Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-20 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting January 20, 1998 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Visit to 151-Acre Site of Los Trancos Road Eight Lot Subdivision (Lands of Arrillaga).......85-416 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m...........85-416 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................85-417 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................85-417 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................85-417 1. (Old Item No. 2) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an Amendment to the Terman Specific Plan to allow removal of portions of the existing wall between Terman Drive and the property located at 673 and 679 Arastradero Road 85-418 2. (Old Item No. 3) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.06-acre parcel into 35 air space condominiums for property located at 425-435 Sheridan Avenue (440 Page Mill Road)..................85-418 3. (Old Item No. 1) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Tentative Map application for Los Trancos Road Subdivision (Lands of Arrillaga, AP# 182-46-010) to subdivide 151+ acres into 8-lot, single-family residential lots and one private open space/common area parcel of 81+ acres in size.85-425 4. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........85-450 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m............85-450 01/20/98 85-415 The Special Meeting of the City Council was adjourned by Mayor Rosenbaum because of a lack of quorum. SPECIAL MEETING 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Visit to 151-Acre Site of Los Trancos Road Eight Lot Subdivision (Lands of Arrillaga) The Public Hearing for the purposes of a Site Visit did not occur. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m. 01/20/98 85-416 Regular Meeting January 20, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:03 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 8:50 p.m.), Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) ABSENT: Huber ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Grady Maggard, 3818 Magnolia Drive, spoke regarding the street improvement project in Barron Park and unsafe curbs around storm drains. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding an illegally installed fence, requesting code enforcement by the City. Faith Bell, 536 Emerson Street, spoke regarding time allotted during oral communications affecting freedom of speech. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding Architectural Review Board (ARB) Site and Design review of individually designed homes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the Minutes of October 15, 1997, and October 20, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 5-0-2, Mossar, Ojakian Αabstaining,≅ Fazzino, Huber absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to move Item Nos. 2 and 3 ahead of Item No. 1 and renumber accordingly. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. (Old Item No. 2) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an Amendment to the Terman Specific Plan to allow removal of portions of the existing wall between Terman Drive and the property located at 673 and 679 Arastradero Road. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. 01/20/98 85-417 Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendations as follows: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment A to the Planning Commission staff report), with a finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and 2. An amendment to the Terman Specific Plan as stated in the Resolution (Attachment B to the Planning Commission staff report). Resolution 7741 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Terman Specific Plan≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. 2. (Old Item No. 3) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.06-acre parcel into 35 air space condominiums for property located at 425-435 Sheridan Avenue (440 Page Mill Road). Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Serena Trachta, 1002 Rhode Island Street, San Francisco, introduced herself as the architect responsible for the submittal. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation approving the tentative map based on findings (Planning Commission staff report Attachment 1) and conditions as follows: DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION 425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE Recommended Findings for Approval 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, in that the 01/20/98 85-418 project would be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.20) in that the proposed subdivision is consistent with neighboring properties, particularly the adjacent Page Mill Court complex; the project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Housing Element Policy #3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto's neighborhoods especially desirable" in that the project is located in a unique neighborhood that features a mix of multiple family residences and commercial activity and is in close proximity to the California Avenue Business District; Housing Element Policy #13: "Increase funding sources used to provide affordable housing," in that the project will provide Below Market rate units that will contribute to the supply of affordable housing and the project recently has been revised to provide 6 three-bedroom units for families as well as 29 two-bedroom units; Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through the review of new development" in that the site is designated Multiple Family Residential and is well suited for this use and that the proposed site plan makes more efficient use of the site by improving the layout of parking and landscaped areas compared with the previous use; and Urban Design Element, Policy 6A, Program G, "Encourage residential use in the commercial areas near California- Cambridge Avenue area" in that the proposed replacement of a laboratory building with high density residential use within walking distance of California Avenue is consistent with this policy; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed 35 condominium units are within the density range allowed by existing zoning and compatible with the scale of neighboring multiple family buildings; 3. The design of the condominium complex will not cause significant environmental impacts in that potential traffic, noise, and biological impacts have been mitigated by the dedication of a sound wall, and existing trees have been either preserved or replaced on-site. 4. The design of the condominium complex will not result in serious public health problems, would not be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood and would result in development of multiple-family homes that would be consistent with the adjacent buildings in the neighborhood in that previously stored hazardous materials have been removed from the site, the project 01/20/98 85-419 completes the multiple family pattern established by existing apartments in the neighborhood and the size and scale of the building is similar to that of adjacent multiple family buildings on Ash and Sheridan Avenue; and 5. The design of the condominium complex will not conflict with public easements for access through the use of the property in that the resulting lots would have frontage on a public street for vehicular access and utility service. REVISED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION 425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISION PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP Public Works Engineering 1. The subdivider shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Planning Arborist, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. 2. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City's jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department. Utilities 3. The subdivider shall coordinate with the Utilities Department to determine all utility design and capacity requirements including water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable facilities. All new construction shall have underground utility, telephone and cable service. The project shall be limited to single service laterals for each lot for sewer, water and gas. Each parcel shall have separate electrical service. All utility plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department before the Parcel map is recorded. 4. The subdivider shall submit improvement plans and specifications for all utility construction. The plans must show the proposed alignment of water, gas, and sewer 01/20/98 85-420 mains and services within the development and in the public right-of-way. 5. The subdivider shall submit flow calculations which will show the off-site and on-site water and sewer mains will provide the domestic water, fire flows and sewer capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flows. PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP Planning 6. The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The agreement shall be recorded with the approved final map at the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder and shall include the following agreements: a) The subdivider shall be responsible for installing any required off-site improvements, including utilities, to the satisfaction of the Utilities, Public Works, and Planning Departments. These improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. b) The subdivider shall grant the necessary public utility easements to the City for the location and maintenance of required utilities. The required easements shall be shown on the face of the subdivision map. c) The subdivider shall preserve all existing trees shown for preservation on the site plan and shall include all trees in the final landscape plans. d) The subdivider shall comply with the City=s Below Market Rate requirements as described in Condition 5. 