Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 149-07City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Re ort TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: FEBRUARY ~.6, 2007 CMR: 149:07 897 BARRON AVENUE*: APPROVAL OF A RECORD OF LAND USE ACTION UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR’S DECISION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP TO CREATE TWO PARCELS FROM ONE PARCEL. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and adopt a Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) to uphold the Director’s approval of the preliminary parcel map to subdivide a single parcel at 897 Barron Avenue into two separate parcels. DISCUSSION The proposed subdivision would divide the lot at the north east corner of Barron and Laguna Avenues into two separate lots. Each resulting parcel would be approximately 8,000 square feet and would exceed all minimum zoning standards including lot size, depth, and width. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the application on December 21, 2006. An appeal was filed on January 3, 2007 and the item was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission on January 31, 2007. Additional background information is provided in the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report (Attachment C). Cedar trees There are currently two large mature cedar trees on the property and these trees tie into a pattern of cedars trees on a few of the adjacent parcels on Barr0n and Laguna Avenues. The tree at the corner of Barron and Laguna has been identified by the Planning Arborist as having a high retention value while the other cedar tree is less desirable for retention due to its poor structure caused by years of power line trimming. These trees are significant and add a great deal of visual interest to the neighborhood but they have no protections under the current City ordinance. Relocation of the existing single story residence to the resulting smaller corner lot may require the removal of the large mature cedar tree at the corner. Staff has been working with the applicant to explore various options for preserving the tree. The applicant potentially has four different options that would allow the tree to be retained: modifying the existing structure to accommodate the tree; building a new house that is designed around the tree; exploring an CMR: 149:07 Page 1 of 3 exception that would allow the building location to shift to accommodate the tree; or moving the proposed property line further away from Laguna Avenue, creating a larger corner lot to allow more room to accommodate the tree. Staff’s decision encouraged the applicant to find a way to preserve the tree even though the tree is not a "heritage" tree, because the existing trees in the vicinity do add to the neighborhood character. COMMISSION REVIEW The primary issues were neighborhood character, tree preservation, and the purview of the subdivision ordinance. The Planning and Transportation Commission ultimately voted to recommend denial of the appeal and suggested that Council direct staff to work with the applicant to preserve the large cedar tree at the corner of Barron and Laguna Avenues. Public Testimony/Neighbor Concerns Area residents expressed concerns that the lot split would have a negative effect on the neighborhood character. They emphasized the rural character of the neighborhood with large open lots and a substantial area for large trees. They believe the subdivision would change this pattern by creating lots that are too small to allow room for large trees, such as the two large cedars on the property. They explained that there is a pattern of cedar trees in the area and that losing them would disrupt this pattern and harm the neighborhood character. There were concerns about what could potentially be built on the property as a result of the subdivision, such as new two-story houses that are oversized and out of character with the neighborhood. Neighbors also commented that they believed the approval of this subdivision would set a precedent that would encourage additional properties to subdivide. Commission Comments and Recommendation The Commission members indicated that they could not make the findings to deny the proposed subdivision. They understood the neighbor concerns about lot size, future development on the site, and the potential loss of the large trees on the property. There were suggestions by some commissioners that the neighborhood could pursue the implementation of an R-1 sub-district overlay that would establish a greater minimum lot size than the standard that currently applies in this area. This would prevent the few other lots in the area that can now subdivide from being able to do so in the future. There were also comments questioning the adequacy of the City’s current tree preservation ordinance, since its protections are limited to only oaks and redwoods and not other trees such as the cedars on the site that may be significant to the community. Some commissioners noted that the neighbor concerns and objections were based on a comparison between what exists on the property today and what they fear may be developed as a result of the subdivision, rather than comparing what could be developed on the property today under the current zoning. The commissioners stated that zoning regulations are designed to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that the proposed subdivision is in strict compliance with the zoning and is therefore in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. PREPARED BY: SS REICH Planner CMR: 149:07 Page 2 of 3 DEPARTMENT HEAD: LIE Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS A. Record of Land Use Action B. Location Map/Neighborhood Context Maps C. Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report of January 31, 2007 (w/o attachments) D. Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of January 31, 2007 E. Appeal and Support Information F. Director’s Hearing Minutes of December 7, 2006 G. Revised Zoning Matrix (1/31/07) H. Correspondence I. Preliminary Parcel Map (Council members only) COURTESY COPIES Alan Huntzinger, Applicant Ha Nguyen, Applicant Edward H. and Hedy De Moore, Appellant CMR: 149:07 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A ACTION NO. 2007-01 DRAFT RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 897 BARRON AVENUE: PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP 06PLN-00130 (ALAN HUNTZINGER, APPLICANT) At its meeting on , 2007, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Preliminary Parcel Map to create two separate parcels, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION I.Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Proposed by Allan Huntzinger, this applicant requested a Preliminary Parcel Map to subdivide a single residential parcel to create two separate parcels. The existing site is located in the R-I zone district and contains one single- family residential structure. The proposed lot split is permitted by the standards set forth in the site development regulations of the R-I zone district, based upon the size of each of the resulting lots being larger than the 6,000 square foot minimum and having lot widths exceeding the minimum of 60 feet and lot depths exceeding the minimum of i00 feet. Parcel one is 7,878 square feet with a width of 75.85 feet and a depth of 105 feet. Parcel two is 8,101 square feet with a lot width of 77.15 feet and a lot depth of 105 feet. B. As this project would create four or fewer parcels, the application was processed as a minor subdivision. The intent of the minor subdivision was to subdivide the single parcel into two separate parcels. C. The project was deemed complete in November, 2006. A public hearing was held on December 7, 2006 to accept public testimony on the map. Staff received comments from members of the public. A Director’s Decision was prepared approving the map, which was signed on December 21, 2006. The Director’s Decision was appealed on January 3, 2007. The Commission held a public hearing on January 31, 2007 to consider the appeal. The Commission voted to recommend denial of the appeal and to uphold the Director’s decision. SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lists a minor land division of property in an urbanized area into four or fewer parcels as exempt from CEQA if the subdivision is in conformance with all zoning regulations and the General Plan. As this is a project that would create two parcels and is compliant with the applicable zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan policies, the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA under Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3.Preliminary Parcel Map Approval Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): i. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site does not lie within a specific plan area. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in that the permitted density would not exceed seven units per acre (or 14 units per acre with second dwelling units)as set forth in the Single Family Residential land use definition. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans : The Project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy L-l:Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The Project site is located within the urban growth boundary and the Project is consistent with this policy by continuing the reuse of land within this area and increasing the number of housing units without negatively impacting the neighborhood; and Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The Project would allow construction of two single-family residential structures, which is a permitted use within the R-I district and which is compatible with other R-I properties in the neighborhood. The neighborhood does not have a regular or consistent lot pattern. The lot sizes and lot widths vary throughout the neighborhood and the proposed lots, while being smaller in square footage than the other lots in the area, would have a greater street frontage than most. There are only three other lots in the immediate area that could be subdivided due to the fact that most parcels do not have adequate street frontage to subdivide; and Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouragingnew or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The Project would permit the subsequent construction of two single- family residential units, which would be subject to the same R-I site development regulations as the other R-I sites in the neighborhood. Furthermore, all new two-story structures would be subject to the Individual Review process, which promotes adequate privacy, compatible massing and appropriate streetscape design with respect to other residential structures. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The Project site is comprised of one large relatively flat lot in a residential neighborhood with two large cedar trees. The lot would be subdivided into two lots for the purposes of single-family development. Each lot would exceed the minimum lot size requirements for R-I zoned properties and would exceed the minimum lot length and width requirements for R-I zoned properties. Each lot would allow for single family residential development that is compatible with the existing neighborhood without the need for zoning requirement exceptions for the construction of single family dwellings. With the stated intention to relocate the existing home onto the corner lot, a minor exception for setback encroachment to allow the preservation of the existing cedar tree on the corner parcel may be required.Development that includes tree preservation is encouraged. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The project would create two parcels that readily comply with all of the site development regulations for properties in the R-I Single Family Residence district. The two new lots will be smaller than other lots in the immediate area, but will be larger than the zoning standards require and will continue to have larger street frontages than most other lots in the area. The proposed density is compliant with the current city regulations and will not be inconsistent with the single family residential neighborhood. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habi tat : The subdivision will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, in that the property is currently developed and not adjacent to sensitive habitat areas. 3 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The subdivision of the existing parcels will not cause serious public health problems, as the proposed use of single family residences does not pose a risk to public health. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The minor subdivision of the existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type, as there are no pre-existing easements on site nor are any easements required as a condition of this approval. SECTION 4.Approval of Preliminary Parcel Map. The proposed Preliminary Parcel Map at 897 Barton Avenue is approved by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474. SECTION 5.Conditions Of Approval Planning Division i.A Parcel Map, in conformance with the approved Preliminary Parcel Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two (2) years of the Preliminary Parcel Map approval date. 2.The Parcel Map submitted for review and approval by the Director shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by Alan Huntzinger titled "Preliminary Parcel Map", consisting of 1 page, dated January, 2006, and received September 22, 2006, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of this approval. A copy of this plan is on file in the Department of Planning and Community 4 Environment, Current Planning Division. 3.An arborist report must be submitted that evaluates the potential impacts of the swimming pool removal to the protected oak tree. The report must include any necessary mitigation to ensure the health of the tree. 4.If the existing residence is relocated to one of the parcels it must be done such that there are no resulting zoning conflicts except for a minor setback encroachment referenced in finding # three. 5.The existing residence must be moved or demolished prior to recordation of the parcel map. Public Works Engineering Department 7. The title of the map should be "Preliminary Parcel Map" rather than Preliminary Hap. On the parcel map there will be references made to the approved map and it should have the appropriate title. 8. Provide the Rim and Invert elevations shown for up stream and down stream manholes along the line where new connections are to be made. 9.Show the full width of the streets. i0. Applicant has stated hat there is existing street lighting but it is not shown on the map. If street lighting exists it must be included on the map. ii. A description of the Benchmark used must be provided. 12.,Applicant must specify what document was used for flood zone. 13.At the time of parcel map submittal provided: a.Closure sheet for each parcel. b.Final check off list. c.Location of monuments to be set. d.Autocad file submitted. the following must be 14.A redlined verslon of the map has been included with the Notice of Complete letter for your review. The redlined map must be returned with the parcel map submittal. Building Division 15. A building permit shall be required for the proposed relocation of the existing residence.No separate House Moving Permit is required. Utilities Electric Department 16.The Utility will provide only one service lateral to each parcel. The Utility will establish a service point for the customer. Easements may be required wherever Utility Electric facilities are installed SECTION 6.Term of Approval. If the a Parcel Map 15 not submitted within two years of the date of council approval, the Preliminary Parcel Map shall become null and void, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those pla~s prepared by Alan Huntzinger titled ~Preliminary Map", consisting of one page, dated and received September 22, 2006. 797 721 ATTACHMENT B Legend ~ 897 Barton Avenue The City of Palo Alto 897 Barron Avenue and Surrounding Zoning Districts This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS ~humble, 2007-01-17 12:51:30 This document is a graphic representation Only of best available sources Attachment D The City of Palo Alto Parcel Comparison near 897 Barron Avenue This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS The City of Palo ,~to ~sSt~les ~o responsibility for any erro~ ©19B9 to 20O7 City of Pafo Alto Legend R1 >= 12,000 sq ft 897 Barron Avenue R1 lots meeting minimum subdivision requirements La Calle The City of Palo Alto 12,000 sq ft lots and Subdividable R1 Parcels This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 0’400’ TNs document is a flraphic repre~nt~5on only of best available ~ces 3"he City of Palo A~to ~ssumes no t es!oonsibility for any errors @19B9 to 2007 City of Palo ~to Attachment E ATTACHMENT C PLANNING & TRANSPOR TA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Russ Reich Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment January31,2007 897 Barron Avenue [07APL-00001|: Appeal of the Director’s decision to approve a Parcel Map requested by Alan Huntzinger on behalf of Ha Nguyen to subdivide a single residential lot into two separate parcels. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Zone District: R- 1. RECOMMENDATION: Staff" recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council deny the @peal and uphold the original approval of the preliminary parcel map to subdivide the single parcel at 897 Barton Avenue into two separate parcels based upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION: The parcel map application was reviewed at a Director’s hearing on December 7, 2006. Following the public hearing the parcel map was @proved by the Planning Manager, on behalf of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, on December 21, 2006. On January 3, 2007, within the fifteen day @peal period, the approval was appealed. BACKGROUND: Proiect Description A draft Record of Land Use Action, upholding the Director’s approval is provided as Attachment A. It includes the determination that the proposed subdivision meets all requirements of the City’s Municipal Code, Comprehensive Plan, and the Subdivision Map Act. The subject City of Palo Alto Page 1 property is a comer lot located at the intersection of Barron and Laguna Avenues. The existing lot is developed with an existing single story residence with two large cedar trees and a back yard swimming pool. The lot is 105 feet wide and 153 feet deep with a total square footage of 15,979 square feet. The applicant has proposed to split the lot nearly in half to create two separate parcels. Parcel one, the comer lot, would be 223 square feet smaller than parcel two, the interior lot. The proposed lot sizes and dimensions are provided in the table below. The applicant has expressed the desire to preserve the existing single story residence on the property. The applicant has proposed to move the house to the resulting smaller comer lot and rotate it such that the front of the house on the comer lot will face Laguna Avenue. Relocation of the existing house may require the existing Cedar tree at the comer to be removed. ZONING TABLE Minimum Proposed ProposedR-1 zone district requirement Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Lot Size sq. ft.6,000 sq. ft.7,878 sq. ft.8,101 sq. ft. Lot Width ft.60 feet 75.85 feet 77.15 feet Lot Depth ft.100 feet 105 feet 105 feet Standards of Review One of the following findings must be met to grant the appeal and deny the original approval. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. o That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection City of Palo Alto Page 2 shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a cour~ of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Staff does not believe that any of these findings can be met and has therefore recommended approval of the request to subdivide the parcels. Appellant concerns The appellants have raised several concerns about the proposed two lot subdivision. They believe that the increased density, of one additional residence, will significantly change the scale and character of the neighborhood. They are concerned that the subdivision and the possible construction of two new two story homes will lower the property values in the area and that it will set a precedent that will invite further requests to subdivide adjacent properties. They are also concerned that the increased density will impact traffic and parking in the area. They have also stated that they would oppose any variance that may be requested for a setback encroachment to allow the placement of the existing one story home onto the new corner lot. Existing Neighborhood Pattern The Barron Park area is a very eclectic neighborhood of subdivisions that took place over a number of years resulting in a random lot pattern with lots that are of various shapes and sizes. It is not completely clear what the appellants consider "the neighborhood" to be, but they maybe referring to the immediate vicinity- the properties on each side ofLa Calle Court and a few houses on Barron and Laguna Avenues. Even if the neighborhood is limited to this very small area, the resulting lots proposed in this application would not significantly disturb the pattern of this neighborhood. While it is true that the resulting lots will be smaller than those in this immediate area, the resulting lots would actually be wider than many of the other lots. They would also be nearly 2,000 square feet greater than the minimum lot size requirement in the code. The fact that the resulting lots would be wider than most of the other lots would make it very difficult for passers by to perceive that they are actually smaller in total square feet. In fact, beyond the La Calle Court area, many of the existing lots are smaller than what is proposed in this subdivision (Attachment D). Approval of this application would not result in a flood of subdivision applications in the area. There are only three lots in the immediate vicinity that would be eligible to be subdivided based on the R-1 zoning requirements (Attachment E). One of these three lots, the property at 3707 La Calle Court, is developed with a house built in 2003 and is unlikely to be demolished and subdivided in the near future. Existing Trees on Project Site Relocation of the existing single story residence to the resulting smaller corner lot may require the removal of the large mature cedar tree at the corner of Barron and Laguna Avenues. Planning arborist Dave Dockter has determined that the corner cedar tree has a high retention value. He estimates that the tree could survive 50 plus years. The tree crown could be raised up to accommodate a structure but a 10 to 15 foot Tree Preservation Zone (TPZ) from the tree trunk would be necessary to preserve it. The TPZ would remove nearly 200 square feet of the building envelope. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The applicant potentially has four different options that would allow for the tree to be retained. They could modify the existing structure to accommodate the tree, they could build a new house that is designed around the tree, they could explore an exception that would allow the building location to shift to accommodate the tree, or they could move the proposed property line further away from Laguna Avenue creating a larger coruer lot to allow more room to accommodate the tree. The City has supported Home Improvement Exceptions that encourage the preservation of mature trees. The approval letter suggested the exception process was available to encourage the preservation of the existing single story residence and the mature cedar trees. The neighbors in attendance at the Director’s Hearing stated that they wanted both the mature cedar trees and the existing house to be preserved. Staff’s decision encouraged the applicant to find a way to preserve the tree even though the tree is not a "heritage" tree, because the existing trees in the vicinity do add to the neighborhood character. Traffic and Parking The addition of one housing unit will not have a negative impact on traffic and parking in the neighborhood, and the potential for additional subdivisions is very limited. RESOURCE IMPACT: . The proposed subdivision would result in one additional single family p arc el where a new residence would be built. Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community Centers, and Libraries would be approximately $11,702. If the proposed residence was larger than 3,000 square feet, the impact fees would be approximately $17,476. If a second dwelling unit were to be built on the site, the additional Development Impact Fees would be approximately $3,872. School impact fees would be collectedby the Palo Alto Unified School District ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project site is a developed single familyparcel that is proposed to be divided into two separate parcels. The division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential use, resulting in four or fewer lots, and in conformance with the General Plan and the zoning is exempt from CEQA under Section 15315 (Minor Divisions of Land) of the CEQA Guidelines. TIME LINE: Application Received: Application Deemed Complete: Director’s Hearing: Application Approval: Appeal Filed: P&TC Meeting: Date: May 23, 2006 November 9, 2006 December 7, 2006 December 21, 2006 January 3, 2007 January 31, 2007 ATTACHMENTS: A.Draft Record of Land Use Action B.Director’s Decision December 21, 2006 C.Location Map D.Map showing other lots in the area 8,000 square feet or less City of Palo Alto Page 4 go F. G. H. I. Map showing other parcels in the area that have the potential to subdivide Appeal and Support Information Director’s Hearing Minutes from December 7, 2006 Correspondence Preliminary Parcel Map (Planning and Transportation Commissioner members only) COURTESY COPIES: Alan Huntzinger, Applicant Edward H. and Hedy De Moore, Appellant Prepared by: Reviewed by: Department/Division Head Approval: Russ Reich, Planner Amy French, Manager of Current Planning Curtis Williams, Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes January 31, 2007 DRAFT EXCERPT Attachment D 897 Barron Avenue* [06PLN-00130]: Appeal of Director’s decision approving a preliminary parcel map requested by Alan Huntzinger on behalf of Ha Nguyen to subdivide an R-l-zoned parcel into two separate parcels. Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt per CEQA Section 15315. Vice-Chair Lippert: I will introduce the second item. It is 897 Barron Avenue, appeal of the Director’s decision to approve a parcel map requested by Alan Huntzinger on behalf of Ha Nguyen to subdivide a single residential lot into two separate parcels. The Environmental Assessment is exempt from the provisions of CEQA and is Zone District R-1. Would Staff please make a brief presentation? Mr. Russ Reich, Planner: Good evening and thank you Vice-Chair Lippert and Commissioners. Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to City Council that they approve the Draft Record of Land Use Action included in your Staff Report as Attachment A. By recommending approval of the Record of Land Use Action you would be recommending that the City Council deny the requested appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original decision to approve the proposed subdivision of the parcel at 897 Barron. Staff has made this recommendation based on the fact that the proposed subdivision is compliant with all zoning regulations, is consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Subdivision Map Act. Much concern has been raised by neighboring property owners that the proposed subdivision will destroy the character of the neighborhood. Staff believes that the neighborhood in question is not nearly as limited as the small number of properties cited in their letter. The neighborhood we are talking about is Barron Park. The subdivision of this parcel would not allow for development that is not typical of the Barron Park neighborhood. It is a single-family residential neighborhood and the resulting parcels are completely within the City’s established parameters that define single-family residential lots. It is Barron Park’s rural character that sets it apart from others in Palo Alto. The single-family residential guidelines for Palo Alto define Barron Park as having a rural character. This character is dominated by abundant trees of various species that have a natural look. The other significant feature cited in the guidelines is the lack of curb, gutter, and sidewalk with streets that are rambling and narrow. Not mentioned in the guidelines but is apparent in the maps included in your Staff Report are the mixed lotting pattern of the area. The area doesn’t have the regularity of having all parcels with the same lot size and the same lot width. Some areas within the neighborhood do and others do not. This irregularity in the lot pattern is a character-defining feature of the neighborhood. The proposed subdivision will not change these defining elements. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32’ 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 At places you will find a revised zoning table reflecting the additional information requested by Commissioner Garber indicating the maximum FAR and lot coverage that would be allowed for each of the resulting parcels. Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. At this point does the Commission have any questions for Staff? Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: A couple of questions regarding the question of character, You have noted that there are four characteristics that are germane to this particular area, the rural nature of it, the not having sidewalks, the narrow streets, and the lot size irregularity. Are there any other documents or Comprehensive Plan or zoning sorts of documents including possibly a recommendation that was made to me earlier today the document that was created for SOFA II the building compatibility document that would help inform this discussion this evening? Mr. Reich: I don’t think so. We looked at that document and it does talk about architectural styles and things like that but that isn’t before you at this time, the future development of the residences on the property isn’t part of the discussion tonight. Vice-Chair Lippert: Go ahead. Commissioner Garber: Are there cases or circumstances that have occurred in Palo Alto where issues of character have trumped the opportunities a property owner has to improve their property that they would find underneath zoning? Mr. Reich: Not that I am aware of beyond Design Review for architectural projects that go before the Design Review Board. Commissioner Garber: Does the City Attorney have any comment on that relative to the legality of entering the issue of character into the existing law of zoning or the zoning law, I should say? Mr. Larkin: It is certainly unusual to look at character. It is important to note that when we are talking about character on a Parcel Map, a parcel map is subject to the same types of limitations on what the scope of review as a Tentative Map. The difference between a Parcel Map and a Tentative Map in most cities is that a Parcel Map is a ministerial process that doesn’t get Planning Commission review and a Tentative Map is. Palo Alto doesn’t make that distinction and that is why this is before you on an appeal. In terms of the subject of review it is the same between a Tentative Map and a Parcel Map. So it is unusual to look at character outside the architectural design review. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you. Commissioner Keller followed by Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Keller: Could you explain a little bit more what you define as the neighborhood of this property? Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Reich: There is no specific definition as to what the neighborhood is but this property is located within Barton Park. So you could consider the entire Barron Park area the neighborhood or you could limit it to the 600-foot radius that we are required for notification. Personally, as a Staff looking at this, I wouldn’t limit it to just those few houses around La Calle Court that seems like a very limited number of houses to look at to define the neighborhood. If you just look at the general definition of neighborhood, neighborhoods are defined by areas that have a lot of commonality like architectural styles or like in Barton Park having the common feature of no curb, gutter, or sidewalk and can be limited by major roadways or major physical features. So to look at something so small as the little map provided by the appellants is very limiting and wouldn’t be consistent with the typical definition of neighborhood. Vice-Chair Lippert: A follow up by Commissioner Keller followed by Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Keller: So could you give an example of what the scope of what a neighborhood would be elsewhere? For example would you consider say Midtown to be a whole neighborhood or would you consider a piece of Midtown to be a neighborhood for example? Mr. Reich: It depends on what you define Midtown to be. A lot of people have different variations as to what the extent of Midtown is. It is not something that is easily quantifiable. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Sandas followed by Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Sandas: Russ, can you tell me if there is any kind of a minimum lot size requirement for Barron Park? Mr. Reich: There is and if you will notice in your Staff Report in the Zoning Table the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet per the R-1 Zoning. Commissioner Sandas: Just like the R-1 zoning in the rest ofPaloAlto. Mr. Reich: Correct. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: What are current restrictions on merging lots in the R-1 district? Mr. Williams: You basically can’t merge lots that would make them double the minimum lot size. Although actually I think we ended up with an R-1 where we said no more than 9,999 square foot lots in terms of you couldn’t merge two lots to exceed that size. Commissioner Tuma: So if this were already two lots and they were trying to merge it they could not do that, correct? Mr. Reich: That is correct. Commissioner Tuma: What is the policy behind that? Page 3 1 2 Mr. Williams: The policy behind the merger is to try to retain the smaller units generally not 3 overwhelm properties with larger homes in an R-1 area~ 4 5 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Burt. 6 7 Commissioner Burt: If these two parcels were not subdivided what would be the maximum 8 allowable floor area of a structure to be built on that existing lot? 9 10 Mr. Reich: 5,606.7 square feet. 11 12 Commissioner Burt: Thank you. 13 14 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Keller. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: I think it was mentioned that R-1 properties have a minimum lot size of 17 6,000 square feet in general. I notice if you look at Attachment E, it is probably the simplest 18 one, or Attachment C or D, it looks like there are a bunch of large lots RE and I guess those are 19 one acre in size. 20 21 Mr. Reich: RE is a different zone district and it is not subject to the 6,000 square foot lot. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: I think that there is R-1 10,000 square feet and R-1 20,000 square feet. 24 Aren’t there variations of R-1 like that? 25 26 Mr. Reich: There are, not in this location but yes there are throughout the city. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 29 30 Vice-Chair Lippert: Are there any other questions? Commissioner Garber. 31 32 Commissioner Garber: Russ, I am sorry I am not finding the FAR chart and site coverage chart 33 that you had mentioned. 34 35 Mr. Reich: It was supposed to be put at places, the revised zoning table. 36 37 Commissioner Burt: It may be here but I couldn’t find mine either. 38 39 Commissioner Garber: Maybe you can just read them out there were only six of them. 40 41 Mr. Williams: We are going to see if there are some at the back. I think our City Attorney has 42 retrieved some for you. 43 44 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, if there are no other questions from Commissioners at this time what 45 I am going to do so the public knows is I am going to ask that the Appellant make a 15 minute 46 presentation that will followed by the property owner and at that point if we have questions of Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the Appellant and the property owner we will ask them at that time. That will be followed up by the public hearing in which members of the public may speak to this item. So we are going to go to the Appellant first. There are three people that make up the Appellant group and you will have 15 minutes. Odile Disch-Bhadkamkar, Stephanie Enos, and Art McGarr. So you have 15 minutes total. Ms. Odile Disch-Bhadkamkar, Appellant: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of the Commission. I would like to ask our neighbors who have come here to express their concerns about this subdivision to raise their hands. I am just here to speak on their behalf. We also wanted to greet our good neighbor, Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen, this is not personal this is about how we want this neighborhood to look because we have chosen to live there because of the way it looks and we want to preserve that. From the preamble it is clear that you all understand what Barron Park looks like. We have creeks, we have donkey pastures, we have large lots, we have evergreens, we have a big canopy, we have a lot of foot traffic, and Barron Avenue is really our flagship boulevard. It is not a small street it is actually quite large. The lot on 897 La Calle is a flagship lot. It is the entryway to our neighborhood. It is the gateway to Bol Park. It is quite significant. We disagree with the technicalities that have just been discussed. We think the Laguna Vista tract is a very specific subdivision with characteristics. We have lo~) density, large lots, and our properties are high sought after because they provide us with a private setting. The large lots afford large heritage trees that were planted 40 years ago and need large lots to thrive. So we disagree with you on what is a neighborhood. We want to invoke some precedents. I have put before you an email from Mr. Chris Riordan. Where were you Mr. City Attorney when Mr. Riordan told our family that we could not locate our garage in the front of the property and took as a sample nine houses on one branch ofLa Calle Court, rejected the two comer lots and told us that we had to fit within the neighborhood context? I have given you the email from Mr. Riordan to prove my point. There is precedent for taking one tract also as a neighborhood. The residents from Jennifer Way who had 20 properties were able to get a single story overlay in 1998. So there is a precedent fight in our backyard. Finally, the legal technicalities as to whether Roble Ridge fits within this zone in the R-1 Zone or not seems a little legalistic. For an intents and purpose in terms of the look of the neighborhood Roble Ridge is a very integral part of our neighborhood. If we think the 600 square feet ridges is the appropriate metric then you need to include the one-acre lots. Anyways, when we look at the Laguna Vista tract we feel that actually it is a distinct neighborhood. We look at the same maps and we don’t see the same thing. The blue properties are all above 8,000 square feet and you can see that 28 properties surrounding the area, and you can see a very consistent pattern actually over 8,000 square feet. So we actually really disagree with the Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 statement from the Planning Commission that the neighborhood doesn’t have a regular pattern. First we don’t agree with the concept of neighborhood and then we don’t agree about the regular pattern. Here is another view. Basically this division is going to create two of the smallest lots in the adjacent properties and we think that is going to dramatically change the scale and character of the neighborhood and that is really in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan policies. Finally the killer argument, since there are only two other lots that can subdivided who cares? Why don’t we just do it because this is very low risk? From our standpoint one lot is one too many and this is not a particularly good argument for pushing through a subdivision. We see a lot of references in the Staff Report about the client’s request. We also are your clients. We don’t have a request before you in the form of a subdivision however we are all here to tell you we are also your clients and we feel that it is really important that you have the stewardship of the land in Palo Alto and how a neighborhood is supposed to look. We would ask you to please not grant this subdivision. My neighbor Stephanie will talk about this. This is to show you aerial view of our tract. If you look a little bit to the right of the box you can see that when you start having smaller lots the canopy disappears because there is no room for landscaping. Stephanie. Ms. Stephanie Enos, Appellant: Good evening. I am here as a nearby neighbor. My husband and I live three houses away from 897 Barron Avenue but around the comer. I can see the magnificent mature cedar from our bedroom window. This is a magnificent tree and can be seen from Laguna and Barron Avenue. It was planted some 50 years ago and the City Architect has given it a high retention value and said that it could last another 50 years. It is also one a chain of 700 trees in the area yet in the Planning Department’s Staff Report it states that the relocation of the current house may require this tree’s removal. Big trees are majestic and help create a feeling of countryside. They also require reasonably large area in which to flourish, as their root systems will reach out at least as far or beyond the tree’s canopy. If the owners of 897 Barron Avenue are given the green light to divide this property not only will the big cedar that is already there be removed most probably but it reduces the likelihood of big trees being planned in the future as the two lots will not be big enough to accommodate them. The division will also compromise the integrity, as my neighbor Odile pointed out, of the Laguna tract that when it was drawn up it was clearly designed as a cohesive plan of lots bigger than 8,000 square feet. When a prominent tree is removed and a big property on the comer of a highly visible central intersection is reduced to two smaller properties there is no doubt in my mind that the local environment has been greatly diminished to the detriment of the surrounding neighbors and the property values. We chose this part of Barron Park precisely because the lots were large and there was a sense of spaciousness and privacy but most of all because we had the big oak tree in our backyard and so did our neighbors. As the person that went from door to door collecting over 30 signatures I know first hand how passionately many immediate neighbors feel about preserving the character of Barron Park and preventing the land from being carved up. We bought our property in good faith believing that it was within a stable tract and that this kind of development would not even be considered in this neighborhood. I understand now that I was Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 mistaken. I strongly believe that it is our responsibility to look after the trees and green spaces for future generations and I would expect the City to promote the thoughtful use of land that is in keeping with what is already there. Thank you for your time. Mr. Art McGarr, Appellant: I am going to conclude this presentation. 1 live in the Laguna Vista tract a short distance from 897 Barron Avenue. I will first review a few aspects of the open space character of our neighborhood that Odile and Stephanie have just presented and what makes it such a pleasant place to live. Then I will describe the likely impact of the proposed subdivision. Families move to this neighborhood as you have heard because of its spacious qualities not to live in a crowded over-built circumstance. Lot sizes are large and the houses are for the most part unobtrusive. Trees and pleasant gardens dominate the view here. This emphasis on natural beauty is consistent with the location of our neighborhood between Barron Park Elementary School and Bol Park. Bol Park is well known throughout Palo Alto as a park that features nature rather than facilities. Along one side runs Matadero Creek, which adds the rural feeling that attracted us to this neighborhood. 