HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-16 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting November 16, 1998 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission..........87-264 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.............87-264 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................87-265
1. Resolution No. 7810 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Proclaiming the Termination of a Local
Emergency (El Nino 98)≅ ...............................87-265 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................87-266 2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Request by Property Owners of Tract 1722 and Portions of Tract 1977 for Single Story Overlay Zoning for Meadow Park Unit #5 Neighborhood. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared.....................................87-266 3. Palo Alto Sanitation Company Acquisition by USA Waste.87-274 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal by Victor Greene of the Zoning Administrator=s approval of a Fence Variance condition limiting the height of a six-foot fence that is currently located in a site distance triangle for property located at 581 Addison Street. The condition allows the fence to be located in the vision site distance triangle if it is four feet or less in height.87-279 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a request by property owners of Tract 714 and portions of Tract 4783 - La Jennifer Way for consideration of Single Story Overlay zoning for a portion of the Barron Park neighborhood.......................................................87-279
11/16/98 87-262
6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the application of Scott Selover and Kathleen Roskos for Site and Design approval to construct an addition to an existing single family residence and related site improvements to property located at 4020 Page Mill Road........................87-283 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment of an application by Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc. for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the remodel of an existing building facade, increase site landscaping, signage, and related site improvements for a new retail tenant, Starbucks, located at 2775 Middlefield Road.................................87-298 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-298 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:14 p.m............87-299
11/16/98 87-263
11/16/98 87-264
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:17 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 6:18 p.m.), Huber (arrived at 6:18 p.m.), Kniss (arrived at 6:18 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
11/16/98 87-265
Regular Meeting November 16, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:08 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Nicole Cheever, 520 Lowell Avenue, President, Palo Alto Youth Council, spoke regarding Youth Council activities for the year. Jeanne McDonnell, 1509 Portola Avenue, spoke regarding Juana Briones. Meredith Phillips, 4127 Old Adobe Road, spoke regarding the Juana Briones house. Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa Avenue, spoke regarding the Juana Briones house. Dorothea K. Almond, 4135 Old Trace Road, spoke regarding the "Old Adobe House." Hans Wolf, 895 Mockingbird Lane, spoke regarding the Juana Briones house. T.J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding bottleneck monopoly. Edmund R. Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding democracy. Diane Master, 945 Old Trace Road, spoke regarding the Juana Briones house. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1.
1. Resolution No. 7810 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Proclaiming the Termination of a Local
Emergency (El Nino 98)≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0.
11/16/98 87-266
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Rosenbaum announced the appellant for Item No. 4 was ill and requested a continuance. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider to continue Item No. 4 to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. CLOSED SESSION UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Request by Property Owners of Tract 1722 and Portions of Tract 1977 for Single Story Overlay Zoning for Meadow Park Unit #5 Neighborhood. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared.(continued from 10/5/98) (Public Testimony Closed) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of Property
Collectively Known as ΑMeadow Park Tract 1722 and a Portion of Tract 1977" from R-1 to R-1(S) Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said new calculations were tabulated based on information received at the October 5, 1998, Council meeting. Calculations were done dividing the area to an area east of Louis Road and an area west of Louis Road. Approximately 48 percent of the homeowners east of Louis Road supported the single-story overlay, and 52 percent did not. Approximately 78 percent of the homeowners east of Louis Road supported the overlay, and 22 percent did not. Sixty-nine percent of the overall area supported the single-story overlay and 31 percent did not. Staff recommended approval of the overall district. Vice Mayor Schneider asked what percentage of the La Jennifer Way homeowners supported the single-story overlay. Ms. Grote said that 18 of the 20 homes were in favor of the single-story overlay. Council Member Wheeler said a portion of the tracts were subject to a covenant of deed restriction for single story. She asked for the approximate boundaries which defined the homes covered by the private agreement. Ms. Grote referred to the overhead and pointed out a line separating the tracts into east and west.
11/16/98 87-267
Council Member Kniss clarified that everything to the east of the line was covered under the private agreement. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Kniss said there were two different ways to divide the area and she wanted the boundaries clarified. Louis Road divided the two areas in the percentage Ms. Grote supplied earlier.
Louis Road, toward the portion of the diagram that said ΑGM,≅ was the area where few homeowners were in favor. She asked whether a problem would arise if it were divided up at Louis Road instead of as previously suggested to divide by tract. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said no. Council Member Kniss asked whether it was known how many homes currently had a single-story overlay. Ms. Grote said there were five overlay districts but did not have an exact number of homes in the districts. Council Member Ojakian said there were 550 homes. Council Member Kniss asked whether the process varied from what was reviewed at the present meeting which was: 1)viewing the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR); 2)viewing the petitions circulated by the neighbors; and 3) figuring the percentages. She asked whether the three items she mentioned were being reviewed each time. Ms. Grote said that was the process which was followed. She said four criteria were included as guidelines used to evaluate the application; however, the process described was used. Council Member Kniss asked whether any other process was reviewed. She was troubled that single-story overlays were being done on an ad-hoc basis. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said no other alternatives were reviewed. Two areas were being reviewed: 1) being involved with specific issues such as historic regulations, and 2) determining whether processes and systems for development review were efficient. Single-story overlay was an area where he did not have prior experience. Council Member Kniss asked whether other cities had similar processes in place. Mr. Gawf said he was not aware of any other cities with similar processes.
11/16/98 87-268
Mr. Calonne said in terms of the process, the distinguishing
characteristic was the solicitation of the owners= support, which was unusual at the time. The language was carefully drafted so as to not be misinterpreted as a requirement for the Council. The process was put in place by the Council because of the possible impact of the actions on property values. The process was not a legal requirement. Council Member Huber asked whether he was correct in assuming that the portion east of Louis Road had deed restrictions. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member Huber asked how many lots currently had two-story structures. Ms. Grote said two. Council Member Huber asked whether the owners would still have the private right to enforce if the structures were not included in the overlay. Mr. Calonne said he was not sure what the right was, but the owners would have a right. Council Member Huber asked whether any earlier overlay decisions included partial tracts. Ms. Grote said there were no partial tracts done in the past. She noted that there was nothing in the zoning ordinance to prevent including partial tracts. Planning Commissioner Bern Beecham said according to the guidelines, boundaries should define an identifiable neighborhood or development and did not specifically refer to tracts. Council Member Mossar clarified that the single-story overlay was one of the tools observed in other mechanisms for protecting neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Council Member Ojakian clarified the four criteria were guidelines and that the authority to rezone would return to Council. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to direct staff to work with the residents to refine the proposed boundaries of the Single-Story Overlay Zone and return to Council with an amended application.
11/16/98 87-269
Council Member Eakins recalled a public hearing in October where there was a great deal of discomfort regarding the process and
peoples= understanding of the process. There was concern whether everyone had been heard fairly. She believed that the proponents of the zone had followed all the rules and proceeded according to guidelines; however, the misunderstanding and potential for feelings that the process was not fair remained. She believed all parties needed to be heard in a separate meeting held by staff to assure that everyone was comfortable with the process. She
supported the neighbors= desire to protect the design features and qualities of their neighborhood. She did not object to second stories but believed that the single-story overlay was the only tool available to protect design and quality life in post-war neighborhoods. She urged immediate action on the matter. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified that Council Member Eakins suggested staff work with the residents and the residents return to Council with a new application and refined boundary. Council Member Eakins said she hoped they would return with an amended application.
