HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-21 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 21, 1996 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................80-330 1. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill, Inc. for Engineering Design Services for Barron Park Storm Drain Improvements and Storm Drain System Rehabilitation - Phase II............................................80-330 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill, Inc. for Turnkey (Design/Build) Services to Provide Two Biofilters for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant..............80-330 3. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Salas
O=Brien Engineers, Inc. for Design Services to Replace the Civic Center Chiller..................................80-330
4. Resolution 7626 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting Proposition 204, the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act of 1996"....................80-330
5. Resolution 7627 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 7531, 7567, 7578, 7600, and 7616"......................................................80-330 5A. Rejection of September 27, 1996, Demand for Correction of Alleged Brown Act Violations in Connection with Historic Preservation Urgency Ordinances.......................80-331
6. Ordinance 4380 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Additional Exceptions to a Morato-rium on Certain Development and Demolition of Older Resi-dences, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect
Immediately≅ (continued from 10/15/96) ................80-331 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application for tentative subdivision map approval to remove eight existing lot lines and adjust one existing lot line to convert 11 lots into three lots for the purpose of construct-ing additions to an existing religious facility for property
10/21/96 80-328
located at 2171 El Camino Real and 448-456 College Avenue (Ananda Church).......................................80-339 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an Ordinance Amending Section 18.90.055 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to allow Home Improvement Exceptions for Tree Protection.......................................80-344 9. Consideration of Initiation of a Single-Story Overlay - Designation for Tract 795 (Charleston Meadows)........80-344 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........80-346 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.............80-346
10/21/96 80-329
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:18 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding responsibil-ity. T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding parking lots. Michael Wollenweber, no address, spoke regarding wood salvage. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 5A. 1. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill, Inc. for Engineering Design Services for Barron Park Storm Drain Improvements and Storm Drain System Rehabilitation - Phase II; change orders not to exceed $38,500. 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill, Inc. for Turnkey (Design/Build) Services to Provide Two Biofilters for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; change orders not to exceed $15,000. 3. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Salas
O=Brien Engineers, Inc. for Design Services to Replace the Civic Center Chiller; change orders not to exceed $8,000.
4. Resolution 7626 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting Proposition 204, the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act of 1996"
5. Resolution 7627 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 7531, 7567, 7578, 7600, and 7616"
Resolution 7628 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 7532"
10/21/96 80-330
Resolution 7629 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1701 of the Merit System
Rules and Regulations≅
Ordinance 4379 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Salary and Benefit Increases Retroactive to July 1, 1996 for Management and
Confidential Employees and to Amend the Table of Organization≅ 5A. Rejection of September 27, 1996, Demand for Correction of Alleged Brown Act Violations in Connection with Historic Preservation Urgency Ordinances MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6. Ordinance 4380 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Additional Exceptions to a Morato-rium on Certain Development and Demolition of Older Resi-dences, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect
Immediately≅ (continued from 10/15/96) City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the revised Ordinance (Version C) tried to respond to previous concerns expressed about allowing an exemption for those currently listed properties which were also under a moratorium under the existing ordinances. Staff was unable to provide a factual basis for distinguishing among the three different properties by address. He proposed a process that offered a limited discretionary review of those existing listed properties. The difference between the review that was proposed in the highlighted language in the staff report dated October 17,1996, and what the properties would go through without an exemption was that the Compatibility Review Standards were the short form ministerial regulations that were to be applied by staff to contributing structures replacements. Staff proposed to combine those standards with a discretionary review by the Historic Resources Board (HRB). If the properties were not given special treatment by the Ordinance, the properties would be subject to
review under the U.S. Secretary of the Interior=s Standards for Rehabilitation. It was a considerably more liberal standard than what the properties would be subject to otherwise. Historic Resources Board Member Caroline Willis said the HRB believed the proposal was an appropriate approach, and the applicants had indicated their willingness to work with the HRB. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Section IV: Recommended Practices and Requirements for Designing a Compatible Replacement Home, of Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:436:96), and the
10/21/96 80-331
statement, ΑThe purpose of the Compatibility Review Standards is to guide construction of a new residential structure or a substantial
alteration to a pre-1940 residential structure...,≅ and he asked whether the intent of the statement was that if there were some difficulty between the applicant and the HRB, the applicant would still be entitled to demolish the house if the new house were built according to the compatibility guidelines. Mr. Calonne said yes. An applicant would be able to demolish as long as the replacement structure met the Compatibility Review Standards. Council Member Kniss asked about the outcome of the three houses that the standards would address. Mr. Calonne understood the College Terrace property was the most deteriorated, and staff had had limited contact with the owner regarding the structure. The property would be subject to compatibility review if a replacement were built and that was minimum protection the City would have should the property be demolished. He understood the applicants for the other two properties were working with the HRB. The Compatibility Review Standards were easily applied and were a relatively minimal set of criteria designed to assure that the property was built to good quality standards and generally consistent with the neighborhood style. He clarified the approach would not protect those struc-tures from demolition but would facilitate the HRB working with the owners and would not subject the owners to the more stringent U.S.