7. In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the project shall provide two (2) two-bedroom units and one (1) three bedroom unit to be included in the Below Market Rate program, and subject to the restrictions applicable to for sale units placed in the BMR program. The units shall be two ΑK≅ units on the first floor and unit ΑH≅ on the second floor, as specified on the approved plans. Unit ΑH≅ shall be reconfigured as a three bedroom unit. The exact locations of the units shall be shown on the final subdivision map prior to consideration by City Council. 01/20/98 85-421 The design, construction, materials, finishes, windows, hardware, light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation, appliances and like features of the BMR units shall be comparable to all other units in the project. The owners of the BMR units shall have access to all facilities, amenities, parking and storage as provided to other owners in the project. The initial sales price of each of the two-bedroom units shall be $140,700 and the initial sales price of the three-bedroom unit shall be $164,800. These prices were determined utilizing the City of Palo Alto current Housing Price Guidelines (effective May 1, 1996). The price list is adjusted annually. The greater of the sales price set forth above or the applicable prices in effect at the time of final map approval shall be the initial sales price of the BMR units. The provisions of this condition have been negotiated between the City and the project applicant, and are based upon that letter from Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment to J. David Knudson dated July 21, 1997, and signed by J. David Knudson on July 28, 1997. In the event of conflict between the letter and the PC Ordinance, the terms of the Ordinance shall prevail. The provisions were negotiated based upon the understanding that the project will consist of for-sale condominium units. In the event that the project is to be used for rental purposes a new BMR agreement must be negotiated with the City prior to occupancy. 8. The final subdivision map shall be filed with the Planning Division within two years of the approval of the tentative subdivision map. Public Works Engineering 9. A street dedication as offered by the applicant as part of the PC rezoning of the property is required as follows: Subdivider shall dedicate a ten (10) foot wide strip along the southerly side of the property along the entire frontage of Page Mill Road. 10. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the work specified in condition(s) 9 and 18. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 01/20/98 85-422 11. The subdivider shall submit to Public Works Engineering one (1) permanent mylar with reproducible set of "as built" drawings for the work in the City right-of-way. Utilities 12. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Standard Specifications and the Utility department Standard Conditions. 13. The subdivider shall be responsible for installing and upgrading on-site and off-site water and sewer utilities as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes the cost of all associated utility installations/upgrades. 14. The subdivider shall pay all costs associated with the required improvements to off-site gas mains. All improvements to the gas system shall be installed by the City of Palo Alto. 15. The subdivider shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 16. All on-site and off-site improvements, including the relocation of any existing utilities to accommodate the project shall be done at the subdivider=s expense. The City will provide one electric service to the new merged parcel. 17. The subdivider shall submit a storm water pollution protection plan to be included in the improvement plan submittal. 18. The subdivider shall construct public curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the entire frontage of Page Mill Road. The improvements shall meet the City's standard requirements and shall be to the City's satisfaction. 19. The subdivider shall comply with all the conditions of the PC Zone Change approved by the City Council on October 20, 1997 and contained in the staff report dated October 20, 1997. PRIOR TO FINAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT 01/20/98 85-423 20. The subdivider shall install all electric utilities in accordance with Palo Alto Standards, including underground utilities and street lights, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. Each residence shall have individual electrical service. A new padmount transformer is required to serve the subdivision. All electrical plans shall be approved by the Light and Power Division before the final map is approved. ONGOING (Throughout Processing and Construction) 21. City staff required time for implementing and monitoring a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the project applicant. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. (Old Item No. 1) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Tentative Map application for Los Trancos Road Subdivision (Lands of Arrillaga, AP# 182-46-010) to subdivide 151+ acres into 8-lot, single-family residential lots and one private open space/common area parcel of 81+ acres in size. The application is accompanied by requests for Conditional Exceptions to permit 1) main access road grades in excess of the 15% maximum grade limitation of PAMC Section 21.20.210 and 2) a main access road width of 24 feet and right-of-way width of 42 feet, in-lieu of the required 30 foot road width and 50 foot right-of-way width, as required by PAMC Section 21.28.020. (continued from 12/15/97) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final EIR and Making Findings Thereon Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said condition #53 was added to the staff report (CMR:496:97) subsequent to its preparation, "Prior to the issuance of a building permit for lot #6, the existing caretaker's residence that is located adjacent to the emergency access road shall be removed or demolished." Mr. Borock had raised the issue in a letter to the Council which staff had found worthy of investigation. An area map was shown via overhead indicating the relationship of the site to open space lands, the Hewlett and Leigh subdivisions, and the private open space lands. The Hewlett and Leigh subdivisions were examples of the type of subdivision activities in the area. The process had become confused because the Portola Valley process required a planned unit development (PUD), similar to Palo Alto's Planned Community (PC) Zone for the same type of development, entailing the 01/20/98 85-424 identification of buildings, features, etc. Subdivision maps only established the roads, access, lot patterns, building area, etc., with no design review of buildings. The foothills area had site and design requirements for single-family units which involved Planning Commission and Council approval. If a subdivision was approved, any lots would come before the Planning Commission and Council prior to being built, an important distinction between the Palo Alto and Portola Valley processes. The first proposal contained landslide possibilities, sediment problems, stormwater retention basin needs, an emergency exit going through a number of trees with tree loss, many of the proposed buildings on ridge-top sites which were highly visible from off-site particularly from Portola Valley, and large lots with no permanent open space. The project had gone through a series of revisions, the first of which accomplished things staff had sought: a ninth parcel designated as permanent open space. Lots 1, 2, 5, and 6 removed the houses from the ridge tops; however, no restrictions existed for where the buildings were located on the sites. Staff proposed a map for presentation to the Planning Commission which saved a considerable number of trees, realigned a road to follow existing fire access, eliminated the need for the stormwater retention basin and other related erosion and sedimentation problems, identified a water tank, and shifted building areas for lots 3, 5, and 6 to reduce tree loss and driveway width. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted a modification to staff's map which was essentially the same, except lots 2 and 3 were notably different. Attachment 1C of the staff report (CMR:496:97) represented Alternative #5 in the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which the Planning Commission had approved. Alternative #5 was based on the Santa Clara County Hillside Ordinance: 90 percent of the land was designated permanent open space, the access road was essentially the same as staff's recommendation, and building sites were located away from Portola Valley. Reduced visibility impacts were traded with an increased loss of trees. Staff attempted to reduce the amount of tree loss, which was clearly one of the tradeoffs. Staff's recommendation was different from the initial application, but staff believed the conclusion addressed a variety of issues. Over half the site was permanent open space, the access road cut and fill had been resolved, storm water problems had been resolved, the storm water retention basin removed, emergency road realigned, and surveyable building areas were defined. The areas designated for buildings had to be precisely located prior to approval of the final map. City Attorney Ariel Calonne discussed the relevant laws governing the Council's decision which were contained in the staff report (CMR:496:97) in the form of different findings. The record before the Council went back a number of years. The laws governing subdivisions were somewhat unfamiliar to the Council since Palo Alto had not conducted a great deal of subdivision business because the City was largely built out. The project was a matter of 01/20/98 85-425 applying a fixed set of facts to the relatively few rules. The Subdivision Map Act (SMA) described when a subdivision had to be denied and when a subdivision could be approved. The first issue for the Council was whether the proposed map was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as detailed in the EIR. In addition, a letter from Mr. Borock referred to the open space development criteria addressed under various open space development guidelines in the staff report and EIR. Although the criteria was not part of the Comprehensive Plan, it was relevant for Council consideration. The map, therefore, was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The second issue addressed whether the map was consistent in design or improvement with the Comprehensive Plan. Design and improvement included lot layout and whatever roads or public facilities would be built. The third finding was whether the site was physically suitable for the type of development; the fourth was physical suitability for the proposed density; and finally, whether the subdivision was likely to cause substantial environmental damage. The key issue was consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and open space policy, and whether the environmental and staff work revealed anything about the site to indicate it was not physically suitable for the development or improvements proposed. The City's open space zoning was the second key source of guidance for Council's decision. Some key regulations in the open space zoning included road access. The Council was barred by its own ordinance from approving road access unless the purpose of the road was essential for establishment or maintenance of a use expressly permitted; for instance, roadways should be kept to a bare minimum in the foothills and open spaces. "Essential" implied the road was the minimum necessary. Section H gave the Council the most room to work with the evidence; for example, open space subdivisions had to be designed on the cluster principle and developments should be located in less, rather than more, conspicuous areas. The cluster principle was not defined in the zoning, but was addressed to a degree in the open space design criteria and focused on a closely grouped development. No fixed rule addressed how close or far the houses had to be. The Council had to interpret the facts to determine whether the subdivision was clustered sufficiently to meet zoning requirements. The requirement to locate the development in a less rather than more conspicuous area would not require the Council to locate the development in the least conspicuous area. The Council had to apply whatever evidence was in the record and presented by the public to determine whether the development was in a less conspicuous area. Between the subdivision findings and the special regulations, the Council had the key issues. The requirement of the open space zoning chapter was that the subdivision preserve and protect inherent open space characteristics. The progression described by Mr. Schreiber moved toward preserving a predominantly permanent open space parcel and was closer to meeting the purposes of the chapter. The Council's task was to certify that the environmental review was adequate. Findings about the project that had to be made related to what impacts the EIR identified as being significant. The purpose of 01/20/98 85-426 the EIR was to reveal significant environmental consequences using a variety of standards. Once significant impacts were identified, the City was required by law to reduce the impacts to the maximum extent feasible, to the level of insignificance, or avoid them altogether. In the proposed projects, four impacts remained unavoidable even after all feasible mitigation applied. For the four impacts, staff recommended the Council determine that the benefits of the project outweighed the impacts so the EIR would become acceptable. The decision was a policy judgment. The SMA indicated the Council had 30 days from certification of the final EIR to complete deliberations on the project and one year in which to certify the EIR. The one-year time frame expired on January 27, 1998. Planning Commissioner Annette Bialson said the Planning Commission had grappled with the project on three different occasions and appreciated the assistance given by staff. Staff indicated to the Planning Commission at its November 12, 1997, meeting that it had to act under the Permit Streamlining Act in order to allow the issue to be addressed by Council by January 27, 1998, and, therefore, could not be continued for further analysis. Staff proposed a number of conditions to make the project acceptable. The Planning Commission, on a 5:1 vote, considered its hands tied procedurally and voted against the finding that the project was acceptable. The Planning Commission's action was correctly stated in the staff report (CMR:496:97) regarding its concern about protection of the site's scenic resources by screening the development from offsite, provision of the maximum amount of open space, and tighter clustering. As stated by Mr. Calonne, no definition existed for a "cluster." The Planning Commission had requested Alternative #5 be presented in the EIR. The draft EIR had not contained the alternative. According to the representative from the City Attorney=s office, the Planning Commission could not vote on the alternative, but used it as a guide for what could be achieved by the applicant. In the weighing process, the Planning Commission had often examined Alternative #5. The Planning Commission had been impressed by the fact that trees would be lost by having a project closer to Alternative #5; however, the loss of trees was outweighed by the preservation of far more scenic beauty by the preservation of open grassland. A statement made by one of the Planning Commissioners summed up the Planning Commission's feelings that the decision was between the occupants of eight houses looking out certain windows to see other houses versus everyone on public lands such as Skyline, Windy Hill, and Foothills Park looking down on meadow lands covered with a road, cul de sac, long driveways, houses, ancillary buildings, swimming pools, and tennis courts. Mayor Rosenbaum reminded the Council of the quasi judicial nature of the item and the requirement for disclosing contacts. He disclosed a personal visit to the countryside surrounding the property with several residents from Portola Valley and a visit 01/20/98 85-427 with the applicant, staff members, and members of the public that day. Council Member Wheeler disclosed having accompanied Mayor Rosenbaum on both of his outings, the first of which occurred in early December 1997 when the property was viewed from outside the property in Palo Alto and Portola Valley. She had also accompanied staff that day to the proposed sites. Staff had presented a number of maps with a great deal of variation and versions. She asked whether any one particular map should be considered the official map for Council consideration or whether the Council was free, within the range of maps shown, to make its decisions. Mr. Calonne said the most recently revised application map was before the Council. Staff suggested a range of conditions of approval to modify the map. Senior Assistant City Attorney, Debra Cauble, gave advice during the Planning Commission meeting that the Planning Commission and/or Council were not free to redesign the subdivision just "because it would be better." If the findings could not be made and Council was compelled to deny the application, the Council could approve it with conditions which would allow the Council to make the findings. Staff had created a series of conditions of approval which effected a redesign of the subdivision and made it better in the minds of staff. The reasoning process was, unfortunately, structured and needed to turn around the important findings, such as the finding that the subdivision be less conspicuous than more conspicuous. The Council was free to impose a condition of approval which called for a less conspicuous lot pattern, hopefully with some discussion of why it would be less conspicuous. The applicant's last revised proposal was before the Council for approval and could be conditioned to meet Council action. Council Member Wheeler asked about the timing issue mentioned in Mr. Calonne's presentation. The Planning Commission had been told to move the item forward, even though there had been questions about the material in hand that evening and a map revision which the Planning Commission had not had the opportunity to thoroughly examine. The Council had the item on its agenda in December 1997 and, at the request of the applicant, the public hearing was delayed until the current meeting. She asked whether the fact the delay had been the result of a request from the applicant provided the Council with any flexibility in terms of the time by which it must certify the EIR and/or approve the map. Mr. Calonne said no. If the one year EIR deadline was construed as mandatory, the Council had 30 days from that date to conclude its map deliberations. Whether the EIR was certified at the current meeting or not, the operative deadline was 30 days after January 27, 1998. The decision to ask the applicant about an extension of time should be framed only after a determination had been made that 30 days after January 27, 1998, was problematic. 