Council Member Mossar strongly supported the residents= interest in having a voice regarding the neighborhood. She was uncomfortable making choices regarding where the boundaries should be located. She believed that the neighbors should determine where the appropriate boundaries be located. Council Member Kniss was concerned about the single-story overlay process and that there was coercion or strong persuasion on the part of some who carried petitions. She believed there was a better way to obtain feedback. A petition was a vote and, in essence, a person was being asked to vote while the petition holder was standing before him/her. Normally, a person would go to the polls to vote, which allowed him/her a sense of privacy. The neighborhood clearly wanted to be protected despite the fact that it was divided. She believed the Council had the chance to review the process in a fair way, with the intent of ensuring that everyone had a fair chance for feedback. Council Member Ojakian said the typical way of rezoning was for the City to look at it through the Comprehensive Plan process and come up with the best way for the community to move ahead. The only means the public had of discussing the issue was at a public hearing. The idea behind the single-story overlay zone was to provide people with a means to discuss the overlay in their own neighborhoods. He believed the process was a good one. He walked through the neighborhood and was struck by its unifying character. He believed the neighborhood was a single-story area and should remain so. He opposed the motion.
11/16/98 87-270
Council Member Wheeler was prepared to vote for the staff recommendation. She lived in a neighborhood that went through the single-story overlay process, and the residents had a private agreement prior to going through the process. The unpleasantness that arose through private agreements was not necessary if there was a community zoning blessing on what a majority of neighbors agreed upon. She believed the neighbors who lived in the area covered by a private agreement needed to factor that carefully into their ultimate decision. Some people were caught unaware on the issue of whether there was a reinstitution of a private agreement among the property owners and did not factor that in to their initial decisions. She concurred with Council Member Kniss about the necessity for the City to give some serious thought about a standardization of the material that went to homeowners, and that the City was made aware in advance that a petition was going to be circulated in certain neighborhoods. The City needed to take a more active role. The first few single-story overlays were simple because they were done in neighborhoods that had long-standing traditions and agreements among the neighbors and were done in different economic times. Each person residing within a proposed district should receive a packet of information from the City that explained the single-story overlay. She supported the motion. Vice Mayor Schneider said an overwhelming majority supported the overlay. She was concerned that any delay would result in a home getting a second story because there was no legislation preventing a second story. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve a Single-Story Overlay Zone for that area west of Louis Road. Further, to direct staff to work with the residents to refine the proposed boundaries of the Single-Story Overlay Zone for the area east of Louis Road and the two properties at 725 and 727 Charleston Road and return to Council with an amended application. Council Member Kniss asked how quickly the item could be returned to the Council. City Manager June Fleming estimated approximately two to three months. Some minor refinements could be made to the original motion. However, if staff were to address the entire single-story overlay process, the research would require some time. Should any additional information be added, the item would go back to the Planning Commission for review. Council Member Ojakian said although there were guidelines requesting the public give the Council feedback, the ultimate authority on zoning rested with the Council. He asked why it would take as much time as having a public meeting to determine whether a section should be single-story overlay.
11/16/98 87-271
Ms. Grote said the portion west of Louis Road would be approved, and the single-story district would be in place. Staff would convene a neighborhood meeting to discuss options and possibilities for the portion east of Louis Road. The portion east of Louis Road would take the three-month time period that the City Manager approximated. Vice Mayor Schneider was hopeful that the residents east of Louis Road would understand that they did not have the majority in support of the single-story overlay as did the residents west of Louis Road. She hoped the residents would be patient but urged starting the process as soon as possible.
Council Member Huber supported the Vice Mayor=s motion. Council Member Mossar agreed that waiting three months for staff to return to Council was a long time. Regarding approval of the portion west of Louis Road, she asked whether only certain lots intended to be accepted, or were all houses in the boundary accepted. Ms. Grote said the Planning Commission recommended one house be deleted from the area. Council Member Mossar asked Vice Mayor Schneider whether she thought to exclude any properties. Vice Mayor Schneider said no. She asked the Planning Commission what the rationale was for excluding a single house. Mr. Beecham said the rationale for excluding the house located on the corner of Charleston Road and Grove Avenue was that the house was a two-story apartment building. In addition, the owner of the parcel next to the corner lot was adamant about not being part of the single-story overlay. Vice Mayor Schneider believed the process did not need to be done
Αpiecemeal≅. The area west of Louis Road should be designated single-story overlay. Council Member Kniss asked whether Council Member Eakins took into account the length of time it would take and whether the length of time altered her perception. Council Member Eakins said the length of time anticipated was much shorter based on previous discussions with staff. The original motion was based on having a full and complete process which she did not believe the Council had. People changed their opinions after polling by petition was done. She was not enthusiastic about doing an ad-hoc redrawing that evening. She was not happy about the time line and had hoped that it could be done more expeditiously.
11/16/98 87-272
Council Member Kniss asked whether staff would need until at least February to report to Council. Ms. Fleming said that December was virtually lost to staff, given vacations and the holiday season. Half the month of January was already consumed. Realistically, she did not want the Council to feel that staff could meet the February deadline. Council Member Kniss said she would support the substitute motion. Mayor Rosenbaum opposed the substitute motion. The Council had reached the end of the line regarding the application for a single-story overlay. Historically, Palo Alto was an eclectic community of single story and two-story homes next to one another. The right to add a second story was very important; however it was important to have an intact deed restriction and very strong support, which with the issue at hand, was not the case. He reminded the Council that the deed restriction was lacking in the area that was proposed to be included in the motion. Council Member Fazzino supported the substitute motion. There was no question that the neighborhood was a well-defined, discreet neighborhood. The single-story nature of the neighborhood was demonstrated by history as well as by intent and most importantly, by the deed restriction history. He was troubled by the criteria and the emphasis on the criterion of support, and was not comfortable with the piecemeal approach that was being taken across the City with the issue. He was concerned about some of the fundamental issues underlying the question of whether areas remained single-story or not. The issue needed to be dealt with. He was disappointed that the process was not done right the first
time. He supported Council Member Wheeler=s statement regarding a standardized process. The single-story overlay was the only means by which to protect the homes, and a better approach was needed. Broader design reviews needed to be addressed throughout the City regarding many of the legitimate issues that had been raised by the neighbors. Until that point, the single-story overlay was the only vehicle available. Mr. Calonne said exhibit A was incorrect. The home at 3943 Grove Avenue should be excluded, and the home at 729 Grove Avenue should be included. Council Member Mossar clarified no lots would be excluded west of Louis Road.
Mr. Calonne said Council rejected the Planning Commission=s recommendation as to the lots and everything west of Louis Road. Mayor Rosenbaum said the motion before the Council included all lots and rejected the Planning Commission recommendation. No lots would be excluded west of Louis Road.
11/16/98 87-273
Council Member Eakins requested staff address the issue as soon as possible. It was not right that Council change zoning on Charleston Road when the neighbors did not have a chance to address the item. The public hearing was closed; therefore, she did not want Council to attempt to identify a different boundary line. She opposed the substitute motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 6-3, Eakins, Mossar, Rosenbaum "no." Council Member Kniss asked why staff was being directed to work with a group who was not interested in a single-story overlay. Council Member Eakins said three houses located east of Charleston Road were in favor of a single-story overlay. She asked whether those three houses could be included in the single-story overlay on the west side of Louis Road if they requested it, or would three houses be considered too small an area. Mr. Gawf clarified that the motion excluded both lots 1725 and 1727 since they were not included as part of the original application. Mr. Calonne said his preference would be that lots 1725 and 1727 be included in the second study group to avoid a possible due process question.
