HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-06 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting July 6, 1998 1. Joint Meeting with the Public Art Commission..........86-437 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m.............86-437 1. Appointment to Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors.............................................86-438 2. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Planning Commission...................................86-438 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................86-438 3. Selection of Fiscal Year 1998-99 Consultant Agreements over $25,000 for Council Committee Participation - Refer to Finance Committee and Policy and Services Committee...........86-439 4. Proposed Revision of the Methodology Used to Calculate the In-Lieu Parking Fee - Refer to Finance Committee.........86-439 5. Request of Property Owners of Tract 1722 and Portions of Tract 1977 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for the Meadow Park Unit 5 Neighborhood.......................86-439 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Waterproofing Associates for the Replacement of Roofs at the Operations Building and the Pumping Plant at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.........................................86-439 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Los Altos Hills County Fire District for Interjurisdictional Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Response Service from City of Palo Alto Fire Station No. 8..........................86-439 9. Confirmation of the Appointment of Beverly Kline as Assistant City Clerk............................................86-439 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................86-439
07/06/98 86-435
9A. (Old Item 11) Vice Mayor Schneider, Council Members Eakins, Wheeler and Kniss re Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance................................86-439 10. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Interim Historic Regulations) Shall Be in Effect..............86-440 10A. (Old Item 7) Los Trancos Road (Arrillaga Lands): Draft Findings and Conditions for Approval of a Tentative Map and Requests for Conditional Exception for Subdivision of 151.41 Acres into Eight Single-Family Residential Lots and One 87.3+ Acre Private Open Space/Common Area Parcel (continued from
5/18/98)..............................................86-459 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m............86-494
07/06/98 86-436
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:06 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 6:25 p.m.), Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Rosenbaum Public Art Commission PRESENT: Barton, Carleton, Dunlevie, Levin, Wasserman, Wells ABSENT: Brett SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Joint Meeting with the Public Art Commission A. Maintenance of Art in Public Places Collection B. Public Art Commission Forum - Places People Gather C. Process of Referrals from the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board D. Cogswell Park Proposal and National Endorsement of the Arts (NEA) Grant Application for Redesign of Cogswell Park E. Civic Center Plaza Proposal Addressing Space and Design Issues No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m.
07/06/98 86-437
Regular Meeting July 6 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:23 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Fazzino, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Rosenbaum SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Vice Mayor Schneider announced that City Clerk Gloria Young had been appointed by the Board of Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco as the Clerk of the Board. 1. Appointment to Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR KUCHARSKI: VOTIING FOR SALDICH: VOTING FOR SHAMBORA: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR WARD: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Christine Shambora received unanimous votes and was appointed to the Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors on the first ballot. 2. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Planning Commission City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Robert Arnold, Annette Bialson, Phyllis Cassel, Paul Cohen, Peter Eng, and Gail Schubert received four or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, July 20, 1998. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics. Pria Graves, spoke regarding the College Terrace Residents
Association=s desire to hold a block party in recognition of J&J Market and to waive the fee for street closure.
07/06/98 86-438
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 9, with Item No. 7 removed by Council Member Wheeler. 3. Selection of Fiscal Year 1998-99 Consultant Agreements over $25,000 for Council Committee Participation - Refer to Finance Committee and Policy and Services Committee 4. Proposed Revision of the Methodology Used to Calculate the In-Lieu Parking Fee - Refer to Finance Committee 5. Request of Property Owners of Tract 1722 and Portions of Tract 1977 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for the Meadow Park Unit 5 Neighborhood 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Waterproofing Associates for the Replacement of Roofs at the Operations Building and the Pumping Plant at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Los Altos Hills County Fire District for Interjurisdictional Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Response Service from City of Palo Alto Fire Station No. 8 9. Confirmation of the Appointment of Beverly Kline as Assistant City Clerk MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming said that Item No. 7 would become Item No. 10A. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to move Item No. 11 forward to become Item No. 9A and to combine Item Nos. 9A and 10 for the purpose of discussion. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Huber "abstaining," Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. ORDINANCES 9A. (Old Item 11) Vice Mayor Schneider, Council Members Eakins, Wheeler and Kniss re Proposed Changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance 10. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which
07/06/98 86-439
Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Interim Historic Regulations) Shall Be in Effect Mayor Huber said that he would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest. Council Member Eakins said the Colleagues memorandum about the proposed changes to the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance (Interim Ordinance) was lengthy, serious, and of great concern to many people. The reason changes were being made to the Interim Ordinance was because it was originally designed for only a few months and was seen as strictly ministerial, i.e., a check list type of operation. It was especially true for the compatibility review for houses that were found to be contributing to their neighborhoods. The check list arrangement in theory worked fine, but in practice there were some deficiencies found. There had been much discussion about the problems with the Interim Ordinance, especially with the computability review. She wondered why a compatibility review was necessary since the contributing status was not really a historic status. The contributing designation protected neighborhoods, streetscapes, and the public realm. The check list was selected because it was going to be short-lived and the simplest way with the least amount of controversy. After observing it in operation for almost two years and having seen where profitable changes could be made, some of the colleagues came up with a list of changes they would like to see in the Interim Ordinance. She felt the contributing status and the compatibility review needed to be continued to save the environments of the older neighborhoods. There was a demand for buildable land in Palo Alto
and for making houses larger and more adaptable to the Α90s,≅ which put much pressure on the existing housing stock. She was not
saying that all property in Palo Alto should be preserved Αas is,≅ but the pleasant, harmonious, gracious streets needed to be preserved and that was what the compatibility guidelines accomplished. It helped the nicer, more admired parts of Palo Alto. She recommended that the Council accept the proposed changes. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel said staff recommended the Council approve the extension of the Interim Ordinance and direct staff to return on August 3, 1998, with recommended amendments to the ordinance, revisions to the Historic Preservation Regulations, and the Compatibility Review Standards. Under consideration that evening was a memorandum provided by the Vice Mayor and several Council Members to direct staff to prepare specific proposals and address the impacts of extending the Interim Ordinance. More specifically, the areas that staff would be looking into would be amendments to the Interim Ordinance consultant, specific recommended revisions to the historic regulations and compatibility review standards, and time line for development of incentives and benefits, accompanied by a resource request which would return to the Council on August 3, 1998.
07/06/98 86-440
Council Member Fazzino said green post cards had been distributed throughout the neighborhoods indicating that the Council was taking action to enact a permanent ordinance. He wanted to be very clear with the staff, Council, and the community that the Council was not taking action on a permanent ordinance. He clarified that the Council was simply discussing the Interim Ordinance, what it meant, and how long it would be in effect. City Manager June Fleming said no action was being taken on the ordinance, there was no agenda item, and the Council could not take any action. Only the Interim Ordinance was being discussed that evening. Council Member Wheeler said there was some feeling in the community that the Council was putting the Interim Ordinance into place forever. As she read the ordinance before the Council that evening, there was a specific sunset date. She asked the City Attorney to clarify that. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said that was correct. The proposed extension sunset on June 30, 1999. That date was significant for two reasons. First, any further life to the Interim Ordinance would take Council action as each of the extensions had previously, which was the key distinction between an interim and permanent ordinance. Second, the permanent ordinance would require Council action. Both of those actions were subject to referendum and all the rights the pubic would have. It was truly an interim step. Donald Snider, 788 Forest Avenue, said he felt the ordinance was intimidating and encroached upon his personal and property rights, and when he eventually sold his house it would encroach upon his financials. He did not understand why anyone would want to buy his home and not be able to change it. When he received the card in the mail, he came to City Hall because he had no idea that his house was historical. He found out that his house was historical because he had not changed anything about it. The fact sheet he received was inadequate, and he had some suggestions for a new fact sheet. It seemed to him that the Council bent over backwards for small groups, and he asked if the Council would vote for the ordinance if 20,000 people were against it and 5,000 for it.
Craig Woods, President, Palo Alto Homeowners= Association, 1127 Waverley Street, said the notification was sent by the Palo Alto
Homeowners= Association (the Association), and he thanked Council Member Fazzino for the clarification. The notification was based on information provided by City officials as of the week of June 22, 1998, and it was his understanding that on July 6, 1998, the Council would adopt the Interim Ordinance as a temporary but permanent ordinance. It had been specifically asked whether there would be a sunset clause or expiration date and told there were no plans at that time. The Association was committed to providing the
07/06/98 86-441
public with the latest and best information available. The June 27, 1998, mailing was intended to provide affected homeowners with notice about the agenda item being discussed that evening. The Association regretted any misunderstanding. The theme that evening for the Association was patriotic, the colors of the flag. There were three reasons for the theme that evening. First, the Association was there to celebrate its rights and the principles of the country; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Despite the promise that the purpose of the ordinance was to improve the
community and be a positive influence, the homeowners= had been treated to almost two years of public rudeness and intolerance. Second, the item was agendized for July 6, 1998, which was right after the July 4 weekend and a difficult weekend to notify people about the item. Third, was that the regulations were expected to end in July 1997 and not July 1999, which was being requested by staff for the ordinance amendment. The interim regulations were first adopted in October 1996 and had been in place for 22 months. The regulations were extended the first time by 4 months, the second time by 6 months, and the third time by 3 months to August 1998. The 10-month process had become a 35-month process. The tasks originally set out had not been completed although the cost had increased from the original $142,000 to approximately $500,000 the prior year. With the additional cost extensions to be considered as part of the contract and support infrastructure, the cost would probably soar to $1 million. The people who paid the most were the homeowners who had been forced to go through the process against their consent. That evening the Council was preparing for the fourth extension which left the City where it was in October 1996. There was a verbal law in place, and the new ordinance and updated inventory were being promised for one year in the future. The community had heard three times already that the interim process would be refined, incentives would be provided, and it would be completed with the next extension of the time line. It was time for the Council to reconsider how to proceed and reset the objectives in the process.
Ned Gallagher, member, Palo Alto Homeowner=s Association, 440 Melville Avenue, said in the past few weeks, the Association had had the opportunity to talk to Council Members at their homes, about the proposed and the interim ordinances. The Association had principles which brought its members together with energy and purpose in order to participate in the process of establishing an ordinance that was of vital importance to their lives, homes, and
well being. The Association=s principles were as follows: 1) pledges to work with the City Council in producing laws and regulations in the best interest of the people of Palo Alto; 2) supports the enhancement of the historic character and the properties of Palo Alto; 3) supports the individual property rights of Palo Alto homeowners; 4) recommends a single category of landmark for worthy historic structures and that there be specific criteria established for landmark designation that is related to historic values in the City, not an individual making decisions by
07/06/98 86-442
looking at a house; 5) holds that before any private, real property can be designated a landmark, that written consent shall be received from the owner; and 6) recommends that the system of incentives be established to encourage homeowners to participate in the preservation program. Incentives and benefits were important, but he believed they were most important when the program was voluntary. Roger Winkle, 3347 St. Michael Court, said his family moved to Palo Alto in 1975, and in 1988 bought a one-acre lot in Barron Park for $755,000 had a bunk house that had been added onto several times. The house was not well insulated and much of it lacked a foundation. The bank said the house was not worth anything, and the real value was in the land. He had been offered up to $1.3 million to sell the property, but the buyers wanted to remodel and were not allowed to. Currently, they wanted to build, sell, etc., but were left in limbo. He did not know how he could sell his property and did not know why anyone would want to buy it if the house could not be torn down. Older homes did not meet the current standards and no amount of money spent remodeling the house would make them liveable. He felt as if his property had been confiscated because it could not be built upon nor sold for its fair market value. He asked the Council consider the individual hardships that type of ordinance might create. It could affect individuals emotionally and financially. Jim Jiracich, 569 Homer Avenue, said he was shocked to learn three months prior that his property was on Priority List No. 1. His property was located directly across from the Channing House and consisted of two small residences. The first house was set back 67 feet with a large unused lot at the front. The front house was only 900 square feet, built in 1895 with a partially pitch and partially flat roof. The flat portion had been added on. Behind that was a 350 square feet studio. The total of the two properties was about 1,200 square feet. The front house was architecturally unsightly because of the flat roof and overall appearance of the house. Around the corner from his property at Cowper Street and Forest Avenue was a Bed and Breakfast and across from that was a beautiful Victorian occupied by law offices, both of which were beautiful, historic homes. He could not believe that anyone could designate his property as historic. In addition, it was difficult for a senior to live in a 19th Century home. If he wanted to continue living in the home, something would have to be done to make it more liveable. He was unable to get any information as to how his property received a historic designation. He asked the Council to drive by his property and see what they thought about it being designated historic. Kathy Woods, 1127 Webster Street, said in 1992 she and her husband purchased a small home in Palo Alto with the intention to add a second story once they could save enough money. In 1994, her neighbor added a second story which was a welcome enhancement to the neighborhood. In 1996 they decided to start their own project 07/06/98 86-443
and interviewed architects who were familiar with their style of home and demonstrated the tasteful remodeling of craftsman style homes. They gave the architect direction to retain the existing front facade of the house and to develop a design to make the house appear to have been originally designed as a two-story home. After hearing about the Interim Ordinance and reviewing the Compatibility Review Standards, they did not think they would be adversely impacted since their original plans conformed with the design requirements and recommendations of the Compatibility Review Standards updated in April 1997. After completing a Merit Screening Evaluation form, providing photographs of their house, and paying a $100 fee, the house was determined to be Contributing. They reviewed the Compatibility Review Standards, extensively researched that style of architecture, and believed their design clearly met the intent of the Interim Ordinance. They met with the
City=s preservation architect to review the project prior to preceding with design details. The findings from the meeting made them review the Compatibility Review Standards again and set up a second meeting. All of the major reasons given for noncompatibility related to the rear of the house. She asked where in the 49-page booklet the information could be found. The Compatibility Review Standards booklet only had photographs showing front facades of homes. She asked why complete design review of rear structures was being conducted, and what did historic preservation have to do with neighborhood compatibility. She believed the Council took action to separate those issues early in the year. The Council may have had good intentions when the Interim Ordinance was originally enacted in October 1996; however, it was clear that the administration of the ordinance was a failure. It had placed an undue burden on a minority of homeowners with older homes in Palo Alto. She requested that the Council conduct a formal performance evaluation of the administration of the interim process to date and a survey and study of the cost delays and experiences of homeowners that had gone through the process. Extending the Interim Ordinance without careful public examination of what had been happening in Palo Alto was not acceptable after 22 months with an interim ordinance and no visible progress towards a replacement ordinance or an updated inventory. She did not want the City to approve additional time and money for the exercise. With a deadline of August 31, 1998, maybe the City staff will finally update the historic inventory and develop a reasonable and fair law. Dott Ferrand, 436 Valencia Drive, Los Altos, said she had owned various pieces of property in the area since 1953 and presently owned two properties in Palo Alto which had been designated as Contributing. It was frightening after all of those years of ownership to be threatened by the arbitrary, seemingly insidious, and potentially confiscating infringement on personal property rights.
