Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6379 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6379) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/11/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 224 Churchill Setback Variance Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Variance to Allow for a Reduction in the Required Front Setback (Contextual) from 37 Feet 1-1/4 Inches to 32 Feet for a New Two-Story Single Family Residence Located at 224 Churchill Avenue. Exempt from CEQA. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment This item was on the consent calendar of the November 16, 2015 City Council meeting and was removed for further discussion by Council Member DuBois, seconded by Mayor Holman, and third by Council Member Filseth. The staff report with attachments is included with this transmittal. After receiving public comment, the City Council may approve or deny the requested variance. If approved, the Council may require modifications. Attachments:  Attachment A: November 16, 2015 City Council Staff Report (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 6168) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/16/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 224 Churchill Setback Variance Title: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Variance to Allow for a Reduction in the Required Front Setback (Contextual) from 37 Feet 1-1/4 Inches to 32 Feet for a New Two-Story Single Family Residence Located at 224 Churchill Avenue From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Adopt the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission to approve a variance for the property at 224 Churchill Avenue as documented in the attached Record of Land Use Action. Executive Summary This report transmits the Planning and Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommendation supporting a variance to reduce the contextual front setback from approximately 37 feet to 32 feet. This decision is supported in part due to the substantial front yard setback on the neighboring property, which was used to calculate the contextual setback for the subject property. While staff did not initially support the requested variance, favoring instead a zoning text amendment, the granting of the variance is not detrimental to the neighborhood or in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Background The applicant proposes to construct a new 4,644 two story single family residence with an attached garage, carport and 1,723 square foot basement in the Seale Addition neighborhood. The project complies with all applicable code requirements, except for one notable provision, which is the reason for the subject variance. Properties on this block are subject to a front yard contextual setback. For the subject property, the setback is 37 feet 1-1/4 inches; the applicant proposes a 32 foot setback. Project Site The project site is located on Churchill Avenue near the Emerson Street intersection. The Attachment A City of Palo Alto Page 2 property is a conforming 13,000 square feet rectangular interior lot, 100 foot wide by 130 foot deep. The site is currently developed with a 3,818 square foot single family residence and 1,500 square foot basement that is proposed to be demolished. The property is located within the R-1 (10,000) zone district and is subject to a special setback of 24 feet along Churchill Avenue as well as the contextual front setback. Conceptual Front Setback A front yard residential setback is the minimum distance a home may be placed in relation to its front property line. The standard setback in the residential district is 20 feet. However, in some areas, there are also special setbacks with a greater distance requirement. The subject property has a 24 foot special setback. The code also has a third front setback criteria called a conceptual front setback which is designed to protect neighborhoods which have developed over time with greater setbacks. For block faces with five or more qualifying properties, homes that have the greatest setback and the shortest setback are removed from the calculation eliminating the outlier properties. Certain properties are not included in the calculation, notably lots with three or more units, flag lots and corner lots. Based on an evaluation of the subject property relative to the three other (four total) qualifying parcels, the conceptual front setback back for the project is 37 feet 1-1/4 inches. Because there are only four qualifying parcels (including the subject property) the outlier properties are not excluded from the averaging calculation. On this block existing front yard setbacks range from approximately 22 – 69 feet. The larger setback is provided on a property with a deeper lot and a home that was constructed in 1927 with approximately 3,000 square feet of gross floor area. Director’s Determination The director reviewed a request for a variance to encroach into the required conceptual front setback by approximately 5 feet for a 32 foot setback from the front property line. When reviewing a request for a variance, the director, and City Council on appeal, must consider the following findings: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: a. The personal circumstances of the property owner, and b. Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. 2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the City of Palo Alto Page 3 limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. While able to support Findings 2, 3, 4 above, the Director was not able to support Finding 1. Specifically, the application of the conceptual setback did not appear to deprive the owner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and that there was nothing about the lot that created a special circumstance. The additional five foot setback did reduce the amount of private rear yard space available, but it did not reduce the buildable potential of the lot. Moreover, the applicant submitted plans in compliance with the conceptual front setback that is being processed through development services department, in case the variance was denied. To staff, this underscored the perspective that the conceptual front yard setback was an inconvenience to the preferred design solution, but did not result in a special circumstance necessitating a variance. The director’s decision was made on May 18, 2015 and a request by the applicant for hearing followed on June 2, 2015. Planning & Transportation Commission The PTC unanimously supported (Chair Tanaka absent) the applicant’s request for the variance. The Commission noted that the adjacent parcel with the approximate 69 foot setback was an outlier that, consistent with the intent of the code, ought to be excluded from the calculation to determine the conceptual front setback. Commissioners cited the Comprehensive Plan and the desire to maintain neighborhood character as reasons to support the variance, noting that a 32 foot setback was more in keeping with the neighborhood. Commissioners commented that the objective of the special setback was not met as a result of the conceptual setback requirement and further observed that averaging all these parcels had the effect of pulling all front setback lines further away from the street. Commissioners noted the high cost of land values in the city and the desire for larger backyards and related the increased setback to the loss of enjoyment to this property owner. The absence of any neighborhood opposition was also noted by the Commission. Based on the PTCs deliberation, staff prepared variance findings, which are documented in the Record of Land Use Action and added a list of standard conditions that will apply to the project. The Record of Land Use Action is provided in Attachment B. Council Review Authority The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) outlines that variances are generally approved or denied by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Code allows, however, for anyone to request a hearing before the PTC, as was made by the applicant in this case. PAMC Section 18.77.060(f) states the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation City of Palo Alto Page 4 Commission shall be placed on the Consent Calendar of the Council for final decision. The Council may: 1. adopt the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission; or 2. remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, and a. discuss the application and adopt findings and take action on the application based upon the evidence presented at the hearing of the Planning and Transportation Commission; or b. direct that the application be set for a new hearing before the City Council, following which the City Council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. The decision of the Council is final. Discussion This report transmits the PTC’s recommendation on the variance as required by the municipal code. While staff initially reached a different conclusion on the variance, this difference in perspective is rooted in process as opposed to outcome. Staff does not consider the applicant’s request detrimental to adjacent or surrounding properties or inconsistent with the General Plan. However, to affect this change, staff recommended a zoning text amendment that would modify the existing standard of excluding outlier properties from the contextual front setback determination. Because the results of a future text amendment could be similar to the PTCs recommendation, staff supports moving the project forward and not being pulled off consent. Policy Implications Each variance is evaluated on a case by case basis and staff does not anticipate any concerns about setting a precedent if the City Council were to support the PTC recommendation. While there may be other more appropriate pathways to effectuate the applicant’s request, the reduction in the contextual front yard setback from 37 to 32 feet is not significant and not detrimental to the neighborhood. Environmental Review The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Attachments:  Attachment A: PTC Staff Report with attachments (PDF)  Attachment B: Record of Land Use Action (DOC)  Attachment C: Excerpt Minutes of September 9, 2015 P&TC Meeting (PDF)  Attachment D: Map of Churchill Avenue