Secretary of Interior=s Standards that would be the case otherwise. Council Member Kniss asked how it would be substantially different
from the Council=s previous discussion. Mr. Calonne said it was different than what would happen without the exemption in that the Compatibility Review Standards would be substantially easier to meet or less restrictive than the U.S.
Secretary of Interior=s Standards. Council Member Kniss asked whether the time line was different from any other that a property would be subject to. Mr. Calonne said the historic evaluation would not need to be done, and the HRB indicated it would be willing to conduct special meetings to facilitate the timely review of the properties. Ms. Willis said a six-month moratorium was granted to the Kingsley and the Lowell Avenue properties because the owners expressed a willingness to work with the HRB. She recently spoke to one of the owners who was very concerned about being subject to something that he/she did not understand. She believed the process would be simple and unrestrained. She recognized that Council Member Kniss
10/21/96 80-332
was concerned about the College Terrace property; but there was a
requirement that the applicant accommodate the HRB=s requirements so that if the HRB indicated the plans were not consistent with the guidelines, there would be some control for an uncooperative applicant. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the worst-case scenario under Version C would be that older homes would be demolished and a future unclear compatibility standard would apply to them. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The Compatibility Review Standards would be recommended for final Council approval at the City Council meeting on October 28, 1996. Vice Mayor Huber clarified that would be the worst-case scenario under Version C. Mr. Calonne said yes. Ms. Willis said in the process of restoring the properties, the properties might go far enough to be considered demolitions. For example, the Lowell Avenue property had been built in segments. There was the historic part and the additions which would have to be demolished, so it would technically be a demolition. Hopefully, the historic part of the house could be saved. The Kingsley Avenue property had also been seriously modified, and there was some concern that it would fall in the 50 percent category. The definition for demolition was fairly strict and the homes would technically be demolitions. Leslie Murphy-Chutorian, 151 Lowell Avenue, asked again for the Council to consider an exemption of her property from the morato-rium. She reiterated her comments from the October 15, 1996, City Council meeting. She said at that meeting, it was clear that the
Council=s intent was to exempt her property from the new moratorium and the interim rules; but the vote was continued only because of
the City Attorney=s unwillingness to separate her property from a College Terrace property, the owner of which was not being cooperative. However, the Council proposed new language to the exception, and she would be subject to new rules of Section 3 which had not yet been agreed upon and instituted by an organization that
had not been established. The action would reverse the Council=s commitment to her, and her project would be back to square one a week before the six-month moratorium expired which would cause substantial hardship. She reminded the Council that it unanimously voted three months previously to permit the moratorium on her house to expire the following week, and she had worked diligently to follow all of the rules of the process. She wanted her house to look historic and fit into the neighborhood, but it was inconsis-tent and grossly unfair for the Council to subject her to the ordinance after the HRB and the Council had already acted.
