Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 2307-1763
7.LEGISLATIVE: Adopt an Ordinance Amending Planned Community 2343 zoning for 2901- 2905 Middlefield Road and Adopt an Ordinance Establishing a new Planned Community Zoning Designation to Enable the Development of a new Single-Story, Single-Family Residence on 702 Ellsworth Place. Public Comments, Applicant Presentation, Staff Presentation City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 18, 2023 Report #:2307-1763 TITLE LEGISLATIVE: Adopt an Ordinance Amending Planned Community 2343 zoning for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and Adopt an Ordinance Establishing a new Planned Community Zoning Designation to Enable the Development of a new Single-Story, Single-Family Residence on 702 Ellsworth Place. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council: 1. Adopt an ordinance amending ordinance Planned Community 2343 (Attachment A) for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and adopt a new Planned Community ordinance (Attachment B) to enable the development of a single-family residence at 702 Ellsworth Place. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The recommendation in this report is to approve two ordinances that would modify an existing planned community zoning site into two different planned community zoned sites. This action reflects a change in land ownership for one of the parcels and enables the construction of one net new housing unit. The previously approved planned community zoned apartment site gets slightly modified to reflect a new parking arrangement and other minor changes. The new planned community zoned property, previously used as parking for the apartment building, would be redeveloped as a single-family home. There was a City Council prescreening study session for the subject application held on March 13, 2023.1 Area residents raised several initial concerns about the recent selling of one of the planned community zoned properties and were instrumental in identifying a zoning map error that showed one of the parcels as zoned for single family residential use instead of being part of 1 The March 13, 2023 Council prescreening report, minutes and video are viewable on the City Council’s webpages. The project webpage for 2901 Middlefield is viewable at this URL: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/2901- Middlefield-Road a larger planned community project. The subject application seeks to amend prior legislative action to reflect the current status and ownership of the different properties. The Planning and Transportation Commission held several public meetings and makes a recommendation to support an amendment to the existing, and establishment of a new, planned community zoning for 702 Ellsworth Place. BACKGROUND In 1967 a planned community zoning ordinance was approved for the subject property to allow a 12-unit apartment building. The development site consists of four parcels adjacent to the northeast side of Middlefield Road and extends from Sutter Avenue to Matadero Canal (Attachment B). The apartment building is located nearest Sutter Avenue. Access to the apartment is provided via an easement across one of the development site’s parcels referred to as 702 Ellsworth Place, which also has guest parking spaces for the apartment building. The easement also provides access to Ellsworth Place, a private street with 13 residential properties; these properties are not associated with the PC development. In 2017, the development site was sold to a new owner who also owns several apartment buildings in the area. In 2022, one of the four parcels that comprise the development site, 702 Ellsworth Place, was sold to another separate entity. This more recent purchase was reportedly based, at least in part, on information provided by the City indicating that 702 Ellsworth Place could be developed with a single family home. This guidance, however, is not consistent with the administrative record and occurred because the zoning map from 1960s was never updated to reflect the approved PC zoning designation. For decades the City’s records regarding these parcels appeared to show the incorrect zoning. Similarly, when the City implemented its online property parcel records, the subject property (2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place) did not include information about the applicable PC zoning designation. Real estate professionals, developers and property owners rely in part on this online information to make decisions about property acquisition and development; staff too consults these records when providing information to the public. It was not until residents filed a code enforcement complaint concerning new fencing around 702 Ellsworth Place in anticipation of a future development that research began and uncovered this mapping error. Since then, staff has been engaged with area residents and the two owners of the PC development site. In addition to being concerned about redevelopment of 702 Ellsworth Place, area residents have also expressed a desire for the City to take ownership of the private street to improve its condition, address drainage problems and maintain the street. Ellsworth Place is neither owned nor maintained by the City. Similar conditions exist at other locations in the City, dating from development that occurred on formerly-unincorporated land before annexation to the City. The City Council conducted a study session prescreening for the subject application on March 13, 2023; summary minutes from the meeting are available online.2 Shortly following the meeting, an application was submitted for review by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Review The PTC reviewed the project over three public hearings on June 28, July 12, and August 9, 2023. Links to the minutes and videos of all three PTC hearings are available online;3 draft meeting minutes from August 9 are included as Attachment D. The PTC in its review considered a variety of concerns expressed by area residents related to the project. The linked reports and minutes provide greater detail but in summary, the residents were concerned with the private street (Ellsworth Place), ingress and egress from Middlefield Road, viewing angles when exiting the private street, access to parking spaces for apartment dwellers at 2901 Middlefield Road, temporary parking for package delivery trucks, the removal of protected trees and other property maintenance matters. The Commission further considered the applicant’s request to remove the 702 Ellsworth Place property from the previously entitled planned community zoning site and rezone the property to R1 zoning to permit a new single family home on the site. In its review, the Commission considered the legislative history and previously highlighted error on the City’s zoning map that contributed to the current situation. The PTC’s recommended actions to approve the applicant’s request is reflected in the two attached ordinances, except for one component related to area resident’s request for a wider easement accessing a portion of Ellsworth Place, which is expanded upon below. Analysis The PTC’s deliberation and recommended actions largely address the many of the outstanding issues related to this application. There are a couple of points highlighted below for Council’s awareness and consideration. 2 March 13, 2023 City Council Summary Minutes: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=1096&compileOutputType=1. 3 Links to staff reports, minutes and videos of PTC hearings: June 28 report: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2023/ptc-6.28-2901-middlefield.pdf June 28 minutes: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2023/ptc-6.28.2023-summary-minutes_revised.pdf June 28 video: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-6282023/ July 12 (report was unchanged from June 28) minutes: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-7.12.2023-summary2.pdf July 12 video: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-7122023/ August 9 report: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2023/ptc-8.09-2901-middlefield-702-ellsworth.pdf August 9 video: https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards-and-commissions/planning-and- transportation-commission/ Planned Community Zoning versus R1 Zoning The application reviewed by the PTC included a request to remove 702 Ellsworth Place from a planned community zoning and to convert it to R1 zoning. This application would have applied all the relevant R1 standards to 702 Ellsworth Place allowing for potentially less setbacks and greater fence heights in the front yard adjacent to Middlefield Road as well as ministerial (by- right) approval of the proposed one-story single family home. However, in its deliberation, the PTC sought to impose additional restrictions on the future single family development to address contextual issues related to the property’s orientation relative to other properties on Ellsworth Place and to address area resident’s concerns related to line of sight visibility to and from Middlefield Road and the width of the Ellsworth Place easement that provides access to other properties further distant from Middlefield Road. Regulating 702 Ellsworth Place with a new planned community zoning allows the City to address certain concerns while still enabling the applicant to build a new one-story single family home through the City’s ministerial building permit process. 2901 Middlefield Road’s planned community zoning is simply amended to reflect the ownership boundaries, expands easement access to widen a portion of Ellsworth Place and accounts for a new on-site parking arrangement that serves the apartment units. Ellsworth Place Private Street Easement Ellsworth Place is a private street. Access to the private street is provided from Middlefield Road. An easement was previously conveyed by the developer of the 1960s era apartment building that grants access across portions of 2901 Middlefield Road, and the now proposed to be separated 702 Ellsworth Place property. This 20-foot wide easement provides access to 13 residential properties. To improve ingress and egress access and sight line access for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, area residents sought to increase the easement to 26-feet wide. The applicant proposed a 24-foot wide easement and submitted a safety study prepared by a traffic engineer to support their position that a wider easement was not necessary. Moreover, the applicant expressed concerns about the feasibility of increasing the easement width further and constraints imposed by existing utility infrastructure. The July 12th minutes and August 9th excerpt minutes captured these concerns and the PTC’s struggles to pass a recommendation regarding street width. The PTC recommendation is to increase the proposed expansion of Ellsworth Place by two feet beyond the 24’ the applicant had offered. A City-imposed condition expanding the width of Ellsworth Place to 26-feet would be considered an “exaction” of property from the applicants. The City has the authority to make such exactions only when there is an “essential nexus” between the property being exacted and the public impacts of the application, as well as “rough proportionality” between the amount of the exaction and the amount of impact. Staff are unable to make this nexus and the attached ordinances reflect a 24-foot wide easement. Notably, this finding of essential nexus and rough proportionality do not apply to voluntary offers of property made by the applicant and the City Council is its deliberation can explore this topic further with the applicant. Additionally, some public commenters have asserted that the prior PC (PC 1810) for the subject property required the widening of Ellsworth Place. This is not accurate; the PC 1810 condition was not to ‘widen’ a private street, but rather to ‘modify’ the ‘driveway to Middlefield Road,’ as stated in Section 2 of that ordinance. Ellsworth Place Ownership Some area residents have expressed concern about the ongoing maintenance and drainage related concerns of the private street and assert that the City is, or ought to be, the owner. County assessor parcels maps and other information about property taxes related to the private street are offered as arguments that the street is publicly owned. Staff has conducted an extensive review of the record and finds no evidence to support this conclusion. Moreover, the request that the City take ownership and related maintenance responsibilities for the street is not a matter relevant to the subject application. The only connection the subject property has with Ellsworth Place is the access easement across the applicant’s private property to provide a connection between the private roadway and Middlefield Road. If the City Council were interested in exploring the possibility of taking over ownership of Ellsworth Place that would need to be agendized as a separate discussion. In contemplating such direction, the City Council may also want to be aware that there are many private streets in the City and may want to give consideration to the establishment of criteria for selecting and prioritizing which streets the City might have an interest in being publicly owned; the potential rebuilding and maintenance costs associated with street ownership; the needs of public safety services to access streets; as well as potentially complex legal considerations when such streets are held in common ownership such as may be the case with a homeowners association. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT There are no resource impacts associated with this action. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The June 28 PTC report noted prior community engagement. Additional engagement at the project site occurred on July 3, 2023, and during the PTC hearings of July 12 and August 9, 2023. The installation of markers to show the sight distance triangles on each side of Ellsworth Place, and three-foot temporary fence was per the PTC’s July 12 direction and to engage the neighbors in reviewing the proposal. The PTC packets and webpage include links to the correspondence. Additional correspondence received after the August 9th PTC hearing is provided as Attachment C to this report. Photographs taken by the applicant and staff, shared with the PTC in presentations, are provided as Attachments E and F. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The two attached draft Planned Community ordinances refer to several CEQA exemptions for the project(s) and the PTC report of August 9 included analysis of these exemptions. The PC for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road (Attachment A) cites the existing facilities exemption (15301) and the common-sense exemption (15061(b)(3)). The PC for 702 Ellsworth Place (Attachment B) cites the common-sense exemption as well as the new small structure exemption (15303). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: PC Ordinance for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road & Exhibit A (Development Plan) Attachment B: PC Ordinance for 702 Ellsworth Place & Exhibit B (Development Plan) Attachment C: Correspondence received from neighbors after August 9th Attachment D: August 9th excerpt verbatim PTC minutes Attachment E: Geotechnical memo from applicant received after August 9 Attachment F: Correspondence and photographs received from applicant after August 9 Attachment G: Photographs taken by staff shared with the PTC APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Not Yet Adopted 1 0160120_20230906_ay16 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Rezone the Property at 2901 Middlefield Rd. from Planned Community Ordinance 2343 (PC-2343) to Planned Community Ordinance XXXX (PC-XXXX). The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. (a) On __________, Dewey Land Company LLC (“Dewey”) and Handa Developer’s Group/RRP (“Handa”) applied to amend Planned Community (“PC”) Ordinance 2343 to apply solely to the property at 2901-2905 Middlefield Road, APN 127-35-194, (“Middlefield Parcel”) and rezone the property at 702 Ellsworth Place, APN 127-35-152, (“Ellsworth Parcel”) from Planned Community to Single Family Residential (R-1). (b) The City Council at its March 13, 2023 study session considered the prescreening application and indicated the project applicants should proceed with a formal PC rezoning application to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a recommendation. (c) On June 28, 2023, July 12, 2023, and August 9, 2023 the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) held a series of public hearings to consider the application. The PTC recommended that PC-2343 be amended to remove the Ellsworth Parcel and to establish two new PC ordinances to govern the Middlefield Parcel and Ellsworth Parcel, respectively. (d) The rezoning recommended by the PTC would reduce the area of the Planned Community PC 2343 from 26,386 sf to 19,893 square feet to encompass 2901-2905 Middlefield Road, a 12-unit apartment building currently owned by Dewey, and amend the development plan for the PC to: (i) restripe the tenant parking facility to assign four uncovered parking spaces to meet current code requirements for tenant parking spaces, (ii) provide a truck delivery space, (iii) maintain trash enclosure and pickup from Sutter Avenue, (iv) the 35-foot sight triangle at the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road shall not be obstructed by plants, fences, or other objects taller than 1 foot, and (v) add a 3’6”-wide swath of paving alongside Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending to the location of an existing utility pole guy-wire to increase the perceived width of Ellsworth Place. (e) The PTC recommended concurrent adoption of a companion ordinance (Ordinance No. XXXX) to designate the remaining 6,493 square foot parcel currently owned by Handa at 702 Ellsworth as PC, for the purpose of constructing a single-story, single-family residence. Not Yet Adopted 2 0160120_20230906_ay16 (f) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed public hearings on June 28, July 12, and August 9, 2023, made the findings set forth below and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended. (g) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds: (i) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining zoning districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; the City's conventional zoning district RM20 would not permit the existing 12 unit structure on the proposed 0.46 acre site (ii) Amendment to the existing Planned Community PC2343 will provide public benefits expected to result from the Project, including an expanded public access easement over the first 37 feet of Ellsworth Place, and the construction of an additional dwelling unit. (iii) The Council further finds that the Project provides public benefits, as described above, that are of sufficient importance to make the Project, as a whole, one with reasonable public benefit. (iv) The existing use and improvements are generally remaining unchanged and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. (v) The use permitted and the site development regulations are consistent with the following Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies and are, on balance, consistent with the goals and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-1.1 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Policy L-1.2 Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Policy L-1.3 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-1.4 Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on adjacent properties, public resources, and the natural environment. Policy L-1.5 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community safety. Policy L-1.6 Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view of the front of houses from the street. The use and improvements on the site are remaining unchanged from existing conditions, which are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Not Yet Adopted 3 0160120_20230906_ay16 Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended to rezone the certain property known as 2901-2905 Middlefield Road from PC-2343 to "PC-XXXX.” The subject property and revised zoning designation is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Development Plan Those certain plans entitled PROPOSED PC AMENDMENT TO PC 2343, DATED 1967, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property. SECTION 4. Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses within the PC boundary shall be limited to a 12-unit apartment building: The existing apartment building shall remain on the 2901-2905 Middlefield site within the PC boundary. Covered and uncovered parking for the tenants shall be provided in accordance with Section 5(b) of this ordinance. SECTION 5. Site Development Regulations. (a) Compliance with Development Plan. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan, except as modified herein. (i) A 30-inch-wide swath of paving shall be created alongside Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending approximately 37 feet to the location of an existing utility pole guy-wire, to increase the perceived width of Ellsworth Place. (ii) This additional paved area shall be maintained clear of obstructions. (iii) Prior to final inspection of any improvements on the site, Dewey shall offer an ingress and egress easement over this additional paved area to the other properties on Ellsworth Place. (iv) Any exterior changes to the apartment building or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, Architectural Review approval under Section 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as it is amended from time to time. (b) Parking and Loading Requirements. One covered parking space shall be provided for each of the 12 residential apartments. In addition, four uncovered spaces and a truck delivery space shall be provided on the 2901-2905 Middlefield property, accessible from Ellsworth Place, as shown on the Development Plan. (c) Trash Enclosures and Pickup. Trash enclosures and pickup shall be maintained with access from Sutter Avenue, and not from Ellsworth Place. Not Yet Adopted 4 0160120_20230906_ay16 (d) Development Schedule. The parking lot striping on 2901-2905 Middlefield Road shall be immediately implemented upon the effective date of this ordinance. Construction of the improvements to Ellsworth Place shall be completed within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this ordinance. (e) Minor Variations in Project. Minor changes to the Project may be approved by the Director, according to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(b)(3)(D) for architectural review. “Minor” changes do not include changes in land use. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that this ordinance is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that minor changes to the parking configuration at 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and construction of a single-family home pursuant to Ordinance No. XXXX will not result in a significant impact on the environment. The City Council finds that this ordinance is additional categorically exempt under Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, as it requires only a minor change to an existing facility. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services A0.1A 01 02 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: TITLE SHEET AS NOTED 2202.00 LB Da t e : 8 / 1 6 / 2 3 Fil e N a m e : E l l s w o r t h H o u s e _ B I M _ A R C H NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 02.01.2023 ARCHITECTURAL A0.1A T-1 A1.0A A2.1 A3.0A A3.1A TITLE SHEET SPECIAL TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION SHEET EXISTING PC 2343 DEVELOPMENT PLAN. FOR REFERENCE ONLY. DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHOTOS PHOTOS SIGHT LINES SU T T E R A V E . EL L S W O R T H P L A C E MID D L E F I E L D R O A D MA T A D E R O C A N A L SA N C A R L O S A V E . TO W L E W A Y COL O R A D O A V E . CLA R A D R I V E HOO V E R P A R K SHEET INDEXPROJECT INFORMATION SEE ATTACHED LETTER. 127-35-194 PC-2343 R-2 V-B 2022 CRC CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2022 CFC CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2022 CMC CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2022 CPC CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2022 CEC CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2022 CGC CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE 2022 CBC CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 19,893 SF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APN ZONE OCCUPANCY CONSTRUCTION BUILDING CODE PARCEL LOT PROJECT DIRECTORY CLIENT RLD LAND LLC 240 LORTON AVENUE 4TH FLOOR BURLINGAME, CA 94063 650.571.1010 ARCHITECT HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 650.365.0600 PH 650.365.0670 FAX CONTACT: Ken Hayes x:15 khayes@thehayesgroup.com PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD VICINITY MAP 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD RD. PALO ALTO, CA 94306 CITY COUNCIL 09.18.2023 N T-1 01 02 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: SPECIAL TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION SHEET AS NOTED 2202.00 LB 8/1 6 / 2 3 D a t e : e: F i l e N a m E l l s w o r t h H o u s e _ B I M _ A R C H NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 02.01.2023 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o T r e e P r o t e c t i o n - I t ’ s P a r t o f t h e P l a n ! M a k e s u r e y o u r c r e w s a n d s u b s d o t h e j o b r i g h t ! F e n c e d e n c l o s u r e s a r o u n d t r e e s a r e e s s e n t i a l t o p r o t e c t t h e m b y k e e p i n g t h e f o l i a g e c a n o p y a n d b r a n c h i n g s t r u c t u r e c l e a r f r o m co n t a c t b y e q u i p m e n t , m a t e r i a l s a n d a c t i v i t i e s , p r e s e r v i n g r o o t s a n d s o i l c o n d i t i o n s i n a n i n t a c t a n d n o n - c o m p a c t e d s t a t e , a n d i d e n t i f y i n g t h e T r e e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e ( T P Z ) i n w hi c h n o s o i l d i s t u r b a n c e i s p e r m i t t e d a n d a c t i v i t i e s a r e r e s t r i c t e d , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a p p r o v e d .A n a p p r o v e d t r e e p r o t e c t i o n r e p o r t m u s t b e a d d e d t o t h i s s h e e t w h e n p r o j e c t a c t i v i t y o c c u r s w i t h i n t h e T P Z o f a r e g u l a t e d t r e e . F o r d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n o n P a l o A l t o ' s r e g u l a t e d t r e e s a n d p r o t e c t i o n d u r i n g d e v e l o p m e n t , r e v i e w t h e C i t y T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l ( T T M ) f o u n d a t w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / t r e e s / . T - 1S p e c i a l T r e e P r o t e c t i o n I n s t r u c t i o n S h e e t C i t y o f P a l o A l t o A l l o t h e r t r e e - r e l a t e d r e p o r t s s h a l l b e a d d e d t o t h e s p a c e p r o v i d e d o n t h i s s h e e t ( a d d i n g a s n e e d e d ) I n c l u d e t h i s s h e e t ( s ) o n P r o j e c t S h e e t I n d e x o r L e g e n d P a g e . A c o p y o f T - 1 c a n b e d o w n l o a d e d a t Apply Tree Protection Report on sheet(s) T-2 Use addtional “T” sheets as needed T R E E D I S C L O S U R E S T A T E M E N TC I T Y O F P A L O A L T O P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n , 2 5 0 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e P a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 1 ( 6 5 0 ) 3 2 9 - 2 4 4 1 h t t p : / / w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g P a l o A l t o M u n i c i p a l C o d e , C h a p t e r 8 . 1 0 . 0 4 0 , r e q u i r e s d i s c l o s u r e a n d p r o t e c t i o n o f c e r t a i n t r e e s l o c a t e d o n p r i v a t e a n d p u b l i c p r o p e r t y , a n d t h a t t h e y b e s h o w n o n a p p r o v e d s i t e p l a n s . A c o m p l e t e d d i s c l o s u r e s t a t e m e n t m u s t a c c o m p a n y a l l b u i l d i n g p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n s t h a t i n c l u d e e x t e r i o r w o r k , a l l d e m o l i t i o n o r g r a d i n g p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n s , o r o t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t y . P R O P E R T Y A D D R E S S :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A r e t h e r e R e g u l a t e d 1 Y E S N Ot r e e s o n o r a d j a c e n t t o t h e p r o p e r t y ?( I f n o , p r o c e e d t o S e c t i o n 4 ) [ S e c t i o n s 1 - 4 M U S T b e c o m p l e t e d b y t h e a p p l i c a n t . P l e a s e c i r c l e a n d / o r c h e c k w h e r e a p p l i c a b l e . ] 1 . W h e r e a r e t h e t r e e s ? C h e c k t h o s e t h a t a p p l y .( P l a n s m u s t b e s u b m i t t e d s h o w i n g o v e r 4 ” d i a m e t e r t r e e s ) O n t h e p r o p e r t y O n a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y o v e r h a n g i n g t h e p r o j e c t s i t e I n t h e C i t y p l a n t e r s t r i p o r r i g h t - o f - w a y e a s e m e n t w i t h i n 3 0 ’ o f p r o p e r t y l i n e ( S t r e e t T r e e s )* *S t r e e t t r e e s 1 r e q u i r e s p e c i a l p r o t e c t i o n b y a f e n c e d e n c l o s u r e, p e r t h e a t t a c h e d i n s t r u c t i o n s . P r i o r t o r e c e i v i n g a n y p e r m i t , y o u m u s t p r o v i d e a n a u t h o r i z e d S t r e e t T r e e P r o t e c t i o n V e r i f i c a t i o n f o r m b y c a l l i n g P u b l i c W o r k s O p e r a t i o n s a t 4 9 3 - 5 9 5 3 f o r i n s p e c t i o n o f r e q u i r e d ty p e I , I I o r I I I f e n c i n g ( s e e a t t a c h e d D e t a i l # 6 0 5 ) . 2 . A r e t h e r e a n y P r o t e c t e d 1 o r D e s i g n a t e d 1 T r e e s ?Y E S( C h e c k w h e r e a p p l i c a b l e )N O P r o t e c t e d T r e e ( s ) D e s i g n a t e d T r e e ( s ) O n o r o v e r h a n g i n g t h e p r o p e r t y 3 . I s t h e r e a c t i v i t y o r g r a d i n g w i t h i n t h e d r i p l i n e ? ( r a d i u s 1 0 t i m e s t h e t r u n k d i a m e t e r ) o f t h e s e t r e e s ?Y E S N O I f Y e s , aT r e e P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r tm u s t b e p r e p a r e d b y a n I S A c e r t i f i e d a r b o r i s t a n d s u b m i t t e d f o r s t a f f r e v i e w ( s e e T T M 2 , S e c t i o n 6 . 2 5 ) . A t t a c h t h i s r e p o r t t o S h e e t T - 1 , : T r e e P r o t e c t i o n , i t s P a r t o f t h e P l a n ! ” , p e r S i t e P l a n R e q u i r e m e n t s . 4 . A r e t h e S i t e P l a n R e q u i r e m e n t s* * c o m p l e t e d ?Y E S N O * * P r o t e c t i o n o f R e g u l a t e d t r e e s d u r i n g d e v e l o p m e n t r e q u i r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : ( 1 ) P l a n s m u s t s h o w t h e m e a s u r e d t r u n k d i a m e t e r a n d c a n o p y d r i p l i n e ; ( 2 ) P l a n s m u s t d e n o t e , a s a b o l d d a s h e d l i n e , a f e n c e d e n c l o s u r e a r e a o u t t o t h e d r i p l i n e , p e r S h e e t T - 1 a n d D e t a i l # 6 0 5 - h t t p : / / w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / t r e e s / f o r m s . h t m( S e e a l s o T T M 2 , S e c t i o n 2 . 1 5 f o r a r e a t o b e f e n c e d ) I , t h e u n d e r s i g n e d , a g r e e t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h i s d i s c l o s u r e .I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t k n o w i n g l y o r n e g l i g e n t l y p r o v i d i n g f a l s e o r m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n r e s p o n s e t o t h i s d i s c l o s u r e r e q u i r e m e n t c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e P a l o A l t o M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 8 . 1 0 . 0 4 0 , w h i c h c a n l e a d t o c r i m i n a l a n d / o r c i v i l l e g a l a c t i o n . D a t e : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _S i g n a t u r e : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ P r i n t : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( P r o p . O w n e r o r A g e n t ) F O R S T A F F U S E : P r o t e c t i v e F e n c i n g S e c t i o n s 5 - 6 m u s t b e c o m p l e t e d b y s t a f f f o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a n y d e v e l o p m e n t p e r m i t ( d e m o l i t i o n , g r a d i n g o r b u i l d i n g p e r m i t ) . 5 . P r o t e c t e d T r e e s. T h e s p e c i f i e d t r e e f e n c i n g i s i n p l a c e . A w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t i s a t t a c h e d v e r i f y i n g t h a t p r o t e c t i v e f e n c i n g i s c o r r e c t l y i n p l a c ea r o u n d p r o t e c t e d a n d / o r d e s i g n a t e d t r e e s .OY E S N ( N / A i f t h e r e a r e n o p r o t e c t e d t r e e s , c h e c k h e r e) 6 . S t r e e t T r e e s. A s i g n e d P u b l i c W o r k s S t r e e t T r e e P r o t e c t i o n V e r i f i c a t i o n f o r m i s a t t a c h e d .Y E S N O ( N / A i f t h e r e a r e n o s t r e e t t r e e s , c h e c k h e r e ) . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 R e g u l a t e d T r e e s – a ) S t r e e t t r e e s – t r e e s o n p u b l i c p r o p e r t y ; b ) P r o t e c t e d t r e e s – C o a s t L i v e O a k s o r V a l l e y O a k s w h i c h a r e 1 1 . 5” i n d i a m e t e r o r l a r g e r , C o a s t R e d w o o d s w h i c h a r e 1 8 ” i n d i a m e t e r o r l a r g e r , w h e n m e a s u r e d 5 4 ” a b o v e n a t u r a l g r a d e ; a n d H e r i t a g e t r e e s a r e t r e e s d e s i g n a t e d b y Ci t y C o u n c i l ; a n d c ) D e s i g n a t e d T r e e s – c o m m e r c i a l o r n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y t r e e s , w h i c h a r e p a r t o f a n a p p r o v e d l a n d s c a p e p l a n . 2 P a l o A l t o T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l ( T T M ) c o n t a i n s i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r a l l r e q u i r e m e n t s o n t h i s f o r m , a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / p l a n n i n g - c o m m u n i t y / t r e e _ t e c h n i c a l - m a n u a l . h t m l S : P l a n / P l a d i v / A r b o r i s t / T r e e P r o t e c t i o n I n f o / T r e e D i s c l o s u r e S t a t e m e n t R e v i s e d 0 8 / 0 6 A P P E N D I X J C i t y o f P a l o A l t o 2 0 0 4 S t a n d a r d D r a w i n g s a n d S p e c i f i c a t i o n s R e v i s e d 0 8 / 0 6S t r e e t T r e e V e r i f i c a t i o n o f P r o t e c t i o n , P W E , S e c t i o n 3 1 P S - A L O A L T O T R E E T T R E E P R O T E C T I O N I N S T R U C T I O N S - S E C T I O N 3 1 - - 3 1 - 1 G e n e r a l a . T r e e p r o t e c t i o n h a s t h r e e p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n s, 1 ) t o k e e p t h e f o l i a g e c a n o p y a n d b r a n c h i n g s t r u c t u r e c l e a r f r o m c o n t a c t b y e q u i p m e n t , m a t e r i a l s a n d a c t i v i t i e s ; 2 ) t o p r e s e r v e r o o t s a n d s o i l c o n d i t i o n s i n a n i n t a c t a n d n o n - c o m p a c t e d s t a t e a n d 3 ) t o i d e n t i f y t h e T r e e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e ( T P Z ) i n w h i c h n o s o i l d i s t u r b a n c e i s p e r m i t t e d a n d a c t i v i t i e s a r e r e s t r i c t e d , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a p p r o v e d . b . T h e T r e e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e ( T P Z )i s a r e s t r i c t e d a r e a a r o u n d t h e b a s e o f t h e t r e e w i t h a r a d i u s o f t e n - t i m e s t h e d i a m e t e r o f t h e t r e e ' s t r u n k o r t e n f e e t ; w h i c h e v e r i s g r e a t e r , e n c l o s e d b y f e n c i n g . 3 1 - 2 R e f e r e n c e D o c u m e n t s a . D e t a i l 6 0 5 – I l l u s t r a t i o n o f s i t u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d b e l o w . b . T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l ( T T M ) F o r m s (h t t p : / / w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / t r e e s /) 1 .T r e n c h i n g R e s t r i c t i o n Z o n e s (T T M , S e c t i o n 2 . 2 0 ( C )) 2 .A r b o r i s t R e p o r t i n g P r o t o c o l (T T M , S e c t i o n 6 . 3 0) 3 .S i t e P l a n R e q u i r e m e n t s (T T M , S e c t i o n 6 . 3 5) 4 .T r e e D i s c l o s u r e S t a t e m e n t (T T M , A p p e n d i x J) c . S t r e e t T r e e V e r i f i c a t i o n ( S T V ) F o r m (h t t p : / / w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / t r e e s / f o r m s) 3 1 - 3 E x e c u t i o n a . T y p e I T r e e P r o t e c t i o n :T h e f e n c e s h a l l e n c l o s e t h e e n t i r e T P Z o f t h e t r e e ( s ) t o b e p r o t e c t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e l i f e o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t . I n s o m e p a r k i n g a r e a s , i f f e n c i n g i s l o c a t e d o n p a v i n g o r c o n c r e t e t h a t w i l l n o t b e d e m o l i s h e d , t h e n t h e p o s t s m a y b e s u p p o r t e d b y a n a p p r o p r i a t e g r a d e l e v e l c o n c r e t e b a s e , i f a p p r o v e d b y P u b l i c W o r k s O p e r a t i o n s . b . T y p e I I T r e e P r o t e c t i o n :F o r t r e e s s i t u a t e d w i t h i n a p l a n t i n g s t r i p , o n l y t h e p l a n t i n g s t r i p a n d y a r d s i d e o f t h e T P Z s h a l l b e e n c l o s e d w i t h t h e r e q u i r e d c h a i n l i n k p r o t e c t i v e f e n c i n g i n o r d e r t o k e e p t h e s i d e w a l k a n d s t r e e t o p e n f o r p u b l i c u s e . c . T y p e I I I T r e e P r o t e c t i o n :T o b e u s e d o n l y w i t h a p p r o v a l o f P u b l i c W o r k s O p e r a t i o n s . T r e e s s i t u a t e d i n a i n-t r e e w e l l o r s i d e w a l k p l a n t e r p i t , s h a l l b e w r a p p e d w i t h 2c h e s o f o r a n g e p l a s t i c f e n c i n g f r o m t h e g r o u n d t o t h e f i r s t b r a n c h a n d o v e r l a i d w i t h 2 - i n c h t h i c k w o o d e n s l a t s b o u n d s e c u r e l y ( s l a t s s h a l l n o t b e a l l o w e d t o d i g i n t o t h e b a r k ) . D u r i n g i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e p l a s t i c f e n c i n g , c a u t i o n s h a l l b e u s e d t o a v o i d d a m a g i n g a n y b r a n c h e s . M a j o r l i m b s m a y a l s o r e q u i r e p l a s t i c f e n c i n g a s d i r e c t e d b y t h e C i t y A r b o r i s t . d . S i z e , t y p e a n d a r e a t o b e f e n c e d .A l l t r e e s t o b e p r e s e r v e d s h a l l b e p r o t e c t e d w i t h s i x ( 6 ' ) f o o t h i g h c h a i n l i n k f e n c e s . F e n c e s a r e t o b e m o u n t e d o n t w o - i n c h d i a m e t e r g a l v a n i z e d i r o n p o s t s , d r i v e n i n t o t h e g r o u n d t o a d e p t h o f a t l e a s t 2 - f e e t a t n o m o r e t h a n 1 0 - f o o t s p a c i n g . F e n c i n g s h a l l e x t e n d t o t h e o u t e r b r a n c h i n g , u n l e s s s p e c i f i c a l l y a p p r o v e d o n t h e S T V F o r m . e . ‘ W a r n i n g ’ s i g n s. A w a r n i n g s i g n s h a l l b e w e a t h e r p r o o f a n d p r o m i n e n t l y d i s p l a y e d o n e a c h f e n c e a t 2 0 - f o o t i n t e r v a l s . T h e s i g n s h a l l b e m i n i m u m 8 . 5 - i n c h e s x 1 1 - i n c h e s a n d c l e a r l y s t a t e i n h a l f i n c h t a l l l e t t e r s : “ W A R N I N G - T r e e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e - T h i s f e n c e s h a l l n o t b e r e m o v e d a n d i s s u b j e c t t o a f i n e a c c o r d i n g t o P A M C S e c t i o n 8 . 1 0 . 1 1 0 . ” f . D u r a t i o n. T r e e f e n c i n g s h a l l b e e r e c t e d b e f o r e d e m o l i t io n ; g r a d i n g o r c o n s t r u c t i o n b e g i n s a n d r e m a i n i n p l a c e u n t i l f i n a l i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t , e x c e p t f o r w o r k s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o w e d i n t h e T P Z . W o r k o r s o i l d i s t u r b a n c e i n t h e T P Z r e q u i r e s a p p r o v a l b y t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t o r C i t y A r b o r i s t ( i n t h e c a s e o f w o r k a r o u n d S t r e e t T r e e s ) . E x c a v a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e p u b l i c r i g h t o f w a y r e q u i r e a S t r e e t W o r k P e r m i t f r o m P u b l i c W o r k s . g . D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n 1 .A l l n e i g h b o r s ' t r e e s t h a t o v e r h a n g t h e p r o j e c t s i t e s h a l l b e p r o t e c t e d f r o m i m p a c t o f a n y k i n d . 2 .T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e r e p a i r o r r e p l a c e m e n t p l u s p e n a l t y o f a n y p u b l i c l y o w n e d t r e e s t h a t a r e d a m a g e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 8 . 0 4 . 0 7 0 o f t h e P a l o A l t o M u n i c i p a l C o d e . 3 .T h e f o l l o w i n g t r e e p r e s e r v a t i o n m e a s u r e s a p p l y t o a l l t r e e s t o b e r e t a i n e d : a .N o s t o r a g e o f m a t e r i a l , t o p s o i l , v e h i c l e s o r e q u i p m e n t s h a l l b e p e r m i t t e d w i t h i n t h e T P Z . b .T h e g r o u n d u n d e r a n d a r o u n d t h e t r e e c a n o p y a r e a s h a l l n o t b e a l t e r e d . c .T r e e s t o b e r e t a i n e d s h a l l b e i r r i g a t e d , a e r a t e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d a s n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e s u r v i v a l . E N D O F S E C T I O N C i t y o f P a l o A l t o T r e e D e p a r t m e n t P u b l i c W o r k s O p e r a t i o n s P O B o x 1 0 2 5 0 P a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 3 6 5 0 / 4 9 6 - 5 9 5 3 F A X : 6 5 0 / 8 5 2 - 9 2 8 9 t r e e p r o t e c t i o n @ C i t y o f P a l o A l t o . o r g V e r i f i c a t i o n o f S t r e e t T r e e P r o t e c t i o n A p p l i c a n t I n s t r u c t i o n s : C o m p l e t e u p p e r p o r t i o n o f t h i s f o r m . M a i l o r F A X t h i s f o r m a l o n g w i t h s i g n e d T r e e D i s c l o s u r e S t a t e m e n t t o P u b l i c W o r k s D e p t . P u b l i c W o r k s T r e e S t a f f w i l l i n s p e c t a n d n o t i f y a p p l i c a n t . A P P L I C A T I O N D A T E : A D D R E S S / L O C A T I O N O F S T R E E T T R E E S T O B E P R O T E C T E D : A P P L I C A N T ’ S N A M E : A P P L I C A N T ’ S A D D R E S S : A P P L I C A N T ’ S T E L E P H O N E & F A X N U M B E R S : T h i s s e c t i o n t o b e f i l l e d o u t b y C i t y T r e e S t a f f 1 . T h e S t r e e t T r e e s a t t h e a b o v e a d d r e s s ( e s ) a r e a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d . T h e t y p e o f p r o t e c t i o n u s e d i s :* I f N O , g o t o # 2 b e l o w I n s p e c t e d b y : D a t e o f I n s p e c t i o n : Y E S N O * 2 . T h e S t r e e t T r e e s a t t h e a b o v e r ea d d r e s s aN O T S : P W D / O P S / T r e e / D S / S t . T r e e P r o t e c t 5 / 1 7 0 6 a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d . T h e f o l l o w i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n s a r e r e q u i r e d : I n d i c a t e h o w t h e r e q u i r e d m o d i f i c a t i o n s w e r e c o m m u n i c a t e d t o t h e a p p l i c a n t . S u b s e q u e n t I n s p e c t i o n S t r e e t t r e e s a t a b o v e a d d r e s s w e r e f o u n d t o b e a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d :* I f N O , i n d i c a t e i n “ N o t e s ” b e l o w t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f c a s e . I n p s e c t e d b y : D a t e o f I n s p e c t i o n : Y E S N O * N o t e s : L i s t C i t y s t r e e t t r e e s b y s p e c i e s , s i t e , c o n d i t i o n a n d t y p e o f t r e e p r o t e c t i o n i n s t a l l e d . A l s o n o t e i f p i c t u r e s w e r e t a k e n . U s e b a c k o f s h e e t i f n e c e s s a r y . R e t u r n a p p r o v e d s h e e t t o A p p l i c a n t f o r d e m o l i t i o n o r b u i l d i n g p e r m i t i s s u a n c e . t y o f P a l o A l t o T r e e P r o t e c t ii tC ao n I n s t r u c t i o n s a r e l o c a t e dt p : / / w w w . c i t y . p a l o - a l t o . c a . u st lh m/ t r e e s / t e c h n i c a l - m a n u a l . h t - - - W A R N I N G - - - T r e e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e e r e m o v e d w i t h o u tbl l n o taT h i s f e n c i n g s h C i t y A r b o r i s t a p p r o v a l ( 6 5 0 - 4 9 6 - 5 9 5 3 ) R e m o v a l w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n i s s u b j e c t t o a $ 5 0 0 f i n e p e r d a y * * P a l o A l t o M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 8 . 1 0 . 1 1 0 S e a r c h :A d v a n c e d B r o w s e B y T o p i c H o m eP l a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t H o m e C i t y-o w n e d T r e e s P r i v a t e l y-o w n e d T r e e s A b o u t t h e T r e e O r d i n a n c e T i t l e 8 . 1 0 e sr ee Ta gtr ieH F o r m s T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l F A Q s C o n t a c t U s R e s o u r c e s T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l T op u r c h a s et h e T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l J u n e , 2 0 0 1 F i r s t E d i t i o n V i e w b y s e c t i o n : T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s( P D F , 8 7 K B ) I n t e n t a n d P u r p o s e( P D F , 1 . 