HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-15 City Council Summary Minutes
09/15/97 −261
Regular Meeting
September 15, 1997
1. Announcement of 13-Member Working Group for Palo Alto Medical
Foundation/South of Forest Area (PAMF/SOFA)...........84-263
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................84-264
APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................84-264
2. Approval of Amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related
to Contracts and Purchasing Procedures - Refer to Finance
Committee.............................................84-264
3. Ordinance 4446 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98
to Accept State of California 9-1-1 Program Funding”..84-264
4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Gachina Landscape
Management and Four Seasons Landscape Maintenance, Inc. for
Landscape Maintenance.................................84-265
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................84-265
5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board to
approve a proposal for a trash/recycling enclosure for the
Creekside Inn located at 3400 El Camino Real (continued from
6/9/97)...............................................84-265
5A. (Old Item 7) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will
consider a request from property owners of Tract 840 for
consideration of single-story overlay zoning for the Charleston
Meadows 2 Neighborhood................................84-265
5B. (Old Item 9) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will
consider a Site and Design application for a 4,209 square-foot,
2-story, single-family dwelling with a 588 square-foot, below
grade 2-car garage, 380 square-foot, detached 1-car garage,
544 square-foot cabana, in ground swimming pool, fountains,
09/15/97 −262
series of terraces and various site improvements for property
located at 3230 Alexis Drive..........................84-266
6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of
the Zoning Administrator’s decision of a conditional use permit
for the operation of a private outdoor recreation service
(tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road
on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center
including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis
courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and
construction of one additional court and a park area, including
restroom facilities, in a PF Zone District (continued from
8/11/97)..............................................84-273
8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to
designate a pre-1940 residence located at 1078 Forest Avenue
as a “Landmark Historic Residence” pursuant to Chapter 16.50
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.......................84-286
10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........84-299
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:53 p.m. in recognition of
Rick Kniss’s birthday.................................84-299
09/15/97 −263
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:15 p.m.),
Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:55 p.m.), McCown,
Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler
1. Announcement of 13-Member Working Group for Palo Alto Medical
Foundation/South of Forest Area (PAMF/SOFA)
Mayor Huber did not participate because of possible conflict of
interest.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said he attempted to determine whether
or not Mayor Huber had a conflict of interest because of home
ownership within a few hundred feet of the PAMF/SOFA study area,
but there whether a conflict of interest existed had not been
concluded.
Vice Mayor Andersen said he was given the opportunity to appoint
the PAMF/SOFA Working Group, as directed by the Council. Over 40
outstanding applications were received. He, along with Council
Members Gary Fazzino and Lanie Wheeler, reviewed the applications.
He defined the term “alternate” as those selected who might attend
meetings, but would not participate unless the Working Group members
they were alternates to were unavailable. The alternate could also
attend any orientation meetings and could confer with other members
of the Working Group. The selected applicants were:
Open Space/Environment: Richard Rathbun, Alternate - Patrick Burt
Transportation: Karen Douglas, Alternate - Patrick Siegman
Urban Design: Steven Pierce, Alternate - Elsbeth Newfield
Community Facilities/Childcare: Margaret Toor
Citywide Historic: Karen Homan
Sub-Regional Housing: Susan Russell
SOFA Business Owner: Charles “Chop” Keenan, Larry Hassett
Citywide Housing: Marlene Prendergast
Citywide Business: Dave Ross
Renters: G. Russell Poore, Alternate - Marilyn Calabrese
Homeowners: Judith Kemper, Sarah Cane
He said the Palo Alto Medical Foundation would be requested to appoint
one member and one alternate.
Council Member Wheeler said she the Working Group list showed 13
names but the PAMF member was not included, so there were actually
14 regular members. The ordinance specified that the number on
09/15/97 −264
the Working Group would be 13. It was suggested that when the
ordinance returned to the Council for second reading, that the number
be amended from 13 to 14.
Vice Mayor Andersen said at that point the Council would direct the
City Attorney to allow that flexibility and hopefully vote on it
in the affirmative when it came back to the Council.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
he recently purchased a residence in the Downtown area and, pending
clarification by the City Attorney’s office as to a conflict of
interest on the PAMF/SOFA area plan, resolution of the issue would
occur within the next few months.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding enforcement
of conditions and enforcement of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by McCown, to
approve the Minutes of July 7, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent.
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by McCown, to
approve the Minutes of July 14, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Council Member
Rosenbaum, approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-4.
2. Approval of Amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related
to Contracts and Purchasing Procedures - Refer to Finance
Committee
3. Ordinance 4446 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98
to Accept State of California 9-1-1 Program Funding”
4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Gachina Landscape
Management and Four Seasons Landscape Maintenance, Inc. for
Landscape Maintenance
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent.
09/15/97 −265
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to move Items
No. 7 and 9 forward to become Items No. 5A and 5B.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board to
approve a proposal for a trash/recycling enclosure for the
Creekside Inn located at 3400 El Camino Real (continued from
6/9/97)
Item removed because application was withdrawn.
5A. (Old Item 7) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will
consider a request from property owners of Tract 840 for
consideration of single-story overlay zoning for the Charleston
Meadows 2 Neighborhood
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
Phyllis Klein, 4264 Newberry Court, Tract 840 Charleston Meadows
2 Property Owners Coordinator, thanked the City Council for their
consideration of a single-story overlay zoning for Tract 840 and
also the Planning Commission for its recommendations of approval
for the project. The overwhelming majority of 79 percent, 48 out
of 61, of Tract 840 property owners supported the request for a
single-story overlay zone. Of the 13 who did not request the zoning,
four gave negative responses, three were undecided, four did not
respond, one did not want to be involved, and one wanted to build
a two-story house. Her goal in making the request was to keep the
neighborhood one in which houses were architecturally compatible
and affordable to those of moderate income. There was a single-story
retention deed on file at Santa Clara County Courthouse since 1951
when Joseph Eichler developed the tract. There was precedent for
approval by City Council for single-story overlay zoning in Walnut
Grove in 1942, Green Meadows in 1993, and Tract 795 Charleston Meadows
1 in January 1997. She believed all the guidelines required for
the zoning, as shown in the comprehensive report from the Planning
Department staff, had been met. She read the report and supported
the conclusions and recommendations.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed.
09/15/97 −266
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve
the Planning Commission recommendation to:
1. Approve the Negative Declaration finding that the proposed
project will not result in any significant environmental
impacts, and
2. Introduce the ordinance, rezoning the 61 Lots in Tract 840
Charleston Meadows from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1
(S) Single Story Overlay District.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the
Classification of a Portion of Property Collectively Known as
‘Charleston Meadows Tract 840' from R-1 to R-1(S)”
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
5B. (Old Item 9) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will
consider a Site and Design application for a 4,209 square-foot,
2-story, single-family dwelling with a 588 square-foot, below
grade 2-car garage, 380 square-foot, detached 1-car garage,
544 square-foot cabana, in ground swimming pool, fountains,
series of terraces and various site improvements for property
located at 3230 Alexis Drive
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, discussed the requirement under the
City’s Open Space Development Criteria that the development be
screened from public view. The applicant was able to protect his
own viewpoints from his current and future neighbors. As indicated
in his letter to the Planning Commission, attached to the Planning
Commission Staff Report, the applicant originally had a different
tree planting plan and indicated that the use and careful placement
of trees and landscaping was critical to the project to provide
screening from Vista Point. The Planning Commission staff report
dated August 27, 1997, used the same language as the applicant’s
letter, but it applied to a different tree planting plan which did
not have the same large trees that were in the original plan. The
applicant indicated it was a false choice by saying large trees would
impede the views from the property. It did not mean to screen the
entire property or to screen the applicant’s view, but rather to
screen the house by planting trees of sufficient size and location
to create an illusion from Vista Point and other viewpoints. The
real conflict was the public need to screen the house from the public
viewpoints versus a community that believed people should be able
to see the houses. The property was purchased after the open space
09/15/97 −267
design criteria had been in effect for over 10 years. He believed
that the larger trees made more sense. The City Planning Arborist
had recommended that conditions be attached to the project to ensure
that once the trees were planted they would grow which had not been
recommended in the report before the Council. However, under the
Zoning Code, the Council had the power to adopt reasonable
conditions. A further problem was the choice of smaller trees versus
larger trees was if there were applicants who did not want to plant
larger trees, they evaded any kind of conditions to make sure the
trees would grow. He took the opportunity of tracing a copy of the
original plan to make comparisons. The tree that had been added
served the applicant’s benefit. The rest had been reduced in size
from the original 120-inch box trees. He requested the trees on
the south and southwest be restored to the original 120-inch box
trees. Also, there was a suggestion from staff to replace one of
the evergreen live oaks with a deciduous tree such as a valley oak
which he believed that was a mistake since it would not serve as
a screen for part of the year.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendation that the
City Council approve the Negative Declaration and Site and Design
application for construction of a new single family dwelling and
associated improvements at 3230 Alexis Drive in the Open Space (OS)
District, in accord with the following findings and conditions:
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL - SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW
a. The project will be constructed and operated in a manner that
will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites; in that the
proposed use and improvements are similar in size, scale and
design with other uses in the area and the project has been
designed and will be sufficiently screened so as not to impact
the neighbor’s privacy or enjoyment of their property.
