HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-23 City Council (2)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 CMR:385:02
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO PAMC SECTION 18.88.160
(VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND STORAGE) TO
RESTRICT STORAGE OF VEHICLES ON UNPAVED SURFACES,
VISIBILITY TRIANGLES, AND FRONT YARDS AND TO
RESTRICT HOURS FOR OUTDOOR SCREENED VEHICLE
REPAIR IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Planning and Community Environment recommends the adoption of
the proposed zoning text amendment to restrict storage of vehicles on unpaved surfaces,
visibility triangles, and front yards and to restrict hours for outdoor screened vehicle
repair in residential zones, with modifications as recommended by the Planning and
Transportation Commission.
The City Attorney’s Office has proposed these amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code
section 18.88.160 (Vehicle and Equipment Repair and Storage). On April, 1, 2002, the
City Council referred this proposed zoning text amendment to the Planning and
Transportation Commission for review and recommendation.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning and Transportation Commission heard this proposed amendment on April
24, 2002 and July 31, 2002. Before the meeting of July 31, 2002, the City Attorney’s
Office prepared a modified proposed amendment deleting reference to storage of
recreational vehicles and including hours for repair of vehicles in screened outdoor areas
and for emergency repairs. After hearing .presentations from staff and comments from the
public, the Commission voted to recommend adoption of the amendment as modified but
deleting hours for emergency repairs.
CMR:385:02 Page 1 of 2
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The. proposed amendment will expand our code enforcement powers relating to vehicle
storage and repair on private property and clarify the conduct required for violation of the
section.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Draft Ordinance
Attachment B:Staff report to the Planning and Transportation Commission, dated July
31, 2002, with all attachments
Attachment C: Excerpt draft minutes of the Planning and Transportation Commission
meeting of July 31, 2002
Attachment D: E-mail dated July 29, 2002 from Lynn Chiapella
PREPARED BY
Lance Bayer, Special
DEPARTMENT HEAD
STEVE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
Ms.Cindy Baxter, 740 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mr.Tom Meadows, 775 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mr.Tom Jones, 764 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Ms.Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mr.Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mr.John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mr.Ray P. Banque, 780 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Ms.Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Ms.Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Ms.Lorna Shapiro, 703 Coastland Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mr.Bob Johns, 764 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Ms.Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
CMR:385:02 Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 18.88.160 PERTAINING TO VEHICLE
EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND STORAGE
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION I. Legislative Findings.
declares as follows:
The Council finds and
A.The public interest requires that periodic
revision of the munlcipal code is necessary in order to make
editorial changes for clarification and to make revisions that
are consistent with Current practice and public policy.
B. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.88.160
pertaining tovehicle equipment repair and storage requires
revision in order to be consistent with current practice and
public policy.
SECTION 2. Section 18.88.160 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.88.160 Vehicle and Equipment Repair and Storage.
districts, Except as otherwise provided, parkinq is allowed in
all residential districts and ~-e on all sites in any other
district used for residential occupancy:
(a) No person shall service, repair,~ assemble,
disassemble, wre~k, modify, restore, or otherwise work on any
vehicle, motor vehicle, camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer
coach, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, house car, boat, or
similar conveyance unlcss except when conducted within a garage
or accessory building, or during the hours of 8:00 aom. and
i0:00 p.m. when conducted in an area screened from view from the
street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or
equivalent screening.
(b) No person shall store, place or park any of the
conveyances designated in subsection (a), or any part thereof,
020726 sdl 0053096
which is disabled, unlicensed, unregistered, inoperative, or
from which an essential or legally required operating part is
removed, including an unmounted camper, camp trailer, trailer,
trailer coach and similar nonmotorized conveyance, or any other
¯ structure or device exceeding .46 cubic meters (sixteen cubic
feet) in volume to be carried upon or in any such conveyance, or
any equipment, machinery, orsimilar material unless conducted
within a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened
from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally
located fence, wall, or equivalent screening.
(c)No person shall service, repair, assemble,
disassemble,wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on, or
.store, place,and park any of the conveya.nces designated in this
section (excluding [i] passenger vehicles other than house cars,
and [2] "pickup" motor trucks on which no equipment other than a
camper is mounted), whether disabled or fully operative, for an
aggregate period of over seventy-two hours during any continuous
period of ninety-six hours in any open areas on a lot only in
locations where an accessory building or principal building of
equivalent height or bulk would be permitted by the provisions
of this title.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)
and (b), emergency repairs and short-term or temporary parking
of any conveyance listed in subsection (a), when owned by a
person resid£ng on the lot, may be conducted for an aggregate
period of up to seventy-two hours in any conti~nuous period of
ninety-six hours-exclusive of the screening requirements~ except
that no personshall perform emerqency repalrs of any conveyance
listed~ in subsection (a) between the hours of i0:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m.
(e) For the purpose of this section, references to
types of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in
the Vehicle Code of the state of California, where such
definitions are available.
(f)
section.
Chapter 18.94 shall not be applicable~ to this
(g) Subject to securing a permit therefor from the
building official and otherwise complying with applicable law,
the use of a recreational vehicle, as defined in this title, may
be permitted for sleeping purposes only for a~ period not to
exceed thirty consecutive days. in any calendar year for not more
than two nonpaying guests of the occupant of a single-family
dwelling in accord with all applicable regulations .governing
parking and storage of vehicles.
020726 sd10053096 2
(h) Except in the OS (open space) and AC
(aqricultural conservation) districts, no person shall store,
place, or park any of the conveyances desiqnated in this
section, whether disabled or fully operative, in any areas
visible from a public street unless it is parked or stored upon
either permeable or impermeable pavinq surface.
(i) No person shall store, place, or park any of the
conveyances desiqnated in this section wlthin the thirty-five
foot trianqle of property at the intersection of streets
improved for vehicular traffic.
(j)No person shall store, place, or park any of the
conveyances desiqnated in this section in a manner that they
cover more than 50 percent of any required front yard.
(k)Violation of this section is a misdemeanor,
punishable as provided in this code. Each day of violation
constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that this is not a project-
under the California Environmental Quality Act and, thereforeno
environment impact assessment is necessary.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
020726 sd| 0053096 3
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Attorney City Manager
Police Chief
Director of Administrative
Services
the
020726 sd10053096 4
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING DIVISION
Memorandum
Agenda Date:
To:
July 31, 2002
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
From:
Subject:
Lance Bayer, Special Counsel
Zoning Text Amendment.to Vehicle and Equipment Repair and Storage
On April 1, 2002, the City Council referred a proposed zoning text amendment pertaining
to vehicle and equipment repair and storage to the Planning and Transportation
Commission. This matter was referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission
pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code sections 18.98.080 and 18.98.090.
Attached please find a copy of the Report from City Attorney prepared for the City
Council meeting of April 1, 2002 and the draft ordinance. Also attached, please find the
Memorandum dated April 10, 2002 prepared.by the Planning Division for the public
hearing on this matter on April 24, 2002.
On April 24, 2002, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing
regarding the proposed zoning text amendment. The public hearing was not concluded at
that time and was continued to a date uncertain. The continuation of the public hearing is
scheduled to be heard on July 31, 2002, and new noticehas been provided.
The City Attorney’s Office has prepared and attached a revised draft of the zoning text
amendment. There are two revisions to the draft that was proposed to the City Council:
omitting changes to the section of the ordinance pertaining to storage of recreational
vehicles, and adding hours for emergency vehicle repair. The Department of Planning
and Community Environment recommends adoption of the proposed zoning text
amendment as revised.
The City Attorney’s Office has revised the draft of the zoning text amendment to omit
amendments pertaining to storage of recreational vehicles and recommends that this-
section should be reviewed as part of the zoning ordinance update. Initially, the City
Attorney’s office proposed to amend this section to eliminate an outdated permit process;
however, comments at the public hearing indicate concerns regarding public policy that
more properly should be addressed in the zoning ordinance update.
The City Attorney’s Office has revised the draft of the zoning text amendment to add a
restriction on hours for vehicle repair. Currently, vehicle repair must be conducted in a
garageor accessory building or in anarea screened from public view except for
emergency repairs. The proposed amendment would restrict emergency vehicle repairs
to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and would restrict outdoor, screened vehicle
repairs to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The issue of hours for outdoor vehicle
repair was discussed in the.Memorandum dated April 10, 2002, and was raised at the
public hearing. City staff anticipates that emergency repairs of vehicles generally would
involve repairs that are not conducted on a regular basis and that are relatively minor in
nature, such as changing a vehicle’s battery or a belt. The Department of Planning and
Community Environment recommends these restricted hours based on concerns .raised by
members of the community.
The proposed zoning text amendment is intended to clarify for members of the
community and for City code enforcement personnel the specific types of vehicle storage
that are prohibited in residential districts. The proposed.amendment includes language to
clarify that these prohibitions are restrictions on otherwise allowable parking.
CC:Ms.Cindy Baxter, 740 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mr.Tom Meadows, 775 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mr.Bob Jones, 764 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Ms.Natalie Fisher, 736 Eltsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mr.Herb Borock, P O Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94302
Mr.John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mr.Ray P. Banque, 780 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Amendment to Section 18.88.160
Attachment B - Planning and Transportation Commission Report of April 10, 2002
Attachment C ~- Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of April 24, 2002
Attachment D - Email from Natalie Fisher dated July 18, 2002
Attachment E - Letter from Herb Borock dated July 24, 2002
Attachment A
ORDINANCENO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING .PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 18.88.160 PERTAINING TO VEHICLE
EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND STORAGE
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Legislative Findings.
declares as follows:
The Council finds and
A.The public interest requires that periodic
revision of the municipal, code is necessary in order to make
editorial changes for clarification and to make revisions that
are consistent with current practice and public policy. ~
B. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.88.160
pertaining to vehicle equipment repair and storage requires
revision in order to be consistent with current practice and
public policy.
SECTION 2. Section 18.88.160 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.88.160 Vehicle and Equipment Repair and Storage.
......... lal
......... ~ Except as otherwise provided, parkinq is allowed in
all residential districts and ~e o_~n all sites in any other
district used for .residential occupancy.=.~
(a) No person shall service, repair, assemble,
disassemble, wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on any
.vehicle, motor vehicle, camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer
coach, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, house car, boat, or
similar conveyance unlcss except when conducted within a garage
or accessory building, or durinq the hours of 8:00 a~m. and
i0:00 p.m. when conducted in an area screened from view from the
street and adjoining lots by a legally !ocated fence, wall, or
equivalent screening
(b) No person shall store, place or park any of the
conveyances designated in subsection a), or any part thereof,
020726 sd10053096 ¯ 1
[PROPOSED ONLY - SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL REVIEW]
which is disabled, unlicensed, unregistered, inoperative, or
from which an essential or legally required operating part is
removed, including an unmounted camper, camp trailer, trailer,
trailer coach and similar nonmotorized conveyance, or any other
structure Or device exceeding .46 cubic meters (sixteen cubic~
feet) in volume to be carried upon or in any such.conveyance, or
any equipment, machinery, or similar material unless conducted
within a garage or accessory~building, or in an area screened
from view from the street and ~adjoining lots by a legally
located’fence, wall, Or equivalent’screening.
(c) No person shall service, repair, assemble,
disassemble, wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on, or
store, place, and park any of the conveyances designated in this
section (excluding [i] passenger vehicles other than house cars,
arid [2] ~pickup" motor trucks on which no equipment other than a
camper is mounted), whether disabled or fully operative, for an
aggregate period of. over seventy-two hours during any continuous
period of ninety-six hours in any open areas on a lot only in
locations~where an accessory building or principal building of
equivalent height or bulk would be permitted by the provisions
of this title.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)
and (b), emergency repairs and short-term or temporary parking
of any conveyance listed in subsection (a), when owned by a
person residing on the lot, may be conducted for an aggregate
period of up to seventyltwo hours in any continuous period of
ninety-six hours exclusive of the screening requirements, except
that. no person shail perform emerqency repairs of any conveyance
listed in subsection (a) between the hours of i0:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m.
’(e) .For the purpose of this section, references to
types of conveyances shall have the same- meanings as defined in
the Vehicle Code of the s%ate of California, where such
definitions are available.
(f)
section.
Chapter 18.94 shall not be applicable to this
(g) Subject. to securing a permit therefor from the
building official and otherwise complying with applicable law,
the use of a recreational vehicle, as defined in this title, may
be permitted f~r sleeping purposes only for a period not to
exceed thirty consecutive days in any calendar year for not more
than two nonpaying guests of the occupant of a single-family
dwelling in accord with all applicable regulations governing
parking and storage of vehicles.
020726sd10053096 2
[PROPOSED ONLY -SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION "AND~ COIINCIL REVIEW]
(h) Except in the OS (open space) and AC
(agricultural. conservation) districts, no person shall store,
place, or park any of the conveyances desiqnated in this
section, whether disabled or fully operative, in anV areas
visible from a public street unless it is parked or stored upon
either permeable or impermeable pavinq surface.
(i) No person shall store, place, or park any of the
conveyances desiqnated in this section within the thirty-five
foot trianqle of property at the intersection of streets
improved for vehicular traffic.
(j) No person shall store, place, or park any of the
conveyances desiqnated .in this section in a manner that they
cover more than 50 percent of any required front yard.