0 5 M B ) I n t r o d u c t i o n-U s e o f M a n u a l( P D F , 1 . 0 5 M B ) S e c t i o n 1 . 0-D e f i n i t i o n s( P D F , 9 6 K B ) S e c t i o n 2 . 0-P r o t e c t i o n o f T r e e s D u r i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n( P D F , 2 5 9 K B ) S e c t i o n 3 . 0-R e m o v a l , R e p l a c e m e n t & P l a n t i n g o f T r e e s( P D F , 1 1 7 K B ) S e c t i o n 4 . 0-H a z a r d o u s T r e e s( P D F , 1 0 5 K B ) S e c t i o n 5 . 0-T r e e M a i n t e n a n c e G u i d e l i n e s( P D F , 1 1 0 K B ) S e c t i o n 6 . 0-T r e e R e p o r t s( P D F , 8 4 K B ) V i e w A L L s e c t i o n s : T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l-F u l l( P D F , 1 . 8 4 M B ) A P P E N D I C E S A . P a l o A l t o M u n i c i p a l C o d e C h a p t e r 8 . 1 0 , T r e e P r e s e r v a t i o n & M a n a g e m e n t R e g u l a t i o n s B : T r e e C i t y-U S A r mon Foia tv a l uEda rH a zS AIC : D : L i s t o f I n h e r e n t F a i l u r e P a t t e r n s f o r S e l e c t e d S p e c i e s ( R e f e r e n c e s o u r c e ) E : I S A T r e e P r u n i n g G u i d e l i n e s( P D F , 1 . 8 5 M B ) F : T r e e C a r e S a f e t y S t a n d a r d s , A N S I Z 1 3 3 . 1-1 9 9 4 ( R e f e r e n c e s o u r c e ) G : P r u n i n g P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s , A N S I A 3 0 0-1 9 9 5 ( R e f e r e n c e s o u r c e )H : T r e e P l a n t i n g D e t a i l s , D i a g r a m 5 0 4 & 5 0 5 I : T r e e D i s c l o s u r e S t a t e m e n t J : P a l o A l t o S t a n d a r d T r e e P r o t e c t i o n I n s t r u c t i o n s T - 1 Pr o j e c t D a t a Type II Tree Protection otectionee Prrype I TT Type III Tree Protection otection Zone (TPZ)ee PrrT shown in gray (radius of TPZ equals 10-times the diameter of the tree or 10-feet, whichever is greater). echnical Manual Sec 2.15(E).ree T Restricted activity area -- see T echnical Manual Sec 2.20(C-D), any proposed trench or form work ree T Restricted trenching area -- see T orks Operations. Call 650-496-5953. within TPZ of a protected tree requires approval from Public W TPZ ree Diametereither 10 x T or 10-feet, whichever is greater Any proposed trench in TPZ requires approval See TTM 2.20 C-D for instructions 6-foot high chain link fence, typical (to be used only with approval of Public Works Operations) gins.ading or construction bee demolition, grected befored and shall be erequiree fencing is rrT Any inadvertant sidewalk or curb replacement or trenching requires approval Rev By Date do Standaralo AltCity of P Dwg .No yed bvo:Appr e DocktervDa eDat .PE No 2006 S NTScale:605 ecotrtionee PrT onstrucDuring Ction 1RWH 6WUHHW7UHHV,VVXDQFHRIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHV 3XEOLF:RUNV2SHUDWLRQVLQVSHFWLRQDQGVLJQHG DSSURYDORQWKH6WUHHW7UHH9HULILFDWLRQ 679 IRUPSURYLGHG 1RWH 2UGLQDQFH3URWHFWHG 'HVLJQDWHG7UHHV,VVXDQFH RIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHVDSSOLFDQWಬVSURMHFWDUERULVW ZULWWHQYHULILFDWLRQ7\SH,LVLQVWDOOHGFRUUHFWO\ DFFRUGLQJWRWKHSODQVDQG7UHH3UHVHUYDWLRQ5HSRUW 2-inches of Orange Plastic Fencing erlaid withvo 2-inch Thickooden SlatsW Detailed specifications are found in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) (www.cityofpaloalto.org/trees/) arningW arningW arningW arning Signs 1-inch W8.5x1 one each side vide public passage Fencing must pro TPZ.while protecting all other land in For written specifications associated with illustrations below, see Public Works Specifications Section 31 Fence distance branches or TP Z t o o u t e r 12/14/92 Restricted use for trees in sidewalk cutout tree wells only For all Ordinance Protected and Designated trees, as detailed in the site specific tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by the s project arborist as diagramed on the plans.applicant’ Yard Sidealkw Parkway Strip Street D.D.01 08/04/04 02 D.D.08/10/06 0 DWH arningW SPECIL INSEPACTIONS N PLNAING DRTPEMANTE TREE PROTECTION INSPECTIONS MNTDAORAY GINMROF PERST ISIRBO TEART SIECJOE PRRSU ENLAL SHROTACRT. NOSCEE EDTRTEC TOPR 0C.18PAM REQUI TIREERENSPD AEIND SICTEON OTNI MITWONG. PVRROIDE RITOT MNTEHLYEN T ACTERIVIT Y REPEEPLSOAPA TO T DHNNIRTERTAWMNTNGNDSP L REVSCAEE AIBTTFGIE YSAFENNI 14 DA R NG BUIEIIL PDIRMSTSNG UA.NCE ILDBU_ ______________: _______EA DTIT PERGMIN _______ OF 1EDATST: ___ REPOIVITEE ACRRTTY T _ ____________ ______ _________________AFF: ____ STCITY ___________ REPIOG DERTNITAEOLSNT MHLY OF TH TEREI AITCVTY REPORT SAH TLL CONFO SORMEHET T1 FA-ORMT, VERIFTYTHA AREE TLTL PECTROIEON MASAWURESIREE M LINTAE IMND I CONTAD NCLUDERALLLL CTOR ACTVIIYT, SECHED OR UNSWDULCHEDULEIPTD,TN AREEROTIHE PTEI ZN-COM.LITOCON ROON NOANCE ISB SEJUCTVAI TIOT ON OFOL PAC 8.M10.ECE080.FE: REN PARLO AO TLREET TNIECAACHL MNUAL, S. AIEDDE00 A 11.TON 2CDNDUMN g/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6460.cityofpaloalto.orhttp://www A1.0A 01 02 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: EXISTING PC 2343 DEVELOPMENT PLAN. FOR REFERENCE ONLY. AS NOTED 2202.00 LB Da t e : 8 / 1 6 / 2 3 Fil e N a m e : E l l s w o r t h H o u s e _ B I M _ A R C H NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 02.01.2023 820.2 sq ft 824.2 sq ft 509.3 sq ft 630.3 sq ft 630.1 sq ft 281.6 sq ft 276.7 sq ft 159.9 sq ft 206.2 sq ft 207.3 sq ft PL (E)(E)(E)(E) (E) EXISTING 484.4 sq ft 490 sq ft 189.9 SF 192.5 SF 105.3 sq ft 132.9 sq ft 134.3 sq ft 500 sq ft 494.8 sq ft 607.7 sq ft 505.2 sq ft 620.7 sq ft 818.7 sq ft 814 sq ft PL (E)(E)(E) (E)(E) (E) (E) 3PALO ALTO SITE SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 4PALO ALTO 2ND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" CITY COUNCIL 09.18.2023 A2.1 01 02 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS NOTED 2202.00 LB Da t e : 8 / 1 6 / 2 3 Fil e N a m e : E l l s w o r t h H o u s e _ B I M _ A R C H NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 02.01.2023 PP N4 9 ° 2 0 ' 0 0 " E 8 6 . 0 8 ' N52°00'00"W 229.20'(T) N52°00'00"W 130.67' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' S4 7 ° 1 2 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 1 . 3 0 ' S52°00'00"E 117.11'(T) 50.00'78.28'44.50' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 9 . 8 7 ' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 9 . 8 7 ' 80.67'50.00' 100 . 0 0 ' 44.50' 56.42' 72.61' 12 ' - 0 " + / - 42 ' - 0 " 5'-6" 37 ' - 9 " LOT A 127-35-194 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD AVE. LOT B 127-35-152 702 ELLSWORTH FR O N T Y A R D RE A R Y A R D 13 14 15 EL L S W O R T H P L A C E MA T A D E R O C A N A L BL D G . BLDG.BLDG. (E) TRASH AREA 10' X 30' SU-30 DELIVERY SPACE 16 TANDEM (N) PARKING SPACE TYP. (E) AC PAVING EXISTING LANDSCAPING RELOCATE CABLE BOX FOR UTILITY PURPOSES B.O. SIDEWALK (E) FIRE HYDRANT 20'-0" (E) EASEMENT 30"18" 37 ' - 0 " 12" FOR REFERENCE ONLYSUBJECT PARCEL 24'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 12" 26'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 8'-6"3'-0" 4'-0" PAVERS ZONE SU T T E R A V E N U E MIDDLE FIELD AVENUE (E) 4 COVERED PARKING SPACES (E) 8 COVERED PARKING SPACES 35' S I T E TR I A N G L E T Y P . (N) DRIVEWAY APRON PER CITY STANDARD (E) GROUND BRACE TO BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED BY CPA UTILITIES. GAS METERS CL TO FIRST WIRE ANCHOR (N) BOLLARDS AS NEEDED (E) APARTMENTS (E) APARTMENTS (E ) AP A R T M E N T S EXISTING PC 2343 AMENDMENT LOT-A 127-35-194 2901 + 2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD (E) (E) (E) SITE AREA BUILDING AREA (APPROX.) FAR (APPROX.) 19,893 7,775 .39 SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PLAN 2 REQUIRED PARKING 4-2BR UNITS 4-1BR UNITS 4-STUDIO UNITS 8 4 4 TOTAL REQUIRED TOTAL PROVIDED 16 16 1PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT CALCULATION (E) (E) (E) UNITS (NO CHANGE) PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (NO CHANGE) BIKE PARKING (NO CHANGE) (4) 2 BEDROOM (4) 1 BEDROOM (4) STUDIO 12 UNITS TOTAL 2861 INSIDE UNITS CITY COUNCIL 09.18.2023 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD RD. PALO ALTO, CA 94306 N A3.0A 01 02 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: PHOTOS AS NOTED 2202.00 LB Da t e : 8 / 1 6 / 2 3 Fil e N a m e : E l l s w o r t h H o u s e _ B I M _ A R C H NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 02.01.2023 5VIEW OF INTERIOR PARKING SCALE:1VIEW FROM MIDDLEFIELD RD. SCALE: 2VIEW OF SUTTER APARTMENT FROM ELLSWORTH PLACE SCALE:4VIEW FROM SUTTER AVE. SCALE:6VIEW OF EXISTING 702 ELLSWORTH SCALE: 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD RD. PALO ALTO, CA 94306 CITY COUNCIL 09.18.2023 A3.1A 01 02 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: PHOTOS SIGHT LINES AS NOTED 2202.00 LB Da t e : 8 / 1 6 / 2 3 Fil e N a m e : E l l s w o r t h H o u s e _ B I M _ A R C H NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 02.01.2023 1VIEW FROM STOP SIGN SCALE: 2VIEW FROM STOP SIGN 2 SCALE:4VIEW APPROACHING STOP SIGN 2 SCALE: 3VIEW APROACHING STOP SIGN SCALE: 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD RD. PALO ALTO, CA 94306 CITY COUNCIL 09.18.2023 FENCE 3'-0" TALL SETBACK 4'-0" FROM BACK OF CITY SIDEWALK PER CITY OF PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION * Not Yet Adopted 1 0160121_20230906_ay16 ORDINANCE NO. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Rezone the Property at 702 Ellsworth Place from Planned Community Ordinance 2343 (PC-2343) to Planned Community Ordinance XXXX (PC-XXXX). The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. (a) On _________, Dewey Land Company LLC (“Dewey”) and Handa Developer’s Group/RRP (“Handa”) applied to amend Planned Community (“PC”) Ordinance 2343 to apply solely to the property at 2901-2905 Middlefield Road, APN 127-35-194, (“Middlefield Parcel”) and rezone the property at 702 Ellsworth Place, APN 127-35-152, (“Ellsworth Parcel”) from Planned Community to Single Family Residential (R-1). (b) The City Council at its March 13, 2023 study session considered the prescreening application and indicated the project applicants should proceed with a formal PC rezoning application to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a recommendation. (c) On June 28, 2023, July 12, 2023, and August 9, 2023 the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) held a series of public hearings to consider the application. The PTC recommended that PC-2343 be amended to remove the Ellsworth Parcel and to establish two new PC ordinances to govern the Middlefield Parcel and Ellsworth Parcel, respectively. (d) The rezoning recommended by the PTC would remove the 6,493 square foot parcel currently owned by Handa at 702 Ellsworth from PC-2343 and redesignate it as a separate PC, for the purpose of constructing a single-story, single-family residence. The PTC recommended the following conditions: (i) the development plan shall include a 2’6”-wide swath of pavement alongside Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending to the proposed walkway to the single-family residence to increase the perceived width of Ellsworth Place, (ii) the 35-foot sight triangle at the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road shall not be obstructed by plants, fences, or other objects taller than 1 foot, (iii) the 24-foot special setback from Middlefield Road shall be observed, (iv) the setback from the creek shall be determined by a slope stability analysis, (v) and a 6-foot setback shall apply to the rear property line, except with respect to a detached garage. (e) The PTC recommended concurrent adoption of a companion ordinance (Ordinance No. XXXX) to reduce the area of the Planned Community PC 2343 from 26,386 sf to 19,893 square feet Not Yet Adopted 2 0160121_20230906_ay16 to encompass 2901-2905 Middlefield Road, a 12-unit apartment building currently owned by Dewey. (f) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed public hearings on June 28, July 12, and August 9, 2023, made the findings set forth below and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended. (g) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds: (i) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining zoning districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; the City's conventional zoning district RM20 would not permit the existing 12 unit structure on the proposed 0.46 acre site (ii) Amendment to the existing Planned Community PC2343 will provide public benefits expected to result from the Project, including an expanded public access easement over the first 35 feet of Ellsworth Place, and the construction of an additional dwelling unit. (iii) The Council further finds that the Project provides public benefits, as described above, that are of sufficient importance to make the Project, as a whole, one with reasonable public benefit. (iv) The proposed single-family residence is compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, which are typically single-family residences and one 12-unit apartment complex. (v) The use permitted and the site development regulations are consistent with the following Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies and are, on balance consistent with the goals and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-1.1 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Policy L-1.2 Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Policy L-1.3 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-1.4 Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on adjacent properties, public resources, and the natural environment. Policy L-1.5 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community safety. Policy L-1.6 Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view of the front of houses from the street. The use and improvements on the site are remaining unchanged from existing conditions, which are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites. Not Yet Adopted 3 0160121_20230906_ay16 SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended to rezone the certain property known as 702 Ellsworth Place from PC-2343 to “PC-XXXX.” The subject property and revised zoning designation is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Development Plan Those certain plans entitled _____________, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property. SECTION 4. Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses within the PC boundary shall be limited to a single- family residence. SECTION 5. Site Development Regulations. (a) Compliance with Development Plan. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan, except as modified herein. (i) Any exterior changes to the single-family residence or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, Architectural Review approval under Section 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as it is amended from time to time. (ii) The development plan shall include a 18-inch-wide swath of pavement alongside Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending approximately 42 feet to the proposed walkway to the single-family residence, to increase the perceived width of Ellsworth Place. (iii) This additional paved area shall remain clear of obstructions. (iv) Prior to final inspections for any structure on the site, Handa shall offer an ingress and egress easement over this additional paved area to the other properties on Ellsworth Place. (v) The 35-foot sight triangle at the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road shall not be obstructed by new impediments taller than 1 foot, (vi) The 24-foot special setback from Middlefield Road shall be observed, (vii) The setback from the creek shall be determined by a slope stability analysis, but no less than 6 feet. (viii) A 6-foot setback shall apply to the rear property line, except with respect to a detached garage Not Yet Adopted 4 0160121_20230906_ay16 (b) Development Schedule. Construction of the improvements to Ellsworth Place shall be completed within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this ordinance. Construction of other improvements shall be completed within twenty-four (24) months of the effective date of this ordinance. (c) Minor Variations in Project. Minor changes to the Project may be approved by the Director, according to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(b)(3)(D) for architectural review. “Minor” changes do not include changes in land use. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that this ordinance is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that construction of a single-family home pursuant to will not result in a significant impact on the environment. The City Council finds that this ordinance is additional categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, as it approves construction of a single-family residence. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services A0.1 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: TITLE SHEET AS NOTED 2202.00 LB Date: 7/24/23 File Name: Ellsworth House_BIM_ARCH NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PTC SUBMITTAL 07.26.2023 ARCHITECTURAL A0.1 T-1 A1.0 A2.0 A3.0 REF-1 TITLE SHEET SPECIAL TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION SHEET EXISTING PC 2343 DEVELOPMENT PLAN. FOR REFERENCE ONLY. PROPOSED SITE PLAN PHOTOS BGT SURVEY SUTTER AVE. ELLSWORTH PLACE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD MATADERO CANAL SAN CARLOS AVE. TOWLE WAY COLORADO AVE. CLARA DRIVE HOOVER PARK SHEET INDEXPROJECT INFORMATION SEE ATTACHED LETTER. 127-35-152 PC-2343 R-3 V-B 2022 CRC CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2022 CFC CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2022 CMC CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2022 CPC CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2022 CEC CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2022 CGC CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE 2022 CBC CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 6,493 SF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APN ZONE OCCUPANCY CONSTRUCTION BUILDING CODE PARCEL LOT PROJECT DIRECTORY PROPERTY OWNER HANDA DEVELOPERS GROUP 408.406.3964 CONTACT: Nitin Handa handa@handadevelopers.com ARCHITECT HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 650.365.0600 PH 650.365.0670 FAX CONTACT: Ken Hayes x:15 khayes@thehayesgroup.com PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 702 ELLSWORTH VICINITY MAP N T-1 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: SPECIAL TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION SHEET AS NOTED 2202.00 LB Date: 7/24/23 File Name: Ellsworth House_BIM_ARCH NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PTC SUBMITTAL 07.26.2023 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o T r e e P r o t e c t i o n - I t ’ s P a r t o f t h e P l a n ! M a k e s u r e y o u r c r e w s a n d s u b s d o t h e j o b r i g h t ! F e n c e d e n c l o s u r e s a r o u n d t r e e s a r e e s s e n t i a l t o p r o t e c t t h e m b y k e e p i n g t h e f o l i a g e c a n o p y a n d b r a n c h i n g s t r u c t u r e c l e a r f r o m co n t a c t b y e q u i p m e n t , m a t e r i a l s a n d a c t i v i t i e s , p r e s e r v i n g r o o t s a n d s o i l c o n d i t i o n s i n a n i n t a c t a n d n o n - c o m p a c t e d s t a t e , a n d i d e n t i f y i n g t h e T r e e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e ( T P Z ) i n w hi c h n o s o i l d i s t u r b a n c e i s p e r m i t t e d a n d a c t i v i t i e s a r e r e s t r i c t e d , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a p p r o v e d .A n a p p r o v e d t r e e p r o t e c t i o n r e p o r t m u s t b e a d d e d t o t h i s s h e e t w h e n p r o j e c t a c t i v i t y o c c u r s w i t h i n t h e T P Z o f a r e g u l a t e d t r e e . F o r d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n o n P a l o A l t o ' s r e g u l a t e d t r e e s a n d p r o t e c t i o n d u r i n g d e v e l o p m e n t , r e v i e w t h e C i t y T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l ( T T M ) f o u n d a t w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / t r e e s / . T - 1S p e c i a l T r e e P r o t e c t i o n I n s t r u c t i o n S h e e t C i t y o f P a l o A l t o A l l o t h e r t r e e - r e l a t e d r e p o r t s s h a l l b e a d d e d t o t h e s p a c e p r o v i d e d o n t h i s s h e e t ( a d d i n g a s n e e d e d ) I n c l u d e t h i s s h e e t ( s ) o n P r o j e c t S h e e t I n d e x o r L e g e n d P a g e . A c o p y o f T - 1 c a n b e d o w n l o a d e d a t Apply Tree Protection Report on sheet(s) T-2 Use addtional “T” sheets as needed T R E E D I S C L O S U R E S T A T E M E N TC I T Y O F P A L O A L T O P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n , 2 5 0 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e P a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 1 ( 6 5 0 ) 3 2 9 - 2 4 4 1 p : / / w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r gh t t P a l o A l t o M u n i c i p a l C o d e , C h a p t e r 8 . 1 0 . 0 4 0 , r e q u i r e s d i s c l o s u r e a n d p r o t e c t i o n o f c e r t a i n t r e e s l o c a t e d o n p r i v a t e a n d p u b l i c p r o p e r t y , a n d t h a t t h e y b e s h o w n o n a p p r o v e d s i t e p l a n s . A c o m p l e t e d d i s c l o s u r e s t a t e m e n t m u s t a c c o m p a n y a l l b u i l d i n g p e r m i t r k , a l l d e m o l i t i o n o r g r a d i n g p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n s , o r o t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t y .a p p l i c a t i o n s t h a t i n c l u d e e x t e r i o r w o P R O P E R T Y A D D R E S S :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A r e t h e r e R e g u l a t e d 1 Y E S N Ot r e e s o n o r a d j a c e n t t o t h e p r o p e r t y ?( I f n o , p r o c e e d t o S e c t i o n 4 ) [ S e c t i o n s 1 - 4 M U S T b e c o m p l e t e d b y t h e a p p l i c a n t . P l e a s e c i r c l e a n d / o r c h e c k w h e r e a p p l i c a b l e . ] 1 . W h e r e a r e t h e t r e e s ? C h e c k t h o s e t h a t a p p l y .( P l a n s m u s t b e s u b m i t t e d s h o w i n g o v e r 4 ” d i a m e t e r t r e e s ) O n t h e p r o p e r t y O n a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y o v e r h a n g i n g t h e p r o j e c t s i t e I n t h e C i t y p l a n t e r s t r i p o r r i g h t - o f - w a y e a s e m e n t w i t h i n 3 0 ’ o f p r o p e r t y l i n e ( S t r e e t T r e e s )* *S t r e e t t r e e s 1 r e q u i r e s p e c i a l p r o t e c t i o n b y a f e n c e d e n c l o s u r e, p e r t h e a t t a c h e d i n s t r u c t i o n s . P r i o r t o r e c e i v i n g a n y p e r m i t , y o u m u s t p r o v i d e a n a u t h o r i z e d S t r e e t T r e e P r o t e c t i o n V e r i f i c a t i o n f o r m b y c a l l i n g P u b l i c W o r k s O p e r a t i o n s a t 4 9 3 - 5 9 5 3 f o r i n s p e c t i o n o f r e q u i r e d ty p e I , I I o r I I I f e n c i n g ( s e e a t t a c h e d D e t a i l # 6 0 5 ) . 2 . A r e t h e r e a n y P r o t e c t e d 1 o r D e s i g n a t e d 1 T r e e s ?Y E S( C h e c k w h e r e a p p l i c a b l e )N O P r o t e c t e d T r e e ( s ) D e s i g n a t e d T r e e ( s ) O n o r o v e r h a n g i n g t h e p r o p e r t y 3 . I s t h e r e a c t i v i t y o r g r a d i n g w i t h i n t h e d r i p l i n e ? ( r a d i u s 1 0 t i m e s t h e t r u n k d i a m e t e r ) o f t h e s e t r e e s ?Y E S N O I f Y e s , aT r e e P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r tm u s t b e p r e p a r e d b y a n I S A c e r t i f i e d a r b o r i s t a n d s u b m i t t e d f o r s t a f f r e v i e w ( s e e T T M 2 , S e c t i o n 6 . 2 5 ) . A t t a c h t h i s r e p o r t t o S h e e t T - 1 , : T r e e P r o t e c t i o n , i t s P a r t o f t h e P l a n ! ” , p e r S i t e P l a n R e q u i r e m e n t s . 4 . A r e t h e S i t e P l a n R e q u i r e m e n t s* * c o m p l e t e d ?Y E S N O * * P r o t e c t i o n o f R e g u l a t e d t r e e s d u r i n g d e v e l o p m e n t r e q u i r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : ( 1 ) P l a n s m u s t s h o w t h e m e a s u r e d t r u n k d i a m e t e r a n d c a n o p y d r i p l i n e ; ( 2 ) P l a n s m u s t d e n o t e , a s a b o l d d a s h e d l i n e , a f e n c e d e n c l o s u r e a r e a o u t t o t h e d r i p l i n e , p e r S h e e t T - 1 a n d D e t a i l # 6 0 5 - o r g / t r e e s / f o r m s . h t mh t t p : / / w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o .( S e e a l s o T T M 2 , S e c t i o n 2 . 1 5 f o r a r e a t o b e f e n c e d ) o f t h i s d i s c l o s u r e .I , t h e u n d e r s i g n e d , a g r e e t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t k n o w i n g l y o r n e g l i g e n t l y p r o v i d i n g f a l s e o r m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n r e s p o n s e t o t h i s d i s c l o s u r e r e q u i r e m e n t c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e P a l o A l t o M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n o c r i m i n a l a n d / o r c i v i l l e g a l a c t i o n .8 . 1 0 . 0 4 0 , w h i c h c a n l e a d t D a t e : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _S i g n a t u r e : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ P r i n t : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( P r o p . O w n e r o r A g e n t ) F O R S T A F F U S E : P r o t e c t i v e F e n c i n g S e c t i o n s 5 - 6 m u s t b e e t e d b y s t a f f c o m p lf o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a n y d e v e l o p m e n t p e r m i t ( d e m o l i t i o n , g r a d i n g o r b u i l d i n g p e r m i t ) . 5 . P r o t e c t e d T r e e s i f y i n g t h a t. T h e s p e c i f i e d t r e e f e n c i n g i s i n p l a c e . A w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t i s a t t a c h e d v e r p r o t e c t i v e f e n c i n g i s c o r r e c t l y i n p l a c er e e s .a r o u n d p r o t e c t e d a n d / o r d e s i g n a t e d tY E S N O ( N / A i f t h e r e a r e n o p r o t e c t e d t r e e s , c h e c k h e r e) e t T r e e s6 . S t r es i g n e d P u b l i c W o r k s S t r e e t T r e e P r o t e c t i o n V e r i f i c a t i o n f o r m i s a t t a c h e d .. A Y E S N O ( N / A i f t h e r e a r e n o s t r e e t t r e e s , c h e c k h e r e ) . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 R e g u l a t e d T r e e s – a ) S t r e e t t r e e s – t r e e s o n p u b l i c p r o p e r t y ; b ) P r o t e c t e d t r e e s – C o a s t L i v e O a k s o r V a l l e y O a k s w h i c h a r e 1 1 . 5” i n d i a m e t e r o r l a r g e r , C o a s t R e d w o o d s w h i c h a r e 1 8 ” i n d i a m e t e r o r l a r g e r , w h e n m e a s u r e d 5 4 ” a b o v e n a t u r a l g r a d e ; a n d H e r i t a g e t r e e s a r e t r e e s d e s i g n a t e d b y Ci t y C o u n c i l ; a n d c ) D e s i g n a t e d T r e e s – c o m m e r c i a l o r n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y t r e e s , w h i c h a r e p a r t o f a n a p p r o v e d l a n d s c a p e p l a n . 2 P a l o A l t o T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l ( T T M ) c o n t a i n s i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r a l l r e q u i r e m e n t s o n t h i s f o r m , a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / p l a n n i n g - c o m m u n i t y / t r e e _ t e c h n i c a l - m a n u a l . h t m l S : P l a n / P l a d i v / A r b o r i s t / T r e e P r o t e c t i o n I n f o / T r e e D i s c l o s u r e S t a t e m e n t R e v i s e d 0 8 / 0 6 A P P E N D I X J C i t y o f P a l o A l t o 2 0 0 4 S t a n d a r d D r a w i n g s a n d S p e c i f i c a t i o n s R e v i s e d 0 8 / 0 6S t r e e t T r e e V e r i f i c a t i o n o f P r o t e c t i o n , P W E , S e c t i o n 3 1 P S - A L O A L T O T R E E T T R E E P R O T E C T I O N I N S T R U C T I O N S - S E C T I O N 3 1 - - 3 1 - 1 G e n e r a l a . T r e e p r o t e c t i o n h a s t h r e e p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n s, 1 ) t o k e e p t h e f o l i a g e c a n o p y a n d b r a n c h i n g s t r u c t u r e c l e a r f r o m c o n t a c t b y e q u i p m e n t , m a t e r i a l s a n d a c t i v i t i e s ; 2 ) t o p r e s e r v e r o o t s a n d s o i l c o n d i t i o n s i n a n i n t a c t a n d n o n - c o m p a c t e d s t a t e a n d 3 ) t o i d e n t i f y t h e T r e e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e ( T P Z ) i n w h i c h n o s o i l d i s t u r b a n c e i s p e r m i t t e d a n d a c t i v i t i e s a r e r e s t r i c t e d , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a p p r o v e d . b . T h e T r e e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e ( T P Z )i s a r e s t r i c t e d a r e a a r o u n d t h e b a s e o f t h e t r e e w i t h a r a d i u s o f t e n - t i m e s t h e d i a m e t e r o f t h e t r e e ' s t r u n k o r t e n f e e t ; w h i c h e v e r i s g r e a t e r , e n c l o s e d b y f e n c i n g . 3 1 - 2 R e f e r e n c e D o c u m e n t s a . D e t a i l 6 0 5 – I l l u s t r a t i o n o f s i t u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d b e l o w . b . T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l ( T T M ) F o r m s (h t t p : / / w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / t r e e s /) 1 .T r e n c h i n g R e s t r i c t i o n Z o n e s (T T M , S e c t i o n 2 . 2 0 ( C )) 2 .A r b o r i s t R e p o r t i n g P r o t o c o l (T T M , S e c t i o n 6 . 3 0) 3 .S i t e P l a n R e q u i r e m e n t s (T T M , S e c t i o n 6 . 3 5) 4 .T r e e D i s c l o s u r e S t a t e m e n t (T T M , A p p e n d i x J) c . S t r e e t T r e e V e r i f i c a t i o n ( S T V ) F o r m (h t t p : / / w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / t r e e s / f o r m s) 3 1 - 3 E x e c u t i o n a . T y p e I T r e e P r o t e c t i o n :T h e f e n c e s h a l l e n c l o s e t h e e n t i r e T P Z o f t h e t r e e ( s ) t o b e p r o t e c t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e l i f e o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t . I n s o m e p a r k i n g a r e a s , i f f e n c i n g i s l o c a t e d o n p a v i n g o r c o n c r e t e t h a t w i l l n o t b e d e m o l i s h e d , t h e n t h e p o s t s m a y b e s u p p o r t e d b y a n a p p r o p r i a t e g r a d e l e v e l c o n c r e t e b a s e , i f a p p r o v e d b y P u b l i c W o r k s O p e r a t i o n s . b . T y p e I I T r e e P r o t e c t i o n :F o r t r e e s s i t u a t e d w i t h i n a p l a n t i n g s t r i p , o n l y t h e p l a n t i n g s t r i p a n d y a r d s i d e o f t h e T P Z s h a l l b e e n c l o s e d w i t h t h e r e q u i r e d c h a i n l i n k p r o t e c t i v e f e n c i n g i n o r d e r t o k e e p t h e s i d e w a l k a n d s t r e e t o p e n f o r p u b l i c u s e . c . T y p e I I I T r e e P r o t e c t i o n :T o b e u s e d o n l y w i t h a p p r o v a l o f P u b l i c W o r k s O p e r a t i o n s . T r e e s s i t u a t e d i n a nt r e e w e l l o r s i d e w a l k p l a n t e r p i t , s h a l l b e w r a p p e d w i t h 2 - ic h e s o f o r a n g e p l a s t i c f e n c i n g f r o m t h e g r o u n d t o t h e f i r s t b r a n c h a n d o v e r l a i d w i t h 2 - i n c h t h i c k w o o d e n s l a t s b o u n d s e c u r e l y ( s l a t s s h a l l n o t b e a l l o w e d t o d i g i n t o t h e b a r k ) . D u r i n g i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e p l a s t i c f e n c i n g , c a u t i o n s h a l l b e u s e d t o a v o i d d a m a g i n g a n y b r a n c h e s . M a j o r l i m b s m a y a l s o r e q u i r e p l a s t i c f e n c i n g a s d i r e c t e d b y t h e C i t y A r b o r i s t . d . S i z e , t y p e a n d a r e a t o b e f e n c e d .A l l t r e e s t o b e p r e s e r v e d s h a l l b e p r o t e c t e d w i t h s i x ( 6 ' ) f o o t h i g h c h a i n l i n k f e n c e s . F e n c e s a r e t o b e m o u n t e d o n t w o - i n c h d i a m e t e r g a l v a n i z e d i r o n p o s t s , d r i v e n i n t o t h e g r o u n d t o a d e p t h o f a t l e a s t 2 - f e e t a t n o m o r e t h a n 1 0 - f o o t s p a c i n g . F e n c i n g s h a l l e x t e n d t o t h e o u t e r b r a n c h i n g , u n l e s s s p e c i f i c a l l y a p p r o v e d o n t h e S T V F o r m . e . ‘ W a r n i n g ’ s i g n s. A w a r n i n g s i g n s h a l l b e w e a t h e r p r o o f a n d p r o m i n e n t l y d i s p l a y e d o n e a c h f e n c e a t 2 0 - f o o t i n t e r v a l s . T h e s i g n s h a l l b e m i n i m u m 8 . 5 - i n c h e s x 1 1 - i n c h e s a n d c l e a r l y s t a t e i n h a l f i n c h t a l l l e t t e r s : “ W A R N I N G - T r e e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e - T h i s f e n c e s h a l l n o t b e r e m o v e d a n d i s s u b j e c t t o a f i n e a c c o r d i n g t o P A M C S e c t i o n 8 . 1 0 . 1 1 0 . ” f . D u r a t i o n. T r e e f e n c i n g s h a l l b e e r e c t e d b e f o r e d e m o l i t io n ; g r a d i n g o r c o n s t r u c t i o n b e g i n s a n d r e m a i n i n p l a c e u n t i l f i n a l i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t , e x c e p t f o r w o r k s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o w e d i n t h e T P Z . W o r k o r s o i l d i s t u r b a n c e i n t h e T P Z r e q u i r e s a p p r o v a l b y t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t o r C i t y A r b o r i s t ( i n t h e c a s e o f w o r k a r o u n d S t r e e t T r e e s ) . E x c a v a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e p u b l i c r i g h t o f w a y r e q u i r e a S t r e e t W o r k P e r m i t f r o m P u b l i c W o r k s . g . D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n 1 .A l l n e i g h b o r s ' t r e e s t h a t o v e r h a n g t h e p r o j e c t s i t e s h a l l b e p r o t e c t e d f r o m i m p a c t o f a n y k i n d . 2 .T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e r e p a i r o r r e p l a c e m e n t p l u s p e n a l t y o f a n y p u b l i c l y o w n e d t r e e s t h a t a r e d a m a g e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 8 . 0 4 . 0 7 0 o f t h e P a l o A l t o e .M u n i c i p a l C o d 3 .T h e f o l l o w i n g t r e e p r e s e r v a t i o n m e a s u r e s a p p l y t o a l l t r e e s t o b e r e t a i n e d : a .N o s t o r a g e o f m a t e r i a l , t o p s o i l , v e h i c l e s o r e q u i p m e n t s h a l l b e p e r m i t t e d w i t h i n t h e T P Z . b .T h e g r o u n d u n d e r a n d a r o u n d t h e t r e e c a n o p y a r e a s h a l l n o t b e a l t e r e d . c .T r e e s t o b e r e t a i n e d s h a l l b e i r r i g a t e d , a e r a t e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d a s n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e s u r v i v a l . E N D O F S E C T I O N C i t y o f P a l o A l t o T r e e D e p a r t m e n t P u b l i c W o r k s O p e r a t i o n s P O B o x 1 0 2 5 0 P a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 3 6 5 0 / 4 9 6 - 5 9 5 3 F A X : 6 5 0 / 8 5 2 - 9 2 8 9 t r e e p r o t e c t i o n @ C i t y o f P a l o A l t o . o r g V e r i f i c a t i o n o f S t r e e t T r e e P r o t e c t i o n A p p l i c a n t I n s t r u c t i o n s : C o m p l e t e u p p e r p o r t i o n o f t h i s f o r m . M a i l o r F A X t h i s f o r m a l o n g w i t h s i g n e d T r e e D i s c l o s u r e S t a t e m e n t t o P u b l i c W o r k s D e p t . P u b l i c W o r k s T r e e S t a f f w i l l i n s p e c t a n d n o t i f y a p p l i c a n t . A P P L I C A T I O N D A T E : A D D R E S S / L O C A T I O N O F S T R E E T T R E E S T O B E P R O T E C T E D : A P P L I C A N T ’ S N A M E : A P P L I C A N T ’ S A D D R E S S : A P P L I C A N T ’ S T E L E P H O N E & F A X N U M B E R S : T h i s s e c t i o n t o b e f i l l e d o u t b y C i t y T r e e S t a f f 1 . T h e S t r e e t T r e e s a t t h e a b o v e a d d r e s s ( e s ) a r e a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d . T h e t y p e o f p r o t e c t i o n u s e d i s :* I f N O , g o t o # 2 b e l o w I n s p e c t e d b y : D a t e o f I n s p e c t i o n : Y E S N O * 2 . T h e S t r e e t T r e e s a t t h e a b o v e ea d d r e s s a rN O T S : P W D / O P S / T r e e / D S / S t . T r e e P r o t e c t 5 / 1 7 0 6 a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d . T h e f o l l o w i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n s a r e r e q u i r e d : I n d i c a t e h o w t h e r e q u i r e d m o d i f i c a t i o n s w e r e c o m m u n i c a t e d t o t h e a p p l i c a n t . S u b s e q u e n t I n s p e c t i o n S t r e e t t r e e s a t a b o v e a d d r e s s w e r e f o u n d t o b e a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d :* I f N O , i n d i c a t e i n “ N o t e s ” b e l o w t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f c a s e . I n p s e c t e d b y : D a t e o f I n s p e c t i o n : Y E S N O * N o t e s : L i s t C i t y s t r e e t t r e e s b y s p e c i e s , s i t e , c o n d i t i o n a n d t y p e o f t r e e p r o t e c t i o n i n s t a l l e d . A l s o n o t e i f p i c t u r e s w e r e t a k e n . U s e b a c k o f s h e e t i f n e c e s s a r y . R e t u r n a p p r o v e d s h e e t t o A p p l i c a n t f o r d e m o l i t i o n o r b u i l d i n g p e r m i t i s s u a n c e . t y o f P a l o A l t o T r e e P r o t e c t ii tC ao n I n s t r u c t i o n s a r e l o c a t e dt p : / / w w w . c i t y . p a l o - a l t o . c a . u st lh m/ t r e e s / t e c h n i c a l - m a n u a l . h t - - - W A R N I N G - - - T r e e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e e r e m o v e d w i t h o u tbl l n o taT h i s f e n c i n g s h C i t y A r b o r i s t a p p r o v a l ( 6 5 0 - 4 9 6 - 5 9 5 3 ) R e m o v a l w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n i s s u b j e c t t o a $ 5 0 0 f i n e p e r d a y * * P a l o A l t o M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 8 . 1 0 . 1 1 0 S e a r c h :A d v a n c e d B r o w s e B y T o p i c H o m eP l a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t H o m e C i t y-o w n e d T r e e s P r i v a t e l y-o w n e d T r e e s A b o u t t h e T r e e O r d i n a n c e T i t l e 8 . 1 0 e sr ee Ta gtr ieH F o r m s T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l F A Q s C o n t a c t U s R e s o u r c e s T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l T op u r c h a s et h e T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l J u n e , 2 0 0 1 F i r s t E d i t i o n V i e w b y s e c t i o n : T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s( P D F , 8 7 K B ) I n t e n t a n d P u r p o s e( P D F , 1 . 0 5 M B ) I n t r o d u c t i o n-U s e o f M a n u a l( P D F , 1 . 0 5 M B ) S e c t i o n 1 . 0-D e f i n i t i o n s( P D F , 9 6 K B ) S e c t i o n 2 . 0-P r o t e c t i o n o f T r e e s D u r i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n( P D F , 2 5 9 K B ) S e c t i o n 3 . 0-R e m o v a l , R e p l a c e m e n t & P l a n t i n g o f T r e e s( P D F , 1 1 7 K B ) S e c t i o n 4 . 0-H a z a r d o u s T r e e s( P D F , 1 0 5 K B ) S e c t i o n 5 . 0-T r e e M a i n t e n a n c e G u i d e l i n e s( P D F , 1 1 0 K B ) S e c t i o n 6 . 0-T r e e R e p o r t s( P D F , 8 4 K B ) V i e w A L L s e c t i o n s : T r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l-F u l l( P D F , 1 . 8 4 M B ) A P P E N D I C E S A . P a l o A l t o M u n i c i p a l C o d e C h a p t e r 8 . 1 0 , T r e e P r e s e r v a t i o n & M a n a g e m e n t R e g u l a t i o n s B : T r e e C i t y-U S A r mon Foia tv a l uEda rH a zS AIC : D : L i s t o f I n h e r e n t F a i l u r e P a t t e r n s f o r S e l e c t e d S p e c i e s ( R e f e r e n c e s o u r c e ) E : I S A T r e e P r u n i n g G u i d e l i n e s( P D F , 1 . 8 5 M B ) F : T r e e C a r e S a f e t y S t a n d a r d s , A N S I Z 1 3 3 . 1-1 9 9 4 ( R e f e r e n c e s o u r c e ) G : P r u n i n g P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s , A N S I A 3 0 0-1 9 9 5 ( R e f e r e n c e s o u r c e )H : T r e e P l a n t i n g D e t a i l s , D i a g r a m 5 0 4 & 5 0 5 I : T r e e D i s c l o s u r e S t a t e m e n t J : P a l o A l t o S t a n d a r d T r e e P r o t e c t i o n I n s t r u c t i o n s T - 1 Pr o j e c t D a t a Type II Tree Protection otectionee Prrype I TT Type III Tree Protection otection Zone (TPZ)ee PrrT shown in gray (radius of TPZ equals 10-times the diameter of the tree or 10-feet, whichever is greater). echnical Manual Sec 2.15(E).ree T Restricted activity area -- see T echnical Manual Sec 2.20(C-D), any proposed trench or form work ree T Restricted trenching area -- see T orks Operations. Call 650-496-5953. within TPZ of a protected tree requires approval from Public W TPZ ree Diametereither 10 x T or 10-feet, whichever is greater Any proposed trench in TPZ requires approval See TTM 2.20 C-D for instructions 6-foot high chain link fence, typical (to be used only with approval of Public Works Operations) gins.ading or construction bee demolition, grected befored and shall be erequiree fencing is rrT Any inadvertant sidewalk or curb replacement or trenching requires approval Rev By Date do Standaralo AltCity of P Dwg .No yed bvo:Appr e DocktervDa eDat .PE No 2006 S NTScale:605 ecotrtionee PrT onstructionDuring C 1RWH 6WUHHW7UHHV,VVXDQFHRIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHV 3XEOLF:RUNV2SHUDWLRQVLQVSHFWLRQDQGVLJQHG DSSURYDORQWKH6WUHHW7UHH9HULILFDWLRQ 679 IRUPSURYLGHG 1RWH 2UGLQDQFH3URWHFWHG 'HVLJQDWHG7UHHV,VVXDQFH RIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHVDSSOLFDQWಬVSURMHFWDUERULVW ZULWWHQYHULILFDWLRQ7\SH,LVLQVWDOOHGFRUUHFWO\ DFFRUGLQJWRWKHSODQVDQG7UHH3UHVHUYDWLRQ5HSRUW 2-inches of Orange Plastic Fencing erlaid withvo 2-inch Thickooden SlatsW Detailed specifications are found in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) (www.cityofpaloalto.org/trees/) arningW arningW arningW arning Signs 1-inch W8.5x1 one each side vide public passage Fencing must pro TPZ.while protecting all other land in For written specifications associated with illustrations below, see Public Works Specifications Section 31 Fence distance branches or TP Z t o o u t e r 12/14/92 Restricted use for trees in sidewalk cutout tree wells only For all Ordinance Protected and Designated trees, as detailed in the site specific tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by the s project arborist as diagramed on the plans.applicant’ Yard Sidealkw Parkway Strip Street D.D.01 08/04/04 02 D.D.08/10/06 0 DWH arningW SPECIL INSEPACTIONS N PLNAING DRTPEMANTE TREE PROTECTION INSPECTIONS MNTDAORAY GINMROF PERST ISIRBO TEART SIECJOE PRRSU ENLAL SHROTACRT. NOSCEE EDTRTEC TOPR 0C.18PAM REQUI TIREERENSPD AEIND SICTEON OTNI MITWONG. PVRROIDE RITOT MNTEHLYEN T ACTERIVIT Y REPEEPLSOA TPAO THRT DNNIERTAWMNGNTNDSP L REVCASEE AITBTFGIE FYSAFENNI 14 DA R NG BUIEIIL PDIRMSTSNGUA .NCE BU_ ______________: _______EA DTIT PERGMINILD _______ OF 1EDATST: ___ REPOITVIEE ACRRTTY T _ ____________ __ _____________________AFF: ____ STCITY ___________ REPIOG DENRTITAELOSNT MHLY OF TH TEREI AITCVTY REPORT SAH TLOL CONF SORMEHET TA1 F-ORMT, VERIFTYTHA AREE TLL T PECTROIEON MASAWURESIREPE M LNTIAEMND IID A CONTNCLUDELLRALL CTOR ACTVIIYT, SECHED OR UNSWDULCHEDULEIPTD,TREEN AROTIHE TPE I ZN-COM.TLICOON ROON NOANCE ISBE SJCTUVA TIIOT OOLN OF PAC 8.M10.ECE080.EF:E RN PARLO AO TLREETNI TECAACHL MNUAL, S. AIE00 ADDE 11.TON 2CDNNDUM g/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6460.cityofpaloalto.orhttp://www A1.0 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: EXISTING PC 2343 DEVELOPMENT PLAN. FOR REFERENCE ONLY. AS NOTED 2202.00 LB Date: 7/24/23 File Name: Ellsworth House_BIM_ARCH NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PTC SUBMITTAL 07.26.2023 820.2 sq ft 824.2 sq ft 509.3 sq ft 630.3 sq ft 630.1 sq ft 281.6 sq ft 276.7 sq ft 159.9 sq ft 206.2 sq ft 207.3 sq ft PL 484.4 sq ft 490 sq ft 189.9 SF 192.5 SF 105.3 sq ft 132.9 sq ft 134.3 sq ft 500 sq ft 494.8 sq ft 607.7 sq ft 505.2 sq ft 620.7 sq ft 818.7 sq ft 814 sq ft PL 3PALO ALTO SITE SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 4PALO ALTO 2ND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) SITE AREA BUILDING AREA (APPROX.) FAR (APPROX.) UNITS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (APPROX.) PARKING BIKE PARKING 26,386 7,775 0.29 (4) 2 BEDROOM (4) 1 BEDROOM (4) STUDIO 12 UNITS TOTAL 2,861 PROVIDED WITHIN UNITS EXISTING REFERENCE PLANS 1 12 COVERED 8 UNCOVERED 20 STALLS TOTAL (MIDDLEFIELD) (ELLSWORTH) SITE DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS A2.0 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPOSED SITE PLAN AS NOTED 2202.00 LB Date: 7/24/23 File Name: Ellsworth House_BIM_ARCH NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PTC SUBMITTAL 07.26.2023 PP N49°20'00"E 86.08' N52°00'00"W 229.20'(T) N52°00'00"W 130.67' S38°00'00"W 100.00' S47°12'00"W 101.30' S52°00'00"E 117.11'(T) 50.00'78.28'44.50' S38°00'00"W 109.87' S38°00'00"W 109.87' 80.67'50.00' 100.00' 44.50' 56.42' 72.61' 18" 12'-0" +/- 12" 42'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" SB 16'-0" 24'-0" SSB 5'-6" 37'-9" LOT A 127-35-194 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD AVE. LOT B 127-35-152 702 ELLSWORTH FRONT YARD REAR YARD (E) 4 COVERED PARKING SPACES (E) 8 COVERED PARKING SPACES 13 14 15 ELLSW ORTH PLACE M ATADERO CANAL BLDG. BLDG.BLDG. (E) TRASH AREA 10' X 30' SU-30 DELIVERY SPACE 16 TANDEM (N) PARKING SPACE TYP. (E) AC PAVING EXISTING LANDSCAPING RELOCATE CABLE BOX FOR UTILITY PURPOSES B.O. SIDEWALK (E) FIRE HYDRANT B.O. SIDEWALK 20'-0" (E) EASEMENT 30" 37'-0" SUBJECT PARCELFOR REFERENCE ONLY 24'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 12" 26'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 6'-0"SB 14'-2" 8'-6"3'-0" 4'-0" PAVERS ZONE SUTTER AVENUE MIDDLE FIELD AVENUE 3' TALL FENCE WITH 3" HORIZONTAL GAP BETWEEN BOARDS W/IN SITE TRIANGLE AND ALL MIDDLEFIELD FRONTAGE AND RETURN. 