01/20/98 85-428 Council Member Wheeler clarified the extension was only upon permission of the applicant. Mr. Calonne replied yes. Regardless, an extension request by the applicant would not automatically buy additional time. Council Member Wheeler asked about the staff recommendation where the sites were more clustered than the applicant's proposal. The Planning Commission attempted to conform with the County's hillside zone of 10 percent developed and 90 percent open space. Mr. Schreiber said the permanent open space acreage covered half the site. From staff's standpoint, both complied with the intent of the ordinance in terms of the cluster principle of the development and preserving a significant portion of the site on undeveloped status. Council Member Wheeler said several suggestions were presented concerning how the permanent open space, included on the applicant's map as lot 9, would be achieved and insured in perpetuity; one suggestion was the use of an open space easement mechanism. She assumed staff believed there were other mechanisms just as effective. She asked what an open space easement meant. Mr. Schreiber said in the past, the final map designated the area as an unbuildable area to be permanently used for open space, which meant no building permits and no development right in and of itself. The development right concentrated on the remaining parcel, and from the standpoint of preserving land and understanding, it was privately held open space; the type of tentative map condition and final map recordation of a condition was sufficient to protect the interest of the City. Mr. Calonne said the question was enforcement. If an easement was not used, the zoning ordinance indicated open space parcels reserved in such a manner could not be developed which, conceivably, a future Council could change. An open space easement amounted to a privately created covenant which would not depend on the City's zoning ordinance for enforcement. One perceived advantage of an easement might be its durability, notwithstanding successive Council action. Mr. Schreiber said the open space area was just over 80 acres, which was a little more than half of the site. With the building restriction on the lots, a significant portion of the lot area was effectively unbuildable. Council Member Wheeler said according to the application indicated on the map, the open space area in the staff recommendation fell somewhere between the 80 acres and the 135 acres the Planning Commission recommended. 01/20/98 85-429 Mr. Schreiber said the staff recommendation was similar to the applicant's proposal. The only real difference between the applicant's latest proposal and the staff recommendation was the location of the building areas for lots 2 and 3. The lotting pattern remained essentially the same so the permanent open space area was a little more than half of the site. Council Member Eakins appreciated the map which showed the tree canopy. She asked for an indication of the approximate location of the building sites in the staff recommendation. Mr. Schreiber showed the transparency with the tree canopy overlaid on staff's recommendation. Lot 5 was the only lot on which staff was unable to find a building location that did not involve the removal of trees. All other lots were located in essentially open areas which would not involve the loss of notable trees. Council Member Eakins asked whether anything would obligate the owner to refurbish the open space area if a disaster destroyed the tree canopy in the area. Mr. Schreiber was unaware of any obligation for the owners of private property, the City, or any other public entity to actively reforest an area in the event of a devastating fire. Naturalists would probably voice differing opinions about whether reforesting or letting nature take its course was best since fire was historically a natural part of the ecosystem. No regulations addressed such an occurrence. Council Member Eakins asked whether the staff recommendation for the site and design review to be a mitigation in the EIR for improvements was a certainty. Mr. Schreiber replied yes, to the extent the City's regulations required it. A future City Council could remove site and design review but the assumption was that the existing regulatory framework would remain in place. EIRs often included regulatory review with mitigations. If for some unforeseen reason the City had no site and design review in 30 years, he was unsure the City would have the leverage to return to a 1998 EIR and require a site and design review. Scott MacPherson, Nichols & Berman Environmental Planning, 142 Minna Street, San Francisco, said a table entitled the ΑMitigation Monitoring Program/Plan≅ was contained in Attachment 12 of the staff report (CMR:496:98) and represented the City's method of ensuring every mitigation in the EIR was implemented. Many of the mitigations had been keyed into the site and design review process. 01/20/98 85-430 Council Member Eakins disclosed having visited the site with Portola Valley residents and had made two visits to the site with the applicant and others. Council Member Kniss disclosed having visited the site with the applicant and with Linda Alcine. She was very familiar with Portola Valley Ranch because many Palo Altans had moved to Portola Valley Ranch. She had also been to the site at other times for other reasons. She asked whether her disclosure was sufficient. Mr. Calonne said the rule required recollection of any influential discussions. Council Member Kniss said according to City zoning and what had recently been reiterated by the Council at a December meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan, staff had indicated zoning was one dwelling per acre. In the proposal under discussion, eight lots were proposed. She asked for an historic review and asked whether, if denied, the applicant could return with another plan to develop 14 or 15 lots. Mr. Schreiber clarified one unit per ten acres: 15 lots possible. No negotiation had been held. The applicant had proposed eight lots throughout the process. To that extent, nothing in the EIR process would have led staff to call for or have the leverage to reduce the density of the project. The impacts identified in the EIR had been mitigated through a variety of other means besides reduction in density. The applicant could withdraw the application and return with a 15-lot application. Mr. Calonne said it was one of the few areas where environmental law constrained the Council on the kinds of mitigation it could offer. State law said the City could not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure unless there was no other way to accomplish the mitigation. The idea of reducing the number of housing units proposed was strongly disfavored by environmental law. Council Member Kniss said one of the drawings or renditions which had been most helpful had been given to some Council Members, but not all. A CAD system would have been helpful. Mr. Schreiber said staff was not familiar with the graphic mentioned by Council Member Kniss. Council Member Kniss would provide a copy to staff. She asked for a comparison of Attachment 1C of the staff report (CMR:496:97), which had been favored by the Planning Commission, and the map showing the trees. Mr. Schreiber said a number of the parcels were located in areas with trees. Lots 5, 4, 3, and the edge of 2 impacted trees. 01/20/98 85-431 Council Member Kniss asked how closely the lots were situated to one another. Mr. Schreiber said the applicant's representative could more easily respond to the question. Council Member Kniss said Attachment 1C appeared to reveal a very tight cluster. A question was raised in a letter from former Planning Commissioner Christianson about the open space/meadow issue versus the loss of trees to attain a certain size lot. She asked whether it was under Council's purview to determine how many trees could be removed in order to build. The area was heavily wooded. Mr. Schreiber said staff had no precise number for tree loss; it would depend on the actual location of the structures. What would become more difficult than the alternative was the identification of a building area at the current time which would minimize tree loss as well as avoid a strange configuration of the houses on the lots. The lots would not be large, averaging less than two acres each, which could lead to significant constraints. Council Member Kniss said the variation would improve the view from Colemine Ridge. She asked whether the Council could limit the sites to two acres even though the City had a ten-acre limit. Mr. Schreiber said if lots in the cluster were less than ten acres each, the City had the ability to consolidate the density in the area. With Alternative #5, small lots were proposed which had the potential for a very substantial structure; for example, a structure which would fit in on a four or five-acre lot would look relatively large if in close proximity to another large structure without the visual buffer or distance to help ameliorate some of the visual impacts of large structures. Council Member Kniss clarified the problem could be exacerbated rather than eliminated by clustering too tightly. Mr. Schreiber said staff had color transparencies of all of the photo montages in the draft EIR and final document. Three views could be shown from Foothills Park trail, Hewlett subdivision property, and Portola Valley Ranch. Vice Mayor Schneider thanked Commissioner Bialson, appreciating