Ms. Fleming said staff=s concern was that staff be clear on what the Council included in the motion should the parties involved call for information. MOTION TO RECONSIDER SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to reconsider the substitute motion. MOTION TO RECONSIDER SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 9-0 Vice Mayor Schneider said her intent was to include all of the houses in the single-story overlay so the Council did not get into a piecemeal situation. She requested that lots 1725 and 1727 be included in the east of Louis Road group of houses. AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to exclude lots 1725 and 1727 from the Single-Story Overlay Zone west of Louis Road and to include lots 1725 and 1727 with those properties east of Louis Road. Council Member Mossar said the Planning Commission went through the exercise and lots 1725 and 1727 were excluded and not included in the original application; however, the Council decided that there should not be any exclusions. A more considered process was called for. She was unsure whether the Council had the necessary information.
11/16/98 87-274
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a
Portion of Property Collectively Known as ΑMeadow Park Tract 1722
and a Portion of Tract 1977" from R-1 to R-1(S)≅ SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 6-3, Eakins, Mossar, Rosenbaum "no." 3. Palo Alto Sanitation Company Acquisition by USA Waste (continued from 10/26/98) City Manager June Fleming said staff had made a presentation on the item at the Council meeting of October 26, 1998. Council initiated discussion and felt the need to have a closed session. The closed session was held and the item was being brought back to Council that evening. Colette de Genova, 3875 Nathan Way, believed having a small, locally controlled business providing solid waste services such as the Palo Alto Sanitation Company was important. Equally important was having an environmentally sensitive company. USA Waste failed on both counts: 1) USA Waste was not only a large company, it was the largest solid waste company in the nation, and 2) USA Waste had been opposed by environmental groups in the cities of Livermore,
Pleasanton, and other areas for trying to build Αmegadumps≅ which were detrimental to the environment. Donna Cabanne, Sierra Club of Northern California, Livermore, urged the Council to: 1) retain control of trash collection in the same way Palo Alto had fought to control other essential services and utilities such as gas and electricity; and 2) seek a second or third legal opinion to see whether other options were available. Local control would give residents better rates and services. She asked whether USA Waste promised in writing any future rate reduction. She urged the Council to contact the City of Berkeley for information on how to successfully retain local control and ownership of the waste stream. She asked the following questions regarding USA Waste: 1) had USA Waste demonstrated the high
standards expected by the City; 2)was USA Waste=s manager for Northern California operations, Stu Clark, still managing Northern
California operations; 3) how new was USA Waste=s recent management and whether management was better or worse; 4) could the Council cancel the contract should the arrangement become unsatisfactory in five years, or would the City be required to subsidize profits for a $16 billion company should losses occur; 5) would the vested interests of the company prevent an attempt to buy back stock, or would it be less expensive to buy the contract and stock now; 6)
what was USA Waste=s future plan for the Gateway property; 7) would truck traffic increase significantly; and 8) who would be liable for the area should contamination occur if the Gateway property was
11/16/98 87-275
supposed to be turned into a park in the future. She called the
Council=s attention to the matter because USA Waste sued the East Bay Regional Park District in June 1998 concerning cleanup costs for a park built near a previous dump site. There were a few
letters in support of USA Waste=s acquisition of Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO); however, there were no letters of support from larger neighboring service jurisdictions such as the cities of San Jose or Oakland. USA Waste owned a dump on the outskirts of Livermore. The neighboring cities of Livermore and Pleasanton had sued USA Waste to stop a megadump expansion which would have made the landfill the largest in the nation. She asked what the District Attorneys from San Bernadino, Ventura, and San Diego Counties had to say about USA Waste. She wanted to know why three environmental groups were suing USA Waste. The primary responsibility of any large corporation was to maximize profits for its stockholders, not the residents of Palo Alto. The Sierra Club opposed megadumps and supported zero waste programs that diverted as much waste as possible away from landfills. Palo Alto had earned the reputation of an environmentally responsible and sensitive city. She asked the Council whether: 1) the City would be able to participate fully in the new zero waste program if the City contracted with USA Waste; and 2) the City would be able to divert the majority of the waste to ecoparks or other diversion projects, or would the City be stuck sending the garbage to landfills. She urged the Council to make a decision that would be supported by the residents of Palo Alto, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. She felt answers were required before the Council made any decision. Marvin E. Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue asked the Council to maintain local control of solid waste disposal. PASCO had been exemplary in its service to Palo Alto. He urged the Council to secure ownership of the service and to pay a fair market price for the service. The system had been operating well, and Mr. Madsen should be paid a fair price for the system, and the system should be leased to someone else. Mr. Madsen had done an excellent job of running the company. Joseph Carleton, 2350 Ross Road, supported a poster in City Hall on
a board near the words ΑFire Department≅; ΑAs a citizen owner, you share in the benefits of local control and ownership of your utility. Since your City code so regulates utility operations, in its public meetings you have a direct say on policies that affect rates and service. You can also attend meetings of a citizen-run
Utility Advisory Commission.≅ He quoted the September Utility News Notes as stating that Palo Alto was the only California city to own and operate six essential utility services including refuse. A public entity would better serve the public than a privately-owned one.
11/16/98 87-276
Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, #126, urged the Council to heed the cautionary notes of the prior speakers. He initiated a recycling program at his worksite in Palo Alto and noted that PASCO had done an exemplary job. He asked the Council to reconsider giving up local control of solid waste services. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, asked the Council to support Mr.
Reed=s recommendations. She urged the Council to retain control of the services. Prior to moving to Palo Alto, she lived in a small town where a small local garbage company was taken over by a large company. The City would not have the same experience with a large national company as a smaller one. She noted USA Waste hailed from the City of Houston, Texas, which had a city-owned garbage company. Richard Buchner, 1417 Usona Drive, San Jose, General Manager of PASCO, had heard the concerns of the residents, the business community, and staff. Several residents quickly offered suggestions regarding what should happen to refuse services. He personally met with USA Waste personnel and was assured that, as general manager, he would continue to run the operations of PASCO with complete autonomy. Paul Madsen and he shared the same values of customer service and employee welfare. During the prior 28 months of transition, he ran the daily operations of PASCO and noted that Mr. Madsen had earned the right to retire after 40 years of service. Services provided by PASCO were directed by the City, and if the City did not request a change in service there would not be one. The citizens determined what type of services they had by input to the City Council and staff. Rates were set by the staff with Council approval, and rate changes only occurred with the changing cost of business. As landfill space became scarce, the cost of disposal would rise. Inflation caused the need for supply and salary increases, and costs would increase over time but not as the result of USA Waste taking over. He assured the Council that PASCO would continue to respond quickly to the needs of the community and the staff requests. He made a personal commitment to continue to manage PASCO with the same set of principles that had been in place for the prior 40 years. He urged the Council to move quickly for approval. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether there were any guarantees that Mr. Buchner would remain as general manager with PASCO. Mr. Buchner said he had authority with the City regarding contract issues. As long as the City continued to deal in a fair and equitable way with the new ownership, there should be no issue for
him to move on. Should the City try to Αstonewall≅ the new owners in negotiations, then the Council could question what he might do.
