HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-18 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting May 18, 1998 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................86-275 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................86-276
1. Ordinance 4503 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide An Additional Appropriation for the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation to Fully Fund the City=s Share of $2,354,500 for the Acquisition and Rehabilitation of the
Sheridan Apartments Project≅ ........................86-276 2. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Lucas Concrete Inc. for Curb and Gutter Replacement Project.86-276 3. Amendment No. One to Contract No. C7087722 between the City of Palo Alto and Deloitte & Touche for Additional Audit Services......................................................86-276 4. 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 4/27/98) (Public Hearing Closed)86-277 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider
approval of the Planning Commission=s recommendation to deny the appeal of Michael Weed and uphold the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Development for a Parcel Map to divide an existing .64 acre lot into two parcels of
05/18/98 86-273
9,056 and 18,915 square feet for property located at 221 Kingsley Avenue.......................................86-285 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment, as recommended by the Architectural Review Board recommendation to approve an application for safety and operational improvements to the Palo Alto Airport located at 1925 Embarcadero Road......................86-304 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........86-304 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m............86-304
05/18/98 86-274
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:07 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:28 p.m.), Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:11 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Richard Joncas, 452 Carolina Lane, spoke regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Laura A. MacDougall, 3059 Alma Street, spoke regarding Palo Alto lease ordinance. Vonnie Brown, 831 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding Midtown homes and maximizing of housing. Mike Midolo, spoke regarding thanks to the Mayor and Council on its deliberations of the CDBG discussion at the Monday, May 11, 1998, City Council Meeting. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding Foothills Park entrance fee. Sylvia Gartner, 824 Moreno Avenue, spoke regarding residential construction. Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, spoke regarding 1) Downtown library, and 2) thanks to City staff. Annelise Emerson, spoke regarding Palo Alto Town Meeting. Daniel Emerson, 1849 Middlefield, spoke regarding preservation ordinance. Daniel Serna, 233 San Simeon, Sunnyvale, spoke regarding agency shop. Steve Preminger, South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council, 2102 Almaden Road, San Jose, spoke regarding agency shop. Brandon Burke, 384 N. Clark, Los Altos, spoke regarding loyalty-agency shop. Mary L. Lee, 291 Marshall Street, Redwood City, spoke regarding agency shop. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good government. T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding Sandhill Project.
05/18/98 86-275
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding the community meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the minutes of January 20, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED: 9-0. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the minutes of January 26, 1998, as corrected. MOTION PASSED: 9-0. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the minutes of February 2, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED: 9-0. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the minutes of February 9, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED: 9-0. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the minutes of February 17, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED: 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3.
1. Ordinance 4503 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide An Additional Appropriation for the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation to Fully Fund the City=s Share of $2,354,500 for the Acquisition and Rehabilitation of the
Sheridan Apartments Project≅ 2. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Lucas Concrete Inc. for Curb and Gutter Replacement Project 3. Amendment No. One to Contract No. C7087722 between the City of Palo Alto and Deloitte & Touche for Additional Audit Services MOTION PASSED: 9-0
05/18/98 86-276
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. 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 4/27/98) (Public Hearing Closed) Contract Planner Paul Jensen summarized the three recommendations on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:198:98) dated April 27, 1998. Council Member Kniss asked the City Attorney whether the Council could direct questions to the applicants that evening. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said yes if the questions were to
obtain the applicant=s consent to proposed conditions and for clarification of existing materials in the record. Vice Mayor Schneider asked about the impervious surface of the proposal and its relationship to the Open Space District (O-S). Mr. Jensen said while the O-S District established a 3.5 percent impervious surface coverage limitation, the initial revised subdivision dated September 1997 which was used as a basis for staff analysis outlined in the staff report (CMR:198:98) presented an impervious surface coverage limit of 3.6 percent was slightly over what the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) allowed. Part of the
staff=s recommendation was a provision that the project be required to comply with the maximum 3.5 percent which included the main access road, some of the structures on the site, and discounted the land area that was required for dedication along Los Trancos Road.
The applicant=s latest revisions dated November 1997 were similar to the September 1997 subdivision design. The applicant had agreed to comply with the condition which meant they would modify their proposal to bring the percentage down. Council Member Schneider asked whether the 3.5 percent requirement would be necessary if the project was a cluster design or the more spread out design as recommended by the applicant. Mr. Jensen said that was correct. Council Member Kniss referred to the photomontage and asked what was the height of the structures.
05/18/98 86-277
Mr. Jensen believed that 25 feet was used as a baseline. It was the maximum height that was permitted in the O-S District which represented a one- to two-story building. Scott MacPherson, Nichols-Bieman, 142 Minna Street, San Francisco, said that with respect to one-story buildings, the height was generally 10 to 15 feet. It depended on some of the newer homes now because some of the rooms were much larger. Council Member Kniss referred to the letter from the applicant which indicated that he would be agreeable to one-story homes on three of the lots. Mr. Jensen said the letter did not reference the specific lot numbers for which he would be agreeable to the one-story limit. Council Member Kniss asked whether the City could limit the height with site and design review. Mr. Jensen felt that the City could impose a deed restriction for height limits. Mr. Calonne said Mr. Jensen was correct. He said the City could identify the basis for picking one height versus another. Council Member Kniss felt that was a substantial consideration. Mr. Jensen said the consultants reviewed the worst-case scenario, 25 feet which was a numerical number used for measuring height. If the City imposed a one-story height restriction, it was better off
indicated as Αone-story≅ rather than putting a specific height amount. Otherwise, it might be putting more of a restriction on the structures.
Council Member Ojakian asked if under the applicant=s proposal there was a 3.6 percent to 3.5 percent impervious surface area, what was the surface area under the Planning Commission or staff recommendations. Mr. Jensen said the Planning Commission recommended denial but favored the eight-lot cluster variation alternative. Staff had not done any calculations on the impervious surface coverage. If the eight-lot cluster variation was approved by the City Council, then staff would require that the project comply with the 3.5 percent impervious surface coverage. The staff recommendation assumed the 3.5 percent impervious surface coverage.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the Planning Commission=s alternative fairly assumed there was less impervious surface. Mr. Jensen said it was possible.