Estimated Existing Front Setback (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 5  Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) City of Palo Alto (ID # 5904) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 9/9/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 224 Churchill Setback Variance Title: 224 Churchill Avenue [14PLN-00364]: Request for hearing and Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation regarding the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s denial of a Variance application to allow for a reduction in the required front setback (contextual) from 37 feet- 1 1/4 inches to 32 feet for a new, two story single family residence at 224 Churchill Avenue. From: Jodie Gerhardt, Interim Planning Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council uphold the Director’s decision to deny the Variance request for a 5 foot 1 ¼ inch encroachment into the required front (contextual) setback along Churchill Avenue for the construction of a new two story single family residence. Background Process History On September 18, 2014, the applicant, Geoff Campen of Klopf Architecture submitted an Individual Review application on behalf of Bogdan and Oana Cocosel for demolition of an existing single family residence with basement and the construction of a new two story single family residence with an attached garage, carport and expanded basement at 224 Churchill Avenue. The application included a variance request to locate the proposed residence 5 feet 1 ¼ inch closer to the front property line than allowed by the front (contextual) setback of 37 feet 1 ¼ inches required for this site. This proposal would result in a front setback of 32 feet. The application was reviewed for conformance with both the Individual Review and Variance regulations. During the review process, the applicant was informed the Individual Review component of the application may proceed forward subject to revisions in the location of the proposed building to meet the required front (contextual) setback and other applicable requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and the Individual Review Guidelines. In August, the applicant submitted a complete, revised plan set with a proposal that met the Attachment A City of Palo Alto Page 2 required front (contextual) setback in addition to other applicable requirements and was tentatively approved on September 8, 2015. The request for variance was denied by the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) on May 18, 2015 for non-conformance with the three required findings for variance approval set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.030(c) (Attachment A). This determination was based upon a review of all information contained in the project file and the review of the variance proposal in comparison with all applicable zoning and municipal code requirements. On June 2, 2015, the applicant filed an appeal of the Director’s decision to deny the variance and requests a public hearing by the PTC. Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3,818 square foot (sf) single family residence with 1,500 square foot basement and construct a new 4,644 two story single family residence with an attached garage, carport and 1,723 sf basement in the Seale Addition neighborhood. The existing, minimal traditional style home was built in 1940 and later modified. The survey provided in the plan set: 1. Does not show a garage, 2. Shows the forward-most wall of the existing home located a distance of 34.9 feet from the front property line, and 3. Shows two posts supporting the covered landing for the entry placed approximately 28 feet from the front property line. The property is located within the R-1(10,000) zone district and is subject to a special setback of 24 feet along Churchill, as well as a contextual setback of 37 feet 1 ¼ inches from the front property line. The proposed home has a modern architectural language and use of materials. Roofs are flat with either parapets expressed or deep horizontal overhangs. Primary materials are fiber cement board panels, channel glass (vertically channeled panels), horizontal composite siding, smooth stucco, and painted wood (at fascias). The window frames are aluminum with clear glass and no divisions/muntins. PTC Purview The Variance request for this project was submitted in conjunction with an Individual Review application for the construction of a new, two story single family residence. The PTC's purview is limited to the Variance request for the house to encroach into the front (contextual) setback only. The Commissioners comments and recommendation on this application should be specifically related to the front (contextual) setback variance. Discussion The subject property is a 100 foot wide by 130 foot deep interior lot (13,000 square feet) located on Churchill Avenue near the Emerson Street intersection, in the Single Family City of Palo Alto Page 3 Residential zoning district (R-1, (10,000)). The site is currently developed with a single family residence with a covered porch in front that is setback approximately 28 feet 11 inches from the front property line. This building is proposed to be demolished for the construction of a new two story residence. The block in which the site is located has a wide variation of lot sizes, widths, and depths. Development standards for the R-1 (10,000) zoning district require a front setback of 20 feet. In addition, Churchill Avenue has a 24 foot “special setback” on both sides of the street, between Alma Street and Embarcadero Road. Lastly, Section 18.12.040(e) of the PAMC, states the minimum front setback shall be the greater of twenty feet (20') or the average setback, if the average front setback is 30 feet or more. This side of the block has an average front setback is 37 feet 1 ¼ inches. Hence, the minimum required front setback for this property is 37 feet 1 ¼ inches. The applicant must request a variance to encroach in this setback. Summary of Key Issues The issue for the PTC's consideration is the proposed front setback encroachment. In accordance with Section 18.14.040 (e) of the PAMC, the front contextual setback is calculated as follows: (e) Contextual Front Setbacks The minimum front yard ("setback") shall be the greater of twenty feet (20') or the average setback, if the average front setback is 30 feet or more. "Average setback" means the average distance between the front property line and the first main structural element, including covered porches, on sites on the same side of the block, including existing structures on the subject parcel. This calculation shall exclude flag lots and existing multifamily developments of three units or more. For calculation purposes, if five (5) or more properties on the block are counted, the single greatest and the single least setbacks shall be excluded. The street sideyard setback of corner lots that have the front side of their parcel (the narrowest street-facing lot line) facing another street shall be excluded from the calculations. For blocks longer than 600 feet, the average setback shall be based on the ten sites located on the same side of the street and nearest to the subject property, plus the subject site, but for a distance no greater than 600 feet. Blocks with three (3) or fewer parcels are not subject to contextual setbacks. Structures on the site in no case may be located closer than twenty feet (20') from the front property line. In the case of this project, there are a total of six lot on the same side of the block. With the exclusion of the corner lots, which front other streets, there are four properties that factor into the average setback calculation. These properties include: Property Existing Front Setback 224 Churchill Avenue (subject property) 28’ 11 1/16” 236 Churchill Avenue 69 1 1/2” City of Palo Alto Page 4 250 Churchill Avenue 32’ 260 Churchill Avenue 21’ The average of these setbacks is 37 feet 1 ¼ inches which, according to the contextual setback regulations constitutes the minimum required setback for the proposed development at 224 Churchill Avenue. The applicant has contended that the deep setback of the adjacent lot (236 Churchill Avenue) is an “outlier” whose inclusion in calculating the average setback yields deeper front setback for the subject property than the properties in the vicinity and reduces backyard space on the subject lot as the basis of the argument in favor of the variance for a reduced front setback. (Attachment B and Attachment C) Section 18.76.030, Variance, of the PAMC outlines the purpose of a variance and the findings that shall be made for the granting of a Variance. The purpose of a variance in accordance with Section 18.76.030 is as follows: 1) Provide a way for a site with special physical constraints, resulting from natural or built features, to be used in ways similar to other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district; and 2) Provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulations would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. The subject property is a 13,000 square foot conforming lot. It is 3,000 square foot larger than the minimum lot size for the R-1 sub district in which it is located with no special natural or built physical constraints on site that would preclude the construction of a two family residence in conformance with the Site Development Standards applicable to all properties in the zoning district. The existing buildings including a single family residence and an accessory structure are proposed to be demolished. The trees on the site are not located in the building envelope. However, encroachment in the front (contextual) setback would bring the proposed development closer to a 42 inch diameter oak tree (protected tree) located in the front yard of the subject property. As such the development if a single family residence can occur on this lot in compliance with the development standards that would be applicable to all lots in the vicinity and in the R-1 zoning district. While the relatively deeper setback of the adjacent property impacts the average, the resulting setback is still much less than the set back of the neighboring lot at 236 Churchill Avenue. Regulations pertaining to contextual setback calculation include a provision for