10/21/96 80-333
Joe Bedell, 226 Lowell Avenue, planned to help Ms. Murphy-Chutorian restore her home, and he felt the problem with the property was technical. If the properties presently subject to a moratorium were thought of as potential exemptions on September 24, 1996, they probably would have been exempted. He understood the properties were inadvertently omitted. If on October 15, 1996, the City Attorney had been able to separate the Lowell Avenue property from the College Terrace property, it would have also been exempted. There was a new idea because a way had not been found to separate the properties which was unfair to the property owner. He believed the City Attorney was misled previously that the College Terrace property was a Category 1 historic property which would make it separate from the Lowell Avenue property and could be treated separately in a way that the City Attorney would approve. He was recently told that was not true, but Ms. Willis assured him that the house was a Category 1 and could be separated. If the Council agreed that Ms. Murphy-Chutorian should be able to proceed based on
the Council=s previous actions and her good faith efforts to build a compatible house, then the Council should make every effort to find a way to separate the properties. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, believed that Version C would be preferable to the other two versions since the intent of the moratorium and the new regulations was to provide some design review with some specific requirements, refer older homes to the HRB for evaluation and approval, and that the replacement homes to go through a similar review. He said the design review category and standards for Section 3 did not currently exist in the Ordinance. He suggested that those standards be established on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis rather than on an age basis because the pecularities of a particular area needed to be considered and what would and would not be compatible in the area rather than a general description. There had been interest in extending the design review to all new homes, demolitions, and replacements, and the Barron Park Association passed a recent resolution that asked that it be adopted. It was important that there be a basic principle of design review for single-family homes. Ms. Willis clarified that the College Terrace property was a Category 1 property, but the Council needed to consider that the Kingsley house was also in Professorville and would also be considered a Category 1; so the only house that would meet the other criteria would be the Lowell Avenue property which was a Category 2. Ms. Mario had indicated she believed the buildings would be exempt, not that they should be exempt. She was certain that that was not her current feelings. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to adopt the Ordinance (Version C).
10/21/96 80-334
Vice Mayor Huber said the Council=s discussion had been about two or three pieces of property and people who had treated their properties differently. He believed the Council had to make decisions based on what the property was. All three properties were in the categories that needed to be treated the same. While he tended to lean toward applying the entire Ordinance on all three properties to save the houses, he believed there had been reason-
able efforts made to accommodate the Council=s previous ruling and he would support the compromise solution for the three properties. Council Member Rosenbaum said it was clear that Ms. Murphy-Chutorian was quite concerned over a change in what she had anticipated in that the moratorium on her house would expire in eight days. He asked whether the HRB would reach some resolution in eight days and whether Ms. Murphy-Chutorian had any reason for concern. Ms. Willis understood the plans were not ready to be submitted to the HRB. She was confused why the applicant was so concerned about the review by the HRB which would be helpful and sympathetic rather than threatening. She could not imagine anything would happen in eight days. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified if Ms. Murphy-Chutorian decided in eight days to demolish the house, it would be allowed subject to the Compatibility Review Standards. Mr. Calonne said that was correct but with the exception that the HRB would apply the guidelines rather than the guidelines being applied in a ministerial fashion by staff. Council Member McCown said the Council was previously presented with Version B which would allow the properties after the comple-tion of the moratorium period to move forward under the old rules. There was no action on that issue because there was a concern that one of three properties had not participated in the HRB process in the way the Council had hoped people would. Staff had demonstrated between the previous week and the current week that there was no basis to distinguish between the three properties. She believed it would be fairer to allow the applicants to finish the process under the old rules because they were already in that process rather than use the new version which created a hybrid where the process would have to be finished under a portion of the new rules yet to be adopted, i.e., design review of the replacement structure. She did not believe it was fair for those properties to go through a new design review step that was being invented when the Council had allowed many other pre-1940 houses that were not on the list and had properly submitted permits to be exempted. She believed it was a fairer result to exempt those properties from the moratorium once they completed the period of the existing moratoriums. The College Terrace property would be subject to its existing moratorium until
July 1997. She believed the City Attorney=s previous advice was
10/21/96 80-335