05/18/98 86-278
Council Member Ojakian asked with respect to the undeveloped area, whether there was a way to indicate how much space would be open under each alternative. Mr. Jensen said yes. He referred to Exhibit 1-F attached to the
staff report (CMR:198:98) Staff=s recommended alternative had two levels of open space: 1) an open space parcel which was 81 acres, roughly 54 percent of the site, and 2) a concept for a designated building envelope of 20,000 square feet and that all of the land outside of the envelope would be retained in a private O-S easement. In essence, there would be an open space protection of about 95 percent of the site. Under the eight-lot cluster variation alternative, it was slightly higher at about 96 percent
of the site. Under the applicant=s revised alternatives in compliance with the conditions of staff including the building envelope concept, it was a 95 percent protection. Council Member Eakins asked how the height was calculated when it was a slope and when roofs were pitched. Mr. MacPherson said the height was calculated from the mid-point of the house to the top of the roof. For purposes of the visual analysis, it was assumed that the pads of the homes would be flat and grading would occur.
Mr. Calonne read the PAMC definition of height which was Α>Height= means vertical distance above-grade to the highest point of coping of a flat roof the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of
any segment of the building.≅ Council Member Eakins asked whether the pad determined the grade. Mr. Calonne said yes. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether there was any way to ensure that the mitigations and conditions were addressed. Mr. Jensen said the best approach was through the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Vice Mayor Schneider asked how long would the monitoring period go on. Mr. Jensen said the mitigations were specific to the subdivision improvements, e.g., the tree replanting program, drainage or slide repairs and were set up to be monitored for five years following completion of the project. He said there was also a post-construction monitoring schedule which was specific to the subdivision improvements and had nothing to do with the construction of the homes on the lots. The mitigation measures
05/18/98 86-279
which were specific to construction of the homes on the lots were to be included in the Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions and in some respect the deed of the property. Council Member Mossar asked whether the assumption was made that the pads were flat in the photomontage. Mr. MacPherson said that was correct. Council Member Mossar said since the terrain was steeply sloped there would need to be a lot of grading or the photomontage understated the visual impact. Mr. MacPherson said the visual analysis assumed the worse case situation. The worst-case situation the consultants could see was flat pads with the amount of grading necessary to achieve the needed required results. The photomontages showed homes with the amount of grading that would be expected. Council Member Mossar asked whether the scars from the grading had been fixed by revegetation. Mr. MacPherson said in some instances it occurred with colored landscaping around the homes, and in other places it was not apparent. Council Member Wheeler recalled that when she was on the Planning Commission and discussed the adjacent parcel of land, there was some special fencing for the purpose of permitting the growth, maturation, and survival of the extensive planting that the applicant had provided on the property to restore the former quarry. She also recalled that a condition of the approval of the development of that parcel was that the fencing after a number of years when the forest was established would be removed. There was an opportunity to treat the proposed subdivision similarly to all the properties that were developed in the foothills and request some kind of fencing to surround the subdivision. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve
the applicant=s Revised Tentative Map, dated November 24, 1997, per Attachment 1D to the staff report (CMR:496:97) from Mark Thomas & Co., Inc. Council Member Fazzino said there was no question that whenever there was development in the open space area in the foothills, the desire was to keep as much land as possible in open space or parkland. If the City was reviewing the property 20 to 25 years prior and had an opportunity to seriously consider the possibility of complete open space in the area or an alternative which preserved the land and parkland, he would have been disposed to do so. The Council had before it an issue of property rights which he had discussed with the City Attorney as well as with the Planning
05/18/98 86-280
Director to understand more clearly what property rights the owner had with respect to the property. He supported the project for
several reasons. First, it was the developer=s legal right to subdivide the property into 15 lots as opposed to 8. The City had worked with him rigorously over the past couple of years to modify his proposal to address a number of very legitimate and significant concerns on the part of the City. The Council needed to keep in mind that the applicant could dismiss the process complete and walk away and return with a proposal for 15 units. Although he might have preferred a slightly more clustered approach in theory, in reality he preferred 8 lots to 15 lots on the site. Second, all of the conditions were subject to site and design review, and it was an issue he wanted to speak to further. Third, the issue of impervious surface coverage could not exceed 3.5 percent which was the goal of the City all along and had been achieved. Fourth, the issue of tree protection was addressed with the proposed project and preserved more trees. Fifth, with respect to the percentage of the land that was being developed, the Council in December 1997 had adopted a policy to continue the requirement of one unit per ten acres. Although he was not present at the time of that decision,
he was more inclined to support the Santa Clara County=s approach on that issue. He thought it was important to recognize how much open space was being preserved. There was a significant percentage of open space being preserved as part of a commons open space parcel, and there was a significant amount of space being preserved for each lot. In the final analysis, he believed a very high percentage of area on the site was being preserved as open space. The applicant had agreed to the in-lieu fee with respect to below-market-rate (BMR) unit, which he was pleased with. Finally, he hoped that the applicant would chose to reimburse the City for the cost of the visuals but in balance, even though he shared many of the same concerns and yearnings on the part of the neighbors of the property to preserve the entire property in open space. Before the Council was the issue of property rights, and the only course of
action legally was to support the applicant=s proposal. Council Member Kniss said the main issue was visibility and was what troubled people the most. The proposed plan straddled the woodlands and most fairly distributed the view fields as far as could be seen from both the Portola Valley Ranch and the Hewlett-Lee subdivision. From her conversation with staff, she understood that regardless of the specific proposal adopted by Council that evening, 70 trees would be cut down. The first staff recommendation required the least number of trees to be cut but left the greatest number of houses in the open, which was not
acceptable. The Planning Commission=s recommendation allowed for approximately 200 trees to be cut and did not include the number of trees that would impact the leech fields. In actuality, that would remove the least number of trees and leave more open space which was actually the latest revision from the applicant and affected about 130 trees. She asked for confirmation from staff that 50
05/18/98 86-281
percent of the land would become open space for use by the residents and would not be allowed to be built on. Mr. Jensen said that was correct, the open space within the subdivision would be for the use of the eight property owners. Council Member Kniss said the recommendation was for a building envelope for each of the lots and if the City went forth with the proposal, each of the lots would be recorded. Mr. Jensen said each of the lots would contain a building envelope of 20,000 square feet that would be recorded with the lot. All of the land area outside of the 20,000 square feet based on whatever the lot side was, e.g., four acres, eights acres, etc., would be placed in a private open space easement to be owned and controlled by that lot owner. Council Member Mossar said she would not support the motion. The owner of the property had the right to subdivide the property, but had to pass the environmental review. Although technically there could be 15 lots and the proposal called for 8 lots, if he could not pass the environmental review for 8 lots then she doubted he would be able to pass it for 15 lots. She was troubled by the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) for a number of reasons. First, the proposal was very complex in a very environmentally sensitive area. Although the request was for a subdivision, by the
applicant=s own words the lots were to be built out over time. It was hard to remember what promises and mitigations were set because staff changed and Council changed. The EIR mitigations depended upon multi-jurisdictional interpretation and applications of the mitigations, particularly in the area of grading and creek impacts. The mitigations listed in the EIR were not specific. She also observed that government was not good at interpreting complexity, and it was not particularly good at working multi-jurisdictionally. If there were no specific guidance, then there was no specific idea of what would ultimately be built or the impacts of what would be built. She felt that based upon the EIR before the Council, it had no assurance that the project would comply with the Open Space Element. The EIR relied upon inappropriate statements of overriding considerations for the project. It relied on BMR payments and the jobs/housing imbalance. She found both of those reasons to be invalid when considering a project in the foothills.