excluding lots with the greatest and least setback in the case of five or more lots, in this instance would mean including four lots in the average setback calculation to determine the front setback for the City of Palo Alto Page 5 subject lot. However, the strict application of this regulation does not constitute a substantial hardship, constraint, or practical difficulty for the development of the property as demonstrated by the development plans (Attachment D). It appears that the Variance request is a function of the applicant/owner’s desire for a larger backyard, which is understandable, but also a personal preference/circumstance. Personal circumstance is not a criterion for evaluating a variance request. Attachment A outlines staff recommended findings for denial of the Variance. Particularly staff believes that 1) there are no special circumstances that the strict application of requirements and regulations would deprive the subject property of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district, 2) the granting of the variance would be a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the applicable zoning district and that it would be 3) inconsistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the Individual Review Guidelines and the intent of the contextual setback requirements which direct site planning to take cues from adjacent properties. Alternatives If the Director’s decision to deny the variance is upheld, the applicant would have the following options: 1. Build the home as approved in the Individual Review application (14PLN-00364), which provides a front setback of 37 feet 1 ¼ inches, in conformacne with the required front (contextual) setback requirement. 2. Retain 75 percent of the exterior walls of the main dwelling, which would allow retention of the existing legal non-conforming front setback. Policy Implications The granting of the variance would not be consistent with the Site Development Standards in the applicable zoning district and Individual Review Guidelines that direct site planning to take cues from adjacent property conditions. It is noted that the adjacent property does have a substantial front yard setback that results in a greater setback for the subject property. The code contemplates these outlier conditions, but only when five or properties are being referenced. If the PTC agrees that the conditions create an unanticipated negative affect for the applicant, the proper remedy is to modify the zoning code to account for these circumstances. Granting a variance for this condition is, from staff’s perspective, not the proper path to address the issue. Environmental Review The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Courtesy Copies: Geoff Campen City of Palo Alto Page 6 Oana Cocosel Attachments:  Attachment A: Director's Denial Letter and Findings (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Variance Request Letter (PDF)  Attachment C: Letter of Appeal (PDF) ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C ACTION NO. 2015-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 224 CHURCHILL AVENUE: VARIANCE APPLICATION (14PLN-00364) On November ___, 2015, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Variance application for a 32 foot front setback, a 5 foot 1 ¼ inch encroachment into the required front (contextual) setback, along Churchill Avenue for the construction of a new two story single family residence in the R-1 (10,000) Residential Zoning District, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Request by Geoff Campen for a Variance to allow the construction of a new two story approximately 4,644 sq ft house with a 1,723 sq ft basement in the R-1(10000) Zoning District. The request includes a variance request for the contextual front setback. (“The Project”). B. The project site is located on Churchill Avenue near the Emerson Street intersection. The property is a conforming 13,000 square feet rectangular interior lot, 100 foot wide by 130 foot deep. The property is located within the R-1 (10,000) zoning district and is subject to a special setback of 24 feet along Churchill as well as a contextual setback of 37 feet 1 ¼ inches from the front property line. C. The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the Project on September 9, 2015. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR # 6168 and the attachments to it. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. SECTION 3. Variance Findings The decision to approve the Variance was based upon the following findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.030(c), and subject to Conditions of Approval, listed below: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Attachment B The subject parcel has a shallower lot depth (130 feet) compared to the other three parcels on the block (200 feet) that are considered in the evaluation of the contextual front yard setback. Contextual setbacks are derived from averaging the setback of the three other properties, including the adjacent property which has a residential structure set back approximately 69 feet. Other structures in this block are setback between 21 and 32 feet. The resulting contextual setback for the subject property is approximately 37 feet. This additional setback pushes the otherwise compliant residential structure further on the lot reducing the depth of the rear yard. The combination of the shallow lot depth and strict application of the zoning code deprives the owner privileges enjoyed by the three other, Churchill Avenue facing, properties on the block. 2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The variance does not convey a grant of special privilege. The existing structure on the subject property has a setback of 22 feet. The new setback authorized by the variance would require a 32 foot setback. Other Churchill Avenue facing properties on this block have setbacks that range from 25 to 31 feet, excluding the one outlier property with an approximate 69 foot setback. Accordingly, the subject property will be more in line with other structures on the block. Moreover the project with the variance remains compliant with other regulations and is compatible with the general character of the area. 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Policy L-12, which seeks to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures; 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The proposed improvements to the existing single-family home are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and will, subject to this variance approval, will be compliant with all the City’s regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and, therefore, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. Moreover, the reduced front yard setback is compatible with other front yard setbacks in the area. SECTION 5. Variance Approvals Granted. Variance Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.060 for application 14PLN-00364, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of the Record. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Cocosel Residence 224 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, California ,” stamped as received by the City on August 3, 2015 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4. REQUIRED PARKING: All single family homes shall be provided with a minimum of one covered parking space (10 foot by 20 foot interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (8.5 feet by 17.5 feet). 5. UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. 6. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT: All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. 7. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. A minimum of 60 % of the required front yard shall have a permeable surface that permits water absorption directly into the soil (Section 18.12.040 (h)). 8. PRIVACY PANELS: The privacy panels shown at the side of upper floor balcony are required to ensure the project's conformance with the City's IR Guidelines and therefore are required as permanent features of the design and must remain for the life of the structure. 9. BALCONY: The upper floor balcony shall be open above as shown on the Square Footage Diagram, Second Level (Sheet A0.9). The openings above the balcony are required for compliance with the Floor Area requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and must remain open for the life of the structure. 10. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING/TREES. Additional landscaping shall be added near the left, rear corner of the lot to include two medium-sized evergreen screening trees (one to each side of the existing tree shown on Sheet A0.4, Neighborhood Privacy Diagram) to improve the privacy condition. The trees shall be 24-inch box planting size and be shown on the site plan filed for a building permit noted by botanical name. This landscaping is required to ensure the project's conformance with the City's IR Guidelines and therefore must remain for the life of the structure. 11. PROJECT ARBORIST. The project (certified) arborist shall ensure that the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees. 12. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required as shown on the Site Plan (Sheet A0.2) 13. PLANNING FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, fenestration and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner at the number below to schedule this inspection. 14. INDEMNITY: 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, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 15. GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS. NOTICE FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER 6/22/15.: Please be advised that the Palo Alto City Council has approved Energy Ordinance 5326 and Green Building Ordinance 5326 for all new permit applications with an effective date for June 22nd, 2015, as summarized below. To review the specific changes, visit the Development Services webpage .On the left hand side under “explore”, hover over “Green Building” and select “Compliance” You may also email Melanie Jacobson at Melanie.Jacobson@CityofPaloAlto.org for specific questions about your project. 