(k) Violation of this section is a misdemeanor,
punishable as provided in this code. Each day of violation
constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that this is not a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act and] therefore no
environment impact assessment is necessary.
/!
/!
!/
!/
!/
/!
!/
/!
!/
//
/!
/!
020726 sdL 0053096 3
[PROPOSED ONLY - SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL REVIEW]
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall ~be effective on
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Attorney City Manager
Police Chief
Director of Administrative
.Services
the
020726 sdl 0053096 4
[PROPOSED ONLY - SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL REVIEW]
Date:
To,’
From:
Subject:
Attachment B
PLANNING DIVISION
Memorandum
April 10, 2002
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Lance Bayer, Special Counsel
Zoning Te±t Amendment to Vehicle and Equipment Repair and
Storage
On .April 1, 2002, the City Council referred a proposed zoning text amendment pertaining
to vehicle-and equipment repair and storage to the Planning and Transportation
Commission. This matter was referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission
for review and recommendation pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections
18.98.080 and i8.98.090.
The City Attorney’s Office has proposed this amendment to Section 18.88.160 of the
municipal code to clarify the conduct required for violations involving vehicle and
equipment repair and storage, to eliminate a seldom-used provision of the code allowing
for overnight recreational vehicle sleeping permits, and to clarify penalty provisions of
the section.
Attached please find a copy of the Report from City Attorney prepared for the City
Council meeting o£ April 1, 2002 and the draft ordinance. The Department of Planning
and Community Environment recommends adoption of the proposed amendment.
At the time this amendment was proposed to the City Council, a memberof the
community raised a Concern regarding the disturbance related to vehicle repairs in
residential districts. The Commission may wish to consider whether or not to
recommend additional restrictions specificallyrelating to hours during which such repairs
may be conducted.
Attaclmaent
FROM CITY ATTORNEY
12
March 28, 2002
THE HONORABLE CITY .COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
RE :Request for Council to Initiate .Zoning Text
Amendment Pertalning to Vehicle Equipment Repair
and Storage
Dear Members of the Council:
RECOMMENDATION
.... The City Attorney’s" office proposes an amendment to
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.88.160 (Vehicle and
Equipment Repair and Storage) in order to expand our code
enforcement powers relating to vehicle storage on private
property. The amendment would clarify the conduct required for
violation of the section, including the storage of vehicles over
a fixed percehtage of the front yard, placement in a sight
triangle, and placement on unpaved surfaces. The .amendment also
would eliminate a seldom-use’d provision of the code al!owing for
the building official to issue overnight sleeping permits for
recreational vehicles. The amendment additionally would cl~rify
the penalty provlsions of the section.
In making this proposal, the City Attorney’s Office
has worked with Planning and Community Environment Director
Emslie and members of his staff. This proposed amendment
requires referral to the Planning C~mmission and a Public
Hearing pursuant to Palo Alto, Municipal Code Sections 18.98.080
and 18.98.090. We believe the proposal to be consistent with
all existing ’development policies. The Planning Co~nission~will
be specifically requested to confirm this conclusion.
’THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
March 28, 2002
Page 2
RE :Request for Oouncil to ’Initiate Zoning Text
Amendment Pertaining.to Vehicle .Equipment Repair
and Storage
BACKGROUND
Periodically, and in conjunction with the preparation
of recommendations .for additions and amendments t~. the Santa
Clara County Superior Courtba~l schedule, the City .Attorney’s
Office conduct@ a comprehensive review of the cbiminal
provisions of the municipal code. During the couJse of [his
periodic review,-the City Attorney’s Office became aware of
neighborhood concerns regarding the storage of vehicles on
residential property. Section 18.88.160 of the Municipal Code
addressesthis issue.~
The existing language of Section 18.88160 prohibits
the storage in an unscreened area of disabled, unlicensed,
unregistered, inoperat!ve vehicles, or Vehicles from which an
essential or legally required operating part is removed.
Operable vehicles may be stored.
On-March .8, 2002, Planning and Community Environment
Director E~slie,. along ~ith Special Counsel Lance Bayer and Code
Enforcement Officer Paul Camiller~, met with neighbors living in
the vicinity of Clara Street in Midtown. The purpose of. the
meeting was to discuss neighborhood concerns~ regirding the
blight caused by ~junk" vehicles stored on privat9 property~ At
the meeting, several residents described a particular property
in their neighborhood where ii vehicles ~are stored in the fr6nt
¯ yard, tak4ng, up virtually all of the’paved and unpaved space.
Several neighbors expressed their frustration in the inability
of ihe City to take action because the vehicles have been shown
to be operable ~nd registered. .
While the zoning . provisions for ne~ or f~£ure
development ha~e been amended to .address front yard parking
issues, the ’use .provisions of Section 18.88.160 have remained
the same. For example, last year the Council added Section
18.12.050, which generally requires a permeable sdrface on "60
percent of the required front.yard of a single-family residence
for ne~ development.
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
March 28,. 2002
P~ge. 3
RE:Request fo.r Council to Initiate Zoning Text
Amendment Pertaining to Vehicle Equipment Repair
and Storage
FRONT YARD, VEHICLE STORAGE..
The proposed amendment adds three restrictions
involving residential front yard storage of all types of
vehicles: I) Except in open space or agricultural conservation
zones} ~all vehicles visible from the street must be parked on a
permeable or i~p~rmeable paving surface; 2) No more than 5.0
percent of a required’ front .yard may be used for storage Of
vehicles; and 3).No vehicles can be stored within the 35-foot
visibility triangle at intersections. ..
The provision for storage of. vehicles on paved
surfaces is consistent with the Co~ncil’.s ~estrictions] on the
amount of paving surface ,to be ’ allowed in n~w residential
development. In addition, this provision addressesneighborhood
concerns about "jun~’ vehicles stored on the dirt and lawn areas
of front yards.,
As stated previously for "new development, Palo Alto
cdr~ently r~q~iges .a%. least 60 p~rhent of the required front
ygrd to be a permeable surface. There are, hewever, exceptions
for an impervious 16’ by’ 20’ .driveway and an impervious 4’ by
20’ walkway. In addition, Section .18.12.050 permits parking and
driveway surfaces that may have either permeable’ or impermeable
paving. Limiting the storage of vehicles to 50. percent of the
required front yard would address blight issues that accompany
the storage of "junk" vehicles in all residential zones and for
all residential properties., whether currently existing or. as new
development.
The provision for restriction Of the ~torage Of
vehicles within the 35-foot visibility triangle makes this
section consistent with othe~ provisions of the code that
restrict fences and vegetation within the. 35-foot visibility
triangle at intersections, including the amendments last year to
Sections 8.04.050 (Public Nuisances)and 9.56.030 (Nuisances
desoribed -Authority to. abate).These sections were
implemented through the City’s Visibility Project. The proposed
provision is intendedto address continuing concerns regarding
public safety.
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
March 28, 2002
Page 4
Request for council to .Initiate Zoiing Text
Amendment Pertaining to Vehicle .Equipment Repair
and Storage
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE
’ The proposed amendment would eliminate a provision, for
permits issued by the building official for overnight sleeping
in.recreational vehicles in residential.areas. Currently, there
is no formal procedure, for~ the issuance of such permits and
there are no criteria established for approval Section
18.01.030 defines "recreational-vehicle" as "a vehicle towed or
self-propelled on tits own chassis or attached to.the chassis of
another vehicle and designed or used for temporary dwelling,
recreational or sporting purposes." "Recreational vehicle"
includes travel trailers, pickup .campers, camping trailers,
motor coach homes, converted trucks and buses and boats and boat
trailers.
The.prop0sed amendment, would reduce from 30 days to 72
hours the amount of time that a recreational vehicle could be
stored on private property in a residential area for slgeping
p~rp.oses, but would eliminate the permit.requirement.
Thi9 proposed provisibn is intended to address
neighborhood concerns regarding storage of oversize vehicles,
¯ noise, and discharge of sewage waste.
EN FORCEMENT
The proposed amendment would clarify the enforcement
provisions for the section.
Res
APC:LB:sm
Attachment
cc:Lance Bayer, Special Counsel
[EL PIERRE CALONNE
City Attorney
ORDINANCE. NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE cITY OF PALO
ALTO .AMENDING PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 18.88~160 PERTAINING .TO VEHICLE
EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND STORAGE
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN ’as
follows:
SECTION ~. " ~egislative Findings.
declares a~ foll~w~:
The Council Jinds and
A.The public interest requires that periodi~
revision of the municipal code is necessary in order to make
editorial changes for "clarification and to make revisions that
are Qonsistent. with current practice and public policy.
B. P~lo Alto .Municipal Code Section 18.88.i60
pertaining to vehicle equipment repair and storage requires
revision in order .to be consistent with current practice and
public policy.
SECTION 2. Section 18.88.160 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is h@reby amended to read as foilows:
18.88.160 Vehicle and Equipment Repair and Storage.’
The follo~.:ing provisions shall apply in all residential
districts, Except as otherwibe provided, parkinq is allowed in
.all residential districts -and {-e o__n all sites in~ any other
district used for residential.o~cupancy:
(a) No person, shall service, repair, assemble,
disassemble,, w±eck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on any
vehicle, motor vehicle, camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer
coach, mo$orcycle, motor-driven cycle, house car, boat, or
similar conveyance unless conducted within a garage or acces’sory
building, or in an area screened from view from the streei and
adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent
screening.
(b) No person shall Store, place or park any of the
conveyances designated in subsection (.a), or any part thereof,
which .is disabled, unlicensed, unregistered, i.noperative, or
020326 c10053600 1
from which an essenhia£ or le4ally, requirid operating part is
rembved, including an unmounted camper,., camp trailer, trailer,
trailer coach and similar nonmotorized conveyance, or any other
structure or. device exceeding .46 cubic meters .(sixteen cubic
feet) in volume to be carried upon or in any such conveyance, or
any equipment, machinery/ or similar material unless¯ conducted
within a garage or .accessory .building, or in an .area screened
from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally
located fence, .wall, or equiyalent, screening.
(c)No p~rson shall service, repai~, assemb~le,
disassemble,wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on, .or
store, place,and park any of the Conveyances designated in thzs
section (excludihg. [I]. passenger vehicles..other than house cars,
and [2] ~pickup" motor trucks on which no equipment other than a
camper .is mounted), whether disabled or fully operative, for an
aggregate period of over seventy-two hours during any-continuous
period of ninety-six:hours in any open areas on a lot only-in
locations where an accessory building or principal building of
equivalent height or bulk would be permitted by theprovisions
of this title.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)
and (b), emergency repairs and shortaterm or temporary parking
of any conveyance listed in..subsection (a), when owned by a
person residing on the lot, may be conducted for an aggregate
period of up to seventy-two hours in any continuous period of
ninety:six hours exclusive of the screenin~ requirements.
(e) For the purpose of this section, refegences to
types of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in
the Vehicle Code of the state of Californiar. where such
definitions are available.
(f)
section.
Chapter 18.94 shall not be applicable to this
(g)- . Except as otherwise provided in this section, no
person shall use or occupy any vehicle parked or. stored in any
residential area for sleepin~ purposes o-w~~jcC~ tO ......4
for from the building ’official and ~ ’~........... r~’TZ CGC-
applicable l#w, the use of a ~ recreational
vehicle, as defined in this title, may be permitted for sleeping
purposes only for a period not to exceed thirty conscsuzmve days
seventy-two consecutive hours once in any calendar year for not
more than two nonpaying guests of the occupant of a single-
family dwelling in accord with all applicable regulations
governing parking and storage of vehicles.
020325 cl 0053600 2
(h) Except in the OS~ (open space) and AC
i(aqricultural conservation) districtsr no person shall store,
place, or park any of the conveyances desiqnated in .this
section, whether disabled Or fully operative, in any areas
visible from a public street unless, it is parked or stored upon
either permeable or impermeable pavinq surface.
(i) No person shall store, place, or park any of the~
.onveyances designated in ibis section within the thirty-five.
foot trianqle .of property at the intersection of streets
improved for vehicular traffic.
_[j) ’ No person shall store, place, or park any of {he
conveyances desiqnated in this ~ection in a. manner that they
cover more than 50 percent of any required front yard.
(k) Violation of this section is a misdemeanor,
punishable as provided in this code. Each day of violation
con.stitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished.
SECTION 2. T.he Council finds that this is not a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore
environment impact assessment is necessary.
ii
II
//
//
//
/!
/!
!!
!/
!!
020326 ~I 0053600
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective
.thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
on
INTNODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
-City Attobney City Manager
Police Chief
Director of Administrative
Services
the
020326 el 0053600 4
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
April 24, 2002
EXCERPT
Attachment C
NEW B US INE S S.
Public Hearings:
Referral of the City Council for Review and Recommendation of a Proposed
Ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.88.160 pertaining
to Vehicle Eq.u.ip.ment Repair and Storage. (This item was continued from the
April 10, 200.2 meeting.)
Chair Burr: Because of the great interest in the Hyatt Rickey’s EIR we are.going to try to
curtail the amount of time allotted to this first item a maximum of one-half hour. If we
are not able to complete that item within that timeframe we are going to reschedule it for
completion on another date. At this time, would Staff like to make a presentation on Item
17
Ms. Lisa Grote, ChiefPlannhag Official: Thank you Chair Burr and Commissioners.
