HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-02 City Council (4)TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 2, 2003 CMR: 289:03
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS TO
ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ASA PERMITTED
USE, RATHER THAN AS A CONDITIONALUSE, IN THE
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE (RE), SINGLE-FAMILYRESIDENCE (R-
1), AND OPEN SPACE (OS) DISTRICTS; AND TO AMEND THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOA~ REVIEW FOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION
COMBINING (NP) DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council adopt
the attached ordinance (Attachment A) amending the RE, R-1, and OS district regulations
to allow accessory dwelling units as a permitted use, rather than as a conditional use, and
to amend the review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for accessory dwelling
units in the NP combining district.
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2002, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 1866, which amended
Government Code Section 65858.2 pertaining to second dwelling units (Attachment C).
The amendments require that accessory dwelling units be considered "ministerially,
without discretionary review or a hearing." Ministerial review- generally entails only staff
review to ensure that the application complies with specific criteria set forth in the Code,
followed by a building permit review. The state legislation becomes effective with any
second unit application submitted on or after July 1, 2003.
Currently, Zoning Ordinance provisions (Sections 18.10.040(k), 18.12.040(h), and
18.71.060(h)) require a Conditional Use Permit for second dwelling units (accessory
dwelling units) in the RE, R-!, and OS districts. Conditional use pern~it review is a
discretionary review process, subject to certain findings by the Zoning Administrator and
requiring a public hearing. Discretionary review for accessory dwelling units is also
required in Section 18.30.040(a) of the Neighborhood Preservation (NP) Combining
CMR: 289:03 Page 1 of 6
District in the form of ARB review for two or more dwelling units on a site. The NP
district is combined only with the RMD zone, which allows two residences on a site as a
permitted use.
A comprehensive review of criteria for second units is underway through the Zoning
Ordinance Update (ZOU). Staff is working with an ad hoc group and three Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) members on possible revisions to those criteria,
along with other potential changes to the City’s requirements for its low-density
residential zoning districts. Those modifications, however, will not be presented to the
P&TC until the summer of this year and will require substantial discussion and public
review. These substantive changes would not come to the Council for action until well
after the effective date of the state legislation.
DISCUSSION
The proposed amendments in the attached ordinance modify the RE, R-l, and OS district
regulations to list accessory dwelling units as a permitted use, requiring only a ministerial
action by staff. Similarly, ARB review of accessory dwelling units less than 900 square
feet in the RMD-NP zone would be removed, so that only ministerial review by staff
would be required. ARB review would still be required for second units greater than 900
square feet.
With one exception, no changes are proposed at this time regarding the development
standards applicable to detached accessory dwelling units, which include limitations on
lot size, separation from the main residence, height, size, parking, access, open space, and
desi~ compatibility.
The single exception is that in the R-1 zone, subsection 18.12.040(h)3) allows the Zoning
Administrator to approve height in excess of the 17 foot limit where the second unit is
proposed above a garage or similar structure, and upon additional findings that there are
"exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable," that the unit is "desirable for the
preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character" and "that the
additional height will not be detrimental to property...or the public health, safety, and
general welfare." However, this is not a ministerial action and is a discretionary decision
on the part of the Zoning Administrator, in conjunction with review of a Conditional Use
Permit. The proposed ordinance language would allow staff to approve second story
units over garages, without the additional findings. However, the Individual Review
process would apply to any second story structure, and staff believes that Individual
Review would provide needed protection for privacy for neighbors of the project. While
Individual Review is a discretionary process, it applies to all single-family residential
sites, and does not single out second units for review.
CMR: 289:03 Page 2 of 6
Attached Second Units
Consistent with the state legislation, this ordinance will also provide for attached second
units in single-family zoning districts and subject to ministerial review. The existing
development standards will apply with the exception that one parking space will be
required for the attached unit. The maximum size for attached units will be limited to 250
sq. ft. This was based on existing efficiency unit standards and small Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) construction in Palo Alto: the Health Code defines an efficiency unit
as 150 sq. ft., the Housing Element directs ministerial review for units up to 200 sq. ft.,
and the Building Code requires a minimum of 220 sq. ft. The unit size and additional
standards will be further analyzed through the ZOU. This will include the goal of
fulfilling Comprehensive Plan Policies advocating the development of such units in a
manner consistent with the character of the City.
Accessory Units in the RMD (NP) Zones
In the RMD (NP) zones, the original proposed ordinance by staff eliminated all ARB
review for second units in this zone and allowed for only staff review. The Neighborhood
Preservation (NP) combining district triggers ARB review for properties on which two or
more residential units are developed or modified in the current Title 18. It is intended to
modify regulations of multiple-family residence districts in areas where it is deemed
essential to maintain the visual and historic character of existing neighborhoods
(18.30.010). There are two RMD (NP) zoning districts in the city (Attachment D).
When combined with the RMD two unit residential districts, the NP overlay requires
ARB review of the second units. Staff’s initial assessment of this review was that the
new state legislation would prohibit the ARB process and only allow staff level review,
with no appeal.
As a two-unit district, however, the RMD does allow for development of a second unit
that could be similar in size to the primary unit, much more than the maximum 900 sq. ft.
accessory dwelling unit in the R-1 zoning district. Based on discussions with RMD (NP)
residents regarding concerns of eliminating ARB desi~on and neighborhood compatibility
review of larger second units, staff modified the recommendation at the Planning &
Transportation Commission meeting. Staff recommends that an amendment to require
ministerial review for second units of 900 sq. ft. or less, with ARB review for the larger
second units (greater then 900 sq. ft.) would meet both the intent of the state legislation
and the NP combining district zone. The City Attorney advises the Council, that while
this approach would be consistent with the intent of AB 1866, there is the possibility that
a legal challenge to ARB review for larger second units could succeed. However, in the
balance, the benefits to be gained by adopting this regulation outweigh the possible risks
from a legal challenge.
CMR: 289:03 Page 3 of 6
ZOU Review of Accessory Dwelling Unit Criteria
The ZOU process will involve review of other development standards for accessory
dwelling units, such as larger attached second units, minimum lot sizes, and parking
requirements. Additional specific design requirements may also be needed, in light of the
lack of discretionary review for these units. Some prototype design studies are
anticipated associated with the work of the ZOU urban design consultants to assist with
those criteria.
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEW AND
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance changes
on April 30, 2003 and recommended that the Council adopt the ordinance with the
following three revisions.
1.Revise the ordinance to reflect RMD (NP) requiring ARB reviews of second units
over 900 sq. ft.
2.Revise the proposed ordinance to confirm for Individual Review (IR) for newly
constructed second story units. The right of the property owner to build a second
unit could not be disputed through the IR process; the purpose of the review would
only be to require such modifications as would be necessary to make the second-
story (second unit) addition conform to the IR Guidelines.
3.Allow for entryways facing the street for attached units on corner lots as long as
both entryways are not on the same street side.
The Commission’s discussion focused on ~7o primary areas: attached second units and
how the proposed ordinance would affect existing conditions for single-family
residences.
The first concern for attached second units was that the unit size (250 sq. ft.) and existing
development standards could preclude attached second units from being developed. Staff
concurred with this concern. Staff described the reasoning for the 250 sq. ft. was based on
existing efficiency unit standards, small unit (SRO) construction in Palo Alto and as
described in AB 1866. Larger-sized units were not recommended at this time because the
impacts and design requirements are not completely ~known at this time. However, the
unit size and standards will be further analyzed through the ZOU. Also, the City’s Urban
Design consultants will look at the design of attached second units.
The second area of concern was the effect of this ordinance on existing conditions in
single-family districts, including existing accessory structures in the setback, on
substandard lots and under single story overlays. Staff explained that the ordinance only
CMR: 289:03 Page 4 of 6
allows second units by right where existing standards for living units are met. Therefore,
existing accessory structures in setbacks and substandard lots could not support a
residential unit. This is also true for the single story overlay combining district that would
prohibit second story accessory living units. The Commission also requested that staff
look into Historic Resources Board review for historic structures, specitScally in the NP
combining district.
Two members of the public spoke at the hearing and addressed similar issues to those
that the Commission discussed, including conversion of existing accessory structures and
second units the single story overlay combining district.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Applications for accessory dwelling units would no longer be required to pay application
fees for Conditional Use Permits, which currently amount to $2,3 80 for Planning review.
While that fee revenue would be lost to the City, staff time to process these applications
should be reduced as well. Planning review to determine conformance with development
standards will still be needed. The standard plan check fee collected as part of the
building permit application process would cover the staff time necessary to assure that
plans comply with the code standards.
The Impact Fee of $3,500 would continue to apply to new attached and detached second
units.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This ordinance is consistent with Housing Element Policy H-7, which urges modification
of regulations governing second units to encourage production of those units. The
ordinance will also assure that City policy regarding second units reflects state policy and
the requirements ofAB 1866, while still preserving neighborhood character and the
single-family nature of the city. Other means of encouraging second units while reducing
impacts on single-family neighborhoods will be considered as part of the ZOU.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code, which exempts the
adoption of an ordinance to implement the provisions of Section 65858.2 of the
Government Code.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Second Unit Ordinance
Attachment B: Assembly Bill No. 1866
Attachment C: Sections 18.10.040(k), 18.12.040(h), 18.71.060(h), and 18.30.040(a) of
the Zoning Ordinance
CMR: 289:03 Page 5 of 6
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Location of RMD ~P) zoning districts
Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, April 30, 2003,
without Attachments
Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes, April 30, 2003
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
asardi, Plannin.~er
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMIL" HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 289:03 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 [ZONING] OF THE PALO
ALTO MU~TICIPAL CODE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 18.10
[RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT REGULATIONS],
18.12 [SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
REGULATIONS], 18.30 [NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION
COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS] AND 18.71
[OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REGULATIONS] PERTAINING
TO SECOND DWELLING UNITS
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i.Findings. The City Council finds that:
(A) On September 29, 2002, the Governor approved
Assembly Bil! 1866, which amended Government Code section
65858.2 pertaining to second dwelling units.
(B) The amendments to Government Code section 65858.2
require that !ocal governments approve applications for second
dwelling units "ministerially without discretionary review or a
hearing."
(C) Amendments to Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipa!
Code should be made to facilitate City compliance with the
requirements of Assembly Bil! 1866.
SECTION 2.Subsection (k) is hereby deleted from
Section 18.10.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (which lists
conditiona! uses in the RE District).
SECTION 3.Subsection (k) is hereby added to Section
18.10.030 of the Pa!o Alto Municipa! Code (which lists permitted
uses in the RE District), to read as follows:
18.10.030 Permitted uses.
The fol!owing uses
residential estate district:
shall be permitted in the RE
(a) Accessory facilities
incidental to permitted uses;
and uses customarily
030528 syn 0091227
(b) Agriculture, including crop farming, tree farming,
viticulture, poultry farming, and keeping and raising of
livestock, subject to the following limitations:
(i) At least two thousand square meters (21,528
square feet) of site area shall be required for each horse,
mule, donkey, cow, steer, or similar livestock.
(2) At least two thousand square meters (21,528
square feet) of site area shall be required for each three
goats, hogs, sheep, or similar livestock.
(3) Keeping and raising of livestock, poultry, or
other animals may be conducted accessory to residentia! use, and
raising of animals for co~merciai purposes is prohibited.
(c) Home occupations, when accessory to permitted
residential use;
(d) Horticulture and gardening;
(e) Sale of agricultural products produced on the
premises; provided, that no permanent commercial structure for
the sale or processing of agricultura! products is permitted;
Single-family use;
Residentia! care homes;
Mobile homes (manufactured housing) on permanent
Small and large family day care homes;
Small adult day care home=~
(f)
(g)
(h)
foundations ;
(i)
(j)
(k) A second sinqle-family dwellinq unit, provided
that, in addition to the site development requlations smecified
for the RE District, all the followinq conditions are met:
(i) The minimum site area must be one acre.
(2)For a detached unit, the followinq develomment
standards amply:
030528 syn 0091227
.IA) The second dwelling unit shal! be
separated from the original dwelling unit and from any other
accessory bui!dinq by a minimum distance of twelve feet.
(B) The second dwelling unit is limited in
size to nine hundred sc~are feet of living area plus two hundred
sGuare feet of covered parking area.
(C) The second dwelling unit is limited in
height to one story and a maximum height of seventeen feet, as
measured to the highest point of the building=
(D) The second dwelling shall be designed so
as to permit a minimum of two hundred scruare feet of usable open
smace for each dwelling unit; provided, however, such open space
may be combined or separate, so long as a minimum of two hundred
sGuare feet is directly accessible from each unit; and provided,
further, for the purposes of this section, usable open space
shall not include any required front or street side yard.
(3) For an attached
development standards ap~lY£
unit, the following
~ The second dwelling unit may not have an
entranceway facing the same site line as the entranceway to the
main dwe!!inq unitL and no exterior staircases leading to the
unit are permitted.
(B) The second dwelling unit is limited in
size to two hundred fifty square feet of living area, which
shal! be counted in the total f!oor area ratio for the site.
(4) The second dwelling unit shall have street
access from a driveway in common with the main residence.
Separate driveway access may be permitted zpon 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
ampearance, from the street, of a lot division or two-family
use.
(5) The second dwe!linq unit shal! be
architecturally compatible with the main residenceL with respect
to s~yle, <oof pitch, color and materials, and the additiona!
marking shall be screened to off-site views by means of
vemetation or fencina~
030528 syn 0091227
(6) Accessory dwellings and quest cottages
existing O~ ~pril 28, 1986, and which prior to that date were
lawfu!, conforming permitted uses may remain as leqal
nonconforminq uses. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel,
improve or replace site improvements on the same site, without
necessity to comply with site deve!opment requlations for
continua! use and occupancy by the same use;provided that any
such remodelinq, ............. improvement or replacement shall not add a
kitchen nor result in increased floor area, number of dwelling
units, heigh<, .... length or any other increase in the size of the
improvement without complying with the standards set forth in
this subsection (k).
SECTION 4.Subsection (h) is hereby deleted from
Section 18.12.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (which lists
conditional uses in the R-! District).
SECTION 5.Subsection (h) is hereby added to Section
18.12.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (which lists permitted
uses in the R-I District), to read as fol!ows:
18.12.030 Permitted uses.
The following uses shal! be permitted in the R-I single-
family residence district:
(a) Accessory facilities and uses customarily
incidental to permitted uses; provided, that accessory
facilities built after the effective date of the ordinance
codified herein shal! have no more than two plumbing fixtures;
(b) Home occupations, when accessory to
residential use;
permitted
(c) Horticulture, gardening, and growing
products for consumption by occupants of the site;
(d)Single-family use;
of food
(e)Residential care homes;
(f) Mobile homes
foundations;
(manufactured housing)on permanent
(g)Small and large family day care homes.
030528 syn 0091227
(h) A second single-family dwelling unit; provided,
that in addition to the site development regulations specified
for the R-I or R-I specia! residential building site combining
district, al! the fol!owing conditions are met:
(i) The minimum site area is thirty-five percent
larger than the minimum site area required in the respective R-I
or R-I combining district. In the case of a flag lot, <he !9t
must be thirty-five percent larger than the minimum flaq lot
size established by Section 21.20.300 for the respective R-I or
R-! combinin~ district_~
standards apply:
For a detached unit, the following deve!opment
_~ The second dwelling unit must be
~eparated from the original dwe!ling unit and from any other
accessory building by a minimum distance of twelve feet;
(B) The second dwelling unit is limited in
size to nine hundred sGuare feet of living area mlus two hundred
square feet of covered harking area;
.(C) The second unit is limited in height to
one story and a maximum height of seventeen feet, as measured to
the highest point of the building. Provided, a second dwelling
unit is permitted on the second story of a two-story structure
where the first story is a garage or similar use, subject to the
~eneral development standards of this chanter. New second floor
construction, whether to be used for a mrimary dwellin~ or a
second dwe!ling unit, is subject to the provisions of Chapter
18.14 (single family individual review).
(D) The second dwelling unit shall be
designed to permit a minimum of two hundred square feet of
usable omen space for each dwelling unit; provided, however,
such open space may be combined or separate, so long as a
minimum of two hundred square feet is directly accessible from
each Unit; and provided, further, for the purposes of this
section, usable open space shall not include any required front
or street side yard.
_(3) For an
develonment standards apply;
attached unit, the following
(A) The second dwe!linq unit may not have an
entranceway facing the same site line as the entranceway to the
030528 syn 0091227
5
main dwellinm unit, and no exterior staircases leading to the
unit are permitted.
i~_) The second dwelling unit is limited in
size to two hundred fifty scmare feet of living area, which
shall be counted in the tota! f!oor area ratio for the site.
iC) New second floor construction, whether to
be used for a primary dwelling or a second dwelling unit, is
subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.14 single-family
individual review.
(4) 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.
]5) The second dwelling unit shall be
architecturally~ comsatible with the main residence, with respect
to style, roQf pitch, co!or and materials, and the additional
parking shall be screened to off-site views bY means of
veqetation or fencinq=
SECTION 6. Section 18.12.050(g)
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read:
of the Palo Alto
(g) Residential Density. Not more than one single-
family dwelling shal! be permitted on any site, except as
allowed under 18 12 ~0’~ 18 12 030(h)
SECTION 7.Subsection (h) is hereby deleted from
Section 18.71.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (which lists
conditional uses in the OS district).
SECTION 8.Subsection (i) is hereby added to Section
18.71.050 of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code (which lists permitted
uses in the OS district), to read as follows:
18.71.050 Uses permitted.
Permitted uses include the following:
(a)Agricultural uses:
(i)~_nima! husbandry,
(2)Crops,
030528 syn 0091227
(3)Dairying,
(4)Horticulture, including nurseries,
(5)Livestock farming,
(6)Tree farming,
(7)Viticulture and similar uses not inconsistent
with the intent and purpose of this chapter, but excluding hog
farming;
(b) Botanical conservatories,
laboratories, and similar facilities;
outdoor nature
(c)Native wildlife sanctuaries;
(d)Single-family dwellings;
(e)Accessory facilities and accessory uses;
(f)Residential care homes;
(g)Hobile homes (manufactured housing)on permanent
foundations.See Section 18.88.140;
(h)Small day care homes.
(i)A second sinqle<f~m~ly dwelling unit, provided
that, in addition to the site deve!opment regulatign$ specified
for the OS District, all of the fol!owing conditions are met:
I_~) The minimum site area is ten acres.
i_~) ....For a detached u~it, the fol!owinq development
standar~
(A} The second dwelling unit must be
semarated from the original dwelling unit and from any other
accessory building by a minimum distance of twelve feet.
(B) The second dwelling unit is limited in
size to nine hundred square feet of living area plus two hundred
scruare feet of covered parking area,
03052$ syn 0091227
7
(C) The second dwelling unit is limited in
height to one story and a maximum height of seventeen feet, as
measured to the highest point of the building,
_(D) The second dwelling unit shal! be
designed so as to mermit a minimum of two hundred square feet of
usable omen smace for each dwelling unit; provided, however,
such open space may be combined or separate, so long as a
minimum of two hundred scruare feet is directly accessible from
each unit; and mrovided, further., for the purposes of this
seqtion, usable open space shall not include any required front
or street side yard.
3_~ For an attached
development standards applyt
unitL the fo!lowinq
(A) The second dwelling unit may not have an
entranceway facing the same site line as the entranceway to the
main dwelling unit, and no exterior staircases leading to the
unit are mermitted.
(B) The second dwelling unit is limited in
size to two hundred fifty square feet of living area, which
shal! be counted in the tota! floor area ratio for the site.
_~_ The second dwelling unit shall have street
access from a driveway in common with the main residence.
Separate driveway access may be permitted upon a determination
that separate access wil! result in fewer environmental impacts
such as excessive paving, unnecessary grading or unnecessary
tree remova!, and that such semarate access will not create the
.~mpearance, from the street, of a !or division.
(5) The second dwelling unit shall be
architecturally gompatible with the main residence, with resmect
to style, roof mitch, co!or and materials, and the additiona!
parking shal! be screened to off-site views by means of
vegetation or fencing.
(6) Accessory dwellings and guest cottages
existing on Apri! 28, 1986,and which prior to that date were
lawful, conforming permitted uses may remain as legal
nonconforming uses. Such uses shal! be permitted to remode!,
immrove or replace site improvements on the same site, without
necessity to comply with site deve!opment regulations for
continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided that any
such remodeling, ~mprovement or replacement shall not add a
030528 syn 0091227
8
kitchen nor result in increased floor area, number of dwelling
units, height, length or any other increase in the size of the
improvement without complying with the standards set forth in
this Section 18.71.050(i).
SECTION 9.Section 18.30.040 of the Palo Alto
Municipa! Code (which requires Design Review in the Neighborhood
Preservation (NP) Combining District), to read as follows:
18.30.040 Design review requirements.
(a) Design Approval Required. No design review shal! be
required for construction of or modifications to single-family
structures which constitute the only principal structure on a
parcel of land, or for properties on which two or more
residentia! units are deve!oped or modified, provided that the
second dwelling unit conforms to the requirements in subsection
(d) and the deve!opment standards of the underlying district.
For properties on which two or more residential units are
deve!oped or modified, design review and approva! shall be
required by the architectural review board in compliance with
procedures established in Chapter 16.48 for any new development
or modification to any structure on the property and for site
amenities.
(b) Purposes. The purpose of design review shall be to
achieve compatibility of scale, silhouette, facade articulation
and materials of new construction with existing structures on
the same property or on surrounding properties within a
combining district.
(c)Design Guidelines. The architectural review board
shal!, at its discretion, deve!op specific design review
guidelines for each specific area to which this combining
district is applied.
(d)Exception for Accessory Dwelling Units. The Design
Review required under this section 18.30.040 for properties on
which two or more residential units are developed or modffied
shal! not apply provided all of the following conditions are met
for the second unit:
(i) For a detached unit,
standards appl_Y_k
the following development
030528 syn 0091227
(A) The second dwelling unit must be
separated from the original dwelling unit and from any other
accessory building by a minimum distance of twelve feet.