07/06/98 86-444
Milton F. Johnson, representing the Roach Family Trust, 461 Washington Avenue, said he had visited the Planning Department that day and received a copy of the 1996 ordinance rather than the 49-page Compatibility Review Standards booklet. It was a Catch-22. If the right questions were not asked, then the information was not received. Stanley Duke, 760 Moreno Avenue, opposed the extension of the Interim Ordinance. He believed the ordinance to be confiscation of 5,000 houses and the right to make modifications or changes to those houses. It was for some nebulous objective which had never been clearly stated, either in the newspapers or by the City Council. To call it an historic ordinance was writing under false pretenses. There were probably not more than five dozen homes of historical significance in the entire community, not to mention the 5,000 homes that had been categorized as contributing. The main historical legacy of Palo Alto had been as dairy and egg farms for San Francisco. The main legacy of Palo Alto had been provided by its high technology laboratories in garages, not by single-family residences. The Interim Ordinance that had been in effect for two years had undergone several extensions, and was currently having an extensive modification which began to look more like a permanent ordinance. If the ordinance were adopted as such, it placed undue power and authority in the hands of a few administrative people in the City who would have the ability to apply a highly subjective criteria to building decisions made by individuals which might comply in every respect with the building codes but did not meet some subjective standard of conformity that City staff felt should be adopted. Earl F. Schmidt, 201 Homer Avenue, said for the prior 23 years, he and his wife had proudly owned, maintained, and preserved two of
Palo Alto=s early Downtown homes. Their residence was first occupied in 1906 prior to the earthquake. It remained in the family for nearly three generations, and he hoped it would continue for another two generations. Despite the vague claims and illusions throughout the current Interim Ordinance study proposal, there was no incentive nor advantage in the current ordinance proposals for any Palo Alto property owner. He had been actively involved with historic preservation programs at state and local levels in two other counties since 1950. The current state and federal preservation codes, if adopted and followed by Palo Alto as was done by other political organizations in the state, offered fully adequate protection and options for both property owners and the communities those buildings were in. As a resident owner and
taxpayer, he strongly objected to the City=s massive investment of staff time and funds, primarily with staff that did not live in Palo Alto and had no vested interest in the community. The funds were used to develop a proposed restrictive ordinance that would downgrade the long-term value of all historic properties. The Planned Community properties that surrounded his home had soared in value, while his property remained frozen for more than a decade
07/06/98 86-445
during the City=s prolonged expensive studies. The City-created limbo had made it virtually impossible to obtain adequate property insurance on historic designated residences property at any cost. Two historic residences in Pasadena, California, stood vacant and deteriorating after 20 years because the city had caused an insurance freeze by contesting any improvements on the properties. He asked that the Council direct the City Attorney to immediately investigate options for the provision of insurance protection for all historically designated properties and advise affected owners of where and how they could obtain insurance. Prior to the proposal of the Historic Preservation Ordinance for adoption or extension, the City Attorney should be required to provide responsible case study evidence of the legal dependability of the proposed ordinance regulations. The best interest of Palo Alto historic property owners had been frozen too long and there did not need to be another decade-long wait for meaningful protection of both individual and public preservation interests. Alan D. Biller, 557 W. Crescent Drive, said he had lived in Palo Alto for 25 years, and it was clear that the property owners were concerned about the qualities that made Palo Alto a special place
to live. The Council=s major objective should be to encourage preservation of those qualities, including neighborhood character. The proper way to do that was through the use of building codes as had been done for many years with restrictions in place on bulk lot coverage, etc., and not through what was believed to be a bogus historical exercise. Palo Alto was not a museum, and there were very few buildings that had any reasonable claim to historic or architectural value. Making presumptive assignments of historic or contributing value to buildings simply because of their modest age was ludicrous and making a large number of residents captive to concerns about a small number of properties was outrageous. He and his wife went through the process the prior year which he regarded as a victory by convincing the Historic Review Board (HRB), that his house had no redeeming value. He felt the HRB procedures were bureaucratic, subjectively administered, posed unexpected burdens on homeowners who had no idea such procedures would be in place when they acquired property, and City staff, Barbara Judy in particular, had acted high-handedly ignoring documentary evidence that conflicted with her opinion. The HRB standards were vague, its application was capricious, and compliance was a moving target. No one seemed to care about the cost imposed upon affected homeowners and the community. Issuing the Interim Ordinance 22 months earlier, the Council permitted itself to be stampeded by a small but vocal minority of residents. Since the approach was wrong to begin with, the proposals to extend the Interim Ordinance, suggested that the Council did not understand the depth of resentment caused by its high-handed attempt to curtail reasonable exercise of long established property rights. The issues were subject to referendum, but why not solve the problem either by disposing of the proposed ordinance or putting it to a vote in a referendum.
07/06/98 86-446
Natalie Wells, representing Palo Alto-Stanford Heritage Organization, 3259 Alma Street, thanked the Council Members who wrote the proposed changes to the Interim Ordinance. There were only two documents available to the public at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 2, 1998, and that was not acceptable. She requested that City staff work with the City Clerk to make these documents available, especially prior to a long weekend, to give the public a chance to digest the information. The second request was with regard to the post card sent to homeowners. Some people previously requested that a letter be sent explaining what the categories meant and clarify many issues that were raised. Peggy Woodworth, 301 Addison Avenue, asked the Council to consider letting the Interim Ordinance expire and return to the original ordinance until such time as the Council could carefully and thoughtfully create a permanent ordinance that would work for the City of Palo Alto.
John Woodworth, 301 Addison Avenue, concurred with his wife=s comments. Murray Suid, 1111 Greenwood Avenue, said time was precious and when used wisely it played a powerful role, but when used carelessly, time lost meaning. The current historical review system treated his time as if it were trash. The City needed a new approach which would allow himself and others to get on with their lives. It had
taken far too long to create a fair plan. A year=s extension of the interim regulations was an outrage. Bob Violante, 1056 University Avenue, said he had been a homeowner in various locations of Palo Alto since 1960. He first became aware of the implications of the Interim Ordinance the previous summer when his garage needed remodeling. During the permit process, he found out that his house was designated a historic landmark residence by the Preservation Architect Barbara Judy and the HRB. He believed his home was an example of an average California Mediterranean style home common in Palo Alto, and such a designation created a significant encumbrance on the property. The permit process alone took four months and cost over $3,000. He like his house and had no intentions of demolishing the structure. His family had lived there for 17 years, and he had spent significant sums for updating and maintenance. Old homes required constant expenditures, and he had always been sensitive to the character and period of the house when making repairs. His home was his most valuable asset, and he did not believe that it was reasonable to ask him to agree to a covenant that forbid him or any other owners from ever demolishing a structure in order to repair a garage, particularly when the City made no effort to curtail the traffic on the street. He questioned the philosophic premise and legality of the ordinance. He considered designation of historic landmark residence to be punitive.
07/06/98 86-447
Jean Wilcox, 4005 Sutherland, wanted to draw the Council=s attention to the inappropriateness of some of the clauses in the Interim Ordinance as they applied to the different types of tract homes south of Oregon Expressway. The ordinance did not allow for
Αremoval of any portion of a street facing facade≅ which meant if a resident lived in a 1950's tract house, identical to a neighbors, they would be unable to individualize the front of their home. If the house had a flat roof and a homeowner wanted to replace it with a slightly pitched roof, it would not be allowed. Many of the older homes had only one bathroom, and the ordinance would not allow the owners to tear down an external wall to build a second bathroom. Many homes in her neighborhood were run-down rental units and would be protected by the Interim Ordinance. She was curious as to how many HRB members actually lived south of Oregon, and how many hours they had spent studying the problems of applying the ordinance to those special homes. Since many of the tract homes south of Oregon would be included in the Interim Ordinance over the next ten years, she suggested delaying their inclusion for four or five years until a complete study was done of those special needs and that an effort be made at that time to include the
homeowners= views. Joan Jack, 1005 Bryant Street, said she had lived in Professorville for 30 years and had been active in historic preservation. She would like to see the Interim Ordinance abolished. She commended Vice Mayor Schneider and Council Members Eakins, Kniss and Wheeler for taking the leadership in trying to make the current ordinance more user-friendly. When her house was purchased 30 years prior, it was with joy and anticipation that a house containing 13 male graduate students could be returned to a single-family home. At that time, the neighborhood was in a quite a state of disrepair, but it was currently a beautiful, historic neighborhood in which people toured. The neighborhood was created with the Interim Ordinance. Given the hassles and hurdles new home buyers were incurring, they were buying in fear and trepidation. She wanted the Council to bring back the joy and anticipation that most experienced who had purchased homes many years prior. Anything the Council could do would be laudable. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, said she lived in a wonderful 1973 Eichler development. She urged the Council not to adopt the Interim Ordinance until there was assurance that it would be amended and revised. The public was skeptical after what happened since September 1996. Also, the City did little to publicize the Council meeting that evening which was critical and could lead to decisions that would continue to impact thousands of Palo Alto homeowners. After reviewing minutes of previous
meetings, she was impacted by former Council Member Simitian=s comment in October 1996 when he argued that the Council would do itself a disservice if it did not do everything possible to create buy-in on the part of the community with the process. Mr. Simitian
07/06/98 86-448
believed the best way was to create a formal vehicle for people to participate in the discussion regarding the guidelines. That did not happen. Council Member Fazzino stated that he believed it was
extremely important for the Council to enlist the community=s support and to put a process in place that was flexible, nonbureaucratic, and recognized the value of historic preservation and the importance of property rights. That did not happen. She had heard comments that the ordinance would affect only 5 percent of the homes in Palo Alto, which did not matter. What mattered was
that each homeowners= lives were being affected daily by the inflexible, rigid, arbitrary, and at times demeaning process the public was being subjected to when they tried to improve their homes. She cared deeply about Palo Alto and its diversity and vitality. She hoped the Council could lead the way to restore the sense of community that was so highly valued. Richard Joncas, 452 Carolina Lane, lived in the Charleston Meadows area of Palo Alto. While he applauded the efforts of staff to make the ordinance more flexible and homeowner-friendly, he questioned
the recommendation to redefine the term Αdemolition,≅ specifically,
to permit Αinsignificant alterations to front facing facades of
historic buildings.≅ The effect of such a change was puzzling. He wondered what were the important benefits for a homeowner who wanted to make an insignificant alteration to a front facing facade or how an insignificant alternation to an historic building
