HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1611City of Palo Alto (ID # 1611)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/9/2011
May 09, 2011 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 1611)
Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine}
Summary Title: Appeal Director’s Individual Review Approval
Title: Appeal of the Director’s Individual Review Approval of a New Single Family
Residence at 258 Tennyson Avenue
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council decline to hear the appeal of the Individual Review (IR)
application (file 10PLN-00000-00389)for a new two story home at 258 Tennyson Avenue,
thereby upholding the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval.
Executive Summary
This request is an appeal of the Director’s approval of a Single Family Individual Review (IR)
application for a new two-story home at 258 Tennyson Ave. Four or more Council Members’
votes would be needed to remove this item off the consent calendar to set the matter for a
future hearing.
Appellants Roger Smith and Judy Kay, owners of 270 Tennyson Ave. located directly adjacent to
the subject property along the northern property line, were mailed all decision and hearing
notices regarding the project. The Manager of Advanced Planning conducted the Director’s
Hearing on March 10, 2011, and upheld the tentative approval. The appellant’s objection is
directly related to the overall health and safety of the coast live oak tree located on the
appellant’s property, of which the trunk is approximately 56 inches away from the shared
property line and canopy overhanging the 258 Tennyson Avenue project site. No objections to
compliance with the IR Guidelines were stated by the appellant in the appeal letter
(Attachment B) seting forth the appellant’s position. Although the health of the live oak tree is
relevant to planning approval and was separately considered in the planning process as
described in the Director’s approval letter (Attachment A), it is not a factor that may be
considered as part of the IR review. Therefore, the basis for this appeal is inappropriate and the
appeal should be denied.
Background
May 09, 2011 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 1611)
Council Review Authority
The City’s Individual Review (IR) procedure provides for City Council “call up” of appeals. When
the Director approves an IR application after a Director’s Hearing and a directly affected
property owner appeals the decision, the project is placed before Council on the consent
calendar for final action. The Council has two options. First, it may approve the item on
consent, adopting the findings and recommendations of the Director. Second, if four Council
members vote to remove the project from the consent calendar, the Council may determine
whether to set a new hearing before the City Council. If the Council agrees to hear an appeal, a
hearing is scheduled as soon as practical (PAMC 18.77.075).
Project Review and Director’s Approval
The single-family individual review rules are design guidelines intended to mitigate the effects
of second-story construction on neighboring homes in residential neighborhoods. The
Director’s approval letter (Attachment A) sets forth the applicable PAMC sections and notes
that the project on the subject property met all of the IR guidelines and R-1 zone regulations to
allow the approval.
The IR application was submitted on November 8, 2010. Written comments were received from
the appellant on November 19, 2010. The concerns expressed by appellant included: 1) the
safety and health of the 23” diameter coast live oak tree (oak tree) located on their property, 2)
potential privacy concerns from the proposed two-story development and 3) the approval
process for IR applications. On November 22, 2010, staff and the appellant met to discuss the
appellant’s concerns. During that meeting the IR issues previously voiced by the appellant were
reviewed and confirmed by staff to be compliant with tree and other regulatory criteria: the IR
Guidelines, zoning code requirements and the tree ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Chapter 8.10). The primary concern remained the health of the oak tree and how the
construction of a new two–story home with a basement could adversely impact the root
structure of the oak tree. It was further explained to the appellant during this meeting the steps
the applicant was taking to ensure the long term health of the oak tree. In response to both
department staff comments and neighbor concerns the applicant submitted revised plans on
January 11, 2011. The revised application was tentatively approved on January 18, 2011. Prior
to the effective approval (14 days after the tentative approval date), the appellant requested a
Director’s Hearing on February 1, 2011.
The appellants’ request for a hearing was expressly to discuss the conditions of approval
provided in the January 18, 2011 approval letter specifically related to the oak tree and to gain
a better understanding of the tree protection zone (TPZ). During the hearing, the appellants
also reported that some selective trimming had already occurred to the oak tree in the summer
of 2010 and that additional trimming for the IR project may be harmful to the tree. The
applicant spoke to the steps that were taken to revise the plans to address the concerns of both
staff and the appellant. Further explanation regarding the revisions made to the plans is
provided in the Discussion section of this report.