Council Member Fazzino asked for the definition of Αstonewall≅. Mr. Buchner said there was a time when he thought about purchasing the company and suggested to staff that Mr. Madsen and he present a
11/16/98 87-277
proposal. Staff suggested that Mr. Madsen sell the company and return when the sale was done. However, when an agreement was made, staff stated that a new contract was being formulated. Eighteen months had passed and he had yet to see a draft of the contract; but, when the City made a decision to do something, the City acted quickly. Council Member Huber asked whether USA Waste could fire Mr. Buchner. Mr. Buchner said yes. Council Member Huber said staff recommended that the Council conditionally approve the acquisition. He understood the Council was not required to take any action. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the assignments of the 2000 Geng Road facility to the new owners required Council action. He did not believe that the Council had any legal obligation to give
consent to the purchase of PASCO=s shares; however, the lease was another matter because there was an assignment clause and Council action was necessary to assign the lease. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Conditionally approve the acquisition of PASCO by USA Waste and approve assignments of the 2000 Geng Road facility to the new PASCO owners; 2. Direct staff to enter into discussions with USA
Waste/WMI, to address the City=s concerns and, before March 1, 1999, to negotiate with USA Waste/WMI a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which will cover the agreed upon scope of and timing of entering into a new refuse and recycling agreement between PASCO and the City; and 3. Council at this time grant staff the authority to give
notice of the City=s intent to sunset the agreement as of June 30, 2004, and go to bid, if the MOU has not been agreed to and presented to Council for approval prior to March 1, 1999. Council Member Fazzino emphasized that Council action taken a few
weeks prior was in keeping with the Council=s fiduciary responsibility to ensure that Council had all the legal advice and information needed to make a decision with respect to the item. He supported the concept of local control; however, outstanding service was a more important criterion. He said working with USA Waste was very important to ensure that a mutual agreement with
11/16/98 87-278
respect to outstanding service, appropriate rates, and excellence in the recycling programs. Council Member Eakins asked whether the City had the right of eminent domain to buy shares in PASCO. Mr. Calonne said he did not know. When the City exercised the right of eminent domain to acquire private property, it was subject to compensation to the owner. He had not seen right of eminent domain applied to the assets of a corporation. Council Member Eakins said ownership had become ephemeral in terms of local ownership. She asked whether there was any legal basis for having local control. Mr. Calonne said the Council had local control via an ordinance that authorized an exclusive contract arrangement with PASCO. The contract arrangement had a five-year sunset provision that could be exercised if required. The Council had control if local control meant setting the standards for service such as how the operator would work in the City. Council Member Eakins believed when someone referred to local control, it meant local ownership. Mr. Calonne viewed local control as a euphemism for good service. The focus of contract negotiations had been a fall-out of the
auditor=s work that indicated some non-standard provisions in the
contract. Staff had worked at the process with PASCO=s current management for a number of years to address the concerns about the contract. Council Member Eakins said the Comprehensive Plan Committee tried to put into guiding principles that preference be given to local artisans, business owners or contractors; however, she recalled that legally preferential treatment could not be given to locals. Mr. Calonne said in a land use context, local preferences, hiring preferences, and housing preferences were generally suspect. He did not know how preferences applied to corporate ownership. He was
still unsure as to the Council=s definition of local control. Vice Mayor Schneider thanked the people from the Sierra Club for the information sent to her. She said the Council wanted good service just as the people of Palo Alto. There were extraneous issues that the Council could not deal with at that meeting. She appreciated the 40 years that Mr. Madsen had put into PASCO. Council Member Huber supported the motion and thanked Council Member Fazzino for removing the approval process out of the acquisition. He was discouraged as various service providers became monopolistic in the country and felt that it was difficult
11/16/98 87-279
over time to receive good service when there was nowhere else to turn. He would carefully review anything returned to the Council by way of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Council Member Ojakian thanked Council Member Fazzino for a well-
worded motion. He emphasized the Council=s concern regarding service and types of services that were not fully defined. City Manager June Fleming responded to several issues brought up by the Council. She said staff took comments heard from the community seriously and the Council in terms of being able to control what types of service was provided to the community and keep it at that level. The MOU was a critical document and it was important that staff return the document to the Council prior to March 1, 1999. The team that lead the negotiations would include her, Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats, City Attorney Ariel Calonne, and Senior Assistant Attorney Sue Case. She assured the Council that the team would focus on local issues which was one way to maintain some local control; however, the team would not be compromising in that effort. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS 9:25 PM to 9:40 PM PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal by Victor Greene of the Zoning Administrator=s approval of a Fence Variance condition limiting the height of a six-foot fence that is currently located in a site distance triangle for property located at 581 Addison Street. The condition allows the fence to be located in the vision site distance triangle if it is four feet or less in height. Item was continued to a date uncertain. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a request by property owners of Tract 714 and portions of Tract 4783 - La Jennifer Way for consideration of Single Story Overlay zoning for a portion of the Barron Park neighborhood. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said staff recommended approval of the application for a single-story overlay which contained 20 homes in its district. The Planning Commission reviewed the application and was recommending denial of the application due to the size of the lots, the range that was represented, and the small area itself. There was 80 percent support within the district; 17 property owners in support, and 3 property owners who were opposed. Planning Commissioner Bern Beecham said the overriding concerns of the Planning Commission were the smaller sized lots, the irregular
11/16/98 87-280
boundaries and the lack of deed restriction history within the district. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the Public Hearing. Alison Collin, 828 La Jennifer Way, said although the tracts were small, they were jewels in the heart of Barron Park and were representative of single-family living. The homes were characterized by low profile, unobtrusive single-story homes of similar age and landscaping of mature trees. Approval of the
overlay in the neighborhood would be in accordance with the City=s Comprehensive Plan and instrumental in the preservation of the existing scale and character of single-family neighborhoods. Neighbors signed a petition that was sent to the City Council. Strong support was evident, and the neighbors decided to apply for the single-story overlay. Chandler Lee advised the neighbors to canvass the adjacent areas to ascertain whether residents wished to be included. As a result there was overwhelming support from La Calle Court. However, the neighbors were advised to exclude La Calle Court from the application as La Calle Court lot sizes were outside the City guidelines. The Planning Commission felt that the area was too small for the overlay; however, the City guidelines did not state that there was a minimum number of houses required to be considered for the single-story overlay. Eighty percent of the residents of the tracts had voted to support the single-story overlay and felt that it met the guidelines, except for areas where there were no deed restrictions in place. Under the guidance of Chandler Lee, Knute Knudsen prepared a comprehensive information packet that contained details of the proposal, City guidelines and the phone numbers for her and Mr. Knudsen. The letter advised people to read the information and if in agreement, to mail or deliver the signature sheet to Mr. Knudsen. No pressure was put on anyone to sign the letter, and the neighbors were given as much time as was needed to return the signature sheets. A few homeowners refused the information packet. Two follow-up packets were then sent to those people who had not responded but not sent to people who were opposed after the first contact. She noted that the Council had copies of the information packets which clearly showed that everything possible was done to ensure that accurate information was presented. The lot shapes on La Jennifer Way were very innovative, and the cul-de-sac design was well suited to single-story homes with no roof lines. Unlike other cul-de-sacs
where all of the houses have equal Αpie shaped≅ lots with houses built at an equal distance from the street, two houses on La Jennifer Way were built at the end of long driveways like flag lots. The front of her house faced away from the road and faced
the front of her neighbor=s home. Building a second story would
completely box in her neighbor=s home. Jane Marshburn, 820 La Jennifer Way, supported the single-story overlay and urged the Council to vote in favor of the project. The single-story overlay had the support of the residents who wanted to
11/16/98 87-281
retain the value of the neighborhood by maintaining the privacy of their yards. The lots were laid out in an unusual pattern making them well suited for a single-story overlay because side-yards often face backyards and two-story houses would be intrusive. Some of the members of the Planning Commission cited the inconsistent lot pattern as a reason to oppose the overlay. The Planning Commission stated another reason to oppose the overlay was because La Jennifer Way was not subject to a deed restriction limiting the homes to a single story. She felt it should be a reason to support the overlay since the neighborhood was in greater need of protection from two-story development. The Planning Commission noted that the neighbors were concerned about one lot that a developer purchased as a tear-down, however, the developer stated at the Planning Commission meeting that a one-story home would be built on that lot. The Planning Commission felt that a single-story overlay was not required since the developer would not build a two-story home. The neighbors wanted to protect all the lots, not just one lot, and felt that the reasons given to oppose the single-story overlay were not sound. The neighbors wanted to be protected by a zoning change and did not want to rely on promises. She was not opposed to demolition or upgrade but wanted to maintain the tranquility and privacy of the property. She urged the Council to approve the single-story overlay. Sharon Long, 838 La Jennifer Way, said the neighbors had a particular idea regarding how the neighborhood would evolve over time. She believed the attraction to La Jennifer Way was that it had a single-story context. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, urged the Council to adopt the single-story overlay. The Planning Commission objected to the overlay because of the small size of the project; however, large tracts would not be found in Barron Park because of historic properties and the way it was developed. A single tract of 30 or 40 homes in Barron Park would be considered large. Additionally, a number of the homes in areas with single-family and Eichler homes had been destroyed such as a portion of Amaranta Avenue which had large Mediterranean-style houses interspersed among Eichler homes. The Planning Commission objected to the irregular size of the lots on La Jennifer Way which was also a characteristic of Barron Park. Allowing two-story homes, unless carefully and tastefully done, was going to destroy the ambience of the neighborhood. Some felt that the single-story overlay would have an adverse effect on property values. He urged the Council to keep foremost in mind that the property and houses were there so the neighbors could enjoy living in the community instead of worrying whether or not property values were going to be affected. Finally, tract 1722 that was approved for a single-story overlay that evening did not have deed restrictions for most of the property. Deed restrictions should not be a governing factor over whether or not a single-story overlay was necessary.