Based upon those feelings, the applicant=s proposal in her mind was the worst choice. The roadways crossed areas that had a clear problem with erosion and were clearly natural drainage pathways and also indicated that ultimately the amount of grading that would have to be done on the site would be pretty disturbing in hindsight and not really definable at that point. Council Member Wheeler said previously she indicated that the Council was bound by their duty to uphold the zoning ordinances. The City needed to ensure that whatever ultimate layout of the homes on the property compared with the open space zone designation
05/18/98 86-282
and the development criteria that was applied to any projects that came before them in the open space zone. She was most enlightened by the last group of photomontages that were produced by the applicant. The photos did help clarify some of the questions and concerns she had. She was also heartened by the letter that she received from the applicant dated April 24, 1998, which indicated his willingness to reimburse the City for the cost of the
photomontages. The photomontages of the applicant=s proposal showed there were two lots visible from the Los Trancos Trail in the
City=s open space area which were Lots 7 and 8. The applicant=s proposal from the Portola Valley side showed four lots that were
visible which Lots 7 and 8 and Lots 2 and 3. The applicant=s letter of April 24, 1998, had indicated a willingness to lower the potential height of some of the buildings and to provide additional screening of the buildings from areas outside of his property. The one building lot that could not possibly be screened in that manner was Lot 8, so in order to support the basic concept that her colleagues had put forth in the motion, she would need to relocate Lot 8. There was a potential site adjacent to the current Lot 5 where there was sufficient land and building pad to move the lot, and she would propose that as an amendment. She also wanted to take the applicant up on the offer related to Lots 2, 3, and 7 to restrict those buildings to one story in height and add additional tree screening to further remove any impact from those buildings as seen from adjacent open space lands. She was also interested in adding as a condition, a recommendation regarding the fencing of the property, making it clear that the Council would expect any
fencing to be in keeping with the City=s practice in the Open Space District and in other subdivisions. Council Member Eakins agreed with Council Member Wheeler that the
area should not be totally fenced and should conform to the City=s regulations and open space standards. She asked where was the new area for Lot 8. Council Member Wheeler referred to an aerial photo and indicated that a new location could be between Lots 4 and 5 and setback from both of them. There was a flat area with a couple of trees, and she felt a building pad could fit in the area. Council Member Eakins was concerned that Lot 8 was a very steep lot. She hoped another location could be found. Vice Mayor Schneider supported the main motion. She said after viewing the model of the project there was no question that if the houses were clustered or spread out the houses would be seen. She supported the spread out approach to building the houses because it would be more appealing. Council Member Ojakian concurred with Council Member Mossar and opposed the motion. He could not make the statement of overriding
05/18/98 86-283
consideration which suggested that it was an Αoptimum planning and
environmental choice for the development of new housing≅. Site and Design Review and Below Market Rate (BMR) units were required by law and would happen with any project. In terms of tree protection, he relied on comments made by one of the public speakers who suggested that preserving the woodlands up in the foothills was important, but just as important was the fact that there was diminishing grasslands which needed to be protected. He also noted that when he was a Planning Commissioner he had voted for the clustering effect and the County concept, and the 10 percent rule for consistency. He still felt it was the preferred choice and agreed with his former Planning Commission colleagues and their thoughts in looking at the project and denying it and recommending a sounder alternative in terms of what could be developed there. Council Member Kniss asked the consultant to respond to Council
Member Wheeler=s suggestion of relocating Lot 8. Sam Zullo, Mark Thomas & Company, Inc., 90 Archer Street, San Jose, said a grading plan had been developed for all of the lots that were shown in the visuals. The relocation of Lot 8 would be an acceptable subject to their company presenting a proposal for grading that made it work. He said there was a building site in the area of the recommended location that would work. Council Member Kniss asked the consultant if the Council voted to move the location they would not object. Mr. Zullo said that was correct. AMENDMENT: Council Member Wheeler moved to amend the motion to require relocation of Lot 8 to a suitable lot in the vicinity of Lot 5, that the buildings on Lots 2, 3, and 7 be restricted to one story in height, that enhanced tree screening be added, and to the extent that there is any fencing of the property, that it be kept
in line with the City=s fencing regulations within the open space areas. AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO THE MAIN MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to require relocation of Lot 8 to a suitable lot in the vicinity of Lot 5, that the buildings on Lots 2, 3, and 7 be restricted to one story in height, that enhanced tree screening be added, and to the extent that there is any fencing of the property,
that it be kept in line with the City=s fencing regulations within the open space areas. Mr. Calonne requested that the City Council not certify the EIR, and direct the staff to prepare findings because staff did not have findings and several of the findings in the environmental document were critical of aspects of that. He said some research and review
05/18/98 86-284
needed to be done, including where the leech field and envelope
ended up as a result of Council=s actions. INCORPORATED INTO THE MAIN MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER that the staff return to the City Council in July 1998 with the appropriate findings and conditions, and approval of the certification of the Los Trancos Road Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). MOTION PASSED 7-2, Mossar, Ojakian Αno.≅ RECESS: 9:00 P.M. - 9:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider
approval of the Planning Commission=s recommendation to deny the appeal of Michael Weed and uphold the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Development for a Parcel Map to divide an existing .64 acre lot into two parcels of 9,056 and 18,915 square feet for property located at 221 Kingsley Avenue. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the appeal was of the Decision of the Planning Director to approve a parcel map based primarily on the fact that both of resulting lots would meet all R-1 requirements with respect to size and dimension. As a part of the environmental determination the Director of Planning considered a professional report that was prepared by an architectural and historic preservation specialist that stated that the division would not have a negative impact on the historic resource on the site which was the primary dwelling. The Director of Planning also
considered the City=s Arborist opinion that felt the lot split would not have a negative impact on the existing large oak tree at the back of the site as long as any new construction was at least 25 feet away from the base of the tree. The appellants had based their appeal on four primary issues as noted in the staff report