May 09, 2011 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 1611)
On March 24, 2011, following the Director’s Hearing, the Director approved the application
with additional conditions. On April 7, 2011, the appellant officially appealed the Director’s
decision to approve the IR application for 258 Tennyson Ave (Attachment B), based on two
main issues:
1. The root destruction to the oak tree from the planned basement construction;
2. The conditions of approval specifically related to the oak tree.
Discussion
The project meets all five of the guidelines for Individual Review, complies with the R-1 Zone
District regulations for development, and satisfies the tree ordinance protection measures
required. The two tree-related issues appellant has identified are not factors that may be
considered under the IR guidelines.
The IR guidelines include criteria related to: basic site planning; neighborhood compatibility for
height, mass and scale; resolution of architectural form, massing and roof lines; visual character
of street facing facades and entries; and placement of second-story windows and decks for
privacy. The project’s compliance with the IR guidelines has not been questioned by the
appellants. The individual review program applies to construction of second stories and is
intended to mitigate the effects of that construction on neighboring homes. (Palo Alto
Municipal Code §18.12.110(a)). Development applications subject to IR must be consistent with
these guidelines. (PAMC §18.12.110(d)). Since the appellants have not identified any adverse
affects of the proposed project or misapplication of any of the guidelines, and the IR program is
“intended only to mitigate the effects of second story construction” (PAMC §18.12.110(a)), the
appellant’s challenge raises no relevant issues related to the IR approval and the Director’s
decision should be upheld.
Tree Protection
While the tree protection issue is not the basis for appeal of an IR application, compliance with
the City’s tree ordinance and technical manual is required for this project, and extensive
conditions and measures have been taken to assure the protection of the oak tree, to the
satisfaction of the City’s Planning Arborist. Consistent with the provisions of the Tree Technical
Manual (TTM), Planning staff required a tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by an ISA
certified arborist (Barry Coate), because the IR project would occur within the dripline of the
oak tree. The TPR (Attachment C; Page 27) provided for the IR project was peer reviewed by
the Planning Arborist and deemed to be adequate to maintain health and safety of the oak
during demolition and construction of the IR project. The Planning Arborist determined there
were specific measures and work precautions in place to ensure permanent injury would be
reasonably minimized to less than significant. These measures, including mandatory arborist
inspections and activity reporting to staff, were then incorporated into the IR project
documents to be implemented by the sponsor.
Tree Considerations in Development Plan
May 09, 2011 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 1611)
The original IR application was for the demolition of an existing single-story home to be
replaced with a new two-story that included a basement. The original plan called for a portion
of the new basement to be 11 feet from the oak tree, putting the basement within the dripline
(radius 10 times the trunk diameter) of the oak tree. Staff explored options with the applicant
to provide added buffer for the tree, and the applicant agreed to move the basement further
from the oak to approximately 16 feet from the tree trunk. The estimated root impacts are
expected to be an acceptable 10% or less as documented in the TPR provided by Barrie Coate
and Associates (whereas national standards prescribe 15% root loss as a threshold). Reports or
opinions from ten (10) additional arborists were voluntarily provided by the applicant and are
provided as Attachment C of this report. The initial protective measures identified in the TPR
regarding protection for the tree were incorporated into the approval conditions.
The appellant’s arborist has objected (Attachment D) that the construction should be
maintained completely out of the dripline of the tree, a distance of approximately 19 feet. The
City’s Planning Arborist (peer review of professional reports submitted) has confirmed that the
project site arborist’s tree protection zone of 16+feet is adequate. The TPZ is a ‘site-specific’
determination that typically addresses protective measures within the dripline.
ALTERNATIVE TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Council’s alternative to the staff recommendation is outlined in Municipal Code Section
18.77.075(g)(2):
“Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require four votes, and
set the application for a new hearing before the City Council, following which the City Council
shall adopt findings and take action on the application.”
If the Council so directs, staff will identify a date for the hearing and will provide appropriate
public notice in advance of the hearing.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Appeal is based on issues that are not required to be considered in the IR process, or
relevant to the IR guidelines. The Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent
with staff’s implementation of the Individual Review Guidelines, and with the policies and
intent of the Individual Review Process. In addition, the project is consistent with the City’s tree
protection regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
·Attachment A: Director Approval Letter (PDF)
·Attachment B: Appellant's Letter of Appeal (PDF)
May 09, 2011 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 1611)
·Attachment C: Applicant's Arborist Reports (PDF)
·Attachment D: Appellant's Arborist Report (PDF)
·Attachment E: Applicant's Attorney's Letter (PDF)
·Attachment F: Applicant's Summary Letter (PDF)
·Attachment G: Project Plans (TXT)
Prepared By:Jason Nortz, Planner
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
2073.txt
Attachment G: Project Plans
Page 1