correct that the Council could not distinguish the three proper-ties. The City Attorney presented another proposal that tried to deal with one of three properties but she did not believe it was the better result. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Ordinance (Version B) as proposed. Council Member Kniss did not believe the three properties should be caught in the cross fire. She was enormously troubled about the College Terrace property which might not be economically viable to save. She would reluctantly support the motion. She would have preferred a compromise to deal with the issue. Council Member Fazzino had also struggled with the issue, but he believed Version B was the right direction to go. He was heartsick at the possibility of losing the home in College Terrace, and it had guided much of his thinking over the previous week. He applauded the work that the City Attorney had done to try to effect a compromise which would save that home and at the same time protect the individuals who had submitted themselves to the current process and had acted in good faith. He was disturbed by the prospect of forcing those individuals to go through another process. He had tremendous respect for the HRB and believed the individuals would be treated fairly. If other people in the community had operated in a good faith manner, the Council might not have had to deal with a set of difficult issues over how to treat pre-1940 homes. He believed the Lowell and Kingsley Avenue property owners should be treated fairly and not be forced to go through the process again because they had acted in good faith. Hopefully, staff would work diligently over the next few months to identify other alternatives to preserve the College Terrace home. He would support Version B. Council Member Schneider was convinced that Version B was the better of the three alternatives. She said the Council and the staff had worked diligently to save a small house in College Terrace and hopefully that work would not go unnoticed by the owners of that house or the residents in College Terrace. That effort showed that the Council, HRB, staff, and community truly cared about those houses. Council Member Andersen would support the substitute motion. He hoped the product from the process would be one that the neighbor-hood would be comfortable with. Mayor Wheeler would oppose the substitute motion. She was uneasy about Version C, but she did not prefer Version B either. The three houses were known historic structures that were rated in the
City=s highest categories, and one house was in a residential historic district. The houses were not similar to the other homes that the Council had exempted earlier in the process out of the new regulations. Staff reported to the Council that it had examined
10/21/96 80-336
the homes that were earlier exempted, which she had also done, and the pre-1940 homes were not on the historic inventory; and in
staff=s judgment, which she would corroborate, the homes would not likely ever be on the historic inventory even if they went through a process. She was unhappy about taking homes that the Council
already knew were judged to be in the City=s highest historic categories and totally exempting them from any kind of review. The
City Attorney=s work and suggestion put the Council in a much better place. She knew from previous experience on the Planning Commission that applications for variances, etc., were judged by the situation at the time and what seemed to be a very sympathetic level, but the Council was impacted by what happened when the City lost control of the process. She wanted to retain control of the process for the three landmark homes. Mr. Calonne clarified that the motion was cast as an urgency ordinance and would take eight votes of the Council to pass. If a majority of the Council wanted Version B as proposed in the substitute motion, it would not make a difference to enact that by regular ordinance and introduce it for a first reading because the moratoria would expire and the properties would be free to move forward anyway. If the Council got a simple majority and wanted to move forward, he suggested that part 2 of Section 2 be severed from Version B so that rest of the ordinance could be enacted by an urgency action and the Council could introduce for first reading the highlighted portion on Version B. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Council could ask in good faith that Ms. Murphy-Chutorian cooperate with the HRB as the process moved forward. Mr. Calonne said the Council had a good faith statement that Ms. Murphy-Chutorian wanted to work with the HRB, but it was not enforceable. Council Member Kniss clarified the Council had to believe that Ms. Murphy-Chutorian would go forth in good faith with the HRB. She asked whether Ms. Murphy-Chutorian would be willing to accept input from the members of the HRB as the process moved forward. Ms. Murphy-Chutorian said yes. She was working with an architect that was a member of the HRB. Council Member McCown said the reason the homes were different was that the issues that prompted the general moratorium were not Categories 1 and 2 properties that were going through the process. It was not those properties that prompted the concern. It was properties that were not on the inventory that were being demol-ished. There might have been other situations where properties that went through the HRB process were demolished in ways the HRB and others were not happy with, but on balance, the issue that prompted the moratorium had not revolved around properties that
10/21/96 80-337
were already Category 1 or 2 structures that people were proceeding through the HRB process. It had the other pre-1940 structures that were not subject to the HRB process. She did not believe it was unfair to indicate that people who were proceeding with the City processes, including the HRB process, before the Council decided to enact the moratorium should be exempted from it. If the Council had acted two weeks later, the Lowell Avenue property would have already completed the process. She did not believe the Council was creating an unfair exemption with the Version B approach. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 2-6, Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, McCown,
Rosenbaum, Schneider Αyes,≅ Simitian absent. MAIN MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER. MOTION: Council Member McCown, moved, seconded by Huber, to adopt
Ordinance (Version B), including SECTION 2.(1), ΑAny development project for which a complete application for a demolition permit
has been received and filed on or before September 17, 1996,≅ as an urgency ordinance. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to introduce an ordinance which includes the language from Version B,
SECTION 2.(2), ΑAny residence which is currently under a demolition moratorium under the authority of Chapter 16.49 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code,≅ for 1st Reading.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing an Historic Demolition
Moratorium Exception for Residences on the City=s Historic Inventory Which Are Currently Subject to a Moratorium under
Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code≅ MOTION PASSED 6-2, Huber, Wheeler Αno,≅ Simitian absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application for tentative subdivision map approval to remove eight existing lot lines and adjust one existing lot line to convert 11 lots into three lots for the purpose of construct-ing additions to an existing religious facility for property located at 2171 El Camino Real and 448-456 College Avenue (Ananda Church). Senior Planner Joseph Colonna said the application before the Council that evening was a tentative subdivision map to remove and adjust existing lot lines to convert 11 lots into 3 lots. The