Very briefly I w!ll just outline the three primary changes to Section 1.8.88.160, which is
m the Zoning Ordinance which is part of the Municipal Code having to deal with special-
provisions and especially regarding vehicle storage and repair.
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows someone tosleep in a parked or stored vehicle
for up to 30 days with a permit from the Chief Building Official. What we are
recommending is that time be reduced to 72 consecutive hours within one calendar year
and that the permit be eliminated. These are recommended for health and safety purposes
so that someone isn’t sleeping or living in a vehicle which does not hav~ the same kinds
of sanitary facilities as a traditional home would have and that time limit would be three
days or 72 hours. To eliminate the permit because for such a short period of time it
wouldn’t be necessary to get special permission to be able to do that. So that would be
the first recommended change.
The second is to include a clearly stated restriction that vehicles cannot be parked or
stored in the 35 foot vision triangle. I think you are probably familiar with the vision
triangle on comer lots that are measured from that midpoint in the sidewalk actually 35
feet back along each property line and then you draw a diagonal. That 35 foot vision
triangle, we would not allow vehicles to be parked or stored there so that drivers or
pedestrians wouldn’t have an obscured line of sight as they round a comer. So we are
recommending adding that clear statement.
Then also adding a statement that would limit parking or storing of vehicles to a
maximum of 50% of the front setback area and that they would have to be stored or
Page 1
parked on a paved surface. Paved could be either permeable or impermeable. When the
R-1 Regulations and Standards were approved in November of last year we did create a
maximum impervious surface of 40% of the ~ont yard, 60% would then need to be
permeable and.interlocking pavers and grasscrete were considered permeable surfaces.
So what this would say is that if you have 50% of your yard area that could have parked
or stored vehicles in it, 40% of that could be impervious surface and then the other 10%
would be permeable surface which would either be the interlocking pavers or some other
sort of permeable, grasserete or compacted material. ’So that would be the third
. recommended change.
As we have heard from thepublic, and I think there is a member of the public who would
like’to speak to this tonight, there has been a concern raised about the noise that is
generated from vehic!.e repair. The Noise Ordinance does. apply to residential property.
It states that you carmot create a noise that exceeds six decibels above the ambient in the
area. That would continue to apply. What we are recommending if the Commission
chooses to forward this recommendation to the Council is that there also be hours stated
in the Ordinance within which vehicle repair would be prohibit on residential sites.
Those hours we would recommend to be between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. that no
Vehicle repair could be completed on a residential site. That would make it easier for
enforcement purposes.
I would like to introduce Lance Bayer. He is our special legal couns.el who has drafted
this wording. He also works with us on code enforcement and other code updates. With
that I conclude the Staff Report and we are both here to answer questions.
Chair Butt: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions at this time? Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Yes. The portion 0fthis having to do with sleeping in. vehicles,
have you reviewed this with Human Relations Commission?
Ms. Grote: We did not take it to the Human Relations Commission.
Commissioner Cassel: I have another question relating to vehicles being parked on the
property. Do we have restrictions now about vehicles, which are business vehicles being
parked on the property? Things like trucks and so forth.
Lance Bayer, Esq.: Commissioner, currently we have restrictions that are more sever on
large vehicles and we make a distinction in the existing Ordinance between passenger
cars and pickup trucks for certain types of storage and other types of vehicles which
would include those commercial vehicles. Those are more limited in the parking and
storage respects of the Ordinance.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: With regard to the prohibition of parking in the 35 foot triangle,
are there plans to implement it with markings on the pavement so that people are aware
Page 2
that this is a restriction and have we worked with theP01ice Department to see if it is
possible to enforce?
Ms. Grote: It is possible to enforce it. We do base our enforcement program on a
complaint basis. So we would rely on a complaint to come in before we would enforce it
as we do with all of our Zoning Ordinance provisions. We would not be marking the 35
feet on the pavement but we would do a measurement should we get a complaint. We
would go out and meas~e that distance to determine whether or not there is a violation. ~
Chair Burr: I have a couple questions. Under permeable surfaces it does not seem to
include grav.el driveways. As I recall we don’t currently allow new gravel driveways but
we certainly have many inold Palo Alto that are grand-fathered in. .W-hat would be the
circumstance there?
Ms. Grote: That is correct. We don’t currently allow new gravel driveways. That was as
a result of a concern about that material being dragged out into the street as cars drive
over it. It can become a public hazard or a nuisance. So we don’t allow new gravel
driveways. For those that are currently in existence we allow them to remain.
Chair Burt: But are we saying that if someone has a gravel driveway then this Ordinance
is more restrictive on them than if they have another permeable driveway?
Ms. Grote: A gravel driveway would be considered to be a permeable surface. It would
have to be a preexisting permeable surface but it would be considered permeable.
Chair Burt: Okay. An earlier question was asking about vehicle sizes and things. Is a
VW camper/van is that an RV vehicle for purposes of this Ordinance?
Mr. Bayer: Chair Burt, I believe that the definition of recreational vehicles includes the
large RVs and campers. So what you described pr.obably would be considered one of
those vehicles that would be under the recreational vehicle. The definition is in the 18.01
sections of the Code, I believe.
Chair Burt: Finally, what was the reasoning why we are having an Ordinance focused on
if someone sleeps in these vehicles? They can be parked there but if someone doesn’t
sleep in them for more than 72 hours then this Ordinanc.e does not apply, is that correct?
Mr. Bayer: I believe the restrictions in the Ordinance that exist currently prohibit these
large vehicles from being stored for any period over 72 hours during a.continuous 96
hour period. The issue was that there was an exception that was placed in the Ordinance
for a 30 day permit for.people who were going to stay in the vehicles for sleeping
purposes or if they were going to be sto}ed in places other than the front visible areas or
the screened or garage areas..~ So in other words, we have always had these restrictions on
the large vehicles in the front areas or visible from view that are not screened or in a
garage.
Page 3
Chair Burr: Then I.appreciate we are doing some house cleaning on the Ordinance but if
we are going to be doing that I guess it prompts questions about what do we want in the ’
Ordin~ce. As I was trying to understand the objective here I couldn’t quite follow it.
Ms. Grote: I think if we wanted to change the overall direction of the Ordinance or what
it allows I think that we would probably want to do that as part of our Zoning Ordinance
Update. This will certainly be part of that. Now, at this point, we are trying to make it
internally consistent so that if you can store a vehicle for up to 72 hours we didn’t want
there to be that exception that you could actually sleep in it for up to 30 days. So we are
making the sleeping provisions consistent with the storage provisions. So that was
considered more of a cleanup and a consistency issue.
Chair Burr: Great. Maybe we can roll it into the ZOU. Okay, if we don’thave any other
questions we have some comments from the audience, members of the public. We have a
total of six members who would like to speak. We will allow up to five minutes per_
speaker but we would certainly like to encourage the speakers to take less time if they can
get their comments in in that period or if they can support a pervious speaker’s
comments. Our first speaker is Cindy Baxter to be followed .by Tom Meadows.
Ms. Cindsz Baxter, 740 Clara Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening. My husband Joe and I
have lived in the same house since 1955. Joe and I graduated from Paly High in.1949
and 1950. Our four children graduated from Paly and now our grandchildren are going to
Paly. I only say this to tell you we have been here a mighty long time. We want to stay
and we will. I love it. And that you very much for letting me talk to the Council
Members. As the years have come and gone there has been a slow but steady negative
change in our wonderful neighborhood. PaIo Alto was very neighborhood friendly.
They are very proud of their homes and their yards. As some of our City Codes can
correct most of the neighborhood blight but some of our codes may have to be altered not
only for our personal neighborhood to be cleaned up but so that not any other
neighborhood can go through this same deterioration that we have had in the past years. I
am hoping that some or all of the City Council can come to Clara Drive and see it. What
I would liketo do real quickly is I put this into a fairy tale.
In a lovely neighborhood in a quiet little town the people were so proud of their
landscaped.homes and lawns. The lawns were green and quite beautiful. As the years
went by sand appeared in the grass. More years go by and the sand turns to pebbles.
Nothing could be done as the pebbles turned into rocks. What happened in the
neighborhood.is unbelievable. The rocks turned into cars and trucks and autos. The
neighborhood people worked very hard and found wise neighbors and friends in the town
to help them out. Time will tell if their homes with the lovely landscapes and the
beautiful lawns of the friendly neighborhood will all be green and beautiful again. Thank
you.
Chair Butt: Thank you. Tom Meadows to be followed by Bob Johns.
Page 4
M_r. Tom Meadows, 775 Clara Drive, Pale Alto: How do you do? I’m a 40 year resident
of Pale Alto. I probably remember some things that many of you don’t. For instance up
until the early 1970s there was a curfew on parked cars on the streets here in Pale Alto
between something like 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. in the morning. That is no longer the
case and now cars are all over the street.
I’d like to rea~l you here whatIhave observed inthe last few years has taken place in our
neighborhood on the 700 block of Clara Drive. If you will bear with me this was written
in approximately a half hour prior to my coming here. I am not the best writer so if you
will bear with me I will try and decipher what I wrote.
A recent article in the Pale Alto Daily regarding Edgewood Plaza states that conditions
there can be defined, in legal terms as blight. If one describes that area as blight we
should take a look at ,{he junk and storage yard across the street from my residence. This
individual has 11 vehicles, two parked permanently on the front lawn, a 1940s era tow
truck jammed up to the front entrance of the home with a 1950s era garbage truck parked
in back of it and near the sidewalk, Four vehicles permanently occupy the driveway,
three of these are total junks that never move. Three vehicles are always parked on the
street. At least six of the vehicles should not be allowed on the public thoroughfare due
to their inadequate mechanical condition. In addition there are vehicle parts, hoists,
mechanical contraptions, hoses, buckets, saw.horses, you name it Strung all over the front
area of the property. I have been told by the Pale Alto Code Enforcement persons that
everything is legal, i.e., you can park anyplace on the lawn and completely Cover the
driveway and parking areas as long as the.vekicles are currently registered and
"operable." Operable is a key word here. There are some problems with the City’s
definition of operable. To me operable means vehicles where the drive train is fully
attached and they propel the vehicle forwards and backwards, hydraulic brakes fully
function. They do not have rely on a manual or parking brake to slow or stop the vehicle.
.One of the vehicles in the back end of the drive was stopped by a light pole right in front
of my drive. Fortunately the light pole halted the vehicle’s progress. Lights and hem
function including the brake lights. The vehicle does not leak fluids such as gasoline, oil,
radiator fluids, brake fluids in that order. The Pale Alto Code Enforcement person define
operable as only necessary to start the vehicle and it will idle. That is their sole litmus
test for operable. If a vehicle can be started it is operable. The drive train does not have
to be attached, brakes do not have to function, and so.forth.~ Needless to say it is not
necessary for a vehicle to be street ready. Also this individual has a mechanic working
on these vehicles almost daily. The two of them are out there either on the driveway or
on the sidewalk or in the street banging away on these vehicles and constantly shouting.
directions at each other. This can go on well into the night. To add insult to injury the
mechanic has the audacity to bring his personal clientele over to this neighbor’s property
and perform procedures on their vehicles. This happens all to frequently. Not too long
ago the mechanic changed a door on one of his customer’s vehicles. He was out there
banging away on the metal all afternoon in order to make the door fit. Much of this work
was performed on the sidewalk. I personally noticed several parties walking by that had
to walk in the street to circumvent this mechanical operation which used all of the
sidewalk. I cannot begin to tell you how many people visiting my place have been utterly
Page 5
shocked at this junk storage yard at.780 Clara Drive. Local residents are in disbelief that
local Palo Alto Ordinances do not prohibit such a blatant display of blight. Out-of-
towners come in and say this would never happen in their city and they were under the
impression that Palo Alto was a bit more sophisticated than to let such a situation as I
have described exist. I add that the situation at my place is also pretty bad due to the
maintenance going on there all the time. A refi-igerator sitting out on the drive for the
past several months, plastic has covered the roof of this house for several years.
However, what bothers me most is the potential fire danger due to garbage all over the
place and dead vines. Our Fire Department has told me there is no relief under current
Palo Alto City Codes however, they did assure me that in case of aftre they would
respond. I did have another page to read but if that’s it that’s fine. Thank you for
listening to me I appreciate your attention. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. "We have done some repair work in this room on our speaker
microphone that previously was not very audible and it is now quite so and so if speakers
can hold backa little bit from the microphone. Our next speaker is Bob Johns to be
followed by Natalie Fisher.
Mr. Bob Johns, 764 Clara Drive, Palo Alto: Hi, I live next door to ajunkyard. I do live
in Palo Alto and I’ve lived in the Midtown section since 1955. Our neighborhood has
always been well kept and well maintained. E~erybody has taken pride.in their homes.
But the last severn years things have been going downhill really fast and you would have
to see it to believe it. Within a block of me there are a couple of other houses that need to
be taken care of too but I don’t have the time so I won’t go into describing all of them."