~ The second dwelling unit must be limited
in size to nine hundred square feet of living area plus two
hundred smuare feet of covered parking area,
(C) The second dwelling unit shall be limited
in height to one story and a maximum heiqht of seventeen feetc
as measured to the highest point of the building,
(D) The second dwelling shall be designed so
as to mermit a minimum of four hundred square feet of usable
o en_p_9_8_~pace for each dwelling unit: provided, however, such open
space may be combined or separatet so !ong as a minimum of four
hundred square feet is directly accessible from each unit; and
provided, further, for the purposes of this section, usable open
s_pace shal! not include any required front or street side yard.
(2) For an
develomment standards app~y~
attached unit, the following
IA) The second dwelling unit may not have an
entranceway facin~ the same site line as the entranceway to the
main dwellinq unit, and no exterior staircases leadinq to the
unit are permitted.
_~ The second dwelling unit must be limited
in size to two hundred fifty smuare feet of living area, which
shall be counted in the total f!oor area ratio for the site.
(3) The second dwel!inq unit shall have street
access from a driveway in common with the main residence.
Semarate driveway access maz be mermitted u~on a determination
that separate access will result in fewer environmenta! impacts
such as excessive paving, unnecessary grading or unnecessary
tree remova!, and that such separate access wil! not create the
appearance, from the street, of a lot division.
(4) The second dwelling unit shall be
architecturally gom~atible with the main residence, with respect
to style, roof pitch, Co!or and m~teri{is, and the additiona!
parking shal! be screened to off-site views by means of
veqetation or fencinq.
030528 syn 0091227
!0
SECTION i0. In Table 1 of subsection (c) in Section
18.83.050 (Schedule of off-street parking, loading and bicycle
facility requirements), the entry for Single-family Residential
Units is modified as fol!ows:
Use
Sing!e-famiiy
residential use
(including second
detached or attached
single-family dwelling
units):
in the OS district:
Minimum Off-Street Parking
Requirement
Minimum Bicycle
Parking Requirement
Spaces : Class
For the primary dwelling
unit, 4 spaces, of which
one must be covered.
For all additional units, 2
spaccs pcr unit, of
",’~:ch one space ~ ~-4be
For a second detached
dwelliDg unit, 2 smages~_~of
which one must be covered.
For a second attached
dwelling unit 1 spaqe ....
2 spaccs pcr uni.[, of which
....... ~ ~ covcrcd
For the primary dwe!!inq
unit, 2 spaces, of which
one must. b~ covered.
None
None(b)In all other
@!SErlCES:
For a second detached
dwe!linq unit 2 spaces 9f
which one must be covered.
For a second attached
dwelling unit, ! space.
030528 syn 0091227
11
SECTION ii. Environmental Impact. The City Council
finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmenta!
Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 21080.17 of the Public
Resources Code, which exempts from CEQA the adoption of an
ordinance to implement the provisions of Section 65858.2 of the
Government Code.
SECTION 12. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be
effective 31 days after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORgd:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
030528 syn 0091227
12
ATTACHMENT B
Assembly Bill No. 1866
CHAPTER 1062
An act to amend Sections 65583.1, 65852.2, and 65915 of the
Government Code, relating to housing.
[Approved by Governor September 29, 2002. Filed
with Secretary of State September 29, 2002.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 1866, Wright. Housing: density bonuses.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires the housing element of the
general plan of a city or county, among other things, to identify adequate
sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, and
mobilehomes, and to make adequate provision for the existing and
projected needs of all economic segments of the community. That law
permits the Department of Housing and Community Development to
allow a city or county to identify adequate sites by a variety of methods.
This bill would authorize the department to also allow a city or county
to identify sites for 2nd units based upon relevant factors, including the
number of 2nd units developed in the prior housing element planning
period.
(2) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to
provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units on parcels zoned for
a primary single-family and multifamily residence, as prescribed.
This bill would require, when a local agency receives its first
application on or after July 1, 2003, that the application shall be
considered ministerially without discretionary review or hearing,
notwithstanding other laws that regulate the issuance of variances or
special use permits.
The bill would authorize a local agency to charge a fee to reimburse
the agency for costs it incurs as a result of these provisions.
(3) The Planning and Zoning Law also requires, when a developer of
housing proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of the
. local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the
developer with incentives or concessions for the production of lower
income housing units within the development if the developer meets
specified requirements. Existing law requires the local government to
establish procedures for carrying out these provisions.
Tiffs bill would revise those provisions to refer to an applicant who
proposes a housing development and would recast them to, among other
things, revise criteria for making written findings that a concession or
Ch. 1062 2
incentive is not required, add criteria for continued affordability of
housing .in a condominium project, authorize an applicant to request a
meeting on its proposal for a specific density bonus, incentive, or
concession or for the waiver or reduction of development standards, and
exempt developments meeting certain affordability criteria from
specified laws. By increasing the duties of local public officials, the bill
would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would also authorize an applicant to initiate judicial
proceedings if the city, county, or city and county refuses to grant a
requested density bonus, incentive, or concession in violation of these
provisions, and would require the court to award the plaintiffreasonable
attorney’s fees and costs of suit. It would authorize a local agency to
charge a fee to reimburse it for costs that it incurs as a result of these
provisions.
(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 65583.1 of the Government Code is amended
to read:
65583.1. (a) The Department of Housing and Community
Development, in evaluating a proposed or adopted housing element for
compliance with state law, may allow a city or county to identify
adequate sites, as required pursuant to Section 65583, by. a variety of
methods, including, but not limited to, redesignation of property to a
more intense land use category and increasing the density allowed within
one or more categories. The department may also allow a city or county
to identify sites for second units based on the number of second units
developed in the prior housing element planning period whether or not
the units are pemaitted by right, the need for these units in the
community, the resources or incentives available for their development,
and any other relevant factors, as determined by the department. Nothing
in this section reduces the responsibility of a city or county to identify,
by income category, the total number of sites for residential development
as required by this article.
(b) Sites that contain permanent housing units located .on a military
base undergoing closure or conversion as a result of action pursuant to
the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and
9O
m3m Ch. 1062
Reali~rnent Act (Public Law 100-526), the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), or any subsequent act
requiring the closure or conversion of a military base may be identified
as an adequate site if the housing element demonstrates that the housing
units will be available for occupancy by households within the planning
period of the element. No sites containing housing units scheduled or
planned for demolition or conversion to nonresidential uses shall qualify
as an adequate site.
Any city, city and county, or county using this subdivision shall
address the progress in meeting this section in the reports provided
pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65400.
(c) (1) The Department of Housing and Community Development
may allow a city or county to substitute the provision of units for up to
25 percent of the community’s obligation to identify adequate sites for
any income category in its housing element pursuant to paragraph (1) of
subdivision (c) of Section 65583 if the community includes in its
housing element a program committing the local government to provide
units in that income category within the city or county that will be made
available through the provision of committed assistance during the
planning period covered by the element to low- and very low income
households at affordable housing costs or affordable rents, as defined in
Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, and which
meet the requirements of paragraph (2). Except as otherwise provided in
this subdivision, the community may substitute one dwelling unit for
one dwelling unit site in the applicable income category. The program
shall do all of the following:
(A) Identify the specific, existing sources of committed assistance
and dedicate a specific portion of the funds from those sources to the
provision of housing pursuant to this subdivision.
03) Indicate the number of units that will be provided to both low- and
very low income households and demonstrate that the amount of
dedicated funds is sufficient to develop the units at affordable housing
costs or affordable rents.
(C) Demonstrate that the units meet the requirements of paragraph
(2).
(2) Only units that comply with subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) qualify
for inclusion in the housing element program described in paragraph (1),
as follows:
(A) Units that are to be substantially rehabilitated with committed
assistance from the city or county and constitute a net increase in the
community’s stock of housing affordable to low- and very low income
households. For purposes of this subparagraph, a unit is not eligible to
Ch. 1062 4
be "substantially rehabilitated" unless all of the following requirements
are met:
(i) At the time the unit is identified for substantial rehabilitation, (I)
the local government has determined that the unit is at imminent risk of
loss to the housing stock, (II) the local government has committed to
provide relocation assistance pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with
Section 7260) of Division 7 of Title 1 to any occupants temporarily or
permanently displaced by the rehabilitation or code enforcement
activity, (m) the local government requires that any displaced occupants
will have the right to reoccupy the rehabilitated units, and (IV) the unit
has been cited and found by the local code enforcement agency or a court
to be unfit for human habitation and vacated or subject to being vacated
because of the existence for not less than 120 days of four of the
conditions listed in subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, of Section 17995.3
of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The rehabilitated unit will have long-term affordability covenants
and restrictions that require the unit to be available to, and occupied by,
persons or families of low- or very low income at affordable housing
costs for at least 20 years or the time period required by any applicable
federal or state law or regulation, except that if the period is less than 20
years, only one unit shall be credited as an identified adequate site for
every three units rehabilitated pursuant to this section, and no credit shall
be allowed for a unit required to remain affordable for less than 10 years.
(iii) Prior to initial occupancy after rehabilitation, the local code
enforcement agency shall issue a certificate of occupancy indicating
compliance with all applicable state and local building code and health
and safety code requirements.
(B) Units that are located in a multifamily rental housing complex of
16 or more units, are converted with committed assistance from the city
or county from nonaffordable to affordable by acquisition of the unit or
the purchase of affordability~ovenants and restrictions for the unit, are
not acquired by eminent domain, and constitute a net increase in the
community’s stock of housing affordable to low- and very low income
households. For purposes of this subparagraph, a unit is not converted
by acquisition or the purchase of affordability covenants unless all of the
following occur:
(i) The unit is made available at a cost affordable to low- or very low
income households.
(ii) At the time the unit is identified for acquisition, the unit is not
available at a cost affordable to low- or very low income households.
(iii) At the time the unit is identified for acquisition the unit is not
occupied by low- or very low income households.
9O
5 Ch. 1062
(iv) The unit is in decent, safe, and sanitary condition at the time of
occupancy.
(v) The acquisition price is not greater than 120 percent of the median
price for housing units in the city or county.
(vi) The unit has long-term affordability covenants and restrictions
that require the unit to be affordable to persons of low- or very low
income for not less than 30 years.
(C) Units that will be preserved at affordable housing costs to persons
or families of low- or very lowincomes with committed assistance from
the city or county by acquisition of the-unit or the purchase of
affordability covenants for the unit. For purposes of this subparagraph,
a unit shall not be deemed preserved unless all of the following occur:
(i) The unit has long-term affordability covenants and restrictions
that require the unit to be affordable to and reserved for occupancy by
persons of the same or lower income group as the current occupants for
a period of at least 40 years.
(ii) The unit is multifamily rental housing that receives governmental
assistance under any of the following state and federal programs: Section
221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 17151(d)(3) and
(5)); Section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1715z-1);
Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1701q); for rent
supplement assistance under Section 101 of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1965, as amended (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1701s); under
Section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec.
1485); and any new construction, substantial rehabilitation, moderate
rehabilitation, property disposition, and loan management set-aside
programs, or any other program providing project-based assistance,
under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended
(42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f); any state and local multifamily revenue bond
programs; local redevelopment programs; the federal Community
Development Block Grant Program; and other local housing assistance
programs or units that were used to qualify for a density bonus pursuant
to Section 65916.
(iii) The city or county finds, after a public hearing, that the unit is
eligible, and is reasonably expected, to change from housing affordable
to low- and very low income households to any other use during the next
five years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage
prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use.
(iv) The unit is in decent, safe, and sanitary condition at the time of
occupancy.
(v) At the time the unit is identified for preservation it is available at
affordable cost to persons or families Of low- or very low income.
Ch. 1062 6
(3) This subdivision does not apply to any city or county that, during
the current or immediately prior planning period, as defined by Section
65588, has not met any of its share of the regional need for affordable
housing, as defined in Section 65584, for low- and very low income
households. A city or county shall document for any such housing unit
that a building permit has been issued and all development and permit
fees have been paid or the unit is eligible to be lawfully occupied.
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, "committed assistance" means
that the city or county enters into a legally enforceable agreement during
the first two years of the housing element planning period that obligates
sufficient available funds to provide the assistance necessary to make the
identified units affordable and that requires that the units be made
available for occupancy within tCvo years of the execution of the
agreement. "Committed assistance" does not include tenant-based
rental assistance.
(5) For purposes of this subdivision, "net increase" includes only
housing units provided committed assistance pursuant to subparagraph
(A) or (B) of paragraph (2) in the current planning period, as defined in
Section 65588, that were not provided committed, assistance in the
immediately prior planning period.
(6) For purposes of this subdivision, "the time the unit is identified"
means the earliest time when any city or county agent, acting on behalf
of a public entity, has proposed in writing or has proposed orally or in
writing to the property owner, that the unit be considered for substantial
rehabilitation, acquisition, or preservation.
(7) On July 1 of the third year of the planning period, as defined by
Section 65588, in the report required pursuant to Section 65400, each
city or county that has includedin its housing element a program to
provide units pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (2)
shall report in writing to the legislative body, and to the department
within 30 days of malting its report to the legislative body, on its progress
in providing units pursuant to this subdivision. The report shall identify
the specific units for which committed assistance has been provided or
which have been made available to low- and very low income
households, and it shall adequately document how each unit complies
with this subdivision. If, by July 1 of the third year of the planning
period, the city or county has not entered into an enforceable agreement
of committed assistance for all units specified in the programs adopted
pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (2), the city or
county shall, not later than July 1 of the fourth year of the planning
period, adopt an amended housing element in accordance with Section
65585, identifying additional adequate sites pursuant to paragraph (1) of
subdivision (c) of Section 65583 sufficient to accommodate the number
90
7 Ch. 1062
of units for which committed assistance was not provided. If a city or
county does not amend its housing element to identify adequate sites to
address any shortfall, or fails to complete the rehabilitation, acquisition,
purchase of affordability covenants, or the preservation of any housing
unit within two years after committed assistance was provided to that
unit, it shall be prohibited from identifying units pursuant to
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (2) in the housing element
that it adopts for the next planning period, as defmed in Section 65588,
above the number of units actually provided or preserved due to
committed assistance.
SEC. 2. Section 65852.2 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
65852.2. (a) (1) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for
the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential
zones. The ordinance may do any of the following:
(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where
second units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based
on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water
and sewer services and the impact ofsecond units on traffic flow.
(B) Impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited
to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review,
maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on
any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic
Places.
(C) Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for
the lot upon which the second unit is located, and that second units are
a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and
zoning designation for the lot.
(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any
local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(3) When a local agency receives its first application on or after July
1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the application shall
be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing,
notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance
regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. Nothing in
this paragraph may be construed to require a local government to adopt
or amend an ordinance for the creation of second units. A local agency
may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs that it incurs as a result of
amendments to this paragraph enacted during the 2001-02 Regular
Session of the Legislature, including the costs of adopting or amending
any ordinance that provides for the creation of second units.
(b) (1) When a local agency which has not adopted an ordinance
governing second units in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) receives
Ch. 1062 8
its first application on or after July 1, 1983, for a permit pursuant to this
subdivision, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or
disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review
pursuant to this subdivision unless it adopts an ordinance in accordance
with subdivision (a) or (c) within 120 days after receiving the
application. Notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906, every local
agency shall grant a variance or special use permit for the creation of a
second unit if the second unit complies with all of the following:
(A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented.
03) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use.
(C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling.
(D) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and
located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached fi-om
the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing
dwelling.
~) The increased floor area of an attached second unit shall not
exceed 3 0 percent of the existing living area.
~) The total area of floorspace for a detached second unit shall not
exceed 1,200 square feet.
(G) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage,
architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning
requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the zone
in which the proper~ is located.
(H) Local building code requirements which apply to detached
dwellings, as appropriate.
(I) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage
disposal system is being used, if required.
(2) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis
for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision~
(3) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local
agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned for
residential use which contain an existing single-family dwelling. No
additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or
subdivision (a), shall be utilized or imposed, except that a local agency
may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision
to be an owner-occupant.
(4) No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or any
changes in the general plan shall be required to implement this
subdivision. Any local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or
general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions
applicable to the creation of second units if these provisions are
consistent with the limitations of this subdivision.
9O
9 Ch. 1062
(5) A second unit which conforms to the requirements of this
subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for
the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential
use which is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning
designations for the lot. The second units shal! not be considered in the
application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential
growth.
(c) No local agency shall adopt an ordinance which totally precludes
second units within single-family or multifamily zoned areas unless the
ordinance contains findings acknowledging that the ordinance may limit
housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that
specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare that
would result from allowing second units within single-family and
multifamily zoned areas justify adopting the ordinance.
(d) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size
requirements for both attached and detached second units. No minimum
or maximum size for a second unit, or size based upon a percentage of
the existing dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either
attached or detached dwellings which does not permit at least an
efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development
standards.
(e) Parking requirements for second units shall not exceed .one
parking space per unit or per bedroom. Additional parking may be
required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking
requirements are directly related to the use of the second unit and are
consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to existing
dwellings. Off-street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in
locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking,
unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem
parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical
or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else
in the jurisdiction.
(f) Fees charged for the construction of second units shall be
determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section
66000).
(g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt
less restrictive requirements for the creation of second units.
(h) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinances adopted
pursuant to subdivision (a) or (c) to the Department of Housing and
Community Deve!opment within 60 days after adoption.
(i) As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(1) "Living area," means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit
including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any
accessory structure.
(2) "Local agency" means a city, county, or city and county, whether
general law or chartered.
(3) For purposes of this section, "neighborhood" has the same
meaning as set forth in Section 65589.5.
(4) "Second unit" means an attached or a detached residential
dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for
one or more persons.. It sha!l include permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the
single-family dwelling is situated. A second unit also includes the
following:
(A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and
Safety Code.
03) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health
and Safety Code.
(j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any
way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act
(Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources
Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold
public hearings for coastal development permit applications for second
units.
SEC. 3. Section 65915 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65915. (a) When an applicant proposes a housing development
within the jurisdiction of a city, county, or city and county, that local
government shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for the
production of housing units as prescribed in this chapter. All cities,
counties, or cities and counties shall adopt an ordinance that specifies
how compliance with this section will be implemented.
(b) A city, county, or city and county shall either grant a density bonus
and at least one of the concessions or incentives identified in subdivision
(j), or provide other incentives or concessions of equivalent financial
value based upon the land cost per dwelling unit, when the applicant for
the housing development agrees or proposes to cons~-uct at least any one
of the following:
(1) Twenty percent of the total units of a housing development for
lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health
and Safety Code.
(2) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for very
low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and
Safety Code.
90
roll--Ch. 1062
(3) Fifty percent of the total dwelling units of a housing development
for qualifying residents, as defined in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code.
(4) Twenty percent of the total dwelling units in a condominium
project as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code,
for persons and families of moderate income, as defined in Section
50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
The city, county, or city and county shall grant the additional
concession or :incentive required by this subdivision unless the city,
county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon
substantial evidence, that the additional concession or incentive is not
required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in
Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the
targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(c) (1) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and
county shall ensure, continued affordability of all lower income density
bonus units for 30 years or a longer period of time if required by the
construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage
insurance program, or rental subsidy program. Those units targeted for
lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health
and Safety Code, shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed 30
percent of 60 percent of area median income. Those units targeted for
very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health
and Safety Code, shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed 30
percent of 50 percent of area median income.
(2) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and county
shall ensure, continued affordability of the moderate-income units that
are directly related to the receipt of the density bonus for 10 years if the
housing is in a condominium project as defined in subdivision (f) of
Section 1351 of the Civil Code.
(d) An applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and county a
proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant
requests pursuant to th~s section, and may request a meeting with the city,
county, or city and county. The city, county, or city and county shall grant
the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city,
county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon
substantial evidence, of either of the following:
(1) The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for
affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and
Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in
subdivision (c).
(2) The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse
impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section
65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment or
on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical
Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the
development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.
The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city, county, or
city and county refuses to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or
concession. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a requested density
bonus, incentive, or concession is in violation of this section, the court
shall award the p]aintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local
government to grant an incentive or concession that has a specific,
adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section
65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which
there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to
require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that
would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the
California Re~ster of Historical Resources. The city, county, or city and
county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section, that shall
include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this
section. The city, county, or city and county shall also establish
procedures for waiving or modifying development and zoning standards
that would otherwise inhibit the utilization of the density bonus on
specific sites. These procedures shall include, but not be limited to, such
items as minimum lot size, side yard setbacks, and placement of public
works improvements.
(e) In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any
development standard that will have the effect of precluding the
construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at
the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this
section. An applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and county a
proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards and may
request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. If a court finds
that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards
is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Nothing in this subdivision
shall be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce
development standards if the waiver or reduction would have a specific,
adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section
65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which
there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to
require a local government to waive or reduce development standards
90
--13m Ch. 1062
that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in
the California Register of Historical Resources.
(f) The applicant shall show that the waiver or modification is
necessary to make the housing units economically feasible.
(g) (1) For the purposes of this chapter, except as provided in
paragraph (2), "density bonus" means a density increase of at least 25
percent, unless a lesser percentage is elected by the applicant, over the
otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable
zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan as of the date
of application by the applicant to the city, county, or city and county. All
density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to
the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not be
interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local
coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.
The density bonus shall not be included when determining the number
of housing units which is equal to 10, 20, or 50 percent of the total. The
density bonus shall apply to housing developments consisting of five or
more dwelling units.
(2) For the purposes of this chapter, if a development does not meet
the requirements of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (b), but the
applicant agrees or proposes to construct a condominium project as
defined in subdivision (f) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code, in which
at least 20 percent of the total dwelling units are reserved for persons and
families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health
and Safety Code, a "density bonus" of at least 10 percent shall be
granted, unless a lesser percentage is elected by the applicant, over the
otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable
zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan as of the date
of application by the applicant to the city, county, or city and county. All
density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to
the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not be
interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local
coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.