4' ALONG CREEK FRONTAGE. 35' SITE TRIANGLE TYP. (N) DRIVEWAY APRON PER CITY STANDARD (E) GROUND BRACE TO BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED BY CPA UTILITIES. GAS METERS CL TO FIRST WIRE ANCHOR RETURN (N) BOLLARDS AS NEEDED LOT-B 127-35-152 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE (E)SITE AREA (INCLUDE EASEMENT)6493 SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PLAN 2 1PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT CALCULATION FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY HOME FUTURE DETACHED GARAGE SF N A3.0 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: PHOTOS AS NOTED 2202.00 LB Date: 7/24/23 File Name: Ellsworth House_BIM_ARCH NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PTC SUBMITTAL 07.26.2023 2VIEW FROM MIDDLEFIELD RD. SCALE: 1MIDDLEFIELD FRONTAGE SCALE: 4VIEW OF EXISTING 702 ELLSWORTH SCALE: 3VIEW OF EXISTING 702 ELLSWORTH SCALE: 5VIEW LOOKING TOWARDS MIDDLEFIELD SCALE: NOT TO SCALE REF-1 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: BGT SURVEY AS NOTED 2202.00 LB Date: 7/24/23 File Name: Ellsworth House_BIM_ARCH NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PTC SUBMITTAL 07.26.2023 SCVWD BRASS DISK ON CONCRETE BRIDGE "BM 52 RESET" 18.80 18.77 16.25 16.36 19.57 19.56 19.16 19.00 18.77 18.95 19.00 19.15 19.04 18.77 18.55 18.26 17.91 17.70 18.69 18.76 19.29 19.4118.70 18.75 19.43 18.92 18.48 18.17 18.59 18.87 18.37 17.80 17.33 40.75 17.96 16.27 16.08 16.03 16.05 16.08 17.64 17.85 16.98 17.12 19.01 17.59 16.2516.98 18.12 18.03 17.89 17.00 16.55 16.80 17.48 18.70 17.43 16.98 17.05 17.34 16.14 16.66 16.92 17.04 16.53 16.80 16.03 16.02 15.82 15.79 16.26 16.17 16.35 17.21 16.91 16.85 16.91 17.10 16.52 16.82 16.66 15.8615.9616.10 15.96 15.90 15.79 15.82 15.3215.5915.6515.74 15.8916.19 15.61 15.80 16.0315.95 15.87 15.53 15.69 15.19 FORKED 6" TREE 12" TREE WV WV WV SIGN "NO PARKING" SIGN "INTERSECTION" JP SIGN STOP SIGN "NO OUTLET" EV COMM FH HVE EV COMM COMM HVE TEL VAULT PARAPET:35.0 PARAPET:35.1 JP RIDGE:32.6 JOINT POLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX HIGH-VOLT ELECTRIC STREET LIGHT BOX PACBELL/SBC VAULT STREET LIGHT TEMPORARY BENCHMARK SURVEY CONTROL POINT CORRUGATED METAL PIPE LIP OF GUTTER FLOWLINE FINISHED FLOOR HANDICAP RAMP BACK OF WALK VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE TOP BACK OF CURB CENTERLINE KILOVOLT POWER POLE MONUMENT TO MONUMENT DISTANCE TELEPHONE LINE ELECTRICAL LINE GAS LINE WATER LINE CATCH BASIN DROP INLET WATER VALVE GAS METER ELECTRIC METER WATER METER BOX FIRE HYDRANT IRON PIPE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE CABLE TELEVISION LINE OVERHEAD LINE CAST IRON PIPE SANITARY SEWER LINE STORM DRAIN LINE JP TS TSB HVE SLB SL PBV TBM CP CMP LG FL TBC C/L KV PP MON-MON VCP FF HCR INVERT LATERAL LEGEND IP GROUND SSMH LAT. WV SDMH CB DI INV. -E- WM GM EM FH GRD -T- -OH- -SS- -SD- -CTV- -G- -W- CI BW CLEAN OUT BOXCO AC ASPHALT CONCRETE GV GAS VALVE PG&E VAULTPGE ELECTRIC VAULTEV CABLE TELEVISION LINECTV UNKNOWN TYPE POST INDICATOR VALVE WATER BACK FLOW VALVE MH (TYPE UNKNOWN) UNK PIV WBF MH SANITARY SEWER VAULTSSV STREET LIGHT VAULTSLV GUY ANCHORGUY CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPECPP THE BEARING, SOUTH 52°00'00" EAST, OF THE CENTERLINE OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY WHICH WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 874 MAPS 13 ON JULY 23, 2014, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY. BASIS OF BEARINGS ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON NAVD 88 DATUM BASED ON THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY BENCHMARK "BM 52-RESET" AS SHOWN BELOW, WITH A PUBLISHED ELEVATION OF 19.19 FEET. BENCHMARK NOTES: BGT RELIED UPON A FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT, ORDER NO. 1003122, AS TITLE REFERENCE FOR ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD PLOTTED HEREON. UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON TAKEN FROM VISUAL SURFACE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS APPROXIMATE ONLY. ACTUAL LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES MAY VARY. TRUE LOCATION OF UTILITIES CAN ONLY BE OBTAINED BY EXPOSING THE UTILITY. THE LOCATION OF THE SEWER CLEANOUT WAS NOT FOUND BY THE FIELD CREW. THEREFORE, THE CLEANOUT(S), AND THE PROBABLE LOCATION OF THE SEWER LATERAL COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. VERIFICATION TO BE DONE BY OTHERS. TREE LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE SHOWN SYMBOLICALLY WITH SYMBOL SIZES BASED UPON TRUNK DIAMETER AT CHEST HEIGHT, AT THE LOCATION WHERE THE TREE ENTERS THE GROUND SURFACE. LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF TREE TRUNKS CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ON THE MAP. TREES OF TRUNK DIAMETER SIZES OF 6 INCHES OR GREATER WERE LOCATED BY THE FIELDCREW. SURVEY PERFORMED BY: BGT LAND SURVEYING www.bgtsurveying.com DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: JANUARY 28, 2022 JOB NUMBER: 22-017 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD EXISTING BUILDING GUYS EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING RIDGE:35.7 RIDGE:29.5RIDGE:40.8 EBOX EBOX EV CTV EV MH 17 17 17 16 18 18 17 16 17 17 17 18 19 19 ASPHALT PARKING AREA ELLSWORTH PLACE CARPORT ASPHALT DRIVEWAY 6' W OOD FENCE 4' W OOD FENCE X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X 6' W OOD FENCE 4' W OOD FENCE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5' WOOD-WIRE FENCE 6' WOOD FENCE CONCRETE CURB (NO GUTTER) CONCRETE CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCRETE SIDEWALK 0 8 16 24 1" = 8' UPPER LEVEL W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W G G G G G G G G G G(PAINTED LINE) (PAINTED LINE) W CONCRETE WALL CONCRETE HEADWALL MATADERO CREEK (CONCRETE BED) A/C BERM 6,493 SQ. FT.± APN 127-35-152 N 38°00'00" E 100.00' S 52°00'00" E 73.06' S 47°13'54" W 101.31' N 52°00'00" W 56.81' [20' WIDE] (72.62') (S 47°12' W) (101.29') (56.42') 30' 30' N 47°13'54" E FOUND C-NAIL AS FOUND PER 874 MAPS 13, 0.25' FROM RIGHT OF WAY 43.56' 540.87' 35.00' 111.90' 849.83' FOUND 3/4" IP WITH TAG AND TACK "RE 7595" IN HANDHOLE AT WELLSBURY WAY FOUND NAIL IN CONCRETE MONUMENT IN HANDHOLE BENCHMARK EDGE OF ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT FOR ADJOINERS PER 944 O.R. 165 S 52°00'00" E BASIS OF BEARINGS 5' WATER, GAS, SEWER EASEMENT PER 852 O.R. 350 CENTERLINE OF 20' PG&E EASEMENT PER 881 O.R. 570 SS SS SS SS SSAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SEWER MAIN - MANHOLES NOT FOUND W W W W VISIBLE 12" WATER LINE UNDERGROUNDS NEAR PROPERTY LINE - CITY RECORDS INDICATE LINE TURNS TOWARDS MIDDLEFIELD IN THIS AREA - RECOMMEND OTHERS VERIFY SPECIFIC LOCATION OH OH OH OH OH OH OH - W IDTH VARIES NOT TO SCALE From:Kristen Van Fleet To:French, Amy Cc:McRee, Sarah; Sauls, Garrett; Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; City Attorney; PlannerOnDuty; Planning Commission; City Mgr; Bhanu Iyer; Chin Chong; Gala Beykin; Hanh Nguyen; John Abraham; Natalie Fisher; On Chong; Robert Chaoqiang Chen; Robyn Ziegler; Shan Wang; Susan Light; Tsing Xue; Vadim Axelrod; Venketa Kurra; Yevgeny Yoni Khasin; William Ross; Glanckopf, Annette; Furman, Sheri Subject:Re: Follow Up - Application Request - ELLSWORTH PLACE - Abandoned Road/Road Ownership Date:Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:24:28 PM Attachments:image009.png image024.png image002.png image003.png image005.png image007.png image008.png image010.png image014.png image015.png Screenshot 2023-08-15 at 1.06.39 PM.png Screenshot 2023-08-15 at 1.26.12 PM.png Screenshot 2023-08-15 at 1.52.47 PM.png Screenshot 2023-08-15 at 2.04.08 PM.png Ellsworth Place Storm Drain_Public Records Search_Renumber_CB.pdf Ellsworth Place_GIS 8-2023.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Dear Amy French, City Council, and Pertinent City of Palo Alto Departments, How does CPA wish to handle having a 170.8-foot-long piece of abandoned road under its jurisdiction? Part of the Ellsworth Place "private road" has been "abandoned" since its last owner died on September 11, 1987. This section of road was once attached to the 702 Ellsworth Place parcel. It was not sold to the original apartment developers, Ray T. Lindsay & Mildred Lindsay, when they purchased that 702 Ellsworth Place lot from Helen M. Kenny on November 10. 1958. Per our understanding, the statute of limitations on real estate in the State of California is 5 years. This section of road has been abandoned for almost 26 years. The original Wooster Subdivision land map of 1912 was for the overall larger parcels. The only roads that existed in this area at that time are Middlefield, Ross, Louis, Stanford Avenue, and College Avenue, and some of these road names have since been changed. (See below). Ellsworth Place is located on what was Parcel 71 on this map, and it followed the Mayfield Sewer Outlet. It should also be noted that where Ellsworth Place is concerned, the Palo Alto GIS has been wrong now on two occasions that we know of, and also CPA Utilities didn't know they owned the storm drain until 2006, according to public records, (see below). So it is also plausible that Palo Alto already owns the road and has not properly documented it or has since lost the information, and land laws were different in the 1940s from what they are now. The Santa Clara County (SCC) Assessor's maps have shown Ellsworth Place being a public road since 1968, and county maps supersede the City maps. I've been told the SCC Assessors do not make a mistake of this magnitude, and the fact that NO ONE PAYS TAXES ON THIS ROAD, nor have they since at least 1968 or earlier, is further evidence that Ellsworth Place is already a public road. When I looked into what is required to add this length of road to the existing parcels, it is a very complicated and costly process that requires redrawing parcel lines. No one on Ellsworth Place is willing to do this as there is no benefit to having the road attached to a parcel. I was told by our surveyor that the far more efficient means of handling this situation is for the CPA to assume responsibility for it. CPA already owns ALL utilities on this road and has contributed to its wear and tear by punching through it to maintain utilities over the years, (fixing the sewer line and checking the gas lines, etc.) I have a bunch of photos showing this utility repair history over the last 10+ years. As we understand it, CPA can choose to write an Ordinance to cover the Ellsworth Place road that leaves the existing houses grandfathered in as they are, in which the homes were built between 1938 - 1949 with the lots all sold prior to annexation on May 2, 1947. In addition to GIS recording what was historically "702 Ellsworth", currently the parking lot of the Sutter Arms Apartments located at 2901 - 2905 Middlefield Road, as an R-1 parcel, the other mistake on GIS was the creek- side property line for ALL of the even house numbers, shortened our property lines as shown in the attached photo. To get this corrected prior to my own remodel process, which began in 2014, a very expensive survey was required to be recorded with the County. (That survey was conducted by a former SCC head surveyor, and it has been referred to many times recently!) The screenshot below is the original GIS map, which had the property line cutting through the existing garages of homes 724, 730, and 732 Ellsworth Place. As compared to the current GIS map after it was corrected, as shown below: Here are the communications from 2006 showing when CPA learned that the storm drain at the end of Ellsworth Place belongs to CPA. (The full email chain is also attached.) This issue of a portion of "abandoned road" existing within Palo Alto is not going to go away on its own. The Ellsworth Place neighbors would like this issue brought before City Council for a vote on an Ordinance that gives CPA ownership of the Ellsworth Place road and grandfathers the existing 13 parcels (15 addresses) along it, which were established prior to the annexation of this area. How do we proceed with this request? This request should be remedied prior to the amended PC Ordinance 2343 and "new" ordinance for the parking lot parcel, a.k.a. 702 Ellsworth Place, as road ownership does have a bearing on that project. Sincerely, Kristen A. Van Fleet on behalf of Ellsworth Place Home Owners, who are included in the Cc On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 7:07 PM French, Amy <Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Kristen, Staff forwarded the email you had sent early this afternoon (pasted at bottom of this email) to the Planner on Duty (and Council, Commission, City Attorneys, neighborhood association members, etc.) on this same topic to Garrett and me. I respectfully copy Garrett now to help him track this email response, and the planners on duty so they are not working on an overlapping response. Today, I reached out to Real Estate and Public Works staff members, to see if they are aware of the type of application you asked about. Planning does not have this type of application. Real Estate staff told me they are not aware of this type of application. I have not yet heard back from Public Works Engineering staff as to this type of application related to their application types but I scanned their webpage and did not see any such application; see: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms- and-Permits. Months ago doing this research in our system (GIST), PDS reached out to our Real Estate Division, Public Works Engineering staff, and attorneys to answer this question of ownership, with these results. GIST shows a 1950’s 12-inch storm drain line at the end of Ellsworth Place that might have been done as part of an adjacent subdivision of Clara Drive / Sutter Court and so Public Works should maintain the storm line and catch basin. As for the street, it was not shown on the original 1912 tract map, it did not exist and therefore was not offered or accepted by the County. They assumed the street was required in an effort to comply with access requirements after 1912. Without the street, the lots could not have been created, subdivided, and sold. Ellsworth Place is too narrow to comply with City standards, and City staff would not recommend the City acquire a substandard street. The list of private streets in Palo Alto includes Ellsworth Place. Here is the list: If you decide to direct your follow-up communications to Garrett and me, we will continue to do our best to respond promptly. AMY FRENCH Chief Planning Official Planning and Development Services (650) 329-2336 | amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: McRee, Sarah <Sarah.McRee@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 4:19 PM To: kvanfleet@gmail.com; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Follow Up - Application Request Hi Kristen, Following up on our call today – Amy French, our Chief Planning Official, will be able to assist with your inquiry. Amy, Kristen is reaching out understand the application process to established ownership of a road on Ellsworth Place. To my knowledge, there is currently not a process, but defer to you as our planning expert. Please follow up with Kristen via email. Thank you, Sarah SARAH MCREE Senior Operations Manager Planning and Development Services (650) 329-2276 | sarah.mcree@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org EMAIL EARLIER TODAY: From: Kristen Van Fleet <kvanfleet@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 1:25 PM To: PlannerOnDuty <planner@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Attorney <city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Glanckopf, Annette <annette_g@att.net>; Furman, Sheri <sheri11@earthlink.net>; William Ross <wross@lawross.com> Subject: Ellsworth Place - Requesting an Application for Establishing Road Ownership To Whom it may concern, Ownership of the Ellsworth Place "private" road is still an unanswered question. There is evidence it is already a public CPA road, per the 1968 County Assessor's Parcel Map, but this has recently been refuted by CPA during the Planning and Transportation Commission meetings regarding a proposed development on Ellsworth Place, Applications: 23PLN- 00025, and 23PLN-00027. No one pays taxes for this road. The Ellsworth Place Homeowners would like to start an application process with the City of Palo Alto to get ownership of the road determined. Per the research, a 170.8 foot portion of this road is abandoned and is, therefore, potential liability to the City of Palo Alto, (or does an abandoned road revert to County or State ownership?) How do we go about starting this process? Sincerely, Kristen Van Fleet on behalf of Ellsworth Place Homeowners 650-646-8677 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Planning & Transportation Commission 2 Draft Excerpt Minutes: August 9, 2023 3 Council Chambers & Virtual 4 6:00 PM 5 6 7 Commissioners present: Summa, Chang, Akin, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl 8 Commissioner absent: Templeton 9 10 ITEM 3. LEGISLATIVE: 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Review of 11 Demonstration Structures Following the July 12, 2023 PTC Hearing and Recommendation on 12 Rezoning to Amend Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and Create a New PC Zone for 702 13 Ellsworth Place to Enable the Development of a Single-Story, Single-Family Residence. 14 Environmental Analysis: Categorically Exempt. 15 16 Chair Summa: Okay, thanks. Alright so we’re on to our second item which is 2901 to 2905 and 17 702 Ellsworth and this is a review of the demonstration items that were put up and also a 18 recommendation on two separate PCs. So (interrupted) 19 20 Commissioner Hechtman: [off mic] Disclosures first? 21 22 Chair Summa: You know, it says it’s legislative but we can do disclosures. 23 24 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, I think that at least because I was absent at the July 12th, the 25 last meeting on this. I need to basically declare and disclose that I have reconstituted myself. I 26 have watched the video of that meeting. I have read the minutes of that meeting. I’ve reviewed 27 the Staff Report and the materials submitted by… submitted related to that meeting. So, I’m 28 ready to participate and able to vote tonight. 29 30 Chair Summa: Thank you for that. Does anyone else have (interrupted) 31 32 Commissioner Reckdahl: Same for me. 33 34 Chair Summa: Okay. 35 36 Commissioner Akin: And I just wanted to mentioned that I have made another site visit at which 37 I did a whole lot of measurement of markings. Fencings and utility poles as well as tracking high 38 voltage and low voltage lines in response to a public comment. Thanks. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Commissioner Lu: I also drove through., I did not take such detailed measurements. 3 4 Chair Summa: I also… Vice-Chair Chang and I met together and visited the site yet again and we 5 did some measuring as well. So, okay, so Staff (interrupted) 6 7 Mr. Albert Yang, City Attorney: I’m sorry, just to interrupt. With respect to all the 8 measurements that were taken, was there anything that differed from what’s presented in the 9 plans or in the Staff Report? 10 11 Commissioner Akin: In my case, there was no substantial difference. The main things of concern 12 where the locations of the poles in particular, but the other markings seems consistent with the 13 description in the report for me. 14 15 Chair Summa: For me, they seemed generally consistent, but you know, I mean a more precise 16 measurement would I assume be done with survey markers. Going off of survey markers but I 17 think it was, as far as I could tell, generally accurate. 18 19 Ms. French: Are we done with disclosures? 20 21 Chair Summa: We are so. 22 23 Ms. French: I don’t think that I need to discloseure that I visited the site and made photographs 24 myself. 25 26 Chair Summa: Do we have a Staff Report? 27 28 Ms. French: Yes please. On the screen is a list of to-dos in my estimation at the top of this 29 screen. We’re back here, our are meeting, after meetings on June 28th and July 12th. We have a 30 number of photographs that document the instaillation that’s out on the site. Following the 31 plan for the installation that Staff received on July 17th indicating the sight distance triangles 32 which follow the Code required 35-foot… you know according to the Code. And so, proceeding 33 on, we do have this PC plan that documents what was shown to the Planning and 34 Transportation Commission on July 12th with the delivery space perpendicular to Ellsworth. The 35 four spaces on site, including one tandem that’s space 13 and another tandem that’s in the rear 36 setback of the Middlefield apartment building property. We do have showing in this 37 Development Plan the applicant’s proposal, offer of 24-feet going back to the guy wire and the 38 PTC 3-2 recommendation of a 26-foot width up to the pole guide wire which is… guy wire 39 sorry.. the cable that attaches to that utility pole. So, the yellow arrow indicates 37-feet 9 40 inches to the first anchor wire and then the truck delivery space is above in that drawing. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Then we have the 702 Ellsworth plan which the applicant has requested an R-1 Zone. The 3 Planning and Transportation Commission recommended coming back with a PC. So, this is then 4 the PC plan for that showing the setbacks. So, it’s a 24-foot special setback at the front, that’s 5 the front of the parcel per Code, 16-feet for the rear of the home, half the home, and then side 6 which is the side along the easement line. Also known as Ellsworth Place rRoadway or partial 7 pavement of that easement, and then 6-feet from the Matadero Creek property. 8 9 So, moving on, on Packet Page 94, this was the drawing July… on July 7th that Staff received and 10 signed off on, as CS. yes, tThis is what you should show, the planned instaillations. I did a little 11 montage here showing what’s in and what’s out. So, just to be clear, just because there’s a 12 hypotenuse of the triangle, which is indicated by those blue dashed lines, i. It doesn’t mean that 13 now they have to remove everything in forward of that hypotenuse in the triangle. We allow 14 trees, trees have to be limbed up to 9-feet above grade and shrubs typically cannot be more 15 than 3-feet in that same area,. 3-feet tall from grade so, but we have a number of things. We 16 have a stop sign, we have a no outlet sign, the fire hydrant, utility boxes and nobody is saying 17 those need to removed as part of this application. 18 19 This is documenting what was placed. There’s the hypotenuse here as a string going past the 20 redwood tree, so that they didn’t have to paint the redwood tree, and you can see the sight 21 triangles on the lower right measurement of 35-feet along the curb of Middlefield and 35-feet 22 along the edge of the easement on Ellsworth. Some more images showing where the stakes 23 where placed showing the hypotenuse of that right triangle… of the… it is a right triangle but 24 the sight triangle, sight distance triangle with the sticks. Here’s another image showing those 25 installations. The multi-trunk tree again. It’s a beautiful tree, we’re not saying you need to 26 remove it to have clear sight. 27 28 This shows the orange plastic fencing indicating the 3-foot tall fence proposed within the sight 29 distance triangle as well as continuing on past the sight distance triangle along Middlefield and 30 along Ellsworth. Again, and this Handa’s property, showing there’s a fire hydrant and everything 31 else within the sight triangle. Typically, well our Code in the Fence Code… sorry, it says 4-feet. 32 It’s… typically, it’s a 3-foot fence allowed within the sight distance triangle I believe and then I 33 think I read that wrong. I have the Code later in this presentation. So, what’s proposed is a 3- 34 foot- tall proposal 4-feet back from the Middlefield sidewalk shown here and as far as 35 placement, I mocked up what I thought was being said about the horizontal fence with 36 openings that are 3-feet. This is not precise but it’s to indicate what would be expected if a 3- 37 foot fence were allowed in that sightte distance triangle with those spacings of 3-feet. So, I just 38 kind of found something online and showing it here approximation of what I imagined. 39 40 Vice-Chair Chang: 3-inches I think you meant. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Ms. French: 3-inches, what did I say, 3-feet? 3 inches, so this… for instance, this little example is 3 to screen an air conditioning equipment or something and that is a 2 1/2… 2 ¼-inch space 4 between the slats as per the spec and 2 ¾-inch slates. So, it would be larger, you know instead 2 5 ¼ it’s a 3 inch is what I heard the applicant, Mr. Handa, say. There’s some other point of views. 6 So, I literally got down on my knees and where the drive… where I would have stopped in my 7 car and then I measured to my eyes to the pavement. And you know, I was taller when I was on 8 my knees than when I was sitting in my car, it was kind of funny. Just because I was curious and 9 then our planner went out, this is on the right. On the left is when I went out after the sticks 10 were installed and… on the left and on the right is we had our planner go out and do the same 11 but in a City car; stopped at the stop line and he’s taller than I am. So, these are some more 12 photos. 13 14 I have some additional items as I mentioned. The Fence Code, this kind of shows the picture 15 from our Fence Code Guidelines showing the 35-foot standard distance and then showing this 16 3-foot maximum height in the sight distance triangle there so that’s that. We also have about 17 vegetation that I thought could be helpful where it talks about limbing, you know trimming up 18 the trees so that the lowest limb is up a little higher for bushy kind of trees. 19 20 Again, this is that sight distance triangle and these are some more conditions… existing 21 conditions prior to the trimming that happened out there. I thought I would show that because 22 its interesting. You can see taller shrubs there. I think those have been cleared or they have 23 been cleared because I’ve seen that they’re not there. So, those show kind of taller than 1-foot I 24 think. 25 26 Okay, so that’s my presentation and we have the ability for the applicant to speak because it’s a 27 public hearing but. 28 29 Chair Summa: I was just going to ask the applicant if he wanted… they wanted to present. 30 31 Ms. French: Would you like me to put back my presentation? 32 33 Mr. Ken Hayes: Maybe just Slide 13 I think, let me look. Slide 14. Yeah, I’m going to keep this 34 really brief. Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects, I’m here on behalf of my client Richard 35 Dewey with RLD Land. Also, joined by Camas Steinmetz with Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & 36 Flegel and Nitin Handa is here as well, the owner of 702 Ellsworth. 37 38 Our comments are really in the letter that we submitted so hopefully you had an opportunity to 39 read the letter. I want to thank you for moving 702 Ellsworth in your recommendation at the _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 July 12th hearing and just wanted to make a comment regarding something that is very 2 important to us and that is regarding the width of Ellsworth. 3 4 So, we’re not in agreement with your condition requiring the 26-feet width and the 30-foot 5 curb cut at the driveway. Instead of the 24-foot width that we’re recommending and the 28- 6 foot curb cut at the driveway. The existing width is 20-feet and per our transportation 7 consultant Hexagon. This is a sufficient and safe width for… it’s sufficient and safe. Increasing 8 the width to 24-feet as we propose is a 20 percent increase over what’s recommended by 9 Hexagon in terms of being safe and sufficient. This is a private street width and or private street 10 and those private street width requirements are not triggereds by this project because it’s not a 11 subdivision. It’s really just a modification to an existing development that proposes to get rid of 12 eight cars and build a single-family home. So, burdening this project with an additional width 13 would not meaningfully improve the safety, but it does create other issues that that’s what I 14 want to point out. 15 16 The 24-foot width as proposed will require already the relocation of the fiber box that you see 17 there in the lower middle. We’ve been in contact with the fiber communication company, they 18 cannot tell us what the costs are to deal with that box, but my client has made a commitment 19 that we’re going to move the box. Increasing the width 26-feet adds much more complexity and 20 risk to the project, because in addition to the above, moving that box,. Iit will likely involve the 21 relocation of an underground utility vault in the 2901 sidewalk which is right to the right of the 22 vault but it’s in the sidewalk. And that’s a communication vault as well that we believe feeds 23 the big green monument that’s out in the landscape strip and possibly relocation of the fire 24 hydrant on the other side, on the 702 side and you can see the fire hydrant there in the picture 25 on the bottom left. The distance from the fire hydrant right now to where the 18… to where the 26 24-foot wide driveway would be is essentially what’s there today because after we’ve striped it 27 we see that that 24-foot width is the edge of the pavement. It’s 5 ½-feet from the fire hydrant. 28 We ran it by KCarl Schneider with the fire department, we ran it by Public Works. Public Works 29 said ah, that’s okay. KCarl Schneider said he’s not excited about it, believes the distance is a 30 problem. So, if we go to 26-feet, now we’re moving another foot closer to the fire hydrant will 31 be 4 ½-feet away and fire department thinks that’s a problem waiting to happen. So, we can’t 32 relocate the fire hydrant with this project. It’s just not possible. We don’t know what the risk is 33 in this other underground utility vault so it’s just not feasible. The 24-feet is something that we 34 can do, let’s keep the increased width at 24-feet. We know we can get this done and let’s move 35 on. 36 37 Last comment, just some housekeeping comments regarding the drafted ordinances. In the 38 draft ordinance for 2901, the 2901 special setback is 25-feet. At 702, it’s also listed as 25-feet. 39 It’s really 24-feet and that’s in Section E, triple I. The access easement on the Development Plan 40 that we submitted on the 7… I’m sorry, on the 2901 property is shown at 37-feet. In the draft _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 ordinance, G double I, it says 35-feet so there’s a disconnect between the two. I don’t care 2 which one you use, but you need to be aware of that and then as the reciprocal for the 702 3 draft ordinance. 2901 special setback is 25, 702 is 24, D triple I says 25 for 702 and the access 4 easement again it says 35-feet when we’re showing 37-feet. 5 6 So, we look forward to moving this on tonight and getting a recommendation from you that is 7 favorable. Thank you. 8 9 Chair Summa: Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Do we have any clarifying questions from the 10 Commission? Commissioner Akin. 11 12 Commissioner Akin: Hi, this is for Staff, have we had any contact with utilities concerning the 13 feasibility or cost of moving the terminal utility pole in the string? 14 15 Ms. French: I was detained by a spider. 16 17 Commissioner Akin: I was afraid of that. 18 19 Ms. French: Can you repeat that? 20 21 Commissioner Akin: Have we had any information from utilities about the feasibility or cost of 22 relocating that terminal utility pole in the string? 23 24 Ms. French: No, no disclosures on the cost of that or feasibility. 25 26 Commissioner Akin: Or, or yeah or feasibility at all? 27 28 Ms. French: Correct. 29 30 Commissioner Akin: So, I noticed there’s a reference to having one of the braces removed in 31 order to make room for the parking space. 32 33 Ms. French: Right, right, that is something that can happen. 34 35 Commissioner Akin: So, there’s been some consultation but just not anything more substantial 36 than that. 37 38 Ms. French: Correct and I would concur about the… I meant to… I think I put it in my slide 39 presentation. The 24-foot is the special setback for the 702 so that needs to be (interrupted) 40 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Vice-Chair Chang: So, the feasibility regarding the comments that Mr. Hayes just spoke about 2 regarding the widening of the driveway… like the flange. 3 4 Ms. French: We did not invite fire or utilities here. We did have a conversation with Public 5 Works Engineering where they assured us the distance was acceptable as far as Public Works 6 Engineering is concerned. 7 8 Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, so it didn’t raise any red flags there at least because I wanted to… you 9 know I imagine that they would know if there was a standard distance that we typically see 10 from fire hydrants, etc. 11 12 Ms. French: Oh, the (interrupted) 13 14 Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, thank you. 15 16 Ms. French: I can comment on the standard distance for a new fire hydrant and that would be a 17 10-foot would be preferred. 18 19 Vice-Chair Chang: Right but it’s not 10-feet right now, okay. 20 21 Ms. French: Correct. 22 23 Vice-Chair Chang: Thank you. 24 25 Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman. 26 27 Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you, so let’s see, I’ve got… let me start with a couple… so these 28 are questions for the applicant group and I think probably the first couple could be Mr. Hayes 29 but it’s probably going to be Ms. Steinmetz to answer them. So, the first question is in the 30 history of the paperwork here the applicant initially based apparently on a preliminary title 31 report that they had which didn’t show an easement for the 13 properties down Ellsworth. It 32 had indicated that there wasn’t an easement but as a part of this project that we’re going to 33 grant one. We subsequently received information from at least one of the neighbors that their 34 title report showed that there was an easement and so… and I would imagine you’re team has 35 seen that. And so, I’m wondering if we’ve received any… if you have any clarity now as to 36 whether 702 Ellsworth is or is not subject to an easement that serves those 13 or 12 parcels 37 behind. Yeah, that’s my first question. 38 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Camas Steinmetz: Yes, so we did contact out title company and we… our title company 2 concurs with Chicago Title that there is an easement over the property that serves the other 13 3 residences. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, so that was a… that’s a good result for this process. 6 7 Ms. Steinmetz: Oh, one thing I would like to note, in the letter from Chicago Title on Page 34 of 8 the public comments. It does address that matter but it also states in the Chicago Title’s letter 9 that Ellsworth is a private way connecting to Middlefield, a public street. So, I think that also is 10 conclusive on the status of Ellsworth. 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay thank you and stay… put… at the lecteurne because I think this 13 next one will be for you too, but I think that’s very helpful because I think that maybe it will 14 provide some comfort to all of the folks that live down Ellsworth that there’s really… no longer 15 question that there’s an existing 20-foot easement across 702 Ellsworth severing all those 16 properties. So, I mean I think that’s a good… title companies make mistakes and it’s good when 17 they clear them up. 18 19 Ms. Steinmetz: And that’s for the existing way. 20 21 Commissioner Hechtman: For the existing 20-foot easement. 22 23 Ms. Steinmetz: Correct. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman: Right, okay and my next question is actually related to that. I know 26 that the combination of the two applicants are proposing a widening of the drive path. A total 27 of… from 20-feet to widen it to a total of 24-feet which would be 2 ½-feet on the Middlefield 28 side and 18 inches on the Ellsworth… on the 702 Ellsworth side for a particular distance which 29 was mentioned by Mr. Hayes earlier. What wasn’t entirely clear to me is whether the proposal 30 that we’re looking at is to simply improve that… those two stripes so that they are drivable 31 surfaces or to grant an easement for the property owners… you know the 13 property owners 32 that would essentially fold into their existing 20-foot easement. I just wasn’t clear on the 33 proposal. 34 35 Ms. Steinmetz: So, the proposal is to improve the surface to match the existing paved Ellsworth. 36 There… if the proposal would be… if the approval would remove 702 Ellsworth into an R-1 37 zoning. Then the additional width would be documented in an easement and I think the idea 38 would be that the PC… remaining PC for 2901 Middlefield would govern the additional width 39 and that… the PC would document that width. 40 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, so the… so if I’m understanding correctly, on the Middlefield 2 side there wouldn’t be an easement granted but the requirement of the PC Development Plan 3 would be that you have to have this 30-inches, 2 ½-foot, of pavement (interrupted) 4 5 Ms. Steinmetz: Correct. 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman: That bleeds into the existing 20-foot private road. 8 9 Ms. Steinmetz: That’s right. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, alright thank you, thank you. I think I’ve got a couple of 12 questions for Mr. Handa and the first one is just regarding the slate fence that’s been discussed. 13 I just wanted to… Staff indicated that you were comfortable with a 3-inch gap between the 14 slates and I just wanted to make sure I understood that right. 15 16 Mr. Nitin Handa: Yes, that’s correct. 17 18 Commissioner Hechtman: Alright and then the other question I had and I don’t think I’ve got a 19 good diagram but it’s really revisiting the first meeting we had where I was here and I asked you 20 this question and I’m sorry I don’t remember the response. But on your side of the private road, 21 you’re proposing 18-inches of pavement to blend into the existing pavement for the first I think 22 it’s 35-feet. 23 24 Mr. Handa: Something like that, yeah. 25 26 Commissioner Hechtman: Something… yeah, okay and then along the edge of the road my 27 memory is and I’m sorry I don’t have a… and maybe if Staff can pull up a diagram. There’s a 28 little bit of a gap and then we start your pavers which is like a sidewalk kind of feature that runs 29 to your front door, along the frontage of the road and then it’s your driveway back to your 30 garage. 31 32 Mr. Handa: Right, yeah connects to the driveway. 33 34 Commissioner Hechtman: Right and so my memory was there’s this gap between the… that 35- 35 feet of 18-inch wide pavement and the start of those pavers as they run to your front door. And 36 so, I’m curious what’s happening… what improvements are going to be in that gap? 37 38 Mr. Handa: You know, actually that… it might be 44-feet total then. 39 40 Mr. Hayes: [off mic] 42. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Mr. Handa: 42-feet, it connects all the way to the sidewalk, that 18-inch (interrupted) 3 4 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, that (interrupted) 5 6 Mr. Handa: Extends all the way to the sidewalk so that there’s no gap in between. So, I think it’s 7 not 35, its 42 all the way to the (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman: And really what I was getting at because I know I had been curious 10 about that last time but I didn’t remember if that had resulted. Okay, so now… so the proposal 11 by the applicants is we’re going to have basically it’s going to be a hard surface really along the 12 entire frontage of your property I think. Right, 18-inches for the first 42-feet and that’s paved 13 until it runs into the pavers. 14 15 Mr. Handa: Right. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: Right. 18 19 Mr. Handa: Into the sidewalk pavers. 20 21 Commissioner Hechtman: Right, sidewalk pavers which is a potentially drivable surface? I mean 22 I know those pavers are going to extent extend to your driveway so you’re going to definitely 23 driveing on those. 24 25 Mr. Handa: Right, right. 26 27 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, so that clears up my other question, so those are the 28 questions. Thanks very much. 29 30 Chair Summa: Other questions, Commissioners? [note – video skipped] 31 32 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate: Yes, we have a couple of speakers. First Kristen 33 Van Fleet speaking as a group on behalf of Carolyn Garbarino, Chuck Effinger, Jessica Sheldon, 34 and Mimi Wolf and she has a presentation. 35 36 Mr. Kristen Van Fleet: Hi Commissioners, thank you for (interrupted) 37 38 Chair Summa: Good evening. 39 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Van Fleet: Hearing me again. Let her get the slides loaded. Alright, so we had five days with 2 the poles installed correctly. We’ve done our best to make use of those five days. When they 3 were originally installed I did email Amy the next day to say they’re not done, they’re not right 4 and that was on July 27th. They were fixed last Thursday. A lot of people were out of town this 5 weekend, it was the weekend before school started. So not everybody has seen them and 6 commented but we’ll give you what we have thus far and we’ll go from there. 7 8 So, next slide please. We want to definitely enforce that a PC needs to remain over this so that 9 it is enforceable and we also want to say, especially after hearing Mr. Hayes’s presentation. 10 More harm is being done here than good at this point for the residents of Ellsworth Place and 11 our circulation. They are not providing public benefits for us, they really aren’t and we’ll 12 through… I’ll through that in a few slides. And then the ownership of the road, yes it was 13 mentioned in the Chicago Title letter that it’s a private road and that’s what they’re going on 14 right now. But the County maps don’t lie and it’s been saying it’s a public road since 1968 so 15 that needs to be solved. It’s still an open question, I tiried to get that open with the City in an 16 application over the last couple of weeks and I’ve gotten no where with it. Amy sent me a reply 17 that there’s no such application that exists, so more has to be done there and that is a potential 18 benefit of this whole project if we could add that on. And then all of the false information still 19 needs to be corrected in the Packet and some of that was already mentioned and we’ll go 20 through more of that. 21 22 We’ll reiterate that this has been… sorry, the next slide. This has been our road circulation for 23 this Ellsworth Place for 50 years plus, actually 56 years plus. The current plan is to remove every 24 benefit of the current PC, that is our road circulation and they want to replace it with less. What 25 they’re replacing does not improve ourt road circulation, it makes it worse and we were directly 26 impacted by a fence that was set 4-feet back from the property line. It had been hit by trucks, it 27 had been pushed back a couple of feet. So that… it wanted to be at that 26-foot line and that 28 was a nightmare. We all sent in code enforcement complaints about that and here they are 29 wanting to give us less than that. So, next slide please. 30 31 As I’d mentioned before, the proposed public benefits are inadequate and we are potentially 32 losing our ability to get deliveries. This was mentioned by planning Staff during an onsite 33 meeting of July 3rd that transportation was considering banning delivery trucks from our street. 34 That’s a problem in today’s day and age when most of us deliver… we all depend on deliveries 35 or we can’t really live here in Palo Alto without them. We want to preserve that ability and we 36 want to maintain our line of sight or actually to improve ourt lineght of sighte as we exit and 37 we’ll… I’ll mention that in a next slide on how we think it should be done. Not what they’re 38 proposing which we disagree with. There is inadequate street circulation by this, so right now 39 the parking lot, even if cars are parked there. 40 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 [note – video skipped] away from us and replacing 24-feet, which is 2 ½-foot increase over what 2 it is now, it is currently 21 ½-feet if you look at where the white line is for the 20-foot mark out 3 there. They keep saying its 20, we’re living with 21 ½-feet. They’re going to give us 2 ½-feet of 4 driveway width over the first 25-feet of the actual road because mind you 10-feet is the 5 sidewalk and driveway itself. So, they’re going to give us 25-feet of road at 24-feet and narrow 6 us down from our 26 that we have now down to 20-feet is what they’re doing with it. That’s 7 okay with us. That driveway entrance is the only benefit they’re offering us and it’s not enough. 