10/21/96 80-338
proposed subdivision had been submitted to comply with the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit variance and Architectural Review Board (ARB) applications for construction of a new building and other site modifications to an existing religious facility. The Zoning Administrator approved the conditional use permit and variance on February 26, 1996, and the ARB approved the design of the proposed site improvements on July 5, 1996. The site plan and elevations of the new building had been provided for review. In order to construct the proposed additions, the applicant proposed to demolish the existing single-family house located at 448 College Avenue. The house was constructed prior to 1940 but was specifically exempted by the Council from the provisions of the current demolition moratorium. The Council exempted projects that had received discretionary approval from the City prior to September 13, 1996, in which all additional discre-tionary approvals were done at the Council level. The proposed development project had received approval from the Zoning Adminis-trator and the ARB prior to that date, and the Council had decision-making authority over the proposed tentative map. On September 25, 1996, the Planning Commission (the Commission) reviewed the tentative subdivision map and recommended approval. The Commission directed staff to determine if Condition No. 1 could be modified or eliminated with respect to requirement for improve-ment plans. Staff had modified Condition No. 1 to require the submittal of improvement plans prior to issuance of a building permit. Previously, it was required prior to submittal of the final map. Planning Commissioner Sandy Eakins said the Commission voted to approve the removal of the underlying lot lines which was standard procedure before a new project moved forward. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. George Wasley, Jr., land use consultant for the Ananda Church, 10936 Lovas Court, Grass Valley, said he had reviewed the condi-tions and the revised Condition No. 1 and the applicant was in agreement with those conditions. David Praver, Director, Ananda Church, 2171 El Camino Real, was present that evening to answer any questions from the Council. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the tentative subdivision map based on the findings and subject to the conditions as follows: Attachment 1 - Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, in that the project
10/21/96 80-339
complies with the Transportation Element Policies 2 and 6 and Programs 22 and 38. The church is located close to major bus lines on El Camino Real and the California Avenue CalTrain station. The project has been conditioned to require the church to develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management Program, to explain and encourage the parish to use alternative means of transportation to and from the site. In addition, the project complies with Transportation Policy 6, because the majority of uses on the site occur at off-peak hours and during the weekend. The project also complies with the Urban Design Element, Policy 6a, because it is a remodel and upgrade of an existing church facility located on College Avenue, which is a transitional area between the California-Cambridge commercial district and the Evergreen Park single-family residential district to the north. The church facility contributes to the pedestrian-friendly frontage along College Avenue because the proposed improvements incorporate architec-tural character that will compliment existing buildings and improvements on site and utilizes high quality materials. Additionally, new street trees are proposed to be planted along the College Avenue public sidewalk. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed lot configuration accommodates remodeling and upgrade of the existing church and other site modifications which meet the Architectural Review Board Standards for Review and is a required condition of approval for the use permit, variance and ARB permit. 3. The design of the new lot pattern and building additions will not cause significant environmental impacts, in that with the implementation of the Transportation Demand Management Program and maximum congregation size as required by the conditional use permit, the new parking demand will not exceed the existing parking demand on the site, as documented in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed development will not result in serious public health problems in that all necessary public services, including public utilities and access to a public street, are available and will be provided. 5. The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public easements for access through the use of the property in that all three resulting lots have direct access to a public street, and the required cross-access easements will assure continued access to the parking lot and driveways for the life of the use. Modified Conditions of Tentative Subdivision Map (Modifications in Italics)
10/21/96 80-340
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF A FINAL MAP 1. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. The purpose of the meeting is to review all conditions of approval and to discuss the standards for design of all off-site improvements including the street and all required utilities. Improvement plans reflecting the required off-site improvements and utilities shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Improvement plans shall include the following: a) The plans must show the size and location of all under-
ground utilities within the development and the public right-of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts and any other required utilities (per ARB condition 19).
b) Street trees shall be required in 15-gallon boxes evenly-spaced at minimum 25-foot intervals along the project frontage. Species shall be determined by the City Arborist. All street trees along the property frontage shall be irrigated and maintained by the property owner
(per ARB condition 23). c) The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations which show that the off-site and on-site water and sanitary sewer mains will provide the domestic water,
fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak load. Field testing may be required to determine current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil
engineer (per ARB condition 24). d) The applicant's engineer shall submit a complete sewer system capacity study to determine that the on-site and off-site sewer mains have the capacity to accommodate the
sewer flows from the proposed development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil engineer (per ARB condition 25).
e) Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection (per ARB condition 26).