The density bonus shall not be included when determining the number
of housing units which is equal to 20 percent of the total. The density
bonus shall apply to housing developments consisting of five or more
dwelling units.
(h) "Housing development," as used in this section, means one or
more groups of projects for residential units constructed in the planned
development of a city, county, or city and county. For the purposes of this
section, "housing development" also includes either (1) a project to
substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building
to residential use, or (2) the substantial rehabilitation of an existing
Ch. 1062 m 14--
multifamily dwelling, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 65863.4,
where the result of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in available
residential units. For the purpose of calculating a density bonus, the
residential units do not have to be based upon individual subdivision
maps or parcels. The density bonus shall be permitted in geographic
areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units for
the lower income households are located.
(i) The granting of a concession or incentive shall not be interpreted,
in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan
amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval. This
provision is declaratory of existing law.
(j) For the purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive means
any of the following:
(1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of
zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that
exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California
Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing
w~th Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code,
including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage
requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would
otherwise be required.
(2) Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing
project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce
the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office,
industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and
the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed
housing project will be located.
(3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the
developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable
and actual cost reductions.
This subdivision does not limit or require the provision of direct
financial incentives for the housing development, including the
provision of publicly owned land, by the city, county, or city and county,
or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements.
(k) If an applicant agrees to construct both 20 percent of the total units
for lower income households and 10 percent of the total units for very
low income households, the developer is entitled to only one density
bonus and at least one additional concession or incentive identified in
Section 65913.4 under this section although the city, city and county, or
county may, at its discretion, grant more than one density bonus.
(/) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any
way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act
90
(Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources
Code).
(m) A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs it incurs
as a result of amendments to this section enacted during the 2001-02
Regular Session of the Legislature.
(n) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Development standard" means any ordinance, general plan
element, specific plan, charter amendment, or other local condition, law,
policy, resolution, or regulation.
(2) "Maximum allowable residential density" means the density
allowed under the zoning ordinance, or if a range of density is permitted,
means the maximum allowable density for the specific zoning range
applicable to the project.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local
agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees,
or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service
mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code.
O
18.10.040 ATTACHMENT C
(Ord. 3735 }9 2, 3, 1987: Ord. 3683 99 3, 4,
1986: Ord. 3536 9 3, 1984: Ord. 3291 } 2,
1981: Ord. 3130 § 17 (part), 1979: Ord. 3048
(part), 1978)
18.10.040 Conditional uses.
The following uses may be conditionally
allowed in the RE residential estate district,
subject to issuance of a conditional use permit
in accord with Chapter 18.90:
(a)Cemeteries;
(b)Churches and religious institutions;
(c)Commercial plant nurseries;
(d)Community centers;
(e)Convalescent facilities;
(f)Day, care centers and large adult day
care homes;
(g)Outdoor recreation services;
(h)Private educational facilities;
(i)Temporary, uses, subject to regulations
established by, Chapter 18.90;
(j) Utility facilities essential to provision
of utility services to the neighborhood, but ex-
cluding business offices, construction or stor-
age yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards;
(k) A second detached single-family
dwelling unit, provided that, in addition to the
site development regulations specified for the
RE District, all the following conditions are
met:
(1) The minimum site area must be four
thousand seventy-four square meters (one
acre),
(2) The second dwelling unit must be
separated from the original dwelling unit and
from any, other accessory building by a mini-
mum distance of 3.7 meters (twelve feet),
(3) The second dwelling unit must be lim-
ited in size to nine hundred square feet of liv-
ing area plus two hundred square feet of
covered parking area and shal! be limited in
height to one story and a maximum height of
5.1817 meters (seventeen feet), as measured to
the highest point of the building,
/.-,.~ The second dwelling shall have street
access from a driveway in common with the
main residence. Separate driveway access may
be permitted upon a determination that sepa-
rate 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 ap-
pearance, from the street, of a lot division,
(5) The second dwelling shall be archi-
tecturally compatible with the main residence,
with respect to style, roof pitch, color and
materials; and the additional parking shall be
screened to off-site views by means of vege-
tation or fencing,
(6) The second dwelling shall be designed
so as to peru-fit a minimum of two hundred
square feet of usable open space for each
dwelling unit; provided, however, such open
space may be combined or separate, so long as
a minimum of two hundred square feet is di-
rectly accessible from each unit; and provided,
further, for the purposes of this section, usable
open space shall not include any required front
or street side yard,
(7) Accessory, dwellings and guest cot-
tages existing on April 28, 1986, and which
prior to that date were lawful, conforming
permitted uses may remain as legal noncon-
forming uses. Such uses shall be permitted to
remode!, improve or replace site improve-
ments on the same site, without necessity to
comply with site development regulations for
continual use and occupancy by the same use;
provided that an); such remodeling, improve-
merit or replacement shall not add a kitchen
nor result in increased floor area, number of
dwelling units, height, length or any other in-
crease in the size of the improvement without
complying with the standards set forth in this
subsection and applying for and receiving a
conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter
18.90.
(Ord. 4225 9 !, 1994: Ord. 4081 § 5, 1992:
Ord. 4016 } 8, !99!: Ord. 386! § 2, !989:
Ord. 3735 § 4, !987: Ord. 3683 } 5, 1986:
Ord. 3536 § 4, 1984: Ord. 3130 } 16 (part),
1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18-28
18.12.040
date of the ordinance codified herein shall
have no more than two plumbing fixtures;
(b) Home occupations, when accessory to
permitted residential use;
(c) Horticulture, gardening, and ~owing
of food products for consumption by occu-
pants of the site;
(d) Single-family use;
(e) Residential carehomes;
(f) Mobile homes (manufactured housing)
on permanent foundations;
(g) Small and large family day care
homes.
(Ord. 3735 §§ 5, 6,1987:.Ord. 3577 § 1, 1984:
Ord. 3536 § 5,1984: Ord. 3291 § 3, 1981: Ord.
3130 § 17 (part), 1979: Ord. 3048 (part),
1978)
18.12.040 Conditional uses.
The following uses may be conditionally
allowed in the R-1 single-family residence
district, subject to issuance of a conditional
use permit in accord with Chapter 18.90:
(a) Churches and religious institutions;
(b) Community centers;
(c) Day care centers and large adult day
care homes;
(d)Outdoor recreation services;
(e)Private educational facilities;
(f)Temporary uses, subject to regulations
established by Chapter 18.90;
(g) Utility facilities essential to provision
of utility sere’ices to the neighborhood, but ex-
cluding business offices, construction or stor-
age yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards;
(h) A second detached single-family
dwelling unit; provided, that in addition to the
site development regulations specified for the
R-1 or R-1 special residential building site
combining district, all the following condi-
tions are met:
(1) The n~nimum site area must be thirty-
five percent larger than the minimum site area
required in the respective R-1 or R-1 combin-
ing district, in the case of a flag lot, the lot
must be thirty-five percent larger than the
minimum flag lot size established by Section
21.20.300 for the respective R-1 or R-1 com-
bining district,
(2) The second dwelling unit must be
separated from the original dwelling unit and
from any other accesso~’ building by a mini-
mum distance of 3.7 meters (twelve feet),
(3) The second dwelling unit must be lim-
ited in size to nine hundred square feet of liv-
ing area plus two hundred square feet of
covered parking area, and shall be limited in
height to one story and a maximum height of
5.1817 meters (seventeen feet), as measured to
the highest point of the building. The zoning
administrator may allow .the second dwelling
unit to exceed the story and height restrictions,
not to exceed the general site development re-
strictions of this chapter, where the first story
of a two story structure is a garage or similar
use, upon making the following findings in
addition to the findings required under Chap-
ter 18.90:
(A) There are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the
propert?, involved that do not apply generally
to property in the R-1 district that meets the
minimum size requirements for a second
dwelling unit; and
(B) Approval of the additional height is
desirable for the preservation of an existing
architectural style or neighborhood character,
which would not othepa, ise be accomplished
through the strict application of the provisions
of this chapter; and
(C) Approval of the additional height will
not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, gen-
eral welfare, or convenience.
(4) The second dwelling 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,
(5) The second dwelling shall be archi-
tecturally compatible with the main residence,
with respect to style, roof pitch, color and
materials; and the additional parking shall be
18-32
18.12.050
screened to off-site views by means of vege-
tation or fencing,
(6) The second dwelling shall be designed
so as to permit a minimum of two hundred
square feet of usable open space for each
dwelling unit; provided, however, such open
space may be combined or separate, so long as
a minimum of two hundred square feet is di-
rectly accessible from each unit; and provided,
further, for the purposes of this section, usable
open space shall not include any required front
or street side yard;
(i) Accessory buildings with more than
two plumbing fixtures; provided, that the ac-
cessory building is not located in a required
setback.
(Ord. 4081 § 7, 1992: Ord. 4016 § 10, 1991:
Ord. 3861 § 2, 1989: Ord. 3850 § 6, 1989:
Ord: 3735 § 7, 1987: Ord. 3577 § 2, 1984:
Ord. 3536 § 6, 1984: Ord. 3489 § 1, 1983:
Ord. 3475 § 1, 1983: Ord. 3378 § 1, 1982:
Oral. 3130 § 16 (part), 1979: Ord. 3048 (part)
1978)
18.12.050 Site development regulations.
The following site development regulations
shall apply in the R-1 single-family residence
district. Modifications of some regulations
may be applicable if the R-1 single-family
residence district is combined with the special
building site combining district. More restric-
tive regulations may be recommended by the
architectural review board and approved by
the director of planning and community envi-
ronment, pursuant to Chapter 16.48:
(a) Site Area. The minimum site area shall
be 557 square meters (six thousand square
feet).
(b) Site Width. The minimum site width
shall be 18.3 meters (sixty feet).
(c) Site Depth. The minimum site depth
shall be 30.5 meters (one hundred feet).
(d) Front Yard. The minimum front yard
("setback") shall be the greater of 6.1 meters
(twenty feet) or the average setback. "Average
sethack" means the average distance between
the front property line and the first main
building wall on sites on the same side of the
block. For blocks longer than 600 feet, the av-
erage setback shall be based on the ten sites
located on the same side of the street and
nearest to the subject property.
(e) Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard
("setback") shaiI be 6.1 meters (twenty feet).
(f) Side Yards. The following side yard
regulations shall apply:
(1) The minimum interior side yard shall
be 1.8 meters (six feet).
(2) The minimum street side yard shall be
4.9 meters (sixteen feet).
(g) Residential Density. Not more than
one single-family dwelling shall be permitted
on any site,except as allowed under
18.12.040(h).
(h) Site coverage is regulated as follows:
(1) The maximum building site coverage
for sites with single-story development shall
be equal to the maximum floor area ratio. The
maximum building site coYerage for
residences of two or more stories shall be
thirty-five percent of the site.
(2) Covered patios and overhangs
otherwise in compliance with a!l applicable
laws may cover five percent of the site area in
addition to the maximum site coverage
prescribed in subdivision (1).
(3) The covering of a court is exempt from
the calculation of site coverage provided that
the court existed prior to July 20, 1978.
(i) Floor Area Ratio. The maximum al-
lowable floor area ratio shall be as follows:
(1) For lots five thousand square feet or
less, the maximum floor area ratio shall be
.45.
(2) For lots in excess of five thousand
square feet, the maximum floor area ratio shall
be .45 for the first five thousand square feet
and .30 for all square footage in excess of five
thousand square feet.
(3) Notwithstanding subsections 0)(1) and
(2) the maximum allowable house size shall
be six thousand square feet.
(j) Height.
(1) General. The maximum height shall be
9.!4 meters (thirty feet) as measured to the
peak of the roof or 10.05 meters (thirty-three
8-33 (Supp. No. 3 - 111712002)
18.30.050
the zoning map by’ the symbol "NP" within
parentheses, following the general district
designation for the district with which it is
combined.
(Ord. 3447 § 1 (part), 1983)
18.30.040 Design review requirements.
(a) Design Approva! Required. No design
review shall be required for construction of or
modifications to single-family structures
which constitute the only principal structure
on a parcel of land. For properties on which
two or more residential units are developed or
modified, design review and approval shall be
required by the architectural review board in
compliance with procedures established in
Chapter 16.48 for any new development or
modification to any structure on the property
and for site amenities.
(b) Purposes. The purpose of design re-
view shall be to achieve compatibility of
scale, silhouette, facade articulation and mate-
rials of new construction with existing struc-
tures on the same property or on surrounding
properties within a combining district.
(c) Design Guidelines. The architectural
review board shall, at its discretion, develop
specific design review guidelines for each
specific area to which this combining district
is applied.
(Ord. 3447 § 1 (part), 1983)
18.30.050 Exceptions to development
standards.
(a) Duties of the Zoning Administrator.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter and
the general purposes of this title to foster re-
tention of existing single-family structures and
to maintain the existing historic and general
character of the neighborhood, the zoning ad-
ministrator may grant exceptions to site de-
velopment regulations (except limitations on
residential density), parking regulations, and
from the special setback requirements of Title
20 applicable to the underlying zone district
where combined with the neighborhood pres-
ervation combining district. This exception
procedure is the exclusive procedure for pro-
curing an exception to .development standards
in the NP combining district. It is not neces-
sary for the property owner to obtain a vari-
ance pursuant to Chapter 18.90.
(b) Application for Exceptions from De-
velopment Standards.
(1) Application for an exception from de-
velopment standards may be made by the
owner of record of property from which an
exception is sought or by a purchaser of said
property when acting pursuant to a contract
executed and acknowledged by both the buyer
and owner of record, or by an agent of the
subject property owner when duly authorized
by the owner in writing.
(2) Application shall be made to the zon-
ing administrator on a form prescribed by the
zoning administrator, and shall contain the
following:
(A) A description and map showing the lo-
cation of the property for which the exception
is sought, and indicating the location of all
parcels of real property within 91.4 meters
(three hundred feet) from the exterior bound-
ary of the property involved in the application;
(B) The name and address of the applicant,
and the names and addresses of all persons
shown in the last equalized assessment roll (as
updated by the semiannual real estate update
information) as owning rea! property within
91.4 meters (three hundred feet) of the exte-
rior boundary., of the property which is subject
of this application;
(C) Plans and/or descriptions of existing
and proposed construction on the property in-
volved, together with a statement of the cir-
cumstances which justify the exception
application;
(D) Such additional information as the
zoning administrator may deem pertinent and
essential to the application.
(3) Application for an_ exception shall be
accompanied by the fee prescribed by the mu-
nicipal fee schedule, no part of which shall be
returnable to the applicant.
D " 1" LT~ ’ ~~ uD~c ~ann= and i"~once.
(1) Upon receipt of an application for an
exception, the zoning administrator shall set a
18-67
18.7t.060
(7) Viticulture and similar uses not incon-
sistent with the intent and purpose of this
chapter, but excluding hog farming;
(b) Botanical conser~,atories, outdoor na-
ture laboratories, and similar facilities;
Native wildlife sanctuaries;
Single-family dwellings;
Accessory facilities and accessory
(c)
(d)
(e)
uses;
(f)(g)
Residential care homes;
Mobile homes (manufactured housing)
on permanent foundations.See Section
18.88.140;
(h) Small day care homes.
(Ord. 3683 §§ 6, 7, 1986: Oral. 3536 § 25,
1984: Ord. 3340 § 3, 1982: Oral. 3291 § 10,
1981: Ord. 3130 § 17 (part), 1979: Ord. 3048
(part), 1978)
18.71.060 Uses requiring use permits.
A use permit shall be first obtained for the
following uses as provided in Chapter 18.90
when the applicant can establish adequate jus-
tification that the proposed use will be con-
sistent and compatible with the intent and
purpose of this chapter, and that the number of
employees and resident population approxi-
mates that which would result from a principal
permitted use:
(a) Animal care, including boarding and
kennels;
(b) Cemeteries, not including mausolea,
crematoria, or columbaria. All markers of
graves shall be flush with grade level and be
deemed to be impervious area under this
chapter;
(c) Communication and utility facilities;
(d) Educational, charitable, research, and
philanthropic institutions;
(e) Guest ranches;
(f) Recreational uses including riding
academies, clubs, stables, countO~’ c]ubs, and
golf courses;
(g) Large day care homes;
(h) A second detached single-family
~:-- unit,-~ _ . lo!uv!u~.u that, ii"! auu!tltlll to the
site development regulations specified for the
OS District, all of the following conditions are
met:
(1) The minimum site area must be forty
thousand four hundred sixty-nine square me-
ters (ten acres).
(2) The second dwelling unit must be
separated from tile original dwelling unit and
from any other accessory building by a mini-
mum distance of 3.7 meters (twelve feet).
(3) The second dwelling unit must be lim-
ited in size to nine hundred square feet of liv-
ing area plus two hundred square feet of
covered parking area, and shall Be limited in
height to one story and a maximum height of
5.1817 meters (seventeen feet), as measured to
the highest point of the building.
(4) The second dwelling shall have street
access from a driveway in common with the
main residence. Separate driveway access may
be permitted upon a determination that sepa-
rate access will result in fewer environmental
impacts such as excessive paving, unnecessary
~ading or unnecessary tree removal, and that
such separate access will not create the ap-
pearance, from the street, of a lot division.
(5) The second dwelling shall be archi-
tecturally compatible with the main residence
with respect to style, roof pitch, color and
materials; and the additional parking shall be
screened to off-site views by means of vege-
tation or fencing.
(6) The second dwelling shall be designed
so as to permit a minimum of two hundred
square feet of usable open space for each
dwelling unit; provided, however, such open
space may be combined or separate, so long as
a minimum of two hundred square feet is di-
rectly accessible from each unit; and provided,
further, for the purposes of this section, usable
open space shall not include any required front
or street side yard.
(7) Accessory.’ dwellings and guest cot-
tages existing on April 28, 1986, and which
prior to that date were lawful, conforming
permitted uses may remain as legal noncon-
formin~ uses. Such uses shaii be ~,~,-m~t~"~ to
remodel, improve or replace site improve-
ments on the same site, without necessity to
18.71.070
comply with site development regulations for
continual use and occupancy by the same use;
provided that any such remodeling, improve-
ment or replacement shall not add a kitchen
nor result in increased floor area, number of
dwelling units, height, length or any other in-
crease in the size of the improvement without
complying with the standards set forth in Sec-
tion 18.71.060(h) and applying for and re-
ceiving a conditional use permit pursuant to
Chapter 18.90.
(Ord. 4225 § 2, 1994: Ord. 4016 § 37, 1991:
Ord. 3861 § 3, 1989: Oral. 3683 § 8, 1986:
Oral. 3536 § 26, 1984: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.71.070 Lot area.
Minimum lot area shall be forty thousand
four hundred sixty-nine square meters (ten
acres).
(Oral. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.71.080 Maximum building coverage,
The maximum impervious area and build-
ing coverage shall be 3.5 percent; provided
that where a portion of a subdivision with
clustered lots of less than ten acres in size
contains an area rendered undevelopable by an
open space restriction, the imper~,ious cover-
age which would otherwise be allotted to this
undevelopable area shall be transferred to
those lots within the subdivision on which de-
velopment will be permitted in a proportional
manner based on lot size.
(Ord. 3345 § 18, 1982: Ord. 3048 (part),
1978)
18.71.090 Front yard.
Front yards shall be a minimum of 9.1 me-
ters (thirty feet).
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.71.100 Side yards.
Side yards shall be a minimum of 9.1 me-
ters (thirty feet).
(Oral. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.71.110 Rear yards.
Rear yards shall be a minimum of 9.1 me-
ters (thirty feet).
(Ord. 3048 (part), !978)
18.71,115 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 require-
ments.
(Ord. 4016 § 47, 1991).
18.71.120 Automobile.
Four car spaces shall be required for each
dwelling unit, one of which shall be covered
parking. Such spaces shall not be located in
any required front or side yard.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.71.130 Building height limit.
Buildings shall not exceed two stories, or
7.6 meters (twenty-five feet).
(Oral. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.71.140 Special regulations.
(a) Geological Soils Investigation and Re-
port. All applications for site and design ap-
proval shall be accompanied by a combined
in-depth geologic and soils investigation and
report prepared by a registered geologist certi-
fied by the state of California as an en~neer-
ing geolo~st, and by a licensed civil engineer
qualified in soil mechanics. Such report shall
be based on surface, subsurface, and labora-
tory investigations and examinations and shall
fully, and clearly present:
(1) All pertinent data, interpretations, and
evaluations;
(2) The significance of the data, interpre-
tations, and evaluations with respect to the
actual development or implementation of the
intended land uses, and with respect to the ef-
fect upon future geological processes both on
and off the site;
(3) Reconv-nendations for any, additional
investigations that should be made. All costs
and expenses incurred as a result of the re-
quirements of this ~-tio,~ ;,~,mm,,, the 0,~,~
and expense of an independent review of the
material submitted under this chapter by’ quali-
18-134
ATTACHMENT D
!
/
ATTAC~NT E
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLAN.rNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Jon Abendschein,
Management Specialist
DEPARTMENT:Planning
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
April 30, 2003
Proposed Revisions to the Zoning Regulations to Allow
Accessory Dwelling Units at a Permitted Use, Rather than as a
Conditional Use, in the Residential Estate (RE), Single-Family
Residence (R-l), and Open Space (OS) Districts; to Allow
Attached Efficiency Units; and to Delete Architectural Review
Board Review for Accessory Dwelling Units in the Neighborhood
Preservation (NP) Combining District.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the
City Council adopt the attached proposed ordinance (see Attachment A) modifying the
CiD"s second dwelling unit regulations to address State Assembly Bill 1866
("AB 1866"), including amending the RE, R-l, and OS district regulations to allow
second dwelling units as a permitted use under certain conditions, allowing attached
"efficiency" units in those zones, and making related changes necessary as a result of AB
!866.