11/16/98 87-282
Mayor Rosenbaum closed the Public Hearing. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the staff recommendation that the City Council: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration, finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and 2. Adopt the draft ordinance, rezoning a total of 20 lots; 16 homes in Tract 714, two homes in Tract 4738, and two homes in Parcel Map 7721 Barron Park from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a
Portion of Property Collectively Known as ΑBarron Park Tract 714,
Portions of Tract 4738 and Parcel Map 7721" from R-1 to R-1(s)≅ Council Member Wheeler believed the odd configuration of La Jennifer Way and the way the lots were laid out required extraordinary efforts in order to protect the privacy of the neighbors from the possibility of intrusion by others. Houses added to La Jennifer Way without any forethought had a greater impact than on a normally configured street. The single-story overlay, admittedly not a perfect tool, was the only tool the Council had for the moment. She agreed that in some cases, neighborhoods without a prior deed restriction were in greater need of protection than those neighborhoods with deed restrictions. An overwhelming number of neighbors supported the single-story overlay. There was presumption on the part of a few members of the Planning Commission that living in or building a two-story structure was somehow superior to living in or building a one-story structure. One of the people that wrote to the Council in support of the single-story overlay noted accurately that there were many in the community who had chosen to live in neighborhoods with single-story structures. To want to live in a single-story neighborhood was as equally valid as to want to live in a two-story house.
Council Member Huber concurred with Council Member Wheeler=s comments. Deed restrictions were historical, essentially imposed by Joe Eichler. He believed the process was a far better one when people moved to neighborhoods and wanted the restriction instead of having one individual imposing a restriction. He was in support of the motion. Council Member Eakins supported the staff recommendation. She understood the lot patterns and the development history of Barron Park. She felt deed restrictions were a convenient way to get
11/16/98 87-283
started at the time; however, times had changed and the single-story overlay was the only tool to protect the neighborhood from drastic change. She supported the recommendation because the single story overlay had 80 percent support and the process was handled in such a way that there was minimum confusion. Vice Mayor Schneider supported the motion. Eighty percent was an overwhelming majority of neighbor support and was an example of self-determination by the homeowners. She felt that the decision should not be interfered with and applauded the neighbors for their efforts. Council Member Kniss supported the motion. On page 3 of the staff report (CMR:432:98), few overlays, in terms of area, had gone into place prior to 1997, the first being Walnut Creek and then Green Meadows, each of which had a fair number of houses. The number of overlays had increased substantially with about 4 percent of the
City=s single-story dwellings having an overlay. There were still a number of houses behind and in front of the homes on La Jennifer Way that would be affected if any other lots decided to add on a second story. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Rosenbaum, "no." 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the application of Scott Selover and Kathleen Roskos for Site and Design approval to construct an addition to an existing single family residence and related site improvements to property located at 4020 Page Mill Road. Planning Manager George White said the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval of the negative declaration with the finding that the project would not result in any significant environmental impact and approval of the site and design application for an addition to an existing family dwelling based on the findings and conditions attached to the Planning Commission report. The applicant sought to construct an approximately 3,300 square-foot addition to an existing 2,300 square-foot house in the Open Space District along Page Mill Road. The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 28, 1998; and on a 4 to 3 vote, the Planning Commission supported the staff recommendation. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant obtained a variance approval from the Zoning Administrator to encroach into the required 200-foot scenic set-back along Page Mill Road and to exceed the allowable site coverage of 3.5 percent to a maximum of 11.7 percent on the particular parcel. The Zoning Administrator felt there were exceptional circumstances related to the size of
the property being vastly substandard. The applicant=s lot at one-acre was under the minimum requirement of ten-acres in the Open Space District. That combined with the setback effectively limited the useable area of the lot to about 1,500 square feet. The staff and the applicant made a concerted effort to come up with a design
11/16/98 87-284
that was sensitive to the site; and in that process, staff urged the applicant to work with the Open Space District to determine what visual impacts might exist for the existing house as well as the new proposal. Staff felt the combination of the predominantly one-story design, the use of the materials, and the additional landscaping, as well as the existing vegetation aided to minimize the impacts to the open space and the surrounding neighborhood. Council Member Mossar asked whether landscaping plans were included in her packet of materials. Mr. White said the cover page of the plan set showed the proposed landscaping and existing vegetation on the site. Council Member Mossar asked what the height was of the materials toward the open space area. Mr. White said the intention of staff working with the City Arborist and the Open Space District was to have a buffer of mature vegetation 6 to 8 feet tall in a few years. There was an intention on the part of staff and the Open Space District to screen the building from people walking along the pathway which was directly adjacent to the rear of the property. Council Member Mossar requested confirmation of the typical house size in the Page Mill Road area. The Planning Commission minutes noted that 2,200 to 2,300 square feet was the typical size of houses in the area. Mr. White stated that staff did a search of similarly sized properties in the general vicinity and found very few. Parcels of approximately one-acre were difficult to obtain in the Page Mill Road area adjacent to the lot, however, the information was correct at the time, staff came up with 5 or 6 lots that were 2,200 to 2,300 square feet. The applicant provided an attachment in the packet of personal analysis and research on other properties in the general vicinity and related house sites. Planning Commissioner Bern Beecham raised an issue at the Planning Commission meeting that a precedent might be set for other smaller lots in the area to have large houses on them. He looked at the zoning map and found a few other smaller lots in the area that might be susceptible to the variance. Council Member Mossar asked what the maximum sized structure was that could be placed on a ten-acre lot assuming that the project fit the open space minimum of ten-acres. Mr. White said the maximum coverage for a ten-acre lot was approximately 15,000 square feet, which included the building, the driveway, or any other features that were hardscape.