The one I want to describe is the worst situation. This party over the last few years has
been able to accumulate 11 vehicles and if he takes our a couple more shrubs he can
probably get two or three more in there. This is on a 60 foot wide lot. These vehicles
include cars, trucks, station wagons, vans, and a 1930 tow truck. This vehicle and a
couple of others have not been moved in the last few years. It is also a fire hazard and an
eyesore and if there was an emergency at this house you couldn’t get in the front door. I
also have problems with friends or out-of-town neighbors who come into the
neighborhood and they see this mess and they say how do you put up with this. My only
answer to them is I can’t do it, or it seems Palo Alto Codes are out of date and need to be
changed. I recommend that you people please pass the proper ordinances to take care of
the storage and the blight area. Thank you for your time and I hope you don’t wind up
with the situation I’m living in right now where you have to make excuses for living next
to ajunkyard. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Natalie Fisher to be followed by Herb Borock.
Ms. Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto: I have two separate types of
comments I want to make. The first about vehicle repair, I think six o’clock in the
morning is a bit early to allow vehicle repair. I don’t know if this is allowed seven days a
week. The Ordinance has no restrictions in them and if there are restrictions elsewhere in
the Code I think they should be repeated within the Ordinance so it is clear to people. I
think at the very least there should be no repair between ten in the evening and say nine
Page 6
or ten the next morning. I have the experience. I used to have a neighbor who just did
car repair constantly at all hours and he was abusive when I asked him to stop.
Now what I am mostly concerned about and i think I am the only one who is, is the part
that says, "A recreational vehicle may be permitted for sleeping purposes only for a
period not to exceed 72 consecutive hours once in any calendar year for not more than
two non-paying guests." The way this is read you could interpret it in very funny ways.
Only the sleeping time is counted. So somebody would have to stand there and see when
people are sleeping and when it comes up to 72 hours they can’t sleep there anymore. If
they have more than two non-paying guests, say there is three people, that is a
misdemeanor but you can have as many paying guests as you please. So I think the way
this is written is ridiculous. The main thing that concerns me is, and I do think the
Human Relations Commission ought to have a look at thisl it really interferes unduly
with people’s basic right’s to have people visit them. If people are sleeping in a vehicle in
a driveway or a backyard how is that different.than ifI parked my own vehicle in this
driveway or the backyard? They are going to use the facilities in the house that they are
visiting. They are just going to be using that vehicle to sleep in. The way this. is written
it is only 72 hours of sleeping as much time as one wishes could be spent during the day
if one is not in the house and one is in the vehicle reading or whatever. So the Ordinance
is written in a way that can be interpreted in strange ways but basically it is much too
restrictive on people. I don’t see any justification for it. If this passes as written with the
restrictions and somebody wants to go to court they would probably win on constitutional
grounds. It is very, very anti our private rights to have guests visit us. You could have a
student, maybe you don’t have a guest room in your house or you have several other
guests staying in the house and maybe you have three students, you son and two 0fhis
friends staying in a camper in your driveway for a week. That’s a misdemeanor? That is
goin-g to be illegal? Maybe if they pay you, you charge rent, then it is okay. Thank you
for listening to me.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Herb Borock to be followed by John Abraham.
Mr. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632. Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Burt and
Commissioners. This appears to be a general law written for a specific problem. When
you try to write a general law targeting a particular house in this case I don’t think you
get a good law. The people who are justifiably concerned about the proNem in their
neighborhood certainly have gotten adequate notice to be here but I doubt that the single
property mentioned on page 2 of the City Attorney’s report of March 28 in the third
paragraph on that page have been noticed. This is clearly targeted at a specific property
with 11:cars. It seems to me that. you will probably have to continue this anyway that you
should continue it far enough in advance so that Staff can properly notice the individual
property at which .this Ordinance is targeted.
Secondly, I am concerned as one of the speakers said that Staff claims they don’t have
the tools already to enforce this nuisance. First of al! every residential zone in the City
and the Neighborhood Commercial Zone aswell prohibits parking in the front yard
setback. I don’t see what is so difficult about that. Secondly, the Code also has
Page 7
limitations on the types of home businesses that you have, what kinds of limits. You
can’t have an auto repair business at your home. So I would think that there already are
tools to solve this problem. I am surprised, maybe not so surprised, because of the high
turnover in Current Planning since Ed Gawfbecame Planning Director. There is also the
question of the change that has cornel that was mentioned by Ms. Grote in the R-1
Regulations, specifying a certain amount of pavement allowed in the front yard. At that
time, I was told because there was a restriction to how limited it is but it seems now that
we are going from existing regulations that prohibit parking in front yard setbacks to
allowing a certain amount of pavement and now tonight saying that the purpose of that is
so people can park in their front yards, which is prohibited in the Zoning Code. This
leads me as sort of a hint or a clue that I should investigate how the existing regulations
are being enforced for new development. That is, are Staff actually enforcing on new
development the requirement that the two required spaces for an R-1 house be outside the
front yard. It seems t.i~at’there is more to this than meets the eye. It is not just a general
law to enforce a problem on one property that could be enforced by at least two existing
parts of the Code but it may in fact be a weakening of the existing regulations. I can
understand Staff’s concern. Someone parks their SUV inthe 20 foot setback they don’t
want to go and have to enforce that if somebody complains. I think that normally the
kinds of complaints you will get will be the kinds of complaints of the residents of Clara
Drive. You wouldn’t get neighbor against neighbor saying someone is parking their car
in their driveway. So I think the existing laws are adequate. I believe the property that is
being targeted should be properly noticed. This is not something that is coming to you
because it is a problem throughout the City, it is a problem because Staff for some reason
has been unable or unwilling to use the existing Code.to enforce a problem that should
have been enforced a long time ago. Thank yott.
Chair Burti Thank you. At this time do we have other Commissioner Comments or
questions? Excuse me. John Abraham.
Mr. John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. My
comments are directly mainly to the auto repair and the noises. This proposed
Ordinance addresses the sci:eening but it does not really address the noise issues. There
was a case a few years ago in the neighborhood where an individual worked on his car I
believe it was a Sunday for several hours. There was constant dropping of wrenches,
gunning the engine, running the engine for.hours it seemed at a time. The whole
process must have gone for five or six hours.. The police were finally called. They
came out. I don’t know what would have happened but the individual made a mistake.
He said he felt he was entitled to do the repair work because that was his line of
business. Immediately a policeman, acquainted him with the fact that it is not legal to
have a commercial repair business run out of a residential area. That and that only shut
him down. Except for that, as I understand it, he would still be going. So I would like
the City to address the problem of the noise that comes from repair work which I don’t
think is covered really. Mention has been made to the Noise Ordinance but if you talk
to the police as I have they really aren’t able to deal with impulse noises and that is
what you are talking about for repair work. Somebody would drop a wrench on the
cement and it is an impulse noise. They don’t have the meters to measure that. It is
Page 8
very tricky. The usual eight or six decibel cushion doesn’t apply, they don’t have time.
Usually the individual will just stop work and when they do that there is nothing to
measure. So the Noise Ordinance doesn’t really apply to this except in the case where
somebody has an extremely bad muffler. So maybe there are some cases but what I am
suggesting, what I would like to see is the hours ten o’clock at night is a good time but
no earlier than eight o’clock in the morning and preferably nine o’c!ock in the morning.
I would ask that you consider that people are frustrated under the current system
because there really isn’t anything that can be done. Now perhaps there is something
that can be done that I haven’t thought of that the Staff is willing to add to this. I work
on my car so I would like to do emergency work, changing a battery or a spark plug or
something like that. So the hours are .the minimum condition that I can think of. I
suspect there are some cases where this is much to weak and I would ask to put a notice
in that one section. This is where everybody goes when they are talking repairs. Put a
notice in there that says no commercial usage on a private property. Put hours in there.
I guess Mr. Bayer wants.to keep these 72-hour restriction out of 96. I don’t know that
it is really helpful to residents. If you can find some way to help residents for the long
term noise that would be appreciated. Thank you very much.
Chair Burt: Thank you. At this time we have to determine whether we should attempt to
continue discussion on this item or whether we should defer completion until an
upcoming meeting. Phyllis,
Commissioner Cassel: Pat, I suggest that since we have an attorney here we ask any
questions of the attorney and then continue this on. I have a number of questions for
discussion and I don’t-think we can handle it tonight.
Chair Burt: Okay, let’s break it up that way because we may not have an attorney
available when this item is continued. Questions for the attorney at this time? Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: The one I have is this question of business. How hard is it to
define when someone is taking care of their favorite antique and when they are actually
conducting a business out of their front yard? And how you handle demonstrating that? I
am aware of other situations in town.
Mr. Bayer: Commissioner the problem in enforcement has been that it is not always
apparent whether somebody is working on a car because that is a business or not without
that person telling the Code Enforcement Officer what they are doing it makes it difficult
to find that out. That has been one of the Enforcement concerns that caused us to look at
revisions to the Code. If it were a business conducted in the front portion of the residence
or working on vehicles we would look at the home occupation sections and find that to be
in violation but it is not always easy to tell.
Commissioner Cassel: How might a person demonstrate that? Pictures? Comments?
Several people talking to someone to be able to testify?
Page 9
Mr. Bayer: Some of it will come from observations of customers going to a location or
vehicles that don’t belong to that location. It would be part of an investigation. Some of
it might be from advertising in the community where we would find that out. Since Code
Enforcement primarily in Palo Alto is handled on a complaint only basis the information
from the complainant would be taken into consideration as well as any information that
would be gathered through the investigation.
Chair Burt: Any other questions of the attorney? Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I believe it was Natalie.Fisher.who mentioned that it might be
easy to misinterpret Or interpret one or two of the paragraphs in a way that would allow
for actually having a vehicle onsite longer, sleeping in it for 72 hours and then staying in
it. Do you think that .p, ar~,icular part needs some clarification, some cleaning up in
addition to what is b~ing proposed?
Mr: Bayer: The language that Ms. Fisher referred to has been in the Code and there is no
recommendation for change. We don’t see a need to change it because we interpret it as
72 consecutive hours for sleeping purposes not that the person actually physically sleeps
for 72 hours.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: In that same language there is the additional aspect of non-
paying.which seems a little confusing because if they pay the owner $100.00 per night it
is okay to sleep there., Also, I had a former neighbor who had would occasionally have
guests and on their outgoing trip they would come and stay in their RV in the driveway
next door and it was fine. When the were coming back they would come back and stay in
the RV in the driveway: Most of the time they spent in the house but for convenience
purposes they slept in the vehicle. Even though you are not making a recommendation I
don’t see how the paying/non-paying really applies and I’m a little bit c0ncemed that the
72 hour thing might be pretty restrictive for all practical purposes.
Mr. Bayer: Commissioner, two points. The first being that the language that you are
mentioning regarding paying and not paying is historically in the Ordinance and the
distinction and the reason why the non-paying is in there is because paying guests on the
property in a residential district would be considered lodgers. My understanding is that
there are provisions elsewhere in the Zoning Code prohibiting lodging as a use in a
residential zone. So that would be covered elsewhere in the code and the language would
be consistent with existing language. As far as the restriction on sleeping purposes for 72
hours, that is consistent not only with the philosophy behind storage of vehicles
elsewhere in our Code but also consistent with the practices in other cities in our area.
The idea of 30 days of someone living on a property in a recreational vehicle or a camper
raises issues of sanitation, issues of disposal of waste, issues of the ability of the property
owner to control any noise. We wouldn’t allow a structure to be built to the same
specifications of a camper or recreational vehicle. We presume that what we will have is
Page 10
if there is undue noise or sanitation issues we would be receivingcomplaints ~om
members of the community and responding based on those complaints.
Chair Burr: Okay.. We may have some subsequent questions when we revisit this item
but because of our large item pending I think we would like to defer further discussion
until a date to be rescheduled. Does Staff have a date determined?
Ms. Grote: We would recommend that it actually be to a date uncertain and then we will
renotice neighbors and affected parties.
Page 11
Attachment D ¯
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sent:
Emslie, Steve
Betten, Zariah
’suldroo@hotmail.com’; Grote, Lisa; Bayer, Lance
FW: vehicle ordinance July 31
7/18/2002 i:14 PM Importance:Normal
Zariah, Please include these conunents in the staff report to the PTC for the 7/31 packet (Vehicle Repair Ord). Please
also ensure that the letter is included in the packet that is distributed to the punic and the libraries.
Thaltk you,
Steve
..... Origina! Message .....
From: Nat Fisher [mailto:suldroo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 i2:20 PM
To: annetteglanckopf@worldnet.att.net; steve_emslie@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Cc: ja133 l@hotmail.com; lchiapella@jtmo.com; herb_berock@hotmail.com
Subject: Re:vehicle ordinance July 31
Almette and Steven:
I really feel that residents who don’t go to work at.Sam need a break_ This
includes a lot of people. So 8am is really too early to allow car repair in
a residential district. Also, for those who do get up early to go to work.
10pm is too late to allow such noise.
Natalie Fisher
P.S. Steve, please add these comments, as well as the ones from the previous
meeting, to the Planning Conunission’s packet for the July 31 meeting. I
also agafii recommend fl~at all letters & emails be included in the packets
sent to the libraries, as the City Council does, so the public has access.
Natalie
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print yolg. photos:
http://photos.msn.comJsuppordworldwide.aspx
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
Attachment E
July 24, 2002
Planning and Transpor’tation Commission
Sity of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
!ULY 31, 2002, PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
VEHICLE EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND STORAGE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE ~AM~ NDING PAMC SECTION 18.88.160
Dear Planning and Transportation Commission:
Some of the amendments in the proposed ordinance may have unintended
consequences.