b. The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the
desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research of educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent area; in that the project
will maintain desirability of investment in the same and
adjacent areas, the proposed design and size of the residence
and related improvements are generally consistent with the
existing residences on Alexis Drive and nearby roads, and the
construction of the residence will be governed by the current
09/15/97 −268
Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, to assure
safety and a high quality of development.
c. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance
will be observed in construction of the project; in that the
proposed design will follow existing contour lines to minimize
site grading. The project will not have a significant
environmental impacts as indicated by the proposed Negative
Declaration for this project. The proposed dwelling has been
designed consistent with the Open Space Criteria adopted by
the City Council to mitigate the impacts of development in the
foothills area of the community.
d. The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan;
The proposal will be compatible with goals of the Comprehensive
Plan as discussed in the “Policy Section” of this report. The
proposed residential use and related site improvements comply
with the OS Zone District Site development regulations and
conform to the intent of the Open Space/Controlled Development
land use designation to allow limited residential development
on larger sites to minimize physical impacts of development.
CONDITIONS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL
Planning Department
Prior to issuance of building permit
1. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown
on the building permit drawings for all buildings, patios,
fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
2. The Planning Department shall approve the final glazing
material for the dwelling.
3. Remove two plumbing fixtures from the cabana structure.
Planning Arborist
4. The applicant is required to plant a minimum of nineteen Coast
Live Oaks (Quercus Agrifolia) of 48 - 72 inch size (ten 72”
box and six 48” box) and three Coast Live Oak (Quercus Agrifolia)
of 120-inch box size, two Valley Oaks (Quercus Lobata) of
120-inch box size, and one California Buckeye (Aesculius
Californica) of 60-inch box size. Because of their
significant size and importance to the project, details of the
trees shall be submitted for review by the Planning Arborist.
The applicant shall provide the following details to the
09/15/97 −269
Planning Arborist for review and approval prior to and during
installation of the trees;
a. Documentation of the trees’ original growing area; from
where they will be shipped; how long in their current box;
photographs; size, crown spread and height.
b. An outline of how the trees will be transported. Include
routes; transportation permits; escorts needed, restrictions;
road clearance needed, height and width; tree trimming needed
for the narrow road; helicopter option; etc.
c. Documentation that qualified personnel that is familiar
with large tree transplanting, shall be on-site during
installation.
5. To insure that the trees will survive; the applicant shall
retain a certified project arborist to draft a detailed tree
Preservation Plan. All maintenance needs of the trees prior
to moving, during the establishment period and thereafter shall
be included for review by the City Planning Arborist.
6. The applicant shall include a five-year tree establishment
period, beginning after the date of final inspection, in the
Tree Preservation Plans.
7. The applicant shall coordinate with the Planning Arborist to
ensure taller trees are located so as to improve screening from
Vista Point in Foothills Park; the applicant shall provide
details of grading; elevation; retaining wall design; root
protection; preservation devices, such as aeration, tree wells,
drains, special foundation, etc. for review by the City Planning
Arborist.
8. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include installation of
irrigation supply to all trees and be approved by the Marketing
Division of the Utilities Department. Details shall specify
an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the
rootball at a point one-third of rootball diameter. Around large
trees there shall be additional irrigation extending beyond
the root ball as needed. During the course of the establishment
period, supply amounts shall be geared to diminish to match
the natural climatic rainfall. All tree irrigation shall be
connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground
cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for
the City of Palo Alto (V-C) (o).
Fire
09/15/97 −270
9. A NFPA-130(1996) modified Residential Sprinkler System shall
be installed per PAMC, Section 15.04.170.
10. The Fire Department access road/driveway for emergency vehicle
access shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Fire
Code. Central Station monitoring shall be required if over 100
sprinklers are installed.
11. Provide on site fire hydrant required if any portion of the
new dwelling is located more than 150 from public water source.
12. Provide roof covering to either be A or B fire retardant class.
13. Spark arrestors shall be shown on building plans and installed
in all chimneys as part of project construction.
14. Residential smoke detectors shall be shown on building plans
and installed for bedrooms and hallways with battery back-up
in accordance with UBC.
Utilities Engineering Electrical
15. The customer shall provide space on-site for a padmount
transformer. There are no transformers in the vicinity to
provide service at this time. The location of the padmount
transformer shall be indicated on revised site and landscape
plans for review and approval by Utilities Department and
Planning Department staff.
16. If the service main size exceeds 400 Amps, the service must
be three-phase at a secondary voltage of 120/208 Volts.
17. All on site/off site work by applicant to include substructure
work needed.
Public Works Engineering
18. A formal site drainage plan produced by a qualified civil
engineer shall be presented with the Building Permit submission
and must be approved by Public Works before permit issuance.
The Permittee is required to submit a drainage plan showing
existing and proposed drainage of the site. This plan should
show spot elevations of existing and proposed grades that show
how drainage patterns work. Existing drainage from adjacent
properties shall be maintained. Show how drainage from the
buildings and hardscape will be directed.
19. In no case shall the final grading increase the drainage flow
onto adjacent properties. (PAMC 16.28.270 (c)
09/15/97 −271
20. Grading activities west of Interstate 280 are restricted to
the time between April 15 to October 15. This time may be
further restricted to adjust to seasonal rain fluctuations.
21. An erosion control plan for the winterization of the site will
also be required to presented with the Building Permit
submission.
22. Any excavation of grading of more that 100 cubic yards or an
excavation deeper than 3 feet requires an approved Grading and
Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection
Division.
Utilities Engineering
23. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City
of Palo Alto Utility Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater,
dated 1992.
24. The Developer shall submit improvement plans and
Water-Gas-Wastewater application including load demands for
existing and new facilities. The plans must show the proposed
alignment of water, gas, and sewer mains and services within
the development and in the public right-or-way.
25. All water connections from Palo Alto Utilities must comply with
requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17,
Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Contact Morris White
at 650-496-6972, City’s Cross Connection Control Inspector to
determine the type of protection required to prevent backflow
into the public water supply.
26. The contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the
utility improvement plan have been approved by the Water, Gas,
and Wastewater Engineering Division.
27. Utility connection charges must be paid prior to the scheduling
of any work performed by the City of Palo Alto.
Council Member Wheeler said the Planning Commission recommended a
similar condition to the last foothills application reviewed by the
Council in which the applicant and the Planning Arborist worked
together onsite to do the final configuration of the tree planting
that would occur. She asked whether that gave the Planning Arborist
the ability to change the size and type of trees that would ultimately
be located at a site. She asked whether the Council needed to give
further direction if the Council wanted quick screening of the area.
Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the Planning Commission
recommended Condition No. 7 which said “the applicant shall
09/15/97 −272
coordinate with the Planning Arborist to ensure taller trees are
located so as to improve screening from Vista Point in Foothills
Park.” That gave the Planning Arborist the opportunity to work with
the landscape architect to determine the best size and placement
for trees to provide screening from Vista Point.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
he and the Planning Arborist discussed the matter that afternoon.
In the Planning Arborist’s conversations with the applicant and
landscape architect, he anticipated working with them for placement
of the trees on-site and the selection of the trees at the nursery
since there could be a great difference in terms of the visual impact
regarding the shape of one tree versus another even though they might
be the same box size. They would be working to select trees that
had the maximum positive visual screening benefit.
Council Member Wheeler asked about two existing substantial oak trees
on the site. She assumed they were to be retained.
Ms. Grote said there were no existing oaks on the site. There were
some that were close to the property lines.
