
Second Dwelling Units
Accessory Uses and Facilities
Basements
Regulations for the Single Story Overlay (S) Combining District
Single Family Individual Review
Home Improvement Exceptions
Architectural Review
Historical Review
Grandfathered Uses
18.12.010 Purposes
Provisions related to the single-family residential (R-1) district, four residential R-1
subdistricts, and the single-story (S) combining district are outlined in this chapter.
Requirements for the RE, R-2 and RMD are included in Chapters 18.10, 18.17, and
18.19, respectively. The specific purposes of each residential district are stated below:
(a)Single Family Residential District [R-l]
The R-1 single family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and
enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and
with open area affording maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living
and children’s play. Minimum site area requirements are established to create and
preserve variety among neighborhoods, to provide adequate open area, and to
encourage quality design. Second dwelling units and accessory structures or
buildings are appropriate where consistent with the site and neighborhood
character. Community uses and facilities, such as churches and schools, should be
limited unless no net loss of housing would result.
(b)Special Residential Building Site R-1 Subdistricts (7,000), (8,000), (10,000),
(20,000)1
The special residential building site R-1 subdistricts are intended to modify the site
development regulations of the R-1 single family residence district, where applied
1 Subdistricts may be reflected on the Zoning Map as R-1(650), R-1(743), R-1(929) and R-t(1,858),
respectively, reflecting the minimum lot size in square meters rather than in square feet.
18.12.020 Applicable Regulations
in combination with the R-1 district, to create and maintain single-family living
areas of varying site size and development characteristics, to reflect and preserve
the character of existing neighborhoods.
(c)Single-Story Combining District (S)
The single-story height combining district is intended to modify the site
development regulations of the R-t single-family residence district, to preserve and
maintain single-family living areas of predominantly single-story character. An
area proposed for a single story combining district should be of a prevailing single
story character, thus limiting the number of structures rendered noncomplying by
the (S) combining district. It is intended that neighborhoods currently subject to
single story deed restrictions be developed in a manner consistent with those deed
restrictions. Furthermore, it is desirable that homes be similar in age, design and
character, ensuring that residents of an area proposed for rezoning possess like
desires for neighborhood preservation and face common home remodeling
constraints.
18.12.020 Applicable Regulations
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures
established by Chapters 18.83 to 18.99 inclusive shall apply to the R-1 district including
the R-1 subdistricts.
18.12.030 Land Uses
The permitted and conditionally permitted uses for the single-family residential districts
are shown in Table 1:
Table 1: Permitted and Conditional R-1 Residential Uses
Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to
permitted uses with no more than two plumbing fixtures
and no kitchen facility, or of a size less than or equal to
200 square feet.
Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to
permitted uses with more than two plumbing fixtures
(but with no kitchen), and in excess of 200 square feet
in size, but excluding second dwelling units.
Home Occupations, when accessory to permitted
residential uses.
Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products
for consumption by occupants of the site.
Second Dwelling Units
P
CUP
P
P
P
18.04.030(3)
18.12.080
18.12.080
18.88.130
18.12.070
18.12.040 Site Development Standards
CLIP
CLIP
Community Centers CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services
to the neighborhood, but excluding business offices,CUPconstruction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards.
Outdoor Recreation Services CUP
Single-Family P
Mobile Homes P 18.88.140
Residential Care Homes P
Day Care Centers
Small Adult Day Care Homes
Large Adult Day Care Homes
Small Family Day Care Homes
Large Family Day Care Homes
CUP
P
CUP
P
P
18.12.040 Site Development Standards
(a) Site Specifications, Building Size, Height and Bulk, and Residential Density
The development standards for the R-1 district and the R-1 subdistricts are shown
in Table 2:
18.12.040 Site Development Standards
Table 2:R-1 Residential Development Standards
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
All lots except flag lots (17
Flag lots
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Maximum Lot Size
Lot Area (square feet)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard(~
Street Side Yard (ft)
Maximum Height (as
measured to the peak of the
roof) (ft)
Standard
Maximum height for
buildings with a roof
pitch of t2:t2 or greater.
With (S) Combining
Side Yard Daylight Plane
(Excludes street side yards)
Initial Height
Angle (degrees)
Rear Yard Daylight Plane
Initial Height
Angle (degrees)
Maximum Site Coverage:
Single story development
With (S) Combining
Multiple story
development
Additional area permitted
to be covered by a patio
or overhang
I
6,000I 7,000 8,000 10,000 20,000
As established by 21.20.301 (Subdivision Ord.)
6O
100
9,999 13,999 15,999 19,999 39,999
Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to
Chapter 20. 08 of this code may also apply
Contextual
20
6 t 8
16
30(37
33(3)
t7 feet; limited to one habitable floor(4’ 57
10 feet at interior side lot line~67
45(6)
16 feet at rear setback line(67
60~67
Equivalent to maximum allowable floor area ratio~7)
Equivalent to maximum allowable floor area ratio~77
35%(7)
5%
18.12.040(d)
18.12.040(e)
18.12.050
18.04.030 (67)
18.12.050
18.12.100
18.04.030 (44);
18.12.050
18.12.050
18.04.030 (86A)
~- Subdistricts may be reflected on the Zoning Map as R-1(650), R-1(743), R-1(929) and R-1(1,858),
respectively, reflecting the minimum lot size in square meters rather than in square feet.
18.12.040 Site Development Standards
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
First 5,000 square feet of
lot size
Square footage of lot size
in excess of 5,000 square
feet
Maximum
House Size (ft2)
Residential Densit~
.45
.3O
6,000(s)
One unit, except as provided in Section 18.12.060
See Residential Parking Sec. 18.12.080
Table 3
18.04.65(C)
18.12.040(b)
18.83Parkin~
m Minimum Lot Size: Any lot less than the minimum lot size may be used in accordance with the 9rovisions of Section
18.88.050.(z) Contextual Front Setbacks: See Section ! 8. ! 2.040(e) for application of contextual front setbacks.
t3) R-1 Floodzone Heights: Provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the maximum heights
are increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum building
height of 33 feet.
(4) R-I(S) Height Limitations: Habitable floors include lofts, mezzanines, and similar areas with interior heights of five
feet (5’) or more from the roof to the floor, but shall exclude finished basements and shall exclude attics that have no
stairway or built-in access.(s) R-1 (S) Floodzone Heights: Provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the maximum
height is increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum
building height of 20 feet.~6) R-1 Floodzone Daylight Plane: Provided, if the site is in a special flood hazard area and is entitled to an increase in
the maximum height, the heights for the daylight planes shall be adjusted by the same amount.(7) Site Coverage: The covering of a court is exempt from the calculation of site coverage provided that the court existed
prior to July 20, 1978.
t8) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached second dwelling units are included in
the calculation of maximum house size. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one
detached covered parking space shall be included in the calculation.
(b)Gross Floor Area Summary
The following table summarizes how "gross floor area" is counted, for the
purpose of compliance with floor area ratio limits outlined in Table 2. "Gross
floor area" means the total covered area of all floors of a main structure and
accessory structures greater than one hundred twenty square feet in area,
including covered parking and stairways, measured to the outside surface of stud
walls, subject to the following inclusions, conditions, and exclusions. For exact
language refer to 18.04(65) Gross Floor Area definition.
18.12.040 Site Development Standards
Table 3: Summary of Gross Floor Area for Low Density Residential Districts
Description Included in GFA Excluded from GFA
Second floor equivalent: areas with heights >17’,/(counted twice)
Third floor equivalent: areas with heights > 26’-/(counted three times)
Third floor equivalent, where roof pitch is >4:12 ,/ up to 200 sfof
unusable space
Garages and carports enclosed on more than one
side
Porte cocheres and carports with three or more
sides completely open
Entry feature < 12’ in height ¢" (counted once)
Vaulted entry > 12’ in height ¢" (footprint
counted twice)
Fireplace footprint ¢" (counted once)
First floor roofed or unenclosed porches
First floor recessed porches <10’ in .depth and ’/
open on exterior side
Second floor roofed or enclosed porches,"/
arcades, balconies, porticos, breezeways
Basements (complying with patio & lightwell "/
requirements described in 18.12.070)
Attic space where floor to roof distance is _<5’’/
Attic space where floor to roof distance is >5’,’/
Bay windows (if at least 18" above interior floor,’/
does not project more than 2’, and more than
50% is covered by windows)
Basement area for Category 1 & 2 Historic
Homes (even if greater than 3’)
Unusable attic space for Category 1 & 2 Historic "/ (up to 500 sf)
Homes
(c)Substandard and Flag Lots
The following site development regulations shall apply to all new construction on
substandard and flag lots in lieu of comparable provisions in subsection (a).
(1) Substandard Lots
(A) For the purposes of this subsection (c), a substandard lot shall be a lot with a
width of less than 50 feet or a depth of less than 83 feet and an area less than
83% of the minimum area required by the zoning of the parcel.
(B) Development standards:
18.12.040 Site Development Standards
(d)
(c)
(i)Second story additions or new two-story homes are subject to the
Single Family Individual Review guidelines and review process
described in Section 18.12.110.
(ii)For lots less than 50’ in width, the required street side setback shall be
10 feet.
(iii)Substandard lots shall not be subject to the R-1 contextual garage
placement requirement.
(iv) Site coverage for two-story home: 40%.
Nothing in this subsection (c) shall affect or otherwise redefine the
provisions of Section 18.88.050(a) as to whether a substandard lot may be
used as a lot under this title.
(2)Flag Lots
(A) A flag lot shall be defined as set forth in Section 18.04(84B).
(B) Flag Lot Development Standards:
(i)The maximum height shall be 17 feet, as measured to the peak of the
roof.
(ii)There shall be a limit of one habitable floor. Habitable floors
include lofts, mezzanines, and similar areas with interior heights of
five feet (5’) or more from the roof to the floor, but exclude
basements and shall exclude attics that have no stairway or built-in access.
The chief building official shall make the final determination as to
whether a floor is habitable.
(iii)
(iv)
Front Setback: 10 feet. Flag lots are not subject to contextual from
setback requirements.
Flag lots are not subject to contextual garage placement
requirements.
Maximum Lot Sizes in R-1 District and R-1 Subdistricts.
This provision limits the potential for lot combinations with a net loss of housing
stock and resultant homes that would be out of scale with homes in the surrounding
neighborhood. In the R-1 district and all R-1 subdistricts, no new lot shall be
created equal to or exceeding two times the minimum lot size prescribed for the
district, except that where 6,000 minimum square foot lots are required in an R-1
district, no new lot shall exceed a maximum lot size of 9,999 square feet, as
prescribed in Table 2. Lots larger than the prescribed maximum size are permitted
only under the following circumstances: (i) where a Village Residential land use is
approved concurrent with the new lot, resulting in no net loss of housing units on
the site(s); (ii) where underlying lots must be merged to eliminate nonconformities
and no net loss of housing units would result; (iii) where an adjacent substandard
lot of less than 25 feet in width is combined with another lot, resulting in no net
18.12.040 Site Development Standards
(e)
(f)
loss of housing units on the site(s); or (iv) where the number of resultant lots
increases or stays the same and results in no net loss of housing units.
Contextual Front Setbacks.
The minimum front yard ("setback") shall be the greater of twenty feet (20’) or the
average setback, if the average front setback is 30 feet or more. "Average setback"
means the average distance between the front property line and the first main
structural element, including covered porches, on sites on the same side of the
block, including existing structures on the subject parcel. This calculation shall
exclude flag lots and existing multifamily developments of three units or more. For
calculation purposes, if five (5) or more properties on the block are counted, the
single greatest and the single least setbacks shall be excluded. The street sideyard
setback of corner lots that have the front side of their parcel (the narrowest street
facing lot line) facing another street shall be excluded from the calculations. For
blocks longer than 600 feet, the average setback shall be based on the ten sites
located on the same side of the street and nearest to the subject property, plus the
subject site, but for a distance no greater than 600 feet. Blocks with three (3) or
fewer parcels are not subject to contextual setbacks. Structures on the site in no
case may be located closer than twenty feet (20’) from the front property line.
Contextual Garage Placement
If the predominant neighborhood pattern is of garages or carports located within the
rear half of the site, or with no garage or carport present, attached garages shall be
located in the rear half of the house footprint. Otherwise, an attached garage may
be located in the front half of the house footprint. "Predominant neighborhood
pattern" means the existing garage placement pattern for more than half of the
houses on the same side of the block, including the subject site. This calculation
shall exclude flag lots, corner lots and existing multifamily developments of three
or more units. For blocks longer than 600 feet, the calculations shall be based on
the 10 homes located nearest to and on the same side of the block as the subject
property, plus the subject site, but for a distance no greater than 600 feet.
Detached garages shall be located in the rear half of the site and, if within a rear or
side setback, at least 75 feet from the from property line. Detached garages on !ots
of less than 95 feet in depth, however, may be placed in a required interior side or
rear yard if located in the rear half of the lot. Access shall be provided from a rear
alley if the existing development pattern provides for alley access. For the
calculation of corner lots, the "predominant pattern" shall be established for the
street where the new" garage fronts.
Garage Doors
For garages located within 50 feet from a street frontage, on lots less than 75 feet in
width, the total combined width of garage doors which are parallel to the street
shall not exceed 20 feet.
18.12.040 Site Development Standards
(h)
(i)
O)
(k)
(l)
Minimum Permeable Surface in Front Yard
A minimum of 60% of the required front yard shall have a permeable surface that
permits water absorption directly into the soil. Provided, all sites may have an
impervious 16’ x 20’ driveway and an impervious 4’ x 20’ walkway within the
front yard setback.
Special Setbacks
Where applicable, setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 of this code shall be followed for the purpose of determining legal
setback requirements.
Certification of Daylight Plane Compliance
Upon request by the building official, any person building or making improvements
to a structure shall provide a certification that the structure, as built, complies with
the daylight plane provisions in subsection (a). Such certification shall be prepared
by a licensed engineer, architect, or surveyor, and shall be provided prior to frame
inspection.
Lighting
Recreational and security lighting shall be permitted only so long as the lighting is
shielded so that the direct light does not extend beyond the property where it is
located. Free-standing recreational and security lighting installed on or later than
March 11, 1991 shall be restricted to twelve feet (12’) in height. Direct light from
outdoor fixtures shall only fall on the walls, eaves, and yard areas of the site on
which it is located. Outdoor fixtures shall have lens covers or reflectors that direct
the light away from the neighboring properties.
Location of Service Equipment
All noise-producing equipment, such as air conditioners, pool equipment,
generators, commercial kitchen fans, and similar service equipment, shall be
located outside of the front, rear and side yard setbacks. Such equipment may,
however, be located up to 6 feet into a street sideyard setback. All such equipment
shall be insulated and housed and any replacement of such equipment shall
conform to this section where feasible. All service equipment must meet the City
Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of the Municipal Code.
18.12.050 Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions
18.12.050 Permitted Encroachments, Projections and
Exceptions
The following projections and encroachments into required yards, daylight plane and
height are permitted, provided a projection shall not be permitted to encroach into a
special setback, as established by the setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, except as noted in (a)(1)(D) below-.
(a)Setback/Yard Encroachments and Projections
(1)Horizontal Additions
Where a single-family dwelling legally constructed according to existing yard and
setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required
yards, one encroaching side (first floor wall) of the existing structure, at a height
not to exceed 12 feet, may be extended in accord with this section. Only one such
extension shall be permitted for the life of such building. This subsection shall not
be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building
which is the result of the granting of a variance, either before or after such property
became part of the city.
(A)
(B)
Front Yard. In cases where the existing setback is less than 20 feet, but at
least 14 feet, the existing encroachment may be extended for a distance of
not more than 100% of the length of the encroaching wall to be extended;
provided, that the total length of the existing encroaching wall and the
additional wall shall together not exceed one-half the maximum existing
width of such building.
Interior Side Yard. In cases where the existing setback is less than 8 feet,
but at least 5 feet, the existing encroachment may be extended for a
distance of not more than 100% of the length of the encroaching wall to be
extended but not to exceed 20 additional feet.
(c)
(D)
Street Side Yard. In cases where the existing setback is less than 16 feet,
but at least 10 feet, the existing encroachment may be extended for a
distance of not more than 100% of the length of the encroaching wall to be
extended, but not to exceed 20 feet.
Special Setbacks. In cases where a Special Setback is prescribed pursuant
to Chapter 20.08 of the Municipal Code, and the existing setback is less
than the Special Setback distance, and at least 14 feet for the front setback
or at least 10 feet for the street side yard setback, the existing
encroachment may be extended for a distance of not more than 100% of
the length of the encroaching wall to be extended, provided that the total
length of the existing encroaching wall and the additional wall shall
together not exceed one-half the maximum existing width of such
building.
18.12.050 .Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions
(3)
Rear Yard Encroachments for Portions of Homes
A portion of a main building that is less than half the maximum width of the
building may extend into the required rear yard no more than six feet and
with a height of no more than one story, except that for a comer lot having a
common rear property line with an adjoining comer lot, the building may
extend into the required rear yard not more than ten feet with a height of no
more than one story.
Allowed Proiections
(A) Cornices, Eaves, Fireplaces, and Similar Architectural Features
For cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features, excluding
flat or continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, the following
projections are permitted:
(i)A maximum of two feet into a required side yard. Fireplaces in a
required side yard may not exceed five feet in width. Fireplaces not
exceeding five feet in width may project into a required side yard
no more than two feet.
(ii)
(iii)
(B)
(i)
A maximum of four feet into a required front yard
A maximum of four feet into a required rear yard
Window Surfaces
Window surfaces, such as bay windows or greenhouse windows,
may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed two
feet, or into a required front yard a distance not to exceed three
feet.
(ii)Window surfaces may not extend into required side yards, with the
exception that one greenhouse window with a maximum width of
six feet, framed into a wall, may project into the side yard no more
than two feet. The window surface may not extend into any yard
above a first story.
(C)Detached Storage Structures
Detached storage structures not over six feet in height or twenty-five square
feet in floor area may be located in interior side yards and rear yards
according to the provisions of Section 18.12.080 (b) for accessory structures.
Where the provisions of Section 18.12.080(b) for front and/or street side yard
setbacks are not met, the following projections are permitted for such
structures:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
A maximum of two feet into a required side yard
A maximum of four feet into a required front yard
A maximum of four feet into a required rear yard
18.12.050 Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions
(b)
(D) Patios, Decks, Stairways, Landings, Balconies, or Fire Escapes
For uncovered porches (less than 30 inches above grade), patios, decks,
stairways, landings, balconies, or fire escapes the following projections are
permitted, provided these projections are not permitted above the first story:
(i)A maximum of three feet into a required side yard
(ii)A maximum of six feet into a required front yard
(iii)A maximum of six feet into a required rear yard
(E)Canopy or Patio Cover
A canopy or patio cover may be located in the required rear yard or that
portion of the interior side yard, which is more than 75 feet from the street lot
line measured along the common lot line. Such canopies shall be subject to the
following conditions:
(i)A canopy or patio cover shall not be more than 12 feet in height.
(ii)The canopy or patio cover shall be included in the computation of
building coverage.
(iii) The canopy or patio cover and other structures shall not occupy
more than fifty percent of the required rear yard.
(iv)The canopy or patio cover shall not be enclosed on more than two
sides.
(F) Pools, Spas, and Hot Tubs
(i)Pools, spas, and hot tubs may extend into a required rear yard a
distance not to exceed fourteen feet, provided that a minimum
setback of six feet from the property line shall be maintained.
(ii)No swimming pool, hot tub, spa, or similar accessory facility shal!
be located in any portion of a required front or street side yard.
Height and Daylight Plane Exceptions
(1) Height Exceptions
Flues, chimneys, and antennas may exceed the established height limit by not more
than 15 feet.
(2) Daylight Plane Exceptions
The following features may extend beyond the daylight plane established by the
applicable district, provided that such features do not exceed the height limit for the
district unless permitted to do so by subsection (b)(1) above:
(A) Television and radio antennas;
(B)Chimneys and flues that do not exceed 5 feet in width, provided that
chimneys do not extend past the required daylight plane a distance
exceeding the minimum allowed pursuant to Chapter 16.04 of this code.
18.12.060 Parking
(C)Dormers, roof decks, gables, or similar architectural features, provided
that:
(i)The sum of the horizontal lengths of all such features shall not exceed
15 feet on each side; and
(ii)The height of such features does not exceed 24 feet;
(iii)No single feature exceeds 7.5 feet in length; and
(iv)There is a minimum 5 foot separation between each feature.
(D)Cornices, eaves, and similar architectural features, excluding flat or
continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, provided such
features do not extend past the daylight plane more than 2 feet.
18.12.060 Parking
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional
uses in accord with Code Chapter 18.83 of this title. The following parking requirements
apply in the R-1 district. These requirements are included for reference purposes only,
and in the event of a conflict between this Section 18.12.060 and any requirement of
Chapter 18.83, Chapter 18.83 shall apply:
(a)Parking Requirements for Specific Uses
Table 4 shows the minimum off-street automobile parking requirements for
specific uses within the R-1 district.
Table 4:mrements for Specific R-1 Uses
Single-family residential use (excluding second
dwelling units)
Second dwelling unit, attached or detached:
>450 sf in size_<450 sf in size
Other Uses
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be covered.
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be covered
t space per unit, which may be covered or uncovered
See Chapter 18.83
(b)Parking and Driveway Surfaces
Parking and driveway surfaces may have either permeable or impermeable paving.
Materials shall be those acceptable to Public Works Department standards. Gravel
and similar loose materials shall not be used for driveway or parking surfaces
within !0 feet of the public right of way.
18.12.070 Second Dwelling Units
(c)Parking in Yards
(1)No required parking space shall be located in a required front yard, except as
provided for second dwelling units in Section 18.12.070.
(2)No required parking space shall be located in the first ten feet adjoining the
street line of a required street side yard, except as provided for second
dwelling units in Section 18.12.070.
(a)Tandem Parking
Tandem parking shall be permitted for single-family uses and for single-family
uses with a permitted second dwelling unit.
(e)Underground Parking
Underground parking is prohibited for single-family uses, except pursuant to a
variance granted in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.90, in which case
the area of the underground garage shall be counted in determining the floor area
ratio for the site.
Design of Parking Areas
Parking facilities shall comply with all applicable regulations of Chapter 18.83
(Parking Facility Design Standards).
18.12.070 Second Dwelling Units
The following regulations apply to second dwelling units in the R-1 district and all R-1
subdistricts.
(a) Purpose
The intent of this section is to provide regulations to accommodate second dwelling
units, in order to provide for variety to the City’s housing stock and additional
affordable housing opportunities. Second dwelling units shall be separate self-
contained living units, with separate entrances from the main residence, whether
attached or detached. The standards below are provided to minimize the impacts of
second dwelling units on nearby residents and to assure that the size, location and
design of such dwellings is compatible with the existing residence on the site and
with other structures in the area.
(b)Minimum Lot Sizes
(1)In the R-1 district and all R-1 subdistricts, the minimum lot size for a second
dwelling unit that is in excess of 450 square feet shall be 35% greater than the
minimum lot size otherwise established for the district. Provided, for flag
lots, the minimum lot size shall be 35% greater than the minimum lot size
established by Section 21.20.301 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
minimum lot size for a second dwelling unit that is 450 square feet or less
18.12.070 Second Dwelling Units
(2)
shall be the minimum size established for the district or, for a flag lot, the
minimum established by Section 21.20.301.
Table 5 shows the minimum lot size required for a second dwelling unit in
excess of 450 square feet, provided, in the event of a conflict between
subsection (1) and this subsection (2), subsection (1) shall control:
Table 5: Minimum Lot Sizes for Second Dwelling Units
in Excess of 450 Square Feet
(c)
(d)
R-1
R-1 (7,000)
R-1 (8,000)
R-1 (10,000)
R-1 (20,000)(1)Exclusive of any portion of the lot used for access to the street
8,1 O0 square feet ("sf")
9,450 sf
10,800 sf
13,500 sf
27,000 sf
9,720 sf
11,340 sf
12,960 sf
16,200 sf
32,400 sf
Development Standards for Attached Second D~velling Units
Attached second dwelling units are those attached to the main dwelling. Attached
unit size counts toward the calculation of maximum house size. All attached
second dwelling units shall be subject to the following development requirements:
(1)The minimum site area shall meet the requirements specified in subsection (b)
above.
(2)Maximum size of living area: 900 square feet. The second dwelling unit and
covered parking shall be included in the total floor area for the site. Any
basement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be
counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size of the
second unit.
(3)Maximum size of covered parking area for the second dwelling unit: 200
square feet.
(4)Any second story attached second dwelling unit is subject to the provisions
and criteria of Single-Family Individual Review, pursuant to Section
18.12.110 of the Code.
(5)Except on comer lots, the second dwelling unit may not have an entranceway
facing the same lot line (property line) as the entranceway to the main
dwelling unit, and exterior staircases to second floor units shall be located
toward the interior side or rear yard of the property.
Development Standards for Detached Second Dwelling Units
Detached second dwelling units are those detached from the main dwelling. All
detached second dwelling units shall be subject to the following development
requirements:
18.12.070 Second Dwelling Units
(e)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
The minimum site area shall meet the requirements specified in subsection
(b) above.
Minimum separation from the main dwelling: 12 feet.
Maximum size of living area: 900 square feet. The second dwelling unit
and covered parking shall be included in the total floor area for the site. Any
basement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be
counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size of the
second unit.
Maximum size of covered parking area for the second dwelling unit: 200
square feet.
Maximum height: one story and 17 feet. The planning director may allow a
detached second dwelling unit to exceed the story and height restrictions
above, not to exceed the general site development restrictions of this
chapter, where the first story of a two story structure is a garage or similar
use, subject to the Single-Family Individual Review criteria and process
established in Section 18.12.110 of the Code.
The detached second dwelling shall be architecturally compatible with the
main residence, with respect to style, roof pitch, color and materials.
Street Access
The second dwelling unit shall have street access from a driveway in common with
the main residence in order to prevent new- curb cuts, excessive paving, and
elimination of street trees. Separate driveway access may be permitted by the
Zoning Administrator upon a determination that separate access will result in fewer
environmental impacts such as excessive paving, unnecessary grading or
unnecessary tree removal, and that such separate access will not create the
appearance, from the street, of a lot division or two-family use.
Parking
The following parking criteria apply to both detached and attached second dwelling
units:
(1)
(2)
Two parking spaces shall be provided for the second dwelling unit, with at
least one of the spaces being covered; provided, however, that if the floor
area of the second dwelling unit is 450 square feet or less, only a single
parking space is required, and it may be covered or uncovered.
Such parking shall be located out of required front setbacks and not closer
than 10 feet from the street in a street side setback, except that a minimum
of one uncovered parking space may be provided within such setbacks
(including in tandem with other parking spaces), upon determination by the
Planning Director that adequate alternative locations are not available and
that the space is readily accessible and will not cause any unnecessary
grading or tree removal. New parking areas created in the front or street side
18.12.080 Accessory Uses and Facilities
setbacks, if allowed, shall be of permeable materials, if required by the
Planning Director.
18.12.080 Accessory Uses and Facilities
Accessory uses and facilities, as allowed in Section 18. i2.030, shall be permitted when
incidental to and associated with a permitted use or facility in the R-1 district or R-1
subdistricts, or when incidental to and associated with an allowable and authorized
conditional use therein, subject to the provisions below.
(a)Types of Accessory Uses
Accessory uses and facilities include, but are not limited to, the following list of
examples; provided that each accessory use or facility shall comply with the
provisions of this title:
(1)Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and
circulation elements necessary thereto;
(2) Facilities for storage incidental to a permitted use; and
(3)Recreational uses and facilities for the use and convenience of occupants or
employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use or facility.
(b)Location and Development Standards
Except as otherwise provided in this section, accessory buildings shall at all times
be located in conformance with requirements for principal buildings, and shall not
be located in any required front, side, or rear yard. See Section 18.12.050 (a)(3)(C)
for allowed encroachments for small storage structures. Accessory buildings may
be located in a required interior yard subject to the following limitations:
(1)
(2)
(3)
An accessory building shall not be used for living and/or sleeping purposes
unless the building was legally constructed for or was legally converted to
living and/or sleeping purposes prior to October 13, 1983.
An accessory building shall not be located in a required front yard, required
street yard, or required rear yard of a through lot.
An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear
yard unless the building is placed at least seventy-five feet from the front lot
line and for comer lots at least twenty feet from the streetside lot line.
Additionally, on lots of less than 95 feet in depth, detached garages and
carports may be located in a required interior side or rear yard if placed in the
rear half of the lot.
(4)Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard as permitted by
this section shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight
plane begilming at a height of eight feet at the property line and increasing at a
18.12.090 Basements
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
slope of one foot for every three feet of distance from the property line, to a
maximum height of twelve feet.
No such accessory building shall have more than two plumbing fixtures.
Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard, as permitted by
this section, shall not individually or cumulatively occupy an area exceeding
fifty percent of the required rear yard.
The minimum distance between separate buildings located on the same site
shall be as required by Title 16; provided, accessory buildings in the Single-
family Residential (R-1) district shall be separated from the principal building
by at least three feet.
A principal building and an accessory building, meeting the requirements of
Title t 6 and each located on a site as otherwise permitted for the principal
building and accessory buildings, may be connected by a structure meeting the
definition of a breezeway. Such structure, or breezeway, shall be a part of the
accessory building.
18.12.090 Basements
Basements shall be permitted in areas that are not designated as special flood hazard
areas as defined in Chapter 16.52, and are subject to the following regulations:
(a)Permitted Basement Area
Basements may not extend beyond the building footprint and basements are not
allowed below any portion of a structure that extends into required setbacks, except
to the extent that the main residence is permitted to extend into the rear yard
setback by other provisions of this code.
(b)Inclusion as Gross Floor Area
Basements shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area, provided
that:
(t)
(2)
basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as crawlspace; or
basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the
first floor is no more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of
the building foundation.
Basement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be counted
as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size of the unit (but may
be excluded from calculations of floor area for the total site). This provision is
intended to assure that second units are subordinate in size to the main dwelling and
to preclude the development of duplex zoning on the site.
18.12.090 Basements
(c)Lightwells, Stairwells, Belo~v Grade Patios, and other Excavated Features
(1)Lightwells, stairwells, and similar excavated features along the perimeter of
the basement shall not affect the measurement of grade for the purposes of
determining gross floor area, provided that the following criteria are met:
(A)Such features are not located in the front of the building;
(B)Such features shall not exceed 3 feet in width;
(C)The cumulative length of all such features does not exceed 30% of the
perimeter of the basement;
(D)Such features do not extend more than 3 feet into a required side yard
nor more than 4 feet into a required rear yard, but where a side yard is
less than 6 feet in width, the features shall not encroach closer than 3
feet from the adjacent side property line;
(E)The cumulative length of any features or portions of features that
extend into a required side or rear yard does not exceed 15 feet in
length;
(F)The owner provides satisfactory evidence to the planning division prior
to issuance of a building permit that any features or portions of features
that extend into a required side or rear yard will not be harmful to any
mature trees on the subject property or on abutting properties; and
(G)Such features have either a drainage system that meets the requirements
of the public works department or are substantially sheltered from the
rain by a roof overhang or canopy of a permanent nature.
(2)Below-grade patios, sunken gardens, or similar excavated areas along the
perimeter of the basement that exceed the dimensions set forth in subsection
(1), are permitted and shall not affect the measurement of grade for the
purposes of determining gross floor area, provided that:
(A)Such areas are not located in the front of the building;
(B)All such areas combined do not exceed 2% of the area of the lot or 200
square feet, whichever is greater; that each such area does not exceed
200 square feet; and that each such area is separated from another by a
distance of at least 10 feet. Area devoted to required stairway access
shall not be included in the 200 square foot limitation;
(C)Such features do not extend more than 2 feet into a required side yard
nor more than 4 feet into a required rear yard;
(D)The cumulative length of any excavated area or portion thereof that
extends into a required side or rear yard does not exceed 15 feet;
(E)The owner provides satisfactory evidence to the planning director prior
to issuance of a building permit that any features or portions of features
that extend into a required side or rear yard will not be harmful to any
mature trees on the subject property or on abutting properties;
18.12.100 Regulations for the Single Story Overlay (S) Combining District
(G)
Such features have either a drainage system that meets the requirements
of the public works department or are substantially sheltered from the
rain by a roof overhang or canopy of a permanent nature;
Any roof overhang or canopy installed pursuant to subsection (F) is
within and is counted toward the site coverage requirements established
in Section 18.12.040;
(H)Such areas are architecturally compatible with the residence; and
(I)Such areas are screened to off site views by means of landscaping
and/or fencing as determined appropriate by the planning director.
18.12.100 Regulations for the Single Story Overlay (S)
Combining District
(a)Applicability of District
The single-story height combining district may be combined with the R-1 single-
family residence district or with any R-1 subdistrict. Where so combined, the
regulations established by this Section shall apply in lieu of the comparable
provisions established by Section 18.12.040. All applicable provisions of that
section shall otherwise govern development in the combining district.
(b)Site Development Regulations
For sites within the single-story height combining district, the following site
development regulations shall apply in lieu of the otherwise applicable site
development regulations of Section 18.12.040:
(1)The maximum height shall be 17 feet, as measured to the peak of the roof;
provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the
maximum height is increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required
to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum building height of 20 feet.
(2)There shall be a limit of one habitable floor. Habitable floors include lofts,
mezzanines and similar areas but exclude basements and exclude attics that
have no stairway or built-in access. Lofts and mezzanines include any space
above the first floor in excess of five feet (5’) from the floor to the roof
above.
(c)Application for a Single Story (S) Combining District
(1) Application to create or remove a single-story overlay district may be made
by an owner of record of property located in the single-story overlay district
to be created or removed.
(2)Application shall be made to the zoning administrator on a form prescribed
by the zoning administrator, and shall contain all of the following:
18.12.110 Single Family Individual Review
(3)
(A)A written statement setting forth the reasons for the application and all
facts relied upon by the applicant in support thereof;
(B)A map of the district to be created or removed that includes the address
location of those owners whose properties are subject to the zoning
request. Boundaries shall correspond with certain natural or man-made
features (including, but not limited to roadways, waterways, tract
boundaries and similar features) to define an identifiable neighborhood
or development. For creation of a single-story overlay district, the area
shall be of a prevailing single story character, such that a minimum of
80% of existing homes within the boundaries are single story;
(C)A list of signatures evidencing support by: (i) 70% of included
properties; or (ii) 60% of included properties where all included
properties are subject to recorded deed restrictions intended to limit
building height to a single story, whether or not such restrictions have
been enforced. "Included properties" means all those properties inside
the boundaries of the district proposed to be created or removed. The
written statement or statements accompanying the signatures must state
that the signer is indicating support for a zone map amendment that
affects his or her property. One signature is permitted for each included
property, and a signature evidencing support of an included property
must be by an owner of record of that property;
(D)A fee, as prescribed by the municipal fee schedule, no part of which
shall be returnable to the applicant; and
(E)Such additional information as the zoning administrator may deem
pertinent and essential to the application.
An application for creation or removal of a single-story (S) overlay district
made in accordance with this subsection (c) shall be processed in accordance
with Chapter 18.98.
18.12.110 Single Family Individual Review
(a)Purpose
The goals and purposes of this chapter are to:
(1)Preserve the unique character of Palo Alto neighborhoods;
(2)Promote new construction that is compatible with existing residential
neighborhoods;
(3)Encourage respect for the surrounding context in which residential
construction and alteration takes place;
(4) Foster consideration of neighbors’ concerns with respect to privacy, scale and
massing, and streetscape; and
(5)Enable the emergence of new neighborhood design patterns that reflect
awareness of each property’s effect upon neighboring properties.
18.12.110 Single Family Individual Review
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(g)
(h)
This program is intended only to mitigate the effects of second story construction
on neighboring homes, and should not be construed to prohibit second story
construction when this Title would otherwise permit it.
Applicability
The provisions of this section 18.12.110 apply to the construction of a new singly
developed two-story structure; the construction of a new second story; or the
expansion of an existing second story by more than 150 square feet in the R-1
single family residential district. All second-story additions on a site after
November 19, 2001 shall be included in calculating whether an addition is over ! 50
square feet.
Individual Review Guidelines
The director of planning and community environment shall issue guidelines to
direct staff and project applicants in implementing the goals and purposes and other
provisions of this chapter. Guidelines establishing substantive review standards for
second story development shall be presented to the planning and transportation
commission for their comment prior to adoption or amendment by the director.
Findings
Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant an Individual
Review approval, unless it is found that the application is consistent with the
Individual Review guidelines.
Conditions
In granting individual review approvals, 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).
Application Review and Action
Applications for Individual Review approval shall be reviewed and acted upon as
set forth in 18.77.075.
Preliminary meeting with planning staff.
Project applicants are strongly encouraged, before applying for individual review of
a project, to meet with planning staff to discuss designing a project that promotes
the goals of this chapter and the individual review guidelines, and to discuss the
proposed plans with their neighbors.
Changes to approved projects.
The Director may approve changes to a previously approved Individual Review
project without following the procedure set forth in 18.77.075 if those changes do
not affect compliance with the Individual Review guidelines. Examples of such
changes include:
18.12.120 Home Improvement Exceptions
(1)Reductions in window or door size, or reductions in the number of windows.
(2)Changes to aspects of the project not reviewed under Individual Review, such
as materials or non-street-facing first story windows.
(3)Changes that do not affect privacy/streetscape.
(4)Increases in setbacks
(5)Reductions in second floor mass that do not affect privacy or streetscape.
18.12.120 Home Improvement Exceptions
(a)Purpose
A home improvement exception enables a home improvement or minor addition to
an existing single-family or two-family home, or accessory structure, or both, to be
consistent with the existing architectural style of the house or neighborhood, to
accommodate a significant or protected tree, or to protect the integrity of a historic
structure in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation. By enabling adaptive reuse of existing buildings, the home
improvement exception promotes retention of existing houses within the City.
(b)Applicability
A home improvement exception may be granted as part of a proposed improvement
or addition to an existing single-family or two-family structure, or accessory
structure, or both, in the RE, R-l, RMD, or R-2 district, as limited in subsection (c).
A home improvement exception may be granted as described in subsections (1)
through (14) of subsection (c), but may not exceed the limits set forth in those
subsections. In order to qualify. for a home improvement exception, the project
must retain at least 75% of the existing exterior walls.
(c)Limits of the Home Improvement Exception
A home improvement exception may be granted for one or more of the following,
not to exceed the specified limits:
(1)To allow up to 100 square feet of floor area more than the maximum square
footage allowed on the site by the applicable zoning district regulations
except when an exception is granted under subsection (c)(10) for residences
designated as historic structures;
(2)To allow the primary building to encroach up to 4 feet into a required front
yard setback;
(3)To allow the primary building to encroach up to 3 feet into a required rear
yard setback;
(4)To allow the primary building to encroach up to 2 feet into a required interior
side yard setback;
18.12.120 Home Improvement Exceptions
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(lO)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
To allow- the primary building to encroach up to 6 feet into a required street
side yard setback (no closer than 10 feet to the property line);
To allow a basement to encroach, along with above grade floor area, as set
forth in items 2, 3, 4, or 5;
To allow an encroaching dormer, roof deck, gable, or similar architectural
feature to exceed 24 feet in height by up to three feet;
To allow a single dormer, roof deck, gable, or similar architectural feature
that encroaches into the rear daylight plane to exceed 7.5 feet in length. In no
event shall the maximum length exceed 15 feet;
To permit a site with an existing two-story structure to exceed lot coverage
requirements in order to locate remaining available FAR for the site on the
first floor;
For any residence designated on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category i
or Category 2 historic structure or any contributing structure within a locally
designated historic district, to allow up to 250 square feet of floor area in
excess of that allowed on the site, provided that any requested addition or
exterior modifications associated with the HIE shall be in substantial
conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
The property owner who is granted a home improvement exception under this
subsection (10) shall be required to sign and record a covenant against the
property, acceptable to the City Attorney, which requires that the property be
maintained in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Historic Rehabilitation;
To allow a legal non-conforming building wall that is between 3.5 and 5 feet
from the side lot line to be extended up to one-quarter of the length of the
existing wall or ten feet, whichever is shorter;
To allow a horizontal extension (pursuant to 18.12.050(a) (Setback/Yard
Encroachments and Projections)) of a portion of an existing legal non-
conforming building wall that is more than twelve feet above grade. Such
horizontal extensions must remain within the height and daylight plane limits
for the district unless an HIE or variance for a height or daylight plane
encroachment is granted;
To allow an increase in the height of an existing legally non-conforming
building wall that encroaches into a setback. Such vertical extensions must
remain within the height and daylight plane limits for the district unless an
HIE or variance for a height or daylight plane encroachment is granted;
To allow-, for single-story accessory structures within rear and/or side
setbacks, one or more of the following:
(A)On a comer lot, a detached accessory structure may be as close as ten
feet from the street side property line. For detached garages and
carports, the exception may be granted as long as a minimum
18.12.130 Architectural Review
(15)
dimension of 18 feet remains between the back of sidewalk and face of
the garage or carport supports.
(B)Four feet additional height above the twelve foot maximum height, as
long as the side daylight plane is met.
(C)A rear daylight plane encroachment of up to three feet.
To allow similar minor exceptions, when determined by the director to be
similar in magnitude and scope to those listed in subsections (1) through (14)
above. Provided, under no circumstances may such exceptions exceed the
limits established in subsections (1) through (14) above.
(d)Findings
Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a home
improvement exception unless it is found that:
(1)The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing
architectural style, neighborhood character, protected tree as defined in
Chapter 8.10, or other significant tree, or of a residence that is designated as a
Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of
the Municipal Code, or any contributing structure within a locally designated
historic district, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the
strict application of the regulations; 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; and
(3)The exception is being granted based on characteristics of the property and
improvements on the property, rather than the personal circumstances of the
applicant, and is the minimmn exception necessary for the project to fulfill
the purposes of subsection (a).
(e)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 (Zoning).
Application Review and action
Applications for home improvement exceptions shall be reviewed and acted upon
as set forth in 18.77.075.
18.12.130 Architectural Review
Architectural Review, as required in Chapter 18.76 and 18.77 of the Zoning Ordinance, is
required in the R-1 district and R-1 subdistricts whenever three or more adjacent single-
family residences or duplexes are intended to be developed concurrently, whether
through subdivision or individual applications. In addition to the existing ARB findings
18.12.140 Historical Review and Incentives
contained in Section 18.76 and 18.77, the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines
shall be used by the ARB in its review of such applications.
18.12.140 Historical Review and Incentives
Historic home review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is
required in the R-1 district and R-1 subdistricts for alterations or modifications to any
residence designated on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2
historic structure or located within a locally designated historic district. The Category 1
or Category 2 designation process for becoming a historic structure is contained in
Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code.
Exemptions to gross floor area requirements are available for historic homes pursuant to
the definition of Gross Floor Area in Section 18.04.65(C2). Home Improvement
Exceptions provide for additional square footage and certain other exceptions for historic
homes pursuant to Section 18.12.120 (R- 1 Chapter).
18.12.150 Grandfathered Uses
(a)Applicability
The uses specified in subsection (b) may remain as grandfathered uses provided
that those uses:
(1)Are located in the specified district;
(2)Existed on the specified date;
(3)On that date, ~vere lawful permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject
to a conditidnal use permit; and
(4) On that date, were conforming uses.
(b)Grandfathered Uses
(1)
(2)
Professional and medical office uses (except product testing and analysis, and
prototype development), existing on July 20, 1978 or such uses which were,
prior to July 20, 1978, located in an R-1 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.
Two-family uses, except where one of the units is a legal nonconforming
detached single-family dwelling on a substandard lot size, and multiple-
family uses existing on July 20, 1978 or such uses which were, prior to July
20, 1978, located in an R-1 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.
18.12.150 Grandfathered Uses
(c)
(d)
Permitted Changes
The following regulations shall apply to the grandfathered uses specified in
subsection (b):
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 such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not:
(A)
(B)
(c)
(D)
(1)
(E)
result in increased floor area;
result in an increase in the number of offices, in the case of
professional or medical office uses, or dwellings, in the case of
residential uses;
result in shifting of building footprint;
increase the height, len~h, building envelope, or size of the
improvement,
increase the existing degree of noncompliance, except through
the granting of a design enhancement exception pursuant to
Section 18.91.
(2)
(3)
(4)
If a grandfathered use ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve
consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced
only by a conforming use.
A grandfathered use 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.
The following additional regulations shall apply to grandfathered professional
or medical office uses:
(A)
(B)
(c)
Any 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 Section
18.90;
In the event of redevelopment of all or a portion of the site for
permitted residential uses, 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 existing structure now used for
professional and medical office uses.
Existing Second Dwelling Units on Substandard Size Lots.
In the R-1 district, and all R-1 subdistricts, notwithstanding any provisions of
Chapters 18.88 and/or 18.94, in the case of a legal and nonconforming second
detached single-family dwelling existing prior to July 20, 1978 on a substandard
18.12.150 Grandfathered Uses
(e)
size lot, such nonconforming use shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace
site improvements on the same site without necessity to comply with site
development regulations; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or
replacement shall not result in increased floor area, number of dwelling units,
height, length, or any other increase in the size of the improvement.
Existing Homes on Substandard Lots.
In the R-1 district and all R-1 subdistricts, single-family and t~vo-family homes on
substandard lots, as defined in Subsection 18.12.040(c)(1), and flag lots existing on
August 1, 1991 and which prior to that date were lawful, complying structures, may
remain and be remodeled, improved, or replaced without complying with the height
and habitable floor limitations for substandard lots specified in Section 18.12.030,
provided that:
(1)Any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement does not result in a
height above seventeen feet or any additional habitable floor area above a
first habitable floor, except that any structure damaged or destroyed by a
natural disaster (such as fire, flood or earthquake) may be replaced to its
previous size without regard to the height and habitable floor limitations
imposed by this section; and
(2)In the case of a conflict between the provisions of this section and the
provisions of Chapter 18.94, this section shall control.
ATTACHMENT B
Legend
The Cily of
Palo Alto
R-I($)~
R-1(7,000)1~~)
R-1(7,000)(S)~,O~R-1~8,oool ~"~-~ ,~
R-1(8,000)(S)g
R-1(10,000)g
__ R-1(20,000)
R-1
and
R-1 Combining Districts
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
ATTACHMENT C
Chapter 18.04
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DEFINITIONS
(3) "Accessory building or structure" means a building or structure which is
incidental to and customarily associated ~vith a specific principal use or facility, and
which meets the applicable conditions set forth in Chapter 18.12.080.
(15) "Basement" means that portion of a building between the lowest floor and the
ceilin ag_a_hg_~, which is fully below gade or partly below and partly above ~ade, but so
located that the vertical distance from gade to the floor below is more than the vertical
distance from gade to ceiling.
(15.5) "Bed and breakfast" lodging means the furnishing of rooms or ~oups of rooms
equipped regularly to provide lodging by prearrangement and for compensation for short
periods of time and not to exceed six guest rooms. Meals may or may not be provided,
but there is one common kitchen facility.
(21) "Breezexvay" means a building or specific portion thereof, not over twelve feet in
height at the ridge line, which connects two otherwise separate buildings, and which is
not more than fifty percent enclosed at the perimeter, including the wall surfaces of the
buildings so connected.
(24) "Canopy" means any roof-like structure, either attached to another structure or
freestanding, or any extension of a roofline, constructed for the purpose of protection
from the elements in connection with outdoor living.
(24.5) "Carport" means a portion of a principal residential building or an accessory
building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter of one (1) or more
motor vehicles, which is open (unenclosed) on two or more sides (at-including on the
hi 1 y id ) ,,Tr,;,.~, ~, .........~r,~., .....;a .....~o~a d h" h i dve cuarentr s e, .................... ......~ .....................an w lc scovere
with a solid roof.
(35) "Convalescent facility" means a use other than a residential care home providing
inpatient services for persons requiring regular medical attention, but not providing
surgical or emergency medical services.
(41) "Covered parking" means a carport or garage that provides full overhead
protection from the elements with ordinary roof coverings. Canvas, lath, fiberglass, and
Draft Definitions - Low Density Residential
Page 2
vegetation are not ordinary roof coverings and cannot be used in providing a covered
parking space.
(42) "Day care center" means a day care facility licensed by the State or County for
nonmedical daytime care. This term includes, but is not limited to, nursery schools,
preschools and similar facilities.
(43) Day Care Home.
(A) "Family day care home" means a home licensed by the State or County which
regularly provides care, protection, and supervision e-f-for g-vel-v~fourteen or fewer
.... r ~.;,~,,~,~, in the provider’s own home, for periods of less thanchildren under the ,.~ .....~ .......,
twenty-four hours per day, while the parents or guardians are a~vay_, and includes the
follo~ving:
(i) "Large family day care home" means a home which provides family
care ~for seven to ~fom~een children, inclusive, including children under the age
ten years who reside at the home, sub)ect to the requirements of Section
1597.465 of the State Health and Safetg Code. T~.;o ,~ ;,~,,~o ~,,, ;
(ii) "Small family day care home" means a home ~vhich provides family day
care ~for eight or fewer children, including children under the age,.~
2ears who reside at the home, subject to the requirements of Section 1597.44 of the State
Hea an a o e ...................... , ..... s ................ , ........ a ........ ,
(B) "Adult day care home" means use of a d~velling unit or portion thereof, licensed
by the state or county, for daytime care and supervision of t~velve or fe~ver persons,
above the age of eighteen, and includes the following:
(i) "Large adult day care home" means a home ~vhich provides daytime care
of seven to twelve adults.
(ii) "Small adult day care home" means a home which provides daytime care
to six or fe~ver adults.
(44) "Daylight plane" is intended to provide for light and air, and to limit the impacts
of bulk and mass on adiacent properties. "Daylight Plane" means a height limitation that.
when combined with the maximum height limit, defines the building envelope within
which all new structures or additions must be contained. The "daylight plane" is an
inclined plane, beginning at a stated height above average grade, as depicted in the
development standards for each zone district, and extending into the site at a stated
upward angle to the horizontal up to the maximum height limit. The float-average grade_.
for the purpose of determining the daylight plane, is b .... ~ .... he average of the grade at
the midpoint of the building and the gade at the closest point on the abutting ~lot line;
"daylight plane" may further limit the heist or horizontal extent of the building at any
specific point where the daylight plane is more restrictive than the height limit applicable
Draft Definitions - Low Density Residential
Page 3
at such point on the site. The "daylight plane" shall be measured separately for each
building on a lot, and separately for each side of each building.
(46)"Dwelling unit" means a room or group of rooms including living, sleeping,
eating,cooking, and sanitation/bathing facilities, constituting a separate and independent
housekeeping unit, occupied or intended for occupancy b;~............ ~ on a nontransient
basis and having not more than one kitchen.
(46.5) "Dwelling unit, second" means a separate and complete dwelling unit, other than
and subordinate to the main dwelling unit, whether a part of the same strncture or
detached, on the same residential lot.
(51) "Enclosed" means a covered space fully surrounded by ~valls, including windows,
doors, and similar openings or architectural features, or an open space of less than one
hundred square feet, fully surrounded by a building or walls exceeding eight feet in
height.
(54) "Family" means an individual or group of persons living together who constitute a
bona fide single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. "Family" shall not be construed to
include a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging
house, or institution of any kind.
(59) "Garage, private" means a portion of a principal residential building or an
accessory building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter of one (1) or
more motor vehicles and is which is enclosed on two or more sides.
(64)Grade.
A. "Grade," in all districts other than the R-E and R-I residence districts means the
lowest point of adjacent ground elevation, of the finished surface of the ground, paving,
or sidewalk, excluding areas where grade has been raised by means of a berm, planter
box, or similar landscaping feature, unless required for drainage, within the area bet~veen
the building and the property line, or when the property line is more than five feet from
the building, between the building and a line five feet from the building. In building
areas; with natural slopes in excess of ten percent,_ "grade" shall mean the adjacent ground
elevation of the finished or existing grade, ~vhichever is louver_.
B. "Grade" in the R-E and R-1 residence districts, means, for each building or
structure, the lowest point of adjacent ground elevation prior to grading or fill, if the site
has a natural slope of 10% or less. For R-E and R-1 sites with a natural slope of more
than 10% (calculated using the lowest and highest elevations on the site), "grade" shall
mean the adjacent ground elevation of the finished or existing grade, whichever is lower.
The calculation of"average wade" for the purpose of determining the daylight plane is
described in the definition of "daylight plane."
Draft Definitions - Low Density Residential
Page 4
(65)"Gross floor area" is defined as follows:
(A) Non-residential & Multifamil¥ Inclusions: For all zonina districts other than the
R-E, R-1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, "G~oss floor area" means the total area of
all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, and including
all of the following:
(i)Halls;
(ii)Stairways;
(iii)Elevator shafts;
(iv)Service and mechanical equipment rooms;
(v)Basement, cellar or attic areas deemed usable by the director of planning
and community environment;
(vi) Open or roofed porches, arcades, plazas, balconies, courts, ~valkxvays,
breezexvays or porticos if located above the ground floor and used for required access;
(vii) Permanently roofed, but either partially enclosed or unenclosed, building
features used for sales, service, display, storage or similar uses; and
(viii) In residential districts other than the R-E, R-1~ R-2 and P-dMD residence
districts, all roofed porches, arcades, balconies, porticos, breeze~vays or similar features
when located above the ground floor.
(B) Non-residential & Multifamily Exclusions: For all zoning districts other than the
R-E, R-1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, "Ggross floor area’_’ shall not include the
following:
(i) Parking facilities accessory to a permitted or conditional use and located
on the same site;
(ii) Roofed arcades, plazas, walkways, porches, breezeways, porticos, and
similar features not substantially enclosed by exterior xvalls, and courts, at or near street
level, when accessible to the general public and not devoted to sales, service, display,
storage or similar uses.
(iii) Except in the CD District and in areas designated as special study areas,
minor additions of floor area approved by the director of planning and community
environment for purposes of resource conservation or code compliance, upon the
determination that such minor additions will increase compliance with envirmunental
health, safety or other federal, state or local standards. Such additions may include, but
not be limited to, the following:
a. Areas designed for resource conservation, such as trash
compactors, recycling and thermal storage facilities;
b. Areas designed and required for hazardous materials storage
facilities, handicapped access or seismic upgrades;
(iv) In commercial and industrial districts except in the CD District and in
areas designated as special study areas, additions of floor area designed and used solely
for on-site employee amenities for employees of the facility, approved by the director of
planning and community environment, upon the determination that such additions will
facilitate the reduction of employee vehicle use. Such additions may include, but are not
be-limited to, recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias and day care centers.
Draft Definitions - Low Density Residential
Page 5
ered of -~ ....~ ........
abe "
abox it 79 " feet)be three
slope of~°~ ,u~ a.l~
(t)C) Low Density Residential: In the R-E and R-1 single-family residence districts
and in the R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts, "gross floor area" means the total
covered area of all floors of a main structure and accessory structures greater than one
hundred twenty square feet in area, including covered parking and stairways, measured to
the outside surface of stud_walls, subject to the following exclusions inclusions,a-ad
conditions, and exclusions:
C.1 Inclusions and Conditions:
(i)Floor area where the distance between the floor and the roof directly
above it measures seventeen feet or more shall be counted twice;
(ii) Floor area ~vhere the distance bet~veen the floor and the roof directly
above it measures twenty-six feet or more shall be counted three times;
(iii) Garages and cGarports enclosed on more than one side shall be included in
gross floor area;
(iv) The entire floor area (footprint) of a vaulted entry feature_, whether
enclosed or unenclosed, shall be counted twice in the calculation of included in goss
floor area;
(v) The footprint of a gfireplace shall be included in the gross floor area, but
is only ~counted one~ time);i
(vi) All roofed porches, arcades, balconies, porticos, breezeways or similar
¯ features when located above the ~ound floor and more than 50% covered bv a roof or
more than 50% enclosed shall be included in the calculation. Recessed porches
extending in height above the first floor shall be included once in the calculation~
Draft Definitions - Low Density Residential
Page 6
C.2 Exclusions:
(vii)Basements where the finished level of the first floor is not more than three
feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundation, shall be excluded
from the calculation of gross floor area, provided that lightxvells, stairxvells and other
excavated features comply with the provisions of Section 18.10.070;
(viii) Attic storage space where the distance between the attic floor and the roof
directly above it is less than 5’ in height shall be excluded from the calculation of,woss
floor area;
(ix) Two hundred square feet of unusable third floor equivalent, such as attic
space, shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area. There shall be no
exclusion of floor area if any portion of the unusable third floor equivalent area has a roof
slope of less than 4:12;
(x) Bay windo~vs shall be excluded from gross floor area where the bay
structure is located at least 18" above the interior finished floor level, projects no more
than txvo feet from the main buildin~ wall and more than 50% of the bay area is covered
by windows;
(xi) Recessed Open or partially enclosed (less than 50% enclosed) porches_~
whether recessed or protruding, located on the first floor shall be excluded from gross
floor area, xvhether covered or uncovered. Recessed porches located on the first floor
with a depth of less than 10 feet shall be excluded from the calculation if the exterior
side(s) of the porch is open-:
(xii) Porte-cocheres and carports completely open on three or more sides shall
be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area.
(xiii) For residences designated on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1
or Category 2 historic structure or any contributing structure within a locally designated
historic district, the following g-ross floor area exclusions apply.
1) New or existin~ basement area, including ~vhere the existin~ finished level of
the first floor is 3 feet or more above grade around the perimeter of the building
foundation walls; and
2) Up to 500 square feet of unusable attic space in excess of 5 feet in height from
the floor to the roof above.
All exterior alterations to historic structures shall be subiect to the provisions of 16.49,
(Historical Review). Additionally, if the structure includes a second story or second story
addition, the proiect shall be subiect to the provisions of Section 18.12.110 (Single
Family Individual Review).
(67) "Height" means, for all districts other than the R-E and R-1 residence district, the
vertical distance above grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the
deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or
hipped roof, except that in the R-2 and RMD Districts the height of a pitched or hipped
roof shall be measured to the height of the peak or highest ridge line. In the R-E and R-1
single family residence district_s, height shall be measured from the highest point of the
Draft Definitions - Low Density Residential
Page 7
structure’s roof, including wall parapets, to the grade. The height of a stepped or terraced
building is the maximum height of any segment of the building.
(71) "Home occupation" means an accessory activity conducted in a dwelling unit
solely by the occupants thereof, in a manner incidental to residential occupancy, in
accord with the provisions of this title. (For further provisions, see regulations for home
occupations in Section 18.88.130.)
(75) "Kitchen" means a room designed, intended or used for cooking and the
preparation of food and dish~vashing. Kitchen facilities include the presence of major
appliances or utility connections and the ability to store, prepare, cook, and cleanup of
food and food preparation.
"~ht occupant?basis
(83) "Lodging unit" means a room or group of rooms not including a kitchen, used or
intended for use by overnight occupants as a single unit, whether located in a hotel= motel
a ....11;,.,. unitbed and breakfast providing lodging. Where designed or used foror a ..........
occupancy by more than two persons, each two-person capacity shall be deemed a
separate lodging unit. For *~ ......... r a~;~; ...... ;a~:~, a~o;, ..... ~ two
(84) "Lot" or "site" means a parcel of land consisting of a single lot of record, used or
intended for use under the regulations of this title as one site for a use or group of uses.
(A) "Corner lot" means a lot abutting two or more streets having an angle of
intersection of one hundred thirty-five degrees or less. A lot abutting on a curved street or
streets shall be considered a comer lot if straight lines draxvn from the intersections of the
side lot lines ~vith the street lines to the midpoint of the street frontage meet at an interior
angle of one hundred thirty-five degrees or less.
B)
of a lot
"Flag lot" means an interior lot on which the buildable area is located to the rear
abutting a street, and which has access to the same street only_by means of a
driveway.
(C)"Interior lot" means a lot abutting one street.
(D)"Through lot" means a lot other than a comer lot abutting more than one street.
(86)"Lot coverage" encompasses the following definitions:
Draft Definitions - Lo~v Density Residential
Page 8
(A) "Single-family residential use" means the total land area within a site that is
covered by buildings, including all projections except the exterior or outermost four feet
of any cave or roof overhang, but. excluding ground level paving, landscaping features,
and open recreational facilities.
(96) "Mobile home (manufactured housing)" means a structure, transportable in one or
more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a
dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities,
and including the plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems contained
therein.
(113) "Patio cover" is defined in subsection (24), Canopy.
(51.3) "Porch" means a roofe& open area, attached to or part of the building and with
direct access to the residence. Please see definition for "vaulted entry feature"for similar
structures ~eater than 12 feet in height.
(114.25) "Porte-cochere" means a covered structure attached to a residence or adjacent to
a residence and erected over a driveway, which is completely open on three or more sides
and used for the temporary unloading and loading of vehicles.
(114.5)"Privacy" means a reasonable expectation that personal activities conducted
within and around one’s home will not be subiect to casual or involuntary observation by
others. Complete or absolute privacy is not a realistic expectation.
(124) "Residential care home" means use of a dwelling unit or portion ttiereof licensed
by the state of California or County of Santa Clara, for care of up to six persons,
including overnight occupancy or care for extended time periods, and including all uses
defined in Sections 5115 and 5116 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, or
successor legislation.
(127) "Screened" means shielded, concealed and effectively hidden from view at an
elevation up to eight feet above ground level on adjoining sites, or from adjoining streets,
within ten feet of the lot line, by a fence, xvall, hedge, berm, or similar structure,
architectural or landscape feature, or combination thereof. "Partially screened" means
that the direct view of an identified obiect is interrupted as viewed from a specifically
referenced vantage point.
(132) "Single-family use" means the use of a site for only one dwelling unit and where
permitted, a second dwellin~ unit.
(134) "Structure" means anything that is constructed or erected, the use of xvhich
requires the location on or in the ground or attached to something located on the ~ound,
including but not limited to buildings, swimming pools, tennis courts, but excluding
patios, sidewalks, driveways, or parking spaces.
Draft Definitions - Low Density Residential
Page 9
(135) "Studio dwelling unit, efficiency dwelling unit" means a dxvelling unit consisting
of a single habitable room for living and sleeping purposes, plus ancillary kitchen and
bath facilities.
(141) "Two-family use" means the use of a site for two dxvelling units, xvhich may be
within the same building or separate buildings.
(143.5)"Vaulted entry feature" means a roofed but open structure Heater than 12’ in
~attached to or part of the building and with direct access to the residence. The
height shall be measured from grade to the top of the roof or, if there is a second floor
above the feature, then to the underside of the floor above.
(146) "Yard" means an area within a lot, adjoining a lot line, and measured horizontally,
and perpendicular to the lot line for a specified distance, open and unobstructed except
for activities and facilities allowed therein by this title.
(A) "Front yard" means a yard measured into a lot from the front lot line, extending
the full width of the lot between side lot lines intersecting the front lot line.
(B)"Interior yard" means a yard adjoining an interior lot line.
(C) "Rear yard" means a yard measured into a lot from the rear lot line, extending
betxveen the side yards; provided, that for lots having no defined rear lot line, the rear
yard shall be measured into the lot from the rearmost point of the lot depth to a line
parallel to the front lot line.
(D) "Side yard" means a yard measured into a lot from a side lot line, extending
between the front yard and rear lot line.
(E)"Street yard" means a yard adjoining a street lot line, other than the front lot line.
ATTACHMENT D
Chapter 18.12
R-1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
18.12.010
18.12.020
18.12.030
18.12.040
18.12.050
18.12.060
18.12.070
18.12.080
18.12.090
18.12.100
18.12.110
18.12.120
18.12.130
18.12.140
18.12.150
Purposes
Applicable Regulations
Land Uses
Development Standards
Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions
Parking
Second Dwelling Units
Accessory Uses and Facilities
Basements
Regulations for the Single Story Overlay (S) Combining District
Single Family Individual Review
Home Improvement Exceptions
Architectural Review
Historical Revie~v
Grandfathered Uses
18.12.010 Purposes
Provisions related, to the single-family residential (R-1) district, four residential R-1
subdistricts, and the single-story (S) combining district are outlined in this chapter.
Requirements for the RE, R-2 and RMD are included in Chapters 18.10, 18.17, and
18.19, respectively. The specific purposes of each residential district are stated below:
(a)Single Family Residential District [R-l]
The R-1 single family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and
enhance areas suitable for detached d~vellings ~vith a strong presence of nature and
with open areaspac-e affording maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor
living and children’s play. Minimum site area requirements are established to
create and preserve variety among neighborhoods_, an~ to ~el-ate provide adequate
open area~pace to > ; .... A ~;~,~A ~,,;~A; ........... and to encourage
quality desi~. Second d~vellin~ units and accessory structures or buildings are
appropriate ~vhere consistent with the site and neighborhood character. Community
uses and facilities, such as churches and schools, should be ~limited unless
no net loss ofhousina would result.
020 Appli b!R.¯ca e egua o~s ..................~
(b)
(c)
Special Residential Building Site R-1 Subdistricts (7,000), (8,000), (10,000),
(20,000)~
The special residential building site R-1 subdistricts are intended to modify the site
development regulations of the R-1 single family residence district, where applied
in combination with the R-1 district, to create and maintain single-family living
areas of varying site size and development characteristics, to reflect and preserve
the character of existin~ neighborhoods.
Single-Story Combining District (S)
The single-story height combining district is intended to modify the site
development regulations of the R-1 single-family residence district, to preserve and
maintain single-family living areas of predominantly single-story character. An
area proposed for a single story combinin¢ district should be of a prevailing single
story character, thus limiting the number of structures rendered noncomplying by
the (S) combining district. It is intended that neighborhoods currently subject to
single story deed restrictions be developed in a manner consistent with those deed
restrictions. Furthermore, it is desirable that homes be similar in age, design and
character, ensuring that residents of an area proposed for rezoning possess like
desires for neighborhood preservation and face common home remodeling
constraints.
18.12.020 Applicable Regulations
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures
established by Chapters 18.83 to 18.99 inclusive shall apply to the R-1 district
includingang-~ the R-1 subdistricts.
18.12.030 Land Uses
The permitted and conditionally permitted uses for the single-family residential districts
are shown in Table l:
Table 1: Permitted and Conditional R-1 Residential Uses
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to
permitted uses with no more than two plumbing fixtures
and no kitchen facility, or of a size less than or equal to
200 square feet.
R-1 and all
R-1 subdistricts
P
Subject to
regulations
for:
18.04.030(3)
18.12.080
l Subdistricts may be reflected on the Zoning Map as R-1(650), R-1(743), R-1(929) and R-1(1,858),
respectively, reflecting the minimum lot size in square meters rather than in square feet.
18.12.040 Site Development StandardslS.12.120 ]Home In
Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to
permitted uses xvith more than t~vo plumbing fixtures
(but xvith no kitchen), and in excess of 200 square feet
in size, but excluding second dwetlin~ units.
Home Occupations, when accessor~ to pen-nitted
residential uses.
Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products
for consumption by occupants of the site.
Second Dwelling Units
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY
USES
Private Educational Facilities
Churches and Religious Institutions
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES
Community Centers
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services
to the neighborhood, but excluding business offices,
construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards.
RECREATION USES
Outdoor Recreation Services
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family
Mobile Homes
Residential Care Homes
SERVICE USES
Day Care Centers
Small Adult Day Care Homes
Large Adult Day Care Homes
Small Family Day Care Homes
Large Family Day Care Homes
R-1 and all
R-I subdistricts
CUP
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
P
Subject to
regulations
for:
18.12.080
18.88.130
18.12.070
18.88.140
18.12.040 Site Development Standards
(a)Site Specifications, Building Size, Height and Bulk, and Residential Density
The development standards for the R-1 district and the R-1 subdistricts are shown
in Table 2:
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
All lots except flag lots_~-~
Flag lots
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Maximum Lot Size
Lot Area (square feet)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard(ft)
Street Side Yard fit)
Maximum Height (as
measured to the peak of the
roof) (ft)
Standard
Maximum height for
buildings with a roof
pitch of 12:12 or greater.
With (S) Combining
Side Yard Daylight Plane
(Excludes street side yards)
Initial Height
Angle (degrees)
Rear Yard Daylight Plane
Initial Height
Angle (degrees)
Maximum Site Coverage:
Single story development
With (S) Combinin~
Multiple story
development
Table 2:R-1 Residential Development Standards
R-1 Subdistricts2
R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1
R-1 (7,000)*(8,000)*(10,000)*(20,000)*
*Subdistricts based on minimum lot size (sO
6,000I 7,000 8,000 10,000 20,000
As established by 21.20.301 (Subdivision Ord.)
60
100
9,999 ] 13.999 15.999 19,999 39,999
Setback lb~es imposed by a special setback map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 of this code may also apply
Contextual t2)
2O
6 1 8
16
30c~)
33~
17 feet; limited to one habitable floor~4~
10 feet at interior side lot linet6-~
45~
16 feet at rear setback line~
60~
Equivalent to maximum allowable floor area ratio®
Equivalent to maximum allowable floor area ratiocz)
35%~
Subject to
regulations in
Chapter:[
I
18.12.040(~t)
18.12.040(+)
18.12.050
18.04.030 (67)
18.12.05(~
18.12.10q
t8.04.030 (4~);
18.12.05(~
18.12.05C
18.04.030 (86A)
2 Subdistricts may be reflected on the Zoning Map as R-1(650), R-I(743), R-1(929) and R-1(1,858),
respectively, reflecting the minimum lot size in square meters rather than in square feet.
4
18.12.040 Site Development StandardslS.12.120 ]Home rm
Additional area permitted
to be covered by a patio
or overhang
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
First 5,000 square feet of
lot size
Square footage of lot size
in excess of 5,000 square
feet
Maximum
House Size (ft’)
R-1
R-1 Subdistricts2
R-1R-1 [ R-1 R-1
(7,000)*I (8,000)* (10,000)* (20,000)*
*Subdistricts based on minimum lot size (so
5%
.45
.30
6,000¢)
Subject to
regulations in
Chapter:I
Table 3
18.04.65(C)
18. l 2.040(b)
Residential Densit?z One unit, except as provided in Section 18.12.060
Parking See Residential Parking See. 18.12.080 18.83
o) Minimum Lot Size: Any !ot less than the minimum lot size may be used in accordance with the provisions ofSe tion
18.88.050.
~ Contextual Front Setbacks: See Section 18.12.040(e) for application of contextual front setbacks.
3(!) R-1 Floodzone Heights: Provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the maximum heigt ts
are increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum buildil g
height of 33 feet.
(4) R-1 !’S) Height Limitations: Habitable floors include lofts, mezzanines, and similar areas with interior heights o! five
feet (5’) or more from the roof edlin~ to the floor, but shall exclude finished basements and shall exclude attics that tare
no stairway or built-in access.
@ R-1 (S) Fioodzone HeiIlhts: Provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the maximum
height is increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum
building height of 20 feet.~6) R-1 Floodzone Daylight Plane: Provided, if the site is in a special flood hazard area and is entitled to an increase[in
the maximum height, the heights for the daylight planes shall be adjusted by the same amount.
~v) Site Covera.~e: The covering of a court is exempt from the calculation of site coverage provided that the court existed
prior to July 20, 1978. |
!s) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached second dwellina units are included ~n
the calculation of maximum house size. If there is no ~ara~e attached to the house, then the square footage of one |detached covered parkin~ space shall be included in tl~e calculation.|
(b)Gross Floor Area Summary
The following table summarizes how "gross floor area" is counted, for the
purpose of compliance with floor area ratio limits outlined in Table 2. "Gross
floor area" means the total covered area of all floors of a main structure and
accessory structures greater than one hundred twenty square feet in area,
including covered parking and stairways, measured to the outside surface of stud
walls, subject to the following inclusions, conditions, and exclusions. For exact
language refer to 18.04(65) Gross Floor Area definition.
18.12.040 Site Development StandardslS.12.120 I Home In
Table 3: Summarv of Gross Floor Area for Low Density Residential Districts
Included in GFA
¯ / (counted twice)
(counted three times)
Description
Second floor equivalent: areas with heights >17’
Third floor equivalent: areas with heights > 26’
Third floor equivalent, where roof pitch is >4:12
Garages and carports enclosed on more than one
side
Porte cocheres and carports with three or more
sides completely open
Excluded from
,,/ , up to 200 sfof
unusable space
,,/
,,/
Entry feature < 12’ in height ,,/ (counted once)
Vaulted entry > 12’ in height ,/ (footprint
counted t~vice)
Fireplace footprint ,/ (counted once)
First floor roofed or unenclosed porches ’/
First floor recessed porches <10’ in depth and
open on exterior side
Second floor roofed or enclosed porches,’/
arcades, balconies, porticos, breezeways
Basements (complying ~vith patio & lightwell "/
requirements described in 18.12.070)
Attic space ~vhere floor to roof distance is _<5’’/
Attic space where floor to roof distance is >5’"/
Bay windows (if at least 18" above interior floor,"/
does not project more than 2’, and more than
50% is covered by windows)
Basement area for Category 1 & 2 Historic
Homes (even if geater than 3’)
Unusable attic space for Category 1 & 2 Historic ,/ (up to 500 sf)
Homes
(c)Substandard and Flag Lots
The following site development regulations shall apply to all new construction on
substandard and flag lots in lieu of comparable provisions in subsection (a).
(1) Substandard Lots
(A) For the purposes of this subsection (c), a substandard lot shall be a lot with a
width of less than 50 feet or a depth of less than 83 feet and an area less than
83% of the minimum area required by the zoning of the parcel.
(B) Development standards:
18.12.040 Site Development Standardsl8.12.120 I
~;~T~, ....; .....~,~;,~,, o~,.,11 be I"7 feet, aa measured to the peak
(i)Second story additions or new two-story homes are subiect to the
Single Family Individual Review guidelines and review process
described in Section 18.12.110.
(ii)For lots less than 50’ in width, the required street side setback shall be
10 feet.
(iii)Substandard lots shall not be subject to the R-1 contextual garage
placement requirement.
(iv) Site coverage for two-storvhome: 40%.
C_(_Q)__Nothing in this subsection (c) shall affect or other~vise redefine the
provisions of Section 18.88.050(a) as to whether a substandard lot may be
used as a lot under this title.
(2)Flag Lots
(A) A flag lot shall be defined as set forth in Section 18.04(84B).
(B) Flag Lot Development Standards:
(i)The maximum height shall be 17 feet, as measured to the peak of the
roof.
(ii)There shall be a limit of one habitable floor. Habitable floors
include lofts, mezzanines, and similar areas with interior heights of
five feet (5’) or more from the roof to the floor, but exclude
basements and shall exclude attics that have no stairway or built-in access.
The chief building official shall make the final determination as to
whether a floor is habitable.
(iii)
(iv)
Front Setback: 10 feet. Flag lots are not subject to contextual front
setback requirements.
Flag lots are not subject to contextual garage placement
requirements.
Maximum Lot Sizes in R-1 District and R-1 Subdistricts.
This provision limits the potential for lot combinations with a net loss of housing
stock and resultant homes that would be out of scale with homes in the surrounding
neighborhood. In the R-1 district and all R-1 subdistricts, no new lot shall be
created equal to or exceeding two times the minimum lot size prescribed for the
district, except that where 6,000 minimum square foot lots are required in an R-1
district, no new lot shall exceed a maximum lot size of 9,999 square feet, as
18.12.040 Site Development Standards!&!2.120 ]Home In
prescribed in Table 2. Lots larger than the prescribed maximum size are pemfitted
only under the follo~ving circumstances: (i) where a Village Residential land use is
approved concurrent with the new lot, resulting in no net loss of housing units on
the site(s); (ii) where underlying lots must be merged to eliminate nonconformities
and no net loss of housing units would result; (iii) where an adiacent substandard
lot of less than 25 feet in width is combined with another lot, resulting in no net
loss of housin~ units on the site(s); or (iv) where the number of resultant lots
increases or stays the same and results in no net loss ofhousin~ units.
Contextual Front Setbacks.
The minimum front yard ("setback") shall be the greater of twenty feet (20’) or the
average setback, if the average front setback is 30 feet or more. "Average setback"
means the average distance between the front property line and the first main
structural element ~,,,;Ta; ....... T1 including covered porches, on sites on the same
side of the block, including existing structures on the subject parcel. This
calculation shall exclude fla~ lots and existing multi family developments of three
units or more. For calculation purposes, if five (5) or more properties on the block
are counted, the single ~eatest and the single least setbacks shall be excluded. The
street sidevard setback of comer lots that have the front side of their parcel (the
narrowest street facing !ot line) facing another street shall be excluded from the
calculations. For blocks longer than 600 feet, the average setback shall be based on
the ten sites located on the same side of the street and nearest to the subject
property, plus the subiect site, but for a distance no greater than 600 feet. Blocks
with three (3) or fewer parcels are not subiect to contextual setbacks. Structures on
the site in no case may be located closet than twenty feet (20’) from the front
property line.
Contextual Garage Placement
If the predominant neighborhood pattern is of garages or carports located within the
rear half of the site, or with no garage or carport present, attached garages shall be
located in the rear half of the house footprint. Otherwise, t-h~an attached garag~
may be located in the front half of the house footprint. "Predominant neighborhood
pattern" means the existin~ garage placement pattern t4~at-~for more than half~
~ of the houses on the same side of the block, including the subiect site. ~~.,,~, ~;a~.,. ~r~ ~,~,~ This calculation shall
exclude flag lots, comer lots and existing multifamilv developments of three or
more units. For blocks longer than 600 feet, the calculations shall be based on the
l0 homes located nearest to and on the same side of the block as the snbject
property, plus the subject site, but for a distance no greater than 600 feet. , and on
Detached garages
shall be located in the rear half of the site and, if within a rear or side setback, at
least 75 feet from the front property line. Detached garages on lots of less than 95
feet in depth, however, may be placed in a required interior side or rear yard if
located in the rear half of the lot. Access shall be provided from a rear alley if the
existing development pattern provides for alley access. For the calculation of
I
8
18.12.040 Site Development Standardsl~.12.!20 I He, me Ir
(h)
corner lots, the "predominant pattern" shall be established for the street where the
new garage fronts.
Garage Doors
For Ggarages located within 50 feet from a street frontage, on lots less than 75 feet
in width, the total combined width of garage doors which face-are parallel to the
street °~ ..... 1~ ~,~ n~ ,~ ....... shall not exceed 20 feet.
Minimum Permeable Surfaces in Front Yard
A minimum of 60% of the required front yard shall have a permeable surface that
permits water absorption directly into the soil. Provided, all sites may have an
impervious 16’ x 20’ driveway and an impervious 4’ x 20’ walkway within the
front yard setback.
Special Setbacks.
Where applicable, setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 of this code shall be followed for the purpose of determining legal
setback requirements.
Certification of Daylight Plane Compliance
Upon request by the building official, any person building or making improvements
to a structure shall provide a certification that the structure, as built, complies with
the daylight plane provisions in subsection (a). Such certification shall be prepared
by a licensed engineer, architect, or surveyor, and shall be provided prior to frame
inspection.
Lighting
Recreationa! and security lighting shall be permitted only so long as the lighting is
shielded so that the direct light does not extend beyond the property where it is
located._ Free-standing recreational and security lighting installed on or later than
March 11, 1991 shall be restricted to t~velve feet (12’) in height. Direct light from
outdoor fixtures shall only fall on the walls, eaves, and yard areas of the site on
which it is located. Outdoor fixtures shall have lens covers or reflectors that shiedd
a,~ 1~..,- r. ....; .....~ligh ighb......... v ........e ......direct the t away from the ne oring properties.
Location of Service E~~
All noise-producing equipment, such as air conditioners, pool equipment,
generators, commercial kitchen fans, and similar service equipment, shall be
located outside of the front, rear and side yard setbacks. Such equipment may,
however, be located up to 6 feet into a street sideyard setback. All such equipment
shall be insulated and housed and any replacement of such equipment shall
conform to this section ~vhere feasible. All service equipment must meet the City
Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of the Municipal Code.
9
18.12.050 Permitted Encroachments, Proiections and Exceptionsl~.!2.120 ]Hems In
18.12.050 Permitted Encroachments P,~roiections and
Exceptions
The following projections and encroachments into required yards, daylight plane and
height are permitted, provided a projection shall not be permitted to encroach into a
special setback, as established by the setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, except as noted in (a)(1)(D) below.
(a)Setback/Yard Encroachments and Proiections
Horizontal Additions
Where a single-family dwelling legally constructed according to existing yard and
setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required
yards, one encroaching side (first floor ~vall) of the existing structure, at a height
not to exceed 12 feet, may be extended in accord with this section. Only one such
extension shall be permitted for athe life of such building. No such addition shall
This subsection shall
not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building
which is the result of the granting of a variance, either before or after such property
became part of the city.
(A)
(B_)
(c)
(D)
Front Yard. In cases where the existing setback is less than 20 feet, but at
least 14 feet, the existing encroachment may be extended for a distance of
not more than 100% of the length of the encroachin~ wall to be extended;
provided, that the total length of the existing encroaching wall and the
additional wall shall together not exceed one-half the maximum existing
width of such building.
Interior Side Yard. In cases where the existing setback is less than 8 feet,
but at least 5 feet, the existing encroachment may be extended for a
distance of not more than 100% of the length of the
encroaching wall to be extended but not to exceed 20 additional feet.
Street Side Yard. In cases where the existing setback is less than 16 feet,
but at least 10 feet, the existing encroachment may be extended for a
distance of not more than 100% of the length of the encroaching wall to be
extended, but not to exceed 20 feet.
Special Setbacks. In cases where a Special Setback is prescribed pursuant
to Chapter 20.08 of the Municipal Code, and the existing setback is less
than the Special Setback distance, and at least 14 feet for the front setback
or at least 10 feet for the street side yard setback, the existing
encroachment may be extended for a distance of not more than 100% of
the length of the encroaching wall to be extended, provided that the total
length of the existin~ encroaching wall and the additional wall shall
together not exceed one-half the maximum existin~ width of such
buildina.
10
18.12.050 Permitted Encroachments, Proiections and ExceptionstS.12.120 I Home !n
(2)
(3)
Rear Yard Encroachments for Portions of Homes
A portion of a main building that is less than half the maximum xvidth of the
building may extend into the required rear yard no more than six feet and
~vith a height of no more than one story, except that for a corner lot having a
common rear property line with an adjoining corner lot, the building may
extend into the required rear yard not more than ten feet xvith a height of no
more than one story.
Allo~ved Projections
(A) Cornices, Eaves, Fireplaces, and Similar Architectural Features
For cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features, excluding
flat or continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, the following
projections are permitted:
(i)A maximum of two feet into a required side yard. Fireplaces in a
required side yard may not exceed five feet in width. Fireplaces not
exceeding five feet in width may proj oct into a required side yard
no more than t~vo feet.
(iii)___
[A’~
(i)
A maximum of four feet into a required front yard
A maximum of four feet into a required rear yard
Window Surfaces
Window surfaces, such as bay windo~vs or greenhouse ~vindows,
may extend into a required side-or-rear yard a distance not to
exceed two feet, or into a required front yard a distance not to
exceed three feet.
(ii)Window surfaces may not extend into required side yards, with the
exception that one greenhouse window with a maximum width of
six feet, framed into a wall, may project into the side yard no more
than t~vo feet. The window surface may not extend into any yard
above a first story.
(C_C_) Detached Storage Strnctures
Detached storage structures not over six feet in height or twenty-five square
feet in floor area may be located in interior side yards and rear yards
11
18.12.050 Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions!8.12.120 [Home In
according to the provisions of Section 18.12.080 (b) for accessory structures. ;
Where the provisions of Section 18.12.080(b) for front and/or street side yard
setbacks are not met, ~"- o*"’°~ ....... ~ over o;v ~ ~ ;. ~;,,~.~ ,.., ...... ,,, ~,,,~,........ ~ ....1,,~;,,01., ~ ...., .............the follmvingsquare feet in fleer ...., ..................~ ........~,~ v-,t, ....,
projections are permitted for such structures:
(i)A maximum of two feet into a required side yard
~)A maximum of four feet into a required front yard
(iii)A maximum of four feet into a required rear yard
(D) ~ .................. ........ a ~o~,oo Patios, Decks, Stair~vays, Landings, Balconies, or
Fire Escapes
For uncovered porches (less than 30 inches above ,m’ade), patios, decks,
stairways, landings, balconies, or fire escapes the following projections are
permitted, provided these projections are not permitted above the first story:
(i)A maximum of three feet into a required side yard
(i_i)A maximum of six feet into a required front yard
(iii)A maximum of six feet into a required rear yard
(E)Canopy or Patio Cover
A canopy or patio cover may be located ;~ ,*,,a ....................
required rear yard or that portion of the interior side yard, which is more than
75 feet from the street lot line measured along the common lot line. Such
canopies shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i)A canopy or patio cover shall not be more than 12 feet in height.
(ii)The canopy or patio cover shall be included in the computation of
building coverage.
(iii) The canopy or patio cover and other structures shall not occupy
more than fifty percent of the required rear yard.
(iv)The canopy or patio cover shall not be enclosed on more than two
sides.
(F) Pools, Spas, and Hot Tubs
(i)Pools, spas, and hot tubs may extend into a required rear yard a
distance not to exceed fourteen feet, provided that a minimum
setback of six feet from the property line shall be maintained.
(i_i)No swimming pool, hot tub, spa, or similar accessory facility shall
be located in any portion of a required front or street side yard.
12
18.12.060 ParkinglS.12.120 I Home !n
Height and Daylight Plane Exceptions
(1) Height Exceptions
Flues, chimneys, and antennas may exceed the established height limit by not more
than 15 feet.
(2) Daylight Plane Exceptions
The following features may extend beyond the daylight plane established by the
applicable district, provided that such features do not exceed the height limit for the
district unless permitted to do so by subsection (b)~!_~ above:
(A)Television and radio antennas;
(I3)Chimneys and flues that do not exceed 5 feet in ~vidth, provided that
chimneys do not extend past the required daylight plane a distance
exceeding the minimum allowed pursuant to Chapter 16.04 of this code.
(_C_)Dormers, roof decks, gables, or similar architectural features, provided
that:
(i)
0i)
(iv)
the sum of the horizontal lengths of all such features shall not exceed
15 feet on each side; and
the height of such features does not exceed 24 feet;
no single feature exceeds 7.5 feet in length; and
there is a minimum 5 foot separation between each feature.
Cornices, eaves, and similar architectural features, excluding fiat or
continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, provided such
features do not extend past the daylight plane more than 2 feet.
18.12.060 Parking
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional
uses in accord with Code Chapter 18.83 of this title. The folloxving parking requirements
apply in the R-1 district. These requirements are included for reference purposes only,
and in the event of a conflict between this Section 18.12.060 and any requirement of
Chapter 18.83, Chapter 18.83 shall apply:
(a)Parking Requirements for Specific Uses
Table 4 shows the minimum off-street automobile parking requirements for
specific uses ~vithin the R-1 district.
13
18.12.060 ParkinglS.!2.!20 [Home In
Table 4: Parking Requirements for Specific R-1 Uses
Use Minimum Off-Street
Single-family residential use (excluding second
dwelling units)
Second dxvetling unit, attached or detached:
>450 sf in size
<450 sf in size
e~l evees.
fa:rS!v members
Other Uses
Parking Requirement
2 spaces per unit, of xvhich one must be covered.
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be covered
1 space per unit. which may be covered or uncovered
1 space, which may be covered or uncovered
See Chapter 18.83
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Parking and Driveway Surfaces
Parking and driveway surfaces may have either permeable or impermeable paving.
Materials shall be those acceptable to Public Works Department standards. Gravel
and similar loose materials shall not be used for driveway or parking surfaces
within 10 feet of the public right of way.
Parking in Yards
(1) No required parking space shall be located in a required front yard, except a~
provided for second dwelling units in Section 18.12.070.
(2)No required parking space shall be located in the first ten feet adjoining the
street line of a required street side yard, except as provided for second
dwelling units in Section 18.12.070.
Tandem Parking
Tandem parking shall be permitted for single-family uses and for single-family
uses with a permitted second dwelling unit.
Underground Parking
Undergound parking is prohibited for single-family uses, except pursuant to a
variance ~anted in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.90, in which case
the area of the under~ound garage shall be counted in determining the floor area
ratio for the site.
14
I Home In18.12.070 Second Dwelling Units l 8. ! 2.120 I
(0 Design of Parking Areas
Parking facilities shall comply with all applicable regulations of Chapter 18.83
(Parking Facility Design Standards).
18.12.070 Second Dwelling Units
The following regulations apply to second dwelling units in the R-1 district and all R-1
subdistricts.
(a)
The intent of this section is to provide regulations to accommodate second dwelling
units, in order to provide for variety to the City’s housing stock and additional
affordable housing opportunities. Second dwelling units shall be separate self-
contained living units, with separate entrances from the main residence, whether
attached or detached. The standards below are provided to minimize the impacts of
second d~velling units on nearby residents and to assure that the size. location and
design of such dwellings is compatible with the existing residence on the site and
with other structures in the area.
(b)Minimum Lot Sizes
(2)
In the R-1 district and all R-1 subdistricts, the minimum lot size for a second
d~velling unit that is in excess of 450 square feet shall be 35% greater than the
minimum lot size other~vise established for the district. Provided, for flag
lots, the minimum lot size shall be 35% greater than the minimum lot size
established by Section 21.20.30 l_of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
minimum lot size for a second dwelling unit that is 450 square feet or less
shall be the minimum size established for the district or, for a flag lot, the
minimum established by Section 21.20.301.
Table 5 shoxvs the minimum lot size required for a second d~velling unit in
excess of 450 square feet, provided, in the event of a conflict between
subsection (1) and this subsection (2), subsection (1) shall control:
Table 5: Minimum Lot Sizes for Second Dwelling Units
District
R-1
R-1 (7,000)
R-1 (8,000)
R- 1 (10,000)
R-1 (20,000)
in Excess of 450 Square Feet
Minimum Lot Size
(all lots except flag lots)
8,100 square feet ("sf")
9,450 sf
10,800 sf
13,500 sf
27,000 sf
Minimum Lot Size
(flag lots)0)
9,720 sf
11,340 sf
12,960 sf
16,200 sf
32,400 sf
Exclusive of any portion of the lot used for access to the street
15
!8.12,070 SecondD~vellingUnitslS.1,~ ~,~ I u,.,~, ~.
(c)
(d)
Development Standards for Attached Second Dwelling Units
Attached second dwelling units are those attached to the main dwelling. Attached
unit size counts toward the calculation of maximum house size. All attached
second dwelling units shall be subject to the following development requirements:
(1)The minimum site area shall meet the requirements specified in subsection (b)
above.
(2)Maximum size of living area: 250 square feet 900 square feet. The second
dwelling unit and covered parking shall be included in the total floor area for
the site. Any basement space used as a second d~velling unit or portion thereof
shall be counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size
of the second unit.
(3)
(4)
Maximum size of covered parking area for the second d~velling unit: 200
square feet.
Any second story attached second dwelling unit is subject to the provisions
and criteria of Single-Family Individual Review, pursuant to Section
18.12.110 of the Code.
Except on coruer lots, the second dwelling unit may not have an entrance~vay
facing the same lot line (property line) as the entranceway to the main
dwelling unit, and n~exterior staircases to second floor units shall be located
toward the interior side or rear yard of the propertyare permitted.
Development Standards for Detached Second Dwelling Units
Detached second d~velling units are those detached from the main dwelling. All
detached second dxvelling units shall be subject to the following development
requirements:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The minimum site area shall meet the requirements specified in subsection
(b) above.
Minimum separation from the main dwelling: 12 feet.
Maximum size of living area: 900 square feet. The second dwelling unit
and covered parking shall be included in the total floor area for the site. Any
basement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be
counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size of the
second unit.
(4)
(5)
Maximum size of covered parking area for the second &veiling unit: 200
square feet._
Maximum height: one story and 17 feet. The planning director may allow a
detached second dwelling unit to exceed the story and height restrictions
above, not to exceed the general site development restrictions of this
chapter, ~vhere the first story of a two story structure is a garage or similar
use, subject to the Single-Family Individual Review criteria and process
established in Section 18.12.1 l 0 of the Code.
16
18.12.080 Accessory Uses and FacilitieslS.!2.1"~n I Home In
(6)The detached second dwelling shall be architecturally compatible with the
main residence, with respect to style, roof pitch, color and materials.
(e)Street Access
The second dxvelling unit shall have street access from a driveway in common xvith
the main residence in order to prevent new curb cuts, excessive paving, and
elimination of street trees. Separate drive~vay access may be permitted by the
Zoning Administrator upon a determination that separate access will result in fewer
environmental impacts such as excessive paving, unnecessary gading or
unnecessary tree removal, and that such separate access will not create the
appearance, from the street, of a lot division or Bvo-family use.
Parking
The following parking criteria apply to both detached and attached second dwelling
units:
(1)Two parking spaces shall be provided for theeae4 second dwelling unit,
with at least one of the spaces being covered; provided, however, that if
the floor area of the second dwelling unit is 450 square feet or less, only a
single parking space is required, and it may be covered or uncovered.
o;~,r; .....~. ........ .....*~*; ....~’’";’" S h p ki g h 11 b........... a .......~, ....~ .....,-’ ............~- uc ar n s a e
located out of required front setbacks and not closer than 10 feet from the
street in a street side setback, except that a minimum of one uncovered
parking space may be provided within such setbacks (including in tandem
with other parking spaces), upon determination by the Planning Director
that adequate alternative locations are not available and that the space is
readily accessible and will not cause any unnecessary ~ading or tree
removal. New parking areas created in the front or street side setbacks, if
allowed, shall be of pernaeable materials, if required by the Planning
Director.
18.12.080 Accessory Uses and Facilities
Accessory uses and facilities, as allowed in Section 18.12.030= shall be permitted when
incidental to and associated with a permitted use or facility in the R-1 district or R-1
subdistricts, or when incidental to and associated with an allowable and authorized
conditional use therein, subject to the provisions below.
I
17
(a)Types of Accessory UseslS.12.120 t
(a)
(b)
Types of Accessory Uses
Accessory uses and facilities include, but are not limited to, the following list of
examples; provided that each accessory use or facility shall comply with the
provisions of this title:
(1)Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and
circulation elements necessary thereto;
(2)Facilities for storage incidental to a permitted use; and
(3)Recreational uses and facilities for the use and convenience of occupants or
employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use or facility.
Location and Development Standards
Except as otherwise provided in this section, accessory buildings shall at all times
be located in conformance with requirements for principal buildings, and shall not
be located in any required front, side, or rear yard. See Section 18.12.050 (a)(3)(C)
for allowed encroachments for small storage structures. Accessory buildings may
be located in a required interior yard subject to the following limitations:
(1)
(2)
(3)
An accessory building shall not be used for living and/or sleeping purposes
unless the building was legally constructed for or was legally converted to
living and!or sleeping purposes prior to October 13, 1983.
An accessory building shall not be located in a required front yard, required
street yard, or required rear yard of a through lot.
An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear
yard unless the building is placed at least seventy-five feet from the front lot
..... ~’~ line~ and for corner lots at least twenty feet from the streetside lot
~. Additionally, on lots of less than 95 feet in depth, detached garages
and cavorts may be located in a required interior side or rear vard if placed in
the rear half of the lot.
(4)
(5)
(6)
Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard as pmTnitted by
this section shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight
plane beginning at a height of eight feet at the property line and increasing at a
slope of one foot for every three feet of distance from the property line, to a
maximum height of twelve feet.
No such accessory building shall have more than two plumbing fixtures.
Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard, as permitted by
this section, shall not individually or cumulatively occupy an area exceeding
fifty percent of the required rear yard.
I
18
18.12.090
(7)
(8)
The minimum distance between separate buildings located on the same site
shall be as required by Title 16; provided, accessory buildings in the Single-
family Residential (R-1) district shall be separated from the principal building
by at least three feet.
A principal building and an accessory building, meeting the requirements of
Title 16 and each located on a site as otherxvise permitted for the principal
building and accessory buildings, may be connected by a structure meeting the
definition of a breezeway. Such structure, or breezeway, shall be a part of the
accessory building.
18.12.090 Basements
Basements shall be permitted in areas that are not designated as special flood hazard
areas as defined in Chapter 16.52, and are subject to the folloxving regulations:
(a)Permitted Basement Area
Basements may not extend beyond the building footprint and basements are not
allowed below any portion of a structure that extends into required setbacks, except
to the extent that the main residence is permitted to extend into the rear yard
setback by other provisions of this code.
(b)Inclusion as Gross Floor Area
Basements shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area, provided
that:
(1) basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as crawlspace; or
(2) basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the
first floor is no more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the
building foundation.
Basement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be counted
as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size of the unit (but may
be excluded from calculations of floor area for the total site). This provision is
intended to assure that second units are subordinate in size to the main dwelling and
to preclude the development of duplex zoning on the site.
(c)Lightwells, Stairwells, Below Grade Patios, and other Excavated Features
(i)Lightwells, stairwells, and similar excavated features along the perimeter of
the basement shall not affect the measurement of grade for the purposes of
determining gross floor area, provided that the following criteria are met:
(A)such features are not located in the front of the building;
(B)such features shall not exceed 3 feet in width;
19
18.12.090 Basementsl 8.!2.120I
(2)
(C)the cumulative length of all such features does not exceed _ag4ee4 30%
o f the perimeter o f the basement;
(D)such features do not extend more than _23_ feet into a required side yard
nor more than 4 feet into a required rear yard, but where a side yard is
less than 6 feet in width, the features shall not encroach closer than 3
feet from the adiacent side property line;
(E)the cumulative length of any features or portions of features that extend
into a required side or rear yard does not exceed 15 feet in length;
the owner provides satisfactory evidence to the planning division prior
to issuance of a building permit that any features or portions of features
that extend into a required side or rear yard will not be harmful to any
mature trees on the subject property or on abutting properties; and
(G)such features have either a drainage system that meets the requirements
of the public works department or are substantially sheltered from the
rain by a roof overhang or canopy of a permanent nature.
Below-grade patios, sunken gardens, or similar excavated areas along the
perimeter of the basement that exceed the dimensions set forth in subsection
(1), are permitted and shall not affect the measurement of grade for the
purposes of determining ~oss floor area, provided that:
(A)such areas are not located in the front of the building;
(B)All such areas combined do not exceed 2% of the area of the lot or 200
square feet, whichever is ~eater; that each such areas does not exceed
200 square feet; and that each such area is separated from another by a
distance of at least 10 feet. Area devoted to required stairway access
shall not be included in the 200 square foot limitation.
(C)such features do not extend more than 2 feet into a required side yard
nor more than 4 feet into a required rear yard:
(D)the cumulative length of any excavated area or portion thereof that
extends into a required side or rear yard does not exceed 15 feet-i-n
(E)the o~vner provides satisfactory evidence to the planning divisien
director.prior to issuance of a building permit that any features or
portions of features that extend into a required side or rear yard will not
be harmful to any mature trees on the subject property or on abutting
properties;
20
18.12.100 Regulations for the Single Story Overlay (S) Combining DistricttS.12.120 I Home
(F)
(G)
(H)
(i)
such features have either a drainage system that meets the requirements
of the public works department or are substantially sheltered from the
rain by a roof overhang or canopy of a permanent nature;
any roof overhang or canopy installed pursuant to subsection (F) is
within and is counted toward the site coverage requirements established
in Section 18.12.040;
such areas are architecturally compatible xvith the residence; and
such areas are screened to off site viexvs by means of landscaping
and!or fencing as determined appropriate by the ~
.-. A ~; ,-, ; ,’,’~-o ÷,~ m 1 ~nnina director.
18.12.100 Regulations for the Single Story Overlay (S)
Combining District
(a)Applicability of District
The single-story height combining district may be combined with the R- 1 single-
family residence district or with any R-1 subdistrict. Where so combined, the
regulations established by this Section shall apply in lieu of the comparable
provisions established by Section 18.12.040. All applicable provisions of that
section shall other~vise govern development in the combining district.
(b)Site Development Regulations
For sites within the single-story height combining district, the following site
development regulations shall apply in lieu of the othe~vise applicable site
development regulations of Section 18.12.040:
(1)
(2)
The maximum height shall be 17 feet, as measured to the peak of the roof_:
provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the
maximum height is increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required
to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum building height of 20 feet.
There shall be a limit of one habitable floor. Habitable floors include lofts,
mezzanines and similar areas but exclude basements and exclude attics that
have no stairway or built-in access. Lofts and mezzanines include any space
above the first floor in excess of five feet (5’) from the floor to the roof
above.
21
18.1"2 110 Single Family Individual ReviewIS.!") 1")(~ I ~,~, T,
Application for a Single Story (S) Combining District
(1)Application to create or remove a single-story overlay district may be made
by an owner of record of property located in the single-story overlay district
to be created or removed.
(2)Application shall be made to the zoning administrator on a form prescribed
by the zoning administrator, and shall contain all of the followin~:
(A)A written statement setting forth the reasons for the application and all
facts relied upon by the applicant in support thereof.
(B)A map of the district to be created or removed that includes the address
location of those owners whose properties are subiect to the zoning
request. Boundaries shall correspond with certain natural or man-made
features (including, but not limited to roadways, waterways, tract
boundaries and similar features) to define an identifiable neighborhood
or development. For creation of a single-story overlay district, the area
shall be of a prevailing single story character, such that a minimum of
80% of existing homes within the boundaries are single story.
(C)A list ofsi~aatures evidencing support by: (i) 70% of included
properties; or (ii) 60% of included properties where all included
properties are subiect to recorded deed restrictions intended to limit
building height to a single story, whether or not such restrictions have
been enforced. "Included properties" means all those properties inside
the boundaries of the district proposed to be created or removed. The
written statement or statements accompanying the signatures must state
that the signer is indicatin~ support for a zone map amendment that
affects his or her property. One signature is permitted for each included
property, and a signature evidencing support of an included property’
must be by an owner of record of that property.
(D)A fee, as prescribed by the municipal fee schedule, no part of which
shall be returnable to the applicant; and
(E)Such additional information as the zoning administrator may deem
pertinent and essential to the application.
An application for creation or removal of a single-story (S) overlay district
made in accordance with this subsection (c) shall be processed in accordance
with Chapter 18.98.
18.12.110 Single Family Individual Review
Purpose
The goals and purposes of this chapter are to:
(1)Preserve the unique character of Palo Alto neighborhoods;
(2)Promote new construction that is compatible with existing residential
neighborhoods:
22
18.12.110 Single Family Individual Review ! 8.12.120 I Home Ir
(b)
(d)
(e)
(3)Encourage respect for the surrounding context in which residential
construction and alteration takes place;
(4)Foster consideration of neighbors’ concerns xvith respect to privacy, scale and
massing, and streetscape; and
(5)Enable the emergence of new neighborhood design patterns that reflect
awareness of each property’s effect upon neighboring properties.
This pro~am is intended only to mitigate the effects of second story construction
on neighboring homes, and should not be construed to prohibit second story
construction when this Title would othe~vise permit it.
Applicabili ,ty
The provisions of this section 18.12.110 apply to the construction of a new singly
developed two-story structure; the construction of a new second story; or the
expansion of an existing second story by more than 150 square feet in the R-1
single family residential district. All second-story additions on a site after
November !9, 2001 shall be included in calculating whether an addition is over 150
square feet.
Individual Review Guidelines
The director of planning and community environment shall issue guidelines to
direct staff and proiect applicants in implementing the goals and purposes and other
provisions of this chapter. Guidelines establishing substantive review standards for
second story development shall be presented to the planning and transportation
commission for their comment prior to adoption or amendment by the director.
Findings
Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall ~ant an Individual
Review approval, unless it is found that the application is consistent with the
Individual Review guidelines.
Conditions
In granting individual review approvals, 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).
Application Review and Action
Applications for Individual Review approval shall be reviewed and acted upon as
set forth in 18.77.075.
Preliminars, meeting with planning staff.
Project applicants are strongly encouraged, before applying for individual review of
a proiect, to meet with planning staff to discuss designing a proiect that promotes
23
18.12.120 Home Improvement Exceptions4S.!2.120 ]Home Ir
the goals of this chapter and the individual review guidelines, and to discuss the
proposed plans with their neighbors.
Chan~es to aooroved projects.
The Director may approve changes to a previously approved Individual Review
project without following the procedure set forth in 18.77.075 if those changes do
not affect compliance with the Individual Review guidelines. Examples of such
changes include:
(1)Reductions in windo~v or door size, or reductions in the number of windows.
(2)Changes to aspects of the proiect not reviewed under Individual Review, such
as materials or non-street-facing first story windows.
(3)Changes that do not affect privacy/streetscape.
(4)Increases in setbacks
(5)Reductions in second floor mass that do not affect privacy or streetscape.
18.12.120 Home Improvement Exceptions
Purpose
A home improvement exception enables a home improvement or minor addition to
an existing single-family or t~vo-family home, or accessory structure, or both, to be
consistent with the existing architectural style of the house or neighborhood, to
accommodate a significant or protected tree, or to protect the integrity of a historic
structure in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation. By enabling adaptive reuse of existing buildings, the home
improvement exception promotes retention of existin~ houses within the City.
(b)Applicability._
A home improvement exception may be ~anted as part of a proposed improvement
or addition to an existing single-family or two-family structure, or accessory
structure, or both, in the RE, R-1, RMD, or R-2 district, as limited in subsection (c).
A home improvement exception may be ~anted as described in subsections (1)
through (14) of subsection (c), but may not exceed the limits set forth in those
subsections. In order to qualify for a home improvement exception, the proiect
must retain at least 75% of the existing exterior ~valls.
Limits of the Home Improvement Exception
A home improvement exception may be ~anted for one or more of the following,
not to exceed the specified limits:
(1)To allow up to 100 square feet of floor area more than the maximum square
footage allowed on the site by the applicable zoning district regulations
24
18.12.120 Home Improvement Exceptions!8.1"~ !20 I rJ~ T~
(4)
(6)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
except when an exception is granted under subsection (c)(10) for residences
designated as historic structures:
To allow the primary building to encroach up to 4 feet into a required front
yard setback;
To allow the primary buildin~ to encroach up to 3 feet into a required rear
yard setback:
To allow the primary buildin~ to encroach up to 2 feet into a required interior
side yard setback;
To allow the primary building to encroach up to 6 feet into a required street
side yard setback (’no closer than 10 feet to the property line);
To allo~v a basement to encroach, along with above grade floor area, as set
forth in items 2, 3, 4, or 5.
To allow an encroaching dormer, roof deck, gable, or similar architectural
feature to exceed 24 feet in height by up to three feet.
To allow a single dormer, roof deck, gable, or similar architectural feature
that encroaches into the rear daylight plane to exceed 7.5 feet in lenath. In no
event shall the maximum length exceed 15 feet.
To permit a site with an existing two-story structure to exceed lot coverage
requirements in order to locate remaining available FAR for the site on the
first floor
For any residence desi~ .anated on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1
or Category 2 historic structure or any contributinR structure ~vithin a locally
designated historic district, to allow up to 250 square feet of floor area in
excess of that allowed on the site, provided that any requested addition or
exterior modifications associated with the HIE shall be in substantial
conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
The property owner who is ~anted a home improvement exception under this
subsection (! 0) shall be required to siva and record a covenant a~ainst the
property, acceptable to the City Attorney, which requires that the property be
maintained in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Historic Rehabilitation.
To allow a legal non-conforming building wall that is between 3.5 and 5 feet
from the side lot line to be extended up to one-quarter of the length of the
existing wall or ten feet, whichever is shorter.
To allow a horizontal extension (pursuant to 18.12.050(a) (Setback/Yard
Encroachments and Proiections)) of a portion of an existing legal non-
conforming buildin~ wall that is more than twelve feet above grade. Such
horizontal extensions must remain within the height and daylight plane limits
for the district unless an HIE or variance for a height or daylight plane
encroachment is granted.
25
(13)To allow an increase in the height of an existing legally non-conforming
building wall that encroaches into a setback. Such vertical extensions must
remain within the height and daylight plane limits for the district unless an
HIE or variance for a height or daylight plane encroachment is .re’anted.
(!4)To allow, for single-story accessory structures within rear and/or side
setbacks, one or more of the following:
(A)On a comer lot, a detached accessory structure may be as close as ten
feet from the street side property line. For detached garages and
carports, the exception may be ._re’anted as long as a minimum
dimension of 18 feet remains between the back of sidewalk and face of
the garage or carport supports.
(B)Four feet additional height above the twelve foot maximum height, as
long as the side daylight plane is met.
(C) A rear daylight plane encroachment of up to three feet.
(15)To allow similar minor exceptions, when determined by the director to be
similar in magnitude and scope to those listed in subsections (1) through (14)
above. Provided, under no circumstances may such exceptions exceed the
limits established in subsections (1) through (14) above.
Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a home
improvement exception unless it is found that:
(1)The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing
architectural style, neighborhood character, protected tree as defined in
Chapter 8.10, or other significant tree, or of a residence that is designated as a
Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of
the Municipal Code, or any contributing structure within a locally designated
historic district which would not otherwise be accomplished through the
strict application of the regulations: and
The granting of the application will not be detrimental or iniurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and
(3)The exception is being ~anted based on characteristics of the property and
improvements on the property, rather than the personal circumstances of the
applicant, and is the minimum exception necessary for the proiect to fulfill
the purposes of subsection (a).
tle)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 (Zoning).
26
18.12.130 Architectural Review!8.12.120 I Heine ~
(0 Application Review and action
Applications for home improvement exceptions shall be reviewed and acted upon
as set forth in 18.77.075.
18.12.130 Architectural Review
Architectural Review, as required in Chapter 18.76 and 18.77 of the Zoning Ordinance, is
required in the R-1 district and R-1 subdistricts whenever three or more adiacent single-
family residences or duplexes are intended to be developed concurrently, whether
through subdivision or individual applications. In addition to the existing ARB findings
contained in Section 18.76 & 18.77, the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines
shall be used by the ARB in its review of such applications.
18.12.140 Historical Review and Incentives
Historic home review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is
required in the R-1 district and R-1 subdistricts for alterations or modifications to an-,/
residence designated on the City’s Historic Inventor’,/as a Category 1 or Category 2
historic structure or located within a locally designated historic district. The Category !
or Categor-g 2 designation process for becoming a historic structure is contained in
Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code.
Exemptions to ~oss floor area requirements are available for historic homes pursuant to
the definition of Gross Floor Area in Section 18.04.65(C2). Home Improvement
Exceptions provide for additional square footage andcertain other exceptions for historic
homes pursuant to Section 18.12.120 (R-1 Chapter).
18.12.150 Grandfathered Uses
(a)Applicability
The uses specified in subsection (b) may remain as ~andfathered uses provided
that those uses:
(1)are located in the specified district;
(2)existed on the specified date;
(3)on that date, were lawful permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject
to a conditional use permit; and
(4) on that date, were conforming uses.
(b)Grandfathered Uses
(1)Professional and medical office uses (except product testing and analysis, and
prototype development), existing on July 20, 1978 or such uses which were,
prior to July 20, 1978, located in an R-1 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.
27
18.12.150 Grandfathered Uses~ 1. ~a I Home In
(c)
(2)%vo-family uses, except where one of the units is a legal nonconforming
detached single-family dwelling on a substandard lot size, and multiple-
family uses existing on July 20, 1978 or such uses which were, prior to July
20, 1978, located in an R-1 district xvhich was imposed by reason of
annexation of the property to the city without benefit of prezoning and which,
prior to the date of annexation, xvere lawful conforming permitted uses or
conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit.
Permitted Changes
The following regulations shall apply to the grandfathered uses specified in
subsection (b):
(1)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
(A)such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not:
result in increased floor area;
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i)
(ii)result in an increase in the number of offices, in the case of
professional or medical office uses, or dwellings, in the case of
residential uses;
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
result in shifting of building footprint;
increase the height, length, building envelope, or size of the
improvement,
increase the existing degree of noncompliance, except through
the granting of a design enhancement exception pursuant to
Section 18.91.
If a grandfathered use ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve
consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced
only by a conforming use.
a grandfathered use 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.
The folloxving additional regulations shall apply to grandfathered professional
or medical office uses:
(A)Any 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 Section
18.90.
28
18.12.150 Grandfathered Uses ~ o ....... I
(d)
(e)
(B)
(c)
In the event of redevelopment of all or a portion of the site for
permitted residential uses, 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 existing structure now used for
professional and medical office uses.
Existing Second Dwelling Units on Substandard Size Lots.
In the R- 1 district, and all R- 1 subdistricts, notwithstanding any provisions of
Chapters 18.88 and/or 18.94, in the case of a legal and nonconforming second
detached single-family dwelling existing prior to July 20, 1978 on a substandard
size lot, such nonconforming use shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace
site improvements on the same site without necessity to comply with site
development regulations; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or
replacement shall not result in increased floor area, number of dwelling units,
height, length, or any other increase in the size of the improvement.
Existing Homes on Substandard Lots.
In the R-1 district and all R-1 subdistricts, single-family and two-family homes on
substandard lots, as defined in Subsection 18.12.040(c)(1), and flag lots existing on
August 1, 1991 and which prior to that date were lawful, complying structures, may
remain and be remodeled, improved, or replaced without complying with the height
and habitable floor limitations for substandard lots specified in Section 18.12.030,
provided that:
(1)any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement does not result in a height
above seventeen feet or any additional habitable floor area above a first
habitable floor, except that any structure damaged or destroyed by a natural
disaster (such as fire, flood or earthquake) may be replaced to its previous
size without regard to the height and habitable floor limitations imposed by
this section; and
(2)in the case of a conflict betxveen the provisions of this section and the
provisions of Chapter 18.94, this section shall control.
29
Summary of P&TC Votes on R-1 ,Items
ATTACHMENT E
Item at 01/14/04 PTC Mt~
Accessory Buildings
Second Units
Below Grade Patios
P&TC Action:
General discussion regarding accessory buildings, and when &
why conditional use permits required (plumbing fixtures)
General discussion regarding small 2 dwelling units on lot
meeting minimum !ot size
General discussion of existing and proposed changes,
comparison to light wells
Item (in order of discussion
at 5/26, 6/2 & 6/9 meetings)
Housing Element Policies
(lot mergers & retention of
cottages, duplexes and second
units)
Substandard Lots
Historic Home GFA Exclusions
Conservation Districts
Basement Recommendations
Single Story Overlay Process
and establishment of percentages
2nd Dwelling Unit
Recommendations
Contextual Front Setback ....
Contextual Garage Placement
Gross Floor Area (GFA)
definition reformat &
clarifications
P&TC Action:
Straw vote to support lot merger
recommendations (through maximum
lot sizes) and use incentives (non-
regulatory approach) to encourage
retention of units.
Straw vote to allow second stories on
substandard lots
Request further analysis on substandard
lots, constraints and proposed solutions
Support staff recommendation, but look
at National and CA .Register eligible
sites
Support staff recommendation not to
pursue at this time
Support staff recommendations EIP
basement report to follow.
Support staff recommendation
Support staff recommendation with
change to allow exterior stairways to
second unit on interior side (not
intruding into setback)
Straw vote to allow 900 sf attached unit
(No motion) Requested that staff
explore other approaches
Support staff recommendation, further
discussion may follow with contextual
front setback discussion.
Support staff recommendation
Result
Passed 4-2-1
Passed 4-2-1
Passed 5-0-1-1
Passed 6-0-1
Passed 5-1-1
Passed 5-1-1
Passed 4-2-1
Passed 3 -2-1-1
3-3-1
No motion
Passed 4-1-1-1
Passed 5-1-1
Summary of P&TC Votes on R-1 Items
Item (in order of discussion
at July 14 meeting)
Basement Report from
consultant
HIE/IR ’process
Substandard Lots
Flag Lots
Historic Home Eligibility
Attached 2na Dwelling Unit
(concern re: 900 sf attached
unit)
Contextual Front Setback
P&TC Action:
After considering EIP basement report,
continue to support staff
recommendation - amendment that staff
return at some time with how basements
reviewed by Public Works and City
arborist for SF homes.