11/16/98 87-285
Council Member Mossar noted the lot was flanked by two smaller lots that were substandard for open space. She asked for the acreage of the 2 parcels. Mr. White said the acreage was approximately the same as the subject property. The lot to the south of the property was at one time part of the parcel and was split in half. Council Member Mossar asked what watershed the property was in. Mr. White said he did not know. Council Member Mossar asked where water naturally flowed from the site. Mr. White said any site drainage would go toward the ravine. Council Member Mossar asked whether there was sewage infrastructure in the area. Mr. White said there was a standard sewer system servicing the home. Council Member Mossar noted the staff report mentioned using the same driveway while the applicant talked about moving the driveway. She assumed the connection into Page Mill Road was the same location, but the driveway was somewhat reconfigured on the site. Mr. White said that was correct. He stated there was a berm on one side of the property that did not afford great visibility onto Page Mill Road; however, there was an effort in the reorientation along the same point of access onto Page Mill Road to make it safer. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the 200-foot setback would create an impact on the home structure if the Council asked that the 200-foot setback be honored. Mr. White said the existing house existed within the 200-foot scenic setback. Council Member Ojakian asked how far the house was into the setback. Mr. White estimated approximately 100 feet into the setback. The variance that was approved was for a 70-foot setback. Any addition to the existing house would require a variance. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the other two houses encroaching into the 200-foot setback were in place prior to the Open Space District.
11/16/98 87-286
Mr. White believed the lot to the north was a house that existed before the Open Space District. Mr. White understood the owners of the southern house obtained a variance when the garage structure was built. Mayor Rosenbaum understood with regard to the issue of the house size that it was a two-step process, first a variance was granted by the Zoning Administrator. He asked whether the variance was before the Council at the meeting that evening. Mr. White said no. A variance was an application that was heard by the Zoning Administrator, and the application before the Council was the site and design application. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether it was appropriate to oppose the application on site and design principles. Mr. White said yes. The Council would be within its authority to approve or disapprove the project based on site and design principles. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the findings required for site and design approval encompassed size. The variance did not confer
vested right to develop and was beyond the Council=s jurisdiction. Therefore, there was no legal right conferred by the variance at present. Council Member Kniss asked Mr. Beecham to elaborate on his opinion regarding issues he felt had been altered by some examination that had been done later. Mr. Beecham said one item of concern was that the variance might set a precedence for others to build larger houses on lots in the Open Space District. However, further study showed that along Page Mill Road in the Open Space District, there seemed to be no other small lots so the issue seemed to be resolved. He noted on the application before the Council that evening that the chimney had been reduced in size by 40 percent from a 14-foot wide chimney to a nine foot-wide chimney, and the overall size of the house had not been modified. Mr. White clarified the applicant was proposing the chimney reduction as part of the Council review which was not formally proposed to staff. Council Member Kniss asked whether documentation before the Council did not reflect the proposal. Mr. White said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler asked where the finding for the site and design review was located in the packet.
11/16/98 87-287
Mr. White said the findings for site and design review and the open space criteria findings were located after the negative declaration and labeled as Attachments E and F respectively. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the Public Hearing. Scott Selover, 4020 Page Mill Road, said early in the 1960s, there was a plan to do one-acre developments along the Page Mill Road corridor, and a series of small lots were subdivided at that time. He owned lot number 53 which was, at one point, combined with lot number 54 at 4022 Page Mill Road. The lot was developed after the adoption of the Open Space District. The lot to the north, 4010 Page Mill Road, constituted the three, one-acre lots that existed in the area. He pointed to an overhead and indicated three small lots and noted there were no other small lots along the Page Mill Road Corridor. The house on 4020 Page Mill Road was a standard retirement house by Mr. Brandwine in 1963-64. Mr. Brandwine was an electrical engineer and not a structural engineer; so although the home was adequately powered, the structure had a few flaws. The house was 1,500 square-feet, had a two-car garage, and a partially finished basement. He planned to retain the entire structure of the living space and to make use of the space below to maintain as little excessive growth as possible in order to minimize environmental impact. The house was not finished, and he showed an overhead slide of phase 1 of a two-phased project. An unfinished sewer pipe and a hot and cold water pipe jutted out of an unfinished wall. A phase 2 was planned which was a two-story addition that extended out to the north. He had originally planned to follow through with plan 2; however, it became clear that a two-story addition was inappropriate. In order to mitigate visual impact, the correct thing to do with the house was to attempt to maintain a one-story structure. He showed overhead slides of the house location and surrounding areas. Water flowing on the east side of the property flowed into Adobe Creek and water flowing from the west side of the property flowed into the Los Trancos Basin. A survey was done of views back to the property from as many public viewing sites as possible with the exception of the Los Trancos Trail directly adjacent to the property. He showed overhead slides describing the different views from the property. The chimney structure was originally conceived as a way to bring some connection to the existing structure with the new addition; however, after the Planning Commission meeting more thought was put into the chimney structure and a decision was made that the same goal could be achieved by reducing the mass of the chimney from the existing 14-foot width to a 9-foot width. The garage structure could be broken away from the house and turned to be pushed back into a berm that ran from east to west across the property and buried into the hillside. The property had mature vegetation along the Page Mill Road side of the property. By using the existing berm to bury any additional structure moving towards Page Mill Road and the addition of planting along the redirected driveway, the
11/16/98 87-288
views of the house from Page Mill Road could be effectively blocked. The architects desired to obscure the view of the structure from the driveway and deliberately blocked the views of the structure from Page Mill Road. Anita Borg, 4022 Page Mill Road, was involved in the application process. Mr. Selover and Ms. Roskos had been very communicative
with the neighbors and had taken the neighbors= opinions into account throughout the process. The neighbors were aware of the privilege of living in an extraordinary place such as Page Mill Road. Although the house was large, it curved down along the line of the hillside nicely. She supported approval of the site and design application. Tony Tam, 4001 Page Mill Road, urged the Council to approve the site and design application. He felt the applicant had done an
excellent job to Αsoften≅ the existing structure and the strong architectural design that was presented enhanced the Page Mill Road corridor. David Ditzel, 4010 Page Mill Road, was concerned how the structure on 4020 Page Mill Road would impact himself as a neighbor and hikers on the trails. The applicants were very open to suggestions, comments, and letting him look at the plans. The proposed changes to the structure compared to the existing structure would be a marked improvement. The proposed suggestions such as the vegetation surrounding the area would hide the house from the view of the hillside trail making the impact fairly minimal from that point of view. He felt the applicants did an excellent job in trying to cammoflage the house to fit in the surroundings by using natural settings. He urged the Council to approve the application. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto, urged the Council to deny the proposed negative declaration and application for site and design.