(CMR:236:98). She referred to the appellant=s issue that the historic report was paid for my the applicant and the specialist selected by the applicant and said that was true but the report was reviewed by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and found under that objective review to be complete and accurate. With respect to the
appellant=s issue regarding the Arborist=s report, the report and
opinions were prepared by the City=s Arborist not by a consulting arborist and was therefore independent and objective in its analysis. She deferred to the City Attorney on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The final appellant objective was that the historic ordinance was currently under review. She pointed out that action had been taken on many applications having to do with historic properties even though the ordinance was under review and might undergo change. Staff was under the obligation of
05/18/98 86-285
taking action based on what was currently in place and not on what might be approved in the future. The Planning Commission reviewed
the Planning Director=s decision and recommended that the appeal should be denied and that his original decision be upheld. She noted the additional Planning Commission recommendation which related to the landscaping and fencing on the site which housed the primary dwelling. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether under the interim ordinance there was anything that prohibited subdivisions within the historic district. Ms. Grote said no. Council Member Kniss said she visited the site. Council Member Mossar said she toured the site with Ken Alsman and Linda Scott. She was also provided with a packet of materials. Council Member Eakins said she also visited the site and was provided with a packet of materials. Council Member Fazzino said he also visited the site. Council Member Wheeler said she toured the site with Mr. Alsman and was provided with a packet of materials. Mayor Rosenbaum said he visited the site and received a packet of materials. Vice Mayor Schneider had visited the site, received a packet of materials, and spoke with the applicant. Council Member Ojakian said he visited the site with Mr. Alsman, received a packet of materials, and spoke briefly with the applicant, and also revisited the neighborhood with Mr. Lewis. Council Member Huber he also provided with a packet of materials and although he had not visited the site, he was familiar with it because he had lived nearby it for the last 20 years. City Manager June Fleming said although the staff had not received the packet of information that the Council referred to the information was not new information and had been distributed previously. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Michael Weed, Aufmuth, Fox, Weed & LeBlanc, Attorneys at Law, 314 Lytton Avenue, said that the appeal was filed because the subdivision of the property was of significant proportions and had a major impact on a virtually unique historical resource in the
05/18/98 86-286
City. The lot line would be moved a mere 10 feet behind the existing house which the exact square footage was of some debate at the Planning Commission. In the hearing before the Zoning Administrator a pamphlet was submitted which was prepared by the HRB which described the major historical properties in the City and the stately grounds and the proportion of the grounds of the particular property were specifically mentioned as greatly enhancing the value the property as an historical asset. It was correctly noted that subdivision of historical properties was not currently in the interim ordinance and should be. He felt it was an omission that should be addressed. It was wrong to have undergone a two-year effort of such proportions with so much involvement from the community and not to have included the issue of subdividing an historic structure. He requested that the City Council permit the legislative process to be completed and let the consensus that had developed out of the process dictate what happened to the property. He noted that the City had accepted the
applicant=s historical consultant conclusions that the proposal did not have a negative impact on the property or its historical characteristics. He would not debate the qualifications of the consultant, but he pointed out that the consultant was hired and paid for by the applicant. He had also raised a couple of technical objections to the environmental processing under CEQA which were contained in letters dated January 7 and 30, 1998, in the Council packet. In conclusion, he requested that the Council maintain the integrity of the major legislative process that had been undertaken and not to permit a unique historical property to be irretrievably modified. John Northway, Stoecker and Northway, 437 Lytton Avenue, said he had been working with the team of John Schink, Linda Scott, Ken Alsman and Sandy Sloan on the project. The motivation behind the whole team effort had been to do the project in a sensitive area on a very historically significant street in Palo Alto. They had started out by getting a historic evaluation done by Jay Turnbull. Had the report been negative in any way the project would have stopped. They then went through the HRB for a preliminary review and the Board was very supportive and excited about the changes that could be made to the Pfluke House which would remove the 1950 additions and restore the grandeur of the old house. The team then had a civil engineer put together the parcel split map, returned to the HRB, and received a very positive recommendation to go to the Zoning Administrator. At that point, there was one neighborhood meeting before proceeding to the Zoning Administrator hearing. Ms. Scott was the prime designer on the project. The project went
through the design process, the Zoning Administrator=s hearing receiving a favorable review, and also the Planning Commission receiving a favorable review. He had also met with the City Arborist David Dockter and they had worked out all the techniques for building on the property and maintaining the tree which was enormously important to both the City themselves. He referred to
05/18/98 86-287
visuals which showed the existing house and what the house would look like after the changes. Council Member Huber asked where the carriage house was going to be. Mr. Northway said the structure would be evaluated. If the carriage house was determined to be a structure worth preserving then it would be. In any case, the structure would not remain where it was. Council Member Huber asked where was the suggested location. Mr. Northway said in the area of Ramona Street and Kingsley Avenue. Council Member Kniss asked if the structure was moved, would it alter the grounds and the look and feel of the house. Mr. Northway said yes, but the final location of the carriage house had not been discussed. It would be addressed further when they got into the design phase and submitted of a proposal to the City for review. Council Member Kniss asked whether the house could be moved. Mr. Northway was unsure. Council Member Fazzino asked what the options were with respect to the carriage house and if one of the options was simply not to move it. Mr. Northway said the carriage house would either be moved onto the site of the existing Fowler Mansion or would cease to exist and be replaced by a new structure sited in a sensitive way on the Fowler Mansion property. Council Member Huber presumed there needed to be some type of a garage facility available. Mr. Northway said that was correct. The garage for the Fowler House would be destroyed, and there would need to be a garage relocated on the property.