improved the quality of life for a homeowner. He saw a Pandora=s Box of irresolvable issues and definitions, a difficult design review process pitting the homeowner and the HRB and a inordinately detailed list of insignificant changes in order to have an understandable standard. He wondered how many insignificant alterations constituted a major alteration and the loss of an historically integral building. The precedent would open the door to more ambitious proposals in the future. He did not believe
there was any reason for amending the definition of Αdemolition≅ as it currently existed, and the staff had not provided any reason. The staff was commended for the suggestion to employ an Ombudsperson to assist homeowners of historic houses in understanding the regulations and process of which there was a definite need and benefit. Barbara Newton, 216 Everett Avenue, said she had lived in Palo Alto since 1962, but her current home was only two years old. She was speaking in support of her fellow members of the PAHA and was concerned that they would be subjected to the same process she and her husband experienced the prior year. They only wanted a window but spent over one year and $1,000, much in nonrefundable fees, asking for permission and receiving nothing for their efforts. The planning process proved to be needlessly complicated and slanted in favor of developers at the expense of the homeowners. She supported preserving special older homes. She had spent the past five years working with the Museum of American Heritage to restore
07/06/98 86-449
the Rhona Williams House and was thrilled with the accomplishments. With regard to both the historic inventory and the Interim Ordinance, she believed the Council was failing to acknowledge the rights of property owners wanting to make necessary and appropriate changes to their property and had assumed far more power and
control over the homeowners= lives. Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson,
she said ΑYou appear to be acting without the consent of the
governed.≅ Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, said she was one of the people who came before the Council in 1996 requesting that the Council do something to save the neighborhoods. The event which precipitated the request was the demolition of a large blue Queen Anne Victorian house that had been a landmark in the College Terrace neighborhood for many years. Two tasteless buildings which lacked character currently stood where the Victorian once stood. The existing ordinance which was supposed to serve as well as the Interim Ordinance clearly showed as failing in College Terrace. In addition to losing the Victorian, another lovely little category 1 Queen Anne was lost. A moratorium was placed on its demolition under the old ordinance which was insufficient to save it, along with the efforts on the part of many people to buy the Queen Anne and a contact from former Mayor Wheeler to persuade the owner to do something different with it. Voluntary compliance, short-term prohibitions, and one-year moratoriums on demolition did not work to save the older buildings. Many comments were made that evening regarding voluntary agreement to be listed. For the same reasons that voluntary compliance did not work to save the blue Victorian, voluntary agreement to being listed on the inventory would not work. It would not capture the special buildings and many valuable resources would be lost. One piece of misinformation that many speakers had alluded to was a concern that the Interim Ordinance would not allow for any changes. Many houses had been successfully modified under the Interim Ordinance. One of her neighbors had a successful experience with the help of the preservation architect in modifying his plans to produce a more liveable remodeling of his home. The Interim Ordinance was not created by a small group of people, but by a significant portion of the College Terrace residents. Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, concurred with Ms. Jack in commending those Council Members who initiated making the Interim Ordinance more user-friendly in order to make it easier for both the staff and the applicant to accomplish its goals. People who supported the concept of the Interim Ordinance were pleased to see that the proposed modifications were not intended to subvert or compromise the basic objectives of the ordinance. The Interim Ordinance was originally adopted in 1996 in response to the increasing concerns of residents with the loss of historic homes, design quality, and the general neighborhood incompatibility of new homes. Over the prior two years, the increasing premium on Palo Alto residential property underscored the compelling need for the
07/06/98 86-450
ordinance as well as the wisdom of adopting the ordinance originally. Voluntary compliance with the provisions of the ordinance might be preferable, but mandatory compliance, especially in the current overheated economic climate, was essential to prevent the premature destruction and loss of historic buildings. As a member of the Historical Association Board, he reminded people that historic preservation was analogous to zoning where individual property rights were subordinate to the overall community good. For example, Palo Alto had one or two commercial zones or areas to assure consistent development and to prevent one area from intruding on another. Similarly, the preservation of historic structures and neighborhoods was recognized as a benefit to the community and individual property owners could be restrained from taking actions which might destroy that historic community integrity. The priority of community benefits over individual property rights derived from zoning and historic preservation were established in law. He looked forward to the August 3, 1998, City Council meeting to hear the staff recommendations for streamlining the Interim Ordinance, and he hoped it would assist both applicants and staff in moving some of the problem cases forward. He asked that it not be forgotten that the historic residences were among
Palo Alto=s greatest assets. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, thanked the Council and the staff for tackling historic preservation. The Council addressed the subject due to widespread community concern about neighborhoods. The ordinance should be modified to support more incentives. The cost was not important to her because it was an investment in the community and a wise way to spend money. She felt those opposing historic preservation were speaking from self interest and had been gathered up by an efficient organization. Those supporting historic preservation were individual voices, had nothing to gain, and had a general concern for the community. One thing neighborhoods needed was predictability. People spoke of property rights, and there were property rights for different categories of people. There were property rights for those who owned the home and for those who lived in the neighborhood and had a right to expect their City to protect them from major and unexpected changes to the neighborhood. One not only bought into a structure but also into the neighborhood. There were already many restrictions on what could and could not be done to homes such as not building on flag lots, adhering to setbacks, etc. The restrictions for the Interim Ordinance might be too tight and in need of loosening, but the restrictions needed to be maintained. One key phrase spoken by Council candidates when running for
office, was ΑThe best thing about Palo Alto were the pleasant and
attractive residential neighborhoods.≅ The Council currently had the opportunity to protect those neighborhoods. Consultant Bruce Anderson assured the public a few months prior that the most important asset Palo Alto had was the historic elements of the City. That kept Palo Alto from being a usual, faceless suburb in California. She urged the Council not to abandon its efforts to
07/06/98 86-451
change the Interim Ordinance enough to be palatable. There were ways to make being designated as Contributing an attractive situation. The issue was addressed because there was a problem, and the problem had not been solved. Thus, she asked the Council not to back down. Elaine Meyer, representing University South Neighborhoods Group, 609 Kingsley Avenue, said the University South Neighborhoods Group (the Group) had actively attempted to educate the community with respect to historic preservation. The Group had been a steady voice representing a sizeable number of people in the community, especially in the section of Palo Alto in which there were many houses of historic value. The Group strongly believed that Palo Alto needed a workable preservation ordinance. A walk down almost any street yielded examples of the loss of older valued buildings, dreadful architecture, inappropriate remodeling, and careless treatment of the character of the City. Attention needed to be paid both to what was going up and to what was coming down. The Group supported the Council and the staff in their work to craft a workable ordinance and to educate the public so the character Palo Alto could be preserved. Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton Drive, said the scare tactics of the opposing organization were frightening. The amount of misinformation that had been spread around was divisive and polarizing and not in keeping with the character of Palo Alto. She was a homeowner and that organization did not speak for her. She hoped the scare tactics would not frighten anyone. Daniel Emerson, Palo Alto Homeowners Association, 1849 Middlefield
Road, said that one of the Association=s principles who had spoken that evening said the Association supported the enhancement of the historic character and properties of Palo Alto. He expressed his disappointment that at the prior meeting, the Council with only one
dissenting vote extended the Preservation Architect=s contract, that represented much of what was wrong and troublesome with the Interim Ordinance. There had been much correspondence and complaints regarding the judgments that had been handed down. The only public statement in support of the contract extension was that it might take some time to find a replacement. The people of Palo Alto were used to delays, and the historic preservation issue was moving into its fourth extension. The Council was aware of the pain and trouble caused by the Interim Ordinance and the individual charged with its stewardship. The near unanimous vote to extend the contract could only mean that the Council condoned and actively
supported the matter in which the Preservation Architect=s duties were carried out and wanted continuance. Robert Washburn, 455 Santa Rita Avenue, said his house was built in 1964, but he lived in a neighborhood of houses built before 1940 and he was somewhat at risk because his house looked like all the other houses. He reviewed the ordinance thoroughly twice and
07/06/98 86-452
concluded that it was ambiguous with much opportunity for arbitrary
application. Much of Palo Alto=s housing stock could stand rejuvenation. Considering the experience of the redevelopment of the closed elementary school sites years prior, in every case the housing stock built there was substantially larger, better, and more updated than the immediate surrounding houses. If given a chance, Palo Alto would continue to enjoy a better community and an increased tax base. The Interim Ordinance if given its full effect would stifle the growth and assessed tax base of Palo Alto. The ordinance seemed to target the houses most likely to be redeveloped. There were many things that could be done to improve the quality of life in Palo Alto such as take back the Downtown, clean the dirty sidewalks, discourage the congregation of homeless so the merchant taxpayers could operate their businesses, and target houses where vegetation had been allowed to overgrow. The ordinance was supposed to promote public health, safety, and welfare. The Interim Ordinance was very ill-conceived. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said his house was over 60 years old and had not been designated as contributing or historic. In terms of extending ordinances, there had been many emergency ordinances passed which had to be extended repeatedly. The Interim Ordinance was not created to pick on people, it was the way the City did
business, by process. With regard to impacting people=s property rights by requiring some design review or to adhere to a historic ordinance requirement, it was nothing new or unusual. There had been historic review requirements in one city or another for over 100 years. In those cities where there were controls on historic homes and design review on single-family homes, the property value had actually been higher than cities that allowed any kind of development. With regard to property rights, when someone tore down a house in the neighborhood and built an overbearing monstrosity, his property rights were infringed upon along with everyone else in the neighborhood. The Interim Ordinance was not perfect, it needed some revising and fine tuning. The ordinance should be extended and should it have mandatory designations. He gave examples regarding the Squire House almost being torn down, houses such as the blue Queen Anne Victorian being torn down, and redevelopment of the Crescent Park School site which created much outrage among the people. With regard to the proposed changes in the Colleagues memo which would allow a separate dwelling unit where not otherwise allowed, he would limit the number per block and the size of the unit. It should be designed by people who lived within 500 feet or on the same block. With regard to allowing coverage limits to be exceeded for a single floor addition, it should be specific, i.e., 5 percent was okay, but 20 percent was too much. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) should review designs, not the HRB. He suggested that minor modifications as defined be done without HRB or ARB review. The incentives and fees should be specific in the incentive based fee schedule. The problem with the existing ordinance was that there were too many undefined areas that needed better definition.