1) GREEN BUILDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project is a new construction residential building of any size and therefore must meet the California Green Building Code mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select a Green Building Special Inspector from the City’s list of approved inspectors. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2013 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18 as described in the Energy Reach Code section below. b) EMERGENCY DROUGHT REGULATIONS: The project is a residential new construction project with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2 in accordance with the Emergency Drought Regulations effective June 1st, 2015. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the ET adjustment factor (ETAF) of 0.55 for landscaped areas. Vegetable gardens and other areas that qualify as Special Landscape Areas (SLA) will be given an ETAF of 1.0. (PAMC 16.14 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) and the Emergency Drought Regulations link below. The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/2015TriCycle/BSC-Meetings/Emergency- Regs/HCD-EF-01-15-ET-Pt11.pdf c) The project is a residential construction project of any size and therefore must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at tier 2 (75% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.160 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) d) The project is a new detached single-family dwelling and therefore shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) as shown in : (a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420 (Ord. 5234 § 2, 2015) 2) LOCAL ENERGY REACH CODE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project includes new residential construction of any size and therefore triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential, the performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) 3) Additional Green Building and Energy Reach Code information, ordinances and applications can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any questions regarding Green Building requirements please call the Green Building Consultant at (650) 329-2179. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY CONDITIONS 1. WALKWAYS: Walkways must be constructed at grade using a base such as geo-grid or structural soil. No compaction or excavation is permitted within tree protection zones. 2. LANDSCAPING: Landscaping must be compatible with oaks growing on the property. 3. LANDSCAPE PLANS: Landscape plans, including but not limited to plants, lighting, and irrigation must be certified by the landscape architect and/or project arborist and then approved by the urban forestry group. 4. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree #5 is required to be protected with Type I fencing. 5. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 6. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 7. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (Kielty Arborist Services, 650-515-9783), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 8. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 9. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING CONDITIONS The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: 1. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works' inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works' inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works' standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 2. STREET TREES: As part of this project, the applicant is required to plant two new 24-in box Autumn Blaze Maple street trees in the public right of way adjacent to the property frontage. One tree shall replace the existing Black Locust and the second shall be planted 30-ft from the existing Magnolia (Tree T3) within the planter strip. Illustrate the tree on the architectural site plan and the grading and drainage plan with the following note: "New street tree required: Plant 24-in box Autumn Blaze Maple per Public Works Engineering detail #604 and install automatic irrigation per #513. Contact Public Works Urban Forestry at 650.496.5953 prior to planting to inspect tree stock and irrigation adequacy. 3. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement- level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4" below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 4. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. Additionally, please be advised that slope-cut shoring will likely be infeasible for this project given proximity to the existing Oak tree in the front yard. The applicant shall include a shoring plan prepared by a licensed engineer which utilizes a method that minimizes soil disturbance associated with the excavation adjacent to the protected tree. Slope-cut shoring or other methods may be applied to other areas provided it won't encroach on neighboring properties, impact existing structures or disturb other protected trees 5. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Applicant shall install a water station for the reuse of dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed next to the right-of-way and shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station shall also be sued for onsite dust control. Applicant shall meet with Public Works to coordinate the design details. 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 our website. 6. WATER FILLING STATION: Due to the California drought, applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City's website under Public Works. 7. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 8. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 9. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 10. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650- 496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 11. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6" thick instead of the standard 4" thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 12. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 13. RESIDENTIAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board's revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures:  Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.  Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.  Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.  Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. SECTION 7. Term of Approval. Variance Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).080. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes September 9, 2015 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Public Hearing7 1. 224 Churchill [14PLN-00364]: *Quasi-Judicial Request for hearing and Planning and8 Transportation Commission recommendation regarding the Director of Planning and Community 9 Environment’s denial of a Variance application to allow for a reduction in the required front setback 10 (contextual) from 37 feet-1 1/4 inches to 32 feet for a new, two story single family residence at 224 11 Churchill Avenue. For more information, contact Jodie Gerhardt at Jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 12 13 Acting Chair Fine: Item Number 2 is 224 Churchill. This is a quasi-judicial matter and a request for14 hearing and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommendation regarding the Director of15 Planning and Community Environment’s denial of a variance application, deny a front setback. Are there16 any disclosures?17 18 Commissioner Downing: I’m not sure if this is exactly applicable, but I did look up this property on19 Google Maps. I did look up a satellite image of this just for your information (FYI) because I wasn’t quite20 getting a full picture of it just from the description.21 22 Acting Chair Fine: Thanks. Can we go with the presentation please.23 24 Jodie Gerhardt, Interim Planning Manager: Yes, thank you. My name is Jodie Gerhardt, Interim Current25 Planning Manager. The subject property in front of you is located at 224 Churchill Avenue and is a 10026 by 130 deep lot located on Churchill Avenue in the R-1 10,000 zoning district. The proposal would27 demolish an existing single family home and construct a new two-story home with an attached garage28 and a basement level. The individual review, this project does have two components and so the29 individual review component of the project, which is the two-story home which included a compliant30 setback was recently approved on September 8th and the variance would allow a 5 foot 1.25 inch31 encroachment into the front contextual setback was denied in May and the property owner has requested32 this hearing.33 34 So just to give a little bit of background about how we arrived at this front setback, this particular35 property does in a sense have three front setbacks. There is the standard 20 foot setback for any R-136 zoned property, there is also a special setback that is on Churchill Avenue and that is 24 feet in this case.37 Also contained in the code in the R-1 section of the code is the contextual front setback which in this38 case averages out to the 37 feet 1.1 inch and a fourth, one and a fourth inches. So hence given all of39 the different requirements the contextual front setback being the greatest is actually the front setback40 that needs to be applied on the property.41 42 So we do have a diagram that shows how that contextual front setback was arrived at. I believe the43 applicant will go into a little bit more detail about that, but we do take out the smallest and the largest44 property, we take out any corners that are facing another street and that sort of thing before we look at45 the average. Then just to give you an idea about how the existing house sits on the property there is an46 existing front porch that’s about 26 feet back and the main house is 34 feet back from the front property47 line. And then the proposal the IR proposal that was approved actually shows the house all the way back48 at the 37 feet; however, the proposal before you today with the variance is to have a 32 foot front49 setback.50 51 So in the attachments we do have the findings for the variance that further explain why the project was52 denied. There, we believe that there are no special circumstances related to this project and actually53 Attachment C City of Palo Alto Page 2 there is an oak tree that’s located in the front yard. So having the house set back further is actually 1 helpful to that oak tree giving it more room to breathe. The granting of the variance would be a special 2 privilege that would be inconsistent with other properties and it would be inconsistent with the 3 Comprehensive Plan, the individual review guidelines, and the intent of the contextual front setback. This 4 concludes staff presentation, thank you. 5 6 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: If I could just make one clarification, maybe ask Jodie to help me out 7 with this. I believe in the presentation there was a comment that the greatest setback and the 8 shallowest setback are thrown out in the discussion, but I think that’s when there’s five or more parcels 9 in play and here there are less than five. So those, those extremes are not removed in the consideration 10 of the subject proposal. 