Support staff recommendation for HIE
& IR process in R-1 with HIE
applicability list with one clarification
on square footage for historic structures
(clarify limited to up to 250 sf, not 350
st)
Support allowing 2nd stories on
substandard lots up to 30’ in height,
subject to IR/HRB review, allowing
streetside setback of 10’ for lots less
than 50’ in width and increasing site
coverage to 40% for 2 story structure
(otherwise still = allowable floor area)
Consider contextual requirements
separately
No change to parking requirements for
substandard lots.
Support staff recommendation (continue
to limit to 1 habitable floor, 17 feet, but
changing front setback to 10 feet and
eliminating contextual requirements.
After considering National and CA
Register eligible sites, continue to
support staff recommendation/historic
home incentives (GFA exclusions)
Continue to support staff
recommendation
Motion to adopt range for front setback
even if less than 20’, when average is
less than 30’, otherwise average applies.
Other staff recommendations on
exclusions, memorializing, &
clarifications apply.
Result
Passed 6-1
Passed 7-0
Passed 5-2
Passed 7-0
Passed 7-0
Passed 7-0
Passed 7-0
Passed 4-3
2
Summary of P&TC Votes on R-1 Items
Item (in order of discussion
at July 21st meeting)
Contextual Front. Setback
Contextual Garage Placement
Substandard Lots &
Contextual requirements
Service Equipment
Small Retail Markets in R-1
Further Consider Setbacks &
Floor Area
P&TC Action:
Motion to revert to staff original
recommendation with modifications -
change application of average setback
when average greater than 30’ (instead
of 25’ - continue existing allowable
projections. Other staff
recommendations on exclusions,
memorializing, & clarifications apply.
Motion for language in code, except
delete consideration of both sides of
street and for blocks >600’ consider
parcels up to 600’, and change "more
than half" to "half or more" for
predominant pattern.
Motion for lots less than 95’ in depth,
waive "accessory building 75’ back
from front property line rule" for
garages, allowing them anywhere in rear
half of site so not forced to put at rear
property line
Motion to keep contextual front setback
requirement but waive contextual garage
placement requirement for substandard
lots.
Amendment to have staff evaluate at
some point (either ZOU or IR review)
affect on substandard cottage clusters.
Motion to only allow such equipment in
streetside setback (no closer than 10’ to
property line), so not in front, rear or
interior side. Also that all such
equipment be insulated and housed, &
that any replacement be made
conforming if feasible. No Director’s
discretion for special circumstances.
Support staff recommendation of
considering this at a later time (with
neighborhood commercial discussion) "
Support staff recommendation to not
change other setbacks or floor area
calculation at this time.
Result
Passed 7-0
Passed 7-0
Passed 6-1
Passed 5-2
Passed 4-3
Passed 7-0
Passed 5-2
Summary of P&TC Votes on R-1 Items
Item (in order of discussion
at August 4 meeting)
Streetside Setback
Lot Mergers & Maximum
Lot Sizes
"Compatibility Plane" vs.
"Daylight Plane" term
Porte-cochere
Carport
ARB review clarification
Recommend R-I to Council
P&TC Action:
Refer to LDR Working Group and
SFAC Co-chairs for their referral &
return to PTC with R-1 amendment prior
to Council
Support staff recommendation of
maximum lot sizes with additional
exemption added "where # lots remains
same and results in no loss of housing
units".
Not support staff recommendation of
using "compatibility plane". So retain
"daylight plane" term and add intent
statement to def’mition
Add new definition for porte-cochere
clarifying attached or adjacent to
residence, open on 3 or more sides, and
how addressed in GFA calculation.
PTC clarification that carport
completely open on 3 or more sides is
excluded from GFA.
Clarify that ARB shall use IR
Guidelines in addition to their f’Ladings
when reviewing three or more SF
residences
Recommend R-1 & LDR Definitions to
Council
Result
N/A
Passed 5-0-2
(Packer/Bialson
absent)
Passed 5-0-2
Passed 5-0-2
Passed 5-0-2
Passed 5-0-2
Passed 5-0-2
4
ATTACHMENT F
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
4
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Curtis Williams DEPARTMENT:
Contract Planner
Planning
DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 14, 2004
Zoning OrdNance Update - Revisions to Single Family Residential
(R- 1) Zoning District
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) provide
direction regarding three issues identified for review: 1) accessory buildings, 2) second
dwelling units, and 3) basements, as input to revisions to the Single-Famiiy Residential
(R-l) zoning district.
BACKGROUND:
Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) staff and the City attorney’s office have developed a
draft reformat of the R-1 chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, intended as a stand-alone R-1
chapter of the Ordinance. Preliminary revisions to the R-1 chapter have been developed
based on:
¯Relevant Comprehensive Plan policies
¯Public input at community workshops and focus groups, and through written
and e-mail comments on the ZOU
¯P&TC comments at study sessions and workshops
¯"Parking lot" issues identified during the Single Family Advisory Committee
process
¯Coordination with the ZOU urban design consultants, especially regarding
second unit issues
¯Review and discussion with Current Planning staff
¯Review and discussion with the Low Density Residential committee of the
Commission (members Griffin, Casset, and Holman)
City of Palo Alto Page
Committee Review
Staff has worked with the Low Density Residential Committee to provide input to
preliminary recommendations for code revisions and to identify key policy issues for
discussion by the full Commission. Staff initially developed a matrix of suggested code
changes, addressing such varied issues as the format of the chapter, allowable uses, basic
development standards; contextual standards (setbacks and garage placement), housing
element-related criteria, second dwelling units, basements, parking, the Single-Story (S)
combining district, Single-Family Individual Review (IR), Home Improvement
Exceptions (HIEs), and pertinent definitions. The Committee will continue to assist staff
in modifying these provisions prior to a draft R-1 chapter coming forward to the
Commission.
Based on discussions to date, the Commission has identified three initial policy issues
requiring full Commission input, including: 1) definitions and criteria for accessory
buildings, 2) standards for second dwelling units, and 3) development criteria for
basements. The intent of this meeting is to solicit input on initial staff recommendations
to address these issues.
DISCUSSION:
ZOU staff and the Low Density Residential Committee have to date identified a few R-1
consensus revisions that are recommended to the Commission for acceptance, and three
key issues that require direction from the full Commission.
Consensus Revisions to R-1 District Format and Regulations
Staff and the Committee have identified a few changes that will make the R-1 section
more readily usable by the public, staff and public officials, and consistent with State
taw. These revisions appear acceptable and positive to the Committee and staff, and
include:
¯Creating a stand-alone R-1 chapter, including not only the allowable uses and
required development standards for the zone, but also related overlays and
additional processes that are primarily applicable to R-l, such as the Single Story
(S) Combining District, Individual Review, and Home Improvement Exceptions.
Attachment A is an outline of the reformatted chapter.
¯Using tables to outline allowable uses and required development standards in the
R-1 zone. Attachments B and C are draft layouts of those tables, although the
substance of the revisions is not intended for Commission discussion at this time.
¯Deleting all references to metric measurements.
¯Revising the definitions of "small family day care home" and "large family day
care home" to be consistent with State law.
Definitions and Criteria for Accessory_ Buildings and Similar Structures
Section 18.04.030 of the Zoning Ordinance includes defmitions for "accessory building,"
"accessory dwelling," and "guest cottage." Additionally, "second dwelling unit" criteria
City of Palo Alto Page 2
are established in the R-1 regulations, though no definition for that use now exists. There
are some distinct differences between these categories of accessory buildings and uses,
and ZOU staffproposes several changes to clarify these confusing definitions and
criteria.
Attachment D outlines in matrix form the current definitions and requirements for each of
the four types of structures, and staff’s initial recommendations to reduce the four
categories to two. The primary purpose of the revised regulations is to distinguish
accessory buildings (not intended as independent living quarters) from second dwelling
units. The key provisions would:
1)Delete the definition of"accessory dwelling" - it is superseded by second
dwelling unit criteria, is currently defined as applicable only to on-site employees,
and is not listed anywhere in the code as a permitted or conditional use.
2)Allow other accessory buildings with t~vo or less plumbing fixtures as
"permitted" R-1 uses, including allowing limited setback encroachments (no
change). Examples could include a garage or a storage room.
3). Allow small accessorybuildings (less than 250 square feet) with more than two
plumbing f~xtures as "permitted" R-1 uses, but with no setback encroachments.
Examples could include a changing room or small art or crafts studio.
4) Allow accessory buildings With more than two plumbing fixtures and larger
than 250 square feet only with a conditional use permit. The conditional use
process allows flexibility for property owners to develop these types of structures,
but staff discretion and public reviev~ to assure that they will not function as
second units, or that appropriate conditions (parking) are applied. Examples could
include a pool house, workout room, or a guest room without a kitchen.
5) Delete the definition of and provisions for a "guest cottage’.’ - it would either be a
second dwelling unit (if to be an independent living unit) or would require a
conditional use permit as an accessory building with more than two plumbing
fixtures. A "guest cottage" currently is defined to house occasional visitors and
nonpaying guests, and requires a conditional use permit.
6)Defme "second dwelling unit" as an independent dwelling, including kitchen
facilities, and subject to all of the various criteria specified in the R-1 chapter.
The effect of these modifications would be to categorize all structures other than the main
residence as either: 1) accessory buildings or 2) second dwelling units. Staff believes that
these changes will simplify the zoning approach to these various structures, will readily
accommodate small accessory buildings and Second dwelling units, and will allow
flexibility through the conditional use permit to consider larger accessory buildings that
might have potential impacts on a neighborhood.
Other options discussed by staff and the Committee include: 1) allowing accessory
buildings in excess of 250 square feet as "permitted uses," subject to certain conditions,
such as no kitchen, no encroachments into setbacks, a maximum size (e.g., 600 sf), and
City of Palo Alto Page 3
perhaps even one parking space; and 2) requiring any accessory building greater than 250
square feet with more than two plumbing fixtures to be considered a "second dwelling
unit," necessitating compliance with all of the second unit regulations, including parking
requirements.
Staff requests the Commission’s input as to whether staff’s initial revisions are
appropriate or what alternative changes should be considered.
Second Dwelling Unit Regulations
Comprehensive Plan Program H-7 indicates that the City should "modify second-
dwelling unit standards to encourage production of second dwelling units." In July of
2003, the City amended its second unit requirements to al!ow for very small attached
units and to eliminate conditional use permit review, in response to State law (AB1866).
To further the Housing Element policy, staff recommends several additional changes to
the code provisions governing second units.
Attachment E outlines in matrix form the proposed revisions compared with current
second unit standards. Existing development criteria not discussed below, such as
maximum unit size for detached units (900 square feet), are not proposed to change..The
key revisions would:
1)Allow larger attached second dwelling units, up to 900 square feet in size
(currently 250 square feet).
2)Allow small (less than 450 square feet) attached or detached second dwelling units
on lots meeting the minimum lot size for their R-1 zone, rather than requiring such
lots to exceed the minimum lot size by 35%.
3) For small (less than 450 square feet) attached or detached second dwelling units,
reduce the parking requ~ement to one parking space, either covered or uncovered.
4) For all second dwelling units, allow one parking space to be located within the
front setback (could be a tandem space) with Zoning Admi~strator approval.
5) Eliminate the open space requirement for both attached and detached units.
6) Allow second story second units subject to the Individual Review process, for
eith. er attached or detached units (note: second story units would need to comply
with required setbacks).
7)Allow exterior stairways to attached second story units only to the rear of the main
residence.
The ZOU urban design consultants have prepared some sample prototypes representing
the suggested revisions (Attachment F). These are intended to provide examples of how
detached and attached units might be developed on typical R- 1 lots.
Staff believes these provisions would further encourage second unit development, but
also realizes that they have important policy implications and potential impacts. Staff and
the Committee request that the Commission discuss other identified options as well, such
City of Palo Alto .Page 4
as: 1) limiting attached units to a maximum of 30% of the totalfloor area of the main
residence; and 2) reducing the size of the "small" second unit to something less than 450
square feet. The Commission should provide direction regarding the suggested changes
and options to then be reviewed with the public and incorporated into the R-1 chapter.
Basements
The development of basements as living space in single-family residential development
has increased substantially over the past several years. Staff has identified and attempted
to address three particular concerns related to basements: 1) basements in setbacks; 2) the
desire for expanded usable below-grade patios for basements, and 3) basement space as
part of second dwelling units. Additionally, staff is aware that there are some community
concerns about whether basements should be excluded from floor area requirements and
the impact of basements on groundwater flows. Staff’s proposed revisions to the R-1
requirements for basements would:
1)Prohibit basement space below accessory buildings in setbacks, to minimize
potential impacts on trees, landscape, site permeability, and neighbors.
2)Require that below grade patios still be limited to 200 square feet, but clarify that
it is a total of 200 square feet for all below-grade patios on the site-and eliminate
the requirement for terracing and landscaping to make this space more usable to
residents. Screening and fencing from neighbors would still be required.
3) Include basement area for second units in the allowable square footage for the
second unit (e.g., 900 square feet maximum), but continue to exclude such square
footage from the site floor area ratio limitations.
The Commission may also wish to discuss whether there are additional concerns
regarding basement uses, such as whether basements should be counted as floor area,
since they result in increased habitable space, and whether basements should be restricted
in areas of groundwater flow.
The Commission should again discuss these changes and direct staff whether to
incorporate them as proposed, or to modify them.
Issues Deferred for Later Discussion
Some issues under review by staff and the Committee have not yet been fully developed..
These include those related to Individual Review and Home Improvement Exceptions,
Housing Element policies, and the Single-Story Combining District:
Simultaneous with the R-1 revisions being prepared for the ZOU, the P&TC is
currently reviewing potential changes to the Individual Review (IR) criteria and
process and -to, the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) process, as well as other
permit procedures. Those revisions are being developed by Current Planning staff,
and are to be considered by the Commission at other meetings in January. Some of the
City of Palo Alto Page 5
R-1 chapter modifications will need to await the outcome of these deliberations tO
complete the revisions. Staff is coordinating internally to assure that the various
efforts are compatible.
Revisions to implement recent Housing Element policies, especially those related to
restricting lot mergers and preserving existing housing units, require more extensive
legal review and input from the City Attorney, prior to preparing ordinance changes
for the Committee and Commission review.
Incorporation of the Single-Story (S) Combining District into the R-1 chapter will
require staff to develop code language to address procedural issues, such as
"overwhelming support," "prevailing single-story character]’ and "appropriate
boundaries." Staff will present those changes to the Committee prior to review by the
public and the Commission.
Incorporation of incentives for historic structures, most likely in the form of an HIE,
being developed by staff and the Historic Resources Board. Staff met with the Board
on January 7th and outlined an HIE approach to provide more flexibility for historic
buildings.
Public Outreach
Staff anticipates that the keyrevisions proposed for the R-1 chapter will be presented to
residents and residential architects for review in focus group discussions, prior to
presenting the full draft chapter to the Commission. Staff also expects to visit with
various homeowner groups to discuss the changes prior to Commission and Council
public hearings.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon direction from the Commission on the recommended changes and policy issues
outlined above, staff will continue to work with the Committee to refine the changes and
to address remaining issues prior.to compiling a draft R-1 chapter for public review.
Staff expects to have such a chapter prepared by mid to late February and to forward the
draft to the Commission after public review in late March.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. TabIe of Contents for R-1 Chapter of Zoning Code
B. Table 1 (Land Uses) of R-1 Chapter (Draft)
C. Table 2 (Development Standards) of R-1 Chapter (Draft)
D. Accessory Buildings Matrix
E. Second Dwelling Units Matrix
F. Second Unit Prototypes
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
Wylme Furth, Acting City Attorney
Zoning Ordinance Update Binder
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Prepared By:
Reviewed By:
Department!Division Head Approval:
Curtis Williams, Contract Planner
John Lusardi, ZOU Planning Manager
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS - PROPOSED REVISIONS
January 14, 2004
ATTACHMENT D
BUILDING TYPE
Accessory Building
Accessory Dwelling
CUI~ENT USE
REQUIREMENTS
Building incidemal to principal
Use or facility.
Permitted use in R-1 if less
than 2 plulnbing fixtures; e.g.,
garage, carport, storage shed.
Conditional use if more than 2
plumbing fixtures; e.g., art
studio, workout room, pool
house, changing room(s).
Accessory building intended
for occupancy by persons
residing therein by reason of
on-site employnaent of one or
more occupants..
Not listed in permitted or
conditional uses; will typically
have more flaan 2 plmnbing.
fixtures.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
CRITERIA
No special size or height limits
if out of setbacks, oilaer than
daylight plane.
Allowed in interior yards (side
and rear) subject to limits on
distance from street (at least 75
feet), daylight plane, and
coverage.
Not in setbacks if for
living/sleeping purposes, or if
more than 2 plumbing fixtures.
No special development
Criteria noted.
Same standards as oilier
accessory buildings, except
may not be located in interior
yards (not for living/sleeping
purposes).
PROPOSED REVISIONS
Pennitted use if less than 2
plumbing fixtures or not more
than 250 sf (e.g., changing
room, garage, storage, etc.).
Conditional use if more than 2
plumbing fixtures mad greater
tlaal1250 sf(e.g., guest room,
pool house, workout room or
art studio), but not including
second units.
Delete this definition - no
longer relevant; would be
considered second unit now.
Page 1
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS - PROPOSED REVISIONS
January 14, 2004
ATTACHMENT D
BUILDING TYPE
Guest Cottages
Second Dwelling
Units
CURRENT USE
REQUIREMENTS
Accessory building containing
lodging unit wifl~out kitchen
facilities; to house occasional
visitors or nonpayhag guests of
the oceupmats of the main
dwelling.
_Conditional use pen~ait
required if more than 2
plumbing fixtm’es (ahnost
always the case).
Attached or detached
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
CI~TERIA
Stone standards as for other
accessory buildings, except
may not be located in interior
yards (not for living/sleeping
proposes).
One pat-king space required;
not subject to other second unit
development standards (lot
size, unit size, parking, etc.).
Criteria for:
PROPOSED REVISIONS
Delete this definition atad
references to guest cottages.
Would be considered as
accessory building with
conditional use permit or could
be processed as second unit if
applicmat desired, subject to
second unit criteria.
independent living unit,
including kitchen.
Pennitted use if ha compliance
with specified criteria; will
always have more than 2
plmnbing fixtures.
minimmn lot size
maximum unit size
maxilmtm height
additional parking
design compatibility
Modifications to development
standards are proposed, but
definition remains file same -
independent living unit,
including kitchen.
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
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT.ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
REGULAR MEETING -- 7:O0 PM
City Council Chambers Room
Civic Center, lst Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:00 PM
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin - Chair
Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Butt
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson - conflict with Item I
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
Amy French, Current Planning Manager
John Lusardi, Special Projects/ZOU Manager
Susan Ondik, Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Steven Turner, Planner
Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist
Chris Riordan, Planner
Curtis Williams, Consultant Planner
Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.321 California Avenue
2.4010 Page Mill Road
3.3849 Page Mill Road
4.Zoning Ordinance Update
Chair Griffin: I would like to call the January 14, 2004 Regular Meeting of the Planning and
Transportation Commission to order. Would the Secretary please call the roll? Thank you.
I will say that Commissioner Bialson has informed us of her conflict with the first item tonight
and she will be joining us shortly.
This takes us to the Oral Communications portion of our agenda.
City of Palo Alto Page I
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
47
Chair Griffin: Any other comments from other Commissioners? I think we are ready to vote on
this item. All those in favor of Karen’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? And there are none.
The item carries unanimously. We are now finished with agenda item three.
It is now slightly after ten o’clock. We are ready for our last item number four the Zoning
Ordinance Update. Would Staffmake a presentation for us please?
4. Zoning Ordinance Update: (ZOU) Planning and Transportation Commission review
and recommendation on key policy issues related to implementing update of Single Family
and Low Density Zoning Districts.
Mr. John Lusardi. Special Projects/ZOU Manager: Mr. Chair Staff has prepared a slide
presentation of which you have a copy. In the interest of time I think we are going to forgo that
slide presentation since it simply summarizes what is already in the Staff Report. We have
identified three major categories or policy issues that we would like the Commission to review
tonight. I think I will give Curtis a couple of minutes to just touch on those three items and we
would like to get into the discussion. Thank you.
Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant Planner: Thank you, John. Just as a way of some background
Zoning Staffhas been working with the Current Planning Staff to develop a kind of stand alone
R-1 chapter of the Zoning Ordinance and trying to fold virtually everything that applies to R-1
into that chapter. So we would even include like the single story overlay, home improvement
exceptions and those kinds of things in the R-1 chapter. We have taken that package in a
preliminary form to the Low Density Residential Committee, which consists of Phyllis, Michael
and Karen. We have had several meetings to go through some of the preliminary
recommendations that Staffhas come up with.
There are a handful of issues, which are not issues, which are pretty well accepted by everyone
such as putting together the whole package. Then the Committee has tried to identify some
issues that right off the bat we know the entire Commission needs to consider. That is what is
before you tonight. We have grouped those into three categories. One is accessory buildings,
how we essentially distinguish accessory buildings from second dwelling units and what criteria
apply to them. Second is second dwelling units and revisions to the current standards that we
have for both attached and detached second dwellings. Then the third is basements, how we treat
basements in terms of floor area, below grade patios, where they can be located relative to
property lines under second units and that kind of thing. So those are the three areas. I have
intentionally not gone through each of the revisions here due to the time but would be happy to
do that for you. Or if you would like to start with one and we can kind of walk through those
and you can give us some direction. We are looking for you to give.us direction on these items
and then we would take them, go back and make some further revisions. We have a number of
other items we have indicated in the Staff Report that we are still working on and ultimately we
will be bringing back an R-1 chapter for the Commission to look at again. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, it looks like we have an opportunity to ask questions on the
report. If you have no questions then I will go to the public. I have one card from Beth
Bunnenberg. Welcome Beth.
City of Palo Alto Page 45
1 Ms. Beth Bunnenberg, Chair, Historic Resource Board: As you notice in one little part of the
2 report that you received that the I-tRB is working with Staff to try to find and incorporate some
3 incentives for historic preservation in the R-1 zoning. So tonight rather than share with you
4 exact details I would like to give you just a little bit of the rationale behind this.
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
47
48
First of all, as you know in Palo Alto we have a voluntary compliance Historic Preservation
Ordinance for residences. The HRB is not suggesting any changes to the Historic Preservation
Ordinance but rather than go the route of more regulation it is a chance to turn it around and say
let’s look at incentives that would make people feel like preserving their historic structures.
Incentives actually give owners a choice as to whether they participate in the program. But if
they do choose there could be some special extras for owners who choose to save their historic
properties and preserve them in an appropriate way. So please remember that historic
preservation is one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Here is a wonderful chance to begin
to build in some things that will help people save their properties. Incentives are working very
well in the Downtown Commercial District. So it looks like it is a direction that has some
chance of success. So let’s work together on these R-1 zoning provisions. The Staff has talked
with us particularly about the use of HIEs as a way to accomplish some of these goals and help
owners choose to preserve their properties. We will be working with Staff and they will come
back to you with more details later. So thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Beth. I will close the public hearing and bring this back up to the
desk for our questions and comments. Would anyone like to lead off?. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I .was looking at unusual consequence of setting apart the accessory
buildings that are not dwellings versus the second units, which are dwelling. The proposal that
you set out here for us to discuss sets out this two-part system where we cannot require a
conditional use permit for second units that are dwellings because that is the law and these are
the units that would require an additional parking space or two depending on their size yet, you
are proposing to require a conditional use permit for a structure that is an accessory structure
with two or less plumbing fixtures, or whatever you call them, and that don’t need a parking
space because they may not be a dwelling although you don’t know and yet we are asking
homeowners to go for a conditional use permit for those. I thought that seemed out of joint
because the dwelling unit would seem to have a greater impact than a non-dwelling unit yet you
are proposing the conditional use permit process which in light of the Auditor’s Report seems to
add a layer of unnecessary process for something that is really just a simple structure. Why not
just have very clear development standards for these structures and not have to go through a
conditional use permit?
Mr. Williams: Good question and we have sure been grappling with that with Staff and the
Committee at our levels as well. First of all, that is not a change from current. The current
situation is that if you have more than two plumbing fixtures and it is not a second dwelling unit
that you go through a conditional use permit process. We have these sort of in between type
structures that are not necessarily second dwelling units but they might be large enough and they
have the plumbing fixtures that they theoretically could perhaps be used that way. Because they
are in that category our conclusion was that the best tool to deal with determining what level of
impact they might have is the conditional use permit. We thought about development standards
and we could do that but it is very difficult to have one set that covers pool houses, workshops,
studios, a bedroom for the kid out in the back, the teenager, that covers all of those situations and
City of Palo Alto Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
particularly whether parking is required. There may be some situations where it is appropriate to
have a parking space or something like that. So the use permit seemed to be the best. We
certainly would entertain, if you would like us to try to come up with standards that do that and
you are comfortable that we could have permitted uses subject to those standards. We could try
to do that as well. The comments that we have had or the options that we have heard are either
to allow them as permitted uses with some basic standards or to go the other extreme, which is to
call everything a second unit basically, and have it comply with second unit regulations. Then
you get into a situation where a pool house or a workshop/studio or something like that has to
meet the minimum size requirement for the lot, it has to provide one or two parking spaces that
may not be necessary for that type of use and the other standards that are attendant to second
dwelling units.
Commissioner Packer: If you present these choices to a homeowner what is a homeowner going
to do? They are going to say well ifI call it a dwelling then I don’t have to bother with all this
process stuff.
Mr. Williams: But then they have to provide two parking spaces and they may not have the lot
size to do it.
Commissioner Packer: That is another thing which we may want to look at is whether we should
be requiring all these parking spaces for these second units because of the disincentive it creates
for adding these second units which is another issue of discussion that we may have amongst
ourselves. I don’t know if that would be here or when we discuss parking.
Mr. Williams: Also in the second unit discussion here tonight we have a proposal for smaller
second units to have less parking.
Commissioner Packer: I will let other Commissioners react to what I’ve said.
Chair Griffin: We have had this discussion already a couple of times with Curtis. He is pretty
expert in dealing with it so I don’t really have any other comments. Karen, do you? Okay, Pat.
Commissioner Burt: No I don’t really have comments on Bonnie’s issue. Could Staff clarify
under second units there is a reference to minimum lot size, was it under the accessory units or
accessory units? Excuse me. What were you referring to as minimum lot size for the smaller?
Point number two under recommendations, small, less than 450 square foot units on minimum
lot size.
Mr. Williams: Right. The minimum lot size that is required for that particular zoning district.
So if it is a typical R-1 6,000 square foot is the minimum lot size as opposed to the 8,100 square
feet that is required today for a second unit. The 35% increase over the minimum lot size for the
other zones that have the higher minimum lot size those would be the applicable minimum size,
7,000 or 8,000 square feet whatever applied. But if it were substandard in size and less than that
minimum then it wouldn’t qualify for any second unit.
Commissioner Burt: My second question is on the below grade patios what is the rationale for
limiting the below grade patio to 200 square feet regardless of lot size? ! am familiar with a
neighbor who had a below grade patio put in in conjunction with a basement and with stairwells
City of Palo Alto Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
.32
33
34
35
36-
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
it is a very constrained, not very usable space. They had a 16,000 square foot lot and were
constrained to a 200 square foot below grade patio.. So can you talk a little bit more about why
we are restricting it to that regardless of lot size?
Mr. Williams: Others here may be able to talk about where the 200 square feet initially came
from better than I, I wasn’t around at the time that was established. There was an exiting 200
square foot limitation in the code and it requires in addition to just the 200 square feet that it also
be terraced and landscaped. So the concern that we have been trying to address is this concern
that the 200 square feet isn’t usable because the terracing and landscaping gets in there and there
is basically nothing let~ in terms of a real usable patio. So our response has been in that direction
and making those 200 square feet usable rather than really looking at whether it could be even
larger. Now potentially I suppose it could. I think my understanding of the reason why you have
those kinds of limitations in a situation like this is number one, to create a large hole in the
backyard that is potentially visible from a neighboring property. So if you have a large property
you might not have that kind of impact. The other is that if we are not counting floor area,
basements as floor area, then you are truly trying to have it be a basement. Once you daylight it
and have a large daylighted area it doesn’t function quite the same way but I think you. could still
make the same argument that you are not seeing it from offsite so perhaps that’s still justified if
the Commission feels like a larger area or some kind of ratio based on the lot size is preferable
we could look at that.
Commissioner Burt: I think that the two rationales that I think I was aware of were that with the
basements we don’t count them as floor area for the reason of it not having an impact on
neighbors and a massing impact. So if we address the issue that you raised about making sure
that this recessed area isn’t some sort of detrimental visual impact for neighbors then that would
address one aspect. Then I heard that one of the other reasons had to do with potential flooding.
So we may need to include certain restrictions in the floor plane area that would be more
restrictive on the recessed patio allowances than perhaps we would in areas that were not
susceptible to the flooding.
Mr. Williams: First of all basements are not allowed within a flood plane zone. There are still
issues about ground water though and this may be something also that you may have that
concern even if it is not in a flood plane that if you are opening up this low grade patio area that
is it going to be flooded with water from subsurface sources.
Mr. Lusardi: Public Works has raised this issue and we have discussed it with thereto how large
you can go with a below grade patio before you run into drainage issues with respect to that. If
you want us to look at larger below grade patios on larger sites we can do that and review that
with Public Works to see if there is a limitation from them from an engineering and civil
perspective too.
Chair Griffin: Now the difference between a patio, a below grade patio and a window well is
that the below grade patio goes all the way to the foundation and a window well only goes to the
top of the window sill, it doesn’t go all the way to the total sub-grade? I may not be using the
right terminology here.
Mr. Williams: I think the intention of the light well, window well area, is that it not go all the
way to the grade of the floor of the unit below. However, I don’t think that is technically
City of Palo Alto Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
necessarily the difference. The main difference between the two is thatthe window wells
typically don’t extend more than three feet from the wall. That is the code requirement for
allowing enough light and access and those kinds of issues to be addressed. The patio goes
beyond that and as soon as you get beyond that it is no longer just a window well or light well it
becomes a patio.
Chair Griffin: Okay, so we have 200 square feet. So that is 14 by 14. Is the amount of space
that we are granting for below grade patios and light wells, window wells, don’t get subtracted,
don’t get netted against that 14 by 14.
Mr. Williams: Right. There are separate requirements for those.
Chair Griffin: Now I had a whole bunch of people wanting to talk. Who was first? Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: A follow up question to the patio issue. The below grade patios are
considered just an extension of the basement for the purposes of FAR or are they counted into
the FAR?
Ms. Grote: They are not counted into the FAR.
Commissioner Packer: So that raises a question that I have. I am looking at the Attachment C,
which has some of the Development Standards. For single story the maximum site coverage is
equal to the floor area. So if you have a below grade patio that is considered part of the
basement it is actually going outside of the footprint of the house and it is creating more of an
impervious surface, it is creating more of a site coverage but it isn’t counted because it is not part
of the FAR. Do you understand what I am saying? I know that wasn’t very clear.
The maximum site coverage is equal to the FAR because you only have one story in a single
story. If you put in a basement you don’t count the FAR that is fine because it is going right
under the footprint of the house. But this sunken patio, this 200 square feet, is adding to the site
coverage isn’t it?
Commissioner Burr: No it is just an impervious surface it is not a site coverage.
Commissioner Packer: Right.
Commissioner Burt: We have impervious surface.
Commissioner Packer: But we don’t have impervious surface development standards we only
have site coverage in the R-1 District. That is what I am getting at.
Ms. Grote: But we don’t count patios even if they were not below grade or sunken in site
coverage. It has to be elevated over 12 inches from the grade before you start getting into any
discussion about whether it is site coverage. So a patio would not be site coverage sunken or at
grade.
Chair Griffm: Annette.
City of Palo Alto Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
47
Commissioner Bialson: This is not a follow up to patios.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis are you a patio person?
Commissioner Bialson: Mine is on basements so I get to go first.
Chair Griff’m: Go ahead Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: This is going to the question of whether basements should be counted as
floor area and I will put my vote in for no, they shouldn’t be. But going on to the question of
whether they should be restricted in ground water flow areas I need a little more information
with regard to that because I think they do have an impact on adjacent landowners or landowners
further down "stream" from them. All I have is a sense of that I have no information. John, do
you have some information you can impart?
Mr. Lusardi: Not information to directly answer your question except to say that we fiave
recognized and identified that as an issue. We need to look at that as a cumulative impact as
opposed to individual basement by basement. So in the context of the Zoning Ordinance Update
we are talking with Public Works, we are talking with Utilities and our own environmental
consultant to see if we can identify how we analyze this as a cumulative effect of adding more
basements and affecting overall groundwater and ground table.
Chair Griffin: Sort ofa CEQA investigation?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes, it would bepart of the CEQA review for the Zoning Ordinance Update.
Commissioner Bialson: So we don’t have to address this at all? Could we at least express a
concern with regard to there being these walls built along these creeks and then thereby diverting
these underground streams that we have?
Mr. Lusardi: It has been raised enough as an issue that we need to analyze it and look at it as an
impact from the Zoning Ordinance Update and the cumulative effects of adding basements.
Commissioner Bialson: Okay, I absolutely agree because I think that is going to be a bigger and
bigger issue as we go forward.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That is exactly what I was going to say because we have been talking on the
Committee about this concern that we may have some subsistence problems in the general area
and we are putting in basements in areas and then pumping the water out and running it down the
streams and through our sewer systems. So what happens and what is the effect of that and
should we be having basements in some areas? There are other issues besides floor area ratio
and whether we like them or not that we need to look at.
Commissioner Bialson: As a follow up to that I am not unconcerned about us taking the water
and putting it down sewers but I am most concerned with what happens to the adjacent
City of Palo Alto Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2I
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
47
48
landowners. I think theyare hugely impacted and we are supposed to protect them with regard
to what a person builds on their property that could have a negative impact on them.
Chair Griffm: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, basements again still. I was actually hoping that tonight we would
get comments of other Commissioners about basements and we are getting those comments but I
would like for us not to actually make any determinations about basements because I appreciate
very much the comments that Annette and Phyllis have made and Phyllis and Michael have
endured me commenting on the Committee too about issues about basements. There are other
concerns about basements that do exist. There is the punching through the aquifer, interfering
with underwater ground flow and all of those things that have already been stated. There are
other consequences of basements too and the proliferation that we have seen of them lead to
some of these other issues. There are issues of fill. There are issues of diversity and
diversification that we are losing in Palo Alto because one-story houses become three story
houses essentially and that is less and less affordable. Because a whole footprint of a building
can-be not counted as FAR the tendency is to demolish and build effectively a three-story house.
While basements are not visible they do have these other impacts. Pumping is an issue too,
pumping of water and the energy that that takes. Also it is one way to, on the other side of this,
it might be one way if we were to limit the size of basements, the number of basements, the size
of them or something of that nature. I am not suggesting that we go from a don’t count
basements to do count basements but maybe if we were to limit the amount that was not counted
as FAR it might be one way to actually encourage historic preservation by allowing larger ..
basements and ultimately the whole impact would be lessened. I am hoping that we only just
make comments on this and no final recommendations on basements tonight. I really don’t think
we have the environmental information that we need to make a determination.
Commissioner Packer: I agree and I was just going to add the other annoying aspects of
basements or the months and months it sometimes takes for a property owner to pump and pump
and pump. When it takes that long to pump water out of something in order to build a basement
something isn’t right. You wonder whether this is really the right thing. We are not on bedrock.
This is a different kind of place and we should encourage the kind of building that is appropriate
for our geography.
Chair Griff’m: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I would just say that I think we should defer to the hydrologist on these
issues. Whether basements should in any way count against FAR we should examine but there
are advantages to having people build down rather than up and I think in the net most of those
advantages outweigh the disadvantages but I think some of these issues that have been raised are
worth further exploration. There are undoubtedly areas in the community that have hydrology
issues and I would certainly point out College Terrace where we have a series of disappearing
streams that exist uphill and don’t exist downhill. There are no culverts they simply go below
surface. So I am sure there are other areas of our community that have similar issues but those I
think are specific to certain geological sub-sectors and we ought to be looking at it from a
geological standpoint rather than a one-size fits all solution would be my recommendation.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
City of Palo Alto Page 51
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
47
48
Commissioner Holman: Just one quick comment to Pat’s comment there about rather they build
down than up. What my experience is, and I do try to keep my finger on the pulse of this, people
don’t build down rather than up they build down and up.
Chair Griffin: I am going to weigh in here. Are we about ready to wrap.up the basement portion
of this? Okay, I am just going to say that basically I am a basement guy. I am in favor of them
emotionally but I absolutely realize the hydrological impacts that they do impose and obviously
they keep the price of property up because you can build more house for your million dollars. I
am not arguing against that particular item.
At this stage I am wondering if we want to come back and look at accessory building issues
some more. You are not finished with basements?
Commissioner Burt: I just realized I had a question that I wasn’t clear on. With some of our fee
structures, I am trying to recall I should remember this, are they based on square footages at all
on any residential fee?
Ms. Grote: Not for planning purposes but building permits are based on square footage and type
of construction.
Commissioner Burr: Are basements included in that square footage for purposes of calculating
those fees?
Ms. Grote: I would imagine so. For building purposes for the building permit ! ..-.would need to
check with them but I would imagine they are.
Commissioner Burt: I just want to make sure it is not just based upon our other calculation of
FAR. Then there are no other community impact fees that are based upon square footage of
residential properties, right?
Ms. Grote: Not for single family.
Commissioner Burt: I thought not. I just wanted to make sure that we in granting basements are
not giving anybody a fee discount.
Chair Griffin: It has been suggested that we go to page two in the middle of the page where it
says Discussion and then Consensus Revisions. Are you with me? Consensus Revisions to R-1
District Format and Regulations. These revisions appear acceptable and positive to the
Committee and Staffand here they are, four of them. I am wondering if we had agreement or
consensus on that. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I certainly support the work of the Committee and Staff and I think
getting the sense of the Commission makes sense.
Chair Griffin: That is fine. I understand what you are saying.
Commissioner Bialson: We have consensus as far as I am concerned.
City of Palo Alto Page 52
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
47
48
Chair Griff’m: Thank you for your consensus. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I go for it but when we look at the other areas for example when we look
at Village Residential, we haven’t gotten there yet, to the extent that we have any
recommendations in Village Residential that might affect R-1 we just have to think about how
that might interrelate when we have an R-1 standalone chapter.
Chair Griffin: All right. In the meantime you are happy with the consensus of those four bullet
points. Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Obviously, I am on the Committee we are listening for the other three to go
along with us.
Chair Griffin: I will give you a chance to recant your previous testimony. All right then Pat I
guess you are the last one.
Commissioner Burr: They look good. I was chuckling about the deleting reference to metric. I
presume that we will not include hand stones and furlongs either.
Chair GritTm: You can tell it is getting late. Are there any other detailed nitty-gritty questions
that people would like to ask about accessory structures or second units? I see hands. Annette.
Commissioner Packer: I raised my points earlier about the issues about the conditional use
permit for that accessory structure that may or may not be a dwelling. So I really think that we
really need to think carefully about the consequences of continuing the requirement for a
conditional use permit and to try and think if there is another way to accomplish the issues that
Curtis raised about pool houses but somebody could live there. Would somebody be trying to
skirt the requirements of the state law by having a conditional use permit for something that
somebody might say well, that could have been a dwelling? I don’t know. So I think we want to
look at the pros and cons really carefully there because I don’t want us to get to draconian and
weird.
Then I would like us to somewhere maybe not tonight think about whether we can have some
more flexibility about the parking requirements for especially the smaller units. It seems to me
that maybe in a lot of areas of town if there are cars parked on the street, and it might not work
for all areas, I think cars parked on the street have a traffic calming impact. So we may want to
think about whether it makes sense to require an additional parking slot or two for a small 450
square foot or 900 square foot house when in home where there are four bedrooms and three
teenagers you may have five cars. Also in many of our homes where we don’t use our garages
for our cars and people park on the street anyway. I think we just have to think this through a
little bit more in light of the social conditions in the way people use their property and see if it
really makes sense to have those additional parking requirements for second units. Then if you
don’t have the parking requirements for second units then you eliminate one of those issues that
you were concerned about by having two processes for the accessory unit that is not a dwelling
versus the accessory that is a dwelling. So those are my thoughts on that. I don’t have any
answers but I think those are questions we need to ask each other.
City of Palo Alto Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am delighted that we have made some progress with this by allowing only
one space and making it tandem and allowing it in the setback for the small units. I think the
significant piece that we need to think about when we see this is that we are looking at allowing
small units with one set of requirements and larger units differently. We are letting the 450
square feet be approved without any issues and the larger ones differently. That is a major
change in what we are doing and it ups the 250 square feet that we now have. The issue may be
is 450 square feet the right number? I am told that that would allow for a reasonable size one
bedroom unit by several different people so that would seem to be one that would use lesser
parking spaces. Yes, some of us don’t use our garages but we get away with counting the
garages we don’t use and space is then available. Often times I have people come in here and
tell me they don’t have any place to park and actually they do but they don’t us it and they want
to use the street and that is a different issue than actually having a space available for them if
they wish to you use. They are talking about approving tandem spaces and I think that will help.
In the models in the back you will notice they use a situation where they say there are two
covered spaces for the homeowner and one uncovered space for the accessory unit but obviously
that could be one covered for the owner and one uncovered. You could use that anyway you
want and still meet those requirements.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate your pointing that out Phyllis because I agree with you. It
seems that we have gone quite a ways to making the second units available and realistically
attainable by our property owners. I have no problems with everything that is here. I am not
saying that I am going to agree to this in the future after we get the ordinances in front of us but
as presented I philosophically agree with all these points. I.didn’t know if you wanted to hear
that or not but there you have it. I really found the Staff Report or now I believe we are calling
them SRs to be well done. I really appreciate the work of the Committee and the fact that I don’t
have any disagreement with them is almost a little disappointing.
Chair Griffin: Yes, I hear that but it is nice that you are here with us on this working document.
Vice-Chair Cassel: SR in my language is sustained relief.
Chair Griffin: Ten minutes to eleven. Karen, would you like to comment?
Commissioner Holman: In my business I don’t have an SR in my vocabulary so I will refrain
from that. I am going to balance Annette out here by maybe satisfying her disappointment that
she doesn’t have comments. I had to miss the last two Committee meetings and I do have a
couple of comments. One is street parking may be traffic calming but I don’t think most
neighborhoods want to have cars parked on their street for traffic calming purposes. I think there
are other things they would rather have in place to do that. So relieving the parking requirement
for the smaller units isn’t a place that I would like to go ifI understood Bonnie’s comments
correctly. Also the accessory building, 250 square feet I am not quite sure that that’s the number.
Currently we have a 120 square foot accessory building that doesn’t require a permit. Then the
250 would require a permit if not a conditional use permit. The description here says that
accessory buildings that had two or fewer plumbing fixtures, the examples would include a
City of Palo Alto Page 54
1 garage, which I thought, was kind of an interesting way to characterize it. I am just not
2 comfortable with this 250 square foot accessory building size. I see a lot of opportunity fdr
3 abuse and for other uses other than garages. If you look at small crafts or art studios and you
4 look at what the size of most people’s offices are 250 square feet is quite a bit larger than what
5 most people require for those functions.
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
47
48
Chair Griff’m: It is 16 feet by 16 feet. You could live in there if you had to I mean it would be
an efficiency unit. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: A question of clarification. Doesn’t the accessory building square footage
building count against the FAR?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Commissioner Burt: So we are not talking about allowing something that wouldn’t be allowed.
It would just be allowed that it is detached. What other conditions, all other setback rules would
apply, what wouldn’t apply to the accessory unit that would apply to it if it were in fact attached
to the main house?
¯ Mr. Williams: The only real exception is that if the accessory unit has more than two plumbing
fixtures it can’t be in the setback. There are some provisions that do allow for accessory
buildings to go into some of the side and rear setbacks but not for living quarters and not if there
are more than two plumbing fixtures. Otherwise all the other setbacks, heights, other standards
apply. It counts as floor area.
Commissioner Burt: So then are you saying that if it does not have two plumbing fixtures it
would be allowed to be constructed in the setback if it were under 250 square feet?
Mr. Williams: It would now and would under this, yes. That doesn’t change. Those provisions
we haven’t suggested any change to. Just to clarify and actually I think Karen did to some extent
but the 120 square feet is in reference to what does not require a building permit. So if it is less
than 120 square feet of shed or something like that it doesn’t necessarily have to go through
process. What we are talking about here is these would still require building permits but they
would be permitted. The real difference here in this section from what we have today is that if it
is less than 250 square feet and it has more than two plumbing fixtures in it we are saying it
would be a permitted use. Today under our code that would be a conditional use. So that is
really the area of difference. If it is over 250 and it has more than two plumbing fixtures today it
is a conditional use, it is .still a conditional use here. If it only has two or less plumbing fixtures
it is a permitted use today and it is proposed to remain a permitted use. So you have that sort of
window but you also have the issue Bonnie brought up about now that we are treating second
units a certain way and they are ministerial then there is a bit of a disconnect there and we can go
back and look at whether there is a way to address that again.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: There is one correction I think, and Staff correct me ifI need it. On the
Table, page one, Attachment D that deals with accessory buildings. Under the Current
Development Criteria, I know that is not what we are dealing with but just so this doesn’t go
City of Palo Alto Page 55
1 forward, it says no special size or height limits if out of setbacks. But in the R-1 book it says the
2 height limit for accessory buildings is 12 feet. So I think that might be a correction that might
3 need to be made.
4
5 Chair GritYm: So you are on page one of Attachment D.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: Correct.
8
9 Chair Griffin: Under Current Development Criteria.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: Right. It says no special size or height limits if out of setbacks but the
12 R-1 book under accessory.
13
14 Mr. Williams: Lisa says that’s right.
15
16 Ms. Grote: You are correct and we will correct this. Thank you.
17
18 Chair Griffin: Which one is correct?
19
20 Ms. Grote: That there is a 12 foot height limit if it is located within a setback.
21
22 Vice-Chair Cassel: Another language thing and I think I am right is on page one of Attachment
23 D under Proposed Revisions up in the very top under Accessory Building. "Permitted use if less
24 than two plumbing fixtures or not more than 250 square feet." Does that mean ’and not more
25 than 250 square feet?’ Isn’t that both?
26 "
27 Mr. Williams: No. It is a permitted use if it is less, I guess it depends on how you look at it.
28
29 Vice-Chair Cassel: If it is over 250 square feet and it had two plumbing fixtures it would be all
30 right?
31
32 Mr. Williams: Yes, it would be a permitted use. That is what it is currently.
33
34 Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay. It is the same as today.
35
36 Mr. Williams: A garage, shop, storage building. Something like that that is 400 square feet
37 today is a permitted use.
38
39 Vice-Chair Cassel: And it is easy to have two plumbing fixtures in a garage. You have a
40 washing machine and a sink.
41
42 Mr. Williams: Yes.
43
44 Chair Griffin: I am looking up and down the desk here to see if we have more comments. We
45 have been asked by Staffto give direction. Have we accomplished our mission, Curtis?
46 Apparently we have not yet. Bonnie.
47
City of Palo Alto Page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Packer: On the top of page five of the Staff Report, SR, it asks us to discuss other
options for second units such as limiting attached units to 30% of the total floor area. The other
way you had it was up to 900 square feet. When you do the math, if you do 30% of let’s say a
typical 2,000 square foot house you get something really small, I forget what it is. 600 square
feet. But there may be room on- a lot for a 900 square foot building. You might have a 2,000
square foot house and you might be on a large lot and it might be appropriate to have a 900
square foot second dwelling unit. -So I don’t know if, I would prefer having the 450 and the 900
rather than tying it to a percent of the total floor area of the main residence. When you get up to
3,000 square feet and you get to 900. Anyway, I would not like to go with the 30% of total floor
area because it doesn’t take into consideration what may be existing on the lot or the lot size and
the size of the house.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well, I am going to go with the regular. This is basically an idea I was
trying to push in order to try to keep the units in size. So if you had a 1,200 square foot house
you didn’t get two 600 units out of it was the goal that I had in mind. Except for a minimum size
basically, this will cover the whole range and you could always have a detached unit if you had
the space. I think it is going to be easier to handle the other ordinance and that was the reason of
going with the other is simply a matter of we need some rules that are easy to understand as we
were reminded by the Auditor. That was mostly a case of going with that but the other does give
us some guarantee of one unit being a principle unit and one being small.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Packer: You know, I take back my comments because I realize that this was just
for attached units. I wouldn’t want to see it apply for detached units though.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I think there are two issues here. One is we don’t want to create a
circumstance of R-1 units becoming duplexes. On the other hand we don’t want to create an
incentive where the only way that someone can build a full size second unit is to also have to add
on to the main house in order to do so-. So I think we need a little more consideration of that
issue. I don’t know if30% is magical and I am kind of torn but I think those are two competing
concerns that we have to somehow figure out how to balance. I think each of them warrant
further consideration. So I don’t feel comfortable with a decision on that tonight for those
reasons.
Chair Griffin: Are we done? Curtis, do you hive any final comments other than to say thank
you?
Mr. Williams: Thank you. No I think we have gotten good direction on all three of these and we
will continue to work with the Committee on refining those as well as the number of other issues
that we listed in here for you and working with the HRB as well and come back to you with
some more in the future.
Chair Griffin: That is terrific.
City of Pa!o Alto Page 57
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
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: Maybe we should say thank you to you.
Commissioner Bialson: And the Committee, thank you.
Chair Griffin: That brings to an end agenda item four. We now come to Commission Member
Questions, Comments or Announcements.
COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Chair Griff’m: Pat, do you have one? I can take Phyllis while you are going through your
collection. Go ahead, Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: This is a process question. It is not really a question or a comment. Steve
and I have been talking about next week’s agenda item, which is Downtown North. We have
talked in the past about not having separate meetings with separate.groups on these issues. I-
have been asked to have meetings and I have indicated that I would not do that but that as I am
chairing this meeting I will see to it that everyone has a three minute opportunity to speak if they
need to speak that long. I have asked people where they can to get notices to us ahead of time if
they can so we have adequate time to read their ideas, to work together with other people who
agree with themselves, so they don’t a!l have to talk if they don’t wish to and trying to find ways
as much as possible to allow everyone to be able to express their opinion and be heard and to
help us have the kinds of information that we need in order to be able to make decisions. I have
been saying please tell us where you live, what you like and what you don’t like. Of course we
will get information at the end but helping people understand that we can listen to them easier if
we hear everything they can say when they can give it to us.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Pat.
Commissioner Burr: Yes.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just a follow up to that. I absolutely appreciate Commissioner’s
restraint on meeting with people, I think when we had these discussions at our retreats I think
we were talking about quasi-judicial and PCs I believe were our discussion. The Downtown
North is not quasi-judicial so maybe this is something we need to discuss at the retreat again but
I don’t think we were intending to include this type of project in our refrain from talking with
people.
Chair Griffin: Do you have a comment on that, Staff?.
Mr. Emslie: Well, I Can go back and check the notes but I believe it was encompassing of both
legislative and quasi-judicial acts because of the closeness that many of our legislative acts
resemble quasi-judicial through the PC that they were considered together under the same
protocol.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
City of Palo AlW Page 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
1.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Bialson: Just to help you and to say that my recollection was the same and part of
the reason for that was so that the same information was imparted to all the Commissioners and
that is part of why we came up with the rule. So there should be no difference in the matters that
we heard.
Chair Griff’m: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I think we should review it. I am not certain one way or the other what was
our final decision. We had discussion. I do recall that we talked about PCs definitely in that
they are technically legislative but have enough of the characteristics of a quasi-judicial matter
that we definitely wanted to treat them as being with the same protocols as we do for quasi-
judicial matters. I am uncertain whether we arrived at resolution on purely legislative matters.
Having said that we have a question of should we or should we not attempt to have a
neighborhood site visit in advance of this important issue. Did you have something, Steve?
Mr. Emslie: Yes, that suggestion has come up and I think one efficient way to handle that would
be to if you were to desire to do that to continue your meeting next week to a site visit
immediately following the meeting typically on a Saturday or some other time that is convenient.
That would take care of Brown Act Noticing because we wouldn’t have time to do that between
now and the meeting. So if you were to do that we would recommend you continue it to a date
certain at a site visit at a time and place. Then we would convene the site visit at that time.
There would be enough time to do that and still stay on schedule for our Council consideration in
March.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I would like to propose that because I do think that having us all there
and walking that entire area and having the opportunity for the neighborhood to be at that sort of
hands on and sort of eyes on the actual pavement would be extremely important. I think that it
behooves us. to do that.
Mr. Sodergren: Since it is going beyond just a comment and now we are getting into meeting
scheduling I think it would probably be best at this point if you would disclose and step down.
Chair Griffin: That would be great. I just want to say it is a lovely neighborhood but you are
more than welcome to show up and you will like what you see.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well we have a couple of minutes to approve. I will work with them on
getting something scheduled if everyone here would like that.
Commissioner Burt: A follow up question, Annette. Something you said I wasn’t sure ifI
understood it correctly, did you refer to neighborhood residents interacting with us at this site
visit?
Commissioner Bialson: I think it is going to be a public hearing. So people have the opportunity
to appear. My guess is that they will probably say some things to us.
City of Pa!o Alto Page 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: Well I would like to differentiate between us doing a site visit at which
residents can be present and it turning into a discourse event with the public at that.
Commissioner Bialson: If that can be done I have no problem with it. I just know that the way.
these things operate just as we had our meeting up in Page Mill Road and we had someone come
in an informal way start asking questions members of the Commission ended up responding to
them.
Commissioner Burr: Well, I think this could spin out of control and become something quite
different from an informational visually based site visit if we open the door toward wide spread
discourse with the very partisan parties.
Mr. Emslie: That would not, in previous site visits where they have involved a public
component there has been an admonition given to the Commission or the Council about the
purpose of the site visit is to collect information you can only collect in the field and that it is not
to receive information. So there is a statement that will be made that makes it clear that this is
not a chance to input or involve any discourse. We would discourage that.
Commissioner Bialson: That has worked with the Council?
Mr. Emslie: I believe it has had an effect, yes.
Vice-Chair Cassel: It will take all of us doing some work on that to make that happen.
Commissioner Bialson: Exactly.
Vice-Chair Cassel: So we will have to keep that in mind. I am trying to help people understand
that we will listen to everyone’s comments whether they are in the neighborhood or out of the
neighborhood. We are interested in hearing what they have to say.
It looks like I am now chairing a meeting. Karen? Do we have any other comments? We can
continue to work on this. Not tonight, next week we will have a meeting and we will. Pat has
another item. Pat go ahead you were next.
Commissioner Burt: No go ahead, Karen.
Commissioner Holman: It is the comment period, right? I would like to request of Staff that as a
matter of course that there be site visits scheduled for projects that are Site and Design projects.
We have had this come up in the past and some of these sites especially that are in the foothills
are sometimes very difficult to find the 4010 was difficult to ascertain which one that was, this
one I never would have found it had there not been somebody there to meet me. Also in
reviewing these Site and Design projects I f’md it is really an invaluable assist in making
determinations about whether something is appropriate or not from at least an individual’s
perspective. So I would really ask that that just become a matter of course and other
Commissioners of course are welcome to comment on that.
City of Palo Alto Page 60
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
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: We are not allowed to hold long term discussions at this point they are just
comments. So why don’t I add that to our list of process meetings. It would probably be a fast
one.
Commissioner Burr: Okay. That was one of my items. I had three others that were follow up to
our foothills discussion. One is to request that in the future that we have maps that in the open
space areas give us the context of the development’s relationship to public lands and the
visibility of the project from public lands. Second that we ask if Staff can look at standard
recommendations on these permeable driveway surfaces. We had some back and forth here. We
had thought we were moving toward a best practice and then we heard some dispute as to
whether it was a best practice and so it would be great. On the 4010 project the first time we
received it they hadn’t had a Staffrecommendation of this alternative that they eventually
adopted. So I think it would be efficient if we can come up with either best practices or a set of
best practices that are routinely recommended .to applicants. Then this issue that I hadn’t thought
of that-was brought up by Karen of a standard practice on dealing with the Sudden Oak Death
syndrome issues as we fell various trees that are susceptible to it. I think that covers it. Thanks.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. Now I think we have some minutes to approve.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Regular Meeting of December 10 and Special Meeting of
December 17, 2003.
Commissioner Holman: If the Commission would indulge me we had quite a large packet to
deal with this week and I have to admit I did not get the minutes even scanned. So if it was okay
with Commission if we put off approval of these until the next meeting if that doesn’t interfere
with some Council action.
Vice-Chair Cassel: It does affect other Council action?
Commissioner Burt: Karen as a matter of standard practice I believe that if there are minor
typographical corrections those can be made outside of the approval of the minutes. Is that
correct and would that hopefully address any concerns you have?
Commissioner Holman: Typographical but what if they are content?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I don’t know.
Commissioner Holman: I can just abstain.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay.
Mr. Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary_:- For the record, Ms. Volterra submitted changes to the
December 17t~ minutes and the changes have been made to them. So there were some changes
in those.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do we have those changes?
Ms. Ellner: You do have the changes.
City of Palo Alto Page 61
ATTACHMENT G
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Susan Ondik, Planner
May. 26, 2004
DEPARTMENT: Planning &
Community Environment
Zoning Ordinance Update - Revisions to Single Family Residential (R-
1) Zoning District
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportatiori Commission (P&TC) review and
recommend that staff prepare -an. ordinance for Commission review of changes to the
Single Family Residential (R-l) chapter (18.12) and related Definitions (18.04, proposed
18.99) as included in Attachments B and C. The complete ordinance that will remm to
Commission will include provisions for Home Improvement Exceptions (HIEs) and
Individual Review (~) processes, as-well .as other revisions to reflect the Commission’s
direction. Staff. further requeststhat the Commission provide direction regarding specific
issues identified for review, including: 1) implementing Housing Element policy to
preserve housing units, 2) second stories for homes on substandard lots, 3) criteria for
Single-Story (S) Combining District overlays, and 4) whether to establish procedures for
creating Conservation Districts to preserve neighborhood character as part of the ZOU or
to defer such consideration until a later date.
BACKGROUND: "
Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) staff and the City attorney’s office have reformatted
and drafted a revised R-1 chapter of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, with the assistance of
Current Planning staff, P&TC representatives, the Historic Resources Board (H), and
the Single Family Advisory Committee (SFAC) Co-chairs. The revisions to Chapter
I8.12 are intended as a stand-alone R-1 chapter, in conjunction with revisions, to related
low-density residential definitions. Some process components of the Chapter (Home
Improvement Exceptions (HIE) and Individual Review) are being considered by the
P&TC on a separate track, but are -to be included upon completion.
City of Palo Alto Page ]
Preliminary revisions to the R-! chapter have been developed based on:
¯Relevant Comprehensive Plan policies
¯Public input at community workshops and focus groups, and through written
and e-mail comments on the ZOU
¯P&TC comments at~ study sessions and workshops
¯"Parking lot" issues identified during the Single Family Advisory Committee
process
Coordination with the ZOU urban design consultants, especially regarding
second unit issues
Review and discussion with Current Planning staff
¯" Review and discussion with the Low Density Residential working group of the
Commission (members Griffin, Cassel, and Holman)
Review and discussion of selected items with the SFAC Co-chairs (Annette
Ashton, Carol Harrington, and John Northway)
Review and discussion of HIE parameters to provide incentives for historic
home protection with the Historic.Resources Board.
Comprehensive Plan Pohcies and Pro~ams
Several. Comprehensive Plan policies, and programs, especially those found in the
Housing Element, provide a basis for the proposed revisions to the R-1 Chapter~ Included
are the following:
Program H,5: (cons, i~ts of several bullet items, two of which are presented below)
"Address the loss-ofhousing due to,the combination of single family residential
lots. Consider modifying the R-1 .zoning district .to create a maximum lot size to
prevent the loss of housing or housing opportunities."
o "Permit higher densities under the R-1 Zoning District to accommodate smaller
lots for courtyard homes orother similar types of honsm~,. (To be addressed
under Village Residential)
Program H-7: "As part of the ZOU process, m6dify the provisions, such as parking
requirements, minimum lot size, coverage, and floor area ratio limits, that govern the
development of second dwelling units, in single family areas to encourage the production
of such units. Consider using the ’form’ code to achieve these objectives."
Program H-8: "As part of the ZOU process, modify the Zoning Code to allow second
dwelling units that are incorporated entirely within the existing main dwelling, or that
require only a small addition and limited exterior modifications, .to be approved through a
ministerial permit on sites that meet the minimum development standards, including the
parking requirement." "
Program H-11" "As part of the ZOU process,- amend the zoning regnlations to permit
residential lots of less than 6,000 square feet where smaller lots would be compatible
with the surrounding nei~fft~orhood." (To be addressed as part of Village Residential)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Policy H-8:"Promote the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential
properties."
Program H-30: "Require developers of new residential projects in the R:I and R-2
zoning districts to preserve and incorporate, where feasible, existing rental cottages or
duplexes within the project: Explore the feasibility of.requiring the developer to replace
any units being demolished as a result of new construction."
Program H-40: "Consider allowing the develoPment of duplexes in the R-1 zoning
district as the required BMR units for a new single family residential subdivision subject
to appropriate development standards. .Development standards will be prepared,
evaluated and implemented duringthe ZOU." (To be addressed as part of Village
Residential discussion)
Policy L-4: "Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the
vitality of its commercial and public facilities. Use the ZOU as a tool to enhance Palo
Alto’s desirable qualities."
Policy L-12: "Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or
remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures."
(Achieved primarily through Individual Review and Architectural Review)
Program L-12: ~’~Vhere compatible With neighborhood ctiaracter, use Zoning and the
HIE process to create incentives or eliminate obstacles to remodel houses with features
that add street life and vitality."
Policy L-57: "Develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings with
historic merit in all zones." ¯
Low Density Residential Working Group Review
Staff has worked with the Low Density Residential Working Group of the P&TC
consisting of Commissioners Cassel, Griffin, and Holman to provide input to preliminary
recommendations for code revisions and to identify key policy issues .for discussion by
the full Commission, such as those issues that were brought to the Commission on
January 14, 2004. The January 14, 2004 staff report is attached as ~a reference. At the
January P&TC meeting, the Commission reviewed many of the changes contained in ~the
R-1 chapter, including reformatting of the chapter (including a stand alone R-l chapter,
new tables, elimination of metric references, etc.), some proposed changes to definitions,
revised second, dwelling unit regulations and modifications of standards for basements.
The Commission’s Working Group, the SFAC Co-chairs, and Current Planning staff and
City Attorney’s office have further reviewed and made recommendations on the
definitions and sections of the code. With this variety, of input, as well as some public
review, all recommendations were considered and a substantial number of them were
City of Palo Alto Page 3
incorporated into the proposed R-1 chapter. Therefore, the proposed R-1 chapter may not
represent a unanimous or consensus recommendation among all review participants,
including the Working Group, but more like an amalgamation with some compromise of
the varying comments. The proposed code and definitions as attached, however, have
undergone review and discussion by the Working Group and other reviewers. In general,
staff feels the Working Group has. been supportive of most of the recommendations
presented, and referred to full Commission those items with broader policy implications.
Since there were a variety of reviewers including.Commissioners, members of the pubhc
and city staff,, individual Working Group members may want to expand on certain
discussion items, as well as bring up further comments or items they have heard from
members of the public.
The discussion below is ~ouped to distinguish between those issues where the Working
Group came to-a consensus and those identified for full Commission review. Those
sections of the Chapter related to the Individual Review and HIE processes, and process
improvements presented with the City Auditor’s report, which are being reviewed
simultaneously by the commission, will be incorporated upon their completion into the
ordinance de.tailing the changes to the R-1 Chapter. The complete chapter and adopting
ordinance will then return to Commission for their final recommendation to Council.
DISCUSSION:
The intent and benefits of having a stand-None R-1 chapter are to 1) provide a more user-
friendly zoning document for residential development that covers more than two-thirds of
the City, and 2) allow an early adoption of this frequently .used portion of the code. ZOU
staff recommends that the Commission discuss all remaining items so staff can.prepare a
draft ordinance outlining the changes to the single-family residential (R-I) chapter and
definitions. The Home Improvement Exception and Individual Review Process changes
will be included in this ordinance upon .their completion.
Staff has developed a matrix,~ included as Attachment A, summarizing the proposed code
changes, addressing such varied issues as the format of the chapter, allowable uses, basic
development standards, contextual standards (setbacks and garage placement), housing
element-related criteria, second dwelling units, basements, parking, the Single-Story (S)
combining district, Single-Family Individual .Review (IR), Home. Improvement
Exceptions .(HIEs), and pertinent definitions. The Matrix also indicates points of
discussion and genera! outcomes of Working Group and Commission discussion of these
R-1 items.
Items Reviewed by the Working Grot~p
ZOU staff and the Low Density Residential Working Group, as indicated in the
Attachment A matrix, generally agreed on many items such as general format changes,
minor changes in allowable uses, etc. The matrix indicates other items, such as those
related to noise producing equipment, encroachments, below grade patios and lightwells
for basement~, etc. that upon review and edits from Working Group, received general
City of Palo Alto Page 4
support by reviewers (not necessarily a consensus). All proposed changes are contained
in both the attached summary matrix and in the draft R-1 chapter and definitions.
Reviewers als0 wanted full Commission review of some of the staff and Working Group
recommendations, including changes presented in 1anuary 2004 on accessory structures,
second unit recommendations, and basement recommendations. These items are
expanded on with some follow up items noted below, and some additional
recommendations for Commission review presented below.
Daylight Plane Name Change
The term "daylight plane" refers to an inclined plane above a stated height at property
hnes or setback hnes,which combines with other development Standardsto establish the
allowable building envelope on a site. The term "daylight" plane is inherently misleading
because the intent of the term is not to refer t.o "dayhghting", an architectural, term
meaning "a method of providing illuminationthrough the use of light", but to further
clarify the allowable building envelope beyond a site’s basic setback standards.
Therefore, the ZOU design consultants with the help of the ZOU Design Working Group
and staff have recommended altering the terminology to "compatibihty plane". This term
has been incorporated in the attached R-1 chapter and low-density residential definitions.
The "dayhght’.plane term is stilll in parentheses to avoid confusion, but it is the intent of
staff to transition completely away from "dayhght plane" to "compatibihty plane" term.
Other alternative terms discussed included setback plane, second story setback plane,
-massing plane, development plane and transitional height plane.
Second Dwelling Unit Regulations
Comprehensive Plan Program H-7 indicates that the-City should "modify second-
dwelling unit standards to encourage prdduction of second dwelling units." In July of
2003, the City amended its second unit requirements to allow for ve~ small (up to 250
square feet) attached units, in addition to tile detached .units already allowed and to
eliminate conditional use permit review; in response to State law (AB 1866). To meet the
Housing Element policy, staff recommends additional changes as outlined at the January
2004 Commission meeting, to the code provisions governing second units, and included
the following.
1)Allow larger attached second dwelling units, up to 900 square .feet .in size
(currently allow up to 250 .square feet).
2)Allow small (less than 450 square feet) attached or detached second dwelling units
on lots meeting the minimum lot size for their R-1 zone, rather than requiring such
lots to exceed the minimum lot size by 35%. .
3) For small (less than 450 square feet) attached or detached second dwelling units,
reduce the parking requirement to one parking .space, either covered or uncovered.
4) For all second dwelling units, allow one parking space to be located within the
front setback (could be a tandem space) with Zoning Administrator approval.
5) Eliminate the open space requirement for both attached and detached units.
City of Pato Alto Page 5
6)-Allow second story second units subject to the Individual Review process, for
either attached or detached :units (note: second story units would still need to
comply with required setbacks, including no living area being allowed in required
setbacks).
7) Allow exterior stairways to attached second story units only to the rear of the main
residence.
8) Including basement area for second units in the calculation of square footage for
the size of the second unit (e.g., 900 .square feet maximum), but continuing to
exclude such square footage from the site floor area ratio limitations.
At the January 2004 meeting, the Commission’s only specific concern related to why
staff recommended allowing up to a 450 square foot second dwelling unit on a standard
6000 square foot single-family lot. The reasons for the recommendation area: 1) it is
half of the otherwise required 900 square foot maximum, and 2) adequate to provide for a
moderate sized one-bedroom unit.
Basements
At the January 2004 Commission meeting, staff presented proposed i changes to the
existing regulation of basements in the R-1 zones. During-the discussion, Commission
members expressed a concern and questioned the existing code regarding the general and
.cumulative impacts of basements on.groundwater levels. Following the meeting ZOU
staff onsulted with the ZOU environmental consultant, EIP Associates, and the Public
Works Department to examine this concern. EIP Associates is preparing an analysis that
will-be presented to the Commission with the final review of the R-1 chapter. The
preliminary review indicates .that basement development as allowed under the existing
zoning, including both residential and non-residential uses will not substantially impact
the-groundwater, either on an area-wide basis or locally (in. the vicinity of the house).
Some of the reasoning behind this statement is the. difference between shallow and deep
groundwater aquifers. Pumping of the groundwater for the purpose of constructing
.basements would affect the shallow aquifer or shallow water tables,, not the deep. aquifer.
Additionally, potential impacts are minimized due to existing Public Works Department
policies that .prohibit the long-term pumping of groundwater. Dewatering is often
necessary during the construction of basements in areas with a shallow water table. Once
the basement has been constructed, however, groundwater pumping is prohibited. Permit
applicants on projects with basements are required to prepare a geotechnical investigation
and report that determines the expected highest groundwater level-in the local shallow
aquifer. Basements are required to be waterproofed-and structurally strengthened below
the expected groundwater level, eliminating the need for. ground water pumping.
Pumping is only allowed for removal of seepage water that collects along the basement
walls above the water table.
Furthermore, it should be noted that concerns brought up by Commissioners regarding
saltwater intrusion and Subsidence do not relate to basement construction because such
basin-wide impacts only occur if significant amounts of water, such as from a well, are
pumped from the deep aquifer_. The Commission also had concerns regarding basements
Gity of Palo Alto.Page 6
inhibiting the flow of groundwater on-site. Initial consultation from EIP indicates that,
although groundwater in shaliow aquifers may be slightly displaced locally by basement
constmcti0n, groundwater flow on adjacent properties would not be impacted. In
conclusion, staff believes that potential groundwater impacts relating to the construction
of t~asements have been adequately addressed by existing Public Works Department
policies and construction standards, and that no further modifications to the R-1 zoning
ordinance are required regarding this issue.
.The proposed R-1 chapter does propose a few limited changes to the development
standards for basements, including:
t) Prohibiting basement space below accessory buildings in setbacks, to minimize
potential impacts on trees, landscape, site permeability, and neighbors.
2) For below-grade patios, eliminating the requirement for terracing and landscaping
(landscaping .or fencing above to screen from offsite views would still be
required); modifying the 25’ linear requirement to allow 30% of the basement
perimeter to have light wells/patios; and allowing up to 2% of the lot size, or 200
square feet (whichever greater) for below-grade patios..
3) Including basement area for second units in the square footage calculation for the
second unit (e.g., 900 square feet maximum), but continuing to exclude such
square footage from the site floor _area ratio limitations.
4) Allowing lightwells (does not apply to below-grade patios) to extend 3 feet
(changed from 2 feet) into therequired side yard to make the zoning requirements
consistent with building code (UBC) regulations for these features in side yards.
Single Story_ Overlay - Clarification of terms
The attached R-1 chapter includes the single story (S) overlay process, as drawn from the
historical application process for these districts. The code revisions attempt to clarify
some of the process terms such as "overwhelming support". Staff recommends a
minimum of 60% support in areas with existing CC&Rs-limiting height, and otherwise
70% support. Another clarification is that the "prevailing single story character" is
defined to mean a minimum of 80%. The requirement for "moderate lot sizes" is deleted.
The Working Group did not reach a consensus on the proposed percentage
recommendations, and members of the public also presented some alternate percentage
options during the focus groups (see later discussion under ’~h.~blic Outreach".)
Policy IssuesDeferred for Full Commission Review
In addition to those issues receiving significant discussion by staff, the Working Group
and other reviewers, the following three key policy issues that were raised at the Working
Group level require further direction from the. full Commission. These include: I)
Housing element policies relating to limiting lot mergers and further retention of existing
housing units, 2) allowing second stories on substandard lots, and 3) considering whether
to.-include provisions and proceduresfor neighborhoods to create a Conservation District
adapted to their areas’ characteristics.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Housing. Element Policies
The 1998 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes Housing Element Goals for
¯ low-density residential districts to be implemented, ff feasible during the Zoning
Ordinance Update. They include Program H-5, which recommends that the City should
"Consider modifying the R-1 Zoning District to create a maximum lot size to prevent the
loss of housing or housing opportunities." For Program H-5, the proposed R-t chapter
includes the creation of maximum lot sizes that are just under twice the minimum lot size
to discourage lot mergers that result in a reduction in the number of buildable lots. It also
includes a maximum of 9,999 square feet where 6,000 square feet is the minimum lot
size, to prohibit mer#ng of two 5,000 square foot lots. Although some discussion of the
reviewers included having the lot merger prohibitio.n apply to all small lots as well, staff
beheves that would be an extreme restriction on such small properties and would
preclude the establishment of many "conforming" lots. Additionally, because the state’s
Subdivision Map Act governs lot mergers, they cannot be prohibited outright.
Program H-30 of the Housing Element indicates that the City should "Require developers
of new residential projects in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts to preserveand
incorporate, where feasible, existing rental cottages or duplexes within a project. Explore
the feasibility of requiring a developer to replace .any units being demohshed.as a result
. of new construction." This program has been reviewed by.the City Attorney’s office and
Plannling staff and presents many more practical difficulties for implementation than
Program H-5.In order to implement Program H-30, staff ~has considered the possibility of
controlling the elimination or.demolition of dwelling units through a discretionary permit
process. As an example of such a process, the City of Berkeley requires a use permit
before a dwelling unit may be eliminated or demohshed. In order to grant, the permit
findings must be made that the demohtion will remove a structure that is "hazardous,
unusable or is infeasible to repair;" or is necessary to permit the construction of at least
the same number of dwelling units as the demohshed structure. According to staff in
Berkeley, it is often difficult to determine whether a smacmre is "unusable or is infeasible
to repair.". Therefore, the policy is often difficult to apply.
Because of the administrative difficulties administering a discretionary permit process,
staff does not beheve such a process is feasible at this time. Staff’s preference is to
develop a positive approach to protection of existing housing through !) improved
regaalations to facilitate second units, 2) HIE incentives for retaining existing homes,
including historic homes, 3) provisions in the nonconforming provisions of the code
allowing minor improvements and upgrades to existing nonconformingunits, and 4)
village residential (cottage cluster) regulations that provide incentives for preserving that
unit type rather than developing new homes.
Incentives for Historic Houses
ZOU and Current Planning staff presented and discussed some incentives for historic
houses with the Historic Resources Board in January 2004 and April 2004. The
discussion included three potential HIE items applicable to historic structures, including-
the exclusion (with parameters) of basement and attic space as well as some additional
City of Palo Alto Page 8
floor area specific for historic homes. Staff recommends that the exclusion of basement
and attic space, as outlined below, be included in the gross floor area definition as an
automatic, exclusion and incentives for historic homes. Therefore, for residences
designated on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category I or Category 2 historic
structure or any contributing structure within a locally designated historic district, the
following exclusions would be incorporated into the "gross floor area" definition: All
exterior alterations to historic structures would still be subject to historic (HRB) review.
Exclusion from floor area calculations for any new or existing basement area even where
the finished level of the first floor is 3 feet or more above the grade around the perimeter
of the building foundation wails; and
Exclusion of up to 500 square feet from floor area calculations for unusable attic
space;
The above exclusions have not been incorporated yet into the attached !ow~density
residential definitions (Attachment. B), but will be included prior to returning to
Commission with the final chapter: The summary table (Attachment A) will also be
updated.
Second Stories on Substmxdard Lots
The proposed R-1 code continues to limit substandard lots to one .habitable floor and a
maximum of 17’ in height. However, as an extension of Housing Element goals to retain
a variety of housing stock, including the potential preservation of existing smaller~ more
affordable houses on smaller lots and to recognize the Individual Review process that
now exists, ZOU staff has heard from other staff and the community some interest in
allowing second stories on substandard lots .(sites would still have to meet existing gross
floor area (GFA)limitations). A substandard lot is defined in the code as a lot with a
width of less than 50 feet or a depth of less than 83 feet an___d_d an area less. than 83% of the
minimum area required by the zoning (generally less than 5,000 square feet). An analysis
conducted by Advance Planning staff indicates there are approximately 443 substandard
single-family lots within the city. Allowing a second story On a substandard lot would
provide these .small lot owners some flexibility in development while still applying the
Individual Review standards to address design concerns. Single story overlays and
established CC&Rs limiting the height or number of stories would still apply to
substandard lots in these established areas.
Conservation Districts
During one discussion at the Low Density Residential Working Group level, the idea
that the ZOU should include a procedure for estabhshing conservation districts,
neighborhood specific overlays establishing neighborhood specific development
standards into the ZOU was forwarded for full Commission discussion. The process in
estabhshing such an overlay, would likely be similar to the single story overlay process,
outlining the amount of neighborhood support required and appropriate boundaries for
such districts. Included with the procedures would be provisions to define the parameters
for potential application of such an overlay, such as modified height, setbacks, coverage,
City of Palo Alto Page 9
floor area,, daylight plane, and/or..desig-n criteria, for example. Staff.believes that such an
overlay would be outside the scope of the ZOU and being potentially controversial, could
result in further delay in completing the ZOU. However, staff would like full
Commission gafidance on whether to forward a recommendation to the City Council to
develop a Conservation District overlay process for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance
Update, or following the.adoption of the zoning code (but still part of the ZOU work
plan).
Other Potential Items for Inclusion in the R-1 Chapter
In addition to the items and recommendations presented in :this staff report and in the
proposed code, there may be additional issues that the Commission would like to have
addressed in the ZOU. However, depending on the content, staff has generally indicated
to the Working Group and the Commission that some additions may be outside the scope
of the ZOU anct/or may take considerable time to develop and discuss. Nevertheless, ff a
majority of the Commission requests that such items be addressed, staff will either
forward the recommendation to the Council for concurrent consideration or bring the
additional information tothe Working Group and Commission ata subsequent date.
Concurrent Items Under Review
Simultaneous with the R-1 revisions being prepared for the ZOU and included on the
May 26, 2004 agenda, the P&TC is reviewing potential changes to the Individual Review
(IR) .criteria and process and to the Home Improvement ExcePtion (HIE) process. Those
revisions have been developed by Current Planning staff and the HIE and IR process
Changes will be incorporated into the R-1 chapter.
Staff notes that the Commission’s action on the R-1 chapter includes the understanding
that both the.HIE and IR process changes will be incorporated into this chapter and remm
to Commission for their recommendation before proceeding to Council.
Pubhc Outreach
StMf held two focus groups on Thursday May 13th to provide an overview of the
proposed changes to the R-1 chapter and to discuss several key issues with members of
the public. An additional focus group will be held on Monday, May 24tu following the
¯ request of several Midtown residents. Since this focus group occurs after the release of
this staff repdrt, a summary of the May 24tu focus group will be.provided on the day of
Commission. A summary of the May 13th focus group is included as Attachment E.
Invitations and notifications for focus groups were mailed to over 150 members of the
pubhc, including neighborhood groups, communi.ty members who have expressed an
interest in the low density residential changes, and those who have attended second unit,
Individual Review or other ZOU workshops. The focus group meeting dates were also
pubhshed on the ZOU webpage under upcoming meetings.
Five community members, along with two Commissioners and one SFAC Co-chair,
attended the initial focus groups on May 13th. Due to the small turnout, staff was able to
cover more material than piarmed and reviewed all proposed changes to the R-1 code
City of Palo Alto Page 10
section with attendees. Comments, summarized in Attachment E, included concerns
about the loss of housing units through lot combining, basements used as habitable space,
parking in the front setback for a second unit, and clearer criteria ~or substandard lots and
lots in the floodplain. The discussion also included suggestions on the percentages in the
single story overlay process and other ways to make the code clearer to the public, such
as adding in references to historic home (HRB) review.
One member of the public submitted an email comment regarding expanding the
floodplain (additional height and daylight plane) exception to include accessory
structures encroaching into setbacks. At this time, staff is not recommending this change
because of the potential implications of raising a structure already encroaching into the
setbacks, but could draft language to address the issue if the Commission concurs with
the comment.
Additionally, comments submitted by an ARB board, member raised some considerations
and possible solutions .to contextual front setback and garage placement that the
Commission may want to consider. For contextual front setback, the board member
pointed out that context is not really established until there are at least 5 adjacent, and
possibly more, parcels. There are several blocks, in. city with 3-4 parcels (if comer lots
face adjacent streets), and context is not really created with those 3 or 4 parcels. Perhaps
a minimum number of parcels should be established (such as 5), in order for contextual
front setbacks to ~pply. The board member also suggested allowing a-smaller than 20’
contextual front setback where that pattern is established, but restricting height in this
smaller front setback area to say 1T.. For example, in College Terrace or some areas of
Downtown North where the existing contextual front setback is less than 20’, a new
home .could be allowed to develop with that context (closer to the street) within
established limits. Such limits could include setting a 10’ minimum setback and also a
12’ height restriction for the area between 10’ and 20’.
Similar to above, for contextual garage placement; 50% may not be an appropriate
number to establish a pattern. Possibly 75% is .more appropriate.
Regarding contextual garage placement, the board member commented that Palo Alto
citizens might fred 2-car fro.n.t-facing garages more objectionable than a 1-car front-
facing garage. If so, the code could possibly incorporate some flexibility to allow a
front-facing 1-car garage, but not a 2-car garage, even if a rear garage placement context
is established:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Environmentalreview for adoption of the R-1 chapter will proceed with the completion
of the R-1 ordinance after incorporating all changes to the existing chapter. It is staffs’
and the environmental consultant’s initial opinion that the changes proposed with the R-1
chapter do. not have si~icant environmental impacts and that they do not go beyond
those already analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will proceed to Council with the R-1 chapter and low-.density residential definitions
in the Summer of 2004. The Commission is scheduled to consider draft low-density
residential ~remaining residential districts including R-2, RE, and. RMD) chapter on July
16, 2004.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Summary Table of Proposed Changes to the R-1 Chapter
B. Proposed Draft R-1 Chapter of Zoning Code
C. Proposed Draft of Low Density Residential Definitions
D. January i4, 2004 P&TC Staff report
E. May 13, 2004 R-! Focus Group Summary
F. Second Dwelling Units Matrix "
G. Diagrams of Second Unit Prototypes
H. Diagrams to consider with the definition of Gross Floor Area
I. Reference Drawing for Compatibility (Daylight) Plane
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
Wynne Furth, Acting City Attorney
Dan Soder~en, Contract City A_ttomey
Zoning Ordinance Update Binder
Prepared by:Susan Ondik, Planner .
Reviewed by:
~ohn Lusardi, ZO~lannmg Manager
L
Department!Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 12
ATTACHMENT E
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
R-1
FOCUS GROUP
5/13/04
1.Need to fred a simple way to identify all applicable overriding regulations in R-1
districts, including floodplain requirements, substandard regs, open space if
applicable here, historic, and also reference to other low density districts. Have
own wording or clearly reference.
2.Add HRB reference paragraph, similar to ARB reference paragraph. Consider
whether need for other overlying regulations.
3.Add commercial kitchen fan to noise development standards (as far as when
extending into setbacks).
4. Follow the Comp Plan for housing element items.
5.Consider making findings in order to allow lot combining (such as retaining #
units on site).
6.Encroachment to a setback - why is it not an HIE? How does it work on a
substandard lot? Should be in the section with the minor exceptions.
Parking
7. Re: allowing 2nd unit parking space in front setback - consider requiring this
space to be permeable so don’t have a "concrete slab" in driveway.
8. Is off-street parking really being used for parking?
9.Concern that existing parking regulations are not being enforced, so shouldn’t be
more flexible in regulations.
Single Story_ Overlay:
10.70% for owner support (without deed restrictions) is too high - deed restriction
much more critical; 2/3 is more appropriate.
S:~PLANLPLADIVkZOU - Planning & Urban Design~Zoning Ordinance UpdateWocus GroupskR-lk5-13-04_R-1Focus_G-roup.doc
11.Similarly 80% for prevailing single story character is too high, 75% is more
appropriate.
12.The process needs to be standardized. Hard to get people to vote; if they don’t
vote, it counts as a ’~o".
Daylight Plane:
13. What is the problem with the name?
14. Another name for it could be "Development Plane"
Porches vs. Patios
15. Define porch vs.- patio
Basements
16.What if you’re too close to a flood plain? Need to further restrict where allow
basements, e.g. 1 per mile.
17. If it’s used as living space, it should be counted as FAR.
18.Anytime you have a basement that includes a bathroom, you should count the
basement as living space. Have at least 50% count as FAR.
19. Basements - Consider allowing basements only with findings.
Substandard Lots
20. Should be a little chapter, like flag lots, with the restrictions and allowances.
21. Be careful in relaxing the requirements.
22.Substandard lots are a hot issue - Confusion over what is a substandard lot, and
what that means.
Note: Comments listed were made individually and are not intended to represent a
consensus of Focus Group participants.
SAPLANkPLADIV’,ZOU - Planning & Urban Design\Zoning Ordinance UpdatekFocus GroupskR-l\5-13-04_R-1Focus_Group.doc
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
R-1
FOCUS GROUP
5/24/04
Noise & Location of Service Equipment
1.Different zones abutting one another - interfaces between R-1 .and other zones;
consider minimum rear setback for service equipment in R-1 - such as 6’.
Formatting
2.Table 2 - R-1 Residential Development Standards - needs to be more reader
friendly; too confusing - particularly combining districts may be confused with
size of lot not zoning.
3. Table 1 & 2 - Consider adding titles to "Subject to regulations" column.
Development Standards
4.Give direct language instead of making it long winded. Avoid "the intent of’’ "the
purpose of’’ statements.
5. Move the intent sentence under 18.12.040 (i) Maximum Lot Sizes to be the 1st
sentence - look for other similar corrections.
6.Table 1 - Add links & cross references to make it easier to navigate (such as with
Accessory Buildings to reference definition).
7.Call "Open Space" something else as it is not really open space, an example
would be "Open Area".
8.Lot size - Grandfather in or clarify applications for existing odd-shaped lots to
assure cannot be split where inappropriate.
9.Lot size - clarify that minimum lot size applies when subdividing, and maximum
applies for lot mergers.
10. Consider referring to Subdivision Map Act that further limits subdivisions.
11.Other LDR zones - nonconforming uses - after natural disaster ensure parcel can
redevelop pre-disaster # of units as well as square footage.
S:kPLANkPLADIV~ZOU - Planning.& Urban Design~Zoning Ordinance UpdatekFoeus G-roupskR-l\5-24-04_R-iFocus_Cn’oiap.doc
12.18.12.040 0a) Change to ’:Permeable" since that is intent. In addition to front,
consider adding permeable surface requirements to side and/or rear yards,
possibly relate to FAR.
13. Eliminate definition of"Family".
Single Story Overlay:
14.Define who votes: 1 vote per household; address; lot; parcel. Pick one number,
such as 65% all the way around, eliminates everything else.
15. Would be good to have standard vote form.
Basemems
16.Add intent statement for counting basement square footage toward size of second
units.
17. Basements near floodplain.
HIE (PTC Agenda Item # 1);.
18. Correct some formatting errors (duplicative lettering, etc.)
19.Clarify in code that ptu~ose is not to apply for all the exceptions, perhaps add
"one or several of"
20.Reference other sections of existing code where appropriate (such as with
horizontal wall extension)
Individual Review (PTC Agenda Item #1):
21. Why isn’t color included as a guideline?
22. Still discourage circular driveways?
Note: Comments listed were made individually and are not intended to represent a
consensus of Focus Group participants.
SAPLANkPLADIV~ZOU - Planning & Urban Design~Zoning Ordinance UpdateWocus GroupskR-l\5-24-04_R-1Focus_Group.doc
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
R-1
FOCUS GROUP
5/26/04
1."Context" should all be blocks including the residential area
2.Use the "Perspectives" page to help direct the architects clients
3.Show more emphasis in the street level
4.Since it is new, do either an annual or 2-year review on the Form Code once it has
been approved
5.The softer the line, the more sketchy it looks, people will be more apt to believe it
is a diagram and not what is required of them
6.Having a comprehensive checklist would be helpful, 3rd panel is like having a
checklist
7.On one of the site diagrams say building comers are...list expectations
8.Likes having diagrams that make you think
9.The more it looks like a design, the more you’ll get them to use the code
10.Use the same diagram with new and different information; redundancy might be
good. Can use on the same page
11. If you want it, say you want it
Note: Comments listed were made individually and are not intended to represent a
consensus of Focus Group participants.
S:kPLANkPLADIV~ZOU - Planning & Urban Design~Zoning Ordinance UpdatekFocus GroupshR-l~5-26-04_R-IFocus_Group.doc
ATTACHMENT F
R-1 Detached
SECOND UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PROPOSED REVISIONS
May 2004
EXISTING REQUII~MENTS
Minimum Lot Area: 135% of minimmn lot area for zone
(ex. 8;100 for R-1 zone)
Maximum Size: 900 sf for unit, 200 sf for covered parking
Maximum Height: 17’ and Single Story
Parking: 2 spaces (one covered), common driveway
PROPOSED REVISIONS
Minimum Lot Area:
Small (<450 sq ft) units "allowed on lots meeting underlying
zone’s minimum lot size (6000 sqft for R-I)
¯Larger units (450 to 900 sq ft) would still require 135% of
minimum lot size for zone
Maximum Size: No change
Maximum Height: still 17’, but second story units allowed
through IR review process ..
Parking:
Open Space: 200 squarefeet
Other:
¯Architecturally compatible.
¯Same development standards (setbacks, DLP, etc.)
as primary unit
¯. For small units (<450 sq ft) 1 space, covered or uncovered
¯For larger units (450 to .900 sq ft) - no change - 2 spaces (1
covered)
¯1 uncovered space (for second unit only) may be located
within the front setback with ZA approval (tandem parking
allowed)
Open Space: No requirement - shared with primary dwelling
Other: No changes.
R-1 Attached,
EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Lo’t Area: 135% of lot area for zone
Maximum Size: 250 sq ft.
Maximum Height: Same as primary unit, but 2nd floor
unit would undergo R-1 Individual Review.
Parking: 1 space (covered or uncovered)
PROPOSED REVISIONS
Minimum Lot Area:
Small (<450 sq ft) units allowed on lots meeting underlying
zone’s minimum lot size (6000 sq ft for R-l)
Larger units (450 to 900 sq ft) would still require 135% of
minimum lot size for zone
Maximum Size: Increage to up to 900 sq ft.
Maximum Height: Attached second story units would go
through IR process
Parking:
Open Space: None required:
Other:
¯
No entrance on Same side as main entrance (except
corner lots)
No exterior stairways
Same development standards (setbacks, DLP, etc.)
as primary unit
Does not require review for architectural
0.m.Pafibility
¯For small units (<450 sq ft) 1 space, covered or uncovered
¯For larger units (450 to 900 sq ft) - no change - 2 spaces (1
covered)
¯1 uncovered space (for second unit only) may be located
within thefront setback with ZA approval (tandem parking
allowed)
Open Space: No ctiange.
Other:
Exterior stairways allowed to second story units with entries
in the back of primary dwelling or in unit above a garage;
subject to meeting IR guidelin6s
No change for other requirements
Page 2 5/9.0/2004
Attached Second
ATTACHMENT G
Unit - Existing Regulations
Main
Residence
Second Unit.Parking (1 Space)
Main ResidenceCovered Parking(2 Spaces)
Second UnitParking
(Covered or
Uncovered)
rearsetback
¯ sidesetback
MainResidenceCoveredParking
accessorybuildingprojection(18.88.030)
Attached
Secot~dDwelling
Attached
SecondDwelling
Unit
150 sf max
revt~~ "..11/10/03
Detached Second Unit - Existing l~egul~itions
Main ResidenceCo~er~d Parking
MainResidence
SecondDwelling
Unit Second UnitCovered Parking
Second UnitUncoveredParking
SecondDwelling Unit -
500 sq ft shown
(900 sq ft max)
20~
rearsetback
side
SecondUnit
CoveredParking Second Unit
UncoveredParking
1.2’separation.
MainResidence,CoveredParking
revised 11/10/03
Detached Second Unit- "Comprehensive Plan" Alternates
Alternate A
Second Unit
CoveredParking
Second Unit
UncoveredParking
Main ’
Residence
Second Dwellinlg Unit
(-600 sq ff shown)
MainResidenceCovered
Parking
Second .
Unit ¯
UncoveredParking.
Second Main
unit ResidenceCovered CoveredParking Parktng
rearsetback
setback
Detached
Second
Dwelling
UnitAbove Garages
ALTERNATE A
shown with 600 sq ft second unit ¯
8,100 sq ft lot
revis,-"q..~11/10/03
Attached Second Unit - "Comprehensive Plan" Alternates
Alternate A
MainResidence
Attached
SecondDwelling
Unit
Second UnitParking (Uncovered) "
Main ResidenceCovered Parking
Second UnitParking
(Uncovered)
sidesetback
AttachedSecondDwelling
UnitAbove Garage
.50 sf max
Main
ResidenceCoveredParking
ALTERNATE A
shown with <450 sq ft.second unit,
8,100 sq ft lot
revis ~-’~ 11/10/03
Detached Second Unit -"Comprehensive Plan" Alternates
Alternate B
Main
Residence
SecondDwelling
Unit
Second UnitParking
(Uncovered)
Second UnitParkinglUncovered)
consider
covered?)
,MainResidence
CoveredParking
6~
sidesetback
~20’
rear
setback
Detached
Dwelling
Unit
¯Above Garage
450 sf max
Main ReSidenceCovered Parking
ALTERNATE B
shown with <450 sq ft second unit
8,100 sq ft lot
revised 11110/03
Attached Second Unit - "Comprehensive Plan" Alternates
Alternate B
AttachedSecondDwelling
Unit
MainResidence
Main Residence
ParkingCovere~ Space)
Second UnitParking(1
Main ResidenceParkingUnc°vere~l Space)
sidesetback
MainResidence
CoveredParking
ISecond
UnitParking
MainResidence
Uncovered
Parking
Attached
SecondDwelling
Unit
450 sf max
_~20’rear
setback
.-~_. 20’
frontsetback
ALTERNATE B
shown with <450 sq ft second unit
6,000 sq ft lot
revised 11/03/03
PORCHES
FloorArea Calculation Rulss
:Attachment s for Gross Floor Area definition
~ i:~: .From- 10/29/03 P&TC.Staff report regarding Individual Revie~
once ~ floor area
RECESSED, PORCHES
UPPER.LEVEL DECKS, BALCONIES,. ETC.
above is > 50%
.v~e bn 2 er 3
~ ~e>50 %
¯ iENTRY STRUCTURES/TOWERS-
~. deiinit~ons).DEF!NmONS:
A3-rilcS/STORAGE AREA (5’ rule) and-BASEMENTS (3’ rule)
_____F’]oor AreaCalculation____. ,Rules ..... " " - ’ " " " "
Ceiling
HIGH VOLUME SPACES
-’=toot ;Area Calculation Rules
..~.~." .:,--:
RREPLACE PROJECTIONS
F:iooi" Area Calculation Rules
DEFINITION
. Pr~ fro~mainb~dir~j wail
(exte~. . "~ 2 fe~t m .~m.um) "¯Hot, l~. ortly a
COVERED &.UNCOVERED PARKING
¯ ~ Area Calculation Rules "
Out//he ...
REAR COMPATIBILITY (DAYLIGHT) PLANE
(Allowed projections described in zoning districts)
Point X
Cbmpdibility ,£Da/light) Plare
(CP)
. Avg.Grade for CP =Average Of Point X and Point Y,
as measured at the midpoint of
t the building (see plan view).
Rear Yard Setback ~1 Point
Property Line
Selbcr_k Line
Avg, G~cde for CP =
Averoge of Point X and Point Y,
cs rnecsuredd themidpoinf of the bulldng.
INTERIOR SIDE YARD COMPATIBILITY (DAYLIGHT) PLANE
(Allowed projections described in zoning districts)
Cbml~Iblllty Oc~llght)Plane
(CP)
Point X
,
r~ Side YardSetback
Point y Avg.Gradefor CP =
Average of Point X and Point Y,
as measured at the midpoint of
the building (see plan view).
Property Line
Setba:k Line
.Avg. Gt’ade for CP =
Averaged Pdnt X cnd Point Y,
cs mecsured d themic~oint of thebulldng.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
:MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, May 26 at 7:00 PM
City Council Conference Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:04 PM
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin - Chair
Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Butt
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson
Lee L Lippert
Staff."
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
Amy French, Current Planning Manager
dohn Lusardi, Planning Manager, Spc. Projects
Curtis Williams, Consultant
don Abendschein, Adrnin. Analyst
Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.Proposed Revisions to the Individual Review (IR) Ordinance, the Home Improvement
Exception (HIE) Process, and the HIE findings
2.ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE (ZOU): Single Family Residential District (R-I)
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will call the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission for
Wednesday, May 26 to order. We only have mikes on the table today so it means that people
need to be quiet so we don’t make it difficult for these mikes so that the secretaries can properly
record the meeting. It helps if we remember to not wiggle these papers for them.
The first item on the agenda would be 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 fi’om the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
City of Pa!o Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to an item not on the agenda? Will
you call the roll? Sorry. Thank you.
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 Griff’m: This takes us to New Business. We will open the public hearing on item number
one which is Proposed Revisions to the Individual Review Ordinance, the Home Improvement
Exception Process and the HIE findings. This is a continuation of prior meetings reviewing the
IR and the HIE processes. An ordinance making minor revisions to Chapter 18.14 will be
presented, as will Staffs proposed revisions to the Individual Review guidelines. A proposal to
align the HIE process with the IR process will be considered~ as will a proposal to modify the
HIE f’mdings and add specific limitations on how large an exception may be granted. Would the
Staffplease make a report?
NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearings.
Proposed Revisions to the Individual Review OR) Ordinance~ the Home
Improvement Exception (HIE) Process, and the HIE findings: This is a continuation
of prior meetings reviewing the IR and HIE processes. An ordinance making minor
revisions to Chapter 18.14 will be presented, as will Staffs proposed revisions to the
Individual Review guidelines. A proposal to align the HIE process with the IR process
will be considered, as will a proposal to modify the HIE findings and add specific
limitations on how large an exception may be granted. Staff will return with an
ordinance implementing the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the HIE
process, findings, and limitations.
Mr. Jon Abendschein. Administrative Analyst: Thank you Chair Griffin. The notice is a little
bit different from what we have actually presented tonight in that it states that an ordinance is
being presented to you.~ Staffhas divided its proposal into two pages of code language. That
code language would return later in an ordinance to you but we wanted to bring it ahead for
discussion tonight. That is Attachment A and Attachment B that you have in your StaffReports.
Staff’s proposal tonight is a culmination of several months of review starting last October when
Staff presented the Annual Individual Review Report and alerted the Commission that there were
several issues that we would be investigating over the next several months. Staff held focus
groups with the community in January and since then has developed the proposal that you have
in front you. The proposal is divided among three sections. I am going to go over the first two.
and then I am going to turn it over to Amy French for the third. These three sections are the
Home Improvement Exception, the Individual Review Process that relates to the Individual
Review Ordinance itself, Chapter 18.14 of the Zoning code and the third is the Individual
Review Guidelines. These are the standards that Staff uses to review Individual Review
applications.
City of Palo Alto 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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Staffbased its proposal for the Home Improvement Exception which you have in your report as
Attachment A on a clear understanding we got from the community, from the Commission and
from Staff’that there needed to be more clarity on the difference between when an HIE is
appropriate and when a variance is appropriate. Staff has done three things in pursuit of that
goal. First we have added a purpose statement to the Home Improvement Exception that is not
there in the existing code. We have also added specific limits in Subsection C of your
Attachment A that show under what circumstances Home Improvement Exception is appropriate
and to what limits. Thirdly we have removed the first finding that Staff currently has to make for
Home Improvement Exception requiring extraordinary circumstances on the property. That is a
finding that is more appropriate in Variances, which are used in extraordinary circumstances as
opposed to Home Improvement Exceptions that are used more in the pursuit of preservation of
existing or historic buildings. On the recommendation of the Historic Resources Board we have
also added an incentive for Category I and II historic buildings and contributing buildings in
historic districts. That is an incentive of 250 square feet and it can be granted under the Home
Improvement Exception process.
The second part of Staff’s proposal relates to the Individual Review Ordinance itself. What you
see in your Attachment B is Chapter 18.14 of the Municipal Code. That is the procedure for
Individual Review, as it exists now. Staff has made several wording clarifications but the two
substantive changes that we want the Commission to focus on are allowing the comment period
to begin when the application is submitted rather than after Staff does its review for
completeness. This is based on what we heard in the focus groups in January, we heard from
both neighbors and from applicants and architects. From neighbors we heard that they wanted to
have a chance to give input early and from architects that they wanted to have a chance to
respond to neighbor and Staff comments all at the same time. The second is something that we
brought to the Commission earlier. This was to have instances under which Staff could approve
minor modifications without going through the entire Individual Review process. These are
small things like window changes. You have it in your Staff Report. Then other minor
clarifications, we added a standard expiration of an approval because an approval will expire
after one year. This is standard for discretionary permits. We also made the hearing request and
appeal periods consistent with the procedural changes that the Commission reviewed in March in
our response to the Audit.
The two attachments of code language that have been distributed in your report are the two items
that we want the Commission to recommend action on tonight. This is the last time the
Commission will have full discussion of this however it will return in an ordinance when the
Zoning Ordinance Update Team returns with the R-1 chapter. It will be incorporated into the R-
1 chapter. Also, I wanted to mention before I turn it over to Amy that we received several
Commissioner comments on wording changes and a few typographical errors. We have revised
some of those and put strikeout underline language at your places. We are happy to answer
questions on that if you have any. I will turn it over to Amy right now.
Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Thank you, Jon. The Individual Review
Guidelines are a requirement for Staff when they are reviewing Individual Review applications
per the Ordinance. The Guidelines are established with input from the Planning Commission,
they are adopted by the Director and distributed. After the October 2003 meeting with the
Planning Commission and group co-chair support we have deleted Guideline number six that is
through a memo that is Attachment D to your report. That is the solar orientation guideline that
City of Palo Alto . Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
was being somewhat misinterpreted in the practice of reviewing these guidelines with the
community.
We did have some outreach meetings as Jon mentioned back in January and through that as well
as meetings with Staff and Origins Design, which is the consulting architect for the Individual
Review we did identify that some of the guidelines could be clarified, the guidelines could be a
little bit more effective with additional illustrations including illustrations of contemporary style
homes. We also with the streamlining efforts that have been going on we looked at the
guidelines and said we have gone down to nine aider eliminating guideline number six and
maybe we could get them down to a number five which would be manageable but certainly
include all of the existing goals of privacy, mass and scale and streetscape just to get them to be a
little bit more effective. In your report in a draft as Attachment C that includes these five
guidelines. One of the objectives too is to look at how architects and designers are going through
the design process. So we ordered them in that order.
We also recently received input from group co-chairs and subcommittee members those are
outlined in your StaffReport. Some good ideas came out of that session and we will be pursuing
those. I think that wraps up our presentation. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Would colleagues be interested in posing questions to Staff at this
time? If not we will ask the public to make their comments. If you would please fill out
comment cards and print your name on them to assist with pronunciation that would be
appreciated. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: While we are waiting I will ask a couple of questions. It had come up
in one of the working group meetings under the historic properties to add Categories IlI and IV
and National Register Eligible properties as having access to the 200 square foot additional FAR.
Staff has not commented to that that I am aware of, would Staff like to comment on that?
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Good evening. Wehave not included Categories III
and IV in the list of incentives or the list of eligible structures for the HIE. The reason we didn’t
do this and we will get into a little bit more conversation when we talk about the R-1 standards
.but what we are recommending is that Category I and II historic smactures automatically get
bonus square footage because the basement square footage for an historic house and the attic
square footage would not be counted into the floor area ratio for Categories I and II. That would
provide the incentive for Category III and IV structures to be reevaluated and to ask to become
Category I and II’s. So there is a built-in incentive for Category III and IV to increase their
category and to make the improvements or remove incompatible improvements so that they can
be classified as Categories I and II. So for that reason we considered that to be the historic
incentive and not to include it in the HIE consideration. That Categories I and II only would be
considered in the HIE.
Commissioner Holman: How would an owner of a III or IV know this?
Ms. Grote: It would be part of our incentive program for historic preservation. It would be
advertised at the Development Center. It would be built-in to the Ordinance itself under
definitions of floor area so that it would be publicized in that way.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: What about National Register Eligible properties?
Ms. Grote: National Eligible properties are typically considered Categories I or II and would
subject to those same benefits. We would need to do that evaluation to insure that National
Eligible Register structures would be considered Categories I and II.
Commissioner Holman: Tell me again where that would be included.
Ms. Grote: It would be included in the definition of gross floor area so that it actually would be
stated that basement and attic areas in Category I and II or Nationally Eligible Register structures
would not be counted in the floor area of the building. So it is specifically stated in the defmition
section of floor area.
Commissioner Holman: I am following that and maybe I am being slow tonight which is
certainly possible but I am not seeing how that makes them aware that they could be eligible for
the HIE bonus of 250 square feet. Also it is only in the gross floor area and not a definition of
historic property also how they would.
Ms. Grote: They would need to refer to HIE section of the code to understand that they are
eligible for a 250 square foot bonus through an HIE process. So they would need to refer to that.
We didn’t include Categories 11I and IV because we thought the incentive to become a I and a II
would be better situated in the definition of gross floor area rather than situated in the HIE
language. So the bonus to become a I or a II if you are a Category III or IV now is the incentive
to change your categorization not the fact that you can apply for an HIE. The real incentive for
historic structures is the bonus square footage.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that. Then also there was an appeal process that was
referenced in the StaffReport for HIEs but it is not included in the HIE Ordinance.
Mr. Abendschein: If the Commissioners will recall the way that planning procedures have been
organized when we revised the code last there was a section where the findings, purpose and
conditions and any other aspects of the approval were detailed and then later on where the
procedure was detailed. That cross-references to the Home Improvement Exception procedure,
which will be aligned with the Individual Review procedure when we come back with the ZOU
R-1 Ordinance. We felt that it was clearer to include the Individual Review process, as it is now
in the format that it is now rather than putting it into a new format so that it was clearer what
changes we were making. The Home Improvement Exception process will be aligned with the
Individual Review process.
Commissioner Holman: So the appeal process will be one and the same?
Mr. Abendschein: That’s right.
Commissioner Holman: It will come back clearer when the final language comes back?
Mr. Abendschein: That’s right.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you for the clarification.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Lisa when you mention that the historic structures would receive a bonus
incentive in that their basements and attics would not be counted against floor area ratios how
does that differ from the normal circumstance where in most circumstances they are not counted
against FAR either?
Ms. Grote: Actually, in many circumstances for historic buildings now basements are counted
because they are more than three feet above finished grade because in a lot of the older historic
homes they are four sometimes four and a half feet above finished grade. So they are counted as
part of the FAR. Currently the definition of floor area says anything that is less than three feet is
not counted.
Commissioner Burt: So in the case of basements those basements that protrude more than three
feet above grade would receive an incentive. Those that do not would not receive a basement
incentive. Then in the attics how would the incentive differ from otherwise?
Ms. Grote: The entire attic area would be excluded from floor area whereas now there is a very
small exception for a 200 square foot exclusion for attics that are over a certain height, for any
space actually it doesn’t have to be an attic space but for any space that is over 26 feet in height
there is a 200 square foot minor exception. Many attics are bigger than 200 square feet
especially in historic houses so the entire attic space would be excluded from floor area. So for
many historic houses it is a substantial bonus.
Commissioner Burr: That is attic. Is there a particular calculation under which the attic is
currently included under FAR? You are saying that normally over 200 square feet is counted
against FAR as I recall it is only under certain calculations.
Ms. Grote: It has to be over 26 feet in height. We can look up the exact calculation there is a
way to calculate what is excluded and what isn’t.
Commissioner Burr: So basically people have attics that are over 200 square feet but the portion
of the attic that goes toward counting under the 200 square feet is limited by certain factors.
Ms. Grote: Well by certain height limits which is the 26 feet. I think anything over 26 feet is
counted three times except that up to 200 square feet can be exempt. So it is kind of an awkward
wording but basically what it means is that only a portion of your attic can be exempt from floor
area whereas now if you are in an historic I or II or Nationally Eligible building you would get to
exclude your entire attic even if it doesn’t meet that 26 foot height.
Commissioner Burt: Is ceiling height a factor in that as well?
Ms. Grote: I don’t .....
Commissioner Burr: If you have an attic ....
Ms. Grote: I think what you are referring to is our five-foot role. Yes, if it is under five feet in
height it is not counted as FAR. If it is over five feet in height it is counted.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Burt: So more clearly we are referring to a bonus for attics larger where the
portion of the attic that is over five feet in height is greater than 200 square feet in size then
historic structures get a bonus.
Ms. Grote: Correct.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, I think we need to make sure because as it was stated it was implied
that suddenly people with historic structures are going to get necessarily a bonus of their
basement and a bonus of their attic. What we have is a subset of basements that will get a bonus
and a subset of attics that will get a bonus. I think we need to be clear what we are providing as
incentives and not imply that it is a greater incentive than in fact it is.
Ms. Grote: Okay. We can clarify that. I do think for many historic homes it will be a significant
bonus but we can clarify that.
Commissioner Burt: I certainly may be but it may be for others that there is no bonus.
Ms. Grote: Okay.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question regarding substandard lots. If you look at substandard
lots right now anything that is less than 50 feet in front yard frontage or 88 feet in depth is
considered a substandard lot. On substandard lots we have a restriction where we don’t allow
them to build a second story, correct?
Ms. Grote: Correct.
Commissioner Lippert: If you take those substandard lots and they happen to be located on a
comer there are additional restrictions that are placed on them mainly the 16-foot street side yard
setback. What happens is that you have a lot that you can’t even build the maximum lot
coverage. How would the HIE versus Variance process be applied to those?
Ms. Grote: Well, regardless of whether or not the lot is substandard we do have some
recommendations on encroachments into street side setbacks. Currently a typical street side
setback is 16 feet measured from the property line. There are some exceptions for garages they
have to be 20 feet back if it is on a comer lot but a street side setback is 16 feet. We are
recommending that the parameter allow up to a six-foot encroachment into that 16-foot street
side setback so you could be as close as ten feet to the street side property line. That would
apply whether it is a substandard lot or comer lot or a standard comer lot.
Commissioner Lippert: So you have to apply for an HIE. in order to do that or a Variance?
Ms. Grote: It would be an HIE. If it is ten feet or more from the street side property line it is an
HIE. If they wanted to come closer than ten feet that is when you get into Variance territory.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I have a little follow up on that. A lot of these smaller lots, these
2 substandard lots, are really for first time homeowners, people just starting out because they are
3 more affordable. But those are the people that would be potentially having their family grow in
4 that house. Is there a way to relax perhaps the parking restrictions on those lots, i.e., not require
5 them to have a covered parking space so that they could putthat into the house?
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
47
Ms. Grote: You may want to defer some of that conversation for the next item, which is Item
Number Two, which specifically talks about substandard lots and the potential on those types of
lots. You may want to wrap your.comments into that conversation.
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Another question about applicability. Regarding HIEs it talks about the
project must retain at least 75% of the existing exterior walls. How did the number of 75% come
to be? The reason I am asking is because an HIE would olden times be used in conjunction with
some other remodeling project too. If you have a property and here is the front lot line and the
house is oriented like this if you take off the back wall in order to do some work you have
eliminated more than 25%. It still doesn’t have any impact on the street. So that is my question,
why 75% and is there another way to deal with this or another number we should maybe look at?
Mr. Abendschein: I can address how we came to the 75%. Amy may want to add her comments
on what maybe more appropriate. When the Home Improvement Exception was first created
75% was the number that you had to, in fact is was not just 75% of the existing walls it was 75%
of the existing walls and 25% of the roof. Staff felt that that was too much. When the code was
reorganized a little bit in the early 1990s that 75% language was lost. Staff found a code
interpretation that stated that that was lost in error so that is why we started at 75%.
Amy may want to talk more to the appropriateness of 75% versus another number.
Ms. French: Another rule known as the 50% Rule has been pretty much in place that we have
been following as a matter of course and practice. So certainly there is some room there between
51% and 75%. I think it could be studied a little bit further if we want to narrow in a different
percentage. Seventy-five percent certainly would be clear for Staff who is deciding whether they
can take in an application for an HIE. Fifty percent is a little less clear. It takes a little more
work to make that determination and it is more .ripe for certain kinds of interpretations that may
not be consistent with what our goals are.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Would it be adequately efficient for Staff to deal with a measure along the
lines of what Commissioner Holman had given as an example, simply not more than a single
wall and it might even want to restrict it to apply to the rear of the structure or I am not sure what
parameters. If for instance we had 25% but it was completely changing the front appearance of
the structure that may or may not be something we want to include. If it is 35% and it is the back
wall maybe that should be liberalized. So maybe it is not strictly a percentage rule but another
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
way to describe it or some combination of the two. Maybe you can think about that and during
our discussion let us know what is feasible from your standpoint to interpret and enforce.
Ms. French: So the location in addition to maybe the amount.
Commissioner Burr: Yes, it seems that location is probably if it is an unobtrusive or
inconsequential location then you might want to be more liberal in what is allowed.
Ms. French: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: All right if there are no other questions from colleagues then we will open the
public hearing to the audience. My first speaker card is from Beth Bunnenberg. Welcome Beth.
Ms. Beth Bunnenberg, Chair. Historic Resources Boar& 2351 Ramona. Palo Alto: Thank you.
Chair Griff’m: Beth, I need to interrupt you for a moment. Phyllis reminds me that I should
inform you that we do not have a clock this evening so we are going to be winging it here a bit
with a wrist watch. So if you will watch for Phyllis to wave at all of you as we start to come
down to the five-minute warning.
Ms. Bunnenberg: Fine, thank you very much. I am Chair of the Historic Resources Board and
this is a very, very brief comment. Just to the effect that theHRB is very much in support of
your number C-9 the 250 square feet allowance for historic structures in Category I and II. So
we are in a voluntary ordinance basically for residences. This is one way to give people an
incentive to come to the HRB, present their project and do some appropriate additions to the
houses. So we hope you will support this.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Beth. Our next speaker is Audrey Jacob. Welcome Audrey.
Ms. Audrey Sullivan Jacob, Chamber of Commerce. Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners.
Thank you. I am here on behalf of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. My comments are
general in the sense that we support permit streamlining and those changes to the planning
ordinance that support streamlining. I am going to read to you a letter from our Chair, Tony
Carrasco, that supports the proposed amendments.
As stated at the March 24 Planning Commission hearing the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
endorses the planning code amendments creating residential permit application process
streamlining. We think the package preserves the public’s right to be involved in the review
process while making it more efficient.
The Chamber endorses the City’s proposed changes that serve to streamline the application
process for Home Improvement Exceptions and Individual Reviews. These two categories,
which pertain to additions, teardowns and two story residences, comprise the vast majority of
applications submitted by homeowners and their agents. Already the Commission and the City
Council have approved amendments that raise the thresholds for Variance and Conditional Use
Permits thereby encouraging as far as possible design that adheres to planning ordinance
regulations.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
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
47
48
1 The Chamber also supports making the Home Improvement Exception appeal identical to the
2 Individual Review appeal. This means that an HIE appeal will now be placed directly on the
3 City Council Consent Calendar without being heard by the Planning and Transportation
4 Commission. The Chamber encourages the instigation of effective Staff training once these
5 changes have been put in place so that actual on the ground experience for permit applications
will feel truly streamlined.
Thank you for your consideration.
I have copies of this letter for the record but the Secretary is gone.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Audrey. Our next speaker is Bob Moss. Welcome Bob.
Mr. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street. Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Griffin and
Commissioners. I will start off by saying I am generally in support of the revisions to the HIE
but I think it needs a little fine-tuning here and there. I also understand this is not the final
ordinance and it is going to be in a little bit different format when it comes to you but a couple of
cautions.