the pressure experienced in the October Planning Commission meeting with the deadlines approaching and the difficulties which the Commission must have encountered in reaching the decision. She asked about the Planning Commission's findings for the denial of the tentative subdivision map and the intent of the Open Space (OS) District. Page 2-1 of Attachment 2B of the staff report (CMR:496:97), the first of the Planning Commission's Findings for 01/20/98 85-432 Denial of the Tentative Subdivision Map, indicated, "...the subdivision, as designed, would not be consistent with Policy 4 and Policy 11 of the Open Space Element in that, proposed improvements would not be located in a manner that would fully protect scenic areas and would not result in the maximum amount of permanent open space that could be preserved on this site through the approval of this subdivision." She asked about the difference between Mr. Calonne's statement that the City would not have to fully protect but had to achieve "reasonable" or minimized visual impacts. The same was true with clustering. On one hand, the Planning Commission's finding #2 stated "the proposed lots are not sized and configured to be result in a tight clustering pattern, as required by the provisions of the OS (Open Space) District," and Mr. Calonne indicated the City had to achieve a "reasonable" level of clustering. Mr. Calonne thought he had not used the word "reasonable," but indicated the Council had to determine the type of clustering which made sense. Council Member Schneider was correct in focusing on the words "fully protect" and "maximum amount of permanent open space." The Council was not required to meet the standards. OS District regulations and relevant Comprehensive Plan policies had not defined mandatory maximum or minimum standards. He was unsure what the words meant to the Planning Commission. The Council should not interpret the law as requiring the maximum effort preservation duty. Vice Mayor Schneider disclosed site visits to the property on two separate occasions: once with the applicant and once with Portola Valley residents. Mr. Calonne called the Council's attention to the table in the draft EIR on pages 5.1-9 through 5.1-13 which described the relevant OS policy constraints or guidance for Council. On Page 5.1-11, Policy 11 indicated, "provide maximum open space consistent with residents' needs and economic feasibility." The maximum was balanced against residents' needs and economic feasibility. Council Member Schneider asked about other large, undeveloped areas located within the City available for subdivision, where the Council would be considering the same types of constraints on the applicant, if any. Mr. Schreiber said the City had very few such areas. In terms of open space land in the foothills, the City had some land zoned Planned Community (PC) but not an active PC zone. There was no active or potential for development on 77 acres of land on Arastradero Road, 120 acres at Palo Alto Hills Golf & Country Club, and 141 acres of the Fogglety property on Skyline Boulevard. Some land owned by Kaiser Permanente was essentially land-locked and was part of the holdings in Cupertino, the access for which would have to go through the OS District. The OS District might not be 01/20/98 85-433 particularly receptive to constructing a road to access the property. Beyond that, there were a variety of other smaller parcels in the foothills, but nothing on the order of what was being examined at the current meeting. Other than Kaiser Permanente, nothing was as large as 150 acres. Council Member Mossar questioned the suitability of the site for development. The EIR had evaluated stormwater runoff, impervious surface, grading, septic systems, etc., but a great deal information was to be determined after a decision was made on the EIR and the tentative map. Her questions related to how the City could determine the suitability of the site for development without information subsequent to the decision. Depending upon the configuration, some lots had slopes greater than 15 percent; therefore, stormwater runoff would be a greater consideration than for lots with less steep slopes. Septic tanks would be less buildable on steeper slopes. The soil seemed highly erodible with evidence of existing erosion on the site, raising questions about the steeper lots. In general, she queried whether the City really understood the full impacts of grading the site, whether it had any sense of visual simulation of the result of the grading proposed as various mitigations, and whether the City had really examined the impacts on creeks from grading. Mr. MacPherson said the application lacked detailed information because the map was tentative. Portola Valley required specific information to determine impacts: after the tentative map, the final map would determine specific lot lines, specific street information, improvement plans, and physical improvements, such as retaining walls, street plantings, etc. By law, if specific information was not available, the EIR had to use the general information and fashion mitigation measures covering basically any eventuality which could arise, which was what had been done for the EIR in question. Some of the more specific information was unknown, such as exact grading locations, visual impacts, etc. Page 5.2-13 of the EIR discussed secondary impacts from grading which was repeated throughout the EIR in general impacts. With the photo simulations, confidence had been given that some type of mitigated grading would occur. One of the photo simulations in the EIR showed the effect of grading to repair the emergency access road. Even if not shown in the photo simulations, the text described how more grading and visual impacts could occur, all described in general terms given the information at the current time. An EIR could not predict exactly all of the specific effects, but had been described in a general manner. Bob Berman, Nichols & Berman Environmental Planning, 142 Minna Street, San Francisco, said a number of impacts were identified in the EIR with mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant. In most cases, performance-based or performance-criteria mitigation had been identified in which the mitigation measures had to meet certain criteria set out in the EIR. In 01/20/98 85-434 meeting the criteria, the impacts would be less than significant. The City Attorney had identified the four unavoidable impacts, three of which related to cumulative development inherent to any development in the Palo Alto area. The fourth involved construction-related impacts, such as visual impacts which occurred during construction. The EIR also identified the mitigation measures which would reduce the impacts to less than significant. Mr. MacPherson said in preparing an EIR, a standard called the "worst case scenario" was used; for instance, whenever a question arose about what the ultimate project would look like, the worst would be assumed. The EIR had identified, in an exhibit on Page 5.2-14 of the Draft EIR, the potential maximum grading from landslide and unstable soil had been identified and used to analyze the project. It also assumed, using that, what was required to mitigate to a less than significant level. Council Member Mossar said Mr. Calonne's presentation had discussed the criteria from the Subdivision Map Act and the findings in order to legally approve the map. Clarification was requested as to how a determination could be made for suitability of the site given the nature of the terrain and how the Council could determine the actual environmental impact of a project if the amount of grading on individual lots was unknown. Mr. Calonne said the question was what level of detail the Council thought was necessary to answer the questions posed by the findings. The ordinances spelled out the type of reports and investigations necessary prior to approval of a tentative map and spelled out the type of studies needed in the OS zone prior to a site and design review. The level of detail investigated in the EIR was consistent with the City's ordinance requirements; however, should the applicant obtain approval of the subdivision map, he would not have the right to build. The right to build in the OS zone was specifically conditioned on, for example, an in-depth geologic and soils investigation. "No site and design plan shall be approved unless it includes soil erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with adopted standards," was what Mr. MacPherson had referred to as performance-based standards. The Council had been given sufficient information to determine whether or not the site was physically suitable for development which, although possibly not everything the Council wanted on such a sensitive site, was what the ordinance required. Mr. Schreiber said the staff recommendation included a requirement for identification of clear building envelopes or areas which would not create the possibility of a future situation where someone could propose a house, outbuildings, garage, etc., on other areas on the lot. By establishing precise building sites on a final map, the potential impacts in terms of slopes, septic feasibility, erosion, grading, etc., would be minimized. Staff's opinion differed from the applicant's with regard to lots 2 and 3. If 01/20/98 85-435 located relatively far from the road, staff was concerned the driveway would cross the filled area creating potential erosion problems. Therefore, staff sought to move the building sites forward to avoid the area of relatively unstable soil. Mr. Calonne said separate from the subdivision findings, the area of concern expressed by Council Member