BACKGROUND
In 1982, Palo Alto adopted its first ordinance permitting second dwelling units in the R-1
district (second units were permitted as-of-right in the RE and OS districts). In 1983,
Government Code 65852.2 was established to promote production of second dwelling
units throughout the State, and though the code section was amended between 1983 and
City of Palo Alto Page 1
now, the City’s regulations were consistent with State law. Several changes have been
made to the City’s second-unit regulations since 1982. Second units were made
conditional uses in the RE and OS districts in 1986, and adjustments were made to the
development standards. By 1989, the current development standards (see Attachment B)
were largely in place. Currently, the City permits detached units of up to 900 square feet,
and requires that they be limited to one story, have sufficient open space, be
architecturally compatible with the main dwelling, and have sufficient, screened parking
that results in no new curb cuts. Second units are permitted over garages in the R-1
district when specific findings can be made.
On September 29, 2002, the Governor approved AB 1866 (see Attachment D), which
amended Government Code Section 65858.2 pertaining to second dwel.ling units. The
amendments require that accessory dwelling units be approved ministerially; no
discretionary review or hearing may be required. A ministerial decision is generally
considered to be one that does not involve any discretion on the part of the decision
maker, although the legislation lacks a definition. The State legislation applies effective
July 1, 2003, and will require that the City consider any application for a second unit
"ministerially without discretionary’ review or a hearing" after that date.
Staff s goal at this time is to adopt an ordinance to respond to the requirements of AB
1866 while minimizing the number of changes to the Zoning Code. A more
comprehensive review of the second unit provisions is underway as part of the Zoning
Ordinance Update (ZOU). Staff is working with a committee of three Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) members on possible revisions to the. development
standards for second dwelling units, such as 1) development standards for attached units,
2) minimum lot sizes, and 3) parking requirements. However, these revisions will not be
available for public discussion until the summer of this year, at the earliest, and
substantive changes would not be made by the Council until well after the effective date
of AB 1866.
DISCUSSION
The attached draft ordinance includes the following changes, intended to address the new
State legislation:
Mbzisterial Revievt: qf Second Units i~z the RE. R-l. and OS Districts
Currently, the City requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for detached second
dwelling units in the RE, R-1, and OS districts (See Attachment B for existing code
provisions). The amendments in the proposed ordinance change the RE, R-l, and OS
district regulations to delete second units as conditional uses and list them as a permitted
use,
City of Palo Alto Page 2
With one exception (second units over garages, as discussed below), the proposed
ordinance would not change the development standards for detached second units. The
City currently permits detached units of up to 900 square feet, and requires that they be
limited to one story, have sufficient open space, be architecturally compatible with the
main dwelling, and have sufficient, screened parking that results in no new curb cuts.
The changes to state law" made by AB 1866 neither limit development standards nor
architectural review; they only require that applications be considered ministerially.
Therefore, consideration of revisions to the development standards for second units is
proposed to be deferred as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update.
Second Units in the RMD&rP) District
Second dwelling units are subject to desig-n review by the Architectural Review Board in
the RMD(N~P) district, which is limited to a small portion of the College Terrace
neighborhood and three small sections of the Downtown North neighborhood (see
Attachment C). These areas have distinct neighborhood characters, and staff does not
have the resources at this time to make changes appropriate to these districts. Because
applications for second units in these districts is infrequent, staff thinks that changes
made as part of the ZOU will be sufficient. The proposed ordinance will not affect the
RMD(NP) provisions. However, in the event that an application is received, only a staff
level review will be performed, because of the requirements of AB 1866 prohibiting
hearings. Unlike normal staff level design review, which may be appealed to the ARB, or
eventually the Counci!, this determination may not be appealed
Second Units over Garages
The development standards in the low-density residential districts generally restrict
second dwelling units to one story. However, in the R-1 district only, there is currently a
provision that permits the Zoning Administrator, as part of the CUP process, to allow a
second dwelling unit over a garage when special findings are made, including that there
are °~exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable," that the unit is "desirable for
the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character" and that ";the
additional height will not be detrimental to property.., or the public health, safe~’, and
general welfare". Because they involve discretion on the part of the Zoning
Administrator, making these findings should no longer be a prerequisite to the approval of
an application for a second unit over a garage. Therefore, staff recommends that the City
permit those types of second dwelling units as-of-right. These dwelling units would be
required to comply with setback, height, and dayIight plane requirements, which would
limit them to areas that could normally be occupied by the main dwelling unit. In
addition, because they are second-story" additions, second dwelling unP.s over garages
would be reviewed using the Individual Review guidelines, which would address shading,
City of Palo Alto Page 3
massing, and privacy concerns, although no hearings would be permitted and the
Director’s determination of consistency with the guidelines would not be subject to
appeal.
Attached Second Units
The discussion prompted by AB 1866 has highlighted a provision in Government Code
65852.2 that became effective in 1996, which prohibits cities from enacting standards that
would not allow at least attached and detached "efficiency" units, unless specific findings
can be made to exclude them based on negative utility, traffic, or other impacts. Prior to
1996, either attached or detached d~velling units could be prohibited without the need for
special findings; only if both types of second dwelling units were prohibited did special
findings have to be made.
Staff is reviewing the appropriateness of allowing attached second units as part of the
ZOU, as directed by Comprehensive Plan.Pro~ams H-6 through H-8. To ensure
consistency with State law, the draft ordinance includes language to allow for small,
attached, second units on any lot in the RE, R-l, or OS district of sufficient size to have a
detached second unit under the code. To assure impacts are minimized, the ordinance
includes: 1) a 250 square foot maximum size for attached units, 2) no street-facing
entranceways to the attached second-unit, and no exterior stairways leading to the unit,
and 3) similar compatibility requirements as for detached units. Because the maximum
unit size is so small, only one parking space would be required. These criteria would be
sufficient to address State law, and would have minimal impacts during the time the ZOU
is being completed. It should be noted that no increases in Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would
be permitted as part of this pro~am. Sites that have already maximized their FAR could
have a second unit only by remodeling the interior of an existing home.
ALTERNATIVES
An alternative to the provisions in this proposed ordinance regarding attached second
units would be to increase or decrease the maximum unit size. The State requires that, at
the least, an efficiency unit (150 square feet) must be permitted.
It would also be possible to prohibit detached units over garages, rather than permitting
them subject to the Individual Review guidelines. Such a prohibition could be temporary,
pending further examination of the issue as part of the ZOU.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The impact from this ordinance would be that applications for second units would no
longer be required to pay the $2,380 application fee for a CUP. However, this fee is only
intended to recover the costs of reviewing CUP applications, and because staff would no
City of Palo Alto Page 4
longer be reviewing such applications, there would be negligible net resource impact.
The standard plan check fee, collected as part of the granting of a building permit, would
cover the staff time necessary to check that the plans comply with the development
standards.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This ordinance is consistent with Housing Element Policy H-7, which urges modification
of regulations governing second units to encourage production of those units. The
ordinance will also assure that City policy regarding second units reflects State policy and
the requirements of AB 1866, while still preserving neighborhood character and the
single-family nature of the City. Other means of encouraging second units while
reducing impacts on single-family neighborhoods will be considered as part of the ZOU.
EN~qRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code, which exempts from
CEQA the adoption of an ordinance tO implement the provisions of Section 65858.2 of
the Government Code.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment A:Ordinance Adopting Changes to RE, R-l, and OS District
Attachment B:Existing City second-unit regulations
Attachment C:RMD(NP) Districts in the City
Attachment D:2002 State Assembly Bill 1866 (Relevant Portions only)
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
Prepared by:Susan Ondik, Planner
Jon Abendschein, Management Specialist
Reviewed by: John Lusardi
Department/Division Head Approval: ..........
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 5
ATTACHMENT F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
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, April 30, 2003
REGULAR MEETING - 7.’00
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:00 PM
Commissioners:
Annette Bialson, Chair
Michael Griffin, Vice-Chair
Karen Hohnan
Patrick Burr
Bonnie Packet"
Phyllis Cassel
Joseph Bellomo
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1. 440 Pepper Street’*
2. Zoning Code Change for 2nd Units
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Susan Ondik, Planner
Clare Campbell, Associate Planner
John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects
Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer, Public Works
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Reports From Officials: Information on upcoming ordinance changes establishing storm water
quality protection requirements for land development projects - Public Works.
Reports From Committees: Zoning Ordinance Update.
Chair Bialson: I would like to call this meeting to order. Would the Secretary please call roll.
Thank you. The first item on the agenda is 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 Bialson: I have no cards for that so I will close that item.
Cio; of Palo Alto Page I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
13
14
15
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
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
Chair Bialson: We don’t have any items on the Consent Calendar.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Bialson: There are no Agenda Changes.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings: None.
Chair Bialson: No Unfinished Business.
Chair Bialson: So we will go on to New Business and the first item is 440 Pepper Street. Would
Staff please make a presentation?
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
440 Pepper Street’-" - [03-ZC-04] Request by Stephen Player on behalf of Paula Kirkeby
for a Zone Change to allow an extension of an existing nonconforming use, due to
terminate on July 20, 2003, for an additional 10 years in the R-1 Single Family Residential
zone district. Environmental Review: Exempt from the provisions of the California
Envirormaental Quality Act. SR Weblink:
~ttp~//~v.cit~fpa~a~t~.~r~cit~agenda/pub~ish/p~annin~--transp~rtati~n~meetin~-s/ I 822.pdf
Ms. Lisa Grote. Chief Plarmin~ Official: thank you Chair Bialson and Commissioners. This is
an application to adopt an ordinance change, which would change the text in Chapter 18.94,
which is our nonconforming uses section of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the existing art
studio to remain on the site at 440 Pepper Street for another ten years. So the sunset date for
the use would be extended to July 20, 2013. The use has been on the site for approximately 15
years and in that time we have not received complaints from any of the neighboring uses about
disturbances or incompatibility of the use with the surrounding residential neighborhood. It is
consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies, which call for encouraging recreational uses both
private and public, and to avoid the duplication of recreational type uses and this does provide
uses and services that our Community Services Department with the City does contract with.
So it avoids the duplication of those services by both the public and private agency.
We are supporting the application for an extension. As you may have noticed that because this
is a Zoning Ordinance text change we aren’t able to put conditions on it. You can’t condition a
Zoning Ordinance text change which is why we are encouraging the landscaping in the front
setback area but are not putting conditions of approval on for that landscaping but we are
encouraging the applicant to go ahead and provide that landscaping which we would then
review again because it is a Zoning Ordinance text change that can’t be a condition of
approval. With that we are recommending approval of the extension to July 20, 2013. I would
CiO, 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
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
like to introduce Clare Campbell she is the project planner on this. I think it is her first or
second time in front of you but she and I are both here to answer questions.
Chair Bialson: Any questions, Commissioners? Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: Just to clarify, Lisa. To disclose, I was out at the property today and
I walked the site. It mentions that there was a summary of significant issues and that the
property owner agreed to make improvements. That is on page two of the Staff Report. How
is that executed or determined or agreed upon that that would happen to the streetscape for the
building?
Ms. Grote: It would be an agreement that the owner would consent to. It is a verbal ageement
at this point and then as she would make those changes we would review them most likely at a
Staff level for an architectural review Staff level.
Commissioner Bellomo: Would it have been appropriate at this level to have a schematic
drawing of what those improvements might be so we could get a handle on this? It is a bit
vague for me.
Ms. Grote: Actually, the application in front of you tonight is to extend the period of time for
the use rather than any kind of physical improvements to the site. So it is really you are
looking at the land use rather than any physical improvements to the site.
Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. Again, it is just a bit vague on how and when this will come
about or if it will. So really it is voluntary is what we are saying.
Ms. Grote: It is voluntary- and if it does come about, if the applicant does move forward we
would most likely review it at Staff level. It is an architectural review application but at Staff
level for minor landscaping changes.
Commissioner Bellomo: So what you are saying is all we can do is encourage it.
Ms. Grote: Correct.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thanks.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: How does the commitment on the landscaping by the property owner
differ from the commitment they made ten years ago?
Ms. Grote: It is a similar commitment.
Commissioner Burt: And, does Staffhave any reason to believe it wil! be of different value
than the last commitment?
Ms. Grote: I do believe that the applicant would like to make changes and improvements.
They may want to speak to that during their presentation as well.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burr: One question for Wynne. While the landscaping is not part of any
condition that we can have attached to this, my understanding from reading the findings that
are necessary for approval are that the finding issues having to do with compatibility with
adjacent neighborhood and not detrimental to any other use can include the physical aspects of
the property and its compatibility as part of a condition for extension.
Ms. Wvrme Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Unfortunately, this is an unusual kind of
zone change and you have to make those findings assuming really that the building and the
project will be just as it is now. You can’t count on any changes being made. So if you
believe that the project as it presently exists without the 1993 plans implemented isn’t suitable
for extension then unfortunately you really can’t vote yes on condition because we can’t
condition a zone. This is an unusual procedure but this is what we do in Palo Alto. We have
this list of uses whose amortization periods have been extended out and it is basically just a yes
or no decision, not a yes with conditions.
Commissioner Burt: But our extension is not limited to considering a ten-year extension. Is
that correct?
Ms. Furth: That is correct.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions? I think we should disclose contacts at this point and I
will start. I did have a phone call from Mr. Steve Player and we did have a little bit of a
discussion.
Commissioner Cassel: I went out to the site on Saturday and Mr. Player was there, so was the
owner and we had limited conversation.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I visited the site but I haven’t spoken with anyone.
Commissioner Bellomo: I visited the site today and had an opportunity to meet an employee
there, Tom, who showed me the back and inside of the building.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am familiar with the site so I didn’t visit recently.
Commissioner Burr: I visited the site on Saturday, did not run into Phyllis and then I briefly
spoke with Steve Player before the meeting.
Commissioner Griffin: I visited the site twice actually and I have not talked to anyone on the
phone from the applicant. I did receive a phone call from a satisfied customer.
Chair Bialson: Okay, I also visited the site and have been in the site previously on art related
matters. I think we will hear from the applicant at this point. Mr. Player, are you going to be
speaking for the applicant? You have 15 minutes.
Cio, 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
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 Player~ Applicant: Thank you Madam Chairman. What I would like to do is talk
briefly about the situation. It seems like ten years has gone by in an instant. It was kind of fun
looking at the transcript from the past where everybody was saying ten years from 1993 what
will you be doing in 2003 and the answer was maybe we will be back and here we are, we are
back. It is interesting, it seems like in the blinking of an eye were here talking about this
particular issue and this particular treasure that we have in our community. I think that the
record stands for itself in the sense of the value that this particular monotype studio has to the
community. I like to look at it as part of the fabric of what makes Palo Alto unique. One of
the unique things aborat Palo Alto is its deep commitment to the arts and to culture and that
Paula Kirkeby and the Smith-Anderson Editions has been one of the keystones of that
particular commitment to art and culture.
Basically since 1993 the press has operated in the same manner that it existed in 1993. It has
continued to offer classes to the City of Palo Alto, it has offered classes to young children, it
has brought artists and residents of a national stature to work with the monotype discipline and
it has been a good neighbor. It has been ten years at that location since we got the extension
and as Staff has reported there has been no objection raised by any of the neighbors. To the
contrary Paula and Phil have been a real addition to the texture of that particular Ventura
neighborhood.
Paula Kirkeby is here to answer any question which you might have and there are several
letters which have been delivered to you hopefully they are in your packet which are in support
of our application. If you do not have I have several others, one is from Michael Flicker,
Sidney MaFffield, Gail Wootey, Rex Vaugh and Hillary Favorman and I think there are several
others that I have not seen. As long as they are all in your packet I won’t need to go through
and read these.
What we are asking for simply is things to remain the same as they have been for the last ten
years, simply allowing an extension for that period of time, for another ten years. There are, as
set forth in the report, there are issues raised and you have raised them here again tonight about
improvements in the physical appearance of the building. Believe me the building looks about
100% better than it looked in 1993. They have expended considerable money in painting the
building, in improving the asphalt, putting awnings on the building, there has been planting
along the property, a new fence and several other improvements over the years to maintain the
building in a manner, which is very suitable. I have seen some other buildings down in that
particular neighborhood and I think this building and the improvements that have been made to
it have been considerable.
I know I have talked to Paula and Phil and they do have intentions to put some fencing around
it. I think that the asphalt as such does allow off street parking when they have classes there
and is a positive in that sense. There is parking along the driveway so that there is no
intrusiveness into the neighborhood of excess parking or traffic. If there is an intrusion in the
neighborhood it is probably on a Monday Night Football night or an NCAA night when the
Old Pro has cars lined up and down Pepper Street.
As I said I have several people here who are going to be speaking in support of it. The number
one thing in support of the extension I think is the value to the City of Palo Alto. In this time
CiO, 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
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
of budgetary constraints when we are Ioo "king at benefits and what we can and cannot maintain
in this City here is an asset, which provides a benefit that the City does not have to provide. It
is a press it is a basis for teaching and providing classes for our City without any capital
expenditure expense on the City’s behalf.
What I would like to do is just simply, I don’t have 15 minutes of material because I think that
is all pretty well set forth. What I would like to do is spend a few minutes now with Paula
Kirkeby here rather than making a formal presentation if there are some questions that you
would like to address to her at this time, and then I would turn it over to members of the public
who are speaking in support so we can get the issues out on the table.
Chair Bialson: Thank you for your brevity. Do the Commissioners have questions? Yes we
have some questions for Paula.
Mr. Player: Paula, do you want to come down in front? Paula has just been elected to the Arts
Commission so she is going to get used to speaking in public again. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Why don’t we start with questions from Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: When this came before the Planning Cornmission ten years ago you
indicated that the use would be for a single person or two that would perhaps be living onsite
who would be studying there for a short period of time and you indicated that there would be
two major meetings there during the year and four smaller workshops or classes. This time it
sounds like there is a great deal more use of that site. Could you explain how intense the use
it? How often you have classes? How large are the classes that you have there?
Ms. Paula Kirkeby. Applicant: The classes are primarily from the City of Palo Alto and I think
they have them scheduled three a year, so that has increased. They are published in a brochure
that the City Art Center sends out and the Art Center has paid for those classes. In turn the Art
Center pays the master printer that teaches the classes. There are eight students to a class. So
those are the classes.
The projects that we do I would say the project are approximately four to five a year which
means an artist will come maybe travel from Oakland or San Mateo and come on a daily basis
or from New York and stay at The Press for a couple of weeks and do their project. So there
isn’t any impact as far as a lot of traffic. We have never had a complaint. I have asked our
neighbors and speak with them. We have never had a complaint about this. But it has changed
you are right, Ms. Cassel, it has changed.
Commissioner Cassel: The classes, you say you have three classes a year. Is it one class for
one day or is it a class for an hour five days a week.
Ms. Kirkebv: It is called a workshop and they are for two days. They are a Saturday and a
Sunday and they are listed in the Palo Alto Art Center brochure that goes out. Eight is the max
number of students.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Do you have more questions Phytlis? Karen.
CiO’ 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
48
Commissioner Holman: Just a quick question. I understand you are planning on doing some
landscape change and Mr. Player mentioned potentially some fencing. Could you just say a
little bit about what your plan is?
Ms. Kirkebv: Well, my husband and I have discussed it because we ~know that is an issue. We
have tried to make the building, paint it a little softer it had big stripes on it when we got it and
we changed some of the planting, put planters and awnings and a little cosmetic surgery. We
covered the white lines with the asphalt we resurfaced it. Okay. So now Steve talked to me
about something else and my husband and I discussed a fence that we would setback however
the City allows and it would have a rolling gate so that cars could still come in and be parked
there and we would plant in front, dig up the asphalt and put sod and plants in front of the
fence if that would help the City. I have spoken to our neighbors in the City and I ~knocked on
doors and asked them and they said that they didn’t think it was necessary. If the City feels it
is necessary it is something that cosmetically we have talked about and we will be very happy
to do.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I wonder for the benefit of those of us here that were not familiar with
the before but only the after, maybe you could describe a little bit and you already have of
course but give us some more on exactly what is it that you have done in compliance with this
1993 extension.
Ms. Kirkebv: Okay. The building when we initially got it had big blue bands. I do have
photographs some place of that. Then in the driveway there were big white stripes with
people’s names in the front. It looked like a real commercial building. So we picked a soft
color that was conducive to the houses that were being built in the neighborhood and the other
houses and we painted the building and then we put awnings in the front. It didn’t have
awnings. We put awnings in the front of the building and in the back of the building. Then we
had a fence put in on the side. As you face the building the left hand side that we share with a
new neighbor and we put vines and things there and we take care of that. And we put planters
in front of the building that have evergreen and flowers and keep it going. Then in the very
front we had the City put a tree in because the tree had broken. Then we put planting along
with the neighbors that live, as you face the building, to the right. We planted the front so that
it would have a little more of a sense or feeling. That’s it.
Commissioner Griffin: I take it that you would be willing to continue with the landscaping
program and continue to make additional improvements.
Ms. Kirkebv: Absolutely. We would do our very best. You know- financially it is always a
problem but we would absolutely do our best. I think that the best would be the idea with
fencing in the building so no one sees this big asphalt look if that is offensive to anybody and
then we would plan in front of the fence and still maintain parking through the means of a
sliding gate.
Chair Bialson: Joe.
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 7
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Bellomo: The improvements you did make, Paula, were those shown to
Planning Staff?.
Ms. Kirkebv: We were asked to make those improvements initial.
Commissioner Bellomo: The improvements, but specifically the awnings were those specific
requests?
Ms. Kirkebv: No.
Commissioner Bellomo: Those were just voluntary? You had no input from the City on those
improvements?
Ms. Kirkebv: No. We just tried to give the building a better cosmetic feel for the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. The future changes that you. might consider, landscaping,
irrigation, whatever you do, are your plans to take that before Staff?.
Ms. Kirkebv: I don’t ~know about this Staff.
Commissioner Bellomo: Palo Atto’s Planning Staff.
Ms. Kirkebv: Absolutely.
