HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7655
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7655)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/23/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 900 N California Ave Appeal
Title: 900 N. California Avenue [15PLN-00155]: Denial of the Appeal of the
Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review
Approval of Three new Single-Family Homes, one With a Second Unit.
Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section
15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), Zoning
District: R-1 (Continued From January 9, 2017)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Director’s approval of an Architectural
Review application, thereby denying the appeal.
Executive Summary
This report includes new attachments in response to Councilmember questions received on
January 9, the date this item was initially considered on the consent calendar. The Council
continued consideration of this item (on Consent) to January 23, 2017.
The new attachments include:
Attachment K – City Council minutes from November 14, 2016 when the Council
considered the Parcel Map application.
Attachment L – The Record of Land Use Action approving the Parcel Map application
Attachment M – Responses to Councilmember questions. The responses explain that
conditions within the Parcel Map Record of Land Use Action do not need to be repeated
in the Architectural Review approval to be effective. All conditions will be applicable at
the building permit phase.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The balance of this report contains the same information previously transmitted to the City
Council for the January 9, 2017 meeting.
The applicant received approval last year to subdivide a large R-1 zoned property into three
lots. The applicant proposes to demolish three existing homes on that property, which would
be replaced by three new homes; one of the new homes would have a second dwelling unit.
Typically, new home development is reviewed by city staff. However, when an application to
construct three or more new homes is filed, the Code requires additional review by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB), which forwards a recommendation to the Director. Following
ARB review, the Director approved the proposed homes in November. This decision was
appealed necessitating review before the City Council. The appellant’s reason for the appeal is
provided in Attachment B and summarized as:
The appellant states that not one of the neighbors within 600 feet of the project site
received notice of the ARB Public Hearing.
The appellant believes that residents have not had an opportunity to comment on issues
related to:
o Management of heavy commuter and school/bicycle traffic twice daily and
construction worker parking.
o The impact of dewatering three units simultaneously.
o Ongoing monitoring and contact personnel for ad hoc communications from
residents.
o Remedy the current inadequate on site signage that needs to be expanded for
notifying the general neighborhood of the construction on site.
o Shared driveway between Site 2 and Site 3.
The City Council may accept this report and adopt the staff recommendation on Consent,
thereby denying the appeal and accepting the Director’s decision based on the information
contained herein. Alternatively, if three or more City Councilmembers request, the matter can
be pulled from the Consent calendar and scheduled for a future noticed public hearing
(approximately 6-8 weeks from this Council date).
Included with this report are all relevant records, including the Director’s determination letter
(Attachment D) and an excerpt of the verbatim transcript of the ARB meeting (Attachment C).
Background
The proposed project is an Architectural Review of three single family homes. Typically, single
family homes are reviewed by City staff for conformance with the Individual Review Guidelines
(PAMC 18.12.110) and processed in accordance with the Low-Density Residential Review
Process (PAMC 18.77.075). However, three or more single family homes proposed at one time
City of Palo Alto Page 3
require review by the City’s Architectural Review Board (PAMC 18.76.020(b)(2)(c)) and an
ultimate decision by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Directors
decision can be appealed to the City Council.
The project site contains three existing homes on one lot with three different addresses. The
project would demolish these homes and construct one new single family home on each parcel.
The largest of the three parcels would be developed with a second dwelling unit. The proposed
homes are all two-stories with basements. Each home contains below grade patios and light
wells to allow light into the basements. Houses range in size from approximately 3,100 square
feet to almost 4,000 square feet (sf). The homes are generally a traditional architectural style
with contemporary Colonial Revival architectural elements. Louis Road provides access to Lot 1;
Lots 2 and 3 are accessed from California Avenue. A detailed description of the proposed
project is included in Attachment I.
The City’s Architectural Review Board reviewed and recommended approval to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment on September 15, 2016. Their motion included a
condition to return to the ARB subcommittee with revisions as described below. The Director
signed the determination letter on November 1, 2016. The Palo Alto Municipal Code provides
14 days to file an appeal, and a timely appeal was filed on November 15, 2016. A discussion of
the September 15, 2016 hearing is provided below.
Accompanying the request for Architectural Review was a parcel map to subdivide the property
into three lots for each of the single family homes. This parcel map requested an exception to
the PAMC for one of the lots to exceed the minimum lot size. This project was reviewed by the
City’s Planning and Transportation Commission on October 26, 2016, which unanimously
recommended conditional approval to the City Council. The City Council reviewed the proposed
parcel map on November 14, 2016. The Council added conditions to the parcel map which
required the accessory dwelling unit and garage to be setback eight-feet from all property lines
and that the applicant submit a geotechnical report that considered the simultaneous
dewatering of site for the proposed homes. With these conditions, the Council voted to
approve the project at the November 14, 2016 hearing.
ARB Review and Recommendation
The ARB reviewed the project plans and oral testimony from the applicant at a public hearing
on September 15, 2016. Members of the public did not attend the meeting to provide
comments. The ARB discussed the aesthetic quality of the project, access width of the driveway
on lot 3 and the location and architectural style of the homes, garage and accessory dwelling
unit on lot 3. The ARB requested that the applicant return to a subcommittee of the ARB to
review the driveway width on lot 3 and the style and positioning of the detached garage and
accessory dwelling unit. The ARB transcript of the meeting is provided in Attachment C.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The applicant has recently modified the project plans in response to the Board’s direction and
those plans are the ones included in this report. Specifically changes from the director
approved plans and the plans included in this packet include the following:
The home on lot 3 is setback 12 feet from the property line at 920 N. California Ave. This
space affords a landscape buffer and 11 foot driveway.