Mossar was particularly significant and was what the performance-based standards would lead to by way of physical improvements to the site. If one assumed, for the sake of analysis, an engineering solution existed for every problem, it would still not answer the question as to whether every engineering solution was acceptable to the Council. The concern was legitimate. The only mechanism to address the concern was to try to compel a more detailed study. However, the City had no basis for doing so under the existing ordinances. The next step would be to define the kinds of improvements Council would not want. Council Member Mossar disclosed as a member of the public having toured the site in summer 1997 with the Planning Commission, twice over the past few days, that day with members of Council and the developer, and on Sunday with Council Member Fazzino, the applicant, and one of his consultants. She had also taken a tour with residents of Portola Valley and examined the site from various ridgetops surrounding the site. Council Member Ojakian disclosed visits to the site the prior summer with Council Member Mossar and the Planning Commission. He had also received a call from Mr. Arrillaga and had spoken briefly about the project the week prior. Ms. Elkind, with whom he had spoken briefly the other night, had left a packet of information with him. Two alternatives were discussed: one was the staff alternative and the other was the Planning Commission alternative. One was more sensitive to visual needs, the other more sensitive to the trees. He asked whether any other variables were affected by choosing one over the other, such as any less impervious surface in the Alternative #5 or any other important factors. City Manager June Fleming said staff had heard of several pieces of information which had not been shared with staff but which Council might question. Anything stamped in by the City Clerk's Office was the limit of staff's information. Council Member Ojakian wanted to ensure a complete public record so it was not an issue. Mr. Berman thought the variation of the eight-lot cluster and the staff version, which was very close to the eight-lot cluster alternative in the draft EIR, were basically the same. The impacts were not significantly different. The biggest differences were with the trees and visual impact. A more in-depth discussion was contained in the final EIR starting on page 14, which addressed the 01/20/98 85-436 variation of the eight-lot cluster alternative and subjects such as land use, geology, hydrology, etc.. Ms. Bialson thought a number of differences existed between staff's stated position and the Planning Commission's vote: 1) the number of acres of open space; 2) the number of acres used in building out the projects; and 3) the visual impact of the roads and impervious surface created in staff's recommendation which was greater than the Planning Commission's desired project. Council Member Ojakian asked whether it was acceptable to choose something like the Santa Clara County Hillside Ordinance, which was used by several communities, as a way to consider clustering in the absence of a definition for "cluster." Mr. Calonne was troubled about using the Santa Clara County Hillside Ordinance because of not knowing what purposes it was trying to achieve. The City's OS zoning was aimed at making less conspicuous development and was not preoccupied with assuring the maximum amount of private open space. The two worked together to a degree, but the emphasis was different. He would have concern if decision makers worked backwards from saying, "We want this much open space. What's left to develop?" which was the wrong analysis under the City's ordinance. The ordinance said, "This is what is being proposed sufficiently inconspicuous to satisfy us and the volume of open space is a secondary concern." The Santa Clara County Hillside Ordinance seemed focused on a percentage of open space which might not be justifiable given the City's conspicuous versus inconspicuous ordinance. Council Member Ojakian thought the Santa Clara ordinance would not preclude Palo Alto's since it could be used in conjunction with the other variable, the conspicuous area. Mr. Calonne was unsure. He said he could imagine factual situations where clustering would be more conspicuous. It was unclear whether less conspicuous always equated maximum with maximum open space, which was a factual issue the Council had to work through. Council Member Wheeler asked staff to provide, prior to the public hearing, copies of the photo montages of views of the area. Mayor Rosenbaum wanted to make sure the visuals corresponded to the latest plan before Council as well as to the compact cluster concerns expressed by Council. RECESS: 9:05 P.M. - 9:15 P.M. Mr. MacPherson referred to a video which showed the proposed sites in the eight-lot clustered variation and appeared in the final EIR. Photo montages were shown for both proposed developments from 01/20/98 85-437 three areas: one from Portola Valley on Hawkview Avenue, one from the Hewlett Subdivision, and one from Foothills Park along Los Trancos trail. Council Member Wheeler asked whether staff had anything which would illustrate the applicant's revised proposal. Mr. MacPherson said staff could show some of the applicant's proposal which, except for the two home sites, was very similar to the staff recommendation. Mr. Schreiber said staff's recommendation moved the buildings closer to the road but they were still visible from various locations in Portola Valley Ranch. Moving the buildings closer to the road would not remove from visibility altogether. Mr. MacPherson said Mr. Schreiber was correct. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Sam Zullo, Mark Thomas & Company, Inc., 90 Archer Street, San Jose, civil engineer representing applicant, spoke regarding open space. The project would provide over 81 acres of dedicated open space on lot 9, comprising more than 50 percent of the site. The 3.5 percent limitation in the OS District meant over 90 percent of the site would remain undeveloped. The building envelope areas were indicated on the tentative map on page 3 of Attachment 1D of the staff report (CMR:496:98). Clustering as proposed would provide one unit per 18.1 acres, less than the maximum of one unit per 10 acres which was permitted and exceeded what had been done on all of the other projects not only in Palo Alto but in Portola Valley and surrounding areas as indicated in Attachment 7 of the staff report (CMR:496:98). The EIR calculated the impervious area using maximum numbers and 100 percent impervious for all of the areas and came up with 3.6 percent. Staying within the 3.6 percent limitation was possible by providing materials on driveways and areas around the house. Tony Guzzardo, Guzzardo & Associates, 836 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, land planner and landscape architect for the applicant, spoke regarding single-family detached cluster homes for which his company had received several awards for projects in Sacramento. The applicant volunteered to provide a clustered project with a large area of open space, preserving the natural environment and saving trees and working with the topography to preserve a least conspicuous environment with a minimal visual impact. Another aspect, which had not been addressed, was to create a lifestyle and value for the development. The tighter the cluster, the more it became visual. A tighter cluster created more of an urban environment. Palo Alto's ordinance regarding drainage required every applicant to have a landscape planner. The plan avoided tree loss, and houses were designed with contours to minimize grading. 01/20/98 85-438 Julie Koestner, 14 Franciscan Ridge, Portola Valley, provided photographs of the proposed Los Trancos Road subdivision and spoke regarding the possibility of using the property as a public rather than a private park. The area contained a vast array of wildlife and would be an ideal area for hiking. She encouraged the Council to make decisions which would protect the earth, wildlife, vegetation, and the public. Marilyn Walter, 20 Coyote Hill, Portola Valley, said Portola Valley Ranch saved 350 acres as open space, with 205 homes on 50 acres. The existing native tree canopy was the single most important element in establishing the appearance of a natural scene. The Council was urged to require maintenance of the existing natural oak canopy on the property. Only 32 of the 190 trees tagged by the Arborist were healthy, which was significant, since the removal of unhealthy trees was not as great a loss. The Council was urged to approve the alternative cluster variation as the least intrusive plan of development of the property. Elaine Kay, 15 Sandstone, Portola Valley, current President of the Portola Valley Ranch Association, spoke in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the application and proposed revision from staff, where buildings would be located in visible open spaces on the property. The quality of the vistas and recreational areas should be preserved to the greatest extent possible, while respecting the rights of the property developers. Acceptable and appropriate development of the property would locate building sites in the least conspicuous location possible. Camas Hubenthal, representative of the Committee for Green Foothills, spoke regarding the regional significance of the property, symbolizing some of the last developable hillside lands in Palo Alto and the potential for setting a precedent or example for surrounding jurisdictions. Although the staff recommendation contained supportable items, such as ensuring the permanency of the open