Commissioner Bellomo: But the changes previously were not.
Ms. Kirkeby: No because it wasn’t reconstruction or putting in a big fence.
Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. As far as the parking I believe it is a rolled curb, correct?
Ms. Kirkebv: It is, the whole thing is.
Commissioner Bellomo: So when people approach it they pull up and pull parallel into it.
Initially you talked about stripes that were removed. Were there any ADA accessible stripes?
Ms. Kirkebv: What is ADA?
Commissioner Bellomo: For handicap accessible spaces.
Ms. Kirkebv: There weren’t any, no but it is handicap accessible. People come in
wheelchairs.
Commissioner Be!lomo: They do?
Ms. Kirkebv: Absolutely and you can wheel right in and you can wheel right into the
bathroom.
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Bellomo: I noticed that it was barrier free.
Ms. Kirkebv: Absolutely.
Commissioner Bel!omo: Okay. Thanks. Those are my questions.
Chair Bialson: Any other Commissioners? Thank you very much.
Ms. Kirkeby: I would like to say that in ten years I will be 80 and I might come before you
again if you approve this.
Chair Bialson: Just a second, I have one more Commissioner.
Commissioner Packer: This is more a question of curiosity. Ten years ago it was indicated
that when you bought the building 15 years ago you didn’t ~know it was residentia! because I
assume the building has always been used for commercial purposes.
Ms. Kirkebv: Yes.
Commissioner Packer: Do you ~know what it was used for before?
Ms. Kirkebv: Yes I ~k.now several things that it was used for. It was a Volvo garage at one
time. It is a very interesting community this little area. It serviced the professors at Stanford.
The whole area, the little houses and everything is really very interesting historically. Then
some man bought the building and he rented part of it to a landscape architect and then he had
all kinds of windows and things that he was selling in the building. It was a window display
and sales place. That is what I ka~ow.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Any more from the applicant, Mr. Player?
Mr. Player: No, I have nothing more. Only to say that this is such a positive asset and it is a
pleasure to come before you when you are asking for something that you ~know is going to
benefit the City and has continued to benefit the City. It is so rare sometimes that we get an
opportunity to do something that when you walk away from it you can feel very positive about
the fact of what we have done. So I would encourage your support in granting the extension as
recommended by Staff. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I think we should hear from members of the public now. The first
person is Duncan King to be followed by Michele Sullivan and you will have five minutes.
Mr. Duncan Kina. 2471 E. Bavshore Road. Palo Alto: I will take less than five minutes. I was
not born here but I was raised here, went through the Palo Alto school system, have practiced
law in Palo Alto for 30 years. I have also made monotypes in Paula’s studio. I am over there
on occasions. What I ~know about the place is it is absolutely unique. It benefits not only the
community because community members can come in there and use these presses to use this
wonderfu! medium called monotype but she also brings in other artists, some well- ~known some
not so well-known. Many of them for the first time are able to make monotypes here. Many of
those monotypes stay in the community so the art that is made there by these famous and fine
CiO" 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
4!
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
artists stay here. I think it is a tremendous asset. I would request as a citizen of Palo Alto that
you grant the extension. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Michele Sublivan to be followed by Linda Craighead.
Ms. Michele Sublivan. 461 Pepper Street. Palo Alto: Good evening Madam Chairperson and
members of the Commission. I am going to be very brief because I gave extended remarks
back in 1993 when we had the first extension. We, I reside at 461 Pepper with my partner
Barbara Salon, and we endorsed and supported the extension back in 1993 and we
wholeheartedly support the request for an extension to 2013. We believe that this property is a
really good use. It is welcome in our neighborhood. We like Paula and her husband as our
neighbors. We now have several young children in our neighborhood who I think probably at
some point in time are going to be able to take advantage of this facility right across the street
from them and I think that is just great. So I wholeheartedly endorse this and hope that you do
grant this extension. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Just one second, can I ask a question? What are your feelings about the
landscaping in the front of the house?
Ms. Sublivan: Well, we purchased our house in 1986 and I will tell you that the property
looked just aw-ful at that point. That was just before Paula purchased it. Then in 1993 she did
extensive improvements on it be the color of the property now fits in more naturally with
neighborhood, the landscaping looks nice. I like the awnings because I think it takes away
from the commercial aspect of it and makes it blend in better. We have had no problem with
any of the parking there as was mentioned we have more problems with the Old Pro than we
do with anything else that takes place on the street. Right now I would say it looks very, very
nice and if she decides that she is going to do any improvements she has always consulted us.
Again, it would be something that would be welcome.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Linda Craighead to be followed by Leon Kaplan.
Ms. Linda Craighead. 1313 Newell Road. Palo Alto: I am the Director at the Palo Alto Art
Center. So the Palo Alto Art Center and I have been a huge beneficiary of Paula and Smith-
Anderson Editions. So I really look at this as a great opportunity to speak in favor of The
Press. We did an exhibition when I first came to the Center called °’Directions in Bay Area
Print Making" and Smith-Anderson Press is one of the really fine presses in the Bay Area was
represented in that exhibition. In the catalog Sidney Mayfield the curator who put the
exhibition together said Smith-Anderson primarily was put together to print intimate scale
prints and monotypes. Kirkeby preferred an open door for the artists to explore printmaking
rather than to require the artist to do a finished product. That has really been one of the
wonderful things for me as the Director of the Art Center. The Art Center is all about arts
education and Paula has been a huge supporter in terms of art education and what we are doing
and has allowed students to come in and out of her studio even though it is only eight students
per quarter it is a huge resource for them in terms of time and access to a really professional
press. I cannot think of another example like that where a press allows students to come in and
to print and use their facilities. Paula has been incredibly generous over the years. She has
donated prints to the Art Center in terms our fund raising efforts, which we have used and she
has contributed presses to us. We had a press I think for over three months for a Project Look
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
program teaching the kids how to print. That was an incredible experience of kids working on
a real professional press. The collaboration, the classes for adults when we are all looking for
places to work together to maximize our resources Paula is a wonderful, wonderfu! example of
that. I encourage you to continue. Give Smith-Anderson that extension. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Leon Kaplan and I have no other speaker request cards.
Mr. Leon Kaplan. 1313 Newell Road. Palo Alto: I am the Director of Arts and Culture for the
City of Palo Alto. In the interest of full disclosure I will be 70 in ten years.
The Staff Report and earlier speakers have actually explained to you the enormous value that
The Press has to the City of Palo Alto and I will attest to that, it is true. It is a true statement.
It is an invaluable treasure to this community. I will add that Paula has been generous to the
City of Palo Alto and that over the last ten years we have taken possession because of Paula’s
generosity of 50 monotypes valued in the tens of thousands of dollars that form part of the two-
dimensional collection of the City of Palo Alto. I urge you to grant this extension. It is a no-
brainer. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I see there are no other speakers so I wil! bring this back to the
Commission. Do you have any questions or comments? Let’s combine them today. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just one clarification. The extension is for an art studio and not
specific to this business, correct?
Ms. Grote: That is correct. It could change ownership. They would be required to have the
same types of uses that this facility offers but it could change ov~ership.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I will just offer a comment. After reading the Staff Report and the
reports from a decade ago I was concerned with this issue of the landscaping and commitments
that had been made but after hearing from the applicant from at least one neighbor it seems that
the improvements to the site have made it more compatible than it was when original
nonconforming extension was granted a decade ago. So for those reasons I will take the
applicant’s commitment to continue those improvements and I will be supporting the Staff
recommendation.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: I will also be supporting this fantastic asset to the conm~unity. I have
one question for Staff. A use of this type is required for discretionary review on
improvements, correct? Are they exempt from improvement? It says owner agreed
improvements, are they exempt from Staff level review of awnings, fencing, landscaping,
irrigation, parking, striping? Though I concur with Pat there are improvements made are they
in another ball field?
Ms. Grote: They are not exempt. So any future changes would need to go through a Staff
level review.
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page I I
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Bellomo: It is not a condition but more of an on the record statement that
improvements.
Ms. Grote: Are subject to most likely a Staff level review because they are going to be of
minor nature.
Commissioner Bellomo: Of course. Okay. I am here to support this recommendation.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I would like to make a motion if it is not too premature that we support
the Staff recommendation to recommend to the City Council to adopt the ordinance that is
Attachment A in the Staff Report for the extension of this wonderful nonconfomaing use. Is
there a second before I speak?
Chair Bialson: Is there a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second it.
Chair Bialson: Phyllis seconds. Would you like to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Packer: I wish I could incorporate, well I will incorporate by reference the
wonderful comments that were made in 1993 when this nonconforming use was first granted
by the Commissioners at that time, including Phyllis and Sandy, about the value of this art
studio. In addition to that I would like to say that there are times when an area that is zoned for
all one kind of thing like an R- 1 use really benefits from a little bit of eclecticism and it makes
the whole neighborhood just that much more interesting and a better place to live. That
neighborhood is very eclectic. That part of Pepper Street is right near E1 Camino, there is
Viking Auto Body on the comer, there is a lot of stuff going on and this particular use, which
was something commercial for years before, seems to add to the neighborhood rather than
detract from it. So this is a time when I really feel happy to make this motion in order to
encourage where appropriate these different uses in an R-1 neighborhood.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Phyllis, would you care to speak to your second?
Commissioner Cassel: I was on the Planning Commission when this came before us before. It
was one of my first items that I heard. The project does indeed look a lot better than it did
before. It is a great improvement. It does seem to be maintaining a low intensity use, which
they promised it would originally. There are two two-story houses now to the left side of this
project which means that this building is no longer the tallest one in the area and new houses
seem comfortable moving in beside the project which I think means that people are feeling
comfortable with the business.
Cio’ ofPalo Aho Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
I am a little concerned that in talking about doing something with the parking, which I think
needs to be done, that we are overdoing it if we start putting fences in front and I think there is
probably something a little simpler that can be done that can make this a little more
comfortable and maintain the parking space. When I first read this I was almost angry when I
read that nothing had been done about the parking but I was quite relieved when I went over to
see the site and felt it had made a great deal of improvement. So I am happy to second it.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I enjoyed hearing the resume of what improvements have been made to
the property in the last ten years. We obviously are dependent on the applicant’s continued
good will to continue to exercise come artistic creativity over there and I am feeling confident
that we are going to be seeing that. I am pleased to support the motion.
Chair Bialson: Okay Karen, you can talk before me.
AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Holman: I actually was considering a friendly amendment. The amendment
was to extent the nonconforming use to 15 years. The reason for that is because I think
everyone including the neighbors, which is great support to have, supports this use. It is a
unique use. Although the applicant said that in ten years she will be 80 and might be back here
again what I thought about when I was reading the Staff Report was this is such a unique use
and if I had to do the process again would that help me make up my mind whether to retire and
close down the business or not, maybe. I think what we can do to help support these really
artistic, creative, unique uses, anything we can do to help that especially with such
neighborhood support would be well advised. So I would ask a friendly amendment be
approved by the maker and seconder of the motion for the extension to be granted for 15 years
to the year 2018.
Commissioner Packer: I don’t see any reason why not. I’ll accept it.
Chair Bialson: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I wasn’t going to accept it. The reason has to do with this extension of
the nonconforming use. This is probably one of the last of the nonconforming uses extended
from the previous extensions. There are only one or two left in town. By this time we should
have finally got through to some zoning and some changes and this may indeed have a change
to it zone to a more mixed use and not need the extension. That is what was hoped that we
wouldn’t need it this time because that would have happened and it didn’t happen. Ten years
with one use a lot of things can happen in that particularly and we can’t condition this on
whether someone will live to 80 and it will be the same owner. So under those circumstances I
think we should keep it where it is.
Chair Bialson: Okay. I have a question. Do I ask for a different second now or a different
motion?
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
Ms. Furth: Well, Karen can move her amendment as an unfriendly amendment, simply as an
amendment to the motion.
Chair Bialson: Okay. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Or could it be a substitute motion? Which is more appropriate?
Ms. Furth: You can do either one.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Commissioner Holman: Then I would move a substitute motion, which would be to approve
the Staff recommendation with the one change that the extension be granted for 15 years to the
year 2018. If a second comes along I will say one other thing about it.
SECOND
Chair Bialson: I will second that.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you, Annette. I appreciate absolutely what Phy!lis’s comments
are but I think we thought by now the change in zoning probably would have happened in that
area and if the zoning change doesn’t happen or even if it does we would have a conforming
use there. So I am less concerned about a nonconforn~ing use and more enthusiastic about
supporting the use that does exist there at this time.
Chair Bialson: I did not speak to the previous motion or the motion that is now before us. I
will just say that I will be supporting the motion and the reason for that is essentially that I
think this is a huge asset to the community. It was in 1993, it still continues to be and I think
that we should try to maintain and make as easy as possible the continuance of this family run
wonderful cultural gem we have in our community. While we sit here and talk about doing
things and making plans and presenting them to Staff you have to understand that that does
distract from people doing what they are best at doing. It is also a dedication of funds that we
are imposing on a party that may not be necessary. The neighbors aren’t asking for it, no one
else seems to be asking for it and for us to take that position I think is unduly harsh. I will be
supporting the 15 years because I agree with Karen that on a human basis as people start
approaching these points in time where they are facing the need to do something more that can
weigh into the issue of whether one retires, whether one bothers to go out and find someone
else who will follow in your footsteps. So that is why I wilt be supporting the 15-year term.
MOTION PASSED
If people don’t want to discuss it then I think what we should do is vote on that substitute
motion. So the motion before us at this time is to essentially go with the recommendation of
the Staff Report however we are going to extend for 15 years to July 20, 2018. Is that correct?
All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those against say nay. (nay). That motion carries with
all the Commissioners but Phyllis Cassel. Thank you very much. That is the end of the matter.
I have one more comment. Karen.
CiO’ ofPato Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
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
Commissioner Holman: Yes, in reading the Staff Report and this has been addressed by other
Commissioners too it does read, and I appreciate the Planner has not been on Staff long enough
to have seen the prior condition of the property but maybe from prior photographs could there
perhaps be a more clear explanation of what changes have transpired at the property when the
project goes to the Council? That would be much appreciated.
Ms. Grote: We will do that.
Chair Bialson: Thank you and thank you for everyone attending.
The next item is Item Number Two and deals with zoning change for the Code with regard to
second units. Commissioners, we are going to bifurcate this to a certain extent because our
City Attorney who is in attendance tonight will not be able to be here with regard to items in
the RMD and P zone because she lives within 500 feet of such a zone. Is that correct, Wyrme?
Ms. Furth: That is. So we are asking that the Staff Report will be on the entire project and
then the public hearing as well but when you have questions and deliberations if you could
handle the matters outside of that district first then I will leave and you can discuss the
remaining issues with the rest of the Staff.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. A new cast of characters. Staf5 care to make a
presentation?
Zoning Code Change for 2nd Units: The Commission will consider an amendment to
Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to make accessory dwelling units a permitted use
in the RE, R-1 and OS districts in accordance with State Law. SR Weblink:
h~p://www.citv~fpa~a~t~.~r~citYagenda/pub~ish/p~annin~-transp~rtati~n-meetings/~ 824.pdf
Mr. John Lusardi. Planning Manager, Special Projects: Yes. Madam Chair and members of the
Commission the item before you tonight is revisions to the single-family district regarding state
housing legislation and second dwelling units. The proposal is to amend the zoning code to
eliminate discretionary review and public review of second dwelling units and replace it with a
Staff level and a ministerial review. Essentially a ministerial review- is the same as a building
permit review. Just as a note, on the average we have had five second-units built per year from
the years 1985 to 2002. That is what our records show to date.
We think it is very important to emphasize the reason for this proposed change now prior to the
proposed Zoning Ordinance Update. On September 29, 2002 Assembly Bill 1866 was signed
into law. The bill was very explicit in changing the government code and stating that when a
local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003 for a permit pursuant to the
subdivision that is second units the application shall be considered ministerial without
discretionary review or hearing. The important distinction there is that what we are dealing with
here is the use, that is the second unit use, that is what is being delineated in the state legislation.
Under the new legislation second dwelling units must be reviewed ministerially and without a
public hearing. Timing is an issue here as the legislation takes effect on July 1, 2003 and we
need to anaend our Zoning Ordinance to address that deadline.
Cio" of Palo Alto Page I5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
13
14
15
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
Having stated that the state legislation requirements for the proposed changes are what is really
driving this it is important to note that changes in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element that
the Council recently approved also promote the same goals that are being shown in the state
legislation and as also contained in the proposed ordinance before you this evening. Program H-
7 encouraging second units and H-8 allowing small attached ministerial units.
What will not change with respect to this is the existing development standards for detached
second units. That is minimum lot sizes, maximum unit sizes, allowable floor area, setback
requirements, all of those will remain in the Zoning Ordinance and the second units will be
required to meet those standards. Also this does not legalize any illegal second units that are in
the community at this time.
Now what will change is ministerial review of second units in the estate residential, the single
family R-1 and the Open Space, OS, districts. The change is that the second dwelling units from
conditional use permit to a permitted use in these zoning districts. An additional change is under
the R-1 district a unit over a garage but still within the building envelope, an important
distinction, was also a conditional use requiring special findings. Those special findings will no
longer be allowed. However, it is important to point out that if it is a second story, even over a
garage unit, it would trigger the individual review process and that individual review process
would be the same review- process that now exists. That is, it would be subject to appeal because
that is not a use issue in that regard. That is a recommendation that we are making, a change that
is different from your staff report and we’ll get into that at the end. We will clarify those
changes.
What will also change are attached second units in these zoning districts. We will allow small
attached second units with the following development standards: a size of up to 250 square feet,
the entryway where no exterior stairway or no street-facing entry, compatibility with main unit
and with respect to style, roof pitch, color and materials and on parking of one additional parking
space. Another important note here is any second unit that is an attached unit and is a second
story unit would also be subject to individual review process and would also be subject to the
appeal process that currently exists in the individual review program. Staff level Architectural
Review Board of second units in the RMD (NP) district is a distinction here and it is a change. It
is really an interpretation again of the fact that the RMD and the NP review is being triggered by
the second unit. Basically the interpretation of the state legislation says that any second unit that
triggers a review- is a ministerial review or a staff level review. That means that a second unit is
already permitted in the RMD district but with neighborhood preservation overlay and it must
have an ARB review. That is the current conditions. The change that the state legislation
dictates is that the ARB staff level review be in place with no public hearing and no appeal
because a public hearing for a second unit and not the primary unit is what is triggering that
review.
The development exceptions within the RMD district, there are certain development exceptions
that are different than the variance process. Those development exceptions would remain in
place and the process with respect to those development exceptions would remain in place. That
is they would still be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator through a public hearing and could
be subject to appeal. That does not change the condition or the requirement of the second use.
CiO, 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
3O
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
What I would like to do now is briefly describe the changes and the revisions that we are
recommending. In your Staff Report on page three at the bottom of that page and at the top of
the following page we identified that the individual review for second story additions would not
be subject to the R-1 review process with an appeal. We are amending that. We are changing
that. So I want to make that correction in the Staff Report.
Chair Bialson: What line was that?
Mr. Lusardi: I am sorry. It is the very bottom. It is the last sentence on page three that carries
over to page four.
Commissioner Griffin: Are you going to give us the new-reading of that sentence?
Mr. Lusardi: We are going to identify where in the ordinance we are making those changes.
That is next. If you go to the proposed ordinance that is attached to your Staff Report on page
five, under section two for a detached unit the following development standards apply. Under
section two-c, the final sentence in two-c states that no hearing may be held and the
determination of the Zoning Administrator shall not be subject to appeal. This will be revised to
reflect the current R-1 review process for detached units that are subject to individual review
program.
Chair Bialson: Now you have to be a little slower from what I am hearing. Pat, it is the last
sentence on two-c on page five of the ordinance.
Commissioner Burt: The sentence that currently reads if such a two-story structure is applied
for?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes.
Commissioner Burt: Okay.
Mr. Lusardi: Essentially what we are doing is, what was contained in here is we were saying that
a detached unit in a two-story could only be subject to Staff level review with no appeal. We are
amending that to say it would be subject to the individual review process and would be subject to
appeal. That is not being triggered by the use. That is being triggered by the fact that it is a
second story addition in the individual review program.
Ms. Furth: If you would like the text that sentence would now start out, "’Such two-story
structures shall be reviewed in the same manner as other second story additions or construction
in the R-1 district." What this means is that if somebody proposes, these are actually my
comments about the next section so never mind.
Ms. Grote: It also means the sentence before the last sentence is modified because that is the one
that says no hearing may be held. So that sentence will be modified as well and probably struck
all together.
Cio" 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
Chair Bialson: Okay, so what we are talking about is the sentence that says, "Such two-story
structures shall be reviewed according to the individual review process." And that is how you
are changing it.
Ms. Furth: Described in Chapter 18.14 and then I am deleting everything after that starting with,
"however, no hearing" and replacing it with, "in the same manner as other second story additions
or construction."
Our test is that we can’t do anything where you have to know what the use is.
Chair Bialson: Okay, I understand. Maybe it takes another attorney though. So essentially what
you are doing then is not calling out the use but rather saying since it is a second story of
whatever type it is going to be subject to the rules applicable to second stories.
Ms. Furth: That’s right.
Chair Bialson: I am glad we wrote the statute for second story review the way we did.
Ms. Furth: Yes.
Mr. Lusardi: It would be subject to the individual review guidelines.
Chair Bialson: And there would be notice going to neighbors and the whole process.
Mr. Lusardi: Yes.
Chair Bialson: You can go through the rest of the changes.
Mr. Lusardi: The second change is on page six and it is under section three-c and that is a
similar change. That is for attached unit, which would be subject to the individual review"
process that is a second story attached unit. We would make the same change in that paragraph
’c’ as we made in the previous paragraph.
Chair Bialson: Do you just want to read that out to us as to what it would be changed to so we
are all sure we got that?
Ms. Furth: When an attached unit will be located on the second floor of a residential structure it
will be subject to the individual review process described in Chapter 18.14 in the same manner
as other additions or new construction in the district.