11 12 Acting Chair Fine: And I believe the applicant would like to make a presentation? 13 14 Bogdan Cocosel: Hi, I’m Bogdan Cocosel, my wife. Actually we own basically the property at 224 15 Churchill and so thank you very much for taking the time actually to listen to kind of our point of view 16 here. And we have been residents of Palo Alto for almost eight years now and this is our first house. We 17 had no idea what we were getting into. So now we know a lot more. So in interest of time, actually I’m 18 going to pass the microphone along actually to Richard which will explain basically some of the definitions 19 that are applicable kind of here and then John who’s our architect actually will present basically the 20 design implications and the contextual setback issues. 21 22 Richard McDonald, Hopkins & Carley: Good evening, Commissioners; my name is Richard McDonald. I’m 23 an attorney with Hopkins & Carley. I represent the applicant, the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Cocosel. 24 25 My contribution tonight is very brief. I just wanted to point out to the Commission that the manner in 26 which we’re, we have tried to frame our appeal as well as the project itself would be to allow this 27 Commission to make the findings necessary under the code to find, to grant a variance and with 28 particular regard to the issue of substantial hardship. As a lawyer I look at case law and the cases that 29 have looked at and evaluated the issue of substantial hardship define it in a way that we are trying to 30 frame our appeal and it would allow the Commission to find the variance. A substantial hardship under 31 the cases and I’m citing now a case for the record and ready reference is the Committee to Save the 32 Hollywood Land Specific Plan versus City of Los Angeles in which the granting of a variance was upheld. 33 And the case cites the definition of unnecessary hardship as where the natural condition or topography of 34 the land places the land owner at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other land owners in the area such as 35 peculiarities of the size, shape, or grade of the parcel. The Zach Keysian case also discerned in the 36 hardship requirement an additional finding that the hardship be substantial and that the exception sought 37 must be in harmony with the intent of the zoning laws. I can provide the legal side of 161 Cal Ave. 38 fourth at Page 1168. So we’ve attempted to again frame this appeal in the context that would allow the 39 Commission to make the findings necessary in a manner consistent with the case law and that is indeed 40 in our view and I’ll let the architect describe the project on its merits in more detail and I thank you for 41 your time. 42 43 John Kluf, Kluf Architecture: The diagram that’s up or sorry, I’m sorry. My name is John Kluf of Kluf 44 Architecture, thank you for hearing our case. If you take a look at the diagram that’s up on the board 45 the block has a special setback of 24 feet which was mentioned and the subject house, our project, 37 46 foot setback. The purpose, the reason behind that setback is an oversized setback at the neighboring 47 property which is clearly an outlier on this block. And we’re asking for a still quite large setback of 32 48 feet, which is farther back than all the other houses on the block except for this outlying property. 49 50 You can see from the diagram the outlying lot is the largest on the block and it’s also much deeper than 51 our lot. So deep in fact that if we had to set our house back to match theirs for some reason on a 52 contextual basis our house would be deep into the rear setback and would not even be buildable. That’s 53 the difference in the lots. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Also the tree was mentioned. We all love big oak trees and the arborist’s report indicates that the oak 1 tree on the lot will be protected with a setback of 32 feet. We’re not asking to go any farther forward 2 than what the arborist approved for the tree. Next slide. 3 4 This shows what the contextual setback would be if the outlying properties were excluded. The staff 5 report contains our variance application and on Page 2 of our letter we cite an excerpt from the 6 Committee of the Whole from June 18, 2001, and it indicates that the committee intended to exclude 7 outliers from the contextual setback calculations, but because the way the law was drafted this intention 8 to eliminate outliers is not always borne out in practice. For blocks with three or fewer houses not 9 applicable because there’s no contextual setback requirement. For blocks with four houses the 10 contextual setback applies, but outliers can’t ever be excluded. For blocks with five or six houses the 11 contextual setback applies, but it’s a crap shoot whether the outliers would or would not be excluded. 12 That’s our situation. 13 14 We lost the dice roll because both the corner lots have front doors that face the side street. Please note 15 that the garages of the front, of the corner lots face Churchill. So for all intents and purposes these 16 houses are part of the perceived street wall on Churchill, but because their front doors face the side 17 streets they don’t count in the calculation. So we’re left with four houses and the outliers may not be 18 eliminated. If one of these houses were remodeled so that the front door faced Churchill, but no other 19 changes were made we’d have five houses that count on this block and outliers would be excluded. 20 Furthermore, if there was one more house on this block for a total of seven the outliers would be 21 excluded. If the outliers were excluded we’d have a contextual setback calculated just under 32 feet and 22 we’re asking for 32 feet. So if one front door changed on this block or there were one more house on 23 the block our requested setback would comply with the contextual setback. Our proposal clearly 24 complies with the intent of the code which is to remove outliers and respond to context. Only the 25 technicalities of one front door happens to be facing on a corner lot or how many lots are on a block 26 determines that we need a larger setback. Next slide please. 27 28 This one further explores the intent of the committee on contextual setbacks. The committee excerpt 29 and our variance letter also states contextual setbacks should not be applied for blocks with special 30 setbacks. Clearly this did not make it into the law since our block has a special setback, but we’re still 31 subject to the contextual setback requirement. To explore this briefly without the contextual setback the 32 special setback of 24 feet would govern and so our 32 foot setback is far in excess of that. This diagram 33 also illustrates that our setback request of 32 feet exceeds the hypothetical contextual setback had say 34 both the corner houses had their front doors and not just their garages facing Churchill. Next slide 35 please. 36 37 The intent of contextual setbacks is to minimize the effects of outliers. This diagram shows that as each 38 property develops over time on this block each house would be pulled back farther and farther because 39 the contextual setback is increased each time. The effect over time of the outliers pulling back the other 40 houses on the block creates divots in the street wall and leaves void spaces. And pages five, the next 41 two slides show this is the larger block in the current situation and the next slide shows that over time as 42 contextual setbacks would be applied on these blocks that have five or six houses you’re creating divots 43 that pull these houses back from the street wall and are contrary to the idea of working into context. 44 45 So in conclusion, the conditions that disadvantage our client are that their block has one huge property 46 with a very deep front setback. This house is an outlier and pulls all the other houses back as the 47 contextual setback is currently calculated. Without this house the 32 foot setback we’re asking for would 48 fit nicely within the contextual setback on this block. The block also has six houses on it, not seven, and 49 of the six houses both front doors of both corner houses happen to face the side streets. If there were 50 just one more house or if just one more corner lot had a front door facing Churchill the outlying 51 properties would be eliminated and our requested setback would be in compliance technically as well as 52 with the intent of the code. 53 54 These conditions on the block disadvantage our clients forcing them to move their house further back on 55 the lot leaving a large unusable front yard and a smaller rear than their neighbors. Our request complies 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 with the intent of the contextual setbacks which was to eliminate outliers and create a more uniform 1 street wall. Because the number of our houses on the block and because of the fact that both corners 2 happen to have front doors on the side streets the law taken literally means that our property would have 3 to be setback farther from the street wall than what would make sense for its contextuality. As Ms. 4 Gerhardt stated in her staff report, blocks with our number of houses are not well thought through in this 5 code. Her recommendation was to change the code, but variances are the vehicle for allowing projects 6 like ours that comply with the intent of the code on lots like ours that have hardships as defined in the 7 case law to be approved while the law is reconsidered. Therefore, we respectfully ask you to overturn 8 the denial of our variance and support our appeal. Thank you. 9 10 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. I’d like to open up any public comments. Do we have any speaker cards 11 on this issue? None? Ok, then let’s turn it over to the Commission. Maybe let’s have five minutes for 12 questions. We’ll start that side. Commissioner Downing. 