8 9 Next slide, it says perceived width in the Packet and this is again, I heard Hechtman clarifying 10 the materials that they want to use. That path of even if it’s paved is going to end in his pavers 11 where his family walks. We don’t find that safe. We want that all the way across to the fence 12 because having paved road end at somebody’s pavers is crazy to us. Like who comes up with 13 that? It’s dangerous and we don’t want to live in a situation that’s dangerous. Plus, they’ve 14 changed those placement again. They call it landscaped strip, they’ve called it pavers, they’ve 15 called it paving. We don’t know what it is. It’s still unclear and every time we show up here 16 there’s a new plan in place. Including last time when we were here, there were new slides that 17 the public hadn’t even seen that you were going to vote on and we hadn’t even been allowed 18 to make comments on them. So, we want clarity in this and we want to make sure that it’s a 19 safe situation that does give a public benefit because right now we are really not getting a 20 benefit of any kind at this point. Oh, and the one that they were telling us we were going to get 21 with them giving us easement, that’s already been proven that we already have that. 22 23 So, next slide, the parking lot, I’ll show you this again. This is our cul de sac. We are use to 26- 24 feet width of road over this parking lot. It doesn’t matter if the whole thing is full of cars. We 25 have 26-feet. They want to narrow us down to 20, keep that in mind, next slide. 26 27 So, I did some mock ups here over using Google Maps and you can see what we are used to 28 working with now in the yellow on the left. What they’re proposing is that they’ll give us this 29 24-feet over the entrance. As I said we currently have 21 ½-feet, so they want to give us 30 basically 2 ½-feet of extended width over the first 25-feet of road. That’s it and you can’t drive 31 on someone’s pavers. We all know this, next slide. 32 33 So, we’ve come up with some options that do provide public benefit. As I mentioned, if they 34 extend these road widths for the full length of the road and maintain our 26-feet, including 26- 35 feet at the driveway. We already have 26-feet, we are used to 26-feet, we want to maintain 36 that and also have it go over the driveway. That’s a public benefit and there are a couple ways 37 that that can be done. Obviously, the utility pole needs to be investigated. Can it be moved? I 38 did find a… I found a solution online where they make poles that are end poles. I don’t know if 39 we have those in California but it is there. So, can we take the pole before it and… that’s where 40 the electricity seems to end anyway and make that the end pole and then underground _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Comcast and a telephone. It’s not that much is going to that last pole, so if they can 2 underground that or do some other configuration to remove the utility pole and open up 3 circulation. It solves a lot of problems. It needs to be investigated. If they can’t then you can see 4 that you can still take the 6-feet on Handa’s side and he can still build a house so go to the next 5 slide. The house still fits there and the other thing about this is that his house footprint [note – 6 video skipped] 1,090-square feet. So, this will be the largest home on the block by a lot, by 55 7 percent larger. If the house had to reduce in size a small bit to keep the safety and circulation 8 on our road. We actually don’t see a problem with that and it would be more in scale with the 9 community. 10 11 Next slide and again, this is our goal. It’s not about preventing his house, it’s about keeping our 12 circulation and safety intact and how we integrate with Middlefield Road and the pedestrian on 13 the sidewalk. Next slide. So, they keep saying that 20-feet is sufficient. If you notice they’re little 14 car diagram has it stopped at the stop bar. In order to see to get out, we’re on the side walk 15 right now with the current conditions. Even that orange netting, we can’t see over it so we’re 16 on the sidewalk to get out. I tried to do a little photoshop demonstration to move the car into 17 the sidewalk and you can see if another car tries to turn in while someone is trying to turn out. 18 You’ll have an impact so right now we end up backing up and then someone goes around over 19 the parking the lot and that’s how we’ve dealt with it. We would like the situation improved, 20 next slide. 21 22 We are looking to this point of the sidewalk where the curve is. That’s where the road narrows 23 down and the sidewalk follows it. That is where we’re looking when we leave and we only really 24 care about this sight line on the creek side. The apartment side, the olive tree, the sweet maple 25 or not… what is that thing called? The sweet… I’m not using my cards. Liquid amber tree, 26 they’re not bothering us and neither are those utility boxes that are tall. We… they don’t… none 27 of that bothers us. It’s the creek side and we’ve said this over and over and over again. We 28 need about a car width back from what would be the stop bar. Visible to that point basically 29 where the creek fence is. That’s about where that corner is. There’s still room for his fence, it 30 just has to be moved back. His patio is untouched. It would be a good compromise all around 31 but right now where the fence is located with the orange netting. It does not work; every 32 neighbor has complained. Next slide and the six of us that went out and took pictures. You can 33 see this is our reality and there’s another slide of these as well if you want to go to the next 34 slide. And there you can see what it’s like when the pedestrian is coming down the street. He’s 35 already gone by the curve and when I took this picture of my neighbor there. She actually 36 backed up to allow him to pass. That happens a lot. We always give right of way to pedestrian… 37 to the pedestrians and this is what we could get done in the five days we’ve had so. 38 39 Additionally, we’ve asked can we have an asphalt approach. That would probably solve it, right? 40 If you’re on a regular street, you have an asphalt approach so you actually get to go past the _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 sidewalk and the pedestrian stops. But when you’re on a sidewalk, the pedestrian has the right 2 of way so you have to back up. That causes the problems, so at an asphalt approach with things 3 like bumpy plates on the sidewalks. Things that tell pedestrians hey, there’s a road here. Maybe 4 a step down curve or a well, wheelchair or bicycle friendly type curve. It would make them 5 aware that there’s a street there. They’d stop running into our cars because this has happened 6 many, many times. It should show Key School on the other side of the street that there’s a 7 street there. It would fix a lot of things and right now to get out of Ellsworth Place. We go up an 8 incline but it’s actually kind of over a hill. Like a little bump, so if that was smoothed out with an 9 asphalt approach. It might solve a lot of our issues getting on and off Middlefield Road. In 10 addition to having that road width there of 26-feet. As I said, right now we’re used to 21 1/2 . 11 They keep telling you 20, we have 21 ½. That needs to be stated over and over and over. 12 13 Next slide and we asked about this. They mentioned they’re going to move that bracing. Well, if 14 they’re going to look into moving that bracing, can they look into undergrounding the pole? 15 Because right now that’s not a useable spot and undergrounding or getting rid of that pole just 16 causes or I mean it just helps solve a lot of problems. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. Do we have other speakers? 19 20 Ms. Dao: Yes, we have Susan Light who’s I believe going to speak on some later slides. 21 22 Ms. Susan Light: Yeah, well you know I think I’m going to be really short and hopefully Kristen 23 will forgive me. The real question that has come up is who owns the street and I came up with 24 the analogy of being an adopted child and growing up in a household and then not getting 25 invited to Thanksgiving dinner. We have Palo Alto on our address, we send our kids to school in 26 Palo Alto, Palo Alto utilities is an important part of our lives and when something happens we 27 call the Palo Alto police. So, the idea that our street is not part of Palo Alto is really difficult and 28 when… I don’t know what the exact number of feet of streets there are in Palo Alto, but adding 29 500-feet from Ellsworth is not going to be a huge impact on the budget of the City of Palo Alto. 30 But it would solve a lot of problems and that’s the… that’s why the adopted child analogy I think 31 is something to think about. We want to be adopted, we want to be legally adopted by the City. 32 I’ll leave it at that. 33 34 Chair Summa: Thank you. 35 36 Ms. Dao: And then one more, Ms. Bill Ross. 37 38 Chair Summa: Thanks. 39 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Bill Ross: Good evening. I’d like to make a couple points for purposes of the record. One 2 was in a communication to you tonight. It’s from the handbook for the Commission and the 3 duties of the Staff liaison which also happens to be the principalle planner for this project. 4 There is a 7-day requirement for all material to come to not only the Commission but also 5 members of the public. Ellsworth residents don’t waive that. 6 7 Upon review of the revised Staff Report, we raised the same issues. Specifically, the PC 8 ordinance isn’t complied with. The ordinance itself is the mode is the measure of the power. 9 We mentioned last time and it’s still not here. There’s no analysis of the consistency of this 10 project, which is a zone change, with the Comprehensive or General Plan. There’s a cherry 11 picked section in the ordinances now that picks out I think six goals. That’s how you do a 12 Consistency Analysis. You got to do it where you balance and examine goals and policies of the 13 General Plan. It’s not done. 14 15 I… with respect to the CEQA analysis, I’m going to make this analogy. This is a zone change, 16 almost from the beginning of CEQA, zone changes are characterized as projects that are not 17 other wise exempt, right? What’s Staff’s done on Page 239 is to try to add mitigation to an 18 exemption. You can’t do that so and that’s an adjudicatory function. Evidence based, it’s not 19 legislative. We made that clear in the first go around, it’s applicable the second go around. So, 20 the Consistency Analysis, a real CEQA analysis, which would need an Initial Study. This is a zone 21 change, it’s not what’s characterized as any of the exemptions on Page 239 and withstanding 22 that, we raised the issue under CEQA Guideline Section 15300.2. That you have again, 23 substantial evidence by the neighbors raising genuine issues about access, transportation, 24 visual clarity based on safety and those are issues that could be easily examined in an Initial 25 Study by Staff. So, you know, these aren’t inconsequential, you could go back to the beginning 26 and say look, if the Staff liaison who’s also the principalle [note – video skipped] still lacking an 27 analysis for both Streambank Protection and for the PC analysis. You can’t cherry pick those 28 things. You have to go down and establish them. 29 30 Finally, I’d like to note for the record that as far as I’m aware there’s no… any type of urgency 31 ordinance that’s in effect, either in Covid, either locally or in a State-wide basis. AB 214… 2449 32 is applicable to decision makers. Right, it allows for participations in adjudicatory hearings and 33 the CEQA part of this hearing is adjudicatory and I think the evidence based that’s required to 34 come into compliance with the PC Zone is also evidence based. Staff’s got to come up with that. 35 36 Right, my point is I’d have no idea whether counsel to the Commission is watching now, 37 whether it’s online and I see the cameras when I’ve looked on what’s available to the public 38 and you can’t see what’s going on here. There are evidentiary conclusions that are before you 39 that you have to make. I’m suggesting that’s an additional element of due process that’s not 40 present for this hearing. Counsel and Staff should all be present. I don’t know where counsel is. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 You know, I’ve been informed several times but I don’t know that there’s a policy for that for 2 participation of Palo Alto employees in another state. I’ve raised it, 2449 is applicable to 3 decision makers. As far as I can see there’s no exemption for Staff but the principle issues are 4 with respect to compliance with the PC Ordinance and the CEQA analysis. Thank you for your 5 consideration. 6 7 Chair Summa: Thank you Mr. Ross. Was that our final speaker? 8 9 Ms. Dao: Yes, I have no raised hands on Zoom. 10 11 Chair Summa: Okay, thank you for that. Oh, would the applicant like to speak? 12 13 Mr. Hayes: Hi, Chair Summa, Ken Hayes again with Hayes Group Architects. So, this is really 14 getting blown out of proportion. We need to remember why we ware here. We were caught in 15 a situation where there were inaccurate City records that created big problems for my client 16 and Mr. Handa and so we’re trying to fix that mistake from 1976. The safety concerns that the 17 neighbors are bringing up, you know I’m not going to dispute them. If they feel they have safety 18 issues, but how is our project creating those safety issues? You know, we’re removing eight cars 19 from traveling on Ellsworth. We’ve removed the trash pick up on Ellsworth. We’ve provided a 20 space for a delivery truck to park on our property off of Ellsworth, not blocking cars, that sort of 21 thing. So, I just don’t see… and the home that we’re building is actually set back further outside 22 of the 35-foot sight triangle than if there were vans parked in those existing eight guest parking 23 spaces. Because as those spaces got closer to Ellsworth they would block or I’m sorry closer to 24 Middlefield. They would block sight lines. We’re improving all of that to get through this 25 process. 26 27 The road is 20-feet legally for their access. We’re willing to make that a foot and a half wider on 28 Mr. Nitin’s side. Yes, just so happens that’s where the existing pavement is today but they don’t 29 have the right to be on that part of the street right? It’s private property but we’re now giving 30 them the right to drive on that part of the street that is now defined by that asphalt edge. 31 32 Undergrounding the utilities, honestly if we need to underground more or move [note – video 33 skipped]. It’s… we just can’t do that is what I’ve been told. It’s just not going to happen. So, 34 we’re making improvements that we truly believe we can do to help mitigate this. The road’s 35 going to be 20 percent wider than it is today. The ownership of the public way or I’m sorry of 36 this private street, it’s irrelevant. I don’t… we don’t care who owns it. It’s not pertinent to what 37 we’re trying to do tonight, alright? We’re giving our private property to them visa via an 38 easement or a PC Development Plan and that’s what we’re doing. I don’t care who owns the 39 road, so if they have an issue with road ownership. That’s outside of this project in my opinion. 40 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 And then lastly, just and then I’m done, the public benefits, really? We’re widening the road 20 2 percent, giving them access to private land, we’re doing a new driveway apron curb cut, the 3 sight triangle. It’s not really public benefit, I had it listed. It’s required by the City. We are 4 creating fewer cars using Ellsworth. We’re creating a temporary delivery truck space on private 5 property. We’ve already moved the trash from Ellsworth and let’s not forget, we’re creating a 6 single-family home. Alright, so thank you very much. 7 8 Chair Summa: Thank you, Mr. Hayes and with that we will bring it back to the Commission for 9 discussion. So, who would like start us off? Anyone? Okay, oh Commissioner Hechtman. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, I’ll start off just very briefly with kind of a simple one. One of 12 the… a part of the motion at the last meeting had to do with the setback of the building from 13 the creek and the way the language was translated and it appears on Packet Page 89. The 14 condition is the setback from the creek shall be determined by a slope stability analysis. So, I 15 wanted to ask Staff just a couple of questions about that. It looked to me like the applicant’s 16 proposal for the house utilized a 6-foot setback from what is said… what is described as the 17 creek property. And so, I wanted to understand if that… if we have some guideline that tells us 18 what a standard setback from the creek property is absent of soil stability analysis? 19 20 Ms. French: Well, the 6-foot setback is indicating the interior side setback, so that’s what that 6- 21 feet is. 22 23 Commissioner Hechtman: Because in the absence of the creek that side of that (interrupted) 24 25 Ms. French: To the property line. 26 27 Commissioner Hechtman: Edge of the house is considered the side, right? 28 29 Ms. French: Correct because Middlefield Road is the shorter of the property’s facing… and is a 30 facing a street. Right so that’s the front and the right side is to the property line of the creek of 31 the ownership of that creek. 32 33 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay so I… and I just want to focus on that setback from the creek. 34 So, and I’ll just finish tackling this issue and then I’ll come back to do some other ones but on 35 the slope stability issue, and I think Mr. Sauls, I don’t know if he’s here tonight or not. 36 37 Ms. French: He’s watching. 38 39 Commissioner Hechtman: At the last meeting he kind of explained… I mean we can understand 40 what the issue is in general. Right, you’re building a structure which will have weight and _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 density and that could… will put pressure on the soil beneath it and if you’re close to a creek. 2 You don’t want that pressure to basically push the dirt toward the creek in a way that will cause 3 it to erode or crumble and effect the creek. Right and I think Mr. Sauls explained at the last 4 meeting that here, Matadero Creek, is a channelized concrete culvert and so there is no dirt to 5 get pushed into the creek. You would have to have enough force to actually bust the concrete 6 and force it into the Matadero Creek. So, I don’t know that a slope stability analysis is really 7 necessary here but I don’t really have a problem with utilizing it. The concern I had is the way 8 this condition was written, drafted, is we have a setback and that setback is 6-feet. And that 9 should be the setback unless the slope stability analysis says a larger setback is needed. And 10 that’s really what this condition should say and hopefully there won’t be an objection because 11 my concern is if we get a report back that just says the slope is stable, a house won’t effect it. 12 The soils guy or gal won’t necessarily tell us what the setback should be. So, I’d like to put that 13 6-foot marker in there and then the slope stability analysis can say if that’s too close or not. So, 14 anyway, that’s… we’re not anywhere near motions but when we get to it. I would like to see 15 that changed in that condition, so I’ll leave it with that issue for now. I’ve got more later. 16 17 Mr. Garrett Sauls, Planner: Good evening, Commissioners. This is Garrett, hello. Yes, 18 Commissioner Hechtman, what you reiterated is what I had said previously. That it is the 19 outward forces of that foundation of the structure putting pressure towards the channelized 20 culvert wall that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has had more issues with. Obviously, 21 again as you mentioned before, that it would either rupture, bust or damage that integrity of 22 that culvert wall. Such that obviously it would collapse, so that would be what an analysis 23 would demonstrate is whether or not those outward forces would create that impact so. 24 25 Chair Summa: Are you…? 26 27 Commissioner Hechtman: [off mic] That’s it for now. 28 29 Chair Summa: That’s it for now, okay. Do I have other lights or? Okay, well I will say a few things 30 then and that is that I would concur with Mr. Hayes that there’s some… those… there’s 31 inconsistency in the proposed ordinance that he already mentioned. And I think Staff would 32 agree with that and that needs to be fixed. 33 34 And then I want to clarify that no… we are not proposing that any significant trees be removed 35 from the sight triangle. Most particularly, I would like to call out the multi-trunk olive tree 36 which is of some age and I would also agree with the comments from the public that turning 37 right isn’t the issue. It’s the other side that’s an issue and it has to do with two grade changes. 38 One as you slope on the sidewalk to Ellsworth Place and you slope up to the sidewalk from 39 Ellsworth Place. And it’s also where the… there’s a curve in the sidewalk and the street narrows _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 and that’s what makes it so tricky. So, I think any of the existing trees, there’s was no intention 2 ever to remove them, especially that large mature olive. 3 4 I… sadly we haven’t been given real determining information on what it would take to remove 5 utilities that are in the way and it seems like though maybe not ideal the hydrant is alright. But I 6 have another question and that is that the way the language is in the proposed ordinance, I 7 don’t… find the page. In both… oh here it is… in both cases, [note – video skipped] regardless of 8 whether it’s 24 or 26-feet as a swath of pavement along side Ellsworth Place. Now what 9 Ellsworth Place is legally is a 20-foot easement that we generally believe all the parties that 10 have an interest in it have a right to traverse. I’m really worried about this language I wonder 11 what I means and maybe it’s a question for our legal counsel. It’s… there’s no mention of 12 adjusting or the easement or making it a condition of granting either of both PCs that that be… 13 that the widening of the street be guaranteed in perpetuity as far as I’m reading it. And I think… 14 so maybe Mr. Yang can help with this but I don’t see anything except a swath of pavement 15 which gives the impression of a useable area. But I don’t think it’s guaranteed and I think that 16 we know what happens when sort of institutional memory, especially of PC, is lost and I’m… I 17 mean we have direct information here. And when I read this, I think about somebody in the 18 future thinking well, if that’s my land, I’d like to put on that little paved area pots of geraniums. 19 So, I don’t see how this is guaranteed at all the way it’s written, so I see our counsel. 20 21 Mr. Yang: Yeah, [unintelligible] that this paved area would be incorporated into the PC 22 Development Plan for each site would ensure that it would remain in that state. But I 23 understand your concern that maybe something like something could be placed on top planters 24 or something like that. So, it could be included as a condition that the area shall remain clear. 25 26 Chair Summa: Yeah and I would say probably for perpetuity. I mean and it’s… that was… that 27 concept of… because what they had before was sort of the feel of a 26-foot wide street 28 because of the extra space in the parking lot basically. And so, I think to have anything 29 successful happen here we have to either condition it as a prerequisite of the PCs and that it 30 should be required to survive these two PCs as a concept, or that I don’t… that an additional 31 easement be created. It’s so essential and I agree that that is… so that needs to be resolved and 32 it’s just totally missing from the proposed draft ordinance. 33 34 And I would say the other problem for me (interrupted) 35 36 Commissioner Reckdahl: Can I have a follow up? Why would we not do an easement? I don’t… 37 it seems strange that you would make the… it’s effectively an easement but you’re making it a 38 condition of the PC and that seems rather awkward. 39 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Summa: It’s neither right now and it has to be. There has to be some reason why 2 somebody’s not going to be able to just say oh, there’s no… they don’t have a right to be… drive 3 there. It’s not guaranteed the way I read it and I think Mr. Yang agreed just now. I mean that’s a 4 pretty essential part of this situation. 5 6 So, that would need to be resolved for me before I could make any recommendation and the 7 other issue [note – video skipped] along Middlefield is towo high still. It’s too high, it seems 8 even higher than it is because of the grade and I believe it needs to be… the fence needs 9 brought back. Mr. Handa or whoever occupies that house would be able to use all the area in 10 front of the fence but it’s blocking and it’s very difficult to see small people there especially and 11 by that I mean children. So, it was my observation that that was not adequate and I think I don’t 12 know exactly how far back it needs to go because it’s not something I can imagine but I would 13 think a reasonable place would be kind of outside of his patio where he wants it there to 14 protect that area. And the rest of the yard would still be his yard but it just wouldn’t be fenced 15 in and I would say it is not the case that everybody has a fence. You know, most people can 16 have a 3-foot fence across their front yard but many people do not. I don’t… I mean I don’t 17 know, I cannot say with any certainty the percentage of people in Palo Alto that do and don’t, 18 but I would say most yards that I can think of, of people I know don’t have that kind of fence. 19 Some people like it and it’s fine and I think if Mr. Handa wants a fence, he should have a fence, 20 but it should be placed… this is a different intersection because of the grade change. And he 21 should certainly have a fence but it should be in a location that does not obscure the view of 22 exiting vehicles. Particularly for, you know, because of the grade, so I am going to leave it there 23 for now and Commissioner Akin. 24 25 Commissioner Akin: Thank you, Chair Summa. I don’t have any dispositive comments to make 26 here but a few observations. Yes, I agree that the 3-foot fence still interferes with visibility in an 27 area where it’s important. A shorter fence might solve that problem. There are other 28 alternatives that the applicants might want to consider. As someone who lives near… lives at a 29 6,000 vehicle a day corner where noise from traffic is a constant problem and is a fraction of 30 what the noise at this site near Middlefield would be. The yard… the front yard is not going to 31 be useable as a front yard. So, it’s not wise to place to much weight on that particular use, but 32 there are things that can be done to improve that space and one is to build a larger interior 33 fence. Setback sufficiently so that greater height is possible and make it out of some dense 34 material like concrete and that’s a sound wall. That’s what you need to make that patio space 35 useable, despite the traffic on Middlefield. So, I would suggest that that might be worth 36 considering if the original 3-foot fence farther out proves not to be viable for other reasons. 37 38 There was some debate at the last meeting about 24 versus 26 and I ended up supporting the 39 minimum of 26 because I believe it does add value, particularly at the intersection with 40 Middlefield. However, I could see expecting 24 if the bottle neck that’s caused [note – video _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 skipped] more flexibility along the length of the road which is where it exists… which is what 2 exists today. But it allows the other sections of the road not to be widened as much as what 3 otherwise be needed. So, there’s I think room for compromise there as well if we had the key 4 information about whether that pole could be moved or eliminated. It does appear that the… 5 those are low voltage lines at that terminal pole. So, there… it seems to me that there’s some 6 hope that could be done provided the strictly mechanical requirements of support for the 7 penultimate pole are taken care of. I don’t know any way to do that other than asking utilities 8 or Public Works about their standards for the span lengths and support angles whether that’s 9 feasible in the space that we have available. So, we just don’t have the information we need to 10 know whether that’s doable. Alright, I think that’s everything I have for the moment. 11 12 Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Lu. 13 14 Commissioner Lu: [off mic] Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang] had her hand up 15 first. 16 17 Chair Summa: She was first, oh okay. Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang]. 18 19 Vice-Chair Chang: Thank you, Commissioner Lu. So, I do remember my original motion asking 20 for the wider easement to be granted to all the neighbors and yes, that’s a good catch that 21 Chair Summa made that the actual PC language doesn’t grant that easement. And so, on Packet 22 Page 81, the top of the page for 2B, it does say the new width of the easement be granted to all 23 the neighbors on Ellsworth. So, we just need to make sure that that actually gets properly 24 reflected in the two PCs. 25 26 And then I concur with my colleagues who visited the site and said that the 3-foot fence height 27 does obstruct visibility. One of my thoughts, but I… one of my thoughts was that because of the 28 very unusual topography at Ellsworth and Middlefield with the sloping of Middlefield as well as 29 the sloping of Ellsworth. It make a conventional sight triangle kind of insufficient and it really 30 isn’t the Dewy side as everyone has noted. And so, one of my thought was that it’s not that a 31 fence… a front yard fence isn’t possible, but that the fence shouldn’t be within the sight triangle 32 and not only within the 35-foot sight triangle but also right along Middlefield in the front… I 33 don’t know. If you’re looking at A-2.0 in the architecture sheets, kind of in the lower right 34 corner of the property so at the corner here Matadero Creek meets Middlefield. That’s also a 35 real problem area for where a fence would be and so if you could push the fence further back 36 than 4-feet in that corner. That also helps and so actually when I was listening to the public 37 comments. The diagram drawn by… the diagram shown by… I’m so sorry… by Kristen. I can’t… 38 her last name is escaping me at this particular moment. Where she proposed a compromise for 39 where the fence could be is… that actually makes a lot of sense I think in terms [note – video 40 skipped] from Middlefield than 4-feet. But actually, I think that the compromise that was… that _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Kristen drew was a much more elegant solution and creates a much nicer front yard, but 2 achieves the same goal. But I think essentially what she drew puts into drawing what I observed 3 at the site which is where the obstruction to vision occurs. So, those are my comments. 4 5 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu. 6 7 Commissioner Lu: I’ll make a few quick comments and welcome any additions or thoughts from 8 other Commissioners on this. Firstly, I definitely agree that the language on the easement 9 should be clear. Visiting the site, I didn’t get a… I mean it’s always difficult to truly imagine the 10 day to day lived experience but I didn’t see as much of a large qualitative difference to me 11 between the 24 versus 26 feet. But I did feel like the wider flare would actually be a material 12 improvement as you actually pull out and to that point, I find some of the framing around the 13 sight triangle a little bit odd. In the examples that Ms. Van Fleet presented, it seems like most 14 cars really just pull up right up to the stop sign right on that little hump and that kind of goes a 15 little bit past the fence anyways. And so, from that perspective you area little bit higher, maybe 16 a foot higher and you have a more clear view at the very base of the sight triangle. So, I kind of 17 understand how that would be the preferred way to pull out regardless and that’s where you 18 would really start looking at Middlefield. To me the sight triangle is important for peripheral 19 vision as you pull out but its like… it’s not like the critical point. I think the sight triangle does a 20 lot of work for cars that are turning right onto Middlefield, to have a sense who is pulling out of 21 Ellsworth, but qualitatively, you know it just gets so tricky. It’s hard for me to really make clear 22 statements about how the fence should be or how the intersection should work besides the 23 wider flares. 24 25 The last point that I’ll shout out is that we discussed last time that we should keep this as a PC… 26 as a separate PC. I think it’s actually… there’s a reasonable case to make, if we decide to move 27 forward just on the merits of the project at all, to just keep it as an R-1 with deed restrictions. 28 The PC symbolically has more continuity but it’s also marginally worse for the applicant. If we 29 actually think this project should move forward, I don’t know if it makes sense to have any sort 30 of minor symbolic, almost punishment of keeping it as a PC versus having it as an R-1 with deed 31 restrictions. I don’t know that that would actually make a practical difference, but seems like 32 the more lenient or generous thing to do and so I think we should do that if we move forward. 33 34 Chair Summa: Commissioner Reckdahl. 35 36 Commissioner Reckdahl: Could Staff bring up Slide 3 in the Packet, in the presentation Packet? 37 Yeah, so the think that bothers me is that the visibility really is bad when you pull up to that 38 side [note – video skipped]. I mean you’re going to be hugging that curve and then the curb _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 comes out just at the wrong time and that current sight triangle doesn’t protect you against 2 that… the bicycles that are down the street. So, I really do think that having that flatter so it 3 doesn’t have to go… doesn’t have to be as deep on Ellsworth but it should extend flatter, more 4 parallel to Middlefield to protect you again that… those bicyclists and pedestrians who are 5 coming around that curve there. That’s a really dangerous feature. 6 7 The other thing that’s problematic is the fact that that sidewalk is higher. Is transportation 8 online? 9 10 Ms. French: They are. 11 12 Commissioner Reckdahl: A question for them is this is a private street and really is treated like a 13 driveway. Other places in the City where we have private streets, are they treated more as a 14 street crossing? The public comment had expressed making this appear more like a street as 15 opposed to a driveway and I wonder how uniform are we around the City? 16 17 Ms. Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager: This is Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation 18 Planning Manager, good evening Commissioners. I can’t speak for all of the private streets in 19 town. This one is built as a driveway. I don’t know why it was built that way but that is how 20 drivers should treat it. It is a private street but it should be used the way that one would use a 21 driveway and just to clarify, the proper maneuver for leaving this private street that is built with 22 a driveway entrance is to stop before the sidewalk, check if the sidewalk is clear and then move 23 forward and stop before the roadway, check is the roadway is clear. 24 25 Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, so on other private streets do you have a feeling about… are 26 they usually like driveways or do you not have…? 27 28 Ms. Star-Lack: I don’t have a working knowledge of all of the private streets in town. It just 29 depends, yeah. 30 31 Commissioner Reckdahl: Fair enough, okay thank you. 32 33 Commissioner Hechtman: Alright, so two little issues and then a big issue. First of all, on the 34 fence issues on 702, you know I’m… I saw the design of the fence and I’m hearing concerns 35 from Commissioners that not withstanding the 3-inch gap between the slates. We’re still going 36 to have issues of visibility so I wanted to ask Staff if these… I guess it’s a front yard. Basically the 37 3-foot version of the fence is the front yard fence, right? Okay. 38 39 Ms. French: Correct. 40 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Hechtman: And is there a prohibition in Palo Alto from using wroughtrod iron for 2 a front yard fence? 3 4 Ms. French: No. 5 6 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, so I would just like to put that out in the atmosphere for 7 people to think about. WroughtRod iron fences are typically a more open design, so you could 8 see better through them. My perception is part of the reason the owner wants a 3-foot fence 9 and at this location is they… it’s really sort of a modest security to dissuade people from just 10 walking in or like stepping over a 2-foot fence. You know, you got to have a pretty good stride 11 to get over a three and so this might be something that solves the visibility problem while 12 allowing the fence to remain… I think it’s proposed at 4-feet back, right? So, I’m not [note- 13 video skipped] 14 15 First of all, I agree that at a minimum 702 and Middlefield Field should have separate PCs. It’s 16 not good practice to lump properties owned by separate people in one PC. So, there does need 17 to be a division that way and Middlefield needs to stay in a… it’s in a PC. For 702, I don’t know 18 that I have a real strong impression. I mean my gut and training is that while I can’t say that a 19 PC has ever been used in Palo Alto before for a single-family home. I don’t know that, but I 20 know that PCs are definitionally built to be flexible. You could use them in almost any kind of 21 setting and they have benefits in that way, whereas R-1 I’ve very seldom seen conditions 22 imposed upon a standard rezoning and gives me a little bit of cause for concern. So, I’m… I 23 don’t feel strongly about that, but I would say I feel more comfortable with a PC Zone and I 24 haven’t really understood from the applicant what their level of discomfort is with it that makes 25 the conventional zoning with a deed restriction more desirable to them. 26 27 Alright, so those are the smaller issues, here’s the big issue and I’m sorry I wasn’t here at the 28 last meeting to articulate it. There’s a natural inclination when a proposal is made to develop a 29 property to kind of look not at the project being proposed but at the surroundings and ask 30 yourself well, okay they want to do this on this land. What problems can we solve while they’re 31 doing this on this land and there can be in that process over reaches. You would… how do I 32 explain this. There are limitations on conditions that we can impose or require and for example, 33 we have limitations in CEQA if there’s… you can’t impose… you can’t require a mitigation 34 measures if there’s not an impact that needs to be mitigated. And even outside CEQA, you can’t 35 exact rights from property owners unless [note – video skipped] impacts. So, there are real 36 limitations in doing that, so where you often see this is in with public street where somebody 37 wants to develop something and the City wants them to improve a public street and you have 38 to go through this analysis. Well, is what they’re doing creating a traffic impact because if it’s 39 not creating a traffic impact then you can’t make them fix the public street. It’s just a public 40 street that needs to be fixed and [note – video skipped] because we don’t have a public street. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 We have a private street and what the Commission is talking about doing last time and a little 2 bit tonight is requiring one private property owner to give its property rights not to the public in 3 relation to some impact of the project, but actually to 13 other private property owners. That’s 4 what we’re talking about when we talk about requiring that these owners grant easements to 5 the folks down the street and I don’t believe we have the power to do that as a City. To 6 require… you know, anymore than we would have to say gosh, this new development is 7 impacting the value of your 13 properties. So, we’re going to make the property owner give 8 each of you $10,000. Right, we can’t do that and it’s particularly troubling here where again, if 9 we look at the impacts of what is being proposed. The only traffic impact on Ellsworth from the 10 totality of the proposal is a beneficial traffic impact. It’s beneficial, right compared to the 11 existing conditions, the long existing condition which according to the photographs we’ve seen 12 for example, has had shrubs on the Matadero side for who knows how long. I know Mr. Dewey I 13 think has owned the property since 2017 and we didn’t hear anything from the neighbors that 14 they’ve been on him routinely to cut those shrubs down but now they’re gone and they will 15 stay gone. Staff has been in communication with the water district to trim the farther shrubs 16 closest to Matadero Creek and actually, it was odd because I thought the Staff Report said it 17 had been done but then when I was out there today and I did visit the site today. It seemed like 18 there were shrubs right up again the like the concrete abutment and so I wasn’t entirely clear 19 on that or whether there were some more shrubs that needed to be removed. 20 21 But you know what is… the totality of the proposal is they’re taking pavement that is… well, 22 first of all, there’s really two sections to this Ellsworth Road that I think we can break into. One 23 is most of it which starts at the very back and it comes up until the point where you have to be 24 concerned about the intersection with Middlefield and whether that’s one car length or two 25 length, whatever it is. So, that back section, that’s 20-feet. It’s been 20-feet for over 50 years 26 and I went to the back of it today and what I noticed is that at least half of those folks that live 27 in those houses have either a fence or dense shrubbery or a curb that closes down that 20-feet 28 or closes it down to 20-feet in that area. So, and then the other thing I noticed was a few 29 people have pavers in the front which they park on and I was curious about the… you know a 30 comment of the… one of the commenters that can’t park on pavers. That’s how they’re used on 31 the street in a number of places and that’s the intention I think of Mr. Handa, to have his 32 driveway which will be drivable pavers that can be used that way. So, you’ve got this back 33 section that’s 20-feet and it’s necked down by a lot of the neighbors who are feeling put upon 34 by this development. But those neighbors, and this is a point that Commissioner Templeton 35 raised last time, those neighbors are not saying hey, we really need 26-feet here. Right, this 36 road really needs to be 26-feet and so we are each willing to give the City 3-feet… the 3-foot 37 frontage of our property to make it a 26-foot public road. We’re not hearing that. What we’re 38 hearing is a frustration by these neighbors that property they don’t own, that happens to be in 39 front of us for development, isn’t going to 26-feet which is as near as I can tell it’s never been at 40 least at the front part which is the most important part up at Middlefield. Because that’s where _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 the action is and that’s where I think the public benefit of what’s being proposed really exists 2 because that’s where it is expanding from 21 ½-feet which it is currently; 20-foot easement plus 3 another foot and a half of pavement. It’s going to now be widened by another 2 ½-feet so that’s 4 24-feet and then it’s going to, again this is part of the proposal, bow out to 28-feet which is 5 actually happening on City property because that’s the… that sidewalk is City property. So, and 6 then what we’ve learned is so it’s going to start at 28, neck down to 24 which is wider in the 7 most important area than it currently is, it’s going to travel at 24-feet back I think 35-feet and 8 then it’s going to have if I’m understanding correctly another 7-feet on the Ellsworth side at 18- 9 inches. So that section is 21 ½-feet and then past that you actually have the pavers on the 702 10 side which again, create more space and this temporary parking area on the Middlefield side so 11 it widens out again. So, I think in the most critical area we have clear traffic safety improvement 12 and public benefit and we can’t require private property owners to give other private property 13 owners rights over their property. 