Please review the following subjects to determine whether any changes
are needed.
LOCATION OF REQUIRED PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
The location of required parking for each zoning district is included
in the regulations for that zoning district.
%ll residential zones prohibit required parking from being located in
&.required front yard.
For example, see the attached Section 18.12.060 from the regulations
for the R-I Single Family Zone District.
Including language in the proposed ordinance that specifies where
)arking is allowed in the front yard may weaken the regulations that
~xohibit providing required parking spaces in the front yard, and
:hat include required parking in the calculation of floor area in the
R-i zone district..
ZENERAL LAW FOR A SPECIFIC PROBLEM
The proposed ordinance is intended to address a perceived problem an
one specific address on the 700 block of Clara Drive where operable
and registered vehicles are stored in the front yard.
(Chapter 10.34 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the abatement
and disposal of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative
vehicles.)
I attended a previous Commission meeting where it was alleged that an
occupant of the residence.on Clara Drive was engaged in.an auto
repair business that is neither ’a permitted nor a conditional use in
the R-I zone district.
If staff is able to determine that the vehicles in question are
operable and registered, then staff should be able to determine
whether the resident on Clara Drive owns the cars being repaired
there, or whether the cars are owned by somebody else.
It is not clear why new language is needed to solve the Percelved
)roblem.
~LEEPING IN VEHICLES
the proposed ordinance would amend Section 18.88.160(g) to
.3rohibit sleeping in any vehicle parked or stored in any residential
area, except for sleeping once a year for 72 hours in a recreational.
vehicle for guests of the occupant of single-family dwelling.
There is no proposed exception for duplexes or multiple-family
dwellings, and no proposed exception for the occupants of slngle-
family dwellings.
There ±s already a prohibition on parking oversized vehicles,
trailers, and camper shells between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00
a.m. on all streets where at least one side of the street ~s in a
residential zone or public facility zone. (See attached Sections
10.44.015, 10.44.020, and 10.44.021, Palo Alto Municipal Code.)
?he parking prohibition in Chapter 10.44 effectively prevents someone
from sleeping during the early morning hours in the specified types
of vehicles in residential and public facility zone districts, or
across the street from those zone districts.
the only exception is a hardship permit for someone who already has a
place to sleep in a residence.
The proposed ordinance would ban sleeping in all types of vehicles
"in any residential area"
"Residential area" is not defined in the proposed ordinance, although
"residential zone" is defined in the zoning ordinance.
Public rights of way are included i~ zoning district boundaries.
~hen both sides of a street are zoned residential, the street is
zoned residential.
When only one side of a street is zoned residential, the zone
district boundary is usually in the middle of the street, so one half
of the public right of way is zoned residenti~l. (The only exception
I am aware of in the current zon!ng map is Alma Street, where the PF
Public Facility zone district for the railroad extends to include the
entire public right on both sides of the street.)
If "residential area" means "residential zone", then the proposed
ordinance would ban sleeping in vehicles on the street and on private
properzy in residential zones.
During the recent economic boom and hyper-inflat±on in the housing
market, I thought that city officials wanted to allow commuters from
the Central Valley to be able to sleep in their vehicles so that they
did not need to commute long distances five days a week.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
I. Section 18.12.060, Palo Alto Municipal Code.
2. Sections 10.44.015, 10.44.020, and 10.44.021, Palo Alto
~unicipal Code.
18.12.060 Parking and loading.
(a) Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and
conditional uses in accord with Chapter 18.83 of this title. All parking and loading facilities
on any site, whether required as minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum
requirements, shall comply with the regulations and the design standards established by
Chapter 18.83.
(b) Minimum parking requirements for selected uses permitted in the R- 1 single-
family residence district shall be as follows (see also Chapter !_.8_.__8._._3_):
Single-Family D@ellings. The minimum parking requirement for each single-family
dwelling shall be two spaces. A minimum of one space per single-family dwelling shall be
covered. Tandem parking shall be allowed.
(c) - No required parking space shall be located in a required front yard, or in the
first 3.0 meters (ten feet) adjoining the streetline of a required street side yard.
(d) Underground parking shall be prohibited for single-family uses, except
pursuant to a variance granted in accordance with the provisions Of Chapter .!_.8_.._9_...0_ of this
title, in which case the area of the underground garage shall be counted in determining the
floor area ratio permitted pursuant to Section 18.12.050.
(Ord. 3905 § 11, 1989i Ord..3_.._0._.4__8. (part), 1978)
10.44.015 Definitions.
(a) For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meaning
ascribed to them in this section:
(1) "Oversized vehicle" means any ’vehicle exceeding seven feet in height or
exceeding twenty feet in overall length or exceeding seven feet in width (including any load
or accessory thereon other than antennas), provided’that this definition shallnot apply to
vehicles which exceed these dimensions solely because of modifications required to
accomodate a disabili.ty and the vehicle is lawfully displaying a disabled placard or license;
(2) "Camper shell" means a structure designed to cover and!or protect the bed area
Of a pickup truck but removed therefrom;
(3) "Trailer" means a vehicle designed or utilized for being drawn by a motor
vehicle..
(4) "Residential zone" means all lands located within the following zoning
districts: RE~ R1, .R2, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, and RM-40; where one side of a street is
located within one of these residential districts, then the portion of the opposite side of the
street directly across from the residential district shall also be included in.the definition of a
residential zone;
(5) "Public facility zone" means all lands located within a PF zone; where one side
of a street is located within a public facility zone, then the portion of the opposite side of the
-street directly across from the public facility zone shall also be included in the restrictions
pertaining to a public facility zone,
(Ord. 4558_ § 5 (part), 1999)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
565.
- (b)
10.44.020 Standing or parking, two a.m. to six a.m.
(a) No person shall, between the hours of two a.m. and six a.m. of any day, unless
authorized by a hardship permit issued pursuant to Section !0_.~.~.4_._02_1. or a construction or
maintenance permit issued pursuant to Section 10.40.045, park upon streets or alleys
located within a residential zone or public facility zone any of the following vehicles:
Oversized vehicles;
Trailers;
Camper shells;
Tow trucks as defined by California Vehicle Code Section 615;
¯Special construction equipment as defined by California Vehicle Code Section
Notwithstanding the prdvisions of this section, no signs or markings are
necessary to give effect to the restrictions and prohibitions contained in this section.
(Ord. 4558 § 5 (part), 1999)
10.44.021 Hardship permit.
Persons who have obtained hardship permits pursuant to this section shall be exempt
from the provisions of Section !.0.,_4A.~20_ during the duration of said permit.
(a) Eligibility. Any resident of the city of Palo Alto may be eligible for a one-time
nonrenewable hardship permit for an oversized vehicle if such resident can show a
"hardship." For the purposes of this section "hardship" means that the applicant has no legal
offstreet parking space adequate to accommodate the vehicle for which the permit is sought
at the street address specified in the permit application.
(b) Classes and Duration of Permits. There shall be two classes of permits: (i)
resident permit; and (ii) guest permits. Any resident of Palo Alto may obtain a resident
permit for a specified vehicle upon establishing actual residence at an address within the
city. The maximum duration of this permit shall be thirty days but shall not exceed the
actual duration of the hardship. Any resident of Palo Alto ma); obtain a guest permit for a
specified vehicle registered to a non-resident guest of the applicant. The duration of guest
permits shall not exceed fourteen days and shall not be renewable within thirty days
following expiration.
¯ (c) Fees. The fees for hardship permits shall be set forth in the municipal fee
schedule. No hardship permit shall be issued until said fee has been paid to the supervisor of
revenue collections.
(d) Procedure..s and Regulations. Applications for hardship permits shall be
submitted to the supervisor of revenue collections. The supervisor of revenue collections
may issue a hardship permit if it is determined that the application of Section !0.44.020. will
create a hardship on the applicant or his guest. The supervisor of revenue collections may
establish additional procedures and regulations for the implementation of this section which
are consistent with this section and with Section 10.44.020 of this code.
. (Ord...4_5.__5.8. {} 5 (part), 1999)
ATTACHMENT C
1
2
3
4
5
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
Planning and Transportation Commission
’ July 31, 2002
Verbatim Minutes
EXCERPT
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Referral to the City Council for Review and Recommendation regarding a Proposed
Ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.88.160 pertaining to
Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage. (This item was continued from the April 24, ’
2002 meeting).
Chair Burt: Would Staff like to make a presentation?
Ms. Lisa Grote, ChirfPlanning Official: Thank you Chair Butt and Commissioners. Since the
Commission first considered this item in April we have attempted to simplify and clarify the
recommendations presented to you regarding this section of the Zoning Ordinance. There are
basically three recommendations being made.
The first is to clarify where parking can occur in the front setback. What we have recommended
is that only 50% of the front setback area be allowed for parldng. Now parking must occur on a
paved surface. That can either be impervious or permeable surface. The first 40% can be
impervious coverage which is consistent with the new R-1 regulations, the remaining 10% would
need to be permeable surface, meaning the water can percolate into the soil. That would then
equal the 50% allowed coverage. There have been comments made that currently the way the
ordinance is stated that parking is not allowed at all in the front setback-because it is not a listed
permitted use in the R-1 section, Staff does not agree with that interpretation because that would
then prevent people from parldng in their own driveways, which are always located in at least a
portion of the front setback. We have never cited people for parldng in their driveways. I don’t
believe that is the intent now. What we have said is that you cannot count your required parking
as those spaces in your driveway but we have never said that you cannot park in your driveway.
So this in our minds is a clarification of where parking is allowed in the front setback. Again, it
would be 50% of that front setback area, which on a 60 foot lot would be roughly 30 feet which
is generally the width of the driveway plus the width of a side setback. It is a few feet more than
that but generally it is a driveway plus a side setback width.
The second recommendation is that a new clause be added which limits the hours within which
non-emergency vehicle repair can occur. Currently, vehicle repair is allowed on a single-family
lot for the owners or the residents of that lot and it has to be screened from the public view.
Those requirements would remain the same. The new requirement is that non-emergency
vehicle repair could only occur between the hours’of 8:00 am and 10:00 pm. The 8:00 am start
time is consistent with the Noise Ordinance hours of construction during the week, the Monday
through Friday hours of construction..So that is a consistent start time. There have been
City of Palo Alto Page i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39.
40
41
42
43
44
45
comments and you may want to discusS this during your deliberations but there have been
comments made that on the weekends and Sundays’ construction hours are different than that
and you may want to consider other start times for the sake of clarity with all of the different
noise restrictions. However, currently the recommendation is an 8:00 am start time and a 10:00
pm ending time for non-emergency vehicle repair.
The third recommendation is that for a emergency vehicle repair that it be allowed between the
hours of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm. Again, currently emergency vehicle repair is allowed in the
Zoning Ordinance however there are no hours of restriction. So this would be a new clause
which would limit those emergency repairs to between thehours of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm.
Again, there have been comments that perhaps that is too early a start time and too late an end
time. That may be something that the Commission wants to address. We had recommended
6:00 am because sometimes emergency repairs are required before people go to work in order to
either get them to work or to get their car to the repair shop. So we had recommended the 6:00
am start time. That really does conclude the Staff Report. Those are the three recommendations
that we are malting to you. Lance Bayer and I are here to answer your questions. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions .of the Staff before hearing from
the public? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Do we have any demonstrable data that equates the impact of vehicle
repair to construction noise? I personally fai! to see how they are comparable.
Ms. Grote: We have not collected the data, meaning is vehicle repair as noisy as construction,
we have not collected that data.
Chair Burt: At our last meeting one of the questions I had was on this emergency vehicle repair
Versus someone changing a air filter in their own driveway or something like that. Can you go
into that.a little bit?
Ms. Grote: Currently emergency repair isn’t defined in the Zoning Ordinance. We are not
recommending that a definition be included in the Ordinance. What did try to do is provide
some guidance in the Staff Report as to what emergency vehicle repair might be and it would be
something that doesn’t occur on a regular basis, that is relatively short in duration and we gave
some examples of changing air filters, belts and perhaps spark plugs, something that doesn’t
occur on a regular basis. This isn’t to allow someone to rebuild an entire engine as an
emergency measure.
Chair Butt: Right. The area that I was more interested in was routine simple maintenance.
Ms. Grote: Routine simple maintenance would probably not be considered an emergency. That
is something that should occur in a screen area that is not visible from the street meaning either
enclosed in the garage or in your side or backyard, which is screened. So emergency repair
would not cover maintenance.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Burt: What I don’t know is what has been the historic City outlook on people changing an
air tilter or a spark plug or changing the oil in their own driveway. Are we creating a new
standard here in order to address a very significant problem are we prohib!ting something that is
an American as apple pie?
Ms. Grote: There is actually no change to that particular practice. Currently a strict reading o~"
the code would prohibit that kind of routine maintenance. There is no change being
recommended to that. I think on a practical basis we have not had a lot of complaints about th.at,
we have not had a lot of enforcement action against people who might do a quick routine
maintenance on their car in their driveway. We have not received any, to my knowledge,
complaints about that.
Chair Burt: Okay. Bonnie, do you have another question?