Council Member Wheeler said it was important that the screening from
Vista Point be effective as quickly as possible. Her assumption
was that the Planning Arborist would work with the applicant toward
that goal.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of
the Zoning Administrator’s decision of a conditional use permit
for the operation of a private outdoor recreation service
(tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road
on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center
including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis
courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and
construction of one additional court and a park area, including
restroom facilities, in a PF Zone District (continued from
8/11/97)
Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the item involved three appeals
of the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit
for a tennis facility at the former Chuck Thompson site on Middlefield
Road. The proposed project included refurbishing the four courts
with reorientation of two of the courts, adding a fifth court, a
passive park area and restrooms on the east side of the site, and
portable bleachers between Courts 3 and 5. The application was made
in January 1996 and was deemed complete in April 1996. The Zoning
09/15/97 −273
Administrator approved the Conditional Use Permit in August 1996,
after holding public hearings during June, July, and August of 1996.
The approval included 24 conditions, one of which required a
six-foot high acoustical sound wall along the north property line.
That condition was based upon the original April 8 acoustical
analysis submitted by the applicant’s acoustical consultant. Three
appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decision were received at the
end of August 1996, which were based on three basic issues: the
intensity of the use of the facility, condition enforcement, and
the inadequacy of the original acoustical analysis. The applicant
had stated that the proposed use would be of high intensity similar
to that of a sports arena. Staff disagreed with that
characterization of the facility. It was intended to be regulated
through a card key system and would not be intended for a variety
of sports events. It would be exclusively for tennis. Staff
believed that did not result in a high intensity or sports arena
type facility. Regarding condition enforcement, the appellants
believed conditions similar to the YMCA expansion on Ross Road should
be attached to the Conditional Use Permit. Staff pointed out that
the expansion of the YMCA involved an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) that addressed numerous potential environmental impacts,
whereas the current facility had been assessed under a mitigated
negative declaration with one or two areas of potential environmental
impact. Staff did not believe that all the conditions attached to
the YMCA should be attached to the subject Conditional Use Permit.
Several conditions had been modeled after the YMCA, such as
neighborhood liaisons and regular neighborhood meetings. The
appellant had said iIwould require additional staff to monitor the
conditions of approval. Planning staff believed the conditions had
been worded such that the applicant or operator of the facility would
implement the conditions and there would be no need for additional
staff to monitor the conditions. The applicant had said that the
acoustical analysis upon which she based her original approval was
incomplete and inadequate. That was the issue that had taken the
most time during the past year to resolve. The acoustical reports
from the appellant’s consultant, applicant’s consultant, and the
City hired third-party consultant had been received by the Council.
The appellant’s consultant disagreed with the methodology used to
measure the estimated noise impacts of the facility. They felt the
estimates were taken at an incorrect location and the methodology
used to estimate those were inadequate. Under the direction of the
Planning Commission, staff hired a third independent consultant to
review all of the acoustical information which had been submitted
during the appeal process. The independent consultant agreed with
the applicant’s consultant’s methodology for measurement. He felt
there was inadequate information to conclude that the facility would
not have a negative impact. He believed additional information was
needed to draw that conclusion. When the Planning Commission
reviewed the application, staff recommended that certain assumptions
09/15/97 −274
be included in further acoustical analysis which were on page 10
of the July 30 Planning Commission staff report. If there were
additional acoustical analysis required, staff would request those
assumptions be included in the analysis. Rather than recommend the
alternative to having additional analysis conducted, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the Use Permit and to uphold
the Zoning Administrator’s original determination with
modifications to the conditions of approval. At the Planning
Commission meeting, a discussion occurred on the General Daytime
Exception. The applicant’s consultant submitted information before
the meeting that was intended to verify that the General Daytime
Exception could be met by the facility. The General Daytime
Exception was a section of the Noise Ordinance which stated any noise
below 70 decibels between certain daylight hours was exempt from
the Noise Ordinance and did not have to be mitigated. The Planning
Commission recommended that the appeals be denied and that amendments
to the conditions be made: that Condition No. 3 be amended so the
hours of operation were consistent with the daytime hours listed
in the General Daytime Exception, there be additional conditions
requiring a neighborhood liaison, regular neighborhood meetings,
second locks in all entry and exit gates, Court 5 would be moved
ten feet southward, and the restrooms would be moved to a location
between Courts 2 and 3. The original condition requiring a six-foot
sound wall would be retained. She said the applicant had responded
to the recommendations to additional conditions and did not want
to be responsible for building the six-foot high sound wall since
the Daytime Exception would be met. Therefore, the sound wall was
unnecessary, the double lock system was a safety issue that would
be less safe than the one proposed, and moving Court 5 ten feet
southward would be a safety issue which would not allow fire
clearance. She checked with the Fire Department and found that the
double-lock system was not considered to be a safety hazard as long
as there was a Knox box or some way that emergency vehicle had access
to the site at all times. Moving Court 5 ten feet southward would
not be practical; seven feet southward would maintain the 15-foot
clearance required by emergency vehicles. The Fire Department would
support moving the court seven feet southward. The City staff
continued to recommend that additional acoustical analysis be
required prior to approval of the use permit; however, if the Council
followed the Planning Commission recommendation, she recommended
the City staff not be responsible for mediating or facilitating
neighborhood meetings. That condition was intended to foster
communication between the neighbors and the operators of the facility
and not to place City staff in a mediation or facilitation role.
She recommended that ongoing noise measurement occur for the first
year of operation to ensure that the Noise Ordinance was met. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the appeals and approval
of the Use Permit, and City staff recommended either additional
acoustical analysis or, in the event the applicant did not want to
09/15/97 −275
pay for additional acoustical analysis, denial of the Use Permit.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there was at least one area of the
application that was somewhat unusual, and he asked for the Council’s
help in working through it. The Staff had tried to take the
streamline environmental review approach with a mitigated negative
declaration which the law allowed when conditions of approval took
an obvious significant impact, such as noise, and reduced it to a
level of insignificance. At the same time, the law said that
mitigation needed to be clearly effective so in the case of a dispute
over the effectiveness of mitigation, California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) would look for preparation of an EIR. The staff
recommendation to do another study was an effort to avoid creation
of a legal situation where it would be argued that an EIR should
have been done. The Planning Commission characterized that as a
war between experts. He urged the Council to look creatively for
ways to stay out of that place between the warring experts and a
means of resolving the dispute other than the method taken by the
Planning Commission. He was in a different stance with the Council
than his colleague, Debbie Cauble, was with the Planning Commission.
He was candid on the record about the legal risks associated with
that approach.
Council Member McCown asked for clarification as to what the
unresolved questions were that required additional acoustical
analysis.
Richard Rodkin, Illingworth & Rodkin, said the first issue was
whether or not the Daytime Exception would be applied to the project.
That issue determined the degree of mitigation measures necessary
and what limits the facility needed to meet.
Council Member McCown asked why there was no clear answer as to
whether the Daytime Exception applied.
Mr. Rodkin said it was clear to him that the Daytime Exception would
not be met, and he stated that at the Planning Commission hearing.
His primary concern was that it was an ordinance issue where if
one entered into that expecting the Daytime Exception would be met
and no mitigation were included, the data indicated that if a tester
checked, it would fail the test.
Council Member McCown clarified that the Daytime Exception could
be met because the data suggested the noise levels would exceed the
70 dba that was required for the Daytime Exception.
Mr. Rodkin said he looked at data that was gathered originally and
had to infer information from that. The exception would only apply
09/15/97 −276
where the noise source in its noisiest mode did not exceed the limit.
It did not excuse things from the quantitative limits.
Council Member McCown asked whether the Daytime Exception did not
apply because the data indicated there would be in excess of 70 dba
noise levels and what additional studies were being recommended to
evaluate the application.
Mr. Rodkin said there was sufficient information to figure out what
kind of mitigation measures were necessary to meet the quantitative
limits in the ordinance. The data available needed to be analyzed
with good maps and calculations to determine what height noise
barriers would be necessary in order to reduce the noise in the
neighbors’ yards which was a simplification of what needed to be
done. Included were assumptions made by staff including
clarification of ordinance interpretation. The ordinance stated
measurements needed to be made at the property line. If that were
done, then a noise barrier was not a feasible mitigation measure.
He did not believe that was reasonable. Assuming a reasonable
interpretation of the ordinance was made, he thought the next step
was to calculate how high the walls needed to be and where they would
be located on the property lines.
Council Member McCown asked if the General Daytime Exception were
not applied because the noise levels were higher, did Mr. Rodkin
believe, based on data gathered, that mitigation measures would be
designed. She said the proposed designs were not present in the
record.