14 15 Now a quirk in that rule is that while we can’t require it, if they volunteer it, we can take it and 16 make a condition and that’s really what’s happened here is these private property owners have 17 offered to provide these improvements to widen the road. I think I understood Ms. Steinmetz 18 to say that if we did an R-1 rezoning then they would grant an easement on the 702 side for the 19 18-inch wide strip which I think is 42-foot long and I think I also heard her say that they 20 wouldn’t be offering an easement on the Middlefield side for it’s 30-inches for roughly I think 21 35 or 37-feet. But instead, that would be a requirement in the PC Development Plan which 22 could only be changed through a PC Development Plan Amendment, which would not make it 23 permanent to address the Chair’s concern but it would require a public process to make that 24 change which I’m sure if… I can’t imagine it ever being tire. But if it was, you would have 13 25 residents behind expressing the same kinds of concerns we’ve heard about necking down their 26 street. 27 28 So, I am… I’m supportive of taking as much as we can get from these applicants, as much as 29 they will voluntarily offer. I would encourage them to consider the concerns regarding the 30 permanence of that 30-inch travel way on the Middlefield side that you’ve heard from other 31 Commissioners. And I would just kind of close on this, this really… this issue really also impacts 32 the utility pole issue because again, we… what we’d be talking about there is requiring that 33 utility pole to be removed. Actually, not… that’s not actually a public benefit because it’s really 34 for the private benefit of the 13 residents… 13 homeowners who live down the street and so I 35 just don’t think we can do that. So, I’m going to be supporting something more in line with 36 what the developers are offering, so thank you for giving me an unusually long time to make 37 that… make those remarks. 38 39 Chair Summa: Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang]. 40 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Vice-Chair Chang: I would just like to provide a different perspective with what Commissioner 2 Hechtman spoke about. I actually agree with a lot of what Commissioner Hechtman said in 3 terms of it is not our job to reassign property rights but in this situation its actually a little bit 4 different. The application at hand that we were first asked to consider was to amend a PC and 5 in that situation we’re being asked to grant a property owner additional rights which was to 6 give them the ability to build an additional house where one is not allowed and permitted right 7 now. And so, we’re actually being asked to give rights and in exchange, we’re asking to make 8 something safer. Not necessarily to give rights to only 13 property owners but really what we’re 9 doing is trying to make things safer for all… for the rest of our City. For all the people who 10 traverse that opening on Ellsworth. There’s quite a lot of bicyclists and pedestrians who are 11 using that sidewalk. Particularly, given the proximity to the Midtown shopping area and also 12 lots of young children using it to get to Winder Lodge and the Kim Grant Tennis Center and just 13 lots of pedestrians in general. Those of us who did site visits I’m sure saw lots of pedestrians 14 and bicyclists and in addition, there’s the school across the street and the Middlefield itself is a 15 really busy thoroughfare so lots of cars. And so, we’re just trying to make this area safer 16 because no matter what those… no matter what those 13 households do have to use Ellsworth 17 for ingress and egress and if we make it safer for them to go in and out at that opening. We 18 make it safer for everybody else at that intersection and so that’s how I looked at it. 19 20 And I agree 100 percent with Commissioner Hechtman that it is the front section, the front 21 most section that is the most important and the reason when I was making the motion last time 22 I heard this. That I settled on 26-feet was because I looked at our City’s own ordinances and 23 what is currently considered the bare minimum in terms of safety for a private street serving 24 this number of residents and the bare minimum is 26-feet. In fact, it requires special Director 25 approval to go down to 20 and usually it’s not in this type of situation. There’s actually a whole 26 bunch of other situations mentioned but not this situation. Usually its if there’s parking 27 separating a building and the private street and there just isn’t any of those things in this 28 situation that would grant the exception to be… that would allow a Director to make that 29 exception. That said, I understand that this is an existing situation but also, we’re… it’s an 30 existing situation and we are granting the applicant the ability to change the existing situation. 31 And so that’s why it’s incumbent upon us as the Planning and Transportation Commission to 32 make sure that it remains safe for the rest of Midtown Palo Alto. There’s lots of accidents that 33 happen on Middlefield, lots and lots of accidents that happen on Middlefield. So, that’s an 34 alternative perspective and why at least regardless of how we decide to do this. An execution 35 PC or R-1 with deed restriction, I think it’s pretty important to do it. Thanks. 36 37 Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Akin. 38 39 Commissioner Akin: I’d just like to put in a word of support for the section of Ellsworth that’s 40 not immediately at Middlefield. Folks have pointed out that we have a delivery vehicle problem _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 and its recognized that it’s difficult enough for delivery vehicles to get in and out, but the 2 applicants are generously willing to reserve some space to allow the delivery vehicles to park. 3 And when I raised the question of what the turning movements would be at the previous 4 meeting. The transportation consultant described well, you would pull in there and then you 5 would back up into Mr. Handa’s driveway so that you could complete the turn and then exit. So, 6 we find ourselves in this odd position of arguing on the one hand that this property that 7 comprises the parking spaces now is private property and not useable for the folks who live 8 further down on Ellsworth. And yes, the only solutions we can come up with involve using other 9 private property to solve the same problems. So, I think there’s a clue here that there is just not 10 enough space for a simple answer. Thanks. 11 12 Chair Summa: Put those thoughts on hold for a second, it’s not 10:30. Do we want to… we have 13 I think Staff waiting for Item 3. Do we want to… I think we should let them go if we’re thinking 14 we’re not going to get to that item, but I’m happy to go ahead and try to get that item done 15 too. What are my colleagues thinking? 16 17 Commissioner Lu: I’m personally also happy to get to it but also want to be sensitive of… I mean 18 restriction for anyone else. 19 20 Ms. French: I was going to note, we don’t… I don’t think we have Staff. I think we have 21 consultants here and then we (interrupted) 22 23 Chair Summa: Well, their feelings count too. 24 25 Ms. French: I know, I’m Staff for the project and possible George Hoyt is here. He’s not here, 26 okay, so they’re getting paid. 27 28 Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman, your… did you want to…? 29 30 Commissioner Hechtman: I can go either way. 31 32 Chair Summa: Okay, let’s just carry on then. I don’t see any lights so I’m going to make a 33 comment and I also agree with some of what Commissioner Hechtman said but I feel like… and 34 I have a lot of respect for Commissioner Hechtman but he is not our City Attorney. He’s a very 35 fine attorney I’m sure and I… so I don’t know. That argument was unusual. I didn’t hear from 36 our City Attorney and but I will note that as an R-1… the PC allows Mr. Handa more flexibility 37 than he would have as an R-1 property because the City doesn’t even have to grant… the City 38 does not have to allow a new non-conforming property to be built on it at all. So, I think the PC 39 initially… I also recall that I think Mr. Handa wanted his own PC and the PC gives us a little _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 control but also gives Mr. Handa much more flexibility and the final decision makers and what 2 Mr. Handa it does give him more flexibility. 3 4 I’m very moved by what Commissioner Akin just said and I think it’s… if I heard him right he was 5 expressing concern that there’s sort of conundrum here that we don’t have enough space to 6 need what we… to do what we need to do in this location. And that’s kind of the Palo Alto… I 7 won’t say process but the problem that I often see is and my analogy is somebody with a size 8 ten foot is trying to squeeze into a size 6 shoes. So, we have… we really need to compromise 9 here to get something that makes everybody happy and I believe there was overreach in the 10 process and we have not allowed that. For instance, the determination of private or public 11 street was not our Agenda as much as I know the people… people really care about it. It wasn’t 12 agendized, it wasn’t part of this process but this is an amendment of a PC and a creation of a 13 new PC and those are supposed to have public benefit. 14 15 I cannot find a way to think that 26-foot, which is a minimum width for a private street in Palo 16 Alto, and by the way does not serve a street with that many houses at the end of it legally. So, it 17 is a real compromise, the 26 and I do not think it keeps… I think Mr. Dewey gets to do what he 18 wants to do and that makes me happy. I think Mr. Handa gets to do what he wants to do with 19 maybe a slight change to where his front fence is or the nature of the fence. Meaning material 20 and how open it as Commissioner Hechtman pointed out. And it also gives the other people 21 that use this private street, their guests and all the future people that will own houses or own 22 properties that are served by this a real improvement to the intersection. So, I don’t know, 23 I’m… I don’t think it’s an unreasonable compromise at 26-feet and I really appreciate that all 24 the parties have offered so much. 25 26 I also think Commissioner Akin had an interesting idea earlier this evening in proposing that if it 27 was 24-feet but the last pole, which doesn’t have high… what does it have? It doesn’t have a lot 28 of equipment on it. 29 30 Commissioner Akin: Yeah, it’s not power, just low voltage stuff. 31 32 Chair Summa: Yeah, it’s just internet and stuff, it doesn’t have power. You know that… all… 33 even… you know at one point we were going to underground all the power poles in Palo Alto 34 and that has been abandoned but this is just one pole. So, we have to find a compromise here 35 and I’m not sure exactly what to do but I do see Mr. Yang. 36 37 Mr. Yang: Yeah so I just wanted to comment that I think many of the principles that 38 Commissioner Hechtman laid out are correct and there are potentially some limitations on the 39 City’s ability to exact more than what the applicant is offering here. Specifically, the difference 40 between 24 and 26-feet, but it’s something that I would want to look into further and so if that _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 did make it into a final recommendation from the Commission. I guess I would just request that 2 there be a caveat subject to additional legal research. 3 4 Chair Summa: Okay and I would like to suggest that another caveat that we… the… regardless 5 that any body considering this be brought real information about the cost of underground poles 6 or removing poles and that sort of thing. Because I think that would be helpful to for the City 7 Council or us if this should happen to come back to us again. Would… oh, I see Commissioner 8 Reckdahl has a light. 9 10 Commissioner Reckdahl: I had a question for Mr. Yang. This original PC is many years old and 11 people have been using this extra width for many years. Have they met the threshold for a 12 prescriptive easement? 13 14 Mr. Yang: I’m not able to comment on that. I think it’s unlikely but yeah, I can’t provide a 15 definitive answer. 16 17 Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, thank you. 18 19 Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman. 20 21 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, kind of comment and a question. First just to point out to the 22 Vice-Chair Chang that the sort of the premise that here’s why we can do what we’re trying to 23 do. They’ve come to us asking for permission to do something that they currently can’t do. 24 Well, that’s true, it also perfectly describes every permit application in the City because that’s 25 the only time you apply for a permit is when you can’t do it without a permit and so I think that 26 that is a distinction. The fact that they are… the thing they are asking to do is build a house 27 doesn’t really change the rules. 28 29 I was curious about one of the suggestions that Ms. Van Fleet had mentioned because I hadn’t 30 thought of it and I hadn’t heard about it before but her comment was on the apron. You know, 31 the apron that connects Middlefield to the asphalt of Ellsworth and how it’s concrete 32 composition makes it feel more like a driveway whereas an asphalt composition would make it 33 feel more like a street. And I think she even mentioned, you know maybe you put bots, those 34 little bumper bots like we do our streets, to make it feel more like a street and I think the 35 concept there is to alert bicyclists and pedestrians approach that this is a street. This is more 36 like a street because it again, it’s feeding 13 plus houses and maybe even to have that kind of 37 effect on the travelers along Middlefield who see something that looks more like a street 38 emptying into their drive path. And so, I’m just wondering, of course I realize that would be an 39 extra expense to the developers but I was… what I’m mostly wondering is whether in Staff’s 40 discussion with the applicants was this ever explored? Are there reasons why it can’t be done? _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Ms. French: Sorry, I was thinking about the next item and the people but the suggestion was to 3 make the pavement go (interrupted) 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, so this idea of… yeah, this asphalt… so some work is going to 6 have to be done on that apron right now to widen it out to 28 as proposed, 30 as the motion 7 last week. So, works… it’s going to be torn up and the question is could you tear out the rest of 8 it and make it asphalt so it looked more like… the streets in both directions. Those are asphalt 9 coming into Middlefield and so I don’t know if we have… because it’s a private road it’s not 10 allowed to have asphalt in that location? 11 12 Ms. French: So (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Hechtman: I don’t know if Ms. Star-Lack is still with us. 15 16 Ms. French: Maybe… Sylvia Star-Lack is here but then… so I mean obviously having pedestrians 17 step down, we’d want to have ADA curb from the sideway. If you’re carving in (interrupted) 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman: It would have to be just like the streets, right? They have a required 20 grade down with those bumper bots and then it’s flat across the street. There also may be 21 drainage issues because of the way this… right and so all of that would have to be taken into 22 account. 23 24 Ms. French: Sure, it would have to be studied. 25 26 Commissioner Hechtman: I’m just wondering if it’s… I’m mostly wondering was it ever 27 discussed and discarded or just never came up before? 28 29 Ms. French: It wasn’t… it didn’t come up during this process. It would have to be studied. We’d 30 need Public Works Engineering at the table. 31 32 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, thank you. 33 34 Chair Summa: Okay I guess at this point I should be looking for motions from colleagues. 35 Anyone like to take a stab at it? Well, it would be… Commissioner Hechtman, are you hitting a 36 button? 37 38 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, I was waiting to see if anyone else… I’m… again I don’t like to 39 hog all the motion making but I’m happy to take the first stab at it. 40 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 [note- video skipped] 2 3 Commissioner Akin: I don’t have any sense of… I don’t have any feeling of consensus so there’s 4 a… are we just developing something to shoot down and the move on to the next? Sorry, as my 5 experience is limited, I’m not quite sure how to proceed. 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman: Well (interrupted) 8 9 Chair Summa: I can (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: I’m willing to take a… yeah, why don’t I put a motion on the table. 12 Maybe if somebody could second it for discussion purposes and then we can start picking it 13 apart and finding where the issues are. Alright? 14 15 Chair Summa: If that’s what you’d like to do, thank you. 16 17 MOTION #1 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman: Yep, okay. Before I make the motion, I just want to mention that 20 when I read the two draft ordinance which are attached as Attachment A and B. One thing I 21 noticed is that there was kind of a bleed over in the first one, the Middlefield, of a bunch of 22 stuff about 702 Ellsworth. And in the 702 Ellsworth, it was kind of the flip, a bleed over of the 23 Middlefield stuff and that kind of… and so the result was things particularly for example, when 24 you had the environmental provisions there. They got kind of… the distinctions got kind of 25 blurred. So, I did bring that to Mr. Yang’s attention earlier today that I thought you really don’t 26 need all the redundancy and repetition. What you really just need is in each of the ordinance 27 which is already in Subpart C, kind of a cross reference that we had this one PC that covered 28 two properties. Now we’re doing two separate PCs and so there may be… Mr. Yang and our 29 legal counsel have to decide how to handle that but that… so the motion I’m going to make is 30 basically subject to whatever sort of these non-substantive changes that Staff may make to the 31 ordinance as it travels to Council. 32 33 So, with that background, I will move that the PTC recommend to the Council adoption of the 34 attached draft Planned Community PC Ordinances and the accompanying development exhibit 35 plans for… well, I guess I got to read all this. PC 2343 Amendment Ordinance, Attachment A for 36 the existing 12 unit apartment building at 2901 to 2905 Middlefield Road; to remove the parcel 37 at 702 Ellsworth Place, expand the width of the roadway onto the property at 2901 to 2905 38 Middlefield as proposed by the applicant meaning 30 inch expansion; provide one on site 39 delivery truck space to serve Ellsworth Place frontage properties and four on site uncovered 40 parking spaces and relocate a purtenances to enable the Ellsworth Place road widening. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 B) 702 Ellsworth Place PC Ordinance, Attachment B, to able the removal of the apartments 3 guest parking lot previously required with PC 2343 and the development of a single-family 4 residences show in the Development Plan with indicated specific minimum setbacks. Including 5 a 6-foot setback on the creek side unless a greater setback is determined through a soil stability 6 analysis; the expansion of the width of Ellsworth Place roadway by 18-inches for approximately 7 42-feet as proposed by the applicant; and the restrictions on the front yard height and 8 landscaping with a suggestion that the applicant consider utilizing a 3-foot rod iron fence in 9 place of a wood fence with 3-inch wide slates between. 10 11 Chair Summa: I think you might have meant 24, not 42. 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman: Sorry, it said a 42-foot long 18-inch strip. 14 15 Chair Summa: Oh [unintelligible] 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: Is… right, the 24-feet is a different measurement. Yeah, that’s the 18 special setback, right and then I’m proposing that that is per the ordinance… per the draft 19 ordinance which references with the correct as Mr. Hayes noted and Staff also noted in their 20 slides. It’s 25-feet for the Middlefield and 24 for the Ellsworth. There’s actually different special 21 setbacks for those. Okay, so I think that is the complete motion. 22 23 Chair Summa: Do I have a seconder? 24 25 SECOND 26 27 Commissioner Lu: I’ll second. 28 29 Chair Summa: Seconded by Commissioner Lu. Discussion or would you like to speak to your 30 motion? Sorry. 31 32 Commissioner Hechtman: Well, just very briefly to say I think this is the right way to go. I think 33 it’s the way we need to go. I want to deliver to our City Council a recommendation that ideally 34 they would just adopt and I’m concerned that the alternatives considered for this motion may 35 present them a situation where they can’t adopt our recommendation an are wondering why 36 we made it. So, I have some what of a concern about our credibility with the Council and 37 wanting to avoid risking that. Recognizing that they have the ability to themselves explore a 38 wider initial portion of the road than we might recommend. 39 40 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu, did you want to speak to your second? _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Commissioner Lu: I generally agree with Commissioner Hechtman. I think urban infill is 3 generally how we should build and I mean specially when you compare it to the open space 4 project that we were just looking at. I think the concessions from the applicants are reasonable. 5 I think the safety issues are largely preexisting. I think there’s still a lot of problems that need 6 solving but it’s hard for me to clearly reconcile how this project makes those worse. So, yeah, I 7 second. 8 9 Chair Summa: Thank you. I don’t see any lights so I will say that I think the Council would find 10 equally creditable the very small difference between 24-foot street and 26-foot street, a fence 11 further back or as Commissioner Hechtman recommended a fence that is largely open. Really 12 largely open but sort of symbolic of like don’t come across… up this. But what I find entirely 13 missing from this is any idea… any… that it does not address my concern that this is something 14 that could evaporate because it does not contain a… any new easement or even a condition of 15 approval for the PC that would give certainty that this was available for everybody to use as 16 part of the road. And my example earlier was what if somebody some day decides they want to 17 put pots of geraniums in the 18-inches or 2 ½-feet or whatever it is. And I think built into a PC 18 Zone is the idea of public benefit and I think negotiating that I have never known negotiating 19 the public benefit to be considered not legal for some reason. I’m just… I never have. I mean it 20 is a real negotiation so I don’t find the lack of credibility compelling. I find a slight difference in 21 the two things but with a fence and a 26 versus 24-feet. But it completely lacks any certainty 22 that the additional whatever it ends up being part of the street would remain… would be 23 guaranteed for everybody to use. Including people in the apartment building and anybody who 24 lives in any of the Ellsworth addresses or owns them. So, that’s where I’m at. Comments? 25 Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang]. 26 27 Vice-Chair Chang: Sure, as written I won’t be supporting this motion. I would have supported a 28 motion that recommended the Staff recommendation with a few modifications. The change 29 about the 6-foot setback with the creek unless [unintelligible] back is recommended makes 30 sense to me. The rod iron fence, I would support fence that’s largely see through up front. That 31 would be fine or no fence or a very short fence. And then I’m… I concur with Commissioner 32 Summa’s or with Chair Summa’s comments about needing something that indicates that the 33 widening of the private street is a Condition of Approval or an easement or something that is 34 more permanent. And I stand by needing the 26-feet which is kind of where we had landed last 35 time. 36 37 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu. 38 39 Commissioner Lu: I’ll just agree that we should make the language about the easement explicit 40 in the recommendation. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Chair Summa: So, would you like to withdrawn your second or would you like to suggest an 3 amendment or…? 4 5 Commissioner Lu: I’m reading it and thinking about an amendment but I’ll… get back to me. 6 7 Chair Summa: Other comments? 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman: I have a couple. Sorry and really just responsive. First, the Chair, 10 even though this won’t sway you to support the motion. Mr. Yang did mention earlier that this 11 concept of including language in both PCs about… and what I wrote down here as this view is to 12 effect that the areas that this 30-inch wide either… I can’t… I don’t know if it’s 35 or 37-foot 13 long strip on the Middlefield parcel and this 18-inch wide, 42-foot long strip on the Ellsworth 14 property parcel. That will be paved and blended into the pavement of the road be kept clear of 15 impediments to traffic travel. So, I would add that… make that amendment to my own motion 16 to address that. It doesn’t solve the permanence problem with I acknowledge but because 17 we’re moving… again, my belief is we can’t extract easements and what we’ve heard from the 18 applicant is that they are not offering to grant any easement on the Middlefield side. They 19 would only grant the easement on the Ellsworth side if we were using conventional R-1 zoning, 20 which my motion does not do. It uses the PC Zone and so we don’t have in my estimation an 21 offer to grant and easement and for the reasons I expressed before. I’m not wanting to include 22 that in the motion. So, our protection will be the PC zoning, the same reason that people are 23 here today to change… to make a change to the PC zoning that exists, the 2343. This is the 24 process that you would have to go through to get rid of that 30-inch strip on the Middlefield 25 side or the 18-inch strip. Right, you’d have to apply to the City for a permit, there would be 26 public hearings and notice to neighbors and that’s our protection. That it’s permanent unless 27 something different comes along and a decision making body of this City decides that that 28 different thing justifies a change. 29 30 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu, did you want to… are you still thinking? 31 32 Commissioner Lu: [unintelligible -off mic] 33 34 Chair Summa: Okay, yeah I think it would be better done as an easement to be honest and I 35 guess that this whole case really is proof of why I think that would be better done that way 36 because PCs… the meanings of PCs get lost over time and I don’t find this strong enough. And I 37 also think… I think you might find that giving the Council a range from 24 to 26 for them to 38 decide might be a more successful type of motion here because I think a lot of people really feel 39 it’s reasonable the 26. I mean a significant benefit; financial benefit has been given to both 40 sides and there are other benefits. Such as a nice new home in Palo Alto. No one denies that _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 but I just think we’ve kind of lost perspective a little bit. That we can offer a range to the 2 Council and let them decide what they think is better since they are the decision making body 3 and that might be more agreeable to a majority of the Commission. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: I feel like Chair, at least you may not be… well, if you understand the 6 nature of my motion and its reasoning. You know that I can’t offer… the only range I could offer 7 is a reduction. Since my range is premised, since my motion is premised on the most that we 8 can ask for is what they are offering. That’s a premise is so I can’t make a motion consistent 9 with that premise that includes more than they are offering and so and I’m not going to do that. 10 It may be that my… it could be that Commissioner Lu, you know now that I’ve clarified that I 11 don’t want to make easements explicit. In fact, I explicitly don’t want to include easements. 12 That may cause him to withdraw his second that and that’s fine and if so then then motion will 13 die for lack of a second and somebody else can make a motion with a range or with some other 14 figure. 15 16 Chair Summa: Okay. Commissioner Lu, are you (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Lu: Can we briefly check with the applicants just to confirm that they are… would 19 not be willing to have easements on both sides for two PCs zones? 20 21 Chair Summa: We can but we… we could do that if you need to but I thought you were 22 considering either withdrawing your second or suggesting an amendment. And I (interrupted) 23 24 Commissioner Lu: Well, if the applicants agree to that then we can add an amendment with 25 explicit reference to easements and I would be happy to keep the motion as it is. 26 27 Chair Summa: Okay so (interrupted) 28 29 Commissioner Lu: Or, I think both Commissioner Hechtman and I would be open to that 30 amendment and I think it would maybe make some other folks happier too. 31 32 Chair Summa: Because I am kind of concerned we’re getting a little in the weeds here and we 33 should vote on this pretty soon if (interrupted) 34 35 Commissioner Hechtman: I like Mr. Lu’s [note – Commissioner Lu] suggestion and it may well 36 be that the applicants are not comfortable offering easements on Middlefield or with a PC on 37 Ellsworth. And if so, then we’ll have that answer and that Mr. Lu [note – Commissioner Lu] can 38 decide whether to withdraw his second. 39 40 Chair Summa: Okay, why don’t you pose your question to the applicants. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Commissioner Lu: I think they understand the question. 3 4 Chair Summa: Okay. 5 6 Commissioner Lu: Hopefully, yeah I think or just the way we’ve used our terminology 7 (interrupted) 8 9 Chair Summa: You’re probably not (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Lu: Yeah, the way we’ve used our terminology over the last two meetings has 12 been a little bit sloppy so I think this point is not actually clear to me. 13 14 Mr. Hayes: I’m sorry, I had to take a minute there. 15 16 Chair Summa: That’s fine. 17 18 Mr. Hayes: I can only speak on behalf of my client and so that would be the Middlefield parcel 19 and we would be willing to make an easement as part of the PC for that 30-inch portion. Mr. 20 Handa would have to speak for himself. 21 22 Mr. Handa: You know, for my parcel I would still prefer if you can do it as R-1 zoning and then 23 we can do it as an easement but if that doesn’t work and you know, there’s… that option is 24 completely out of table and the only way forward is to make it as an easement as PC. Then you 25 know that… then it is what it is. 26 27 Chair Summa: So, the option of R-1 is not on the table right now so if you would like to answer 28 the… Commissioner Lu’s question it might be helpful. 29 30 Mr. Handa: I’m sorry, can you repeat the question that is…? 31 32 Commissioner Lu: I think he did answer. I think you said as very un-ideal but it would be 33 acceptable to have an easement on an additional PC. 34 35 Mr. Handa: Right. 36 37 Commissioner Lu: Yeah. 38 39 Mr. Handa: If that’s the only way to move forward, you know then (interrupted) 40 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lu: Sure. 2 3 Chair Summa: Thank you, Mr. Handa. 4 5 MOTION AMENDED BY THE MAKER 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman: And so, then I would clarify that the motion I made, which in this 8 regard relates to the proposals of the owner of Middlefield and of Ellsworth, includes the 9 proposals that they’ve just verified. That the specified paved strip, 30-inches by either 35 or 37- 10 feet on Middlefield and 18-inches by 42, would be the subject of an easement granted 11 respectively by each of those two owners to the owners of the existing 20-foot wide easement 12 for Ellsworth Place and that’s voluntarily offered by each of those two property owners. So, I 13 would clarify that that is the intent of my motion. 14 15 Chair Summa: Thank you, Commissioner Hechtman. I’m just going to read it really quickly. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: [note- video skipped – began mid-sentence] finish typing and then I 18 have at least one correction to get the language right. You ready? 19 20 Ms. Dao: Yeah, what’s your correction? 21 22 Commissioner Hechtman: So, in B, the fourth line that start “6-foot setback from”… it’s the 23 creek part property. Yeah, “unless”, and “it’s a greater setback is recommended by the stability 24 analysis” rather than a lesser so it could be more. It’s not going to be closer than 6-feet but it 25 could end up being more. Okay, alright and in B, the next line, “expansion of the paved” lets put 26 “paved width of Ellsworth Place by 18-inches for” it’s the first 42-feet. The first 42-feet length. 27 28 Ms. French: Commissioner Hechtman, can I just throw out there something because you’re 29 talking about the paved width and as we know it’s not… the paved width is currently beyond 30 the 20-foot easement so a factor. 31 32 Commissioner Hechtman: Oh, “by 18-inches” I guess we would say “from the edge of the 20- 33 foot easement”. That would… that should work. After 18-inches, “from the edge of the 20-foot 34 easement”. 35 36 Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman, do you want to add language that is analogist to the 37 42-feet for the other? 38 39 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, I do, I do. So, I just want to make sure we got this right. Yeah, 40 so now let’s go up to A and its “expand the”… so in the second line, “expand the paved width of _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ellsworth Place roadway on the property at 2901 to 2905 Middlefield by”… here’s where we’re 2 going to add “by 30-inches from the edge of the 20”… well, it’s actually from the property line, 3 right which… because that easement runs… right? “For the first” and here Staff, is it 35 or 37- 4 feet? 5 6 Ms. French: 37 is to the guy wire. 7 8 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, 37-feet, “for the first 37-foot length” 9 10 [note – several folks started talking at once off mic] 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, “the first 37 length as proposed by applicant”. Okay, so 13 because we’ve… and then C, we have now the specified “paved strips would be the subject to 14 an easement which has been voluntarily offered to the residents on Ellsworth by both 15 applicants respectively”. Okay, so let me just point out that with this iteration of the motion, 16 this idea that the area has to be kept clear of impediments, we don’t need that because the 17 nature of an easement is it has to be useable for it’s purpose. And so, like that’s why we don’t 18 have to tell the Ellsworth person he can’t put stuff in the middle of the 20-foot roadway. Yeah, 19 so I’m just saying that’s why I’m not including it here (interrupted) 20 21 Chair Summa: Yes, thanks. 22 23 Commissioner Hechtman: Because we’ve not got it covered in C in a better way and I thank the 24 applicant, both of them for considering this. Hopefully this is the path forward, we’ll see. 25 Alright, so that my revised motion and I guess the question for you, Commissioner Lu, is are you 26 standing by your second? 27 28 Commissioner Lu: Yes. 29 30 Chair Summa: Awesome, thank you for that and thank you to the applicants for being flexible. 31 So, unless somebody has something to say, I’m going to call… ask for the vote. 32 33 Mr. Sauls: I did just want to clarify one last item on B. Just at the end about the 3-foot 34 wroughtrod iron fence, if there’s any sort of specific location as was discussed earlier, that 35 should be referenced too. 36 37 Commissioner Hechtman: So (interrupted) 38 39 Mr. Sauls: Meaning, you know is this respective to the sight distance triangle or other locations 40 shown on the plans. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Commissioner Hechtman: So, my intention was to utilize the location of the fence shown on the 3 plans submitted for 702 Ellsworth, which as I understand it are 4-feet behind the sidewalk. Is 4 that right? 5 6 Mr. Sauls: Correct. 7 8 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, so my motion does not propose a relocation of that fence 9 beyond what… from the location proposed by the applicant. 10 11 Mr. Sauls: Okay, thank you. 12 13 Chair Summa: Everybody ready to vote? Okay. 14 15 VOTE 16 17 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Akin? 18 19 Commissioner Akin: With great reluctance, yes. 20 21 Ms. Dao: Vice-Chair Chang? 22 23 Vice-Chair Chang: No. 24 25 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Hechtman? 26 27 Commissioner Hechtman: Yes. 28 29 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Lu? 30 31 Commissioner Lu: Yes. 32 33 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Reckdahl? 34 35 Commissioner Reckdahl: No. 36 37 Ms. Dao: Chair Summa? 38 39 Chair Summa: Nope. 40 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Dao: Motion fails 3-3. 2 3 MOTION FAILED 3(Akin, Lu, Hechtman) -3(Chang, Reckdahl, Summa) -1 (Templeton absent) 4 5 Chair Summa: So, in order, Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang], Commissioner 6 Reckdahl, would you like to speak to your no votes? 7 8 Vice-Chair Chang: Sure, I think I said it before. I mean the… my reason for the 26, I know it feel 9 small but at the sidewalk the 26 is really important for safety. There’s a reason it’s in our Code, I 10 feel strongly about the safety of Midtown, I think it is incumbent upon us as the Planning and 11 Transportation Commission to look out for the safety of our residents. Thanks. 12 13 Commissioner Reckdahl: I would echo that, also the sight triangle I think we need to have 14 nothing above 1-foot in the south sight triangle. 15 16 Chair Summa: I would agree with my colleagues who just spoke. So, I think given the hour, we 17 should make a decision about whether we’re hearing the third thing because now we have to 18 continue with this item. 19 20 Ms. French: Well, I gave George permission to leave. He has to be awake in the morning at 7 so 21 or start work. So, if anyone where to have Building Code related questions, we don’t have our 22 Chief Building Official for that third item. 23 24 Chair Summa: Colleagues, would you like to continue the item or would like to… I mean we 25 have to continue with Mr. Handa and Dewey project but would you like to continue the third 26 item? 27 28 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, I don’t see any way that we’re going to make that in a timely 29 manner so I think we’re going to… probably just punt that one to the next meeting. 30 31 Chair Summa: Go ahead. 32 33 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, so I think so too. I think this could… this could item could take 34 us a while longer and so really the… I guess the question I would have for Staff is right now we 35 have nothing on our 8/30 Agenda, for August 30th. Right, we talked about that at the beginning 36 of the meeting so we could move this last item, the electrification, to that. It would be the sole 37 item or we could move it to September 13th and so I guess one of the questions I have is your 38 sense of the September 13th that’s it’s already going to be a very full Agenda? 39 40 Ms. French: Yes, that’s a full Agenda. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Commissioner Hechtman: Alright, so it sounds like we should move it to… just move it to August 3 30th and have a short meeting. 4 5 Chair Summa: Does that work for you Ms. French because I know there was (interrupted) 6 7 Ms. French: There’s been pressure to bring it back to Council, the electrification item. 8 9 Chair Summa: But does it work for you to have to have a meeting on the 30th? 10 11 Ms. French: Yes. 12 13 Chair Summa: Okay, alright, would you like to make a motion… would somebody like to make… 14 would you like to make a motion to move it to the 30th? 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman: Maybe somebody else can. 17 18 Mr. Yang: We should wait until we can conclude with this and then we can make that formal 19 motion to continue it later. Yeah, thanks. 20 21 Chair Summa: Alright, so back to the matter at hand. So, what I’m looking for is an alternate 22 motion. 23 24 Commissioner Lu: Would… oh, do you want to go first? 25 26 Commissioner Hechtman: It seems like from what I’ve heard from the Commissioners who 27 voted no, the interest by those Commissioners would be at a minimum increasing the 30-inches 28 on Middlefield and the 18-inchs on Ellsworth. And it wasn’t really clear to me whether the 29 intention there, since we’re 2-feet short… since 24 was that motion and there’s Commissioners 30 looking for 26. Whether they were thinking it was 1-foot on each side or 2-feet on just one 31 side? So, I think you could clarify that and that would fit it. 32 33 I also think probably to address Commissioner Reckdahl’s issue, there would need to be a 34 change at the end of B where I’ve referenced the rod iron fence. 35 36 Also, I know that in the motion on… at the last meeting, there was… I think it was part of the 37 motion that the easement would not just be for the first 37-feet on Middlefield or 42-feet on 38 the Ellsworth property but for the full 100-feet. 39 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Summa: No, no, we actually… that was what was initially proposed and then we modified 2 that to accommodate both Mr. Dewey and Mr. Handa. 3 4 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, alright so I’m happy that’s not on the [unintelligible]. 5 6 Chair Summa: So, and I think Ms. French can explain this but I think it was not evenly 7 distributed and I think it’s probably because it’s sort of unused area on… in a sense on the 8 Dewey side where as Mr. Handa is trying to put a house there. So, the distribution, it’s in our 9 Staff Report somewhere, it was (interrupted) 10 11 Vice-Chair Chang: It was an additional foot on each side. I have my hand up so I’m going to 12 (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, yeah. 15 16 Vice-Chair Chang: I’ve having my hand up for a while. 17 18 Ms. French: That’s correct, that’s what (interrupted) 19 20 Chair Summa: It’s 36-inches and Ms. French will… it’s 36-inches I believe on 2901 and 21 (interrupted) 22 23 Ms. French: It was 3-foot 6 I believe, so it’s… it was going to be 30-inches but then you add a 24 foot to that and that makes it (interrupted) 25 26 Chair Summa: So, it’s 30… yeah. 27 28 Ms. French: It’s 36 plus another six so yeah. 29 30 Chair Summa: Okay, could you just verify where those numbers are in our Staff Report? I know 31 they’re here but…? 32 33 Ms. French: I was thinking it might be in the motion so Packet Page… sorry. Not (interrupted) 34 35 Commissioner Akin: There’s the clarification on Page 80 which describes an additional foot on 36 each property. Was that what you were after? 37 38 Chair Summa: I am looking… I am asking for if it where to be wider than the street to 26-feet. 39 What the distribution was on either side. It was not even from the middle the way Staff had 40 suggested it and it’s in here some place but if somebody could (interrupted) _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Ms. French: Let’s see, 3-foot 6-inch wide asphalt is stated on Page 70… Packet Page 77 for the 3 Middlefield. It says 3-foot 6-inch wide asphalt. 4 5 Chair Summa: Okay. 6 7 Ms. French: Which is the same as saying 42-inchs, right? 8 9 Chair Summa: And then what is it for Ellsworth? 10 11 Ms. French: Well, then it would be 30-inches because it’s… right? 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman: No, well yeah, 30-inches. 14 15 Ms. French: 18-inches plus 12-inches. 16 17 Chair Summa: Yeah, okay that’s what I was doing [unintelligible](interrupted) 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman: Its on Packet Page 89, actually the draft resolution which refers to a 20 2-foot 6 inch which is 30-inch. So, it was an addition of 12-inches on each of the parcels. 21 22 Chair Summa: Okay, so if we make those changes, we can keep all of this language but make 23 the changes. The appropriate changes in both A and B. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah. 26 27 Chair Summa: And Commissioner Reckdahl, would you like to work on language for the sight 28 triangle on Ellsworth while Ms. Dao is working on updating the motion? 29 30 Commissioner Reckdahl: Can we assume that the term sight triangle is well defined or do we 31 have to define what a sight triangle is? 32 33 Mr. Sauls: The sight triangle is very clearly defined in our Fence Code handout so if you use that 34 term we’ll understand what you mean by it. 35 36 Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, very good. 37 38 Mr. Sauls: But if you’re thinking of a different sight distance triangle that’s not described as that 39 45 degree angle with 35-feet on each side at the intersection of the curbs then obviously we 40 don’t have that. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Commissioner Reckdahl: As I mentioned earlier, I think flatter would be better but at this point 3 I’m happy with just the standard 45 degree. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: Chair, let me mention that in the motion that we’re looking at now. 6 The draft motion that somebody might make, you need to take out of A and B “as proposed by 7 the applicant” because this version is not what they proposed. 8 9 Chair Summa: Yes. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: Right so its… okay and then similarly, I’ll wait for Ms. Dao to take care 12 of B. And then in C, I think you just have to take out everything after easement because those 13 26… those easements have not been offered. 14 15 Chair Summa: And then also the bit about the fence needs to be changed a bit too. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: That’s… yeah Keith’s [note – Commissioner Reckdahl] working on 18 that. 19 20 Chair Summa: And that’s… yeah. 21 22 Ms. Dao: Yes. 23 24 Commissioner Reckdahl: Oh okay, I’m sorry, so at the end of B, delete everything starting “and 25 restrictions on the front yard fence” and say “the sight triangle on the south side of Ellsworth” 26 (interrupted) 27 28 Vice-Chair Chang: It is by definition on Ellsworth because this… B is regarding Ellsworth. 29 30 Commissioner Reckdahl: Oh okay, well to… it doesn’t hurt to be clear about that I guess but it is 31 kind of redundant. “Shall not be obstructed by plants, fences or other objects taller than 1- 32 foot”. 33 34 Vice-Chair Chang: Sight should be s-i-g-h-t. 35 36 Commissioner Reckdahl: Oh yes. 37 38 Vice-Chair Chang: Just to be clear because I think we’re getting… we always get confused. 39 40 Ms. French: Might I weigh in just for a moment? _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Chair Summa: Please. 3 4 Ms. French: Because there’s a fire hydrant that’s taller than 1-foot. There’s some other things 5 that are there like (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Summa: Yeah, I don’t think this language (interrupted) 8 9 Ms. French: Stop signs and things. 10 11 Chair Summa: I think we want to be specific to the fence here. We don’t want them 12 (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, I (interrupted) 15 16 Chair Summa: We’ve already said that they can keep existing trees and we don’t want to imply 17 that they have to remove the fire hydrant which is sort of okay… which is okay. So (interrupted) 18 19 Commissioner Reckdahl: I would say the fire hydrant if we say on the property (interrupted) 20 21 Chair Summa: And I think you want to just say where you want the fence and how high you 22 want it to be because the fence is the issue. 23 24 Commissioner Reckdahl: I don’t care where they put the fence as long as they don’t put it in the 25 sight triangle. 26 27 Chair Summa: Okay. 28 29 Commissioner Reckdahl: If they wanted to put a 1-foot fence in the sight triangle, I have no 30 problem with that. 31 32 Chair Summa: Why don’t we say “shall not be obstructed by new”… what was your word, 33 [unintelligible]? 34 35 Commissioner Hechtman: Impediments. 36 37 Chair Summa: Impediments. 38 39 Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay. 40 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Summa: Including a fence but new impediments. We’re not telling them to move things 2 that are there. We don’t want new things. 3 4 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, I mean right now there’s one tree there and the fire hydrant and 5 then a post. Okay, the fire hydrant is not on the property so they have no control over that 6 anyway. 7 8 Ms. French: True, just that it’s in the sight triangle. 9 10 MOTION #2 11 12 Chair Summa: Sight triangle on the south. Everybody happy with that language? Okay. Do I have 13 a second? 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman: Just before you second, I think… and again, I’m not supportive of this 16 motion. I’m just helping to craft it so it’s clear. 17 18 Chair Summa: Thank you. 19 20 Commissioner Hechtman: In C I think I had us take out a little to much language because we 21 have to say who the easement is to be granted too and that’s to… maybe we can go back up to 22 the motion that failed and see. I thought we made a reference to the residences on Ellsworth. 23 Okay, so back down to this one, “to an easement granted to the residents on Ellsworth”. 24 25 Chair Summa: That’s helpful, thank you. 26 27 Ms. French: Would it be residents or property owners? 28 29 Commissioner Hechtman: Well, it’s actually it’s the property owners. Right, it’s actually… it’s 30 not even the property owners. It’s the parcels. The easements granted, right, it runs with the 31 land. It’s to the… yeah. 32 33 Chair Summa: Everyone ready to vote? Okay Ms. Dao, would you please call the vote? 34 35 Vice-Chair Chang: Who is it moved by and who is it seconded by? 36 37 Chair Summa: Oh, good point. 38 39 Commissioner Hechtman: I think the Chair. I kind of got the sense that the Chair was building 40 the motion. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Chair Summa: Okay, do I have a second for my motion? 3 4 SECOND 5 6 Commissioner Akin: I’ll second. 7 8 Chair Summa: Okay, seconded by… would you like to speak to your second? 9 10 Commissioner Akin: I think this is a better compromise that I hope we can make stand in 11 Council. 12 13 Chair Summa: Okay thank you. I don’t need to speak and if I may now ask Ms. Dao to call the 14 vote. 15 16 VOTE 17 18 Ms. Dao: Chair Summa? 19 20 Chair Summa: Yes. 21 22 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Reckdahl? 23 24 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes. 25 26 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Lu? 27 28 Commissioner Lu: No. 29 30 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Hechtman? 31 32 Commissioner Hechtman: No. 33 34 Ms. Dao: Vice-Chair Chang? 35 36 Vice-Chair Chang: Yes. 37 38 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Akin? 39 40 Commissioner Akin: Yes. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 2 Ms. Dao: Motion carries 4-2. 3 4 MOTION PASSED 4(Akin, Chang Reckdahl, Summa) -2(Lu, Hechtman) -1(Templeton absent) 5 6 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. Would you like to speak to your no vote? 7 8 Commissioner Hechtman: Oh, well I guess I think I’ve made pretty clear my concern about our 9 ability to require an applicant to grant rights over it’s property to other private property 10 owners. At least under these circumstances if under… if not under all circumstances. 11 12 Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Lu? 13 14 Commissioner Lu: I think my position is also mostly clear. I’m not so hung up on the 26 versus 15 24-foot but I think the sight triangle language is a bit new and it’s pretty uncertain on how that 16 would actually pan out and so I’m not comfortable recommending that to Council. 17 18 Chair Summa: Okay, thank you very much and thank you very to the applicants and all the other 19 interested parties who attended tonight and our Staff for being so helpful so. 20 21 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Lu. Failed 3-3 (Chang, Reckdahl, 22 Summa no; Templeton absent) 23 24 Commission Action: Motion by Summa, seconded by Akin. Passed 4-2 (Hechtman, Lu no; 25 Templeton absent) SILICON VALLEY SOIL ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS File No. SV2505 August 31, 2023 Handa Developers Group 4381 Samson Way San Jose, CA 95124 Attention: Nitin Handa Subject: Proposed Residence APN 127-35-152 700 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, California GEOTECHNICAL CLARIFICATION Reference: • Geotechnica//nvestigation report (File No. SV2505 dated December 27, 2022). Dear Nitin Handa: Pursuant to your request, we are pleased to transmit herein the results of our geotechnical clarification for the proposed residence with detached garage. The subject site is located at 700 Ellsworth Place in Palo Alto, California. Based on our review of the above -mentioned soil report and project civil plans, the proposed structure loading including detached garage will not impact the integrity of the existing adjacent concrete lined Matadero Creek and the creek will not impact the proposed building structure foundation. The bottom of the creek is approximately 8 feet elevation and the proposed garage floor is 17.52 feet elevation. The proposed garage foundation bottom elevation is 2.5 feet plus slab section (-1 foot) which is approximately 13.7 feet elevation. As a result (worst case scenario), the vertical difference is 6 feet ((1 7.52-2.5-1)-8=-6). The horizontal distance at the closet location to the creek bank is approximately 9 feet. Therefore, the location of the proposed structures will not impact the influence zone of creek. The influence zone is defined as the imaginary line extending at the outer edge of the foundation at a downward slope of 1 H:1 V (one unit horizontal distance to one unit vertical distance) - extending downward towards the creek bottom. The influence line is (9H:6V) less than 1 H:1 V whereas the structure load is not impacting the creek. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact our office at your convenience. The influence Very truly yours, SILICON VALLEY SOIL ENGINEERING Sean Deivert Project Manager SV2505.AGR/Copies: 1 to Handa Developers Group 1916 O'TOOLE WAY • SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 951 31 • (408) 324-1400 From:Ken Hayes To:Nitin Handa Subject:Fwd: Ellsworth. Phots (3) of a person on bike Date:Monday, August 14, 2023 10:21:05 AM FYI Thanks, Ken Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Dewey <rrd@deweyland.com> Date: August 13, 2023 at 10:30:45 AM PDT To: cjs@jsmf.com, khayes@thehayesgroup.com, gblack@hextrans.com Subject: Ellsworth. Phots (3) of a person on bike All. 3 photos of a person on a bike. She is 5’3” tall. FYI. Taken from the STOP SIGN at Ellsworth on Sat Aug 12 Note in each photo that the biker is clearly visible from the driver’s seat in the car. Note in each photo that the BIKER IS VISIBLE FROM WAY ABOVE THE TOP OF THE PROPOSED FENCE at 3’ tall set back 4’ from back of sidewalk Staff at City of PC: planning and transportation should see these photos for the perspective of safety and visibility and why the PTC is so off base to limit the fence to 12” in height in the safety triangle. Seeing the top of sidewalk is irrelevant Seeing the pedestrian, biker or a car over the 3’ fence is As these photos clearly show, all are clearly visible over the 3’ proposed fence. Comments? Thx, Rich 702 Ellsworth/Middlefield PC Applicant Bicycle Rider Photos Photographs by City staff: Ellsworth Intersection with Middlefield Road From:Nat Fisher To:Council, City; PlanningCommission@cityofpaloAlto.org Cc:Nat Fisher Subject:9/18 Date:Monday, September 18, 2023 11:17:59 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sukiroo@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am a senior citizen with a handicap status who no longer drives and depends on Avenidas for my transportation. It would be an unfair burden if my deliveries could not be brought to my front door. Also, having lived on Ellsworth for several decades, the intersection with Middlefield Road has always been dangerous, and the plans to amend PC-2343 will make these conditions worse. Protect me and my neighbors here on Ellsworth Place. Say no to the current proposal to amend PC-2343. Natalie Fisher 736 Ellsworth Place From:Charlie Effinger To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Regarding the Council Meeting, September 18, 2023, Item 7, 2901 Middlefield Rd and 702 Ellsworth Place Date:Monday, September 18, 2023 10:40:22 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from charlie.effinger@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To Whom it May Concern, I am a tenant who currently rents a house on Ellsworth Place. For environmentally conscious reasons, I choose to not have a car - instead relying on biking, walking, and public transportation for mobility. Thus, I rely on deliveries and delivery services for a fair amount of my livelihood (averaging 2-3 deliveries per week.) Because of this, I am concerned about any changes to the street that do not adequately consider delivery drivers and safe spaces for them to park and turn around. The inability for delivery drivers to access the lane safely would have a major impact on my life. I hope that any major changes to the lane are forward-thinking and provide a thought-out approach to support those who choose to be without cars in the long-term. Thanks, Charlie Effinger From:Kristen Van Fleet To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Slide Decks for Council Meeting, September 18, 2023, Item 7, 2901 Middlefield Rd and 702 Ellsworth Pl Date:Monday, September 18, 2023 9:11:30 AM Attachments:Kristen_Van_Fleet-ELLSWORTH PLACE_City_Council_9-18-23.pdf Gala Beykin_ELLSWORTH PLACE_City_Council_9-18-23.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Kou, Vice-Mayor Stone, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, In speaking with the City Clerk's office this morning, it was advised for me to also send the slide decks, as prepared by Ellsworth Place Residents for Agenda Item #7 tonight, to the City Council. Please find two PDFs attached. Sincerely, Kristen A. Van Fleet ELLSWORTH PLACE - SINCE 1937 ••••••••••••••••••••• Annexed by the City of Palo Alto on May 2, 1947 ●LINE-OF-SIGHT to MATADERO CREEK ○NO FENCE in the line of sight ■We are currently impeded from seeing small pedestrians by the “orange netting” visual aid ■Who will enforce what happens inside of the fence? ○The fence set back from the edge of the Ellsworth Place road ■Drivers have complained about nearly hitting the rebar poles holding up the “orange netting” visual aid ●DRIVEABLE 26-foot width over the first 100-foot section of the Ellsworth Place ○Current PC-2343 conditions provide 26-foot width over the 76-feet length of the parking lot ○Current PC-2343 conditions provide 21.5-foot width between the driveway entrance up to the parking lot ○If the Cul-De-Sac function is removed, delivery vehicles will back out onto Middlefield Road or park in its right lane ○Delivery companies will refuse to deliver to Ellsworth Place if the conditions are not safe or a legal parking provided (Confirmed by conversations with UPS, Amazon, and FedEx.) ●A USEABLE DELIVERY SPACE to fit trucks, measuring 11 feet wide x 26 feet long, w/ room to open doors ○Current plan requires backing up into the 2nd utility pole ○Current plan assumes no cars are parked in the residential driveway ○Most delivery companies DO NOT ALLOW their drivers to back up into residential driveways ○There is room for road circulation and truck parking if the first utility pole is removed ■No inquiries have been opened with CPA about moving/removing the first utility pole ■Comcast has not been asked about moving the cable box on the corner Ellsworth Place Neighbors Want ********************************************************************************** The parking lot has PROVIDED CIRCULATION for both the apartments and homes on Ellsworth Place for over 50 years “This is our cul-de-sac.” BAIT AND SWITCH “Perceived Width” IS NOT Driveable Width! Diagram in Council’s Packet In Reality, their plan “Perceivably Widens” the road using pavers, (with no plan to move infrastructure!) Images are from Google Maps; overimposed with approximate placements of areas. “Perceived width” is NOT drivable road! PC-2343 gives public benefit of a 21.5 foot wide road opening w/ 26-feet and increased road circulation over the parking lot Options that PROVIDE SOME Public Benefit ●Utility pole is removed ●3.5’ and 2.5’ lengths (in blue) are extended the first 100 feet of Ellsworth Place road length ●6 feet is added over the first 100 feet of Ellsworth Place road length on the creek side There is room to both widen the road to 26 feet and place the house UTILITY POLE UTILITY BOXES BLUE rectangle shows widening the road to 26 feet on the creek side of the Ellsworth Place road. Utility Pole in Proposed Delivery Truck Parking Space (PTC 7-12-23, Public Comments, PDF pg. 58-62) ●Missing utility pole on all diagrams ●Requires backing out into utility pole ●Requires backing into residential driveway which is not allowed ●Assumes driveway is free of cars ●10 x 30 foot space between wall & fence ●Delivery trucks are 10 to 11 feet wide ●No room to open door THE FENCE WAS SET 4 -FEET BACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE 20' WIDE ROAD. IT HAD BEEN HIT MORE THAN ONCE!!! THE DEVELOPERS WANT TO MAKE ELLSWORTH PLACE NARROWER THAN THIS? Parking Spaces at 2901 Middlefield Road on Ellsworth Place - The car that parks in the space on the far left must "hug" the parking stripe of their 98" wide space or they can't open their car door against the wall. (Code for this space is 120" wide.) The tenant assigned the adjoining space parks in the apartment "guest" parking lot, a.k.a. 702 Ellsworth Place. The parking lot is used daily for apartment parking, delivery trucks, and USPS mail delivery. September 2023 July 2023 September 13, 2023 These Cars Belong to the Apartment Tenants - The Parking Lot is Used Daily! Delivery Trucks Use the Parking Lot for Both the Apartments and the Homes on Ellsworth Place These trucks are 10 to 11 feet wide x 26 feet long They avoid backing up as much as possible! NO PARKING IS ALLOWED ON ELLSWORTH PLACE 0 John Abraham to me - i-eu 14, [U[3, 4.4o PM Thanks to you for your brilliant work on this issue. While I cannot attend meetings I fully support the basic position for Ellsworth Place --Namely we do not want to be victims of spillover parking from the Apartment complex. We all are affected, not just the residents near Middlefield. We are 400 feet away from the nearest hydrant and Fire trucks would need all the help they could get in case of an emergency. John K. Abraham 20 feet is the minimum required to get a firetruck down a street. How does this parking spot work? Driver’s door opens into guy wires! 4-feet of Pavers is NOT WIDE ENOUGH to park a car completely off of the road! Guests will block Ellsworth Place and create problems with the tenants/home owner. wor MI ; siy, /.i/w/at ,Pe►r�I11Il/I/Si 41 • ELLSWORTH PLACE WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE ROAD Ellsworth Place Homes HAVE NON-EXCLUSIVE INGRESS/EGRESS RIGHTS (Here is written proof from Chicago Title) The Joint Tenancy “1946 Deed” gives this right to 8 of the 13 properties, and divides the road in half with house 741. Establishing rights we already have is not a public benefit! ABANDONED ROAD In Conclusion Ellsworth Place homeowners and residents Want the Proposed House Site to remain in a PC ●PROPOSED HOUSE SITE IS ONLY ENFORCEABLE IN PC ●AMENDMENT REMOVES CURRENT PUBLIC BENEFITS of ample apartment parking & provides delivery truck space ●HARM IS BEING DONE BY REMOVING ROAD CIRCULATION between Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road ●DETAILS IN THE PACKET MUST BE CORRECTED! ●ROAD OWNERSHIP MUST BE ESTABLISHED before a final vote is made on any PC change(s)! We Want to Prevent this! There have been too many close calls! Community Traffic Safety Message from Mayor Kou & Police Chief Binder Published on September 15, 2023 We are all greatly concerned to hear that there have been two injuries to young people in our community within the past week resulting from traffic collisions. Community safety is our number one priority. With schools back in session, we must all heighten our awareness and support the safety of our streets. The City of Palo Alto is committed providing a safe environment. As we have since the start of the school year, overtime traffic enforcement will focus around schools. We are also working to review traffic controls around schools, including deployment of our 30 crossing guards. We provide pedestrian and bicycle safety education to PAUSD K-8 students, reaching over 5,850 youth through Safe Routes to School programming and hope these lessons come home. We encourage parents to participate and take an active role to increase youth safety. 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO Community Traffic Safety Message From Mayor Kou and Police Chief Binder Transportation and community safety are the responsibilities of all of us. It is NOT just about tall adults moving at a walking pace! Protect Our Children! The downward slope of the sidewalk causes bicycles to pick up speed faster than walking pace. Did you see me? Developer wants a horizontal fence with 3” wide gaps. Chair Suma (page 55): “It’s too high, it seems even higher than it is because of the grade and I believe it needs to be... the fence needs brought back. …” Commissioner Akin (page 55): “Yes, I agree that the 3-foot fence still interferes with visibility in an area where it’s important. A shorter fence might solve that problem. …” Vice-Chair Chang (page 56): “And then I concur with my colleagues who visited the site and said that the 3-foot fence height does obstruct visibility. …” Commissioner Heckman (page 59): “Wrought iron fences are typically a more open design, so you could see better through them. …” NO FENCE WITHIN THE SIGHT TRIANGLE! ●Who enforces what is placed inside of the fence? Homeowner or Tenant could place inside of the fence large kid’s play equipment, a table and chair set, or shrubbery as shown below. What they think happens… It requires being on the sidewalk for line of sight to the creek! In reality… We need to see to the creek fence/bend in the sidewalk! Current Plan (above) Clear Line of Sight to Creek Fence Exiting Ellsworth Place requires being on the sidewalk (with the current conditions) An Asphalt Approach With Wide Corners (Alma Village is a private street) An Asphalt Approach With Wide Corners (Waverly Oaks is a private street in Old Palo Alto) From HEXAGON TRAFFIC REVIEW of April 14, 2023 (PTC packet 6-28-23, page 40) ●“The current 20-foot dustpan style driveway on Ellsworth Place at Middlefield Road requires vehicles to almost come to a stop to turn into the street.” Ellsworth Neighbor’s Note: This means stopping on Middlefield Road with traffic speeds of 30 - 40 mph, immediately after descending the Matadero Creek overpass. ●“The recommended stopping sight distance for the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road is 200 feet (based on a design speed of 30 mph).” Ellsworth Neighbor’s Note: 200 feet back is the entrance to Winter Lodge Ice Rink; well before the Matadero Creek overpass. ●CLEAR LINE-OF-SIGHT to MATADERO CREEK ○NO FENCE in the line of sight ■We are currently impeded by the “orange netting visual aid” from seeing smaller pedestrians ○The fence set back from the edge of the Ellsworth Place road ■Drivers turning into Ellsworth Place have complained about nearly hitting the rebar poles holding up the “orange netting visual aid” ●ASPHALT APPROACH with WIDENED ENTRANCE CORNERS ○Gives the right-of-way to cars so they don’t have to back-up or make a hasty exit ○Allows cars to pass one another when turning in/out of Ellsworth Place ■Eliminates the need to completely stop on Middlefield Road ○Private streets that join busy roads are designed this way throughout Palo Alto ○Private streets in expensive neighborhoods are also designed this way Ellsworth Place Neighbors Want From:Kristen Van Fleet To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Veenker, Vicki Subject:PRS for Public Record of City Council Meeting, Sept. 18, 2023, Item 7, Regarding 2901 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place Date:Monday, September 18, 2023 9:06:50 AM Attachments:W005099_Release_6-27_Redacted (PAGE 18).pdf W005099_-_Release_5-3.pdf Public Record Search_6-13.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Kou, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, Please find attached a portion of the Public Record Search (PRS) documents received by Ellsworth Place Neighbors. These documents and many more were put into the public record for the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting held on July 12, 2023, under the public comments section on pages 89 - 94 of the PDF. Here is a link to reach that PDF and the additional documents: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/5/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-7.12-public- comments6.pdf We hope you will find this information helpful. Sincerely, Kristen A. Van Fleet on behalf of Ellsworth Place Neighbors From:Jeff Levinsky To:Council, City Subject:Suggested Corrections to Ellsworth Place Ordinances Date:Monday, September 18, 2023 6:51:01 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jeff@levinsky.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members: Please consider the following textual corrections and adjustments for the two proposed ordinances: 2901 Middlefield Ordinance 702 Ellsworth Ordinance Suggested Correction Section 1 (g)(ii)Correct “first 35 feet” to “first 42 feet” to match Section 5(a)(ii) and plan page A2.1 Section 5 (a) The sight triangle requirement is missing from the 2901 Middlefield ordinance despite it being marked on plan page A2.1 and the PTC recommendation for it at Section 1 (d)(ii). Given that the sight triangle helps ensure pedestrians on the sidewalk can be seen and is already in the plan, it should be added to the 2901 Middlefield ordinance. Section 5 (a)(v)The sight triangle alongside Middlefield does not extend to the creek, impairing full visibility. Council might address this by adjusting the plan and ordinance to “extend the Middlefield side of the sight triangle to the southernmost corner of the property.” Section 5 (a)(v)The phrase “new impediments” is imprecise as there is no clear documentation of what impediments exist now. There is also confusion over fences. To handle this, the text could be: “shall not be obstructed by fences and other impediments taller than 1 foot except trees with no branches below 8 feet” to allow existing trees to remain. Section 1 (d)(v) Section 5 (a)(i) Section 1 (d)(i) Section 5 (a)(ii) The PTC motion did not contain the phrase “perceived width” and it is both ambiguous and undefined in our Municipal Code. Council could replace the phrase “perceived width” with perhaps “drivable width” or simply “width.” Section 1 (g)(v)Section 1 (g)(v)Asserting consistency with Comprehensive Policy L-1.2 to “hold new development to the highest development standards” is clearly incorrect as regards the 24’ wide road, since our own development standards at §21.20.240 require the higher standard of a 32’ wide road or at least 26’ under certain circumstances. The argument in the staff report that a 26’ width, which the PTC recommended, would be an exaction overlooks that (a) our laws already require at least 26’, (b) a PC is always a voluntary rezoning initiated by a property owner and thus any public benefit of a PC is also voluntary and not an exaction, (c) the fundamental purpose for any PC per §18.38.010 is to have “controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts,” thus allowing for public benefits that wouldn’t be justifiable under a normal land use nexus argument, and (d) no similar objection has been ever raised for public benefits desired by the City for other PCs. The Council can follow staff’s suggestion to ask for 26 feet during deliberation while saying it can only make the finding for Policy L-1.2 and approve the PCs if the road is at least 26’ wide. Section 1 (d)(ii) Section 5 (b) The “truck delivery space” is only ten feet wide on plan page A2.1 and situated between a wall and a tall fence. This cannot accommodate modern delivery trucks or allow drivers to exit their trucks while carrying parcels. Hence, there is an inherent conflict between the ordinance language and the plan. The Council can require an alternative location of adequate width for the truck delivery space. Thank you From:gala b To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Veenker, Vicki Subject:For City Council Meeting on September 18, 2023, Item 7, Regarding 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place Date:Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:40:06 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from galab8@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Kou, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, As a mother of three elementary-aged children and resident of Ellsworth Place, my thoughts are that the orange netting temporary fence is not safe there, not allowing the seeing of pedestrians and cars as I drive out of Ellsworth Place onto Middlefield Road. The inclines and the narrowing of the road make it topographically challenging. I worry about what will be inside the fence if that fence were permanent. Who will keep the site triangle clear inside of the fence? The home occupant could not know this rule and then place shrubbery, large kid's toys, or a table and chair set, etc. in that corner that would block the visibility. No one has mentioned who has to police this and it would not be a good situation to be in, having to knock on the door and ask them to follow the rules! For the safety of the neighborhood, there should not be a fence within the sight triangle, and the line of sight needs to be clear to the creek where the sidewalk curves, narrows and has a blind spot for seeing pedestrians. Pedestrians don't see there is the Ellsworth Place road and come down that incline more quickly because they assume it is safe for them to use the sidewalk here. Thank you for keeping Midtown safe for my children. Sincerely, Gala Beykin From:Andrea Eyestone To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Ellsworth Place Proposal Safety Concerns Date:Sunday, September 17, 2023 5:50:19 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from aeyestone3@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Regarding the City Council Meeting on September 18, 2023, Agenda Item 7, for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place Dear Mayor Kou, Vice-Mayor Stone, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, We are writing to emphasize one of our concerns with the changes on Ellsworth Place being proposed by the developers. We are very concerned the temporary 3-foot fence is planned to become a permanent fence. Even with the temporary fence being made of netting, it obstructs sightlines, making it challenging for pedestrians, especially children, and drivers to anticipate each other's movements at the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road. Our concerns are rooted in the fact that the fence makes it extremely difficult for a car on Ellsworth Place to see our daughter when she walks or rides her bike on the sidewalk, and we have to keep her very close to us because she doesn't know to stop at that intersection since it doesn't look like a road. Additionally, when in our compact car, we are unable to see down the sidewalk, to the bend in the sidewalk at Matadero Creek, until our vehicle partially encroaches onto the sidewalk. These are serious safety issues, and we fear they could lead to accidents due to poor visibility, especially with children. Removal of the fence will help address this huge safety concern by keeping the line of sight clear, and an asphalt entry would bring awareness to both drivers and pedestrians that the Ellsworth Place road is there while providing a wider entry that allows two cars to pass one another for a safer entry/exit. We kindly request you take into consideration the safety concerns the fence poses to our neighborhood's children and residents. Sincerely, Daniel and Andrea Alberson From:Robyn Ziegler To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki Subject:For City Council September 18, 2023 Date:Sunday, September 17, 2023 2:07:20 PM Attachments:Screenshot 2023-09-16 at 5.35.59 PM.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from robynanne65@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Kou, Vice Mayor Stone, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, Ellsworth Place has already lost enough flora from the developers not opening pertinent applications, as occurred when the protected Valley Oak tree was torn out on October 8, 2018, without a permit. The excuse for removing the Oak was that rats were getting into their apartments! Had they applied for a permit to remove the protected tree, which is still registered with Canopy, they would have found out the property is governed by Ordinance PC-2343, and the full collection of six trees, as approved by the landscape plan when the apartments were built in 1969, which had a maturity of almost 50 years, would still be standing. The Google Maps photo from November 2017 shows the condition of the parking lot before the trees were removed. There are now orange-painted stakes set behind the gorgeous Olive Tree to the right as we exit Ellsworth Place. Is this beautiful/stately and mature tree going to be hacked down to provide for paving? I hope not, as this would be extremely unfortunate. The tree is not obstructing vision when exiting and turning. I trust there is a way to remediate the road circulation and safety concerns without destroying more flora on our street. Thank you in advance for your consideration, Robyn Ziegler 730 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Robert Chen To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Veenker, Vicki Cc:Kristen Van Fleet Subject:Regarding the City Council Meeting on September 18, 2023, Agenda Item 7, for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place Date:Saturday, September 16, 2023 11:44:10 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from chaoqiangc@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayo Kou, Vice-Mayor Stone, and members of the Palo Alto City Council, Per the Planned Community Ordinances (#1810 and #2343), the open space at the front of Ellsworth Pl is an important community benefit for people living on Ellsworth Pl as well as some tenants of the Apartments. For the past half century, it has provided a safety buffer for people get in and out of Ellsworth & the Apartments, which also including delivery & other service trucks. The split-off of the open space not only takes the community benefit from us because of somebody else's mistake (which is definitely unfair), but it also creates a serious public safety problem for people get in and out of the street. In my humble opinion and with 10+ years living on Ellsworth Pl, it would be safe for the City to keep the original PC zoning unchanged, to avoid future problems such as car accident & people get injured, which might cause potential lawsuit against the city due to the split-off of the open space. In addition, "Law and Order" should be respected in our renowned PALO ALTO, cutting of protected trees without permit should not be tolerated, not even be encouraged by sacrifice of other community members' benefit. Chaoqiang Chen Ellsworth Pl resident From:On Chong To:Council, City Subject:Regarding the Council Meeting, September 18, 2023, Item 7, 2901 Middlefield Rd and 702 Ellsworth Place Date:Saturday, September 16, 2023 4:16:52 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from on18881@hotmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Kou, Vice Mayor Stone, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, As property owners with tenants on Ellsworth Place, it is imperative for their safety and way of life on Ellsworth that this situation be resolved once and for all. Through this process, we learned that a portion of our property is on the abandoned section of the Ellsworth Place road, and we don't know who is responsible for it. Your packet includes this statement under Item 7: page 5, "If the City Council were interested in exploring the possibility of taking over ownership of Ellsworth Place that would need to be agendized as a separate discussion." We would like the road ownership "agendized" before making any changes to the existing PC-2343 Ordinance. As we understand it, the city can make the Ellsworth Road much safer over the "parking lot" area and as it joins Middlefield Road if the road is public. This discrimination against private roads is appalling, and the developer's proposal is more dangerous than our current road conditions over the parking lot as were designed and approved with the current PC-2343 Ordinance. Our tenants, like most people, rely on getting deliveries to their homes and it would be burdensome to their lives if they lost the ability to receive deliveries. This would in turn have a direct effect on our property values. The city must preserve package delivery to Ellsworth Place residents and also make the intersection at Middlefield Road and Ellsworth Place safer than what is being proposed by the developers. If this is not possible to do with the proposed development plans, then the current conditions of the PC-2343 Ordinance should remain in place. Sincerely, On Chong, Co-Owner of 717,723 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, CA Sent from my iPhone From:Chin Chong To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Regarding the Council Meeting, September 18, 2023, Item 7, 2901 Middlefield Rd and 702 Ellsworth Place Date:Saturday, September 16, 2023 4:05:18 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from chin18881@hotmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Kou, Vice Mayor Stone, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, As property owners with tenants on Ellsworth Place, it is imperative for their safety and way of life on Ellsworth that this situation be resolved once and for all. Through this process, we learned that a portion of our property is on the abandoned section of the Ellsworth Place road, and we don't know who is responsible for it. Your packet includes this statement under Item 7: page 5, "If the City Council were interested in exploring the possibility of taking over ownership of Ellsworth Place that would need to be agendized as a separate discussion." We would like the road ownership "agendized" beforemaking any changes to the existing PC-2343 Ordinance. As we understand it, the city can make the Ellsworth Road much safer over the "parking lot" area and as it joins Middlefield Road if the road is public. This discrimination against private roads is appalling, and the developer's proposal is more dangerous than our current road conditions over the parking lot as were designed and approved with the current PC-2343 Ordinance. Our tenants, like most people, rely on getting deliveries to their homes and it would be burdensome to their lives if they lost the ability to receive deliveries. This would in turn have a direct effect on our property values. The city must preserve package delivery to Ellsworth Place residents and also make the intersection at Middlefield Road and Ellsworth Place safer than what is being proposed by the developers. If this is not possible to do with the proposed development plans, then the current conditions of the PC-2343 Ordinance should remain in place. Sincerely, On and Chai Chin Chong Owner of 717/723 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto From:Bhanu Iyer To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:9/18/2023 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7 (2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place) Date:Saturday, September 16, 2023 12:14:27 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bhanuiyer9@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Kou, Vice-Mayor Stone, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, Thank you for your time and service to our community. While there is a lot to consider regarding this complicated situation, our biggest concerns are the following: 1. Safety: Our biggest concern 2. Optimum use of the road: For all residents and services (delivery and other vehicles) 3. Fairness: A developer's application for a home should be treated like every other resident on this street who has built or remodeled a home on Ellsworth Place. Please get in touch with me if you have any questions or need more information. Warm regards, Bhanu Bhanu Iyer 712 Ellsworth Place 650-269-4476 From:Camas J. Steinmetz To:Council, City; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Veenker, Vicki; Lauing, Ed Cc:French, Amy; Sauls, Garrett; Yang, Albert; Richard Dewey; Hayes, Ken Subject:Applicant Attorney Letter - Sept 18, 2023 Agenda Item No. 7 - 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Date:Friday, September 15, 2023 3:10:49 PM Attachments:image001.png Applicant Attorney Ltr re Agenda Item No. 7 - 2901-05 Middlefield 702 Ellsworth.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from cjs@jsmf.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Kou and Members of the City Council: On behalf of the 2901-2905 Middlefield applicant, please review and consider the attached letter prior to taking action on Agenda Item No. 7 at your upcoming September 18, 2023 Monday hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Camas J. Steinmetz, Esq. Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210 | Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: (650) 743-9700 |Email: cjs@jsmf.com W I L L I A M L. M c C L U R E J O H N L. F L E G E L D A N K. S I E G E L J E N N I F E R H. F R I E D M A N M I N D I E S. R O M A N O W S K Y D A V I D L. A C H G R E G O R Y K. K L I N G S P O R N N I C O L A S A. F L E G E L K R I S T I N A A. FE NT O N KI MBERLY J . BRUMME R C A M A S J . S T E I N M E T Z P HILIP S . S O USA _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B R I T T N E Y L. S T A N D L E Y CHRIST I AN D . PET RANG ELO J O R G E N S O N, S I E G E L, M c C L U R E & F L E G E L, L L P A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 1 1 0 0 A L M A S T R E E T, S U I T E 2 1 0 M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5 -3 3 9 2 (6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 -9 3 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 -0 2 2 7 w w w .j s m f .c o m O F C O U N S E L KE NT MITCHELL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R E T I R E D J O H N D. J O R G E N S O N MARG ARET A. SLO AN D I A N E S . G R E E N B E R G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D E C E A S E D M A R V I N S . S I E G E L (1 9 3 6 - 2 0 1 2 ) J O H N R.C O S G R O V E (1 9 3 2 - 2 0 1 7 ) 1 September 15, 2023 Mayor Kou and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Via Email Re: September 18, 2023 Agenda Item No. 7 - Ordinance Amending Planned Community 2343 zoning for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and Adopt an Ordinance Establishing a new Planned Community Zoning Designation to Enable the Development of a new Single-Story, Single-Family Residence on 702 Ellsworth Place Dear Honorable Mayor Kou and Members of the City Council: This law firm represents RLD Land LLC, the owner of the apartment building at 2901-2905 Middlefield which is subject to the above referenced jointly filed application with the owner of 702 Ellsworth Place. We respectfully request that you adopt the PC Ordinance for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road & Exhibit A (Development Plan) as recommended by Staff in Exhibit A of Staff Report #:2307-1763 for September 18, 2023 Agenda Item No. 7 (“Staff Report”). Specifically, we request that you approve – and not increase -- the 30-inch increased width of Ellsworth Place that our client has voluntarily offered to pave and grant an easement to the neighbors over on the 2901-2905 Middlefield side, as incorporated in Section 5(a) of the Staff recommended PC Ordinance for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road. 2 We wholeheartedly agree with Staff’s conclusion in the Staff Report that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)’s recommendation to further increase this paved width by an additional 12 inches on the 2901-2905 Middlefield side and by an additional 12 inches on the 702 Ellsworth side (for a total increased width to 26 feet) and grant an easement over this further increased width to the adjacent Ellsworth Place properties would constitute an unwarranted exaction: Staff’s conclusion is supported and articulated by the following comments from Commission Hechtman, who is a land use attorney by profession, at the August 9, 2023 PTC meeting: There’s a natural inclination when a proposal is made to develop a property to kind of look not at the project being proposed but at the surroundings and ask yourself well, okay they want to do this on this land. What problems can we solve while they’re doing this on this land and there can be in that process over reaches. You would… how do I explain this. There are limitations on conditions that we can impose or require… where you often see this is in with public street where somebody wants to develop something and the City wants them to improve a public street and you have to go through this analysis. Well, is what they’re doing creating a traffic impact because if it’s not creating a traffic impact then you can’t make them fix the public street. It’s just a public street that needs to be fixed… we don’t have a public street…. We have a private street and what the Commission is talking about doing last time and a little bit tonight is requiring one private property owner to give its property rights not to the public in relation to some impact of the project, but actually to 13 other private property owners. That’s what we’re talking about when we talk about requiring that these owners grant easements to the folks down the street and I don’t believe we have the power to do that as a City. To require… you know, anymore than we would have to say gosh, this new development is impacting the value of your 13 properties. So, we’re going to make the property owner give each of you $10,000. Right, we can’t do that and it’s particularly troubling here where again, if we look at the impacts of what is being proposed. The only traffic impact on Ellsworth from the totality of the proposal is a beneficial traffic impact. It’s beneficial, right compared to the existing conditions… 3 those neighbors are not saying hey, we really need 26 -feet here. Right, this road really needs to be 26-feet and so we are each willing to give the City 3-feet… the 3-foot 37 frontage of our property to make it a 26-foot public road. We’re not hearing that. What we’re hearing is a frustration by these neighbors that property they don’t own, that happens to be in front of us for development, isn’t going to 26-feet which is as near as I can tell it’s never been at. (Emphasis added). Indeed, the required essential nexus and rough proportionality between the Planning Commission’s recommended condition requiring the applicants to pave and grant an easement over additional width beyond what the applicants have voluntarily offered and the impacts of the proposed project on Ellsworth Place is entirely missing. Accordingly, imposing this condition would constitute an unconstitutional regulatory taking of private property without just compensation and therefore cannot constitutionally be imposed. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 319 (1994). The seminal cases of Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n and Dolan v. City of Tigard prohibit public agencies from conditioning a land use approval on the applicant/owner’s relinquishment of a portion of his or her property unless there is an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the agency demand and the effects of the proposed land use. In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987), the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a California Coastal Commission development permit conditions requiring dedication of a public access easement along the owner’s private beach. It held that this condition constituted a taking because there was no “nexus” or relationship between the purported impact of the development (obstruction of the public’s ability to view the beach) and the public access easement condition imposed. Id. at 837, 839. In Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 US 374, 391 (1994), the Supreme Court addressed the question left open by Nollan, adding the second prong to the nexus test. The court held that in addition to showing nexus, cities must show that development conditions placed on a discretionary approval have a “rough proportionality” to the development’s impact. In determining whether the condition imposed is roughly proportionate to the impact, the court stated “the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” Id. The court held that the city had not met its burden of demonstrating that that the building permit condition requiring dedication of a floodplain easement was roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed building. Both the Nollan and Dolan decisions stemmed from a permitting authority using its power and discretion to overreach in demanding concessions that were not adequately tied to project effects. The Court held that these agency decisions diminished the applicant’s property value without justification or compensation, thereby violating the Takings Clause of the Constitution. Thus, under Nollan and Dolan, a condition of approval must be related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed land use or permitted activity. As concluded by City staff and articulated by Commissioner Hechtman, there is no relationship between the Planning Commission’s recommended condition requiring the applicants to pave 4 and grant an easement over any additional width beyond what the applicants have voluntarily offered and the impacts of the proposed project (to amend the PC Ordinance to remove the 702 Ellsworth site to allow for its development as a single family home and to accommodate 4 additional parking spaces and a temporary loading space on the 2901-05 Middlefield site) on Ellsworth Place. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.’s traffic report dated April 14, 2023 which was accepted by City transportation staff concludes that “[t]he existing 20 feet width of Ellsworth Place is adequate for two-way traffic and emergency vehicles access” and “[t] he existing intersection of Ellsworth Place with Middlefield Road has adequate width.” Nonetheless, the applicants have voluntarily offered to increase these widths by a combined total of four feet. As Commissioner Hechtman points out, the project’s impact on Ellsworth Place is in fact beneficial - not detrimental - as it will improve the existing vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian safety of the intersection of Middlefield and Ellsworth Place and on Ellsworth Place by: • Creating an enhanced 35-foot sight triangle at Ellsworth/Middlefield. • Widening the curb cut approach at Ellsworth/Middlefield by 4 feet to a total of 28 feet at the street flare. • Widening the width of Ellsworth Place to 24 ft by (1) paving an additional 30-inch width on the 2901-05 Middlefield side beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending approximately 37 feet to the location of an existing utility pole guy-wire; (2) paving an additional 18-inch width on the 702 Ellsworth side beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending approximately 42 feet to the proposed walkway to the single-family residence. • Offering an ingress and egress easement over the additional paved width to the other properties on Ellsworth Place. • Providing a temporary delivery and loading space onsite at 2901-05 Middlefield Road which is not otherwise required by Code; and • Reducing vehicle trips on Ellsworth by reducing the number of parking spaces using Ellsworth Place and accommodating all current required parking for the 12-unit apartment complex onsite and moving the trash pickup to the Sutter entrance. • Accommodating all current required parking for the existing 12-unit apartment building on site at 2901-05 Middlefield Road Accordingly, we respectfully request that you adopt the PC Ordinance for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road & Exhibit A (Development Plan) as recommended by Staff without modification. Imposing the PTC’s recommended conditions to require the applicants pave and/or grant an easement over any additional width beyond what the applicants have voluntarily offered cannot 5 constitutionally be imposed. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 319 (1994). Respectfully submitted, JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP By: Camas Steinmetz Cc: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Garret Saul, Project Planner Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney From:Kristen Van Fleet To:Burt, Patrick; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Kou, Lydia; Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Veenker, Vicki; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Planning Commission; William Ross Subject:Re: Ellsworth Place - For September 18, 2023, Agenda Item 7 - 2901 Middlefield Road Date:Thursday, September 14, 2023 2:44:25 PM Attachments:Chicago Title_July 27_2023_950674-Letter.pdf Misrepresentation of the deed to 705 Ellsworth Place_ptc-7.12-public-comments6.pdf Jeff Levinsky Letter_ptc-7.12-public-comments6.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Regarding City Council Meeting on September 18, 2023, Item 7 Dear Mayor Kou, Vice-Mayor Stone, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, Attached are the remaining 3 PDFs. Sincerely, Kristen A. Van Fleet on behalf of Ellsworth Place Residents On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:36 PM Kristen Van Fleet <kvanfleet@gmail.com> wrote: Regarding City Council Meeting on September 18, 2023, Item 7 Dear Mayor Kou, Vice-Mayor Stone, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, For your reference, Ellsworth Place Residents have prepared an outline of refutes and additional PDF documents to correct statements made in the packet, as prepared for the meeting of September 18, 2023, item 7 on the agenda. There are a total of 4 PDF files, which will be sent in two emails. We invite all of you to come for a site visit to Ellsworth Place and meet with us prior to this meeting. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Kristen A. Van Fleet on behalf of Ellsworth Place Residents July 27, 2023 Paul W Bigbee & Kristen A Van Fleet VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL 724 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, CA 94306 kvanfleet@gmail.com RE: Claim Number: 950674 Policy No.: 114918-VW Insured: Paul W. Bigbee & Kristen A. Van Fleet Property: 724 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Dear Mr. Bigbee & Ms. Van Fleet, This letter is to inform you that Chicago Title Insurance Company (the “Company”) has reviewed the documents submitted with the above-referenced claim. As discussed below, coverage is not afforded for this claim. The Company understands the facts underlying the claim as follows: On or about July 12, 2004, Weichert Relocation Resources, Inc. conveyed the property commonly known as 724 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (the “Property”) to you via Corporation Grant Deed recorded in Santa Clara County on July 22, 2004, as Document No. 17915468. In connection with the transaction, you were issued the above-referenced ALTA Homeowner’s Policy of Title Insurance (the “Policy”), with an effective date of July 22, 2004. The Policy was underwritten by the Company. The Property abuts Ellsworth Place, a private way which leads to Middlefield Road, a public way. Recently, the owner of the property commonly known as 702 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (“702 Ellsworth”), which abuts Ellsworth Place between the Property and Middlefield Road, contested your right to cross over the portion of Ellsworth Place abutting 702 Ellsworth. You have submitted this claim to address the possibility that the Property lacks access to a public way. For the Company to have liability for a claim, the claim must fall within one of the Covered Risks of the Policy and not also fall within an exception or exclusion from coverage. Covered Risk 11 of the Policy insures against a lack vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the Property, based upon a legal right. The Company’s investigation has revealed that the Property has both vehicular and pedestrian access to Middlefield Road, a public way, based upon a legal right. Specifically, on or about January 30, 1946, Katherine Emerson, who owned the entirety of Ellsworth Place at the time, conveyed the Property, including the portion of Ellsworth Place abutting the Property, to Frank and Ruth Coulombe via Grant Deed recorded in Santa Clara County in Book 1322, Page 523 (the “1946 Deed”). In addition to the Property, the 1946 Deed conveyed to Frank and Ruth Coulombe an easement over the portion of Ellsworth Place between Middlefield Road and the Property. On or about May 10, 1947, Frank and Ruth Coulombe conveyed the Property, not including the portion of Ellsworth Place abutting the Property, to Robert and Ruth Gates via Grant Deed recorded in Santa Clara County in Book 1470, Page 581 (the “1947 Deed”). In addition to the Property, the 1947 Deed conveyed to Robert and Ruth Gates an easement over the portion of Ellsworth Place from Middlefield Road to the Property, including the portion of Ellsworth Place abutting the Property (the “Easement”). The Easement, which provides vehicular and pedestrian access from the Property to Middlefield Road, continues benefit the Property, as it has never been released or otherwise extinguished.1 As such, the Property has a legal right of access as insured by the Policy. Additionally, please be advised that the Policy does not provide coverage for informal disputes with other parties over the use of Easement or their improper interference with your right to utilize the Easement. Here, as stated above, the Company’s investigation has revealed that the Property has a right of access to a public way via the Easement. Although the owner of 702 Ellsworth Place has disputed your right to utilize the Easement, they have not presented a meaningful legal challenge to the validity of the Easement. Therefore, this matter does not create a defect in title for which the Policy affords coverage. Based on the foregoing, coverage is not afforded for this claim. Reference to any particular provision of the Policy in this letter, the contents of this letter, and the contents of any prior correspondence, do not constitute and shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term or provision of the Policy, any grounds for denial, or any applicable defenses as may be afforded by law. The Company retains the right to supplement this letter. Please also note that the above is based upon the information currently available to the Company. If there are any facts which were unknown to the Company upon making this coverage determination, and which may alter such determination, please provide this information or documentation in writing as soon as possible and your claim will be reevaluated. If I do not receive additional information or documentation, your claim file will be closed in 30 days from the date of this letter. Enclosed is a “Notice” for your reference. This notice is provided pursuant to state regulations and contains certain information that may be of assistance to claimants whose claims have been denied. Please contact me at (402) 498-7111 or via email at seth.brian@fnf.com should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. Please reference the above claim number in all communications with my office. Thank you. Sincerely, Seth Brian Claims Counsel, AVP Enclosure. 1 Moylan v. Dykes, 181 Cal.App.3d 561, 571–72 (1986) (an express appurtenant easement benefits land until released or extinguished, even if not mentioned in subsequent deeds). NOTICE You have various rights, and limitations upon those rights, as provided in the policy or guarantee, under state or federal law, or under governmental regulations. It is important that you are aware of the following: ARBITRATION Your policy or guarantee may give you, and the Company, the right to Arbitration. If the right to Arbitration is contained in the Conditions and Stipulations of the policy or guarantee, then you may request that a neutral Arbitrator hear any coverage decision made by the Company. If you should decide to seek Arbitration, then the Company upon request will provide a copy of the Rules for Arbitration to you. COMPLAINTS TO THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER If you believe all or part of your claim has been wrongfully denied or rejected, you may have the matter reviewed by the California Department of Insurance. The California Department of Insurance may be contacted at Claims Services Bureau, 300 South Spring Street, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90013. The telephone number is (213) 897-8921. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS California Code of Civil Procedure §339 provides that the aggrieved party must file an action on a guaranty of title or policy of title insurance within two (2) years from the discovery of the loss or damage. The statute of limitations may be longer in other states. From:sel lightahead.com To:Dao, Veronica; Planning Commission Subject:Fw: Misinformation Given in Packet for PTC Meeting of June 28, 2023 - Action Item #2 Date:Monday, July 10, 2023 11:24:39 AM Attachments:705 Ellsworth Deed.pdf Geroge stern Grant Deed-705 Ellsworth place_12915085.PDF Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. my understanding is that you did not receive this email. please let me know if you have any questions or need more information. From: sel lightahead.com Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 10:34 AM To: Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org <amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org>; garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org <garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org>; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Misinformation Given in Packet for PTC Meeting of June 28, 2023 - Action Item #2 Regarding: The Continuation of Action Item #2 from the PTC meeting of June 28, 2023, “2901 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Request for Rezoning to Amend Planned Community 2343 (PC2343)...” (Applications 23PLN-27, 23PLN-00027, 23PLN-00025) July 6, 2023 Dear Chair Summa and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission: Please find attached copies of the deeds to 705 Ellsworth Place, one is mine and the other is from the previous homeowner. Referring to the Staff Report prepared for the PTC meeting of June 28, 2023, Action Item #2, Please go to the deed presented on PDF page 39, (Packet page 47). This incorrect deed, along with a map showing the utility easements over the 702 property, were prepared by First American Title on behalf of the developers, and then presented to neighbors by Amy French during her sight visit on February 24, 2023. Neighbors had informed Amy that this deed was for 705 Ellsworth Place but it is continuing to be used incorrectly as per the PTC Packet prepared for June 28. 2023, Action Item #2. In view of the complexity of the two issues being discussed, ownership of the street and zoning for Mr. Handa's property, it would seem to make sense to review these in sequence rather than in parallel since the decision of one will impact the other. Sincerely, Susan E. Light, MD RECORDING REQUES 1 ED BY: Old Republic Title Company Order No.: 0626019795. APN; 127-35-135 When Recorded Mail Document and Tax Staternents to: Susan Light 705 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto, CA 94306 i 11 i DOCUMENT: 21327882 1 II N 111 i 111 11 i N RECINA ALCOMENDRAS SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDER Recorded at the request of Old Republic Title Company Fees.. Taxes.. Copies_ AMT PAID SPACE ABOVE THIS LfNE IS FOR RECORDERS USE Pages 3 3100 ** Con{ 3/.@t3 RDE # 005 9/2@/201! 8:00 AM Corporation Grant Deed.:. FUR REQUESTS the undersigned grantor(s) declare(s): R &T CODE 11932-11933 DO NOT RESORD STAMP VALUt Documentary Transfer Tax is Filor requests - Do not record stamp value X //I •�� ' /�i ,( (X) computed on full value of property conveyed, or LL �/I ( ) computed on full value less of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. ( ) l Inincorporate'i area: (X) City of Palo Alto FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, DGB Investments, Inc. , a Delaware corporation hereby GRANT(S) to Susan Light , an unmarried woman that property in City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, State of California, described as: See "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Date; September 08, 2011 In Witness Whereof, said corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed hereto and this instrument to be executed by its duty authorized officers. DGB Investments, Inc., a.alifor*+a Corporation By: ucugias G_ rerga,.n, PieSitjEllt Grant Deed MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE Page 1 of 2 STATE OF _ �-- '1 )SS COUNTY OF \ /`) t`t7 /T' L R-1 On ;' i-c 7 before me, 7 r '� ? % Public, personally appeared F ;,.1 i Notary who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal Signature My Commission Expires: Notary Name: ,t 1` 5 � ! i-ti Notary Registration Number: / ` l / ) 6 S z SAM SANE Commission # 1919265 Notary Public - California Santa Clara County My Comm, Expires Jan 25.2015 This area for official notarial sea/ Notary Phone; 7 County of Principal Place of Business: &'7'i `- rC-?1 Page 2 ORDER NO.: 0626030874 EXHIBIT A The land referred to is situated in the County of Santa Clara, City of Palo Alto, State of California, and is described as follows: Parcel One: CM. Wooster Company's Subdivision of the Clarke Ranch, Mayfield, filed November 11, 1912 in Book "0" of Maps, Page 16, Santa Clara County Records, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center line of Middlefield Road distance thereon S. 52° E. 355.74 feet from the common corner of Lots 70 and 71; thence leaving said center line and running parallel with the line dividing said Lots 70 and 71, N. 38° E. 135 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the Parcel of Land described herein; thence from said last name point of beginning N. 38° E. and parallel with said dividing line between said Lots 70 and 71, a distance of 115 feet; thence parallel with the center line of Middlefield Road, N. 52° W. 44.50 feet; thence S. 38° W. 115 feet; thence S. 52° E. 44.50 feet to the point of beginning, being a part of Lot 71 of the subdivision herein referred to. Parcel Two: A Non -Exclusive right of way as appurtenant to the property herein above described as Parcel No. One for ingress and Egress over a strip of Land described as follows: Beginning at a point on the center line of Middlefield Road distant thereon South 52° East 355.74 feet from the common corner of Lots 70 and 71, as shown on said Map; thence along said line of Middlefield Road, South 52° East 20 feet; thence at right angles and parallel with the line dividing said Lots 70 and 71, N. 38° E. 250.00 feet; thence at right angles and parallel with the center line of Middlefield Road N. 52° W. 20 feet; thence at right angles S. 38° W. 250 feet to the point of beginning. APN: 127-35-135 ARB: 127-35-135 Page 1 of 1 Order No. 277608 Escrow Nom" 408946MP Loan No. WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: GEORGE H. STERN 705 Ellsworth Place ,Palo Alto, Ca. 94306 N88tPfGE0549 REC FEE RAIF MICRO rRTCF LIEN SUPF TCJ peon DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $-- 784.90 -X— Computed on the consideration or value 01 property conveyed: OR Computed on the consideration or value fess Hone or encumbrances remaining at Unto of sale. . City of Palo Alto Transfer Tax $854.70 129-35=135 1291 5085 Recorded at the Request of First American Title Guaranty Co. JUN 1 3 1995 a.M BRENDA DAVIS. Recorder Santa Clara County. Official Records SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE FOR RECORDER'S USE As declared by the undersigned Grantor signature or Ooatis►Aht or Agent oararmililsg tax Hrm tvame- GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, THOMAS E. STEWART and MARTHA CASTILLO, husband and wife hereby GRANT(S) to GEORGE H. STERN. an unmarried man the real property In the City of County of Palo Alto Santa Clara , State of California, described as SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Dated ___ Mav 26. 195_ } STATE OF CALIFORNIA )as. COUNTY OF San MaCea - 1 on �t as yy 2 6 '-- 19 9 5 bolors m6. istti ne Rt — potaonalfy appeared THOMAS I=_ STF4VART nnt1 MARTHA °oAeSTU_l_G3 paraenstiy known to too (0t droved to me on tlw basis of satisfactory av1Benooy to tre the poison(*) whose names) Wars subscrtbed to the *Mtn instrument and acknowledged to me that he✓shadthey executed the, Santo to sett authorized capactty(les), and that by h1 1 ar/sitatt mss. is on the tnatrum 6t (s) or.th o entity t pr ms bonati of Icis , - patsotlia Ted. ex tali tiratt rn.r scant. WITNESS Octal MAIL T -' STATEM NTS TO: SAME AS ABOVE )E� Thoothaa E, Sf wart V/ v Martha Cast 11 wcom!lqi. t q h-�- .h -A -s - ANNE KAZ Comm Ai022325 /L HOTAtlV r UBLFC CAL'PO/MA - rsAN UArt:acawary 0 etown E .maa. Mali, 24. t i$ t488 1 PAGEO55O Omer No. 277608 Page No. 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION REAL PROPERTY in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: C.M. Wooster Company's Subdivision of the Clarke Ranch. Mayfield, filed November 11, 1912 In E3ook 'o' of Maps, page 16. Santa Clara County Records, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center line of Middlefield Road distant thereon S. 52' E. 355.74 feet from the common comer for Lots 70 and 71; thence leaving said center line and running parallel with the line dividing said Lots 70 and 71. N. 38' E. 135 feet to the true point of beginning of the parcel of land described herein; thence from said last named point of beginning. N. 38' E. and parallel with said dividing line between said Lots 70 and 71, a distance 01 115 feet thence parallel with the center line of Middlefield Road N. 52' W. 44.50 feet; thence S. 38' W. 115 feet; thence S. 52' E. 44.50 feet to the pol:it of beginning, being a part 01 Lot 71 01 the Subdivision herein referred to. PARCEL TVVO: A non --exclusive right of way as appurtenant to the property hereinabove described as Parcel No. One for ingress and egress over a strip of land described as follows: Beginning at a point on the center line of Middlefield Road distant thereon S. 52' E. 355.74 feet from the Common comer of Lots 70 and 71, as shown upon the map of said Subdivision; thence along the center line of Middlefield Road S. 52' E 20 feet; thence at right angles and parallel with the common line of said Lots 70 end 71, N. 38' E. 250.00 feet; thence at tight singles and parallel with the center line of Middlefield Road N. 52' W. 20 feet; thence at right angles S. 38' W. 250 feet to the point of beginning. APN: 127..35-135 ;1 1 1111 hF yr'! ;;911 11 II From:Jeff Levinsky To:Planning Commission Subject:Important Corrections Regarding Ellsworth Place PC Date:Wednesday, July 12, 2023 6:54:13 AM You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning Commissioners: A member of the applicant’s team at your June 28, 2023 hearing tried during rebuttal to discount the upzoning in the current PC proposed amendment by claiming the 1967 PC had already upzoned the property to have more units than allowed. He stated that upzoning would have been a reason for the PC in 1967 because: “the density didn’t comply with the RM-15 because our density is like at 20 DUA [dwelling units per acre]” The above statement contains two major errors. First, the RM-15 zone did not exist back in 1967. So the 1967 approval could not possibly have used RM-15 standards. Rather, the zoning designation the City evaluated the 1967 project under was R-3:G ( “Residential Garden Apartment District”), as can be seen in this excerpt from the March 1, 1967 City Council meeting: Second, the 1967 apartment project did not exceed its allowed density. At the bottom of this excerpt from City Ordinance 1426 is the rule for calculating the number of units allowed in R- 3:G: The R-3:G lot area rule above (Sec 8.11) requires a lot size of 24,500 square feet for a 12 unit apartment building (2,500 sq. ft. for the first unit + 2,000 sq. ft. for each of the 11 other units). So 12 units could legally be built on the 1967 PC lot, which was slightly larger at 26,478 sq. ft. in size after combining the four parcels extending from Sutter to the creek, including 2,000 sq. ft. of the Ellsworth Place road. The 1967 project’s own architect himself explicitly stated that the project was compliant with R-3:G zoning in the City Council minutes excerpt above. In sum, the City Council did not upzone the property when it approved the 12 units in 1967 because those 12 units were legal under R-3:G rules for the combined site. Rather, the obvious reason for the PC was to combine those four parcels, which included a street and land on both sides of the street, for the calculation. The statement made to the PTC in rebuttal was not correct. Bringing this forward to the present, by removing 702 Ellsworth Place and the street from the project, the current City Council will have to upzone the property to allow 12 units on the reduced site, as that lot size allows only 9 units under RM-20. By the way, had the applicant in 1967 excluded 702 Ellsworth Place and the road segment from the project, he would have only have been allowed 9 units on 2901 Middlefield Road under the R-3:G rules. Simply put, the R- 3:G rules were more generous than RM-15 and allowed about the same density as RM-20 today. I hope this makes clear that the current proposal is requesting significant upzoning whereas the existing PC, as approved in 1967, actually did not. Determining if any public benefits offered by the proposed amendment justify the upzoning therefore remains relevant. Thank you, Jeff Levinsky From:Kristen Van Fleet To:Burt, Patrick; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Kou, Lydia; Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Veenker, Vicki; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Planning Commission; William Ross Subject:Ellsworth Place - For September 18, 2023, Agenda Item 7 - 2901 Middlefield Road Date:Thursday, September 14, 2023 2:38:14 PM Attachments:Ellsworth - Letter for City Council Meeting on September 18, 2023 - Google Docs.pdf.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Regarding City Council Meeting on September 18, 2023, Item 7 Dear Mayor Kou, Vice-Mayor Stone, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, For your reference, Ellsworth Place Residents have prepared an outline of refutes and additional PDF documents to correct statements made in the packet, as prepared for the meeting of September 18, 2023, item 7 on the agenda. There are a total of 4 PDF files, which will be sent in two emails. We invite all of you to come for a site visit to Ellsworth Place and meet with us prior to this meeting. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Kristen A. Van Fleet on behalf of Ellsworth Place Residents Regarding: The meeting scheduled for September 18, 2023, Item 7 - Adopt an Ordinance Amending Planned Community 2343 zoning for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and Adopt an Ordinance Establishing a new Planned Community zoning designation for to Enable the Development of a new Single-Story, Single-Family Residence on 702 Ellsworth Place . September 13, 2023 Dear Mayor Kou, Vice-Mayor Stone, and members of the City of Palo Alto City Council, For your reference, Ellsworth Place Residents have prepared an outline of refutes and additional PDF documents to correct and/or support the record regarding statements made in the packet, as prepared by the CPA Planning Department for item 7 on the agenda of the September 18. 2023 meeting. (Please keep reading past the signatures, and also refer to the attached PDFs.) The existing PC-2343 is a far better situation than what the developers are offering, and we ask that you either deny the application(s) or send them back to the PTC for better planning. For us, this is about SAFETY and TRUTH which encompasses fair treatment under the law and also having accurate information presented so that a safe and sensible solution can be designed for the greater good of all who traverse on or near Ellsworth Place in Palo Alto, CA. We must interact with Middlefield Road, a busy 4-lane road without a shoulder or bike lane, in close proximity to a school, recreational centers, and shopping centers. We want: ● a sensible line-of-site to Matadero Creek without a fence impeding L.O.S. or on the road edge ● adequate road circulation maintained at a DRIVEABLE 26-foot width over the first 100-foot section of the Ellsworth Place road so delivery vehicles do not have to back out onto Middlefield Road or park in its right lane, or back up through utility poles or use of pavered driveways. Delivery companies will refuse to deliver to Ellsworth Place if the conditions are not safe or parking is illegal. (As confirmed by UPS, and documented with Amazon and Fed-Ex.) ● A USEABLE DELIVERY SPACE to fit a delivery truck, measuring 11 feet wide x 26 feet long. There is room for this if the first utility pole is removed and no inquiries have been opened regarding this. (Nor has Comcast been asked about moving the cable box on the corner.) We have been working on this for over eight months, with the developers spending money on expensive letters, charts, and diagrams that remove all benefits of the current PC-2343, and offer the community nothing in exchange . Their proposals decrease current road circulation and safety on Ellsworth Place at Middlefield Road and create undue hardship and undue burden on the homeowners and tennants! Ellsworth Place residents have throughout this process: (photos and documents can be provided) 1) had our property rights challenged with false claims presented in attorney letters, that, despite our presenting supporting documents to CPA to refute these claims, required a letter from Chicago Title to defend our property rights and make the repeated threats stop. 2) mourned the illegal removal of a protected Valley Oak tree along with several other large and beautiful 50-year-old trees that were a part of the PC landscape plan of the apartment parking lot. 1 3) had our deeds misused and falsely represented. The homeowner of 705 Ellsworth Place continues to have their deed misrepresented as belonging to the apartments, even though documents and the correct deed for the apartments were put into the public record. This deed is incorrectly referred to yet again, see below, Item 7: Staff Report Pg 4 - Packet page 146 . 4) dealt with full-size semi-trucks blocking the Ellsworth Place road, more than once, and also the operation of house-shaking equipment by the developer without a permit on the “parking lot”. 5) endured illegal and dangerous temporary fencing that was placed around the parking lot, between December 2022 and April 2023, along with an unsightly dirt and wood pile dumped on top of the parking lot; even though a call to code enforcement on December 20, 2022, revealed it was illegal for the fence and dirt pile to be placed there. 6) not been properly notified about the planned projects for the apartment complex located at 2901 Middlefield Road, which also includes the parking lot known as “702 Ellsworth Place”. When they were posted, the QR codes did not work for several months, nor was any information about the projects available online. Any information had to come through emails with CPA Planning Staff and neighbors received differing and/orconfusing answers, or questions went unanswered. 7) had emails with questions forwarded to the developer in lieu of City Planning answering them. 8) had our letters left out of “the Packet” as prepared for the pre-screening on March 13, 2023, even though we were told all of our letters would be included. 9) received notices for public meetings less than 7 days in advance of the meetings, and/or the notices had the wrong application number on them, or they didn’t provide contact information for where to send letters. 10) received a flier for a meeting with the developers less than 24 hours before the meeting time, with some of the single-page fliers placed in our mailboxes without stamps. 11) experienced discrimination by CPA Planning Staff by their giving special treatment to the developers throughout this entire process. Public records revealing emails between CPA Planning Staff and the developer ’s attorney and architect. We were verbally told the packets are prepared in support of this project because that is what they heard the City Council wanted at the pre-screening meeting, and also being told we are a “private road” so they can’t help us. 12) have had verbal threats by CPA Planning Staff to ban delivery trucks on our street. 13) have had verbal threats by CPA Planning Staff of eminent domain of 3’ from our properties. 14) have had phone messages and emails ignored and never returned by the CPA Attorney’s department, when attempting to get false information corrected. 15) been denied the opportunity to review plans from the developers when those plans were not entered into the public record ahead of the PTC meeting on July 12, 2023. Those plans were almost voted on without the public being allowed to comment on them! (The packet was unchanged, and we were told only comments from new people were allowed at that meeting.) 16) received incomplete public records searches with emails cut off or missing from the chains. 2 17) received rude treatment by CPA staff when an inquiry for a translator was initially granted and then retracted less than three hours before the meeting was set to begin. 18) continued to compensate for the visual impairment caused by orange netting still in place, which is being used as a 3-foot fence “visual aid” as we exit Ellsworth Place. A fence in this location is dangerous to vehicles and pedestrians alike. (Refer to the photo on the next page.) 19) been given inadequate amounts of time to respond to the developer’s plans. We were given only 5 days to react to the “visual aids” that were half-set up for our benefit. They were initially not installed correctly, and the CPA Planning Staff took weeks to correct them! 20) continued to give useful feedback regarding this development, only to read in the current packet that the developers do not intend to do what they originally offered! They are using the verbiage “PERCEIVED WIDTH” on all of the ordinance drafts, which is not the same thing as driveable width. This narrows our road from its current 21.5 to 26-foot wide width (over the first 100-foot length of the road) down to a 20-foot road width, thereby affecting road circulation. Additional dangerous situations are added including the road continuing into the walkway of the house and the road ending at guy wires. It will prevent vehicles from safely turning around before exiting onto Middlefield Road (requiring them to instead back up onto Middlefield Road), and delivery trucks may no longer be allowed to enter Ellsworth Place, thereby creating undue burden and undue hardship, and causing logistical nightmares, especially to our senior-aged residents. 21) heard half-truths and excuses from the developers about the inability to move utility infrastructure on their property, the function of which would maintain the road circulation. We have learned through our own inquiries that applications were never opened by the developers to obtain needed information about whether or not the utility infrastructure can be moved. Quoting Commissioner Vice-Chair Chang, from Item 7: Staff Report Pg 62 - Packet page 204 “…we’re actually being asked to give rights and in exchange, we’re asking to make something safer. Not necessarily to give rights to only 13 property owners but really what we’re doing is trying to make things safer for all... for the rest of our City. For all the people who traverse that opening on Ellsworth. There’s quite a lot of bicyclists and pedestrians who are using that sidewalk. Particularly, given the proximity to the Midtown shopping area and also lots of young children using it to get to Winder Lodge and the Kim Grant Tennis Center and just lots of pedestrians in general. Those of us who did site visits I’m sure saw lots of pedestrians and bicyclists and in addition, there’s the school across the street and the Middlefield itself is a really busy thoroughfare so lots of cars. And so, we’re just trying to make this area safer because no matter what those... no matter what those 13 households do have to use Ellsworth for ingress and egress and if we make it safer for them to go in and out at that opening. We make it safer for everybody else at that intersection and so that’s how I looked at it.“ The Ellsworth Place Neighbors agree with Commissioner Chang. Our objections come from a daily understanding of what it is like to live on Ellsworth Place and interact with Middlefield Road. We have documents from over ten years ago that state our concerns for safety at this intersection. 3 DO YOU SEE THE CHILD IN THIS PICTURE? In addition to safety, and as was mentioned more than once during the last PTC meeting on August 9, 2023, the road widening easements being offered by the developers could be accepted by the CPA, but not by the homeowners of a “private road”. Apparently some consider this to be “exaction” of property because it they consider this to only benefit a private road, even though members of the public who traverse by Ellswoth Place are also being affected by these decisions. So establishing road ownership before final approval of the PC applications is granted (or denied) is warranted. We also want more common sense implemented in the developer's plans such as not having the road end into the pavered walkway of the house and guy lines, finding adequate room to park and turn delivery trucks around in a way that actually works, and moving the front fence back along a sight triangle to keep our view clear to the creek fence, where the sidewalk bends before descending over Matadero Creek. If these changes require a smaller house footprint, then we do not see a problem with this as the developers have proposed a house that is 55% larger, on a sub-standard R-1 lot, than the average sub-standard R-1 home on Ellsworth Place; our homes have an average size of 1,090 sq ft. How Delivery Trucks Use “The Parking Lot” 4 Where Delivery Trucks Will Park If No Useable Space is Provided The proposed “delivery space” is not useable! According to UPS, their trucks are between 10 and 11 feet wide. If conditions are not safe or not legal for their drivers to deliver packages then customers will need to provide an alternative delivery address or pick up their packages at the UPS Depot in East Menlo Park. Quoting Commissioner Akin, from Item 7: Staff Report Pg 63 - Packet page 205 “...the only solutions we can come up with involve using other private property to solve the same problems. So, I think there’s a clue here that there is just not enough space for a simple answer.” Quoting Commissioner Chair Suma, from Item 7: Staff Report Pg 63 - Packet page 205 “ I’m very moved by what Commissioner Akin just said and I think it’s... if I heard him right he was expressing concern that there’s sort of conundrum here that we don’t have enough space to need what we... to do what we need to do in this location. And that’s kind of the Palo Alto... I won’t say process but the problem that I often see is and my analogy is somebody with a size ten foot is trying to squeeze into a size 6 shoes. So, we have... we really need to compromise here to get something that makes everybody happy and I believe there was overreach in the process and we have not allowed that. For instance, the determination of private or public street was not our Agenda as much as I know the people... people really care about it. It wasn’t agendized, it wasn’t part of this process but this is an amendment of a PC and a creation of a new PC and those are supposed to have public benefit.” The Ellsworth Place Neighbors implore you to establish real public benefit in this PC amendment and creation process and enforce changes that make the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road safer. The current PC-2343 Ordinance provides a safer situation with a harmonious design that takes the existing Ellsworth Place home into consideration. The proposed changes to PC-2343 and the new PC are not harmonious with existing homes and they create a dangerous situation. We know there are better solutions to be had that balance safety with profit. 5 We ask you to vote against the approval of these new ordinances or to send them back to the PTC for changes that make their proposals safe for all who traverse on or near Ellsworth Place. Thank you for all you do to help make Palo Alto a better City! Sincerely, The Ellsworth Place Neighbors `V) lA--t _d4aAJ(-LtA- 4 0 21_1 (30t5.3., ?V 1)c. 4/ 7,7 Yev Jk7I-t( eti) 4144-1-4` X36 Ellsworth Place Neighbors Respond to the CPA City Council Packet for September 18, 2023 Item 7: Staff Report Pg 1 - Packet page 143 "Area residents raised several initial concems about the recent selling of one of the planned community zoned properties and were instrumental in identifying a zoning map error that showed one of the parcels as zoned for single family residential use instead of being part of a larger planned community project." The above statement needs more details to avoid some confusion it creates. CPA Code Enforcement found both ordinances governing the parking lot parcel. They would have been discovered when the application was submitted. They come up in a simple Google search, and the Santa Clara County Assessor's office has the property listed as a "parking lot". (Zoning for an R-1 lot and a parking lot can't exist simultaneously.) z -g 6 We ask you to vote against the approval of these new ordinances or to send them back to the PTC for changes that make their proposals safe for all who traverse on or near Ellsworth Place. Thank you for all you do to help make Palo Alto a better City! Sincerely, The Ellsworth Place Neighbors _____________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Ellsworth Place Neighbors Respond to the CPA City Council Packet for September 18, 2023 Item 7: Staff Report Pg 1 - Packet page 143 “Area residents raised several initial concerns about the recent selling of one of the planned community zoned properties and were instrumental in identifying a zoning map error that showed one of the parcels as zoned for single family residential use instead of being part of a larger planned community project.” The above statement needs more details to avoid some confusion it creates. CPA Code Enforcement found both ordinances governing the parking lot parcel. They would have been discovered when the application was submitted. They come up in a simple Google search, and the Santa Clara County Assessor’s office has the property listed as a “parking lot”. (Zoning for an R-1 lot and a parking lot can’t exist simultaneously.) 