Chair Bialson: Then the paragraph?
Ms. Furth: The balance of the paragraph will be struck.
Chair Bialson: Struck, okay.
CiO, 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
2~
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. Furth: This of course means that if somebody is proposing a second unit, which doesn’t
increase the floor area of the house, that doesn’t involve new exterior construction, there is no
review because we don’t review interior changes.
Chair Bialson: Understood? Okay, any more?
Mr. Lusardi: Those are the recommendations and changes to what you have before you. Staff
would like to point out one other issue that was brought to our attention. Prior to this evening’s
meeting the Commission and Staff received an email from Ms. Pria Graves raising some
concerns about the RMD(NP) district and how that is being addressed through the new state
legislation. Staff would like to point out that we, after reviewing Ms. Graves’ email and
discussing it briefly among Staff, we are very sympathetic to the concerns that she is raising. I
think we have discussed some area of modifications that we can address her concerns however,
Wynne, as was pointed out is conflicted with this and we have not had a chance to discuss this
with Aerial Cologne. We would like to pursue some modifications to what Ms. Graves is
suggesting here and looking at that in trying to address her concerns.
Chair Bialson: You speaking of her concerns as expressed in this email at our place?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes. Essentially what she is suggesting here is that in the RMD(NP) overlay you
can get a second unit that is conceivably larger than 900 square feet and she believes that
because of neighborhood compatibility issues and the neighborhood preservation overlay that
design review by the ARB is a very important element of that program and that process.
Chair Bialson: So you would then ask Arial Calonne or some other member of the City
Attorney’s Staff to come up with some changes to what you are proposing here? Is that what I
hear you saying?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes. We have looked at two issues very quickly. Number one is revising the
RMD zone to the same standards that the R-1 would have with respect to second units that is
limiting them to 900 square feet. The other issue and this is what we need to explore is if you
said that the unit of 900 square feet would be a ministerial review conceivably meeting the state
legislation and any unit or second unit over 900 square feet might receive ARB review. These
are issues we need to discuss with the City Attorney a little further before we pursue any
modifications.
Chair Bialson: So the matter before us really somewhat incomplete in that we don’t have all the
changes that could possibly, ultimately be made.
Mr. Lusardi: The ordinance that is in front of you, you are not changing the RMD ordinance at
all.
Chair Bialson: Okay.
Mr. Lusardi: So the ordinance that is in front of you can go forward and those changes can be
made. What we are suggesting is that we discuss this a little further among Staff and with the
City Attorney and bring back the RMD to you for a review-.
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
3!
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Bialson: Okay, so that would be coming back to us?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes.
Chair BiaIson: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: This does raise the issue too of instances where HRB review would be
appropriate. Has Staff considered how that might be handled?
Mr. Lusardi: Only that the RMD(NP) has always been subject to Architectural Review Board
and the Architectural Review Board is a discretionary permit. There is not necessarily a
discretionary permit for the HRB. So I think that is why I think it has always been triggered
through the Architectural Review Board.
Commissioner Holman: Can I get clarification on that because I can think of one project in
College Terrace that went through the HRB and the ARB? So is your point that ARB is what
triggers the discretion because neither one is mandatory? They are both advisory. Are you
distinguishing between discretion whether it is HRB or ARB or are you saying that you think
these only go through ARB? I need some clarification please.
Ms. Grote: Those that are in the Neighborhood Preservation portion of College Terrace go
through the Architectural Review- Board as a matter of course for any kind of major exterior
change. If it also has an historic designation then it would go through the HRB. A building that
doesn’t have an historic designation specifically applied to it would only go through the ARB but
both of those reviews are considered discretionary. Now the HRB review is voluntary rather
than mandatory or compliance with the HRB recommendations is voluntary whereas Compliance
with ARB recommendations and then the Director’s decision is required. It is a mandatory
review. But both are discretionary.
What distinguishes whether or not something would go through a discretionary review is the
addition of a second unit. That is what would no !onger be allowed by the state legislation. The
state is saying that you, we as a City, cannot trigger a discretionary review based on the fact that
a second unit is being proposed. Currently the way it is written we said no further ARB or HRB
review for second units in the NP district because we can’t do it based on second units. We can’t
make that determination based on second units. What Ms. Graves raised was the issue of some
of the second units in the NP district really aren’t accessory second units, they are full blown
second units. They are much bigger than 900 square feet. They can be as big or bigger than the
primary unit so don’t treat those like second units, like accessory units. Treat them as if you are
adding a full blown second unit and therefore say those still could be subject to discretionary
review because they are something different than an accessory living unit which is typically
smaller than a main unit and has less impact. So she is saying perhaps look at either a two tiered
process where those that are 900 square feet or less would not be subject to any discretionary
review, HRB or ARB, those that are bigger than 900 square feet because they are not accessory
units they are true full living units could be subject to the discretionary review. So we are saying
yes, that makes some logical sense and that we might possibly want to separate those two. What
we need to do is check with the Attorney’s office to make sure that we are not running afoul of
the new state legislation by doing that.
Cio’ 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
Commissioner Holman: To follow up on that outside the NP there are properties that could have
second units that are historic in nature. So should we indicate, when we are talking about this,
indicate, which Staff or Staff will of course direct this to the proper Staff members, but do you
want us to make any recommendations for a clarification or how would you like us to address
that?
Mr. Lusardi: I think what we would suggest is we come back, understanding those comments,
we come back with a process that also delineates historic structures for review by the
Architectural Review Board versus structures that might be reviewed by the Architectural
Review Board. The Director, I think, in the process has the discretion to refer a project to the
Historic Resources Board for review and comment.
Ms. Grote: I would modify- what John said just a bit in that I believe you should make your
comments on that tonight rather than having another ordinance come before you later. I think
that we have a limited amount of time to get this implemented. We have a July 1 deadline so we
need to take this to the City Council for their action very quickly. We can revisit some of these
issues in further detail when the Zoning Ordinance Update comes before you for single family
low- density residential requirements and also the multiple family if we are considering the RMD
district. I would make your comments tonight if possible and give us some general direction on
how- you would like to see it approached and then we can explore those issues further with the
City Attorney and then make those recommendations to the Council.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Are you through at this point, John?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes, I guess so.
Chair Bialson: I think we should bring this to the Commission now for comments and questions.
We will start with you since you have your light on. I think questions are first and then
cormnents. We can also go to the public first if you would like to hear from the public. I think
Phyllis has a question that is burning at this point.
Commissioner Cassel: Yes, I have a burning question. I think we lost our attorney so I don’t
know whether this can be answered without her. My questions, I have sets of questions but the
questions I am thinking about now are parking questions and parking requirements. It falls into
the realm of if this law that the state has set down intends us to allow people to have units I
presume it intends us not to place on this ordinance restrictions such that it would make it
impossible to produce second units or almost impossible to produce them. So I had a question
concerning parking. What happens if your parking ordinances including the new adjustment that
we just made with City Council restricts the parking opportunity so severely that we can’t put
these units in anyway? I don’t "know where we put a third parking space behind all of the
setback lines on most pieces of property. I was driving around looking at those this afternoon.
Ms. Grote: Currently for a detached unit we require two parking spaces, one covered and one
uncovered for the unit itself. That would not be changing as a part of anything that would be
recommended on tonight. Because the sites that are eligible for second units are larger, they are
35% bigger than a standard site, so you are at about 8,300 square feet they often times do have
room for an additional, in fact they always have room for an additional, covered space because
we also allow tandem spaces in the R-1 districts.
Cir." of Palo ,4 lto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
13
14
!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 Cassel: I am not really worried about the cottages. I am worried about the units
that come up within an existing space. That is really far more important. If we are going to get
small units that is where we are going to get them.
Ms. Grote: For that recommendation we have suggested only one space not necessarily to be
covered. So only one .space would be required and there again you could use your driveway as
long as it is out of the front setback but a long driveway you could use for a tandem space.
Commissioner Cassel: A tandem space is allowed. Have you had any kind of assessment about
how many units or portion of units might be available is you use that? I went around and there
are very few units in the neighborhood, Midtown sections that I drove around today, that would
actually be able to locate a third space not being in any of the setbacks, the side setback, the back
setback, the front setback, doesn’t leave very much. I was also concerned that the ordinance that
the City Council passed which was not in the form we were passing the ordinance related to how
much space could be in curb cut and how- much space in the front yard could be used as
impervious surface might further limit those options.
Ms. Grote: An uncovered parking space could be in a side setback. It can’t be in the first 20 feet
but it can be right up against the side property line as long as it is more than 20 feet back. So you
can use your side setback or rear setback for a parking space, an uncovered parking space
because there is no structure that would then affect your neighbor. We have not yet had an
opportunity to assess how many sites could possibly have that third parking space on it. There
hasn’t been enough time to do that but we could certainly attempt to get some of those numbers
by the time we go to Council and how many lots might be big enough to accommodate another
space. It is kind of a difficult assessment to do but we could certainly attempt to get some rough
numbers or estimates on that.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: This is with regard to the zones that are not RMD. I don’t have any
questions about the RMD issue. It is also in line with Phyllis’s comment about not creating
situations that would discourage second units. My question has to do with the development
standards that you have for the attached units. The maximum size without regard to the size of
the lot or the size of the existing structure is only 250 square feet. I find it hard to imagine how
anyone can fit a bathroom, even an efficiency kitchen and a bed in 250 square feet. I think even
the units at the Opportunity Center are larger and the ones in the SRO on Alma Place are larger
than that. Why did Staff come up with that number and would you consider a percent of the
allowable FAR as a maximum? Say 20%? I think it was something we were considering in the
Zoning Ordinance. Because 250 square feet plus a parking space, who would want to do this?
Ms. Grote: We did select or suggest 250 square feet because actually most of the units in the
SRO are about 250 square feet. It is an efficiency unit. It allows for a main living area, an
efficiency kitchen, which is usually the Pullman style kitchen in the wall, and then a small
bathroom but it is the minimum, it is actually not the minimum under the state. I think they
allow you to go to 150 square feet. So it is bigger than the minimum allowed by the state, 100
square feet bigger. So also we were fully anticipating that this would be revisited during the
Zoning Ordinance Update. This is to immediately respond to the state requirements so that we
CiO: of Palo Aho Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
13
14
15
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 something in place immediately or very quickly. Then we would fully expect that we can
come back and look at these things in more detail during the Zoning Ordinance Update.
Mr. Lusardi: Just to give you a range, as Lisa pointed out the health code allows an efficiency
unit at 150 square feet. We have talked w-ith building today and the Building Code identifies that
a two-person efficiency unit is 220 square feet. The Housing Element that was adopted
identified an attached unit of about 200 square feet. So we were trying to find a range that we
could live with until we analyze this further in the Zoning Ordinance Update.
Commissioner Packer: Okay. Thank you that helps. I have one other question also. The
placement of entrance, you say should not be street facing. There are a lot of buildings that are
on a comer. What about buildings that are on comers? The street facing could mean that there is
no front door on either side. I would suggest a more flexible language or if that is going to be an
ARB issue then maybe that doesn’t even need to be addressed.
Ms. Grote: It would actually need to be a Staff level because there wouldn’t be an ARB review.
I think what we were trying to avoid is the look of a duplex in a single family home. So you
wouldn’t want your second unit entry point to be next to or on the same fa,cade as your main
house entry point. So we could probably find a better way to Say that and say that the entry to
the second unit shall be located on a fa,cade where the main entry is not located. There could be
a better way to say that but to make sure that it is not on the same street facing fac, ade.
Commissioner Packer: The other reason for concern is that there are a number of homes,
eichlers, for example, that the entryway is on the side and you don’t see it. A traditional home
has front doors but there are a lot of homes in South Palo Alto that do not have front doors.
Chair Bialson: Not just in South Palo Alto, in the area I live in a lot of the homes have front
doors facing on the side. So I think that Boimie is correct in saying that that needs a little work.
You may want to just call out comer lots differently but a lot of homes as she points out do not
have the front door at the front door area. Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: My house included. I just wanted to clarify R-2 or other zonings that
have substandard lots that are developed per the R-1 ordinance that have opportunities to include
smaller second dwellings and why this is not identifying zones that could allow second units in
them. For example, an R-2 substandard lot could in fact, might not be developed for two
separate units but could include a second dwelling or a second unit.
Ms. Grote: In an R-2 zone?
Commissioner Bellomo: For example.
Ms. Grote: Actually, R-2 zones don’t allow accessory living units. Because it is a multiple
family zone you have to have a minimum of 7,500 square feet to get two units on that site. If
you have less than 7,500 square feet you can only put one unit on the site.
Commissioner Bellomo: I understand but the one unit could have a second dwelling unit.
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Grote: No, it cannot. It cannot under our existing requirements and it could not under
an?thing that is being proposed here. If that is something that you want to address during the
Zoning Ordinance Update we could certainly do that. It is not part of tonight’s
recommendations.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Pat. Hold it, Steve do you want to say something? Then you Pat.
Mr. Steve Emslie. Plannin~ Director: I just wanted to emphasize the timeframe for this. This is
necessary to get a responsive ordinance in place so that we are not exposed to legal challenge
after July 1. So there may be issues that come up and certainly could be addressed in the zoning
code update but it is imperative that in order to protect the City’s legal position that we have
these standards in place by July t. We are on a very tight timeframe to do that given the
Council’s schedule coming up and the budget season.
Commissioner Burt: I think Staff has partially clarified what I want to make sure of and that is
that what is before us tonight is not anything to do with substantive issues regarding the second
dwelling units with the exception of the process by which they are approved. Conforming to
state law would require that we eliminate the discretionary review process and it be a Staff
review and that that’s really the only change that we are considering tonight. Is that correct?
Ms. Grote: Those changes and the efficiency attached unit of up to 250 square feet.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Hohnan: Yes, I have a clarification question in the R£ R-1 and OS districts it
talks about attached second units and it address compatibility. It says that they should be
compatible with main unit with respect to style, roof pitch, color and materials. I am not exactly
clear on how- Staff would see that that happens or even encourage that.
Ms. Grote: We would do it through the building permit review. So when someone applies for a
building permit we would be requiring that they show us what kinds of materials they would be
using, they would show us, which they do anyway, the structural drawings that would show us
the cross-sections for the roof pitch and how it would be constructed. So it would be during
building permit.
Commissioner Holman: But it even talks about color and the City doesn’t usuatly get into that
for single family or this kind of situation.
Ms. Grote: We will be getting into that. Actually, in the R-1 and in the OS now even though
they are going through discretionary reviews we do request color boards, material boards. So it
is not unusual for us to be making those kinds of assessments. Currently we make a
recommendation to either the Architectural Review Board or to you and the Council and that
would change but we are always evaluating those factors.
CiO, of Palo AIto Page 24
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Bialson: Thank you. If there aren’t any other questions I would like to go to the public at
this point. The first speaker would be William Spangler to be followed by Annette Ashton,
except I think she left so it would be Bob Moss.
Mr. William Spangler. 471 Carolina Lane. Palo Alto: Hi. I think my main concern that brought
me here tonight might have been addressed by the wording changes but I would like to throw it
out anyway. I would like to make certain that the R- 1 (S) combining district that somehow there
is not a second story allowed as a matter of right out of that process.
Additionally, I have a question. Does the second unit terminology imply that an R-1 can only go
to a duplex as a matter or right or can there be multiple second units on a single property? Can it
turn into a triplex or an SRO in some way? That may or may not be obvious but I think it ought
to be made explicit.
The Staff Report mentioned the possibility of prohibiting second units over garages pending
further examination and the Zoning Ordinance Update and I think that might be a good idea and
be able to give it some more thought. I can see opportunities for abuse there.
The final thing that I have is that I would request that there be some notification and posting
process during this. Have that be required similar to maybe the current second story review or a
variance process. The public could provide timely information in advance of the ministerial
actions even though there aren’t hearings or appeals. Some areas, like mine, have deed
restrictions, private contracts, that are presumably not invalidated by this state ordinance that
prohibit uses other than for single family residences. It is only fair for all parties that that
information be available before construction starts and additional expense is incurred on all
sides. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Can I ask Staff to be responsive to those two questions raised there?
Ms. Grote: The first comment about the single story overlay, nothing in these changes would
modify a single story overlay. So if there is a single story overlay in place a second story second
unit would not be allowed either over a garage or the main house.
You cannot have more than one accessory living unit. It by definition is the second and only
additional unit that is allowed in an R-1 or RE or OS district. We raised the alternative or the
possibility of not allowing second units over garages in the interim. We do allow them now with
a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit would be going away or eliminated. We
recommended that they still be allowed over garages since they would be going through the
individual review process. They would also be required to meet all setbacks for side and rear
setbacks, all daylight plane requirements, all individual review guidelines having to do with
privacy, massing, sun shadow analysis, everything that is required as part of an individual review
would be required for an unit over a garage. So that led us to our recommendation to continue to
allow them.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Annette Ashton was to be the next speaker but I think she has left.
That leaves you Bob, Bob Moss.
Ci0’ 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
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Bob Moss. 4010 Orme. Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Bialson and Commissioners.
Annette’s main concern was that some of the limitations like FAR and setbacks were not
explicitly stated in the changes. I think they are covered anyway. I don’t think you have to carry
them forward but that was her concern.
Listening to the presentation and reading this again a couple of things came to mind that relate to
particular properties I am familiar with in Barron Park, which are a little unusual and I just
wanted to bring them to your attention and Staff’s attention and make sure that these sorts of
things will be covered.
On page five where we talk about the attached units and putting a second story on a garage. I am
familiar with a number of properties in Barron Park where the garages are very close to if not
actually on the rear property line. These were built in some cases 40 or 50 years ago. I would
assume that somebody who wanted to come in and put a second story unit on a garage or an
outbuilding let’s say which is currently in the setback, that has been grandfathered in because
maybe it was annexed after the property was developed, that would not normally be allowed.
The fact that something is there and exists doesn’t grant someone the right to build a second
story on that.
The second is a property on my street that, there are two of them like this, they have what are
called pool houses. One of the tots doesn’t even have a pool but they built the property and
called it a pool house. It sits within the 20-foot setback. I don’t ~know how he got it in there but
he did. So I would presume that he could come in now and ask for that to be converted to a
granny unit even though it is within the setback. I think that would be an adverse impact on the
neighbors.
The second property on nay street has a pool house and actually there is a pool and it is in the
middle of the property. When the property was put up for sale some years ago it was originally
advertised as a second unit. The realtor looked at it and said you can’t do that, that’s illegal
because you never got a permit for it. In fact what made it a second unit is that they had
bathroom facilities in the building, which were illegal. So the realtor made them take it out
before she put it on the market. Now presumably they could come back in at this stage and say it
is an outbuilding and we will just call it a second unit because it is detached. That would be less
objectionable to ones, which are sitting in the setback. I think these particular types of
developments do require a lot of attention. You are going to have ministerial review the
neighbors aren’t even going to ~know about it. I think it ~vould be wise to at least notify people
when these sorts of things are being reviewed even if they don’t have any formal say on it. I
think it would be polite just to tell them that the neighbor is coming up and doing this to them.
Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I have no other cards so I will close the public input and bring it
back to the Commission now. I see somebody on my right wishes to speak. Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Thank you. Would Staff wish to respond to some of the points that Bob
Moss raised? I think the issue of the pool house was of particular interest.
Ms. Grote: If you have a structure now that is not living space and it is a pool house or a garage
or other kind of accesso~, structure that doesn’t include living space but it is in a setback, so it is
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 26
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
3O
3!
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
sitting in your rear yard or in the side yard, we would not allow you to convert that to living
space. We would not allow you to do that now even if you came in with a conditional use
permit. You would have to apply for a variance to put your living space in your setback. There
wouldn’t be grounds to approve a variance. You have to have an unusual circumstance, physical
circumstance, to approve a variance. It would be difficult to make those variance findings on a
typical lot. So we don’t allow living space or non-living space to be converted to living space if
it is sitting in a setback. That would not change as a result of this. So the fact that the
conditional use permit is no longer required doesn’t give anyone permission to change a
conforming non-living unit in a setback to a living unit in a setback.
As far as posting is concerned it is problematic to post something on a site if the neighbors
essentially don’t get to comment on it. It has the potential for raising false expectations. If a
posting were up people would expect that they get to comment on something. It would be
difficult to find out that they couldn’t if they come in to take a look at the plans or make
comment and they weren’t allowed to make those comments. We would still be posting for
individual review. So if someone comes in for an individual review for a second story or
something over a garage that is not in a setback people would still be notified of that. What they
could comment on in those instances is the exterior of the building just like they can comment
now-. They couldn’t comment on the fact that this is a second unit being applied for upstairs in
an existing house or in a new house. They couldn’t comment on the use. They could only
comment on the design and the impact of privacy, massing and streetscape.
Chair Bialson: So we couldn’t notify people that their inputs are limited to providing whatever
insight they have to Staff and that it would be these four or five standard items? I see Wym~e
and Steve want to speak.
Ms. Furth: Well, the legislative record on this bill is very clear that it is the intention of the
legislature that there not be hearings whether those hearings are in the form of writings and email
messages submitted to the Staff after notice is published or in the form of an actual formal public
hearing. So I share the Staff’s concern about a posting for that purpose. We do post all building
permits online. We do have standard notification processes you can look on our website but we
would not be distinguishing essentially between second unit construction and first unit
construction in those notices. I believe that the state is pretty clear that that’s their intention.
That these are to be treated as an aspect of single-family use. That is not how we understand
single family zoning but ever since the first second unit mandatory inclusionary ordinance or
statute has been passed on a state level there has been a steady chipping away at our ability to
distinguish between a first and a second unit any more than we do between a third or a fourth or
fifth bedroom. So I would share Staff’s concerns about such a process.
Chair Bialson: In sharing concerns you are saying that you would advise that we not notify
unless there is some other notification that goes on.
Ms. Furth: Not to have a notice process that is triggered by the fact that the construction is for a
second unit.