Look at Section 18.76.40C which is the limits of the Home Improvement Exception. It talks
about the various encroachments. For example two talks about an encroachment of four feet into
the front yard setback, three is a three-foot encroachment into the rear yard setback. It only gives
a depth it doesn’t give a width. Now you really should be defining both dimensions. If you look
at the proposed R-1 ordinance rear encroachments are actually defined four feet into required
front yard and four feet into the required rear yard but it also talks about the length of the
encroachment being no more than say 20 feet or the length of the existing wall. You may want
to have slightly different numerical numbers for the HIE versus an ordinary R-1 but I think that
both the depth and the length should be specified.
When you get to the dormers now you have something that is actually in three dimensions.
There is a big difference between having a dormer that is three feet deep and three feet wide
versus 30 feet wide and the same with the height. If you are going to define it you should be
defining the height as well. It is actually defining the volume. That would give everybody a
much clearer idea of what is and isn’t readily allowed.
The other thing I would like to suggest and this is kind of generic for the Planning Department in
general. A number of people have talked about it in the past. Have these applications posted on
the City’s website, the Planning Department’s website, and whenever possible to have sketches
or photographs of what is being proposed so that anybody can bring it up, look at it and see
whether it is something that is really, really trivial to them or something that raises concerns and
they want to come down for a hearing. I think that would really accelerate the process. It would
make it a lot more intelligible to everybody. If you really wanted to be high tech you could
allow people to email back their comments. I don’t know ifI want to suggest anything as radical
as that but you might want to consider something like that. In the future when we have fiber to
the home you can have the applicants post the pictures on the website and then have people
download them and post their comments to the website. Then we wouldn’t have to have
meetings like this anymore.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Thanks Bob, I think. Our next speaker is Arthur Keller. Good evening Arthur.
Mr. Arthur Keller, 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto: Good evening. Thank you Commissioners. I
would also like to thank the Staff for having given some time for Palo Alto neighborhood people
to give interaction in the last several meetings. That helped clarify some issues for me and I
think for others.
I have some questions or clarifications regarding accessory structures in particular the thing that
is interesting to me is about accessory structures located within a flood plane. In particular one
of the considerations is that there are adjustments in primary structures for flood plane however,
as far as I can tell there are not adjustments for height for those people who have houses in a
flood plane in which to build accessory structures. I notice that in the Home Improvement
Exceptions there are descriptions here about for example 13 talks about accessory structures,
refers to additional height above the 12 foot maximum height of the accessory structure but there
is no particular adjustment for those people who are in flood planes in particular. If somebody is
in a flood plane may need to exceed both the overall height as well as daylight plane or what is
now going to be called a compatibility plane. Therefore an appropriate adjustment for that I
think is warranted. So I would suggest in number 13 you think about in terms of ’b’ where it
says allow four feet of additional height above the 12 foot maximum as long as the side daylight
plane is met. I would encourage you to have appropriate exceptions for encroaching in the side
daylight plane in particular for those people who are in flood planes who are squeezed between
having to raise the lowest floor above base flood elevation and a height that makes such a
building much harder to build.
In my case where I am considering doing such a thing I am also trying to put solar on the roof ..
and trying to put solar on the roof when you are dealing with these various daylight planes and
such means that you have limited space on which you can do that. So appropriate considerations
for that would also be worthwhile.
I also encourage you to clarify definitions of Interior Yard. The definition here of Interior Yard’
talks about adjoining interior lot line. I am not exactly sure what interior lot line is there is no
such definition of that term. I am wondering whether the front yard would be considered
adjoining of an interior lot line because the front yard does adjoin the side lot lines. I assume
that that’s an interior lot line. So I am not sure and I think you should clarify definitions of what
Interior Yard is, rear yard I have a guess what it is, a side yard I have a guess what it is but I am
not exactly sure what an interior yard is. So if you could please clarify that that would be
helpful. Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate the hard work that you Commissioners
have to do and put up with people who make comments like me.
Chair Griffin: Come any time, Arthur. Our next speaker and appears to be our last speaker is
Lynn Chiapella who so kindly phonetically spelled her name. Welcome Lynn.
Ms. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. I have a question of the
applicability. If in R-1 or I am not sure about RMD but it could RMD or an R-2 district if that is
being used as business property for professionals would they be entitled to that Home
Improvement Exception. I don’t know how many properties there are. I know in the RM-15 and
I know some RM-2s are being used for professional purposes. Would they be entitled to the
HIE? I don’t know on single family for sure but I do know the other. So I don’t know how that
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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
47
48
works if they were to apply for these HIEs for example. So that would be a question I would
have.
Then I had heard this at a meeting, several people mentioned it, limits on the Home Improvement
Exception, which is Attachment A. What if someone came in and wanted just about everything?
I have certainly been to the Variance hearings where they want front, side, rear yard setbacks,
daylight plane, FAR, gross area footage, etc. So they have eight Variances going. I would hate
to see something like that happen in this where you end up with so many changes that it really is
quite intrusive. So my question I guess would be at some point it should trigger a different kind
of review when you ask for so much. I don’t know how that would work.
Then on the Individual Review I had a couple of questions on page 18.14.070, which is about the
Notices. There was some City Council discussion about what is a business day. Was that ever
determined? Is that the day the City Clerk is working? Is that the day that the Planning
Department is actually open should you need to get in and see something? I can’t tell from this.
I thought that we were going to go to a consistent calendar day so that everybody would know
what a day was because business days are defined differently by different groups. I don’t know
what that means.
The other question I had is on if the application is not deemed complete but submitted and now
the notification goes out could after the application is deemed complete could there be changes
that would make that a more intrusive project than it was? I see lots of things alluding to the fact
that it would be less intrusive but could it become more intrusive? Based on some comment
some Staff member made to the applicant over the counter, this has happened in other types of.
projects, the project became extraordinarily more intrusive than when the public was allowed to
see the project at the public comment period or at the public meetings. So I would have a
question as to whether that kind of.thing could happen in this case.
The new language in 18.14.100 a hearing request received after the expiration of time limits shall
not be considered. I had been one person who had filed a late appeal based on the fact that there
were errors in the original application that were never caught and it took some rather technical
work to figure out FAR or things like that to find out that actually they were several 100 higher
than they said they were or whatever. So it looks to me like you might be closing the door on
those kinds of appeals where there actually were technical errors. One of them was appealed
something like six months maybe eight months after the public period closed because there was a
little technical error. So those kind of things I wonder if that could be evaluated to make sure
that those kind of loopholes don’t keep reoccurring where certain people who are in the know
know how to do that kind of thing where most of us really don’t.
The last comment would be on accessory structures that Arthur brought up actually. I have
noticed particularly where business and RM-something, R-l, R-2, RM-something is next to each
other sometimes the business spills into the adjacent housing. One way to do it through these
accessory structures where you might need more storage so you put accessory structures on and
the business builds a gate and you have a business use of that property. I just wondered if there
is any way to limit the total square footage of accessories. I don’t know what it should be maybe
200 or something but you can actually keep putting 120 one, two, three, four, five and then use it
for whatever. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Thank you Lynn.
Are there any more comment cards? If not then we will close the public hearing and bring the
discussion back to colleagues. Would anyone care to start offour discussion? If you do have
questions do feel free to ask them. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I do have a question to follow up on Bob Moss’s comment with regard
to the possibility of naming both a depth and length of intrusion and defining more parameters
with regard to a dormer. Did Staff consider doing that and why don’t we have it? IfI could just
have a quick comment on that.
Mr. Abendschein: What I heard the speaker discuss was a contrast between what is in the
Zoning Ordinance where both a width and a depth of the encroachment is defined and this HIE
where the width isn’t defined. Staff did consider this. We put forward this proposal because in
an ordinance where it is as of right you need that width limit but when you have a discretionary
permit it is felt that defining that width might be a little bit difficult. At some point you are
going to get something on the other side of the width that really is appropriate to a Home
Improvement Exception and Staff wanted to be able to rely on making the findings in those cases
because it is a discretionary permit rather than as of right.
Commissioner Bialson: So you wanted to retain the ability to review each item that came before
you in its entirety and make a judgment. Is that correct?
¯ Mr. Abendschein: That is correct.
Commissioner Bialson: It is appropriate. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a follow up. When I look at this again and I thought of that too
and I thought well, there is a limit of 100 square feet and that by itself may limit the width. Then
when I am looking at the language and you clarified that this could be one or more of the
following limits I wonder if we have to go back and fix the language and say that all the
encroachments cannot add up to more than that 100 square feet. In other words, you don’t get
100 square feet plus the encroachments. Do you understand what I mean?
Mr. Abendschein: I don’t think the intent of Staffwas to allow the applicant to increase square
footage when they are applying for an encroachment. The square footage would be under the
100 square feet referred to in the first.
Commissioner Packer: Right. I think I understand that. But when I am looking at the language
now again I can see some clever person saying but this is key, I can have 100 square feet and
then I can have this encroachment here and this encroachment here.
Mr. Dan Sodergren. Special Council to Ci_ty Attorneys: One thing that we try to do is that even
though you get one or more of the exceptions we try to provide some limitations in the findings.
At the end of the new section D-3 when Staff is going to be reviewing these and regardless of the
number of exceptions they are saying it should read is the ’minimum necessary’ right now it says
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
-16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
’the smallest exception.’ I think it is the minimum necessary for the project to fulfill the
purposes of subsection A. So in other words, even though they can apply for more than one they
may not get more than one or whatever Staff feels is the minimum necessary to really affect the
purposes of the section. So we look at these as maximums and not as a matter of right that they
would necessarily get each one that they apply for or up to the maximum limit.
Commissioner Burt: I’m sorry ifI might just tO clarify what you just said. I realize we are
having minimums and maximums in the same sentence but I believe I understand you. So that
the maximum they may be granted is the minimum amount of exception that they would need to
achieve the purpose in subsection A.
Mr. Sodergren: Correct. Staff would have to explain that distinction when they make that
finding for each exception that they grant or deny or limit. They would have to explain how that
is related to the purpose.
Commissioner Burt: I understand the distinction and I think it is an important one. We may
want to look to state that more clearly in the rules.
Mr. Sodergren: Right.
Commissioner Burt: Since it is a complex statement I don’t have the recommendation.
Mr. Sodergren: Right. We did consider that and we may want to try to def’me that when it
comes back to you to add maybe just an explanatory sentence in the beginning in the prefatory
language on subsection C that explains that these are maximums and that they will be subject to
the findings and they may be limited because of that. ~
Chair Griffm: Dan, didn’t I understand you to say that in paragraph three while it is printed the
word ’smallest’ you wanted to change that to the word ’minimum’?
Mr. Sodergren: I think it probably should read ’and is the minimum necessary for the project to
fulfill the purposes of subsection A,’ which would be the purpose section.
Chair Griffin: And we will see that in the next draft.
Mr. Sodergren: Right.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I think Commissioner Packer and I may have sent to Staff similar if not
the same suggestion and it might clarify this issues. Two things I am going to ask about might
clarify this issue. One is to put in the findings or in the applicability that these exceptions should
not be considered by right.
Mr. Sodergren: We considered that as well and we felt that because of their very nature as being
discretionary permits they wouldn’t be by right but we could clarify that. We could make a
further notation that this is a discretionary permit based on findings and that therefore they are
not to be viewed as exceptions granted as a matter of right that the property owner has. We can
City of Palo Alto 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
maybe either clarify that like I said in some explanatory language in C or clarify that in the
findings or the purpose statement. We can fit it in somewhere just to get that point across.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, I think that might help.
Mr. Soder~ren: Right.
Commissioner Holman: Maybe preclude some confusion later. The other one was in originally
in C-1 that had reference to the size of the lot. I had sent to Staff a suggestion that that language
go away in C-1 because it really would apply to all of these and not just to that one. I was
curious about the addition of for the size of the lot in the new D-3. So this second line would
read, rather than the personal circumstances of the applicant or the size of the lot and as the
minimum exception. How would Staff respond to that? It was used previously in C-1. That
comes .up.
Mr. Sodergren: Right. Maybe you have a further comment but I think it still would tie back to
the purpose section and if the size of the lot related to one of those purposes, in other words if
there was some sort of nexus there I think it could be applicable. I don’t know if there is any
harm in adding it since it would still have to relate back but maybe you have additional
information.
Ms. French: Yes, I think the original discussion on that particular wording, the size of the lot,
was related to FAR in particular. I think the issue of proportionality of the home size in
relationship to the lot size is where that was more critical. When you take it and apply to these
other sizeofthe lot potential exceptions I think size of the lot can make a difference and is one of
the factors to consider for instance a setback. So I think it really in my opinion is more
applicable for the FAR part of it when you are looking at size of lot be not something to
consider.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I would like to follow up on the issue raised by Commissioner Lippert
earlier regarding the substandard lots and in particular substandard comer lots. First I wondered
if Staff has any background knowledge as to how the single story limitation on substandard lots
came about? I can certainly envision that in particular neighborhoods that would be the
character of the neighborhood to retain that but I am also aware that in other portions of the City
there are two story structures on substandard lots that as Lee had mentioned is the only way in
which an even moderate size home could be built. Under even the setbacks, allowed within the
HIE some of the structures that exist today and are compatible with adjacent older structures they
wouldn’t be allowed to built today. So I think this is a somewhat complex issue and I wanted to
understand the background and have some discussion about in what circumstances these sorts of
restrictions should and should not apply.
Ms. Grote: You may want to consider that in part of Item Number Two tonight because that is
one of the issues that we are asking for comment and input from the Planning Commission on.
Chair Gritgm: Lee.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Lippert: One of the reasons why I brought it up earlier rather than later is that IR
review really is the second story house addition issue. The lots that I am talking about aren’t
allowed to have second stories. So they really wouldn’t be under the IR review process they
would be under an HIE process.
Ms. Grote: That is why we were recommending under Item Number Two that this be addressed.
A lot of the standards that were developed for substandard lots, a lot of the development
standards and criteria were developed because there wasn’t an IR process or the equivalent type
of compatibility review. Now that we have that kind oflR process we think we need to
reevaluate what can be done on a substandard lot. So that is why we were bringing it forward
under Item Number Two tonight is that maybe there is some justification for making changes to
the development standards on substandard lots because of the IR process. It probably fits more
under Item Number Two because that is where we are talking about the R-1 requirements
themselves which apply to substandard lots as well standard R-1 lots.
Commissioner Lippert: I will trust you on this.
Ms. Grote: Okay.
Chair Griffin: Are there more questions?
Commissioner Holman: On the HIE, yes. C-8 it’s permit a site with an existing two-story
structure to exceed lot coverage requirements in order to locate remaining available FAR for the
site on the first floor. There might be a couple of others too but that one in particular might need
reference to subject two, daylight plane or rear setbacks and such. So I am asking Staff what
their response to that might be. The reason I bring it up is because the way it reads now it sounds
like if there is available FAR they will just be able to put it on the ground floor. There are other
places where I think Staff does reference other sections of code. Like C- 11 references extend
horizontally pursuant to, so it does reference other parts of code in other places of the HIE
process.
Mr. Abendschein: Specifically for C-8 the requirement you mentioned it was the intent of Staff
through an HIE to allow if you have a two story structure and you do have remaining FAR to
allow them to exceed lot coverage in some cases to put that FAR on the ground floor. There are
fewer privacy impacts, fewer impacts of second stories in general. This is related to the 35% lot
coverage requirement for two story structures in the R- 1 district. The fact that the lot coverage
requirement is exceeded wouldn’t imply in this case that automatically setback encroachments or
other types of encroachments would be permitted under this. You would still need to make the
findings that every exception applied for was necessary. Maybe I didn’t answer the question.
Commissioner Holman: No, you answered my question I am just looking for clarity. For clarity
would it not be better to include that, as some other references have been included?
Mr. Abendschein: Perhaps there is some sort of general language that we can include and maybe
I can defer to Dan. Somewhere in the first paragraph that makes it clearer that the granting of
one exception doesn’t imply another exception. Does that get to the root of it and I believe
Commissioner Packer’s earlier question as well?
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18’
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Packer: IfI may jump in I think the conditions refer to that you can’t be
inconsistent with the rest of Title 18. So the HIE is not a standalone ordinance it is in the context
of every other municipal code that is going to apply to this applicant. So I don’t think you have
to cross-reference every line. Does that help, Karen? I think that is the way statutes work.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, I would feel a little better with some other language but that does
help so thank you for that.
Chair Griffm: Dan, did you want to elaborate on that point?
Mr. Sodergren: I think that other than that I think you can see for example in C-1 we have by the
applicable zoning district regulations or otherwise as in the zoning district regulations. What we
can do is we can go through and make sure that somehow all those exceptions are consistent in
that regard. Either put it up front or make them all consistent or add the ones.
Commissioner Holman: Then I sent in several of these questions and one is how does Staff
suggest addressing can somebody come in and ask for these same HIEs over and over again? In
other words, can you get 100 square feet now and three years later come in and get another 100
square feet?
Ms. French: The maximum total overage as far as FAR would be 100 square feet. Now they
could come in in subsequent years with 25 square feet, another 25 square feet, another 25 square
feet with three to four different HIE requests to a total maximum of 100 square feet for instance.
However, at each application we would have to make the f’mdings and it is still a discretionary
permit.
Commissioner Holman: Would them be any objection to adding that kind of language just to
clarify it? From one owner to another it might get lost.
Ms. French: Sure, maximum combined overall not to exceed.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: So I assume that would mean that an owner could come back in if the
Zoning Ordinance is changed to allow a different maximum allowable square footage. I just
don’t want the language to say that you can’t come in repeatedly if the Zoning Ordinance
changes to allow a greater square footage then someone should be able to come in for a second
HIE.
Commissioner Burt: So it is 100 square feet above the maximum allowable is all we am saying
Commissioner Bialson: At that point in time, yes.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Let me just check here. I think is may be my last question on this.
Under Conditions the new E, this is a clarifying question, it says in granting Home Improvement
Exceptions reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
protect the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience and secure the purposes of this
Title. So would that cover the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards? Once you apply for that
bonus and you get the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard you should be beholden to that
because you are getting the bonus in exchange for.
Mr. Soder~en: Right. What we would do is administratively implement that by requiring a
recordable covenant that runs with the land that would require the property owner to rehabilitate
and maintain those structures in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards.
Commissioner Holman: So this language would accommodate what we are saying?
Mr. Sodergren: Right. We have a similar program as you know with the TDR program and that
is how we accomplish that administratively we do require that recordable covenant.
Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then there is one last one, I apologize. One last one that I had
turned in just as a discussion. I brought this up awhile back. As a consideration for an HIE and
we might want to forward this because it has to do with substandard lots but we are doing the
HIE tonight, to consider second habitable floors on substandard lots if an historic property can
satisfy the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. I don’t know if you want to include that in an HIE
discussion or if you would like to forward that for substandard lots.
Mr. Abendschein: Actually I can address it now I may be stealing a little bit of thunder from
later. As I was aware and I will let the ZOU team fill you in more on that there are not very
many lots, I think there may be one Category I or II substandard lots that fit that criteria in the
City. I know the ZOU team did some research on that. So I will let them fill it in but that is one
reason Staff didn’t consider that as part of the HIE process.
Commissioner Holman: But if we are looking at HIEs to also be applied to 1II and IV categories
and National Register that number may.change. It may not be one.
Mr. Abendschein: You mean if the Commission decides that it is appropriate to apply HIEs to
Categories III and IV is the question?
Commissioner Holman: I understood Staff to say that they were already considering that it just
wasn’t included here it would be included in the defmition of gross floor area and such. That
was my understanding.
Ms. Grote: The 250 square feet of additional FAR is still in the HIE list for Category I, II and
Nationally Eligible structures. The exemption from the base FAR for Categories I, II and
Nationally Eligible structures would be in the definition sections.
Commissioner Holman: What about II] and IV that we talked about earlier?
Ms. Grote: No, not the Categories III and IV because what we consider to be the incentive for
HI and IV to become I or II was encapsulated in that exemption of the base FAR. So in order to
be able to benefit from that exemption a III or a IV would request to be recategorized to a I or a
II. In order to get that recategorization they would either rehabilitate the III and IV so that it
meets the I and II standards or they would remove as part of that rehabilitation poor additions
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
that had been done in the past that were affecting the integrity of the structure. So the real
incentive for Categories III and IV to become a I or II is that exemption of the base square
footage for attics and basements. So that is why we didn’t include I11 and IV in any discussion
of an HIE.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a follow up question.
Chair Griffin: All right, Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Historically it is a moving target as buildings age they begin to come
into that category I, II and 1II. Specifically he is talking about Eichler homes. Ones that are pure
Eichler homes that haven’t been on to or touched and fussed with could qualify as Category I or
11 eventually, correct?
Ms. Grote: They could.
Commissioner Lippert: They don’t have attics or basements. How could they benefit from the
250 square feet?
Ms. Grote: They would be eligible for the HIE which is the 250 square feet. They don’t have
attics or basements so there isn’t any automatic exemption on floor area but they are then eligible
for the 250 square feet.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: That prompts another follow up question. I don’t know if it is a
hypothetical or a probability that Eichler neighborhoods could come into these historical
categories and if they can apply for an HIE exemption and add an additional 250 square feet
would we then get into other issues like lot coverage that could affect in a negative way these
neighborhoods that have Eichlers on smaller lots? It is a different kind of thing than Queen
Anne’s in North Palo Alto. So I just wonder if we want to think about that and maybe when the
time comes up and these areas become historical then we go back and look at our ordinances and
see if there are any issues.
Ms. Grote: I think that is also where the findings come in to play that you do need to really
evaluate the overall impact of any HIE request whether it is for the 250 square feet for an historic
structure I and II or Nationally Eligible or any other HIE request. We do have to make all three
findings and that third one really is that this is the minimum necessary for the project to fulfill
the purposes of this chapter, which is to retain an existing house and maybe modify it slightly but
to retain it for a useful purpose. So you really need to evaluate each of those very carefully.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Butt: Lisa, I had a couple of questions on process. Questions and then
comments. Lyrm Chiapella raised the issue of under the appeal time limits what if there is
determined to have been a substantial technical error not an appeal based upon subjective criteria
City of Palo Alto 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
47
48
and findings but that there was a miscalculation by the developer and overlooked by Staff?. Is
there any mechanism to allow that appeal to occur outside of streamline appeal process that we
have established?
Ms. Grote: Dan may want to weigh in on this too but I would say that that would not technically
be an appeal. We cannot approve a project-that is in conflict with any of our regulations and
standards. So if an error of that type were found aider the fact we would have to take back our.
approval, have the error corrected and then reissue an approval. So it is not an appeal so much as
it is a correction of a mistake.
Commissioner Burt: I am seeing Dan confirming that. That’s great that answers that question.
Then two comments regarding the appeal process. The recommendation is to make it consistent
with the IR. We just went through on Variances a different appeal process where we put the
primary focus of appeal on the PTC and then the Council ended up striking a compromise on the
number of votes necessary for a call up at three. As I was thinking about a couple of aspects of
this one is that over six years we had had very few HIE appeals. We had had one until this last
year and then I think we had two or three in a year. We now have changed a number of aspects
of this process to make it much more ministerial on the HIE. I presume that Staff is anticipating
that with the criteria being more well defined there would be less basis for appeal. Is that an
anticipation of Staff?. Okay, I am seeing aff’mnation of that.
Ms. Grote: That is correct and we believe that with better clarity people will-understand what the
parameters are to begin with. With clarified findings they will understand the reasons for the
approvals much more clearly.
Commissioner Burr: I would expect that to be the outcome as well. So if we have had very few
appeals to begin with and now we are going to cut those down then we are left with the question
of what is a good mechanism to allow the public to fully air an appeal in those exceptions where
it might occur.
We had two that I think of that occurred in the last year, one was the Roger Kohler property
where we first started discussing this whole issue and it helped prompt a revision to the HIE
because we realized that there had been some new legal interpretations of the way the language
had been before that needed to be clarified. In that case the Commission supported Staff’s
position on the appeal and then the Council as a result of reviewing the debate of the Planning
Commission and their own consideration ended up supporting the appeal by the applicant.
Then the second one was the front yard setback appeal. In that case the Commission voted in
favor of the appellant as I recall against the Staff recommendation and then I think that went
forward and the recommendation of the Commission was supported.
So it seems to me that in those few cases where there has been an appeal before the Commission
the depth that the Commission went through in evaluating that has added real value to the
process. Now we are going to have instead of four in six years we are going to in theory have
even fewer of those. I am not sure that on that basis it is appropriate to leave out the process of
the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewing the appeals and then going for a three or
whatever number of Council Members for a call up off of the Consent Calendar. That would be
very few occasions where the Council would take on an appeal. They would have to have two,
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
three or four, whatever they decide is the appropriate number, members of the Council to even
want to hear that appeal. So I think there would be a certain consistency with what we did with
the Variance process to have it go to the Commission but that it wouldn’t be a significant
increase in the work volume of the Commission because these should occur or rare occasions.
So that is something I wanted to bring up and have the Commission discuss if they would.
Chair Griffm:. Does Staffhave a rebuttal to that point of view at all or a comment?
Ms. French: The reason why of course we went down this road was because often or in some
cases HIEs are applied for at the same time as an IR is applied for: We have had situations
where with the HIE it has to stop at the Planning Commission before it goes to Council and the
IR goes straight to Council. So it seemed a good marriage to have them both share the same
process. When we started talking about eliminating Director’s Hearings for Individual Review
similar to what we have done for the Variances and Use Permit processes it started to become
apparent that the Director’s Hearing was a good venue for the Individual Review. We can talk a
little bit more about that but that is kind of how we got here. As far as whether that makes sense
and whether the debate with the Commission is a good idea. It has been a good idea because
there were so few parameters on how HIEs could be applied. I think by defining the parameters
it really sets us up in good stead to process these HIEs with greater clarity.
Commissioner Burt: I agree it does beg the question of What appeal process should be there for
the IR if say we were to retain the existing process for the HIE. I think there are reasonable
arguments on both sides of that. Should the HIE become consistent with the IR or should the IR
become consistent with the HIE?
Ms. French: Right and I think as far asifI can address that with the IR we really didn’t want to
throw an additional hearing into the IR because the original intent and purpose of the IR was to
give the neighborhood a chance to see what is going on and give a little input but not to have
single family homes be held up with a long appeal process.
Commissioner Burr: So then it boils down to is it more important that we align the HIE appeal
process with IR or to retain the value that has existed in the HIE appeal to go before the
Commission as it has in the past with the assumption that we will have even fewer of them now.
Chair Griff’m: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I understand your comment Pat and I am glad we explored it but I think
that we are trying to streamline the process and make it something that becomes a more
ministerial sort of activity rather than one that needs to have as many issues raised as perhaps we
have been giving the ability to air. SO I for one would see the HIE going with the process that
Staffrecommends that is tracking along with the IR process. If it is found that this is not
appropriate we can always come back and put in an appeal process that includes us. In an
attempt to look at what we need to do for streamlining not only for our workload but the
workload of the homeowner as well as Staff I think it is appropriate to go with the appeal process
being as limited as it is.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will make a motion and put it on the floor. That we recommend the Staff
Report that the Planning and Transportation Commission make recommendations on the
following items and basically with the addition of some comments we have made on some
details that we move the Staffrecommendation including the Home Improvement Exceptions,
Individual Review Process and they asked us only to make comments regarding the Individual
Review Guidelines.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: I will second that.
Chair Griffin: It is moved and seconded. You’ll have a chance to comment in a moment.
Would you like to speak to that?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes. At this point what we are doing is making recommendations for the
major items in this. There are some details and some language that needs to be tightened up and
we noted a lot of those this evening. I think we can have further comment in writing to Staff if
we wish to make comments that won’t change the meaning but will change some of the minor
language.
There are a couple of major issues with this that we needed to look at. One is the historic
category subject to give some incentive to the historic buildings in Category I and II and I think
it will be good to use the 250 square feet. I believe that is the number we worked with before
when we were talking about the incentive program. I think that will help us incentivize some
rehab in those Category I and II buildings.
There is a request that improvements greater than those that are being allowed in the HIE would
require a Variance process and I think that’s very important that we are able to have that clarity.
It is important that we have the same process for the IR as the HIE. I noted that earlier and we
will have to decide that as we go along in this motion.
We have changed the findings that we needed change and we knew we needed to change those
findings. We dropped the one that meant that it needed to meet the Variance and we have added
one at the end of that that indicates more specific meeting of the requirements and that the
exception is being granted based on the characteristics of the property and the improvements on
the property rather than personal circumstances of the applicant and is the minimum exception
that will fulfill the purpose of the subsection. I think that will make it easier to make those
findings. It clarifies some points that we have worked with in the past concerning people coming
in and saying I have this personal need.
This ordinance will be included in the Zoning Ordinance, which I think is important. There will
be guidelines for the IR review rather than putting that in the Ordinance that I think gives us
some flexibility. There are more specific limits to the encroachments that are allowed and it
defines those limits more carefully. At first I was extremely concerned about those as I read
them and then I was led to understand that we had no limits as to how those worked that this will
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26..
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
actually be more restrictive than what we have at the present time. I think that is all of my
comments at this time.
Chair Griffin: Seconder do you care to make comments?
Commissioner Bialson: I support all of Phyllis’s comments. I want us to recall the speaker that
came before us to indicate that the HRB is in support of this suggested ordinance and I think that
her point is very well taken. I appreciate the concerns that Karen has raised but I think Staff.has
given plenty of incentive to have the Category III and IV changed to I and II and that would be
our goal.
I think what we have created here is much more easily understood ordinance and much more
difficult to misunderstand. I think we have gone through that process and I look forward to
having the language that we talked about achieve that and brought back to us for our ultimate
review. I feel we have fully discussed this matter sufficient for this stage in its development.
Those are al! my comments.
Chair Griffin: Lee, do you have any comments?
Commissioner Lippert: I do. I am pretty much in support of the motion for a couple of reasons.
Number one I think that several years ago when the IR process and the HIE process actually
came into being basically what it comes down’to is that I thinks something needs to be done in
terms of streamlining the process that the real battle that we are fighting today with regard to
residential is not the single family anymore. It really is in the multi-family housing and trying to
have that blossom and grow and meet our needs. That anything that can be done to make the
process much more ministerial I think is a positive thing here. I think we are moving in that
direction. I think that this begins to do that. I think it begins to relax some of the standards that
have held projects hostage so to speak and so I think that this is really a very positive thing that is
moving in the right direction. It begins to remove some of the restrictions that single family
houses and smaller projects have been under.
Chair Griffin: You have a question Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: Yes. Phyllis I have a question about your motion. Is this motion only on
items one and two of this or are we going to have an additional time to have comments on three,
IR Guidelines? We haven’t really had a discussion on the last part of the report.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I thought everyone had an opportunity to discuss on anything they wanted so
I made it on all of it.
Commissioner Holman: Actually for clarification I was just making comments on the HIE and
not the rest either so I am more in Bonnie’s camp.
Vice-Chair Cassel: You are welcome to make comments now. The motion has been voted on it
is just on the floor so you can still debate it.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Packer: Okay. So the comments I will make now is I support the motion with
regard to the HIE exception and the IR process but I think we want to have some time to make
our comments on some of the IR Guidelines in a very general sense not in the detail sense.
Chair Griffin: Please.
Commissioner Packer: Not at this point.
Chair Griffin: We are saying this is the appropriate time.
Commissioner Packer: Okay. On the Guidelines themselves the language of~he criteria I found
to be with all due respect to architects kind of wonderful architectural jargon but I don’t know if
it is very clear to the general public what is being said. So I just wondered if when this comes
back and we look at it again that all this text be looked at. The original IR Guidelines were
stated in more simple plain language. This is done in such a way that I don’t know how much it
conveys to a person on the street. So that is a general comment on this style of the issue.
I will also raise this question for Staff. Are we going to have an opportunity to have another
meeting to really look at these guidelines and see how well it meshes in.with what the original IR
committee was intending to do to make sure it is not saying something different and if it is
saying something different that we understand what is being said. I don’t think we have time
tonight to go into all the details of the five different criteria and all the issues it could raise. I
hope the we would have another opportunity to do that.
Chair Griffin: It was my understanding that all of this was in fact written with the input provided
by the IR co-chairs as well as focus groups, etc.
Commissioner Packer: Jon is shaking his head.
Ms. French: Let me clarify. The IR Guidelines that are being shown to you are pretty much a
recent phenomenon that is a work in progress. A lot of it has been input from our current
consulting architect, Origins Design, and Staffbased on how things are going through the
process. It is a work in progress. It is not the final version it is just showing you the direction we
are going in as far as trying to streamline down to five guidelines. Certainly there is more work
that can be done and certainly we can come back with the draft that shows the additional
illustrations and this kind of thing for your input at a future date.
Commissioner Packer: What ifI make a friendly amendment to the motion that we exclude this
and in our motion approve the Staff Report comments on the guidelines and request another
study session to look at these guidelines in greater detail as the work in progress continues.
Commissioner Burt: Can I say something in support of your request on that? If we read what is
the recommendations under three it says provide comments and we are here under a motion to
approve the other elements something that should be comments. I think procedurally that
Bonnie is correct that if not tonight that we have that process done. As long as we are on a roll
here we might as well give some our comments at this time. But I agree with Bonnie that as
these become more refined that we should have another study session and that we should not
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
have our motion essentially being a motion to approve these draft guidelines which is essentially
what is on the floor.
Vice-Chair Cassel: We can rephrase this motion because I think I intended it to mean that we
would be making our comments tonight.
Commissioner Butt: We don’t normally have motions to have comments.
Vice-Chair Cassel: They don’t include the comments. Okay.
Ms. French: IfI could just say one more thing about that. The IR Ordinance provides for the
Director to establish and revise IR Guidelines. It says with input from the Planning Commission
but you are not in a sense approving so you don’t need to do anything by motion, which is why
we kind of separated it from the other two.
Commissioner Burr: Right and then if we do have comments we would have a separate issue at a
future time of whether those comments are as individual members or as the majority of the
Commission too.
Chair GritTm: Are we not going to then hear more? You said this was a draft and so we are
going to hear more from you on this subject. So this is not a one-time only shot tonight.
Ms. French: We certainly can come back as we further refine this and show you a more finished
product that we think has made the rounds through the appropriate review with the co-chairs,
additional editing, this was thrown together recently for your review and input as to the direction
we are going with this. Again, we don’t need to come back for your approval but we can
certainly come back and show you additional refinements.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Let me change this motion to the effect that we would like to make
comments at this point and we would like to see this come back to us
Commissioner Burt: Great.
Commissioner Bialson: Given the fact that we have a rather broad brush approach in front of us
I am taking it to mean just reducing the number of items down to five that is what I would
assume as well that it will come back to us so that we can make comments. Doing so at this
point in time I think is premature beyond very general items.
Chair Griffm: So the maker and seconder have both approved of that amendment.
Commissioner Burt: So the comments that we make on this item three, do we make them now or
do we wait until after we vote.
Vice-Chair Cassel: You can make them now and the motion will say that we would like to see
this come back to us.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
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
47
48
1 Commissioner Holman: In regards to the Individual Review Guidelines I have two comments.
2 One is under Review Criteria the third paragraph that starts, on streets where many existing
3 garages prominently front the street, this paragraph is well intended and I believe the next
4 paragraph is to however it doesn’t seem to as I read it accommodate existing Eichler
5 neighborhoods because this really tries to push garages back. If we are trying to express support
for compatibility with and respect for existing context this language does not consider Eichler
neighborhoods at all. So that would be a comment.
Then also it had come up to go maybe as an attachment to these guidelines and clarification
because there are going to be drawings to go with this too there was a suggestion that guess who
made to add the compatibility guidelines or to attach those from SOFA II since those where
honed and honed and honed and approved as a part of SOFA II in a very, very public process.
Those could be helpful too in helping to achieve these goals. I guess you were looking for
comments so I would make that comment.
Then when we are finished with the guidelines I do have some comments on the IR process.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: A follow up. I concur with Karen’s comments I had a lot of problems
the garage section. It seemed to be inherently inconsistent with the concept of compatibility. So
it is something that I hope that when you go look at it you will look carefully and think in terms
of a neighborhood. We have so many neighborhoods in this town that do have front facing
¯ garages whether we like them or not.
Chair Griffin: Further comments on Attachment C?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. First on the garages I think that on page six of the report it refers to a
recent meeting of Staff with co-chairs and two of the PTC subcommittee members and the
second item talks about considering including the Palo Alto neighborhood types described in the
previous single family residential guidelines. That may be a way to further address the garage
issues. In general I think for many circumstances those are very constructive recommendations
on garages but I agree with some of the Commissioners that we have to look at where they may
not apply as exceptions.
Then second I would like to endorse all five of those recommendations that were made by this
group on page six with the addition of comments earlier about making sure, and this was while
we were under the HIE section but, if we are providing essentially historic preservation
incentives we have to do a good job of making sure people understand that they are there and not
have them available to someone who is searching for it but really on a proactive basis making the
public knowledgeable. So I would like to encourage that addition.
Then fmally earlier we had had some brief discussion about the dilemma involved with the 75%
rule on what constitutes a remodel for the HIE purpose. Then we didn’t hear back from Staff
whether that is something they intend to bring back at a later time or have had a chance to give
any thought to the issue that Commissioner Holman had raised in how we might address that. If
this is trying to solve a problem on the fiy too much then we may want to have it brought back at
a later time.
City of Palo Alto ’ Page 26
1
2 Ms. French: We certainly haven’t given it collective thought during the meeting here with the
3 Planning Division and Staffand attorneys. So there is some room for further consideration. As
4 noted before this will come back in. an ordinance format with the ZOU effort. Certainly there is
5 time there for us to put some effort into that.
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
47
48
Commissioner Burr: So that would be the time at which we right now are agreeing that that’s
something that will have additional discussion. Okay. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Borgnie.
Commissioner Packer: I want to make a comment on the style of the language of this working
document of the IR Guidelines. There is an awful lot of the use of mandatory shalls and that
doesn’t seem to fit in with the context of guidelines. So in redraffing that I think we want to
avoid that. I think the existing guidelines are not phrased in that way it gives solutions to the
issues as opposed to things shall be this way. They sound more like development standards.
Chair Griff’m: I am presuming that Staff’s intent here was to try to sharpen up on the guidelines
and make them somewhat more definitive so you have this conundrum of what words to choose
if you are going to try to give some more clarity to it then it starts looking as if it is code
language material. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: In regard to the HIE, that portion of the motion, I am certainly in
support of the motion. I look forward to the language clarifying the things we talked about. I
was wondering if the maker and seconder of the motion would accept friendly amendments
having to do with items that came up earlier that Staff seemed to be amenable to including the
discretionary basis of the findings and that they were not by right? Would the maker and
seconder be amenable to including language to that effect?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think what I intended is we have had a number of pieces of discussion
about tightening up the language and that they have written those notes down and will include
that. I wasn’t specifically mentioning each one.
Commissioner Burt: So then are you saying that any?
Vice-Chair Cassel: There were several things that we commented about changing this language
like the comments that Bonnie was making would be included.
Commissioner Burt: Would it summarize Karen’s concerns if we were to say that any of the
language suggestions that were brought up by Commissioners and verbally agreed to by Staff
and that other Commissioners did not object to would be incorporated in the motion? Or do we
need to go through them individually?
Commissioner Bialson: I think what we were looking at was that the comments of Staffwith
regard to some of the motions were yes that is a good idea let us work it out and others were
well, we will take a look at that and come back to you with a comment as to whether or not it is
something we want to incorporate.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burr: Then maybe we better go through Karen’s list.
Commissioner Bialson: I don’t think that is the motion at this point.
Chair Griffin: You are saying that you are happy with the way that you stated your motion?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am happy with the way that I stated it and I am happy with the fact that
they are going to take those items and see if that works and where we need the language in this to
be tighter, we need the language in the guidelines to be less shalls more in the tone that came out
in the guidelines the first time. You made several comments and they said they would look at it.
I presume that they will look at those items and see how that can fit in.
Commissioner Bialson: I think we are at a stage where we are too early for us to require things
to be included. I don’t want to warp the drafting process at this point in time. If it comes back
and it doesn’t seem to go the direction you want I think that is the point in time in which you
require things to be included. This is not the sort of discussion that we had and I am not willing
to support a motion that says that things have to be in there when we are still talking about the
general feel.
Commissioner Holman: I am okay with that just as long as we are all on the same page and we
haven’t all been all night on the same page. So I am certainly okay with that. Just so that we are
all clear then that when it comes back to us that other Commissioners will be amenable to
discussing these things that come back.
Commissioner Bialson: I think at that stage it would be more appropriate.
Commissioner Holman: Okay. That’s great. Then one other comment.that came up earlier.
There are two things that I think need to be addressed in some fashion having to do with the HIE.
One is whether 75% or 31% or whatever it turns out to be there needs to be some way to address
in a proactive way what happens sometimes in the field is walls will just disappear. So that
needs to be addressed in a proactive way. The other thing is a timeframe so that somebody if it
is existing it is existing, if it was signed off last week and somebody could according to the way
it is written now could come in the week after it is signed off and apply for HIEs, that is not the
purpose. So just that there be some way to address that.
Then on the Single Family Individual Review these are process questions or process suggestions.
Most of it has to do with fimeframes. These are just comments. We have here in some cases we
have ten calendar days and in some cases 14 calendar days. Some places it says ten days and it
doesn’t specify what kind of days. I penciled out a schedule and ten calendar days starting the
beginning of the third business day after an application is submitted could leave if it is a [980]
and a Monday holiday could leave members of the public four working days, four City Staff
business days to either collect questions or file and appeal or a request for a hearing. So I would
suggest that we do 14 calendar days and make that consistent throughout that it is 14 calendar
days and add language that would specify, if it is in here then there is no question, if it had
language in here that clarifies that t~if that 14 day falls on a day when city office is closed the due
date would fall to the next.
Mr. Sodergren: That would be consistent with the other changes you have.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Holman: Sorry.
Commissioner Bialson: Why don’t we just continue with your comments and not respond at this
point.
Commissioner Holman: Okay. Two other places where, the reason I pose this is because
members of the public have commented about how long it can take sometimes, there is no
timeframe referenced on 18.14.090B and on 18.14.100E. There are no timeframes referenced
there so I was thinking that you might want to consider that.
The language in 18.14.100D at the top of the second page of that were it continues on the next
page right above E, if the project, this language was changed and I am not convinced that it
should and also it doesn’t read right to me. If the project R-1 meets the standards set forth, I
think there is a language clarification that needs to happen there. I am actually plenty fine with if
the project conforms to the R-1 District regulations and meets the standards so I am not sure why
that was changed. I would suggest that it should stay.
The call up is what Pat referenced earlier again for consistency which is part of the whole
streamlining thing for consistency that the call up for the appeal be three rather than four
members of Council. They had a lengthy discussion about this about Variances and they didn’t
go two, they didn’t go four they went with three. To be consistent this process would then be
three to call up.
Then a clarification on the notification is sent out once an application is submitted. So I am
having a gap here about what kinds of changes can happen after that. Once something is
submitted and before it is complete some pretty significant changes could happen. That is
different than when this came to the Planning Commission before and we talked about minor
changes that could happen at the Staff level. So it seems like there has been a different process
that’s been put in place it would seem. There is nothing that addresses what happens once it is
submitted and it becomes complete what level and what scale of changes could happen there. It
is addressed later about minor but that is later. So is the public really going to see what is being
submitted as a completed application and having the opportunity to comment on that? Not as I
read this.
Ms. Grote: Can we respond to that?
Chair Griff’m: Please.
Ms. French: First of all let me start by saying why we went there and that is because we had
through these outreach meetings folks saying we really liked it when you start the comment
period sooner rather than later. You understand that? Okay, so basically what happens is we
would issue a tentative decision once we are clear ~om Staff’s perspective that the applicant has
met the guidelines" and the R-1 standards, send out a notice of tentative decision and then those
people would be alerted to that fact and they can come in and review and revised plans that
would be here or we might be able to do this through the website arrangement we are talking
about. Then if they had an issue with the revised plans they could call up the hearing to a
City of Palo Alto Page 29
I
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
47
48
Director’s Hearing, which is how it works now if there is some kind of concern that we have that
Director’s Hearing in place.
Commissioner Holman: Okay.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners if you have more comments now is the time.
Commissioner Burt: I won’t bother to submit this as an amendment or substitute motion at this
time both because there will be a final opportunity to discuss it and I don’t hear there being
necessarily support on the Commission for it but I do favor the appeal process to be aligned with
the Variance appeal process both in terms of having it on what we think will be those rare
occasions where there is an appeal that it would go to the Planning Commission and that the
number of Council Members required for a call up would be three just as it is for the Variances.
So I will just submit those as comments and we can have a fmal discussion when we vote on the
ordinance when it comes back to us.
Chair Griffin: Good. Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have one follow up question or comment with regard to the 75% wall
rule. I would recommend to Staffthat they coordinate and talk to actually the Building
Department with regard to that. I think what you are going to fmd is that on a number of
remodel projects where you begin to actually tear into the house that there is significant dry rot,
termite issues and I think that there is actually very little difference about taking down more wall
and rebuilding exactly the same way it is versus existing standing wall. So maybe you put in a
range in which you allow somebody to start at 75% but you allow them to go as ,low as maybe
60% or 66% of removal of wall. ~
Commissioner Burr: Lee, this is interesting because it sounds like you are saying that in many
circumstances the issue should be more on modifications to either the footprint or the
architecture as opposed to the physical structure when it is replaced by an identical design and
footprint.
Commissioner Lippert: Exactly.
Commissioner Burt: That makes good sense.
Commissioner Lippert: To give you an example, being in practice I deal with this all the time.
We did a small appendage offofa Victorian house. By the time we stripped offthe siding so to
speak and started looking at the walls the studs were all laid up the wrong way and they were dry
rotted anyway. So we pulled those offand all that we really had left was the roof. We supported
the roof while we basically rebuilt the walls. The foundation remained. By the time we were
done it was the exact same building.
Commissioner Holman: There is a purpose here too that, I watch a lot of construction projects
and I hear what you are saying and I think that happens certainly, there are also other things that
happen and I know it gets caught a lot of times but not always where people will want to really
build a new house and the purpose of the HIE and stuffis not to build a new house. It is to
promote retention of existing. People because there might be a setback that is nonconforming
City of Palo Alto t~age 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
they want to pretend or go forward as if it is a remodel and it is really not. So they intentionally
will then remove walls. So that is why I was saying some way to deal with a disappearing wall.
Commissioner Lippert: Just to sort of respond to that there are other issues associated that you
want to make the addition seamless to the existing house. To give you an example a lot of older
houses don’t have for instance shear wails or what we would consider shear walls. What that
really requires doing is adding plywood underneath the siding for instance. If you were to take
the old walls and the new walls you are not going to get them to join up and you have interior
plaster with sheetrock today, one is one inch versus five-eighths sheetrock. There are all kinds of
problems associated so it might be better to actually relax and be able to allow these people to
demo out a larger percentage of wall as long as it is rebuilt exactly the same way it was. What
you are really looking at is what I think Pat alluded to which was that what you are really
looking at is the house really looks very much the same way. What you replace or put back
hasn’t really changed the footprint or the outline of the house.
Chair GritTm: All right.
Commissioner Holman: Read the purpose though.
Commissioner Packer: One more comment. This is not about walls but I think it is a worthwhile
discussion. I am really intrigued by Pat’s comment about the process and where the appeals go.
I am going back when we approved the IR process we did not have the streamlined Variance
process coming to the Commission and only going to Council with the call up of three Council
Members. We skip Planning Commission and just went direct to Council. So maybe when this
comes back to us I just want to put a bee in our bonnets to think about and maybe this a bad idea
or maybe it is a good idea, that all of these things, the IR, the Variances and the HIEs all have the
same process of coming to the Planning Commission. Maybe it is a bad idea but maybe we
should all look into that and just ask Staff to weigh out the pros and cons for us at a future
meeting because I certainly haven’t thought all this through. The history o£it is a little different.
When we had the lR process we didn’t have the streamlining. Now that we have the
streamlining what does it mean.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners it seems to me like we are starting to repeat points that have been
made throughout this discussion. I would like to go ahead and entertain a vote and get this item
done. We will have plenty of opportunity to continue to discuss it later on. So consequently ifI
could have someone call for the question.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
So let’s vote this item up. All those in favor of Phyllis’s motion say aye. (ayes) All those
opposed? That item does carry unanimously.
This takes us to the end of Item Number one. We will have a seven-minute break at this point
and come back for item number two.
Chair Griffin: We have a presentation from Staffon Item Number Two which is the Zoning
Ordinance Update of the Single Family Residential District, the R-1 District. The Commission
will review and make recommendation for the R-1 Zoning District and related definitions. Title
City of Palo Alto 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
47
48
18 of the Municipal Code. The R-1 chapter has been developed into a draft reformat, intended as
a stand-alone chapter of the ordinance and will only address single-family residential
development. Would Staff please make a presentation?
o ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE (ZOU): Single Family Residential District (R-l).
Commission review and recommendation for the R-1 Zoning District and related
definitions (Title 18, PAMC). The R-1 chapter has been developed into a draft reformat,
intended as a stand-alone chapter of the ordinance. This chapter of the Zoning Ordinance
will only address single-family residential development in the City of Palo Alto. All other
low-density residential zoning districts will be addressed subsequent to the R:I review.
Mr. Curtis Williams. Consultant: .Thank you. I’m Curtis Williams and we are here tonight to
present to you an initial draft of the standalone R-1 chapter. This chapter is intended to not only
address the uses and standards that typically go along with the R-1 zoning district but also to
include sections that deal with the single story overlay, the Home Improvement Exceptions and
the Individual Review process, the two things you just got through discussing and those will be
incorporated into this chapter as well.
We have had the last couple of years of working on this draft for you. A lot has gone into that.
We began with the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs including the Housing Element
and those that related to the ZOU update. We looked at the parking lot issues that were
developed by the R-1 Advisory Committee. We had a series of workshops on second units and
other issues with the public. Then we were working closely with the Current Planning Staff as
well to try to identify the issues that they face on a daily basis. Most recently we have been
working over the last several months with the low-density residential working group of the
Commission to try to narrow down the issues that the full Commission needs to discuss. We did
have acouple of focus groups in the last two weeks with some residents to run some of these
revisions by them.
What I would like to do is briefly touch on some of the issues that remain to be discussed. I
would like to first focus on the four issues that we have identified in the Staff Report, which is
really where we would like you to turn your attention tonight to try to get started on these at
least. Then I will talk a little bit about some of the remaining issues that still probably need some
Commission input.
As far as the key policy issues that we have identified these are issues that either the committee
hasn’t discussed or the committee has suggested the full Commission needs to discuss. One of
those is implementing Housing Element policies to preserve housing units. We have provided
some recommendations regarding maximum lot sizes to help limit lot mergers and reduce the
potential for losing units that way. We haven’t made a specific suggestion on preserving
cottages and duplexes but we have indicated that we would like to take more of an incentive
approach on that and work with our Village Residential criteria and nonconforming standards
and such to try to develop some incentives for preserving some of those kinds of units.
A second issue that you started to touch on fairly substantially in the first item was second stories
on substandard lots. That is an issue that Staffhas dealt with much recently and we would like to
ask you if that is somewhere you would like to go as far as entertaining the potential to add that
to this ordinance and allow for those second stories now that we have the Individual Review
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
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
47
48
process that is a big difference fi’om when this restriction was initially placed on substandard lots
to retain single story homes.
Thirdly, and you started in on this as well in your last discussion, historic home incentive. It is
not written into the ordinance that you have in front of you but there are a couple of provisions
that Lisa was talking about in the first session that would provide incentives for sort of bonus
floor area for the basements that are more than three feet above grade and for attic space for
Category I and II homes as well as contributing structures in historic districts. So we would like
to ask you if that seems to be an appropriate approach to that issue.
The fourth issue is whether to establish procedures for creating conservation districts that would
act in much the way that the single story overlay does as a tool for a neighborhood to limit height
in that area. This might allow you to broaden those parameters and have a neighborhood define
other restrictions that would apply in that area. So we would like your input on whether you
think that is an appropriate direction to go or if that is something that should wait until after the
ZOU is adopted.
Now I would like to call your attention to this slide. These are the issues we would like you to
focus on initially but we do recognize that there are a lot of other issues associated with the R-1
chapter. You have Attachment A to your Staff Report. This matrix tries to summarize not only
the revisions that have been proposed but also give you some indication of where the committee
and Commission have been in prior discussions. We don’t want to represent to you that that’s
the last word and that there weren’t some dissenting opinions at the committee level but some of
these say okay with change or Commission was okay the last time we visited with you about it
and others say defer to Commission or there is additional discussion required. So what we
would like to suggest is that after you deal with the four primary policy issues that we focus on
the items in this list that aren’t already okay, those probably half-dozen or so key issues and give
us your reaction to those. We have categorized the changes as you see up on the screen. You
have seen the format issues before and we think everyone has been okay with the revised format.
Allowable uses are mostly unchanged from existing regulations but there were some changes
regarding accessory structures, which there may be some continuing discussion on. Basic
Development Standards similarly have not changed substantively but there was some minor
modification to some of the coverage limitations for single story lots and a couple of other
standards, the noise producing equipment setbacks, keeping them out of setbacks..The Housing
Element policy issues I just explained related to lot mergers and maximum lot sizes and
preserving existing units. Second units was a major area of some change and you have seen that
a couple of times before. You seemed to be fairly comfortable with it but there may be some
remaining discussion there the primary issue was those smaller 450 square foot second units that
could have reduced parking requirements and be built at the minimum lot size instead of at a
larger lot size. Encroachments were a very minor change to that section. Basements we have
had some discussion and provided some information about the ground water issue to you and we
know we have to come back to you with our report on that but we do have a number of changes
to the light well requirements and to the below grade patio requirements which the committee
has discussed and seemed to be generally supportive of but wanted to continue to discuss the
ground water issue. Parking again has stayed very much the same. The single story overlay
process is one, which is in a policy form right now. The only thing in the code is the standards
for single story height and the coverage. We have tried to incorporate language that quantifies
some of the subjective criteria in that policy. You may want to give us your input as to whether
City of Palo Alto Page 33
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
47
48
1 those percentages are correct.or not. We have made reference to the ARB and HRB sections of
2 the code, which are not in the zoning code they are in other sections of the Municipal Code to
3 refer the reader to those sections when appropriate. We have made some changes to definitions
4 probably the most significant of which is the gross floor area and trying to clarify a number of
5 the categories as far as what is included and what is not included in gross floor area. We know
there are also other issues that Commissioners have that are not on this list and certainly
welcome you to bring those up and give us direction on whether those are appropriate to go back
and address before we come back with the cohesive combined version of this R-1 chapter for
yOU.
I think you have a couple of extra pieces of information tonight in front of you. One was just a
clarification of some of the print that didn’t come out clearly on I think the Definitions section so
we reprinted that. The summary notes from Monday’s focus group meeting we go to you as
well. So we would be glad to answer any questions.
Our plan fight now is to come back on July 14 to you with the comprehensive R-1 chapter
incorporating the HIE and IR changes that you were discussing tonight as well as what comes
out of this meeting.’
Chair Griffin: IfI understand it correctly what Staffis proposing here is that as opposed to
starting with the beginning of this rich and substantive SR we rather tonight focus on the R-1
issues that were basically bumped from the working group up to the Commission as a whole for
some give and take discussion on these.various items that you are looking for a focus on this
evening and then we would continue this item to next Wednesday in order to finish up with the
remainder of the items. ~
Mr. Williams: That is where we would like to-head, yes, thank you.
Chair Griffin: Is there more of the Staff presentation at this time? No. Okay. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Staff mentioned comments from the most recent community meeting.
At least two of us don’t seem to have those.
Ms. Grote: We will bring you copies. I think they are in the other room. Sorry.
Chair Griffin: We will probably need someone to get them. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Did I understand you correctly that what we are going to do is go into
this matter to a certain point but that we are going to continue it to next week? Is that correct?
Chair Griffin: Yes, that’s correct. The items that we are going to be looking at first and in a
certain sense will be the most ambiguous are ones in need of direction I should say. There were
items that the working group did not resolve and wish to have exposed to the entire Commission.
Commissioner Bialson: Are we going to hear from the public with regard to everything just for
their ease and then decide or have you decide what items we are going to address tonight and
when we are going to follow up with discussion?
City of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Griffin: Yes. We will give everyone an opportunity to speak here this evening. If you
would like to do that sooner than later that probably would relieve the four of you that are in the
audience with us. With Commissioners’ understanding let’s go to the public here. My first
speaker is Beth Bunnenberg.
Ms. Bunnenber¢: Hello again. Thank you. I am Chair of the Historic Resources Board. Again
I just briefly wanted to let you know that the HRB supports the Staffproposal in terms of the
basements and the attic areas. Particularly to let you know that basements have become an
increasingly important issue in historic preservation. For people to take on the challenge of an
historic home it is a tremendous help to be able to make a usable basement that gives them more
space. Several of our applicants lately have said that the ability to build or expand the basement
has made their project possible. It makes it more financially viable and gives the space that is
expected for today’s living. So in looking at basements I hope you will keep this matter in mind.
Thank you for all your work.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Beth. Our next speaker is Bob Moss.
Mr. Moss: Thank you Chairman Griffin. First I would like to bring your attention to I don’t’
know if it is a clerical error or an oversight but if you take a look at 18.99, page two, the
definitions on the large family daycare home it is from seven to 14, a small family daycare home
is eight or less. This means that a family daycare home with seven or eight is both large and
small. This does not compute. I think it should be what you have for adults six or less for a
small one.
A couple of topics I want to touch on the first is basements. As I mentioned at one of your
earlier meetings there are buildings, there is one not too far from me, where the basement is
completely livable. It has a wet bar with a burner, an oven type, a full bathroom and three large
rooms. The total square footage is at least 1,400 or 1,500 square feet and yet it is not counted as
living area. Yet if somebody came in and said I want to convert a basement by putting in a wet
bar and an oven and a bathroom now you would say it is a second unit and you would count at
least part of it. For consistency if somebody has a livable basement it should be counted in the
FAR. I define livable as at least a two unit bathroom and kitchen facilities. You may want to
count it at less than 100% but it certainly should be counted.
Second, on the overlay zone we had some discussions on that as to what should be the number of
people or the percentage that institutes and single story overlay. Currently in section two the
Staff says 18.12.110, 70% of the owners and I think it should be no more than two-thirds. It
takes two-thirds to amend the Constitution. It takes two-thirds to pass a bond issue. Two-thirds
is certainly ample for a single story overlay. Then you get into the argument of who gets to vote
and it is one household because it is a property and it is each property is getting to vote. You can
look to the husband and the wife or the property owner get to argue about who gets to cast the
vote but that shouldn’t be a condition of the ordinance. The ordinance says each property has
one vote. The other thing you should make clear is it is two-thirds of those voting so that
somebody who abstains or doesn’t care isn’t taken as an automatic no. There is also a reference
to 60% when there is a deed restriction. While that probably is a little more than you really need
I would be perfectly happy with 50% but would be willing to live with 60%.
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
The third area is how many existing two-story homes you would have in the zone, which would
prevent you from putting the overlay on. The Staffrecommendation is if you have more than
80%, you have to have 80% already single family. In other words only 20% can be two stories.
I think that is too restrictive because many times you don’t get an impetus for having a single
floor overlay until you have had several people come in and build a second floor and prove to
everybody how overbearing and ugly they really, really are. So I would like to see that limit
reduced to 70% or at the very most 75%.
The last item is substandard lots. I think it is important that you not allow a second story on
substandard lots. That doesn’t prevent somebody from coming in and asking for an exception
under extraordinary circumstances and getting a second story. I will give you two examples in
Barron Park of people coming in for second stories on substandard lots. One of them was on
Magnolia or Military. It was a very small lot at most 4,000 square feet. The owner wanted to
come in with a very large two-story house. It just absolutely infuriated the neighbors. We had
some really nasty meetings. The Staffand the Planning Commission turned it down. He ended
up building a single story house. The second example is on Kendall in 1993. The family
requested to be allowed to put on a second floor. I was Chairman of the Barron Park Land Use
and Zoning Committee. I went out and looked at it. The property was extremely small. The
building came to within five feet of the rear property line and the house next door the building
was a garage. So I said that recommend to the Barron Park Association that we approve it and
they could have a second floor. They went in and they asked the Council to approve it. Much to
my surprise Mayor Satorius stepped out and recused himself from discussing it and the Council
approved it. I found out that it was his daughter that was applying for the exception.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Bob. Our next speaker and our last speaker unless we have another
card coming, which we do; is John Northway.
Mr. John Northway, 437 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto:. I will be very brief. I have been lucky to
work a lot with John and Curtis and want to compliment them on all the work they have done
along with your subcommittee. I wanted very much to endorse the work they had done on
basements. I think it is really responsive to what is actually going on out there. I concur with
what Beth said that basements do make some homes feasible because they are living in them. I
was loosening up and getting more realistic about light wells and patios. It allows us who are
trying to design these things to make them far more livable and good places for human beings to
be. So I very much endorse the work and the recommendations on the basements.
I started hearing about this on the R-1 Committee and I heard about it again tonight and that is
about the homes that are in the flood plane. Perhaps a very simple way of approaching height in
the flood plane is to take the floor height that is required by FEMA, reduce it by six inches which
out in that area usually you would do a slab so six inches would get you back down to grade and
then from that point measure your height. So let’s just say FEMA requires you to be two and a
half feet above the existing grade, subtract six inches and then take your height from there. I
think that would be fair in that FEMA is well it would be simple. You would have the floor
height as dictated by the flood plane map and it would be very easy to enforce. It would be the
same height it is just that that would make it relatively equal across the board in terms of how
height really is measured. You would take floor height, go down to what grade is and then
measure the height. So just for your consideration.
CRy of Palo Alto Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Thank you John. Annette Ashton will be our last speaker.
Ms.. Annette.Ashton, 2747 Bryant, Palo Alto: I have very few comments but I just wanted to
reinforce because Staff has heard them over and over them. First of all I would like to thank
Staff for allowing all the focus sessions for the neighborhoods. They actually threw in a last one
that was very well attended.
My two comments are on the single story overlay I actually support Bob Moss’s comments. I
really feel strongly that two-thirds is the right number. I think it is very good for consistency.
So I would go with that. I also still feel very strongly that in the ordinance there should be a call
out section for substandard lots, flood planes, open space and historic. I could see some of those
changes have actually been added to the ZOU and so for that I appreciate that Staffdid that. I
think it is important because they are and potentially you might even want to consider Eichlers to
be part of that as it becomes appropriate to do so. Thanks.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Annette. ,We have no more speaker cards so we will close the public
hearing and bring the discussion back up to the desk for Commissioners to ask questions relating
to the slide that you see on the screen. The first item is Implementing Housing Element Policies
to preserve housing units specifically restricting lot mergers and after that we would take up
Preserving Cottages and Duplexes. Did Staff want to give an introduction to any of these topics?
Mr. Williams: I was going to ask if you would like me to give a little bit more detail.
Chair Griffini Please, if you would.
Mr. Williams: Page eight in the StaffReport has some more detailed discussion ofthig issue. -
We have included in the development standards table and then in a separate paragraph under the
ordinance the requirement that there be a maximum lot size as well as a minimum lot size for all
of the R-1 districts. The intent of that is to limit at least if not preventing lot mergers that would
potentially result in taking two homes on two lots combining the lots and having one larger home
and in the process losing a housing unit. That is a Housing Element policy it is straiglat from the
Housing Element. So the recommendation is that in general if it is a 7,000 square foot minimum
lot size in an R-1 then the maximum lot size would be 13,999 square feet just under double the
size so that you couldn’t combine two lots of 7,000 square feet together. The one-exception to
that is in the general R-1 district with a 6,000 square foot we have capped the lot size at 9,999.
The reason we did it that way is because there are so many 5,000 square foot lots within the R-1
area that we were concerned that under the double the lot size there would still be a potential for
a lot of those 5,000 square foot lots to be combined and lose housing units that way. We
recognize that there are also lots smaller than 5,000 square feet but it was our feeling that we
could only go so far and to go even smaller started to get to a point where you were telling
people that they couldn’t combine two very substandard lots into one basically minimum lot size
of 7,000 square feet lot. We felt like it was reasonable to try to capture the multitude of 5,000
square foot lots that might be affected by this. So that is our approach.
We also have a couple of exceptions provided so that if it is required let’s say a house for
instance or even a nonresidential structure like a church or something sits over lot linesright now
and they want to do some improvements it would be a standard requirement for them to merge
those lots. So if that was necessary and there would not be any loss of housing units, one house
City of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
is there now it would be one house aRerwards that kind of thing would be allowed. Also I think
we proved that for very small lots which I think we identified as less than 25 foot lot width being
combined with an adjacent lot would be okay again if there was no loss of the number of housing
units. So that is our proposal as far as trying to address the lot merger issue and trying to retain
as many of the existing units as possible.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Curtis, had you given any thought to the potential circumstance of a lot
combination being accomplished through a lot splitting?
Mr. Williams: We really didn’t do that but in our focus group on Monday that came up. I think
we do need to give some consideration to the potential for in particular, I don’t know if this is the
circumstance you are thinking of, somebody mentioned if you have a pretty large lot existing and
they wanted to split it or combine three lots into two or something like that where you weren’t
losing any housing units but the resulting lots were still bigger than this maximum wouldn’t that
be a better thing to do than leaving this very large lot that might have one very large home on it.
So that is one circumstance and it sounds like Pat might have another.
Commissioner Burt: The other circumstance that I was envisioning is ifI have a 5,000 square
foot lot in the older part of town that you are proposing a just under 10,000 square foot limit to
lot size and next door there is a lot that is 5,000 square feet wouldn’t I be able to circumvent this
rule by buying that 5,000 square foot lot and splitting it and selling 500 square feet to the
adjacent neighbor? That is less obscure than you may envision. In this era it is sort of like
campaign finance law, once you put up one set of rules then people get creative on how to work
around it. -
Mr. Williams: So the first step is that you are combining a 5,000 square foot lot with another
5,000 square foot lot or not? We wouldn’t allow that
Commissioner Burr: I don’t know whether it is allowed but if it is allowed to acquire an adjacent
lot but sell offa portion of that to the other neighbor you are not adding up to 10,000 square feet
you are adding up to something just less than this. So is that allowed and is that something we
want to address here?
Mr. Williams: I think there is some potential to be able to purchase a lot and not combine it with
your lot but you couldn’t split that lot though because each resulting portion of it would have to
meet, but if you combined it with the other lot and did a lot line adjustment maybe that would
make it. But are you perceiving that that resultant lot would be more than 10,000 square feet?
Commissioner Burt: No, it would be a way to just stay under the limit but circumvent the
objective, which is to avoid the loss of the housing.
Mr. Williams: I think there is some potential for that. Did you want to say something?
Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Manager. Special Proiects: I don’t know if Dan wants to respond to
this also but I think the scenario you are suggesting is if you have two 5,000 square foot lots and
you want to merge them and then take part of that and sell it off to another property you would
City of Palo Alto Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
have to merge ~he two lots first and you can’t do that because you are creating a 10,000 square
foot lot.
Mr. Sodergren: It would be a combination merger and lot line adjustment.
Commissioner Burt: The seller can’t do that either you are saying? So the seller of that lot can’t
do a lot split and sell a 1,000 square feet to one party and 4,000 to another, right?
Mr. Sodergren: What it would be is that all the property owners that would be affected by it
would have to come in for the certificate of compliance and at that stage we would check for
zoning compatibility and we would catch it at that stage. All the property owners would have to
apply under that process for a merger and lot line adjustment. On those we always check to
ensure that the resulting parcels or mergers do conform with the lot size standards.
Chair Griff’m: That was quite an intriguing concept however.
Commissioner Burt: I’m sorry but Dan could you clarify again that the resulting parcels could
still conform with the lot size standards.
Mr. Sodergren: If you are talking about starting out with two 5,000 square foot adjoining
parcels. To do what you are suggesting first you would have to merge those and that would
given that we now have a maximum lot size of 9,999 square feet that merger would be
prohibited. So you couldn’t get to the second stage of doing the lot line adjustment because you
would have to first merge them and then adjust that lot line.
Commissioner Burt: So if my lot was 5,000 square feet and my neighbor’s was 6,000 could that
neighbor first sell 1,001 square feet and have a lot line adjustment to the Other adjacent neighbor
and then sell me 4,999?
Mr. Soder~ren: If that person did a lot line adjustment reducing the size of his parcel then that
lot line adjustment would be nonconforming and we would have to deny that lot line adjustment
because it would result in a smaller parcel.
Commissioner Burt: But if they were still a standard lot if they still conformed?
Mr. Sodergren: If they were still a standard lot and both resulting parcels from the lot line
adjustmen.t were confirming lots then we could approve that.
Chair Griffin: So it could be done.
Mr. Sodergren: I guess if the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet and you have a 5,000 and
6,000 1 still don’t know.
Commissioner Burr: Let me just say that this is less hypothetical than you may imagine. I have
been a participant in this sort of transaction 15 years ago. So it we may not have a substantial
problem here but it is beyond hypothetical.
City of Palo Alto 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair GritTm: It also describes a condition of my own property as well so it does happen.
Commissioners? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Another topic. I am not splitting hairs or lots or anything. One of the
exceptions I don’t think you mentioned it Curtis but I think it is an important one is that where
there is a Village Residential land use approved concurrent with the new lot which makes me
very much in support of this concept because when we go forward and talk moreabout Village
Residential we want to give incentives for the cottage cluster developments to happen and that
may require lot mergers in order for that to happen. So if there is a way we can emphasize that
in the language and make it more of an incentive sounding thing instead of lost in a little tiny
bullet here or advertise it in some way that would really make me very happy.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners we are going to need to keep moving here. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I want to thank Staff for responding to the proliferation of 5,000 square
foot lots in the community. I appreciate Staff responding to that.
Having to do with the smaller lots page eight of the StaffReport where it refers to these smaller
lots, applied to small lots Staffbelieves this would be an extreme restriction on such small
properties and would preclude the establishment of many conforming lots. There are a couple of
other aspects of this though. That could also be applied to 5,000 square foot lots though. The
5,000 square foot lots are not conforming either because 6,000 square feet is a standard lot in
Palo Alto. So what isn’t satisfied by not being a little more restrictive is that really we are not
protecting neighborhood character, we are not protecting affordability and we are not protecting
sustainability. Sustainability meaning you have to have a variety of housing types, which is also
in the Comp Plan to support a community. So with due respect I don’t think the argument for
precluding the establishment of many conforming lots is I don’t think the right argument to make
there.
I do also understand that Staff says that we can’t prohibit outright all lot mergers. Maybe it
would be good to have it in the public record why that is. Then also about the retention of
housing, which is where this lot combination subject came from, is we talk about retention of
cottages, second units~ but we don’t talk about cottage courts. It says that will be something that
is coming back to us. That is a discussion that would be coming back to us and I don’t know
quite how we can make a determination about this without knowing what this going to be in the
future that is going to be coming back to us. There are an awful lot of cottage courts in this
community. Maybe Staff could respond to that.
Mr. Williams: Our initial thought and that is the second item under there, preserving cottages
and duplexes, is just another Housing Element policy is to try to develop some incentives for
preserving those cottage courts. One of them is sort of what Bonnie was suggesting a minute ago
if we can use the Village Residential overlay or however it manifests itself to provide another
option for people to use thoseperhaps to improve what is currently a noiaconforming structure
situation. That might provide some incentive for them to retain those. We may also need to
modify some of our nonconforming structures and uses policies to address that to allow those
kinds of structures perhaps to have additions and have upgrades and such to a certain level. That
would provide some incentive to retain them instead of tearing them down and putting new
homes up. So I think that is our initial thought and that is one of the reasons why we are here to
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
47
see if you have other ideas. I think we have backed away from the idea of an outright type of
prohibition of losing units. That seems very problematic as far as administering it and being able
to keep track of what counts and what doesn’t. I think Dan can probably speak to the Berkeley
Ordinance which we have looked at and which has some fairly strict measures in it but also has
some exceptions that seem to get used fairly frequently as well. So it is a very, very difficult
issue to try to take that intent and policy which has words like consider and feasible in it too. So
we need to try to develop a reasonable approach to it and so far we want to try to come up with
some incentives and how far we can go in just restricting the loss of units I think is still
uncertain.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, I am wondering if we could finish up with the restricting lot
mergers item first and then proceed with the item that Karen brought up.
Commissioner Holman: Maybe the City Attorney would like to comment on why we can’t just
outright preclude lot mergers.
Mr. Sodergren: Sure. As I kind of briefly hinted at in the Staff Report the City really is
preempted from regulating the subdivision process because that is governed by the Subdivision
Map Act and state law. So really to discourage these types of lot mergers the best way to do that
is through regulating the zoning standards rather than regulating the subdivision process. By
coming out with a flat policy that says that you cannot go through a merger process to create
these I think would run against the process in the Map Act that allows you to merge. So it may
be kind of a distinction without much of a difference but again really the way to do it is through
zoning standards rather than through process. That is all we were getting at in the Staff Report.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I want to follow up on Karen’s line of questioning with regard to that.
Wouldn’t another way of approaching this be through putting a restriction as to how much FAR
a house can be and saying you can’t exceed a certain amount of FAR for your house regardless
of your lot size in the R-1 district? Or coming to it and saying, this is what Portola Valley does,
80% can be in the main dwelling and 20% of your FAR has to be in an accessory dwelling unit.
Mr. Soder_m’en: I think you could do it that way there may be some practical difficulties but I
think legally you could.
Mr. Williams: We do have a maximum house size right now of 6,000 square feet, which how
big a lot do you have to have before you get there? A 15,000 square foot lot or something like
that is pretty big. Like Dan said I am not sure that there is any legal reason we can’t look at
something like that. We haven’t really talked about the practicality of doing that. Did you have
any thoughts?
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I would like to respond to Lee. I think the reason that we are going in
this direction is not the size of the house but to prevent the loss of a lot that could be used for
another house. In other words, acquiring more square feet in order to have an orchard when that
City of Palo Alto 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
45
46
47
could have been another house there. I think that is the goal and why this is a Housing Element
policy.
Commissioner Lippert: Technically there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. IfI
was wealthy enough to acquire my neighbor’s property to put in an orchard I wouldn’t go for a
combined lot I would just demo their house and put in my orchard.
Chair Griffin: All right. It is our understanding then that you are prepared to move ahead with
this setting a maximum size of lot and we will see some more text on this subject in the future or
is this all we are going to get?
Mr. Williams: We will talk about some of the ideas that have come up tonight and see if there is
any broadening of this that we can do but this is fundamentally where we are headed with this
particular topic.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a question for the other Commissioners. Do any other
Commissioners have interest in restricting the size of the final lot size once a merger would
happen? This would help protect some of the smaller lot neighborhoods. The most it would do
here is 5,000 square foot lots. That is what is protected here.
Vice-Chair Cassel: No, I think it is the 6,000 square foot lots can’t be merged into 12,000 square
foot lots and 7,000 square foot lots can’t be merged into 14,000 square foot lots and 10,000
square foot lots can’t be merged into 20,000 square foot lots I believe.
Commissione~" Holman: Yes, but what I am saying is that I think the smallest restriction that we
have is 9,999. In other words, prohibiting the merger of two 5,000 square foot lots.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Are you saying what we should do is prohibit the merger of 2,500 square
foot lots?
Commissioner Holman: I just want to explore with the Commission where their interest might
or might not be.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think quite practically we are going to have enough on our hands if we try
this. I think we should try this and see how it goes. I am not sure how far this will get us in
terms of the fact that we are going to save some lots but we should save some lots and I am glad
it is down to 5,000 square foot lots. We have all our statistics at 6,000 and I am glad we are not
going that large because two 5,000 could have then been combined.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Butt: As I understand it right now if we have an historic pattern of small lots,
which we have in a few places in the City, there is nothing in this proposed ordinance that would
prevent the merger of those small lots. Is that correct? Those small lots have represented a
particular housing style. I recall some beautiful homes on Channing across from where we have
City of Palo Alto 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
47
48
the new affordable housing project. I don’t know if they are 30-foot wide lots or 25 foot with
beautiful Victorian homes that work perfectly well in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Holman: Just ifI could interject, those are either 3,000 or 3,500 square foot lots
if you are talking about the old Victorians across from that project.
Commissioner Burr: Where Dave Jury had his office, yes. I would like us to not lose those lots
that have been zoned for single residences that work in that I don’t see any reason why we
shouldn’t be applying the same principle on those lots. It is another thing if we were going to
come along and start trying to mandate that people go to smaller lots where they don’t exist. But
where they have been in the existing fabric and we are trying to preserve the variety of housing
types why not? Especially if we are willing to give those lot owners some latitude to have a
reasonable structure on a substandard lot. If we coupled it with onerous restrictions that they
couldn’t build much there then I might be more receptive to allowing combinations.
Commissioner Lippert: My comment is that when it comes to FAR and you reach a certain
threshold I think it is the 2,500 square feet I believe then you begin to get a diminishing remm in
terms of the FAR that you are allowed above and beyond that. So in other words, floor area you
are only allowed 40% up until that threshold and then it goes down to 30% I believe at that point.
Is it 30% or 35%?
Ms. Grote: We will double-check this but it goes from 45% to 30%.
Commissioner Lippert: Correct.
Ms. Grote: Forty-five for the first 5,000 and then 30% for any increment over 5,000.
Commissioner Lippert: Correct. So what happens is that there is sort of squeeze put on the
larger lots that they can’t develop them as much as say a smaller lot could percentage wise. I
think that the direction that we really need to look at is in terms of when a house or a building
reaches a certain amount of FAR it needs to be put into an accessory dwelling, meaning a
secondary dwelling, to try to encourage people to build those second dwelling units. I think that
that’s where we are going to begin to get more housing.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I think that is an interesting thought and is something that we haven’t
discussed to this point. I wanted to concur with Pat, which is no surprise I am sure, that we
could go smaller I think in neighborhoods that have a prevailing pattern of 3,000 square foot lots
or that a lot combining shouldn’t result in a parcel that is greater than 5,999 square feet. Again it
speaks to existing and prevailing neighbor_hood pattern in a lot of neighborhoods most especially
College Terrace. It speaks to retention of existing housing stock. It speaks to retention of the
smaller more affordable thus more sustainable for the community housing stock.
Chair Griffin: Curtis.
Mr. Williams: I think and Dan correct me ifI am wrong here, I think that one of the things that
has set our parameters here is that we need to apply the maximum lot size to a zoning district not
City of Palo Alto Page 43
1 say well if the lots are this size then it is going to be this and if they are this size it is going to be
this. The zoning district has a 6,000 square foot minimum so we can’t say it has a 5,999 square
3 foot maximum. I think we are limited in terms of being able to be that selective and say if you
4 have two smaller lots then we are going to ratchet that number down. It has to apply to the
5 whole district, that-one maximum lot size number.
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
47
Commissioner Holman: Could you clarify then? Since standard lots are 6,000 square foot
parcels then how can we do it on 5,000 square foot parcels where the zoning is allowing 6,000?
Mr. Williams: It is because it is a minimum of 6,000. As long as that maximum lot is over
6,000 square feet we would theoretically be okay although I don’t know if it makes sense to do
6,200 square feet instead of 9,999. I don’t think we can certainly do less than 6,000 square feet.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis we will have your comment but I am wondering because we are grinding
on here and not making too much progress. Interesting topic however.
Vice-Chair Cassel: My question is in the previous upgrade of the zoning in some parts of town
zoning was made to be a 6,000 square foot lot and a 60 foot wide width and 100 foot deep. In
neighborhoods where 5,000 square feet was a very standard lot and 50 feet wide, did we make a
mistake in some of those areas and should some parts of town be zoned for 5,000 square feet?
Ms. Grote: I think we would need to do some research into why that was applied to begin with,
however, I think it was to enable existing smaller lots at 5,000 square feet to remain in a
nonconforming condition not penalize them at all but any new lots that would be created within
that district would then be more generous in area and not be so small. So I think it was looking
towards the future in any subdivisions that might occur.
Vice-Chair Cassel: These parts of town are in the north part of town in College Terrace and in
the north part of the City not in areas where they were going to get a lot of subdivisions. I
suspect it was to make things, simple and less complicated. They saw 6,000 square feet as being
an advantage for people something that they wanted but then you couldn’t combine two very
small lots and get a standard lot. So you ran into problems if you had two 25-foot square lots
you had to get three of them and now you have a 7,500 square foot spot instead of a 5,000 square
foot spot.
Ms. Grote: Again we would need to look at some of the historic lotting patterns but I think some
of those areas might actually have lots that are somewhere in between 5,000 and 10,000 which
would be double that. There wanted to be some protection so that someone who had a larger lot
at say9,500 square feet couldn’t subdivide it into two lots or if they had a 10,000 square foot lot
they couldn’t subdivide it into two lots. So I think they might have been looking at some
protection for the larger lots and that point so you wouldn’t get a lot of smaller 5,000 square foot
lots. They wanted them to be more generous. They wanted them to be 6,000 square feet. I don’t
know we would have to look at the prevailing lotting patterns in 1970 or 1980.
Chair Griffin: Does Staff have enough from us at this stage to have the direction that you were
seeking or do we still need to discuss it further?
City of Palo Alto Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
.41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Mr. Williams: Well, at this point I think we would look into some of these ideas but I think we
would come back to you in July with an ordinance that substantially has these provisions in it. If
we can find a way we certainly want to explore some of the things that Lee mentioned and see if
there is some other way to address some of the smaller lots too but we would like to get a sense
of whether this is generally considered the right direction.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie has a quick question.
Commissioner Packer: This is kind of a crazy idea but it is along the lines of looking at these
areas that have the 5,000 or less square foot lots. An overlay zone kind of like a single story
overlay zone that allows people to keep their lot size. Just want to throw that out if it is legally
possible if there are neighborhoods that are potentially conducive to that. It might go back where
we can have some lot splits in order to have more housing.
Vice-chair Cassel: Maybe I could say this that it is the right direction to go and we are question
whether it could go farther. Is that what is happening? We are looking at whether there are
some ways to help preserve the very small units but it is the right direction.
Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair ifI could just point out some research. Susan pointed out that we did do
research on lots of 5,000 to 5,999 and we didn’t really find a lot of lots that were in collections.
They were really spread out over the City they weren’t in groupings as you might think. So we
did do that kind of research in that regard.
¯ Commissioner Holman: Between what size and what size, please?
Mr. Lusardi: Five thousand to 5,999.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to support the issue raised by Phyllis and ask for Staffto
come back with a little bit of the historic background on how the standard lot size was created. I
have always wondered about this because it didn’t seem congruous with the different
neighborhood patterns. It seemed like a one-size-fits-all that was developed some years ago
without the real recognition of what exists differently in South Palo Alto versus North Palo Alto.
I can tell you I lived on a street that was almost all lots between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet.
That was the neighborhood pattern in North Palo Alto. I would like to understand this more. I
think it is a very valid issue if we are lookirfg at a ZOU upgrade as to what should be our
standard lot size and part of what we have recognized in the Comp Plan today is that we are
supposed to have different textures for different neighborhoods. This may be one of those places
where it is appropriate.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make one comment and sort of answering Pat’s question.
If you look at that the early block maps of Palo Alto they had three lots and then they took those
three lots and combined them into two lots. It looked like that occurred after the Second World
War to accommodate the larger house sizes that were being built, the ranch style houses. So that
City of Palo Alto Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24-
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
¯42
43
44
45
46
47
48
is I think where some of the history comes from as to the lot line adjustments and combining
properties.
Chair Griffm: We will now move to the second paragraph of Housing Element policies on page
eight which has to do with preserving cottages and duplexes. Karen you were the one that got us
going on that here a moment ago. Did you have your question properly answered by Staff?.
Commissioner Holman: I just want to know when Staffcomes back and I know this is
something you are exploring what we can do to preserve cottage courts. You mentioned
incentives and so I am interested in knowing what those incentives might be and how they might
work. Yes, sometimes there are buildings of course that need to be replaced or significantly
upgraded. That is not always the case so as has been stated many times the most affordable
housing stock we have is the existing housing stock. So I am really looking forward to seeing
what Staff has to preserve what we have and not just the creation of new cottage court type of
development under the Village Residential.
Also I am interested in the retention of and how it might be implemented the retention of second
units that exist on parcels. Lee mentioned something about the main house could have 80% of
the FAR as an example on a property and the accessory dwelling could have 20%. That is
maybe one way to approach this but again existing dwelling units are maybe more affordable. I
am not saying absolutely retain every physical unit but I think we need to look at ways to retain
the housing units and where possible retain the ones that exist. The language ’where feasible’ is
always one of those ’where practical,’ ’where feasible,’ that is always where the loose change
falls in the cracks. So I am looking forward to some more specific language.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have always had problems with this concept as much as I would like to
see more housing and more affordable housing. If we have an effort to retain existing rental
units on an R-1 lot you run into this situation which I think is very common an existing second
unit, a grandmother’s unit or whatever, is in place somebody comes along, buys the property and
both structures need to be demolished from the new owner’s perspective and they don’t want to
be a landlord. They don’t want to have an additional unit there. They want to have an R-1
house, a single family house. It doesn’t seem appropriate for a government to require somebody
who is in an R-1 neighborhood to be a landlord to another family on their lot just because
historically there had been another unit there. We don’t know whether it was ever rented, the
City never kept any records of how these units were used so you can’t say well because there
was a rental unit before you come in if you want to rebuild or remodel that you have to be a
landlord again. I just think that is more regulation than we should be entering into.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Packer: So those are the ways I think we need to think about this. There are
ways we can incentivize housing and there are good ways to do that and there are not such good
ways to do that.
Commissioner Holman: I would agree with Bonnie. What I would add to that is though is that
the City is not going to be in the business as I understand it and foresee it of requiring someone
City of Palo Alto Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
to keep a second unit and then rent it out. I don’t think the City wants to be legislating that
someone rents that unit out. They could be using it as a home office or mother-in-law quarters or
whatever. But I am interested in and what I think does promote the housing goals of the
community is that once a second unit is demolished and all of the FAR is added into the main
house there is never going to be a second unit there. So there will over time be times when
second units are rented out and there will be times when they aren’t. So I am not proposing that
the City try to regulate that or legislate it. I am trying to retain the possibility and the feasibility
of having second units that are rentable.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Vice-Chair Cassel: What I was going to say is I would like to get a straw vote on this and see
where we are going. I like going through the incentives. It is getting kind of late but I think the
Staff really needs some direction from us which we weren’t able to get on the committee as to
whether we should be working for incentives or whether we should try to retain the existing
units. I would be interested in doing a straw vote to see where we are at and see if we can move
on.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I am not interested in belaboring this and going on and on with this but I
want to respond to Bonnie’s comment. The thought that I had here is that there is very little
difference between having two units on one property or having that property being too distinct
properties with two different houses on it. I am not promoting or pushing that people should
have these accessory dwellings and necessarily rent them out. There are other opportunities to
have family members living in this accessory dwelling it could be an in-law unit, it could be for
an au pair, it could be a guest house. There are opportunities to use that second dwelling unit.
All that I am really trying to say is that there are ways of dividing up the mass of the housing
between a main house and an accessory dwelling and it yet still being a reasonable size unit. I
did a really quick calculation and that accessory dwelling on a 10,000 square foot lot would wind
up being somewhere on the order of 1,200 to 1,500 square feet, which is a reasonable size house.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis would you pose your straw vote?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes. I would like to see us take a look at whether we want to push toward
incentives or whether we should try to maintain. Well, let me put it this way, I would like to
know as a straw vote how many people would like to push more towards incentives than trying
to set up rules that will retain the second units on existing lots?
Chair Griffin: So all those in favor of incentive say aye. (ayes) That is Commissioners Lippert,
Griffin and Cassel. Opposed?
Commissioner Burr: I would just like to say that I am not sure that - I appreciate the intention of
the straw vote.. I guess I would say that having come from a background where I spent a decade
involved in trying to move industry toward pollution prevention what ended up working best was
a combination of carrots and sticks, rules and incentives. So being placed in an either/or
circumstance I don’t think is likely to be what we end up with as our best outcome. So we could
have rules that are extremely onerous, we could have incentives that are very weak or we could
City of Pa!o Alto Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
have some combination that is effective. So that is why I have trouble with this straw vote. I
think when we get creative minds together we might be able to come up with programs that are
effective without being extremely onerous. That is what I would like us to be working toward.
So that is kind of part of what my response would be to that position at this time.
Chair Griffin: We have concurrence with Commissioner Holman. So the straw vote results then
are showing Commissioners Holman, Burr and Packer opposed. You are not opposed? So we
have a four to two vote.
Commissioners, it is now 10:30 1 am going to propose that we continue the remainder of this
item to next Wednesday night when we can come back and redo it. Do I have sense from
Commissioners that that is appropriate? It looks like we do have. Let’s then continue Item
Number Two. Do I need to close it out or just continue it?
Commissioner Butt: Michael, I have a question on June 2. At our places tonight we had the
Tentative Agenda, which doesn’t have the June 2 meeting. Did I miss something on that?
Ms. Grote: You would need to continue it to a Special Meeting on June 2. So you need to make
that announcement as part of your motion and then vote so people listening at home will know.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: I’ll so move.
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: Second.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1 Commissioner Bialson absent)
Chair Griffin: So then we have Phyllis’s motion that we continue this item to a Special Meeting
on the 2nd of June. It is seconded by Commissioner Lippert. All in favor say aye. (ayes)
Opposed? That carries unanimously with Commissioner Bialson absent.
Commissioner Burr: Question then. If we are going to have the June 2nd meeting do we need to
~ ]~ ~~ ~rr do we have ample time at June 2na to go through everything.
Ms. Grote: This would be the only item on your agenda next week so you would have time.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Chair Griff’m: So this takes us to Commission Member Questions and Comments. We have
none.
COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
City of Palo Alto Page 48
1 Chair GrilTm: Approval of minutes for the meeting of March 24. Do I have a motion for
2 approval?
3
4 APPROVAL OF.MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of March 24, 2004.
5
6 MOTION
7
8 Commissioner Lippert.: So moved.
9
10 Chair Griffin: Thank you Commissioner Lippert.
11
12 SECOND
13
14 Vice-Chair Cassel: Second.
15
16 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1 Commissioner Bialson absent)
17
18 Chair Griffin: Seconded by Commissioner Cassel. All in favor say aye. (ayes) That carries
19 unanimously.
20
21 NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting of June 2, 2004.
22
23 Chair Griffin: So then I do then declare this meeting adjourned. See you all next week.
24
25 ADJOURNED: 10:45 PM
City of Palo Alto -Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
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
:MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, June 2 at 7:00 PM
City Council Conference Room
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 -- absent
Lee L Lippert
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Spc. Projects
Curtis Williams, Consultant
Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1. ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE (ZOU): Single Family Residential District (R-l)
Chair Griffin: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Special Meeting of the
Planning and Transportation Commission for Wednesday, June 2. Will the Secretary please call
the roll? Thank you.
This takes us to the Oral Communications part of our agenda.
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. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Griffm: Do we have any speaker cards? It appears not so we will move to Unfinished
Business.
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
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 Zoning Ordinance
Update of the Single Family Residential District where the Commission will review and make
recommendations for the R-1 district and related definitions of Title 18 in the Municipal Code.
The R-1 chapter has been developed into a draft format intended as a standalone chapter of the
ordinance. This chapter of the ordinance will only address single family residential development
in the City. All other low density residential zoning districts will be discussed subsequently.
Would Staff please make a presentation?
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE (ZOU): Single Family Residential District (R-l):
Commission review and recommendation for the R-1 Zoning District and related
definitions (Title 18, PAMC). The R-1 chapter has been developed into a draft reformat "
intended as a standalone chapter of the ordinance. This chapter of the Zoning Ordinance
wilt only address single family residential development in the City of Palo Alto. All
other low density residential zoning districts will be addressed subsequent to the R-1
reviews.
Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant: We are back to you this week to follow up on the
recommendations on the single family residential district. We presented to you last week four
main policy areas that we would like to get some direction and some action from you on and then
a few additional areas that you have discussed before and we would like to come to conclusion
on as well. So what we have done for each of the items that we will discuss with you are
essentially stated the issue and then indicated our Staffrecommendation and then again we
would like to get.you to either support that recommendation or suggest ways you would want it
to be changed.
Your StaffReport as we mentioned is the same as last time. I think we included the second
focus group as an attachment there, which we handed out to you last time. The Staff Report also
does include that summary table so if there are things that we go through here and there is
something that you know we have talked about that we haven’t gotten to it is probably in that
table. Then we know that there are some additional issues that aren’t on our list that may be on
your~ and at the end we would like to entertain those.
So if you have any questions I will deal with that otherwise we can go straight to this. I
mentioned that the first issue was Housing Element policies, which we got direction from you on
at the meeting last week.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: You mentioned an attachment for the second focus group. Was that the
focus group dated 5-24? That is the only one I have.
City of Palo Alto 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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Williams: Right. The first one was earlier than the 24th. I think it was the 13th. It was
attached in your last packet. We had time to include that in your packet last week and we handed
out the one from the 24tu. This week in just changing the date on the Staff Report we were able
to also add that 5-24 focus group list.
Chair Griffin: All right. Proceed please.
Mr. Williams: The second main policy issue which you haven’t had an opportunity .to discuss
with us previously is second stories for homes on substandard lots an issue that has been coming
up more lately. As you probably know substandard lots whichare defined as having a lot width
of less than 50 feet or a depth of less than 83 feet and an area less than 5,000 square feet,
basically 83% of the minimum lot size is considered a substandard lot and is limited currently to
single story. We now have an Individual Review process, which wasn’t in place at the time the
substandard lot category was created. We would like to get your input on whether that is
appropriate. We think with the Individual Review process that is now appropriate to entertain
through that process requests for second stories on substandard lots and we would like your
comments.
Chair Griffin: So we can address our questions to you now on that item. Colleagues, anyone
want to start? If not, I will pose a question. If we do allow second stories on these substandard
lots will it possibly have the affect of encouraging people to do demolitions of the existing
property in order to take advantage of the enhanced building envelope that we would be making
available to them through what you are recommending here? I am proposing that.that might be
an unintended consequence of this.
Mr. Williams: Lisa, do you want to try that one? I was going to say one of the things we.
thought of is it also may be the other way around. There may be some people who can take
advantage of the fact that they have an existing house and can put a second story on it rather than
tearing it down but I certainly understand that option as well.
Chair Griffm: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I will ask the question that I so boldly asked last week. On a site where
you have a substandard lot why not first go along with relaxation of the parking standards and
not require a covered parking space and allowing that floor area to go into a residence? They
will still have to provide two parking spaces but they wouldn’t necessarily have to build a
covered parking space.
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: I think sometimes because of the configuration they are
either shorter in depth and there isn’t room to put that additional square footage on the ground
floor. So even if they had additional square footage that they could build on the lot they can’t
build it on the ground floor because they are either encroaching into a setback or over on lot
coverage. So the second story would be a way to be able to use that additional square footage
that they may have.
Commissioner Lippert: Couldn’t we apply a standard on a substandard lot allowing for a certain
amount of encroachment into setbacks for substandard lots for parking? It is better than having
City of Palo Alto .Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
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
47
48
Ms. Grote: A second floor?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes.
Ms. Grote: That is a different approach you might want to consider additional lot coverage for
substandard lots. You would then though be coming closer to a neighbor’s outdoor usable space.
So you would be coming closer to either their rear yard or one of their side yards. So there is
tradeoffthere. We were thinking that with the Individual Review standards that you are still
meeting your side setbacks, you are still meeting your rear and front setback and you are dealing
with the privacy and the streetscape issues and the massing issues. So that you are not coming
any closer to an adjacent parcel or an adjacent house than you would if you were on a standard
lot because you are maintaining all of those setbacks. So that with Individual Review you have
addressed those primary concerns.
Commissioner Lippert: The whole idea is that a lot of these substandard lots are first time
homeowners, people that can’t afford a larger house or a larger piece of property, they are family
that is just starting out. We allow for reduction in parking for housing that is located in a certain
proximity to a transit center. We allow for some reduction in affordable housing. Why can’t we
apply that single family substandard lots and say that we look at those as being affordable
housing and we are looking for ways of reducing parking down to say one parking space
uncovered and that they could use that floor area as additional living space?
Ms. Grote: I think with the reduced parking requirement there are many substandard lots in
single family neighborhoods that aren’t close to transit stations or alternative means of travel.
With multi family it is mostly clustered around either bus routes or transit stations but with single
family it isn’t it is really scattered throughout the City. We actually have a map of where all the
substandard lots are and we can show that to you. So using the same rationale for a reduction in
parking for ah affordable unit because it is close to transit doesn’t quite apply for single family
the way it would for a multiple family site.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do you think that by allowing a second floor on these lots that there will be
less pressure to buy the house or lot next door and combine them?
Ms. Grote: There might be, we haven’t looked at that.
Mr. John Lusardi, ZOU and Special Prqiects Manager: I think typically what these second
stories are doing as Commissioner Lippert pointed out these are new homeowners typically
young couples and they are adding bedrooms or bathrooms. So I think this gives them an
enhanced ability to retain those structures. We think it is increasing opportunities for the existing
housing stock not removing it.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I am intrigued with Lee’s idea but not as a substitute for the second story
but as also allowing a second story and relaxing the parking requirements on those lots so that
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
they could do what Lee said in providing more living space on these substandard lots. I think it
is something we may want to explore. Is that the map up there on the wall with the little red
dots?
Mr. Williams: Right. That is the map of the substandard lots.
Commissioner Packer: So they are sort of scattered and it may not impact too terribly much the
issue of parking in the streets, etc. and tO the extent people don’t use their garages anyway to put
their cars in it may not have that much of a negative impact. So it is something else we may
want to explore to enhance the usability of these substandard lots.
The question I have for Staffthough is that in the draft code there is no change to the
substandard lot section. So if we come up with some suggestions we will be making those
changes is that correct?
Mr. Williams: Correct. Yes, this came up kind of late in our game here. That’s why we wanted
to bring it to you and get it on the table.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: There are several questions that come up about this. A number of,
certainly not all of them, but a number of these substandard lots don’t have parking because they
are 25 foot frontages and they don’t have parking at all. Some of them do if they are sort of
pseudo-Eichlers they might have like a drive in and then most of the house is kind of to the side
and behind that. Some of them also have shared driveways with a small parcel next door that
happens in some cases too. Where I am going is I am not certain that giving a parking
consideration is going to help anything.
The other thing I have a question about is we do have the Individual Review now but there are a
number of things, these are small parcels we are talking about so the potential for impact on a
neighboring parcel would seem greater, there are a number of things that can intrude into
daylight planes and setbacks and that sort of thing even that are accommodated with the
Individual Review process. With the potential for impact I think it would be kind of important to
have a graphic of what that might look like. I was thinking we were punting on this and not
doing much on this one tonight so I would have asked for that sooner. I think the potential for
impacts is there and we ought to look at those. Bonnie mentioned in her comments aboutformat
and having graphics I think this is one that we ought to have a graphic to look at what the
considerations are.
I think Chair Griffin’s question is a good one too would it not lead to more demolitions? Most of
what you see as I watch the community the majority of what I see anyway is not second story
additions they are demolitions and rebuilds at least that is what I experience. One of the goals of
having these substandard lots and retaining them from my perspective is the affordability and
diversity and that sustainability for the community too as I mentioned last week.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis, were you going to ask a question? No, then I will move on to Lee.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1 Commissioner Lippert: I want to make one comment and ask a question. I don’t think that is a
2 complete map. I looked on there and there is one site that I am actually working with right now
3 that is actually a substandard lot and I live across the street from two other properties that is a
4 substandard lot and none of those are on there.
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
47
Mr. Williams: Are they in R-l?
Commissioner Lippert: No.
Mr. Williams: We do not have them if they are in other districts other than R-1. This is just the
R-1 zone and we are aware that there are probably a lot of RMD and R-2 lots.
Commissioner Lippert: So would these standards apply to the R-2 as well?
Mr. Williams: I don’t think they do. Lisa, do you remember? Do the substandard lots
requirements apply to R-2? I think that is just in the R-1.
Ms. Grote: Yes.
Commissioner Lippert: So we are not looking at allowing for people that are R-2 to be able to
go up?
Mr. Williams: I am not sure if that is prohibited. I guess my question is is that prohibited now?
Right, right no, we are not looking to address those other districts now. We will be back to you
with the other low density districts as another chapter:
Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
Mr. Williams: I did want to understand whether that was just in the R-1.
Commissioner Lippert: My question, which is daylight plane or contextual compatibility, what
do we call it?
Chair Griffin: Compatibility plane.
Commissioner Lippert: The compatibility plane, thank you. How does that affect these
substandard lots because being on a narrower lot especially side yards it is going to clip into that
second story area real easily.
Mr. Williams: One of the issues that we have thought about is even if you allow second story
there are a lot of other constraints and that is one of them. They apply just like they apply with
any R-1 property. So it is going to limit how much of a second story someone can do. The FAR
on a small lot tends to limit how much you can do: Some of the other, just the basic setbacks of
getting six feet on both sides limits what you have left. So I don’t know how much but it
definitely is restricting in terms of the second story and when you apply those daylight planes to
it.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Lippert: That is going to be far more problematic when you get into the street
side yard setbacks of 16 feet. If you have any sites like that from a daylight plane it is also going
to be problematic.
Chair Griffin: It seems like it would promote more the wedding cake approach to second story
additions. Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Why would that make any difference at all? It is going to be six feet in on
each side and 20 feet from the back and that is the same as any other lot.
Commissioner Lippert: It is 16 feet on the street side.
Vice-Chair Cassel: But on a regular lot it would be 20 feet so why would that create any more
wedding cake effect than on any other lot?
Commissioner Lippert: Because it is narrower, it is a much more constrained lot.
Vice-Chair Cassel: It is less square footage.
Commissioner Burt: It may be a slice of a wedding cake.
Commissioner Lippert: That is a very apt description.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well on a 16-foot setback, yes.
Chair Griff’m: Pat, do you want to weigh in here? "
Commissioner Burt: Yes. We are talking about a lot of the parameters and going back and forth
on the details of it but it might behoove us to take a step back and say so what are the things that
we are trying to achieve here. What I have heard is a concern to preserve a diversity of housing
types, a concem to allow families that have starter homes to be able to grow their families at that
location and maybe some other things. I also think that we have some of these substandard lots
that are in neighborhood context where they are predominantly single story and where more
liberalized setbacks, less setbacks, two stories might be out of place. I am also very familiar with
a lot of these lots that are in neighborhood contexts where there is almost no setback and the
structure has been there for a long while and that sort of minimal setback in that neighborhood
character works perfectly well including in a two story. Now it might be more problematic if
somebody wants to build it today versus what they accept as already existing. That is another
aspect that I think we need to consider. When we are talking about some of these rules even with
some liberalization my sense is that a very good percentage of our existing substandard lot
structures would not be allowed to be built today under even these more liberalized rules. So
maybe I will break right now for a question of Staff, have we looked at what portion of our
existing structures on substandard lots would be allowed under the proposed guidelines?
Mr. Williams: Basically the second story because that is the only thing we are suggesting
changing.
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: Not having any other relief on setbacks and a neighborhood context or
anything like that. I am familiar with it and I just looked at the map. I know people on one lot
that is a wedged shaped lot and that’s where my slice of a wedding cake concept came in. That
lot is probably 40 or at most 45 feet across the front, ten feet at the rear and 80 feet long. It is a
family who has chosen to stay living there and it is a tight fit but it is a nice neighborhood that
they love and three kids and two adults are in that two story structure. There is virtually no
setback on the street, on the side, and it is a comer lot also I should add as Lee was bringing up
earlier, and there is no setback in the rear and has no problems with neighbors. So is that the sort
of thing that we want to prohibit? So I am concerned that on the one hand we want, in
neighborhoods like perhaps portions of College Terrace where we have a very different
neighborhood context where that sort of almost no setback is problematic, it would change the
character of that neighborhood, change the character of that set of small lots. I lived in that
neighborhood as well and lived adjacent to a number of those. Then it would be problematic to
allow such a structure. Elsewhere in the City like in my neighborhood and others in Downtown
North and elsewhere I think we would be restricting structures that are perfectly in the context of
the neighborhood. So I think we need a neighborhood oriented set of rules. The Individual
Review guidelines address neighborhood context conceptually but it seems that the small lot
standards may need even more latitude in order to fit in with the objectives that we have had on
preserving this type of housing and looking at it in a neighborhood context. I don’t have specific
recommendations on how to achieve that but I think conceptually that is way we maybe should
be looking.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues? Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Let me take a stab and give some reasons why I think we should based on
what we want to do with the small lots. We are hopefully going to allow existing units to stay in
such a way that makes it possible to keep them and expand them. That is a possibility through
the HIE process if they are too close to setbacks, and that is a possibility through the IR process
if we allow two stories. If we get a newunit it is going to have to come to the center of the lot
and that looks to me like roughly 2,480 square feet no matter what size your lot is. It would be
different for the depth but if it was 50 feet wide. You still have to get 20 feet back in some
proportion to that so for a 5,000 square foot lot I come up with about 2,280 square feet that is
actually allowed to build on. The house at 42% comes out to be 2,100. So you can almost get it
on the first floor if you want to at 5,000 square feet but you may not because of the way it fits or
the way the trees are or the neighborhood may be a two story anyway.
Commissioner Burt: A 5,000 square foot substandard lot is not a tiny lot.
Vice-Chair Cassel: It is not a tiny lot but you are going to get smaller than that. What do we do
with those that are 5,000 to 6,000? Nothing? They are just substandard?
Mr. Williams: They are not substandard they are smaller than the minimum lot size but they are
not substandard lots and they are allowed to have second stories go through the process like
anyone else.
Vice-Chair Cassel: People with lots between 5,000 and 6,000 anywhere in the City can build on
them?
City of Pa!o Alto " Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Lippert: They are not substandard.
Vice-Chair Cassel: There are no other restrictions besides the legal nonconforming.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Burr: Someone had mentioned that we don’t really have a model I think Karen
had. If we take a lot that is say 40 feet by 80 feet and we have these standard setbacks how large
of a house could someone build with the setbacks on a single story and how large of a house
could they build on two stories? I don’t think any of us up here have much clarity other than
perhaps Lee of how restrictive are these regulations on the type of structure that would be
allowed.
Commissioner Lippert: A couple of things. A lot would depend on if it were a comer lot. If it is
a corner lot automatically you have three large setbacks so that begins to constrain the area that
you can build into. I guarantee that you would wind up with a house that would spill out into the
setbacks somewhere. That may be allowed under the HIE process where they can take a certain
percentage and they might even be able todiwy it up so that if it wasn’t 80 feet but it was a little
bit deeper than that they are able to get an accessory building on there and get their detached
garage so that it is 75 feet back.
Vice-Chair Cassel: You can’t get 75 feet back.
Commissioner Lippert: I said if it was deeper than 80 feet.
Commissioner Burt: Let’s do this on a napkin here.
Commissioner Lippert: Let me finish what I am saying. What I am saying is that distilling the
amount of lot coverage that you are allowed is going to spill into the setbacks. That would be a
prime candidate to allow that family to build up because you don’t want it to spill into the
setbacks. Maybe if it is on a comer lot you can allow for a relaxation of the 16 foot side yard
setback or some setback automatically and allow people to build into that.
Chair Griffin: I wonder does Staff wish to weigh in here at any stage? We are pursuing a little
model here and this may eat into our time tonight.
Mr. Williams: My thought and I would certainly turn it over to Lisa or Steve or John is that it
would be helpful for us to hear from you whether number one, you are sort of fundamentally
opposed to the second story concept and then number two, are you looking for us to do the kind
of analysis we have heard here tonight and try to come back with revised standards for
substandard lots that better accommodate, and I am not sure how well we can do it in sort of a
contextual well way like Commissioner Burt suggested, but something that provides some more
flexibility for the substandard lots. Lisa, did you want to comment?
Ms. Grote: Yes. I think that we could develop some prototypes based on different possibilities.
Just doing some very quick mathematics, and someone can correct me if I’m wrong here, a 40 by
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
47
48
80 would be a 3,240 square foot lot at a .45 FAR, 45% because that is what you get if it is under
a 5,000 square foot lot, would equal about 1,458 square feet ofbuildable square footage. If you
take the setbacks, a 20 foot backyard setback, a 20 foot front setback and two five foot internal
setbacks and it should be six feet, you would get about 2,200 square feet of the 3,240 that would
be unusable, about 2,100 square feet of the 3,240 that is unusable because of the setbacks. I used
five foot setbacks for simplicity and that equaled 2,000 square feet of unusable area if you do a
20 foot front and rear setback and two five foot internal five foot setbacks. So it is going to be a
little bit more than 2,000 square feet because it is really a six foot internal side setback. So
anyway, a lot of those 3,240 square feet is unusable on a substandard lot. So the remaining
question is can you get your full 1,458 square feet in the remaining and you can’t not on a single
story. So you can’t use your full square footage on one floor. You need to have a second floor.
There are two ways to address that one is to allow second floors and to have them go through the
Individual Review process so that the primary issues are considered. The other would be to
allow additional lot coverage or encroachments into a setback for a one story full use of your
FAR.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: So if it is a 3,200 square foot lot at 40 by 80 did I understand you say
that - how much square footage couldn’t you use?
Ms. Grote: A little over 2,000 square feet, 2,080.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, that leaves 1,120. So you could have a 1,120 square foot house.
Ms. Grote: But you are allowed for the FAR a 1,458 square foot house because you get 45% of
whatever your total lot area is.
Commissioner Holman: I understand and I am not arguing one way or the other here. In a lot of
different size parcels they are not going to be able to build the full FAR either in other scenarios,
correct?
Ms. Grote: No. In other scenarios you could have a second floor so you couldn’t necessarily
build all of your FAR on one floor except that we did recently change that with the Individual
Review two years ago so that you can get your full FAR on one floor or you can have a second
story and go through the Individual Review process.
Commissioner Holman: I understand that in other areas you can have a second story but what I
am saying is, what my point/question is that being able to maximize the FAR is not a right and in
fact doesn’t exist in all other parcel considerations anyway, right?
Ms. Grote: It is not considered a right it is considered a maximum however, people do anticipate
being able to use that full square footage as long as they meet setbacks, Individual Review
standards and other development standards. So it is typical that people do use their full FAR.
They need to meet certain standards to do that though.
Commissioner Holman: I am Wing to draw a comparison. Is it much in the way of other
situations where they can’t use it all?
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Grote: In a single family situation it is unusual not to be able to use your full FAR. In
commercial situations it is different because there are significant parking requirements,
significant landscaping requirements and that will sometimes prevent you from being able to use
your full FAR. The same with multiple family districts because you have such a big common
usable open space requirement that you can’t always get your full FAR. In a single family house
it is very unusual not to be able to get it all.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Commissioners I believe in the KISS principle. So I would imagine that
each of the substandard lots presents a unique set of circumstances. It might be interesting to ask
Staffto give us some prototypes but probably if you come up with a prototype there may be no
lot that it would apply to because they are different shapes. So that is why I think the idea of
allowing people to develop go up do something more with their property is a good one. That is
why I would support the second story. I think the concerns that Pat raises about the
neighborhood context are valid ones but the Individual Review can help develop them. Another
thing we may want to think of where there are a number of these substandard lots and we
advertise in advance that this is going to co~e down the pipe maybe those neighborhoods might
want to consider if they are concerned about what this could do to their neighborhood, like in
College Terrace, the option of the single story overlay. If you had that.in that area then they
couldn’t go up anyway whether it is a regular size lot or a substandard. So that would give the
neighborhood a little bit more control and input into how their neighborhood is going. So if we
put that in context that could help us think about how to resolve this and give Staff some input.
So I am for allowing second stories and letting the IR process and the HIE process deal with all
the possible variations that could exist on substandard lots, give notice to neighborhoods to see if
they want to get a single story overlay.
Chair Griffin: Okay, I am going to point out to colleagues that we have been on this particular
item for 40 minutes. If we are expected tonight to do a straw vote to give Staff some direction
here I think we are probably at the point where we have all developed some opinions on this
issue. Let’s vote on a straw vote basis whether or not we are essentially in favor of having Staff
pursue the second story allowance or not and provide them with that feedback. That is the way
the issue was phrased for us.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do you want a motion?
Commissioner Holman: What do you mean by pursue? Do mean we are interested, come back
with some examples of what could happen or do you mean go for it and we will come back and
say yea or nay? What do you mean by pursue?
Chair Griffm: I think that my idea was that we would give Staffthe ability to go ahead and
develop at least one pro forma to show us what it would look like but basically we would be
giving them the go ahead to develop their concept. Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: One comment before we move along with this. I don’t think that it goes
far enough to allow Staff to just look at second story. I think that there are a variety of things
that have to be looked at one of them being maybe a relaxation of setbacks in the R-1
City of Palo Alto Page 11
!
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
47
48
substandard lots, maybe even a relaxation of some of the parking standards. I know that there
are some problems when it comes to the contextual plane, excuse me, the compatibility plane
and daylight plane in terms of creating non-habitable second story spaces. So as long as it is
under the IR process I think that there is a whole variety of tools in Staff’s tool box to be looked
at when it comes to substandard lots.
Chair Griff’m: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think that we should go ahead with this and unless they come back with
some problems we have raised several issues that they should be looking at but go ahead with the
presumption that this is a direction we would like to proceed. If they run into some problems
they should come back and tell us of course.
Commissioner Burt: Which direction?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would like to see us proceed with allowing second stories with the IR
review.
Commissioner Burt: What about the issues that Lee raised?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think that the IR review will allow some of those and the HIE process will
help people who have existing units. We certainly have two different kinds of situations. One if
we have an existing unit and it wants to go to a second story and it quite likely will move into
some setback or have some problems and those will need to have an HIE applied for to go to the
second story an IR applied for and both of them will get some additional review. The other
situation we are facing is if the lot has nothing on it or the house that was on it comes down and
now we have a new house going into it and if they wish to put a second story on it then they have
to go through the IR process. I think that is a good way to go to allow some flexibility with these
lots. This house that we were talking about as a conceptual one comes out to about 1,300 square
feet and that has to have 200 square feet out it for a garage. So these are not big units even if
they go to a second story.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I think the one Lisa penciled out comes out to 1,120 and then if you
subtract the garage then we are down to a 900 square foot house. On a comer lot what we call
the street side yard setback is that 20 feet on both?
Commissioner Lippert: Sixteen feet. It is 20, 20, 16 and six.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, so then if it is a comer lot just so we appreciate.
Vice-Chair Cassel: What you did was 1,300.
Ms. Grote: The 1,458 was the allowed FAR you could get approximately 1,160 on the ground
floor once you subtracted the side setbacks and the front and rear setbacks. Then 200 of that
1,160.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
¯ 30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: It would be 1,120 on the groundfloor. You subtract 2,080 from 3,200 that
is 1,120, which is the house size.
Ms. Grote: I think the size is 3,240 the lot size is 3,240 because it is 40 by 80. So the lot size is
3,240 square feet.
Commissioner Burt: Eighty by 40 is 3,200 not 3,240.
Ms. Grote: Sorry.
Commissioner Burt: So ifI might, that leaves a house of 1,120 square feet minus a garage. I am
speaking to what Lee had talked about that the IR guidelines alone may not even be adequate to
address some of these problems.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I keep coming out with 1,300 square feet.
Commissioner Burt: 3,200 square feet minus 2,800 is 1,120.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That is the ground floor space that they can build on that is not the square
footage they are allowed to build. It is not the FAR.
Commissioner Burr: The FAR is 1,458 if they were not allowed to build a second story and that
was the entire discussion we had.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I’m sorry I missed that entirely. Pardon me.
Commissioner Burr: Then you subtract 200 square feet for a garage you:are down to about 900
square feet. If it is on a comer lot then you subtract another 400 square feet. So now we are
down to 760 square feet minus a garage and you get a 500 square foot house. Is that what we
want to achieve? Now certainly that is only if it is single story.. If it is a two story we have more
latitude. Even on a comer lot with a two story you are still left with a very small house. I think
we need to look at whether the IR guidelines that were designed for standard lots are quite
appropriate for substandard. I don’t have the answers to those but I don’t think we have thought
it through long enough.
Chair Griffin: All right, colleagues I would like to bring this a vote. We have been here for 45
minutes. Is it clear?
Commissioner Holman: But it is the Zoning Ordinance we are not going to do anything more
important than this.