Commissioner Packer: Likewise, have you received any complaints about people doing any
work between the hours of 6:00 and 8:00 in the morning? In other words, is this really a.
problem?
Ms. Grote: Currently there are no restrictions on the hours of either emergency Or non-
emergency vehicle repair. So no, we haven’t received complaints about when it occurs because
there aren’t any hours, which restrict it currently. This is an attempt to be considerate of
neighbors and say it is reasonable that.you have some allowance for emergency vehicle repair
but not at all hours of the day and night. So no we haven’t received complaints about hours.
Chair Burt: We have one speaker card so far and it looks like perhaps more coming. Our first
speaker is Annette Ashton to be followed by John Abraham.
Ms. Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening. First of all I
applaud the desire to clean up the cars and to improve the City’s ability to reduce urban blight. I
think this is excellent. I am not asking that we go as far as some of our sister cities but I think we
can go a little stronger. I would like to address my comments in the same order that Lisa did.
The first on vehicle storage and would ask you to consider that we not look at a50% number. I
do understand where that number is coming from but I think it will have unintended
consequences on large lots. I would like to see parking only limited to the driveway area or
basically the side setbacks..
On the second issue on where the repair could occur and noise I would like to tirst say as far as
emergency repair I would like to eliminate all of the references to emergency repair. As Lisa
mentioned, emergency is a very, very difticult term to define and as Lance Bayer, our attorney,
said in the last Planning Commission meeting code enforcement in Palo Alto is handled by
complaint only. So I recommend that this repair be left to the discretion of our neighbors.
Bonnie asked a very good question about how many times people complain and also the code
enforcement officers. I think actually trying to put it in the code with a broader window of hours
will leave us open to loose interpretation and won’t produce the desired outcomes.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
3
4
5
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
Let me address noise of operation. I am a little concerned about putting another set of hours on
this document. If you notice in the handout that I had, I had the three different times that the
Noise Code actually addresses noise, one for general noise, one for construction noise and one
for leaf blower noise. So what I would like to see is not the hour often o’clock, which is
extremely late to make noise for car repair in the neighborhood but to pick the first category for
general noise and try to have a stricter noise interpretation. Don’t make it confusing for the
residents. The Noise Ordinance also restricts only noise to outside repair and I think that’s good,
allowing you to do repair screened. I just want to remind everyone that you can have potentially
a lot of noise in a screened area or garage, So I want, in the ordinance, to make sure that we
realize that the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance rules do follow the garage noise as well.
On point three I would like to emphasize the commercial repair for autos is not valid in the R-1
Zone. So we should be able to enforce anyone who is doing commercial work. I think the
clause on no cars parking within the 35-foot triangle is excellent and I applaud Staff for
including this, which adds safety for pedestrians, bikers and runners. Finally, in another
ordinance, I lcnow it doesn’t go in this one, we really do need to address the issue of unsightly
and unsafe items stored in the front yard to keep our neighborhoods beautiful and clean. So
thanks for listening. Midtown as well as all of the other residents in our neighborhoods will
appreciate any legislation to improve and to enforce urban blight.
Chair Burr: We may have a couple questions. Bonnie, go ahead.
Commissioner Packer: I don’t mean to put you on the spot but can you give me some examples
of a car repair that is noisier or equivalent to the noise of a roofer hammering on the roof or one
of those really noisy construction jobs that we are trying to not have earlier than 8:00am?
Ms. Ashton: I am not so sure that is a valid comparison but if you have someone ~out in the yard
banging or pounding, for example car repair might be to fix a banged up fender. I lcnow one of
my neighbors does that ldnd of repair. Now I am not against him but he does make very, very
loud banging noises and I just personally think the hours should be a little bit more limited.
There are people that do go to bed before ten o’clock at night. I am sure Staff could give you a
much better example but that is just one off the top of my head.
Chair Burt: Annette, I have a couple of questions also. It is my understanding that what
prompted the need for this ordinance is some pretty egregious circumstances where there are
front yards full of cars and essentially what appears to be commercial repair. This other issue
that I was asking about earlier, what about somebody who wants to change an oil filter in their
driveway or change a spark plug or something like that, does the Midtown neighborhood, to your
knowledge, consider that to be part of the problem that needs to be solved?
Ms. Ashton: Not really and I think reading the transcript from the last Commission meeting
Herb Borock very well said we shouldn’t do code to fit a particular circumstance. My comments
were very general. I feel pretty strongly that because, code enforcement in our City is done by
citizens you are not going to have someone just driving by and see someone in their driveway
changing a filter. In my estimation, I know Staff could answer this in a much better.way, but in
my estimation if you see someone out there changing a spark plug, if it is an emergency repair or
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
not an emergency repair that is outside the hours, you are not going to have complaints. It is
really the noise and the vast number of cars and maybe an unsightly number of cars that you
have.
Chair Burt: Second question. You brought up the issue of the percentage of the front yard that
should be allowed for this and I know you were on the R-1 Guidelines Committee. Could you
clarify your understanding of in the R-1 Guidelines it is allowable for 50% to be paved surface,
is that correct?
Ms. Ashton: I know that the ordinance was going and I am just suggesting that you probably in
this case don’t want to make a parallel as far as where you have permeable and impermeable
surface to where you park cars. That was my only point. You are right, the R-1 was very
concerned about having spaces that allow water to seep through. So the original intent was the
very first step, we actually wanted to do the entire property but we decided it would just be
prudent for the front yard. We just picked a number to be sure that we had permeable surface but
there was never any discussion in the R-1 group about cars parldng there or anything to that
effect. I think this has come up more recently. So again, to the consequences I just personally
wouldn’t want to tie the two, one which was really to have soil and moisture seeping in related to
where you park cars.
Chair Burt: I was also presuming that some of that impermeable surface would be assumed to be
pathways or other things other than car parldng.
Ms. Ashton: Exactly. Just to clarify. I would like, and maybe Commissioner Griffin will have a
better remembrance, again I think that small lots were the other reason that the 50% was put in
and side lots which is valid but I would like to see it written in a different way so we could only
park maybe in the setbacks or the official driveway.
Chair Burt: Michael, I think you had a question or a comment.
Commissioner Griffin: Annette, you are doing such a good job out there. What about restating
the language that you are proposing for limiting the partdng area for these cars?
Ms. Ashton: Staff has done such a beautiful job I am not trying to take that away from them. I
just hesitate to put a percentage in there. I would, myself, ifI were writing it would have a bias
to say let’s park cars in driveways and limit that not to a number of 50% but basically have more
of a limit to either the side setbacks for campers, and I do appreciate that, or else the other side
setback where you would normally park cars. So I would just, and again I do know where the
50% came from and I appreciate, but I’d like to have a softer approach.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is John Abraham to be followed by Lorna Shapiro.
Mr. John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. I would like to
discuss a little bit the casual mechanic who changes plugs and so forth. AS a practical matter I
am one of these people. I myself and I don’t think most people are exactly at wit about what the
Noise Ordinance or Section 18.88 says about fixing a car. We just go out and change the spark
City of Palo Alto Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
plug. I think it needs to be a little bit realistic on this. Unless there is a noise problem or
something comes up people have been doing it, it is done all the time and you run a danger of
being ridiculously over-restrictive by making this thing too detailed. So I would prefer that you
keep it simple.- In particular if you are going to restrict the hours I would ask fornine to nine.
People don’t get up and run out and start the car at 6:00 am in the morning. You don’t need that.
For Heaven’s sake give the neighbors some mercy. As regards the Noise Ordinance I don’t think
it is the same problem. It is so tricky. It is so difficult. To be honest, I think it is beyond the
capability of the City of Palo Alto to regulate car repair noise. It is too varied. You have muffler
problems, which are obvious, and then you have dropped wrenches. You have a wrench dropped
onthe concrete and it takes an expensive meter to catch that. It is a problem that they would
never catch. So you are never going to get anywhere in my opinion by going at this with the
Noise Ordinance. The City just doesn’t have that capability. So if you are going to use the hours
on this again, nine to nine, particularly for emergency work and if you would give some
guidance to the poor policeman. This poor guy is going to come back and do a number on the
attorneys, if anybody. I don’t know how the bad guys are going to do but if you read this thing it
is a nightmare to interpret. Give some guidance as to what constitutes an emergency. I talked to
Mr. Bayer and others and everybody I talk to has a different definition. I would prefer that you
be a little merciful to people with the temporary problems like spark plugs. So if you would
keep that in mind.
On another issue there is a great deal of talk about regulations on people sleeping in vehicles for
no more than 30 days with a permit and so forth. You can make this really complicated if you
want. My opinion is that it is too complicated as it is now. I don’t know that people have any
more awareness of this sort of restriction than they do about the car repair restrictions. It is just
not the kind of thing people would know about. I think it would be helpful to reduce the
restrictions and create problems that don’t exist. So if you can make it a little bit easier to read
and not really too much about noise enforcement I think that would help. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Lorna Shapiro to be followed by Bob Johns.
Ms. Lorna Shapiro, 703 Coastland Drive, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. I hope I understand
this ordinance correctly. Where I ran into difficulties was the hours. I would want to go later
hours and not allow people to start working on their vehicles at six in the morning or as lathe as
ten. That is just too late and that is just too early. I am also concerned because you want to get
cars off the street that neighbors are going to rush and try to place their vehicles in the side of
their yards and in the back of their yards. I have great difficulty with that because what used to
be an area where you could have your food growing gardens all the sudden become swamped by
fumes from cars that are now going to be going into the side yards and the backyards. We are
still using MTBE type of gas on top of that, which you can’t remove from the atmosphere or the
ground. So I think it is a really bad idea to encourage people to take cars off the street and put
them in their side yards and their backyards.
I don’t see any information whether you have setbacks of how close to a fence a vehicle is
allowed tO get, how close to the homes it is allowed to get or if there are water pipes and gas
pipes if there is any setback information of how close a vehicle can get to that. Any setbacks to
how close a vehicle can be to a neighbor’s garage or home. I don’t see any information oh that.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 Some homes are situated where a neighbor actually has less space to the mid-yard fence than the
2 other neighbor who would be p.utting their vehicle right between there. So this opens up a whole
3 new can of worms for the neighbors who don’t have a lot of space between where vehicles
4 would be parked and where the gardens are, where they have ldtchen windows, bedroom
5 windows where they are breathing in these fumes when cars are started or brought back in all
day long.
I am also concerned because my neighbor wants to park his truck between our yards. I don’t see
if there are any restrictions on what kind of vehicles you can park between yards or in the
backyard. It turns out there is not a lot of room between putting a truck in the space he wants to
put it and having the fence fight beside that and his garage and the gas pipes and the water pipe.
On top of that I have a neighbor who already has placed an impermeable cement drive-port
where he plans to put his truck and the yard was flat grassland before he changed this. Now he
has this cement slanted away from his house into the midsection where he plans to put a potential
fence but this area is very close to Our yard, very close to ore? water pipes and our gas pipes. So I
see a problem with that too of runoff from rain and whatever runoff he has from his vehicle
running into this area. It is very close to our home.
I am very concerned about the pollution that this adds to the side and backyard that we are
allowing these fumes into our side and backyards. I am asthmatic and I am getting worse living
in this City. I can see where the neighbor already has plans to place his truck and maybe other
vehicles along the side there. This is not going to be a good situation for me and of course it is a
concern to me of how that will affect my family as well. Thank you very much.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Bob Johns to be followed by Tom Meadows.
Mr. Bob Johns, 764 Clara Drive, Palo Alto: I have lived in Palo Alto since 1955. Everybody in
our neighborhood is always maintained and kept their yards and property up and taken pride in
ownership. It seems like the last several years that things have been going downhill real fast.
We have two houses that have at least eight to ten cars that consist of trucks, pickups, van or -
whatever and they are all junkers.. There is one that has eight or ten and he is the only driver for
the whole household. We seem to be having a problem not only in our n~eighborhood but you go
throughout Palo Alto and you can find lots and lots that are poorly maintained. Our sister cities
of San Jose and Los Altos have recently passed laws to take care of blight. I think we should get
with it and join our sister cities and do something to clean up the blight around Palo Alto and get
things back on track. Thank you very much.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Our final speaker is Tom Meadows.
Mr. Tom Meadows, 775 Ctara Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening. If you look in the package that
was prepared from the last meeting, you can see some dialogue in there that I discussed with you
in the April meeting and was reiterated just now by Mr. Bob Johns. I would like to mention a
few views of my own on emergency repair and storage, etc. Emergency repair, I think people
will take advantage of this and be doing general maintenance work if it is allowed at 6:00 am in
the morning. Quite frankly in my opinion, there is no such thing really as emergency repair
unless it happens out on the highway and you have to have an emergency vehicle come out and
City of Palo Alto Page /
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
, 42
43
44
45
46
accomplish the work. I think much of the work or probably 91% of the work that the home
mechanic does is general repair. Repair should be only to your privately owned vehicles and be
accomplished between the hours of nine to nine. I think 6:00 am toten at night is far to lengthy
of a time to allow vehicle repair. There is much banging around. Also if the police or someone
is called in to monitor all the mechanic has to do is quit banging around until the policeman gets
back in his car and goes around the comer. A vehicle that is being repaired should not be in a
state of repair for more than 72 hours in a seven day. week period. I think if the vehicle is up on
stanchions for three days I think that is perfectly adequate to get that repair accomplished and
finalize it, period. I don’t quite understand what is in the code regarding 72 hours out of 96..