10/21/96 80-341
f) A new gas service line installation is required to
furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project (per ARB condition 31). g) All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public
Works approved standards (Sec. 12.08.010) (per ARB condition 45). h) The unused driveway shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter (Sec. 12.08.090) (per ARB condition 46).
I) A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at the corner of El Camino Real and College Avenue (per ARB condition 48). PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP 2. The final map shall be filed with the Planning Division within four years of the approval of the tentative subdivision map. 3. The current ownership pattern of the subject site is not consistent with the resulting parcel configuration. Accord-ingly, prior to approval of the final map the subdivider must demonstrate to the Planning Division and City Attorney that satisfactory arrangements have been made to transfer property ownership to be consistent with the new parcel configuration. 4. Prior to application for a final map, the subdivider shall submit a declaration of easement, or other document acceptable to the City Attorney, which provides for mutual access to all parking facilities and driveways on the resulting parcels for the term of the proposed use. This document shall be recorded with the final map. This condition shall satisfy condition 4 of Conditional Use Permit 95-UP-63 and Variance 95-V-19. The required easement shall be shown on the face of the recorded final map. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an Ordinance Amending Section 18.90.055 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to allow Home Improvement Exceptions for Tree Protection City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Ordinance was the follow-up to
the Council=s request that the City have some incentive for tree preservation. The Ordinance added a simple clause that allowed protected trees to be a basis for Home Improvement Exceptions. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak. She declared the Public Hearing closed 10/21/96 80-342
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to introduce the Ordinance.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.90.055 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow Home Improvement Exceptions
for Tree Protection≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 9. Consideration of Initiation of a Single-Story Overlay - Designation for Tract 795 (Charleston Meadows) Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said before the Council that evening was the third request to initiate a neighborhood specific single-story overlay district. The Council adopted some standards for evaluating whether or not to initiate the requests from various neighbors in the community, and the proposal met those guidelines; staff recommended that the Council initiate the request for the zone change. The map provided to the Council was not clear about the boundaries of the zone designation being requested, and she provided an overhead that helped define the boundaries. Mayor Wheeler explained that the proposal was similar to a preliminary review on a project, and the Council had the authority to stop any further action on the item. However, if the Council moved the item forward to the Planning Commission, it would indicate to the proposers that the Council was interested in hearing more about the proposal and receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission would not imply that the Council approved putting a single-story overlay zone on the Charleston Meadows area. Council Member Andersen asked whether all the 96 property owners were included in the survey. Ms. Lytle said yes. Jean Olmstead, 240 West Charleston Avenue, said some of the neighbors were concerned about the issue but had enjoyed the moratorium discussion about neighborhood compatibility. Mayor Wheeler asked why some of the houses were excluded. Ms. Olmstead said some of the properties were excluded because the owners did not want to sell their property to Mr. Eichler when he bought the rest of the property, and the properties were not covered by a deed restriction.
10/21/96 80-343
Steve Jeske, 300 West Charleston Avenue, echoed the comment that there had been a lot of previous discussion about the inappropriate development which had been happening in the City. The neighborhood wanted the Council to apply the single-story zone overlay to the tract to maintain the compatible development that had been in
process de facto for the 40-plus years since the tract=s existence. A single-story deed restriction excluded an area in Tract 795, and he asked the Council to consider asking the Planning Commission to include that area because he did not want second-story houses on those properties either. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to initiate and refer to the Planning Commission consideration of a single-story overlay zone for the R-1 single-family area shown on the map (Attachment 1 to the staff report CMR:430:96). City initiation of the zone change would result in no City fees being charged MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler announced that the Palo Alto Housing Corporation Alma Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Ground Breaking Ceremony was scheduled for Wednesday, October 23, 1996, at 8:30 a.m. at the site. She reminded the Council of its meeting on October 23, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. with the Council Appointed Officers. Council Member McCown said she would be presiding at the State of the Train Address on Saturday, October 26, 1996, in San Francisco. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/21/96 80-344
10/21/96 80-345