Chair Griffin: That’s true but this is a draft. We are going to see this item come back to us again
this is not our final cut. Am I saying that correctly?
Commissioner Burt: But the Chair needs to frame the issue clearly because the first way in
which it was framed I don’t think was clear to most of us.
Chair Griffin: Would Staff like to put that into a motionable type of framework?
Ci(y of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: Just to make a suggestion, why don’t you frame your first
action to be a reaction to the Staffrecommendation? Do you or do you not want us to consider
in the drafting of the R-1 district the allowance of second floors on substandard lots? Then that
should be your first discussion, The follow up discussion we hear I think really would benefit
from some analysis. We have not done that analysis. I think what we would like to do is apply
because we did some great work last week on HIEs and I think what we would like to do is take
that work conceptually and apply it to several substandard scenarios and show you that
graphically so you can have it all in front of you and we are not doing math in our heads rather
quickly. Then you could have that when we bring back the R-1 standards on July 14. Then you
will have some graphic examples. I think even at that time Staffwill be able to prepare some
recommendations if necessary for other types of encroachments specific to substandard R-1 lots.
Chair Griffin: So would colleagues now vote on that first item whether we are in agreement or
not with Staff’s basic recommendation for going to second stories?
Commissioner Holman: Can I just make one quick comment? I don’t know how I am going to
be able to vote on this because I am not absolutely in favor of second stories on substandard lots.
I am not adamantly opposed to them either. So much of what my determination is going to be is
what comes back as examples and quite frankly what the Commission decides to do in terms of
conservation districts. Several things have been said here that speak to conservation districts and
the need for them. So I am not going to be able to vote on the yea or nay on second stories
because I frankly just don’t have enough information especially when it concerns the
sustainability of the community. If you are looking at an 1,100 square foot house or 900 square
foot house you could take up the lot space you are looking at a two bedroom house. If you are
looking at a 1,458 square foot house you are looking at a three bedroom house. The community
has been living with the single story restriction on substandard lots for I don’t know exactly how
many but a good number of years. It seems like everything that gets bought in town gets built to
the maximum and sometimes somehow someway we have to really address this issue of
sustainability. Where are people going to live who service the community? So I am not going to
be able to vote yes or no on a second story recommendation on substandard lots without more
information.
Chair Griffin: Well, you can abstain. All those in favor of the Staffrecommendation say aye.
(ayes) Oppgsed? (nay) I am opposed.
Commissioner Holman: I am in principle opposed because I don’t have enough information.
Chair Griffin: So we have that go through on a four to two vote.
Commissioner Burt: I would like to add a comment. Even though I voted in favor I am not
certain that I am supporting second story on all substandard lots. I would like to see the
recommendation in its form come back. I am still open as to whether it is appropriate in all
circumstances.
Chair Griffin: So we have Commissioners Griffin and Holman voting against.
Now the second aspect of this vote would you please restate that?
City of Palo Alto Page 14
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
47
48
1
2 Mr. Emslie: I think we have heard enough to provide us with the direction. So unless the
3 Commission has any objections for us to do the analysis to apply the recently adopted in concept
4 recommended HIEs to substandard lots in different scenarios and present that to you. I don’t
think we need a motion to do that because I think it would be something that we would be
interested in pursuing.
MOTION
Commissioner Lippert: I’ll make a motion. I will make a motion that we ask Staff to do an
analysis and look at other types of relaxations of standards on substandard lots as a way of
achieving the maximum allowable FAR and lot coverage that would normally be afforded other
standard size lots.
Chair Griffin: You want to make that a formal motion or is just part of our straw vote process?
Commissioner Lippert: It is a formal motion.
Chair Griffin: Is there a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: I will second.
Chair Griff’m: Do you wish to speak in support of your motion?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I hear what Karen had said earlier with regard to she couldn’t vote
one way or the other with regard to second story on substandard lots. I think we are really at a
crisis mode here with a lot of people that are first time homeowners, this is the only lot that they
can afford, and they are a newly married couple with a kid maybe two kids. I see it in our
neighborhood we are getting more and more families in our neighborhoods. These families are
going to grow and they need some place to live. I think that there are ways of being able to have
these families expand in a way that is sensitive to the neighborhood. I don’t necessarily think
that second story, going up, is necessarily the best way. There may be an opportunity for them to
go out and achieve what they need to without having to have the impact of a second story with
the appearance of being a mini monster home. I think that a relaxation of parking standards for
some of these families that are starting out, they might have two small cars and be able to fit that
on their lot easily. There is one other aspect to this that I think is pretty important. On corner
lots, these are special lots I think we have onerous setbacks when it comes to that street side yard
setback and in some ways their backyards are side yards.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Burr: I concur with the addition of the point that Lee made that in certain
circumstances these relaxations on setbacks may be alternatives to second stories.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have a question of Lee. You are not eliminating second stories you are just
looking at some other opportunities?
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I think there could be more tools in the toolbox.
Chair Griffm: Do you have any more comments? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: A quick one. I think the comer lots are particularly problematic but just
again I go to the sustainability aspect of it. The reason I go to it again is not to be repetitious but
just to speak to what you did. I think it got brought up at last week’s meeting too these are
starter homes and all that people can afford but these houses get bigger still. They go from two
bedroom to three bedroom homes. What about the next influx of people who are looking for
starter homes? We have just made the community that much less affordable.
Commissioner Lippert: To respond to that there are many more people in Palo Alto that are
having to take back their kids once they go to college and have their kids live in the house or a
younger couple that not only has their two young kids but they also have their in-laws. So we
are seeing that these houses are really necessary in terms of the first step that a family might have
to take and in terms of the family scaling down might have to take advantage of these sites.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, do you have a comment on the motion?
Commissioner Packer: No, I enthusiastically support it.. I think it in fact has the possibility of
being more sustainable.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-1-1 Commissioner Holman abstained and Commissioner Bialson
absent)
Chair Griffin: All in favor of Lee’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed?
Commissioner Holman: I am abstaining with voting on this item.
Chair Griffin: You are abstaining from this vote.
Staff, the ball is back in your court.
Mr. Williams: Okay, thank you. The next item is the historic home .incentives. You discussed
this very extensively last week in conjunction with the HIEs but the HIE ordinance that you
looked at included the potential for the 250 square foot addition under an HIE for a Category I
and II historic home or any contributing structure within a designated historic district. These
provisions, we talked about some last week but they are actually in the zoning code would allow
outright in the definition of gross floor area for basement area that exceeds our three foot limit
above coming out of the ground. That would typically be counted as floor area then and to
exclude that for historic homes as a right essentially. Also to exclude up to 500 square feet of
floor area from the attic space that would otherwise count as floor area. So these reason why
these aren’t embodied in your ordinance right now is because we started out as having them in
the HIE ordinance and then move these other two to the gross floor area def’mition. So our
recommendation is to include both of these. We think they are substantial incentives and
bonuses for preserving historic structures. We have had some discussion about the 500 square
foot limitation on the attics. You may want to tell us whether you think that that needs to be
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
there or to exclude all attic space but again we are looking for your thoughts on this
recommendation.
Chair Griffin: Curtis, we did do this last week did we not?
Mr. Williams: You talked about all of these issues. What you voted on was the recommendation
on the HIE to incorporate the 250 square feet and for Category I and II. So we think you talked
about these. There didn’t seem to be objections to this but you didn’t actually make a motion on
these two components last week so that is what we need to hear.
Chair Griffin: I see. Phyllis.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will make a motion because we talked about it last week that we approve
the Staff recommendation on this.
Chair Griffm: Do we have a second for that?
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: Seconded.
Chair Griffin: Karen seconds. Do you wish to speak any further to your motion?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am sure there will be some discussion but I feel we have discussed these
extensively at different times. We know that in order to preserve some of these historic homes to
allow for those basements above three feet to not count. My understanding is that the 500 square
feet is unusable attic space but then they get it counted against them because of the pitch of the
roof. We talked about this when we did the Historic Ordinance before and I very much agree
that we should proceed with these.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Holman: Yes, I need clarification on a couple of things. I am supporting this
because when the preservation ordinance was defeated there was a search for things that could be
voluntary compliance and that owners of historic homes would have some incentive to retain
their historic building. That is a Comp Plan goal.
For clarification here one is that these would still be subject to HRB review. Now, given that
they are getting, I am not so concerned about the basement or attic but given that they could add
to the basement and get more square footage and that is quite a significant bonus or potentially
could be was there any consideration at the HRB or at the Staff level that those owners who
would take advantage of this would have to subject to on a required basis the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards going forward? So they are not just taking advantage of something now.
That is not how this reads.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Williams: I understand. We haven’t written this into the ordinance actually at this point in
time but yes, that was part of the HIE provisions that do require that and so that was fully
understood by the HRB and ourselves as presented by Staff. That would be part of the package.
Commissioner Holman: Okay. So not just for this initial review but for time and etemity.
"Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to the City Attorneys: We would require a recordable
covenant for this as well.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, just as we discussed for the HIE.
Mr. Sodergren: Exactly.
Commissioner Holman: Then this was discussed last week about the Category I and II also
National Register so that the ordinance would, as Commissioner Burr said last week let’s not
hide it. If we intend it to be used let’s not hide it. So there would be reference made to that in
the text of the ordinance in a proximity to this that would be advantageous to a reader of the text.
Mr. Williams: The location of this is in the definition of gross floor area. So if you are looking
for that and I thought about that a little bit it may be appropriate to actually have something
closer to the table of development standards and in that section that makes some reference to that
that any designated historic structure has that potential benefit so that they do see it there. Then
we are not relying on them to find the definition of gross floor area and work their way through
that until they finally realize here is something that might help me.
We also are adding a provision to the R-1 ordinance section that discusses the connection to the
HRB regulations and that that is cross-referenced so that they know that that might apply if they
have a designated historic structure.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that clarification. Then the last question is and I should
have brought this up last week in regards to HIEs too was there discussion amongst Staff or at~
the HRB about California Register Eligible? The reason that I bring that up is because the state
does consider them as cultural resources. So was there discussion or consideration of that? It is
voluntary so.
Mr. Lusardi: Commissioners, Beth Bunnenberg is here from the HRB and she might want to
also address this. Really what we were trying to do in this approach was really make a
connection to other parts of the Municipal Code where it is clearly stated that Category I and II
are the contributing structures. So we are trying to make that nexus and not necessarily go
beyond that with eligibility for California Register. So that is really what we were trying t° do
so we didn’t consider eligibility for California Register as part of this category at this point. If
you want us to pursue that or recommend that we would do that and probably have a
conversation with the HRB again.
Commissioner Holman: I would be interested in that being discussed at least.
Chair Griffin: Are you going to be in support of the motion that you seconded?
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: Yes, with the additions of the things that were just mentioned.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have some very fundamental questions about this. I am trying to
imagine it. If we exclude we are essentially giving away more FAR for a house so that they can
add on somewhere consistent with all the standards. In effect someone could be adding to their
second story. Would that mean that this development that this historic home goes through has to
go through the IR process? I am concerned about where there has been a huge and cry about
monster homes. Many historic homes are already very large in some areas. As certain other
parts of town get older and become historic like Eichlers we have a different issue. I am
concerned that we may have some unintended consequences of adding more bulk to homes
where people may not want that in their neighborhood for the same reason that we have the IR
process. So I am a little bit concerned about giving special status to historic homes. I understand
the reasons why and it is in order to preserve them but 500 square feet, it takes 200 square feet to
get to trigger the IR yet all of a sudden they have it,
Commissioner Holman: It is unusable attic space.
Commissioner Packer: No, it is unusable attic space, which is excluded which then gives you
FAR someplace else to build another part of the house.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can I respond to that?
Chair Griffin: Yes, Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: In these historic homes the pitch of the roofs frequently is different. There
are spaces in that attic where you can’t use it.
Commissioner Packer: I understand that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: And you can’t use it but you are stuck with it. Right now the rules make you
count it. You can’t live in it. You can’t develop it. It just counts towards your FAR and if we
want to keep those roofs and not have people take them down and make them fiat then we need
to do something to encourage them to keep those roofs as they are.
Commissioner Packer: You could do that some other way but saying that an historic house that
has a slope of this.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That is what we are doing.
Commissioner Packer: I don’t know. This would apply to new development because if the
house is already in existence. If somebody comes in and says they want to remodel and do
something to the historic house if the house is already in the existence it doesn’t matter what the
FAR is because they are not doing anything to it. Do you know what I mean? It is in existence.
Nobody is worried about the FAR.
CiO~ of Palo Alto 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
47
48
Chair Griffin:. Bonnie let’s see what Curtis has to say.
Mr. Williams: I just want to say two things. One is that the Secretary’s Standards are going to
apply to these houses so they are going to be looking at it to see that it retains that historic
character to it. So that was one of the reasons that we were comfortable with a fairly liberal
provision here that allows some square footage because that rule kicks in. Secondly, IR still
applies. There is no exception for 1R just because it is an historic home. So both of those are in
place and that made us comfortable. Frankly, the 500 square foot limit, one of the reasons was
what you were saying but then on thinking about it again and those provisions that exist from the
Secretary’s Standards review and the IR may or may not make that necessary.
Chair Griffin: Lee, do you want to follow up?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes. If somebody had a Victorian house and Victorian houses are
known for being rather high off the ground but it has a crawl space or a partial basement even,
something with a heater.in it. It is an older house. It is historic. Changes are it was put together
with a mud sill that has spikes in it, it is not bolted down to the foundation and even if it was the
foundation probably doesn’t have any reinforcing and it is not stable. So they are going to come
in and they are going to want to jack up their house, it is already three feet above grade and they
are going to want to replace that perimeter foundation. While they are doing that they are going
to say while I’m down there I want to add a basement. Would they be allowed to add a basement
and that be non-exempt floor area?
Mr. Williams: Yes. The answer is yes. You said three feet and we are assuming that it is over
three feet say three feet and one inch or whatever. Our initial discussions with HRB Were to just
have it apply to existing basements and in the discussions with them they thought it would be
valuable to allow also the new basement concept with the idea that basically that’s buried and
you still have to comply with the Secretary’s Standards, from the outside it still has to look like
fundamentally that historic structure. So yes it would be allowed under this provision.
Commissioner Lippert: Bonnie, in some ways that is where a lot of your addition is going to be.
Commissioner Packer: I appreciate that and understanding that if we make it clear that the IR
process will apply however this is structured in the ordinance that makes me feel much more
comfortable.
Chair Griffm: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I think the other point in response to Bonnie’s concem is what I think
Phyllis was trying to say there is that basically this is not bonus space. This is to allow them to
use their allowable FAR. It is only for unusable attic space that they would get that bonus
elsewhere. They don’t get500 square feet bonus FAR they just don’t have unusable attic space
count against their FAR. Then the other thing is we talked a little bit about the ways in which we
might promote this. Those of us who were on the Commission when we had the historic
regulation dialing its way through the community will recall that the Commission only had a role
in terms of looking at incentives. We bemoan the fact that we had far too little emphasis on
incentives and that we might have had less contention in the community if we had built in greater
Cigy of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
incentives. So first I would like to say I think this is excellent in terms ofpr6moting preservation
of historic structures but I would also like to encourage that we look for ways to make sure that
even prospective buyers are aware of these incentives that apply to historic structures. One place
that I think we ought to add it is in the IR guidelines and make a big deal out of it there. Carol
Harrington has looked at ways to have that education effort be part of the IR guidelines. Maybe
also do we have a brochure on historic structures? And to really make this a prominent portion
there. So get to get this real front and center that people get some real bonuses by preserving
historic structures.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering if we could have Beth Bunnenberg step forward and as the rep
from the Historic Resources Board if you could give us your take on this.
Ms. Beth Bunnenberg, Chair, Historic Resources Board: Yes. We very much felt that this was
very important because we have through the years seen a number of fairly inappropriate
additions put onhistoric houses simply because people need more space, they expect more space
and when they buy a house of this kind and put the money that it takes into it they expect more
square feet. This is a way to provide square feet that will give some of those special rooms that
people are really wishing for these days and not to change the basic fagade, the basic massing of
the house. So it is a really win!win situation and .we have had a number of instances in which
this has been the tipping point that has caused people to say yes, and often their architect would
suggest to them, had you thought of and suggest that you might be able to do this. So it is a very
strong recommendation to support that.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Beth. Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of other comments here. One other thought is that, we
saw it in SOFA, is that we move historic homes within one block in fact. Some corners look like
they were somewhere else at one point. When you move an historic building you preserve an
historic building. So those sort of development incentives should go along with that building
when you move it. In addition to that this is an opportunity to look at TDRs rather than adding
onto an historic building being able to apply it to say another residential project. We do that with
commercial property right now. Being able to preserve that building in its pure form. There was
one last thought that I had with regard to it but it alludes me so I will come back.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering, Karen, you had a comment?
Commissioner Holman: A question and then a comment. Phyllis made a motion that I
seconded. It is what happens to us in this room we get pretty casual. So I made some comments
but I didn’t ask for Phyllis’s acceptance of the comments that I made. For formal motions do
you want comments from us or what, because I don’t want to abuse Phyllis’s motion?
Mr. Williams: We would like to have motions in every case if we could.
Commissioner Holman: Okay.
Chair Griffin: Okay, you need to rephrase your request then.
City of Palo Alto *~Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: Phyllis could you restate your motion and then I will ask if you will
accept my friendly amendments?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I moved that we go ahead with the Staff recommendation period. I think you
added several things, which are fine comments for them to check into, but I did not add all those
pieces into my motion.
Commissioner Holman: Would you be willing to accept them if you recall them?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I don’t recall all of them.
Commissioner Holman: They had to do with just as we talked about like HIEs adding National
Register Eligible properties, that the HRB review and Secretary Standards that would be
mandatory so it would be a covenant on the property.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That was my understanding that was already happening.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, so you will accept those?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes.
Commissioner Holman: Then would you accept the Staff discussing with HRB the possibility of
looking at California Register Eligible properties as they are California cultural resources since
this is a voluntary program?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I know but I don’t want to give Staffa whole lot of extra work right now
when they are trying to get through this by September. The problem is we are trying to get this
to City Council by July. I am not sure they can get that done by the time July happens. The
others are things that they were planning on doing anyway. So I would rather not and if they can
bring the other in fine but if they can’t we have to keep moving.
Chair Griffin: So you are turning down that item.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That one as a formal part of the motion.
Chair Griffin: Do you have any other items?
Commissioner Holman: There was another item, yes, having to do with Lee’s comments moving
historic structures can sometimes make them not historic anymore. So that would have to be
evaluated. Regarding TDRs I need more information. It is sort of intriguing but we are talking
residential here so I would need more information about that.
Commissioner Burt: It seems that we have some things tha~ are clearly appropriate for a motion
and then we have some other things that like on the previous subject are requests that Staff
explore. Can we break those things up and just vote on Phyllis’s motion and then I am seeing
Steve Emslie nod his head yes that these whether it be Lee’s or Karen’s requests for Staffto
evaluate some of these other options that they go back and take a second look at the things that
were raised on these other areas.
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Griffin: That is a good suggestion. Let’s do vote on Phyllis’s main motion here and we
can come back and revisit the additional items then. All in favor of Phyllis’s motion to approve
the Staff recommendation say aye.
Commissioner Lippert: Is that with Karen’s amendments?
Vice-Chair Cassel: It is with the pieces that were already actually in there. This is a general
comment.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1 Commissioner Bialson absent)
Chair Griffin: All in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That does pass unanimously.
Do you wish to have a second item to discuss some of these additional details or does Staff
sufficient information from the Commission already to allow them to proceed?
Mr. Emslie: Yes, we do.
Commissioner Holman: Could Staff respond to would it be prohibitive for Staff to just query the
HRB about adding California Register properties to this? Again, since it is voluntary.
Mr. Lusardi: I think what we would prefer to do is have a conversation with our Preservation
Staff and the HRB before we come back to you with a definitive analysis. The only caution we
are putting forward is with all of your directions you are creating a laundry list of analysis and
we are stacking up with other chapters coming your way and we have to look at this at a resource
load and workload way. I don’t think there is any problem going to talk to HRB and talking to
Preservation Staff but to go out and analyze every conceivable California Register structure that
is too much. That’s free, we can have those kinds of conversations and bring you back a
qualitative analysis then.
Commissioner Holman: We did a survey a few years ago so that would be the basis.
Then the other thing I would just put a primer out there for is HRB and Individual Review to
become a concurrent process. It is a streamlining effort and it also would minimize the
likelihood that an Individual Review process would undo an HRB review. So do you want a
motion from the Commission about that?
Chair Griffin: That is not something?
Commissioner Holman: That doesn’t currently happen.
Mr. Emslie: That is something that Staff can implement in terms of our administrative authority
over the process. So we don’t need Commission direction on that.
Commissioner Holman: But isn’t it a big part of our streamlining?
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Emslie: It is part of streamlining but it doesn’t require a change to the ordinance. It is the
way we order the work and how we implement it is an administrative decision.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Curtis it is back to you for the next item.
Mr. Williams: The fourth major policy issue is conservation districts. I will let Karen discuss
this some more because I know she has a lot of background on it. Generally, what we are
looking for from you is whether you would like to suggest to the Council that this issue be
addressed in the Zoning Ordinance or at some later date if at all. Our recommendation at this
point is not to make that recommendation to the Council again from a workload standpoint a
potential discussion with the community standpoint and the extensive discussions it probably
would take we feel it is more appropriate to deal with this outside the Zoning Ordinance Update
process. So our suggestion is to at this point defer that until after the Zoning Ordinance Update
is completed and try to get this chapter wrapped up soon.
Chair Griffin: This will delay your process if you pursue a conservation district? It will delay
the process?
Mr. Williams: Right. Let me first say that my understanding of conservation district and Karen
can correct me ifI am wrong is that we are not talking about us actually establishing districts, we
are establishing a process similar to the single story overlay process that would allow a
neighborhood or a discreet area to define some characteristic standards that they would like to
have apply uniformly throughout their neighborhood. It would take us some time first of all to
develop the language that is probably not the biggest issue. The bigger issue is getting out to the
community, making sure everyone understands and have that opportunity to have input. We
know the single story overlay process is already a controversial process when it comes up and we
are concerned that this has the opportunity to similarly take a lot of community time that is going
to sap the time that we have to pursue the rest of this ordinance. It may, I don’t want to suggest
that it is not perhaps an appropriate idea, but this doesn’t seem to us like this is the right place or
time to do that.
Chair Griff’m: There are other cities adjacent to us that do have this program already installed
though, is that correct?
Mr. Williams: I am not familiar with all the specifics of that. I know some of them have
elements of this but I don’t know the details of that. I think Karen has some specifics on it.
Commissioner Lippert: Los Altos has that and what they do is they have a series of parcels that
are contiguous, in other words they have to all be adjacent to each other, and I think it has to be
three-quarters of the re.sidents in that block have to vote to have a single story overlay or be able
to create a district of that nature.
Mr. Williams: Again, that is a height issue. We have that for the single story overlay. I think it
is broadening that and trying to define what those parameters are that could be considered. It just
would engender a lot of discussion.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Colleagues? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I agree with Staff. We do have the single story overlay and to go and try
to define that kind of element on what we might conserve. We just experienced in Downtown
North a neighborhood trying to decide something about its own fate and people in Palo Alto have
too many different opinions about anything. We have seen those difficulties with street bums
and trying to get neighborhoods to agree on something. I don’t hear that this is something that
people are demanding. I haven’t seen letters to the editor. I haven’t seen that this is something
that this City needs. I don’t see this as something that we need to go down the road to. If it
comes up, if the idea is out there and the public starts wanting it maybe after the Zoning
Ordinance Update is there and we do have the single story overlay process to use as a basis but
later rather than now so that we can get the Zoning Ordinance done.
MOTION
I would make a motion just to move forward that we support the Staffrecommendation not to
look at this at this time.
SECOND
Commissioner.Lippert: I’ll second.
Chair Griffin: It has been moved and seconded. Bonnie do you have any further comments?
Commissioner Packer: I think I just spoke to it before I made the motion.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Lippert: I really don’t have anything to add. I think it stands on its own.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: .I have people approach me frequently looking for such a procedure. No
more recently than the week before last, a week ago Sunday. So that is not even two weeks ago.
Another email from somebody in the community since then. It happens regularly. Last week my
notes from the Commission meeting show that Bonnie said, we need an overlay zone perhaps to
retain lot patterns in given neighborhoods. Pat said this evening that we need a neighborhood set
of rules during our discussion about second stories on substandard 10ts. All I think is appropriate
to include in the ZOU right now is, and I think it is important to note what is not included and
what I am not recommending to do now, not to recommend the identification of any districts.
Not to recommend what the specific criteria would be. Specifically only to put in place a process
so that people in the community and in very specific identifiable neighborhoods could come to
apply for some set of regulations that they want to get their neighborhood approval of whether it
is lot patterning or different criteria. If it is an historic pick any kind of set of development
standards. So all I am looking for to have included is a process for that similar to the single story
overlay. That is not I wouldn’t think much work for Staff. I am not trying to presume here but I
don’t think that that would be an undue amount of work. This was promised to the community
about six years ago under a different Planning Director when the monster home issue came to
City of Palo Alto Page 25
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
47
1 bear and it was promised as I understand from former Council Members and Commissioners.
2 Some 20 years ago it was promised to the community too that there would be neighborhood
3 specific guidelines that would be developed. I am not even asking for neighborhood specific
4 guidelines to be developed I am just asking for a process to be put in place so that a block or a
5 whatever, an identifiable area, could come forward with a proposal to the City. The
neighborhood would be doing the work.
Chair Griffin: I have a question of Staff. You are asking us tonight to indicate whether or not
we want to recommend to City Council that they make a decision on this item and in other words
we are going to propose yes, Council we think this is a good concept and recommend it but they
are going to make that decision?
Mr. Williams: We are asking you whether you want to make that recommendation or not
because we anticipate that it is a lot of work which is why we feel compelled that if the
Commission felt like it was a desirable direction to go we would need to go to the Council and
talk to them about it first before we actually set about working on it.
Chair Griffin: Let’s give some other colleagues an opportunity. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I am willing to accept that the complexity of developing even the
parameters of conservation districts would be involved for the community and for that reason I
am okay with not including it at this time as part of the R-1 guidelines. But my vote to go along
with the Staff recommendation to do that doesn’t mean that I don’t’ think it is something that ..
should be a future discussion and consideration in the community perhaps still before completion
of the ZOU. It is a legitimate issue and one that I think we need to have a full public debate on:.
I don’t know how I would come down on it in the end but I do think it is an appropriate
discussion. I am willing to respect that we need to go forward with this R- 1 element
expeditiously and that this would be a much more complex issue to discuss at a later time.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Can I get clarification on something? Staffwas mentioning going to
the community with this, is Staff also going to the community with second stories on homes on
substandard lots and the historic home incentives?
Mr. Williams: We have had some discussion about those in the focus groups not in a larger
sense. But we see this as being more community wide than some of those issues.
Commissioner Holman: Conservation districts weren’t included in those focus groups?
Mr. Williams: I don’t know, we didn’t discuss that because it wasn’t on our list, that summary
table that you have which is what we worked from.
Commissioner Holman: Because the concern that has been expressed about it being
controversial, last week’s meeting that was on our agenda and no one showed up and spoke
about it and no one has spoken up about it this evening and no one is here to speak against it. "
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
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
47
48
Mr. Williams: It is in the Staff Report but there is no proposal at this point. It is not in the
ordinance.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Let me say that I am going to support the motion. I think that this is not the
time to discuss this concept. It may be a good concept but I don’t see us doing it through this
Zoning Ordinance. We know that the historic ordinance took us a great deal. of time to develop
and we know if we do anything like this again we have to do it with a great deal of care and how
it is done and what the process is. We have been doing this Zoning Ordinance for four years
now and we need to get through the main portions we were directed to do and get those done. It
is a Zoning Ordinance that can be amended at other times. It should never be considered
finished but we need to get these main components through. So I will support the motion as it is.
Chair Griffin: Are there any colleagues who have yet to speak on this?
Commissioner Lippert: I would just make a final comment. I hear what Karen said and I agree
with what Pat said. I think it is going to zap a lot of energy fi’om Staff, it is going to zap a lot of
energy from us. It is going to be time consuming. I think that it is important that it be looked at
and maybe we want to give a date certain in terms of when we would want to come back and
look at this.
Chair Griffin: Maybe we can look at that as a separate item I would like to keep this one clean.
I want to wrap up and make a comment. I really agree with Karen’s concern here. I am
fundamentally in favor of a district like this that allows a neighborhood to have some ability to
steer the design criteria. Other communities surrounding us, and I am thinking of Mountain
View in particular has something similar to this, anyway I am in favor of the concept. I: do agx~ee
that perhaps now is not the hour to take this diversion however I would hope that Staffwould
keep this in the parking lot of items to be explored later. I think we are going to see it come
back.
That being said, can we vote?
Mr. Williams: Just real quickly nothing we have suggested here would preclude you at all from
making a motion at some point when you see the ordinance next time for instance that when we
pass this forward to the Council that we also if the majority of you feel like it is a good concept
that you suggest that down the road at some point that we do pursue this.
MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-1 Commissioner Holman voting no and Commissioner Bialson
absent)
Chair Griff’m: Good. All those in favor of the basic motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay)
Commissioner Holman votes against.
Did you want to discuss this any further? Do we need to give you any more direction or has
Staff heard enough?
Commissioner Lippert: I think Curtis made it very clear that it is not going to disappear so I am
not concerned.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: Were you going to mention a time certain?
Commissioner Lippert: No, it’s okay, it is going to come back.
Commissioner Holman: I am just following up on your own comment.
Commissioner Lippert: Karen, as long as you are here it is coming back.
Chair Griffin: Let’s continue.
Mr. Williams: It may look to you like we are done but we are not. That wraps up our major
policy type issues that we wanted to come to you with because you haven’t really gotten a
chance to discuss those yet. There are some other issues that the committee has looked at and
the Commission has looked at to some extent that we know you wanted to revisit. So we wanted
to bring it back to you with our recommendations at this point and give you a chance to have
input on those.
The first one we want to deal with is basements. We have made recommendations for some
modifications that would provide some additional flexibility for basements to enhance the
livability of the basement areas. For below grade patios we have eliminated the requirement for
terracing and landscaping within that below grade area, still retained it for above grade area to
help screen it. We have also put a provision in here that allows that to be larger than 200 square
feet total based on the lot size so that lots that are effectively over 10,000 square feet could start
having some more below grade patio area. Lightwells currently are limited to going two feet
¯ into the setback. The building code requires three foot lightwells so just to help standardize that
the wall of the residence is on the setback line we have suggested extending that encroachment to
three feet instead of two feet. For patios and lightwells there is currently a 25 foot linear
requirement for the basement perimeter being exposed like that and we have suggested in stead
of just a footage number that it be a percentage of that basement perimeter so 30% of the
basement perimeter could be lightwells or below grade patios. That is a maximum. That still
would include the prohibition against having then in the front of the house. That would still be
in place. Then one last one was that the a basement in a second unit would count towards the
size of the second unit although it wouldn’t count on the overall floor area ratio which is based
on basically what you see above ground. We wanted in order to keep the second unit size to
something that is subordinate to the main residence we would count any below grade space. If
you had 900 square feet above and 900 below that would be 1,800 and that wouldn’t be allowed
because 900 square feet is the maximum. So just to essentially assure that that would remain a
subordinate unit to the main residence on the property. Actually there is one other one, some
accessory buildings are allowed to be in setback to some extent that those could not have
basements below them. That has excavation getting too close to property lines and that kind of
thing. So these are specific suggestions.
The Commission also had questions about ground water which we touched on last week and you
will be getting a repot on that we understand that you can’t make afma! recommendation or
determination on basements so you might not want to until you see that. There may also be
some issues about counting basements as FAR that have been brought up at other Commission
meetings and certainly would welcome your discussion on that. These are our recommendations.
We don’t feel like the ground water issue in particular is something that should prohibit you from
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
discussing these and being able to move forward with these items even if there were ground
water difficulties. There are some properties that do not have those difficulties and could move
forward so it is important to try to get these resolved. I think you heard from John Northway last
week about his support of this,and trying to get a little more flexibility to the standards to provide
for some more livability in the basements.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: This is sort of a technical question. In the draft ordinance right now the
language that has not been changed says basements are not included in calculating the gross floor
area provided the basement is not deemed to be habitable. Then they added a provision this
thing about if it is a second dwelling unit you are going to count it towards the requirements
dealing with second dwelling units but may be excluded from calculations of floor area for the
total site. So by adding that language you have contradicted the existing language where we
today if the basement is habitable you will include it in floor area in the calculation of gross floor
area.
Mr. Williams: Where are you looking?
Ms. Grote: Only if it is three feet or more above grade.
Commissioner Packer: It is confusing if you are reading this through.
Commissioner Burt: What page?
Commissioner Packer: It is on page 14 of the draft ordinance on basements. There is a whole
big section on basements. I think we need to either rewrite this whole thing or ....
Mr. Williams: Well, (b) that you are referring to Inclusion as Gross Floor Area is an or type
situation. It is not included if it is not habitable space, which means generally it has a ceiling that
is less than seven feet high, or if it is habitable space but as Lisa was saying the finished floor is
not more than three feet above the grade. Then in addition to that, regardless of that situation,
then if it is used as a second dwelling unit it counts as part of the size of the unit but still not as
floor area. So we could break that out and make that sort of a separate sentence maybe that
would help.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am personally not wanting to make any recommendations until we do
see the basement impacts conclusions because we are looking at cumulative impacts and we
haven’t seen anything diagrammatic and we haven’t seen maps that show what parts of town this
might have no impact, what parts of town it might have impact. It is not just restrictive to water
plane areas where there could be an impact. So I don’t know how we can make
recommendations. We could say tonight it’s fine let’s continue our current practice and not
count basements towards FAR well that gives you a direction that we could just turn around at
our next meeting when we have - I am not sure there is an advantage to making
recommendations on basements without having that information. I am not sure what the
City of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
advantage is and I am a little frustrated to be frank about having these before us without having
that information first because that has been out there for quite a long time as an inquiry.
As a clarification because we are even looking at enlarging the amount of below grade space,
what we are excavating. For instance, "Both patios and lightwells: modify 25 foot linear
requirement to 30% of basement perimeter." That is an enlargement. That is an increase
potentially on some properties and some buildings over what exists now. So I am frankly a little
frustrated at having this before us now without that information which I would have hoped to
have gotten prior to.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, anyone else wish to weight in? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Just one question. Is it intended that the definition of the below grade patio
would include the staircase or exclude the staircase, an exterior staircase?
Mr. Williams: The 200 square feet would exclude the staircase.
Commissioner Burt: You might want to clarify that when it is in the ordinance.
Mr. Williams: I thought we had put that in but let me check.
Commissioner Butt: You may well have and I just might have missed it.
Mr. Williams: We just didn’t list it up there probably.
Commissioner Holman: There is something else that isn’t mentioned here.
Chai~ Griffin: Let him respond to this one f’n’st.
Commissioner Burt: That’s okay, he has clarifiedthat is the intent.
Mr. Williams: Yes, "Area devoted to required stairway access shall not be included in the 200
square foot limitation."
Commissioner Burt: Great.
Chair Griffin: Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I think that this is great having designed basements before. They
become problematic. I think that this is really a very healthy way of being able to increase
building mass without having it appear to be a building or monster home. It is a way to get those
second affordable dwelling units into housing and actually make them so that they don’t become
undesirable spaces. I think that there are a number of things here that were problematic
particularly the lightwells projecting only two feet into the side yard setback I think was really
problematic. Limiting having any sort of patio space associated with those units was also
problematic. You really want those people to take ownership and feel as though they are in a
real house not just being stuck underground. So I think this is a big improvement.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
I think one of the areas that is going to be problematic is egress and railings. One of them is that
windows have to be set so that they are below 42 inches so that somebody can crawl out the
window. Then they have to get from there up to grade and then above that you have a railing so
that somebody doesn’t fall down into the lightwell. So the terracing provision that you have
taken out might be going in the wrong direction. You want terraces.
Mr. Williams: It doesn’t prevent them from having them it just doesn’t require them.
Commissioner Lippert: You want terraces. You don’t want railings.
Chair Griffin: I just would follow up on that by saying that my next door neighbor does have a
situation where in fact the railing does in fact have to be surmounted and the escape ladder does
go up and over the top of it.
Commissioner Lippert: It’s ugly.
Chair Griffin: As it happens it is on the side yard setback and is relatively obscured. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I am torn about basements. I appreciate the fact that it allows people to
make livable space without adding mass but I am concerned about the potential drainage issues.
In looking again at the structure of the code there is reference to the requirements of Public
Works to make sure all the drainage is right for lightwells, stairwells andother excavated
feature~ but it isn’t clear that that applies to the basement as a whole. So the research that you
get about the potential impact on water tables or whatever needs to be done if Public Works
recommends that there be some kind of analysis done by the homeowner before they build a
basement that it meets whatever drainage or water table issues or geological issues that have to
be addressed that that is really clear here for all the excavated features not just the lightwells and
stairwells. It isn’t clear to me that that’s required. Do you understand what I mean? That would
make me feel a little bit better that those issues were taken care of.
Mr. Lusardi: It is required in other parts of the Municipal Code through Public Works review of
basements and excavation and dewatering and all those issues. We can look at, as we have in
other parts of the code, cross-referencing other sections of the Municipal Code. We can look at
it under basements that we make sure that there is a solid cross-reference to those kinds of
requirements.
Chair GriWm: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am not presuming that we won’t have basements in some parts of town. I
am concerned in some of the areas where the water table seems to be high like in my
neighborhood. The question I have may seem a little offthe wall but I am curious, how deep are
these basements allowed to be? Are they allowed to put two levels of basements down or only
one and how deep can they be? I have seen some that look awfully deep. Are they ten feet deep
or 12 feet deep? Are there any limits?
Mr. Lusardi: There are no limits on the number of basement floors you can have. Ttie only
limitation again is due to structural and engineering requirements that Public Works may impose
City of Palo Alto 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
47
48
on it. I do believe we have one basement that is two stories below ground. So that is permitted
under the ordinance.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Part of it is that is problematic in being practical. How does a person get
two stories underground out in the case of an emergency like a fire or a flood if their sump pump
doesn’t work? The issue is that they need to be able to get out the window and then be able to
crawl vertically. So I guess with a ladder you could technically do it.
Vice:Chair Cassel: Ol~ay.
Commissioner Lippert: It is not very practical.
Vice-Chair Cassel: So you haven’t put any limits on how far down people can go. We haven’t
thought about that at all.
Mr. Williams: No and we have seen them 12 and 14 feet deep.
Commissioner Lippert: Easily.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay, I have to think about that.
Commissioner Holman:
Chair Griffin: Sure.
Can I ask a follow up to that?
Commissioner Holman: There is an egress issue. I am familiar with the two story basement just
offofEmbarcadero so I know it exists. So it has happened once it could happen again. I am
curious also as to how far down, this is that whole basement information that we should have,
how far down is the second aquifer if that is one of the concerns that Staff says is not a concern
at lea;t in the preliminary analysis. How far down is the second aquifer and in what parts of
town? Is it the same for the whole town? It is an area where we need education in my opinion.
So that is just a follow up to your point, Phyllis.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: This just occurred to me and I don’t know if Public Works looks into this
but if you have a property that has a basement and also a swimming pool how many excavations
are really appropriate in the area? Maybe this is another geological Public Works kind of
question that needs to be looked into.
Mr. Williams: We could give you a brief overview of what is in your Staff Report as far as the
preliminary ground water feedback we have received. Again, I guess I still have some concern
that you can address these other issues: These issues would apply anywhere a basement is
permitted. So if something comes along later and says a basement isn’t permitted then in those
areas these aren’t going to apply. So it seems like you could still deal with those issues pending
that analysis.
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2 Chair Griffin: Pat.
3
4 Commissioner Burt: Just to try and allay some of the apprehensions the issue isn’t so much
5 where is the deep water aquifer but where is the clay separation area between the shallow aquifer
6 and the deep water. My recollection from my years on the County Well Head Protection
7 Program, which basically regulated underground wells, is that it is quite a lot deeper than what
8 we are talking about. I thought it was 100 or 200 feet so we are in a different ballgame here.
9
10 Chair Griff’m: I am wondering whether colleagues wish to make a motion here for moving us
11 along through this.
12
13 MOTION
14
15 Commissioner Burt: I will move the StaffReport.
16
17 SECOND
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: I will second.
2O
21 Chair Griffin: Do you wish to comment further on this?
22
23 Commissioner Burt: No, I think the comments have been adequate.
24
25 Chair Griffin: From the seconder?
26
27 Chair Griffin: Not really.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: Can I ask a clarifying question?
30
31 Chair Griff’m: Sure.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: There was in the Staff presentation a comment about whether
34 basements should be counted or parts of basements should be counted as FAR. Will that be a
35 part of the FAR discussion or is that part of the basement discussion or is it either or?
36
37 Mr. Williams: I think you should have that discussion now. If there is a concern about counting
38 basements as FAR contrary to the way it has been handled for the last several years I think we
39 would like to know that.
40
41 Vice-Chair Cassel: I recommend you finish the motion as it is and then go ahead and discuss
42 this if we want to discuss the second issue. These issues are not.
43
44 Commissioner Burt: It seems germane to the motion. I am not in favor of counting it against the
45 FAR but I think it is entirely appropriate to have it as part of the discussion.
46
47 Chair Griffin: I concur it is part of it. Are any of my colleagues wishing to make a comment on
48 that?
City of Palo Alto ¯ Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: Yes. We haven’t had discussion about this or really much in the way of
discourse back and forth just minimally at working group meetings. I think it would be prudent
to look at counting a portion of basement square footage as FAR. I am actually not in favor of
allowing basements under second units because of how that could impact tree structures and that
sort of thing because roots go for quite long distances and we don’t know what size lots
necessarily we are talking about. It may be a large parcel but I still have an awful lot of big trees
ifI start digging underneath second units then I am impacting I would think tree root structures.
It still goes back to we are not putting space, I know of one historic building where the contra has
been the case, but we are not taking space that would be built above grade and putting it below
grade so the impact is less on the community. What we are doing and what is happening in the
community from my watching things, and I don’t see everything of course, is that we build
everything out that is possible above grade and we also build everything out that is possible
below grade. So we are making our community more and more and more unattainable. So I
would like us to consider counting some portion of, not the whole basement, but some portion of
basements towards FAR and not allowing them underneath second units.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Not undemeath second units?
Commissioner Holman: Yes.
Mr. Williams: It doesn’t count against your site floor area. It does count against the maximum
square footage for the second unit.
Commissioner Holman: Right. That is not FAR. I didn’t have that as part of the.FAR. ~I am
saying that I don’t think they should be allowed under second units.
Mr. Williams: Allowed period.
Commissioner Holman: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Even if it is 450 above and 450 below.
Commissioner Lippert: Correct me ifI am wrong but currently right now if the basement unit
doesn’t project above grade more than three feet then it doesn’t count toward FAR. Is that
correct?
Mr. Williams: That is correct.
Commissioner Lippert: I think that that is self limiting in a way because we have the whole idea
of height restrictions and daylight plane that come in that begin to impact as the building begins
to get higher and higher. So if the building is say below three feet, if the basement tops out at
three feet above grade that is going to limit itself in terms of height and massing and things like
that. Where my concern is is that these are going to become secondary dwelling units in a lot of
cases, better secondary dwelling units, and ~vhere is the parking for those going to be? Are we
going to require that there be a second covered parking space?
Chair Griffin: We are coming to that.
City of Palo Alto . Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Lippert: I know. So I would in some ways prefer that we allow those second
underground dwelling units happen but require that there be a covered parking space associated
with them.
Chair Griff’m: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think we need to have something clarified because I think what Karen said
was that we are allowing basements under a separated detached unit.
Mr. Williams: That is possible. I don’t know how much we have allowed that before but what
we are saying here is that the combined square footage of what is below and what is above
cannot exceed 900 square feet for a second unit.
Vice-Chair Cassel: My brain had been thinking that would be in the basement of the primary
unit. I had not thought of putting it under the second unit.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I would say and Lee can speak better on this subject but the economics of
putting basements in make it less likely that someone will choose to put a basement in a second
dwelling unit than they would in a primary one just the economy of scale of putting a basement
in doesn’t favor small basements. That is why our proposal to have a small basement in the
Children’s Library was one of the most expensive proposals per square foot that we have ever
encountered.
I would also like to ask Staffabout an issue that Karen raised, if we are allowing basements on
the second dwelling units for that matter on the primary ones do we have any greater review of
heritage tree protection when basements are constructed than when we have dwellings that are
constructed without basements?
Ms. Grote: Our Arborist does look at all construction proposals. He will look very carefully at a
proposal when there is a basement as part of that so yes, sometimes it does require special
construction techniques, special foundations when there is a basement included.
Commissioner Burt: So if we allow basements under the second dwelling units the Arborist
would review that.
Ms. Grote: Yes, yes and second units are allowed only within a building envelope so you are not
building a second unit anywhere where you couldn’t build the main house. So it is not an
increased impact in terms of location but it could be because of the basement and so therefore
yes he does look at it.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues are we ready to vote on this item now?
¯Commissioner Holman: So no one else is interested in looking at counting basements as part of
FAR?
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: That is the way it would appear.
Commissioner Lippert: I would like to make one last quick comment. They are also very
sustainable because you have soil backed up against them. So they are not leaking energy. Any
energy that comes fi’om the unit through the floor is absorbed by the unit above so they are very
efficient.
MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-1 Commissioner Holman voted not and Commissioner Bialson
absent)
Chair Griffin: All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) That item
passes with Commissioner Holman dissenting.
It is now five past nine and we can take a break and be back in eight minutes.
I am now reconvening our meeting this evening. We are ready for the next phase of the Staff
presentation.
Mr. Williams: Thank you. We have some initial discussions with the committee about this issue
but the whole Commission hasn’t been able to discuss the single story overlay process. As you
know the all the ordinance currently has about single story is it is limited to single story and lot
coverage. It doesn’t talk about the process. The process is in a separate policy document that the
Council and Commission have used in reviewing these. So we have tried to take that document
and fold that into the ordinance and turn that into code and then try to be specific about what the
terms "overwhelming support for the overlay" and "prevailing single story character" mean.
Then there is a provision about it being used for moderate lot sizes being generally 7,000 to
8,000 square foot lots. I think that’s the way it reads right now.
We have suggested in terms of trying to convert these to some kind of minimum percentages that
for "overwhelming support" a minimum of 60% support would be required in those areas where
there are existing deed restrictions of one story, that 70% be required otherwise and that
essentially the defmition of "prevailing single story character" be that a minimum of 80% of the
existing homes in that area are presently single story. We have provided you tonight with a chart
that outlines for the prior single story overlays that have been adopted what the percentage
support was for each of those and what the existing single story percentages were for each of
those. So we heard some comments about not agreeing with those numbers. We are open to
numbers this was our first attempt at trying to put something down in terms of quantifying those
terms. Now we would like to get your sense of those so that we can finalize that.
Chair Griffin~ Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the definition of owner. It’s not household but it
is owners does that mean that there are two or more owners in a household they would have
more votes?
Mr. Williams.: I think our intent was and it iooks like we did not work that into the specific
language was to have one vote per property or parcel. We talked about that I thought we had that
in here but we didn’t but that was our intent. We need to clarify that.
City of Palo Alto Page 36
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
47
48
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: So we had within the ordinance as I recall a richly defined level of support
that I thought was 80% and then the ordinance said something less for neighborhoods without
CC&Rs. Do we have the ordinance here?
Mr. Williams: The current guidelines.
Commissioner Burt: What I have observed the years I have been on the Commission has been a
downward drift in the de facto levels of approval required to implement a single story overlay. If
you look at the table that Staff provided I believe the last two were Garland and Van Auken
Circle and we have gone all the way down to the 70% sort of range whereas the original ones
were right up around 80%. We have had a steady drift downward over the years. I have had a
concern that we were having a de facto change in the requirements without a policy change and
that now we are looking at codifying what had been a drift in the de facto change and making
what we drifted to what we want to adopt as policy because we have drifted down to it.
Then this second comment goes into the area of how much of this discussion on single story
overlays do we address at this time and how much is part of a separate discussion on the single
story overlays. What emerged was an issue that I hadn’t appreciated in the first several that we
had done and that is if over time a neighborhood changes in their preference as to whether they
want to retain a single story overlay what are the criteria for rescinding it? If the requirement for
rescinding a CC&R is a simple majority but the requirement for rescinding a single story overlay
is a super majority then we have not merely endorsed and made easier for people to enforce their
CC&Rs we have created a new standard that makes it much more difficult for a majority of a
neighborhood to change their CC&Rs or opt out of this ira majority over ten or 20 years from
now chooses a different approach.
Chair Griff’m: Then perhaps the question is does Staffknow of any attempt ever to back out of a
single story overlay?
Mr. Williams: I am not sure. Lisa?
Ms. Grote: There haven’t been any official requests to change an existing single story overlay.
The question has been raised sometimes during the conversation about whether or not a
neighborhood wants to go forward with this. What we have always said and Dan may want to
weigh in on this is that the process to undo it is the same as needed to put it in place. So they
would be subject to these same percentages and same requirements.
Chair Griffin: So you just revote on the same criteria.
Ms. Grote: Right but to go the other direction. I don’t know if you have anything further to add.
Mr. Williams: First of all the policy as it is written now does not have percentages in it. Maybe
at one point it did but the one that has been in the last couple of Staff Reports does not.
Commissioner Butt: I think we have to.go back because my memory is different than that.
City of Palo Alto Page 37
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
47
48
1
2 Mr. Williams: Could be but the last couple that I looked at specifically did not have any
3 percentages it just had the terms "overwhelming support" and that. If you think different
4 numbers are appropriate we are certainly open to that. Then as far as how to remove i[ as Lisa
5 mentioned we do have a provision in there and at this point it does say the same process and
support levels and that would be required. I think your point is very well taken that if you are
undoing deed restrictions then maybe that should be a little different than the way you create it
but we are open to that too.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do we know what it takes to change the CC&Rs? They just run out after a
certain number of years.
Mr. Emslie: I don’t think there is any rule of thumb I think they can be different. They are
private rules setup by mutual agreement of buying into a certainneighborhood. So they could be
wildly different from neighborhood to neighborhood.
Commissioner Burt: My recollection and I am not certain if this is correct is that in one of our
last two discussions of single story overlays this came and I thought that we were told that a
simple majority could rescind a CC&R.
Mr. Emslie: In those instances that could be the way therules are setup but because we don’t get
involved with them we don’t have any kind of history on how others might operate.
Commissioner Burt: So I think we shouldreflect on why do we require a super majority for
imposition of a single story overlay. I think the principle is if we are going to allow a majority of
neighbors to essentially impose restrictions on the balance of their neighbors that that needs to be
an overwhelming support. So if that overwhelming support no longer exists and if it were to
drop below 50% it would bring into question whether there is a valid basis to insist that a
minority of the people have a right to impose that restriction on a majority which is what would
be the case based upon the proposed language that we have here.
Chair Griffin: Would Staff wish to support their percentages here? The 60% is the one that I am
thinking of is minimum support.
Commissioner Burt: That is the other half to the question. That is a separate one from the
rescinding aspect.
Chair Griffin: Correct.
Commissioner Hoiman: I am hearing what Commissioner Burt is saying and understanding also
that this isn’t something that the Staff gets involved in but there has been a recommendation to
allow a lower percentage when there are CC&R in effect. So could it be that to go along with
what Pat is bringing up if CC&Rs are rescinded by a neighborhood then the percentage could be
lower? What the single story overlay does is basically it takes the burden of a suit off neighbors
because of the existing CC&Rs. Do you follow what I am saying? That would kind of address
what you are saying as we!! I believe.
City of Palo Alto Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: Could you clarify what you are proposing?
Commissioner Holman: It is a question for discussion. If there are existing CC&Rs restrictions
apply. What a single story overlay does is it takes the burden of lawsuit off neighbors should
another neighbor who has bought into that or lives in that neighborhood transgress, let’s say. So
it is not putting anything that is a greater encumbrance on the property than what already exists
because of deed restriction. So what I am suggesting that we maybe ought to look at is if the
CC&Rs are rescinded that maybe the single story overlay percentage be dropped to a lower
percentage or maybe even eliminated because then the two things are consistent.
Ms. Grote: The percentage needed to undo the overlay would be reduced. So you are saying ifa
neighborhood got together rescinded their CC&Rs you would assume they would come in and
make an application to remove the single story overlay and the percentage needed to remove the
overlay would correspondingly be reduced.
Commissioner Holman: Correct.
Ms. Grote: Okay. That is the concept.
Commissioner Holman: Because us putting a single story overlay doesn’t, we are not creating
any burden.
Chair Griffin: Do you have a response to that?
Mr. Williams: No I was just going to respond to when you had asked about the numbers.
Chair Griffin: I don’t want to interrupt anybody if they wanted to continue that line of reasoning
otherwise would you respond to my question.
Mr. Williams: The numbers that we started out with here are somewhat lower than what we
thought the most recent cases that have come through with. Again to some extent we are
stabbing in the dark grasping for some numbers that seem to have some basis for them and we
started with the last two or three cases that had come through and try to match up with that fairly
closely. So that is our starting point.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: The presumption that I make is that when you buy into a neighborhood you
buy into it with a certain set of zoning restrictions. The zoning restrictions can change but you
basically go into it with a certain set of assumptions. My understanding the reason it had been a
super majority was because you are now getting essentially a zoning change on your property by
your neighbors and not a review of the whole City so you did not leave it at a 50% choice
because suddenly the presumptions you made economically changed dramatically. The reason
that it was lower for CC&R neighborhoods was that they were supposed to be following those
CC&Rs anyway so we were simply reinforcing that. Some CC&Rs do run out and some of the
neighborhoods were really concerned because their CC&Rs were going to run out and they
wanted to continue that basis upon which they came into the neighborhood.
City of Palo Alto 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
I am comfortable with those numbers and the reason I am comfortable with them is that that’s
what City Council superceded us when we once in a while said no because we don’t have a
satisfactory majority and you don’t have large enough lots to meet the moderate lot size. City
Council came back and said we are not going to worry about that we think this is adequate.
I think it needs to be higher in neighborhoods where there are no CC&Rs. I am not really in
favor of this particular ordinance but this is what is in front of me so this is what I need to work
with.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for Dan. Does this in any way cede the authority of
the City Council?
Mr. Soder~en: No, what it does really is set up an application process. The percentages are a
restriction on the application process not a restriction on what the Council can or cannot do when
it eventually reaches them. They always have the power to approve or deny such an overlay
district. The percentages simply have to do with who can make an application for moving
through the process.
Commissioner Lippert: What I am thinking of is if you have say for instance the Eichler area.
Eichlers are typically one story houses. We are trying to preserve the character of that
neighborhood. Wouldn’t it be the Council that would say it is desirable that that neighborhood
style be preserved therefore we feel that that should be a single story overlay zone or area?
Mr. Sodergren: The Council always has the power to recommend that sort of zone change.
These percentages apply only to a citizen initiated zone change. The Council always has the
power to go in and recommend a zone change regardless of these percentages.
Commissioner Lippert: This is my last follow up on this. Does the Council have the authority or
the ability to impose or remove that zone?
Mr. Sodergren: Yes.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Two points. Phyllis, my memory about Council’s response and on
occasion overruling the recommendation of the Planning Commission on at least one occasion
had to do with where several of the Commissioners voted against a single story overlay because
they stated on the record they didn’t believe in single story overlay and they didn’t like the
ordinance. That is quite different from the Council having disagreed with us based upon us
evaluating the application and whether it met the ordinance as it was written and in particular I
go back to the record I believe shows we have had a drift over time. My recommendation would
be that the baseline that we start from is not what we have drifted to without any policy
discussion about that drift having been intentioned, any endorsement of the Council of that drift,
that we go back to what was the original ordinance, what was the standard when it was put in
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
place and that that be the baseline that we use as a reference. If we deviate from it we hold a
discussion about deviating from what was originally adopted not what we have drifted to today.
Vice-Chair Cassel: My recollection is that both things happened. That there was a time when
we said we just don’t agree with this and they overrode it of course. Then there was a time when
we disagreed because it wasn’t an overwhelming percentage and it wasn’t on the moderate size
units and that they also took that. So I think it has been both ways. I think it has drifted down.
What you are suggesting, I don’t remember an actual number. I remember something around
80% being looked at. Are you suggesting that we go back to that number and not use the 60%
and 70%?
Commissioner Burt: Correct. My recollection is I would like Staffto research the record. My
recollection is that it was originally an 80% standard and that there was language that said
something less than 80% might be considered if there are CC&Rs in place.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have it at home in my files.
Chair Griff’m: Do any of the Staffhave that documentation this evening?
Mr. Williams: We don’t have it here. I guess I would just make one comment. I understand
what Commissioner Burt is saying and if that is the case then it has drifted over time and it
seems to us that it is time to evaluate what the appropriate number is. If you think the
appropriate number is a higher percentage that is fine. I don’t think we see it as being
particularly more valid to start with that number than to start with this number. It is appropriate
to hear what you think that percentage should be today.
Commissioner Burr: If I might just respond to that the reason I think it more appropriate to start
with that number is that that was the last time there was a policy discussion and decision. That
should be the reference point not what we have without discussion drifted to and then that
becomes the reference point. I think the more valid reference point is to go back in time to
where there was a proper policy discussion and decision. That should be the starting point of the
discussion.
Chair Griffin: To establish the precedent. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I think 80% is a good number whether it is the number that we had
historically. Itseems to reflect where a lot of these numbers that are on the chart are hovering,
75 to 80%. The reason I think we should have a very high percent, a super majority, is well there
are many reasons. One, the areas that have CC&Rs are probably just the areas that were built by
Eichler himself and not the copies and these are probably 50 years old and are long forgotten and
probably not in people’s minds even though there is real estate disclosure. Two, it is a very big
thing to put a single story overlay on, it is a big restriction, it is a big imposition. As I said
before there should be a lot of people buying into that and saying yes we agree we want to be so
restrictive so 80% is a good number for that. It is just that we need that solid support to have
such a strong restriction. I don’t think the existence of CC&Rs should change the percent,
maybe five percent if you want to give some recognition but these things are very old and dusty.
I can’t imagine that there have been any in the last 40 years.
City of Palo Alto Page 41
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
47
48
1
2 Chair Griffin: So your numbers are 80% and 75%?
3
4 Commissioner Packer: Yes.
5
Chair Griffin: If you have CC&Rs it’s 75%.
Commissioner Packer: Yes, so the five percent is probably one household or halfa household in
these small areas.
Commissioner Holman: I think where there are CC&Rs that 60% is an appropriate number. I
just did a count here of the ten overlay projects that were listed here. There are eight that are
70% or more but there is only one that is 80%.
Commissioner Packer: There are two that are 79%.
Commissioner Holman: But there is only one that is 80%. A clarification, Meadow Park is
69%-79% I need a little bit of clarification. It says boundaries adjusted.
Commissioner Burt: I am sorry, Karen, ifI might, with CC&Rs there is a high percentage of
them that would have been approved at the 75% threshold.
Commissioner Holman: Right, I was just counting the 75%. That is a valid point too.
Vice-Chair Cassel: She was talking about adjusted boundaries. People would come in with a
proposal. They would have 69%. There would be a two story house or two at ~the edge of the
property. We carved out the two story houses on the edge of the area and changed the area. So
then it became 79% of those people who were actually involved.
Commissioner Holman: So the 69 to 79 means it started out at 69 and then because of the
carving then it became a 79. Is that how that is to be translated.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, so I think where there are CC&Rs in place I think 60% is an
appropriate number. Where there aren’t CC&Rs I am open to looking at something other than
70. I think 80 is really high but we can talk about that.
There is another thing I would like us to discuss which is something I would think would
eliminate a lot of the controversy that comes with these and that is for the City to provide a
petition form. The petition form is simply the zoning regulations. What happens now is we have
people coming to the Planning Commission and them saying this isn’t the information we got or
it wasn’t clear what this meant. So I think if it is really clearly stated that this is what it means
and this is what you are agreeing to that eliminates confusion that eliminates any kind of
repercussions that can happen.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I believe we have changed those procedures because they were a problem. I
think we do get much more involved in making sure that what is going to actually happen
happens and there is some standard form that we send out with them for people who apply for
City of Palo Alto 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
47
48
them so that it is consistent and the neighbors are reading off our forms and not offneighborhood
forms.
Ms. Grote: We have changed the procedure. We don’t have a petition form at the very
beginning of the process but when it comes to the time for voting we do have a standard
language that we send to everybody that is going to vote before it comes.to you.
Commissioner Holman: I remember that, yes. What I am suggesting is that it be referenced that
there is a form to be picked up. If the process goes down the road a long ways and then they are
getting ready to come to the Commission and then it is like here is what it means there is already
bad blood potentially or misinformation or misunderstanding that has been disbursed. So I am
suggesting that we just get it out fi’ont to begin with.
Chair Griffin: All right, further discussion? Any other numbers floating around? Lee.
Commissioner Lipped: I am a bit na’fve on this subject. I need some clarifications on some
things. With regard to neighborhoods in the Eichler areas and Barron Park are the lot sizes
significantly larger than say average lot? Is the pattern larger than say in Downtown?
Ms. Grote: They are probably larger than in Downtown North. We would need to really look at
that more closely. In Barron Park they really vary. There are some very large lots, 16,000 to
18,000 square feet. There are some very small lots so it runs the gamut. In some of the Eichler
neighborhoods they are more standardized and they are probably around 7,000 to 8,000 square
feet, maybe 6,500 it varies but they are moderate size.
Commissioner Lippert: Let me tell you why I asked this question. I think that necessity often
times drives the necessity for more floor area. When you have a larger parcel you can develop
more floor areas generally. You don’t have the necessity necessarily to go up in order to achieve
what you need to in terms of meeting your needs as a family. Wha~ I am thinking is that in larger
neighborhoods here you could very easily impose an overlay zone because you can achieve your
needs within the allowable lot coverage not necessarily in floor area. Whereas on a smaller lot
the same family living there can’t necessarily achieve that through lot coverage that they do need
as in the substandard lots we were talking about earlier you do need to go up in order to be able
to get them the needed floor area in order for a family to function. So I am not so convinced that
you need a higher majority. I think that you can slip by with a lower majority in the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Burt: I thought you were addressing item three which is whether moderate lot
sizes should be deleted.
Commissioner Lippe.rt: No, although it touches on that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I was going to try to respond to that.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am sure the City Council started out with this before I actually came on the
Commission so it has been awhile and the first ones were very early in that process. They put in
City of Palo Alto Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
the moderate size I think with that presumption. At that time you could only cover the lot a
certain amount and what they did was allow them to cover more space on the first floor minus
about 150 square feet, which is your stairwell and stuff. As time went on they kept approving
these with fewer and fewer and fewer of these lots. So when we looked at this issue we said why
aren’t we allowing people, if no one wants to build this, we want people to be able to build their
building on first floor, why don’t we just eliminate that restriction? Now people can make their
choice. One of the things we are doing in this section besides this table is allowing people in the
single story overlay zones to use all of that square footage on the first floor where we were
restricting them to a smaller size. So I think we should get rid of this. We have gone ahead
many times and done these in average size neighborhoods. People can build all of the space on
the fn-st floor if they want to. The issue for keeping the number large is if you are not in a
CC&R neighborhood and you go into that neighborhood with the presumption that you are going
to go up in three years when your kids get bigger and now you fred out that your neighbors have
decided you can’t do that it seems like it is onerous if it is not done with a larger majority.
Commissioner Burt: One point I would like to make on the difference in lot sizes is we
eliminated the penalty that previously existed for trying to build out your FAR on a single story.
That was about two years ago when we eliminated that. However, what happened on smaller lot
sizes is if you tried to build your max FAR on a single story then on a sma!l lot you basically
have eliminated almost all of your yardspace. Whereas on a moderate size lot, what is def’med
here as moderate size of 7,000 to 8,000 square feet, people still have a large lot size. So if there
were a single story overlay in a neighborhood that had smaller lot sizes, and I am not sure that
occasion would occur in the City by the nature of what has been built out, I think that would be
more problematic. So I might be willing to tweak that definition of moderate lot sizes but not
eliminate it.
¯ Commissioner Lippert: Let me explain where the rub is and why I am not going in that
direction. It is because a lot of people particularly Eichlers, which are donut shaped houses, they
go and they fill in the courtyard. The house doesn’t appear any larger from the street or from
other views but from point of fact it is larger. The other thing that they do is that they wedding
cake the house with an atrium that is up taller than a first story in order to be able to get natural
ventilation and light into that space. For all practical purposes it appears then to be a second
story even though it is still only a one story space. So I think it needs tweaking.
Chair Griffin: I would accept a motion from colleagues if anyone were ready to move. Karen?
Commissioner Holman: I would actually on this occasion move the Staff recommendation of
60% for owners of affected properties, well, I will move the Staff recommendation with the
addition of providing the form that being the ordinance for those applicants who wish to apply
for a single story overlay.
Vice-Chair Cassel: But that is not in the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Holman: Just reference it. Make reference to it wherever is most appropriate that
it be referenced and be provided.
Chair Griffin: We could treat that as a separate item so it doesn’t deal with our mainstream issue
here.
City of Palo Alto Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
MOTION
Commissioner Holman: Okay. I will move the Staff recommendation.
SECOND
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will second it.
Chair Griffin: Does the maker wish to speak?
Commissioner Holman: No, I think given that the 60% is low and I hear what Commissioner
Burt’s concern is at the same time that is as I said previously it is only codifying what already
exists for owners of those properties anyway. I think that we have increased the lot coverage so
that they get with very rare exception full FAR on their parcels because that was a concern
expressed by other Commissioners. I think that is probably enough to say. Staff has added an
accommodation for removing the single story overlay as well.
Chair Griffin: Seconder.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I like removing the moderate size lots because it doesn’t have any weight
anywhere so I can’t see any point in pushing something that doesn’t do that and we have
eliminated the objections. I am comfortable with a higher limit for CC&Rs but I think that is
where people want it. Sixty percent is most reasonable when people have CC&Rs in place
already.
Chair Griffin: Finished?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes. We have talked about it, I have been on committees so I have heard
this before. We have ended up with this.
Chair Griffin: I will start at this end of the desk.
Commissioner Lippert: I think that the recommendation here is very reasonable. I don’t think it
is onerous at all. I think it allows for a clear majority of the neighborhoods to impose a single
story overlay district. I think it is easily undone if they fred that they have gotten themselves into
something that they really don’t like.
Chair GritTm: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I am going to vote against it because I think the number should be 80%
and 75% for the reasons I said before. I also want to point out that I don’t think we have had any
requests since we have put in the Individual Review process. So maybe we don’t even need to
have a single story overlay process. I would like to throw that out to Council to consider.
Ms. Grote: Just in answer to that we do have a request in currently for a neighborhood.
Commissioner Packer: Well, we haven’t had as many.
City of Palo Alto Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I will oppose the motion. I think something along the lines of what Bonnie
had suggested is appropriate. I think it is consistent with the historic record. I also think that
when we had this discussion of what does it matter what our starting point of discussion was as
so often happens the Staff recommendation becomes the basis from which the Commission has
to disagree and move against. I think it sets the tone and it probably has so in t..his discussion. I
wouldn’t be at all surprised if Staff had recommended 80% and 70% that we would be voting in
favor of that Staffproposal.
Second, there have been no single story overlays that have been approved approaching 60%.
The lowest level has been 69%, which is virtually at that 70% level. Whether we are at 80%
without CC&Rs and 70% without or something like that we are right now talking about not
sustaining what has been the program. We are talking about changing the threshold even more
from the drift that has already occurred. I don’t think it is appropriate. They have been very
contentious. We have seen issues almost as acrimonious as Downtown North street closures. I
think allowing a 60% super majority to put a very severe restriction on the entire neighborhood is
a very serious matter. I do have to disagree with Lee who had said it is easily undone. The Staff
recommendation right now is that it requires a super majority to undo it. So we can have a
circumstance where if a neighborhood did not have CC&Rs then we could have 69% of the
neighborhood that ten years from now doesn’t want this restriction and they can’t overturn it. I
don’t think that is right.
Chair Griff’m: I think we are ready to vote this item.
Commissioner Holman: Can I ask a quick question?
Chair Griffin: Please.
Commissioner Holman: One quick comment is I would agree with you except for the fact as I
recall it most of the consternation has been about limiting of FAR. So since we are allowing the
full build out on the ground floor I think that will address a lot of the disagreement with this. I
could be wrong but I think that addresses a lot of it.
Commissioner Burt: I would answer .that if it reduces the disagreement then it enables greater
support for the single story overlay and therefore I would argue that supports the rationalization
for a higher super majority not a lower one.
MOTION PASSED (4-2-0-1, Commissioners Burt and Packer opposed and Commissioner
Bialson absent)
Chair Griffin: If we could vote on this item now. All those in favor of Karen’s motion say aye.
(ayes) Opposed? (nays) That motion carries with Commissioners Burt and Packer opposed.
Karen.
MOTION
City of Palo Alto Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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: I have another motion to make in regards to this which is that on the
occasion where CC&Rs are removed by a neighborhood where a single story overlay exists there
needs to be a mechanism that isn’t described here where the single story overlay could be
removed. I don’t think it would even require a majority vote but there needs to be a mechanism
for that. Obviously if the CC&Rs were removed there would be no intention for there to be a
single story overlay there I wouldn’t think.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can I respond to that? Karen, sometimes when people have come into us for
these single story overlay zones it has been because their CC&Rs are going to out date and they
want the single story overlay to continue.
Commissioner Holman: If the CC&Rs are overturned.
Commissioner Packer: Karen I think that is such a remote prospect. They have to go to court. It
is not going to happen. People are just not going to go through that effort. It is a very expensive
ordeal to go and get the CC&Rs rescinded ]~om each and every property.
Chair Griffin: Well the motion has been made. Is there any second to that? I don’t hear a
second so that item fails.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chair, may I ask if that motion also included making the change that I think
Bonnie brought up at the beginning about one Vote per parcel essentially because we didn’t have
that language in.
Commissioner Holman: Yes.
Mr. Williams: So we will incorporate that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do you want to say parcel or do you want to say home or house. Be careful
that you don’t end up with three parcels under one house.
Mr. Williams: Household. We will put something in there for you to look at next time that tries
to address that.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
MOTION
Commissioner Burt: I will try a slightly different motion fi’om Karen’s. The motion would be
that Staffretum to the Commission with a mechanism that allows for a removal of single story
overlay that is less burdensome that requires the same super majority for removal as was
required for implementing the overlay.
Chair Griffin: I am not hearing for a second. That item fails. Is there any further Staff input on
this item? Then we can move to the next one.
City of Palo Alto Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: One last thing. I was going to suggest that Staff make available to
applicants this part of the ordinance so that it is a proactive approach to eliminating controversy
and getting clear information from the onset.
Chair Griffin: I think they did hear that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That is an administrative action. We need to stick to the Zoning Ordinance.
Chair Griffin: I am getting acknowledgment here that Staffdid hear that. Curtis?
Mr. Williams: The next topic is second dwelling units. We have made several changes to try to
following Housing Element policy that suggests encouraging more second dwelling units. Some
of the key changes are that we have provided for attached units to be up to, as we discussed
earlier, 900 square feet, that we have provided that what we call small second dwelling units 450
square foot units be treated a little differently than large units in a couple of respects. One is that
instead of meeting the minimum plus 35% of lot size which you currently have to meet to have a
second unit these smaller units could be on the minimum lot size lot in a particular district, a
particular R-1 zone. The second one is that if it is under 450 square feet that only one parking
space instead of two parking spaces be required. It would not have to be covered. We have
suggested eliminating the open space requirement that is currently in for second units which calls
for 200 square feet I think of open space and it is generally just shared with the main residence
on the property and is not enforced so we didn’t think it was appropriate to retain that. To allow
one of the spaces for a second unit to be in the front setback and it can be a tandem space as well.
Then allow exterior stairways only in rear instances to keep attached units orabove garage units
from looking like they are exposing that stairway to the street. Again, including the basement.
Then as far as process goes we suggest allowing second story second units again subject to the
Individual Review process. You may recall that that’s something that the Council when they
amended the second unit ordinance a year ago or so kind of put that issue of second story second
units on hold until it came back to you through this more comprehensive look at second units.
So we have been through and discussed this with the committee a couple times. I think we also
discussed this to some extent with the co-chairs of the single family advisory group and this is
our recommendation.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Question on second unit size. Why not do them based on percentage?
Mr. Williams: Percentage of the lot or percentage of the house?
Commissioner Lippert: Percentage of allowable FAR.
Mr. Williams: Well we have had 900 square feet as a maximum for a while that seems to work.
It gives a person more flexibility to do different size house and second unit combinations by not
having just a set percentage. Although I guess you could set the percentage high enough that it
comes out to be 900 square feet on most properties.
Commissioner Lippert: I guess the question is more if you do it based on percentage larger sizes
fnight have larger units.
City of Palo Alto Page 48
1
2 Mr. Williams: That is true. We are looking at that in the RE zone, the Residential Estate zone,
3 where we have much larger lots generally. We could do that here. I think the intent again is that
4 when you start getting those units larger than 900 square feet they are less and less affordable
5 and get to be more and more like second homes on a lot.
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
47
48
Commissioner Lippert: But in terms of the land use intensification where you want to have
urban infill situations you would want to try to drive having larger units in an urban area to
accommodate more people. You don’t want to have them out in the Residential Estate zone
really.
Mr. Williams: If the Commission would like to go that direction we could look at it. We did
look at percentages on the attached units being a percentage the house size so thatwe would
assure that those attached units would not essentially become duplexes or become half and half
so that they still were a smaller percentage. It was decided and I think the committee generally
felt comfortable with leaving that flexibility and not limiting, we were talking about 30% I think
it was, 30% of the house size being used for an attached unit or something like that.
Chair Griffin: Curtis, perhaps you could clarify. The 900 square feet that you said is existing
that is already in the code for detached.
Mr. Williams: Detached~ yes.
Chair Griffin: Also a 900 square foot house is basically two bedrooms, one bathl and a living
room. .,:~
Mr. Williams: It could be two and two.
Chair Griffm: It could be three bedrooms and a smaller living space.
Mr. Williams: It would be pretty tight but it could be three bedrooms.
Chair Griffin: My comment I guess fi’om that is that once you go beyond 900 square feet that is
really going to be indeed quite large and I will stop there. Colleagues, anyone else wish to
comment on this item? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I think we have discussed this a lot as a Commission. I just remember
having this discussion and I don’t whether it was at committee or here. I remember also raising
the same question that Lee raised. I think the answer was that it would be almost like having two
homes and making it almost like an R-2, which is a place that people didn’t want to go yet. You
may get there when we do Village Residential and do more of the kind of clusters and be able to
achieve some of the things that you are talking about, Lee. The sense was and the history of
these second units over the many years that it has been back and forth in the zoning code I think
we went through all that with some angst out there in the community about having these granny
units, so to speak, become too large. That was the answer I remember getting ~om Staffas to
why. In a sense a percent makes sense but then when you get into those larger homes you are
getting two homes essentially. So I feel comfortable with the answer.
City of Palo Alto Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
MORON
I am ready to move the Staff recommendation just because I think we have discussed this a lot as
a Commission unless my recollection is wrong fellow Commissioners.
SECOND
Vice-Chair Cassel: I’1t second that.
Chair Griffin: Would the maker wish to discuss this further?
Commissioner Packer: I think it is an excellent answer to all the issues that we have discussed
about the second units in so many ways, parking, the fact that we now have the attached
possibility which is a great step forward in providing more living opportunities for people here. I
think it is a very good solution.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think it was last year that we approved attached units and made them 250
square feet. They were so small that very few units I think were applied for and very little could
be done with them. We have increased it to 450 square feet without having the larger lot size
hoping that will produce more units and they will not be as large. I would like to see it larger but
I am trying I think to have some political reality of what will be accepted so we get the basic part
of this ordinance moving forward. The really big change here is allowing one parking space for
those 450 square foot units and allowing it in the setback and in tandem. I think in this proposal
that we have in front of us that is going to make a big difference in whether people can have a
second unit or not. "
Chair Griffin: I am wondering if any colleagues are concemed about the one parking space
being permitted within the front setback. Is that cause for alarm for anyone besides me? Do you
wish to elaborate on that item at all?
Commissioner Holman: Just that we were talking about neighborhood character and going into
some things earlier on about second units and all the concern there was about them. There is a
lot of concern that these parking spots will end up being on the street if tandem is allowed in the
front setback. I think they are going to end up being on the street and there is going to be a
backlash to second units. So I do have a concern about that aspect of this.
Chair GritTm: Further comments? Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I would like to say after this item it might be good if we have a discussion
on whether we can continue the other two until what looks like a short agenda next week.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Did you want to call the question?
Chair Griffm: It would appear that we have made enough comments. Lee, did you have
something you wanted to add?
City of Palo Alto Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
47
48
Commissioner Lippert: I just have one comment and it is relatively minor it just sticks in my
mind. I think that the "allow exterior stairways only in rear" I think might be a little problematic.
Chair Griffin: Could you repeat that I didn’t hear.
Commissioner Lippert: Allowing exterior stairways only in rear I think can be bit problematic.
Commissioner Packer: I am willing to accept a friendly amendment to allow some flexibility in
the language.
Commissioner Lippert: I think they should be allowed in the side yard but maybe only on the
one.
Commissioner Packer: But not encroaching in the setback?
Chair Griffin: Would you wish to elaborate a little bit more why you are reluctant to have it
restricted just to the rear yard?
Commissioner Lippert: Well part of it is that you are forcing somebody to go almost three
quarters around the property. You come along the front of the property down the side and then
around the back into the building. That is quite a length there. You can actually shorten that up
quite a bit if you allow people to have the stairway along the side of the building and thereby
entering the building on the side. Ithink it is also problematic when you are talking about a
second story, people coming up and being able to look down into a neighbor’s property but I
think that there are ways of getting that to work.
Commissioner Burt: I have a comment on that.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: As I think about it also with attached second units, directly attached in this
case, often times people are more amenable to putting in a second unit if they don’t lose their
own backyard and if the second unit isn’t necessarily granted full access to the backyard or some
little portion is carved out. If you only have a rear stairway then basically they have to have
access to the backyard to be able to get to their second unit. So it makes sense to me that with
restrictions like Lee is saying on some considerations to make that side yard stairway obtrusive
to adjacent neighbors that it may be even more appropriate in a lot of circumstances to have the
stairway on the side yard. It gives people some latitude provided we have some protections for
neighbors.
Vice-Chair Cassel: If Bonnie is going to accept that as the second I will accept it. My concern
has been if they are carving out a space out of the existing building that is already there and they
are required to put in a stair for some reason the existing space may not be in the back. That has
been my concern but it will be subject to the IR review.
Chair Griffin: Indeed I am glad you did say something about that because I am wondering how
does this work with the IR process and enclosed porches and whatnot, balconies on the second
floor, etc.?
City of Palo Alto Page 51
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
47
48
Mr. Williams: It is reviewed with the second story attached unit if that is what you have and that
is where your staircase goes then that is part of the IR review. I don’t know to what extent
stairways are allowed to encroach into the setback. -
Ms. Grote: I heard you to say that you would allow stairways on the side but not in the side yard
setback. So we would not be allowing them in the side yard setback. We would review them for
proximity to neighbors’ windows and for all of the other privacy, massing, streetscape issues in
the IR process.
Chair Griffin: So ifI understand what you are saying then you could have someone construct an
exposed stairway on the side of the house to access the second unit on the second floor and in the
process of reviewing that you would make sure that the privacy of the adjacent house would be
protected there would not be viewable view corridors.
Ms. Grote: A direct line of sight into somebody’s window.
Chair Griffin: See people ascending and descending the stairway and having access to the
windows of the adjacent property.
Ms. Grote: Correct. Currently thdre isn’t anything that would prevent an exterior stairway going
up the second floor of a main house. You can have exterior stairways on the sides of a two story
house now. So this isn’t an additional allowance or anadditional regulation. It is currently
allowed for the main house. Now you are making it allowed for an attached second story second
unit.
Commissioner Holman: I need a clarification on something which is on the attached second
dwelling units we have gone to 900 square feet and to kind of pony on a comment that somebody
made earlier how are we differentiating this given the size and given that it is an attached how
are we differentiating this from R-2 zoning? It could have the feeling more of a duplex so how
are we differentiating? Are we just making this R-2 zoning? There is no relationship here stated
that this 900 square feet would be less than 50% of the main house.
Mr. Williams: That is one of the reasons we talked at one point about having a percentage but I
think it was just felt that number one there needed to be more flexibility than a 30% or something
would give you and number two, that it was really unlikely that somebody is going to be renting
out and want to take their house and cut it as much as in half and make that a second unit. That
is possible, it doesn’t prohibit that from happening under this. It could be 900 square feet on an
1,800 square foot house but I think we just felt that was going to be very few cases where
something like that could happen. That is one of the reasons we had the exterior staircase in
there was to try to keep that from looking more like a duplex and there is still language in here
about not having a second entryway facing the, there should be only one entranceway facing the
street so that it has the appearance still of being a single family home. So what it sounds like you
are suggesting is that the exterior staircase limitation be removed or modified so that it is allowed
on the rear and the side and the street side. I didn’t really hear street side addressed.
Commissioner Holman: Was that your intention, the interior side?
City of Palo Alto Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
47
48
Commissibner Lippert: Yes.
Commissioner Holman: Not street side.
Mr. Williams: Okay, so we can clarify that. That is the only answer I can give you on that. It
doesn’t preclude someone doing a 900 square foot main residence with a 900 square foot
attached second unit.
Commissioner Holman: One other quick one is that in our working group someone on Staff
suggested that we might want to consider having a maximum number of second units per block
or per given geographic area mostly because of parking concerns or potential impacts. That was
a while back but it was brought up at one of our working group meetings.
Mr. Williams: I think that didn’t seem to be a workable type of administrative process for us to
try to limit who gets those second units and what that distance is and how many was too much to
deal with.
Commissioner Holman: So just a quick afterthought to that is a lot of things we have come back
to us in a year so that aspect of the Zoning Ordinance Update could we address that in a year if
we start getting complaints about street parking in particular neighborhoods?
Mr. Williams: You can always readdress if problems come up. I think we are anticipating that
we are going to try to have regular reviews of the Zoning Ordinance after it is adopted.
Chair Griffin: We have gone around and need to vote this item. Phyllis, did you have
something?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I was just going to say this is a living document the whole Zoning Ordinance
will be under review and should be and should be eligible to amend if we feel it needs to be
amended.
Commissioner Packer: I just want to make one comment about parking on the street. We don’t.
regulate how many cars a single household can own. You have three teenagers and you are
going to have five cars in that family and they are going to be parking on the street. I just think
we have to be much more realistic about this issue of parking on the street and where people put
their cars and there is a limit to what we can do.
Chair Griffin: Okay, Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: The whole thing of second dwelling units. When I was on ARB we had
a project that came forward that was to build two almost equal housing units on Forest on one
piece of property. Actually it was planned for three units and they were all single detached
houses all .on one and they were almost equal. We kept trying to persuade the property owner to
combine them all and make them into one almost like a townhouse unit, which would have been
more appropriate to the surrounding parcels that were there that, were all really multi family. He
chose not to go that way., We denied the application. I then departed from the ARB. I think that
that’s really a very good example and I believe it was an R-1 or an R-2 lot. In fact it was a
substandard lot as well. It was very narrow.
City of Pa!o Alto Page 53
1
2 Mr. Williams: It wasn’t an R-1.
3
4 Vice-Chair Cassel: No.
6 Commissioner Lippert: No, that’s right.
7
8 Ms. Grote: They were done concurrently and the ARB does review single family if it is three or
9 more. So we would have to look into that one I don’t know that particular one.
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: This would be prohibited because I believe that the lot was large enough
12 and they would have all been over 900 square feet by the time they were all done.
13
14 Chair Griffin: Commissioners, can we vote on this?
15
16 Commissioner Lippert: I am a little skeptical on this.
17
18 MOTION PASSED (3-2-1-1, Commissioners Griffin and Holman opposed, Commissioner
19 Lippert abstained and Commissioner Bialson absent)
2O
21 Chair Griffin: All those in favor of the motion to approve the Staff recommendation say aye.
22 (ayes) Opposed? (nays)
23
24 Commissioner Holman: I am voting no just because of that front setback parking.
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: I am going to abstain.
27
28 Chair Griffin: So we have Commissioner Lippert abstaining, Griffin and Holman opposed and
29 Burt, Packer and Cassel voting in favor.
30
31 Commissioner Burt: I will just state for the record when it comes back to us I am also still
32 struggling with whether even though I support expansion of the second units that we have been
33 doing whether the 900 square feet is going too far in essentially creating this potential
34 it is becoming de facto duplexes.
35
36 Chair Griffin: I concur.
37
38 Commissioner Packer: I want to clarify for the record that the motion included the idea that
39 exterior staircases could be on interior side yards. So it is the Staff report plus that change.
4O
41 Chair Griffin: That was the way the motion was voted.
42
43 Ms. Grote: It is on the interior side of the house but not in the setback.
44
45 Chair Griffin: Correct.
46
City of Pa!o Alto Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: Can I just ask for kind of a straw vote? What portion of the Commission
has some concern about whether 900 square feet might be going too far in the direction of
creating de facto duplexes?
Chair Griffin: I think that is worthwhile bringing up. I think there are three of us that feel that
way.
Commissioner Packer: I want to just-give the other side of it. Maybe that is something we want
to encourage some places because it is kind of like a cottage cluster or Village Residential
opportunities for more affordable housing.
Commissioner Burt: I would just say that if we want to create R-1 then we should look at
rezoning things R-2.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I want to say that 900 square feet has been the amount that has been allowed
on lots that are 35% larger than the standard. So if it is 35% larger than the standard it is allowed
more square feet as a house to begin with. A second unit that is tucked into an existing unit and
you are not allowed to have two separate doors in the front, you have to design it so it doesn’t
show, is actually going to feel like less mass than two separate buildings. Yet we allow a 900
square foot unit on its own. So for me that was the argument that said if we are going to allow
second units and most of them will not be 900 square feet but some will they have to be on
anything over 450 square feet has to be on a 35% larger lot. So it is going to have a larger size
mass to work with to begin with.
Chair Griffin: My comment on that was that I did not think we were going to see that many 900
square foot separate units.
Vice-Chair Cassel: And we haven’t.
.Chair Griffin: But we would see more of them if they were attached. At least that is my
concern.
Commissioner Holman: Can I ask a clarifying question? I should have asked this earlier. Under
C-1 where it is talking about attached second dwelling units, the minimum site area should meet
the requirements specified in subsection A above. Is that correct? Or it might be B.
Mr. Emslie: It is B.
Chair Griffm: Commissioners I am wondering considering the hour if we could in fact have a
motion to continue the last remaining items on our plate here to be addressed.
Mr. Williams: Can I just ask you a question? I just wanted to point out that these have a lot of
details to them. We have been through all of this with not only the subcommittee but also the co-
chairs of the single family advisory committee. I guess I would like to get a sense of how much
discussion or how much concern there is remaining about these things and do we need to come
back to you and go over this with you or have you seen this enough to be comfortable that after
going through the rounds that is okay?
City of Palo Alto Page 55
1 Commissioner Holman: I think we want to discuss it.
2
3 Mr. Williams: I just wanted to be sure.
4
5 Commissioner Burt: Just to lay down the gauntlet I am concerned about the setbacks where we
6 are defining a minimum setback as the new minimum setback as the average setback on the
7 street that we are creating new setback standards in doing so. I have brought this up before. I
8 just want to get that out for Commissioner consideration in our next meeting.
9
10 Chair Griffin: So I will continue with my request for a motion.
11
12 MOTION
13
14 Commissioner Packer: I will move that we continue until our next regular meeting.
15
16 Ms. Grote: Actually, we were going to recommend June 30 because you do have two complex
17 traffic items next week and then two traffic items on June 16 with another Zoning Ordinance
18 item, Auto Dealer Overlay Zones. So June 30 looks like it would be a better date.
19
20 Commissioner Burt: Lisa, ifI might ask, when I was looking at the agenda and I saw the two
21 Moreno Avenue related traffic calming items they didn’t look that big for an agenda item. They
22 look interrelated and two speed humps and then three speed humps and a traffic circle. It didn’t
23 look like that much for a full meeting.
24
25 Chair Griffin: On the other hand we know that these traffic calming items are volatile.
26
27 Commissioner Burt: Is this one anticipated to be contentious?
28
29 Mr. Emslie: No, they are not.
30
31 Commissioner Burr: Or high public turnout?
32
33 Ms. Grote: We don’t think so.
34
35 Commissioner Butt: Why don’t we schedule this and then if for some reason we can’t get to it
36 we can’t get to it but I expect that this is not going to take all evening. And that as Curtis said is
37 probably less to tackle than a lot of what we have already gone through. Given that Staff has
38 been talking about the urgency of getting this through I think we can get it done next week.
39
40 Chair Griffin: Maybe Staffhas some insight here that we don’t.
41
42 Ms. Grote: We had originally discussed the possibility of continuing this and had recommended
43 June 30 because we thought that the transportation items were going to take some time. If you
44 think you can get through them that would be great. You will have Staff waiting so we will
45 accommodate that.
46
47 Chair Griffin: I think we would acquiesce to Staff’s direction on this. You have better insight.
48
City of Palo Alto Page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Ms. Grote: Okay, we will continue it to next week.
Commissioner Lippert: Is it possible to do a special meeting starting at 6:00?
Chair Griff’m: I think we have concurrence here that next week will be okay. Do we have a
second to that motion?
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Bialson absent)
.Chair Griffin: All in favor of continuing these items until next week say aye. (ayes) Opposed?
That motion carries unanimously.
That takes us to the end of item number one.
18
19 REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
20
21 REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
22
23 COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
24
25 UUlYtJUUU~Chair Griffin: I would like to announce that Commissioner Packer has
26 volunteered to take the July Slot. Unless there is unhappiness on the part of any colleague?
27
28 Vice-Chair Cassel: She is probably going away in August as I am so I was hoping to do July.
29 We have competition for it.
30
31 Commissioner Butt: I will take August.
32
33 Commissioner Packer: The City Council doesn’t meet in August.
34
35 Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes they do.
36
37 Chair Griffin: Actually we have two people who are volunteering for July.
38
39 Vice-Chair Cassel: She can do July and Pat can do August and someone else will do September.
40 I am going to have a ~andbaby that month.
41
42 Chair Griffin: Then we will have Commissioner Packer take July.
43
44 APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
45
46 Chair Griffin: There are no minutes to approve.
47
48 NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting o£June 9, 2004.
City of Palo Alto Page 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Chair Griffin: Our next meeting is June 9 and I adjoum this meeting.
Mr. Sodergren: One quick thing. On the two traffic calming items I don’t think anybody has a
conflict but just to remember 500 feet is the triggering amount. So if you could take a look and
if you are somewhat close if’you could just give me a call and we go over in more detail whether
or not it may trigger it.
ADJOURNED: 10:45 PM
City of Palo Alto Page 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
~MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, June 9 at 7:00 PM
Cit~ Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:05p.m.
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin - Chair
Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair - absent
Karen Holman
Patrick Burt
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson
Lee 1. Lippert
Staff."
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
John Lusardi, Planning Mgr., Special Projects
Susan Ondik, Planner
Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary
Olubayo Elirnisha, Staff Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1. ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE (ZOU): Single Family Residential District (R-l)
2. The Planning and Transportation Commission will consider a recommendation to make
permane~it two speed humps on Moreno between Middlefield and Ross.
3. The Planning and Transportation Commission will consider a recommendation to make
permanent three speed humps and a traffic circle on Indian and Moreno between Oregon
Expressway and Greer.
Chair Griffin: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Regular Meeting of the
Planning and Transportation Commission for Wednesday, June 9. Will the Secretary please call
the roll? Thank you.
This takes us to the Oral Communications part of our agenda.
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. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
City of Palo Alto Page I
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
47
48
Chair Griffin: Do we have any cards? We don’t. That then takes us to the 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 would like to open the public hearing on a resumption of our discussion of last
week’s review of the Zoning Ordinance Update of Single Family Residential District where the
Commission reviews and makes recommendations on the R-1 District and related definitions.
Would Staffplease make a presentation?
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Public Hearing:
SR Weblink:
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE (ZOU): Single Family Residential District (R-l).
Commission review and recommendation for the R-1 Zoning District and related
definitions (Title 18, PAMC). The R-1 chapter has been developed into a draft reformat,
intended as a stand-alone chapter of the ordinance. This chapter of the Zoning Ordinance
will only address single family residential development in the City of Palo Alto. All other
¯ low density residential zoning districts will be addressed subsequent to the R-1 review.
http://www.cityo fpaloalto.org/ci _tyagenda/publish!planning-transportation-meetings/3293.pdf
Mr. Curtis Williams. Consultant: Thank you Mr. Chairman. We brought back to you this week
the couple remaining items from last week’s agenda. We would like to talk to you about the
contextual setback and garage placement issues and then about the definition of gross floor area,
basically what is included and what is excluded. All of these items have been discussed
extensively with the Low Density Residential Committee of the Commission and also with the
Co-Chairs of the Single Family Advisory Group. There has been a lot of input from both of
those bodies. The Commission has through your review of the IR process late last year and
eiirlier this year touched on several of these issues as well especially with the garage placement
and contextual setback issues.
We have arranged this much the same as last week. What we would like to do is talk about each
issue in turn. We will give you a brief overview of what the changes are that we are
recommending and then have your discussion and a motion by the Commission if you would like
to make any changes to those recommendations.
So the first item is contextual.setbacks a provision of the code that has been in the code now for a
couple of years since the IR changes went into effect. We have listed five modifications to that
section. These are generally in the form of trying to clarify the way we do this calculation to
match the practice that Staff has right now or to clarify in some way those provisions in the code
so that it is not uncertain to someone how to do the calculation. One provision is to apply the
setback only if it is greater than 25 feet. In other words the minimtim setback is 20 feet and if it
is 22 or 23 feet we didn’t think that was a significant enough issue to make those kinds of
distinctions. Until the average setback gets to be greater than 25 feet it wouldn’t apply.
Secondly, just to clarify that the subject parcel of the application is included in the calculation of
City of Palo Alto 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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
the lots that are looked at. Thirdly, to measure to the first structural element on the lot. Right
now it is unclear whether that means the house or if there is a porch protruding into the front then
this would be sure that we mean to that porch.or any other structure that was in the front setback.
We have suggested eliminating the greatest and the least setbacks, the anomalies, so that the
deviation from the average is not perhaps as significant as it might be otherwise. Then clarify
that we would exclude flag lots because they really don’t have hardly any frontage to be looking
at and are always way back. Exclude multi family, which aren’t really applicable. If it is a
corner lot and it is the street side of the comer !ot then we shouldn’t include that in a calculation
of front setbacks. So those are the clarifications and changes that we have suggested that we
believe have come out of the discussions with the committees and in prior discussions with the
Commission.
We also have included in your packet, towards the end and we can put this up on the screen too,
a diagram that shows sort of an example of a street with flag lots and multi family lots and comer
lots excluded, etc. There it is on the screen. I would be glad to answer any questions.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, do you have questions to pose to Staffon this item? Karen? Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: Thank you. I have a question. In the Staff Report it is mentioned an
additional clarification when looking at contextual front setbacks where it is a short block or a
block where only less than five parcels that there be a minimum of five lots before you even start
talking about contextual setback. Did you want us to consider the suitability of adding such
language into the code? It was on page 11 of the StaffReport.
Mr. Williams: Actually I think that kicked in here only when the greatest and least setbacks, the
anomalies situation applied. If you would like to apply it more broadly than that we could do
that. If there were less than five lots on a block then we could also discuss how we would deal
with that situation. I think we have just assumed that the anomalies would be excluded unless
there were less than five properties in which excluding the anomalies ends up with no average
setback. It is pretty much two properties that are left at that point.
Commissioner Packer: Well you might want to consider whether some additional language to
make it clear to a developer or homeowner how it would actually pan out if you are one of four
houses on a block you don’t even have to consider contextual front setback. I don’t how the
other Commissioners feel about that.
Mr. Williams: We would like to hear if there is a desire to do that we would be glad to do that.
Chair Griffm: Karen, you have a follow up question?
Commissioner Holman: Yes. It is regarding that. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to attend when
¯ this was the height of the conversation at the working group meeting. I think there is something
that would merit some discussion which is rather than counting the number of parcels because
what we are looking for is context and it resolves this kind of issue to that Commissioner Packer
raises that rather than discussing the number ofparcels discuss a number of feet. In other words
if you have three parcels on a block that is all you need to determine the context. It doesn’t
matter if there are six parcels or 20 parcels it is the distance.you are looking at. I think on a
standard block it is like 600 feet. Isn’t a standard block 600 feet?
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Roughly, that is correct.
Commissioner Holman: So I would suggest and put out there for Commission discussion
although this is question time is that if you measure from ~he middle of the subject parcel and
measure each direction until you reach 600 feet as long at it is 600 feet haven’t you gotten there
regardless of how many parcels it is? Does that make sense?
Mr. Williams: Do we have the 600 feet?
Commissioner Holman: I think it simplifies a lot of the counting mechanisms that are currently
in play.
Mr. Williams: I think the issue is more though if it is less than 600 feet. We have a provision
that if it is more than 600 it is just the ten lots that are closest. There may be less than ten that
are within that 600 feet but it is limited.
Commissioner Holman: What I was suggesting is that it be on a physical block face or 600 feet
period. If the block were shorter than 600 feet then it is that block. If the block is longer than
600 feet than it is 600 feet period. You don’t have to count lots. If you have a block that has a
lot of wide frontages and it is a few lots then that is the context. Going across the street doesn’t
change what the context is. It seems to me it is simpler.
Ms. Grote: If we were to use number of feet or distance and we were to measure from the edges
of the subject parcel, include the parcel and then measure from the edges, the only issue I can see
with trying to calculate that is if you are on the comer or if you are on the lot next to the corner
and you are measuring 300 feet on either side or 600 feet on either side there may be times when
you are actually counting a different block than the block this is in.
Commissioner Holman: No, what I am proposing and it is difficult without a chalkboard is you
stay on the physical block. So if you have 100 feet on one side and 500 feet on the other side so
be it. It is 600 feet or the same physical block.
Chair Griffin: Unless there is a comment from Staff, Annette, did you have a comment or a
question?
Commissioner Bialson: I am not quite sure ifI understand Karen’s point. The reason I raised
my hand previously is because we do have a number of blocks that are short where you have two
houses on the block or three houses on the block. I wasgoing to weigh in on the side that it is
almost impossible on a two our three house block to have a contextual sort of issue. I think those
should be exempted. That is the only comment I have. I would like to understand Karen’s point
though I am still confused.
Chair Griffin.: Karen, do you have something? You are drawing a sketch for us, good. Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I have a much more fundamental question, one that I have raised several
times and I have never received a satisfactory answer to. As I understand it this proposal would
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
take the average setback on a block, however we define that, and create that as the new minimum
setback for that block. Is that still the case?
Mr. Williams: Right, as long as it is more than 25 feet.
Commissioner Burt: So that seems like .that would be an appropriate requirement if we had a
policy that was something to the effect of to increase the average home setbacks in all R-1
districts of the City. I don’t know why we are doing this. Why are we trying to change the
neighborhood context? I thought our objective here was to maintain the neighborhood context.
Instead we are taking the average and creating it as the new minimum so that all new structures
would be in between the old average and the old maximum. So we are moving the houses back
on a deliberate basis rather than maintaining a neighborhood context and I don’t get it and I
haven’t.
Ms. Grote: I believe this originally was raised as part of the Single Family Advisory Group and
there was a concern about maintaining the deeper front setbacks when they actually do exist now
not to create them where they don’t exist. Where there are several lots or several streets that
akeady have a 30-foot setback or in some cases a bigger front setback to maintain that or allow
small encroachments into it but not to have the standard 20 foot setback.
Commissioner Burt: Well here is the practical impact of this. If we have a street, and this is
probably a little bit more variation in setback than we typically have, but if we have a street that
has varying setbacks on it from 20 to 40 feet and the average is 30 feet. We are saying that all
new structures from here on would have to be 30 to 40 feet. One we have change the character
of that street in doing so over a long period of time and we have eliminated discretion on the
behalf of homeowners to have a setback within the range of a neighborhood context they would
choose. Some people prefer to have less setback and some people more and I don’t know why
we are getting in the business of cutting back. It is not according to New Urbanist planning a
desired approach to have greater setbacks. If there is a recommended practice it is to move
houses closer to the street. I wouldn’t want to stipulate that on neighborhoods. I think it is
appropriate within the theme of the R-1 Guidelines to try to maintain neighborhood context. If
there was any movement I would go the other direction but I am not advocating that. I simply
cannot follow this. This is the goofiest proposal that I have seen in this whol.e context and I have
never received a satisfactory answer and I am still looking for it. I don’t get it.
Chair Griffin: Lisa, would you be able to give us another take on the rationale for doing it this
way?
Ms. Grote: Again, this isn’t a Staffproposal to implement a contextual setback. This was
something that was raised and discussed with the Single Family Advisory Group two years ago
when we were looking at various issues having to do with single family residential districts. So
this contextual front setback came out of that discussion. What we at Staff have encountered
over the last two years is some difficulty in how that is calculated, which houses you use, do you
use the subject site and those kind of technical points of the bigger context which is the
contextual front setback or the bigger issue. So this isn’t something that we are recommending
you implement for the first time. This is something that we are recommending be clarified in
how it is applied and again it was to preserve those situations, those streets, that have a larger
than typical 20 foot front setback. If it is the Commission’s recommendation that the contextual
Ci{v of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
front setback be eliminated all together you can certainly make that recommendation and we will
bring it forward as part of the R-1 changes as a Commission recommendation that you don’t
think it accomplishes what it may have set out to accomplish and you would rather have a
standard 20 foot setback.
Commissioner Burr: Can I just clarify that that wasn’t what my recommendation was? My
recommendation is that you have a contextual setback for a street however it is most appropriate
to define it but it not eliminate half of the variation of that street and create a new average
setback. Then get this just follow it out rationally. If over ten years we have a bunch of houses
on a street that formerly the range was 20 to 40 feet now all of them have to be built at 30 to 35
feet and the new average becomes 35 then 35 becomes the new minimum.
Chair Griffin: Staff, in fact is this the way in fact it would play out based on the way the text is
written here?
Mr. Williams: I think there is an incremental movement in that. It is somewhat of a moving
target and that is something we have discussed extensively with the Co-Chairs and the
Committee. Again, as Lisa is saying that seems to be the policy direction that was established
when this was set. There seems to be an understanding of that but it still is the direction. As
Lisa mentioned what we are trying to do is clarify some of the c~lculation difficulties that we
have had not addressed. If there is a fundamental problem with the concept then we need to
know that and we need to address that here.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate your bringing the point up, Pat. I think that you do end up
with a lot of creep. My sense is that the desire to create that creep is a little of it associated with
how massive a home looks when it is close to the street versus when it is setback. I think we
have a lot of other provisions in the R-1 code now that will limit that sense of massiveness. We
do have New Urbanist principles that would argue in favor of some variety number one on a
street to provide some interest on a streetscape portion. Also I think it does provide a lot of
flexibility for the homeowner who gets to choose whether they like a larger backyard or a larger
front yard. Having lived for quite a while with an extremely large front yard I can tell you it is
not very useful when you have grandchildren over. So this goes along with what I said
previously with regard to short blocks I don’t wantto see any requirements on those short
blocks. If there is some way we can, giving due respect to the working group’s desires to avoid
what I think is a massiveness concern, if there is some way we can perhaps use this opportunity
now that we are rewriting some of these regulations to not have a home creep much closer to the
front than a number of homes already on the block. In other words, maybe not go with the
average but I am sure Patcan figure out some other figure, maybe it is 40% or some other item
where we give the homeowner the ability to stay within the bounds of what is there but not force
them to keep creeping backwards so that as you point out that over a ten or 15 or 20 year period
we have everybody moved back and then we are going to have a reaction on the Planning
Commission and the R-1 working group that is in existence at that time that gee, we need to
move things forward. So let’s not play that game if we can think of some way to avoid it.
Chair Griff’m: Lee.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1 Commissioner Lippert: I have some technical questions. How would the program be
2 administered? Would it be done through the aerial survey maps or the block maps? Would
3 somebody run out with a tape measure and measure the subject properties?
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
47
48
Mr. Williams: I will let Lisa answer because it has been in effect now for two years so we can
give you some pretty specific answers.
Ms. Grote: We do use the aerial photographs to calculate contextual front setback and then we
also do have Staff go out and do measurements when that is needed and we also ask applicants to
bring measurements in when that is possible.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. If you subscribe to New Urbanist principles streets are rooms,
basically they are exterior rooms. Why not consider what happens across the street as well as the
adjacent properties? Do we have a New Urbanist here?
Mr. Williams: We are not trying to recreate the policy that has been established. So if that
something that fits better than we can look at it that way or if it needs to be a range or something
like that. We haven’t looked at that component of it we have accepted that it is in place and tried
to clarify it and haven’t had a majority of anyone we’ve been talking to direct us otherwise. So
we would like to hear your ideas.
Chair Griffin: So you are thrust here is to clarify the existing policy and not necessarily to
reorder the policy or come up with a substitute.
Mr. Williams: Right. I think we have made two real minor adjustments .that probably reduce
that creep a little bit. One is not puttin, g anything into effect until you have 25 feet instead of 20
feet and the other is deleting the anomalies in there although there are probably circumstances
where if the anomaly is close to the street enough that might work the other way.
Chair Griffin: If in fact Commissioners decide that we don’t necessarily have agreement that
these policies are good we can express our dissatisfaction, etc.?
Mr. Williams: Absolutely.
Chair Griffm: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I am intrig-ued with Pat’s comments but before I go to the big picture in
case we do continue with this concept I had a couple of technical questions. The front property
line I don’t think is a clear enough defined term especially because the City has easements under
or over some lawns. So I think that needs to be clarified. I don’t know whether the property
goes from the middle of the street back or whether it is at the curb or at the sidewalk and where
the street easements are. I think that is an issue.
The other technical question is it Says it goes to the first part of the building but there are some
parts of the building that are allowed to encroach into setbacks. So I don’t.think you want to go
to the first permitted encroachment you would want to go to the base of the building where they
are not allowed to encroach. It is a little technical piece of language like that when you are
trying to apply this that might be an issue.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
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
47
48
1
2 .Having said that I would be interested in exploring our whole philosophy about contextual front
3 setbacks. I personally believe encouraging eclecticism. There are a lot of eclectic
4 neighborhoods that we would like to preserve in their eclectic nature and this contextual front
5 setback seems to fly in the face of that concept. So I would be interested in having this
discussion with the Commissioners and I would be curious to see how Pat thinks this can be
done in a better way.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I know Karen wishes to speak. I guess I would like to explore this
further and I have always felt that the lack of consideration of the properties across the street
made no sense to me whatsoever again citing New Urbanist principles. As I recall any changes
in the treatment of properties were supposed to Occur not at the street but at the back of the
buildings, in other words mid-block, and yet here we are saying that one side of the street can be
totally different than the other side. I think that is not going to lead to very much of a sense of
context whatsoever. So at the very least even if we can’t have a full discussion about it I would
really like to change that and I appreciate Lee bringing that up.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I did a crude drawing and I don’t know if Staffwants to put this up or
not or if it is readable. I just indicated potential subject properties and used 600 feet for purposes
of discussion. I am sympathetic to the point that Commissioner Burr is making and also to the
point that Commissioner Lippert brought up to. It has been one of my considerations too as I am
not sure why we don’t consider both sides of the street. As far as New Urbanist philosophies are
concerned that typically is true. I think the New Urbanist philosophies though usually are fairly
typically meant to apply in more urban settings. There are a lot of neighborhoods in Palo Alto
where the setbacks are quite large so I don’t think applying in very established neighborhoods
New Urbanist principles of moving houses up to the street is what the Comp Plan talks about
when it talks about preserving neighborhood character.
So what I am proposing here for discussion is if you have three different blocks, and I am only
considering one side of the street just for purposes of drawing. If you just take the subject which
is indicated with an X and you measure 600 feet using the middle of that parcel as your starting
point and you measure each direction until you reach 600 feet not leaving the block face. If the
block face is only 400 feet then you count that block face. Then it is a separate discussion
whatever we determine about comer lots or not and whether we count the other side of the street
is a separate discussion. But this is what I am proposing as opposed to the number of lots. It has
always seemed to me like a pretty complicated formula to follow, six lots unless blah, blah, blah
and unless there are blah, blah, blah and then you can’t blah, blah, blah. I can hardly wait to see
that in the minutes. It just seems like a complicated way of approaching it and this seems much
simpler. It would need a drawing to go with it and I am interested in what other Commissioners
think about it as far as counting how this would fly with them.
Chair GritTm: I have a question of Staff. In fact what is your comment on Commissioner
Holman that it would simplify things? Do you have any comments on that? Would it simplify it
or would it complicate the determination?
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. Williams: I think it is hard to tell. I think in my mind it probably would complicate it but I
think it is maybe more a question of whether it is fairer to look at some kind of a limit that relates
to the distance instead of the number of homes. I understand that point but I don’t think from a
calculation standpoint it is any easier to do that. It is pretty straightforward in the language now
as to where you go but I understand that the size of the lots makes a difference too and you may
not be covering as much area or you may be covering too much area if there are small lots.
I did want to clarify that we are not going outside of a block if it is only 400 feet.
Ms. Grote: Since this is the first time we have heard some of these alternative ideas we can note
them and do some experiments and apply them in a couple of different types of neighborhoods,
different locations and bring that back to you. This is coming back on the 14t~ of July and we
will try fo have some graphics that would show if we used that technique what that would mean
and how it would be applied in different situations.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, it is the comments that Commissioner Burt has made that have
made me start thinking along these lines. That is part of it and just to reaffirm that the reason for
doing this is because the context isn’t necessarily the number of houses if you have a couple of
very wide lots that determines a context too. It isn’t about how many parcels or how many
buildings it is the distance and what you encounter in that distance.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I would like to make a couple of comments. I think that when you go
with Commissioner Holman’s theory here you wind up with a more gray or monochromatic in
terms of setback for a street. So in other words if somebody is trying to change what their
setback is it is going to blend in more with the neighb.orhood. However, if there is a property
that is immediately adjacent to the subject property it could in fact be very acute or there could
be a lot of contrast with that one specific property. If you go with just the immediate properties
next to it you have more of an opportunity of blending in with what is immediately adjacent to
that. So I think that both your theory and also looking at just maybe the subject properties two
on each side have to be looked at because they are going to have two different meanings or
approaches to what that setback is going to be. One is going to have more contrast and the other
is going to be more gray.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: Well, first I would like to lend my support to the concept of including both
sides of the street in the calculation. Then second a couple of the Commissioners had asked
about What formula we might have if we go away from this one that I have described as shilling
44 the average setback backwards. Maybe before I wade into that I would just like to say that I
45 have brought up this issue actually each time we have discussed it over the last three years but
46 we haven’t yet had a real in depth discussion until tonight and I am real glad that we are. As far
47 as the recommendations of the working group co-chairs, my memory is that the last time we had
48 this presentation from the working group co-chairs I thought I had asked John Northway about
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
this subject. I have the minutes in front of me but I think he responded that they hadn’t had
ample opportunity to really discuss this not that they had discussed this in detail and come to this
conclusion. So I don’t remember and ever since we first reviewed this having an in depth
discussion on this it always got short-changed.
So having said that I think it is pretty easy to adopt something like this. I think the principle of
throwing out anomalies is fine so that if there is something that is out of place for the street you
exclude them from the calculation. Then whatever number of parcels or distance is a separate
discussion. I don’t need to include that in order to make my proposal. It is simply that you
exclude the anomalies and then you have a range for the street. If the range is between 25 and 35
feet then people can go anywhere from 25 to 35 feet as they see fit.
My street is much more eclectic and we have Eichlers on our street and we have homes with 40
foot setbacks. I don’t feel like if I have a deep setback I should be demanding that everybody
who has an Eichler who remodels or has a teardown has to go back to my distance and vice
versa. I wouldn’t think that people who have Eichlers should be able to tell people who have
Craftsman on our street that they should be up 20 feet from the street. Another thing that I think
would be the reality on this and some of the neighborhoods that are much more homogenous like
Eichler neighborhoods those setbacks are pretty standard. So this ordinance with allowing them
range if they are between 25 and 30 feet then that is what they are going to stay between 25 and
30. Other streets might have much greater variation and they are allowed to continue that way.
If individual homeowners end up thinking that they like a closer setback and others a further one
then I don’t think we have an overwhelming need to do what I think is an over regulation in this
case. I am someone who is supportive of the concept of preserving neighborhood context I think
this as written works toward changing neighborhood context.
Chair Griffin: Lisa, reconstruct if you would a little of that discussion three years ago or four on
the pros and cons of having this contextual front setback done in this manner. As I recall it was
to protect from orphaning the certain houses in College Terrace that had larger setbacks. If
everyone moved their house closer to the front then it would accentuate the disparity between the
new houses moving toward the front and orphaning as it were these houses sitting towards the
back. I am trying to-get you to come along with that and see if you can’t recreate the crime as to
how we got to this point.
Ms. Grote: I am afraid I don’t remember the concept of orphaning houses that sit further back. I
do remember the’ discussion about wanting to preserve those areas that have large front setbacks
and understanding that there might be some creep forward but not wanting to lose the
spaciousness and the feel of those areas that have bigger and deeper front setbacks. Other than
that I would really need to go back and look at whatever notations and documentation we have
on those conversations. I think the general thought was to protect or preserve those deeper
setbacks.
Chair Griffin: I have the feeling that all of us are somewhat empathetic to the points that have
been brought out this evening but we are perhaps underplaying the rationale that was in play
three years ago. It might be interesting before we go too far along this line to give the other side
of this discussion the opportunity to present their points. I happen to agree with Commissioner
Burt that he has been Wing to provoke this discussion for some number of meetings and we
really haven’t come to grips with it. If my colleagues are really considering doing substantial
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
changes to this it seems like we ought to hear a little bit more from the other point’of view. That
is just a comment on my side. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I like the concept of a range. When I think about it it doesn’t really
change the basic philosophy of trying to keep the setback in context. So Pat’s idea of instead of
having the average result in one number you give some flexibility for the homeowner.
As to including the other side of the street I am a little bit nervous about going there because
there are many areas in town where you have one style of development on one side of the street
and across the street there was another track put in of a completely different kind of series of
homes. You also have arterials that don’t really create the same feeling that you would have in a
cul-de-sac where you don’t have that urban setting where you feel compelled to match the fronts
of the home. So I think we should be a little bit catltious about including the other side of the
street. If you are going to have ten parcels that you can work with and you are talking about
predominant neighborhood pattern you really want to work with entities, homes, which is why I
don’t really care for Commissioner Holman’s idea of counting the parcels within a certain
number of feet. You may miss out on some or you may include too many, I don’t know. You
really want to look at the other developments and that is what you are creating the context with.
So I think we ought to think twice about crossing the street just because we may run into some
unintended consequences.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Are we going to have a full discussion on this at this time or are we
going to come back to it? I know we have a long agenda and we have people waiting on two
other matters. I have some follow on comments to Bonnie’s because I have lots of examples of
how we couldn’t in the past consider the other side of the street when it was a narrow residential
street with the same sort of buildings on both sides. So are we going there or are We not going
there?
Chair Griffin: Curtis.
Mr. Williams: We were just talking. I think we would like to take these ideas back and try to
craft an option or two and present it to the subcommittee and get the IR Co-Chairs back involved
and then come back to you with a revised recommendation as appropriate. I just want to ask
before we do that for a couple of clarifications so that we are sure that we have the scenario
down here. One is Pat said as an example 25 to 35 feet, are you suggesting that there be a
maximum setback as welt as a minimum?
Commissioner Burt: Under the principle of neighborhood context that if we throw out the high
and low then whatever is the range on the street is what seems on a gut level to be most
appropriate to me. I am open, if we had say two houses on one street that were 50 foot setback
and everything else was 20 to 30 would we want to create a circumstance where people could go
in and create 50 foot setbacks hypothetically? I don’t think in reality we are going to have that
extreme but that I think is the issue that Curtis is raising. Is there a need to be concerned with
creating a maximum as well as a minimum? Possibly, is my answer.