07/06/98 86-453
John Hanna, 1424 Hamilton Avenue, said he moved to Palo Alto in 1935. In 1937, his parents retained Frank Lloyd Wright to design a house on the Stanford campus. There were complaints about the house not having a single 90-degree angle. That house would never have been built if Stanford had a Preservation Architect on its
staff as Palo Alto did. Frank Lloyd Wright said that ΑArchitecture was highest form of art. The essence of art is creativity and
innovation.≅ Any attempt to legislate taste, aesthetics, and to control art were doomed to failure. It had little to do with historical preservation and everything to do with design control. The ordinance was unworkable and a total misuse of the historical preservation process to attempt to impose Citywide design control over a period of time. Palo Alto did not get to be the way it was because it was under the control of unnecessary bureaucracy. It was time to get rid of the ordinance immediately. RECESS: 9:30 P.M. - 9:50 P.M. Chris Stevens, representing Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (the Heritage), 947 Waverley Street, thanked the Council for its
continued commitment to preserving Palo Alto=s historic resources and supported the Council in the steps being taken to alleviate the more cumbersome aspects of the Interim Ordinance which had on occasion caused individuals undue hardship. The Heritage was pleased to see the incentives outlined in the Colleagues memo and the implementation of and commitment to the state historic building code as part of those incentives. On page 5 of the Colleagues memo under Revisions to the Interim Ordinance, the Heritage had concerns about two points. First, definition of demolition. It was recognized in the memo that it might be difficult to create a readily understandable definition of insignificant front facade modifications. The Heritage believed the Secretary of the
Interior=s standards should be followed most importantly on the front facades regarding design and materials. Also, that any perceived insignificant front facade changes go to the HRB for review as opposed to triggering compatibility review, which should significantly shorten the process for homeowners and assure appropriate changes made and property owners getting the benefit of a brief review process. The second concern was Landmark Alteration Review, regarding the definition of minor alterations. The Heritage supported it but stressed the importance of being specific
in defining Αminor alterations≅ which would be crucial to insure that the public and staff not be confused and frustrated. The same criteria should be followed in scripting the definition as with any changes to historic buildings. With all the incentives and revisions to the ordinance, it was imperative that the City follow up on training the Planning and Building Divisions staff and the HRB along with public educations. Public materials must be specific in order to avoid much of the misunderstanding which had permeated the community. While the Heritage recognized there was much to be done, the educational aspect of the historic 07/06/98 86-454
preservation program was not the least of the items to be addressed and should be given immediate dedication including a mailing to homeowners and publication in the newspapers. Greg Van der Veen, 2133 Yale Street, said he had asked the Council a month prior why the issue of historic preservation was being discussed. The key was that a group of citizens were asking for help because the neighborhood was being destroyed and they wanted something done. There were problems with the Interim Ordinance and the Council was reacting to those problems. He attended the recent PAHA meeting of which he left upset at the way the new ordinance
had been presented as Αall stick and no carrot.≅ The homeowners were genuinely scared and went to the Council, and the Council
reacted. The public was currently waiting for Αthe carrot≅ in hopes that property owners would hurry to have their homes considered historic. The misinformation being given out by the PAHA was staggering. In defense of the Council, he had witnessed throughout the process that the Council did listen. It was easier to build a new house rather than remodel an old house with old charm. Historic ordinance issues were being considered because the old one was no longer providing homeowners protection. If it had the blue Victorian Queen Anne, the Julia Morgan cottage, and 1531 College Avenue would still be a part of the community. He believed he was correct in trusting the Council to be reactionary. Lee Brokaw, 2080 Hanover, had lived in College Terrace for 25 years and was confused and overwhelmed by the ordinance. He said the misinformation put forward by the PAHA was staggering and seemed to have divided the community. He did not believe that the College
Terrace Homeowners= Association or the PAHA had that in mind when they went to the Council. He gave a comparison between the PAHA
and the Crescent Park Homeowners= Association with regard to monies spent on informing the public. He wanted to know who was behind the PAHA and where all its money came from. He felt an audit was appropriate. The PAHA was clearly a lobbying organization. With that kind of money involved, it needed to be made public. Also, he
had not seen in the ordinance the word Αconfiscation≅ and said that people were sorely misled while using that word. PAHA was playing
into John Lowe=s hands. He had built eight Αlittle boxes≅ within a two block radius in College Terrace and many members of the PAHA did not know who he was. He did not support the concept of voluntary historic preservation. Andrea Sutherland Salmon, 1143 Webster Street, lived in an 1894 home which was restored over time with no incentives in mind or offered. She wanted the Interim Ordinance to expire and suggested historic preservation continue to be voluntary. She was concerned about the process that evening. She felt the Council had a full platter which had bogged it down in a way that was unexpected. She believed that continuing the item to July 6, 1998, might mean that the ordinance would be passed with fewer people present. Her
07/06/98 86-455
perception was that the number of people who spoke that evening rarely came to Council meetings, were not affiliated with a group consistently, and were there due to concerns relating to their homes. She asked the Council to consider what 1 percent would buy in terms of deferred property tax if the ordinance were to cost the City $1 million. Most historic ordinances in communities were frequently focused on Downtown. When the Downtown was kept vibrant the housing stock went along. Carol Lamant, 618 Kingsley Avenue, lived in a small cottage which
was almost 100 years old. She supported the Council=s efforts to provide meaningful protection for historic homes and character of the neighborhoods. Providing guidelines and incentives were fine, but those needed to be backed up with rules and requirements that
would ensure the community=s interests were protected. The City needed to provide design review to ensure that new and substantially rehabilitated homes would not be incompatible with adjacent homes and the surrounding neighborhood. She had had
first-hand experience with the City=s inaction on those issues using an example of the house next door. A historic home designed by Julia Morgan was demolished and replaced by a house which was an architectural disaster that dominated the area. She asked that the City follow through and provide the measures necessary to protect its historic resources and the character of the neighborhoods. Regarding the complaints about how the City implemented the Interim Ordinance, the City could learn from the experience to improve customer service and the implementation of the ordinance. Christian Kalour, 3716 Laguna Avenue, had lived in Palo Alto for 28 years and had been a resident of 50-year-old homes for 19 years. He had participated in two of the ARB workshops. He expressed his
discontent in the Council=s consideration of the financial impact to homeowners that fell within the historic inventory. His home contained asbestos, a gravity-fed heater, and knob and tube wiring that were some of the things which homeowners had to deal with. When he purchased his home, he realized it would take money to improve the home. His potential plans could be limited because his home was currently part of the historic inventory. He wanted the Council to think about the recent discussion regarding the Council Chambers remodel, how hard a decision it was for the Council to
spend a few hundred thousand dollars out of a City=s budget, and how that might affect a homeowner to spend that kind of money for an individual home if it were included as part of the historic inventory. The overall concept was good. There were a handful of homes that should be preserved, and the City should pay for those homes to be preserved. The City needed to take financial responsibility for those impacts. It would be easier to handle a handful of homes rather than a few thousand that were currently under potential impact. Larry Chew, 204 Waverley Street, said he did not believe that Palo Alto was unique because of the preservation of its old homes.
07/06/98 86-456
There were many communities that had better historical homes. Palo Alto was unique because of its community intelligence. There were zoning laws that protected historic homes which should be enough. Homeowners should not be burdened with spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve their homes. The Council should be making life simpler for the residents and not more difficult. Palo Alto did not need more government; the government needed to be simplified. He wanted the tyranny to stop, and he asked that the ordinance be eliminated. Kimberley Wong, 1260 Emerson Street, said her home was purchased in November 1997 just as the Interim Ordinance was put into place and she was one of the first to go through the process to determine whether her house was Landmark versus Contributing. Since 1902, three generations of her family had lived in Palo Alto. One of her
grandfather=s houses was a Queen Anne Victorian which was declared a Landmark and moved to South Palo Alto to be preserved. She had lived in the house and wanted to see that type of house preserved. The Interim Ordinance was drawn up with good intentions to preserve that type of house, but trying to abide by the ordinance had led to a troublesome process filled with inconsistencies and undue hardship for the pre-1940 homeowner looking to remodel. There were problems with the merit screening process and applying for a home improvement exception and compatibility review. First, most pre-1940 houses had been deemed Contributing according to the past ruling trends of the merit screening process. Though her house had some nice features, she did not feel it needed to be on a historic preservation list. She proposed removing the Contributing status completely and imposing a compatibility review standard on all new homes and remodels in Palo Alto. That would prevent post-1940 houses from becoming monster houses. Land with post-1940 houses had skyrocketed in value because of the opportunity to beat the system and build monstrosities the City was so opposed to.
Second, was the frustration over staff=s inconsistent and subjective comments which led to costly and time consuming redesigning of plans. The Interim Ordinance had stirred up more problems than it had solved. It was time meet with the homeowners most painfully familiar with the problems and rewrite the ordinance to be more user-friendly. Nelson Ng, 1260 Emerson Street, said he attended the Council meeting two weeks prior and pleaded with the Council to terminate the contract with the preservation architect due to the painful one and one-half year experience he endured during the interim historic process. He previously submitted a detailed account of the experience in a letter to the Council. The Interim Ordinance was trying to save every pre-1940 house. Not all old houses were historic. There was no need for so many categories of historic
homes. There should be only one categoryΧtrue historic, which should suffice for preservation. He questioned whether or not he was the true homeowner of his house because during the process, the City made him feel as if he were vandalizing a house belonging to
07/06/98 86-457
the City. He appreciated the Council for recognizing the
homeowners= outrage and by trying to extend and improve the Interim Ordinance. However, his painful personal experience made him believe the ordinance was not worth saving. If the Council truly wanted to create a fair ordinance that was acceptable to the homeowners, it needed to ask the affected homeowners. He suggested that the Council remove the Interim Ordinance immediately. In answer to an earlier comment regarding who was funding the PAHA, it was the concerned citizens who had been victimized by the Interim Ordinance. He asked that the Council understand the issue dealt with real peoples lives, Palo Alto was not a museum. Monica Yeung Arima, 1052 Bryant Street, owned one of the famous Professorville houses. She had to buy life insurance to enable her to get homeowners insurance. It was the only way she could get an insurance company to sell her homeowners insurance. Few lenders wanted to lend her money for the purchase of the home because it was 100 years old with no foundation. She had been saving for 20 years to remodel the house, and after one year of the process, she was very angry. She was there that evening because she did not want anyone else to experience what she had experienced. She had no intention of tearing the house down. She reminded the Council that the homeowners were the ones that kept the old houses alive, and houses were not built to exist forever. Jim Culpepper, 2121 Amherst Street, lived in College Terrace for 34 years and supported the original moratorium in 1996. He also supported the extension of the Interim Ordinance with the suggested amendments. He agreed that the process needed to be streamlined and had caused unnecessary hardship. The proposed amendments were badly needed and would alleviate some of the problems expressed that evening. The Colleagues memo listed 15 homeowner benefits of historic preservation. He suggested adding two additional amendments: 1) provide low-interest loans to homeowners seeking to upgrade historic properties, and 2) provide voluntary ARB review of plans to home builders seeking to construct new single-family houses in Palo Alto. The review would allow the builder to advertise to potential buyers that the house had received ARB approval. His impression was that some of the monster houses were built out of ignorance of community design standards. The home at 1535 College Avenue was a good example of what could be built. The builder tore down a dilapidated old Victorian and replaced it with a Victorian-style residence which incorporated much of the original design. It fit in perfectly with the surrounding neighborhood. Council Member Ojakian said he lived in a 1904 home which was not on the list for the permanent ordinance, but would be affected by the Interim Ordinance. He asked if that had any bearing on him discussing the matter. City Attorney Ariel Calonne advised that he not participate. With regard to the permanent ordinance, he believed the affect on
07/06/98 86-458
Council Member Ojakian would be the same as on the public generally. As advised previously at some point the impact might be different from the public generally which could create a conflict. If Council Member Ojakian had not participated on the Interim Ordinance, he would not want to risk being negligent in giving advice because he could be held personally liable for violations of the Political Reform Act. Vice Mayor Schneider said an issue that compelling that had so much interest should not be decided by only five Council Members. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance would require five votes in any event. It would take unanimous action that evening and, in all candor, would not affect the number of votes required even with more Council Members present. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue Items No. 9A and 10 to the Monday, July 13, 1998, City Council Meeting. Council Member Fazzino supported continuing the item because there would be two additional Council Members in attendance. The community was best served with as much Council participation as possible. Mayor Schneider said the people who spoke that evening would not have another opportunity to speak. She asked whether the public testimony portion was closed and whether Council Members could still talk to members of the community during the week. Mr. Calonne said it was a legislative matter and none of the rules for Quasi-Judicial matters applied. The Council Members could talk to members of the community but could not have a member of the community act as an intermediary among a majority of the Council which was a difficult aspect of the Brown Act. Constituents would be able to petition or lobby the Council. Vice Mayor Schneider announced that the public testimony portion of the item was closed. Ms. Fleming made it clear that both Item Nos. 9A and 10 were being continued. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Huber, Ojakian "not participating," Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 10A. (Old Item 7) Los Trancos Road (Arrillaga Lands): Draft Findings and Conditions for Approval of a Tentative Map and Requests for Conditional Exception for Subdivision of 151.41 Acres into Eight Single-Family Residential Lots and One 87.3+
07/06/98 86-459
Acre Private Open Space/Common Area Parcel (continued from 5/18/98) Planning Contract Planner Paul Jensen said a letter had been submitted that evening which raised an issue that was addressed in
Attachment 3, Condition 6g, of the staff report (CMR:294:98), ΑThe following shall be included on the Final Map Improvement Plans, with the design and details subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board: g. The location and design of all fencing proposed along the perimeter of the site. All proposed perimeter fencing shall be rural in character (no cyclone-type wire fence or barbed wire) and designed to permit wildlife movement
throughout the site.≅ It was not mentioned in the staff report; however, the condition was redlined but the printed version did not show the redline. Council Member Wheeler said she wanted to make sure the point was raised because she did not see it in the staff report either. Herb Borock 2731 Byron Street, wanted the record to be clear that the purpose of the condition was to remove the current fencing that did not conform to the conditions of approval. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the City Council: 1. Adopt the Resolution certifying the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as adequate, making the findings, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving the Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan (Attachment 4 of the staff report (CMR:294:98). 2. Approve the Tentative Map and conditional exceptions from PAMC Section 21.20.210, permitting a portion of the main access road to be developed with a grade in excess of 15 percent and PAMC Section 21.28.020, permitting a reduction in the required road right-of-way and pavement width, as outlined in the Planning Commission staff report dated November 12, 1997, based on a) the findings presented in Attachment 2 and the Architectural Review Board findings presented in Attachment 2A, and b) subject to the conditions presented in Attachment 3. ATTACHMENT 2 Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map (94-SUB-5) and Conditional Exceptions from PAMC Section 21.20.210 and 21.28.020 (Revised Tentative Map dated November 1997/Revised June 1998) Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map 07/06/98 86-460