Council Member Ojakian referred to Mr. Northway=s comment regarding the soundness of the carriage house structure, and asked staff what latitude did the Council have with respect to decisions about moving the carriage house. Ms. Grote said Conditions 2 and 3 in Attachment D to the staff report (CMR:236:98) addressed that point. Council Member Ojakian said it was clear that part of the structure was an add on to the original structure. He asked if the HRB would
05/18/98 86-288
make a determination about whether the structure could withstand being moved. Ms. Grote said yes. The HRB would make that determination as a part of an overall assessment of any new development on Parcel 1. Council Member Ojakian said the staff report had suggested the carriage house could possibly be used as the garage for the original parcel. He asked if it turned out not to be the fact what guarantee was there that a new garage structure would be put in and where. Ms. Grote said with respect to Parcel 2 it was required by the Zoning Ordinance that all single family homes have parking. It was also covered in Condition No. 3 which stated that either a carriage house would be removed or a new garage would be constructed on Parcel 2. Council Member Ojakian asked how the siting would be determined for Parcel 2. Ms. Grote noted that Condition No. 3 indicated the siting would occur on the southwestern portion of the site. The condition was originally recommended by the Planning Director to minimize the visual impact from Ramona Street and Kingsley Avenue. Mr. Northway said the 1950 addition of the carriage house would be removed and then the condition of the carriage house would be determined with respect to whether it could be moved or not. Jay Turnbull, Page and Turnbull, 724 Pine Street, San Francisco, said in reviewing the historic house, they found that it was appropriate to have a possible lot spit on the site. The site had changed as the district itself changed. The home was built in 1902 and was a very elaborate house for its time. However, some change including a garage had been added over the years. He referred to
the Αcarriage house≅ and said it was more of an Αout building.≅ The structure was not of great significance even though it appeared
on the Sanborn=s maps from the beginning. From his perspective,
the changes that to the Αout building≅ robbed the site of any historical significance. His firm had not found it to be very important. It put three small substandard living spaces on the lot in that location and began a process of change which was perhaps in consonant with the rest of the district. Some of the land had been sold over the years and had been a process of change. The views of the site were from the intersection of Ramona Street and Kingsley Avenue and would continue to be as good under the proposed change as they were now. That was why they thought the proposed change could occur without any damage to the site. Sybil Pfluke, 221 Kingsley Avenue, said she and her husband had resided in the house for the past 23 years. They treasured the neighborhood very much and were fully aware of the importance of
05/18/98 86-289
the anchor house to Professorville. They had very carefully restored the house so as not to lose the historical significance. The upkeep of the property had become more difficult and expensive over the years. They did not have the energy or the means to keep up the estate as it deserved. The recent estimate for the replacement of the asbestos was $60,000. One of the reasons they wanted to sell the new parcel was because they needed the income to enable them to stay in the house and care for the Fowler Mansion in the manner it deserved. There were several structures, e.g., chicken coop, a bicycle shack, and workshop, which were all deteriorating. Over the years they had opened their home to public, civic, school, and church functions and events. They would continue to make the home available for community service. Suzanne Greenberg, 1147 Ramona Street, objected to the lot split
for historical reasons. She disagreed with Mr. Turnbull=s assessment of the visual view from the street and also with his logic that the lot had already been split in the past and therefore could be split again. She was an historian and did not feel that the argument was tenable. She felt the home was an historical asset for the neighborhood, particularly for her block which got the side view of the house. She was very concerned about where the garage was placed and also concerned about the access to the garage and where that would be. She hoped the lot was not split, but if it were then the issue needed to be dealt with. G. H. Tucker, 1112 Ramona Street, felt the proposal was a sad end to the principles of historic preservation in the area. Under the current rules, if he proposed a change for his property the City would want to know what the windows would like and what was happening inside of the house. An entirely new building was being proposed in the area. He had spent a part of a summer in the house
years ago. He said the carriage house was really a student=s house. He thought it was a shame to approve the proposed application. He added that no one could want a more pleasant and gracious neighbors than the Pflukes and their hospitality was beyond approach, but the approval of the project was bad policy. He sympathized with the Pflukes but did not think the City Council should pursue the proposed line of thinking. Thomas Conn, 257 Kingsley Avenue, read a pamphlet prepared by the HRB regarding the Fowler Mansion and emphasized the comments regarding the significant surroundings of the house. He agreed with a previous speaker who said that because somewhere in the past the property had been carved up, to continue that premise would result in a postage size lot with a house that fully filled it. He was opposed to the proposal. He said the carriage house idea was brushed off in the proposal and in most of the conversations that had occurred. Wherever the garage was built it would be in some location which would carve up the property a little bit more. He hoped the Council would delay a decision on the property until some
05/18/98 86-290
firm conclusions had been made with respect to historic preservation. Asher Waldfogel, 222 Kingsley Avenue, said that any lay observer who reviewed the proposed subdivision would agree that putting the lot line 10 feet behind the existing mansion was at least as much a historic impact as many of the changes that were being proposed to cottages in the neighborhood. The changes should be considered with the same gravity as those changes being currently considered under the interim ordinance. He also felt that since the Council was in the middle of a political process of deciding what kind of historic preservation ordinances that they would have in the future, he was very concerned that approving the subdivision would undermined their political ability to enforce regulations on smaller houses in the Professorville neighborhood. He very much supported historic preservation in the neighborhood. Ken Alsman, 1057 Ramona Street, said that he and his wife had been invited to participate in the project because of their experience in the community with historic preservation, both having served on the HRB. Initially they were suspicious of the idea of subdividing the property. They had looked at it from the standpoint of how it would fit into the neighborhood. Their sense was that historic neighborhoods needed to evolve like all parts of the community, and if the evolution was positive and accommodated the needs of new families and fit into the area properly, that was the kind of goals they should have in the community and its historic project. They were very much behind the project and thought it would fit into the neighborhood. Joan Jack, 1005 Bryant Street, reiterated what she had shared with
the Planning Commission. She supported the Pflukes= proposal. The Pflukes had been very gracious in opening their home for a number
of community events. She understood that the Pflukes= home was over 5,000 square feet and after the subdivision would be about 1,900 square feet. She felt that the home would be compatible with the neighborhood. David Mans, 27271 Ursula Lane, Los Altos Hills, supported historic
preservation in the neighborhood and also supported the applicants= right to economically develop the property as long as it was done within the rules. As he understood it, the rules covered lot size, setbacks, lot coverage or floor area ratio, and also the proposal conformed with the rules for both the resulting lots. He felt the lot subdivision should be allowed and that a house could be built on Parcel 1 which was consistent with and an asset to the neighborhood. William Lewis, 1116 Ramona Street, said many of the neighbors had been in the area for 20 plus years. Everyone had great pride in the neighborhood. He was deeply troubled that the fact that the rules as they existed currently might not consider a lot split to