In response to the Council’s direction, the accessory dwelling unit and garage are
setback eight feet from all property lines. The accessory dwelling unit has a window
header height of six-foot nine-inches, which is less than the seven-foot tall fence along
the property lines. The applicant also incorporated landscape screening between the
fence and homes to enhance the level of privacy.
The accessory dwelling unit and detached garage incorporated similar design elements
as the main residence on lot 3.
Discussion
The appellants are Beatrix Cashmore, the property owner of 928 N. California Avenue and
Nicholas Kaposhilin of 936 N. California Avenue. Below is a summary of key appeal statements
and information about the issues raised in the appeal, followed by initial staff comments. If the
appeal is granted and the Council elects to schedule this item for a noticed public hearing, the
Council would conduct a “de novo” hearing, which means it may consider any of the issues
raised by appellants or any other issue related to architectural review.
Appeal Comment 1:
The appellant suggests improper public noticing of the ARB hearing on September 15, 2016.
Staff Response:
The proposed project is subject to the City’s public noticing requirements. The Palo Alto
Municipal Code requires notice of a public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to
owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in
advance. Mailed notice was sent on September 2, 2015, 13 days prior to the hearing. Notice of
the hearing was published in the September 2, 2016 edition of the Palo Alto Weekly, 13 days in
advance of the hearing. The hearing agenda was also available online on the city’s website and
posted at the information kiosk at city hall. Attachments E and F contain an excerpt from the
city’s mailing list and includes the appellant’s information. An affidavit attesting to proper
noticing is also included in this attachment.
Based on the foregoing, staff has concluded the project met and exceeded the standard
noticing requirements. Staff is unable to attest as to whether the appellant actually received
the notice, which is subject to other variables beyond the city’s control, including proper postal
City of Palo Alto Page 5
delivery and what an individual or family member does with the notice and the amount of
attention paid to the notice when received.
Appeal Comment 2:
The appellant suggests input from local residents is required regarding management of
potentially disruptive or unsafe effects on the neighborhood and should be addressed in
collaboration with project planners.
Staff Response:
This is an understandable comment since the appellant reports not being informed about the
project. In most instances, local residents would become informed of the project through site
posting and mailed notices, which provides an opportunity for interested persons to offer
comments about the project and to express concerns about potential impacts. The city also
uses an online service to sign up for email notification of planning projects in their
neighborhood (https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning).
While the appellant’s concerns were not expressed prior to the determination letter, the city
routinely evaluates projects from a multi-disciplinary perspective receiving comments from the
city’s planning, building, public works, utilities, fire, urban forestry, and legal departments.
This particular project was approved based on a number of standard conditions intended to
minimize the disruptive impacts of construction. Additionally, a few special conditions were
added to this approval determination to address the unique nature of three sites being
developed at one time. Some of these special and standard conditions are provided below that
related to this issue:
Condition #59: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to
the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way,
including, but not limited to:
o Pedestrian control
o Traffic control
o Truck routes
o Material deliveries
o Contractor’s parking
o On-site staging and storage areas
o Concrete pours
o Crane lifts
o Work hours
o Noise control
o Dust control
o Storm water pollution prevention
City of Palo Alto Page 6
o Contractor’s contact.
This plan is required to be prepared and submitted for review by the City along the
Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. Plot the construction fence, entrances, shoring,
limits of over excavation, construction workers parking area, staging and storage areas
within the private site for equipment and material.
The plan is also required to include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map
for construction traffic to and from the site, and how the bike lane will remain
accessible during construction
Condition # 64: Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work
within the Public road right-of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-
of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to
commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED
BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR
INFORMATION ONLY.”
Condition # 66: Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment
within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep
materials and equipment onsite.
Further, the parcel map approved by the City Council includes conditions to setback the
accessory dwelling unit and perform geotechnical assessment of the simultaneous effects of
dewatering. These conditions also include the logistics plan previously mentioned.
Appeal Comment 3:
Management of heavy commuter and school/bicycle traffic twice daily at the construction site
plus parking for construction workers
Staff Response:
This is related to the above comment. This specific issue will be addressed by the construction
logistics plan that will be reviewed by the public works and transportation departments.
Transportation’s review in particular will address operational constraints related to safe routes
to school, pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as use of flag persons, parking management and
other requirements. The construction logistics plan will also be reviewed by City and School
Traffic Safety Committee for their expertise in creating a plan that ensures safe school routes.
Appeal Comment 4:
City of Palo Alto Page 7
A new geotechnical study to assess the aggregate impact of dewatering three units
simultaneously
Staff Response:
There has been increased community interest on the impacts of dewatering associated with the
construction of basements in the city’s residential neighborhoods. In response, the city’s public
works department has established certain reporting and analysis requirements for projects
involving dewatering. The city’s Policy and Services Committee recently held a community
meeting on this topic and some additional measures and requirements are being explored.
As noted earlier, the public works department has reviewed the proposed project. The project
includes a specific condition that requires a geotechnical report. Specifically, the condition
requires the following:
Condition of Approval 53 – Dewatering:
o Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit
groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April
through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system.
o The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated
groundwater level.
o Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be
required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition
Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior
to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering.
o Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work
Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan
set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but
the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to
dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering
requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering
plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and
on the City’s website at.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp
The following links are included to assist the applicant with dewatering
requirements.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30978
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51366
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47388
It is anticipated that this review combined with standard practices and the department’s
evolving policies on this topic will ensure that dewatering impacts will be minimized.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Appeal Comment 5:
Remedying the inadequate onsite signage notifying residents of the proposed project
Staff Response:
As noted and as included in Attachment G, the project site contains onsite signage as required
by the municipal code. In addition, the PAMC requires notice of the hearing to be given at least
10 days prior to the hearing by publication in a local newspaper, by posting in a public place,
and by mailing to the applicant, the hearing requestor, if applicable, and all residents and
owners of property within 600 feet of the project. The notice is required to include the address
of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, and the date and time of the
hearing. While there could be an argument for evaluating the city’s noticing procedures,
including on-site posting requirements, staff believes the project complied with the applicable
noticing requirements.