Mr. Rodkin said he was aware of two recommendations made by the
applicant’s consultant, one in the April 16 report which referred
to a 6-foot wall, and a subsequent recommendation in an addendum
report recommending a 8-1/2 foot wall.
Council Member McCown asked whether the applicant’s consultant’s
argument that the Daytime Exception was met, based on the data
gathered, did Mr. Rodkin feel additional studies needed to be done.
If there was a case that qualified for the General Daytime Exception
because the noise levels would not exceed 70 dba, would additional
analysis be necessary.
Mr. Rodkin said it depended on what kind of conditions or mitigation
measures were applied.
Council Member McCown understood the applicant concluded that the
Daytime Exception criteria was what they were applying. They
adjusted the hours and then accepted mitigation measures that they
understood related to using the General Daytime Exception.
09/15/97 −277
Ms. Grote said she thought Mr. Rodkin disagreed with that conclusion.
Council Member McCown asked if that qualified for the Daytime
Exception, would there be something else by way of mitigation that
the Council could look at.
Mr. Rodkin questioned how loud the noise should be and how much the
increase in noise at the neighbors’ properties should be allowed.
The CEQA guidelines stated the project would have a significant
adverse affect if noise levels substantially increased. If the
Ordinance was not used as a method for controlling the noise and
the facility was found to be exempt from the quantitative limits,
it seemed appropriate criteria would be utilized for judging how
much noise should be allowed and mitigated to that point.
Council Member Schneider reviewed the ordinance in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code(PAMF) and was unable to determine what the intent
of the ordinance was when it was written. It did not specifically
refer to construction of sports facilities. There was no context
within which to determine what the intent of the General Daytime
Exception was.
Mr. Rodkin agreed with Council Member Schneider. He tried not to
read anything extra into it.
Council Member Schneider said construction of sound walls was asked
for, whereas on a temporary project, that would not be considered.
Mr. Schreiber said the noise ordinance predated his tenure with the
City. He did not profess substantial knowledge of the noise
ordinance.
Mr. Calonne referred to comments Mr. Rodkin made about standards.
If the CEQA standard was taken as substantially increasing noise,
the Council needed to assume that persistent violations of the noise
ordinance would be a significant impact. He agreed with Mr. Rodkin
that the Daytime Exception was meant to be a special case and
therefore had a fairly strict application. His understanding there
was evidence that hitting tennis balls might exceed 70 dba sometimes
which would disqualify the project for the Daytime Exception. If
the Council wanted to pursue the Daytime Exception, the Council might
want to look at noise mitigation that would meet that standard.
If the Council were going to try to resolve the consultant dispute,
he felt they were in a difficult position and urged the Council to
look at other ways to encourage resolution between the parties.
Mr. Schreiber said one of the appellants had provided him with a
June 1, 1972, staff report regarding adoption of the noise ordinance
and the Daytime Exception section of the staff report. He read from
09/15/97 −278
the staff report, “the flexibility to meet either the incremental
limit at the property line or the noise limit for an individual
device,” so it was valuable to those using noisy devices. The
reference was the use of many types of labor saving motorized tools
as an example of an application of the exception. This exception
was to allow for unusual time-limited activities, whether it be a
construction activity, mowing the lawn, or use of noisy devices.
His interpretation of the staff report was that it was an effort
to build in some flexibility, up to the 70 dba limit, for activities
which would not be muffled to the point of meeting the stricter
portions of the noise ordinance. He did not see anything in the
staff report that said the Daytime Exception would apply to an ongoing
activity.
Council Member Wheeler asked if City Park Facilities or School
District Playground Facilities operate under the Daytime Exception
Rules or whether they complied with the noise ordinance.
Mr. Schreiber said he was not aware of the question ever coming up
in the past.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether that was a piece of research
which might be accomplished in further investigation dependent on
the direction taken.
Mr. Schreiber said he would have to work with the Police Department
about how noise ordinance was enforced and whether that section of
the Code was used.
Council Member Wheeler said there were similar situations in the
City where the City owned the property, but the property was leased
to another organization such as the Gamble Garden Center or the
Williams House. She asked how those properties operated and whether
they conformed with the noise ordinance.
Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland said she was not aware of
any noise complaints from the properties mentioned by Council Member
Wheeler. She would ask the Police Department to enforce the noise
ordinance should a complaint be received.
Council Member Eakins asked whether anyone recalled when the Council
discussed the Daytime Exception for noise.
Mr. Schreiber doubted the issue had been raised since the ordinance
was adopted in 1972.
Council Member Kniss referred to her field trip with Council Member
Wheeler regarding the number of tennis courts located within the
same number of feet throughout the community. She said three could
09/15/97 −279
be identified: Jordan, Rinconada, close to the Cultural Center,
and Cubberley. She asked if there were any rules and regulations
regarding private tennis courts. Living across from Rinconada Park,
which she calculated to be 60 feet, there were lights and a sound
level. She asked what time the lights went out.
Ms. Grote said she did not know.
Council Member Rosenbaum said he was not aware that the lights ever
went out at Rinconada and thought that tennis could be played there
24 hours a day.
Ms. Grote said the private courts would require conditional use
permits and that was the only one that she was aware of during the
prior three years. She was not aware of other tennis courts coming
before Zoning Administrators prior to that. Outdoor recreational
facilities required conditional use permits if they were privately
run.
Council Member Rosenbaum said he looked at other situations such
as the courts at Hopkins across from Rinconada which were adjacent
to a single family house. The Eichler Club was a private club with
two courts right next to a single family house. Those were
situations with courts closer than what was being proposed for the
subject property, and he was not aware of any complaints.
Mr. Calonne said there might be many existing situations that
predated the environmental law or the noise ordinance. As to the
public courts, there was nothing that stopped the noise ordinance
from being enforced. As to the environmental law, if the Council
had a policy in the sense that the benefit of the courts outweighed
the impact and was not feasible to mitigate the impact, then through
the EIR process, the policy authority to override the impacts would
be retained. The environmental law directed the Council, through
an explicit and expensive procedural path to show the public what
the environmental values were which gave everyone and their
representatives an opportunity to argue with the Council.
Mayor Huber said that Council Member Rosenbaum voted for the Daytime
Exception. He asked what the effect of history was with the fact
that the site was used as a tennis facility for many years even though
it varied during that time.
Mr. Calonne referred the question to Ken Schreiber and Lisa Grote,
but said they concluded that the use had been discontinued.
Ms. Grote said it was assumed that the courts were used about 20
percent of the time. The use had never completely been discontinued,
but it was reduced because of the poor condition of the courts.
09/15/97 −280
Mr. Calonne said the Use Permit came up as a result of the Council’s
action on the lease. The Council specifically asked to have a Use
Permit process as a result of the lease.
Mr. Schreiber said there were four courts that would be refurbished,
two of those would be relocated, and a fifth court would be added.
From the standpoint of the use, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance,
that would be considered a new situation.
Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said the Planning Commission
felt the issue needed to return to the Council because the Commission
was having difficulty coming to an agreement with the applicants
and appellant. The Planning Commission felt the Daytime Exception
would be met, and there would be no lights at night. With the
additional changes in the conditions, the application would fall
within the realms of other tennis courts in the community.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
Natalie Fischer, 736 Elsworth Place, said the City was considering
a token fee for leasing a valuable public property worth several
million dollars on the open market to a special interest group for
private use at a loss to the community in general and to the residents
of Midtown in particular. That action would also be of great
detriment to the neighbors of the site on three sides in terms of
adverse impacts on health, general welfare, and property values.
The neighbors would gain no benefit from the proposed tennis
facility but would pay a stiff price for others’ enjoyment. The
Tennis Club allowed as many nonresidents as residents to be members.
The Palo Alto Tennis Club could find a more suitable site to hold
league play and tournaments with lights for nighttime playing.
Plans for the lighted tennis facility at Greer Park could be
completed. She was told by the Director of Recreation that lights
could be there. She asked if Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) and the
Tennis Club would be willing to consider leasing Greer Park from
the City and building the facility there instead because it was a
better site. The best sound barriers were land buffers and that
was why a park would be a better site for the proposed facility.
A more compatible use with the neighbors would be found for the
Middlefield site. Alternate uses that would be more appropriate
and of benefit to the general public might be a community garden
and/or a small community center with two rooms, one for exercises,
and one for table tennis and billiards, or a park and playground.