space dedication and confining development within the building envelopes, the recommendation fell short of preserving scenic views and providing the maximum amount of open space. The Council was urged to approve the project as recommended by staff with the condition that it be reconfigured according to the eight-lot cluster variation recommended by the Planning Commission. Under the Subdivision Map Act, local governments had the power to require any physical arrangement of the project necessary to bring the project into conformance with the local general plan. Pierre Fischer, 10 Valley Oak Street, Portola Valley, spoke regarding the philosophy of the applicant to maximize the lots, the compromise of the Planning staff to reduce the driveways, and the Planning Commission's attempt to respect the open space, maximize preservation, and respect the rights of the property owner. The applicant had resisted making changes. The Council was encouraged 01/20/98 85-439 to support the Planning Commission's recommendation, informing the applicant that only a proposal consistent with the eight-lot classification was acceptable. Craig K. Breon, 1077 Portola Road, Portola Valley, spoke on behalf of Trish Mulby who encouraged the Council to deny the staff proposal, preferring the eight-lot clustered alternative. The main difference between the proposals was the emphasis on either the visual impacts or the impacts to trees. Managing environmental impacts was difficult unless a determination was made as to which environment was being preserved: trees or grasslands. Placing building sites among the trees was preferred in that the visual impacts were reduced. Linda Elkind, 14 Hawk View, Portola Valley, spoke in favor of the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the applicant's tentative map primarily because the location of the building envelopes on exposed, visually prominent, conspicuous grasslands would make the development inconsistent with Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan policies. However, the eight-lot clustered variation was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and the goals stated by the applicant in the draft EIR. The specific mitigations listed on Attachment 3 of the staff report (CMR:396:97) to reduce the impacts of the project should be applied to any project on the Portola slope. The Council was urged to carefully examine the section in the CC&R=s dealing with the architectural controls committee ∋∋6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 to make sure it would not create loopholes for the neighborhood association to comply with any mitigations which came forward. The Council was urged to comply with the OS guidelines and policies and to make its considerations in terms of precedent. The minutes which related to the Hewlett Subdivision revealed public comment about the lot configuration not being clustered which the current applicant wanted to copy. Palo Alto's actions would affect the remainder of the remote hillsides. Jerry Elkind, 14 Hawk View, Portola Valley, Vice President of Portola Valley Ranch Association, questioned the applicant's current proposal since no visibility analysis had been made of the proposal such as had been made for the earlier proposals contained in the EIR. Comments throughout the proceedings indicated the visual impact could be mitigated by landscaping and other measures. Although he supported adoption of the staff report (CMR:496:97), he urged Council not to approve a plan based on the assumption visual impacts could be sufficiently mitigated with conditions. The restrictions on the Portola Valley Ranch subdivision were enumerated, encouraging the Council not to rely on mitigations but to site the houses properly, choosing lot lines and lot layouts which reduced impacts, and not depend upon a process which would continue for years to maintain the restrictions and conditions. 01/20/98 85-440 Mary Haslam, 437 Chaucer Street, expressed concern about flooding since the property was part of the upper watershed of the San Francisquito Creek. The Council was urged to take every measure in the upper watershed to reduce runoff, enforcing the 3.5 surface requirement without exception, and approving the eight-lot cluster variation #5 chosen by the Planning Commission, and preserving valuable open space areas. Terilynn Langsev-Burt, 1 Winter Creek, Portola Valley, spoke about the possible flexibility of the property through conditions of approval, as indicated by Mr. Calonne and described by staff, to accomplish any kind of design desired for the site. The proposed configurations would require an extensive site and design review process, placing Council and the Planning Commission in the awkward position of meeting with individual property owners about the design of homes to minimize visual affects. However, the eight-lot cluster alternative could position buildings in the least conspicuous location along the tree line. Homes located in less-visible sites would give owners greater freedom to design. The Council was urged to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation not to accept the applicant's proposed configuration or the revised configuration proposed by staff, neither of which met the City's Comprehensive Plan policies or did the best job of siting the homes so the design review process would not become the tool used to compensate for locating homes in a highly visible meadow. Jon Silver, 355 Portola Road, Portola Valley, had served on Portola Valley's Town Council and was currently Chairperson of the San Mateo County Planning Commission, spoke in agreement with Ms. Langsev-Burt, Mr. Hubenthal, and Mr. and Mrs. Elkind. The Council was urged to support the Planning Commission's recommendation. The eight-lot cluster was preferred to homes placed in the highly visible grassland areas. A reconfigured development would allow the essential exercise of property rights the applicant desired. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, encouraged the applicant to work with immediate neighbors in Portola Valley and Palo Alto, the Peninsula Open Space Trust, and the City Council to acquire the property as dedicated park land. The applicant had already begun to develop his own main residence on the quarry side in a different location than the master plan based on two minor site and design reviews rather than the required major site and design review. The property could be subdivided into four or five lots. The applicant owned two lots in the adjoining Lee subdivision. If the Council found the final EIR incomplete or inadequate, the draft EIR should be recirculated to obtain meaningful comments on the eight-lot cluster variation, which was a superior alternative. Disagreement was expressed with the City Attorney's time line. The Subdivision Map Act indicated the Planning Commission had 50 days after the certification of the EIR to make a recommendation, and the Council had 30 days to take action after the Planning Commission 01/20/98 85-441 recommendation. The applicant's permission was necessary for continuation or it became an automatic approval of the subdivision. John Baca, 4171 Verdosu, Palo Alto, spoke in support of changing how the City dealt with the certification process (letter submitted). The Council could reasonably include future phases of the development. The City would be liable if flooding occurred with any of the buildings. Conditions should be created which ensured a wildlife corridor remained. Mr. Guzzardo agreed with Marilyn Walters about the planting palette of native trees with the approval process. Minimizing tree loss should be of primary consideration. Regarding comments about the visual impact of Portola Valley Ranch, the density had made design of an unseen development impossible. Some houses would be visible with whatever scheme was chosen. The criteria should be the protection of open space rather than visibility of houses. The tighter cluster would not result in a greater degree of open space or minimize site disturbance because driveways could be handled creatively. The Council could condition the approval that driveways be handled sensitively. The best visual analysis consisted of staking the sites on the ground and visualizing where the house would be. Story poles could be put up for the next phase of development to determine visual impacts. Photo montages showed only one site line and were difficult to make accurate. The criteria for visual impacts regarding the structures on Portola Valley Ranch ridge were that the structures not exceed the tree height, which had been attempted in the proposed process. Portola Valley Ranch was not on the Arrillaga property, which had eight dwelling units for 150 acres as opposed to one dwelling unit for each two acres. Mayor Rosenbaum asked when the item could be continued. Ms. Fleming suggested a continuation to the Monday, February 9, 1998, City Council Meeting. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the public hearing could be closed at the current time. Mr. Calonne replied yes, unless staff thought anything required a substantial rebuttal. Ms. Fleming said staff had no substantial rebuttal. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Mr. Calonne said no contact regarding the item could occur between Council Members and the applicant or the public. Council Member Mossar expressed interest in having staff return with further information about the issues of tree loss, the staff 01/20/98 85-442 and/or applicant mapping concept, what would happen if staff=s concept of creating 20,000 square foot building envelopes was used, and a map which would delineate the envelope more clearly, showing trees. Council Member Wheeler expressed interest in seeing photometric studies of the applicant's current proposal in order to be assured the proposal addressed some of the concerns, findings and conditions of approval which would result in less visual intrusion than the plan which had been presented in the applicant's map, with less cut and fill, and would result in a tighter clustering pattern for the lots. In the slides the City Attorney presented, excerpts from the City's OS zoning ordinance were presented. The basic purpose of the OS zone was to protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource, while preserving and protecting its inherent open space characteristics. She wanted to be sure that whatever was approved by way of a subdivision accomplished the basic purposes of the OS zoning. The City Attorney had also presented the development criteria in the OS zone which was applied to applications for development in the zone. One criteria was that "the proposal should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. It should be sited so that it was hidden from view as much as possible." The photometric studies would help convince her that the siting plan was hidden as much as possible from public parklands. The development criteria also spoke of the large flat expanses of impervious surface which should be avoided to reduce the need for cut and fill. Specific issues included fencing, which had come up as part of the public record. She was concerned about allowing the type of fencing which existed at the perimeter of a portion of the property, if not the entire property, which would have a negative impact on the movement of wildlife in the area. If the City was working hard to preserve and protect open space areas, it should provide some openings within the fencing to allow for the migration of animals across the property. Ms. Fleming said staff might be unable to prepare the photo simulations. Staff would do its best, but there was no guarantee. She had consulted with the City Attorney concerning taking questions and responding. Because of the nature of the project and the need to make findings, any question to which Council wanted staff to respond would have to be presented at the current meeting. Council Member Kniss expressed interest in further photographic evidence. She asked what was required to place a 30-foot story pole onto the site. Mr. Berman said placing the poles by February 9, 1998, would be difficult, particularly given the current weather conditions. Council Member Kniss asked staff to pursue the photographic montage. There were also ways of presenting computer-generated 01/20/98 85-443 views which were not as static as the images presented at the current meeting. Mr. Berman said an attempt would be made to provide the photo montages of the applicant's proposal. The issue was one of timing and whether staff could create what was being requested by the Council meeting. What would be presented, however, would be similar to what had already been presented. Council Member Kniss said the Council had already received a sufficient amount of images such as had been seen that evening. What was needed was the variation alternative, such as the tight cluster and how it would affect trees and other views. Mr. Schreiber said every effort would be made to present Council with the information requested; however, the request required a specialized consultant. Staff would make every effort to obtain photo montages; however, there was insufficient time to complete all of the work. Council Member Kniss asked staff to concentrate on the information the Council had not received, particularly regarding the cluster. Mr. Berman said the photo montage which had not been completed was what was termed the applicant=s proposal in terms of the relocation of lots 2 and 3. Council Member Kniss said in order to completely examine the one called the "variation," the Council needed to know how many trees would be removed. Therefore, a different view would be seen from other sites, such as Windy Hill and Foothills Park. The impact was unknown until a housing site was actually there. Mr. Schreiber said staff would reexamine the issue of whether the construction of houses would result in more tree loss and whether it would have some notable visual impact offsite. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the continuance could be deferred to a later date to allow staff time for preparation of the materials. Ms. Fleming said another date would not provide enough time or flexibility necessary. Council Member Fazzino apologized for being late due to a previously scheduled business dinner. He disclosed having visited the property on Monday morning with Council Member Mossar and had observed the site from several different perspectives. He had a good amount of contact from the general public as well as contact with the applicant regarding the proposal. He was very interested in the issues of tree landscaping, screening, and alternatives available in terms of impervious requirements with respect to each individual home as well as the roadway. He was also interested in 01/20/98 85-444 more context on the part of the Planning Department with respect to discussions which had occurred with the applicant from the outset of the issue. He was particularly interested in the issue of development rights, such as the Council's flexibility with respect to what it could or could not approve. The messages from the City Attorney's Office, the staff report (CMR:496:97), and the Planning Commission meeting seemed to send messages which could be interpreted as being inconsistent. He required more clarification from the City Attorney with respect to the type of flexibility the Council had with regard to the actions which could be taken. Mayor Rosenbaum said the presentation by staff and the City Attorney would have probably covered Council Member Fazzino's points. Council Member Fazzino said he would review the tape of the meeting and, if there was still confusion, he would contact the City Attorney to request further clarification. Council Member Eakins asked whether the minutes from the meeting would be available for February 9, 1998. City Clerk Gloria Young said providing the minutes by February 9, 1998, would be extremely difficult. Council Member Eakins asked whether a system of transparencies like an anatomy book could be provided, where layers could be placed on one another to see the system, if photo montages were unavailable. Ms. Fleming said if staff was unable to obtain the photo montage, it would seek all options to clearly provide Council with a clear visual presentation of the issue she and Council Member Kniss had referenced. Council Member Eakins was interested in something which also showed tree removal potentials. She also asked for some version of what 3.1 percent impervious surface meant on one of the 20,000 square foot construction envelopes. The conflict seemed to be one of trees versus grass. She was interested in Mr. Breon's discussion about the tradeoff and asked staff to provide more information. She also asked whether the subdivision was intended as a totally gated, private area. The Hewlett tract had a gate with "no trespassing" signs but was clearly left open. Council Member Ojakian expressed interest in a chart which demonstrated the options of staff, the applicant, and the Planning Commission, especially as it related to the issues of impervious surfaces, etc. During Planning Commission consideration, the application for 850 Los Trancos Road had been presented and denied. He asked staff to provide the Council with some of the information in that staff report that was presented to the Planning Commission in order for the Council to make comparisons with what had 01/20/98 85-445 previously been discussed, such as problems of the property being outside the urban service area, police and emergency services, etc. Although the project was different in the sense Los Trancos had requested re-zoning, he was interested in seeing the compatibility. Council Member Mossar said because the structures were three-dimensional, more clarification would be needed concerning the third dimension potential of the 20,000 square foot development areas. She asked about the visual impacts on the City's ability to screen because of fire management requirements, such as the 100-foot clearance around structures and 30 feet on either side of roads and driveways, and how it related to the actual three-dimensional size of the structures. The Los Trancos Road easement language was confusing and she desired clarification. She asked whether the $6,000 recommended to be paid by the developer for improvements to Los Trancos Road was adequate. She questioned what was being called the emergency road and the articulation between the quarry site, the 7.7 acre site, and the site under discussion. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the City Council discussion of the item to the Monday, February 9, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 4. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Wheeler asked whether it was necessary for the Council to vote on the request for an appraisal for Council Member Mossar to allow for her participation in discussion of a future Council issue. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council would need to vote if it did not want the appraisal to occur. Council Member Fazzino asked how many appraisals had been handled in the past. Mr. Calonne said the City had conducted two appraisals for Council Members in the past. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 01/20/98 85-446 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. 01/20/98 85-447