Appeal Comment 6:
Discussion regarding shared driveway for lots 2 and 3 to increase the permeable surface.
Staff Response:
The proposed driveways for the project utilize the existing driveway locations already on the
subject property. This proposal minimizes the amount of earthwork, grading and site
alterations to City streets and sidewalks. The existing driveways consist of impermeable
surfaces. The project proposes that the driveway on Lot 3 will be a permeable driveway.
Therefore, the project increases the permeability of the existing driveways onsite. Further,
sharing a driveway presents potential conflicts between neighbors and would require a
reciprocal access agreement. In addition, our Code disfavors flag lots in residential areas in part
to minimize future neighbor disputes. Ultimately, the proposal conforms to the Zoning Code
requirement of 60% permeable surface in the front setback (18.12.040(h)) and improves the
existing condition by increasing permeability on the site.
Environmental Review
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to
Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). The project includes a
proposal to construct three new single family homes. The proposed homes are located in an
urbanized area on a site used continuously for residential purposes by three existing single-
family homes. The proposed exemption allows for the construction of up to three homes in an
urbanized area. Therefore, the project is consistent with the subject exemption.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received beyond the
appeal letter.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the City Council may:
1. Remove the project from consent and continue the hearing to March 13, 2017.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)
Attachment B: Appeal Letter (PDF)
Attachment C: ARB Minutes for September 15, 2016 (DOC)
Attachment D: Signed Approval Letter and Conditions of Approval (PDF)
Attachment E: Hearing Notice Cards (PDF)
Attachment F: Notice of Director's Decision (PDF)
Attachment G: On-site Signage (DOCX)
Attachment I: Project Details (DOCX)
Attachment H: Palo Alto Weekly Publication September 2, 2016 (PDF)
Attachment J: Project Plans (DOCX)
Attachment K 11-14-16 Excerpt 900 Cal Ave Action Minutes (DOCX)
Attachment L: Record of Land Use 900 N. California (Parcel Map) (PDF)
Attachment M: Council Questions & Responses (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Excerpt Minutes of September 15, 2016 1
Architectural Review Board 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
900 N California Ave [15PLN-00155]: Request by Kohler Associates Architects, on behalf of Greg Xiong, 10
for Architectural Review of three single-family homes to replace three existing homes. Environmental 11
Review: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion 12
of Small Structures). Zoning District: Single Family Residential District (R-1). For more information 13
contact the planner, Adam Petersen, at APetersen@m-group.us. 14
15
Adam Petersen reviewed details of the proposed project. Staff found the project to be consistent with the 16
Comprehensive Plan, the Individual Review guidelines for single-family homes and the Zoning Code 17
Development Standards. Staff recommended the Architectural Review Board recommend the Director find the 18
project exempt from the California Evaluation Quality Act and recommend approval subject to the conditions 19
and findings of approval. 20
21
Roger Kohler, Kohler Associates Architects, noted the project had been subjected to the Individual Review 22
process. Jeff Kuo described the neighborhood context, the design concept, and details of the three houses. 23
24
Board Member Baltay requested staff provide the history of review of this project. Ms. Gerhardt clarified that 25
the City's IR architect had reviewed the project and provided comments. Board Member Baltay inquired 26
whether the Board could assume that the IR process would approve the project or if the Board should make 27
that determination. Ms. Gerhardt explained that the same guidelines applied to an Individual Review as an 28
Architectural Review. 29
30
Board Member Kim requested an explanation for Condition of Approval 3A. Ms. Gerhardt referred to an 31
interpretation of the allowed basement under the footprint of buildings. An applicant was allowed to complete 32
the square in two areas where those were under an entry porch or a back porch. In this floor plan, there 33
wasn't a sliding glass door or something to that extent to make it an entry. Board Member Kim reiterated that a 34
door was being required so that it was an entry. 35
36
Board Member Furth inquired regarding the minimum lot size. Ms. Gerhardt indicate the minimum lot size was 37
6,000 square feet and the maximum was 9,999 square feet. 38
39
Vice Chair Lew requested the logic for the placement of the garage and the guest house on Lot 3. Mr. Kohler 40
indicated that combining them resulted in a fairly large building. Two separate buildings allowed plantings and 41
trees, and the home had more of a backyard feel. Vice Chair Lew added that one building would be large and 42
low to meet daylight plane requirements. Mr. Kohler noted the maximum allowed height was 12 feet. Vice 43
Chair Lew inquired regarding a minimum separation between accessory buildings. Ms. Gerhardt advised of a 44
minimum separation for accessory structures of 3 feet. The minimum separation for a second dwelling unit was 45
12 feet from the main dwelling. 46
47
Board Member Kim asked if there was a reason the secondary dwelling unit was not built to 900 square feet. 48
Mr. Kohler indicated floor area limits prevented a larger building. Board Member Kim added that increasing the 49
size of the secondary dwelling unit would not exceed the total floor area. Mr. Kohler asked if Board Member 50
Kim was encouraging him to build to the maximum size. Board Member Kim was encouraging secondary 51
dwelling units that would serve a second family as best as possible. Mr. Kuo clarified that the allowable floor 52
area was 4,777 square feet. Board Member Kim was mistakenly looking at lot coverage only. 53
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
Board Member Baltay inquired regarding the width of the driveway easement on Lot 3. Mr. Kuo responded 10 2
feet 10 inches. 3
4