There was no park or playground on her side of Middlefield Road,
and children on Ellsworth played on the street in front of their
houses rather than trying to cross over to Hoover Park. Crossing
Middlefield Road was difficult for adults as there was no stop light
09/15/97 −281
or crosswalk for several blocks. When the Chuck Thompson Club
operated, she worked full time and was gone during the day. On
weekends, holidays or other times she was at home, she was unable
to sleep beyond the time people started playing in the courts behind
her house. The neighbors found it difficult to enjoy their backyards
because of the considerable noise as well as the danger posed by
tennis balls flying over the fence. The voice noises, people yelling
to each other over the net, the normal range of vocal sounds of sports
were as much a problem as mechanical noises. The proposed new uses
would increase both voice and mechanical noises to an intolerable
level. The neighbors requested that the City suspend the
Conditional Use Permit until a study was made of the true acoustical
effects of the proposed uses on the neighbors and the effectiveness
of potential sound barriers. Without appropriate studies,
effective mitigations could not be designed. If the proposed tennis
use was approved by the City Council, residents on Ellsworth Place
required mitigation as four of the courts were behind their homes.
Conditions on the Use Permit might include a masonry sound barrier
along the creek at least nine feet high, a ten-foot deep landscaped
yard between the facilities property line and the creek in accordance
with section 18.32.070 of the PAMC. The residents requested
prohibition of sound amplification, practice walls, and ball
throwing machines. They asked for later starting times and one day
a week for no tennis to be played. They also requested that someone
from CSI carry a pager and be available to identify violators,
especially the hours of use, so calling the Police would not be the
only option when the Winter Lodge was closed. They objected to the
fifth court because its only purpose was to allow all-league play
to take place at one site and its proposed location was too near
residents. The intensity of use of the project should be reduced.
Up to 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year round was too much.
John Abraham, 736 Elsworth Place, referred to page 3 of the staff
report (CMR:385:97) regarding Intensity of Use. He said the report
omitted the eight adult tournaments a year that the Palo Alto Tennis
Club would have there. There would be bleachers and speakers at
special events with no prohibition. The site was not like Rinconada
which had a street between the neighbors and the courts. The problem
after 15 engineering reports was that the project was likely illegal
under the noise ordinance. As the Daytime Exception discussion
indicated, it was not intended for recreational projects. The hours
coincided with construction hours for 365 days a year. The worst
problem was the Daytime Exception had to be evaluated at the noisiest
condition. Dr. Salmon would show that young players could exceed
the 70 dba limits 31 out of 32 times. For those reasons, he did
not believe the negative declaration was accurate. Neighbors would
suffer significant effects. A six-foot wall would not stop the
noise. If the Council did not stop the project, they should allow
09/15/97 −282
independent engineers to design the noise barriers to protect the
residents from illegal noise.
Dr. Vincent Salmon, Acoustical Consultant for the appellant, 765
Hobart Street, said the problem was of conflicting values. The
applicant pointed out that there were exceptions to the noise
ordinance in terms of the Daytime Exception which was noise exceeding
70 dba at 25 feet. There were also exceptions to the optic plane
ordinance which stated no more than 8 dba above the ambience. Both
exceptions occurred. One problem might have been they occurred
infrequently and visual impacts might have been exceeded, but rarely.
In the middle 1970s, he did a study for the City of Palo Alto on
noise from leaf blowers because of complaints. The Daytime
Exception was a result of that. The problem in comparing the two
was that tennis players moved around, and in order to measure noise
from leaf blowers, they would have to move around. He proposed
that if the exemption was not used but rather the property plane,
the noise wall would have to be high enough so the amount of noise
would be within the limits which led to impossibly high walls. The
only way to control the noise from the facility would be total
enclosure.
Council Member McCown said there were questions earlier about other
situations in the community such as Rinconada Park where tennis
courts were in proximity to residential housing. She asked whether
there were any reasons, based on Dr. Salmon’s analysis, that would
be different than the impact on the subject property.
Dr. Salmon said the preamble to the noise ordinance stated the intent
of the City Council was to control the adverse effects of noise
sources on each citizen and ponder any conditions of use, especially
conditions of use that had the greatest impact of any person.
Council Member McCown asked if Dr. Salmon had detected from his
experience a different level of noise generated from the tennis
courts on the subject site than would be expected on any other tennis
court in Palo Alto. Would he get the same measurement of players
at Rinconada as the Middlefield Road location.
Dr. Salmon said that could only be determined by a study. In his
opinion, those would also exceed 70 dba at 25 feet.
Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, said her house was located behind the
proposed fifth court, but because of her long, narrow backyard, the
existing fourth court was located 20 feet from the right side of
her fence. In the past, even with landscaping, she accumulated
a supply of tennis balls that landed in her backyard. The proposed
fifth court was directly behind her patio door and bedroom window
which caused her concern about the safety of children playing in
09/15/97 −283
her backyard. Her next door neighbor’s entire back fence paralleled
the existing fourth court with only 20 feet between the courts and
where she provided child care services in her backyard. In addition
to the safety issues, she was concerned with the noise from tennis
instructors and tournaments and also about emotional and
psychological health. She noise levels over 50 dba disrupted all
types of normal listening activities. She noticed that the volume
of people’s voices were higher on the tennis court, especially from
the instructors during classes. The Winter Lodge was designed with
a sloped roof, and if one stood in the front, they heard nothing,
but if they stood in the back, there was a great deal of noise.
Even when there are very few people skating, the noise bounced off
the roof. Another factor was that the other side of the fifth court
was blocked by a row of three-story condominiums. The condominiums
reflected sound backwards as well. No one provided information on
the impact of sound created in the fifth court on her side of the
neighborhood with considerations of the sloped roof facing her. The
Acoustical Engineer, Mr. Rodkin, mentioned in his report dated July
10, that in order for the facility to comply with the City noise
ordinance for her side of the neighborhood, a fence higher than 15
feet needed to be implemented and maintained. At the July 30
Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission passed a
proposal based on a report prepared by Mr. Pack, an acoustical
engineer hired by the Winter Lodge. It stated that the Daytime
Exception applied because Bill Brown, a tennis pro hit tennis balls
eight times in the existing courts. Of the recorded eight times,
three were above the 70 decibel threshold in the Daytime Exception
rule. Since she was not sure what the Daytime Exception rule was
at that time, she failed to point out that the rule clearly stated
that the noise measurements should be done under the noisiest
conditions of use. Dr. Salmon was asked to do a comparable
measurement after the hearing and he found two young players at
Stanford University with tournament experience who he asked to serve
the ball as they would at a tournament. One player hit the ball
16 times, with readings between 70.4 and 76.7, and the other hit
the ball 16 times, with readings between 72.7 and 77.7. The test
was done with two people playing in one court. Along with the noise
and safety issues, there were other issues that needed to be
addressed. Five of the Planning Commission members at the July 30
meeting concluded that the CSI Tennis Club was an asset to the
community. She wondered how five top quality tennis courts would
be an asset to the general public while currently the City had 61
public tennis courts, many of them were within a short distance of
the proposed site. At Cubberley Community Center, there were six
courts in an open field. Between Cubberly and the proposed site
there were seven courts with lights at Mitchell Park and six courts
behind the middle school. In Rinconada Park there were nine courts,
six with lights; between Rinconada and the proposed site there were
six courts at Jordan Middle School; and there were two rarely used
09/15/97 −284
courts at Hoover Park. Near Highway 101, at Greer Road, there were
spaces for five courts in a large open field. The Palo Alto Tennis
Club placed ads on the Internet and local newspapers asking non-Palo
Alto residents to join. The ironic part of the proposal was that
the facility was for use of a private club with a number of
nonresidents. She did not believe the facility would be for low
intensity use. There were plenty of quiet and nonintruding uses
for the site for the general public and neighbors to enjoy.
Vice Mayor Andersen said the speakers were very gracious and invited
him and other colleagues to visit the facility. They had a chance
to talk informally. He thought that the interest on the part of
the appellants was to get a sound barrier around the facility. The
City Council indicated a commitment to the tennis courts, and now
the question was how to make it work for the neighbors. He asked
the appellant if their desire to have a sound barrier would reasonably
mitigate conditions. He was surprised when the applicant’s engineer
recommended one as well and the applicant was not interested in
putting one up after looking at the Daylight Exception. It made
sense for the parties to get together to discuss the issue. There
was reason to believe it could be resolved. The basic interest was
a sound barrier that had some reasonable way of mitigation. A sound
wall would not stop all sound but it would make the facility more
neighborly. He suggested the various parties try to work things
out.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Council
Member Schneider to continue the Public Hearing to October 27, 1997,
City Council Meeting, with a strong suggestion that the applicant
and appellants meet and confer to see if there is any way to resolve
the issue.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0.