05/18/98 86-291
have the kind of impact on an historic property that other transformations to an existing physical building might. The property at 221 Kingsley currently had more than a 100-foot setback in the front yard and had a tremendously large backyard. The carriage house was a one-story building and gave the feeling of spaciousness to the property as a whole. To have a 100-foot setback in the front and a 10 foot rear yard setback threw things off balance. As he understood the rules, once a lot split was permitted the house that could be built there could be
approximately 3,000 square feet. Mr. Schink=s proposed house maximized that square footage; a two-story, 3,000 square foot house. He complemented Mr. Northway and Ms. Scott on their design of the home because if there was going to be a home built there and it was going to be a 3,000 square-foot home, he liked the home that they had designed. The main problem was subdividing the property and would change the character of Ramona Street. He was
sympathetic to the Pflukes= circumstances and it was unfortunate that the neighbors found themselves in a political opposition situation, however, the property should be preserved for the community. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said before the City Council took action there were two things that should be part of the public
record. First was the staff=s independent calculation of the gross floor area of existing structures that would be on the larger parcel including moving the carriage house. He had difficulty finding out what the gross floor area of the carriage house was.
Second, there needed to be a response to the appellant=s attorney=s assertion that staff did not have the legal authority to issue a negative declaration and that it was something the City Council could not delegate. Mr. Weed said it was important to remember that the issues before the Council were not personal and that the use of the proceeds from the lot sale were not anywhere in the conditions. In his opinion they were irrelevant to the decision before them. He referred to the assertion regarding the CEQA processing and said it came straight from the California Code of Regulations. He felt the
City=s procedures were in violation of state law. Finally, he
understood from the Zoning Administrator=s hearing that whether it was the preserved carriage house or a new garage, the location would be off Kingsley Avenue on the opposite side of Ramona Street because there were no garages facing Ramona Street. In reviewing the revised conditions he saw that it applied only to a renovated or restored carriage house and not to the location of the new garage. He preferred that the lot split not be permitted, but if it did go forward that the condition should apply not only to a renovated or restored carriage house but to the relocated new garage as well.
05/18/98 86-292
Mr. Northway reinforced that the hearing was about a lot split and not the design of the future house or garage or its placement. The design issues would be reviewed by the HRB. Margaret Sloan, Jorgenson Siegel McClure & Flegel, LLP, Attorneys at Law, 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210, Menlo Park, hoped the Council would remember some of the comments made during a previous hearing
about a property owner=s right to subdivide their property. As the Zoning Administrator pointed out, nothing in the current historic ordinance, interim historic ordinance, or the proposed ordinance prevented subdivisions that were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance included incentives for historic preservation and specifically, suggestion 72 in the staff report (CMR:236:98) spoke to those incentives including lot splits in order to encourage people to upgrade their historic property. She referred to the overhead visual and said that the existing lot was four times the minimum size required by the Zoning Ordinance and both lots after the subdivision would not be postage stamp size but would still be
larger than what was required. The applicant=s two historic
consultants, the HRB, the City=s Arborist, the Zoning Administrator, and the Planning Commission, all found that the subdivision would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood or the property and would have a beneficial impact. The conditions included removing a 1950s garage and tool shed and a lot of the impervious surface that crowded the oak tree. With the subdivision, no grounds were being destroyed, no open space was being covered up, and no trees were being torn down. There was an existing substandard residence and an out building that might have been a carriage house which was added on in the 1950s, and that existing structure and residence would be replaced with another residence that would be historically compatible. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Mayor Rosenbaum referred to the Planning Commission hearing and
Vice Chairman Owen Byrd=s comments that what they had before them was a very narrow decision. The Commission had heard a lot of issues, but the request was regarding a parcel map and on the narrow basis the decision dealt with whether it complied with the Comp Plan and the technical requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Clearly, the same thing had occurred that evening. The Council had heard about many issues and asked the City Attorney what their latitude was and the basis for a parcel split. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the standard for parcel maps was very narrow. The Comp Plan policies cited in Attachment G to the Planning Commission staff report referred to Policy 1, Program 2, the Urban Design Element and the language as cited in the policy stated that the lot split needed to preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood. If the Council wanted to scrutinize that
05/18/98 86-293
closely there was some latitude to determine compatibility. Although he was not encouraging or suggesting that it was legally warranted to dig into the Comp Plan that way, he felt it was a part of his job to give the Council the flexibility to go where they wanted to go. He suggested that the Council refer to the Comp Plan to determine whether they could find that the lot split was compatible. The Council had not taken action to specifically
preclude lot splits within the historic districts, so the staff=s interpretation of the Comp Plan language, while not entitled to any kind of difference from the Council, was there best professional judgment of what the language meant. He requested that the language in the conditions about the money from the process
providing Αa potential means of financing the rehabilitation of
that landmark structure,≅ be removed. The Council had a lot of latitude. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether the maximum size of the house allowed on the lot was exceeded because a new house was built and the lot had been made smaller and was that a consideration as to whether or not to allow the parcel split. Mr. Calonne said the question would be whether or not it complied with the Zoning Ordinance which meant that the lot split should not create a nonconforming situation. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the negative declaration and the staff recommendation that the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment be upheld and that the appeal be denied subject to the findings and conditions (Attachments C and D). Draft Findings for Parcel Map Approval 221 Kingsley Avenue 97-PM-003, 97-EIA-26 1. The Parcel Map is in compliance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that it results in two lots that meet single-family residential densities and that preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood as called for in Policy 1, Program 2 of the Urban Design Element of the existing Comp Plan. In addition, the Parcel Map encourages the private preservation of buildings which have historic or architectural merit or both as called for in Policy 2 of the Urban Design Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan in that dividing the existing property into two lots will not have an adverse impact on the landmark structure that will remain on the resulting Parcel 2 and will provide a potential means of financing the rehabilitation of that landmark structure. The Historic Report prepared by Page