Greg Xiong stated the existing structures were not a good use of those sites. He proposed living in one of the 5
homes and selling the other two. 6
7
Board Member Kim indicated the IR process addressed most issues. Some sheets for Lot 1 had the wrong 8
address. On Sheet A5, part of the roof plane was shown incorrectly. He felt the project would dramatically 9
change the intersection. He was interested in seeing 3D site perspectives showing the three homes in relation 10
to neighboring single-story homes. Considering the size of the homes, he did not like the garage placement on 11
Lot 2 with the side entry. The proposed homes were large; yet, Lots 1 and 2 had only single-car garages. The 12
garage and guest house on Lot 3 needed more thought. 13
14
Vice Chair Lew liked the design of project. The porches were very desirable and would make the neighborhood 15
look better. Blending the two-story mass with one-story hipped roofs helped tie the house into the 16
neighborhood. His only issue was the Lot 3 guest house. There was little privacy from the adjacent house as 17
the structure was located only 6 feet from the property line. He suggested adding a buffer or moving the 18
building back for landscaping or a taller fence. Ms. Gerhardt reported staff had not received any comments 19
from neighbors. 20
21
Board Member Furth agreed the project would be quite a transformation of the corner. She could not find 22
"guest house" in the City's glossary. Ms. Gerhardt indicated the proper term was second dwelling unit. Board 23
Member Furth suggested marking those as second dwelling units so the Board could understand which 24
standards to apply. The relationship between Lot 3 and 920 California Avenue was problematic. The proposed 25
structures would surround a small, low-key house on two sides. She could not make the finding that it 26
adequately addressed the neighboring issue. Lot 3 would require significant screening/landscaping on the north 27
side, which would require widening the driveway. The same applied to the accessory dwelling unit. She 28
inquired whether one of the covered spaces was required for the accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Petersen advised 29
that the Code required one parking space in the garage and one outside the garage. Board Member Furth felt a 30
garage shared by two separate uses should be a divided space. She would not want to approve the project 31
without a bifurcated garage. She expressed some concern that the design of the house made it look bigger 32
than the square footage needed to look. Replacement houses along California Avenue were set back and low 33
key. The three proposed homes were not differentiated, but appeared to be built as a set of three. 34
35
Board Member Baltay shared Vice Chair Lew's sentiment that the homes were handsome and fit into the fabric 36
of the community. He liked the wrap-around corner porch on Lot 2 as well as the plaster finish with curved 37
eave detailing. That provided a notable corner. He did not share the sentiment that the three homes were 38
sufficiently different. They were clearly individually designed for individual circumstances. He could support the 39
project overall. The driveway space on Lot 3 was too narrow and needed a minimum of 12 feet for landscaping 40
between the driveway and the neighboring home. The driveway needed more space to be usable. Perhaps the 41
applicant could narrow the house a bit. The guest house and garage were not thought out. He would prefer to 42
move the project forward subject to some small changes. 43
44
Vice Chair Lew inquired whether the Board could approve the project and have changes return on the consent 45
calendar or to the subcommittee for review. The Board discussed modifications to the design and whether 46
those modifications could be submitted to staff, the subcommittee or the Board on the consent calendar. 47
48
Chair Gooyer viewed a five-bedroom house with a one-car garage as an invitation for cars to park everywhere; 49
however, the Code allowed that. The proposed homes were large, but most newer homes in the area were 50
similar. 51
52
MOTION: 53
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
Board Member Baltay moved, seconded by Vice Chair Lew, that the Architectural Review Board make the 2
findings in the Staff Report and approve the project with an additional finding that (1) the house on Lot 3 be 3
shifted so that there is a minimum of 12 feet between the property line and the house; (2) a landscape buffer 4
be installed on the left-hand side of the driveway; and (3) the design of the guest house and garage return to 5
the Architectural Review Board subcommittee for final review. 6
7
Board Member Furth offered an amendment that the garage have two separate spaces. Board Member Baltay 8
felt that had not been required previously. 9
10
MOTION PASSED: 3-2 11
ATTACHMENT G
ONSITE SIGNAGE
900 North California Avenue / File No. 15PLN-00155
The sign was first posted onsite in April 2015, it was damaged and fell on the ground sometimes
after the winter season. The applicant fixed the sign and updated the plans and put on the site
again in early September this year. The photos below were taken on December 19, 2016:
ATTACHMENT I
PROJECT DETAILS
900 North California Avenue / File No. 15PLN-00155
Lot 1 - A two-story house with an attached one-car garage on an 8,033 sf lot. The proposed structure
would have a total of 3,157 sf of floor area, excluding the basement but including the garage. Of this
area, 1,148 sf of floor area (36%) is proposed on the second floor. One street tree has been added to
the frontage per the City Arborist’s request. Five screening trees have been added along the side
interior lot lines in the rear yard area.
Lot 2 - A two-story house with an attached one-car garage on a 9,379 sf corner lot. The proposed
structure would have a total of 3,563 sf of floor area, excluding the basement but including the garage.
Of this area, 1,269 sf of floor (36%) is proposed on the second floor, including any second floor
equivalency area. One street tree on the Louis Road the frontage would be replaced. The existing
street tree on the North California Avenue frontage would remain. Most other landscape, including
small trees would be removed except for some existing trees along the right side setback line at the
rear yard, located on Lot 3. No other new trees are proposed.