RECESS: 9:10 P.M. - 9:15 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to
designate a pre-1940 residence located at 1078 Forest Avenue
as a “Landmark Historic Residence” pursuant to Chapter 16.50
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item
because of a conflict of interest due to the location of her home.
09/15/97 −285
Historic Resources Board Member Caroline Willis said the Historic
Resources Board (HRB) understood the challenge presented to the
Council. During the course of the year, they reviewed 150 buildings
which gave them some advantage over the Council, but they still had
a difficult time analyzing the structures. Looking at the 150
buildings deepened their understanding of the significance of the
property. The HRB felt the landmark designation was merited under
the interim ordinance. The interim ordinance was a response to a
community outcry to strengthen the historic code. The Secretary
of the Interior clarified that just because something was not of
the finest design by the most important architect, that did not
undermine its local importance. She mentioned the three landmark
structures immediately across the street, none of which were designed
by a major architect. At the same time, it was a strong historically
intact neighborhood. There would be a void if the house were taken
out of context. The appellants report referred to the Arts and
Crafts style missing the point. It was not an Arts and Crafts style
house which would have heavy emphasis on handmade details. The house
was of a different heritage. It was a bungalow style originating
in India. It was easily camouflaged by neglect, foliage, paint and
alterations, but was still there to be studied. The bungalow style
was particularly relevant to California and Palo Alto. Within the
last few years, there was a renewed interest in exploring the bungalow
style. She found it remarkable that a house of that size had such
a low key presence in the neighborhood. It seemed likely that the
presence of the house would be felt more in its absence than in its
existence. She urged the Council to support the system they put
in place and uphold the HRB decision to designate the property a
landmark under the interim regulations.
Council Member Fazzino asked what would happen to the house if it
were declared a contributing structure.
Preservation Architect Barbara Judy said the contributing
designation was not a preservation designation; therefore, if the
house was designated contributing, it could be demolished.
Council Member Fazzino asked about the flexibility, under the interim
rules, of a home replacing one that was demolished.
Ms. Judy said if the structure were designated a contributing
residence and a proposal to demolish it was made, the replacement
residence would have to comply with compatibility review standards.
Council Member Fazzino said one of the greatest concerns of the
residents in the area had to do with what was built down the block
during the past few years. There was a concept that a monstrosity
would be created if the Council did not accept the landmark dedication
of the HRB.
09/15/97 −286
Ms. Judy said the compatibility review standards addressed site
planning and architectural character as features that needed to
achieve a certain level of design quality in order to fit in Palo
Alto’s pre-1940 neighborhood. Zoning issues were not affected by
the Compatibility Review Standards.
Council Member Eakins asked Ms. Judy to explain characteristics of
bungalow and Arts and Crafts style homes.
Ms. Judy said the bungalow style originated from the British Colonial
experience in India. It took indigenous residential forms which
were single-story forms with long, low hipped roof, with verandas
extending an entire length of a structure, a very understated
architectural style. The Arts and Crafts style developed out of
a reaction against industrialization and an enthusiasm for
handcrafted objects. The emphasis of the Craftsman style was on
producing a handcrafted look.
Council Member Kniss referred to a report by Dennis Backlund dated
September 10, 1997. He included pictures of similar houses; one
1906 at 1451 Cowper, and one 1905 at 1078 Forest. They were described
as being similar. He differentiated their importance not for
architectural style, but what occurred in the house, which was the
home of one of the first electronic pioneers. She asked Ms. Judy
to compare their compatibility and architectural style.
Ms. Judy said she had not seen the report from Mr. Backlund.
Council Member Wheeler said it was mentioned in the report that the
house sat in an environment or neighborhood setting which contained
several already designated important historic structures. It also
existed in close relationship with the lot next door which was once
the garden and gardener’s house. It seemed that when the interim
ordinance was developed, it included in the definition of a landmark
structure useful language in reference to a collection of buildings
which enhanced each other. She asked where the language was in the
report.
Ms. Judy said the Council added the language, “A property may be
designated a landmark when it is one of a distinctive contiguous
assembly of historically significant structures with a unified
architectural theme or setting that creates a significant and
distinguishable entity,” which was added to the interim definition
of landmark properties when the Council took up the matter in April.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
09/15/97 −287
Craig Mineweaser, AIA, 1154 Park Avenue, San Jose, was aware of the
conventional practice of establishing a so-called period of
significance as he did that in his own practice. He learned over
the years not to believe everything in the historic inventory form
about the style of the building. Common sense told him to make a
physical examination of the changes before deciding their
significance which was how he arrived at conclusions. He concluded
that the original intent of design was irreversibly altered. He
had not seen the photographs claiming to be from the late 1930s
showing an enclosed porch. His report designated numerous other
changes that occurred to the exterior shape, massing and scale of
the building that completely buried any sense of the original
building. The physical evidence he collected disagreed with staff’s
claim that alterations were within the period of significance. On
closer examination, the large windows on the front did not always
match. The one on the left of the door was much larger paned and
not carefully fitted around the preexisting column on the right.
With the exception of a pair on the right, the windows around the
building were uniformly different. Contrary to Item No. 9, the
discussion in his report of interior changes was relevant. An
overhead slide showed an example of an interior view of an addition
on the side of the house which was anything but reversible. Item
No. 6 stated he was in error for describing it as an Arts and Crafts
style residence. Based on his own research and evaluation of the
building, he arrived at a different conclusion. He stood by his
original statement that the house, as it currently appeared, was
not as originally built and was an Arts and Crafts residence. Not
much of the original design was currently visible. Underneath the
house, he found many framing changes; the former foundation had been
removed and someone recently added new piers, old brick was removed
with new concrete poured decades ago. Evidence indicated the entire
front porch was reframed and it could no longer be established as
to what the original porch looked like. The new porch was nothing
like the original. The diagrams in the report continued to show
additions that were made. The changes made did not enhance the
original architect’s design and period structure no longer dominated
the street. The best status for the building was as a contributing
factor. The architect’s design for a simple, rectangular house was
irreversible.
Harold Justman, 715 Ashby Drive, said the historic ordinance was
designed to prevent demolition of historic homes. In the case of
1078 Forest Avenue, the historic ordinance demolished the fair market
value of the homes. History gave the answer as to what the effect
would be of Landmark status on the home. Years ago, politicians passed
rent control ordinances assuming property owners would maintain
their properties in order that the public could enjoy below-market
rate rents. Recent studies proved that when government ordinance
was imposed upon property owners, properties stopped being
09/15/97 −288
maintained. History taught that rent control did not preserve
rental property. Applying that knowledge to historic ordinances,
the effect of Landmark status was clear. Property owners
overburdened by historic ordinances would give no economic incentive
to maintain their homes. Landmark homes would not be repaired and
would be demolished by deterioration. It was arrogant to assume
that property owners would maintain their property so others could
enjoy looking at them. The City could not turn 1078 Forest Avenue
into a public museum at the owner’s expense.
Nancy Caldwell, 575 Washington Avenue, said she lived in a home built
in 1930 and admired the look of the neighborhood. As a real estate
broker, she saw responses from both buyers and sellers. She recently
had an out-of-state buyer who declined to consider buying in the
Professorville neighborhood because she had heard about the historic
designation and did not want to go through the hassles involved in
remodeling a house. The regulations had an impact on the sales of
homes in the area. She said 1078 Forest might be attractive but
it appeared, as Ms. Judy commented, to have no architectural
integrity as haphazardly additions had been added to it over the
years. The use of the property as a landmark seemed incorrect, and
the restrictions appeared to be put forth with little input.
Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, could not believe that 1078 Forest
Avenue was declared a landmark. The house was a nursing home. She
consulted a friend in Washington who had lived in a historic house
in Palo Alto and he agreed the property could not be a landmark.
He had commented that every essence of historic integrity had been
destroyed in order to get more bedrooms for the nursing home which
totaled about nine bedrooms. She knew the historical designation
did not deal with the interior but the interior changed the exterior
integrity. It would be a travesty of historic preservation to make
the house a landmark and urged the Council not to support it.
Helen Low, real estate agent, 1230 Emerson Street, spent a lot of
time and money trying to restore her Palo Alto home to its original
design. The designations hurt Palo Altans trying to sell their
homes. She also lost a client who did not want to buy a home in
Professorville or Crescent Park. The historic landmark designation
had a negative impact on Palo Alto.