897 Barron Avenue on the right there in the picture is situated at a prominent location in that there is a large amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic that goes by this comer. Children walk to Barron Park Elementary, teenagers walk or cycle to Terman Middle or Gunn High, and many grownups including me cycle or walk past this comer on their way to and from work each day. Additionally there is heavy pedestrian traffic going past this property on the way to Bol Park, a popular destination. As you can see both properties on either side of Barron here at the intersection with Laguna are quite spacious with beautiful landscapes. The houses are of modest scale that allows them to blend in nicely with their natural settings. Clearly the visual impact of these properties on passersby is very positive. Needless to say those of us who live nearby are keen to maintain this ambiance that encourages us to take frequent walks just for enjoyment. For these reasons we are concerned about the negative impact of the proposed subdivision. With two houses instead of one on the same amount of property landscaping will cease to be an issue, the two houses will dominate. As everyone knows new houses in this area are invariably big, more often than not with two stories. Although we appreciate .the expressed good intentions of the current owner for minimizing the negative impact we also know that if the subdivision is affected then there is no contractual obligations for any of these undertakings that will be honored. The zoning laws are all that matter and these tend to be liberal in terms of what can be built as we have heard earlier. From a more practical perspective it has been noted by other that the combined value of the two subdivided properties is likely to be less than the value of the existing property. Unfortunately this property value impact will spillover onto the nearby neighbors. Therefore, we urge you to help us preserve the bucolic qualities of our neighborhood that we find so attractive by denying the request to subdivide 897 Barron Avenue. Thank you very much. Vice-Chair Lippert: Are you finished with your presentation? Will the Secretary turn the lights back on, please? While he is doing that if the property owner, Mr. Nguyen, would please step Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 forward. Do you have a PowerPoint presentation also? Okay, we will turn the lights back down again. You have 15 minutes to make your presentation, both you and your wife. Also if members of the public wish to speak this is the time to fill out a speaker card. Mr. Ha Nguyen, Applicant: I along with my wife, Lieu Nguyen, thank you for letting us speak our case today in front of you. Good evening all of you. I understand your concern and I think we like in the same neighborhood so we know exactly what you feel but I think that the reason behind it I hope you can understand after we explain what is going on. As mentioned in the December hearing we would like to emphasize our reason for subdividing to build a new home for our parents. This will be a new house for extra space to accommodate our parents and more easily take care of them. They are ranging in age from 65 to 91 years old. If we had been done earlier, a couple of years ago before my father died, it would have made life a lot easier for us. So I would like to comment on the Staff Report prepared by the City Planning Department. It is very thorough in summarizing the concerns of the neighbors and it is very concise, logical, and judicious in addressing all the concerns. Its recommendation to the City to uphold the approval is a sensible one based on fact and also on the City Municipal Codes and Comprehensive Plan. I think at this point I would like to turn it over to my wife, Lieu, she has prepared this data so she can talk better. Thank you. Ms. Lieu Nguven, Applicant: Basically, again the definition for neighborhood is really subjective. We just go by the code required by the City of Palo Alto that when you have a subdivision notification will be sent out to the property owners in a 600 foot radius. So we took that and that is denoted by the gray area, the circle, in the neighborhood. We also have some pictures to show the character of the neighborhood but I think in the PowerPoint earlier you probably saw more than sufficient pictures. So with that we are going to talk about lot size. I think I have the same graph as my neighbor has done. What I have done is graph out all the lots sizes in the neighborhood and with the proposed subdivision the lot size would be about 8,000 square feet. They are at the 51 st percentile meaning that more than 50 percent of the lots will be smaller than the subdivided lot. As pointed out it exceeds the minimum requirement of 6,000 square feet in the zoning code by more than 30 percent. Also I want to point out here that after the subdivision the maximum, the minimum, the median lot size will have no change. Obviously the average lot size will have some change but not very significantly as you can see by the numbers. I want to expand a little bit on a point that may be before this hearing. I don’t know about the concept of frontage. What I have seen in the Staff Report is that with this subdivision the lot will have at least more than 20 percent larger frontage than the minimum requirement of 60 feet. I pulled from the report large frontage would make it very difficult for passersby to perceive that they are actually smaller in total square footage. In a sense, basically, you have a feeling that the lot will give you more space. We do believe that with the combination of both lot size and Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 frontage that are exceeding the minimum requirements of the zoning the subdivided lot will not change the character of the neighborhood. I have here a map that I mapped out within the 600-foot radius. The blue dot is lot sizes that are smaller or comparable with the subdivided lot. We have, as I pointed out earlier, more than half of the lots will be smaller. As for frontage, meaning the red dot, those we denote are narrower or comparable with the subdivided lot. The two properties that I have circled on the map are probably 30 feet away right across the street from us on Laguna, they have even narrower frontage than the new lots. Along the same line Laguna will have two more lots that are comparable, same thing with Barron, which will have two more lots that are very comparable frontage wise with the new lots. IfI check those two factors, in fact, 78 percent of the lots of the area will have smaller lot size or narrower frontage than the subdivided lot. The neighbors have expressed also a potential new two-story structure concern. Barron Park is very much alive with new construction. So whether I do it or not someone else will, right? Since we moved in in 1999 at least from what we observed or what we know of at least 13 new or major additions or remodel that is affecting the exterior has happened around us. I do have pictures of at least 16 two-stow homes in the same neighborhood that we talked about. In fact five of the signed appellants live in two story homes, some of them are brand new. I want to point out also that we are not in a single overlay zone and in fact there is one property that is now currently in process and it has a two. story addition in our neighborhood and it is in La Calle Court. That is where most of the appellants live. So that says to me that a two sto12¢ home should not be a concern because if it is a concern why do we have a two story right now under construction in our neighborhood? So I think that it should not be part of the decision process for this subdivision. I am sure that our neighbors are concern about what will be built in that lot, right? Obviously a new house but we don’t have any information. We will be happy to share with the neighbors as soon as we have the information because the subdivision has to happen before we can engage an architect. We can assure our neighbors that it will be well within the City and the regulations and it should fit in the neighborhood because after that we will be one of the neighbors also. I would like to ask the neighbors to realize that the reality is property do sell, buy the property, move in and out, tear down their house, build up~ Really it happens every day and regardless of this subdivision. The same thing, I have a map of where the new two story and the new construction is in the neighborhood. About the non-heritage cedar tree and other concerns I can tell you that for the past eight years we have lived in the property several times. Branches have fallen down from both of the trees. In fact, two years ago two or three branches fall down right on top of our master bedroom and damage part of the roof and also we have to replace the gutter because of that. Our eight-year old son still today talks about it. He is very afraid of the trees. He would never play underneath the trees. Because it has happened more than once we have even fought to remove them and we choose not to do it. Basically what my point is we could have done it a year ago, we could have done it three years ago regardless of whether we go through the subdivision or not. We are wiling to work with the City to save the trees. In fact we see one of the neighbors have an Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 emailed the City that they would be against a setback encroachment that is necessary for us to preserve the tree. So I don’t really understand why. I just wanted to note that. Again, my point here is yes, we are willing to work with the City to save the tree but if safety is an issue we will have to remove the tree but we are going to replace them with one or more or many more trees. As for the traffic and parking impact in the neighborhood I quote the Staff Report again that there will be no negative impact on the traffic or parking in the neighborhood with a density increase of one single family home. With that I will turn to my husband so that he can close the meeting. Mr. Nguyen: Before closing I would like to reiterate our goals. The first one is to subdivide the lot to build a new house for our parents. Second is to move the existing house, preserve it. And last is to save the tree if at all possible. So with that we hope the Commission recognizes our rights, understands our viewpoint, and recommends to the City Council to uphold the approval based on the fact that this subdivision is well within compliance and up to City code and Comprehensive Plan. Also the fact that I think we have exercised all the reasonable and sensible approach to address all the concerns of our neighbors. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you, Mr. Nguyen. Do any of the Commissioners have questions for either Staff or for either the Appellant or the property owner? Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Yes, actually my question is for the Nguyen’s. You are talking about saving the tree if you can. I was noticing that our Arborist, Dave Dockter, had outlined some ways that you could save the tree, modifying the size of the house, I can’t remember all the rest of them. You said that you are interested in doing that and I am just wondering what.your commitment to doing that is. Would you be willing to take any of the four steps that he has proposed? Ms. Nguyen: What we are willing to take is if we get the encroachment in the setback we can reposition the house definitely we will. The whole wing of the house will be demolished if we don’t have the encroachment in the setback. I think that is pretty reasonable to ask the City and as I mentioned we are willing to work with the City to get that approval. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I have a direct follow up to that question. Can someone tell us exactly how much of an encroachment we are talking about that is needed to save this tree or are we not that far along? Mr. Reich: We don’t know the exact number of feet that would be needed to accommodate the house. It looks like probably roughly about ten feet into that rear yard of the newly created lot that might be necessary but it is really hard to tell because it depends on a lot of factors in terms of how they do the foundation, how close they can actually get. We are thinking maybe ten to 15 Page 10 1 feet but if they do the foundation differently they may be able to get a little closer if they move 2 the foundation back. It is really unknown at this point it hasn’t really been studied that closely. 3 4 Commissioner Tuma: Okay, thanks. 5 6 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Keller followed by Commissioner Burt. 7 8 Mr. Williams: Excuse me, Chair Lippert, did you want to finish the public heating portion? 9 10 Vice-Chair Lippert: These are just questions for either Staff or the appellant. 11 12 Mr. Williams: We don’t generally take Staff questions until before the public hearing starts and 13 after. 14 15 Vice-Chair Lippert: I know but these are questions for the people that made the presentation. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I have a question for the property owners. I understand that 18 one of the reasons that you would like to subdivide the property is because a so-called granny 19 unit is insufficient in size, I believe 950 square feet you said was insufficient. 20 21 Mr. Nguyen: That is correct because we have two sets of parents and also because the house is 22 positioned fight now right in the middle of the property. 23 24 Ms. Nguyen: I want to add also that personally I want to build a new house. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: Okay. So how big a new property... 27 28 Mr. Nguyen: This is a family problem here. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: So how big a new property are you planning to add? 31 32 Mr. N~uyen: We haven’t engaged any architect yet on that until we get the subdivision 33 approval. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. 36 37 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Burt. 38 39 Commissioner Burt: First question of the applicant. 40 41 Vice-Chair Lippert: Is that the appellant or the property owner? 42 43 Commissioner Burt: It is the applicant not the appellant. 44 45 Vice-Chair Lippert: The original. 46 Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: I think I am using correct nomenclature. Okay. These two people are the applicants. Among the different options that our City Arborist had talked about for preserving the tree one is the rear setback. He had said that there was about a 200 square foot potential loss in the building envelope. So ifI understand that correctly that is ground floor coverage and so about 400 square feet of floor area if there were no exception. Have you looked at this? That would also mean then that if it were a two-story building and the building looks to be about 50 feet wide at the rear then that would only be a four-foot rear setback that would be needed. Have you looked at that? Is that a correct assumption? Mr. Nguyen: We just got the report from the City Arborist last Friday so we haven’t had a chance to go through all of the suggestions yet. Commissioner Burt: Okay. One other question and this will be dependent on subsequent responses from the Staff but if a side yard setback encroachment next to your other property were an alternative as aHome Improvement Exception to a rear setback would you be receptive to that? Right now we have a mandated eight-foot setback from the property line on the side yard. Mr. Reich: Six. Ms. Nguyen: We are receptive to that but as you mentioned six feet is not too much but yes we are. Commissioner Burt: Okay, thank you. I will have another question later for the appellant. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I was just curious, and I am not usually in the world of asking about intents but right now you have a lot that can support almost a 6,000 square foot home, is that correct? Why not just build a 6,000 square foot home? Ms. Nguyen: One, we don’t need a 6,000 square foot home. Two, if you can imagine we have two kids in the house. IfI have to take in my parents and my mother-in-law, if you look at all these people living with one kitchen you can imagine what would happen. Mr. Nguyen: I think this one we have discussed for a long time. When my father was having chemotherapy at our house and it quite a scene. Ms: Nguyen: I can tell you that right now my son doesn’t have a bedroom. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Burt, did you have a question for the appellant? Commissioner Burt: I do. If someone from the appellant could come forward. In your handout there is this table and it refers to 28 properties adjacent to 897 Barron Avenue. What do you mean by adjacent? Page 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Ms. Disch-Bhadkamkar: They are the properties that are in your packet and we have made some 2 little round circles around them. The navy blue one. 3 4 Commissioner Burt: These? 5 Ms. Disch-Bhadkamkar: No, you have a second map after that with little round circles, blue circles and orange circles. Correct, that is the one. Commissioner Burt: Okay. So how did you come up with the definition of adjacent? Ms. Disch-Bhadkamkar: Well, we are showing you a sample that is actually larger than what we need to show you. While we could have confined ourselves to La Calle Court and come out with similar statistics over and above 8,000 square feet I think those dots show you the vicinity. We went across the street because actually those lots are very big. We can talk for a long time about what is neighborhood. We have a disagreement about whether it is the La Calle subdivision, whether is some properties outside, whether you include Carlitos. Commissioner Burt: My question is how did you come up with the determination of what you call adjacent? This isn’t what I would normally use. Ms. Disch-Bhadkamkar: I think the properties on Laguna are across the street from 897 Barron Avenue so in a way 897 Barron Avenue is in the Laguna Vista tract but it is also part of the Laguna sort of setting in terms of neighborhood context. So you sort of have to look across the street to sort of get some measurements. Commissioner Burt: So when I look at this map there are properties on Laguna Avenue that are for instance 3569 and 3559. They are four and five homes away but they are not included as adjacent nor are 878 and 896 and 898 Ilima Court. They are closer to the development than the ones that you have included. So how did you determine to exclude more adjacent properties and include less adjacent properties in the definition of adjacent? Ms. Disch-Bhadkamkar: I think we looked at the Laguna Vista tract and then the T-intersection and the properties across the street because visually if you were to walk there it would be an integrated picture. If you start looking at the Ilima Court tract from our standpoint it is very definitive subdivision that has a very different lot pattern. Similarly Carlitos Court is also has a very harmonious lot pattern. They are much smaller lots. Then you look further behind us La Jennifer Court again has a different lot pattern. So a lot of these courts were really subdivided to sort of fit the venue into the subdivision. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Forgive me, may I ask the representative back to the podium? I wanted to ask you the same question but inversely as the representative here. I think I need some clarification on the intent of the neighborhood. It certainly sounds like the neighborhood is less Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 concerned about having a 6,000 square foot house on the existing property than it is about having two additional smaller houses on the property. ~ma I understanding that correctly? Ms. Disch-Bhadkamkar: Correct. Commissioner Garber: Even in the circumstance, and I hear that loud and clear but let me just ask the follow up question. If the properties that are immediately adjacent as well as in say 600 feet or whatever are all approximately in the lot size of 8,000 or so square feet. That means all the houses that are there, the majority of them, are going to be around 3,000 feet or so. So a 6,000 square foot house is twice as large as the other houses. Ms. Disch-Bhadkamkar: We have one right next door. The lot next to us was not subdivided when it turned over. In fact the developer decided that the whole part was more than the sum of the parts and we have a very large house. We have differing opinions about the aesthetics but I think we are much more accepting of a very large property like that and retaining the large comer lot. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: I think what I am going to do now is open the public hearing for members of the public to speak to this item. Then we will return to the Commission for additional questions that they might have. We will begin with Joan Marx followed by D. Christian Kalar. Each of you will have five minutes and if you could state your name please. Ms. Joan Marx, Palo Alto: I live several blocks from the property in question. I find heterogeneous character of Barron Park with varied lot sizes and architectural styles one of its most appealing qualities. What I love most is the rural green nature of Barron Park, one of the neighborhoods of Palo Alto with the highest percentages of urban forest. This means necessarily that many properties are characterized by a high proportion of trees and greenery rather than building. I am particularly interested in this issues because not only do I bicycle by this lot almost everyday but I live next door myself to a large lot which was subdivided before the Comprehensive Plan was approved. If you will turn with me to Attachment E you can see my street, La Para. Can you find that? It is basically at right angles to Laguna. Again Barron Park has characteristic groupings of lot sizes. The north or left hand side of La Para characteristically has smaller lots than the right hand side, which has large lots. So there again you have groupings within the neighborhood. There is one exception I might note which is a black lot, which can be subdivided on the left side if you set a precedent tonight. My side is the right hand large lot side, which is much greener. If you see E1 Centro coming in and it bisects La Para from the left you go down the right you will see what looks like a panhandle lot and just above going towards E1 Camino there are two small lots. That is the lot that has been subdivided. I live just beyond that in the first of the large lots that then go down the rest ofLa Para towards La Donna. My neighbor applied to the City to subdivide her lot years ago for one reason, and she is very straightforward about it, she wants to provide for her retirement. She has not yet sold her property so at present it remains one large lot with huge trees. I must say I moved in there when Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 she had already divided the lot. It was done many years ago. 1 live in fear of the time she sells and someone takes down the trees to crowd a house onto the small lot that remains. This will change my property. Now that the Comprehensive Plan has been approved you, the Commissioners, are the one people charges with judging both aspects of Planning which are not measured in feet from a property line or zoning requirements. These are much more nuanced aspects which people are asking you to judge tonight, these of recognizing and preserving the unique aspects of a neighborhood grouping. I ask you to deny this request for a change to a property and ask you to preserve this large green lot, which is consummate with the surrounding properties. Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. D. Christian Kalar to be followed by Ken Auerbach. Mr. D. Christian Kalar, Palo Alto: I live on Laguna Avenue and have lived on the property for approximately 16 years. My property is across Laguna Avenue from 897 Barron Avenue. I am here to state that I feel the subdivision at 897 Barton Avenue violates California Government Code Section 66474 by violating Comprehensive Plan policy L-l, specifically I quote, "by increasing the number of housing units without negatively impacting the neighborhood." Since the StaffReport comes to a different conclusion I will point out the areas of the report that I think are in error. On page 3 of the Staff Report in the first paragraph of the section, "Existing Neighborhood Pattern," they state in the second to last sentence, "the fact the resulting lots would be wider than most of the other lots would make it very difficult for passersby to perceive that they are actually smaller in total square feet." Area, last time I checked, maximum house sizes are proportional to the lot sizes. So if people build homes in proportion to their lot size you will indeed be able to perceive the smaller lots. So just because the frontage area does not keep people from perceiving the difference in lot sizes. The next error is in the last sentence of that same paragraph. So the next sentence, "In fact beyond theLa Calle Court area many of the existing lots are smaller than as is what is proposed in this subdivision." So they state that there are lots that are much smaller but they fail to state that there are also lots that are much larger. As we have seen in a couple of presentations and particularly Attachment C here you see that the 600 foot radius actually went into the Roble Ridge area which touches three lots which I think are over one acre in size. How many places in Palo Alto do you have that situation where you have three one-plus acre lots that are being part of a 600 foot radius? So it is the failure to identify that significant point that there are smaller lots within 600 feet but also much, much larger lots. The next item is in the second paragraph of that same section and it is the last sentence of that next paragraph. I quote, "One of these three lots the property at 3707 La Calle Court is developed with a house built in 2003 and is unlikely to be demolished and subdivided in the near future." The timeframe of ’near future’ is being used. I lived on this property for 16 years. I have lived in Palo Alto for 35 of my 40 years. Near future, a few years, ten years I am hoping that I will have about 40 more in that place and so near future is not the right context to be using Page 15 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 with subdivisions because this stuff is permanent. One or two people will combine lots.but that is very unusual but this is a permanent thing. I 2 3 4 So if this lot is subdivided it will open the door to other lots to be subdivided. Then you think, 5 well there are only a couple, well then if there is a number of lots subdivided then people come 6 in and say I have a variance here, my lot doesn’t meet the width requirement but it does meet the 7 minimum size requirement and these other ones are small so this should be approved. That was 8 done on 792 Matadero recently I forget whether it was one or two years ago. The reason that it 9 was subdivided was because the other lots were smaller like that one. So that is why I am 10 looking beyond just the ones that can be legally subdivided but the other ones that you will start getting applications with variances. So with all this as the results this is what I feel results in a negative impact to the neighborhood as stated in the Policy L-1 that I started with. So I encourage you to review these errors. Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. Ken Auerbach to be followed Douglas Moran. If there are any other members of the public that wish to speak please get your card in. I am running out of cards. Mr. Ken Auerbach, Palo Alto: Hello, I have been living in BarronPark for the past 13 years since 1994. I am very troubled by the intention to subdivide the lot at 897 Barron Avenue. The issue at hand amounts in my opinion to the following dichotomy. Owners of the 897 lot want to subdivide their lot and build two houses. Well these lots will be the smallest in the immediate neighborhood. We already discussed that. On the other hand a great number of residents in the immediate neighborhood are extremely concerned because approval of such development would deal yet another blow to their lifestyle, to their feeling of living in a low density rural type of neighborhood with mature trees towering over their houses and birds chirping in the trees. You get the idea. These people didn’t settle in Barron Park by accident. It is those feelings and that lifestyle that brought them here and they don’t want to lose it. They expressed it already abundantly. I think that we do need to make sure that you consider that the immediate neighborhood resident’s interests versus the Barron Park at large. These are two different things and you can’t mix it. You can’t relate to people in the immediate neighborhood the same way that you relate to a large part of a city. So how can we reconcile these contradicting objectives? We the residents of Palo Alto and the taxpayers setup this community and hired qualified professionals like you and other folks in the City Administration to assure that the city is looked after and properly managed. The City Administration already developed a number of good policies your Comprehensive Plan in particular includes policies L-5, H-l, L-4, L-6, and L-70 which provide support for the desires of our neighborhood. We don’t need to reinvent anything new here. Sometimes the City’s zoning regulations contradict its own policies and zoning regulations should be trumped by the policy concerns. Exactly what the previous speaker said, the policy is looking forward and once the subdivision like this is done you can’t change it. The policy is setting the future and the future should provide for the neighborhood and for the residents of the city. So I urge you to disallow the subdivision of 897 Barron Avenue so that the character of the neighborhood and its lifestyle are preserved and they are preserved as required Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 by the city’s people and as stipulated in its policies. I think that is all I wanted to say. Do you have any questions for me? Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. Douglas Moran followed by Bob Moss. Mr. Dou¢las Moran, Palo Alto: I am here speaking for myself and I oppose the subdivision. I especially oppose the logic by which the Staff came to recommend it. They seem to put precedence of the Zoning Ordinance over the Comprehensive Plan and I think that that’s bad policy because you can’t incorporate a lot of the details of compatibility into the Zoning Ordinance. It produces meaningless distinctions and weird exclusions and unintended side affects. So I urge you to really pay attention to the Comprehensive Plan policies for preserving compatibility. I strongly object to the Staff’s use of Barron Park as the appropriate neighborhood. Barron Park developed over many, many years. My house was built in 1930, some of the tracts were built in the late 1940s and others in the 1950s. They are very distinctive ones as you saw on the map. The 600-foot circle covers multiple distinct tracts, one of the earliest Eichlers and several others. So please don’t use that otherwise you will gut Comp Policy L-4 of recognizing the various neighborhoods. If you say well, South Palo Alto is a neighborhood then an Eichler tract like Green Meadow no matter how massive it is you could say there is no distinctive style. Please look at individual tracts in terms of determining compatibility. I went to the Director’s Hearing to speak for the trees but what I heard there was the applicant’s talking in their presentation that raised concerns to me about their intentions which several of you asked about. I am very worded because their drawing shows their moved house taking out the massive cedar on the comer. Their discussion of the other house indicated that the other cedar would go as well. These are important trees for the landscape. I know it is very hard at lot division time to deal with this but I look and I see, and in listening to them and what they talk about in terms of their comparables I am really worried that they will not build something that is compatible with the other houses in the neighborhood. So I am asking you to please reject this. The importance of the Comp Plan directives as I said, you have L-4 if you allow large neighborhoods. So if you look and take as an example you have houses, they deal with frontage as being one of the things. If you look at a neighborhoods where there are large frontages and say 100 to 120 feet, are you going to allow the few houses that have the 120 foot frontage to be able to be subdivided and say to all the other neighbors well that is compatible. My house is a 56-foot frontage. The house that was referred to by Mr. Kalar was subdivided into two lots because it was previously two lots so it went back down from one to two but it had to have a variance because it was only 56 feet. Are you going to say because there are 56-foot wide lots in the neighborhood a 112-foot wide lot can be subdivided? You are getting into a morass of things, which is why I am urging you to stay with the Comprehensive Plan and use your own judgment in terms of what is compatible, and what is likely to eliminate compatibility or override this. It is a difficult problem for you in doing this. What I hear from neighbors is that when they subdivide this lot, especially having a comer lot be smaller it is likely to produce .something that is not compatible with the neighborhood. Thank you very much. Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. The last card I have here is from Bob Moss. IfI don’t have any other cards that will close the public hearing. Mr. Bob Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Commissioner Lippert and Commissioners. I was a little bit saddened when you heard responses from the Staff to some of your questions earlier which typified the map that City Manager Benest had Monday night about the loss of institutional memory as Staff people who have been here for years retire. So let me give you some history and some information. Commissioner Garber asked if it was common to reject projects such as a subdivision because they are out of context with the neighborhood. In Barron Park, yes absolutely. There was one on Ramada and there were at least two on Matadero, which were rejected some years ago because they were incompatible even though they met the legal standards for a subdivision. When we talk about compatibility in Barron Park you have to understand that this is an old neighborhood. My house was built in 1936. Our original property was a full acre. It was subdivided in the 1940s to two other lots and the properties along the street were built up one by one over a period of about 20 years. The history of Barron Park and Palo Alto is interesting. Barron Park was annexed in 1975 at the same time that the City Council and the Planning Commission were in the process of creating the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Land Use Map. After Barron Park was annexed the question came up as to what the zoning should be, of course the zoning map was open for the entire city. It was suggested that the area basically between Matadero and Barron and between essentially Josina and Laguna down as far as Ilima Way be zoned 8,000 square foot lots. Because some of the lots in that area were less than 8,000 square feet it was decided not to do that rather than have a few lots, which were exceptions. So a 6,000 square foot generic zone was applied even though a number of people in Barron Park wanted the larger zones. By the way, the Staff said Barron Park doesn’t have larger zones. A significant portion including my property is zoned 10,000 square feet. There are large properties in Barron Park. Ilima Court and McGregor are anomalies. They were developed by a subdivider when this was in the county. The lots are smaller than most of Barron Park and amazingly they have sidewalks unlike most of Barron Park. So saying that this property 897 Barron is comparable to those is inaccurate. Another thing you should bear in mind is when the properties rezoned, the R-1 6,000 zone, even though most of the properties in Barron Park were 8,000 to 10,000 square feet it was in the late 1970 when we had a recession. There was very little interest in subdividing large lots and building two or more units on those lots. There was very little interest in building two story houses. The two story developments in Barron Park and the rest of the city burgeoned in the 1990s during the dot.com boom. You might be interested to know the Barron Park Association sends out a newsletter four times a year and they put out a questionnaire. About ten years ago one of the questions in the fall newsletter was how do you people feel about all of the big, ugly, two story houses that are being built? The response was amazing. About 60 percent of the people responded within about ten days and they were overwhelmingly opposed to all the big two story houses. We went to City Hall and we tried to get the City to put limits on that and we failed. Because of that we have had a number of large, ugly, McDonald’s type houses, I call Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 them elephant turds but I have been told that that’s not politically correct, built all over the city and basically lost the fight to have compatible housing. So when people say to you two story houses are not an issue, they are an issue, people just feel that they can’t win because we have been trying for 15 years and we haven’t been successful. So the issue of compatibility is valid. The question of whether or not it should be allowed is perfectly correct. In the past it has been rejected as being incompatible, there is no reason why you can’t do the same thing tonight. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you, Mr. Moss. With that if we don’t have any other cards that will close the public hearing. We will return to the Commission for any additional questions they might have of Staff at this point. Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: Tree question, If the current owners wanted to just take down those two large cedar trees that are on their property today what would they need to do in order to do that? Mr. Reich: Hire someone to cut them down. Commissioner Tuma: So there wouldn’t be any approval process required from the City, is that correct? Mr. Reich: Absolutely none. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Is it permissible for the Commission to condition the subdivision on some plan to preserve at least that significant cedar on the comer. Mr. Larkin: It is problematic because it isnot a protected tree and you would have to show a nexus between this subdivision and preservation of the tree. Considering that the applicants could tear it down today if they wanted to it makes that problematic. Commissioner Burt: The Comprehensive Plan policies talk about the tree preservation even outside the context of what we have defined as heritage trees, do they have any bearing on our latitude? Mr. Larkin: Those policies are typically implemented in our code and we implement those Comprehensive Plan policies in our code and so I don’t think contrary to what has been spoken about I don’t think in that case I don’t think those policies would trump what is written in our ordinances. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Tuma has a follow up if you would allow him. Commissioner Tuma: Would it be possible in this process for the current owners to request that those trees be protected? In other words, if the current owners agreed to it could you put a restriction on those trees not being able to be brought down by them or others in the future? I am not suggesting that they would but is that a possibility legally? Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Larkin: I am going to let Dave Dockter address the question specifically but if the applicant is willing to agree to do something with those trees then I don’t see why we wouldn’t be able to accept that agreement. Commissioner Tuma: I want to be clear. I am not asking the applicant to agree to that tonight. I don’t want to put them on the spot I don’t think that is appropriate. I am just asking is this a possible sort of point of negotiation going forward. Mr. Williams: Dave Dockter our Planning Arborist has indicated that that could be requested and the Council would have to approve it but they could make that request and with Council approval be designated as protected trees. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Shy of having both of them designated as protected trees if the applicant were willing to accept preservation of the trees as a condition of approval is that permissible? Mr. Larkin: The other way that you could tie it in because in order to preserve the trees the applicant would be requesting an encroachment into setbacks and there clearly be a nexus there. So as a requirement of the encroachment then we could make that a condition that they preserve those trees. That would be a way to create the nexus and tie it in. Commissioner Burt: That goes to my earlier question of the applicant that I would now like to direct towards Staff. There is one option to have an encroachment on the rear yard setback. What about the option of encroachment on the side yard setback adjacent to the other property that at least initially they would own and if it were ever sold it would go to someone who is buying into that encroachment? Mr. Reich: They could look at that. They have a lot less room to play with on that side with only being a six foot setback so we typically don’t want properties to get too close to one another so there is limitation there. The house would have to move over more than probably six feet so that by itself wouldn’t necessarily be an option the trunk of the tree is pretty big. Commissioner Burt: Could you explain why the house would have to move over more than six feet? Mr. Reich: Well, they are talking about relocating the existing house to that site. So if you look at the plan you can see that the comer of the house actually goes beyond the trunk of that tree. So in order to achieve their goal of relocating that house they would have to shift that house over a number of feet to clear the trunk of the tree. Commissioner Burt: My understanding from reading the Arborist’s report is that it would reduce the envelope of the house in the vicinity of the tree by approximately 200 square feet. Mr. Reich: That was just looking at basically that ten to 15 foot area that would have to be clear of the trunk and what kind of square footage is eliminated by not being able to build in that area. Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Understood. So if that were what was necessary to be accommodated elsewhere on the property if it was felt that there was an obligation to allow the owner to not have any constraint on their allowable FAR then if you have a house that is 60 feet long or more, it looks like 60 or 65 feet long, and you are looking at accommodating 200 square feet of envelop then you would be allowing if it were all accommodated at that location it would be a three foot encroachment not a six foot encroachment, fight? Mr. Reich: I think the scenario that you are looking at is looking at a new house or a significantly revised house other than the scenario of actually relocating the existing house and trying to accommodate that floor plan and that layout. Commissioner Burt: That is the way I understood it. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Burt, Commissioner Garber has a follow up. Commissioner Garber: I just need some clarification here. What we are being asked to consider this evening is a Parcel Map though and does not have to do with - I mean nothing has been submitted in terms of an application to build new, relocate, or trees, etc. Mr. Reich: That is correct. The approval of the Parcel Map could result in them relocating the existing house or building a brand new house, it is wide open to whatever would be allowed under the zoning. Commissioner Garber: Okay, and even though I recognize it is not part of the conversation fight now, just to follow the thread that Commissioner Burt has laid down, if you were to encumber the property to create an exception for these trees in one method or another if the tree blows over next week then that encumbrance still is there even though there is no tree there. Is that correct? Mr. Reich: I don’t see how an encumbrance would exist if there is no tree. It is relative to the tree and if the tree exists .... Commissioner Garber: I see. It would be dependent on the life of the tree as opposed to being carried with the property. Mr. Reich: I would defer to the attorney but I would imagine so. Mr. Williams: I don’t think we are talking here about actually granting any kind of setback exception or anything at this point in time. I think what we are talking about is is there a potential for protecting the tree as part of the map or for some way configuring the situation so it is less likely that the tree would be impacted during whatever is constructed. Your point is very well taken as far as they have indicated an intent to move the existing house but we don’t what is going to happen there and for sure there are no assurances that a month after the final map they aren’t going to sell it to somebody and somebody else does something different. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a follow up on that. Looking at the proposed map here Laguna Avenue right now would be considered the front property line because that is the narrowest side of the property. So there would be a 20-foot normal front yard setback there and that would be reduced down to our coruer side yard setback. If I understand it correctly on Barron for the property it would go from a 16-foot street side yard setback to actually becoming two 20-foot deep front yard setbacks, correct? Mr. Reich: Yes, the front yards would both be facing Barron. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then on the rear of the properties those would go from being side yards so basically we are taking the side yards and the front yards and we are swapping them all around, correct? Mr. Reich: Yes. Vice-Chair Lippert: Do Commissioners have any other questions here? Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I had a question of one of the speakers, Doug Moran. Doug, we in recent years have had a few things that have come before us regarding preservation of the character of Barron Park and one in particular was on Matadero and the Commission with my strong support opposed a subdivision that was in five parcels there and the context was really having to do with a number of neighborhood character related issues. At that time that was a pretty compelling case in my mind. In this circumstance my question to you is I have a real struggle understanding why neighbors would prefer one monolithic 5,600 square foot home that could remove the valued trees versus two smaller homes each on 8,000 square foot lots which are not small lots. I just don’t get it so can you explain to me? What I fear is that people are making comparisons to what exists now as opposed to what is allowable to be built. If the comparison was being made to what the owner’s of the property could build on a single lot of a big 5,600 square foot home and remove the trees it would be a different point of reference from looking at what is there now and saying this what we want to preserve but they don’t have that right. So I want to hear your perspective. You have often given thoughtful insights on that sort of thing. Mr. Moran: You have a number of interesting questions. I can’t speak well for the immediate neighbors on the issue of large size lots because until I was working on the toxics problem from CPI, which I would like to thank you all for, a lot of the neighbors have done a lot of the consideration of the options for themselves and with other members of the Barron Park Association Board. The issue that they could cut down the trees is yes they can. I think a large part of the feeling is that by dividing the lot and pivoting the other house they create large incentives for cutting down those trees. Whereas with the current situation the guess is that there is probably less incentive to cut down the trees. Those trees are valuable to the property. So you have people who are just trying to intuit what might happen with many possible paths as to where the incentives lie with Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the neighbors and worrying about those things. I would encourage you to ask some of that to one of the other neighbors who has been heavily involved in that, possibly a volunteer. Did I miss anything there? It is preserving trees, and yes, they are not protected trees, which is very unfortunate. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. I think you have covered it. With the Chair’s permission one of the other neighbors was indicating that he would like the opportunity to respond to my question, is that acceptable? Vice-Chair Lippert: Was that Mr. Auerbach? Commissioner Burt: Yes, if I recall his name. Mr. Kalar: As to why would we prefer a 5,600 square foot house instead of the subdivision as a feeling because this has happened, there have been big houses put on big lots. The feeling that we get from that is that it is a better feeling, that there is more space, and it is not as much house crammed onto a small lot. So it is that openness feeling and it is hard to describe. Just down the street there had been large houses. As I said it is a big lot, put a big house on it and it would be appropriate. So it is the appropriateness. Commissioner Burt: I would just say that most of the time over the years when we have had these kinds of circumstances come to the Commission in various neighborhoods the opposition has been to large monolithic houses of the 6,000 square foot scale. That is the most vehement opposition and what I just fear is that the neighbors are comparing the wrong thing. They are comparing what is there now not what might be there. That is subjective and I don’t know that we can settle that. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you, Mr. Kalar. Commissioner Garber has a follow up on that. Commissioner Garber: Actually, for the historical perspective can I ask Mr. Moss to talk to this issue as well? If I understand your previous conversation you were talking about 15 or 16 years ago there was a concerted effort to try and keep these larger houses from occurring. Mr. Moss: As I recall the survey was sent out in 1997 or 1998 about that time period. We were surveying the neighborhood regularly, once a year on a variety of issues. The issue in this particular newsletter among other things was how do you feel about the large houses that are being built? There were a number of them that had come in just during that year. The response from the neighbors was quite strong and quite negative and then nothing happened. After three or four years we basically queried them again and they basically said we gave up. Commissioner Garber: But how do your reconcile the feeling here this evening then on this topic? Mr. Moss: Frankly, I am a little surprised because on our block we have had people who wanted to build their houses higher and larger and what they done is what was recommended. They have come to the neighbors and said these are the plans, what do you think? We looked at them Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 and made suggestions and they adopted them. The result has been that the majority of the new and expanded houses at least on our street fit. There are some that they built big and they just said we are not going to talk to you but most of the comments I have heard, most of the complaints I have heard have been about big houses. The ones that get people’s attention, the ones that really upset people are the ones where they seem to fill the entire lot. Where they are as wide and as close to the street and as tall as they can be. In Barron Park there are lots that are quite deep and could accommodate homes set well back from the street where they wouldn’t look so imposing. In some cases that is what has been built. In other cases they have ignored context and they built them very close to the street and I don’t think they have been very successful. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: I am as a Commissioner who is supposed to be thinking and making decisions objectively I am having real difficulty thinking about how everybody feels about things because that is so subjective. As I understand my job as a Commissioner it is not to make arbitrary decisions based on what something might feel like or that someone might build a two story house or that something might happen. I understand Doug that you are talking about how people are trying to intuit what might happen. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Sandas, is there a question there? Commissioner Sandas: There will be a question so just excuse me for a second. I am struggling with this whole topic this evening and if you will just forgive me for just a moment just to stand on my platform. I am a little bit at a loss. Having said that and gotten off track I am going to go back to a different question because I have lost my train of thought. I am sorry. One of the speakers spoke to a violation of the California Rule Number 66474 and violation of our Comp Plan number L-1. Can anybody speak to that, please? Mr. Larkin: I don’t have the statute in front of me but that is the Subdivision Map Act and that has a finding that you can only deny a subdivision map if you find that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. Typically we implement our Comprehensive Plan through the Zoning Ordinance so you could make a finding that our Zoning Ordinance that we just updated is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. That is what you would be doing if you agreed with that statement that was a violation of that section of the Subdivision Map Act. Commissioner Sandas: Just one more question. So similar to item 2/1 on the agenda, the first item that we discussed, our job here tonight is to? Please explain. Mr. Larkin: It is not entirely similar because here we don’t have any approvals that are pending that are tied to this map but it is the same in that you need to make findings. If you make those findings then your job is to approve this map. If you can’t make one of those findings then your job is to deny the map. It is a balls and strikes question. This isn’t to discount any of the Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 opinions and feelings that have been stated but it is a balls and strikes question. Either it meets the standards and you have to approve it or it doesn’t meet the standards and you have to deny it. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Keller has a follow up question. Commissioner Keller: Yes, just for the record I think it would be helpful if you would state what Comprehensive Plan policies L-1 and L-4 are because they were mentioned by the public. I don’t memorize policies by number so I think it would be helpful just to state what they are. Thank you. Mr. Reich: They are listed in Section 3 of the Record of Land Use Action but I can go ahead and read them out loud for you if you like. Policy L-1 is to continue current City policy limiting further urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary, retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space with allowances made for very low intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area, retain undeveloped Baylands northeast of Highway 101 as open space. That is Policy L-1. Policy L-4 is to maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities, use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: If Commissioners don’t have any further questions what I would like to do is have both the appellant and the’ applicant/property owner make closing remarks and then bring it back to the Commission for discussion. If the appellant would please come forward you have five minutes to wrap things up. Ms. Disch-Bhadkamkar: We are drifting. The main point is there is legal precedent for the City Planning Staff and the City Council in one instance in our own neighborhood denying us the opportunity to locate our garage in the front of the property. We have before you email that says in that case they looked at only nine properties on one half of La Calle Court and they invoked neighborhood context. You have that email in front of you it is in the record. Secondly, there is precedent in 1998 for the neighborhoods in being granted by the City Council a single story overlay and being designated as a neighborhood. So I think we need to sort of return to that. Then finally, if you are going to talk about the 600 square foot radius you are excluding the Roble Ridge properties and I think that is actually a bias in terms of looking at this. This is not about how we feel this is about how the neighborhood looks, it is supposed to look, was meant to look, and should continue to look. So you did hear a lot of feelings from the Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 community and we certainly have feelings but there are also legal precedents on our side for invoking prior City actions that reinforce the fact .that they can take small clusters of properties and designate them as a neighborhood and we would like to make sure the Commissioners remember that. If you grant the subdivision today there is absolutely nothing contractual in so far as what can be done to these properties. While we do not like monster 6,000 square foot houses it seems that since the City Staff was particularly difficult in terms of invoking the neighborhood context in regards to the placement of a garage we think that even though the maximum construction that could go on this lot could be 6,000 square feet we trust that the Planning Staff will do a very good job at invoking neighborhood context and preserving the look and feel. That has been our experience when we have tried to do small additions to our properties. So the action item really is the inconsistent definitions of what constitutes a neighborhood and the history on that. Vice-Chair Lippert: Mr. or Mrs. Nguyen would you please sum up? Mr. Nguyen: First I would like to thank the Commission for pointing out some of the things about the subjective or not and the feeling. I think it is hard for me comprehend whether I can satisfy all of my neighbors, make them all happy at the same time no matter whatI do not because I don’t want to try but I think for example the three issues we will try to do our best to preserve especially the coruer tree as the City Arborist was recommending. At the same time I think I mentioned that the safety of my family is paramount. So I will reserve that right to remove the trees if I find that the safety is a problem because I think that is more important. So to close, again I think based on all the recommendations from the Staff Report and the facts that we showed today we will continue to respectfully request you to uphold the approval decision based on fact and also from the compliance that we havewith all the minimum requirements. For the neighbors, I think I understand the uncertainty that you have because of the new change also about the new house which we have no information at this time but we will be happy to share with you as soon as we have something that we can make available. I think last but not least we want you to understand that we love the neighborhood. Vice,Chair Lippert: Please address your Comments to the Chair. Mr. Nguyen: I am sorry. Last but not least we want you to understand that we love the neighborhood and after our parents live there so will our children in the future. Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you. With my colleagues indulgence what I would like to do is simply go down the bench and each of us give our thoughts or feelings about this and then perhaps a motion will come out of that afterwards. So Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I have a question first. This came to mind as a result of some of the discussion that was happening here. I am familiar with the process for the single story overlay and that is obviously what happened in the La Jennifer Street area. If the community wanted to Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 try to have a group of houses rezoned to let’s say R-1 ten acres or 10,000 square feet or something like that how would they go about doing that? Mr. Reich: They would just band together and submit and application for a zone change. Mr. Williams: That would go through you, the Commission would have a public hearing on that, make a recommendation to the City Council who would ultimately make a determination of yes or no. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. That hasn’t happened in this case? Okay. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: One of the tenets that guides the way I look at these things is that the Zoning Ordinance and the regulations that we have here that guide what decisions we make. There is a process of a Comprehensive Plan and then that drives the Zoning Ordinance Updates and Zoning Ordinances that we enact and then that drives the decisions that we make. All too often what happens is we are faced with a decision that we have to make which some people aren’t happy with but in some sense it may be the wrong time to have that happen. The reason is as was brought up by my fellow Commissioner Tuma is the issue that if this property and the region near it, whatever that neighborhood is called, were zoned for R-1 with 10,000 square foot lots or 8,000 square foot lots there are a bunch of zoning regulations in the city for how large the lots can be. So it seems to me that I and I assume the rest of the Commission is bound by the regulations that we have and that these regulations in some sense provide fair notice to the property owners as to what they are allowed to do with their properties. So it seems to me that there are a couple of things that are occurring to me from hearing all this process. One is that I am hard pressed to deny the application because it satisfies the rules in place as far as I understand and my understanding with respect to the Comp Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as mentioned by our City Attorney is that the Zoning Ordinance has been recently updated and incorporates the effective policies of the Comprehensive Plan and as a result of that we sort of are stuck, at least I am stuck thinking about the basis of denying the application. I think that I personally would think that it is worthwhile for people in Barron Park in the affected area to think about applying for rezoning to R-1 8,000 or R-1 10,000 for a coherent set of parcels that would maintain the neighborhood character as they see it. The second point that I would like to make is that it seems that what has come up is that our Tree Protection Ordinance is inadequate. In particular our Tree Protection Ordinance is tied to particular species while some other jurisdiction have tree protection ordinances that are not tied to particular species but tied to the particular sizes of trees with some differentiation that are based on species but not limited to those species and therefore it seems to me that it is worthwhile to make some sort of recommendation to reevaluate the Tree Protection Ordinance to try to protect trees that are valuable specimens and contributors to the character of our neighborhoods but that just don’t happen to be oaks and redwoods. Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Finally, I think that the issue is that the neighborhood context. The zoning ordinances as far as I understand define neighborhood context in certain different ways. The phrase ’neighborhood context’ for garages was specifically called out as far as I understand in the Zoning Ordinance that refers to the location of garages as contextual based on what that means in that neighborhood, in a small grouping of houses there on that block. Similar things are done for the setbacks, There are rules regarding setbacks that are also talking about neighborhood context. I specifically don’t adopt the principle that Barron Park for the purposes of what we are doing here is a single monolithic neighborhood. In the case in point of my own neighborhood, Adobe Meadow consists of from my point of view a neighborhood from the point of view that it has a single neighborhood association but it actually has distinct components to it. My neighborhood where I live the little portion of it is a few blocks of Broad and Kaufman homes. There are other homes that are not too far away that that is newer development that was done in the mid 1980s when Ortega School was closed. There were other parts that are west of Ross Road in my neighborhood where there are larger lots a lot of which were turned into flag lots. So I just identified three at least distinctive characters of the neighborhood that should be considered in terms of what a neighborhood is. I am sympathetic with the idea that the character of the neighborhood for the purposes of this is the lots that are on Barron near La Calle Court and Laguna Oaks Place that seems to be a reasonable character of the neighborhood but the issue is that character of the neighborhood is not one of the conditions that we consider as far as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the subdivision as far as I understand. If people think otherwise I would like to know about it. So I think that with respect to the issue of figuring out when a house is built there does it fit in the character of the neighborhood that is where the context of the neighborhood makes sense. But with respect to a subdivision on the current zoning I have trouble doing anything but approving this. If the neighborhood wished to apply rezoning to R-1 8,000 or R-1 10,000 1 think that if it had been done before would change our situation. Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I too am having a little bit of trouble struggling with how not to deny the appeal in this case for a number of reasons. I think one person’s 5,000 square foot monolithic home is another person’s paradise. I think while the group that is here that is vocal appears to be supportive of that as a possibility and I have heard on occasions as well, and Commissioner Burt has been here a lot longer than I have, I think a lot of people oppose those. So it is subjective and it is difficult. What one person likes the other person doesn’t. I really don’t think that that’s how we can look at this. I walked through this neighborhood. I live in Barron Park not right around the corner but I do live within Barron Park. Barron Park is in my view a collection of different areas that feel differently. My street feels differently than these streets and feels differently than where Mr. Moran lives and others. I do think that we are somewhat constrained in this situation. I think that there are vehicles, avenues available that is why I raised the point about possibly doing something to preserve the immediate neighborhood more than it is if that is what the collective will of that group is, however, when someone moves into a neighborhood and they buy a piece of property and it is zoned a certain way they have certain expectations. I think it just makes it very difficult for me to do anything other than deny the appeal. Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I align myself with the comments of Commissioners Tuma and Keller. will emphasize the final point of Commissioner Keller which is that the topic tonight is the approval of the Parcel Map which does not get into a number of the issues that there are other mechanisms that are better and more ably employed to preserve the character of the neighborhood. I will also add to those comments that relative to the seven standards of review that have been posted that we are to attend to there are no findings that I can make that support the denial of the application. That is all I have to say for the moment. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. I am in complete agreement with my fellow Commissioners who have spoken so far tonight. As I was trying to articulate earlier this evening our job as Commissioners is to explore the data and to make findings based on the ordinances and the roles that we have at hand. While I am very, very sympathetic, I live in College Terrace with the subdividing of properties there are many properties on my street that have been subdivided from larger lots to intsy-bintsy lots that are even smaller than some of what we are discussing tonight. The mechanism, the process by which we have to operate is very clear and I cannot make any findings either would cause me to recommend denying the application. I would uphold the approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map. Having said that I also agree wholeheartedly with Commissioner Keller’s recommendation of going through the process to ensure that the character of the neighborhood and, once again to use the word ’feel,’ the feel of the neighborhood is maintained through roles that we can abide by. The Council will direct us and the Planning Staff to make changes to zoning. Unfortunately we cannot do that from where we sit this evening. So that is all I have to say. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I concur with my fellow Commissioners on the subdivision issue. I would like at the same time to return to Staff for recommendations on language if the Commission as a whole were supportive of language that would tie the subdivision to the retention of the high value cedar on the comer I would like to know what would be Staff’s recommendation on the most appropriate language to do so. If you need a moment to consider that I am fine with returning to that in a moment. One other clarification maybe that Staff could provide is the appellant I think three times talked about a denial they had had on a front yard garage as an inconsistency in application of definition of neighborhood. My recollection is that the front garage setback was when we held those discussions of implementing that it was in a defined context where we talked about a block face and things like that. Could Staff clarify that? Mr. Reich: Yes, what they are referring to is the specific language within the R-1 code that dictates contextual garage placement and contextual front yard setback. I would have to read the Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 actual language again but I don’t think it defines a neighborhood it just defines the context of that particular house that is being proposed. It looks to five houses this way and five houses that way generally to see what is appropriate for that specific context but it doesn’t define the neighborhood. Commissioner Burt: Yes and my recollection when we had extensive debates as a Commission on that was that we talked about the breadth of zone and it was not an entire neighborhood at all. So I do not believe that this claim that Staff has inconsistently applied that I think is just a misunderstanding of what the front yard context, the entire discussion and adoption of that guideline was pretty clearly discussed and it is not the same thing as a broader neighborhood. Mr. Reich: I think the confusion comes in where in the guidelines it talks about designing homes to be compatible with the neighborhood context. So it is not necessarily defining the neighborhood but it talks about the neighborhood so I think there is a disconnect there. Commissioner Burt: Also, just for the benefit of the public, I would like to comment that one of the things that has occurred since the mid and late 1990s when we were getting a lot of homes that were not only large which we did not change the allowable floor area ratios but ones that were disrespectful in ways, I shouldn’t say disrespectful, they were not sensitive to the context of surrounding homes was the reason why we adopted the Individual Review Guidelines which was a very significant development. We recognized that at the time that it wasn’t going to make every neighbor completely happy with every house that was built near then or next to them but it was a major step in the right direction of balancing the individual property rights with those of neighbors and trying to have a greater context. So examples that Mr. Moss gave were valid at the time. Today we have some degree of protections against those. Everyone recognizes that it doesn’t provide a perfect protection it is an attempt at balancing those different rights. So I just want to make sure people understand those different things. If these lots are subdivided and we get individual homes that are proposed and they are two story structures they would fall under the Individual Review Guidelines, is that correct? Mr. Reich: Yes, that is correct. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Curtis, did you have some recommended language or suggested or an alternative? Mr. Williams: Yes. I think our sense is that there probably isn’t a way to tie a requirement to the findings that we see here but that we think that you could direct us to work with the applicants between now and going to the Council on this map and see if we can come up with a solution that they are comfortable committing to that would help assure preservation of at least that tree at the comer. I think I mentioned that to the applicant and they are fine with that. As they mentioned they had just seen the Arborist recommendations just a few days ago so they would like some time to digest those and see what their options are. Commissioner Burt: Okay, that is the cedar. Is that a [Dedar]? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. Page 30 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 Vice-Chair Lippert: Well, I feel very much the same way as my colleagues here. The first 2 neighborhood I lived in when I moved to Palo Alto 23 years ago was Barron Park and I lived in 3 there for a considerable period of time before moving to Downtown North. Barron Park is a very 4 unique neighborhood in fact it is one of the things that attracted me to moving to Palo Alto and 5 the Bay Area. Even back then I think the donkey was Mickey and I would go and feed Mickey. I think I spent Christmas feeding the two donkeys. So Barron Park is a very unique neighborhood and it has a certain quality and character and rural feel that needs to be preserved. But what is on our table here today is really this parcel map and subdivision. Looking at what the rules and regulations are in Palo Alto there really is no way that I could justify denying the application. In fact in this case I believe that the Director has reached the correct conclusions because the roles here apply not just to Barron Park but to all of Palo Alto. Once we begin to get into this specific parcel and not being able to follow the general Comprehensive Plan and the rules that we have written for Palo Alto in general we are beginning to be very arbitrary and capricious about how we apply those roles. We have given great consideration to the Zoning Ordinance Update. We are about to into again updating the general Comprehensive Plan. I feel very much the same way as my colleagues. Believe it or not I think the best chance on preserving these trees, these trees could be chopped down tomorrow, but the change on preserving the trees would be the subdivision because what it creates is it changes the whole context of the site by turning it and places the front setbacks where the street side yard setbacks are and again it takes what was the front setback and moves that around and makes that a street side yard setback. So I think that the best chance for preserving the trees are in fact reorienting the sites when they get subdivided. My colleague, Commissioner Garber, had a follow up comment. Commissioner Garber: It was just in regard to the trees in that the only concern was the one that I had mentioned before that what it tied to the trees not be tied to the site so that it is tied to the life of the tree and not encumber the site when those trees are not there. Mr. Williams: We will take that into account. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Commissioner Keller has a motion. MOTION Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you. My motion has several parts I guess mine often do. The first part of the motion is to follow the Staff recommendation to deny the appeal and to uphold the original approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map to subdivide the single parcel at 897 Barron Avenue into two separate parcels based on the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action. The proviso is that, this is the other parts to the motion. Second that Staff work with the applicant towards preservation of the high value cedar on the comer. Third, that Staff initiate a process to work with the owners of large, 8,000 square foot or 10,000 square foot or larger, lots Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 in the vicinity of this to determine interest in rezoning those regions to R-1 8,000 or R-1 10,000 respectively and see what the interest is in doing that. Fourth is to encourage the scheduling of an evaluation of the Tree Protection Ordinance so as to protect trees other than the currently specified protected species and to protect other species that are of high values or in general protect trees that are of high value. Vice-Chair Lippert: Do I have a second? I don’t have a second here. Okay, do I have another motion? Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Deputy City Attorney: Your motion could just be the first part of that and the final three could be recommendations to Staff instead. Vice-Chair Lippert: I don’t have a second on that. Commissioner Burt: IfI might make a comment and then maybe Commissioner Keller would be willing to modify his motion. Commissioner Keller: Sure. Commissioner Burt: I think that, I am trying to remember the final part, the portion that I thought was probably not appropriate to include in tonight’s motion is direction to Staff or a request to Staffto pursue with the neighborhood the rezoning of 10,000 square foot parcels and things. Item three out his proposal. The neighborhood could still get together and I think there would need to be extensive exploration within the neighborhood on those kinds of things. One of the things that we have been struggling with in the Zoning Ordinance Update is that we have had to completelY push out all of the rezoning of boundaries and a whole bunch of other Zoning Ordinance Update aspects. This would potentially put this particular aspect to the front of the line without it having gone through any consensus building in the neighborhood necessarily and it creates Staff work. Either way I think it belongs to be separated from tonight’s issues. If the neighborhood wants to take such initiatives then they have that prerogative to do so. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Then if I may amend my motion to remove item three, which is the initiation of R-1 to 8,000 or 10,000 after all, the community is welcome to do that if they feel that that’s appropriate. Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I would like to make the further recommendation that we also take out item number four about the trees and do that as a separate topic. I think that is a larger topic than simply - and if it is to become a topic shouldn’t be tied to specifically this parcel map. Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Vice-Chair Lippert: This is getting a little messy. I would like to have a clear motion here rather than taldng Commissioner Keller’s motion and beginning to rip it apart. It has not been seconded. Commissioner Tuma. MOTION Commissioner Tuma: I will give it a go. I move that the Planning and Transportation Commission adopt the recommendation of the Staff to deny the appeal and uphold the original approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map to subdivide the single parcel at 897 Barron Avenue into two separate parcels based upon the findings and conditions contained with the Record of Land Use Action and furthermore direct Staff to work with the applicants on a plan to preserve particularly the large tree at the comer of Laguna and Barron. SECOND Commissioner Keller: Second. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, we have a first and a second. Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I think I have said enough. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I think there is enough on the record. Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you. Any discussion? Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Just one minor clarification. Is it the intention of the motion that Staff would work with the applicant between now and the time this goes to Council? Commissioner Tuma: Yes. Thanks for that clarification that is the intent. MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Holman absent) Vice-Chair Lippert: Any other discussion here? Okay, then we will vote on it. All those in support of the motion please say aye. (ayes) Opposed? None opposed. So we have six ayes, zero nays, and one absent which is Chair Holman. Page 33 CITY OF.PALO ALTO Office of the City Clerk APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT* Attachment E ~.._ER~ S OFFICE 07 JAN -3 !0:36 For appeals of.final decisions on Archilectural Review Board and Home Improvement Exception applicalions (rendered after public hearing), Ibis appeal form shall be completed and submitted by appellant within fourteen days from date of the Director’s decision, Appeals of final decisions on Individual Review applications (rendered after public hearing) must be submitted wilhin ten days of the Direclor’s decision, Complete form, lhe current fee and a letter stating reasons for the appeal shal! be submitted to front desk staff of lhe Planning Division, 5t~ floor, City Hall, 250 Hamillon Avenue, except for 980 Fridays when City Halt is closed, when these items shall be submitted to Planning staff at the Development Center, 265 Hamilton Avenue (glass storefront across from City Hall on the corner of Bryant and Hamilton). \ * Director of Planning includes his designees, which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning Official. Street City ZIP LOCATION OF PR,.O, PERTY SUBjeCT TO APPEAL: Street Address ~7 ~) C~" t"q~ f) Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) ~ (7,L ~ ~ L,, ~. q Property Owner’s Address ~ °1-7 ~;~c4,~~,~ ,Zk~c.,q~;,~ (’~ I~ /-~ 1-~o~ L~. Street City ZIP The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated ~) (~(L O] ~ ~ ,..5~oo ~,, 20 whereby lhe application O~’LJ’~ -0~ ~,i~O by (file number) was O’: ~°~ (o ~-~e- ~ (approved/denied) Date: \ / ~ I ;;20~7 Signature of Appellant (original project applicant) , is hereby appealed for lhe reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF): Date Approved Denied __ Remarks and/or Conditions: CITY COUNCIL DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF): Date Approved Remarks and/or Conditions: Denied SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 1.Letter stating reasons for appeal 2.Fee (currently $~ ~’1"~oO Received by: Received by: To~ From: Re: Date: Ross Reich Edward H. De Moor Letter stating reasons for appeal -- application 07APL-0001 January 3r~l 2007 A majority of the neighbors wish to appeal the proposed division of the property located on 897 Barron Avenue, as they are concerned that it constitutes a significant change in the character of the neighborhood. Page 1 of I Reich, Russ From:odiledb@aol.com Sent:Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:51 AM To:Reich. Russ Subject:897 Barron Avenue appeal--application 07APL-0001 Mr. Reich, I would like to confirm that you have received the attached information and receive confirmation on the hearing date. Thank you in advance, Odile Disch-Bhadkamkar ..... Original Message ..... From: odiledb@aol.com To: russ. reich @cityofpaloalto.org Sent: Mon, 8 .]an 2007 10:34 AM Mr. Reich I am following up on behalf of Edward De Moor, to provide you with additional information for the request for a hearing before the planning commission. The application number is 07APL-0001. I would be grateful if you can acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm the hearing date, time and location so we can communicate it to the participants. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Regards, Odile Disch-Bhadkamkar 3717 La Calle Court Palo Alto, Ca. 94306 Residents from properties surrounding 897 Barron Avenue are concerned that the proposed subdivision will significantly change the character of the neighborhood which is renowned for its open spaces, tree lined streets, large lots and lack of sidewalks, which provide residents with a rural setting. We have reviewed the letter dated December 21, 2006 from the Planning Department addressed to Alan Huntzinger and disagree with the primary findings that the Department invokes to justify its decision. We understand that the proposed subdivision has been under discussion since September 2006. Neighbors were notified of this action in early December and given a short window of time during the holidays to comment on the proposal. Some neighbors had an opportunity to voice their concerns at a meeting with the planning department staff on December 7, 2006. We respectfully request an opportunity to review this decision and present our concerns to the Planning Commission. Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. 1/1 012007 Re: Date: Russ Reich, Project Planner Amy French, Manager of Current Planning Proposed Subdivision at 897 Barron Avenue January 15, 2007 Residents from the Laguna Vista and the Laguna Manor tracts wish to appeal the proposed subdivision of the property located on 897 Barron Avenue. More specifically, we do not agree with the Planning Department’s statements in the letter dated December 21, 2006 and addressed to Mr. Alan Huntzinger that: "The neighborhood does not have a regular or consistent lot pattern" and "The two new lots will be somewhat smaller than other lots in the immediate area, but will be larger than the zoning standards require." The Barron Park neighborhood is known for its open spaces, tree lined streets, large lots and lack of sidewalks which provide the residents a rural setting. The proposed subdivision will add two lots that will be significantly smaller than the adjacent lots and increase density which changes the existing scale and character of the neighborhood. Properties in the Laguna Vista and Laguna Manor tracts are highly desirable because lot sizes average 12,550 square feet and provide residents with privacy. We have purchased our properties at a premium to enjoy the privacy and the tranquility. The proposed subdivision and potential construction of two two -story houses will increase density, substantially alter the neighborhood character and have a negative impact on our property value s. The subdivided property with the addition of two two-story houses will not increase adjacent property values as mentioned by the Planning Department at the December 7, 2006 hearing. James Witt purchased the 15,681 square feet property on 3707 La Calle lot in 2003, and chose to build a single story house, rather than subdivide the lot and build two two-story houses. This further reinforces our belief that the property on 897 Barron Avenue is currently more valuable as is than subdivided. We do not agree that the neighborhood does not have a regular or consistent lot pattern. The 28 adjacent lots to 897 Barron Avenue are consistently and substantially larger than the proposed subdivided lots. In this instance, the Planning Department is applying a broad interpretation of what constitutes the neighborhood to support their recommendation. There is precedent for maintaining the character of a single tract in our neighborhood. Residents of La Jennifer Way, which is adjacent to our tracts and consist of 20 properties, were granted a single story overlay in 1998 to preserve the privacy of their yards and maintain the-neighborhood character. Further, when considering proposals for remodels that include issues such as placement of the garage on the lot, the Planning Department has applied strict definitions of "neighborhood" (e.g. only one branch of La Calle Court) in order to preserve neighborhood character. Over 11,000 sq feet ~~ 9,000 to 11,000 sq feet i ~ Ur~der 9,000 sq feet o The subdivided lots will be the smallest of the 28 adjacent properties in the neighborhood. Neighborhood Lot Pattern 28 properties adjacent to 897 Barron Avenue 30,000 25,000 ~20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Average* = 12,550 Note: Average excludes largest and smallest Io~House Number The proposed subdivision creates a precedent for and will invite further requests to subdivide adjacent properties. We oppose the granting of a variance for a setback encroachment to enable this subdivision to allow the preservation of a tree. The tree is not a heritage tree. Lastly we are concerned about the traffic and parking impact since the proposed subdivision is at a key intersection (Laguna and Barron Avenue) which is a gateway to the local elementary school, the main bicycle route for Terman Middle School and Gunn High School students and is widely used by pedestrians to access Bol Park. We appreciate the difficult job that the Planning Department has in maintaining the character of Palo Alto for current and future generations. Thank you for your consideration of our appeal. Name 4 Attachment F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 DIRECTOR’S HEARING Draft Verbatim Minutes Thursday, December 7, 2006, 3:00 p.m. Hearing Officer’. Amy French, Manager of Current Planning, Department of Planning and Community Environment. 897 Barron Avenue [06PLN-00130]: Request by Alan Huntzinger on behalf of Ha Nguyen for a Preliminary Parcel Map to subdivide the parcel at the corner of Barron and Laguna Avenues into two separate parcels. Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEAQ) under Section 15315, Minor Land Divisions. Zone District: Single Family Residential District (R-l). Hearin.q Officer Amy French: Okay, and for each speaker, I will limit you to approximately five minutes, and if you can, don’t repeat the comments of those that were made prior to you if you agree with those comments. And with that, I will ask the staff to give me basic information regarding what we have gotten in public comments to date, written comments, and if there’s anything I should know. Planner Russ Reich: As you said in the description, it is a lot split, one single-family residential parcel being split into two. The proposal is to reorient the existing residence on the site to the corner lot and modify the structure to comply with the current zoning regulations, and then in the future another residence will be built on the newly created second lot. I have received a number of phone calls from interested people throughout the neighborhood, but I don’t have any formal written comments. Mr. Peter Waller: I have two with me. Mr. Reich: Well, you can submit them here today, but just, at this point -- Hearinq Officer French: Well, we’ll finish this, and then I’ll open the public hearing. Mr. Reich: Yeah, at this point I don’t have any formal written comments that have been submitted to me, but I have had a number of calls and concerns, and I imagine we will be getting some comments here today. That’s it. Hearing Officer French: Okay. So the home that is to be relocated on the parcel will be... Page 1 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Reich: Currently it faces Barron Avenue, and it will be reoriented to face Laguna and modified to comply with the setback limitations. Hearin.q Officer French: Okay. So, the proposed front yard will continue to be -- actually, the existing front yard is on Laguna, technically. It will be for both parcels oriented towards Barron Avenue after the split. Mr. Reich: The requirement for the yard is... Hearing Officer French: Right, right. Where the front door is located can vary, but where the 20-foot front yard setbacks will be located will be on Barron. Mr. Reich: Correct. Hearinq Officer French: And these meet minimum lot sizes? Mr. Reich: They meet minimum lots sizes as well as minimum lot dimensions. Hearinq Officer French: Okay. So with that, I’m going to ask, is the applicant here to make a presentation? Mr. Ha N.quyen: I am. Hearinq Officer French: Okay. Please, again, come pull up a chair here. We have a microphone. Hearinq Officer French: I have something here. You can let us know if you have any... Mr. Nguyen: Um, first of all, I owe an apology to my neighbors here, because we have a death in the family. Also, my wife is kind of sick, so I couldn’t get around to go and tell all the neighborhood about the plan in the first place, and also because of my lack of knowledge of the process in the city. That’s why I didn’t know when to approach the neighbors. As I mentioned, I didn’t discuss it with [unintelligible] for example, and Richard and [unintelligible] I saw them, I happened to see them, so the plan was, because I have a family with two small kids, and I have two sets of parents. Both my wife’s parents and my own parents, they are pretty old. My wife’s parents are in the 90s, and my own parents are also in the 70s. My father is just passed away this year, so the plan was, I want to divide the house, the lot, into two houses so the parents can live in one house and our family can live in the other house. So I have been living here on Barron for eight years. So all I want to do is, and also I am also having kids for the future, when I saw how they did the house on Matadero Avenue and they have two kids, and I read them the paper about they want the kids to live in it in the future, when they back from school and get a job or something, so I first said to my wife, you know how the kids cannot buy any homes in this area any more, so that’s a fact, and we just wanted to have family close to us, to the family, so I think it’s a good thing then if we can do that, and let’s look into it. Page 2 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Male Speaker: Did you live there for eight years? Hearinq Officer French: Excuse me. We need to have an ordered meeting. thank you. Okay, Male Speaker: How do I ask a question? Hearin.q Officer French: I will open the public hearing after we have the applicant finish, okay? Mr. Nquyen: So that’s our plan, and I think we are open to anything, and after talking to Alan I think we submitted the application and within we didn’t know the process was to ask the neighbors in the process, having [unintelligible], so I am sorry about not letting all of you know in the first place. Hearin.q Officer French: And did you have anything to add as the architect? Mr. Alan Huntzinqer: Not much. You covered it. Basically, it’s two Jots, almost the same size. They’re slightly different size. One’s 77 feet wide, the other’s 75 feet wide, and like you said, they’re planning on keeping the existing house, and the purpose is to have room for the in-laws next door, to keep the family close is the whole purpose. It’s not to build spec houses for sale. Hearin.q Officer French: Can I ask about question about -- I need to continue. Mr. Huntzinqer: Go ahead. Hearin.q Officer French: Was there a reason that the corner lot was chosen to be 75.85 and the interior lot was 77.15. Was there a reason why the interior lot was chosen to be larger in width than the corner? Mr. Huntzinqer: I think it could have gone either way. We figured that that was big enough to get the house situated and meet the minimum setbacks. Hearinq Officer French: Because typically in subdivided houses, my knowledge of subdivision design, typically the corner lot is given the greater width than the interior lot, and that larger corner lot usually for reasons because of the street setback having to be larger in that case. And I know you have an existing house you’re going to use, but -- Mr. Huntzinqer: Yeah, I talked it over with the owners as to what outside space they want versus outside space next door, and even so far as do we keep the existing pool and build a new house, because obviously they could keep the pool and build a smaller house next door, but I think, like he was saying, he was planning on two families being in there; his family and his mother’s family. Page 3 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Hearin.q Officer French: Because that’s the one thing where I look at this and I question the width, having the interior lot be wider than the -- Mr. Huntzinqer: This is the way the client wanted it. They want it -- Mr. N.quyen: I think, because we were thinking, that having the pool there already, if we decided to build a basement or something, it’s a little more. Hearing Officer French: Okay, Ha. Okay, so I may ask further questions about that, but I’m going to -- you guys can stay here, because clearly there’s going to end up being some dialogue here. So I have one speaker card filled out. If you propose to speak on the matter or have any kind of dialogue that needs to be recorded by the City’s recording system here, I would like to have all the speaker cards now. I will have an order of speakers to come up and come sit in the chairs. And we have four speakers. Is that all that we have? Five speakers. One; one, two, three, four, five. I have five. I have six chairs, so if you want to all fit up here that’d be great. So I will ask all of you, if you’d like, to come up and sit here now, and then I will take, in order of receipt, the speakers. And we’re doing this, again, because our microphone won’t hear sound from the back of the room. Mr Huntzinqer: I wondered why we were not using the microphone. Hearinq Officer French: Normally we would. Okay, so lets begin with speakers... I thought the first one is Edward Demoore, is that? Yeah, you’re the first speaker. And Doug, were you the last person? Mr. Douqlas