Chair Bialson: Okay. Bonnie has a follow up question and then I think Michael does.
City of Palo Alto Page 2 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
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
4!
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Packer: On the individual review process now is it possible if we don’t change
any of the language in that process that once neighbors realize that part of the reason for the
addition is a second unit that they will use all the other aspects of the individual review process
to prevent the addition from happening? Is there a way to prevent that to make it clear that the
only objections or suggestions that the neighbors can make have to do with the design of the
physical addition and not to address how- it will be used? Do you think that additional
clarification would be necessary in order to comply with the intent of the state legislation?
Ms. Grote: We can certainly let people know that the limit of the their comment is on privacy,
streetscape and massing for any individual review and that the use is not subject to comment on.
We can certainly remind people of that if conversations start to go in that direction.
Ms. Furth: These are quasi-judicial hearings and certainly our notice process would not be any
different depending on whether it was an addition or a new construction for one unit or two. I
think that is the first step that the City takes. We have pretty clear guidelines right now. People
do or do not respond to them. We are not in a position to refuse to accept a document that
addresses other issues but we are in a position to and have a duty to not take that into
consideration in the hearing process. I think the burden is on Staff and then on the City Council
to uphold that position through the process.
Certainly you can eliminate, another alternative would be to eliminate individual review but
again we are proposing that you make a minimum number of changes in the City’ s process in
order to accommodate these rules.
Commissioner Griffin: So I am wondering, the IR notice that goes out, the yellow- sign, then
would not have a special indicator on it that this was for a second unit and likewise would not
say sorry folks you are not allowed to make any comments?
Ms. Grote: That’s right. Not in the notice. I think that we would be required and should
comment or caution people should their comments start to focus on the use that they can’t do
that. We cannot deny an individual review based on use and so people cannot and should not be
making comments based on the use.
Commissioner Griffin: What I am trying to avoid here are these false expectations that we have
kicked around here in the last few minutes. If there were some sort of an indication on the
yellow sign that explained a little bit more about what could and could not be commented on that
would perhaps keep expectations under control if you follow- what I am saying.
Ms. Grote: I think that I would be hesitant to alert people to the fact that it is a second unit. That
seems to ahnost be prompting people to comment on it. I would rather have them come in and
look at the plans and make their comments based on what they think the impacts will be on
privacy, massing and streetscape. If they then start to talk about the use we can then respond and
caution them that they should not be talking about the use because we have no ability to respond
to that. We cannot deny a pern~it based on use. So I wouldn’t want in essence to prompt them to
talk about use. Wynne may want to comment further.
Ms. Furth: I agree with the Chief Planning Official. If the City sends out notices saying this is
for a second story addition including a second unit then we are I think going to be found guilty of
CiO" of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
violating this new ordinance. We have very little control over what people choose to say and all
we can do is listen and deal with that part which we lawfully are entitled to deal with.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
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
Commissioner Burt: One of the speakers raised an issue of whether covenants that exist among
neighbors is certain developments would override this law or be overridden by the law. Could
the City Attorney comment on that?
Ms. Furth: These are like other covenants. The only ones that have been overridden are the
racial exclusionary covenants that have been found unconstitutional but there is no similar
attempt to undo these. So those covenants would still be in effect but they would be like all other
covenants, the City has no power to take notice of them in its own legislative and land use
decisions.
Commissioner Burt: So then if we had an applicant for a second unit addition submit to Staff for
approval are you saying that then the City would be obliged to go through the normal approval
process and it would become a private legal matter as to whether that would be disputed?
Ms. Furth: That’s right. The City is not a part), to those covenants and has no right to enforce
them.
Chair Bialson: Okay.
Commissioner Cassel: We have two parts to this ordinance that we are doing. One is the fairly
simple change to a ministerial, a relatively simple change. The other is that we are allowing the
efficiency units and we are essentially going to this level rather than letting the state ordinance
take over which would allow up to 1,200 square foot units. My concern continues to be that we
are allowing something that can happen and we make sure that we are permitting something that
really can happen. I am again focusing on the attached units. I am presuming that most of these
attached units when they happen will be because someone wishes to add a unit in an existing
space and not add on to the exterior portion of the house because that would be extremely
expensive. When these happen will they be required to have the bathrooms that are inside be
ADA accessible? And are they going to have to have special wa!ls in place? In other words, are
building requirements going to come in the way of actually making these units happen when
someone takes a bedroom and a bathroom and converts it to an efficiency unit?
Mr. Lusardi: We reviewed this with the Building Official and ADA requirements are not
triggered by second units they are triggered by multi-family units. So a second unit if it was an
attached unit the bathroom would not be required to meet ADA standards.
Chair Bialson: I think we need to have our discussion with our ranks split into everything but
RMD and NP zones and then RMD(NP) zones so Wynne could leave at that point. So if
anybody wants to kick off the comments please keep that in mind. Let’s first have a discussion
about RE, R-l, OS and R-2. Anybody care to make a motion or make a comment? Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Just to clarify here, we are going to have a motion for approval, that is
my intent, which would include ever?thing except the RMD(NP) section?
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 29
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
!4
15
!6
!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 Bialson: Wynne is that correct?
Ms. Furth: That would be correct.
Chair Bialson: Fine.
We can’t move on that while you are still here?
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: Then I do move the Staff recommendation with the exception of that one
subsection that we recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
adopt the proposed ordinance as modified this evening by Staff.
Chair Bialson: Do I have a second? Bonnie are you seconding?
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: I will second.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Bonnie. Okay. Do you want to speak to it at all Michael? Then we
will have Pat speak.
Commissioner Griffin: I will simply say that this is a complicated issue but for the sake of
bringing the current City ordinance in compliance with the state law it seems to be prudent to
proceed with this as we have been advised and delve into some of the more complicated policy
aspects during the ZOU. So for that reason I am making my motion.
Chair Bialson: Thm~ you.
Commissioner Burt: I have nothing to add to Michael’s comments. I concur with what he just
said.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie.
AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I agree with what you are proposing Michael and the only minor
amendment I would like to suggest is that we have the language improved with regard to the
front door to the unit on the attached as was discussed earlier. That there be some allowance for
comer lots or that the front door be on a different side of the house than the existing front door,
something to that affect. Would you accept that as an addition to your motion?
Commissioner Griffin: Yes.
Commissioner Burt: I will as well.
Chair Bialson: Fine. Karen, do you want to speak?
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
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Holman: Yes. As I understood Staff earlier you would like to have this direction
now so I would also make a friendly amendment that historic properties, actually it is sort of a
clarifying question for Staff, would you rather have an amendment to the motion now saying
historic properties should be reviewed by the Preservation Planner or would you rather have that
come back to us with a recommendation by Staff2.
Ms. Furth: I think it would be helpful if we got your action on the proposed ordinance and then
if you could tell us what you wish to supplement it with. The kind of review we have varies
from the district to district and in some districts there is no discretionary review. So I am not
sure how the historic aspect would fit in. It is certainly true that the state recognizes that we still
have a continued right to protect historic properties when we do so but for example in the R-1
district we don’t.
Chair Bialson: So what you are saying is that we should move on the motion at this point. Fine.
Phyllis do you want to speak to the motion or can we vote?
Commissioner Cassel: I was going to speak to the motion. I will support the motion. I am
concerned that this is a very minimal second unit ordinance and wanted to at least in terms of the
attached units and do expect that we will deal with this in the future and that I am concerned that
in this process that very few people will be able to actually put in second units with the
restrictions that we have in front of us now.
Chair Bialson: Understood. Yes, Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: Just to emphasize the importance of Phyllis’s comments I want to echo
them. When we look at this again in the Zoning Ordinance Update we look into options for
making a different maximum size and looking more carefully at the parking requirements so that
we are encouraging second units rather than just putting them in writing instead of reality.
Chair Bialson: Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: Simply I think there are some issues regarding the overlay of Building
Department issues and planning issues of building separations as I have designed accessory
buildings and detached units. I am mindful of these issues and certainly I went through the Staff
Report and it is excellently v~Titten and I understand the expeditious nature of this so I think there
are a lot of things that we can address during the ZOU and I look forward to doing that in
relationship to these second dwellings. I will support this motion as well.
Commissioner Holman: I will support the motion too but since we are making comments about
the ZOU I will refer back to previous comments that I have made regarding the loss of existing
second and third units and how that needs to be addressed during the ZOU. In fact while I
appreciate PhylIis’s comments and it looks like Bonnie’s support too I also support second units
but there just really isn’t that many applications for second units. I think we can do better even
to support the existing units we do have.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Let’s vote on the motion.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 31
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
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 Ms. Furth: I wanted to ask your permission to suggest slightly different wording for the on-the-
2 fly changes we were making before in trying to make it clear that second story additions are
3 subject to individual review process in the R-1 district whatever they are for. So the language we
4 would substitute for the material we struck before would be, "New second floor construction
5 whether to be used for a primary dwelling or a second unit is subject to the provisions of Chapter
18.14 single family individual review-."
Chair Bialson: Now with regard to Pria’s concerns?
Ms. Furth: This is just for the R-1 district, which is the only place in which we have single-
family review.
MOTION PASSED
Chair Bialson: Okay. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. (ayes) All those
opposed? That passes unanimously with all Commissioners present.
Now we need to have a similar motion please.
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: I will move the same basic motion with the same basic language except
it would apply specifically to the RMD(NP) district.
Chair Bialson: Pat, are you seconding?
SECOND
Commissioner Butt: Yes.
Chair Bialson: That is seconded by Pat.
Ms. Grote: Did you want to then include the direction to further explore potentially treating 900
square foot units differently than larger than 900 square foot units? We had that discussion that
was the subject of Pria Graves’ letter to us that we perhaps bifurcate the review process and treat
those that are 900 square feet or less as ministerial actions and those that are greater than 900
square feet as part of a neighborhood preservation review-.
Commissioner Griffin: I thought you said you were going to come back and discuss this.
Ms. Grote: No, actually we had mentioned that it would be best to get your direction on that
tonight because of the limited timeframe we have to implement this, that we could then fopa~ard
your direction on to the City Council with the rest of the changes.
Commissioner Griffin: So we have to discuss this Pria Graves issue now, is what you are
suggesting?
Ms. Grote: That would be helpful, yes.
CiO’ of Pato 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
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Burr: Would it be best to just complete this motion and then have that as a
separate prospective motion?
Chair Bialson: I understand that it would be in this motion. You are asking that this be included.
Ms. Grote: I believe you can wrap it into this motion. If you wanted to separate them that’s fine.
Either way is fine as long as you can have the discussion tonight rather than us returning.
Chair Bialson: I understand your point now. We can have Wynne come back?
Ms. Grote: I don’t believe she can because this has to do with Neighborhood Preservation.
Chair Bialson: I think then what we would like to do is have it all addressed in one motion.
Ms. Grote: That would be fine.
Chair Bialson: So if people want to speak to the issue that I understand you have expressed,
which is if the accessory unit is more than 900 square feet it would be subject to all our present
requirements and if it is under 900 square feet then it would come in, in accordance with what
you have before us at this time, the changes that you laid out here and in the Staff Report.
Ms. Grote: That is correct.
Chair Bialson: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I am wondering, I don’t want to belabor this but I would like some more
discussion on it. Say it again. If it were more than 900 square feet it would be subject to?
Ms. Grote: The Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board should it have an
historic designation as well.
Chair Bialson: That would be the present requirements.
Ms. Grote: It would be the present requirements.
Chair Bialson: And not making the change.
Ms. Grote: And not making the change that is correct.
Commissioner Griffin: All right well then I agree to that language incorporated into this now
second motion.
Commissioner Burt: The seconder agrees as well.
Chair Bialson: Any discussion? I have a question on my left. Phyllis.
CiO’ 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
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Cassel: I am afraid I just don’t understand how the second unit could be 3,500
square feet when the second unit has to be smaller than the first one.
Ms. Grote: That is the unique nature of the RMD(NP). Because it allows two units as a matter
or right it doesn’t differentiate between main unit and accessory unit currently. Therefore both
units could be quite large. So what we are recommending is that we should differentiate between
what is truly an accessory unit and what is truly a second main unit as you can have two units in
any multiple family district. So what we are saying is that there could be then that difference in
review processes based on the fact that one is truly an accessory unit and the other is truly
another main unit.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: This district currently has duplexes in it, is that correct?
Ms. Grote: Correct.
Commissioner Burt: So what would be the impact of the prospective proposal that you were just
describing on allowing for duplexes where they are equal in size units?
Ms. Grote: Those would continue to go through the existing review process, which is an
architectural review, and if it has an historic designation an HRB review. So if they are truly of
the same size and they are duplexes then it goes through the current review.
Commissioner Betlomo: Excuse me, the R-2 or duplex does not go through ARB review.
Ms. Grote: We are talking about RMD(NP).
Commissioner Bellomo: Got it.
Chair Bialson: Are we ready to vote on the motion? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I will support it, we do have a law that we have to abide by but I am
really uncomfortable with this since we are not going to see it again so we don’t "know how this
is going to flesh out and I am really quite uncomfortable with that. I understand the timing issue
and all of that but I am really uncomfortable with this process for this particular zone.
Ms. Grote: You will have an opportunity to see it again in the Zoning Ordinance Update. We
can revisit this in much more detail at that point. What we would like to do is be able to respond
to the state requirements and state changes in the requirements. So this can be revisited during
our discussion of both low-density residential multi-family residential.
Chair Bialson: Given that fact, which I think all of us share the discomfort about doing this in
such a hurry but acknowledge the urgency of it and the fact that we are going to hopefully get to
this relatively soon, let’s have a vote on the motion.
MOTION PASSED
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 34
l
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
44
45
46
47
48
A!l those in favor of the motion please say aye. (ayes)
unanimously.
Karen, you have one more thing to say.
Opposed?That again passes
Commissioner Holman: Yes. Staff wanted our comments about historic so if you would come
back and forward to Council some recommendations on how those properties will be dealt with.
Chair Bialson: That will close item number two then. We have a Report From an Official and
before we take a break I just was wondering how long is this report going to take?
Mr. Joe Teresi. Engineer. Public Works: About 15 minutes.
Chair Bialson: I think we will take a break. We will come back in seven minutes.
Calling the meeting to order at this time. Our next item is Report From Official regarding the
upcoming changes establishing the storm water quality protection requirements for land use
development projects. That is something that we are going to learn about.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
Information on upcoming ordinance changes establishing storm water quality
protection requirements for land development projects - Public Works
Ms. Grote: I just want to introduce Joe Teresi who is our Senior Engineer in the Public Works
Department. He will be giving you the presentation tonight.
Mr. Teresi: Good evening and thank you for inviting me to speak to you this evening. For some
of you this will be a follow up, I came and spoke at the Commission several years ago on this
topic. It is a topic that is evolving all the time as new improvements come along. I am speaking
to you now because of the fact that because of some recent changes in our storm water discharge
permit we are going to have to change our ordinance somewhat. There is an item that is going
before the City Council on May 12 that will amend a section of Chapter 16 of the Municipal
Code to address these issues. So I wanted to make you aware of them. I am making this
presentation this evening and then in the morning I will be making a similar presentation to the
ARB to also bring them up to speed.
I am going to start with a little bit of background. There is a question already.
Commissioner Holman: Can I ask you just a real numbskull question? NPDES?
Mr. Teresi: That is not an obvious acronym yes you are right. It stands for National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System. It is a federal term.
So the City has an NPDES permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board which is
a state agency that allows us to discharge our storm water runoff from our storm drain system
into local creeks. This is a relatively new- thing. In the old days NPDES permits were issued to
like sewage plants and industrial plants but starting in the 1990s they began to issue them for
stoma water. The Santa Clara Valley was one of the first areas in the country to receive a
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1 NPDES permit for its storm water discharge. As such we have a permit that is issued jointly to
2 what is called the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, which is a
3 group of 13 cities, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the County of Santa Clara. We all
4 share a comrnon permit for our storm water discharge.
5
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
Now in these permits it has language that typically states that we are required to reduce the
amount of pollutants in our storm water discharge to the "maximum extent practicable." That
term is used throughout the permit and is kind of a moving target. What happens is these permits
are reissued every five years and they based upon a cycle of continuous improvement. Each
subsequent permit gets a little tougher, gets a little bit more control over the storm water
discharges as we learn more, as our technology improves and as the focus is moved to various
sources of pollution.
So in October of 2001 we were issued our third iteration of our storm water permit. In this
particular permit the Board really focused on the impacts of land development on storm water
quality. So what are some of those impacts? Well, naturally when a piece of land is developed
there is an increase in the amount of impervious area and therefore an increase in the amount of
runoff that is created from that piece of property. Often times there is a certain amount of
removal of native vegetation, which serves in its natural state to filter and reduce the amount of
runoff from a site. This increased runoff to creeks in turn has the potential to create erosion and
sedimentation in the creek and it also is a vehicle by which pollutants are carried from these sites
into creeks and eventually into the Bay. I am sure that you all know that all the water that goes
into our storm drains goes immediately into the creeks without any kind of treatment. So that is
why it is important that we keep as much as possible the pollutants out in the first place.
I will hone in a little bit more on what was in this permit revision that was adopted by the
Regional Board in 2001. They basically included a new requirement that requires each of the co-
permitees or cities in the Santa Clara Valley to review and revise its development review
procedures and standards. Right now these only apply in Santa Clara County. As I said earlier,
the Santa Clara Valley was one of the first areas in the country and certainly the first in the Bay
Area to have these permits so what happens is everything Mnd of hits us first but the Regional
Board has made it clear that they intend to make these same requirements applicable in other
areas of the county. In fact recently, a few months ago, they acted to include these same kinds of
requirements in the permits for San Mateo, Alameda and Contra Costa counties. So eventually
everyone will be on a leve! playing field in terms of the rules. This new permit will require the
City Council to adopt some new regulations with respect to storm water. That action is now
scheduled to take place on May 12.
In the packet that you got earlier there was a fact sheet that had kind of the basics of what these
rules are. That inforn~ation has been available since March and we made an attempt to distribute
this information as widely as possible to those that would be affected by the changes. It has been
given out across the street at the Development Center, it has been on the City’s website since
March, we also did a mailing to many of the engineers and architects that work in our area as
well as some of the larger land owners and developers that work here in the City. So we
attempted to get the word out in advance so that people aren’t surprised by this.
Let me just go over briefly what these rules are all about. First of all who has to comply with
these rules? The answer is initially these are going to apply to applicants who’s projects create
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 36
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
or replace one acre or more of impe~,ious surface. Impervious surface is simply another word
for hardscape. It includes things like buildings and parking lots and driveways and sidewalks
and anything that causes storm water to runoff. In the permit it specifically excludes
maintenance activities such as re-roofing and resurfacing of pavements but it does apply to either
new or replacement imper~,ious surface in most cases.
When do these take effect? The ordinance is going to be written in such a way that it is going to
apply to projects beginning on the 15 of Juty this year. For an application not to have to comply
it will have to have an application in and deemed complete prior to that date.
As far as what an applicant has to do in the most general terms an applicant who’s project is over
an acre and triggers these new rules will have to incorporate measures into their projects that
reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. That is going to be done through a
combination of treatment measures, source control measures and site design measures, which I
will go into and explain what those terms mean. The thing about this it is quite open in that there
is not one answer for every project. It can be done using a certain amount of creativity. There is
not just one solution there are many ways to accomplish the same goals. So it is not going to
dictate exactly how it gets done it is just that at the end they have to show that they have done
enough to address the issue of storm water pollution.
Many of these measures that I will be talking about in the next few minutes have already been
incorporated into projects here in Palo Alto for maybe the last five years. Some of this change is
really just a formalization of policies that have actually been in place for some time. In
particular, there are quite a number of projects up in the Stanford Research Park that have done a
very good job of incorporating these concepts into their projects as a lot of that area up there
above El Camino along Page Mill Road and the surrounding area have been redeveloped over
the last several years. One of the big changes in the rules is that when an applicant comes in and
includes some kind of a treatment measure in their project it is going to have to be sized in
accordance with some very specific rules that will enable those measures to treat a certain
percentage of the rainfall that falls in that site. In addition there are going to be new
requirements for maintenance of those features. Right now what we do typically when we get an
applicant who comes in and includes these features in the project is we get them to sign a letter
saying that they agree to maintain it. To be honest we don’t have any mechanism to enforce or
follow up on that. Under these new regulations they will be required to enter into an agreement
with the City that will be recorded with the County Recorder that will make it more formal, their
agreement to maintain these things for the life of the project.
So I talked about the fact that the way that an applicant complies is to incorporate a number of
measures and one type of measure is called a treatment measure. A treatment measure is
features that treat storm water runoff using either settlement, infiltration, bioremediation or
filtration to remove pollutants that accumulate as runoff flows across a developed site. Some
examples of treatment measures are things like vegetative swales or detention basins, there are
pavements that are permeable that I will show you that allow runoff to infiltrate into the ground.
Then in some cases where the site is kind of constrained and there aren’t opportunities to use
more natural kinds of treatment measures there are actually inserts that can go into storm drains
and catch basins that will filter the runoff.
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 3 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
This is an example that is probably five or six years old now. It is a site up on Hillview Avenue,
which was redeveloped. The site was totally scraped and they constructed a new parking lot.
This parking lot at the time was quite innovative in that in a normal parking lot you would just
have the asphalt sloped to a corner of the lot where there would be a catch basin and the water
would flow into the catch basin and just go into the storm drain and right into the creek. This
parking lot is sloped in towards the center so all the runoff in the parking lot ends up in this
vegetative swale at the center of the lot. This curb here is actually flush with the asphalt so the
water sheet flows across the parking surface and into this grassed swale and then it is sloped
from either end into the center where the water eventually gets to a storm drain. Before it gets
there it is allowed to flow into this swale and during a small rainfall even there may be actually
no runoff that actually reaches here because it just flows into the swale and is absorbed by the
ground. In larger events you still will have some runoff but it will be filtered by the grass in the
swale and some of the pollutants will thereby be taken out of the runoff.