13 14 Commissioner Downing: Sure. So if I can get some clarity on the property is there a pool at the back of 15 the property in the backyard? 16 17 Mr. Cocosel: No. 18 19 Commissioner Downing: No pool, ok. And then have you had any conversations with your neighbors 20 about your intended designs? Have they expressed any concerns or issues? 21 22 Mr. Cocosel: We have, we had conversation with them. Their only concern was basically to postpone the 23 build for a year so that doesn’t affect the school schedule. 24 25 Commissioner Downing: Ok and then the last question I have is the difference, the difference here that’s 26 being asked between the 37 feet and the 32 feet it’s not a particularly large one. It’s five feet difference, 27 but I guess I’m wondering if there’s a particular significance there? Like if there’s something you’re 28 planning for that backyard that would, that this would get in the way of or is it just that it creates more 29 unusable space for you? 30 31 Mr. Cocosel: It’s basically the unusable space. If you look actually on the diagram actually the yard 32 actually is very small in the back because most of it is actually in the front. And the connectivity within 33 the city backyards that actually creates a view for all of these city properties actually like all our 34 neighbors actually have very low fences in order to kind of enjoy visiting each other’s back yards and if 35 we move the house basically [unintelligible] the, their view, right? And similarly for us of course, but it’s 36 also for them. 37 38 Commissioner Downing: Ok, thank you. 39 40 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Gardias. I’m just going to go down the line. 41 42 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the question is to the staff. Could you please tell 43 us what is the history behind those parcels where those houses subject of that great outliers are? There 44 is couple of the properties here on this considered block and on the adjacent block where the middle 45 houses are pretty much set back farther and I was just passing by them yesterday and I thought that 46 maybe there was some historical reason that those houses maybe were developed earlier and then would 47 be a change in the habits or accommodations or the design style that was causing the properties just to 48 farther flow toward the street that was changing the, pretty much the nature of how the houses were 49 placed on the property. But this could have been just my thinking so if you could just put some historical 50 layer on top of this I would appreciate this. Thank you. 51 52 Mr. Lait: I appreciate your observation on that. Unfortunately we don’t have any historical knowledge 53 about the pattern of development in the block and why this property that we’re talking about was 54 setback further or on the other block why it was setback further. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Commissioner Gardias: But the house in the middle is earlier? It’s much older? 1929, so it’s a earlier 1 property than the adjacent properties, right? 2 3 Mr. Cocosel: The property that is newer is actually the one next to the outlier the one to the right of the 4 outlier, which is 1988 I think so it’s a few years before contextual setback. So they were not subject to 5 contextual setback when they did it. They were subject to [unintelligible]. 6 7 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. So the observation I had could be right? Those houses in the middle of 8 those two blocks were developed earlier. 9 10 Mr. Cocosel: Pretty old. 1939 this one. 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. Thank you. 13 14 Acting Chair Fine: Acting Chair Rosenblum. Acting Vice-Chair. 15 16 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: Hi, my question’s for staff. I found the argument by the applicant pretty 17 compelling, which is that the intent of the setback is to have uniformity in our neighborhoods. And it 18 does seem that there is a mathematical issue with only having a couple of houses to compare which 19 means that you have to have the outliers included and the technicality of the two corner lots happening 20 to have their doors on the other side, but if you look at not only this block, but the two adjacent blocks 21 the two blocks or the three blocks across from those blocks it’s much more uniform to comply with the 22 applicant’s wishes. They would put the neighborhood into much greater uniformity. So I’m curious in 23 your opinion is that not the spirit of the setback ruling? I understand and you stated very clearly that this 24 is in violation of the letter of the ruling and I agree with that. There’s a ruling that if there are five, if 25 there are fewer than five properties then the outlier shall not be included and therefore at least this 26 mathematical anomaly of having a major outlier included in the sample, but I’m curious if you also think 27 that this is in violation of the spirit of what’s trying to be achieved which is uniformity? 28 29 Mr. Lait: No, I don’t believe that it is in violation of the spirit of the contextual… I mean I think the fact 30 that you have an outlier is part of the context and that is repeated on this block and it’s on the adjacent 31 block and I don’t know that because you have an outlier that suddenly the argument of context is pushed 32 aside. At some point the drafters when they when this was adopted made a very deliberate decision to 33 make a distinction between four and five lots and the corner lots and the outliers. So I’m clearly 34 empathetic to the condition that the applicant that they find themselves in, but I don’t believe it 35 inconsistent with the intent to approach it the way that the staff’s approached it. I don’t think it’s 36 particularly inconsistent the way the applicant’s proposed it, but all things being equal what we have to 37 fall back on is how the code is drafted and how this particular project applies to that circumstance. 38 39 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: Except that the code asks us to do a balancing test around the contextual 40 environment which is again I think any kind of plain reading of this is that what they’re proposing is much 41 more in line. If we took them the deviation of their lot versus the others you’re getting a higher deviation 42 by going with staff proposal than what they are doing, which would be a lower deviation and so I think 43 that that’s why you bring it in front of humans to help with that judgement. They’ve applied the 44 algorithm citywide and I think this is a weird circumstance that you happen to have two houses that don’t 45 count and then you get below the minimum so this kind of strange outlier does count and therefore I 46 mean I don’t think all these things can be made by machines. So anyway I think you’ve answered my 47 question and I get it. I think that’s my only question. So thank you. 48 49 Acting Chair Fine: I tend to agree with Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum that the issue really is that the 50 outliers can’t be excluded and that the contextual setback may need an update as mentioned in the 51 report. So I think something I would comment on, so I’m questioning it. I guess my question is more 52 that in the Director’s opinion this variance doesn’t meet the findings, but I had some specific questions 53 about that. Finding Number 1 is about special circumstances for size, shape, topography, location, and 54 surroundings. Doesn’t this fit the definition of location and surroundings? 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Lait: I think you have to continue reading the [unintelligible] finding which talks about how those 1 conditions would deprive the property owner from the privileges enjoyed by the properties. And the fact 2 that they can build an otherwise good compliant structure and achieve the same floor areas that the 3 other properties in the area can achieve that the setbacks there’s nothing about the setback itself that 4 constrains the development. 5 6 Acting Chair Fine: So I guess maybe the privilege I’m speaking of then is the extra five feet in the private 7 backyard. I think it’s also laudable of them that they might want to share with their neighbors a little bit 8 in terms of sight lines and stuff. But everybody wants a little bit more space in the backyard and it 9 seems like this contextual setback in this issue is doing exactly that to make this five feet in front rather 10 than behind. Does that count as a privilege? 11 12 Mr. Lait: From staff’s perspective it does not. 13 14 Acting Chair Fine: Ok, why not? 15 16 Mr. Lait: Well we speak of privilege I think what we’re talking about is how other similarly zoned similarly 17 shaped properties enjoy and develop their property based on this, these standards that are set forth with 18 the height, the setbacks, the floor areas, and so forth and yeah there’s a greater setback that’s required 19 in front, but that’s not denying the property owner use or enjoyment of the property. And I guess I 20 mean again I’m very empathetic to the condition and I think where we find ourselves is that it’s the it’s 21 more of a process to how to get it’s a process of getting the applicant from where they are to where they 22 want to be and if it is the case that the finding cannot be met we don’t approve a finding a variance 23 when really what we need to do in this particular case is amend the code which we think is the solution. 