Mr. Williams: I guess the question was another clarification.
City of Palo Alto Page
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
47
Commissioner Bialson: can i just say something here? I think the question as I heard it at least
was whether we were asking for a range. I thought Pat that you were saying a range that we give
to a homeowner that they could go between 25 and 30 feet was what we were looking at so we
didn’t have everybody exactly at 25 feet. So I think Pat was talking about a range and I want to
make sure.
Commissioner Burt: That was my primary thrust but what I understood Curtis to be asking is if
we went in the direction of a range we have a minimum and that minimum would still be in place
at 20 feet, correct?
Mr. Williams: Right, but in this case .....
Commissioner Burt: He was also asking would we want to have a maximum.
Mr. Williams: In other words if the range is 25 to 35 feet so nobody could be closer than 25 feet
what if somebody wanted to be 40 feet or if they wanted to be back farther than the 35 feet?
Commissioner Burr: I’m sorry, let meclarify. If the current range on the street is 25 to 35 then
the maximum would the high end of the existing range.
Mr. Williams: That is my question.
Commissioner Burt: I thought you were asking whether we should in a more absolute sense
have a range.
Mr. Williams: No.
Commissioner Burt: Let me go back then to this hypothetical situation I was describing. What if
we had a much broader range on the street? What if we had almost all the houses at 25 to 35 but
we had one house that was at 20 feet and two houses that were at 50 feet? If we are throwing out
the high and low we would then allow anywhere fi~om 25 to 50 feet whereas almost all the other
houses on the street are in a narrower range. So I don’t have a ready answer to that but that is
what I thought Curtis was getting at I misunderstood him. I think that is a valid question.
Maybe it is such an uncommon occurrence that we don’t need to worry about it but
hypothetically it is something that we might want to think about a little bit more.
Commissioner Burr: Karen. Sorry Curtis did you want to add something?
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to say the other clarifying question I had was would you be looking
at the situation of going closer than 20 feet?
Commissioner Burt: My recommendation would be only if there are existing neighborhoods
where that is the context.
Mr. Williams: Right, that is what I am saying. If you do that averaging and the average is 15
feet would we allow that? I know that was a discussion that happened at the time of the IR and
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
there were a couple of recommendations going that way and then ultimately it didn’t get
included. Can it go closer than 20 feet as well as farther back?
Commissioner Burr: If Staff has some examples in the City of neighborhoods where there are a
good number of homes on the street of less than the 20 feet I think I would like to see it and I
would be open to continuing a neighborhood context. I don’t think there is anything magical. I
think there are individual homes in our City and block faces, for instance we talked about
Channing across some of the old homes that were on narrow substandard lots that are beautiful
little Victorians I think those are actually not in R-1 zoning. They have a feel of R-1 zoning. My
response would be that if we do have blocks in this City where a good number of homes that are
in R-1 zoning and closer than the 20 feet I would be perfectly open to the allowing the existing
context to continue as the overriding principle.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering if colleagues would be in agreement to taking up Staff’s
suggestion here that they go back and rework some of the core items in this particular issue and
bring it back to us. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a couple of things. The anomaly has always and the example
that Commissioner Burt just gave is where you have a number of buildings at X street front
setback and then you have two at 50 feet. If we are throwing out the high and low I think the
term anomaly needs to be very clearly defined because if there are two it is not an anomaly from
my standpoint. So one thing I would suggest is it is single least and single greatest. Is it single
least and single greatest or are they really truly anomalies that we are looking at throwing out. I
think that needs some clarification. ¯
Chair Griffin: What was the word you were using? Single what?
Commissioner Holman: Single least and single greatest because that isn’t the same as an
anomaly. That is one. Then the other is just two throw out two other things here real quickly.
One is multi family lots for definitional purposes. Does multi family include R-2 because I don’t
think they would have much different context? So what is meant by multi family? There is R-2
or different zonings dotted within different other zonings so just be real clear on what multi
family is. Then the other thing, I am just throwing this out there, Commissioner Burt has
brought up, which I think is a good point we are trying to maintain the context and not create a
new setback. If it doesn’t get to complicated to consider determining and average contextual
front setback and then within that range; I am trying to eliminate creep here so we do maintain
the context, so if one house gets torn down or added on to the front that then the average stays
the same so the average can’t change so the setback for the next property moves with whatever
happened with the change that happened on the block if that makes any sense at all. It is just a
consideration to come back to us with.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, Can we move on to the next item here? I think we have explored this
sufficiently. Good. When Staff is fmished making their notes we would be pleased to hear your
next presentation.
Mr. Williams: The next item is the contextual garage placement. As you recall that deals with
whether the predominant pattern on one side of the street or in some instances in this case on
both sides of the street is for rear garages or front garages. We have offered several clarifications
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
in terms of those calculations as well. First clarifying that ifa lot does not have a garage that it is
counted as if it is a rear garage since you are not seeing a garage up front. Secondly that the
subject parcel is included in the calculation. Clarifying the language that is a little unclear
whether you count houses on both sides of the street all the time or only if, and this is the case,
only if the houses on your side of the street do not establish this predominant pattern then you
include both sides of the street to try to look at the whole neighborhood. Again it is excluding
flag lots, multi family and in this case corner lots as well. Then for lots that are on the corner
clarifying that the street calculation that they do is the street that the garage faces or the driveway
comes in. If the garage faces a different street then it is not part of the calculations for that street
and vise versa. So those are the suggested changes we have.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, questions? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I think these changes very well reflect our discussion back in March..
When I looked at the language in the code I realize that we are really talking about the placement
of garages that are rear garages. None of the language applies to front garages. So I just
wondered if we should make it clear in the code that this is what this is applying to. So if
somebody has a front garage and it has been reviewed through the IR process which talks about
being in the context of the neighborhood and they are going to build a front garage that they
don’t have to be concerned with this provision. Am I correct in my understanding of that? That
is never applied to a front garage.
Mr. Williams: Well you establish whether the pattem is of front garages or not before.you
determine that. Once you have made the determination that it is a front garage pattern on that
street then the rest of it has no meaning. If that is what you are saying we should clarify that.
Commissioner Packer: That is what I am saying and maybe that should be explained in the
language so that somebody reading it can understand it.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I agree that the first two points are what we discussed and I think they
are welcome changes. Since Pat got me to think about the contextual front setback it also got me
to looking at garage placement. I don’t know why we would treat it any differently. So I am
putting out there that the distance is also a consideration here as opposed to maybe number of
parcels. Also to consider both sides of the street as was suggested by Commissioner Lippert
because that only occurs on some occasions where count both sides of the street. So those would
be my suggestions.
Chair Griffin: Does Staff have any comment to that?
Mr. Williams: Again, just my understanding of sort of the philosophy of it that the both sides of
the street issue is that you are saying then that if the predominant pattern on your side of the
street is rear garages but it is not on the other side of the street that you don’t then have a rear
garage. I think the intent was that the priority is on your side of the street and try to address that.
If that is not evident from that then you look at both sides of the street. Then as far as the
City of Palo Alto 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
distance goes I understand what you are saying we can look at how it relates to larger lot sizes
and that kind of thing but again I don’t know that it necessarily simplifies the calculation.
Chair Grift’m: I am looking over here, are you going to stick with it? Do you have a question?
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question and a couple of comments. With regard to rear
garages people would not be precluded from doing rear garages if the street is predominantly
front garages? Okay.
The second is a comment and this is an illustration meant for my colleagues. It is not really the
garage that I think is the problem it is the garage door and the flatness of the structure that is the
problem.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: To pony on what Commissioner Lippert just said, sometimes it is the
size of the garage or the predominance of the garage but I think we have kind of taken care of
that. Are there many situations, Commissioner Packer brought it up earlier, where there is a
different development style on one side of a street as opposed to the other side of the street?
Does that happen very much?
Commissioner Bialson: I can say that that is what occurs on my block. Everybody on one side
is front and everybody on the other side is back because the subdivision that was created on one
side of the street had essentially identical homes. As I drive through my general neighborhood
you do find that especially on the other side of Middlefield towards 101.
Chair Griff’m: Any comments from Staff on that? No. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to follow on tb the comment by Commissioner Lippert
about garage location not being the only issue but garage design both the flatness and the size of
the garage.. If you have a front garage and it is a three car garage versus a front garage and it is a
one car garage those really have different impacts on whether the garage becomes the
predominant architectural feature of the house from the street. In that vein about three weeks
ago I went on a bike ride with my digital camera finally and did what I have been meaning to do
for a year and that is take about 40 photos of various garages. I have been struck that there are a
lot of garages that are like the one that I grew up with in Sunnyvale and was not very fond of, it
was a ranch style garage and it was the norm of the day for that type of housing track. Then I
have seen a lot of creativity done with front garages in recent years where they are carriage style
garages and different types of landscaping and setbacks with two car garages and there will be a
recessing of one. There are all kinds of creative things that have been done. When we
remodeled our house ten years ago we were not availed with the options on some garage design
and went with a traditional, it is not a front garage, but nevertheless the garage door design was
kind of the best we could see of a regular roll top garage doors and I hate it. I wish I had known
of other options and now I see that all kinds of things are being done. So in that-context I don’t
think that is a regulatory issue in all likelihood but I do think it is the kind of thing that Carol
Harrington, one of the Co-Chairs, has really emphasized with the R-1 group and that is the
educational aspect. I think it should be a prominent portion of what we do not in the ZOU but in
the R- 1 guidelines is to give people a bunch of examples of options. I have neighbors who just
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
feel the same way. They have front garages and they are trying to grow vines on it and they hate
their own garage. Now we see there are options there but not everybody is aware of them and
people do their own houses. Maybe certain architects now are going to be readily aware in this
town but not everybody who does a remodel is going to be. So I think we ought to layout some
of the best examples in a book that at least allows people to know the possibilities of what might
be preferred design or at least give them those options.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: A quick question. Garages have often been a bugaboo for me too. The
City code does say that fences are to be compatible with the rest of the development on the
property. Would it be possible to say that garage doors should be compatible with the rest of the
development on the property? The reason I say that is because a lot of, and I think this is what
Commissioner Burt was referring to also, part of this has been addressed because the size is one
thing and then the design is the other. The size we have addressed because of limiting the
amount of paving that can be in the front dimension. What sometimes draws so much attention
to the garages and makes them stick out so much is that the garage door has nothing to do with.
any of the rest of the architecture on the site and it makes them stick out like a sore thumb. So is
that something that we could do? Use the fence ordinance as an example?
Chair Griffin: This is starting to sound like an ARB meeting somehow. Do we really want to
get into design issues?
Ms. Grote: I think that some of that discussion does occur during the Individual Review. It is
more in terms ofplacement~ location but the discussion of the compatibility of the garage with
the rest of the house does occur during that review. I think as Commissioner Burr mentioned we
are working on better educational materials, trying to give people options about how to design
garages, what kinds of materials, how to design different kinds of styles that are available. So it
is something that we can probably do better through educational materials and through the
Individual Review than trying to codify it in an ordinance.
Chair Griffin: Commissioner Lippert I will call on you but I want to draw your attention to the
fact that we have gone throUgh the first hour and we have two more of these to go, Staff is that
right? One more? All right. Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I was going to raise a comment. It just might be simpler to make front
facing garage subject to IR review and thereby making sure that it is compatible with the rest of
the neighborhood. Now I am saying that sort of facetiously I don’t think that that’s a realistic
way of doing it. I think that the context of the garage, the front facing garage or the garage that
is on the front of the house, really has a lot to do with the configuration of the site plan. As a
practicing architect I have done several residences one of which was a U-shaped house in plan
where you had a living room wing, a garage and the house basically wrapped around a courtyard.
The owners and the neighbors were very happy with the results and it blended in with the
neighborhood and everything worked out very nicely. Another house that I did was an L-shaped
house with the garage coming out the front but rather than putting the garage door on the front of
this I was able to bring the driveway in and you turned into the garage so you never saw the
garage door. Again, it spared the neighbors from having to look in an open garage door and see
the washer and dryer and everything else that is collected in somebody’s garage.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Staff, do you have sufficient comments on these items to accomplish your
reworking of this particular item?
Commissioner Packer: I get the sense that we are kind of in agreement with this one. Last week
we did motions on these parts that we didn’t have too many issues with so I wonder if we
shouldn’t do that to help Staffalong on the garage issue? How do Commissioners feel abgut
that?
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, why don’t you make a motion and we will vote on it:
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I will just move the Staff recommendation with regards to contextual
garage placement and to include any small changes that they picked up fxom our discussion
when they come back to us in July.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
Chair Griffin: We have a second. Do you wish to speak any more to your motion or have you
already done so?
Commissioner Packer: I have done so.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?. All right. Any other comments? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am going to oppose it just because I would like to see a consistency
between the measured distance as opposed to number of lots for garage placement as well as
Setbacks.
MOTION PASSED (4-1-1-1 Commissioner Lippert abstained, Commissioner Holman voted no,
and Commissioner Cassel was absent).
Chair Griff’m: Then if we can vote on this item. All in favor of Bonnie’s motion say aye. (ayes)
Opposed? (nay) That carries with Commissioner Lippert abstaining and Commissioner Holman
voting against.
Commissioner Holman: I need to ask a question going back to contextual setback and I
apologize. The packet that we got says allow some flexibility and I am wondering what is meant
by that flexibility.
Mr. Williams: That is primarily the 20 to 25 foot change that we are not picking at whether it is
22 feet or 23 feet and in that range. That it should be between 20 and 25 feet and you could be
up to 20 or back farther than that if you wanted so that it is not as rigid in that range.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
47
48
Commissioner Holman: But if we are only considering it if it is greater than 25 feet that
wouldn’t be an issue would it?
Mr. Williams: That is the change we are making. Right now we consider it if it is over 20 feet.
It is 20 and a half feet then you have to build to 20 and a half feet there is no flexibility.
Chair Griffin: Would Staffmake their last presentation in this series, please?
Mr. Williams: Yes. The last item is definition of gross floor area. This is found in the
defmitions section that we have provided to you in the Staff Report. It is not in the R-1 section
itself. It would apply to R-1 and the other low density residential districts, R-2 and RE and
RMD. Again, after a lot of discussion with the IR Co-Chairs and the working group we have
tried to clarify what counts and what does not count in the gross floor area calculations. Before
we even did that the first change we made was to restructure the way the definitions are.
Currently they are about two pages long in the code and it goes back and forth between
commercial and residential and multi family. It says here this is included, this is excluded, this
included and this excluded so there is no real rhyme or reason to it. So we have tried to structure
it to talk about all the nonresidential multi family in one grouping, all the low density residential
in one grouping and to arrange that in terms of first what is included in gross floor area and then
secondly what is excluded from gross floor area. It is a formatting thing that hopefully will clean
it up.
The second group of changes are those again that we feel have been applied to a large extent or
have been discussed as to how they should be applied because there has been confusion. The
changes are that the footprint of vaulted entry features, those being the entries higher than 12
feet, we have a definition of them in here that they are higher than 12 feet counts twice whatever
that footprint is into your floor area. If they are less than 12 feet they are typically like an open
porch and they don’t count at all. So there is some penalty for that higher structure.
Secondly, clarifying that a footprint of a fireplace is counted once and the footprint of that
fireplace is not counted on each floor.
Then porches that any porch on the first floor that protrudes from the building and is not
enclosed is excluded from floor area. So we are sort of encouraging porches. Secondly, that
recessed porches are generally excluded from the calculations except only if they are recessed no
more than ten feet. Anything more than that would be counted. Then thirdly that any second
floor porch being a covered porch would be included in the calculations.
I wanted to go back a minute to mention that on the first floor unenclosed porches that one of the
limitations on that issue is that there is presently a 35% lot coverage requirement or 40% if you
are single family and there is a provision that five percent of the lot can also be covered by
porches. So there is some limitation on that. You can do more than five percent but it would
start counting as floor area if you did that. I just wanted to point out that there is some limitation
and that it is not an unlimited number of porches that you could have.
Another was that attic space, and we talked about this a little bit when we were talking about the
historic structures, but any attic space that is under five feet high clarifying that that does not get
counted as floor area. If it is over five feet it is counted as floor area.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2 Then bay windows have been a bit of a problem and we clarified that bay windows are typically
3 excluded so long as they don’t project more than two feet out from the building and that they are
4 at least 18 inches raised up above the inside floor so they are not essentially down to the ground
5 and that at least 50% of the bay has windows on it.
6
7 So with those clarifications we think that will help people understand how to calculate floor area.
8 Then just to add on to that we did have another element of gross floor area that we talked about
9 last week, which was the historic home exemptions relative to basements and attic spaces and we
10 will be adding that language into the gross floor area definition as well.
11
12 Chair Griffin: Colleagues? Lee.
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: What about staircases in single family homes?
15
16 Ms. Grote: Staircases are counted as floor area on both floors.
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: So they are counted twice.
19
20 Ms. Grote: They are counted on the first floor and they are counted on the second floor because
21 they take up floor area on both floors.
22
23 Commissioner Lippert: What about a situation where a staircase is a straight run and falls under
24 a Sloped ceiling which would be the roof?.
25
26 Ms. Grote: We may need to see a drawing of this but I would suspect it is going to count in both
27 locations. Do you have a drawing or something we could look at?
28
29 Chair Griffin: Yes, my house.
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: Yes there are lots of drawings. If you have a sloped roof over a staircase
32 how could it count as double on the ground floor floor area and the second story floor area it is
33 following the roofline?
34
35 Mr. Williams: I think we need to visit with you and see specifically what you are looking at I
36 can’t visualize it right now.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
39
40 Mr. Williams: It may be an issue where it depends on, well you would have to have clearance at
41 that point so it would have to seven feet or more where you get up at that off‘the stairway.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: I am sure that this comes up all the time.
44
45 Ms. Grote: If the roof is pitched or fiat and then the staircase is going up to the second floor to
46 gain access to the second floor it will count. It will count on the second floor and it counts on the
47 first floor. I am assuming the staircase is accessing the second floor so it is really immaterial
48 whether the roof is pitched or flat it counts on both floors.
City of Palo Alto 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
47
48
Chair Griffin: You counted it that way on my plan but I would be pleased.to share my plans with
anybody that wants to explore this further.
Ms. Grote: Staircases count on both floors regardless of roof pitch.
Chair Griffin: Comments? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a couple of things. One, I have a suggestion in terms of format. I
think it would be much easier to read the code if all this stuff about FAR were in the body of the
R-1 right after the development, that Table 2, if there could be an FAR table for R-1 explaining
all this. If for legal reasons you also want to have it in the definitions fine but I don’t think this is
the place to put all this kind of stuff. I would like to see all this FAR stuff in the body of the R-1
code and have some other generic FAR definition in the defmitions. That is my recommendation
in terms of readability of the code.
Chair Griffin: So you want to bring it forward so people can ....
Commissioner Packer: Yes, because you also have the drawings and a table, so you can follow it.
Then you can look at the encroachment issues and look at the whole thing together. Then I have
a question. Why are first floor recessed porches excluded less than ten feet? It seems to me that
is like a stairway, it is like anything, it is taking up space and even if they are partially exposed in
those pictures that we have they look kind of bulky. So I wonder what were we after. It is kind
of like the tax code where they want to encourage something to happen so they give you a tax
credit. So it sounds like somebody was wanting to encourage these recessed porches so you give
an FAR credit but why? It is kind of bulky.
Chair Griffin: Staffdo you want to take a crack at that? Otherwise we will listen to
Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: I was just going to ask Staff if they could clarify. I thought the
Comprehensive Plan addressed this in principle and that this is a Comp Plan policy to encourage
this. Am I remembering correctly?
Ms. Grote: There are Comp Plan policies that encourage porches definitely. The recessed porch
as opposed to the porch that extends out the recessed porch is found in traditional architectural
styles throughout town and it was seen to be as desirable as the type of porch that extends out
from a building. So if we are not counting porches that extend out the thinking was let’s not
count porches that are recessed in because they are still entryways of a particular architectural
style.
Commissioner Burt: As I recall in the Comp Plan there is no distinction made between
protruding and recessed porches that we simply are encouraging porches.
Ms. Grote: That is correct.
Chair Griffin: Perhaps Commissioner Packer was concerned about the ten feet, was that a
concern as being too deep for example?
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
~47
48
Commissioner Packer: No, it is just the concept. I am glad to have this discussion it helps me. I
don’t know ifI agree with it but if everyone else does I will go along with it.
Chair Griff’m: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am of a similar mind to Commissioner Packer here. I do think there is
some aesthetic benefit for neighborhood character and such to encourage porches whether they
are recessed orprotruding. For instance looking at the drawing about recessed porches I think
there ought to be either a maximum number or maximum square footage that can be devoted
because as you push in space, it is the old balloon thing, it pushes out FAR. So one of the things
that the IR process was to accomplish was to eliminate some of the massing problems. I think
that could potentially create more massing problems. So I am interested in having one recessed
porch and possibly determining a maximum square footage of that.
On the next, if you look at the drawings that are provided, the drawing right below the one that
talks about recessed porches, other recessed outdoor spaces, I have the same concern here
because it says spaces over one story in height count only one time in floor area calculation and
it does that same thing it pushes volume out. So I am not sure why we would do that because it
has the same effect as a vaulted entry. So that would seem as I am hearing from my left here that
would seem inconsistent. So I think that should.be considered differently. Then if you go to the
next page about open decks the recessed open deck is the same thing. It is pushing in space and
the FAR is going to be.pushed out someplace else. So I think that ought to also count as FAR.
Those would be my comments on porches and these recessed spaces.
Chair Griffin: As I recall the concept here was to try to get more articulation and it was judged
that this m~thodology would provide articulation without pushing single elements forward. If
Staff would like to pick up on that feel free.
Mr. Williams: That is exactly my recollection also.that it was an articulation thing. As I recall
one of the IR group members said something like if you count these you are not going to get
them, you are not going to get that articulation it is just not going to be provided. So I
understand Karen’s point that potentially it could add up maybe but I am not sure how we would
limit that. I don’t think saying one porch is adequate. Maybe there is a square footage number
that works.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I have a question on attics. This attic proposed language is it the same as
what is currently in the code on this five foot limitation?
Mr. Williams: My understanding and Lisa correct me ifI am wrong is that that is the way it has
been applied but there is not a specific code provision that addresses it.
Commissioner Burr: I am glad for that clarification because I feel like I am not a violator of
some sort. When we remodeled our house we have an attic and a pitched roof. I can stand up in
it for about two or three feet either way stand erect as I bend over to get boxes that are shuffled
under the other areas but a five foot limitation I think might be over restrictive and biased against
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
tall people. I would be bumping my head every time I go in the attic. I do understand that we
don’t want to allow attic space to be living space. So I appreciate that objective but I am
concerned that that may be over restrictive. Maybe there needs to be some latitude there that
allows some minority of the attic that would allow someone to stand up in the attic if it is a
pitched roof without the entire attic being a livable height.
Ms. Grote: There is a one time exemption for up to 200 square feet of the attic space. So you
can have up to 200 square feet of your attic space exempted from the FAR calculation, which
accounts for those steeply pitched areas so someone could stand up and walk down the middle of
their attic without having that count.
Commissioner Burr: So that is clear in the body of the text?
Ms. Grote.: Yes it is.
Commissioner Burr: Great. That is exactly what I was concerned with.
Chair Griffin: .Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am going to go back to this spaces over two stories in height when you
are looking at recessed outdoor spaces. My recollection is that when we are looking at this as a
part of the working group we talked about vaulted entries as being either protruding or recessed
and so I am confusedhow this could count one time in floor area calculation, again looking at
the drawing on the bottom of the page here having to do with recessed porches and other outdoor
recessed spaces, how could that count once when vaulted entries count twice? :
Ms. Grote: Curtis may want to elaborate on some of this as well or John. The fact that we don’t
count the recessed porch or are recommending not counting the recessed porch at the ground
l~vel so that doesn’t count. So if you have a double height recessed area we are recommending
counting it once up above because we have already said you don’t count it below because we
didn’t want to discourage those kinds of porches. So if you do have a double height it would
count just on the second floor. So in essence we are not encouraging those double height
recessed areas because we are going to count it on the second floor.
Commissioner Holman: That is a clarification. Thank you. I am interested in how many other
Commissioners, I can appreciate the. articulation but people at some point have to make their
choices. We can encourage porches and mostly what we are concerned about is the front of the
buildings so I don’t know if we need to encourage having say for instance the whole bottom
floor of a building could be recessed on one side and again you add that mass to the second floor.
So I am curiou~ as to how other Commissioners feel about recessed porches not counting in an
unlimited fashion.
Chair Griffm: Are there any comments? I guess I would say in principle I am in favor of
recessed porches. I am not sure whether a ten foot depth is necessarily required to achieve or
unlimited. Maybe you could repeat that.
Commissioner Holman: It is not just the ten foot depth. You could have an unlimited number.of
them for instance per this drawing.
City of Palo Alto Page 22
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
47
48
Chair Griffin: Well, in any event my only comment was about the ten foot depth. I think
whether or not someone is realistically going to have enough lot coverage to permit unlimited
number of porches on all perimeter surfaces I am a little doubtful I guess.
Commissioner Lippert: I think that Staff’s recommendations here are workable. My only
concern is that and I think this is where we are going is that they be applied equitably. Part of
the problem I think is that because they have been so disjointed it has been very difficult for
people who are designing their homes to apply these rules. Because of that people fight
homeowners and designers fight for every square inch that they can get and it becomes almost a.
battle in which they are trying to justify their design and then they wind up applying for an HIE
and it becomes a really long laborious drawn out process. Whereas if it could be done succinctly
I think that they can probably work within the rules and make their design work. So I think these
are actually very good recommendations.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have already said my piece on the recessed porches. I have another
question. It is sort of an inconsistency about bay windows projecting. I understand what it says
in the FAR drawings but then when I go into the encroachment section ofthecode. I am
deviating a little bit from the FAR discussion. There was a change that eliminated the ability of
windows.to project into side encroachments. The word ’side’ was crossed out on page nine of
the code except for greenhouses. So I wondered if that was the reason for not allowing windows
to encroach even 18 inches into the side yard. When you even discuss the projections from being
excluded in the FAR so you seem to be accommodating them in the FAR discussionbut
eliminating them in the encroachment inio the side yard section of the code. ¯
Chair Griffin: Would colleagues be interested in making a motion on this item so that we can
approach closure? Karen.
MOTION
Commissioner Holman: Yes I will make a motion. I am going to move the Staff
recommendation that would include the footprint of vaulted entry features counting twice, that
the footprint of fireplaces counted once, that attic space under five feet in height is excluded, that
bay windows are excluded as described here 18 inches above inside floor and 50% window and
less than or equal to a two foot projection, and that all second floor porches are included in FAR.
I am leaving out the other two for separate discussion so that would be my motion.
Chair Griffin: So your motion is to approve the Staff recommendation on those items and less
which items that you are not including?
Commissioner Holman: Less the In’st floor unenclosed porches and first floor recessed porches.
I would like a separate motion to deal with those.
Chair Griff’m: Do we have a second for that motion? It dies for lack of a second. Would anyone
like to propose another? Annette.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
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
47
MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: I would like to move the Staff list of revisions that they are proposing as
they are presently set forth.
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
Chair Griffin: Do you wish to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Bialson: Not particularly, no. I think we have all discussed it and asked our
questions.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I believe that this has been discussed enough and that they are
great.
MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-1 Commissioner Holman voted no; Commissioner Cassel absent)
Chair Griffin: Further comments before we vote? It appears not. All those in favor of Annette’s
motion for approving the Staff recommendations say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) The item
does carry with Commissioner Holman voting against. ~
Commissioner Burr you wanted to make a comment on a previous item.
Commissioner Burt: I don’t want to reintroduce a full discussion on this but I realize that
something I thought that I was more clear on maybe I am not. In the context of the garage
discussion there was a bullet on the comer lot calculations. It talks in the presentation about
neighborhood pattern is from the street where the garage fronts and I had construed that to mean
that we would have on the street where the garage fronts we would have these garage setback
contexts imposed. Now as I read the ordinance I am not so sure what that means and I don’t
know Whether it addresses a concern that I have had which is when we have comer lots and we
may have an address that faces on the narrow part of the lot, say it is a 60 foot wide lot by 100
feet deep, and as is often the case people choose to put the front of their house on the 100
distance of the lot. What we get on that 50 or 60 foot wide lot is a street face of a garage, a big
two or three car garage and that is all that is visible on the street face. That can be on a street
where we have predominantly recessed garage context and yet right in the middle of it we have
on these corners not just predominant architectural features of what to everybody else on that
street is the front of that house it is essentially the only architectural feature. So am I
understanding that we really aren’t addressing that issue right now? Is that a correct
understanding?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I am not sure. Sue is mentioning that she thought there had been some
discussion of this earlier with the Commission. I think the intent here is the language says the
street side garage of a comer lot that has the front side facing another street is not included. I
City of Pa!o Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
think the intent is that if that garage is facing towards a street whatever that street is is the street
that the calculation is done for.
Commissioner Burt: Is that for setbacks?
Mr. Williams: For garage placement.
Commissioner Burt: I am still not following what the impact of that is. Does that mean that if
we have a street and on that street everybody has recessed garages but on the corner someone
builds a house and they decide to make what is technically their street address instead their side
yard and that’s where they place their garage and therefore all along the street we have recessed
garages except on that comer we have a two or three car garage that is the street face of that
house. Are we addressing that in any way?
Ms. Grote: How I recall the discussion is that someone could decide if they are on a comer lot
they can decide where they would like to place their garage whichever street they want to place
it. Which ever one they choose though they then need to look at that pattern along that street so
that if they choose to put their garage facing the narrow side or how we would define it as front
then they have to look at that street and we have to evaluate that street as see if that has a front
located garage pattern or a rear located garage pattern and then that would determine where that
comer lot garage could be placed. So they may in fact not be able to put it facing the street up
front it being the primary or only feature along that street frontage.
Commissioner Burt: That sounds encouraging. I don’t know if there is a way to make that more
clear because I was struggling. At first I.thought you meant that and then I reread and thought
you didn’t and now you have clarified that you do and I am glad to hear that. It is a difficult
thing to describe.
Ms. Grote: It is and we will look at the wording of that to try and make it clearer.
Chair Griffm: Even in the IR guidelines it might be worthwhile to have a sketch of it. I am
vividly familiar with just exactly that phenomenon which I see often. Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I think you are going to find that comer lots are extremely problematic
and that it is not going to be able to work either way dictating that if they have their garage on
the narrow portion and it is front facing it may not work within the context of that neighborhood.
You can’t move the house it might already be there.
Commissioner Burt: Right and I am not proposing to have a solution here but I will just plant
the seed with folks. At different locations throughout my neighborhood I have seen various
methods .of addressing this issues ones that seem to work not well at all where just that entire
street face is a garage and others that work very well where instead of the garage being on the
comer the front of the house is still facing the long section of what I’ll call the end of the block
actually and not the long portion of the block. They have had a detached garage at the section of
the lot that is furthest away from the street. Others it is an attached garage but it is along that
street face and it is recessed just a little bit or as Lee had talked about earlier it is a design that
seems to work well where there is really architectural consideration of the impact of that garage.
So I won’t pretend to have the solutions but I have seen places where it is done effectively and
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
ones where it is done less effectively and I would like us to struggle to try and come up with that
issue.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I just have a question for my fellow Commissioners. I raised some
organizational suggestions to the Staff and I don’t know if we need a motion, if people agree
with me or violently disagree with me. For example moving the FAR information to a table do
we need a motion on something like that or does anybody have any concerns with that? Also
that memo I wrote last week that had some organizational suggestions. I wondered if that needs
to be discussed.
Chair Griffin: I think Staffwould like to respond to that.
Mr. John Lusardi, ZOU and Special Projects Manager: I think along with your recommendations
we also received some formatting recommendations from the focus groups. Our
recommendationas is shown on this slide is to take those recommendations put them in some
kind of a visual form so we can see how they work or not work, take it to the low density
working group and have them make a recommendation for when we come back on July 14 and
we will respond to your recommendations at that time along with committee input.
Commissioner Packer: Okay, I just wanted to know if my fellow Commissioners had any
problems with what I was suggesting.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I would like to get Staff’s response to it as set out by John. I think that
is the best way to approach it rather than having a discussion at this point.
Chair Griffin: We have a final point of clarification. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Yes. I know I read and I cannot find it now something about equipment
and where it can be located. Could Staff point me to what page that is on I swear I can’t find it
right now.
Ms. Grote: Page seven of the ordinance, Curtis is saying.
Chair Griffin: Having to do with not being allowed in the side yard setbacks, etc.
Commissioner Holman: Just quickly reading this at themoment it reads like and I could be
wrong because it has been a while since I read this, it sounds like service equipment for pools or
spas or whatever could be within the 20 foot rear setback, correct? So does that mean that they
could also, how I would read this is that they could also be right up against the fence. Is that
correct?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes, that is correct.
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: Well, being aware of many situations where it is one neighbor imposing
their service equipment on another neighbor I think that we ought to look at especially rear yard
setback to maintain a setback for that equipment. There are some people that I know whose
backyards are just unusable because there is a roar of pool equipment going all the time and it is
right at the fence. The people who have the pool for instance don’t hear the noise because the
house is in front of the pool and then the pool and then the equipment. So it really is an
encroachment on people’s right to enjoy their own property. So I don’t know if we are going to
resolve this right now but I am going to put out there that I think that that really needs to be
changed.
Chair Griffin: Lee, did you have a comment on that?
Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to respond. I don’t think it is so much an issue with regard
to proximity to the property line it is within the proximity to say to the neighbors building. The
ideal situation would be have that equipment located all the way to the back of the property
almost against a rear fence because you can’t build near a rear fence. So the closer you get it to
the rear property line the less impact it would have on other neighbor~ but that sort of violates
what you are talking about. What your really want to do is get the equipment out from in
between where houses are, I am thinking of air conditioning equipment. There are several cities
an example is Los Altos Hills that don’t allow you to put the air conditioning compressor or
pumps in between houses.
Chair Griffin: Nor will we ifI understand this correctly. That is the purpose of the text that we
are looking at tonight is to keep that equipment out of the sid6 yard setbacks between houses.
Commissioner Lippert: Correct.
Ms. Grote: That is correct.
Commissioner Holman: Correct but what I am suggesting is that those who have equipment that
they want to put at the back though I appreciate what you are saying but there are many ~
situations too where people don’t have big backyards so the equipment that is at somebody
else’s. Let’s say an owner who has a pool and just use that as an example and they put their
equipment against their back fence that could be within ten feet of somebody else’s house
because there are a lot of nonconformances and courts and stuffwhere that could be the case.
The situation also exists where one person’s backyard fence might be somebody else’s side yard
fence. So it creates anightmare in some people’s lives. So one solution is of course to insulate
the equipment but I am suggesting that whoever proposes the equipment that it be closer to their
own structure if it is not insulated .to ’x’ degree. But to just assume that to put it on the back
fence line is the best place to put it I can tell you fi’om several instances that I personally know of
is not a good solution. So I don’t know if Staffwants to come back with some recommendation
on that but I have seen people who can’t even use their backyards and can’t even open their
sliding back doors.
Ms. Grote: I assume that is because of the noise rather than the size of the equipment.
Commissioner Holman: Absolutely.
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47.
48
Ms. Grote: You could put a tool shed or other types of accessory building right up against the
back fence as long as it meets daylight plane.
Commissioner Holman: It is the noise exactly I am speaking of, yes.
Chair Griffin: Perhaps the noise ordinance is the more effective way to approach solving the
problem. That is just a comment. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I agree with Karen, I would like to see something come back on this
issue.
Chair Griffin: All right. Would you like to make a motion to make sure that that happens?
Commissioner Bialson: No, I think Staff has heard us and I will just rely on them looking at the
issue that is described by Karen and coming back to us. I would rely on Karen remembering.
Chair Griffin: Commissioner Holman are you satisfied with that arrangement?
Commissioner Holman: Yes.
Chair Griffin: I think we are now finished with this item. That takes us to the end of Unfinished
Business. No we have one more.
Commissioner Holman: I just wanted to put out there that I had suggested that we would look at
FAR and setbacks and I had sent an email to Staffto remind them of something that had come up
a long time ago in discussions about R-1 and that was the notion of, and this is in the Comp Plan
too ifI am not wrong, about little neighborhood markets. I don’t know if you want to have that
discussion later but they would happen a lot of times in R-1 neighborhoods. Those are things
that we haven’t discussed.
Chair Griffin: Any response from Staffon that? No?
Mr. Lusardi: I think our suggestion is we can look at that idea and bring it to the low density
residential committee again before it comes back to the Commission in July.
Chair Griff’m: And we again now are going to wrap ffp Unfinished Business. It is ten minutes to
nine I am wondering if Commissioners wouldentertain a seven-minute break here. It sounds
like we have agreement so we will take a break starting now.
We are going to reconvene the rest of the meeting. We are now going to address New Business.
I will open the public hearing for item number one where the Commission will consider a
¯ recommendation to make permanent two speed humps on Moreno between Middlefield and
Ross. The Commission will recommend if approved to the Director who will make the final
decision regarding the project. Staff if you would please make your presentation.
NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearings.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
ATTACHMENT H
TO:
YROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING DIVISION
-STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Curtis Williams, Contract Planner. DEPARTMENT: Planning
Susan Ondik, Planner . ... - : -. :. & Community Environment
Zoning Ordinance Update -~ Revisions to Single Family Residential
(R-l) ZP~g District and Subdistricts,and Revisions to the Home
.......- ...... :.. Improvement:ENceptionandNdividua! Review.Proces~e.s . . ::; :. :.
S~ffr~~b~iids that the Planning and Transportation C0~ssion (P&TC) review and..
.reCb~ei~d that City Council adopt the proposed ordinance making changes to the Single
.F~y ReSidential (R-l) Chapter (18.12) of Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alt0
~Municipal Code and.related Definitions in Chapter 18.04 as included in Attac~ent A,~orP0rating.~enew chap~er~0utlinedinExtfibit A to the ordinance.This ordinance als0
adopts revisions to the Home...!mprovement Exception (HIE) process and findings, and ,o
:the Individual.Reviev~ (IR) process. . .-.- ~.. .
Zoiiing Ordinance Update,(.Z...OU) staff and the City attorney’s office have r~f0rma,tted
:and darted a revised R-1 ~ter of t~e City’s Zoning Ordinance, with the-assistange of
Current Planning staff, P&T.I representatives on the Low Density Residential Working
Group, the Historic Resources~Board (HRB), and the Single Family Advis6ry .Committee
(SFAC) co-chairs. The revi~0ns to Chapter !8.12 .are intended as a standralone R-1
Chapter, in conjunction with revisions to related tow-density residential definitions.
The intent and benefitS of having a stand, None R,1 chapter.are to I) p.rovide a more user-
friendly zoning dogument for residential development that covers more than twoZthirds of
the City, and 2) allow an earlY.ad0ption of this frequently used portion of the code. ZOU
staff recommends that the Commission finalize all remaining items so staff can proceed
to CounCil with this item. The Home Improvement Exception and Individual Review
Process Changes, reviewed.by _the .Commi_’s.sion .o.n_ a se_par_ ..a_te...tr.._ack;_ ._~ar~e_ a!s_o. ~_l~_d_e~__’.m_
the draft R-1 Code. . .......... " " " - -
City of Palo Alto : Page I
-Staff has particularly worked with.the Low Density Residential (LDR) Wor~g Group of
the.P&TC consisting of Commissioners Cassel, Griffin, and Holman to provide .mput to
preliminary .recommendations for~ ode revisions and to identify key policy_issues for
............. -discussion--by -th~-fiffi- - --C--.ommissi onv-suoh-as-those -issues -tha~-were~brought:--to-the: ..........
Commission in January, May and Juneofthis year. " " - .
The Planning & Transportation Commission considered a draft of the R=I Ordinance on
May 26, June 2, and June 9, 2004. The Commission also reviewed the pi’oP0sed Home
Improvement Exception (H!E) and Individual Review 0R) process¯ changes on May 26,
2004. The May 26, 2004 ZOU staff report identified several key issues in the R-1 district
. i.zoning and-. staff .recommendati0~s that. Co~ssio~ discussed during tho~e meetings.
The following table summarizes the motions and-votes made on staff recommendations
forthe items discussed at those Commission meetings, " " - -
Ite~-(in 0~deriOf..~.’.. cussion at.:.. :i i+ -
~H0uSingElem~t P01ieies : ~ ". Stra~ V6f~ to ~i~rt 10t merger . ....Pas~ed 4-2-1 . .. :.~;-
¯ :(lot mergers & retention of .. recommendations.(through maxamum lot . ::. :..i . :. :
. ... . ...... .... .....:. . .: ..... .. ......: ~ ." ... ¯"~:eottages, duplexes and second sizes) and meincentives (non-regu!atory
:~t~) ;..i :....:.." ;". :. ".apprOach) t0"encOura~e retentibn0funits. .. " . .-
i Straw ~i0te~oall0w second, stories, on : -. Passed.. .. 4-2-1.SubstandardLots.: : ,: ."-/::; i .. . :: .-~: ...." " substa~d~diots . ~ i ’ i-.:,:. ./ " :::": " " :/ "
i ¯Reques~ fm’flaer analysis on subsghmdard " Passed 5~0-1-1¯" : " " ’" "10ts,-~bns~raintSai~dprdp0s~d-s01utions " ¯
i+IIistbrie Home GFA Exclusions.Stipp0rt staffree0mmendation, but lo0k at.Passed 6-0-! ....
/" " ::’. ’: " " : :National mid CARegist~i eligible sites " ...."
Conservation Districts SuPport staffrecommendat~on not to pursue Passed 5-1-1
: : " " :attl:ftsftme . .. ". ..".. -: -..
.Basement Recommendations SuPpOrt S~affree0mmendafion, EIP Passed 5-1~1. " ¯ ’:i basement r~port is Attachment H. ....
Single Story Overlay Support staffree0mm~datlon " " "Passed 4-2-1
-2~a Dwelling Unit - ¯ "’Support staff~e¢0mmendafion with Change Passed 3-2-.1,~
Recommendations tO allow e~teriorstairwaYs tO secogd unit on " "
’interiorside(not, intruding into .set!rock)
’ " .....¯¯ : ",: " ".i?. " .i . ’ ’ :- " .’: ...’
-Straw vote to allow 900 sf attached unit 3-3-1 ....
Contextual Front Setback."(No motion) Requgstea ttmt staff explore .No motion,.. ,,,..:,.., ...,o ++aWo aes +:...,:.. + -......+..:.-.
"Contextual Garage Placement Suppm+t staffrecommendation Passed 4-1-l-t
Gross Floor Area (GFA) defmiti,’on .Support staffreco~mendafion +Passed S-1-1
C0mmi.’ss+oners also provided comments on other items such as the location of service
equipment, the overalt format of-the R-I code, the potential to allow small neighborhood
serving reta~ in R-I, and Whether to further discuss allowable floor area and setbacks.
............+Staff agreed-to take-thes~items +to the+Low-Density+.P, esidential Working Group +to help
form thestaff recommendations described in more detail below: .+
City of Palo Alto "Page 2
The Discussion section .below outlines several issues or clarifications identified at the
May and June meetings by the .Commission for fur~her.r~view .. ..and rec0mmendation by
staff prior, to ~g the draft ordinance. Recommendations for those items have now
.................... -b een.4n eorp orated-into -the=d~a~:-R-t- eo d~-Addi-tionat~y~--the-HtE -and-indi-vidual--Kev-~ew-..
sections reviewed at. the May 26th P&TC meeting have been added to the R-1 chapter.
Other P,-1 :topics. where the Commission voted to support the staff recommendation, such
as theP~ovisions for.Contextual Garage Placement, have .been incorporated into the code
and are not discussed further in this staff report. Wording changes or clazif!cations by.
Commissioners. or the public that did not change .the intent or significantly alter the
.format of the .code .have. also been incorporated into.the attached R-~I-code. An. overview
of all of the changes made since the last Commission meeting is included in Attachment
DISCUSSION:- " " ’
A proposed ordinance to revise the cu~ent Zoning Ordinance to adopt the new P~!
Chapter (18.12) and related Definitions (18.04) is included as Attachment A to the staff
report. Exhibit .A to .the ordinance, comprises the revised ("clean’.’) version of Chapter
t 8.12. .. Attachment B is the.lsame..ordinance, but in a reded .version to .indicate
substantive changes made.t0 th~ ~ent.co.de provisions: Attachment C is a redlined
" ~;er~i0h 0f the modified. D~finiti.ons:.p~rt~g to 10w densifij residential
Machinen.t D is a .~ary 0f.~ehanges m~de by staffsince the_ Commission’s June 9,-
2002 :~eeting. other attachments ineiude minutes and Staff repot, fro~ prior, meetings,
and data and. analysis, of substandard !ots, basements, formai, revisions, and..single-sto~].. -.
The following sections outline staff’s analysis and recommendations of items, remaining
for discussion from the June 9t~ P&TC meeting: - " " . -
1. Home Improvement Exceptions and Single Family Individual Review
On May 26, 2004, the Commission adopted provisions ~evising the Homelmpro.v.ement
Exception. (HIE) section of the Zoning Ordinance, most notably including revisions to the
findings and limitations on the scope of exc.eptions. These provisions are now included in
Section 18.12.120. Some minor language revisions have-also.been made to the In~dividual
Review section, and provisions for minor modifications to approved projects have been
added. These.are located in Section 18.12.110. The process for HIEs. and I~ approvals is
located in the new Chapter 18.77 (Procedures for Permits and Approvals) that became
effective-July 7, 2004. The code language for this process would be located in a new
Section 18.77.075, and may be viewed in Sections 34 and 35 of the ordinance attached to
this staff repo.rt (Attachment A) ....
Page 3City of Palo Alto
2. Recommendations for Substandard Lots and Flag Lots
At the Jtme 2:, 2004 meeting, the Commission voted to .Support staff’s recommendation to
allow, second stories on substandard. :!ots, ..but requested further analysis of typical
constraints on substandard lots, including on corner lots. Using a map and database .of
................... substandard-lots :-aeross-the-eity~-Staff-~eleeted-4-:~ical"---. substandm’- d-lot--sizes-and-
dimensi0nsfor analysis. A map of substandard tots .and. an overview of substandard lot
information in Palo Alto are. included in Attachment G, along with an analysis of
develOpment pote.ntial for those selected lots. In genera!, under the existing regulations it
is usually not possible for a Substandard home to be built, to the allowable floor area.
Som6 of the provisions that are most restrictive include the prohibition against second
stories, side setbacks, the stlreetside setback r~quirement for corner lots, and contextual
Setbacks. . . ~ and..garage.placement.. .. .. .. . - ...... " :i.: -... i:. ’.-, :. - ~ .- : .~. ..:. " . : :-. ..... - .
Options for addressing Substandard lots were discussed with ZOU and Current Planning
staff. Staff has outlined a recommended approach for Commission consideration, that
would-allow for s~eond story dev~iopment (per the direction oflthe June 2~ Commission.
~0~),"~¢ith fl~e asS~ti0n ~t ~e i;&TC is interested in making substandardlots m~re
.~ea~tydevelopable ~thru.t variances and exceptions. Staff has reviewed this option with
~the City?s Individual Review architectural .consultant (Origins)° who confirmed that the
changes ~ provide .flexibility for added de:ce!opment in most.cases, but ree0mmen..d~d a
.-:~ma~.~um :h~!gh~.~t ~0f 24 feet."A, serond-option is 6u\~d below~that expands
.flexibility for single~ story development, if the city ontim!e s tO prohibit se¢ond stories.
-Man3i.)o~ these provisions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, so the Commission
c0ul.d :.cOmbine elements from either of the two alternatives. The recommendation and
options are as follows: .
b)
Staffrecommendation: Allow for second storg development .
¯. Eliminate contextual front setback requirement
¯Eliminate contextual garage placement requirement
¯Reducestreetside setback~om 16 to 10 feet -
¯.Limit maximum height, to 24. feet -
o. Subject to IR guidelines and review (and HRB review if historic s .tructure)¯No other changes to Setback requirements
¯indrease site coverage from 35% to 40% to allow more square footage on 1st floor
¯NO changes to parking requirements -..
Options for expanded flexibility_ for first story development ~confinue to prohibit
second stories on substandard lots):
¯Eliminate contextual.front setback-requirement
¯- Eliminate contextual garage placement requirement
¯Reduce street side setback from 16 to 10 feet
¯Reduce side setbacks to 10% 0flot width or 3’, whichever is greater
Parking: Retain two space requirement, but allow both to be tmcovered.
Allowone uncoveredspace inthefront setback with Director’s -approval (applicant ..........
mu~t show why Space C~ot be ~r0vided elsewhere On site)
Page 4City of Palo Alto
Section 18.12.040(c) provides criteria for both substandard lots and flag 10ts, but second
Stories are only being considered, for substandard lots and the staff recommendation
" above (for Substandard lots) is included in Section 18.12:040(c)(1). Staff also notes that
........... .....the_HlE=apph" eabflity-items-remain=available-for-additions-to-~x-is .fin. g- stm cmr.es-(-single-or ................
.two stories) on standard or substandard lots, but that such encr0achments are limited to
assure certainminimum setbacks (e.g., 3’ side setback, 10’ street side setback, etc.) are
maintained. These limitations, apply whether a lot is subst~mdard or not.
Staffhas also modified the subsection On flag lots (18.12.040(e)(2)) to 1) reduce the front
setback ~o 10-feet (since it really acts more as a side -setback on a. flag lot) and 2)
eliminate the contextual setback, and garage placement requirements. Second stories will
Continue to be prohibited and .the !7’ height limitation will remain for 1~-1 district flag
.lots. " " ........ . . "
3. i ..:Incentives for Historic Houses, Eligibility. ...... ....~
At the June 2, 2004. meeting, the Commission supported the staff recommendation to
¯ allow exclusions tO gross, floor area calculati0ns for Category 1 and 2 historic h~mes and
eofitrlbuting Struetur-es in a.!oeaily desigaa{ed district, but asked for. ni0re.i~o~.fion
about California Register and NationalRegister sites. The City’s existing code provaslons
.: a~i~ hi~t~ric, inceiitives aad.~equ~e historic review for Category :1 and 2 properties.
’i 6ali~o~al andNafiona!Registersitesa~e.eligibl¢ .to proceed ~0ugh the listing ~rpc~ss,
up0n-oWner~tiative: to be 6iassified as Category 1 Or-2 sites. All pr0pe~s det~ed
eligible for the National Register. are automatically eligible for Category.1 or. Category 2
.designation, provided that alterations since listing have been mini!i!ed and:li~ting is
- approved by the City. Many Of the p°tentia! CalifomialRegister properties may meet ~the
criteria for Category 1 or Category 2 listing, and would be ~individua!ly reviewed during
the listing process if the.pr0perty owner.Pr0Ceeded.with.the application. In s~a!3z, any.
historic property (whether Category .3, Category 4, National Register, or. California
¯ Register) may apply for designation or reclassification to.the Inventory as. Category 1 or
Category 2, and thereby can become eligible for the proposed incentives, while.at the
same. time becoming subject to historic resources (HRB) review and the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff recommends retaining this distinction in the
proposed revisions, applying the incentives only for Ca..tegory 1 and 2 homes and
" contributing structures in a 10call. y.designated district. -. "
4. Basements
On June 2, 2004~ the Commission.voted to SUpport staff recommendations for revisions
to requirements for basement patios and lightwells. The Commission also expressed a
concern, however, regarding the general and cumulative impacts of basements on
groundwater levels. Staff has consulted with the ZOU environmental consultant, EIP
Associates, and with the Public Works Department to examine this concern.
Associates has prepared an analysis that is included as Attachment H.
City of Palo Alto
There are approximately 14,474 siagle family parcels in the City of Palo Alto. There are
approximately 4,500 parcels in the FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA), required to comply with the City’s flood hazard regulations...Staff estimates that
approximately 4,300 of those parcels are single-family residential parcels. New or
.......................... expanded-b asements-are -prohibi-ted-for-singte-famiq. y-homes -in-the -S~. -I-.-IA~,-and-i£-an .............
applicant were making a "substantial improvement, .to an existing home,, any existing
basements would need to be filled. "
In. the fiscal year 02/03 building permits were issued for 59 new single family houses, of
which 32 permits included basements (54%). In-fiscal year 03/04 building.permits were
issued for 66 new single family houses, of which 2.2 included basements (33%). One of
.the basements was constructed with two levels below ground. - -: - ¯
The EIP analysis concludes that basement- construction will not have significant adverse
iimpacts on. either the shallow or deep aquifers or on adjacent properties, when subject to
¯ review and requirements of the Public Works Department. Some of the key.findings of
therep0rt include: . . " " ~ . . ~. ~..
-a) . The. deep aquifer.lies more than 200 feet below the sttrface and is isolated from
" -.:comtrucfion impacts near.the surface, such as those for.basements. -
b). :-i~e d~Wat~g of baSements d~g-construction would.re~Sres:ent an insignificant
~impact on theoverall quantity of surface water ..... -...... ~
e) :.,The ~ate .and direction of flow in areas adjacent to the site being dewatered would
.i.be altered temporarily during dewateri.ng, but would revert to near normal when
.~-dewatering Ceased. The groundwater level undergoes more significant changes -
-. durin, g the rainy season than. fr0mdeflection caused by basements.
d).Saltwater intrusion and subsidence would not be a concern due to the minimal
dr~g effects of basement construction, the separation of the impacts from the
deep aquifer; and SCVWDYs efforts.to recharge the aquifer.
e)The Public Works. Department requires geoteclmical investigations for basement
¯ projects to address, among other information, groundwater levels in the ioeal
shallow aquifer, allowing the Department to set conditions under which basement
-construction may proceed, " : "
The report does not recommend any modifications to the Zoning Ordinance to address
basement impacts~ and staff.recommends that the basement provisions remain as
proposed.. - .... .. . . . : .
5. Attached Second Dwelling Unit Size
At the..June 2, 2004 meeting~ the Commission supported the staff recommendations
regardingl second dwelling unit requirements, with a modification to allow exterior
stairways to the second unit on the interior as well as the rear side¯ of the primary
residence. Some Commissioners expressed a concern, however, with allowing up to 900
......... ~--squarefoot-attached unitsin thatthis Could altow"defacto-duplexes."-St~.did-consider ...........
City of Palo.Alto Page 6
and discussed with the LDR Working Group the option of re~ring the second unit. size
to be ~ted to a maximum percentage of the primary residence size.
Staffbelieves, however, that such-a ~restriction is not necessary because the ~um !0t
.... size~eq .~tr. .ement-estab~ished:f~r~arger:se~nd-~nits-in..-R~-1~z~ne. ~-ass~es:~that~the-se.e~nd~
dwell~g unit remains subordinate in Size to the.p~ residenee.i Specifically, in the R-
1. zone, a ~um 8,100 square foot lot is required for. a second unit greater than 450
square feet .in. size. The. allowable floor. . area for such a site is 3,180.square feet. A 900
Square foot attached (or detached) second .dwelling .unit with. this amount of allowable
floor, area w0uldcomprise no more than-28% ofthe.allowed floor area. ,WNle .it is
p~ssible thats0meone with an existing home of about 1,800 s.quare feet could ~h0ose to
convert part.-of.the home (even up to 900 square £eet) to a. Sec6nd ~dwelling unit, that
:w0uld seem unlikely when they would have enough .allowable floor area.r~em.~g to
add a second dwelling ~ to the house or ~detached and still be under, their .allowable
:fl0o~ area.. The draft code has als0 incorporated development reqmremen, tSto prevent the
duplex.!!i00k’r for ~ttaci~edunits, such as hav~g .entranceways ..on.separate sides, of the
- b~ding. - .... "
?.At the:Jtme 9, 2004.in~e~g;~e.C0~s~i0n 90ns!.dered the. st~ re~endat~ons
" ?e~’proposed r.evisi0iiS: }o conte~! .front setbacks ;t0: .a) el@ thg ex~l}!s.i0nS to
theieaidu~tions.(muitif~lyiots with mor.e..~ 3 ~.ts; flag 10~; s~e.e..t side.to.re., er !ots~
the S~gle hi~es~ and Sing!eieast setback) andb) to 0nly app!ythe.calcUlation to blocks
:where.: the average ~etback .exceeds .2.5 .feet. The .Commassmn .deferred action and
requested that ~tafff~e~~vie~r.~0ntextu~i front setback Options, such as"~sing..a..~mage
~tead0f the av~iag~, i~cluding both sid;s Of the.str;e~;and.alio~ga legs ~an.20 foot
front~etback. The C0mmis~i0nalso wanted staff to further Consult with the SFAC co-
c~s and Current P!~g staff on these items and to assess the reasoning behind the
eurreut regulations.
:zoUstaff met.with .cha-rent rlarming staff, the LD~ Working Group .and the SFaC co-
chairs .t0 discuss these options; The~ o-chairs indicated tha( the .original intent of the
contextual frgnt setb~ck.y~as to assu~re, that, in areas with .large setbacks (genera!ly .over
30 feet), new homes are :not constructed protruding into the front yards.and :affecting the
openness of those areas (CresCent Park was a neighborhood that was mentioned)..It was
.not~xpe~ed atthat time ihai the .pr0~sions wo~d ~pP!Y e~t~Siveiy throiJgh~ut the-ci~.
In reviewing .. the various options presented.by the Co~ssion and :staff,.the group
determined the .following: .
a)Range of Setbacks - The co-chairs and staff agreed that providing a range of
Setbacks would in mos~ cases result in developing to the low .end of the range
anyway, with a similar straight line of setbacks. Focusing more on preserving
existing nonconforming front setbacks may better preserve, the overall varied
- " context of-thebtock. "
City of Palo Alto -Page 7
b)Setbacks Less than 20 Feet - The co-chairs indicated that allowing contextual
¯ Setbacks of less than 20 feet was discussed in detail with the fu!l SFAC, but that
mo~.people on.the committee and in the neighborhood reviewing groups were not
¯ comfortable with allowing a.less than 20’ setback, even if it.was, the existing
......... :s .....=-eont~xt~-for-new-development~-andrpar~ic~tarly4or-riew-2-story-dev~topment-..
c) Con’text on :Both Sides of Street-~The SFAC co-chairs.. ~dicated that .the
C0~ttee discuSSed including’both sides of thestreet in calculations during the
original review Process ,bin did no~. as reqo~end )t.his. app~o.ach because
.residential developments and associated street<cape and street .widths can be
:~drarnafically different, even if theyare located directly across the street from each
"" d) Anomalies - The co-chairs and. staff discussed anomalies and-agreed it wou!dbe
ideai.to be able to exclude :the true anomalies through a simple, and clear.¯
" :definition, but in reality, anomalies, are difficult to define.. A~strafively, it
,appears Bat: th.e .approach 0!~ excluding .the ~ highest and ~ lowest is
probably .the best Solution, and. where there is little ~fference from,th~ average
e) Less than Five Lots -.The :group considered eliminating.the contextual front
:, se.~baekr~qukement for blocks containing less than five .parcels, but thought for
" ..:!a~g~ 16ts, five lots could define the context, and proposed-three parcels or less
..-f)"~Memorializing. the Setbacks-,...~.e Co-chairs ..agreed that.~¯estabfishing or
: :i~emorializing" .the colitex~al, from setbacks citywide ~was. a .good idea, and
Would. help Nt ietback "creep." iStaffdetermined that this Could be done as
..... application~ cameha, and .if pp~sible and a~ai!a!)le, a planning intern could
.-dedicate some time to calculating setbacks across the citY.
g) ~iai~ Average Setback ÷ The gr0~p’~eu~se~i applying contextual setbacks
6nly ,~hen the average Was greater thafi 30 feet, to recognize theintentt0 .address
only the larger setbacks. The co-chairs felt this was a policy decision for the
.Commission, but also felt that. allowing a new one or two-sto .ry home to develop at
20 feet when ihe average context was 30.~ would be a sigttifieant.diffe!~ence~ So
¯ the group agreed to maintain the staff recommendation of-only applying the
Contextual setback to a,~erages greater than 2.5. feet.. : ....
Staff also considered re.vising the established limit.of parcels included in the calculation
for. !0ngblodks from the existing 10 parce!s to a set distance of 600 feet (but not beyond
the existing block). Staffbelievesthis would make the process more cumbersome for the
applicant and would not provide a tangible benefit. . .... .
Based on-the group’s discussions, staff recommends retaining the proposed ordinance
language for contextual, front setbacks, with changes to a) exclude the requirement where
there are three or less lots onthe block, aud b) memorialize and record the established
setback for a block based upon the initial permit application and based on the use of 2001
-aerial photos. " ............ ? ........ ~ ....... . ......... : ...... ........................... ..~ ---: ....... .-- . .....................
City of PaSo Alto Page 8
7. ServiceEquipment Setbacks
During the June 9, 2004 Commission meeting, Commissioners expressed concern
reg~ding the. siting criteria for. noise producing equipment. The existing code treats st~ch
facilities as. accessory structures, !i~ting :their location to within the building ienyel0pe
................. ex~: ept-if-they-ean-b e-looated-more4taan--7-5-feet-b aek-from-the-front:propertyr ~here -~hey
can then encroach in.to the side and.rear, setbacks. The draft.R-1 code further restricts the
location of such equipment to the rear Setback (with the exception that such equipment is
allowed to encroach up to 6 feet.into, the s~reet side. setback). In response to Commission
e0neern~ staff has added a provision to Section 18.12.040(1) that if the rear yard of the
subject lot abuts the side yard of an adjacent lot, then such equipment must., also be
located at least .6 feet from the rear.property line. .......
.The LDR Working Group (Commissioners Holman and Cassel) did not tmafftmgus!y
agree with.this recommendation. Alternatives included a) requiting service equipment to
be located adjacent to existing buildings on-site (either the garage or the residence) or b)
=that this type of equipment be required to be located at least 6’ from the rear property line
midbe insulatedandoren~iosed ~=ali Cases." " ! "- i~ i. - " ".~i ...."
: :.’,.1.- , . ,, :-.. .~.’:.-.¯...~.. ¯...- ....
"8.. ?Small Retail Markets in R-1 ¯-.:. .......... -
Comprehensive-P!an Policy L;16 states: "Conside,.,r .siting ma!l !~eighborh9od, serving_ .ie~:farilities in existing or new residentia! areas.’. These.types Of facilities could.vary
.from,small neighborhood markets to yendor..carts. Implementat-i’pn .w0uld require-eithe.r
alCbhdition~i i~seper~t p~0cess to determine .what Size of market would be .ailQwed and
.other appropriate conditions, or.b) determining where these uses are appropriate and
rezo~g .them.to a.neighb0r:hood c0mmer~ial des~ignation. Also, the policy does .not
disfi!agtfish between R-l, other low. density residential, and multi_family residentia!.areas
-for the location Of these Services. Staff.believes that this is an issue that needs .to be
developed further butrecommends.that these, small’retail facilities in residential: areas be
consideredduring the ~Scussion of Neighborhood Commercial uses, in the larger context.
Of appropriate, commercial uses and z0xfing.
9. Format ...
At the prior ommi~sion meetings, as well as at the community focus group meetingsthat preceded the Commission meetings, seyeral comments. on the format of the Chapter
Were made, and Commission Packer provided Specific format suggestions in her June 1st
ie-mail. ZOU staff has i~orporated many of the minor changes into the dra~ code and has
,i)evi~wed with the LDR Working Group the more substantive forma~g changes. A
.summary of the origina! draft format outline, Commission Packer’s recommendations,
and the resulting staff recommendation are summarized in a table .included as Attachment
I. The formatting Changes rearrange the order of the .development standards,-add a table
that summarizes "gross floor area" inclusions/exclusion, .and reorder some of the
remaining chapter sections, such as moving parking and accessory uses sections up in the
order of the overall chapter. Staff found that other suggested changes had potential
benefits;~but-were likelyt0c~eate other conflicts-or confusion-to the-reader,-orwere_-more
........ ~pprdpriate clarifications for a handogt Or forthe Zoning Techtfieal Manual:
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Gr.. aphics that were included with the May 26, 2004 staff report, such as the compatibility
(daylight) plane illustration, the second.unit prototypes, and the gross floor area
illnstrations~ are .to be ~cluded within the Zoning Ordinance Update Teehuieal Manual,
_t0 _b e_re~ewed_and_approved._vAth-the-Zoning -ordi!!ane e-at -a-later-date~-At-~that-time~--s -taft
and the P&TC may determine that it is preferred to have some of the.illustrations
~co.~6~:ated directly intothe code. Staff envisions the Zoning Technical Manual to be
Similarin purpose .and. detail to the Tree Technical Manual, and .tO allow for. Periodic
tensions .and updates with approval of the P!anning Director..
10. Setbacks & Allowable FAR
At the end of~ the June 9, 2004 Commission¯ meeting, Commissioner Holman requested
that setbacks and allowable floor area in the R-1 districts should be discussed fttrther.
ZOU staff brought these items to the LDR Worldu. g Group (Commissioners Cassel and
I-Iolman) on June 23rd for consideration... . Commissioner I-Iolman wished to explore
:limitations .on .si~e. setbac .ks~ perhaps re~g a greater setback.0~i.larger lots to address
c6ncerns about massing for.large homes, especially with ~egard to second.story impacts.
Commissioner Cassel felt-.that historically ~e IR. discussions avoided dis.cu:ss.ing Specific .
dev~io~meiit Standards, such as setbacks and.floor area, within the .!R guidelines. Staff
.:do.es ~0t recomme.nd.pursu~g this potential, modification .in the.ZO~ b~t...t0 ~9n .tin. ue to
-use:th6 Individual Review process to ~tddress second story development concerns..
-Commissioner Holman also suggested.discussing revisions to the allowa~!e floor area
ratio within the R-l.~districts, again to reduce massing on larger lots. Staffnotes that
when:the Zoning Ordinance Update. process, bega~a, several items were identified as being
o~tside~e scope 0fithe Zoning Ordinance Update, ~cluding revising residenfi.al floor
area ratios. A list-of theseitems waspkesented to both Commission and Council so that
as the ZOU proceeded it would not significantly expaxtd in scope.. The SFAC co-chairs
further in.dicated that both FAR and setbacks were not recommended for revision by the
Committee, which opted instead to address massing through the,tR process.
11. Grandfathering Provisions and Miscellaneous Clean-Up
-Since the R-1 chapteris being adopted ahead of changes to the remainder.of the Zoning
Ordinance, some le..an,up revisions are needed to provide consistencywith the. rest of the
eXisting, code. In particular, the ig~andfatheringprovisions that were to.be dealt with .at a.
later date, during discussions of nonconforming uses, have been reinserted into the draft
ordinau, ee (unchanged but. reformatted) until those discussions occur. Otherwise, those
" provisions would not continue to applyand could cause significant confusion or hardship
for affected property owners and tenants. Also, the Zoning Ordinance section numbers
outside of the R-I chapter (18.12) have been modified tO reflect the appropriate sections
in the existing Zoning Ordinance.
Cit.v of Palo Alto :Page 10
~ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff has considered the iproposed revisions to the R-1 district, especially inclu.ding.
changes made to basement and Second unit requirements, in comparison with the existing
zoning regulations .and with the environmental analysis that was conducted for the
-adoption- of-the- -C- 0mprehensive -P-lan~--B asements-in-R- t--are - cm’renfly-allowed-hy -the
Z0ni~.g Ordinance mid the ¯proposed minor changes and clarifie~iIions to the ¯code would
not alter theimpacts from those under the current regulations.
".
Changes made to encouragesecond units implement Housing Element Comprehensive
Plan policies, and serve to bring the City. into compliance with State policy on second
dwelling units. An Addendum to the Comprehensive Plma Update. Final Environmental
Impact Report (available at the Planning DepalLtment) wa.s prepared when the Housing
Element was adopted :in December 2002. The Comprehensive Plan Environmental
Impact Report ~IK) was certified by the City Council on July 20, 1998~ The Addendum
E.
F. May ~26,-June 2, & June 9; 2004-P&TCMeeting Minutes-
G. Sub-s~anda~d Lot AnalysiS Data ..........
to the Comprehensive Plan EIR was adopted by the City Council on December 2,2002,
and encompasses the policies and programs directed at revising second unit regulations.
The .Addendum was prepared in conformance with Section 15164 .of the California
.Environmental. Quality Act Guidelines, and. con_firms that the proposed changes do not
:result ..in si~cant new..environmental ~npacts..It .is..staff’.s. d~terminat!0n., that~ .the
eha~ges, pr6pbsed~th the R-1 ~hapter therefore donot have signi.fica~, t environmental
i:impaets and that theydo not extend beyond those already analyzed in the Comprehensive
i. Plan EZR.
CO~ICLUSION AND. NEXT STEPS: " "
The .revisioii~ to the R-1 Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance will benefit the community,
staff, and City officials by providing virtually all R-! related information inone chapter.
The..revisions wil! also update and clarify current regulations and present the information
in a more usableformat.
Upon recommendation by the Commission, staff expects to .proceed to the City Cmmeil
with the R-1 chapter and !ow~density residential definitions in September 2004. Tile Low
Density Residential Chapter of the Zoniug Ordinance, including the R-E, R-2, and RMD
districts, will;be prese~ted to the Commission in late .July or early August. ’
ATTACH2VIENTS:
A. ProposedOrdinance Adopting Chang6s to.the R-1 Chapter. (18.12) and Definitions
(18.04) of the Zo~ng Code
Exhibit A: Final (Clean) Version of R-1 Code
Edite6 (Redlined) Version of R-I Code
Edited (Redlined) Version of Definitions (Chapter 18.04)
Summary of Additional Changes Since June 9, 2004
May 26, 2004 P&TC SiaffReport (without attachments)
City of Palo A!to Page II
H.Basement Report from EIP
I.Format Revisions Summary Table -
J.Single StorY Overlay (S) S ..umm..ary Table -
City C0uncil ’""
Single Family Advisory Committee Co-Chairs .
Zoning Ordinance Update Binder - -
Prepared by:Curtis Williams, Contract Planner
Susan Ondik, Planner .i " "
Roland Rivera, Planner
City of Palo Alto Page 12 .
ATTACHMENT G
SIYMMARY INFORMATION
R-1 SUBSTAND .ARD~ LOT ANALYSIS
(Detailed analysis spreadsheets used ,to create this summary information is
~lso attached as a reference) . ...
GENERAL INFORMATION "ON R;1SU:BSTANDARD :;LOTS "
Substandard Lot = Lot.that is,<50’ in width OR <83’ in depthAND area,~83~o~of,minimum lot :sizeunder ~zoning :district (for R;I 6,000
sf, so <4980)
No. of R-1 Substandard .Parcels 435 parcels
No. of R-1 650(S) Substandard Parcels 2. parcels
No. of R-1 743 Substandard Parcels 3 parcels
No. of R-1 929 Substandard Parcels -28 .parcels
¯ Total of,R-1 &R-1 CombiningDistricts:Substandard~Parcels . ¯.468 parcels
Average size:of.Substandard Lotin R-1 3694
Average: size of Substandard Lot in.R-1 & Combining Districts 5146
Median in R-1
.Median in R-1 929
3750
6026
Selected Buildable Range in R-1 *
Selected Buildable Range in R-1 929 *
¯ there are higher and lower lot sizes numbers
2000-:4979
3000-9901
squarefeet
square feet
,square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet
Further Analysis,to come ~up withsometypiCal:substandard .examples indicated ,3 ~general :areas.of !substandard.lots "
Downtown North & east to Embarcadero: In gerteral substandard lots here ate a Jittle.bit~larger in width tii~n in.other parts.of city; ~have more
33 to 38 ix 110 to 112 lots than the 25’ .wide lots; Have some lots close to .average iotsize (45ish x 80ish); and a ~few 50x50 .lots.
Colleqe ,Terrace:.Substandard lots .here .are frequently 25’ - 35" .wide (frequently25’ wide x 115 to 125;. & 30’ to 37’ x 115 to i125’i; Alsohave
Iotsnear the average size example "
South: of’,Oreqon Expressway: Overall mixture of.25’ & 35’ widesubstandard~lots; .also many.lotS near the average example (45ix 82), some
50x50 lots as well as someoddshape substandard lots
Substandard~ExistingDevStandardsCalcs.xls Geheral Info 6n SubStan Lots
For Reference: ¯ Existin~l :Allowable.R-1 Projections; etc.
Eaves, Cornices, fireplaces, architectural features
Bay windows
Greerihouse windows
Uncovered porches (<30" in height), Patios, Decks,. Landings;
Stairways, etc.¯Flues,: chimneys, antennas
Antennas
¯ Chimneys/flues <5’ in width
Dormers, Roof Decks, Gables, etc.
Horizontal Extension of existing encroaching wall in front.setbaCk
Horizontal Extension of existing encroaching w~ll in side (and .street
side) setback
Rear ~aCd addition
up to 2"into side, Upto ¯4’ into frohi, up.to 4’ into rear
2’ into rear or 3’ into front ¯. -
2’ into.rear or 3’ into front, one up to 6’ wide may project 2’ into side
up to 3’.into side, up to 6’ into front, up to 6’ into rear
up to t5’ above height limit
May extend into Compatibility Plane
May extend into Compatibility Plane -
May extend into Comp Plane if horizontal length sum of all <15’ on
each .side; height <24’; and at least 5’ separation between features
Portion of existngwall already encroaching into front (no closer than
14)’ may extend at.same setback for distance no greater than length
of existing encroachment AND encroachment (including existing) is
less than 1/2 maximum width of house
Portion of existng wall .already encroaching irito side (no closer than 5’
- for street side 10’) may be extended in one direction at same
setback for distance no greater than length of existing encroachment
AND no greater than 20’.
Maintaining 14’ (10’ for back to back corner lots) rear setback, 1/2
ibuilding width mayencroach up to 6’ into rear setback ’
For Reference:Potential HIE Applications for existing structures Not applicable with new homes
(1) ¯Up tO 100 square feet of floor area over max allowed onsite
(2) En’croach up to 4 feet into front yard setback;
(3) Encroach up to 3 feet into a rear yard setback;
(4) Encroach up to 2 feet into a interior side yard setback;
(5) Encr~)ach up to 6 feet into a streetside yard setback;
.(6) AIII basement, if allowed, to encroachsimilar to it items (2)’- (5) above
(7) Encroaching dormer, roof deck, etc. to exceed 24~ in height by up to 3’::"~
(8) single architectural feature (dormer, etc.) exceeding 7.5’ in. length (but <15’) to, encroach intothe rear daylight plane ,.
(11) Extend up to 1/4 length of existing wall or 10 feet, whichever is shorter an existing legal non-conforming..walt between 3.5 and 5 feetfrom
the side lot line,
.(12) Extend within height and daylight plane limits,¯an existing legal nomconforming .wall.that is >12’ above ¯grade.
(13) Increase height within height and DLP limits of existing legally non-conforming building wall that encroaches into asetback:
(15) Allow similar minor exceptions, when determined ¯by the director to be similar magnitude& scope to above.
¯ Substandard~ExistingDevStandardsCalcs.xls G2 General Info On :SubStan Lots
SUMMARY TABI~E ~;BUILDING,ENVELOPESIOF SUBS,TAN:DARDLOT~ EXAMPLES
USINGEXISTING DEVEEOPMENTSTANEiARDS ~
Lot Size
Allowable. FloorlArea
Buildabie Area = (Buildable Width) x (Buildable
Depth)
Difference b~tw~en Allowable’FAR &Buildable ’
Area ’ ’
2nd story:Bu!ldable Width with Side CP, if build to
24’ height
2nd story Buildable Depth:with .Rear CP, if build.to
24’ height & Start at front setback
Potential 2nd story Buildable Area;.considering :CP,
with 24’ height ’
Average.i.(45x82)
:Interior t Corner
3690
1661 .1969.
1386 :966.
-275 -695¯
17
.2875
1294
¯ .-14 ... -864
560, but not.likeiy:’~
.975
-31:9
.. 225
.-1069
:, 50x50
Interior I Corner
2500 ..
1125
380
-745
28O
-845
"22
629 .
. because too narrow:
¯ ... .at 24Lheight .
110, but not likely
because of depth
: Reference
i (60x100) ¯Standard Size ..¯’in~terior Corner
6ooo
2550
"2880 2280-
330, ’ -270
¯. 1760,..
Substandard~ExistlngDevStandardsCalcs.xls G3 Summary Table-withExiSting
SUMMA RY TABLE SUBSTANDARD, LOTEXAMPL ESi=W!TH:POTENTIALDEVELOPMENTSTANDARD
CHANGES. . ’
One Story Development with Potential-Changes
Lot Size ,.
Allowable FId0r!Area
One Story Buildable::Area withRecommendations...
Wit.h .Changes Can.Lot meet Allowable¯ Floor ¯Area,on ;1st
Floor?
(still may vary site by site with other restrictions such as trees
etc3
.Avera~le.(45x82) ......:i.. 35X125 :. i..-25x 115
:I . i~t~rior Corner,: :i:./nteri0r,, .-.Coiner.inted0r Corner
" 15i2~.1828
2875
1294
A!lowable
.F!oorArea
No ’ ’ Yes ¯
¯3690 .. . .1;.-i...
1661
863
NO ....
50 x 50
Interior Corner
i 2500 ’ ’~1¯125
i.430 ¯365
INo.....No
Substandard Two.Story Development with
’ ~ Recommended Changes
Potential I st ~story with.Traditional Setbacks-(except
streetside setback =10’)
Potential 2nd Story (no change - using,existingCompatibility
=(Daylight). Plane)*
’,With (~hange~:C~n]Lot .meet Allowable.FIo0r Area?
(still may vary site by siteby other restrictions such as trees;
,.etc.)
...,Corner .! :../:.interior . Corner
560.
Possibly,.¯bLit.¯limited
.,..25x115
interior¯ Corner¯;
.975 675
: Inted0r
-.Not likely,..width too
.... narrow. .
* Narrow Iotswiil still not necessarily be able to have 2nd story, will likely still :require variance tO :exceed Compatibility (Daylight) Plane
..,, ..5o
:Interior Corner.
I.
340..
’ i10 ~.
Not likely, depth
=¯ too narrow .
Substandard_withRec0mmendationsCalcs.xls G4 Summary Tabl~ withChanges
OPTIONS FOR’ SUBSTANDARD LOTS:
This list is not all inclusive-if development standard is not mentioned,. StandardR-l requirement applies
Staff Recommendation - Allowing .2nd .Stories on Substandard Lots:
Eliminate Contextual Front Setback requirement
Eliminate Contextual Garage ,Placement requirement
Reduce street side setback from 16’ to 10’.
Limit Height to 24 feet
Second story would be subjectto IR guidelines&.review
Increase site~ coverage from 35%to 40% to allow more square footage onlst floor
Continue to~pr0hibit 2nd stories, .(allowsome additionalsquare footage.with:following.options):
Eliminate Contextual Front Setback requirement
Elimina~te Contextual Garage Placement requirement
Reduce street side setback from 16’ to 10’.
Side Setbacl~ - reduce to 10% lot width or 3’, whichever greater
Parking: Retain 2 space requirement, but.allow bothto be uncovered
Parking: Consider allowing I uncovered spacebe :allowed infront setback.with iDirector’s approval (where applicant must show why space.cann0t be
provided elsewhere on site)
Other options to consider: .
May want to iconsider some.of .the parkingflexibility even if allow 2nd stories,particularly for narrow lots
May want to :consider reducing the. rear setback from 20 to 15 feet.
SubStandard_with RecommendationsCalcs.xls Summary Table with Changes
ATTACHMENT G
DETAILED ANALYSIS SPREADSHEETS:
SAMPLE SUBSTANDARD LOTS
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
EXAMPLE #1:AVERAGELOTSIZE.(45 x82)
Lot Sizei of R-1 Substandard Lot
Width of :lot
Depthi of: lot
Front (contextual) Setback
Rear Setback
Interior Side Setback
Side Setback
Single Story Site Coverage (=FAR)
Site Coverage (if allow 2nd Stories) = ;35 x Iotsize
¯ .Allowable Floor Area (,45 .x-lot size)
3690 (rounded.from 3694-for easier calculations)
45. feet
82 "
Interior +Lot
20r feet
20 "
6 "
6
Corner Lot
20 feet
20 "
16 "
1661 square feet
1292 "
1661 sq uarefeet
.Buildabie Width = (Width - sidesetbacks)
Buildable +Depth = (Depth- front:.&..rear setbacks)
BuildableArea = (Buildable Width)x(Buildable
Deptl~)
Interior Lot
33 feet
42 "
1386 square feet
Difference betweenAIIowable FAR. & Buildable Area
(= Buiidable Area - Floor ¯Area)-275 ~squarefeet,
.-Corner Lot
23 feet
42 "
:~.,.,.966 squarefeet
’695 square feet
Considering 2nd Stories ....
Compatibility (Daylight) Plane (CP) in R-1
Side CP = at.prop lines, 10’, then 45 :degree
Rear (~P+:= at rear setback, 16’ then 60 degrees
’ 2nd story.Buildable.Width with Side.CP, if build.to.24’"
height
¯ .2nd story Buildable:Depth with:Rear CP,if build to24’
height & start.at ~ront setbaCk(of 20’,)
Potentia! 2ndstoryBuildableArea,.,considering CP
and buildingheight Of 24’
Substandard_ExistingDevStandard~Calcs~xls
So at 6’ .side setback+=-16’ height;+at ..16’ streetside.Setback = 26’
(every 1’ in = 1’ up in height, up to 30’+ reaches 30’+ at 20’ infrom propline)
So at rear:+setback (20’)..CP height:is t6’ (reaches 30’ height limit at.just over 8’ it] from
setback line); about 5.8’~in for+26’ height;+ about. 4.6’ in for 24’ height
Additi0nadds a foot in width .each side with every, footreductio++nin, building size
17 i height (SO on.45 wide Iot,.if build to 26’ tall,-then .13’ wide addition)
Not as easy +to .calculate additional depth (But with 24’¯building iheight, then build
++., ~ .++ to th~s height around::4.6’ in from setbaCk.line, soabout 1. additional foot in
.37 depth)
629 square feet
G6 1- Avg. size Example
EXAMPLE #2:35x125 LOT
Lot Size of R-1 Substandard Lot
Widthl of lot
Depth of lot
Front (Contextual)Setback
Rear Setback
Interior Side Setback
Side Setback
4375
35 feet
125 feet
Interior Lot
20 feet
20 feet
6 feet
6 feet
.Corner Lot
20 feet
20 feet
6 feet
16 feet
Single Story Site Coverage (=FAR)
Site Coverage (if allow 2rid stories) = ,35 x lot size
,Allowable Floor Area (,45 x.lotsize)
1969 square.feet
1531 square feet
.1969 square:feet
Buildable Width = (Width --side:setbacks)
Buildable Depth =.(Depth ~ frOnt..&, rear setbaCkS)
Buildable.Area= (Buildable Width)x(Buildable
.Depth)
Interior .L01~
23 feet
85 feet
1955 ,square-feet
comerLot
13 feet
85 feet
.?.1105:squarefeet
DifferenCe between ~AIIowable FAR:,& ¯Buildable
Area (= Buildable .Area -FIo0r.Area). ~14 ~864
.Compatibility (Da¥1ight)Plane,(,CP)in R-1
Side CP’= at propiines,,10’, then 45 .degree
So.at 6’ :sideisetba:ck =.1:6’ height; at.16’ streetside setback = 26’
(every :1 ’-in =¯.1’ .up!in~height,-;upto 30’, .reaches 30’.at20’ in from propline)
-Rear CP " at rear setback, 16’ then60 degrees
So .at rear setba:ckCP height is ;16’ (reaches 30’ height limit at just over 8’, in from
setback line); about5~8’ in for 26’ .height; about 4.6’ in for 24’ height
2nd story Buildable~Width.with Side CP, ifbUild.to
24~ height
2ndstor, y B~iildable ~Dep~h with,,Rear CP,ffbuild!to
24’ height &start at front.setback(of,20’)
.Potential 2nd story Buildable Area, considering CP
and building -heightof 24’
Addition.adds a.if0ot.in width ,each side.with every foot reduction in.building Size
7¯-. height (So.on 35wide~ lot, if build to .24’ tall, then 7’ wide addition)
8O
560
Substandard_ExistingDevStandardsCalcs.xls G7 2:!35 x.125Example
EXAMPLE #3:, 25 x 115 LOT
Lot Size of R-1 Substandard Lot
Width!of~lot
Depth of lot
Front (Contextuai) setback
Rear Setback
Interior Side Setback
Side Setback
Single’ Story Site Coverage (=FAR)
Site Coverage (if allow 2nd stodes) = .35-x lot size
2875
25 feet
115 feet
Interior Lot
.20 feet
20 feet
6 feet
6 feet
i 294 square.feet
1006 .square feet
Corner Lot
.20 feet
20 feet
6 feet
16 feet
AIIov~able Floor Area (.45 x lot size)1294. square-feet
Buildable Width ~(Width - sidesetbacks)
Build~ble Depth = .(Depth -front ~ .rear setbacks)
Buildable Area = (Buildable.Width) x (Buildable
Depth) ..
Diffe~’enlce between Allowable~FAR,&-Buildable
Area (=BuildableArea - Floor Area)
Compatibility (Daylight)Plane (CP) inR-1
Side CP= at prop lines, 10’, then 45 degree
interior Lot
13feet
75 feet
975 .square feet
¯ : Corner Lot
3 feet
75 feet
Rear CP = at rear setback, 16’ then .6Odegrees
:225 squarefeet
-319 -1069.
So at.6’side setback = .1~6’ height; at 16’ streetsidesetback = 26’
(every .1’ in =. 1’ up.in height, up to30’, reaches 30’:at 20’ in from proptine)
So at rear setback, cPheightis .16’ (reaches 30’ height limit at just over 8! in .from
setback line); about 5.8’ in for 26’ height; about 4;6’ in for 24’ height
.2nd story Buildable Width with .Side CP, if build.to
24’ .height
2nd story BuildabieDepth with Rear CP, if build to
24’ height ,& Start,at front setback-(of 20’)
26’ height.L- -7’ wide; 20’ height =5’ wide
,Potentiai 2nd story BuildableArea, Considering CP
and buildingheight.of24’
3- 25 x115 ExamplsSubstandard ExistlngDevStandardsCalcs.xls G8
EXAMPLE #4: 50.X 50 ~LOT
Lot Size, of R-1 Substandard Lot
Widthiofilot
Depthi of lot
Front (Contextual) Setback
Rear Setback
Interior Side Setback
Side Setback
25OO
50 feet
50 feet
Interior LOt Corner Lot
20 feet 20 feet
20 feet 20 feet
6 feet ......6 feet
6 feet 16 feet
Single Story Site Coverage (=FAR)
Site Coverage (if allow 2nd Stories) =.35 x 10t size
1125 ,square feet
875 square feet
. Allowable.Floor .Area (.45 x lot-size).1125 square,feet
Build~’ble Width =.(Width - side setbacks)
Buildable.Depth =,,(Depth - front,&.rear setbacks)
¯ ... Buildab!eArea = (Buildable:Width)x :(Buildable
,Depth) ~
Interior Lot
38 ,feet
10 feet
C0rnerLot
-,28 feet
10 feet
380 squarefeet :.. :! 280-square feet
Differencebetween.AIIowableFAR & Buildable
Area (= Buildable Area -. FIoorArea)
Compatibility (Daylight) Plane (CP) in R-1
Side CP ,= at prop .lines, 10’, then 45degree
Rear CP = at rear setback, ! 6t then 60..degrees
2nd ,stow BuildableWidth with Side CP,I if build to..
24’ height
2nd story Buildabie:Depth.with.Rear CP;ifbuildto
24’ .h~ight.& start:atfront setback (of 20’)
-745’-845 "" "
So at 6’ side setback = ,16’ height; at 16t streetside.setback = 26’
(every 1’in = 1’ up in height;-up ~to30’,. reaches .30’ .at20’ infr0m prop.fine)
So at rear setbackCP height is 16’ (reaches 30’ height limit at just over 8’ in from
setback line);.about.5.8’ in for 26’: height; about 4;6’ in for 24’ height
Additionadds a ~foot .in width each ~ide:witli every .foot, reduction ih: building .size
height (Soon.50 wide lot, if build to 24’ tall, then,22’ wide addition)
.Potentia,12nd stow.BuildableArea;considering~cP~
andbuilding~height.of 24’
Substandard ExistingDevStandardsCalcs.xls
110
G9 ~t~- 50 x50 .Example
FOR COMPARISON: R-1 Lot at Minlmbm.LotSize.(NOTa substandard.lot)
Lot Size-of R-1 Substandard Lot 6000
Width iof lot 60 feet
Depth of lot 100 feet
Front (Contextual) Setback
Rear Setback
InteriOr Side Setback
Side Setback
Interior Lot Corner Lot
20 feet 20 feet
20 feet - .20 feet
6 feet " .......6 feet
6 feet 16 feet
Single Story Site ,Coverage (=FAR)
Site Coverage (if allow 2nd .stories) = ~35 x lot size
2550 square feet
2100 square feet "
Allowable FloorArea.(;45x,5000; .30 xremaining)2550 square feet
BuildableWidth = (Width -side setbacks)
Buildable ~Depth =(Depth -~front .& ~rear setbacks)
Buildable Area .= (BuildableWidth) x(Buildable
Depth)
¯Difference betweenAIIowabie.FAR&-Buildable
Area (=Buildable Area - Floor.Area)
Interior Lot
¯ 48 feet
,60 feet
Corner Lot
38 feet
60 feet
Compatibility (Dayli.qht) Plane (CP) in R-1
Side CP = atproplines, 10’,.then.45.deg~ee
Rear GP= at rear setback,. 16’ then60 degrees
2880square:fe~t. " ~ :~2280"squarefeet
330 ~270
So at 6’ side.setback = .16’. height; at 16’ streetSide ~setback = 26’
(every1’ in = .1’ up.in height, .upto 30’, reaches-30’¯ at 20’ in from ptopl ne~)
So at. rear. s~tback CP height.is 16"(reaches 30’.height limit at just over 8’! in from
setback line);, aboutS.8’ in for 26’ height; about 4~6’ in .for 24’ height
2nd story BuildableWidth with .SideCP, if buildto
24’ height
2nd story Buildable..Depth With. Ri~ar CP,~ if. build to
24’. :heighti!&.startat:.front setback(of 20’)
Potential2nd storyBuildableArea, considedngCP
and bbildingi.height of 24’
Addition:adds’a ;foot in width.eachsidewith every :foot .reduction,in building size
32..~. height (So on..60:wide .lot, if build to 24’ tall, then 32’ wide addition)
1760
Substandard .~ExistingDevStandardsCalcs.xls G10 Reference :’ R:I Minimum Lot
ATTACHMENT G
DETAILED~ ANALYSIS ’SP~~S~ETS:
SAMPLE SUBSTANDARDLOTS
.USING
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CHANGES
EXAMPLE #1: AVERAGELOT SIZE (45 x 82)WITH POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDCHANGES
Lot Size of R-1 Substandard Lot 3690 :(roundedfrom 3694.for easier call
Width of, lot
Depth. of lot
Allowable FleerArea(.45 x lot size)
Single Story Site Coverage (=FAR)
One Story~:wiih :AdjustedSetb~_oks-
Setbacks.if do not allow.2nd Stories
Front (Contextual) Setback
Rear Setback
Interior Side Setback
45feet.
82 "
1661 ,square feet
1661 square feet
Interior Lot
20 feet
20 "
4.5 "
4.5 "Side Setback
Buildable Width = (Width -side s~tbacks)
Buildable Depth = (Depth - front & rear setbacks),
Interior Lot
36 feet
One StoryBuildable Area-with ,recommendations.
Difference~between AllowableFAR :&,Buildable Area
1512 square feet
,149 squarefeet
Corner Lot
20 feet
20 "
4.5 "
10 "
Corner Lot
30.5 feet
42 "
1281 squarefeet
-380 square feet
Two .Story (Tradlhonal ~Setbacksapplv:(with,the.exception :of:!streetside bein.q;r-duced’~to~10’)
1661 square feetAllowable!Floor Area (.45x lot size)¯. Interior Lot
20 feetFront Setback 20 "Rear Setback 6 "Interior Side Setback 6 "Side Setback
Potential 1st Story (using traditional setbacks~ except streetside)1386 square feet
Site Coverage (if allow2nd stories) = .40 x lot size 1476
-Potential Second Story with Height...Limitlof 24 feet
2nd stbryBuildable Width withSide cP, if build to24’ height .17
2nd story Buildable Depth withRear CP, if build to 24’ height &start
at front setback (of 20’)37
Potential 2nd story Buildable Area, considering CP and building
height of ~24’629 square feet
Corner LOt
20 feet
20 "
6 "
10 "
1218 square feet
Substandard_withRecommendationsCalcs.xls Gl1"EXample
EXAMPI~E ~2: 35x125LOT WITH POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDCHANGES
Lot Sizelof~R-1 Substandard Lot
Width of lot
Depth of ilot
AIIowabie Floor Area (:45 x lot size)
Single Story Site Coverage (=FAR)
4375
35 feet
125 "
1969 sq uarefeet
1969 square-feet
One story ~with,Adjusted Setbacks
SetbackSif do notallow 2nd Stories
Front (Contextual) Setback
Rear Setback
Interior Side Setback
Side Setback
Buildable Width .= (Width - sid esetbacks)
Buildable Depth = (De.pth - front &.rear setbacks)
Interior Lot
20 feet
20 "
3.5 "
3.5 "
Interior Lot
28 feet
85 "
Corner Lot
20 feet
20 "
3.5 "
10 "
Comer Lot
21.5 feet
85 "
One Story Buildable.Areawith recommendations
Difference !between ,.Allowable FAR & ,Buildable Area
"2380 squ~are.feet
411 square feet
:,:.i 1827~5 squarefe
~141.5 square fe~
,of streetside.be,n~l:.reduced ~to 10 )Two.StoW i(’rraditional :setbacks~apply (with the.eXception .............. " " ’ ’
.Interior .Lot Corner Lot
Front Setback
Reap Setback
. Interior Side Setback
Side Setback
Potential:.lst Story(using traditional Setbacks)
Site Coverage (ifallow 2nd stories) = .4Ox 10t size
20 feet 20 feet
20 "20 "
6 "6 "
6 "10 "
1955 square.feet :1615 square fe
1750
Potential Second~Story,with;2nd :story setbacks.vs.:CP (Heiqht flmitof 124’)
2nd story Buildable Width.with Side CP, if build to 2_4’ height 7
2nd storyBuildable.Depth with Rear CP,..if build to 24’ ~height
. & start at front setback (of 20’)80
¯ Potential 2rid.story Buildable Area, considering CP and
building height of 24’560 square ifeet
’ :Substandard withRecommendationsCalcs.xls G12 2- 35 ~x 125Example
EXAMPLE #3:. 25 x 115 LOT WITH.¯ POTENTIAL ;DEVELOPMENT.isTANDARDiCHANGES
Lot Size of R-1 Substandard Lot
¯ Width of lot
¯ Depth of lot
,Allowable Floor Area (.45 x Iotsize)
¯ Single StOry Site Coverage.(=FAR)
2875
25 feet
115 "
1294 square,feet
1294 square feet
¯ OneStory, With~AdjustedSetbacks ~
Recommen’d~d.Setbacks if do.not allow 2nd Stories
Front (Contextual) Setback
Rear Setback
’ ¯ Interior Side Setback "
Side Setback
Buildablel Width = (Width -side setbacks)
Buildablel Depth = (Depth - front & rear setbacks)
One Stow Buildable Area-with.recommendations
Difference between. Allowable FAR & Buildable,Area
Interior-Lot Corner Lot
20 feet 20 feet
20 "20 "
3.5 "3.5 "
3.5 "10 "
Interior Lot Corner Lot
18 feet i 1.5 feet
75 "75 "
1350: squarefeet- -~ ..-i :.862~5 squarefeet
56"square feet -431.5 square feet
¯rrraditional ....: ........" ..........." ..............; ....." ....’ .....t ’Two Story ~Setbacks,;apply.(withthe.exceptlon ofstreetside~beln~l reduCed~ o: 10 )
interior-Lot
Front .Setback
Rear Setback
Interior Side Setback
Side Setback
Potential ,1stStory (using traditional setbacks)
site Coverage (if allow 2nd stories) = ..40 x lot size
: 20 feet
20 "
6 "
975 squatefeet,
1150
Potential SecondStory with 2nd story setbacks vs~CP (Height/imit of 24’)
2ndstory Buildable.Widthwith SideCP; if bUild to 24’, height
2nd..story Buildable Depth with.Rear CP,.if build to24’ height
& startat;front setback (of 20’)
Potential,2nd storyBuildable Area, considering CP and
building height of 24’
0
70
0 square¯ feet
:Corner Lot
20 feet
20 "
6
10 "
675 square feet
Substandard_withRecommendationsCalcs.xls G13 3:25 X 1i5 Example .
EXAMPLE #4:.50"x 50 LoT WITH ;POTENTiALDEVELOPMENT STANDARDCHANGES _
Lot Size of R-1 Substandardr Lot
Width of lot
.Depth of lot
AllowableFIoor.Area (.45x lot size)
Single Story Site Coverage (=FAR)
2500
50 feet .
50 "
1125 square f~t
" 1125 square feet
one Stor~y.,with Adjusted ..Setbacks
Setbacks if do not allow.2ndStories
~Fmnt (Contextual) Setback
Rear Setback
Interior Side Setback
Side Setback
Buildablel Width = (Width.- side setbacks)
Buildable Depth = (Depth -front & rear setbackS)
Interior Lot
.20 feet
20 ....
3.5 "
3.5 "
Interim; Lot
43 feet
10 "
Corner Lot
20 feet
20
3.5
10
.Corner Lot
36.5 feet
10
One Story:,Buildable’ Area with recommendations 430-square.feet :.... i.~ 365-square feet:
Difference between Allowable FAR &.Buildable .Area -695 squarefeet:-760 Square:.feet
Two.Story..(’rraditionalSetbacks apply (with theexCeptlonofstreetsidebeln~l.reduced ,t .10 )
Interior Lot Corner Lot
Front Setback
Rear Setback
Interior .Side Setback
Side Setback
Potential 1st Story (usingtraditional setbacks)
Site Coverage (if allow 2nd stories) = .40 x. lot size
20 feet
20 "
6 ’~
6 " ~
380 Square feet
1000
20 .feet
20 "
6 "
10 - "
340 square feet
,.Potential Second Story with 2ndstory Setbacks vs;,.CP (Height.limitof 24’)
2nd story. Buildable Width.with SideCP, if build.to 24: " "
height
.2nd story Buildable Depthwith Rear CP, .if build to.24’
height & ~tart.at~front setback (of 20’)
Potential’,2nd .story Buildable Area, considering CP and
building height of 24’
22
110 square-f~et
Substandard ._withRscommendationsCalcs.xls G14
ATTACHMENT H
Draft Technical Memorandum: Correlation between: New Basement
Construction and the Groundwater R~gime in Palo Alto, California
1.Statement of the Planning and Transportation Commission’s
concerns
At the14 January 2004 Commission meeting, the planning Staff presented a number of
proposed changes to the existing regulation of basements in the R-1 zones. During the
ensuing discussion, Commission members expressed concerns about the impact of
basement construction on groundwater levels and flow directions. Specific issues
idenfiJ~ied by the Commission include:
Is groundwater pumping causing or contributing to land subsidence?
What are the effects of pumping for months to dewater ia basement
construction site?
Are basements being permkted~ some inappropriate areas [where the water
table is only a few feet below the ground surface], creating the need for
continuous pumping? -
=What groundwater effects occur if water is withdrawn from the water table a~d
pumped into th6 sewers or creeks?
¯What groundwater diversion effects occur if baseme.nt walls are built along
creeks and/or perforate aquifers?
What are the effects on properties adjacent to, and down gradient from,
pumping sites?
= What are the cumulative effects of basements on the groundwater r~gime?
Can basement regtdations be crafted to address the hydro-geology ofspeci_fic
building skes?
The Commission indicated that it does not have the informationneeded to identi£y
whether these are issues of concern, or to make izfformed decisions on the issues. The
remainder of this technical memorandum seeks to respond to that underlying concern by
providing some background information about the listed issues and about groundwater
hydrology of the Ckyrdative to the construction of basements.
............................Page 1 of 9
2~--.Differences-between-shaltow(surface)-anddeep (confined) ...............................................................
groundwater aquifers and potential impacts
D¢f’ming the Aquifers
An aquifer is a body of geologic material, usually rock or some mixture of gravel, sand, silt
and clay, that is sufficiently permeable to conduct groundwater. Some definitions include
the stipulation that the bgdy produc~ an ecoaomlcally significant flow of water before it
may be considered an aquifer. For the purposes 0f thls teckn~cal memorandum, the
broader definition is applled to allow for easier discussion of the water-bearing formations
underlying the. City. :
Of the varions types of aquifers, two are of particular interest in tkls discussion: the
shallow or surface aquifer, aud the deep or confided aquifer. The rdative terms ’shall6w’
and ’deep’.refer to the depth, of the aquifer below the surface of the ground(usually
expressed as ’nr-mber of feet bgs’ in hydrology studies). -
:A surface aquifer is so named.because it is open to the surface of the groun& Rain falling
on the giound surface seeps through the soil (infiltration) to some depth where it pools to
form a more or ]ess continxious body .of water (groundwater) occupying the.spaces
:between sediment particles and/or rock fragments. The top of this body of groundwater
is the water table. ~m the Santa Clara Plain, which forms the lowlands of PaIo Alto, the
water table occurs at depths of as little as ten feet below the ground sm~f~, ace.
Being open to the surface of the ground, the surface aquifer is subject to the influences of
overlying land cover and landuses. Modern stream channels, such as San Francisquito
Creek, intersect or overlie the surface aquifer, extracting water from it or adding water to
it. Paving and construction create artific~ially impermeable surfaces that prevent local
direct infiltration to the surface, aquifer. Chemical constituents ia urban and agricultural
runoff enter the surface aquifer through i~filtration from channels or detention basins,
lowering the quality of the groundwater. Leaking land~ ceils, leaking underground
storage tanks, and liquid spi!lS also contribute to the reduction of water quality in the
surface aquifer. Altho.~gh c~rrent stewardship has S!owed water quality deterioration, the
surface aquifer still cannot be used as a source of potable water.
A confined aquifer is one that is separated hydroiogically from the overlying a~d
underiying sediments and rock and from other aquifers. Usually the separating agent
(~alled an aquiclude) is formed by a layer of impermeable sediment, such as clay, or by
.Page 2 Of 9
................................. impermeable~r0ckssuch as.unfraetured-granite. -T-he confmed.aquifer-ls-no~ connected ........
directly to the overlying ground sur~ce and is separated ~rom the surface aquifer by an
aquidude. It is, in effect, a separate hydrologic system, gaining ~vater ~rom some distant
source (i.e., not local rainfall) and transmitting it to some other relat2vely distan( discharge
area. Because the confined aquifer is below, and hydr01ogically separatedfrom, the surface
a~luifer, it is, by definition, a deep aquifer, irrespective, of the numbe~ of feet it is below the
Several aquifers may.underlie each other2 This is.the case beneath the Santa Clara Plain
where geo!oglcally recent stream-laid (alluvial) gravel, sand, silt, and clay form a sequence
of deposits nearly 1500 feet thick between the foothills of the Coast Ranges and .San
Francisco Bay. Channels of ancient rivers depositing this material have be~n cut off and
filled by succeeding intersecting channels, which, in turn, have been buried by the deposits
of mote modern channels. In this Way a complex series of sediment layers of
unconsolidated. (lOose), partially consolidated (&nse), and consolidated (very dense)
....... -::i~ateri£ has been built up as the Santa Clara Plaim The !ayers are discontinuous and of
gr(ater or Iesser-permeability, depending on their density and day or silt content.
Acomplicating factor in examining such a series of aquifers is that often they are not
Completely confined. The aqulcludes separating the aquifers may not be totally
impermeable (in which case they are called acluitards) allowing water t0.seep from one
aquifer to another. The aquifers may be connected within or outside the’local area, arising
from a common source or flowing to a common discharge area. The aquifers may be
connected arti~clally through leaks in we~s or along pilings passing through the aquLfers.
Beneath the portion of the Santa Clara Plain in Palo Alto, there is a co~finlng clay layer
that separates the surface aquifer from the deeper aquifers, but, on a regional level, this
separation attenuates and, eventually, disappears farther south in San Jose.
Being separated from the surface aquLfer in this part of the Santa ClaraPlain, the donfmed
aquifers beneath the City axe not subject to the direct influences previously described for
land cover and land uses above the surface aquifer. To the extent that groundwater
migrates from the southern part of the Santa Clara Plain groundwater basin to the
northern part, the effects of similar land cover and land uses in areastoward San Jose may
affect water quality in the deep aquLfers beneath Pa!o Alto.
Page 3 o~ 9
............................ Construction-periodDewatering-Effects -.- ............:-’-i ............~--. ...........
In general, Construction-period dewatering effects are limited.to the surface aquifer. This
would not necessarily be the c~se for major high-rise consl~ruction where foundations and
be!ow-grade leve!s may extend t00 or more feet beneath the ground surface, increasing the
chances of encbuntering confined aquifers. It is, however, the case for the type of
relatively shallow basement construction being considered in the Zoning Ordinance
Update. In the Santa Clara.Plain p0rtion:of.Palo Alto, the uppermost sequence of
unconsolidated =dpaxfially consolidated alluvium is about 200 feet thick. This sequence
Contains the surface aquifer, the base of wffiCh is theprevi0usly mentioned day aqulclude
identified by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) lairs .2001 Groundwater
Management Plan. The general direction of grotmdwater flow in this .area isnortheast
toward the.Bay, so the surface aquifer and the deeper, coafiuedaCluifers tend t.o. remain
separated in Palo Alto until they reach the vicinity of the Bay margin..
"The removal o~ groundwater from an excavation during belowrgr0und-level construction
ts necessary to provide siffety ]For the constructioa ~0rkers, and is a prerequisite for
.Wat~rpr0ofmg the buildlng’s fouaadatioia and subsurface floors. One method for .
" - " " accbmplishing this is to dig a small pit below the base of the foundation excavation, slope
" the excavati0n.s0 grouadwater drains to the pit, and then pump the Water out of the pit.
The dewatering discharged from the pi~.is passed through a settling basin or fi1Itration tank
to remove: .. soll paxticles, th, at are.larger, than. Silt (> 0.062.mm), after which~ the water flows
into the storm drainage system. A_aoiher method is. to drill temporary wells aro(md the
-foundation footprint and pump.direcdy from .the groundwater body to the
Settling/filtration facility and then to the storm.~ainage system lmtil the local water tal~le
drops below the base of the excavation. In either case, groundwater flowing into the area
of drawdown created by the dewatering process is deflected toward the base of the
excavation, whence i(is pumped to the storm dr~.age.system. Groundwater beyondth~
influence of the dew~ering process continues to flow normally.
Dewatering pumping continues until the foundation and subsurface floors are Completed
a~d the excavation is filled. The amount of water defleCted depends on the level of the
water.table, the permeability of the material adjacent to the excavatioa, and the length of
time.the excavation needs to be kept open and dry. An increase in any of Ihese factors
increases the amount of water deflected. This amount is sinai1 when compared to the total
v01ume of available groundwater direcdy beneath the Sama Clara Plain (see~bel0w).
Page 4 o~ 9
the sites recover rapi&y once p~p~g h~ ~me~ there appems to be no ~cernable long-
term~ect oa ~e s~ace aq~er. " ’ . "
N the ~em adjac~t to ~e ske berg d~at~e~ ~e wat~ table w0dd be lowered.
tempor~y by ~e d~at~g process. T~ effect ~odd ~d from sever~ feet to
sever~ tern of feet beyond ~e ~cavatioa &pe~g on Ne method use~ the levd of the
water table at ~e ~e ~water~g be~, ~e permeab~W o~ ~e mat~i~ adjacent to ~e
~cavafion, md the l~g of t~e ~e ~cavado~ nee&d to be kept open ~d @. The
pos~b~w ~s ~ag adjacent l~cap~g codd ~erience detefiorafon from reduced
~o~dwater av~ab~w. . .. "
~e possib~w ~ms that s~lement of loc~.~ace so~s may oc~ ~ the men ~uenced
by d~ate~g. ~ not ~e s~e effe~.or man, de m ~bsi~nce, w~ch is camed by
b~er&~g the ~ep aq~er ~ ~ redone, ra~er.~ loc~, ~ na~e (see below).
~LO~ so~ se~t codd occ~ wh~e ~e wat~ ~ ~e ~ace aq~e~ formed p~ of the
~-~ppo~ for ~e so~. Gen~y, water ~ ~e s~ace aq~er does not provide ~
~suppo~ ~ ~e zone of semon~ water-tabie flu~afioa-became the ~ ~crease ~d
~.decreme of water ~ble levd ca~es ~e so~ p~d~ zo s~e ~to a mable (s~-~ppo~
co~a6on. Under these con~om, ~ loc~ s~em~t occ~re~ it wo~d be ~ the
:ord~ of ffa~ion~ 0f ~ ~ch, rath~ th~ ~e sev~ feet Of re~on~ subsi~nce
e~erienced ~ ~e Smta CIma..subbm~ prior ~o ~e S~’s berg major
~Po~atoa of potable water. Ev~ ~e ~or ~o~t of s~ent world be gadu~
enou~ for ~e.geot~c~ comdtmt at the co~m~on site to mo~tor it ~d to ~ow
~e for reme~ ac~oa, as ~e~ed by ~e Ciw’s B~g Code (~ou~ ~e adoption of
the C~or~a B~g C0d~ ~du~g ~339!:2.p[ojection of A~ac~t pr0pe~).
Deflection or Reduction of the Rate of Groundwater Flow
Mr.hough the amount of water pumped from an excavation may appear substantial as it
flows along a street to a storm draha "m!et, it is small compared to the amount of
groundwater directly beneath the Santa Clara Plain. The SCVWD’s current estimate is
that there is more than 350,000 acre-feet of groundwater available in the Santa Clara
Subbasha. A typical excavation dewatering flow of 1 cubic foot per second would deflect
1.98 acre-feet of water per day. Because gromldwater would be pumped out of the
excavation faster than could flow ha, the alteration ha groundwater flow rate would be less
.than the rate of dewaterhag. Bhcause the resultant groundwater flow deflection is
Page 5 of 9
....................... temporary,-small;and veryiocalized, there appears tobe no-dlscernable tong~tetm ~eet
on the surface aquifer. Because dewatering for basement construction occurs only in the
uppermosy portion of the surhce aquifer, there Would be no effect on the deep aquifer.
In a.typical 3-month excavation period,, the 1.98 acre-feet per day dewatering flow would
amount to 0.05% (one,twentieth of one percent) oft.he minimum known groundwater
resonance in the subbas.in. No published information about the subbasin’s water budget has
been found, so any tOattempt to p~ediqr how quickly .the water would be replaced
through recharge would be speculative. It is known, however, that the importation of
potable water and the SCVWD controlled recharge.program have assisted groundwater
- levels in the subbasin to rise 200 feet during-the last 40 years. Most of tkat rise has been in
the s~ace a~luifer. The implication is that the Subbasin is being recharged at a rate
substantially higherthanthe rate.of.withdrawal from all pumping, including dewatering
for basement construction. C0nsequenfly, it appears.that the amount 0fflc?w from one,
~.or evense:ceral shnultaneous, dewatering operations would not have long-term effects On
. .~the sufface.aqu, ifer.
’.i:inthe areas adjadent.to the site being dewatered, the rate and flow-directions of the
;groundwater would be altered temporarily by the dewatering process.. Groundwater in
the influenced area would move toward ~e base of the excavation at a rate lower than the
.rate of dewatering discharge. This effect couldextend from several feet to several tens of
feet beyond the excavation depending on the method used, the level of the water table at
the time dewatering began, the permeability of the material, adjacent to.the excavation, and
thelength of time ~e excavatign needed to be kep; open .and dry. Flow directions and
rates would revert to near normal When dewatering cease&
. There wouldbe some displacement of groundwater flow around the. newly constructed
basement, depending on the permeability Of the surrounding soil materials. The volume
Of space (bo.th S011 and water) displaced by the basem.ent c.oad be several thousand to..several. tens 0~thousands of cubic feet. Even if one postulates a displacement of
100,00O cubic feet per basement (equivalent to an excavation 2500 square feet in area and
40 feet deep), it would take nearly 67,000 new basements of this size to displace the water
table by i foot, assuming the preconstruction level of the water table to be at the ground
surface. Although small compared.to the volume of the surface aquifer, the displacement
could be significant locally, especially if there were other similarly sized basements in.the
immediate vicinity (see Construction-period Dewatering Effects, above).. The flow of
Page 6 of 9
...................... :groundwater wouldreadjust to thiscondifion;ptss~iblyaltering the-levei:sf the watertable- .................
in the vicinity of the site for several weeks or months, b~t is unlikely tO experience any
major permanent change. The groundwater level in the surface, aquifer undergoes more
Significant changes during the shifts between dry and rainy seasons than would be expected
~rom long-term flow deflection caused by basements.
Considering the actualvolume of the Santa Clara Subbasin, the distribution of
groundwater in it, and the limited space available in .the City for the construction of new
basements on the Santa Clara Plain, permanent deflection or reduction of the rate of
groundwater fl0w is not considered a project-specific or cumulatively significant effect of
basement construction activities.
-Saltwater Intrusion and Subsidence
Saltwater intrusion and subsidence in the Santa Clara Subbasin are documented r.egional
.. :e_ffests of the ex~e.s~iv¢ ~emova!.0f groundwate( from the. deep aquifer (oyerdriffti~g) over
m~ny years.. This practice was curtailed in the mid-1960s when.the importation of potable
.:~vater increased substantia!ly. Since then, the SC-WWD hasbeen recharging the subbasin
:"thereby raising groundwater levels, impeding saltwater infiltration of the surface aquifer,
: :.and v" .m-ually eliminating further overdraft-related subsidence (the effects Of previous
. subsidence cannot be-reversed because portions of the deep aquifer have been compressed
permanently). Such basin-wide effects could recur only Lf the deep aquifer became
overdrafted again.
t~ecause dewatering for basement construction occurs 0nly in the uppermost portion of
the surface aquifer, which is separated hydrologically from the deep aquifer, no subsidence
effects would occur in the deep aquifer. Because this type of dewatering involves a small
amount of groundwater withdrawal, mainly from the zone of seasonal water-table
fluctuation (the uppermost portion of the surface aquifer), local sett!ement on the order of
fractions of an inch could occur around the construction site (see above), but no regional
subsidence would occur.
Page 7of9
...........3; -Palo Alto Public Works -Department existingregulatory structure
There are a number ofpolicles in place that provide protection for the City’s groundwater
resource and for property o3~ners in the vicinity of new basement construction.
¯The Public Works Department prohibits the long-term’pumping of
groundwater after a basement has been constructed, This eliminates the
possibility that the water t’able in [.he vicinity of theproject would be lowered
.The Public Works Department requires basements to be waterproofed and
strengthened structurally below the expected groundwater ]evel. This
diminates the need for groundwater pumping.
The Public Works Depa.rt. ment requires permit applicants whose projects
would have basements to prepare a geote~cal investigation and report that
would determine, among other information, the .expected highest groundwater
. level in the locai sha~ov¢ aqulfer..Tli.S .allows the department to make
informed decisions about the advisability of basement construction at a
ipaixicu!ar site and/o~ to Set.the c~nditi0ns under which basement construction
. m~y proceeck One.c0ndition, routinely requiSred, is that a minimum amount
of freeboard (determined On a ske-specific basis) be provided between the
.highest expected groundwater level and the lowest portion of the basement’s
exterior drainage system. This provides an extra measure of protection and is
reducing the incidence of unanticipated groundwater pumping when the water
table rises to an extraordinary level.
If dev~aterlng is necessary for basement constmctlon, the Public Works
Department sets the dewateringpermit conditions based on the hydrology of
the specific site under consideration. This. ensures resource and property
protection where k is neede&
The Public Works Department allows the rem0va] of seepage water that
collects along basement walls above the water table. Normally this removal
would need only a minimal amount of pumping, but may need to be
mcmitored because, occasionally, groundwater rises to the level of a basement’s
exterior drainage system. If this occurs, groundwater is pumped by the
drainage system. Such occurrences are Iess frequent now because of the
freeboard requirement (see above) and are expectedto continue to diminish.