The Council had before them the Zoning Administrator=s action on the variance; however, the variance was conditioned upon approval of the site and design review. The public had two choices: 1) to pay $100 for the right to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator; or 2) to focus its efforts on the site and design review. He believed the latter was a more efficient way to proceed. The structure was built in 1964; and at that time, there was a one-acre minimum requirement for the site. In 1972, the lot size and the location of the structure became non-compliant due to the ten-acre Open Space District and the 200-foot setback. Any precedence set by the decision was not limited to one-acre sites but was limited to the reasoning that stated the lot was exceptional or extraordinary if it was non-compliant. There was no differentiation as to whether the structure was a house or a 10,000 square-foot commercial structure on the Bressler property. In both cases, they were non-complying structures based upon the 200-foot setback and the assertion was that was what made the structures
11/16/98 87-289
extraordinary. In reference to the Borg=s property next to the
applicant=s property, a memo from former Senior Assistant City Attorney Lou Green stated the Borg property was a vacant property under the same ownership and that there was an automatic parcel merger. He saw nothing to indicate any legality creating the parcel at 4022 Page Mill Road which was constructed in 1987. A question was raised regarding how large houses were for ten-acre sites. An entitlement of 15,246 square feet of impervious surface, such was the case on the Alexis Drive and Laurel Glen Subdivision which had houses of approximately 5,000 square feet for a ten-acre entitlement. The Council was being asked to approve the same sized house on a one-acre entitlement. The property certainly was not exceptional if there were a total of 6 properties in the same situation along Page Mill Road. There were two variances under the same number in the same application; one, for 10.4 percent coverage, and then a second variance under the same application number and which he felt was not legal. He was also concerned about the participation of Commissioners Bialson and Schink on the issue of using a variance to circumvent the fact that the property was non-compliant. Both Commissioners were involved in a similar situation with the Bressler property. He noted that the Commissioners could not participate in quasi-judicial proceedings. John Baca, 4171 Verdosa Drive, said somehow a non-conforming property was split into three non-comforming properties and all arguments in favor of the variance were based on scaled down ordinances relating to numbers. For example, all ordinances based on a ten-acre lot could be scaled down to fit a one-acre lot by dividing by ten. He did not believe it wise to increase the need for more City facilities to be built on Page Mill Road. He asked whether other residents of Page Mill Road were in attendance at the meeting. He did not know what a neighborhood consisted of, however, a neighborhood was not three houses on one side of the road and three houses on the other. Mr. Selover showed overhead slides of the property as it existed. He proposed adding a 2,300-foot addition of living space which constituted a livingroom, study, and a master bedroom. He pointed out extensive plantings along the open space and the north side of the property. Dave Docktor, the City Planning Arborist, viewed the site and made recommendations for some additional plantings. When he and Ms. Roskos moved onto the site there were 18 trees. Since that time, he and Ms. Roskos planted an additional 25 trees. Every opportunity was taken to bury as much of the structure as possible into the hillside to minimize visual impact. A structure close to the Open Space District was designed with a flat roof to keep the height of the structure on the Open Space District as unobtrusive as possible. Earthtones were used in the materials to further mask the structure. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the Public Hearing.
11/16/98 87-290
Council Member Mossar said a lot of work and thought had gone into the project and the applicant had worked carefully with the architect, neighbors, and the City. The issue was not about materials or architectural sensitivity but more fundamental issues regarding what the Open Space District was and zoning in the Open Space District. Zoning was developed to protect the foothills in the City and was something well thought out by the community. She understood the lot on 2020 Page Mill Road was not a ten-acre parcel; however, the project stretched the bounds beyond reason. She believed building potential in a small area went against the intention of the Open Space District. In an Open Space District, the impervious surface encompassed runoff which affected flooding conditions downstream, erosion, and pollution. Zoning regulations set in place were for the main purpose of protecting watersheds. The Comprehensive Plans for the hillside and the quantity and the negative effects of the impervious surface were sufficient to make the project unacceptable. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to deny the recommendation by the Planning Commission and staff that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration with a finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts and deny a Site and Design application for an addition to an existing single family dwelling based on the findings and conditions attached to the Planning Commission report. Further to direct staff to prepare findings to return to the Council to support the motion. Council Member Wheeler agreed with Council Member Mossar that it was impossible to make the finding that the project was in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Open Space District was designed with the intent that any housing allowed in the district was secondary to the preservation of the open space characteristics of the land. A 5,000 square-foot house on a one-acre parcel did not fit the criteria. She could not make the finding that the project was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Open Space District site development regulations. City Attorney Ariel Calonne reminded the Council that its action should be to direct staff to prepare findings in accordance to comments made and return to the Council for approval. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified the motion would be to direct staff to prepare findings. Council Member Eakins visited the site and studied the materials to be used. She agreed with Commissioner Schink that the design was appropriate for the site and was extremely sensitive to the Open Space District. However, the dilemma was whether the project was intended in the Open Space District. She noted the subdivision existed before the Open Space District and asked how far back into history one had to go in order to find the right set of conditions
11/16/98 87-291
on which to base a decision. She was interested in hearing others= opinions of the application. Council Member Kniss noted the approval was a split vote by the Planning Commission. She believed the structure was too large and would have preferred the structure being smaller and did not know how far the applicant was willing to go to be consistent. The applicants had modified the structure to some degree and a host of comments were made to justify the structures size; however, she was
interested in the other Council Members= opinions. Vice Mayor Schneider was impressed with the quality of the building materials the applicant selected. She agreed the lot was small for the size of the proposed structure; however, the proposed structure would be an improvement and the designs were sensitive to the site and the open space. The applicant had made a tremendous effort to answer the concerns of the neighbors and used information and direction provided by the Planning Commission. She asked whether there were other one-acre parcels on Page Mill Road. Mr. Beecham said the only other small parcels observed were immediately adjacent to the site. Vice Mayor Schneider supported the recommendation from the Planning Commission and staff. Mayor Rosenbaum did not support the motion. The open space regulations could not sensibly apply to a one-acre lot with 3-1/2 percent coverage, and the 200-foot setback did not make sense. The Council had no guidelines to follow in that case and had relied on comments made by experts regarding the sensitivity of the design, reviewed other lots where the variance could apply, and considered the neighbors approval of the project. MOTION FAILED: 3-6, Huber, Mossar, Wheeler Αyes.≅ MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the recommendation by the Planning Commission and staff that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration with a finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts and approve a Site and Design application for an addition to an existing single family dwelling based on the findings and conditions attached to the Planning Commission report. Findings for Approval, Site and Design Review, 4020 Page Mill Road (98-D-4) a. The project will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites; in that the proposed use and improvements are similar in size,
11/16/98 87-292
scale and design with other uses in the area and the project has been designed and will be sufficiently screened
so as not to impact the neighbor=s privacy or enjoyment of their property. b. The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the
desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent area; in that the project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, the proposed design and size of the residence and related improvements are generally consistent with the existing residences on Page Mill Road and nearby roads, and the construction of the residential addition will be governed by the current Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, to assure safety and a high quality of development. c. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed in construction of the project; in that the proposed design will follow existing site contour lines to minimize site grading. The project will not have a significant environmental impacts as indicated by the Negative Declaration prepared for this project. The proposed dwelling has been designed to be consistent with the Open Space Criteria adopted by the City Council to mitigate the impacts of development in the foothills area of the community. d. The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan; Except for the impervious coverage and scenic setback requirements for which Variances have been obtained from the Zoning Administrator, the proposal will be compatible with goals of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in the
ΑPolicy Section≅ of this report. The proposed residential use and related site improvements comply with all other applicable OS Zone District Site development regulations and conform to the intent of the Open Space/Controlled Development land use designation to allow limited residential development to minimize physical impacts of development. Open Space Criteria Findings, 4020 Page Mill Road (98-D-4) 1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. The proposed addition will be visible from Page Mill Road and from the public trail in the adjoining MSOSD lands. Extremely distant views of the site can be obtained from Skyline Boulevard. This visibility will be mitigated by
11/16/98 87-293
the existence of mature trees and vegetation on the site and by the inclusion of new native trees and shrubs as shown on the landscape plan. The visual impact of the new addition will also be minimized by the use of natural building materials and earthtone colors. 2. Site and structure design should take into consideration
impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. The proposal is screened from public and private views by mature trees and other vegetation. The proposed landscape plan provides additional screening from the open space lands to the west and from the single family dwelling to the south. 3. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce
fragmentation of natural habitats. The proposal sets the building mass into and along the natural contours of the site, and uses varying rooflines and building elevations to provide visual relief. In addition, the proposal utilizes well designed architectural features that fit into the overall architectural composition and add visual interest and scale to the house.
4. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. The proposed building masses follow the hillside and the additional floor area is kept close to grade to minimize bulk and create opportunities to relate the building to the site. The proposal integrates the house on the site by use of varied roof forms and building shapes that break up mass. Also, the proposal provides an efficient use of space within the building envelope. 5. Existing trees with a minimum circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be
preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible. The two mature pine trees proposed to be removed are in poor to fair condition and will be replaced with healthy 36 inch box trees in the same general location on the site. All other significant vegetation will remain. 6. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the
natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. The proposal is sensitive to the topography because it follows or cuts into the site contours to avoid
11/16/98 87-294
excessive grading. Fill amounts will be limited to the area adjacent to the rear of the structure to allow for the patio and swimming pool area. 7. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. The proposal avoids large expanses of impervious surface by limiting hardscape areas to the building footprint and proposed swimming pool. 8. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. The proposal incorporate materials that include stucco siding, stone veneer, glass and metal roofing at have a natural earth tone color similar to those found in the natural environment. The proposal uses the different materials and colors to break up the apparent mass of the new addition relative to the existing residence. Also, the architectural detailing and stepping of building mass create shadows appropriate to the natural hillside setting. 9. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention
technique. The proposal has incorporated native species and drought resistant trees, shrubs and plants in the landscape plan that conserve water and require little irrigation. 10.Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded
from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. The proposal is conditioned to require any accent lights for pedestrian pathways and pool area to direct light down and shield light away from the surrounding residences and open space lands. 11.Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foot-hills environment). The site has direct access off of Page Mill Road and no new curbs, gutters or sidewalks are proposed. The driveway will remain as a pervious, decomposed granite surface. Conditions for Project Approval For 4020 Page Mill Road (98-D-4) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT Planning Department 1. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
11/16/98 87-295
2. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the final construction drawings and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Palo Alto Planning Division. All lighting shall be minimal and shall direct light down and shield light away from the surrounding residences and open space lands. City Planning Arborist 3. As shown on the revised landscape plan, the two mature Monterey Pine tree to be removed shall be replaced with two 36" box size Coast Redwood or Douglas Fir trees planted so as to improve screening of the structure from Page Mill Road. The small Monterey Pine to be removed near the driveway entrance shall be replaced with appropriate landscaped features as indicated on the revised landscape plan. a. Provision shall be made for automatically irrigating all planted tree and shrub areas, including supplemental irrigation for the two mature Monterey Pine to be retained. 4. Per the revised landscape plan, an appropriate shrubbery shall planted as a buffer continuing from the existing Douglas Fir on the West to the eastern end of the pool area. 5. Tree protection and preservation instructions sheet shall accompany the plans submitted for building permit and referenced on all Civil drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and Irrigation Plans. Conditions #3-8 shall appear on the this plan. 6. All utilities, both public and private, requiring trenching or boring shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and any landscape or trees to be retained. 7. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the applicant or project arborist verifying that protective tree fencing is in place before demolition, grading, or building permit issuance unless otherwise approved by the City Planning Arborist. 8. All trees to be retained, with the exception of two mature Monterey Pines and one young Monterey Pine at the driveway entrance, as shown on the approved plans shall be protected during construction to the satisfaction of the City Planning Arborist. The location of all tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on submitted plans for building permit. The following tree preservation
11/16/98 87-296
measures apply to all trees to be retained. The City Arborist shall have discretion to make modifications, in writing, to the specific requirements of this condition if warranted by field conditions if it can be demonstrated that the health of the tree is not adequately protected. a. All existing trees to be retained shall be protected with five-foot high chain link fences enclosing the entire dripline under the trees. Each tree shall be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground every 10 feet to a depth of at least 2-feet. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and shall remain in place until final inspection, except during work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (As shown on Public Works Standard Specification Detail #505, which shall appear on the plans.)
b. A ΑWarning≅ sign shall be prominently displayed on each tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of
18-inches square and shall state: ΑWARNING - Tree Protection Fence - This fence shall not be removed without prior authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. Violators are subject to fine
pursuant Section 8.10.110 of the PAMC.≅ Fire 9. The applicant shall submit construction drawings to the Fire Department in accordance with 1995 CBC and Title 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and California Fire Code. Details shall be provided on automatic sprinkler system, fire hydrant location, fire/smoke alarm systems and brush clearing and greenbelting plans. Utilities Engineering Electrical 10. If service is proposed to be upgraded to greater than 400 amps, a padmount transformer will be required on site. The location of the padmount transformer shall be indicated on the site and landscape plans for review and approval by Utilities Department and Planning Department staff. Public Works Engineering 11. A formal site drainage plan produced by a qualified civil engineer shall be presented with the Building Permit submission and must be approved by Public Works before permit issuance. The Permittee is required to submit a drainage plan showing existing and proposed
11/16/98 87-297
drainage of the site. This plan should show spot elevations of existing and proposed grades that show how drainage patterns work. Existing drainage from adjacent properties shall be maintained. Show how drainage from the buildings and hardscape will be directed. 12. Grading activities west of Interstate 280 are restricted to the time between April 15 to October 15. This time may be further restricted to adjust to seasonal rain fluctuations. 13. An erosion control plan for the winterization of the site will also be required to presented with the Building Permit submission. Utilities Engineering 14. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater, dated 1992. 15. The applicant shall submit improvement plans and Water-Gas-Wastewater application including load demands for existing and new facilities. The plans must show the proposed alignment of water, gas, and sewer mains and services within the development and in the public right-or-way. 16. All water connections from Palo Alto Utilities must comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Contact Morris
White at 650-496-6972, City=s Cross Connection Control Inspector to determine the type of protection required to prevent backflow into the public water supply. 17. The contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plan have been approved by the Water, Gas, and Wastewater Engineering Division. 18. Utility connection charges must be paid prior to the scheduling of any work performed by the City of Palo Alto. DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION City Planning Arborist 19. Any existing trees on adjacent property, including the public right-of way, that overhang the site shall be protected from impacts during construction, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Arborist. 20. The following tree preservation measures apply to all existing trees that are to be retained:
11/16/98 87-298
a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. c. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. Public Works Engineering 21. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) Council Member Fazzino said no housing in the foothills would be preferable; however, the structure design was sensitive to the site and he appreciated the applicants work to make the design as
sensitive as possible. The applicant=s had done everything possible to ensure the house could not be seen from other locations and was sensitive to their surrounding neighbors. Council Member Kniss said the Council was asked to deal with the site and design review, and what was presented to Council was in good taste and had neighborhood support. She noted the item did not set a precedence for the other lots on Page Mill Road.
MOTION PASSED: 6-3, Huber, Mossar, Wheeler "no." 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment of an application by Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc. for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the remodel of an existing building facade, increase site landscaping, signage, and related site improvements for a new retail tenant, Starbucks, located at 2775 Middlefield Road. (Item to be withdrawn at the request of
the appellant) No action required.
11/16/98 87-299
8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Mossar asked staff to prepare a status report on the Juana Briones house. Council Member Kniss thanked staff for the status report on the "Fiber to the Home" issue. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:14 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.
11/16/98 87-300