Lot 3 – The proposed lot is ‘L’ shaped with the base of the ‘L’ wrapping behind the adjacent lot to the
left at 920 N. California Avenue. The project proposes a two-story house with a detached two-car
garage and detached guesthouse on a 13,425 sf lot. The proposed structures would have a total of
4,775 sf of floor area, including the garage and guest house, but excluding the basement. The main
house is 3,978 sf, and the second unit is 597 sf excluding the garage and guest house. The second floor
of the main house is 1,424 sf of floor area (36%), including any second floor equivalency area. One
existing street tree will remain along with two trees at the left side lot line in the front yard and a few
trees along the rear lot line and distant left side lot line adjacent the proposed cottage. Several new
screening trees have been added along both side interior lot lines and the rear lot line.
Table 1
Project Summary
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Address 2205 Louis Road 900 N. California Ave 912 N. California Ave
Lot Area 8,032.90 sf 9,378.70 sf 13,425 sf
First Floor Area 1,789.60 sf 2,071.47 sf 2,313.44 sf
Second Floor Area 1,148 sf 1,269 sf 1,423 sf
Garage 219.54 sf 222.45 sf 441 sf
2nd Dwelling Unit -- -- 597.12 sf
Total FAR 3,157.21 sf 3,563.02 sf 34,775.19 sf
Basement (Non-
FAR) 1,896.27 sf 2,274.73 sf 2,417 sf
Attachment J
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to City Council Members. These plans are available to
the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor
of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2. Search for “900 California Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot
3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option
4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments”
5. Open the attachment named “06.08.16_900N.California redux.pdf”
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 3
Special Meeting
November 14, 2016
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:30 P.M.
Present: Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman arrived at 5:33 P.M., Scharff,
Schmid arrived at 5:33 P.M., Wolbach
Absent: Berman, Kniss
Action Items
16. PUBLIC HEARING: 900 N. California Ave. [14PLN-00233]:
Recommendation for Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, With
Exceptions, to Subdivide an Existing 30,837 Square Foot Parcel Into
Three Parcels. The Parcel Map Exception is to Allow one of the Parcels
to Exceed the Maximum Lot Area. Environmental Assessment:
Exemption Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). Zoning
District: Single-Family Residential District (R-1) **QUASI JUDICIAL.
Public Hearing opened at 8:24 P.M.
Public Hearing closed at 8:38 P.M.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois
to:
A. Find the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3); and
B. Approve the Record of Land Use Action for the proposed preliminary
parcel map application.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “including the addition of a
requirement that a second unit be built on Lot 3.” (New Part B.i.)
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “increase the setbacks to 8
ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 3
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 11/14/16
feet on all sides of the garage and accessory buildings on Lot 3.” (New Part
B.ii.)
AMENDENT: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to
the Motion, “direct Staff to determine and certify that the aggregate
de-watering of the three basements not be deleterious to the surrounding
properties or vegetation.”
AMENDMENT RESTATED: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to review the third party
dewatering review statement to assure that the aggregate impact is
evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering impact of each lot.”
AMENDENT2: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add
to the Motion, “add the requirement that this development be subject to
whatever new dewatering requirements the Council adopts before the next
dewatering season.”
AMENDENT2 RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the
Motion, “add the requirement that this development be subject to whatever
dewatering requirements are in effect before the next dewatering season.”
(New Part C)
AMENDMENT RESTATED: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to review the third party
review statement to assure that any aggregate impact presented by the
construction schedule is evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering
impact of each lot.”
AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the
Motion, “direct Staff to review the third party geo-technical report to assure
that any aggregate impact presented by the construction schedule is
evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering impact of construction on
each lot.” (New Part D)
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded
by Council Member DuBois to:
A. Find the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3); and
B. Approve the Record of Land Use Action for the proposed preliminary
parcel map application:
ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 3
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 11/14/16
i. Including the addition of a requirement that a second unit be
built on Lot 3; and
ii. Increase the setbacks to 8 feet on all sides of the garage and
accessory buildings on Lot 3; and
C. Add the requirement that this development be subject to whatever
dewatering requirements are in effect before the next dewatering
season; and
D. Direct Staff to review the third party geo-technical report to assure
that any aggregate impact presented by the construction schedule is
evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering impact of
construction on each lot.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Kniss absent
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 P.M.
1
161202 jb 0131566 1
APPROVAL NO. 2016-05
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE
ACTION FOR 900 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE: PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP
APPLICATION [14PLN-00233]
On November 14, 2016, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto considered and
approved the Preliminary Parcel Map for the development of a three lot subdivision project with
exceptions, making the following findings, determinations and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds,
determines, and declares as follows:
A. On June 25, 2014, Kohler Associates Architects on behalf of Greg Xiong applied for a
Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions for the development of a 0.70 acre parcel (“The Project”).
B. The project site is comprised of one lot (APN No. 137-51-021) of approximately
0.70-acres. The site contains three residential structures. Single-family residential land uses are located
adjacent to the lot to the north, south, east and west.
C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed
the project and recommended approval on October 20, 2016 subject to the conditions of approval
below.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has
determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the
authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3).
SECTION 3. Preliminary Parcel Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny
approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section
66474):
1.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 and is consistent with the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2.That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans:
The map is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785
2
161202 jb 0131566 2
a.Policy L-4: 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.
b.Policy L-10: Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers, and
Employment Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the region’s transit and
street system.
c.Policy L-12: Preserve the character residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or
remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.
3.That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development:
The site is well suited for the proposed three single family homes and one secondary dwelling
unit. The proposed homes would replace three existing single-family homes, which complies
with allowed uses of the R-1 zoning district.
4.That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development:
The proposal for the site is consistent with all zoning regulations, with the proposed exceptions,
including lot width, depth, and area.
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 habitat:
The minor subdivision will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their
habitat. The project site has been fully urbanized and developed and is centrally located within
a developed residential area. There is no recognized sensitive wildlife or habitat in the project
vicinity.