Moran:I’m the last one. Mr. Reich: table. Please speak loudly so you can be picked up by the microphones on the Hearin.q Officer French: You don’t have to [unintelligible]. Yes. Try not to put any papers on top of the microphone. Okay. So, Mr. Demoore. Mr. Edward Demoore: I’m a civil engineer, and I have looked at the plan here that has developed from this subdivision, and if you look at the subdivision, all these plots have large areas, and if you start taking the setbacks back from these lots, you have basically a buildable space for back yards or pool yards, whatever you want, that are basically comparable in all these lots. Now, cutting that in two does look quite an alterations to me. It does look like it was a proper design before. It looks like almost a butchered up design in the end. So I feel strongly that that would be diminishing the value of the total subdivision rather than just including one. I am not sure if I understand correctly from the discussion this morning just now that we are talking about two additional families on this property. These are going to be three families living on this property? Page 4 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. N,quyen: Yeah, but it’s only like three people. Mr. Demoore: Is it necessary, then, to make another house for three people that are really related? Is it not possible to build a granny cottage or something like that without having to split the property? Mr. N.quyen: I look into it a few years ago already, but the economics of it is bad, you know, is not feasible. It’s too expensive. Mr. Demoore: In other words, you want to make division purely on monetary... Mr. Nquyen: No, no, I mean, I look into it. I asked, like, for example, Mr. Barton was one of them that I consulted, and the cost to do just an addition is expensive, as expensive as to split the lot and build... Mr. Demoore: Well then... Mr. Nquyen: It’s not like privacy, because I think, I don’t mind adding an addition, but then there is no privacy for my family and my wife’s two parents. Mr. Demoore: Well, you know, in reality, I do not like to address the internal parcel this division of how it works or not works, but I’m only looking at this layout, at this plan, and looked at it again, and you can see in many of the letters that many people and this is a letter from a neighbor who has not been able to come here. Hearinq Officer French: So you are submitting this letter? Mr. Demoore: Yes, right, I submit it. As I state, I look at it purely from a engineering standpoint. I feel that this will diminish the value of the other properties around. If you look at the plan itself, it is not all the properties in the whole development have the same size. This is page 19 from book 20. Hearinq Officer French: Sorry I just want to jump in I just want to make sure that I was clear about the format of this discussion. I do expect there will be a little back-and- forth, but what I,m going to do is having each member of the public speak and I will give a chance at the end for the applicant to respond. Yes, so continue please. Mr. Demoore: Many of the people that I will speak about is in our letters here, I don’t want to repeat that, so I’m going to stick just to my view of it as an engineer, and another view of it as an environmentalist. There are some beautiful trees on this property. Hearing Officer French: [indicates yes] Mr. Demoore: As you said, you’re going to take the house and rotate it to face Laguna. That is what I understood from what you said before. The entrance will be from Page 5 of 22 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Laguna, not from Barron Park. Hearinq Officer French: No, what I said was the front yard is considered to be Laguna right now... Mr. Demoore: Laguna, right. Hearinq Officer French: The proposal is to subdivide it here so the front yards technically would be here. Mr. Demoore: On this one Hearinq Officer French: The 20-foot would be -- yes. The requirement would be... Mr. Demoore: Oh, yeah, well, the setbacks will be... Hearinq Officer French: The setbacks, yeah, would be 20 feet here. Mr. Demoore: So again, that is one thing, and again, as an environmentalist, I look at these trees that are there. We have an area which is pretty green. Increasing the density will reduce trees, will reduce greenery. We have an area that is unique. Lots of birds, lots of other animals from skunks to raccoons. If you reduce it and you pave more area over, I think we will suffer, and also the animals will suffer, the rest of our environment will suffer. So that’s from me. There are lots of other comments that other people will make from letters written that I don’t want to repeat. Thank you. Hearinq Officer French: So just for the record, you submitted a letter on behalf of these neighbors? Mr. Demoore: That’s a long name. Hearinq Officer French: [unintelligible] living on La Calle, which I assume is... Mr. Demoore: It’s this, I live here, the property here, the person who gave me the letter lives here. Hearinq Officer French: Okay, thank you, Mr. Demoore, and the next speaker I have is Duane Kalar. Mr.Duane Kalar: Yes. Mr.Kalar: All right. I’m sorry 1 got here late, but this is about 897 Barron Avenue? Mr.Reich: Yes. Mr.Kalar: And what I was here to share was, and I’m not sure if you have one of these Page 6 of 22 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 already or not. Hearin.q Officer French: I don’t have anything but what I have in front of me right here. Mr. Kalar: Can I give this to you, then? Hearinq Officer French: Sure. Mr. Kalar: What it shows is, it shows the size of the lot compared, to the other lots that are directly next to it from the property line or directly across the street, and the planned subdivision results in a much smaller lot size compared to those that are existing, and that’s where I felt that this subdivision from a character of the neighborhood perspective on lot size, and I only have approximate here, I was using a tape measure, so I could be off by a little bit, sometimes I tried to use the lot lines when I knew them, but you can see the different sizes of these lots that are directly across the street or directly next to them, and none of them are under 10,000 square feet, which these two lots are proposed to be, and so that’s why I feel it falls out of character, that you’ve got large lots, and then all of a sudden, two little ones were... So that’s the point I wanted to make. Hearin.q Officer French: Thank you. Mr. Kalar: And you can have this if you want to. Hearin.q Officer French: Okay. And the third speaker I have is Peter Waller. Mr. Peter Waller: Okay. Can I ask a question, or...? Hearin.q Officer French: Sure. Mr. Waller: Have you been living in that house for the last eight years: Mr. N.quyen: Yes. Mr. Waller: Good. I didn’t know that. Mr. N,quyen: Almost eight years. Mr. Waller: Well, plus or minus. Mr. Demoore: Well, you’d call it eight. [unintelligible] most of the people lived there 40 years. Mr. Waller: So I’m opposed to this, and I have letters from two people who are opposed, and I have several of us feel that the amount of warning was not very large for this. There are various people who said they would have come except for the facet Page 7 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 that they didn’t have enough time, and they had job commitments that they couldn’t get out of, but in any case, I happen to be, I haven’t been running a crusade, I happened to be inviting people to my Christmas party, and so I’ve talked to eight people in the area, all of whom are opposed to it. I think one could say that, but it might not be true, that the generality of the opinion in this area is that they would like not to have this happen. I think if there were more time available, it would be possible to confirm that more. The eight people I talked to, I haven’t talked to the woman across the street, for example, but they just happened to be a selection... Mr. Demoore: She is right over there. Waller: Oh, okay. Sorry. Hearin.q Officer French: [unintelligible] you haven’t submitted a card. Female Speaker: No, I’m not going to speak. Mr. Waller: Well, I haven’t spoken with you, so I don’t know. Okay. Anyway, my feeling and those of several other people I know from direct visit, this would hurt the character of the neighborhood. Sorry to even point it out, with the two small lots in an area that’s pretty much completely larger lots, so that would be unpleasant, somewhat, for those of us who like to walk past that house, which is a fairly handsome house, and then beyond that, I think that this would hurt the property values. That’s a very hard thing to measure, but if you’ve got a sort of a .spacious green area and you start cutting it up, I don’t think there’s much doubt that affects property values. And then even probably as serious as that is the precedent for more lot splits. I think Stu’s got a lot of information about how many lots of larger size there are, and if this got to be a pattern, and especially if this is approved, then presumably others will be approved,.and I don’t think there’s very much question at all that property values in the area would be hurt. Then I mentioned, I think that if there were more time, it would be possible to find out how people really feel. When I first got this, it just came in the mail and took me, unfortunately, I’m not as young as I used to be, several days to pick up on what we’re really talking about. Then, and then the proposer has said that he’s sorry that he didn’t talk to any of us in advance. I guess you did talk to a couple of people, but apparently the city prefers an effort to point out the various advantages and disadvantages, and all that anybody I’ve talked to did was get something in the mail. And one of these letters said that they had less than a week to know about it. I don’t know what about postal deliveries and stuff. Then it would increase parking, and it would increase traffic problems, and there’s already a big traffic problem because the school’s been enlarged, and Barron Avenue is sort of bumper-to-bumper at some times, and then obviously as you put in more, you’re going to have parking problems, too. And then it has crossed some of our minds that this is, and I probably shouldn’t say this, but this would be likely to be a profitable venture. You start with one house, and you have two. So that is kind of it as far as I’m concerned. Hearin,q Officer French: Thank you. Okay, Stuart Harris? Page 8 of 22 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Stuart Harris: That’s me. I’ve only got one thing. I wanted to compare the corner lots all around that area, so I made a little map and looked at all the corner lots, and anybody wants to... The corner lots everywhere in that area for a quarter-mile around are all large with two exceptions, and these are these are these little teeny developments. One’s on Ilima Court, and another’s on, it’s Carlitas Court, and all little lots on those two subdivisions are little, including the corner lots, but everywhere else, all everywhere else, the corner lots are big, and I think with fairly good reason, because they’re corner lots. The yellow ones are the little, teeny corner lots. The blue ones are the average-sized corner lots, and then the green are all the big lots. And I just went along the roads that are in that area, and it seems to me that this would be unfortunate to take this one corner lot, which is right in the center there, and cut it up. The other ones are all part of little subdivisions, but this is part of a subdivision with large lots, not small lots. Hearing Officer French: Thank you. Mr. Harris: That’s it. Hearing Officer French: Thank you. Yes, it’s interesting to see your map, and of course, we have the ability to examine it on our GIS system, but it seems that the yellow lots you’re showing are, indeed, next to smaller subdivisions, and so they are commensurate with the size of the lot in the subdivision. Mr. Harris: There is a precedent for having small corner lots, no question about it, but they are within these little subdivisions where there were... Hearing Officer French: But there’s definitely a pattern in these subdivisions. Mr. Harris: Luckily, the corner lots, the longest item is the one facing out to the public on the east on these short corner lots, so that was the good part of that. The other thing I noticed in all the corner lots is that the houses being built on them are monsters, because there’s no room, so they have to go way up, and they go right to the edges, so what ends up happening on these little lots is they get, when the next building happens, they get very big homes. Hearinq Officer French: I think that’s true with, not to go on too much about that, but I think pretty much everyone that comes through here with a new home is going to maximize their development. Mr. Harris: Well, 16,000 feet, he can go right to 6,000 on one floor. He doesn’t... Hearinq Officer French: Yeah, I hear what you’re saying -- Mr. Huntzinqer: It’s such a big lot. Page 9 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Hearinq Officer French: It’s getting it up onto the second floor. Mr. Harris: He doesn’t even need a second floor. He can do anything he wants on one floor. Hearinq Officer French: Right. Okay, thank you. And, I guess last is Douglas Moran. Mr. Douglas Moran: Okay. The first comment is about the precedent site on Matadero. I happen to live right next to that lot split, and I don’t think it’s a good precedent for this, because that was a lot that was double the size of all the neighboring lots, so basically he put on two houses that were comparable to everything else in the neighborhood in terms of new houses being developed, and so it was comparable, a very close comparable lot size, and it would have been nice if he had split the lot, but if I thought it would have been having to put such a much larger house on there than what was comparable for the others would have been unfair to ask him to have to have a house that was large and out of character rather than having two houses, whereas this lot seems to be, before division, in character with the rest of the lots in that neighborhood. When you look at the lot, there are a number of very large trees on it that I would expect, given the cut-down size, would disappear. There are two very large pines. They are not protected trees, but they are along Barron Avenue, and their cover and root system occupies a very significant portion of the lot, and then there are trees on the Laguna side, next to the Barlow house. I don’t know what variety they are. They’re leafless right now. Hearin.q Officer French: They’re maple. Mr. Moran: Maples, okay. That’s consistent. Hearin.q Officer French: Those are cedars on Barron. Mr. Moran: Big Cedars. Male speaker: beautiful trees. Mr. Moran: Yes, and large and so they’re important in that what we’re talking about as a corner house is, this is one of the major intersections of the neighborhood. It’s Barron -- Laguna’s one of the major collector streets, and Barron is a major collector street, and it also gets a lot of school traffic, so the concern would be is what replaces this house could, well, the concern is that you’re subdividing here. He wants to stay one- story, but as I was told in a subdivision, you can never tell what they develop after you get the lot split, and it could be, I can hear the concern about them being houses that max out, that are what we call monster houses or, more appropriately, houses that are inappropriately large for the lot they are situated on, and so I can hear, I hear those concerns and would hope that you would take that into consideration. Thank you. Hearinq Officer French: Thank you. Okay. Well, that’s all we have as far as speakers Page 10 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 who have submitted. Hold on. Was there anyone else in the audience that wished to submit a card and come to the microphone area? We can’t have you speaking from the Ms. Stephanie Enos: I will. Hearinq Officer French: Okay. Ms. Enos: I don’t want to repeat anything, but I live on La Calle Court, which is next door to Mr. Demoore, and I am very concerned about subdivision lots. I have lived in the area since ’93, and we chose the area particularly because of its rural setting at low -- it was so beautiful, and all of a sudden, people seem to be moving in and building, it’s going to go the way of everything else, it’s going to lose that special Barron Park character, and nobody cares, because even things get moved on, but people sell the house and they move on, and a developer or maybe somebody buys it and it gets, you know, who cares, history is forgotten. And I understand your concern. I also have kids of college age, and Palo Alto is a very expensive district, and it’s a real shame that it is tough for families to sort of move back into the area. I wish it was more flexible, and I do understand that, but at the same time, I think in generations past, people have been really giving thought for how the environment will be for future generations and not to build up and up and out and out and subdivide so that there is a real rural feeling for children and people, and I think, I just feel it’s so sad when things get cut up There might be other solutions. It’s not that I’m... Hearin.q Officer French: Thank you. Male Speaker: May I add something to that? Hearin.q Officer French: Sure, I just wanted to give everyone a chance. Male Speaker: Same with you? Sabra Driscoll: Yeah. Well, I live on the corner of Barron and Laguna across the street Hearin.q Officer French: Oh, thank you. Excellent. Ms. Driscoll: And I, like everybody else that’s here, like the size of the lots and the atmosphere that goes along with it. I know it’s hard for a family to get ahead or whatever and make good, but I don’t know, I’m in favor of it being the way it is. Hearin.q Officer French: Okay, if I see no others or hear of no others that wish to speak on the matter, I will ask that the applicant -- okay... Mr. Demoore: one more question. Hearin.q Officer French: Okay. Page 11 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Demoore: 30 years or so ago, Barron Park joined Palo Alto and during these discussions, Palo Alto promised to protect Barron Park the way it was, not to increase the street widths, not to put sidewalks in, and not to cut trees where [unintelligible] interfering with fire trucks. That was the promise made. Now, I feel that subdividing this beautiful lot into two is as much as a sin as putting a sidewalk in, and I hope that Palo Alto protects it. Hearinq Officer French: and you had one more comment? Mr. Waller: I have a letter from the Smiths I thought maybe I’d read. It’s only four paragraphs. Hearinq Officer French: Okay, so you’re representing the Smiths? Mr. Waller; Yeah, I’m going to give you this letter. Hearing Officer French: And you’re Peter, right? Mr. Waller: Yes. Hearinq Officer French: Okay. Mr. Waller: To whom it may concern. Let us preface this letter by stating that we are opposed to the proposal to divide the lot at 897 Barron Avenue in Barron Park. Due to the short notice of this hearing, in parentheses, we were notified less than one week before the date of the hearing, we are unable to attend the meeting in person, but we are communicating our disapproval and concerns in writing, and I have requested and understand that our neighbors will be presenting this letter on our behalf. There are several reasons why dividing the lot is a bad decision. It would add to traffic and parking congestion on Barron Avenue. Barron Avenue already is congested due to the traffic and parking associated with Barron Park Elementary School, which is within a block of 897 Barron Avenue. Dividing this lot would further exacerbate this problem. Dividing this lot would change the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which is known for its large lots and rural feeling. We chose to live and invest in a home in Barron Park precisely because of its relaxed, low-density atmosphere. Dividing the lot at 897 Barron Avenue would set a dangerous precedent for the future of the neighborhood. It would create a lot that was nearly half the size of the surrounding lots, which run counter to the current housing density in this part of the neighborhood. We are concerned that such a division could set a precedent for similar divisions of other surrounding lots, and I may say that Stu showed that there are 30 of them. Again, this would erode the quality and character of the neighborhood, and it is unfair that one property owner’s desire to reap extra revenue from one lot could lead to a change in the character and quality of life for the entire neighborhood and its residents. Please do not put our neighborhood at risk by approving the division of the lot at 897 Barron Avenue. Page 12 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 I had one other question. After this meeting, the game is over? Hearinq Officer French: If you qualify it as a game, 1 don’t know. Mr. Waller: Well, I’m sorry. The review process. Hearinq Officer French: The application, it’s called an application review process. This is the public hearing, and a decision can be made within 10 days of this public hearing, after which a decision letter is mailed out to all interested parties, all who submitted a list and those who are within the radius specified, and then there is an opportunity to appeal the decision one way or the other; if it’s denial, appeal it to approve it; if it’s approval, appeal it to request a hearing to have that decision challenged. So... Mr. Waller: So there could be anther hearing... Hearinq Officer French: There are future opportunities for additional public hearings on this matter. This is the first public hearing, the first and could be the last, but given that we have opposing views here and somebody will lose in the deal here, it’s likely that there will be additional hearings on the matter. Mr. Waller: So one could get further views expressed by people -- Hearinq Officer French: Certainly. Mr. Waller: -- within a reasonable distance of the property. Ms Enos: Can I ask another question? Hearinq Officer French: Sure, why don’t you come back to the table. I’m sorry, we have the problem of having to record from the microphones on the table. Ms. Enos: Is it your decision, I mean, this is the hearing. Do you [unintelligible] the process Hearinq Officer French: To answer your first question, I am the initial decision-maker, so this decision, if it happens, the initial decision, I should say -- again, it may be challenged, but I make the initial decision, and I do so based on the contents of the file and controversial items such as this, I would certainly make the effort to go to the property, I would ask for any additional research that might need to be done prior to making a decision. Ms. Enos: Thank you. Hearinq Officer French: But I do have a limited amount of time per code to make a decision. What was your second question then, is yes that would be my intent. Okay. We have one more question, and then I’m going to let the applicant do a follow-up. Page 13 of 22 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Male Speaker: Yeah, I’m asking way too many questions. Hearin.q Officer French: Sure, That’s why it’s a long process, and it’s important to get this out. Male Speaker: Well, that house, just unfortunately, first of all, is quite a handsome house, and secondly, if there’s any single house that’s visible at the corner of Barron and Laguna like that, and in a way, it’s almost a keynote for the neighborhood, because it’s a corner, and I think other people who live there, we all walk up to the park past it and so on. Hearing Officer French: Okay. So I’m going to now turn it over, and I might ask the applicant to clarify, too, for my understanding and for the neighbors as well, as to how you’re proposing the locate the house, which