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: B42D8F4F-C126-4E08-B437-BE724C3ADD20 Venketa Kurra HISTORY: On June 14, 2022, Kristen A. Van Fleet had a 10:00 a.m. virtual meeting with CPA Planning Emily Foley and Project Coordinator Henry Rafael. She asked how the parking lot could be sold, where will overflow parking from the apartments go, and how would a basement be approved right next to the creek. The property had been listed for sale about two weeks earlier with the address “700 Ellsworth Place” and advertised house plans with a basement and a wall touching the edge of Ellsworth Place. Neighbors were very worried about circulation issues on Ellsworth Place and settlement issues to our houses. Kristen was told by Emily that this transaction is between the buyer and the seller, that the buyer is responsible, and because Ellsworth Place is a private street they (CPA) can’t help us or intervene in this property sale. Emily ended this call and immediately sent the following email to Ken Hayes at 10:51 a.m., which we received from a public records search. It reads: “I wanted to follow up on our discussion regarding this property. Today we had a neighbor reach out and ask about how the property is currently used as parking for the apartments at 2901 Middlefield. Although the area on opposite sides of Ellsworth Place have separate APN s I cannot find evidence of a property line or subdivision between 2901 Middlefield/127-35-194 and the subject 127-35-152. Since this isn’t an active application I do not need to see a title report or anything at this point in time but I wanted to reach out and make sure it is, in fact, a legal parcel. ” Both Ordinances that govern the “parking lot”, PC-1810 and PC-2343, were easily discovered by CPA Code Enforcement when they were called to inquire about disruptive construction activity occurring on the “702 Ellsworth” parcel, being done without a permit, (our homes were shaking). Robin Ellnor of CPA Code Enforcement, found both ordinances within a few minutes of being on the phone. When her original search for the “700 Ellsworth Place” address, (the “marketing” address), did not turn up an entry in the CPA database, Robin quickly figured out the lot was attached to the apartment complex at 2901 Middlefield Road. She said she would take care of opening the code enforcement claim and would have the chain link fence removed. She sent an email with both ordinances attached as the follow-up to this code enforcement call. THIS IS HOW ELLSWORTH PLACE RESIDENTS LEARNED ABOUT THE ORDINANCES! (This communication is available via public records.) 7 Side Note : An R-1 and a parking lot can’t legally exist simultaneously and the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel report has “702 Ellsworth Place” registered as a “parking lot”. The screenshot below was captured from the SCC Assessor’s website on September 10, 2023. Item 7: Staff Report Pg 2 - Packet page 144 BACKGROUND “In 1967 a planned community zoning ordinance was approved for the subject property to allow a 12-unit apartment building. The development site consists of four parcels adjacent to the northeast side of Middlefield Road and extends from Sutter Avenue to Matadero Canal (Attachment B). “ This statement leaves out ordinance PC-1810, as established in 1958 and then amended in 1967 to become PC-2343. The original ordinance zoned R-3-P (professional) buildings and t was printed in the newspaper with the following map, which shows Ellsworth Place as a public road: 8 ORDINANCE 1810, Section 2, sets a “condition that the driveway to Middlefield Road be modified.” ORDINANCE 2343 was amended from Ordinance-1810 by removing the properties of 2865 - 2875 Middlefield Road and then changing the zoning back to R-3-G to allow for “Garden Apartments”. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto amending Section 2 OF Ordinance NO. 1810 Being the development plan for the property known as 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 701 - 702 Ellsworth Place. SECTION 4. All other provisions of Ordinance No. 1810 shall remain in full force and effect. Item 7: Staff Report Pg 2 - Packet page 144 BACKGROUND “The apartment building is located nearest Sutter Avenue. Access to the apartment is provided via an easement across one of the development site’s parcels referred to as 702 Ellsworth Place, which also has guest parking spaces for the apartment building. The easement also provides access to Ellsworth Place, a private street with 13 residential properties; these properties are not associated with the PC development. ” The 13 residential properties (on Ellsworth Place), WERE BUILT 20 to 30+ YEARS BEFORE the PC development , and would therefore have been taken into consideration when the apartments were designed and approved. The Ellsworth Place homes were all built before 1949, situated between a cannery on the other side of Matadero Creek and an airplane parts factory, where Safeway is now, and owned by “blue collar” people. (Census data, directories, and periodicals provide evidence of this history.) 9 Item 7: Staff Report Pg 2 - Packet page 144 “This more recent purchase was reportedly based, at least in part, on information provided by the City indicating that 702 Ellsworth Place could be developed with a single family home. This guidance, however, is not consistent with the administrative record and occurred because the zoning map from 1960s was never updated to reflect the approved PC zoning designation. For decades the City’s records regarding these parcels appeared to show the incorrect zoning. Similarly, when the City implemented its online property parcel records, the subject property (2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place) did not include information about the applicable PC zoning designation.” Notes to Keep in Mind : ● History of the property was not researched, (via public records searches) ● It doesn’t appear CPA Planning was asked if ordinances governed this parcel. (via public records searches) ● The lot went up for sale around June 1, 2022, at a price of $1,498,000, and sold for a reduced price of $950,000 in early November 2022. ● The same real estate agent represented both the buyer and seller of this property ● Preparation to sell this lot was done by Hayes Architects (via public records searches) ● The Santa Clara County Assessor ’s Parcel Report has the parcel zones as a “parking lot”, which is not the same thing as a “vacant lot”. ● Legally, a lot can’t be simultaneously zoned as both an R-1 AND a Parking Lot. 10 11 ● The property was given the non-registered address of “700 Ellsworth Place” for “marketing purposes” according to the developers, per their statement at the City Council Prescreening meeting on March 13, 2023. Searching this address on Google, City Records via the City Clerk’s Website, or on the SCC Assessor’s website does not provide any history of the property. (The historical address before the home was demolished in c. 1967 is “702 Ellsworth Place” or it requires a search using APN: 127-35-152 to find information about the property.) Below is a screenshot of the property listing on Compass.com ● Ordinances are not recorded on deeds and therefore do not show up in the chain of title reports. ● Not everything about a property shows in the chain of title reports. The research done by Ellsworth Place Neighbors found additional documents not included in the chain of title for parcel, APN: 127-35-152. ● Ordinances have to be researched at the City level. ● When CPA code enforcement was contacted they easily found both Ordinance PC-2343 and PC-1810 governing the property marketed as “700” or historically known as “702 Ellsworth Place”. These ordinances also came up via a Google search of the historical property address, ““702 Ellsworth Place” Palo Alto”. (This search now generates press coverage and CPA meeting notes pertaining to the zone change application.) Here is a screenshot of what a Google search produced in early March 2023. 12 ● “10 Things to Know Before Buying a Vacant Lot”, “There is plenty to know before investing in land. Here are 10 things, including everything from the basic expenses and city ordinances to land surveys and easements. ” From the website: https://home.howstuffworks.com/real-estate/buying-home/10-things-to-know-before-buying-a-vacant-lot.ht m 13 ● Santa Clara County Assessor’s Online Property Profile states under the line item Approved Building Site: “ Research needed to evaluate parcel as a Building Site ” https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fb3af8ce73b6407c939e1a c5f092bb30 ● Searching either the marketing address of “700 Ellsworth Place” or the historical address of “702 Ellsworth Place” as recorded in the chain-of-title, produces the following result, which requires agreeing to “the terms and conditions” to view, and states, “ Please note that the estimator is intended for reassessable changes in ownership only and NOT for new construction.” Since neigher address exists, 700 or 702 Ellsworth Place, searching parcel APN 12735152 gives the Assessor ’s website stateing the property is a “Parking Lot”. (Refer to the top of page 8). https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/online-services/supplemental-calculator 14 Item 7: Staff Report Pg 2 - Packet page 144 “It was not until residents filed a code enforcement complaint concerning new fencing around 702 Ellsworth Place in anticipation of a future development that research began and uncovered this mapping error.“ INCORRECT STATEMENT - CORRECTION NEEDED: The “error” was uncovered by Robin Ellnor on December 20, 2022, when Handa developers were operating heavy machinery on the parcel without a permit, which was shaking our houses. We received the following email with copies of both ordinances PC-1810 and PC-2343 attached: Below is a transcript of the above email: “It was a pleasure speaking with you earlier today. I just wanted to give you a quick update. I met with my boss, and the interim manager for Public Works Engineering after I spoke with you. A Public Works inspector will be going out to the location sometime tomorrow to assess the situation. It has been verified with the Development Center manager that no application has been put in for a new address. The 700 Ellsworth Pl address is specific to the easement. The apartment complex at 2901 Middlefield is now out of compliance for selling the parking lot, they are required to provide the additional parking. The lead code enforcement officer will be putting together a Notice of Violation for the apartment complex. I have put a “hold” condition on the lot as well as opened a code enforcement case for zoning violations for 2901 Middlefield. Please feel free to reach out to me should you have any additional questions or concerns. My hours are Monday – Thursday 6:00 am – 4:30 pm.” 15 Item 7: Staff Report Pg 2 - Packet page 144 “Ellsworth Place is neither owned nor maintained by the City. Similar conditions exist at other locations in the City, dating from development that occurred on formerly-unincorporated land before annexation to the City.” Similar road conditions to Ellsworth Place exist only on one other road in Palo Alto, which is San Carlos Court. (Cypress Lane, Dymond Way, and Waverly Oaks were also developed pre-annexation, but their conditions are different.) ALL OTHER private roads in Palo Alto were built after their areas were already a part of CPA, and all but two of those have an HOA governing their establishment. (More information is available upon request.) Item 7: Staff Report Pg 4 - Packet page 146 Missing Information and Possible Typo : “2901 Middlefield Road’s planned community zoning is simply amended to reflect the ownership boundaries, expands easement access to widen a portion of Ellsworth Place and accounts for a new on-site parking arrangement that serves the apartment units.“ The upzoning of the remaining parcel containing the 12-unit apartment complex at 2901 Middlefield Road will be increased by 33% over what would be allowed by its current RM-20 zoning, without providing any affordable housing. Under its RM-20 zoning, the remaining lot would allow the apartments to have only 9 units in total. This provides a significant benefit to the developer. (See attached PDF “Jeff Levinsky Letter_ptc-7.12-public-comments6.pdf”) The drafted amended PC Ordinance for the apatments reads under SECTION 5, (a), (i) A 30-inch-wide swath of paving shall be crated alongside Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending approximately 37 feet to the location of an existing utility pole guuy-wire, to increase the perceived width of Ellsworth Place. PERCEIVED WIDTH is not the same as DRIVEABLE WIDTH! Additionally, not all existing covered parking spots are wide enough, so tenants use the parking lot. The developers point to Sutter Ave. as their overflow parking, however, it should be noted that other developers and apartment owners also depend on Sutter Ave. for their parking. How will this plan scale? 16 Item 7: Staff Report Pg 4 - Packet page 146 INCORRECT STATEMENT - CORRECTION NEEDED: “Ellsworth Place Private Street Easement Ellsworth Place is a private street. Access to the private street is provided from Middlefield Road. An easement was previously conveyed by the developer of the 1960s era apartment building that grants access across portions of 2901 Middlefield Road, and the now proposed to be separated 702 Ellsworth Place property. This 20-foot wide easement provides access to 13 residential properties.” The developer of the apartment building DID NOT convey the easements for the existing Ellsworth Place homes. The easements for ALL 13 Ellsworth Place residential parcels were established by the original property owner, Katherine Emerson, before her death in 1956. One of the many documents available, a Joint Tenancy deed recorded in book 1322, pages 523-524 and signed by Katherine Emerson on January 30, 1946, gives ingress/egress rights to eight of the 13 parcels, and every parcel can trace its chain-of-title and ingress/egress rights to Katherine Emerson. Katherine Emerson died on February 17, 1956, leaving the remaining property of 702 Ellsworth Place to Helen M. Kenny in a Gift Deed, which included half of the road, as recorded in book 3418, page 48. The apartments were built between in 1969. The developers keep incorrectly using the deed for 705 Ellsworth Place as their own deed , saying it belongs to 2901 Middlefield Road. We have submitted this several times in writing and provided the correct deed, and they continue to present the false information as their own! (Please see PDF attachment: “Misrepresentation of the deed to 705 Ellsworth Place_ptc-7.12-public-comments6.pdf”) Item 7: Staff Report Pg 4 - Packet page 146 “To improve ingress and egress access and sight line access for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, area residents sought to increase the easement to 26-feet wide.” This request is based on the minimum road width for a private road serving up to four homes, and it is a compromise. Ellsworth Place has 13 properties and 15 addresses, setting the road width required to be 32 feet wide, per city code. ● All 13 properties on Ellsworth Place have legitimate ingress/egress rights. ● Ellsworth Place is considered a “private road”. (See attached PDF “Chicago Title…”) 17 Item 7: Staff Report Pg 4 - Packet page 146 “The applicant proposed a 24-foot wide easement and submitted a safety study prepared by a traffic engineer to support their position that a wider easement was not necessary.” This traffic study uses the Municipal Code for Parking Design of Multiple-Family Residential Uses. Developers may have told Hexagon Transportation Consultants that Ellsworth Place was not a legitimate road because prior to the letter from Chicage Title, dated July 27, 2023, they were adamant that the Ellsworth Place homes did not have legal ingress/egress rights over the “702 Ellsworth Place” parcel. Hexagon Transportation Consultants and the developers kept refering to the “Ellsworth driveway” in both their minimal Traffic Review and also during the PTC meetings. Hexagon Transportation Consultants used Palo Alto Municipal Parking Lot Code*, as written on page 4 of their April 14, 2023, report titled, “Transportation Review for the Residential Single-Family Home at 702 Ellsworth Place in Palo Alto, California” (excerpt below). “According to Table 5 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.54.070, 20 feet is the minimum width to serve residential developments 1 .” * Palo Alto Municipal Code 21.20.240 is the “Widths” for a “Private Streets” (4) Private streets: Such right-of-way as would be required for a comparable public street, except as specified below. Streets serving five or more lots shall be no less than thirty-two feet wide. Streets serving four or fewer lots shall be no less than twenty-two feet wide providing that the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City Council specifically approves the twenty-two foot street width. (a) If a building adjacent to a private street has a setback of at least twenty feet between the street and building allowing on-site parking, then the width of the private street may be no less than twenty-six feet at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City Council. (b) If a private street has a public parking strip of at least six feet in width between the street and the building location, then the width of the private street may be no less than twenty-six feet at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City Council. Effective Date: This private street width requirement applies to any project or development that has not obtained a final map, building permit, and performed significant construction as of July 31, 2009. If the effective date of July 31, 2009, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable, or unenforceable, then the effective date of this ordinance as it applies to private street width shall be November 4, 2009. (Ord. 5059 § 5, 2009: Ord. 3345 § 36, 1982: Ord. 3157 § 1 (part), 1979) 18 Item 7: Staff Report Pg 4 - Packet page 147 “Moreover, the applicant expressed concerns about the feasibility of increasing the easement width further and constraints imposed by existing utility infrastructure.” To the best of our knowledge, the applicant has not inquired about moving the infrastructure! ● No ticket was opened with Comcast, as confirmed by a Comcast site visit on Thursday, September 14, 2023. (The Ellsworth Place Residents opened a ticket to inquire.) ● No application was submitted with CPA Utilities Engineering as of September 11, 2023. This was confirmed both in an email to Cesar Magdalena and also by a phone call with Benjamin Wong who answered the “general line”, and said that between 6 to 10 feet of space are needed for guy lines, so it may be possible to move them to the second pole. It will require an application to research this! 19 Item 7: Staff Report Pg 4 - Packet page 146 “The PTC recommendation is to increase the proposed expansion of Ellsworth Place by two feet beyond the 24’ the applicant had offered. A City-imposed condition expanding the width of Ellsworth Place to 26-feet would be considered an “exaction” of property from the applicants.” Commissioner Hechtman’s comments, copied from Item 7: Staff Report Pg 59 - Packet page 201 Commissioner Hechtman “There are limitations on conditions that we can impose or require and for example, we have limitations in CEQA if there’s... you can’t impose... you can’t require a mitigation measures if there’s not an impact that needs to be mitigated. And even outside CEQA, you can’t exact rights from property owners unless [note – video skipped] impacts.” …because we don’t have a public street. We have a private street and what the Commission is talking about doing last time and a little bit tonight is requiring one private property owner to give its property rights not to the public in relation to some impact of the project, but actually to 13 other private property owners.“ THIS SUPPORTS THE ARGUMENT THAT CPA SHOULD TAKE OWNERSHIP OF ELLSWORTH PLACE FOR THE GREATER GOOD AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD! Item 7: Staff Report Pg 4 - Packet page 146 “The City has the authority to make such exactions only when there is an “essential nexus” between the property being exacted and the public impacts of the application, as well as “rough proportionality” between the amount of the exaction and the amount of impact.” ESSENTIAL NEXUS ( “or “relationship” between the private party's activity and a burden that is placed on the community as a result ; and the fee or requirement placed on the private party is “roughly proportional” to the burden imposed. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/pdfs/value_capture/rational_nexus_and_but_for_study_state_of_the_practic e_report_final_05122021.pdf ) The ESSENTIAL NEXUS is the delivery space being offered by the developers IS NOT USEABLE. Not having an adequate delivery space will result in ● Trucks parking on Middlefield Road (refer to photo above ) in either the bus pull out or by blocking the right lane ● Trucks backing out of Ellsworth Place into Middlefield Road traffic that flows at 40 MPH according to the radar speed display sign set up nearby on Middlefield Road ● Trucks making crazy multi-point back and forth turn abouts using driveways and walkways. All of these scenarios happened when the temporary fence went up around the parking lot last December, and that fence was set 4-feet back from the property line; it had been hit several times! 20 We have reached out to UPS, FedEx, and Amazon, and all three companies have documented that there is a potential problem here once the parking lot is no longer usable. Amazon’s Property Damage Department pointed out that the mere fact the City has a radar speed display sign set up nearby means they know there is a problem on this portion of Middlefield Road. These companies are more reactionary than proactive, but they have transcripts and emails on file which document this precarious situation with an isolated street in Palo Alto. Item 7: Staff Report Pg 4 - Packet page 146 - 147 “Notably, this finding of essential nexus and rough proportionality do not apply to voluntary offers of property made by the applicant and the City Council is its deliberation can explore this topic further with the applicant.” A Reminder of what a PC is: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-80161 8.38.010 Specific purposes. The PC planned community district is intended to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Item 7: Staff Report Pg 5 - Packet page 147 “Additionally, some public commenters have asserted that the prior PC (PC 1810) for the subject property required the widening of Ellsworth Place. This is not accurate; the PC 1810 condition was not to ‘widen’ a private street, but rather to ‘modify’ the ‘driveway to Middlefield Road,’ as stated in Section 2 of that ordinance.” How can you widen a driveway and not keep the road the same width as the driveway? Once past the first about 20 feet of the Ellsworth Place “private road”, which is 21.5 feet wide in this section, the road opens up to about 26 feet over the parking lot, even if it is full of cars. 21 Item 7: Staff Report Pg 5 - Packet page 147 Ellsworth Place Ownership … “If the City Council were interested in exploring the possibility of taking over ownership of Ellsworth Place that would need to be agendized as a separate discussion. In contemplating such direction, the City Council may also want to be aware that there are many private streets in the City …” The decision of whether or not CPA takes ownership of Ellsworth Place should come BEFORE any decision is made regarding the PC amendment and the new PC is created. Restating Commissioner Hechtman’s words, as referenced earlier “…because we don’t have a public street. We have a private street and what the Commission is talking about doing last time and a little bit tonight is requiring one private property owner to give its property rights not to the public in relation to some impact of the project, but actually to 13 other private property owners.“ Most “private roads” were built in the 2000s, with a few going back to 1977, and most were planned with HOAs to govern their maintenance. When you purchase one of these homes, you agree to the HOA. When looking at the approaches of “private roads”, some are asphalt, some are driveway, and some are a mix of both. The busier their connector street is, or the more expensive the area, the more likely they are to have an asphalt approach. Private streets that connect to quiet roads tend to have driveway approaches. (A document on Palo Alto Private Roads can be made available for more information.) Ellsworth Place was created by following the Mayfield Sewer Outlet, which runs down the street, back when the area was Santa Clara County Unincorporated, just outside of Mayfield. It was situated between a cannery and an airplane parts factory in an area that used to flood. In 1956, the water department took 30 feet from each of the homes on the Matadero Creek side for flood control, without compensation. While this was done for the greater good of the community, the taking of land by the County turned full-size lots into substandard ones, and anytime we remodel CPA Planning has at times made this extremely difficult! (A document “Ellsworth Place - Our History Since 1937” was already been put into the public record for the pre-screening meeting on March 13, 2023.) We want an ordinance that would guarantees the “grandfathered status” of our homes between house numbers 705 - 742. During her site visit in February 2023, Amy French mentioned the possibility of some sort of “neighborhood overlay”. We would like to discuss this in more detail. (Amy’s parents rented a home on Ellsworth Place back in the 1950s.) 22 City Council –September 18, 2023 PC AMENDMENT 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD RD & 702 ELLSWORTH PL •March 13, 2023, Council Prescreening •June 28, July 12, August 9 Planning and Transportation Commission •Adopt an ordinance amending PC 2343 (Attachment A) for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road to remove 702 Ellsworth, and •Adopt a new PC ordinance (Attachment B) to enable the development of a single-family residence at 702 Ellsworth RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ADOPT TWO PCs Historical image of prior home located on 702 Ellsworth parcel showing Ellsworth Place 20’ wide easement crossing the parcel 2Both PC ordinances reference widening the Ellsworth Place easement access to 24 feet February 22, 2023 AMEND EXISTING PC 2343 AND REZONING PROCESS 3 •Council Pre-screening March 13 •The PTC conducted 3 hearings •No Architectural Review (AR) is required for a single-family home •No subdivision, no change in Comprehensive Plan designations •702 Ellsworth shows as SFR •2901 Middlefield shows as MFR PC 2343 702 Ellsworth 2901-2905 Middlefield ZONING MAP 4 2901-2905 Middlefield shown as RM-15 on zoning map for decades; in 2018 RM-15 zones were up-zoned to RM-20 702 Ellsworth shown as R1 on zone map PC REZONING Parcel A -1 Parcel A -2 Parcel A -3 Parcel A -4 APN 127-35-152 45 •Remove 702 Ellsworth from PC 2343 (existing parcel A- 4); 702 Ellsworth fronts on Middlefield (55’), rear abuts 706 Ellsworth, interior side lines abut Matadero Canal, and 2901-2905 Middlefield •Reduce PC 2343 boundary to APN 127-35-194 (existing Parcels A-1, A-2, A-3); front yard on Sutter, street-side on Middlefield, interior side abutting 718 Sutter, rear yard abutting 702 Ellsworth Middlefield Road APN 127-35-194 2901-2905 Middlefield PC Plan (RLD Land LLC) •1967 PC 2343: a 12-unit apartment building on four lots, with 702 Ellsworth Place providing guest parking spaces, applicants offer a 10’ x 30’ delivery space and to widen Ellsworth to 24 feet (whereas the PTC 3-2 recommended 26’ width) •Plan includes creating four uncovered parking spaces on 2901-2905 Middlefield *tensioned cable designed to add stability to free-standing utility pole Truck delivery space 6 37’9” from Middlefield sidewalk to first anchor wire on RLD property 702 Ellsworth Plan Handa Developers Group •Single-story home outside R1 setbacks •Front: 24’ from Middlefield PL •Rear: 16’ for ½ of home width •Side: 10’ from southerly edge of existing 20’ easement (30’ to PL) •Side: 6’ from property line of Matadero Canal (public property) •Detached garage (located at least 75’ from the front property line) •Easement widening 24’ width offered –42’ length from Middlefield; PTC recommended 26’ width •3’ tall, horizontal board front yard fence located mostly within sight distance triangle 7 Proposed Street Side Elevation Facing Ellsworth Proposed Front Elevation Facing Middlefield ONE STORY HOME ON 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE If R-1 minimum setbacks are: •Front/Special @ Middlefield: 24’ •Rear 20’ from PL joining 706 Ellsworth •Interior sides: @ creek 6’ from PL, 6’ from 2901- 2905 Middlefield (except there is a street there; PC approach ensures 30’ setback from 2901- 2905 Middlefield) 8 702 ELLSWORTH FLOOR PLAN, PAVERS AND FENCES •No basement •Wider driveway •Ground cover •Fences 6’ fence 4’ fence 3’ fence •Pavers 4’ proposed alongside Ellsworth •Asphalt 18” wide 24’ Edges of 20’ Ellsworth easement 20’ 14’ 10’ + 20’ 4’ In SW planters and from back of SW and fence: ground cover 702 Ellsworth’s interior side property line702’s rear property line 9PTC recommends maximum 1’ tall fence for any fence in the sight triangle Public Comments –Area Residents •Raised several initial concerns about the late 2022 sale of 702 Ellsworth and filed a code enforcement complaint about new fencing and soil piles (both removed) •Were instrumental in identifying a zoning map error that showed one of the parcels as zoned for single- family residential use instead of being part of a Planned Community •Noted concerns for access to parking spaces for apartment dwellers at 2901 Middlefield Road, temporary parking for package delivery trucks, and the removal of protected trees •Requested to improve ingress and egress access and sight line access for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, and asked for an increase in the Ellsworth Place easement width to 26 feet •Expressed a desire for the City to take ownership of the private street to improve its condition, address drainage problems, and maintain the street 10 Ellsworth Place Considerations •Neither PC 2343 nor the prior PC 1810 required widening of Ellsworth; PC 1810 condition was not to ‘widen’ a private street, but rather to ‘modify the driveway to Middlefield Rd’ per Ordinance Section 2 •Easement records show access is currently enabled across 702 Ellsworth to Ellsworth Place, a private street with 13 residential properties unassociated with the PC development •Research shows the City does not own or maintain Ellsworth; similar conditions exist at other locations in the City, dating from development on formerly unincorporated land before annexation •Ellsworth not shown on the 1912 tract map (it was within Wooster lot 71); it did not exist and therefore was not offered or accepted by the County. The County assumed the street was required to comply with access requirements after 1912. Without it, lots could not have been created, subdivided, and sold. •Ellsworth is too narrow to comply with City standards; staff does not recommend the City acquire a substandard street; City to maintain 1950’s storm drain line end of Ellsworth part of adjacent subdivision 11 12 Sight Distance Triangles •Sight distance triangle hypotenuse crosses sidewalk and planter strip to Middlefield curb •Stop sign and the utilities box on RLD property will need to be adjusted for new pavement RLD LLC property 13 Sight Distance Triangle and Widening: RLD Property •Orange plastic at 3’ tall -fence proposal within the sight distance triangle; PTC recommended 1’ tall within SDT •Existing multi-trunk tree, hydrant, and No Outlet sign to remain within the SDT 14 Handa property Sight Distance Triangle and Widening –Handa Property Fence Code –Corner Lots PAMC 16.24.040 •35’ standard distance from the corner touching curb lines •3’ tall maximum fence height within triangle measured from adjacent curb 15 10 Existing Conditions Photos 16 Staff Photos: POV of Driver at Stop-Line 5’8” tall CPO taking photo on knees: 46” above grade to eyes; While seated in a 2010 Honda, eyes are 42” above grade 5’10” Planner seated in city car at stop-line, eyes at approximately 48” above the pavement 17 AMY FRENCH Chief Planning Official Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 2901–2905 Middlefield + 702 Ellsworth Place (PC Amendment and Rezone) P.T.C. PRESENTATION 9.18.2023 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTHVICINITY MAP OL I V E A V E . 2901-2905 Middlefield 702 Ellsworth 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTHEXISTING PC 2343 FIRST FLOOR AND SITE PLAN 702 EXISTING PARKING MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SU T T E R 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTHAERIAL VIEW 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTHZONING MAP R-1 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTHEXISTING SITE/ BUILDING PHOTOS 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTHDEVELOPMENT PLAN 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD A2.1 01 02 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS NOTED 2202.00 LB D a t e : 9 / 1 8 / 2 3 Fi l e N a m e : E l l s w o r t h H o u s e _ B I M _ A R C H NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 02.01.2023 6'-0" SB RETURN P P (E) FIRE HYDRANT B.O. SIDEWALK N4 9 ° 2 0 ' 0 0 " E 8 6 . 0 8 ' N52°00'00"W 229.20'(T) N52°00'00"W 130.67' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' S4 7 ° 1 2 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 1 . 3 0 ' S52°00'00"E 117.11'(T) 50.00'78.28'44.50' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 9 . 8 7 ' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 9 . 8 7 ' 80.67'50.00' 10 0 . 0 0 ' 44.50' 56.42' 72.61' 12 ' - 0 " + / - 42 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 9 " 16 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " S S B 4'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" SB LOT A 127-35-194 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD AVE. LOT B 127-35-152 702 ELLSWORTH FR O N T Y A R D R E A R Y A R D 13 14 15 E L L S W O R T H P L A C E M A T A D E R O C A N A L B L D G . BLDG.BLDG. (E) TRASH AREA 10' X 30' SU-30 DELIVERY SPACE 16 TANDEM (N) PARKING SPACE TYP. (E) AC PAVING B.O. SIDEWALK (E) ELECTRIC BOXES RELOCATE CABLE BOX FOR UTILITY PURPOSES (E) COMM EXISTING LANDSCAPING 3' TALL FENCE WITH 3" HORIZONTAL GAP BETWEEN BOARDS W/IN SITE TRIANGLE AND ALL MIDDLEFIELD FRONTAGE AND RETURN. 4' ALONG CREEK FRONTAGE. FUTURE DETACHED GARAGE FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY HOME 6'-0" SB RETURN (E) FIRE HYDRANT B.O.SIDEWAWAWLK S47°12'00"W 101.30' 566.42' 77772222.66661111'''' 16'-0" 224'-0" SS S B 4''-0" 4'-00"" 3'TATATLL FENCE WITH 3" HORIZONTATATL GAP BETWEEN BOARDS W/IN SITE TRIANGLE AAND ALL MIDDLEFIELD FRONTATATGE AND RETURN.4' AALONG CREEK FRONTATATGE. FUTURE DETATATCHED GARAGE FUTURE SINGLE FAFAFMILYLYL HOME P P S38°00'00"W 100.00' S38°00'00"W 10999.87' S38°00'00"W 109.87' 80.67' 100.00' 44.50' 12'-0" +/- LOT A 127-35-194 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD AVAVAE. FR O N T YAYAY R D R E A R YAYAY R D 13 (E) TRASH AREA 10'X 30' SU-30 DELIVERYRYR SPAPAPCE 16 TATATNDEM EXISTING LANDSCAPING 1550.00'14 BLDG.BLDG. B LD G . 10'-0" SB 20'-0" (E) EASEMENT 30"18" 37 ' - 0 " FOR REFERENCE ONLYSUBJECT PARCEL 24'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 12" 26'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 5'-6" 4'-0" PAVERS ZONE 12" S U T T E R A V E N U E MIDDLE FIELD AVENUE (E) 4 COVERED PARKING SPACES (E) 8 COVERED PARKING SPACES 35 ' S I T E TR I A N G L E T Y P . (N) DRIVEWAY APRON PER CITY STANDARD (E) GROUND BRACE TO BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED BY CPA UTILITIES. GAS METERS TO FIRST WIRE ANCHOR (N) BOLLARDS AS NEEDED (E) APARTMENTS (E) APARTMENTS (E ) A P A R T M E N T S EXISTING PC 2343 AMENDMENT LOT-A 127-35-194 2901 + 2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD (E) (E) (E) SITE AREA BUILDING AREA (APPROX. EXISTING) FAR (APPROX.) 19,893 7,775 .39 SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PLAN 2 REQUIRED PARKING 4-2BR UNITS 4-1BR UNITS 4-STUDIO UNITS 8 4 4 TOTAL REQUIRED TOTAL PROVIDED 16 16 1PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT CALCULATION (E) (E) (E) UNITS (NO CHANGE) PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (NO CHANGE) BIKE PARKING (NO CHANGE) (4) 2 BEDROOM (4) 1 BEDROOM (4) STUDIO 12 UNITS TOTAL 2861 INSIDE UNITS CITY COUNCIL 09.18.2023 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD RD. PALO ALTO, CA 94306 N 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTHDEVELOPMENT PLAN 702 ELLSWORTH A2.0 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPOSED SITE PLAN AS NOTED 2202.00 LB D a t e : 9 / 1 8 / 2 3 Fi l e N a m e : E l l s w o r t h H o u s e _ B I M _ A R C H NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PTC SUBMITTAL 07.26.2023 P P N4 9 ° 2 0 ' 0 0 " E 8 6 . 0 8 ' N52°00'00"W 229.20'(T) N52°00'00"W 130.67' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' S4 7 ° 1 2 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 1 . 3 0 ' S52°00'00"E 117.11'(T) 50.00'78.28'44.50' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 9 . 8 7 ' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 9 . 8 7 ' 80.67'50.00' 10 0 . 0 0 ' 44.50' 56.42' 72.61' 18" 12 ' - 0 " + / - 42 ' - 0 " 4'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" SB 16 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " S S B 5'-6" 37 ' - 9 " 12" LOT A 127-35-194 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD AVE. LOT B 127-35-152 702 ELLSWORTH FR O N T Y A R D R E A R Y A R D (E) 4 COVERED PARKING SPACES (E) 8 COVERED PARKING SPACES 13 14 15 E L L S W O R T H P L A C E M A T A D E R O C A N A L B L D G . BLDG.BLDG. (E) TRASH AREA 10' X 30' SU-30 DELIVERY SPACE 16 TANDEM (N) PARKING SPACE TYP. (E) AC PAVING EXISTING LANDSCAPING B.O. SIDEWALK (E) FIRE HYDRANT B.O. SIDEWALK (E) ELECTRIC BOXES RELOCATE CABLE BOX FOR UTILITY PURPOSES (E) COMM (E) GROUND BRACE TO BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED BY CPA UTILITIES. GAS METERS (N) BOLLARDS AS NEEDEDNN44499°°°2200'''0000""EE 8866.00888'' N52°00'00"W 229.20'((T)) N52°00'00"W 130.67' S52°00'00"E 117.11'(T) 550.00'78.228'444.500' (N) PAPAPRKING SPAPAPCE TYP. (E) ELECTRIC BOXES RELOCATATAE CABLE BOX FOR UTILITY PURPOSES (E)COMM P P S38°00'00"W 100.00' S38°00'00"W 10999.87' S38°00'00"W 109.87' 80.67' 100.00' 44.50' 12'-0" +/- LOT A 127-35-194 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD AVAVAE. FR O N T YAYAY R D R E A R Y A Y A Y R D 13 (E) TRASH AREA 10'X 30' SU-30 DELIVERYRYR SPAPAPCE 16 TATATNDEM EXISTING LANDSCAPING 1550.00'14 ACE ED Y CPAPAP BLDG. GAS METERS (N)BOLLARDS AS NEEDED BLDG. B LD G . (E) 4 COVERED PAPAPRKING SPAPAPCES (E)GROUND BRA TO BE RELOCATATAE OR REMOVED BY UUTTIILLIITTIIEESS. (E) 8 COVERED PAPAPRKING SPAPAPCES 20'-0" (E) EASEMENT 30" 37 ' - 0 " SUBJECT PARCELFOR REFERENCE ONLY 24'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 12" 26'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 6'-0" SB 4'-0" PAVERS ZONE S U T T E R A V E N U E MIDDLE FIELD AVENUE 3' TALL FENCE WITH 3" HORIZONTAL GAP BETWEEN BOARDS W/IN SITE TRIANGLE AND ALL MIDDLEFIELD FRONTAGE AND RETURN. 4' ALONG CREEK FRONTAGE. 35 ' S I T E TR I A N G L E T Y P . (N) DRIVEWAY APRON PER CITY STANDARD TO FIRST WIRE ANCHOR RETURN FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY HOME FUTURE DETACHED GARAGE LOT-B 127-35-152 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE (E)SITE AREA (INCLUDE EASEMENT)6493 SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PLAN 2 1PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT CALCULATION SF N 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTH A2.1 01 02 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS NOTED 2202.00 LB D a t e : 9 / 1 8 / 2 3 F i l e N a m e : E l l s w o r t h H o u s e _ B I M _ A R C H NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 02.01.2023 6'-0" SB RETURN P P (E) FIRE HYDRANT B.O. SIDEWALK N4 9 ° 2 0 ' 0 0 " E 8 6 . 0 8 ' N52°00'00"W 229.20'(T) N52°00'00"W 130.67' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' S4 7 ° 1 2 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 1 . 3 0 ' S52°00'00"E 117.11'(T) 50.00'78.28'44.50' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 9 . 8 7 ' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 9 . 8 7 ' 80.67'50.00' 10 0 . 0 0 ' 44.50' 56.42' 72.61' 12 ' - 0 " + / - 42 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 9 " 16 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " S S B 4'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" SB LOT A 127-35-194 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD AVE. LOT B 127-35-152 702 ELLSWORTH F R O N T Y A R D R E A R Y A R D 13 14 15 E L L S W O R T H P L A C E M A T A D E R O C A N A L B L D G . BLDG.BLDG. (E) TRASH AREA 10' X 30' SU-30 DELIVERY SPACE 16 TANDEM (N)PARKINGSPACE TYP. (E) AC PAVING B.O. SIDEWALK (E) ELECTRIC BOXES RELOCATE CABLE BOX FOR UTILITY PURPOSES (E) COMM EXISTING LANDSCAPING 3' TALL FENCE WITH 3" HORIZONTAL GAP BETWEEN BOARDS W/IN SITE TRIANGLE AND ALL MIDDLEFIELD FRONTAGE AND RETURN. 4' ALONG CREEK FRONTAGE. FUTURE DETACHED GARAGE FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY HOME 6'-0" SB RETURN (E) FIRE HYDRANT B.O.SIDEWAWAWLK S47°12'00"W 101.30' 566.42' 77772222.66661111'''' 4''-0" 4'-00"" 3'TATATLL FENCE WITH 3" HORIZONTATATL GAP BETWEEN BOARDS W/IN SITE TRIANGLE AAND ALL MIDDLEFIELD FRONTATATGE AND RETURN.4' AALONG CREEK FRONTATATGE. FUTURE DETATATCHED GARAGE FUTURE SINGLE FAFAFMILYLYL HOME 10'-0" SB 20'-0" (E) EASEMENT 30"18" 37 ' - 0 " FOR REFERENCE ONLYSUBJECT PARCEL 24'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 12" 26'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 5'-6" 4'-0" PAVERS ZONE 12" S U T T E R A V E N U E MIDDLE FIELD AVENUE (E) 4 COVERED PARKING SPACES (E) 8 COVERED PARKING SPACES 35 ' S I T E TR I A N G L E T Y P . (N) DRIVEWAY APRON PER CITY STANDARD (E) GROUND BRACE TO BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED BY CPA UTILITIES. GAS METERS TO FIRST WIRE ANCHOR (N) BOLLARDS AS NEEDED (E) APARTMENTS (E) APARTMENTS (E ) A P A R T M E N T S EXISTING PC 2343 AMENDMENT LOT-A 127-35-194 2901 + 2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD (E) (E) (E) SITE AREA BUILDING AREA (APPROX. EXISTING) FAR (APPROX.) 19,893 7,775 .39 SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PLAN 2 REQUIRED PARKING 4-2BR UNITS 4-1BR UNITS 4-STUDIO UNITS 8 4 4 TOTAL REQUIRED TOTAL PROVIDED 16 16 1PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT CALCULATION (E) (E) (E) UNITS (NO CHANGE) PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (NO CHANGE) BIKE PARKING (NO CHANGE) (4) 2 BEDROOM (4) 1 BEDROOM (4) STUDIO 12 UNITS TOTAL 2861 INSIDE UNITS CITY COUNCIL 09.18.2023 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD RD. PALO ALTO, CA 94306 N A2.0 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPOSED SITE PLAN AS NOTED 2202.00 LB D a t e : 9 / 1 8 / 2 3 F i l e N a m e : E l l s w o r t h H o u s e _ B I M _ A R C H NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE: 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE PALO ALTO CA 94306 PTC SUBMITTAL 07.26.2023 P P N4 9 ° 2 0 ' 0 0 " E 8 6 . 0 8 ' N52°00'00"W 229.20'(T) N52°00'00"W 130.67' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' S4 7 ° 1 2 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 1 . 3 0 ' S52°00'00"E 117.11'(T) 50.00'78.28'44.50' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 9 . 8 7 ' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 9 . 8 7 ' 80.67'50.00' 10 0 . 0 0 ' 44.50' 56.42' 72.61' 18" 12 ' - 0 " + / - 42 ' - 0 " 4'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" SB 16 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " S S B 5'-6" 37 ' - 9 " 12" LOT A 127-35-194 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD AVE. LOT B 127-35-152 702 ELLSWORTH F R O N T Y A R D R E A R Y A R D (E) 4 COVERED PARKING SPACES (E) 8 COVERED PARKING SPACES 13 14 15 E L L S W O R T H P L A C E M A T A D E R O C A N A L B L D G . BLDG.BLDG. (E) TRASH AREA 10' X 30' SU-30 DELIVERY SPACE 16 TANDEM (N)PARKINGSPACE TYP. (E) AC PAVING EXISTING LANDSCAPING B.O. SIDEWALK (E) FIRE HYDRANT B.O. SIDEWALK (E) ELECTRIC BOXES RELOCATE CABLE BOX FOR UTILITY PURPOSES (E) COMM (E) GROUND BRACE TO BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED BY CPA UTILITIES. GAS METERS (N) BOLLARDS AS NEEDED S52°00'00"E 117.11'(T) 444.500' (E) ELECTRIC BOXES RELOCATATAE CABLE BOX FOR UTILITY PURPOSES (E)COMM P P S38°00'00"W 100.00' S38°00'00"W 109.87' 100.00' 44.50' . R E A R Y A Y A Y R D 10'X 30' SU-30 DELIVERYRYR SPAPAPCE 16 EXISTING LANDSCAPING ACE ED Y CPAPAP BLDG. GAS METERS (N)BOLLARDS AS NEEDED (E) 4 COVERED PAPAPRKING SPAPAPCES (E)GROUND BRA TO BE RELOCATATAE OR REMOVED BY UUTTIILLIITTIIEESS. 20'-0" (E) EASEMENT 30" 37 ' - 0 " SUBJECT PARCELFOR REFERENCE ONLY 24'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 12" 26'-0" EASEMENT OPTION 6'-0" SB 4'-0" PAVERS ZONE S U T T E R A V E N U E MIDDLE FIELD AVENUE 3' TALL FENCE WITH 3" HORIZONTAL GAP BETWEEN BOARDS W/IN SITE TRIANGLE AND ALL MIDDLEFIELD FRONTAGE AND RETURN. 4' ALONG CREEK FRONTAGE. 35 ' S I T E TR I A N G L E T Y P . (N) DRIVEWAY APRON PER CITY STANDARD TO FIRST WIRE ANCHOR RETURN FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY HOME FUTURE DETACHED GARAGE LOT-B 127-35-152 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE (E)SITE AREA (INCLUDE EASEMENT)6493 SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PLAN 2 1PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT CALCULATION SF N EASEMENT DETAIL 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTHRECENT PHOTOS OF THE SITE AND BUILDING 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTHRECENT PHOTOS OF THE SITE AND BUILDING 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTHRECENT PHOTOS OF THE SITE AND BUILDING 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD + 702 ELLSWORTH