6.That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public
health problems:
The creation three parcels for three single-family residential units and one secondary dwelling
unit will not cause serious public health problems, because the site is designated for single
family development.
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785
3
161202 jb 0131566 3
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 proposed preliminary parcel map will not conflict with easements of any type, in that the
map would create three parcels on the property, and would not affect any of the existing or
proposed easements on or adjacent to the project site.
SECTION 4. Exception Findings. The project proposes exceptions to the zoning standards
for lot size for the following and depicted on Preliminary Parcel Map:
• Lot Size (greater than 9,999 square feet): Lot 3.
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property.
The subject property is substantially larger in area than allowed by the zoning code. The site
also includes three single family residences on one legal parcel, representing another
noncompliant condition. The applicant’s request for a preliminary parcel map with exceptions
results in a more compliant condition within the project boundary and new development that
will be more consistent with and compatible to the surrounding properties. It is not possible to
subdivide the parcel into three or four fully compliant lots. The exception allows one of the
three lots to be slightly larger in area than allowed by the code.
2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the petitioner.
The property owner is eligible to subdivide the existing parcel. The existing one parcel with
three housing units does not conform to the maximum lot area for the R1 District. With the
subdivision exception, the owner is able to create individual legal parcels for three residences,
however, one the lots would remain non-conforming as to lot area. It is not possible to adjust
the lot area of the other parcels or create a fourth parcel in order to achieve complete
conformance with the city’s property development standards. Subdividing the existing parcel
into code compliant lots is not possible with the exception and approving the exception results
in three lots that are more consistent and more compatible to properties in the general vicinity.
3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the territory in which the property is situated.
For the reasons cited above, the exception actually results in a housing development design
that is more consistent with the pattern of single family development in the area and renders
an existing nonconforming parcel into two conforming lots and one lot that is slightly larger
than the maximum lot area authorized in the district. The lot area maximum exists to ensure
future subdivisions meet a desired scale and proportionality to other lots in the area. The
existing 26,669 lot is inconsistent with that objective and the exceptions renders the parcel
more compatible. Such action is neither detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to other
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785
4
161202 jb 0131566 4
property in the area.
4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the
law.
The granting of the exception will further the requirements, goals, policies and spirit of the law
by creating two legal parcels and a third, slightly nonconforming lot, from one lot that is
significantly larger than required by the city’s zoning code. From a neighborhood compatibility
perspective, and consistency with the spirit of the law, the requested exception represents an
improvement to the existing conditions found at the site and further advances the objectives of
the code. The provision of an Accessory Dwelling Unit on Lot 3 shall ensure compatible scale
with the neighborhood and advance policies in the Housing Element.
SECTION 5. Preliminary Parcel Map Approval Granted. Preliminary Tentative Map
approval is granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California
Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record.
SECTION 6. Tentative Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by
the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by WEC
and Associates “Preliminary Parcel Map 900 N. California Avenue”, consisting of three lots, dated
August 19, 2014, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of this
plan is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division.
Within two years of the approval date of the Preliminary Parcel Map, the subdivider shall cause the
subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Parcel Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be
prepared in conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map as conditionally approved, and in
compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to
the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]).
SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
1. The applicant shall confirm the location all existing features of the site, including protected and
non-protected trees, wells, structures, utilities, and easements to the satisfaction of Public
Works, the Planning Division, and any other agency that would have an interest in those
features.
2. The owner or designee prior to issuance of any building permit shall pay the applicable Development Impact fees.
3. The owner or designee prior to building permit issuance shall submit for review and approval a construction traffic plan and construction phasing plan for development to the City.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785
5
161202 jb 0131566 5
4. Development Impact Fees: The proposed project will replace three homes, create three new parcels and add a secondary dwelling unit, therefore the estimated impact fee is $50,793.08.
5. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for
protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS.
If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other
exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide
notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may
protest these requirements.
6. The applicant is hereby notified, as required by Government Code § 66020, that the approved plans, these conditions of approval, and the adopted City fee schedule set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan constitute written notice of the description of the dedications, reservations, amount of fees and other exactions related to the project. As of the date of project approval, the 90 day period has begun in which the applicant may protest any dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions imposed by the City. Failure to file a protest in compliance with all of the requirements of Government Code § 66020 will result in a legal bar to challenging the dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions.
7. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any
claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant’s expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
8. Accessory Dwelling Unit: An accessory dwelling unit shall be built on Lot 3.
9. Lot 3 Setback: The project shall setback the proposed accessory dwelling unit and garage on Lot 3 eight-feet (8’) from all property lines.
10. Dewatering Requirements. The applicant shall comply with the City of Palo Alto Guidelines for Dewatering During Basement Or Below Ground Garage Construction dated February 2016. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning and Community Environment Director that the proposed dewatering plan is not deleterious to vegetation. The third party evaluation of the proposed dewatering shall take into account the aggregate and simultaneous dewatering of all three lots and the proposed development shall be subject to the City’s standards in effect at the time of the report.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785
6
161202 jb 0131566 6
Building Division
11. The existing buildings within the project area shall be demolished prior to recording the map. A
separate permit shall be required for the removal of the building.
12. New addresses will be assigned to each lot with the subdivision, following recordation of the map. The applicant shall file and “Address request Form” and pay the required fee, to the Palo Alto Development Center.
Public Works Engineering Department
PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP SUBMITTAL
13. Provide a current Preliminary Title Report, printed less than 3 month from Parcel Map submittal
date.
PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP RECORDATION
14. The City of Palo Alto does not currently have a City Surveyor we have retained the services of
Siegfried Engineering to review and provide approval on behalf of the City. Siegfried will be
reviewing, signing and stamping the Parcel Map associated with your project.