Repairs should not be accomplished out in the streets or on the sidewalks. This is constantly
occurring in our 700 block of Clare Avenue. I listen to an individual across the street that has 12
cars. His mechanic often brings his own clients up to accomplish the work at my neighbor’s
place. Not too long ago he was replacing a door and was banging all afternoon. The car was
straddling the sidewalk and people had to walk around it. I do not think that should be allowed.
Vehicle repairs should not be permitted by a non-resident of the premises or of other people’s
vehicles. What I am saying here is in the case we have across the street the individual brings in
his own mechanics to do the work and then the mechanic, I think it is probably kind of a trade-
off here on dollars and cents, the mechanic then feels free to bring his own clients over and
perform the work on the neighbor’s premises. I feel that if he is going to do that he can go
Downtown into some rental space. I would like to See a comprehensive ordinance to include all
blight similar to the Los Altos ordinance, which was accomplished in four months, draft .form to
passage by the city council. This to me, and this is the Los Alto Ordinance rigtit here, complete
ordinance on blight. We could take an ordinance such as this and if you have a disagreement
with a neighbor and say, look, I have highlighted the items and I disagree that you are violating
the local code. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think and if we can come to terms
then we don’t hav.e to bring in authorities. But if we have a position that neither one of us is
going to vie from then in that case we will have to call in the authorities.
My last point is about storage of vehicles. Vehicle storage or parking along the owner’s
premises should not exceed the width of his driveway, which is approximately three cars
regardless of the adjacent areas of the drive or the hard surface. The situation across thestreet is
that it is a hard surface for approximately 40 feet of approximate a 60 foot.block, therefore, he
feels free to park his cars all over the place. He is still parldng six cars abreast on the premises.
We must keep vehicles off the lawn area and that is my last point. Thank you very much.
Chair Burt: Thank you. We have one additional speaker card and this is the last one, Joy
Ogawa.
Ms. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: I am going to be very brief. It seems from what I
have heard tonight that under this proposed ordinance changing my oil in my driveway would be
a violation. I don’t change my oil myself but I do check my oil level and I also change my
headlamps and other light bulbs when they bum out and I als~ use an air pump to fill the air
pressure in my tires occasionally. Will I be in violation of the ordinance? I just think that it is
poor policy to create an ordinance that is going to be routinely violated by practically everyone
and to be counting on the fact that most of the violations won’t be complained about as
justification for such a broad ordinance. I guess this means that sometimes it is okay to ignore
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
the Municipal Code and sometimes it’s not. Instead I think we should aspire towards a code that
will be respected at all times. I think the ordinance should address the problem and not make
violators of most of the residents of the City who at the whim of a neighbor my or.may not have
a complaint filed against them. Thanks a lot.
Chair Burt: Thank you. That concludes our public comments. At this time we can open up for
Commissioners to ask questions of Staff to be followed by our own discussion and motions.
Lisa, you look like you would like to share something.
Ms. Grote: Thank you. I just want to take a minute to respond, if the Commission would like, to
a couple of the comments that were made. Starting with the last one. This ordinance doesn’t
propose to change whether or not it would be a violation to do minor maintenance such as Pat
was talldng about in your driveway. Currently, the ordinance is written in such a way that you
can only do vehicle maintenance or work in a screened location. Nothing about this ordinance
change or recommended changes would change that provision. So this is not creating additional
violators. If someone, currently changes their oil in their driveway that is currently against the
law. We do not receive many complaints about that. We do not take enforcement actions
against people who do that. Nothing in this proposed set of{ecommendations in front of you
tonight would change that.
Some of the other comments that were made with regard to distances between a parked vehicle
and a house or a parked vehicle and a property line or a parked vehicle and a neighboring house,
none of those issues are addressed either in the existing ordinance or in the recommended
changes. We don’t have setback requirements for non-structures. It has to be a permanent
structure before we would consider a setback requirement. If that is something that the
Commission wanted to discuss at a later date as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update you may
want to consider that. I don’t believe it falls within the realm of what we were trying to address
in these very minimal changes to an existing ordinance.
We did remove the recommended changes for sleeping in cars or the permit requirements needed
to sleep in an RV or a car. So we considered that to be a simplification of what had originally
been brought before you. So the comments made by the speaker who thought that that unduly
complicated the ordinance, we did respond to that by talcing out those recommended changes.
Again, if you want to address it as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update in the series of single
family or low density housing requirements then that would probably be a better place to address
those kinds of concerns.
As far as the regulations for R-1 are concerned and permeable surface versus impermeable
surface, in the R-1 regulations 40% of the front setback can be paved with an impervious surface.
So that is typically a 20-foot driveway plus a four-foot walkway. It might be a 22-foot driveway
and a two-foot walkway but it takes into account that your driveway and your walkway should
probably be impervious so that it can withstand the constant weight of a vehicle and constant
use. In this recommended change for vehicle parking and storage we have said 50% of the front
setback could be used for parldng vehicles, 40% of that could be a permeable surface, the
remaining ten percent would have to be a permeable surface so that you are not inconsistent with
the R-1 regulations. You still have the same amount of pervious and impervious surfaces. What
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
we have said in this recommended change is that you have to park a vehicle on a paved surface,
whether it is permeable or impermeable, it has to be paved. So you cannot park on your front
lawn. You have to park on a paved area. I just hope that clarifies what our intent is at least.
Chair Burr: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I don’t see anything in here that mentions noise at all, am I missing it?
This ordinance doesn’t address noise issues?
Ms. Grote: This ordinance does not address noise.
Commissioner Cassel: So we aren’t adding or subtracting or doing something based on noise,
just on general activity?
Ms. Grote: That is correct.
Mr. Emslie: IfI may add to that, there is a reason for that. It is to simplify and enhance the
enforcement. If it is based on noise the officer must observe the noise and record it. Because the
nature of car repair is very intermittent it is very difficult for our officers to do that. So actually
the suggestion came from the community which we found to be a good one is why not deal with
it on hours and that way the officer can observe the activity during the restricted hours, not have
to record the noise or come back at a time when they are running the sander, they can actually
see it and take action based on a time of day. We thought that was much more direct and a direct
way of enforcing it. So we are addressing it on that basis to enhance the City’s ability to address
this.
Chair Burt: Sounds good. It wouldn’t take a very clever violator to stop rewing his engine
when the police officer is standing there, fight? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Here is a hypothetical. I go to a party. I leave my lights on. I come out
at 2:00 am and my battery is dead. I call AAA and I say can you come and help me. They will
no I can’t because Palo Alto has an ordinance saying I can’t come at two in the morning and do
any repair in this driveway. Is this going to be an unintended consequence of this ordinance?
Ms. Grote: It may not be considered a repair. You could quickly take care of that with a battery
jump. I don’t know that we would consider that necessarily a repair.
Commissioner Packer: What about a flat tire? Anything that can happen, and you are asking a
business who wants to be reputable and comply with the ordinances in the town in which they do
business. I can see a problem here.
Ms. Wvrme Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Lance Bayer in our office is the person who
is in charge Of enforcing ordinances and taking them to the court. I think it would be helpful to
have him explain what he thinks would be classified as a repair by the court.
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
Mr. Lance Bayer, Special Counsel: The purpose of the recommended changes for hours,
Commissioners, is to deal with emergency repairs basically individuals tinkering with their cars,
removing belts or changing belts, taking out a battery and changing a battery. It is not intended
to be the jumpstart for a car to get it started. It is not intended to deal with getting a car tire
working so that the car can be removed from the driveway. It is not intended to deal with those
situations at all. It is somebody who is out there worldng repairing their cars. Emergencyrepair
ideally it is the situation of someone who comes out to go to work in the morning, finds that the
car won’t start and needs tochange a part in the driveway, an alternator, a generator, a battery,
something like that.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: If the ordinance were silent on emergency repairs would it not just be
practicality that would dictate how people would deal with that? For instance the scenarios that
Bonnie raised so we don’t create a situation where business owners who are in that business are
going to be breaking an ordinance.
Mr. Bayer: The existing ordinance allows for emergency repairs in the driveway and the concern
was raised by members of the community that an emergency repair might be something that has
an impact on the neighborhood particularly if it happens more frequently or particularly if it
happens in a way that is particularly noisy like changing a belt or changing a part. The idea was
that those types of emergency repairs to get a car started particularly with older cars where
people typically can work on. the car and take out a carburetor or take out an alternator or a
generator are the sorts of things that would have a significant impact at two in the morning. That
is why the hours between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am seemed to be the most logical for that as
opposed to screened repairs where 10:00 pm through 8:00 am made more sense consistent with
the construction hours.
Chair Burt: Lance, I have a question. I appreciate that the ordinance does not address one way
or another this issue that was brought up by some members of the public and myself and that is
should we be decriminalizing spark plug changes in your driveway in the middle of the day. If
we wanted to include that as part of this ordinance update would there be any problem with that,
to put in language that would allow minor routine maintenance and we could even have a short
description? Wynne?
Ms. Furth: I have an answer, which might be a little bit informed by how this fits into the other
things we are doing. I think one thing that I have learned is that there is no minor code change in
Palo Alto and that each time we bring what we think is a fairly simple thing, an effort to make it
illegal to have your front yard parked with cars property line to property line, incidentally it is
always illegal to have them on the sidewalk, we bring to your attention a big, I think we could
say without being too adventuresome, poorly written section of the code that has a lot of rules in
it that most of us are unfamiliar with and many ofus may think, on Occasion, silly either under-
inclusive or over-inclusive. So from the point of view of managing the City Attorney’s Office to
provide you the services you need we would like to ask you to defer those .issues, even the ones
that seem very simple, to the already scheduled sessions on parldng and cars in the R-1 District.
City of Pal9 Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
¯ 35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Bayer: Right, and Commissioners that echoes my thoughts as well which are that there are
plans for comprehensive reviews of various sections of the zoning code and we would ask that
you defer consideration of that until such time.
Chair Burt: That is fine by me as long we will have an opportunity in the future.
Ms. Furth: We are already in the process, as you lcnow,, of re-drafting all the parking standards
into the format you have adopted as the new format at which point a lot of other things are going
to pop up and require your advice.
Chair Burr: Thank you. Phyllis.
MOTION
Commissioner Cassel: I think I would like to move this item in an effort to keep it going since
what we are really trying to do is something fairly simple. We tcnow there are lots¯of other
aspects of this that we could change in many ways. The only question is this question of
emergency repair and whether we want to drop it or not. If somebody else would like to make an
amendment on you could do that but otherwise I would like to move this item if there is a
second.
Ms. Furth: If you mean by dropping it not changing the hours, just leaving it as it stands, that is
not a problem for Staff.
SECOND
Chair Burt: Do we have a second? For purposes of discussion I will second it.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you, Pat.
Chair Burr: Discussion? Phyllis, do you want to comment on your motion?
Commissioner Cassel: The intent here is to do something fairly simple and not to resolve all the
problems that we have in the single-family residential areas with this issue tonight but rather to
take one that is bothering several parts Of town, not just one that comes and recurs and goes
away, and to try to put some limits on that so that our enforcement people can enforce the
problem of people parking extensively in the front yard and thus giving us no front yard. For me
the question of emergency repair is perhaps overdoing it but if we want it, fine. I happen to be a
person who goes to work at multiple hours. There are 24 hours in the day and in the last couple
of years I have probably started work at all of them. So to say that there is no need to go out to
my front yard and do an emergency repair at six in the morning is just not true. I lmow a lot of
other people that are in the same boat, they start work at six in the morning and they can go out
and find things not there. I am perfectly happy, if other people would like, to take that portion of
it out but I think vce need to move on and proceed and give ourselves this simple enforcement
proceeding and make that available without a whole lot more explanation. I think all the issues
have been raised.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Burt: Do we have other comments? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Phyllis, I am not quite sure what you mean by taking out. What I would
like to see is all the changes that are being proposed to the repair aspect not be made and the only
change that I would support would be the one that has to do with the parking in the setback.
Ms. Furth: Excuse me, could you identify them as sections on Attachment A?
Commissioner Packer:
and D.
Commissioner Cassel:
Commissioner Packer:
The changes in Section 18.88.160, there is the preamble, there is an A
You are rewriting the whole thing then?
No, I am just saying that I would not support those changes but I would
support the changes in Sections H, I, J and K.
Chair Burt: Are you finished saying what you intended?
Commissioner Packer: Yes.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I was trying to get a clarification of which part she is talldng about taking
out. I didn’t understand.
Ms. Furth: I understood her to be saying that in the strikeout format that the only changes that
she would be supporting would be those in paragraphs H, I, J and K all of which are on page
three of Attachment A.
Mr. Bayer:For clarification if I could, Chair Burt, would that also include the introductory .
paragraph changes as well?
Ms. Furth: We would like you to do that.
Commissioner Packer: Yes.
Mr. Bayer: And it would not be difficult to omit the amendments to subsection A and subsection
D, which have to do with hours of emergency repair. Those could simply be deleted in the
recommendation if that is what the Commission wished to do.
Chair Burt: Thank you.
Commissioner Packer: The reason is that we have heard that we may be creating more problems
than necessary and further making it more of a crime to change your spark plugs. However the
aspect of dealing with cars parked in the front setback seems to be a reasonable one.