1. As amended by map revisions recommended by the City Council and by conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that it would result in a division of land that would establish a residential density of one dwelling unit per 18.9 acres and a permanent, private open space parcel of 81+ 87+ acres, encompassing over 50% 59% of the land area. The subdivision would result in a project that is compatible with the scale and development pattern of the surrounding residential development and the permanent, public and private open space lands. In addition, as revised, the subdivision would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that it would result in a residential density that is within the density range of the Open Space-Controlled Development land use designation. The project, as revised and as recommended for additional design and layout modifications, would be consistent with Policy Policies 4 and 11 of the Open Space Element in that, the lots and the proposed improvements, specifically the building envelope areas, would be relocated located to protect scenic areas and a significant portion of the site is proposed for permanent open space. Furthermore, the map revisions include a relocation of lot #8 to an area that is less visible from off site (adjacent to lot #5). While many several of the recommended building envelopes would be in areas of open grassland, the recommended locations are appropriate in that a) adequate clustering can be achieved, b) the open area provides gentle topography (for minimizing grading and earth movement), and c) the location would minimize impacts to mature trees and oak woodland areas, which are
an important part of the site=s scenic resources and d) building heights for lots #2, 3 and 7 would be restricted to one story, and a tree planting program would be implemented on these lots to enhance the screening of residences. Additionally, the project, as recommended, approved and with compliance with recommended conditions of approval, would be consistent with Policy 11 of the Open Space Element, which encourages residential developments to provide the maximum amount of open space, in that, the subdivision would not only preserve over 81+ 87+ of the site in a permanent open space but would require that a building envelope be recorded for each residential lot, thus limiting most of the land area for
each lot for Αpassive recreation/private open space≅ use; this combination would result in protection of over 90% of the site in permanent open space. Furthermore, as approved and as revised by conditions of approval, the subdivision would be consistent with Policy 1 and Policy 14 of the Environmental Resources Element in that, a) the main access road would be realigned to eliminate the need
07/06/98 86-461
for an on-site storm water detention basin, which would minimize the quantity and effects of water runoff and b) recommendations for slope stabilization would lessen the risk to human life and property. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed single-family residential development, in that the lots are sized and configured to be clustered, specific building envelopes are recommended to accommodate home development, ancillary uses and outdoor living space and a substantial portion of the site is proposed for permanent, private open space. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision respects the physical conditions of the site by appropriately arranging residential lots with access to and frontage along the main access road, which by conditions of approval is required to follow the alignment of the existing, graded fire road. As approved and as modified by conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision would respect the physical conditions of the site by avoiding excessive tree removal, localizing grading and minimizing the impacts to the southern watershed (Sub-area 3). 3. The subdivision design would not cause significant environmental impacts or substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as documented in the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report (DEIR and Response to Comments, 94-EIA-32). Mitigation measure have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map, which will, where feasible, reduce potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. In addition, conditions of approval require compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan through the design and construction phases of the residential lots. 4. As approved and as modified by conditions of approval, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not result in serious public health problems in that, all necessary public services, including utilities and access to Los Trancos Road, a public street, are available and will be provided. The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project concludes that property soils are suitable to successfully accommodate eight, individual septic/leachfield systems, with recommendations for more detailed study and/or relocation of leachfield sites during the Final Map stage of development. Furthermore, conditions of approval require the development of an on-site water tank that would be adequately sized to accommodate domestic water service and required fire flow. The subdivision design and recommended conditions of approval for erosion and sediment control would ensure 07/06/98 86-462
protection of downstream water quality, specifically within the Los Trancos and Buckeye Creeks. 5. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with the provision of utilities to adjacent land uses or public easements in that the project layout and map is designed or proposed to receive direct utility connections from public right-of-ways. Findings for Conditional Exception from the Maximum Permitted 15% Roadway Grades per PAMC Section 21.20.210 1. There are special circumstances and conditions surrounding the subject property which warrant the approval of a conditional exception for permitting one, 400 foot long segment of the main access road (Tierra Arboles) to exceed the 15% roadway grade limits. Firstly, the segment of the road which exceeds the grade limits represents a small portion of the access road (14% of the road length). Secondly, the access road would serve a limited number of residential lots (maximum of eight), thus generating a low amount of traffic. In addition, the 400 foot long portion of the road that would exceed the grade limits is located in an area that is most visible from off site. Compliance with the maximum slope grade, at this location, would require an excessive grading and tree removal, resulting in significant visual impacts. 2. The exception from the maximum road grade requirements at the one, 400 foot long segment of the roadway is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, in that, it would permit a subdivision design that would reduce the amount of tree removal and grading, yet provide an appropriate grade and surface (scored concrete) that would present safe and accessible two-way travel for resident and emergency vehicles. 3. The granting of the exception, which would permit an 18% road grade for a 400 foot long portion of the main access road, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property of the neighborhood, in that this portion of the main access road is limited in length and would be surfaced to provide adequate emergency vehicle maneuvering and access (scored concrete). While the road at this one location would exceed the 15% road grade limits of the PAMC, the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project has concluded that it will not result in significant environmental or emergency service impacts in that a) an alternative emergency vehicle access route is provided in the design of the
07/06/98 86-463
subdivision, b) an on-site water tank is required for
required fire flow storage needs and c) Trapper=s Trail would be maintained as a firebreak. Furthermore, conditions of subdivision approval require that each residence be equip with a fire sprinkler system and that a fuel modification plan be implemented. 4. The granting of the conditional exception would not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that the exception would be limited to permitting a reduced road right-of-way width, as well as an 18% roadway slope for a limited portion of the road, serving a limited number of residential lots. Other requirements and goals for approval of the subdivision can be met or are required to be met through implementation of conditions of subdivision approval. Findings for Conditional Exception from Minimum Required Widths for Local Hillside Roads, per PAMC Section 21.28.020 1. There are special circumstances and conditions surrounding the subject property which warrant the approval of a conditional exception for the reduced road right-of-way width for the main access road to the subdivision (Tierra Arboles). The subject property being served by the road represents a small area would serve a limited number of residential lots (8), which would generate a low amount of traffic. 2. The exception from the minimum road width and right-of-way requirement is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right in that it would permit a subdivision design that would reduce the amount of tree removal and grading, yet provide an appropriate width to provide two-way travel for resident and emergency vehicles. 3. The granting of the exception, which would permit a 42 foot wide road right-of-way width and an improved road width of 24 feet, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property of the neighborhood, in that the street is sized (width and cul-de-sac turning radius) to provide adequate emergency vehicle maneuvering and access. While the road width would limit on-street parking to separate parking bays along the hilltop portion of the road, the individual residential lots are adequately sized to provide the minimum required on-site parking (six on-site parking spaces required by conditions of approval). 4. The granting of the conditional exception would not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that the exception would be limited to
07/06/98 86-464
permitting a reduced road right-of-way width, as well as an 18% roadway slope for a limited portion of the road, serving a limited number of residential lots. Other requirements and goals for approval of the subdivision can be met or are required to be met through implementation of conditions of subdivision approval. ATTACHMENT 2A Findings for Architectural Review of Proposed Subdivision Improvements File Numbers: 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190 and 94-EIA-31 (Revised Tentative Map dated November 1997/revised June 1998) 1. The proposed subdivision improvements, as amended by recommended revisions, would be consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the proposed improvements with recommended revisions would be consistent with Urban Design Element Policy 1, which addresses the need to maintain the present scale of the City. The map, as recommended and approved by the City Council, would be consistent with Recommended recommended conditions of approval and revisions to subdivision improvements would require requiring revisions to road grading, implementation of a tree planting program, and water tank screening, which would reduce project visibility. Relocation of the main access road would also promote further clustering of building areas, thus reducing project visibility from off-site. Likewise, the proposed subdivision improvements, as modified by conditions of approval, would be consistent with Open Space Policies 3, 4, 9 and 11, which encourage the protection of scenic areas. Furthermore, the proposed improvements, as modified by conditions of approval, would result in the realignment of the proposed main access road and deletion of an on-site storm water detention basin; these modifications would be consistent with Environmental Resources Element Policies 1 and 14. 2. The proposed subdivision improvements, as designed and as further modified by conditions of approval, would be compatible with the immediate environment and the surrounding improvements. Specifically, the improvements would permit a road design which is consistent with the rural character of the surrounding area. Recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map, as required by conditions of approval, would reduce potential tree loss and promote additional project clustering, consistent with developed areas which surround the site.
07/06/98 86-465
3. The design of the proposed subdivision improvements would be appropriate for their function to serve an 8 lot, single-family residential subdivision. Specifically, the main access road and emergency vehicle access road, as revised per conditions of approval, would provide safe and convenient access to proposed building sites, fire trails, and on-site water tank. Furthermore, the development of an on-site water tank is appropriate to its function of providing domestic water service and required fire flows. 4. The subject property is not located in an area that has a unified design or historical character. However, the proposed subdivision improvements, as designed and as further modified by conditions of approval, would be in keeping with the rural residential improvements that are present in the surrounding area. 5. The proposed improvements, as designed and as modified by conditions of approval, would assist in promoting harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. Specifically, the project proposes a large area of open space, in addition to eight, single-family residential lots. The proposed road improvements and water tank, as recommended by conditions of approval, are appropriately designed for the two land use components on the site. Specifically, modifications to the design of the main access road (minimization of cut and fill slopes) would minimize the loss of trees in the area of the project that is designated for open space. Furthermore, recommended deletion of the on-site storm water detention basin would avoid tree loss in a heavily wooded area, and maintain natural drainage. The proposed water tank could be located in an area designated for open space; this location is appropriate in that measures are recommended to ensure screening of the tank. 6. The design of the proposed subdivision improvements, as modified by conditions of approval, would be consistent with existing on-site and off-site improvements. Specifically, the approved design with further recommended changes to the grading and alignment of the main access road and emergency vehicle access road would follow the alignment of the existing, graded fire road. This change The approved design with further changes would minimize grading and tree removal, and would promote further clustering of development. Furthermore, access maintenance to the on-site water tank is designed to utilize the existing graded fire road. The proposed road design and subdivision improvements, as conditioned and modified, would be compatible with improvements which serve similar off-site developments. 07/06/98 86-466
7. As approved, and as modified by conditions of approval, the planning and siting of the proposed subdivision improvements would create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for future residents of the subdivision, and for surrounding property owners. Specifically, modifications to the main access road and deletion of the on-site storm water detention basin would result in the reduction in grading and tree removal, and would facilitate further clustering of development within the subdivision. 8. As approved and as modified by conditions of approval, the amount and arrangement of open space that is proposed is appropriate to the design and function of the subdivision and future structures that would be permitted on the individual lots. The open space that would be preserved encompasses a large expanse of oak woodland and open grassland which is an important part of the natural landscape of the surrounding area 9. As approved, and as modified by conditions of approval, the subdivision improvements provide sufficient ancillary functions to support the proposed subdivision. Specifically, additional revisions recommended for the main access road would ensure that on-street parking turn-outs are provided, as well as turn-outs along the emergency access road. The deletion of the on-site storm water detention basin is appropriate, given the recommended realignment of the main access road. Furthermore, the inclusion of an on-site water tank would ensure adequate water storage for domestic use and fire flow needs. 10. The proposed subdivision improvements, specifically the main access road and emergency access road, are designed to ensure that property access and circulation are convenient for residences of the subdivision. Recommended modifications to the map would ensure that appropriate slope grades along the road are met, and that on-street parking turn-outs are provided. 11. By As designed by and with additional revisions to the Tentative Map and through compliance with conditions of approval, natural features on the site would be preserved and integrated into the project. Specifically, recommended changes to the grading of the main access road and emergency access road would reduce tree removal. 12. Conditions of approval require that the materials, textures, and colors for specific subdivision improvements are incorporated to maintained the wooded and rural character of the site. Conditions require that 07/06/98 86-467
the materials, height, and design of retaining walls be developed to maintain the rural, wooded character of the site and surrounding area. Furthermore, conditions of approval require that an earthtone color be selected for the on-site water tank. 13. As designed and as revised through compliance with recommended by conditions of approval, the natural landscape design for the subdivision would be protected and enhanced. Specifically, the proposed open space would protect large expanses of oak woodland and native plant forms. In addition, recommended tree replanting to mitigate for tree loss. 14. As recommended by conditions of approval, the plant materials required for tree replanting would be suitable for the site and capable of being properly maintained. Native plant species selected would require limited irrigation demands. ATTACHMENT 3 Draft Tentative Map and Architectural Review Conditions for Los Trancos Road Subdivision File #s 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-31) (Revised Tentative Map dated November 1997/Revised June 1998) Prior to Filing the Final Subdivision Map for Approval and Recordation 1. In order to comply with the conditions of approval of this Tentative Map, the Final Map and Improvement Plans shall incorporate the following revisions to the map design and layout (suggested example presented in Attachment 4, Additional Recommended Revisions to Tentative Map, October 15, 1997 of this staff report): a. Realign the first 400 lineal feet of the main access road (cross section station 12+50) so that it follows the alignment of the existing, graded fire road (eliminate 40 feet of fill). For this area, a geotechnical engineer shall identify appropriate and sensitive measures for stabilization of the mapped landslide, in order to minimize tree removal. Preliminary recommended stabilization measures (e.g., subsurface retaining