Page 8 of 9
4: Re-commeadatio~a-rega-rditxg theadvisabilityof eodif-ymg
groundwater effects in the Zoning Ordinance Update
The above-listed-Public Works Department polldes dealing with basement construction
and dewatering for such construction are intended to prevent substantia! impacts to
groundwater, either on an area-wide basis or in.the vicinity of the construction site.
Although the policies and their associated construction standards appear to .address the
issues gdequately, it may be advisable for the Public Works Department to hacrease, the
commmfiry’s awareness of these issues through an out-reach progr.am. Because these issues
are, essentially, engineering concerns that are site-specific and already coyered by existing
regulations, there is no need to modiF, the zoning ordinance with respect to them.
Sincerely,
¯ George J. Burwasser,
EIP Associates
353 S.~CI~.A.,~xITOS’rI~.~-’~ SLrrrE1000 SA,N~FIb~.NC:I~CO, C.,~..~ORN~ 94111
T~L,,pbone415-362-1500 .Fa~rimi!~41.5-362-1954 E.mail~lg~qpca~c~at~com
Menlo
Park
Legend
Substandar& Lots (RI* only)Mountain
View
Palo Alto
This map is a product of tho
City of Polo Alto GIS
18.12.010 Purposes -
18.12.020 Applicable Regulations
¯ 18.12.030 Land Uses i-
18.12.040 Development Standards
a) Dey.Sian~ds Table:, :
..Potential Reformat Overview by Section & subsection. ATTACHMENT I
Commission Packer comments in June 1, 2004 email primarily foens on reformatting s-~e~i-~-~-0
:.i 106fthe d~aft R-i Code (Development Standards through Par’king) The.f011owing table lists ~he
existing draft code fomaat &.her ideas for reformatting per her email. Subsections are only included
& Staff Recommendation for R-1 Code iOrder
18.12.010 Purposes ’ ’. ¯18.12.010 Purposes . ..
18.12.020 Applicable Regulations :t8.12,020 Applicable Regulations
18.12.030 LandUses ¯18.12.030 Land Uses .
18.12.040Development Standards 18:12.040 Development Standards
a) Dev Standards Table .~ . ¯’, a) De.v Standards.T~b!e.¯.~
(Dayligh0.p!~e Compliance .i c).Subztandard & Flag Lots " ’ e) Su.b~dard &.. Flag Lots. ~.
¯ c)Substandard & Flag LOts.d) Maximum Lot Sizes : ~:.¯ ., d) Maximum Lot Sizes ¯
d) Contexa!a!.. ~;Emnt.Setbacks .. e) Contextual.Fro~t Setbacks ...... .:.e) Conte~ From Setbacks
¯ e) Special.Setl~aeks . ,’ :- ... f) Spee~a! Setbacks - ’?.-’.T) COntextual Garage Placement .-
f).G~ge:-Doors ::.-("~: i ’-.... ....g)C0ntexttm!. GaragePlaeement g) Garage Door~ ’"-: "
g) contextual Garage Placement h) Certification of Compatibility.:i h) ~um Permeable S.uff. ~ace in
h) Minim~ Permeable Surface in
Front Yard-i~:~ : :-i~ :’ " : " ....
k) Loeation.OfSer~ce ¯~uipment
¯.. : ..: -.: . :-- :. ., ...’ : ..
18.!2~050 P.~maitt~d Setback, "
Compatibin ¯(Daylight) Pl=e.=d
Height Eneroac .hments, Projections
and Exc.epfions: . :.: : : .: .": : ::
a) Setb~ck/Y..ardEncrpachments &.
Projections .i:
(Daylight) Plane Compliance ’ ".Front.Yard
i)Loeation’ofService Equipment. i)~p~ei~iSetbaeks ~..
" " i) Location of Service Equipment
18A2.050 Permitted Setback .~ :18.12.050 Permitted "
Encroachments & Projections. ~ . Encroachments, Projections, &
a) Setb V Yard ncroao -.aents& ...a) Setback Encroae. mentS &
i . ¯ ~ ." : ......- 1) Horizontal Additions " .-: : ::1).Horizontal Additions
1) .Horizontal Additions ..
2) Rear Yard Eneroaehments:
3) AllowedProjecf!ons.
b) Height Exceptions .. : . .. ~
c) Comp Plane Exceptions ¯ . :
:."2), Rear Yard Encroac.hments . 2).Rear Yard: Ener0.achments
3) ..Allowed Projections ¯ - . -¯" :3) Allowed Projections
b) P~r~.tted Compatibility ;b) C0mp~fibi!ity (Daylight).P!an.e
(Daylight) Plane and Height and Height Exceptions.
Ex~pfio~. i= ’. :.’.1:. 1) Height E~ptio.ns
¯ . :i!) He!ght.Excepfi0ns i:. "’ 2) CompP!ane ExcePfipns
: 2) Comp Plane Exceptions. ....
¯ i :, 18.i2.060 Oth.er Development.
18.12.060 Second Dwelling Units ¯
18.12.070 Basement
i 8.i 2~080 Parldrig ....
a) Mithmum Permeable Surface
¯ Front Yard
b) Lighting
c) Garage Doors
18.1--9..070 Basements
i8.12.080 Accessory Uses and.
Facilities ..... ¯ ........
I8":12:100 secOnd Dwelling UnitS "" 18:]21080 Ae~eisory uses and ....
18.12.060 Parking
18.12.070 Second Dwelling Units
Former (May26, 2004)
R-1 Draft Code Order
i8’.12.090 Accessory Uses and
FaciLities
18.12.100 ,.Single Story Overlay
¯ 18.12.110 R-1 :IR - ’
18.12.120 HIE .
18.12.130 ARB
18.12.140 URB
~Commission Packer
Potential Order "
18.12.110 Parld~g --
18.12.120 Single Story Overlay
1.8.12.130 ..R.I.IR.. -.: .. i
18.12.140 HIE
18.12.150 ARB
18.12.160 HRB
Staff & Working Group
-Recommendation
(reflectedin 7/14/04 Code)
18.12.090. Basements
t8.12.100 Single Story Overlay
18.12.110 .R~I..IR
18.12.120 HIE.
18.12.130 ARB
18.12.140 HRB
Single Stow (S); overlay,SummaryrTable ,Appiicatiohs ;&Pb’r~bi~~gesl. . ~ "
¯’ " i. "’L~i:i~r~"i~’;., ~)o:Single stow at
Single Stow Overlay .-# of i neighborhood time of
~,gh ,.. :parcels!.support .N i borhood .....~.,~.
Walnut Grove*: ,¯Gr~een ¯Meadows "
Charleston :Meadows I "
" CharlestohMeadoWS 2 ¯
Blossom Park.
Barron Park
Meadow Park.
Channing. Park
Garland -,Elsinore Drive
Van Auken Circle
Date.i,
07/13/92
04/26/93
01/21/97
09/15/97
11 /17/97
11/16/98
11/16/98
Ol/17/00
091241o1
09/24/01
243
96
16
20
75
57
68 .,,
58
74% : r .
76%
79%:.
79%.,
80%.
69% - 79%
(boundaries
¯ adjusted) ¯
77%
68 73%
(boundaries,.
~adjusted)
.69%.
ATTACHMENT J
Existing Deed % Lo~:of~
...: .a, pp!ica.t!oq., .:., ... Restrictions? ,..Modera~e..size
not notednot noted
100%
99%
98%
89%
-90%
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
,yes
yes
97%
98%
not ndted
75%
66%
53%. "
45%
70%
70%
.90%.
53%...
100%
100%
..* C, ouncil adopted (S) overlay zoneon July .13; .1992 with Ordinar~ce #4101; :which is.same as existing PAMc 18.131 .The
Ordinance was adopted in ,conjuncti0n with the 1st application for overlay byWalnutGrove¯neighborhood (also appr6ved 7113192)i
Subsequent Guidelines for applications were.approved.in December 1992.which introduced the review criteria of "overwhelming
support" by owners, ,appropriate boundaries", "vast majodty of existing:homes are singlestory" for "prevailing single story ..
character", and "characterized bymoderate lot sizes" (defined as 7000-8000 sf). No percentages for terminology were included
the adopted guidelines.
Attach"J._SOverlayS.xls ~ ’ 7/8/2004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
MEETINGS .ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:03 PM
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin, Chair
Phyllis Cassel, Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burt
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson
Lee 1. Lippert
Staff."
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects
Susan Ondik, Planner
Curtis Williams, Consultant
Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.Zoning Ordinance Update: Single Family Residential District (R-I)
2.Approval of Minutes: Special Meeting of June 16, 2004
Chair Griffin: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Wednesday, July 14
meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission. Would the Secretary please call the
roll? Thank you.
That takes us to 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. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Griffin: Do we have any cards? We don’t. That takes us to Unfinished Business.
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31-
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
AGENDA CItANGES, 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 agenda item one the Zoning Ordinance Update
where the Commission will review and make recommendations to the Council of the Final Draft
of the R-1 Chapter of the ordinance. Would Staff please make their presentation?
UNFINISHED B US1NESS.
Public Hearings:
Zoning Ordinance Update: Single Family Residential,District (R-I): Review and
recommendation to the City Council of the Final Draft Single-Family Residential (R-l)
Chapter creating a standalone Zoning chapter for Single-Family Residential Development
in the Zoning Ordinance Update (Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code).
Mr. Curtis Williams. Consultant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners, we are here
tonight to present to you the Draft of the R-1 Ordinance or the R-l Chapter of the Zoning
Ordinance. As you will recall this is intended to provide a standalone chapter that can be
adopted ahead of the rest of the Zoning Ordinance. So we are anxious to hear from you and then
move this forward to the City Council hopefully in September.
I would like to just briefly run through some of the issues that we will be talking about. This
process as we have discussed before has been a culmination of a number of meetings with or
considerations of Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, meetings with Current Planning,
the community, the Single Family Advisory Committee Co-Chairs and your Low Density
Residential Working Group as well as a series of now five or six meetings with the Commission.
You have looked at quite a few issues previously and have provided at least tentative direction
on all of these and have asked for us to come back with information on several other issues for
you. That is what we are here tonight to do. Before I proceed to talk about those specific issues
I just want to indicate a couple of side items.
First of all you should have a one-page addendum in front of you tonight titled "Revisions to
Single Story Combining I~istrict Provisions." These changes are to the section in the code.
related to the single story combining district. The City Attorney’s Office and the Planning
Department have put together some changes which primarily are process related in trying to
coordinate Section 18.98 of the code which deals with processes and make this consistent with
that. That is the section that talks about how you go about a zoning change, which is what this
would be. Then reorganizing that section a bit to require written statement for an application, a
map to be created, and a fee to be submitted so kind of the standard application checklist
information. ! would note for you that substantively this section has not changed from what you
sa~v last time with one exception that we would be glad to talk about more later on if you would
like to which is the language that said that there would be one vote for each property in this
overlay that language is still there but there also was follow up language that said that if
somebody didn’t respond that was considered a no vote. That language was taken out at the City
Attorney’s suggestion because it really already is covered by some other language that is in
there. If you would like some clarification on that later we would be glad to go into that for you.
Cit~ of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
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
45
46
47
48
Secondly, we have noted a half dozen or so typos and incorrect references to other sections in the
code. In a number of places we have tried to reference other sections of the code and in some
cases they are not the correct section. We were working offwhat we anticipated to be the whole
Zoning Ordinance Update renumbering and we need to reflect what today’s code numbers are.
So we can go back in and make those typo and section changes if you would like to have me
detail those for you I would be glad to do that at a later time as well.
I would also like to note, we will be talking about it briefly here, that we do have George
Burwasser here from EIP Associates, which is the environmental finn that prepared the report
about basements and groundwater. We would like to have him make a brief presentation to you
after my presentation so you have an opportunity to ask him some questions and be able to then
discuss that issue and let him take offfor the evening. So we will get to that.
I am not going to spend a lot of time on these individual issues now. 1 think we will probably
want to prrceed the way we have previously which is come back and have me give a little bit
more detailed overview of each issue before you take into consideration and recommendation on
each. So the key issues that we are bringing back to you are substandard lots with a Staff
recommendation to provide for some additional criteria that would apply to substandard lots that
would allow second story development and some more flexibility on those properties. Eligibility
of historic homes for the incentives that we have proposed particularly basements we continue to
make the same recommendation but we do have the basement report to present to you relative to
the groundwater issue. Attached second dwelling unit size regarding the 900 square foot
limitation on attached second units. We will talk about why we are still continuing to
recommend that. Contextual front setback, we have made a couple of suggested changes to what
we had before you but we have met with the advisory committee co-chairs and had some
discussion there and Karen Holman was in that meeting as well and have generally maintained
most of the recommendations we had originally. Location of service equipment, we have
modified that provision a bit to provide for some rear setback on the service equipment issue
when you are adjacent to a side property line. Format, Commissioner Packer had a number of
suggestions regarding format changes and some of those we thought were very worthwhile and
included and have made some changes we would like to report to you.
Then there were a couple of issues that the Commission has not had a chance to discuss but there
was some interest in bringing fhese forward at least to the Commission to see if there is a broad
interest in discussing. One is on allowing small retail markets within the R-1 zone and the
second is whether to get into the issue of setbacks and floor area, the basic setbacks and basic
floor area. Both of those areas we are suggesting are outside the scope at this point of the Zoning
Ordinance Update but would like to get your confirmation of that.
As I mentioned, upon your recommendation of the ordinance we will then be making any
revisions that you suggest and moving on to the Council with this chapter. There is also a
component to this chapter which we have not listed here and we don’t know whether it is still an
issue or not but the HIE, Home Improvement Exception, and Individual Review processes that
you discussed some time ago and made changes to have been folded into the ordinance. Jon
Abendschein and Amy French are available to talk about those if you would like to do so but we
weren’t going to make a presentation on that so we will leave that to you to do that. I would be
glad to take any questions now or go straight to Mr. Burwasser for the presentation regarding the
basements.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
!7
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
47
48
Chair Griffin: So we are going to hear from the consultant?
Mr. Williams: The geologist, if that is amenable to the Commission.
Mr. George Burwasser. EIP Associates, 353 Sacramento Street, San Francisco: Good evening
Chair Griffin, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission and Staff members. I am the Senior
Geologist with EIP Associates; we are the environmental consultants to the City. Let me
apologize in advance for any scratchiness of the voice I think it is an occupational hazard with
which you may be familiar. Also let me assure that I am not going to read this entire report to
you. I know you are here for a long time this evening so I will just kind of skim through some of
the issues and let you know what it was we were attempting to do here.
You have no doubt seen this page in your Staff Report, which I think quite succinctly,
summarizes the information that is in the document. What we had tried to do was make a
concise statement of the concerns that had been expressed by members of the Commission. That
is the punch list on the first page of the document. This was actually taken from transcripts and
from meetings with Staff. We follow that with a little brown water hydrology primer here on the
differences between shallow and deep aquifers and the possible impacts that can occur to these
two water bodies. That takes up the bulk of the document. The penultimate page has a list of the
Public Works Department’s existing regulatory structure, how they actually look after
engineering issues with regard to the surface aquifer because that actually is the one that we are
concerned with in this situation. Finally, our recommendation on the last page which really is
that this is essentially an engineering issue and doesn’t seem to need a change to the R-1 zoning
text but 1 did feel from looking at some of the information that we had received in the meetings
that we had attended and from looking over the minutes of the various Staffand Commission
meetings that I think I sa~v a need for some kind of an educational program, an outreach
program, to help members of the community understand a little better what the potential effects
of constructing basements and dewatering in general is on the surface aquifer.
The total effect is actually very small compared to the volume of water that is in the aquifer.
When people see water running down their street they wonder what is going on. I think if they
were more aware of the work that the Public Works Department is doing to monitor groundwater
dewater at specific sites and the steps that people have to go through to obtain permits for this
that they might be a little happier with what they are seeing. I am perfectly happy to entertain
any questions from you and I would be delighted to assist you any further that I can in this
project. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I do have a couple of questions. One is on page five of nine of your
report it says the possibility exists that adjacent landscaping could experience deterioration from
reduced groundwater availability. Trees set their roots at a certain level and this is not
particularly hypothetical it is what I have witnessed at least apparently, ifa site is dewatering for
months on end and through a variety of seasons, I know of one property at least that dewatered
for at least a year, ira property is having a basement dug and dewatered because trees do set their
roots at a certain level anticipating that is where they are going to be able to find water, if the site
next door can have this affect could a neighboring lose its tree?
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Bunvasser: Yes and that can be prevented. The critical pieces really are the variety of tree
because different trees set their roots at different depths. Monterey pines for example are very
shallow rooted, in fact their roots are practically at the surface. Whereas oaks and other
deciduous trees tend to set very deep roots and go quite a ways into the water table. It is very
easy to monitor that kind of a situation. Let me back up a moment. The other aspect is how
deep the dewater level or groundwater level has to be dropped during dewater. If it is only going
down a matter of a few feet it may not make any difference because the cone of depression
around the site is very shallow. If the basement is quite deep then the cone of depression extends
out quite a ways farther and may affect adjacent properties. These are fairly easy to monitor by
setting a [pizometer] near the tree. That is a fancy term for a pipe that you jam into the ground to
see h, ow high the water rises in it. There actually is an ASTM procedure for setting these things
appropriately so that you can monitor the level of groundwater. In the event that it is dropping
below what one would anticipate the root sygtem is for a specific tree then it might be necessary
to do some-injection or to set a cutoff wall in the excavation so that the water level can rise back
to its normal level.
Commissioner Holman: Does that currently happen? I am not aware of that happening in Palo
Alto. I have never heard anyone report nor have I witnessed that that does happen. So does it? I
need to be informed on that.
Mr. Burwasser: I don’t know the answer to that question. The other question to ask along with
that is has anyone lost any trees due to dewatering? One of the other issues that is involved here,
I don’t want to get to deeply into this unless you would like to do that, is the sediment, the
subsoil materials adjacent to the site. If they are fairly fine grain materials such as clays or minor
silts then the dewatering of adjacent sites will to take place:very slowly because they are not
particularly permeable. The water transmits through them very slowly. If it were a sandy
environment the water table is going to draw down very rapidly and those are the conditions in
which I would anticipate that you might see some problems for shallow rooted trees.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you. I have noticed some trees that have died adjacent to
development but I am not in a position to say what the cause of the death was either. So I could
not say that with any assurance at all.
Thank you for the report by the way, it was very enlightening.
Mr. Burwasser: Thank you.
Commissioner Holman: The flow directions, on page six towards the bottom it talks about
although small compared to the volume of the surface aquifer the displacement could be
significant locally especially if there were other similarly sized basements in the immediate
vicinity. We have had occasions in Old Palo Alto where at one point there were so many houses
down you could see all the way through a block to the next block. So would you consider that a
situation where there could be impacts and that is what you might be referencing in this notice
here?
Mr. Burwasser: Yes. In that situation if there were basements in every one of those slxuctures
across an entire city block then you are displacing a fair amount of water assuming that the water
City of Palo Alto Page 5
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
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
47
48
table is close to the ground surface. You would want to monitor that very closely because
particularly in the areas a little closer to the Bay there are pockets of sand. Those will dewater
fairly rapidly and if you take out an entire city block and sink a hole 30 feet deep in it and as you
go closer to the Bay of course the water table comes closer to the surface, the land surface drops
towards sea level, the water table drops with it but not at great a rate. They meet at the shore.
Under those circumstances if you were removing say 20 feet of water below ground surface in a
sandy environment there could be a fairly broad cone of depression created around that pit and
you would want to look carefully at monitoring any occurrence or any trees for example that
occur around it you already have in your excavation requirements the necessity to shore those
kinds of excavations to prevent the adjacent roads and sidewalks from collapsing into the
excavation. So there is already a shoring system in place and it is not that big a deal to make that
a waterproof shoring system so that the site could be dewatered internally instead of externally
and the water table would be drawn down only under the site. It can be a little complicated but it
is nothing unusual for engineering work here in the Bay Area. Itis something people are fairly
familiar with I mean the engineering firms are fairly familiar with because they have to do it a
lot.
Commissioner Holman: I think my third question and probably my last question is having to do
with two story basements. We have had one and I think maybe two but certainly one that I am
aware of and is mentioned in the Staff Report. According to your report that does not reach the
sub-aquifer but are there any again adjacency problems referring to trees that should be more
closely monitored.
Mr. Burwasser: Yes, that is exactly the kind of situation that you would want to monitor closely
because a two story basement is going to be at a minimum 25 feet deep. There are five feet for
the foundation and then two levels, which will be at least eight feet plus some crawl space~ So I
would think in terms of approximately a 25-foot deep excavation, If your water table is ten feet
below the surface you are removing 15 feet of water. Again, if it is a sandy environment there
could be a substantially broad cone of depression around that environment, the drawdown on the
groundwater and those are situations in which you would want to monitor the adjacent property.
There actually is a provision in the regulations for protecting adjacent properties from collapse
into excavations and allowing time for those adjacent property owners to make whatever
necessary changes to their foundations that are basically created because of these rather deep
excavations. Usually they are thinking about situations where an excavation is within inches to a
few feet of an adjacent building. Where there is a substantial amount of soil between the
excavation and the adjacent building this may not be such a problem. Generally five feet of soil
is enough to do the job but still if the excavation is over five feet deep there has to be some kind
of either shoring or layback protection simply for the people who are working in the excavation.
If it is more than 12 feet deep it has to be shored. So again we are looking at as you have
suggested this possibility of surrounding effects that do need to be monitored I think.
Commissioner Holman: Could I get clarification on what you just stated? I want to make sure I
understood correctly. Are you saying that if an adjacent property has a building foundation
closer to within say five feet or so of an excavation that is going below 12 feet that those
adjacent properties might need to do some shoring of their foundations?
Mr. Burwasser: It is possible. As I say there is a section in the building code that enforces
looking at that situation and it is really intended for excavations that are almost exactly adjacent
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
to a property site. The example of five feet is that is approximately enough soil to provide
support for the adjacent building but most foundations don’t go below 12 feet at least on single
story buildings. And even with single story basements you are barely down 15 feet so that is
where the 12-foot limit comes in. Yes, it is possible that if that excavation is really close to that
building it is looked at very carefully by the people in Public Works because they know that it is
a problem and it is a liability and that has to be looked after.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you very much. We do have a lot ofgrandfathered and
nonconforming situations so I appreciate that information. Thank you.
Mr. Burwasser: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, do we have any more questions for our guest? No. Thank you very
much it was quite informative.
Mr. Burwasser: Thank you for your time.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, in order for us to delve into this issue on our own I should give the
public an opportunity to speak to this item. So with your understanding I would like to go to the
public at this stage and see if we have anyone that would like to speak on this or any other issue
this evening. We appear to have only one speaker. If any of the rest of you have an interest in
speaking to the subjects that we are going to be reviewing this evening I would encourage you to
fill out a speaker card. In the meantime we will turn our attention to Darren Neuman. Darren, if
you would introduce yourself to us please.
Mr. Darren Neuman, 1301 Parkinson Avenue, Palo Alto: Yes, I am a resident of Palo Alto. I
wanted to talk tonight a little bit on the impact of street side setbacks on corner lots. I believe all
of you should have a handout in addition to that I have a board that I want to pass around that has
some photographs on it. I will send that around when it becomes a relevant point in time.
The impact of the current zoning regulation on corner lots affects the building envelope
significantly. On this diagram I am showing an adjacent 50-foot interior lot on the right and a
corner lot on the left. The corner lot, it is a little bit difficult to see, has basically a 28 foot
building envelope while the interior lot has a 38 foot wide building envelope in an R-1 District.
I want to cover four areas tonight, one is that constraining the building envelope on corner lots
limits our design options. The constrained design makes for a little bit odd-looking houses that
impact the neighborhood. There are a few areas where the code is an unfair burden on corner lot
and narrow lot owners. Finally a better solution is available that should give us nicer looking
homes and should be more fair. So with regard to the building envelope what I am showing here
is the building envelope as represented in the current R-1 regulations. I want to compare that and
make a comment about the R-1 7000 district. This is actually for larger lots. The available
envelope for corner lots actually drops. You see here on the next foil the corner lot building
envelope drops to 26 feet wide even though the lot is larger in an R-1 7000 district. Now I chose
a 50-foot wide lot for this example I think there are quite a few 50-foot wide lots in Palo Alto.
The impact is larger due to the change in the interior side setback.
City of Pato Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
The effect this has on homes, I went around and took some photographs of homes in Palo Alto.
The top four homes, one of them was on a home tour, two of them are in Professorville, and one
of them is in my neighborhood. These are al! very nice looking homes that if they were required
to comply with today’s rules would have never been built. The two homes on the bottom do
comply with today’s roles and I think that you can see the constrained design, the constrained
envelope shows up in the design and it doesn’t give particularly pleasant looking homes.
Now the effect on a block is significant. It is very visible. Comer lot homes you can see from
two sides and they also set the tone as you enter a block that is what you see first. The building
envelope basically prevents you from varying the face of the building because it is so constrained
and you end up with a large flat face building that impacts the comer lots homes, they are
something very visible so that impacts the neighborhood.
I want to talk a little bit about the application of the street side setback. The R-1 zoning today as
it is propoged includes five special exemptions to the street side setback. They relax from 16
foot to ten foot. There are quite a few different exemptions that apply to a lot of people. It sort
of makes the 16-foot setback seem a little bit arbitrary and as a minimum it seems to be an unfair
burden on narrow lot owners regardless of the lot size. As I mentioned earlier that is going to
impact how our homes look. Luckily this can be easily solved. What I am proposing is actuaily
not too complicated. It basically says make the setback a function of the lot width so you end up
with on smaller lots they pay less of a penalty in setbacks, on wider lots or larger lots you get
more street space. So you end up with smaller lots where the design is less constrained gives
you nicer looking buildings and should make your neighborhood look nicer and larger lots or
neighborhoods that are a little bit more rural you get the advantage of more setback. So my
proposal here is actually consistent with the substandard lot proposal in your [Alan Rules]
proposal tonight. That is for anything less than 50 foot or a substandard lot would have a ten
foot side yard street side setback and then it would increase gradually as you get a 50 to 60 foot
wide lot it would be a 12 foot setback, 14 foot setback for wider lots 60 to 70 feet and then
anything over 70 foot would basically conform to the code today with a 16 foot street side
setback.
So my belief is that this is simple, it is fair, it should make better looking houses and better
looking neighborhoods and I think relaxing the narrow building envelope will ease the design,
provide some flexibility and hopefully help the quality of our neighborhoods. Any questions?
Chair Griffin: Mr. Neuman, we have some questions for you here. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you for bringing your suggestion forward. This is an issue we have
been struggling with on how to address what apparently you have observed which is that a lot of
homes that are being constructed according to code are less attractive than existing
nonconforming homes. One of the examples on your photo board is the Harker House on the
comer of Harker and Harriet. Do you happen to know what setbacks that house has? That is an
historic home and it is very attractive and it is viewed very favorably in the neighborhood but
you are saying that that one would not be allowed under our current code. Do you happen to
have an idea of what setbacks exist for that?
Mr. Neuman: Which photograph is it?
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ii
12
i3
14
15
16
!7
!8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3!
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
Commissioner Butt: It is the upper right.
Mr. Neuman: Yes, do I know what the setback is? What it is currently measured at?
Commissioner Burt: Yes, did you happen to survey those?
Mr. Neuman: I didn’t feel like intruding on their land with a tape measure but ifI had to guess it
is probably somewhere between maybe eight and ten feet, probably ten feet. I can sneak out
there later and measure if you would like.
Commissioner Burt: That’s all right, I walked that street this evening stepping off setbacks but
didn’t quite get that far.
Mr. Neuman: That is a very nice home by the way it is right in my neighborhood. I like it.
Commissioner Burt: The aspect about it that is so contrary to ~vhat you were pointing out on
most of the comer lot construction that has been built recently is that the front of the house is on
the narrower portion of the lot facing the street. Most of the houses that we are getting built
today the front of the house is essentially on the long portion, which is technically not the front
of the lot, but it is becoming the front of the house..Those are the two bottom photos that I think
you had, correct?
Mr. Neuman: Yes. I think there is a reason for that. If you look at the building envelope a 28-
foot wide house that is allowed today is not enough room for two rooms and a hall. Ifyo.u look
on an interior lot you can easily have two rooms with a hall down the middle so you can pass
through the center of the house. But when you look at a comer lot that is nearly impossible to
put the front of the house on the front of the lot.
Chair Griffin: Are there any further questions? Evidently not, we appreciate your presentation.
t have two additional speaker cards. The next one is Enid Pearson. Good evening Enid.
Ms. Enid Pearson, I019 Forest Court, Palo Alto: Hi. I did write you a letter and I want to talk
about noise. I don’t know if you got a chance to read it maybe I will just paraphrase what I gave
to you. I think when I was on the City Council I was the first one to suggest a noise ordinance
tbr Paio Alto. Of course after all these years the noise ordinance we have is practically the same
as when I was there and it is really not very effective, it is difficult. Anyway, it is a hard subject
to talk about. One of the problems that I have where I live is that I have a small house in a
neighborhood that has great big houses and big lots and everybody has a swimming pool. I have
lived there 26 years and one of the lots has had a swimming pool and they have had their
equipment and they have had it the full time that I have been there. Needless to say they never
hear the equipment because it is placed close tO my fence Or the back fence. So I have spent 26
years running around the block when the equipment started running 24 hours a day and I would
knock on the door and say here I am again your equipment is going 24 hours a day. They say,
gee, we didn’t know that. So what happens is that it is impossible for me to go sit out there
during the daytime because it is so noisy. That equipment is not protected in any way it just sits
out there. It doesn’t have any housing and they don’t hear it.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
The next thing that has happened is that the lot which is adjacent to that which also backs up to
my fence when my neighbor decided she wanted a larger house and on her lot she would have
new landscaping and she decided to put in a swimming pool. The only way I found out she was
putting in a swimming pool was when I heard the backhoe one day and I asked the men what
they were doing and they said they were digging a swimming pool. So the swimming pool was
right next to my fence there is no setback. So I called the City and there were no rules regarding
this and there were no rules regarding the equipment. I had researched this before. So I had no
recourse here except to go to my neighbor and plead with her and say could you put the
swimming pool somewhere else on your acre ofland? She said no, the landscape gardener wants
it there. I said where is the equipment going to go? She said it has to go right over here which
was right next to my two back bedrooms again right next to my fence. So I said oh, terrific. She
said she.wouldn’t run it at night. I thought that was some concession and she has kind of lived
up to that. The problem is that I can’t go out there in the daytime because they run more than
five hours a day and when they are both going it is terrific, I mean it is really awful. So I feel
that there ghould be some rules and regulations that the City has when people have equipment
like air conditioners, which I don’t have to address because nobody has that yet, and pool
equipment..There really should be some protection for the neighbor.
In my letter at the bottom I made a suggestion for a motion. I would ask that you recommend
that the current equipment that is causing neighbors a noise problem be housed and that there be
restrictions on when the equipment can run and how long the equipment can run. Second, that
there be instituted regulations on the placement of any new pools and their equipment especially
with regard to the effect on the neighbors, and three, that the equipment be housed to reduce the
noise and there be limitations on when the equipment runs and for how long. Finally, I thought
of a new one, that when the house sells and there are new owners that if they have not upgraded
their equipment, I know they can’t move the pool, but they could upgrade the equipment and
could move it somewhere else that they be required to do so when there is a new owner..
The other thing I would like to point out is that a pool right next to somebody’s fence is
unacceptable, the noise is unacceptable and there ought to be some way to control it. When I
talked to somebody on your Staff months and months and months ago he told me that this was
one of the few cities that he knew of that had no restrictions on pool equipment.
The other problem is that the side yards for instance the fence is their back fence but it might be
my side yard or it could be my back fence and their side yard because I live in one of those cul-
de-sacs that have these odd shaped lots. I think that is something to consider when you are
talking about back fences and side yards and which is which. I don’t know how to address that I
think you are the experts. The only other thing I can think of is that maybe landscape architects
should be aware that when they are designing for people that they ought to consider what impact
their designs have on their neighbors. Those are my suggestions and thanks for listening.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Enid. Do we have any questions for Enid? Evidently not. Our last
speaker’s card is from Bob Moss. If there are any of the rest of you who would like to speak this
evening now is the time. Congratulations Bob on using this address sticker, I like that.
Mr. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, Palo Alto: Th.ank you Chairman Griffin and
Commissioners. You have almost got this complete but I think you need a little fine-tuning.
Enid’s comment about putting mechanical equipment in the setbacks either the side or rear
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1 setback is something that definitely needs attention. I am a little surprised that we don’t have a
2 restriction on putting swimming pools in the side or rear yard setbacks. I think that is something
3 that definitely needs some attention. -
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
47
48
I just had a few comments. One of them was engendered by something that was said earlier this
evening about basements, that is Section 18.12.090. I was amazed to hear that some people are
putting in two story basements going down 25 feet. In about 80% of the City if you go down 25
feet you are in the groundwater. I can’t imagine why anybody would need a two level basement
for a residential building. So while that section right now is silent about how deep you can go
and how many levels you can go I would suggest you put in a prohibition against going down a)
into the aquifer or the groundwater and b) going down more than one level. It just doesn’t make
any sense to me that you would want to go down into the groundwater. What in the world is
somebody doing with two level basements? The only thing I can think of is they are renting it
out to hundreds and hundreds of people.
Second, I talked about this earlier, Section 18.12.100 on establishing a single family combining
district, Section C where you have the threshold for getting a district approved again I would
make an appeal instead of making it 70% make it 65% for getting signatures in the area defined.
I think that is still a reasonable level. It only takes two-thirds to amend the Constitution why do
we have to go any more than that for setting up a single story overlay.
The final one, maybe I just don’t trust developers enough but this thought struck me. Section
18.12.130 Architectural Review where it currently says Architectural Review is required in
Chapter 16.48 of Title 16 in R-1 districts and sub-districts whenever three or more adjacent
residential units are intended to be developed concurrently. Being the suspicious person I am I
can conceive of a developer having a five unit project where he develops the two on either side,
leaves the middle one out, avoids Architectural Review and then does the last one later. I also
can see where you wouldn’t want to say if somebody is developing three units, somebody like
Jim Wood for example who is building all over Barron Park and the units are halfa block to
three or four blocks apart that you wouldn’t consider them architecturally similar. So I would
suggest striking the word ’adjacent’ and say ’nearby’ and define nearby as within the same
block. That way you won’t have a developer coming in and avoiding Architectural Review in
what is really a subdivision just by leapfrogging the lots that he happens to develop at any
particular time. Now maybe I am being overly suspicious but maybe I have just been dealing
with developers for too long. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Bob. Then we are going to bring this back and Curtis do you have
any more comments to make on item number four, basements, otherwise that makes sense to let
item number four, basements, be our first topic of investigation this evening and then we will
move on to the normal sequence of one, two, three, five, etc. So did you have any more
comments there?
Mr. Williams: I would just indicate that you discussed the other aspects of basements
previously, they are incorporated in here and the remaining issue was the groundwater issues. So
if there is anything that you suggest on that we would like to hear about that otherwise we are
ready to proceed with the section as is.
Chair Griffin: All right. Commissioners? Bonnie?
City of Palo Alto Page II
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
47
48
Commissioner Packer: I wonder if anyone on Staff could explain to the extent you know what
kind of review Public Works does do with regard to basements. Do they have geological
expertise? Do they require a geological report because that isn’t specifically in here? What
assurances do we have that the issues that our consultant raised would be looked into by the
Public Works review?
Mr. John Lusardi. Planning Manager, Special Projects: I know that they do ask for a geologic
report on basements. I am assuming that it is on every basement although I can’t say that for
sure but I would turn to our consultant and ask him if he knows specifically when and under
what conditions they would ask for a report.
Mr. Burwasser: The way the regulations read is that if there is a reasonable suspicion, I don’t
think that is the actual word that is used, but that there will be shallow groundwater in the area
then a geotogic report specifying what the highest anticipated groundwater level is required.
Essentially any basements built in the flat area of the city which is the Santa Clara plain are
going to be in areas where there is likely to be high groundwater table and certainly as you go
closer to the Bay the groundwater table rises. So that is the direction that the City uses. They
have a fairly good monitoring system I should say tracking system to know where the
groundwater table is now and it is not difficult to check to see whether or not they are in an area
where there is likely to be any kind of inappropriate rise. So that is really kind of an engineering
issue and they have hydraulic engineers who do review those sections of the geologic reports.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you. So that is part of the building code type of review that goes
on with any construction? We don’t really have to put that in the zoning code, requirements like
that, is that what I am hearing?
Ms. Amy French. Planning Manager: I would like to say on Individual Review projects as you
know ar~ subject to discretionary review those are routed. So even before building permits the
Publics Works Department would begin to be involved in identifying where there might be
problems with a basement. So that is on the two story homes of course and of course during the
building permit they would get involved.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I think this is more for Staffthan for the consultant, thank you. Have
there been situations or complaints, I have noticed that there have been trees that have died
adjacent to construction sites but I have no way ofknbwing what the cause of that was, have
there been complaints or concerns expressed by members of the community about that? Have
there been any expressed concerns or complaints about any difficulties on one’s property having
to do with the foundation issue that the consultant mentioned? Have there been situations where
Public Works has determined that monitoring on adjacent sites needed to take place?
Mr. Lusardi: Staff is not aware of any of those situations occurring. We have not discussed that
directly with Public Works. Staffis aware of situations where there has been damage to trees
mainly because of the foundation wall disturbing the roots. That potential I think is far greater
than a loss of trees because of a loss of water situation. It is really that that foundation wall when
they get too close or cut into the roots that is a greater concern and a greater situation. In that
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
4t
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
respect we do require sites that have trees on adjacent properties to plot those trees so we know
what that potential impact could be and we could address it.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Clarification on that. Does that have to do with water issues or does
that have to do with root issues? I am aware certainly it has to do with root issues so roots don’t
get cut.
Mr. Lusardi: I "know it has to do with root issues and I am assuming that the arborist also looks
at it in the context of how much water that could be affected with that root system as well as
disturbing the roots physically themselves.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I wanted to ask about the issue of depth of basements. We are in the last
five or ten years seeing quite an increase in the use of basements because of the increased land
value and people’s wish to be able to put larger structures, useful structures, while working
within our constraints on above ground floor areas especially since the 1989 revisions that
restricted FAR. So we have a trend that is one of allowing basements and ~eater basements
being constructed and it has been a conscious deliberate program that the City has supported
exempting basements from FAR. We don’t yet have much of a problem with two story
basements. I think so far they are rare. I can imagine that we might be moving in that direction
in the next decade and I think this zoning code needs to be looking forward as well as looking
backward. So my question is do we have a concern if two story basements became a common
practice is that consistent with what we want to allow for exemptions and what we want to
achieve in the housing pattern? I hadn’t really thought it through a lot and I would like to hear
Staff’s comments on that and frankly fellow Commissioners as well because it is something that
we have to envision for the future in order to really see that there might be such a problem. We
could also punt on the thing until the problem becomes more acute.
Chair Griffin: Does anyone from Staffhave a response they would like to make?
Mr. Lusardi: Well, the initial response is that two story basements have not become such a
prevalent issue that we feel there is a need to ~iddress those specifically. There are a couple of
reasons for that. Number one, two story basements are extremely expensive to build. They are
almost prohibitively too expensive to build on a regular basis. Number two, it is really the
functions of the basements and the Commissioner is correct in saying that the function of
basements has changed dramatically as they have been utilized. They are being utilized more as
family rooms and higher activity and in some cases bedrooms as opposed to what has typically
been the historic use of a basement. When you are talking about a two story basement though
you are talking about a much more limited use of that basement as far as what it can be used for
because you then have daylighting and exiting issues that you have to address. That is really
limiting in putting in a two-story basement. The other part of that is what our consultant, EIP,
has also identified and that is there are engineering issues associated with both single and two
story basements and those are best dealt with through engineering, through Public Works and
through building and not through the zoning code.
City of Pa!o Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!I
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
47
48
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: How deep are the basements that are being built now going? It is very
common to have a basement in other parts of the county but sometimes we look at these and
wonder how deep is a single story basement going? Some of them look to be 15 feet and that is
almost two stories but they look quite deep.
Mr. Williams: There may be some as big as that. I would say 12 feet is common, 13 or 14 feet
is not unusual from what we have seen. Obviously they tend to want to make that space higher
to make it feel more open because it is underground and not to get claustrophobic if it is nine or
ten feet. So they tend to be at least 12 feet. We have looked at several and I would say they tend
to be 12 or 13 feet typically.
Chair Griffin: I have personal experience with single story basement excavation to the 16 or 17-
foot level:qt absolutely gets your attention there is no doubt about it. The issue of shoring is
also an eye-opening experience that I went through and I wouldn’t wish it on anybody. It really
demands that property owners be vigilant and pursue their alternatives with Fred’s department
and the Building Code Enforcement group. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have spoken with Curtis about this previously, having to do on page
six of the Staff Report in the second paragraph it talks about the number of new single family
houses for which permits were granted and the number of those that had basements included.
The reason I am making a point of this is so we know what the proliferation of basements is so
we "know what we are talking about. I think it is important to note that this does not differentiate
the single family home building permits issued versus the ones that are issued that are in flood
plane. So this doesn’t reference how many are building basements that can build basements. I
think to have really comprehensive information to know how prolific the basement construction
is that is an important thing to note. Also I was surprised at how low these numbers were
because I have been told by various members of Staffthat single family home construction,
please correct me ifI am wrong here, that it has not slowed down even with the dot.corn bust. I
thought the numbers had been near the 100 mark, 1 thought they had been in the 80’s and 90’s in
2001 and 2002. So I was surprised at how low these numbers were literally. That is one point so
if Staffwould like to comment on those.
Then the other is regarding two story basements. I always look at code as being a way to prevent
what you don’t want to have happen rather than looking at a way to fix something that has
started to proliferate. So could Staff comment on why it would not be a good idea to go ahead
and put a limitation on, I know you sort of did but I would like a little more information about
why not just go ahead and limit construction to single story basements for a particular depth level
rather than wait until there is an issue. The reason I bring this up too is because there are
engineering constraints, there are financial concerns having to do with second story basement
construction but if people can pay $7.0 million for a house or for a property and then tear it down
and build something new then .... we have seen a lot of situations in this community where
money is not the issue. It is just what can they do and what do they want to do and that is not
good, bad or indifferent. I am not putting a judgrnent on that it is just that we as Planning
Commission need to do what we think is best for the community and follow the Comp Plan. So
could Staffplease comment on why not do that in addition to the demolition numbers I raised?
City of Palo Alto 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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Lusardi: I suppose Staff’s position on this is more of an issue of why regulate it to such a
degree when it is not a real common happening with respect to basements, number one. Number
two, again, going back to the fact that engineering and building code standards provide for
sufficient protection regarding any possible environmental effects from one story and two story
basements. That is what the EIP report points out so we don’t see any reason why we should
regulate it because there are one or two two-story basements in the City at this point. I guess that
is as simple as we can put it.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I would like to weigh in on a couple of things with regard to this. I think
that the direction that we might be heading with the Zoning Ordinance Update here is with a
relaxation of some of the standards with regard to the wells and the open space associated with
basements. What that will do is actually make basements a lot more inviting. The whole idea of
making basements a little more inviting will allow for people to begin to look at those as
potential habitable spaces, part of the housing structure in which people can live there. Why that
is important is a number of things. Number one, it allows people to increase building mass
without having an apparent increase of building mass there because you have actually created a
three-story building but you have submerged one level there.
With a two-story basement below what that actually allows you to have is one level of
submerged habitable space and then another level in which mechanical systems and storage can
be placed underneath. What we are actually doing here is looking at Something is potentially a
very positive thing and a very good trend. I understand that there are concerns with regard to
aquifer, undermining trees and undermining the neighbor’s property. The point that I am trying
to make is there are potentials there for mitigating that. One of the ways to do that is first of all
they do require when you do a basement to get a geological soils report. The City has enough
information with regard to the aquifer. I have a question I would like to address to the City
Attorney’s Office. Is it potentially possible when people do go underground to require that they
post some sort of bond until construction is complete for a certain number of months afterwards?
Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys: I would have to look into that and see
how that relates to our building codes and if there are any preemption issues there but it is
something that we could look into.
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: I am empathetic to that point that Commissioner because I am thinking again of
my experience with a basement. If it were a two-story affair and the speculative building should
run out of funds and there he is with a hole in the ground two stories deep and then we get back
into the point that Commissioner Holman was making about the trees. Then they are going to
take a hit because at a certain stage you are going to start affecting landscaping. In an attempt to
include other Commissioners in on this conversation I would like to go to Commissioner Bialson
and then we will come back to Karen.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you very much. I am very hesitant to go into a regulation of
second story basements because I don’t think we have enough information and in this case I
don’t think we need to operate quickly on this issue, which is at this point from what I can tell a
City of Palo Alto Page !5
1 non-issue. 1 am loath to make my judgment as to whether or not people should have a second
2 story basement sort of set in stone at this point. I agree with Lee that there are some positives to
3 it and until we have done more of a study I would rather not regulate this any more than we
4 presently have in the zoning code. I think we need to get on with the other issues that face us
5 today to get this zoning code out.
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
47
48
Chair Griffin: We are into this now for an hour. Karen, you wanted to make a comment.
Commissioner Holman: Yes. Staffdidn’t respond to my question about the number of new
building permits and the number that were in flood plane overall.
Mr. Lusardi: The numbers in the Staff Report do not separate out which houses are in the flood
plane and which were not. We can get you that detailed information if you want. I don’t think
that changes the conclusions or the recommendations though.
Commissioner Holman: Like I said, the reasons I wanted to bring that up though was because it
would be good information for people to know what the proliferation of basements is and what
the potential impact is however you view the impacts. I think that is relevant information.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will make a motion to support the Staffrecommendation.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
Chair Griffin: That has been moved and seconded. Do you have any comments?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am one of the people who have been a little concerned about the
proliferation of basements primarily because of the water issue. I am also a little concerned
about two stories and so I think this is an issue we clearly need to keep an eye on but basements
have existed in other parts of the country quite well. The issue for me has been the water issues
in terms of whether we are pumping too much water out of the area. With that issue having been
discussed adequately I think I am comfortable moving forward.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Bialson: I feel Phyllis has said it all. While I don’t mean to say that we shouldn’t
look at this issue I just don’t think we should look at it at this point.
Chair Griffin: Lee, any comments there?
Commissioner Lippert: No, I think Phyllis and Annette have covered it. I am in support of the
motion.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Any other Commissioners? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: With all due respect I think I had mentioned once before that I had been
asking for information about the basements for quite some time. I am loath to be critical about
this but at the same time I am disappointed that the information came on the same night that we
are making recommendations on all the rest of the zoning code for the R-1 District. I continue to
have concerns about the basements. As I have raised before there are larger issues that just have
to do with the environment although that is a very large concern of mine. While it may not be
zoning code issues I still would like to be informed on what the Public Works Department does
and what the Building Department does in relation to potential impacts on adjacent properties. I
think Commissioner Lippert’s inquiry about a bond is a very interesting one and that probably
wouldn’t be part of the zoning code but I think it is something that should be brought up. My
other issue having to do with basement proliferation and the size of the basements is the
affordability, again it is all relative in Palo Alto of course, and I don’t have empirical evidence
that says m-ore homes get demolished because basements are allowed but my instinct says that
that is probably the case because it is easier to scrape and build a basement than it is to raise and
house and build some size of a basement. So while it is true that allowing a basement which of
course is underground allows a building to get larger without impacting the streetscape and the
mass above ground there is also nothing that says that people have a right to ’x’ size of a house.
So it keeps the mass down but we have zoning tools to keep the mass of the house down too so it
-is kind of a two edged sword. My personal inclination has been and I am afraid still does lean
toward putting some kind of a restriction on the size of a basement that is allowed that doesn’t
count against FAR. Again, it has to do with sustainability issues, potential environmental issues
and affordability so I will not be supporting the motion.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I don’t have difficulties with the basement proposal in principle but I would
like to see if Commissioners would also agree to request Staffto come back to us at a later time
with some additional information on what are the Public Works constraints and City Arborist
involvement when people put in a basement just to make sure that there are adequate protections
for neighbors from that kind of construction. If the maker of the motion is amenable to that as a
friendly amendment to request Staffto give us a brief report at a future date to be determined that
would give us additional information on what are those controls because we really didn’t get that
information tonight.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That is fine.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Bialson: I think that would be okay. I am hesitant to put further burden on Staff
because I think they need to work towards getting this Zoning Ordinance Update out. Since we
are not putting a time deadline on it that would be fine.
MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0 with Commissioner ttolman voting against)
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: All right Commissioners, I think we have all had a crack at this. All in favor of
Phyllis’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) That carries with the exception of
Commissioner Holman.
Now we are going to back track to item number one, which is Home Improvement Exceptions
and Single Family Individual Review. Curtis do you have some comments there for us?
Mr. Williams: I do. We didn’t do a separate slide for this one but Jon Abendschein and Amy are
here if you have any questions about this. I think back in early June you discussed the changes
to HIE and IR process and made some decisions at that point in time. Those changes have been
incorporated into the language that now has been fed into this R-1 chapter some of the process
components as well. So, Jon or Amy, do you have anything you want to add in terms of the
significant changes?
Mr. Abendschein: No, there aren’t significant changes. You are going to see a lot of formatting
changes, the Individual Review and Home Improvement Exceptions are aligned and they are
consistent with what you approved recently for Variances, CUPs and Architectural Review.
That is the main thing that we have done between the last time you saw this and now.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I looked over the HIE section and it very well reflected our discussions
and what we had so thanks for that. I still had one little question though that was bothering me
and it was bothering me the last time. On the one through 14, all the lists of Home Improvement
Exceptions that an applicant can ask for, the two sections that bother me a little bit when you
read them together that is the 100 square feet maximum and then you have the 250 square feet
for historic. The way I read it and everywhere I read it it stil! seems to me that an historic home
could get 250 square feet. If that is not the intention then if some language could be added to
maybe item number ten that says this is instead of item one then I would feel happier about that.
Do you follo~v what I am talking about? I think we said that everything is cumulative, you could
have 100 square feet, you could encroach into the side setback, and a homeowner could have all
14 of these things.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Bonnie, are you suggesting that they could have 350 square feet?
Commissioner Packer: Yes, because they could have all I4 of those that is the way it is written.
It is not one or the other.
Mr. Sodergren: Maybe we could do it in one where it says to allow up to 100 square feet in that
sentence and then maybe except when granted an exception under subsection ten.
Commissioner Packer: Yes, that is what I was thinking was the intent. Do the other
Commissioners agree with that? For the sake of the minutes, everyone is shaking their heads.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will ask in just a moment. Does anyone else have any other questions and
then we will go back. Are there no other questions? Karen?
Commissioner Packer: They are shaking their heads in the affirmative.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
-25
26
27
28
29
3O
3!
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Vice-Chair Cassel: I know but let me get this. I will give you a chance to make a motion in a
second.
Commissioner Holman: You mean about this particular piece of you mean about the HIE in
general?
Vice-Chair Cassel: About the HIE in general.
Commissioner Holman: I have a couple. We had talked previously about, there were several
Commissioners who had made mention that these Home Improvement Exceptions should not be
considered a by-right granting. So that isn’t here so I was just wondering if we could get
thoughts on that issue from the other Commissioners.
Then the o~ther is the number ten where Bonnie just was. We did have discussion about this with
Staffand I did separately to not take up Commission time. It does reference Category 1 and 2
historic structures but I still think and Commissioner Burt has mentioned in the past if there is
something that we are trying to promote or something that we are trying to encourage or
something that we even allow that to keep it a secret is not really forwarding our goal. So I think
it would be appropriate to reference historic structures, a definition that says how to become an
historic structure, that being a Category 1 or 2 or something. There needs to be some reference
of that here othenvise people are just going to look at this and say I am not a Category 1 or 2. It
is a matter of making it user friendly is what I am getting at so I would like to see that included
here as a cross-reference. I would also like. to know how other Commissionersfeel about both of
those things.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Any other comments from Commissioners? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I am ready to go to a .motion on this but I just want to respond to
Karen’s question as to how other Commissioners feel. I think that a homeowner is very carefully
reviewing anything that could potentially give them more space and more square footage. So
while I understand making this more user friendly it is a statute that they will review along with I
think some sort of informational booklet. Perhaps in that informational booklet we could make
some reference that would clarify this point but I am again hesitant to see this in the statute.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to respond to Karen’s comment. You had mentioned early
on that you would not want this list to be a by-right list that somebody would assume that
because we have listed it here that they would automatically have that right. But in some ways it
is providing people with tools and saying here is a toolbox, here are some opportunities to use
these tools and then saying well, you really can’t use the screwdriver. I don’t think that that’s
appropriate because then it really becomes almost arbitrary the process. What is important here
is that we have outlined a process for the HIE process in which people are going to be noticed
about what is going on, they have a right to appeal the decision here and it is this body I believe
that if it is appealed it is seen before our group and then our recommendation is forwarded to
Council. If Council decides that they want to pull the item and review the item. So I think the
City of Palo Alto 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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
people will assume that they have the right and the opportunity to use this list and that in some
ways it is by right unless the neighbors or the community has an objection.
Mr. Sodergren: Would it perhaps be helpful to add a sentence to the purpose section stating
something to the effect that a Home Improvement Exception is a discretionary action based on
the unique characteristics of the home or accessory structure? Would that go towards clarifying
it that it is discretionary on a case-by-case basis and you really have to look at the unique
property?
Commissioner Holman: Could you state that language again, please?
Mr. Sodergren: A Home Improvement Exception is a discretionary action based on the unique
characteristics of the home or accessory structure.
Commissioner Holman: That almost sound a little bit more restrictive than what I was thinking.
In response to Commissioner Lippert’s comments these aren’t Variances at the same time and
they would be subject to Individual Review review except that if they are granted I don’t think
Individual Review can then negate them. So I agree that you want to make tools available to
people but I don’t want to negate another process that we have in place by implying that or
somebody being able to interpret these as a by right. So 1 don’t want to negate Individual
Review by that interpretation of this and that is where my concern lies.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: If you compare this whole section with the section that describes
permitted encroachments it is a real difference. There the code sets forth a whole list of things
where bay windows and eaves and stuffcan go into side yards and that is just given. There are
no’findings to be made and there are no parameters set around when you can follow these.
permitted encroachments. This on the other hand starts out with a very specific purpose
statement that gives three and only three reasons for granting an HIE. Then there is a list of
findings that have to be made before they can be granted. So the whole concept that this is a
discretionary procedure and that this isn’t an automatic right is inherent in the fact of the way the
whole thing is presented. So I think your concerns Karen are really addressed in the fact that this
is an HIE process and it is not something that you can do as listed in the encroachments. So I
don’t think you need to be as concerned. I think we agree with you that this is not automatic and
it isn’t automatic because findings have to be made and only in the context of the purpose. So I
think it is written very well and I think it accomplishes what we want it to accomplish.
Chair Griffin: Annette
MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: I would like to make a motion that we move the Staffrecommendation
with regard to the Home Improvement Exceptions and Single Family Individual Review.
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: I ~vill second that.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Griffin: Does the maker wish to comment?
Commissioner Bialson: Just briefly. I appreciate Karen’s concern but I think that as Bonnie has
indicated the entire section has the correct thrust to it and I am comfortable that we have gone
through this and hashed it out. I think Lee may be able to speak to architects and others who
would be reviewing this and how their understanding would possibly be formed.
Chair Griffin: Seconder.
Commissioner Lippert: I am in support of this. I think that it is well stated here. I think that
there are certain restrictions that are placed on these and that it is going to work out just fine. It
is providing some extra tools that are their opportunities for people to get some things that they
need in their new homes badly. It is a way to preserve in some ways the existing architecture
and fabric-i3fthe community by giving people these extra tools to work with.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Did that motion include the minor adjustment that Bonnie had in language?
Commissioner Packer: The adjustment to add language to item one under C that says you get
100 square feet but not if you are also asking for the 250 square feet if you are an historic
structure. I think Dan had more eloquent language.
Commissioner Bialson: It would absolutely include that and I appreciate Bonnie pointing that
out.
Commissioner Lippert: I will go along with that as well.
Chair Griffin: Could Staff recapitulate that language to make sure we have that?
Mr. Williams: I can take a shot. I think what I heard Dan say was to or Dan, did you write it
down?
Mr. Sodergren: I would recommend at the end of C-1 adding the language except when an
exception is granted pursuant to subsection ten.
Commissioner Bialson: That would be fine.
Commissioner Packer: Sure.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3i
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: I needed to go back to the question I was going to ask before the motion.
Commissioner Holman brought up the issue of whether we should make more clear, ifI
understood it, more clear inclusion of historic structures for the incentives. Does Staff have any
comments on any reason not to do that? Is there a downside to adding that clarification that she
was recommending?
Mr. Williams: I think that rather than try to do that in the HIE section that we now have a
Section 18.12.140 called Historical Review. I think it would be easy in that to just call that
Historical Review and Incentives and add a sentence or two that basically says that there are
incentives provided for Category 1 and Category 2 structures in and we would reference both the
HIE section as well as the gross floor area bonuses that we. discussed last time.
Commissioner Burt: So if that additional language is acceptable to the Commission is it
appropriate to include that in this motion or somewhere else in our process?
Commissioner Bialson: Is that something that Staffis going to do regardless or do you want that
in the motion?
Mr. Williams: I think that would be good to have that in your motion as well.
Commissioner Bialson: That would be okay with me.
Chair Griffin: Seconder.
Commissioner Lippert: Sounds good.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just a really quick comment. I will support the motion. I brought up
the by-right issue because I remembered that other Commissioners had that concern too and I
appreciate the addition of the historical review language so I ~vill be supporting the motion. I
think the findings do pretty much curtail a by-right interpretation.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Griffin: Then we will vote this item. All those in favor of Annette’s motion say aye.
(ayes) Opposed? That item carries unanimously.
That takes us to number three speaking of incentives for historic structures. We can’t avoid this
one, can we? Thank you Phyllis. We will have to hold off on the historic and deal with
recommendations for substandard lots and flag lots. Curtis.
Mr. Williams: At the last Commission meeting or one of the last Commission meetings you
asked us to take a look at substandard lots and see if it was appropriate to revise some of the
development standards to provide more flexibility for those properties. We looked at probably
ten or 12 different sort of criteria that might be modified and looked at those for the potential to
add second stories and what could be done there as well as what if second stories continue to be
prohibited and we wanted to provide more flexibility on the first floor. Our recommendation
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
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
47
48
given your initial consideration which seemed disposed to allowing second stories through the
Individual Review process is to revise the substandard lot section to allow second story
development and delete the provision existing that limits it to single story and 17 feet but to limit
the height to 24 feet, to subject the property to the IR guidelines and review process, we would
suggest eliminating the contextual requirements both the garage and the setback context because
those are both very constraining for these type of lots. We found that the street side setback on
coruer lots as we have heard on lots that aren’t even substandard fi’om Mr. Neuman can be very
constraining that ~ve would reduce those to ten feet. Then to increase the site coverage to 40%
not just for single story but also for two stories with the thought being that that provides a bit
more flexibility on the first floor and perhaps minimized the amount of square footage that needs
to go on a second story. We did as I mentioned consider several other items and in the Staff
Report I think we outlined those that could be used either in conjunction with these or
particularly would be useful ira second story were not allowed, if that flexibility were not
available. They include things like in particular reducing the side setbacks to something that
relates to file lot width rather than a straight number like ten percent of the lot width or reducing
the parking requirements or not making one of the required parking spaces be covered so both of
them could be uncovered spaces. Those are issues that are still somewhat constraining on these
with second stories but we did run through several scenarios and worked with the architect from
Origins who helps with the preliminary reviews on the IR process and felt that these changes
with a second story allowed would generally accommodate ~i small second story and would be
highly beneficial while still maintaining in tact the daylight plane, compatibility plane that exists
and protecting neighbors through the IR process. So these are our suggestions. Again, those
other issues that we raised relative to first floor development could also be combined here if you
wanted to provide even additional flexibility and development potential.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues? Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: First I would like to say that this is really great what you done here in
terms of taking our comments and synthesizing them. It is a very positive piece that has been
written here. I have one comment and it is relatively minor and that is regarding the reduction
street side setback from 16 to ten feet. If you had a substandard lot and it was still 50 feet wide
but the substandard was really the depth of the lot there would be no reason to reduce the setback
in that dimension. So what I would say is that if it were substandard but still a 50-foot wide lot
or greater you wouldn’t reduce that street side yard setback.
Mr. Williams: So that provision would only kick in if the lot width was less than 50 feet or
something like that.
Commissioner Lippert: Correct.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: One follow up question to Commissioner Lippert’s issue that he just raised
there. Staffhad spoken about evaluating the circumstances under which a homeowner of a
substandard lot would not be able to build out to their otherwise allowable FAR. I don’t know if
Staffhas a ready answer to that but if we have a lot like Commissioner Lippert was just
describing where what is substandard is the depth and not the width would maintaining the street
side setback at 16 feet still allow them to build out to their otherwise allowable FAR? So I agree
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
with Commissioner Lippert that the intent of reducing the street side setback was principally for
narrow lots I just want to make sure that we are not going to unintentionally restrict what they
could build in their FAR by doing that. ! don’t know that you have a ready answer, if you do
great if not maybe you could provide some guidance on that a little bit later.
Mr. Williams: I think that could generate problems. I think that if the second story option is
available that they probably could get close to the allowable FAR. If the second story option
were not available I would say that could be a major constraint on a 50 by 50 foot lot.
Commissioner Burt: Good. Second, on the roof height is that an absolute roof height or is that
50% of the roof pitch average?
Mr. Williams: It is an absolute like our 35-foot height is an absolute now. The thought behind
that is that these are typically smaller homes that the second stories would typically be relatively
small and given the other constraints there we did look at diagramming out how that would work
in 24 feet. In fact the architect really indicated 21 to 24 feet was kind of a range that seemed to
work on these lots with a pitched roof.
Commissioner Burt: I would be interested in Commissioner Lippert’s thoughts on that. When I
think about these beautiful Victorian style homes over on Channing that are on the substandard
lots and almost zero setback I believe that they have fairly steeply pitched roofs with several of
them being two-story. I would be real surprised if the roof peak doegn’t exceed 24 feet. So the
question I would have is are we going to create a circumstance where we are once again having
some box-like architectural design because we are creating an absolute limit. The builder will
try to make the most use of that 24-foot height limit and therefore we end up with poor design
and maxed out FAR. So I am not sure that we wouldn’t end up with unintended architectural
consequences that way and I will defer to Commissioner Lippert who ~vill hopefully have some
thoughts on that.
Then finally, at our last meeting on this subject I had a question of what portion of our existing
structures on substandard lots would be allowed to be built today under the proposed guidelines.
That was a question that was framed in the context of the previously proposed guidelines and
now we have significantly different guidelines that you have come back with in response to the
Commission’s suggestions. I think in general they look like a significant improvement but I still
don’t have a good sense, does this mean that these structures that we see today that we say that is
a substandard lot and that house seems great. Could it be built today under these proposed
guidelines? I don’t have a good feel for that. I can certainly envision that a good number of
them based on setbacks wouldn’t be able to be built even with this liberalization on the setbacks
because many of existing structures today have very minimal setbacks. Does Staffhave any
thoughts on that question?
Mr. Williams: Not really. I don’t think we are...we took some photos of some of the existing
substandard lots but I don’t think we have the documentation or looked that documentation up to
really assess whether it fits these criteria or not. We did a lot of conceptual analysis and looked
at some and from what I saw there were probably a few that would work and some maybe
wouldn’t. I think like you said where you have a very steep roof pitch you are probably right
that would go over 24 feet. That might also violate the compatibility plane as well. I don’t think
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
we have a good answer as to whether those would work under these just that more would work
under these than currently can be built.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Could Staff refresh me why we are looking at allowing or what is the
purpose of allowing second habitable floors on substandard lots? Where did this originate?
Mr. Williams: Amy might want to help me here but I know we have had some requests for that
and in some cases there have been approved Variances for that. I believe that the genesis of it
from those was that we now have the IR process in place, it didn’t exist before, and going back
and looking up the history. ! should probably mention that Susan did a heck of a lot of work, all
those tables in here and everything else Sue put together and looked up some of the history of the
ordinance and there seemed to be some discussion at that time that if there were some kind of a
review process for second stories that might make a difference. But because there wasn’t that
let’s just go with the 17 foot one story process. Just changed circumstances as far as the
potential to have some review and to set some specific standards like this so that it wasn’t wide
open we felt that it was appropriate to bring it to you. We recognize that it is a major policy
question and if you are not comfortable with that we don’t go there.
Commissioner Holman: I was wondering if the other Commissioners would be interested in
hearing any comments that Annette Ashton might have to make as far as I am aware anyway
there hasn’t been that opportunity for those Co-Chairs to comment on this as this was the first I
had seen it was in this report. The reason I ask that is because both of these recommendations
remove contextual front setback requirements and contextual garage placement requirements so I
am just wondering if we might want to hear what she might have to say about this.
Chair Griffin: Annette, are you interested in making some comments on this as representative of
the advisory group?
Ms. Annette Ashton. Co-Chair, Single Family Advisory Committee. Palo Alto: I certainly
would be happy to comment. Thank you Commissioner Holman. We never did discuss
substandard lots in our R-1 group in any detail. We recognized that that was a significant area to
consider that was always in the parking lot list.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted an opportunity to respond to Commissioner Burt’s
question. I have given it a little bit of thought and there are a couple of things in here that sort of
went over my head for a second there which is the limit in height to 24 feet. I don’t know why
we would remove the standard 30-foot height limitation for the building envelope. Generally the
way it works is that you have the daylight plane, in this case the contextual plane that comes up,
I believe it is 60 degrees.
Mr. Williams: Ten feet and 45 degrees.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay, 45 degrees and then it meets supposedly at a height of
approximately 30 feet and that would be the envelope that the building would have to be within.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
So your roof would have to fit within that tent structure so to speak. So just the contextual plane
would limit the height of the structure. So I don’t know why we would need that 24-foot height
limit. Again the width of the lot has a lot to say about that. The wider the lot the higher the
house can go up to that 30 foot.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I notice that we are dealing with substandard lots and flag lots. I have
some greater sensitivity with regard to the construction of second stories on flag lots. 1 looked at
the compilation in the tables that were done. Did I miss the calling out of flag lots? If so, could
you tell me where they are because that is my greatest concern?
Mr. Williams: Yes, after the Table 2 and Table 3 that put all the standards in tabular format
there then is the next section after that on page six of the clean draft version there is subsection
C, Substandard and Flag Lots. It provides these standards under substandard lots in number one
and then number two is flag lots. Flag lots still at this point are retained at one story limitation
and one habitable floor limitation. We did suggest changing the front setback on flag lots to ten
feet because that is really not a front yard per se and not subject to contextual garage placement
requirements because it doesn’t fit into that at all. Those are the two changes. We did leave the
height limitation on flag lots.
Commissioner Bialson: I got lost in the attachment. Great attachment but I got lost in it. Thank
you.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think the reason we want to allow second stories on these small lots is that
we are trying to encourage people to not combine lots to make bigger lots. If they can build a
reasonable amount on the small lot then they are more apt to not try to buy the neighboring lot.
They can do something with the present lot. If they can build some two story space, I happen to
prefer some open space around the houses and two story houses if they are reviewed for other
issues gives some space to have a little more open space on the ground. So I think that it will
encourage people to stay on smaller lots and not feel the need or the urgency to combine two
lots. We are limiting some of the ability for people to combine small lots.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I appreciate Commissioner Cassel bringing that piece up. I had not
thought about that aspect of it. I do have and continue to have and after seeing this have even
more concerns about this though. I am sympathetic to Commissioner Burt’s comments about
some of the existing housing that we have and could it be built now. It is true that it couldn’t on
these little substandard lots. I am sympathetic to that and a lot of it is very good design. What
we have though is a situation where these substandard lots are existing and what we are doing,
and looking at the map here was really an eye-opener for me and I appreciate that Staff included
this, what we are looking at here though is eliminating contextual front setback requirements and
eliminating contextual garage placement requirements. If you look at the proliferation of these
substandard lots we are looking at really impacting most especially in College Terrace the
streetscape. That seems contrary to me to where we ought to go. The other thing that is different
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
than the existing two story homes on substandard lots is that because of the garages not being a
requirement that that garage then is going to be an impact on the street because it is being
removed. That is different than the existing ones.
The other thing that I mentioned previously is that it is not sustainable to my mind to be allowing
larger and larger houses because people want them. I understand certainly and am sympathetic
to people’s families growing at the same time ! am more sympathetic to people whose children
grow up or people who want to move into the community who are a part of the labor force here
and can’t find any place to live because they can’t afford it. So I am more sympathetic to that
aspect of the community and trying to support a sustainable community in that way. I think that
these properties are also eligible for the HIE program so they have that that they can avail
themselves of. I just think the negative impacts are much greater than the positive impacts for
allowing these second stories.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: With all due respect to Commissioner Holman’s comments I think the
¯ positive impacts are greater than the negative impacts because I don’t think these are going to be
large massive houses. If we do allow going up to 30 feet I can imagine all these Swiss chalet
looking things being built which would add to the interest and eclecticism of many of our
neighborhoods, which I think, is something we want to encourage. Looking at the map the
highest concentration of these substandard lots are in College Terrace, which is a very eclectic "
neighborhood. I doubt that any of the streets would be able to fit into this contextual front
setback or contextual garage setback because I don’t think you are going to find enough homes
that are the same on any block in College Terrace. So I don’t think that is of great concern
although we may want to have the College Terrace neighborhood Association give us some more
feedback on that because that is where most of these are. It does allow for people to stay in Palo
Alto, to stay in their homes and make best use of their nice little lots. As Phyllis pointed out it
potentially reduces the impact of greater impervious space because you can go up. There are all
kinds of nice things. Then we have the IR process to make sure that it is compatible in all the
issues that the IR process does address will mitigate some of the concerns that you expressed,
Karen. Also when you look at the little prototypes that were in our package the second stories
are going to be quite small. I think the largest was about 629 square feet. Just a small little
studio or something up there that just adds to the ambiance or livability of the place. I think it is
a good idea and I would like us to remove the 24-foot height limit so that we can get some
creative roof styles.
Chair Griffin: In an attempt to keep this even, Pat.
Commissioner Burt: As the Commission has heard from my previous comments I am concerned
about allowing the sorts of structures that have been built in the past on substandard lots at the
same time I am concerned about neighborhood context. Some of the very.structures that I think
we admire that have been built on substandard lots in some areas of town would be entirely
inappropriate in some other areas. So I am hesitant to abandon too much of the contextual front
setback and the contextual garage. I think we need more latitude on a substandard lot than we
might on a full size lot. But what we have here is an elimination of those contexts and I think
they still have value. So for example the front setback requirement this then becomes whether
this appropriate to eliminate it is dependent on what we end up deciding on what is the
City of Palo Alto Page 27
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
45
46
47
48
1 appropriate definition of the setback. If we go in the direction that I had been advocating in the
2 previous meeting, which is that, the range on a street continues to be the range that is allowed
3 then we could maintain a contextual setback. Say if the street has anywhere from 15 to 30 foot
4 setbacks and a substandard lot might choose to have a 15 foot setback it would still be compliant
5 with the contextual setback. You need further explanation? So ifa street currently has a range
6 of setbacks anywhere from 15 to 30 feet for instance and the Staff proposal on contextual front
7 setbacks was to take the average on the street and make it the new minimum, that would mean
8 that any house on the street would have to be at least 22.5 feet back. The alternative that I have
9 been advocating in the previous meeting is we should allow the eclectic range that exists on the
10 street. If we have houses that are 15 feet and others that are 30 then the new homeowner can
choose anywhere from 15 to 30 feet. So if we had that kind of range then I think we could retain
a front contextual setback for substandard lots and that substandard lot could choose the 15 foot
setback which is more appropriate for a substandard lot to allow them to utilize their lot space. If
we don’t adopt that broader range on setbacks and instead on this hypothetical street I was
describing-create a new standard where all lots have to be 22.5 feet back even though right now
they are as close as 15 feet then it might be necessary to eliminate it for substandard lots.
Personally, I would rather keep it in here but liberalize the range when we get to that issue later.
So I have a problem and there is a problem adopting this aspect prior to getting to the contextual
setback. I don’t know whether Commissioners have recommendations on how to address that.
IfI might just real briefly on the other related issue which is the contextual garage setback on
substandard lots it is far more problematic to put garages at the rear. But I am not sure that we
should abandon any consideration of the architectural impact of the garage. So even though it
may be impractical on the substandard lot unless it is a corner lot to have garages on the rear we
may want to look at making sure that the Individual Review process tries to make that garage
design as compatible as possible with the streetscape and not just throw the baby out with the
bathwater on garage issues. So those are my two concerns.
Chair Griffin.: Well I continue to feel that we should maintain our prohibition on second stories
for substandard lots. My neighborhood eclectic as Commissioner Lippert knows it to be I think
benefits from a more modest massing in the context of narrow lots. I feel that we should keep
the program that we have today. I also subscribe to some of the comments of Commissioner
Burt about trepidation in eliminating contextual garage placement and also comments about
elimination of the front setback requirements. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate all the comments that have been made thus far and I would
like to respond to number one to Karen. I think College Terrace especially since I am familiar
with that neighborhood having my office nearby for over 30-years and walking that
neighborhood to try to walk offlunch it has really suffered from the type of homes that have
been placed on substandard lots. They are not particularly interesting. They don’t add to the
neighborhood and they are a real disadvantage. I would like to encourage those interesting
homes that Pat has pointed out already exist. So I am in favor of having second stories.
However, I still have concerns about eliminating the contextual front setback and the garage. I
find appealing what you are talking about Pat with regard to the range. I don’t know if this is the
point to discuss it or we call out that substandard lots get a little benefit and are allowed to
choose within that range and then hassle with the whole discussion again later. That is
something that I am willing to discuss, in other words, having substandard lots have a different
requirement than standard lots with regard to contextual front setback. With regard to garages I
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
think maybe we can address that by having some provision in the IR review which calls out for
the garage design to be compatible but not within the same definitions as we have come up with
on the contextual. So I just wanted to express my desire to have more interesting homes on
substandard and perhaps deal with the issues that Pat has raised-and the way he has discussed.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: There is one little concern about garages. Right now the requirement is
that rear garages have to be at least 75 feet back from the front property line. So if substandard
lots are required to have a rear garage because they are in a neighborhood of rear garages but
they don’t have a deep enough lot would the HIE process then be triggered so if we end up
requiring them to have a rear garage but there is no room to put it what happens then? That is
why I am a little concerned about the contextual garage placement as applied to the substandard
lots.
Mr. Williams: I don’t know that there is a provision right now for HIEs to address contextual
garage setback.
Commissioner Packer: So we could be creating a real dilemma for substandard lot owners if
they live in a place where on their street the contextual rear garage placement would kick in and
they can’t put it anywhere because their lot isn’t deep enough.
Commissioner Bialson: I think the IR would handle that if we left it to that review rather than
having a contextual garage placement requirement.
Vice-Chair Cassel: But that is only if it is a second floor. These cover other items too. So if you
choose the top section and you allow a two story but it doesn’t happen to go to a two story then it
wouldn’t go to an IR review. So it wouldn’t meet that.
Commissioner Bialson: You are right.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: Let me try moving a piece of this and see if that at least deals with the issue
of the height. Let me move that we approve to allow a second story and don’t know whether to
limit the maximum height to 24 feet or 30 feet but I think the envelope is going to help us here so
let me move it to 30 feet or the envelope subject to the IR guidelines and review and historic
review of historic subjects with no other changes to setback requirements, that means the widths,
reduce street side setback from 16 to 10, increase the site coverage from 35% to 40% if it is a
two story, it gets the whole thing if not and no changes to the parking requirements. In other
words I haven’t discussed the contextual setback at this point or the contextual garage placement
that is not in this at this point and we can discuss that later.
Chair Griffin: Do we have a second?
SECOND
City of Pa!o Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Packer: I will second.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis, we have a second from Bonnie, do you wish to speak further?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think it is important that we deal with the issue of the height and whether
we are going to allow two stories or not and get that cleared. Then from there I think we can
discuss the other issues. If we are going to allow two stories we are going to look at it one way
and if we are not going to allow two stories we don’t need to discuss all those issues and we
would look at it differently.
Chair Griffin: You have a question? Seconder.
Commissioner Packer: I think I have already addressed the reasons why 1 would like the Staff’s
proposal and I am willing to postpone consideration of those two contextual setbacks when we
have a chance to discuss that.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Phyllis, did you mean for you motion to endorse the no changes to parking
requirements? We really haven’t discussed that issue yet and I would prefer us to address that as
well.
Vice-Chair Cassel: By parking requirements I presume that that means the expectations of one
car or two car needs for parking would not be changed. Up here we are talking about the garage
placement is not included.
Commissioner Burt: Right, and I am interested in discussing whether that be tied to house size.
If we have some very small substandard lots should they have the same parking requirements as
a full size lot with ’x’ number of or much higher square footage. So that is why I was hoping
that we would have a little more discussion before make a decision on the parking requirements.
Vice-Chair Cassel: For the moment I will take it out because what I want to do is make the
decision on what looks like to be easy things and see if we can decide on this height issue.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question. Would your motion also include what I had suggested
earlier with regard to lots that were over 50 feet or wider not having a ten foot setback but having
the 16 foot setback that ~s the comer lots with a street side setback?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Since I thought substandard was less than 50 feet, sure.
Commissioner Lippert: No, there are some substandard lots that are 50 feet wide or wider or
they could end up being 80 feet but still be a substandard lot.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That is correct. Yes, that’s okay.
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: So that was a request for a friendly amendment.
Vice-Chair Cassel: A friendly amendment, if it turns out to be miserable they will come back to
US.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Packer: Sure.
Chair Griffin: Would the maker restate again for the record where we are on this?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Sure since we have adjusted this a little. The motion is that we will reduce
the street side setback from 16 to ten feet, we will limit the maximum height.to 30 feet or the
compatibility plane whichever is lower, it will be subject to the IR guidelines and review and
HRB review if it is an historic structure, there will be no other changes to the setback
requirements, increase the site coverage from 35% to 40% on a two story unit, we are not going
to discuss the no changes in the parking, it is going to be reduce the side setback if it is less than
50 feet in width. I think that’s it.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I would like to address the one aspect that Commissioner Lippertjust
brought up on this. A circumstance where we would impose the 16-foot street side setback on
corner lots provided that they have a 50-foot width. It is a little difficult to envision all of these
parcels and how this would play out but I am thinking of a couple of examples. One issue is we
have substandard lots that are not rectangular in shape so we haven’t addressed what happens
there. ! can think of one that friends have where the front edge might be 50 feet and the back
edge is about 20 feet. So what standard applies? We haven’t decided that. We haven’t defined
it as if the front or if the entire lot is 50 feet wide. So I think we would need at a minimum a
clarification. Second, when I think of for instance what is called the historic Harker House and
that may be on a full size lot. It is at most a 5,000 square foot lot. It is a corner lot and the street
side setback is I think probably less than ten feet. It is a smaller house, two story, it is a beautiful
historic home and if that were just a tad smaller or it may even be a substandard lot, I am not
quite sure, but basically the shape of that house which has its face across the 50 foot front w6uld
by necessity be turned into a longer narrower house, one of these corner lot homes that I think
many of us are concerned about by imposition of the 16 foot setback. I am not sure that that’s
desirable. So I think Lee wants to comment on that.
Commissioner Lippert: That is covered under what we just previously passed on the Home
Improvement Exceptions where under number five it allows primary buildings to encroach up to
six feet into street side yard setback, no closer than ten feet to the property line. It would be
subject to an HIE which would allow for somebody to do that if they were on a comer lot that
narrowed down. It would be an unreasonable hardship I would say and there would be findings
for doing that.
Commissioner Burt: Say it is not a wedge shaped lot but merely a 50 foot width lot would the
HIE allow them to seek an exception for that setback? If it would, do we need to make them go
City of Palo Alto 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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
through an exception process? I mean on a substandard lot it seems to me that on a comer 16
feet is a pretty deep setback from that side.
Commissioner Lippert: It is hard to tell. You look at these lots they are all over the place in
terms of what their configurations are. I don’t think that asking somebody to go through an HIE
to get that additional ten feet is burdensome or difficult to make the findings for. I think the idea
here is to try to liberalize what the standards are so that people can do more with these lots but
try to keep it within the context of what the neighborhood is and what other people have with
regard to requirements.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think an HIE doesn’t work for a new structure it only works for one that
has been in existence for a while. So that wouldn’t he!p a new building they would need to look
at some other issues. So that is a problem. On the other hand this is going to be 50 feet or 49
feet, we are talking about a one-foot difference here, I don’t think we are going to meet the needs
of every small lot in this process. I think we are going to meet the needs of some of the larger of
the small lots, the 50 foot long by 20 foot wide lot is smaller than anything that they analyzed
here and isn’t going to allow much on it no matter what we do unless we take all the limits off.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, I am wondering if we could vote on this item now.
AMENDMENT
Commissioner Burt: I would like to propose an amendment that would basically revert back to
the ten-foot minimum setback being the requirement for comer substandard lots ifI have a
second.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: Fine.
Chair Griffin: So then do you wish to speak on it?
Commissioner Burt: No, I think we have had the discussion. I just am concerned that a 16-foot
setback is too restrictive for a substandard lot.
Chair Griffin: Seconder.
Commissioner Bialson: I don’t need to speak to it I think we have said that.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I think I seconded the original change but I am going to vote for Pat’s
because of what has been said. So you can see that I am sort of schizophrenic.
Chair Griffin: Does everyone understand the motion? Lee, did you have a comment?
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
t5
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
47
48
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to throw something else out here. What if we were to keep in
place that 16-foot setback for 50 foot or wider lots. I am only saying 50 foot or wider not 50 foot
or less. The thought would be why not relax maybe the front yard setback a little bit and say that
on a substandard lot have a 16 foot front yard setback which would be equivalent to the street
side yard setback. It is fairly balanced and that would relax allo~ving for some additional
encroachment and yet maintain or keep some of the fabric of that neighborhood.
Commissioner Burt: That is a reasonable idea. I think I would prefer to address that when we
discuss the front yard setback. My preference is going to be to allow the substandard lots to go
to the minimum existing setback on that street and then thereby accomplish your suggestion on
any streets where there are houses that have a 16 foot setback and not allow them to be out of
context but allow them to be as close as other houses on the street are to the front.
AMENDED MOTION FAILS (3-4-0-0 with Commissioner Lippert, Cassel, Griffin and Holman
against)
Chair Griffin: We do have a motion at play here. So if we could vote for that amendment. All
those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) So we have Commissioners Burt, Packer,
Bialson in favor and Commissioners Lippert, Cassel, Griffin and Holman against. So this
motion fails. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: If there was some relaxation given to front setbacks as per
Commissioner Lippert’s comments but they would apply only to single story since ! am notin
favor of the second story would you want those comments during the substandard lot discussion
or during the front setback discussion? Where would you want those comments?
Mr. Williams: If they are specifically to the issue of substandard lots then in the substandard lot
discussion but I think again if you are talking about have the discussion of contextual setbacks
and it is wrapped into that then you ought to just talk about all of that then and then decide how
you want all of that to play out in a substandard lot situation.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can I note that I think it is out of order? We need to deal with the motion.
MOTION PASSED (5-2-0-0 with Commissioners Griffin and Holman against)
Chair GritTm: I concur. I think that we do need to keep moving on this item. So that takes us
back to the main motion. We have discussed it now sufficiently. All those in favor of Phyllis’s
main motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nays) So that does pass with Commissioners Griffin
and Hotman against.
It would be an appropriate time to have a break although we may have to come back and deal
with more aspects of this particular item. Let’s take seven minutes.
All fight ladies and gentlemen we are going to reconvene our meeting. We will continue on with
the parking requirements to the substandard lots. We will hold in abeyance the discussion on
contextual front setbacks and contextual garage placements until we reach those items in number
six. So if we could have your attention now on the parking requirements. Staff, would you give
us some back~ound, please?
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Williams: Yes. The Commission mentioned perhaps varying some of the parking
requirements for substandard lots and the issues we discussed included perhaps retaining the two
space requirement but allowing them both to be uncovered which would allow a couple hundred
square feet to go into the house rather than into the parking space, perhaps to allow an uncovered
space in the front setback similar to what we did for the second units. Then also we talked about
the issue of only requiring one space instead of two but our feeling was that since we are
requiring two spaces for any second unit that is over 450 square feet number one and number
two that many of these areas where there are substandard lots have parking problems already that
it wouldn’t be appropriate we didn’t think to reduce the number of parking spaces for these units
because they are going to be at least as large as those second units that are going be requiring
two spaces. So that was kind of our thought process. We didn’t include any specific
recommendations on parking but again those are things that could be added to the list of changes.
Chair Griffin: Discussion on parking requirements do I see any hands? Commissionei Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I think the whole idea of that 40% in lot coverage takes care of that.
Mr. Williams: The 40% lot coverage by providing the flexibility?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes, that was main concern and I think that by relaxing that. I did have
one comment from Joy Ogawa, 1 was talking to her earlier, was it meant that that 40% be applied
to both single story and two story?
Mr. Williams: No, single story is allowed to develop at a coverage ratio that is equal to the floor
area ratio, which is in this case because these lots are less than 5,000 square feet that means 45%
basically. So single story is 45%. Two story is 35% currently and this would raise that to 40%
and provide some more flexibility for that two story.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: So I just want to make sure I understand the current proposal correctly. On
the parking requirement on any substandard lot it is requiring two covered spots. Is that correct?
Mr. Williams: No, one covered and one uncovered is our citywide requirement for single family.
Commissioner Burt: Thanks.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: Based on that information I will move the Staffrecommendation that we
have no changes to the parking requirements and that means two parking spaces, one covered
and one uncovered as per the standard rules currently in our ordinance.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Do we have a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: I will second.
Chair Griffin: Do you want to speak to your motion?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think the comments have been made already.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Bialson: Same.
MOTION-PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Griffin: No further comments? We will vote on this item. All those in favor of Phyllis’s
motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? and we get through that one unanimously.
Before we go further I wanted to I guess state the obvious being 9:40 that it looks as if we are not
going to get through this entire item this evening and that raises the question of a special, meeting
next week. In the meantime if we could think about how much time we want to devote to the
items that we are still going to get through this evening. I am wondering if we might try to limit
ourselves to something in the neighborhood of 30 minutes just to see if we can’t limit ourselves
here. that being said, we would have time for perhaps two more of these items and get our of
here by about 20 to eleven o’clock. That would be marvelous if we could do that.
We are now going to go to the next item. We are going to actually leave this front setback item
and the garage placement item for later.
Commissioner Lippert: Excuse me. I thought you said half an hour.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Per item I think he was saying.
Commissioner.Lippert: Oh, half an hour per item?
Chair Griffin: Correct.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I notice here that there is a little section on flag lots, reduce the front setback
to ten feet. Can we do this pretty quickly? When we did the other motion it didn’t include this,
this is on flag lots. They did not recommend two stories, reduce the front setback to ten feet
since it really acts more as a side setback on a flag lot, eliminate the contextual setback and
garage placement requirements since there is no contextual placement in a flag lot, second stories
will continue to be prohibited and the 17 foot height limitation will remain for the R-1 district
flag lots. Shall I move that and make sure we have a confirmation?
Chair Griffin: Yes, would you?
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
MOT1ON
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will so move.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: Second,
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Griffin: We have that item moved and seconded. Anyone wish to speak on the item? I
am hearing nothing so we will vote on Phyllis’s motion. All those in favor please say aye.
(ayes) Opposed? That item on flag lots does carry unanimously.
Now we get to the history dealing with incentives for historic houses and eligibility. Curtis.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Commissioner Cassel, for catching that flag lot part of it. This is
actually a report back to you more than a decision point. We discussed in your prior
consideration of the historic incentives applying them to Category 1 and Category 2 structures
and there had been a question about does that make them apply then to the National Register
eligible and California Register eligible properties. We did discuss this with Dennis and Julie
and the answer is no not automatically. National Register eligible structures can be classified as
Category 1 but they have to go through the City’s process to do that. Most of the state eligible
ones can do the same thing but they have to be verified that they are still in condition to retain
their historic integrity to do that. So there is a process for going through the City and we still
believe that it is appropriate to only provide incentives for those structures or districts that have
been designated by the City required Historic Resource Board review and compliance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and all that stuff. Those structures should receive these
incentives and that others should look at this as an incentive to be categorized that way. Thank
yOU.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I would concur with Staff’s comments here and the reason for bringing "
it up is because it wasn’t readily noticeable that this was the intention of Staffpreviously. So I
appreciate a meeting actually with Staffabout this and inclusion of this in the packet. Also again
I just want to reiterate that it shouldn’t be hidden it should be readily available to people to
know. I think it is appropriate just to have it out there that these not be just automatically granted
benefits because there have been changes, some might not be eligible because they are just not
eligible and wouldn’t be but also because some of these properties have undergone changes that
would make them no longer eligible even if they were previously as say for instance a Category
3 or 4. So I think it is appropriate.
Chair Griffin: I would take a motion on this item. Karen.
MOTION
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: 1 would move Staffrecommendation regarding incentives for historic
house and eligibility.
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
Chair Griffin: Lee, seconds that. Have you spoken sufficiently? Lee?
Commissioner Lippert: I think it speaks for itself. ! think it is great.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Griffin: Any further comments? We will vote this item. All those in favor of Karen’s
motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That item carries unanimously. We have picked up some
time here.
We have already dealt with basements, item number four. That takes us to item five, which is
the attached second dwelling unit size and the de facto duplex issue. Curtis.
Mr. Williams: The concern here was the issue of particularly smaller homes potentially
becoming more like duplexes if they have 900 square foot attached units. We did discuss this
and felt that in looking at the requirements a 900 square foot second unit would not be available
until or unless you had a 35% larger lot size than the minimum that is required. In fact any unit
over 450 square feet so a 600 square foot unit or anything would require ! 35% of the minimum
lot size which means an 8,100 square foot lot which means a floor area allowable on the lot of at
least 3,180 square feet. So that while it is still theoretically possible that someone could have a
smaller house and have a 900 square foot second unit as part of that we think the reality is that
900 square feet is going to represent about a quarter of the development on that property or
maybe 30% of the development on a property and is going to continue to clearly be subordinate
to the remainder of the house if it is attached or if it is detached as a subordinate in terms of
being a much smaller unit than the main residence. Also there are provisions in here fi’om a
design perspective to not allow the attached unit to look like a duplex and to not have
entranceways on the street sides of the structure, to keep exterior stairways to the rear and
interior of the property. So our recommendation is to allow the 900 square foot number to
remain rather than looking at some kind of percentage of the house size. I will be glad to answer
any questions.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, questions of Staff?.
Commissioner Bialson: Do you want a motion?
Chair Griffin: It looks like we are going to stand for a motion here.
MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: I am going to move the Staff Report with regard to ~he attached second
dwelling units.
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
!7
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
47
48
Chair Griffin: Second?
SECOND
Vice-Chair Cassel: I’ll second it.
Commissioner Bialson: I will let silence speak and I think we have some agreement on this so
let’s vote on it.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well, if we have agreement then I don’t need to say anything. I want to say
that I like this portion of the ordinance. I think it is going to give us some flexibility. We can
currently rent a single family home and you can rent it to a large number of people and you can
have a car for every person that is in the rental. So on my street I have a house that can rent up
to ten people if they want to and be within code and have ten cars on the street and it is a single
family home. So I think this is going to be a nice way to make independent units.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Griff’m: Let’s vote on this item. All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes)
Opposed? That carries unanimously.
So here we are picking up more time, which we can now devote to item number six which is
contextual front setbacks. Curtis.
Mr. Williams: At a prior Commission meeting the Commission discussed a number of different
potential approaches to contextual front setbacks including issues of providing a range rather
than an average, providing for counting on both sides of the street, not requiring contextual
setbacks if there are five or fewer lots, a number of different issues. We sat down with the Co-
Chairs of the Single Family Advisory Committee and talked through a number of those issues.
Their direction to us was that the original concept of the contextual front setback was to address
properties that had large front yards, the Crescent Park area and other properties that had well
larger than the 20-foot setbacks were kind of the intended areas to be addressed. They didn’t
envision quibbling between 23 and 24-foot type of setbacks.
We also did discuss the issue of having a range rather than an average and I think we all believe
that if we have a range people are going to build to the minimum of that range and that you will
not get a variety, not nearly the kind of variety that’s in the context that exists, but that you will
end up having some uniformity along that minimum setback rather than having a flexible kind of
range.
We also talked about moving closer than 20 feet and allowing less than 20 foot setbacks where
that is the established context. The Co-Chairs indicated that had been a source of some
discussion during their deliberations as well and again it was felt that the important element of
the contextual setbacks was the larger lots not establishing that we really shouldn’t be
establishing setbacks that are less than 20 feet.
City of Palo Alto Page 38
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
45
46
47
1
2 On the issue of both sides of the street and counting both sides of the street and I think there were
3 a couple of things at play. One was that there was considerable concern that there is too much
4 variety on the streets on opposite sides of a lot of streets to be able to make that work effectively.
5 I think also there was a concern that if there is some difference on one side and some difference
on the other, if there is some uniformity here, you actually may get out of that by counting what
is on the other street and not have similarity along the one side of the street. So we didn’t choose
to make that change either.
What we did, there were a couple of minor changes that we did suggest. We continued to feel
that we should not apply the setback unless it is over 25 feet and we discussed whether to make
that 30 feet instead of 25 feet but there was some concern that you get near 30 feet you are really
getting pretty far from that 20 foot and that that ought to be considered a pretty substantial
setback. Clarifying that the subject parcel is included in the calculation, continuing to measure
to the first structural element even if that is a porch and that is primarily because the
documentation of this comes from aerial photographs so it isn’t apparent from those what that
structural component is. Eliminating the greatest and least setbacks, we did have some fairly
extensive discussion about anomalies and recognize that eliminating the single greatest and
single least setbacks in not necessarily anomalies, that they could be very close to the average
but in those cases where they are very close to the average they really don’t make much if any
difference in how that average setback final number ends up. So in the cases where they truly
are anomalies they do take them out of the picture for the most part. Excluding flag lots, multi-
family and the street side setback of comer lots I think we were all comfortable with before.
We talked about whether to exclude five or less lots and we made a determination that five was
where you have fairly decent size lots can be pretty significant and that we ought to make that
three. So we have recommended a change to exclude anywhere that there are three or less lots
that would be included in the calculation.
Then the most significant change I think is that we would rather than allowing this to be a
moving target of constantly shifting setbacks along a block we would memorialize, record the
setback, the first for a block when an application comes through the process. The first
application we would have that calculation and we would record that and subsequent proposals
along that block would then be subject to that 27 foot that is determined the first time around and
that’s it sort of forever. It wouldn’t be gradually shifting each time a different property came in
or got built. So that is our suggested recommendation at this point and I would be glad to answer
questions.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Steven, you have been quiet all night. I have a question for you. What
would the mechanics be in terms of getting this done, getting this into process? ! mean would it
be done when somebody came forward and said that they had an application, which they wanted
to project into the average, move forward into the average setback? Or would this happen
citywide all at one time and the data would be released? How long would it actually take to do
something like this?
City of Palo Alto Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
!7
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
47
48
Mr. Steve Emslie. Planning Director: I guess there are basically two answers. This would be
implemented if the new zoning code were to go into place on a case-by-case basis. An
application would come in, it would initiate a review, measurements would be taken and the
standard would be established for that particular area. Staff is investigating as resources become
available primarily through summer inters the ability to go out and start to proactively survey
areas and establish the line and record that so that there would be less case-by-case work
necessary in the future. But in the absence of a standard that we could quantify it would be done
on a case-by-case or block basis.
Commissioner Lippert: The question I have is with regard to the credibility of the results.
Generally when we have something like we deal with the flood plane for instance we are
required to go out and have a LOMA done by a surveyor not a civil engineer, not an intern, but
somebody who actually is licensed to perform those kinds of measurements. What you are
beginning to do is establish something here and it is based on ....
Chair Griffin: Aerial photography?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes, aerial photography while it is accurate is not 100% accurate. Even
if you went to using GPS and measuring with a GPS device that is not going to be 100%
accurate. The only way to really go about doing this in a way that would be credible is to
actually put the burden on the individual to go out and have a survey done. I think that that’s in
some ways cumbersome.
Mr. Emslie:- We would agree that would be extremely cumbersome. We think the tradeoff for
exact measurements and the absence of a survey is the tradeoffthat we are willing to make in
calculating these based on available resources which are the City’s GIS system and that has been
correlated with the aerial photos. We believe these provide a degree of accuracy while not 100%
that balances the onerous nature of having an exact measurement for each and every application.
Chair Griffin: I share your trepidation. It sounds like a gargantuan task somehow and somewhat
imprecise at the same time. In any event, I saw Karen and then Bonnie.
Commissioner Holman: I kept meaning to go back and look up my notes from the working
group of the Commission meetings. I thought that the aerial maps that we were talking about
using were 1999 1 was trying to remember but it wasn’t 2001 I didn’t think. Can somebody
recall specifically? It seems different to me than what we had talked about in those meetings.
Mr. Williams: We thought it was 2001 but we will go back and check that. That is our
understanding of the latest aerials that are being used currently for this exact exercise.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, I just had that question.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: ! can look at this provision and logically it makes sense but I want to step
back a little bit and try and figure out why we are putting ourselves through this agony with these
front setbacks. I hear that there was a concern in the R-1 working group of dealing with the
houses that are setback real far and you didn’t want houses coming closer to the street. Now my
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
experience it is only in a few areas of town that I can’t even afford to walk in. Where I live it is
20 feet or less. We don’t have big lawns in most of Palo Alto. So ! have a feeling that the
problem that was trying to be solved maybe it can be addressed whenever one of these houses go
through the IR process because you have to have this compatible streetscape that is one of the
criteria. Then we just go back to our old 20-foot setback that we have always had for R-1 houses
and not have to deal with all this because it is such an agony. I don’t know if you remember that
little house in South Palo Alto that wanted to go in a little bit into their front because all of a
sudden what everyone thought was a 20 foot setback had become a 25 foot setback and it created
all this problem for this poor little house. That wasn’t the problem that I think the R-1 group was
trying to address. It was an unintended consequence. So ! wonder if we want to sit back
Commissioners and say do we really need all this contextual front setback in the code? Go back
to a standard front setback that is in the table and for those places that already have the large
setbacks let the IR guidelines deal with those, ls that too radical a thought?
Commissioner Bialson: In answer to your comment, no it is not too radical a thought. I think we
are getting a little bogged down on this issue. I remember that small house and it also brought
forward the issue of it being measured by one side of the street rather than the other side of the
street. This was a relatively narrow street as I recall and as Curtis just said was if you consider
the other side of the street that brings in too much variety. Well, I think that is what we want so I
speaking for myself say I really do think that we need to avoid getting too bogged down in this.
if what the Co-Chairs and the committee were thinking about was Crescent Park and areas where
we had large setbacks that is fine. Maybe we say if there is more than a 30-foot setback. I don’t
thinkwe want to encourage this exercise either for the homeowners or us. They would be the
ones going through it and getting very frustrated along the way.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: My recollection is that this first came up as contextual setback as a way to
deal with houses that are actually set forward of the 20 foot setback. So that if we had houses
that are typically 16 feet along the front of the street that we would use a contextual front setback
for that rather than the 20 foot setback. That got turned down I think both in the IR group I
believe and some things that we did and other people did and then people started talking about
that we don’t want houses to far in front of houses that are now typically at 30 feet or 35 feet
along the road. I think that is the direction that went.
What is in this proposal is if the contextual front setback is at 25 feet or 22 feet or 21 feet you
don’t try to deal with it. It is a 20 foot setback and you don’t try dealing with a contextual
setback until it is more than 25 feet is my understanding of the way this has been written.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just a quick comment about the house that Commissioner Packer
mentioned. Commissioner Lippert wasn’t here then but the rest of us all thought that that was an
undue hardship on that property but that is also something that is being addressed in the HIE
process. So I think that has solved that issue. We are changing this to 25 feet average and not
dealing with anything closer than that.
City of Palo Alto 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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: I am wondering if Staffhas any comments one way or the other in response to
Bonnie’s comment in terms of the advisory committee’s recommendations for example also
apropos to College Terrace perhaps as being also part of the neighborhood context that was
being impacted by or was going to have the setback ameliorated by the contextual setbacks.
Mr. Williams: Again, our understanding is that the primary intent from meeting with the Co-
Chairs a week or two ago is that the intent was the larger lots as opposed to the smaller lots.
Certainly understand both of those issues but it gets to be a very difficult process to administer
not so much I don’t think for the issue of recording it like Lee was saying but if you are dealing
with 21 or 22 feet or if it were 18 feet to get that precise and to deal with neighbors who feel that
it is one foot or two foot off has been a very difficult process for Staff. So we think that going to
25 feet is a big step forward in terms of taking 80% of the City out of play and really focusing in
then on what are some of the larger setback areas. There is not really magic from 25 to 30
obviously 30 feet would affect even less properties if the limit were 30 feet. That has been our
main concern, how to administer it. We understand the intent of it. We would like to try to
address what Commissioner Burt has been concerned about in terms of maintaining variety in
there and our feeling is probably the best way to do that is not to apply it at all until you get
pretty substantial setbacks and let them do it. We still feel that 90% of the time somebody is
going to probably build to their minimum setback especially if they are doing a new house today.
I think that is where we are coming from.
Chair Griffin: But the text that you have here in your recommendation does deal with those
issues. You are happy with the way this is setup.
Mr. Williams: Yes, I think in terms of trying to apply it this addresses a number of issues that
Staff has encountered and dealt with in the last couple of years of applying this in terms of some
of those 21 or 22 foot type situations that come up all the time, in terms of what to measure to,
whether to include the subject parcel, how you deal with corner lots, how you deal with flag lots
and multi-family lots, those kind of issues.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Just a couple of comments. As I pushed in our last meeting I think the
entire concept of taking an average setback and turning it into a new minimum is fundamentally
flawed especially if our objective is to maintain the context that is there then the range that exists
is the context that is there. Instead of achieving the objective we are by definition failing at the
objective by creating this new methodology of taking the average and turning it into the new
minimum. It is just contrary to the purpose.
Second, I think there is really an erroneous assumption here that I keep hearing you say that 90%
of the new homes would choose the shorter setback. I don’t know on what basis that is being
asserted and that seems to be a fundamental premise for the proposal. I walked my
neighborhood this evening and it is a pretty eclectic neighborhood. We are a neighborhood that
has a lot of those substandard lots, we have a 1914 Victorian on the corner, we have Eichlers
across the street or right down the street, we have new corner lots that are built and we have a
wide variety of setbacks including on recently built structures. There is no tendency to move to
the closest to the street. The house across the street from me is a recent construction those
particular owners valued having a greater privacy from the street and they set their house back 40
Ci(v of Palo Alto 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
47
48
feet. Across the street virtually from them is a comer lot with less than a 15-foot setback and
next door to them are two houses that are 20-foot garage setbacks but 35 foot for the balance of
the house. I just think this whole premise is very flawed. I don’t see it in practice. It is not
consistent with New Urbanism principles and therefore not really consistent with the Comp Plan.
I don’t think that it achieves the objective that was said.
Now having said all that, where do we go from here if Commissioners I think in the last meeting
I think shared some concerns about creating a new minimum? We have Bonnie’s proposal that
we consider just that there really isn’t a necessity to establish a defined setback range and to
utilize the IR guidelines. I would be comfortable either with that proposal or to simply take the
range of the setbacks on a street, throw out the anomalies and that range is what is the choice of
the homeowner and home building as to what setback they want to have. I am pretty confident
that some people would choose to be further back from the street and some closer to the street
and that should be their discretion as long as it is within the neighborhood context. I also think
that in thoffe neighborhoods that were track homes there is a much greater uniformity currently to
the setbacks and so that range would be a narrower range to begin with and so using that
principle would also apply in those neighborhoods that are much more standard setbacks. It
would help maintain those more standard setbacks with a little bit of variability and discretion
for the homeowner. So I am comfortable with either of those proposals just not the one we have.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner HoIman: I have been sympathetic since Commissioner Burt brought this up and l
have not been able to come up with and I haven’t really heard a way to defil with it in a practical
manner. I am not sure I am comfortable just throwing it out the contextual front setback. I am
not really sure I am comfortable with that. I would be interested in what Commissioner Lippert
has to say about where people are going to want to build their homes because John Northway
invariably people are going to want to build to the minimum front setback and that is contrary to
what your experience is but that was what his comments were. So I am interested in what
Commissioner Lippert has to say.
Chair Griffin: Nothing like being on the spot, is there?
Commissioner Lippert: I think it is a very complex issue here and part of me wants to say you
have larger lots here they have more opportunities to build on their lots in other places why are
we liberalizing this or why are we relaxing the standards here? The other part of me wants to say
but there are opportunities here to create eclectic appearance to ~his architecture. That each of
these homes can be very distinct and say something about the owner or the property in its own
right. So what I want to do is a couple of things, liberalize the setback but not completely. By
that what I mean is give people an opportunity to come forward but maybe not as a two story
building when they come forward so that it might be one story or a lower story that might project
forward, be allowed to come forward and encroach on what is currently maybe the setback. Or
maybe only a portion of the building, half width or a third, may be able to project forward and
thereby reinforcing that whole idea that there are a variety of buildings that step backwards and
forwards along a street. So that is my view of it.
Chair GritTm: I didn’t hear that but just a moment and I will get back to you because I wanted to
make a comment in support of the concept of contextual front setbacks. It was discussed in some
City of Palo Alto Page 43
1 detail was it not in our IR committee a number of years ago? Our concern at that time was
2 streetscape and massing and trying to encourage compatibility in neighborhoods without killing
3 the idea of eclecticism but at the same time trying to smooth the streetscape and it appeared to us
4 that contextual front setbacks were a way to accomplish that. Annette, if you want to contribute
5 some more to this feel flee to step in here.
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
47
Ms. Ashton: Well I do have one comment. Just again for the IR group a lot of things were
happening at the same time and there was a lot of let me say poor architecture that was really
coming forward. It was not my perception and my memory that it was just Crescent Park. In my
neighborhood there were a lot of houses that were pushing the minimum setback when the
houses that were standard the context was 25 or 30 feet. So it was all over Palo Alto it wasn’t
just the large properties. We were trying to fix a lot of different things and we really did as
Michael said, we were so concerned about the neighborhood streetscape and the context. And
we felt that what we wanted to do was do the change slowly as opposed to if we didn’t have
some sort of average everyone, we felt at the time and as you said John Northway did mention
that probably everyone would build a new house at the 20 foot line, that was a very persuasive
argument that lots of other people also said. That was the case when we did the IR. Now I
would caution everyone to try to keep this simple. I think the worst thing that has been in the
discussions lately is to try to make this over-complex to really do the Palo Alto process on this.
So we were trying to with these aerial photographs and establishing the initial minimum we
thought if that were set that every homeowner that went through the process wouldn’t have to
reprove this but if someone did havea point of discussion or if they were against or if they felt it
was incorrect then they would do the survey themselves othernvise they could just accept what
the City average was. Again, I caution you on trying to overcomplicate this. Again, when we
look back maybe some changes are necessary but we were trying to put everything together at
one point in time. In those days there were a lot of spec developments and, so those folks didn’t
really care that much about the neighborhood they just wanted to get the most mass, the most
square footage as possible.
Chair Griffin: Karen, did you have a question?
Commissioner Holman: Yes. It is in a little bit different arena than where we are talking right
now but it has to do with the 600 feet. Staff had said that became cumbersome for the property
owner to use the maximum 600 feet. I wasn’t clear why that would be cumbersome. It seems to
me that it should be pretty easy to state that the language could be the nearest ten parcels no
greater than 600-foot distance on blocks longer than 600 feet long. The reason I am saying that
isbecause there are a lot of parcels that have very wide street frontages and if you count down _
ten properties you have really gotten out of the context because you have traveled quite a
distance. So that is why I am wanting to Iimit this to 600 feet and not ten properties. So my
question is why would it be difficult or untenable for an applicant to use the 600-foot rule? It
didn’t seem that that would be difficult to me.
Mr. Williams: Well, I think that using ten properties is a very simple process to count ten
properties in either direction. With 600 feet you start getting into well if the 600 feet ends up a
third of the way into a lot does it count that lot or does it have to be two-thirds. There are
complications to it and there just doesn’t seem to us to be a particular benefit to doing it that
way. Both of them seem to us to work to establish the context so why complicate it a little
City of Palo Alto Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
4!
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
more? That is what it seems like it would be doing because of that. So we propose to leave it at
the ten properties.
Commissioner Holman: I will say again that you have some very wide street frontage and you
go six parcels and you have a context. Then you go to a whole other type of development and
you start talking smaller parcels and different kind of development and you have lost the context.
So that is why I am still in favor of the 600 foot maximum.
Mr. Williams: It still doesn’t go past the block. It is still the block you are dealing with.
Commissioner Holman: But there are long blocks that exist.
Chair Griffin: I have Commissioner Burt that has a motion ready for us.
MOTION
Commissioner Burt: I would like to move that we adopt a range for front setbacks that is
contextual but that whatever is the existing range on the street as however we define it excluding
the anomalies would be the permissible range for new construction.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: I will second that.
Chair Griffin: Maker?
Commissioner Burt: One thing I want to make sure is I do want to ask clarification on where we
will hit the comer lot issues. Is that within this subject as well?
Mr. Williams: The comer lots as far as?
Commissioner Butt: The setbacks on comer lots. I don’t intend to address that issue in this
motion other than to the extent they will be the front of those lots will be defined in the same
way.
Mr. Williams: I think our language at this point would include the comer lot. If the comer lot
faced the street it would be included in that calculation.
Commissioner Burt: I think we are going to have additional discussion on comer lots and I want
to make sure that we haven’t precluded that discussion with this motion.
Commissioner Bialson: Are you talking about including it in the calculation or also having it be
bound by the same rules?
Commissioner Burt: That once we go through our definitions of what are appropriate setbacks
for comer lots that would perhaps even supersede what we are going to be addressing here for all
other parcels.
Ci& of Pa!o Alto Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
I6
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
47
48
Chair Griffin: So you would have a separate set of rules for corner lots that would not
necessarily be the same as you are proposing here for interior lots for example.
Commissioner Burt: Prospectively. As we go into the definition of what is a front on a corner
lot which I think we still have to tackle, then it might end up with the same definition or not I just
don’t want to include it in this motion. I want to leave open the discussion on corner lots for the
second half of this.
Chair Griffin: All right, I see Bonnie’s hand.
Commissioner Packer: I have a clarifying question, Pat. In defining the range are you accepting
the proposal that Staffhas that they use to calculate the average setback? We would use the
same criteria? You have the ten sites on the same side of the street, if it is a block longer than
600 feet five or more properties are counted, the anomalies, everything that they had for
contextual-setback would be the way you would get to the range?
Commissioner Burt: Yes, I would include all of those same methodologies and the only change
being that instead of using those methods to establish an average we would instead retain those
definitions to establish a range.
Commissioner Packer: One further question. Would this be for all setbacks or just those where
the range turns out to be greater than 25 feet?
Commissioner Burt: It would be for all setbacks.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Question. Does this include houses that are less than 20 feet from the street?
Commissioner Burt: It would be my preference to include those houses. So ifa neighborhood
has a good number of houses that are less than 20 feet today then that would be allowable as a
continuing neighborhood context.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a question too. Would Staffthink that this would support the
original, as it has been discussed, intention of the contextual front setback to protect those
neighborhood streetscapes where the setback is considerable? If there are say two among ten
properties where the setback is less than one of those gets kicked out so the range then could
really move quite a bit forward it would seem to me.
Mr. Williams: I guess that depends on the reality of whether people are going to build to the
minimum or not. If the belief is that they are going to build within that range then no it shouldn’t
have that much affect. If the likelihood is more that they will build up towards the front of that
range then there could be a significant impact.
Chair Griffin: That is the issue that speaks to me because from my own personal experience
when I remodeled my house I built up to the minimum. ! built up to the 20 foot line and I agree
City of Palo Alto Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
t8
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
47
48
with John Northway’s rationale and I think those of us on the IR committee supported that point
of view and I continue to feel that the Staff recommendation does the best job of representing the
take that we had on the IR committee. So that is why I will not be supporting this motion. Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I am also troubled by this. I am having a difficult time with this as well.
Part of it is that I think that there are easier ways of getting to where we want to be. Part of it is
that I see what other cities have implemented and we could very well implement something very
simple as the setback in these areas could be established by a percentage of the width of the lot.
And you achieve relatively the same sort of thing. These are very eclectic, very mixed
neighborhoods. You are going to have some houses that are going to want to begin to move
forward and build into a new setback line but yet you still want to preserve something along that
street that says this is a neighborhood. So I am really wrestling with this. I can’t vote for it the
way it is right now.
Chair Griffin: Did you have a clarification?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. The lot width issue as I think of the example as I walk my
neighborhood we have a large Craftsman home on an oversized lot and 90 years ago that home
was built with a 15 or 16-foot setback. It just looks great. There is no problem with it and that is
the choice of the homeowner. I don’t see a problem with allowing a continuation of a
neighborhood context. As I mentioned I have a house across the street where the homeowners
chose extreme privacy and moved 40 feet back. I didn’t happen to agree with that design the
people who bought it subsequently didn’t agree but it was their right to do what they wanted to
do. They wanted to move their house toward the back of their lot and in my mind that is their
prerogative. If there were a neighborhood where there is very little variation then this proposal
would continue to alloxv very little variation and continue that neighborhood context.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, are we ready to vote this item? Karen, you have one final?
Commissioner Holman: I am wondering if this might resolve this potentially. If we did the
range thing as you are proposing but still did the contextual setback as proposed by Staff for
setbacks where the average is greater than 30 feet. That still leaves some concern that was raised
at one of the meetings that we had of the working group and the IR Co-Chairs which was the
impact of a two story home at the front setback or minimum setback is a much-greater impact
than a single story home at that setback. So that doesn’t quite resolve that. I want to support
some aspect of this and it is very difficult and I am struggling with it. So one proposal I am
making is maybe consider the 30-foot average or greater still goes through the Staff
recommendation.
Commissioner Burt: So that is ifa street has an average of 30 feet or greater then the average
would come into play. As I think about it part of the problem is that we have different styles of
neighborhoods throughout the City and how do we have one ordinance that meets them all? We
have perhaps identified maybe three categories. We have very homogenous neighborhoods,
track homes that have a narrow range of setbacks. We have very eclectic ones like mine and
maybe we have a third one where there is a large setback that is the neighborhood pattern. So if
that is the best way to capture retaining the character of each of those different types of
neighborhoods I think I would be open to considering that.
City of Palo Alto Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Bialson: I would agree.
Commissioner Burt: I would accept it as a friendly amendment.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can I ask for a clarification? What you are saying is this will not come into
play until the average range in that neighborhood is 30 feet and then at that point you would look
for this range that you are talking about.
Commissioner Burt: It is the other way around. You stated it backwards. Karen’s proposal of
utilizing the average would only come into play if the average was 30 feet or greater.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think I understand you. You would do your average. If the average was 27
it wouldn’~ come into play. When the average gets to 30 or 31 or more whichever way you want
to put this, more than 30 then you would look at using a contextual front setback, right?
Commissioner Burt: Correct.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Then the question is whether you want to do that ~vith the range or not. You
are suggesting you do this and you make a range.
Commissioner Burt: No, the range would apply in all neighborhoods. So whatever range exists
that would apply with the exception of in neighborhoods where the average is 30 feet or greater
then the average would become the minimum.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think this is going to be too hard to implement. It is an interesting concept
but I don’t see how we are going to implement that.