This is another example on the Research Park on Porter Drive where they constructed a portion
of the parking lot using permeable pavers. These pavers are each individual units that are placed
over a course of open grated rock. These openings here are filled with a pea gravel material.
This is right before it was finished and the last step in the process is to spread this pea gravel
over the pavers and fill in these little openings. Underneath this course of pavers is this open
grated rock so what happens is when the water flows onto it, it goes down into this open grated
rock underneath the pavers.
Commissioner Griffin: What is that, open grated?
Mr. Teresi: Sorry. It means that it has a lot of voids it is not dense. So there are openings in
between the rocks so the water can flow down into the pavers and into this sort of reservoir
where it can sit until such time as it is able to soak eventually down into the ground underneath.
So again these are actual examples of things that have been done and are being done everyday in
Palo Alto on projects.
In some cases the site is kind of constrained and there aren’t opportunities to put the water into
landscape areas, which is really our preference. Sometimes you have to do something that is
more structural. So these are two examples of inserts that go into storm drains. This one on the
left, this is the catch basin box and this hole here is where the pipe connects to the catch basin
box and normally you would just have a grate on top of that but in this case there is a filtration
unit that goes in first mad then the grate goes on top of that. What happens is as the water flows
over the edge of this box it flows into this. There is a tray that goes around the edge of the catch
basin box that has some filter media in it that filters out oils and grease and metals and those
kinds of things that we are trying to remove from the runoff. So these filters go in individual
catch basins.
This unit here is a different idea where you might have one of these for an entire site. You might
have several catch basins that feed into this one unit. What happens is the w-ater flows in here at
this inlet and first of all it goes into a chamber where it is allowed to settle so any sediments and
silts will fall to the bottom and be captured. Once it fills to a certain point it spills over through
this little here into this other unit where there is a series of cartridges that all contain
Ci0’ 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
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
a filtration media that removes some of the other pollutants from the water before it comes out at
the end here.
This kind of thing is really our least favorite in that it is very maintenance intensive and won’t
really work unless it is maintained properly. So this is the kind of last resort kind of thing, these
kinds of boxes in the ground.
Commissioner Burt: Joe, have these inserts just been added to your set of options in the last two
years? I don’t recall them being part of what was presented to us two years ago.
Mr. Teresi: I think it has been around for more than that. It is the kind of thing where the way
America works when there is a need then someone will make a product. So there was a need to
take pollutants out of stoma water runoff and so now there is a whole series of these. I would say
there are more now- than there were a couple of years ago but some of these are up to five years
old.
Commissioner Burt: You are saying that it is an un-preferred method because of the
maintenance aspects of it. Has there been an evaluation of the impacts of the swales and
essentially using soils as a filtration system as opposed to something like in that the soil filtration
systems are really only a holding area for future release of those pollutants. It doesn’t remove
them from the potential storm drain system.
Mr. Teresi! The way the swales and the more natural solutions work is one as the soil infiltrates
down into the ground the soil itself is able to remove some of the pollutants and then some of the
bugs that live underground actually can bioremediate some of those pollutants. In addition some
of the vegetation that is planted in those swales, the roots of that vegetation uptakes some of the
pollutants and absorbs it and processes it so it is not actually there, it is taking it away out of the
system.
Commissioner Burt: Well, organics can experience that sort of degradation in a favorable way
but the other half of the pollutant issue of the heavy metals specifically that doesn’t occur. The
heavy metals are congregated at the surfaces of soils and then as soon as they are tilled and water
runs off they are then released again. That is my particular concern. So you understand why I
am asking to have this level of detail is among other things before joining this Commission I
came off of five years on the County Pollution Prevention Advisory Committee and a lot of other
commissions on these issues. So that is why I am asking that. It was something we discussed
two years ago briefly and I remain concerned about the approach that is deliberately
congregating heavy metals in soils creating potential for future release. I was very pleased to see
the addition of these sorts of drain filter systems that specifically can remove that from the
natural discharge cycle. So that is going to be a concern that I would like to see addressed and at
least explained if not addressed differently.
Mr. Teresi: Okay.
Chair Bialson: Why don’t you go ahead? Are you going to continue with this?
Mr. Teresi: Yes.
CiO’ 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
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Bialson: Thank you.
Mr. Teresi: So those are the trigger measures. Another area I mentioned was the source control
measures. These are features that prevent pollutants that may be present on a developed site
from entering the storm water runoff in the first place. This is actually probably the best because
instead of having to treat the water that has the pollutants in it we are keeping the pollutants out
to begin with. Some examples of source control measures include covering areas like loading
docks and dumpsters and fueling areas where there is the potential for these pollutants to
accumulate. For example in Palo Alto we have an ordinance that for food service facilities it
requires the installation of an indoor mat and equipment wash area so that these things aren’t
washed out in the back alley as they have been in the past. Then things like having prohibitions
from having storm drain connections for things like swimming pools, air conditioners and fire
sprinkler system drains. These are all ways to keep pollutants out of the runoff.
This is an example of a dumpster that was constructed on Hanover Drive. It is covered so there
is no opportunity for rainwater to come in contact with the dumpster area that as you "know tends
to get a little dirty from time to time. This is an example of a loading dock that has a cover on it
that extends out beyond the loading door. It is hard to see here but right underneath the edge of
the overhang, right at the drip line of this overhang, there is a slot drain that goes across the dock
and it picks up storm water from areas up here higher up on the dock, areas that are open to the
sky. So anything that falls in here would get collected into this trench drain and go into the
storm drain. At the base of the dock which is of course sloped down there is the option of either
having no drain at all which is done in some cases or if the applicant would like to have a drain
at the bottom to catch things like nuisance rain when it is windy or if a vehicle is wet and gets in
there and is going to cause some runoff. If they want to have a drain it has to be connected to the
sanitary sewer and it has to have w-hat is called a failsafe valve that is normally in the closed
position. The reason for that is if there is an accident or a spill at the loading dock then that spill
is not going to go into either the storm drain or the sanitary sewer. If there is water that
accumulates at the base of the dock it requires someone to go out and look at it and evaluate it
before they open the valve and allow that water to get into the sanitary sexver.
The last type of measures are called site design measures and they are features that reduce storm
water pollution by decreasing or slowing storm water runoff or intercepting the flow of runoff
across a series of contiguous impervious surfaces. I have some illustrations that probably
explain that a little bit more. Some examples of this are to cluster structures on a site as opposed
to having them spread all over the place and disturbing a larger percentage of the site.
Preservation of existing native vegetation. Having roof downspouts that drain to landscaped
areas instead of being piped right into the storm drain and to minimize the amount of directly
connected imper,,ious surfaces. Here again is an example of a site where all the buildings were
kind of clustered in the center allowing a lot of the natural vegetation around the boundaries to
stay in tact. This is especially important if it is close to a creek or such because the natural
vegetation is probably nature’s best way of filtering out the runoff. Similarly here in these sites
these structures are clustered and the)’ have a shared driveway. Again the natural vegetation is
allowed to remain. This is a downspout from a building on Hanover Drive where instead of
taking the water off the roof and tying it into an underground storm drain instead it goes off onto
this splash block area where it can then flow into the surrounding landscape. That is going to not
only take some of the pollutants out but it is going to probably reduce the amount of runoff that
eventually does reach the storn~ drain because it will soak into the ground.
Cio, ofPaloAlto 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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
A concept that we talk about a lot is directly connected impervious area. In this picture here
what you see is an area where all of the runoff is captured and concentrated and put immediately
into an inlet, which goes into an underground pipe, and that pipe flows directly into a creek. So
there is no opportunity for any kind of a filtration or infiltration. Everything that falls on this
area just goes straight to the creek. Whereas in this example, this is more like the parking lot I
showed on Hillview where the water sheet flows off of the impervious surface onto a landscape
area and is allowed to be filtered and infiltrate into that ground.
So again, these things are already being done for the most part on lots of projects and there is not
a huge change here in this new ordinance. A couple of the areas that do change are these
measures have to be sized in accordance with some specific rules and there are more stringent
requirements in terms of long-term maintenance. There is a whole list of guidebooks and
workbooks and classes and training that will help applicants to learn more about this. I think the
last time I came to speak to you I gave you all a copy of this document called, "Start at the
Source," which is -kind of a bible. It is an excellent resource and gives many different examples
and explains the concepts. Then a couple of years ago we had this document that I gave you this
evening. I think I gave it to you a couple of years ago too. It is a document that is meant to be a
companion to Start at the Source and it talks more specifically about Palo Alto and what kind of
issues we are looking at in our city. I also invite you to look at the website of the Urban Runoff
Program at that address for additional information.
Right now, as I said at the outset, these new special regulations are going to apply to projects that
create or replace an acre or more of impervious surface. The way our permit was written is that
the Regional Board was trying to ease us into this so initially it only applies to those over an acre
but in about a year and one-half that threshold is going to drop to 10,000 square feet. So at that
point it is going to apply to many more projects. There are also some provisions in the permit
that are asking us to identify reaches of creeks and strean~s in the County that are sensitive. For
Palo Alto I suspect that maybe portions of San Francisquito Creek might fall into that. If they do
then a future requirement will be for applicants to control the amount of peak runoff flow and
volume from their sites if they flow into these sensitive streams. The other thing the permit asks
us to do is look at our existing standards and ordinances. So certainly many of these concepts
are going to be incorporated as we go through the process updating the Zoning Ordinance and I
have been working with Planning Staffto address some of these issues. So I think you will be
seeing more of this in the future. With that if you have any questions I will be happy to answer
them.
Chair Bialson: Is there an answer to some of the concerns expressed by Commissioner Burt at
this point?
Mr. Teresi: I am not sure I can say anything else beyond what I said. I M~ow that the Regional
Board has come out strongly in favor of the more natural kinds of solutions such as the swales
and so forth. I think the other big advantage of that kind of a treatment versus an inlet filter is
that not only is it able to take out some of the pollutants but it is also able to reduce the amount
of runoff because when water is routed into these vegetated areas a lot of it is going to soak into
the ground and you are going to end up getting less runoff which is a secondary benefit and I
think an important benefit here in Palo Alto where many of our storm drains are frankly not
Cio’ of Palo ,4 lto Page 41
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
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
adequate. So it is in our interest as much as possible to try to reduce the amount of runoff that
gets to our storm drains. So this whole program works hand in hand with that as well.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions? Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: Yes Joe, the one-acre impervious cutoff that is for basically a one-acre
development or a one-acre size on this impervious area. How was that cutoff developed? You
mentioned that it would go to a 10,000 square foot impervious cutoff. Will it go there in this
ordinance? Will it automatically kick over to 10,000?
Mr. Teresi: No. In answer to your first question that is what has been handed down to us from
the Regional Board. We worked with them to try to get it as high as possible but it is mandated
that we start at one acre. Actually, our current permit says that in October it was going to go
down to 5,000 square feet. The permit hasn’t yet been changed but what has happened in the
interim is that a couple of months ago the Regional Board adopted similar permits for San
Mateo, Alameda and Contra Costa counties. For some reason, I don’t ~know how they did it, but
they had more clout or something2 They fought very hard against having similar rules for
themselves and so when the Regional Board adopted their permits they increased that secondary
threshold from 5,000 square feet to 10,000. They have told us verbally that they will make that
change on our permit but that hasn’t happened yet.
Commissioner Bellomo: I see, so it would be not likely or it is not recommended that we deviate
from the Regional Board’s requirement of one acre or we cannot?
Mr. Teresi: We don’t have any choice. It is mandated.
Commissioner Bellomo: No choice. It is mandated but can it go down in our ordinance?
Mr. Teresi: It could go down, sure.
Commissioner Bellomo: So why was it chosen not to go down at this point? In other words, less
reviewed smaller parcels.
Mr. Teresi: I think probably for two reasons. First of all I think it is important that there be
some consistency. Applicants work in many different cities and if they all have their own rules it
would get very confusing. So it was an attempt to be consistent to have a level playing field.
Also if it went down too small it will end up being a workload impact because we are going to
have a lot of extra work to check these. It was felt that starting at an acre would allow us to gain
some experience before we have to lower it in about 18 months.
Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. Regarding the filter sizes, can those be recycled or cleaned and
replaced? Do you kaaow that information?
Mr. Teresi: I think what has to happen is I don’t ~know if it is recycled, I ~know periodically the
filter media has to taken out. I don’t think they can reuse it I think it has to be disposed of once it
is used. I think it typically will last any~here from six months to a year before it needs to be
changed.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
i4
15
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 Bellomo: So just to go back to my previous question. The permit application,
Public Works reviews these over one acre sites and signs them off with a maintenance program
that is enforced on this level.
Mr. Teresi: Yes. Right. What will happen is the applicant will have to sign an agreement
agreeing to maintain the measures for the life of the project. That document will then be
recorded with the County Recorder and the City is setting up a process by which these sites will
be inspected on an annual basis to verify that the maintenance has in fact been done.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thanks.
Chair Bialson: Michael and then Bonnie.
Commissioner Griffin: Joe, I take it that this NPDES discharge permit applying to multiple
jurisdictions you are saying all of Santa Clara Valley for example, that includes University
campus properties?
Mr. Teresi: Yes.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Do you "know if the Regional Board conducts studies to determine how
effective these various procedures are? Whether it is really working and what works better? Do
they take samples every so often to see if there is a greater need in certain areas of the County?
How does this work to monitor the effectiveness of these permits and the requirements?
Mr. Teresi: Well, I don’t "know how much the Regional Board does but I know that the cities
have some monitoring and sampling programs that are done a regional basis to try to examine
those questions. Also I know that Caltrans did a lot of research on various types of projects.
That kind of research is also done at certain schools and universities and there is actually quite a
bit of documentation as to which things work better than others.
Chair Bialson: One more question from Pat and then I would like to get on to the next item.
Commissioner Burt: Joe, you mentioned in one of the slides that the maintenance of and I guess
replacement of roofing materials and asphalt pavings and things is excluded from control under
storm water permits in general. Is that correct?
Mr. Teresi: Right.
Commissioner Burt: Has there been any discussion about the impact of that when we look at
sites from an aerial view we may have the majority of a site either be a roof or the pavements.
There are different roofing materials that have different levels of pollutant generation and then I
am even familiar within the context of asphalt sealants there are new- products that are nontoxic
that have replaced some of the traditional petroleum products. Those two aspects seem like they
are potentially among the greatest sources of pollutants. Are you aware of whether there is
discussion on regulation of those sources?
Ci0’ of Palo .41to Page 43
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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 Mr. Teresi: Those sources are regulated. It is just that if someone is doing a maintenance project
2 to replace a roof or resurface an existing paring lot then they are not required to comply. But if
3 someone is building a new building with a new roof or a new parking lot or if someone is taking
4 out a parking lot and putting up a building in its place all those things are subject to it. I guess
5 the Regional Board was just thinking that they didn’t want these things to apply to the
maintenance type of operations thinking they might be too onerous on the owners.
Commissioner Burt: I take it there are no guidelines then that would even try to direct folks who
are doing maintenance changing frorn one material to another to make sure that they are
cognizant of whether they may be moving from a more polluting to a less polluting material or
potentially vise versa. That they could go from a less polluting to a more polluting material and
have no knowledge of the impact if that is not being part of the Best Management Practices.
Mr. Teresi: I suppose that is true but frankly if someone is just going to resurface their parking
lot I don’t believe they need any kind of permit.
Chair Bialson: Karen. One question and then we will move on to the next item.
Commissioner Holman: Just to follow up on Pat’s I think it would be prudent to give property
owners that information so they can make choices, educated choices. My question is about City-
owned properties. While it is not a requirement does the City have any practice or policy that it
improves its practice? Pick a property, say Lucie Stern Community Center, if that parking lot is
due to be repaved does the City have a program or policy where it would employ more
environmentally responsible practices there and in general just City-owned properties?
Mr. Teresi: First I would say that the City-owned properties are subject to these rules just as
private are. The rules apply equally to both. I am not intimately familiar with what has been
happening recently at Council but I have heard things and read things in the newspaper about
Council taking action to adopt policies on sustainability and ~een building techniques. I am
sorry I don’t ~know the details of what is included in those programs but I ~know that those are
some recent things that the Council has been talking about.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much for this report. It took a little longer than we thought but it
was very educational. Maybe next time we will get to answer some of the questions in a more
positive way. Thank you.
The next item is Reports From Committees, the Zoning Ordinance Update. There was a packet
that was handed out with everyone’s information for the last meeting. Is that right, John? Okay.
Do you have any comments to make about it? All right.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Zonin,.q, Ordinance Update: A ZOU update from the Parking Standards Sub-
Committee. SR Weblink: http:iA~.nv.cit~ofpaloalto.orUcitva~enda!publistz/p.lanning-
transportation-meeti n__.s/1755 ,pdf
Chair Bialson: Phyllis and I have just been chatting about this.
Cir." of Palo Alto Page 44
!Commissioner Cassel: I left my notes at home, I’ll be honest.
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Chair Bialson: Another committee member said, "me too." So I guess what I look for right now
is any questions that Commissioners may have. this was supposed to just update you on where
we are at this point and say this is the path that we are going to be following. We wanted you to
be aware of these things and rest comfortably at night "knowing that the committee is working
diligently on this except two of the committee members forgot their notes and I wasn’t supposed
to present so I didn’t bring mine.
Commissioner Packer: I have my notes but I didn’t understand them.
Chair Bialson: You are not part of the committee.
Commissioner Packer: The parking committee?
Chair Bialson: Oh, yes you are. Karen isn’t.
Commissioner Holman: I was saying as a Commission member I left that particular item at
home.
Commissioner Packer: If I remember correctly and my fellow committee members can correct
me, I think the plan is that Staff will be presenting us with some ideas and a draft ordinance and
we can respond at that time on the policy issues in the context of a draft ordinance addressing
parking issues. We were going to look towards standards.
Chair Bialson: I think in the thing that was included in our packet had a pretty good overview of
what has been presented. So I think if we don’t have any questions from Commissioners that we
are going to assume that we should proceed as we are and we just wanted those who were
interested on the Commission to be aware of what was going on.
Commissioner Packer: I just want credit for having my notes.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to say I think the maps that are included in the report from
the Census data are really informative. This is interesting information as we have talked about
transit oriented development issues and at least vehicles per household. Certainly we don’t want
to over interpret this because I don’t see a correlation between household size but it nevertheless
is a very interesting set of maps.
Chair Bialson: Okay. Next time we will report with out notes and we will have hopefully
something to deliver to the Commission as a whole.
Commission Member Questions, Comments, and/or Announcements.
COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 45
1 Chair Bialson: Then we come to the always popular issue of the Commission Representation at
2 Council meetings. April is now over. May is here and it would nice to have a Commissioner for
3 July.
4
5 Commissioner Bellomo: Can I talk about May? On May 19 1 have an application on the airport
6 that I will not be able to give answers to the Council on because I am the applicant on that
7 project. So I would like to know if there would be anyone else that would like to answer
8 questions at that meeting?
9
10 Chair Bialson: I would except I am in Los Angeles. Is anyone else available?
11
12 Commissioner Cassel: Depends on whether I am having surgery then or not. IfI am not then I
13 can do it. I won’t know until probably tomorrow or the next day.
14
15 Chair Bialson: Any other Commissioner who could fill in if necessary?
16
17 Commissioner Packer: I could fill in with a couple of days notice.
18
19 Chair Bialson: Okay, why don’t we leave it at that then? Joe, does that address your question?
2O
21 Commissioner Bellomo: Great.
22
2~Chair Bialson: If you are not going to be available one week May where are you in July? Did
24 someone volunteer for July? The thing we can do also is possibly split it. Pat? Is it possible that
25 Joe can take one week and you take one?
26
27 Commissioner Burt: I it less confusing to just sign up for a month or not sign up for a month.
28 So I am not.jumping at the opportunity but if July is needed I can do it if nobody else wants it.
29
30 Chair Bialson: That would be appreciated. Then if there is a problem,just bring it up at a
31 Commission meeting we can always find someone else. Let’s not make this like handcuffs.
32
¯ 33 Next we have approval of minutes for the meetings of March 19, March 26 and April 2.
34
35 APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Minutes of the Special Meeting of March 19, Regular Meeting of
9 "36 March 26 and Special Meeting of April 2, _00.~.
37
38 Chair Bialson: I believe that we had different absences in those sessions. Let’s all if we can
39 have one motion with people declining to vote if they were absent.
40
41 MOTION
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Griffin: I move that accept the minutes as written for all tt~ree meetings.
Chair Bialson: Second?
SECOND
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 46
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
3O
.31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Commissioner Cassel: Second.
Chair Bialson: That was seconded by Phyllis. So I think anyone who is absent could indicate
that please. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I was absent on March 26.
Chair Bialson: So you will not be voting on that. Okay. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I will be abstaining from March 19. I have not contextual but changes I
will be giving to Zariah on March 26.
Chair Bialson: Pat. I believe you were absent according to this on the 19th. Okay.
So let’s have a vote on the motion. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All those opposed?
Okay, I think that does it. We will all meet again. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just a couple of things so they don’t fall out of our notice. We have
talked about continuing or reconvening our retreat for the Planning Commission and we do have
some things that we want to discuss there so I wanted to bring that up again. Then there were a
number of things in the minutes of the March 26 meeting regarding the CIP that were items that
the Staff was going to come back to us with more information on. I could either list those off or
just do it privately with you is fine too. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Okay. Anyone else?
Commissioner Holman: Somebody wanted to comment about reconvening the retreat.
Chair Bialson: I think what we talked about was taking a look at the calendar and seeing if we
could fit that in.
Ms. Grote: Yes, Zariah will be contacting each of you to find out availability so we can set that
up as soon as possible.
Chair Bialson: That has been on our agenda.
NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting of May 14, 2003 at 7:00 PM.
Chair Bialson: Okay, meeting is adjourned.
ADJOURNED: 10:00 PM
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 47