wall, Αstitch-pin pier system≅) shall be incorporated into the redesign of this portion of the road. Furthermore, the cut banks shall not a exceed 2:1 slope. b. Redesign the grading for the first 1,800-2,000 lineal feet of the main access road so that all but
07/06/98 86-468
one segment is designed with slope grades of 15% or less. Road grades for one, 400 foot long segment of the main access road (cross section Stations 22+75 to 27+25) can be designed with grades of up to 18%, provided that the road in this area is surfaced with a scored, concrete material. c. Redesign the grading for the first 1,800-2,000 lineal feet of the main access road by using retaining walls, in-lieu of cut and fill slope banks. While cut and fill slope banks may be required in addition to use of retaining walls, use of these banks shall be minimized. Maximum use of retaining walls along this road is necessary to minimize tree removal. The following specifications shall be incorporated: 1) Retaining walls shall be no higher than five feet any one location; if a higher wall is necessary, the area shall be retained with terraced walls. 2) The slope banks of any proposed cut and fill slope shall not shall not exceed 2:1. d. Redesign the grading of the main access road at the
Αhair-pin≅ turn so that cut and fill banks transition into natural grade. This area is recommended for tree replanting; therefore, a maximum 2:1 slope bank is required for this area. e. Realign the last 900 lineal feet of the main access road, so that it follows the alignment of the existing, graded fire road that is along the hilltop portion of the site. Realignment of this road, as recommended, permits the elimination of the on-site storm water detention basin (between Lots #1 and #2) and off-site slope stabilization (Lands of Strauss). In addition, this recommended alignment will reduce the length of the road by approximately 100 lineal feet. f. The revised map shall incorporate four, 10 foot wide by 40 foot long on-street parking turn-outs along the hilltop portion of the main access road. In addition, a four foot wide pedestrian path shall be designed to parallel the hilltop portion of the main access road. g. Realign the first 200 lineal foot segment of the emergency access road so that it follows the alignment of the existing, graded fire road. In addition, the emergency access road shall be
07/06/98 86-469
designed so that all segments of the road have slope grades of 15% or less (reduce grades at cross section station 38+00). Turn-outs are required along this road and shall be designed so that each turn-out is in direct line of sight of the next turn-out. h. The lot lines for lot #8 shall be adjusted so that this lot is reduced in size to less than 10 acres, The lot lines for all lots shall be as depicted on the revised Tentative Map dated November 1997/revised June 1998. All lots shall be less than 10 acres in size, with the surplus acreage applied to lot #9 (private open space/common area). i. Individual building envelopes for lots #1-8 shall be identified on the Final Map. The building envelopes shall be configured and sized (approximately 20,000 square feet) generally consistent with those depicted on Attachment 4 the revised Tentative Map dated November 1997/revised June 1998. The 20,000 square foot building envelope area shall accommodate a home site, ancillary/accessory structures and uses, driveways and parking, manicured landscaping and all permitted impervious surface coverage area, except as necessary for driveway access. j. The revised map shall identify specific acreage area for each lot, building envelope, private open space/common area parcel and the 60 foot wide right-of-way dedication along Los Trancos Road. k. In addition to the above map revisions, the project engineer shall prepare and submit detailed calculations/quantities for proposed impervious surface coverage. Maximum permitted impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 3.5%, as determined per PAMC Section 18.71.080 (permitted coverage for entire subdivision). Prior to calculation of coverage, exact site/property acreage shall be determined, discounting the 60 foot wide Los Trancos Road right-of-way that is proposed for dedication. Impervious surface shall be first determined for the following improvements: 1) Main access road and emergency access road 2) Existing caretakers home and barn (estimated at 7,600 square feet) 3) Water tank (estimated at 3,000 square feet) 07/06/98 86-470
Once the coverage for the above improvements is determined, the remaining impervious surface coverage that is permitted to maintain the maximum code allowance (3.5% maximum) shall be proportioned to each lot for building envelope and driveway improvements. 2. The Final Map and property deed for each lot shall include the following information: a. A designated building envelope for each residential parcel. The envelope shall be consistent with the envelopes depicted on the approved, revised Tentative Map and shall be confirmed with a meets and bounds description. The Final Map shall
include a note which states, ΑBuilding Envelope areas are recorded for each lot. All development required for home construction, ancillary uses and structures manicured landscaping and maximum permitted impervious surface coverage (except as necessary for driveway access) shall be confined to this envelope. Lot area located outside the designated building envelope shall be for use as passive recreation/private open space and limited to improvements necessary to accommodate driveway
access, septic leachfields and utilities.≅ A legal description of the building envelope shall be recorded with deed for each residential lot. b. A designated Private Open Space/Common Area parcel encompassing the subdivision land area that is located outside the boundaries of individual lots (lot #9). This area shall be recorded as
ΑPermanent Open Space/Common Area≅. The Final Map
shall include a note that states: ΑThe Permanent Open Space/Common Area parcel is a non-development area, which shall serve as open space and common area for the residents of the subdivision, with the exception of the continued use of and improvements
for the existing caretaker=s residence and barn, located adjacent to the emergency access road.
This parcel (lot #9), as well as the caretaker=s residence and barn, are is to be maintained in the ownership of the homeowners association and cannot be sold for development or future subdivision. Use of this parcel shall be restricted to passive recreation (hiking, viewing), pedestrian access, roads for subdivision, emergency access and access to the on-site water tank and other necessary
utilities≅.
07/06/98 86-471
c. A note and provisions that each lot is subject to City of Palo Alto approval of Site and Design Review. The note and provisions shall indicate that development of each lot is subject to the procedures and requirements of the approved Mitigation Monitoring Plan/Program, outlining the mitigation measures of the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final EIR, both on-file with the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. d. The Final Map shall include a note that the subdivision is subject to the approved and recorded Subdivision Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC &Rs, see condition 20). e. Approved impervious surface coverage for the subdivision improvements and for individual lots (as determined through compliance with condition 1k, above) shall be noted on the Final Map and in the CC & Rs. The approved impervious surface coverage allowance for each lot shall be recorded with the deed for each lot. f. The property deed for lots #3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 shall include a provision/note that this lot is located
in a heavily vegetated area, containing Αprotected
trees≅ as defined by PAMC Chapter 18.10. The deed
provision shall note that removal of Αprotected
trees≅ may be required for lot development. The deed provisions shall note that the following will be required during the Site and Design Review and development process for the lot: 1) Preparation of a tree survey/inventory to
identify Αprotected trees≅. 2) Designing the structure(s) and driveway to minimize tree removal. 3) Requiring tree replanting for any loss of
Αprotected trees≅. g. The property deed for each lot shall include a provision which prohibits the fencing of the individual residential lots. Private fencing for each lot shall be limited to the designated and recorded building envelope area and authorized by Site and Design Review approval only.
07/06/98 86-472
h. The property deed for lots #2, 3 and 7 shall include a provision which limits all buildings on these lots to one-story in height. i. The property deed for lots #2, 3 and 4 shall include a provision which restricts the type of surface materials for the private access driveways. The surface used for the access driveways on these lots shall be limited to a porous/permeable material, as approved by Public Works Engineering. 3. The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall incorporate the required mitigation measures presented in the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report, October 1997 (94-EIA-31), and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program (June 1998), both on-file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. 4. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared as part of the Final Map Improvement Plans and shall be reviewed for approval by the Architectural Review Board. The plan shall be prepared consistent with the revisions to design and layout of the map, as required by condition #1, above, and shall include the following: a. The plans shall include a detailed erosion and sediment control plan to ensure that the potential for erosion is minimized. The plans shall also include permanent design measures in the improvements that would maximize the control of drainage and runoff and protect water quality. b. Grading for the water tank proposed on lot #9. The final grading shall require partial to full burial of the water tank. c. The area of artificial fill (hilltop meadow around proposed cul-de-sac) shall be regraded to its original grades, incorporating contours which re-
create a natural drainage swale with Αstepped
bottom≅ topography. d. All catch basins shall be stenciled with the
approved City of Palo Alto logo and the words ΑNo
Dumping! Flows to Los Trancos Creek≅. This shall be noted on the plans. e. Terraced drains shall be designed on cut and fill slopes every 30 feet of vertical height on all slopes that are steeper than 3:1. Terrace drains shall have a minimum flow gradient of 6% (so that
07/06/98 86-473
they are self-cleaning). Down drains shall be fitted every 150 lineal feet. f. Geotechnical sub-drains shall be installed to maintain slope stability in areas beneath and/or adjacent to rocked or otherwise stabilized drainage channels extending out onto fill slopes. g. The shoulders of the roads shall be widened, to the extent feasible to minimized tree removal, which would provide the maximum load-bearing surface for emergency vehicles. 5. A detailed landscaping plan and tree replanting program shall be prepared and part of the Final Map Improvement Plans. The plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect and a certified arborist, both having expertise in large scale design using vegetation native to the Santa Cruz Mountains and the plant communities found on the site. with review The plan shall be reviewed by the City Planning Arborist and the Planning Division and approved by the Architectural Review Board. The plans shall include the following: a. A detailed tree survey and accurate mapping of all trees with diameters of 6" or greater for areas of grading along the main access road, emergency access road and water tank site. Trees subject to PAMC Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Procedures, Coast Live Oak and Valley Oak). The survey shall be accompanied by a report prepared by a certified arborist, which provides a detailed inventory of tree size, species and condition/health of trees. b. A detailed tree replanting plan for native tree and grass planting in the following areas: 1) Replanting of areas along the main access and emergency access roads, where tree removal is consistent with the Tentative Map, as revised by conditions of approval. 2) Planting of two an open, grassland areas located on the southwestern slopes of lot #1. and #8. The lot #1 planting area includes the
Αhair-pin≅ turn along the main access road, where grading is required to meet road grades. The lot #8 planting area is directly below the proposed building envelope and leachfield area.
07/06/98 86-474
3) Planting of the artificial fill area (meadow) on lots #3 and #4. 4) Along the emergency vehicle access road, where slope stabilization is required. 5) Around the area of the water tank (for additional screening) The tree replanting program shall include the following: 6) An estimation of canopy loss area (acreage) and identification of areas that are three times larger (replanting areas specified above). 7) Replacement ratio for trees that are removed shall be 3:1 on a per acre basis by the same species from locally selected stock. Tree planting size for this ratio shall be one 24" box, one 15 gallon and one 1 gallon container stock. 8) Tree planting densities shall be 15-foot on center for oaks and large native trees and 8-foot on center for small trees. 9) Trees shall be planted during the fall on exposed graded surfaces. 10) Specifications for irrigation of trees (during summer) and weeding during the initial planting and growth period (five years). 11) Reseeding of graded slopes with a native grass mix. The tree replanting program shall be accompanied by a report from a certified arborist, which shall include maintenance requirements (irrigation and weeding), performance standards (a minimum 80% survivability rate after five years) and any additional recommendations as
required by the City=s Tree Technical Manual. 6. The following shall be included on the Final Map Improvement Plans, with the design and details subject to the approval by the Architectural Review Board: a. Details for the location and specifications for street lighting, if proposed. Street lighting shall be minimal, yet meet the security and safety standards of the Police Department. If street lighting is proposed, the selected standard shall
07/06/98 86-475
be a short, low-intensity fixture designed with shields to direct light in a downward b. An enclosure for waste recycling drop-off/pick-up, located at entrance of the main access road. The enclosure shall be designed to 1) meet PASCO requirements for access and 2) utilize materials and colors that are consistent and compatible with the rural setting of the area. c. A detailed design specification and materials for retaining walls along the main access road. Walls shall not exceed five feet in height. Wood/timber or natural rock surface shall be used as a standard for design. Use of concrete block or pored-in-place concrete is prohibited. d. A guard rail shall be placed along the down slope side of the main access road. The design and materials of the guardrail shall be consistent with the rural setting of the site. e. A selected color for the water tank. The color of the water tank shall be an earthtone to match, at best, the oak woodland setting. f. The location and the design of the security/privacy gate that is proposed at the base of the main access road. The colors, materials and the size of the gate shall be consistent with the rural setting of the site. g. The location and design of all fencing proposed along the perimeter of the site. All proposed perimeter fencing shall be rural in character and designed to permit wildlife movement throughout the site. h. The location and design of all fencing proposed along the perimeter of the site. All proposed perimeter fencing shall be rural in character (no cyclone-type wire fence) and designed to permit wildlife movement through the site. 7. A detailed tree protection plan, prepared by a certified arborist, for review and approval by the Planning
Division and the City=s Planning Arborist, and implemented prior to commencement of grading. This plan shall include measures for tree protection during construction, including a temporary construction fence to be erected around individual trees or tree groupings that are to be saved. The fence shall consist of portable
07/06/98 86-476
cyclone fencing or wire mesh, security attached to metal posts driven into the ground, or alternative fencing
approved in writing by the City=s Planning Arborist. A
Αwarning sign≅ shall be prominently displayed on the tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18
inches square and 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 fines according to
City Code 8.10.110.≅ The purpose of the fencing is to keep all construction activity and storage outside the dripline area of the trees. The fencing shall be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and shall not be removed until the final grading for improvements and re-landscaping are completed. The tree protection plan shall include the additional measures, as required by the Mitigation Monitoring Plan: a. Native trees immediately located outside of construction zones shall be identified by placing stakes with brightly colored flagging around the dripline defined by the outer canopy in order that crews will know to avoid operating heavy equipment within their root zones. b. Tree roots which measure over 1.5" in diameter and must be severed for grading or construction shall be cleanly and smoothly cut without crushing, shredding or tearing. Cuts should be made to lateral roots only, if possible. c. Incorporate instructions to equipment operators that machinery can cause injury to a tree and that fines may be levied for tree damage. d. Avoidance of stockpiling soil and construction materials under tree driplines, if the storage causes grade changes. e. Establish limits for use and duration of machinery in heavy traffic areas, where additional stress to trees can be caused. f. Avoidance of storing, pouring, or leaking any fuel, oil, or chemical beneath a tree canopy. g. Avoidance of attaching (nailing, posting) signs, wires or other construction apparatus to any tree. h. Measures for tree trimming that is necessary for grading and/or construction clearance.