24 I think if we, I appreciate the purpose section we’re trying to do and the interest in wanting to solve the 25 problem, but I think there’s the proper way to solve the problem and that’s kind of and that’s why we 26 landed on the decision point that we did with respect to the variance part of it. 27 28 Acting Chair Fine: So I’m not going have you repeat Commissioner Rosenblum’s question about the spirit 29 of variances and how they are meant to be a stop gap or escape valve. Hypothetically what happens if 30 the City approves a variance without meeting the findings? Is that even possible? Does it open loop 31 hole? 32 33 Mr. Lait: Well, so I think decision maker and I’ll let the attorney speak to the legal aspect of it, but this 34 body so the Director makes a decision based on a set of circumstances, the administrative record, so on 35 so forth. This body in its review of the administrative record may very well come to a different 36 conclusion and that’s perfectly fine. It would be based, I mean you would articulate your reasons why 37 you believe the finding could be made. And that information would be then moved forward to the City 38 Council for their deliberation. 39 40 Acting Chair Fine: Those are my questions. Commissioner Michael. 41 42 Commissioner Michael: So in no particular order, I’m inclined to think that the applicant’s case is 43 persuasive to me. I was particularly interested in the comments from the applicant’s architect and share 44 some of the thoughts expressed by Vice-Chair Rosenblum. I’m not certain that there’s this bar that has 45 to be crossed of amending the code. One of the words in the code might be something that we could 46 interpret in conjunction with findings and that’s the word average. When I went to this first of all 47 knowledge I did a Google search and it directed me to Wikipedia. It turns out that average has many 48 meanings and I think that the staff report clearly applies the arithmetic mean and by no means is it clear 49 to me that the arithmetic mean is an appropriate formula or methodology for average in this setting. So 50 without amending the code I mean the other most common applications of average are mean, median, 51 and mode. If there’s probably because the limitations of the small data set you really can’t use mode, 52 but if you had median it would be 32 feet with the three other parcels. So without amending the code 53 you should adopt the methodology of median rather than arithmetic mean and we’re done. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 7 I think that the anomalies that are created in the historic application of this code section I mean there’s 1 three or fewer parcels or five or more are indications of the requirement of a judgement. I think the 2 taking out the smallest and the largest when there’s five or more is application of the methodology of the 3 truncated mean. The truncated mean is probably a preferred or more accurate methodology when 4 determining an average. And so in that case you would without question take out the 236 Churchill 5 property and then and work the analysis from there. 6 7 On the substantial hardship question I really think that the issue of the usability of the backyard in 8 relationship to the overall lot size is a question of potential or actual substantial hardship and just as a 9 disclosure I have a property which has an unusable backyard because there’s a very small rear setback. 10 And we’ve had some problems with how we would use the site which we had to do sort of a planning 11 battle in that community until we get a solution, but I think that the forcing the house to be located 12 further back because of this I think stretched interpretation of contextual setback does in fact lead to a 13 finding of depriving a property owner of privileges owned by other adjacent properties and I would 14 support that as a finding. 15 16 And then I’m a retired lawyer and so the looking into the intent of the committee is something that I 17 think is of great importance with the issue of whether or not if there’s a special setback applicable to a 18 block then this would be carved out from the contextual setback applications. I think that may be a 19 finding that you come to looking at the committee proceedings and another justification for deciding in 20 favor of the applicant. I think that the whether or not to exclude the outlier is not really the right 21 question. I think the other questions that I raised earlier could be dispositive and that’s the basis on 22 which I would suggest that we at the appropriate time side with the applicant’s request. 23 24 Mr. Lait: There’s not a question to staff, but I just wanted to make two comments if that’s ok? So the 25 code sets forth the, what a required rear setback is and it’s 20 and in this case the applicant’s proposing 26 46. So from at least the code perspective that minimum number of yards is provided for amply. And 27 with the comment about the definition of average the code actually tells us what average is, there’s a 28 definition that says average means and it talks about the distance between the property line to the front. 29 So I don’t think there’s means for interpretation with the code that is, speaks to that, that definition. And 30 that’s in the contextual front setbacks portion of the code. 31 32 Commissioner Michael: I think in the Comprehensive Plan there’s some great deference given to the 33 character of existing, the existing character of neighborhoods. And I think the notion that there should 34 be sort of a cookie cutter 20 foot backyard setback isn’t in the character of this neighborhood. I think it’s 35 a more ample lot and in proportion the balance between the front and the rear that may in fact be a 36 substantial hardship so I would quibble with the application of a cookie cutter measurement in this 37 particular neighborhood. And what was the other comment? I didn’t… 38 39 Mr. Lait: Average. 40 41 Commissioner Michael: Oh, so I think your citation of the code still doesn’t address the question of 42 whether you use the arithmetic mean, the truncated mean, the median, or some other methodology that 43 might be appropriate. If in fact this code section should be revised that in Palo Alto will be sort of a 44 never ending process and we need to make a decision with this property sooner than that revision can 45 happen. 46 47 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, thank you for your report. In my ongoing effort to be thorough and concise 48 I’ll start at the end. I would enthusiastically support recommending that City Council grant this variance 49 and there’s a little bit of irony here. Tonight we’re going to hear on Item 5 areas where we can create 50 greater clarity in our code because it’s not really precise and it doesn’t achieve all of its objectives on the 51 way we intended it to. And I think this is sort of a great example of how there was an intent that is not 52 being met in this particular block and unfortunately our code can’t really serve every possible scenario 53 well. And that’s why it’s and we have an ongoing process of editing it as we discover issues we try to 54 address them and sometimes we don’t and I think when we don’t do it as quickly as theoretically 55 humanly possible some people suffer as a result and I think that this could be interpreted as a hardship. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 There’s a lot of unique things going on on this site. The neighbor who has the enormous setback, I’m 2 guessing here, but I would be interested to know if that property is half an acre. It looks like it’s over 3 20,000 square feet (sf). And it’s very convenient for the largest parcel on this map or on this on the map 4 I have to have a huge setback because it doesn’t impact his ability to have a house the maximum size 5 home you can have in Palo Alto is 6,000 sf. If you have a 20,000 plus square foot lot 6,000 is your limit 6 even theoretically the equation to determine your square footage could get you higher, 6,000 is your cap. 7 I don’t know if the lot’s 20,000, but I’m guessing because of its width and depth. And so this individual 8 could theoretically put their lot anywhere within the setbacks and still have ample use of the space. So I 9 think that the fact that that particular home is set back so far suggesting that there is a disadvantage on 10 all the lots. 11 12 I also think that I am not a huge fan of contextual applications of our code because in this particular 13 instance there’s a special setback so 90 percent of our R-1 or maybe more is subject to the standard 14 setback of 20 and then we have certain streets where we have a special setback, in this case 24, which 15 means that there was an intent that the homes come within 24 feet as opposed to 20. Which I would 16 argue 20 is actually a very small setback in residential neighborhoods which then implies that we do have 17 a preference for homes being kind of close to our streets and a preference for larger backyards. And the 18 fact that in this particular street they set a special setback of 24 implies that they had this secondary 19 standard and I think you see that in many of the homes on both sides of the street and all along the rest 20 of the street past these, this block. 21 22 I think that I know the, I know that according to the letter of the law you can’t, you can’t not include this 23 parcel and I think that’s why the basis for the Director’s decision and for the Planning staff’s decision is 24 coming from. I think we’re in a position to determine whether or not there should be some flexibility 25 because of the hardship created by that calculation. I don’t think we need to sort of get too heavy into 26 the definition of average. I think we can accomplish this by suggesting that this outlier shouldn’t be 27 included. Again it’s extremely convenient for the, this size lot to have the largest setback and as a result 28 he’s affecting the parcels all around him. 29 30 I really think it’s a mistake to assume that our code is perfect. And I think there are always going to be 31 some technicalities that we, that should be considered at this level and I think that if we assume that the 32 implications of the code, I think it’s I also think it’s can be a dangerous game to sort of evaluate intent. I 33 feel much more comfortable looking at the street and saying look, maybe the, I’ll end here. Maybe the 34 definition of contextual setback is X, but when you think of the context of the actual street the suggested 35 36 foot setback is that what it is? 37 foot setback doesn’t seem contextual at all. It seems like it would 36 create another outlier, which I think would be unfortunate and for that reason I maintain my original 37 statement which is that I would enthusiastically support a Motion to recommend that the Council grant 38 this applicant a variance. 