was mentioned as a keynote to the neighborhood, and to keep it on the corner. Now, are you orienting, so the front door is currently here, and you’re.going to turn it so it’s the other way, so it would have a different orientation to this corner than it currently has. Anyway, I’ll let you decide that, maybe, and... Mr. N.quyen: Plus, I think I owe answers to the neighborhood, .I think I apologized earlier about the fact that I didn’t know about the process, so I didn’t know this is what the city would set out, and it told the neighbors that I would inform you earlier of the event. To address some of the concerns that you brought up today, okay, the first one is about the character of the neighborhood. I think I definitely agree with that. It is a very quiet, and that’s why I think we decided to keep the old house. We love that old house. We don’t want to tear it down. Anyway, we want to, we were thinking about tearing it down to build a new house, but we say, this is a house that we like. We like the last seven, eight years something like that. We love that house. We want to keep it. And so we want to fix it, move it something like Alan some other people pointing it’s going to be messy or maybe expensive to fix and after you move it, but we think that it’s for the neighborhood, and even the new house that we get to build, we will keep it to similar as the same neighborhood character. You know, I live there, I love it, and you see that it’s quiet and I enjoy it very much as well as any of you here, and for the second concern about the trees, one trees, when I talked to an arborist, was having a disease, the one, the cedar on the right hand corner of my house, and we love the trees as well as all of you do, I think, and, too, our plan is anything that we take to have to cut to, we will plant additional trees for the new house or after we move, we plant more trees. We don’t want to see no trees at all on this property. I just discussed that at lunch today with Inga about that, too, and he said that there’s an oak tree in the back yard near the back of your fence and my fence, and the wish that we want to take it out because of this hollow. Mr. Demoore: The tree got damaged a couple of years back by a storm -- Mr. N.quyen: So I suggested that we want to maybe plant some additional tree around Page 14 of 22 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 the fence. So, I think if you say that cutting the trees just to build no, we are building, first, I don’t want to cut any trees. If I have to, I will replace them. That’s my honest answer to you. I don’t cut any trees, or I will plant more. More beautiful trees. Okay? And there’s one more, I think, about the splitting subdivision. I think I cannot tell you, it’s hard for me to say if it’s a precedent or not. Maybe I do it, but other people might not do it, I don’t know, but I think because my thinking is, I want to do it for my families. I don’t want to do this for profit or selling it. That even, I don’t want to just split, build, and by the way, I don’t want, I have no plan to build a monster house. Like you mentioned, with my lot, I can just spare the old house and build a 6000-square-foot home with like two stories or something, right? But that’s not our plan. We just want to build a small house next to the old house so both sets of my parents, my wife’s parents, my in-laws, and my mom now, because my dad passed away this year, so it’s three more persons to live in the house. So that’s our plan. Mr. N.quyen: And I think I’m open to hear more suggestions that you have. Ms. Enos: I would just like to say hypothetically, if we were all granted permission to split our lots, how would you feel about that? Mr. N.quyen: You know, I think-- Ms. Enos: Let’s say if we all had elderly parents, which we also probably do, and we all have kids, and how would that work? I mean, it doesn’t take much for one person. I can understand your family concerns, but everyone has family concerns. Everyone has elderly parents, and there are other solutions besides just dividing the lot. Because who knows what circumstances what might happen in ten years’ time, you might be gone, and other people will come in, and that’s two properties there, which they can build up. Further down the line. Your reasons might be perfectly honest and good. That doesn’t protect further down. Hearin.q Officer French: I’m going to jump in just for a couple of things, technical matters to present to the group. For the first of those, I believe that there are only three lots here that could be subdivided legally, meeting the legal or minimum lot widths. Mr. Demoore: All the corner lots. Hearin,q Officer French: This lot, this lot, and this lot. These three. Mr. Demoore: Yeah. I like to look at this map because... Hearin,q Officer French: Sure, it’s larger. Mr. Demoore: It’s larger. These three lots, right. Hearin,q Officer French: yeah. Page 15 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Demoore: Now, this house was rebuilt, and the people kept the same one single house on it after many people looking and measuring it up to split it up, too, but somehow along the line, somebody put a stop to it and did not subdivide it. These people at one time wanted to subdivide, too, but they couldn’t, because they did not want to destroy the house with the house situated on the property. Hearinq Officer French: Let me just try to finish what I was going to say. So that was the first point I wanted to make, is that when we talk about the whole neighborhood could go this way, I think we’re really only talking about possibly these three lots. Hold on. I want to make a few points, and then I’ll open it, I have not closede the public hearing, but I just need to get a few things in here. So that would be the first thing I would say. The second thing I wanted to ask of the applicant and possibly your architect is, has anyone done a calculation to see if this existing home, when placed on the lot of this size, which, as I noted my concern being smaller in size than this one, part of that concern is, again, wondering if you are going to be able to meet the setbacks and not exceed the lot coverage and those things. And has that been studied as far as the existing house size? Mr. Huntzinqer: Yeah, that’s part of what we were looking at. When we first met with Ha, here, we were talking about, gee, you know, maybe we could get a granny unit, but granny units are limited to what, basically 1000 square feet or something like that for a secondary. Hearinq Officer French: 950. Mr. Huntzinqer: 950 square feet. Hearing Officer French: Right. Mr. Huntzinqer: Which is the size of a one-bedroom apartment in this day and age, and they just didn’t feel that having a mixed family, unrelated in-laws, living in 900 square feet was really what they wanted. We’re stuck. Yes, we can build a granny unit, but it’s 950 square feet, now, instead of 2000 feet or something. As he was saying, he’s not planning on building a 6000-square-foot granny unit over here, but that’s the methodology we had to go through to get a place for the in-laws was to make the second lot, and then we can build something that’s reasonable for these people. Mr. Huntzinqer: Instead of 950 square feet. Hearin.q Officer French: Okay. Mr. Huntzinqer: The other thing that I’m glad that Stuart brought in this nice little colored map, even though you say, gee, well, the houses on Barron, we got large lots on Barron, but the minute you step back and look at Ilima Court or you look at San Jude, or you look down on Jennifer or anywhere else, Chimales, suddenly you’re down to 6000-square-foot lots. These are still at 8,000 feet, but you were saying, well, gee, Page 16 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 the yellow ones over here, yeah, those are small lots. Well, you have a whole subdivision that is just one mile away -- Hearinq Officer French: I need to have my question answered. Mr. Huntzinqer: You betcha. Hearinq Officer French: My question is, is the house everyone cherishes in this neighborhood that you are intending to keep, which is honorable, is that house going to meet all the development standards? Mr. Nquyen: Without the garage. Hearinq Officer French: There’s going to be a detached garage? Mr. Nquyen: It’s an attached garage, the old garage Mr. Huntzin.qer: No, it’s attached. Hearin.q Officer French: It’s attached. Mr. Nquyen: It’s attached, yeah. Hearing Officer French: And so your plan for the garage, then, is to demolish the garage and rebuild... Mr. Nquyen: Um, a different one-car garage. Hearinq Officer French: A one-car garage, attached also? ’ Mr. N.quyen: Uh, yes. Mr. Huntzinqer: It does meet all of the setbacks. We got the setbacks shown. Hearinq Officer French: With that you would meet the floor area ratio, and it’s a one- story house. Mr. N.quyen: Yes. Hearinq Officer French: So you wouldn’t exceed lot coverage setback or anyof those tings and it would look compatible with the existing home as far as the placement of the garage. Mr. Huntzinqer: Right. Hearinq Officer French: Okay. And then the lot you would be creating here for a future Page 17 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 house or whatever, your intention here is to build a one-story house or a two-story house? Mr. N,quyen: With a basement, one story with a basement, because we don’t want to go up two stories. Hearin.q Officer French: Is this a single-story neighborhood? Mr. De Moorer: Yes, most of it. Hearing Officer French: Most of it? Mr. De Moore: Yeah. Hearin.q Officer French: Are there a few two-story houses? Mr. Nguyen: not in this development here. Hearin.q Officer French: Okay. But it’s not a single-story overlay district? Mr. N.quyen: No, I don’t think it would be. Hearinq Officer French: So the pattern is currently single story homes. So that was the other question I had is, when you say your intention is to build a single-story and capture all of the floor area that you can capture, because when you do it all in one floor, you’re able to have a larger lot coverage, and therefore once you build a larger lot coverage, you’re not able to go up afterwards, because you’ve captured that floor area on the first floor. Mr. Nquyen: Because my parents and my wife’s parents, they are elderly. They cannot go up anyway, so the plan is to build a single-story building with handicapped access. Hearinq Officer French: So this is the house you’re considering building. Mr. N.quyen: I don’t know yet, because I don’t know which way is better. Hearinq Officer French: Right. Well, this is a one-story, so this is a possibility, this is also one-story. Okay. And then finally, my question, and we will then keep going, but not forever, because I do need to stop this at some point, but the trees you have here, the two cedar trees, I think, are the most important of the trees, as they are the 40-inch cedars, and the way that you are portraying -- okay, the building envelope for the lot that you’ve shown touches upon, in this case it touches on the edge of what’s represented as the trunk, but certainly the canopy goes over, and here it looks like it’s within the building envelope. Have you studied the possibility of adjusting this? I mean, I know you’re trying to squeeze a garage in here, but given the fact that there’s possibly some play in where you place this lot line, have you considered how to retain both of Page 18 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 these trees? Mr. N.quyen: Yes, we did. Hearin,q Officer French: Using site design... Mr. Nquyen: This one tree on the right. The one to the left, because we move the house over there, it’s going right into the canopy of the tree. Hearin.q Officer French: Sometimes with canopies you can use special methods of construction that avoid the roots and this kind of thing, and you can build under a canopy of a tree as long as... Mr. Nquyen: We have not done much research. Hearinq Officer French: With the foundation. Okay. So you say you’re interested if you can preserve it. Mr. N.quyen: Oh, yes. Definitely. Hearinq Officer French: And it’d be worth considering. Mr. N.quyen: That’s the most beautiful tree that people say, it’s the most beautiful tree in the neighborhood, but we... Hearinq Officer French: Okay. Because, I mean, there’s certainly other things that could be looked at as far as you have your garage here in the front, but maybe moving it back farther and then adjusting this over, I mean, we do allow, if it’s attached, we do allow a setback of only 14 feet in the rear yard. Mr. N.quyen: That’s where we need help from your department. Hearinq Officer French: Yeah, So this kind of thing, it could be adjusted back and preserve that cedar tree if that’s of value to the neighborhood and to yourself. Mr. Huntzin.qer: My first submittal actually had a garage closer to the south property line, but the city says, "No, no, no, that violates the 20-foot setback. You gotta take it out and move it up closer to Barron," So I had it there, and the city said no you cant do it. Hearinq Officer French: But it’s true that our code does allow half the width of the house to encroach into that rear yard setback for a distance of six feet. Mr. Huntzin.qer: Yeah. That’s the way I had it, and the city said, "Take it out." Mr. Reich: It was encroaching more than six feet. Page 19 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Hearin,q Officer French: So anyway, that remains as a possibility if we are looking, aside from any decision, and I haven’t made any, and I’m not going to today, but it seems that there are some possibilities for retaining the existing trees that are of value to the neighborhood, which is one of the points made, and certainly that’s something that I think could be addressed with creative design. Ms. Enos: What about setting a precedent, how do you do this if people value, again, looking to the future to say well, that’s happened, that got approved, so will that be used as-- Hearin.q Officer French: This is a philosophical discussion. Basically, again, they’re not asking for a variance here, and so when you’re talking about precedent, usually you’re talking about gee, you’ve given somebody something that was not according to code, citing the finding. I mean, this is in my experience of it. I understand what you’re saying, it does pave way for others to say, "Oh, it’s been done there, it’s easy to do, I’m going to come in and do it," but as far as legally speaking, it’s just... Male Speaker: On that point, there are only three corner lots, but there must be 20 large lots in this area that could be split. Mr. Reich" But they don’t meet the minimum lot width. Hearinq Officer French: Yeah. Mr. Reich: They wouldn’t meet code like these do. Male Speaker: There are a lot of large lots. Mr. De Moore: Even if you use flag lots? Hearinq Officer French: We don’t allow flag lots. Mr. Demoore: Oh, that’s not allowed now. Hearinq Officer Male Speaker: French: Yeah, you’re not able to create new flag lots in the city. You made a comment about only three corner lots, which is one, two, Hearin.q Officer French: In the immediate neighborhood. Male Speaker: neighborhood, ¯ larger lots. I’m I plan to live in will be redone, In the immediate neighborhood. Well, that’s three out of, in my six houses. So I’m in a neighborhood of 10,000-square-foot-plus and 28,000 square foot, and so now you’re talking about, and that’s a house for 50 years, and so the tree’ll be dead, the houses you’re talking about but the lot is going to be whatever happens to it, and so if this one goes, Page 20 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 all of a sudden this one’s going to go, and this one’s going to go... Hearinq Officer French: Okay, let me look at your drawing, and let me clarify them, because we’re talking. You’re 37-- Male Speaker: 16 Laguna -- Hearin.q Officer French: --16 Laguna, which is on my map, which is the actual city’s map that I need to look at, yours is this one, here. Male Speaker: Right. Hearin.q Officer French: So -- Male Speaker: And so the three that you were probably talking about were 3691 Laguna? .Hearin.q Officer French: Yup. That cannot be subdivided. Male Speaker: Okay. I thought that was one of the three you were talking about. How about 895 Barron? Hearin.q Officer French: Yes. Male Speaker: 895 Barron. So what was the third one, then? Hearinq Officer French: It’s across the cul-de-sac La Calle. Male Speaker Okay. So what I’m trying to get across is that you mentioned three, and right now we’re in a neighborhood of 10,000-square-foot lots surrounding that house, and so three lots that can be subdivided is all of a sudden there’s six substandard houses -- Hearinq Officer French: It’s potential but not substandard. Mr. De Moore: Not substandard. Mr. De Moore: But not fitting with the neighborhood. Hearinq Officer French: There are potentially six legal lots that could be created out of three in this general neighborhood in the immediate area. As far as your, what you consider your neighborhood, because everyone’s definition is subjective, certainly, but it’s really not that corner lot that you were thinking, it’s just this corner lot and then up the street. So anyway, now we’re kind of spinning off and talking about other things. Okay. I’ll let each person make one more final comment who wishes to speak. Page 21 of 22 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 i0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mr. Demoore: If I understand correctly, three older people will move in that house, and you need 2000 square feet for three people, is that what you say? Mr.Huntzinqer: I would say they... Mr.Demoore: 950 square feet is insufficient? Mr.Huntzinqer: For three -- Mr. Demoore: You say you will have a basement in that house, with stairs for three old people that are 90 years old. Mr. N.quyen" The basement please for my family, because if we build the new house, the house we have now is an old, small house... Mr. Demoore: But did you not say, in the new house, you’re going to build a basement in it? Mr. N.quyen: Yes, we were thinking of it. That may not be feasible. Mr. Demoore: You seem to be disconnected. If you had three old people that are in their 90s, your parents in their 90s we build a 2,000-square-foot home for older people with a basement, that does not make sense. Mr. N.quyen: I did not say I was going to build a 2,000 square foot home for my parents. Hearin.q Officer French: You know, I need to cut this off, and the reason is because I think we’re splitting hairs here. This is what I’ve heard. I have heard that the applicant is interested in staying a part, he’s been living here for eight years, and staying a part of this neighborhood and doing his best to care about the trees and to keep a one-story house. And I can appreciate, I think all of you can appreciate that that is what he’s talking about. Whether or not a basement is proposed is irrelevant to the fact that the interest, in his words, is to have a one-story house that would fit in at least with the one- story appearance of the general neighborhood. So-I think there’s an appreciation there that I think everyone can appreciate. The fact remains that there’s concern that there’s a neighborhood pattern with a lotting that this is the first of possibility, you know, three to go in this direction, so they’re asking the city to look into that, and I will, in the next 10 days, review that situation and give it my consideration, and as well, we will give consideration to all that has been said today and then submit it in writing. And with that, I’m going to close the public hearing, and thank you all for coming and offering your comments and suggestions and concerns. Male speaker: And thank you for listening to all this. Page 22 of 22 ATTACHMENT G REVISED ZONING TABLE (1/31/07) Minimum Proposed ProposedR-1 Zone District Requirement Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Lot Size sq. ft.6,000 sq. ft. ¯7,878 sq. ft.8,101 sq. ft. Lot Width ft.60 feet 75.85 feet 77.15 feet Lot Depth ft.100 feet 105 feet 105 feet R-1 Zone District Allowable House Allowable House Allowable House Size on a 6,000 s.f.Size on Parcel 1 Size on Parcel 2 Lot Max. Floor Area 2,550 sq. ft.3,113.4 sq. ft.3,180.3 sq. ft. Ratio Max. Lot Coverage 2,100 sq. ft.2,757.3 sq. ft.2,835.35 sq. ft. Attachment H Nicholas & Suzanne Smith 864 Barron Ave. Palo Alto, Ca 94306 Russ Reich / Planning Division City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 December 6, 2006 To Whom It May Concern: Let us preface this letter by stating that we are opposed to the proposal to divide the lot at 897 Barron Avenue in Barron Park. Due to the short notice of this hearing (we were notified less than one week before the date of the hearing); we are unable to attend the meeting in person, but we are communicating our disapproval and concerns in writing and have requested and understand that our neighbors will be presenting this letter on our behalf. There are several reasons why dividing the lot at 897 Barron Avenue is a bad decision: 1.It would add to the traffic and parking congestion on Barron Avenue. Barron Avenue already is congested due to the traffic and parking associated with Barron Park Elementary School, which is within a block of 897 Barr0n Avenue. Dividing this lot would further exacerbate this problem. 2. Dividing this lot would change the scale and the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which is known for its large lots and rural feeling. We chose to live and invest in a home in Barron Park precisely because of its relaxed, low-density atmosphere. 3. Dividing the lot at 897 Barron Avenue would set a dangerous precedent for the future of the neighborhood. It would create a lot that is nearly half the size of the surrounding lots, which runs counter to the current housing density in this part of the neighborhood. We are concerned that such a division could set a precedent for similar divisions of other surrounding lots. Again, this would erode the quality and character of the neighborhood. It is unfair that one property owner’s desire to reap extra revenue for one lot could lead to a change in the character and quality of life for the entire neighborhood and its residents. Please do not put our neighborhood at risk by approving the division of the lot at 897 Barton Avenue. Smith 0 897 Barron Avenue To: Palo Alto Planning Commission Re: Splitting 897 Barron Ave. into two parcels Fr: Stuart Harris, 3650 La Calle Ct, Palo Alto Attachment: Plat Map of the surrounding neighborhood Dear Sirs, 897 Barron -Ave. is a corner lot on Barron Ave. and Laguna Ave. The surrounding lots are all large (green), nearby lots on Barron and Laguna Avenues are generally large (green), and most corner lots within a quarter mile are larger than the proposed corner lot (blue). The exceptions are two subdivisions at Ilima Court and Carlitos Court, where each lot is minimum size, including corner lots (yellow). Therefore, I feel that the proposal to split an average size corner lot conflicts with the general character of the neighborhood of large lots. Sincerely yours, Stuart Harris 3650 La Calle 0 0 000..i 0 ~¯ Mr. Russ Reich Planning Division Cih/ of Palo Alto Dec. 6, ZOO6 Mr. Reich We are writing to you regarding the subdivision of ~he proper~ co~neP La~na and BaPPon Avenues. We live neaPby and oppose the su~ivision. Our reasons are that ~raffic in ~his area is i~~in~y ~~ed ~ ~o the Barron Park School traffic and we feel that more housing is going to increase ~raffic even more. Also Barron Park has been a neighborhood which has been enJoyed by us (lived here for 28 years) as a lower densi~ population having a particularly rural quality. We think that ~his should be preserved as much as possible. We oppose any such subdivisions to ~eser~ ~th t~ u~q~ss of o~ c~uni~ and for r~sons of ~r~f f ic tahitian. Respectfully submitted by Art and Annette Mc~arr II I-- C < / O< anueAV eun6eq O’3O0 0 v- c < ~ 0 j 0 0