Stuart Bowen, 1075 Forest Avenue, supported the HRB designation for
1078 Forest Avenue. The neighbors overwhelming supported the HRB
designation for 1078 Forest Avenue; 50 percent of the entire block
between Hale and Lincoln Streets supported it, and 75 percent of
those within the quarter block of 1078 Forest Avenue supported it.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, supported the HRB Landmark
designation for Rosedale Manor. The beautiful old home was one of
09/15/97 −289
the first five homes on the block. That part of Palo Alto was not
annexed into Palo Alto until 1919 and the street was not paved until
1931. For 93 years, Rosedale Manor had been integral to the historic
character of the neighborhood. It was a large bungalow in the true
British Colonial style. The details provided understated elegance
and delicate patterns. The architect for Rosedale Manor was J. R.
Miller, one of the notable architects of the period in the Bay Area.
He began his practice around the turn of the century. He designed
a large number of new buildings in San Francisco ranging from
single-family homes to high rise buildings. Among his works were
the Dome Atrium of the City of Paris, the San Francisco Mining
Exchange, the Mason Hotel, and the Adair Hotel. The common element
of his work was the delicate touch that kept the buildings evoking
a human scale. Rosedale had the same delicate touches. Most of
the additions had been period additions that blended into the home.
The extension on the back had a different roof line that could be
removed if someone wanted to build a more compatible addition. The
residents admired the neighborhood because of its historic context.
She urged the Council to uphold the HRB designation of Rosedale
Manor as a Landmark structure.
Marilyn M. McDonald, 1087 Fife Avenue, lived in Palo Alto for 25
years and Rosedale Manor always struck her as a very distinctive
house among many lovely old homes. It was very unusual. Many homes
in her neighborhood were denied Landmark status, but Rosedale Manor
met all the criteria and should be supported.
Kingsley Wood, 1009 Forest Court, said he supported the
recommendation to make 1078 Forest Avenue a historic landmark. His
house was declared a historic structure without any choice from him.
The value of the home probably increased because of the designation.
He was forced to comply with certain rules and regulations when
remodeling his house. He did not think it would hurt the value of
the neighborhood to have another historical structure located in
the neighborhood. It fit in with the neighborhood.
Gitta Carnochan, 1094 Forest Avenue, supported the Landmark status
of Rosedale Manor and hoped the Council would support it.
Yvonne Armstrong, 1075 Forest Avenue, said she hoped the Council
would support the staff recommendation to keep Rosedale Manor
designation historic. One item in the staff report (CMR:385:97)
was Condition No. 10 which stated that the context of the sitting
of the residence was not unusual. The street was not composed of
a cohesive grouping of historic houses, rather the changes to the
properties on the street were significant enough that the house was
now only contributing to the general fabric of the neighborhood.
That had always been a very diverse block, with old and new houses.
Rosedale Manor was unique and contributed to the neighborhood.
09/15/97 −290
Karen Kolling, 1032 Forest Avenue, had not realized the Arts and
Crafts versus bungalow style issue was so important or she would
have brought pictures. Her house was a bungalow on the American
Registry of Bungalows. Rosedale Manor house was not Arts and Crafts
style. In terms of economic impact, it had run profitably for many
years as a nursing home. The current owners had not maintained it
in the standard of care and appearance as others might like. She
asked the Council to protect it house.
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, supported the staff recommendations.
As a College Terrace resident, she sympathized with the neighbors
of 1078 Forest Avenue who were distressed about the prospect of losing
a neighborhood landmark. She understood that once Rosedale Manor
was gone, the neighborhood had lost a treasure. Regardless of how
lovely a new structure might be, it could not replace the loss of
Rosedale Manor. She said there were other reasons to save the
building such as the building itself, its proximity to other historic
buildings, and the architect who designed it. The front facade of
Rosedale Manor had architectural merit. She asked the Council to
support the Landmark status of the structure.
George Patterson, 1095 Forest Avenue, said it was one of his favorite
houses on the block and that several other bungalow style houses
had been torn down Once a house like Rosedale Manor was torn down,
it could not be replaced. Public conscience was to the point where
old houses were lost. Many people came to Palo Alto because of the
diverse period houses. Rosedale Manor was not highly significant
on a national or state level, but as far as Palo Alto history was
concerned, it was significant. If Rosedale Manor were lost, it would
be a loss to the neighborhood and the City as a whole.
Juliet Carlson, 1141 Forest Avenue, supported the historic Landmark
status recommended by the HRB. It met all the criteria for the
designation. She found it a unique, attractive residence and did
not think the Landmark status would reduce property values. The
regulations left property owners with a great deal of latitude as
to what could be done with property.
Terry Stuart, 1141 Forest Avenue, supported the staff
recommendation. The area had kept its character and was preserved
by the individuals living there. The regulations were important
to preserve the house. Many homes had been lost. If San Francisco
could preserve its beauties, so could Palo Alto.
Karen Homan, representing PAST, 725 Homer Avenue, said the Landmark
status should be upheld. The fact that it met four of the five
criteria for Landmark designation, including its true bungalow
country style so inherent to the area and its design by the prominent
09/15/97 −291
architect, J. R. Miller, spoke loudly to that. Its existence was
important to the remaining historic houses. The applicant had given
no evidence to contradict the designation, it was an important
building. He urged the Council to support the Landmark designation.
Herm Harrow, 1930 Bryant Street, displayed a drawing of the original
structure. The entire exterior had been submerged by doors,
windows, decks, ramps, additional bedrooms, and bathrooms. The
original structure could not be seen from the street facade. He
understood the value of neighbors’ comments about Landmark status,
but he was told by HRB Member Willis that the facts supporting the
justification for making that a Landmark status should be adhered
to. The applicant had an expert who presented information just as
valid as that of Barbara Judy and another expert who challenged the
conditions of staff. If there was any legitimate doubt as to whether
or not it justified a high status of Landmark designation, that the
doubt should be in favor of the applicant. First, in view of the
economic situation explained to the Council by the owner, and second,
because the designation of the property as a Landmark would affect
other designating landmarks in the City.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed.
Council Member Kniss asked Ms. Judy what could be done to a Landmark
home. It had been about a year since the Council had discussed what
could be done and the first time the Council dealt with that
particular situation since the regulations were framed.
Ms. Judy said Mr. Backlund’s report was an interesting analysis.
Within the context of the analysis, 1078 Forest Avenue ranked easily
as significant as 356 Lincoln Avenue, which was designed by A.B.
Clark. Architect Miller was a more significant and renowned
architect than A.B. Clark. Regarding questions about alterations
that were permissible on a landmark structure, interior alterations
could be made to any degree that satisfied the judgement of the owner.
Exterior alterations needed to be keyed to preserve the character
defining features of the structure. Substantial alterations,
additions, and increase in size of the building were permitted, had
occurred, and were approved under the current and past HRB tenure.
Council Member Kniss said due to conflicting reports, there was no
conflict that the house in its original form was of a certain type.
Given the clarity of the fact that it was altered, and someone wished
to alter that which had been added, she asked how the regulations
would be interpreted.
Ms. Judy said the regulations required that an analysis of the
alterations identify the character defining features of the building
and that they be preserved in the alteration so that the building
09/15/97 −292
was discernable as a historic building and its key features remain
in place. For a bungalow style structure, one of the character
defining features was that it had a very low and prominent spreading
roof. When individuals asked how that particular building might
be altered, she allowed that a second story might be permissible
if it were sensitively designed and concentrated to the rear of the
property.
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve
the staff recommendation that the City Council uphold the decision
of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the
Historic Resources Board to designate the residence at 1078 Forest
an Historic Landmark Residence, based on the following findings:
FINDINGS - 1078 Forest Street
1. The residence satisfies Criterions 1 through 4 for determining
historic significance, as follows:
Criterion 1, as Rosedale Manor is associated with the broad
patterns of local history in its origins as a summer retreat
for a successful city businessman, who introduced a highly
qualified San Francisco architect to Palo Alto, thus
contributing to the unique quality and architectural heritage
of Palo Alto’s early 20th century residential neighborhoods
which are so much a part of the city’s identity today.
Criterion 2, as Rosedale Manor was designed by an important
San Francisco architect - J. R. Miller - whose architectural
legacy for residential design is augmented by this structure.