City of Palo Alto Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Wyune, I think your adage has proven true. I think what the
community is asldng for is some protection, which would mean an inclusion of hours of working
that would be allowed on automobiles. So I would be in favor of Phyllis’s recommendation of
eliminating the language regarding emergency repairs and I would retain the language about
hours in 18.88.160A except I would change the hours to whatever the Commission could agree
on, i.e., eight to eight or nine to eight.
Chair Burt: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Now, as I understand it in this subparagraph A where we aretalking
about the hours of operation, as long as the repairs are undertaken inside of a garage there are no
limits, is that correct?
Mr. Bayer: That is correct and that is existing policy. Service of vehicles is permitted within a
.garage or accessory building and then existing policy is at all hours also within hours screened
from public view.
Commissioner Griffin: Then you say, "or during hours of eight and ten if they are outside in the
yard."
Mr. Bayer: If screened from public view.
Commissioner Griffin: Right. I guess my concern here is that I have done a lot of auto repairs in
my time and one of the nice additions that they have made to the tool kit is an air compressor and
impact wrench, which unfortunately makes a lot of noise as well as getting those lug nuts off
easily, etc. Consequently I would be in favor of limiting the activity within the garage and
putting that on the same level as the limitations on activity outside and thus screened and
otherwise roped off area of the yard.
Chair Burt: I share your concern, Michael. If someone is working on an engine and it is running
or if you are doing sanding, bodywork, you are going to have your garage door wide open. No
one is going to have a garage door closed and work on an operating vehicle. So I guess I would
have a question on had Staff had concerns about whether we should in fact include the garage
within the hours of restriction?
Ms. Furth: We were trying not to make our changes even more elaborate. While you have
introduced interesting issues about newe~ more fun ways to make noise with new and improved
equipment, we haven’t spent a lot of time on this mad I.think this reinforces our feeling that part
of this is a noise issue, noise presents big enforcement problems and yet you also have a concern
which I think is proper, not to make illegal conduct that should be legal. The argument that we
don’t enforce it isn’t a very satisfying argument because who wants to live in a place where
everybody is violating the law. So this is why we did not feel we could address all these issues
now. We didn’t know quite how bad this ordinance was when we first looked at it.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2 Mr. Bayer: Excuse me, if I could also add that we are dealing with community concerns and
3 complaints. In working with the code enforcement officers here in Palo Alto I haven’t
4 experienced any complaints about vehicle repairs inside garages. That hasn’t come up as an
5 issue that we have been asked to address to this point.
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
Chair Burr: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I think we are making this terribly complicated. I am going to go back to
the reasonable person guidelines here. People work all day, they come home, they get the part
they need to do it and they repair their car in the evening. Many people or most people work and
they don’t do their repairs on a schedule. They come home and they repair their Car in the
evening or they get up in the morning and the car doesn’t work and they have to do some small
repairs. Some people can’t do that and they have to call AAA and they get their cars fixed that
way but other people don’t have the money to do that and they do their repairs. A reasonable
person works in the evening. You get home from work at six o’clock and you eat and you go out
in the garage at seven o’clock to do your repairs and then it’s eight o’clock. It isn’t every day.
One doesn’t do it every day. This isn’t an area where we have had a lot of complaints so either
drop this so we don’t keep talking about it or we should just pass it because we need some
reasonable hours on something that we have no complaints about. It’s the other piece that we
need to get passed because that is an. area where we have had complaints and it has existed in
more than one area of town.
Chair Burr: I don’t think either Michael or myself have concern about people Working at.eight or
even ten in the evening. We are talldng about in the middle of the night. I am somewhat
persuaded by Lance saying to date we have not identified this as a problem. I do think it is a
perspective problem but we can await that being identified by the community rather than
necessarily having to act upon it at this time. If this were identified by the community would it
be something we could roll into the ZOU? Okay. So then we still have this issue of essentially
Bonnie’s friendly amendment. Is that correct?
Commissioner Cassel: I think you are going to eliminate more than I would have eliminated.
Are you eliminating all of the hours?
Commissioner Packer: Yes.
Commissioner Cassel: Completely? So you would eliminate between the hours of 8:00 am and
10:00 pm as well?
Commissioner Packer: Yes because it creates the problem for the person who needs to go out
there at 6:00 am. I don’t know what is a good time so I would rather have no times. If there is a
problem let the neighbors talk to each other and work it out.
Commissioner Cassel: Wait a minute. The one between 8:00 am and 10:00 pm are the ones
where they are dealing with longer repairs than emergency repairs. On page one, Attachment A,
paragraph A where it says house, car, boat or similar conveyance except when conducted within
City of Pa lo Alto Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
a garage or accessory building or during the hours of 8:00 am and 10:00 pm when conducted in
areas screened from view. That is not for emergencies. That is for a longer term like you are
repairing a motor. You want that eliminated too?
Commissioner Packer: Yes because I don’t have any evidence that this is really a problem.
Commissioner Cassel: Okay. If that will pass it I will accept it as a friendly amendment.
Chair Burr: Steve, did you want to say something?
Mr. Emslie: The problem is that this is a way to get at someone conducting an illegal business.
It happens, it comes up it is not an isolated incident. It happens all over our community and
other communities. The problem in proving a case Of a person working on cars for commercial
purposes in their Own home, which is clearly illegal, is very difficult. I have done this in other
communities where it is very difficult to connect the registration numbers of vehicles and prove
that they are actually conducting a business. You could be working on this for a friend, I am not
talcing any money. It can be very, very difficult. That is what the essence of this ordinance is to
give a absolute so that it can be enforceable on the recalcitrant business owner in a single-family
district to clarify that they have restrictions on them regardless of the owner of the vehicle and
the relationship to the conductor of the business. So it is really trying to get at a speedier way to
address a problem of running an illegal business, That is what the motivation behind it.
Chair Burt: Steve, can you help clarify for me, I am sure I am just a little dense on this. How
would you perceive Commissioner Packer’s proposed amendment would affect that objective?
Mr. Emslie: Taking out all the hours we are back to what we have now and we would need to
prove that a business owner conducting in a single-family district is actually being engaged in a
commercial activity. So we would have to come up with some other evidence, some bill of sale,
some sort of evidence that commerce is happening, that there is actually an exchange of money
for service in order to prove a business. We wouldn’t be able to enforce on the hours on that
because there would be no reference to hours and we would essentially revert to the existing
code, which would remain in place.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: If somebody is conducting this illegal business and we have this
ordinance in place they will say, okay, I’ll conduct my illegal business between eight and ten just
like it says. I am not going to try and do it before then. So how is that going to help?
Mr. Emslie: It helps at least confine the activity to hours that aren’t so disturbing as in the
evening and early morning. So it allows us to confine the activity. We don’t have that ability
now. We would still pursue the other evidence that would be necessary in order to prove that we
had an illegal business being conducted but we would be able to at least control the activity in
the interim while that case is being developed to at least give neighbors relief and set some
guidelines to the time for the activity to occur. That doesn’t mean we would use this to supplant
our enforcement of the R-1 regulations. Clearly we would pursue that it just takes longer to
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
develop a case and itrequires a higher level of evidence that Lance could really talk to in terms
of prosecuting that case.
Chair Burt: ! would like to say that I am inclined to not support the amendment and while there
are a number of potential unintended consequences that might arise out of this I would like to see
us move forward with this ordinance and then be receptive to input from the community and if
we have to revise the ordinance at a future time to reflect an improvement then revisit it at that
time. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I’ll just try one friendly amendment to that, not to belabor this, I would
like to see the hours restricted to at least eight to eight.
Chair Burt: Michael. Excuse me first since that is a proposed friendly amendment, Phyllis, what
is your receptivity to that?
Commissioner Cassel: No, I think we should leave it as ten.
Chair Burt: So that would need to be proposedas a substitute motion if it was wishing to be
done that way.
Commissioner Cassel: It could be a formal amendment.
Chair Burt: Or formal amendment. I don’t know whether you want to see whether there is any
support.
¯ AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Holman: Sure, I’ll propose it as a formal amendment to change the hours to leave
out the emergence language and change the hours for repairs to eight to eight.
Ms. Furth: I have that down that in Section A on the first page that would become during the
hours of 8:00 am to 8:00 pm and on page two in Section D that whole change would come out
and it would go back to where it is presently.
AMENDMENT FAILS
Chair Burr: Do we have a second? That motion fails for lack of a second.
Commissioner Griffin: Can I try one?
Chair Burt: Yes, your turn.
AMENDED MOTION
City of Palo Alto Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
!9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Griffin: I would like to use the hours of limitation from eight until nine, Karen,
as opposed to eight to eight and I would also like to include the work within the garage as well as
in the yard. So the hourly limitations would apply to both inside and outside work, if you will.
Chair Burr: Do we have a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: I’ll second that. I would appreciate if you would take out the
emergency language.
Chair Bt~rt: So would I. I won’t support it with the emergency language even though
conceptually, as you heard earlier, I am interested in pursuing that. It is something that Staff has
convinced me is more appropriate for us to pursue as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update.
Mr. Bayer: If I could ask for clarification. The language would be except during the hours of
8:00 am and 9:00 pm when conducted within a garage or accessory building or in an area
screened from view, etc.
Commissioner Griffin: And, to accommodate my colleague, Karen Holman, I would also
include the emergency language that you were requesting.
Commissioner Holman: In other words, eliminate the emergency language.
Ms. Furth: Section D which Staff inserted a recommendation to limit the hours, you are
proposing to take that limitation out. Is that correct?
Commissioner Holman: My thought was just to be silent on the emergency because it is a
practical.
Chair Burr: That is interesting Michael, so if a more simple amendment fails, make it more
complicated and maybe it will pass. It is not getting my vote. Other comments? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I will not support Michael’s amendment because We start limiting what
people do inside their garages and we have power saws and all ldnds of stuff. We are just over-
regulating people. We are going crazy here.
Chair Burt: I won’t support it not because I don’t think it is something that we should pursue in
the future but I don’t think it has been adequately vetted and Staff has convinced me that it is
more appropriate to look at it as a follow up in the Zoning Ordinance Update. Any other
comments?
Ms. Furth: You are voting now on Michael’s amendment which is to limit the hours in Section
A for both inside and outside work from eight until nine, eliminating change in the hours of
emergency repairs. The new changes in the emergency repair hours.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
MOTION FAILS
Chair Burt: Did that cover it all?
All those in favor? (ayes) Commissioners Griffin and Holman in favor. All those opposed?
(nays) That motion fails with Commissioners Cassel, Packer and Burt opposing. .
Do we have a simpler amendment that we might have? Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I think I am very amenable to a friendly amendment that just eliminates
the extra lines in D. Just eliminate the extra time in D and keep all the additions that the Staff
put in there except under D the additional words, "except that no person shall perform
emergency repairs of any conveyance listed in Subsection A between the hours of 10:00 pm and
6:00 am." I thinkthat will pass.
Ms. Furth: Again from my point of view that would be accepting Attachment A as presented
with the exception of Section D and would be as it presently exists in the code.
Chair Burt: Lance.
Mr. Bayer: I just wanted to clarify the same thing that Wynne mentioned that that’s how it
would be worded.
SECOND
Chair Burt: Do I have a second?
I will second that.
Any other discussion?
MOTION PASSED
All those in favor? (ayes) We have Commissioners Cassel, Packer and Burt in favor. All those
opposed? (nays) Commissioners Griffin and Holman opposed. That passes three to two.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Betten, Zariah . ATTACHMENT. D
From:Grote, Lisa
Sent:.Monday, July 29, 2002 9:07 AM
To:Betten, Zariah
Subject:FW: Car Repair
Please folwvard this email to the commissioners. Thanks.
.....Original Message .....
From: lchiapella@juno.com [mailto:lchiapella@j uno.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 1:38 AM
To: Lisa_Grote@city.Palo-Alto.ca.usCc: Steve_Emslie@city.Palo-Alto.ca.us;
city_council@city.Palo-Alto.ca.us; sukiroo@hotmaiLcom;
annetteglanckopf@postoffice.worldnet.att.net; dmytels@batnet.com;
ron.wolf@keynote.com; Sgartner@ix.netcom.com; sheri11@earthlink.net;
stepheny@earthlink.net
Subject: Car Repair
Dear Ms. Grote:
I am opposed to a general allowance of car repair starting as early as 6
A.M. in residential neighborhoods. Emergencies may occasionally come up
and can clearly be excepted from the impending ordinance, as has always
been the case.
However, some residents have a small side business fixing cars at their
residence. The City has not been able to EFFECTIVELY regulate these
businesses~ Allo~ving these de facto businesses to operate starting at 6
A.M. and as late as 10 P.M. with City blessing is unconscionable.
Perhaps you are unaware of how noisy and polluting car repair is and how
difficult it is for police to enforce a noise complaint related to late
night and early morning noise. I would liken car repair to leaf blowing
in it’s generation of noise and pollution especially after hours when the
ambient noise level is relatively low.
These after hours businesses should not intrude on the neighbors,
especially when there is no one in the Enforcement Division on duty
during those hours.
Please fo~wvard this e-mail to the Planning Commission. I do not have an
e-mail address for them.
Thank you,
Lynn Chiapella
631 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306