05/18/98 86-294
and Turnbull, dated June 16, 1997, on file in the office of the Planning Division, documents the history of the site and the landmark structure on the site, known commonly as the Fowler Mansion, and verifies that dividing the parcel into two parcels that conform to standard R-1 (single-family residential) requirements will not have an adverse impact on the landmark structure or on the overall site. The City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board reviewed the parcel map application and the Page and Turnbull Historic Report on October 15, 1997 and recommended approval of the minor subdivision based on the fact that there will be no adverse impacts to the historic site or landmark structure as a result of the subdivision. The Historic Resources Board recommended that specific conditions of project approval be attached to the parcel map regarding preservation and restoration
of the existing Αcarriage house≅ and Historic Resource Board review of the new structure to be built on the resulting Parcel 1. The conditions of approval as recommended by the Historic Resources Board are attached to this parcel map approval along with other pertinent conditions of approval. 2. The Parcel Map is consistent with Title 18, Zoning, of the Palo alto Municipal Code (PAMC), in that both resulting parcels meet all minimum development standards, including lot size and dimensional requirements. Revised Conditions of Approval 221 Kingsley Avenue 97-PM-003, 97-EIA-26 1. The Final Map recorded for the project shall be in substantial compliance with the Parcel Map, received September 8, 1997, on file in the office of the Palo Alto Planning Division. 2. If determined to be worthy by the Historic Resources Board, the existing Carriage House on parcel 1 shall be preserved and restored, either on parcel 1 or moved to parcel 2. 3. If the Carriage House is determined to be worthy of preservation by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and is moved to parcel 2, it shall be located on the southwestern portion of the site and shall be accessed from Kingsley Avenue and shall be subject to review by the Historic Resources Board (HRB). If the Carriage House is determined to be worthy of preservation by the HRB and is retained on parcel 1 and a new garage is constructed on parcel 2, the new garage shall be subject
05/18/98 86-295
to review by the HRB. In either case, the HRB shall review the proposal for compliance with the Secretary of
the Interior=s Standards for Rehabilitation and the recommendation shall be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for final approval. 4. The house and any other structures to be built on parcel 1 shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the recommendation shall be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for final approval. The HRB shall review the house and other structures for compliance with the Historic Compatibility Standards, or the applicable standards in place at the time of review. 5. When reviewing the restoration and relocation of the carriage house and/or other improvements to the Fowler Mansion property or on the newly created Parcel 1, the Historic Resources Board shall consider appropriate modifications to the perimeter landscaping and/or fencing
to ensure that the historic structure=s public visibility will be maintained. 6. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, a six foot wide utility easement shall be dedicated on parcel 2 along the north and east property lines and on parcel 1 along the north property line. 7. After recordation of the final map, the applicant shall send the Utilities Engineering Division of the Utilities Department a copy of the recorded final map showing the location of the six foot wide utility easement. 8. PM 350 25 shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for the final parcel map. Monuments shall be set at lot corners. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for parcel 1, the applicant shall submit a preliminary soils report for the project or apply for a waiver of soils report for the project. 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious surface area. A storm drainage fee adjustment shall take place in the month following construction by the Building Inspection division. 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering
05/18/98 86-296
for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest (section 12.12.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall provide a construction logistics plan addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with
the City of Palo alto=s Trucks and Truck Route ordinance, Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal code, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo alto. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for any construction proposed in the public right of way (Section 12.08.010 of the PAMC). 14. The applicant or his/her designee shall contact the City of Palo Alto Public Works inspector prior to any work performed in the public right of way as required by section 12.08.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). 15. No storage of construction materials shall be permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of the Public Works Engineering Division. 16. The applicant shall require his/her contractor to incorporate best management practices for any construction on either of the two parcels with regard to storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution control Program. 17. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning , Fire and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans shall be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP 18. To insure the indefinite retention of the large Coast Live Oak on Parcel 1, any development or property improvements, including demolition or grading, shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.
05/18/98 86-297
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT 19. Tree Protection and Preservation Plan: The applicant shall be required to select a certified project arborist to develop a tree protection and preservation plan that will recommend guidelines for the design, measures to protect the tree from injury or permanent damage during demolition, grading or construction, arborist inspection schedule; and ongoing maintenance needs. The City Arborist shall have discretion to make adjustments to the specific requirements of the report if warranted based upon field conditions to insure that the health of the trees will be adequately protected. a. A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant as the Project Arborist. The Project Arborist shall be responsible for all on site activity involving the welfare of the trees to be retained, including, reports, appraisals, tree preservation plans, and inspections as required. A certified arborist shall be an individual who: possesses current International Society of Arboriculture certification; is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists; or a member of the California Arborists Association. b. To enable effective tree protection measures, a complete and accurate set of development plans shall be made available to the project arborist. Plans shall indicate proposed structures, accessory structures, foundations, planned hard scape and walkways. All utilities, both public and private, that require trenching or boring shall be shown on the plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and the Coast Live Oak. This shall include publicly owned trees within the right-of-way. 20. Property improvements shall not be detrimental or injurious to the Coast Live Oak. These improvements include but are not limited to building height, foundations, drainage, grading or trenching for utilities or landscape irrigation. 21. A tree protection zone shall be established not less than twenty-five (25') feet from the trunk perimeter or as the project arborist determines, whichever is greater. a. This area shall be enclosed with protective fencing for the duration of the project until completion.
05/18/98 86-298
Final landscaping shall be installed while the protective fencing is in place. 22. To allow the Coast Live Oak roots to thrive, plans shall show that any hard scape surfaces within twenty-five feet of the trunk perimeter are of a pervious nature, and not require a cut or fill in excess of four inches above existing grade. 23. Plans shall show that no permanent irrigation is designed within twenty-five (25') of the Coast Live Oak trunk perimeter.
THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION NOTES ARE TO APPEAR ON THE SITE, DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PLANS AS APPLICABLE 24. The City Planning Arborist shall have received a statement from the Applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance. 25. All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved plan shall be protected during construction. The approved tree protection plans shall be included in demolition or building plans and contracts, or on the grading plans if it stands alone from any other permit. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees*. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department's standard specification detail #505). This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans. * If the above will block the sidewalk or street
right of way, the above fencing may enclose the entire planting strip to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. * If the trees are in a small tree well, the trees shall be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic
05/18/98 86-299
fencing from the ground to the first branch with 2-
inch thick wooden slats bound securely with additional orange plastic fencing. They shall not be allowed to dig into the bark. While this protects the trunk, caution must be used not to damage any branches. Major scaffold limbs may
require the same treatment as the above or as directed by the City Arborist.
b. Each protective fence shall have a ΑWarning≅ sign prominently displayed on the tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square
and clearly state: ΑWARNING - This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Director. Violators will be prosecuted and are
subject to fine according to City Code 8.10.110.≅ 26. If pruning or maintenance on the Coast Live Oak is recommended in the arborist report, it shall meet the following industry standards. a. All specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist. b. All work on Protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. c. All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. DURING DEMOLITION 27. Pavement and Hard scape Removal near the Oak: Removal of existing pavement over tree roots shall include the following precautions: Break into manageable pieces with a jackhammer or pick and hand load the pieces onto skiploader. Skiploader must remain on undisturbed pavement. Do not remove base rock that has been exploited by established absorbing roots. Apply tree chips over the exposed area within one hour, wet chips and base rock. The roots must not be allowed to dry out at any time.
05/18/98 86-300
28. The removal of the Shop and the relocation of the Carriage House shall be implemented by working from the perimeter of the tree toward the center. Removal of the foundation of slab shall then be performed by the above technique. DURING CONSTRUCTION
29. All neighbors= trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. 30. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees damaged during construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 31. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. c. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. d. All specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist. e. All work on Protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. f. All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. DURING DEMOLITION
05/18/98 86-301
32. Pavement and Hard scape Removal near the Oak: Removal of existing pavement over tree roots shall include the following precautions: Break into manageable pieces with a jackhammer or pick and hand load the pieces onto skiploader. Skiploader must remain on undisturbed pavement. Do not remove base rock that has been exploited by established absorbing roots. Apply tree chips over the exposed area within one hour, wet chips and base rock. The roots must not be allowed to dry out at any time. 33. The removal of the Shop and the relocation of the Carriage House shall be implemented by working from the perimeter of the tree toward the center. Removal of the foundation of slab shall then be performed by the above technique. DURING CONSTRUCTION
34. All neighbors= trees that overhang the project site shall be identified and protected from impact of any kind. Appropriate protective measures shall be installed after consultation with the project and City Arborist. 35. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees damaged during construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 36. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. c. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. The appropriate maintenance measures shall be determined by the project arborist and reviewed by the City Arborist. Vice Mayor Schneider referred to the comments made regarding the
historic consultant=s report and said the report was subject to HRB
review. There were questions about the validity of the City=s
Arborist=s findings and, in fact, the Oak tree was protected under the Tree Ordinance. The proposed project was within the allowable floor area ratio (FAR), and the project complied with the Comp Plan
05/18/98 86-302
and the Zoning Ordinance and the builder had agreed to a compatibility review although it was not required. Council Member Ojakian said the issue was whether the proposal complied with the Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project met those criterion and he felt obligated to except the recommendation. With respect to the proposed historic ordinance, he felt that some had taken the view that the new historic ordinance was a punitive
act and he disagreed. He concurred with Ms. Sloan=s comments that one of the benefits in the new historic ordinance was the allowance of lot splits. The reason was to encourage people to preserve their home by providing benefits. There was a lot of advantages to the project that he saw when he reviewed the staff report, e.g., the removal of some of the add-on structures to the building which would restore it to the building that it once was and removed the nonhistoric structure. The possible advantage would be the potential of saving the carriage house. There were several conditions that allowed for the protection of the oak tree. He was also impressed by the offer of the applicant to go through a compatibility review for the new piece of property so the structure would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. He felt that Mr.
Turnbull=s observations about lot patterns and their development in that particular area were valid. It was very helpful to have all of the Sanborn maps to help draw that conclusion. He agreed with
the Planning Commission=s condition that the hedge be lowered to some degree so the home would be more visible to the public. As someone who has lived on the fringe of the Professorville neighborhood for 23 years and had seen various neighborhood issues arise, the proposal had been tricky for him because he knew several of the people involved and was happy to note the close relationship amongst people. He hoped the neighbors would go back to the types of relationships they had before. Council Member Huber supported the motion. He could not speak to the historic preservation prior due to a conflict, but as noted by several Planning Commissioners, the question was whether or not the property was appropriate for a lot split and parcel map under the current rules and Comp Plan and under those circumstances the Council could do nothing else but grant the application. Council Member Kniss supported the motion. She was glad the house was not going to be destroyed. She regretted that the land would be changed. Council Member Mossar asked for staff to respond to the FAR calculations. Ms. Grote said once the additions to the Fowler Mansion were removed there would be 5,183 square feet on the site. If the carriage house was determined by the HRB not to be worthy of preservation there was additional square footage to put the
05/18/98 86-303
carriage house or build a new garage. The project would meet the FAR as well as fall under the 6,000-square foot maximum. Council Member Mossar said she would support the motion. Mr. Calonne clarified that the City Council would by its action also approve the negative declaration. Council Member Eakins asked if changes to the existing house would be subject to landmark review and if any kind of automobile structure would also be subject to review. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Eakins said she would also support the motion. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment, as recommended by the Architectural Review Board recommendation to approve an application for safety and operational improvements to the Palo Alto Airport located at 1925 Embarcadero Road. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue the public hearing to the Monday, June 29, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED: 9-0 COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. 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
05/18/98 86-304
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.
05/18/98 86-305