39 40 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. Commissioner Downing, another question? 41 42 Commissioner Downing: Well, I’d like to make a comment. So in terms of whether or not this is 43 compliant with our Comprehensive Plan, there’s actually a policy in the Comprehensive Plan which 44 specifically says that you cannot build a tall fence in front of your property and which specifically says 45 that the view of the house should not be obstructed. The Comprehensive Plan itself says that we want 46 neighborhoods where you can walk down the street and you can actually see the houses. That’s one of 47 our aesthetic goals, it’s one of our preferences. The house that is the outlier and the house which now 48 this house is supposed to emulate actually doesn’t follow that policy, you can’t even see that house from 49 the street it’s so far back and so wooded in front of it. And so following the house that’s already not 50 compliant with the Comprehensive Plan I think is odd and I don’t think that’s really where we want to go. 51 52 And I agree that within this language without needing to go any further we can find, I think we can find 53 the things that we need. This talks about special physical constraints. I think the fact that this is the 54 only lot that’s so short on that, this entire street is a real physical constraint. That is weird. It is a 55 peculiarity for that particular street. I would also add that in terms of constraints I sort of hear well, they 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 still get a big backyard, but this larger house has enough room that it has an accessory dwelling unit. I’m 1 not sure that if this setback were permitted as it were that it would actually still have room for an 2 accessory dwelling unit or if it did whether or not it would still look as nice and give as much space as 3 one would want. So I think that not being able to build such a unit or being able to build it with further 4 constraints really does impinge on this, these people’s enjoyment of their property. So I think there are 5 real physical constraints here. 6 7 And I think that it’s also, I do think that this rule qualifies for rule cleaning up because it’s a very odd 8 rule. Because it’s a rule that only applies in blocks of four. How odd. We have one rule for five and up 9 and we have one rule for three and under and then we have yet another rule for four. Really? Really 10 four deserved a special rule? So I would definitely put this on the list of things that we should go back 11 and we should look at and I agree with the applicants that I mean if you follow this rule to its logical 12 conclusion all the houses on this street end up being pulled back, all of them over time. Which again 13 runs counter to an explicit goal we actually have in the Comprehensive Plan and it makes this street less 14 walkable, it makes it less enjoyable, it makes it feel less safe when you can’t actually see any of the 15 houses. So that’s my thought. 16 17 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. Commissioner Gardias. 18 19 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I’m going to offer a different perspective on this. I 20 believe that when I read the code and when I walk around this neighborhood it makes sense. It pretty 21 much reflects this was happening in this neighborhood a hundred years ago when this neighborhood was 22 created or maybe a little bit earlier. But nonetheless this is R-1 10,000 sf lots and then pretty much 23 when they were built back then that was pretty much the style and the setback as it is expressed in the 24 code it pretty much follows the style of this neighborhood and doesn’t allow just to create the uniform 25 line specifically just to preserve the way of life that the citizens of this neighborhood had decided to erect 26 many years ago. So I believe that this makes sense from this perspective, but then of course there is a 27 question on this specific property and approach to this four lot calculation of the property so just 28 agreeing with the specifics of this, of this code pronunciation I want to just go back to the property for a 29 moment. So because, because this property is truly affected by this one, one building and then by 30 building new house the owner loses the privilege of just having the house being closer to the street 31 where actually the house already is, right? We’re just because of this restrictions we’re just we’re forcing 32 the owner to set the house farther back because of this regulation. So giving that loss of right I would 33 support some, some ease on this property to allow this proposal as it was presented, but of course as I 34 just mentioned before I totally support the way that this neighborhood is zoned with the existing setback 35 because I think this reflects the historical nature of the and the intent of the zoners. Thank you. 36 37 Acting Chair Fine: Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum. 38 39 MOTION 40 41 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: Yes, I’d like to make a Motion that we accept the applicant’s call for an 42 approved variance. 43 44 SECOND 45 46 Commissioner Alcheck: Second. 47 48 Acting Chair Fine: Would you like to speak to your Motion? 49 50 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: Sure. I’ll just repeat some of the points that have already been made. I 51 do believe that this represents a substantial hardship. Palo Alto land is scarce. We enjoy any bit of land 52 that allows us to sit in our backyard with slightly less obstructed views. Neighbors will also appreciate 53 that. That is I think the value to any of us living in Palo Alto we know that is significant. So I accept that 54 this is a substantial detriment to their life. At the same time I think that actually their application makes 55 the neighborhood more consistent, which is the intent of the setback, of our setback codes. So I think 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 this both makes the neighborhood more consistent and does allow the applicant and their neighbors 1 something better. So I think sort of triumph of human logic over the algorithm. 2 3 Acting Chair Fine: Would you like to speak to your second? 4 5 Commissioner Alcheck: I’ll just add that I want to clarify that I support this Motion not because I think 6 that this we need to create equity among parcels that are different. I think that the underlying theme 7 here is: are we, is the intent of the special setback and more particularly the context of the neighborhood 8 being preserved here or not? And I want to add another point that I think is just really relevant. We are 9 very aware of how involved our community is in decisions like this and I think it’s very telling that allow 10 me to make an assumption here that the neighbors were notified about the meeting and the fact that we 11 don’t have a neighbor here suggesting otherwise I think speaks volumes about this. We didn’t get any 12 emails about this item from any neighbors suggesting they were opposed to this decision and or this the 13 potential for this decision and I think that that’s also very telling. So that’s it. 14 15 Acting Chair Fine: Any other comments from the Commission? I’ll just say I want to thank the applicant 16 and their team for coming. I especially found the diagrams extraordinarily helpful and I do want to echo 17 the issue that I think over time this does have a downhill effect on the neighborhood especially with 18 regard to the Comp Plan. That said I just want to put it out there does the Commission feel we could 19 provide the proper findings to accept this variance? A number of us have each touched on those various 20 three findings we need to make and then we’re going to focus one to explicitly address in our Motion. 21 Commissioner Downing. 22 23 Commissioner Downing: I feel that this Commission has made pretty good arguments for why we do see 24 this as a real constraint, why we see actual physical constraints on this property and the way that this 25 property is shaped as well as the lack of actual lack of enjoyment that this kind of hole makes. 26 27 MOTION 28 29 Acting Chair Fine: Anything else? Let’s take a vote. All those in favor? Great, so the Motion passes and 30 just for the record the Motion that we… we’re talking, the Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And 31 we were using the staff recommendation, but instead of the word uphold we say reject. Great, thank 32 you so much. 33 34 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1, Chair Tanaka absent) 35 36 Mr. Cocosel: Thank you very much. 37 38 Commission Action: Motion by Acting Vice-chair Rosenblum, second by Commissioner Alcheck to 39 accept Applicants request for variance. Motion passes unanimously (6-0-1, Chair Tanaka absent) 40 15 1 0 160 180 14 9 2 159 8 14 2 0 215 227 14 8 5 14 2 9 14 2 1 0 240 242 244 14 4 4 14 4 0 256 70 14 0 4 14 3 6 231235 237 241 225 259 15 7 0 215 3 6 236 237 250 260 15 2 0 15 0 0 15 0 5 15 2 1 224 251 14 5 0 263 20 15 2 5 15 0 1 15 3 5 301305 15 5 1 14 4 5 215 15 2 0 15 3 6 15 6 4 15 7 0 159 1 EMERSON STREETEMERSON STREET CHURCHILL AVENUE BRYANT STREET BRYANT STREET This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Corner Lots (not included in setback analysis) Property Lines abc Building Roof Outline 24' Special Setback on Churchill Ave 0'100' CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2015-11-03 16:17:52Churchill Contextual FSetback Analysis (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) ~37.2' ~32.7' ~24.7' ~33.6' ~37.9' 21' 32' 69' 1.5" 26' 3.375" 24' Special Setback on Churchill Ave Note: Analysis is average of 224-260 Churchill Avenue measured from front property line to front of existing structure 200 Block of Churchill Avenue Estimated Existing Front Setbacks Average Front Setback = 37' 1.25" Attachment E Hardcopies to Councilmembers and Libraries Only Plans for the project can be viewed by clicking the link below: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/new_projects/residential_projects.asp#C