In effort to employ the services of Siegfried Engineering, and as part of the City’s cost recovery
measures, the applicant is required to provide payment to cover the cost of Siegfried
Engineering’s review.
Our intent is to forward your Parcel Map to Siegfriend for an initial preliminary review of the
documents. Siegfriend will then provide a review cost amount based on the complexity of the
project and the information shown on the document. We will share this information with you
once we receive it and ask that you return a copy acknowledging the amount. You may then
provide a check for this amount as payment for the review cost. The City must receive payment
prior to beginning the final review process.
15. Once the Parcel Map is approved by the City, submit wet signed and stamped mylar copy of the
Parcel Map to the Public Works for signature. Map shall be signed by Owner, Notary and
Surveyor prior to formal submittal.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT
16. Parcel Map shall be recorded with County Recorder.
17. Off-site improvements such as curb and gutter, sidewalk replacement, street tree replacement
and/or new street trees, utility upgrades or street resurfacing are typically required with
subdivisions. As part of the proposed of subdivision, applicant(s) shall be aware that off-site
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785
7
161202 jb 0131566 7
improvements such as those listed above will be required. At a minimum, plans for the building
permits shall show curb, gutter and sidewalk along the project frontages to be removed and
replaced, full-street width resurfacing (mill and overlay) will be required. The curb ramps at the
intersection may also need to be upgrade as part of this project to comply to accessibility
standards. Plans shall include existing and proposed striping plan. Applicant shall meet with
Urban Forestry to evaluate if a new street tree can be planted along the project frontages.
18.If the existing buildings are to be demolished, applicant shall contact Urban Forestry at
(650)496-5953 prior to demolition to verify tree protection measures are in place.
19.LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public
Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to:
pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, on-site staging
and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water
pollution prevention, contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough
Grading and Excavation Permit. Plot the construction fence, entrances, shoring, limits of over
excavation, construction workers parking area, staging and storage areas within the private site for
equipment and material. It shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for
construction traffic to and from the site. Plan shall also indicate if the bus stop will need to be relocated
and show how the bike lane will remain accessible during construction. The logistics plan will provide
controls that minimize the disruption to neighbors and provides parking and staging on-site to the
extent feasible.
Utilities Electrical Engineering
20.Applicant shall grant easement to all electric equipment including transformers, switches,
electric pull boxes and vaults, electric conduit.
21.All equipment shall be pad mounted, NO underground equipment is allowed.
22.All the weather head shall follow CPAU standard (lower than 18')
23.Applicant shall install, owned and maintain the streetlight system on the private street. These
street lights shall be fed through a meter pedestal.
24.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
25.The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers,
switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner
shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed within the subdivision as required by the
City.
26.The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (i.e. conduits, boxes, pads,
services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785
8
161202 jb 0131566 8
27.The developer/owner is responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes, pads,
streetlights system, etc.) on the subdivision parcel map. The design and installation shall be according
to the City standards and all work must be inspected and approved by the Electrical Underground
Inspector.
28.The developer/owner is responsible for all underground services (conduits and conductors) to single-
family homes within the subdivision. All work requires inspection and approval from both the Building
Department and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
29.The tentative parcel map shall show all required easements as requested by the City.
Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Department
30.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters to theexisting building including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected orremoved within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issuedby the Building Inspection Division after all utility services and/or meters have beendisconnected and removed.
31.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas wastewater service connection application-
load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information
requested for utility service demands.
32.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing services as necessaryto handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all cost associated with design andconstruction for the installation/upgrade of the utility services.
33.Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown onthe plans.
34.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for
water, gas, & wastewater.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785
9
161202 jb 0131566 9
SECTION 8. Term of Approval.
1. Preliminary Parcel Map. All conditions of approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map shall be fulfilledprior to map recordation (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]). Unless a Tentative Map is filed, and allconditions of approval are fulfilled within a two- year period from the date of PreliminaryTentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Preliminary Tentative Mapshall expire and all proceedings shall terminate.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by WEC and Associates titled “Preliminary Parcel Map”, consisting of five page, dated
August 19, 2014.
November 14, 2016
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82D14D40-AE25-48E7-8107-632D5EFCD785
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 82D14D40AE2548E78107632D5EFCD785 Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign: RLUA 900 California Ave.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 9 Signatures: 4 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Janet Billups
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
janet.billups@cityofpaloalto.org
IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Record Tracking
Status: Original
12/13/2016 11:22:50 AM
Holder: Janet Billups
janet.billups@cityofpaloalto.org
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Cara Silver
cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org
Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Sent: 12/13/2016 11:36:41 AM
Viewed: 12/13/2016 11:37:21 AM
Signed: 12/13/2016 11:37:41 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 7/15/2015 5:07:16 PM
ID: 11910ed1-61d1-4ff3-9cf9-f4eb5a0768e2
Hillary Gitelman
hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Sent: 12/13/2016 11:37:43 AM
Viewed: 12/13/2016 1:17:30 PM
Signed: 12/13/2016 1:17:46 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
ID:
Patrick Burt
Patrick.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org
Mayor
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Using IP Address: 70.213.11.19
Signed using mobile
Sent: 12/13/2016 1:17:47 PM
Viewed: 12/13/2016 11:47:30 PM
Signed: 12/13/2016 11:48:00 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
ID:
Beth Minor
beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Sent: 12/13/2016 11:48:00 PM
Viewed: 12/14/2016 9:05:13 AM
Signed: 12/14/2016 9:06:02 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
ID:
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Alicia Spotwood
Alicia.Spotwood@CityofPaloAlto.org
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM
Viewed: 12/14/2016 9:08:02 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
ID:
Kim Lunt
Kim.Lunt@cityofpaloalto.org
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
ID:
Notary Events Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM
Signing Complete Security Checked 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM
Completed Security Checked 12/14/2016 9:06:03 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure
CONSUMER DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to
you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for
providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc.
(DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly,
and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms
and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of
this document.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available
electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the
DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you
through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such
documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of
any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may
request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time
change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures
only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and
disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures
electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the
speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to
you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format,
and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such
paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must
withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your
DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive
required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your
DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us
or to sign electronically documents from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide
electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures,
authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or
made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of
you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required
notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given
us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through
the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as
described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the
consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures
electronically from us.
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 8:33:53 AM
Parties agreed to: Cara Silver
How to contact City of Palo Alto:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically,
to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to
receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org
To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address
To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures
electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at
david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous
e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to
change your email address..
In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected
in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign.
To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided
by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and
in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and
telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.
To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto
To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic
format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent
page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may;
ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request
you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account
number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The
consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions
may take a longer time to process..
Required hardware and software
Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP?
Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above
Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0,
NetScape 7.2 (or above)
Email: Access to a valid email account
Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum
Enabled Security Settings:
•Allow per session cookies
•Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy
Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via
proxy connection
** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will
provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time
providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will
have the right to withdraw your consent.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically
To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to
other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you
were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or
electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to
e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or
save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and
disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above,
please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below.
By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that:
• I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF
ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and
• I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can
print it, for future reference and access; and
• Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from
exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations,
acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you.
Attachment M
On January 9, 2017, PCE staff received the following questions regarding the ARB appeal of three new
homes at 900 California Avenue; responses follow:
Councilmember Request: Request for a copy of the November 14, 2017 minutes related to the Parcel
Map application reviewed by the City Council.
Response: Now included in the report as Attachment K. The minutes state that the City Council directed
the following action related to the parcel map application:
A. Found the project exempt from CEQA. This was addressed in the Record of Land Use Action,
Section 2 (Attachment L)
B. Approved the Record of Land Use Action
i. Affirmed that the proposed second unit would be provided on Lot 3 This was addressed
in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment L), Condition #8.
ii. Increased the setbacks for the garage and accessory buildings be set back eight (8) feet
from all property lines. This was addressed in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment
L), condition # 9 and addressed in revised plans previously transmitted to the City
Council and available online at as detailed in Attachment J.
C. Added a requirement that the development be subject to dewatering requirements in effect
before the next dewatering season. This was addressed in the Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment L), Condition 10.
D. Directed staff to review the third party geotechnical report to assure that any aggregate impact
presented by the construction schedule is evaluated and not simply the individual dewater impact
of construction on each lot. This was addressed in the Record of Land Use Action
E. Attachment L), Condition 10. Note that current provisions stipulated by the city requires a
geotechnical report, the cumulative impact analysis is the unique provision incorporated into
the condition.
Conditions included in the Record of Land Use Action for the parcel map will be reviewed and
implemented as part of the building permit review process associated with the proposed homes and do
not need to be repeated in the architectural review conditions of approval.
Councilmember Question: Dewatering. The appellant's concerns seem to be about the cumulative effect
/ impact of dewatering. I do not see this addressed in the Condition #53 as the staff report seems to
indicate.
Response: The City Council reviewed the parcel map application to subdivide the subject property on
November 14, 2016 pursuant to current application review procedures. During that public hearing, the
City Council heard testimony from nearby residents expressing concern about dewatering. In response,
the City Council required the project be subject to whatever dewatering requirements are in effect before
the next dewatering season. Accordingly, staff incorporated the following condition of approval to the
parcel map record of land use action (see Attachment L, Condition #10):
Dewatering Requirements. The applicant shall comply with the City of
Palo Alto Guidelines for Dewater During Basement Or Below Ground
Garage Construction dated February 2016. The applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning and Community
Environment Director that the proposed dewatering plan is not
deleterious to vegetation. The third party evaluation of the proposed
dewatering shall take into account the aggregate and simultaneous
dewatering of all three lots and the proposed development shall be
subject to the City’s standards in effect at the time of the report.
(Emphasis Added)
This condition is associated with the parcel map and would apply to the future construction of the three
proposed homes and second dwelling unit; it would be implemented as part of the building permit review
process.
This condition is not incorporated into the Architectural Review conditions of approval because that action
preceded the City Council’s review of the parcel map. The Council may recall that the appeal period for
the Architectural Review approval ended the day after the Council acted on the parcel map. Condition
#53 referenced above partially addresses the dewatering issue, but is also more focused on the
requirement for a geotechnical study.
Staff’s review of the conditions of approval applicable to this project, in consultation with the City
Attorney’s office, concludes that the city has sufficient authority to require a geotechnical report and
dewatering analysis during the building permit review process that addresses the cumulative impact of all
three properties being constructed at one time and will evaluate the report based on the standards
applicable in place at the time the report is prepared.
Councilmember Question: Condition 39 states that the applicant shall file for a Minor Subdivision
Application for creating four (4) lots. This was not addressed during the CC review of the subdivision and
it appears that creation of a 4th lot would create a flag lot which is not allowed per City code. Can staff
please explain why this is included in the Conditions?
Response. There is an error in this condition, which has been corrected in the Director’s letter
(Attachment D). The City Council approved a three lot subdivision; no flag lots were created. A corrected
Director’s letter was prepared on January 10th and mailed to the applicant.
Councilmember Question: Condition #59: will plans be proactively be provided to neighbors for comment
prior to finalizing?
Response. Condition #59 requires the preparation of a logistics plan. While this is a public document, it is
one typically reviewed by professional staff. There is no current mechanism for noticing the public, but
members of the public may request a copy of all submittal materials.