Consistent with the vision of California Bungalows, Rosedale
Manor provided a home for several Palo Altans who individually
and collectively made a commitment to ideals of health and
quality of life for their fellow Palo Altans, the Bay Area,
and the national Christian Science community. These residents
- Charles and Myrtle Whitney, Arthur and Eugenia Fosbery, Bertha
Wright and Mabel Weed, and Prottinger - were upstanding Palo
Alto citizens who were united by the theme of healthy living
that characterizes the Bungalow style.
Criterion 3, as substantial single story Bungalows are rare
throughout the Bay Area: Rosedale Manor is without peer in Palo
Alto in its ample size and understated yet elegant rendition
of the Bungalow style.
Criterion 4, as the design of this residence is particularly
representative of an architectural style - the Bungalow Style
- and contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention
to architectural design and detail. The Bungalow architectural
09/15/97 −293
style embodied an ideal vision of healthy suburban living in
a sophisticated environment; a vision that reached its epitome
in California. Rosedale Manor is a textbook example of the
Bungalow style. This large single story Bungalow is unique
in Palo Alto with respect to its size and understated artistry.
The construction of this residence signaled development of the
Ashby addition and its quality may be seen as a reflection of
the owner’s ambitions for a flourishing new neighborhood in
Palo Alto.
2. Under the City of Palo Alto's Criteria for Evaluating the
Significance of Historic Resources, 1078 Forest best fits the
category of HISTORIC LANDMARK RESIDENCE. The residence, in
its architectural features, scale, style, setting and
associated cultural history, satisfies the standard of
exceptional or major building as contained in the definition
of Landmark Properties. The Landmark Historic Residence
category is one that permits some exterior alterations provided
the original character is retained. Rosedale Manor has
experienced exterior alterations; however, these alterations
have not diminished the period presence of the structure, and
may all be characterized as reversible (additive) alterations
that might be corrected by sensitive repairs and restoration.
Council Member McCown said the structure retained much of its
original design and character and she included in that the additions,
most of which, with the exception of the rear most portions were
made more than 50 years ago. In that aspect of the house, she saw
obvious care by past owners who made the additions to the original
rectangular bungalow with an eye towards preserving and enhancing
the building. It was an example of where City policy should be to
try to encourage current and future owners of the house to continue
in the same spirit. Were it in a different economic climate, the
past historic ordinance would probably be enough. As neighbors
indicated, there are other houses on the block where owners had
voluntarily valued the historic character of their houses and
preserved them without City intervention. The Council was faced with
very significant “shooting through the roof” economic pressures that
made it difficult to achieve the City policy which was to encourage
preservation of like structures without City intervention. The
designation was supportable. She was particularly struck by the
siting of the house as it related to its original relationships to
the properties around it. Another important fact was that it dated
back almost 100 years. She had no doubt that a new structure designed
sensibly could be an addition to the neighborhood, but that could
not be equated with a house that originated in 1905. The Council
needed to look at the question of the loss to the community if the
house were not preserved.
09/15/97 −294
Council Member Wheeler had been thinking about the application since
the HRB heard the item. As her colleagues observed from the minutes
and correspondence, five people she deeply respected had debated
the designation in a very spirited way and had strong feelings about
it. That caused her personal difficulty in coming to her
conclusions. She came to her decision based not only on being at
the meeting and reading all the material, but also that she took
a field trip with Council Member Kniss and looked at a number of
properties on the street. They were allowed to look at the exterior
and interior of the Rosedale Manor. She also took a walk with Council
Member McCown and met with Emily Renzel, taking note of the house
and its surroundings. She noted on both trips there was a number
of historically designated houses that still existed in the
neighborhood. There were a number of houses that predated Rosedale
Manor that were inhabited by people who admired them and had taken
care of them. In addition, there was an immediate relationship to
the garden and house next door. On page 5 of the report to the HRB,
dated 7/2/97, Ms. Judy pointed out that the ample lot that once
existed was subdivided, but other than the legal alteration and its
reflection in the large hedge on the left side of the residence,
no physical alteration to the site and its garden setting had
occurred. If one walked down the driveway of Rosedale Manor and
stood at the porch entryway, one could still see the two boxwood
trees that were probably planted by the original owner and formed
a walkway through which one could walk to the still existing pool
at the property at 1056 Forest Avenue. There still was a close
relationship to the next door property. The Council should add to
the findings under Criterion 1 language that reflected the close
relationship of the Rosedale Manor property to the garden next door.
Throughout the material that was submitted in writing, there was
some question of the prominence of Mr. Miller as an architect. She
understood that the appellant’s historian said that Mr. Miller was
a well known architect in the Bay Area and a partner in a famous
architectural office. Whether this was the finest example of what
Mr. Miller designed in his career was probably debatable, but Julia
Morgan designed Hearst Castle and the former Veterans building, now
McArthur Park Restaurant. One could draw a lot of conclusions about
the architecture of those two, but it did not diminish the value
of the old Veterans building. There were also many structures
designed by Birge Clark in Palo Alto which were considered important,
some were grand, but she found one house that no one would imagine
was a Birge Clark. She concluded that the designation of Landmark
residence could and should be applied to Rosedale Manor.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SECONDER to
incorporate the oral findings from Council Members McCown and Wheeler
and to direct staff to attach the minutes when they are transcribed
to the staff-recommended findings.
09/15/97 −295
Council Member Eakins said the discussion about style was useful
in looking at the building and seeing what roof mass meant in terms
of its style and authenticity. The Council learned about Miller
and the Miller Pflueger firm. The Council had been educated from
the debate. She found Mr. Backlund’s comments useful, especially
the detailed discussion of the qualities of the building and bringing
that into the interim ordinance Landmark definition. When making
Landmark designations, during the interim ordinance, it appeared
wise not to stray too far from the City’s long established standards
of landmarking. The Council changed the previous landmarking
standards to interim standards. She felt confident the Council
could use the interim standards for landmarking the building.
Seeing a house that was allowed to become a little run down was hard
because there was an expectation that it might be demolished. She
knew of another nursing home that was converted into a lovely
residence. The building represented a bungalow that was rare in
Palo Alto’s history. The bungalow style was very fitting for
California. It was open and airy and related to the out of doors
unlike other houses. She believed Rosedale Manor was worth saving.
Council Member Rosenbaum spoke with Mr. Harrow and Ms. Renzel and
had inspected the property. At least 25 years prior, his mother
spent a week at the board and care facility, so he had some familiarity
with it. He reached the opposite conclusion of Mr. Bernstein and
Mr. Backlund. He had trouble considering it to be an exceptional
or major building which was the City’s definition for a Landmark
property, exceptional or major buildings which are of prominent
national, state, regional or local importance, exhibit meritorious
work of the best architect are an outstanding example, etc. He
thought, as the dissenting members of the HRB, the building would
lower the standards for Landmark status. He did not believe the
Council should take that step.
Council Member Andersen said he was not persuaded when he heard
arguments about economic interests or when realtors told him the
market was being adversely affected by the City’s restraints. He
was sympathetic to but not persuaded by neighbors concerns about
the possibility of having another kind of structure put into the
neighborhood. One responsibility was to look at whether or not it
was a historic designation. He felt there was a reason why two
members of the HRB questioned that, and he concurred with their
analysis and therefore could not accept the designation.
Council Member Kniss said it was a difficult decision. It had to
do more with overall fabric. She had been in London during a business
trip and met with friends who had bought a house there. They were
in a part of London where external changes to houses could not be
made which was also a part that was the most expensive. There were
parts of San Francisco and Los Gatos that were extremely protected,
09/15/97 −296
more than in Palo Alto. The house met the criteria that was currently
set. She thought to alter the house at that time would be
troublesome. The reason she reviewed with Ms. Judy what could be
done with the house reassured her that, while it currently had some
hodge podge to the interior, it did have lovely rooms. Many people
referred to Dennis Backlund’s comments, and she appreciated his
report and pictures.
Mayor Huber supported the motion saying it was a difficult decision.
The findings could be made and he concurred with Council Member
Kniss’s comments that the standards were changed in the interim
period in order to save some of the structures, and Rosedale Manor
one was worth saving.
MOTION PASSED 6-2, Andersen, Rosenbaum “no,” Schneider “not
participating.”
COUNCIL MATTERS
10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Vice Mayor Andersen asked that staff prepare a letter to the Governor
to support AB 682.
Council Member Wheeler asked the City Attorney to respond to a memo
at places regarding Ms. Kim’s letter.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said he did not feel there was an issue
for Council to respond to at this point.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:53 p.m. in recognition of
Rick Kniss’s birthday.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo
Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(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.
09/15/97 −297