07/06/98 86-477
8. The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto to guarantee the costs for maintenance and monitoring of the tree replanting program for a period of five years following installation of landscaping and irrigation. 9. The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall include details for the construction of and common easements that are necessary for the following: a. Construction and use of parking turnouts along the main access road. A total of four parking bays shall be placed parallel to and along the hilltop portion of the main access road. Each parking bays shall be 10 feet wide by 25 feet long and shall be surfaced with a crushed gravel or aggregate material (no impervious pavement material is permitted). b. Construction and use of the pedestrian path along the hilltop portion of the main access road. The path shall be four feet in width and shall be surfaced with a crushed gravel or aggregate material (no impervious pavement material is permitted). c. Construction and use of the fire access trail
(Trapper=s Trail), which traverses proposed lots #3, #4 and #9. This road shall be maintained as a firebreak and shall provide access to the water tank site. Easements for use of this road shall include access to the water tank for maintenance, access for a firebreak and pedestrian for residents within the subdivision. 10. Final, detailed percolation tests and soil profiles shall be completed for all lots (as locations adjusted per recommended revisions to the Tentative Map). The tests shall include information on slope stability and potential to contaminate ground and surface water. The tests shall be submitted to and approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Health Services prior to submittal of a Final Map to the City. Leachfields for lots #1 and #8 are located in areas with slopes in excess of 20%. These leachfield sites Leachfields for all lots shall be located in an area where slope grades are less than 20%, unless approved, through special study by the Santa Clara County Department of Health Services. 11. 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
07/06/98 86-478
Santa Clara County Recorder, and shall guarantee the completion of public improvements. This agreement shall
include the subdivider=s agreement to fulfill Program 13 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program, through payment of in-lieu fees. The executed agreement shall include the in-lieu fee program and fee payment structure outlined in the letter to John Arrillaga, property owner, from Kenneth R. Schreiber, City of Palo alto Director of Planning and Community Environment, dated June 2, 1997. The agreement requires that the housing mitigation fee for the eight single-family residential lots be paid to the City prior to City Council approval of the Final Map. The agreement requires that a further mitigation fee be paid at the time of the first building permit is issued for each residential lot. 12. The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include details for road signage, pavement markings and graphics at the following locations: a. Along the main access road. Signs to be posted for speed limit, turns, steep grade areas, pedestrian crossings. b. Along the emergency access road. Signs to be posted to indicate the emergency travel route, turn-out locations and instructions for use of turn-outs and right-of-way procedures.
c. Along the Trapper=s Trail firebreak. Signs to be
posted to indicate ΑNo Smoking≅ and ΑNo Fireworks≅. At the property line, post a sign explaining that direct access into Foothills Park is not allowed and that violators will be cited and fined. d. Provide edge markers in the form of thermoplastic striping, reflective pavement markers and shoulder delineators. 13. A Fuel Management/Modification Plan shall be prepared and submitted for approval by the Fire Department. The plan (which shall be incorporated into the Subdivision CC & Rs), shall be prepared to ensure a 30 foot wide grass and underbrush clearance around all access roads and a 100 foot clearance around all residences. The plan shall incorporate all the requirements and standards presented in the Final EIR Mitigation Measure 5.7-4(e). 14. The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include the placement of fire hydrants every 300 feet (Model 76 type). A specific plan showing the new and relocated
07/06/98 86-479
hydrants shall be submitted to the Fire Department, prior to completion of the Improvement Plans. 15. If a gate is proposed at the entrance of the main access
road, a Αknox-box≅ shall be required for access by the Fire Department (see condition 6f for design requirements). 16. The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include detailed plans for design and construction of an on-site water tank. The approved tank location is elevation +990 on lots #9, adjacent and accessible to the existing, fire
road (Trapper=s Trail firebreak). The tank shall not exceed 200,000 gallons in size and 42" in diameter. A final water service study (including water flow calculations) shall be prepared by a licensed engineer to determine the ultimate tank size, in order to meet adequate fire flow supplies. Design and construction plans for the water tank shall include the following: a. The system shall be designed based on the City providing a 100 gallon per minute flow rate to fill the water tank (in order to minimize impacts to the existing City water distribution system). The system shall be designed to ensure that there is an adequate hydraulic grade established to fill the water tank. b. A small pumping station might be needed, depending upon the ultimate location of building envelopes. This determination shall be made as part of the final water service study. c. The tank shall be partially buried to ensure that no part of the tank extends above the existing tree line. Grading plans for the tank shall address this requirement.
d. Improvements to the access road (Trapper=s Trail firebreak) shall be required but limited to a pervious/porous surface. The final water service study and construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works Engineering, the Utilities Engineering and the Fire Department. 17. The water service system commencing from the outlet side of the meter, shall be privately funded, owned and maintained. This private water system requires the following:
07/06/98 86-480
a. The project sponsor shall secure all easements necessary to extend the existing water main to Los Trancos Road (the proposed connection point to he City of Palo Alto water system. b. Design, construction management and all materials of construction for the water supply system, commencing at the main extension from the existing City water main, through the meter vault (including meter by-pass) and into the subdivision shall be furnished and paid for by the project sponsor (including water tank). A master meter and control valve to limit flow rates shall be furnished to the City. c. The final Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & Rs) shall include provisions for continued ownership and on-going maintenance of the on-site water supply system by the association of
homeowner=s within the subdivision. In addition, Article 2, Section 2.13, Water Tank (page 6) of the CC & Rs shall be amended to note that 1) the City will provide approximately a 100 gallon per minute flow rate to fill the water tank (in order to minimize impacts to the existing City water distribution system) and 2) the water tank shall serve both fire and domestic water needs of the proposed subdivision. 18. A detailed geotechnical investigation shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist, which shall include a slope stability analysis and analysis of potential rockfall hazard (particularly, specific analysis of northeast facing slopes of lots #6 and 7 and along the emergency access road). The investigation shall determine specific recommendations and/or appropriate measures for slope stabilization for all landslides and areas of instability and measures for reducing hazards for rockfalls. Measures presented in the investigation shall include the following: a. The use of retaining walls, buttresses and mechanically stabilized embankments (geogrid-reinforced earth retaining walls) in areas of heavy vegetation/tree cover (to minimize tree removal). b. Slide removal and recompaction with stabilized fills and earth buttressing in open areas with little tree cover.
07/06/98 86-481
c. Recommended setbacks from or removal of loose rocks and/or other stabilization devices. d. Recommended measures for adequate drainage of all earthen and mechanical retaining structures to prevent failure under hydrostatic loads. Upon submittal of the investigation to the City (Public Works Engineering), the City shall hire, at the expense of the project sponsor, an engineering geologist to provide a
Αpeer≅ review of the investigation. 19. The Final Map shall show the location of all lots along with easements for deed restricted areas and reciprocal use of land for access to private open space/common areas, common driveways, maintenance roads, pedestrian paths and on-street parking. 20. The final Conditions, Covenants and Restriction (CC & Rs) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division, Public Works Engineering and the City
Attorney=s Office to determine compliance with Tentative Map conditions and measures presented in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The final CC & Rs shall include the following additions and modifications: a. Reference to all of the Final Map and property deed requirements outlined Condition 2, above. These requirements include the recordation of building envelopes for each lot, the use and restrictions for the permanent open space/common area and requirements that each lot be subject to City of Palo Alto Site and Design Review. Definitions for
Αbuilding envelopes≅, Αpermanent private open
space/common area≅, ΑSite and Design Review≅, etc., shall be provided in Article 1 of the CC & Rs. b. The final CC & Rs shall acknowledge that as part of the Site and Design Review process for each lot, property owners will be required to comply with the approved Mitigation Monitoring Plan/Program. This plan/program requires specific analysis and study of each lot/site. The CC & Rs shall specifically cite the following mitigation measures from the monitoring plan/program: 1) Measure 5.2-1, additional studies/requirements for slope stabilization on lot #6.
07/06/98 86-482
2) Measure 5.2-2, requirements for erosion/sediment control, dust control measures and tree replacement for tree removal. 3) Measure 5.2-3, requirement for site/lot-specific geotechnical evaluation at the time of Site and Design Review. 4) Measure 5.2-4, requirement to incorporate rockfall hazard measures. 5) Measure 5.2-5, requirement for site/lot-specific plasticity analysis at time of Site and Design Review. 6) Measure 5.2-6, provide earthen and mechanical retaining wall design for each lot, if required. 7) Measure 5.2-7, requirement for design compliance with Uniform building Code (UBC) standards. 8) Measure 5.4-1, requirements for controlling dust and earth movement during construction. 9) Measure 5.5-3(b), requirement that private driveways for each lot not exceed slope grades of 15%. 10) Measure 5.5-3(d), requirement for each lot to provide a minimum of six on-site parking spaces. 11) Measure 5.5-5, requirements for private driveways to properly align with main access road (for sight distance). 12) Measures 5.5-7 and 5.8-9, requirements for construction staging and logistics plan during development of each lot. Construction staging and storage must be screened. 13) Measure 5.6-7, requirement for installation of erosion control measures during construction on each lot. 14) Measure 5.6-8(c), requirement to locate driveways and structures to minimize tree removal. A tree survey/inventory will be required at the time of Site and Design 07/06/98 86-483
Review. Tree replanting is required for all tree removal. 15) Measure 5.6-9, requirement to an ornithologist to conduct nesting surveys prior to construction on each lot. 16) Measure 5.6-10, requirement for site design to comply with a list of acceptable plant species for landscaping on each lot. 17) Measure 5.7-4(c), requirement that each residential structure be designed with an automatic fire sprinkler system. 18) Measure 5.7-4(e), requirement to implement a fuel modification zone around each home. 19) Measures 5.7-4(d) and 5.7-5, requirements for fire protection measures during construction on each lot. 20) Measure 5.7-11, requirement for recycling of building materials during construction. 21) Measures 5.8-1(a) through 5.8-1(f), requirements to comply with specific development standards in design of improvements on each lot. Development standards include earthtone building colors, wood siding materials, tree planting and landscaping for screening and completion of a visual analysis for all proposed improvements during the Site and Design Review process. All building surface materials shall have a
>reflectivity factor= of 50% or less. 22) Measure 5.8-5, specific requirements for screening lot improvements on lot #7 and #8. 23) Measure 5.8-8, required specifications to minimize light and glare from development on each lot. These specifications shall include restrictions on the colors for window glazing and skylights. All glazing materials (windows, skylights) shall have a
>reflectivity factor= of 50% or less. 24) Measure 5.9-2, requirement for a site/lot-specific archaeological survey in the event cultural finds are discovered during construction.
07/06/98 86-484
c. The final CC & Rs shall include a list of plant species acceptable for landscaping on each lot (prepared by a landscape architect). The provisions shall note that development on each lot shall comply with the approved plant list, as determined at the time of Site and Design Review. d. The final CC & Rs shall be amended so that lot #9
is referred to as ΑPermanent, Private Open
Space/Common Area≅, rather than ΑCommon Area≅. Article 2.2 (Easements; Dedications of Common Area) shall be amended to clearly state that sale, transfer, dedication or lease of the property for the purposes of land development or further subdivision is prohibited. In addition, the CC & Rs shall state that uses in this area shall be restricted to passive recreation uses (e.g., hiking and viewing), utilities and emergency access, and
the continued use of the existing caretaker=s residence and barn. e. The final CC & Rs shall be amended to eliminate reference to the on-site storm water detention basin.
f. Requirements and provisions for the homeowner=s association on-going maintenance and monitoring responsibilities for the following: 1) Tree replanting program, annual reports to the City for first five years of completed subdivision improvements. 2) Monitoring of regraded and revegetated areas, annual report to the City for the first five years of completed subdivision improvements. 3) Implementation and monitoring the Fuel Modification Plan, annual reports to the City (Fire Department). 4) Continued maintenance and ownership, in
perpetuity, the caretaker=s residence and barn located at the southeast corner of site (lot #9). The CC & Rs shall note that these structures/facilities cannot be sold or parceled from the subdivision.