Commissioner Burt: I think it is pretty straightfor~vard mathematically. I don’t know. Basically
the Staff proposal would only kick in in neighborhoods where the average is 30 feet or greater
which is what we read was the primary concern that initially in the Staff Report it said that was
the primary issue that was being addressed by the IR guidelines was things like Crescent Park
where they have deep setbacks. So it would still address that issue and it would give greater
latitude in other neighborhoods.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I understand that. I could support that.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Idon’t think you need it if it is more than 30 feet. It automatically wouldn’t
be in place and the range that is there would be the range that is there, it wouldn’t have to change
at all.
Commissioner Burr: The concern that Karen brought up and I think others brought up is that say
you have a neighborhood like Crescent Park and you may have an average that is 35 foot
City of Palo Alto Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
setbacks say but you have two houses on the street that are 20 feet and everything else is between
30 and 40 feet. This would prevent a creep of allowing everybody to suddenly come in and put
20-foot setbacks on a street that really does have a predominant pattern of deep setbacks.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That I understand. I don’t understand where your part comes into this.
Commissioner Burt: Okay. So everywhere else when the average setback on a street is less than
30 feet then you take the range of setbacks and that is what people can build in.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That means that they could build up to 16 feet but if the range was 16 feet to
25 feet they couldn’t build 30 feet back.
Commissioner Burt: That is correct.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: That is actually one of the questions I was going to ask for clarification.
So the working group had decided that construction closer than 20 foot would really make it
complicated so to maintain the 20-foot setback as a minimum citywide. So that was one thing I
wanted to ask you for clarification about your motion. The other is I am not sure 1 heard in your
motion that the range would still continue to throw out the single least and single greatest.
Commissioner Burr: Yes, that last part of throwing out the anomalies is definitely part of the ..
motion. The reason I did not include the standard 20-foot is because there are neighborhoods in
the City where a high percentage of the homes are in the 15 to 20 foot range. Just as we want to
respect where setbacks are greater and allow that neighborhood character to continue. As you
approach Downtown or some of these other neighborhoods setbacks are shorter. I think if the
objective is to maintain a neighborhood character then you allow houses to be built in the way
they have historically been built.
MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0 Commissioners Cassel, Griffin and Holman voting against)
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, it is now 20 minutes to eleven so we are right on time with this
item. Can we now vote on it? All those in favor of Pat’s amended motion say aye. (ayes)
Opposed? (nays) So we have the motion passing with the exception of Commissioners Cassel,
Griffin and Holman.
That takes us to the end of our meeting this evening. We still have our Special Meeting coming
up next week.
Commissioner Bialson: I think that is going to be a continuation of this meeting. That is not a
separate meeting.
Chair Griffin: Yes. Did I misspeak? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I just want to ask.
Commissioner Bialson: Can we go through the form of this? It is a continuation.
City of Palo Alto Page 49
1
2 Chair Griffin: Staff, do I have to have a motion for continuing this item? Dan?
3
4 Mr. Sodergen: Yes, I would recommend you continue it to next week.
5
6 MOTION
7
8 Commissioner Bialson: So moved.
9
10 Chair Griffin: I have a motion made.
11
12 SECOND
13
14 Vice-Chair Cassel: I’ll second.
15
16 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
17
18 Chair Griffin: And seconded. All those in favor of continuing to next week say aye. (ayes)
19 Opposed? That passes unanimously.
20
21 You have a question, Bonnie?
22
23 Commissioner Packer: If the Commissioners agree I would like to when we start out next week I
24 have some questions, 1 would like to reconsider the contextual garage placement issue and that
25 wasn’t a topic in the Staff Report. So just a few questions I have on that.
26
27 Chair Griffin: Curtis, did you have a comment?
28
29 Mr. Williams: I just wanted to add I think also associated with this contextual setback issue then
30 talk about contextual garage placement and then go back and talk about how both of those affect
31 the substandard lots. Then I think Pat said he wanted to talk about comer lots so we should get
32 to that too before moving on to the next one.
33
34 Chair Griffin: All right. It sounds like we have plenty to do for next week. Karen.
35
36 Commissioner ttolman: I had just three or four things maybe to readdress too that aren’t a part
37 of the numbered items that Staff has listed here.
38
39 Vice-Chair Cassel: Shall we just send you th.ose because I had one also that was not a major
40 item but it needs to be addressed?
41
42 Mr. Williams: If they are minor things that don’t need full discussion that is great. If they do
43 and you want us to just pass your email or letter along to the other Commissioners that would be
44 fine too.
45
46 Chair Griffin: Bonnie, ! think you said that you had some items that you wanted to email in as
47 well, is that right?
48
City of Palo Alto Page 50
1 Commissioner Packer: Yes, I do. Some are small ones, some may be a little bit larger than
2 small.
3
4 Chair Griffin: If we can go to Commission Member Questions and Comments. ! guess we have
5 been doing that actually.
6
7 COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
8
9 Chair Griffin: Let me just make a comment to Staff. I am really continued to be dismayed at the
10 less than really clear sound we are getting out of that floor microphone and it was adjusted really
11 well earlier on and now there seems to be a lot of echo. That doesn’t resonate with you, Amy?
12 You can understand it fine? Yes, the one there for the public.
13
14 Mr. Emslie: The IT Department is aware of the problems with the overall sound system. I don’t
15 "know wha~ the solution is but I do know that it is a problem they are aware of and working on.
16
17 Chair Griffin: Good, that is encouraging.
18
19 We have Approval of Minutes for the Special Meeting of June 16.
2O
21 APPROVAL OFMINUTES. Minutes of the Special Meeting of June 16, 2004.
22
23 ~Chair Griffin: Do 1 have a motion for approval?
24
25 MOTION
26
27 Commissioner Packer: I will so move.
28
29 SECOND
3O
31 Vice-Chair CasseI: Second.
32
33 Chair Griffin: It is moved and seconded. All those in favor of approving those minutes of the
34 Special Meeting on the 16t~ say aye. (ayes) Opposed?
35
36 UUCommissioner Bialson: I am not voting because I was absent.
37
38 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0 Commissioners Bialson and Lippert abstained)
39
40 Chair Griffin: You weren’t there. The remainder we still have a quorum on this item so perhaps
41 we will get through it. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) None opposed. So that is approved.
42
43 Our next meeting is next week and we will be meeting at seven o’clock.
44
45 NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting of July 2t, 2004 at 7:00 PM.
46
47 Chair Griffin: What is the date Staff for next Wednesday? The 21st.
48
City of Palo Alto Page 51
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
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26--~-Wednesday, July 21, 2004 at 7:00 PM
SPECIAL MEETING
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:18p.m.
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin - Chair
Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burr
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson
Lee Z Lippert
Staffi"
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Susan Ondik, Planner
Robin Ellner, Staff Secreta~T
Curtis Williams, Consultant
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1. Zoning Ordinance Update: Single Family Residential District (R-l)
Chair Griffin: This is the Wednesday, July 14 meeting of the Planning and Transportation
Commission. Would the Secretary please call the roll? We don’t have a new agenda this
evening so we have to mark up what we have in front of us. This is July 21. Will the Secretary
please call the roll? Thank you.
This takes us to Oral Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any i.tem not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. TI~ose who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Griffin: At this time I do have only one speaker card from Robert Monaghan. Robert
Would you introduce yourself, please?
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Mr. Robert Emmet Monaghan, Palo Alto: Robert Emmet Lyonsson and Monaghan honor both
parents. I am a vegan Christian, a vegan born again Christian from New York and California. I
am an engineer in training and I live in Palo Alto over by Waverley and Hamilton and the Ivy
League Campus.
I came to speak to say that the New York Central Railroad although it was a big enterprise died
after 137 years and those who worked on it died, doing it some of them. I think the point of
doing any enterprise transportation or not is for the persons doing it to live forever and hopefully
the enterprise will live on too. So I wish to recommend that people return and consider Genesis
chapter one and Genesis 1:29 and that they can’t really get life by fueling it with death. It wilt
catch up. People will eventually have to die once if they feed their life by feeding on death. The
New York Central Railroad died and the people died building it and it can happen out here too. I
died once too but fortunately I got revived. I was medically dead and I had an epiphany about
that. It doesn’t mean you will lose your life forever but people that feed on death will eventually
have to die once. So I wish you all life well. Thank you,
Chair Griffin: Thank you. We have no further cards for public comment so that takes us to
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 reopen the public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Update R-1 Chapter
where the Commission will review and make recommendations to Council on the final draft of
the R-1 Chapter. Would Staff please make a representation?
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Public Hearing:
Zoning Ordinance Update: Single Family Residential District (R-l). Review and
recommendation to the City Council of the Final Draft Single-Family Residential (R-1)
Chapter creating a stand-alone Zoning chapter for Single-Family Residential
Development in the Zoning Ordinance Update (Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code).
SR Weblink: http://www.citvof0aloalto.org/citvagenda/publisl~’planning-transportafion-
meetin~s/3529.pdf
http://www.citgofpaloalto.org/citva~endalpublish!plarmin~-transp ortation-meefings/3530 .pdf
http://www.citv~fpa~a~t~.~r~/citva~enda/pub~ish/p~anning-transp~rta~n-meetings/3531 .pdf
http://www.citvofpaloalto, or~/citvagenda!publish/planning-transportation-meefings/3532.pdf
http://www.citgo fpaloalto.org/citgagenda!publish/plannin~-transportafion-meefingsi3533 .pdf
http://www.citv~fpa~a~t~.~r~/citva~enda/pubIish/p~anning-transp~rta~n-mee~n~s/3534.pdf
Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant: Thank you Chairman Griffin. We have several remaining
items from last week’s meeting to cover. What I would like to do is just run through this list on
the board and then take a couple minutes and talk about the first two the setbacks and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
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
45
46
47
48
substandard lots contextual requirements. Then if you choose there are a few people in the
audience that I think want to speak as well.
You did get some new materials today. They include the proposed language for contextual
setbacks. Also included are some responses to Commissioner Holman and Packer’s questions
emailed to us. I think one of the speakers provided some additional information on the
proportional setback proposal as well. So I am sure that will be discussed later in the meeting.
The issues that we still need to talk about related to the contextual front setbacks are how they
affect comer lots, also contextual garage placement I think we kind of lumped in with contextual
setbacks last time to come back and talk about that. Then also substandard lots and how
contextual requirements should or should not apply to those. The location of service equipment,
noise-producing equipment relative to yards is still on the agenda. Format changes and then
other issues the Commission may have some of which we have noted including the small retail
markets and looking at floor area ratio and setbacks, the basic provisions of those in the R- 1 zone
and whether you want to discuss those. Commissioners can bring up other issues that still
haven’t been discussed at that point. Then we are hoping to get to a point where we can have a
recommendation from you to move on to the Council on the whole chapter.
So I would like to take just a couple of minutes to talk about the first two items particularly the
contextual front setbacks. We have written up what we heard to be the motion from last week
into the code language. Basically it is a paragraph in five parts that would replace the paragraph
18.12.04C in the draft ordinance. Those five parts would indicate that the minimum required
front yard setback would be the average setback where the average is 30 feet or more, that where
the average setback is less than 30 feet the required front yard would be within a range of
setbacks and that minimum would be the minimum front setback for all properties on that side of
the street excluding the single least setback, the maximum front yard would be the greatest
setback excluding the greatest setback would be otherwise the maximum setback, so within that
range. An average setback, the definition of that basically stayed the same, the distance between
the front property line to the first main structural element including porches on the same side of
the block and including the existing structures on the parcel. Part four is basically the same as it
was before for calculation purposes, five or more properties are counted, the single greatest and
single least are excluded, flag lots and multi family are excluded, street side setback of comer
lots are excluded and that is something we are going to be talking about tonight, and for block
longer than 600 feet it is based on the then sites on either side of the subject property and we
added plus the subject site. We talked about adding that into that equation last time. Then also
added that sties on blocks with three or less lots would be excluded from the above requirements
for contextual front setback. Then we added that where contextual setback.does not apply 20
feet would be the minimum setback. So that is what we heard. We would like to be sure that is
what the Commission motion is.
We also would like to ask for one clarification of that because this section allows less than 20
foot front setbacks we have projects .that are allowed to encroach like architectural features,
porches through either outright provisions in the ordinance or through HIE process that can
encroach four feet into the front setback and do we want to somehow limit that if the setback is
already closer than 20 feet or set an absolute minimum on that and how close you can get to the
street. So we would like to get that clarification on the setback provision when it is less than 20
feet as well as your concurrence to the language here.
City of Palo Alto 13age 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
Secondly, talking about contextual garage placements some of the questions from
Commissioners Holman and Packer today related to that so we will let them describe their
particular concerns on those issues. Then on comer lots I think Commissioner Burt brought up
last week as an issue needing discussion so we will move on and let him or others talk about
concerns you have there. Our recommendation had been to exclude the comer lots from the
calculation when the street side yard is on the street being counted and also to then count the lots
on the street where the front yard of the comer lot fronts.
Second issue is related to substandard lots and last time you did make a motion to allow second
story development on substandard lots with a 30-foot height limit. Although that would be
possibly further constrained by the compatibility plane. The second story would be subject to IR
guidelines. For lots that are less than 50 foot in width the street side setback would be reduced to
ten feet, the site coverage would be increased from 35% to 40% for two-story development and
there wouldn"t be any changes to the parking requirements in those instances. What you didn’t
conclude last time was the issue of how contextual requirements play into th~ substandard lots so
we need to have that discussion as to whether they apply and if so, how. Our initial
recommendation had been not to apply either the contextual front setback or contextual garage
requirements. Your feeling then was that you needed to have the discussion of contextual
setbacks and contextual garages first before deciding how to deal with the substandard !ots.
I am not going to go through the other items that we had on the list there nothing has changed
since last week when we reported on them. I will be glad to answer any questions.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering if before we go to the public if colleagues have any comments or
questions on this clarifying text that we have received from Staff the one that has the five
paragraphs having to do with the definition of setback and application thereof. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I would like to ask a question of Staff and to Commissioner Burt as the
maker of the motion. I understood the motion to be to allow up to a 15-foot front setback and I
see no limit of 15 feet in the language here. I appreciate Staff also bringing up the issue of what
allowable projections into the front setback are too. So I would like clarification from the maker
of the motion probably if the intention was to include 15 foot here as a minimum front yard
setback and then later initiate discussion about the protrusions.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: Well, I believe as best I can recall that was the case that we had discussed a
minimum 15-foot but Curtis, maybe you have a better memory or record than I do.
Mr. Williams: I don’t recall that being part of the motion which is why it wasn’t in here. That
would also help with the other issue as far as the projections go.
Commissioner Burt: Do other Commissioners have either a recollection? Al! right, it was a long
night. We will get to it as part of the discussion I take it.
City of Palo Alto "Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Any further questions on this item? If not, it probably would be appropriate if we
allowed audience members to step forward. If there are members of the public that would like to
fill out a speaker, card now would be a great time to turn one in.
For me it doesn’t make any difference, but from an administrative standpoint is it required, City
Attorney?
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: I would have them fill out speaker cards just to ensure
that we have spelling of names and addresses correct.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for the clarification. We do have a speaker card here from Darren
Neuman. Darren, you wanted to talk about your proportional setback issue, is that correct? Why
don’t we entertain your comments at this stage?
Mr. Darren Neuman, 1301 Parkinson Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. Last week I made a
proposal on proportional setbacks for narrow lots to ease some of the setback requirements. I
want to thank you for letting me speak again to this issue.
The three major items that I want to discuss today is how this proposal impacts the streetscape,
the massing and the privacy. I made some notes here, which you all have. The basic idea is that
by allowing larger setbacks you allow homes.that are a bit wider and consequently not as long
sitting on the lot when looking at it from the street side. So I think from a streetscape perspective
you get a richer variety of design options, it allows the home designer to use that extra width to
articulate for porches or for bay windows or to project parts of the home out or not. It also gives
you more latitude for layout on the lot. L-shaped house on corners I think look particularly nice
they sort create a little courtyard in there that would become possible T-shaped houses, square
houses, it just gives you a lot more possibilities in the design or the layout of the house on the lot.
From a massing perspective I believe that by allowing the house to be a little bit wider, wider is
an odd term, it is not quite as long and narrow it ends up being a little bit closer to square. It
gives a visual impression of having less mass. Roughly for a two-story home I did some
sketches and it turns out for every one-foot that you relieve on the setback you can cut the width
of the house by about two feet. So you don’t end up with houses that are sort of long and skinny.
I think this is important when you are looking at the side of house on a corner lot in the context
of its neighboring houses, which you are looking at the front. So it puts it a little more in scale
with the neighbor’s houses when looking from the street side of the corner lot.
Finally for my privacy standpoint if you have a shorter house or a house that is not quite a long
and narrow it is not overlooking the neighbor’s house that is on the interior side opposite the
street side. So you are not overlooking his backyard as much because your house is basically the
same size as your neighbor’s house. So those wer.e the three main areas I wanted to talk to today
and just point out some advantages of this proposal.
I think there may be some concern with a proposal like this that different homeowners may abuse
this allowance and push their home directly up against the street and try to create a backyard or
do something unintended with it and I don’t think that is the intent of this rule. So one of the
things I would ask you to keep in mind is maybe it would be appropriate to place some simple
limits on how much of their home they can put between the 16 foot and the ten foot street side.
One of the things I discussed with the Planning Staff was maybe a 20% FAR say only 20% of
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1 your floor area can fall within this range. Do something to limit it so people don’t shove the
2 entire house right up against the street side. So I think there are some ideas there that might give
3 you some flexibility in design and yet keep the intent of keeping the home in scale with its
4 neighbors. Thank you.
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
47
48
Chair Griffin: I don’t think we have any questions, thank you, Darren. Now if we could have
some comments from our Single Family Neighborhood Advisory Members. I don’t care
whoever, Annette or John, whoever wishes to step forward. John, we would enjoy hearing from
you.
Mr. John Northway, 437 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto: I think this Co-Chair job is like a federal
judgeship, it is a lifetime appointment. When I am speaking here and when Annette is speaking
here we are trying our best to represent what went on during the deliberations of the Single
Family Committee. Michael was on it. Phyllis attended a lot of the meetings and Lisa is the
only one left from the Staff. So there is a lot of history that went on that I think is good to review
when you are thinking about changing some of the basic things that came out of that committee.
As you know we spent about six months just trying to define what the problem was with these
big houses because this all did come from the problems associated with big houses that were
bothering people a lot. The term ’monster home’ was one we had to wrestle with. We defined
the problem as privacy, the perceived or real loss of privacy, the masses ofthese new structures
and the radical changes it made to the streetscape. We had two public hearings where we
actually went out into the community to get the feedback. One of the overriding things that came
back was we know there is going to be change, we know our neighbors are going to be doing this
but we really would prefer it not to be something that radically alters privacy, massing and
streetscape. So one of the things that came out of this in terms of trying to solve especially the
problem of massing and streetscape was the contextual front setback. One of the big problems
was in some locations there was a contextual setback that was greater than 20 feet and homes
were being built out to 20 feet and it really changed radically the feeling of the streetscape.
What we came towards was the average setback, which addressed the problems that we were
hearing being expressed to us by the citizens of Palo Alto, which was only three years ago when
all this work went on. That is my concern trying to represent the committee with such as the
second item that is on the table fight now where if it is 30 feet or less then you have this very
wide range of where you can place the front of the house. If you look at say a simple example of
a six house street, th( house at one end is out to 18 feet, I have a property here that is built back
to say 28 feet, the property next to mine is purchased and a new house is going to be built there
and that is going to be brought out to the 18 foot level. That is something that we heard a lot
about that people really didn’t like. That is my concern about the change that you are making
which really is out of context from the basic problems that we spend a lot of time trying to
define. So I did think that the original Staffrecommendation of starting at 25 feet and 30 and
having some flexibility probably would work. A five-foot offset is a whole lot different than an
eight or nine foot offset. If the average front setback is 28 feet again you can have a fairly wide
range of how these houses are placed.
The other thing that we found and somewhere in the archives, Joan Taylor’s cardboard boxes
maybe, we did put together a complete tour of the city to look at examples of houses that people
both liked and thought did well fitting into the neighborhood and were larger and ones that were
very, very poorly done and were examples of why we were doing all this work in the first place.
I don’t know what the percentage is of people who always opt to move the house as far forward
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
as possible. I know in my own practice the vast majority would rather have a larger backyard
and privacy than donate more of their property to the street. From the work on the committee I
think I feel fairly safe in saying probably 100% of the spec builders will build as far forward as is
humanly possible and in most cases many of the offending houses were built by the spec
builders. Part of what government does is unfortunately at times they have to look at the lowest
common denominator but that was what we were !ooking at and that was what framed a lot of
the work that we did. So that was the comment I wanted to make in terms of my colleagues from
the committee and I know Annette has some things to say too. I am available for questions.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, John. It looks like we may have a question for you actually.
Commissioner Bialson: I’appreciate getting the background and it is very nice that you brought
it up. In discussing that could you tell us what the committee found with regard to whether one
side of the block should be used for all these measurements versus both sides of the block being
considered?
Mr. Northwa¥: Yes, we talked about that a lot. Actually what was done in the final
recommendation was what the conclusions were and I think actually the street that you live on is
a very good example. There are streets where on one side the houses were built say before 1945
and on the other side of the street they were developed after the Second World War. On Byron
Street, where Annette lives, the eastern side of Byron I remember it because I was walking to
Jordan Junior High School I remember when these were getting built. They are kind of what I
call the 1950 rancho danchos and they have their garages on the front of the house. Where the
houses across the street were built either right before the war or just immediately after the war
but they were individual houses so they weren’t built as a track and most of those have their
garages in the back. So it was that and other streets that said it can get completely confusing if
you look at both sides of the streets in instances like that. So that is why we said okay better
keep it to keeping the context on the side of the street where the new structure was going.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Can you speak a little bit regarding height as well as setback? As you
know a lot of the developers today if you said you can move it as far forward as you need they
are going to build a two story house right on that setback line. But if they were to build a one
story and then it is stepped back and then it became a second story it is a whole different profile.
Mr. Northwa¥: Right. I think again, I remember we all kind of laughed that we came up with
the privacy, massing and streetscape which worked out to be PMS which maybe is appropriate
with all the trouble we have had here. There were the two things that really people talked a lot
about that bothered them. One was the effect of the streetscape, which was the way the houses
were placed, and the other was the massing. That was addressed in the guidelines. If you bring a
house forward and then go straight up that is really a massing problem and it is addressed in the
guidelines.
Chair Crriffm: Phyllis.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do you remember, I don’t remember any concern about a house being built
back behind the average setback or back behind any house that is currently there? The depth that
a house was set was not a problem.
Mr. Northwa¥: That was never a concern. I would say it was never discussed but I don’t think it
was discussed much either but I don’t think it was ever a concern that someone would say the
front setback is 20 but I really feel I am going to build back here at 28 or 30. You can do it there
is no provision at all that says you can’t build it back at 40 feet. We did a house on Colridge, this
was before these regulations went in, and I thought the average setback was about 30 feet and I
went back and checked the site plan. Actually we set the house back at about 39 feet because
Colridge especially the part that Burge did is all setback close to 40 feet. We just did it because
it made sense and it worked with the contextual feeling of that street which is a real
architecturally important street from a history standpoint.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I don’t know if you knew you were going to get all these questions or
not but that is why you are here I hope. To follow up on Commissioner Lippert’s question and
also you comment saying that spec builders usually will build to the minimum front setback. If
there was an allowance for a change of regulations along the lines of what is being proposed and
you could build a single story in that minimum but then you couldn’t build a second story until
back to a certain distance would that encourage or prompt what is sometimes referred to as the
wedding cake kind of effect? I know that a lot of that kind of design happens now but because
we can’t legislate taste as they say are we going to have unintended consequences to that?
Mr. Northwa¥: I think yoh have unintended consequences to everything we do here that’s why
we recommended and it is being done that the guidelines and regulations are being reviewed
every year. Some of these things you just have play out. I appreciate what Pat was trying to do.
It is kind of a creative way of looking at maybe we can get more variety to the streetscape than
just a straight line. Part of the architect in me says hum that might be pretty interesting. Then
the part of me that was on the committee and trying to put the Co-Chair hat on I just feel it is part
of our job to give to you guys who are policy recommenders what the history of why this
happened in the first place. There was a lot of history and there was a lot of public comment. I
think that that’s just important as you guys wrestle with this to make your policy
recommendations to the Council that you have as good a picture of the problem as possible. I
think in, I have been doing this for 37 years practicing architecture and I also have been
participating in this kind of stuff for a !ong time too, in general you can assume that what is in
the Zoning Ordinance is what you are going to get. I think we have seen that. You guys have
wrestled with it. If you can build 6,000 square feet you are going to build 6,000 square feet. If
you can build 4,500 square feet you are going to build 4,500 square feet. If you can pull it
forward especially people who are building houses to resell it is more attractive to have a
backyard that is bigger than a front yard that is bigger. It is a hard wrestling match that we all go
through trying to set some public policy for building policies. There are things that you would
like to do that I would like you to do as a designer that would loosen a lot of this stuff up because
I can do a better job and I can do better buildings. But you are not writing these things to
regulate me you are writing them to regulate the guy who is pulling plans out of a draw that he
just built in Sunnyvale and Santa Rosa and is now going to try to do them here because he is
selling free plans. So it is a balancing act.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: John, as we kind of straggled with the two different objectives here I think
one is to contend with what you described of spec builders wanting to move everything forward
and the other is one of the objectives of the IR guidelines as I understood it and the Comp Plan
which is to preserve neighborhood character. So as we have had this current code written where
the minimum setback is defined as what is the current average setback we by definition are
¯ driving setbacks further away from the street than what is the existing neighborhood character.
So we are changing the neighborhood character rather than preserving it in that regard. There is
this other fear that if we don’t have some regulation the neighborhood character would change
on its own. So those are the competing objectives that I think we are trying to contend with. I
am not sure how best to do it but I really have a significant problem with this by definition we
will change the character of the streetscape by our code. That doesn’t seem like the right
solution. I am open to any other suggestions that might be able to contend with those competing
interests if you have any.
Mr. Northway: I probably don’t. I think the other side of the picture in terms of coming to
resolution is that this group that We put together to study this included the Staff members as
equal participants because we always turned to them and said as best we could can you even
enforce this or is this going to be just too crazy at the desk? In looking at this part of me isn’t
starting to wonder if you aren’t getting a little overly intellectual with this thing because some
poor kid who is a few years out of planning school is going to be faced across the desk trying to
explain all these things to someone who is probably not too patient with the whole process and
wondering how they are going to come up with all these different numbers. In some of the
committee sessions that we had with your smaller committee and Annette and I the Staff was
talking about really establishing as soon as they could maybe using interns what is the average
setback for a lot of the streets in town. It is really hard if the Zoning Ordinance gets to be too
convoluted and how it applies here but it doesn’t apply here and you can do this but you can’t do
that and if it is Tuesday don’t even apply. It just gets too complicated. When I see just to
describe what a setback is I have five paragraphs here where in most cities you flip to the basic
chart, front setback 20 feet, 25 feet, 24 feet and that’s quite frankly probably the way it should be
done. Front setback is not the end all be all make or break of whether the house is going to be
good or bad. But it really gets to be weird quite frankly when you are looking to just find out
what your front setback is and you have the possibility of five different paragraphs that you may
fit under. That I think is a challenge back to you and the Staff to say if you want to do this figure
out a way to do it so it is clear and straightforward and you don’t have to hire an architect to go
in and figure out what your front setback is.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Well, I was thinking I would ask this question. What if we threw out this
whole concept, I mean got rid of this concept of this contextual front setback, go back to the 20
foot minimum front setback and rely on the IR guidelines with regard to streetscape to deal with
those situations where you have those blocks where the houses are setback 30 and 40 feet and
there common sense will rule? Maybe we could tighten up, I forgot what it says right now about
the streetscape aspect in the IR guidelines but maybe just say 20 feet is the minimum setback
subject to discussion under the IR guidelines for streetscape where the average setback is more
City of Pa!o Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
than 30 feet. Maybe we could just say that instead of trying to put in all these mathematical
formulas which I had to read several times even though I knew where we were coming from
since we worked on that motion last week. Is that too radical an idea to just throw the whole
concept out?
Mr. Northway: It is a probably a little radical. Again,one of the nice things about defining the
problem first is you still have to fit it in, does your solution address the basic problem which is
the massing and streetscape. The IR guidelines only apply to second stow houses so if you have
a single stow neighborhood that has the extreme setbacks or bigger than 25 or 30 feet you would
still have the problem of the house being pulled way forward when everyone else was way back..
So that is one of the problems with relying on the IR guidelines to solve some of these problems
that are actually more universal because the IR guidelines are new second stow additions and
everything over 150 square feet second stow additions.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: You know we already allow for a certain amount of encroachment into
the rear yard setback on houses and it can be a certain percentage of a house in terms of its
width. What if we did something like that oh the front side of the house where we allowed a
projection of a portion of that house into what we would call a contextual setback and that might
include one story additions and things like porches and porticos and things like that?
Mr. Northwa¥: Again, as long as itcan be clear. I actually thought what the Staffcame up with
as their recommendation, this is like one of these Palo Alto things, it was the simple sort offine
tuning of this thing that was in the Zoning Ordinance that brought some questions that the Staff
couldn’t answer and suddenly we are spending several meetings on it. I thought what the Staff
recommended which was essentially what’s here except instead of 30 feet it was 25 five
probably is a relatively safe thing to do. It can give you some flexibility and quite frankly it is a
thing that can be monitored to see if there are any egregious violations of it that can then be in
the annual review of the Single Family Guidelines and ho.w it is performing can be addressed. I
admire that you are trying tb do something and I don’t want to be a wet blanket on it but on the
other hand I think there is a lot of history of what the town ha.s very publicly said they are willing
to tolerate so I think there has to be a balance in there someplace. Maybe you do the Staff
recommendation to the 25 feet, see how it is working and go from there.
Chair Griffin: Well, I don’t hear any more questions so you are offthe hook for the time being,
John.
Mr. Northwa¥: I did have more of a citizen comment on part of the R-I zoning but I can wait
until maybe that is under ’Other’ for that one.
Chair Griffin: We will give you accomplice a chance to have her say. Annette.
Ms. Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: Following John is always a hard act and I
totally agree with almost everything he said. I have maybe a couple of points that will say
something a little differently. I think the point that John made everything fitting together and it
is hard to sort ofmicromanage and take out bits and pieces because then we are moving away
from the problem. When you look at the contextual setback we are affecting both mass and
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
streetscape. I wanted to point out that through the current changes the porches and architectural
features already can encroach into the front setback. So when you look at this rule, however you
do it, please define this front setback are you talking about the main property or are you talking
about the first part of the building because you can get up to about 15 feet with a large front
porch.
Running around my neighborhood I will say that every new house, which a lot that have been
developed, is to the maximum setback. So that is anecdotal but it does support some of the
comments that Commissioner Lippert and John Northway mentioned.
I thought last week Commissioner Burt was especially eloquent in his argument especially using
the diagram of those really beautiful houses. Sort of another way to say what John said was that
any beautifu! house will defy any kind of rule. We need to be very careful for zoning rules
because we need to make sure that if it is anyone, and I.think John use.d the example of a spec
builder, so if you have a beautiful house you could probably go up to the sidewalk but if you
have a less beautiful house with a large mass you do really want to have hard code zoning really
relate to.that. If you do use the current plan I would like to see any change whether it be
proportional or otherwise not be hard coded but maybe be made through an exception whether it
be an HIE or Variance. So I feel fairly strongly about that. Our change we wanted to be gradual.
I think that was another part that sort of addressed something. The problem that people had was
the dramatic change it wasn’t that our neighborhood weren’t going to change which they will but
the fear or the concern of the public outcry was the dramatic change from the setback next to you
that was maybe 30 feet to right on the property line.
So that is what I have to say about contextual setbacks. I think it is sort of in sync with John. I
had one additional comment that I wanted to make about second story on substandard lots. This
is more a private person rather than from a committee member because we really didn’t address
that. I just again wanted to pose the following problem and again I would almost like to see this
not in hard coded zoning but again by Variance or HIE. We have a set of properties in my
neighborhood that are eight small cottages. They were built a long time ago and they are very,
very small and they have substandard setbacks. Many of these properties, four of them have
been sold in the last couple of weeks, and who knows what is going to happen with the
development. But with the cottages so close together I can see a second story being an incredible
mass and it definitely will affect the cul-de-sac and streetscape. Although I am not against
second stories on substandard lots I would be maybe say that it shouldn’t be in the zoning code it
should be an exception. Thanks.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, did you have a question?
Commissioner Packer: Annette, I have a question on another kind of small item but I understand
that this was a change that was made in the zoning code as a result of the Single Family
Advisory Committee and that is the prohibition of bay windows into side yards even though
eaves can project into side yards. I foundthat a little strange and I just wanted some background
about that.
Ms. Ashton: We had an extensive discussion about bay windows and garden windows, etc.
Again, the problem is especially in the R-1 zone with the six-foot setback we had a problem with
the definition of what a bay window is. There have been many case where on the plans
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
47
48
submitted you had "bay windows" which actually just turned out to be building proj.ections that
you could actually walk on which does enormously add to the mass next door. Right now you
can have up to two-foot garden-variety window in the side setback. We felt, bottom line, that
this would really not affect the.privacy as much as the very, very large bay windows would in the
setbacks. Again, many people are using the term bay window to build stairways in them or
window seats, etc. that again it goes back to the problem. So in a nutshell we felt, and this again
was a consensus a long thought out consensus for those of you who were there, we felt the one
thing that would address the problem that we stated, privacy, mass and streetscape, most
effectively was to come out with the very small or garden shaped windows in the setback.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Could I ask a question of both Annette and John if they would feel
comfortable addressing the issue of removing contextual front setback and contextual garage
placement on substandard lots? Would you fee! comfortable? This wasn’t something that your
group addressed but is there anyway that you would be able to draw on that background and be
able to comment on that? You are free not to of course I was just wondering if you would be
interested in it.
Mr. Northwa¥: I basically have read what was in the Staff Report in the argument and I actually
don’t have any, as an architect, don’t have any problem with what is being recommended which
is the removal of the contextual elements to it.
Commissioner Hotman: Do you have any feeling about how the IR group would feel about that?
Mr. Northwa¥: I imagine it is probably a lot like you guys. There would be a very vigorous
discussion with numerous strongly held points. In some ways it matters probably where the
substandard lot is. Probably in a place like College Terrace which has a lot of them it would
probably feel better than if it was an isolated substandard lot in the middle of a tract of standard
lots. One of the problems with our town as you all well know is it is just incredibly eclectic. So
it is virtually impossible to write anything that is a blanket anything and have.it be universally
successful. I think there are, you have heard public testimony, you have read about the
tremendous problems people have with the small lots trying to get at least their entitlement on it.
I don’t personally have any problem with the loosening up of the contextual restraints on the
small lots but that is just ... I personally have.not had to try to design on a really small
substandard lot in Palo Alto. I have done it other places and you do need a reasonable level of
help to try to get something that is working and is functionally satisfactory. I am afraid that is
not much help, Karen.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering, Annette, great’that would be super if you could pitch in.
Ms. Ashton: I don’t have very much more. This was not discussed in the committee but again I
sort of think where the house is makes a difference in what you decide for second stories will
really depend on where the answer to this is. Again, I just pose the example of a substandard lot
surrounded by standard size houses as compared to a small cul-de-sac with eight or so cottages
that are all on substandard lots. To me that is a very different situation and they should be
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
treated differently. So the more you put in hard code zoning you take away from the flexibility
of the Staff and any kind of review process. You are not going to have review if it is a single
story. Again, the whole reason we did guidelines was to give the architect and the homeowner a
little bit of flexibility as opposed to putting everything in zoning. So I don’t know if that helps.
Chair Griffin: Thanks. Are there further questions of these folks? Just a moment. John, you
had additional comments but they didn’t relate to this discussion is that what you were telling us?
All right then we will hear from you later on then. Perhaps it is best to come forward then if we
shut this down we can have your comments now.
Mr. Northwa¥: I actually did have a chance to read through all this and I have been emailing and
conversing with Curtis quite a bit. When I think I found an ah-ha he very courteously reminds
me that I probably need more training in reading comprehension. Curtis has answered so most
of my questions and comments. There was just one thing that I read that actually was a big red
flag for me because it has never been in here before and that was the maximum lot size. I am not
going to speak to the - I read the reasons why you wanted to recommend it and I won’t speak to
whether those are good reasons or not good reasons. The thing that I am concerned about is
actually this recommendation although very innocent, table two and then a nice little paragraph
about that big, actually represents some pretty big policy changes for the R-1 district. I don’t
think the most appropriate place to have it is buried in the middle of a big R-1 zone coming
forward. If you really want to follow this this is a very radical change in that you are limiting the
size of lots that has never been done before. You are also tampering with the ability of a person
who owns a property to demolish a structure and not rebuild it which is something that the town
has wrestled with over and over again and in some ways was the philosophical basis of the
historic mess that we all got into. So I don’t want to speak to whether there are some buried
noble desires expressed in the maximum lot paragraph in terms of housing stock and other
things. I just think this is an item that you will find if it was publicized you would probably have
quite a few people down here wanting to speak to it. I think burying it in the middle of a revised
R-1 Zoning Ordinance isn’t going to do the City any good, I don’t think it is going to do our
¯ friends on the City Council any good when this really get aired. This really needs to be a public
discussion. I think it really is a change in R-1 policy and it may be a very good and appropriate
change I am not saying it isn’t. I am saying that I don’t think the place to carry it forward is
somewhat buried inside the R-1 zone changes. That was my comment. I worry about having
things happen especially in the R-1 area that aren’-t very thoroughly aired and publ{cly discussed
because the we know best kind of attitude is what kind of brought down the reason the R-1
committee was first established and that was a Spin off of the historic ordinance disaster which
was really messing around with property rights as perceived by the community. So I just would
be real careful with that one.
Chair GritTm: Karen, did you have a question?
Commissioner Holman: I do, a clarification. Could you clarify what you meant when you said
that an owner couldn’t if this rule was put into place that an owner couldn’t demolish their house
and rebuild it?
Mr. Northwa¥: Basically it says in the paragraph.
Chair Griffin: Maybe you could refer to the page number if you would.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
t9
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
47
48
Mr. Northwa¥: Curtis?
Ms. Grote: It is page eight.
Mr. Northwa¥: It is under Maximum Lot Sizes. Page eight at the top of the page, paragraph D.
It is the draft of what the Zoning Ordinance would be not the sort of legal draft but the other
draft. As I read this and Curtis has been very kind in correcting me when I read things
incorrectly but it sounded as if basically if you can’t diminish the housing stock that to me means
you could demolish but you better build another house, simply read what this paragraph is
saying.
Chair Griffin: Well, we are all reading along here.
Mr. Northwa¥: Where an adjacent substandard lot of less than .... with another lot resulting in
no net loss. There is several times the phrase ’not net loss of housing units would result.’ If you
have that phrase in there it means that Steve Jobs could not do what he did which was buy the
house next door, knock it down and put in a fi-uit orchard because he diminished the housing
stock by one. Now, Curtis is going to tell me I didn’t read it right and I hope I didn’t read it right
and then my concerns would go away.
Chair Griffin: Well then let’s hear from Staff.
Mr. Williams: John and I those emails were a little late in the afternoon and I wasn’t quite able
to complete the cycle. Those modifiers, ’resulting in no net loss of housing units’ apply to those
specific sorts of exceptions to this. If you have a Village Residential land us that is replacing a
new lot or is with a new larger lot but you are providing at least as many units which Village
Residential typically would do, where underlying lots are merged to eliminate nonconformities
that situation primarily is one where an existing house crosses a lot line, you eliminate the lot
line and you still have the exiting house there so there is not a change in housing units. The third
is where an adjacent substandard lot of less than 25 feet so we are talking about what in most
cases is not a buildable lot although theoretically in some cases could be but it is very unusual to
have it less than 25 feet. we have a lot of 25 but less than 25 combining it so that there is no net
loss. So in that situation if there happened to be a house on that very narrow lot and a house on
the adjacent lot and the two of them combined still met these provisions then yes, that is one
situation where you would be required to still have two units on there to be able to do that.
All the rest of the situations here are not modified by that so if you have, and John I think in his
last email mentioned that you have two standard lots and two houses on them and you want to
knock them down and put up a new house on one of the lots, put up a swimming pool or
something on the other lot that is not prohibited by this as long as there are two separate lots you
are meeting the requirements for both of those lots separately. It doesn’t require that you rebuild
a house on that second lot if you want to use it for a vineyard or something else. What it would
prohibit is your combining them into one lot that then allows you to build one large house across
that line, a much larger house that the homes that were there before. So you would have instead
basically one standard house on a standard lot and then some open space, vineyard, pool,
whatever that use would be. So I don’t think it does what John is anticipating it would do on
90% of those cases. This one situation with the substandard lots is a very unusual one and I
City of Palo Alto 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
don’t’ know if he is aware of a case where that would make a difference. Again, the intent, this
comes straight from the Housing Element, this wording is almost except for the sort of
exceptions here is almost straight from the Housing Element to provide for maximum lot sizes to
minimize the potential for merging lots and constructing homes that are out of scale with the
neighborhood. That is the Housing Element language. So it has been through that public review
process and I don’t think it has the significant effects John is anticipating but I would certainly
be glad to explore that with him and others some more to be sure it isn’t.
Mr. Northway: I also said in an email to Curtis but I might as well bring it forward that by
having the maximum be one square foot, except for the regular R-1 zone, be one square foot less
than two lots added together my anticipation is that with a very good land use attorney of which
one sits on the Planning Commission and a creative designer you could figure out a way of in a
simultaneous move unless the City Attorney says you can’t do it where you do a lot line
adjustment with your neighbor where you give them six inches more and erase the lot line
between the two purchase parcels and now you have a conforming lot that is 13,999 square feet
and you ahead and do your FAR and probably build a large 5,000 square foot house. So I guess
to cut back to defining a problem, if there are some public policy issues that are important just
say it. Don’t get so cute. If you don’t want houses torn down then say it. If you think the size of
a lot should be something and because you don’t want the houses to be any bigger than 4,000
square feet or whatever it is in the type of R-1 zone you are talking about do the math, go
backward from the FAR and say the lot shouldn’t be any bigger than 7,250 square feet but stop
being cute with this stuff. When it is one square foot less than two lots there are a lot of smart
people out there folks and they will beat this. So it is getting back to the basics. What is the
public policy that you want and what is the most effective way of achieving it? I am not sure tNs
is the most effective way of achieving it. That is all I was trying to bring forward. I had a
chance to start reading this stuff yesterday but. I just read it and okay, there is a public policy
here, you want lots to be limited in size and you don’t want to lose housing stock. Say it and
debate it. But one square foot less than two lots put together there are a lot of smart people out
there who will beat that one. That was all I wanted to bring forward for your discussion. There
are ways of achieving things. I used to go crazy of saying we are going to regulate mass by
FAR. Just regulate mass. Just do it. Identify the problem and then work out a solution that
solves the problem. Don’t say we are going to get cute about this stuffbecause it just gets weird
and the poor people at the counter get yelled at and it gets crazy.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I want to take the oppommity of asking John something that is slightly off
subject but Karen had raised the issue in an email earlier about whether we should be discussing
setbacks. When we have and I saw an example just the other day of a house that had been
constructed the last couple of years and it had a rear garage. So on the right side of the house
was about a ten-foot or maybe 12’foot driveway. The house had been constructed to maximize
the FAR of course and push the envelope to our definition of the daylight plane so what we
ended up with was an asymmetrical house. The left side went up against the prescribed setback.
The right side could not go to the prescribed setback because of the driveway so we got this
cockamamie shaped house. I started with knowing this is undesirable but I don’t have a fix.
Have you run into that kind of circumstance and do you have any thoughts on how we might
address that? It is not currently something that the IR guidelines would address.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Northway: Probably if it is a second story the process of reviewing the second story would
probably look askance at it. I have seen them. They are all around town. One of the problems
with democracy and freedom is that everybody gets to play and not everyone has equal talent and
not all novels are great and not all house designs are great either but I don’t think you can
legislate a beautiful house design and I don’t you can legislate a great novel. It is what is known
as we live in a country that allows freedom of expression and not all of the expressions are we
going to agree with. That to me is quite frankly not a very talented designer dealing with a
problem that a talented designer could easily solve. Probably if it is a second story, which in
most cases they are because they are wresting with the daylight plane, I think the IR process
probably can deal with that. But if we hit this at about 80% and most of the stuffis 80% pretty
good I think we are doing really well.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, no further questions? I am wondering if you would be up for taking a
break at this stage. We have already lost one of our members. If you don’t wish to take a break
you don’t have to but we are going to call for a seven-minute recess here.
I will reconvene our meeting and bring the discussion back to colleagues where we can re-
confront contextual front setbacks. I am wondering if any of the Commissioners that voted in
favor of the item from last week has any further comments about this item. I am a little daunted
as is Commissioner Packer about the five paragraphs worth of text relating to it. I am wondering
if there is some way to compromise or recast what we were trying to accomplish last week.
Anybody want to take a cut at that? Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: In reading this I am beginning to get some buyers remorse here. I was
ambivalent on it for the longest time in terms of coming on board with the majority in support of
this. I think that John Northway has made some very important points, which I think are pretty
important. It is easier to apply hard and fast rules and just say this is the setback live with it,
work with it and liberalize it and allow some liberties with it within the HIE process and the IR
process but these are the rules. I think it makes it easier not only for homeowners but it also
makes it a lot easier for developers, it makes it a lot easier for architects having to work with it. I
think that in some ways design professionals look forward to a challenge. One of the hardest
things is this, that if we create a whole bunch of convoluted rules it is going to be difficult for
Staff to administer. I think that at the lowest level it is going to be difficult and maybe the public
is going to get some misinformation or in some ways it is going to be difficult for the public to
understand what the intent of this Board is. We really do speak through the Staff. So I am
having some real difficulty with this. So I think that we should really look at this again and see
if there is another way that we might be able to achieve what we are trying to achieve just a
different way.
Commissioner Burt: Well, one of the things that John had biought up was that the language in
the original Staff Report he didn’t think was so bad and I was laying to figure out how we got
from not simple language but more simple language in the original Staff Report to what we have
here. As I am looking at what are the most substantial changes one is that if we were to retain
the Stafflanguage on page eight saying the minimum front yard setback shall be the greater of
20 feet or the average setback. Then change it if the average front setback is 30 feet or more
then that might keep the language simpler and reflect the adjustment that we had agreed to last
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
week. Then make sure that HIEs are allowed for things like porches that might intrude into that.
If that were clear then maybe that would capture the essence of what we were aiming for last
week and continue to do it in a more.concise and clear way. I would be interested in what
Commissioners and Staff think about that.
Ms. Grote: In terms of the projection whether you use a 30-foot or a 25-foot starting point but in
terms of projections currently the ordinance allows porches and other architectural features to
encroach into a front setback up to four feet. So if you were to include a similar allowance for
this newly revised contextual front setback then an HIE could be used for any feature that a
property owner wanted to have in excess or in addition to that four foot encroachment. So in
other words you would establish your contextual front setback, you would allow a four foot
encroachment for a porch or some other similar architectural feature and then an HIE would be
available for consideration of any farther encroachment. So that is a possible approach.
Chair Griffin: Amy.
Ms. French: I wanted to add to that as well. For the HIEs the intent is spelled out there as a
parameter of a four-foot encroachment was for a primary building wall. So that is where the HIE
would come into play. Whereas as Lisa said for the little projections like porches and
architectural features .that would be covered under the standard permitted zoning.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: We have to keep remembering that HIEs are only for rehabilitation of
current buildings and they are not for new construction. But I believe that we have some
allowance for encroachment of setbacks for porches and things of this sort. I think what I would
like to do is get sort of an explanation, Pat, of what you are talking about. What you are talking
about is using a minimum front setback that should be the greater of 20 feet or the average
setback of 30 feet or more, right? So you really wouldn’t be adjusting any front setbacks. It
wouldn’t go into effect until it was 30 feet.
Commissioner Burr: Just a slight semantical clarification after the first statement. The minimum
front setback shall be the greater of 20 feet or the average setback if the average setback is 30
feet or more. Not an average 0f30 feet.
Vice-Chair Cassel: No, no I agree. Then the averaging that you were doing last week down at
the bottom that range would be dropped.
Commissioner Burt: Yes. This would allow a setback to be as little as 20 feet unless it was a
street where the average was 30 feet or more and then we go into a minimum of 30 feet on such a
street with the understanding of what Lisa and Amy had just clarified which is that four foot
porches, etc. are allowed currently as intrusions and any other intrusion would have to be applied
for as an HIE. As you state, Phyllis, that would only be available in a remodel.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Right. The other pieces of this that were in the Staff Report would be
included then. The number of feet and the width and what houses you counted and the
contextual setback, etc. The only change here is the 30-foot.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: Well, that is the only change I am referring to. Other Commissioners may
or may not have issues with those definitions.
Chair Griffin: I guess I was wondering how we went from the text here in the proposed
ordinance to this five-paragraph item if it is only a matter of a five-foot change from 25 feet to
30. Yes, Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: That was because we had a motion last week to change the concept from
average to a range. Now we see what that resulted in language wise it seems confusing to some
of us including Pat the maker of the motion. So I was recommending that we go back. Now I
keep on coming back to this problem that we are trying to solve and I understand that the
problem we are trying to solve is the impact on neighborhoods that have deep lots, deep front
yards and the impact of having new houses being built closer to the street than historically had
been in those places. That is why we have this concept of an average and we have to have this
mathematical formula if you will to define what average is and that is where we have the
complexity. So if we as a Commission feel that that’s a problem that’s worth solving and having
the solution then that’s what we are doing. If we feel that we would rather have simplicity of
language and just say the minimum front setback is 20 feet and forget all this stuff then we are
not dealing with that particular problem. So I think that is the policy issue that we were
struggling with. I guess in the past we have accepted the fact that this is enough of a problem
that we want to solve. I personally don’t know how great it is but if it is important enough for
other Commissioners then okay, let’s go with this complex definition. Otherwise I would be
happy with just saying one number fits all.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
MOTION
Commissioner Lippert: Well, I am going to take a stab at something here and then hopefully
somebody Wilt agree with me and then we can have some discussion on it. I would like to make
a motion that we deep six this, go back to the original language for the contextual front setback
and we just substitute 30 feet or more instead of 25 feet and leave it at that.
SECOND
Commissioner Burr: I will second it.
Commissioner Lippert: I think I have said enough on that early on to just keep it simple. So that
is my motion.
Chair Griffin: I take it you are not going to speak any more on that. Would the seconder wish to
add anything?
Commissioner Burr: I just think it strikes an appropriate balance between maybe three
objectives. One is to address the concerns for those neighborhoods that do have deep setbacks.
Second is to keep it simple and a third is to not impose deep setbacks on eclectic neighborhoods
that work with a variety of setbacks. So we won’t achieve perfection with whatever outcome we
have but I think this is a pretty good balance and I am comfortable with it.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, I will start with Annette. Do you have any comments?
Commissioner Bialson: Could you pass me for now? I am comparing.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I want to thank Pat for reconsidering this. I very much appreciate that. I
think the goal was to simplify the process and make it so that we would be using it less often and
to provide some protection for neighborhoods that really do have a deeper setback. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Ditto, Phyllis. That is really all I have to say right now.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I will support the motion in spite of what I said earlier.
Chair Gfiff: I will support it too and I ditto Phyllis’s comments. I appreciate the original
maker of the motion assisting here with this clarification.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
All in favor of Lee’s motion say aye. (ayes) Those opposed? That item passes unanimously.
Mr. Williams: Can I suggest something here?
Chair Griffin: Please.
Mr. Williams: I think this comer lot relates to the contextual setbacks because that might be a
logical follow up before talking about the garages..
Chair Griffin: So let’s do that. Would you haveany comments you would like to make on that
item or recapitulate any of your previous remarks?
Mr. Williams: Just that the current recommendation is that from of the comer lot is the street
that you measure for analyzing the contextual setback there. When you measure for other lots on
the street that you are only including the front yard of that comer lot. If it is a street side yard on
that side that gets excluded from the calculation. That is the proposal on the table right now.
Ms. Grote: If it is possible I did want to just give the Commission two photos that the speaker
Mr. Neuman had given to me. We couldn’t make copies since they are photos but I want to just
bring them up to you so you could look at them. They depict smaller than 16-foot street side
setbacks. So they are examples of some of the information he was giving you in the charts.
There is also a photo board.
City of Palo Alto 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
47
48
Mr. Williams: You saw the board last time and we brought that back. Also let me mention, I am
sorry, I was talking about the contextual setback issue. The street side setback that Mr. Neuman
is talking about if that is where we are headed in this discussion too I think Staff would like to
hear your thoughts on that. I think we are flexible as far as entertaining some kind of more
proportional type of approach as well.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Clarification. So Curtis what you were raising was how to address
comer lots in the contextual- front setbacks that is in the code that we just past, right? So was
there something about that that you wanted to highlight that we maybe hadn’t you felt considered
or were you just Wing to confirm with what the Staff recommendation was?
Mr. Williams: Well I was just confirming what the recommendation is in the language right
now. So I think the motion last time was basically to adopt this approach to contextual setbacks
but exclude the discussion of comer lots until this discussion. So just letting you know what the
language is in the draft code right now is all I was speaking to before.
Commissioner Holman: And they are two separate things addressing different? They are two
separate things but somewhat related? Okay. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Comments?
Commissioner Burt: Michael, I am not sure whether we are clear on which issue we are
discussing here. One has to do with, if I understand it-correctly, how Comer lots are used to
calculate the contextual setback and the other has to do with what side setbacks we should apply
to comer lots. So do we want to take these separately?
Chair Griffin: I think that is the idea. Curtis you want to revisit the language in the proposed
ordinance on page eight, paragraph E.
Mr. Williams: Right. I don’t know that we want to revisit that. I think that deals with the front
yard of comer lots that is what that really deals with. It does not deal with how you calculate the
street side yard so that is a separate issue that Mr. Neuman has brought up.
Chair Griffin: I need that restated in such a way that I can deal with it here. Mr. Neuman’s
comments don’t relate to this paragraph E.
Mr. Williams: I don’t think they do in that paragraph E deals with front setbacks. If it is a street
side setback on that street the comer lot gets excluded anyway. So I think that is a separate issue
what that street side setback should be.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: So what you are saying is that at the moment we have agreed to not count
the street side setback in the contextual setback and we have agreed to consider the front setback
on a comer lot in the setback.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Williams: Right.
Vice-Chair Cassel: So that is where it stands at the moment.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Vice-Chair Cassel: So you are just raising it to confirm that we agreed with that and whether or
not we wanted to change it.
Mr. Williams: Right and then Mr. Neuman’s issue is a separate issue of what is appropriate
street side setback on narrow lots.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I just want to make sure, Curtis, when you were referring to the front that is
defined as where the address it or the narrow segment of the lot.
Mr. Williams: The latter.
Commissioner Burt: Okayl so I just want to make sure everybody understands that that is how
the front is being defined as the narrow segment of the lot.
Chair Griffin: The front is the narrow segment and the street side segment is?
Ms. Grote: The longer segment. It is the one that currently has the 16-foot setback being
recommended for some changes and then the front setback is the contextual setback you just
discussed.
Chair Griffin: Yes.
Commissioner Burt: Just another way that we might help clarify, another way to describe the
street side is that it is a side yard setback facing the street even though people often put their
front door on that side.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I would like to propose that the Commission just confirm or not that we
concur with the language that is currently in the StaffReport or in the proposed ordinance on
page eight, E. I don’t think we need a.motion I just want kind of a show of hands that we concur
with that so we can move on because we passed the motion so I am not quite sure why we are
going over it again. But since we are let’s just confirm that we agree or don’t agree with what is
in E on page eight and I do agree.
Chair Griffin: AI! fight. We are not going to do a motion but we would do a straw vote on this
item. Do we have any opinions down the desk here? Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I agree with Karen, I think we should keep going on this.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: Does anyone disagree?
Chair Griffin: So there we have it. We are done. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Then I have a suggestion. That we continue with the items that are in
the ordinance asproposed and with all due respect to themember of the public who has raised
the issue of comer lots it is something that I think is a separate issue than what we have already
previously discussed. I think we could have a long discussion about that and I think it would be
more prudent of us to continue ~vith the ordinance that we have in front of us and try to get that
completed before we take up the comer lot issue. I would be interested in how other
Commissioners feel about that approach.
Commissioner Packer: I agree.
Chair Griffin: Well, we seem to have consensus there. So if Commissioners will note in the
ordinance on page eight under F, contextual garage placement. Do we have comments on that or
questions of Staff?. Perhaps you would like to restate for us the Staff recommendation on that
paragraph, Curtis.
Mr. Williams: The language for contextual garage placement I don’t think we made any
significant changes to the existing code language which basically provides that you look at your
side of the street and try to determine if there is a predominant neighborhood pattern of having
garages in the rear which means 50% or more of them in the rear and if there is not then you also
have to look at the other side of the street, calculate them together and if it is more than half that
have the rear garages then your lot also has to have a rear garage. If it is less than half on the two
streets combined then you do not have to have a rear garage. Then there is some similar
language about 600 feet and ten homes located nearest on the same side as the subject property,
etc.
Chair Griffin: Yes, Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: In the materials in front you there are the questions that I raised with
Staff and the responses with regard to determining what the contextual garage situation was in
the neighborhood whether it was rear or front. The proposed language from Staff would count
both sides of the street. I would recommend that we ordy look at one side of the street for
determining whether there is a predominantly rear pattern for garages because otherwise it
results in odd situations. I think you have at your places the example that I drew which shows
what happens if one side of the street is mostly front garages and the other side of the street is
100% rear garages but the subject is across the street. Then the subject property is forced to put
in a rear garage maybe houses on either side of that property have front garages. So it doesn’t
solve the problem of having a nice streetscape because you have counted the properties across
the street. So I would recommend that like we did with the contextual front setback that for
determining how the garages are in that neighborhood that we limit it to just one side of the street
and keep everything else the same.
I have another issue if you come back to me on that 75-foot rule but we can come back to that.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: I concur with Bonnie and we were evidently at the same time posing
similar questions to Staff. So I agree to be consistent and listening to the comments that
especially Commissioner Bialson made about different sides of the streets and it may have been
Commissioner Cassel but we havedifferent development patterns on different sides of the street.
So if we are going to do this let’s make it simple, let’s not make it cumbersome, use the same
side of the street for contextual garage placement as well.
Also I am going to try once again for simplification purposes for blocks longer than 600 feet the
calculation shall be based on the ten homes located nearest to or on the same side of the block as
the subject property but at a distance no greater than 600 feet. That is really so much simpler
thangoing to this and the combination of the ten homes, and ten homes facing them. It is so
much simpler and cleaner. So I would propose that also as a change.
Chair Griffin: We are going to have to have some motions here to do all of this. Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: In thinking about this and this is probably one of the first discussions I
had with this Commission prior to me being appointed is that I don’t necessarily think that issue
is one of garage placement. It is one of what you see when the garage is open. In some ways
what happens is the garage is open and your neighbor’s garage is open and you are looking from
your front window into his or her mess there. The garage door is left open and in some cases
these are two car garages. To go down a street of Eichlers in Palo Alto or Sunnyvale the way
front facing garages are handled is that these were built with sliding doors often times. What
happens is you are only seeing 50% of the garage. Maybe there is a way to come up with some
better configurations or some better ways of dealing with this. What I am thinking of is that, I
think I mentioned this once before, which is a I did a house that had a front garage but rather
than placing the garage door on the front of the garage that projected out from the house we
placed the garage door on the side and you pulled into the driveway and you made a turn into the
garage. It prevented the person across the street looking into this person’s garage. I think that
there are ways of handling the issue of the mess and the stuff that you see in a garage other than
talking about front facing or front placement and rear placing of the garage. I just think that it is
far more complex than this and I don’t think that we are going to get where we need to be in
terms of the garage issues just by allocating so many houses as creating a pattern so to speak.
Chair Griffin: I can just tell you that in our discussions with the Single Family Advisory Group
amazingly enough we did not talk about the mess that you see in your neighbor’s garage across
the street. The discussion really did focus more on the context and trying to achieve what I am
going to say is shown pretty well in Bonnie’s drawing of trying to have rear garages and!or front
garages depending on what the contextual pattern was. Lee, I am not quite sure where you are
going with all of that but I am pretty supportive of the point that Bonnie has raised here. Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think that we are looking at value judgments when we talk about
neighbor’s garages being messy and we are forgetting the other issue with front garages is that
the neighbors in our neighborhood who have garages open are the ones that have them clean and
they act actually as eyes on the street. They are a porch. The older people who are home have
their garage doors open and they are working in there and they are seeing what’s going on and it
adds a great deal of safety to our street. So lacking front porches and those areas keeping people.
very busy it turns out to be a very pleasant place for people to gather on the street. I think we are
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
running into a value judgment. Some homes are done the way you are talking about and some
are not they still have a piece sticking out there. If it is a bedroom it is okay if it is a garage it is
not. But the goal here wasn’t to keep someone from putting their garage to the back and it
doesn’t prevent someone from putting it to the back but rather where there are back garage
people were trying to encourage that.
Chair Griffin: I saw Annette next and then Karen.
Commissioner Bialson: I agree with Lee and not necessarily the mess issue more so with Phyllis
I have expressed previously that these front facing garages are acting as porches and do
encourage community activity and mingling. I think a value judgment in preference for rear
garages is being what we are putting into the code and I am comfortable with doing that. I think
we should do what John Northway recommended which is define the problem we are trying to
deal with and then I do see us defining that problem and yet we are about to legislate something
that is a solution to something we have not articulated being a problem. So I don’t think we
should have anything with regard to garages unless we can say what it is we are trying to
accomplish.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Well, perhaps Staff would like to speak to that but I thought this was
also one of the issues that the Individual Review group spent three years discussing and the
problem was identified and this was a solution that they came up with. Maybe Staffwould like
to comment on that.
Mr. Williams: That is my understanding as well. This is not a new provision this is virtually the
exact wording that we have had now for three years since those provisions were adopted. My
understanding is that they did perceive that again in those areas where the general pattern was
not seeing that garage up front that that was an attractive desirable feature to maintain that
consistency in that area and that is why this regulation resulted. There was a problem with
people starting to build homes that did have front garages and how out of character that appeared
in the neighborhood. So it came out of that. I wasn’t around then I can’t give you any more
background into that. I don’t know if Lisa can.
Ms. Grote: The reason why both sides of the street were used was because you can’t always
establish the pattern on one side of the street. Whereas with the contextual front setback
everyone has a front setback you can establish that pattern on one side of the street. With the
garage and the desire to preserve those areas that had predominantly rear placed garages they
wanted to use both sides of the street to establish the pattern when it couldn’t be established on
one side because not everybody either has a garage or they wanted to preserve something using
both sides of the street. Something that they thought was important to preserve and that is rear
placed garages.
Chair Griffin: I am going to make a comment before I recognize Commissioner Bialson. In my
own neighborhood in Downtown North it is a hodge-podge over where these garages are placed.
It is a very challenging item to come up with a context but I think in most neighborhoods of the
City there is a somewhat more homogeneity and I am a supporter of Bonnie’s hopefully
forthcoming motion. I will now recognize Commissioner Bialson.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
-41
42
43
45
46
47
Commissioner Bialson: I understand that the committee working in reaction to what was being
perceived at that time the rise of too many shall we say monster homes may have reacted. The
question is whether we need to blindly go where they went at that time or whether we at this
point with perhaps a little more perspective can reissue the challenge of tell us what the problem
is.
Chair Griffin: Did Staff want to make a comment?
Ms. Grote: I did just want. to point out that the City Council did agree with the Advisory Group’s
recommendation so it wasn’t the Advisory Group acting alone. The Council reviewed those and
did agree with them. If you want to put something different forward at this point that is certainly
acceptable.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
MOTION
Commissioner Holman: I am going to go for a motion here. I am going tO move the language
on page eight, F, Contextual Garage Placement with the following changes: on line six the latter
part of the line, "including the subject site," delete "or if the rear garage pattern is not established
on the same side of the block then for half or more of the houses on both sides of the block."
Delete that and then pick up, "this calculation stays in tact." Then you go down to the next to the
bottom line, "nearest to and on the same side of the block." To be complete I should start at the
first of the sentence. "For blocks longer than 600 feet the calculation shall be based on the ten
homes .located to and on the same side of the block as the subject property for a distance no
greater than 600 feet." And deleting the language, "and on the combination of those ten homes
and the homes facing them." That would be my motion.
Chair Griffin: Do we have a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: I will second it.
Chair Griffin: Commissioner Holman would you like to speak on your behalf’?.
Commissioner Holman: Only that I think this was something that was well vetted in the
Individual Review group and while I am proposing a change I think for consistency and
simplicity sake that using one side of the street for reasons that have been vetted regarding
contextual front setback is practical. A pattern can be one property or three properties or ten
properties. So that is the reason for making that change, that simplification. Also for the blocks
longer than 600 feet I think that is also a simplification and also relies on the same side of the
block for simplicity and clarity.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, do you wish to speak for your second?
City of Palo Alto Page 25
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
47
Commissioner Packer: Yes. I explained the reasons why I think this is a good idea before.
Even though I really am in agreement with what Annette says about let’s have the garages where
they go and I live in a neighborhood of front facing wonderfully messy garages I think this is a
good compromise. It is not going to happen that often that a builder of a new home is going to
be forced to put a garage in the back. It is only in these few situations where it is clear that on
that side of the street most of the homes have rear-facing garages. So it is probably going to be
only in a very few situations’ and then the rest of the City garages will go where they go.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I would ftrst like to just respond to Commissioner Bialson’s concern that
this is not addressing a defined problem. I think the problem was defined by the IR review
committee, confirmed by the Commission, confirmed by the Council and the problem had to do
with streets where the garage was not historically the predominant street facing architectural
feature that we wanted to have those streets be able to retain that character while not imposing
rear garages on neighborhoods and streets where that isn’t the feature. It was a balance to allow
continuation of architectural designs that were valued on those streets. Having said that I would
like in the future to look at ways to revisit this in the IR Guidelines because I think there are
other issues on how we can improve housing design in general without imposing a particular
style and selection on a given home. I think further exploration would be appropriate on that.
There are ways to have front garages where they are not the dominant architectural feature
whether it be from changing the angle of direction of entrance to the garage or what we have
seen, and I took 30 photos about a month ago of street facing garages that have done in recent
years exceptional designs that basically cause the garage not to be a detrimental feature to the
front streetscape. So I would like to ask that we have this item be something that in our annual
IR review we go into greater depth and whether we also ask the IR committee to address it or it
just be something that the Commission take a more in depth review of I think there are ways that
we might be able to improve it in the future. Having said that, I think that until we have gotten
to that point this is an appropriate action for us to take.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I hear what everyone else is saying and I very much appreciate the
calendaring of an annual review on this point because that would be important in the IR process
as the new designs for front facing garages evolve and become a little more obvious to people in
the community. I think there would be less reticence to allow front facing garages. The issue of
predominant neighborhood context sort of flied in the face of the language of the code section
that is being proposed because it merely says that the existing garage placement pattern for half
or more and I guess I would be more convinced to vote for this motion if it wasn’t half or more
but more than half. This does have a preference. So if you have block that is 50-50 this is
saying you have to go rear facing and I don’t think that is something that I can be comfortable
with. I don’t know if the maker of the motion would entertain a friendly amendment to change
that language to rather than for half or more but to read it as more than half. Just a question.
Commissioner Holman: Could Staff comment about why was it 50% or not 51% or something
like that at the IR discussion?
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Grote: Again, they didn’t talk about percentages but it was a preference to maintain rear
placed garages where they existed in large numbers.
Chair Griffin: While you are thinking Commissioner Holman, I saw Commissioner Lippert next.
Commissioner Lippert: In some ways I feel as though by having it be such a clear demarcation
as 50% what we might be doing is doing something very similar to dictating style and saying you
have to build in a mission style because we value mission style. I think there are other
opportunities here or otherways of looking at garages. The reality of the situation is that we
require a covered parking space but in point of.fact I think very few people use them as a parking
space they use them as an accessory building of some kind to use either as a shop or something
else. What I wouldbe inclined to do is to support what Commissioner Bialson has said which is
that it be a clear 51% or be a clear majority.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I would accept changing that language to a 51%. It seems like probably
if the neighborhood is that mixed that a 51% would be fine and acceptable to me.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Packer: Sure. Would it be more than 50% instead of putting in a hard number
since you only have a few houses?
Commissioner Holman: I am asking Staff would that be difficult to interpret in practical
application?
Ms. French: I think more than half is a good one.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, agreed.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Griffin: It appears we have discussed this item pretty substantially this evening and
consequently we will vote on Karen’s motion.
All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That item carries unanimously.
Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: This is another issue related to the placement of structures such as
garages and accessory buildings when they are in the rear setback they have to be at least 75 feet
from the front line. That creates a situation in standard lots that are between 83 and 95 feet of
forcing especially a garage, which has to be at least 20 feet long to be up against the property line
or very close to the property line. So I assume this is an unintended consequence. I think what
as a policy we want to keep structures away from the property line but in essence the code
language forces these structures to be at the property line especially if you have this contextual
garage setback where in some situations you are requiring the garage to be there. The property is
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
only 95 feet deep, the new garage is going to be right up against the neighbor. I don’t think that
is what We want to do. So can we eliminate that 75-foot requirement for lots that are between 83
feet and 99 feet in depth? Is this something that the Staff could draft some language for and how
do other Commissioners feel about this?
Chair Griffin: I am.wondering if Staffhas a comment to Bonnie’s point of view here.
Mr. Williams: Well, a couple of things. One is that the garage does not have to be a detached
structure. So it only has that 75-foot limitation if it is detached from the house. If it is attached
to the house it can still be in the rear half of the lot and fit under the situation. We have seen
homes that do that. We haven’t had, and Lisa and Amy correct me ifI am wrong, I haven’t
heard complaints that this hasn’t worked on certain !ots because of that constraint. The 6ther
component of it is we are going to be talking about substandard lots and it may be that there is a
point at which this is not affective even as a detached garage. I defer to Amy.
Commissioner Packer: For an attached garage you would need a mining radius in order to get in.
I could see it creating all kinds of problems so if we could be a little bit more flexible with this
very rigid 75-foot requirement you would give the builder a little bit more flexibility.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: That is not completely true. If a garage is attached to the structure then
it can’t project into the side yard setback. Whereas if it is detached it can project up to two feet
before the property line, correct?
Ms. Grote: Actually, if it is 75 feet or more back it can be right on the side property line.
Commissioner Lippert: It only requires that it be two feet.
Ms. Grote: Actually they don’t.
Commissioner Lippert: Wait, they require it be a minimum of two feet otherwise you have to
have ....
Ms. Grote: A one-hour ftrewall and many people do that in their detached garages. They put in
one-hour firewalls. The other part of that is the daylight plane and the height limits are intended
to reduce the impacts on neighboring property so that you don’t have a tall structure that is right
on somebody’s property line you have a smaller structure. However it is sitting right there on the
property line and it can produce shade, it can produce other impacts on an adjacent property.
The height and daylight plane were intended to minimize those they don’t eliminate them.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I think this is a real issue that impacts privacy and use of one’s backyard
because there are people and I think Lee mentioned that use these things as their shop. There is a.
house in our neighborhood, newly constructed I think within the last two years, that has the
house sitting right on the back property line. It is a problem. Are we going to address it or just
leave it as it is? I don’t know what your point is, Bonnie.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Packer: I would us to address it and I would like us to consider eliminating that
75 foot requirement and maybe require that in any event no building should be closer than six
feet from the property line or something. I think it really needs to be looked at. I think our
primary policy is not to encourage buildings to be on the property line as opposed to other things.
I don’t know what the 75-foot issue is all about. But if you are going to place that rear building
or that rear garage it should not be in the rear setbacks or side setbacks. If you can’t do that then
you can’t have an accessory structure or you can’t have a rear garage.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Bum Well, I think I might be amenable to not imposing that 75-foot setback but I
wouldn’t be amenable to requiring that a rear garage must have an additional rear setback
beyond what our current code requires. I thought Bonnie’s original proposal had to do with not
requiring that that garage be so far back. But then you just now spoke about doing something
more which was perhaps requiting a side and rear setback for the garage.
Commissioner Packer: No that is not what I meant. I meant that right now there is a 20-foot rear
setback and a six or eight foot side setback. If your property is only 85 feet deep and you have to
put your garage before the 65-foot line in order to not be in the rear setback. The code does not
allow you to do that now. So I was just proposing to eliminate that 75-foot requirement for lots
that are standard between 83 and 99 feet deep. Would that work? Somebody probably has to do
some drawings to make sure that we still have some setback to protect the neighbors.
Commissioner Burt: I would like to ask Staff to clarify the current setback requirements. Then I
would also like to address maybe tNs other issue. Annette was concerned about privacy from
garages being near the rear. If we have privacy issues I would think those could be addressed by
prohibitions of window placement that would be imposing on neighbors. I will just share with
you that my house and my next-door neighbor’s house, which were built in the early 1930s, our
garages are at zero setback on side and rear. It provides privacy rather than detracts from
privacy. Rather than harm my daylight plane that walt bakes and it is the one place I can grow
tomatoes. So it is not necessarily detrimental. I am not wanting to open a big can. of worms here
on this but I do want to say that I am not buying into a concept that by definition these rear
garages are going to intrude on privacy nor on daylight planes, etc. Can Staff clarify what the
current code setbacks are and any variances that are allowed or HIES that are allowed for those?
Ms. Grote: Amy can chime in here too but currently if an accessory building is 75 feet or more
back from the front property line it can be sitting right on the side and rear property line. It
cannot have more than two plumbed fixtures in it. If any accessory building has more than two
plumbing fixtures in it it needs to meet side and rear setbacks that is to prevent living area in a
setback. So if you have a full bathroom and somebody might be in that structure on a fairly
regular or permanent basis it is going to have to meet the setback requirements. If you just have a
sink and toilet or a tub or something like that then with just two plumbed fixtures it can be right
on the property line thinking that people aren’t going to be in there very often.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!1
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
47
48
Commissioner Bialson: We are going to be ultimately getting to the issue of noise generating
equipment and being worried about where that is going to be placed near the property line. My
issue is not so much having people living in these place but the noise generated by individuals
working in them and using them as their shops, using them as their studies but mainly as their
shop. That is the issue that we have going in the neighborhood. That doesn’t bother me because
it is across the street but it really bothers the other neighbors over there.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I think also the intent of keeping it 75 feet back is so that you don’t wind
up with an incredibly deep structure. What individuals would have a tendency of doing is
building something that went up against the rear property line and then brought it in further than
that 75 feet.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Could. I get perhaps clarification from Commissioner Bialson? You are
referencing people using these garages as shops. Are these illegal businesses? What do you
mean by shops?
Commissioner Bialson: A workshop with drills and saws and grinding things. As
Commissioner Burt mentioned they tend to be loud garage stuff. There are quite a few Palo
Altoans who actually do use their hands and. work on these things and find it very relaxing at ten
o’clock at night.
Chair Gfiff: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: In addition to that people use them for everything from playing ping-
pong to doing their laundry in their garage.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: A bell went offin my head a nod from a Staffmember too I think that
using drills and such at ten o’clock at night is a violation of the noise ordinance too.
Commissioner Bialson: Well, you don’t have to take the ten o’clock literally but Saturday
morning going for three or four hours in your backyard right up against your fence is a little bit
of a problem.
Chair-Griffin: I would like a motion on this item. Bonnie you were the one that initiated the
discussion.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I would like to move that Staff provide language in the ordinance that
goes to Council that attempts to address the issue of structures that are of necessity have to be in
the rear setback such as a required rear garage, flexible language about the distance that that
structure must be from the fi:ont property line. The purpose is to avoid having that structure be
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
right on the rear and side property line. I think most of the concern is the rear property line. No,
not substandard lots. Substandard lots I don’t think we have the same issue because substandard
lots do not have the requirement0f the rear garage. I am just talking about the lots that have less
than 100 feet in depth, up to 83 feet because 82 feet is where you have a substandard lot.
Mr. Williams: But it is not a substandard lot unless it is also less than 5,000 square feet. So it
could be 80 feet long and wide enough that it is over 5,000 square feet and it is not a substandard
lot at that point.
Commissioner Packer: Well, just eliminate the words, it is just the depth of the lot that creates
the situation where a building is going to abut.
Mr. Williams: Could we be as specific as saying that if the lot is less than 95 feet in depth and
leave the other accessory language alone but that a garage and maybe even specify not more than
400 square feet must be in the rear half of the lot as opposed to being 75 feet back. That would
assure that at least it is off the street a ways but it doesn’t necessarily push it all the way to the
back. If we define it the garage is really the structure of necessity that we do require to be
pushed back. The reason I suggest some limit on the size is from what Lee was saying you don’t
really want to get it to where it is halfway up the lot and then it goes all the way back to the rear
property line.
Commissioner Packer: Okay, then I am going to rephrase my motion to what Curtis just said.
That for lots that are less than 95 feet deep a rear garage must be in the rear half of the property
and there is no requirement that it be 75 feet from the property line.
Chair Griffin: Do we have a second?
Commissioner Bialson: Is this an amendment to the motion you just made?
Commissioner Packer: It would go in the place where it talks about the placement of rear
garages. Right now it says if the garage isin the setback it has to be 75 feet from the front
property line.
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: I will second that.
Chair Griffin: Has Staff captured that language?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Chair Griffin: We can have some further discussion on this after the seconder has finished his
comments. Pat? No? Then any other comments on it or should we just vote on this item?
Karen.
Commissioner Hotman: I need a little bit of a clarification on this. I am sorry to be the slow one
on this. What we are proposing here on page eight say detached garages shall be located in the
rear half of the site and within a rear or side setback at least 75 feet from the front property line.
City of Palo Alto 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
47
48
So what the motion is proposing is that we not require the 75-foot requirement for lots less than
95 feet. Am I clear on that?
Ms. Grote: That is correct. Instead of requiring the 75 feet of distance we would just say that it
has to be in the rear half of the property and that is only for lots that have 95 feet or less in depth.
Commissioner Holman: One quick question for Staff. Do you foresee any difficulties or
unintended consequences of this?
Ms. Grote: I don’t see any unintended consequences. It will not prevent people from putting
those garages on their rear and side property lines. Just so that you know. It gives .them some
flexibility but it doesn’t prevent them from putting the garages on the rear or side property lines.
Chair Griffin: i thought that was what we trying to do here by the way this motion is stated.
Commissioner Packer: There were two things. I think without this then in some situations they
could not have a garage at all the way this was written because you Were damned if you did and
damned if you didn’t because of that 75 foot requirement. It would force them not to have a-
garage and it would force a variance situation. So this would eliminate that. I will accept the
fact that it may go on the property line because I don’t want to have a long discussion right now
about the pros and cons of having garages on property lines. I don’t think we are up to that right
now and I don’t want to interject a whole new concept. So let’s go with that now and if it comes
to us from the public that we should really address the issue about garages on property lines and
we realize it is a problem then we can deal with it then.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for point of clarification. Do we define anywhere at all "
what minimum separation is? Do we say that a building and an accessory structure need to be a
minimum distance apart?
Ms. Grote: There are a couple of places. In the Uniform Building Code it requires at least six
feet of separation between an accessory structure and the main structure because they will
assume a property line and then three feet on either side of that property line. If it is an
accessory living unit that is detached then there needs to be 12 feet and that’s specified in the
Zoning Ordinance.
MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0, Commissioner Griffin opposed)
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, let’s vote on Bonnie’s motion. All those in favor say aye. (ayes)
Those opposed? (nay) That item does carry with Commissioner Griffin opposed.
Substandard lots and contextual requirements. Would Staff reiterate their recommendation on
this item?
Mr. Williams: .The remaining issue here on substandard lots was whether to eliminate the
contextual requirements. That had been our recommendation last week to eliminate both the
contextual garage and contextual setback requirements and the Commission wanted to go
City of Pa!o Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
through those discussions before doing that. At this point I don’t know that we have any revised
recommendations but we would like to hear if there is still interest in providing for contextual
garage or contextual setbacks.
Commissioner Packer: I think it is a good idea to not require these contextual rear garages
because they may have no place to put it and the contextual front setback there are probably not
too many of these substandard lots that are located 30 feet from the front. So I don’t think we
are going to be creating any problems if we eliminate those requirements for substandard lots.
Commissioner Lippert: I am in agreement with that.
Chair Griffin: Lee, did you have a comment?
Commissioner Lippert: Just that I am in agreement with that.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: This is one where I disagree. I think that eliminating contextual front
setback and garage placement on the substandard lot while it affords some things I think the
negative impact is much greater than the positive outcomes because looking at the substandard
!ot map that was in our Staff Report was quite convincing to me that if we eliminate the
contextual garage placement and contextual front setback for the substandard lots we could
absolutely radically impact the character of some neighborhoods. I disagree with one thing that
John Northway mentioned which was that if you had a lot of them it probably wouldn’t make
any difference. Well, I disagree with that because I think if you have a lot of them you have the
potential for changing whole neighborhoods if we eliminate these contextual placements of both
garages and setbacks. So I disagree with that.
Another situation is where you do have cottage courts. You could again change the whole
character of a cottage court by eliminating these. We have briefly discussed, a couple of us
mentioned garage design and how garage door design could be much improved but we didn’t go
there. We haven’t gone there and probably won’t go there although we could make some
recommendations. There have been improved designs come forward but at this point in time
since we have no purview over that I think the negative impacts of garage doors and garages at
the street as close as in some neighborhoods ten feet could absolutely radically change
neighborhood character. So I think that flies absolutely in the face of the intention of Individual
Review and I can’t support that.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: First as I have stated in some of the previous meetings I am in favor of
creating greater latitude for substandard lots. I think they have real issues that we need to allow
structures to be built on them that have some reasonable accommodation of the needs of the
homeowners. Having said that, and I am open as I have said before even to greater allowance on
a street side yard setbacks than is proposed I am concerned with just cart blanche eliminating any
of the contextual review. I think there are things we need to look at here in particular in College
Terrace where there are so many substandard lots. I am not sure that this has been really fully
thought through.
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Let me ask Staff the two mechanisms that we might use to have some way in which we make
sure that in giving greater latitude we don’t ruin a neighborhood context are whether the IR
Guidelines could be used to address these issues and context and to what extent HIE could.
Could Staff comment on either the present way in which that applies or prospectively how we
might use those tools?
Ms. Grote: The Individual Review Guidelines do address neighborhood context and streetscape
and designing a house that would be compatible with the other surrounding houses. The IR
Guidelines do not specifically talk about front setbacks because those are in the R-1 code. So
there isn’t the ability to vary the front setback or either make it bigger or smaller through the IR
that is in the code requirement. Something that does occur to me and Curtis and Amy may want
to comment on this, in your action on contextual front setback you just recommended that it not
apply unless the setback is 30 feet or more in distance. So that means that a 20-foot setback
applies in other areas. Most of the substandard tots are in areas that have less than 30-foot
setbacks. College Terrace certainly has on average less than a 30-foot setback there may be
some individual examples of greater. So I don’t think you would be changing radically what the
setback would be in an area like that. Also with your last recommendation to allow on shorter
lots, those that are 95 feet or less, to have the detached rear placed garage in the back half of the
lot rather than 75 feet back I think you have allowed some latitude for a substandard lot. So I
don’t think you would be having a negative impact on either front setback or rear placement of
garages. You have just accounted for some of that so I think those would apply to substandard
lots.
Commissioner Burr: A related questions. Annette Glencough had raised the issue and Karen has
had concerns too about where we have cottage court arrangemer~ts but those are not typically R-1
zoned, is that correct?
Ms. Grote: Some of them are R-1 zoned and some of them are R-2. So it varies but there are
some in R-1.
Commissioner Burt: So I am trying to envision in those cottage court arrangements where they
are zoned R-1 how would this play out?
Ms. Grote: We would need to look at what the average setback is. If they are greater than 30
feet in those cottage courts. I don’t think they would be ! think they would be closer than 30 feet
so I think the 20 foot minimum setback would apply.
Commissioner Burt: In a lot of the cottage courts, I think about one I used to live next to, I don’t
know whether it was R-1 or R-2 zonLng it may have very well be R-2, but when they are around
a private little cul-de-sac some of those cottages are near the street and some are well set back.
So I am trying to figure out how this would play out in that circumstance.
Chair Griffin: All right, hang on. Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Casset: The one Annette was talking to the units are very close. The lots are not
only small in width but they are small in depth. The units are probably less than 20 feet. I have
been down that court. The street is very narrow itself and it is a private street.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2 Commissioner Burt: But the bulk of the ones in the City I think are more in these private little
3 cul-de-sacs. I am struggling to envision how this proposal would play itself out in those
4 circumstances.
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
47
Chair Griffin: Can Staff address that please?
Ms. Grote: Again, I think many and I know Commissioner Holman wants to say something but I
think many of those cottage courts have shorter setbacks, shallower setbacks. I don’t think they
are sitting back at 30 feet where this contextual setback would then start to be calculated. I think
anything new or modified would be subject to the 20-foot minimum setback.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: If the setback is less than 30 feet I don’t think there is any problem with
keeping the language the same and so why would we eliminate the contextual front setback?
There is no harm!no foul.
Mr. Williams: That is what we are.saying now I think.
Commissioner Holman: So why eliminate it? I think there are some situations I am thinking of
a couple in College Terrace where I don’t even know how you would calculate the front setback
because the cottages are scattered on a larger property. So I think we don’t eliminate the
contextual front setback because it doesn’t apply if it is less than 25 feet. So I think it is a no
harm/no foul don’t take it away for those situations where it might be of a benefit. That would
be my thought about that.
Then also eliminating contextual garage placement for the situations that Staff explained I agree
that those wouldn’t be problematic but where there are an awful lot of substandard lots that are
25 feet wide. In those situations, and please do correct me if I.am wrong here but, in those
situations if the Commission is going to recommend allowing second habitable floors what you
are going to end up with is garages at the ground level and Individual Review cannot effect
change to that. That is what I am saying is to me a very great difference to neighborhood context
and so it would very negatively to a lot of neighborhoods impact their neighborhood context. So
that is why I can’t support eliminating the contextual garage placement.
Chair Griffin: Could you discuss a little more about you said it will result in garages on the
ground floor?
Commissioner Holman: What will happen is that and there have been applications like this,
what you will end up with on these very narrow lots, interior lots, you will end up with an
application where the garage is on the ground floor, living space is on the second floor. So the
garage will be the streetscape. There is nothing in Individual Review that can prohibit that or
require better-designed garage doors that I am aware of.
Vice-Chair Cassel: But it is a second story unit so it does fall under the IR review process.
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Holman: It does fall under the IR review process but I am not aware of anything
in Individual Review if garage placement is eliminated that would require good garage door
design and again it changes the context because you have essentially a front facing garage in
neighborhoods where previously you likely didn’t.
Chair Griffm: Amy, would you address this please?
Ms. French: Thank you. The two scenarios I wanted to address are a new two story home on a
two story lot through the IR process there would be the opportunity based on the guidelines to
make sure the garage was designed in such a way that it is subordinate even if it is set at the
front, subordinate to the remainder of the house. There are different techniques of doing that. If
it is an existing home with the garage at the front and they are going to add a second story and
they are not proposing to move the garage and it is already at the front I think it is a little more
challenging to make that thing go away but there are some still techniques and the IR process is
the place to do that, to try to minimize the garage as it is placed at the front.
Ms. Grote: To add on to that in fact subsection two of the guideline number ten says,
"Incorporate garage doors that are compatible with the architectural style of the house and/or
contribute to the house’s aesthetic character." So the placement being subordinate and the
garage doors being compatible and contributing to the character of the house I think addresses it
and then new garages following the setback and location of neighboring houses. So I think there
is the ability under IR to address garage placement, design, character and those issues.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would like to make a motion that we include contextua! front setbacks and
do riot include the contextual setbacks for garages.
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: I will second that.
Chair Griffin: Does the maker wish to speak to the motion?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well, for the most part with the line now at 30 feet back most of the very
small lots will not fall under this rule if the neighborhood is involved. If we have a
neighborhood in which they are very far back probably they will not be as impacted. Garage
placement on the very small lots is very difficult and it is very difficult to place them in the back.
Review can be done through the IR process and gooddesign can go in as other people have
discussed earlier this evening. A two-story unit would in fact trigger that. IR process.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Packer: I agree with what Phyllis said and we have to keep in mind that the
substandardlots all have different shapes. They are not all the typical rectangular lots. So we
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
47
48
have to allow some flexibility visa-vie the garage placement and eliminating the contextual
requirements for those garage placements does that.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I am going to support the motion but I would like to ask if the maker would
be willing to accept a friendly amendment. That is a request that Staff add a greater evaluation
of how these guidelines would impact cottage court substandard lots as part of next year’s IR
review because I don’t think we have really evaluated this in depth. I am hoping ~ve are getting
it right tonight but I don’t feel comfortable that I know that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes, I will do that.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Packer: Yes.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I will be voting against the motion partly because I voted against
allowing having second habitable floors on the substandard lots anyway so it would not make
sense for me to support this but also because I do have issue with the contextual garage
placement being eliminated. I think this is one where probably the community should be invited
to weigh in because I think the impact can be quite significant.
MOTION PASSED (5-2-0-0 Commissioners Holman and Griffin opposed)
Chair Griffin: I am going up the desk here, Lee? I am not going to support the motion either and
I largely agree with Commissioner Holman’s comments. I am concerned about adversely
affecting neighborhood context in those neighborhoods that have a large proportion or a larger
proportion of these substandard lots. Let’s vote this item now.
All those in favor of the motion say aye (ayes) Opposed? (nays) That motion does carry with
Commissioners Holman and Griffin opposed.
We are finished up now with the substandard lots and contextual requirements and we are now
moving to location of service equipment. Would Staff reiterate their recommendation, please?
Mr. Williams: Our recommendation on the bottom of page nine of the clean version of the
ordinance, Exhibit A. It is the same page on both documents. Generally requires that noise
producing equipment like air conditioners and pool equipment and generators be situated out of
the front and side yard setbacks that also where a rear yard setback backs up to a side yard which
happens not too infrequently that the equipment be setback at least six feet there to provide a
similar distance from the equipment to the house as you would have with the side yard situation.
Then it also provides that the Planning Director may determine that the location is not practical
outside of the required setbacks and allow the equipment to be located in the side yard if
measures such as enclosing the unit or adding additional screening are taken to reduce the noise
levels to the satisfaction of the DireCtor.
City of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
You have a letter today I think from Enid Pearson that came to you that elaborated a little bit on
her suggestions that she made last week at the meeting. We just saw it late in the day as well but
she also made some suggestions regarding setting back pools more than the required six feet at
the rear yard. I think she suggested a ten foot setback and that the equipment that they be
soundproofed and totally enclosed where they are in the setback. I think we probably could
concur with doing the noise proofing, perhaps some requirement that says that generally they are
outside the rear setback but if they aren’t if they need to be there then the Planning Director has
that discretion to allow them up to six feet away. with the noise proofing of the equipment.
Chair Griffin: I have a question of Staff. I don’t have a swimming pool and I am not up to date
on noise abatement and soundproofing techniques for the water pumps. Is such a thing available
on the market today? Can you get noise attenuation products that you can surround pumps with
for example?
Mr. Williams: I don’t know if anyone here is more of a technical expert than I and I am not
much of one on this subject but I do know that there are enclosures for most equipment that can
help substantially reduce the noise. They do not in all cases completely enclose the equipment
though. There is equipment that needs venting and such so you can’t always do that. But you
can substantially reduce the noise with some level of enclosure I just wouldn’t suggest that you
ask that they always be totally enclosed because that is not realistic.
Chair Griffin: The same question really applies to enclosures around air conditioning condensers
and fan units, which don’t in my experience normally have any kind of enclosures on them and
yet presumably would benefit from that sort of thing. We don’t have any comments or any
expertise tonight to discuss that?
Mr. Williams: I don’t think we do. I know I have seen air conditioners enclosed with fencing
they weren’t covered but they were enclosed to a height higher than the air conditioning unit
itself and then one of the fences served as a gate for access for maintenance purposes and that
was helpful. Again, I can’t tell you how many decibels were lost from that.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Going back to John Northway’s comments earlier this evening I think
that what this board needs to do is to define really what the problem is. The problem really is
one of noise and that it really doesn’t make a difference where the piece of equipment is located
on the property as long as the noise and the STC and the decibel ratings are properly handled.
What I would recommend that we do is ask Staff to do some research with regard to equipment
and that equipment that operates within a certain range is permitted within the side yard setback
and equipment that isn’t has to be properly screened and dealt with with proper sound
attenuation or it can’t be located in these setbacks.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. I find your idea appealing, Lee, but I am wondering about
how We could enforce that sort of regulation. Sometimes manufacturers will give us the decibel
level of their equipment also equipment deteriorates over time and the decibel level changes. I
City of Palo Alto Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
have had some experience with that. So I have that problem with it. I just don’t know how long
we could rely on that.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I concur with Commissioner Bialson’s comments. The problem is as
Commissioner Bialson did say that equipment does get older, it gets louder. I don’t want to
repeat everything she said. The issue is also that as an example my neighbor and I both have
cottages behind our houses and they are nonconforming rear setbacks. There was a pool being
put in behind us recently and the homeowner happened to be an acquaintance of my next door
neighbor and very graciously agreed not to put the service equipment for the pool at the rear
property line. This would be our rear property lines as well. It would have made rentability of
our cottages much less desirable if we had noise right up against that fence. That is one example.
There are many others.. I gave a couple of others last week but that is one example. So there is a
real problem ,out there and it isn’t just rear property lines where they abut side property lines
although that is one issue. It is also rear property lines abutting rear property lines. I have a
motion but I won’t make it until other people have a chance to comment.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: The noise ordinance itself was being updated by the Police Department. Do
you know where that is and how this fits into that?
Ms. Grote: All of these pieces of equipment are subject to the noise ordinance. I don’t have the
noise ordinance in front of me but we have it over here on the comer of the table. I believe it is
six DBs above the local ambient measured at the property plane. So any piece of equipment
cannot be above six DB above the ambient or more than six DB above the ambient. If there is a
violation the police will come and investigate. There are some issues with that but they are
available to come out and do a noise reading. The ordinance is not currently being updated. It is
on the Police Department’s work program it is not currently being worked on but it will.be in the
furore.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I was going to say that there are ways of monitoring this with noise
meters and civil penalties can be issued for people that are not in compliance. That has to do
with equipment whether it is grandfathered in or not, whether it is new equipment or equipment
that has been around since the turn of the century.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: A couple of comments. One is I think that we do eventually need to move
toward something that becomes more quantitative but is easily enforceable and this noise
ordinance has not been easily enforceable. Second, sixty DBs a few feet from your bedroom
window on a hot night when you don’t have an air conditioner and need your window open is
loud and is a problem for people. So I would like us to at this time require that there be some
level of enclosure and insulation although in answer to Michael’s earlier question pumps need
ventilation. You have to have some level and so I would also recommend that that vent side,
City of Pa!o Alto 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
which is going to be the noisier side not be facing the neighbor it be facing the property owner,
face inward on the property to minimize the imposition on the neighbors. If somebody wants a
pump and has one side of that that is too loud for them to tolerate on their own property then I
am sure it is too loud for the neighbors to tolerate. Then in addition I think that these units
should not be allowed to be located in the setbacks. So if we required enclosures with Staff
needing to set some minimum standards on what those enclosures and insulation would be like I
don’t think we can do that tonight and prohibit the units from being located within the setbacks
then I think those would be two steps in the right direction. Then in the future hopefully
something will come back to us that will move toward a quantitative and readily enforceable
standard. I would also like, in the future, to be able to look at what might be reasonable
constraints on air conditioning units as well but I don’t think we can dive into that tonight.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
MOTION
Commissioner Holman: I have a motion to make looking at page nine, Location of Service
Equipment. All noise producing equipment such as air conditioners, pool equipment, generators,
commercial kitchen fans and similar service equipment shall be located outside of the front and
side yard and rear setbacks, that equipment be insulated and housed and that replacement
equipment be made conforming where practically possible. Then pick up the last sentence in the
ordinance as it is written here, all service equipment must meet the City Noise Ordinance
Chapter 9.10.
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: I will second that.
Chair Griffin: Would the maker speak to her motion and perhaps elaborate a little bit. I didn’t
have an oppommity to cross out all of the text that you were rattling through there so if you
could work on that that would be helpful.
Commissioner Holman: Sure I Will restate that. On the third line down after ’side yard,’ I am
adding. ’and rear setbacks.’ Then I am eliminating the copy that starts, "such equipment may."
So that copy through, "Director" on the next to the last line of copy is eliminated. Then the last
sentence is retained.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am sorry, I am still lost. Go back to where you started eliminating stuff.
Chair Griffin: So you are largely vacating most of the text then ifI understand it.
Commissioner Holman: I am. One more time here. Third line down, "located outside the front
and side yard" I am adding ’and rear setbacks.’ I am going to do this in two steps here. then I
am eliminating all of the copy that starts, "Such equipment may." All of the copy then is
eliminated down to the next to the last line of the ordinance as written on page ten until we pick
up the sentence, "All service equipment must meet the City Noise Ordinance Chapter 9.0." So is
everybody clear on what I am eliminating?
City of Palo Alto Page 40
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
47
48
Then I am adding also outside of the setbacks I am adding that equipment be insulated and
housed and that replacement equipment be made conforming where practically possible. That is
my motion. Commissioner Burt, are you clear and still seconding?
Chair Griffin: Commissioner would you speak in support of your motion now?
Commissioner Holman: Yes. This is a situation that I have experienced many places around
town, almost experienced it myself and I have experienced this community getting louder in
many arenas in the last handful of years. As Commissioner Burt mentioned having this
equipment in a setback a few feet from one’s bedroom window is really intolerable and there are
a lot of nonconforming situations out there in terms Of setbacks for buildings where people do
have their bedrooms or whatever. It would be mostly bedrooms that would be the most
egregious near setbacks.
The other aspect of this is that while equipment does have tO satisfy the noise ordinance there
still is a pretty significant impact by ambient noise. We are subjected to that a lot. If you run a
vacuum cleaner that is not very loud but if you have a vacuum cleaner running just a few feet
from where you’re existing indoors or outdoors and it is running for three hours at a time it is a
significant impact to you.
The other point that I would make is that these are amenities that we are talking about here and it
is the impact of the amenity that I believe the property owner should be dealing with and not the
neighbors.
Chair Griffin: Seconder.
Commissioner Burt: I will just share a personal experience, 25-plus years ago we rented a
cottage at a beautiful home in Los Altos and they had a pool and had a pump there. That pump
conformed to all of these recommendations and it was not an imposition on the homeowners and
it worked well for the neighbors and it worked well for the resident there. I don’t think there is
any big problem with Palo Alto catching up to Los Altos 25 years later.
Chair Griffin: Hard for me to argue that point. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question and I don’t know if it is for Karen and/or Staff about
the phrase about the replacement equipment. If you replace equipment you are not going
through the zoning code so I don’t know how that can be enforced or whether that is appropriate
in the zoning code if anybody would even know that. I agree with the concept but I don’t know
that this is the place to put in the issue about replacing the equipment if that is all a person is
doing.
Mr. Dan Soder~ren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys: I think it would be covered under our
existing nonconforming uses and non-complying facilities provisions of our Zoning Ordinance if
you did change it to require screening. So when you did go to replace it you would have to
comply with the higher standards under these provisions is my understanding.
Commissioner Packer: If you replace an air conditioner or pump would you be going to the
Building Department? How would anybody even know?
City of Palo Alto 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
47
48
Mr. Sodergren: Right.
Commissioner Packer: That is my question.
Ms. Grote: Sometimes people do come to the Building Division to replace equipment because
they are upgrading it. Hopefully they are using new equipment which is quieter but they may be
adding equipment, they may be adding a spa to a pool, they.may be doing something that will
upgrade that piece of equipment then Building does notify us. If it is a straight one for one
replacement we may not be notified because they don’t need more electrical service, they don’t
need more of anything so they don’t have to come get a building permit. We wouldn’t know
about those.
Chair Griffin: Frequently when suppliers in the industry are aware of city ordinances they wil!
advise homeowners that certain requirements are there and have to be met and fi:anldy there is a
valid marketing reason why they are encouraged to remind homeowners of the rules and that is
helpful in this regard.
Ms. Grote: Right. I have actually very recently had a conversation with an air conditioning
supplier and he is very aware of the setback requirements and other types of requirements and
using new equipment and he is following this closely as a matter of fact. So yes, they do know.
Chair Griffin: Actually I wanted to go down the line here so that everybody gets a chance to
chip in on this. Lee, were you the next one?
Commissioner Lippert: Actually, what Lisa Grote said is true. Technically if you were to
replace an outlet in your house the electrician has to go and pull a trade permit for that work. He
just can’t show up at your house and do it.
I am not in support of this motion. Part of it has to do with not what is trying to be accomplished
here and I don’t want to be obstructionist here. I think that the reality is that equipment is
becoming far more efficient, it is becoming far more electronic, it is moving further and further
away from the noise rattling or loudness that we have associated with equipment and I don’t
believe that it should be this restrictive or draconian for equipment that can make the noise
ordinance and able to keep it under the decibel level of comfort. Part of living in an urban
environment like Palo Alto is that there are ambient noises that we hear throughout the
neighborhood and it is a reality of living in a community. One of the things that I do want to say
is that I live adjacent to a property owner who has a couple of dogs and the dogs bark incessantly
through the night and I find that far more annoying than say the hum of my next door neighbor’s
air conditioner or fan. I believe that there are other ways of handling this noise ordinance.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I am sort of torn by this because on a philosophical level Iabsolutely
with whoever gets the benefit of an amenity should suffer the consequences of it. So I would
like to see that happen. I am still wresting with that. I couldn’t get all the language you were
putting in here Karen. Are you still dealing with the issue that Staff has where it says if visible
from offsite the equipment shall be screened or fenced from view? I know you struck it, did
City of Pa!o Alto Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
!0
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
47
48
your modification address it in some other way because that is something that we do need to
happen there.
Commissioner Holman: I had added language that said that equipment be insulated and housed.
Commissioner Bialson: That is not quite the same thing I don’t think as I read screening.
Commissioner Holman: I agree with the intention of what you are saying. Is there a difference
from Staff’s perspective of screening and housed being different?
Commissioner Bialson: We have fenced from view and you don’t say view in your motion. So
you would have a housing there but that is still not screened.
Commissioner Burt: IfI might say I don’t think you can house it without it being screened.
Ms. Grote: I think the fencing and the screening was intended to be more open. It wasn’t
intended necessarily to be a structure around the piece of equipment. I would consider housing
to be a structure around the piece of equipment whereas fencing and screening could be
surrounding the equipment but it doesn’t cover it. So it leaves that open to the air possibility
whereas a housing unless it is slatted may not leave that possibility. It is a small difference but a
difference.
Commissioner Holman: My intention was.
Commissioner Bialson: May i ask Lisa in saying that so when we say housed we are actually
being more demanding than the screening or fencing from view but it would accomplish the
same thing, is that correct?
Ms. Grote: I would say it implies an enclosure where as fencing and screening does not imply an
enclosure.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I want to vote against this. I think that requiring that this always be back
from all of the setbacks is going to put a great imposition on people’s whose houses are actually
set in the back and have no setback except the 20 foot setback and the side setbacks. It is going
to make it extremely difficult for them. I think this is very harsh.
Chair Griffin: I will be supporting the motion. As I previously indicated I have personal
experience.with air conditioners in the side yard setback. I think that the language that Karen has
proposed this evening deals with a very live and real problem that has existed for years and we
have ducked it Palo Alto. Whereas as Pat pointed out in Los Altos they dealt with it years ago
where admittedly the population of pool equipment is considerably larger than it is in our town.
Nevertheless I think it is time that Palo Alto stepped up and dealt with these noise generators in a
proactive manner. I will be supporting the motion. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I will not be supporting the motion. I think that the language that is in
here, which I think, is the language that has been in the ode for some time, is that correct or is
City of Palo Alto Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41-
42
43
44
45
46
47
this all new? Well, whatever it is I think it attempts to address the issues of various different
kinds of equipment. It addresses the issue of noise and maybe could be tightened up a little bit
but I don’t want to eliminate it completely because it would eliminate the possibility of people
having pools if they want or air conditioners if it can’t be in the rear setback, at all. As Phyllis
pointed out there are a lot of places where their whole backyard is the 20-foot rear yard setback.
So I think the existing language does help address the noise issue and complaints to the Police
Department might help address it, working with neighbors might help alleviate some of the
concerns that others are having.
Chair Griffin: I think we are about ready to vote on this item but I saw Karen and then Annette
and maybe we will vote at that point.
Commissioner Holman: There are possibilities for locating equipment that could be inside a
garage or tangent to a garage or tangent to the back of a house they don’t have to be in the rear
setback. A personal experience several years ago my then husband and I bought a substandard
lot, put a hot mb in and we did not put the equipment in the setback. It was outside the setback.
We dealt with it fine and the neighbors were pleased that we did do that. So I think there are
other.ways to deal with this besides having to put it in the rear setback. Also some properties
just aren’t, going to be big enough to have a pool anyway and if the only way that a pool can be
put in is to be serviced by equipment that is in a setback maybe that property can’t have a pool.
But I don’t think that is the case. It is more likely just where you put it if it is inside a garage or
tangent to a building.
The other point about a complaint basis as far as noise is concerned it is an expensive proposition
for the City, it is a neighbor complaining about a neighbor because it is equipment that is in place
it is a repeat violation so it is a repeat complaint by a neighbor against a neighbor. That really
engenders bad relations in a neighborhood so I don’t think that is a way to mediate or mitigate
noise impacts in a neighborhood.
Chair Griffin: Finally, Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Question for Staff and I do see Curtis wanting to speak so I think we
should give him an oppommity. I will let you answer my question. In this language here
Director determines the location is not practical, I take it this means that notice is not given to the
neighbor that there is an issue such as this being decided by the Director, which would have an
impact on their enjoyment of their property.
Mr. Williams: That is the case the way it is written now. That was one of my questions is there
are going to be instances as a couple of Commissioners have mentioned where nonconforming
homes encroach into setbacks already and maybe a pool isn’t what we are talking about maybe
we are talking about an air conditioner or we are talking about replacing a trait that is in a
setback already that needs some way out and that is what this language would do. It is that
flexibility for the Director to make that determination in some cases. So I think we are a little
concerned about that. Then I just wanted a clarification that there wasn’t an issue with the street
side setback it seemed to us to be an opportunity in some cases to have some equipment that gets
farther away from neighbors than putting it next to your house and outside the rear setback. So
is that still, if you don’t want to go there that’s fine but I just want to clarify that. That is why we
City of Palo Alto Page 44
1 had some encroachment there was because it seemed like that could in many cases be the best
2 solution.
3
4 Chair Griffin: In a residential neighborhood to put noise generating equipment in the front.
5
6 Mr. Williams: On the street side yard setback between the ten and 16 foot basically. There is
7 the 16-foot setback and no closer than 10 feet I think we said but in that area.
8
9 Ms. Grote: And always screened.
10
11 Commissioner Bialson: Can I ask about that?
12
13 Chair Griffin: Yes, Annette.
14
15 Commissioner Bialson: So you are saying in that situation of an air conditioning unit rather than
16 a poo! you use the front setback and screen it? I do not quite understand what you are saying.
17
18 Ms. Grote: It would be the street side setback so it is the longer of the two setbacks on a corner
19 lot. Only on a corner lot. In many cases that is the setback that is furthest away from an adjacent
20 property. If it is always screened that minimizes the impact.
21
22 Chair Griffin: Karen.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Question for Commissioner Bialson. Is your concern that the
25 equipment is or would be or could be allowed or should be allowed in the street side setback?
26
27 Commissioner Bialson: No to any of those. I agree with Staffthat in those very few cases where
28 you have a corner lot, yes, it doesn’t bother me that we would put it in the street side setback. I
29 think that that would be perfectly all right. I think it reinforces that the intent of this section
30 should it pass is to shield neighbors from the noise. So I think it would be overkill for us to also
31 prescribe the use of the street side setback.
32
33 Chair Griffin: Karen.
34
35 Commissioner Holman: So is there a mechanism by which I can amend my own motion?
36
37 Chair Griffin: It is easier if someone else does.
38
39 Commissioner Bialson: I ask that you make a friendly amendment to it, which allows the use of
40 this language. In other words the phrase, ’such equipment may be located up to six feet into a
41 street side setback.’ The second sentence is, "Such equipment may however," and then you
42 strike the next line and the line following that to the comma following ’line,’ and add, ’maybe
43 located up to six feet into a street side setback.’ Is that okay? Do you get it?
44
45 Commissioner Holman: I don’t find it but I get it and that is acceptable to me and we are
46 assuming it is still housed and insulated.
47
48 Commissioner Burt: That is acceptable to the seconder as well.
City of Palo Alto Page 45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
I5
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
47
48
1
2 MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0, Commissioners Lippert, Packer and Cassel opposed)
3
4 Chair Griffin: Excellent. I think we are now ready to vote on this enhanced item.
5
All those in favor of Karen’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) We have three opposed,
Commissioners Lippert, Cassel and Packer. The motion does carry however.
The next item at 10:30 is format. Would Staff make some comments on the recommendation,
please?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Commissioner Packer has suggested a number of format changes to the
ordinance and we have made some of those changes and have not made some others. We did
discuss this with the subcommittee and sent Commissioner Packer a response. We have tried to
summarize in Attachment I to the Staff Report, which is what those changes were. They involve
generally rearranging some of the order of the items. I think the most significant one which we
found was particularly useful is we have created a table of the FAR what is included and what is
excluded and added that right after the development table since this is sort of a self contained
chapter we felt that was appropriate to have that explanation not only in the definitions but also
elaborated on with the table in the ordinance directly. So there again generally some formatting
changes. We haven’t heard if Commissioner Packer has some additional suggestions or wants to
pursue some of the other items that we didn’t include but we are comfortable with the way it is
now. I think in general we thought her suggestions were very good. There were some of them
however that we felt like once we started plugging them in that way started to create other
problems and confusion in terms of the order of and sequence of the topics.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, would you care to respond to Staffs comments?
Commissioner Packer: I want to thank Staff for thinking that my suggestions had merit. I feel
honored by that. I do think when I read over the ordinance it seemed to flow a little bit better
and would be more understandable. I could follow it a little bit better. So thank you very much
and I don’t have any problems with the suggestions that you didn’t incorporate. I am sure it was
for good reasons. So that you very much for all your efforts.
Chair Griffin: Curtis, tell us do we need a formal motion on this to make these item stick
properly?
Mr. Williams: I guess I would just ask you if anybody has any problems with it. If you don’t we
will assume that we can move forward with it.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners? Evidently not. So that then moves us on to the Other category.
Mr. Williams: We have three topics initially listed in this category for you and then
Commissioners may have others. The first oneis Small Retail Markets. There is a
Comprehensive Plan policy that says that we should explore the possibility of allowing small
retail markets in residential areas. It doesn’t specifically say R-1 as opposed to multi family
residential or anything else. Our feeling is that we ought to have this discussion at the point
where we are talking about neighborhood convenience retail uses and seeing at point if when we
City of Palo Alto Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
start looking at that if there appears to still be a neeg. If areas seemed to generally be served by
that or if there still seems to be a need to try to plug something into residential zones and if so,
which residential areas might be appropriate to do that.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to add that if we do come back to this under the
neighborhood commercial that there is another category of prospective locations which in fact
may be the most likely and that could be on some PF lands. The last mom and pop we had
basically in residential areas was the Greasy Spoon Snack Shack that we had at the Rincinada
pool. That is on publicparkland and had been there for 40 or 50 years and those people retired
and was taken over as a storage facility. Then we had a little coffee cart over at the art and
culture center. So some of the most likely places might be other than R-1 or some other
applications. I just wanted to make sure that we included those in our considerations.
Chair Griffin: Co!leagues, further comments? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I agree w.ith Staff’s recommendation that we consider this at a later date.
I just wanted to comment that I think when I first started getting involved in all this business and
the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee in my idealistic days I thought wouldn’t it be nice
if we had some morn and pop shops in our all R-1 neighborhood. As I have grown up the past
ten years I could see how potentially problematic that would be from the neighbor’s perspective
though, what they would see in terms of their perceptions of traffic generated. There were some
sites that were empty and we thought that would be a great comer to have a morn and pop but
then I realize that that would never fly. I don’t know if it is economically viable. I don’t know if
there are a lot of retail establishments that would even want to do that because there isn’t the foot
traffic in these R-1 neighborhoods. I like Pat’s idea of the parks and the community centers
having something like that but in R-1 neighborhoods I can’t see it happening but we will
postpone that discussion.
Chair Griffin: Let’s hear Karen first and then I will pick up Pat and then Phyllis.
Commissioner Holman: Just very briefly I think the small retail markets may engender a vision
of a 5,000 square foot market and I think along the lines of what Commissioner Burr was just
saying and what my thought has been about this for some time is that that’s not what likely we
would be able to produce without getting some fairly significant comments about the impacts of
those. But if we are looking at these smaller little kiosk or that sort of size project then I think
we could absolutely, positively impact neighborhood walkability and reduce car trips and
enhance park usage and PF usage. The other thing I would say is that I was told a long time ago
and have been told several times that Piazza’s Market when they went in polled the
neighborhood as to what they wanted to see carried at their market and that market has been
incredibly successful. I think that model could be fo!1owed by someone who wanted to be
entrepreneurial and setup this kind of establishment in neighborhoods. That would again lead to
walkability and reducing car trips.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
City of Palo Alto Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: I will just add to that that seven years ago when University South did a
visioning for the SOFA area one of the parts of a very extensive questionnaire that was done was
whether the neighborhood would like to see a mom and pop and what sorts of services were
there. Out of that came kind of a new definition of a morn and pop for the 1990s as opposed to
one that has kind of expired. The ones that remain today are ones that have a business model
from the 1950s and people didn’t want to just get milk and bread but they also wanted a croissant
and cappuccino and New York Times and fax paper and a floppy disc. So the point being that if
we want these in our neighborhoods and we often want them in our neighborhoods we just don’t
want them next door that we as a City may want to look at how we can help make these small
micro business models. I think it needs some fresh thinking and there is some groundwork that
was done on it.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: In the interest of moving forward I would like to move the recommendation
of Staff that we discuss this further under the neighborhood commercial area. This is all fun
discussion but there is some important material left to do this evening.
Chair Griffin: Second?
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Griffin: Have we discussed this sufficiently maker and seconder? All right. All those in
favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? The item carries unanimously.
Setbacks and allowable floor area. Staff.
Mr. Williams: This is an issue that Commissioner Holman has brought up about suggesting that
the criteria for setbacks and floor area be addressed for the R-1 zone. She can speak to the
intent. Our understanding is that it primarily relates to second stories and massiveness of houses.
Our position on this for some time has been that the Single Family Advisory Committee did
consider those issues and that they determined that the appropriate way to address that at least for
the time being is the IR process. I think we have consistently indicated that that R-1 process, the
Single Family Advisory Committee process was going to feed into this ordinance that we
weren’t going to try to revisit some of those basic criteria. So our suggestion is not to undertake
that analysis at this point in time but to continue to work with the IR process and see where.that
is in a few more years.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Since I am the one that brought this up I will speak to it. I do
appreciate that the Single Family Advisory Committee did not go to FAR and setbacks. That is
City of Palo Alto Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
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
47
48
also not a group that wanted to broach that subject. I did not ever understand that that meant
that, partly because of a time issue they felt that would protract the process, it was my
understanding as I visited several of those meetings, that did not from my understanding before
or since mean that as a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update we wouldn’t be allowed an
oppommity to address setbacks and FAR. So as far as my understanding is that they are still on
the table. I would also suggest that there have been comments and even suggestions made by
Commissioners with no negative comment from Staff in addressing setback changes. So it
would seem to me that we are either addressing setbacks or we are not. Setbacks are either on
the table or they are not. So I am confused by that. It seems it is an inconsistency to me and I
communicated this to Staff so they are not surprised by my comments here. So I am not
surprising them with anything. Anyway, that is my perspective.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: As a matter of principle I agree with Commissioner Holman first that my
understanding from how the IR review committee first represented their work back three or four
years ago that they had deliberately avoided addressing those issues because they thought that
they were too contentious and essentially beyond the scope of the committee and that a Zoning
Ordinance Update should certainly have within its scope of appropriate considerations FAR and
setbacks. That is pretty fundamental to residential issues. Having said that, I don’t have an
inclination to change those other than the discussion that I hope we yet have on the comer lot
issues. I don’t personally have as of right now any inclination to desire changesin those FARs
or setbacks for standard Iots: I think that as a matter of principle if we are going to say that it is
appropriate to discuss setbacks for comer lots if the Commissioners felt that it was appropriate to
review and change setbacks for other lots then that is part of the ZOU. I don’t in particular have
an inclination or a need to change those but I do want to discuss the comer lots and we ought to
be consistent on just saying what is in proper scope.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: I want to make a motion that we do not consider setbacks other than the
specific one that Pat was talking about and do a general reassessmentof setbacks or the FAR at
this time.
Chair Griffin: Do we have a second? Bonnie?
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: I will second.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis would you like to speak to your motion?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I went back and read all of the issues that had been discussed that were of
concern to people that were raised by members of the City Council, members of this
Commission, members of the general public-and all of the subcommittees and these issues did
not come up in any of those. They did not come up in subtle ways as well as a straightforward
City of Pa!o Alto Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
issue. So I felt that was not the issue that we needed to deal with on the table. I think it is fair
that anyone who has a concern on the zoning issues that they wish to discuss should be brought
forward and we should make a decision on whether we would like to handle it or not. If the City
Council decides they want to add that into the Zoning Ordinance discussion that is their privilege
to do that and of course it is ours too but I don’t feel that we ought to be discussing that at this
time. I don’t think there is a lot of grolmd swell for trying to do that in any way and I think the
concerns that people had of mass and streetscape we have been working very hard to deal with
through the IR process.
Chair Griffin: Seconder.
Commissioner Packer: I agree with what Phyllis said and I just wanted to say that the setbacks
in this built up community are part of our fabric. People kind of know that they live in a
neighborhood that has eight-foot side setback or a six-foot. To start changing those now would
probably cause a minor revolution. Likewise with FAR; there is an expectation of what you can
build to. I assume that any change might want to make it less and again my suspicion is that
would create a minor revolution as well. Since we haven’t had a ground swell of people saying
there is a problem here and we need to fix it by changing the setbacks and changing the FAR
let’s not look atit at this time. We can invite the public to let us know if they think there is a
problem. If it comes to us well then we will look at it that is our job.
Chair Griffin: All fight, colleagues, any other comments on this item? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I do hear frequently from members of the community how setbacks
more especially but also FAR does need to be addressed. On my own by myselfI am not
capable of making, I have some suggestions, but I wouldn’t be feeling competent to make
particular recommendations. One suggested one would be for exploration would be to increase
the side setbacks on lots wider than say 75 foot frontages because I think that absolutely does
when you have two story homes on such wide lots and they build setback to setback I think it
does absolutely produce structures that are pretty massive in appearance and I think that is one
way that could be addressed here. I don’t know how the vote is going to go on the Commission
but I think it is something that should be explored and we have done no exploration of it
whatsoever and I am in disagreement with that.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Well, I think that that one sub-issue may be one that is appropriate for
consideration when we are going to be looking at the corner lot setbacks the proposal that Mr.
Neuman had made that I find very intriguing has to do with proportionality. I can think of a
construction that I had just recently seen where it was a wide lot and the design hadchosen to be
all the way out on the front edge to edge and it just looks massive. It may not in fact be allowed
under our current IR guidelines but the permitting may have been grandfathered. So I think
that’s a valid concept and a concern from a design standpoint. If you have a very wide lot should
it be the same eight-foot setback as if you have a standard lot. But what I would like to do is ask
Staff is that in any way addressed under IR guidelines in the streetscape context? If you had an
exceptionally wide lot would there be any inclination under the IR guidelines to say that you
shouldn’t have a street facing mass that goes all the way out to your minimum setback?
City of Palo Alto Page 50
1 Ms. Grote: Again, we would probably look for other solutions than reducing the building
2 envelope. We wouldn’t necessarily be able to reduce the side setback through the Individual
3 Review Guidelines. We could look for design solutions to the massing issue or the compatibility
4 issue but there is nothing in the guidelines that would say a less than allowed setback should be
5 imposed.
6
7 MOTION PASSED (5-2-0-0 Commissioners Holman and Burt opposed)
8
9 Chair Griffin: I am wondering if we could vote on this item now. So all those in favor of
10 Phyllis’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nays) That item passes with Commissioners
11 Holman and Burt in opposition.
12
13 Commissioner Butt: May I state for the record the basis for my opposition?
14
15 Chair Griffin: I thought you already had.
16
17 Commissioner Burr: I just want to make clear that the only issue that I think the Commission
18 may benefit from additional consideration is this concept of proportional setback for
19 exceptionally wide lots.
20
21 Chair Griffin: Got it. Staff are we finished or do we have anything else to clean up?
22
23 Mr. Williams: You are finished with our list but there is the issue of the comer lots and I also
24 heard I think Karen had issues with the maximum lot size lot merger issue. I don’t know if you
25 want to address what John Northway was discussing as well.
26
27 Chair Griffin: I am wondering if we have a motion to continue these items and discuss them at a
28 date certain. Annette.
29
30 MOTION
31
32 Commissioner Bialson: Oddly enough I have just that motion.
33
34 Chair Griffin: At five minutes to eleven I am not surprised.
35
36 Commissioner Bialson: Do you want me to restate it although I think you stated it very well?
37
38
39
40
41 --
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Griffin: Do we havea second?
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: I’I1 second.
Chair Griffin: Moved and seconded.
Vice-Chair Cassel:We need a date certain.
City of Palo Alto Page 51
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
47
48
Ms. Grote: I wouldrecommend August 4. That is a special meeting but we were going to just
ask and poll the Commissioners if you are available for a special meeting on August 4. It would
be to cover other low-density districts that would be the R-2, RMD and RE districts. Before
getting into that discussion wecould continue this discussion.
Chair Griffin: All right. All those in favor of the continuation to the August 4 meeting?
Commissioner Packer: Have we polled to see if we have enough Commissioners for that date? I
know I cannot be there.
Ms. Grote: That would be your first step is to poll the Commissioners to see if there is a quorum
for the August 4 meeting. Then if there is whether or not you want to continue this item to that
date.
Commissioner Bialson: I am not available.
Chair GriNn: Then I will poll Commissioners. Who cannot make the August 4 meeting? We
have only two that will be absent consequently we do have a quorum.
Commissioner Burt: Even though we do have a quorum I think it would be beneficial if we were
able to schedule a date where we can have as much of a full Commission as possible. I don’t
¯ know if that is possible but it certainly would be preferable. I see that we don’t have August 18
as a scheduled date.
Vice-Chair Cassel: We have already been polled and we can’t hold a meeting that day because
we don’t have enough Commissioners.
Chair Griffin: So consequently.
Commissioner Burt: And the 25t~ you are out? We would have six, is that correct on the 25t~?
Chair Griffin: Yes that is what it looks as if. Lee, you have a comment?
Commissioner Lippert: What about a special meeting starting at 6:00 PM? Can we get the work
done in an hour?
Chair Griffin: The meeting on the 11th, Staffyou were in the process of changing that around a
little bit were you not?
Ms. Grote: On the 11tu there are two majoritems scheduled. One is a PC, Planned Community
request on Park Boulevard the other is the first time you will hear the Zoning Ordinance off-
street parking and loading requirements discussion. So those are two fairly major items.
Vice-Chair Cassel: And you really do need to have us meet on August 4 to discuss the low-
density materials because you are trying to get the stuff ready for City Council in the fall.
Ms. Grote: The low-density material would be discussed on August 4, right.
City of Palo Alto Page 52
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
47
48
Chair Griffin: Staff, are you trying to get the low-density material in with the R-1 to go to
Council with? Is there some kind of a timing issue or do we have to worry about that?
Mr. Williams: We don’t have a specific Council timing issue we just have everything gets
pushed back if we can’t move that forward. All the other topics keep getting pushed back if we
have to push that to the 11tu and then move parking back and then move other things back.
Chair Griffin: Personally, I am goodto go with August 4 although clearly I am open to a motion
if someone wishes to make a motion that we have a full compliment, make the motion now.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will make a motion that we meet on August 4. I will be very disappointed
to have to important members of our Commission not there but I think we at least have to get the
introductory materia! going on the R-2, raise the issues that we are going to raise and it would be
nice to finish in one night but we haven’t finished anything else in one night. But it would at
least give us a chance to raise the issues that we are looking at.
SECOND
Chair Griffin: Second? I will second the motion.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
We will then vote for Phyllis’s motion one way or the other whether we are going to meet here
on August the 4th with these continued items. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That
item carries unanimously. So we will meet here on August 4th with those continued item.
Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just a quick comment. I had a couple of questions about definitions and
I think Commissioner Packer had some about definitions too which would not take much time
and I think could just be done that night.
Chair Griffin: On the 4th.9
Commissioner Holman: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Is it possible that you could get us any other issues or questions you have about a
week ahead of time so we can get those to everybody so we don’t just bring them up on that.
night. I know it is hard for the Commission to receive materials on the night or the day before.
So if we could have those at least by the end of the week when we generally send out packets
that would be great.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for that recommendation, Staff. That takes us to the end of that item
for this evening although it will be continued.
That takes us to Commission Member Questions and Comments.
City of Palo Alto Page 53
1 COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCE~!IENTS.
2
3 Chair Griffin: There are none.
4
5 APPROVAL OFMINUTES: None.
6
7 Chair Griffin: It appears there is no approval of minutes to be concerned with.
8
9 NEXT MEETING: Special and Regular Meeting of Juty 28, 2004 @ 6:00 and 7:00 PM
10 respectively.
11
12 Chair Griffin: Our next meeting will start at six o’clock on July 28, which is next Wednesday.
13 With that I do declare this meeting adjourned.
14
15 ADJOURNED: 11:00 P.M.
16
City of Palo Alto Page 54
ATTACHMENT I 1" ’
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Curtis Williams, Contract Planner
Susan Ondik, Planner
August 4, 2004
DEPARTMENT: Planning
& Community Environment
Zoning Ordinance Update - Regjsions to Single Family Residential
(R-1) Zoning District and Subdistricts, and Revisions to the Home
Improvement Exception and Individual Review Processes
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)review and
recommend that City Council adopt the proposed ordinance making changes to the Single
F amily Residential (R- 1) Chapter (18.12) of Title 18 .(Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code and related Definitions in Chapter 18.04 as included in Attachment A,
incorporating the new chapter outlined in Exhibit A to the ordinance. This ordinance also
adopts revisions to the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) process and findings, and to
the Individual Review (IR) process.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning & Transportation Commission considered and made recommendations on a
draft of the R-10rdinance: and related low density residential definitions on May 26,
June 2, June 9, July 14, and July 2t, 2004. Key issues discussed at those meetings
included basements, substandard and flag lots, contextual front setbacks, contextual
garage placement, location of service equipment, and the size of attached second
dwelling units. The Commission continued its discussion to August 4t~ to-consider
streetside yard setbacks~ maximum lot size, and any other issues of concern to
Commissioners, prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council.
The proposed ordinance to revise the current zoning Ordinance to adopt the new R-1
Chapter.(18.12) and related Definitions (18.04) is included as.Attachment A. The
ordinance has been updated to incorporate recommendations made by the Commission to
date. Exhibit A to the ordinance comprises the revised ("clean") version of Chapter
18.12. Attachment B is the same ordinance, but in a redlined version (with changes
City of Palo Alto P~ge 1.
underlined or in strikeout), to indicate substantive changes made to the current code
provisions. Attachment C is a redlined version of the modified Definitions pertaining to
low density residential districts. The Home Improvement Exception and Individual
Review Process changes are also included in the draft R-1 Code.
DISCUSSION: "
The following issues remain to be addressed by the Commission. Two have been raised
by the public in testimony at the July 14tu and July 21st meetings, and others may be
raised by individual Commissioners at the meeting. -
Concerns Raised by Public
1. ~ Streetside Yard Setbacks
Commission has heard public testimony and received materials from Darren Neuman, at
both the July 14tu and July 21st meetings, regarding proportional streetside yard setbacks,
based~ on width of a corner lot. Staff believes this concept has merit and should be
addressed either as a) a reduction of the streetside setback to 10 feet for all lots with a
width of 50 feet or less, or b) a proportional Setback equivalent to 20 percent of the lot
width, but not to exceed 16 feet and no closer than 10 feet. Staff also notes, however, that.
the HIE process already allows existing homes to request such an encroachment up to 10
feet from the property line if the-HIE findings are made. The Commission’s
recommendation will be incorporated into the draft ordinance that is forwarded to the
Council. :
2.Maximum Lot Sizes (Lot Mergers)
On May 26, 2004, the Commission supported staff recommendations to prescribe
maximum lot sizes in the R-1 district and the R-I subdistricts, in order to implement
Comprehensive Plan policies regardin-g limiting tot mergersand preserving existing
housingunits.-At the July 21st meeting, however, John Northway addressed the
Commission regarding potential problems with implementation and suggested a more
direct approach to limiting lot size or precluding mergers. Staff continues to believe that
the proposed requirements will be effective in most instances.
The potential for circumventing the requirement would require a unique set of
circumstances. Mr. Northway’s scenario of deeding one..square foot of land to a neighbor
would require a determination that both-lots still meet minimum and maximum lot sizes
and that no nonconforming situations would result, such as lot width or depth, setback,
floor area, lot coverage, . etc. There will be occasional instances where such maneuvers are
possible, but staff believes they will be the exception, not the rule. If there is concern
about larger lots being modified to convey land area to an adjacent.lot, not resulting in a
reduction in housing units (for yard area, for example), that could be addressed with an
additional exception in Section 18~ 12.040(d) that allows.merger %vhere the larger of the
lots i..s geduced in size resulting in nO net loss 0fhousing units on the site(s)."
City of Palo Alto "page 2
Staff is also concerned that more direct means of limiting lot mergers are not available.
Lot mergers are generally implemented as lot line-adjustments, and the City’s only
criteria for denying them is finding that they conflict with zoning standards. The potential
loss of housing units is not a zoning standard, but minimum and maximum lot sizes are
and provide a readily available tool for addressing lot mergers.
Additional Concerns by Commissioners
In addition to the concerns from the public, some Commissioners at the last meeting
indicated there were some remaining miscellaneous concerns they would like to address.
Staff asked that Commissioners forward those concerns in writing to staff to convey to
the full Commission in advance of the meeting. Commissioner Holman, in particular; has
verbally identified to staff the following issues for discussion:
Use of the term "compatibility plane" in place of "daylight plane."
Providing a defmiti0n of ".porte,cochere" and/or clarification of how it is
counted in "gross floor area" calculations; especially its distinction from a
carport.
Providing a definition of "historic structure" .to reflect the definition in the
Historic Preservation section (16.48) of the Municipal Code.
Reducing the front setback onflag lots to 10 feet.
Limiting potential to avoid ARB review for construction of three or more new
homes in close proximity to each other.
Attached are e-mails received by staff prior to finalizing the packet. Staff has requested
that any others be provided by Monday at the latest to allow for Commission review on
Wednesday. Staff will be prepared to respond to Commission questions about these
issues at the P&TC meeting, but has not preparedadditional support materials or
analysis. Staff believes that the substantive issues before the Commission have been
adequately addressed, and requests that the Commission finalize its recommendation to
the Council after discussion of these final issues.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
The revisions to the R-1 Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance will benefit the community,
staff, and City officials by providing virtually all R-1 related information in one chapter.
The revisions will also update and clarify current regulations and present the information
in a more usable format. Upon recommendation by the Commission, staff expects to
proceed to the City Council with the R-1 chapter and low-density residentia! definitions
in September 2004.
ATTAC~ENTS:
A.Proposed Ordinance Adopting Changes to the R-1 Chapter (18.12) and Definitions
(18.04) of the Zoning Code
Exhibit A: Final (Clean) Version of R-1 Code
City of Palo Alto Page 3 .
B.Edited (Redlined) Version of R-1 Code
C.Edited (Redlined) Version of Definitions (Chapter 18.04)
D.Written Comments from Commissioners Regarding.Remaining Issues of Concern
COURTESY COPIES:
CitY Council
Dan Sodergren~ Contract CitY Attorney
SFAC Co-Chairs
Zoning Ordinance ¯Update Binder
Prepared by:Curtis Williams, Contract Planner
Susan Ondik, Planner
Reviewed by:
sardi,anning Manager
¯ Department/Division Head Approval:
Grote,g Official
City of Palo Alto .Page 4
ATTACHMENT D
.Ondik, Susan
=rom:
ent:
To:
Subject:
Karen Holman [kcholman@earthlink.net]
Friday, July 23, 2004 12:35 PM
Williams, Curtis; Lusardi, John; Ondik, Susan; Sodergren, Daniel
ZOU next Wednesday
Here three questions/concerns that have been raised by members of the
community which seem to merit response and consideration:
[] Limiting the size of !ots to only ! foot less than twice the standard 10t
size can result in very minor manipulatigns by the "very smart people out
there" who wil! quickly figure out how to manipulate the code and defy the
housing element goa! e are trying to achieve.
Possible suggestions:
a) °make the max size lot at i 1/2 time the standard size in the district,
e.g. 7500 sq ft. This would possibly reduce the likelihood a neighbor would
be able to/interested in purchase such a size parcel.
b) consider findings for any lot combining, e.g accomplishment of particular
comp plan goals and policies. I’d suggested this previously for the smaller
lot situations but we have not discussed it.
[] ARB review for development of 3 parcels ...... Members of the community
have raised the issue of manipulation by developers. Are there any
suggestions to preclude this which staff can recommend? It at least deserves
a consideraton/response.
--~anks.
Karen
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
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 "
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 at 7:00 PM
SPECIAL MEETING
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: ,7:07p.m.
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin - Chair
Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burr
Bonnie Packer- Absent
Annette Bialson - Absent
Lee I. Lippert
Staff."
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects
Susan Ondik, Planner
Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary
Curtis Williams, Consultant
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
Zoning Ordinance Update: Single Family Residential District G-l).
Zoning Ordinance Update: Low-Density Residential - Continued to August 11, 2004
Chair Griffin: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the August 4 Special Meeting
of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission. Would the Secretary please call the
roll? Thank you.
This takes us to 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. The Planning
and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Griffin: Do we have any cards for Oral Communications? No. That takes us to
Unfinished Business.
City of Palo Alto Page I
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
47
48
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member. None.
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 involving the Zoning
Ordinance Update, Single Family Residential District where the Commission will review and
make recommendations to Council for the final draft of the R-1 Chapter creating a standalone
zoning chapter for the R-1 District. Does Staff have a presentation?
UNFINISHED BUSENESS:
Public Hearing:
Zoning Ordinance Update: Single Family Residential District (R-l). Planning and
Transportation Commission review and recommendation to the City Council for the Final
Draft Single-Family Residential (R-l) Chapter creating a stand-alone Zoning chapter for
Single-Family Residential Development in the Zoning Ordinance Update (Title 18 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code).
SR Weblink: htt9~//www.citv~f~a~a~t~.~r~/~iwa~enda]pub~ish/p~annin~-trans-~.ati~n-mee~nzs/36~4.~df
Mr. Craig Williams, Consultant: Yes, thank you. The Commission has made its way through all
of the issues that Staff has outlined in its previous meetings on this chapter. There were a couple
of concerns raised by the public at your last couple of meetings particularly the issue of street
side yard setbacks and making them proportional rather than just a number and secondly the
issue of maximum lot size as it relates to potential lot mergers and loss of housing. There were
also some concerns that individual Commissioners have brought up that they would like to have
discussed as well. We have provided you with those emails and in particular for Commissioner
Cassel’s we have provided responses too. They tended to be more clarifications of wording and
that to be sure that the intent was coming through. Commissioner Holman’s tended to be more
of issues that the Commission needs to discuss. You should have those before you. Some of
Commissioner Holman’s we had in advance and were able to list in the Staff Report as well and
it is pretty similar to the fist that she then provided. I think there mighthave been a couple of
additions on there. Our suggestion would be to run through these one at a time. The street side
yard setbacks first then the maximum lot size issue and then open it up to additional
Commissioner concerns regarding other issues that we haven’t addressed.
Chair Griffin: Yes, Lisa.
Ms. Lisa Grote, ChiefPlannin~ Official: Thank you Chair Griffin and Commissioners. I did
want to note that there has been another approach that we have discussed to the side setback and
kind of the variable or proportionate side setback and some of the issues that you have been
dealing with in terms of front setbacks and trying to attach an exact numbei to those kind of
quantifiable and qualitative issues and that is to look at through the Individual Review process a
neighborhood context or a neighborhood characteristic that would allow someone to vary either
their street side setback or front setback or some of the other development standards slightly if
they can make a convincing case that there are neighborhood characteristics that they are
complying with. So we might have minimums in the Zoning Ordinance but then with a note that
City of Palo Alto 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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
says these could be varied through the Individual.Review process and have a standard or a
guideline that goes along with that. There is reference under I think it is guideline number eight
to street side setbacks now. It doesn’t allow you to come closer than what the Zoning Ordinance
currently allows but it does talk about neighborhood characteristics and if there is a prevailing
pattern there that is smaller or more condensed than what the minimum would be in the code that
with some modification to that guideline there would be some increased flexibility. So it is a
slightly different approach rather than trying to attach exact numbers tonight that there would be
a recommendation or some support for an additional guideline through the IR process.
Chair Griffin: Lisa, for clarification, you are making these comments in reference to this
paragraph number one on street side yard setbacks and the proposal for a proportional setback.
Ms. Grote: Particularly tonight for street side setback but I think it also applies to some of the
discussion you have had on fi:ont setbacks, I think it applies to interior side yard setbacks. It
could apply to rear setbacks. It allows some acknowledgement that there are different patterns in
different neighborhoods and that if someone brings forward information that shows this is
consistent with thd neighborhood characteristic that there is some flexibility there. We would
have to write the Zoning Ordinance language such that there might be an absolute minimum on a
street side setback, it might be ten feet, but there would be then some flexibility within that
Individual Review process to vary these things a little bit to give people some more latitude for
good design and for some other neighborhood characteristics.
Chair Griffin: And this is late breaking news over and above what we have here in text in the
Staff Report at the moment.
Ms. Grote: That is fight. That is why we wantedto bring it forward tonight for you to consider
as part of your discussion. It has been raised as a possibility and we think there is some merit to
it and if the Commissioners would like to pursue it we would be glad to do that.
Chair Griffin: And you could come up with some suggested text that wouldwork for us with
that?
Ms. Grote: Yes.
Chair Griffin: Steve.
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: One way to handle it is to complete your discussion on the
R-1 tonight contingent on I think we would recommend you send back the concept to the ZOU
committee with the IR Co-Chairs, we think that is an excellent forum to flesh out the ideas. So
we wouldn’t want you to have to struggle with coming up with text tonight but sending your
recommendation on on the condition that the committee report back to you on its findings of
using IR as a way to help neighborhoods to define their pattern, their character and have that
follow along with the recommendation to the Council. The timing is very good because as you
know you still have before you the Staff recommendation for changes to the IR process as well
as to the HIE. So it would fold very nicely into that if the IR Co-Chairs and the zoning code
committee were able to weigh in on that and report back to you before that ends up going to
Council as a recommendation.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Speaking of that, what is that target date of going to Council with this material?
Mr. Emslie: It hasn’t been scheduled but I think the earliest it would be would be later this fall,
October possibly November.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, would anyone like to weigh in here? Pat.
Commissioner Burr: Steve, this concept would it also include consideration of the substandard
lots and the habitable second story on substandard lots?
Mr. Emslie: Yes, I think we wouldn’t want to constrain the discussion in any way by giving
parameters. I think al! of the contextual issues that vary from neighborhood to neighborhood
should be explored with the IR committee. So We wouldn’t want to narrow it at this point we
would like to have some discussion. We really kind of sensed a lot of struggle that you have had
in coming up with citywide standards for R-1 lots when we have a diversity of neighborhood and
we have character issues in each, what works in more a conventional subdivision layout in South
Palo Alto doesn’t work in others. We think this may be a way of having some flexibility built in.
So we don’t have a lot 0f answers and I think we would really like to consult with the committee
and flesh out some ideas. I think we have some real potential for dealing with our particular
character problems.
Chair Griffin: Any other comments, Commissioners? I am pretty pleased to hear you broach
this whole subject because in fact I think this whole concept of coming up with a flexible way to
handle these comer lots is worth pursuing. It is a big problem in Downtown North. We have a
lot of difficult narrow lots that produce the kind of long narrow housing structures that Darrel
references in his report and I am wondering if Commissioner Lippert has any particular insights
that he would like share with us.
Commissioner Lippert: I am really glad to hear Staff’s comment with regard to not just looking
at street side yard setbacks but also looking at rear yard setbacks. I think that those two are very
key elements. By that what I mean is that if you look at somebody who is on a comer lot their
rear setback abuts somebody’s side yard setback. There is no reason why that house can’t be
extended into that rear yard setback and go as far as or even as close as five feet to the neighbor’s
property because it is going to be perceived by the neighbor as just another side yard that is
abutting there. So I think there are some oppommities here to look at either allowing for comer
lots to encroach on the rear yard setback or the street side yard setback but not necessarily both.
Also in addition to that I think that what should be looked at is if people are going to be
permitted to encroach into that street side yard setback that maybe it is only on the first story,
that a second story not be allowed to encroach in that setback.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Well I am glad to hear this. We have had a lot of struggle with trying to
apply one rule to the whole city when there have been so many comments about the
neighborhoods being so different and that is what makes Palo Alto special in its own way.
Clarification about what we would be doing tonight because the current recommendations would
they be conditioned upon looking at this because there are some hard and fast numbers on here
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
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
47
and IR cannot constrain a number that is allowed in code? So how do you propose that we
proceed tonight? Just put an asterisk by those items we want to readdress? How would you
propose that we proceed with this tonight?
Mr. Dan Soder~en, Special Counsel to CiW Attomeys: I think you should proceed with what
you have in front of you and then once we develop this more thoroughly we would bring back
proposed amendments to what you have.
Commissioner Holman: So here is a clarification question then. If someone looks at what we
have tonight then in the Staff Report, they go online and they look at that or someone has a copy
of it, how do they know then that this is going to be readdressed with subject two, the concept
that has been fleshed out tonight? It could have .quite significant differences.
Mr. Emslie: Well, you are making a recommendation to Counc~. Your recommendation tonight
could be conditional upon the ZOU subcommittee combined with the Co-Chairs of the IR
Committee reporting back to you and your reconsideration of any possible amendments. That
could be very clear. So in a sense you would be approving it, shelving it until the committee Can
report back and then if there are necessary changes you would consider those. Then that would
go as a package to the City Council.
Chair Griffin: Then I would entertain a motion stating just that. Do other Commissioners have
comments?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I thought Pat might want to make the motion. The motion that we want then
is to approve the Staff recommendation for 16 feet and then have it come back to us? No. The
motion you want us to make is to send this back to committee?
Mr. Emslie: That you are approving in concept the Staff recommendations unless you have other
changes you would like us to consider tonight.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I don’t see the Staffrecommendation in front of me on this. So what you
want me to do is make a motion based on a Staff recommendation then I need to see it.
Mr. Emslie: We would say that the Staff recommendation is for the Commission to recommend
the Staff version of the R-1 standards tonight conditioned upon a referral to the zoning code
update committee and the Co-Chairs combined committee considering adding an element of
context contained in the IR process and reporting back to you their recommendations along with
Staff with any amendments that would occur as a result of that to come back to you prior to this
going to the City Council.
Chair Griffin: So Phyllis why don’t you just move that.
Commissioner Burt: As I understood Steve to state it what he was suggesting in a motion would
adopt the Staff recommendations and what I had thought we were going to do was contingent
upon whatever recommendations we make of the particulars tonight we would include this
contingency but not at this time adopt all the recommendations without further discussion.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think that is my confusion. I think what we need to do is come back to that
item and include it when we make our final motion. You are asking for us to do the whole
motion and get it over with and go home. No, sorry, it wasn’t that easy. So we will come back
to this when we get to the end and include it when we do our motion to adopt the
recommendations.
Chair Griffin: All right, no motion at the moment. We are moving to item number two,
maximum lot sizes on lot mergers. Curtis.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chair, the maximum lot size provision in the code the Commission has seen
this before and actually acted on it but it was brought back to your attention by Mr. Northway at
your last meeting. We have provided for you today of the Comprehensive Plan policy program
H-5 in the Housing Element that says to address the loss of housing due to the combination of
single family residential lots consider modifying the R-t zoning district to create a maximum lot
size to prevent the loss of housing or housing oppommities. So the intent of this provision is to
minimize, not totally preclude but minimize, the potential for combining lots that would then
result in the loss of housing units and ancillary to that creating larger homes on those larger lots
that may be out of character with the predominant neighborhood character.
The provisions in the code generally state that the maximum lot size would not be equal to or
more than twice the minimum lot size with the exception of the R-1 6,000 square foot zone
which would be a maximum of 9,999 square feet. So it is somewhat less and that was intended
to capture the potential for combining 5,000 square foot lots and minimizing that.
The concerns that were raised at the last meeting had to do with two items. One was the
potential to manipulate that calculation and somehow do a lot line adjustment but then create the
opportunity to merge two parcels and keep it below this maximum threshold by selling off just a
small portion of a parcel. The other concern that we heard was issues for pretty large lots
providing some acreage to a neighbor that might want to use that area as yard space or have just.
a large property that has essentially double size that has a large yard in it. The second possibility
I think we have addressed in the Staff Report could be addressed by indicating that when the
number of lots is not reduced, two lots stays two lots but it is reconfigured, and there is no net
loss of housing units we could add that as another one of the exceptions within this provision and
I think address that specifically, although, that still in our minds presents some possibility of
losing housing units. The other issue of trying to sell of a foot or ten square feet or something
like that we have looked at a number of scenarios and while I certainly won’t say that it is not
possible to do that I think it is very difficult to do that in the vast majority of cases because as
soon as you try to do that with one lot you create some kind of nonconformity with that other
property or with both properties. So I would like to hear, I know Mr. Northway is here, but I
would like to hear the circumstances and the specifics of when that Could work because we
looked at quite a number of possibilities and tended to find that in order to try to create this
parcel, combined parcel, that is less than the maximum lot size that that first step of creating the
lot line adjustment would result in nonconformities that would preclude it from happening. I am
sure there are some very limited circumstances it could work in but I think what we found was
that the vast majority of cases that could not.
We recognize that this is not going to cover every single case out there. I know Commissioner
Holman has had concerns on the other side of it about it not covering a lot of the smaller lots and
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
that we should have some provisions that assure that two 4,000 square foot lots can’t be
combined either. In going through and looking at the 7,000, 8,000, 10,000 square foot lot zones
that we have it looked to me like that would be a much greater concern probably than this
potential to alter those lots because there are a number of 6,000 square foot lots in the 8,000
square foot zone which are next to each other and could possibly be combined and that would be
more potential for a problem than what we heard at the last meeting. We would be glad to
respond to questions or hear from the audience.
Chair Griffin: If Commissioners are interested I know I would like to hear from John Northway
if you have some comments you would like to add in on this. In the meantime colleagues may
wish to interject some questions before that happens. Phyllis, do you want to make a comment?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would like to ask a question before John speaks. My question is, we have a
standard lot of 6,000 square feet would we be able Or would it be possible to forbid someone
from adding to their lot or combine a lot to make it a legal 6,000 square foot lot?
Mr. Williams: No, it would be fine to add to it as long as it did not equal or exceed 10,000
square feet.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I know that is what you are proposing but I am looking at it the other way. If
we passed an ordinance that said that you can’t combine two 4,000 square foot lots to make your
4,000 lot a 6,000 square foot lot would that hold water since 6,000 is our standard lot size?
Mr. Williams: So basically making the minimum the maximum as well?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am not saying it fight. There is a proposal to make the numbers smaller.
We have 25,000 square foot lots. We have 3,000 square foot lots. We have 4,000 square foot
lots. -They are not a standard lot. Can we in some way forbid those lots from being able to
combine with something else to make a standard !ot?
Mr. Soder~ren: I think the problem comes in not from making the standard lot but from taking
from another lot and making that-lot substandard or increasing the nonconformity of the lot you
take it from. I think that is where the problem comes in. I don’t think anything would prohibit
you from combining lots to make a conforming lot. I think that is where the problem comes in
because you are going to have to take that from somewhere and then you end up with a problem.
Commissioner Holman: I think what Phyllis is trying to get at is say some neighborhoods have a
lot, even sometimes right in a row, say 2,500 or 3,000 square foot lots. We have talked about
this before and didn’t come up with a good solution. There is nothing right now that prohibits
one from buying both of those lots, combining them, losing a housing unit and still having a
conforming lot. So I think was that what you were saying? Still not having a conforming lot but
you are not - I meant you still have a conforming lot in terms of you haven’t increased over the
9,999 square feet. So that is one situation.
Then the other is clarification because if you have, and right now we haven’t done anything to
preclude that housing !oss. The other thing is if you have to go to Curtis’s comment if you have
three 5,000 square foot lots all abutting each other and someone bought two of them side by side
they could create a 9,000 square foot lot and I could easily see the third 5,000 square foot
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
property owner buying 1,000 square feet. So then you have one 9,000 and one 6,000 square foot
lot. None of them have broken any rules and we are still losing a housing unit. I could see that ’
easily happening.
Mr. Williams: I agree that could happen and I think we are back to the pointofhow far do you
want to go with this? Our basic operating principle was that if you wanted to combine small lots
to make it a conforming lot size the minimum conforming lot size or somewhat over that that to
be more stringent than that was pretty draconian to limit them so that you couldn’t even create a
standard lot. That is where we started from. Now we don’t have to and we have had this
discussion to some extent before, but we don’t have to do that. We could have a provision that
basically says that we could essentially reduce that maximum lot size to a point where most all of
those could be prohibited as well probably. Again, our basic starting point was we didn’t want to
prohibit merging lots to create essentially the minimum lot size or somewhat slightly over that
and recognize that we weren’t going to capture every situation out that and that we needed to
look at other ways in terms of incentives or something to hold onto those properties if possible.
Chair Griffin: John, would you care to jump into this little pot of warm water?
Mr. John Northwa¥, 437 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto: I have to explain a little bit why I even
brought this thing up. Part of it is philosophical in that we are doing an important thing in that
we are rewriting and reformulating our Zoning Ordinance. In the middle of the R-1 work we had
a briefing by Lisa Grote on what the existing R-1 regulations were and then she talked a bit about
the work that was going to be done to upgrade the Zoning Ordinance. Lisa in a moment of
exuberance said, and we are really hoping that this new Zoning Ordinance will be something we
can all be proud of. We gave her the appropriate hoots at the time but I have actually thought
about it and I have been lucky to be included by Curtis and John in quite a few meetings looking
at the form code and the other things. I actually think you are coming up with the Zoning
Ordinance that those of us who pay attention to zoning ordinances are going to be proud of. I
think everyone is working really hard and it is tedious and it is a lot of meetings like this and
meetings upstairs but I think we are coming up as a community with a zoning ordinance that is
going to be a good on.e. So my concern as I was reviewing the R-1 stuffwhich was sort of doing
it as a Co-Chair this maximum lot size thing popped out at me. I thought that is a weird thing. I
have been practicing architecture for 37 years and I can’t remember another city where I have
run across the maximum lot size restriction. So I was kind of curious what in the world that
means and more importantly when you are writing documents like this what are the unintended
consequences of doing something that is kind of different. Certainly the planners at this table
have a lot more experience as to other cities may be doing this. Then I talked to Phyllis and
Bonnie a little bit at the last meeting and said well it is a Comprehensive Plan policy and what
we are really concerned with isn’t so much combining two lots but it is combining three and
four. I guess one of the guidelines which I have said before up here is the Zoning Ordinance
isn’t a parlor game or an intellectual game. If you want something state it and state it really
clearly. I brought up my concern in reading this thing last time about is this an attempt to stop
demolitions and Curtis said no, no, no. Well, if one of the things in the Comprehensive Plan is to
preserve housing stock then you are actually not accomplishing that although it sort of reads like
you are. I am not going to argue the wisdom of the Comprehensive Plan that has already been
done. My concern is is this a problem big enough to put into the Zoning Ordinance? The
problem with the Zoning Ordinance is once it isin there it is tota!ly inflexible. Just in your little
discussion leading up to now with what about this circumstance and what about this
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
circumstance? I called Steve Pierce and Leannah Hunt because they know a whole lot more
abo[lt this than I do. I know Steve had a lot of correspondence with Steve Emslie, which
hopefully he can share or summarize. Here is one that is sort of off the wall in our little game of
’what if.’ Steve has been dealing with a lot that is 35,000 square feet and I think they want to
split off something like 10,000 square feet to create a conforming lot that would leave a 25,000
square foot lot under the provisions of you can’t create a nonconforming lot is the 25,000 square
foot lot that is left over nonconforming and then the transaction of splitting off the ten and
creating a 25? These are just rhetorical questions I don’t expect answers. I guess the thing I
would like you to consider is is this a problem big enough to stick into the Zoning Ordinance?
I talked a little bit with Lisa and she said it was a fairly small number of requests to do this
combining or splitting. It is a Comprehensive Plan policy and the Comprehensive Plan does
have a certain amount of clout. Recently in working with Rick Kniss we were trying to
determine the front setbacks on Page Mill Road and if you go to the Open Space in the current
Zoning Ordinance it doesn’t talk anything about 200 feet. In order to find the 200-foot setback
on Page Mill Road you have to go to the Arastradero Road section of the Comprehensive Plan
which clearly states that there is a 200 foot setback on Page Mill Road which we had to conform
to. Again, these are all questions for attorneys and planners. I would suggest that rather than
rushing in and casting this in stone in the Zoning Ordinance you have the Staff monitor the
situation, combining tots, erasing lot lines, requires some form of government action and
certainly if there are a lot of them these provisions or maybe more clearly written provisions can
be put into the Zoning Ordinance or these things can be denied based on what is already in the
Comprehensive Plan. It is mainly let’s not put something into the Zoning Ordinance that hasn’t
been really well thought through and with experts like the realtors as to what are some Of the
unintended consequences that we ended up with people over at the Development Center trying to
answer questions or you have a whole flurry of needing to ask for variances or other things so
you can do perfectly reasonable things. It may actually result in a net gain in housing units. So
that was only my concern about it was I am not going to question what is trying to happen in the
Comprehensive Plan it is really is the Zoning Ordinance really the appropriate place to try to
start executing it and is it a problem big enough to justify being stuck into the Zoning
Ordinance? I will leave that to your wisdom but that is why I brought it up. I was really just
concerned about the unintended consequences and having something that was going to be really
weird because of the all the variations on the theme for the Staff to have to deal with.
Chair Griffin: Thank you John. Colleagues, any comments? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just one. Staff can clarify but I don’t think the situation that you
mentioned that Steve Pierce is dealing with about wanting to create new 10ts, this is only dealing
with lot combining. I don’t think it has to do with creating new lots and Curtis is shaking his
head yes.
Mr. Williams: No, it would and I think we need to address that. That is part of this additional
language down here. I think we should expand it a little bit to indicate that where.the number of
lots is increased this doesn’t come into play because if you are increasing the number of lots you
are increasing the potential for the number of units and it shouldn’t affect. So the situation he is
talking about with the 35,000 square foot parcel that is in what I assume is the 10,000 square foot
minimum lot size zone and it is divided into 10,000 and 25,000 square foot lot would seem to
certainly be a reasonable proposal to accommodate. It would fit in here because every time you
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
have a subdivision you have to assure that each one of those lots meets the Zoning Ordinance
requirements for lot size and dimensions. So you take that 25,000 square foot lot as he
mentioned and it would not under this provision because you couldn’t have 20,000 square feet or
more. So we do need to address that circumstance and the one I talked about before in terms of
where you are really not reducing the number of lots but you are either increasing them or
leaving them the same and just rearranging them to have conforming lots.
Chair Griffin: Are you suggesting that you are going to come back with yet new text to clarify
your suggestion here on page two?
Mr. Williams: I am suggesting that I could read it now to you.
Chair Griffin: Would you please.
Mr. Williams: I think we need to come back.
Commissioner Holman: Could you give a page, please?
Mr. Williams: The page is page two of the Staff Report at the bottom of the page talks about one
circumstance. You mean a page of the ordinance? Sorry. On Exhibit A the clean ordinance or
the redline?
Chair Griffin: Redline.
Mr. Williams: That is Attachment B and it is on page eight. In the middle of the paragraph at
the bottom of page eight item D. I am sorry it is seven. Seven at the bottom says D is maximum
lot sizes in R-1 districts and R-1 sub-districts. In the middle of that paragraph towards the
second to the last line there it says lots larger than the prescribed maximum size are permitted
only under the following circumstances: one has to do with Village Residential, second has
where underlying lots must be merged and no loss of housing as a result, third is where adjacent
substandard lots of less than 25 feet in width is combined resulting in no net loss of housing
units. So I would suggest that there is a fourth that would essentially say that where the number
of resultant lots increases or stays the same and results in no net loss of housing units on a site
would accommodate that situation as well-as the one where you are just reapportioning and
somebody gets a larger yard out of it or Something like that but there is no housing units lost, the
potential for housing remains the same.
Commissioner Holman: Could you say that one more time, please?
Mr. Williams: Where the number of resultant lots increases or stays the same and results in no
net loss of housing units on the site. No net loss of housing units period.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, any comments? Karen this is your issue here.
Commissioner Holman: Just one whichhas been kind of a concern all along. I know we can’t
capture everything but the whole reason this went to the Council and the Council approved it as
¯ part of the Housing Element was to address the loss of housing units that was happening through
this process. The other thing this doesn’t capture is you could have somebody who combines
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
two lots and doesn’t reduce the number of housing units but creates one house, I am just going to
make up numbers here, a 5,000 square foot house and a 1,000 square foot cottage where
previously there were two 3,000 square foot houses. I don’t know if that is anything we could
address but since we are kind of vetting this through again I thought I would just throw that out
there and see if Staffhas any comments on it.
Mr. Williams: Again, I think that is ~ policy determination. Our feeling was we had to sort of
draw a line at some point and that line was generally allowing people to combine lots that would
create conforming lots when they weren’t conforming existing. We didn’t feel it was appropriate
to go below that but that is ultimately your and the CounciEs determination.
Commissioner Hoiman: One more question. What was brought up earlier about looking at the
Individual Review process because we do have neighborhoods that are so very, very different
and we have talked about substandard lots a fair amount. We have neighborhoods that have
quite a plethora of these substandard lots. Could we address this same issue in a context basis
like Individual Review?
Ms. Grote: We would need to consider that carefully. Subdivision actions aren’t typically
considered under Individual Review and what we are talking about here are really subdivisions
of parcels. That isn’t subject to an Individual Review at this point. Subdivision is Title 21 .in the
Municipal Code. There are some size requirements in Title 18 but at this point it is not subject to
Individual Review.
Mr. Sodergren: I think the only way to catch all of these is to do what Berkeley does and we as
you remember brought that up before but we felt it was unworkable and that is to base this on
demolition permits ,and to say that.you can’t get a demolition permit unless you have
replacement housing or the existing housing stock is uninhabitable. As we pointed out before
that type of program has been found to rather burdensome to implement and there tends to be a
lot of disagreement over ~vhat you have on your property on whether that is still a useful
structure and there gets to be these lengthy debates on that basis. That is really the only way to,
if you want to catch all of those, that type of permit system where you base it on the demolition
permit is the way to do it. Otherwise as Curtis pointed out it becomes a policy choice as far as if
you base it on lot size as far as how many of these you can catch and some of these unique
circumstances are going to fall by the wayside. Those are kind of the extremes and we realize
that you can’t catch all of them by having this sort of maximum lot size but we feel that is a
happy medium.
Chair Griffin: I see Phyllis and then Lee.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: I was going to try moving the Staff Report as it stands with those
amendments that were added by Curtis.
SECOND
Commissioner Lipoert_: I will second that.
City of Palo A lto 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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, any further discussion? Phyllis, would you like to support your
motion?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I was looking through the zoning map today and driving around to a few
places. It is probably rare that we have units thatare exactly 6,000 square feet or exactly 5,000
square feet. They tend to have slight variations on that so the number of 9,999 or.each of these
numbers as it goes up the line is an attempt to keep from getting too large lots but whether we
pick one number or another either side of that we are going to get some lots that are smaller and
some that are larger. The minimum size lot is at 6,000 square foot lot is at 9,999 rather than at
12,000 because we had hoped to capture the 5,000 square foot lots. I believe that we are hard
pressed to put people in a position where they cannot combine lots to make a standard lot when
we say 6,000 square feet is a standard lot. I feel that is unfair to people who are working in the
community. If we want to change our standard lot that is different but that at this time isthe
standard lot. So I think that that makes a reasonable number. I am afraid we will lose some
housing units. I hope we are providing some incentives to provide some more with our second
units. I am really concerned that we don’t make the ordinance so complicated and so
burdensome that people can’t live with it comfortably.
Chair Griffin: Seconder.
Commissioner Lippert: I think that the motion clearly addresses program H-5 that addresses the
loss of housing of the Comprehensive Plan, which is addressing the loss of housing due to the
combination of single-family residential lots. I think this does this particularly well without
being draconian or fussy about it. I think it is a really simple solution and I think that it is
probably going to achieve what we are looking for holistically. There will be ones that do slip
under the radar so to speak but wholesale combining of lots will cease.
Chair Griffin: We will vote on this item unless we have more comments. Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I would.just like to concur and that the basis for the motion is compliance
with the Comp Plan policy Program H-5 and that is our responsibility ~vhich is to have the
Zoning Ordinance implement the Comp Plan.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I will support the motion as it was changed by Staff to accommodate
the other situation that we hadn’t thought about. Also I would be interested in this coming back
for review to the Commission on an annual basis so that we can track what is or isn’t happening
out there. Is that something that Staff can do? It requires someone to keep track of this but I
don’t think it would be that hard to keep track of.
Ms. Grote: We can certainly do that. We can track lot merger requests and we can track
demolition permits and that should give you the information that you want.
Commissioner Holman: Would the maker of the motion accept that as a friendly amendment?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Sorry, I was paying attention to a procedural matter, say that again.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: That this come back to us in a year after adoption so that we can take a
look at how many requests there have been and how many housing units have or have not been
lost, for review as we do on many thing.
Vice-Chair CasseI: Is that functional?
Ms. Grote: Yes, it is. We can track both the lot merger requests and demolition permits.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Will we have other items coming back in about a year to review?
Ms. Grote: Yes, you will have many items coming back.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. That’s okay then.
Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that. I think it is a welcome addition.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Bialson and Packer absent)
Chair Griffin: Can we vote on this item then? Al! in favor of Phyllis’s motion say aye. (ayes)
Opposed? That carries unanimously.
Now I do have at this stage additional cards here from members of the public that would wish to
speak and we still have more items here to getthrough but Commissioners.if you are interested I
think now would be an appropriate time to hear from our card submitters. The first one is Adam
Atito followed by Robert Monaghan followed by Erika Enos and Leannah Hunt. Adam,
Welcome.
Mr. Adam Atito, 3181 Louis Road, Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening Commissioners. I am
part of the Palo Alto Real Estate District Counsel. The issue in front of you guys is not already
decided so I would appreciate the opportunity to talk about it because we are dealing with lot line
adjustment and lot combining and that is a very, very valuab!e asset to our community.
Chair Griffin: Adam, perhaps step back from the microphone that might help.
Mr. Atito: So I would appreciate the idea of having the real estate community involved in this
issue before you guys take an action and make it permanent. I second John’s comments. I don’t
have to repeat them because he did an excellent job of what the urgencies are and why we are
doing this today and how many occasions we have to do it. So I would like in the future the
Staff to keep the real estate community informed of what is going on and what the serious issues
are and maybe we can help a little bit. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: We have a question for you Adam.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am sorry but I didn’t get the name of the group you were working with.
Mr. Atito: The Palo Alto Real Estate District Council.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page
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
47
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chair? If I could offer that I would make myself available to any of these
folks who are interested and following up with them and talking to them before this item moves
on to Council if I can get their addresses from Robin. I will follow up and contact them.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for your offer. Karen. Suit yourself. Now we have Robert
Monaghan. Welcome, Robert.
Mr. Robert Monamhan: Thank you. I don’t all the particular numbers because I didn’t have the
opportunity to follow up on the numbers but in general spirit I wanted to say that my residence
now is legally according to. File 44738, I forget the number Robin has it, is a Santa Clara County
File Number filed 7-27-04. I am officially living at San Francisquito Creek between Santa Clara
County and San Mateo County. That is my residence and I am operating as it were a store front
across the street from the post office because that is all I can afford is to camp out under the tree
there. I am just hoping that I am not violating the spirit of any ordinances here. I didn’t come
out here to be a bully. I did come out here to hope to get some land for my enterprises. I would
like to build a railroad. It won’t be this year that we break ground but I would like to build a
railroad that connects with the Union Pacific or something. But that is where I am living and I
just hope I am not violating any ordinances. If I am I am not violating the spirit of any
ordinances. I don’t think I am by living in a creek. I don’t think I am in any trouble that I am
living in a creek down there. But if I am any trouble by being on Lot D on Hamilton Avenue
there the Waverley space on Waverley there I don’t know the footage but my persona projects
about maybe 25 feel out from that feet and it doesn’t project quite all the way across Waverley
Street to bother the other people who are of a different religious persuasion and I might bother
them. But it doesn’t seem to bother anybody parking in the parking lot. I have people come by
and give me some food some times and it doesn’t seem to bother anyone on Hamilton Avenue. I
am not out to demolish any of the buildings. So I hope I am not in violation of the spirit.
Chair Griffin: I think you are in good shape. Thank you. Our next speaker is Erika Enos.
Ms. Erika Enos, 2110 Columbia Street, Palo Alto: I live in College Terrace, a neighborhood,
which I think, exemplifies the diversity of Palo Alto in a nutshell because there are 10,000 square
foot lots and 2,500 square foot lots in a very small space. One dfthe things I was confused about
when I was listening to you people talk earlier is I know there is an ordinance that in order to do
any remodel or addition you have to combine substandard lots into a standard lot before you get
a building permit. I know that from personal experience. And if that is ~’ue then how can you
stop the combination of substandard lots? There seems to be a contradiction. How can you do
two things that are diametrically opposite? So that is my question.
The other comment that I have is that in terms of substandard lots the way to keep them is to
allow somebody to build more than 600 or 700 square feet on a lot but the neighbors would
prefer to not have that happen. There was an instance back in April where somebody on a 2,500
square foot lot wanted to build I think 1,800 or 1,900 square feet, make it two story, violate all of
the setbacks, front, back and side and 35 people came out to the Planning Commission meeting
and the people who wanted to do this house were told to go away. So how do you kind of put
together a small lot that costs two-thirds of a million dollars and can only accommodate a small
amount of square footage with the ordinances that you have now especially for substandard lots?
City of Palo Alto 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
So I am not unfortunately giving you any solutions but I am just asking these questions because
you can’t seem to do both of the things that you want to do with what you are proposing.
Chair Griffin: Thank you.
Commissioner Lippert: Curtis, could you clarify that for that woman?
Mr. Williams: Sure.
Commissioner Lippert: Thanks.
Mrl Williams: There are two parts to it. I think we have helped address the first one as far as
being required to combine your lots. I am not sure if that is accurate unless your house is across
lot lines or something like that. So the ordinance that we have been talking about number one
allows an exception for combining lots in that situation. It also sets an upper limit in the R-1
zone, which I assume is where you are of 10,000 square feet. So typically if you have
substandard lots and you are combining them they are going to be less than 10,000 square feet.
So it should work in your situation and maybe Lisa can clarify if that is a requirement..I am not
aware there is a requirement to necessarily combine lots when you do some kind of
improvement. But I am assuming that would happen only when you are sitting on top of or
across lot lines or something like that.
The second thing about substandard lots and allowing for some more square footage the
Commission did provide some additional flexibility for substandard lots at the meeting last week.
So you have allowed the possibility of a second story plus some flexibility on the first floor in
terms of lot coverage and contextual garage placement issues to provide some more flexibility
for development on the substandard lots but still with appropriate particularly for second story
appropriate discretionary Individual Review of those second story units. So hopefully that will
help in that regard.
Chair Griffin: Erika, Curtis is available for discussion. He offered everyone the facility of being
able to make an appointment with him and if you wish to discuss it farther you may do so.
Ms. Enos: Somebody can come and ask for exemptions and exceptions and all that but at the
review process there were 35 people who said, no we don’t want this to happen. So how do you
balance doing what you want to do extending the substandard lot provisions to make them more
generous when you have 35 people coming to a meeting, some of them didn’t even live in
College Terrace who said no this particular thing is wrong you can’t allow it to happen. That is
my point.
Chair Griffin: Well, perhaps it would be better to have a one-on-one with Staff and discuss this
in detail.
Ms. Grote: We would be happy to do that. I think that part of what she is referring to is a
particular application which did involve a number of variances and I don’t think there is any
action that the Commission has taken that would indicate there would be support for those types
of variances in the future at all. So we can certainly talk witth Ms. Enos about that.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Our final speaker is Learmah Hunt. Welcome, Leannah.
Ms. Leannah Hunt, 2.45 Lsrtton Avenue, PaloAlto: Good evening Mr. Emslie and members of
the Planning and Transportation Commission. I apologize for coming a little later. I had a
dinner planned with clients and I was made aware a couple of days ago that you had agendized
this issue. Once I had an oppommity to read the materials I was very concerned about changes
that you would be instituting as a result of this meeting.
The reality is I think these are major changes. I am very disappointed that you are combining
issues relating to the Housing Element along with your attempts to upgrade and redo the Zoning
Ordinance. The reality is I am particularly concerned about this issue of !ot combination. I have
personally been involved with the lot line adjustment process. In fact I represented two owners
in Crescent Park just a couple of years ago. This was a process, which is in place for lot
combination. It was a situation where one owner called me said they would like me to approach
the neighbor to the rear that this neighbor wanted to sell of a 5,000 square foot parce!. They
thought perhaps the neighbor to the rear might want to purchase it. In fact they didn’t even know
that I had sold the property to the neighbors to the rear. I was well aware that they had a growing
family, small children and they had limited space for the children to play. We went through the
lot line adjustment prggram. Luz Cortez became very well known to us, it did take a year. This
is a process that is well in place, has rules and regulations, one must obtain a survey to get
through to the certificate of compliance. We had to go through the various City department
approval processes culminating with the City Attorney’s Office. It did in fact receive approval.
It did necessitate actually Ed Gawf, the former Planning Director, coming out to the property to
actually physically walk the property and review the whole situation. My point being that you
already have on the books procedures for lot line adjustments in fact accomplishing the
combining of lots. This was a situation where people had owned for 25 years. This additional
5,000 square feet of land they basically held it as a quasi orchard. It is now being utilized by the
neighbors to the rear as a lovely additional play yard for their children. They were able to put in
a "4cry nice play structure as a result of this purchase. So the system worked.
Another example is on Rinconada, I believe at Emerson. I actually spoke with the owners of a
parcel of land, a 5,000 square foot lot they inherited it from family. The neighbors next door
wanted additional land for a play yard for their children. They also had just a 5,000 square foot
land piece and now they have a 10,000 square foot lot. Yes, there was a two bedroom, one bath
home that was demolished. In fact it was a very ordinary original 1935 or 1936 home. Now the
reality is that there was open space created as a result of this demolition and the assemblage of
property. The point being that you already have on the books procedures to accomplish lot line
adjustments, assemblages of properties and the reality is we have very few of these in town.
There really is not a great deal of them. Yes, I believe one is taking place over on Parkinson,
again, older stock of housing, two smaller dwellings and the buyer wishes to build a new home.
As a result there is going to be some very nice open space. This does not preclude the exercise
of our normal building regulations and setbacks but in fact does in many instances create
additional open space. I realize you have just taken a vote but I would urge the Commission to
not place this lot combination restriction in a zoning ordinance. We are already a community
where the average lot size is around 7,000 square feet and in the rare case where lots are
combined you can end up with additional open space, often greater, setbacks and these are people
who are pursuing what they want to do with their own property. People have options obviously
to move to Portola Valley, Woodside, Los Altos Hills, additional areas where they can build a
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1-7
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
47
larger home. These are people who choose tO live in our community. I am sorry that you are
going to preclude some of those people from doing what they choose to do with their property.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Leannah. I have no further cards so I am going to close this part of the
public hearing and bring the discussion back to the desk. If Commissioners wish to comment.
Commissioner Holman: I wanted to ask Staff a couple of things about the speakers while they
are still here, issues that they brought up. One is clarification. When the Housing Element was
being addressed at both the Commission and the Council and this policy was recommended
basically and what we are doing is implementing that was the real estate community not involved
at that time?
Ms. Grote: We did have an extensive public outreach. I would need to check the records to
make sure that the real estate community was involved. My recollection is that they were but I
would need to make sure that they were sent notices. Yes, we had an extensive public outreach.
Commissioner Holman: That was my reco!lection but I don’t have a perfect memory. The other
thing is I had a little bit of concern that if any other recommendation is made other than what
Staff is recommending now that would come back to the Commission rather than just going on to
Council, right?
Ms. Grote: Yes, that is correct.
Commissioner Holman: Thanks for the clarifications. Then the other one had to do with Ms.
Enos’s comments. She was saying, and I will try to get this right, that a lot of people had ... I
went to one Director’s Hearing I had seen in the newspaper about a property in College Terrace
that had to do with several variances on a substandard lot. There weren’t 3 5 people there but
there were a number of people there. Staff’s response was that what the Commission had
recommended was not going to allow what, and I don’t know if we are talking about the same
property or not I don’t think so, what that property had asked for, at least the one I am familiar
with, from my way of thinking a lot of what the Commission has adopted would allow what at
least the College Avenue property I am thinking would allow that. So could Staff clarify that
please because we are allowing second habitable floors and various setbacks? So just for
clarification while the member of the public is still here.
Ms. Grote: We would need to get the specifics of which application she was talking to. What I
meant is that nothing the Commission has done would necessarily suggest that variances would
be approved for something that would go further than the recommendations you have just made.
So in other words, yes you have said second stories are a possibility on substandard lots that
doesn’t mean necessarily that they would be allowed to encroach into compatibility planes or
that they would be allowed to be taller than another house in that lot. I didn’t mean to say that
there weren’t changes thatyou have recommended because there certainly were. What I meant
to say was that your stance on variances has not changed.
Commissioner Holman: I think for clarity that is a little different than what I understood your
comment to be to begin with so I will leave that for later then.
City of Palo Alto.Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: All right then if we can move on to this subsection called Additional Concerns by
Commissioners and the first bullet point we have is the use of the term compatibility plane in
place of daylight plane. Would John or Lisa wish to give us the genesis of this new phraseology,
please?
Mr. Williams: If you will let me I will do it. Compatibility plane concept is one that was
brought up by the Design Environment Committee when we met with them. We ran it through
also the Low Density Residential Committee and the AR_B. I think their sense generally was that
daylight plane was not capturing.sort of the broader intent of this provision. We had looked at
other cities and terminology that they used and had terms like "angular plane" another was
"transitional height plane" another was "bulk plane." We did sort of an in-house survey and
came up with four or five other terms and folks seemed to like compatibility plane. We have
gone with it. My understanding of Commissioner Holman’s concerns is that we are in some way
losing the light and air concept .from it and I think that maybe we can try to address that in a
couple of ways. Reaily one way, in the definition of compatibility plane I think first of all we
talked earlier about including daylight in parenthesis and leaving that in there so people don’t
lose that connection entirely but secondly adding a first sentence in there that says the intent of
this is to provide compatibil.ity between neighboring properties including further protection of
privacy, of preserving light and air and anything else we can come up with to try to get some
kind of intent statement in there that it is a broad sort of encompassing term. To use light and air
plane loses some of the other concepts as well. So it wasn’t something we generated as an idea
but it seemed to make sense to us coming out of our committee discussions and we are willing to
put whatever term the Commission would like to have in here but compatibility plane seems to
cover a lot of ground.
Chair Griffin: The term ’setback plane’ was not acceptable why?
Mr. Williams: Just was not the preference. That was one of the ones that was thrown out to the
group. Second story setback plane, setback plane, massing plane, transitional height plane,
development plane and those other ones I mentioned a minute ago.
Ms. Grote: I think specifically setback plane may not have been thought to be more appropriate
because it implies that it is actually set further back when it isn’t really it is angling back but it is
not offset. So setback plane didn’t seem to capture the concept.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I am still trying to understand what is so lacking in retaining our present
term of daylight plane. I heard Curtis say that it doesn’t connote a privacy component and if that
is the primary aspect of it one, we have that described well in the Individual Review or perhaps
what we should do is if we need a clarifying sentence attached to the daylight plane term then
just retain the term that we have always used and add some clarification to that. I think there is a
certain implication to that term that is the predominant intention arid meaning of it that I don’t
get in the implications that are associated with a compatibility plane. It just doesn’t resonate for
me.
Chair Griffin: Lee, did you have a comment?
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Lippert: i want to respond to Commissioner Burt’s question. In practical use I
have several projects, which have violated the daylight plane. I had to get an HIE for them. In
one instance specifically I had a roof projection that projected seven inches into what we call
daylight plane. The neighbor came and objected to the project, objected to the HIE, on the basis
that this seven inches additional was casing a shadow on his property and thereby blocking the
amount of daylight he would be getting. It was an absurd use of this definition of daylight plane
and in fact compatibility plane comes a little bit closer to what we are looking for. My feeling
about it is really what these are doing is defining a solid or a volume almost like an envelope and
maybe that is the direction that we should be going which is that this is the maximum building
envelope that would be permitted.
Chair Griffin: Karen. Are you not wanting to speak?
Commissioner Holman: Pat wants to respond.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I just want to make sure I understood Lee well. Is your concern with the
term and the use daylight plane that it has come to be used as an explicit entitlement by
neighbors and does not have or it has come to be viewed as something that has lack of flexibility
and that compatibility plane is more appropriate because it implies a greater flexibility while
retaining a concept? Is that a way to see this?
Commissioner Lippert: Correct. Correct and in addition to that if you notice most of Palo Alto
is on a 45-degree grid. Nothing is really truly east west with the sun coming this direction and
casting a shadow east directly or west directly. People get daylight on their houses at different
times of the day. The truth is we want to keep the buildings all relatively within the same
building envelope not that somebody is being denied sunlight or daylight.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: My understand, and I have brought this up before, my understanding of
the purpose of the daylight plane was to address some definition of how or some envelope within
-which neighbors would be of some assurance of having a certain amount of daylight and air. I
guess compatibility just doesn’t seem the same thing to me. You could have buildings that were
shear wall all next to eachother to 30 feet high and still becompatible. So I think the purpose is
very, very different. So I am troubled by changing it to compatibility. I am familiar with the
example that you gave. I think you showed that to me. HIEs are granted for such things because
you can find that no harm is coming to a neighbor. I just don’t think compatibility plane implies
the same thing. So I think one way to address this would be a purpose statement explicit in the
code. I will leave it there for right now. I guess I will continue. Just that I am somewhat
concerned about some creep in the code. So for instance if the purpose gets lost the word
daylight gets lost and that the planes, the calculating planes, get changed because we are looking
at compatibility and not any longer daylight and air. So if our intention is to protect light and air
then let’s keep daylight plane and the interpretation of that at the counter can be explicit to
neighbors who have rather extreme opinions, perhaps.
City of Palo Alto 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
47
48
Chair Griffin: We could grind on this all night I suppose. Ido tend to like the term daylight
plane, it works for me, maybe it is because it took a long time for me to understand the concept
and once I finally figured out what it meant I hate to back away from it simply because I know
that one. So anyway I have this emotional reaction even though I know that you folks on Staff
would like to see it changed. Let’s entertain a few more comments here and then vote on this
item. Pat.
Commissioner Burr: Listening to the different perspectives on it it seems that whichever title we
give to it it doesn’t adequately and fully capture the meat of what we want to accomplish there.
We are looking at whether a title can adequately imply what we r~ally mean to describe more
fully. So my question is whichever title we have can Staffpoint us to where the description is
that is going to give the clarity for whichever title we may choose? I was looking at Exhibit B
under subsection J.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Page two under definitions at the end B-44. At the end of this there is a
whole section.
Mr. Williams: It is Section C.
Vice-Chair.Cassel: Low Density Residential definitions.
Chair Griffin: Is thaiin this item number one?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Item number one at the back, Attachment C.
Chair Griffin:- What page again, please?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Page two and the number is at thetop of the page, Draft Definitions Low
Density Residential. Am I looking at the wrong one?
Commissioner Burt: No, I have it.
Chair Griffin: Item number 44.
Mr. Williams: Right at the bottom of that page two of the Draft Definitions. That is where I
think we were indicating that again regardless of what the name is that we could add the t~st line
here would basically be compatibility or daylight plane, whatever you call it, is intended to
provide enhanced light and air, privacy and minimize impacts of bulk and mass or something
along those lines. Some kind of intent statement and then say it means the following after that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would suggest you take out the word privacy. We have had a lot of
problems with that word. It is part of the Individual Review.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Vice-Chair Cassel: It may cause you more groblems than you think it will. They have had a lot
of trouble with that.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
~ 46
47
48
Mr. Williams: I think we are okay. I think the main probably is bulk and mass.
Vice-Chair Cassel: And the light and air.
Mr. Williams: And the light and air.
Chair Griffin: Now I am seeing everybody wants to talk. So if we work our way down from Lee
please.
Commissioner Lippert: I am just going to come out with it. The word compatibility doesn’t
work for me either but daylight doesn’t work for me either. I don’t mind keeping the word
daylight in there only because that is what we are used to and it is going to have to be in there as
part of the definition anyway. I think that this needs to be wordsmithed a little bit better and
something else needs to come out in terms of a definition. I just think that compatibility plane
just doesn’t do it for me.
Chair Griffin: It is not very descriptive somehow. It is too amorphous. That is just a reaction
that I have. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, Curtis, I heard you mention the word enhanced and I am
concerned about that term because that makes it - you probably understand the difference or my
concern. I don’t want somebody to think that ifa house changes next door that their light and air
is going to be enhanced by someone changing. So I am concerned about the word enhanced the
way Phyllis was worried about another word.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can I move that we send this back to committee.
Chair Griffin: All right but I did want to pick up a final comment from Pat if you are still
interested in making a comment.
Commissioner Burr: I would like to endorse what Curtis said about whatever title we end up
with a brief sentence or paragraph on intent is crucial. Maybe before the night is out I will haxle
a suggestion on another alternative title.
Mr. Williams: I guess I was going to say I would really encourage you not to send this back to
the committee. I think you need to make a decision.
Ms. Grote: The other option would be that if you feel comfortable delegating it to the committee
and then it would not need to return to the full Commission if you are comfortable with it going
to the committee.
Chair Griffin: Decisions by committee, we are good at that. Phyllis, did you want to make a
motion?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well, my tendency having been on the committee and having listened to the
ARB comments and the people from the ARB and remembering the problems that City Council
has had with the IR review and dealing with shadows and whether people have the right to have
shadows or not is to go with the compatibility plane but it doesn’t sound like I have anyone with
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
me. So I am along. So someone else needs to make a motion. Maybe we can go on to the next
item and Pat can dram something.
Chair Griffin: I would propose perhaps a double-barrel term and I will let somebody else make
the motion if this appeals. Call it a compatibility/daylight plane or compatibility (daylight) plane
and give it a double-barrel title for at least the next five years or something like that until this
term compatibility plane becomes more readily accepted. It is just a thought here trying to find a
compromise here. I don’t see anybody jumping to that one. Pat.
Commissioner Butt: I am hesitant to come up with these things on the fly but I have been
tossing around terms that try to capture this. What about something like daylight impact zone or
daylight impact envelope? Something that basically doesn’t imply that it is an explicit plane that
prohibits any intrusion into it but it is a portion of the envelope that has to do with daylight
impacts and then including Curtis’s intent statement.
Chair Griffin: Any enthusiasm for that one? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Something just hit me, we are doing designing up here as we are going
but it just occurred to me that if we had implicit with this as Pat said a purpose statement but then
it become the daylight compatibility plane no slash, no nothing it is daylight compatibility plane
with a purpose statement and then the calculation. How does that sound to Commissioners?
Chair Griffin: I really like that a lot because it compromises the terminology and yes, Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I am sure other communities have something like this. What do a lot of
other communities call this?
Mr. Williams: Angular plane, transitional height plane and bull plane are three that we
specifically worked from. Daylight plane is used in other communities too I know I have heard
that. I don’t know that I have heard compatibility plane elsewhere.
Commissioner Lippert: I don’t think daylight plane is necessarily broken but I am not happy
with compatibility plane because we are creating something new here. I would be happy to leave
it as daylight plane with the definition that is here and live and let live. If we come up with
something someday in the future we can name it but I really resist trying to reinvent the wheel so
to speak even though there are implications from daylight plane that really don’t exist.
Chair Griffin: Do you want to make that a motion? If you don’t want to make a motion maybe
Pat will.
MOTION
Commissioner Burt: I would like to make a motion that we retain as daylight plane with the
definitions here along with the addition of an intent statement or purpose statement as Curtis had
previously described. If Curtis would care to restate an approximation of his purpose statement.
Mr. Williams: I will tryto do this without the word enhanced in here too. Daylight plane is
intended to provide for light and air and to limit impacts of bull and mass on adjacent properties.
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
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
47
48
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Bialson and Packer absent)
Chair Griffin: I think we have probably discussed it enough. Would Commissioners like to vote
on this item? Good. All in favor of Pat’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? We got through it.
Now we are on the second of five items here. We have another definition of a good French word
porte-cochere. If we can have a definition of that and how it is counted in gross floor area
calculation especially relating to carports. Curtis.
Mr. Williams: We did provide for you some suggested language that says a porte-cochere means
a covered structure attached to a residence or erected over a driveway. It is open on two or more
sides and used either for the required covered onsite parking or for temporary vehicular parking
for loading and unloading. The implication of gross floor area that we would provide is that
where gross floor area says that car garages and carports are included to add to that including
porte-cocheres when used to comply with the onsite covered parking requirement. And under
the exclusion where things are excluded from gross floor area it would say this includes porte-
cocheres when not used to comply with the onsite covered parking requirement. So essentially if
they are covered and they are used to satisfy the onsite parking requirements they become
carports and if they are not they are porches and they aren’t counted.
Chair Griffin: Say that again because what you are specifying here is that a porte-cochere is a
carport if it is Used on a driveway.
Mr. Williams: Not just if it is used on a driveway. If it is used to satisfy your covered parking
requirements.
Chair Griffin: Then it is a carport.
Mr. Williams: Right. Otherwise it is treated like a porch would be treated.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have one clarification on the definition just to preclude something
from happening that we might not want to have happen is covered structure attached to a
residence or erected over a driveway adjacent to a residence: That is to keep somebody from
erecting something still behind the front setback but.., because it really wouldn’t be a porte-
cochere at that point but there is nothing definitionally that would preclude them from doing that
and calling it a porte-cochere. So that would that be advisable or not? I am also used to porte-
cocheres being open on three sides.
Mr. Williams: Steve is saying that I think they are attached. I think at least the term has been
used for some that I have seen that are not that close but it is just covered as you come through
the driveway. What was your language?
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1 Commissioner Holman: Erected over a driveway adjacent to a residence would be in addition to
2 attached to a residence. My experience also has been attached but I guess, they don’t absolutely
3 have to be but I don’t want them moving forward and then they just become some sort of free
4 form out there in front of the house.
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
47
48
Mr. Williams: I think that language is fine with us. The intent generally is that it is a place that
you can get out of the car and get into the house. So for the most part the image is of something
that is attached theoretically. It might be a couple of feet away or something and not have the
cover attaching. I think that language works.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: Call me old fashioned but is there some reason we can’t call it a carport?
Mr. Williams: Carports count as floor area but that is because they are part of the covered
parking requirement and these are not. They generally do not have, whereas carports for the
most part have cars under them, these are not intended for that purpose as far as not having them
for longer than a very sort period of time. If they do have them and they are using them for the
covered parking requirement then yes they are carports but there is a distinction in that it is
generally sort of a drop off spot not for housing the cars.
Chair Griffin: And yet I have seen it done.
Mr. Williams: Yes. Again if it is done and it is satisfying the covered parking requirement then
it is going to count as floor area even though it !ooks just the same it is not.
Chair Griffin: What if it is in effect a third covered parking spot. In other words you have a
two-car garage and a porte-cochere?
Ms. Grote: All covered parking is counted in the floor area. So if someone were to come in and
identify this as a permanent covered parking spot it would be counted as FAR. Whereas if they
identify it as kind of a pass through something that is used for drop off, they don’t park a car
under this permanently then we wouldn’t count it.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I don’t think anybody is going to like what I have to say. I was pretty
irritated when the City started counting how shall we say carports as floor area. I think that
really the way this should have been structured and I think the porte-cocheres should be included
in this as well is that porte-cocheres and carports should not count towards floor area but it
should count towards lot coverage. The reason being that it is just like a porch. It is an element
that is added to a building but there is no real mass associated with it. Back when we had
carports and they really didn’t count towards the floor area and it allowed people some flexibility
in the floor area of their houses. It is not a popular approach to it but I think it is a credible
approach to dealing with this issue.
Ms. Grote: Just as a matter of experience what we were running into with carports is that they
became virtually just like garages. It was very difficult to differentiate between a carport and a
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
garage so we went back to kind of an original intention or intent in the wording of FAR that it
would include all covered parking whether it was a garage or a carport. We might recommend
that we would change what we put before you tonight to include all porte-cocheres just like we
include all carports in F.~R.
Vice-Chair Cassel: But I can remember that discussion that we had and why we changed it
because there were indeed a lot of problems that came with that. We finally decided we had to
count two car parking spaces period because they were being filled in.and all other kinds of
reasons. This comment about counting it as if it was a porch for the ground coverage is probably
a wise one.
Ms. Grote: Yes and we had every intention of counting as lot coverage no matter what.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: The reason that I don’t think it should be counted as FAR and I am
sympathetic to Lee’s comments it is not so unpopular as you might think but I have also had the
experience that Lisa has as they were quickly becoming just like garages. I think you are
familiar with that too but my heart is where your comments came from.
I don’t think porte-cocheres should be counted as FAR because, and I am familiar with porte-
cocheres being open on three sides and that would be one question that I would put to Staff is
they should be open on three side if the other Commissioners agree. What they do do is they
provide buffer to the neighbor on one side, the side that the porte-cochere is on, and they are
basically a see-through structure. So I don’t think we want to penalize people for putting. There
is a brand new house on Forest I mentioned I think at our last meeting here upstairs with the
subcommittee and it is great because there is buffer to the neighbor, it is see-through, it is really
no harm-no foul. So I don’t think it should be counted as FAR. One concern that I did just have
though is that it shouldn’t just become another porch over which you put a lot of structure, which
means that we are adding mass up and next to the neighbor. So porte-cocheres also don’t usually
have structure on top of them from my experience and Staff can comment on that as well.
Maybe that ought to be in the definition too.
Chair Griffin: I will also throw this out to Staff. I agree with almost all of the comments that
Commissioner Holman has made. I am wondering about again daylight plane implications here.
would the roof of the porte-cochere, I am thinking what is the ramification of that if your
driveway is on the extreme edge of the house and you have a roof that exceeds ten feet in height
I guess you start penetrating that daylight plane unless you have a driveway that is inset
somewhat from the edge of the property.
Mr. Williams: You would have either limited to ten feet or have to have it however many feet in
for how much taller it would be. It would have to be setback some to meet the daylight plane
requirement.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: So this has to meet all the height limits and all the other descriptions of a
porch or something similar to this so they are just not going to put in a 15 or 18 foot high piece
City. of Pato Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
without having it be double counted and if it is over so many feet and all of those rules. They
will all apply to this.
So then can I see if we can combine what we said and try a motion?
Commissioner Burt: I would like to go back a moment to this carport issue. I guess it was six to
eight years ago that there was a community discussion on it as there were some carport
problems. Here we are in the ZOU and we are kind of just saying this is a non-issue. Six or
eight years ago a certain decision was made in reaction to some problems. I would like to have a
little bit more discussion here on this and make sure that we are in concurrence with what was
decided that long ~igo. That’s a long time and was it the best resolution to the problem that
existed at the time. Lisa, you mentioned and I just have this vague recollection of the discussion
in the community at the time, there were carports that were getting filled with goods and
essentially turning into non-enclosed garages for storage or as we treat our garages as storage
sheds they became non-enclosed storage shed of sorts. Was that the problem?
Ms. Grote: Actually, carports were defined as 50% or less enclosed and so what we were seeing
is people coming in that would have half walls along most of what would ordinarily be an open
side and then they would have the opening that the car goes through kind of in an arch shape. So
it would look essentially like a garage. There were all kinds of designs that were put forward on
some of the houses that you couldn’t tell from the front that this was not a garage. Sometimes
they would have a garage door and then 50% of the sidewall would be enclosed and then
somehow it would be kind of offset from the main house and so the back of the "carport" was
open: So from the street it looked like a garage.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, so it sounds like there were several ways in which people were
pushing the envelope and instead of us tweaking the regulation and addressing those issues in a
way that didn’t allow that envelope to be pushed so much we just kind of took a sledge hammer
to it and said we won’t allow carports to be excluded from FAR. I would at least like to look at
whether there are ways to address the prior issues and if it was a true carport, an open structure
similar to what we are describing in this porte-dochere but a car actually parks under it should it
be counted against the FAR or not?
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: It sounds like these individuals that did this were actually doing
everybody a favor. If they were renovating their.houses carports might not stylistically fit in
with the style of house that they were building. I am talking clearly off the top of my head here
by creating something that looked like a garage might have in fact been a way of having an
existing carport and a mess comply with the style of house.
Ms. Grote: Actually, most of these occurred not on renovations but on new houses. People were
using the FAR that they would have had to have counted in the carport in the house itself. So
what we were getting were bigger houses and then something attached to it that looked like a
garage but wasn’t counted as FAR. So you were filling up more of the lot with mass and bulk
and that was seen as something that wasn’t desirable.
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
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
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Lippert: Why not just simply state then that anything that has a garage door
counts as garage?
Ms. Grote: There were other examples. Even very substantial looking carports that didn’t have
garage doors. A couple of them did but many of them did not and they were still substantial
looking.
Chair Griffin: Okay. Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I was here through that discussion and there was a lot of discussion and it
took us a !ong time to look at these issues. It wasn’t just oh gee! we will solve this by making it
FAR. We were looking at mass. This was a time when we were.looking at very large houses
that had a lot of mass and how we were going to deal with this mass. Part of the problem was
that people were putting in carports so they wouldn’t be counted, put a roof over it, put a garage
door on the front, put a wall up along the side and then enclose it later. So it wasn’t just a case of
it being a carport so it was open and felt open in some way and you parked your car under it but
rather it was actually getting enclosed later on after everything was being done. Some of these
were quite large. So there were issues of how much of the site was covered and how it was
getting filled in but they were literally being filled in and people were concerned about the mass.
So the solution was you have a garage and you have two parking spaces. You could have it
inside or outside or partially covered or however you wanted to do it but it was counting towards
the FAR.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: It seems like if the problem was illegal construction after the fact we have a
lot of things that could go wrong in the community if that is allowed but that aspect seems like it
is an enforcement issue and not a code and a design issue. The other thing that I think about is
that at the time this issue was addressed in the way it was we did not have the IR guidelines. So
it sounds to me like some of these issues about mass and scale that were coming about as a result
of this carport issue in some way have another mechanism to address them today that wasn’t at
our disposal before. So I still haven’t heard anything that if we go back to the original problem
of six or eight years ago I haven’t yet heard ways in which those problems couldn’t be addressed
in more reasonable ways. It sounds to me like Karen is talking about on the porte-cochere that if
it is more appropriate that it be open on three sides that that might apply to a carport as well and
that it would still be subject to, well the IR guidelines are on second story, but we are talking
about throwing some other things in the future under IR review and basically looking at things in
a form code context. Here we have had this discussion about form code and it seems like we
keep lapsing back to something other than a form code approach to what we are doing.
Chair Griffin: Karen, I did see you.
Commissioner Holman: Like Lee’s comments my thoughts go with where Pat is too the
difficulty is that when people would and Staff is of course free to comment on this as anything
else but sometimes I think what happened too is besides as Phyllis said people would come in
later and then fill in the other wall or put on a garage door so it really became a garage so the
houses were getting bigger and it is really totally illegal is that then if they did get busted, so to
speak, then they would come in and ask for a variance and get a variance then they were still
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
getting away with, and maybe now with our new variance findings that wouldn’t happen but is
the City really in a position, does the City really want to be telling people to tear out stuff. I
don’t know if you want to be there or not. The other thing that is different about porte-cocheres
than carports is carports can be located anywhere on the property. Porte-cochere is a very
obvious because of access it has to be very accessible to the streetscape. So it would be pretty
dam hard to cheat on it. You are not going to have a porte-cochere in your backyard that you
then tilt in and make it into a garage so you would be cheating with it. So it is quite a bit easier
to regulate. I don’t know if that is helpfu! or not but those are my comments.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering if we could bring this to a head and either have a motion on it to
change what Staff is currently showing or move on to the next item. Phyllis.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: Let me try a motion and see what happens to it. We were working on a
definition of portecochere so lets start with that. It looks like the suggestion here from Karen is
that we make this open on three or more sides used either for the required covered parking that it
should count towards the lot coverage in addition to these explanations here and that it is our
understanding that this structure wil! comply with all of the other regulations that go with like
structures on the site.
Commissioner Holman: There was one more which was, and I would like Staff’s impression of
this if it would satisfy, attached to a residence or erected over a driveway adjacent to a residence.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Fine.
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: I will second that.
Chair Griffin: Is there further discussion? Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I think that unless we apply this to carports that are open on three or
more sides I can’t support this, This is not logical. I think that if you follow it through and you
allo.w for carports that distinctly follow these criteria and might be separate and open on three
sides they should be entitled to the same definition as a porte-cochere and the entitlement there.
I don’t support the motion the way it is.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Can I make a suggestion to help move this along? Maybe this doesn’t
help with Lee’s concern but to vote on the porte-cochere motion and then address if there are
other Commissioners that want to address carport separately. Maybe that would help us move
along.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Burt: Well, I am inclined to go in the same direction that Commissioner Lippert
is advocating but I would like to ask the maker and the seconder of the motion if they are
envisioning any important distinctions between what we have just defined as the porte-cocherg
requirements and what should be permissible for a carport.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I was going to let us go back to the carport.
Commissioner Burt: But my question is what do you see as different between the two as we
have now defined porte-cochere?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I see it more like a porch that someone drives through. IfI had my
preference I would not do anything with this but we seem to be talking about it. This seems to
be a structure that seems to be appearing in our community.
Chair Griffin: I agree it is a drive-through porch. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: The distinction is and I think there is some language that could be
changed in the definition which is from my experience the purpose of a porte-cochere if we make
one more change, if the maker would be amenable to this, that it is open on three sides and not
used for required covered onsite parking but for temporary vehicular parking. That is the
purpose really.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think you only need half of that one way or the other. Use for temporary
parking?
Chair Griffin: Are you going to accept her suggestion?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: That wasn’t really what I was asking. I was asking with the rest of the
description of porte-cochere why shouldn’t that same description apply to carports? What are
you seeing as different about a carport now that we have done a better definition of a porte-
cochere? It has to be open on three sides. Why can’t that apply to carports?
Chair Griffin: Curtis, would you care to enter in on this at all?
Mr. Williams: I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other. I think there is logic to that as
far as if it is open on three sides. Carport is defined currently as open on two or more sides. If it
is completely open on three sides or more then...I don’t know, Lisa, do you have a problem with
excluding that from floor area?
Chair Griffin: All right then we have a motion.
Commissioner Burt: With that clarification I would like to attempt a friendly amendment to
include carports in the same definition as porte-cocheres provided they are open on three or more
City of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
sides and they would not be counted against FAR just like porte-cochere’s would not be counted
against FAR not seeing any real distinction between the two.
Ms. Grote: I would ask that you make it very clear that it is completely open on all of those
sides, 100% open on all of those sides, so we don’t get into this situation where people are
putting in half walls or archways or decorative features that all of sudden become enclosed.
Mr. Williams: Actually let me suggest a slight modification to that. What that does is it leaves
kind of a gap for things that are open on two sides and enclosed on two sides. They are not
defined anymore. They are not a garage and they are not a carport if you define it that way. So
my suggestion would be that we leave the carport definition the way it is with two or more but
then when we get to gross floor area we essentially exclude carports that are open on three or
more sides from gross floor area.
’ 9Vice-Chair Cassel: Is that satisfactory with everyone.
Commissioner Burr: I could live with, that.
Commissioner Lippert: Yes, but I would like to see that incorporated into this motion.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am just kind of looking around to see if we are getting some sense of
comfort with that.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: As the seconder of the motion I think we are mixing two things here. I
think we need a motion about porte-cochere and then we need a separate motion about carports if
we are going to make changes about that otherwise we are mixing apples and oranges here. I
think we ought to finish our motion with porte-cochere and then address carports.
Commissioner Lippert: All that I am suggesting is that as part of this motion we just say that
carports are completely open on three or more sides do not count as floor area and will be
defined during our discussion of carports and garages.
Commissioner Holman: But what our motion is is to address the definition of porte-cochere. So
we can’t address carports in the definition of porte-cochere.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Let’s keep it simple then we can go back and do that. We’ll do one and then
we will do the next.
Chair Griffin: So then we will have a motion on one of the items and we will deal with porte-
cocheres on this motion now.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Then we can make another motion right after it.
Chair Griffin: Then let’s clean that up then. N4aker?
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1 Vice-Chair Cassel: You want me to redo it? Okay. We are going to define porte-cochere, we
2 are going to add three or more sides open or erected over a driveway into that first sentence,
3 adjacent to a residence, not used for required parking, it should count towards the lot coverage
4 and it meets the other definitions that need to be met for height and daylight plane and all those
5 other good items, standard setbacks for porches.
6
7 Mr. Williams: That is understood but doesn’t I don’t think need to be in the definition.
8
9 Vice-Chair Casse!: No, it doesn’t need to be in the definition it just needs to be...
10
11 Mr. Williams: Are you still excluding it from being used for required onsite parking?
12
13 Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes.
14
15 Mr. Williams: Okay.
16
17 Vice-Chair Cassel: Unless ....
18
19 Mr. Williams: No, that’s fine because I think I know where you are going with the carport thing
20 and so if it is used for that then it becomes a carport and if it is open on three sides then it is not
21 going to count.
22
23 Vice-Chair Cassel: Then we will just do the next one.
24
25 Chair Griffin: Seconder.
26
27 Commissioner Holman: I will still second that.
28
29 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Bialson and Packer absent)
30
31 Chair Griffin: Can we vote this one then? All in favor of this smaller motion, Phyllis’s, on
32 porte-cocheres say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That carries unanimously.
33
34 Now then the second motion on carports. Is there any interest in pursuing that and would you
35 like to make that motion?
36
37 MOTION
38
39 Commissioner Burr: Okay. I will make the motion that a carport, if I can recall what Curtis said
40 correctly, a carport that is fully open on three sides and Karen is pointing out the appropriate
41 definition section, let me make an attempt to say it the way we understood it and then we will
42 look at how it intertwines with the definitions that are already in Attachment C. So basically a
43 carport that is open on three sides would not count against floor area ratio. I believe it is as
44 simple as that, three or more fully open sides would not count against floor area ratio.
45
46 SECOND
47
48 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
City of Palo Alto 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
47
48
Chair Griffin: Discussion?
Commissioner Burt: I will.just say that from what I recall and what has been recaptured tonight
on what was the basis six or eight years ago for the change we made on carports I think that this
motion still addresses the issues that existed at that time and would not allow the sorts of
violations of the essence of the carport that brought about the changes that we did at that time. It
is a reasonable approach, I think.
Chair Griffin: Seconder.
Commissioner Lippe..rt: I think we have said it all.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have one question because this was an abuse before. Is there anything
that we can put not in the definition but is there anything that we can put elsewhere such that
fully enclosing these will not be subject to a variance for compliance? Is there any way that we
can, I don’t know of any way we can do that, so what do you do if this happens? Is the City
really willing to, I am in support of the concept but I also don’t want to leave ourselves open to
the abuses that we had before and is there anyway we can deal with that? I just don’t want it to
end up where people come in for variances, get them and then it is like, okay, got that.
Ms. Grote: Well, Dan may want to weigh in on this as well. I don’t think there is anything that
could prevent someone from applying for a variance, however, I don’t think in most cases
variance findings would be able to be made. I don’t know what the unique circumstances would
be and I don’t think they could make a case for reduced property right or any of the other
findings. So I don’t think that we could prevent them from applying but I also think it would be
very difficult to make findings after the fact.
Commissioner Holman: You are on record.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Bialson and Packer absent)
Chair Griffin: All in favor of Pat’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That carries unanimously.
Weare now at a good break point so let’s take seven minutes.
It is now 20 minutes past nine and what we have still ahead on the agenda I would like to solicit
a motion from colleagues to continue the Second item on Low Density to a date certain if you
have such a date. Staff.
NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearings.
o Zoning Ordinance Update: Low-Density Residential. Revisions to Low Density
Residential (R-E, R-2, and RMD) Zoning Districts, including the Neighborhood
Preservation (N-P) Combining District. Commission’s review and recommendation to the
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
City Council preliminary approval of the Low Density Residential Chapter (18.10) of
Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code.
SR Weblink: http://www.ci~fpa~a1t~.~rz~it¥agenda/pub~ish/p~annin~-transp~rtati~n-meetin~s/36~5.pdf
Ms. Grote: It looks like we have room on August ! 1, which is next week to continue it to.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will so move.
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: I will Second.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Bialson and Packer absent)
Chair Griffin: It is moved and seconded that we continue the second item for this evening to our
meeting next Wednesday the 11tu of August. All in favor of that say aye. (ayes) Opposed? So
that does carry unanimously.
I do have a question here. We have the Page Mill and Park Boulevard item and then we have off
street parking.
Ms. Grote: Off street parking will not be heard that night.
Chair Griffin: Okay, then that looks less formidable for the meeting of the 11tu.
Coming back now to the third of our five bullet points involving the providing of a definition of
historic structure. Would Staff make a comment on this item, please?
Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Mana~.er, Special Proiects: Mr. Chair, Staff discussed this with
Commissioner Holman and what Staff is recommending is that the Commission move that the
section in the ordinance that deals with historic structures and I am just looking for that section
fight now.
Mr. Williams: It is on page 27 of the redline version, Historical Review and Incentives.
Mr. Lusardi: Under the first paragraph the last sentence should just simply reference the fact that
designation of an historic structure is contained and discussed in Chapter I6.49 of Title 16. So
we just reference where the process is for designating historic structures. That is Staff’s
recommendation on that.
Chair Griffin: Commissioner Holman, this is yours.
Commissioner Holman: Yes and I would agree with that. Just really briefly the purpose of this
is because if somebody goes to the Building Department or the Planning Department and
discovers they don’t have a Category 1 and 2 they are going to stop there and not realize that
there is a way they could become a 1 or 2 or actually have a National Register eligible property.
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
So I think adding that language of the process for designating historic structures found in 16.49
accomplishes the purpose of facility.
Chair Griffin: Would you like to move the Staff recommendation?
MOTION
Commissioner Holman: Sure. I would move the Staff recommendation as previously stated.
SECOND
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will second it.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Bialson and Packer absent)
Chair Griffin: All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That item carries unanimously.
This takes us to bullet four, reducing the front setback on flag lots to ten feet. Staff, this item has
already been voted on once.
Mr. Williams: It has and there was a unanimous seven to nothing vote at the time to do that.
Karen has brought it back to your attention.
Commissioner Holman: I had a little hiccup about this and I just want to make sure the
Commission was okay with this. The reason I brought it up was because if you have a flag lot
actually how it would work is it would be like having two rear property lines backing up to each
other. So I was just wondering if the Commission had considered that and maybe it should be 20
feet. I am not married to one or the other it was just kind of a hiccup that occurred to me that
maybe we weren’t aware of what the application of this is in the field.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I was quite aware of where the application would be in the field for this.
Many times when these flag lots exist there is no clear front !ot line and when there are two of
them the front of the lot actually is when they are opposite to each other which would be the side
lot line. So it gets a little confused. This gives them some flexibility to move around in them.
They tend to be oversized lots but not all of them of course.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: My experience has been typically the flag lot the narrow leg is the one
that faces the street side, is that correct? So that would be shorted to ten feet? And what would
happen on the interior of the Ls?
Ms. Grote: It actually isn’t the leg or the pole of the lot where the front setback is measured
from it is that long interior line that is parallel to the street, which is where the front setback is
measured from.
City of Pa!o Alto Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3t
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Okay, yes, I don’t have a problem with that.
Chair Griffin: You don’t have any problem with what?
Commissioner Lippert: I’m sorry, what was described here or what was voted on the last time.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Any more discussion? Is there need for a motion on this? It appears
not. So that being the case we will move on to bullet five, limiting potential to avoid an ARB
review involving construction of three or more new homes. Staff.
Mr. Williams: There is a provision to require ARB review of three or more adjacent homes or
duplexes that are constructed essentially simultaneously. I think I will let Commissioner Holman
express her concerns. Our understanding is that the concern is is there a way to somehow tighten
that up to perhaps address if they are not adjacent as well as the timing issue on when they are
constructed. I don’t know that we have certainly on the timing thing we don’t really have control
over when somebody comes in with an application. As far as the adjacency issue goes I don’t
know where you sort of draw the line so I think we are at a little bit of a loss unless someone has
some specific suggestion.
Chair Griffin: Karen, was there a particular incident that provoked this item?
Commissioner Holman: Well, a member of the public had actually brought this up and it kind of
peaked my interest because I know there have been instances where people have fried to skirt
this and have been captured. I don’t have a solution. There is nothing that I know of that would
keep somebody who has five properties that they want to develop just permitting them six
months apart and it skirts the intention of this. So it is the intention that I was trying to capture
and I have not been able to come up with a way to do it and doesn’t sound like Staff has either.
Lee has his hand up.
Chair Griffin: Staff, do you have any more comments on this item? Colleagues, while we are
waiting? Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Being a member of the Planning Commission that has also served on the
Architectural Review Board, the Architectural Review Board reviewed residential projects that
were subdivided because we didn’t have a process by which to review single-family houses
when they were a development. Now we have something that is like that which is the IR review
process. Maybe this might be, as Pat had suggested, a case in which we might want to begin to
fold in these project into the IR process so that when a property is subdivided into two or more
parcels that those subdivisions might be subject to IR review. Furthermore, just make things
even more complex there are certain districts within Palo Alto, which are residential districts that
the ARB has the purview to review any development or modifications of houses in those
districts. Maybe those districts might also be subject to the IR review process.
Chair Griffin: I didn’t think that this necessarily addressed a subdivision. I thought this was a
group of individually owned properties as opposed to a subdivision. Pat.
Commissioner Burr: Well, based on what Lee brought up wouldn’t IR review address any
properties that have a second story that would be along these lines? We now have at least some
City of Palo Aho 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
mechanism to address this problem or potential problem that we didn’t used have. They are
folded in there if they are a second story.
Commissioner Lippert: But if they were single story they would not get caught in the net so to
speak.
Commissioner Burr: Right and under the assumption that or the same reason that we didn’t
include single story on IR guidelines is that the single story structures are less prospective
impact.
Vice-Chair CasseI: We haven’t had an awful lot in town of single stories that have been coming
along.
Commissioner Burt: That is a good point. What developer is going to come in and build three
single story homes these days?
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, further comments? Karen.
CommiSsioner Holman: So does Staff perceive this as a problem or does Staffhave a solution to
a perceived problem? What is your recommendation at this time?
Ms. Grote: I don’t believe that it has been a problem and I would say that the Individual Review
process would address those instances where it might be a problem. So yes we would put them
through that review process.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I am sorry, Lisa, say that again. In other words, three or more properties
would get reviewed by ARB or they would not?
Ms. Grote: They would and anything that is less than that would go ~hrough and Individual
Review process. I think that would address the same kind of issues that the Architectural
Review Board is going to look at. They are going to look at compatibility with the
neighborhood, context, massing, streetscape, privacy those are the same kinds of issues that the
ARB would look at. So I think for those small, two and three lot, projects the Individual Review
process captures or addresses the issues that could arise.
Commissioner Lippert: Well, what I want to bring up is that the City Auditor’s Report was
looking for ways of streamlining the process that the ARB goes through~ So would it not be
more expeditious and efficient to have whether it is two, three, four or five have them all just go
through IR at some point rather than going through ARB?
Ms. Grote: We would need to go in and change that part of the Zoning Ordinance that addresses
architectural review. At this point, if it is three or more it goes through the Architectural Review
Board because at that level it was seen to be creating a larger impact. So we would want the
Board to review all of those. If it is one or two houses Individual Review can probably address
them. So there isn’t a need for the Board to look at one and two single development or just two
houses together.
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: My understanding is that Karen’s question is that when the houses are not
developed at the same time or that the houses are not necessarily connected is there some way to
get around that. My understanding as I have been hearing it is that there is not but that we now
have an IR review process that should be able to handle that and I think that is going to be
adequate. I worry at this point to redo the IR process at this time.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: We are not looking at redoing the IR process. Lee’s question prompted
one from me. Say for instance that there are three that are getting developed at the same time
will they go through ARB and IR? Just for clarification.
Ms. Grote: Only the ARB not through Individual Review.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, I have not read that anywhere that that would be the case.
Ms. Grote: We can clarify that. It would I think be in a lot of ways redundant to put them
through both reviews so we would either say if it is three or more it goes through the
Architectural Review Board, if is two or one it goes through the Individual Review process.
Commissioner Holman: So that would be one point. Another point would be that the ARB ¯
doesn’t typically, this doesn’t come up that often, but the ARB doesn’t typically do the IR review
so they may not be that familiar. So can we make sure that the ARB has the IR guidelines.
Maybe they do and maybe they don’t, I don’t know, so when this does come up that they know
that they are reviewing not only the typically ARB process but also they are looking for the IR
guidelines to be adhered to also. So that would be an inclusion that I think would be important.
The other thing that Commissioner Lippert mentioned was if there was a subdivision so that
might be one way to capture should there be a subdivision? That someone knows that if it is a
subdivision of three or more parcels they know that they are going to go through ARB review no
matter whether they .do them all at the same time or not. That might be one way to sweep up the
concern because you do have a potentially significant development as you said, Lisa.
Ms. Grote: For a subdivision it would go through the Architectural Review Board. So if in fact
we have a five lot subdivision that is being considered, there is an application being considered
right now, and those houses will go through if they are developed three or more of them at the
same time it will go through the Architectural Review Board. Now the subdivision, the lotting
pattern and the size of the lots will come through you and go through the City Council as well
but the houses themselves go through the Architectural Review Board.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, unless there is more discussion here. Pat.
Commissioner. Burt: I just wanted to concur with Commissioner Holman’s point that I had never
thought of which is that now that we have IR guidelines are those guidelines provided to the
ARB as guidelines that they should be using when they review individual homes that are under a
subdivision that fall under their purview.
City of Pa!o Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Ms. Grote: Yes, they will be and I don’t know that we have actually had a subdivision
application go through them since we have implemented IR but we will make sure that we have
them to use when the subdivision that is currently being applied for goes to them.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: So where would it be appropriate for us to include that so that it is very
clear for both an applicant and the ARB and members of the public? Where should that be
included for clarity? ~
Mr. Williams: In the code page 27 of the redline version has the paragraph on architectural
review. It says, Architectural review is required in Chapter 18.76 and 18.77 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which is the recently adopted processing changes. It is required in the R-1 District
and R-1 subdistricts whenever three or more adjacent residential units are intended to be
developed concurrently whether through subdivision or individual applications. So perhaps there
we could add something that indicates that Individual Review guidelines shall be used by the
ARB.to evaluate those.
Ms. Grote: I think we would also want to cross-reference in Chapter 18.76 and 18.77 where we
have now put what used to be 16.48 is now 18.76 and 18.77 and I think we need cross-references
in there to the Individual Review guidelines when they are applicable for subdivisions or houses
that are developed three or more at a time.
Chair Griffin: Do we need a motion to make that happen or are you saying you are going to do
it?
Ms. Grote: You could include it in your motion for clarity and then we will do it.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: What I am hearing from Staff is that the IR guidelines would be applied
by the ARB but the ARB in truth of fact does actually more than that. So what is missing is if
they are using the IR guidelines in absence of the other toolbox that they have then in fact they
are going to a much lower standard. When you do a subdivision what you are looking to do is to
create a neighborhood context, which is something this Board is very sensitive to. You are in
essence creating a feel of what a neighborhood should be like whether it be three houses or five
houses.
Ms. Grote: That is correct and we will make sure that we word it so that it is clear that the IR
guidelines are in addition to the ARB’s 16 standards that are currently in place.
Chair Griffin: Karen, would you like to move the Staff recommendation?
MOTION
Commissioner Holman: Yes. So it would just be basically what is 18.12.130 now architectural
review with the addition of Individual Review guidelines shall supplement ARB review.
City of Palo Alto Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: I will second it.
Chair Griffin: And we have a motion and it is seconded. Commissioner Holman, do you wish to
speak to your item or are we there?
Commissioner Holman: I think we are there.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Bialson and Packer absent)
Chair Griffin: Seconder? All those in favor of Karen’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That
item does carry unanimously.
That takes us through our five bullet points. So we are now done with agenda item number one.
Vice-Chair Cassel: No.
Chair Griffin: Is that not right?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I had a whole list of things.
Chair Griffin: You have a list. What is your list?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have a list and I just wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention that I
emailed to all of the Commissioners and Staff and Staff has gone ahead and made all of these
adjustments. They were wording changes not content change. The only one that ran into a
content issue was I was looking at the consistency of these accessory units. I think they are
consistent. There was one misunderstanding on my part that needs to be clarified. Curtis said he
was working on that. It is in the small accessory units that are storage, that are less than six feet
tail, and 75 square feet or less I presume that they should be able to go into the rear setback and
that in fact was not the way I read it but Curtis said that was the intension. That when you met
the requirements for putting the garages on these lots in the rear setback that you could put the
small storage sheds in there. The one thing I don’t understand there Curtis is, what happens if
you are on an internal lot. These storage areas are no taller than the fence in the backyard and
they are smaller than we allow for other structures in a backyard such as a porch and in the area
that I live in much of South Palo Alto there is only a 20 foot setback in the backyard in many of
these. There are L-shaped houses, the garage comes out to 20 feet, the base of the house is
actually at 40 and sometimes 50 feet back and there is only a 20 foot setback. If you are going to
put these anywhere on your property they are going to have to be in the rear setback.
Mr. Williams: The provisions here, what we have added and this is on pa.ge 11 to 12 of the
redline version, Attachment B, is we refer first to in addition to the provisions for location of
accessory structures under another section that is the section that allows any accessory structure
if it is setback 75 feet from the front property line to be in the side and rear, on page 18, if it is to
be in the rear yard or interior side yard. So if you are back 75 feet you canbe in either one of
those and you can be right up to the property line. That is what isnot real clear. The language
City of Palo Alto Page 39
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
8
9
10
!1
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
47
48
just says in addition to so what I was saying to Phyllis before the meeting is we will make an
initial sentence there that basically says that it can satisfy those requirements and be locatediike
that and then says after that that provided however that even beyond that they are allowed as
stated on page 12 to be !ocated when they are not 75 feet back they can still encroach into the
setbacks to some extent and that is a maximum of two feet into a required side yard, four feet
into the l~ont yard and four feet into the rear yard even if they are not 75 feet back. So these are
layered on top of each other and all those provisions apply to these small structures. So we agree
that that is not crystal, clear here and so we need to revise that and make that first sentence real
clear that the first operative provision is the accessory structures one that allows them in the rear
yard if they are setback far enough.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I just wanted to make sure that it was okay with everyone else that since I
was misinterpreting it that everyone else was agreeing with that.
Chair Griffin: I would like to say you did a marvelous job, Phyllis, I think we are all very
impressed with the amount of detail and clarification you brought forward in your
commtmications with Staff.
Now are we finished with item number one? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I had sent an email the other day, I think it was Thursday, about one
other item that I had mentioned some time ago for consideration and then I had forgotten and I
think we maybe all had forgotten. So I brought it up again in this email to you all about
including reference to the compatibility standards that were adopted for SOFA II and to include
those as reference as compatibility guidelines as a part of our Zoning Ordinance Update. Those
could be referenced in the code and then included in the handbook that gets developed. I recall
Staff not objecting to that previously but then we just all kind of forgot about it.
Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair, I think our position on that is we are fine with that and we will include
that but we don’t want to necessarily limit it to the R-1 District. What Staff would recommend is
that you refer those compatibility statements to the D & E Committee and we work with the D &
E Committee to see where they should be inserted and how they should be used. We support
them being included on cross-references to the Zoning Ordinance.
Chair Griffin: is that satisfactory to colleagues?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I really don’t understand.
Commissioner Holman: The Comp Plan talks a lot about neighborhood character and we are not
doing design review but a lot of people have a perception that compatibility is design review and
it truly is not. This Commission, Lee was not with us then, but this Commission adopted
compatibility standards for the SOFA II Coordinated Area Plan so those standards which as a
part of the code would be used as guidelines I would presume would be very instructive for
people who are trying to develop compatible projects in neighborhoods whether they be in this
case residential but in other cases could be commercial or mixed use.
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: What you are suggesting is that that gets puts into the Zoning Ordinance or
just referenced to it? I don’t have all of those in my head. I didn’t get to go back and reread all
of that to day.
Commissioner Holman: That they be referenced in the code, in this case in the R-1 code and that
they be included again as guidelines in the handbook that is given. You know how now we have
the R-1 handbook that is given to people, they be included in that that’s given to people for
reference.
Commissioner Lippert: I understand what Karen is talking about and I am on the D & E
Committee and I think we will take a look at that.
Ms. Grote: I do think there are probably a couple of places where they could be inserted so
people are clear that they apply to the entire code for all districts, commercial, industrial.and
residential. We will certainly let the whole Commission look at those standards and that
description. It is really a description of what compatibility is and the kinds of things you look for
to make a building compatible.
Mr. Lusardi: Again, Mr. Chair, this is a subtext of the context based design form code that we
are developing. Compatibility is a major issue within that so that is really where Staff is
suggesting that it be addressed. These compatibility statements were written for SOFA II, a
defined area, and we simply want to review them with the D & E Committee to make sure that
they are applicable for the whole City that’s al!.
Chair Griffin: So, colleagues are we in agreement that Staff’s suggestion is going to satisfy this
item for the time being? We have concurrence. Any other items here because I am reminded
that we have yet to return back to Steve Emslie’s original comment when we started the meeting
which was to review all of these items but particularly paragraph number one having to do with
street side yard setbacks with neighborhood compatibility issues. I am wondering if we need to
wrap that up in a motion to make all of that happen. Steve.
Mr. Emslie: We would suggest that you move the recommendation as amended this evening by
prior motion contingent on the report of the Co-Chairs, Planning Commission, ZOU
Subcommittee deliberating on the use of expanded Individual Review findings to address issues
of localized neighborhood compatibility and that your recommendation is conditioned on this
report coming back to you for your consideration prior to City Council consideration of the final
recommendations.
Chair Griffin: Would someone move Steve’s wording?
MOTION
Commissioner Burt: I will move the motion as stated by Director Emslie.
Chair Griffin: Do we have a second?
SECOND
City. of Palo Alto 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
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: I’ll second.
Chair Griffin: Do we have any further discussion on this item? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I enthusiastically second it but I have a caveat. Just to keep the record
clear, there are some things within the code that we looked at tonight which I did not agree with
previously so I don’t want there to bea misperception when this goes to forward that I have
agreed with everything in the code. So I don’t know what the cleanest way is to do that but it
needs to be captured in the record somehow I would think.
Mr. Williams: There are probably a couple of ways. Susan has kept meticulous records of the
votes, obviously they are in the minutes as well, but we will be providing the Council with a
table as we did to you earlier on that lists the issues that you went through and what the votes
were on each of those. We will note who voted against particular issues. So that might be the
cleanest way. The other was I was going to say if you wanted to on the record state which ones
you objected to you could do that but I think this will be clean and it will give the Council a good
sense of who was where on which issues.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have a question. Is it customary that the Planning Commission’s
recommendations go forward with that kind of a division of each item and how we voted on all
of them? I know some people have very strong feelings about some items, which need to be
clarified, but every item?
Mr. Williams: I don’t know if it is customary but the minutes have that information in them and
in this case because there are so many different items here we have been trying to keep track of it
and we have given you that updated list a couple of times through the process so it seems
appropriate.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Bialson and Packer absent)
Chair Griffin: All in favor of Pat’s .motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That items carries
unanimously.
Any further issues with item number one? That not being the case, we can now safely bring item
number one to a close.
Item number two is continued to our meeting next week.
This takes us to Commissioner Member Questions, Comments and Announcements.
COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Chair Griffin: I will say congratulations belatedly to Commissioners Holman and Butt on their
reappointment of a couple of weeks ago to the Planning Commission for new terms. Good job
you two.
Secondly, this is my last meeting as Chair. I have enjoyed pretty much all of my experiences up
here and look forward to returning to Civilian status.
City of Palo Alto 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
47
The other items here that we can discuss here are Commission representation at Council
meetings. We are now down two months, August and September are both spoken for. We have
three Commissioners, Griffin, Holman and Bialson whose numbers are up. With Commissioner
Bialson not being here to speak for herself Griffin and Holman can choose or flip coins for the
choice positions. I will probably be in Japan sometime in late October so I think November is
probably going to be the soonest that I can go. Do you have any preference?
Commissioner Holman: I just did either May or June I forget which and I am hoping that I am
not going to be here part of October as well. So I will take October and if I have to find a sub I
am willing to do that.
Chair Griffin: Maybe you and I can swap back and forth. Lee, have you had an opportunity to
join in the fun?
Commissioner Lippert: Don’t you remember I did January?
Chair Griffin: Slipped right through.
Commissioner Lippert: I am still learning the ropes so ifI can defer until probably November or
December I’ll be good.
Chair Griffin: We won’t hold your feet to the fire tonight and we will let the next Chair grapple
with this item.
I will say that moving on to Committee Assignments and again the next Chair would be most
appropriate to make new assignments. I will state the obvious though that the last number of
months I have not been able to attend the Low Density Subcommittee meetings and would like to
resign from that committee-unfortunately. I enjoyed it a lot but those days are done and
consequently we will have an opening. I know that Commissioner Burt is interested in serving
on that. In some ways I don’t want to steal the thunder of the new person coming up but let’s
appoint Commissioner Burr because he has specifically expressed some interest in joining that
group. We will let that appointment stand as one of my last lame duck gestures.
Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair, ifI could just point out that hopefully successfully next week the Low
Density Residential Committee will have completed their work. Staff would recommend that
committee would probably transition into some of the combining districts. I know that there are
issues with open space and those things and that committee should take up that task.
Chair Griffin: That sounds marvelous. Any other comments? Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I have been downloading a lot of the reports off of the Internet and
particularly the agendas. There are hyperlinks associated with them and for some reason they are
not doing them as text they doing them as scanned images and the hyperlinks aren’t working. Is
there a way to get it so that the reports are in text format? It also makes it a lot easer for cutting,
pasting and comments that we can then send to you in an email as a message.
City of Palo Alto Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Ms. Grote: We will look into that. I am getting some initial feedback that it might be a little
difficult given our computer system but let us look into it and give you a report back.
Commissioner Lippert: AI! you need to do is just take it as a Word document and print it as a
PDF. In this case what I think the person is doing is they are actually just taking the agenda and
scanning it and turning it into a PDF in which case it is a picture that is a PDF not a text
document that is a PDF.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Just a couple of items. One is I am the Commission representative for
August and my understanding is the only August item is the automotive dealership review this
coming Monday. I was absent for last week’s meeting which was the second half of that. So I
could still fill in and make that if Commissioner Cassel had an interest in flipping with me on
September I would be glad to do that. I was thinking I was lucking out getting August when
Council was on vacation but I will take heavier month if it would be more appropriate for a
Commissioner who attended both meetings to represent us.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have a crazy week next week. Let me think about that Pat and I might be
able to do it.
Commissioner Burt: Okay.
Vice-Chair Cassel! I am familiar with it and I am going to be busy in September.
Commissioner Burt: So I can do it but I was absent from one of the two meetings.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes, it makes sense so let me just think about it.
Commissioner Burt: Great. Second, just a couple of procedural things. We were given a
consent form to sign by Diana Riding and in it it has us sign that we have read and understand
our rights under government code 6254.21 but we weren’t supplied that to my knowledge. I
don’t anticipate any problems with it but I always like to read the thing that I am signing that I
have read and understood.
Chair Griffin: True story it was not attached.
Ms. Grote: Let us get that to you. We will put that in your next packet for next week so you
have it.
Commissioner Burr: Great. One final suggestion, clean up matter, I guess last Friday as is
custom we got hand delivered to our house an inch and a half thick maybe two inch think
Council packet because one of the items on the Council agenda is a Planning Commission item.-
In the interest of conservation of funds, you didn’t get it? -
Vice-Chair Cassel: Maybeyou are getting it for some other reason. I didn’t get it.
City of Palo Alto Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: Interesting. Okay. So I was presuming that the balance of the Commission
had. I got the entire Council packet. I have periodically gotten this and I presumed, in fact I was
told at one time, that whenever there was a Planning Commission item that we would get those
entire packets.
Chair Griffin: Maybe they thought you were the rep.
Ms. Grote: I think you may have received it because you are the representative from the
Commission. So I don’t think the entire Commission gets it I think the representative gets it
because you are going to be representing them on the August 9 meeting.
Commissioner Burr: Okay, so that one was for the second and even though there wasn’t a
Commission item on the second it just got copied for that reason. Good enough. Thanks.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Two things. One is along the lines of what Commissioner Burt was just
stating a reaffirmation that I really appreciate getting in our packets items that are going to
Council that have been to the Commission because it is great follow up and I really appreciate
getting those and it doesn’t always happen, it pretty much happens, but not always so I would
like to keep that request active. If other Commissioners want it I presume they will speak up too.
Then the other thing since this is Chair Griffm’s last full meeting I would like to just express
gratitude for his willingness to serve and serve on working group as wel!. We are not always
that easy to manage but we try to challenge him and Staff both. So I just want to express
appreciation for him standing in to keep us all on track here and also for Commissioner Cassel
serving as Vice-Chair this year.
Chair Griffin: No other comments? There are no minutes to approve.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.
Chair Griffin: The next meeting is a regular meeting of August 11.
NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting of August 11, 2004.
Vice-Chair Cassel: We have a special meeting at 5:30 that night that was just added for a site
visit on Page Mill.
Ms. Grote: We are having a site visit and we will meet you there on the site and that does start at
5:30.
Chair Griffin: This is a nicely done agenda this evening, Iwill say that, thank you one and all.
Commissioner Butt: That site visit will be a lega!ly noticed item open to the public?
Ms. Grote: It is open to the public. It will be and has been legally noticed, yes, thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Clarification on that because the site has several addresses will Staff let
us know specifically or where was it noticed that the specific meeting point would be.
Mr. Sodergren: I think the address is actually on the Special, is it 130 or 150? Then what we
plan on doing is once everybody meets at the site I think we are going to come up with specific
points on the property so everybody can be at one point and hear the same information and
everybody can listen to the same questions being asked and answered. So we will be coming up
with that and also we will probably give a little preview and some instructions because it is a
little different and we just want to make sure we are going to be complying with the Brown Act
and there are some other concerns we have. We will address those concerns at the beginning of
the meeting when we all meet at the site.
Ms. Grote: It was noticed for 195 Page Mill Road.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Then the other thing is I will do this tonight because you
can’t thank people too early. I mentioned in the past about how I would like to keep our focus
on the Comp Plan as this ZOU is Comp Plan implementation and I just really, really, really want
to thank Staff and express appreciation for the Comp Plan policies and goals.that are referenced
in especially the next item that we forwarded. I really, really appreciate that and thank you very
much.
Chair Griffin: I declare this meeting adjourned.
ADJOURNED: 10:07 p.m.
City of Palo Alto Page 46