07/06/98 86-485
g. The final CC & Rs shall include a detailed Emergency Evacuation Plan for residents of the subdivision. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. h. The final CC & Rs shall include provisions which prohibit the perimeter fencing of residential lots. The provisions shall limit private fencing to the designated, recorded building envelope area, as approved by Site and Design Review only. i. The final CC & Rs shall include provisions which limit the building height of all structures on lots #2, 3 and 7 to one-story. j. The final CC & Rs shall include provisions which restrict the access driveway surfaces for lots #2, 3 and 4 to a porous, permeable material, as approved by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division. 21. All construction and grading activities proposed within or near Los Trancos Creek and/or Buckeye Creek may be subject to approvals and/or permits from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD permit requirement for all activities within 50 feet of the creek), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG- stream bed alteration agreement) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The following shall be submitted with the Final Map if grading and construction activities are within or near Los Trancos Creek: a. A written determination from CDFG that the proposed actions do not fall within their jurisdiction, or that a standard stream bed alteration agreement has been executed for authorized work. b. Proof of authorization and/or permits form the Corps, if any grading or construction activities are proposed within the creek. c. A written authorization and/or proof of an approved permit from the SCVWD, for all construction and grading work within 50 feet of Los Trancos Creek or Buckeye Creek. 22. The project sponsor shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm water Permit (GCASP) from the Regional Water Quality control Board (RWQCB). The permit application would require the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and accompanying fee to undertake the construction on more than 5.0 acres of land. Prior to the issuance of this permit from the RWQCB, the project 07/06/98 86-486
sponsor will be required to prepare a Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for submittal to the City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering, which is to include Best management Practices (BMPs) for the design of erosion control and storm water quality treatment measures. BMPs can include the following measures: a. Reduction of the area and length of time that the site is cleared and graded, especially during the non-dry season (October 15 to April 15). b. Revegetation and stabilization of cleared areas. c. Installation of comprehensive erosion, dust and sediment control measures such as straw hay bales, silt fences and sediment traps. d. Straw bales shall be installed on the contour below all graded surfaces, with each bale embedded four inches into the soil. e. Prior to the on-set of winter rains, a seed mix of native grasses shall be planted on bare or graded slopes. The seed mix shall be native to the Santa Cruz Mountain area. f. Measures to control potential construction activity pollutants such as concrete, asphalt, paints and solvents, fuel and lubricating oils, pesticides and herbicides. In addition to the above, the Final Map Improvement Plans shall include permanent measures to ensure long-term control of drainage and water quality. The most restrictive measures for control shall be incorporated into the improvement plans based on recommendations provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 23. Major grading operations on this site may be limited to the dry season months (April 15 to October 15), as determined by Public Works Engineering. Grading activities during non-dry season months may be limited to minor clearing and grading, provided that all erosion and sediment control measures have been installed. Any grading within 50 feet of drainage ways that occurs after October 15 (weather permitting) will require a special exemption from both the Santa Clara Valley Water District and California Department of Fish and Game. 24. The following permits may be required from City Public Works Engineering:
07/06/98 86-487
a. An Encroachment Permit for use of and improvements to the public right-of-way. b. A Permit for construction in the public street. c. A Grading and Excavation Permit. Any construction within the CPA right-of-way, easements or other property controlled by the City of Palo Alto must conform to the standards established in the CPA Standard Specifications for Utilities Department and Public Works Engineering.
25. The name of the main access road, ΑTierra Arboles≅ shall appear on the Final Map. In addition, Los Trancos Road
shall be referred to and appear on the Final Map as ΑLos
Trancos Woods Road≅. 26. The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include the following plans and documents to address utility service: a. Improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right-of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements and other required facilities. The plans must also show the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. b. A detailed map showing existing electrical utilities that are off-site, which serve the general area and subject property. The map shall show where electrical service for the subdivision will connect with the existing service lines in the area. The map shall be reviewed and confirmed for accuracy by the Utilities Engineering Division. c. A complete WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET shall be submitted. The application must provide all the information requested for utility service demands. d. The Improvement Plans shall show one water meter for each parcel. e. The Improvement Plans shall include the design of the water system (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM), which
shall be designed and installed per the City=s Utility Standards for Water, Gas and Wastewater, dated 1992.
07/06/98 86-488
27. The final layout and design for the main access and emergency access roads shall conform to Article 9, Section 902, meeting specifications for emergency vehicle access. 28. The project sponsor shall contribute to the City, a sum of $6,000 toward resurfacing Los Trancos Road (Los Trancos Woods Road). The fee for resurfacing the road is
based on the ΑMinor Operational Improvement/Reasonable
Maintenance≅ option approved by the City Council in September 1996 (CMR:391:96).
29. In accordance with City Council approval of the ΑMinor
Operational Improvement/Reasonable Maintenance≅ option for Los Trancos Road (September 1996, CMR:391:96), the Final Map shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication of permanent right-of-way for a 60 foot width of the entire frontage of Los Trancos Road. At the time of Final Map review and approval, the City Council will accept for dedication, a 40 foot right-of-way only (right-of-way needed for minor operational improvements and maintenance). 30. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of property. The project sponsor shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious surface area, submitted with the Final Map. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the approval of construction by the Building Inspection Division. 31. The project sponsor must apply to the Santa Clara County
Assessor=s Office for a tract number for this subdivision. 32. The Tentative Map shall be valid for a period of 24 months (2 years) from the date of final approval. Prior to the Issuance of a Grading and/or Building Permit for Subdivision Improvements 33. A Construction Logistics Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division, Public Works Engineering and the Planning Division. This plan shall address, at minimum, the following: a. Construction vehicle truck routes and staging areas. The plan shall ensure that no construction vehicle staging is to occur in the public right-of-way (Los Trancos Road). All construction routes
shall conform to the City of Palo Alto=s Truck and Truck Route Ordinance, PAMC Chapter 10.48, and the
07/06/98 86-489
route map which identifies truck routes that are available throughout the City of Palo Alto. b. All fill hauls trucks shall be limited to a 9:00AM to 4:00PM during weekdays, to minimize construction vehicle traffic during the peak traffic hours. c. On-site vehicle, equipment and materials storage and staging. d. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. e. Construction vehicle parking shall be prohibited on Los Trancos Road. f. A construction staging area shall be established on site, in an area that is not highly visible from off site. The staging area shall be located at least 100 feet away from drainage ways and creek, to the extent feasible. 34. A Tree Protection Statement shall be submitted to the
City=s Planning Arborist. The City=s Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the project sponsor or the project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition, or issuance of a building or grading permit, unless otherwise approved. 35. Before construction, a qualified ornithologist shall inspect the project site. Pre-construction surveys are necessary before February 15 to protect possible early nesting raptors. Following inspection, the ornithologist shall prepare a report of the survey findings and submit it to the Department of Planning and Community Environmental. If nests are discovered, the City shall forward the report to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Appropriate protocols may be implemented by these other agencies, including removal of nest or establishment of exclusion zones around the effected nest areas. As an alternative, tree removal shall be prohibited between February 15 and June 30, or as determined by CDFG or the project ornithologist. 36. All new development on the proposed single-family residential lots shall be subject to Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) school fees, to be determined by the district. Proof of fee payment shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for the single-family residential lots.
07/06/98 86-490
During Construction 37. The project sponsor shall be responsible for overseeing and/or ensuring that the contractors properly implement the approved construction logistics plan and staging area. Signs shall be posted informing workers of restricted hours and fines for violations. 38. The project sponsor shall require his/her contractor to
incorporate best management practices (BMP=s) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The BMPs shall be consistent with the Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as required by above. The
Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP=s with respect to the project sponsors construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) Or other waste materials into gutters, drainage ways or storm drains (Federal Clean Water Act). 39. Dust control measures shall be imposed to ensure that temporary air impacts to the surrounding area are minimized. Measures during construction of the subdivision improvements shall include: a. The watering of all exposed earth surfaces during the construction process (twice a day or as needed to control dust plumes). b. Avoid overfilling of trucks to reduce spillage into the public right-of-way and requiring contractors to clean-up spillage in the public right-of-way. c. Use tarpaulins or other effective covers for on-site storage piles and for haul trucks that travel on public streets. d. Earth movement construction should not encompass more than 230,000 square feet (5.3 acres) in one day, in order to reduce total dust emissions to under 80 pounds a day. e. All trucks hauling soil and other loose material shall be covered to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
07/06/98 86-491
f. Apply water or non-toxic soil stabilizers on unpaved access roads, parking and staging areas three times per day. g. Sweep paved access roads, parking and staging areas daily. h. Install sandbags and other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roads. i. Enclose/cover or water (twice daily) exposed stockpiles of soil and loose materials. 40. All construction activities, except for the hauling of cut and fill material (import and export of earth) shall
be subject to the requirements of the City=s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: a. 8:00AM-6:00PM, Monday-Friday b. 9:00AM-6:00PM, Saturday c. 10:00AM-6:00PM, Sunday. be limited to 8:00AM-6:00PM, Monday-Friday. All truck traffic for hauling cut and fill material shall be restricted to the hours of 9:00AM-4:00PM, Monday-Friday. 41. All new electrical service shall be placed underground. All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed in accordance with the standards published by the Utilities Engineering Division. 42. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the public right-of-way (Los Trancos Road or on the adjacent 7.7 acre City-owned parcel). 43. The following fire prevention measures shall be implemented during construction: a. All project roadway and water system required to serve the subdivision shall be installed prior to issuance of any building permits for any residential sidewall construction on the site (consistent with Section 10.502 of the Uniform Fire Code). b. Clear brush and other potential fire fuel around construction areas.
07/06/98 86-492
c. Maintain and clearly mark on-site fire response equipment at each construction area. d. Ensure that there are instructions available and posted to all workers and that workers are trained to use fire response equipment and workplace safety measures. e. Ensure that a cellular telephone or other communication device is available on site, at all times during construction. 44. During construction, a qualified archaeologist shall be obtained by the project sponsor to observe approved ground disturbance activities. The archaeologist shall inspect the exposed ground surface immediately following the initial disturbance of the uppermost two feet of soil on any part of the project. In the event indicators of archaeological resources are discovered, all work shall be halted in the area for further investigation. Further investigation may result in a requirement to remove, relocate or cover any finds, as recommended by the archaeologist. 45. The project sponsor shall employ the services of a licensed civil engineer (at no cost to the City) to provide appropriate inspections during construction of the proposed (private) water supply system. The civil engineer shall complete inspections during construction and installation of the water tank, water lines, fittings, valves, pumps and all other associated mechanical devices and facilities. Upon completion of the system and improvements, the civil engineer shall certify, in writing, that all work was completed consistent with recommended studies and approved plans and specifications. Prior to final inspections, a copy of this written certification shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering prior to final inspections. Material testing shall be provided by a certified laboratory approved by the Public Works Director. 46. A certified arborist shall complete inspections during the installation of trees, seeding and irrigation for the tree replanting program. Upon completion of the installation, the arborist shall report, in writing, that all work was completed consistent with the approved plans and specifications. Prior to final inspections, a copy of this written report shall be submitted to the City Planning Arborist and the Planning Division. Post-Construction Monitoring
07/06/98 86-493
47. For the first five years following the completion of the completion of the subdivision improvements and landscaping, on-going monitoring shall be required for the tree replanting program. An inspection of the success of the tree replanting program shall be completed once a year by a certified arborist and submitted to the
City for review by the City=s Planning Arborist and Planning Division. The annual inspection report shall be submitted on or after June 15 of each year. The annual inspections shall report on the success of new tree growth and recommendations for corrections and remediation. Specifically, if the survivability of trees falls below 80%, additional replacement trees shall be planted. If, at the time of the fifth and final year of annual inspections the certified arborist finds that tree growth has not met the performance standards for five years of growth, the certified arborist shall present, to
the City=s Planning Arborist, additional measures and detailed recommendations for remediation, including possible extension of the monitoring period for up to an additional five years. 48. For the first five years following completion of the subdivision improvements, an annual inspection of the re-graded/re-vegetated area of artificial fill (meadow at hilltop) shall be completed by a licensed engineer. The inspection shall ensure that the area is stabilized and draining properly. This annual inspection shall be summarized in a report and submitted to the Planning Division and Public Works Engineering on or after June 15 of each year. If corrective measures are required (e.g., erosion control, re-vegetation), they shall be recommended in this written report. 49. For the first five years following the completion of the subdivision improvements, all graded areas shall be regularly monitored, by a licensed engineer, during the rainy season to detect any erosion problems. An annual report shall be submitted to the Planning Division and Public Works Engineering on or around February 15 of each year to report on erosion and recommend corrective measures, if necessary. 50. On or after June 15 of each year, the homeowners association shall submit a report to the Fire Department, on the status of fire clearing activities and implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan. The Fire Department shall be responsible for ensuring that the report in submitted and that the plan measures are properly implemented by the homeowners association.
07/06/98 86-494
51. For the first five years following the subdivision improvements, all drainage improvements and potential erosion shall be monitored during the wet/rainy season. On-going (Throughout Processing and Construction) 51.52. City staff time required for implementation and monitoring of the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the project sponsor.
Resolution 7778 entitled ΑResolution 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≅ MOTION PASSED 5-1, Mossar "no," Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 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 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.
07/06/98 86-495